The 'gay' truth: Kevin McCullough on homosexuality dominating American politics

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?

While you guys slather yourselves in untuous self-congratulations and exchange cyber high-fives, I do hope you'll have one small fleeting moment of introspective honesty. While you may fool yourselves into actually believing you've won the debate, some small part of your brain has to be telling you that your claims of victory are entirely vacuous. If anything it's a victory of attrition.

Everyone has a tolerance limit to the amount of overall B.S. you guys spew. I've got a much higher tolerance threshold than most, but even I have reached my limit. Besides that, I really don't have the all-consuming interest in this topic that you seem to have.

So continue to wallow in the credulity of your little 'suspended logic' club. Keep fighting, like Hiroo Onoda, a battle that has long since passed you by and made you the subject of amuzement among those watching you.

Keep making untenable claims of scientific dubiosity. Keep fighting to impose your will and your religious beliefs at the point of the government's gun since you've failed to make your case by persuasion. Keep convincing yourself that your subjective and easily debunked distortions and rhetorical strawmen are really objective and ironclad facts. Keep insisting that your contorted logical non sequiturs are really irrefutable.

I tend to think your statements here are simply a Pavlovian repetition of the dogma you've been fed by the fundraising letters from Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council. But, if you truly believe all of the pap you post here, I can only be envious that you have the capability to paint your world entirely according to what you wish it to be, dismissively ignoring anything that's dischordant with your own beliefs and experience.

Certainly, people who think like that are nothing new, but they tend to be the same kind of people who will move to the jungles of Ghana and drink a cyanide-Kool Aid cocktail because their leader said so.

You guys carry on. I'm going to sit on the sidelines and be amuzed.

I don't think either of us thinks we won a debate, since you never debated any points.

I understand if you have better things to do. Ending participation in a discussion is not the same thing as conceeding.

If you get bored, you might try answering one question. Only one - don't go off topic. Just answer this one.

What factual or evidentiary changes have occurred to cause us to throw away 6,000 years of history and change our marriage laws?

Shalom.

since you never debated any points

Another fine example of creating your own reality when the truth indicates otherwise.

What factual or evidentiary changes have occurred to cause us to throw away 6,000 years of history and change our marriage laws?

You'll never persuade me with the argument that "we've always done it this way". I'm not a proponent of maintaining the status quo simply for the sake of eschewing change, especially when society's sense of justice dictates that change.

It is simply inconceivable to many, me included, that in 21st century America, you can go to jail for having consensual sex in your home with someone not approved by the government.

ArGee: What factual or evidentiary changes have occurred to cause us to throw away 6,000 years of history and change our marriage laws?

tdadams: You'll never persuade me with the argument that "we've always done it this way". I'm not a proponent of maintaining the status quo simply for the sake of eschewing change, especially when society's sense of justice dictates that change.

It is simply inconceivable to many, me included, that in 21st century America, you can go to jail for having consensual sex in your home with someone not approved by the government.

OK, here's why I say you never debate. I gave you a direct question and you refused to answer it. You don't even have the courage to say, "There aren't any, but I think..." You just side-step the question.

I agree with you that "we've never done it that way before" does not qualify as an argument. But there have been several posts to you on this thread alone that explain why we've never done it that way before. We've also pointed out to you that you're not tinkering with the best way to make peanut-butter, you're tinkering with society. And if you make a change, and you are wrong, and society crumbles, you don't get it back. The risk is high, so the justification for change must also be high.

And I'm sorry, but your lack of imagination ("it's inconceivable to ... me...") does not qualify as a high justification.

It qualifies as whining.

Shalom.

That's not true, ArGee. You seem to want only simplistic answers, spoon-fed to you, and only worded in a way that you deem acceptable.

True, I didn't phrase my answer with the words "Here's what has changed...", but I provided an answer nonetheless. For you to say I didn't is simply either dishonest on your part, or an inability to communicate with a complexity beyond that of an eight year old.

but I provided an answer nonetheless.

Well, you answered my question, but you didn't address my question. You also didn't address the many factors that made your answer moot.

If you ask me what kind of car I drive and I tell you I don't like imports, have I answered your question?

The fact is, nothing has changed. Homoerotic behavior is just as wrong today as it was 100 years ago. Unless someone comes up with a test for a corpse that can determine reliably whether the person was gay or straight, it will continue to be an anomalous behavior.

Between you and me, I could care less about what two gays do in private. The problem is, they have shown a remarkable lack of willingness to keep it private. I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about the group as a whole.

Additionally, I have heard a gay man ask a straight teen whether the teen had considered he might be gay. To the rest of us the suggestion was ridiculous. The boy couldn't keep his hands off the girls. The gay man was commenting on the effeminate characteristics of the youth and trying to tell the youth that he was confused. What he was really doing was planting a notion that had no business being planted. He was not the youth's counsellor, pastor, or even family friend. He was simply in contact with the boy and "wanted to help". He was way out of line, and the boy's parents told him so.

That man needs to know that the rest of us consider homoerotic attraction an abomination. If he wants to practice it, fine, but he should not be peddling it.

I also don't think the man was trying to have sex with the boy, but I couldn't prove it.

Shalom.

Well, you answered my question, but you didn't address my question.

If I didn't answer the question the way you like, it's probably because I disagree with the premise of your question. If I disagree with the premise, why should I answer it in the way it's phrased and lend credence to an invalid question?

The problem is, they have shown a remarkable lack of willingness to keep it private. I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about the group as a whole.

It bewilders me how conspicuously so many conservatives do an about face from their normal stance of shunning the group identity in favor of the individual. Instead you focus on the anecdotal and nebulous misdeeds of the group as a whole and overlook the rights or merit of any gays as individuals.

Amazingly, as conspicuous as it is, it seems to be done obliviously by the ones doing it.

You wouldn't accept that kind of illogical denigration if it was a liberal talking about gun owners, so why do you practice that kind of illogical denigration when you talk about gays? By employing that particular fallacious thinking, you're lending credence to every gun grabber who says guns should be outlawed anytime a twisted nutcase shoots up a school or restaurant.

I'm a conservative, not a libertarian. And I do look at groups all the time. And individuals. One of the differences between conservatives and libertarians is that we know when it's appropriate to do either.

You still haven't answered my question. Since you objected to it's phrasing I'll try a different one.

Why should we normalize homoerotic behavior?

Shalom.

Why should we normalize homoerotic behavior?

First of all, we've been debating on this thread so long that you've probably lost sight of the fact that I'm not in favor of 'gay rights' per se, but I support the right of individuals to live a self-directed life without needing the permission or approval of the government to live the life that makes them happy, assuming they (as an individual) do not commit any kind of force or fraud against others. Since this philosophy happens to encompass gays who are both human and American, I must also support their rights as equally as anyone elses.

When you ask why should we normalize homosexuality, what do you envision, some sort of formal proclamation?

Society is changing and part of that change is a greater acceptance of homosexuals. Trying to hold back the evolving opinion of society is like trying to hold back the wind. Whether you're opposed, support, or remain indifferent about gay rights I think is of little relevance.

When you ask why should we normalize homosexuality, what do you envision, some sort of formal proclamation?

Exactly. Things like removing support from organizations that don't allow homoerotic leaders. Creating homoerotic unions or allowing homoerotic "marriages." Mandating curricula about people with the homoerotic illness in schools. Making it a hate crime to tell somoene they can't spend time with your child because of their "sexual orientation." Changing the definition of psychiatry so that psychiatrists no longer have to treat this illness.

When it comes to laws, there are a bunch being written to persecute those who accept homoerotic behavior as a perversion than those who suffer from it. This, in itself, is a part of the disease. You brought up gun owners earlier, didn't you? Do you see gun owners trying to make it a crime to dislike guns or people who use them?

They are sick and any formal declaration made at any level, personal or public policy, should be based on their illness, not on accepting or "tolerating" them.

And, like it or not, your gentle effort to "live and let live" has helped to create the environment where their formal declarations become law. There is no middle ground in this battle, much as you would like there to be.

Shalom.

Society is changing and part of that change is a greater acceptance of homosexuals

Which goes right back to Argee's question. Why should we normalize homosexuality? Rather than stating it as a fact (because it's not really) answer the question of why we should let it change this way.

You post replies with huge numbers of words but you never say anything. Why won't you just answer the question.

And once again you come out in favor of 'homosexuals' rights but won't define (as I've asked you to previously) what rights they don't have that I have.

Try answering a question once in a while. It makes for a much better discussion. Argee is right. We have not won a debate because you haven't debated anything. You've dodged almost every question.

Try answering a question once in a while. It makes for a much better discussion...You've dodged almost every question.

I've been more patient and more detailed in giving answers in this debate than anyone. Don't make me laugh. As I told ArGee, I may not word an answer as simplisticly as you like. I may not use the exact phrases in the exact syntax that you deem acceptable, but that doesn't mean I've not answered. Instead of demanding a dumbed down answer and alleging that I'm dodging when you can't comprehend a complex concept, try raising your intellect a little bit and embrace the concept of a nuanced debate.

And once again you come out in favor of 'homosexuals' rights but won't define (as I've asked you to previously) what rights they don't have that I have.

Point me to a post where I've said I favor special homosexual rights. In fact, I've said just the opposite.

I may not use the exact phrases in the exact syntax that you deem acceptable, but that doesn't mean I've not answered.

This is just another dodge used to justify your other dodges. If you don't like the presuppositions of the questions, you can argue those as well. But you don't. You provide some sound-bite that contains little original thought then claim the moral high ground because "I don't like your syntax."

Here's a perfect example: John O.: And once again you come out in favor of 'homosexuals' rights but won't define (as I've asked you to previously) what rights they don't have that I have.

tdadams: Point me to a post where I've said I favor special homosexual rights. In fact, I've said just the opposite.

You should go to work for the AP. John O. wasn't asking about special homosexual rights. You inserted that word. In fact, he was asking about just the opposite. He asked what rights homosexuals have that he doesn't have. Unless you're presuming that John has some special rights, you haven't touched his question. You have dodged.

Why should society change? What is the benefit to society? Why should anyone stop fighting to ensure marriage remains between a man and a woman? Why schools be forced to teach that "it's OK to be gay?" And, for heaven's sake, why should we allow the mentally ill to dominate our politics?

Shalom.

I'm not going to continue quibbling with you ArGee. You're determined to make baseless accusations and find fault with everything I say.

By saying I should work for the AP you insinuate that my answer to John O was what? I told him I've never advocated special homosexual rights and that's the truth. I've said so explicitly to you on more than one occasion. I inserted the word special for clarity since it seemed 'special rights' was what he was implying with the quote marks around the word homosexual.

Quit being so captious. It's damn annoying and makes you look petulant.

Why should anyone stop fighting to ensure marriage remains between a man and a woman?

How are you harmed if two people of the same sex want to call themselves married? How are you specifically harmed?

Why schools[sic] be forced to teach that "it's OK to be gay?"

Are schools being forced to teach that or is that the will of the teachers and the teachers unions?

And, for heaven's sake, why should we allow the mentally ill to dominate our politics?

Well, apart from the fact that there are a bunch of mentally ill people already running the government, in which case there would be no change, gays aren't mentally ill. You saying it repeatedly doesn't make it so.

I'm not going to continue quibbling with you ArGee. You're determined to make baseless accusations and find fault with everything I say.

That's because you keep saying stupid things.

Every accusation I've made to you has had basis, as I have put in each post. But you can read reality however you like.

John O. asked what rights homosexuals lacked. You answered that you never favored special rights for homosexuals. He never asked you about special rights, he asked you about normal rights that they lacked. What rights do they lack, tdadams?

As for marriage - when two people marry their families are joined. Marriage is not a private matter. Why should we allow queers to marry?

I don't know why I bother.

Shalom.

gays aren't mentally ill.

And that's something you can't prove no matter how mny times you repeat it.

tdadams says: "Point me to a post where I've said I favor special homosexual rights. In fact, I've said just the opposite."

Then tdadams says: "How are you harmed if two people of the same sex want to call themselves married? How are you specifically harmed?"

Now we've ALL seen you argue for homosexual marriage and this quote insinuates the same so stop being a liar and strart taking reponsibility for what you say.

Point me to a post where I've said I favor special homosexual rights. In fact, I've said just the opposite

You are correct. You have never said that you are for special rights for 'homosexuals'. Your posts, however, especially with the subject of the article, seem to imply that you favor rights for 'homosexuals' that mentally healthy people don't have.

from 138: You know you're right. That is a good analogy. I would suggest to you that we are in the midst of a very similar cultural shift where a good number of people, perhaps soon a majority if not already, see homosexuals as fully human also and wish for them to participate in the full range of rights and dignities as all others without having to pretend they're something they're not.

And what rights do they not have that we have?

from 143:. 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.

And what rights do they not have that we have?

from 149: They are what they are and that trait is immutable. If someone whose nature is to find comfort and romance with someone of the same sex finds someone else similarly inclined, they are behaving according to their nature. To behave contrary to that would not be the "proper expression" of their sexuality.

And what rights do they not have that we have?

BTW the practice opf homosexual behavior is not immutable, both religious and secular therapies have had great success in healing and restoring these people to a normal healthy lifestyle.

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.