Loading ...By R. Tarpaeian
August 7, 2007
By now even the most obtuse Fathers Rights advocate must see at least the broad outlines of the feminist War on Fatherhood. The normalization of homosexuality, now complete in Massachusetts with the legislature’s refusal to allow the citizens to vote on the matter, is one more theater of operations in this ongoing war.
What is happening right under our noses is the transformation of ‘family,’ the fundamental building block not only of society, but of civilization itself throughout recorded history.
Freedom of expression does not necessarily imply moral relativism
I lived in San Francisco in the 1970s. I read “Tales of the City” in daily installments in the San Francisco Chronicle. I had a bisexual roommate. “Live and let live” is as American as apple pie. It is un-American to oppose freedom of expression. Most people, myself included, would agree that this extends to behavior between consenting adults.
However, this freedom of expression works both ways. It also extends to those who may disapprove of, and even wish to condemn, behavior of others that they find morally objectionable. Furthermore, every society establishes shared values and moral beliefs in both an unwritten moral code of conduct (its mores), its religions, as well as in the law. A society with no moral compass whatsoever is not a society… it is anarchy. We are a people, not just beasts in the wilderness. As Shakespeare’s Hamlet says,
“What is a man, if his chief good and market of his time be but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more. Sure, he that made us with such large discourse, looking before and after, gave us not that capability and godlike reason to fust in us unused.”
It is normal, appropriate, and necessary for a people to establish ‘norms’ of behavior. In a healthy society some such norms evolve over time. Others must remain constant for the continued viability of the community. Adherence to some behavioral norms requires more than socially regulating mechanisms like shame and stigma. To protect children from sexualization by adults, for example, laws with severe criminal penalties are enacted.
We are presently witnessing an acute challenge to several established norms. What is at play is a challenge to deep-rooted beliefs. The discussion must be open to all points of view so that we can collectively decide where we’re going. In Massachusetts this is presently not the case as one side of the gay marriage debate, using the power and authority of its allies in government, the legal system and the media, has created a climate of fear and intimidation for their opponents.
Biology removed from the definition of ‘family’
Gay marriage proponents use as one of their friendly slogans: “Love makes a family.” Well, actually, no it doesn’t. To be perfectly frank, a penis and a vagina make a family. If you find that crude, take it up with Mother Nature. It is she who optimized the process for the procreation of life on planet Earth two billion years ago with the invention of sexual reproduction.
Let’s remove this debate from the intellectual ghetto of religious doctrine and bring it into the realm of rational thinking. The one inarguable constant of life is the instinct for self-preservation—survival—to ensure that genetic information can be passed on to a new generation. Let the philosophers argue about the reason ‘Why.’ Kurt Vonnegut called it the “universal will to become.” That satisfies me.
Homosexuality is by definition abnormal behavior. (Normal: That which functions according to its design.). It is contrary to Nature’s Prime Directive: the biological imperative of survival and procreation, achieved via the sexual attraction between male and female. The notion that there could be an inheritable genetic instruction to notreproduce is a logical absurdity.
When and how did it become proscribed speech (soon to be criminalized?) to suggest that sexual attraction between men and women is normal and, in fact, necessary behavior deserving of unique social constructs and requisite legal privileges and protections?
Feminist deconstruction of society
I can answer this question. It didn’t happen overnight. Most thinking people not blinded by political correctness recognize that the legalization of abortion-on-demand by the Supreme Court in 1973 marked the beginning of an assault on moral reason. The propaganda power of language cannot be overstated. Feminists created the right climate for Roe v. Wade by coining ‘choice’ as the euphemism for the murder of the fetus.
But this is old news. Here’s the rest of the story. Feminists intent on transforming a patriarchal society into a matriarchy recognized several strategic objectives that had to be met.
First: Abortion-on-demand; next: Get ‘dad’ out of ‘family’
The first was ownership of the means of reproduction, if you will pardon my punning on an historical slogan from another self-terminating political movement.
The next thing required was to define ‘father’ out of the family. The new nuclear family unit would be mother and dependant children. The presence of a biological father would be optional, no different than any other partners mom might choose, of either sex, temporary or made permanent through a civil or religious union.
Biologically speaking, the father is the weakest link in the nuclear family. The dismantling of the patriarchy could not be possible without the removal of the patriarch from the individual family.
Hence the War on Fatherhood.
Men superfluous at best—dangerous at worst
In order to gain acceptance of the idea that men are superfluous to the new family, fathers and fatherhood had to be first discredited, then marginalized, and finally demonized. Since the heady days of women burning their bras in the streets in the 70s we have witnessed an unrelenting attack on masculinity, men, and fatherhood. There is practically no part of the culture immune to the trashing of the male sex.
Boys are medicated in staggering numbers to address what are now considered undesirable traits. Can you say “ADHD”? That’s “Attention Deficit, Hyperactive Disorder.” Yes indeed, boys are different than girls. And by Goddess, we’re going to do whatever it takes to fix them!
Male hatred deeply-rooted in academia
In academia, feminists took the behavioral sciences by storm, from whence stems a never-ending torrent of ‘studies’ revealing the flaws of the male sex. Such studies are peer reviewed in an incestuous and corrupted academic environment where the results are re-digested by other scholars in the sisterhood and eventually regurgitated by a media that panders to women’s issues.
Prior to the feminist revolution there was one arena where men were already expected to take it in the shorts: divorce. Since the latter part of the 19th century divorced women took the children and received alimony from the father. The patriarchy—specifically, male judges and lawmakers—saw to it that women were protected after family breakup. And for good reason, as men were the bread-winners and most women were home-makers without the means to earn a decent paycheck.
Then, divorce was an emotional and economic upheaval for all concerned. Few would disagree that the hardships suffered by women were generally greater. But following the feminist revolution and the advent of so-called “feminist jurisprudence,” for men only, hardship transmogrified into a process of criminalization.
Men criminalized via ‘feminist jurisprudence’
Where are all the social science studies raising alarms about the growing number of incarcerated men convicted of “gender crimes”? Fathers jailed for failing to make usurious so-called ‘child support’ payments, or for trying to contact their own children in violation of the ‘no-contact’ provisions of their ex-wife’s ‘abuse-protection’ order? Thanks to blatantly unconstitutional laws and the willing ignorance of other men who have yet to be affected, noncustodial fathers in particular suffer both civil and human rights violations without due process of law or the presumption of innocence.
In fact, the economic subjugation of noncustodial fathers under the so-called “child support” regime is so extreme that to find a valid comparison we would have to go back to before the Emancipation Proclamation. The comparison with slavery is not far off the mark.
Countless fathers have been emotionally and psychologically broken as a result of losing that most precious of all things in life: their little children. The story of the unknown number of fathers who have chosen to take their own lives remains untold, as it plays against the feminist stereotype of women as victims of male aggression. The prevalence of murder-suicide in divorce-related homicides points more to a sense of desperation than to acts of hatred or revenge—of men with nothing left to lose, and nothing left to live for.
Gay family specialists often employed to evaluate fathers in child custody
The connection of the homosexual rights movement in Massachusetts with the War on Fatherhood is not merely anecdotal. It was under the Weld administration that the state’s undeclared War on Fatherhood took flight. The Republican governor appointed his gay college roommate, Mitchell Adams, to head the Child Support Enforcement division of the Depart of Revenue (DOR/CSE). Adams launched the DOR’s “deadbeat dad” poster PR campaign, as well as similar anti-father initiatives. Installing a man incapable of having intimate relations with a woman as the state’s chief persecutor of noncustodial fathers takes ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ into the realm of the perverse.
In my decade-and-a-half experience in the Fathers Rights movement, I have lost count of the number of times I have heard the words “My GAL is gay.” The Guardian ad litem (GAL) is the specialist appointed by family court judges to make recommendations regarding custody of minor children in contested custody cases. Operationally, they provide the judge with the path of least resistance to the preordained final custody determination: establishing mom as the custodial parent and dad as the visitor parent (if he’s lucky) with the burden of financing the new family unit… which, as mentioned above, is now mother and dependant children.
Some homosexual GALs make no effort to hide their sexual orientation, naming their partners on their own web sites. Having the parenting skills of fathers evaluated by people who lack the ability for intimate relations with the opposite sex takes this from the merely perverse into the realm of the diabolical.
Cheryl Jacques heads committee to investigate GAL process
It gets worse. In 2000, the Massachusetts Senate commissioned an investigation to look into the many complaints of the GAL system. Former state Senator Cheryl Jacques was appointed by then Senate President Thomas Birmingham to head the committee. Jacques had earned a reputation as one of the most rabid anti-father, pro-feminist legislators in the Statehouse. She later went on to greater notoriety as the president of the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights organization that championed the gay marriage cause in state and federal courts.
Many noncustodial fathers submitted written testimony to the committee in the belief that it would address the bias in the GAL system. The conclusions of the committee’s report[1], which was released in March the following year, were just the opposite of what those gullible men expected. Nothing in the report or its recommendations mentioned even the allegations of the anti-father biases rife in the system. Instead, the old victim-feminist canards of how the GAL process actually favored ‘abusive’ men and ‘re-victimized’ battered women were given fresh fodder. New training was recommended to prevent those canny ‘batterers,’ who were supposedly hoodwinking naïve GALs and judges, from gaining access to their children. Etcetera, etcetera.
War on Fatherhood apparent upon encountering divorce system
If you don’t believe that the operational definition of ‘family’ had already been transformed before the advent of gay marriage, take a visit to your local courthouse or government agency office. Just go and see for yourself. Look at the signs and pictures on the walls of the Social Security office. Listen to the conversations in the courthouse halls, or better yet, if you have the stomach, go inside a courtroom and witness the spectacle of judges sending men to jail on the say-so of their ex-wives.
When I fell into what I refer to as THE THING, borrowing the wordsmithing from Aldous Huxley’s “Ape and Essence,” I was shocked on every level of my being. My brain throbbed with one nagging thought: “What becomes of a society that declares war on fatherhood?”
Now, some 15 years on, the answer is clear.
After assault on fatherhood, gay adoption and marriage inevitable
With the legalization of abortion-on-demand, where—even in an intact marriage!—it is considered an outrage to even suggest that a woman considering an abortion should consult her husband[2] , followed by the growing acceptance of the idea that men are superfluous to the raising of children—and in fact questioning if men are necessary at all is acceptable fodder for best-seller books and TV talk-show circuits[3]—the normalization of gay marriage, manifested mainly as lesbian couples[4], is clearly… inevitable.
A car with only two wheels can’t go very far. A car with only one is doomed to become a rusting hulk. Over the past thirty-plus years we have seen the wheels fall off one by one.
With the normalization of homosexuality and the imminent criminalization of advocating otherwise, the bottom has fallen out. We are now in free-fall. What’s bad is good, and what’s good is grounds for blacklisting, sacking, and soon, prison.
Mass. State Senator Therese Murray provided perhaps the most incredible example of the upending of moral values. During the Massachusetts constitutional convention in 2004 to address the citizen’s petition to ban gay marriage, she stated that 40 percent of the children adopted in Massachusetts are awarded to homosexual couples. Perhaps the only thing more astounding than this revelation is that it was presented as an argument in favor of gay marriage.
Pedophilia next on list to be ‘normalized’ by psychologists
Gay marriage proponents are fond of alluding to the prohibition against mixed-race marriages in our racist past as analogous to present opposition to homosexual marriage. I suggest that rather than looking to the past for comparisons, we look to the future.
If you are of a certain age and a recent convert to the gay marriage cause, ponder this: Before you were won over you probably believed that homosexuality was deviant behavior that should not be encouraged by law and/or social policy.
What is your opinion now, today, about pedophilia? Do you believe it is deviant behavior?
How will you respond in a few years time when the all-out push to normalize pedophilia by behavioral experts in the psychological community begins[5]? Will you be the reactionary, elder generational, dying-breed conservative who adheres to an outdated morality—or a progressive advocate of these persecuted practitioners of the (next) ‘love that dare not speak its name’?
Twin threats from within and without
The fertility rate of the 27 nations in the European Union is now well below the replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman[6]. The west is confronted with a rival Islamic civilization that adheres to strict patriarchal values. Their families have lots of children. Without the Muslim immigrants in several European countries such as England and France the fertility rates would be even lower. Islamic jihadists such as al-Qaeda make no bones about their ultimate objective to topple the west and reestablish the Caliphate. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.
As we approach the 2008 presidential primaries we need to think long and hard about what it will mean if the next president of the U.S. is a Wellesley-educated feminist. And perhaps more importantly, what happens to a civilization that fails to defend fatherhood, and walks meekly into a feminist ‘utopia’.
R. Tarpaeian
# # #
R. Tarpaeian can be reached at rtarpaeian@gmail.com
1. Massachusetts. Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight. Guarding Our Children: A Review of Massachusetts’ Guardian Ad Litem Program within the Probate and Family Court. March, 2001.
2. During the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court in January, 2006, Sen. Diane Feinstein waxed indignant over Alito’s dissenting opinion on Planned Parenthood v. Casey. As the odd-man-out in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision he disagreed with the majority opinion regarding the ‘husband notification’ provision, where it held that a wife should not be burdened with a legal obligation to inform her husband if she intends to have an abortion. [The three-judge panel unanimously upheld four other abortion restrictions in the Pennsylvania law including parental notification for a minor seeking an abortion.] The following year Planned Parenthood took the case to the Supreme Court to appeal against the remaining provisions that were upheld by the appellate court. In 1992, the Supreme Court affirmed that fathers had no legitimate role in decisions to continue the lives of their own unborn offspring. At the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Alito did not defend his previous position.
3. Dowd, Maureen. Are Men Necessary? Dowd is a syndicated New York Times columnist. When her book was released and became a New York Times best-seller, she was the toast of the town on many television news programs. There are several other recent books with the exact same theme.
4. Of the ~6,000 same-sex marriages from May to Dec. 2004 following the Massachusetts SJC Goodridge decision, lesbian marriages outnumbered male same-sex marriages 65% to 35%. Belge, Kathy, Lesbian Life, “Gay Marriages in Massachusetts: One Year Later, May 2005”. http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/a/MassOneYear.htm.
Prior to Goodridge, 32% of lesbian same-sex couple had children, whereas 18% of same-sex male couples had children. “Same-Sex Couples and Their Children in Massachusetts: A View from Census 2000,” By The Numbers, Feb. 2004, Journal of IGLLS, The Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, http://www.iglss.org/media/files/Numbers2_04.pdf.
5. In 1999, the American Psychological Association published in its member journal, the APA Bulletin, “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,” by Bruce Rind, which claimed child sexual abuse could be harmless and beneficial. The resulting public outcry forced the APA to reaffirm its position that pedophilia is a disorder, and always harmful to children.
6. “Suddenly, the old world looks younger.” The Economist June 16-22, 2007: 29-32.
R. Tarpaeian can be reached at rtarpaeian@gmail.com
©2007 IndependentNewsNet.com
David R. Usher said,
Some folks who think that abnormal behavior somehow becomes normal if you simply do it. Of course, one can stick their finger in the fire, but normal people only do that once (at most). The rest have lots of problems and then try to blame it on somebody else, and want somebody else to take care of them or walk on eggshells around them because they have "problems".
If you are one of these people, please consider changing your life. Here is how to do it:
1. When you are sick and tired of being sick and tired, you will stop doing things that make you sick and tired.
2. Misery is an optional illness.
3. Being addicted to excitement in any of its forms is a self-imposed sentence to an early death, or imprisonment, and a very unhappy life.
3. Normal is what happens to you when you get everything that is not normal out of your life.
August 7, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Mjaybee said,
It is already so entrenched that there is little you can do to change it.
Go along with it. Resist passively and help educate your colleagues about the bias in the system so that they continue to play the field instead of getting married. If society has changed, go with the flow. The 50s were over half a century ago.
August 7, 2007 at 11:12 pm
DadWith2Girls said,
Is marriage a sacred gateway to freedom for men?
This argument is silly….
August 7, 2007 at 11:42 pm
mike ellis said,
The NSCFC asks, does Brown’s moral compass need recalibrating or is he right to remove the need for fathers in family life?
Replacing the British Isles with some sort of Sodom and Gomorra where same sex couples are to be given equality with heterosexual couples is in our opinion, and in the opinion of most major faiths, totally and utterly immoral this despite cries that all who oppose such moral decline are little more than zealots for putting children and traditional family life first.
In the normal course of things children will be produced of a natural and wholesome union between male and female, whereas on some occasions that natural process might need some assistance via IVF treatments there would seem to be no moral justification whatsoever to provide for assistance of this nature in support of unnatural means of reproduction to be enshrined in new legislation next year for the purpose of appeasing lesbian and single woman at the sacrifice of well defined principle. Suffice to say throughout history the human race has survived and progressed under the protection of traditional family values, by interfering with these natural values/laws, we place our children and our society at considerable risk and further dangers as is so evident by all the social indicators to date.
That there is a difference between morality and politics has been ably demonstrated by Mr. Brown's predecessor and indeed by Mr. Brown himself in respect of, among other things, pensions and tax increases promoted by Mr. Brown as being tax cuts. That does not mean that there should be a total disregard to morality. Our politicians should perhaps stop and think where they are taking us. We suggest that our politicians should be guided to a lesser extent by a noisy and aggressive minority supported as they are by highly questionable charities. That they should stop hold back and look at their failures with regard to families and children, seek moral guidance and then and only then legislate bearing in mind that even Harriet Harman has come to recognise that the traditional family provides for the best environment for the raising of children. The moral and political objective should therefore be to support the traditional family at all costs and not undermine it in the guise of common good.
Suffice to say “That Fathers will no longer be needed under the new fertility law” is an affront to traditional family life as is the legalized omission of his name on the child’s birth certificate, and as such the charity National Society for Children and Family Contact (NSCFC) is appalled but not surprised to learn that yet again the Labour party are taking another step towards removing the right of a child to have a father and paternal side of the family in its life.
Here we are with an ever increasing epidemic of fatherless children due to family law as it so stands, which in its misguided wisdom continues to separate children at the rate of approx 100 per day from that of their paternal side of the family, the ramifications upon society of which are all to clear to see with anti-social and dysfunctional behaviour at an all time high, due for the best part by lack of the very role models such children are entitled too if they are to become well rounded citizens of tomorrow in adulthood.
That Gordon Brown and his ilk, many of them fathers in their own right are blinded by the consequences of their policies is by far the greatest crime of all and a legacy that will undoubtedly go down in history as their having had a total disregard for traditional family life the like of which has forever and a day been the very foundation of human society.
Hence we for our part will do everything in our power to highlight such blatant folly in the hope that yet another generation of children will not be subjected to a breach of their human rights, this all in the name of a misguided ideology far removed from the long established natural course of events and which they themselves from birth on, will with great loss of identity be the ultimate victims.
National Society for Children and Family Contact (NSCFC) is a registered charity which believes that continuing contact with a child’s parents or extended family after separation or divorce is vital for the child’s balanced development and it works tirelessly to foster those all-important family contacts. As such we offer free support and advice to all those in need. Helpline at National rate also available 24/7 this to include support and domestic violence helpline for men on 0870 794 0075 or http://www.nscfc.com not because we are in any way partial but because there is little in the way of backup for male victims in the UK, 500 refuges for women only 2 for men!
August 8, 2007 at 1:20 am
amfortas said,
Although specifically mentioning American legislative regions, the message is common to all Anglophile countries. The effects are the same. The civilisation that is being poisoned from within, the most advanced civilisation the world has seen, is common.
August 8, 2007 at 2:53 am
DcFather said,
The battle to normalize pedophilia is already half-won, because when a woman molests a boy our government will look more favorably upon the woman than the boy. Worse than either of them, in the eyes of the government, is a father trying to prevent a woman from molesting his son.
I would argue that we still have a moral compass in America, pointed straight to hell.
August 8, 2007 at 5:44 am
WLS said,
These positions don't seem inherent in homosexuality, and gay marriage or civil unions is hardly the cause of the marriage problem or the worst challenge marriage currently faces, but under these circumstances I'm loathe to sanction or condone anything that would increase gays' political power.
August 8, 2007 at 5:48 am
veritas said,
August 8, 2007 at 5:59 am
cjo said,
The homosexual married couples will not be treated as villainous as heterosexual couples in divorce settlements. The homosexuals have become a protected class above heterosexual men and every effort is made to actually administer equal justice for them. As an example of how ubiquitous this has become, the Massachusetts MRA organization Fathers and Families, recently prepared an amicus brief for a court (SJC) in defense of a lesbian non-biological parent who was the breadwinner in their family. The breadwinner parent was being denied visitation. Fathers and Families stood up for the lesbian non-biological parent but has never offered the same defensive argument for the equivalent contributions of a breadwinning parent to the rearing and nurturing of a child in a heterosexual marriage.
I assume FAF’s reasoning for focusing on a lesbian couple - and not on one of the multitude of heterosexual couples this is happening to – is the naïve hope the jurists would write a paradigm shifting opinion where all parents’ contributions to a marriage (breadwinning vs. homemaking/childcare) is equitable. Thus there would be no primary caregiver/custodial parent issue regarding custody. This didn’t happen, primarily because of the non-biological relation to the child and no formal adoption.
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/site/news.php?id=177
August 8, 2007 at 8:42 am
CaptDMO said,
"It is un-American to oppose freedom of expression. Most people, myself included, would agree that this extends to behavior between consenting adults."
Just as so many folk that have opted to defend alternative life choices,
you seem to have forgotten the once poignant toehold- "behind closed doors" bit, and that those "closed doors" would assure segregation of unintended consequences.
August 8, 2007 at 11:14 am
Ray Blumhorst said,
That being said, please come join us Sunday, August 26th in the Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks park to present Father's (and men's) issues openly to the public. We will be "picnicking" from 9AM to 1PM and hope to see you there. The main park address is 14201 Huston St., Sherman Oaks, CA 91423. We will be about 100 yards east of that address at the corner of Hazeltine and Huston.
We hope to see you there. Once again, we will have new, big signs, further defining the issues with succinct talking points.
Together, we can make a difference.
">Hot Fun In the Summertime
We the People Want - Equal Justice for Dads
August 8, 2007 at 11:19 am
Ray Blumhorst said,
Hot Fun In The Summertime
August 8, 2007 at 11:24 am
Ray Blumhorst said,
Let’s remove this debate from the intellectual ghetto of politically correct, moral relatvistic doctrine that gender feminist and homosexual advocates spew and bring it into the realm of rational thinking, or are intellect and enlightenment characteristics that are bigotedly assumed to be reserved for the "tyrannts of tolerance" who work so hard to censor the free speech of those opposing their radical, anti-heterosexual family views?
August 8, 2007 at 11:58 am
R. Tarpaeian said,
F&F reasoning and action vis-a-vis filing the amicus on behalf of lesbian mom was, imo, a serious error in judgment. They presumed there might be a 'trickle-down' whereby if *even* lesbian parents' rights were respected, then, as cjo says, a paradigm shift would be effected that would eventually help FR.
I could not disagree more.
Indeed, the FR movement is split on this issue, and that is why I wrote this piece, to try to bring some clarity to the FR movement and also to inform the folks fighting the gay agenda in Massachusetts about a dimension of the issue that they are largely unaware of.
August 8, 2007 at 12:42 pm
conservativation said,
I agree…oppose same sex marriage. BUT, first lets fix the dang mess with the regular marriage and not project our moral religiosity onto them yet. Do not dilute your efforts fighting no fault divorce by spending time and treasure on things that make you look double minded.
August 8, 2007 at 2:51 pm
WLS said,
August 8, 2007 at 7:37 pm
monkeyinthemirror said,
1) Societies are built on families. Families are built by fathers and mothers having and raising children. Homosexuality is anti-family, anti-society.
2) Homosexuality is not normal. To promote something not normal as normal is wrong.
3) Homosexuality is a sexual perversion. To promote a perversion is anti-society. To tolerate a perversion is to give tacit approval to it.
Oh gee, the "rights"of the poor gays are being violated. Really? Does that mean we shouldn't violate the rights of the mugger to steal? Or the murderer to kill? How about the drunk to drive? We violate the "rights" of those people every day in order to prevent our society from self-destructing.
Homosexuality is morally wrong. How can there be a "right" to practice a moral wrong if a society is to survive?
In a society that values it's very foundation - the family - there can be no "right" to practice homosexuality.
August 8, 2007 at 7:46 pm
t.lamp said,
"they should be heard alongside all those voices who don't believe in mixed-race marriages, or who don't like black people in general and the like"
If this was, indeed, a "civil rights" argument, then I'd agree with you. However, to say that being homosexual is akin to being black, or having Down's Syndrome, or being Chinese is ludicrous. And I can't BELIEVE how many people have actually bought that argument.
Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR. Being black, having Down's Syndrome, or being Chinese are STATES OF BEING. Yes, I know all about the "born that way" claim. However, I have two words that indisputably refute that premise…FORMER HOMOSEXUALS. Go ahead…google "former homosexual" and see what comes up.
If homosexuality was a state of being, there simply would be ZERO former homosexuals. Has there ever been someone who said, "I used to be black, but now I'm white"…or…"I used to have Down's Syndrome, but now I don't"…or…"I used to be Chinese, but now I'm Hispanic"? Of course not. The only reasonable conclusion is that homosexuality is a behavior. And the "civil rights" argument comes crashing down.
August 8, 2007 at 8:13 pm
veritas said,
August 8, 2007 at 8:32 pm
roger said,
Should they have the "right" to adopt innocent children and impose upon them their lifestyle. No.
By design, "gay" couples cannot reproduce. Nature has set it up this way. Throwing kids in to the mix does not make it a "family", nor will it ever be "natural".
August 8, 2007 at 8:33 pm
roger said,
Any time, in any species when it occurs, it is not normal. And those individuals are eventually removed from the gene pool population due to their inability to reproduce.
This is natures way of cleaning up after itself.
You can go against the grain, but this only dilutes the normal process in the gene pool and only bad can come of it.
FYI, the human gene pool is the only gene pool on the planet that actually dilutes itself.
August 8, 2007 at 8:45 pm
t.lamp said,
"Homosexuality is very normal. Its found in nature, and its not considered a mental disorder of any kind. What is your definition of "normal"? Something that fits in your own particular religious worldview????"
One doesn't even need to resort to his or her "particular religious worldview". Common sense and logic wins out.
Are you seriously trying to convince the world that you believe two men having sexual intercourse with one another is a natural behavior? Whether in nature or within the United State citizenship, homosexual activity is aberrant and unnatural.
Ultimately, your argument insinuates that homosexual couples are the same as heterosexual couples in every way, aside from the person with whom they desire to have sexual intercourse.
Only one problem…men and women are "designed" for each other sexually (please don't make me spell it out any further than that). And, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, are not "designed" for each other sexually.
Considering the physical anatomy/physiology of all the players (no pun intended) involved, which of the above sexual relationships would you consider to be "natural"? The heterosexual couple, of course. Thus, sexual intercourse among homosexuals must then be considered "unnatural".
It's really a "no-brainer". Yet, an interesting phenomena has occured. You and other homosexual activists have cleverly taken the debate into the realm of "feelings" rather than "intellect". And, so many of the "sheep" have bought it…hook, line, and sinker. An interesting sociological study, acutally.
August 8, 2007 at 8:57 pm
veritas said,
That is quite sinister!!
August 8, 2007 at 9:42 pm
The Vicar said,
August 8, 2007 at 10:16 pm
mruffolo said,
A man having sex with a man is wrong
August 8, 2007 at 10:44 pm
amfortas said,
100 year high tides are quite natural but hardly normal. 100 year tides require some acknowlegement and respect, as homosexuals do, and maybe building high walls is the suitable response to both. Its called CYA.
August 8, 2007 at 11:44 pm
veritas said,
But as I suggested before..them claiming to be the most oppressed minority in the U.S…when in fact they may be the most priveledged..Is quite distastefull.
Most homosexuals are from the white middle class demographic, and claiming they are the most oppressed may be a diabolical plan to keep the real minorities who need help out of the congressional spotlight!!
August 9, 2007 at 5:58 am
mruffolo said,
If the people and their government agree to legalizes murder, it's still wrong (Exodus 20:14).
If the people and their government agree to legalizes sex with an animal, it's still wrong (Leviticus 20:15).
August 9, 2007 at 10:00 am
merck said,
Roger #20 and #21 has it right on gay issues, in my opinion. It’s also a “freak of nature” for a female to abort her offspring by “choice”.
If we are going to protect human rights, we must also protect the rights of the unborn child, or else we establish a precedent that will ultimately affect us all.
Most important in all of this is what action we take to stop the injustice. It’s not too late to make changes and no one should just go with the flow. Find a way to stop financing your own destruction.
Kevin Merck
August 12, 2007 at 9:40 am