← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 12852 | Posts: 1 | Started: 2004-03-23
2004-03-23 18:44 | User Profile
[url=http://antihumanist.srv2.pmachinehosting.com/archives.php?id=A2004031]Homosexual Civil Rights Struggle Not on a Par With Negro Civil Rights, According to a Group of Black Pastors[/url]
by the knave
Recently I wrote about the eerie silence emanating from black churches on the question of homosexual marriage. Apparently [url=http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040323_113.html]now a few pastors are speaking out[/url]. But alas, it is not what it appears in many cases. Their grievance is with the placing of Gay Marriage on an equal level with the "civil rights" struggle. Of course, if one utilizes the internal logic of the black civil rights movement, namely, that since one's racial assignment is beyond one's control, then discrimination based on such characteristics should be made illegal. Only if homosexual behavior is cast as a genetic characteristic, rather than a fully willed behavior, can it be elevated to a civil rights issue. Deny the genetic factor, and the case disintegrates. As is claimed by the vast majority of homosexuals -who desire to portray their quest for superior and exclusivist rights as equivalent to the erstwhile "rise" of blacks.
But the logic of the black civil rights movement was flawed from its' inception. It is flawed because it assumes several key issues are non-controversial:
A) The an alien population brought into another nation from without and prematurely put at liberty without training in the self-discipline of property, independence, thrift, and civil order, possessed the capacities and temperament for civil participation. (It is readily admitted that such qualifications would restrict many whites from the franchise as well).
B) That scientific observation of deleterious group-prevalent behaviors can in no way be utilized to determine the suitableness of engagement in the institutions of self-government.
C) The egalitarian premise of the (supposedly) self-evident appropriateness of universal suffrage.
D) The conception of abstract rights which man inherits from his "natural dignity" or "moral autonomy", a Kantian concept which is anti-Biblical. The "rights" of men are plenary, except as restricted by the Law-word of God and necessary inference from it. Man inherits no dignities from his aboriginal state in paradise.
E) That the abrogation of property rights is necessary to ensure equal opportunity in the economy which supposedly operates at the pleasure and discretion of the public will, and whose liberty of administration it is able to abrogate at any time for the utilitarian "greater public good". Rather, this argument should be seen as a ratiocination of confiscation and redistribution based on the premise that minorities are entitled by abstract right to participate and reap the benefits of the majority economy, and the very real fear that minority economies (which have proven so in the past) will again prove unable to ameliorate the economic dependence of minorities.
For the reasons listed above, the elevation of the logic of the "civil rights" movement to semi-sacred status is insufficient to demonstrate its logical distinction from the gay marriage quest, but rather shows itself to be specie (lit. coin) of the very special protection logic of the homosexual rights movement, both of which draw their force from the commonly held (and satanic) notion of the self-authentication of moral truths and abstract rights in a natural law moral universe, the appeal to such common notions apart from their revelatory status, and the belief (indeed a type of "secular" faith) that this constitutes religiously neutral ground from which civil authority originates.