Friday, July 24, 2009

Gay rights are not civil rights

Blacks did have a very hard row to hoe, but to discount the row assigned the glbti as an easy, and one without discrimination, is a fabrication of the bigoted mind. - says Rev J D Spears Says: July 22nd, 2009 at 11:19 am

By the way, I had to look up what "glbti" means, the "i" part is new to me.
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex.

Here is the problem, sexual desires are not civil rights. It amazes me that this actually needs to be explained to folks. If sexual desires are a civil right, then those who are sexually "oriented" towards children or their own siblings are being discriminated against. Why do the "glbti" folks hate them so much?

One word you will not hear out of pro-gay "Reverends" mouths is - Holiness. To proclaim anything Holy one must concede to the existence of absolute moral Truths. God is holy and His word is holy; separating and redefining the two is the first thing "pro-gay" Reverends must accomplish. Changing God's definition of Marriage will be one of their first major victories.

Anybody see what's happening here? If not, allow me to break it down:

Sodomy is not wrong, there is no such thing as a sexual desire that is "wrong." All sexual desires spring forth out of god's love.

A mother and a father are optional when raising children.

Personal preference is god, all people have personal preferences thus all people are gods.

Conclusion - The sooner one's skin color and sexual desires are considered the same thing, the sooner nobody will know the difference between the Truth and a Lie. Now I wonder, just who would benefit from a world filled with such undiscerning minded people?

Hat Tip to Pastor DL Foster "Smalltown Texas pastor takes big stand against homosexuality"


Anonymous said...

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your comments but I'm not sure if Intersex people should be lumped into the same group. They are actually born that way and it is not a choice or sexual preference. Most are born with both female and male genitalia or are genetically ambiguous. I wouldn't consider that a choice.

Mark said...

Excellent point and I do agree. Do you think it is a coincidence this “new” i reference is included in the pastor’s remarks, or is it an attempt to lend some kind of credibility to a “born that way” argument (like one’s skin color) from the “glbt” folks?

gcmwatch said...

Its interesting in their attempt to make folks believe their sexual actions are genetic, they have intentionally not included homosexual pedophiles in the GLBTQI lineup. Pedophiles think they are born to "love" (read: molest) little boys.

It should then read GLBTQIP

The pastor hit the nail on the head with a sledgehammer. There is no comparison. As a matter of fact it is a brazen lie to even suggest such a thing.

Marie said...

A friend of mine from church told me that in a local town's 6th grade health class, bestiality is now discussed in morally neutral fashion (it's a viable "choice"). When she went to confirm that this had, in fact, taken place, it turns out a child in the class stood up to the teacher and said "that's wrong; you shouldn't be teaching us that or talking about it!"

The teacher's response: "It's part of the curriculum. I have to."

Mark said...

Good Lord Marie - God helps us! and Jesus come quickly!

Go Share Your Faith said...

Very well said, but now I have to go find my airline sickness bag...