Simply Politics & News

[SOROS]

Seriously?? Once again, I am amazed how two intelligent people can disagree so completely on issues!

At this juncture, neither I,, nor any other conscientious Americans, seek to disenfranchise gays; we are simply opposed to their lobby’s far-left entrenchment and their attempts to redefine morality, marriage and their Orwellian desire for universal “imposed legitimacy.” What’s going on now is nothing more than boilerplate far left intimidation and mass-scale brainwashing.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the belief that homosexuality is icky. It has nothing to do with homosexuality being unbiblical. Activist gays and those who support them politically are the ones with whom traditionally-grounded people take exception. If a gay person supports the gay political agenda, they’re no different than anyone else who supports furthering progressive ideology that has already proven itself to be detrimental to our nation and our society.

http://www.wnd.com/2009/07/103409/



It should not be surprising that LGBTs have more wealth in general than non-LGBT Americans. For one thing, LGBT’s are strongly over-represented in elite academia. While LGBT’s are generally found to be roughly 4% of the general population, they are over ten percent at many elite universities . . .

Neither are these the only advantages gays enjoy. As Ruse goes on to write, “They are lauded in the media and in the popular culture [and] their cause is championed by what Fr. Neuhaus called the ‘prestige media.’

AND YET, LGBTs do suffer certain forms of social opposition and disadvantage. They may lose their jobs because heterosexual colleagues are uncomfortable around them. They struggle with a whole set of issues around medical care, retirement and partner benefits that heterosexuals do not. And far, far too many gays have suffered verbal abuse, and sometimes even physical abuse, from non-LGBT’s, including non-LGBT Christians.

In other words, the question of whether a particular group suffers unjust forms of social opposition is not a simple question. And for all my gay and lesbian friend and readers who are agreeing with me right now — “Yes, absolutely right, you can be doing fine in some ways and yet suffering attacks at the same time!” — I want to ask: Why should it be any different when it comes to evangelical Christians?

Evangelical Christians are frequently mocked for crying out that they are “persecuted” (although I almost never see that term used) when they are denigrated in popular media or when the culture turns holidays sacred to them into areligious consumeristic feeding frenzies. In fact, a couple hours ago, Rachel Held Evans extended her usual mockery to the notion, this time in relation to Louie Giglio’s invitation and then exclusion from the inauguration ceremony. She points to how “we live in a country in which the majority of its citizens are Christians” and then she torches the straw man: “Not getting your way in every area of civic life,” she writes, “is not persecution.”

Granted, but who claimed that it is? And what does “Christians” have to do with it? The majority of Americans are not evangelical (which is what’s really under discussion here), and evangelicals are treated unjustly in many spheres of civic life. While evangelicals have political power due to their sheer voting numbers, and while the worst (and therefore most-quoted) evangelical commentators can be terribly ungracious in their use of the power of the megaphone, it’s nevertheless true that evangelicals are frequently mocked in popular culture, frequently given a raw deal in academia and elite media, and evangelicals who hold to traditional views of sexual ethics are — as the Louie Giglio affair shows — increasingly shoved to the side of the public square.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2013/01/11/help-were-gay-and-were-being-oppressed/