Friday, May 27, 2011

Something's Queer About The Homosexual Movement, Part I

This past Sunday, I was watching Game 3 of the Eastern Conference Finals between the Chicago Bulls and the Miami Heat. Halfway through the first quarter, Bulls center Joakim Noah was sent to the bench after drawing his second personal foul. Shortly afterward, a fan did something to irk him, and Noah replied by dropping the two, obscene "F" words: one of which dealt with copulation, and another with one's sexual orientation. Unfortunately for Noah, the incident was caught on camera, and he was subsequently fined $50,000 by NBA Commissioner David Stern. Last month, Los Angeles Lakers guard Kobe Bryant dropped a similar bomb, this time to a referee, and he was fined $100,000.

In response, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) condemned both actions as serving no purpose in a civilized society, much less professional sports. They've also agreed to work in conjunction with both franchises to promote greater accpetance towards the homosexual community.

Earlier this month, Phoenix Suns president and CEO Rick Welts came out of the closet and declared that he was gay, which is a big shock for a man of his position and power. To support Welts, the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) has teamed up to feature two Suns players, Grant Hill and Jared Dudley, in a commercial lambasting anti-homosexual speech that will air during the NBA Finals in June.

Three isolated events, two negative and one positive, have done much to address the issue of homophobia in one section of the sports world as it applies to the rest of the world. Clearly, there's no harm in urging people to watch their wandering tongues. And I wholeheartedly agree. Certain words describing gay men and lesbian women flung loosely in the open are offensive because they undermine the subject's dignity as a male or female. Men and women who happen to be homosexual should never be subjected to such ignorant drivel, especially, for they are as much human as any straight person in the world. I, for one, don't hate homosexuals and I would never treat a homosexual like a slave in the Antebellum South.

With all that said, it is their lifestyle that, so long as it's tolerated, will bring a more devastating blow to the United States than the Great Recession of the late-2000s.

And the worst part of it all? That's exactly what the homosexual community wants.

Now, before some of y'all decide to flame me for being hypocritical, let's clear up some of the stuff that may have fogged up that mirror you call a mind. I say mirror, because the mind is often a reflection of one's environment and culture. To go one step further, I won't even quote the Bible in defense of my case. I promise.

So, what is it about homosexuality that gets people riled up, anyway? Plenty of things, actually.

To begin, homosexuality is a threat to traditional values that have stood the test of time. In fact, no civilization has ever survived when tried and true values are undermined. For at least several thousand years, wherever there have been men, there were women to accompany them. When the time was right, a man and a woman got married, and they often started a family. The man became the breadwinner, and the woman became the hometaker. Children grew up in a stable environment where they understood the importance of gender roles within the family. Together, this unit functioned as a well-oiled machine, perpetuating the circle of life stronger than ever.

Now? In a first, a majority of Americans approve of homosexuals marrying. This is a sign of the times that was unimaginable not even a decade ago because homosexuality was, is, and forever will be, an unnatural lifestyle.

If for any other reason, homosexuality is unnatural because they cannot properly reproduce. The male anatomy was not meant for intercourse with another male, and ditto for females. To be honest, when I look at myself in the bathroom mirror, I'm disgusted with some of my own features that I don't find the slightest bit attractive.

But back to the point, homosexual couples can't have kids naturally, so the only way they can have children is to adopt them or create them via artifical means. Yet that's the thing. If it's true that there is a "gay gene" that can be passed down from the parents to their children (there isn't), then how come a third party needs to get involved in order to create said child? Two sperm or two eggs does not a child make. And even with outside help, the child can never truly be the product of both parents, which should dispel any ideas that homosexuality is an inherent genetic condition. I say should, because it is human nature to embrace reprehensible causes for no just reason other than to put style over substance.

Even if two homosexuals don't want children, assuming homosexuality were natural, then how come people wait until deciding they're truly homosexual? It's because sexual preferences are conscious decisions that are influenced by one's environment and only come after one's birth and their genetic code is set for life. My desire to pursue women over men is my prerogative based on the environment in which I was raised. If I want, I can go from offense to defense, but I choose not to do so because I believe in absolute, moral truths. And until just a few decades ago, it was these same truths that shunned homosexuality for the perversion it is.

To Be Continued...

No comments:

Post a Comment