Whenever someone discusses or disputes the origins and consequences of homosexuality, the frequent response from gay activists is “Hate! Bigotry! Prejudice!” Discussing this issue is not hate.
Tastes Like Hate — Graffiti Painted by a gay activist alongside a Torrance Chik-Fil-A, whose CEO Dan Cathy voiced his disagreement with homosexuality.
Please read this link. Your hate mongering is largely based on opinion and conjecture. Gaylord Squarepants
You have to accept me! — Gay Activist in Hermosa Beach, January 30, 2013
The First Amendment accords to every citizen the freedoms of speech, the press, assembly, petition of grievances, and religion. Regarding homosexuality, public sentiment, and concord or discord about the issue, every time that a well-meaning opinion or dissent is voiced on the subject, activists scream The outpouring of vitriol and virulence toward anyone who wants to discuss homosexuality, its origins, its causes, its consequences, and the viability of gay marriage is disturbing.
Honest, integrated individuals should be able to disagree on this controversial issue, yet at the time they should not be demonized or diminished simply because one side argues that homosexuality is a choice, and a bad one.
The origins of the gay lifestyle are subject to debate, yet gay activists seem insistent on disabusing anyone of challenging the question. Are people born gay, or do they become gay? Can people change their behavior, or their identity? Can sexuality be a final arbiter of identity? In effect, is homosexuality a choice? Whether or not, does homosexual conduct pose any negative consequences for individuals?
Is homosexuality a choice? Is it a bad choice?
Dennis Prager cited the high incidence of homosexual conduct among women who enter prison, yet as soon as they leave, they marry and have children. Tammy Bruce, an outspoken lesbian radio personality, admits that she chooses to be a lesbian. The stories of thousands of people who have lived a homosexual lifestyle, only to change and get marriage and have children would suggest that men and women are not necessarily born gay (or straight, for that matter).
The second issue, that homosexuality is a bad choice, rests on the argument that the set of behaviors causes a higher incidence of disease, dysfunction, and death.
The research which had cataloged the higher incidence of disease among homosexuals is staggering:
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1
http://carm.org/homosexual-gay-sex-harms-no-one
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/cox/040315
Gay activists have discredited these sites because they have a Christian or a religious orientation.
Here are some secular sources:
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/health-risks-of-the-homosexual-lifestyle/
http://www.narth.com/docs/narthresponse.html
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/on-the-promotion-of-homosexuality-in-the-schools/
The dysfunction associated with the lifestyle has been reported even by alternative publications, like LA Weekly. “Gay Happiness” interviewed and inspected the culture in West Hollywood and among individuals. Men shared a deep dissatisfaction with the “gay scene.” Psychologists and sociologists discussed the etiology for the higher incidence of drug and alcohol use among homosexuals. One man shared that the pressure of conformity was greater in the “gay scene” than in his traditional, Midwestern childhood.
As for death, numerous studies suggest that homosexuals endure a twenty percent reduction in their lifespan. A recent study from Denmark initially suggested that married couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual, live longer, yet the sample of homosexual couples was statistically insignificant. The American Psychological Association has discredited the arguments of this research, yet their opinions have been challenged by the American Pediatric Association, in turn.
I do not support gay marriage, and neither did the majority of California voters in 2008. Furthermore, thirty-two states have rejected gay marriage or barred the arrangement in their state constitutions. The argument that opposing gay marriage is on the “wrong side of history” seems disingenuous to say the least, for the most part because the consensus on the lifestyle has not been established. Besides, the percentage of actually homosexuals in this country remains a confused and/or minuscule statistic.
The three above-cited comments and circumstances related to homosexual activists should raise concern. Just because the President of Chik-Fil-A does not endorse homosexuality, does that justify an activist engaging in vandalism? Just because an individual comments that homosexuality as a choice, and a bad one, is someone justified in labeling his views a form of “hate”? When an activist forcefully argues “You have to accept me!”, one has to wonder what is the fate of a civil discourse i a free society. For the record, “You have to accept me!” makes as much as much sense as “legitimate rape” or “I have to suspend the rules of the free market to save it” or “We’re not broke!” in the face of a sixteen trillion dollar national debt.
Disagreement on as fundamental an issue as homosexuality, both its origins and its consequences, does not constitute “hate”, yet the virulence of gay activists to the question remains “hateful”. US Senator Bob Portman (R-OH) recently declared his support for gay marriage because his son announced that he was gay. Yet even Portman acknowledged that well-meaning people can respectfully disagree on this issue. I met a gay libertarian in North Hollywood two months ago. I shared my views on gay marriage, yet he did not demonize me in the least. I was impressed with his mature response, yet I wonder why many gay activists, the majority of which are on the left, cannot command the same respect.