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?
That’s patently wrong and you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. But if you’re saying the Bailey/Martin and Hershberger studies have an impossible conclusion you’re confusing PROBABILITY with data. First clue, DATA is REAL and probability is “probable”.
I don't know where you got that notion. Whitam, Diamond, Martin - Department of Sociology, Arizona State University, Tempe, 1993.
You ask three or four times you got to assume you don’t know. But as to your ASU study it’s really funny because Whitman cites the Bailey/Pillard 1991 study, a study if you remember Bailey discredits himself, and yet you said above that the “Bailey” study I cited had “an impossible conclusion”. Are you a hypocrite or just more ignorant that you claimed to be?
Well, that's assuming you had asked three or four times, which you didn't. You didn't even ask once.
But what about the MZ twins that have a 0% concordance, why are they not statistically significant? If you can't answer this you really have no credible argument.
I could ask you why you're so insistent on relying on this same study when the author renounced it if you want to discredit me by that same fact.
The body of scientific study is constantly evolving. I realize this. You don't seem to realize that except where it's expedient for you to cherry pick scientific conclusions that appear to support you.
Taken as a whole, how many studies have found a significant correlation versus studies that have found no correlation? I draw my own conclusions.
And it's merely speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if any of the studies finding no correlation were somehow funded by Dr. Paul Cameron, Judith Reisman, or some similar person, who is, to put it kindly, less than objective.
Sigh…
BTW what were those “Most studies, espeically recent studies” studies while you’re at it? And I could care less about the typos I probably make more than you.
It impeaches your study but you may ask anyway.
The body of scientific study is constantly evolving. I realize this. You don't seem to realize that except where it's expedient for you to cherry pick scientific conclusions that appear to support you.
I’ve just asked one simple question you can’t answer and yes the studies “evolve” but DATA stays static and unchangeable so your premise ridiculous.
Taken as a whole, how many studies have found a significant correlation versus studies that have found no correlation? I draw my own conclusions.
You just don’t understand reseach studies as you claimed, it’s apparent to anyone reading this thread. You are a charlatan.
And it's merely speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if any of the studies finding no correlation were somehow funded by Dr. Paul Cameron, Judith Reisman, or some similar person, who is, to put it kindly, less than objective.
Then you’d be wrong yet again.
Your first link asked me for a source. Having told you already that this came from ASU Tempe in 1993, I assumed you simply missed that.
The second link asks me to cite the several other studies, but since you yourself already stipulated earlier in the thread that there are several studies on the matter, I'll assume you're already familiar with them and you simply wish to send me on a time-consuming hunt for links and stats that you'll simply ignore anyway. I wish I had the time and patience to indulge your every whim along these lines, but failingly, I'm both human and Type A, so I don't. If you stipulate there are other studies, that would seem to suffice.
I responded to your third link with the full cite.
It appears you are exaggerating just a bit when you say you asked three or four times without response.
My goodness you are lame. You claim your cites support your conclusion, and they don't, and then you won't cite what they are or if they exist. You have no credibility period.
The second link asks me to cite ,blah, blah, blah...trying to squeez blood from a rock? Who cares, you miss the forest through the trees.
That you won't answer some questions and apparently believe the ends justify the means? Yes, we hold these truths to be self-evident. BTW, we have replicas on the wall.
Why tdadams has NO credibility.
1. He cites studies he can’t defend.
2. He cites studies he won’t cite.
3. He make false allegations that hard data is impossible conclusion if it doesn’t follow “probabilities.”
4. He makes false allegations of me “cherry picking” studies.
5. He makes false allegations of prominent twin studies being funded for ulterior motives.
6. He continually cites the data from one study as the only reasonable conclusion for his debate.
7. He has NO ability to understand scientific reseach as he claimed.
8. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
9. He’s a hypocrite
10. We could make this 20 if we wanted to.
I see the usual "I said" "you did not, but I said" "oh, no you didn't, but I said."
But you're doing it regarding issues that dance around the central questions regarding homosexuality and its place in our society. I will not pick a "winner" because it is probably well known that I generally agree with Clint in such arguments, but you are both being pulled down a rabbit trail that has no meaning. If they found a "cannibalism gene" that would not acquit Jeffry Dahlmer (sp?) so who cares?
These are the issues as I understand them:
Shalom.
No that's fine, let's start with truth #1 "He cites studies he can’t defend." and work our way up shall we?
Why is your data more compelling than all others?
I see you're familiar with tdadams too. ["I said" "you did not, but I said" "oh, no you didn't, but I said."] is his best retort.
Good post BTW, right on the money.
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.