Michael M. Bates
Bishop announces what the gay agenda is
By Michael M. Bates
At the Episcopal Church Convention earlier this month, Bishop Gene Robinson said something astounding. He declared, "The gay agenda is Jesus Christ."
I'm not surprised the first openly homosexual bishop in the church would say something like that. If the man weren't looking for attention, we wouldn't know he's the first openly homosexual bishop in the church. To me though, the contention is meaningless, something akin to the currently trendy "speaking truth to power."
The unexpected part is that for years we've been told that there's no such thing as a gay agenda. It was just something made up by conservatives to encourage homophobia.
According to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation's Media Reference Guide, "Notions of a 'homosexual agenda' are rhetorical inventions of anti-gay extremists seeking to create a climate of fear by portraying the pursuit of civil rights for LGBT people as sinister."
LGBT, by the way, stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered. Other permutations are presumably available upon request.
Even the word homosexual is offensive, states the media guide, because "it has been adopted by anti-gay extremists to suggest that lesbians and gay men are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered — notions discredited by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s."
When the American Psychiatric Association made its change in 1973 it noted:
"No doubt, homosexual activist groups will claim that psychiatry has at last recognized that homosexuality is as 'normal' as heterosexuality. They will be wrong. In removing homosexuality per se from the nomenclature we are only recognizing that by itself homosexuality does not meet the criteria for being considered a psychiatric disorder. We will in no way be aligning ourselves with any particular viewpoint regarding the etiology or desirability of homosexual behavior."
I don't share the bishop's view that the gay agenda is Jesus Christ. I do believe, however, that there is an observable homosexual — OK, change that to gay if it makes you feel better — agenda. It might not be defined that way, but there is an identifiable set of objectives with which most, if not all, gay activists are in accord.
Eliminating language considered offensive and replacing it with acceptable expressions is one element of the agenda, as we've seen. When White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen recently used what some in the media referred to as an "anti-gay slur," the rhetoric police jumped on the case.
Deeming Guillen's words offensive, the executive director of one activist organization demanded the White Sox "do something about it." The team owner and general manager followed instructions and got on Ozzie's case. Now he's being sent to sensitivity training.
A week before, the same executive director was insisting Chicago police look at the burning of about 80 gay and lesbian books in a public library as a potential hate crime. Succumbing to pressure, the police agreed to consider that angle. Radio station WBBM quoted him: "I was very concerned that they weren't being more aggressive about identifying it as a potential hate crime, and I'm satisfied that they will do their job."
They did and found the perp was a homeless person who was unhappy with the library because it didn't permit her to take naps there. A false alarm, but gay activists got what they wanted.
The main item on the agenda is acceptance of the gay lifestyle. At worst, it's to be considered normal. At best, desirable. But tolerance is one thing; granting special privileges is another.
Activists seek changes in the law in areas such as housing and employment that would give them special treatment. These "equal rights" in reality reduce the rights of others in terms of private property and freedom of association.
Yet gay activists, who claim to love open-mindedness and diversity, quickly condemn as a self-righteous homophobe and/or an anti-gay extremist anyone who questions their advances. And most assuredly they are making advances. Public opinion polls show an increasing acceptance of their objectives, including gay marriage and adoption of children.
The mainstream media are careful not to offend gay sensibilities. The people in it are most respectful, even obsequious.
Next month's Gay Games in Chicago has numerous deep-pocketed supporters. Walgreens, Harris Bank, the New York Times, CNA Insurance, Merrill Lynch, American Airlines, the Chicago Sun-Times and Kraft are but a few.
They're all promoting an agenda. It's not Jesus Christ, but it's definitely an agenda.
This column by Michael M. Bates appeared in the June 29, 2006, Oak Lawn Reporter.
© Michael M. Bates
At the Episcopal Church Convention earlier this month, Bishop Gene Robinson said something astounding. He declared, "The gay agenda is Jesus Christ."
I'm not surprised the first openly homosexual bishop in the church would say something like that. If the man weren't looking for attention, we wouldn't know he's the first openly homosexual bishop in the church. To me though, the contention is meaningless, something akin to the currently trendy "speaking truth to power."
The unexpected part is that for years we've been told that there's no such thing as a gay agenda. It was just something made up by conservatives to encourage homophobia.
According to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation's Media Reference Guide, "Notions of a 'homosexual agenda' are rhetorical inventions of anti-gay extremists seeking to create a climate of fear by portraying the pursuit of civil rights for LGBT people as sinister."
LGBT, by the way, stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered. Other permutations are presumably available upon request.
Even the word homosexual is offensive, states the media guide, because "it has been adopted by anti-gay extremists to suggest that lesbians and gay men are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered — notions discredited by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s."
When the American Psychiatric Association made its change in 1973 it noted:
"No doubt, homosexual activist groups will claim that psychiatry has at last recognized that homosexuality is as 'normal' as heterosexuality. They will be wrong. In removing homosexuality per se from the nomenclature we are only recognizing that by itself homosexuality does not meet the criteria for being considered a psychiatric disorder. We will in no way be aligning ourselves with any particular viewpoint regarding the etiology or desirability of homosexual behavior."
I don't share the bishop's view that the gay agenda is Jesus Christ. I do believe, however, that there is an observable homosexual — OK, change that to gay if it makes you feel better — agenda. It might not be defined that way, but there is an identifiable set of objectives with which most, if not all, gay activists are in accord.
Eliminating language considered offensive and replacing it with acceptable expressions is one element of the agenda, as we've seen. When White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen recently used what some in the media referred to as an "anti-gay slur," the rhetoric police jumped on the case.
Deeming Guillen's words offensive, the executive director of one activist organization demanded the White Sox "do something about it." The team owner and general manager followed instructions and got on Ozzie's case. Now he's being sent to sensitivity training.
A week before, the same executive director was insisting Chicago police look at the burning of about 80 gay and lesbian books in a public library as a potential hate crime. Succumbing to pressure, the police agreed to consider that angle. Radio station WBBM quoted him: "I was very concerned that they weren't being more aggressive about identifying it as a potential hate crime, and I'm satisfied that they will do their job."
They did and found the perp was a homeless person who was unhappy with the library because it didn't permit her to take naps there. A false alarm, but gay activists got what they wanted.
The main item on the agenda is acceptance of the gay lifestyle. At worst, it's to be considered normal. At best, desirable. But tolerance is one thing; granting special privileges is another.
Activists seek changes in the law in areas such as housing and employment that would give them special treatment. These "equal rights" in reality reduce the rights of others in terms of private property and freedom of association.
Yet gay activists, who claim to love open-mindedness and diversity, quickly condemn as a self-righteous homophobe and/or an anti-gay extremist anyone who questions their advances. And most assuredly they are making advances. Public opinion polls show an increasing acceptance of their objectives, including gay marriage and adoption of children.
The mainstream media are careful not to offend gay sensibilities. The people in it are most respectful, even obsequious.
Next month's Gay Games in Chicago has numerous deep-pocketed supporters. Walgreens, Harris Bank, the New York Times, CNA Insurance, Merrill Lynch, American Airlines, the Chicago Sun-Times and Kraft are but a few.
They're all promoting an agenda. It's not Jesus Christ, but it's definitely an agenda.
This column by Michael M. Bates appeared in the June 29, 2006, Oak Lawn Reporter.
© Michael M. Bates
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
