Attack on morality

The following information is taken from “’Sexual Orientation’ and American Culture” by Robert Knight.  It is part of a much larger article—fourteen pages in length—found at www.cultureandfamily.org which is a website sponsored by “Concerned Women for America” at www.cwfa.org.

“Beset by homosexual pressure groups, some of America’s corporations and governments are adopting policies based on ‘sexual orientation.’  What seems at first like a fairly easy and painless way to mollify activists inside and outside the company instead invariably triggers more and more demands.

Caught in a spiraling campaign, companies and governments wind up adopting policies that defy their self-interest, create a hostile climate for other employees and citizens, and open the firm to government intrusion and lawsuits designed to speed up a radical transformation of American culture.  As homosexual activists themselves acknowledge, their final objectives are to eliminate company policies that impart a unique value to marriage and to instill a system to discriminate against people with traditional values. (my underline)

The strategy is this: Transform morality into a form of bigotry (my underline) and then use corporate and government power to eliminate that ‘bigotry.’  A case in point is Lotus Corporation’s ‘Diversity at Work Awareness Program,’ in which a fact sheet is distributed that includes this statement: ‘Myth: Loving people of the same sex is immoral (sinful).”  Fact: Many religious denominations do not believe this.  What is universally understood is that intolerance and hatred is wrong.’

(Remember this quote posted on July 15, 2006.  “’Today’s decision by the New York Court of Appeals, which relies on outdated and bigoted notions about families, is deeply disappointing, but it does not end the effort to achieve this goal’—former Vermont Gov. and presidential candidate Howard Dean reacting to a July 6 court decision reaffirming a court decision banning homosexual marriage.” (Peoria Journal Star, July 15, 2006, page D6) [my underline and my addition])

Businesses are a key part of the larger culture’s tentative embrace of ‘sexual orientation,’ which is altering America’s cultural values.  By the time they have reached the last stage of adopting homosexually-oriented policies, companies celebrate homosexuality through ‘gay pride’ events and even finance homosexual activism out of fear of offending newly empowered homosexual employees.  (The City of Chicago recently concluded its annual “gay pride” games.—my addition.)

Adding a formula to make a company more vulnerable to lawsuits and further activism does not seem to be in the best interests of the company and its stockholders.  Yet many businesses have tried to appease homosexual activists by incorporating ‘sexual orientation’ into their nondiscrimination policies.  It is then that their troubles begin in earnest.” (my underline)

“Until the latter decades of the 20th century, America had a marriage-centered culture and government policies that discouraged sex outside of marriage.  Extra-marital and premarital sexual behavior had been discouraged as immoral as well as destructive to individuals, families and communities.  In 1885, the U.S. Supreme Court, in response to Utah’s petition to enter the Union, declared that to be admitted any state had to have laws resting on ‘the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization, the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.’”
(Times and attitudes have certainly changed since that declaration; unfortunately not for the better—my addition.)

“Just as many other terms swiftly achieve commonly accepted usage, ‘sexual orientation’ is rarely challenged or examined.  Yet ‘sexual orientation’ as a concept is a radical challenge to the core beliefs of all major religious faiths and even to the very notion that sexual behavior has moral dimensions.  While other human activities, such as buying and selling, remain subject to moral judgments, the concept of ‘sexual orientation’ places sex outside of morality.  No other human behavior with such sweeping consequences has received such a stamp of neutrality. (my underline)  ‘Sexual orientation’ contains the following chain of assumptions:

   People are born with certain sexual desires;      

   These desires are innate and therefore unchangeable;
  
   Sexual preference is identical to other immutable characteristics such as ethnicity;

   People cannot choose to govern their sexuality any more than they can govern their skin color;

   Sexual activity stemming from these desires is self-validating;

   ‘Sexual orientation’ should have special protection in the nation’s civil rights laws and corporate policies;

   Religious beliefs about sex and morality are no longer valid;

   People who still feel that sexuality has moral consequences are bigots; (my underline)

   Such people must be silenced to achieve corporate harmony.” (Intolerant of those who disagree with their radical and obscene position—my addition and underline)

Who do you believe knows the true nature of sexuality?  GOD who created the universe and all that is within, including man, or man.  GOD through the Bible declares that there is sexual immorality!!!  GOD through the Bible declares that homosexual behavior is immoral!!!  (See yesterday’s post.)  Who should be believed: GOD or homosexual activists who are seeking to justify and bring about acceptance for their immoral and obscene behavior?

“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked.  A man reaps what he sows.  The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.  Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.” (Galatians 6: 7-9)

(To be continued)