Skip to comments.'Gay Days'? The reality of gender-disorientation pathology - (strong arguments!)
Posted on 06/04/2005 9:43:30 AM PDT by CHARLITE
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 will select 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 such issues as same-sex "marriage" and same-sex partner benefits.
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. 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.
(For a comprehensive response to the homosexual agenda in the church, visit http://FederalistPatriot.US/papers/03-32_paper.asp.)
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
"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
Mark Alexander is Executive Editor and Publisher of The Federalist Patriot, a Townhall.com member group.
It will be a very cold day in he!! when I give Disney any of my money.
Farmers constitute approximately the same percentage of the population, and they certainly get most of what they want from Congress. I don't understand it either. Although they're not trying to force us to accept their lifestyle, either.
It's simple. Perverted heterosexuals are the enablers of homsexual perversion, and they consititute a far greater proportion of the population, and a larger menace by their sheer numbers.
You make a valid point. I believe homosexuality is a choice. Just like children, this "in your face accept my choice" is confrontational and gathers more steam by using the radical approach. The more controversy, the more publicity, the more homos extract from society because people don't want the publicity and are afraid to stand up and say to "NO" to this aberrant behavior.
He did an excellent job on this article. Unlike some, he doesn't go too far with the "end homophobia" nonsense. Instead he clearly states that the arguments are all framed dishonestly. Then he addresses the real issue with love and compassion -- and truth! These are not contrary concepts.
Sometimes, the person is born with a gender glitch, but there are many cases of learned homosexual behavior that the media ignores. Just as a pedophile has most likely been abused himself, a person can be enticed into the homosexual way of life.
Yes. In the name of "inclusion" they are turning their backs on needy people. Imagine if we were talking about alcoholics here. No one would think you help them by ensuring that they ignore the problem and even celebrate their alcoholism. And no one would demand that school children be instructed to respect alcoholics.
Disneyland knows what it's doing -- get 'em young.
The homosexuals are a tiny minority, but they are supported by people who are anti-religion or anti-God, by people who like a sexually libertine culture, and by people who, for one reason or another, dislike the nuclear family and want to de-stabilize it (those reasons can be political, as in socialist thought or personal, relating to their own poor family experiences.) So, add all those folks up, and start telling everyone else that to not support the homosexual agenda is "unfair" and "unkind", and you can come up with a powerful political movement.
I just hope and pray we can stop it. But if we can't, I predict that in 50 or 100 years, either the U.S. will have split into two different countries, or people all over the country will have self-segregated their communities. I just don't know how much longer people of such divergent views can continue to live side by side, and I can tell you for sure that raising good, healthy children these days is hellishly difficult. I just thank God my children are young adults now, and I hope and pray that when they have children, if they do (and I hope they do), they'll be able to do it in a good community.
Interesting point. I heard last night (on Fox News), that Michael Jackson's first publicly known alleged victim, Jordie Chandler, now 24 (and with a $20+ million payoff by MJ).."has yet to succeed in developing a satisfactory heterosexual relationship. The reporter didn't say whether or not Jordie has drifted in the other direction since his alleged introduction into gay behavior by the self-styled "King of Pop." (BTW, what an annoyingly ostentatious title that is!)
Do we have a Log Cabin Republican here?
Horrible comparison. Where's your head?
Someone in my family (no names please) has struggled with their gayness for most of their life.
I am not saying dark skin or a birth defect is a bad thing...you imply that.
You implied, I inferred.
Is this a constitutional "right" you are talking about?
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.