It's not a bigotry issue, it's a moral one
By Alisa Craddock
Last week Barney Frank, in an interview on a gay online news site, referred to Justice Antonin Scalia as a "homophobe" because he opposed the majority opinion in the Lawrence v. Texas decision as "a massive disruption of the current social order", and because, in Franks words (in a subsequent interview), Scalia "thinks it's a terrible idea for people who are gay or lesbian to have equal rights."
This is typical of Left-wing tactics: Name calling, to demonize the opponent, and phrasing the complaint in a way that, while not accurately relating the opponents' position, tends to offend American' sense of justice (against those whom the Left wants you to feel this outrage) by using the language of victimization. The abortion crowd would say that we oppose "choice" because surveys have shown Americans like having choices—it's a very American thing, to have a choice. But the word "choice" obscures the truth, which is that "choice" is savagely denied to the one whose life is being ended. So "choice" is an appealing euphemism for "murder". In the same way, Franks says Justice Scalia "opposes equal rights" for "gays and lesbians", creating the impression of discrimination against people because they are different. After all,
For the average American, the face of homosexuality is the sad, lonely victim, misunderstood and despised, Matthew Shepard trussed up on a fence and pistol whipped to death. But those intimate with the agenda understand that the homosexual agenda, outlined above in the form of a fantasy, is closer to the truth, though they would protest otherwise.
Franks, and the whole homosexual rights apparatus, pretends (in accordance with their propaganda design) that homosexuals are just like you and me, they just love differently.
But "love" is a most basic need, and "bigots" like Scalia are denying them the chance to love and be loved. They would have us believe that homosexuality is inherent, that there is a "gay gene". And if God made them that way, he must not disapprove of their sexual conduct. Though there has been no reproducible study that proves a gene for homosexuality exists, the myth has been widely and effectively inculcated into the culture, and has been used to justify dismantling all cultural, moral, and legal obstacles to full acceptance of homosexuality. But (assuming that genetic homosexuality were a justification for granting special rights to homosexuals) the genetic argument presupposes that such persons have no choice about their behavior. But genetics do not make people strip off their clothes and gyrate in front of Catholic Churches, performing obscene acts in the street while the midday Mass goes on within, nor create sex toys made in the image of Catholic saints. Genes don't make people behave vulgarly. Genes don't make people go out of their way to expose and/or involve children to their behavior. But a psychiatric condition might. A spiritual disorder might.
In his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover points out that the notion that homosexuality is not immoral because it is inherent, even if it could be proven that homosexuals are "born that way", is a fallacy.
If science reduces everything to cause and effect (whether internal or external), no one could ever be held accountable for anything, whether it be legal choices or moral ones.
In truth, the gay leadership encourages its members to conceal the true nature of their behavior from the heterosexual community while they work toward converting opposition to alliance. They have shifted the argument from a moral to a civil battle. They do not want us to look too closely at their conduct. They promote their cause and efforts in terms of "equal rights" and overcoming oppression, but it is not homosexuals that are being oppressed, it is homosexual conduct, and most especially when that conduct involves children, whether it involves molestation or indoctrination. In his book, As We Sodomize America, O. R. Adams, Jr. compiles an impressive study of homosexuality--the behavior, the agenda, and the consequences. He draws extensively from both homosexual sources and homosexuality opposing sources, and from neutral sources and government statistics. He found Kirk and Madsen's well-known book, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's a valuable source, and gives them credit for at least a more reasoned approach, though, of course, it is a roadmap for the gay conquest of America by propaganda. What they said (see Adams, page 52 and 53) about certain brilliant homosexuals of the past is true today:
Could it be that there is something in the "gay" psyche that lacks self-restraint? I read of a case in which a gay couple were fostering a young boy who complained he was being molested, and his foster "parents" had been questioned about it, but apparently the authorities did not believe the boy, and he was not removed from the home. Knowing the boy had already reported them once, and that they were being scrutinized, they proceeded to molest him anyway, and were subsequently arrested. And yet, the statistics show that homosexuals in great numbers report sexual encounters with youngsters, and that includes molestation by "gay "parents", with 29% of children raised by homosexual "parents" reporting molestation. In a 1992 report by Dr. Timothy Daily, senior fellow at the Family Research Council, he cited statistics showing that 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation. The sheer weight and the stunning reality of the statistics is overwhelming.
Homosexual desire is not genetic. Homosexual behavior is not immutable. It takes an incomprehensible suspension of the faculty of reason to believe that homosexuality is anything but a perversion. To deny it is to deny that there are any moral aspects to sexual expression at all, nor should there be any laws, even those protecting children. The purpose of sex is not ecstasy. The purpose of sex is reproduction. The purpose of desire is to induce reproduction, and to foster an emotional bond in order to create and maintain a coupling for the purposes of providing an optimum situation for child-rearing. If human sex has any other purpose, then it is a spiritual one. Either way, you can't escape it: desire is either a pure biological incentive to reproduce, or it has a higher purpose, and therefore a moral dimension, (or both of these), making sexual practices outside of male/female sexual behaviors culminating in coitus deviant. That is not to say that people don't have sex because it is pleasurable. But let's not pretend that desire for one's own sex is "normal". Let's not treat those who follow the plan of nature and of nature's God (because God's plan is the natural law) as if there is something terribly wrong with them. So called "homophobes" are merely people who haven't been properly brainwashed from infancy into accepting the gay agenda.
But the evidence for the progress of the "Gay Revolutionary" above can be found all around us—even in our schools, as demonstrated in this excerpt (lyrics by Paul Selig) of a piece of "educational" material produced by GLSEN, provided courtesy of Concerned Women of America.:
In Mommy's high heels the world is beautiful,
So let them say I'm like a girl!
You decide for yourself. Was "The Gay Revolutionary" a satire? Or is Justice Scalia's response a reasoned and intelligent response to an immoral agenda.
Alisa Craddock is a columnist and activist in the culture war, a convert to Catholicism, and describes herself as a Christian Libertarian. She may be contacted at email@example.com.