« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Anti-LGBT: Now that is a sexual preference

by Jeremy Hooper

Why can't American culture view LGBT people and their related rights the same way it views nudists, hair dyers, drunks, smokers, and thieves? Such is the out-of-touch-even-for-them question that the ladies at the Concerned Women for America are positing for your reading pleasure:

Why has sexuality become such a god in American culture? No other preference is elevated to such a status. People who have a preference for not wearing clothing are relegated to nudist colonies. People who have a preference to dye their hair blue will likely not be hired for a job in a professional environment. People who have a preference for being drunk are banned from driving. People who have a preference for smoking are not welcome in most public places. People who have a preference for stealing are arrested.

Yet if a man has a preference to “marry” another man, change his sexual orientation, or be a woman, everyone is expected to accept his preference as legitimate—even though it goes against their own preferences.

Some people argue that sexuality is like race—you are born with an identity and there is nothing you can do to change it. But this simply does not make sense. A black person is born with a certain skin color. A homosexual is born with the same sexual organs as a heterosexual. A man who decides to undergo a sex change and become a woman was still born a man. The difference between the two groups is their desires (i.e. preferences). Whether or not this desire is inborn, as homosexual activists claim, homosexuals still chose to act on this desire. Just like a nudist chose to not wear clothing, an alcoholic chooses to drink, and a thief chooses to steal.
Rights for Everyone! Except You. [CWA]

Oh, where to begin? We could point out that evangelicals are free to view LGBT people however they wish, just as long as those 200908031757-1personal feelings to impinge on our collective civil rights. We could make a disgusted statement in reaction to the glib comparisons. We could challenge the ridiculous "preference" notion that is the lifeblood of the anti-gay community's misrepresentative activism. We could question why they think heterosexauls' attractions are totally in-born and biological, yet billions of gays' attractions throughout all of recorded history have been a "choice." We could ask why they leave religion, an undebatable choice, off their list of "preferences" (especially considering how much they use it to demonstrably go against us). Or we could just mock the whole damn thing.

But instead, we'll begin hoping will all our might that this writer, Rebekah Ries, is blessed with a proud gay child who will remove the blinders from her eyes. And even if she has to punish the teenage child when he makes the choice to drunkedly come home with blue hair after a night of underage partying, we pray that she'll be beaming at the grown child's wedding once his natural sexual orientation leads him to marry the man of his dreams.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

When I read "...even though it goes against their own preferences," I immediately thought "To our foes: it's not like I'm going to want to marry YOU." :)

Posted by: Tom | Aug 3, 2009 6:32:34 PM

Or just as an idiot chooses to remain stupid.

Posted by: Bill S | Aug 3, 2009 6:38:52 PM

Everyone has rights except for straight people? Is she kidding?

The next time she has "breeder!" yelled at her when she leaves a restaurant or bar, loses custody of her child because she marries a man, loses her job because she is dating a man, is scared to hold the hand of the man with whom she involved, can have her rights taken away by the majority, I'll cry her a river. Until then, f**k off.

Posted by: stojef | Aug 3, 2009 8:06:19 PM

Did Rebekah Ries mention exactly when she decided to become a heterosexual?

Posted by: JP | Aug 3, 2009 9:20:46 PM

I think in this same article she belligerently claimed that anyone objecting to having to share hosipital rooms with a transexual individual would be labelled 'homophobic', because sexuality is such a 'golden calf'. Clearly she is so dumb and so disinclined to do any research she cannot distinguish gender ID and sexuality - such an objection would actually be transphobic. The CWFA can't even correctly label their own irrational prejudices.

Posted by: Alice | Aug 8, 2009 11:16:18 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails