HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PING LIST,
please FReepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2k.
"After all, what are rights if they can be voted up one year and down the next?" said Brian Silver, a Michigan State University professor of political science.
The professor gets right to the heart of the matter -ALMOST...
The professor needs to take a step back and discard the false premise he seems to have bought into - if he kicks the 'feelings' as a basis for rights premise to the curb he may eventually see the light.
Homosexuality is subjectively determined and or declared -NOT objectively determined or declared. If one feels they are a homosexual and declares they are -who can disagree with them? Who can objectively identify a homosexual person? If those that declare homosexuality become a protected class or exceptional class of individuals warranting extra 'rights' above and beyond those already afforded all human beings THEN what is to prevent everyone from claiming the socially rewarded, prized, and critically acclaimed homosexual status?
Can one imagine a court case on the issue -how can one prove or disprove homosexuality -the basis for all this stuff the leftist are pushing? This reality begs the legal question of sexual presumption that at one time was based upon reality e.g. genetalia and now would go unanswered by the new world leftist spectrum of genders premise. The question: in essence will society choose homosexual until proved heterosexual OR heterosexual until proved homosexual? Curious minds want to know? LOL
Now, if homosexual activity was suggested as a test to prove homosexuality then who could prove they choose to engage in homosexual activity -how do they prove it? Should rights be based upon sexual feelings or even more on sexual activities that must be proven? It is a fact that feelings are subjective. Consequently, how can any rights be derived from something subjective? In fact, 'buying into' the subjective argument by default implies that rights are given to individuals arbitrarily by the State and as such can be taken away arbitrarily by the State. The whole 'feelings' argument kicks our Founder's recognition of unalienable rights which is basis for our Independence, Union, and Constitution to the curb...
YES -the whole 'feelings' argument guarantees that rights are and will be always subject to the whim of those 'in charge'... How bizarre is it to seek a goal with an argument that if accepted actually nullifies the goal? This is the way of the left...
The homosexual portion of the culture war debate is not about rights -it is all about homosexual sex. Homosexuality is subjectively determined and or declared -NOT objectively determined or declared. I myself can not objectively identify a homosexual person -hence stereotypes are meaningless as are any anecdotal 'things' e.g. 'knowing one or many homosexuals (those you may 'feel are homosexuals or those who may feel they are homosexuals or those who may declare they are homosexuals). One can not rightly judge the heart of an individual; however one can judge an activity.
Assuming people are not animals driven by instinct -that people possess an authentic freedom to choose what they do or do not do (unless they suffer some disorder) THEN one can come to but only one objective and rational conclusion. As to homosexuality -truly, it is ONLY sexual activity one chooses to engage in that objectively differentiates homosexual from heterosexual -regardless any subjective 'feelings'...
If one truly understands the subjectivity versus objectivity arguments then one should see clearly the fatally flawed premise underlying subjectivity arguments for homosexual 'rights' and anyone should easily realize that subjectivity flies directly in the face of establishing any objective 'homosexuality' rights or pursuing any objective 'homosexuality' discrimination claims or even objective claims that there is a hatred of homosexuality using the much espoused homophobia meme that some in this discussion indignantly cite.
Legislation and or social mandate regarding just versus unjust discrimination with subsequent social fostering reward versus social penalizing can only be legitimately based upon objective innate characteristics e.g. race and or constitutionally guaranteed activities e.g. religion.
Religion is a constitutionally guaranteed activity -homosexual sex is not. If homosexual sex was guaranteed by the Constitution then I would suggest that at a maximum it would not be mandated, at a minimum like religion there would be the misinterpreted yet very applicable separation clause e.g. a separation of Sex & State... One would not see mandated public school 'indoctrination' of "homosexuality is normal or a valid option" stuff being mandated upon children by judges or homosexual agenda activist groups...
Judges that attempt to create or groups that advocate for special rights above and beyond already realized human rights advocate for these special rights premised upon either a totally subjective self-declared 'orientation' or ones choice of sexual activities. The advocates and judges are simply plying a smoke and mirrors approach in attempt to hoist homosexual activity into acceptance under the guise of providing human rights to individuals already possessing such human rights.
Case in point: US Federal, State, and Local Government entities at this time both set aside contracts and give preference on contracts to minority business owners. I can state unequivocally that 'homosexual' business owners will never be afforded such favor. Answering why I can make such an assured observation quickly gets to the root of the matter and completely knocks down the card house that homosexual agenda proponents attempt to erect...