Rapid City Council Rejects Pro-Homosexual Measure

The claim of "societal homophobia" would be laughable, if it wasn't so desperate an attempt to absolve those who engage in homosexual behavior from responsibility for their willful actions. Homosexuals do not need an "excuse" to be faithful to each other, they have that freedom all along. And yet, where homosexuals have created the most accepting, "normative," insulated enclaves, where their own members are surrounded by acceptance and support for their chosen lifestyle, lifespans are still cut tragically short by disease, violence and suicide. Promiscuity, infidelity and extra-"marital" relationships remain at a much higher level than the general public. The local "gay" mens' chorus in my urban area is such an example of a close-knit "community" that is completely ensconced in this worldview, but their website features a voluminous "members memorial" of lives ended in their 30's and 40's. Many will honestly admit to death by AIDS or suicide (while stubbornly insisting that this hand was "dealt" to them), the ones that evade the facts, who"quietly die at home," are subtly understood.

Homosexuals, even those with the most seared consciences, occasionally realize that they cannot insulate that 'light that lights every man' from their inner lives completely.

"Those speaking against the measure pointed out that homosexuals are already protected under the 14th Amendment, and that establishing a protected class based on behavior rather than innate, physical, morally-neutral characteristics sets a dangerous precedent. Some also pointed out that it would also create many problems, such as infringement of religious liberties, and what to do about sex-specific restrooms and locker rooms."

A protected class based on behavior has already been established! Religion is protected, is it not? Religion is certainly not an innate, physical characteristic. This line of argument defending prejudice and discrimination reeks of hypocrisy.

Which religious liberty would be infringed upon? I see this comment made all over the place yet it is never defined. As far as I can tell this is the case because there is no religious liberty that will be denied by a nondiscrimination law. The practice of religion does not award it's followers a special political right to discriminate in the public sphere against people that they don't like. The inference that religious freedom will be compromised by this measure is, at best, dishonest.

Once again, there is a hint of fear inducing ambiguity referencing public bathrooms yet there is no evidence supplied about what that particular threat may be. The fact is that there is no evidence at all that points to any safety issues being compromised by the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in a nondiscrimination bill. Once again, less than truthful discourse is being used against equal protections for those who need it.

Religious faith is a built-in connection to the creator which every person has. Some deny it, some misunderstand and misinterprete it, but everyone has it. The fact that about 90% of Americans hold some religious faith affirms this (and if you parsed the beliefs of many who claim to be atheists--as I have--you'd find that many are simply angry and God and deny his existence more out of emotional response than rational belief).

Religious liberties are already being infringed on in order to indulge this immoral, unnatural and unhealthy sexual behavior. The assaults on free speech and religious freedom are already egregious overseas and in Canada, and are already occurring here in the land of the free. Some examples:

*Catholic Charities in Boston was forced by a state “sexual orientation” law to either process the adoption of children to homosexual couples, a direct violation of Vatican policy, or abandon their century-old adoption referral services altogether. They chose the latter.

*A New Mexico Christian photographer was fined $6,600 for refusing on religious grounds to photograph a homosexual marriage-like “commitment” ceremony.

*The University of Toledo fired a black administrator for writing a “letter to the editor” of a local newspaper about the inconsistency of comparing homosexuality to ethnicity.

*Philadelphia has also decided to stick it to the Boy Scouts (who don’t allow homosexuals in leadership positions of their loyal-to-God organization), charging them $200,000 a year rent to use facilities that other charities use for free.

*Boston public school teachers were threatened with termination if they failed to portray so-called homosexual “marriage” in a positive light.

Homosexual activists have already pushed this "nondiscrimination" insanity to absolutely ludicrous lengths in places such as places such as Colorado, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Florida where men are allowed to use women's restrooms and locker rooms if they "feel like a woman." It doesn't matter what is between their legs or what their DNA says; if they feel like a woman, they can walk in on people's daughters in these personal areas.

You really should do a little research before you start throwing around the "less than truthful discourse" malarkey (it would be less embarrassing for you)...or do you simply expect people to lap up your deception undebunked?

No sane group of people will tolerate the legitimization and acceptance of a behavior which is quite plainly unnatural, immoral, and--according to the CDC and other health sources--very unhealthy. It's quite refreshing to see that the majority of the Rapid City Council realized this.

Seven Things I Wish Pro-Gay People Would Admit
by Bob Davies

1. I wish they would admit that many people are not happy with their homosexuality or lesbianism, and that this conflict is internal, based on legitimate, intelligent religious and moral convictions--not just the result of a so-called "homophobic" society which is forcing guilt upon people who don't conform to a heterosexual ethic.

Stop throwing out the cheap, inaccurate labels like "internalized homophobia" to explain our motivations.

2. I wish they would acknowledge that homosexuals and lesbians can experience significant change in their sexual feelings and desires, even though they may never be totally heterosexual in their sexual thoughts and feelings.

Be honest enough to admit that such change is significant and genuine, even if it isn't complete.

3. I wish they would acknowledge that many former homosexuals and lesbians have found a greater measure of peace and satisfaction after leaving a gay or lesbian lifestyle than they ever experienced while embracing homosexuality.

Not all "ex-gays" are miserable, plotting how to secretly fulfill their homosexual lusts without being caught.

4. I wish they would acknowledge that many former homosexuals and lesbians have genuine joy in their marriages.

Most former gays and lesbians don't get married in a futile attempt to "escape" homosexuality; they marry as a natural consequence of resolving that issue in their lives.

5. I wish they would acknowledge that all people have as much right to pursue a heterosexual lifestyle as they do to pursue homosexuality.

Former homosexuals and lesbians should not be harassed and castigated by the gay community. But I have never heard any gay or lesbian leaders speak out against the violence (such as bomb threats and physical/verbal abuse) which some people perpetuate against Exodus ministries.

6. I wish they would stop equating our decision to leave homosexuality with "hatred" and "bigotry" against gays and lesbians.

We don't hate gays; we simply desire to live free of homosexuality. Don't put nasty labels upon our motives. That's being judgmental and unfair.

7. I wish pro-gay religious leaders would admit that their endorsement and promotion of monogamous homosexual relationships is a facade.

Many--probably most--men and women involved in long-term partnerships are not sexually monogamous, but gay churches don't discipline members for committing "adultery" outside their "gay marriage." Neither do they discipline gays or lesbians who have sex before entering into a "holy union" with their partner.

Bob Davies is past President of Exodus International and an ex-gay himself. He has been married for over ten years.

"...depression, anxiety, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence."

You know what's funny, from the research, these things tend to correlate in people who are stigmatized by the greater society of which they are a part. It is not the case that being gay leads to depression, anxiety, substance abuse, suicide, and so on. That is a causal relationship where the research is quite silent (but it is one interpretation, as you like to emphasize).

A far more logically coherent interpretation, given the existence of same-sex couples who are perfectly adjusted, is that social stigmas can lead to those later effects. Domestic violence, greatly under-reported in the GLBT community, is more likely a result of gays not having someone to turn to. Relationships have been shown to last longer when the couple has the support of family, friends, and colleagues. For the most part, this is not a guarantee with gay relationships, and perhaps you prefer that mothers and fathers shun their children because of their weak will power. Unfortunately, to be gay extends beyond a behavior...whether or not you act, you are still attracted to something, and this curious facet of sexuality seems to posit that it's a part of the design, not a reason for us to find it so morally reprehensible that we must malign these people. Especially when considering the moral implications...there really aren't that many, no more than a heterosexual relationship or a heterosexual who must also balance the drive for sexual attainment--disease and promiscuity are not exclusive to gay individuals.

Anyway, it appears to me that the greater population doesn't realise the condemnation that leads to these aforementioned outcomes, yet they feel all so righteous using these outcomes as justification for their claims. "You see! It is a horrible lifestyle!" (Yet that conclusion is oh so ignorant...especially when you take in account the other research on stigmatization, where being black or another minority is not a moral quandary, at least not anymore).

It's interesting, Gary, that these problems track along with homosexual behavior even in areas and countries that are very accepting of the behavior. Besides, no person can make another person depressed, no person can make another person abuse drugs or alcohol, and no person can make another person beat up their domestic partner. Sorry, but again, we are human beings with a free will. "The devil (or the homophobes) made me do it" just doesn't hold water.

Rather it seems more likely that these depressive and self-destructive behaviors come with the territory of engaging in behavior that the conscience continually reminds the person are wrong. And engaging in behavior which quite obviously runs counter to science, biology, legitimate sexuality and natural function is bound to take it's toll mentally and emotionally as well.

By your fallacious logic, we should applaud drunks because if we condemn their behavior, they might get depressed and fall further into substance abuse, other self-destructive behaviors and domestic violence. So in condemning the drunk, we cause him to abuse his wife or girlfriend, don't we? It is our fault as a society that he abuses his wife or girlfriend, isn't it? It is really we who should be on trial for making the drunk feel bad about his behavior, isn't it?

We should also applaud drug addicts as well, so that we do not cause them to commit further bad acts.

We shouldn't condemn gambling addicts for their behavior, either, for the same reason.

In fact, if we speak ill of the murderer, thief, vandal, rapist or embezzler, we are only making things worse, aren't we?

Or is this excuse-factory mentality merely a way to excuse our own moral cowardice, so that we can look like "the good guy", so long as we feel safe that our countenance of evil won't come back to bite us (as we know it would the murderer or thief)?

I think the answer is pretty obvious.

The reason I did not touch on your comparison of alcoholism and other such behaviors is because it is a non sequitur. It is not valid because your premise of the similarity is incorrect. Unfortunately, and as I suspect where you found most of your information, it's a very favorite counter to parrot for those who oppose gay people in general with the righteous moral ground of just "have a stronger will!"

It is far more accurate to say: an addiction to alcohol (alcoholism) is similar to an addiction to sex.

It is not accurate to say: alcoholism is similar to homosexuality.

Why this distinction? Because one can be gay, have those attractions, without ever indulging in the behavior. The behavior does not define the sexuality, at least not in Western constructs. One contention I've heard (and this is not my wish to create a strawman because I have no knowledge of how you would retort) is that simply seeing, say, another man or woman sets one on the path of addiction, like seeing another person is akin to taking your first drink when one has the propensity to alcoholism. The problem with this view is that it sets a very tenuous hold on even our own conceptions of sexuality, and I would forcefully posit that even in the absence of people or interaction, the so-called "wild" children who manage to grow up without such stimuli, they still present with a sexuality that is not dependent on operational psychology or learning paradigms. Our very society (again, Western concepts) imposes a strict heterosexual socialization scheme that makes any presentation of homosexuality anomalous and contrary to learning theories or addiction theories.

Sex is addictive. Look at the pornography industry. Better yet, look at the research.

And I'd be curious to see where you've found you've found your research on the other cultures. I've found the research to be separated based on gender norms and social roles with acceptance of deviant behavior within the society. As an example, there are quite a few indigenous tribes without high levels of industrialization and without contact with outside cultures where stigmatization results not from someone going outside their born sex but outside their gender role they have gained or earned within the social contract that exists. "Homosexuality" is unknown there since the good of the society requires certain proscribed roles to be done--one for "male", one for "female", and when there is a discrepancy, so long as they fit the proscribed role, (if not with the biological apparatae), things run smoothly. This means that there occurs same-sex relationships, as we from our cultural point of view would call them. They are perfectly adjusted without bringing in the demons of a sexual world drawn from Augustine.

My point? Comparing to Netherlands studies (especially in the short-term...I don't care what you say, generational gaps do take a long time. Look at the existence of racism still in the deep South of the United States. It's been several years since The Civil Rights and the decision of Brown v. Board of Education by the Supreme Court in 1954) is in part, ridiculous. It has not been long enough to adequately judge whether or not societal norms over time mitigate stigmatization. From studies within the US, however, in more progressive states involving previously stigmatized minority groups, this has proven to be the case.

Another problem is that this issue crosses into gender roles, as I mentioned before. Two men or two women being together blurs the line of separation, it sets a threat about the assumed essential differences and qualities that people bring to a relationship, to their contribution to mankind. That stigma is not something that will disappear with a simple generation change, nor the so-called forced acceptance of same-sex couples.

Another problem with your position is that you forget that certain groups motivated by religion will likely never concede a position of tolerance, and the teaching of their children of this "love the sinner; hate the sin" still has a dangerous aspect in schools. Far more hypocritical in this approach is the view that bullying should not be allowed to protect the children, but they don't feel the need to extend those protections to young gay children, even preventing the formation of GSA, support groups, that might actually help these children through their formative years. But to do that would be to admit that gays exist, that there might be some immutable quality, and that's a position that is anathema to most fundamentalist Christians.

No, you can try to shove the society out of it, but the truth is, I think we need to recognize where some people are at fault.

And why would you think I should applaud drunks? My logic is consistent. The behavior of committed same-sex couples is not dangerous to anyone else. I actually am of the position that as a society, we should be encouraging marriage for gays so that they feel more apt to settle down and not engage in promiscuous behavior. It's sex with multiple partners and various serial monogamies that lead to more disease, and the incidence of that disease is something that we as taxpayers should take note and try to discourage. Not from putting people in the closet (as that doesn't work...look at the many examples of Ted Haggard), but from giving them good community examples to emulate.

Alcoholism hurts people. The other examples you mentioned? The same moral principle applies. The only reason they seem analogous to homosexuality in your mind is because you have put them under this umbrella of "wrong" without considering the social reasons for why these behaviors are considered wrong. Homosexuality has the ick! factor, but last I checked, those things which are disgusting to us, not necessarily morally reprehensible, are not reason enough to subjugate another group. I find very obese people disgusting...that gives me no more right to say they cannot be obese or cannot try for a happy contentment (you might find this analogy more appealing...being obese leads to disease and a drain on the economy, is certainly an unhealthy lifestyle, and unlike sexuality, might actually influence their children's future eating habits).

And if you really want to get into a free will discussion, you'll have to define your terms, what you believe free will to be. There is convincing evidence we do not have free will, under some definitions, and convincing evidence that we do, only under others--but I leave that up to you if you're willing to take it to the philosophical route.

And people do not make themselves depressed, either. Environmental factors, and certainly cognitions, lead to depression. I don't think you quite understand why some people use drugs. It's part of a self-coping mechanism. It's why you see it happen with some concordance with suicide rates.

Gary, that's an awful lot of psychobabble and BS to defend a practice that is immoral, unnatural and unhealthy on the face of it. You are apparently well-deluded, so I don't think it's worth my time to debunk your fallacious arguments point by point. I will cover a few high points, however.

Homosexual behavior and alcohol abuse are similar in that they are both immoral, self-destructive behaviors. They are both behaviors that people can feel compelled to engage in. And they are both behaviors which can be resisted.

I noticed, too, that you make the fallacious, perhaps disingenuous, comparison between skin color and homosexual behavior. It is irrational and deceptive to compare an innate, morally-neutral physical characteristic to a behavior that can be chosen or resisted. I would think you would offend quite a few minority people by comparing the struggle that black people in America have historically been through--purely because of the color of their skin--to an abnormal sexual behavior that is condemned by the doctrine of pretty much every religion in existence, is documented to be unhealthy, and serves no biological function whatsoever.

You may be willing to absolve people of all moral responsibility, assigning them a status somewhat akin to a coyote who follows his base impulses and has no moral culpability. If you think homosexuals are just animals who can't do any better, I suppose I can't stop you from taking that position, but it's truly sad that you think so little of them.

I happen to think more highly of all human beings. I am firmly convinced that people control their own destiny, and they do that by controlling their behavior. A failure to do so is certainly one's prerogative in a free society, but then one should be grownup enough to accept the consequences of acting outside moral, normal and disciplined behavior.

And a failure to behave correctly in no way obligates society to bend to or accept the aberrant and immoral behavior of the one who refuses to discipline themselves.