Reverend Peterson is all for diversity as you can see. He can be seen at many diverse protests and good causes.
Posted on 06/17/2004 11:39:47 PM PDT by scripter
It has been recently claimed that America's denial of marriage rights to homosexuals is morally equivalent to and indistinguishable from America's previous denials of civil rights to blacks.
It should come as no surprise that the homosexual lobby has launched a campaign to use black America for its pernicious purpose of promoting same-sex "marriage." Blacks have proven time and again to be a useful tool in promoting the sick desires of black leaders, the Democratic Party and the elite white feminist movement (yes, most feminists are upper-class angry white women) – why shouldn't radical homosexuals continue the trend?
If we fail at this time to expose the homosexual movement and its malicious goals, then its agenda will carry the day. Thus, we must clarify what is at stake in its argument, and why it must be strongly opposed.
The homosexual lobby's argument goes like this: Sexual orientation, like race, is a non-moral characteristic beyond one's control. Thus, there is no reason that homosexuals should be denied the right to marry since to do so would be to hold them responsible for something they are powerless to affect. The implication is that a homosexual's right to marry a person of the same sex is analogous to a black man's right to marry a white woman, or to a black's right to vote.
There are two major flaws in this argument that make for its complete undoing. First, marriage is not a right. As Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly has noted, marriage is a privilege, like a driver's license, granted at the pleasure of the state, contingent on certain criteria being met. Marriage is a legally sanctioned contract that promotes a state's interest in maintaining the traditional family as the fundamental institution of society and in providing the soundest possible framework for a committed and legitimate love and for the production and raising of children. If a relationship does not promote a state's legitimate interests, there is no reason a state should sanction it.
Homosexuality is not about love, it's not about family, and it's not about civil rights. It's about sex – and selfishness. It's about pleasure at the price of morality and dignity, with reckless disregard for the raising of the young and for the traditional family unit. In many cases, it's about imposing a perverse lifestyle on a society based on close adherence to traditional Judeo-Christian values.
Moreover, the claim that sexual orientation is analogous to race – and all the subsequent claims that denying marriage to homosexuals is equal to racism – is insulting, dangerous and indefensible. It's insulting because blacks endured hundreds of years of slavery, segregation, and legal inequality in this country before finally winning the fight for equal protection. Try as they may (and yes, some do), homosexuals can level no such claims – they have not been enslaved or forced to use separate water fountains or been consigned to inferior schooling.
The claim that homosexual conduct is legitimate since it is the consequence of an attribute (orientation) beyond one's control is also extremely dangerous. Underlying this claim is the notion that anything someone may have an orientation or a predilection towards, no matter how wicked (rape, torturing children) is by definition legitimate, simply by virtue of his having a predilection toward it.
Also implied in this claim is that no one has control over their actions – we're determined in who we are and what we do by our genetic makeup; there is no freedom of choice, and therefore no morality, no right and wrong. The suspension of moral judgment would serve to undermine all of law and all coherent society.
These facts also show the homosexual lobby's argument to be thoroughly indefensible. No one really believes that there is no such thing as moral freedom, that there is no right or wrong – it's impossible to live in this world without fundamental convictions on truth and falsehood. The homosexual lobby itself cannot really believe this nonsense.
These people know that if they can ride on the coattails of the civil-rights movement and use blacks – as others have done – then they too can win sanction for their perverse lifestyle and deal another blow to America's Judeo-Christian foundation. For the sake of our country, our values, and black America, we cannot let that happen.
Check your stats on divorce. Michael Medved has disputed that. Also, the rest of your stats are messed up because coming from a divorced home is not the same stat as coming from a unwed mother home. Most men in prison are estranged from their fathers. That is an argument on behalf of needing BOTH parents.
If they are a few percentage points off does it really matter ? Divorce is an abomination on children, you do great harm to your children when you get a divorce while they are still growing up. And children raised in one parent families for whatever reason are no better off. The truth will set us free !
Boys take a worse beating growing up without a father, deal with it hon, I speak from experience.
Deal with what, hon? It sounded like you were trying to make a case against marriage because of the damage divorce can do. I was pointing out that the stats on marriage are better than that now, but that the children born to unwed mothers is a crisis and further supports the imporance of having both parents. Are you disagreeing with me about that? Because I don't get what you are sounding cranky about.
You are the one disputing the figures, they are from a book published in the early 90's by a woman. Don't blame me.
A book published by a woman... how can I dispute that? ;) I'm just offering that the divorce rate really isn't a high as 50%, and that children of divorce shouldn't be mixed in studies with children of unwed mothers. That's all.
I'm just trying to get the point across that the ideal situation for a kid to grow up with the best chances for a successful life are in a two parent home, husband and wife. Even a step parent can turn out bad for a kid. I think it has to do with the fact that we inherit the traits of our parents and respond best to like heredity traits.
Reverend Peterson is all for diversity as you can see. He can be seen at many diverse protests and good causes.
Bump to that.
They will be defeated, knowledge is power !
The comparison of the gay so-called civil rights movement and the black one is entirely spurious. The reason is that the fundamental legal rationale for the activism of the black civil rights movement was the passage of the 14th amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. All of this legislation was passed after much debate and implemented through the small r republican process. This current movement is being fueled by activists and a radical elite contravening the democratic process through judicial activism and the illegal intercession of certain elected officials.
This is a tremendously insulting thing - prancing deviate sodomites trying to "steal valor" from people that have experienced horrific hardship. The good news is, the "straight man doin' me wrong" gambit won't survive people finding out that these beasts have higher incomes than decent people.
This is a tremendously insulting thing - prancing deviate sodomites trying to "steal valor" from people that have experienced horrific hardship. The good news is, the "straight man doin' me wrong" gambit won't survive people finding out that these beasts have higher incomes than decent people.
Actually marriage IS a right. You have to be adjudged incompetent in order to loose the right to marry. It is no different than the right to be mother or father.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.