Examining the Myth of the Gay Agenda

[Letalis]

There is a homosexual agenda much in the same way that there is a Christian agenda, an atheist agenda, a conservative agenda, a liberal agenda so on and on. There is an agenda for about every conceivable group of people with like ideas or goals.

 

[RocketRed]

Violence and murder? Come on, homosexuals are not the victims. If they are in advantage, they will take advantage, like they did with young boys in Pagan Rome and Babylon..Who were the victims back then??

Well, homosexuals have been victims before. Stonewall (and all the incidents that led up to that) and Matthew Shepherd are probably the most famous of those.
And we're denied the same full set of rights that heterosexuals get. Our sexuality is only now shaking off being used to mean "stupid" (remember middle school when people called each other "gay?") and some people think we should be killed for our sexuality. Just to name three things.
I don't think we're victims by nature, but we're not in the advantage here. We're better off than we were before, though, I'll give you that. Society is much more accepting in general than it was years ago.

Pederasty was indeed allowed by Rome and homosexual men did engage it. But so did heterosexual men with younger girls. While plebeian women usually waited to marry until their late teens/early twenties, patrician women got married very young to men usually older than them who held office or high social stature.
Anyway, my point is this: that was Rome. And Rome did some crazy things. And in times of antiquity, it wasn't weird for the older to mess around the younger. That was a cultural thing. In the western world, in this current age, it's illegal and frowned upon.
Plus? Being gay does not make you a pedophile. I think I'll say it again for extra emphasis: being gay does not make you a pedophile.
Here's what it means as far as sexual attraction when you're gay: you like people of the same sex. That's it!
Are there pedophiles that are also homosexual? Sure. But there are also pedophiles that are women and yet not all women are pedophiles, there are also pedophiles that are heterosexual men and yet not all heterosexual men are pedophiles.

I actually find this "they'll go after our kids!" business to be an especially interesting response to a thread addressing myths about gay people. Claiming that we'll go after your kids if given an inch demonstrates the power of these half-truths and whole-lies held up by the like of Conservapedia.

To bring this back around to the OP: I feel like the lies about some hive-mind agenda and lurid, Paul Cameron-style fantasies about homosexuals that get passed around serve more to de-humanize us than anything else. It's much easier to believe we don't deserve the same rights (let alone our current ones or our lives depending on who you ask) if you believe we're just some moaning, lustful, child-molesting, orgiastic horde.
Recently, both Godschild and I have had threads addressing this in different ways. Our goal was to present something against those fantastical stereotypes and stories and show that we're not sub-human sex-monsters. We're people. We have jobs and school and good days and bad days. We have families and friends and aspirations. Just because we're attracted to the opposite sex, it doesn't mean we're any less human than anyone else.

 

[RocketRed]

That's flattering, and not to sound like I'm accepting a Grammy, but the reps all go to God. That is all the work of the HS on my heart and allowing God to work through my life. I don't mean for it in any way to draw attention to myself, but rather, it is a plea that the HS has weighed on my heart for Christians to really wake up and take a good look at ourselves. No longer are we Fishers of Men, but Bouncers of the Boat, acting as if the fish on jumping on board, and we, the holy ones, appoint ourselves judge and decide who is and isn't worthy to be called Christian, to be one of us, to be granted love and forgiveness and mercy.

It is disturbing to me that gay Christians in the 80s, after they were told by many churches that they were not welcome to come to worship, had to go and make their own church, the MCC, All God's Children. As a gay Christian, I don't struggle against my faith with those who are atheist, or of another religion. My burden and struggle is with fellow Christians who demand that I answer for myself, again, thinking they are worthy to be my judge. They may quote a verse gleefully, claiming that the bible states that I will not inherit the Kingdom. Would the Good Shepherd, when a sheep is lost, rejoice, and say, "Good riddence"? Does the Father rejoice when the Prodigal Son leaves, or returns? And of the son who stays with the Father, the son, although being obedient and not leaving, actually seems resentful when his own brother returns, resentful that he was never given a party like this, thinking about himself, rather than rejoicing at his brother's return.

Jesus said that "by this all men will know that you are my disciples, by the love you show for one another." If we are not known that way, then we are lost. If we are using gay people to have a common enemy, of whom to hate, whom to disrespect, whom to burden, whom to fear, whom to use as a scapegoat, we are not following God. We are not loving our neighbor as ourselves. If we are not loving our neighbor, we are not loving God. We are lost.

"The Gay Agenda" is used to justify burdening gay people by barring them access to legal marriage that they enjoy themselves, to deceive people with fear and slander and untruths in order to control them, to justify why the Christian is not treating his gay neighbor as himself by trying to disqualify him from God's Child, from the human family through derogatory names or second class citizenship, or through the misuse of Scripture, making Christianity synonymous with Condemnation, rather than Salvation.

During the appearance of AIDS, Christians should have been in the forefront to care for the sick without prejudice, with compassion. Instead, they greeted the sick with condemnation, and blamed the person for their own demise, said it was God's Judgment. Extremists will go one further, and show up at the funeral with signs that say the person is burning in hell to all of the grieving survivors, often to the dismay of society, but whose message they secretly believe in their hearts, thinking that there is no place for homosexuals in heaven, that Jesus sacrifice is not strong enough for such people. In the story of the Sheep and the Goats, the goats didn't care for the sick, and in so, did not care for Christ.

During the Civil Rights movements, some churches stood behind those who were oppressed, and fought, even risked their lives, to stand up against injustice and discrimination. Other churches remained segregated, fought against the oppressed, and laid every roadblock they could, and turned to the bible to support it, with no shame.

Christians should be known by all people for our love for others. We should be servants unto mankind. We should be known for the Fruit of the Spirit. If we are not, then we need to seek the Holy Spirit and find our way back on the path.

There are a great many Christians that live Christ, that live his mercy for others, extend love without demanding something in return. At the same time, there is a great number that have mirrored the world. The World may feel hatred for gay people, and such christians say that God hates gay people. The World calls gay people derogatory and harmful names to attempt to dehumanize them, and the people of the church call them repropates, sick, abominations, or worse, as with one board, the exact same names the World uses, which are not allowed here. The difference? "I'm doing it in love." Tough love, thinking that by being cruel, by being mocking, by condemning the person to hell, they are somehow helping the person, and mirroring those of the world.

The World will go out, have too many beers, then decide to play Smear the Queer, where you go beat up, or even kill, a gay person for entertainment. The mirroring Christians will quote Leviticus, and imply that gays deserve death, even according to God. They will use it as a death threat for coworkers, as one man did, reducing his relationship to Jesus as a death threat to his gay coworker, and thinking because it was Scripture, it was loving, it was his right, it was what the bible message was about. And some murderers, even now, who have been caught, will not admit guilt for murdering the gay person, claiming that God approves because of Leviticus, a book they don't even follow themselves.

To him, murder is moral and two people of the same sex loving each other is immoral.

When it comes to such a blatant example of the Faith gone wrong, we really have to question who we are following, the God of Love, the God of the Bible, or willfully following Satan, full of condemnation, mistrust, gleeful in the damnation of others with their separation of God, arrogance, spite, slander, fracturing of the church, judgment on others while we enjoy forgiveness and mercy that we don't deserve.

We are to be a Light unto the World, to illuminate the darkness and lead people away from it. We are to be the Salt of the Earth, to give it rich flavour, not to use the salt to pour into the wound and make it hurt a little more. We are to help our neighbor with his burden, not add to by demanding he shoulder all of the weight, freeing ourselves.

This is not the current state of Christianity, nor the Christian reputation. The real threat of the Gay Agenda is that the lies that there is one, and how gays want to destroy society, clearly demonstrates those who quote it use lies to accomplish their goals, and who is the Prince of Lies?

Another home-run. Parenthetically, you write beautifully.

 

[Supernaut]

Violence and murder? Come on, homosexuals are not the victims. If they are in advantage, they will take advantage, like they did with young boys in Pagan Rome and Babylon..Who were the victims back then??

You have to be kidding. You as a Catholic should be well aware how many of your own clergy are known pedophiles and your church protects them. This is the kind of screwed up garbage that the conservative agenda is steeped in.

So who is accountable for the clergy of YOUR church who have been raping young boys for decades and decades?

What a hypocritical post.

 

[lawtonfogle]

You have to be kidding. You as a Catholic should be well aware how many of your own clergy are known pedophiles and your church protects them. This is the kind of screwed up garbage that the conservative agenda is steeped in.

So who is accountable for the clergy of YOUR church who have been raping young boys for decades and decades?

What a hypocritical post.

You have to be kidding. You as a human should be well aware how many of your own humans are known pedophiles* and your church protects them. This is the kind of screwed up garbage that the human agenda is steeped in.

So who is accountable for the human of YOUR species who have been raping young boys for decades and decades?

What a hypocritical post.



*I think you meant 'child molester' here.

P.S. If you are wondering about the point here, I am NOT making some claim that you shouldn't expect people connected by some trend to be accountable for all people sharing that trend. My sole point was to show my paint brush is so much more bigger than yours... maybe...

 

[lawtonfogle]

The biggest problem I see with the gay agenda (aka, the 'we are humans as well' agenda) is that many of those who support this agenda attempt to demonize other, likely smaller, minorities to boost themselves up. While this is not true of all of them, many times I see consenting polygamist, consenting adults in incestuous relations, and pedophiles who do not act on their desires being constantly demonized by those supporting the gay agenda in an attempt to disengage themselves from the negative publicity of the previously mentioned groups. While I agree we should demonize forced polygamist relationships, forced incestuous relationships, and child molesters, these are separate from the previously mentioned groups. Yet, many upholders of the gay agenda combine them about as regularly. Every time I see a 'pro-gay' person claiming that pedophiles and child molesters are the same thing, or that people who happen to have fallen in love with a first cousin or possibly long lost sibling don't deserve love, I think back to how they were just mentioned being gay does not make you a child molester, and how gays deserve to be able to have their own loving relationships.

And yes, I could lob these same complaints against at those who oppose the 'gay agenda', I paraphrase my teacher instead.

I criticize you more because I hold you to a higher standard.

As to the 'myths' of the gay agenda.
1. Religious marriage and secular marriage are two vastly different things. Secular marriage is ruled by the government, not by religion.

2. The science of homosexuality, or better yet, the science of sexuality, is still a very newborn subject, often times limited by political correctness like few other areas. That said, homosexuality is/isn't a choice is a false dichotomy to begin with, and so asking science about it is like asking science to explain why leprechauns put their gold at the base of waterfalls (not rainbows, waterfalls).

3. Hate speech should not be condemned. Even if we agree it is wrong to say white people are less than human and should be killed, it should not be banned. Abusing authority and trust people have placed in you to get some group harmed or killed is not freedom of speech though.

4. Affirmative action is currently broken anyways. We don't need race based affirmative action, we need class based affirmative action. While being of certain races may provide you with a slight disadvantage, this is nothing compared to the disadvantage of being born and raised lower class. The same holds true if we talk about sexuality instead of race.

5. If you disagree with hate crimes in general, and think attacking someone should be the same regardless of the reason, then I understand your disagreement. If you think that attacking someone because of their race or religion should be treated harsher than attacking them just to mug some money off of them, then I see no reason why sexuality, be they attacked for being heterosexual, homosexual, or even a pedophile, should not be counted among this. P.S. Attacking someone who is attempting to molest your child IS NOT a hate crime against pedophiles, it IS protecting your family, and should not be a crime, so stop saying that hate crimes for sexual orientation will mean you will have to let a child molester molest your child, because that is some of the most idiotic sewage I have ever heard spewed.

6. Any private organization should be allowed to discriminate membership how they so desire, they just should better not expect any government handouts. Public organizations should not be allowed to discriminate on sexual orientation any more than on religion or race (which is to say, they should not be allowed).

7. The problem here is defining what is a broken sexuality, and what is a different sexuality. See #2.

8. No form of sexuality should be promoted or condemned in a public school system. Telling a boy who thinks girls have 'cooties' he is a homosexual is wrong, but telling a boy who feels no sexual attraction to girls but does feel sexual attraction to boys that he is broken is just as wrong. The problem comes when getting kids (and even adults) to realize 'girls have cooties, so I like hanging out with boys only' and 'I am attracted to boys but not girls' are two vastly different things, which in turn goes back to #2.

9. See #6, replace organization with business. P.S. should I get to sue a gay dating site for not hooking me up with women? I think not.

10. If religious convictions are falling is the face of secular reasoning, the secular reasoning is not to blame.

11. Child in orphanages are far worse off that children in loving families, be they heterosexual or homosexual. If you are stopping some person(s) from adopting, you best be doing the adopting or have someone else lined up to adopt that child, otherwise you do not have the child's best interest at heart. The obvious exception is when you know that the person poses a greater risk to a child than leaving them in an orphanage (such as a convicted child molester). Anyone claiming that homosexuals families in general pose such a risk have not looked at the evidence. As far as any threat to the child's soul (or some equivalent) because their parents are sinners... um... I'm wondering where you will find perfect parents to raise all the children.

 

[RocketRed]

The biggest problem I see with the gay agenda (aka, the 'we are humans as well' agenda) is that many of those who support this agenda attempt to demonize other, likely smaller, minorities to boost themselves up. While this is not true of all of them, many times I see consenting polygamist, consenting adults in incestuous relations, and pedophiles who do not act on their desires being constantly demonized by those supporting the gay agenda in an attempt to disengage themselves from the negative publicity of the previously mentioned groups. While I agree we should demonize forced polygamist relationships, forced incestuous relationships, and child molesters, these are separate from the previously mentioned groups. Yet, many upholders of the gay agenda combine them about as regularly. Every time I see a 'pro-gay' person claiming that pedophiles and child molesters are the same thing, or that people who happen to have fallen in love with a first cousin or possibly long lost sibling don't deserve love, I think back to how they were just mentioned being gay does not make you a child molester, and how gays deserve to be able to have their own loving relationships.

As someone who once made this mistake of interchanging "child molester" and "pedophile" (and was thankful you corrected him on it), I think I can shed some light on this one.
Usually when someone says "pedophile" they mean "child-molester." The words have unfortunately become interchangeable. Being gay does not mean you want to touch kids. The very idea is a scurrilous link. And in our efforts to distance homosexuality from child-molestation, I think gay people in general tend to make the same interchange mistake.

Plus? Society as a whole (homosexuals included) tends to be very quick to condemn the fringe elements of sexuality like pedophilia and incest. And there is widespread and widely held ideas about it, especially when it comes to pedophilia. People in general tend to interchange "child molester" and "pedophile." And many people do believe that pedophilia and child-molestation are one in the same. Or look down on pedophilia in general.
Being gay certainly doesn't make a person immune to any of this.

I'm not saying any of this is really right exactly, just trying to explain what's behind it a little.

 

[lawtonfogle]

As someone who once made this mistake of interchanging "child molester" and "pedophile" (and was thankful you corrected him on it), I think I can shed some light on this one.
Usually when someone says "pedophile" they mean "child-molester." The words have unfortunately become interchangeable. Being gay does not mean you want to touch kids. The very idea is a scurrilous link. And in our efforts to distance homosexuality from child-molestation, I think gay people in general tend to make the same interchange mistake.

I'm not actually sure about this, as there are so many people who honestly believe that if you are attracted to children, you will molest them. Some people, on both sides of the homosexuality debate, seem to find it impossible that someone can be attracted to children without molesting them.

Plus? Society as a whole (homosexuals included) tends to be very quick to condemn the fringe elements of sexuality like pedophilia and incest. And there is widespread and widely held ideas about it, especially when it comes to pedophilia. People in general tend to interchange "child molester" and "pedophile." And many people do believe that pedophilia and child-molestation are one in the same. Or look down on pedophilia in general.
Being gay certainly doesn't make a person immune to any of this.

I'm not saying any of this is really right exactly, just trying to explain what's behind it a little.

It took me about 18 years to understand that homosexuals were just like heterosexuals in so many ways, and to see how badly they were treated. Once I reached that point of understanding, it took me less than a year to extent this view to pedophiles and consenting incestuous couples. My problem is not with the people who make the mistake, but when they realize, stop it. It is with those who, while there eyes have been opened to the struggles of homosexuals, and who see how much homosexuals are wrongfully demonized, continue to keep them shut to the same happening in the 'fringe sexualities'. For example, I know someone who works to help homosexual people who are discriminated against at college, but who refuses to accept that it is possible for two adults to engage in incest consensually. This person insist that all incest is forced on children by parents.

And then you have those who, like someone I am engaged in a discussion on another forum, argue that since the attractions of pedophiles cannot legally be acted upon, they do not deserve the same protection that homosexuals deserve from discrimination.

That being said, I need to go to bed.

 

[Supernaut]

You have to be kidding. You as a human should be well aware how many of your own humans are known pedophiles* and your church protects them. This is the kind of screwed up garbage that the human agenda is steeped in.

So who is accountable for the human of YOUR species who have been raping young boys for decades and decades?

What a hypocritical post.



*I think you meant 'child molester' here.

P.S. If you are wondering about the point here, I am NOT making some claim that you shouldn't expect people connected by some trend to be accountable for all people sharing that trend. My sole point was to show my paint brush is so much more bigger than yours... maybe...

I understand your point. My post was addressing his hypocritical post. I am well aware that child molestation is found everywhere in the world. I am not addressing them. I am addressing a post made by a poster making the rediculous claim that all homosexuals are going to molest/rape little children.

 

[OllieFranz]

And then you have those who, like someone I am engaged in a discussion on another forum, argue that since the attractions of pedophiles cannot legally be acted upon, they do not deserve the same protection that homosexuals deserve from discrimination.

Especially since the same argument could (and often was) made about gays themselves before Lawrence v Texas.


Either way, we do not take away those rights and protections from other kinds of criminals.

 

[Maxwell511]

As a heterosexual man I thought the gay agenda was that they wanted to rape me. Am I wrong?

This whole wanting to have marraige rights is just a cover.

If I accept gay marraige then I will be exposed. I would be thinking that this guy is in a lovely and commited relationship with his partner and therefore would have no interest in me....and then he would pounce while I had my guard down.

I am wondering whether I should point out that that was a joke.

 

[David Brider]

Homosexuals DO have an agenda. Otherwise there wouldn't be organizations like GLAAD and an LGBT project wing of the ACLU. Whenever you goto the supreme court or the senator you obviously have some sort of an agenda you want to be looked at..Gay marriage would never have been an issue if the gay communities didn't have some sort of an agenda. They're numerous acts of religious desecration don't help them much either..Christians have an agenda too, I don't deny it. Without an agenda we would be directionless. The question, rather should be, whether the agenda is good or bad.

You make a good point, although I think it's way too much of a generalisation to speak of "the gay agenda". There are millions of homosexual people the world over. Most of them have pretty much the same sort of basic agenda as everyone else - to have a reasonably happy life, a good job, a roof over their heads, possibly a boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife. Most of the time this only becomes an issue where other people seek to deny them the opportunity to have those things using their sexual orientation as a pretext. On occasions like that, yeah, GLAAD, the ACLU, and various other folks are going to stand up for the rights of gay folks. That only seems reasonable to me, but then I think everyone is entitled to basic equality in this world.

One thing that definitely doesn't help is the tendency of those who are opposed to equal rights for LGBTQ folk to depict what they call "the gay agenda" as something somehow insidious and evil. For example:

1. Destroying Christian morals
* Changing the definition of marriage, even if doing so infringes on the religious rights of Christians not to recognize it as anything other than sin

This supposes that the same-gender couples who would like to get married are out to destroy Christian morals. I honestly don't believe they are. They'd just like to get married, to have the same shot at happiness as their opposite-gender equivalents.

It further supposes that allowing same-gender couples to get married will somehow change the definition of marriage; I guess that depends on what you see as being essential to the definition of marriage, really; if you see the main thing about it as being that has to be a man and a woman, then I can understand the objections, but honestly, I just see marriage as being about two adults, over the age of consent, making a decision - ideally based on mutual love for each other - to spend the rest of their natural lives together, making that commitment public at some sort of ceremony in front of their friends, families, and any god(s) in whom they happen to believe. I don't think that that definition will radically change if who can get married is extended to include same-gender couples as well as opposite-gender couples.

Lastly, it supposes that the rights of some Christians "not to recognize {same-gender marriage} as anything other than sin" will be in any way infringed upon. It won't. People will still have the right to believe what they like about the validity of same-gender marriage in the eyes of whatever god(s) they happen to believe in. However, in a multi-faith society (into which category the UK and, as far as I'm aware, the US both fall), people of any faith don't have the right to impose their version of morality as law on other people, unless there are particularly good reasons to do so beyond "our God says so".

David.

 

[Maxwell511]

You make a good point, although I think it's way too much of a generalisation to speak of "the gay agenda". There are millions of homosexual people the world over. Most of them have pretty much the same sort of basic agenda as everyone else

I had one of those semi-drunk conversations with one of my friends recently. You know the ones you have when you are in your late 20's and trying to figure out want to do with your life.

Anyway he said that he would like to adopt a child in about 5 years with his boyfriend. He wanted to be a father. I pointed out that is was illegal for him to adopt since he had a boyfriend and then we both felt slightly depressed.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

I understand your point. My post was addressing his hypocritical post. I am well aware that child molestation is found everywhere in the world. I am not addressing them. I am addressing a post made by a poster making the rediculous claim that all homosexuals are going to molest/rape little children.

I never said all homosexuals are pedophiles. All I said was that the homosexual community took enourmous advantage of the sexual-slave trade that existed in Rome and Babylon(Nero, Hadrian, Alexander the Great, etc)

 

[lawtonfogle]

I understand your point. My post was addressing his hypocritical post. I am well aware that child molestation is found everywhere in the world. I am not addressing them. I am addressing a post made by a poster making the rediculous claim that all homosexuals are going to molest/rape little children.

As I said, my only point was only that I can paint with a bigger brush.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I never said all homosexuals are pedophiles. All I said was that the homosexual community took enourmous advantage of the sexual-slave trade that existed in Rome and Babylon(Nero, Hadrian, Alexander the Great, etc)

And heterosexuals took enormous advantage as well. People back then didn't see slavery as bad as we do these days, be it sexual slavery or physical slavery.

 

[Keres]

How do the 'homosexuality = pedophilia' people reconcile that many, perhaps even most, child molesters tend to be fathers who molest their daughters?

 

[Archer93]

How do the 'homosexuality = pedophilia' people reconcile that many, perhaps even most, child molesters tend to be fathers who molest their daughters?

I think it's a denial thing. It's a terrible thought, that fathers abuse their daughters, so by pushing it off to a group that can be easier to think of as 'Other' makes those people more comfortable. Plus it seems easier to keep children away from random gay men, so there's also a feeling of 'doing something to prevent abuse'.
Admirable sentiment, wanting to reduce the incidence of child abuse. Totally ineffective way to go about it.

I've never understood why homosexuality and paedophilia were linked in the first place. Gay men like, well, men. And the physical attributes that go with that. Which children simply don't have.

 

[RocketRed]

You make a good point, although I think it's way too much of a generalisation to speak of "the gay agenda". There are millions of homosexual people the world over. Most of them have pretty much the same sort of basic agenda as everyone else - to have a reasonably happy life, a good job, a roof over their heads, possibly a boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife. Most of the time this only becomes an issue where other people seek to deny them the opportunity to have those things using their sexual orientation as a pretext. On occasions like that, yeah, GLAAD, the ACLU, and various other folks are going to stand up for the rights of gay folks. That only seems reasonable to me, but then I think everyone is entitled to basic equality in this world.

Piggy-backing on this.
I suppose one could say there's an agenda in the sense that most homosexuals share common goals (starting families, raising children, etc) and will commonly come together to reach for these goals.
But the "Gay Agenda" tends to imply some sense of overall organization that just isn't there. Homosexuals are not some union or organization unto themselves. In that sense, we're a lot like Christianity: we fall under the same umbrella, there are some commonly-held beliefs and goals, but we don't all subscribe to the same doctrine. We're just as sectarian as the next sub-group.
There are several prominent schools of thought under the umbrella of the Gay Community, all from radical to moderate. I think I fall somewhere in the moderate range. I believe that all semantics of "gay marriage" aside, we want spousal rights and the right to adopt and that we should focus on our fellowship not only within the gay community, but with the straight people outside of it. On the other side of the coin there's an element that could be best likened to separatism. They tend to believe that we should shun straight people (as they will usurp our culture) and tend to have the attitude that alternative means are always best, so they can shove their stupid marriage.
My point is: we're not all of the same mind. In general, there are things we'll agree upon. But we have different sects that very much disagree with how things should be handled. And a "Gay Agenda" just suggests some sort of uniformity that just isn't there.

And heterosexuals took enormous advantage as well. People back then didn't see slavery as bad as we do these days, be it sexual slavery or physical slavery.

Seriously! Everyone of means took advantage of that. Also...

Violence and murder? Come on, homosexuals are not the victims. If they are in advantage, they will take advantage, like they did with young boys in Pagan Rome and Babylon..Who were the victims back then??

That homosexuals, if given any power at all, would start molesting little children all over the place is pretty much exactly what that statement means.

 

[RocketRed]

How do the 'homosexuality = pedophilia' people reconcile that many, perhaps even most, child molesters tend to be fathers who molest their daughters?

I personally think that the whole "homosexuals are after your kids!" thing is just a way of dehumanizing homosexuals as the sinister Other, the alien who wishes everyone nothing but the worst. Along with the idea that AIDS is a "gay disease," that we're out to recruit people and that we spend 95% of our time having sex, these are ideas meant to make out to be more like evil creatures than actual people.