Posted on 06/04/2005 9:43:30 AM PDT by CHARLITE
This week, many an unsuspecting American family will travel to Walt Disney World, where they will find themselves at the epicenter of a recurring cultural earthquake. There, at America's favorite family destination, hordes of homosexuals will congregate at Pleasure Island for an annual exercise in societal entropy. "Gay Days at Disney" they call it -- though it is anything but.
"Gay" in the current vernacular is, of course, the term used by the fashionably PC to describe homosexuals. In dictionaries just a couple of decades ago, however, this same adjective meant "happy" or "a state of high spirits." A century ago, the primary definition was: "licentious, lacking moral restraints, leading a debauched or dissolute life." The Gay '90s, for example, were the final decade of what Mark Twain dubbed "The Gilded Age," an era of unmitigated opulence and unrestrained immorality among a subculture of the elite.
In light of this earliest definition, we're reminded of the inimitable words of that great American philosopher, Yogi Berra: "This is like deja vu all over again." Indeed, today's "gay" culture is equally dissolute, and its agenda is anathema to the bedrock institution of our past, present and future -- the American family.
Leading the charge in homosexual advocacy are groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, and their strategy has heretofore been an effective one. The ACLU will select cases in U.S. Circuit Court venues where the Left has installed a majority of judicial activists -- those who do the bidding of constituencies like homosexuals, in effect ignoring the Constitution and legislating by judicial fiat. It is these same judicial activists who affirm such issues as same-sex "marriage" and same-sex partner benefits.
The homosexual legal agenda notwithstanding, the question all enlightened Americans should be asking themselves in order to understand better the moral implications of this agenda is, which definition of "gay" applies to the homosexual subculture in America? In order to answer this question, one must gain some insight into the pathology of homosexual behavior.
The shifting paradigm of sexual morality is a source of much controversy in America. Homosexuals, though less than 3% of the population, are at the center of this controversy. The secular rights of consenting adults are in contest with the timeless natural order of the family and society.
To discuss the issue of homosexual normalization, we must move beyond the "pro-this/anti-that" labels and dispel a false dichotomy -- one that has infected our dialogue on the issue of homosexuality. Homosexual advocacy groups often rebut dissenters by branding them as pharisaical, intolerant and judgmental -- ad hominem accusations which serve only to preclude a consequential discussion of the issue. Of course, one's heartfelt disagreement with the social agenda of homosexual advocates has no direct correlation with one's capacity to love or have compassion for others. Nor is such dissent necessarily related to judgment, which is God's alone. Rather, it is about discerning between right and wrong and obedience to objective truth -- as opposed to conformity with a contemporary code of relativism whose tenets are "tolerance," "diversity" and "inclusion."
From a Judeo-Christian perspective, it should be noted that objective truth does not constitute law without grace. In fact, law in the absence of grace is meaningless -- little more than oppression. However, grace in the absence of law is, likewise, meaningless -- little more than licentiousness. Law and grace are, in fact, different sides of the same coin.
Understanding aberrant sexual behavior is the critical first step toward healing it. Homosexuality is sometimes a promiscuous lifestyle choice. Often, however, as understood by many medical and mental health specialists, gender-disorientation pathology is associated with childhood or adolescent sexual and/or emotional trauma and/or abuse. Additionally, homosexual modeling by an authority figure -- often an influential person with access to the victim through the family, church, school, neighborhood or media -- can result in gender-disorientation pathology.
Homosexual victims often compensate and cover their pain by manifesting some degree of narcissism -- an unmitigated expression of self-love. They compulsively indulge in aberrant sexual behavior to avoid reconciling the pain of abuse or homosexual modeling.
Additionally, while there was rampant speculation a decade ago about a "homosexual gene," that theory has been repeatedly rejected by both the scientific community and national homosexual advocacy organizations. It should be noted, however, that some children may be genetically predisposed to exhibit masculine or feminine characteristics associated with the opposite sex -- putting them at greater risk of being targeted by homosexual predators and more susceptible, psychologically, to homosexual modeling.
It is no small irony that the most outspoken advocates for the homosexual agenda are equally outspoken about environmental issues -- preservation of the natural order. Even the most humanist of these advocates must acknowledge the obvious -- that homosexuality is a clear and undeniable violation of the laws of nature.
Given insight into the pathology of gender disorientation, to abandon, under the aegis of "love, compassion and inclusion," those who struggle with homosexuality, is tantamount to abandoning a destitute soul in a gutter.
In the final analysis, there is nothing "gay" about being afflicted with gender disorientation pathology. Nor is there anything redeeming about those who would use a family theme park to advance the homosexual agenda.
(For a comprehensive response to the homosexual agenda in the church, visit http://FederalistPatriot.US/papers/03-32_paper.asp.)
Quote of the week...
"We know that obligatory homosexuals are caught up in unconscious adaptations to early childhood abuse and neglect and that, with insight into their earliest beginnings, they can change. ... But, when homosexuality takes on all the aspects of a political movement, it, too, becomes a war, the kind of war in which the first casualty is truth, and the spoils turn out to be our own children. ... In a Washington March for Gay Pride, they chanted, 'We're here. We're queer. And we're coming after your children.' What more do we need to know?" --Charles Socarides, M.D., clinical professor of psychiatry, Albert Einstein College of Medicine
On cross-examination...
"The assumption I am now challenging is this: that every desire for change in sexual orientation is always the result of societal pressure and never the product of a rational, self-directed goal. This new orthodoxy claims that it is impossible for an individual who was predominantly homosexual for many years to change his sexual orientation -- not only in his sexual behavior, but also in his attraction and fantasies -- and to enjoy heterosexuality. Many professionals go so far as to hold that it is unethical for a mental-health professional, if requested, to attempt such psychotherapy. ... Science progresses by asking interesting questions, not by avoiding questions whose answers might not be helpful in achieving a political agenda." --Robert Spitzer, professor of psychiatry, Columbia University
Mark Alexander is Executive Editor and Publisher of The Federalist Patriot, a Townhall.com member group.
In short, this is Hegel's dialectic at work.
The constituion is fine the way it is. We don't need to run around changing this document. Leave the issue to the states.
"IronJack" said it well in reply #21
It isn't being left to the states. It's being legislated by judges.
Where voters in states were given the issue to decide, they have come out overwhelmingly against homosexual marriage.
Voters in many states were opposed to allowing a black to marry a white...that didn't make it right.
You are attributing things to me that I didn't say. You were the one who said "leave it to the states".
I simply pointed out that where it is left to the states(voters) They reject it every time.
In Mass. a judge ruled homosexual marriage into existence.
You are comparing apples and oranges. The two have no relationship to each other.
No matter your opinion or mine. Judges making law is wrong.
I am not up to date on the exact facts of the case in question.
You are well aware of the comparison you were making. That of blacks marrying whites compaired to homosexuals marrying each other.
You obviously have a homosexual agenda and you are misguided and in the wrong place. (That's an opinion too)
The leftists in the media, Hollywood, public schools and universities and at the ACLU have all be instrumental in working to promote homosexual behavior.
That combined with work on the "right" by liberaltarians and homosexuality has pretty much become accepted by a large segment of society.
DU comes to mind.
I think much of the gay movement is driven by an irrepressible need for acceptance of initmate phyiscal acts that homsexuals know themselves are wrong or a least abnormal. Society's acceptance of gay behavior in a sense a personal validation.
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.