LGBT equality same as black equality

[CopticChristian]

Nicely done

J,

I agree Mark does a good job of desensitizing the gay issue to cause it to be acceptable. He does just what the article that Edwest suggests.

What is important is that the article by Edwest about the desensitization by the gays to cause gay to become acceptable is doomed. It is Karpmans triangle.

If you are not familiar with this then see here

karpmandramatriangle.com/

It is the basis of dysfunctional family dynamics and is key in understanding the dysfunctional thinking of homosexuals.

The Victim is always the victim.

The Rescuer/Protector is always at risk of being persecuted by the Victim

The Perpetrator or the Persecutor is always the persecutor whether it is a person, a belief, an institution or Christianity…

It creates a circular dysfunctional dynamic and once everyone recognizes that this is at the heart of the article Edwest suggested everyone read then it should be clear to all those that defend the victim that the defender some day will be turned on and persecuted by the victim…

Great dysfunctional dynamic in the article directed by EdWest…

I avoid dysfunctional thinkers…

 

[october_baby]

How can any othodox catholic believe that gay rights are the same as minority rights?
When in the CCC it lables homosexual behavior as disorded? And anyone with
two eyes and a brainstem knows that this is not Iran or 1933 Nazi Germany. That homosexuals as a rule have the same rights as everyone else. it is not "homophobic to oppose SSM because they don’t want to give marriage rights to people that their religion teachs engaged in disordered behavior. BTW, for those of you saying that gay rights are the same as black equality, I dare you to say it to a black person.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Who mentioned the 1950s? And there are a good number of things to be said about the 1950s. Please - no broad brush painting of any particular era. We, as a Catholic community, and as a culture, were doing better morally during the 1950s than we are now. Abortion was not legal and The Pill did not exist.

I grew up during the late 1950s. Racial hatred was never taught to Catholics.

Peace,
Ed

What I am saying is that you need to have a little sensitivity here. When you speak of the 1950’s - to a largely American audience - recognize that, for blacks, the U.S. in the 1950’s was hardly the “good ol’ days.”

And I’m sure that Rome did not teach racial hatred in the 1950’s.

But to say that no American Catholics were involved in the violent oppression of this large group of people is… well, silly. Wouldn’t you say?

 

[edwest2]

What I am saying is that you need to have a little sensitivity here. When you speak of the 1950’s - to a largely American audience - recognize that, for blacks, the U.S. in the 1950’s was hardly the “good ol’ days.”

And I’m sure that Rome did not teach racial hatred in the 1950’s.

But to say that no American Catholics were involved in the violent oppression of this large group of people is… well, silly. Wouldn’t you say?

Silly? What’s silly is even saying such a thing without proof.

“As the modern American Civil Rights Movement gained prominence in the 1950s and 1960s, the Catholic Church responded with a number of pronouncements, including Discrimination and Christian Conscience (1958), On Racial Harmony (1963), and Statement on the National Race Crisis (1968).”

autopsis.org/foot/lynchdates3.html

“violent oppression” by Catholics? Prove it. The phenomenon primarily occurred in the South.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Newbie2]

I may be repeating, not having read all the threads here, but I challenge anyone to be able to look at a person walking down the street, sitting at a table having coffee, driving a car, etc. and tell me if they are gay or not.

I personally do not have a “gaydar”; I cannot tell if a person is gay or not. It is very difficult to discriminate against a person based on their sexual orientation unless they tell you about their sexual orientation.

On the other hand, I personally have very little difficulty identifying people who are of black, hispanic, asian, or european origin. If I as an employer were to choose to descriminate against them, it would be easy to do so. Not so someone who happens to be gay.

Not the same.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Frankly, I’m just *relieved * that most (if not all) of us agree on racial equality. There’s a lot of “good ol’ days of the 50’s” attitude here, so it’s just nice to be reassured that that attitude does not extend to racial hatred. I mean it should just be assumed at this point, but you never really know. Did anyone else feel that way when reading this thread?

Everything about the '50s were not good, you’re right. In some ways Americas and the world as a whole has improved over centuries and even decades.

Yet… there are some aspects of the '50s - and maybe even circa 1st Century AD - were better than our contemporary societies. That’s even putting the homosexuality issue aside (although some might include it). Just look at the United States with child abductions, homicidal children and adolescents, epidemic drug addiction, declining families, global warming etc.

There is a cost and benefit ratio to everything. Personally, while I like cities and all they have to offer, I think there is some cost to the human person emotionally and psychologically by living in the large cities of contemporary times. I think humans and our brains might be better emotionally suited for smaller, large scale, packs. Maybe like wolves (mind you I don’t study wolves so maybe I’m wrong). I read an article a while back that said a study concluded that young adults living in small towns (I’m thinking maybe less than 50,000 in population size) are more emotionally and romantically satisfied than young adults living in larger cities were they frequently go through cycles of depression and find it extremely difficult to find a mate of the opposite sex to connect with.

The larger the city - in my mind - the increased correlation that each person becomes identified as just one more number and less an authentic human being connected socially and maritally with the greater community and body of families.

Of course, that still would not account for why smaller cities (e.g., Compton, L.A.; Flint, Michigan; Gary, Indiana) have far higher rates of violence and homicide than the larger cities of the U.S. in the 21st Century (e.g., NYC; L.A.; Houston). city-data.com/

 

[TimeEntrance]

Who mentioned the 1950s? And there are a good number of things to be said about the 1950s. Please - no broad brush painting of any particular era. We, as a Catholic community, and as a culture, were doing better morally during the 1950s than we are now. Abortion was not legal and The Pill did not exist.

I grew up during the late 1950s. Racial hatred was never taught to Catholics.

Peace,
Ed

It was in their families. In Milwaukee during that time the so-called Bridge separating Africa from Poland was the scene of violence when Italian-American Catholic Priest Fr. Groppi was leading fair housing marches. I’ve been told by a former black panther that the Catholic Polish men on the other side of the bridges began punching nuns (and some of the police began fleeing in fear).

The Irish-American Catholic neighborhood of Bridgeport has been notoriously racist. It was the scene of one or more lynchings in the 1950’s or '60’s I think.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Groppi

 

[Alindawyl]

Alindawyl, given that the LGBT “community” is not known to be exclusively or predominantly Roman Catholic, it should not surprise you that it does not advocate for a Roman Catholic understanding of what same-sex attraction means. Clearly, the LGBT “community” does not see same-sex attraction as an affliction, so any subsequent understanding of same-sex attraction as something with which one must struggle is largely absent from its rhetoric. If you could convince the LGBT “community” that the concupiscence experienced by same-sex attracted folks is more deviant than that experienced by opposite-sex attracted folks, then maybe they would begin to see same-sex attraction as an affliction. But then you would not be teaching traditional Catholic doctrine on the nature of concupiscence…

The desire to engage in sexual relations with ANYONE who is not your spouse is a disordered desire.

I’m a Catholic giving a Catholic response on a Catholic website. My response shouldn’t surprise anyone who is even marginally familiar with Catholic moral teaching. You are free to disagree with that moral teaching if you wish. I do not disagree.

I still don’t see it, Alindawyl. Partly because it simply doesn’t make sense. There’s no point in fighting for the acceptance of any sexual behavior, ordered or disordered, because in large part one does not require the acceptance of others in order to engage in such behavior, ordered or disordered. Consequently, such acceptance is either irrelevant or moot.

If there’s no point in fighting for the acceptance of any sexual behavior, then why is the LGBT community fighting tooth and nail for legally licensed same sex marriage? They don’t just want to engage in the behavior, which as you point out they can already do. They want the behavior LEGALLY LICENSED. That way they can point to the law and say “I am affirmed! I am NOT engaging in disordered behavior! It’s explicitly permitted by law!”

Now. It could be that when you see same-sex attracted folks in a romantic relationship that you assume they’ve had sex or are planning on having sex. Moreover, it could be that you assume that the effort to eliminate discrimination against such relationships is an effort to eliminate discrimination against whatever sinful sexual activities they may get up to or may have gotten up to. But do you make the same assumptions when you see two opposite-sex attracted folks on a date? After all, they too may commit (or may have already committed) sexual sins in their relationship. Do you think that when passersby tacitly permit a display of affection (such as hand-holding) in an opposite-sex attracted couple that they’re also giving their blessing to whatever sins this couple may commit in the bedroom? I don’t think so. Why should it be any different for the same-sex attracted couple, then?

I don’t spend my time watching other people and making assumptions about what they are or are not doing.

I’m trying to understand what your issue is in these cases. Are you lamenting that there are fewer and fewer occasions in which you may publicly censor a cross-dresser or transgendered person? Normally, when (if!) you see a transgendered person walking down the street, would you feel it appropriate or compulsory to ridicule them or be rude to them?

In the case of someone clearly a cross-dresser and not just wearing a costume for Halloween or something, I feel sorry for the fact that they’ve chosen to give in to a disordered desire and I pray for them.

In the case of a transgendered person, I have no way of knowing that they’re transgendered just by their appearance. As I’ve said previously, I don’t go around making assumptions about other people.

I have no interest in ridiculing or being rude, or publicly censoring anyone who is not causing a disturbance. I may not like it if I see a same sex couple holding hands, but that doesn’t mean I need to walk up to them and cause a disturbance myself. We should always be polite and civil even when we see something we don’t like, and not take it upon ourselves to act as if we have the authority to do something unless we actually DO have the authority to do something.

Perhaps the issue regards the expression of our own self-understanding versus how others desire us to express ourselves based on their understanding of us. Clearly our self-understanding and the understandings others have of us will never be identical, and clearly all of these versions of us must be navigated with care…but surely at some point our own self-understanding (however flawed it may be, and it’s bound to be flawed) must be asserted against those understandings of us which completely miss the mark. Or to put it in other terms, surely how we tell our story is more true than how others would tell our story to us? (Now, whether or not any of these stories is actually worth telling and who should tell it is a question for another time…)

In the end, though, I guess I just don’t see a necessary correlation between efforts to end discrimination against same-sex attracted folks and efforts to make homosexual sexual activity widely accepted or normative. I don’t see how the one necessarily equals the other, so I’m at a bit of a loss to understand why someone would insist that they are, in fact, equivalent…particularly when it’s clear that they don’t need to be.

The one doesn’t necessarily equal the other, but it does in the minds of those who are the public face of and speak for the LGBT community. If you don’t like that fact and want to see it changed, get new people to represent the LGBT community.

 

[TimeEntrance]

What I am saying is that you need to have a little sensitivity here. When you speak of the 1950’s - to a largely American audience - recognize that, for blacks, the U.S. in the 1950’s was hardly the “good ol’ days.”

True to some extent.

However, many of the black elderly from the WWII Generation question how much good the Civil Rights Movement of the '60’s (I’m not talking about some of it’s minor movements and activism throughout the earlier decades preceding it) did and it the cost and trade off was worth it.

I’m 41 years old so just old enough to remember the black owned stores. The younger generation of blacks have zero clue these institutions used to exist. What they know of Black-American life is what they see as well as in conjunction with the propaganda they receive in media and school on “Black History Month.”

The Black-American communities used to be self sustained communities where racial segregation forced wealthy, middle-class, and poor blacks all to live in the same neighborhoods and operate their own small stores. Charity among blacks far exceeded what it does today. Prison was synonymous with the fate of the poor white man - not black males. And most black children born were born to married black couples - in fact this rate exceeded the whites I believe.

In Milwaukee I believe 1950’s marked an era in which the City of Milwaukee boasted the most employed (per percentage of population) black males than any city in the nation. That included NYC, L.A., and Chicago.

Today Milwaukee has one of the highest, working age, unemployed black male populations in the country. Pushing close to 50%. But if you factored out part-time temporary work or the sporadic temporary work throughout a month, I suspect the true rate would hover around 80%. Some of those that have studied the problem more in depth claim the real rate is between 60% and 70%.

1. westorlandonews.com/2009/08/24/inner-city-black-male-unemployment-at-50-percent/
2. www4.uwm.edu/ced/publications/black_joblessness07.pdf

 

[Alindawyl]

Granted–marriage has already been redefined and same-sex attracted folks are taking advantage of this redefinition. So is the argument that same-sex attracted folks are currently trying to re-define marriage actually that same-sex attracted folks are trying to re-define the redefinition that’s already taken place?

The popular culture’s concept of marriage is currently very superficial (a public affirmation of love, as you said). The law, however, still mostly represents a non-superficial concept of marriage. Those of us who are trying to defend the current legal recognition of marriage are doing so in the hope that the popular culture will come to recognize how flawed their concept of marriage is and return to the non-superficial concept of marriage.

If the law is changed, then it will fall to our descendants to revive the true concept of marriage in whatever new culture eventually takes the place of the current one once it falls apart. Because if our current culture continues along this path, it WILL fall apart. It’s happened time and again to different cultures throughout human history. Some of the cultures which no longer exist today were destroyed from without, but some collapsed due to moral decay from within.

Of what, then, does the sacramental act in the rite consist if not in the obtaining of consent and in the vows (or in the Consent and the Questions)?

Sacraments are outward signs instituted by Christ which covey grace. They make the invisible visible. In the case of marriage, the invisible is a covenant relationship between a man and a woman to make a family. When the marriage is a sacramental marriage, the couple receive grace to help strengthen the bond of the covenant so that they will be better able to love each other and any children they may have. Assuming they accept that grace, of course.

Natural marriages are not sacramental and therefore do not convey grace because one or both spouses are not baptized. But the spouses are still in a covenant relationship to make a family.

Two men or two women can be friends, but they cannot be a family. We can call things which are not a family a family all we want, but using the wrong word doesn’t change the reality of a thing any more than, to use an old phrase, calling a tail a leg makes a dog have five legs.

The concept of family in the popular culture has not been damaged as badly as the concept of marriage has. But of course the attempt is being made there as well to convince us that family means something other than what it means.

I’m a great believer in Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi–the law of prayer is the law of belief. I’ve looked at the Roman Catholic marriage rite. You can find it here: catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/textcontents/index/4/subindex/67/textindex/8. There’s a lot in it about the couple–their love, their vows, etc.–but very little, if anything, on the necessity of sex, and very little about children. If children are mentioned (notice the rubric in section 24, the parenthetical in section 33 [explained in section 34], and the parenthetical in section 38 making all mention of children optional/adiaphora), they are mentioned in the context of receiving a gift from God. Surely, one might say, it is imagined that intercourse is the conventional way to receive such a gift, but just as surely adoption can be seen as a way of receiving this gift, too–at least the rite does not rule such a reading out by mandating fertile intercourse. If marriage, sex and babies are all necessarily linked, then I would think that the rite would make that abundantly clear. But it doesn’t.

The rite deals with what is happening during the rite, which is the spouses forming their covenant and the witnesses affirming it. The nature of that covenant is covered in the sacramental preparation the couple go through before getting married.

We don’t get an explanation of transubstantiation each time we receive Holy Communion, or an explanation of concupiscence, sin, the nature of evil, penance, temporal punishment, and absolution every time we go to Confession. We get that from the sacramental preparation before we first receive Holy Communion or Confession.

But, as you mentioned in your opening paragraph, the redefinition has already been made. It’s not something on the horizon. Moreover, the marriage rite itself does not appear to oppose it.

The marriage rite assumes that the spouses are a man and a woman because Divine Revelation condemns homosexual acts. To say “the marriage rite itself does not appear to oppose it” is to treat the marriage rite as something with no connection whatsoever to Divine Revelation.

 

[thesmiter1]

I’ve heard this argument before, only to be responded with “what about a heterosexual couple who can’t have children. Do they not have a right to marry either if they cannot produce children? Should THEY remain celibate simply because one or both of them are infertile.”
I don’t know how to respond to that…Thoughts?

The fact that a man and woman are naturally complimentary is the arguement against that. They may be infertile, or even choose to avoid children (which is sinful if not for serious reasons), but their anatomies are obviously naturally complimentary. Anyone who says otherwise would be a waste of breath in attempting to enlighten.

An interesting note: the Church does not allow people incapable of the sexual act to be married. This is because there is NO possibility of procreation. Even with barren couples, they are still open to the act that results in the procreation of life. Homosexual sex is not open, in any way, shape, or form to the procreation of life, and requires that the sexual act be performed in ways that cannot produce children, and is contrary to nature.

 

[edwest2]

It was in their families. In Milwaukee during that time the so-called Bridge separating Africa from Poland was the scene of violence when Italian-American Catholic Priest Fr. Groppi was leading fair housing marches. I’ve been told by a former black panther that the Catholic Polish men on the other side of the bridges began punching nuns (and some of the police began fleeing in fear).

The Irish-American Catholic neighborhood of Bridgeport has been notoriously racist. It was the scene of one or more lynchings in the 1950’s or '60’s I think.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Groppi

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ge.jpg/300px-James_E._Groppi_Unity_Bridge.jpg

Crime is always bad, but you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. I know the 1950s. Second, it cannot be said that every white person hated black people, much less wanted to harm them. So no, you can’t say that because black people were suffering through real injustice and harm, including death, does not in any way, detract from the fact that in America in the 1950s, there were communities with people that lived the same values, even if we didn’t all go to the same Church. Sure, there were some bad apples, and while we were taught to be polite to them, we did not associate with them.

So the correct way to look at the 1950s is the fact that Catholics lived like Catholics. Period. I recently heard on Catholic Radio that we are not back to 1957 yet but we’re getting there. That is why those who ignore biology, (what used to be) common decency and even common sense, are afraid right now because Catholics are telling the truth.

I was there. We had murders, robberies and all the rest, but we lived in functional communities and the media reflected our values. Not so today. That is why the 1950s is a very valuable role model.

Today - what is being exposed is the plan to change the hearts and minds of everyone to not just be respectful toward gay people - which I never had a problem with, to accepting gay sex as normal behavior by calling it marriage.

At this point in history, it seems you can probably get someone, somewhere to declare a squirrel a cat. And pass a law to that effect. But we are exposing the gay agenda, clearly, for all to see and understand.

Man + Woman= In most cases, children.

Man + Man= Zero chance of having children using their own sex organs.

Woman + Woman= Zero chance of having children using their own sex organs.

Biology trumps. Two women with the label “married” does not equal man plus woman.

Peace,
Ed

 

[BroomWagon]

This is only a propoganda point, Black Ministers have come out against same sex marriage.

LGBT are not denied rights to vote, they do not ride in the back of the bus.

They are not denied any rights, they wish to corrupt marriage and make it genderless for every man, woman and child in society.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

The desire to engage in sexual relations with ANYONE who is not your spouse is a disordered desire.

Sure, and I can agree with you. But that’s also a very tidy thing to say which ignores a whole host of moral complexities related to how people love, form relationships, etc. For instance:, two unmarried opposite-sex attracted people on a date–if either of them has a sexual thought about the other prior to the date, does the date then become a near occassion of sin or, worse, a way of acting upon or expressing the desire to engage in a sexual relationship and therefore representative of a sinful act? In either case, should no one ever go on a date?

This is why the teaching on concupiscence is so important–which teaching, in a nutshell, is that all human desire is oriented toward some good, but that we often have trouble (due to original sin) determining how to pursue or receive those goods appropriately. A woman’s beauty is certainly a good. Sexual pleasure is certainly a good. To desire both is no sin. To desire both without a reference to the greater good of chasity* may* become sin and lead to lustful thoughts. To pursue both, however, without subordinating the desire for these goods to the higher good of chastity* is certainly* sin. This is true for a man who is attracted to women, but it must also be true for a woman who is attracted to women. Why should that be the case? Here’s why:

If a woman’s attraction to another woman is somehow in a more disordered state than a woman’s attraction to a man or a man’s to a woman, it must be because the thing to which such a woman is attracted–the beauty of a woman’s body–does not represent a good for a woman: the beauty of a woman’s body represents the wrong object of another woman’s attraction, i.e., it is disordered because it is oriented toward something that, because she is a woman, lacks the good for her. The object of her attraction is, for her, an evil. To desire it is disordered. But this puts our hypothetical same-sex attracted woman in a bit of a pickle with regard to desire and concupiscence–the desire of women who are opposite-sex attracted is oriented toward the good of male beauty, but hers is oriented to an evil. Other women can desire the good, though in inappropriate ways (which is human concupiscence). Our hypothetical woman, however, cannot even desire the good, let alone desire it in anwy way other than inappropriately. This makes her something of a moral monster: someone whose desire is oriented, if only in part, to what is evil. Moreover, because human desire is oriented toward what is good, this makes our hypothetical woman somewhat less than- or other than human. So if same-sex attraction is intrinsically disordered but opposite-sex attraction is not, then the traditional teaching on concupiscence (that we desire what is good, but often in inappropriate ways) is incorrect. It would be incumbent upon us, then, to evaluate where the disorder actually does lie, or to assume a more classically protestant evaluation of original sin (i.e., the human capacity to desire the good is utterly destroyed, we are all fundamentally depraved and concupiscence is actual sin).

If there’s no point in fighting for the acceptance of any sexual behavior, then why is the LGBT community fighting tooth and nail for legally licensed same sex marriage?

It’s certainly not to have legal or licensed sex–folks don’t need a license to legally have sex. I would imagine it has more to do with an idea of the dignity of a human relationship, not the dignity (or indignity, one could say) of any particular sexual act. Whether or not sex occurs in a marriage is not something that civil marriage monitors or seems to care about–analogously, sacramental marriage does not bless whatever sexual sins the married couple might commit.

That way they can point to the law and say “I am affirmed! I am NOT engaging in disordered behavior! It’s explicitly permitted by law!”

But here’s the thing, Alindawyl–homosexual sex is already permitted by law. Marriage doesn’t make it more permitted. Therefore, the fight for SSM must be about something more, something more fundamentally human, then whether or how same-sex attracted folks have sex. This has been my argument.

[CONTINUED…]

 

[Deo_Volente]

…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED]

I don’t spend my time watching other people and making assumptions about what they are or are not doing.

That’s certainly commendable.

I have no interest in ridiculing or being rude, or publicly censoring anyone who is not causing a disturbance. I may not like it if I see a same sex couple holding hands, but that doesn’t mean I need to walk up to them and cause a disturbance myself. We should always be polite and civil even when we see something we don’t like, and not take it upon ourselves to act as if we have the authority to do something unless we actually DO have the authority to do something.

This, too, is a commendable attitude. One could make a compelling case that a decline in simple politeness is being remedied, unfortunately, through legal means that are too blunt and too forceful. Simple human charity can accomplish what law should not or, indeed, cannot. I can get behind this argument. But the counter-argument that the law must step in, however clumsily, when human charity fails is not unconvincing.

The one doesn’t necessarily equal the other, but it does in the minds of those who are the public face of and speak for the LGBT community. If you don’t like that fact and want to see it changed, get new people to represent the LGBT community.

The problem is, I think, that there is no real LGBT “community.” There are a lot of advocacy groups and a lot of loud people. But there isn’t a monolithic, organized “community” of which LGBT folks are members. I looked at Edwest’s link to that gay propaganda piece, but I didn’t find there any evidence of a conspiracy perpetrated by homosexual elites–just some overblown criticism of a failed PR strategy from two same-sex attracted guys. (I say “failed” because the goals it advocated should have been accomplished in the '90s. They weren’t. Their “plan” failed.) That PR strategy is not particularly unique–reduce it to it’s basic parts (play the victim, get money, get exposure, blah blah) and you have the blueprint for a lot of unremarkable PR strategies. At any rate, it certainly wasn’t adopted by a monlothic LGBT “community” juggernaut because I just don’t see such a juggernaut existing outside of the imagination of a few folks. I’m a same-sex attracted person, and I don’t feel like I’m a member of any LGBT “community”–or if I am, they’ve done a really poor job sending me the newsletter and copies of our agenda.

Which is to say, “community” is a convenient term but it suggests something far more organized than the reality of what it means to be same-sex attracted (or transgendered) would suggest.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED]

That’s certainly commendable.

This, too, is a commendable attitude. One could make a compelling case that a decline in simple politeness is being remedied, unfortunately, through legal means that are too blunt and too forceful. Simple human charity can accomplish what law should not or, indeed, cannot. I can get behind this argument. But the counter-argument that the law must step in, however clumsily, when human charity fails is not unconvincing.

The problem is, I think, that there is no real LGBT “community.” There are a lot of advocacy groups and a lot of loud people. But there isn’t a monolithic, organized “community” of which LGBT folks are members. I looked at Edwest’s link to that gay propaganda piece, but I didn’t find there any evidence of a conspiracy perpetrated by homosexual elites–just some overblown criticism of a failed PR strategy from two same-sex attracted guys. (I say “failed” because the goals it advocated should have been accomplished in the '90s. They weren’t. Their “plan” failed.) That PR strategy is not particularly unique–reduce it to it’s basic parts (play the victim, get money, get exposure, blah blah) and you have the blueprint for a lot of unremarkable PR strategies. At any rate, it certainly wasn’t adopted by a monlothic LGBT “community” juggernaut because I just don’t see such a juggernaut existing outside of the imagination of a few folks. I’m a same-sex attracted person, and I don’t feel like I’m a member of any LGBT “community”–or if I am, they’ve done a really poor job sending me the newsletter and copies of our agenda.

Which is to say, “community” is a convenient term but it suggests something far more organized than the reality of what it means to be same-sex attracted (or transgendered) would suggest.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

The LGBT have an organized lobbying group with an agenda and while in any given community, you cannot point your finger and say …there is the LGBT lobbying group…their thoughts are active and their agenda is clear.

 

[BroomWagon]

Mark,

The LGBT have an organized lobbying group with an agenda and while in any given community, you cannot point your finger and say …there is the LGBT lobbying group…their thoughts are active and their agenda is clear.

Agreed.

When people see how things have gone in Massachusetts and New York, I personally think other states will look at it and say, we don’t want that in our state.

It’s no secret that in a state where the issue is being contested this November, the pro-same sex attraction side has outspent the pro-marriage (traditional marriage) by millions. That money is coming from somewhere let alone, democrat interest groups like the Unions are probably pouring in money as well.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Agreed.

Coptic’s critique is actually a bit facile. There are some significant differences between the nature and consciously organized structure of the Democratic Party and the nature and lack of actual organized structure of the imagined LGBT “community” juggernaut. One is generally a conscious member of a political party–that is, you choose to belong to that party. You vote in the primaries, electing your candidates, and you may choose to become so involved that you go to your convention, vote on your platform, and elect various levels of delegates and representatives within the organization. You can look at the people gathered at the DNC and say, “Look, there’s the Democratic Party.” You can look at a bunch of Democratic voters in the primary and say, “Look, there’s the Democratic Party.” You can see some elected leaders articulating the values of the party laid down in the party platform and you can say, “Look, there’s the Democratic Party.”

You cannot do the same with the LGBT “community” because the LGBT “community” is not an organized political organization. As I’ve stated, there are a number of groups and individuals, and you can join those groups or advocate for those individuals as much as you want, but if you’re a member of group A in city B, what you do or advocate or pledge or elect as a member of that group has nothing to do with Group C in City D, nor is it coordinated by the national organization masterminds in San Francisco because there are no national organization masterminds of the LGBT “community” in San Francisco or anywhere else. No same-sex attracted person votes for leaders, delegates or representatives of the LGBT “community.” We don’t go to a convention and decide on a platform that our community-wide elected leaders endorse. Because there is no community-wide platform to vote on and no community-wide leaders to elect.

Sure there are same-sex attracted lobbyists, sure there are advocacy organizations, sure there are the Radical Faeries, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, Axios (the Orthodox support group), Dignity (the Roman Catholic support group), Integrity (the Episcopalian support group), GLAAD, P-FLAG, Act Up, GMHC and a whole host of organizations. But they don’t subsist under a larger LGBT “community” organization or umbrella which represents them all and dictates policy. They may have some values in common, but I’m sure I have some values in common with Malaysian shopkeepers–but that doesn’t mean I’m a member of the Malaysian shopkeeper community, nor does it mean that the Malaysian shopkeeper community exists as a monolithic organization dedicated to spreading its values according to some conspiratorial agenda.

This is not so much about Nominalism than it is about Reductionism–the reduction of an entire population of unrelated people to a fantastical construct which is itself a reduction of the values, viewpoints, opinions and agendas of a few people.

When people see how things have gone in Massachusetts and New York, I personally think other states will look at it and say, we don’t want that in our state.

I think you’ll be in for a bit of a surprise–in its first year, SSM brought $259 million to New York City alone. I’m sure a lot of towns (let alone states!) would like an extra quarter billion on hand.

That money is coming from somewhere let alone, democrat interest groups like the Unions are probably pouring in money as well.

I wouldn’t know. I’m not a Democrat or a union member. But I can tell you that it’s not coming from the LGBT “community” mother organization. Because it just doesn’t exist.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[BroomWagon]

I think you’ll be in for a bit of a surprise–in its first year, SSM brought $259 million to New York City alone. I’m sure a lot of towns (let alone states!) would like an extra quarter billion on hand.

Nine of the top 10 business friendly states have amendments in protection of Traditional Marriage.

minnesotaformarriage.com/2012/07/new-cnbc-study-shows-nine-of-top-ten-business-friendly-states-have-marriage-protection-amendments-in-their-constitution/

Minneapolis, MN –** A new CNBC study of America’s Top States for Doing Business also shows that nine of the top ten business friendly states have marriage protection amendments in their constitution. ** CNBC “scored all 50 states on 51 measures of competitiveness developed with (name removed by moderator)ut from business groups including the National Association of Manufacturers and the Council on Competitiveness.” The top ten states from 1-10 included Texas, Utah, Virginia, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Colorado, Wyoming and Georgia. Although Wyoming was the only state without a Marriage Protection Amendment, gay marriage is prohibited in all ten states. Minnesota was ranked eleventh.

Don’t see New York in there! New York can keep its money!

Yet, we do hear the talking point you bring up often. One must be prepared for it, the Corrupt Marriage side likes to use “scare business” tactics in trying to strong arm states into corrupting marriage.

 

[edwest2]

No agenda? No organized groups?

marriageequality.org/

hrc.org/?gclid=CJK50fTpjbMCFRBgMgod1BYAyQ

pointfoundation.org/Valedictorian

scequality.org/

freedomtomarry.org/states/entry/c/arizona

nclrights.org/site/PageServer?gclid=COfa8vrqjbMCFYYWMgodTTYAJg

lgbtcenters.org/Centers/find-a-center.aspx

equalitypa.org/

thetaskforce.org/about_us/mission_statements

Peace,
Ed