A Fading Conviction
Homosexuality: The Threat to the Family and the Attack on Marriage
From the website of the Family Research Council.
Peter Sprigg delivered these remarks on March 29, 2004, at the World Congress of Families III in Mexico City, Mexico.
[excerpt -- see link for full context]
...in order to defend what we are for--the family--we often must define what we are against. We are against anything that threatens the traditional family or undermines that ideal. That means that we are against parents snuffing out the lives of their own unborn children through abortion. It means that we are against drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, and child abuse. It means that we are against illegitimacy, abandonment, and divorce. And it means that we are against any sexual behavior that would undermine the uniqueness of the faithful, lifelong marriage bond between a husband and wife. We are against premarital sex, pornography, adultery, and prostitution. And yes, we are also against the practice of homosexuality.
Now, you may ask, if we are for something so simple and profound as family, and against so many things that threaten it, why is it that one of these threats--homosexuality--gets so much attention? It's not because homosexuality is a greater sin than any other. It's not because we want to deprive homosexuals of their fundamental human rights. It's not because we are afraid to be near homosexuals, and it's not because we hate homosexuals. On the contrary, I desire the very best for them. And desiring the best for someone, and acting to bring that about, is the essence of love. However, I do not believe that engaging in behavior that is unnatural, immoral, and dangerous both to public health and to their own health is the best thing for people with same-sex attractions.
And so, as one part of our broad-based efforts to support the traditional family, we oppose what is sometimes called "the gay agenda." It is an agenda that demands the full acceptance of the practice of homosexuality--morally, socially, legally, religiously, politically, and financially. Indeed, it calls for not only acceptance, but affirmation and celebration of this behavior as normal. It even demands that homosexuality be seen as desirable for those who desire it. This is "the gay agenda"--and we are against it.
This agenda has already made remarkable progress. Homosexual activists knew that their behavior would never be accepted as "normal" if doctors considered it a form of mental illness. Therefore, in 1973 they forced a resolution through the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It is important for everyone to realize that the 1973 decision was not the result of new clinical research or scientific evidence. It was, rather, a political decision made in response to a vicious campaign of harassment and intimidation by homosexual activists.
Indeed, studies actually continue to show that homosexuals experience high rates of mental illness. For example, the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study, reported in the Archives of General Psychiatry in 2001, found that "people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders." The fact that this is true even in one of the most "gay-friendly" nations on earth--indeed, the first nation to grant same-sex civil marriage--undermines any argument that such mental illnesses are merely a reaction to society's alleged "discrimination."
A second element in the agenda is to persuade people that those who engage in homosexual behavior are "born that way." If people are "born gay," it makes it more difficult to argue that a homosexual orientation is abnormal, or that homosexual behavior is immoral. It is astonishing how pervasive this concept has become--especially in light of the fact that there is no convincing scientific evidence that homo-sexuality is determined by either genetics or biology. Only a tiny handful of studies have ever been put forward to make such a claim. Unfortunately, the scientific critiques that discredited those studies have never quite caught up to the original media hype.
A third element of the homosexual agenda is to get "sexual orientation" added to the categories of protection under anti-discrimination codes in private organizations and under civil rights laws in the public sector. In fact, homosexuals should and already do have all of the same rights under the law as any other citizen, such as the right to vote, the right of free speech, and the right to trial by jury. Those rights are truly "civil" or political in nature, and the exercise of them does nothing to infringe on anyone else's freedom.
However, adding "sexual orientation" to civil rights laws governing private employment and housing does infringe on the rights of others--namely, the normal right of employers and landlords to make economic decisions based on their own best judgment. Governments normally interfere with such economic freedom only when the alleged "discrimination" is based on characteristics that are inborn, involuntary, immutable, and innocuous, such as race. None of those criteria apply to homosexual behavior. Nevertheless, a family-owned bed-and-breakfast in the Canadian province of Prince Edward Island went out of business because its owners refused to compromise their principles by allowing a homosexual couple to share a bed in the family's own home. In Hungary, a Christian seminary was forced to reinstate a seminary student who had been expelled as a homosexual. When "homosexual rights" are imposed, other rights of longer standing, such as religious liberty, are trampled upon.
A fourth element of the agenda is to win the enactment of "hate crime" laws that provide severe punishment of crimes motivated by "bias" against homosexuals. All of us in the pro-family movement are opposed to violent crimes, against homosexuals or anyone else. Hate crime laws, though, set a dangerous precedent of punishing people specifically for their opinions. In addition, under some such laws a person can be punished simply for intimidation--which could include just verbally expressing disapproval of homosexuality. One example comes from England, where 69-year-old Harry Hammond held a sign that said, "Stop immorality. Stop homosexuality. Stop lesbianism." Hecklers threw mud and water at him and knocked him to the ground--yet police arrested this old man, rather than his assailants, for a "breach of public order."
A fifth element of the homosexual agenda is the effort to get homosexual propaganda included in the curriculum of public schools. The intent of these efforts is obvious--to ensure that the next generation will grow up with an unquestioning acceptance of all the myths that the homosexual activists want young people to believe.
And a final element in this agenda is to redefine marriage and family altogether. They hope to achieve this by opening the door for homosexuals to adopt children and by legalizing same-sex marriage. If denied marriage in name, they hope to win virtually all the benefits and privileges of marriage through so-called civil unions or domestic partnerships...
From the website of the Family Research Council.
Peter Sprigg delivered these remarks on March 29, 2004, at the World Congress of Families III in Mexico City, Mexico.
[excerpt -- see link for full context]
...in order to defend what we are for--the family--we often must define what we are against. We are against anything that threatens the traditional family or undermines that ideal. That means that we are against parents snuffing out the lives of their own unborn children through abortion. It means that we are against drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, and child abuse. It means that we are against illegitimacy, abandonment, and divorce. And it means that we are against any sexual behavior that would undermine the uniqueness of the faithful, lifelong marriage bond between a husband and wife. We are against premarital sex, pornography, adultery, and prostitution. And yes, we are also against the practice of homosexuality.
Now, you may ask, if we are for something so simple and profound as family, and against so many things that threaten it, why is it that one of these threats--homosexuality--gets so much attention? It's not because homosexuality is a greater sin than any other. It's not because we want to deprive homosexuals of their fundamental human rights. It's not because we are afraid to be near homosexuals, and it's not because we hate homosexuals. On the contrary, I desire the very best for them. And desiring the best for someone, and acting to bring that about, is the essence of love. However, I do not believe that engaging in behavior that is unnatural, immoral, and dangerous both to public health and to their own health is the best thing for people with same-sex attractions.
And so, as one part of our broad-based efforts to support the traditional family, we oppose what is sometimes called "the gay agenda." It is an agenda that demands the full acceptance of the practice of homosexuality--morally, socially, legally, religiously, politically, and financially. Indeed, it calls for not only acceptance, but affirmation and celebration of this behavior as normal. It even demands that homosexuality be seen as desirable for those who desire it. This is "the gay agenda"--and we are against it.
This agenda has already made remarkable progress. Homosexual activists knew that their behavior would never be accepted as "normal" if doctors considered it a form of mental illness. Therefore, in 1973 they forced a resolution through the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It is important for everyone to realize that the 1973 decision was not the result of new clinical research or scientific evidence. It was, rather, a political decision made in response to a vicious campaign of harassment and intimidation by homosexual activists.
Indeed, studies actually continue to show that homosexuals experience high rates of mental illness. For example, the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study, reported in the Archives of General Psychiatry in 2001, found that "people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders." The fact that this is true even in one of the most "gay-friendly" nations on earth--indeed, the first nation to grant same-sex civil marriage--undermines any argument that such mental illnesses are merely a reaction to society's alleged "discrimination."
A second element in the agenda is to persuade people that those who engage in homosexual behavior are "born that way." If people are "born gay," it makes it more difficult to argue that a homosexual orientation is abnormal, or that homosexual behavior is immoral. It is astonishing how pervasive this concept has become--especially in light of the fact that there is no convincing scientific evidence that homo-sexuality is determined by either genetics or biology. Only a tiny handful of studies have ever been put forward to make such a claim. Unfortunately, the scientific critiques that discredited those studies have never quite caught up to the original media hype.
A third element of the homosexual agenda is to get "sexual orientation" added to the categories of protection under anti-discrimination codes in private organizations and under civil rights laws in the public sector. In fact, homosexuals should and already do have all of the same rights under the law as any other citizen, such as the right to vote, the right of free speech, and the right to trial by jury. Those rights are truly "civil" or political in nature, and the exercise of them does nothing to infringe on anyone else's freedom.
However, adding "sexual orientation" to civil rights laws governing private employment and housing does infringe on the rights of others--namely, the normal right of employers and landlords to make economic decisions based on their own best judgment. Governments normally interfere with such economic freedom only when the alleged "discrimination" is based on characteristics that are inborn, involuntary, immutable, and innocuous, such as race. None of those criteria apply to homosexual behavior. Nevertheless, a family-owned bed-and-breakfast in the Canadian province of Prince Edward Island went out of business because its owners refused to compromise their principles by allowing a homosexual couple to share a bed in the family's own home. In Hungary, a Christian seminary was forced to reinstate a seminary student who had been expelled as a homosexual. When "homosexual rights" are imposed, other rights of longer standing, such as religious liberty, are trampled upon.
A fourth element of the agenda is to win the enactment of "hate crime" laws that provide severe punishment of crimes motivated by "bias" against homosexuals. All of us in the pro-family movement are opposed to violent crimes, against homosexuals or anyone else. Hate crime laws, though, set a dangerous precedent of punishing people specifically for their opinions. In addition, under some such laws a person can be punished simply for intimidation--which could include just verbally expressing disapproval of homosexuality. One example comes from England, where 69-year-old Harry Hammond held a sign that said, "Stop immorality. Stop homosexuality. Stop lesbianism." Hecklers threw mud and water at him and knocked him to the ground--yet police arrested this old man, rather than his assailants, for a "breach of public order."
A fifth element of the homosexual agenda is the effort to get homosexual propaganda included in the curriculum of public schools. The intent of these efforts is obvious--to ensure that the next generation will grow up with an unquestioning acceptance of all the myths that the homosexual activists want young people to believe.
And a final element in this agenda is to redefine marriage and family altogether. They hope to achieve this by opening the door for homosexuals to adopt children and by legalizing same-sex marriage. If denied marriage in name, they hope to win virtually all the benefits and privileges of marriage through so-called civil unions or domestic partnerships...