A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

Homosexuality: A Civil Rights Issue?

April 13, 2012   ·   By   ·   1 Comments

merit and conductIs 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.”

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year veteran of the United States Air Force, a political writer for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for nearly 20 years, including a Tea Party leader and organizer since 2009. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Print Friendly
Clip to Evernote
  • DCM7

    It is precisely because of the simple realities you point out that “gays” and their defenders have worked so hard to sell ”sexual orientation” as an innate, unchangeable, morally neutral quality. There is even a lot of inconclusive pseudoscience tossed about to “prove” it to be the case. As with any claim broadcast loudly enough, however blatantly false, there will unfortunately be many who are fooled by it.

    But those who (as you say) employ intelligence and rational thought aren’t fooled. Those who understand what marriage and sexuality are designed for aren’t fooled. And those who know about the real lives of “gays,” as opposed to what we’re supposed to think their lives are like, aren’t fooled.

Wait until we're running your healthcare

   From Americans for Limited Government

Featured Articles


The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter?

Guest Author

They matter a great deal, of course. But which position--pro death penalty or anti death penalty--is actually more likely to protect more innocent human lives from being ended?


USAF Veteran to Talk about Badlands Bomb Plot during Cold War


Bill Casper of Rapid City will photographically present his Badlands Cold War experiences on Saturday, November 9 at the Western Dakota Technical Institute, 9-11 am, an event sponsored by the Black Hills Veterans Writing Group. Casper was in the Air Force from November 1959 until November of 1963 and spent three of those years stationed ...


SOS: Speaking of Seniors - Misunderstanding Costs Money

Woodrow Wilcox

A new client of ours had just turned 65 and started using Medicare. She went to a doctor that she knew for her welcome to Medicare visit. She assumed that everything would be fine. She got a surprise.


ObamaCare May Kill Itself

Robert Romano

Even if Healthcare.gov is fixed, the federal exchanges available on it may yet prove to be the law’s Achilles heel. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is allowing a case to move forward that could gut Obamacare insurance subsidies in 34 states that opted not to implement state-run exchanges.

Ted Cruz speaking at Values Voter Summit in Washington D.C. on October 7, 2011. (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

Ted Cruz Won After All

Rick Manning

Ted Cruz won. Senate Democrats are scrambling to delay the implementation of the very individual mandate they fought to keep in place by choosing to shut down the government. Now, they apparently have seen the light, no longer bamboozled by Obama’s promises that the $600 million healthcare exchange website would work and that all would be OK in the Sebelius fantasy world if the mean Texan just stopped talking.


"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