Posted on 05/14/2006 5:03:17 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
I am worried about what schoolchildren will have to accept as normal when the words relating to gender are expunged from their readers. Mother, father, wife, husband, etc will be considered discriminatory and even offensive. The hypersexualization of our children will begin in kindergarten.
The intention is to destroy the nuclear family in order to destroy the US as we know it now.
I saw her interview on Fox News Sunday twice, and I do not recall her saying this. She said that while she did not agree with [this plank] of the Republican Party, she believed that George W Bush and her father and the Republican party were the best people to lead the country in this dangerous time. She spent 19 months on the campaign.
Here's the problem. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that many people are born homosexual, as the homosexual lobby claims. That still wouldn't stop other people from being influenced by the public exhibit and acceptance of homosexuality.
It's believed that many social disorders may be genetic, hormonal, or the result of mental illness. There are kleptomaniacs who can't control their impulse to steal. It's also been suggested that tendencies to become alcoholic or drug addictive can be hereditary. But no one suggests that the behavior in those cases should be normalized, let alone glorified and offered up to little kids as something to aspire to.
Nor does anyone suggest that every single person who steals things is a kleptomaniac who can't control it. Or that someone who might not have a genetic tendency toward alcoholism or addiction might not still succumb to such a life through peer pressure to drink or take drugs.
**IF** homosexuality is some form of genetic or hormonal defect in some people, it doesn't mean that it will be in all people who engage in it. There will also be varying degrees to which the problem afflicts someone.
As an example, let's say four babies are born to different mothers. One has a strong genetic predisposition toward homosexuality. One has a mild predisposition toward homosexuality. One has a mild predisposition to heterosexuality. One has a strong predisposition to heterosexuality.
How will these babies grow up in a society where homosexuality is considered sinful, unnatural, and is locked in the closet?
Well, Baby #1 would likely still end up a homosexual if his (or her) predisposition toward such behavior is very strong. That wouldn't be good, but at least he'd be less likely to contract AIDS because the bath house and sex club culture that arose as homosexuality emerged from the closet wouldn't exist. He'd have to discretely find a sex partner, and limit his destructive activities.
The other three babies likely wouldn't grow up to practice homosexuality at all. Baby #4 has no built-in desire to engage in homo sex, no matter what. Baby #3 is also hetero, but more mildly than Baby #4. But with no public temptations, media endorsements, or "gay role models" to emulate, whatever mild curiosity impulse there might be to give homo sex a try won't be triggered.
Baby #2 is the real interesting case. He has slight homo tendencies. But in a society where homosexuality is closeted, he'd be less likely to be tempted to act on those tendencies, and every reason to develop a normal heterosexual relationship. But if homosexuality is socially normalized, things change. Baby #2 suddenly has his tendencies ratified. He suddenly has "gay role models", perhaps a teacher, a scoutmaster, or even his adoptive parents. He now has "gay pride" and wants to be like that great gay composer or author his textbook told him about. He'll become homosexual, no question, and possibly so will Baby #3.
Puberty is a hard time for kids. Their hormones are raging at the precise time that they are VERY vulnerable to peer pressure and fashionable ideas. If homosexuality is closeted, few of these kids would ever try it. But when it's all the rage, when it's fully the equal of heterosexuality, with gay "marriages" allowed and people disapproving smeared as "bigots", lots and lots of kids will be tempted to give it a try. "How do you know you aren't gay if you haven't tried it?" Perfect slogan to lure kids in.
Not to mention that homosexuals want to form bonds with kids in ways that heterosexuals would never demand. Can you imagine young heterosexual men demanding that the Girl Scouts be closed down unless they allow young men to take little girls camping?
The acceptance of homosexuality will inevitable lure large numbers of children into the lifestyle who otherwise would not have been lost.
Did Cheney also hit Bush's stance on pedophilia, transgenders, bisexuals, incest and bestiality? If not, she should since the President is clearly at odds with her on a number of deviant fronts.
To accept that they are born homosexuals is to take away the main argument of the homosexual ping list group here on FR. They believe that it is completely a chosen lifestyle, and hence should not be accepted because it never existed to begin with. Few Americans would agree. And most Americans do accept homosexuals as such, but begin to disagree on the extent to which homosexuals should be legally recognized. As to the influence they may have on others not so predisposed, I have seen no unbiased studies to suggest there is any linkage. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the strong Christian family lifestyle of Cheney, Randall Terry, and Alan Keyes, all of whom produced homosexual children would certainly lead one to conclude that something other than the environment is the causal factor.
You make the point that homosexuality may be a disorder of the likes of kleptomania or alcoholism. That may be, though some disorders impact the rights of others such as kleptomania and cannot be accepted. Alcoholism clearly destroys a life and the families of those involved. Many would suggest that homosexuality, even as a disorder, is not in that category.
Can homosexuals be reprogrammed? Again, the only evidence that I have seen is anecdotal. Yes, you can program someone to discontinue homosexual activities. Few believe you can actually change their biological or psychological makeup, merely their conduct.
Not to mention that homosexuals want to form bonds with kids in ways that heterosexuals would never demand. Can you imagine young heterosexual men demanding that the Girl Scouts be closed down unless they allow young men to take little girls camping?
Again, the jury is clearly out. The assumption that a homosexual is any more predisposed to try and bring children into their lifestyle is full of anecdotes, many of which are no doubt true, but pedophilia is a problem of heterosexuals as well. There are clearly some homosexual groups who believe the only way to acceptance is to teach by means of graphic presentation. This should be no more acceptable than the same in the heterosexual vein.
As for growing numbers which I have seen discussed here, and which I presume is your point of #2 and #3 example, I've seen nothing indicating a growing percentage. As far as I know, they are still in the 5 to 7 percent range, as has been the norm for years.
Some believe that homosexuals spread aids much more than do heterosexuals. I won't argue the point for it may well be true. But if that's so, why do people not accept some sort of union that would stop the spread of aids?
The bottom line is that some legalization of unions is going to continue, depending on the state. In my state, gay marriage will likely never be acceptable. That's fine with me, but to be sure, I would prefer two gays or lesbians living together than running around spreading diseases. For me it is clearly a state issue, and no business of the federal government...or of the Constitution.
Judge's who mis-interpret the law are part of the government that need to be restricted. Removing the supposed ambiguity regarding the definition of marriage is no restriction on the rights of the "people". It prevent jusdicial abuse of those rights.
I understand your overall point but I've been unable to find and quote the oath that Supreme Court Justices take that conforms to this specific requirement. May be one but I've missed it. The only SCOTUS oath I found (in the US Code) does not require them to support the Constitution. Unless you take extreme liberty with the definition of support which some obviously have.
I believe these types of controversies could be avoided all together if Congress would exercise it's responsibility and power and remove Justices/Federal Judges who become rogue legislators on the bench. Perfectly within the Constitution and the law. Just requires courage.
Both your posts are excellent, and face up to the social facts. Even though you disagree, you each make valid points.
The question of children being influenced into getting into homosexuality is a very valid one. Of course there are no figures, but the attitude of teenagers to experimenting in sex is a lot more free than it was before homosexuality became legal. If they thought they could be arrested and 'exposed' for messing in something they just have a curiosity for, then they are likely to give it a miss.
Even from my own personal aquaintances over the years, I can confirm that I know individuals who became totally addicted to homosexual sex after trying it out through curiosity.
Indeed it is. And, given the propensity of states to recognize both homosexuals and various degrees of unions, I suspect that more than just anecdotal evidence will surface soon. If it does conclude that normal heterosexuals can be turned at an early age, that would and should lead to a whole different view of homosexuality, especially in the schools, where their recognition continues to be more and more accepted.
The Bible clearly says it's a choice (e.g. Romans 1).
Speaking as a straight guy, I can state with a very large degree of confidence that homosexuality has never been an option for me. So, I can only assume that heterosexual sex isn't an option for a gay guy.
Interesting. So, how do you define a 'libertarian'?
Early Christians did not believe that first term abortions were the taking of a human life either. And I doubt that the writers of the Bible understood much physiology or psychology, and certainly did not know what a gene was or how certain genes might impact a person. In any case, state laws should not be looking to the Bible for guidance to such present day issues.
Mm-kay. What about so-called "bisexuals"? Or, ...
... I can state with a very large degree of confidence that homosexuality beastiality has never been an option for me. So, I can only assume that heterosexual human sex isn't an option for a gay sheep-lovin' guy.
How about that?
The government is not what makes you married. The government is irrelevant to real marriage.
Sheep Child, a poem by James Dickey
Farm boys wild to couple
With anything with soft-wooded trees
With mounds of earth mounds
Of pine straw will keep themselves off
Animals by legends of their own:
In the hay-tunnel dark
And dung of barns, they will
Say I have heard tell
That in a museum in Atlanta
Way back in a corner somewhere
There's this thing that's only half
Sheep like a woolly baby
Pickled in alcohol because
Those things can't live his eyes
Are open but you can't stand to look
I heard from somebody who ...
But this is now almost all
Gone. The boys have taken
Their own true wives in the city,
The sheep are safe in the west hill
Pasture but we who were born there
Still are not sure. Are we,
Because we remember, remembered
In the terrible dust of museums?
Merely with his eyes, the sheep-child may
Be saying saying
I am here, in my father's house.
I who am half of your world, came deeply
To my mother in the long grass
Of the west pasture, where she stood like moonlight
Listening for foxes. It was something like love
From another world that seized her
From behind, and she gave, not Iifting her head
Out of dew, without ever looking, her best
Self to that great need. Turned loose, she dipped her face
Farther into the chill of the earth, and in a sound
Of sobbing of something stumbling
Away, began, as she must do,
To carry me. I woke, dying,
In the summer sun of the hillside, with my eyes
Far more than human. I saw for a blazing moment
The great grassy world from both sides,
Man and beast in the round of their need,
And the hill wind stirred in my wool,
My hoof and my hand clasped each other,
I ate my one meal
Of milk, and died
Staring. From dark grass I came straight
To my father's house, whose dust
Whirls up in the halls for no reason
When no one comes piling deep in a hellish mild corner,
And, through my immortal waters,
I meet the sun's grains eye
To eye, and they fail at my closet of glass.
Dead, I am most surely living
In the minds of farm boys: I am he who drives
Them like wolves from the hound bitch and calf
And from the chaste ewe in the wind.
They go into woods into bean fields they go
Deep into their known right hands. Dreaming of me,
They groan they wait they suffer
Themselves, they marry, they raise their kind.
-- James Dickey
More or less the same thing, minus the religion. I'm not religious and many conservatives are Christian.
The real issue is, do you believe that everyone is either 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual, with no area in between?
We'll assume for the sake of argument that homosexuality is not a chosen tendency, but is something hot wired into homosexual individuals due to genetics, hormonal inbalance, or whatever. If that's the case, we would expect varying degrees of this defect (and it is a defect) from one afflicted person to the next. Just as there are people who are only mildly mentally retarded, or are born with a minor defect in their knee, there will logically be people with only mild homosexual tendencies, or tendencies balanced midway between hardcore heterosexuality and hardcore homosexuality.
Hardcore homosexuals will be homosexual no matter what society thinks about such behavior, though they'll be more discrete in a traditional society and not show up at the St. Patrick's Day Parade with "gay" banners to be waved in front of all the Christian families.
But what about people whose homosexual tendencies are only mild? Will they not be more likely to act on those tendencies if they have social and legal ratification? Will they not have lost the social structures which would allow them to more easily resist a mild temptation if we elevate homosexuality to iconic status?
What about teens with raging hormones and the usual confusions that accompany those years? Should we use them as guinea pigs to find out how many might be lured into homosexuality by celebrating it in our culture?
Homosexuals themselves know that their behavior is unnatural. Historically, homosexuals simply have accepted that their tendencies are abnormal. They discretely seek out "partners" and leave everyone else mostly alone in such a society.
But things change when society ratifies the homosexual lifestyle. Nothing anywhere in the natural world would indicate that homosexuality is normal. So this creates a problem for uncloseted homosexuals. Once they're told that their behavior is normal, and even good, they feel compelled to eradicate every suggestion that it isn't. It's the "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome. They need constant reinforcement of the belief that their behavior is good and natural, or they'll remember that it isn't. Every dissenting voice must be stifled. Every institution must be altered to accommodate homosexuality.
This is why we get such obvious nonsense as the demand from California's gay caucus that textbooks highlight homosexual inventors or composers, or whatever. As if anyone ever thinks of themselves as a heterosexual inventor. Was Einstein a heterosexual physicist?
Uncloseted homosexuality results in a significant loss of liberty and popular sovereignty. It unleashes government forces far in excess of the mild social strictures that kept homosexuality in the closet until recent years. Such forces are necessary to push the 95% or more of the popuation who aren't homosexual into the closet that the homosexuals have vacated. And so we get the Boy Scouts tossed out of public parks and speech codes regulating our public discourse.
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.