Obama for Gay Rights? Riiiight....

Mrs Obama has committed her husband to work for gay rights, according to this AP article - to work for "a world as it should be."

According to whom???

Since when did Christian people get off abandoning Christian moral values and all the identifying hallmarks of their name, and still clamor to be called by that name? A Hindu, a Buddhist, a Muslim... you don't see THEM trying to revise the definition of their ideology.

But suddenly it's "not Christian" to oppose "gay rights."

Okay - in the first place, I still don't get why people should be demanding rights based upon where they put their... privates. (I'm trying very hard not to be crude, here, but I'm irked enough something might need to be edited later.) One Quaker gentleman said to me a number of years ago, "Why do we have to make an issue of what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms with their genitals?"

If only the gay lobby would leave it to the privacy of their bedrooms - but, no - they have to hijack the American Psychiatric Association to force them to re-write the DSM in 1973, removing homosexuality from the list of disorders. This was a decision based not on science, but on political pressure from the gay lobby.

The rhetorical cacaphony surrounding the gay rights debate is noteworthy for its disregard of fact. Despite the fact that ancient Greece was a culture dominated by homosexuality and pederasty - actually, the ancient and modern pagan world routinely practiced all sorts of sexual license - modern-day homosexual radicals deny the link between homosexuality and pederasty, treating them as two separate issues. However, even a casual reading of Plato reveals that the two are irrevocably connected.

The fact that many of the world's civilizations, excepting the ancient Hebrews, were so licentious, would seem to indicate that homosexuality is in fact a matter of cultural imprinting, rather than biological orientation.

If we're going to talk about "sexual preferences," that polite code word among the gay lobby, we have to take an honest look at what that phrase means. Strictly and simplisticly translated, it means, "one's preferences in sexual matters."

WELL - right there we have ourselves a quandry, Ladies and Gentlemen! Because by calling it a PREFERENCE we immediately acknowledge the reality of CHOICE in the matter.

Furthermore (and I have to quit soon because a storm is brewing close by and I might lose internet connection) - if it's to be a simple matter of preference, then what is to be our rule for which preferences are "normal" and which violate all sense of human dignity and decency? All statutory sexual limitations - polygamy, incest, age limits, etc. - can be casually toppled by the "innocuous" label of "sexual preference."

Okay - storm getting closer. We need the rain. More rant later.