Monday, January 19, 2009

Martin Luther King Has a Dream - Gay “Marriage” is Not a Civil Right

Martin Luther King Has a Dream - Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right
Martin Luther King, Jr., had a dream. A commendable dream; a dream that has not only been realized, but has radically changed the course of history in its fulfillment. And now, almost 46 years later, Martin Luther King, champion of civil rights, speaks to marriage defenders from the grave to reiterate that dream in a different context. Gay “marriage” is not a civil right. A country that makes special concessions for sexual attractions and orientations is a country consciously heading for troubled waters, not freedom and justice. Says Shelby Steele of the Wall Street Journal in his essay entitled, Selma to San Francisco?:

“Dressing gay marriage in a suit of civil rights has become the standard way of selling it to the broader public. Here is an extremely awkward issue having to do with the compatibility of homosexuality and the institution of marriage. But once this issue is buttoned into a suit of civil rights, neither homosexuality nor marriage need be discussed. Suddenly only equity and fairness matter. And this turns gay marriage into an ersatz civil rights struggle so that dissenters are seen as Neanderthals standing in the schoolhouse door, fighting off equality itself. Yet all this civil rights camouflage is, finally, a bait-and-switch: When you agree to support fairness, you end up supporting gay marriage.”

“But gay marriage is simply not a civil rights issue. It is not a struggle for freedom. It is a struggle of already free people for complete social acceptance and the sense of normalcy that follows thereof--a struggle for the eradication of the homosexual stigma. Marriage is a goal because, once open to gays, it would establish the fundamental innocuousness of homosexuality itself. Marriage can say like nothing else that sexual orientation is an utterly neutral human characteristic, like eye-color. Thus, it can go far in diffusing the homosexual stigma.”

“The civil rights movement argued that it was precisely the utter innocuousness of racial difference that made segregation an injustice. Racism was evil because it projected a profound difference where there was none -- white supremacy, black inferiority -- for the sole purpose of exploiting blacks. But there is a profound difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. In the former, sexual and romantic desire is focused on the same sex, in the latter on the opposite sex. Natural procreation is possible only for heterosexuals, a fact of nature that obligates their sexuality to no less a responsibility than the perpetuation of the species. Unlike racial difference, these two sexual orientations are profoundly--not innocuously--different. Racism projects a false difference in order to exploit. Homophobia is a reactive prejudice against a true and firm difference that already exists.” [emphasis added]

[Read more…]

I HAVE A DREAM, 2009 Edition
by Martin Luther King, Jr.
special edits by Pearl Diver

“I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

[And I have a dream that one day the people of this nation will recognize that being created equal means that all men are indeed equal, not that all lifestyles merit equal recognition and concession.]

I have a dream that one day on the [green hills of California] the sons of [homosexuals] and the sons of [heterosexuals] will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood [rather than spew hateful “dreams” such as this one at their siblings].

I have a dream that one day even the state of [Massachusetts], a state sweltering with the heat of [injustice against religion], sweltering with the heat of [oppression of parental rights], will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by [their traditional sexual orientation] but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in [San Francisco], with its vicious [gay “rights” activists], with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of [recalcitrance] and [repeal]; one day right there in [San Francisco], little boys and girls will be able to join hands [and frolic in innocence and purity rather than ponder heavily on the fragile nature of their future society].

[I have a dream that this unity of the people will be based on their divine inheritance as children of God rather than their sexual preferences and attractions.]

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

[I have a dream that bedroom preferences and practices will return to the bedroom rather than demand and create public policy and legislation.]

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the [California] with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together [ahem, Prop 8], knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

[This will be the day when selfish sexual pursuits are set aside for the greater good of country, liberty, and freedom.]

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

[Yes, please!]

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, [note the very distinct absence of sexual orientation] will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"”

Wishing you a happy, healthy Martin Luther King day.

Yours in Freedom and Justice,
~Pearl

Related Links:
Five Levels of Identity
Same-Sex Marriage is Not a Civil Right
Is Same-Sex Marriage a Civil Rights Issue?
Same-Sex Marriage vs. Civil Rights
2009: ‘Gay’ Rights Over All
Is There a Natural Right to Same-Sex Marriage?

13 comments:

Euripides said...

I'm impressed that nearly an entire nation can be bamboozled into believing that same sex marriage is about civil rights. It's not about civil rights, but about immorality and indecency.

thepomegranateapple said...

thank you pearl. this speech has been haunting me all day-- i have dream too--one where sexual orientation is not a tyrant, one where all children have a mom and a dad married.

Pearl said...

"...one where sexual orientation is not a tyrant..."

That's a good dream, Pomegranate Apple.

Euripides,

It is pretty amazing. But then, if people hear something enough, they become desensitized and no longer question or ponder. The act of homosexual sex used to be extremely taboo. Now, thanks to media and especially Hollywood, it's been accepted by progressives with open arms. Shows like Will and Grace taught viewers that homosexuality was funny and tender, completely ignoring the baser, more disgusting characteristics of the lifestyle. I honestly don't think people know what they're getting into by failing to question the vehemence with which gay "rights" activists push their agenda.

thejournalistachronicle said...

“But gay marriage is simply not a civil rights issue. It is not a struggle for freedom. It is a struggle of already free people for complete social acceptance"

Great point! The gay left ought to be ashamed of themselves for even thinking they can compare themselves to the "real" civil rights struggle.

Thanks for posting the speech! Great history there!

PersonalFailure said...

Shelby Steele is a he, not a she. (Shelby is one of those unisex names. Research.)

Paste the link below, and you can see a picture of Mr. Steele. He looks a bit like James Earl Jones.

blacksnob.blogspot.com/2008/04/shelby-steele-thinks-obama-is-gamble.html

Pearl said...

Thanks, PersonalFailure.

Secular Heretic said...

By creating a right "gay marriage", it tramples on other rights. The right to say that homosexual sex is a disorder. The right for companies to refuse services to same sex couples.

Daniel said...

By creating a right "gay marriage", it tramples on other rights. The right to say that homosexual sex is a disorder.

Absolutely false. Lay off the phony martyrdom.

The right for companies to refuse services to same sex couples.

And why should companies "refuse services" to same sex couples in the first place?

Secular Heretic said...

Example,

A photographic company is asked to take photos of a "gay wedding". The company owner doesn't want to do the job because he/she knows that homosexual sex is disordered. By taking on the job, that person supports the "gay wedding" through their actions.

Sourabh Chakraborty said...

I find it difficult to digest the argument that only heterosexuals can procreate. And that being gay is against the law of nature.

Yes gays cannot give birth but there are 6 billion people in this world ... millions and millions of kids all around the world ... impoverished kids and hungry kids and parent less kids who could use loving fathers and mothers.

Are we then to argue that women who cannot give birth are nature's abomination? That they have lesser rights?

Yes, gay marriage is about removing stigma. It is about civil rights. It is about that fundamental belief that we cannot discriminate anybody on anything. And that includes your ability to procreate or not.

Sourabh

Pearl said...

Sourabh,

As difficult as it is for you to stomach this, the truth is that only heterosexuals can naturally procreate and homosexuality is abnormal in nature.

I agree that there are millions of children throughout the world who would benefit from a loving mother and father, but adopting and embracing homosexuality is not the brightest solution since it denies children the important presence of an opposite-sex parent by design. And research has proved, time and again, the importance of a child being raised by a married mother and father.

Women who are infertile are not nature's abomination and they do not have lesser rights. Frankly, I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion based on this post. You are lumping Lesbians together with married infertile women and the glaring lack of the former is still found in the desire to deny a father.

"Yes, gay marriage is about removing stigma."

Ah, and here you've hit the nail on the head. We don't create laws and legislation to accommodate hurt feelings due to stigmas. If this is the case and this is your argument, then certainly the stigmatized polygamous culture should have their right to marry whomever they will? I trust you would also support pedophiles in their desire to marry children and siblings to marry each other? After all, you did say that "we cannot discriminate anybody on anything."

That is a dangerous path to walk.

Sourabh Chakraborty said...

Thank you Pearl for that wonderful comment. To have been challenged logically rather than predisposed prejudice on this issue is very refreshing.

I'm not sure homosexuality can be considered abnormal in nature while heterosexuality normal. Is this based on the understanding that the choices or lifestyles of the majority of the population decide what is normal and abnormal?

Is homosexuality abnormal just because they cannot procreate? So that means lesbians and transgendered people (who were women before their sex change surgery) are still normal while gay men aren't? Are we solely driven by the ability to procreate as the deciding factor for normality and abnormality?

If that is not the sole factor, then we sure have a lot of abnormality in our world. Children born with Down's syndrome ... or with rare blood diseases. The point I am trying to make is where do we draw the line on normality and abnormality. Who decides what is normal and abnormal? And I think no one should. But if somebody must, it must be applicable universally to everybody.

Now if you held procreation as the sole factor in deciding normality, there are so many infertile people all around the world. Wouldn't we have to push them into this realm of "abnormality" as well?

I hope you'll forgive my forthrightness in writing such a long reply as I wanted to tackle every piece of thought logically and with reason.

As for the research study, I am unwilling to accept that opposite sex parents can be better parents than same sex parents. I would rather argue that the current social stigma that surrounds same sex parents is so divisive, that puts children with same sex parents in a difficult situation. So its not because they can't be good at parenting but because of a social order that we aren't so accepting of them that makes their parenting job even more difficult.

As for "gay marriage is about removing stigma", I am not saying bring laws to accommodate hurt sentiments. I am saying you need laws if you are discriminating against somebody. Blacks in the United States did not get their basic rights fundamental to any human being until the laws were changed to give it to them.

Gays in this country cannot serve their nation or donate blood or adopt or marry. Any of which a heterosexual man or woman can do. Now I am not talking about a disabled man who has lost both his legs demanding why he cannot still work as a heavy duty construction worker. I am talking of gays who are as capable in serving their nation, donating blood, adopting, raising kids and marrying like any other heterosexual. So why the discrimination?

When you say, "... then certainly the stigmatized polygamous culture should have their right to marry whoever they will? I trust you would also support pedophiles in their desire to marry children and siblings to marry each other?"

And I keep thinking what gives you or me or anybody the right to tell somebody what you're doing is totally wrong unless it infringes on my rights or somebody's rights by force.

The point is, then how willing we would be to accept when they would say ... hey, you know what ... we don't like it when you guys home school your kids or buy Christmas presents. If we have a right to tell these people that incest is wrong because we "believe" so, shouldn't these people have a right to dictate something similar to us of what they think is right to them?

My whole argument centers around the belief that we cannot be taskmasters and go policing around telling people what is right or wrong ... because using the same logic, then we must accept being policed around by somebody else with totally different ideas and views.

Telling gays you cannot marry is like telling a kid on a wheelchair you can't play basketball .. "son you might be able to play it okay, but not better than kids who have their legs" .. Gays can't procreate but we can be good parents .. just because we can't deliver an offspring (or rather don't want to have an offspring) doesn't in any way mean they cannot take care of them or they will be bad at it.

Sorry for the long post .. hope you haven't dozed off .. :(

Pearl said...

Sourabh,

Thank you for your thoughts. I, too, appreciate a good discussion. Now, let's see if I can expound upon my beliefs a bit.

"Is homosexuality abnormal just because they cannot procreate? So that means lesbians and transgendered people (who were women before their sex change surgery) are still normal while gay men aren't?"

I have to clarify that the abnormal homosexuality which I discuss is specifically the act of homosexual sex. The attractions and feelings could be normal for some people to experience based on a genetic inclination. I honestly don't know.

Saying that lesbianism is normal because they can procreate is misleading. True, they have the right equipment to procreate...if employed properly...with a man. But in their chosen lifestyle, with their chosen partner, they cannot naturally procreate. The same goes for transgendered people; they cannot naturally procreate with someone of the same sex, no matter if they have a uterus or not. Claiming you are a man when you were born a woman cannot give you semen, a scrotum, vas deferens, and a penis...all necessary for reproduction with a woman.

"Who decides what is normal and abnormal? And I think no one should. But if somebody must, it must be applicable universally to everybody."

Well, our own Creator and Heavenly Father is the best place to start. However, since so many have disdained His commandments and denied Him, the next best place to look for defining abnormality is science. Abnormalities are traits and characteristics, "things" if you will, which naturally fall outside the frequency-of-existence curve. Now, what follows is my opinion, I'll have you know, but in my own mind, it seems quite sound (of course). ;) We do not know how frequent the actual genetic tendency toward same-sex attraction is, but we do know that homosexuals make up a very, very small minority of the humanity on this earth, and that in many instances homosexuality is adopted through education and experimentation rather than inherent attractions. We now run into the issue of growth. Couldn't the fact that homosexual numbers are growing indicate a move toward normalcy? Well, sure, homosexuals are growing in number, but since there is evidence that that growth may be as much a result of learned behavior as it is genetic inheritance, the question on many people's minds then is why should we embrace a clear abnormality so that its education and frequency can increase and compete with normalcy to the detriment of society?

"Now if you held procreation as the sole factor in deciding normality, there are so many infertile people all around the world. Wouldn't we have to push them into this realm of "abnormality" as well?"

No, we wouldn't, because they still have the very normal and natural impulse to be with someone of the opposite sex and while they may not be able to have children as a result of their intercourse, their "equipment" is still designed for such a purpose when united.

"As for the research study, I am unwilling to accept that opposite sex parents can be better parents than same sex parents."

And herein lies the problem. So many today are unwilling to rely on basic research anymore. If it disagrees with their beliefs, they are quick to dismiss it. And I wasn't even using research to claim that heterosexual parenting is better (though I will always maintain that it is), I was merely pointing out that this new homosexual parenting trend does not have enough "experience" to yield evidence of equivalency or superiority. Problems in relationships do not exist merely as a result of external beliefs aimed at that relationship. That is a transparent attempt to project responsibility away from oneself. If majority public opinion is to be blamed for every troubled relationship, then alcoholics could claim they are discriminated against and unfairly demonized, as could abusive husbands and angry mothers, "My children don't have a quality family home because people don't like my alcoholism." Or, as you said, "Its not because they can't be good at parenting but because of a social order that we aren't so accepting of them that makes their parenting job even more difficult."

"I am saying you need laws if you are discriminating against somebody."

Yes, but it is only your opinion that government is discriminating against homosexuals when it does not, by the vote of the people, recognize same-sex unions as marriage. And in my mind, that is not discrimination; that is discernment. If it must be discrimination just because someone doesn't like it or doesn't feel it's fair, then we will be creating new anti-discrimination laws from now until forever. Our government of the people was not created to make people feel good, it was created to ensure the comfort, security, and survival of a healthy society.

"Gays in this country cannot serve their nation or donate blood or adopt or marry."

Well, that certainly is untrue. How does the inability to "marry" stop one from serving their country? If you are referring to the Don't Ask, Don't Tell legislation, then please answer this: how does keeping bedroom politics and practices in the bedroom keep one from serving their country? Additionally, here in California homosexuals are afforded the same protections under domestic partnerships as heterosexuals. This includes being able to adopt children. And in Massachusetts, same-sex "marriage" has been legalized. Are you sure you have not mistaken the United States for another nation?

"I keep thinking what gives you or me or anybody the right to tell somebody what you're doing is totally wrong unless it infringes on my rights or somebody's rights by force."

I thank you for your honesty, but "infringing on somebody's rights" is not the only negative effect against which we should be fighting permissiveness. What about survival of a healthy society? What about the nurturing of unconfused children? Right and wrong does not only exist where so-called "choice" is being guided. Pedophilia is wrong. Polygamy is wrong. Neither promotes healthy society. Neither preserves the definition of marriage most necessary for the optimal nurture of children.

"If we have a right to tell these people that incest is wrong because we "believe" so, shouldn't these people have a right to dictate something similar to us of what they think is right to them?"

Um, no, because home schooling and buying Christmas presents doesn't hurt society. Neither does maintaining marriage solely between one man and one woman. What does hurt society is devaluing a sacred, imperative institution by redefining it over and over and over again which is sure to happen once a first, radical redefinition is successful. Pedophilia is not just wrong for pedophiles, it is wrong for everyone. Similarly, marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman in California for everyone. Homosexuals are not being discriminated against because they still have the same right as everyone else to get married...to a member of the opposite sex.

"My whole argument centers around the belief that we cannot be taskmasters and go policing around telling people what is right or wrong ... because using the same logic, then we must accept being policed around by somebody else with totally different ideas and views."

Imagine that. Checks and balances are no longer okay, according to you. That's what our entire government is built upon! Yes, we teach correct principles and let people make decisions, but when their decisions begin to affect others (society) negatively, we put our foot down. I am policed, Sourabh! So are you. We are not allowed to murder or steal or abuse. These are things that we, as a collective society, have decided are wrong, are frowned upon. We are all taskmasters. We can be tolerant of "different ideas and views," but tolerance is not equivalent to acceptance. That is imprudent.

"Telling gays you cannot marry is like telling a kid on a wheelchair you can't play basketball .. "son you might be able to play it okay, but not better than kids who have their legs."

Well, you might not want to say it out loud, but it's still the truth. Do we deny the truth and risk negative societal repercussion just to spare the hurt feelings of a few? Just the fact that you compare homosexuals to a disabled child in a wheelchair says a lot about the pervasive victim mentality of the former. Besides, if you spoke the truth to that child with sincere love and concern, he would be hurt but a moment and then I guarantee he would set about finding ways around his inability. So, too, could homosexuals do, but instead they've chosen to focus all their energy on their perceived inabilities rather than seek other alternatives than the appropriation of "marriage" in their struggle and desire for societal acceptance.

"just because we can't deliver an offspring (or rather don't want to have an offspring) doesn't in any way mean they cannot take care of them or they will be bad at it."

Contrary to popular gay activist belief, love is NOT enough. Children need a mother and a father. Homosexual parenting denies that by design. Deprivation should not be glorified in any form.

"Sorry for the long post .. hope you haven't dozed off .."

On the contrary, this has been quite stimulating. Thank you.