Will the Homosexual Agenda become an important issue in 2012?

[CJK]

New York's recent legalization of homosexual "marriage" has made me wonder whether or not it will become an important issue in 2012.

I hope it does. The homosexual agenda is just as big a threat to this country as the economy, health care, unemployment, the wars, and the budget deficit. In some ways, it actually is worse because it strikes at our core values.

I will support any candidate who stands up to the homosexual agenda the most. Anyone who doesn't just isn't serious.

[CJK]

The Homosexual Agenda is indeed unpopular as shown by recent votes in liberal California and Maine. So yes, Republicans can get traction out of this issue if they want to.

Unfortunately, Republicans seem too cowed by the Agenda to exploit this.

If this issue is not that important, why is it always given prominent attention way out of proportion to it's alleged unimportance by both the right and the left?

And by the Agenda I mean not only the specific movement for legalizing homosexual marriage but the entire movement to mandate societal tolerance and approval for homosexuality, of which marriage is just one stepping stone.

Anyone who thinks this is just about whether or not the miniscule proportion of people who currently consider themselves as gay can marry is kidding themselves. This is about the never-ending liberal/leftist desire to destroy the basic foundations of Western Civilization, and on that basis I do regard it as important as the other issues. 

[CJK]

Talk about blaming the boogeyman. The various problems of the West are of the West's own creation. Even the social dislocation that has led to the breakdown of the traditional family structure is just a byproduct of the capitalist system. Industrialization, urbanization and later - suburbanization and the rise of the service economy have logically led to the place we now inhabit. Social conservatives make it sound like some shadowy cabal is plotting the downfall of all that is good and right; rather than chalking the changes up to obvious rearrangement of the social structure. Not every trend or change requires some evil group with an Agenda (capitalized).

This also has no real relevance for 2012. Gay marriage will not decide this election.

So the capitalist system caused both rising divorce rates/out of wedlock births and the homosexual agenda? How is that not totally absurd?

There has been a social agenda since the 1960s that not only was not caused by capitalism but on the contrary by the people most opposed to it.

[CJK]

With this it just did. We need to take it out of federal play like Ron Paul does.

That's the same thing as surrendering. It will not stop the Agenda.

[CJK]

Gallup:  "Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

5/5-8/11

Should  53
Should Not  45   

Unsure  3

CNN:  "Do you think marriages between gay and lesbian couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

4/9-10/11

Should 51   
Should Not 47   
Unsure 2

ABC/Washington Post

"Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?"


3/10-13/11   

Legal 53   
Illegal 44   
Not Sure 3   



Have fun with your wedge issue, GOP.  (And, yes, the Republican candidates are all smart enough to not tackle this issue)

That might just be because nobody is focusing on it right now. Remember how people thought the referendums in California and Maine would fail?

This could change if we had a candidate who stood up and called out the Agenda.

By no means do I think this is the only important issue, but it has to be reckoned with nontheless.

[CJK]

If Western Civilization is so shitty that it can't withstand a couple of dudes marrying each other, maybe it's not worth saving in the first place.

Again, this is not about a couple of dudes getting married. This is about setting a moral precedent and mandating societal approval and tolerance for the homosexual lifestyle.

[CJK]

With this it just did. We need to take it out of federal play like Ron Paul does.

That's the same thing as surrendering. It will not stop the Agenda.

Surrendering? I honestly don't understand why federal implementation of one's social values or its impediment of the contrary has any bearing. Gay marriage, banning prayer in schools, removing  iGwt from the pledge, no-fault divorce, etc etc are a result of shifts in society, and can't be changed by legislation. Legislation flows from the public will, not the other way around. This is still marginally a democracy.

The "homosexual agenda" isn't something that can be separated from a much larger slate of issues that promote a secular worldview. It just happens to possibly be the biggest weapon that those of that secular worldview have in curbing what remaining influence Biblical Christianity has on the broader culture. It has been successful, and will continue to be so.

If you want my advice, get over it. Government recognition of homosexual marriage isn't the end of the world, and the government sanctions other sinful activities all the time. That doesn't mean you have to support it, but there are hills on which to die, and this ain't one of em.

Unfortunately the evangelical community focused on government solutions to spiritual problems this past 10 years or so, and they're reaping their reward. Not to mention they completely wasted a decade fighting gay marriage when they could have been focusing on things of far more value, such as fighting no-fault divorce and abortion.

*Yes, I realize you're probably just trolling, but in case you aren't...*

Okay, but it is possible to oppose the Agenda on secular grounds, for example national interest and evolutionary theory. The fact that it happens to agree with the Bible is due to the fact that the Bible contains many elements that are beneficial from an evolutionary perspective. But most people do not understand/grasp evolutionary theory so they simply cite the Bible as the basis for their beliefs.

In other words, it's like saying we can't have a law against murder because it corresponds to "thou shalt not kill" in the Bible.

[CJK]

Define 'agenda'.

It means that there is a group of people who, although most of them are not homosexual, nevertheless want to force acceptance of it upon society for no other reason than to disrupt and destroy traditional values which have served people well for thousands of years.
 
Seriously, why else does the straight left push it so hard? Homosexuals are only a small fraction of the population, are there not a multitude of other issues the left could focus on besides securing the "rights" of 1% or 2% of the population?

The answer is that the left doesn't care about the 1% to 2% of the population, they care about degrading the values of the other 98% to 99%.

[CJK]

There have been scientifically documented cases of birds (seagulls and penguins specifically) exhibiting homosexual behavior. Is there a homosexual penguin agenda? Do seagulls choose to be gay?

There have been documented cases of cannibalism in the animal kingdom, is that okay too?

[CJK]

Define 'agenda'.

It means that there is a group of people who, although most of them are not homosexual, nevertheless want to force acceptance of it upon society for no other reason than to disrupt and destroy traditional values which have served people well for thousands of years.
 
Seriously, why else does the straight left push it so hard? Homosexuals are only a small fraction of the population, are there not a multitude of other issues the left could focus on besides securing the "rights" of 1% or 2% of the population?

The answer is that the left doesn't care about the 1% to 2% of the population, they care about degrading the values of the other 98% to 99%.

Define 'traditional values'

Concepts people have used to make decisions regarding other people and things in their everyday lives.

[CJK]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nonsense. Only 4% claim to be gay, lesbian or bisexual (exit polls and gallup support this). Take out "bisexual" and you are left with 1 or 2%

I can see where you get the misconception though. Thanks to the Agenda the uninformed public thinks that 25% are homosexuals, something like 10 times the real figure.  

And no, it doesn't affect me personally, but it is a bad influence on society as a whole.

[CJK]

I am not a troll or an old fogey.

I am a 20 year old who is enraged and disgusted by the homosexual agenda.

I will resist the Agenda as best as I can for the rest of my life.

Of course evolutionary theory dictates that passing on genes is the fundamental purpose of life. If your morality excludes that, it isn't good morality.  

Of course the homosexual agenda is driven at the top by non-homosexuals with a destructive agenda.

If the economy never recovers, we'll all be poorer but we'll survive. But if we don't defeat the homosexual agenda, our nation's very existence will be in mortal peril.  

Let's do some math here people. If the Homosexual Agenda is completed and homosexuality is elevated to an identical level with heterosexuality, it wil lead to the gradual growth of the homosexual population to the point where it might be close to half, which would not be surprising considering how hard liberals have worked to confuse gender roles. Those people will by and large not reproduce. Less reproduction is less population, less population has obvious negative effects, particularly if it is "top heavy" with a lot of old people instead of young people.

Maybe you don't believe homosexuals will be half. Let's say 10% instead. Unless the other 90% compensate by having more kids, this will also lead to destruction because 10% of those kids will be homosexual and so on and so forth.

Let's say hypothetically you have a population of 50,000,000 males and 50,000,000 females. If they reproduce at replacement level (2 kids)  there would be 100,000,000 replacements, also 50,000,000 males and 50,000,000 females. But let's say 10% are homosexuals and do not reproduce. That would mean only 45,000,000 males and 45,000,000 females. The next generation would be 40,500,000 males and 40,500,000 females. We have already lost 19% of the original population.

I rest my case. The Homosexual Agenda is indeed one of the greatest threats we have ever faced.

[CJK]

The only reason we are "losing" is because a) the Homosexual Agenda dominates the media and b) we don't have an articulate person out there explaining the nature of the Agenda's threat or even that there is an Agenda at all. We just have people muttering about "traditional marriage" without explaining why it is important.

You know what kind of debate is truly unwinnable for the right? Cutting funding for Medicare. There is no way in hell that it will be politically acceptable ever. Yet people keep thinking we should run on that nonsense.

It is widely recognized that social conservatism has played an important role in Republican success. Isn't that why they coined the term "God, guns, and gays"?

[CJK]

Declining populations are quite simply never a good thing. I don't think that this country "needs" more people, but it certainly should not be promoting population decline. The Homosexual Agenda means eventual long term destruction, pure and simple, unless we halt and reverse it at some point.