Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal a Mistake
RightBias.com ^ | 12-27-2010 | Star Parker

Posted on 12/27/2010 6:06:12 AM PST by Red Badger

Our 111th congress, in its lame duck session, has given America a Christmas present in the way of repeal of the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” law.

Signing the repeal into law, President Obama said he’s “never been prouder.”

From my point of view, I’m feeling increasingly like a minority in our country. Not because I’m black, but because I am a Christian.

As a Christian, I believe in the truth of traditional morality as transmitted to us through our biblical sources. And I believe, along with George Washington, who stated clearly in his farewell address to the nation, that religion and traditional morality are critical to the maintenance of our free society.

Homosexual behavior is unacceptable by these moral standards.

I also see no clash between this conviction and individuals being free and taking personal responsibility for living as they choose in our free country.

But private behavior and public sanction are different matters.

Our military is a quintessentially public institution. Its acceptance of behavior unacceptable by traditional moral standards means official public sanction of this behavior and, in my view, this is a big mistake.

Support from public opinion drove repeal of this law.

Gallup showed 67% supporting repeal and a Washington Post/ABC poll showed support as strong as 77%.

Behind this is ongoing change in public sentiment regarding the moral acceptability of homosexual behavior. Just ten years ago, 53% said it was not morally acceptable and 40% said it was. Today this has flipped to 52% today saying it is morally acceptable and 43% saying it’s not.

Yet, at the same time that Americans are increasingly at ease with homosexual behavior, the public says that the nation is not in good moral shape. Advertisement

According to a Gallup poll from last May, three times as many, 45%, say the country is in poor moral condition than 15% who say it’s in excellent/good moral condition

And, 76% say the moral state of the nation is getting worse compared to 14% that say it’s getting better.

What’s going on?

First, Americans are becoming more prone to believe that individuals cannot take personal responsibility for their sexual behavior. Thirty six percent believe today that homosexual behavior is genetically determined compared to 14% who believed this forty years ago.

Second, our sense of the meaning of morality has become relative and ambiguous.

When asked, in the same Gallup poll, for the principal reason that the moral condition of the nation is worsening, the greatest response – 15% - was “disrespect for others.” Only 2% said teen pregnancy, 3% homosexuality, 3% abortion, and 7% breakdown of family/unwed mothers.

When asked for the principal reason that our moral condition is improving, the largest response – 25% - was “better understanding about other people and cultures/more diversity/less racism.”

It should be clear that what is happening is that any prevailing sense that there are objective standards for right and wrong is disappearing and that this is being displaced with a relativism and nihilism that values nothing other than tolerance of everything.

As Americans increasingly believe that behavior that traditional morality prohibits is genetically determined, the perceived seriousness of traditional religion and values becomes marginalized.

President Obama said that repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell “will strengthen our national security.”

I cannot think of anything more dangerous to our national security and the ongoing strength of our nation than the collapse of our sense that there are objective rights and wrongs. When we sanction ourselves to make everything up, who can the God that our Declaration of Independence refers to possibly be?

Why should Americans take the words of our constitution, that are a few hundred years old, seriously when we dismiss the truths of words that are thousands of years old?

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: blunders; doaskdotell; dontaskdonttell; homonaziagenda; homosexualagenda; homotyranny; parker; starparker

1 posted on 12/27/2010 6:06:15 AM PST by Red Badger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

They should put all the queers in the same unit, send them to the fiercest fighting, repeat as necessary.


2 posted on 12/27/2010 6:28:00 AM PST by thethirddegree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
If we send generations of children into godless, collectivist, government owned and run schools we will get citizens who:

** think godlessly and worship moral relativism
** who are comfortable with collectivism
** who are comfortable with government compulsion
** who are comfortable with government ownership and management of their life and ( now) even death

Please remember that government is fundamentally police force with real bullets in the guns. Every day that a child attends a government collectivist school he learns that government uses the threat of police force to take money from a neighbor to pay for a tuition-free service his parents want for free.

Well?...If government can use police threat to provide tuition-free schooling, why not a thousand other socialist wants and needs? Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Johnson, and now death panels were not accidents. They were INEVITABLE!

Every day a child attends a godless government school he is taught to think godlessly. Is it any wonder then that we now have large swaths of the population morally adrift and worshiping government?

If we are to save this nation conservatives MUST MUST MUST include, as part of their long term strategy, closing down the government K-12 collectivist schools. Conservatives MUST MUST MUST work to see that all children have access to a private conservative K-12 education that is well grounded in the specific Judeo Christian values of that child's family.

3 posted on 12/27/2010 6:30:31 AM PST by wintertime (Re: Obama, Rush Limbaugh said, "He was born here." ( So? Where's the proof?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
Amen and Amen. If more Christians would really engage in the education of their children, sacrificing to either private or home school them, the public education system would collapse. But too many Christians are still enslaved to the two paycheck family, or the good lifestyle. I am waiting for my “lifestyle” enhancement when Jesus returns. Until then, I will do all that I can to see my children brought up “in the care and admonition of the Lord”.
4 posted on 12/27/2010 6:37:52 AM PST by wbarmy (I chose to be a sheepdog once I saw what happens to the sheep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Moral/religious arguments aside, homosexuality is dysfunctional, and anal intercourse isn’t a healthy activity even for heterosexuals, much less for generally promiscuous homosexuals. Let’s just put it this way. There are nasty bugs in excrement that don’t belong in one’s bloodstream. Anal sex is like having intercourse with a toilet, only worse.

I’m not saying government should round up homosexuals, but certainly the dysfunctional and dangerous shouldn’t be embraced as natural, normal and safe. The military spends much time and effort trying to get service members to live healthy. How can they turn a blind eye to the harmful effects of anal sodomy on the one hand while telling the troops to give up smoking and eat healthy on the other?


5 posted on 12/27/2010 6:39:30 AM PST by CitizenUSA (Coming soon! DADT...for Christians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thethirddegree
"They should put all the queers in the same unit, send them to the fiercest fighting, repeat as necessary."

With only a minimum of ammunition and bright yellow and pink uniforms.........

6 posted on 12/27/2010 6:46:16 AM PST by sniper63 (Did you plug the hole in the border yet daddy........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
How can they turn a blind eye to the harmful effects of anal sodomy on the one hand while telling the troops to give up smoking and eat healthy on the other?

no kidding....and how silly to lecture kids about smoking out there getting their asses shot up day after day in hot places in Afghanistan

let them try it for awhile and see how they'd like to give up smoking whilst bullets whiz by and yer buddy gets his face blown off

7 posted on 12/27/2010 6:51:27 AM PST by wardaddy ("Out Here" by Josh Thompson pretty much says it all to those who will never understand anyhow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

A more revealing view of these polls would be posting the break downs of these results between women versus men...I think you’ll see its the women who are much more liberal then the men.


8 posted on 12/27/2010 6:54:33 AM PST by mdmathis6 (True enlightenment occurs when one discovers just how much like God, one is NOT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Gender confusion should not be promoted or celebrated and the liberals do both while demonizing those who have traditional values. Meanwhile society becomes more course and the family continues its decline and the liberals wonder why.


9 posted on 12/27/2010 7:00:35 AM PST by killermosquito (Buffalo (and eventually France) is what you get when liberalism runs its course.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
If we send generations of children into godless, collectivist, government owned and run schools we will get citizens who:

** think godlessly and worship moral relativism
** who are comfortable with collectivism
** who are comfortable with government compulsion
** who are comfortable with government ownership and management of their life and ( now) even death


You've hit the nail on the head. *Every* public school system in America has some sort of "diversity training" curriculum in place. Even down here in the "conservative" South. Typically, this curriculum is administered by an outside progressive group with a harmless sounding name. Invariably by high school, the group is pushing the gay agenda.

Here, in Tennessee the Hamilton County schools invite in the "Kids on the Block." Harmless sounding, right?

However a quick scan of a gay website reveals this (http://www.tennesseevalleypride.com/?page_id=338):

"Mission Statement
Tennessee Valley Pride Community Pages is great way to connect with gay friendly businesses and organizations in Chattanooga, TN and surrounding counties."

...and among the list?

Chattanooga Kids On The Block Our Mission: Using the power of puppetry, our mission is to educate children about social concerns and differences, giving them the skills to stay safe and healthy. Our Goals: Encourage open communication provide accurate information Encourage acceptance of physical, social and cultural differences build self-esteem and empower action Keep children safe.
Home Page:
Email: info@kidsontheblock.net
Phone: 423-757-5259
Contact: Chattanooga Kids On The Block
Address:
PO Box 4764
Chattanooga, TN 37405

This is the infection that is spreading unchecked in *your* local public school, encouraged by progressive administrators and teachers. Unless the school system is fixed, conservatism is dead - and America with it.

"Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted."
-Vladimir Lenin

""Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."
-Josef Stalin

Eliminating the Department of Education and regaining control of what have become centers of liberal indoctrination must be priority #1 of conservatives; failure to win this battle will spell defeat in the long run no matter how many front line battles we temporarily win.
10 posted on 12/27/2010 7:00:45 AM PST by Yet_Again
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

“First, Americans are becoming more prone to believe that individuals cannot take personal responsibility for their sexual behavior. Thirty six percent believe today that homosexual behavior is genetically determined compared to 14% who believed this forty years ago.”

...with absolutely no empirical or scientific data to support this position. That’s what is so frustrating to me: if there were a “gay gene”, I have to believe there would be SOME evidence of it, but there’s simply not.

Colonel, USAFR


11 posted on 12/27/2010 7:30:37 AM PST by jagusafr ("We hold these truths to be self-evident...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yet_Again
Unless the school system is fixed, ......
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Please give up the idea that collectivist government schooling can be “fixed”. How is it possible to fix a system of schooling that is fundamentally corrupt today and has been corrupt since its inception in the mid-1800s to early 1900s?

From the very first day the first compulsory, collectivist, government owned and run school opened in these United States children have learned to be comfortable with collectivism, socialism, government compulsion, and collectivist ownership and management of their lives.

As for our earliest modern government schools, they offered the children a generic and lukewarm Protestantism ( greatly influenced by the Unitarian philosophy of the northeast). What does Christ do with the lukewarm? He spits them out of His mouth!

By my grandmother's day( born 1894) and my father's day ( born 1913) locally managed schools were utterly secular in their worldview with a sprinkle of scripture and prayer to start the day. There was a **HUGE** deference between their educations and that of my mother and me in our Catholic schools.

Even if collectivist school districts were the size of a suburban housing division, children would still learn that government has guns to force others to pay for a school service their parents want for free. The curriculum would still be secular or, at best, generically religious. The children would still learn to be comfortable with collectivist socialism and collectivist people's committees running and owning their very lives and even deaths.

Solution: Government schooling must be shut down, the buildings razed, the foundations dug up, and the ground salted.

Solution: If vouchers, tax credits, and charters can help build the private infrastructure to move to complete privatization that then I support these measures. ...BUT...Ultimately we must move to a completely **private** system of K-12 schooling with parents and/or private voucher foundation paying for it. Conservatives must work to see that every child in this nation ( even in the world) has access to a private **conservative**, Judeo-Christian based education.

12 posted on 12/27/2010 7:56:25 AM PST by wintertime (Re: Obama, Rush Limbaugh said, "He was born here." ( So? Where's the proof?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr
Good morning Colonel,

Consider the argument below as proof that there is no "gay" gene. Additionally, even if there such a thing, it is still no excuse for homosexual behavior.

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (The term sexual orientation, as officially defined by the APA, is a description of feelings.) Feelings do not control the voluntary behavior of any mentally healthy, adult human being.

If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal (whether civil or military) regulations, i.e., laws, social stigma, etc., as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc. Furthermore, if homosexual behavior is voluntary, it has no more claim to special rights or considerations than does pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc., i.e., none.

If homosexual behavior is a psychosis rather than a voluntary choice, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure, just as are nymphomania, drug addiction, etc.

As an added consideration, there is the argument of Darwinian selection: survival of the fittest. Homosexual individuals are incapable of reproduction if they are exclusively homosexual. (If these individuals do not practice exclusively homosexual activity, then, by definition, they can choose not to be homosexual… and the issue is, again, defined as a voluntary, behavioral choice.)

By the principles of genetics, exclusively homosexual practitioners would cause such types of individuals to appear in the population at no greater rate than that of other genetic disorders which prevent their victims from procreating, e.g., Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndrome, not the currently observed proportion of the population.

Given that the observed homosexual practitioner proportion of the population is around 2% or 3% rather than a small fraction of 1%, homosexuality does not fit the criteria for a genetic source. Once again, the logical conclusion is that homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice.

All voluntary behavior is subject to legal restriction within the constraints of our Constitution. Therefore, unless there is a claim that that homosexual behavior is a Constitutionally protected right, it is subject to lawful control, especially in the military.

Additionally, even if it were successfully alleged to be a Constitutional right such as is "freedom of speech," it is still subject to constraint, e.g., one has no freedom of speech to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Similarly, military members are not legally allowed to make publicly "disparaging remarks" about, nor hold up to ridicule, elected officials.
13 posted on 12/27/2010 7:57:30 AM PST by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr
Good morning Colonel,

Consider the argument below as proof that there is no "gay" gene. Additionally, even if there such a thing, it is still no excuse for homosexual behavior.

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (The term sexual orientation, as officially defined by the APA, is a description of feelings.) Feelings do not control the voluntary behavior of any mentally healthy, adult human being.

If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal (whether civil or military) regulations, i.e., laws, social stigma, etc., as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc. Furthermore, if homosexual behavior is voluntary, it has no more claim to special rights or considerations than does pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc., i.e., none.

If homosexual behavior is a psychosis rather than a voluntary choice, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure, just as are nymphomania, drug addiction, etc.

As an added consideration, there is the argument of Darwinian selection: survival of the fittest. Homosexual individuals are incapable of reproduction if they are exclusively homosexual. (If these individuals do not practice exclusively homosexual activity, then, by definition, they can choose not to be homosexual… and the issue is, again, defined as a voluntary, behavioral choice.)

By the principles of genetics, exclusively homosexual practitioners would cause such types of individuals to appear in the population at no greater rate than that of other genetic disorders which prevent their victims from procreating, e.g., Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndrome, not the currently observed proportion of the population.

Given that the observed homosexual practitioner proportion of the population is around 2% or 3% rather than a small fraction of 1%, homosexuality does not fit the criteria for a genetic source. Once again, the logical conclusion is that homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice.

All voluntary behavior is subject to legal restriction within the constraints of our Constitution. Therefore, unless there is a claim that that homosexual behavior is a Constitutionally protected right, it is subject to lawful control, especially in the military.

Additionally, even if it were successfully alleged to be a Constitutional right such as is "freedom of speech," it is still subject to constraint, e.g., one has no freedom of speech to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Similarly, military members are not legally allowed to make publicly "disparaging remarks" about, nor hold up to ridicule, elected officials.
14 posted on 12/27/2010 7:57:36 AM PST by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wbarmy
We should stop looking to Christian churches for help in opening Christian schools.

There are too many collectivist government teachers, their spouses and family, and vendors to the government schools sitting in the pews. Few ministers have the courage to bite the hand putting money in the collection plate.

Conservatives, as part of a long range strategy, must find ways to provide Judeo Christian based and **conservative** private education to our nation's children. Here are some suggestions:

**privately funded education foundations that would award grants to individual teachers willing to open one-room schools in their homes.

** small one room schools in the homes of neighbors.

** homeschool co-ops

** tutoring centers

** schooling in existing day care centers

We should give up the idea of Prussian-modeled brick and mortar schools. They are expensive to build and maintain. We should return to models of education that educated our Founding Fathers ( private tutors, small one-room schools, small home-based academies).

15 posted on 12/27/2010 8:07:32 AM PST by wintertime (Re: Obama, Rush Limbaugh said, "He was born here." ( So? Where's the proof?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr
Col. If this were a true repeal, wouldn't we be reverting to the policy as it was before slick Willie declared Homosexuality in the Military to be optional?
16 posted on 12/27/2010 8:15:37 AM PST by ASA Vet (Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. De Vattel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Some day soon homosexualism will be considered the norm.
Those who want to avoid being listed as suspected anti-government, heterosexual militants will have to engage in homosexual relationships just to prove they are “normal”.


17 posted on 12/27/2010 8:22:15 AM PST by Iron Munro (Claire Wolfe: Leave the government even if you can’t leave the country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Victory Lap


18 posted on 12/27/2010 8:29:20 AM PST by FrankR (The Evil Are Powerless If The Good Are Unafraid! - R. Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Dirtiest little secret of all?=====

“”Polls””.

There is never any detailed information of who they poll or exactly what the questions are.

Gallup also has just claimed that NObama & Hillary are the most admired people in the country!!!!!

Gallup no longer holds my respect.

They are weighting these polls like a Mob hit with cement shoes.


19 posted on 12/27/2010 8:33:54 AM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thethirddegree

“They should put all the queers in the same unit, send them to the fiercest fighting, repeat as necessary.”

That’s actually a very good idea. They did it to the Japanese Americans during WW2 and their 442nd regimental combat team became the most decorated unit in US history. Gays might mess up straight units, but possibly perform well if you put them all together in their own unit. However I have no doubt that political correctness will forbid common sense.


20 posted on 12/27/2010 8:39:06 AM PST by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog

‘Mornin’, LD

I always start with the baseline: biology. At its core, sex is for reproduction, to ensure the survival of the species, and NO two men, nor ANY two women, can naturally conceive a child. That makes homosexual sex abnormal by its very nature. The moral and religious arguments start with that baseline: if it’s abnormal, but you do it anyway, you’ve got to have chosen to do it, and for some reason other than biology. The choice carries consequences - unfortunately, those who continue to insist it’s not a choice have won this round.

Colonel, USAFR


21 posted on 12/27/2010 8:39:32 AM PST by jagusafr ("We hold these truths to be self-evident...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet

“If this were a true repeal, wouldn’t we be reverting to the policy as it was before slick Willie declared Homosexuality in the Military to be optional?”

Yes - that’s been the misrepresentation from the beginning: 10 USC 654 simply codified the policy that practicing homosexuals will be discharged. With its repeal, we should go back to how things were before its implementation, which is stated in the repealed statuts as follows:

(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.

By repealing DADT, they didn’t repeal the “longstanding element of military law”.

Colonel, USAFR


22 posted on 12/27/2010 8:49:26 AM PST by jagusafr ("We hold these truths to be self-evident...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Stop by and rate the CNO’s statement on repealing DADT, which makes him very happy: http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=57818

Also check out the comments, someone noticed it was “freeped.”


23 posted on 12/27/2010 9:19:56 AM PST by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr

“By repealing DADT, they didn’t repeal the “longstanding element of military law”.”

I don’t readily have the link, but it is easy to find. Check out the DoD website that reports the “findings” of the panel/board. Anyway, they have it in the plan to have congress amend the UCMJ, etc.

Hopefully, the new GOP majority in the House won’t go along. I’m not sure what effect it would have though. Some court would probably just rule the UCMJ sodomy restrictions void.


24 posted on 12/27/2010 9:47:26 AM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr; Red Badger
"If there were a “gay gene”, I have to believe there would be SOME evidence of it, but there’s simply not."

And it's irrelevant in any case. Even if there were a "gay gene," it would operate at the level of a suggestion, not a command; in other words, it would influence inclination; it would not control behavior.

Every person alive has innate temperment factors which are influenced by genetics. You might get your hot temper from your father, or slide towards "melancholic and depressive" like your grandma. You might have a bent toward overeating and oversleeping, like your kinfolks on one side, or be more inclined toward hyperactivity and impulsiveness, like your kinfolks on the other side.

The same--- who knows? --- might be partially applicable to innate sex drives, too. I say "might be". I say "partially". Who knows?

But behavior is not irresistably dictated by inherted traits. If gays were in fact incapable of controlling their sexual behavior,, then not only should they not be in the military; they shouldn't even be allowed out of the house.

But if there's no "behavior," then it's a non-issuie. Don't ask, don't tell.

25 posted on 12/27/2010 9:55:09 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("Justice and judgment are the foundation of His throne." Psalm 89:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Every person alive has innate temperament factors which are influenced by genetics.

One example in my personal experience that has always made me think about this was a set of identical twin brothers I knew in High School. They both grew up in a stable, two parent, Christian home. From somewhere along in the 4th or 5th grade, it was quite obvious one was homosexual and one was heterosexual.

In my thinking, if it were nature (purely genetic), homosexuals would have disappeared in one generation because they can't reproduce. My knowledge of the twins above argues strongly against nurture. What does that leave? Genetic mutation? Combination of nature and nurture?

26 posted on 12/27/2010 10:06:10 AM PST by IamConservative (Never kick a fresh turd on a hot day. - Truman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro
If you have read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World you would know that that statement is exactly correct......................
27 posted on 12/27/2010 10:14:28 AM PST by Red Badger (Whenever these vermin call you an 'idiot', you can be sure that you are doing to something right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: IamConservative
I'm pretty sure most homosexuals "can" reproduce, since so many of them do.

Throughout history, most gay people married. Oscar Wilde was married to Constance Lloyd, and they had two sons, Cyril (1885) and Vyvyan (1886). The gay Episocopal bishop in New Hampshire, the Rev. Gene Robinson, was married and likewise had two children with his wife before he ditched wife and kids and went off to live with his boyfriend. New Jersey governor Jim McGreeey married twice and had children with both of his wives, before he famously announced he was gay.

While many lesbian mothers have them through artificial insemination or adoption, I think it's true that most lesbian "parent" couples involve a partner who is a divorcee or who became an unwed mother the usual way --- with a man --- and whose children later get adopted by the lesbian partner.

So homosexuals can and do marry someone of the opposite sex, and can and do reproduce. Always have. It's just that they still have a sexual yen for a person of the same sex.

And why? Like you said, it's maybe part nature, part nurture, and often a wholly mysterious thing, even to themselves.

28 posted on 12/27/2010 10:22:37 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (I Came, I Saw, I made a horrible screeching noise ................Veni, Vidi, Violin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
I'm pretty sure most homosexuals "can" reproduce, since so many of them do.

True. I considered only two homosexuals.

Wonder if this suggests/confirms it is a (weakened) genetic trait that takes some type of nurturing nudge to become dominant? I've often wondered if insecurity isn't a component in the development of homosexuality. Strange it is.

29 posted on 12/27/2010 10:33:02 AM PST by IamConservative (Never kick a fresh turd on a hot day. - Truman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
But private behavior and public sanction are different matters.

Sodom and Gomorra (sp) didn't get destroyed because God is mean, it got destroyed because the government sanctioned homosexuality.

30 posted on 12/27/2010 10:38:10 AM PST by thirst4truth (The left elected a mouth that is unattached to an eye, brain or muscle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IamConservative
As far as I have been able to figure out, it can be a variety of different influences working together; and not the same "mix" for everyone.

It seems most lesbians are not "exclusive" "lifelong" lesbians: women's feelings and choices seem more "fluid" and can go back and forth. It's not set-in-concrete, not an unchanging part of the female's identity. It's not too unusual for a gal to be a LTG ("Lesbian Til Graduation") in college; then get involved with a man; maybe have a baby; then go back to a lesbian relaionship; then end that and get married to a man.

On the other hand, many male homosexuals seem to have had painfully unsatisfactory relationships with their fathers. Either the father was physically absent, or emotionally absent, or hostile; or sometime the father was a decent man who tried to be a good dad to his son, but he was "perceived by the son" as being rejecting.

Even with those twins you referred to, maybe the father really treated them both very well, but one of them "perceived" his father to be someone he couldn't relate to.

And why? Maybe it's that the middle-school boy starting to act moody or surly or girly, and the father feeling strange about him and backing off, worrying about him but not knowing how to handle him. It can be hard to understand. It's a difficult thing. I know a family like that.

But that doesn't mean the boy "has" to have sex with males. It may be just that he feels burdened with a kind of emotional offcenteredness. He doesn't need to be mocked or ridiculed; he needs to find a ways to maintain a good relationship with God and with GOOD men, and without slipping into sexual vice.

31 posted on 12/27/2010 11:21:06 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." - Philo of Alexandria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; All

“And it’s irrelevant in any case. Even if there were a “gay gene,” it would operate at the level of a suggestion, not a command; in other words, it would influence inclination; it would not control behavior.”

Excellent observation, you nailed it. It could be said that 99.9999% of all heterosexual males have a propensity to be adulterous. Does that excuse them when they do....no it doesn’t. Because we aren’t animals and don’t have to act on our impulses. You may not be able to stop an “impluse”, but you can determine whether you give in to it.

Goodness, we may as well excuse serial killers....it is probably genetic as well. The genetic excuse is a slippery slope that can get out of control.

I have dear friends and relatives that have a genetic propensity towards types of mental illness...like bipolar or others. Do they say, “I born that way and OK”? No, they recognize it is abnormal and seek treatment.

Homosexuality is abnormal. To call it “OK”, even if genetic, is just foolish.


32 posted on 12/27/2010 12:06:51 PM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Of course I would like to see all education returned to the control of the State or even the Church. The problem is that one would be hard pressed to find an organized Church in this country that does not at least allow sodomy as a part of life if not embrace it. The problem starts with family, then the Church. Nothing will change as long as the Church remains silent on the subject.


33 posted on 12/27/2010 12:07:38 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

I agree with you, but the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. Let’s start by abolishing the Dept of Education and returning control to the states. We can move on from there.


34 posted on 12/27/2010 6:44:36 PM PST by Yet_Again
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson