No one is seeking to purge people who suffer from any disability, whether, perceptual, biological or moral, from any association or participation that is not directly related to or affected by their disability. It is true that there are Conservatives who are homosexuals, and there is no reason why we should reject their support. There is all the difference in the world between accepting and even courting the support of individuals and groups of every type and persuasion, and implicitly endorsing a particular group or persuasion.
Certainly people who have a problem, but will endorse the bulk of our agenda, should be treated with more than mere courtesy. They should be invited to support the bulk of our agenda. That is practical politics, and will offend almost no one but absolute fanatics. But for the Administration to act as though it seriously considers the idea that Homosexuality is an acceptable, alternative lifestyle is something very different. That is not about accepting & encouraging individuals to support your cause. That is embracing a proposition that runs counter to very basic Conservative social values--as well as to common sense, and every principal of natural law, consistent with common sense and historic human experience.
In brief, we are talking about the difference between morally consistent leadership, and the lowest brand of politics, where the politician seeks to be all things to all men.
Horowitz is very good when he bashes the Marxist influences in minority agitations. He understands certain species of the far Left, very well. But when he gets into this sort of argument, he appears out of his depth. His initial theological comments are just plain silly. The New Testament did not repeal the moral code of the Old, it merely tempered the severity of the punishments on the one hand, and offered an alternative path to Redemption on the other. It certainly did not make Homosexuality cease to be an "abomination," in the religious sense.
As a non-fundamentalist, I do not seek to persecute or punish the homosexual, in anyway, so long as the individual suffering from that disability/problem/ or whatever, respects the fact that his conduct is not acceptable to most other people, and will never be acceptable to most other people--outside a few centers where virtually anything is acceptable--and that he respects those other people's sensibilities. If an individual insists, instead, on an "in your face" effort to desensitize other people by flaunting offensive conduct, he deserves no sympathy.
The organizations that Conservatives find unacceptable as allies are not those which seek to help the maladjusted find ways to adjust to traditional society, or even ones that urge greater toleration or understanding for their situation. The objectionable organizations are those which to one degree or another, want to force others to accept conduct that is theologically considered an abomination, and which is certainly seen as aberrant in terms of natural law. In this objection, again, there is no desire to persecute any individual; merely, to make it clear, that fundamental morality and ancient cultural values are not things to be bartered away for mere votes at any election.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
I do not want to seem overly critical of the many other posted replies, but some of them are all over the map; and I think that before we let this issue completely fragment us, we try to more narrowly define just what the point is.
William Flax