Two attorneys from opposing political camps, David Boies, a Democrat, and Ted Olson, a Republican, announced last month that they plan to challenge California's ban against gay marriage all the way to the Supreme Court. One of the cases Boies and Olson are using as a precedent is Loving v. Virginia, which, in 1967, ruled that it was unconstitutional for any state to have a law prohibiting marriage on the basis of race.
The plaintiffs, Mildred Loving, a Black woman, and her husband, Richard, a White man, had married nine years earlier in the District of Columbia. However, upon moving to Virginia, the couple challenged the state's laws and wanted their marriage to be recognized as legal.
The Loving case has no similarity whatsoever to the issue of gay marriage or homosexuality, since skin color is morally neutral. This was a marriage between a man and a woman and the key issue was that, because Blacks had been denied full citizenship rights for more than 300 years, including the right to vote, many laws had to be challenged or changed. Yet, the use of legal cases, laws and the legacy of African Americans is the Trojan horse gay activists and their supporters have used to promote their political agenda.
Nearly every historical example used by gay activists to demonstrate why gay marriage should be legalized is based upon African-American oppression. Blacks were forced to settle for "separate but equal" schools; therefore, two men should be able to marry each other. Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus; therefore, gay couples should be able to adopt children. Blacks were denied access to public accommodations; thus, we should take the unprecedented step of redefining marriage and mandating that a homosexual relationship is the equivalent of a traditional, nuclear family. One wonders what arguments gay activists would use if the legacy of Black oppression was not at their disposal.
The comparisons would be laughable if their promotion had not achieved some level of success. Yet, liberals and some moderates have bought into the idea that taking a moral position regarding homosexuality is tantamount to discrimination and that, if gay marriage is legalized nationwide, there will be no societal impact from such a radical shift in America's moral standards. And for anyone who claims there is no difference between the histories of Blacks and homosexuals, they need only reference the recent case in Philadelphia where a white woman falsely accused two black men of abducting her and her 9-year-old daughter. As in so many cases in the past, a generic black man was falsely accused of a crime so the real culprit could escape detection by the authorities.
How has the use of Black oppression as a foil for gay marriage gone unchallenged for so long? There are a number of reasons.
First, many Americans are either uninformed or in denial regarding the nearly 400-year history of brutality and degradation African-Americans have experienced. In public school textbooks, slavery is mentioned in a few brief paragraphs with very little detail, discussions of Reconstruction and Jim Crow are given short shrift, and present-day discrimination is virtually ignored.
Black History Month has been reduced to a recitation of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech and a listing of the "first black" inventors and achievers. The truly ugly side of our nation's history as it relates to African Americans is simply unspoken. Certainly, the unique, horrific legacy of African Americans is too painful for some to recall and discuss, but to pretend that it is the equivalent of an individual aberrant sexual attraction is not only inaccurate, it is insulting.
Indeed, promoting homosexuality would certainly not have been part of our historic civil rights agenda since operating with a degree of unquestionable moral character was a major qualification for any leadership role in the movement. Although Rosa Parks is widely considered to be the mother of the Civil Rights Movement, she was not the first Black woman who refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama, city bus.
Another young Black woman, Claudette Colvin, was arrested before Parks. However, Parks had an unblemished reputation, a respectable trade as a seamstress and was secretary of the local chapter of the NAACP. Colvin, conversely, was a pregnant high school student who had used profanity when she was arrested for disobeying bus segregation laws. Colvin was not considered to be of adequate moral character to be the national symbol of the Montgomery bus boycott.
Some gay activists point to Bayard Rustin, a gay African-American who was a little known, but important participant in the Civil Rights Movement, as evidence that Movement leaders had an interest in the gay cause. However, since Rustin was also a Communist, his presence was a constant cause of anxiety for Movement leaders, the majority of whom were pastors. Because of Rustin's dedication to civil rights, King and other Movement leaders chose to maintain Rustin's involvement, but there was always concern that his presence would completely derail the cause.
The use of Black oppression by gay activists has also gone unchallenged because, unfortunately, many of our African-American political leaders have been compromised. Public records from the Federal Election Commission indicate that 80 percent of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) have received campaign contributions from the Human Rights Campaign Fund (HRC), the largest, best-financed and most powerful gay political action committee in America. Between the election cycles of 2000 and 2008, CBC members collectively received more than $430,000 in cash contributions from HRC. This money would not be donated if these politicians were not expected to support and advance the PAC's agenda. There is an old Jewish saying: "He who pays has the say."
In one bizarre instance, a Black Congressman attended a gathering of Black clergy in Virginia and asked that the ministers vote against a 2006 referendum that would ban gay marriage. The ministers were obviously stunned and offended and one of them asked the Congressman: "Do you go to the meetings of gay groups and ask them to support our agenda?" The Congressman sheepishly answered, "No," a clear indication of where his loyalties lay. Sadly, there is no comparable Black PAC to lobby for and protect the African-American community's interests and legacy.
Finally, many of the public faces of those opposing gay marriage are symbolically vulnerable to gay activists' charges of racism and bigotry. Most of the individuals who are taking a public stand against gay marriage are either white males or Christian conservatives. During the Civil Rights Movement, many Christian conservatives were opposed to equal rights for African Americans, a fact of which gay activists are keenly aware. Sensing this vulnerability, gay activists have cleverly used this as a way of neutralizing evangelical Christians when it comes to the issue of homosexuality being sanctioned by the government.
The goal of the Civil Rights Movement was to prick the moral consciousness of America. Local churches were the central meeting places and launching pads for most of the Movement's protest actions. Martin Luther King and its other leaders gave no thought to raising money to finance politicians' campaigns and influence their votes. They believed that media exposure of their non-violent protests -- and the contrasting violent response by their adversaries -- would be enough to persuade those who were sitting on the proverbial fence. The cruel irony is that, if gay rights advocates succeed in legalizing gay marriage, the same churches that gave birth to the Civil Rights Movement may be forced by the government to perform marriage ceremonies that are antithetical to Biblical and moral principles, or be penalized by having their tax exempt status revoked.
The history of African Americans is one that should be protected and preserved. One should not pimp this legacy for political gain, nor should parallels be drawn where none exist for an era that is simply unparalleled. Our ancestors, who made a determination to stay alive and endure unimaginable indignities so their offspring could perhaps see a better day, deserve that the memory of their sacrifice be honored.
Clearly, homosexuals have their own story to tell. Their history is one that could be compelling if presented on its merits. But the use of African-American oppression to further their cause must come to an end. To continue this practice is dishonest, unseemly and, above all, disrespectful.
Gwen Richardson is an author and entrepreneur who resides in Houston, Texas.
NOTE: Permission is hereby granted for all U.S. domestic and international media outlets to print this commentary, in part or in its entirety, as long as credit is given to the above author.
Comments |  RSS |
|
Rate This Article
Very well articulated, Ms. Richardson.
What you fail to realize is that the black community hasn't cornered the market on discrimination. Discrimination exists in many more forms than just what the black community was subjected to.
The gay marriage issue is not a moral issue by any means, it is a civil issue. It is a rights issue. It is a civil rights issue. keep the morality where it belongs, in your own heart and mind. your morals are not necessarily the same as others and you should not be enforcing your morals on others.
marriage as an instituion has always been both a civil and a religious institution.
the extension of civil marriage to loving couples who simply sek the legal protections afforded others has no effect on the religious institution of marriage whatsoever. Anyone who says otherwise is being disengenious and guided not by morality, but by hatred.
By the way, i don't think you kow what a Trojan horse is.
Where does morality come from? From a civil prospective, how can civilization tolerate the philosophy of male male or female female relationship. What comes after the wedding ceremony, if you want civilization to continue? If you give any thought to male female relationship, that now becomes an immoral act. You people talk about a committed relationship, a committed relationship will destroy your civilization. Is not this a moral issue? Where does science agree with your concept? Even an operation can’t change you. If science is violated to alter you, then psychology will destroy you. Is not this a moral issue?
Please respond to my response. Dont make statements then run like the rest of the people that have no answer to validate their claim that same-sex marriage is right.
What a great and timely article. I salute you for your stand and the thought provoking manner in which it is presented. I could not agree more that it is time for African-Americans to stop allowing our heritage to be trample upon and the blood of our foreparents to be cheapened by the radical homosexual agenda. Same-sex marriage would be the final nail in the coffin of the already fragile family unit. Gay marriage is indeed an issue of morality, not rights. And it is high time the advocates of the homosexual agenda stop hidding behind and playing the "race card" and the "hatred card." Simply because one does not agree with a lifestyle that is immoral does not mean that one hates the participants in that lifestyle. Many people of various backgrounds do not agree violent gang activity...that does not mean we hate the persons who make up the gangs. We simply disagree with their chosen lifestyle and since this is America, we have the "right" to express that disagreement and seek to maintain the moral standards of the communities in which we live.
Thank you again Ms. Richardson and I would love to have you come to our church and share your thoughts and views.
What a great and timely article. I salute you for your stand and the thought provoking manner in which it is presented. I could not agree more that it is time for African-Americans to stop allowing our heritage to be trample upon and the blood of our foreparents to be cheapened by the radical homosexual agenda. Same-sex marriage would be the final nail in the coffin of the already fragile family unit. Gay marriage is indeed an issue of morality, not rights. And it is high time the advocates of the homosexual agenda stop hidding behind and playing the "race card" and the "hatred card." Simply because one does not agree with a lifestyle that is immoral does not mean that one hates the participants in that lifestyle. Many people of various backgrounds do not agree violent gang activity...that does not mean we hate the persons who make up the gangs. We simply disagree with their chosen lifestyle and since this is America, we have the "right" to express that disagreement and seek to maintain the moral standards of the communities in which we live.
Thank you again Ms. Richardson and I would love to have you come to our church and share your thoughts and views.
What a great and timely article. I salute you for your stand and the thought provoking manner in which it is presented. I could not agree more that it is time for African-Americans to stop allowing our heritage to be trample upon and the blood of our foreparents to be cheapened by the radical homosexual agenda. Same-sex marriage would be the final nail in the coffin of the already fragile family unit. Gay marriage is indeed an issue of morality, not rights. And it is high time the advocates of the homosexual agenda stop hidding behind and playing the "race card" and the "hatred card." Simply because one does not agree with a lifestyle that is immoral does not mean that one hates the participants in that lifestyle. Many people of various backgrounds do not agree violent gang activity...that does not mean we hate the persons who make up the gangs. We simply disagree with their chosen lifestyle and since this is America, we have the "right" to express that disagreement and seek to maintain the moral standards of the communities in which we live.
Thank you again Ms. Richardson and I would love to have you come to our church and share your thoughts and views.
A very well written article. I am very surprised that more leaders of the Black community have not already stated this quite emphatically. It is a moral issue, despite the claims to the contrary. Keep writnig and keep being critical for the cause of justice!
Yay! Another tight-ass, right-wing, clearly uneducated bigot who thinks blacks are the only people who get to complain.
Guess what? Blacks aren't the only group that gets to have a civil rights movement. You don't have a copyright to the the phrase "civil rights."
No one is comparing the struggles of gays to blacks. This isn't a competition about who's had it worse. Discrimination is discrimination. Prejudice is prejudice. Hate is hate.
The Blacks have had their civil rights movement. Now the gays have theirs. How hard is that to understand? Start worrying about your OWN marriage and quit being so selfish. What makes this country great is its ability to constantly evolve and embrace its diversity.
Grow up. And get a college education. Fast.
NEXT!
It's a shame that Ms. Richardson thinks being African-American gives her some special privilege to deny the civil rights of another group of people -- and that a group that includes many African-Americans, too.
It's unforgivable, however, for Ms. Richardson to attempt to hijack the Lovings for her bigoted agenda. "[T]he use of African-American oppression to further their cause must come to an end. To continue this practice is dishonest, unseemly and, above all, disrespectful," she says.
Among those Ms. Richardson calls dishonest, unseemly and disrespectful is none other than Mildred Loving. Unlike Ms. Richardson, Mrs. Loving understood that people are people, and all people are entitled to equal rights. Here's what she said on the subject:
"My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.
"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.
"I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about."
In her overweening arrogance, Ms. Richardson is not ashamed to castigate gay people for saying exactly the same thing about Loving v. Virginia that Mildred Loving herself said. How very dishonesty, unseemly, and, above all, disrespectful.
It's a shame that Ms. Richardson thinks being African-American gives her some special privilege to deny the civil rights of another group of people -- and that a group that includes many African-Americans, too.
It's unforgivable, however, for Ms. Richardson to attempt to hijack the Lovings for her bigoted agenda. "[T]he use of African-American oppression to further their cause must come to an end. To continue this practice is dishonest, unseemly and, above all, disrespectful," she says.
Among those Ms. Richardson calls dishonest, unseemly and disrespectful is none other than Mildred Loving. Unlike Ms. Richardson, Mrs. Loving understood that people are people, and all people are entitled to equal rights. Here's what she said on the subject:
My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.
In her overweening arrogance, Ms. Richardson is not ashamed to castigate gay people for saying exactly the same thing about Loving v. Virginia that Mildred Loving herself said. How very dishonesty, unseemly, and, above all, disrespectful.
It's a shame that Ms. Richardson thinks being African-American gives her some special privilege to deny the civil rights of another group of people -- and that a group that includes many African-Americans, too.
It's unforgivable, however, for Ms. Richardson to attempt to hijack the Lovings for her bigoted agenda. "[T]he use of African-American oppression to further their cause must come to an end. To continue this practice is dishonest, unseemly and, above all, disrespectful," she says.
Among those Ms. Richardson calls dishonest, unseemly and disrespectful is none other than Mildred Loving. Unlike Ms. Richardson, Mrs. Loving understood that people are people, and all people are entitled to equal rights. Here's what she said on the subject:
My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.
In her overweening arrogance, Ms. Richardson is not ashamed to castigate gay people for saying exactly the same thing about Loving v. Virginia that Mildred Loving herself said. How very dishonesty, unseemly, and, above all, disrespectful.
Mildred Loving said:
My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.
In her overweening arrogance, Ms. Richardson is not ashamed to castigate gay people for saying exactly the same thing about Loving v. Virginia that Mildred Loving herself said. How very dishonesty, unseemly, and, above all, disrespectful.
Mildred Loving said:
My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.
In her overweening arrogance, Ms. Richardson is not ashamed to castigate gay people for saying exactly the same thing about Loving v. Virginia that Mildred Loving herself said. How very dishonest, unseemly, and, above all, disrespectful.
Rather than arguing the merits of Bois' and Olson's case (which are freely available online and not reflected here), Ms Richardson sets up her own straw men to argue against so that she might appear to be the victor in conquering nonexistent arguments.
Let me state this clearly for you and let's see if you can understand the difference: This claim for equal rights is not predicated on the past discrimination against African Americans, but rather on the *abolition* of that discrimination. And that is exactly the opposite of what Ms Richardson argues here. This is a case about ending unjust discrimination based on Loving v. Virginia's central argument: that it violates the 14th amendment's guarantee of due process and equal protection.
Ultimately, the heart of the gay marriage debate lies in the single, quite dubious sentence Ms Richardson hangs her entire position on:
"The Loving case has no similarity whatsoever to the issue of gay marriage or homosexuality, since skin color is morally neutral."
The obvious implication is that being homosexual is a moral issue--an immoral choice, in other words. And what is this assertion based on? She offers no evidence. Indeed, the evidence of sexual orientation being a choice is scant, but there are mountains of evidence to the contrary--in humans and hundreds of other species as well. (I urge skeptics to google the words, "homosexuality in animals.")
We will never approach consensus on this core question until people do a proper amount of homework to educate themselves. As a token beginning, please find 5 homosexual people who are arguably more expert on their own sexuality than you are on theirs, and ask them, "Is it a choice that you made to be gay?" Then ask 5 more, and keep asking until you see a pattern. Such an exercise is not conclusive evidence, but it is highly suggestive and far more compelling than simply making assertions about other people's inner workings based solely on your own gut feelings.
Do the exercise; ask homosexuals that question. It is your civic responsibility to understand this fully before repeating yet again the sad mistake of discrimination.
Equality, by definition, is for all people, not just for some. That is a fundamental value America has been slow to live up to from her inception, but with hard work, mistakes are being changed, as that long arc continues to point toward justice.
Mrs. Richardson,
I suggest you read some of the religious tracks from the time before interracial marriage was legal. You will find that at the time skin colour was considered anything but morally neutral. The moral pollution of white women by contact with non-white skin individuals was the very arguments made. The fact that you are now free to live in a world where you can make the statement that skin colour is morally neutral marks what progress has been made.
You wrote: "The Loving case has no similarity whatsoever to the issue of gay marriage or homosexuality, since skin color is morally neutral."
But, sexual orientation is likewise morally neutral. Certain sexual behaviors have a moral component (promiscuity, prostitution, rape, incest, etc.), but sex only becomes a morals issue when it touches how one person treats another--their conduct, motive, and so forth.
To pretend that being attracted to a person of the same sex is a "moral" issue is like saying people who are attracted to blondes instead of brunette are immoral, or tall instead of short, or large breasts instead of baby-bearing hips, or whatever. I don't believe science has found what causes attraction, but most agree it has nothing to do with 'choice'.
Same sex relationships are as multi-faceted as hetero marriages -- it's not just the sex! It is compatibility, shared goals, common values and interests, and so much more.
I've more fully addressed your 'rant' on my blog.
http://www.raywhiting.com/MyLife/?p=2843
You wrote: "The Loving case has no similarity whatsoever to the issue of gay marriage or homosexuality, since skin color is morally neutral."
But, sexual orientation is likewise morally neutral. Certain sexual behaviors have a moral component (promiscuity, prostitution, rape, incest, etc.), but sex only becomes a morals issue when it touches how one person treats another--their conduct, motive, and so forth.
To pretend that being attracted to a person of the same sex is a "moral" issue is like saying people who are attracted to blondes instead of brunette are immoral, or tall instead of short, or large breasts instead of baby-bearing hips, or whatever. I don't believe science has found what causes attraction, but most agree it has nothing to do with 'choice'.
Same sex relationships are as multi-faceted as hetero marriages -- it's not just the sex! It is compatibility, shared goals, common values and interests, and so much more.
I've more fully addressed your 'rant' on my blog.
Very well articulated, Ms. Richardson.
"For many years now, I have been an outspoken supporter of civil and human rights for gay and lesbian people," King said at the 25th Anniversary Luncheon for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.... "Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement," she said. "Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions."
- Coretta Scott King, Chicago Tribune quote, April 1, 1998
NOW is the time to fight for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender Freedom...
The civil rights movement will continue until all people of all color achieve equality regardless of gender expression & identity or the gender of the person we love. Stand against discrimination and Sit-In for Equality!
http://www.sitin4equality.net/
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=99622486859
Gwen, Stop using the word homosexual! It is oppressive language.
God (or nature, for those who are nonbelievers) made mankind to be heterosexual. That is why males have the inate nature, body parts and functions they have, which complements females who have opposite inate nature, body parts and functions. These complementary beings come together to reproduce to replenish the earth.
No males are born with a womb to bear children, no females are born with the parts to produce sperm. These are scientific facts -- we are all born heterosexual. We are also born into sin, which means that we can decide if we want to deviate from God's intended design. There is no science whatsoever that proves a gay gene or orientation. These are concepts that have been promoted by gays and their supporters to justify all of the other "rights" they are seeking.
As far as interviewing gay individuals, there is a web site that would be very beneficial to Christian believers called: http://www.p4cm.com. These are young people who have been homosexual and have given their lives to Christ. They all provide individual testimonies of how they got involved in homosexuality. Very enlightening and it is done in a non-graphic way to protect the sensibilities of those who prefer not to hear all of the details.
The aggressive, belligerent attitudes of gay activists is creating a backlash. A new CBS poll released June 17th shows there has been a 9-point drop in support for gay marriage since April of this year. Of course, you won't hear about this in the mainstream media, because they only promote the pro-gay side of the debate. After the disgraceful way Miss California was treated for simply stating that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and the attitude among gay activists that gay marriage could immediately become a nationwide trend, some people have finally begun to wake up. This is a fight that Christians must engage in. The future of the next generation of children depends upon it.
Oh Gwen, you are in way over your head and desperately talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Your line, "God made mankind to be heterosexual" is a baseless assertion. It may be one that you believe, but it is nonetheless one that you cannot prove. Now you've backed yourself into a corner of having to both prove the existence of God and proving that you know what his or her thoughts are. So go ahead, prove your compound claim. And be forewarned, that biblical references will both open your arguments to further scrutiny as well as plunge you deep into a violation of the first amendment when it comes to basing civil law on your particular religion.
Next, you attempt a switch from the supernatural to the scientific...and fail. Googling "Swyer syndrome," "de la Chapelle syndrome," and countless other conditions will clue you into the fact that there are walking among us genetically male women and genetically female men. It may confuse you, but it's true. There are further individuals with XXY, XXYY, and many other combinations of chromosomes which do not readily fit into your neat categories of what you assert God intended. Genetic and other biological research is only beginning to scratch the very complex surface of what we understand as sexuality, such as genetically and chemically altering fruit flies' sexuality (cf: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316316,00.html ). To pretend that you understand the monstrously complex fields of genetics, epigenetics, and biology is on its face, absurd. I challenge you to explain and back up your explanation of why people are gay. And please, use science, not things which are not based in reality. I believe you have neither the expertise nor the data to support your claims, yet you still want to deny humans like you the same rights you enjoy.
The website you give may or may not show anecdotal evidence of a handful of people who have altered their sexual orientation. I'm in no more a position to accurately evaluate those claims than you are. But surely you know the quite public cases of John Paulk of Focus on the Family (cf: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/Paulk-Southern%20Voice.html ) and Ted Haggard, who, despite all their efforts to change their sexual orientation, have been unable to.
Your claim of a drop in support for gay marriage is willfully misleading (a white lie, I'd say). You know as well as anyone that the aggregate trend over the past ten years is overwhelmingly moving in support of gay marriage. Polls of young people show particularly high support and are highly suggestive of the balance of attitudes in the years to come.
Ultimately, your rebuttal relies on the supernatural, which cannot be proven, and the scientific, which disproves your arguments, and finally, a knowing distortion of the truth which is easily exposed. Google the words "support for gay marriage poll" anytime you like and look at the long-term trends. Oh yeah I forgot, your argument relies on conspiracy theory as well.
Evidence, it seems, plays no part in your life, and equality, it seems, is something you do not take to heart.
Equality:
Regardless of your introduction of fruit flies and x-y chromosomes into the conversation, I repeat my earlier statement: Two men cannot reproduce and neither can two women. A lesbian couple can borrow sperm from a male to create a child, but they still cannot reproduce together.
I responded to the earlier statement you made that an interview with 5 homosexuals would change my opinion and, in response, I directed readers to a web site where they can indeed see interviews with more than 5 homosexuals, all of whom were delivered through the power of Jesus Christ. Obviously, these are not the "right kind" of homosexuals for you since, apparently, in your opinion, only homosexuals who believe there is no hope of changing (or who do not desire to change) have a valid viewpoint.
I again refer readers to the organization Passion For Christ Movement www.p4cm.com. This is an awesome group of young people who are addressing this issue head on, taking it to the streets, and they have developed a tremendous support group for homosexuals who do want to change and believe that, through Christ, all things are possible.
Gwen Richardson, a stupid, played out bitter argument. Get over it, sister. This is CIVIL RIGHTS. Get used tothe fact that when you look in the index of an American history book, you are going to see under "Civil Rights", "Black"........followed by "GAY". :-)
Say whatever makes you hot under your collar, life will just GO ON. No one cares about your silly, backyard opinions based on hatred for YOUR OWN "How you Doin's". Too bad it's whites, asians and latinos leading the pack. Because of people who think backward like you, Blacks will continue to get infected more than any other group. Jesus loves you, but the rest of us SANE people think your an a-hole.
Enjoy the anger, simmer in it if you must. WE SHALL OVERCO-O-OME!!
Gwen Richardson, a stupid, played out bitter argument. Get over it, sister. This is CIVIL RIGHTS. Get used tothe fact that when you look in the index of an American history book, you are going to see under "Civil Rights", "Black"........followed by "GAY". :-)
Say whatever makes you hot under your collar, life will just GO ON. No one cares about your silly, backyard opinions based on hatred for YOUR OWN "How you Doin's". Too bad it's whites, asians and latinos leading the pack. Because of people who think backward like you, Blacks will continue to get infected more than any other group. Jesus loves you, but the rest of us SANE people think your an a-hole.
Enjoy the anger, simmer in it if you must. WE SHALL OVERCO-O-OME!!
Yeah, the Black church is a damning little place isn't it? lol Family should matter, but Blacks put God and some Book over another human life. Some of us secular Black people are moving on to other things. More important things like caring about another person and not trying to bang Jesus on their head with that ridiculous banter.
Gwen, your response is replete with errors, but I will do my best to tackle them one at a time. And just as in your essay where you make arguments against things Bois and Olson never claimed, you continue your same straw man approach with me.
First, your statement:
"Regardless of your introduction of fruit flies and x-y chromosomes into the conversation, I repeat my earlier statement: Two men cannot reproduce and neither can two women."
You may be unaware of this, but drosophila (AKA, the fruit fly) is one of the most important model organisms in genetics research. It is through much research on fruit flies that scientists have gained tremendously important knowledge relating to humans. To dismiss that point is to show off a basic lack of familiarity with genetics.
If you recall, it was you who made the statement that men do not have certain parts, and women do not have certain other parts. My introduction of X and Y chromosomes was done specifically to show that your statement--which many people would agree with--is false if you use either body parts or chromosomes as sufficient conditions for being named one sex or another. This more rigorous analysis seems clearly beyond your previous consideration, but simply put, it is true. Try as we all might to stuff nature into neat categories that we are comfortable with, nature has no obligation to comply with such man-made concepts. The word is more complex than you can obviously imagine.
And that brings us to the third part of your above statement. You are wrong when you claim that you stated "Two men cannot reproduce...." You never made that claim--show its location if I'm wrong. Regardless of this attempt at setting up another straw man argument, you simply dig yourself a deeper hole if you now want to argue that civil rights should be based on whether a couple can have children together. The arguments to counter such myopic and selfish thinking are stacked and ready if you dare.
As for your "response" to my challenge, you again offer an answer to a challenge that was never made. I did not ask that you link me to a website that may show either an honest representation or paid actors...we don't know from looking at a website who those people are as we have no independent access to them. (I did nevertheless note that virtually all of them said they think they were either born gay or that it always felt natural to them. The one story of a person who said she wasn't born gay was a secondhand story told by a person on that website about a person who we don't even know exists--that's hearsay about hearsay, not credible evidence.)
No, the challenge was for you to go interview 5 gay people yourself (as in you, in person, not just a visit to a website) and ask them if they chose to be gay. If needed, ask another 5 and another until you see a trend. Don't do this for my sake, but for your own firsthand experience. I won't tell you what conclusions you should draw, but it will at least give you independent access to the subjects about whom you are to make some evaluation.
In the end, I will say that nobody, not you, not your pastor, not any scientist or gay rights activist knows yet why people are gay. Still, you and others want to limit people's civil rights based on something you continue to blindly assert is a choice and virtually every gay person will tell you that they never made any such choice. Ever.
Please, do your homework. Learn science and read scientific journals with reputations that have brought you countless scientific, medical, and technological advances, not opinion pieces rooted in unproven supernatural dogma and written by people who believe a man lived inside of a whale for 3 days, another lived to 969 years old, another died and returned to life (uh, what's the definition of death?).
The tragedy of people like you who are otherwise likely good people is that in trying so hard to do what you believe is the right thing (and I actually don't doubt that), you are instead doing exactly the wrong thing and causing tremendous damage to the very people you claim to want to help. Please, find it in your heart to actually interview some gay people chosen at random, and hear their stories.
I'll add one minor point, Gwen: You brought up the issue of genetics, yet you question me bringing up recent genetics research. As noted already, fruit flies are often where basic genetics research starts. Their well-known genome is a much more suitable landscape for experimentation through actual changing of the organism's genetics than is that of a human subject, for obvious reasons.
If you want to look further, I suggest doing some reading on studies about sexual orientation and identical human twins. It is fascinating and confusing, and you will quickly see that anyone who pretends to claim definitive knowledge about whether being gay is a choice will certainly look the fool.
Pay particular attention to references made to epigenetics, the name of the mechanism by which identical DNA can produce very different outcomes. That word alone should be quite high on your "to read about" list if you ever want to argue competently about genetics and sexual orientation.
http://www.google.com/search?q=gay+twins+study&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Equality:
I have already addressed your genetic argument and will not deal with it further. My position is clear and supported by thousands of years of human existence and reproduction.
Regarding interviewing homosexuals, I am not a journalist and wrote my op-ed as a private citizen. But, for the sake of discussion, if I were to interview 5 homosexuals, where would you suggest I start, since homosexuals are not necessarily easily identifiable? Black people are easy to spot just by the color of our skin. Gays are not, as so often pointed out by gay activists. Would one go to a gay bar, stop people on the street? Even if I were to entertain such a notion, it would be an invasion of privacy, to say the least, and I do believe in the right to privacy.
The interviews that I mentioned that are online included about a dozen people who are speaking in great detail about how they started participating in homosexual or bisexual activities. They have already made a decision to go public with their experience. Many of their experiences were very similar to each other. Their public statements are good enough for me.
I have apparently sorely overestimated you.
If your position is that sexual orientation does not have a genetic, epigenetic, biochemical, or other inborn origin, then your position has zero or nearly zero scientific support. You have been given ample opportunity to offer scientific support for that position and to counter the peer reviewed studies I gave links to. Thus far, you seem to ignore such studies and would seem to favor instead the expertise of your "gut" feelings about complex scientific questions over published scientific research. That's beyond absurd.
If, however, your position is that since a "gene for homosexuality" has not been identified, it does not exist--nor does any epigenetic, biochemical, or other inborn cause exist, then either your logic is lacking or your arrogance is doing a little too well. I would point out to you that it wasn't until 3.5 years ago that a gene for skin color variation was identified--in zebrafish, by the way (another model organism for genetics research like the fruit fly). Prior to that discovery, would you have similarly said that such a skin color gene does not exist? The Higgs Boson has been theorized for 45 years, but not yet discovered. From that information, can you tell particle physicists now if it exists? Of course not.
On my challenge to ask 5 gay people if being gay was a choice for them, you do not need to be a journalist to research a subject before writing about it. That's simply called "trying not to look like an idiot."
Although you're clearly just weaseling to come up with excuses why you shouldn't now research something you've already written about, I'll play along as if you're being sincere.
I have in fact spoken to nearly a hundred gay and lesbian people about this subject, and I can tell you that the overwhelming majority will show you no hesitation if asked politely. And where would you go, you ask? A gay bar or neighborhood as you suggest would be fine, or you could contact any of the resources listed on this page: http://www.hglbtcc.org/resources.htm or the Houston chapter of PFLAG: http://www.pflaghouston.org/. Many of those organizations can alleviate your fear of offending gays and lesbians if you tell them that you are simply trying to educate yourself, especially PFLAG. You'd be surprised what a simple phone call could do.
But somehow I suspect it's not offending people you're most afraid of. What you're really afraid of is learning something--learning that you're wrong.
To that I say, be strong and face that fear. It will be easier than you think.
I have apparently sorely overestimated you.
If your position is that sexual orientation does not have a genetic, epigenetic, biochemical, or other inborn origin, then your position has zero or nearly zero scientific support. You have been given ample opportunity to offer scientific support for that position and to counter the peer reviewed studies I gave links to. Thus far, you seem to ignore such studies and would seem to favor instead the expertise of your "gut" feelings about complex scientific questions over published scientific research. That's beyond absurd.
If, however, your position is that since a "gene for homosexuality" has not been identified, it does not exist--nor does any epigenetic, biochemical, or other inborn cause exist, then either your logic is lacking or your arrogance is doing a little too well. I would point out to you that it wasn't until 3.5 years ago that a gene for skin color variation was identified--in zebrafish, by the way (another model organism for genetics research like the fruit fly). Prior to that discovery, would you have similarly said that such a skin color gene does not exist? The Higgs Boson has been theorized for 45 years, but not yet discovered. From that information, can you tell particle physicists now if it exists? Of course not.
On my challenge to ask 5 gay people if being gay was a choice for them, you do not need to be a journalist to research a subject before writing about it. That's simply called "trying not to look like an idiot."
Although you're clearly just weaseling to come up with excuses why you shouldn't now research something you've already written about, I'll play along as if you're being sincere.
I have in fact spoken to nearly a hundred gay and lesbian people about this subject, and I can tell you that the overwhelming majority will show you no hesitation if asked politely. And where would you go, you ask? A gay bar or neighborhood as you suggest would be fine, or you could contact any of the resources listed on this page: http://www.hglbtcc.org/resources.htm or the Houston chapter of PFLAG: http://www.pflaghouston.org/. Many of those organizations can alleviate your fear of offending gays and lesbians if you tell them that you are simply trying to educate yourself, especially PFLAG. You'd be surprised what a simple phone call could do.
But somehow I suspect it's not offending people you're most afraid of. What you're really afraid of is learning something--learning that you're wrong.
To that I say, be strong and face that fear. It will be easier than you think.
A lot of you are missing her point. If you look at the issue, blacks have been used as pawns to advance the cause of several organizations in the name of civil rights.
Gee, Anonymous, maybe you'd like to give a few examples to back up your claim?
Gwen Richardson's very explicit point is that Loving v. Virginia "has no similarity whatsoever to the issue of gay marriage," directly contradicting Mildred Loving's own assessment almost exactly two years ago.
We get Richardson's point just fine. If you have a different point to make, make it and back it up with fact.
FIRST OF ALL CIVIL RIGHTS IS WHAT IT IS AND IT WILL ALWAYS BE AND THE GAY WHATEVER HAS NOT EARNED THE RIGHT TO USE NOTHING THAT WE HAVE AS
A PEOPLE. THAT GROUP OF PEOPLE IS NON-N-VOID TO ME...
READ YOUR BIBLE AND REPENT FOR YOUR SINS,FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS AT HAND!!
^ Wow, I'm sure I'm sure the author appreciates an even lower life form than herself making such a "persuasive" argument on her behalf. LOL, what a moron.
"A lot of you are missing her point. If you look at the issue, blacks have been used as pawns to advance the cause of several organizations in the name of civil rights."
Some people, like Mildred Loving and Dr. & Mrs. Martin Luther King, believe in civil rights for all people. Some people, like Gwen Richardson, believe African-Americans (except, of course, for gay African-Americans) have a monopoly on civil rights advocacy, and that civil rights should be denied to gay people. People like Ms. Richardson are bigots as surely as Lester Maddox ever was.
The barefaced hypocrisy of someone like Ms. Richardson claiming that gay people are misappropriating the legacy of Mildred and Richard Loving is astounding. In reality, it's Ms. Richardson who is misappropriating the Loving legacy in her attempt to promote ignorance and bigotry that Mildred Loving explicitly denounced.
Obviously, the author is not familiar with how the legal process works. Otherwise, she would know that lawyers work by analogizing fact patterns between cases, and that there are indeed similarities between the African-American and gay struggle for civil rights. Fortunately, ignorant people such as herself don't make laws in this country.
If you want civil rights, go get them, but don’t compare a diseased driven relationship with being African Americans. A college education will only help you know more information. It will not help you fight AIDS in your body. You need to be educated.
Gwen, hold to this point. It is the truth. There is no hate in this objection. These people use the word hate to intimidate others. But it will not work. They must hate God. There isn’t one place in God’s speech where he agrees with this sexual practice.
Black JD, are you saying that it is okay for one man to put his penis in the rectum of another?
Black JD, are you saying that it is okay for one man to put his penis in the rectum of another?
Frank, the supreme law of this land says the answer to your question is yes, it is okay:
"Held: The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause."
For your reference:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html
Your private sexual practices have no bearing on my life and are of no interest to me.
Anonymous, Can Texas stop AIDS, because condoms cant.
Anonymous (062509), I am willing to dialogue with any one that can see the entire picture of truth. Private sexual practices should concern all of us if that practice leads to STD and unwanted pregnancy. If bestiality doesn’t concern you, then we may have to look at society as a whole and wonder if we are being hypocritical or just plain don’t care until the barn is next door. I have to say that comments like this are a cop-out. Wait until someone moves next door and it is discovered that one of them has AIDS (regardless of how they got it). Wait until someone living next to you is having constant group sexual acts, then let’s see if you are not concerned. People have made these same statements, then, when it came close to them, they showed their hypocrisy.
The link for the study you gave doesn’t reduce the cost of health care after STD spread. It doesn't ease the strain on the economy as a result of caring for dead beat daddy’s children, and crime committed by kids where there are no fathers in the home. These above negatives are clearly a concern for us, but who cares about private sexual acts? We should be concern, even though we can only voice our opinion and pray.
Except for a good sexual feeling, can you please tell me what the compatibility of same sex intercourse or marriage is?
Stace, where are you moving on to? Give me one moral law that is greater than the laws in the Bible. So, you are saying forget God. Okay, go ahead and forget him, but dont call on him or ask for prayer when you cant handle a crisis.
I have a question. I am asking this to understand, please do not blast me with derogatory remarks. It is intimated that one of the reasons that gay marriage is wrong is because they can't procreate. That they can't have children. Does that mean that heterosexual people that can't procreate aren't allowed to marry? I was born 2.5 months early and because of that, my ovaries didn't develop. I can't have children. Does that deny me the right to marry because I am unable to bear children? Second, it is a biological fact that there are hermaphroditic children born. The organ that is more developed determines the sex of the child. Who out there is to say that when the child hits puberty, that there isn't a radical hormonal change that can cause that kind of behavior. Secondly, if there are 3 children in the family, all raised the same, why does one turn out gay? The same goes for identical twins. Why is one twin gay while the other is not? These are questions that we still do not have the answer to because we are unable to figure out the answer. If there is so much controversy regarding the nature/nuture of homosexuality and bisexuality, then why are there people making concrete judgements as to how bad these people are. For those that want to bandy about Bible verses: "Judge not others lest ye be judged in accordance. Why do you point out the speck in your brother's eye, yet have not removed the plank from your own?" Matthew 7: 1-4