Posted on 07/15/2003 10:41:28 AM PDT by 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.
EmmyLou is a lesbian and/or homosexual promoter. She is rabid about it and will never listen to or accept facts.
Please cite studies and facts that back up your opinions.
I know you won't, since you can't. The above statement of opinion is false, and you either know it is false, or you are seriously delusional and have made no attempt whatsoever to find out the truth of homosexuality and its causes.
It's worth noting that these institutions and traditions form part of the bedrock of our society. Their destruction in the name of the gay agenda resonates far beyond the normalization of buggery.
Very good points. Homosexual promotion is a very seriously destructive agenda, for a good example of its destructive power read "The Pink Swastika" (if you haven't already). It can be read in its entirety on www.abidingtruth.com.
BS. The most accurate studies say between 1.5 and 2.5% are homosexual.
And there are many who stopped smoking 10 years ago and don't crave them every day. Guess that means they DID change their smoking orientation.
I quit smoking over 30 years ago and the from the day I quit until now I never wanted another one. So poor EmmyLou must be clinging on to her old ways in her mind. That's why she can't conceive that anyone can change, since she can't/doesn't want to. (Or could she be lying in order to promote the homo agenda, which she always does?)
Since one third or more of molestations are same sex (homosexual, get it?) and homosexuals are only at most 3% of the population, they are prone to molesting kids. Your homo-promoting talking points are wearing thin. Maybe you can go back to your organization and get some new ones.
Yup......a "neocon" with a lisp.
The problem here is that the children are being used in a bizarre experiment which everyone hopes will not turn terribly wrong yet everyone knows that this is an uncalculable risk.
Why then did this happen?
The same reason all bad things happen: good people are too polite for their own good and when they realize they have done wrong they lack the wiil and force to correct it, so they just close their eyes and hope it goes away.
Now, the author of this piece is obviously either a sympathizer or a participant in his purportedly non-existent "gay agenda" but he tries to cleverly craft this "bait" he casts here as just another leaf floating on a tranquil sea.
What he wants is a roaring response similar to the shark in Jaws when the snout juts over the stern of the boat.
Somedays, it just pays to not get wet.
I was obviously not clear the way I posted the reply you cited. I was asking the poster to whom I addressed my reply if he believed such turnarounds are genuine. Homosexual activist do not count such turnearounds as genuine, as either the person was not 'fully a homosexual' (where have we encountered that foolishness ... the prenatal baby is not yet fully human!) or the change will be only temporary and done as a way to please someone else but the person will revert. Sadly, because too many Christians do not embrace these people who have such a horrific addiction to fight for so long, many do revert.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.