OctoberBaby

OctoberBaby

Monday, February 8, 2010

Is Everybody Happy?:Gays, African-Americans, Civil Rights and the State of Psychological Health In America

Homosexuality has been a particular enemy of mine since it has become a politicized movement.
For psychiatric survivors and the general state of health care in America the legitimization of homosexuality is just another way of sweeping psychological disorders under the rug by sweeping it over the rug and embroidering it into the carpet. The number one fact of American psychological health is that by legitimizing homosexuality we are lowering the medical baseline of psychological health.

When I think of homosexuality deriving a great deal of it's legitimacy through a false fetal heredity of the civil rights movement I am compelled to examine this justification by comparing their existence to not just the struggle for civil rights by African-Americans but even to examine what fidelity between the two 'people' could possibly exist. Did AA strike, unbeknown to them, some Faustian bargain with the queers years before? Was it a three way helping hand where homosexuals help AA in the south and women later in the east only to be supported at this date for their own gay agenda? For some insight into the psychological composition of homosexuals check out Michael Swift cathartic Gay Manifesto.


Then let us ask ourselves what would make African-American and liberal heterosexual Euro-Americans make a covenant with the homosexual crowd and their agenda? Let's look first at the African-Americans.

First there was the idea that by not allowing gays marital rights that would be equivalent to keeping Blacks and Whites from marrying which was the basic reason for most of the segregation that took place. According to Earl Ofari Hutchinson writing in Black America Today.com
"The taboo was based on a deep-seated belief by many whites that blacks are socially, and genetically unfit to share a classroom and a marital bedroom with whites."

Albeit that was written in 2003 and indeed many may have a different view between these two movememts today. However, in that opinion piece Hutchinson does not elaborate as to why Caucasins percieved AA men as "unfit", let us ofcourse stay our hand in terms of Caucasin men finding AA women acceptable to sleep with if not to openly marry because we are well aware of our historical facts that indeed they did. Why then would the Caucasins shun their former slaves and believe them to "socially and genetically" unfit. Could it have any thing to do with the fact that it was indeed the Caucasians who controlled the breeding process of many slaves? It is a documented fact that African slaves were not able to conduct their social habits under slavery and therefore the possibility of sleeping with a known relative was genuine. This was one of the many themes that Spike Lee picked up on in his film "Bamboozled" (2000)starring Damion Waynes, Savion Glover and Tommy Davidson. In this case being the perpetrators of such a moral offense can it be said that knowledge of their actions speak to their own defense?

Then ofcourse there was the Bible verse that forbade the mixing of seeds.

Deuteronomy 22:9: "Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled."

There are several lines in the Bible similar to these which would indeed suggest that intercultural marriages were forbidden by God, however, in many instances it was not so much a matter of 'race' as it was of a husband being converted to a pagan or idolatrous religion. Nevertheless there does appear to be ample evidence that intercultural marriages were forbidden by God through the Bible. This is of course the same Bible that homosexuals either completely ignore or claim are simply misread by Jews and Christians alike for millenniums. The Rainbow Alliance website linked above declares that Mark 7:18 is how Jesus speaks to homosexual acts. It reads

18 And he saith to them: So are you also without knowledge? understand you not that every thing from without, entering into a man cannot defile him:

Here is how the Rainbow Alliance explains the application of that same verse.


"A lot has been said about what Jesus did or did not have to say about homosexuality. Jesus Christ is the core of Christianity. Yet today many people seem to consider homosexuality to be the single most important issue before Christians. Catholics claim that being homosexual is not a sin, but homosexual acts ARE sinful. Others use the words of the Bible to deny gays basic human rights, such as the right to marry. Or they use the Bible to justify abusing and even murdering gays. It is hard to believe that Jesus would have been completely silent about something so important. Yet the claim is that, somehow, he was.

That claim is wrong. Jesus DID speak of homosexual acts. Specifically he said:

"There is NOTHING from without a man, that entering into him can defile him"

Those are the words of Jesus Christ, from Mark 7."

There is clearly some degree of bastardization in the interpretation or better said perversion. Whereas Jesus was talking about the supernatural state of the soul, his words have been construed here to include the human penis. Which leads me to my second hypothesis.


There has been a kinship between the two people on their appreciation for concreteness and immediacy. There has been a lot of use of the word "external" many in the corporate world use it to describe unforeseen consequences of their actions as in "externalities". Psychologist have a term called 'external validity", my term here is best explained as carnality.

"5 Thus saith the Lord: Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord."
Jeremiah 17:5

Well within the parameters of AA men and homosexuals is this sense that the flesh is invincible, that by the flesh alone against the various elements and other men, men can abide. This is of course the tell tale sign of that most infectious and perniciously pervasive sin of pride.

African American men and homosexuals both have a reputation to be full of pride. In fact in Ezekial 16:49 we find,

49 Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom thy sister, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her, and of her daughters: and they did not put forth their hand to the needy, and to the poor. 50 And they were lifted up, and committed abominations before me: and I took them away as thou hast seen.


AA men are notoriously known for putting on a lot of pump and circumstance when they feel slighted or even when they are simply doing well, they compete with one another as to who has the best of what, at least in a characterized dramatization. Homosexuals by the same measure seek to get married not because of whatever benefits that marriage may offer, legally as well as emotionally but because marriage is a social climb, the "gold standard" of social cache, says Nathanal Rauch a senior writer for National Journal magazine and author of books on public policy who was in favor of gay marriage at a debate held at the University of Colorado in Boulder, January 2010. Maggie Galagher author and social commenter as well as the president of National Organization for Marriage in her own recent publication "The Case For Marriage" is not merely in favor of marriage being exclusive to heterosexuals but contest the idea that people in same sex union can ever be considered married at all. Mrs. Gallagher bases her position on the truth about the dilemma.


Gallagher and Rauch debate same-sex 'marriage' in Boulder :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

It becomes clear from analyzing Rauches position in the debate that homosexuals are merely exhibiting a symptomatic trait of their disorder, a need to satiate their pride. Very simply, they want to have access to be in societies "gold standard". Pride is therefore the nexus between AA men in particular and homosexuals, pride is the nexus between any man and homosexuals, homosexuality can very well be said to be the manifestation of it.

Before I go any further let me make clear that this is not a diatribe of malice directed at either AA people or homosexuals. It is in fact an examination of AA people in relations to their civil rights and homosexuals political agenda for the United States. In the United States the toll of Antebellum slavery was indeed devastating to the familiar system of the AA people, families were separated under a chattel slavery and sold through the diaspora of the capitalist system.
There were forced breeding practices which are akin to the eugenic theories that were taking ground in America. Practices that have indeed shaped humans before, although through God and nature not another man. Sickle cell shaped red blood cells for instance, found in many West Africans proved as a mutations to the red blood cell that served to defend against malaria.
A boon which made them 'black gold' to their slavers though. Although this were in itself a troubling and difficult passage for the AA people in fact most are today as American citizens wealthier and to an extent healthier than their counter parts in Africa.

Homosexuality was not born out of a legal right to vote as legal citizens of a nation who were completely denied this 'right' for years,homosexuality on the other hand was simply removed from the Diagnostical Statistical Manuel of Psychiatric Disorders. The perception of this disorder has been ameliorated to the general public. However, unrecorded disorders are still disorders. It would be at this time that an analogy is in order however, it is even more important to note that analogies are themselves misinterpreted everyday by homosexuals which gives concern as to whether this is a debate that can resolved by reason at all, clearly the interpretation of Mark 7:18 above is evidence of that. We are living in a "say anything" era where the value of the words spoken and their logical operations are ignored under some foregone conclusion that ideology is insignificant and we should all solve for comfort, social status, prestige and wealth.

In a recent debate on the legitimization of gay 'marriages' as posted in the Catholic News Agency
I wrote:

"Mrs.Gallahger is correct in postulating that homosexuals can not marry simply on the grounds that they cannot form marriages. Homosexuals attempting marriage is like trying to suck a psychological ice cube through a straw, it cannot be, not because the ice is being discriminated against by other quantities of water. It is because the ice cube has to change state in order to get through the straw as a defacto aspect of reality. The current state of a homosexuals is that they have calcified their souls in pride, even to the point where because they are universally superior to everyone they need not submit to even the most obvious rules of nature.

They have jettisoned the entire gauntlet of human psychological development and thrown hundreds of years of moral as well as religious values over their shoulders but still expect to be welcomed under the tent as equals. The primary problem stems from ignoring that homosexuality is a psychological disorder originating from this psychological immaturity the result of inpatients, or a willingness to admit emotional suffering. Under no way ought heterosexuals be compared to them. That would consent to the psychotic perception that men and women are the same, that what a man does sexually with a woman can find it's equivalence with what a man does with another man.
Let us be clear it is precisely the inability of one to distinguish between two distinct objects or situations the very evidence of psychosis."

Homosexuality as a legitmate state of psychological health is itself the problem. When we come to our senses and realize that we are debating with people who won't take 'no' for an answer and realize that as a sign of psychosis we will all be better off.

No comments: