Lack of concern for the homosexuals who wish to be held in high esteem and their demand for all the benefits given 'traditional' married couples is not necessarily indicative of religious fundamentalism.
People keep mentioning it but I've never seen it, my gay friend in college had a similar agenda to me, get through school, pave a way to a better and brighter future for ourselves, and have a little fun and sometimes a lot of beer while doing it
My Church hasn't been 'caving' but the Catholic Church in the US is much more liberal then in the rest of the world, I've been to certain churches where the homily has been more political has spoken against the Churches stances on issues involving allowing women priests and homosexuality. The Church as a whole will never give the okay for gay marriage at least not in the foreseeable future so if that's what you mean by the 'gay agenda' then I would vote against any possibility of her caving on that issue.
I believe half of the things I say and say half of the things I believe.
The Bible is very specific about sexual morality. It is addressed only to men because women were property in the old testament. It says, don't have sex with family members, in laws, step children, and numerous other forms of heterosexual sex. It had to be specific because it can't ban heterosexuality although the evangelical movement in the 19th century did forbid sex of all types. They just decided to change that. Anyway back to leviticus.
In the older text it says that it is abominable to have sex with a catamite, which is a beardless man, in the Jewish culture it was forbidden to shave your beard, so this was a boy, male child. It also referred to thus person you are forbidden to sleep with as a slave, sex slave, prostitute. Its all the same in Hebrew culture.
Now upon translating to modern English about two hundred or so years ago the translators just said homosexuality because it was extremely taboo at the time so no need to be specific.