I don’t think it’s really a homosexuality agenda. I think the gays are just being used – the same way race-baiters use ethnic minorities, who are caught in a no-win trap.

The people who are really pushing the sexual revolution agenda are in favor of breaking down sexual and family boundaries. They don’t care about gays one way or another – they are actively hostile to conservative gays or gays who aren’t interested in participating in the destruction of the family structure. What they are interested in is the destruction of certain kinds of limits or restraints. Exactly what motivates the movement as a whole I don’t know – but anger is very visible in the movement, anger at authority, at religion, at parents or people who talk/act like parents, at moral expectations and especially the idea that people ought to grow up and stop being children – have you noticed how much of the sexual revolution is focused on the adult’s ability to stay childlike, irresponsible and taken care of (yet sexually active, which is kind of disturbing) while the real children are minimized away; it doesn’t matter if you’re aborting them; it doesn’t matter if you’re breaking up their homes, leaving them home alone, or depriving them of the chance to know a mother or a father; it doesn’t matter how you treat them – children are not people, just kids, with fewer rights than a favorite dog.

Nevertheless, Dan Cathy made this statement:

“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say ‘we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”

There is no way to read that other than a condemnation of (not just a disagreement with) proponents of same-sex marriage.

Blake: This is because their tactic relies on begging the question.

Are they entitled to X?

Is it true that X = their basic right, human right, “civil right”?

That is what is being decided. If you accept the premise that opposing them = violating their civil rights, then you don’t need to have the argument: they’ve already won.
=======

This also justifies in their minds committing any crime they want against social conservatives in order to pursue their homosexuality agenda. Therefore breaking any law in order to do harm to social conservatives is an acceptable tactic for them.

Acting in foul and underhanded ways against conservatives is only one more way to destroy their enemy. Where have you seen a social conservative saying they were going to commit crimes against homosexuals because they had un-American values? This is the level of lack of ethics that homosexuality agenda proponents have attained and are encouraging people to have.

Have you seen any liberal say they want to kick Moreno, Rahm, etc. out of office for their public declarations expressing the will to break the law to harm CFA? Not a single one.

People who have a homosexuality agenda are profoundly destructive of democracy itself. While clamoring for some kind of invented “civil right” they claim they don’t have, they trample on everyone else’s most fundamental human rights without batting an eye.

I would say “normalizing” homosexuality is somewhat similar to “normalizing” divorce and remarriage. The Catholic Church holds very firmly to the idea that if two baptized persons marry, they are married for life. If they get civil divorces and remarry, they are not married at all, but are living in adultery. Where they have been able to, the Catholic Church has fought against divorce laws, and at this point the only places they have been able to prevail are Vatican City and the Philippines.

Now, how do Catholics regard divorced and remarried people who are living in “adultery,” having children out of wedlock, and raising those children as two adulterers? Do Catholics want to keep these “adulterers” from raising children, or adopting? Do good Catholic parents try to keep their children from playing with the children of the divorced and remarried? Do Catholics require some special agenda in public schools to teach that there is really no divorce?

I would say that to “normalize” homosexuality, or divorce (or Mormonism, or vegetarianism) goes a bit farther than “live and let live,” in that it calls for a level of tolerance that goes beyond saying “They are free to do what they want as long as I don’t have to see it or hear it or cooperate with it in any way.” But it is certainly less than demanding that everyone have the same view of homosexuality, or divorce (or Mormonism, or vegetarianism).

Mike Melendez,

I am partially in agreement with what you say. However, I would point out that because gay people find religious groups that claim God condemns homosexuality to be anti-gay, not all religious groups condemn homosexuality.

On the other hand, if we can distinguish being “anti-” from “disagreeing”, we have a road forward. More importantly, we can find what we share and live within that while we struggle to resolve the disagreement.

I would love to see the relationship between conservative Christianity and gay-rights advocates move from angry confrontation to disagreement. I would like to think that’s the spirit in which I write messages here, although I don’t always succeed in being as civil as I would like. I have never called anyone in any of these discussions a bigot. If people here are angry or hostile to me, when I am trying my best to be calm and civil, the dialog between conservative Christians and gay-rights advocates doesn’t seem to me to have much of a chance.

This is because their tactic relies on begging the question.

Are they entitled to X?

Is it true that X = their basic right, human right, “civil right”?

That is what is being decided. If you accept the premise that opposing them = violating their civil rights, then you don’t need to have the argument: they’ve already won.

david c,

You’ll have to explain the hostility here. I am not writing angry or hostile messages, but I am getting a lot of anger back from you and others.

As I asked David Alexander, what would you say is the meaning of anti-gay? And who gets to define it—conservative Christians or gay people?

Since gay people, basically by definition, reject the idea that any sex outside of heterosexual marriage prohibited, gay people reject the idea that homosexuality is some kind of “abomination” in the eyes of God. Would you expect them to do otherwise? Why the anger and hostility? The FCA is not merely asking people to sign a pledge to remain celibate for the duration of their stay in FCA. They are asking people to sign on to the idea that homosexuality is condemned by God. Gay people and many who support them do not accept this idea. Why should this all make you and others so angry?

David Alexander,

Would you say that anti-gay is a meaningless word?