Tomorrow (Wednesday) is “Day without a gay” day.
Because I’m a public school teacher, this line stuck out to me:
“We’ll see whether it works but it’s already popular with some, including 25 Philadelphia school teachers who want to use the day to volunteer at the ACLU and talk about ways to “introduce gay issues” to their students.” (emphasis mine)
You can bet your bottom dollar that they won’t just be trying to introduce gay issues to their students, but they will be trying to introduce a certain way of thinking about gay issues. Anyone wanna guess what that way of thinking will be? I’m also willing to bet their “introduction” involves belittling and negatively labeling (ala “homophobic and bigoted”) those that have principled moral/health/religious reasons for not acquiescing to homosexual behavior.
I wonder what kind of response they would get if they actually led students in pausing to think about and question the popular assumptions of the homosexual agenda (for example, the equating of sexual orientation with race or the notion that because it is in some sense “natural” therefore its moral).
The organizers of this day miss the whole point of the opposition to Same sex marriage.
Equating sexual orientation with race is a bit of a stretch.
4 responses so far ↓
datGirl // December 10, 2008 at 4:33 am
…a bit of a stretch is an understatement
hiscrivener // December 11, 2008 at 12:20 am
I cannot imagine one thing on this planet that angers me more than horrid analogous arguments.
Comparing the gay rights agenda with the Civil Rights movement is like the KKK advising America they were the representation of Jesus’ disciples on the earth.
No, sorry Bubba. You are about as Christian as those Jihad terrorists are to real Muslims who want nothing to do with your sorry tail.
Nice post, brother.
Peace,
HiScrivener
John // December 21, 2008 at 7:53 pm
It isn’t a stretch if you believe homosexuality is genetic or environmental. Just as a Hispanic person cannot help the color of their skin, the homosexual cannot help the way they are.
Rich Bordner // December 21, 2008 at 9:23 pm
John,
Welcome, and thanks for commenting on my blog!
If homosexuality were genetic, that would make it *a little* less of a stretch if “genetic” was defined in a very, very strong sense.
But then again, it would still be a big, big stretch. There are several behaviors and inclinations that are in some sense genetic but we resist…alcoholism comes quickly to mind. We can think of other behaviors that have environmental linkages. Other sexual sins (addiction to pornography) and addictions (food addiction) fall into this category.
Basically, one can take stock of his/her inclinations and say “no” to them. That is one thing that makes us different from the animals.
Homosexuality is a behavior and lifestyle. This makes it much different from race, even if one can show one is genetically and environmentally predisposed to it (there is some evidence that suggests it has environmental causes).