Saturday, August 16, 2008

Debate Is About Accepting Bad Behavior

Over at Illinois, there is an excellent article which gives us the deep down truth of the matter regarding the debate between homosexual activists, conservative Christians, and the marriage definition issue.

The debate is not about respecting people, but about accepting bad behavior.

Here is a copy of the article:

Respecting Homosexuals
7/30/2008 7:00:00 AM
By Thorin Anderson -Illinois Family Institute

Whenever there is conflict between homosexual activists and conservatives regarding the issues such as the acceptance of same sex marriage, we on the right are accused of a lack of respect for homosexuals.

But, I would like to make one thing clear. The debate is not about respecting people, but about accepting bad behavior. There are many human behaviors which we conservatives believe to be unacceptable. They range from lying and cheating to promiscuity before or during marriage. They include murder and rape and a host of other deeds, criminal or otherwise. To say that we don't respect someone when we disagree with their conduct is to suggest that confronting any bad behavior is inherently disrespectful. Are we to stop speaking about all wrong conduct? Should we stop confronting lying, stealing, or murder? Such a suggestion would be ludicrous.

All humans are worthy of respect as humans, period. But it is utter folly to imagine that behaviors people engage in are automatically respectable simply because a certain number of people are involved in them. Sad to say, many things we human beings do are not only unworthy of respect, but are destructive and dangerous. There is a reason why no one writes in any detail, in public, regarding the activities of homosexuals. And there is a reason why homosexuals have significantly shorter than average life expectancies. There is not a newspaper in the country that would detail their private conduct, and most of our stomachs could not handle it. Yet, we are told we MUST accept such conduct as perfectly normal. Get out your Websters and look up "normal." Homosexuality in no way fits the definition of "normal." And, it requires no special genius to understand that!

No doubt many practitioners have found themselves harassed or worse by those who don't respect homosexuals and have taken it upon themselves to mock or injure them. Such actions are wrong. It is legitimate to demand respect as people, but it is absolutely illegitimate to demand respect for conduct that is simply disgusting on its face. And, consider the homosexual's attitude toward such virtues of fidelity and loyalty. No self-respecting woman would tolerate infidelity in her husband, but in the homosexual community, infidelity is not only allowed, it is a given. It is ironic that homosexuals demand such respect from the general community when they quite obviously have little respect for themselves or one another. Such proclivities reveal that, in fact, the homosexual lifestyle really is much less about deep abiding relationships than satisfying inappropriate sexual desires.

Let us be clear about something: Christian conservatives oppose the wanton satisfying of inappropriate sexual desires in anyone whether straight or homosexual. Those of us who disagree with homosexual conduct based upon the principles of the Bible and nature can do nothing to stop homosexuals from practicing their chosen lifestyle. But it is an egregious violation of our freedoms, principles, and character to demand that we accept it as normal.

Thorin Anderson is a member of the Pastor Advisory Council to Illinois Family Institute and the pastor of Parkwood Baptist Church on the south side of Chicago. Pastor Anderson is also the President of Men for Christ, an association that organizes annual weekend men's rallies in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois on a rotating basis.

HT: PFOX email


Kevin said...

Hi Christine,
Interesting article by Anderson. However, he perpetuates a common lie that was originally put forth by Paul Cameron: "And there is a reason why homosexuals have significantly shorter than average life expectancies." Paul Cameron did his so-called research by looking through the obituaries in glbt newspapers and used those numbers to determine that gay men lived shorter lives. This is faulty research. What Cameron did not do (and he is still apparently unable to do) is to realize that not everyone posts obituaries. It is a select few who choose to do this. You cannot make a statement like Cameron did (and what Anderson did) and be taken seriously if you think about how he came to these conclusions.

I wonder, though, how making gay marriage legal is a violation of his freedom, principles and character? His freedom, principles and character are based on religious beliefs. He doesn't have to marry gay people if he doesn't want to. He isn't going to be forced to do it. I certainly don't accept everything my government does. The useless war in Iraq is a good example. But just because the government has put certain policies in place doesn't mean that my freedom, principles and character have been violated.

Christinewjc said...


There are many, many more researchers who have done studies and documented the lower life spans (especially due to male homosexual acts) and health problems associated with with such behavior.

Homosexual Acts Defy Design of the Body,
Immunological Journal Finds

There are eight pages with ten article links on each page at the NARTH website that describe the health risks (both physical and mental) associated with homosexuality.

As far as "not having to marry gay people" goes, that isn't the only point why Christians oppose legitimizing homosexual behavior by creating, out of thin air, a reprobate re-definition of marriage. I will give you just one.

The fact that 27 (maybe more) states have had the voting public declare that marriage should remain defined as the union of one man and one woman could be struck down by activist judges (just as was done in CA) when MA and CA homosexuals "marry" in those states, move, and then require the new state of residence to recognize their "marriage." The onslaught of lawsuits have probably already begun.

Kevin said...

Hi Christine,
I have a question for you before I look into those articles from NARTH. Would you accept the findings about Christianity from atheists who are out to take rights away from Christians?

About the slew of lawsuits about to begin: the history of this country is built on lawsuits and changing laws. I see no reason why there shouldn't be lawsuits on this example as well.

Christinewjc said...


Let me know if I am reading your question accurately. Are you asking this question because you believe that reading the articles at the NARTH website might reveal findings that you perceive as being "out to take rights away from homosexuals?" Is that why you asked it?

For me, knowledge about both sides of any issue is important. I have already seen atheists at work in debate venues where they attempt to disparage, denigrade and mock Christians and their beliefs. Here's but one example. Even when a truth claim cannot be refuted, they still deny the evidence right in front of them!

You wrote, "...the history of this country is built on lawsuits and changing laws."

Spoken just like a secular humanist who regards the "State" as one's "god."

However, you are wrong.

The history of this country was not built on such things - however, errant laws being pushed by rogue judges are, in fact, destroying the moral and ethical fabric of our nation. The truth is, our laws and our country were originally built upon belief in God and adherence to His Word. Our basis for law came directly from the Ten Commandments.

Your unwillingly to even care about the onslaught of frivolous lawsuits that will be added to the millions of frivolous lawsuits of our day is truly selfish, Kevin. To use a quote that I heard from Glenn Beck's radio show this morning:

"They [meaning, liberals and Democrats, who, while even given absolute proof in a matter still won't face the truth] don't care what the truth is - they only want to further their agenda."

Wayne said...

There does seem to be a lot of comparing of gay marriage with other issues.

Minority rights vs Marriage rights
Religious rights vs Marriage rights

Let me make a comparison, Male sexual Identification rights vs Gay Rights.

We have a system that discerns sex medically. It pre dates the US Constitution ... But is it fair to a male that wants to be know as a female?

I hope my comparison sound absurd.

But the point I am trying to make is what right do gays not have by being married other than the right to misrepresent themselves to a word created 100s of years ago which means a union of a man and a woman.

Or are there rights they can argue for after being defined as married like having a church recognize the marriage? Which brings up another question, If a church is forced in to silence, is that recognition or is it a lie?

Kevin said...

Hey Christine,
I asked you that question because I doubt you would believe anything that an aetheist would write that proves that Christianity is not true. You ask me to go to NARTH, an organization that seeks to take rights away to gays and lesbians. I can't believe anything they say anymore than I could believe what a Nazi has to say about a Jew.

About the lawsuit issue. If you read the Declaration of Independence which started our country, it really was a lawsuit against the tyranny of a king. They rejected the laws of England and they broke away to start anew. Many, including people living in the colonies, though these men were rogues. But I doubt you consider those people to be rogues, would you? That is the truth, and it has nothing to do with you believing I am selfish or not.

If you don't think this is the case--tell me how you think laws are instituted in this country. Let me give you one example and tell me what you think of it. In the 1880s, the U.S. Congress enacted a Chinese Exclusion Act. What do you think the Chinese people here thought of that? What should they have done to make things right (that is, if you believe that the Exclusion Act was bad)? Were they selfish to want to sue to make things right?

And you can't honestly stand there and tell me you wouldn't sue for a wrong done to you, your family or your beliefs. You would sue, just like anyone else that is wronged. That isn't being selfish. That is fighting for what is believed to be right. Maybe I am wrong, but I somehow doubt that.

And how does this strike you:
"They [meaning some Christians, who, while even given absolute proof in a matter still won't face the truth] don't care what the truth is - they only want to further their agenda."

We all have our agendas. You have your own--and that is plain to see from your numerous blogs. I have my own agenda as well--to make sure that all people are treated fairly in this country.

jeleasure said...

Hi Christine.
Thank you for writing this article.
Two things:
One, I was wandering if you were aware of the American Family Association having called for a boycott against McDonald's corp..
If you were not, I will send you some information later. I have to get ready for work. And I don't have much time.
Time. This brings me to point number two.
I apologise for having been so long in not getting back with you. In fact, I don't remember exactly what the discussion was. For, I had family come to Virginia from Pittsburgh, Pa. over the weekend. And I did not have time for blogging. So, after work today, I will return to my blog and visit some more of your sites, look into your comments on my page and send you the McDonalds Boycott information. If you like, you can save us that step by going to American Family Associations home page to find what is happening with the boycott.
c-ya later,