WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!
The Gay Agenda vs. Family Values
By J. Matt Barber
We were in elementary school - morning recess by the jungle gym.
My buddy Kyle presided over the ceremony. I was the groom and
Karen Smith was the blushing bride. The mock wedding lasted about
three minutes. The mock marriage lasted about half-a-day.
Oh, I was faithful - until Christina McCarroll caught my wandering eye
during Math class. Of course we weren't really married - we were
fourth graders - but we sure had fun pretending.
Flash forward about twenty-five years - San Francisco, CA - An activist
Mayor, Gavin Newsom, taunts the State's voters and defies both the rule
of law and the sanctity of marriage as he cons thousands of "same-sex
couples," including the corpulent Queen of crass herself, Rosie
O'Donnell, into taking part in a number of mock weddings held in San
Francisco's City Hall. Of course they weren't really married -
but they sure seemed to have fun pretending.
Webster defines marriage as: "The legal union of a man and a woman
for life, as husband and wife" - a definition consistent with
humanity's own since the very beginning of recorded time.
Marriage between one man and one woman, and the nuclear family have
forever been cornerstones of civilized society. Regrettably,
there are at present, many within the militant homosexual lobby who
wish to take a sledge hammer to those cornerstones - many who hope to
undermine both the historical and contemporary reality of marriage and
family - many who, through judicial fiat, aim to circumvent the
Constitution, the legislative process, and the overwhelming will of the
people in an effort to redefine marriage. Accordingly, the unsolicited,
oxymoronic and spurious expression "same-sex marriage" has been forced
into popular lexicon.
As more and more Americans begin to unite against the radical concept
of "same-sex marriage" we learn that our northerly Canadian neighbors
are once again on the cutting edge of societal de-evolution. The
Canadian Parliament is considering passage of legislation, which would
legalize "same-sex marriage" nation-wide [and has now done so].
To Canada, we offer this sincere admonition: If you pass it, they
will come - that is, along with all the Blue-State fringe lefties
despondent over our recent Presidential election, expect to see droves
of American "same-sex couples" crossing the border in search of their
own little slice of "progressive" utopia. But we digress.
As the "same-sex marriage" battle wages on within the larger culture
war here in our own Country, it's important to accurately define the
terms. Aside from the obvious, what is homosexuality? Is it a
status - a state of being - a word that typifies one's membership in a
suspect, minority class no different than Black or Female? Let's
consider. To be Black or Female, one need only be Black or
Female. Membership in either class is contingent upon
nothing. It's a state of being, which represents entirely neutral
qualities (i.e., skin color and/or gender). On the other hand,
homosexuality is contingent upon something: behavior - a person's
actions - choices made - their "sexual preference." It's the end
result of choosing to define one's identity based upon with whom, and
how one elects to have sex.
There are those who hold to the theory that people who engage in
homosexual behavior are "born that way" - that they're merely acting
upon intrinsic characteristics of their own, unique genetic
make-up. They desperately cling to, and repeatedly cite various
"studies" which seem to support the "born that way" theory. They
entirely disregard the fact that to date, there has been no
credible, empirical evidence to support the theory, nor has the
"respectable" scientific community embraced even one study. In
fact, the vast majority of studies have been debunked outright, and
the associated "scientists" have been exposed as homosexual activists
attempting to further an extremist agenda. Additionally, the
theory's proponents have been wholly unable to reconcile its central
theme with the so-called "bi-sexual" condition, which on its face would
seem to eliminate any illusion of merit.
By the same token, there's a growing movement among adulterous
heterosexual men with estranged wives, who likewise embrace the theory
that they were "born that way" - that their genetic makeup precludes
the monogamy option, and requires that they have multiple sex partners.
At the risk of being arrested, charged with a "hate-crime" and dragged
away to a "progressive" re-education camp, I'll put aside for a moment
the flawed, emotion based, irrational silliness that is "Political
Correctness" (in the event I've been overly PC thus far). Rather
than approaching our analysis of homosexual behavior from the
traditional, liberal, PC perspective, let's look at it from the rarely
visited "Biologically Correct" (BC) vantage point. For one to
believe that homosexual behavior, the act of sodomy in particular,
follows the biological order of things, one must ignore the fact that
sodomy violates natural law - you know, wrong plumbing, square
hole/round peg. The whole thing really is a testament to man's
creativity. Give us something good, and we'll bend over backwards
to twist it into something else.
Without delving into the overly descriptive mechanics, suffice it to
say that, scientifically speaking, the sexual act was designed for
procreation - nothing more, nothing less. I know, not very romantic,
but we're talking science here. Further, the design behind the
human digestive system was solely and entirely intended for digestion,
not for makeshift sexual activity - there's not a sex organ in the
mix. The notion that the act of sodomy is a natural, biological
event simply does not square with biological reality. It may be
PC but it sure ain't BC.
Still, perhaps the most troubling aspect of the homosexual lifestyle in
general, is its destructive nature. Destructive not only in terms of
the emotional harm it may cause, but destructive also in terms of the
health related issues that will almost certainly arise as its
You may have noticed that you're barraged on a daily basis by the
left's self-righteous indignation, as they wax eloquent about the harm
caused by tobacco, pollution, drugs, alcohol - fatty foods - name your
poison. Countless lawsuits have been filed under the pretext of
recovering damages to cover health care costs relative to these vices.
And they are vices, no doubt. But, these vices are fair game;
they don't fall within a PC protected class. Consider this:
When was the last time you heard about the dreadful and preventable
health related pitfalls, which stem from the homosexual
lifestyle? You don't - you won't - you can't - you shan't - Don'
t confuse the left with the facts. That's "insensitive!"
As a result of the concerted effort by liberals to mask the devastating
effects of the gay lifestyle, many people are shocked to learn that the
average life expectancy of a homosexual male is only about 45 years
old - 30 years younger than that of a heterosexual male.
One study determined that homosexual males have from between 20 to 106
sexual partners per year. It's no wonder that homosexual men
account for over 50% of all hepatitis cases, and still account for over
50% of all AIDS cases despite the fact that they only make up 1 - 3% of
the population. Homosexual men and women share a markedly increased
risk of contracting nearly all forms of STD. The men frequently
suffer from other sodomy related injuries, and are far more likely to
be murdered (likely by another homosexual) than their heterosexual
counterparts; this, due to the typically raucous and oft anonymous
nature of the gay lifestyle.
All of these things considered, and given that the cost to treat an
AIDS patient averages nearly $350,000, the homosexual lifestyle
shares responsibility, by no small measure, for this Country's
skyrocketing health care costs.
Fortunately, for those who wish to escape the homosexual lifestyle,
there is support. A number of homosexual recovery organizations
such as Exodus International and NARTH have helped thousands of people
who have been addicted to homosexual behaviors, successfully leave the
lifestyle. Many have gone on to have happy and fulfilled
heterosexual marriages, to include the greatest of all blessings.
But the militants don't want to hear it. In fact, they don't want
you to hear it, and have proposed legislation to ban such recovery
organizations claiming that any mention of homosexual recovery is
"hate-speech." But it's predictable - any time anyone dare expose
the aforementioned truths about the homosexual lifestyle, or criticize
the homosexual lobby for its radical anti-marriage, anti-family agenda,
there's an enormous backlash. It's an age-old tactic
geared toward silencing one's critics. It consists primarily of
the ad hominem attack - Homophobe! Hate-Monger! Bigot! Gay Basher!
Neanderthal! - And on and on it goes. It grows old. It wears
thin, but it should be taken with a grain of salt.
Many homosexuals choose not to recognize that the majority of their
detractors really do care for them as individuals, hold no animus
toward them, and would not presume to dictate what sexual anomalies
they entertain behind closed doors, whether self-destructive or
not. However, when militant homosexual activists attempt to quell
all criticism of their behavior, force society to accept that behavior,
and further attempt to alter the fabric of society by changing it to
correspond with their own morally relative, androgynous notion of
marriage, then those same activists shouldn't be at all surprised to
discover that they've angered those who value the sanctity of marriage
- they shouldn't be taken aback to find that they have one h*ll of
fight on their hands - to expect anything less would be queer indeed.
Copyright © 2004 by J. Matt Barber (Used with
J. Matt Barber is a non-practicing attorney, an undefeated heavyweight
professional boxer (Matt "Bam Bam" Barber), and a jazz drummer in
Chicago, IL. In addition to his Law Degree, Barber holds a Master
of Arts in Public Policy from Regent University. Matt is a
Contributing Editor for TheConservativeVoice.com, and a Contributor to
the Washington Times "Insight Magazine," as well as a number of other
top conservative publications.
E-mail your comments to Matt, at firstname.lastname@example.org