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?
Studies in twin data suggest the opposite. There seems to be a genetic component, but non-genetic influences and choice play seem to play a larger role. Sexuality is mostly mental and the power of positive reinforcement of sexuality to alter someone's behavior can not be understated.
Thats kind of funny, as a scientist you accept this based solely upon your own experience. But how do you explain weird fetishes people have? Are people 'born' with attractions towards rubber or leather? Are people 'born' being attracted to feet or whatever strange fetish people may have? Don't people change who or what they are attracted to? Today children are being much more exposed to homosexuality and are being made to accept it as OK and normal. That wasn't true 10 or 20 years ago. Don't underestimate the power of sexuality. You might be very surprised at how people's minds are shaped through sexual experience.
I have to laugh when I see people post "twin studies" to argue that there's no biological component to homosexuality when any honest interpretation of twin studies suggests exactly the opposite. 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.
Whether you are correct or not, the central fact -- the ball off which gays invite us to take our eyes by arguing essentialism -- is that homosexuality is maladaptive in several dimensions.
I have to laugh at the way you read my post. Where did I say no biological component?
While I continue to be impressed by the number of psychologists and psychiatrists who resist the official Party Line of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association (yes, two APA's -- and there's actually a third! the American Psychotherapy (sp?) Ass'n.) which has been essentialist for a while now, I still think the essentialist argument needs to be met head-on: so what?
Gayness is maladaptive, and society ought to be concentrating on gays' admitting that fact, and on agreeing to ameliorate it -- by, for one thing, working to reduce contacts between predatory gay adults and teenagers, and taking "skinned chicken" off the menu.
Gays themselves appear anecdotally to think so, too. Only you won't get them to admit it when they're in polemical mode. Then you're just retailing the "pederasty smear".
Which happens to be true, but never mind -- you're a McCarthyite, and you're running a witch hunt.
First, knock down the polemicists. Then the adults can go talk.
But this business of gays coming around kids has got to stop. GLSEN has got to go, and so do the "gay studies" in schools that have been led by NEA liberals to accept them.
Any suggestions?
Perhaps the site upgraded the version of the file?
LOL at your phrase, but lost my breakfast.
Isn't yours inaccurate? Even granting a 2 to 1 correlation, that means in half of the cases genetics was not a factor is making the twin gay. The strange thing was though, that these studies also find a correlation between fraternal twins, indicating even the 2 to 1 correlation could not be all attributed to genetics.
By definition, homosexuals do not reproduce - - it is self-imposed sterility.
No person can ever have a "sex change." The use of the language has been so twisted by the leftist radicals, that in our touchy-feely world, many blindly accept some of these erroneous terminologies. XX or XY chromosones can't be changed after conception when mitosis begins.
There are variants in alleles...
All are still genetically male or female. They are sterile. XO (Turner syndrome), XXY (Klinefelter syndrome), XXX (poly-X syndrome), and XYY (Jacob syndrome). No matter how many X chromosones there are, any individual with a Y chromosone develops into a male. These abnormalities are so few, only one in several hundreds of thousands occur (about 0.022% of the human population - do the calculus).
Keeping in mind people with the previously listed syndromes are sterile, they cannot pass those genotypes or phenotypes to offspring.
So much for the "gay" gene - - it does not exist.
I object to voodoo science based upon personal idolatries of vanity. This idolatry of perversion is a totem of the Left. Homosexuality is an idolatry of perversion. Gay marriage advocacy is a cult of perversion.
Instead of making the open declaration it is a human anatomical perversion they enjoy, the idols of vanity and impoverished ego require the invention of some religion to justify it.
Homosexual acts are no more a genetic trait than identical acts practiced by heterosexuals. (You know which ones I'm talking about.)
You are now speaking in absolutes, just as those who deny the premise do. Gays, while strong proponents of the gay gene are the last people who actually want the gene identified you know
the abortion choice puts them at risk.
You dont know very many MZ twin studies do you? There are at least a dozen. 1. You are probably citing the Bailey/Pillard 1992 study which was discredited by Bailey himself for the biased non-random sample. . 2. The Hershberger 1997 registry study had a 0% concordance rate for males and the Bailey/Martin 2000 registry study had a 0% concordance rate for females. 3. Since you know so much about understanding objective scientific studies perhaps you can tell us why in real science is replaceable except when it comes to twin studies?
How about the 1993 study from Arizona State University, Tempe that states "[The] findings are interpreted as supporting the argument for a biological basis in sexual orientation."
Don't be so ambivilent. Why don't you state what the correlation rates between monozygotic and dizygotic twins were found to be? They're quite different. With little variation, monozygotic twins have a correlation of about 1 in 2, dizygotic twins only 1 in 5.
Again, you're making a blatantly dishonest representation. The reasons why are obvious. The studies don't support your conclusions. But somehow, by amazing contortions of logic, you're able to convince yourself that the studies actually draw a conclusion exactly opposite of what they conclude by any objective analysis.
Youre priceless we dont have to go any farther than this thread. You make juvenile slanders to the author, I ask you to name one and you tell me to re-read the article to support your own allegations and then accuse me of leading by example for NOT having an argument. Textbook hypocrisy of doing that which condemn. Youre a real piece of work.
But being the fair-minded person that I am Ill give you one more chance to prove your accusations of the author. Name one canard in this article.
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.