Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Gay is not the new black.

One of the things that inspired me to create the word “heteroseparatist,” was the absurd comparison of homosexuality to race and gender. Race and gender are morally benign; neither good or bad. But sexual behavior is never morally benign. Is a man in a sexual relationship with his consenting, adult sister on the same moral tier as a man who has never had sex with anyone but his wife? Is a woman who cheats on her husband on the same moral level as a woman who doesn't? Whatever happened to sexual common-sense?

“…while it's difficult to watch a coordinated, well-funded, well-connected propaganda strategy undermine thousands of years of human history, it's especially disconcerting to witness the use of the civil rights struggle as the vehicle for the strategy.

…the now-popular phrase "Gay is the new black."

…The California Supreme Court, like Gross, would have us believe that the homosexual struggle for a redefinition of marriage puts them in the same category as my ancestors. However, they would rather you didn't take a closer look, lest you see how flimsy the comparison turns out to be.

…homosexuality is undetectable apart from self-identification. Determining whether or not a person is black, Native American, or female usually involves no more than visual verification. However, should doubt remain, blood tests, genetics, or a quick trip up the family tree would suffice. Not so with homosexuality.

Moreover, the homosexual community itself has made this identification even more complicated in an effort to distance itself from those whose same-sex behavior they find undesirable. The Jerry Sandusky case is a prime example. Sandusky is accused of molesting numerous young boys during and after his tenure at Penn State. However, try placing the label "homosexual" on his activities and the backlash will be swift and unequivocal.…

…men who are extremely effeminate but prefer women, or those who once were practicing homosexuals but have since come out of the lifestyle (i.e., 1 Cor. 6:9-11)? In short, it's impossible to identify who is or is not a homosexual. As a result, how do we know to whom the civil rights in question should be attributed?

Ironically, the fact that homosexuals cannot "interbreed" shines a spotlight on the problem inherent in their logic. How can forbidding people who actually have the ability to interbreed be the same thing as acknowledging the fact that two people categorically lack that ability?...

The very definition of marriage eliminates the possibility of including same-sex couples. The word marriage has a long and well-recorded history; it means "the union of a man and a woman." Even in cultures that practice polygamy, the definition involves a man and several women. Therefore, while anti-miscegenation laws denied people a legitimate right, the same cannot be said concerning the denial of marriage to same-sex couples; one cannot be denied a right to something that doesn't exist.
It should be noted that the right to marry is one of the most frequently denied rights we have. People who are already married, 12-year-olds, and people who are too closely related are just a few categories of people routinely and/or categorically denied the right to marry. Hence, the charge that it is wrong to deny any person a "fundamental right" rings hollow. There has always been, and, by necessity, will always be discrimination in marriage laws.
Third, there is a historical disconnect. As early as the time of Moses, recorded history is replete with interracial marriages. In our own history, the marriage of John Rolfe and Pocahontas in the 17th century,9 along with the fact that anti-miscegenation laws were usually limited only to the intermarrying of certain "races" of people (i.e., black and white), stands as historical evidence of the legal and logical inconsistency of such laws. Thus, unlike same-sex "marriage" advocates, those fighting for the right to intermarry in the civil rights era had history on their side.

…the Iowa Supreme Court in their decision in favor of same-sex "marriage": "It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex."

Homosexuals haven't been deprived of any right.

…following this line of reasoning, one could argue, "I have the right to join the military, but I am a pacifist. Therefore, I don't really have the right (since it would be repulsive to me). Therefore, we need to establish a pacifist branch of the military so that I can fulfill both my desire to join, and my desire not to fight."

…then what's to stop the "bisexual" from fighting for the ability to marry a man and a woman simultaneously since his "orientation" is, by definition, directed toward both sexes?10 What about the member of NAMBLA whose orientation is toward young boys?11 Where do we stop, and on what basis?

…we know that God has designed the family in a particular way.

…many Christians have been bullied into silence by the mere threat of censure from the homosexual lobby. "Oppose us and you're no better than Gov. Wallace, Hitler, and those homophobes who killed Matthew Shepard!" is their not-so-subtle refrain. Consequently, we spend so much time trying to prove we're not hate-filled murderers that we fail to recognize that the Emperor has no clothes. There is no legal, logical, moral, biblical, or historical reason to support same-sex "marriage." In fact, there are myriad reasons not to support it. I've only provided a few.

Original article here.


  1. I found Mr. Baucham's article to be a fine rebuttal of the homosexualist trope that discrimination against persons who commit same-sex sodomy is no different than discrimination against blacks in the Jim Crow South.

    Mr. Baucham's defense of his thesis stands quite nicely on its own, so I shall limit myself to noting what should be (but apparently is no longer) obvious: (1) Discrimination is not in itself bad or good; the object and circumstances make it so. (Shouldn't we all be discriminating as to whom we allow our children to associate with?) . (2) To the extent that homosexuals are discriminated against, the reason is what the _do_ or _profess_, not who they _are_ intrinsically; if we cannot discriminate on the basis of others' acts and/or professed beliefs, then we have no freedom of association at all . . . and we are no longer a free people at all. (As I've commented elsewhere, I believe this is the whole point of the homosexualist agenda, as pushed by those who are not homosexuals themselves.)

  2. One of my most popular posts reads...

    "... When I use the phrase “black people,” or “gay people,” the words “black” and “gay” are describing two different social groups. But when I say “black person,” or “gay person,” the word “gay” totally changes in its meaning and is now revealing an aspect of the person’s character, whereas the meaning of the word “black” does not change; the word "black" does not reveal an aspect of a person's character.

    This subtle difference is always overlooked when the words “black” and “gay” are used a in debate concerning civil rights, yet this difference is well known to black people. ..."

    The glbt community has fooled a lot of people by swapping out social-identifier-words with the word "gay" to distract people from the fact that the word "gay" has a dual meaning.

    At least three hundred, homofascist hate-comments haven't been published on this blog.


Debate and discussion are welcome here, but attitude and ad hominem attacks will get you banned.