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?
Good luck with that. The media is often nine tenths of the problem.
No rapture huh? Believing in the Bible is a crutch? Reprobates like you are simply angry little people hoping their lack of faith is the right choice they’ve made in their life. You’re pathetic.
Who confronted whom? I think you're confused.
You have a valid point. I was referring to the "enlightened" libertarians who aren't gay but don't understand why it upsets the rest of us that there are gays.
Shalom.
On to the posts!
With monozygotic twins, the chances of both being homosexual are 1 in 2. For non-twin siblings, the chances are 1 in 20.
Anyone who can say that supports a finding of "no correlation" is either completely incapable of understanding objective scientific studies or is simply and unabashedly dishonest.
The point that I have never seen raised in any of these twin studies is that identical twins raised by the same parents are normally raised far more similarly than fraternal twins or non-twin siblings. That is, the nurture part of the equation can still be counted on to such a large degree that the nature part cannot be established. (After all, the identical twins wear the same clothes, have the same experiences, have the same expectations etc. It's highly likely that if one is molested the other will be also.)
Now if someone's done a study of sets of separated identicals raised in similar households (that is each twin raised in a household similar to yet separate from his twin) and sets raised in dissimilar households then maybe we'd get some better data. As it is however, with identical genetic material, if one was 'gay' I'd expect the other to be also. This is not the case in any study.
If any one knows of some such study I'd be inetersted in seeing it.
Agree with everything you say except this. The religious right knows that all men are basically fallen and sinful by nature.
It's the left that thinks that all evil men do is a result of environmental handicaps faced by these poor unfortunate victims.
So, what rights do SADs not have that I have?
A significant increase that can still be totally explained by nurture
Moral collapse always precedes societal collapse. When the society accepts certain behaviors as 'right' then that society is doomed to fall. Greece, Rome, Europe. All eventually accepted homoerotic behavior and all have (or are) falling. The moral collapse removes the underlying strength that would have let them survive the other hazards. Only a virtuous society will last and the practice of homosexual behavior is never virtuous
Argee->Homosexuals have never been accused of being something other than human
you-> 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.
So what rights do SADs not have that we do? where has anyone promoted denying them any rights?
you->That's a pantload, and you know it.
My morality is my issue, as yours is your issue, and the reconciliation of our moral behavior, or lack of it, to His Word, is between ourselves, and Our Maker...He did not appoint you, Congress, or anyone else for that matter, as His deputy here on Earth.
How can you look at what happend to Elian or to this country over the last 10 years and believe that we still embrace morality? How can you look at the pornography flooding our streets and airwaves and claim we are a moral people? How can you look at the drugs, murders, democrat vote fraud and claim that we've not abandoned our morals? How can you look at the daily holocasut of murdered babies and claim we are moral?
Morality is an absolute. And a large percentage of people in this country are no longer moral. I think you owe Argee an apology. Whether your morality is between you and God or not, his statement was correct
P.S. From my reading of the bible it seems to me that Jesus appointed all his disciples to be his representatives here on Earth (otherwise why are we still here? why doesn't he take us home instantly when we get saved?)
So will you let someone molest others if you can prevent it? That is what the whole 'gay' agenda is about. Their desire to molest our children. Some of them are willing to wait but a significant proportion aren't. They have a much higher (5-20 times) incidence of child molestation than non-homosexual behavior practicing people do.
Would you let someone spread a disease that is uniformly lethal or should they be quarantined? How long from now must the death take place until it falls out of your protection? next week, next year, five years?
(not to be a stickler but according to Webster's you may be using objective incorrectly here. I find definitions of objectiove as an adjective and none really seems to fit. Perhaps I'm reading your statement wrong. Please clarify)
I can hear tdadams now: "Not this again". Yes, he dances well doesn't he.
Some libertarians make a lot of sense in some ways, but when it comes to issues of morality it seems as if they haven't thought their position all the way through. And that's why they dance around answering questions which comes across as obfuscation. At least that's how I see it.
Marriage in this country is set up to provide for the furtherance of the society by providing a healthy environment for raising children. Since only a one man married to one woman family forms the optimum environment, that is the only union accepted as a marriage. The fertility of the participants is not a matter of concern as it may or may not be known until after the wedding. The point is that a man marrying a woman has a chance of raising a family while a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman has no chance of procreating
2. Quite a nebulous and loaded statement. Are you the one to decide what's right for someone else? Are you going to examine my habits and dictate to me which ones I need to give up in order to be fully human? Isn't that a bit subjective if someone else would give me an entirely different answer?
It was established on this thread that only humans can control their appetites. Failure to exercise that control is failure to demonstrate humanity.
argee->For someone to say they can't love someone else based on physical appearance indicates an arrested state of development.
you->3. Not even sure where that came from or what point your trying to make with that.
Love is based on more than personal attraction. surely you understand that.
argee-> Our culture is a heterosexual culture. Homosex is maladapted to it.
you->4. That's a convenient position to take if you're heterosexual. What about the people who aren't. What if homosexuals made up the majority and said, "Sorry, ArGee, you're going to have to be gay. This is a gay culture." Then I'm sure you'd disagree with this position.
Facts are such inconvenient little things aren't they. This is and always will be a heterosexual culture. The moment it stops being heterosexual it will die. (see Greece, Rome, Europe etc)
argee->Homosex is immoral. No religious code recognizes it as moral or even neutral.
you->5. Some people don't subscribe to your religion or any religion. To them it's not immoral. It's who they are.
The moral law is absolute. It does not rest on religion. It rests on God. Whether you believe in God or not is immaterial.
argee->All laws are based on a moral position.
you->6. Sorry, but that's not true. A lot of laws are based on what will get a politician elected and make him look good during a campaign.
They may not be on a good moral position but they are on a moral postion
7. Homosexuality is not new. Societal and culture awareness and recognition of it may be fairly new, but it's been around forever. Our society increasingly affords more liberty to homosexuals than you're willing to, but you're simply swimming upstream and making a status quo argument.
But society accepting it is new and without valid positive reason. If it aint broke (and the change doesn't improve it) then don't fix it.
argee->No society which has accepted homosex has survived. While this does not prove acceptance of homosex as the cause, it is not an endorsement of acceptance of homosex.
you->8. Blatant fallacy. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. I can state there's a correlation between cigar smoking and a high income, but it doesn't show causation. I won't become rich if I start smoking cigars.
cool. Show us one society that accepted homosex and survived (and thrives as Europe is slowly dying)
argee->The APA removed homosex from its DSM because it decided that maladaptations that the person was willing to live with were not to be considered diseases. The appropriate response to homosexuals moved from curing them to helping them get used to being homosexuals
you->10. You want to second guess medical science? Should we go back to blood letting?
No we are arguing politics. There was no medical reason to change the DSM as has been shown on multiple threads here on FR. Read some of Edreforms linked articles instead of just complaining about them and you would already know this.
argee->The moral laws on sexuality are as universal as the laws on the right to life and are based on heterosexual marriage being the proper expression of sexuality.
you->11. You're badly mistaken. The law of gravity is universal. You jump out a window, you'll hit the ground. Laws on sexuality are anything but universal. The very existence of variations disproves your premise. There may be a dominant majority, but even among those in the dominant majority is a great number who accept and coexist with the variations.
Moral law is universal and absolute. The existence of variations proves that laws can be broken in the case of sickness or damage. According to your logic there is no speed limit because some people drive 60 in a 55MPH zone.
argee->The moral law is a fundamental law of the universe, like physical laws. It may be difficult to determine, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
12. Now you're getting silly. Again, try to understand what the words immutable and universal mean. The physical sciences, such as astronomy, can be said to be absolute. Human sexuality is not.
Actually it is. Healthy humans are always heterosexual. Reproduction is a defining charactistic of life. Healthy life always seeks to reproduce itself. Only the unhealthy do not seek to reproduce. This is why woman have biological clocks and a mothering instinct. (and to a somewhat lessor degree that same clock exists in men) Our prime hardwired desire is to pass on our genes. Of course God gave us the ability to control our desires and appetites but the appetite is there in the healthy individual.
argee->Individuals are impacted by the moral claims of their culture.
you->13. Whatever that means.
It means that the overriding morals that the culture is built on will affect all it's members. A morally good society will benefit all its memebrs while a morally bad society will not. This is why Western society always overcomes islamic society. Western society is built on the Judeo-Christian moral law. (that is, it's good). Islamic society is built on the koranic law, (that is it's not morally good)
This seems contrary to your stance as a libertarian. My rights stop where your rights begin correct? Why should my right to use a park with my children (which I paid for may I add) have to be infringed by people performing public sex acts (an activity which I think we've all agreed should be confined to the privacy of their own rooms) And please note that if you say anything to them about it they will initiate force against you.
The right of freedom of assembly does not include the right to copulate or fellate in public.
DSM was changed for political reasons so the condition is still scientifically a sickness. Likewise the effects of the lifestyle (shortened life expectancy, high rates of violence and disease etc) all ppint to the presence of a mental disease
Exactly. We are all born with predispositions to something which we regard as temptations that we must resist and learn to control. What distinguishes human beings from all other creatures is that our behavior is chosen, no matter what predispostions or desires we have. Choosing right makes it moral, giving in to our desires, when it is obvious they are self-destructive, is immoral.
Excellent post.
Hank
That is because libertarians believe that individual acts can be isolated. They can not ever be. To some extent, even what I decide to eat for dinner has a wider impact (if small in this particular case).
We are social beings. We don't form societies because we don't have anything better to do, we form societies because we need them to survive.
Shalom.
But you'll notice that tdadams did not want to actually debate my points. He wanted to call them subjective and claim I had no basis for them.
I asked him which he wanted to debate first, and he did not reply. But the fact that he posted a long post offering to refute my arguments shows that he understood their objectivity.
Shalom.
Thanks. I've always admired your way with words also.
But you'll notice that tdadams did not want to actually debate my points
They never do. The SAD apologists want to just advance the agenda and then run away. But facts and truth continue to hunt them down and make them uncomfortable. Thats why I respond. I think it's kind of cool that just stating the truth can make people squirm so much. It's kind of like pouring salt on slugs (but not nearly as cruel) They squirm and squirm and try to get away but nothing really works. Hopefully someday they'll stop dancing around the facts and actually read them and then they can be changed.
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.