I can tell that I am going to have fun writing a column when I get attacked by a group of lesbians and homosexual men. People will make all sorts of excuses for their abhorrent behavior and turn the tide against someone who takes a stand for traditional family values.
I am active on the web site, Facebook. I have a lot of friends from church groups, political groups, family, and both local and long distance contacts on both Facebook and Myspace. I am more active on Facebook, however.
On Facebook, people often post links to news stories of interest. This one woman posted a link to a story about how some Congressional leaders are taking a stand against the radical homosexual agenda. As a Christian, a conservative, a parent, and a citizen, I have a major problem with the agenda of the radical homosexual movement. Don't get me wrong, I could not care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes. I just don't want it flaunted in public, taught as normalcy, and certainly do not want my children (yes, soon to be plural) indoctrinated into such a paradigm.
There were several people in this discussion who were lampooning conservatives for paying attention to such a thing as an advancing homosexual agenda when we have a "financial crisis", war, and whatever else they find to be important issues of the day. I find the repulsion of the homosexual advance just as if not more important, since it is a destroyer of family, of morals, and the very order of nature.
These people were clamoring that they have civil rights and that these rights are being denied to them by ignorant, Bible thumping fundamentalists such as myself. I was told that there exists a two way separation of church and state, though it is not in the Constitution, nor were the words of Thomas Jefferson taken in their context for the usage of that term.
There are several things I noted during the discourse. The homosexuals attempted to minimize their agenda to three things: military service, monogamy, and parenting rights. There was no mention of indoctrination of children, demanding the accepting of divergent sexual behavior as a civil right, and the recognition of a class of people who choose a particular behavior as a protected minority class.
The last one is a civil argument that few are willing to tackle or be intellectually honest concerning. The truth of the matter is that homosexuality is a choice. Regardless of the spurious claims, we are talking about behavior, not about something genetic such as skin color. If such behavior is indeed genetic, we can make excuses for criminal behavior, as well. Perhaps Charles Manson has a gene in his DNA that gave him a propensity for violence and murder. If it is genetic, then he can not help that behavior and we should release him from prison, since he is not responsible for his actions. Of course that rationality is absurd, but it is the end result of that thought process.
My assertions of homosexuality being a choice, that the homosexual agenda is much more far-reaching than the three points, and that homosexuality is a sodomite, divergent behavior were never denied. Instead, the sodomites chose to find personal fault with the messenger. This is a typical liberal tactic. Since they could not refute my logic, the discussion boiled down to a lesbian attempting to claim moral superiority over me because her lover is a female veteran of the Gulf War, whereas I was never in the military. Because she sleeps with a lesbian that was honorably discharged for the armed services, I guess that makes her above reproach. She gains credibility for her lifestyle by association with someone with military service, in her opinion. Ergo, in her estimation, I am not allowed to condemn sodomy as evil. The argument is so twisted it is not funny, but somehow the tactic, as illogical as it is, gets employed by homosexuals and liberals incessantly.
When I pointed out the hypocrisy of her supporting a candidate for President such as Barack Obama, who has zero military experience, to become Commander in Chief while impugning my stance for traditional family values, the finger was again pointed to me. I was told that I had no moral grounds to say that a female war veteran and sodomite is practicing evil.
It is this sort of perverse logic that is used to excuse sin as a civil right. Those, like myself, who stand up and say that it is inexcusable behavior and not to be given the status of a civil right, will be labeled as bigots and judgmental. If people want to label me as such, fine, just stand in line. We will continue to face such moral decay and cries for civil rights where they do not exist. Resist the cry. Stand for righteousness. There is an ultimate judge to whom we all must give account.