RPT Question

RPT’s Position On Gay Men and Women

Published by Papa Giorgio

(I am changing some of my “Pages” to “Posts,” so some of this info is older to my site)

I respond to an honest question about why I (RPT) support gay blogs.

This post was a response to a person asking why I post stuff by gays (like, GAY PATRIOT)? (FYI, Gay Patriot is now “defunct” — while Bruce is keeping the site up, and the links should still be good… note: that are no longer posting new posts) Saying that homosexual acts are deviant acts, therefore, intimating that my posting or supporting of such conservatarian gays would thus be myself supporting deviant acts. (A Rough quote of the question posed to me at my “Hit Pause on SSM” FaceBook Group: https://www.facebook.com/Pausessm)

A fair question by a fellow believer. And an important one, as, it leads to some issues conservative Christians shy away from. So I will respond in some depth here. To wit, one should note as well that I post videos by atheists like PAT CONDELL, who hates all religions (Christianity as well).

  • “Atheism is a disease of the soul before it is an error of the mind.” ~ Plato

That being said, Pat has great insights put in well-pieced together “rants” against Islamo-Fascism that I think expand the importance in understanding and confronting this stark reality. In other words, Pat’s voice is needed! Not only that, but I would have a few beers with the guy to get to know him personally.

I use Reagan’s 80% Rule:

  • “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.”

Similarly, I do not think or believe Larry Elder is a Christian, and so, in his relations with women I would assume he may participate in “devient” acts. By posting audio of his show and believing him to be unsaved… am I participating in these acts? By posting Dennis Prager’s insights on culture am I also supporting his multiple divorces or his views on Noah’s flood being allegorical?

The answer to these rhetorical question is “of course not.”

Mind you, I am all for good -solid- sermon that calls the guilty sinner [ALL sinners] to repent before their angry Judge. I am thinking here of Jonathan Edwards sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” Those types of sermons are always… will always… be needed.

I wish to quote my BIO:

I have mentioned for the audience of my old blog, but will again mention it here for any new readers: this is not meant to be an explicitly Christian blog. While I hold to and vehemently defend a particular worldview, I do not intend this site to be “rosy cheeked” — “pure as the driven snow” depot for faith. This site is meant for men and women who are confident enough in themselves, their faith, and their culture to know that the “holier-than-thou” lifestyle is best adhered to by those other than ourselves. So expect language and raw thoughts at times, in a respectful or satirical manner. In other words… CAUTION…

Religio-Poltical Apologetics ahead!

When GAY PATRIOT (GP) makes points that progress understanding of the American experiment [the Constitution and our Republic], I support their work. Especially in such a liberal sub-culture/environment that they find themselves in… they need all the support they can get.

I also know and have met some of these guys/gals that post on GP’s TWITTER or BLOG (or use to in times past. Some have stopped posting, others are newer to the blog. For instance, I have not met VtheK in personperson, but would have some beers with him). Dinner was somewhat a regular [monthly] event. At least the ” West-Coast faction” of GP.

  • Dinner was based on two restaurants that supported Mitt Romney for President (The Outback and Sizzler), and was always on a Monday b-e-c-a-u-s-e the Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution saying that in order to help save the planet from anthropogenic global warming people should not eat meat on Mondays. Obviously then the meal included meat.

Bruce, GP’s founder, even came out once to see this “Motley Crew.”

One gentleman that is part of this “Motley Crew” works at THE ANSWER and knows Prager. So when you hear Prager mention gay family members, co-workers, and friends he knows… one of those guys are in the mix.

What many do not realize is that the Constitution allows for the States to define — legally — what “marriage” can be defined as. In other words, what isn’t expressly enumerated in the Constitution as what the Federal Government can-and-cannot do are left for the states to decide.

And every time the states have decided they have decided on the issue, they have voted for heterosexual marriage. Gay Patriot notes and loves this understanding of the Constitution. As do I.

Some gay men-and-women as well support the idea that heterosexual marriage has a benefit for society that gay-marriage does not ~ intrinsically. But this is true of all liberalism… not “gayness.” For instance I love this truth mentioned by GP (VtheK) ~ I will highlight the most important portion:

“Don’t be ridiculous,” they said. “No way does same sex marriage lead to legalized polygamy. The slippery slope argument is a complete fallacy, because enactment of one liberal social policy has never, ever led to the subsequent enactment of the logical extension of that liberal social policy. Ever!”

Well, they may have been wrong about the coefficient of friction on that particular incline. Commenter Richard Bell notes the following: Judge Cites Same-Sex Marriage in Declaring Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional.

[….]

Since marriage is no longer about creating a stable environment for children, and has become (and this mainly the fault of heterosexual liberals) about personal fulfillment, validation, and access to social benefits, there literally is no constraint on how much more broadly it can be redefined.

You see? Liberalism infects all aspects of life… political, religious, or common sense aspects of our lives. These men and women deserve the best in grace and love from us. GALATIANS 6:9-10 reads:

So we must not get tired of doing good, for we will reap at the proper time if we don’t give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, we must work for the good of all, especially for those who belong to the household of faith.

These two verses speak explicitly to “Christians” as they are the ones of the household of faith: “especially for those who belong to the household of faith.” Applying this general Biblical principle to the political realm… we end up back at what Reagan was getting at. Conservatives want to help all people [never tire doing “good”], and we think that conservative principles do this best in contradistinction to what liberalism offers people.

In this political realm we especially work with those of the same political “faith” (i.e., conservatives) ~ Gay or Straight!

Here is an example from a lesbian’s blog I visit here-and-there, called, “GAY, CONSERVATIVE, AND PROUD” — this comes from the “about me” section to the right:

Things I care about: School choice and reform, free markets, Ronald Reagan, Ann Coulter, small government, conservative ideals, and snarky comebacks.

Before you ask, I’m probably supporting either Marco Rubio and Scott Walker in the 2016 primaries….

Right On! That “right-on” aside, I disagree with her viewpoint on marriage: “I truly think that marriage needs to be abolished from government and civil unions should take that place of them. Gay, straight, polygamous, etc….” This is a legitimate view, and shows the more libertarian viewpoint on it. But Christians need to be prepared to talk about why, polygamy [for instance], is bad for society as a whole as well as the individuals involved.

One last thought as well. Often times Christians get too use to applying Romans chapter one to “others.” When in fact it is a Declaration [of-sort] of all humanity, which includes us as well. We know this laundry list of pride and putting things before our God. As well as our proclivity to rebel against God.

Above Audio Description

In the second part of a lecture given at the Utah Mormon Tabernacle (the first Evangelical to do so since D. L. Moody), Ravi Zacharias explains well the fallen nature of man.

And God doesn’t just give over gays alone to their worshiping of the creature rather than the… He gives over ALL sinners who are not called because of their rebellion and only calls the elect because of their heeding the Holy Spirit. ALL those who practice rebellious acts of selfish-will against Him who are not forgiven and covered in the Lambs righteousness.

I know how easy it is for one to rebel with selfidh-pride and one’s own will… and how easy it is to delude oneself into thinking your choices are the right ones (speaking as a three-time convicted felon).

  • “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool” ~ Richard P. Feynman (atheist).

Self-delusion is the easiest and quickest action the sinner makes… and the serpent in Eden knew this proclivity well. And to be salt-and-light as well as everything to everybody.

I am aware that many of these “gay-patriots” know my position on homosexual acts. I also know that typically those I consider compatriots in the body-politic are adults and take these views with how I mean them, with care and concern for them as individuals.

My hope is that like them influencing me in small ways on liberty and our nations founding document, that my views may rub off them a bit and they truly consider what Christ is calling them to. I doubt someone who removes themselves fully from gay people can do so… and there are examples of persons living a Godly lifestyle who are gay. But if our position is correct… then a missing ingredient from these person’s lives is love… and how else to introduce the person to True Love (Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for them) than to rub shoulders with wonderful gay men and women?

Above Audio Description

During a Q and A with Ravi Zacharias and RZIM at Oxford, a homosexual man asks a question but really ends up encouraging those in the faith of the miraculous work of God in peoples changed lives.

Something said during this exchange that really clicks with my understanding of this very important issue. Love. Most often — as I note often in my debates and posts on this topic (see below) — there is abuse or some family issue that drives these young men and women into this lifestyle. While I am more of a political-animal/armchair-philosopher and I deal with this issue in a “cut-n-dry” fashion, love is the motivating factor of change.

Usually the Christian [at the time of conversion] has this immense connection with their Creator and what He has done for him/her and the depths of their depravity that has been covered. Dorothy Sayers says it best:

  • “None of us feels the true love of God till we realize how wicked we are. But you can’t teach people that — they have to learn by experience.”

There is love and change available to those who seek it. the problem has become a society that perpetuates the PC status quo (YouTube). To keep the quoting of Mrs. Sayers going, she comments well on tolerance:

  • “In the world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called Despair, the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.”

I also let people know (as loving as possible) that while society dissuades in schools, media, and lawsuits the lifestyle choices of smoking because it takes off [on average] of a person’s life about 10-years… so too do I think that society should dissuade the lifestyle that chooses same-sex. I am not saying making the choice illegal.

No. (For instance, smoking is not illegal)

BUT, what I am saying is do not teach that it is an exact carbon copy of heterosexual marriages in it’s benefits for society as a whole — or — for the individuals involved.

Telling a friend who is gay that if they have a partner whom they truly love and want to see live a long and healthy life, suggesting that they find other ways to be intimate IS the loving thing to do. If they are using their partner as a means to their end (a “tool” in other words… I discuss this in my chapter on the matter), then they do not truly love said person.

I go to some length to explain that I am approaching the issue with grace and love in my SSM-PAGE… but also that our countries ideals are leading the way. Dennis Prager has a good way in noting this struggle between the two (see Appendix). I also note that as Christians we should support the law as it is enumerated in the Constitution while still trying to change hearts and minds. I hope my site does this not only for the straight community, but for the “not so straight” community as well.

Much Thought,

Papa Giorgio

Appendix

This comes from an article by Dennis Prager, entitled, “Why a Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage“

…Proponents and opponents [of same-sex marriage] ask two different questions.

Proponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is keeping the definition of marriage as man-woman fair to gays? Opponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is same-sex marriage good for society?

Few on either side honestly address the question of the other side. Opponents of same-sex marriage rarely acknowledge how unfair the age-old man-woman definition is to gay couples. And proponents rarely, if ever, acknowledge that this unprecedented redefinition of marriage may not be good for society.

That is why proponents have it much easier. All they need to do is to focus the public’s attention on individual gay people, show wonderful gay individuals who love each other, and ask the American public: Is it fair to continue to deprive these people of the right to marry one another?

When added to Americans’ aversion to discrimination, to the elevation of compassion to perhaps the highest national value, and to the equating of opposition to same-sex marriage with opposition to interracial marriage, it is no wonder that many Americans have been persuaded that opposition to same-sex marriage is hateful, backwards and the moral equivalent of racism.

Is there any argument that can compete with the emotionally compelling fairness argument?

The answer is that one can — namely, the answer to the second question, Is it good for society?

Before answering that question, however, it is necessary to respond to the charge that opposition to same-sex marriage is morally equivalent to opposition to interracial marriage and, therefore, the moral equivalent of racism.

There are two responses:

First, this charge is predicated on the profoundly false premise that race and sex (or “gender” as it is now referred to) are analogous.

They are not.

While there are no differences between black and white human beings, there are enormous differences between male and female human beings. That is why sports events, clothing, public restrooms, and (often) schools are routinely divided by sex. But black sporting events and white sporting events, black restrooms and white restrooms, black schools and white schools, or black clothing stores and white clothing stores would be considered immoral.

Because racial differences are insignificant and gender differences are hugely significant, there is no moral equivalence between opposition to interracial marriage and opposition to same-sex marriage.

Second, if opposition to same-sex marriage is as immoral as racism, why did no great moral thinker, in all of history, ever advocate male-male or female-female marriage? Opposition to racism was advocated by every great moral thinker. Moses, for example, married a black woman, the very definition of Catholic is “universal” and therefore diverse and has always included every race, and the equality of human beings of every race was a central tenet of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other world religions. But no one – not Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Aquinas, Gandhi, not the Bible or the Koran or any other sacred text, nor even a single anti-religious secular thinker of the Enlightenment — ever advocated redefining marriage to include members of the same sex.

To argue that opposition to same-sex marriage is immoral is to argue that every moral thinker, and every religion and social movement in the history of mankind prior to the last 20 years in America and Europe was immoral. About no other issue could this be said. Every moral advance has been rooted in prior moral thinking. The anti-slavery movement was based on the Bible. Martin Luther King, Jr. was first and foremost the “Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.” and he regularly appealed to the moral authority of the scriptures when making his appeals on behalf of racial equality. Same-sex marriage is the only social movement to break entirely with the past, to create a moral ideal never before conceived. It might be right, but it might also be an example of the moral hubris of the present generation, the generation that created the self-esteem movement: After all, you need a lot of self-esteem to hold yourself morally superior to all those who preceded you.

We now return to our two primary questions.

Is the man-woman definition of marriage fair to gays who wish to marry? No, it isn’t. And those of us opposed to same-sex marriage need to be honest about this, to confront the human price paid by some people through no fault of their own and figure out ways to offer gay couples basic rights associated with marriage.

But whether a policy is fair to every individual can never be the only question society asks in establishing social policy. Eyesight standards for pilots are unfair to some terrifically capable individuals. Orchestra standards are unfair to many talented musicians. A mandatory retirement age is unfair to many people. Wherever there are standards, there will be unfairness to individuals.

So, the question is whether redefining in the most radical way ever conceived — indeed completely changing its intended meaning — is good for society….

[….]

It is not enough to mean well in life. One must also do well. And the two are frequently not the same thing.

There are reasons no moral thinker in history ever advocated same-sex marriage.

For additional information on this last portion, see:

  1. Concepts: Proposition 8 [NOH8] ~ Non-Sequitur;
  2. Liberals/Progressives Know Best! (`I know better than you and all those moral thinkers and political geniuses that pre-date my knowledge`);
  3. All Religious and Moral Thinkers in History Rejected/Never Endorsed Same-Sex Marriages (Challenged with Buddhism).

Marriage, is it Hetero? (Q&A Included) ~ Two Imports from my Old Blog

Published by Papa Giorgio

AnimalsAristotle

John, you asked a very constructive question in regards to marriage and sexuality, let me repeat your question here:

  • “If it doesn’t have to do with being turned on, mentally and physically, and acting upon one’s desires, then what does define our sexuality? What defines us being heterosexual?”

Keep in mind that you have caused me to search out better definitions and understandings with respect to our current conversation, so I am starting to build on past knowledge, and may only be able to answer you thoroughly in the future and not at this immediate time.

However, I believe I have come to terms with what it is that we are discussing, and I believe I can define “sexuality” in a way that you can take away from this conversation and say, “So this is where the crux of the debate lay on their side.”

Okay, let me start this long – arduous – definition of heterosexuality. First of all, the claim that the law ought to be morally neutral about marriage or anything else is itself a moral claim. As such, it is not morally neutral, nor can it rest on an appeal to moral neutrality. We are both debating a subject, and as such, both are using reference points, subject/object distinctions, and the like. We are far from being neutral and must admit we are trying to propose one mortal system over another. I am sure we are both agreed on this.

The CORE of the traditional view and understanding of marriage (remember that homosexuality has long been condemned as immoral by the natural law tradition of moral philosophy, as well as by Jewish and Christian teaching, not only that, it may have been recognized by past cultures, but never authorized… as the gay rights movement is asking for today):

Marriage is a two-in-one-flesh communion of persons that is consummated and actualized by acts that are reproductive in type, whether or not they are reproductive in effect (or motivated, even in part, by a desire to reproduce). The bodily union of spouses in marital acts is the biological matrix of their marriage as a multi-level relationship: that is, a relationship that unites persons at the bodily, emotional, dispositional, and spiritual levels of the being.

Marriage, precisely as such a relationship, is naturally ordered to the good of procreation and to the nurturing and education of children) as well as to the good of spousal unity, and these goods are tightly bound together with a healthy society.

The distinctive unity of spouses is possible because human (like other mammalian) males and females, by mating, unite organically – in other words, they become a single reproductive principle. Although reproduction is a single act, in humans (and other mammals) the reproductive act is performed not by individual members of the species, but by a mated pair as an organic unit. Germaine Grisez has made this point:

“Though a male and a female are complete individuals with respect to other functions – for example, nutrition, sensation, and locomotion – with respect to reproduction they are only potential parts of a mated pair, which is the complete organism capable or reproducing sexually. Even if the mated pair is sterile, intercourse, provided it is the reproductive behavior characteristic of the species, makes the copulating male and female one organism. Masturbatory, sodomitical, or other sexual acts that are not reproductive in type cannot unite persons organically: that is, as a single reproductive principle. Therefore, such acts cannot be intelligibly engaged in for the sake of marital (i.e., one-flesh, bodily) unity as such. They cannot be marital acts!”

Rather, persons who perform such acts must be doing so for the sake of ends or goals that are extrinsic (definitions at the end) to themselves as bodily persons: Sexual satisfaction, or (perhaps) mutual sexual satisfaction, is sought as a means of releasing tension, or obtaining (and, sometimes, sharing) pleasure, either as an end in itself, or as a means to some other end, such as expressing affection, esteem, friendliness, etc. In any case, where one-flesh union cannot (or cannot rightly) be sought as an end-in-itself, sexual activity necessarily involves the instrumentalization of the bodies of those participating in such activity to extrinsic ends.

In marital acts, by contrast, the bodies of persons who unite biologically are not reduced to the status of mere instruments. Rather, the end, goal, and intelligible point of sexual union is the good of marriage itself. On this understanding, such union is not a merely instrumental good, i.e., a reason for action whose intelligibility as a reason depends on the other end. The central and justifying point of sex is not pleasure (or even the sharing of pleasure) per se, however much sexual pleasure is sought – rightly sought – as an aspect of the perfection of marital union; the point of sex, rather, is marriage itself. Considered as a bodily (“one-flesh”) union of persons consummated and actualized by acts that are reproductive in type.

Because in marital acts sex is not instrumentalized, such acts are free of the self-alienating and dis-integrating qualities of masturbatory and sodomitical sex.

Unlike these and other nonmarital sex acts, marital acts effect no practical dualism which volitionally and, thus, existentially separates the body from conscious and desiring aspect of the self which inhabits and uses the body as its instrument. (On person-body dualism, its implications for ethics, and its philosophical untenability, see: John Finnis, Joseph M. Boyle, and Germaine Grisez, Nuclear Deterrence, Morality and Realism [Oxford University Press; 1987], pp. 304-309.)

As John Finnis has observed, marital acts are truly unitive, and in no way self-alienating, because the bodily or biological aspect of human beings is “part of, and not merely an instrument of, their personal reality.”

But, one might ask, what about procreation? On the traditional view, isn’t sexual union of spouses instrumentalized to the goal of having children? It is true that Augustine was an influential proponent of something like this view, and there has always been a certain following for it among Christians. The strict Augustinian position was rejected, however, by the mainstream of philosophical and theological reflection from the late Middle Ages forward, and the understanding of sex and marriage that came to be embodied in the civil law of matrimony does not treat marriage as a merely instrumental good. Matrimonial law has traditionally understood marriage as consummated by, and only by, the reproductive-type acts of spouses; by contrast, the sterility of spouses – so long as they are capable of consummating their marriage by a reproductive-type act (and, thus, of achieving bodily – organic unity! This is why court annul a marriage that hasn’t reached this unity) – has never been treated as an impediment to marriage, even where sterility is certain and even certain to be permanent (as in the case of the marriage of a woman who has been through menopause or has undergone a hysterectomy).

According to the traditional understanding of marriage, then, it is the nature of marital acts as reproductive in type that makes it possible for such acts to be unitive in the distinctively marital way (“one-flesh”). And this type of unity is intrinsic, and not merely instrumental, value.

Thus, the unitive good of marriage provides a noninstrumental (and thus sufficient) reason for spouses to perform sexual acts of a type that consummates and actualizes their marriage. In performing marital acts, the spouses do not reduce themselves as bodily persons (or their marriage) to the status of means or instruments.

At the same time, where marriage is understood as a one-flesh union of persons, children who may be conceived in marital acts are understood not as an ends which are extrinsic to marriage (either in the strict Augustinian sense, or the modern liberal one), but, rather, as gifts which supervene on acts whose central justifying point is precisely the marital unity of the spouses. Such acts have unique meaning, value, and significance, as I have already suggested in this post, because they belong to the class of acts by which children come into being – what I have called “reproductive-type acts.” More precisely, these acts have their unique meaning, value, and significance because they belong to the only class of acts by which children can come into being, not as “products” which their parents choose to “make,” but, rather, as perfective participants in the organic community (i.e., the family) that is established by their parents’ marriage. It is thus that children are properly understood and treated – even in their conception – not as objects of the desire or will of their parents, but as subjects of justice (and inviolable human rights); not as property, but as persons.

Excerpts from Robert P. George, The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion, and Morality in Crisis.


Glossary

Extrinsic (Random House Webster CD-Rom) – all are relevant.

1. Not essential or inherent; not a basic part or quality; extraneous: facts that are extrinsic to the matter under discussion.

2. Being outside a thing; outward or external; operating or coming from without: extrinsic influences.

3. Anatomy. (of certain muscles, nerves, etc.) originating outside the anatomical limits of a part.

Intrinsic (Random House Webster CD-Rom) – all are relevant.

1. Belonging to a thing by its very nature: the intrinsic value of a gold ring.

2. Anatomy. (of certain muscles, nerves, etc.) Belonging to or lying within a given part.

A question posed to me years ago by one of my son’s friends:

Question 3) What is your views on gays? Are they bad? Are they going to hell? Are you born this way?

I have written heavily on this subject, both papers are on my blog at:

The homosexual man or woman is just as much a sinner as you or me. We all need Christ. To touch on the hell issue first, I believe hell is a testament to free-will, and dignity as well. C.S. Lewis mentioned that hell is locked from the inside. The only thing separating mankind from God is a belief in the finished work on the Cross. By choice people reject their Creator, they choose their path, God never imposes it. Many who are saved are not immediately pure in action, nor will they ever be. Sometimes people take decades to work through their faults (counseling, prayer, reading God’s Word, etc), so just like the person who may cheat on his wife regularly, when he comes to a saving knowledge of God, he will be challenged to change his ways and seek counseling and prayer and reference from God’s Word. The same with a gay man or woman. If they truly have a saving knowledge of God, they will be challenged by the Holy Spirit to seek biblical guidance in their life, and like many others, they will turn away from their homosexual lifestyles.

However, there is a “created order,” or, even a natural order (if you do not believe in God). My argument for heterosexual (between a man and a woman) unions is usable both by the atheist (non believer in God) and the theist (a believer in God – in the Judeo-Christian sense). Here is the crux of the matter in regards to “nature’s order:”

“…take gold as an example, it has inherent in its nature intrinsic qualities that make it expensive: good conductor of electricity, rare, never tarnishes, and the like. The male and female have the potential to become a single biological organism, or single organic unit, or principle. Two essentially becoming one. The male and female, then, have inherent to their nature intrinsic qualities that two mated males or two mated females never actualize in their courtship… nor can they ever. The potential stays just that, potential, never being realized…..

“….Think of a being that reproduces, not by mating, but by some act performed by individuals. Imagine that for these same beings, movement and digestion is performed not by individuals, but only by the complementary pairs that unite for this purpose. Would anyone acquainted with such beings have difficulty understanding that in respect to movement and digestion, the organism is a united pair, or an organic unity?”

So you see, the two heterosexual organisms that join in a sexual union cease being two separate organisms for a short time and become one organism capable of reproduction. This is what the state and the church are sealing in a marriage, this intrinsic union. The homosexual couple can never achieve this union, so “natures order” has endowed the heterosexual union with an intrinsic quality that other relationships do not have or could never attain. Both the atheist and theist can argue from this point, because either we were created this way or we evolved this way. Either way, nature has imposed on the sexual union being discussed.

Also, I do not think it is wholly genetic. I believe choice is involved as well as violence. For instance, take this thought from a pro-choice, lesbian woman, Tammy Bruce:

“ . . . . and now all manner of sexual perversion enjoys the protection and support of once what was a legitimate civil-rights effort for decent people. The real slippery slope has been the one leading into the Left’s moral vacuum. It is a singular attitude that prohibits any judgment about obvious moral decay because of the paranoid belief that judgment of any sort would destroy the gay lifestyle, whatever that is…. I believe this grab for children by the sexually confused adults of the Gay Elite represents the most serious problem facing our culture today…. Here come the elephant again: Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that’s too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood — molestation by a parent or an authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult. The gay community must face the truth and see sexual molestation of an adolescent for the abuse it is,* instead of the ‘coming-of-age’ experience many [gays] regard it as being. Until then, the Gay Elite will continue to promote a culture of alcohol and drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and suicide by AIDS.”

* By the age of 18 or 19 years, three quarters of American youth, regardless of their sexual orientation, have had sexual relations with another person. Gay males are more likely than heterosexual males to become sexually active at a younger age (12.7 vs. 15.7 years) and to have had multiple sexual partners. The ages at the time of the first sexual experience with another person are closer for lesbians and heterosexual females (15.4 vs. 16.2 years).

(New England Journal of Medicine)


What she is basically saying is that there are emotional reasons, usually trauma, or circumstances that push these young boys into the choices they make in regards to their sexuality. For instance, one of my co-workers is a homosexual man. He is a wonderful guy; I would invite him to my wedding if I could go back in time. He is very open about his past, he was “initiated” into the homosexual lifestyle by a grown black man when he was 14. In other words, he was raped. Whether he feels now that he consented, or the person was a family friend or complete stranger. This act of sex with a minor by a grown man is rape. And this rape, at an age where boys are having surges of hormones and confused about a lot of things is what Tammy Bruce was speaking to. It is a psychological trauma that if not dealt with has traumatic results in one’s life. This sometimes works its way into sexual matters. There are many homosexual people, Al Rantel (790am 6pm to 9pm), to name a more popular one, that believe marriage should be kept between a man and a woman. Tammy Bruce wants it, but she, like most Republicans, want the states to decide, and not the Supreme Court.

Also, in 1993, the biggest march by the “gay” community (Elite gay community) on Washington was held, and they had this as part of their platform:

  • The implications of homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered curriculum at all levels of education.
  • The lowering of the age [12 years old to be exact] of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex.
  • The legalization of homosexual marriages.
  • Custody, adoption, and foster-care rights for homosexuals, lesbians, and transgendered people.
  • the redefinition of the family to include the full diversity of all family structures.
  • The access to all programs of the Boy Scouts of America.
  • Affirmative action for homosexuals.
  • The inclusion of sex-change operations under a universal health-care plan. 

Obviously the Elite gay community Tammy Bruce spoke of [made up of Leftist Progressives] knows which age is best for “recruiting,” e.g., traumatizing.More can be said on all the above issues, but my book is not yet written. I will post three quotes from Tammy Bruce (a pro-choice lesbian):

Even if one does not necessarily accept the institutional structure of “organized religion,” the “Judeo-Christian ethic and the personal standards it encourages do not impinge on the quality of life, but enhance it. They also give one a basic moral template that is not relative,” which is why the legal positivists of the Left are so threatened by the Natural Law aspect of the Judeo-Christian ethic. (Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values [Roseville: Prima, 2003], 35.)

…these problems don’t remain personal and private. The drive, especially since this issue is associated with the word “gay rights,” is to make sure your worldview reflects theirs. To counter this effort, we must demand that the medical and psychiatric community take off their PC blinders and treat these people responsibly. If we don’t, the next thing you know, your child will be taking a “tolerance” class explaining how “transexuality” is just another “lifestyle choice”…. After all, it is the only way malignant narcissists will ever feel normal, healthy, and acceptable: by remaking society – children – in their image (Ibid., 92, 206)

 

Question for My Australian and New Zealand Readers

Published by Papa Giorgio

I work for a friend who sells clothing and costume apparel. One of our most sold items is the V for Vendetta Mask (Guy Fawkes mask) pictured above. And this big seller almost exclusively is shipped to Australia and New Zealand. So, us three guys in the shop are wondering why and if anyone from those countries can proffer a reason for this retail phenomena.