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.
Some people are just bound and determined to normalize deviancy, and the constant drum beat rationalizing perversion is the most effective tool.
Do you really think that S&M Bondage Parade down Main Street will change people's minds to accept it?
The individual's right to freely exercise his or her liberty is not dependent upon whether the majority believes such exercise to be moral, dishonorable, or wrong. Simply because something is beyond the pale of "majoritarian morality" does not place it beyond the scope of constitutional protection. To allow the moral indignation of a majority (or, even worse, a loud and/or radical minority) to justify criminalizing private consensual conduct would be a strike against freedoms paid for and preserved by our forefathers.
Do all gunshot victims die from the wound? Sometimes folks get lucky. Sometimes folks spend the rest of their lives suffering from an incident.
It's best not to think of gunshots as "normal" -- just because not everyone dies from them.
It's best not to defend homosexuals with the question "So all those altar boys are gay now?"
You know it's not. It's just that none of those other perversions has its own well-funded advocacy group -- not to mention the time and inclination to actually work their way into the church power structures.
There is "Dignity" in the homosexual lifestyle that hangs out in public restrooms and parks looking for anonymous sex?
Hey, they picked the name, not me. It's just window dressing, of course.
But lets be perfectly clear, not all people prone to alcoholism became alcoholics. Many people who do become alcoholics overcome the destructive lifestyle of alcoholism and spend their lives fighting those urges in order to live a normal life.
At the same time many people who are NOT alcoholic nevertheless descend into alife of destructive alcohol consumption.
A lot of people who fall into lives of alcoholism are brought into that lifestyle by their peers (dare I say recruited?), especially when they are young.
All of the above applies to gays if there is such a genetic predisposition to that kind of perverse and destructive behavior. Nothing says they HAVE TO succumb to that unhealthy lifestyle however. They can overcome it and return to leading normal and healthy lives, fighting off the destructive urges with the help of family, friends, and most importantly Faith.
Not been to prison eh?
Actually, it's a very good indicator for other sorts of issues. Look at all that has to be attacked and conquered just to allow homosexuals an opportunity to demand that we accept them. Just off the top of my head:
1. Sexual taboos
2. Common-sense public health measures
3. Traditional understandings of marriage
4. The legal definition of marriage
5. Traditional understandings of the family (i.e., male father, female mother, kids)
6. Being put at the head of the line for adoptions
7. The ability of private organizations to choose the qualifications of their leaders (e.g., the BSA)
8. The clear statements of Holy Scripture (whether you agree with them or not)
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.
I'm saying that some molested altar boys become gay as a result of the molestation. And I claim that even a single instance of this is sufficient proof that people's sexual identity can be changed.
That comment is what I was looking for. Now the big question is, why aren't adulterers, who outnumber the homosexuals, "working their way into the church power structures."? Could it be that just being confused about one's sexual function does not define homosexuality? Or is Paul right in Romans 1?
Homosexuality is a chosen behavior, as is heterosexuality. Some people can be convinced to change their behavior, some can't. Some people can be convinced to smoke crack, some can't. I can't be talked into smoking crack... that doesn't make it any less a choice on my part.
For a real eye-opener, I recommend C.S. Lewis' Surprised By Joy. He discusses quite frankly the widespread presence of pederasty among turn-of-the-century English schoolboys.
His assessment was surprisingly mild, in the sense that he was neither attracted to, nor involved in it, and so preferred not to stand in judgement of it. His take on it was that the guys on the "dealing" end would most likely have taken girls if they could, but that youthful boys ("tarts") were better than nothing.
The prison thing sounds much the same.
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.