Posted on 05/20/2003 8:14:33 AM PDT by theoverseer
In four Gospels - including the Sermon on the Mount - Jesus neglected to mention the subject of homosexuality. But that hasn’t stopped a handful of self-appointed leaders of the so-called Religious Right from deciding that it is an issue worth the presidency of the United States. In what the Washington Times described as a "stormy session" last week, the Rev. Lou Sheldon, Paul Weyrich, Gary Bauer and eight other "social conservatives" read the riot act to RNC chairman Marc Racicot for meeting with the "Human Rights Campaign," a group promoting legal protections for homosexuals. This indiscretion, they said, "could put Bush’s entire re-election campaign in jeopardy."
According to the Times’ report by Ralph Hallow, the RNC chairman defended himself by saying, "You people don’t want me to meet with other folks, but I meet with anybody and everybody." To this Gary Bauer retorted, "That can’t be true because you surely would not meet with the leaders of the Ku Klux Klan."
Nice analogy Gary. Way to love thy neighbor.
This demand to quarantine a political enemy might have had more credibility if the target – the Campaign for Human Rights -- were busily burning crosses on social conservatives’ lawns. But they aren’t. Moreover, the fact that it is, after all, crosses the Ku Klux Klan burns, might suggest a little more humility on the part of Christians addressing these issues. Just before the launching of the 2000 presidential campaign, George Bush himself was asked about similarly mean-spirited Republican attacks. His response was that politicians like him weren’t elected to pontificate about other people’s morals and that his own faith admonished him to take the beam out of his own eye before obsessing over the mote in someone else’s.
The real issue here is tolerance of differences in a pluralistic society. Tolerance is different from approval, but it is also different from stigmatizing and shunning those with whom we disagree.
I say this as someone who is well aware that Christians are themselves a persecuted community in liberal America, and as one who has stood up for the rights of Christians like Paul Weyrich and Gary Bauer to have their views, even when I have not agreed with some of their agendas. Not long ago, I went out on a public limb to defend Paul Weyrich when he was under attack by the Washington Post and other predictable sources for a remark he had made that was (reasonably) construed as anti-Semitic. I defended Weyrich because I have known him to be a decent man without malice towards Jews and I did not want to see him condemned for a careless remark. I defended him in order to protest the way in which we have become a less tolerant and more mean-spirited culture than we were.
I have this to say to Paul: A delegation to the chairman of the RNC to demand that he have no dialogue with the members of an organization for human rights is itself intolerant, and serves neither your ends nor ours. You told Racicot, "if the perception is out there that the party has accepted the homosexual agenda, the leaders of the pro-family community will be unable to help turn out the pro-family voters. It won’t matter what we say; people will leave in droves."
This is disingenuous, since you are a community leader and share the attitude you describe. In other words, what you are really saying is that if the mere perception is that the Republican Party has accepted the "homosexual agenda," you will tell your followers to defect with the disastrous consequences that may follow. As a fellow conservative, I do not understand how in good conscience you can do this. Are you prepared to have President Howard Dean or President John Kerry preside over our nation’s security? Do you think a liberal in the White House is going to advance the agendas of social conservatives? What can you be thinking?
In the second place, the very term "homosexual agenda," is an expression of intolerance as well. Since when do all homosexuals think alike? In fact, thirty percent of the gay population voted Republican in the last presidential election. This is a greater percentage than blacks, Hispanics or Jews. Were these homosexuals simply deluded into thinking that George Bush shared their agendas? Or do they perhaps have agendas that are as complex, diverse and separable from their sexuality as women, gun owners or Christians, for that matter?
In your confusion on these matters, you have fallen into the trap set for you by your enemies on the left. It is the left that insists its radical agendas are the agendas of blacks and women and gays. Are you ready to make this concession -- that the left speaks for these groups, for minorities and "the oppressed?" Isn’t it the heart of the conservative argument that liberalism (or, as I would call it, leftism) is bad doctrine for all humanity, not just white Christian males?
If the President’s party – or conservatism itself -- is to prevail in the political wars, it must address the concerns of all Americans and seek to win their hearts and minds. It is conservative values that forge our community and create our coalition, and neither you nor anyone else has - or should have - a monopoly in determining what those values are.
So the founding fathers were fighting for the right to commit sodomy without interference from King George? I don't think so. I'm trying to remember that part of the Declaration of Independence where it talks about sexual promiscuity.
Please show me one genuine historical figure who is considered a "conservative" who would support unlimited sodomy, before you try to claim the label of "conservative" for yourself. Was it Edmund Burke you were thinking of? Or maybe Russell Kirk? I don't think so. How about Andy Sullivan? That's more like the "conservative" you're promoting -- English poofters who come to America to practice HIV-positive bareback sex.
You folks that get all your answers by quoting the founding fathers don't seem to realize that just set the whole freedom thing in motion. Shall we ignore the emancipation proclamation because it wasn't passed in the 18th century? Is it ok with you if women vote (uh oh, I better think about that one).
You forgot to explain why having these laws which are so Jeffersonian in their nature (LOL!) and using the criminal justice system in this way does not constitute big government. You really don't need to answer, it's obvious.
are beginning to accept that some people, for whatever reason, are gay.
POSTS #218, #199, or remain deluded.
So buggery is only wrong because the animal cannot give "legal consent"? This sounds like an argument from PETA. What if we could get a chimp to sign a contract? Would buggery be okay then?
However, I believe that adults have the right to have sex with other adults who are agreeable to it. What bothers me on these threads is that homosexuals are individuals with rights, like the rest of us.I agree that there is a natural right to sex (coitus), but radically disagree that homoeroticism is sex, even if homoeroticism does imply use of one's sex organs (genitalia).
You refer to unlimited sodomy, what the hell is that, a 24 hr cable channel?
I don't think you're following the discussion. The constitution is not intended to list all human rights. How long would that be. Most define it's purpose to delineate government powers. Earlier I referred to the 9th amendment wich refers to other human rights.
I didn't give up any rights and put them in the hands of justices. I said people have the right. That means the government cannot address that. How you define standing for rights as giving up rights is a mystery to me.
On what basis do you make this assertion of a natural right to sex?
Other than your trite little quip you've said nothing else to me. Am I supposed to "prove" your opinion wrong?
Prove you're worth the effort. So far, the evidence is lacking.
I'm sorry, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that you're of any importance to me.
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.