Discourse about homosexual issues is for the most part censored by an unspoken agreement among the media, scared politicians and nervous preachers; as well as teachers and others who feel their jobs and thus livelihood might be threatened. Oh, we can talk about events in Vermont, Iowa, and elsewhere, but we can’t talk about the issue. It is perceived that the issue is too explosive, too sensitive, and after all homosexuals represent a significant percentage of the general population. Nobody knows the size of the homosexual community, but the numbers you read go up and down from 10%. Usually down. In most parts of the country probably way down.
Of course, a gaining view is that homosexual discrimination is a civil rights issue. And, being a civil rights matter; homosexuals are entitled to full rights and full recognition.
This view is emerging without the benefit of a full debate. Can you imagine the Congress in floor session discussing, from any angle, the subject of homosexuality and its impact on American society? For the time being it is just an untouchable subject clothed in undetermined and undefined civil rights.
Few even dare to say that homosexuality is unnatural. If the lifestyle is obviously unnatural how do you grant full rights on a matter so fundamental as marriage without turning civil society topsy-turvy.
For right now politicans don’t feel they have to deal with homosexual marriage. And, being resourceful politicans they can push it back, as they push back other difficult decisions. In a word our leaders, so-called, are too intimidated to speak freely.
Then, there is the vast hypocrisy. Always the hypocrisy! Would you not like to know the private thoughts of people ,both present and remote, who where cheering the proclamations by the Governor of New York and the Mayor of New York CIty this month as they introduced a marriage equality proposal. It might be fashionable to incorporate a homosexual agenda into the Bill of Rights, but it is not so simple, nor deserving.
I would guess that the vast majority of Americans are somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of granting full rights to homosexuals. We know from the Clinton era and the position of the military that the subject produced a lot of stress. A “no ask, no tell” policy was developed that kept a lid on the matter for the time being.
Obviously, homosexuals should not suffer job discrimination is most employment. They should not be abused, ridiculed and socially ostracized. At the same time their lifestyle cannot be elevated to share all the societal acceptance that heterosexuals enjoy.
Full legal rights would represent canonizing a sexual perversion into a societal perversion.
Maybe Clinton had the best deal that homosexuals can hope for or deserve. However, if pressed the debate should begin.
Of course, a gaining view is that homosexual discrimination is a civil rights issue. And, being a civil rights matter; homosexuals are entitled to full rights and full recognition.
This view is emerging without the benefit of a full debate. Can you imagine the Congress in floor session discussing, from any angle, the subject of homosexuality and its impact on American society? For the time being it is just an untouchable subject clothed in undetermined and undefined civil rights.
Few even dare to say that homosexuality is unnatural. If the lifestyle is obviously unnatural how do you grant full rights on a matter so fundamental as marriage without turning civil society topsy-turvy.
For right now politicans don’t feel they have to deal with homosexual marriage. And, being resourceful politicans they can push it back, as they push back other difficult decisions. In a word our leaders, so-called, are too intimidated to speak freely.
Then, there is the vast hypocrisy. Always the hypocrisy! Would you not like to know the private thoughts of people ,both present and remote, who where cheering the proclamations by the Governor of New York and the Mayor of New York CIty this month as they introduced a marriage equality proposal. It might be fashionable to incorporate a homosexual agenda into the Bill of Rights, but it is not so simple, nor deserving.
I would guess that the vast majority of Americans are somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of granting full rights to homosexuals. We know from the Clinton era and the position of the military that the subject produced a lot of stress. A “no ask, no tell” policy was developed that kept a lid on the matter for the time being.
Obviously, homosexuals should not suffer job discrimination is most employment. They should not be abused, ridiculed and socially ostracized. At the same time their lifestyle cannot be elevated to share all the societal acceptance that heterosexuals enjoy.
Full legal rights would represent canonizing a sexual perversion into a societal perversion.
Maybe Clinton had the best deal that homosexuals can hope for or deserve. However, if pressed the debate should begin.
RSS Feed
