Posted on 05/29/2003 11:42:24 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
Even though people on both sides of the issue deny it, it is increasingly obvious that homosexuality is dominating a new place on the scale of American political life. Even in conservative circles, prominent voices – some of whom I call friends, all of whom I respect – continually find themselves divided on not only the issue, but also how people of conscience respond to it.
In recent weeks, David Horowitz, president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, and Robert Knight of Concerned Women for America, have been "duking it out" on the issue of whether or not prominent faith-based conservatives (Gary Bauer, Paul Weyrich, Sandy Rios, et al.) should have confronted RNC Chairman Marc Racicot his meetings with the Human Rights Campaign and Log Cabin Republicans.
I have also had some recent spirited discussions with everyday people, fellow pundits, and talk-show types, among them Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter and Dennis Prager, who also disagree as to the basic tenets of some of what those "religious-right" types had to say to Chairman Racicot.
And since we are on the issue of the chairman of the RNC meeting with the "Log Cabins," let me take my position on that first. Chairman Racicot did nothing wrong in meeting with this group. The chairman's job is to meet with groups of all sorts. He is to allow them to say what they have to say, respond, and let them go. The devil is in the details.
Did he make concessions to them? Did he promise them things that compromise President Bush's otherwise stellar performance for social conservatives? If he did, then that is where and when all that is holy should break loose and crumble around him. On this point, I believe Horowitz is right – Chairman Racicot should be allowed to determine whom he will and will not meet with.
But I have noticed that when it comes to the entire issue of homosexuality, increasing numbers of banner conservatives are going soft on truth that has been commonly understood for thousands of years. That truth is this: Homosexuality is behavior that is damaging to individuals, to families and to society.
Conservatives have been scared into believing that there really is something about homosexuality that is uncontrollable or inherent in genetic or biological make-up to cause these people to behave in this manner. On this point, Horowitz is dead wrong – there is not a scintilla of proof that homosexuality is a genetic or biological trait. To believe otherwise diminishes Horowitz's credibility, at least on this issue.
So let's examine the statement that has been commonly understood for thousands of years.
It is damaging to individuals. It's true – from AIDS to suicide – look at the numbers. What single group of people is more affected than any others? Homosexual men. At the "International Mr. Leather" contest held in Chicago in 2002, a man died from the "activities" of the weekend. The sex was billed as blockbuster, but what difference does that make if you are found face up in a pool of your own blood after having been given larges dosages of the date rape drug?
The "gay" lifestyle does nothing to promote monogamous healthy relationships. Why? Because there is little, if anything, healthy about nihilism, narcissism and compulsive sexual addiction. Yet the community where these traits are not only seen, but also encouraged, is again among individuals wrapped up in the "gay life."
It is damaging to families. Heck, it destroys them. The "alphas" in homosexual relationships, be they men or women, are many times recruiting younger partners. A vast percentage of those who enter the homosexual life do so after having been sexually initiated by an older person of their sex – be it consensual or not – it usually has the feel of enticement or seduction. Homosexuality also destroys families by preventing their future possibility. Frank and Charlie can't have kids – at least not as God designed it. This basic, simple word picture should be easy to understand.
Homosexuality is damaging to society. Over Memorial Day weekend, here in Chicago, the International Mr. Leather event returned. First-hand accounts of hotel workers who were molested, security guards who resigned over fondling, as well as the inability to be allowed to keep order, and the city police who looked the other way while the most disgusting displays of ingestion, consumption, expulsion and any other bodily functions took place in public rooms should settle this issue.
But if you are still not convinced, go out and buy a copy of Dr. Cary Savitch's book, "The Nutcracker Is Already Dancing." Our fear to speak out on basic understandings of right vs. wrong is preventing our society from reaching its potential. But beyond that, we are also laying the foundation for a destructive future.
So what am I suggesting? That my otherwise clear-thinking conservative friends and colleagues be courageous and remind the world that one of the basic tenets of conservative values is knowing that there is such a thing as right and wrong. And for as long as God's creation has been here, homosexual behavior has always been – and continues to be – morally wrong.
Love for our fellow humans can only exist in the presence of truth. When will we as compassionate conservatives show enough compassion to love people to a better tomorrow?
True enough, but let's not make any false (and slanderous) comparisons. Consensual homosexuality is not cannabalism and would seem you have a fondness for hyperbole just to make such a comparison.
even if the activity hurts no one but the two involved, homoerotic behavior is wrong and should be discouraged if not outright outlawed.
You better hope that mentality never takes hold politically. There may come a day when those in power (can you say President Hillary Clinton) decide your particular opinion or behavior should be "discouraged if not outright outlawed."
Moral relativist Liberaltarians like tdadams think they live in a bubble. My guess until he has kids he'll remain thinking that until an epiphany that some, very few, parts of society should be regulated.
Priceless...I'm adding this one on to your non-credability list.
So why again is your data more compelling than others? Come on Mr. Credibility, can you muster an answer or are you all out of sophistry?
No, it's a common rhetorical technique when two people disagree. You start at a point of obvious agreement, then work toward the point of disagreement and demonstrate a commonality. I was trying to establish that a genetic influence for a behavior is not a compelling reason to allow or encourage that behavior - a point with which you have agreed. Therefore, you can stop with your twin studies and get on with the issue of homoerotic behavior.
You better hope that mentality never takes hold politically. There may come a day when those in power (can you say President Hillary Clinton) decide your particular opinion or behavior should be "discouraged if not outright outlawed."
Actually, there is no other political mentality. All political decisions are based on a concept of morality. And today I find there are lots of laws being proposed that would make it illegal for me to believe homoerotic behavior is immoral. So it's only a matter of whose viewpoint comes out on top.
If there is such a thing as a moral law (which I believe there is) then the important thing is to determine whether homoerotic behavior is against that moral law, no matter what people think. If there is no such thing as a moral law, then those who believe homoerotic behavior is destructive have just as much a right to pursuade our opinion in the political arena as anyone else.
Shalom.
"Taken as a whole, how many studies have found a significant correlation versus studies that have found no correlation? I draw my own conclusions."
"The body of scientific study is constantly evolving. I realize this."
If, in these moderate statements you somehow percieved me as saying "My study trumps your study", well, I can only suggest you take a remedial reading comprehension class.
Neither is it a valid reason for the government to assume the power to criminalize that behavior when it harms no one (except maybe the one engaging in it), when doing so is a blatant violation of their basic human rights (with the necessary disclaimer that we're talking about consenting adults in the privacy of their own home).
We don't live in a nation where rights are granted by government approval and all activities outside that which is government approved is criminal.
Your reply to me.
"...I pointed out that several other studies have consistently shown a higher correlation of sexual orientation among identical twins than among fraternal twins, thus shattering your risible argument.
Digging a hole to China?
Except when it conflicts with the 10th amendment.
Shalom.
I agree, which is why I want to discuss those issues, and not the issue of a genetic link. Since mankind has recognized that homoerotic behavior is damaging to both individuals and society for at least 6,000 years, I'll ask you to tell me why you think it harms no one with the possible exception of those engaging in it. In other words, you are asking for a change in the status quo. Why?
Shalom.
I've come to understand you have a reactive need to protest when you're shown to be wrong, but come on. Are you trying to convince me that you're completely incapable of an honest assertion?
I would dare say you are not correct. Not all societies through all of time has considered homosexuality aberrant or harmful. And 6,000 years ago, people thought the earth was flat. Why should we change the status quo?
That's true, but those that thought otherwise did not last, and the people who came after them returned to an exclusively heterosexual society. They saw the results and applied them such that we still recognize homoerotic behavior as aberrant and harmful. Been there, done that, know it's stupid.
And 6,000 years ago, people thought the earth was flat. Why should we change the status quo?
Because we've been to the moon and know it is not.
Can you see the distinction. WRT homoerotic behavior all the evidence is against it, where as with a spherical earth all the evidence is in favor of it.
A far better example for you to have used would have been slavery. And there were many who probably argued against abolition as being a change to the status quo. But once it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that blacks were not sub-human, slavery had to go. Evidence that slavery was wrong, coupled with the fact that our society is stronger for abolishing it, are sufficient to justify never reestablishing the age-old institution of slavery.
Why should we normalize homoerotic behavior? Give me one good reason.
Shalom.
And we can all be certain that their demise was due solely to their tolerance of homosexuality, right?
A far better example for you to have used would have been slavery. And there were many who probably argued against abolition as being a change to the status quo. But once it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that blacks were not sub-human, slavery had to go.
You know you're right. That is a good analogy. I would suggest to you that we are in the midst of a very similar cultural shift where a good number of people, perhaps soon a majority if not already, see homosexuals as fully human also and wish for them to participate in the full range of rights and dignities as all others without having to pretend they're something they're not.
Societal changes may not be as perceptible as seeing the earth from the moon, but societies, cultures, and common ways of thinking do change. They are changing. You can choose to be anachronistic if that suits your personality. You can deny the changing world around you and fight it if you choose, but that only leaves you standing still while the world moves on without you, making you more and more irrelevant.
C'mon, don't play games with me. What we can be certain of is that homoerotic tolerance did not lead to longevity, nor did it recommend itself to the civilizations that followed. If it had been a good idea, don't you think it would have caught on?
You know you're right. That is a good analogy. I would suggest to you that we are in the midst of a very similar cultural shift where a good number of people, perhaps soon a majority if not already, see homosexuals as fully human also and wish for them to participate in the full range of rights and dignities as all others without having to pretend they're something they're not.
With a huge difference. Black slavery is different from any other slavery ever encountered in history because it was based on the absurd notion that people could be "sub-human", a notion you can lay at the feet of Charles Darwin and those whose opinions he followed. The flawed concept was that blacks were something other than human.
Homosexuals have never been accused of being something other than human. If they were thought to be different, they would be much more tolerable. The problem is that everyone knows that homosexuals are human and knows they are mentally ill. The only argument the gays have left to them is, "If it hurts nobody, why bother about it?" The answer to that is clear, if gays would keep their sexual preference private, we wouldn't bother about it. It's their attempt to politicize their private sexual habits that have caused them the problem.
I told you that slavery was a better analogy, it was still not a good one. You should know better than to accept a handout from your opponent. His goal is to defeat you, not help you.
See if you can find an example of a behavior that was known for all of recorded history to be wrong, and has been shown in recent times to be normal. That's the kind of analogy you want.
Shalom.
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.