By Thorin Anderson -Illinois Family Institute
Whenever there is conflict between homosexual activists and conservatives regarding the issues such as the acceptance of same sex marriage, we on the right are accused of a lack of respect for homosexuals.
But, I would like to make one thing clear. The debate is not about respecting people, but about accepting bad behavior. There are many human behaviors which we conservatives believe to be unacceptable. They range from lying and cheating to promiscuity before or during marriage. They include murder and rape and a host of other deeds, criminal or otherwise. To say that we don’t respect someone when we disagree with their conduct is to suggest that confronting any bad behavior is inherently disrespectful. Are we to stop speaking about all wrong conduct? Should we stop confronting lying, stealing, or murder? Such a suggestion would be ludicrous.
All humans are worthy of respect as humans, period. But it is utter folly to imagine that behaviors people engage in are automatically respectable simply because a certain number of people are involved in them. Sad to say, many things we human beings do are not only unworthy of respect, but are destructive and dangerous. There is a reason why no one writes in any detail, in public, regarding the activities of homosexuals. And there is a reason why homosexuals have significantly shorter than average life expectancies. There is not a newspaper in the country that would detail their private conduct, and most of our stomachs could not handle it. Yet, we are told we MUST accept such conduct as perfectly normal. Get out your Websters and look up “normal.” Homosexuality in no way fits the definition of “normal.” And, it requires no special genius to understand that!
No doubt many practitioners have found themselves harassed or worse by those who don’t respect homosexuals and have taken it upon themselves to mock or injure them. Such actions are wrong. It is legitimate to demand respect as people, but it is absolutely illegitimate to demand respect for conduct that is simply disgusting on its face. And, consider the homosexual’s attitude toward such virtues of fidelity and loyalty. No self-respecting woman would tolerate infidelity in her husband, but in the homosexual community, infidelity is not only allowed, it is a given. It is ironic that homosexuals demand such respect from the general community when they quite obviously have little respect for themselves or one another. Such proclivities reveal that, in fact, the homosexual lifestyle really is much less about deep abiding relationships than satisfying inappropriate sexual desires.
Let us be clear about something: Christian conservatives oppose the wanton satisfying of inappropriate sexual desires in anyone whether straight or homosexual.
Those of us who disagree with homosexual conduct based upon the principles of the Bible and nature can do nothing to stop homosexuals from practicing their chosen lifestyle. But it is an egregious violation of our freedoms, principles, and character to demand that we accept it as normal.
Thorin Anderson is a member of the Pastor Advisory Council to Illinois Family Institute and the pastor of Parkwood Baptist Church on the south side of Chicago.
Pastor Anderson is also the President of Men for Christ, an association that organizes annual weekend men’s rallies in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois on a rotating basis. For more information on these events, please visit http://www.MenforChrist.us.
The State of America's Family 
“Are we to stop speaking about all wrong conduct?”
Not at all. What you need to do is demonstrate why homosexuality is ‘bad’.
As this is a secular nation, “Because God/The Bible says so” is not a good enough answer for any legal. It’s good enough for an opinion, and you’re welcome to it.
But it would be akin to me saying “all those who eat ketchup on their hot dogs are people who are committing wrong conduct” and then having my only reason for it being a book that says it.
This secular nation would not exist without the principles of the Bible. It was the legitimating factor ending the tyranny of kings and all other arbitrary rule. Constitutional governance is modeled on it. Our rights to oppose and change law and government was also the result of people who believed in and defined their rights and freedom on biblical principles.
Nevertheless, we are now ruled by its opposite: secularism. Therefore, you are right why a behavior is bad needs to be demonstrated.
To a certain degree the secular nation owes Christianity, but not as much as you seem to think. Just looking at something as simple as the Decalogue, we can take note that only 4 of the ten commandments are laws. And of those, each existed within multiple human cultures long before Judaism came along.
I’m also moderately confused as to how a religion based on a totalitarian king is supposed to have led to constitutional governance.
I’m confused about your confusion. Maybe it’s a matter of focal point. My reference is based on writings by and from the colonial and pre-colonial American period and from scholarship about the period. Prof. Donald S. Lutz, for example, wrote about the history and development of American constitutionalism mostly from original legal and political documents, which he also published. His work demonstrates the biblical basis of constitutional governance. Vattel, Pufendorf, Burlamique, Wilson, Witherspoon, etc. wrote the some of the texts on natural law, moral philosophy (almost the same thing) and Law of Nations that were used by early Americans and the those participating in 1st and 2nd Constitution making conventions. All of which refer to God, moral law in human nature and fully revealed in biblical law and the basis of all law.
BF Wright writing on the history of natural law in American law showed natural law was part of our 2nd and current Constitution, which secularists have tended to deny.
All of which illustrates the need to read current as well 18th, 17th, 16th century works. Even some of John Locke historians claim his works were not the source of Americans ideals, but, at best, confirmation of what was already long practiced and believed by the Puritans, from which his ideas were drawn. Locke’s treatise on Government was also rooted in biblical principles, which scriptures he sometimes quoted as well as alluded to.
As a society we have every right to decide which behaviors are acceptable. Driving through red lights has been determined to be a problem behavoir by our society. Murder is generaly accepted as a bad behavoir as well, unless of course your victim is too young (a baby) to be defined as a human life by our courts.
Homosexual relationships have been around for centuries and will no doubt continue. Why must we as a society sanction these relationships with the long respected title of “Marriage”. Civil unions provide equal protection under the law already. It is the homosexual community at large that is disrespecting “marriage” in their battle obtain legitimacy in society. I find it rather telling that the recent TV ads ( support of No on Prop 8) had to resort to showing a man and a woman being restricted in their attempt to wed. They realized that to show two people of the same sex would “turn-off” the viewers. People have a natural discomfort with such behavoir. We were NOT (by God) made that way!