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?
You've stated this as if someone wants to create an entirely homosexual society, which of course could not exist. But that's not at all what we're talking about and you know that. But to the extent that you're trying to misrepresent the facts simply to buttress an unsupportable premise, you're simply being outright dishonest.
We're talking about a pluralistic society in which the 2 to 5 percent of the population that is homosexual is allowed to live in peaceful coexistance with the rest of society. Their numbers are insignificant and have no impact on your life, my life, or the continuation or demise of our society. To argue otherwise is sheer unbridled demogoguery.
Please don't insult my intelligence and the rest of FR's intelligence by arguing some stupid hypothetical that does not, has not, and will never exist in the real world.
Only in theory do you begin to make any sense. Sadly, the theory is silly and so is your reasoning.
I didn't accuse you of having ever advocated for hate crimes legislation. What I want to know is whether you agree or disagree with the following statement:
The "hate crimes" legislation that many in the homosexual community are pushing for is completely unnecessary.
You can answer your own question... How many days, weeks or months are you going to continue your obfuscation?
How about telling us how providing you with the context of each summary is somehow dishonest?
I've given you plenty of opportunities to provide evidence to support your claim the summary is biased but you won't even try. Hey, I've even tried to support your claim but the information just doesn't exist. There is simply nothing I can find to support your position. And you, you don't even try and then you call my attempts to get you to answer an honest question, dishonest. Sheesh.
I appears you realize this and will do and say anything to avoid admitting your assessment of the summary was wrong. Completely wrong. And that's what is so bothersome. You don't seem want to admit a gay agenda exists despite the overwhelming evidence to the contray.
In that post I asked you if I should continue posting the context of the additional summaries and you said Please do but you never provided me with a number. I've asked, using your own words, which of the summaries are highly perjorative but you refuse to provide a number.
Yawn, yawn, yawn. You're the biggest bore on FR. You demand answers but refuse to answer any yourself. You hypocrite.
It's pitiful that you won't even answer the simple question in post 225.
I can't imagine you missed all the hints I've dropped, but if you really did, besides your poor comparison, my answer is very similar to Argee's answer, which is the answer you should have for yourself if you caught any hints. You'll probably act like you can't understand that answer.
1) Was that an intentional pun?
2) How is Dr. Laura a "screeching shrew and a hypocrite?"
Yet you don't provide a single example of how any one of us have persecuted gays. Which you can't do, and you won't do, because to you the ends justify the means. You'll do whatever it takes to push the gay agenda
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?
You're the lowest of the low.
I must admit it was a little long and convoluted. I won't provide any excuses.
Now to answer your question again which should remove any issues you have with answering mine:
Would you give an open-minded and reasoned consideration to an article titled "The Christian Agenda for America" by the American Athiest Organization?
Of course I undestand what you're trying to get at, but it falls far short. Why? Because I've provided you with the context behind the first of 62 summaries regarding After the Ball, and that context demonstrated the summary was accurate. For some reason you refuse to admit this fact and you refuse to provide a number to verify a second summary. That speaks volumes about your bias.
I've performed internet searches on the book and cannot find a single statement to support your position. Every single reference to the book supports my position. One would think if the book was incorrectly summarized there would be somebody screaming, somewhere. But, no, that isn't happening. So there is nothing to support your statement other than your feelings the summary is biased.
I wouldn't be surprised if a book similarly entitled The Christian Agenda for America does indeed exist, perhaps even written by an atheist or atheistic organization.
Would I give an open-minded consideration of the book? Perhaps. How do I know I'm right in what I believe? If I really wanted to know why I believe what I believe; I'd make sure of what I do believe. And in my endeavors I wouldn't purchase and read everything out there, but enough to make an informed decision. Of course if the book was crap as ArGee answered, I'd make sure everybody knew it. Yet not a single mention of that in any internet searches.
Now for some reason you appear to deny the existence of the gay agenda. As I see it, you have been desensitized and manipulated into your current thoughts on the gay agenda, and you don't seem to care that you're being used to further the gay agenda. You're too intelligent to fall for this stuff so I have to wonder what it is you're doing in furthering the gay agenda.
I can only speculate.
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.