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.

[Guillermo]

It's probably been stated already...

If there is no "gay agenda", then why is there such a huge "gay lobby"?

Who pours millions into lobbying efforts, without an agenda??????

[gcruse]

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

Doesn't work, either.  :)

[longtermmemmory]

there should be no parity or quasi marriage. Marriage should be above and distict.

There is a societal policy to hold homosexuality as a disfavorable ALTERNATIVE lifestyle. If they really wanted to cover their legal issues, then powers of attorney, wills and healtcare surrogates would adequatly fit the bill.

[Dataman]

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

You mean all that dancing around Frisco naked isn't a behavior? All the leather and metal and paint and surgery is evolution? How about sodomy? Isn't that a behavior?

[gcruse]

To get them the privileges other Americans enjoy in the area
of inheritance, insurance, and other things marriage confers in the civil arena.

[Trace21230]

No, I suspect you understood and wanted to mischaracterize, to get the discussion away from the degeneracy of homosexuality. Nice try!

I was not mischaracterizing anything, and if you want to discuss the specifics of "homosexual degeneracy" you'll have to do it with someone who shares your fascination with the topic.

My only interest in posting on this thread is to argue that the government has no business making certain religious beliefs the law of the land.

Trace

[gcruse]

How about sodomy? Isn't that a behavior?

Well yes.  Heterosexual and homosexual both.
What on earth is your point?

[Trace21230]

If they really wanted to cover their legal issues, then powers of attorney, wills and healtcare surrogates would adequatly fit the bill.

Perhaps, and if you're right there is no need for "quasi-marriage" or civil union.

I doubt that any of the measures you've noted would give monogamous homosexuals the same tax advantages as married couples. This is clearly unfair, especially if the gay couple is raising one or more children. ($500/per child tax credits)

Trace

[longtermmemmory]

so you have no problem with the homosexuals teaching NORMAL children to engage in homosexuals sex

I have a problem with any adult teaching children to engage in sex, no matter what persuasion.
*** *** ***

But homosexual have demanded and RECIEVED government sanction to do just that. The NEA OPENLY endorses such course material

In California school districts order teathers not to allow parents to see such recruiting material.

Parents had to go to extreme measures in order to show the public the types of pervsions these SANCTIONED perverts are activly telling children to perform.

[Guillermo]

They have the exact same priviledges.

Any homosexual male may marry any willing single female. There is no law stopping this, so don't tell me they are not "allowed to marry."

[MHGinTN]

But it's okay to have the government making certain sexual proclivities, certain degenerate sexual choices a protected minority? Bwahahahaha ... do you think there are any homosexuals who turn their lievs around and stop being homosexuals or at the very least stop practicing homosexual behavior because they have sought and received psychological or religious help?

[longtermmemmory]

homosexual addoptins generally have ONE of the homos adopt the child and then ad the second child. They are entitled to the tax credit. (same as single mothers or fathers paying child support)

That only points out the homosexual efforts to reduce marriage from an institution to a mere contract devoid of children. Child bearing (rumored from the leftist activists in the Massachussets court. any wonder people no longer respect judges) would be an "accessory" to an individuals life. They seek to de-institutionalize marriage from familiy and children. They would replace the institution of marriage with the governemnt sanction family courts.

[longtermmemmory]

Bwahahahaha ... do you think there are any homosexuals who turn their lievs around and stop being homosexuals or at the very least stop practicing homosexual behavior because they have sought and received psychological or religious help?

** ** *****

Yes I do, a man who was in the homosexual lifestyle underwent treatment and continues in therapy as part of a child custody case. His motivation was 1. he wanted to change for himself. 2. he wanted to change as a good example to his two children. 3. he wanted to be able to have a normal life with his children. Yes there were multiple complications but what child custody case is not complicated or fraught with landmines.

Before you say he did it just to jump through hoops. the children had their own appointed lawyer and there was a child protective services worker monitoring. If he ever falls off the wagon he will loose his children. The mother of the children was supportive of the move as it gave her assurances. It would not have been do-able without her cooperation. There were skeptics who asked the nature vs nuture questions, but the experts provided enough to convince the judge that change was probable.


The was about six years ago. Last I heard the visits were unsupervised and they were getting along as friends for the children.

[Dataman]

This point is, strangely, overlooked by many anti-gay types. I wonder why?

I don't see it like that at all. I don't know of anyone who approves of molestation except orgainized groups like NAMBLA, which happens to be GAY.

[Dataman]

Well yes.

Good. You finally admitted that homosexual behavior is a learned behavior. That is correct.

[Misterioso]

Let me ask you this. If you woke up tomorrow and your Bible no longer made any mention of this subject, would you still consider it a sin? How would you explain the "sin" to your children? If you no longer had the word of God to support your hatred of homosexuality, you would then have to resort to condemning an act just because it was different. Is, then, that not your real reason for your problem with homosexuality? Or is it only on religious grounds?

[smith288]

Let me ask you this. If you woke up tomorrow and your Bible no longer made any mention of this subject, would you still consider it a sin? How would you explain the "sin" to your children? If you no longer had the word of God to support your hatred of homosexuality, you would then have to resort to condemning an act just because it was different. Is, then, that not your real reason for your problem with homosexuality? Or is it only on religious grounds?

I would not wake up tomorrow and God be gone. So your hypothetical, to me, is a worthless excercise. God is my guidance to my life and without Him, our country, its birth, its justice system and the way of life in this society would be a void of any moral guidance. Without God, one could make the argument that murdering someone because they stole your newspaper is legitimate.

One part of the Bible makes you feel uncomfortable because you may take part in that activity or dont like to judge does not make it hate and I do not hate homosexuals, I hate their sin just as much as I hate my own sins that I try very hard to stop.

The Bible does tell us at the end times right will be considered wrong and wrong, right... how prophetic. Call me a quack or whatever, it will only prove my case further.

[First Amendment]

Why the hell is this article on FR? It's just a rabid, smug, fallacious and ignorant pro-homosexual agenda article. These can be read all over the web. Why is it here? Gcruse, your views on homosexuality are known to anyone who has read your posts, but I don't think you should be posting totally non-conservative crap like this. FR is supposed to be conservative. If this kind of crap is up here, then anyone can post any kind of crap that has nothing to do with conservatism.