The Executive Editor of HuffPost’s Gay Voices, Noah Michelson, published an article Feb. 14, 2014 titled, “An Urgent Warning to All Parents: This Gay Man Is Targeting Your Children.”
As I have written before, I do not vilify gays, nor am I “homophobic,” and I recognize a difference between attractiveness, lust, and acting on every sexual impulse/desire. I say “loud and proud” that I do not think sexuality is a matter for humanity to define arbitrarily, either in the religious arena or in the political arena; and those arenas should remain separate (see here).
Regarding Noah Michelson’s article, first, please pay attention to the fact that HP’s executive editor wrote the article. This is not a guest posting; it is straight from the company itself. It is a loud and bold statement. Secondly, notice the title uses the “shock and grab” technique with an extra helping of tongue-in-cheek sarcasm to incite all kinds of emotional response from potential readers. It is meant as a hook.
After using that kind of rhetoric in his title, one would expect Mr. Michelson to write something like,
I (and gays) have no agenda to target children; ‘live and let live,’ we say. We’re not monsters. We think everyone should decide for himself or herself at a mature and self-actualized age, and that, parents are the guardian guides of their own children until that time. But let’s agree to have respectful freedom of speech on both sides of the issue politically.
If he had done, I would be forced to agree with him socially and politically speaking, even if I don’t agree with him morally. Yet, that is not what Huffington Post’s editor writes. Instead, he spends ink on explaining with passion and exactness how he, if not the entire Gay community, hopes to determine the moral psychology of youth… or, at least ‘liberate’ the previously established societal norms which directly affect youth development. Think of it. In the title, Noah Michelson writes the boldest kind of emotional denial one can rhetorically employ–(i.e. reductio ad absurdum). In the very next lines, he divulges his plan to do what he originally denies, and he does so by couching it in an aura of “tolerance” and “enlightenment.” This strange mix leads one to wonder if Mr. Michelson is the sort of person he claims not to be. Perhaps the title of his article is not satirically sarcastic after all.
The Crux of the LGBT & Noah Michelson’s Argument:
The crux of the Mr. Michelson’s article is typical of the LGBT in that it is mainly a defense from identity. I think the writer would agree with that observation. He seeks to de-villify those who identify themselves as gays or with a variant sexual orientation by making appeals to equality and tolerance and ‘evidence’ to the contrary (proofs that gays are the really successful and innovative ones in our society). The reader gathers all of this is supposed to console the LGBT community for its explicit desire to alter the moral perceptions of youth and society… as well as convince the non-LGBT communities that this is a perfectly acceptable aim. Comments in the response area of the post include anecdotal testimonies of how the “hidden” are the real predatory monsters, not the “out” individuals. As someone who has experienced sexual abuse and has had to work through the effects of that, as well as some of the thoughts and feelings the author and commentators raise, I also strongly agree with a Kevin B. (kbishop), who states the following criticism about Mr. Michelson’s declared agenda:
… As a middle school teacher, I see how immature sexual experimentation and peer pressure is causing numerous problems in our society. Problems that have emotional, physical, financial, and life-long consequences. I’m not sure what the answer is in this regard, but treating sex like an amusement park ride is tearing our society apart.
There are many arguments which can be made in favor of letting virtue lead us instead of passion, as Kevin Bishop observes. All of them have to do with things like what it means to be human, as well as cause and effect, action and consequence, reason vs. irrationality, immaturity vs. maturity. New research on how casual sex affects young adults finds a trend of depression and suicidal thoughts—-Journal of Sex Research: http://t.co/l20QJfcd4E & http://t.co/essz7awxzE . Clearly, youth are feeling the disastrous results of undefined sexuality and experimentation.
But, concerning the matter of sexual identity and equality, one asks how far will the game of “rights” (based on sexual identity/orientation) be played out? When I recently read an article by Matt Barber (@jmattbarber) on the LEFT’S NEW CRUSADE: ADULT-CHILD SEX, I asked sex professor Jeana Jorgensen (@foxyfolklorist) of Butler University if the claims were true. Dr. Jorgensen’s remarks were as follows:
@snkean I’m not familiar with the details of that case, but I know very few gay rights/alternative sexuality activists promoting pedophilia.
— Jeana Jorgensen (@foxyfolklorist) February 12, 2014
@foxyfolklorist That is a sad statement on so many levels. Honestly, I am shocked into prayer and protective instincts for children at this.
— Sam Kean (@snkean) February 12, 2014
I said, “That is a sad statement,” because any people pushing for adult-child sex at all, fringe or not, is quite disturbing. When a society begins entertaining these things, it is time to revisit definitions of love and humanity and truth and conscience, rationality and reason. The definition of what is moral and immoral to humanity must be reached. If this whole argument is just about self-determination of personal identity, then why “target” other people’s sense of it while they are in the earliest stages of personal development, when they are not biologically (physiologically) mature (in sex, brain and body), let alone emotionally and socially and financially established? There are priorities to all aspects of life, and yes, there must be limitations. That is why so many wish to draw the line at defining marriage as one man, one woman. It is the most self-evident, observable and reproducible means of sustaining humanity.
Sexuality is undeniably a moral matter, since some abuses of sexuality are self-evidently immoral to humanity (ex. rape, abuse, incest, pedophilia, etc.). That is, just as murder is self-evidently immoral to humanity, abuses of sexuality are also aberrations to humanity. These kinds of actions are each violations of primary and inalienable human rights… and that raises the question of human rights.
Rebutting the Argument that Sexual Identity demands Equality:
***[to see an updated statement on Gay/ Queer Rights from a more up-to-date and accurate view of the writer’s Queer theology, especially as regarding the subject of marriage HERE and HERE; and he can only apologize profoundly for his miss on the below article. As the About page of this blog indicates, Sam Kean is still learning and healing from the deeply abusive early life he endured, and he begs the critics’ indulgence, if nothing else, than to gain a real-time view of the writer’s evolving faith. Kean still ardently advocates age appropriate sex education, alongside the value of love inside a mature and mutually committed and capable relationship. Kean also vehemently decries any adult-child sex advocacy]***
Also in a recent twitter dialogue, congressman Mike Delph (@MikeDelph) stated:
We need to be careful when asserting “rights.” Wants, desires, etc…do not equate to enumerated rights. This is way overused!
— Mike Delph (@MikeDelph) February 13, 2014
The LGBT culture attempts to claim rights as a minority against which discrimination is happening. That claim for equal rights as a minority is based on sexual identity, as if sexual identity must be equated with other essential (permanent) descriptors of human identity–race/ethnicity, gender, nationality (origin), age. The question, then, is two-fold: 1) “Is sexual identity a primary descriptor of humanity?’ and 2) “How should one define a minority?” Does the gay agenda have a legitimate Constitutional claim of discrimination and therefore a right to rights? Are gays’ U.S. Constitutional rights being violated like women’s rights or African American rights have been?
Arguments from U.S. Constitution, U.S. History and from Form:
- Women’s Rights are obviously about gender discrimination. The discrimination associated with women has to do with form not function. That is, if women meet discrimination it is because they have been historically categorized according to their form—their physicality. The form is naturally unchangeable, or permanent.
- African American Rights [and any other ethnical minority’s rights] are obviously about race/color discrimination. The discrimination associated with African Americans has to do with form not function. That is, if African Americans meet discrimination it is because they have been historically categorized according to their form—their physicality. The form is naturally unchangeable or permanent.
Gender (anatomically assessed) and race are what could be called primary descriptors of a person’s identity. I name them primary descriptors because of their being apparent to the observer of the individual and inherent to the individual at birth and unchanging unless acted upon determinately (alt. ex. sex change, hormone therapy, etc.). [This speaks to the rule and not the exception of nature; ex. when one is born hermaphrodite, etc.] In fact, the matter of hermaphrodite individuals does not erase my arguments, but rather, bolsters the truth that being human is not directly tied to one’s genetalia or use thereof. One can be human without genetalia or the use thereof. A hermaphrodite is human, because human-ness is defined by something far superior to mere sexuality. Human rights exist tangent to the essences of humanity, not to the expressions of humanity. Humans have form, but form is not the entirety of what makes humans human.
Arguments from Situation:
Sexual orientation is not to be considered a primary descriptor of human identity, because:
- It is not something determinable by outward appearance (unless stereotypes prevail), and therefore, not readily identifiable to a government unless declared.
- It has to do with one’s personal application of his/her innate form or physicality—not with the form itself. [It can be and should be argued that function ought to befit form—according to the laws of nature, but that argument belongs in a debate on the morality of the subject.]
- It is factually provable to both develop and/or change according to the personal experience/preference of the individual (i.e. It cannot be treated as a permanent matter of identity). For every case that claims he/she was born homosexual, there presumably are also cases of homosexuals and heterosexuals whose sexual orientation changed. Where the brain is credited with sexual orientation, one may argue conditioning and/or said change as negations to the argument. Then there are the ramifications of bi-sexual orientation, which make classification of sexual orientation an effort of liquid irrationality.
Therefore, I conclude that sexual identity and orientation must not be considered a valid minority of any society or of humanity in general… and so, cannot legitimately claim governmental discrimination. Sexual identity is a matter of morality, and vice versa. The two are inseparable.
Also, I conclude that whatever one’s persuasions on sexuality are, everyone can agree with the statement that ‘some actions are self-evidently immoral to humanity (and to be restrained despite one’s desires, avoided at all costs).’ A society, as in a Constitutional Democratic Republic, determines what the society’s mores and norms will be. But, as I have demonstrated above, sexual identity does not hold a legitimate claim to the title minority; and therefore, cannot legitimately claim discrimination on any governmental level. The LGBT culture is just that–a culture, a sub-culture.
Think of it. How will we as a society define a “minority”? The definition of minority depends on definitions (essentials/primary descriptors) of humanity and implies inalienable rights are due every human. Will we define “minority” from secondary or from primary factors of identity? And, if a human has self-evident inalienable rights, then from where did humanity get them? I assert the same Source as the founders—-God, who alone is the standard for humanity, morality; and yes, that extends to sexuality.
The lines of definition must be drawn somewhere… not only for the children’s sake but for the name of humanity in general. Until then, as Noah Michelson writes of himself: “An Urgent Warning to All Parents: This Gay Man is Targeting Your Children.”
— theTrumpet.com (@theTrumpet_com) October 28, 2015
@activechristian: Homosexual HRC Founder Arrested for Raping 15-Year-Old Boy http://t.co/Be48AGimNO & now his Boyfriend too!!
12/23/2014 Transgender student’s family sues Michigan school district for discrimination. via Huffington Post
Major Corporations Funding ‘Gay’ Indoctrination in Elementary Schools Across America
Read more at http://barbwire.com/2014/12/30/0655-major-corporations-funding-gay-indoctrination-elementary-schools-across-america/