Sonja Dalton, Americans for Truth’s blogger has claimed again that homosexuals choose to be homosexuals. While even the largest of ex-gay groups says that homosexuality is not a choice Sonja writes on the site today:
“People who have sex with people of the same sex were indeed created equal; however, they choose a lifestyle which is not morally equal nor equally valuable to society. “
Amazingly, Sonja hasn’t been following the Ted Haggard Story where it is going to take a “restoration” team on a 5 year plan to make him straight. I find that whole plan confusing if it is just a choice.
She must also not be following this latest pastor to be out who says:
“.. I can’t tell you the number of nights I have cried myself to sleep, begging God to take this away.”
If it was just a choice, why wouldn’t he just choose to be straight, just like Sonja says we can just choose to be gay. Does anyone but me see how misinformed this is? Why is this women writing on a website for truth, when she doesn’t seem to know the truth?
For all the comparisons that could be made about gay rights and the civil rights fights of the 50s and 60s, one major factor is missing. NONVIOLENCE! Martin Luther King, Jr., C.O.R.E, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and others were at the forefront of the fight and all of them preached nonviolence as the method of choice. It was a choice as they chose peace. It was understood that more hate would not stop hate.
Gay rights activists today could get peace with Church folks if they made the choice for nonviolence, civil disobedience and peace but instead many have chosen violence which anti-gay religious groups will use against us to show that “gays are violent”. Everyone looses when violence is used. How I could get this message around the USA to every homo out there so they choose nonviolence, learn nonviolence, and protest in nonviolent ways? Someone please tell me.
Sadly, this counter protest in Mass. was a perfect example. Pro-gay marriage groups yelled at church protesters, called them names, and disrupted their rally. So now the anti-gay marriage folks went home disliking and hating gays even more. Please show me how this is going to change anything for gays. Groups like Mass Equality are not helping the struggle for rights when they make people hate us more. The goal should always be to bring the truth in love, not more hate.
from the article:
About 100 members of MassEquality shouting “Bigots go home” faced off with the anti-marriage demonstrators.
If Mass Equality had counter protested in silence, handing out stories of gay couples and the need for gay marriage they could have educated our opponents and perhaps changed some minds through education and love. Instead those people left hating gays even more. Those anti-gay protesters are now more threatened by gays than before the protest. Everyone lost in this event. In violence, everyone loses.
If they had chosen nonviolence, this all would be different. There are 100 more reasons to choose peace for every one reason to use violence. (no matter what they shout at you, no matter what they say about you, there is no reason to call them names)
MassEquality said it will counter future anti-gay rallies with a similar show of force.
Here is the scary part of this article, they plan to do this again, so rather than anti-gay people just hating us, and believing we are out to destroy marriage, they will think we are violent too! MassEquality is not helping us, they are hurting us this this type of protest. They should try peace, try nonviolence, they should hand out educational papers to opposing protesters. They should bring the anti-gay people coffee, offer to sit with them and talk, learn from each other instead of calling people “bigots”. If you want change, you must be the change. If you want people to stop calling you evil things, then you need to do the same. You want respect, you must show respect.
“The aftermath of violence is bitterness. The aftermath of nonviolence is the Beloved Community”
Martin Luther King, Jr.
The slippery slope argument that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy is a staple of anti-equality organizations like Focus on the Family. As former Senator Rick Santorum queried earlier this year, “If gender doesn’t matter anymore, why does number matter?”
I haven’t had a good grasp on the merits of this argument – until now.
From the book “How To Win An Argument” by Michael Gilbert:
You will slide down the Slippery Slope unless you remember that different statements need different reasons… Is each of the steps exactly the same?
There are always two questions to be asked about a slippery slope:
1. Is the slope truly slippery?
2. Should the first step be taken?
If each of the steps is just like the previous one, the next question is: Should the first step be taken? If the slope is slippery and the first step must be taken, there is nothing you can do but enjoy the slide and then come at the problem from another direction.
If the first step can be avoided, however, then you should not take it to begin with. In all cases, always reserve judgment on whether the slope is indeed slippery…
So first of all, we’re talking about the equal right to marry one spouse, not the additional right to marry additional spouses. Though I suppose any marriage arrangement outside of one man and one woman would be considered equally non-existent to some. Thus, one “zero” gay marriage would appear to them as equal to one “zero” polygamous marriage, ergo gender equals number.
A pretty basic difference, albeit not for those who
have been are convinced that homosexuality is a perversion. But when it comes to those who politicize this so-called argument, with all the “research” they do to demonize gays, they’ve GOT to be aware of the following.
I found this article fascinating and most of it was new to me. It was thorough and it seems every base was covered. (BTW polygyny = polygamy)
A few highlights:
So far, libertarians and lifestyle liberals approach polygamy as an individual-choice issue, while cultural conservatives use it as a bloody shirt to wave in the gay-marriage debate. The broad public opposes polygamy but is unsure why. What hardly anyone is doing is thinking about polygamy as social policy…
…Polygyny…is a zero-sum game that skews the marriage market so that some men marry at the expense of others…when one man marries two women, some other man marries no woman. When one man marries three women, two other men don’t marry…
Crime rates tend to be higher in polygynous societies. Worse, “high-sex-ratio societies are governable only by authoritarian regimes capable of suppressing violence at home and exporting it abroad through colonization or war.”
Sound familiar? And so far America is only generally sexually repressed, imagine if we were sex-ratio imbalanced on top of it.
…societies become inherently unstable when sex ratios reach something like 120 males to 100 females… The United States as a whole would reach that ratio if, for example, 5 percent of men took two wives, 3 percent took three wives…
…boys could no longer grow up taking marriage for granted. Many would instead see marriage as a trophy in a sometimes brutal competition for wives.
Same-sex marriage stabilizes individuals, couples, communities and society by extending marriage to many who now lack it. Polygamy destabilizes individuals, couples, communities and society by withdrawing marriage from many who now have it.
To legalize polygamy WOULD be the destruction of society, because it would essentially legalize the sentencing of a segment of “legitimate” society, to a lifetime of solitary confinement.
If they gave reasons as compelling as those as to why same-sex marriage was destructive to society, even I’d be against it!
But for contrast – from the Focus on the Family web site:
When posed with the question “Why draw the line at two people?,” same-sex marriage advocate Cheryl Jacques of the Human Rights Campaign said, “Because I don’t approve of that.”
…well, that brings an important question to mind: How come your “because I don’t approve of that” objection to polygamy is more reasonable than my “I don’t approve of that” objection to same-sex “marriage”? (This line has even won strong applause from hostile audiences!)
One would think that with their million$ upon million$, AND the Family “Research” Council at their disposal, Focus on the Family would have been able to determine at least as much as has been presented here – on their own.
The effects of polygamy are inherently opposed to those of same-sex marriage. They’re two completely separate arguments, in practice AND in principle.
[powered by WordPress.]
"Be the change you wish to see in the world"
|« Nov||Jan »|
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
Martin Luther King Jr.
29 queries. 0.364 seconds