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?
And funny isn't it that I never asked about special rights. That's your word not mine. Even after it was pointed out to you repeatedly you cling to the lie rather than admit that you didn't answer the question.
me->And what rights do they not have that we have?
you->None. That's exactly my point. Gays have the same rights as everyone else. No more and no less. Only some people (especially here) seem to have no problem refusing to recognize those rights.
Protecting and defending those rights is what I'm arguing for. Some on here seem to think it's OK to abridge someone's rights if they personally are offended by what the person might do with their freedom, or if their behavior isn't given the blessing of the government.
And just how are these rights being violated? By denying them the special right to marry someone of the same sex? I don't have that right why should they? By denying them the right to molest my children before they reach the age of consent? By denying them unsupervised access to other's children? I don't have any of these rights why should they. I don't have the right to perform sex acts in public. Why should they?
Everything you say seems to be pushing for special rights for sexual deviants since they aren't being deprived of any rights that they already have. Now unless you can show proof of where their existing rights are being denied we will have to assume that you are indeed pushing for special rights for them.
How (exactly) are their rights being violated thereby forcing them to pretend to be something they're not?
Moreover, it was originally Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of property . . . but was changed by the founders to the "pursuit of happiness" to gain general support from the masses. The founders did not actually believe in a general right of "the pursuit of happiness", which is impossible to define other than on an individual basis - and thus impossible to use to grant "rights." For instance, pedophilia makes some people happy. Does that therefore give them the "right" to do it?
In a previous post I discussed the reason for marriage. (Which of course you ignored). So I'll do it again here.
Marriage is a civil contract between a man and a woman, sanctioned by the government for the purpose of providing a safe and stable environment for the raising of children. Since only a relationship of one man to one woman produces the optimum environment for raising children, only that sort of relationship receives government sanction. In order to promote the stability of this relationship certain legal advantages are given to the partners in the contract (inheritance, medical rights etc). All these advantages are intended to maintain the stability for the children.
Since the children are the next generation of citizens and will run this society when we retire it is in everyone's best interest to provide for them the best upbringing we can. (and of course that best up bringing only happens in a married household of one man and one woman.)
Anything that threathens or weakens the marriage contract (such as imitation unions between two men, two women, a man and his sheep etc) damages each of us as it weakens the basic foundation of the next generation of this society.
Likewise, 'homosexual' adoption or fostering damages the children raised in such unhealthy homes. Due to their mental illness/damage 'homosexuals' are not fit parents.
(Now before you bring up the standard 'homosexual' talking point "what about people who are sterile or choose not to have children" let me add that the marriage contract only provides the environment for raising children, it doesn't force children to be raised. Sterile people have been known to adopt. This puts the child in a healthy environment of one man married to one woman, exactly as intended by the marriage contract. People decide sometimes much later in life to have children (my wife and I were married 15 years before we had our first child).)
If two men want to live together in a monogamous relationship for the rest of their lives they are already free to do that. They just can't get government sanction to call it a marriage (as it has no possibility of benefitting any children resulting from the union or adopted into the union). They have exactly the same rights that I do.
As you point out, most rights are balanced against other rights. The worst "right" ever written was the "pursuit of happiness." Unfortunately for us, Jefferson understood that such pursuit would be both lawful and moral. If he had been able to conceive of as perverse a society as ours growing out of the American experiment He might have phrased it differently (or retained the original).
Jefferson didn't really believe in the fallen nature of man. That's why he so fully supported the French experiment, which was a dismal failure because it did not respect G-d. Our experiment did respect G-d and has been a huge success. I say "did" not "does" and I fear the worst for the future of our experiment. If Jefferson had believed in the fallen nature of man, he might have realized that we were no less likely than Greece or Rome to confuse liberty with license, and be destroyed by it.
Shalom.
Shalom.
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.