Forum:Jesus, Foucault and the Homosexual Agenda

From Campaigns Wikia

[edit] Article

My name is Rob J. King. From 1990 - 2004, I was a staunch Democrat, favoring Workers' Rights over "Big Business," resolutely anti-racist, economically liberal, but also, surprisingly pro-life.

Concerning other aspects of the Democratic Party, things like the homosexual political agenda (partly what caused my shift to the Republican Party in 2004 - 2007), I was somewhat non-committal. Yes, I did, as a Christian follow Paul's view in Romans, chapter 1 that homosexual acts (male and lesbian) are sinful signs of a distorted creature-worship, rather than true worship of God. In taking this position, I was also challenged by Romans 2:1 in which Paul himself exhorts the Church at Rome to "not judge" concerning the various sins that he had listed. Therefore, I was a non-judgmental Christian, who just happened to be a Democrat turned Republican.

More recently, and sadly due to recurring incidents of sexual harassment being perpetrated by male homosexuals towards me, I am less sympathetic. Whereas as once I would chide fellow Christians for being "too judgmental," after having been touched inappropriately, after having had inappropriate sexual comments made, and after having had homosexual men repeatedly harass me in public, I truly think that from a liberal perspective, law must be imposed immediately on these sexual deviants.

This may sound harsh, but whether the incident was the priest pedophilia scandal (older men with young boys, Greek-pagan style!) or even an incident with a lesbian pedophile Catholic nun at my former home parish, the law, civil, military and criminal, must begin to safeguard the innocent.

As a man, I should be able to walk freely in a public park or shop freely in a shoe store without a homosexual male making sexually inviting comments or "looking me up and down" like a piece of raw meat.

Here, the religious viewpoint must take the lead. Whereas philosophers such as Michel Foucault would quickly point out that homosexual practice was common among the pre-Christian Greeks (often involving "young boys"), and would argue that the homosexual "act" itself did not matter so long as one had "self-control" in doing the act (the Greek Virtue called "sophrosyne" according to Michel Foucault), given the problem of pedophilia, something must be done from the liberal side of the political spectrum to HALT the homosexual agenda in its tracks. Greek pagans really did molest little boys, and wherever homosexual practice is accepted, pedophilia is sure to follow. As the scandal of the Catholic Church's pedophilia cases demonstrates it was when homosexuality was increasingly accepted within the priesthood that little boys were molested.

Similarly, although Jesus Himself did not specifically single out homosexual practice within His teaching ministry, an overall Ethic of Holiness (not horniness!) was what was expected. In fact, in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 - 7), Jesus RADICALIZES the Jewish Moral Code of His Time by making EVEN lustful LOOKS a sin.

Therefore, in conclusion, from the liberal side of the political spectrum, the stopping of the homosexual agenda must occur.

Yours in Jesus' Name, Rob J. King--RobJKing 16:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

What is the "homosexual agenda"? We're going to have to define that before we can continue this discussion. Chadlupkes 16:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Chad,

First, thank you for placing this in the Forum section for discussion. Thinkers (true thinkers) will always avoid rigid classificatory schemes and seek after truth whether that truth is "liberal" vs. "conservative" or "utilitarian" vs. "Kantian."

Second, by "homosexual" I mean ONLY those who are actively engaged in same-sex sexual acts to include oral, anal and mutual-masturbatory sex. Therefore, I do not mean "attraction," but only those who are engaged in same-sex acts.

Third, by agenda, I mean only those homosexuals who enter the political arena seeking to change laws, social mores, academic structures of discourse, etc. One can be "homosexual" without advancing this agenda according to this definition.

Blessings in Jesus,--RobJKing 18:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

On your first point, we can either talk to each other or become enemies. Even with disagreements and diversity of perspectives, communication is the only method to redirect violent and destructive energy into positive, life-affirming action.

On your second point, you wax on quite a bit in your piece about being looked at, and your objections to being considered attractive by members of your own gender. This has nothing to do with the actual acts that you describe here. Are people who appreciate how you look not the subject of your objections?

And on your third point, what laws, social mores, academic structures of discourses, etc. are "they" trying to change, why are they trying to change them, and what is the danger if they succeed?

Blessings in truth,

Chadlupkes 18:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Chad,

The first point, yes, I obviously seek friendship with the best parts of ALL people, to include the best parts of myself :-), fellow Christians and people who are not specifically Christian, which sadly, according to Natural Law morality are very often much nicer people than some of my supposed 'brothers' in Christ!

The second point, well, here I will go 'more public' in one situation. This example was a former homosexual professor who started putting his thumb on my hip while jogging, and at a previous point had made a comment concerning my penis while in a different bathroom stall. This is called sexual harassment according to current legal standards of American law (I just completed St. Petersburg College's on-line required course in avoiding sexual harassment that all new employees must go through, which included all of the pertinent federal court cases that define this topic.) This professor, by the way, was denied tenure.

The third point, I am most concerned about would be "lowering the age of consent" for sexual intercourse to below 18. Secondary to that would be labelling opposition to homosexual acts as being a "hate crime" simply for not sharing the same view. This would be a violation of freedom of speech, and in my view as a Christian, MUCH different than TRUE hate speech that incites racial, ethnic or religious violence.

Blessings in Jesus, Rob J. King --RobJKing 20:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment should never be tolerated in any situation. But without communication (see point one), it is difficult for some people to really understand that their actions make others uncomfortable. Something simple like "I am not comfortable with the situation when you do XYZ, and if you do it again I will consider it harassment and will report it to the proper authorities" should solve it. If not, then follow through and report it. It doesn't matter what gender combination we're talking about, M-F, M-M, F-F, etc. It's wrong to make other people uncomfortable, especially when it is being done with fore-knowledge on what the likely reaction is going to be. I don't know anyone, on any side of this issue, who would disagree with me here.

I also object to lowering the age of consent. We can't be sure that anyone younger than 18 has a good understanding of all of the potential dangers involved in using poor judgment. I sure as hell wasn't smart enough, even at 19.

However, on the hate crime issue, I'm curious what level of violence and hate speech you would find tolerable against any individual, regardless of the reason. I'm not talking about vocal opposition to homosexual acts, I'm talking about verbal or physical abuse done by one person against another for any perceived difference. Race, Gender, Religion, Sexual preference, or any other means of identifying diversity should never be used to justify or excuse verbal or physical abuse of anyone else.

Yours in Truth, Chadlupkes 20:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Chad, Yes, I agree that sexual harassment is deplorable, and to be frank when these situations happen, I am ever more sympathetic to women who have legitimate sexual harassment claims that they must file. I have felt violated by the prying eyes of homosexual men, and so I can well relate to women in not wanting men to oogle them, and definitely NOT in professional society.

Concerning the 'hate crime' speech laws, here I do lean a bit more 'libertarian' in that although I deplore racism, sexism, xenophobia in all its forms, given the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech clause, I believe that to have a truly free American society, Freedom of Speech must be safe-guarded to such an extent that evil people like the KKK, as much as we deplore their actions, should nevertheless be allowed freedom to voice their views no matter how wicked they are.

This is of course up for debate, but I see a GREATER danger in limiting freedom of speech, than I do in whether or not groups like the KKK spew racist venom verbally or in written form. As Martin Luther King, Jr. one time said (paraphrase), "one cannot pass laws to make the racist stop hating me, but one can definitely pass laws to keep the racist from lynching me." Here, Dr. King was wanting laws passed for concrete action, not thought. I fear that BOTH political parties, when in power, seek to destroy the other by making thought and speech illegal. Whether it is Howard Dean calling George W. Bush "delusional" OR whether it is this truly crazy set of Homeland Security laws where ordinary American citizens are having their e-mail and cell-phones constantly monitored, BOTH sides are not within the bounds of our very own U.S. Constitution.

Blessings in Jesus, Rob J. King--RobJKing 20:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Speech is certainly a case by case basis, isn't it. What one person sees as free speech, another can interpret as hate speech. I think there is a clear difference, however, between someone saying "I believe that anyone who does not agree with me will suffer throughout eternity," and someone who adds "and I wish I could send them to that suffering." It's the difference between expressing an opinion and encouraging an action. Dr. King knew the difference, and he pushed for peace everywhere. His work was to focus national attention on the plight of black people around the country, and he succeeded. Then his work focused on the Vietnam War and the plight of the poor around the world, and he was killed.

So you can say that you don't think we should limit free speech, but I think we can define free speech as speech that does not advocate for the harming of our brothers and sisters, all children of G-d. And I think we can apply that standard to everyone. Until we do, because the USA is certainly not in this administration, we are a shadow across the world. I want to turn the light of hope back on. That's why I'm politically active.

Chadlupkes 20:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Chad,

Yes, I am in agreement, and fortunately speech that is directly a threat (for example, saying "I want to kill you") should be taken QUITE SERIOUSLY and treated as a crime in itself. The point I am making about the KKK is that so long as they are not verbally threatening anyone, and as much as I do not like WHAT they say, they should still have the freedom of speech to say that they are racists, paranoid, homophobes, anti-Catholic, etc. Again, the point is whenever speech incites violence or is a threat to violent action, then yes, it should be a crime.

Blessings in Jesus, Rob J. King--RobJKing 20:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion (cont.)

Ok, great. Now that we're in agreement on all of those points, I'll ask my question again.

What is the "homosexual agenda"? Chadlupkes 21:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The homosexual agenda is the attempt made by homosexuals to rob our children of any semblance of a normal and wholesome upbringing.

The homosexual agenda includes the destruction of the family unit by pushing homosexual "marriage", regardless of how many millions of people that offends. It includes putting homosexual propaganda in the public schools. It includes "gay pride" parades where people act like freaks and then claim to be normal and just like everybody else. It includes using public restrooms for anonymous sex and then complaining about discrimination when the police question you. It includes making new words like "gay" and "homophobic" to try to trick people into accepting your (rather dubious) cause. It includes trying to associate your cause with the cause of the black civil rights struggle, when no link legitimately exists. It includes using any media possible, including Wikis, as propaganda.

Lou franklin 02:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Lou! It's been a while. How have you been?

So, who or what is the central planning organization for this agenda, and what are the ultimate goals? It sounds like the end goal is the destruction of civilization itself. Chadlupkes 03:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Chad. I hope things are going well for you - especially your health.

The "destruction of civilization" is not the goal of the homosexual agenda, but it absolutely is the effect.

Lou franklin 02:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Lou,

Your apt description (listed above in your post dated 27 September) is precisely what I fear is happening. Granted, I live in St. Petersburg, FL where this summer (2007) an entire month was devoted to Gay Pride and yes, it truly is gross. I have had men violate my personhood in ways that would quickly be deemed sexual harassment in my current place of employment, St. Petersburg College.

And, yes, given the time and effort that many homosexuals put into changing school educational materials, using public bathrooms as pick-up joints, etc. the problem is truly persistent.

Blessings in Jesus, Rob --RobJKing 20:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. There we go, living our lives based on what we are afraid of instead of what we hope for.

What gay activists are focused on in our schools is trying to put forward the radical idea that it is not right to hurt or kill someone just because you are "grossed out" by what they do. How would you propose that we eliminate everything that you object to? By laws? By preaching from a podium? Focus on the negatives in society, and it will help it grow. Focus on the positive instead. Everything else is a waste of time. Chadlupkes 21:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Chad, homosexual activists have gone far beyond advocating for non-violence in the public schools in my state.

Rob, as Christians we love all people, even homosexuals. We love the person and hate the sin. But if a homosexual is hassling you, my advice is to warn him once and if the problem persists, clock him. God didn't put you on this earth to be abused by mentally ill people.

Lou franklin 02:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Lou,

I am a Christian Just War advocate, and as such only would use a Tae Kwon Do palm thrust to immobilize someone as a matter of absolute life and death and when police protection is not directly available.

Having said that, a recent gay episode was this dude from Switzerland who flirted with me (he's bi-sexual), and so I just retaliated by flirting with his girlfriend! (he started to become more and more 'hetero' as the day progressed! ;-).

And yes, I am a Christian and try to emulate Christ's love & compassion for all people, including this Swiss "bi-sexual" who I actually pray in Jesus' Name will return to his Christian upbringing . . .

Blessings in Jesus, Rob --RobJKing 16:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)