Skip to comments.The Rise of the Homosexual Super Citizen
Posted on 01/24/2005 6:33:54 AM PST by presidio9
All pigs are created equal, except some pigs are more equal than others" wrote George Orwell in his classic Animal Farm. While it is always fun poking fun at Stalin being a pig, applying Owellian metaphors to American society will usually do nothing but get a person called paranoid by their friends, and a ranting lunatic by most others. However, when reality strikes you in the face and the preponderance of evidence is undeniable, the truth is the truth no matter how insane or impossible it may sound. The facts in America today are that homosexuals have been elevated to be Americas Super Citizens, above the law to the point where their psychological need for acceptance trounces even the most basic Constitutional rights of others.
The Super Citizens have struck their latest blow to our rights in my home state of Pennsylvania, in the well known case of the Philadelphia 11, or Philadelphia 5, or the Philadelphia 4, plus one minor, who despite being ignored by the press is still being prosecuted. Whatever you call it, the situation is the same. Several people are being put on trial for having the audacity to say they believe homosexuality is wrong.
Despite what you may have read, this is not a case of judicial activism. Philadelphia Municipal Court Judge William Austin Meehan has a long, solid, history of upholding the letter of the law as it was written. Nor is the problem the law itself. Title 18 of the Consolidated Pennsylvania Statutes regarding Crimes and Offenses has no language or penalties that differ greatly from any of the other 49 states. In fact, 18 Pa.C.S. §5504 (e) clearly states that the sections on hate crimes shall not apply to any Constitutionally protected activity. A good law, a good judge, and two group of people peacefully assembling to exercise their First Amendment rights. So what went wrong? Nothing except that one of the groups of protestors chose to read Bible verses to Americas untouchable elite, homosexual activists. Now, this small group of Christians must face the full wrath of the militant homosexual lobby for infringing on their self created right to be above all reproach.
In the America of the homosexual Super Citizen, it does not matter what the law says, how it applies to others, or even the intent of the legislators who wrote it. All that matters is how homosexual activists can twist it to achieve their goal of not just forcing Americans to accept their chosen lifestyle, but it place it and themselves above any criticisms or scrutiny. Homosexuality should not be the equal of traditional heterosexual marriage and families, but its superior. What people chose to do in their bedrooms should be a private matter unless they are homosexual, then their sexual choices should be taught in the public schools, celebrated in the media, and warrant preferential treatment in the workplace. Additionally, all this should be backed with the full force of legislation so if you should choose to speak out against homosexuality, you can face criminal prosecution.
However, according to the Super Citizens, the law should only be respected and enforced if it directly benefits them. If the law cannot be twisted to fit their agenda, as in Pennsylvania, then they will break it. Who can forget San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome tossing aside California law and marrying homosexual couples last year? Rather than Newsome receiving the censure any other elected official would have received for, say ignoring state gun control laws, he was exulted as a hero and those who stood up for the will of the people and rule of law were vilified. Why? Because homosexual activists see themselves as above the law.
The duplicity and elitism of the homosexual activists is undeniable. They see the law as something applying to others, but never themselves. Democratic processes are the enemy because the will of the people staunchly opposes the forced indoctrination of their lifestyle on their children, therefore should be ridiculed and ignored. While saying one critical word to them should be met with accusations of intolerance, no degree of intimidation or slander is too outrageous to achieve their goal of using which ever public bathroom they choose.
The life blood of a civil society is free speech and respect for the rule of law. Nobody likes to be criticized or have their beliefs questioned, but it is a necessary part of being free. If Americans allow any group to be elevated above the others to the point where saying I think you are wrong is a crime, then only a select few will be free and the rest subjugated.
We are not saying that homosexuals do not have rights. We are not saying homosexuals should be permitted to be the victims of prejudice or violence. What we are saying is being a homosexual does not make you better than anyone else, and that intimidating or silencing those who disagree with you through legislation is wrong. If anyone sees themselves as a Super Citizen, where their rights supercede those of all others and the law becomes a one sided force for their benefit alone, then our entire democratic society will be lost.
Interesting how in Canada and some other countries free speech rights and religious freedom seem to have been sacrificed where criticism of homosexuals is concerned.
There are gay bars, gay clubs, and gay support groups.
Where's the "straight" bars, clubs, and groups?
Reminds me of Feminists... Men can't have single gender clubs, but women can. Mostly because men don't normally want to join women's clubs, and women always want to join ours.
All pigs are created equal, except some pigs are more equal than others"
Too bad the writer didn't bother to research his "quote"...it was actually All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others"
Four legs: Good. Two legs: BAD.
Superb post Presidio9. Absolutely superb. Thanks for finding this.
And there isn't anything we can do about it.
Our Founders beliefs with regards to buggery/sodomy:
America's first law book, authored by founding jurist Zephaniah Swift, communicated the popular view concerning sodomy:
This crime, tho repugnant to every sentiment of decency and delicacy, is very prevalent in corrupt and debauched countries where the low pleasures of sensuality and luxury have depraved the mind and degraded the appetite below the brutal creation. Our modest ancestors, it seems by the diction of the law, had no idea that a man would commit this crime [anal intercourse with either sex]. . . . [H]ere, by force of common law, [it is] punished with death. . . . [because of] the disgust and horror with which we treat of this abominable crime. 25
John David Michaelis, author of an 1814 four-volume legal work, outlined why homosexuality must be more strenuously addressed and much less tolerated than virtually any other moral vice in society:
If we reflect on the dreadful consequences of sodomy to a state, and on the extent to which this abominable vice may be secretly carried on and spread, we cannot, on the principles of sound policy, consider the punishment as too severe. For if it once begins to prevail, not only will boys be easily corrupted by adults, but also by other boys; nor will it ever cease; more especially as it must thus soon lose all its shamefulness and infamy and become fashionable and the national taste; and then . . . national weakness, for which all remedies are ineffectual, most inevitably follow; not perhaps in the very first generation, but certainly in the course of the third or fourth. . . . To these evils may be added yet another, viz. that the constitutions of those men who submit to this degradation are, if not always, yet very often, totally destroyed, though in a different way from what is the result of whoredom.
Whoever, therefore, wishes to ruin a nation, has only to get this vice introduced; for it is extremely difficult to extirpate it where it has once taken root because it can be propagated with much more secrecy . . . and when we perceive that it has once got a footing in any country, however powerful and flourishing, we may venture as politicians to predict that the foundation of its future decline is laid and that after some hundred years it will no longer be the same . . . powerful country it is at present. 26
being a homosexual does not make you better than anyone else, and that intimidating or silencing those who disagree with you through legislation is wrong.
Problem is, that is entirely their agenda. In the guise of "rights" they make a mockery of justice.
"Homosexuality should not be the equal of traditional heterosexual marriage and families, but its superior."
That's what the NAZI's also said. Core Nazis were homosexuals who disdained normal heteros and women. Prim exhibit: Ernst Röhm. Homosexuality is a very violent lifestyle, even if cushioned in frivolity. It's a disgrace the churches have let it get this far.
What you need is conservative lawyers to put cities like Philly on the spot. Let them know if you are going to infringe on someone's 1st amendment rights, be prepared to pay a big price. 1st Amendment rights apply to all, not just a select few.
way to go.
Or 17th century Massachusetts, where blasphemy could get you whipped or dunked or worse--
Or Nazi Germany, where speaking out against the regime carried a death sentence---
Or the French Revolution, where adressing someone as Madame could get you guillitined
The Left is as sick and as dangerous as these and all other tyrannies.
The gay marriage issue boils down to money. Gay men are the least monogamous group in our society. They are not particularly interested in committing to one partner. However, they have a 42 year life expectancy because of AIDS and a generally unhealthy lifestyle. They are generally affluent, because of a lack of inconvenient expenses such as children. As a result, they end up paying a great deal into Social Security, but relatively few of them collect. If they can get the government to accept them as married, surviving partners can collect benefits until they too succumb to ass cancer.