Agenda

http://carm.org/cut-homosexuality

by Matt Slick

Agenda, the homosexuals want acceptability, recognition, and approval.
Homosexuals want others in society to think like them (and behave like them?). They are working hard to change moral, social, and political opinion to be more in line with what they want. They are not content to be what they want to be. They want others to accept them. They want others' opinions to change and conform to their ideology and behavior. What gives them the right to try to change society into what they want it to be?
Animal kingdom: Homosexuality occurs in the animal world; therefore, it is natural.
Saying that homosexuality is natural because it occurs in the animal kingdom does not mean it is morally correct. Animals also eat each other alive, devour offspring, etc. Should we imitate those things as well because the animals do it? Of course not.
From an evolutionary perspective how does homosexuality further the development and distribution of the human species? It cannot. Homosexuality would obviously work for self-extermination. Therefore, how is it natural if what it leads to is self-destruction? It would seem that natural selection would have removed the "gene for homosexuality" since it would not lead to reproduction. It would seem, then, that homosexuality is not natural but is a learned behavior.
Born as Homosexuals: If homosexuals are born that way, it would be natural to them.
There is no proof that homosexuals are born that way. Research is all over the place, and no conclusive evidence has been shown that demonstrates they are born that way.
If a behavior is said to be natural to a person and this is why homosexuality should be accepted, is it not also natural that people lie and so they, too, should be accepted? Children don't need to be taught how to lie; it appears to be natural to them. Should we then say that because the behavior of lying is natural to people, there should be special privileges for them and accept their behavior in society because that's just the way they're born and that is their truth-orientation?
Freedom like anyone else
They are already free to marry a person of the opposite sex--the same as anyone else.
They can still get married and express love, own businesses, own property, have sexual relations, received an inheritance, etc.
For homosexuals to advocate redefining marriage so it can include a union between a man and man and a woman and a woman and to have it protected legally is to want special rights for them due to their behavior. If behaviors are granted legal protection, then what about the behaviors of pedophilia, jump roping, and scuba diving? Should those behaviors also be given political protection?
Yes, they are free to love, hate, work, eat, etc. But they want marriage redefined to suit their behavior of same sex intercourse.
Freedom requires responsibility.
People are not free to rob banks, to murder, to steal, etc.
Simply saying they aren't free to marry who they want to isn't a good enough objection because . . .
A person is not free to marry another person who is already married.
A brother and sister are not free to marry each other.
A pedophiliac and his younger "partner" are not free to marry each other even if the younger person, say a 13-year old, wants to marry the older person.
A person is not free to marry an animal.
A person is not free to marry another person against that person's will.
If freedom to marry whomever you want to is the litmus test for marriage, then marriage will become meaningless as people redefine it to include those already married, siblings, children, animals, etc., as long as "love" is the defining characteristic.
If we allow and promote homosexual marriage, then shouldn't we also allow and promote polygamy, polyandry, brothers and sisters getting married, pedophiliacs marrying children, and adults marrying animals? If not, why not?
Health
Is homosexuality harmful to society? The statistics say yes. Why then is it protected and promoted by government? 28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners, 43% more than 500, 83% more than 50. 79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers, (Bell and Weinberg p 308-309. (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php). In 2008, over 1.1 million in U.S. were infected with HIV (cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure). 19% of MSM [men sex with men] are infected with HIV; 44% unaware they are infected, (Center for Disease Control, cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm). Worldwide, 1% infected with HIV: "Worldwide, approximately one in every 100 adults aged 15 to 49 is HIV-infected," (The Body, thebody.com/content/art6580.html). MSM is 4% of population yet has HIV 44 time the rate of other men, (cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf)
Love
Homosexuals say they should be able to marry who they love. But why is this true? What if a person wants to marry someone who is already married or is a child? Should that person be allowed to marry someone because it is an issue of love? Of course not. Love is not the measure of marriage validity. There are other issues, so to say that homosexuals should be able to marry whoever they love is a misrepresentation of the issue.
Questions
Is it okay for the schools to teach the children that homosexuality is just another acceptable lifestyle when their own parents disagree? If so, what gives the homosexuals the right to contradict the moral values of the parents and have that taught to the children against the desires of the parents? Doesn't that undermine the moral position of the parents and is that right to do? If you say it is not a moral issue, then you are saying sexual behavior is not a moral issue and, therefore, adultery, pedophilia, bestiality, etc., would not be moral issues either.
Can you please offer a definition of what marriage should be?
Rights, Civil
Civil Rights
Homosexuals already have the same civil rights and restrictions as everyone else. They are able to hold jobs, marry people of the opposite sex, use the same bathrooms as anyone else, vote, etc. But, marriage is not a civil right. It is a privilege the same as the behavior of driving a car is a privilege, not a right.
Homosexuals are using the civil rights movement to force their moral agenda on the rest of society . . . a moral agenda based on sexual behavior.
Unalienable rights are given by God, according to the Declaration of Independence in the U.S.A.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
These rights are irrespective of skin color, gender, age, etc. They are not based on behavior. If they were, then parachutists should get special rights, along with Jump Ropers, Race Car Drivers, and Skate Boarders because of their behaviors.
What is to prevent pedophiliacs from wanting their sexual behavior protected by "civil rights" laws? What about necrophiliacs, and those who practice bestiality? They also are defined by their sexual behavior. Should they also be protected legally? If not, why not?
Rights, special rights based on a behavior
Homosexuals have the same rights under the law as do all people in America. The same laws apply to everyone equally. Laws often have restrictions. Behaviors are not civil rights. Stretching every day is not a civil right, nor is going to the gym, walking, going to the bathroom, etc. The sexual behavior of homosexuals is not a civil right. It is a behavior and the homosexuals are hiding under "civil rights" in order to change the meaning of marriage and force society into accepting it as normal.
To marry the same sex is to request special treatment by having special laws passed that politically approve of a particular sexual behavior (homosexual behavior) and redefine what marriage is (to include homosexual marriage). This is, by definition, special rights.
You have the same right as everybody else. You have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like us. But the homosexual community wants to change the definition of marriage and its related definition of sexual propriety so that it agrees with your own desires and your own behavior. Please tell me how that is not a special right that you want for yourself?
Marriage has been defined for millennia as being between a man and a woman. Every society that I know of has defined it as between a man and a woman. So the homosexuals have now gained enough political power and social momentum to reconstruct the social and political norm to suit their preferences. They excuse their sexual preferences under the mask of "equal rights". But it isn't equal rights. It's special rights because they want the definition of marriage redefined for their special, particular preferences.

Originally posted by RBHILL
http://carm.org/cut-homosexuality

by Matt Slick

Agenda, the homosexuals want acceptability, recognition, and approval.
Homosexuals want others in society to think like them (and behave like them?). They are working hard to change moral, social, and political opinion to be more in line with what they want. They are not content to be what they want to ...[text shortened]... ecause they want the definition of marriage redefined for their special, particular preferences.

From an evolutionary perspective how does homosexuality further the development and distribution of the human species? It cannot.

Originally posted by RBHILL
http://carm.org/cut-homosexuality

by Matt Slick

Agenda, the homosexuals want acceptability, recognition, and approval.
Homosexuals want others in society to think like them (and behave like them?). They are working hard to change moral, social, and political opinion to be more in line with what they want. They are not content to be what they want to ...[text shortened]... ecause they want the definition of marriage redefined for their special, particular preferences.

Originally posted by RBHILL
http://carm.org/cut-homosexuality

by Matt Slick

Originally posted by JS357

From an evolutionary perspective how does homosexuality further the development and distribution of the human species? It cannot.

Try a Google search on "helper in the nest" with quotation marks.

"Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people ...[text shortened]... ws and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down. "

Originally posted by josephw
[b]",..the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down."

A homosexual gene? Are you equating the gene that differentiates male and female during gestation with homosexuality?

Frankly, the following sentence makes no sense.

"Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the ...[text shortened]... are not a code for "homosexuality". Your statement is misleading. There is no homosexual gene.

Originally posted by RBHILL
What is to prevent pedophiliacs from wanting their sexual behavior protected by "civil rights" laws? What about necrophiliacs, and those who practice bestiality? They also are defined by their sexual behavior. Should they also be protected legally? If not, why not?

Originally posted by JS357
"There is no homosexual gene."

This is admittedly a major bone of contention in the debate. But it's been argued out more fully than anything I have to offer.

Edit: As usual, you speak with absolute certainty. What is your source? It should be a short segue from that position to the position that such uncles and aunts should be kept away from their nieces and nephews.

Originally posted by FMF
Because of the concepts of informed consent and consensual sexual relationships.

Originally posted by josephw
Doesn't legitimize the behavior just because it's consensual.

Matt Slick's paragraph there, I agree with, in that homosexual activists seem to want more than tolerance from heterosexuals. They want respect and legitimacy equal to what heterosexuals have.

Tolerance for many, is not good enough. Rather some want to use the legal system to establish in people's minds legitimacy. " You will not just tolerate us. We will get the law to enforce your acceptance of us as normal. We will change the widely and traditionally held definition of marriage to include our manner of coupling for sexual satisfaction and fulfillment ."

Now let me throw in some New Testament perspective. The Apostle Paul did not preach that the people in the churches he established should go out into the world and rid it of homosexual people. He said that if they wanted to be totally away from certain "lifestyles" (if you will) they would have to leave the planet or "go out of the world". In other words "People like this are bound to be in the world."

"I wrote to you in my letter not to mingle with fornicators. But not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and rapacious, or idolators, since then you would have to go out of the world." (1 Cor. 5:9,10)

People enslaved, thoroughly given over not to an act here or there, but to a continuous lifestyle of habitual fornication or rapaciousness or covetousness or idolatry are going to be in society, very likely. For the church to be totally away from these practitioners the local church would have to leave the world, which is not (yet) reasonable.

So on your jobs, in your neighborhoods, even in your family the lovers of Christ should expect that there will be people given over to these errors.

As we mature in spiritual life we should also learn to love all people. And as much as the level of grace has matured within us, we should live in peace with everyone.

"Repay no one evil for evil; take forethought for things honorable in the sight of all men. If possible, as far as it depends on you, live in peace with all men." (Romans 12:17,18)

The Apostle gives leeway to the inevitability that different disciples will have different levels of spiritual growth, agape love, and ability to be at peace around other people.

"If possible ... as far as it depends on you, live in peace with all men."

In a society such as the US, Christians can vote as they feel their conscience allows them to vote. And they can encourage laws which they feel are good for their society.

The local church, which Paul labored to build up in many cities, was to be a shining testimony of people living unto God and participating in God's ongoing salvation and sanctification process, building them up in oneness for a corporate expression of humanity under the influence of God dispensing His life and nature into people.

Originally posted by JS357
The concept delegitimizes if not met.

I agree arguing legality is missing the point. But Imo a lot of people who argue morality actually just find it yucky.

Originally posted by sonship
Matt Slick's paragraph there, I agree with, in that homosexual activists seem to want more than tolerance from heterosexuals. They want [b]respect and legitimacy equal to what heterosexuals have.

Tolerance for many, is not good enough. Rather some want to use the legal system to establish in people's minds legitimacy. " You will not just tole ...[text shortened]... tion of marriage to include our manner of coupling for sexual satisfaction and fulfillment ."

Originally posted by josephw
Well, first you make a misleading statement. Now it seems you are muddying the point.

Hasn't the human genome been mapped out? I haven't heard that a gene that predisposes a person to be homosexual was discovered.

I don't advocate against persons that are homosexuals contrary to what you or any other may think. I don't advocate on social agendas. The issue for me is one of morality concerning human behavior.