Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1 Civil Rights and the LGBT Movement 
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,842
    By Fay Voshell

    According to the study of eugenics conducted by Lutz Kaelber, it wasn't so long ago in my home state of Delaware that homosexuals were arrested, tried, incarcerated, and even sterilized because it was believed that they were mentally defective. It was thought that their genetic makeup ineluctably inclined them to homosexual acts, much as the genes of the Jukes and Kallikak families supposedly inclined them to stupidity, licentiousness, and criminality.

    Since the high tide of the horrific eugenics movement of the 1920s and '30s, Delaware has moved across the spectrum -- from incarceration and sterilization of homosexuals to embracing the entire spectrum of gay rights as promoted by the far left. Delaware's governor Jack Markell and the state's overwhelmingly Democratic legislature now support the LGBT liberation agenda, including gay marriage, as a matter of civil rights.

    Behavioral genetic determinism, once a basis for the state's odium and persecution of gays, is now considered a basis for civil rights.

    How ironic is this? How bizarre is it that both anti- and pro-homosexual activists have utilized arguments based on behavioral genetic determinism but have come to two wildly disparate conclusions?

    The chief reason for the philosophical schizophrenia is that the philosophical bases employed by advocates and persecutors alike have proved infinitely pliable, allowing polar opposite conclusions. Delaware's wildly divergent ambivalence over policies toward gays illustrates the foolhardiness of using contemporary "scientific" hypotheses as infallible bases for the dispensation of human rights.

    Behavioral genetic determinism, the idea that one is pretty much destined to turn out a certain way because of inherited characteristics reinforced by environment, has proved to be a thin reed to lean on when it comes to expanding or disallowing human rights. In fact, the theory has been utilized time and again actually to deprive humans of their rights, as Stephen Jay Gould illustrated in his classic work The Mismeasure of Man.

    The truth is that the substitute religion of racial and behavioral genetic determinism has been an ideological basis of the most egregious assaults on human life and liberty in history, as the 20th century has proved. Few students of history need to be reminded of the regime that used the "science" of genetics to label Jews, Slavs, gypsies, and homosexuals as less than human and therefore worthy of death.

    The state of Delaware's ambivalent attitude toward homosexuals illustrates that here in America, the State that can arbitrarily define human rights can take away those rights in a heartbeat if a particular group becomes an impediment to state policy. While the State may ally itself with a particular genetically identified group for its own cynical political purposes, the status of that group is always in jeopardy, for what the State gives, the State can take away.

    Favoring or disfavoring select classes of human beings become means of expanding the reach of the State, which then forces itself into every sphere of human activity. By employing the techniques of class and racial warfare, the State can demolish institutions, override individual conscience, re-define the family unit, and trash religious freedom -- all in the name of providing inalienable rights to temporarily favored factions who enjoy the advantage of contemporaneous "science."

    Americans who have been seduced by the concept of behavioral genetic determinism must soundly reject it, no matter in what form it reappears.

    After all, who can forget that here in the USA, blacks were once considered inherently inferior because of their genetic makeup? Martin Luther King, who led the effort to guarantee blacks equal rights, insisted that every man, woman, and child has intrinsic, inalienable worth that cannot be infringed upon by the state. He believed that the state has no right to define who is or who is not worthy of human rights.

    The basis for King's beliefs was the ancient Judeo-Christian concept of imago dei, which is the belief that every human being is made in the image of God and therefore of inestimable value that no entity can diminish.

    King followed the reasoning of his spiritual progenitor and mentor, reformer Martin Luther, whose commentary on Genesis reflected on the meaning of man as being made in the image of God as pronounced in Genesis 1: 27-28. "And God said: Let us make man in our own image[.] ... And God created man in His image."

    For Martin Luther the Protestant reformer as well as for Martin Luther King the civil rights leader, no one human being could be dismissed as not belonging to humanity and therefore undeserving of life in its fullest meaning.

    The LGBT movement rejected the concept of imago dei because it was seen as a restrictive, overtly religious concept that depends on authoritative revelation. Conservative Jews, Christians, and Muslims all view homosexuality as against the commands of God. Caught between a rock and a hard place, the LGBT movement opted for a substitute for sacred scriptures and divine revelation. It replaced the Judeo-Christian idea of a sovereign God who gives rules to guide the conduct of humanity and instead embraced the "scientific" infallibility and sovereignty behavioral genetic determinism supposedly supplies.

    In turn, the supposed scientific infallibility provided by the rationale embraced by the LGBT movement means that the movement has become not a civil rights movement, but a revolutionary vanguard of the sexual and political revolution begun in the 1960s. The LGBT movement has used the idea of scientific infallibility and inevitability in order to provide itself an unassailable and authoritative ideological wedge by which it may bypass the tedious process of rational dialogue and institutional reform. The concept of predestined and hereditary proclivities has been linked with the idea of inevitability in order to discourage opposition. Opposition is seen as futile before the inevitability of "progress."

    Such is the radicalism promoted by some members of the LGBT movement that the erasure of the distinction between the sexes is seen as a positive good, as the elimination of sexual differences is seen as making "equality" absolute. By so doing, the movement reveals itself to be an heir of the French Revolution rather than the American Revolution. Leaders of the French Revolution adhered to the notion of "natural equality" enforced by the State. Ultimately, the State was used as a means to reject the moral law entirely; consequently, institutions such as the Roman Catholic Church were abolished and secular Reason elevated as the arbiter of society and its mores.

    As E. Michael Jones writes concerning the "freedoms" sought by one of the founding fathers of the French Revolution:

    Freedom for the Marquis de Sade ... meant willingness to reject the moral law. Unlike St. Augustine, the Marquis de Sade proposed a revolution in sexual morals to accompany the political revolution then taking place in France. ... [T]he rhetoric of sexual freedom was used to engineer a system of covert political and social control.

    America needs to decide if it wants to substitute the ideas of behavioral genetic determinism and supposed historic inevitability of the LGBT agenda for the Judeo-Christian concept of imago dei and the ongoing reformation of society the idea affords.

    Americans need to decide if they will again embrace the core tenets of an ideology that has caused so much suffering -- not just in the U.S., but around the globe. We need to ask ourselves the following: in view of what happened to blacks because of pseudo-scientific ideology, why should we now embrace a so-called civil rights movement that relies on behavioral genetic determinism as its chief ideological basis?

    We need to think about what it means to narrow the definition of the human being by jettisoning the concept of imago dei. We should ask ourselves if we want to elevate a particular race, sex, tribe, behavior, or political faction to special status that excludes the rest of humanity, giving special rights to some but not to all, narrowing the universal to the particular, thus ensuring factionalism. We should wonder about the possible establishment of what amounts to a caste system based on genetic determinism.

    All of us, including those in the LGBT movement, should ask themselves if they want to see the force of the State employed to overturn ancient Western institutions such as marriage between one man and one woman. They need to question whether or not they want the complete disruption and disordering of society in order to comply with radical and extremist demands.

    Consideration of the following should also be included in the discussion: is there a reason others cannot arbitrarily claim a so-called scientific sexual or ethnic identity and demand rights and privileges attendant to that identity, whether it be a penchant for pedophilia (NAMBLA) or an arbitrarily invented ethnic identity such as claimed by Elizabeth Warren? As Justice Antonin Scalia pungently observed in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas:

    State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding[.] ... What a massive disruption of the current social order, therefore, the overruling of Bowers entails.

    Scalia is correct. The entire social order is at stake if the LBGT agenda is enacted.

    The fact is that tides of "scientific" opinion are infinitely and dangerously changeable. The changeability is due to the fact that all so-called "scientific" definitions excluding the concept imago dei are inherently reductionist and infinitely malleable. Therefore, the societal order is always up for grabs.

    It is good to recall, for instance, that "Aryan" was once considered a noble, scientific term denoting an infallible superiority inherent in one's genetic makeup. It was part and parcel of a new societal order. It now is a term so odious that scarcely anyone uses it.

    The tragedy of humanity is that it too often seeks the lower rather than the higher as the key to meaning of life. If at times we humans think too much of ourselves, there are also times when we think too little of ourselves. Humans are more than they themselves and science define them to be. The magnificent concept of the human being as made in the image of God, and thus only a little lower than the angels in the hierarchy of created beings, is infinitely greater a definition.

    There is nothing hateful about calling humans to their higher identity. There is nothing persecutory in urging the re-establishment of the idea that every human being is made in the image of God and possesses inalienable rights no government can take away.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...#ixzz27Jt28dDa
    How is obama working out for you?
    http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/5d569df9-186a-477b-a665-3ea8a8b9b655_zpse9003e54.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15,851
    The following are rights that I get that gays don't get:

    1-.....
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,408
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    The following are rights that I get that gays don't get:

    1-.....

    You can legally marry the person you love, because you are a man and she is a woman, and pay the tax that goes along with it.


    Although I support gay marriage, sometimes I wonder why gay people want it. It means paying the marriage tax, yet not necessarily producing children to claim as dependents to counter-act it to some degree. You might as well be single with no dependents.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    557
    [COLOR="#FFFFFF"]I believe that the LGBT movement is a plan by Satan to destroy marriage, his goal is to try and destroy the ultimate marriage between God and the Church. Think about feminism, the goal is for "equality" and if we allow gays to marry then feminists would say that men and women are interchangeable in relationships and thus come to the conclusion that any "role" is merely socially constructed.

    From what I gathered is that it's not about marriage, rather, it's about destroying society. Feminism and the LGBT feel that everything today is inherently discriminatory and is designed to reward the patriarchy, they want to deny nature of procreation because they feel that being attracting to the opposite sex is actually just socially constructed. Compare this with the fight with gay marriage, gays feel that marriage should be between 2 people that love each other, while the entire concept of marriage is to raise a family with a mother and father and I'm not talking about a female that "thinks" they're a male, or a male that "thinks" they're female.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member LukeEDay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Happy Valley
    Posts
    2,046
    Gay rights is not a civil right. There is nothing in the constitution that says marriage is a right.

    Gays are not treated any different than anyone else, other than legalization of them getting married. That is not a right ...

    I love my God, my country, my flag, and my troops ....
    _ WELFARE IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT! _
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member Madisonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of Michiganistanovia
    Posts
    2,416
    Quote Originally Posted by LukeEDay View Post
    Gay rights is not a civil right. There is nothing in the constitution that says marriage is a right.

    Gays are not treated any different than anyone else, other than legalization of them getting married. That is not a right ...
    The Constitution does not limit the rights government grants to the people. It limits the power of the government over the people.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    Nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal Government given the power to define, regulate, legalize or criminalize marriage. You could try to make a case that the States have this power by omission of any mention of marriage in the Constitution and the application of the 10th. Amendment and States that have passed anti-gay marriage laws have that power based on the 10th, but the Feds have no legal or Constitutional basis for getting involved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15,851
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    You can legally marry the person you love, because you are a man and she is a woman, and pay the tax that goes along with it.


    Although I support gay marriage, sometimes I wonder why gay people want it. It means paying the marriage tax, yet not necessarily producing children to claim as dependents to counter-act it to some degree. You might as well be single with no dependents.
    Um, marriage isn't a right as defined in the Constitution. Next.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    Um, marriage isn't a right as defined in the Constitution. Next.
    rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrskiprrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrskiprrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrskiprrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,265
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    You can legally marry the person you love, because you are a man and she is a woman, and pay the tax that goes along with it.


    Although I support gay marriage, sometimes I wonder why gay people want it. It means paying the marriage tax, yet not necessarily producing children to claim as dependents to counter-act it to some degree. You might as well be single with no dependents.
    Love is only a recent quality of marriage. Most learned to love each other after marriage. Still they have the exact same rights. Either can marry someone of the opposite sex.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrskiprrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrskiprrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrskiprrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
    How is obama working out for you?
    http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/5d569df9-186a-477b-a665-3ea8a8b9b655_zpse9003e54.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •