Posted on 09/16/2002 5:13:42 PM PDT by Young Americans for Freedom
homosexual activist Republican group that seeks to make homosexuality a 'non-issue' in the GOP and compares opposition to homosexuality to racism.">
|
C&F REPORT |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
Mary Cheney Joins Homosexual Activist Group
Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, has joined the board of a homosexual activist Republican group that seeks to make homosexuality a “non-issue” in the GOP and compares opposition to homosexuality to racism.
Homosexual author and activist Andrew Sullivan reported April 23 that the Republican Unity Coalition (RUC) founder Charles Francis said Mary Cheney’s:
RUC, which describes itself as a “gay-straight alliance,” was founded by Charles Francis, a Texas friend of President Bush and a homosexual. Writing in the “Daily Dish” section of his personal Web site, Sullivan calls Francis “a close gay friend of the president, and a good friend of mine and supporter of this site.”
Quoting the vice president’s daughter herself, Sullivan then writes, “Cheney puts it this way”:
According to its Web site, RUC (which is supported by senior White House advisor Mary Matalin) seeks to build support from “individuals who want to help the Party and its candidates get over the issue of sexual orientation, just like the GOP got over the issue of color in years past.” Its supporters include noted Republicans like retired U.S. Senator Al Simpson (Wyoming), who serves as the RUC Honorary Chairman, homosexual congressman Jim Kolbe (Arizona), former members of Congress Mike Huffington (of California, who is also a homosexual) and Susan Molinari (New York), former Los Angeles mayor Dick Riordan, and former president Gerald Ford. DISUNITY COALTION?
“Homosexuality should no more be a non-issue in the Republican Party — or any party — than abortion, high taxes, pornography, excessive government regulation, or other issues that concern and motivate the party faithful,” LaBarbera said.
He noted that the Republican Party platform has long included language critical of “gay” activist goals such as “gay marriage” and opening the military to homosexuals. CWA PRESS RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. — As homosexual GOP activists convene in the nation’s capital for the annual convention of the Log Cabin Republicans, the Culture & Family Institute of Concerned Women for America reminded Republican Party leaders of the dangers of advancing the homosexual agenda.
CFI Senior Policy Analyst Peter LaBarbera commented this morning, “Catering to a Republican brand of homosexual activism will hurt support for the GOP among the party’s core base of religious — and moral-minded voters. Recently, senior presidential advisor Karl Rove said the party needs to do more to attract religious conservatives. If President Bush continues to support pro-’gay’ policies launched under the Clinton administration, he will alienate these voters.”
“The Log Cabin Republicans’ most visible appointment in the Bush administration, AIDS Policy director Scott Evertz, has been an embarrassment to the administration, publicly contradicting Bush policy,” LaBarbera said. “Evertz, a former Log Cabin official in Wisconsin, has shown more loyalty to the homosexual community than to Bush.”
In an interview with the “gay” press, Evertz came out for needle exchange programs for drug addicts — even though Bush has denounced needle-exchange as signaling “nothing but abdication.” The White House quickly disavowed Evertz’s remarks, but he continues to make questionable public statements that antagonize grassroots GOP conservatives.
Minority voters, especially Hispanics — whom Republicans hope to draw into the party — appear to oppose homosexual activism more strongly than white voters. For example, in March 2000, 58 percent of white voters in California cast ballots supporting Proposition 22, which said only true marriages (between one man and one woman) would be recognized in the state. That compares with 65 percent of Hispanic voters who supported Prop 22, and 62 percent of Black voters who supported the traditional marriage ballot measure.
|
 |
|
|
I have known a few conservative homosexuals. 3 to be fair. All three felt that publicizing homosexuality only served to drive a wedge between themselves and society, and it wasn't something they wanted. They did not feel that homosexual marriage, or even homosexual couples adopting children, were valid extensions of traditional family. In fact, one liked to joke about gay divorces; he would say "Marriage is fine and dandy, but when they get divorced, which one gets the dinnerware?".
They all three also downplayed the idea that society had somehow singled them out for persecution. Their attitudes were pretty much oriented around personal privacy, not indoctrination of others. Their views on taxes, personal accountability, capitalism, everything, all came from the standard GOP playbook. These are the silent ones, who disregard the freaks in the pink tutus as opportunists who just want to justify their own promiscuity.
My own personal feelings; I would trust the temporary care my children with these men LONG before I would trust ANY muslim.
Yes, but the Mary Cheneys and her likes in the Republican Party do not belong to this group. If homosexuals can get the Republican party to endorse homosexuality as 'normal' or 'good', they will. Mary Cheney is NOT one of the silent ones. Also, they are not representative of male homosexuals, who are on average extremely promiscuous (500 or more lifetime sexual partners, on average).
Wherever people of the same sex live together in close quarters (the military, Catholic seminaries, the Boy Scouts), homosexuality is indeed an issue (a big one). Just ask the hundreds of heterosexual seminarians who were forced to leave Catholic seminaries after being constantly sexually approached and apprised by homosexuals. We don't ask women to bunk with men. Neither should we ask normal men to bunk with people who are sexually attracted to them and to themselves.
You're from the wing of the GOP that I firmly disagree with. I do not approve of using tax money to support anyone's life style. Let us all keep our own money and support our own life styles. Making laws about life styles is oppressive - the Taliban was wrong to do it, and so would US Christians be.
Ditto Bump!
You are kidding yourself if you think it won't cost you.
A huge number (by their own surveys) of homosexual men were led into homosexuality by older men. When you have a lonely and confused teenage boy whose sexuality is just developing and who longs (for whatever reason) for male love (of the normal kind) in his life, an older man who befriends him, and shows concern for his loneliness and problems, and then slowly but surely leads him to have homosexual encounters with him, you have a recipe for sexual disaster in that boy's life. Some 30% of male homosexuals say (and the true number is likely much higher) that older men engaged them in their first sexual encounters when they were young teenagers. Homosexuality is a severe psychological disorder, and older men who engage young teenage boys in homosexual behavior part create and part exacerbate that disorder. Their behavior constitutes a form a child abuse. In the homosexual priest Catholic Church scandal, many, many of the abused teenage boys were told that homosexual behavior is completely normal, and that all men engage in such. The priests in quesiton frequently told their young molestees any sort of lie they could think of to encourage those teenage boys to accept homosexual behavior with the older priests. All of this, of course, was accomplished before the boys' normal sexuality had a fair chance to develop. Homosexual men are an extreme danger around teenage boys. They are attracted to them, many do not consider it 'wrong' to encourage such boys to engage in homosexual behavior, and many cannot control their inclinations. My own sons are threatened by priests in my Church who are active homosexuals, by homosexual men who keep insisting they have a 'right' to take my sons on overnight camping trips in the scouts, and by homosexual activists who want to tell my kids that anal intercourse between men (an absolutely filthy and depraved behavior) is normal and good.
There have been a raft of studies on the causes of homosexuality which generally show the following: the variables most highly correlated with (male) homosexuality are 1) lack of a good, loving relationship with the father, or with an older brother; 2) homosexual molestation by an adult in the teenage years; 3) lack of good same-sex peer relationships in childhood. In these studies, it's found that approximately 1/3 of homosexual men were homosexually molested as young teens. You can find references to such studies through the Family Research Council website, at frc.org. In addition, there have been many questionnaires (some even put out by homosexual magazines) which indicate that well over 50% of homosexual men over 21 have had sex with boys younger than age 16. The reason the numbers are likely higher is that homosexuals have been told frequently by activists to hide their experiences with teenage boys (even in anonymous quesitonnaires), and to hide their own experiences as teens with adult molesters.
Look, Warnock, I'm not a numbers meister. I've read many studies which indicate such. However, indirect evidence that there is an abundant seeking of teenage boys by homosexual men is overwhelming when you consider that the Catholic Church has a huge homosexual priest/teenage boy molestation problem, and given that homosexual priests are a minority in the priesthood, when you consider that homosexual activist organizations are pushing everywhere for a lowering of the age of consent for man/boy homosexual sex to 12 or 14, when homosexuals can't denounce NAMBLA marching in their parades, when it turns out that teenage prostitution in New York City is over 80% gay men with male teenagers, when homosexual groups are pushing for high schools in Massachusetts to turn over to groups of homosexual men (without parents' knowledge) teens who think they might be homosexual, the fact that Boy Scouts had a huge homosexual molestation problem before it got serious about preventing such, etc. etc. When you take a teenage boy who is just beginning to have physical sexual feelings, and before he's fully been able to get to know the opposite sex, and you entice, encourage, trick or otherwise coerce such kid into having homosexual sex, and you do that regularly, it's just common sense to believe that that boy is going to be much more confused about his sexuality than one who wasn't molested. Many of the molestor priests in the Catholic CHurch have admitted that they too were homosexually molested when they were teens.
This also began the long road to women’s emancipation, as objectification proceeded toward greater exclusivity and notions of love and romance. Thus biological differences too, such as gender and race become less important than culture and behavior, where choice is a, and even more...the factor.
You’re astute in your assertion of art, music and literature having been created perhaps disproportionately by self or socially identified homosexuals. Though I might yet wonder whether such art issues from such temperament or from one’s nature to create art which in itself is largely iconoclastic, and since, despite modern "gay" claims to the contrary, there yet exists essentially no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is innate in humans, but rather that it is psychological in nature, and in most cases, again a matter of choice.
Though whether or not I might be inclined even to believe that there could be some genetic disposition to homosexuality (although where again, no such evidence exists), I would also point out that these artistic contributions to Western civilization – which would include representative if not democratic institutions, and their means of advancement, no less military though subject to civilian review and secular audit – almost never posit homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, except in terms of satire, ridicule and derision. Indeed, it could be argued that those societies which have tended to accept homosexuality have historically declined and even vanished, where Judeo-Christian, or Western society has successfully spread itself – and the Good – across the earth, but to where it currently finds its values today under constant ideological attack, supposedly for the sake of...change, you said?
For some reason, the name Karl Marx springs to mind by that....
I agree with that. He may have had something to do with the Iranian end of Iran-Contra, but IMHO the Contra end was all Bushies -- Bush being recently incumbent as DCI, and Elliot Abrams being just "his kind of guy". Poindexter I don't know about so much, but Bush put a lot of people in the Administration, whereas some of Reagan's California intimates, the original Reaganauts, got chased: William French Smith didn't last long as AG, Richard Allen got chased away by the press jackals over some stray cash in a safe (Connie Chung actually knocked on his front door early one morning and asked Mrs. Allen if she could come in to take a pee), Bill Casey was shuffled over to CIA in Langley (and out of the loop) and that left Ed Meese by himself on WH staff to deal with the archfiend Bushbot James Baker as chief of staff and the salamandrine Tricky Dicky Darman as his Squealer in a White House 2-on-1 game against Meese. The other guy was Stockman, who blew himself up by trusting an old friend, Bill Greider, who turned out to be a liberal journo instead. (Haven't heard much out of Greider again since he burned his friend, have we? -- Greider will go to his f******** grave without hearing another human confidence, methinks.)
Bush, as part of the "power-sharing" compromise at the GOP convention, crowded Reagan's staff with Bushbots, which left Reagan, exactly as you said, defending himself most of the time against "Option C" traps set by Baker and his henchboy, Squealer.
Yeah, I remember that stuff -- funny how the DC press doesn't seem to, even though they reported at the time on the Bushmen's efforts to help Reagan become more "reasonable" in his policy posture. Which just goes to show you, some help you just don't need, the moreso that they are the most talented guys in town.
Testosterone-laden they may be at 15, but they aren't at 12 and 13 when they're vulnerable to being "broken in" and confirmed in "the Life" by gay men. There is a consistent pattern there of gay men initiating young men's sexual lives around that age, and the younger partners identifying as homosexual thereafter -- who would otherwise have shown no evidences of a predisposition toward homosexuality.
In other words, liberals tell us it's all about nurture not nature when they're talking ability and accomplishment in school -- and then they turn around and talk out the other side of their mouths when the subject becomes sexual education: not lecture-hall education, but Real Deal education -- "hand-rearing", so to speak.
Young men and women can and do become homosexual by acculturation at the right age -- and there is no shortage of gays willing to help. We just had another teacher busted this week in Texas -- a lesbian who'd been carrying on a relationship with a teenaged girl, whose parents became concerned about her and snooped in her diary. But then, you will now tell me the parents interfered unwarrantably in the coming-of-age of a vital and self-prepossessed young woman who deserved the love they obviously weren't giving her.
She's 15, by the way.
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.