"Values" voters gather to laud their new messiah

link

Some beliefs of the Family Research Center....

”In recent decades, there has been an assault on the sexes. That is, there has been an attack on the previously undisputed reality that human beings are created either male or female; that there are significant differences between the sexes; and that those differences result in at least some differences in the roles played by men and women in society.

The first wave of this attack came from the modern feminist movement, challenging traditional social roles of men and women. The second wave came from the homosexual movement, challenging the principle that men and women are created to be sexually complementary to one another. The third wave of this assault on the sexes has come from the transgender movement, which has attacked a basic reality—that all people have a biological sex, identifiable at birth and immutable through life, which makes them either male or female.

There are certainly overlaps between the homosexual and transgender movements—both assert a radical personal autonomy even in defiance of the natural characteristics and complementarity of the two sexes. As a result, the two movements have also been allied politically more often than not. For that reason, Family Research Council here offers a response to both.

However, there are also sufficient conceptual differences between the issues of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” for them to be addressed separately. Here, FRC will recount some of the major claims asserted by these two movements, and explain based on the science and evidence why those claims are inaccurate.

In recent years, activists pushing for a “LGBT rights” political agenda—such as the redefinition of civil marriage to include same-sex couples and the expansion of non-discrimination laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories—have become increasingly virulent in their attacks upon social conservatives who resist that agenda. Examples of these attacks include a Colorado public official comparing the exercise of religious conscience by a baker of wedding cakes to slavery and the Holocaust,[1] and the Southern Poverty Law Center’s continual expansion of the list of mainstream pro-family groups that it labels as “Anti-LGBT Hate Groups”[2]—even after the list was used to target Family Research Council for an act of terrorism in 2012.[3]

Such attacks reveal a fundamental misunderstanding (if not deliberate misrepresentation) of the beliefs, arguments, and motives of social conservatives.

A WORD ON SEXUAL IDENTITY AND LANGUAGE


First, it is important to clarify FRC’s position and that of many social conservatives on the nature of human sexuality. We believe that every person, no matter who they are sexually attracted to, is created in the image and likeness of God. There- fore, all people are equal in dignity and value and must be treated with respect.

We believe that sexual attractions or other sub- jective psychological feelings do not define a person. Rather, every person is defined by their immutable, in-born biological sex, which is pres- ent and identifiable in the DNA of every cell in the human body. While it is certainly true that some people identify very strongly as “gay,” “lesbian,” “bisexual,” “transgender,” or another identity and act according to this identity, this behavior does not define them, just as a so-called “straight” person is not defined by their “straight- ness.” Rather, the divinely intended purpose of human sexuality is inherently present in the complementarity of the male and female sex, as created by God and described in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis.

Therefore, when discussing homosexuality, we avoid using the terms “gay,” “lesbian,” or “bisex- ual” as solo nouns because this tends to imply that some people’s intrinsic, inborn, immutable identity as gay, lesbian, etc. is who they are.
As we will explore, this idea is empirically false.

We instead say “people who engage in homo- sexual conduct” or “people who identify as homosexual.” (A comment on language choices regarding gender identity issues can be found un- der the section “Responding to the Transgender Movement” on page 13.)

It should also be noted that in the context of the political debates over LGBT issues, social con- servatives do not consider people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender to be their adversaries. We recognize that most people who identify as LGBT are content to keep their sex lives private rather than demand official gov- ernment affirmation of their sexual identity or conduct. This is why we will sometimes use the terms “homosexual/transgender/LGBT activ- ists” to describe those people whose political and social agenda—the forced public affirmation and celebration of LGBT identity and conduct—we oppose in the public square“


You get the drift of who these people are.  Nice crowd.

 

Disturbing to say the least.