Finally, "Straight Talk" From the Homosexual Agenda

Austin Nimocks

10/20/2008 12:01:00 AM - Austin Nimocks

We all love and appreciate honesty, and it’s finally coming from the most unlikely of sources—the homosexual agenda. No matter what side of the issues of homosexual behavior you may find yourself supporting, a standing ovation is appropriate.

John Corvino, I salute you.

You see, back in August, my jaw hit the floor when I read a column Corvino wrote that was breathtakingly honest. You see, for many years, the homosexual agenda’s intentions, goals, and beliefs have been shrouded in smokescreens of “equality,” “benefits,” and “fairness.” Yet Corvino provided a breath of fresh air, telling us what those who engage in homosexual behavior really want: moral approval.

Of course, many of us have known this all along, but it’s nice to finally hear about it from the other side. This groundbreaking concession now provides an opportunity for an honest public discourse on what homosexual advocates are really after. They want your heart and soul. It’s not enough to just be tolerant.

Now, I realize that you probably believe that your fair-mindedness is sufficient for any number of circumstances in life, but on this issue, you have been duped. You see, moral approval goes well beyond fairness or tolerance. It requires you to look upon the homosexual behavior of another and say to yourself and others, “That’s a good thing.” Moral approval means that you plan to teach it to your kids as righteous and true, and not just as something that other people do (and then secretly pray that you never find your kids doing). Moral approval means that you must reject other people, businesses, and persons who do not morally approve of homosexual behavior.

Most of all, moral approval means that you not only permit it in your home, but you embrace it. You applaud TV shows that celebrate it, Web sites that promote it, books that endorse it, and you may even choose to practice it. Moral approval goes to the very essence of our person.

Not convinced that anyone could want something that radical from you? Well, there’s no need to accept something just because I say it. Instead, look at the strategy employed by those who promote this agenda—in the courts. That alone tells you something. Courts are not sought by people who simply want you to tolerate an idea. Courts order people to do things. From just this small sample of court cases, you can see that tolerance or simple access to certain “benefits” is no longer enough. What is desired is court-ordered moral approval:

· In New Jersey, the state launched an investigation of a Christian ministry after it declined to host a civil union ceremony for two women on its property. The women could have held their ceremony anywhere—and eventually did hold it somewhere else—but they filed a complaint anyway because they loathed the ministry’s lack of moral approval.

· In New Mexico, a same-sex couple filed a “human rights” complaint against a photographer who declined to photograph their “commitment” ceremony. The photographer lost and was ordered to cough up more than $6,600 in attorneys’ fees. Before the ruling, the couple hired a different photographer from the myriad of other ones available, but still chose to retaliate against the first photographer for her lack of moral approval.

· In Georgia, a counselor was fired because she referred a woman in a same-sex relationship to another counselor for relationship advice. The second counselor provided service that the woman herself characterized as “exemplary.” Yet she still demanded—and obtained—the first counselor’s termination for her lack of moral approval.

· In California, a woman in a same-sex relationship sued a doctor who declined to artificially inseminate her, claiming discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation.” The woman misrepresented her marital status to the doctor, who has a policy not to perform the procedure on unmarried women regardless of their “orientation.” Other doctors successfully performed the procedure, and she has since borne three healthy children, yet the woman continues to demand the first doctor’s moral approval in court.

Note that having other options did not satisfy the people involved in the above same-sex relationships. The point to see: they demand moral approval. And some will go to court, have you fired, or otherwise seek your demise to get it. And they don’t care if you have to act against your conscience, just so long as you can ease theirs.

Corvino accurately states that “moral truth matters.” But there’s no longer any guessing about what truth he and those like him are referring to: it’s the one they have defined, and you’d better accept it. An abundance of “tolerance” will not suffice.