The pressing issue of homosexuality is forcing a crisis in modern-day America. As the Deputy Chaplain of the United States Marine Corps has recently written: "American society is experiencing the concurrent phenomena of increasing sensitivity regarding human rights accompanied by growing rejection of sexual morality. The movement to approve homosexual conduct as an acceptable lifestyle is not surprising in today's permissive society."
Current statistics are revealing. For example, a recent survey of the U.S. population as a whole indicates that the average number of sexual partners for those over the age of 18 is seven or eight. This is shocking news.
However, in a study by the Kinsey Institute, almost half of the homosexual men who were questioned estimated they had engaged in sex with 500 or more partners. Nearly one-third said they'd had sex with 1,000 or more partners. In addition, almost 80 percent of white male homosexuals said more than half of their partners were strangers.
These figures have not changed significantly since the onset of the AIDS epidemic. The latest figures available from the Centers for Disease Control show that two-thirds of all AIDS cases in the U.S. are directly attributable to homosexual conduct.
Fifty percent of male homosexuals in San Francisco are now infected with the HIV virus, up from 7 percent in the early 1980s. These statistics alone are compelling enough reasons for us to be concerned with homosexual conduct in the military and homosexuals as teachers and youth leaders.
Some defenders of homosexuality argue that it is simply an orientation or a 'status,' rather than a conduct. But the homosexual cannot be separated from his or her conduct.
The Deputy Chaplain of the Marines, for example, has written that he has counseled many military men accused of homosexual behavior and reviewed cases involving charges of homosexuality. He has not, however, come across a single case of such a person being discharged from the military who denied having engaged in homosexual conduct. The ‘status’ argument, then, is a sham.
As a career military officer has put it: "While opponents of the current DOD [Department of Defense] policy prefer to avoid the issue of behavior and instead to present homosexuality as a non-threatening orientation, the fact is that lifelong, or even career-long, celibacy among those with homosexual orientation is a rare exception rather than the rule."
No matter the argument, the real issue here is the battle for the power to force acceptance of homosexual conduct. The homosexual agenda is to compel society's acceptance of their sexual choices and their lifestyle – even at the expense of religious liberty and conscience.
The relationship between protecting religious liberty and allowing homosexuals in the military may seem confusing. How does 1ifting the ban on homosexuals in the military affect religious liberty?
The best examples are already occurring on America's college campuses. Many colleges and universities are implementing so-called "toleration" programs. Entering college students are required to take "homophobia" and "biphobia" courses before beginning their college work.
These classes are not about learning toleration or eliminating discrimination; they are concerned with the wholesale revision of values on the issue of homosexuality. In other words, students can’t pass the course until they agree that homosexual conduct is an acceptable and valid sexual choice.
But it gets worse. Many colleges and universities are now requiring heterosexuals to be roommates with homosexuals – a kind of sexual "integration" plan.
In one representative case, a young man realized that he had been assigned to live with a homosexual when he arrived at his dorm and found pictures of naked men all over the walls and learned that his new roommate planned to have homosexual lovers "sleep over" in their room.
The young man had sincerely held religious beliefs regarding the immorality of homosexual conduct and, after several appeals, was able to secure another dorm room and a non-homosexual roommate.
University officials, however, required this student to take a course on homophobia and forbid him to even discuss his religious views on the subject while on campus.
Thus, the radical homosexual movement seeks not mere toleration, but the power to compel everyone to accept its members and its conduct. If the ban on homosexuals in the military is indeed lifted, the problems with homosexual "tolerance" programs will most likely spread from the college campus into the military.
Members of the military who hold a religious belief that homosexuality is immoral will experience the same problems that university students are now experiencing. But in addition to being censored and indoctrinated, they may face a court martial.
NOTE: John Whitehead, an attorney and author, has written 13 books. He is the founder and president of The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit legal organization that defends the rights of religious persons. Whitehead is a member of the bars of the Supreme Courts of Arkansas and Virginia; the U.S. Supreme Court; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits; and various U.S. District Courts. – Christian Financial Concepts, Money Matters, Page 2