There is another series of contests shaping up in the Hoosier state. Indiana has not only become the site of the “Final Four” basketball playoffs, but it is now making headlines for another type of “same sex” activity. (Oh yeah, let the record show there are no all-girl teams in the playoffs and no females on any representative team; the playoffs are same-sex activities, men with men.)
The emerging and presently burgeoning discourse has nothing to do with civil rights. It is about bedroom behavior. What is being openly debated is the manner in which people have sex. Let us make that clear: Homosexuals are demanding that everyone agree with their method of having sexual intercourse. If someone dares to disagree with their choices, that person is immediately and consistently subjected to verbal abuse, if not threats, and mischaracterized as a bigot by the mainstream media and now by the courts.
Let’s cut to the chase: Homosexuality is 1) “of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex,” and 2) “of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex” (free Merriam-Webster online dictionary).
The current propaganda is that a refusal to accept one’s manner of engaging in sexual activity is the same as racial bigotry. The assertion is that gays are like blacks were – being denied civil liberties and equal rights.
Nothing could be further from the truth, and only those who are not familiar with racial bias – by reason of experience – are deceived by this false claim. Let the record show, any homosexual (male or female) can walk in to any business in any location in any state in the United States and be served, regardless of how they dress. As a member of the group then known (politely) as “negroes” or “coloreds” in the ’40s, ’50s and ’60s, I can assure you all, that was most definitely not the case with blacks.
It did not matter how well we dressed, how well we articulated our positions or how large or small our purchases; we were not allowed in certain areas. Photographers, bakers, hotels, restauranteurs, etc., did not refuse to serve us based on private lifestyles or sexual behavior, but on our very existence. We sought acceptance simply as people.
Homosexuals are not seeking acceptance as people, but for a particular lifestyle. In every published instance, the only cases of rejection experienced by homosexuals have been based upon rejection, not of the person, but of a lifestyle. In every case, the issue has been that their demand conflicted with the moral standards held by the owner of the business. They were rejecting not the homosexual as a person but a lifestyle that conflicted with their deeply held moral and/or religious beliefs.
It must be kept in mind that we are discussing a form of behavior that was forbidden by Western civilization from its foundation. Such behavior has been, for the most part, condemned since around 1898 B.C. In fact, homosexual sexual behavior was illegal in every state here in the U.S. as recently as 1960.
A liberal-dominated Supreme Court, in overturning laws that had existed in every state, issued what seems to me (I’m not a lawyer) a ruling based on conflicting positions. Justice Anthony Kennedy said the two men involved in the case “are entitled to respect for their private lives.” He then continued: “The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.” Homosexuals’“private lives” and “private sexual conduct” have now become the basis for forcing people to agree with and essentially endorse a behavior they find abhorrent. Shouldn’t what you do in private be your business as long as it does not abrogate or infringe on the rights and freedoms of others?
I reiterate: Homosexual “rights” and demands are incorrectly compared to the civil rights struggles of blacks. Simply stated, homosexuals are not seeking civil rights,which they already possess as citizens, but acceptance – an endorsement of a specific type of sexual behavior.
Let me be clear, as citizens of the United States of America, they are, and should be, free to engage in any practice not inimical to the safety or freedom of any other citizen. However, the U.S. Constitution, in its very First Amendment, specifically protects my freedom to disagree with any behavior that conflicts with my personal and/or religious convictions.
Congress (not local bureaucrats) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (emphasis added).
And all the people said, “Amen!”