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?
If doctors/scientists/researchers can't do this, why would you expect that I could? At least I'm taking all studies into consideration. Most studies, espeically recent studies, seem to suggest that there's a biological component to sexual orientation. That's a long way from being conclusive, but neither is it dismissive as you seem to suggest.
Researchers may never find a 100% definitive cause of sexual orientation. Even if they did, I have no doubt you'd find a way to impugn the findings.
To simply tout studies that agree with your argument and reject studies that tend to challenge your position, as you seem to be doing, is intellectually dishonest. Or, in other words, you're fooling yourself.
Another lie! You only mentioned the one done by the ASU science building that has no name. But now I'm curious, do these "several other studies" have names either or do we just refer to them as the "several other studies" studies.
Presumably heterosexuality is genetic and so is hemaphroditism. Why is it odd to suggest that homosexuality is genetic? Rarity nor society's approval have nothing to do with whether something is genetic or not.
Can you show me anywhere I tout “my” studies over yours? You keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.
At least I'm taking all studies into consideration.
Yet another lie, you’ve only cited the ASU study that said "[The] findings are interpreted as supporting the argument for a biological basis in sexual orientation." while panning the studies I cited. You are rediculous and a liar.
Oh my gosh, you're really grasping at straws here.
OK...I'll rephrase then just for you.
You think a behavioral pathology is sometimes healthy?
Alleged misrepresentation of what someone said is another matter, to be sorted out in either public fact-airing or the courts.
pro·jec·tion (pr&-'jek-sh&n): the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety
In several posts you've touted a study that supposedly shows a 0% correlation of sexual orientation among twins. On the face, that is a silly assertion, since by mere random probability, both twins might be gay in the same proportion as homosexuality appears in the general population, which credible estimates ranging from 2 to 5 percent.
On the contrary, although I earlier cited the ASU study, you've inferred that as an indication that my entire understanding of the subject lies with that one study when I've clearly stated that's not the case.
I presume that you're intelligent enough to realize that, but you're merely being captious in order to keep up your illogical insults toward me.
It’s called DATA and the interpretation of said DATA is supported by the DATA. That means for that EXAMPLE the “convention” was a burden on society, which doesn’t make his conclusions wrong.
What is so dishonest. A greater than 1 in 5 rate for homosexality is quite significant. That's a greater than 4 times increase in the normal rate. You are the one being blatantly dishonest by saying 'only'.
Did somebody fart?
Exactly. Thank you for making my point!
If non-twin siblings have an orientation correlation of 1 in 20, dizygotic twins have a correlation of 1 in 5 and monozygotic twins have a correlation of 1 in 2, that is statistically significant.
There would seem to be an indisputable, if unknown, biological element involved in sexual orientation.
Yes I did but not over “your” study as you hypocritically accused me of. BTW it was TWO studies. One of which had over 1400 subjects in a totally blind random sample.
On the face, that is a silly assertion, since by mere random probability, both twins might be gay in the same proportion as homosexuality appears in the general population, which credible estimates ranging from 2 to 5 percent.
Good point but DATA does not always have to follow population to be accurate and compelling.
On the contrary, although I earlier cited the ASU study, you've inferred that as an indication that my entire understanding of the subject lies with that one study when I've clearly stated that's not the case.
It’s the only one you cited period given your assertion of “Most studies, espeically recent studies” that you’re supposedly relying on when you can’t even cite who wrote the ASU study. Much less who or where your ” Most studies, espeically recent studies” studies come from. Do you have any credibility at all?
Let me be a bit clearer. Any study of a reasonable sample size that finds a 0% correlation has reached an impossible conclusion. It's credibility is not only suspect, but it can be taken as prima facie incorrect.
you can’t even cite who wrote the ASU study
I don't know where you got that notion. Whitam, Diamond, Martin - Department of Sociology, Arizona State University, Tempe, 1993.
And I can only assume you posted that quote of mine twice so as to point out my typo. In which case, you only reinforce my assertion that you're merely being captious. And let me add immature.
As there is an equally if not more significant environment element involvled. And being human, it is still ultimately a choice.
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.