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 am switching syrup brands.
Uh, I wouldn't want to bet the house on that one. I'm afraid that when we make the argument against special rights for gays, we fail to do so in a thoroughly intellectually honest way. I do sincerely believe it to be a genetic abnormality, which probably accounts for the bulk of cases, and the other is a dysfunctional environment. The latter might be able to be corrected, but the former most certainly can't. I'm rather dubious of when I hear about "former homosexuals", which probably means they were either bisexual to begin with or are now simply living in denial (think fmr. Congressman Mike Huffington). In the case of genetic homosexuals, you can no more change your sexuality than someone mentally retarded can pretend to be a member of MENSA.
Nice try, but no cigar. Prenatal or neonatal exposure to estrogen results in masculinization (Dr. Richard Whalen, UC Irvine) just as perinatal exposure to testosterone results in the same outcome, masculinization (Drs. Beach, Noble and Orndoff UC Berkeley). These results have been replicated and verified. The absence of exposure to gonadal hormones allows for the development of feminine characteristics, regardless of genotype.
Homosexual agenda ping.
| Homosexual Agenda Index |
| Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search |
| All FreeRepublic Bump Lists |
The term [homosexual]certainly does not seem to fit ex-homosexuals, many of whom express no further interest in sex with their sex. Further, the sexual flexibility that the great majority of 'homosexuals' exhibit over their lifetimes does not fit the 'compulsive' nuances associated with the term 'homosexual' either.
But beyond that, we are also laying the foundation for a destructive future.
Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected HomosexualityWhen Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world. The Torah's prohibition of non-marital sex quite simply made the creation of Western civilization possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity. The acceptance of homosexuality as the equal of heterosexual marital love signifies the decline of Western civilization as surely as the rejection of homosexuality and other nonmarital sex made the creation of this civilization possible.
Texas Phys.Resource Council, Christian Med. & Dental Association, Catholic Med.Association Sodomy is an efficient method of transmitting STDs. And regardless of the reason, same-sex sodomy is far more effective in spreading STDs than opposite-sex sodomy. Multiple studies have estimated that 40 percent or more of men who practice anal sex acquire STDs. In fact, same-sex sodomy has resulted in the transformation of diseases previously transmitted only through fecally contaminated food and water into sexually caused diseases primarily among those who practice same-sex sodomy.
What Homosexuals Say About Homosexuals - Is This Gay Behavior Sick?
I agree with everything McCullough says, save this.
From where I sit, it seems to me are indeed scared. But of something else, specifically the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, or GLAAD. It is these people who have consistently gone after people over the slightest thing, and Hollywood/TV news heads don't think twice about kow-towing to their every need, to the point where these homosexual anti-First Amendment activists can get a private audience with those on the high end of the totem pole just by asking.
There can be little argument GLAAD played a major role in the cancellation of Dr. Laura's TV show. They created their own little campaign, complete with website, designed specifically to remove Dr. Laura from the television airwaves simply because she does not agree with the homosexual agenda.
Now they have decided to go after Michael Savage. He has been targeted NOT for making "anti-gay" statements (although I am sure that is what GLAAD is saying), but for saying something else, which a regular listener such as myself has heard him say repeatedly:
He has said he is a sexual libertarian, in that he has a live and let live attitude towards homosexuals. However, he draws the line when children get involved.
Now unlike Dr. Laura, he is not taking GLAAD's assault lying down. He has said on the air there are statements being attributed to him that he never said, and these are being used in an attempt to keep him from making a living. Savage has said he will sue if they do not knock it off. And true to form, a website not affiliated with GLAAD but nevertheless involved in the campaign to silence Savage has been served.
A visual response from a sister site shows the defendants think this is some kind of a joke. But Michael Savage is not laughing. And soon, neither will they.
And since this sister site has been kind enough to provide a space where you can e-mail all his sponsors at once, why doesn't everybody here use it to let them know you support Michael Savage's First Amendment rights, and they should, too.
But I digress.
It's time we stood up as a nation and stopped GLAAD in their mission to silence everyone who disagrees with them that happen to have a microphone, a TV/movie camera or a printing press. Because if they get their way, there will be nothing to stop the homosexual agenda, which absolutely includes our kids, and don't you frickin' forget it!
There can be little argument GLAAD played a major role in the cancellation of Dr. Laura's TV show.
They attack anyone who takes a stand against them, as they have done since Anita Bryant challenged them 25 years ago.
Homosexual Objective Þ Dominate society:
Inoohr_org_index.htm This essay was printed in the February 15, 1987 issue of the homosexual newspaper Gay Community News by Michael Swift, and was reprinted in the February 15-21 1987 Congressional Record. EXCERPT
We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of you shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us. Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep.
If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.
There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled. We shall raise vast, private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you.
We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are as invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers. The family unit spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy, and violence will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in a communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.
We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution. Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks!
In behavior, genetics do not matter, sin does. Many gays out there "sin" and have fantasies about women but won't admit it, let us face it. I do not believe a gay person is so "piously" gay that they cannot fathom another lifestyle. Believing otherwise this would be worse hypocritical crap.... like believing a priest never regrets tenderness with a woman... bull crap.
Exactly right, it's the presence of androgens or MIS that differentiate the internal ducts and external genitalia. What our "scientist" mysterio doesn't understand is if there is abnormal androgen or MIS production it would affect the gonadal ridges causing ambiguous genitalia and abnormal sex differentiation which has NOTHING to do with the brain (hypothalamus).
As tdadams continues to demonstrate, he's not interested in the truth around anything homosexual. Sadly, he's most comfortable when folks treat him like a mushroom. That is, keep him in the dark and feed him "manure".
I'm still waiting for a number from tdadmas, a number from 2-63 but he just won't provide it, which re-inforces his obvious bias on this matter.
See ya later pipsqueak.
We knew he was full of something, it goes with being a hypocrite Liberaltarian.
No why? There's lots of female leaders in the Boy Scouts, do you find that "odd" too?
Some things are, in the words of our Founders, self-evident. Presumably you would make the same denigrations of the Founders as you do of me. Do you read the Constitution and say "prove it", assuming you've read the Consitution at all?
What a way to lead by example!
I challenge you to demonstrate a single example where I have ever been hypocritical. You can't, so you won't. We already know that.
Studies in twin data suggest the opposite. There seems to be a genetic component, but non-genetic influences and choice play seem to play a larger role. Sexuality is mostly mental and the power of positive reinforcement of sexuality to alter someone's behavior can not be understated.
Thats kind of funny, as a scientist you accept this based solely upon your own experience. But how do you explain weird fetishes people have? Are people 'born' with attractions towards rubber or leather? Are people 'born' being attracted to feet or whatever strange fetish people may have? Don't people change who or what they are attracted to? Today children are being much more exposed to homosexuality and are being made to accept it as OK and normal. That wasn't true 10 or 20 years ago. Don't underestimate the power of sexuality. You might be very surprised at how people's minds are shaped through sexual experience.
I have to laugh when I see people post "twin studies" to argue that there's no biological component to homosexuality when any honest interpretation of twin studies suggests exactly the opposite. With monozygotic twins, the chances of both being homosexual are 1 in 2. For non-twin siblings, the chances are 1 in 20.
Anyone who can say that supports a finding of "no correlation" is either completely incapable of understanding objective scientific studies or is simply and unabashedly dishonest.
Whether you are correct or not, the central fact -- the ball off which gays invite us to take our eyes by arguing essentialism -- is that homosexuality is maladaptive in several dimensions.
I have to laugh at the way you read my post. Where did I say no biological component?
While I continue to be impressed by the number of psychologists and psychiatrists who resist the official Party Line of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association (yes, two APA's -- and there's actually a third! the American Psychotherapy (sp?) Ass'n.) which has been essentialist for a while now, I still think the essentialist argument needs to be met head-on: so what?
Gayness is maladaptive, and society ought to be concentrating on gays' admitting that fact, and on agreeing to ameliorate it -- by, for one thing, working to reduce contacts between predatory gay adults and teenagers, and taking "skinned chicken" off the menu.
Gays themselves appear anecdotally to think so, too. Only you won't get them to admit it when they're in polemical mode. Then you're just retailing the "pederasty smear".
Which happens to be true, but never mind -- you're a McCarthyite, and you're running a witch hunt.
First, knock down the polemicists. Then the adults can go talk.
But this business of gays coming around kids has got to stop. GLSEN has got to go, and so do the "gay studies" in schools that have been led by NEA liberals to accept them.
Any suggestions?
Perhaps the site upgraded the version of the file?
LOL at your phrase, but lost my breakfast.
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.