OH Christian radio host: Gays aren't human

[redheadbaker]

www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/13/1169606/-Linda-Harvey-Gays-don-t-deserve-14th-Amendment-protection-because-they-aren-t-persons-und

Linda Harvey: Gays don't deserve 14th Amendment protection because they aren't "persons"

Yesterday, anti-gay activist Linda Harvey offered a chilling argument for why Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act shouldn't be struck down on 14th Amendment grounds. In her daily commentary on Christian radio station WRFD in Columbus, Harvey claims that a gay person doesn't meet the definition of a "person" under the 14th Amendment.

Why should the equal protection argument be made in favor of homosexual behavior, which is changeable? People are not naturally homosexual, so the definition of "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment is being twisted to make this assumption.

Many legal cases have been argued to try to pile all kinds of questionable characteristics onto that word. But "person" should be understood based on historic, beneficial, or at least neutral and fact-based traits; it should not be twisted to incorporate behavior that most religions and most cultures have said a firm "no" to.

It's also behavior for which there's no recognized science demonstrating a genetic or hormonal origin. And it's also not beneficial and does not stand the definition of marriage, used for millenia - that is, the act of consummation. It's another sad fact of homosexual behavior that two men or two women can never consummate a marriage; they can never conceive children together.

Listen to the whole thing at WRFD's Website. Look for the piece called "Supreme Court to Consider Marriage."

The most troubling part of this, believe it or not, isn't Harvey's embrace of "pray away the gay" therapy, which has been completely debunked by all legitimate psychologists. No, it's Harvey's claim that gays don't qualify for 14th Amendment protection because gay behavior is not "beneficial." I hope I misunderstand what she means here. After all, wasn't this one of the arguments used for laws banning interracial marriage--because it wasn't "beneficial" to society?

[twotrue]

So if I'm not a person, than no laws really apply me to me then, right?

[secretlyevil]

Oh just fuck that bitch.

[texassmith]

Seriously, people like this that call themselves "Christian" piss the hell out of me.

[basilosaurus]

I had a non-Christian therapist tell me, completely unprompted and unrelated to what we'd been discussing, that being gay is unnatural. Add that to the list of things that make mental health care difficult to access.

[knitty]

Dec 17, 2012 9:22:50 GMT -5 @mrdobalina said:

Not to be too graphic, but I'm pretty sure my brother's marriage is consummated. Yes indeed.

oh no nono no, she's meaning consummated in that very special fundy way. If you never give birth, you've never consummated your marriage! Come on, as if a religious person would demean one group when hey could demean two with the one comment!

[smock]

In addition to everything else wrong with her statement, she's wrong about consummation. For centuries, consummation was not the "definition of marriage." After all, a ton of medieval theologians agreed that Mary and Joseph never ever consummated their marriage (even after Jesus--poor Joseph!) and yet their marriage was valid.