Gay Parties
Coming out of the electoral closet.
By Adam Jack Gomolin, UC-Berkeley and Alex Halpern Levy, Wesleyan University
Friday July 21, 2006
Gay marriage is not misunderstood, but rather misperceived. The basic concept—two members of the same sex getting hitched—is, if not innocuous, at least simple to understand. The common belief, however, that gay marriage is an issue of primarily near-term electoral importance, is incorrect. Since before President Clinton signed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law, social conservatives have sought to ban gay marriage; set against them, gay-rights groups have petitioned for legal parity. For the former, outlawing gay marriage represents a crucial victory in the ongoing battle against a decadent and morally bankrupt America. For the latter, securing gay marriage represents a long-sought certificate of admission into mainstream American society. This political tug-of-war draws great attention, while overshadowing the undeniable: today’s young American voters are far more gay-friendly than their boomer parents. Gay marriage and related gay rights issues will not be resoundingly decided in the short-term, but rather in the ascendance of today’s gay-friendly young heterosexuals to electoral dominance. With them, America’s two parties may be profoundly reshaped.
As with previous generations, young Americans today are more progressive than their parents and grandparents. During the 1950s and 1960s, this progressivism manifested itself in the civil rights movement; during the 1960s and 1970s, it continued in the women’s rights movement. Today, youthful progressivism is (partly) displayed in the gay rights movement and rising support for gay America. A decade ago, 27 percent of Americans thought that gay marriage should be legal. Today, this number is 39 percent. Far more important, however, is the manner in which this number breaks down across age groups. Senior citizens are 4 to 1 in opposition to gay marriage. Voters age 35-55 are 2 to 1 in opposition to gay marriage. But what of today’s young voters? Voters aged 18-30 are roughly 1 to 1: they are evenly divided on gay marriage. This seems to suggest an arithmetically pre-determined electoral outcome: will today’s third graders be 2 to 1 in favor of gay marriage? They vote in 2016.
Democratic Party leadership takes gay America for granted. With the exception of Russ Feingold (D-WI), no national political figure speaks in unabashedly pro-gay terms. This is understandable, for as long as the Republican Party caters to social conservatives (rather than libertarians) the Democratic Party is the only progressive show in town. In this respect, there are two possible avenues ahead for the Democrats. First, the Democratic National Committee leadership could place gay rights at the forefront of its national agenda. But re defining right and wrong for every citizen and state legislature risks a conservative counter-attack. Second, and more likely, the Democratic Party could continue with political business as usual, enjoying the votes (and financial support) of gay Americans while only half-heartedly representing their interests. In this, Democrats guardedly retain the votes of more socially conservative blue collar workers. This is the play-it-safe option: after all, why would Democrats risk a backlash when they could wait 20 years and let demographic shifts solve their gay rights predicament?
The GOP is anti-gay. Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman based the 2004 campaign on “mobilizing millions of culturally conservative voters upset about gay marriage (…) and other threats to traditional values.” On the Senate floor last week, Orrin Hatch (R-UT) asserted that gay marriage “might not be a major issue for those who live inside the beltway, but for good, decent, clean Americans across the country this is a crucial issue.” Can Mehlman’s strategy or Hatch’s attitude resonate in a future electorate evenly divided on gay marriage? The Republican Party has two options. First, if it continues with its present policies, it will watch its base crumble as elderly social conservatives are slowly replaced in the electorate by young social progressives. Second, a bold (and perhaps unlikely) move: the Republican Party can return to its small government roots. It can take gay marriage off the national agenda and allow individual states to legislate as they see fit. It can decide that the role of the government is not to tell people how to live their lives, and that the government that governs best dictates least. In this, the GOP must balance the base it has with the base it stands to gain.
Each generation finds gay marriage more palatable than the previous one. Equally importantly, research consistently indicates that social progressivism developed in youth remains constant over a lifetime: support for gay marriage is here to stay. Seventy percent of young Americans believe that gay marriage is a legislative “inevitability” in their lifetime. But ensconced on the pages of www.independentgayforum.com, which is dedicated to “forging a gay mainstream,” one finds that many gays are not seeking a watershed Supreme Court decision on marriage. The “gay mainstream” does not want a “gay Roe.” Indeed, such a decision could bequeath social conservatives the electoral windfall that many argue the actual Roe yields in the abortion debate. It would allow Republicans to pander to an ultra-conservative minority while retaining the votes of centrists who believe gay marriage will be sufficiently protected by the judiciary.
While some (particularly the young) are content to quietly push and patiently wait for this “inevitability,” many wish to see gay marriage fully devolve to state control. Yet others believe that government should get out of the marriage business altogether. In the meantime, Americans should remember that there is no law that cannot be overturned. Ultimately, gay marriage may well break the backs of our current coalitions. Those who yearn for an unabashedly progressive and pro-gay Democratic party may well get their wish. Those who desire to see the Republican Party return to its libertarian roots may too get their wish, because many Americans prefer a small government that declines to interfere to a big government that dictates right and wrong. The fight for gay rights may well transform our parties into what many of us deeply wish they were. In the meantime, to paraphrase a contemporary poet, we go to the polls with the parties we have, not the parties we wish we had.
Adam Jack Gomolin is co-director of BeyondPartisan.org and a graduate student at The Goldman School of Public Policy, The University of California at Berkeley. He can be reached at gomolin@beyondpartisan.org.
Alex Halpern Levy is a Campus Progress intern and an undergraduate at Wesleyan University. He will attend the London School of Economics in the Fall.
--------
Comments
|
!
Congratulations on this piece Alex and Adam—it’s fantastic!
I completely agree with you that the most sustainable way to change policy long-term is through the legislature but what about the mean time? Maybe the courts are the temperary solution. It’s an imperfect metaphor but before the country was ready to elect representatives to forward the Civil Rights agenda in the 1950s, the courts stepped in to grant African Americans some of the rights to which they were entitled. Maybe that should be the model here. You bring up the polarization Roe causes to dismiss the courts as a means of change. The problem with Roe is that there was never the demographic change to cause the widespread support for choice and allow the elected branches to follow up on the work of the courts.
Maybe I’m being naive but I hate to think that there is nothing we can do to speed up acquisition of equal rights for all Americans.
— Julie - Jul 21, 11:55 AM - #Why did you exclude the Libertarian Party?
— Mike - Jul 21, 12:10 PM - #Because “we go to the polls with the parties we have, not the parties we wish we had.”
— Read the article - Jul 21, 02:16 PM - #Alex—
I second Julie; this is a great piece and seems like it was definitely worth the copious amounts of time you took to write it (along with your esteemed co-author, of course).
I do, however, have a little quibble with the evidence you use to support your argument.
You cite the fact that young people generally don’t have as big an issue with gay marriage as older people do, but isn’t it a well-accepted fact that young people tend to grow more conservative as they age? (it’s a lot easier to defend high tax rates when your annual income would make even a free range chicken blush). Yes, young people fought for civil rights. But that same generation also went on to vote for Reagan in massive numbers.
Secondly, in the past 40 years, the number of people calling themselves “liberals” has fallen—not dramatically, but regardless, we live in a conservative time (at least, certainly more than it used to be during the 60s). So, even if young people are more in favor of gay marriage, it doesn’t necessarily matter. The number of evangelicals in America has increased only slightly since 1987 (from 19% to 22% of the population), but what’s made them more successful is their increased political cohesiveness. They are more likely to be Republican than they were 20 years ago, and with unity comes strength.
My point is that there is no such thing as a “arithmetically pre-determined electoral outcome.” If a majority of people do accept gay marriage, it won’t dictate their vote. For example, I may disagree with Bob Casey’s pro-life stance, but I will vote for him just because getting rid of Santorum is my #1 priority.
Your civil rights and women’s rights examples are illustrative: A majority of Americans are for a strong civil rights platform, but when it comes to school busing or affirmative action , they turn the other way. A majority of Americans may be for women’s rights, but the Equal Rights Amendment couldn’t pass and other important statutes have been weakened significantly over the years.
Twenty years down the road, a majority of Americans might be OK with gay marriage, or just civil unions for everybody (gay and straight people), but whatever the case, we’re going to have to fight to get what we want.
On a final note, I need to buy new shoes. I hate the ones I’ve got on.
— Rohan - Jul 21, 03:06 PM - #Umm, the Libertarian Party IS a party. Hello?
— Mike - Jul 21, 04:30 PM - #“As with previous generations, young Americans today are more progressive than their parents and grandparents.”
Well, I guess it all depends on your definition of the word “progressive.” If MySpace users’ political self-identifications are any indication, this generation isn’t more progressive than their parents, but rather more libertarian—even more socially liberal, but far more skeptical of government to solve social problems through fiscal liberalism. If anything, this demonstrates that the “parties we have” have no hope of capturing the youth vote, since both are “spending like drunken sailors,” and both are pandering to social conservatives. I don’t see why anyone under 30 votes D or R at all. Even if you disagree with Libertarians wanting to shrink the government, the Greens are a much better fit for young socialists than either major party. Is it all just scare tactics about “throwing away your vote” that makes young people avoid third parties? Why can’t the same kids who see right through and laugh at ONDCP ads about “this is your brain on drugs” do the same when politicians talk about “wasting your vote?”
— Rob - Jul 21, 10:04 PM - #Alex and Adam,
Well thought out and well put together. However, my friend three comments to the north of me is correct. Speaking as a young conservative I am not against gay marriage. But my number one issues are being represented by the GOP (affirmative action, fiscal policies, pro-Israel policies). I do however believe that even the liberals who grow conservative with age in this era will be more open minded to gay marriage being legalized.
The best thing I can hope for (for both our sakes) is a minimalized government who minds its own business, and leaves states’ rights to the states. A Henry Clay sort of gov’t. Unfortunately, the Democrats aren’t into small governent either. In the mean time, I hear Provincetown is lovely this time of year.
— David - Jul 22, 06:01 PM - #Very good article. I think you both made great points.
— Corey Ponder - Jul 22, 08:31 PM - #ALEX it was awesome to read this – you’re doing Wes proud.
I think that (this is to both of you) some of my fellow posters have had interesting points. And I just wanted to add that oftentimes, US politics are not necessarily representative of the people’s views, so even if your arithmetic works out and eventually the majority of voters support gay marriage, that doesn’t mean that a) politicians will be ready to come out in support of it or b) that politicians will be elected who support it. Will gay marriage ever be a number one issue in the POSITIVE? Right now it is used as a rallying point among conservatives and I suspect it will continue to be so, regardless of the majority.
Women’s rights, specifically the right to an abortion, is a case like that. According to many polls, the majority of Americans believe that women should have the right to an abortion. Now, it is slightly different because at this point we women already DO have that right whereas right now gay couples do not, but the majority of our politicians are not supportive of that choice, and our president has taken many anti-Roe measures, like his Supreme Court and other judicial appointments and funding choices for health services worldwide.
Anyway, just a thought. But your article was interesting and very thought provoking! Great job
— Elana Baurer - Jul 23, 10:16 AM - #Ryan,
I will just take umbrage with one part of your discussion. I have read and seen your talking points on other sites and see your discussion of human nature as the interesting crux of your argument and I encourage you to defend your philosophical stance if you can.
You claim that in creating an arbitrary human nature there are no natural rights and hence no morality, but the problem with your step here, and a problem that has been unearthed long ago by critics of Idealists such as Kant, is that Natural Rights are philosophical leaps of faith, which carry no epistemological foundation and only a weak metaphysical tract. If anything, we could call your view in terms of mainstream philosophy to be outdated, or at worst contemporaneously negligent; it is great to hear you expound the words of Socrates and pseudo-statesmen like Churchill, but without their opposites (JS Mill, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard) it is a one-thought show.
If there was ever a philosophical stance that is difficult to prove it is the belief that there are natural rights and natural laws that can be deduced from the world a priori. Even if you firmly believed in a rational morality in the form of Kant’s categorical imperative you would be hard pressed to prove most of the things we would agree to be morally reprehensible will pass the rational test.
Instead, we are left almost assuredly where we usually tend to end with philosophy: the existence of God and meaning, and the position of such in our understanding of who we are. There is an unquestionable leap of faith that you are taking in your condemnation of homosexuality as a hoax: so far as you admit yours, I’ll admit mine.
Regards,
— Keith Hernandez - Jul 25, 12:16 AM - #Keith
For what it’s worth; this is false (at least the claim that lesbians have higher rates of HIV infection than straight women is false, the data on this question is overwhelming) –
Oblivious to the fact that women who have consciously or unconsciously fallen into lesbianism are more likely to have sex with supposed “homosexual men” and therefore 4 to 5 times more likely to contract HIV-AIDS than are heterosexual women.
By the way Ryan, you’re a douchebag. And if not, you’re a cynic, which is even worse.
— Re - statistics - Jul 25, 06:07 AM - #“women who have consciously or unconsciously fallen into lesbianism are more likely to have sex with supposed “homosexual men” and therefore 4 to 5 times more likely to contract HIV-AIDS”
These anti-gay trolls must not actually know any gay people. This homo has hung around other homos for years and has never met a gay man with even a fleeting interest in sleeping with a lesbian, nor met a lesbian with even a fleeting interest in sleeping with a gay man.
I think most of Ryan’s posts of condemnation are really just condemnations of his own dark, internal lusts which he externalizes onto gay men and women—some of the stuff is just too freaky to be anything else other than bizarre inventions of some dark corner of the psyche.
— Brian R. Miller - Jul 25, 08:19 AM - #Oops. Someone correctly pointed out to me that MySpace doesn’t list political affiliation. It was Facebook that I meant to say shows that this generation is much more Libertarian than their parents.
— Rob - Jul 26, 01:01 PM - #Keith,
In your view, “Natural Rights are philosophical leaps of faith, which carry no epistemological foundation and only a weak metaphysical tract.”
How then, can you stand for “gay rights,” if you have nothing but a “weak metaphysical tract” compelling you?
You, like so many of your antiquated-backwater twentieth-century ‘post-modern’ peers have once again proven my point.
You state that there is no knowable Truth one minute, but the next you write with a passion that can only derive from a real belief in that what you are saying is really True.
Does anyone else notice the contradiction there; between what Keith writes and the way he writes it. His world disclosive semantic is all lit with eternal rays.
I mean, how can you even call yourself a progressive if there is nothing True to progress toward, it sounds to me like Orwellian double-speak. In reality, without Truth, supposed ‘progressives’ are moving toward nothing, and therefore not progressing. They are merely moving this way or that for purposes of which they know nothing.
Your “weak metaphysical tract” indicates that know nothing for certain. How then can you ever connect thinking with doing? What, with some kind of existential ‘courage.’ Do you think you are the existential anthropomorphic superman?
I think you are merely in denial about Truth. You do believe in Truth Keith, you just won’t admit it.
Remember, “if there is no Truth, then there are no True foundations for any human rights,” including supposed ‘gay’ rights.
Your feet are firmly planted in mid-air.
And yes Keith, post-modern narratives are so last century.
P.S. -Again, if there is no human nature then there are no foundations for natural human rights!
-Human Nature becomes whatever the engineers condition it to be.
-Down this road lies the end of everything we call humanity and the beginning of everything we exploitation and abuse! The rebellion of human rights against human nature is the rebellion of the branches against the tree. If the rebels ever succeed they will find that they destroyed the basis for their own existence.
We must not hold a pistol to the head of humanity! Humanity must be preserved!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4207851797866730699
— Ryan Sorba - Jul 28, 11:07 PM - #Ryan,
Quite quick: I know there is contradiction in what I said, I never said there was not. The point being that you cannot prove absolutely that there is Natural Law, which does not mean we should not be moral, nor that morality is non-exclusive to the statement I purported. Consider Rawlsian Social Contract theory or Utilitarianism as moral frameworks. Across the board people that I have cited (particularly Kierkegaard who was a strong christian existentialist) believe in moralty and believe in the importance of cultural values.
But in turn, you have proven nothing. You yell out: “Humanity must be preserved!” And it sounds good, but what does that mean? Philosophically nothing. I appreciate the zest of your passion, but admit the untenability of your philosophy. Why go as far as to support your anti-gay statements with nothing?
I readily concede the only thing behind my pro-gay statements is a belief in liberty, equality and opportunity. I believe this political philosophy has done well for our country, don’t you?
— Keith Hernandez - Jul 29, 09:22 PM - #Keith,
You state:
“You cannot prove absolutely that there is Natural Law”
You further state:
“You have proven nothing. You yell out: ‘Humanity must be preserved!’ And it sounds good, but what does that mean?”
Proof and meaning seem to be central themes in the comment you posted, so, I will address them, however, I am just taking a break from moving boxes onto the U-HAUL and having pizza and a coke, so this will have to be quick.
First,
Natural Law/ Traditional Morality/ The Rta/ The Tao/ The Way/ The Road/ Satya/ Universal Truth/ Absolutes/ A Correspondence to Reality/ “The way in which every man should tread in imitation”/ being in harmony with nature/ Enlightenment/ or, in other words, “The Doctrine of Objective Value” –this is the subject of your inquiry.
It is “true” that the above concepts cannot be proven by way of reason. But why?
Because they are the very premises of reason, not the conclusions of it, -the are prior to, not a result of, and thus, they will never be found in any “conclusion” derived from reason.
On a side note, something can only be reasonable if it is in line with truth.
On another side note, as a premise, natural law is self-evident, and, if nothing is self-evident then nothing can be proven, and we might as well give up all attempts to argue. For the very act of argument itself implies that there is truth and that it can be known, if there were no truth then there would be no reason to ever argue, or, in the final analysis, to ever think about morality again.
But we have not yet come to that.
It must also be noted that even that which is self-evident can still be missed. In fact, the obvious is usually the thing we miss the most!
What is the one thing that a thief will never find?
Give up?
The police, because he is not looking for the police, and too many today are not looking for the obvious truth about reality. Because we have been taught that truth is relative to personal reality, but that is a self-contradiction.
Further, unbelief, will, in fact, blind someone to the truth, to reality. Yes, sometimes you have to believe something before you can see it. You must also be aware of what you are looking for; if you have never seen Bob, how could you ever recognize him if he came.
When I got my new car, I began at once to notice that particular model everywhere, in the same way, once I recognized reality, I noticed it everywhere.
Seeing morality is, in fact, to see reality, to escape from the virtual or the “matrix,” from deception, to be enlightened.
But from your present vantage point, inside the virtual, the matrix, the chaos, the deception, the relativistic, the limitation, the windowless room, from inside the glass, from the darkness the starting point of morality and ethics is invisible. I think it was Plato who said that morality would be invisible to the boy who has not been conditioned with those proper sentiments that are in accordance with the one true reality—that which was, is, and always will be.
Getting back to the topic, being “just”, is feeling about an object, that which it merits, and morality is acting with justice.
You can have any opinion or feeling you want about 2+2=5, but no opinion that 2 +2=5 will ever change the truth, that 2+2=4. Those who believe that 2+2=5 are really wrong, and they do not understand reality. They live in the dark.
So, there are two kinds of things, virtual reality, and true reality. Those who live in oblivious darkness and those who live in the light of reality.
If you wish to live in accordance with the one true reality, with what you are, then you must first take your eyes off of propaganda and look directly for, and therefore eventually at, reality.
And when I first learned what “being moral” meant and the purpose for morality, living in inner piece with nature, and “escaping from the matrix” and living in proper accordance with and seeing reality for what it really is, I began to hear it talked about everywhere, and I could not believe that I had ever missed it. Maybe someday you will see the self-evident universal law which governs the universe.
For even the stars are strong by virtue. Just think, what if the stars became conscious and decided that they no longer wanted to live in inner piece with the true nature of their reality, imagine if they decided to ignore the reality of what they are, and darkened their eyes to truth, imagine if they decided that the virtual, the matrix, was better than the real, what if they decided to be “immoral” and rebelled against reality. Imagine if two-thirds of the stars decided to reject truth and fall from their posts in the sky, can you imagine the chaos that would ensue in the Universe.
Or, imagine seven ships sailing in formation, now imagine that the crew of the first ship has decided to rebel against the real world and live in delusion, imagine that this crew also comes to believe that what they do behind the doors aboard their own ship will not effect the people on the other ships, now imagine that this crew has become sloth, and stopped taking proper care of their ship. Soon something goes wrong with the mechanics of the rudder. Now, the ship is barreling out of control into the other ships.
Back to our original discussion, about homosexuality, because of the transcendent, over arching reality, and the way of reality, which we call morality or natural law, homosexual acts can never be in line with the truth about reality, with natural law, and thus they can never be moral, only self-deception could lead a person to that conclusion.
A homosexual may believe themselves to be a god, and that there actions are therefore “Beyond Good and Evil” but then they might as well believe that 2+2=5, they might as well live a lie. Don’t live a lie Keith, acknowledge reality, and be in piece with knowing that sight is better than blindness.
— Ryan Sorba - Aug 14, 05:06 PM - #Ryan,
truth, with a lower-case t, most certainly exists. It is the basis of our society, but civilization and homosexuality are not incongruous. Good society exists when people act fairly and just with each other while respecting, what in modern days we consider most important, the ability of an individual to express themselves as they please so long as they do not harm or weaken the liberties of others.
Universal Truth, cannot be known for sure. It requires a degree of objectivity that humans, due to our personal interests, are ¡ncapable of asserting. If you did not expose your animus toward homosexuality perhaps your argument could be viable universally, but your argument is forever tied to the subjectivity of your circumstance, and therefore the incompleteness of your thought process.
You speak with great bravado, but as I said before – show all your cards. Admit your bias, as I have mine. You continue to trek on this illogical path of proving something definitively universal because you feel this inner need to, not because it exists.
Consider the question: What is the purpose of life? Does it have a universal meaning? Yes, of course. What it is in reality, is subject to speculation, and even our speculation is subject to scrutiny. If we say life is about playing our specific role in the world we oversimplify individual emotions. If we say life is about finding ourselves, then we neglect society. And in this ambiguity there is not chaos, but a ready understanding of the tensions that exist between the individual needs and societal obligations. And thus are decisions are made on these planes. But in no way is personal expression that does not harm the liberties of others (i.e. the love a man holds for another man) tip the tension in a bad direction. Homosexuals are active and happy members of society who raise children, make goods, innovate styles, affect change and live in our world. Criminalizing homosexuality because you feel an inner-need to do so, is intellectually reckless. How are you at ‘piece’, to quote your misspelling, with yourself?
Now, please feel free to email me at your will. Go to www.columbia.edu where you can find my email contact information.
I don’t think I will be checking this site any longer.
— Keith Hernandez - Aug 15, 02:29 PM - #Keith,
I can address your notion of a lower case t (for truth) later.
Right now, I want to point something out.
You state:
“Homosexuals are active and happy members of society who———raise children———, make goods, innovate styles, affect change and live in our world.”
In this post I will argue that homosexuality is culturally transmitted and that it is inherently dangerous, and that thus, we should not normalize the behavior, or allow those who practice to raise children.
Quickly, same-gender sexual conduct is inherently dangerous. Sperm is an immuno-suppressant, so when sperm is deposited into the vagina, an immuno-suppressant environment is created. This environment, in which the immune system is suppressed, allows sperm to enter into the woman’s body without being attacked by her immune system.
When sperm is deposited into the rectum (a place where the skin is thin and easily torn) the sperm will likewise suppress the immune system in the rectum. Sperm, therefore, support, and encourage the spread of disease in the rectum. It is as if for an instance while the sperm suppress the immune system the diseases are given a free V.I.P. pass into the body.
Furthermore, condemns don’t change the fact that the skin in the rectum is thin and easily torn. When open soars come into contact with fecal matter the result is nothing less than a parade of infections and/or diseases. The pervasive nature inherent in the act of anal intercourse causes the cracking and fissuring of tissues. The cracked skin becomes an open soar then comes into contact with fecal matter, ulcers, boils, abscesses and other infections can then occur in the skin of the surrounding tissue.
Some of the trauma induced problems caused by anal sex include, hemorrhoids, anal fissure, objects lodged in the rectum, recto sigmoid tears, allergic proctitus, penile edema, chemical sinusitis and inhaled nitrate burns. These pestilences not only drastically reduce the lifespan of the average homosexual by 20 years (International Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 27 pg. 657-659) but they sharply erode their quality of life as well. In a book entitled “Gay Sex, author Troy Perry explains how one frequent homosexual practice called fisting can actually cause death, “the big danger lies in the possibility that your rectal wall will be torn. In the event of a tear you must get prompt medical attention. Without it fecal matter will leak into the rest of your body, resulting in peritonitis and painful death.” (Leather folk, ed. By Mark Thompson; Boston: Alyson, 1991, pg 249) The fact that the skin in the rectum is so fragile coupled with the fact that sperm seriously suppress the immune system clearly supports the conclusion that anal sex, condemn or not, with a male or female, is always going to be a dangerously efficient way of transmitting any sexually transmitted infection, parasite, and, or disease.Given the fact that homosexuality is not innate, nor is it fixed. Wait……do you want evidence for this….if so, here ya go:
History is littered with cultures that have socialized generations into homosexuality and pederasty for that matter (homosexual sex with children).
Cultures in which the practice of homosexuality and pederasty became normal and widespread include the ancient Greek culture, the ancient Roman culture -fourteen of the first fifteen Roman emperors engaged in homosexual behavior, Tuscany and Northern Italian culture (during the Renaissance), Aztec culture (prior to the Spanish conquest of Mexico), pre-modern Japan (from the medieval period until the end of the 19th century-before the Meiji Restoration) and there are more, many more. Egypt, Persia, Carthage, Babylon, and Assyria were all steeped in pederastic tradition. And the ancient empires of the Mongols, Tartars, Huns, Teutons, Celts, Incas, Aztecs, Mayans, Nubians, Mings, Canaanites, Samarians, and Zulus likewise celebrated homosexuality. Homosexual behavior was endemic amongst the ancient followers of Baal. In Tahiti there were special divinities for homosexual worship. Obviously, the belief in a “gay gene” or other biological explanation for homosexual desires reveals a deep ignorance of history.The homosexual political activist Lillian Faderman makes this point well, when she writes:
“Maybe the scientific eye that is stuck to the microscope just cannot be expected to scrutinize history or anthropology or cultural theory. Do the ‘gay gene’ scientists know how common lesbian relationships are among the co-wives of the polygamous Zande tribe of central Africa? Do they know that the Australian Aboriginal female was expected to form a relationship with her female cross cousin, whose family would then give her their son to marry? Do they know that among Tahitian women mutual mouth-genital contact and mutual masturbation is common and does not preclude their engaging in heterosexual behavior?” (Lillian Faderman; The Advocate- February 6th 1996. Pg 72) These are but a few examples of cultures which have encouraged homosexuality and pederasty, and as a result homosexuality and pederasty became widespread. The testimony of history is clear, and its messages have been recognized by research. According to the American Sociological Review, a startling 64% of young adults, males and females, raised by lesbian mothers have considered entering into homosexual relationships either in the past, now or in the future. In sharp contrast, only 17 percent of young adults who grew up in heterosexual family environments reported considering the same thing. The authors of this study conclude that there is a moderate degree of parent to child transmission of sexual orientation. So, why am I telling you this? Because homosexualists have begun a campaign here in America to recruit the young, and, it will work, it is only a matter of when. In fact, an article entitled “Recruit, recruit, recruit!” by the homosexualist propagandist Donna Minkowitz which appeared in a homosexualist magazine called the “Advocate” proves that they are aware of this, the article states that “If children are presented with a positive gay curriculum in schools some of these children will be able to choose to be gay.”And what is wrong with recruiting future generations into homosexuality?
It is an inherently dangerous behavior!
And, it is impossible not to infringe upon the life-world of others, so when we do, we should make a clear and Truthful statement to the youth, that statistically, homosexual behavior will take roughly double the number of years off the human lifespan than smoking will. This correct, clear, and truthful, and, therefore moral statement, cannot be made by normalizing homosexual behavior through the social approval that marriage was designed to produce, or so-called “gay” rights
For the above-mentioned reasons we should not normalize homosexuality. To do so would be to exercise negative, yet nonetheless influential, power over later generations, and it is not ethical to lead the children blindly into an early grave, we must at least warn them.
And my email is portlock14@yahoo.com if you have any other rebuttals.
— Ryan Sorba - Aug 16, 06:15 AM - #Ok cool post. So what if we don’t do butt sex but do other stuff instead? Is that ok? I’ll get on the phone to the gay community right now.
— Michaal Vose - Jun 14, 09:13 PM - #