Author: Amanda Pritts
The LGB became popular in the 80’s, that expanded and turned into the LGBT by the 90’s, now in 2017, it has expanded to LGBTTQQIAAF. Some argue that it’s actually, LGBTQQIP2SSA. That’s quite a jump, as opposed to the former years.
Confused on what some of that alphabet soup stand for? So are they. In a video produced by BBC 3, members of the LGBT were tasked with the chore of trying to name the genders covered under the ancronym. It was no surprise, when not only did they struggle, but they even expressed frustration in the test.
You may ask yourself, why so many? And who are the members covered under the umbrella of this group? There are currently fifty-eight genders being recognized, however, that number according to some, is sixty-three. It seems the group itself not only can’t agree on a decided ancronym, but also can’t seem to decide how many genders there are. For most of us, that number stopped at two. The argument still remains regarding sex vs gender. I’ve provided you with the full list of genders here.
Under Obama's administration, the month of June was declared Gay Pride Month around the world. What exactly does that mean for the rest of us who aren't gay, and who also may not agree with this once optional acceptance now being forced on us? Firstly, we have to look at what also came with Gay Pride Month. With the celebratory month, also came the repeal of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which celebrated traditional marriage being between a man and a woman.
With DOMA gone, Obama was free to legalize Gay Marriage, and push it into the mainstream. This didn't seem like a huge problem to most of us, who would never have to bake a wedding cake, or join boyscouts. The problems came when the meaning of 'Tolerance' was changed. According to Webster's Dictionary, the definition of 'Tolerance' is: "The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with." To quote United Families International, "'Tolerance' today, however is a one-way street. 'Tolerance' seems to mean a free pass for those who support the gay lifestyle, but it's a muzzle for you if you don't."
Where do we see this? The one that caused the most upset, was the affect this had on our public school systems. Public schools, under Obama, were required to be "gay friendly," and provide protection and safe spaces for gay children while downplaying the safety for all children, i.e. boys who identify as girls being allowed to use the same bathrooms, or locker rooms. They were also being forced to teach homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, or risk being defunded by the state. LGBT in-school-support groups were skyrocketing, while the children who felt uncomfortable or opposed these new rules being forced on them, were being called intolerant and hateful, even being punished for expressing their views. Under the Trump Presidency, this law was reversed, and allowed the states and communities once again to exercise their rights to choose what they teach, and how to run their schools.
In 2011, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) was passed and put into action. Under this act, businesses, regardless of religious creed or morality, are not allowed to disqualify LGBT applicants from their place of business. It seems as though the rights of homosexuals have trumped the first freedoms of everyone else. If you disagree with this law, you are forced into silence or you'll be paying not only out of pocket in fines, you could face losing your business altogether.
Some of the individuals this has happened to was a doctor who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple, boy scouts who refused to hire gay scoutmasters, wedding photographers who refused to take photos of the ceremony, and cake makers who refused to bake cakes for same-sex couples, to name just a few.
Religions which were once safe from laws that jeopardized their beliefs, are no longer allowed to refuse homosexual laws. A Preacher has been arrested for reciting Bible verses stating homosexuality is a sin.
A Reverend was ordered to pay a hefty fine of $5,000 and to write a heartfelt apology after uttering negative comments regarding homosexuals. He now has a lifetime speech ban against him.
A Catholic charity had to close down their adoption program after being forced to adopt out children to same-sex couples.
In California, you could be jailed for a year, and fined up to $1,000 for "willfully, and repeatedly" miss-gendering someone in a medical, institutional, retirement, or housing environment. This new law is forced tolerance, it's not upheld by the First Amendment. Respect, is a two-way street, when the Government steps in and punishes you for using your rights, it is no longer respect.
Their religious beliefs, once protected under the First Amendment, have now been revoked under ENDA. Don't their rights still matter?
The FCC has also clamped down harder on "hate speech," as I'm sure you've noticed, Google, YouTube, Twitch, and other streaming websites have done this as well, not only in defense of the LGBT community, but in defense of other topics of discussion as well, such as mass immigration of 3rd-world men taking over Europe, the outbreeding of the Caucasian race, and the uphill fight against the PC agenda. If it seems like a lot to take in, that's because it is. These are all attempts to keep you and I quiet by forced law.
Let's continue with Sen. Ted Cruz. Sen. Cruz announced he would be reintroducing the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA). This bill was first put forward back in 2015, and prevents the government from taking action against businesses that discriminate against the LGBT members based on personal religious beliefs or moral convictions. It truly is a defense for the First Amendment.
FADA also allows individuals and businesses to sue the Federal Government for interfering in their right to discriminate based on the reasons stated above. It also would mandate the Attorney General to defend the business or individual suing. President Trump vowed to pass the bill if it was presented to him during his presidency.
The LGBT community fears the bill will reverse the clock on their rights, as well as the rights on unwed mothers, because it is based around a specific set of Christian beliefs. On the contrary, I believe this is what our society needs. It would force them to stop the push of their beliefs on the general populace, and return the right of individual choice back to the people, taking away some of that control by the Government. If your arguments are strong enough, you don't need to hide behind Government Policy, and force feed people your beliefs.
What's the next step for the LGBT community?
It seems that some LGBT members, as well as the liberal left have begun accepting GSA (Genetic Sexual Attraction), or as we know it, 'Incest.' The word 'Incest,' is now being called a derogatory term and is to be classified under 'hate speech.' Adult Incest, would include all family possibilities, including: Mother and Son, Father and Daughter, Brother and Sister, Cousins, Aunts and Nephews, Uncles and Nieces, as well as all other variations.
The basis for the GSA argument, is the act being between two consenting adults, and no one is getting hurt, not including children that could be born from this resulting in congenital abnormalities. This rational, however, no longer has much ground to stand on, due to the medical advancements now available. If GSA is wrong, then a vasectomy or birth control eliminates the child bearing argument.
To quote Slate.com, "If both parties are consenting adults and the genetic rationale is bogus, why should the law get involved? Incest may seem icky, but that's what people said about homosexuality. It's all private conduct. To which conservative reply: We told you. We warned you that if laws against homosexuality were struck down, laws against polygamy and incest would follow."
This quote couldn't ring anymore true. The only reason these laws against incest are still being upheld is due to what the effects are on the family unit. The overlapping relationships mixed with the social responsibilities and rules, causes a crumbling base, causing children to struggle in finding their spot in the family, and to build trusting and meaningful relationships with their caregivers. In sum: It confuses relationships. Under the Constitution of the United States, the argument provides a rational basis for laws against incest to continue, but not same-sex marriage.
Wouldn't the LGBT saying "Incest is wrong", disprove their foundation of "Love is love", or "You can't choose who you're attracted to."
This is what I meant by the title of this article. The legalization of Gay Marriage has opened the flood gates for everyone else. The problem with the possibility of GSA being included under the very wide umbrella of the LGBT community, is it also paves the way for other attractions as well, such as beastiality, and pedophilia, which is already being normalized through interviews and articles. The flood gates have indeed been opened. There was no stopping at just Same-Sex Marriage, how could there be? There’s no way to say ‘yes’ to one group and ‘no’ to another when the argument is the same everytime. That then falls under discrimination.
The moral compass needs to stop somewhere, we simply can’t keep accomodating everyones special needs, and wants. It’s not possible, not only are our communities suffering, but for society in general. For the greater good, our Government must start reversing some of these laws, if only to give the younger generations a chance.
The direction were going is Orwellian at best, a future totalitarian state comes closer to our horizons every day, anytime a new ‘special’ law is passed, or a new unrealistic expectation is expected of the populace. It’s not possible to keep this going, not for another generation, not even for another few years. This is not a sustainable way of life. We will become incapable of living with each other as a peaceful society. A police state can and will become the only alternative, the end result being a total totalitarian rule. Before you get upset at this article, you need to ask yourself from a morality stance, will this direction be good for future generations? Or was this a selfish way of serving the needs of the here and now?
Thank you for reading,
Author: Amanda Pritts