|
|
April 13, 2012 · By Bob Ellis · 1 Comments
Is homosexuality a civil rights issue? Homosexual activists and their “useful idiots” would have us think it is, but that proposition simply doesn’t stand up under the test of logic, reason, consistency, science, morality or history.
Homosexual apologists like to fool people into believing acceptance of homosexual behavior is a civil rights issue by hijacking sympathy for the civil rights movement. They shallowly reason that if it was wrong to discriminate against a person based on skin color, it must be wrong to discriminate against a person based on their sexual behavior.
This “argument” simply doesn’t pass the smell test on any level (at least when one employs intelligence and rational thought to it).
Ask yourself: is it wrong to evaluate or respond to a person differently based on the behavior of that person? If you’re still having trouble with this question, ask yourself: is it wrong to evaluate or respond to a person differently if that person is behaving in an immoral fashion…if that person is behaving in an irrational fashion…if that person is behaving in a self-destructive manner…if that person is behaving in a dangerous manner?
As this video points out, the film “Separate But Equal” shows us, the issue of discrimination and segregation were about skin color, not behavior. The basis upon which Democrats were denying fully rights to black Americans had nothing whatsoever to do with sex, skin color, age, ethnicity, national origin, intelligence or creed…but on the color of their skin.
Ask yourself: is it logical to respond differently toward a person based on the color of their skin…or the color of their hair…or the color of their eyes?
Ask yourself: is it logical to respond differently toward someone who chooses to behave in an immoral and unnatural sexual manner…or to respond differently to someone who chooses to slander others versus someone who does not…or to respond differently to someone who vandalizes public property versus someone who does not…or to respond differently to someone who urinates in public versus someone who does not…or to respond differently to someone who walks naked down the street versus someone who does not?
Ask yourself: is it logical to respond differently toward someone on such a basis as – a student who has done “A” work versus one who has done “F” work but demands an “A” grade…a man who wants to win a “Father of the Year” contest but who has ignored his children when he wasn’t abusing them physically…a person who insists he be given a police badge and patrol car but who has not been hired by the police department or received police academy training…a person who insists they be given a firefighter’s badge and be allowed to fight fires with the fire department even though they have not completed firefighter training?
If you are a rational person, you will easily see the critical difference between these three sets of questions: the first involves innate, morally-neutral physical characteristics that have nothing whatsoever to do with endangering themselves or others, or undermining public safety and the moral fiber necessary to the health of any society…versus the latter two sets of questions that have to do with treating behaviors differently, as well as behaviors which merit (or fail to merit) certain acknowledgements or distinctions.
It really isn’t hard to figure it out, once you stop and think it through logically, is it?
Of course, those who demand that this behavior be accepted as legitimate–and even be rewarded as if it were a positive benefit to society–don’t want you to stop and think about it. In fact, they will say and do anything to distract you from thinking about it logically.
Which is what the entire “homosexuality is a civil right” canard is all about.
When you get down to it, it’s an insult to the struggle that generations of black Americans went through to liken an immoral and unnatural sexual behavior to the color of one’s skin. Don’t forget that Martin Luther King Jr. himself pointed out in his famous “I Have a Dream” speech that the standard for treatment in a healthy society is not “the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.
Evolutionists want everyone to believe their idea is a fact. Evolutionists cultivate a perception that there is a "mountain of evidence" that is monolithic, that proves beyond any doubt that evolution is a fact. The reality is much, much different. Check out this evidence of Creation Magazine Live to learn more of the specifics about the "mountain of evidence" for evolution.
Bishop E.W. Jackson is an outspoken black Christian conservative with a law degree from Harvard. He also was just selected as the nominee for lieutenant governor of Virginia. He is outspoken about limited government and personal freedom, about the importance of family and traditional marriage, and about doing something about the scourge of abortion. In other words, E.W. Jackson stands for everything that the Republican Party once stood for. He's making the Republicans of inclusion squirm.
“ADHD is a prime example of a fictitious disease.” These were the words of Leon Eisenberg, the “scientific father of ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder),” in his last interview before his death. The medical industry is using the guise of helping children to depersonalize and disconnect our children from a healthy, normal upbringing.
Like many conservatives, I once thought Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) was a solid, reliable conservative. Then he joined with the so-called "Gang of 8" in crafting a sellout amnesty proposal that Rubio and some others still claim isn't amnesty even though it clearly is. Now his liberal illegal immigration record in the Florida legislature is coming to light, and some things are suddenly becoming more clear.
Dr. Anthony Levantino is a New Mexico doctor who previously performed 1,200 abortions. After his own daughter died in a tragic accident, he began a process of self examination. He now realizes the truth about abortion.
|
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964 |
