Update, March 2014: Laurie Higgins’ article titled, “Ridicule Replaces Reason in Religious Liberty Debates,” includes these two easy-to-understand paragraphs:
Is “sexual orientation” a valid protected category? No, it’s not. Historically protected categories were constituted by objective, morally neutral conditions like biological sex, race and ethnicity, and nationality. Homosexuality, in contrast, is constituted solely by subjective feelings and volitional acts on which there is no moral consensus. If “progressives” had any real interest in consistency, they would insist on protecting all members of groups that are constituted by subjective feelings and morally dubious volitional acts. This would mean adding all paraphiliacs to our anti-discrimination policies and laws. Logical consistency would demand that sadists, masochists, minor-attracted persons (MAPS), frotteurists, and zoophiliacs be protected for they are members of groups constituted by subjective feelings and often volitional sexual acts that are virtually always unchosen, powerful, and persistent.
But if we “protect” all groups constituted by subjective feelings and volitional acts, what happens not only to our religious liberty but also to our liberty to freely associate and assemble? What else do we base our diverse associations on other than feelings, beliefs, and volitional acts?
Read her entire article here.
Did you ever wonder why our society spends so much time having to deal with the topic of the sexual behavior of a tiny percent of the population? It’s my opinion that if the grown-ups were in charge they’d say to those who need to hear it — please keep your sex lives private — really, no one wants to know how you like to have orgasms. Or they might just tell them to grow up.
Or, if necessary, they recommend therapy and tell them to stop trying to improve their conscience by using the power of government to mandate acceptance of their sex problem. If you don’t think it’s a problem chances are you’ve never reviewed the Center for Disease Control statistics about the negative physical and psychological health consequences of practicing aberrant sexual behavior. It’s important to remember — that’s all it is — behavior. There is no homosexual gene. Sorry, there really isn’t.
Normal people don’t want to have to talk about this issue — but since the radical homosexual political left has brought their sex problems into the public square, their lies and distortions must be addressed. Don’t fall for the silly claims that those who are PRO JUDEO-CHRISTIAN MORALITY are “hateful” or “bigots.” Judeo-Christian morality isn’t optional when it comes to the social fabric, and morality is all one piece. I also highly recommend this article from Matt Barber: A message for average, ordinary homosexual people. More excellent articles are linked here.
What homosexuality is, what it is not, and what causes it:
Addressing the widespread acceptance of unproven views regarding the nature of “homosexual rights”:
Excerpts from the book “Eros—The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality”:
Also on this website:
SERIES: Bad News for the ‘Homosexual Rights’ Movement:
From Mission America: