What We Mean When We Say 'The Homosexual Agenda'

As a limited government conservative, I would never want to use the force of government to stop consensual socializing, physical interaction, cohabitation, religious ceremonies, voluntary associations and business transactions, or free expression. I do think it is the role of various levels of government to cite, fine, and incarcerate one who physically harms someone else or steals or damages the property of someone else against their consent.

Therefore, I would never try to pry two (or three or more) men in bed together apart, to disrupt a "gay wedding" in a church, nor do I think it is excusable to assault someone just because they are gay, or spraypaint vulgarities on their home. I think we should all have the freedom to exercise our rights to life, liberty, and property, regardless of whether we are attracted to men, women, both, or neither.

Yes, I believe that homosexual behavior, like all sexual or sex-like behavior outside of marriage, is sinful (a license from a state does not make a brideless or groomless pairing marriage). I do not believe, however, that our laws should attempt to prevent the commission of all sins.

When someone like me refers to "the homosexual agenda" negatively, we're not talking about seeking to live as you choose in your own home, or protecting yourself from crimes.

What we are talking about are things like:

• Denigrating traditional gender roles. If the traditional masculine or feminine roles do not work for you as an individual or a couple (understandable, especially with two men or two women), that's fine, but the rest of society can still embrace traditional gender roles, and should be able to without being accused of animus towards homosexual people.


• Trying to punish thoughts with "hate crime" legislation.


• Instituting official public school clubs centered around expressing sexuality and the affirmation of homosexual behavior. I'm against public schools in general, but schools full of minors should focus on academics, athletics, and the arts, not to whom you have an attraction. If you really, really need to form a gay-straight "alliance", take Drama. Grades K-12 should not be forming official sex clubs, and make no mistake, it is about sex. Also, in California, the Leftists running the state now require textbooks to include and identify people as "LGBT" and call positive attention to their sexual attraction, behavior, or gender confusion.


• Trying to get our churches to abandon Scriptural teaching on sexuality and marriage.


• Telling someone, especially a child, with homosexual thoughts or feelings that they must identify and affirm themselves as homosexuals and engage in homosexual behavior, and that there are no alternatives. This may include trying to prevent anyone from offering assistance to modify behavior away from homosexual sodomy.


• New or increased government funding for HIV/AIDS research, prevention, treatment, etc., especially at the expense of funding for other diseases not as easily preventable. I’m not convinced it is the federal government's place to spend any money on any disease, except in treating military personnel and federal prisoners.


• Trying to get us to believe it is okay for someone to dress inappropriately or undergo surgical mutilation and unnecessary hormone treatments in an attempt to appear to be the opposite sex, and that to accommodate such behavior, we should allow men and women (AND BOYS AND GIRLS!) to use the public restrooms of each other. (I don't lump "transgendered" with homosexual, but so many activists do.)


• Intolerance of anyone who does not affirm homosexual behavior. Labeling as a "hater" or "bigot" anyone who doesn't affirm homosexual behavior, and trying to silence such people or prevent them from publicly expressing their opinions.


• The notion that someone who engages in homosexual behavior should receive special or extra protection under the law, and shouldn't in any way be criticized.


• Neutering state marriage licensing, especially through judicial imposition. Preventing adoption agencies from preferring homes with bride+groom couples when placing children.


• Placing into law, curriculum, medical/counseling policies, church teachings, the media, and workplace training and policies that one must affirm:


• Homosexual behavior is healthy and morally neutral or positive.


• Homosexual attraction should be embraced and acted upon.


• There is no difference between heterosexual coitus and homosexual sodomy, and no qualitative difference between a couple comprised  of both sexes and a couple comprised of one.

Since I believe in property rights, I do believe employers should be able to fire someone based on their sexual orientation. But, I believe employers, absent a contract that says otherwise, should be able to fire (or not hire) anyone for any or no reason, so it isn’t like I think someone should be able to be fired because they are gay. An employer should be able to fire someone because they are the employer.

I do not think there is right to two men to commit sodomy with each other. They have the freedom to, and as long as they are doing it in private I wouldn’t try to stop them. But I’m against having laws or court decisions that there is a right to such behavior in a way that government must, say, license "marriages" between two men.

I recognize that not all people who identify themselves as homosexual support this homosexual agenda. While some homosexual people make it the end-all, be-all of their existence and thus are "homosexuality advocates" or even "homofascists", I know that there are plenty of homosexual people who, like straight me, have higher priorities, such as Constitutionally limited government, national security, and national fiscal sustainability. They don't obsess over trying to get people like me to abandon our belief that homosexual behavior is wrong. And I don't obsess over trying to get them to renounce homosexuality.

Under limited government conservatism, we can use our right to free speech to try to persuade each other, but we should not use the force of government to try to silence each other, or to force "affirmation" from each other.