Michigan Republican National CommitteemanDave Agema, has been under relentless and vicious attack from advocates of same sex marriage, solely on the basis of having reposted an article which proposes a number of health risks and social consequences the writer claims are associated with same sex relationships.

The article: “Everyone Should Know These Statistics on Homosexuals‘, by Frank Joseph, M.D, suggests that their are a number of negative consequences to the lifestyle of homosexuality.

The author of the article also addresses what he calls “The Homosexual Agenda“, among other things.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the opinions of the article, it is clear that the author poses some compelling points that are worthy of civil debates.

Dave Agema simply offered the article for such a debate to occur.

Nevertheless, in an attempt to suppress Agema’s constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech, even some so called Republicans have publicly come out against him, calling for his resignation, accusing him of being a “bigot”, ‘hateful’, etc.

Allegedly. the Libertarian Party of Michigan has also called for Agema’s resignation, accusing him of actions that are “unacceptable, sickening and reprehensible.”

All this, simply for posting a study on a facebook page?

Since when it is somehow a hate agenda to have a discussion about the potential risks of human choices or lifestyles?

If I were to post a study on the risks of alcoholism, would that mean I am intolerant and hateful? What about if I posted an opinion about the risks of having children “out of wedlock” ? Would that constitute being reprehensible?

Have we finally arrived to a place in society where some special interest groups can “take aim” at anyone they choose to in society, while they remain a “protected class“, with no one being able to so much as question anything they say or do?

In what way does “intolerance” relate to any American offering his or perspectives on a specific topic?

Most important, how is Dave Agema guilty of hatred and intolerance, simply for reposting the conclusions of a medical professional that are seemingly supported by Empirical evidence?

The fact is that no one has been able to specifically highlighted comments directly from Dave Agema that personally attack or demean those who self identify as homosexual or lesbian.

It seems to me that the lesbians and homosexuals see themselves as “untouchables” (meaning ” exempt from criticism), who no one can call into moral question, lest they are subject to name calling, public and professional harassment, and relentless ridicule.

They appear to believe that anyone who refuses to “endorse’ or support their views are somehow perverted, confused, etc.

Furthermore, they appear to try to bully and intimidate opponents of their lifestyle choices into conformity.

At the end of the day, if Dave Agema’s critics are in disagreement with the information from a medical professional that was reposted on Agema’s facebook page, they should respond with reasoned debate, seeking to  discredit the information shared, rather than trying to personally and professionally discredit Agema.

Eleanor Roosevelt was quoted as having said: “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”

It seems to me that those who are outraged at Dave Agema for merely posting the opinions of a medical professional on the issue of homosexuality are perhaps guilty of small mindedness.  Rather than discussing the ideas offered in the article Agema posted and asking Agema his views on the ideas, they focus on attacking Agema personally.

Mrs. Roosevelt would likely be very disappointed by the reaction of what appears to be 21st Century “untouchables”.


About sswimp

I am not an "African-American'. I am a proud American, who happens to be of African descent. I am Christian. My personal relationship with Jesus Christ and the Word of God shapes my concepts of what it means to be a conservative. I am Pro Life. Devoted to the principles of free enterprise, limited government,and individual responsibility. I believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman.
This entry was posted in Social Issues and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Thank you Stacy.


  2. SovereignMary says:

    The issue of homosexual marriage would be a non-issue if the government would get out of the marriage license requirement racket. George and Martha Washington did not get a marriage license and neither did Abraham & Mary Lincoln.
    Marriage licenses requirements is a huge Big Brother tactic for the government to get its nose under the tent of your personal lives.–
    “By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce.
    In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners.
    But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents. The Social Security Act provided survivors’ benefits with proof of marriage. Employers used marital status to determine whether they would provide health insurance or pension benefits to employees’ dependents. Courts and hospitals required a marriage license before granting couples the privilege of inheriting from each other or receiving medical information.”

  3. Mike Shirkey says:

    Stacy: you did a fine job of laying out THE CORRECT argument. Frankly, I personally question some of the data presented in the Dr’s article…but I do not simply dismiss it.

    The devaluing of the family unit, defined as a mother and father and children, has clearly impacted our culture in ways that are going to be a challenge to reverse. The socialogical data is indisputable. And the economic consequences are just as dramatic.

    The unfortunate high failure of marriages in America is a symptom of a deeper cultural problem. It is not, in any way, a proxy validation of other choices, other lifestyles, or a devalidation of conventional marriage.

    If we are to have honest, robust debates about these very critical cultural and social issues, including the gay/lesbian agenda, then we must also be honest and courageous enough to study the decades of data we now have related to a no-fault divorce culture.

    I don’t condem those who believe they are committed to lifestyles I cannot understand. But I do reject the aggressive agenda of claiming their choices or orientations are main stream, healthy, or natural. That there are people in these categories, it does challenge everyone to learn how to have grace and basic human respect for individuals who might not fit our personal paradigms. It does not require everyone to change their personal beliefs. Nor should it.

    It’s interesting that those advocating for special recognition by using the argument that “public perceptions and beliefs are trending toward broad acceptance” is the exact same argument we all should be willing to admit results in rather dangerous projections if left simply to public polls. It does not take a highly developed imagination to contemplate where we could be heading if we refuse to have debates about limits and what constitutes a sustainable, healthy civilization. All in the context of love and grace.

  4. Pingback: The New Untouchables » Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch

  5. SovereignMary says:

    With the advent of the income tax, social security, and government getting its despotic nose into unlawful (UN-constitutional) mandates in regards to health insurance … even before the socialist and collective system of ‘Obamacare’ came into fruition….then, tie-barring government marriage license mandates into the mix we have allowed the federal government to throw its noose of manipulative control and dictates, around all of our necks.

  6. Sheryl Alkema says:

    Thanks for posting the truth, Stacy. You are exactly right on each point, and I hope that people will wake up to the truths of God’s Word. Man’s rebellion against God manifests itself in each and every sin man commits, and the consequences of our sin wreak havoc on the individual and society as well. Praying that many will know Jesus Christ, Who can save us from our sin, give us victory over it, and restore our nation.

  7. Dave says:

    Good point Stacy. Its the good-old-boys in the MIGOP who only want their buddies in office and the rest of the conservatives and tea party folk are considered outsiders they want nothing to do with. While I didn’t like the writing style of the article Agema posted, I think its time we had a serious conversation about homosexuality and stop all the political correctness that keeps the truth from being told.

  8. Pingback: 300 Articles You Have to Read to Understand the Term ‘Homofascism’ | Victims of Gay Bullying

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s