The National Association for the Advancement of (Leftist) Colored People got much attention announcing that they are for segregation. The organization, which in the past, fought against segregation now supports segregation, this time on the basis of sex. They support government endorsement and support of associations that segregate rather than integrate the sexes.
It should not be such big news that a Leftist organization supports a Leftist cause (neutering marriage). And yet it was.
I’m glad it was big news, because this brings to mind a few things:
1) Colored people must be advanced as far as they need to be. After all, if the NAACP has made the time and effort to announce it considers the neutering of marriage to be the great civil rights issue of our time, then everything must be great for colored people. Surely, the NAACP wouldn’t take time away from its core mission of advancing colored people if there was still serious a need to advance colored people, right?
2) As others have said and the NAACP seems to agree, since neutering marriage is the "last great civil right issue", organizations like the NAACP can disband, or at leas do with a lot less money, if marriage gets neutered nationwide. I'd like to see that promised in writing.
3) How can we trust an organization that claims to be a civil rights organization that for 103 years completely ignored such a vital and important "civil right"? Where has the NAACP been all of these decades? How did Thurgood Marshall miss this one? Come to think of it, why didn't Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ever say a word about this? Was MLK a hateful homophobe?
4) Is it possible that this isn't the last great civil rights issue? What other "rights" might possibly be discovered in the future? Maybe we can speed up "inevitable" "progress" if more of us are aware of these rights we're ignorantly trampling.
Speaking of "inevitable" – why are marriage neutering advocates so despondent when a vote or ruling doesn't go their way, since they keep insisting that the neutering of marriage is inevitable? If it is inevitable, why the toddler-like reactions to votes like the one in North Carolina? Why not just be happy knowing that they are going to ultimately win? Or do they not really believe it is inevitable?
"Colored" people are not helped by this push to neuter marriage. It hurts people when you equate sexual behavior choices with skin color. Most people of African ancestry are easily identifiable as such at first glance. Not so with homosexual people, unless you walk in on them buggering each other because they have called you to set up a court case.
If a brideless or groomless pairing is marriage, then marriage can't be about children. If marriage is not about children, no man should feel the least bit of obligation to marry, marry earlier, or stay married to a woman with whom he has or is expecting children. This means that with the neutering of marriage, we would expect more children will grow up without a father married to their mother, living in the home with them, and we can expect correlating negative factors to increase as well. It does not advance "colored" people to further diminish marriage by watering down what we distinguish, endorse, and support as marriage.
The NAACP and other organizations like it are Leftist above all else, including their supposed missions. It would be great to see an organization that fights for the advancement of all people by actually fighting racism. I'm thinking such an organization would oppose race-based discrimination in legislation, government programs, hiring, academia, etc. With government programs, it would oppose them with lawsuits. With private concerns, it would try persuasion and shaming (for example, the KKK should be allowed their views, but counterdemonstrations would be appropriate). It could track REAL hate groups (not label Christian ministries as hate groups because they correctly note that marriage unites a bride and groom and homosexual behavior, like any unmarried sex, goes against Biblical teaching). Such an organization could seek to find and mitigate the REAL causes of troublesome disparities between "racial" groups – such as the negative indicators correlated to fatherless homes.
Hmmm, I wonder what the NAACP has to say about the STD rates among "colored" people who engage in homosexual behavior? I am saddened by the rates, and I would think they would be, too. But of course, neutering marriage is a more important cause.
Some recent opinions of others that might be of interest:
http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/05/22/why_gay_is_not_the_new_black
Why Gay Is Not the New Black - Michael Brown
http://townhall.com/columnists/demetriusminor/2012/05/22/is_the_naacp_a_fair_representation_of_the_africanamerican_community
Is the NAACP A Fair Representation of the African-American Community? - Demetrius Minor
http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2012/05/21/blacks_and_same_sex_marriage
Blacks and Same Sex Marriage - Star Parker
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/05/should-homosexuals-be-allowed-to-marry-whom-they-love.html
Should Homosexuals Be Allowed to Marry Whom They Love? - Alan Shlemon
http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/10/28/the_race_card_and_prop_8.thtml
The Race Card and Prop 8 - Playful Walrus
It should not be such big news that a Leftist organization supports a Leftist cause (neutering marriage). And yet it was.
I’m glad it was big news, because this brings to mind a few things:
1) Colored people must be advanced as far as they need to be. After all, if the NAACP has made the time and effort to announce it considers the neutering of marriage to be the great civil rights issue of our time, then everything must be great for colored people. Surely, the NAACP wouldn’t take time away from its core mission of advancing colored people if there was still serious a need to advance colored people, right?
2) As others have said and the NAACP seems to agree, since neutering marriage is the "last great civil right issue", organizations like the NAACP can disband, or at leas do with a lot less money, if marriage gets neutered nationwide. I'd like to see that promised in writing.
3) How can we trust an organization that claims to be a civil rights organization that for 103 years completely ignored such a vital and important "civil right"? Where has the NAACP been all of these decades? How did Thurgood Marshall miss this one? Come to think of it, why didn't Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ever say a word about this? Was MLK a hateful homophobe?
4) Is it possible that this isn't the last great civil rights issue? What other "rights" might possibly be discovered in the future? Maybe we can speed up "inevitable" "progress" if more of us are aware of these rights we're ignorantly trampling.
Speaking of "inevitable" – why are marriage neutering advocates so despondent when a vote or ruling doesn't go their way, since they keep insisting that the neutering of marriage is inevitable? If it is inevitable, why the toddler-like reactions to votes like the one in North Carolina? Why not just be happy knowing that they are going to ultimately win? Or do they not really believe it is inevitable?
"Colored" people are not helped by this push to neuter marriage. It hurts people when you equate sexual behavior choices with skin color. Most people of African ancestry are easily identifiable as such at first glance. Not so with homosexual people, unless you walk in on them buggering each other because they have called you to set up a court case.
If a brideless or groomless pairing is marriage, then marriage can't be about children. If marriage is not about children, no man should feel the least bit of obligation to marry, marry earlier, or stay married to a woman with whom he has or is expecting children. This means that with the neutering of marriage, we would expect more children will grow up without a father married to their mother, living in the home with them, and we can expect correlating negative factors to increase as well. It does not advance "colored" people to further diminish marriage by watering down what we distinguish, endorse, and support as marriage.
The NAACP and other organizations like it are Leftist above all else, including their supposed missions. It would be great to see an organization that fights for the advancement of all people by actually fighting racism. I'm thinking such an organization would oppose race-based discrimination in legislation, government programs, hiring, academia, etc. With government programs, it would oppose them with lawsuits. With private concerns, it would try persuasion and shaming (for example, the KKK should be allowed their views, but counterdemonstrations would be appropriate). It could track REAL hate groups (not label Christian ministries as hate groups because they correctly note that marriage unites a bride and groom and homosexual behavior, like any unmarried sex, goes against Biblical teaching). Such an organization could seek to find and mitigate the REAL causes of troublesome disparities between "racial" groups – such as the negative indicators correlated to fatherless homes.
Hmmm, I wonder what the NAACP has to say about the STD rates among "colored" people who engage in homosexual behavior? I am saddened by the rates, and I would think they would be, too. But of course, neutering marriage is a more important cause.
Some recent opinions of others that might be of interest:
http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/05/22/why_gay_is_not_the_new_black
Why Gay Is Not the New Black - Michael Brown
http://townhall.com/columnists/demetriusminor/2012/05/22/is_the_naacp_a_fair_representation_of_the_africanamerican_community
Is the NAACP A Fair Representation of the African-American Community? - Demetrius Minor
http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2012/05/21/blacks_and_same_sex_marriage
Blacks and Same Sex Marriage - Star Parker
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/05/should-homosexuals-be-allowed-to-marry-whom-they-love.html
Should Homosexuals Be Allowed to Marry Whom They Love? - Alan Shlemon
http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/10/28/the_race_card_and_prop_8.thtml
The Race Card and Prop 8 - Playful Walrus
On Segregation
ReplyDeleteOnce upon a time, people of different races were not permitted to marry each other in the USA. The force of law prevented people of two different races from coming together in marriage. This was an example of segregation.
Right now today, marriage law respects the individuals'' choice of mate, whether it be a person of the same race or of a different race. Do we call marriage a segregationist institution because it allows people to marry somebody of the same race as themselves, or because it doesn't foce them to choose somebody of a different race than themselves? Of course not.
Supporting individual choice in interpersonal associations is not segregation.
On Integration
To integrate means bring into equal participation in or membership of society or an institution or body. It amounts to more than just putting two people in a room together - or in a marriage for that matter. Historically, marriage has been an institution of unequal participation. Not that long ago, women were required to surrender the right to vote, or own property, or hold a patent, or control their own earnings upon marriage. Any choice that the couple made to participate equally was at their option, as the legal recognition worked contrary to equality.
Even today, in places where the legal recognition of marriage is only available to male-female couples, it provides no guarantee of equal participation. Check into Saudi marriage for one example.
On Same-Sex Couples & Marriage
Consider the status-quo exclusion of same-sex couples from the legal recognition of marriage. Where marriage is elusively male-female, what effect, of any, would that have on the "integration of the sexes" among gays and lesbians? Does anyone imagine that the traditional definition of marriage as an institution for opposite-sex couples is causing any integration of the sexes among homosexuals? It does not, at least not any more. Sham weddings to hide one's sexual orientation have become a relic of the past.
And where marriage is an option for same-sex couples, how does that prevent the integration of the sexes among heterosexuals? It doesn't. They retain 100% of their freedom to "integrate", through marriage or otherwise.
On Civil Rights for People of Color
The presumption that the NAACP's support for same-sex marriage somehow constitutes a shift away from advocacy for people of color is ludicrous. It fails to recognize that people of color include gays and lesbians, whose civil rights are in question. Besides, the mission of the NAACP has always been to ensure the political, social and economic equality of all people.
And if you read their statement, you would see why this issue is on their radar now (and not 103 years ago). From their statement:
We have and will oppose efforts to codify discrimination into law.
Unjust, discriminatory laws, such as California's Proposition 8 - are relatively new efforts to codify discrimination into law. Any response, from any civil rights organization, is timely and appropriate.
Since you have worn out your welcome at The Opine Editorials, you have come to my blog? Well, I've been over this issue thoroughly. Marriage inherently includes sex integration. Calling something without sex integration "marriage" encourages segretation.
DeleteThe comparison to the "some states" ban (and it was an actual ban) on "interracial" marriage, long recognized as marriage, to refusing to issue marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples, who, unlike those "interracial" couples CAN have public ceremonies, live together, share hotel rooms, etc.... is insulting as well as legally and morally deficient.
Encourages segregation? That rant has no legs. To allow people to associate with whomever they choose encourages segregation exactly as much as it encourages integration.
ReplyDeleteYes, the NAACP encourages segregation, because neutering marriage means segregating the sexes. Also, homosexual relationships have no chance of producing, says, a President Obama, who is half black and half white.
DeleteHomosexual relationships are certainly capable of "producing" - in fact, the benefits to the adults in the relationship are virtually identical whether the relationship in question is homo or hetero. Likewise, the benefits "produced" for society, or for children the couple may be raising.
DeletePerhaps you meant "reproducing" - something that even some married heterosexual couples are incapable of on their own without medical assistance ? There certainly are couples unable to reproduce offspring through their unassisted sexual congress ... this has something to do with your claim about segregation of the sexes, does it? Being unable to reproduce also forces segregation in your rhetoric? I'd love to see the math on that equation!
Homosexual relationships produce nothing for society that couldn't be contributed with a plantonic friendship.
DeleteAll marriage (bride+groom) unites the two sexes that comprise all of society, forming a microcosm of society by integrating the two sexes. Homosexual relationships segregate the sexes.
MOST marriages produce children. The uniting of a man and a woman is the only KIND of pairing that can do so naturally, without any third party; it is not relevant that some of these pairings don't; they are the only kind that can. Your sex is on your birth certificate, a government document. Whether you are medically able or intending to create children is NOT a government matter. but we KNOW the pairing of two men or of two women will NEVER produce children.
So there is a difference, and it is Constitutional for the law to treat different kinds of assocations differently.
Walrus writes: Homosexual relationships produce nothing for society that couldn't be contributed with a plantonic friendship.
ReplyDeleteThen the same must be true of childless heterosexual relationships. And we must place zero value on art, literature, music, etc. Are you willing to proclaim that childless marriages produce nothing of value as well ?
Walrus writes: it is Constitutional for the law to treat different kinds of assocations differently.
In point of fact, it is not. Folks of different color are not to be treated differently. Nor folks of different religions. Nor is it constitutional to treat men and women differently solely based on their gender. To cite an irrelevant difference as a basis for discrimination, and to call it constitutional, reflects either arrogance or ignorance. Which is it?
Walrus writes:Homosexual relationships segregate the sexes.
You might say that a homosexual relationship does nothing to cause integration of the sexes, but it is an error to claim that it causes segregation. Consider a child who does not put two plocks together ... did he SEPARATE the blocks ? No. He did not cause them to be separated, he simply did not force them to join. And why would anyone advocate for a gay man or lesbian woman to be forced to join into lifelong union with a member of the opposite sex, with whom they share neither attraction nor compatibility?
I would suggest that integration of the sexes can and does occur among heterosexuals, with or without the institution of marriage. By contrast, neither marriage nor any other force can or should impose unnatural integration of the sexes upon lesbians or gays, for whom such integration would be "unnatural" and inconsistent with the will of their creator.
Since we're talking about public policy, we are talking in generalities. We know that same-sex coupling, be definition, is segregation of the sexes and that no same-sex pairing naturally produces childre. Whether any given intergrated coupling wants or is able to produce children, they are the KIND of relationship that can.
DeleteAre, literature, music, etc. is ALL POSSIBLE whether or not one man sticks he genitals in the anus of another man.
Different skin colors or religious beliefs does not make a different kind of association from a societal perspective. Skin color is irrelevant to marriage, sex is not.
You are quite right that integration happens between men and women regardless of marriage, but society is better off encouraging marriage is the ideal standard. Homosexual people are still free to couple regardless.
Walrus: We know that same-sex coupling, be definition, is segregation of the sexes.
DeleteSegregation is the forced separation of things ... your repeated nonsensical assertion that ALLOWING things to be separate is the same as FORCING separation does not gain you any credibility.
Walrus: Skin color is irrelevant to marriage, sex is not.
= begging the question - the question being ABOUT the relevance (or irrelevance) of sexual anatomy in the relationship we recognize as marriage. You make no case for your position by simply repeating it.
Walrus: Are, literature, music, etc. is ALL POSSIBLE whether or not one man sticks he genitals in the anus of another man.
Changing the subject, are we? On August 7 you were lamenting that homosexual relationships produce nothing ... now you want to change the subject and talk about ana sex? In case you missed it, that issue was decide in Lawrence v Texas almost 10 years ago.
I never said it was forced segregation.
DeleteSo you believe that sex is irrelevant to marriage?
I did not change the subject. Male-on-male genital/anal play is what we get out of homosexual relationships. That two men do those things does NOT create art, literature, or music.
Are you playing a game, or are you really lacking in the ability to comprehend what you're reading?
Walrus: "I never said it was forced segregation."
DeleteCome on, Mr. Walrus. have you forgotten what you wrote on Feb 25, 2010? You wrote: "Segregation, as most Americans think of it, refers to physical segregation by government force"
Segregation is : The policy or practice of separating people of different races, classes, or ethnic groups, as in schools, housing, and public or commercial facilities, especially as a form of discrimination.
Walrus: "I did not change the subject. Male-on-male genital/anal play is what we get out of homosexual relationships. [...] Are you playing a game, or are you really lacking in the ability to comprehend what you're reading?
I comprehend. First you lament that "homosexual relationships have no chance of producing" ... then you switch the script from what a relationship produces to what a sex act produces. Relationships produce more than sex.
The outcomes you list are products of sexual activity. Genital/anal and genital/oral play is also common to heterosexual activity. But relationships produce a good deal more than sex.
Wikipedia notes: "Intimate relationships play a central role in the overall human experience.[1] Humans have a general desire to belong and to love which is usually satisfied within an intimate relationship.[2] Intimate relationships involve the physical and sexual attraction by one person to another, liking and loving, romantic feelings and sexual relationships, as well as the seeking of a mate and emotional and personal support of each other.[1] Intimate relationships provide a social network for people that provide strong emotional attachments, and fulfill our universal need of belonging and the need to be cared for.[1]"
Homosexual relationships have the exact same capacity as heterosexual relationships to produce all of these things: personal support for another, satisfaction of our human need for strong emotional attachment, our desire to love and be loved.
Would Oscan Wilde have written "The Picture of Dorian Gray" or "De Profundis" if he had not had an intimate relationship with Lord Alfred Douglas? Doubtful.
Would Gore Vidal have written "The City and The Pillar" or "Palimpsest" absent his homosexual relationships?
Could an unfulfilled Alan Turing have invented the first general purpose computing machine, which was instrumental in defeating the Nazis?
Would a straight Michelangelo, who spent most of his lengthy career creating monumental works of art for seven consecutive Popes, given us such a depiction of David, or of Creation itself?
Did their homosexual relationships produce any children? No. But children are not the only product of a heterosexual relationship.
So I'd suggest you stick to the script, sir, and keep pointing out that same-sex relationships do not produce children ... rather than insisting that they produce nothing whatsoever.
After all of that, the truth remains that homosexual sodomy that does not produce anything good for society that couldn't be produced by mere friendship between two people of the same sex, and that is profoundly different from heterosexual intercourse.
Delete