“Being Gay Versus Gay Behavior”

I am not frightened or scared of gays, and I do not suffer from homophobia. I believe it’s more like “homo-dislike-ia” of homosexual behavior. Proponents of gay rights have their nasty habit of labeling anyone opposing gay behavior as being homophobic, and they expect me (or anyone like me) to feel guilty about my “discriminating.” In my mind, there’s a big difference between someone being gay and someone practicing gay behavior, which I personally find abhorrent and immoral.

Let me explain my position. Let’s say that I own a restaurant. If two men come into my place of business, I don’t know if they are gay or straight, so how could I possibly discriminate against them by not providing service? The same observation would hold true for two females sitting down at a table. If the two men or two ladies act like normal restaurant customers, even if the men show effeminate mannerisms or if the women seem to have masculine appearances, I cannot prove that they are “gay” and must cordially give them the benefit of the doubt.

Gay is okay! But there’s a caveat here in my moral reasoning! Gay is okay if the gay person is celibate and engages in abstinence. In other words, I have no problem accepting gay folks if they are professed “gay virgins.”
But if the two seated men (or women) begin holding hands incessantly and then lip-kissing for prolonged periods of time in “my restaurant,” offending either my other patrons or myself, then I would definitely insist on evicting them. My conscience (moral compass) would determine that their practicing of “gay public behavior” is both inappropriate and unacceptable. Conversely, if the two men or two women were acting in more traditional restaurant etiquette, blending in with the crowd, then they would be more-than-welcome to dine in my establishment.

Now let's say that a photographer having strict Christian moral values is approached by a same-sex couple planning wedding pictures. The photographer automatically knows that the same-sex couple desires being "practicing gays" so he refuses them his services and hands them a business card of another photographer who would gladly accommodate their wedding day needs. But the same-sex couple does not honor the photographer's moral values and the adamant pair unreasonably threatens to sue him and destroy his business for wickedly violating their civil marital rights. I believe that such blatant discourtesy and inflexible disregard for another person's moral value system is both reprehensible and totally selfish, especially if the photographer had tried to peacefully resolve the issue by politely referring the vindictive same-sex couple to another more liberal-minded photographer. But in most cases, the two militant same-sex gays will attempt to destroy the photographer's livelihood simply for the purpose of stubbornly advancing their "immoral" agenda.

Let's say that a gay couple enters a bakery. The owner suspects that the pair happens to be gay but will gladly sell the twosome doughnuts, bagels, bread, cookies, danish, cupcakes, buns, rolls, cream puffs, eclairs, strudel, muffins or even a birthday cake. But the intolerant gay couple wants the baker to cater their wedding and provide a reception cake, which is obvious code language for the duo being "practicing gays". The baker refuses, so a day later a raucous vigilante mob of gay rights' activists pickets the bakery in an effort to economically punish the Christian-oriented owner and consequently shut the business down.

As for my own personal behavior, I feel no need to publicly announce over and over my sexuality yelling-out the statement, "I am straight! I am straight!" Conversely, I can't lucidly fathom why it is so necessary for mostly "practicing gays" to repeatedly tell the world all about their unorthodox sexual orientation by shouting "I am gay! I am gay!" Who really cares?

Ask yourself several elementary questions to fully comprehend the absurdity of "same-sex marriage." "Was my grandfather a woman?" "Was my grandmother a man?" "Was my father a female?" "Was my mother a man?"

The gay and lesbian advocates are endeavoring to rewrite the dictionary, making opposites have the same definitions. These obdurate social revisionists are desiring to create a 21st Century Tower of Babel where basic gender descriptions are virtually identical and where all differentiation
pertinent to traditional male/female gender references are erased.

Years ago a high school friend of mine came “out of the closet” and announced to his former classmates that he was a “homosexual” at the high school reunion.
This old friend told me that he now is retired as a social worker and presently often performs nude “gay entertainment shows” up in western Canada.

My old friend came back to my town to visit his only living aunt, who immediately got in touch with me and related the news. I contacted the fellow and invited him to a restaurant nicely situated near a local river. My wife decided to tag along for a delicious meal.

During the dinner, I innocently asked my friend, “Tell me, how long have you’ been officially gay?” Surprisingly, my benign inquiry sent my homosexual past acquaintance into a verbal tirade. “Why do you call me gay?” he obnoxiously screamed out loud. “I’m not gay! I’m queer!" he boisterously ranted.
My wife and I were extremely embarrassed at his loud outburst occurring inside the crowded dining room. My old chum’s unwarranted holler was indicative of “indecent gay public behavior,” and if I were the establishment’s manager or its owner, I would have either reprimanded my old pal or thrown him off the premises.

Even if a gay is a “practicing gay,” it’s okay with me as long as either he or she doesn’t shout it in my face. I don’t like wild and raucous gay parades, and I would never attend a raucous straight one, either. I contend that one’s sexuality is private knowledge that is unfit for public consumption. If someone engages in homosexual conduct, I prefer that it be performed in a bedroom or in a hotel room, but please be sensitive to my “discriminating sensitivities” when out in public. Gays should exercise discretion and prudence when navigating around in public or in mixed company.

I suppose the principal reasons for my basic “homo-dislike-ia” are as follows:

Homosexuality goes against nature, or against the “natural order.” Humans and animals reproduce through natural sexual intercourse. I have a problem with the “gay practice” promulgating that another man’s rectum is an entrance and not the obvious exit that’s been effectively designed by nature. Furthermore, let’s assume that all animals were suddenly transformed into homosexuals. Cherish your dogs and your cats. Within twenty-five years, most animal species would cease to exist. And if all humans were homosexuals, then human existence would quite possibly disappear into oblivion after a century or so.

Oh yes, I know all about sperm and egg fertilization outside the womb and then having embryo implants inserted into the uterus. But don’t we straight folks get it? Since practicing gays can’t reproduce “naturally,” adoption is the next logical and predictable step on their radical agenda. Yes, I certainly know that married gays love each other very much, but how they practice their gay love (sodomy, etc.), well quite frankly, most religious-value-oriented people find the enactment of homosexual physical love to be egregiously offensive, repulsive and distasteful. And I just have to wonder how many same-sex marriage "adopted children" will grow-up being straight "traditional marriage" adults?

Yes, I suppose that Christian morality does “discriminate” against “the practice of gay behavior.” Throughout recorded history, morality has always discriminated against immorality; good has discriminated against evil and moral right has discriminated against moral wrongdoing. The main objective of the uber-liberal left and of the gay rights activists is to cloud the prominent line between morality and immorality (under the surreptitious guise of Constitutional Rights), cleverly blurring the difference so much that soon it will be impossible to distinguish the contrast between “religious morality” and “legal immorality.”

Forget all of the redundant, hackneyed legal arguments! Someone please explain to me exactly what is moral about homosexual-sexual activity? Or is gay the New Morality? In many cases, legalizing gay marriage is a government permission slip to immorally practice sodomy.

In short, "Same Sex Marriage" is a cleverly contrived euphemism for "Same Sex Sex".

Much of this new 21st Century interpretation of the legal rights of gays (along with woman’s rights’ abortionists) can actually be attributed to the theories of two famous scientists, Charles Darwin (everything in animal life must evolve and change) and Albert Einstein (relativity). In effect, the Ten Amendments in the U.S. Bill of Rights are presently in direct conflict with the Old Testament’s Ten Commandments.

Who can deny Albert Einstein's colossal impact on American culture? With the revolutionary Theory of Relativity came the unique notion that everything in society is “relative”: yes indeed, nothing anywhere in America (save death and taxes) is absolute, is permanent or is fixed. And so now we have such things as the Bill of Rights to the Constitution coming into clashing conflict with widely-recognized traditional American family values.
The First Ten Amendments (under the guise of freedom of speech and freedom of expression) are now insidiously undermining the original Ten Commandments handed-down to Moses on Mt. Sinai, simply because now all truths (gay rights included) must be relative and not absolute.

Indeed, Darwin and Einstein have inadvertently affected the change in American values from absolute moral truths to relative values. This stunning switch happened when scientific thinking bled over into the social sciences in the early 1900s.

Take this rather disturbing gay rights marriage issue for example in regard to what Einstein's relativity has mutated into. Remember: everything today is rapidly evolving and must be “Relative” and not “Absolute” (for example, God's Ten Stone Tablet Laws). Two iconic Commandments are: “Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother” and “Thou Shall not covet thy neighbor's wife!”
Just think about those two simple-but-sage Commandments for a second. The principal purpose of heterosexual (man-woman) marriage is to biologically conceive children and then to nurture them through mature parenting skills. The very vocal gay and lesbian political activists want gays to get married, to then adopt children and next to have loving families.

Now someone please explain this rather paradoxical situation to me. How could an adopted child with gay “parents” know who the mother is if two males are his or her parents? If two lesbians are his or her parents, which one is the father according to the very explicit Commandment: “Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother?” And if two gay married men are living next door, according to the Ninth Commandment, which one is “thy neighbor's wife” to be possibly sinfully coveted? Evidently, the sixth and the ninth Commandments are being blatantly violated by “practicing gays engaged in gay marriage.”

Under the Charles Darwin “evolutionary pattern” and under Albert Einstein’s politically correct “relativity law,” which have both morphed into gay rights' laws, the idea of certain “sins” against God has been almost eradicated, and “sin” is now basically obsolete and simply a “relative” insignificant matter. In order for Biblical teaching to survive in this modern era, Ten Commandments' morality must gradually evolve into immorality, or else it is destined to perish when contradicted by perpetual “gay and freedom of choice immorality.”

And needless to say, coincidentally, a woman's right to choose having an “Abortion” also very obviously violates the Stone Tablets' ABSOLUTE Commandments because a conceived child is sinfully killed, “Thou Shall Not Kill,” and the fetus has no opportunity whatsoever to ever honor either a mother or a father, or for that matter, ever coveting a neighbor’s wife.

And indeed, if the very vocal in-your-face abortion rights' activists/hypocrites had themselves been aborted before their sacred births by “Right to Choose” mothers, the conservative Christian community would not be having any legal wrangles with any of those vocal militants at present.

Was Sodom and Gomorrah a Biblical myth or could it all soon again be happening right here in America? I'll let you be the judge of that! But still, acceptance of gays, lesbians and tolerating a woman's “right to choose” are currently being taught in our all-too-liberal socialistic public schools, thus affecting and influencing young impressionable minds, thanks partially to the impact of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity, both scientific principles ironically skewing American Constitutional Law and thus, changing former absolute tenets of morality as exhibited and taught for over two millenniums in the Bible’s Ten Commandments.

No, I am not part of the invented left-wing propaganda nomenclature "homophobic." Instead, I am merely "dis-like-ia" of boisterous, bellicose, arrogant, obnoxious, intolerant radicals who proudly practice sodomy and other gay and lesbian homosexual behavior.

Jay Dubya (author of 50 books)
Google: Jay Dubya Books

Reviews: No name-calling please! Just address the issue!