I Subscribe to the Homosexual Agenda
December 9, 2004
By Joseph Hughes
I also subscribe to Newsweek and Spin, for what it's worth. Seriously, though, I am so tired of hearing bigotry masquerade as "values," hatred as "compassion." I'll be blunt: If you do not accept homosexuality, do not think that gays should marry, you are a bigot. You're not old fashioned. You're also not Christian. Again, you are a bigot. And an idiot. And I'm tired of people not calling things what they are.
So let's spend a little time discussing the "homosexual agenda."
These homosexuals – who (and I checked) are actual people and not a nameless, faceless, well-dressed mob – are apparently out to get special rights and privileges from the government. They want - gasp - to be able to marry and enjoy the benefits associated with such unions. They want - God forbid - to be able to visit their dying partners in the hospital, to make arrangements should they die. And they also want - heavens - to be treated with the same dignity the rest of us are afforded.
The nerve.
Why would homosexuals want these things? Why would they, for some strange reason, want to be on the same footing as the rest of society? Why? Why are they so in our faces with the "We're here! We're queer! Get used to it!" chants? Why do they push their radical, let's-all-have-equal-rights agenda down our throats? Why would they stop with one single-sex marriage partner – why not marry their dogs?
If you asked any one of these questions without tongue firmly planted in cheek, there are several things you should know: This article isn't for you. You are a bigot. You are an idiot.
You'll hear the Right claiming to not be homophobic. They'll tell you they live and let live (as long as you don't live next to them). They'll also tell you that, like them, most Americans agree that the "institution" of marriage is something worth protecting. As if homosexuals and like-minded individuals everywhere are – as seen in that hateful campaign brochure distributed this fall – out to ban their Bibles.
Let's look at this confusion in depth.
If someone's religious rites don't respect everyone's basic civil rights, then something is wrong. They see it as "us" (for lack of a better term) trying to change their religious standards. But it appears to me that their religious views – views that not everyone subscribes to (different religions, no religion, etc.) – are being used to prevent someone from holding their basic rights.
Again, there's no army of homosexuals on the prowl to ruin someone's religious rite. Let's say Ohio's Issue 1 (constitutional ban on same-sex marriage) failed or is somehow ruled unconstitutional. A church could still refuse to marry homosexuals, because it doesn't have a legal obligation to do so. Do I agree? No. Could they? Sure. But I don't think a religion has the right to tell the state how it should govern a legally-binding agreement.
There are two definitions of "marriage" being discussed here: Religious and civil (not as in civil unions, but the "marriage" that comes from getting the paper at the courthouse). How churches and theologians legislate the former is their business. How the government legislates the latter is their business. Never the twain shall meet.
If you don't like the idea that a church may in the future marry homosexuals in the religious rite, that's up to you. But it's not up to you to use your religion (one of myriad religions) to define how the state sees marriage. Because, if you do, you're somehow suggesting there's a state religion – something, if I'm remembering correctly, we fought back in the day to avoid.
Plus, why do we never see the religious marriage-defense roadblocks fly up when two atheists get married? Because homosexuals – like blacks and women before them – are easy targets for them to marginalize. Where does it stop? When will it end?
Here's something you won't hear in the bigots' anti-gay posturing: They're scared. They are more afraid of "Will and Grace" than al Qaeda attacking their local Piggly Wiggly. They see Janet Jackson's nipple on television, see "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," and they are scared. It wasn't so long ago that the sight of a black person in their diner provoked the same response. Fear of change is a dangerous thing. Dangerous for those afraid to change and, even more so, for those seen as the "changers."
This fear has led many to develop a terribly misled view of homosexuals. If gays are allowed to marry, they say, marriage will be ruined. Why, then, is the state that allows same-sex marriage (Massachusetts) the one with the lowest divorce rate? If they're allowed to raise kids, they say, those children will grow up mal-adjusted. Why, then, was it reported recently that children of same-sex couples are just as well off as those with mixed-sex parents? What are they so afraid of?
And they can keep their "values." I really have a hard time believing Jesus would rather keep gays out of His church and ban abortion than feed the hungry, clothe the poor and cure the sick. Remember those values? You won't hear about those at your local WASPy mega-church these days. "God is Love" doesn't quite ring as true any more, does it?
America is at a dangerous crossroads: We, as a nation, could remain old-ashioned, looking to a hate-filled past for our values. Or we could look to the future, embrace diversity as an ideal and move forward. If I were a praying man, I'd pray for the latter. It's our only hope. Joseph Hughes is a graphic designer and writer by day and a liberal blogger by night. Read stories like this and many more at his blog, Hughes for America.
Thanks. But not what I was looking for. I would like a link to a thread on DU discussing the decision by companies in MA to drop same sex benes for those who are not married.
This proves it.....The entire homosexual 'agenda' is not about tolerance, it's about forced acceptance. It's not enough to say 'Look, what you do on your own time is OK, it's just not for me.' No, we need to teach our children that anything gay is OK, unless it's negative (depression, suicide, etc) and then it's not mentioned. We need to 'embrace' diversity, except for the bad parts that don't get mentioned (lower education, drug use, crime, etc.). And obviously, anyone that says different is a hateful bigot that needs to be re-educated.
I've always said that it's easiest for liberals to freely spend other people money and morality. Wife's friends are libs, and were expounding on the virtues of diversity at a recent get-together. I asked when the last time was that they spent in a soup kitchen, or volunteering at an inner city Y or school, or even just contributing $$ to a charity. Dead silence. One guy volunteered at a hospice for AIDS patients - 'safe', upper class, homosexual AIDS patients, but at least he put his money where his mouth is. Otherwise, you never saw so many people shuffling and looking down at their shoes.
A liberal's definition of diversity is a white socialist, a black socialist, a gay socialist, a latino socialist, and so forth. There's all-inclusive diversity for you.
/rant off. I feel better.
Again, there's no army of homosexuals on the prowl to ruin someone's religious rite!
Homosexuals are not after the children. They just want to be Boy scout leaders because they know better than most how young boys should grow up to be responsible decent citizens and role models.