Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: hunter112; scripter
how do you convince people in the middle who work with, live near, and may very well be related to, an openly gay person, that heterosexuals deserve a right that homosexuals are denied?

I work with, live near, and have very friendly relationships with gays. I suspect my sister divorced her husband because he decided he was gay (after their child was six), although nobody told me. Additionally (and I consider them related) I have relatives who are alcoholics.

And therein is the issue. Alcoholics are good people when not drinking or drunk. Yet nobody wants to "tolerate" their alcoholism. Their family members may enable them, but we don't see people trying to remove drunken disorderly laws or DUI laws. Alcoholics aren't monsters, but they do need treatment, and our society has done OK that way.

Homosexuals are maladapted. I don't think there would be any argument that if we had a simple cure, like an injection, that would leave a homosexual completely unchanged except for his "sexual orientation" that he would be better suited to society. If it were as simple as a cortizone shot to clear a rash, I'm sure there would be no objection to requiring all homosexuals to get the shot. There certainly wouldn't be the widespread effort to stigmatize "homophobia" and teach kindergartners that homosexuals are just like heterosexuals.

Well, there is an effective treatment. It is not more effective than treatments for other mental problems, but it is not less effective either. (I also happen to personally know some ex-gays and our friend scripter can give you more links than you want to ever read about the success rate.)

And this is the answer to your question. Homosexuals aren't "icky." They aren't monsters. They are as nice as the person next door. But they have this problem that would be better treated than left alone. It's OK if they don't want treatment, but their unwillingness to receive treatment does not mandate us changing our culture to accomodate them.

The next question is, how do you fit that down into a sound bite.

Oh, and I'm embarrassed to have misdirected you to Jeff Jacoby. He's the Globe's token conservative, not the Herald's. He emails his columns to me so I have lost track of the links. However, you can read it here.

Shalom.

121 posted on 12/05/2003 10:31:49 AM PST by ArGee (Scientific reasoning makes it easier to support gross immorality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]


To: ArGee
I thought you were referring to Jacoby's article of the prior week, The timeless meaning of marriage, where he also talks about marriage in terms of the definition of adultery. The gay movement wanted the courts to change the legal definition of adultery in order to back into a de facto gay marriage definition.

-PJ

126 posted on 12/05/2003 11:39:47 AM PST by Political Junkie Too (It's not safe yet to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies ]

To: ArGee; hunter112
Great post, ArGee.

I also happen to personally know some ex-gays and our friend scripter can give you more links than you want to ever read about the success rate.

We have ex-gays on this forum as well.

FWIW, freeper hunter112 knows all about the categorical index as I have repeatedly pointed out links and named links to hunter112.

127 posted on 12/05/2003 12:22:29 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson