Tag archives: Homosexual Agenda

Why Bar Homosexual Scouts, as Well as Scoutmasters?

by Peter Sprigg

February 1, 2013

In the debates over the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) policy against homosexuality—debates recently rekindled by reports that the BSA may lift that policy nationally—most of the focus has been on the impact (or asserted lack of impact) from having openly homosexual adults serve as Scoutmasters or other leaders or volunteers.

The current policy barring adult homosexual leaders and volunteers reflects three levels of concern:

1) Many parents, regardless of their specific opinions, wish to reserve to themselves the right to choose the timing and circumstances under which they will introduce and discuss with their children sensitive and controversial issues of sexuality, sexual orientation, and sexual ethics. Having leaders who are open about their homosexuality may run the risk of preempting that parental prerogative.

2) Many parents hold a traditional view of sexual ethics, including a conviction that sexual conduct between persons of the same sex is morally wrong. This view is still held by a majority of all Americans, so it is likely that it is held by an even larger majority of parents with sons in the Boy Scouts. Having openly homosexual leaders as role models in the Boy Scouts would send a message that homosexual conduct is morally acceptable, thus contradicting their own convictions and their right as parents to transmit those beliefs to their children.

3) Finally, the policy against homosexual leaders is consistent with efforts to reduce the risk of Boy Scouts becoming victims of child sexual abuse. (Yes, child sexual abuse has been a problem in the Boy Scouts even with the policy on homosexuality in place. And yes, homosexual activists vehemently reject the evidence which suggests that homosexual men—most of whom are not child molesters, and who do not commit most acts of child sexual abuse—are nevertheless, relative to their numbers, more likely to engage in such actions than are heterosexual men. Even without resolving that dispute, however, the logic of this concern is simple: Most parents would not want their daughters to go on overnight camping trips with adult men who are sexually attracted to females. By the same token, they would not want their sons to go on overnight camping trips with adult men who are sexually attracted to males.)

The Boy Scout policy against homosexuality does not just apply to adult leaders, however. It also bars boys who engage in homosexual conduct or publicly self-identify as homosexual from being Scouts. (Note that it would be impossible to bar a Scout merely because they experience same-sex attractions, unless they either proclaimed and/or acted on those attractions.) Some may wonder—why should this policy be imposed on the boys, as well as their adult leaders?

I recently came across a clear illustration of the answer. I was a guest on a radio program called AirTalk which was broadcast on KPCC, a Southern California Public Radio station. Another guest opposed the Boy Scout policy, I defended it, and listeners could call or email their own comments.

One emailed comment was read on the air, and after the program I found it posted on the station’s website as well. Here is what that listener, identified only as “Cruz,” had to say:

I am a gay man and while in the Boy Scouts, I heard my first dirty joke, heard my first sexually explicit language, learned how to cheat to win merit badges and had my first gay experience with another boy. Our Scout leader was a straight married man who had no idea that any of this was going on in his troop! Boys need GOOD leaders to give them GOOD guidance and it should not matter if they are straight or gay.

[W]hile in the Boy Scouts, I … had my first gay experience with another boy”?

This is what most parents do not want their sons to have happen when they sign them up for the Boy Scouts.

Cruz had his experience even with the policy against homosexuality in place. But can anyone deny (with a straight face), that such incidents will become more likely if the Scouts welcome into their ranks boys who openly proclaim their homosexuality?

That is exactly why the Boy Scout policy against homosexuality must apply to the boys as well as to their leaders.

Petitioners on White House Website Call Roman Catholic Church a “Hate Group”

by Peter Sprigg

January 4, 2013

Homosexual activists have mounted a petition drive—right on the White House website—urging the Obama administration to “officially recognize the Roman Catholic Church as a hate group” for its position on homosexuality.

The Obama Administration has promised a formal response to any petitions on the site which obtain at least 25,000 signatures in thirty days.

The anti-Catholic petition says:

In his annual Christmas address to the College of Cardinals, Pope Benedict XVI, the global leader of the Roman Catholic Church, demeaned and belittled homosexual people around the world. Using hateful language and discriminatory remarks, the Pope painted a portrait in which gay people are second-class global citizens. Pope Benedict said that gay people starting families are threatening to society, and that gay parents objectify and take away the dignity of children. The Pope also implied that gay families are sub-human, as they are not dignified in the eyes of God.

Upon these remarks, the Roman Catholic Church fits the definition of a hate group as defined by both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League.

This particular petition may be somewhat of an embarrassment to the leading homosexual activist groups. Ten days into its thirty-day petition period, it had obtained only 1,713 signatures.

However, the fact that such a petition was even mounted in the first place—and then allowed to remain on the White House website—illustrates the slippery slope of applying the defamatory label of “hate” to those who disapprove of homosexual conduct and resist the pro-homosexual political agenda.

It is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a left-wing activist group, which has pushed the “hate group” label for organizations that oppose homosexuality. The SPLC “hate group” label is nothing more than the personal opinion (and convenient fundraising tool) of a private organization. Yet liberals have tried to impute to this designation a quasi-official status (describing Family Research Council, for example, as a “certified” hate group).

Now, you have some homosexual activists who have been sufficiently confused by this that they are asking the President of the United States to “officially” do something that the government has no “official” power to do. (It can be argued that the petition violates the website’s terms of service and should be removed, since they forbid “petitions that do not address the current or potential actions or policies of the federal government.”) The government punishes hate crimes, but those are defined on the basis of actual acts of violence. The fact that some people do not understand the difference between a pro-family group, a “hate group,” and a “hate crime” illustrates that our slippery slope warnings prior to the passage of the federal “hate crimes” (or “thought crimes”) bill are coming true.

In addition, the SPLC has insisted that they will not name an organization a “hate group” merely for being theologically opposed to homosexuality, but only for allegations of “lying” or “demonizing” homosexuals. But these petitioners did not get the memo, as they are clearly attacking the Catholic Church for its theological views alone. Again, it proves that any group which holds to traditional sexual ethics—no matter how reasoned and compassionate they are—is vulnerable to attacks from the homosexual movement.

Ironically, tarring individuals or groups with the “hate” label has the effect of generating hatred toward those so labeled—real hatred which, in the case of the August 15, 2012 shooting here at FRC’s Washington headquarters, led to real violence. Homosexuals have sometimes also been victims of violence, but the solution is not to promote retaliation against groups that clearly oppose violence, likeFRC and the Catholic Church.

Oh, and one more thing—the Pope’s address to the Cardinals did not actually make any explicit reference to homosexuality at all (although his defense of traditional marriage was clear). I note that the petitioners to the White House also made no mention of the Pope’s extensive citing of a French publication—by the Jewish chief rabbi of France. Do they want Judaism declared a “hate group” as well?

Here are the sections of the papal address dealing with family issues:

The great joy with which families from all over the world congregated in Milan indicates that, despite all impressions to the contrary, the family is still strong and vibrant today. But there is no denying the crisis that threatens it to its foundations – especially in the western world. It was noticeable that the Synod repeatedly emphasized the significance, for the transmission of the faith, of the family as the authentic setting in which to hand on the blueprint of human existence. This is something we learn by living it with others and suffering it with others. So it became clear that the question of the family is not just about a particular social construct, but about man himself – about what he is and what it takes to be authentically human. The challenges involved are manifold. First of all there is the question of the human capacity to make a commitment or to avoid commitment. Can one bind oneself for a lifetime? Does this correspond to man’s nature? Does it not contradict his freedom and the scope of his self-realization? Does man become himself by living for himself alone and only entering into relationships with others when he can break them off again at any time? Is lifelong commitment antithetical to freedom? Is commitment also worth suffering for? Man’s refusal to make any commitment – which is becoming increasingly widespread as a result of a false understanding of freedom and self-realization as well as the desire to escape suffering – means that man remains closed in on himself and keeps his “I” ultimately for himself, without really rising above it. Yet only in self-giving does man find himself, and only by opening himself to the other, to others, to children, to the family, only by letting himself be changed through suffering, does he discover the breadth of his humanity. When such commitment is repudiated, the key figures of human existence likewise vanish: father, mother, child – essential elements of the experience of being human are lost.

The Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, has shown in a very detailed and profoundly moving study that the attack we are currently experiencing on the true structure of the family, made up of father, mother, and child, goes much deeper. While up to now we regarded a false understanding of the nature of human freedom as one cause of the crisis of the family, it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question. He quotes the famous saying of Simone de Beauvoir: “one is not born a woman, one becomes so” (on ne naît pas femme, on le devient). These words lay the foundation for what is put forward today under the term “gender” as a new philosophy of sexuality. According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society. The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God. This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed. The words of the creation account: “male and female he created them” (Gen1:27) no longer apply. No, what applies now is this: it was not God who created them male and female – hitherto society did this, now we decide for ourselves. Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will. The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him. Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain. When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being. The defence of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears. Whoever defends God is defending man.

Homosexual Activist: Hate Group Charge Doesnt Require Hate

by Peter Sprigg

August 28, 2012

On August 15, a gunman, apparently hostile to our positions on the issue of homosexuality, shot one of my colleagues in the lobby of the Family Research Council headquarters. In the wake of this attack, even liberal journalists, such as Dana Milbank of The Washington Post and James Kirchick (named Journalist of the Year in 2007 by the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association), have called on the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and other homosexual activists to back off on their inflammatory labeling of FRC as an anti-gay hate group.

The SPLC refused. Since SPLC has doubled down on the hate group charge, FRC recently posted a brief response to some of the key charges made by SPLC in support of this defamatory label. At the end, the piece addressed what would seem to be the key issue with the following question and answer:

Does FRC “hate” homosexuals?

As a Christian organization, we have an obligation to love our neighbor—including our neighbors who experience same-sex attractions. However, we believe sexual acts between persons of the same sex are objectively harmful to those who choose to engage in them and to society at large, in addition to being forbidden by Scripture. Since the essence of love is to desire the best for a person and act to bring that about, we believe the most loving thing we can do is discourage such self-destructive conduct, rather than affirm it. We are happy to debate those who disagree with us regarding the harms of homosexual conduct, but there is no justification for anyone to impugn our motives with false labels such as “hate.”

One homosexual blogger (and regular critic of FRC) did a detailed critique of the FRC Issue Brief. To this final point, he emphasized that the SPLC hate group label is not because of our political positions, but because we support those positions by saying things which (they claim) are untrue.

After reiterating this SPLC definition of an anti-gay hate group, the writer then says the following:

Now whether or not FRC hates gays is irrelevant.

Say what?

[W]hether or not FRC hates gays is irrelevant (emphasis added) to the question of whether we are an anti-gay hate group?

I certainly appreciate the (implicit) concession that FRC may not, in fact, actually hate homosexuals at all.

If you are going to call someone a hate group, however, shouldnt it be a minimum necessary condition that they actually hate someone?

I think this statementwhether or not FRC hates gays is irrelevant—is what lawyers call an admission against interest. It shows, quite clearly (albeit perhaps accidentally), that the hate group label is not meant to be a description of reality.

That label is, instead, a weapon—merely a tool to be used against certain pro-family groups to cut us out of the public debate on crucial issues. (For example, in a webcast shortly after the SPLCs designation of FRC as a hate group in 2010, SPLC President J. Richard Cohen said, We dont believe these people should be put on TV.) The hate group label is a rhetorical weapon, in the minds of those who coined it—but a weapon nevertheless.

If FRC says things that other people find offensive, such people should say, That offends me (but those same people should also then listen to the explanation). If FRC says things other people think are untrue, such people should say, I dont believe that (but those same people should then examine the evidence). That is all part of political and social debate.

But when homosexuals and other pro-homosexual activists have been told over and over, first by the SPLC and then by others who parrot their line, that Family Research Council is an anti-gay hate group, someone may actually begin to believe that FRC hates homosexuals. And that person may hate us back. But the weapon he uses may not be words.

The debate over homosexuality and the redefinition of marriage must continue, and not be stifled.

The false hate group label must go.

Homosexual Agenda is Low PriorityEven for Democrats

by Peter Sprigg

July 13, 2010

Not only are the Obama administration and the Pelosi-led Democrats in Congress out of step with the American public in giving high priority to pushing a radical homosexual agenda, but they are out of step with their own Democratic base. Thats the message of a recent, admittedly unscientific survey conducted by The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC). Heres how they described the survey:

More than 2,000 Democratic supporters offered input, representing all 50 states and the District of Columbia… . Respondents were asked to rank how important a series of issues were to them. The issues were: Fully Funding Public Schools, Expanding Environmental Protections and Clean Energy, Strengthening Government Ethics Rules, Promoting Job Growth, and Promoting Equal Rights for the LGBT Community.

The results? All five issues were rated “extremely important” by a majority of respondents—except for LGBT “Equal Rights,” which got that rating from only 47.3%. By contrast, over 80% of respondents rated Public Education as extremely important. The homosexual agenda even had 19.3% of these Democratic activists dismissing it with replies of “not very important” (7.9%), “not important at all” (5.6%), or “no answer” (5.8%). Only 5.6% were as negative toward education as a priority.

We can only hope Congressional leadership will take this into account in determining whether to make homosexuals in the military and ENDA a priority in the tight legislative calendar between now and next January, when the new Congress takes office.

Democrats 2010 Legislative Priorities Survey

Archives