Bad News for the “homosexual rights” movement — Resetting the Proper Context

It has long been an entertaining notion for me that those who promote the advance of the extremist “homosexual rights” agenda see themselves as more enlightened than those of us who defend traditional morality.

The premise of that extremist agenda is rooted in a religious-like faith that believes the sexual impulses of a small percentage of the population equate to skin color and ethnicity and thus constitutes what amounts to a nationality or third gender.

It is truly bad news for the “homosexual rights” movement that all their hard-won ground via pop culture is dependent upon keeping the true nature of the debate hidden. Once this discussion is returned to its proper context, the majority of Americans will see it the same way they see the need to defend traditional marriage.

In a comparison of sexual orientation myth versus reality, one writer put it this way:

Myth: Homosexual behavior is innate. Homosexuality is what a person is.

Reality: What a person does (behavior) should never be equated with what a person is. No human being can or should be reduced to his or her sexual impulses. Impulses cannot compel behavior or identities without a person’s consent. If people “are” their actions, then what does that say about the thief, the anorexic, or the prostitute? Ninety-eight percent of the population does not define their very being and purpose in life by their sexual behavior.

Someone can be born homosexual about as much as someone can be born a vegetarian. Who (or what) a person is attracted to sexually is no different than any other desire or preference. The human condition is full of such inner impulses – the part of you that chooses to act/not act, or to squash such impulses – is you. The impulses are not.

When the Foley scandal broke on Capitol Hill in Washington in late September 2006 the subject of human behavior again became the focus surrounding the so-called “homosexual rights” debate. For too long those defending traditional morality had forgotten that their most important task is to reset the discussion back to its proper context. Same sex attraction and sex is something a person experiences and does, not something a person is.

Same-sex attraction is not new to world history, nor is any other sexual attraction. It’s a ridiculous argument that a person can be “born” attracted to someone of the same gender yet not “born” attracted to under-aged girls or boys.

It’s true that our society has drawn a line for appropriate and inappropriate behavior with something called the “age of consent.” Don’t forget that man-made laws do not create or eliminate human impulses. Also don’t forget the existence of organizations like the “North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)” which seeks to lower the age of consent.

Under the faulty context that dominates the “homosexual rights” discussion today, words are thrown around in faulty ways. Among them are “discrimination,” “bigot,” “homophobe,” and “civil rights.”

Was the aircraft manufacturing company Boeing practicing “discrimination” a while back when it dispatched a CEO after an extra-marital affair was revealed? One company official stated that the facts surrounding it reflected poorly on the CEO’s “judgment and would impair his ability to lead the company.” Sounds like how the “homosexual rights” community would describe a case of “discrimination.”

Many proponents of the extremist “homosexual rights” agenda make similar judgments for good reason when it comes to other possible “orientations.” According to Dennis Prager:

“Consensual, private sex between adults is not always acceptable. Even most homosexuals judge consensual adult incest such as father-daughter or brother-sister (or brother-brother) sex wrong. Many homosexuals even believe it should be illegal. Therefore, heterosexuals who draw their line of acceptance at homosexual sex are not necessarily any more bigoted than homosexuals who draw their line at consensual incest.”

Simple common sense tells us that a person has the right to disapprove of how someone else chooses to live. And because of the First Amendment, I have the right to voice that disapproval.  Within civil and legal boundaries you are free to live your private life any way you want. I will always have the right to think you’re making a big mistake.

Regarding “bigotry” and “homophobic,” another quote comes to mind:

“‘Bigot’ and ‘homophobic’ are just epithets. Since the other side fears clear thinking being espoused – they depend on name calling to disparage the person making the argument.”

When it comes to “civil rights,” it’s obvious that every human being has a unique set of preferences and orientations. We can’t continue to create legal protection status for each variation. Adding “sexual orientation” to human rights statutes isn’t “fixing an injustice,” since for reasons of conscience people are always going to disagree on the appropriateness of certain lifestyles.

“Gay bashing” is another epithet used to attack those who oppose the advance of the extremist agenda. The fact is that those who defend traditional morality believe that all people are created in the image of God and thus should be treated with respect. What they don’t respect are certain lifestyle choices. There is a difference.

“Tolerance” is another misused word.  Let us be honest – those who embrace the extremist “homosexual rights” agenda have no tolerance for those who don’t. Enough said.

One important fact that doesn’t get a lot of attention is that there are plenty of people who engage in the homosexual lifestyle who prefer to keep their private life private. Not all homosexuals are in agreement with the extremist agenda. There are “homosexuals” who actually understand the value of traditional morality that segregates sexual behavior into a category of activity best kept behind closed doors.

The only achievable goal in this cultural clash is tolerance – but tolerance is impossible when one side wants to proclaim their sexual preferences from the house tops, try to sexualize school children, change statutes and engage in lewd parades.

There would be a lot fewer roadblocks to tolerance if that loud tiny minority would just keep their private life private. Commentator Kevin McCullough recently said it succinctly:

“Whatever your appetite in sexual desire, men, women, pets, and blow-up dolls – in a civilized society – it should never be in good taste to discuss it publicly.”

It’s bad news for the “homosexual rights” movement that there are too many clear-thinking people out there who can’t be influenced by superficial pop culture. More bad news is that the proper context for the “homosexual rights” debate will eventually be reset. When it is, the vast majority of people will see that sexual attraction is just a human impulse. Homosexuality is merely preference and behavior, not the equivalent of race or some kind of third gender.

©2006 John Francis Biver