The 'gay' truth: Kevin McCullough on homosexuality dominating American politics

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, May 30, 2003 | Kevin McCullough

[tdadams]

If they found a "cannibalism gene" that would not acquit Jeffry Dahlmer (sp?) so who cares?

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."

[LanPB01]

I see it, along with the canards. I can't understand the obsession with homosexuality that is flooding FreeRepublic. Why is it that, in doing the proper thing in fighting what we refer to as the "homosexual agenda" (special rights and privileges, being taught in schools, recruitment of the young), so many of us feel the need to trash ALL homosexuals?

[tdadams]

You fail to recognize that he was implicating you.

[Clint N. Suhks]

All that has changed is that people have decided that morality no longer exists. They are wrong, and the results of that wrong decision will cost dearly over time.

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.

[Clint N. Suhks]

You fail to recognize that he was implicating you.

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?

[AnalogReigns]

I've never quite understood the battle over environmental vs. genetic causes of homosexuality. Especially troubling to me is the religious right's committment to the environmental model. I think it stems from the corrupting influence of arminian theology... I'll explain below. The environemental model is considered more of a "choice" somehow--but either one really denies the choice of ORIENTATION. As a human, I decide how to act, and whom to have sex with, my emotional desires notwithstanding.......however who I'm oriented desire sex with is based on many complex things--and the environmental model says how a child is raised is what determines that. Either one doesn't address whether a person consciously chooses to the homosexual orientation--and I think the evidence is that the orientation, at least initially, is not chosen.

Here's why, from a religious/biblical perspective, I think the environmental/genetic argument is a false one: Basic (non-arminian) Christian theology (Catholic and Protestant) accepts the idea of "original sin." Each person, as Psalm 51:5 says, is born, no really concieved, with a sin nature. Sin is a basic part (really a basic flaw) of our personality--ask any mother, how kids don't have to be taught to be bad--and also how some kids--in the same family, and same upbringing--misbehave more (and in different ways) than others.

When we are grown, we don't think in such categories--however its still true. We all have to struggle with doing right--and what tempts you severely, may not temp me at all--however I too have my own personal pattern of temptation.

The good news of Christianity is that Jesus will give us a new life (really His life inside us) and the inner strength to change how we live day to day. Without this new life, we will often just continue in the same destructive (usually downhill) patterns of behavior--a nature that we were born with.

Arminian theology--heavily influential in the religious right--denies the idea of original sin, saying sin is basically learned--and always due to our conscious choices. Most won't come out and put it that way--however that is the assumption.

As a classical Christian, I'm not troubled by the shakey assertions that homosexuality is genetically based. Its not now proven, but even it it were, so what? That doesn't make it right or healthy for society. I'm a "natural" adulterer...that doesn't legitimize me going bed-hopping with various women! My old sin nature is being overcome daily by the power of Jesus' life inside me--and He helps me Not to follow that inborn nature, and TO do what is good and right.

When Newt Gingrich was loudly derided for comparing homosexuality to alcoholism, there's a reason the Left shouted so shrilly: Such strikes at the heart of their argument. Their assumption is, if homosexuals can be shown to have been BORN gay, than by golly, you better not say homosexual behavior is morally wrong. Yet like alcoholism, which science does think may have some genetic links (since it does run in families), something that your born with does not mean its healthy or even morally neutral. We all choose how we act too, regardless of our inclinations--be they from how we were raised, or our genetic inheritance.

Sinners need a Savior, and if homosexuals prove they were sinners from birth, hey, Jesus saves.

[ArGee]

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.

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.

[tdadams]

In 107 and 109 I said:

"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.

[tdadams]

I was trying to establish that a genetic influence for a behavior is not a compelling reason to allow or encourage that behavior

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.

[Clint N. Suhks]

...you somehow percieved me as saying "My study trumps your study", well, I can only suggest you take a remedial reading comprehension class.

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?

[Clint N. Suhks]

when doing so is a blatant violation of their basic human rights

Except when it conflicts with the 10th amendment.

[ArGee]

Bump, bump, bump, and bump.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

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).

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.

[breakem]

Could you explain how 10 applies when there is a conflict betwen it and human rights. if something is a right, how would the state have the power to override it? If the state has the power then how is it a right?

[tdadams]

Oh, I'm laughing out loud now. That response to you was to counter your assertion that the study you were touting somehow should be considered more plausible than others - the very thing you falsely accused me of doing.

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?

[tdadams]

Since mankind has recognized that homoerotic behavior is damaging to both individuals and society for at least 6,000 years

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?

[ArGee]

I would dare say you are not correct. Not all societies through all of time has considered homosexuality aberrant or harmful.

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.

[tdadams]

That's true, but those that thought otherwise did not last, and the people who came after them returned to an exclusively heterosexual society.

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.

[tdadams]

My point about the flat earth was why cling to the status quo simply for the sake of staving off uncomfortable change? We live in a post-Roe v. Wade America, but I would guess you wouldn't cling to the status quo on that issue. Am I right?

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.

[ArGee]

And we can all be certain that their demise was due solely to their tolerance of homosexuality, right?

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.