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

Skip to comments.

'Gay Days'? The reality of gender-disorientation pathology - (strong arguments!)
TOWNHALL.COM ^ | JUNE 3, 2005 | MARK ALEXANDER

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

On cross-examination...

"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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: aids; carriers; courts; discrimination; disney; disneyworld; fagots; gayday; gaydays; hiv; homosexualagenda; homosexuality; laws; maggots; pedophiles; perverts; queers; sick; twisted; wickmanstrawman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-210 next last
To: Charles Wickman

If I had a child that was a drug addict - I wouldn't want drugs legalized just so she could feel better about herself. That's unfair to the rest of society.


61 posted on 06/04/2005 11:18:41 AM PDT by Andy'smom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Charles Wickman
If my son or daughter was born with a birth defect, I would still love them, wouldn't you?
62 posted on 06/04/2005 11:19:09 AM PDT by Charles Wickman (Cheney in '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Charles Wickman
they should have the same rights the rest of us do... This includes the right to marry.

They already do... to someone of the opposite sex...

63 posted on 06/04/2005 11:20:09 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Andy'smom
If I had a child that was a drug addict - I wouldn't want drugs legalized just so she could feel better about herself. That's unfair to the rest of society.
I agree, although as a libertarian, I support the legalization of drugs (another forum!)
But why criminalize something akin to a birth defect? Or being born with different colored skin?
64 posted on 06/04/2005 11:21:11 AM PDT by Charles Wickman (Cheney in '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: infocats

good point!


65 posted on 06/04/2005 11:21:29 AM PDT by Charles Wickman (Cheney in '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Charles Wickman
You have twisted my argument.

You are the one with a twisted argument.

How can you explain the abnormalty of the sexual act that they engage in? Bodies were not made, (even defected ones) for that type of sex.

Just as abnormal as having sex with animals, or children etc. etc........

WRONG, Perverted, sick, unnatural, no matter how you on the left trys to make it socially ecceptable.
66 posted on 06/04/2005 11:22:00 AM PDT by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
they should have the same rights the rest of us do... This includes the right to marry.

Clarification: the right to marry someone they love.
67 posted on 06/04/2005 11:22:15 AM PDT by Charles Wickman (Cheney in '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Charles Wickman

I don't want to criminalize it. Just not promote it, and that's unfortunately what marriage does.


68 posted on 06/04/2005 11:23:06 AM PDT by Andy'smom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Charles Wickman; little jeremiah

You're comparing physical traits with behavior...your pathetic.


69 posted on 06/04/2005 11:24:40 AM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium
How can you explain the abnormalty of the sexual act that they engage in? Bodies were not made, (even defected ones) for that type of sex.
I am guessing that you think there is only one position for heterosexuals to make love.
What if I happen to like a little more variety in my lovemaking?
;)
Is the missionary position the only one we allow?
:o
b00rrring!
70 posted on 06/04/2005 11:24:48 AM PDT by Charles Wickman (Cheney in '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: hispanichoosier
I agree that homosexual behavior is certainly a choice, and I think that taking part in the gay "lifestyle" is a choice. However, I do think that for a man to be attracted to another man instead of a woman there has to be something wrong (physiologically, chemically) with him. I often compare it with an alcoholic: he may be physically more prone to abusing alcohol, but he had to decide at some point to pick up the bottle.

Although I have a differing view of the matter, you are logical and well spoken. I think it is just a fetish, a cult of perversion that has its own dogma like a religion...

71 posted on 06/04/2005 11:25:34 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Charles Wickman
.black is apparently okay, but birth defects are bad?

Blacks are not abnormal.

If I had a child with a birth defect I would do what ever I could to see to it that that child lives a normal, and right lifestyle.

I have a child born with a disability, he is starting college in the fall.
72 posted on 06/04/2005 11:25:52 AM PDT by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: rdb3

Your going to love this.


73 posted on 06/04/2005 11:28:16 AM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium
Blacks are not abnormal.

I

NEVER

said they were!
74 posted on 06/04/2005 11:28:25 AM PDT by Charles Wickman (Cheney in '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Charles Wickman
Without getting too nasty, I know atleast one place in my body that I would never allow someone, or something to invade.

Call me boring, I would never engage in homosexual sex. And their lifestyle makes them far from gay, so why would anyone want to cause their body so much harm for that?

Same kind of pervert who risks all to have sex with children.
75 posted on 06/04/2005 11:30:51 AM PDT by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: KC_for_Freedom
Those are also tools of the homosexual activist, of which I now believe... are one...

There are quite a few of them coming out of the woodwork here on FR, usually recent members with marching orders from the Gaystapo...

76 posted on 06/04/2005 11:31:48 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium
If I had a child with a birth defect I would do what ever I could to see to it that that child lives a normal, and right lifestyle. I have a child born with a disability, he is starting college in the fall.Wonderful! Congratulations!

Now imagine if your child was barred from marrying someone he or she loved.
77 posted on 06/04/2005 11:32:00 AM PDT by Charles Wickman (Cheney in '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Charles Wickman
.black is apparently okay, but birth defects are bad?

Okay, I put it this way. Birth defects are abnormal.
78 posted on 06/04/2005 11:32:33 AM PDT by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: I got the rope
I am not gonna touch this one. Would be prudent. Better for me to just keep on moving...


79 posted on 06/04/2005 11:34:31 AM PDT by rdb3 (Yeah, but what's it spelled backwards?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Charles Wickman
What if they loved a married woman, or a child, or a dog?

I would get the help and tell them to straighten up.
80 posted on 06/04/2005 11:35:16 AM PDT by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-210 next last

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.

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