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?
I normally don't get into WOD threads, but if you ping me to one I will oblige.
This is a thread about SADs.
Shalom.
Well, I can certainly see why. Despite your repeated claims that your position is objective and based on moral absolutes, with that one question, I've shown beyond a doubt that that claim is completely hollow.
Your position is entirely subjective and your logic is extremely fuzzy. You won't answer because you can't. It reveals the truth.
The truth is just what I said earlier. You wish to have the government impose by force those values you cannot invoke by persuasion. Talk about immoral.
To: ArGee
There has been a change recently to normalize homosexuality...done with violence and threats combined with a general effort to cover up the facts.
You are really looking through a delusional and conspiratorial set of lenses. It's almost amuzing.
180 posted on 06/03/2003 7:42 AM PDT by tdadams
Like I said, so much for independent thinking and admiration of a well reasoned argument... Or is that one of those "iron sharpens iron" ploys?
As has been well documented on Free Republic, ArGee is correct about the change to normalize homosexuality.
All I heard was crickets, then you accuse me of not being able to support my position.
Go to the kiddie pool. You don't belong with the adults.
Ed, I'm sorry I doubted you.
Shalom.
I do agree though, that this is a pointless excercise. You simply see things very differently than I do. We will not agree on these things.
Her summations are, how to say it, a bit propagandistic.tdadams made this claim without ever reading the book. I ordered the book and when it arrived, asked tdadams what pages he would like scanned for clarity in context. He obfuscated, over and over.
After that I posted the first of 62 progagandistic summaries in context and he complained I merely posted the most inoccuous summary. Hey, I was just starting at the beginning since tdadams wouldn't provide a specific number so we can see if he was right about the summary.
Numerous times after that tdadams simply refused to provide a specific reference or page number. I simply wasn't going to waste my time scanning in random summaries of the 62 points if tdadams was only going to state whatever I posted was merely an innocuous summary. It was obvious tdadams only interest was in obfuscating the issue.
Unless, of course, tdadams wants to provide a specific reference from 2 to 62 and I'll be more than happy to scan in the respective page numbers.
OK, so out of 14 arguments you recognized that 12 were objective statements. I didn't say you agreed with them, just that they represented objective points of view that can be debated. (Remember, someone can be objective and still be wrong.) There were 2 you did not understand from the summary.
You did not speak to any of them amounting to "might makes right."
I consider that you retract your attack on my argument style. Since I made most of those arguments over several posts, I'll let you select which one (if any) you'd like to debate further first. If you want to stand by the fact that we disagree, that's OK too. I'm sure you have other things to do.
Shalom.
Hey Scripter, you've still never answered me on one question. Would you give an open-minded and reasoned consideration to an article titled "The Christian Agenda for America" by the American Athiest Organization?
No? I wonder why.
OK, now I'm sincerely convinced you simply don't know the definition of objective. Either that or you've simply made up a definition of your own which happens to be exactly the opposite of the actual definition of objective.
For example, the statement that there have been no civilizations that normalized homosex and survived is objective. Anyone can look through history books and either prove or disprove the statement. What it means is open to interpretation, but the statement itself is objective.
Ditto the statement that there is no religion which accepts homosexuality.
Shalom.
Oh, I see. When you said "You are really looking through a delusional and conspiratorial set of lenses. It's almost amuzing", it sounded just like something a homosexual activist or apologist would say. For a moment there, I thought you were toeing the homosexual-agenda party line instead of engaging in "independent thinking". My misunderstanding.
You're simply confused beyond all hope. Not only is your assertion deliberately misleading (as if to assert that these all perished civilizations perished because of homosexuality), it is not objective. It is a subjective (or interpretive) conclusion.
We simply can't have an honest discussion if you're going to substitute creative new meanings for what should be generally understood concepts of communication in the English language.
I could objectively say that cigar smokers have a higher income. True enough. Objectively, that's a fact. But there are many subjective, and fallacious, ways to interpret that objective fact. You can't seem to make that distinction.
I'm sorry if you don't like it when I remind you of your past obfuscations on this forum.
I noticed you didn't provided a number, again.
Sigh. So you continue with the obfuscation, misdirection and subject changes. I've provided you with an example that demonstrates your opinion of the summary is flawed and you're avoiding providing me with a number to further prove your summary is flawed. I welcome corrections to things I've said on this forum whereas you run the truth.
Or perhaps you took that as a denigration even though it wasn't. Your claim about ArGee's statement that I responded to in #213 sounded just like statements coming from many homosexual activists and apologists to me and I stated so.
"I do not support gay rights, per se."
You state on your FR homepage that you "don't approve of homosexuality."
That seems to be a pretty broad statement. Which specific aspects of homosexuality do you disapprove of? Which specific aspects do you approve of? You do know that by not approving of (embracing) all aspects of homosexuality, you are considered a "hater" and a "homophobe" by a signifcant portion of the homosexual community, right?
"But to the extent that the equal protection of our laws and Constitution encompass homosexuals, I defend their rights."
So then you'll agree that the "hate crimes" legislation that many in the homosexual community are pushing for is completely unnecessary.
If you will read what I wrote, you'll note that I specifically did not draw that conclusion. I made it very clear that the fact that there is no extant homosexual civilization - despite the fact that some highly evolved civilizations embraced homosex including the Roman and Greek - is hardly a resounding support for a homosex civilization. If embracing homosex were a good idea there might be one extant civilization that has done so.
Recognize that we're not talking about trying out a new kind of tire or tinkering with the best way to hook up a telephone. We're experimenting with our entire way of life. You don't get do-overs. If you screw it up it's screwed up forever. My thinking is that you don't experiment with it without some indisputable evidence that such tinkering is required or at least is not harmful.
There is no such evidence WRT embracing homosex. NONE. An extant homosex civilization would be evidence, but one DOES NOT EXIST.
Note to the dense. This does not mean that homosex killed those civilizations. It just means that we don't have any example of a working civilization that embraces homosex.
And whether you like it or not, you agreed that my argument was objective, just not my conclusion. I'll grant you that. There is no objective conclusion when discussing social issues. There is data from which we draw conclusions as best we may. Your conclusion that there is no harm in allowing deviant sexual behavior is just as subjective as mine. That's why we're having this debate.
Shalom.
I could accuse you of the very same things - obfuscation and misdirection -that you're accusing me of since you still haven't answered my question. And it's obvious why. If you answer my question honestly you couldn't pretend that you wouldn't also outright reject a polemic you know to be biased. Answering my question would expose how disingenuous your challenge to me is.
Instead you want to keep up this charade, insisting that I'm dodging you when I've already responded to you and moved on, something you seem incapable of doing. You must think Freepers are idiots who can't see below the surface.
I don't know about him, but I would. I would do so for two reasons.
First, because if it was crap I'd want to be able to point out why it was crap. Second, if it was not crap, I'd want to try to fight it.
Just out of curiousity, are you denying a homosexual agenda, whether pursued by mainstream SADs or a radical fringe? 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.