Posted on 05/29/2003 11:42:24 PM PDT by 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?
I love California. I would love to live there. I even once got a great job offer there. But I turned it down. Between ridiculous housing prices, ridiculous taxes and regulation, and a hopelessly liberal cabal of legislators, I decided I could not live in California.
In any case, take a look outside California, seriously. Cows will be doing ballet before any law mandating the teaching of homosexuality passes in my state.
Well, good luck solving the problems of the world.
But if I lived in California and this law is in fact what you say it is, I guarantee you my kids would not be in public school.
tdadams: "You are really looking through a delusional and conspiratorial set of lenses. It's almost amuzing."
ArGee is correct, as a recent example shows:
Hate Crimes Charges Sought Against Homosexual Protestors
The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts is seeking state and federal hate crimes charges against homosexual protestors who "disturbed" Sunday's Mass at Boston's Cathedral of the Holy Cross.
"This was a bigoted expression of contempt for Catholics," C.J. Doyle, executive director of the league, told CNSNews.com. Doyle referred to the protest as "a premeditated assault on the First Amendment religious freedom rights of Catholics" and "a very crude intimidation tactic intended to silence Catholic opposition to same-sex marriage.
"But it was also a crime," Doyle said...
Doyle added: "We have a long history of these kinds of hate crimes going on here in Boston." He mentioned a 1990 incident where "condoms were thrown at priests, and obscenities were shouted at worshippers during ordinations" and a 1991 incident where "mock homosexual weddings were taking place on the steps of the cathedral.
"In 2001, we had a group of homosexual militants who harassed signature gatherers outside of Catholic churches when they would attempt to gather signatures for a protection of marriage amendment," Doyle said. "So we have a long history of very thuggish, very aggressive behavior."
"If you're going to have hate crimes for one section of the population, you've got to have hate crimes for all segments of the population," Carr said. "Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."
Of course you completely ignored the sentence about abusive, threatening homosexual behavior:
"So we have a long history of very thuggish, very aggressive behavior."
Guess I should have highlighted it for you.
IOW, let everyone else go to hell.
Will you admit that by such legislation (and others similar no doubt pending) the homo agenda is being spread agressively to influence children?
Spare me the sanctimonious routine. There are 6 billion people in the world. When you decide to carry the weight of all of them, then you can give me that speech.
You didn't answer my question.
That's a very clever "as if" you stuck in there, only to go on and rebut something I have never said nor implied.
That 2% only wants to be left alone, you say. But their behavior doesn't support that. Once they learn they have been left alone, then they move on to defining a hate crime to think they are wrong. They move on to indoctrinate school children that anyone who thinks they are wrong are hateful. They move on to ask school children if they have ever wondered if they might be gay (I am not implying a predatory reason, just pointing out a fact) and encouraging youth to experiment at a time of well recognized sexual confusion.
There is a problem that needs addressing. It is not served by you making up comments that you can address while ignoring what I have actually said.
Can you give one good reason why we should change centuries of tradition and law to normalize homoerotic behavior? I'm only asking for one.
Shalom.
Thank you for a very clear statement.
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.
That such a homosexual does exist could theoretically be possible. I doubt it, though, because mental illness is rarely so compartmentalized. We could go off onto people who are not homosexual who have similar illnesses. They aren't happy to just be left alone. They need to spread the misery. Why? I don't know, but it happens all the time.
Homosexual attraction is a mental illness. It is not particularly debilitating if it only results in two people of the same sex having a quiet relationship together. But it is an illness. If there are gays who are happy to live together quietly, they will find that I quietly support them in the specific (as the many gays I know do). But the very real homosexual agenda exists precisely because homosexual attraction is a mental illness. In the specific, our culture is being destroyed by the homosexual agenda and it needs to be fought. One way to fight it is to quit pretending that gays are just like straights only different.
Shalom.
Are you familiar with the story of the boy who was throwing starfish back into the ocean?
Shalom.
I understand you're particular beliefs require you to cling to this anachronism, but please don't insult the intelligence of the medical community and other reasoned thinkers by pretending it's the factual truth.
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.