Not exact matches
The purpose of my book, Making Gay Okay, is to see
what natural reason can tell us about human sexuality and flourishing, most particularly in light of the claims of
homosexual activists.
But there is a difference between civilized censorship and spineless pandering to ideological terrorists, which is
what the more aggressive
homosexual activists have become.
In particular, it is a response to the threat against the family represented by secular society's accelerating movement towards accepting
what were, only a generation ago, simply demands by a small minority of
activists for the legalisation of
what they insist on describing as
homosexual «marriage».
Among secularists, gay
activists, liberal politicians, and the like, it is taken for granted that
homosexual urgings are «natural,» in the sense of being innate (the word nature comes from the Latin natus, «to be born» as, in fact, does the word innate); and since the urges are natural in that sense (or so goes the claim),
what's wrong with satisfying them?
Hayes draws on historical texts — such as early lesbian
activist Anna Rüling's 1904 speech,
What Interest Does the Women's Movement Have in the
Homosexual Question — that «re-speak» to new audiences.