>>I guess "hatred of homosexuals" is just my OPINION of what's being preached here.<
That is precisely all it is, your OPINION, and a very bad one at that. It is not homosexuals that I hate, but homosexuality and all the depraved actions and philosophies that accompany it.
>You can interpret it as you like. Maybe it's just hatred of "liberals", or anybody who happens to disagree with a particularly unforgiving Christian denomination.<
Allow me to define it for you so that you are no longer left "guessing" and using the word "maybe".
It is a hatred of the poisonous doctrines of liberalism, one of which is the embracing of homosexuality as an acceptable and societally supportable alternative to heterosexuality.
Even if a study proves a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (though it seems these "studies" are always done by homosexuals, and therefore are not to be trusted), it would make no difference as to my judgement of the nature of homosexuality. Homosexuality runs contrary to fundamental human identity. The male/female union is archetypal, an organic part of every human who has ever been and who ever will be. Even cloned humans will share in and depend upon the male/female archetype for their existence. On the other hand, humans have no fundamental identity with homosexuality. Indeed, homosexuality's very nature contradicts human identity, and this no doubt is why so many homosexuals live in agony as they attempt to justify their lives. Society is not to blame for depression and agony amongst homosexuals. Homosexuality itself is at odds with human reality and existence. This is why I am convinced that to partake in it, is to betray mental illness.
I believe no good and decent parent or citizen would teach his/her children that this illness is acceptable, as its acceptance implies more than the destruction of an individual's life. It also implies the destruction of society. Society can only judge the presence of homosexuality by behavior, and therefore must ascribe protective rights to homosexuals on this basis. Should our society decide to ascribe rights to people on the basis of behavior, it would set the stage for a forfeiture of its right to discriminate against many other kinds of behavior.
Homosexual pedophiles have already benefited from advances of the homosexual agenda. Today, they merely need work against the already arbitrary age limits our society has placed upon consenting sexual participants. If homosexuality is acceptable, then there is nothing wrong with a 40 year old man having sex with an 18 year old boy. And if nothing is innately wrong with a 40 year old man having sex with an 18 year old boy, then nothing is innately wrong with his having sex with a 17.5 year old boy, or a 16 year old boy, or a 15 year old boy. Here, notions of age and power are arbitrary, as in these cases it is not at all evident either that harm will occur, or that the 16 year old is less powerful than the 40 year old. If one must maintain a disparity in power exists between a 16-year-old and a 40-year-old, then one must do the same for circumstances between 40 year olds and 18 year olds. Power judgements are arbitrary, and this allows the homosexual pedophile to benefit from the attribution of rights based upon sexual preference. The 40 year old man and the 18,17,16 year old boy logically must be allowed to adopt children (should they claim themselves a "family") and to have any other right now held by heterosexual couples.
Those oriented toward bestiality will also benefit with each advance of the homosexual agenda. No one can prove that an animal's having sex with a human is harmful to the animal. If one maintains that such is the case, the same logic can be used to lobby against the neutering or spaying of an animal, or even against the ownership of animals itself. If heterosexuality is not upheld as the universal norm of human sexual relations, then no real basis exists allowing society to discriminate against an orientation toward bestiality. Those possessing this orientation would logically have access to every outlet to which heterosexuals have access, including the adoption of children. On this basis, they cannot be banned from renting our homes, or displaying their publications in our public libraries. For them, as with the homosexual pedophile, it becomes merely a public relations battle just as was the case for homosexuals a mere 25 years ago.
The homosexual polygamist also benefits (as do polygamists in general). If heterosexuality (which by biological definition involves a man and a woman) is not upheld as the universal norm for society, then should 10 consenting lesbian women consider themselves a "family", society must legally protect them as such, giving to all of them the same public access to resources as the heterosexual couple, this, not on the basis of their individual citizenship, but as a component of their communal relationship. The same would apply to 10 homosexual men. Without upholding the biological one male/one female basis for marriage, there exists none but an arbitrary restriction if society embraces homosexuality as a norm. Here, there is no basis for requiring marriage to be restricted merely to two people. Therefore polygamy in general is supported by the homosexual agenda, and we as a society are bound to support the polygamist and the homosexual polygamist just as well as the heterosexual couple.
Because of all the above reasons (amongst several others), I am certain that homosexuality is an illness visited upon the homosexual as well as upon humanity. There is no bigotry here. I am not rejecting a person based upon passive characteristics such as skin color. Indeed I have no problem with race, and were I not already married, could marry a Black or Yellow or Brown or Red, White or Blue woman in a blink, were she Godly. Skin color has never done anything. No. I reject the depraved philosophy of unrepentant homosexuality, which is necessarily judged by behavior. I will always reserve the right to discriminate on the basis of behavior, and also will teach my children to do likewise, even influencing my children's children to do so. (This is legacy, a concept that is antithetical to homosexuality). There is no bigotry here. It is mere common sense and decency.
Were militant homosexuals merely relegated to their own communities, having no influence upon the morality of the culture in which I and my children live, then I would be content to live and let live. But of course this is not so. Indeed, the homosexuals have already joined with others, and they together have already pushed this country toward things that for decent people are so depraved they are unthinkable. The American government now supports what amounts to affirmative action for homosexuals, and has actually supported portrayals of Christ suspended in vats of urine, and portrayals of Him having homosexual sex. This is the supreme insult to me, and a profound indicator of the pervasiveness of the social pathology that is homosexuality.
I do not hate the person. Hate is not a family value-but neither is homosexuality. So I reject them both. |
