Gay rights is an issue that has taken on many faces with many different arguments for specific legislations being called for. But lets examine some of the claims made by gay advocates and the validity of their arguments.

Those who would have the audacity to oppose gay marriage are immediately labeled bigots, hate-mongers, and the old classic, homophobes. This is one of the main reasons that meaningful debate contrary to that of gay advocates will never get a fair shake in the media. The constant redefining of the words family and marriag have forced the debate into the forefront since the liberal elite are introducing the updated definitions into school curriculums. The emergence of gay clubs and groups called the Gay/Straight Alliaince and books like Heather has Two Mommies are prime examples of the attempts at redefining the traditional family.

The discussions and reasonings that take place in these types of groups can be easily challenged or refuted, but this just opens the door to the person aguing against the statements to be labeled immediately.

I like to state a few of the typical arguments of gay advocates and allow a different angle on these views. We have been told that gay people do not choose to be gay, but that they are simply born that way. Logistics of nature itself dictate that gay people cannot procreate. This would lead to a logical conclusion that this is a genetic defect. There have been numerous studies that support the theory of a so-called gay gene. But to suggest that further research may be able to correct this possible defect sends shockwaves through the gay community. It has been speculated that medical research may be able to isolate and correct defective genes, such as a predisposition to breast cancer and cerebral palsy. These people relish the chance to change or cure their problems, or to ensure that future generations will not be inflicted with these diseases. Yet gay people cringe at the thought of such research and readily proclaim that even if a gay gene could be isolated and corrected, they would choose to remain the way that they are. This smacks of hypocrisy, when everything that gay advocates espouse now is considered, especially when someone refers to homosexuality as a sexual “preference.

The winner of the 1999 Robert Stine Medical Humanities Award was a paper by Jeremy Townsend entitled Ex-Gay Therapy: A Critical Defense. This paper was a criticism of psychological treatments to cure homosexuality. In the first paragraph this sentence appears verbatum: While most gays and lesbians claim that their homosexuality is something that they did not choose and would not change even if they could, many others, especially politically active Christians, feel that homosexuality is a pathology that should be treated.

But what about those homosexuals who did want to change, and have? There are groups that promote treatments to help homosexuals try to achieve a change in their sexuality. The two main groups are NARTH ( National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuals) and the Exodus Ministries, a religious based group. These groups claim to have around a 50% success rate, but are summarily dismissed by gay advocates and the APA (American Psychological Association). Detractors of reparative therapy question the success claims of these groups with especially harsh criticism. Understandably, the APA refutes any of these treatments, since they strongly contradict their own findings on the subject of homosexuality. They cite the lack of concrete evidence and the lack of long-term study results. Ironically, the APA came under heavy attack very recently for publishing and endorsing a narrow study of the effects from pedophilia. The published article stated that there was no evidence of long term psychological damage to children who were sexually molested by adults. The article went so far to claim that as long as they were consensual relations, that it might even be a healthy relationship, and suggested that the word pedophilia be changed to adult-child relationships.

Not surprisingly, a fringe gay group called NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) wasted no time in publicizing the APA story. This groups' sole purpose is to legalize sex between adult men and young boys. On NAMBLA website there are letters from boys ranging in age from 11 to 19 (although there were pictures of much younger boys), stating the beauty of man/boy love.

In one of these letters, a 12-year-old boy tells of his days of prostitution and how he was raped by a so-called heterosexual man. This is another of the myths put forth by gay groups. They will claim that the majority of sexual abuse against young boys takes place by heterosexual men. This in itself is contrary to logical thinking. If a man molests a boy, this obviously indicates that he is gay, or at least bi-sexual, not heterosexual.

One of the final myths that I like to address is the fact that gay advocates will almost always refer to the animal kingdom to validate their sexuality. While its true that there is evidence of homosexuality in some animals, does this mean that we can excuse other animalistic behavior such as killing, abandonment, and even rape? In the animal world, it is a common occurrence that the strong prey on the weak by taking advantage or even killing them for such small reasons as simple pride. In an evolved society we try not to let these things happen by legislation and simple moral codes that we have.

The disturbing trend in America is the voice of fringe groups trying to redefine, through legislation, the meaning of words like family, morality, and compassion. There is no doubt that societal values have plunged to a depth not imagined even by our parents' generation. There is a point at which we as a civilized nation must stand up and not be afraid to say, NO, this is wrong. If there can be one shining example of this in the annals of history, look back to the Roman empire. The citizens of Rome became so wrapped up in the pleasures of the flesh that the fabric of its society unraveled. The longer we remain silent and the more concessions that we make, the harder it will be to retain any foothold on the ideals in which our country became great.