Opinion » Commentaries

Confession of a homophobe

Negative societal effects--both secular and religious--result from tolerance of homosexuality.



I am accused of being a homophobe because I believe one’s sexual orientation is not fixed and is changeable, that same-sex sexual practices, though legal, are morally wrong.

Understanding my First Amendment right, I join the majority that supported Proposition 8 to say that marriage is between a man and a woman, believing sexual morality is fundamental and central to the procreation of children within a heterosexual matrimony. Furthermore, there are certain negative societal effects—both secular and religious—that result from tolerance of homosexuality.

Homosexuals disparage opponents by denouncing them as homophobic, in an apparent attempt to censor criticism of the homosexual agenda. They imply those who are critical have an irrational and powerful fear of them: a phobia. But the great majority of people who oppose them have no hate, only an adamant critique of the sexual practices and rationalizations justifying the lifestyle.

There is an evident trend of support for homosexuals and their agenda. The agenda is aggressive, well-financed, and organized. Homosexuals act fraternally in a campaign emphasizing their civil rights as a minority based on claims of intolerance and discrimination.

Homosexuals hold key legislative positions in all spheres of government. They have created legal initiatives and propaganda pushing their story, including the legally orchestrated campaign to influence and indoctrinate the young in the schools and colleges of the nation.

The liberal print and TV media are strongly supportive of the homosexual agenda. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas approves adult same-sex consent while denying the Texas law on sodomy. This precedent may be very significant in future Supreme Court review of same-sex marriage.

Today’s crucial controversies on the matter exhaust and discourage average citizens: same-sex marriage; don’t ask, don’t tell; the Defense of Marriage Act; and the federal trial of Proposition 8 in San Francisco, which is forecast to eventually go to the Supreme Court. 

Many people inclined to stand in opposition shy away and, in some situations, cower from the charges of homophobia and the militant drum beat of the homosexual campaigns in the secular and religious domains. Opposition in a larger context appears to be impractical and could become illegal. The exception will remain with certain religions that staunchly maintain their traditional resolves.

Recognizing this, it is highly probable that there will be a societal acceptance and legal recognition of homosexuality. But, here is the problem as far as acceptance is concerned: First, if societal acceptance and legal recognition are established, the charges of homophobia made against those who oppose homosexuality will become mute. But will this mean the future charges of homophobia will truly end? What are the factors that dictate the tactic of accusing people of homophobia will continue?

This frames the issue: With homosexuality being legally recognized and accepted by society, what excuse would a heterosexual have in not indulging in same-sex sexual excursions? None, because the approval substantially provides an endorsement of same-sex sexual activities, whether gay, lesbian, or bisexual! Coincidently, this endorsement includes promiscuous sex as celebrated in Gay Pride events, where homosexuals convincingly demonstrate their philosophy that in sexual matters anything goes.

 So, why shouldn’t heterosexuals get on board? And, if they don’t—well, that appears to beg the following questions. Will people in the secular and religious domains, who were opposed, who now accept the homosexual agenda in the name of tolerance, continue to be called homophobes if they actually do not embrace and deny participating in same-sex sexual practices—the same-sex sexual behaviors of gays, lesbians and bisexuals?

Should homosexuals relent from their militancy and be satisfied, assuming they succeed? Or will they insist heterosexuals acknowledge and accept and do what they do sexually? Will a denial to do what they do sexually constitute continued charges of homophobia?

Asked still another way, at the risk of belaboring the point: With the societal and legal acceptance of homosexuality, would a refusal to participate in homosexuals acts (sodomy) be considered a homophobic bias and an act of intolerance?

So what does all of this mean? If the homosexual agenda is successful and becomes reality, what are the consequences for heterosexuals and, especially, young people? It is reasonable to conclude that a heterosexual’s refusal to not actually indulge in same-sex sexual behavior would be the basis of being accused, again, of homophobia. Criticism by heterosexuals may even become illegal!

But what about those religious folks who adhere to the Bible’s teachings that condemn same-sex sexual relations? Religious objections may sustain a given religion’s position against homosexual practices, but it ends there. They will have limited power to discourage same-sex sexual activities, especially in the secular domain of our schools. And this leads to the question, what about the kids?

The major implication for many young people is they will increasingly experiment with same-sex sex as a consequence. That is where a certain monstrous social issue resides—for once the moral divide is crossed, there may not be a turning back—especially when turning back may be called a manifestation of homophobia. Young people, our future generations of citizens and leaders, will be cast on the altar of sexual permissiveness, where not just anything goes, everything goes. ∆

Otis Page resides in Arroyo Grande. Send comments via the editor at [email protected].


Add a comment