Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right by Peter Sprigg

Early in 2004, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom began giving out marriage licenses—illegally—to same-sex couples. One of the homosexuals who traveled to San Francisco in search of a marriage license explained his rationale succinctly: “I am tired of sitting at the back of the bus.”1

The allusion, of course, was to the famous story of Rosa Parks. Parks is the African-American woman who, one day in 1955, boarded a racially segregated city bus in Montgomery, Alabama, sat down near the front, and refused the driver’s order to “move to the back of the bus.” Parks’ act of civil disobedience violated one of the “Jim Crow” laws that enforced racial segregation in various public services and accommodations in some states.

Parks’ arrest for her courageous defiance sparked the Montgomery bus boycott, led by a young minister named Martin Luther King, Jr., which is generally viewed as the beginning of the great civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. It culminated legislatively in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, banning racial discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations.

The stories of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. have become an inspiring part of American history. It’s not surprising that homosexual activists have tried to hitch their caboose to the “civil rights” train. They do this in the context of efforts to change the definition of marriage in order to allow same sex “marriages” (by comparing same-sex “marriage” to interracial marriage) and efforts to pass “hate crime” laws (which stigmatize opposition to homosexual behavior as a form of “hate” comparable to racism). The arguments in this essay are relevant to those debates, but focus particularly on laws that would ban employment “discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation” (such as the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which is regularly introduced each Congress).

This essay is not a legal treatise, but an exploration of the philosophical justification for including various characteristics as categories of protection under historic civil rights laws—and why “sexual orientation” simply does not compare with them.

Defining Terms: What Are “Civil Rights,” Anyway? …

Read the rest of the article here:
“Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right” by Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council

Advertisements

ALERT: Barnes and Nobel Allows Porn to be Accessible To Minors in Violation of State Law

Recently a local (TN) minister took his 11 year old son to Barnes and Nobel to pick up some DVDs that he had ordered, and while he was there they both encountered a full color, opened coffee table book that contained something that NO 11 year old boy (or anyone else for that matter) should be allowed to display in a store that is frequented by minors.

We MUST speak out against this idiocy and protect our children from the slow indoctrination in sexual perversion. Let us join with others who care about maintaining a family friendly environment for ourselves and our children in holding Barnes and Nobel (and other businesses) accountable for their actions.

I will no longer shop at Barnes and Nobel until their policies change (and perhaps until they quit allowing their buyers to purchase these types of products for their company.)

Please go here to find out more and please be advised that this information is NOT SUITABLE for children:

Article:
Eleven Year Old Exposed To Gay Porn At Barnes and Noble and They Knew This Sort of Thing Was Happening

Here’s the radio show archive:
Worldview Matters with Brannon Howse: June 9, 2008

Here is the TN state law:

39-17-911. Sale, loan or exhibition of material to minors. —

(a) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly sell or loan for monetary consideration or otherwise exhibit or make available to a minor:

(1) Any picture, photograph, drawing, sculpture, motion picture film, video game, computer software game, or similar visual representation or image of a person or portion of the human body, that depicts nudity, sexual conduct, excess violence, or sado-masochistic abuse, and that is harmful to minors; or

(2) Any book, pamphlet, magazine, printed matter, however reproduced, or sound recording, which contains any matter enumerated in subdivision (a)(1), or that contains explicit and detailed verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexual excitement, sexual conduct, excess violence, or sado-masochistic abuse, and that is harmful to minors.

(b) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly exhibit to a minor for monetary consideration, or to knowingly sell to a minor an admission ticket or pass or otherwise admit a minor to premises whereon there is exhibited a motion picture, show or other presentation which, in whole or in part, depicts nudity, sexual conduct, excess violence, or sado-masochistic abuse, and which is harmful to minors.

(c) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(d) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the minor to whom the material or show was made available or exhibited was, at the time, accompanied by the person’s parent or legal guardian, or by an adult with the written permission of the parent or legal guardian.

[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 2000, ch. 763, § 1.]

So – If, after seeing the issue at hand regarding this incident, you wish to stand in the gap over this very critical issue, please go here to sign the petition and stop shopping there until they change their tune.

PETITION BARNES AND NOBEL LINK.
Thank you for your consideration in this vital matter. Please share this with your friends and church family.