What is a "black person"? According to the dictionary, it is defined as "pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia." So, let's see ... dark skin pigmentation and origins in Africa, Oceania (some South Pacific islands), and Australia. Good got it.
So, no one would really question whether the lost boys of Sudan are black. They're from Sudan (Africa) and they are definitely dark-skinned. 
You'd have to work a little harder, I suppose, to verify Ice Cube's connection to Africa, but O'Shea Jackson is still of dark enough skin that no one would even think to question it. 
How about Will Smith? He's pretty light-skinned. I bet he would have a tough time demonstrating his family line back to Africa. Of course, that's silly. He's black. 
And take a look at Jordin Sparks. She's pretty light skinned. Her mother, in fact, is white. So ... is she black? Silly question, I know.So what is my point? "Black" is not a narrow definition. We are used to using the word "race" here, but I'm not sure it's accurate. Humans are homo sapiens, and black people are in that category. "Black" does not define "human." "Black" defines origin, lineage, that kind of thing, but not "human." Human has a different definition. "Black" falls more in the category of lineage, ethnicity. In fact, if you ask most Evolutionists, all humans originated from Africa. So ... we're all black, right? Again, silly question.
Why is it, then, that this particular distinction is so often linked with the "gay rights" movement? You can't go long in the discussion of civil rights for gays before you are told, "It's just like black people in the 50's and 60's." And, I have to be honest, I'm stumped. You see, in the 50's and 60's there was a movement that was designed to correct a wrong view of human beings. It incorrectly separated two human groups. There was no reason for that separation. It wasn't right or even reasonable. Black people were people just like white people were people. Now, odd, off-the-wall groups tried to argue (stupidly) that dark-skinned people were not people at all, but, seriously, that kind of thing is just nonsense. The difference between a black man and a white man is their lineage and nothing more. One group came out of Africa longer ago than the other. But both are human beings. Enter the "gay rights" movement. How does that parallel the civil rights movement? Is "gay" part of the definition of "human"? Is there a fundamental wrong where gays are not being viewed as human beings? You see, when some of the people in power blocked a particular group of people from being able to do normal human things simply on the basis of their ethnic origin, that was wrong. Now some people in power (and society in general) are blocking a particular group of people from doing what they want to on the basis of the morality of what they want to do. How is that the same?
We already do this on a regular basis. We don't allow polygamy. Why? Because it's wrong! But, is that fair? I mean, just because you think it's wrong shouldn't give you the right to say it's wrong for them, right? In fact, it's part of their religion. Here you are, blocking them from practicing their religion on the basis of your arbitrary and unfair belief that polygamy is immoral. Is that fair? How about NAMBLA? They just want to be able to practice their way of life freely. Yet we block them on the basis that it's wrong. Is that fair?
Now, I know that raising NAMBLA in a conversation about homosexuals will get people in a tizzy. My point is not that homosexuals and NAMBLA are linked at all. My point is that we already all agree that stopping one because it's immoral is the right thing to do. It's not because they're not human. It's not because they're the "wrong kind of folks." It's not at all similar to the civil rights movement. And neither is the question of "gay rights" as much as we are told it is.
2 comments:
This goes along with my back-and-forth with Flycandler. A black man is human just as I, a white man, am human. But same sex marriage rests on the idea that a man is the same as a woman. While both are human, they are not the same in the definition of marriage. Fly says that I couldn't marry my hispanic wife under an old Florida law, but that was overturned and wisely so. But it is an unqualified leap to say that I should be able to the marry an hispanic man. That's quite a leap IMO! It's a bait-and-switch game really.
The civil rights movement was about rights, but the SSM movement is about one group trying to hijack a narrowly defined social benefit for themselves.
You're right, Jim. Part of the problem I see is that homosexuals are using their "sexual orientation" as their identity. Just like a black man is defined by his culture and origins, they're saying, "I'm defined by my sexual attraction." That makes no sense. I'm not defined by the women I may or may not be attracted to. I'm defined by who I am, not by what I want.
The other problem of which I'm becoming more and more acutely aware is the distinction between "homosexual" and "homosexual behavior." I object, for instance, to homosexual behavior as sin, but that doesn't have anything to do with what gender someone might be attracted to. It's not what someone feels, but how someone acts. We all feel like sinning, but we don't sin when we resist those temptations. I mean, it's not a temptation if I don't feel like doing it, is it? Nothing to do with "orientation." Everything to do with choices that I make regardless of desires ... whatever those desires might be.
Post a Comment