The (created) social controversy focuses on whether our society as a whole should be forced (not only to recognize but to accept) alternative lifestyles and religions, to the exclusion and denial of individual faith and the moral beliefs held by the majority of Americans. During the past century millions of immigrants coming to this country were expected to assimilate this country’s language and certain customs. However, that assimilation was never all inclusive to the point of required abandonment of individual religion or specific ethnic customs. What was required by socialization, was the learning of the English language and respect for existing customs and religious holiday observances.
No different than what would reasonably be expected from Americans immigrating to another country. It is argued that government is not attempting to force anyone to become a homosexual or atheist or socialist, that government is only seeking to allow these groups to become legitimate members of our society “along side others.” My agreement is to the singular point of legitimacy being the true goal of egalitarian deceit. Legitimacy is precisely the goal being sought by homosexuals and other groups representing sexual, religious and political philosophies that are diametrically opposed to traditional Christian and American values and moral beliefs. Legitimacy is the end game of egalitarianism and socialism.
Webster defines legitimacy as follows:Main Entry: 1le·git·i·mate Pronunciation: li-'ji-t&-m&tFunction: adjectiveEtymology: Middle English legitimat, from Medieval Latin legitimatus, past participle of legitimare to legitimate, from Latin legitimus legitimate, from leg-, lex law1 a : lawfully begotten; specifically : born in wedlock b : having full filial rights and obligations by birth 2 : being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false
I included these definitions only to illustrate my points. While I am quite familiar with the (in your face confrontationalism) of homosexuality in America, I am surprised that anyone not previously blinded by that level of rhetoric would so easily be drawn into the propagandized version of the homosexual altered state of reality.
Specifically, “we’re here, we’re queer, so live with it.” In my opinion, simplistic catch phrases such as that or other examples such as “no justice, no peace,” or a hundred others are no more than hollow misrepresentations of a maligned truth and altered reality.
Homosexuals have a deep seated ignominy concerning their (assigned or chosen) lifestyle. Therefore, their desire for legitimacy of that lifestyle is perceived as the only realistic social salve or curative measure capable of bringing relief from the recognized stigmatization that has historically attached to their specific behavior. Many people will maintain that they “can live with it” as it concerns acceptance of the reality that there are homosexuals. Therefore, ther should be no conflict socially.
In that context, I too can live with the plain and simple reality of the existence of homosexulaity. However, I cannot live within the context of compromising my own values or religious beliefs on the false alter of acceptance, tolerance and inclusion, when in reality the compromise neing sought is not acceptance, tolerance or inclusion but rather legitimacy.
As Americans, we are not simply being asked to recognize homosexuality, we are being “told” to legitimize homosexuality as a “moral” alternative, or suffer being relegated to the demonized classes of bigots and extremists. Once again, these attempts at pseudo moralizations (to demonize and marginalize the opposition) only serve to bring into clearer perspective the very point being concealed by the camouflage of egalitarian acceptance and inclusion.
Those cognizant of the illegitimacy and immorality of the homosexual lifestyle, are seeking morality and legitimacy by virtue of concealing their intent inside the cloak of social inclusion and acceptance. (Egalitarian deceit) Therefore, it is (believed) that by default, legitimacy and morality can be conveyed by acceptance and assimilation into mainstream religious and moral definitions. The only thing that must be accomplished is that the acrimonious definitions of morality must first be changed to accommodate the desired more inclusive definition. As for me? I don’t accept the “we’re here, we’re queer, so live with it” philosophy of homosexual confrontationalism.
No more than I would accept the Jihadist Muslim extremists philosophy of “we’re here, so be in fear and live with it.” Its not a simple matter of “joining up” or not joining up or any of the other simplistic conceptualizations of justifying peaceful coexistence and acceptance. We are not discussing peaceful coexistence, we are discussing the unconditional surrender of Christian moral values. I have addressed the “threat of homosexuality” creatively represented by the use of marginalizations such as the term “homophobia” on many occasions.
To properly understand the creative birth of the term, you must look at the word origin and what it was contrived to represent. (Homo-phobia) Obviously a compound word or the morphing together of two words to create the desired representation. However, the key to this particular creation of vernacular is derived by the choice of conjoining the word “phobic.”What is a “phobic?”
Main Entry: pho·bia Pronunciation: 'fO-bE-&Function: nounEtymology: -phobia: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.
So by definition, a “homophobic” would tend to denote any individual that possessed an “exaggerated, inexplicable, or illogical fear, of a class of objects?” Or any individual, that harbored a “exaggerated, inexplicable, or illogical fear of a (homosexual) situation?” I maintain that fear of homosexuals or the fear of coexistence with homosexuals is only a reality that exist in the homosexual realm of reality. I know of no individual that I have ever come in contact with that was fearful of homosexuals. However, I have come into contact with a countless number of individuals that have expressed fear of being the subject of unso;icited homosexual advances or of being placed in forced homosexual social settings, by virtue of the laxity of our current social standards, forced acceptance and the lack of moral responsibility in our society concerning the tolerance of abrasive and aggressive homosexual conduct.
While homosexuals may like to believe that heterosexuals are afraid of homosexuals or that heterosexuals are afraid “to explore” their own sexuality, the reality is that (it is) homosexuals that are afraid of heterosexuals when the issue of human sexuality is examined with critical analysis. It is homosexuals that seek legitimacy for a lifestyle and behavior that has been recognized as immoral and condemned for millennia by every known religion and moral culture throughout history. While the Roman’s and the Greek’s may be exampled as having been the cradles of knowledge, wisdom and philosophy, the degradation of their morality was the ultimate causative factor behind the demise of their cultures.
It is not a simple issue of fear as represented by the obvious inflective use of innuendo and the use of false phraseology. Nor is it an issue of the right to be open concerning one’s particular philosophies, sexuality or lifestyle. A consistent theme of pursuit by homosexuals for a generation, has been to “come out”, to be able to openly express their sexuality without fear of reprisal or condemnation. To be able to openly interact at all levels of society while clearly representing their sexuality as a badge of honor as opposed to a title of shame. While that perspective is clearly reflective of the egalitarian desire of inclusiveness, in reality it is yet another example of a “Trojan Horse” argument, designed to deflect from the shallowness of the argument supporting the recognition being sought. Which is to afford equal ligitimacy to homosexuality on a moral level.
I once had a specific conversation with a man that was a leader in the “homosexual community” in Atlanta. He attempted to explain to me why it was important that the Mayor of Atlanta have an “openly gay” member of his cabinet, in order to facilitate and address the concerns of the gay community in Atlanta. To which I simply asked him to define the term openly gay? As he explained it, openly gay meant to be open about personal homosexuality and to openly express allegiance and association with the homosexual lifestyle in daily social interactions. After which I asked him if that was not in fact a double standard? A standard by which and a status of which, I as a heterosexual was in fact being discriminated against because of?
He assured me that I had every right and equal ability to openly express my heterosexuality the same as any homosexual; therefore, As long as I was afforded the same rights and abilities, how could that be considered discrimination? I explained very simply, that were I to openly express my heterosexuality outside the comforts of my own home and my chosen sexual partner (my wife) then I would immediately be assailed for committing the punishable offense of “sexual harassment! I also pointed out that as a heterosexual, I have no explicit fear of homosexuality or homosexuals and that I was not in any fear of my own sexuality or any latent homosexual feelings or tendencies. However, I did express then and I do express now, that the currently existing social acceptance of open homosexuality as a concept of inclusiveness is by default a deceitful representation of illegitimacy masquerading as legitimacy.
I also maintain that being forced by political and egalitarian pressures to accept open homosexuality is by default as threatening as heterosexual “sexual harassment” and constitutes a clear and obvious injury to the heterosexual majority of society.
No different than many examples involving men that have been preyed upon by homosexuals in everyday contact, we all have fallen victim to homosexual advances during the course of everyday life. No different from women that have been victims of heterosexual sexual harassment historically, heterosexual Americans can become the victims of homosexual harassment by virtue of existing homosexual social status and protection pf homosexuals as a class. The main difference being, that homosexuality has attained a socially protected status that not only openly proscribes homosexuality as a reasonable and viable sexual alternative, but also promotes it as a socially protected class above the rights afforded to heterosexual Americans.
Therefore, I don’t buy in to the clever manipulations of social inclusion or the subterfuge deployed by egalitarian principles to justify or award legitimacy by default to an abhorrent and immoral behavior. As it concerns the BSA holding a congressional charter, the BSA was in fact chartered by congress in 1916. As recently as 2000 attempts have been made to revoke the BSA’s “honorary congressional charter.” BILL TO CUT SCOUTS' CONGRESSIONAL CHARTER INTRODUCED; PRESSURE BUILDS ON CLINTON TO RESIGN BSA POST Web Posted: July 22, 2000 house lawmakers have introduced legislation that would authorize Congress to repeal its 84-year old honorary charter for the Boy Scouts of America because of the BSA's discriminatory policies.
The measure, H.R. 4892, was introduced by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif), and cited the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision which declared that the Scouting organization was an "expressive association" and could discriminate on the basis of sexuality when hiring troop leaders. "We're not saying they're bad," Woolsey declared. "We're saying intolerance is bad, and I don't see any reason why the federal government should be supporting it."
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/bsa6.htm
Additional excerpt: The Congressional Charter was presented to the Boy Scouts of America in 1916, six years after its founding. Approximately 90 other groups also have Charters, which are given in recognition of patriotic, charitable and educational work. The status does not include any public funding, but Rep. Woolsey said that it "gives the impression that an organization has a congressional seal of approval."A review of this article clearly reveals the egalitarian attack on the BSA by virtue of the issue of the BSA’s lack of inclusion of homosexuals into its organization which does not advocate or support homosexuality. While the BSA possesses a charitable status, so do many other organizations in America including the NAACP and NAMBLA and a variety of other organizations devoted to minorities, sexual orientation and religion.
Therefore, the correlation that charitable status automatically denotes receipt of government funding by virtue of a non taxable status is a weak association of guilt based upon a specious representation of the facts at best. While many may find it difficult to understand how (some) people of faith or traditional values might feel threatened by the homosexual lifestyle, the reality of truth and the existing societal approval of homosexuality paints a different picture. How the fear exists that socially approved homosexuality might in some way steal away the children of the righteous, or religiously moral, is in truth a rather simple reality when viewed in the context of the mandated social acceptance of homosexuality and inclusion.
Faith in their traditional moral beliefs and their belief in God and his word reveals to most Americans the heresy and immorality of homosexuality. That personal faith also commands that the “moral” actively resist what Jesus referred to as an “abomination.“ Those of faith are also disposed to actively refute any attempt to moralize or bestow moral equality on a decidedly and historically abhorrent and immoral behavior. That same personal faith also reveals to most Americans the hollowness of representation and shallowness of arguments represented by egalitarianism and socialism, that seek to destroy the moral, religious and social fiber of America. Christians or any other members of historical faiths such as Judaism will not sit idly by while their religious beliefs and institutions are assailed and portrayed as extremist and altered by an approved class of hate mongers.
Nor will heterosexuals peacefully be relegated to the caste of the socially condemned by the not so artful manipulations of our Constitution and our faith. In this country we are free to be what we want to be as long as we don’t harm or injure anyone else. However, the open practice and display of homosexuality is as harmful and as injurious as any other activity or conduct that openly seeks to inflict its perspectives or practices on an unwitting public. Particularly as that concerns the youth of our nation or those incapable of defending themselves from unwarranted and unsolicited sexual advances.
There are laws governing levels of acceptable and permissible conduct in our society. We have strayed from the applicability of law to homosexual advances and homosexual acts perpetrated against the unwilling. That needs to change and the law of sexual harassment needs to be applied equally and not limited to the heterosexual segment of our society. © trickworm 2004
No comments:
Post a Comment