“And knowing’s half the battle!”
Or half-knowing is all of the battle.
Or being a half-wit garners knowing glances.
Or something like that.
Rick Scarborough of Vision America is worried, nay, terrified that Houston might (gasp!) become another San Francisco. due to the current mayoral race including a (gasp) openly (eek!) lesbian. As he told Texas activists:
Money is pouring in from homosexual groups around the country who want Houston to become the San Francisco of the South.
Having visited Houston a number of times on business, that seems a bit … unlikely.
But more importantly, Rick lays out, for all to know and boo-hiss at, the Homosexual Agenda (cue scary organ music). What ghastly horrors are Teh Gayz out to do, in their stylish transmogrification of Houston?
1. Legalize same sex marriage.
Well, yes. Though, as we’ve seen, that’s been hardly the end of the world anywhere it’s happened. I’m willing to accept this as something that most gays are out to see happen, so if we’re going to posit that there is some “Homosexual Agenda” meaning “things that most gays would like to see happen” (vs. “the sinister plotting of the Evil Homosexual Cabal”), sure, I’ll buy this one.
2. Mandate public acceptance of the homosexual activities.
Okay, let’s ignore the scary word “mandate” (I don’t think anyone can “mandate public acceptance” of anything from professional football to BLT sandwiches). Framing this as acceptance of homosexual activities is sneak-speak for “Evil Perverted Gay Sex Which Is Icky And They Want Us All To Enjoy.” I don’t feel the need to ask anyone to accept my heterosexual activities. What I expect, socially and civilly, is for people to accept me as a fellow citizen and member of society. I think most gays would probably want that.
3. Teach homosexuality to school children, starting in kindergarten, as an acceptable, alternative lifestyle. This is known as multisexualism. This enables homosexuals to recruit children to their lifestyle.
Eek! TEH GAYZ ARE ALL RECRUITING PEDOPHILES! EEK!
Or, no, not really.
If I wrote, “Teach miscegenation to school children, starting in kindergarten, as an acceptable, alternative lifestyle. This is called race mixing,” the fallacy would be clear. People who love each other only ask that their love be acknowledged and legal. I would expect that, over time, as homosexuality becomes part of the background of American society, discussions and depictions of couples in educational material and the media would include gays, just as they show (previously forbidden and against the laws of man and God) mixed race couples. Not to propagandize or proselytize, but because that’s what reality looks like.
So if gay marriage is legal, I’d expect that it would be part of discussions of marriage and family. If it’s in kindergarten, I’d expect that would be about all of it. Nobody’s suggesting gay sex instruction to kindergarteners, any mroe than they get taught about straight sex.
A fundamental problem here is that the folks who are anti-gay consider it a moral perversion, an evil choice, something people decide to be (why they would, given society’s opprobrium to date is beyond me, but, to be sure, people made odd decisions about their lives), as opposed to something that is genetically or otherwise determined or influenced biologically.
So, of course, the fear is that if homosexuality was accepted, more people would “choose” to be gay. I would argue that if homosexuality were accepted, more people who were inclined that way would accept that, rather than fighting it. If you consider homosexuality to be immoral, that’s a bad thing. I don’t.
4. Lower or remove age of consent laws leading to relaxation of laws prohibiting pedophilia. See www.nambla.org /
Are there gay pedophiles? Sure. Are there straight pedophiles? Absolutely. Do we assume that all men who are sexually attracted to women are out to remove laws against pedophilia with little girls? Of course not. There’s no basis for suggesting that the homosexual community as a whole, or a majority thereof, is pedophiles.
But, of course, one should never allow the facts to interfere with one’s fearmongering.
5. Elevate homosexuals to a minority class, leading to affirmative action for homosexuals in the workplace. Cross dressers could force employers to accept their actions at work.
Um, we don’t have affirmative action for any classes in the workplace. We do have anti-discrimination laws, where looking at the workplace population can be a factor in raising questions of discrimination. I don’t have a problem with protecting sexual orientation from workplace, public accommodation, etc. discrimination.
As a parenthetical comment, not all cross-dressers are homosexual, and certainly not all homosexuals are cross-dressers.
6. Prohibit any speech which opposes homosexual activity. This would be considered “hate speech” and have criminal sanctions. This would destroy 1st Amendment free speech rights for those who oppose homosexual conduct and the homosexual political movement.
As opposed to efforts from some Christianists to “prohibit any speech with opposes Christianity”? Somehow, they never think those sorts of proposals are constitutionally protected.
In either case, this is a red herring. Nobody in the gay community I’ve heard wants anti-gay speech to be illegal. The recently passed bill is not at all about “opposing homosexual activity” (there’s that “activity” word again) but for people whose actions, or whose direct incitement to actions, include violence toward gays. A protection that religion, for example, already enjoys.
Besides which, Teh Gayz can’t pass a law that “destroys 1st Amendment free speech rights.” That’s why it’s part of the Constitution.
7. Require employee benefits to be provided to same sex partners.
Um … yeah? I mean, if they can marry, they should be treated like spouses. One would think that supporting stable, loving, consenting relationships would be considered a good thing. And they are, I guess — as long as they’re the Right and Religiously Approved relationships.
8. Elect candidates to office who will work to implement the homosexual agenda.
NO! THEY WANT TO ACTUALLY ELECT PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THEM! THE TRICKY BASTARDS!
So the homosexual agenda is to elect people who will implement the homosexual agenda? Um … duh?
In review then, we have two basic elements of The Homosexual Agenda:
- Gays want to be accepted by society as contributing members whose loving, monogamous relationships are recognized. That may be disturbing to some, but it’s hardly mysterious or sinister.
- Gays want to recruit our children and make it legal to molest them into being gay, too. Um … well, I’m sure that makes for great campfire horror stories, but it’s unscientific and unfounded. And, well, dumb.
Thanks for your contribution to civil discourse, Rick!
(via RWW)
I want to mandate the following:
Really good (I mean really good) pinot noir at box wine prices.
That’s just … sick. And perverted. Zinfandel, certainly. And Cabernet is certainly mainstream. And God smiles upon Syrah. But Pinot? That’s so wrong.
Minority status, marriage rights, OK, I can handle that. But trying to influence politics? Those gays have just stepped over the line!
(Note to captcha designers: “3-point” isn’t a word. It’s two words.)
Well written, ***Dave.
Oh, and I vote for Zinfandel.
to date thru referendum this american culture says that yes homosexuals should be leaders of cities of 2 million and yes if they are allowed to marry they will destroy the institution.
but given 600 years of homophobic bias initially led by heads of the church(who were also heads of state) in english speaking culture how can we expect less?
Well, not surprisingly, the personal (an individual candidate, the co-worker, the neighbor, the relative) is accepted first, before the general principle becomes obvious. While popular referenda, characterized by every fear-mongering trick in the book, have fallen short, I have little doubt that that will change over the coming decade.
that is true without a doubt.
the one thing that is changing in christian faith that is assisting that change is the understanding that is gradually taking hold. that living in faith is not about mindset and belief system but about trust, testing and witness. trust in the love that is christ, witness about essence of spirit(fruit of the spirit), and a testing that requires a reasoned understanding that acknowledges the words that were written in scripture, as opposed to assigning meaning in spite of the words.
because as is the nature of being human, society will always be the church and the church will always be society.
no one lives in a spiritual bubble or in a spiritually free one.