The 'gay' truth: Kevin McCullough on homosexuality dominating American politics

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, May 30, 2003 | Kevin McCullough

[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?

[tdadams]

I could get your attention if I walked up and punched you in the face. Doing so would be criminal. You may want to refrain from libel to get someone's attention. Despite your smug rationale for posting that, doing so was completely unjustified and dispicable. You've shown yourself to be a genuinely dispicable and wretched person.

[scripter]

I've shown your arguments to be nothing but obfuscation and you continue to refuse to answer the simplest of questions.

[tdadams]

You've shown that you're a vile liar who will resort to libelous defamation when you can't make your case by reason. Don't ping me and don't post to me again.

[scripter]

I didn't lie, but as an example I simply made a statement and then said I don't really think it was true. Which is more than what you've done with your statement that the summary of After the Ball is biased. It obviously got your attention and perhaps made your blood boil. That's how I feel about gays telling our school kids it's okay to be gay - it makes my blood boil and you don't seem to have an issue about gays in the schools.

So, does this mean you're not going to answer my question?

[First Amendment]

We're talking about a pluralistic society in which the 2 to 5 percent of the population that is homosexual is allowed to live in peaceful coexistance with the rest of society.

Do you think that homosexuals just want to be left in peace, or do you think that homosexuals want to indoctrinate children in schools, infiltrate religious organizations, political life, get more and more media attention, have huge municipal-funded "Gay Pride" parades, tax funded "Gay neighborhoods" replete with rainbow flags, change laws so that homosexuals of various stripes can come to work in full regalia and not be fired, change laws so that if a homosexual is assaulted or killed the punishment for the perp is more severe than if the perp had assaulted or killed a "regular" person, etc etc??? Please anwswer this.

[tdadams]

B.S. You cannot and will not justify what you posted. It was criminal defamation. If I slugged you in the jaw and then said I was only kidding, you'd be no less injured. I expect an apology you slime. And that better be the last post I ever get from you. You disgust me.

[tdadams]

Do you not see that that's a very broad brush? Would you accept the premise of a similar question such as, "Do you not agree that people with guns kill people?"

You wouldn't accept the premise or the insinuation of that question nor should you. It's no different with this subject. Yes, there are some who have a radical agenda to pass hate crimes laws and present themelves in schools as an equally viable alternative lifestyle and those who want to force themselves into the Boy Scouts. Those things are all wrong and should be opposed.

But that's not to say that it's not possible to peacefully coexist with the average homosexual who lives a quiet life and harms no one, which I believe is the vast majority.

[cinFLA]

I do sincerely believe it to be a genetic abnormality, which probably accounts for the bulk of cases,

What do you base your belief on since there is a multitude of research that shows sexual preferences are formed during early childhood.

Would you also believe that the bulk of those that are into beastiality are genetically inclined?

[First Amendment]

I and probably others here would not have any problem with homosexuals who peacefully keep to themselves and do not push school indoctrination, "gay pride" parades, law changes, public park and bathroom sodomy acceptance, etc.
But how do you propose dealing with the minority (according to you) who DO loudly and aggressively push the "gay agenda"?

[scripter]

It was an example you didn't like which I said I didn't think was true and hoped it wasn't true. You cannot slug someone and pull back before you hit them, which is exactly what my example did.

To stop my posts to you, you need to stop posting to me.

[tdadams]

The mere insinuation, for demonstrative purposes or not, is beyond the pale and completely out of bounds.

I expect an apology.

[scripter]

Okay. I won't say I apologize, I'll say: I'm sorry. Truly. Actually I thought I apologized in an earlier post but must have re-written that part. It really isn't my intent to divide fellow freepers as we have enough to contend with. This issue is near and dear to my heart.

For what it's worth, I've used the exact same example on another heated thread and the guy had no problem with it and I even used his real name, not his screen name. He knew it was an example. Now, I'm not saying anything about you or him, just that the last time I got somebody's attention with that example it worked as expected and he responded as I was hoping.

[tdadams]

I hate to get into a point by point discussion of policy for every situation. That could get very tiring. But I think common sense is a pretty good guide. Serve on your school board to keep it out of the schools. If you know of a place that attracts gay cruising, ask your police chief or mayor if the local public indecency laws are being enforced.

If you live in a large city like I do, you probably have gay pride events. That's part of living in a big, diverse city. I accept that. But those events are usually announced publicly in advance. If you have kids and don't want them to see that, just plan a weekend getaway or be sure to steer clear of the place where it's being held. I don't have the right to demand the public parks be clear of anyone I disapprove of, but if they're having some event one day or one weekend a year, I can live with not going to the park that day.

It just doesn't seem that contentious to me.

[inaperfectworld]

After plowing through 150 of these back-and-forths the best that I can say for you is that you are the most brilliant and persistent idiot that I have ever encountered. You have been perfectly dismantled at every turn, yet still you flap hopelessly for a lifesaver.

Here's a thought- you know that homoeroticism is wrong and bad. Just admit it and say that you'll still do it anyway. We all do things that are wrong. It doesn't make you any worse than the rest of us. It would make it so much easier to take you seriously. Just say what we all know and be done with it.

[tdadams]

You have been perfectly dismantled at every turn, yet still you flap hopelessly for a lifesaver.

Oh, really? I guess I shouldn't expect you to be anymore introspective and honest than those I've been debating with.

you know that homoeroticism is wrong and bad. Just admit it and say that you'll still do it anyway.

I'm straight, dumbass.

[tdadams]

But thanks for the compliment. At least you acknowledge my brilliance and persistence. LOL!

[First Amendment]

Serve on your school board to keep it out of the schools.

How does one do that in CA when there is a state law mandating that homosexuality be taught in a positive manner K-12, parental notification is a sham, and even if a parent is able to take their own kid out of the homo-fest, all the other kids are being indoctrinated? Being on the school board will do no good at all, other than being a lone voice that gets drowned out to no avail. There are many other examples but how about this one?

[tdadams]

Move out of California!

[First Amendment]

That was a snide and sarcastic answer, I was hoping for a sincere one. It isn't practical, and many other states are or will be mandating the same type of laws. The point is when homo activists are infiltrating schools to indoctrinate children, what is your answer, since trying to get voted onto the school board won't make any difference when there is a state law mandating homosexualist education?

[scripter]

Nobody is saying you're not intelligent. I said something similar yesterday. But some have confused you with being a homosexual due to how your posts come across. Your arguments aren't much different from what we see coming from homosexuals and the homosexual agenda.