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?
Translation - your unwillingness to roll over and agree with me is disturbing.
I see your point but you don't see mine. You think that the belief that individuals should have rights, such as the right to life, is univeral, immutable, and no matter what else we deny or allow we will never lose this.
I think you have very little imagination and very little knowledge of history. You don't know what a monumental change in human thinking it was to put individual human rights in such high regard regardless of the perceived worth of the human being (a concept already shreaded by the abortion laws in this country). That is a particularly Judeo-Christian concept based on the religious conviction that every human being is an image bearer of G-d. For some reason, you think atheists are beholden to this concept despite thousands of years of human history proving it was not so.
I happen to believe that channeling our sexual appetites is as fundamentally important as protecting our rights. But I can't argue that point with you if you're simply going to conclude that anyone who doesn't agree with you is disturbed.
I disagree with you and I can state my reasons. Face it. It's not only allowed, but it is good for the Republic.
Shalom.
td, this would be easier if you would allow yourself to carefully think your positions out and describe/define them. If you continue to respond emotionally without getting to the issues being discussed we're going to have to send you to the kiddy corner. Remedy uses cut-n-paste becuase it's inefficient to repeat yourself on thread after thread. I prefer to repeat myself because not everyone will follow a link, but that's not Remedy's style. It doesn't make him a "whack job."
And, as I just said, I can disagree with you without being disturbed.
Shalom.
An outstanding example of a well reasoned argument, ArGee. My complements.
Yes !
Also, I presume the REP in SHELREP is "report" but what is the SHEL. Shalom.
I called Remedy a whack job because that's exactly what he is. Ostensibly, he posts these cut-n-pastes as some kind of public information service (bless him), but anyone who's been in one debate with him knows his real motive is to provoke shock and disgust.
Finally, since this is breaking down into juvenile petulance, I didn't call you disturbed. I called your position and lack of discernment disturbing. But then, why should I expect you'd read me correctly now when you haven't seemed to comprehend anything I've said so far no matter how clearly I spell it out.
Ditto!
My comments speak for themself. I don't need your translation, thanks.
I think you have very little imagination and very little knowledge of history.
Don't patronize me like some little pissant. I'm not some kid in his first year at Berkley.
I disagree with you and I can state my reasons.
Likewise, I disagree with you and I've stated my reasons why. Your reasons are highly subjective, not clearly defined, and amount to "might makes right". I don't think that's very logical.
We always like our own arguments better than others until we are convinced we are wrong. There are plenty on this thread who think I have done a good job. That doesn't make me right, but it should cause you to take another look.
I try very hard not to have any personal strictures that are not moral absolutes. I don't have any reason for them. Why should I categorically avoid something enjoyable that is not wrong? Likewise, I try very hard to differentiate between things that are bad for me but not wrong in general. Having an alcoholic mother and maternal grandfather suggests to me that it is not worthwhile to tempt fate and drink. But I don't make teetotaling a moral absolute because there is no evidence that it is one.
Get with the program. This is a debate. I clearly pointed out that there was a lot of human history wherein the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was not universally recognized and declared it to come specifically from Judeo-Christian faith. In my opinion, that is a huge stumbling block to your argument of "obvious differences." Either counter my position with an argument of your own or explain how it is not a stumbling block to your argument.
Complaining that I am condescending because you appear to be having a bad morning and started name-calling is not debate.
As for Remedy, I disagree with you on his motives, but that is between you and him. That you degenerate into calling him names is between you and me.
Shalom.
Unbelievable.
Correct, sir. Although, I have been accused by some of sullying the honor of junior company grade officers when they had no other retort.
A SHELREP is a shell report, a key element of a proper counterbattery fire program. Given LiteKeeper's logging for teaching purposes, I wanted to make sure he was aware of your posts - outstanding counterbattery work, indeed.
I certainly don't expect the majority of FR to agree with me on this topic. Nonetheless, it causes me no equivocation. I've made very reasoned arguments in favor of my postition. You're free to ignore them if you like, as you have. You're free to pretend that I've not made reasoned arguments, but you're only fooling yourself.
You disagree with me, I understand, but for you to say I've not made a reasonable argument is just as subjective and baseless as your understanding of laws and human rights.
I try very hard not to have any personal strictures that are not moral absolutes.
I think the dischordance in our discussion is from having two very different definitions of "moral absolute", which begs the question, how absolute are they? Do you not ask yourself that?
there was a lot of human history wherein the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was not universally recognized
I don't believe human rights were inchoate at the founding of this nation. Our founding documents may have been among the first to statutorily recognize them, but human rights weren't birthed with those documents. Likewise, I don't believe human rights exist only in nations where the government recognizes them, nor are they absent from nations where the government ignores human rights.
So, is banning the smoking of marijuana a moral absolute? If so, why isn't drinking alcohol? If not, shouldn't it be legalized, just like alcohol?
I'd really like to know your answers.
OK, this has taken more time than I wanted, but I have gone through this thread searching for my posts and have collected my arguments. I'm using numbers so you can refer to them by number. Tell me which ones are subjective. Tell me which ones amount to "might makes right."
Shalom.
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.