June 21, 2002


Ask any homosexual activist whether it is any business of yours with whom they choose to have sex, especially when that choice means someone of the same gender. The answer will be unanimous: this is private, consensual and none of your business! Of course, homosexual activist go beyond even this.

The homosexual activist claims a right to openly live out their sexual preference and we must accept it. They argue that what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms is none of our business, and neither is it our business if they hold hands in public.

The old morality, based on the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” argues that at least to some extent, the privacy of the bedroom is everyone’s concern. Yet most of us would agree that if homosexuals kept their sexuality in the bedroom, we would likely look the other way – unless they took captive one of our children.

As a matter of public policy, the old morality relegated homosexuality to the closet. Kinsey, in his highly structured lie that passed as research, told us that 10 percent of the male population was homosexual. Leaping at these phony statistics, we have been told that such large numbers – logically 28 million Americans – deserve public recognition. But simply recognizing them soon failed to accomplish their goal. They wanted more.

They wanted tolerance, and then acceptance. All the time, the homosexual activists argued that they just wanted to be able to live their lives the way God created them. Never mind that no serious science has ever proven such a claim; Kinsey served their needs well enough. So homosexual activists told America to shape up and accept homosexuality just as we had other minority groups.

When we argued that being black is natural, not immoral, they argued that governments should be neutral on issues dealing with moral choices. One person’s sense of morality differed with another, just like some people liked beef and others, chicken. Whatever sexual preference a person preferred is nothing more than that – sexual preference. There would be no negative public ramifications from the institution of such a government policy, they argued.

When we argued for limits on sexual activity, the homosexual activists illogic offered them no real argument, save their own preference. We see the mechanics used by homosexuals to gain sexual release as immoral, sometimes animalistic and even barbaric, but only because, they argued, we had a different sexual preference. Though when confronted by some of the more extreme sexual preferences, the homosexuals found themselves in a moral vacuum.

How could they oppose group sex when that was someone else’s sexual preference? How could they oppose cross dressing or transsexual surgery when it would make someone else feel comfortable? (I still cannot fathom having Debbie Davis, a male who dresses as a woman, serving as my children’s school librarian, as he does in a Minneapolis high school.)

When they ran into strong opposition from public school children they created new curriculum which they claimed had been perpetrated by the old morality. So an entire generation has been taught that being homosexual is no different than having freckles, and no freckle-faced kid deserves derision. Generation X Christians in public schools were fed this pabulum all through school. Whatever we call today’s grade schoolers are seeped in this putrifying sap of accepting all sexual preferences as equal.

It’s as if the founding fathers held hands and said, “God created the unalienable right to unfettered sexual expression.” They never said it because they believed in the old morality. They built a nation on those 10 Commandments, and they knew that a nation that snubbed God held itself out for His judgment.

Why, then, should anyone have been surprised by the recent St. Paul Pioneer Press article that explained how academia has now begun championing pedophilia? Just like Judith Levine’s perverted logic in Harmful to Minors, the newspaper claims that within a generation or so, Americans will accept not only same sex groping, but intergenerational groping. They tell us that having sex with a willing little boy or girl will be the rage, and society be damned – it is the sexual preference of the parties.

Say what they might, homosexuals have no moral footing upon which to stand to deny willing children their right to fornicate with whomever they choose. By pointing at others and condemning their sexual promiscuity, they will be pointed three fingers back at themselves.

Those of us who insisted the old morality provided the best guidance for life have already been tagged as evil oppressors. To what will those accusers point as their reference for limitations on adult-child sex? How will they make the argument that what these perverted adults do to children in the dark of a bedroom is wrong, while not incriminating themselves?

Either we toss out all references to sexual sin and accept everything, or we run toward the old morality. I think it is the difference between life and death of millions of human beings. For to throw off the restraint of the Sixth Commandment is to damn the other nine as well, and then there is no restraint on humans, save brute force.

We need to reassert the absolute truth that God created all of us as Adam and Eve, not Adam and Allen, or Eve and Evelyn. The old morality still matters.

The old morality still matters

Author - Speaker - teacher