Peter Lemiska
Where will the gay agenda take us?
By Peter Lemiska
Prior to his controversial remarks, a handful of Americans were unacquainted with Phil Robertson and his popular reality show. But the heated debate following those remarks has piqued everyone's interest, critics and supporters alike. Like most of us, Robertson had some problems early in his life, but eventually found what he was looking for, along with enormous success. Like millions of other Americans, he happens to be a devout Christian, who strongly believes in the teachings of the Bible. In this politically-correct environment, his remarks about homosexuality sparked immediate outrage from gay activists. That would not have been the case 40 or 50 years ago.
Throughout history, small segments of virtually every society regularly engaged in homosexual activity. That was just as true in the 1960s, as it is today. What has dramatically changed since then is society's perception. During that time, and long before, homosexuality was classified by mental health professionals as an aberration, a sexual deviancy. Society condemned it, and made it a crime. There were well-established laws against sodomy in every state. Citing those facts may be offensive to the gay community, but it is history, not bigotry.
Though attitudes have changed drastically over the years, people of faith have not been so susceptible to the fluctuations of societal norms. Their principles are based on biblical teachings, and they don't bend to the winds of change. While people like Reverend Jessie Jackson pretend to follow Christian doctrine, and others like Alec Baldwin pretend to embrace gays, Phil Robertson is among those who viewed homosexual activity as immoral and spiritually unhealthy then, just as they do today.
The evolution in public opinion was accomplished through a massive public relations campaign. The homosexual community first created a new, less threatening term to identify themselves. Then the gays equated their situation to the plight of black Americans, who suffered real discrimination and injustice based on nothing more than skin color. Over time, gay activists succeeded in making society less judgmental about homosexuality. People of faith argue that this new tolerance is merely an abrogation of conscience, the moral compass that distinguishes right from wrong.
But that aside, tolerance has never been enough for the gay activists. They expect society to fully embrace their sexual lifestyle, and they use coercion and strong-arm tactics to achieve that goal. They file lawsuits, organize boycotts and hurl insults at anyone who dares criticize their behavior. School children today are being conditioned, not to tolerate homosexuality, but to extol it, and many liberal or cowardly politicians and judges are defying the will of the people and bending to the demands of these radicals. We saw that in California, where voters who rejected gay marriage were overruled by judicial activists. Across the country in New Hampshire, same-sex marriage was passed into law without ever considering the will of the people. Eighteen states now permit same-sex marriage, and while some polls suggest marginal public support, the citizens of virtually every one of those states were denied the right to voice their opinions. Utah became the last such state, following the recent ruling by a federal judge. Utah's Democrat Party leader was ecstatic about that decision, but as a conciliatory gesture, he announced that the ruling "...has nothing to do with religious marriage. This is no threat to religion."
No threat to religion? It is in direct conflict with religion. Virtually every established faith, not just Christianity, rejects homosexual activity. And since biblical scripture cannot be changed as easily as public opinion, the gay agenda can only proceed unimpeded by silencing the voices of the faithful. That is exactly what gay activists tried to do in response to Robertson's comments. The once-victims of intolerance have now become intolerant of religious conviction. Yes, devout Christians do cling to their religion, but that is not bigotry. It reflects courage in the face of bigotry.
The argument for gay marriage hinges on the premise that sexual orientation is hardwired in the brain, unaffected by life experiences. That issue is still unsettled, but regardless of its cause, we know that not all gays agree with this radical agenda. Some are unhappy with their sexual orientation. Some accept it and just try to quietly live their lives in peace. They deserve tolerance and compassion. But the activist, some say militant, gays are exploiting that compassion to push this radical experiment on a society that would have scoffed at it a few years ago. Yes, it's unfortunate that homosexuals cannot find happiness in traditional marriage, but the same can be said of many heterosexuals, who are destined to remain unmarried for various reasons. Altering the definition of marriage – an institution that has existed throughout recorded history – to accommodate the lifestyle of a few is no solution. Then again, the left seems to live by the motto: "If it's not broke... break it."
The real outrage is the assault on the Judeo-Christian beliefs that have molded our social conscience for 200 years. That is nothing less than religious oppression, and must be condemned by all Americans.
Finally, we should all consider this question: What kind of society will we thrust upon our children if we allow public relations campaigns and political lobbyists to set our moral compass?
© Peter Lemiska
December 27, 2013
Prior to his controversial remarks, a handful of Americans were unacquainted with Phil Robertson and his popular reality show. But the heated debate following those remarks has piqued everyone's interest, critics and supporters alike. Like most of us, Robertson had some problems early in his life, but eventually found what he was looking for, along with enormous success. Like millions of other Americans, he happens to be a devout Christian, who strongly believes in the teachings of the Bible. In this politically-correct environment, his remarks about homosexuality sparked immediate outrage from gay activists. That would not have been the case 40 or 50 years ago.
Throughout history, small segments of virtually every society regularly engaged in homosexual activity. That was just as true in the 1960s, as it is today. What has dramatically changed since then is society's perception. During that time, and long before, homosexuality was classified by mental health professionals as an aberration, a sexual deviancy. Society condemned it, and made it a crime. There were well-established laws against sodomy in every state. Citing those facts may be offensive to the gay community, but it is history, not bigotry.
Though attitudes have changed drastically over the years, people of faith have not been so susceptible to the fluctuations of societal norms. Their principles are based on biblical teachings, and they don't bend to the winds of change. While people like Reverend Jessie Jackson pretend to follow Christian doctrine, and others like Alec Baldwin pretend to embrace gays, Phil Robertson is among those who viewed homosexual activity as immoral and spiritually unhealthy then, just as they do today.
The evolution in public opinion was accomplished through a massive public relations campaign. The homosexual community first created a new, less threatening term to identify themselves. Then the gays equated their situation to the plight of black Americans, who suffered real discrimination and injustice based on nothing more than skin color. Over time, gay activists succeeded in making society less judgmental about homosexuality. People of faith argue that this new tolerance is merely an abrogation of conscience, the moral compass that distinguishes right from wrong.
But that aside, tolerance has never been enough for the gay activists. They expect society to fully embrace their sexual lifestyle, and they use coercion and strong-arm tactics to achieve that goal. They file lawsuits, organize boycotts and hurl insults at anyone who dares criticize their behavior. School children today are being conditioned, not to tolerate homosexuality, but to extol it, and many liberal or cowardly politicians and judges are defying the will of the people and bending to the demands of these radicals. We saw that in California, where voters who rejected gay marriage were overruled by judicial activists. Across the country in New Hampshire, same-sex marriage was passed into law without ever considering the will of the people. Eighteen states now permit same-sex marriage, and while some polls suggest marginal public support, the citizens of virtually every one of those states were denied the right to voice their opinions. Utah became the last such state, following the recent ruling by a federal judge. Utah's Democrat Party leader was ecstatic about that decision, but as a conciliatory gesture, he announced that the ruling "...has nothing to do with religious marriage. This is no threat to religion."
No threat to religion? It is in direct conflict with religion. Virtually every established faith, not just Christianity, rejects homosexual activity. And since biblical scripture cannot be changed as easily as public opinion, the gay agenda can only proceed unimpeded by silencing the voices of the faithful. That is exactly what gay activists tried to do in response to Robertson's comments. The once-victims of intolerance have now become intolerant of religious conviction. Yes, devout Christians do cling to their religion, but that is not bigotry. It reflects courage in the face of bigotry.
The argument for gay marriage hinges on the premise that sexual orientation is hardwired in the brain, unaffected by life experiences. That issue is still unsettled, but regardless of its cause, we know that not all gays agree with this radical agenda. Some are unhappy with their sexual orientation. Some accept it and just try to quietly live their lives in peace. They deserve tolerance and compassion. But the activist, some say militant, gays are exploiting that compassion to push this radical experiment on a society that would have scoffed at it a few years ago. Yes, it's unfortunate that homosexuals cannot find happiness in traditional marriage, but the same can be said of many heterosexuals, who are destined to remain unmarried for various reasons. Altering the definition of marriage – an institution that has existed throughout recorded history – to accommodate the lifestyle of a few is no solution. Then again, the left seems to live by the motto: "If it's not broke... break it."
The real outrage is the assault on the Judeo-Christian beliefs that have molded our social conscience for 200 years. That is nothing less than religious oppression, and must be condemned by all Americans.
Finally, we should all consider this question: What kind of society will we thrust upon our children if we allow public relations campaigns and political lobbyists to set our moral compass?
© Peter Lemiska
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
