This week, many an unsuspecting American family will travel to Walt Disney World, where they will find themselves at the epicenter of a recurring cultural earthquake. There, at America’s favorite family destination, hordes of homosexuals will congregate at Pleasure Island for an annual exercise in societal entropy. “Gay Days at Disney” they call it – though it is anything but.

“Gay” in the current vernacular is, of course, the term used by the fashionably PC to describe homosexuals. In dictionaries just a couple of decades ago, however, this same adjective meant “happy” or “a state of high spirits.” A century ago, the primary definition was: “licentious, lacking moral restraints, leading a debauched or dissolute life.” The Gay ‘90s, for example, were the final decade of what Mark Twain dubbed “The Gilded Age,” an era of unmitigated opulence and unrestrained immorality among a subculture of the elite.

In light of this earliest definition, we’re reminded of the inimitable words of that great American philosopher, Yogi Berra: “This is like deja vu all over again.” Indeed, today’s “gay” culture is equally dissolute, and its agenda is anathema to the bedrock institution of our past, present and future – the American family.

Leading the charge in homosexual advocacy are groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, and their strategy has heretofore been an effective one. The ACLU selects cases in U.S. Circuit Court venues where the Left has installed a majority of judicial activists – those who do the bidding of constituencies like homosexuals, in effect ignoring the Constitution and legislating by judicial fiat. It is these same judicial activists who affirm social redefinition issues such as same-sex “marriage” and same-sex partner benefits.

It should be noted that these are not cases concerning the rights of consenting adults and their sexual practices – which the federal Constitution does not address.

The homosexual legal agenda notwithstanding, the question all enlightened Americans should be asking themselves in order to understand better the moral implications of this agenda is, which definition of “gay” applies to the homosexual subculture in America? In order to answer this question, one must gain some insight into the pathology of homosexual behavior.

The shifting paradigm of sexual morality is a source of much controversy in America. Homosexuals, though less than 3% of the population, are at the center of this controversy. The secular rights of consenting adults are in contest with the timeless natural order of the family and society.

To discuss the issue of homosexual normalization, we must move beyond the “pro-this/anti-that” labels and dispel a false dichotomy – one that has infected our dialogue on the issue of homosexuality. Homosexual advocacy groups often rebut dissenters by branding them as pharisaical, intolerant and judgmental – ad hominem accusations which serve only to preclude a consequential discussion of the issue. Of course, one’s heartfelt disagreement with the social agenda of homosexual advocates has no direct correlation with one’s capacity to love or have compassion for others. Nor is such dissent necessarily related to judgment, which is God’s alone. Rather, it is about discerning between right and wrong and obedience to objective truth – as opposed to conformity with a contemporary code of relativism whose tenets are “tolerance,” “diversity” and “inclusion.”

From a Judeo-Christian perspective, it should be noted that objective truth does not constitute law without grace. In fact, law in the absence of grace is meaningless – little more than oppression. However, grace in the absence of law is, likewise, meaningless – little more than licentiousness. Law and grace are, in fact, different sides of the same coin.

Understanding aberrant sexual behavior is the critical first step toward healing it. Homosexuality is sometimes a promiscuous lifestyle choice. Often, however, as understood by many medical and mental health specialists, gender-disorientation pathology is associated with childhood or adolescent sexual and/or emotional trauma and/or abuse. Additionally, homosexual modeling by an authority figure – often an influential person with access to the victim through the family, church, school, neighborhood or media – can result in gender-disorientation pathology.

Homosexual victims often compensate and cover their pain by manifesting some degree of narcissism – an unmitigated expression of self-love, self idolatry. They compulsively indulge in aberrant sexual behavior to avoid reconciling the pain of abuse or homosexual modeling.

Additionally, while there was rampant speculation a decade ago about a “homosexual gene,” that theory has been repeatedly rejected by both the scientific community and national homosexual advocacy organizations. It should be noted, however, that some children may be genetically predisposed to exhibit masculine or feminine characteristics associated with the opposite sex – putting them at greater risk of being targeted by homosexual predators and more susceptible, psychologically, to homosexual modeling.

It is no small irony that the most outspoken advocates for the homosexual agenda are equally outspoken about environmental issues – preservation of the natural order. Even the most humanist of these advocates must acknowledge the obvious – that homosexuality is a clear and undeniable violation of the laws of nature.

Given insight into the pathology of gender disorientation, to abandon, under the aegis of “love, compassion and inclusion,” those who struggle with homosexuality, is tantamount to abandoning a destitute soul in a gutter.

In the final analysis, there is nothing “gay” about being afflicted with gender disorientation pathology. Nor is there anything redeeming about those who would use a family theme park to advance the homosexual agenda.

Quote of the week…

“We know that obligatory homosexuals are caught up in unconscious adaptations to early childhood abuse and neglect and that, with insight into their earliest beginnings, they can change. … But, when homosexuality takes on all the aspects of a political movement, it, too, becomes a war, the kind of war in which the first casualty is truth, and the spoils turn out to be our own children. … In a Washington March for Gay Pride, they chanted, 'We’re here. We’re queer. And we’re coming after your children.’ What more do we need to know?” –Charles Socarides, M.D., clinical professor of psychiatry, Albert Einstein College of Medicine

On cross-examination…

“The assumption I am now challenging is this: that every desire for change in sexual orientation is always the result of societal pressure and never the product of a rational, self-directed goal. This new orthodoxy claims that it is impossible for an individual who was predominantly homosexual for many years to change his sexual orientation – not only in his sexual behavior, but also in his attraction and fantasies – and to enjoy heterosexuality. Many professionals go so far as to hold that it is unethical for a mental-health professional, if requested, to attempt such psychotherapy. … Science progresses by asking interesting questions, not by avoiding questions whose answers might not be helpful in achieving a political agenda.” –Robert Spitzer, professor of psychiatry, Columbia University