Where Do We Stand?

Recently a genuine friend of CCV asked this honest, albeit alarming question: “Why is CCV against homosexuals?” She explained, “I support your position on pornography, on indecent broadcasting, on strip bars, on all those things. But why do you attack the homosexuals? Shouldn’t we defend their rights? We may not agree with their lifestyle. But how are they harming us?”

Inquiries such as the above created awareness among the staff of CCV that we, the staff, had assumed, incorrectly, that all the citizens whom we represent understood our position with respect to homosexuality and the agenda of homosexual activists. Resting on that incorrect assumption, we had failed to communicate clearly that position. This paper is an attempt to do exactly that-to articulate and explain the position of CCV with respect to homosexual behavior, our relationship to those who engage in homosexual behavior, and the campaign or agenda of homosexual activists.


First, CCV definitely is not “against homosexuals,” those who practice homosexual behavior. We know that homosexual behavior is destructive to the individual and sincerely reach out to assist those individuals caught up in this behavior. Further, while disagreeing with the behavior, we firmly believe that those individuals are entitled to all the rights and freedoms offered to citizens of this community, state and nation. Compassion, respect and sensitivity mark our relationship to those trapped in this behavior.

On the other hand, we believe that the campaign, the militant agenda, of homosexual activist organizations threatens the emotional and physical health, indeed, the very life, of those trapped in such behavior. That agenda also represents one of the greatest threats to our traditional Judeo-Christian family values, and to societal stability as a whole, of our generation. We want all our supporters to understand the facts supporting these beliefs.


The primary focus of this paper will be the inherent dangers of the homosexual activists’ agenda-dangers both to society and to the individual. It is those dangers that compel us to react in opposition to that agenda. However, we would be remiss if we did not first address briefly the more basic issue of the morality of homosexual behavior.
One of the primary tenets upon which this organization was established is the Judeo-Christian teaching that the family is the cornerstone of civilization. Inseparably linked to that tenet is the belief that marriage- i.e., one woman and one man living together in a lifelong, monogamous, covenantal relationship- is the foundational element of the family unit. Compromise the integrity of the marriage relationship, and you compromise the integrity of the family.

Some have reasoned that this “Judeo-Christian” teaching is based upon tradition, and that as the needs of societies change, adherence to tradition alone should not prevent us from adapting our traditions to changing needs and mores. But this teaching is grounded in more than tradition. This teaching is grounded in Scripture, and the truths of Scripture are absolute and are not subject to change.

Both the Old and New Testaments clearly state God’s intention for human sexuality: the monogamous, lifelong sexual union of one man and one woman. Any departure from that Divine order is a distortion of God’s intention for human sexuality, including not only homosexual behavior, but also rape, incest, pedophilia, premarital sex, adultery, bestiality, pornography and any other sexual expression outside this Scriptural norm.

We do not here even address the many instances in both Testaments where homosexual behavior specifically is condemned. Repeatedly, relativistic screens have been thrown over those passages and their meaning has become distorted through numerous debates. We do not believe that such passages are any less meaningful or clear in their condemnation of homosexuality, but we also do not feel that they are crucial to the argument. By far the most convincing condemnation of homosexual behavior is the affirmation throughout the Scriptures of the Creator’s intended design for human sexuality.

Nature also affirms the Scriptural sexual ethic. One man and one woman have the ability to express their love in a true, complete physical union. That union, alone, results in life-giving procreation.


Quite apart from our moral objection to homosexual behavior, compassion-genuine compassion-compels us to reach out to those individuals involved in homosexual behavior and to resist those activists who seek to draw men, women and children into this destructive lifestyle.

The destructive outcomes associated with homosexual behavior are numerous and they are well documented. Those destructive outcomes include AIDS, a much higher incidence and risk of sexually transmitted diseases, approximately three times the risk of alcoholism and drug abuse, a significantly higher rate of domestic violence and promiscuity, and a shortened life span.

How can this be? How can attraction to the same sex result in such devastating outcomes? In discussing “homosexual behavior” we must not allow ourselves to politely sidestep the ugly, straightforward facts. “Homosexual behavior” is not simply “feelings of warmth” toward members of the same sex. Specifically, by “homosexual behavior” we are referring to oral and/or anal sodomy practiced with members of the same sex. When “homosexual behavior” is thus accurately defined, homosexual activists, in order to cloud this ugly truth, are quick to accuse their informed opponents of being “caught up in the sexual aspect” of homosexuality. The undeniable fact is-that practice is primarily what constitutes “homosexual behavior.” Complete social acceptance of that very behavior is what these activists are promoting. It is that specific behavior which they claim qualifies homosexuals for special rights and “minority status.”

Anal sodomy, the dominant homosexual behavior, is the most efficient means of transmitting Aids, the most lethal disease of our generation. It also is an efficient means of transmitting most other STD’s. The promiscuity encouraged by those who practice such behavior intensifies the problem. Numerous, well-documented reports confirm the relationship between the emotional problems listed above and those who practice such behavior. All of this adds up to a significantly decreased lifespan.

Note the sharp contrast between such undeniable truths and the TV-sitcom portrayal of homosexual behavior. Note the even sharper contrast between these truths and the classroom discussions about homosexuality as an “alternative lifestyle,” discussions in which our children are being forced to participate at an increasingly younger age.

It should be noted here also that homosexuality is not genetic. This false claim has been repeated so often and so loudly that a disturbing majority of the public has accepted it as truth. Absolutely no research supports this claim. To the contrary, thousands of people have overcome this desire, have withdrawn from homosexual behavior and have gone on to enjoy fulfilling heterosexual relationships.


Even more alarming than the destructive effect upon the individual is the threat that the activists’ agenda poses upon society as a whole. Again we repeat, the traditional family-one father, one mother, and their natural or adopted children-is the basic building block of society. Not just our society, but society as a whole. The history of civilization proves that when a particular society strays from this norm, that society deteriorates.

Homosexual activists are not simply seeking acceptance of individuals who engage in homosexual behavior. Rather, the primary, clearly stated focus of their agenda is normalization, complete social acceptance, of homosexual relationships and the undermining of the traditional family. Just as we cannot stand by silently and watch individuals lured into a destructive lifestyle, we also cannot stand by silently and watch militant activists chip away at the very foundation of our cultural heritage and our Judeo-Christian belief system.

Statements such as the above evoke some basic questions and challenges that need to be addressed. Who are these “activists” to whom we repeatedly refer? What is this “agenda”? Is it really anything more than the contrivance of heterosexual, “right-wing” activists who are repulsed and/ or threatened by the presence of homosexual behavior in society?

Among others, these activists are the leaders and active members of the gay and lesbian clubs; the owners, editors and writers of the homosexual periodicals; and influential spokespersons, including many prominent actors and politicians. Their agenda involves a well-thought-out, cleverly executed and well-funded campaign to confuse and deceive the American public.

One of the most widely circulated homosexual campaign articles was first published in 1987 in the homosexual magazine Guide. It was titled The Overhauling of Straight America, and it contained a literal blueprint for homosexualizing our culture and vilifying all who are opposed to the normalization of homosexual behavior. That plan has been embellished and enlarged. And that plan is working.

These well-organized activists have embellished that plan in numerous treatises published since that time, but they have never deviated from the two primary areas of attack set forth there. First, normalize the behavior. With the enlisted help of the mass media and the arts, among others, in an incredibly short period of time, homosexuality has come to be accepted by a majority of the public as an alternative behavior pattern rather than as a dangerous distortion of God’s plan for human sexuality. Secondly, vilify the remaining opposition. All those who oppose and who would try to expose this deviation for what it is, have been depicted as villains-hate mongers, narrow-minded bigots, intolerant and unloving people. As a result of this successful tactic, the voice of compassion has been stifled.

One very important part of the homosexual activists’ agenda is to raise the awareness of homosexuality, or simply stated, to talk about homosexuality frequently and loudly. In virtually every area of our lives, the homosexual activists have been successful in raising the homosexual issue. Every one of us has been forced to be a part of the argument regarding homosexuality and marriage; homosexuality and adoption; homosexuality and civil rights; homosexuality and minority status; homosexuality and the armed forces. The list goes on.

Consistently, in all of these areas, it is the minority position of the homosexual activists that has been heard most clearly. To a degree, the reason for that lies in the pro-homosexual bias of the entertainment and news media. To a much larger degree, however, the reason lies in the fact that gay and lesbian activists have been able to silence criticism by defining any opposition to the disease of homosexuality as “homophobia.” With this inflammatory, coined epithet, gays and lesbians have thrown anyone who expresses compassionate or personal disapproval of homosexuality into the same category as those who dislike, hate or harm those who engage in homosexual behavior.

Have they been successful? Results seem to say so. Many major corporations have succumbed and have granted “domestic partner” benefits, benefits traditionally reserved for married couples and their families, to homosexual partners and other non-traditional living arrangements. Employment discrimination laws now include “sexual orientation” in their language. Many cities, counties and municipalities have added “sexual orientation” to their anti-discrimination ordinances. More changes in the political and work-place arenas lie just over the horizon.


Of even more concern to the pro-family position than the unhealthy changes in these arenas, is the stronghold that has been established by gay and lesbian organizations in our schools. Powerful national organizations are behind the drive to homosexualize our schools-at the collegiate, secondary and even primary levels.

The most influential such organization, and a very well funded one, is GLSEN-Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network. Among other activities, this group organizes homosexual clubs and “gay-straight alliances” in our schools. From information gained on GLSEN’s own website, we know that GLSEN-sponsored clubs now exist in 19 school districts in the Greater Cincinnati area alone. The purpose of these clubs is to train gay and lesbian students for activism and to encourage “straight” students to experiment with homosexual behavior as defined above.

A sister organization is PFLAG-Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays-which encourages parents of students to volunteer for activism on homosexual issues. And reinforcing the efforts of these organizations are the ACLU and the NEA, the nation’s most influential union and an organization that aggressively pushes homosexual issues in schools.

Nowhere has the drive to normalize homosexual behavior and silence opposition been more organized and more effectively orchestrated than in our schools. On a regular basis in public schools, under the guise of anti-bias or multi-cultural education, simple statements expressing disapproval of homosexuality for moral, religious or health reasons are categorized as “hate,” “homophobia” or “discrimination.” As a result, an environment has been created in which students, who have heard a different message at home or at their place of worship, have been forced to censor themselves. Eventually, the silent resistance weakens. Resignation follows. And then acceptance.

The drive to normalize homosexual behavior in our schools takes many forms and frequently is masked in positive, deceitful language. Many schools have adopted “non-discrimination” policies that single out “sexual orientation.” Such policies have been used to label anything to which homosexual activists object, including too much emphasis on the traditional family or heterosexuality, as “discriminatory.”

Recently, schools across the nation have been encouraged to adopt “anti-bias” or “safe school” policies. The language, “anti-bias” and “safe school,” practically forbids opposition. Again, careful examination reveals the hidden agenda. The wording of these policies specifies “sexual orientation” and they have been used to associate all objections to homosexual behavior with “hate.” Students place themselves at risk of disciplinary action simply for stating their faith-based views on homosexual behavior.

Federally-supported, required diversity or tolerance programs for students and teachers exist in most public schools-even at the elementary level. The lessons taught here equate acceptance of homosexuality with religious and racial tolerance. They portray traditional values, and those who hold them, as “hateful.” Homosexual role playing frequently is encouraged.

Room does not permit us to elaborate on the many other avenues through which the homosexual message has infiltrated our schools. But we hardly have scratched the surface here.

The reason that the homosexual activists’ agenda concentrates so heavily on schools is obvious. In the workplace and political arenas, some opposition to normalization of homosexual behavior still exists. With a well-executed agenda in our schools, that opposition will be non-existent in the next generation.


One tactic used by homosexual activists to attain complete social acceptance of homosexual behavior is to seek special rights for homosexuals. By disguising their demands under the umbrella of the civil rights movement, they have been frighteningly successful. They compare “homosexuals” as a group to truly disenfranchised classes such as racial minorities and women. Many in the population have accepted that comparison without examining the legitimacy of the claim.

Persons who practice homosexual sodomy do not demonstrate any of the characteristics that identify disenfranchised classes. They are not discriminated against in any of the ways considered essential by the courts-economic status, educational opportunity or political representation. In fact, the level of education and the average income of homosexuals are considerably above the average education and income for the population in general. A study of their movement shows that they clearly enjoy all the legal rights and privileges of other citizens.

Civil rights laws have been enacted in our country in order to protect classes of people from discrimination based on status-on immutable, distinguishing characteristics that have nothing to do with behavior. A person’s race, for example, has nothing to do with that person’s lifestyle or behavior patterns. To remove race as a criterion for social decision-making thus makes sense.

Homosexuals cannot be characterized by any such status, but only by their behavior, i.e., by the fact that they choose to practice sexual acts with members of the same sex. If the argument could be made that this behavior pattern qualifies for “civil rights” protection, the same argument could be made for innumerable “classes” of behavior, ranging from the most frivolous recreational preferences to repulsive, deviant sexual preferences.

By claiming the need for special protection, those who practice homosexual behavior are asking for rights that other citizens do not have. The homosexual activist desires to coerce others not to take into account the inclination of homosexuals to practice same-sex sodomy when they make decisions, even though those others-including employers, landlords, and parents-have a right to take this preference into account. Our courts always have protected such “legitimate discrimination” as a basic right. To give such special protection or privilege to homosexuals is to take away that basic right. There are legitimate, common-sense reasons for taking into consideration a person’s sexual preference in making personal decisions, especially when that preference is associated with infections disease and emotional disorders.

To return to our friend’s question, CCV is not “against homosexuals.” However, we do not consider homosexuality an alternative lifestyle or even a “sexual preference.” We believe that homosexual behavior is unhealthy and destructive to the individual, to families, and thus to communities and to society as a whole.

Compassion compels us to reach out to support healing of individuals who have been drawn into the homosexual lifestyle. And healing is possible!

Statistics show that as a behavior pattern becomes more accepted by society, more people will be tempted to experiment with that behavior. Although the actual percentage of our population that would identify as homosexual still is less than 2% (nowhere near the 10% that homosexual activists claim) this percentage could change dramatically in the next ten to fifteen years if concerned, informed citizens do not actively resist the organized effort to normalize homosexual behavior in our society, especially in our schools.

At the outset of this paper we stated that the militant agenda of homosexual activists represents the single greatest threat to our Judeo-Christian family values, and to societal stability as a whole, of this generation. We hope that you understand our rationale for that statement and will join us in resisting, on every front, the organized effort to normalize homosexual behavior in our society.