The journey from there to here

That's it! I need a radio talk show. These bozos just aren't doing their job.

A perfect example was brought forth yesterday on Michael Medved's talk show. He was talking about the issue of whether or not discrimination against homosexuality should be a crime, actually an interesting debate. A caller called in and made a major misstatement that Medved should have been all over. He referred to discrimination that occurs against the "Race" of homosexuals. I was laughing so hard at that comment I thought I'd have to pull over to the side of the road for a second. But Medved didn't address the comment at all.

You see, for all the arguments you can advance regarding whether homosexuality is a choice or genetic (I believe it is a choice...but further believe that we, as a nation, were founded on the principle of the rights of individuals to make choices....even those we consider to be stupid, as long as those choices are made by consenting adults...but I digress), one thing that it cannot EVER be considered, is a race.

You see, the major defining feature of a "race" is the ability to make progeny organically. By its very definition, homosexuals are unable to produce offspring from their relationship (you'd think, if genetic, that somehow evolution would have "found a way"...but I digress). Sure they can adopt, and this is not a diatribe against homosexual adoption. But they cannot produce any offspring. That's not bigotry, folks, that's biology talking.

What concerned me the most about this statement being left unchallenged is its implications. If we begin to view homosexuals as a race, then we will begin to view attitudes against homosexual behaviour to be racism. And that, I believe, was the full intent of the caller, and precisely why he should have been corrected as soon as the comment left his mouth.

You see, while I defend fully the rights of homosexuals to live their lives as they see fit, despite my own STRONGLY held views against such behaviour, I equally defend the rights of myself and others to speak out about what we feel to be morally irresponsible and sinful behaviour. And not only does equating homosexuality with race potentially impact MY rights, but it also diminishes the blood of the thousands of abolitionists and civil rights leaders that was shed on the soil of our country over many, many years.

And THAT, my friends, is a crime against humanity.


Comments (Page 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jan 15, 2006
If you think colorblindness is "respected" think again. We are often treated like we are illiterate.


I, err....only have one question, Ted...how do you KNOW you're a redhead? LOL
on Jan 15, 2006
And we'll have to put that in the "agree to disagree" category


If you do find the idea of having sex with a man equally alluring to having sex with a woman, then perhaps you're bisexual Gid. It's not exactly a common thing, but it does happen. You're one of those lucky few who actually does a 'fair' choice, in that whether you choose a woman or a man you're going to be able to get a fulfilling sex life.

You should feel very lucky.
on Jan 15, 2006
If you do find the idea of having sex with a man equally alluring to having sex with a woman, then perhaps you're bisexual Gid. It's not exactly a common thing, but it does happen. You're one of those lucky few who actually does a 'fair' choice, in that whether you choose a woman or a man you're going to be able to get a fulfilling sex life.

You should feel very lucky.


cacto,

See, I think you have a hard time with reading comprehension here. The term "agree to disagree" means we probably won't convert each other to our own way of thinking, so let's move on to other topics. I disagree strongly with the viewpoint that homosexuality is genetically based, and could offer a number of compelling reasons for my belief. You, PB and others disagree just as strongly with the viewpoint that homosexuality is a choice, and could offer an equal number of compelling reasons for YOUR belief. You've HEARD the reasons I would bring up; they haven't changed how you perceive the issue. I, too, have HEARD the reasons you would bring up, and they haven't changed how I perceive the issue. The fact that you can't accept my support for the individual RIGHT to choose, despite my perceiving homosexuality as a choice, but rather you would insist on CONVERTING me to your way of thinking is why there continues to be conflict on this issue.

I have, in other words, expressed full SUPPORT of the right of homosexuals to marry (I think the government's position should be one of moral neutrality), and to adopt and to live without fear of persecution from society in general; the fact that that isn't ENOUGH speaks volumes for your agenda (and is a strong part of the reason I have nothing to do with the left).
on Jan 15, 2006
See, I think you have a hard time with reading comprehension here.


Sorry, I couldn't resist. You did say 'agree to disagree' following a statement where PB said that he considered that having sex with a girl was as abhorent to him as having sex with a guy was to you, which I figured would be funnier to take as you saying you wouldn't consider it any more difficult.

Sorry for the poor communications.
on Jan 16, 2006
Sorry, I couldn't resist. You did say 'agree to disagree' following a statement where PB said that he considered that having sex with a girl was as abhorent to him as having sex with a guy was to you, which I figured would be funnier to take as you saying you wouldn't consider it any more difficult.

Sorry for the poor communications.


Naaah, you're right...your response was a bit more good natured than I took it...lol! I was a little bent out of shape over a few side issues here, and I should have taken it more as intended.

That being said, though, I DO get concerned that the very real, very legitimate push among homosexuals to have their rights recognized (and, in the US, at least, many states either have or once had laws specifically PROHIBITING their behaviour) will get lost in the nature vs. nurture debate. And I think that you and I CAN agree that would not be to the benefit of society in general.
3 Pages1 2 3