Other than our massively over-exposed and community-organizer as President, the term “gay” anything now forces me to grab my remote just as quickly to change the channel. Even watching Little Einsteins with my granddaughter is more satisfying than hearing about the first male athlete in a major team sport to come out of his closet. The gay agenda has generated a dialog (or is it a one-note, non-stop rant, unconditionally supported by the MSM?) that has become so pervasive and invasive as to be patently offensive. For anyone who disagrees with marriage equality, and/or people of faith who view homosexuality as sinful and against the natural order, the instinct is to retreat from the society and close off all communication with the outside world. If we do that, however, we’ll be deemed even more anti-progressive and Luddite than the liberal community already presumes.

It seems the best most of us can attempt is to manage carefully our exposure to the declining “progressive” culture. Turn on Bravo channel most anytime and you’ll know exactly what I am referring to. You had filth-monger Kathy Griffin’s talk show (now cancelled, thank goodness) along with real housewives of everywhere and Fashion Queens and Dukes of Melrose. The latter two shows are laden with effete, affect-rich guys in the fashion industry, living stereotypes of homosexuals. Somehow this is progress? Toward what?

In conjunction with cable channels, network shows featuring LGBT characters and relationships have shown another increase in the current TV season, according to website sheknows.com. ABC leads the charge; proudly I’m sure, as the “gayest” network in terms of number and percentage of LGBT characters. CBS was cited as the most improved. Optimistic estimates I have seen recently would indicate that the total LGBT population in the US might be somewhere between 3 and 4%, although I have also seen some lower. No one really knows because many don’t self-identify. The broadcast industry seems to be angling for an on-air mix of characters meeting that 4% estimate, but will likely go beyond that.

Now, I am not one of those who would remotely suggest that this is a carefully plotted scheme by gay militants to assume control of society to bend us all to their way. It just so happens that the creative arts – communications, entertainment, theater, acting, etc. – tend to have a liberal bent and many gays work in those fields. Naturally it seems, gay issues would be near and dear to them and would work their way into the fabric of sitcoms, dramas and news. They are doing so at an ever-increasing rate and of course, the lifestyle is depicted as normal and the characters and relationships are affirmed. Those in opposition are homophobes and bigots. I ask simply – since when does disagreement mean fear of or hatred and discrimination toward? So, the beat drones on, seemingly without end, to the irritation of many of us, although few actually admit it. It’s politically incorrect to oppose homosexuality or marriage equality.

Let me be upfront: As a Christian, I believe that homosexuality is not in God’s plan for people; homosexual behavior is sinful, according to the Bible. However, I am not here to condemn – to each his own I say – God commands us to love all people. Clichéd though it is, love the sinner but hate the sin is a pretty apt description. But, as you liberals who don’t want us to impose our morality upon you, don’t thrust yours on us.

As a person with a fairly logical bent to my thought process, I find homosexuality to be antithetical to the natural order of things. Man and woman exist to propagate the human race by joining together in a sexual union; marriage is the outward, acceptable representation of that covenant, that commitment between a man and a woman. Mating with others of the same sex for the pleasure of it is unproductive. Marriage cannot and should not mean the union of a man with a man and a woman to a woman. Words have meanings and “gay marriage” is an exercise in linguistic anarchy.

You know what? People disagreeing with such behavior are not going to stop others from pursuing their lifestyle; this is the land of the free and politically correct, isn’t it? I am firmly in the camp of live and let live. I don’t believe the government should be sanctioning homosexual behavior because it defies nature and thus, would not seem to be in the public interest of the majority of people.

But here’s my real beef: Is anyone else sick of “all gay, all the time?” Seems like all you hear when you turn on the news or watch primetime is gay rights, gay marriage, someone notable “coming out of the closet,” and the Gay 90’s. Oops, forget that last one. That would demonstrate a proper use of the word “gay” as it related to a period of American history.

Anyway, the focus on sexual preference as THE defining aspect of one’s life is the hallmark of the homosexual agenda. The more they talk about it, the more passé and more acceptable they hope that it becomes. I have some news for you: While “gay marriage, the oxymoron,” may soon become the law of the land, those of us who disagree with the lifestyle will still be here, political correctness and selling-out- to-the-latest-rage be damned. We “breeders” spend little time, if any, announcing our preference because we don’t have to. We don’t perceive our sexuality as any kind of a difference maker for better or worse. We perceive it as a fact of life. I am well aware that LGBT people feel that same way, but I can’t see where this contention is supported in the natural order.

I know there are gay actors, stevedores, TV execs, pipefitters and soldiers and frankly, I really don’t care where or with whom they bed down, so stop bragging about it! Each notable person who comes out of the closet does so, in large part, to “further the cause,” to ease the way for others and to broaden acceptance. If you are a basically good person, not focused on harming others and you are good at what you do, live your life and please, please, please … be quiet about it as I try to be about my life. That’s “live and let live.”