Let's keep the Dem's on the run!
Click the Pic!
Posted on 07/15/2003 10:41:28 AM PDT by gcruse
I'm with David Horsley. If there is such a thing as a "gay agenda" I must be one of its supporters by default. I've never been "recruited" for this cause; never received any political material describing the agenda, the forces opposed to it, or how it will prevail in the law and the institutions of America; and I've never attended any meetings suggesting my heterosexual predilection is a target for gay subversion. But there are people out there with whom I disagree who tell me that gays of both genders are promoting this "agenda," and the demand that gays be given equal treatment under the law is apparently the first step on a path that will soon have me dating Bruce Willis.
I am not persuaded.
There's a lot of nonsense surrounding the phenomenon of homosexuality.
There's the idea that homosexuals "recruit" heterosexuals. This is absurd because you can't change someone else's sexual orientation. If you don't believe that, try changing your own. If you can't do it to yourself, what chance does anyone else have to do it to you? My sexual orientation is not up for grabs, and I defy anyone to sweet-talk me into sleeping with men.
There's the idea that gays corrupt the young. Some may, but as science repeatedly points out, most episodes of sexual abuse involving adults and children are perpetrated by heterosexuals. I suspect someday we will see a movement to outlaw heterosexuality because of all the perversions it spawns, but for now I would rather rest my weight on the idea that acts of sexual perversion are separate and distinct from sexual orientation. That way we can sweep up offenders of both persuasions.
And there's the idea that gays "choose" the "gay lifestyle" - whatever that is. As I've pointed out before on this page, if anyone can "choose" to be gay, so can you. And if you can choose to be gay, your right of choice should be protected as long as you meet the new criteria - consenting adults, privacy of the bedroom.
But the only element of "lifestyle" common to all gays is that they prefer sex with people of their own gender. Beyond that you can find gays who are committed and gays who sleep around, just like us. You can find gays who drink wine and gays who drink beer, just like us. You can find gays who are Republicans and gays who are Democrats, just like us.
The only "agenda" gays hold that I'm aware of is to correct mistreatment under the law, and since the gays doing this are American citizens who work, pay taxes and vote, there is no reason to deny them this much of what they want. Gays should be able to form lifelong committed relationships, participate as full partners in medical decisions of their mates, pass on property to survivors as easily as the rest of us can.
And, yes, they should be able to raise children as a family unit.
This is the idea that troubles some people to distraction - what about the children? Won't kids who grow up in a homosexual-parent family turn out gay? Well, do all children who grow up in heterosexual-parent families turn out straight? Of course not. I had three children by my first wife. Two are heterosexual, one is gay. So that argument doesn't hold water.
What is important to children in any family is the quality of the relationship between the parents and between parents and children. Two heterosexual parents can make the lives of their children a living hell. Two homosexual parents can make the lives of their children an example of trust, commitment, integrity, and love.
We all ought to seek and savor the second kind of relationship, not reject one of them out of hand because we don't like the pairing.
But giving gays some minimal protection under the law is an essential first step to understanding their relationships, because nothing distorts research like criminalizing the behavior to be studied.
Besides, when gays are denied fundamental protection under the law, we are stating to the whole world that justice in America depends on your choice of sleeping partners. This is an insupportable premise for public policy.
For those who are rabidly opposed to homosexuality, I say by all means stay heterosexual. Just don't expect to see your zeal elevated to legal prohibition. Gays can be good Americans, too, and discriminating against good Americans with the law has yet to prove itself a viable long-term strategy.
This statement here shows the ignorance of the author. The truth is, nobody really knows exactly how sexual preference works. This is just the icing on the heap of garbage that is the rest of the article.
Let's keep the Dem's on the run!
Click the Pic!
No need for evidence. No need for any discussion. It's just a fact. Let's move on. Don't mention Anne Heche or any of the other many homosexuals who have been cured.
as science repeatedly points out, most episodes of sexual abuse involving adults and children are perpetrated by heterosexuals.
Does science point that out? What does that little phrase mean? I think any good statistical study would show that most sex abuse is committed by people with XY chromosomes, on people who also have XY chromosomes. Think recent Catholic Church scandals. Now, if you want to define these incidents as heterosexual, please go ahead. It won't hurt your credibility. Really.
"This is absurd because you can't change someone else's sexual orientation. "
Being "gay" is a choice. No one is born that way and the more perverted people you can recruit the merrier for the perverted. Why do you think they want in so badly to the Boy Scouts? Recruit em when their young and innocent. Lesbians are already in the Girl Scouts.
The truth is you CAN change this perverted homosexual orientation. This scares the hell out of militant gays. There's a wonderful organization called Exodus International that CHANGES their mindset and has them leading normal heterosexual lives, complete with families.
Gays hate the organization because it corrects the lie that you can't change. If we had no sexual abuse, molestation or people lacking those affirming their sexual identity we wouldn't have any homosexuals. THIS is what causes one to take the perverted homo lifestyle and WHY they act out on it when they are typically adolescents. Some supress it but eventually with society appearing to embrace it more they step out of the closet sooner.
It's ALL about directing their affection to same sex because they were abused by that gender and desperately seeking affection they didn't receive or didn't receive the support they needed when becoming a young male or female.
Take Cher Bono's daughter, Chastity ... have you seen a more self absorbed woman? In her biography she openly admits she had NO time for her daughter. Well it shows. Her daughter is a lesbian. As for those who wonder about the sexually molested/abused and why they seek more from the same sex ... well WHY do hetersoexuals seek out the SAME abuse they've seen their parents inflict on one another? Yet, as wrong as abuse is, people will seek it out because they are used to it and oddly enough, feel comfortable with it. It's strange but the weak need help to conquer that low self esteem and worth. It is precisely what the organization Exodus International helps them with.
Exodus International also helps them deal with their spiritual void. Christ will enter the heart of ANYONE who is seeking His help. When He sees someone earnestly trying to change their life in accordance with His teachings He'll be there. It doesn't matter if your problem is homosexuality, alcholism, stealing ... etc.. He is there for ALL who seek Him.
Gcruse, I doubt that you'll agree with my answer but it is the truth!
It's a mental illness that is curable, so yes, homosexuals can be talked out of their sexual orientation.
Further, all people are born heterosexual. But some can be traumatized or otherwise damaged so that they become mentally ill -- which manifests itself as homosexuality. So, yes, these heterosexuals can be talked out of their sexual orientation.
I am saying that it may be possible to change a persons orientation, and that is where I differ with the author. Both sides probably have it wrong, in that their might indeed be individuals who are born "gay" or somehow otherwise transgendered, and then there are those who simply "Get into" the lifestyle, for whatever reason (ie. Prison). A liberal psychologist tells me that they really dont know all the answers yet, so making statements to fact as the author did makes him dead wrong. Ergo, the rest of the article was trash.
I can't possibly imagine myself becomming a liberal. Yet, I don't think I was with a conservative "gene". My parents were conservative, and I came of age politically in a conservative place. My early experience in working (In the US Air Force) was also a very conservative place. I don't doubt at all that had I grown up in Greenwitch Villiage I'd be liberal, and perhaps even gay.
There's the idea that gays corrupt the young. Some may, but as science repeatedly points out, most episodes of sexual abuse involving adults and children are perpetrated by heterosexuals.
Huh, yeah. I think that there are lots more hertosexuals in the world, so the odds favor that. But I strongly think that a "hertosexual" male messing with a boy can no longer be considered hertosexual. At best, he's bisexual, by definition.
A close friend of mine related a story of a professor in 1950's fly over country who regularly recruited young men. The prof was married (to a female), but liked to fool around with male students. At least one student he picked up stayed gay. Another he picked up had a serious mental problem with it, and tried to commit suicide before he figured out he liked girls despite his experience with the prof.
One of the biggest lies out there is that gays are "born that way". And the second biggest lie out there is that they "don't recruit".
Maybe some people are "born that way". And maybe not all gays "recruit". But some people I personally know chose to be gay/bisexual after being seduced. And certianly some gays go for young men with the hope they can "change" them.
And there's the idea that gays "choose" the "gay lifestyle" - whatever that is. As I've pointed out before on this page, if anyone can "choose" to be gay, so can you.This is oversimplified. Indeed, it's a little more false than true: if one posits (as do I, and I believe as most scholars of the subject believe) that sexual orientation on the 7-point "Kinsey Scale" -- with 1 as purely heterose_xual and 7 as purely homose_xual -- in the population can be graphed as a leftward-smooshed Bell Curve, with the apex of the bell over about the "2" (which is a strongly heterose_xual leaning),
To the contrary. They desperately want to be happy but do not find it in a same sex relationship.
"The gays I know seem to be a lot happier than the people going around screaming and moaning about how gay people aren't happy."
No offense but you don't know them very well. I also don't scream and moan about anyones unhappiness. It's a shame when anyone is unhappy and especially those claiming to be "gay".
"BTW, bearing false witness is a sin but the good news is, you can change!"
LOL! Atleast you have a sense of humor. It is those that say being "gay" is normal that "bear false witness" or that they can't become normal heterosexuals. That's a tragedy to wish homosexuality to anyone for their short life on this earth and eternity in an unspeakable place for being "gay" , by CHOICE.
But you knew that.
No Mr. smarty pants, not me. But try it on a confused thirteen-year-old in the midst of puberty. Find someone gawky, and dorky who doesn't fit in. Explain to him that he doesn't get the girls because he's gay, and how loved and accepted he'll be if he tries something new and different.
Ex-gays will tell you how it all works. I've seen it happen too. Sick, sick, sick.
To that end, there is a cross-denominational organization that uses common funding, wording, and tactics. In the Episcopal church they call their lobbying group "Integrity," and IIRC it's "Dignity" in the Catholic church. The Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists are all trying to deal with their versions of the same organization.
Beyond that, the campaign is well integrated with the secular political agenda -- which of course uses common words and tactics (I don't know about funding).
One need not be against the gay agenda to name it for what it is. They are a group of people who want us to accept their sexual tastes. To that end, they argue that because their urges are innate, we must accept them as normal, and even celebrate their sexual orientation.
They may want to back out of that one too, especially if society gets to the point of designer genetic children. If there was a "gay gene", and prospective parents decided not to raise a pervert in their house, then that child may become murdered through an abortion. (ahh, the fun with flexible morality)
It is in the best interests of homosexuals to either start now and ban genetic testing for "queerness" or declare "we don't know" in regards to how one's sexual orientation is acquired. Personally I am a fan of the "sin nature" theory.
Paradox is saying that you can be talked out of perverse behavior that is sometimes passed off as an immutable characteristic under the concept of something called "sexual oriantation".
Does that mean adultery and every other form of sexual perversion is OK within those denominations?
There is "Dignity" in the homosexual lifestyle that hangs out in public restrooms and parks looking for anonymous sex?
Some people are just bound and determined to normalize deviancy, and the constant drum beat rationalizing perversion is the most effective tool.
Do you really think that S&M Bondage Parade down Main Street will change people's minds to accept it?
The individual's right to freely exercise his or her liberty is not dependent upon whether the majority believes such exercise to be moral, dishonorable, or wrong. Simply because something is beyond the pale of "majoritarian morality" does not place it beyond the scope of constitutional protection. To allow the moral indignation of a majority (or, even worse, a loud and/or radical minority) to justify criminalizing private consensual conduct would be a strike against freedoms paid for and preserved by our forefathers.
Do all gunshot victims die from the wound? Sometimes folks get lucky. Sometimes folks spend the rest of their lives suffering from an incident.
It's best not to think of gunshots as "normal" -- just because not everyone dies from them.
It's best not to defend homosexuals with the question "So all those altar boys are gay now?"
You know it's not. It's just that none of those other perversions has its own well-funded advocacy group -- not to mention the time and inclination to actually work their way into the church power structures.
There is "Dignity" in the homosexual lifestyle that hangs out in public restrooms and parks looking for anonymous sex?
Hey, they picked the name, not me. It's just window dressing, of course.
But lets be perfectly clear, not all people prone to alcoholism became alcoholics. Many people who do become alcoholics overcome the destructive lifestyle of alcoholism and spend their lives fighting those urges in order to live a normal life.
At the same time many people who are NOT alcoholic nevertheless descend into alife of destructive alcohol consumption.
A lot of people who fall into lives of alcoholism are brought into that lifestyle by their peers (dare I say recruited?), especially when they are young.
All of the above applies to gays if there is such a genetic predisposition to that kind of perverse and destructive behavior. Nothing says they HAVE TO succumb to that unhealthy lifestyle however. They can overcome it and return to leading normal and healthy lives, fighting off the destructive urges with the help of family, friends, and most importantly Faith.
Not been to prison eh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.