Robert Oscar Lopez has written
an interesting piece describing the homosexual movement's antagonism with blacks in the United States and around the world.
He notes regarding the attempt to cast the homosexual movement as a civil rights issue parallel to that of blacks in the United States:
"People
who love the same sex come with many different agendas and experiences.
The peculiar ideology of the LGBT lobby, however, seems fashioned
perfectly to inflame the rage and resistance of African-Americans.
First, the ideology is based on biological determinism. The repeated
appeals to the Fourteenth Amendment
depend upon the notion that homosexuals are born with their orientation
in the same way black people are born with dark skin. This isn't the
most inviting way to start a comparison: "Hi, I'm a guy who loves
playing with other men's genitals, and that's just like you being
black!"
There
is an added dimension to this dangerous form of essentialism, however.
The LGBT lobby is driven by the belief that people whom they classify
as "born homosexuals" must engage in the actual acts of sexual
gratification with the same sex, or there is something wrong with them.
Within this logic, it is impossible to go from homosexual activity to
non-homosexual activity. So convinced are LGBT activists of this
rejection of free will and self-control that they have moved to make it
illegal in California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts for counselors to
help minors cease or avoid sexual activities with the same sex."
He goes on to observe about the demand of homosexuals to be parents of children:
"The
LGBT lobby also demands that same-sex couples have the right to be
parents. Here is where the movement becomes utterly irreconcilable with
black history, regardless of how much Melissa Harris-Perry may enjoy
her repartee with Thomas Roberts. For same-sex couples to become
parents, they must purchase children. They won't call it that, of
course. But buying sperm from a sperm-bank or renting a woman's womb
both entail the exchange of money for ownership of a child. The state
is then embroiled in the arrangement as an enforcer of the contract,
compelling the child and third parties to respect the authority of two
adults, one or both of whom are unrelated to the child, and both of whom
came into possession of a dependent human being through money. (Those
high incomes that Crystal Dixon pointed out among gay couples come in
handy.)
How
does this sound for a race of people who came out of slavery?"
No comments:
Post a Comment