Exactly what is the gay 'agenda' and 'lifestyle'?

Amarillo Globe News ^ | July 15, 2003 | Greg Sagan

[gcruse]

I'm with David Horsley. If there is such a thing as a "gay agenda" I must be one of its supporters by default. I've never been "recruited" for this cause; never received any political material describing the agenda, the forces opposed to it, or how it will prevail in the law and the institutions of America; and I've never attended any meetings suggesting my heterosexual predilection is a target for gay subversion. But there are people out there with whom I disagree who tell me that gays of both genders are promoting this "agenda," and the demand that gays be given equal treatment under the law is apparently the first step on a path that will soon have me dating Bruce Willis.

I am not persuaded.

There's a lot of nonsense surrounding the phenomenon of homosexuality.

There's the idea that homosexuals "recruit" heterosexuals. This is absurd because you can't change someone else's sexual orientation. If you don't believe that, try changing your own. If you can't do it to yourself, what chance does anyone else have to do it to you? My sexual orientation is not up for grabs, and I defy anyone to sweet-talk me into sleeping with men.

There's the idea that gays corrupt the young. Some may, but as science repeatedly points out, most episodes of sexual abuse involving adults and children are perpetrated by heterosexuals. I suspect someday we will see a movement to outlaw heterosexuality because of all the perversions it spawns, but for now I would rather rest my weight on the idea that acts of sexual perversion are separate and distinct from sexual orientation. That way we can sweep up offenders of both persuasions.

And there's the idea that gays "choose" the "gay lifestyle" - whatever that is. As I've pointed out before on this page, if anyone can "choose" to be gay, so can you. And if you can choose to be gay, your right of choice should be protected as long as you meet the new criteria - consenting adults, privacy of the bedroom.

But the only element of "lifestyle" common to all gays is that they prefer sex with people of their own gender. Beyond that you can find gays who are committed and gays who sleep around, just like us. You can find gays who drink wine and gays who drink beer, just like us. You can find gays who are Republicans and gays who are Democrats, just like us.

The only "agenda" gays hold that I'm aware of is to correct mistreatment under the law, and since the gays doing this are American citizens who work, pay taxes and vote, there is no reason to deny them this much of what they want. Gays should be able to form lifelong committed relationships, participate as full partners in medical decisions of their mates, pass on property to survivors as easily as the rest of us can.

And, yes, they should be able to raise children as a family unit.

This is the idea that troubles some people to distraction - what about the children? Won't kids who grow up in a homosexual-parent family turn out gay? Well, do all children who grow up in heterosexual-parent families turn out straight? Of course not. I had three children by my first wife. Two are heterosexual, one is gay. So that argument doesn't hold water.

What is important to children in any family is the quality of the relationship between the parents and between parents and children. Two heterosexual parents can make the lives of their children a living hell. Two homosexual parents can make the lives of their children an example of trust, commitment, integrity, and love.

We all ought to seek and savor the second kind of relationship, not reject one of them out of hand because we don't like the pairing.

But giving gays some minimal protection under the law is an essential first step to understanding their relationships, because nothing distorts research like criminalizing the behavior to be studied.

Besides, when gays are denied fundamental protection under the law, we are stating to the whole world that justice in America depends on your choice of sleeping partners. This is an insupportable premise for public policy.

For those who are rabidly opposed to homosexuality, I say by all means stay heterosexual. Just don't expect to see your zeal elevated to legal prohibition. Gays can be good Americans, too, and discriminating against good Americans with the law has yet to prove itself a viable long-term strategy.

[MHGinTN]

Homosexual behavior is degenerate behavior. Adultery is degenerate behavior. How would ushering in another group of degenerates to partake of the much assaulted instgitution of marriage help marriage? Why add to the degenerate numbers already destroying the institution, by bringing in another group of degenerates to assault the institution?

[brownie]

Fine, then yes, emotionally disturbed young adults can be talked into accepting and participating in the deviant homosexual lifestyle. Which is why homosexuals are so desparate to have unfettered access to our youth and to have society "accept" homosexuality - after all, if society condones it it becomes easier to recruit children.

[bytheBook]

Your position is well thought out and well stated. Bravo!

[Dataman]

Yes, and homosexuals hardly have a monopoly on molestation. If there's any group that has a monopoly on it....well, I'm not going to go there.

I believe that was one of the favorite defenses of the Clintonistas: Everybody does it. Of course that justifies molestation, doesn't it?

[Dataman]

Isn't that special?

Apparently you don't want to believe it.

[Trace21230]

The point of my post was this:

Just because MOST heterosexual couples divorce is not a valid reason to deny ALL of them the right to have children (because of the societal interest in having children raised by two parents).

Similarly, just because MOST homosexuals are "more likely to molest" or "spread diseases" (unsubstantiated claims that I dispute) is no reason to prohibit ALL homosexuals from engaging in private consensual activity.

I suppose homosexuals are "degenerates" in the same sense that every other human being is a "degenerate." After all no one is perfect, even though some seem to think they are.

Trace

[gcruse]

you must be a homosexual.

For praising emmylou's post?
Unusual, even for you.
Calling someone that is pretty last-resort.
Keeping the discourse civilized works better.
You never know when you might have to eat your words.
On the other hand,  maybe you just choose to be flagrant.
Usually, when the rhetoric explodes, the emotions are in full control

[xm177e2]

What is the "gay lifestyle?"

If it means people are in a non-monogomous relationship, the Clintons would be "gay."

If it means being in a sexual relationship not for the purpose of having/raising children, then John Kerry and Pat Buchanan would both be in "gay" marriages.

If it means not being married, then Condoleezza Rice is acting "gay."

If it means being unmarried and having lots of sex, there are plenty of straight men and women who act like that. Are they practicing the "gay lifestyle?"

What is so different about the "gay lifestyle?"

Is the lifestyle itself so different, or is the only difference the genders of the people having sex? If that's the case, then there is no such thing as a "gay lifestyle." There are straight and gay people who have different lifestyles, but none is specifically straight or gay.

[xm177e2]

If there's any group that has a monopoly on it....

What? You are going to say "men," right? Women have done it, too, and although it's a bit rarer, it does happen. There is no one group with a monopoly on that sort of thing.

[gcruse]

Apparently you don't want to believe it.

No, it's true.  Children can be made to behave.
Now, what this has to do with sexuality,
I don't know,

[longtermmemmory]

hardly. Stereotyples are the tools of the left.

If it is genetic and predetermined which homosexuals like yourself claim. Then there should be a test which will determine the possiblity.

Will homosexuals scream to stop such tests? Will homosexuals prevent parents from aborting babies with the homosexual defect gene?

The 50% figure is actually incorrect. Unfortuantly I do not have the exact numbers but a large portion of the 50% remary AND a large portion of those are to the ex.

Individually you may engage in soddomy all you want. However Marriage is an INSTITUTION and a cornerstone of Society. It is NOT a private affair. Marriage entails a PUBLIC ceremony and PUBLIC policies. NOT PRIVATE. The fewer homosexuals the better. (btw excelent medical post above if you can overcome your denial)

As for your divorce straw man, it is still a child with ONE mother and ONE father from a marriage of ONE man and ONE woman. They adults may not have been able to make it work, BUT they are still teaching that the model for society is ONE man and ONE woman.

You must have misdirect youself from the DUmies.

[Trace21230]

I believe that was one of the favorite defenses of the Clintonistas: Everybody does it. Of course that justifies molestation, doesn't it?

I'm hardly "justifying" molestation, merely pointing out that the problem is not limited to homosexuals. This point is, strangely, overlooked by many anti-gay types. I wonder why?

Could it be that they aren't concerned with the problem of molestation, but are actually interesting in attacking and marginalizing all homosexuals, even the ones that don't molest children?

It's funny, but you rarely see threads on FR attacking "molesters." For some reason, it's just the homosexual molesters that get the attention. Molestation is merely another vehicle for people who hate gays to attack the entire group of people, despite the fact that only a few of them engage in the reprehensible activity. A popular tactic, but easy to spot.

Trace

[longtermmemmory]

Just responding to your coy denial.

If you can't stand the hellfire don't dance here.

[gcruse]

What you say makes a lot of sense.
My lifestyle is defined by how much
money I spend living it, pretty much.

[gcruse]

What coy denial is that?

[kegler4]

"(3) Teenagers are confused sexually. I beg to differ. I never once recall any of my friends trying to decide if they wanted to go to the dance with Jim or Betty. (Why it's just so darn confusing!) Come on, by the time a person reaches puberty, he or she knows whether he/she likes boys or girls. Or did you wait until you were in your twenties before you settled on heterosexuality."

It sure wasn't the boys who gave me those embarrassing woodies in my early teens. It was thinking about girls.

[longtermmemmory]

Molesters are beneath human. In prisons, they are often intially put in the regular population until their paperworkd is "sorted" out. Then they are put in isolation for their own safety.

Homosexual appologists fail to identify that the higher percentage of molesters are engaging in homosexual behavior. The higher incidence of homosexuals who are molesters is an issue being discussed. The fact that homosexual activists are activly encouraging children to engaging in homosexual behavior an issue.

[MHGinTN]

Wow, you sure missed the point of my posts! ... Or did you? No, I suspect you understood and wanted to mischaracterize, to get the discussion away from the degeneracy of homosexuality. Nice try!

[austinTparty]

Stop it. You're using logic. That won't apply here... ;o)

[Trace21230]

Individually you may engage in soddomy all you want. However Marriage is an INSTITUTION and a cornerstone of Society. It is NOT a private affair. Marriage entails a PUBLIC ceremony and PUBLIC policies. NOT PRIVATE.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here.

Gays should have their own institution, not marriage, that the state creates to ensure economic parity for monogamous gay couples with similarly situated married couples.

Trace