Posted on 05/08/2003 3:45:58 PM PDT by AveMaria
Pro-family groups and individuals such as the FRC and Paul Weyrich, have fired warning shots, over the decision by RNC chair, Racicot, to cozy up to gay activist groups. While I agree with the religious right on the need to preserve traditional family values, I have a somewhat different take on the whole "gay pride" movement.
As a Christian, and as a long time campaigner for racial justice and racial equality, I believe that the gay rights movement would not be as powerful as it is today, if most conservative/traditionalist/Bible-believing Christians had taken a very strong and unambigious stand in favor of racial equality in the 1960s. If conservative Christians had identified themselves very strongly with the Civil Rights cause, and been willing to denounce racism and segregation as a sin, then, they would have been a positive influence on the black Civil Rights movement and guided it in a pro-family direction.
However, the black Civil Rights Movement received its strongest support from white Marxists and other white moral relativists, and by the late 1960s, the movement had been corrupted. The gay pride movement came into existence in 1969, following a riot staged by gay drag queens at the Stonewall Club in New York. The gay pride movement then assumed the moral authority of the black Civil Rights movement, and began equating discrimination based on gay behavior, to the more vile and repugnant discrimination based on skin color. But because black Christians had been abandoned by white conservative Christians in the Civil Rights Movement, the black activists were desperate for allies, and they willingly extended the powerful moral legacy of their just struggle to the white moral relativists who were behind the gay pride movement. When conservative Christians fail to show moral leadership in just and righteous causes (like the Civil Rights Struggle), it weakens the moral authority of traditionalist Christians, and puts them in a position where they are unable to provide the necessary moral leadership to oppose phoney causes like the so-called gay pride movement.
The defence of traditional family values is a life and death issue. I have seen how the absence of traditional values has destroyed families in inner city and middle-class neighborhoods, with high rates of single motherhood and 50 percent divorce rates.
I want all of you to sit back, and examine the entire 34 year old "gay pride" movement critically. Gay sex acts, are acts that should make any person involved in them ashamed, not proud. All of us are sinners, and none of us is free from sin. But the value system in a morally healthy society should encourage people to be proud of the virtuous things they do, and brag about them, but should also discourage sin by making people feel ashamed of their sins. Sin should be a source of shame, not pride. The entire gay pride movement involves having people be proud of their vices and sins, and encourages the holding of gay pride parades where they can put their vices, nudity, obscenity, moral degeneracy, sickness, and sins on display. Unfortunately, too many conservatives (and many leftists, too) prefer to lump together the noble cause for racial justice, together with the gay pride movement, as both constituting leftist causes. The two causes need to be de-linked, because one is based on behavior, while the other is based in physical features that cannot be changed.
Homosexuality is about behavior, just as drug use, polygamy and bestiality. Those of you who may have tried drugs in your youth, and now have children of your own, are probably anxious to hide your youthful drug use from your kids, because that is one aspect of your life that makes you ashamed. Many American parents sympathized with candidate George W. Bush's refusal to answer the drug question in the 2000 campaign. No parent of teenage children ever wants to be put in a position, where he has to answer questions on youthful indiscretions.
While I do not support organized witchhunts against consenting adults who engage in private homosexual behavior in the privacy of their own bedrooms, I believe in restoring the public stigma associated with overt displays of homosexuality. Any person who engages in homosexual behavior should be made too ashamed to talk about that subject in public. That would be an important component to restoring traditional family values, and would make people less afraid to publicly make distictions between right and wrong.
If America was a morally healthy society, with the ability to make clear distictions between right and wrong behavior, the Republican Party should have come out more forcefully in defence of Rick Santorum's defence of the family. And believers of traditional moral values from all faiths and races, should have staged a public demonstration in defence of Rick Santorum's opposition to normalizing deviant sexual behavior. But before that can happen, the Church needs to regain the position of moral leadership as the conscience of society, that it once had.
But discrimination based on skin color, which is a physical feature that one cannot control, should outrage all decent people. Skin color is not a behavior.
If the gay pride movement was to achieve its objectives, it would create a whole new world, where none of us can ever take responsibility for our behavior. It would deny to each of us, the right to make moral distinctions between right and wrong behavior, and we would be required to tolerate any and all behavior.
Nothing less than the collapse of civilization is at stake. And the fact that we do not have a million people marching at the capitol in defence of the traditional family and Rick Santorum, is evidence that many people have no idea what is at stake in the Santorum controversy.
People choose the gay lifestyle. It ain't genetics. And people choosing such lifestyles in great number is a direct result of the liberal "if it feels good do it" BS that the Left has foisted on this country for too long.
That just MHO,
NFP
There is a sub-set of lunatic loons who appear to wish the ... end of American society --- as we know it. Like the Nazis and the communists in Weimar Germany, they have a great deal in common as potential destroyers of the social fabric.
I have engaged in several debates in the last few days, and I admire FreeRepublic as a forum for the free expression of ideas, but the overwhelming presence of this bunch of loons is very off-putting.
Lenin is supposed to have said that capitalists would sell him the rope by which they were to be hung. The “anarcho-loons” on this forum would not bother to sell the rope but provide it as a public service.
401 posted on 05/06/2003 5:54 PM PDT by moneyrunner (I have not flattered its rank breath, nor bowed to its idolatries a patient knee.)
NFP
White House backs Santorum; he's 'inclusive' & other Senate Republicans, including Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, have affirmed their support for Santorum.
Republicans Confident Gay Rights Issue Will Hurt DeanRichard White (search), a Republican state senator from Mississippi, said any candidate talking about gay rights might as well not even visit his state.
"The people down here, they are not going to put up with that kind of stuff," White said. "We're not prepared for all that in Mississippi or anywhere else in the southern states."
Support Sen. Santorum's strong stand for family (PETITION) 26,545 Signatures
Log Cabin GOP Leader Still on 'us_Queers' Forum [which advocates murdering Christian leaders]
gay pride
Homosexual behavior increases risk of AIDS - Dr. Brian J. Kopp, ... An exhaustive study in The New England Journal of Medicine, medical literature's only study reporting on homosexuals who kept sexual "diaries," indicated the average homosexual ingests the fecal material of 23 different men each year.
Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do FECAL SEX About 80% of gays (see Table) admit to licking and/or inserting their tongues into the anus of partners and thus ingesting medically significant amounts of feces. Those who eat or wallow in it are probably at even greater risk. In the diary study,5 70% of the gays had engaged in this activity--half regularly over 6 months. Result? --the "annual incidence of hepatitis A in...homosexual men was 22 percent, whereas no heterosexual men acquired hepatitis A." In 1992,26 it was noted that the proportion of London gays engaging in oral/anal sex had not declined since 1984.
But my point was that homosexuality is a choice, a choice which the vast majority of people find abhorrent, not just religiously, or morally, but gut-check revolting at a base, mammalian level. Which is why the whole 'born gay' argument is just complete and total BS.
NFP
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.