I think people know that treating folks unfairly – even if you disagree with their lifestyle choice, the fact of the matter is they’re not bothering you.
Well he said something that was true. The first third of the sentence is a personal opinion, which he is entitled to. The middle part is the truly shocking portion because it's true. Obama said that homosexuals make a lifestyle, key word here, "choice". The last part depends on some subjective evaluation so it may or may not be true depending on the POV.
The shocking aspect of this statement is that the official homosexual activist position on same sex attraction is that it is not a choice. The official story is that homosexual attraction is a preexisting condition that is unavoidable. The intelligent POV on the topic is that human beings do in fact have the ability to direct their own passion and sexual expression.
What someone does with their genitals is in fact, a choice. While I'm sure saying so was a huge mistake on Obama's part, he managed to tell the truth.
The last part of his statement is troubling, because while it may have some truth in it, it is the foundation of a lie. The idea that what two consenting adults do in privacy should not be the governments business sounds a cord in most Americans. The idea that government has no business in our personal affairs is a American core value. There is a difference between keeping the government out of peoples business and the idea that homosexuals are not "bothering you".
In American politics the entire concept behind political organizations, activists, or an "agenda" is to get one groups desires promoted over the desires of another group. LBGT activists or marriage equality organizations are by virtue of their existence designed to agitate the populace in order to promote an agenda.
If agents of the government aren't kicking in your door and throwing you into prison for homosexual acts, you have achieved equality under the law. You do not have the right to make other people praise your lifestyle, grant you access to their place of worship, bake you cakes, deliver flowers or avoid expressing opinions that make you feel bad. Using the government to enforce your world view on your neighbors isn't equality. It is tyranny.
Tyranny brought on by legislature, activist judges, or executive order bothers me.
"You do not have the right to make other people praise your lifestyle, grant you access to their place of worship, bake you cakes, deliver flowers or avoid expressing opinions that make you feel bad. "
ReplyDeleteThis is the part of this whole issue that bothers me the most, and the justification most often used to rationalize enforced commerce is that these companies are "public services", so businesses can be forced to provide them to everybody on an equal basis because they enjoy the benefits of capitalism. Well, so what? IMO, it is a right citizens have to conduct commerce, not a privilege...and they can conduct that commerce however they wish that does not infringe on the rights of others.
I don't recall any gay bakers in the news losing their business because they refused to bake a cake for an anti-gay event.
ReplyDeleteIf you keep the homosexual lifestyle behind closed doors and don't force the issue down everybody's throat most people don't think about it. I had a lesbian co-worker for two years. I didn't know and I never thought to ask. I cared if she processed the paper work I brought her beyond that I seldom gave her any thought. The only thing that mattered was the job. I suspect most people are the same way. We care about a co-workers personal life to the extent its polite small talk. "Sorry to hear your kids got the flu" or "Sounds like a great vacation" is about all the effort we put into the events of peoples personal lives.
I don't ever think to ask other guys if they enjoy getting a penis up the butt. I don't see why that choice should be a major social issue. Why should heterosexuals be forced to pander to the sensibilities of homosexuals?
I remember when they requested that not only government should stay out of their bedrooms, but so should the rest of society. It was none of our business.
DeleteSociety agreed to such an extent that people did not really dwell on the subject. So after a couple of decades of being ignored like they wanted, the gaystapo found that their agenda wasn't moving forward because of the lack of attention. Even though it was THEIR request.
So now we have the gaystapo with their in your face behavior, bothering everybody, and causing lots of trouble. A lot of their fellow gays don't appreciate the attention either. They preferred what life was like before, quiet without the undo bad attention.
Erm...thanks, man. Could've gone the whole discussion without that particular image being thrown out there.
ReplyDeleteAs for the rest of it...
ReplyDelete"In American politics the entire concept behind political organizations, activists, or an "agenda" is to get one groups desires promoted over the desires of another group. LBGT activists or marriage equality organizations are by virtue of their existence designed to agitate the populace in order to promote an agenda."
This doesn't bother me in the least, since they're no different than every other agenda-driven organization using their Constitutional right to petition the government via lobbyists.
What does bother me is when Congress gives in to un-Constitutional demands which infringe on somebody else's rights. You would think those employed to do the job would know the difference.
They are different in that they are a tiny little minority that has managed to intimidate a bunch of liberal judges into throwing out the will of the voters.
DeleteThey are different in that they are having some success in forcing their unnatural lifestyle into the rest of our lives, and forcing the majority to cave on their principles. Like Christian owned businesses who are now being attacked for not wanting to support their lifestyle. They prefer to destroy somebody's life rather than take their business elsewhere.
Yes, they have lobbyists, but their agenda is so much more destructive than the usual liberal gobbledgook, because what they want is a direct attack on God, and Christians should not have to stand for that.
That's what its all about dude. Having that group of people's preferred sexual practices celebrated by society.
ReplyDeleteEqual protection under the law allows people to do as they want with whom they want without suffering legal sanction. All the rest, the activism, the political movements etc is about having other peoples choices blatantly in your face and you being forced to approve of them.
It's one thing for someone to do something in private that no one else is forced to participate or approve of. It's another to bring it to the forefront of the public conscience and insist that the laws of the nation be used to force everyone to go along with what they want. What they want isn't to be left alone to pursue their own interests. What they want is to be treated as a special class of citizen.
Exactly, because they have already had the "being left alone" stuff and it wasn't moving their agenda forward.
DeleteI am surprised though that the black community hasn't stepped forward when the gaystapo tries to hook their wagon onto their civil rights struggle. The two are NOT the same thing IMO.
"What they want is to be treated as a special class of citizen"
ReplyDeleteYup. they want us to "tolerate" a behavior that is contrary to our consciences, demand that we change the Creator's doctrines, and teach our children that their behavior is "normal". I'm not going to do it. If you want to do things that elicit a response like-"Erm...thanks, man. Could've gone the whole discussion without that particular image being thrown out there.", don't tell me that it's an acceptable way to do things. Do it, and leave me the hell alone.
Regarding "lifestyle choice", it IS a choice. You can list off a bunch of women who decided that they were bored with their married lives and wanted a change, so they went lesbian.
ReplyDeleteLike several actresses, one in particular named Meredith Baxter Birney. After 30 years of being married with kids, she announced she was bored with her life and decided to try this for a while. Then there was Joel Grey, who at age 82 just announced yesterday that he is now a gay man.
Then we have the first lady of NYC, who is a self described lesbian who decided to get married and have kids.
So gaystapo, don't tell me it isn't a choice. I suspect if they ever do find a genetic link, the gays will be so prolife it will make our heads spin. They would lead the charge to burn down PP in a hot NY minute if that ever happened.