We will NOT tolerate YOUR intolerance! (or "Homoaffirmationism")
The European Parliament has vowed to punish Poland by taking it to court. Poland’s crime? Refusing to allow promotion of homosexuality in its schools.
I said in an earlier post that the new world religion is Environmentalism. But I think I was wrong. As a matter of fact, there is another, stronger and more powerful religion growing in the world today. It’s what I’ll call homoaffirmationism. You see, it’s not enough that a group of people practicing their sinful lifestyle want to be allowed to do so wherever, whenever, and with whomever they please. They want full acceptance and forced affirmation of their lifestyle upon every living creature on the planet – no ifs ands or buts. And their hypocritical cries of intolerance ring in our ears more often and more loudly as time passes.
The EP resolution chastises Poland for "homophobia". The vote was 325 votes to 124, with 150 abstentions – and it called for a “fact-finding mission” to go to Poland, for a "worldwide de-criminalisation of homosexuality", and for “the Commission to take Member States to court if they breach their EU obligations.”
Poland's minister of education responded: "One must limit homosexual propaganda so that children won't have an improper view of family.”
Too bad we don’t have a similar “Minister of Education” in the USA.
Statements made in defense of the traditional family by Polish parliamentarians, were labeled "diatribes", "repulsive", and "hateful". The Polish government was also accused of “hatred”. Statements against Poland were made by representatives of France, the Netherlands, and Italy, among others. A comment worth noting was made by Italy's Giusto Catania, who attacked the church (meaning "Christianity"), which he said “never stopped in expressing hatred toward homosexuals.”
Some representatives from Northern Ireland and Poland walked out of the assembly, and Poland's Konrad Szymanski claimed that the European Parliament was being “led by the nose by a group of extremist politicians."
”But the most powerful response came from Poland's Bogdan Pek. "This was an artificial piece of theatre," he said. "An attempt to carry out an assault on a particular member state that a bunch of liberals and lefties disapprove of." Pek continued, "For God's sake, in the recent histories of your countries there has been persecution - persecution of Jews for example who took refuge in Poland."
"Poland is a tolerant, hospitable country. It is absurd to suggest that Poland is an island of intolerance in Europe. That is an insult and a lie. A cynical manipulation which is designed to pull the wool over the European public's eyes. I protest against that form of manipulation and falsehood," he concluded.”
Hear hear! Maybe we ought to draft Bogdan Pek for President!
Leaders of the European Union governing body made clear that there was to be no tolerance for ideas which would view homosexual acts as unnatural.
No tolerance of ideas?
But…isn’t it the liberals and homosexual activists that are continuously screeching about tolerance?
We will not tolerate your intolerance!
Labels: Homosexuality, Liberals, Political Correctness
thoughts from Ms.Green @ Friday, April 27, 2007
12 Comments:
Good for Poland! Can you believe how far and how fast these cultures have deteriorated?
I'll link to this in my next Weekly Roundup.
Neill, what really bothers me the most about Europe is that at one time there were multitudes of missionaries sent out of Europe into the rest of the world to spread the Gospel. No there is only a remnant of Christianity on the whole continent.
What really bothers me, on the other hand, is what will happen to gay children in Polish schools if this vile and discriminatory legislation is approved. They'll not only have to deal with the prejudice of their schoolmates; they'll be told officially that their natural capacity for love has no voice, no dignity, no right to be expressed. They might as well be told their subhuman and have done with it.
This has got nothing to do with political correctness. It's got everything to do with bigotry and the callous assumption that one group of people has a monopoly on what's right for everyone else. In this case, Polish catholics.
It always amuses me when I hear people talk about homosexual propaganda. If people's sexuality were that amenable to cultural discourse, doesn't it seem likely that homosexuality would simply have died out in cultures where the only sexual role models were heterosexual? Yet that doesn't seem to have happened. Maybe that's because people's sexual and emotional needs aren't at the mercy of 'propaganda' but of something more essential.
Charles, you are obviously very passionate about this subject. I appreciate your candor and your politeness.
Scripture says that homosexuality is a sin. It is a choice. It is not something that we are born with.
When something is a sin, it should not be promoted to children as something normal. All people are predisposed to certain sins (i.e.: I personally have always been predisposed to substance abuse and pride, among other sins too many to mention) Does that mean that I should have been encouraged as a child to go ahead and indulge in those drugs/alcoholic beverages that I was drawn to, or taught that it is ok to be prideful? No, it does not. Others are predisposed to be sexually promiscuous. Should that also be accepted as just a person’s capacity to love as many as they can? Of course not.
Should homosexuals be treated hatefully? No. The love of Christ should be shown to them, and the error and self-destruction of their sin, so that they can overcome that temptation.
I stand by my statements. The radical homosexual agenda is an “in your face”, “you will accept me and like it” attitude. It is difficult enough to deal with in the adult world. It certainly has no place in our children’s schools.
As a matter of fact, it isn't sexuality but believing in scripture that's a choice. If I don't share that belief - and I don't - the rest of your argument, for me, is irrelevant.
It's the job of a lay government, as most governments are outside the Islamic world, to ensure that the law protects the rights of all its citizens, not simply those groups who claim to have greater authority because of received truth.
I really don't care whether you like me or not. You're certainly not obliged to by any law in any country. But laws can oblige you to accept me, even if you don't like it, just as I am obliged to accept you and your right to believe in a religion in which I have no interest or investment, despite its constant attacks on what I hold most dear. This notion of give and take is what makes it possible to live together, in disagreement.
good for poland and great post. you know that California is once again trying to pass similiar legislation! It's like you have to PROMOTE homosexuality to be PC enough these days. But don't dare Promote the "nuclear" family. That would be homophobic.
Yay Poland!
Charles, if Christians can't have a rpoblem with non-Christians teaching children homosexuality is right, non-Christians can't have a problem with Christians teaching homosexuality is wrong, for the smae reason. It's still a religious belief, either way. Charles, should a particular group advocate some immorality you find vastly evil, you would be in the state in which Christians now are. Shoudl the government allow child sacrifice? Rape? Murder? No. Why? Because it's wrong, and you believe it hurts people. Why do I oppose homosexuality? Because its wrong, and I believe it hurts people. Does any of this stuff hurt people? Well, we both believe it does [I hope] but the rapist [for example] believes that the suffering is worth the crime. Who's more right? Why? What if the majority of the country was filled with rapists?
Sincerely in Christ,
Hidden One
Charles, I want to address each of your comments individually.
First of all, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that people are born homosexuals. And as for children, they are oblivious to sexuality in the beginning years of their lives. And as they mature, they learn about sexuality and make choices on how they will express their own. Since it is physically impossible for two men or two women to procreate, and since that is the primary (though not only) function of sex, it is a natural and logical conclusion to come to that homosexuality is a deviance from the norm. I agree with you that believing the Bible is a choice as well.
My son has a gay friend who said "I wasn't born gay. Nobody is born gay, and anyone who says they were is lying just to make a political statement or to justify or excuse their lifestyle." My son asked if he could quote him on this and he was fine with that.
Secondly, I agree that government should protect the rights of its citizens...within reason. Teaching children that a deviant behavior is normal is not acceptable nor good for society as a whole and is not protecting anyone's rights.
I have one more thing to say, and it is the most important point of all. I say it with the utmost sincerety and with a truly pure motive. The most hateful and arrogant thing I could do would be to let you leave this post and go on with your life and write you off. But I tell you the truth in love. There is a God. The Bible is His message to us. We are all sinners - you no more than I. There is a heaven and there is a hell. No one gets to heaven on their own merit because we're all unworthy of it in the presence of a holy God. Jesus Christ was a real person and He was the real God. His death on the cross gave us the ONLY possible way to heaven - and that is through faith in Him and His resurrection and payment in full for our sins. And whether a person is straight or homosexual, if they haven't repented of their sins and asked Jesus to save them, they will not enter the kingdom of heaven. You may scoff at that, but I don't want your blood on my hands. If no one else tells you this, at least I have.
And I'll deal with your points one by one as well.
I love the way you use 'science' when it's convenient but call it 'faith' when it isn't. There is ample scientific evidence that homosexual behaviour is present in dozens, if not hundreds, of animal species, often in monogamous relationships and often in the presence of the other sex. Call it a life-style choice, call it genetics. It doesn't make an iota of difference.
I don't recognise the authority of your son's gay friend. Why should I? Who is he?
I don't recognise gay behaviour as 'deviant'.
I find your last paragraph patronising.
Oh yes, Ms. Green, I forgot to add that the only way my blood will ever be on your hands is as a result of your implicit promotion of homophobic hate crimes. You, and others like you, already have the blood of hundreds and thousands of gay people on your hands, people who've been tortured and murdered by individuals and states both recently and in the past. The climate you produce is an evil killing climate. The fact that you think it's sustained by the tosh of 'sin' only makes it more reprehensible.
Signing off...
Charles, the following is, by no means, an attempt to “patronize” or attack you or your beliefs outright. It is just a collection of a few thoughts that I had, and I hoped that they might help provide a little more clarity…or at least food for thought.
Human babies are born with absolutely no concept of sexuality. The same is true of all members of Kingdom Animalia.
[Aside: If one is using Biblical principles or those of any metaphysical philosophy or extra-Freudian teleology to approach the issue, then he/she must keep in mind that human beings abide by a higher standard than "the animals" (the rest of 'em, that is). (By the way, anyone who has told you that there is a certain portion of an animal population that is "homosexual" or “born gay” to “check overpopulation” (a popular rationale) or otherwise [even due to environmental pressures and constraints] does not understand what drives animal(istic) sexuality, has totally misrepresented the concepts of nature and/versus nurture, and is unfortunately causing people to be misled. Who ever said this to you needs to review the principles of biodiversity and design, human vs. subhuman physiology, not to mention the basics of population science.) ALL humans exhibit behavior patterns that are based on (at any given moment) some form of moral and/or ethical code and/or belief system (however temporally dynamic). We have beliefs. We have standards. We have principles. We have faith (whether sacred or secular). We have a categorical imperative (at least from time to time [see Immanuel Kant]). However, even the most intelligent of the subhumanoids do not follow, nor are they even able to comprehend, the concepts of moral or ethical code. This is beyond evident in the study of subhuman animal behavior. (This is not to say that there is no proverbial rhyme or reason for any given animal behavior or series thereof, but the actual cognition and understanding of morality and ethics is simply absent. Again, this is beyond evident in the study of subhuman animal behavior.) It is therefore neither relevant nor appropriate to reference subhumanoid behavior as a means of supporting either side of an argument/discussion on the human issue at hand.]
Back to humans…
At birth, there is no sexual attraction (The proof is in the PET scan, among other bodies of evidence). Actual sexual urges (and initially that is all they are: physiological urges) begin when certain gender-specific hormones become active on the appropriate (and adequately matured) organ tissue sites (namely the brain). (Puberty follows shortly after this, and we all know what happens during that little phasic bundle of hormonal onslaught.) It is during this initial stage of hormonal activity that ENVIRONMENTAL reinforcement(s) become(s) most influential. Environmental reinforcements include all sensory (and sensual) stimuli and experiences (familial and peer relationships, social norms, mores, and pressures, crises, etc., etc.). Individual perception and objective-subjective interpretation and evaluation of these items is the final call. This is where a person's choice is at hand. Based on this perception, this interpretation and evaluation, one chooses (at whatever level of conscious directive) to take a step in one direction or the opposite (regarding a single principallic item). This is the psychology of life as a series of human experiences (actually, it's just the scratching of the surface of it, but suffice it to say…modus operandi a priori).
Homosexuality is not inborn. It arises as the product of a series of choices (regarding interpretation, evaluation, belief, value, priority, acceptance, rejection, denial, love, hate, worldview, action, inaction, etc.) based on experience. One person may certainly be more prone to such a lifestyle outcome due to situational phenomena or even a few genetic/physiological factors, but no person is born with a sexual desire for the same sex. For more self-evident support (on a purely biological/ natural and logical level) of this conclusion, consider physiology: boys have a penis; girls have a vagina. Homosexuality is less about finding oneself and more about defining oneself (again, at whatever level of conscious directive). It is not something that has defined itself in a person of its own accord (or by any automatic innatism). It is something that a person has defined within him/herself and that a person has defined him/herself by.
I have several gay friends of both sexes and of various ages. More than one of them has confirmed the statement made by the son of Ms. Green (not that this holds any authority with you - as you say, you don't know these people - but it is a possibility to be considered: that there are those in the homosexual community who acknowledge the choice of their lifestyle).
I, personally, am willing to make one more allowance for those who truly believe that they were born gay: that perhaps they (as anyone can) have merely lost track of, forgotten much of, or otherwise jumbled the memory of their own mental and psychosocial history somehow.
I sincerely hope that this didn't come off as pretentious or chiding, Charles. I hope you are well.
Well Charles, this conversation has slowly digressed, and although I am tempted to respond to your last few posts in more detail, I will not, except for two things.
The word deviant is defined as deviating from an accepted norm. So despite your not recognizing homosexuality as deviant, it remains so just the same. It is a fact, not an opinion. It is a neutral word, in that it is not judgemental as to the worth of the deviance, just that it is deviant.
The second thing you said was that you found my last statements patronizing. I want to assure you that I was not meaning to sound condescending in the least. I was speaking from my heart from one human being to another - just as I have done so many times in the past to others that I have met that have questioned the validity of the Bible and Christianity. I rejected it for over 40 years myself, and have my own history of sin, defiance, and rejection of religion in general. Jesus quite literally not only saved my life from hell but saved my life here on earth from a path headed for self destruction. With the exception of maybe Hitler, Stalin, or the Saddam Husseins of the world, I deplore the thought of anyone spending eternity in hell. That was the reason I told you what I did. If I had wanted to be patronizing, I would have simply written you off and said "oh well, we'll just agree to disagree". So please at the very least take me at my word when I say I was sincere about sharing my faith with you.
I have never promoted hate toward anyone. You can read the several hundred posts I've written here on this blog and you'll not find a single instance of promoting or condoning hate coming from me. Your perception does not make something a reality.
Last and not least, I prayed for you this morning and will continue to do so. I pray God will do for you what He did for me. Opened my eyes to His truth and His love and forgiveness.
Post a Comment
<< Home