For more information read the following IFI article:
Does Marion County have a Homosexual Discrimination Problem?
by Ryan McCann
Does Marion County have a homosexual discrimination problem? According to gay activists and their friends in the Indianapolis City-County Council, the answer is yes. City-County Council member Jackie Nytes is one of these friends. Such a friend, in fact, that she is the presenting co-sponsor of Proposition 622 (additional co-sponsors are Councilman Keller, Boyd, Gray, Langsford, Mahern, Mansfield, Sanders, Bowes, Brown, Oliver and Conley), a measure intended to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” along side immutable characteristics like “race” and “sex” into Marion county discrimination law.
The supporters of Proposition 622 give emotional personal appeals of discrimination they have faced in Marion County, such as being fired from their jobs or denied housing because of their “sexual orientation,” or “gender identity.” However, these anecdotal appeals are not tested and lack the reliability that true scientifically generated statistics would bring. Can supporters point to unbiased, scientifically based statistics proving that systematic discrimination against homosexuals and cross-dressers takes place in Marion County? No. The anecdotal stories put forward by these homosexual activists are unscientific and hardly unbiased. Common sense would lead one to believe that had at least a few of the employers or landlords involved in these stories been questioned, the casual observer would arrive at a far different perspective than based on the allegations of the homosexual activists alone.
However, many members of the Indianapolis City-County Council seem swayed by this biased, anecdotal evidence. Despite the fact that there is no pressing reason to pass Prop. 622 from a public policy perspective, they seem convinced on an emotional level. This is rather ironic when you realize that by giving into the emotional appeals of these homosexual activists, the Council will really be encouraging the very worldview that brings this group such pain and loneliness. These activists want public acceptance of their lifestyle just as much if not more than they want to change discrimination law. When “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are placed within the law, they feel that it will move them a step forward towards societal acceptance of their lifestyle, even equivalent to the marital relationship of a husband and a wife.
What’s sad is that the acceptance they crave cannot be given by government bodies. Many times sexual abuse, family problems and/or painful relationships have wounded these individuals, leaving them vulnerable to the deception of homosexuality. The wounds are only inflamed by government encouragement of their lifestyle. Picture a boy who is beaten by his father to the point of blinding him. This blind boy approaches two doors and a door keeper. The first door leads to healing. The second will lead him to continue his wandering. The door keeper pats the boy on the head and leads him through the second door, to continue his blind wandering.
The door keeper is the Indianapolis City-County Council. The blind man represents those who are wounded and deceived by homosexuality. Homosexuals are often wounded at key times in their childhood, this combined with attributes and interests that often lead them to become loners from members of their own sex leave them vulnerable to homosexuality. The door keeper (government) endorses the homosexual lifestyle in law, leading the blind boy (individuals deceived by homosexuality) through the door of pain and loneliness rather than helping him to find the door that leads to healing.
Healing only comes from confronting the wounds that have lead to the lifestyle, not from government pandering and misdirection. Government codification of sexual practices within the law will further entrench homosexuals into the lifestyle, because the ideas that ensnare people into the homosexual lifestyle are promoted specifically through arguments that are used to pass “gay rights.” “Homosexuals are born with their sexual orientation.” “Homosexuality is not changeable.” “Any opposition to the homosexual lifestyle if bigotry.”
Whether we like it or not, citizens look to the government for basic guidance of right and wrong. Government promotion of homosexuality will harm more homosexuals than it will help. Even those citizens who are questioning their “sexual orientation” will be affected by this misguided public policy. It is a classic example of the blind leading the blind.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment