The 'gay' truth: Kevin McCullough on homosexuality dominating American politics

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, May 30, 2003 | Kevin McCullough

[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?

[John O]

I inserted the word special for clarity since it seemed 'special rights' was what he was implying with the quote marks around the word homosexual.

No I was asking about regular rights. I use quotes around 'homosexual' because I don't believe that such a thing exists. There are people who practice homosexual behavior but there are no 'homosexuals'. Sexual orientation as used by the 'homosexuals' doesn't exist. Everyone is heterosexually inclined, some people are just mentally damaged.

[tdadams]

As for marriage - when two people marry their families are joined. Marriage is not a private matter. Why should we allow queers to marry?

Why should you be allowed to interject your views where they're not welcome? If two people, and their families, support their coupledom, who are you to insist you have standing to tell them otherwise? How arrogant.

[tdadams]

that's something you can't prove no matter how mny times you repeat it.

That's a weak argument. I can't prove you haven't murdered someone. You can't prove they are mentally ill, especially when the medical community says otherwise.

Now we've ALL seen you argue for homosexual marriage

I'll speak for myself, thanks. I have not advocated homosexual marriage. I've said it's none of your business, nor mine, how two people live their lives as a couple.

You're the liar here. You're taking my words and extrapolating a meaning I never said and did not intend. The point has been clarified. If you repeat the same lie, we'll all know it's intentional and you're simply a liar rather than being mistaken.

[tdadams]

Funny, all of the quotes you pulled from my past posts only confirm that I've never said gays need special rights.

And what rights do they not have that we have?

None. That's exactly my point. Gays have the same rights as everyone else. No more and no less. Only some people (especially here) seem to have no problem refusing to recognize those rights.

Protecting and defending those rights is what I'm arguing for. Some on here seem to think it's OK to abridge someone's rights if they personally are offended by what the person might do with their freedom, or if their behavior isn't given the blessing of the government.

[ArGee]

Why should you be allowed to interject your views where they're not welcome? If two people, and their families, support their coupledom, who are you to insist you have standing to tell them otherwise? How arrogant.

Why do you presume anyone but the two people support their coupledom. First it was a private activity between two consenting adults. Now every member of each family is involved.

Do you ever think before you write?

If the homosexuals really just wanted to be left alone, they would go back in the closet. Until then, I am going to work to keep marriage laws as they are today, whether you like it or not. I see no reason to change and you have not even tried to provide one.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

I have not advocated homosexual marriage. I've said it's none of your business, nor mine, how two people live their lives as a couple.

Your #342 reads like you advocate gay marriage. So, let's be clear. Do you think we should change existing laws to allow gay marriage?

Shalom.

[tdadams]

Why do you presume anyone but the two people support their coupledom. First it was a private activity between two consenting adults. Now every member of each family is involved.

Are you getting senile? You're the one who brought up the family. Don't try to turn it around on me. Besides, that's a weak argument anyway. How many people don't get along with their in-laws? How many people get married against the wishes of their parents? You've got a serious problem with double standards.

If the homosexuals really just wanted to be left alone, they would go back in the closet.

Now we see the crux of your argument. Gays have equal rights... as long as they pretend they're something they're not. The sad thing is, you're entirely serious and you have no idea how anathema that is to most people's understanding of justice.

Sorry, ArGee, but you have no standing to put away or ship off out of sight anyone who you have a personal animosity towards.

[tdadams]

Your #342 reads like you advocate gay marriage.

You read it that way because that's how you want to read it.

Do you think we should change existing laws to allow gay marriage?

I'm not gay and have no intention of participating in a gay marriage, so I really don't have a place to speak on the matter. I'm completely indifferent on the matter personally. However, if two people of the same sex decide they want to live together as a couple for the rest of their lives, how does the government (i.e. the people) have any standing to abridge their freedom of association and say, "No, you may not be married"? I think that steps over the bounds of what the collective society can impose on individuals. Besides, how does their "marriage" harm me?

And further, I think it's a bit of a disingenuous catch 22 for hardline conservative to always be denigrating gays for alleged promiscuity, but at the same time fight to deny them the vehicle to enter into a long term monogamous relationship.

[ArGee]

I'm not gay and have no intention of participating in a gay marriage, so I really don't have a place to speak on the matter.

Of course not - which is why you have posted so much on the topic here. Stop apologizing for what you think.

I'm completely indifferent on the matter personally. However, if two people of the same sex decide they want to live together as a couple for the rest of their lives, how does the government (i.e. the people) have any standing to abridge their freedom of association and say, "No, you may not be married"?

You've got that backwards, Jack. I talked to you once about thinking before you post. If there is no religious marriage and it's only civil then people can only be married when the government says they may. It's called a marriage license and you have to apply and qualify because you get one. If they want to shack up, that's one thing. But if they want to get married they have to fulfill the qualifications. And a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, don't until we make a change. You have yet to make a case for that change except that you don't see why not. And you've already admitted to your lack of imagination.

I think that steps over the bounds of what the collective society can impose on individuals. Besides, how does their "marriage" harm me?

Because it degrades what it means to be married. Not alone, mind you. Other things have done so as well. And our society is founded on stable families, not on women who divorce their husbands because they want to turn lesbian (as Gephardt's daughter did). If we can't keep committments to our spouses we can't keep our committments to our society and it erodes. It has happened every time this experiment has been tried and we Americans are no different.

And further, I think it's a bit of a disingenuous catch 22 for hardline conservative to always be denigrating gays for alleged promiscuity, but at the same time fight to deny them the vehicle to enter into a long term monogamous relationship.

And I think it's diseingenuous for you to suggest that the only way to people can be monagomous is to be married. Gays aren't promiscuous because they can't be married. They're promiscuous because they're gay.

Get a grip.

Shalom.

[First Amendment]

Society is changing and part of that change is a greater acceptance of homosexuals. Trying to hold back the evolving opinion of society is like trying to hold back the wind. Whether you're opposed, support, or remain indifferent about gay rights I think is of little relevance.

Here is the key to tdadams mind - he believes in what I call "social Darwinism" - because it's happening, it's inevitable, therefore it must be better and improved, and therefore we must hurry it along.

The logic of this philosophy is the same as in this situation - I'm walking along a road, I realize it MIGHT not be the right way, but because I'm already headed in that direction, I start running, and I am too afraid to stop, get the guide book, get a map, and maybe admit I'm lost or even going in the opposite direction I should be going.

This philosophy is based on the false idea that whatever is "modern" is better, that society is always evolving to a better and higher state of existence. It's related to the "science is God" idea.

[First Amendment]

Are schools being forced to teach that or is that the will of the teachers and the teachers unions?

Here's an example of tdadams' obfuscation and word jugglery. Way back on this thread (maybe another too) I told him that the state of California, through the legislature, mandated in 2001 that grades K-12 have cirriculum espousing and promoting homosexual behavior. His reply? Move from California. Then I asked, it's not about me, I'm concerned for the kids in CA. His answer? You can't save the world, basically screw everyone else.

So he is either consciously lying or is pathological.

[tdadams]

Of course not - which is why you have posted so much on the topic here.

Don't look now, ArGee, but you probably post more on this topic than I do. Careful with your insinuations, lest they point at you.

Stop apologizing for what you think.

I'm sorry if I said something that gave you the impression that I made my stand apologetically. I do not.

I talked to you once about thinking before you post.

If it gives you some contrived feeling of superiority to tell me this, knock yourself out, but I assure you my statements are at least as well thought out as yours, if not more so. You really make yourself look petty by condescending like that.

[tdadams]

I told him that the state of California, through the legislature, mandated in 2001 that grades K-12 have cirriculum espousing and promoting homosexual behavior.

Yeah, you told me that, but you came up short when I asked you to cite the statute.

[First Amendment]

I told you I do not know particular number of the statute. Look it up yourself if you doubt me. It's common knowledge in CA and I have read articles about here on FR, as well as letters to the editor in the Eureka, CA newspaper. Two homeschooling famlies in CA who are personal friends of mine (actually going to charter schools) have told me about it as well. It is the law in CA.

[GrandMoM]

And, like it or not, your gentle effort to "live and let live" has helped to create the environment where their formal declarations become law.

...You know ArGgee, back in the 70's & 80's I worked in the Hotel Industry as a banquet mng. and about a third of our staff was openly gay. They were hard working when they were at work,(they called in sick often), acommadating and respectful of their position, which made it easy to say live and let live.

When my children became teenagers they began working at the hotel part-time which made it nice because as a single mother with no support I had to work many hours to support them.

It was then that I noticed the male gay waiters different attitude. While they we nice to both children, they were too nice to my son. Silently I watched, and when they then wanted to hang around him when he wasn't at the hotel and I was, I knew I had to sit down with my children and have a talk.

I won't go into detail of what I learned, but I wasn't happy with some of the events that took place (no physical contact yet, and it was clear my son wasn't impressed, I was lucky.

I insisted he get another job, but, shortly after that incident I noticed that my daughter was constantly asking me to sign an excuse to miss swimming class at school.

After about the third or fourth week in a row, I thought what is this childs problem, so I asked her. Guess what, the female swimming coaches were standing in the showers while the girls showered.

Her quote exactly " It's scarey Mom, they watch the whole process, undressing, showering and redressing", then added, "I can take the winking in the hall as I pass by, but not them staring at me while I am naked.

Live and let live, not anymore, more like give them an inch, and they take a mile. Don't tell me they are not after children, they were after my children and that was twenty years ago.

[ArGee]

Very well put.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Don't look now, ArGee, but you probably post more on this topic than I do. Careful with your insinuations, lest they point at you.

I post because I care. You claim to post because you don't care.

I don't believe you.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Don't tell me they are not after children, they were after my children and that was twenty years ago.

I would not tell you that.

They are diseased, and the result of a diseased society. I don't know if there is hope for America, but I don't intend to sit back and pretend nothing is wrong and that we just need to "let them marry so they will clean up their act."

It's not a matter of letting others do what they want. It's a matter of destroying evil before it destroys us.

Shalom.

[First Amendment]

The problem with "letting them do what they want" is that what they want to do is to prevent the normal people from doing what we want. They want to turn our country into a homosexual bordello, no holds barred and no age barred. Since we don't want that, and they do, we have to take courage and fight the good fight.
Thanks to all here who keep doing just that.

[freedom9]

"Gayness is a fantasy and as when any fantasy becomes fraudulent when politicaly sold, gayness is fraud as it is today. That said, government may tolerate it just as long as it makes fat happy little pigs that pay their taxes"

Think so?

They almost constitute the government in my neck of the woods