I do not usually respond to letters to the editor, but a recent letter by David F. Thigpen of Xenia cried-out for a reply. The letter is also attched as a response to the column "Awash in Evil" as it appears on this blog. Mr. Thigpen criticizes my article, “Awash in Evil,” about James Dobson and “Focus on the Family.” He alleges that I must have “never actually heard or read anything James Dobson or Focus on the Family has produced on the issues.” I had written that Dobson and his group wanted not only to deny gays the right to same-sex marriage, but also other civil rights. Mr. Thigpen wrote: “Dobson has consistently advocated for the protection of civil rights of homosexuals, the same rights we all have. It is only the extra rights that none of us have that he opposes.” This is false.
Contrary to what Mr. Thigpen says, Dobson’s group would deny to gay people not only the right to same-sex marriage, but other important rights available to the rest of us. If you go to the website for Focus on the Family and look at a section written by Mr. Dobson called: “The Christian Response to the Homosexual Agenda,” you will find it seething with hate for homosexuals. Citing Romans 1:24-27, Dobson says: “These and other scriptures clearly reveal that homosexuality is immoral and contrary to God's plan for the human family.” Dobson says: “We believe their (gays’) ideas are dangerous to society at large and to the family in particular.”
Dobson refers to those who are calling for gay rights as “radical homosexual activists.” The truth is that those so-called radical homosexual activists are no more radical than the civil rights activists of the 1960s who were calling for an end to racial segregation. It is haters like Dobson and his group who are trying to paint them as extremists.
Mr. Thigpen would have us believe that Dobson opposes only same-sex marriage. But Dobson believes that gays are not entitled to any protection from employment discrimination. On his website, Dobson said: “Indeed, the Senate in 1996 came within a single vote of passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would have wreaked havoc on American culture. This legislation would have made sexual orientation a protected class equivalent to racial minorities under federal civil rights laws.” No doubt Dobson believes that Jesus would approve of employers who harass, humiliate, debase, and discharge employees because of their sexual orientation.
Dobson condemns efforts by gays to “secure the rights to adoption,” and “eliminate restrictions on military service.” It seems to me that the right to adopt is a civil right we all do or should enjoy. The right to stand-up, serve, and die for our country in the military is perhaps one of the most fundamental rights we have. I do not understand how Mr. Thigpen can say that: “Dobson has consistently advocated for the protection of civil rights of homosexuals,” when Dobson calls for denial to gays of the right to serve in the military.
Lt. Col. Victor Ferenbach was an 18-year veteran of the Air Force and an F-15 fighter pilot. He still would be, but the Air Force fired him because he revealed he was gay. He was born at Wright Patterson Air Force Base and grew-up in the Dayton Ohio area. He was Assistant Director of Operations for the 366th Operations Support Squadron at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho. He is a war hero. He served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo, and was awarded nine air medals, including one for heroism during the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.
Despite the fact that other countries have allowed gays in the military without any adverse affect on morale, and despite Col. Ferenbach’s outstanding record of valor, Dobson and his group would applaud the colonel’s firing. I find that disgusting, hateful, and evil.
Note on comment from Mr. Thigpen
David Thigpen says in another letter to the editor and in a comment on this blog, with impeccable logic, that I am wrong to say that Mr. Dobson wants to deny gays rights that we all have, because he, Mr. Thigpen, does not have the right to commit homosexual acts in the military. It reminds me of the logic of the statement by Anatole France: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Comments from a friend:
A friend of mine wrote:
In the letter to the editor the writer says, "Homosexuality is a physical
sex act ...". Such a fundamental mistake points to a fundamental problem
with the letter. Neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality are 'acts'.
Homosexuality is simply a sexual preference for someone of the same sex, as
is heterosexuality a sexual preference for someone of the opposite sex. One
can be homosexual or heterosexual and never perform or commit a sexual
act.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The President, this week, promised to revisit the “don't ask, don't tell” policy in the military. This once again brings to the forefront one of those issues we find ourselves often debating recently in our society. Jack LeMoult addressed this issue in a recent article to the Xenia Gazette by accusing those who oppose “gay rights”, like James Dobson, as haters and disgusting. But Mr. LeMoult's article does brings up an important question: Do certain sex acts deserve civil rights protection?
As to Dobson being a hater, in the same letter Mr. LeMoult said was “seething with hatred for homosexuals” (for noting Biblical teaching) was another statement by Dobson. “Never in the history of this ministry have we insulted or ridiculed homosexuals or anyone else for that matter — including those with whom we disagree. We believe every human being is precious to God and is entitled to acceptance and respect. There is great suffering among homosexuals, and it is our desire to show compassion and concern for those caught in that lifestyle.”
Homosexuality is a physical sex act, and we shouldn't permanently label someone by their actions. If we did that we would all be in trouble. Similarly, society denounces drug use while still caring for and trying to help the person caught in a cycle of drug addiction.
Mr. LeMoult says that there are “important rights available to the rest of us” that practicing homosexuals don't have, But my “rights” in this area are also limited. I am also not allowed to openly engage in homosexual activity as a member of the US Air Force. Also if I were to openly engage in homosexuality or any number of other activities which could be harmful to the upbringing of a child, I also would be unable to adopt a child. Neither marriage, adoption, or military service is an open ended civil right. Society has rightfully set all kinds of limits on who can marry (underage), adopt (economically impoverished) and join the military (physically unfit). To make any of these unlimited civil rights would destroy each.
The special right that practicing homosexuals don't have must be the right to marry the “person that I love”. But this has never been an unlimited right. No one can legally marry someone under 14 in any state of the US even if you love them. No one can marry two or more people at the same time even if they love all of them. Just like a practicing homosexual, I can only marry a member of the opposite sex of appropriate age.
We as a society agree to the extent and limits of marriage. Marriage between one man and one woman has been the standard for 6,000 years. What is the pressing need to change the rules? What source or standard are we using to say homosexuality should now join this special support?
Civil rights are by definition rights inherent to a person by nature of being part of society. Homosexuality is not an inherent right. It is a manufactured right by those who want to participate in a particular sexual activity, with mainstream support. Many sexual practices outside traditional marriage are allowed by our open democratic society, but not not necessarily afforded civil rights protection.
It is also unfortunate that a Lt. Col. was kicked out of the Air Force. There is real debate as to how we as a culture should respond to actions that are not illegal, but are not beneficial either. We don't kick people out who have affairs, get divorced or are involved in pornography. Sometimes we are out of balance in looking the other way on most sexual issues while focusing on homosexuality. Plus, since we are all sinners there would be very few people left to serve if we picked everyone's greatest weakness and disqualified them based upon it. But it is much more of a problem if we were to swing the pendulum dramatically the other way and make it a civil rights issue.
...the rest
Perhaps Thomas Jefferson (closer to Truth than he even realized, being a deist) said it best that “we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights...” This encapsulates the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights, which was to protect those inalienable rights proposed in the Declaration of Independence from governments, which historically have always grabbed for too much power. To include just any action in those given by our Creator is to disembowel any meaning and effectiveness of those rights, and instead grant to whomever is in power the right to define them. What the government giveth, the government taketh away. What God gives, no man can destroy.
To try to operate our government and civil society apart from God's laws is to invite disaster. Any society works best when following the Creator's design. In our country we develop the rules we follow through consensus. We democratically debate those values and morals we wish to encapsulate into law for the good of the individual and the society. Making ad hoc civil rights out of homosexuality or any other sexual activity outside of marriage is something that we are allowed to do in America with our system of government. All I am saying is that it will turn out poorly for our society. This is just a warning. It is not the best, morally, physically, or spiritually for anyone involved. We can push against the natural constraints of society, but the Owner's Manual has already said it won't work well.
Post a Comment