Ultimately, nonetheless, avoiding any dialogue what-so-ever, the argument of many “gays” deteriorates to, “I’m just gay…that’s all to it!” At least to me, the question for which that declaration then begs is, “How can a proposition be proof of itself?”
Dear friends,
Very recently, there has been a lot of controversy in Philadelphia, regarding the city government’s decision to renege on its decades-old promise and practice to provide a rent-free building to the local chapter of the Boy Scouts of America, because the legendary organization has banned openly “gay” troop leaders (which is against newly-legislated city discrimination laws).
I wrote a letter to the editor, in response to a brilliant piece that was written by Philadelphia Daily News journalist Christine Flowers about this issue. My letter has been published; however, a few important points were edited out. Therefore, below, you will find the original letter, while on the link below it, you will find the published version.
Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
****************************
Dear Editor:
Christine Flower’s thoughtful piece called, “Philadelphia’s odd case against the Boy Scouts”, posted 6/18/10, reveals a disturbing practice by our city government to acknowledge a group of “gay activists” that appears to be ignoring the actual fact that homosexual relationships are no less based upon power and sexual greed than heterosexual ones. Yet, when do we hear heterosexuals establishing themselves as a distinct group based upon the ability to walk around pronouncing unproven claims about with whom they’re having sex? So what kind of guidance should we provide to our youth, so that they can replace us in the future?
One of the real dilemmas of a society that is socially-stratified such as ours, lies in the fact that a person can be a member of an oppressor group and an oppressed group, simultaneously. This was adequately proven, with the Clarence Thomas - Anita Hill debacle.
Let’s face it; except for African American women, but not limited to them, particularly women who call themselves "white", are oppressed as women, but, also, serve as oppressors, as part of the artificial "majority" group that calls itself "white".
Therefore, the attempt by some of these same “white” women to form an artificial "minority" group, by calling themselves "lesbians" or having “white” men calling themselves “gay” for the same purpose is disingenuous - at best.
Besides, what difference does a person's skin color, gender, or any other "orientation" make, if once you are with the person to whom you claim to be oriented, either you wish that you weren't there - or he or she wishes the same? Is anyone “oriented” to be with anyone else? That’s silly.
Well, is there a “sexual preference”? Actually, we already have a name for people like that. We call them rapists. In other words, some amount of mutual consent must be involved between parties. One does not have sex with whomever he or she prefers.
Ultimately, nonetheless, avoiding any dialogue what-so-ever, the argument of many “gays” deteriorates to, “I’m just gay…that’s all to it!” At least to me, the question for which that declaration then begs is, “How can a proposition be proof of itself?”
So-called “gay activists” undermine the real notion of citizens’ rights, when they attempt to re-invent themselves as a distinct population group. Moreover, Flowers hit the nail right on the head, when she insists about city officials and their cohorts engaged in this heartless move to evict children and their mentors from a city-owned property, “They need to get a better answer. Or maybe a conscience.” for discontinuing support for the Boy Scouts of America, a wonderful, life-enhancing group to which my five brothers and I belonged, many decades ago.
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20100624_Letters__The_Boy_Scout_case_has_oppressors_and_the_oppressed.html
Friday, June 25, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Djata, you were correct that your letter was overly edited prior to printing in the paper. Now that I've read the full letter, it seems your position on the city vs. BSA is based on the premise that "sex" (not gender) is not an appropriate characteristic to determine "minority/oppressed" status. Such an argument would conclude that the city has no discriminated "minority" class, ergo they have no standing to take a discrimination based action. The first step would be to clearly determine whether they are an actual "minority." As I look back on the edited version of your letter, it appears that was what you were trying to do. Less erudition in vernacular and thought syntax would've made it more apparent. In closing, I submit that the group you deny actual minority status are at least a defacto minority.
I accept ur apology, even though it seems that you still miss the point. That is, "How can a proposition be proof of itself?"
The edited version is a completely different letter. Ordinarily, propositions can't prove themselves, but there is philosophical discussion about this.
Actually, it's a rhetorical question. However, if one engages in intellectual acrobatics, I'm sure a false abstraction can be made to make the appear answer otherwise. I invite you to do that.
Post a Comment