Surprising Connection Between Homosexuality and Race
Homosexuals and their ideological allies are fond of promoting a pernicious comparison of race, which has no inherent features relative to desire or behavior, to homosexuality, which is constituted by subjective desire and immoral volitional acts.
Far better analogies for homosexuality would compare it to polyamory or consensual adult incest. In fact, even “minor attraction,” bestiality, and other paraphilias would be closer analogues than is race. They’re better analogues because those conditions too are constituted by powerful, seemingly intractable, unchosen desires and volitional acts. Though differences exist between homosexuality and these other conditions, they are minor compared to the differences between race per se and homoeroticism per se.
When comparing homosexuality to race, homosexuals, always loosey-goosey with language, don’t specify that they’re not really comparing homosexuality to race in general, but to the black race. So, in what ways is homosexuality per se like the genetic heritage of African Americans? … Well, in no ways.
Unlike homosexuality, blacks possess a genetic heritage that determines skin color and other physical features but has absolutely nothing to do with subjective feelings or volitional behavior. Homosexual scholars have long acknowledged that there is no hard science proving that homosexuality is hardwired in the same way that race is—an inconvenient truth that homosexual activists and their water-carriers in the press conceal.
Some homosexuals will acknowledge another substantive difference: They admit that “sexual orientation” is fluid—unlike race.
There are homosexuals who will admit that homosexuality per se is not akin to race per se. They will admit that homosexuality is like race only in regard to society’s mistreatment of both groups. So, to be clear, their argument is not that homosexuality per se is akin to race per se but, rather, that disapproval of homosexuality is akin to hatred of blacks.
But if you look at cultures through a broader lens, many groups have been marginalized, mistreated, and even hated. Some groups, like blacks and Jews, have been hated because of who they are. Others, like homosexuals, have been hated because of what they do. This is not a defense of hatred directed at persons, which is never morally defensible. Rather, it is an attempt to redraw boundaries that homosexuals have tried to erase for political expedience. They have tried to erase the distinction between disapproval of types of activity and hatred of persons.
Race has no inherent behavioral components, and, therefore, disapproval of race is not only morally indefensible but also makes no sense. In contrast, homosexuality is inherently constituted by behavior that is a legitimate object of moral disapproval. Of course, same-sex attracted persons need not act on their feelings, just as those who experience other feelings that tempt them to act immorally need not act on their feelings. But the homosexuality-affirming political movement seeks to impose compulsory approval of homosexuality activity and to cast disapproval of activity as analogous to hatred of persons.
There are other groups that, like homosexuals, are constituted, not by genetics and non-behavioral conditions like skin color, but by powerful, seemingly intractable feelings, and freely chosen behaviors. And these groups have been similarly mistreated by some who believe homoerotic attraction is disordered and homoerotic activity is immoral. These groups include adulterers; bigamists; polygamists; polyamorists; “minor-attracted” persons; and those who are erotically attracted to their mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, or siblings.
In order to eradicate the marginalization, mistreatment, and hatred directed at these groups, should society present their desires, volitional acts, and relationships as normative, even good? Should we invite them into our schools to tell children how bad it feels to have their behaviors condemned? Should we solicit picture books from publishing companies that portray bigamous, polygamous, polyamorous, adulterous, and incestuous relationships as an integral part of the rainbow of family diversity? Perhaps kindergartners would learn to be more tolerant and less judgmental if they were to read a picture book about a Bonobos monkey who falls in love with his brother.
There is something that tragically connects homosexuals to blacks, but in this analogy, homosexuality is not akin to race. Rather, homosexuals correspond to racists.
Like slave-owners who bought and sold human beings like commodities, separating mothers and fathers from their children and robbing children of their birthrights, homosexuals commodify human beings by buying genetic material, intentionally separating children from their mothers or fathers thereby denying children their birthrights.
Every child has an inherent right to be raised whenever possible by a mother and father, preferably their own biological mother and father. Allowing men and women to purchase eggs and sperm for the purpose of creating intentionally motherless or fatherless children is a scandalous human rights violation.
Why is it that homosexual clothing designers Dolce and Gabbana can see what so many in society cannot and are willing to say what so many will not:
“We oppose gay adoptions. The only family is the traditional one.
“No chemical offsprings and rented uterus: life has a natural flow, there are things that should not be changed
Dolce added that procreation “must be an act of love,” saying: “You are born to a mother and a father – or at least that’s how it should be.
“I call children of chemistry, synthetic children. Rented uterus, semen chosen from a catalog.”
Gabbana added: “The family is not a fad. In it there is a supernatural sense of belonging.”
Homosexuals wax indignant about any comparisons of homosexuality to any conditions constituted by behaviors they find morally objectionable or which they realize most of society finds morally objectionable. So, they will feign offense at comparisons of race to polyamory and will actually take offense at comparisons of homosexuality to either bestiality or “intergenerational love.” Setting aside the fulminating and ironic “judgmentalism” of the homosexual crowd when it comes to analogies they don’t like, there remains the fact that no one has an obligation to accept their moral propositions as true.
The belief that homoerotic activity is moral activity is at the center of this unsettled and unsettling debate. While it is obviously not settled, homosexuals and their allies proclaim with religious fervor that their moral belief is an unassailable truth and demand it be taught as such in public schools. No dissent permitted. Book- banning enforced.
And this is when their feckless analogy comes in so handy. Anytime some tiny Toto draws back the curtain to reveal that sodomy is a morally deficient act that mars the image of God imprinted on man, homosexual wizards frantically work their levers shouting “Do you presume to criticize the Great Oz, you ungrateful racists? Pay no attention to the fabulist behind the curtain!”
Shamefully, even when conservatives see the truth, unlike Dorothy, many say nothing.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com