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.
I can't possibly imagine myself becomming a liberal. Yet, I don't think I was with a conservative "gene". My parents were conservative, and I came of age politically in a conservative place. My early experience in working (In the US Air Force) was also a very conservative place. I don't doubt at all that had I grown up in Greenwitch Villiage I'd be liberal, and perhaps even gay.
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.
Huh, yeah. I think that there are lots more hertosexuals in the world, so the odds favor that. But I strongly think that a "hertosexual" male messing with a boy can no longer be considered hertosexual. At best, he's bisexual, by definition.
A close friend of mine related a story of a professor in 1950's fly over country who regularly recruited young men. The prof was married (to a female), but liked to fool around with male students. At least one student he picked up stayed gay. Another he picked up had a serious mental problem with it, and tried to commit suicide before he figured out he liked girls despite his experience with the prof.
One of the biggest lies out there is that gays are "born that way". And the second biggest lie out there is that they "don't recruit".
Maybe some people are "born that way". And maybe not all gays "recruit". But some people I personally know chose to be gay/bisexual after being seduced. And certianly some gays go for young men with the hope they can "change" them.
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.This is oversimplified. Indeed, it's a little more false than true: if one posits (as do I, and I believe as most scholars of the subject believe) that sexual orientation on the 7-point "Kinsey Scale" -- with 1 as purely heterose_xual and 7 as purely homose_xual -- in the population can be graphed as a leftward-smooshed Bell Curve, with the apex of the bell over about the "2" (which is a strongly heterose_xual leaning),
To the contrary. They desperately want to be happy but do not find it in a same sex relationship.
"The gays I know seem to be a lot happier than the people going around screaming and moaning about how gay people aren't happy."
No offense but you don't know them very well. I also don't scream and moan about anyones unhappiness. It's a shame when anyone is unhappy and especially those claiming to be "gay".
"BTW, bearing false witness is a sin but the good news is, you can change!"
LOL! Atleast you have a sense of humor. It is those that say being "gay" is normal that "bear false witness" or that they can't become normal heterosexuals. That's a tragedy to wish homosexuality to anyone for their short life on this earth and eternity in an unspeakable place for being "gay" , by CHOICE.
But you knew that.
No Mr. smarty pants, not me. But try it on a confused thirteen-year-old in the midst of puberty. Find someone gawky, and dorky who doesn't fit in. Explain to him that he doesn't get the girls because he's gay, and how loved and accepted he'll be if he tries something new and different.
Ex-gays will tell you how it all works. I've seen it happen too. Sick, sick, sick.
To that end, there is a cross-denominational organization that uses common funding, wording, and tactics. In the Episcopal church they call their lobbying group "Integrity," and IIRC it's "Dignity" in the Catholic church. The Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists are all trying to deal with their versions of the same organization.
Beyond that, the campaign is well integrated with the secular political agenda -- which of course uses common words and tactics (I don't know about funding).
One need not be against the gay agenda to name it for what it is. They are a group of people who want us to accept their sexual tastes. To that end, they argue that because their urges are innate, we must accept them as normal, and even celebrate their sexual orientation.
They may want to back out of that one too, especially if society gets to the point of designer genetic children. If there was a "gay gene", and prospective parents decided not to raise a pervert in their house, then that child may become murdered through an abortion. (ahh, the fun with flexible morality)
It is in the best interests of homosexuals to either start now and ban genetic testing for "queerness" or declare "we don't know" in regards to how one's sexual orientation is acquired. Personally I am a fan of the "sin nature" theory.
Paradox is saying that you can be talked out of perverse behavior that is sometimes passed off as an immutable characteristic under the concept of something called "sexual oriantation".
Does that mean adultery and every other form of sexual perversion is OK within those denominations?
There is "Dignity" in the homosexual lifestyle that hangs out in public restrooms and parks looking for anonymous sex?
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.