Relax, and take a deep breath. I am not planning a crime spree. I don’t even intend to steal a nickel from anyone. Yet I believe I’m headed for handcuffs and a future incarceration, and here’s why.
Every generation is motivated primarily by something. The men and women we sometimes refer to as the greatest generation were motivated by a desire to destroy the militaristic tyrany of Germany and Japan. I don’t mean that everyone in that generation woke up every morning asking themselves, “What can I do to the Germans and the Japs today?” Of course, they didn’t. But when they were called on to face those enemies, they did so in industries and personal sacrifice at home, and they did so on the beaches of Normandy and throughout the South Pacific. It may not have been what they lived for every moment, and it certainly wasn’t pleasant, but millions of young men risked their lives for the goal anyway. It goes without saying that baby boomers and their descendants, by and large, have never shared the goals of the greatest generation.
What motivates this generation? It’s not peace, or civil rights, or an end to global warming. Those things would be nice, but this generation’s goal is more personal. More than anything else, this generation’s goal is sexual freedom. I don’t mean by that that everyone is sleeping with everyone. Only a hedonistic minority of us want to do that. Bob Dylan said, “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” The winds of change have indeed been blowing in the post-World War II era, and the biggest changes in society have come from the “get the government out of my bedroom” crowd. Even Paul Harvey supports abortion, because he says he doesn’t want doctors and mothers-to-be who don’t want their babies punished.
The most powerful political lobbies in the United States today are the pro-abortion lobby and the homosexual lobby. No industry, not the oil companies, the computer industry, airlines, the auto industry, or anyone else has anything comparable. Nothing is so fiercely fought for these days as sexual freedom, or perhaps I should say, sex without consequences. Nothing has driven the political machinery for change as much as the desire for the availability for contraceptives, even given to minors without the knowledge or consent of their parents, no fault divorce, abortion, and the distribution of hard and soft pornography everywhere, including on the public air waves. I was on a public bus the other day, and the bus driver had the radio tuned to someone singing, “Do you think I’m a nasty girl?” Not so long ago, being a nasty girl in public would have been very uncool, and it would have been considered unprofessional to listen to music like that on the job, even if one had a private collection of erotic music. But these days, our celebritys have made being nasty girls and boys in public so commonplace that it’s just plain boring.
No matter where the reader may be in the political spectrum, if I say the three words, “women’s reproductive health”, the reader will certainly think of Planned Parenthood, NARAL, or some other pro-abortion group. The primary mission of those groups is parenthood prevention, and they speak about women’s reproductive health as if having a child were similar to bubonic plague in the Middle Ages. This is so true that last week’s Supreme Court decision opposing partial birth abortion was condemned by the American Council of Obstretricians and Gynecologists. One might instinctively suppose that a group of obstetricians would be jubilant about the possibility of a few more children they could care for, but birth prevention is more important to them than childbirth. To understand how odd this is, one has to picture a group of dairymen marching on Washington to protest the existence of too many cattle.
There is a drive for tolerance of all sexual practices and alternate family structures, and acceptance which is stridently demanded for homosexuality. Though it’s my least favorite subject in the world, and I would hope to never write about it again, I want to declare my opposition to the acceptance of homosexuality, and it is that opposition which I believe will eventually lead to a knock on my door, a ride in the back of a cruiser, the legal procedures of the coming era, and what convicts call hard time.
Before I explained why I really believe this is a possibility and why I’m determined to carry my cross, wherever it leads, I want to say in passing that I am not at all supportive of the Westboro Baptist church, whose members show up at funerals to celebrate the deaths of our servicemen and who wanted to be at the funerals of the Virginia Tech victims, celebrating the massacre, because our society is too tolerant of homosexuality. Applauding the deaths of our soldiers and the murder of our students, for any reason, is disgusting and shameful.
My opposition to homosexuality did not originate in the Bible, nor was it the result of a personal experience. It began in a discussion I had with a liberal friend, who told me early in 1971 that the gay rights movement would be the next great civil rights struggle. She endorsed the notion of public acceptance of homosexuality, gay marriage, etc., on the grounds of the supposed genetic cause for homosexuality. I countered by saying that society has never opposed homosexual thoughts or temptation, but only homosexual behavior. If homosexual behavior is genetically preprogrammed into us, I argued that bank robbery and even child molestation might be too. I didn’t and still don’t believe homosexuality has anything to do with genetics. But even if it does, I argued that it’s necessary for society to ban certain behavior and to look on some lifestyles more favorably than others.
I added that homosexuality is both physically and emotionally unnatural, and unlike heterosexuality, which produces the next generation and tends to create stable families, or at least the possibility for them, homosexuality doesn’t benefit society at all, and therefore, it ought to be discouraged. Note that I said homosexuality does not benefit society; I did not say homosexuals don’t benefit society. I want to be clear here that I am speaking about specific behavior, not about individuals. I will continue to listen to the “Nutcracker Suite” and other music by Tchaikovsky, giving him full credit for the music and without worrying he was gay.
Of course, I understand that it’s possible for a gay person to try to be a conscientious parent, yet I remain convinced that the best situation for children is to be raised by a mother and a father who are committed to each other and to the individual child. There are always exceptional circumstances, in which the custody of a child has to be given to a single parent, grandparents, or even to the state in some bleak circumstances. But awarding children to gay couples or gay individuals wouldn’t be high on my list of the best alternatives.
I had most of this discussion with someone when I was seventeen, without ever reading a word of scripture or hearing a sermon about it. I don’t mean to be crude, but there is something inately obvious about the notion that penises are meant for vaginas, and vice versa. Of course, I know that both men and women can give orgasms to members of their own gender, but it is at best an inferior form of sex. Anyone with a bit of common sense understands that men are made for women and women are made for men.
Furthermore, the real reason people should prefer heterosexual relationships to homosexual ones has nothing to do with anyone’s genitals. Men and women need each other, primarily because of their differing and complimentary emotional makeups. I’ve had a few good male friends. But generally speaking, the companionship of women is superior, precisely because women are different than men. If God had brought Adam another man instead of a woman, Adam would have probably said, “Lord, I might go fishing with him, but he’s too much like me. Please try again.” Rosie O’Donnell may not understand the bond between men and women, but that’s because she hangs upside down and calls it therapy. It’s no wonder that everything she says is upside down, backwards, dishonest and vulgar.
We’ve done everything we could for the past two generations to pretend that the natural order of things is for men and women to be at war with each other. How can we fail to realize that men and women are normally very fond of each other, except when we try consciously to prevent it? Back before there was a co-ed military, men from all nations went to war to protect their women and their children, not because they really wanted the rush of power they might get from killing other men. In purely American terms, the men on the beaches of Normandy and the men who marched up the hill at Iwo Jima were thinking a lot more about Rosie the riveter back home than Roosevelt’s vision for the post-war world. Furthermore, I believe that Moslems will never successfully dominate the world, because real men don’t want women to hide their faces, and they don’t want women to be treated like cattle and horses.
Conversely, before feminists began convincing women to put their own interests ahead of their husbands, most women didn’t feel oppressed by men. Sometimes women needed greater opportunities than they had, but most women were content to fulfill different roles than the men in their lives because they were partners. A lot of the reason for the push toward homosexuality is that Hollywood, courts, lawyers and feminists have been trying really hard to create a society where men and women are perpetually angry with each other. That’s not at all normal. It’s contrary to what most of us really want. The natural order of things is for men and women to be really fond of each other. Anything contrary to that is created by evil people with a self-serving agenda.
In August 1973, approximately two and a half years after I became aware of the pro-gay politics which are driving public discourse today, and after a long period of reading and studying, I gave my life to Jesus Christ, and I am convinced of the truth of scripture, including its numerous passages in both the Old and New Testaments which forbid homosexuality. I believe that homosexuality is a sin, not just an alternate lifestyle. It is not a greater sin than heterosexual sex outside of marriage, which many of us have been guilty of at some point in our lives. In fact, there wouldn’t be a gay agenda or any gay pride parades if heterosexuals, in large numbers, had rejected the sexual revolution, which they should have. It’s not hard for me to understand why gays would want to change the playing field in a world which has so casually accepted heterosexual shacking up and hooking up for the past generation.
But here’s what I don’t get. In the worst days of racial segregation, no one could have been prosecuted for just being a segregationist. However, the law was supposed to protect blacks from violence. Perhaps it didn’t always do so, but it was supposed to. Going to an all-white church was never a crime, but firebombing a black church and murdering four girls who were there was always a crime. Segregation lost its foothold in this country because of violence, not really because segregation was a bad idea.
However, there are various hate crimes bills making their way through Congress which will criminalize those of us who continue to say homosexuality is a sin. Those bills will probably be vetoed by President Bush, unless they’re tied to funding for the military, which is quite possible. But in the current political climate, it’s very likely that the next president, Republican or Democrat, will sign legislation which will use a combination of fines and jail time to prevent people from speaking out against the agenda of the homosexual lobby. I believe it will soon be a federal crime to say anything evil about homosexuality from the pulpit or in any public forum, like this one. Those who err in this regard will face the possibility of time in federal prison. The new hate crimes frontier doesn’t depend on advocating violence, or the theft or destruction of personal property. A hate crime will soon be anything which violates society’s will for tolerance of protected groups, most notably homosexuals and abortionists. I know this is a dark and apocalyptic view of the near future, but please take note of the public firestorms which are currently being generated today about anyone who dares to make a politically incorrect comment.
It won’t be necessary for the government to fill the jails with anti-gay pastors and other Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Moslems who disapprove of homosexuality. It will only be necessary to target enough people selectively in order to intimidate the rest of the population. So even though I don’t hate anyone, I cheerfully acknowledge that I have committed what the gay lobby calls hate crimes, and I intend to continue to do so. I am here and now volunteering for the punishment they prescribe, and they’ll find me if I am among the chosen few they decide to persecute and prosecute. I have no fondness for being separated from my family, being fined or losing my career, being jailed or martyrdom. However, I do have some fondness for the great commission, in which Jesus asked his followers to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe all I have commanded you.” The word all includes what scripture has to say about sexual sin and this generation’s desire for sexual freedom, or sex without consequences. I was aware when I became a Christian in 1973 that I would be in an escalating conflict with the world around me. I’m not surprised we are heading toward the criminalization of Christianity, I’m only surprised the PC police aren’t here yet. As long as Jesus doesn’t regret shedding his blood for the sins of all mankind, I promise not to regret being one of his disciples.
