Igor’s comments make me sick.

“And to the Christian wimps who say things like “hate the sin, not the sinner,” you’re not going to have your cake and eat it too. The only way to defeat the homosexual lobby is through hatred and intolerance. There is no other way. When it becomes unsafe for queers to walk down the street holding hands, or to otherwise publicly announce their sexual preference, that’s when we’ll have them off our backs. Until such time, you can expect the demands of the homosexual lobby to become increasingly strident and outlandish.

Let me repeat that this is a war, not a misunderstanding of some kind that can be politely worked out over tea and crumpets. The queers know perfectly well what they are doing and the ramifications of what they’re doing. This is a war, and as such, your options are either to stand up and fight, or drop your weapons, roll over, and let the homos sodomize your corpse.

Hopefully future generations will look back on this putrid, degenerate sewer of an era of ours and fully appreciate what the consequences are of allowing queers out of the closet, and thus avoid repeating our mistake.”

http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/facebook-rejects-ad-promoting-lesbianism/

Other than Igor’s comment above, I sincerely appreciate all the rational comments. I learned a lot. Even four years later this is an important topic and very enlightening comments. Warren you really were ahead of your time.

Do you have even a shred of evidence to substantiate this claim? I don’t think you do. In fact, all the research I’ve seen indicates that these destructive behaviors are just as prevalent, if not more so, in places like San Francisco and Holland as in more socially conservative areas. Promiscuity and substance abuse are an indelible part of the homosexual counterculture, which exalts hedonistic values, and narcissism is the very definition of homosexuality — you wouldn’t be attracted to members of your own sex if you weren’t on some level sexually and aesthetically attracted to your own body.

Statements like yours are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what homosexuality actually is, a misunderstanding which is encouraged by the homosexual lobby to suit its own socio-political ends. Homosexuality is not a race; it’s a sexual preference, a counterculture, a lifestyle, an identity.

And even if what you were saying were true, so what? Why should society have to change its mores — which have worked for the majority of people up until now — in order to accomodate a group which makes up probably less than 4 per cent of the population (and that’s assuming all homosexuals support the homosexual movement, which I don’t take for granted)?

Being in a minority has its disadvantages; that can’t be helped. Homosexuals would be better off accepting it and making the best of it (as they always have) rather than blaming their problems and self-destrutive behavior on the majority. There have been homosexuals who rose to the top of their fields and made significant contributions to Western civilization even though they lived in times in which religion was taken much more seriously than it is today, in which there was no “gay rights” movement, and in which they had no choice but to remain in the closet; am I expected to believe that now, in what may be the moment of greatest tolerance for homosexuality that the world has ever seen, homosexuals are getting high and can’t control their libidos because the majority doesn’t want to recognize their alleged “right” to get married? Don’t insult my intelligence.

Personally, I’m inclined to see homosexuality as the symptom of a self-destructive personality rather than its cause. If I were a professional research psychologist, I would be directing my efforts there.

NickC wrote: “When it comes to the specific issue of homosexuality, however, the churches seem determined to cling to traditional morality for no reason other than tradition.”

The raison d’etre of the Church is to uphold tradition, including the traditional nuclear family. Why should it stop “clinging” to traditional morality? It wouldn’t be the Church anymore if it no longer upheld traditional morality.

Your screed betrays a profound disrespect of Christianity and its followers. In your mind, Christianity and traditional morality are just obstacles to the homosexual movement’s objective of a radical transformation of society, silly putty that can be stretched and molded to suit their agenda. You seem to have no comprehension that Christianity reflects the values of a large community of people, and that by attacking Christianity, the homosexual lobby is in effect trying to harm that community. Asking Christians to accept homosexual marriage, for example, is not a trifling matter; it is asking them to fundamentally change the way they view the family, to alter their whole social paradigm, in addition to changing their attitudes about sexuality (if the Church were to approve of sodomy between two men, would it not be obliged, in the interest of “fairness,” to approve of sodomy between a man and a woman? And once it had done that, would it not be forced to change its view of sex as being a procreational rather than recreational activity? Once the Church steps onto this slippery moral slope, where will it end? Would the Church’s credibility not suffer as a result of such changes? There’s a whole domino effect here that I believe would destroy the Church as we know it… and that may, after all, be what the homosexual movement has really been after all along).

The homosexual movement continuously strives to dissolve the glue that holds society together and then its adherents wonder why so many oppose it? Ignoring the homosexual lobby’s public relations victories of the last few decades, particularly among the younger generations, homosexuality will never be fully accepted, and I’m strongly inclined to believe that the present climate of tolerance is going to be short-lived due to demographic shifts now taking place in Western societies.

The homosexual lobby may be able to change the way some people think, but it will never change the way everyone thinks, and I predict that the more it tries, the more it’s going to fracture our society (when Christians pull their children out of public schools in order to home school them, you can be sure that it’s to a large extent driven by their disgust at having homosexual propaganda thrust onto their children by the state; this is the type of fragmentation that we will be seeing more of as homosexuals and other special interest groups continue to pursue their agendas). The goal of transforming society into one in which homosexuality isn’t stigmatized is a pipe dream, and if homosexuals don’t quit while they’re ahead, I predict it’s going to backfire on them and they are going to experience a very painful backlash.

NickC wrote: “There is no inherent reason that a homosexual could not live by all of the other religious values of sexual chastitity outside of a monogamous, married relationship–IF churches were willing to recognize homosexual orientation and homosexual relationships as normal.”

Why aren’t homosexuals founding their own churches instead of trying to corrupt the established ones? This meddling, tail-wagging-the-dog mentality is one of the aspects that irritates me the most about the homosexual movement. No one is preventing homosexuals — within reason — from living their lives the way they want to. Why are homosexuals so intent on telling others how to live their lives and conduct their affairs? It’s no longer a case of “live and let live”; it’s become a matter of homosexuals telling others how to live. Homosexuals are trying to fundamentally alter society in ways that please them with absolutely no consideration of the long-term consequences of those changes upon society or of the feelings of the heterosexual majority.

Have homosexual “activists” ever stopped to consider that marriage isn’t so much a “right” as it is a responsibility? That the institution of marriage exists primarily for the sake of having, protecting, and raising children and was never really about romantic love? When homosexuals lobby for the “right” to adopt children, do they ever stop to consider that a lot of children might not want to be raised by homosexual parents? Do lesbians ever stop and think about how psychologically damaging it might be for a boy to be raised without a real father, or about the existential confusion a child might suffer from knowing it was conceived out of turkey baster? I don’t think they do. All militant homosexuals care about is their own perceived interests. They don’t care what harm they do to others or to society as a whole in pursuing those interests. They have no long-term vision for the future, other than some rainbow-striped pipe dream about a utopia based on sexual anarchy.

Timothy Kincaid wrote: “I believe that if Christians in this country as a whole came to believe that sexual orientation is not something that can be prevented or reversed, the overwhelming response would be to find a way to apply the same rules of conduct to gay individuals that it applies to straights. It would seem only ‘fair’.”

Talking strategy, uh? Why should Christians come to believe something that isn’t strictly true?

You have the interesting habit of saying one thing and then – when confronted by facts – deciding you really meant something else entirely.”

Yes, Tim, being as we’re discussing a domument by FRI itself which was half about government exageration of the ‘homosexual’ footprint…

bla, bla, bla, this is over.