Michael Sam, a DE from the University of Missouri, is the first openly gay football player. He was drafted by the St. Louis Rams in a surprise move in the 7th round of the NFL Draft. After his name was announced, the video feed cut to him crying and kissing his boyfriend.
So a player that most think can't fit into the NFL was drafted and cried. That's not a big deal; we have underdog stories coming out of our ears. Oh but he was gay so it's special? I thought gay people were supposed to be just like heterosexuals? Isn't treating them different a lack of tolerance?!
The idea of tolerance, as pushed by the liberal media, takes away basic American freedoms of speech and thought. A Dolphins player tweets "horrible" after the kiss and get's suspended. What, is that a hate crime now? If an ugly man and woman kiss and it's shown to millions of people, I guarantee twitter will be a fritter with "horrible" and "that was gross." This Dolphins safety get's suspended for his reaction on his personal social media platform, expressing his opinion?! Where's the freedom in that? Don't get me started on examples of everyone crying out for his blood saying how insensitive and inappropriate it was for him to say "horrible".
I've heard many different viewpoints from people I know regarding homosexuals. I've heard everything from "I would never befriend one or even talk to one" to "I respect them for their love". As I believe in the efficaciousness of moderation in all things, I take a middle-ground approach. I wouldn't go out of my way to be around homosexuals, as they make me feel uncomfortable when they display affection towards one another, but I can interact with one in a friendly and civil manner just fine.
Now should I be hated and deemed a bigot for saying that when homosexuals display affection in a public place it makes me uncomfortable? How is that even a question that we have to face?!?! It's a simple opinion, but "tolerance" dictates that we cannot hold with any opinion that is unpopular with the status quo as controlled by the liberal media.
I respect homosexuals as people. They are human beings created by and held in existence by the Author of Life, after all. Do I have to respect their orientation in order to be a "tolerant" human being? Hell no. I think we have gotten so caught up in being tolerant that we haven't noticed that the very idea of what tolerance is has changed. Tolerance is no longer (simply put) loving people for who they are, it is now pushed as loving people for what they do.
I'm going to keep using my free speech and go out on a little limb here, saying that homosexuality is unnatural. Before people throw bricks through my windows and fork my car, listen to why I think that.
I'm going to limit the expression of romantic love to the bond of marriage. That is, after all, what everyone ends up wanting, right (I guess some just for tax purposes)? Romantic love, at its most basic level, is a response to the natural inclination of the male and female for the propagation of the species. Hobbes would have told you this philosophically. Darwin would have told you this biologically. Besides the avoidance of death, this is the most basic instinct in animals.
Offspring are, therefore, the natural effect of the cause "marriage". Marriage is intrinsically bound up in the innate ability, by gender, for two to procreate and carry on the species. Even for men and women that get married after the woman can no longer bear children, or for those who are infertile, the natural drive leads you to bind yourself to someone who naturally has that within their genes.
Speaking of genes, there is no gay gene, so you can give up looking for it. There's a gene for alcoholism, for what color your eyes are, etc., but there will never be found a gene that makes you attracted to something that at a species level is unnatural. If Obama could get a Nobel Peace Prize for ( ? ) then you better believe scientists have been searching without rest to find the gay gene. Whoever found it would probably be given his own island. I'm pretty sure they would have found it by now.
I'm sorry to all the homosexuals out there, but you will never have children without artificially mimicking the natural process between man and woman. It won't happen. The fact that it won't should be a pretty big wake up..."Hey we can't have children unless we find some ovaries or some frozen sperm." HINT HINT.
in summation, sorry, but homosexuality is unnatural by definition. A homosexual union can never attain the goal that the act has. That's not intolerant; just a use of logic and definitions of concepts. You want the intolerance you can stand on your soapbox and scream and cry about? As a society we are intolerant of religious freedom. Even if I wasn't a Catholic, I'm pretty sure I'd be ticked off the government wants to force Catholic hospitals to carry birth control and perform abortions. That's some real infringing of rights, people.
The biggest argument that advocates of gay marriage spew out is "what if they truly love each other? Shouldn't they be able to act according to that love?" This is a truly ignorant question. There are different kinds of love, as Greeks thousands of years ago understood fully. Apparently we've forgotten about that. At it's core, love is the willing of the good for another. Yes, in this way, we should love each other. Eros, romantic love, is for the continuance of the species. It's really a stupid argument. I love my family; so incest is ok? I shouldn't have drawn up the parallels; people are probably going to be pushing for incest now.
This "love" that society is so eager to protect and champion is simply the love of a friend warped into eros. It's a lot simpler than people try to make it. I know that there are homosexuals out there who are not living homosexual lifestyles. It is sad that circumstances have led them to have that attraction, but it is a beautiful thing that they make the choice to not live in that manner.
So that's the diatribe. I never really sat and thought out my position regarding homosexuality before now. The phrase that always comes to mind is "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin." Have you ever noticed how hardcore that is? It isn't "Love the Sinner, Be Tolerant of the Sin." Even more so is it not "Be Tolerant of the Sinner, Tolerate the Sin," which is the societal agenda. I hope that one day I can truly love the sinner while hating the sin. This is the kind of love that built and defended our country. This is the kind of love that is besieged by our tolerance.
~Worley
Comments
Post a Comment