We require consistency because refusing it creates a ridiculous level of indignation in the gay community, which further militarizes it - giving them more funds and more supporters. We could accomplish exactly the same outcome by allowing them a hearing, then shooting them down - there would still be no new homosexual lobbyists at the UN, and better still the homosexual community wouldn't be in a tizzy.
Make no mistake - we are in a war with these people for the social and ethical mores of our society. Winning that war means winning battles like denying them access to bodies like the UN, as Dr Rice has done here. However, winning the war will take more than simply winning battles - we also have to be sure not to create more enemies on our way. My argument is that we could have won this battle while not inflaming the homosexual activists, which strengthens them and makes them more dangerous. It's like our fight in Iraq - people opposed to the war are so obsessed with "getting the troops home" that they don't see that doing so will only breed more terrorists and make us less safe overall; the same thing is true here, by analogy.
My, my. What a twisted bunch of illogic. You're really grasping at straws. Either that, or as I noted before, profoundly ill-informed.
So, according to you, in order to not enflame the homosexual activists, out of fear and trembling they should be allowed a platform to spew their lies and gain legitimacy and power.
Ever hear of the word "appeasement"?
Homosexuals do not deserve a platform from which to spread their propaganda. They deserve compassion, as anyone with mental or emotional illness deserves compassion, or those addicted to any deleterious vice. And they deserve the choice of seeking treatment so they can leave the "gay" life.