Straight talk about the gay agenda
25 May 2011 Leave a Comment
Last week, the local community college held a board meeting in which is discussed the issue of revoking a contract for a “Christian” event called “The 99″ which has been using their parking lot. The reason for such a move (backed by a swarm of people from the community calling for this action) was two-fold. First, it was argued that the counsellors in the event were not professionals but unlicensed volunteers. Second was the complaint that the group did not allow any of its staff or counsellors to be gay. Whether the first issue is worthy of such a revocation I leave to a different discussion (I will tell you I think it is not sufficient cause). I want to turn to the matter of “the gay agenda” as I call it. Having attended this college and been a member of its student government, I can say with good surety that there is certainly such an agenda afoot in the ranks. The agenda has everything to do with assuring an environment where homosexuality is accepted and affirmed (even praised) as normal and healthy by everyone and never spoken against, challenged, put down, or rejected by anyone in any way. It’s a pink triangle propaganda parade worked through as many avenues of authority as possible. I don’t think such an agenda is unique to that college, either. I believe it is the gay agenda in our nation.
In political terms, I believe the gay community will not rest until their sense of protection under the 14th amendment is thoroughly worked through the minds and hearts of the country at every level and facet. The best way I can put it is that they want to be seen as if their cause was little different from that of the African-Americans who fought for desegregation and non-discrimination. What’s interesting about this is that people fail to realize that, as opposed to public businesses like hotels, theaters, etc., private organizations (generally speaking, and in most states) have every right to discriminate on any basis they want (consider the boy scouts who were backed by the supreme court in denying gay leaders). Now, since nobody tends to discriminate based on race (it being an issue that is completely amoral and avolitional), this is quite forgotten, especially in the mind of those who have swallowed the propaganda of ”gay is ok”. Not only is homosexuality not amoral and not avolitional (the suggestion that they are is simply propaganda propped up with poorly applied scientific arguments), it also deserves no legal right to immunity of criticism or freedom from negative evaluation the way that race does (and it certainly does not deserve the accommodation of an automatic broadening of basic definitions such as “marriage”). Alcoholism, for instance, has genetic correlation stats, but we have no qualms about speaking of it as a problem that needs to be helped. We don’t deny the rights of alcoholics, of course, but neither do they have political and legal ”untouchable” status, and being an alcoholic can have certain negative repercussions in one’s social life (as should especially be true of homosexuality when it comes to private organizations at the very least).
If someone wants to argue that homosexuality does in fact deserve such a status, I suppose we could engage in that debate (I believe that, ever since homosexuality was removed from the DSM, there followed a wave of assumption about the issue that first needs to be addressed). But what is most frustrating to me, I think, is that the agenda is streamrolling on, having bypassed any such public acceptance (except via the passivity of those who know better and the active official positions of various organizations, regardless of strong and valid dissent existing.). I suppose I am referring to law here, and it makes me wonder what may have transpired in this respect while I was not paying attention to the issue. Either way, it is all happening now as a matter of presumption, treating it as a foregone conclusion!
All in all, it’s one thing to defend the right of a homosexual to exist; to have life, liberty, and property. It’s another thing to cut into and cut down the liberty of another group which denies that gay is ok. In the case in question, the school should not be a “pro-gay” institution, much less an “anti-anti-gay” institution. There is no grounds for either in public affairs. It does not and should not, then, have any real dilemma in this situation regarding the matter of homosexuality. A group that denies straight people the ability to join should be allowed its free speech and a group that does the opposite should be allowed the same. It is upsetting to see how completely convoluted this has become.
