Posted on 06/11/2006 6:44:32 AM PDT by Military family member
I’m rarely lifted by some occurrence under the Capitol dome, but 48 members of the Senate provided an exception this week: They spared us the protracted and dangerous distraction of a federal battle over gay marriage.
That even five minutes was spent on this issue — let alone all the words poured out about the need for a constitutional amendment to “protect” marriage — illustrates how far our nation is from getting its priorities in order and its act together.
You know, the act we need to perfect so we can seriously deal on the global stage with real political, economic, security and environmental threats to our well-being?
Now, before some of you rev up the e-mail and phone trees — the ones that tell me in 25 formulated words or more that I should go back to San Francisco where all those Sodomites flout their abomination before God and country — I have a few things to say that might save you the trouble.
No. 1: I have no “gay agenda.” I am a lifelong heterosexual, born and raised in Indiana, who developed my advocacy for gay rights here in the heartland. The first gay person I knew I met in high school.
During my four years at Purdue — a stand-up, state-supported university chock-full of white-bread kids like me — I got to know many more gay women and men. I learned at an early age that homosexuals are people who are much more like heterosexuals than they aren’t.
We laughed at the same jokes, danced to the same music, struggled similarly through algebra or English lit, worried equally about our post-graduation employability and made sure we got home for our parents’ birthdays. Sometimes, late at night, as we shared a beer or a walk across campus, we confided the same personal dream: to love and be loved.
So, don’t blame San Francisco. I equated gay rights with human rights long before I left Indiana.
No. 2: As Vice President Dick Cheney can and will tell you, truly knowing and loving a gay man or lesbian makes you look at discrimination against homosexuals in a whole different way.
Denying two adults the legal, social and economic benefits that come with a state-sanctioned union is flat-out, unequivocal discrimination. Deliberately meting out injustice — with a constitutional amendment, no less — won’t protect the institution of marriage. But it will eat away at the democratic, egalitarian values that made this country different from any other on Earth.
The preamble to the Declaration of Independence says Americans have certain inalienable rights — among them life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness — that are endowed by our Creator. Which brings me to my next point.
No. 3: In addition to being straight, I am a practicing Christian. If somebody managed to prove tomorrow that God does not exist, I would go on using Jesus as my guide.
So, how important was the issue of homosexuality to Jesus? How many times did he speak about it, make certain his disciples were clear on the subject, construct a parable for the masses so they could grasp the significance of it in their lives?
Zero. None. Never.
Of all the statements attributed to Jesus, not one includes same-gender sleeping arrangements. If homosexuality is such a threat to humankind’s communion with God, wouldn’t you think his son might at least have mentioned it?
What is most important to God is no mystery. Over and over Christ said to take care of the poor, to visit the sick and imprisoned. He told us to be quiet about our charity, not advertise it, and to ignore class and ethnic barriers and be good Samaritans to all in need.
Lest we be so thick-headedly human and forget, in Matthew, Mark and Luke he drew a line under and around his top priorities: “This is my first commandment: Love God with all your heart and soul and mind. And love your neighbor as yourself.”
In John, he made it sublimely simple: “This is my commandment: Love one another as I have loved you.” Period. No exceptions for gays.
No. 4: In the three decades I lived in San Francisco, I got to know lots more gay men and lesbians. They were my neighbors, my co-workers, my fellow parishioners, my elected leaders, my dear friends.
Some of the gay couples I know have been together for most of their adult lives. Many have children upon whom they dote, over whom they worry and for whom they provide, plan and dream.
Like millions of Americans, these committed gays earn a living, pay their taxes, borrow money to fix up their homes, take medicine for their hypertension, watch “Survivor,” cash in air miles for vacations, volunteer their spare time, walk their dogs and, once in awhile, surprise their longtime partner with a romantic anniversary card after all the years.
What exactly in that behavior is dangerous to marriage? The heterosexual U.S. divorce-marriage ratio is 1-to-2. When is the last time you heard anybody cite “gay Americans” as the reason their marriage busted up?
The only thing that will protect the institution of marriage is more good marriages. If we really wanted to reinforce and defend marriage, we as a society would go after the real enemies of healthy, responsible, respectful relationships. And we would say, “Hooray!” to any couple willing to commit themselves to a life together.
Then maybe we could get on as a people — and a government — with combating bona fide abominations.
You know, abominations such as ignorance and fear? Prejudice and poverty? Waste, greed, hunger, war and — the ultimate abomination, according to Jesus — hatred?
Stephanie Salter can be reached at (812) 231-4229 or stephanie.salter@tribstar.com
Thank you for posting this article. I have "Freeped" the author with my thanks for a well writtern opinon -- with which I agree.
"Homosexuals really hate human life"
I'm sorry to have to approach you on this statement which you tend to quote on various threads on the homosexual agenda, because I am very much one who is against the introduction of "gay marriage", which happens to be the subject of this thread.
I don't see how making such a sweeping statement about homosexuals' attitude to life in any way helps to further the cause of people who wish to hold back the advance of the homosexual agenda in society.
I suspect that when you write such things, the effect is to nullify everything else that you write, in the eyes of the readers, which is a great shame. You stab yourself in the foot.
There may be some logical process by which you have come to this conclusion, while relying on some psychological writings as being fact, but it's not at all sensible to accuse all homosexuals of really hating human life, because of a theory to which you subscribe.
I have lived with and amongst homosexuals almost exclusively through most of my adult life, socially and professionally. Although I agree that homosexuality is a perversion of nature, and requires constraint in society at large, your statement makes absolutely no sense to me.
Maybe you have had difficult and harmful personal experiences with homosexuals, but my own experience is that homosexuals enjoy human life to the full. Maybe not in the way that most normal people would enjoy it, and probably to much greater excess as a rule, but in my experience, which is conciderable, I have to argue with your statement.
Maybe you can attempt to back up your statement with personal experience?
It's important to theorise about mental conditions of a catagory of people such as homosexuals. But I find it irrational to make such a judgement that claims that you know they all hate human life.
Maybe we are at cross purposes here? -- Maybe we aren't talking about what I am talking about? -- I hope that's the case.
I've only just replied to a post about "gay marriage" in a post named
**A Historical Perspective on “Gay Marriage”** and I would repeat it here, but I don't think that's in the FR rules?...
Stated simply, it isn't about "gay marriage"... It's about getting full recognition for homosexuality, so that homosexuals can have their perversions accepted equally on a legal and social level with heterosexuality.
"Gay marriage" is just one tool to achieve that goal. Accept that two homosexuals can be married, then the floodgates are open to enforce acceptance of the whole homosexual agenda.
It would make it impossible to prevent openly homosexual men and women working with children, or in any situation they choose... because once homosexuality is enshrined in law as a legitimate condition to bind in marriage, then nothing else can stop it.
"Marriage" is the golden key for the homosexual activists.
"Nah, I think she was asking just what this ominous danger to marriage really is. "
Yes, and 95% of her column had absolutely NOTHING TO BEAR on that question. Non sequitor.
If this was a serious and substantive article, it would have at least addressed the point:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/MarriageDebate/ConsequencesMD.cfm
In an interview published in a Dutch newspaper on July 8, 2004, Dr. J.van Loon, a leading sociologist of Nottingham Trent University said, “It’s no coincidence both [the introduction of same-sex marriage and the devaluation of marriage] take place at the same time. Supporters of gay marriage often based their argument…on the separation of marriage and the raising of children. It’s difficult to imagine that an intensive media campaign based on the claim that marriage and parenthood are unrelated and that marriage is just one among a number of morally equivalent cohabiting relationships did not have any serious social consequences.”
There no serious nor substantive set of facts that even appraoches this whole point of the defense of marriage.
She doesn't get it. She doesn't want to get it. She doesnt care a fig for the future of marriage, and most of those wanting to redefine marriage to include gay couples dont even want to bring it up, except to take pot-shots at existing marriage/families.
It's as if they are in a post-marriage culture anyway and dont even think marriage is something worth saving.
Stephanie Salter: Gays a threat to institution of marriage? Get real
Homosexuality is a disorder -Get real.
Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal.
EXCERPT:
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II).This decision was a significant victory for homosexual activists, and they have continued to claim that the APA based their decision on new scientific discoveries that proved that homosexual behavior is normal and should be affirmed in our culture.
This is false and part of numerous homosexual urban legends that have infiltrated every aspect of our culture. The removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder has given homosexual activists credibility in the culture, and they have demanded that their sexual behavior be affirmed in society.
What Really Happened?
Numerous psychiatrists over the past decades have described what forces were really at work both inside and outside of the American Psychiatric Association-and what led to the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder.
"Freudian Psychoanalytic theory of sexual stages in psychological development... oral, anal, genital..."
Careful now ... Freud was/is bunk.
As is this statement: "Homosexuals are maladjusted... and mentally ill..."
Many homosexuals are otherwise well-adjusted, so one can only state that by assuming your conclusion (ie circular reasoning).
With a bit of tweaking, that would make one killer of a tagline..
And now this, from your profile:
"I'm still homosexual, (celibate) but no longer a liberal.
Let me see -here you personally attack FReeers in general...
Not sure who you are attacking here; however, it is clear you are attacking (actually I would term it TROLLING)
agreed.
And your taking pot shots at FReepers to protect this writer form public opinion? ROTFLMAO -nothing to do with homosexuality huh?
Creeping totalitarianism I agree and it can happen from both the left and the right.
Actually -clintoon & monica are your introduced bogus semantics straw man issue -a resolution of which either way will in no way encroach upon the objective reality that homosexual sexual activity is disordered...
"Yeah, let's not bother to shoot down what she said. Besides we all know she's just another liberal trying to confuse our convictions with facts."
which facts are those? The liberal kind which are fake but accurate??
By public Constitutional Amendment or back room Judicial hand wave?
I myself only see "creeping totalitarianism" coming from the omnirainbowgendered side of the political debate whether in judicial cloak rooms or articles such as this one. I do not see those pushing the supposed "noble" cause of homosexual marriage petitioning legislative bodies or seeking Constitutional Amendments -I see them whining and gnashing their teeth because the time for back room judicial activist deals is about over...
"Of all the statements attributed to Jesus, not one includes same-gender sleeping arrangements. If homosexuality is such a threat to humankind’s communion with God, wouldn’t you think his son might at least have mentioned it? "
Maybe because he considered the issue already settled? Maybe because if you follow the rules of chastity before marriage and marriage is between a man and a woman the issue of homosexuality doesn't come up.
"I don't see how making such a sweeping statement about homosexuals' attitude to life in any way helps to further the cause of people who wish to hold back the advance of the homosexual agenda in society.
I suspect that when you write such things, the effect is to nullify everything else that you write, in the eyes of the readers, which is a great shame. You stab yourself in the foot."
I agree with this.
The Gay Agenda minions, whoever they are, would like nothing better than to make this argument about gay marriage as between those who like homosexuals and those who dont, casting their opponents as hatemongers, as if there are 2 extremes and no middle ground ... when in fact "Defense of Marriage" is just that - defending marriage - and has little to do with whether we like or dislike gays or lesbians.
If this becomes an all-or-nothing battle, the culture warriors who want to obliterate traditional concepts and replace them with PC views has ALL the weapons - hollywood, academia, etc. - and they will win. And those who spout about the homosexual bogeyman only become the foils for such a game plan.
Believing in human freedom requires us to acknowledge that it must meaningfully extend to sexual relationships. That freedom would be endpoint of a 'gay rights' agenda that would be satisfied with a culture of accepting and tolerating homosexuality. That seems to be the gay rights goal some 20 years ago.
What we are faced with now is an agenda that has decided that 'tolerance' is insufficient and that 'equality' of a moral, cultural and legal sort must be attained, to obliterate all traditional moral qualms about sexuality. Such an agenda, like every other previous egalitarian agenda (such as Communism), is in the end corrosive to freedom. We see it already in Europe, where opinions about homosexuality are now subject to criminal injunction(!!), and where churches are having their religious principles compromised by being forced to bless gay unions.
What was once (not long ago,maybe 10-15 year ago) the middle-ground - accepting and tolerating homosexuals in a 'live and let live' manner, yet recognizing homosexuality as a deviant sexual lifestyle that is unequal with traditional marriage relationships - has now become a position that the Gay Agenda side finds unacceptable. They want "equality" and anything less than that is tantamount to bigotry.
So we have as I see it, 2 futures - the Gay Marriage future (*) or the middle ground future. There is no future in which gays go back in the closet, nor would we want that in a free society.
If we believe in freedom and families, we should be rooting for the Middle Ground to prevail.
(*)A peek at what that means: Homosexual behavior is not compatible with raising children in a healthy way, yet in Massachusetts now, there is zero legal difference allowed - since gays are 'married'. This alone is forcing religious institutions involved in adoption to bow out of the adoption business.
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.