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?
Yes, they do. But the fundamental laws of the universe do not. I believe the moral law is a fundamental law of the universe. And when societies change to veer away from the moral law, they die.
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.
Humanity has not really changed in 6,000 years, and it is not changing now. There is nothing new under the sun. You are confusing "being anachronistic" with "sticking with what works." I recognize our society is changing - I just don't recognize it changing for the better. It is changing for the worse, and I will fight against that as much as I can. I may not win, but that's not the important part.
Homoerotic behavior is wrong. It always has been and always will be. The tyrrany of the majority has no power to change that. It does have the power to destroy itself trying.
Shalom.
Homosexuals have never been accused of being something other than human
Not in the literal sense. But to the extent that certain segments of society feel that homosexuals are not entitled to the same rights and dignity as everyone else, much as the mentality towards slaves was, I think it's a very valid analogy.
everyone knows that homosexuals ...are mentally ill
Really??? That's a pretty bold statement. Pretty untrue also. Even the medical establishment would disagree.
I believe in certain moral absolutes also, that murder is wrong, for instance. But beyond a few basics concerning life and liberty, most of what people call moral law is really just religious imperialism. Being that I don't want Muslims imposing Sharia law on me, I tend to give pretty wide lattitude to matters of morality beyond the fundamentals.
Moral guidance is for the home and church, not the legislature.
It is a bold statement, and you're right, I should never say "everyone." However, the medical establishment would not disagree. The closest the APA has done is to say that if the person has a maladaptation, and doesn't desire to change, then the correct response is to help them get used to being maladapted. The APA has never demonstrated a balief that homoerotic attraction was not a maladaption.
They have just decided not to care.
I firmly believe that most people who make the "downfall of civilization" claim, as I do, don't think homoerotic attraction or the acceptance thereof is the root cause. The root cause is the same root cause we are suffering from in "western civilization" today, the ascendency of nhilism. If you notice, you have not really countered any of my arguments. You've merely put forth the concept that people ought to be able to do whatever they want to do. That's the root cause, that only "me" matters.
This is the libertarian fallacy, and it will doom our culture. It is probably already too late to turn the tide, but we must still try while we may.
Shalom.
You say this so quickly after admitting to moral absolutes like sanctions against murder? Shame on you.
I am glad that you recognize the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness only exist in a particular moral worldview. I'm sorry your exploration into the moral reality stops so short. Just because something is difficult to study doesn't mean you should not study it.
The moral laws on sexuality are also very universal and are based on heterosexual marriage as the proper expression of human sexuality. You might ponder that while you are pondering these issues at all.
Shalom.
Paraphrasing in your own words of course.
You've merely put forth the concept that people ought to be able to do whatever they want to do. That's the root cause, that only "me" matters.
Not absolutely. I think this may be where you misunderstand libertarianism and oppose its tenets. Libertarians expect a maximum amount of freedom from government, but not at the cost of injuring others. Libertarians also believe along with one's actions comes a proportionate amount of personal responsibility (according to theory anyway). No doubt someone will allude to the pot-smoking burnout and hold that up as a typical libertarian. The truth is far from it.
I can only hope you're being facetious. If I engage in a behavior that harms you, that's immoral. If I engage in a behavior that harms me, but not you, that may be stupid but it's not immoral.
Can you honestly say you get the impression that I've not studied these topics?
The moral laws on sexuality are also very universal and are based on heterosexual marriage as the proper expression of human sexuality.
I believe that some people are in their very being, homosexual. Whether that's by nature or nurture I think is irrelevant. They are what they are and that trait is immutable. If someone whose nature is to find comfort and romance with someone of the same sex finds someone else similarly inclined, they are behaving according to their nature. To behave contrary to that would not be the "proper expression" of their sexuality.
You'll most certainly disagree with me, but I simply point this out to demonstrate that your way of thinking is far from universal.
From a biological/evolutionary perspective, if 2% of the population does not procreate, it would have little significance on the world.
The issue comes with the phrase, "but not at the cost of injuring others." Libertarians don't believe you can harm the culture, only individuals within the culture. I strongly disagree.
I can only hope you're being facetious. If I engage in a behavior that harms you, that's immoral. If I engage in a behavior that harms me, but not you, that may be stupid but it's not immoral.
The moral law defins what is. There is one, and you have admitted to it. Something is immoral because it is, not because it meets your or my definition of immoral, nor even some Church's.
The moral law is generally attributed to G-d because social interactions are too complex for people to understand. G-d's revelation is required because G-d is the only one who fully understands humans and their social interactions. He did not give the moral law just so the faithful could have something to follow, but to protect us in societies that would allow the maximum of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Whether homoerotic behavior violates the moral law comes back down to the libertarian fallacy that only individuals can be harmed. Our society is destroyed when it no longer celebrates self-control for the good of the whole. Homoerotic behavior is the poster child for self-satisfaction regardless of the whole. As I said before, it is not the only step on that slope, but it is one of the last.
Let me make this case another way. Suppose abolition had failed and blacks were still slaves in America. Suppose that you and I, being principled moralists, refused to own slaves or associate with anyone who did. Should we care that others own slaves? Should we ask the government to intervene and stop the immoral practice? If so, why?
Shalom.
That's not necessarily true, otherwise atheists would have no sense of morality, no guidance as to right and wrong. Surely you're not making that claim, are you?
Suppose that you and I, being principled moralists, refused to own slaves or associate with anyone who did. Should we care that others own slaves?
Of course. Ownership of a human being deprives that person of their rights and their self-determination. That's not a valid comparison at all.
We're going to continue to disagree.
I agree 100% and thought the above was worth repeating.
I am making the claim that the primary reason atheists have a sense of morality is that they are not raised in an atheistic culture. I actually believe they have consciences which are placed there by G-d, but without specific revelation from Him, they would find rationalizations to ignore their consciences.
Of course. Ownership of a human being deprives that person of their rights and their self-determination. That's not a valid comparison at all.
I understand that. My question is, since neither you or I are black (an assumption on my part) why would we care? Be aware that I believe we should care. I can articulate my reason why. I'm asking you to articulate yours. Put more generally and less racially, why should those in the ruling class care if the ruling class behaves morally?
Shalom.
Again, you have this fallacy that libertarian thought is concerned about self and nothing else. This is incorrect. A violation of anyone's rights, my own or another's, should obviously be opposed.
There’s no such thing as “human rights” in the constitution only unenumerated rights which are rights not listed anywhere else in the constitution or state legislatures. This is how Madison described it, not me.
If the state has the power then how is it a right?
It’s a right ONLY when there’s no binding legislation. Madison clearly said there was to be no listing of rights in the constitution because there would be TOO MANY to “enumerate” and was concerned the if a particular right was not enumerated then the state could use its absence as justification for being against the law.
It’s a simple concept, hope you understand now.
Nice try but it clearly shows how you said my DATA was wrong "thus shattering your risible argument and your DATA had a "higher correlation" was right. Even an eight year-old can see that.
So now that's settled let's go on to #2. He cites studies he won’t cite.
Why do you say there were other studies that support your conclusion but won't cite which studies they are?
Bullogna! Not everyone in the medical establishment believes that it's not a behavioral pathology. 42% [over 10,000 psychiatrists] voted NOT to remove it from the DSM. There was no science used for its removal, it was completely political and led by Robert Spitzer.
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.