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?
I know it must be a challenge, but try to comprehend the context before replying next time.
No Susan I’m presenting real peer reviewed reseach studies that have a 0% concordance rate. Explain that for us Einstein.
The context is there for everyone to see but should you want to redeem yourself from your very apparent hypocrisy maybe you can answer where the canard is.
Bwhahahaaa...stop I can't take it anymore. My side is hurting.
I'm not playing any silly games with you. I know better than to think you'll actually give a reasoned thought to any of it, but I'll go along for the sake of other readers.
"It's damaging to individuals". B.S. Homosexuality, practiced safely and monogamously, is no more unhealthy than heterosexuality. The author's implication is that there is no such thing as safe or healthy homosexuality.
The author also states "it's damaging to society" and as supposed proof relates the story of one abberant convention in Chicago and extrapolates that this is representative of homosexuality. This is as ludicrous as saying the Black College Reunion in Daytona Beach, with it's rapes, stabbings, shootings, and deaths, are representative of black culture.
It's a canard. Anyone who would say otherwise simply refuses to acknowledge their prejudice and/or ignorance.
Do you know the difference between DATA and conclusion? Apparently not.
BTW does this study have a source or was it preformed by the science building at ASU?
Hehehe…you think a behavioral pathology is “healthy” for an individual? LOL Stop it, you’re killing me.
I don't know why you should laugh as if to flippantly disagree with me. You said the very same thing yourself in post #52.
That's our good little hypocrite, when you can't answer why several peer reviewed studies have a 0% concordance rate you have to change the subject like a true Liberaltarian.
It's just as bigoted as saying that Rapper Emimem is characteristic of white boy culture.
Bwhahahahaaaaa......I can't breath anymore.
How did you put it? "I know it must be a challenge, but try to before replying next time." And maybe who wrote it too?
Now is that what I said? No. But this is just another fine example of why you, and people who argue similarly, are losing credibility on this and other issues. People aren't stupid and they recognize dishonest sophistry when they see it.
What's ludicrous is comparing innate characteristic to a behavior, come on cupcake you can do better.
SHOW ME THE CANARD!
Dodging the obvious? You said homosexuality, which are those who have a behavioral pathology, can be a healthy practice. Where am I wrong?
How??? I can show you studies that have a 60% concordance rate. It DOESN"T mean they are right or wrong, only that they were accurate for that sample that day.
What ALL our studies don't have is an ability to be replicated over and over. If you can't answer why that is you have NO credibility to impose your study over any other period.
Behavior is comparable to innate characteristic???
Bwahahahaaaa.....what hoot!
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.