No amount of persecution or ridicule by straight people is going to change the fact that some people are gay. I guess I don’t know what you expect them to do about it, or what your goal is. What do you think will actually happen as a result of your expressing these ideas and feelings?
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
Like your other posts, this one is unable to totally shed the PC misinformation about homosexuality. Although you claim to believe that homosexuality is an aberration, you are still caught in the pattern of wanting to “be nice” and assuming the posture of pity and largesse that the pro-gay propaganda has primed you to feel.

You are basically asking me how I would handle things differently. Since you seem to be a medical professional, let’s summarize the facts and draw factual – not emotional – conclusions about how the issue should be treated.

This means that when we come to determine public policy, heart-rending stories about gay “spouses” at their lover’s deathbeds – and eager-to-prove-I’m-hip protestations that “some of my best friends are gay” do not trump factual observations about the gay lifestyle and its problems.

Peeling away the gobbledigook and starting with the facts:

1. After decades of research there is no solid proof that gayness is inherited in the same way as eye color. In that same time, strong evidence has accumulated that the vast majority of practicing homosexuals are behaving in ways that confirm early, pre-PC psychological descriptions of homosexuality as arrested development, or maladapted response to emotional mismatches or traumas in formative relationships.

2. There is clear evidence that between 1/4 and 1/3 of teenagers will experience transient same-sex attractions during their adolescents – and if left alone, the vast majority of these youths will go on to integrate healthy heterosexual identities (hence the description of people stuck in gayness as “arrested development”).

3. Despite attempts to shout down dissenting voices, a trickle of evidence is emerging that confirms the truth: in the minority of cases when same-sex attraction springs from developmentnal problems rather than normal adolescence, a range of therapeutic approaches can heal the psyche and allow development to proceed to its normal conclusion – heterosexuality. The techniques can be everything from simple mentoring to supply a father/mother figure, to long-term psychological counseling for deeper problems.

It’s clear that “being nice” should not extend to social and legal sanction of pathological behavior. And homosexuality is pathological behavior. So: first step in a sane public policy is No Legitimation of a Pathological Behavior.

A generation of out-and-proud homosexuals may not be willing or able to heal themselves, but normalizing dysfunction will only trap more unfortunates in this sad pathology. The pathetically low rates of gay marriage in Europe and Canada indicate that the vast majority of these people do not even seem capable of/interested in committed relationships, so shutting down the gay marriage circus will cause very little additional human grief.

This goes double and triple for Gay-Straight Alliances and other organizations that atttempt to recruit young people into homosexual exploration under the guise of “promoting understanding” or “supporting youth at risk”. The last thing teenagers need is imposition of the pro-gay agenda at this vulnerable stage of life.

These organizations should be completely removed from the schools. In their stead, counseling staffs can work to provide Big Brothers/Sisters and other mentors to the many kids whose same-sex attraction grows out of deficits in formative relationships, and can take up the hard work of actually healing the almost 20 percent of youth presenting as “gay” who have been sexaully molested.

Despite what many on this list may say, this is the truly compassionate approach in the long run.

And then there’s the congratulations that your being gay doesn’t define who you are — except, he fails to notice, in your public life which is all about this blog.

And there’s the blows at Andrew Sullivan, so much like your own, and the mentions of Qeer Nation and Dykes on Bikes….not the usual allusions of one raised with a “total disconnect with homosexuality.”

So, you know what? Ten to 1 this letter’s a fake.

Comment by Lori Heine — April 10, 2006 @ 3:28 pm – April 10, 2006

Genesis 19:9
…Then they said, “This one came in to stay here, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with than with them.”

Genesis 19:27-28
27) And Abraham went early in the morning to the place where he stood before the Lord.
28) Then he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain; and he saw, and behold, the smoke of the land which went up like the smoke of a furnace.

No, because Americans who are against gay rights most likely see the Republican Party as the one who best shares their beliefs. I don’t see how any of the hypocrisy and other tactics from gay organizations changes that.

The irony in that statement is this, Pat; you insist that we need more diversity of views to be represented in the community, but you exclude the people who have chosen to do as you mention above because it doesn’t fit your ideal.

I did insist on more diversity of viewpoints in the gay community. But that doesn’t mean I want extreme views that are detrimental to the community. Just as I don’t want extreme leftist views by those trying to tie them in with gay rights, I also don’t think persons who believe in maintaining third class citizenship helps advance gay rights.

Really? You think the fact that Americans see gay organizations saying that Republicans are antigay and Democrats are pro-gay, regardless of what either does, isn’t registering?

Or in some cases, someone is found out, but it is okay, because they know their place and stay in the back of the bus, or run over by the bus. “He’s gay, but that’s okay, because he keeps his mouth shut and enjoys his third class status.”

The irony in that statement is this, Pat; you insist that we need more diversity of views to be represented in the community, but you exclude the people who have chosen to do as you mention above because it doesn’t fit your ideal.

You don’t want community, you want blind obeisance.

Regarding John Kerry and gay groups, again, I simply do not recall John Kerry EVER saying that he favored gay marriage during the campaign, especially when it was clear that he was going to be the nominee. I’m sure gay groups did not like the fact that he opposed gay marriage, but still thought that he was much better than Bush on gay issues. You say that these same gay groups demonized people, especially Republicans, who oppose gay marriage, but gave Kerry and others a free pass and calling them pro-gay and pro-supportive. I’m afraid that’s called hypocrisy, and it is unfortunately rampant in all political organizations and parties. As much as I cannot stand this type of hypocrisy, I honestly do not believe that this is the reason that turn off many Americans from gay rights, since most Americans witness political hypocrisy on most other issues. I do agree that if Americans see gay rights tied in with other issues that they do not agree with, especially extremist issues, that is a problem.

In short, we need less images and more people. And the grassroots are the only places where there are people.

Yes, I agree we need more people out there being ourselves. I think that has gone a long way with people that I meet, who see that not all gay people are drag queens, gym bunnies, etc. And the more people that come out the better. But I disagree about images. We do need “images” and celebrities to come out. In many communities, there are nobody in the grassroots that they can see is an “ordinary” gay person. Any person that is gay there may either decide to leave the community before they are found out. Or if they are found out, they are ostracized. Or in some cases, someone is found out, but it is okay, because they know their place and stay in the back of the bus, or run over by the bus. “He’s gay, but that’s okay, because he keeps his mouth shut and enjoys his third class status.” If we find out that a few top political persons, or more popular personalities are gay, then at least people will get some exposure, and see that not all gays have the same exact opinions, and may actually have conservative ideals. This will lead to more people in the grassroots in these communities. Anyway, I feel we need more of both.

However, the question is whether or not you and other left/moderate gays, who have spent decades rationalizing why we needed the support of these moonbats and the importance of “unity”, even as the evidence accumulated that they were causing more harm than good, can actually make that break.

I don’t need to rationalize any support from these people. The fact is that most of the people who are openly for gay marriage and outspoken about it are these extremists. And frankly, I applaud them for that. But that doesn’t mean that I support their other positions, while at the same time hoping that more moderate leaning candidates start supporting gay marriage. (I have to learn more about Russell Feingold now that he has come out in full support).

As for me personally, I don’t have to give up cocktail parties and funding, since I don’t get such invites and monies from these gay organizations. But I would have no problem stating to them what my position is if I disagree, and even if I agree, to say that it is an issue separate from gay rights. In the meantime, everything else being equal, I will vote and support candidates that I feel are best when it comes to gay rights, even if they fall short of full equality. I am not beholden to any political party or organization. I will, and have already, supported Republicans that were as strong as Democrats on gay rights.

Back up a bit, Pat.

You know that gay-rights groups say that anyone who opposes gay marriage, especially on the basis of their religious beliefs, is a hatemongering homophobic bigot, and that anyone who supports them is a twisted self-loathing individual. More importantly, they say that people who endorse and support politicians like these are advancing hate and impeding the progress of gay rights.

Now you’re saying that these very same groups KNEW Kerry’s beliefs well in advance, and STILL a) gave him tens of millions of dollars and b) promoted him and his beliefs as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

In short, you must be joking. If Kerry didn’t lie about his antigay positions, why were gay groups calling him “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when they clearly knew he was NOT by their own definition?

You may either take the tack that Kerry lied or admit that gays gave tens of millions of dollars to people who, had they been Republicans, gays would have attacked viciously for being antigay, homophobic, and bigoted — and who would have demanded the scalps of any gays who supported said people.

The former paints Kerry as a homophobic manipulator. The latter makes gays look hypocritical and stupid.

I prefer to use the former.

The more that you see people in high places that are gay, the more that people like the writer will think that the Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwells, Robert Byrds, etc., are just plain wrong on homosexuality.

Actually, I think that the gist of the letter was that what is assisting this person’s attitude development is seeing ordinary, everyday gays like GP, GPW, and myself do ordinary, everyday things. Indeed, the commentor specifically mentioned how the actions of GP and GPW were far more effective in helping gays’ image than were the actions of celebrities and high-profile groups.

Celebrities, high-profile individuals, and the like are images, not people. For example, if you ask most folks what their views of “corporate executives” or “business leaders” are like, most will reply in the negative. However, if you ask them specifically about corporate executives or business leaders they know, the answer will be far different.

In short, we need less images and more people. And the grassroots are the only places where there are people.

I understand that the outspoken people for gay rights are the extremists. And believe it or not, many of us on the gay left/moderate are not happy. Most of my (gay) friends are to the left of me, and they don’t like the way we gays are portrayed and stereotyped as well. So we don’t know what the answer is either.

Pat, this is going to sound extremely pissy, and to some extent it is.

You already know what the answer is. What you don’t have is the will to implement it.

The answer is to do as GP, GPW, and I have been doing. Make it clear that these people don’t speak for all gays. Refuse to let them commandeer gay rights for their unpopular purposes. Let people know that gays do have opinions other than radical stupidity.

However, the question is whether or not you and other left/moderate gays, who have spent decades rationalizing why we needed the support of these moonbats and the importance of “unity”, even as the evidence accumulated that they were causing more harm than good, can actually make that break.

Pushing back against Planned Parenthood, for example, means that they will cut you off financially and socially. Are you ready to lose HRC and NGLTF’s major source of funding? Are you ready to give up cocktail party invitations and deal with the calls of “misogynist” that will be thrown at you for not supporting unlimited abortion and worse, saying that gay rights are not relevant or a reason for it? Are you ready to see the Elizabeth Birches, Hillary Rosens, Joe Solmoneses, and other lesbians and lesbian wannabes who value abortion more than gay rights leave these groups?

If the answer is “no”, then don’t bother being upset about how gays are portrayed and stereotyped; you’ve simply made a choice that the aforementioned things are more important. And you’re in good company; the Rosens, Birches, Solmoneses, and Foremans of the world have decided that it’s more important for gays to be pawns of the left than it is to be treated as people, and it’s made them millions of dollars.

It’s all a question of priorities.

Ladybug: thank you for your many thoughtful comments.

Thanks to GayPatriot for posting the lovely letter from your reader. That’s so encouraging. Bravo for all that you do to promote civil discourse and thoughtful reflection.

The person who wrote the letter was wholly honest about their feelings towards gays and gay marriage. Furthermore, said person was not misrepresenting their views for the purpose of raising cash, securing votes, and advancing their own career; nor did their actions result in tens of millions of gay dollars being spent to promote antigay and homophobic views.

John Kerry did the opposite.

NDT, here’s the problem. When John Kerry was running for President, he always said that marriage was “between a man and a woman.” He NEVER wavered on that. So gay people knew that and decided to give him money, partly because no viable candidate at that time could be supportive of gay marriage and win the election, even against an incredibly weak incumbent. But many people, gay, straight, people of faith or not, do not believe that gays should have the right to marry. What is it that makes John Kerry homophobic, but others not?

You’ve made the point that John Kerry did flip-flop and apparently endorsed an amendment that also would have prohibited civil unions in Missouri. Yes, that’s dishonest and I am certainly disgusted by that. But in the meantime, I am painfully aware that most politicians of both parties, are dishonest in their campaigns. But also, as I mentioned, many people, because of faith or whatever, and even gay people who value their relationships are against civil unions as well. Does that make them homophobic?

By the way, I finally saw your post that you linked to about the marriage amendment. It thought it was very good. But, I still don’t get the distinction that you make between Kerry and others.

Here’s the problem, Pat. The vast majority of us are already out. There is no “secret reserve” of gay conservatives waiting in the wings.

NDT, I know you are active in the community, and I appreciate it. I think grassroots work is important. But I’m talking about high profile people. It just seems that their response is that sexual orientation doesn’t matter. It shouldn’t, but it does right now. The more that you see people in high places that are gay, the more that people like the writer will think that the Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwells, Robert Byrds, etc., are just plain wrong on homosexuality. Right now, homosexuality is only accepted by the religious right (if at all), if they are quiet about it and don’t even dare try to equate their relationships with straight people.

I understand that the outspoken people for gay rights are the extremists. And believe it or not, many of us on the gay left/moderate are not happy. Most of my (gay) friends are to the left of me, and they don’t like the way we gays are portrayed and stereotyped as well. So we don’t know what the answer is either. We only agree on what isn’t the answer.

On another blog, somebody recently tried to tie the fact that these countries tend to have higher numbers of children in single-parent homes with the fact that they also permitted legal same-sex unions. What she seemed to have been trying to claim was that the latter WAS THE CAUSE OF the former.

The commenter was parroting an anti-same-sex marriage article by notorious anti-gay bigot Stanley Kurtz. Various versions of the article are available on-line, including at the Weakly Standard web site http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp and the National Review Online web site http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402050842.asp

The contentions in Kurtz’s article(s) regarding opposite-sex marriage in Scandinavia (which is what the person on the other blog was referring to) have been thoroughly debunked by Lee Badgett http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/

It would be well to recall that, in one of his early anti-gay-marriage diatribes published in NRO, Kurtz argued that gays should not be able to marry (each other) because straight boys might be discouraged from marrying because they don’t want to see openly gay men in leading roles in movies. I posted on that on the internet several years ago (while rolling on the floor, laughing, of course), and nobody could figure out what one had to do with the other. Kurtz’s anti-gay-marriage diatribes (he has had more than those two in NRO) is approximately at the level of intelligence of the anti-gay bigots.

Think of how the world would be different if everyone concentrated on making sure their behavior was ethical and beyond reproach, versus trying to make others conform.

“Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Friend, let me take out the speck in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye

I’m always confused by this bible quote.

It sounds like you can never judge anyone unless you are completely without sin. I don’t want to live in a world without judgments.

This agnostic gay guy wants a good explanation.

I also dislike the propaganda and I dislike the “in your face” attitude of some (ok, most, gay groups). However, I have known enough gay men and women to know that most did not choose to be gay. I cannot say the same for silly highschool and college kids who now think it is cool to be gay and who therefore wear the label for a while. I’m talking about genuinely gay people. I, too, wish there weren’t any gay people; I wish everyone were traditional and conformed to my biblical idea of the universe. But that is not reality. And I just don’t see the point in making people feel bad for what they are and for what they cannot help. I also don’t want to take a pitying attitude either. Why should they not be able to live completely fulfilling and meaningful lives, reaching their potential as human beings?

You don’t know me at all so you’ll just have to take my word for it: I was anti-PC long before it was cool to be so. I was anti-PC in highschool, so strong were my opinions and personal values. Whatever views I have expressed here, I come by honestly.

No amount of persecution or ridicule by straight people is going to change the fact that some people are gay. I guess I don’t know what you expect them to do about it, or what your goal is. What do you think will actually happen as a result of your expressing these ideas and feelings? I accept that homosexuality is a fact of human existence. Now the question is how best can heterosexuals and homosexuals live together in the world. I’m sure they’d like to experience no penalty for choosing to live a life true to themselves, and many of us conservative heterosexuals would just be content if homosexuals led dignified, quiet lives, which does not mean hiding their gayness but it does mean not calling attention to it all the time, often in obnoxious ways. Maybe we can all get to that place someday.

The reason I support legal union is because I’m a nurse who has stood at the bedside of a dying AIDS patient a few too many times and watched as a devoted partner of many years was forced into the corner by suddenly reappearing estranged parents who were hostile and hysterical. (Somehow, the parents always reappear at the last hour.) In our hospital at the time, doctors and nurses were sympathetic to gays and intervened to give the partner back some power and return him to his place at the bedside, but I’d prefer that they not have to rely on the kindness of strangers in such traumatic situations. (You can only imagine how this scenario might play out in other parts of the country.) Be a little human, that’s all.

On another blog, somebody recently tried to tie the fact that these countries tend to have higher numbers of children in single-parent homes with the fact that they also permitted legal same-sex unions. What she seemed to have been trying to claim was that the latter WAS THE CAUSE OF the former. As the overwhelming majority of children are the progeny of heterosexual unions, this is laughable on its face.

Does that mean that there is no connection between the two circumstances? Of course not. Permissive societies have some good points and some drawbacks. Again, kiddies, nobody ever promised us we’d live in a perfect world.

This does not mean that people in more morally-strict societies cannot begin applying the love and mercy found in the Bible (funny thing…the same Bible from which they get all the condemnations) toward those they perhaps don’t yet quite understand.

Is there a “gay gene?” I have no idea, and neither does anybody else commenting here. I do know that it being gay is involuntary, and this is also — as I have found — a matter of common sense, observable even to many people who don’t think they approve of homosexuality.

There are many good people in this world — some of them quite conservative and very religious. There are also quite a number of jerks. And jerk-dom IS a chosen trait.

RG, since you claim to know your Bible so well, perhaps you remember Luke 6:42:

“Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Friend, let me take out the speck in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.”

Jesus also told us we would be judged by the same standard we used to judge others. This is why we’re under grace, instead of under the Law, which would condemn us all — as NOBODY perfectly meets it requirements.

Tell us all how perfect you are, RG. Stand up and proclaim your super-righteousness! For a change, I’d like to see one…JUST ONE of those so anxious to condemn us expose their own lives to the sort of scrutiny to which they hold ours.

Living a virtuous life is a full-time job. If you’ve got enough time left over to spend following other people around and criticizing them, it can only mean one of two things. Either you’re the most sinless example of humanity since Christ Himself, or you are a hypocrite.

My church, which welcomes gays and lesbians as equals, often holds forums to discuss the issues of Biblical interpretation and homosexuality. We keep inviting people like RG to come and join our discussion, so they can add their own two cents and enlighten us. Funny thing, they never have the guts to show up.

Go read your Bible and get perfect, RG. Then come back and preach to the rest of us.

I know you don’t, Pat, and you know I don’t either.

But the organizations that claim to speak in our name as gays do.

NGLTF is overtly and openly anti-religious.

HRC is providing financial support to the ACLU to help defend NAMBLA.

All of the above are calling unlimited abortion “gay rights”.

It’s not a pretty picture. But it is reality.

If you mean someone like John Kerry, who opposed gay marriage, it seems his view is in line with people like the one who wrote the letter to GP. As much as I want candidates who support gay marriage, most of America is not ready for it. And although I once was comfortable calling John Kerry a homophobe, I am not comfortable calling people like John Kerry, or the one who wrote this letter homophobes any more.

There is a substantial difference between the two, Pat.

The person who wrote the letter was wholly honest about their feelings towards gays and gay marriage. Furthermore, said person was not misrepresenting their views for the purpose of raising cash, securing votes, and advancing their own career; nor did their actions result in tens of millions of gay dollars being spent to promote antigay and homophobic views.

John Kerry did the opposite.

Holding views of this sort and expressing them is not inherently homophobic. You know full well how I feel on the matter. But holding views of this sort and misrepresenting them for the purpose of embezzling millions of dollars that could have done far more useful things is not only homophobic, it’s disgusting and repulsive.

That’s the difference.

Right now, it seems like it’s only the gay left that are outspoken about gay rights.

That is because, as I’ve previously posted only the “gay left” is allowed to be gay. The rest of us are to be hounded out of existence by paid Democratic operatives.

The key here is for may conservatives to come out and support gay rights, or at the very least make themselves known.

Here’s the problem, Pat. The vast majority of us are already out. There is no “secret reserve” of gay conservatives waiting in the wings.

But most of us don’t give a damn anymore.

Why should we save the asses of hatemongers like Mike Rogers, Queer Patriot/Pussy Patriot, and others, who do nothing but demean us, threaten us, and try to harass us and our friends to the point of trying to get us fired and pushed out of the blogosphere?

Why should we help suckwhores like Elizabeth Birch, Joe Solmonese, and others, who profit off keeping gays as victims, demonizing the Republican Party, and giving millions of dollars and endorsements to lying homophobic politicians and FMA supporters?

Why should we protect paid shills who sacrifice our rights and our history because doing so pleases unpopular unions?

The truly frustrating part of being a gay conservative is seeing things that we know are counterproductive being done and not being able to stop them. But I and others have reached the point where we realize that the gay community is beyond the point of rationality on these matters; like an alcoholic, it will have to go to prison or have a massive car crash with loss of life before it changes its tune.

In the meantime, we do what we can. But I and others are not about to lend our credibility to a movement built on hate, lies, and lobbying money. You can either purge the idiots, or go down with them in the name of “unity”.

From all that can be determined from the abstract of the paper you cited, the survey was based on nothing more than self-reporting. It is fairly well known that self-reporting is highly unreliable.