Homosexual Agenda Illustrates: There Can Be No Compromise With Evil

Interesting thing about those whose foundation is built on lies (such as evolutionists & homosexual activists): they never seem to concede that those who oppose them could be right about *anything*. The less secure one is about one's position, after all, the more viciously one defends it.

Hi Bob...one question I have never asked you is, with the numerous ills in the world, disease, poverty, a poor economic position, war, genocide, intolerance (on all sides), divorce, child abuse etc...why does the issue of homosexuality occupy so much of your time ?

I am trying to grasp why, amongst all the things one could and perhaps should be extremely concerned about, this is the one you choose to be most vocal and vitriolic about?

And a quick response to DCM...I conceed you could be right about everything...but you have no right to impose your worldview or opinions upon me, based mainly upon a religous doctrine I do not believe in or support, and as Bob will hopefully tell you, as I believe he is an honest man, I never defend my position viciously, but hopefully with reasoned and intellectual debate, which does not always achieve agreement, or a change in a point of view, but may provide a chink of enlightenment to all the parties concerned, since I believe my arguements have more validity and evidential based support than some of the concepts that you clearly believe in.

Regards as always

Steve

You're right, Steve: there are a lot of ills in the world. Your question is a fair one.

I address this topic frequently because it is one that rears its head frequently. Not a day goes by where homosexual activists are not working on some new inroad against society.

Which leads to the next reason I address it so frequently: it's bedrock importance. All the ills you mentioned are important and cause problems. However, the homosexual agenda is about normalizing a behavior which is totally at odds with how human sexuality was meant to be expressed. Furthermore, with the radical insistence that it be normalized to the point of allowing homosexuals to call their unions "marriage", it has become a direct assault on the most foundational unit and building block of any society: marriage itself.

Marriage is the environment in which God intended the family be produced, and even if you don't believe in God, all the social science tells us that marriage is by far the best, most healthy environment for children to be raised and nurtured. It also provides benefit and stability to the men and women who are producing and raising children.

When that fundamentally critical institution is weakened by allowing it to be counterfeited, the stability and health of an entire civilization is threatened. We already have far too many problems with child development from divorce and out of wedlock births; we see it in the youth crime rate, academic problems in school, youth suicide, and other emotional and behavioral issues.

To make the statement that marriage can mean essentially anything further devalues it, and will cause even heterosexuals to place less and less importance, causing the existing problems with the family to worsen even more.

Finally, of all the immoral behaviors out there--and most affect not just the individual but the health and stability of society--few if any have an organized, determined movement that insists on the moral legitimacy of that behavior. We don't see an adulterers agenda insisting that adultery is normal, natural, healthy and moral. We don't see a drunkards agenda insisting alcohol abuse is normal, natural, healthy and moral...and the examples could go on and on.

If the few people who wanted to practice homosexuality simply wanted to do so in the privacy of their own homes, few people would seriously mind (though we should still care about someone who is risking their physical and spiritual health). And while there are some homosexuals who fit that bill, there is a radical, militant movement within the homosexual community that has a take-no-prisoners campaign of total legitimacy, along with moral and practical equivalence to heterosexual behavior.

That's a brief answer, given the importance of the issue, but hopefully it answers your questions.

"you have no right to impose your worldview or opinions upon me, based mainly upon a religous doctrine I do not believe in or support, and... I never defend my position viciously, but hopefully with reasoned and intellectual debate... since I believe my arguements have more validity and evidential based support than some of the concepts that you clearly believe in."

Well, I wouldn't accuse you specifically of defending your position viciously, since I doubt you are personally responsible for the kind of things the above article talks about! But others are, and my statement would apply to them.

I'm all for reasoned and intellectual debate, but that's not usually what I get from people who I find myself in disagreement with. And I have found that "evidentially based support" is on the side of what you dismiss as "religious doctrine"; otherwise, I would be the last person on Earth who would go along with it. "Supported by evidence" is often confused with "accepted by a lot of intelligent people," but it's not the same at all.

I find it interesting that Christians are often accused of trying to "impose their beliefs" on others. The irony is that those taking the opposing side are usually the ones really wanting to "impose their beliefs". But why (for example) should innocent unborn children have "imposed" on them the belief that it's OK to kill them out of convenience? Why should society have "imposed" on it the belief that certain unhealthy practices should be accepted without question? Others have no right to impose their worldview or opinions on *me* (or anyone else), based on the false faith that God is not real and people are their own masters -- a religious doctrine I do not believe in or support.

While I don't agree with anything said here that makes homosexuals out to be evil and selfish, I fully support your right to say your beliefs. After all, this is America, where freedom of speech is favored and protected.

A lot of conservatives debunk scientific evidence that the earth is older than 6,000 years. That doesn't make them right either.

Good luck to the human race. We are bound to destroy ourselves over petty arguments.

Actually there is nothing that proves the earth is older than 6,000 years or so. Such claims are based on assumptions, not fact, and in many cases, assumptions based on still more assumptions. So that statement is not only irrelevant to the subject at hand, it is also incorrect.

As are assertions that homosexual behavior is moral, healthy or natural.

Bob...if as you say that marriage is "the most foundational unit and building block of any society" why do you not employ the same energy and vitriol in addressing the 50% divorce rate in the USA, or comment on the UKs terrible teenage pregnancy rate amongst unwed mothers, or the "sanctity" of marriages which are entered into in a Vegas Chapel of Love and annulled a matter of days later.

I see hypocrisy here. These are significant threats to the "foundational unit" that you talk of and yet they get little press in either the right or left wing media. If, as we have previoulsy discussed the homosexual population in the world is about 3%....thats 200 million people, why do you single them out, when the other 5.8 BILLION are the ones who will really affect whether the institution of marriage survives or falls. It is the inequity of your approach and what I would describe as an obsessive interest in a minoritiy groups fight for equal rights that I find disturbing and fundamentally unfair.

My second point would be that much of the furore over this debate comes down to the semantics of the word "marriage"....gay people want an institution that offers the same stability, nurture, responsibilities and pleasures that heterosexual people have access to. Some want to use the word marriage, others would be happy with a civil title, as long as it carries with it exactly the same rights and responsibilities as "marrriage" You would deny them access to the institution of marriage or any other form of civil partnership, which is nothing to do with religion, mainly based upon a religous doctrine, which a lot of people do not follow. That is the imposition of faith over freedom. Not fair I am afraid.

My time is short, but I'll try to reply quickly.

I do frequently address and work to increase respect for marriage and reduction of the divorce rate. However, there is a critical aspect of the comparison that you're missing: there is no massive effort to portray divorce as normal, natural and healthy.

There is no organized political movement demanding divorce be recognized as perfectly normal; even those who have been divorced recognize there is something wrong when a divorce happens, that something failed, that even though they have done it, it is something to be avoided. No one is attempting to portray divorce as a natural practice, even with the high rate of divorce; again, even those who have done it recognize it is at odds with how things should be. Additionally, the health and prosperity statistics associated with divorce show that it is not healthy, and no one seriously disagrees with this.

In short, while divorce rates are far, far too high, and our societal attitude toward divorce is far too cavalier, there is no advocacy movement to portray it as a positive thing to be desired and embraced...while that is exactly what the homosexual activists are doing. Were people to start advocating divorce as some do homosexuality, I would ramp up my focus in that area to counter that deception.

Another of your comments portrays a misunderstanding of this issue. Homosexuals already have equality. Homosexuals already enjoy the same rights everyone else does, including marriage. But marriage is something that can only be accomplished between a man and a woman; to fundamentally redefine it as anything else is to counterfeit it.

If homosexuals want to get together, even commit to one another, no one is stopping them. But attempting to counterfeit the vitally important institution of marriage is a deception that devalues that institution and jeopardizes the welfare of children, which, while not an inevitable result, are the usual and normal result of a marriage.

One final note: we impose "faith over freedom" every day in countless ways. Murder is a faith recognition that human life is sacred and irreplaceable, and the wrongful taking of human life must be punished. Recognition of rape as a crime is a faith value imposition as are laws against theft, perjury, and so many more things.

What you mean is that you are okay with "faith over freedom" with regard to societal welfare and public safety when you agree with it, but not where it interferes with your goals.

Bob...one point I forgot to address is in response to your point, where you state "all the social science tells us that marriage is by far the best, most healthy environment for children to be raised and nurtured. It also provides benefit and stability to the men and women who are producing and raising children"

Whilst I agree with your point to a great extent, I think a modicum of research will show that historically marriage was little to do with procreation and child rearing but the transfer of power, wealth or the consolidation of such. Of course children raised with two natural parents is the ideal, but marriage has gone beyond transfers of wealth and procreation. Marriages are entered into for a variety of reasons, one would hope that the main one would be that you wish to commit to another for life, and have that person witness your journey through life, realise dreams, grow old, provide comfort and support to each other in the bad times, and share the good times.

Marriages are not invalid because a couple can not have children or decide not to, marriages between older couples, past child bearing age, are not invalid. Conversely you will know in my job that I have seen horrors perpetrated on children by their married heterosexual parents, so it is not always the ideal, as there are exceptions to every rule.

I can quote back at you the social science which states that children raised by gay couples do not fair significantly better or worse than those raised in good heterosexual households, but I am sure you will just do the usual and dismiss that research as biased and agenda driven, but hey I can't force you to accept the research, only tell you that it is out there.

Im 2002 there were 70,000 children being raised by two same-sex parents in California alone, and a report by The American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health found no meaningful differences between children raised by gay parents and those raised by heterosexual parents, and there are numerous other studies which support the view that it really makes no difference if kids are raised by gay or straight parents.

So the procreation issue is really a red herring, plus the fact that a lot of gay couples I know want nothing to do with having kids, me included. As you rightly identify there are good solid reasons for being in a committed marriage, including the fact that married people live longer, and are usually less inclined to stray and have sex outside of a marriage i.e less promiscuous, have better mental health etc. Some of the criticisms you have levelled at homosexuals (a lot of it unfounded in my opinion and based upon unsound research, but thats a different debate) has been about the health issues they experience, increased alcoholism, drug use, promiscuity leading to STDs and shortened life spans, and yet you continue to wish to deny them access to an institution which may go some way to alleviating these problems. Again I say....not fair.

Regards as always

Steve

The statement you made about marriage having to do with transfer of wealth, etc. is a common propaganda item used often by the enemies of marriage when they start to run out of arguments.

While some secondary purposes and uses of marriage have involved transfers of wealth, power, etc., that has never been the primary use, focus or constitution of marriage. Marriage has from the very beginning been the life-union of a man and a woman, and this has been recognized in every culture in the world throughout human history--a fact which speaks strongly to that fundamental nature of the institution.

Also, since we have only been able to prevent conception reliably for the past 40 years or so, marriage has for almost the entirety of human existence centrally involved the production and development of children. In addition to the completion, community, balance and cohesive picture of God's own attributes that marriage brings to humanity, this aspect in favor of positive child development was likely a central reason God created the institution.

But no serious or credible research indicates anything other than the universally positive benefits to children of marriage. These benefits range from the economic to the academic to the emotional and more. Children in stable married homes do better academically and emotionally, have lesser crime rates, experience less poverty, and grow up to be more well-adjusted human beings than any other arrangement provides. Children need to see both sexes working together and interacting with both their feminine and masculine gifts to learn how to properly related to the other sex when they become adults. Studies showing this are voluminous and come from a host of secular sources--in addition to pro-family sources--that have no "dog in the fight" to give a hint of bias.

Though there have been some "studies" proffered in recent years by various sources (including some that still enjoy an unjustified amount of credibility, because they sold out their credibility long ago by making politically correct statements that had no scientific or clinical foundation), none are based on anything more than wishful thinking and a willful blindness to the obvious examples which contradict their conclusions. Most if not all fail to meet accepted scientific or statistical standards, characterized by methodological problems, small samples, non-random samples, and frequently a strong bias on the part of the researchers. The few of these dubious 'studies" and statements that exist fly in the face of the human experience and a plethora of data which shows the vital importance of an intact married home where both mother and father are present.

For instance, there is the stability factor alone. While there are, as you pointed out earlier, grave problems in stability with heterosexual relationships, the stability and longevity of homosexual relationships makes them look downright wonderful. Several studies have found the average length citied by participants for their longest relationship being about 2 years for homosexual males and 38 months for homosexual females. The most significant portion of males in one study (38%) said their average relationship length was less than a year. A San Francisco study found that among white male homosexuals studied, 75 percent had had 100 or more sexual partners, 60 percent had had 250 or more sexual partners, 43 percent had had 500 or more sexual partners, and 28 percent, the largest subcategory, reported over 1,000 sexual partners (p. 308). Ninety-nine percent of white male homosexuals reported they had had sex with strangers, 79 percent reported over half their partners were
strangers, and 70 percent said over half their partners were men with whom they had sex only once. A National Health and Social Life Survey found that the average number of lifetime partners for heterosexual men was 15.7, but for homosexuals it was 44.3, or 3x as high. For heterosexual women 4.9, but for homosexual women it was 19.7, or more than 4x higher.

Unfortunately even among "committed" homosexual relationships, the picture isn't much better. The Netherlands has had registered partnerships since 1998 and full homosexual "marriage" since 2001. Even so, the average range of male homosexual relationships in the Netherlands was 9 months to 2 years, with an average of only 17 months. In Sweden the dissolution rate of male homosexual unions is more than 50% higher than heterosexuals, and for lesbians it's double. In the States, the average length of marriages is 25 years, even with all those divorces factored in. What's more, regarding homosexual relationships, it has recently come to light--from a pro-homosexual researcher no less--that even the typical homosexual relationship where the members claim to be monogamous, outside sexual encounters are typical (they merely "redefine" monogamy to be something more "flexible" like "I only have sex with another man if my other partner joins in" or "I only have sex with someone else if I tell my partner about it"). People like Dawn Stefanowicz from Canada who grew up in a homosexual home have testified to the terrible conditions she went through, and indications are that her experience was not atypical.

Just a few additional examples of the kind of things I've been talking about:

- Wayne Tardiff and his partner Allan Yoder became the first homosexual couple in New Jersey to be allowed to adopt a child in 1990. Tardiff died of AIDS two years later, with Yoder following a few months later, leaving their poor child yet again in the lurch.

- Last year the American Sociological Review which stated the daughters of lesbians are "more sexually adventurous and less chaste" and lesbian co-parent relationships are more likely to break up.

- A 1996 study in the Australian journal "Children Australia" found that children raised by homosexual couples ranked last in nine of the thirteen categories measured. Children of cohabitating heterosexuals did less well than marrieds, and children in homosexuals homes the worst.

In short, this is an utterly abysmal situation in which to inject an adopted child...who because they are being adopted in the first place is virtually certain to have already suffered trauma and instability. When you throw in the incredible health risks faced by homosexuals (elevated rates of AIDS, many other STDs, hepatitis, substance abuse, suicide, anal cancer, domestic violence), and a lifespan that is somewhere around 20 years less than average (documented in both the US and Canada), no sane case can be made for subjecting a child to this kind of risk.

Even if you threw out the whole adoption question (which homosexual activists have shown no willingness to do--they're fighting to expand it tooth and nail), allowing marriage to be counterfeited as I said before weakens and undermines the value and stability of the institution overall, which places still more children in jeopardy.

If homosexuals insist on this behavior, no one is seriously trying to stop them. But the demand that society should recognize the behavior as normal, natural, moral or healthy is totally unfounded and unjustifiable. There is every reason society should discourage the practice, and none for legitimizing it--certainly none to justify undermining the most important human institution in order to accommodate it.

DCM...I don't wish to sound critical but I have read your post a few times and am still struggling to make sense of some of it.

Firstly I don't see how the abortion reference has any relevance to this debate or the comments I made

Secondly I fail to see how I am in anyway advocating that your religous freedoms to believe what you want, and worship where you want, with whom you want, be impinged upon, or that my view that as human beings we all deserve access to the same fundamental human rights is being "imposed" upon you or affects in any way your ability to follow your faith.

I fully support your right to express opinions based upon your own moral values, to follow your religion, and to comment on the whole range of social issues from a faith based perspective. But where you advocate the imposition of your particular moral code on people who interpret your bible differently, or do not follow your or any other faith, then I do take issue with it.

I take issue with it even more when you advocate and actively work to deny people those things which you take for granted, purely on the basis of an inherent part of that persons character, and not who they are as an individual. That is called prejudice - to pre-judge someone on the basis of a character trait and assume all people that belong to that group possess similar negative behaviours.

What I find most disconcerting is my prejudice, which has been created by people like you, that people of strong faith appear to believe that because someone is non-religous, agnostic or atheist, that they can not possess high moral values or hold themselves to a high moral code. I know of course that this is not the case for all people of faith, but struggle to maintain my rational view in the face of a highly vocal, vitriolic and frankly scary campaign by certain people of faith who try and claim the moral high ground, and exercise a level of moral superiority over others, only to find that it actually achieves the complete opposite.

You should not confuse morality with your concepts of sin or faith based prohibitions on certain behaviours. True morality extends way beyond religion. Your moral viewpoint appears to be a regurgitation of an increasingly outdated viewpoint, with little self-reflection, thought and insight into who you are as a human being and where you fit into the wonderful spectrum of humanity.

Regards

Steve

Bob

Thanks for your response but I have to take quick issue when you say "we impose "faith over freedom" every day in countless ways. Murder is a faith recognition that human life is sacred and irreplaceable, and the wrongful taking of human life must be punished. Recognition of rape as a crime is a faith value imposition as are laws against theft, perjury, and so many more things"

How on earth is accepting that the taking of another human life is morally wrong anything to do with a religion or faith. Its a fundamental human right to exist and not to have your life taken by another, accept in certain circumstances e.g legal execution after a proper and fair judicial process....nothing to do with faith or religion. Rape is violence against another person, it is a fundamental human right not to be subject of an assault of any nature against your person. Theft is to do with proprietary rights and people not being able to acquire them by force or subterfuge. I can not believe you think these things have anything to do with faith or religion, they are beyond all faiths and religions, these are the fundamentals that we should all agree on as the basis for human dignity, irrespective of a faith or lack of it.

The entire concept of murder is a religious one, based on a transcendent moral value, as is the concept of a "fundamental human right."

Without a transcendent moral code, there is no rational foundation upon which to make the assertion that killing an innocent human being is wrong. You might make the assertion that it is inconvenient...for the victim and perhaps those who depend on the victim for food, shelter, etc...but why is it wrong? After all, with no transcendent moral code to which all human beings are responsible, it might make perfectly good sense and be perfectly justified for me to kill you if you had something I wanted, made me mad, or whatever. After all, you have impeded my ability to fulfill my own goals and desires. If we are simply the end product of a long chain of random events, with no eternal soul and no transcendent moral accountability, what does it matter?

Social contracts, social conventions, traditions, and practical considerations all break down when you try to walk them back to the ultimate question of "why." There are a number of practical reasons why murder, rape, theft, etc. are undesirable behaviors, but in the absence of a transcendent moral standard, the question of why is it fundamentally wrong is left wanting.

Now, virtually every time I ask this question of the typical atheist, evolutionist, or relativist, they can't even begin to grasp the fundamental meaning and impact of what I'm getting at. I understand that on some level, given that probably more than 90% of the human race has never given more than 10 minutes serious thought to the fundamental elements of morality and ethics, but you and I have had enough online and offline discussions that I think you're up to it. You and I don't agree on much, but I can tell that you think deeper and have already spent much more time in serious thought than the average person on the Left side of the aisle.

I encourage you to take the time and give this some serious thought. Seriously grapple with the question, and I think you'll unlock the door on a new level of understanding that you may not have recognized even existed.

Bob

As you can probably tell from the number of comments I have posted, I am what we in the UK call "on one" at the moment, due to the sense of frustration I feel in addressing these points, but I continue to fight the good fight lol.

You said "Another of your comments portrays a misunderstanding of this issue. Homosexuals already have equality"

You do not speak from a position of personal experience, I do, and therefore I think it is you who misunderstands. My personal experiences are, I think, a powerful thing, especially if I have given you cause to believe that I am an honest man and have a right to be believed. I do speak from that personal standpoint and can only say that this was a hurtful comment, because it is blase, trite and shows no attempt at empathy or to see things from another mans shoes. I will end our dialogue by simply saying across this globe and in your country and mine, gay people do not have equality, otherwise we would not be having this debate.

We all get "on one" from time to time. :-) (That's one I didn't become familiar with during my years in the UK--but then, you hear "new ones" from various parts of America that you've never heard, too--I'm assuming it's analogous to what we Yanks might call "on a tear.")

I don't need to be black to understand that blacks in America now have the same legal right to marry as whites in America. That was not always the case, but it is now, and I don't need to be black to understand the reality of either case.

I also don't need to do meth to understand that it is bad news that will ruin your world.

Experience is not the measure of reality. It can give strong indications, in so far as that particular experience is typical of reality in general and not unduly colored by inordinate bias or hampered perception.

My experience can lead me to feel that I should get paid more for the efforts I expend online (and in my community service) to make the world a better place and oppose error. After all, why should someone make millions of dollars a year chasing a ball around a field when I'm trying to make the world a better place and all I get paid for it is the minuscule ad revenue generated on this website?

But my experiences and feelings are not the standard. The simple reality is that thousands--millions--of people are willing to pay big bucks to attend events where guys chase a ball around a field, watch them on television, buy products associated with them and their activities, etc, whereas for the most part, not that many people are willing to be my "fan."

Is that fair? In my personal estimation: not at all. Is it just? In my personal estimation: no way. Is it a simple reality that cannot be changed by my will or manipulation (e.g. seeking some law that requires government subsidies or that requires people to read my website on a regular basis, or some other such nonsense)? Yes. Like it or not, whether it's "just" in a cosmic sense or not, it is what it is.

Just as the fact that homosexuals in America (and the UK) already have equality and equal protection under the law. What they do NOT have is the right to redefine a fundamental and important human institution, nor the right to force society to accept and legitimize their abnormal sexual activities.

It's nothing intended to be hurtful; just a simple statement of the facts and of reality.

Jesus will not judge as sinful a love relationship between two homosexuals (Mt 22:36-40). Atheists marry, Catholics marry. The Marriage License says nothing about God nor any particular religious invention. Jesus is pleased when two people pledge their undying love for one another.

God most assuredly will (and already has) judge as sinful any sort of sexual relationship between two people of the same sex. (And since God created all human beings, he holds judgement authority over all of them, including atheists and Catholics)

God has said repeatedly in both Old and New Testaments that human beings were created to express their sexuality in marriage between a man and a woman, and that homosexual behavior is in direct contradiction to his design and as such is a sin:

- Genesis 2:24 Where God outlined his design for human sexuality: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”

- Genesis 19 where men of Sodom wanted to have sex with the male angels, and it was called a “wicked thing”

- Leviticus 18:22 “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

- Leviticus 20:13 “‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.”

- Judges 19 In Gibeah where “wicked men” wanted to have sex with a Levite man, and it was called a “disgraceful thing”

- Mark 10:6-8 Jesus reaffirms God’s design for human sexuality: “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one.”

- Romans 1:26-27 where the Bible talks about “godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness” and says “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

- 1 Corinthians 6:9 says, among other habitual sins, homosexuals “will not inherit the kingdom of God”

- 1 Timothy 1:10 condemns “men who practice homosexuality”


If you truly love your neighbor as yourself, you won't join him in sin, encourage him to sin, or make excuses which make it easier for him to fall in sin. If you truly love your neighbor, you'll do as Ezekiel 3:18 and other passages indicate, and will warn him away from sin for his own good, and for your own.

Bob

As always thank you for your comprehensive response, you have given me food for thought, a few things to go away and research and consider, and for that I thank you.

However I want to leave you with one thought. When I spoke of equality, I was thinking beyond legal protections etc, even though your comment re that type of equality both in the US and UK is incorrect. I was thinking of genuine social equality, not the rule of law. So on the day that you and your wife can't walk down the street holding hands for fear of being verbally abused, spat on or physically assaulted, then we will be equal....how sad.

Thanks. I'm glad I could be of service.

I'd like to provide some additional food for thought: How many homosexuals get verbally abused, spat on or physically assaulted? Even the extremely-hyped "hate crime" statistics tell us: not many.

But more importantly, an immoral, unnatural, unhealthy, disordered sexual behavior does not deserve social equality. That's not said to be offensive, but descriptive of the nature of the behavior. There is simply nothing socially redeeming or valuable about homosexuality that merits social equality.

Mr. Ellis,

As a homosexual myself who has many gay friends, I know that there's many gay people out there who face public harrassment on a daily basis, here in the U.S. and in other countries as well. I personally have been called names before, when walking holding hands with my boyfriend.

I believe you're wrong.

I'm not excusing name-calling, but name-calling is a far throw from actually being assaulted.

It would be a move of good faith and good will toward society on your part that if you insist on continuing to engage in an immoral and unnatural behavior, you keep it out of the public eye. Open displays of immoral behavior undermine public morality.