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 understand why you just shrug your shoulders about the matter, and that is OK. It probably is a good thing that you are complacent on the issue. However, homosexuality is not benign, and those who engage in it don't keep it in the bedroom - it ends up constantly being shoved in the public's face.
Granted all kinds of sexual perversion is now being mainstreamed in the media and in the schools, but it doesn't mean that good people should give up the fight when it becomes clear that this is a raging culture war.
To force everyone to 'celebrate' homosexuality with us.
To recruit tender, young things into the gay community.
To change every nuance of normalcy in the American culture so that it supports perversion.
Gay lifestyle: Complete and utter identification with one's sexual 'preference', to the exclusion of all else.
Interesting question! Now homosexuality is a human right??? {And, some still don't believe the homosexuals have an agenda.} Posturing oneself as a defender of "human rights" is the number one sympathy acquisition tool in the liberal handbook. Find a new angle SPARKY!
The One who defines true human rights emphatically states in His Word, The Bible, that homosexuality is sin like adultery, lying, murder, stealing, etc. His Truth withstands the test of time; so, I don't anticipate any lasting, positive ramifications from today's homosexual acceptance movement.
The US has been skating on very thin ice since ROE v Wade, and I know God will not tolerate this genocide forever. If this nation adds to this atrocity by officially endorsing perversion (homosexuality included), then we are shaking our other fist in His face and demanding an immediate reckoning.
There's a qualitative difference between gay advocates and "adulterers".
Those of the "gay agenda" are not at all confused about their sexuality -- they've embraced it with arms and legs, and want the rest of us to do so, as well. Their expressed goal is to change church teachings on the topic of homosexuals and marriage.
Adultery, OTOH, will still (for now, anyway) have a moral stench to it, even if it is sometimes overlooked. It's still something to be hidden.
IMHO Paul's point in Romans 1 can't be separated from Romans 2: homosexual behavior is among a host of bad things, upon which it's God's job -- not ours -- to pass judgement. In the context of this discussion, I think Romans 1 offers instruction to the church about what it should or should not bless.
Care to provide a source for this preposterous assertion?
Actually performing homosexual acts is a chosen behavior. I think the underlying urge homosexuality is probably a lot more complicated than a conscious decision.
There are apparently a lot of "growing up" type psychological similarities among gay men, though. They had bad relationships with their fathers. Many of them were sexually abused. But I think there's also something innate about it.
Of course, "innate-ness" shouldn't be determinative: men who molest little girls apparently also have an innate desire to do so, and we'll hopefully never condone that.
There is quite a difference between "judgement" and "discernment". It is our job to be fruit inspectors and to keep ourselves pure. It is also our job to name sin when we see it. (Ever heard of John the Baptist?) Also Christ and His disciples never seemed to stray away from naming sin when they saw it. Perhaps you could give your spin on the "Let your light shine" and "the salt of the world" speeches by Christ.
Saying that, I am fully aware that we are living in a world filled with sinners who are just fulfilling their job description. Many are overacheivers.
That was my point. He will "enforce" His laws. But His ways are NOT our ways; so no human can determine how or when He will effect His Justice. One should not interpret the fact that life SEEMS to progress without His just intervention as a negation of His Laws.
I do know that He is merciful and that He pursues us to establish a personal relationship with Him. This wonderful, loving relationship is established on His Terms and not ours. Obviously, those who are too arrogant, too educated, too independent, too pious, or too proud will refuse to meet Him on His terms and obtain their wish: an eternity separated from Him.
Which puts you on the "always been that way" side of the fence.
The question is, though, does "innate-ness" justify, for example, laws that abolish a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual couples for purposes of adoption or marriage?
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.