By Bryan Fischer
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is proposing a new rule that would require that homosexuals, transsexuals, transgenders, and cross-dressing transvestites be given the same access to taxpayer-funded HUD programs that sexually normal people have.
No “arbitrary exclusion” would be allowed, as if taking sexual deviancy into account is something capricious. But we know that homosexual behavior poses the same health risks that intravenous drug use and prostitution pose, and yet no one is insisting that landlords have to rent to every druggie or hooker who walks in the door. “Exclusion” is hardly “arbitrary” if it is based on sound reasons.
As I pointed out in my interview with the Christian Post for its article on the issue (which you can read here), the real issue is government endorsement of homosexuality. Survey after survey indicates that homosexuals have higher levels of income and education than sexually normal individuals, meaning they have a greater range of housing choices than normal folk as it is.
So this really isn’t about access to housing; it’s about forcing the rest of us to accept homosexual behavior as normative, something no sane society should ever do.
(One minor note: in discussing the issue of whether this is a civil rights issue, I said it’s not for the simple reason that race is “immutable” while sexual behavior is a matter of choice. The reporter misunderstood and quoted me as saying “race is immovable.”)
The second thing at work here is that not only will this rule demonstrate government endorsement of homosexual behavior - which is the real goal of homosexual activists - it will give activists a way to punish, marginalize, and silence any landlords with deeply held moral and religious convictions who won’t cravenly capitulate to political correctness.
In other words, if this is going to be a “rule,” there have to be penalties for breaking it. Ultimately, this is about inflicting Inquisition-type pain on any HUD landlord who holds time-honored convictions about human sexuality. The vicious homosexual lobby wants to make them pay, and pay they will.
This has already happened in England, where an elderly couple has just been dragged into court, convicted, and fined for refusing to rent a room with just one bed to a pair of homosexuals looking for a countryside tryst. The religious convictions of the landlords had prompted them to adopt a policy of renting such intimate accommodations to married couples only. Now they’ve got a rap sheet. That’s what homosexual activists want to do to conscience-driven landlords in the U.S., and this new rule will be their new cudgel to do it.
So ultimately this issue is about endorsing sexual deviancy and punishing those who object.
There are two more reasons why this is a perfectly bad idea. (I brought both of these up with the writer of the Christian Post article, but they did not make it into the published piece.) One, many young boys living in HUD housing are already in troubled domestic situations, many with no father presence in the home. The last thing they need is suddenly to be living next door to two males modeling a sexually abnormal lifestyle. Role models matter immensely to young boys, and they don’t need any more adults around them setting bad examples. They’ve already been exposed to enough of that.
And we know - despite the howls of protest to the contrary - that male homosexuals molest young boys at a hugely exaggerated rate. The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, did a study of its own priests who molested children, and found that 81% of the victims were boys.
The last thing in the world young males in troubled home settings need is to be put in a situation where there is a heightened chance they will be sexually molested by their next door neighbors. These HUD housing projects will become hunting grounds with easy prey for homosexual pedophiles. These young boys have enough obstacles to overcome as it is without becoming sexually confused and diseased on top of everything else.
Piously, HUD says in its summary statement that its goal is to ensure a “suitable living environment for all.” For all, that is, with the exception of vulnerable young children.
For our friends on the regressive left, everything is about protecting children, unless it’s about protecting them from sexual deviancy, in which case they want child protectors fined or thrown in jail.
The title of the article in the Christian Post is “Christians Conflicted over Housing Rights for Gays.” Only Christians who have not thought through this issue thoroughly and biblically could possibly be confused, and many apparently are. But that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to be.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)