Attacked by lesbians

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.

Civil unions, so called

I still read three New Hampshire newspapers online each morning (ok, most mornings) and I follow major news stories there. That is where most of my family still resides and where I grew up. Occasionally, I find news stories that gain my attention. One is the New Hampshire House of Representatives passing a "civil unions" bill. Basically, it is a bill that grants equal status to homosexual couples as married heterosexual couples.

Contrary to the article's opening, I do not find at all that the creation of "civil unions" are "a victory for fairness and equality". Homosexuals are just as equal in the eyes of the law as I am. We are not talking about a race or sex. We are talking about choice. People CHOOSE to be homosexual or not. People do not choose to be born male or female; Negro, Caucasian, or Asian or [insert your own ethnic group here].

Homosexuals have the exact same rights to marriage as I do. They have the same right to co-habitate that I do. They can vote, own property, have free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms just like I do. What they want in addition to that, however, is for me and the rest of society to acknowledge their choice as equal and grant equal status to their choice as my own.

This is where I shall certainly diverge from their so called rights paradigm. It has been said that "you can not legislate morality", and yet we do it all the time. There are laws regarding alcohol consumption, the use of drugs, regulations on operating an automobile, the purchase of firearms, the purchase of tobacco, the access to abortion mills, sexual predators, homicide, libel, rape, handicapped access laws, and anti-discrimination laws. All in one form or another are about morality.

Is it moral for me to be able to operate my automobile in any manner I see fit, to the exclusion of consideration of safety of others? If we don't legislate morality, then why is it unjust for me to take the life of another? Why can't I force myself on someone else sexually and it be fine in the eyes of the law? Because these are moral issues. Morality is necessary for an orderly society.

The homosexual agenda is to legislate morality, as well. They wish to use either the judiciary or the legislative branches of government to push their choice of lifestyle as acceptable, thereby violating the moral code of many other citizens.

Is it proper to force employers to offer health benefits to a man's boyfriend, simply because they are lovers? How about legal status equal to marriage? If two men or two women can do that, why not unmarried heterosexual couples? Is it fair to grant equal rights status to homosexuals who are adhering to their own moral code and yet not do so to unmarried heterosexuals who adhere to theirs? Is it fair to those who have gone through the proper channels of legality to form a marriage to grant such status to either of the other two groups?

Homosexuals are a small minority of the population. I do not for one minute believe the statistics that 10% of the population are homosexual (note that I do not and will not refer to them as "gay". That is one term that has been hijacked to mean something that it was never meant to be, is often an inaccurate descriptor, and is offensive to the actual meaning of the original word. Rainbows have also been hijacked in the same way). That is a grossly inflated statistic for propagation of a lie for justification of immorality.

I have yet to even touch upon religious connotations and violations of homosexuality. I am simply talking about logical, secular reasonings at this point. Obviously, I am not in favor of granting divergant sexual behavior the status of a civil right. We have laws against bestiality, which is merely a matter of morality. It, too, is divergant sexual behavior. Yet, nobody is clammoring for legitimizing their choice of behavior, much less offering protected legal status to those who practice it.

Can you imagine the problems we will have in such simple things as college admissions, civic groups, and the like? To offer civil union status, thereby legitimizing abhorrent behavior as just another minority group, would necessitate preferential treatment for jobs, college admissions, and even status in organizations such as The Boy Scouts of America.

Even if all that is legitimized is the equalized status of homosexual couples to married heterosexual couples, we still would have many issues to address. Should my employer be forced to shell out for health coverage for partners of sexual deviants? Why should I subsidize that behavior with my tax dollars as regarding government employees? Should my insurance rates go up to placate a group with a shared, chosen behavior? I own a dog by choice. Should not my employer be forced to give me health coverage for my Pekingese, too?

I personally do not feel it is appropriate to discriminate against people based upon sex or race. I do, however, believe it to be the right of anyone to do so. I will go so far as to say that any employer should have the right to NOT hire anyone they do not want to hire, even if that employer is stupid enough to exclude anyone of a particular sex or race. It is their business and they should be able to run it as they see fit, however stupidly that may be. If someone wants to overlook a huge portion of the work force and all qualified workers that just happen to be of a different race or sex, so be it.

I believe even more strongly that someone should be able to discriminate against people based upon their chosen moral code. If I do not want to hire a Muslim because I disagree with their code of moral conduct, I should be able to do so. If I don't want to hire a Mormon, a Jew, a Christian, a Catholic (not to be necessarily mistaken as Christian), or a Flying Spaghetti Monster adherent, it is my business. If I find homosexuality morally abominable, then I should be able to discriminate against a CHOSEN code of morality at my discretion. Someone who claims sin as a civil right tells me a lot about one's moral character. I would not choose to hire someone with that moral fiber, since I don't know what other moral equivalents that person may draw, such as graft and truthfulness (or lack thereof).

I have heard many arguments that civil unions or homosexual marriage would not attribute to deterioration of traditional family values. Personally, since I have a moral compass on this matter, it would not undermine my values. However, legitimacy by force of law does certainly have an influence on others. Here is where the undermining of such values is a legitimate claim. Parents who choose to take a moral stand against homosexuality and teach their children such would be in direct conflict with the law that would legitimize that behavior. We see the same effect in the abortion issue. The right to life has been dismissed and certainly minimized in favor of immoral behavior. This has directly affected the amount of life being terminated in this nation and families harmed by the promotion of promiscuous behavior.

Schools would also be forced to recognize homosexual lovers as legitimate parents. This is in direct conflict with the laws of nature, since two men or two women can not naturally become parents. There is a reason for the current design. School children would be forced to recognize homosexuals and their illegitimate children, adopted or otherwise, as legitimate family units.

The whole idea of having a protected class of people is based upon the concept of being otherwise powerless politically. Again, homosexuals have the same right to vote as I do. They are not devoid of the right to either citizenship or the vote, as Negroes were until the 13th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

For a protected class of people based upon behavior, homosexuals would enjoy the ability to claim a "hate crime" or "hate speech" when those of moral character teach contrarian to their own moral code. When a church or member of a religious group preaches that homosexuality is an abomination according to the Christian Bible, will that group or person be guilty of a "hate crime"? How about when three of the world's major religions all teach the same thing? How about when a religious group refuses to perform the same civil ceremony that is employed for heterosexual couples?

Dare I even get into the public health issues? The fact is that many homosexual couples are not monogomous. Many are, but the facts are that many more are not, and at a higher percentage rate. Sexual transmitted diseases are also higher. Hepatitis A and B are also higher amongst homosexual couples, since the method of transmission (hand to mouth) is more prevalent in that behavior.

There are no Constitutionally protected rights to sexual deviance. There is a reason for that.

As to the concept of not sanctioning "same sex marriage" but rather a "civil union" instead, it is like buying ketchup instead of catsup. Same thing, different name.