Fifty years ago, Martin Luther King stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and gave his “I Have A Dream” speech and spoke of the day when people would be judged by the content of their character. I am not sure that the recent controversy over singer Donnie McClurkin is what MLK had in mind. McClurkin is a deeply religious man who says that God delivered him from being gay. That reportedly led to his being told that he was no longer welcomed at the anniversary performance of the speech.
McClurkin was scheduled to perform at the concert Saturday evening but gay rights activities objected to his participation ahead of the event.
Yet, Doxie McCoy, a spokeswoman for Mayor Vincent Gray, insisted that it was McClurkin who removed himself from the lineup to avoid controversy over his participation. She issued a statement that “[t]he Arts and Humanities Commission and Donnie McClurkin’s management decided that it would be best for him to withdraw because the purpose of the event is to bring people together.”
McClurkin however contradicted that account and said that he did not agree to be excluded. He states that he was “asked not to attend” the concert. That is quite a difference in accounts. Where the Mayor’s office is claiming that he removed himself, he is saying that he was barred because of his religious beliefs.
I can understand the feelings of gay rights advocates, particularly given the clear analogies of their own current struggle with the fight of Martin Luther King. However, the greater symbol of division can be found in barring people who share their admiration for MLK but subscribe to opposing religious views. I am equally concerned over what McClurkin is clearly suggesting is a false account from the office of Mayor Gray on the matter. The burden is now on Gray’s office to produce proof that the singer did opt not to attend to avoid controversy.
What do you think?
Source: Washington Post
@leejc;
Sometimes words are not precise. I think gayness is “normal” in the sense that there has always been a small percent of people born/developed with that orientation. But, gayness is not “normal” in that in the sense that it is only a small percentage, and not biologically viable.
By way of analogy, the human race has always had some kids who were born retarded, and autistic-y. And some people that went schizo in their late teens. So, that is “normal” in the sense that it occurs. But who would say that a retarded child is “normal”, and if there was a pill that could fix it, what parent wouldn’t want their child to take that pill?
Which, is also why people shouldn’t be mean to gay people, or retarded people, or even most crazy people. But, I don’t think it is smart for a society to just pretend that there is nothing wrong and then try to do things which might tend increase the population of either group. or, to hobble the majority of the population to the behavior of either group.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
You need to watch your filthy mouth, when you’re talking about developmentally disabled kids. You really do.
Squeeky. I don’t like what they are doing in Russia but thatis Russia. However when they threaten to put athletes from all over the world in jail because they come to the Olympics, a world event, not a Russian event, saying they are gay, even wearing pins etc that say I am gay or I support gay rights, it does involve the rest of us.
As for animals who cares but people have always had, depending on whom you read, 3% or more of the population.
(People use the animals because it shows that homosexuality is natural, in all forms of life.)
@leejc:
Well, I am all for what Russia is doing IN RUSSIA. That is their country and if they choose to avoid all the gay silliness and drama, then more power to them. I certainly can not fault them for that. American law does not permit those options.
And, as far as the gay animal stuff, that is also silliness. Because, Petie the Poodle humps my leg, does not mean he is gay. It is called “thrusting” behavior. There seems to be a lot of anthropomorphism going on. But, if you are kewl with it, do not complain the next time some woman pops a cap into her lover. After all, many female spiders do it! Sooo, it;s only natural.
You also need to work on that whole ad hominem thingy you have going on, or more precisely, the “guilt by association” fallacy. It does not dispose of an argument to say, ‘But that is from the FRC!!!” Frankly, I don’t believe many of the studies I have read over the last few days from either side. “Science” quite often allows itself to become the handmaiden of politics or moneyed interests. Which is one reason why Global Warming gets sooo much flack. People don’t trust science anymore either. Another wonderful result brought to us by the practice of polarizing politics, and the pursuit of profits.
@others: As far as all those lists of groups that say you can’t do reparative therapy on gays as a matter of science, I tend to give them little credence. If you do not know what causes a thing, then you can’t say whether or not it is impossible to fix.
Personally, FOR HUMANS, I think sexual preferences tend to exist on a continuum, which is heavily(97+%) skewed to the heterosexual side of things as a result of simple biology. However, for some reason, Mother Nature seems to have a real hard on for certain people, and arranges things so that they will not naturally reproduce. Currently, I see her going apesh*t in a chthonian dwelling somewhere, probably in Greece, throwing stuff into a boiling cauldron, trying to rid the world of turkey basters and IVF.
Between those two extremes, I bet there are a significant number of people who could go either way, and back and forth, with the dopamine producing effects of org*sms, providing reinforcement for all choices. Not to mention the effects of habit. Some gays probably just get stuck in the rut of gayness. (double entendre intended!)
Personally, I have a friend who simply quit being a lesbian, got married and had a baby. I also have friends who quit being drunks and druggies. Sometimes people just get tired of the way they are living, and the people they are hanging out with, and want to change (i.e., grow up) and be normal.
You might enjoy reading up on “hasbians.”
http://nymag.com/nymetro/nightlife/sex/columns/nakedcity/n_8301/
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky and David should like this:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/pat-buchanan-defends-putin-anti-gay-law-pussy-riot-prosecution
“Thus if we seek to build a Good Society by traditional Catholic and Christian standards, why should not homosexual propaganda be treated the same as racist or anti-Semitic propaganda? ”
(I guess if Feinstein and Buchanan had their ways we would all be arrested, with the exception of David and Squeeky, sorry if I left out anyone else in the anti gay, homosexuality is wrong brigade.)
Juliet,
Yes, indeed, I have noticed that. Verbose too. With apologies to Sir Winston Churchill: Never in the field of human endeavor, have so few written so much to say so little.
Thanks. Elaine.
leejcarroll,
I just found your comment in the spam filter and posted it. I’ve had to retrieve lots of my own comments from the filter.
2 times I tried a reply, with no clicks, no cursng. The first time it just said couldn’t be posted, the second time was just gone.
?
Squeeky’s link came from a ‘newspaper” that is right wing:It was started by “Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), a Canadian national pro-life organization headquartered in Toronto, Canada. Campaign Life Coalition, founded in 1978, was one of the first pro-life organizations to emphasize the international dimension of attacks on life and family. Along with a few other groups it pioneered pro-life lobbying at United Nations conferences. CLC president, Jim Hughes, is currently also vice-president of the International Right to Life Federation.”
They also say in their ‘about us’ :4. LifeSiteNews.com understands that abortion, euthanasia, cloning, homosexuality and all other moral, life and family issues are all interconnected in an international conflict affecting all nations, even at the most local levels. LifeSiteNews attempts to provide its readers with the big picture and the most useful and up-to-date information on this conflict.
David. It has already been said natural law has always included homosexuality.
What interests me is how you seem to be so many laces where homosexuals are dancing in front of you or you are confronted by them. Maybe if you stayed away from these places this wouldn’t happen. Do ou choose to be there to specifically either incite them against you by your anti homosexuality screeds or is there a more personal reason you are there?
One more thing. A lot has happened since that letter was written to Dr. Spitzer and the Work Group. Every reputable health organization in the country condemns “gay conversion” or “gay reparative therapy,” including the:
American Psychological Association,
American Psychiatric Association,
American Medical Association,
National Organization of Social Workers,
American Academy of Pediatrics,
American Psychoanalytic Association
National Register of Health Service Psychologists
The link below goes to the official policy of the American Psychological Association. Being a science based practice, organized psychology bases official policy statements on statistically based studies and not unproven theories or beliefs. The statement cites a number of statistically sound published studies to back up their position paper.
http://www.apa.org/about/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx
Below is a detailed explanation from the National Register of Health Service Psychologists as to why “gay conversion therapy” is unethical.
http://www.nationalregister.org/trr_spring06_waldheter.html
OS: Haven’t you learned that only the “science” that supports DavidM’s positions, regardless of how unscientific, is valid. All other science is “junk.”
David:
I have a copy of the DSM-III right here in front of me. Nowhere in there are the names of Charles Socarides or Vamik Volkan. They were not on any of the subcommittees, nor were they part of the clinical trials.
Charles Socarides and Vamik Volkan wrote an open letter to Dr. Robert Spitzer, which was printed in the American Journal of Psychiatry back in 1981. Dr. Spitzer was Chair of the Work Group that created the DSM-III and DSM-III-R.
Four marriages and an openly gay son who is a Democratic Party strategist….and gay rights advocate. Four marriages? Hardly the poster boy for family stability.
I apologize for giving lines from, Airplane. I never knew it would take this detour. And Elaine, I gave more thought about liking the Barbara Billingsley type woman. I do like them wearing aprons and pearls, and nothing else!! Just trying to give this thread some hetero equal time.
Olympic Committee Could Punish Athletes For Speaking Out Against Russian Anti-Gay Law
By Travis Waldron
August 12, 2013
http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2013/08/12/2452621/olympic-committee-could-punish-athletes-for-speaking-out-against-russian-anti-gay-law/
Excerpt:
With just six months to go before the 2014 Winter Olympics open in Sochi, Russia, the International Olympic Committee is facing a dilemma in its hand-picked host country: Russia passed an anti-gay law earlier this year that outlaws homosexual propaganda and punishes any instance of it with fines, jail time, and possible deportation. That’s bad news for an organization that prides itself on tolerance, especially considering there will be LGBT athletes at the Games. So the IOC went and got “assurances” from the Russian government that the law wouldn’t apply to Olympians or fans, though other Russian officials have said those assurances are meaningless and that the law will be endorsed.
Facing pressure from LGBT activists and even President Obama, the IOC has announced that it intends to take action. Against any athlete who speaks out against the law during the Games.
Activists want athletes to wear rainbow flag pins or show LGBT pride and solidarity in other ways. American figure skater Johnny Weir has said he’s unafraid of getting arrested, and openly gay speed skater Blake Skjellerup from New Zealand, has pledged to wear a pin at the Games. But if they do, the IOC told GayStarNews this week, they risk violating Rule 50 of the Olympic charter, which states: “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.”
Wait, that’s not it, either, concerning the orientation change (putting aside everything else for a moment).
If someone who had long identified as homosexual said that they now identified as heterosexual, and they felt that being heterosexual was their truest self, it would be cool that they were finally being their most authentic. If someone who had long identified as heterosexual said that they now identified as homosexual, and they felt that being homosexual was their truest self, it would be cool that they were finally being their most authentic.
Either way, we could have a little party to celebrate and mark the occasion, if that was appropriate to the person’s personality.
I guess the change of orientation is not for me to judge, because who knows all the reasons that factor into why someone temporarily identifies as gay, as some of the other commenters pointed out above. I would also try not to consider his membership in a religion with hostile views to sexual minorities, for all the usual reasons about not judging individuals based on their group membership. The presence together, side by side, of a change in orientation *and* membership in a conservative religion, by themselves, I would also not consider grounds for disqualification in participation, because they don’t necessarily add up to anything.
But, when he ties them together in a way that says homosexuality is bad and it’s an error to be overcome through his beliefs, I would say that’s problematic. Especially since there is a long history of many people being harmed this way and some people with gay teens may still seize on it as proof that their out-of-date beliefs are correct and then set about harming their children.
Gene, that’s a haircut? I thought it was his pet squirrel sleeping on his head.
@OtterayS:
Uh, I guess somebody has to say this. It might as well be me. People mostly wear clothes because of the weather and modesty. Even if the weather is nice, and a people uninhibited, people without clothes tend to get booty juice and other stinky body fluids all over the place. Like furniture and car seats, and each other. Plus, having your little thingie hanging out is probably dangerous around some machinery.
We don’t just have clothes because of Christians. My goodness, even the Norks wear clothes, and the Heathen Chinee, and Buddhists.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
OS,
I’m certain David would have made that “sacrifice for the love of the game”.
Seriously, at this point, his rabid repetition and fervent denial(s) in the face of contrary legal and scientific fact in seeking to deny homosexuals equal rights and equal protection just screams “closet”.
That haircut isn’t helping him out either.
David: ” I think laws should follow natural law and make sense in the context of nature.”
I just googled “animal homosexual sex” and you could see many evidence on youtube showing animals performing same-sex mating acts with their own species and different species. Are you absolutely sure that’s the “natural law” you want to adopt for us to follow?
Chaz wrote: “I just googled “animal homosexual sex” and you could see many evidence on youtube showing animals performing same-sex mating acts with their own species and different species. Are you absolutely sure that’s the “natural law” you want to adopt for us to follow?”
Hi Chaz. I’m sorry, but Gene H apparently has misled you with his gross misunderstanding of Natural Law Theory. If you are interested in this subject, I recommend you google a phrase like Natural Law Theory Finnis. John Finnis is an Oxford professor who is one of the world’s foremost experts in the field of Natural Law Theory.
The existence of homosexuality in nature does not mean that homosexuality is supported by natural law. Mistakes do happen in nature, such as some people being born with Down’s Syndrome. We don’t usually look at that as a good thing because we recognize the lower intelligence and other issues associated with those who have the genetic defect. In regards to sexuality, we look for a Good and purpose in it. We recognize the role of sex in causing us to reproduce, and so we might deduce that the purpose of sex is to create a proximal cause toward reproduction. We might also recognize a bonding effect caused by periodic coitus and identify that as a natural law at play. Some put forward that simply pleasure is a Good that leads to happiness, but others might see this as a relatively minor or insignificant effect. Generally speaking, both anti-creationist evolutionary theories as well as theistic models have the same understanding of the natural laws at play in regards to sex. The real departure happens with hedonists who have a paradigm that pleasure is of greatest importance, and coupled with this is the libertine paradigm that personal freedom to do whatever a person wants is paramount. So hedonism and libertarianism tend to support homosexuality and gay marriage, but natural law theory does not.
Brian Coleman wrote a manuscript in 2006 that might somewhat introduce you to the concept of how natural law is applied to the issue of homosexuality. It assesses a debate between Oxford’s John Finnis and Princeton’s Stephen Macedo. Here is a link to his thesis.
http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=philosophy_theses
There are different variations of Natural Law Theory, but in a nutshell, Natural Law Theory is the idea that there are natural laws that govern civil affairs. Just as science discovers empirical laws that govern nature, there are laws that in like manner can be discovered and defined regarding civil society. So the goal of a legislature is to use the rational mind to discover these laws and articulate them.
Many of our defined natural rights come from this idea. Natural rights are said to be inherent in man by nature, and because of that, no government has the right to create laws which would violate them. When governments do create laws of their own accord that are contrary to natural law, it creates civil discord and unhappiness, and if grave enough, it leads to revolution and overthrow of that government.
You can see the natural law concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence when it speaks of Laws of Nature and Nature’s God as a justification for breaking the political ties with England. The concept was common knowledge taught in the school systems at that time, but our school systems have become deficient. Mostly only specialized majors in college or those who study on their own ever learn about it. The typical high school graduate today has no clue what the Declaration of Independence means when it speaks of Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitling a people to separate and equal stations among the powers of the earth.
As hinted at in our Declaration of Independence, Natural Law Theory has roots in theism. There is another paradigm of law that is more popular with Positivists, such as atheists and scientists. This is called Positive Law, which basically says laws are whatever people in power choose to make them. One society might allow for certain behavior and another society might not. Whatever the society votes for or wants, so goes the laws. There is no concept of a problem in creating laws that might violate natural laws.
Because of pluralism, a lot of our laws now are a mixture of both positive law and natural law.
Actually, SCOTUS punted and didn’t depart from Loving a bit. The nature of the Windsor case didn’t lend itself for a broad finding, only a narrow finding on facts related to benefits and invalidating DOMA – a Federal law. Windsor goes along perfectly in the spirit of Loving in that the Windsor ruling makes it extremely difficult for states to make such discriminatory laws as California’s Prop 8 moving forward (which was also struck as unconstitutional in a separate appeal). If the factual scenario of a case was presented to SCOTUS that lent itself to a broad finding like Loving? You’d get to find out that everything I’ve been telling you about Loving‘s arguments being perfectly analogous to the situation of homosexual couples is *gasp* true from a logic and legal reasoning standpoint. Either it will be some day or the same conclusion will be reached via a patchwork of lower court cases.
However, it was a clear signal that arguing to discriminate against homosexuals has no legal refuge.
Too bad for your lil’ culture war thingy, David.