Intro to ‘Homosexual Agenda Not Synonymous With Civil
Rights For Blacks’
Edited by John R.
Houk
Essay by Mychal
Massie
May 13, 2016
As a Christian Right kind of guy I usually condemn
homosexuality and same-sex marriage as a Biblical ungodly act. God’s Word
settles that for me regardless of how many Leftists, Multiculturalists and
homosexual activists call me a bigot.
Leviticus 18:22New King James Version (NKJV)
22 You shall
not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13New King James Version (NKJV)
13 If a man
lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an
abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon
them.
Romans 1:26-27New King James Version (NKJV)
26 For this
reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the
natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise
also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for
one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in
themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
1 Corinthians 6:9New King James Version (NKJV)
9 Do you not
know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor
sodomites,
1 Timothy 1:9-10New King James Version (NKJV)
9 knowing
this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless
and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the
unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for
manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for
kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is
contrary to sound doctrine, (Leviticus
18: 22; 20: 13; Romans 1: 26-27; 1 Corinthians 6: 9; 1 Timothy 1: 9-10 NKJV - h/t Homosexuality is Condemned in the
Bible!)
Like I said, the Word of God works for me.
Thanks to Donald Moore of the Blind Conservative private
group, I found a fantastic essay that goes beyond the Word of God. Mychal
Massie analyzes the Civil Rights Act
JRH 5/13/16
*********************
Homosexual Agenda Not
Synonymous With Civil Rights For Blacks
May 12, 2016
The following is my [i.e. Mychal Massie] syndicated column dated June 5, 2013. I present it
again as a favor to a subscriber. It is also a reminder that the battle is
ongoing.
**************************
**************************
Homosexuals try to pawn their perceived struggle for
complete and total acceptance of their chosen lifestyle as being synonymous
with what blacks went through to achieve civil rights. But their attempts to
equate their radical agenda with discrimination as defined in The Civil Rights
Act of 1964 is blatantly false and without merit.
Blacks were prevented based on the color of their skin alone
in many domiciles because of prejudice and by codification of segregation, to
vote, to purchase property where they chose, eat wherever they desired, attend
events, ad nauseum.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically defines the act as
same. It reads:
“An Act: To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.”
The Act was intended to put “teeth,” if you will, into the
14th Amendment.
Homosexual activists are dishonest when they attempt to
convince the public that rejection of homosexual marriage is tantamount to the
culture of apartheid that opposed interracial dating and marriage. It is not.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was intended to end, prevent,
and address discrimination – discrimination against men and women regardless of
their race and/or color.
While discrimination based on sexual preference is not
specifically mentioned, I believe it is logically included in the Act. A woman
cannot be discriminated against because she has a dating preference for
gargantuanly obese men. A person cannot be discriminated against because they
have an attraction to short people. A person’s choice of sexual interest as
long as it is legal is protected, and it should be.
But I believe and argue that the Act is an appliance that
guards against discrimination, its [sic] not to be used as cover for a
malicious agenda that prescribes the redefining of our social construct.
Christian organizations must hire homosexuals and I find that fair (after all
what better place for those in need of Christ). But being employed by a
Christian organization doesn’t give the employee the constitutional right to
change the policies and dogma of said employer. The employee had a choice to
seek employment elsewhere.
There are logical exceptions. A morbidly obese person cannot
favorably present the image of certain companies, but a person’s color does not
affect same (allowing the employer isn’t the Ku Klux Klan). A church has the
right to have strict, inflexible standards for ordination and for licensing of
their clergy.
Homosexuals argue they are denied certain other entitlements
that everyone else enjoys, and they cite the inability to make life and death
decisions for those they co-habit with, etc. This too is a specious and
fallacious argument. Heterosexuals co-habiting outside the bonds of marriage do
not have the right to make such decisions either.
That is why responsible people living outside the bonds of
marriage make living wills. They take responsible measures to ensure their
wishes are carried out and to allow for the person of their choice to make
decisions for them in the event of one or the other becoming unable to make the
decision for themselves.
Two men can purchase a property together; they can get
health insurance and life insurance policies naming one another as beneficiaries,
and so on. Their sexual preference doesn’t matter. Their ability to repay a
mortgage, etc., isn’t affected by their sexual preference any more than that of
heterosexuals.
I could go on, but suffice it to say the homosexual agenda
isn’t about civil rights; it is about their desire to change the social
construct by redefining marriage and family.
Legislating an employment and social environment that
codifies the ability of an employee to present themselves in ways that are
detrimental to the welfare and health of the company is ludicrous. I speak
specifically of cross-dressing and exhibiting inappropriate behavior.
It is maddening that a person can be discriminated against
pursuant to employment and home renting because they smoke cigarettes. But nothing
is said to address the fact that the Centers for Disease Control paint a
horrifyingly high incidence for deadly disease with respect to the practice of
homosexuality – including a staggeringly high rate of breast cancer incidences
among lesbian women juxtaposed to heterosexual women.
According to the Centers for Disease Control report on HIV
incidence, men who have sex with men accounted for 63 percent of the estimated
new HIV infections in 2010. That rate means that as 1-4 percent total of the
population they’re as much as 86 times more likely to be diagnosed with HIV.
Women with a history of sex with women may be a marker for increased risk of
adverse sexual, reproductive, and general health outcomes compared with women
who reported sex exclusively with men. (American Journal of Public Health; ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/6/1126)
I would submit it makes more sense for homosexual activists
to tell people to flea [sic] the practice than it does to claim they are being
denied civil rights.
_____________________
About Mychal Massie
Mychal S. Massie is an ordained minister who spent 13
years in full-time Christian Ministry. Today he serves as founder and Chairman
of the Racial Policy Center (RPC), a think tank he officially founded in
September 2015. RPC advocates for a colorblind society. He was founder and
president of the non-profit “In His Name Ministries.” He is the former National
Chairman of the conservative black think tank, Project 21-The National
Leadership Network of Black Conservatives and a former member of its parent
think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research. … Read the entire Bio here
No comments:
Post a Comment