Posted on 05/08/2006 4:56:13 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
One issue posed by the normalization of homosexuality, which Lawrence largely accomplishes–the only step remains is the creation of a constitutional right to homosexual marriage–is whether as a society we want a significant increase in the number of homosexuals. Other arguments are largely beside the point. Homosexuals argue that allowing them all the rights of heterosexuals, including the right to marry, is simply a question of justice, of the equal protection of the laws. That argument leaves out of the account the effects of normalization on individuals and on society. It would have force only if there were no serious adverse effects from homosexual behavior. There are such effects, however, and we are entitled to consider them.
We may begin at the personal level. How many fathers and mothers are pleased or even indifferent to whether their sons and daughters grow up to spend their lives as practicing homosexuals? Very few, if any. They may love their child regardless, but they are not happy about the direction taken by the child’s sexuality. There are excellent reasons for the unhappiness. Perhaps there is revulsion at the nature of homosexual acts, perhaps sadness that there will be no grandchildren, perhaps a well-founded fear of the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle, or perhaps the reasons for unhappiness about the child’s homosexuality are never fully articulated in the minds of parents. Still, there is, as Leon Kass said in opposition to human cloning, the “wisdom of repugnance.”
The issues to be confronted, then, are whether complete acceptance of the normality of homosexual behavior would lead to an increase in the number of homosexuals and whether there are good reasons to resist any policy that leads to unqualified approval of homosexual behavior. I think the answer to both of these questions is yes. The subject for discussion is not the degree of tolerance, which seems to me appropriate and humane, but full acceptance, which is neither.
To address the first issue, if homosexual marriage completes the normalization of homosexuality that is now racing forward, there will be more homosexuals in the population, probably very significantly more. There is not a “gay gene,” but there are very probably genetic factors, along with environmental influences in the womb or in early life, that create greater or less predispositions toward homosexual behavior. Like other predispositions, toward alcoholism, for example, the urge to homosexual conduct can often be resisted, and a significant number of homosexuals respond to therapy that enables them to live contentedly as heterosexuals. The willingness to resist or seek therapy will certainly be affected by the degree of stigma attached to the behavior in question. If all traces of taint are removed, if homosexuality is made to seem completely normal, a matter of indifference to anyone else or to society, young men and women uncertain of their sexuality will be that much more likely to be drawn into a homosexual life. There will surely be some young men and women who will not be deterred from homosexuality by any degree of stigma, just as there will be some deflected by quite mild degrees of social disapproval. There could hardly be a stronger signal from society that homosexuality is perfectly normal and acceptable than the creation of a right to homosexual marriage.
The next question, therefore, is what would be so calamitous about removing all restraints on homosexual behavior? The answer is, a great many extremely unhappy consequences would follow.
The first of these is the severe distress inflicted upon many individuals who choose, or are led into, the homosexual way of life. Though many homosexuals would deny it, homosexual males are much more likely to lead unhappy lives than are heterosexuals. Homosexual males engage in substances abuse and suffer mood and anxiety disorders, and major depression, as well as considering and actually attempting suicide, at rates far greater than do heterosexual males. Homosexual apologists attempt to explain these facts by citing the pressures of discrimination. But the rates are similarly high in the Netherlands and New Zealand, two countries known as homosexual-friendly. Thus, in the Netherlands the prevalence of mood disorders among homosexuals was 39 percent and among nonhomosexuals 13.3 percent, a ratio of about three to one. For anxiety disorders, the numbers were 31.7 percent as opposed to 13.2 percent; and major depression, 39.3 and 10.9 percent. A study in New Zealand found the number for homosexual and nonhomosexual thoughts of suicide to be 67.9 percent and 28 percent, while those for suicide attempts were 32.1 percent and 7.1 percent.
Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover reports, “In spite of its superficial appeal and the activists’ repeated claims, no studies support the hypothesis that social disapproval of homosexuality is the prime cause of the high levels of internal distress evident in homosexual populations, even long before AIDS.” Richard Fitzgibbons, a clinical psychologist specializing in anger management, notes that a child’s anger felt betrayal by his peers or father is “one of the major reasons a notable element of sadomasochism is found in homosexual practices. When the extreme sadomasochistic behaviors engaged in by the homosexual men are reported, most people are shocked. . . . If the same type of behavior took place among heterosexuals, the identical acts would be considered forms of abuse and evidence of a disorder, yet they are considered ‘normal’ among homosexual men.
Homosexuality, moreover, is an addictive disorder. As Dr. Fitzgibbons notes, “The first men diagnosed with AIDS reported an average of one thousand partners during their lives. Those who have researched the HIV-AIDS epidemic have noted that some homosexual males actually have five to ten sexual encounters in a single night.” “The person has often attempted to fill the emptiness experienced in childhood or adolescence with numerous sexual encounters but it is an emptiness that is never satisfied sexually.” It is no wonder that he says, “Involvement in a homosexual lifestyle starts many young men down a clear path of self-destruction.”
These manifestations of psychological distress that seem frequently accompany homosexual conduct make use of the word “gay” absurdly inappropriate. Psychiatrist Joseph Nicolosi calls it “a self-deceptive identity” that has been “brilliantly marketed and bought without question by the most influential institutions–professional psychology and psychiatry, churches, educators, and the media–of American society.” The term “gay” makes homosexuality sound innocuous, if not appealing, but it hides the terrible reality that so many homosexuals experience.
Right, indescriminate. We're talking about sex of partner here.
Molesters are not the only cause of homosexual desire. Unaffirming, belittling, and even absent fathers have without a doubt caused more young men to experience same-sex attraction in adolescence and beyond than out-and-out sexual molesters.
Rosie's brother, Daniel, who is my local state representative in NEW YORK CIY, is also gay.
Sounds like a messed up family. From what my wife read.
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.