Libs attack suspected GOP homosexuals, then claim GOP hostile to homosexuals
From the Associated Press...
"This is the problem with the closet: it's a terrible place to be, and it's got to be worse if you're a Republican," said Rep. Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., who in 1987 became the first member of Congress to voluntarily make his homosexuality public....
Frank predicted Wednesday that the Foley scandal, plus Kolbe's departure, will create a difficult atmosphere for any gays, closeted or not, seeking to remain active nationally as Republican politicians.
"Now they're viewed as causing trouble," Frank said in a telephone interview. "I think you can see a purge coming."
Conservative gay columnist Andrew Sullivan wrote that he was among many in Washington who had heard that Foley was gay yet unwilling to come out.
"What the closet does to people — the hypocrisies it fosters, the pathologies it breeds — is brutal," Sullivan wrote on his Web site. "From what I've read, Foley is another example of this destructive and self-destructive pattern for which the only cure is courage and honesty."
Sullivan also asserted that many closeted gay men in Washington work for the Republicans despite what he described as GOP policies "deeply hostile to gay dignity."
The president of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, which recruits openly gay candidates to run for office, said many of those remaining in the closet "think there's something wrong with being gay."
"From what we've seen of Mark's actions, he felt is was OK to be gay on the side, but not to be openly gay," said Chuck Wolfe, who has known Foley for many years. "It was all on the sly."
Now did you catch the hypocrisy? GOP politicians, candidates and pundits suspected of being homosexual (the list of those who have been accused would include Condoleezza Rice as well as Ann Coulter*) are attacked mercilessly and accused of all kinds of things, yet when one is finally forced out of the closet, the GOP is accused of being the "bad guy".
BTW, what is "the Closet" anyway? Isn't that more or less what most people call...a private life? Democrats use the Fourth Amendment (regarding the right to privacy) to rationalize the wholesale slaughter of millions upon millions of unborn babies, but seem to have little disregard for it when it comes to Republicans. (It becomes privacy again when you're a Democrat especially when they commit perjury or sexually molest an underage page).
It's the nonsense that claims that homosexuality is genetic that seems to be at the root of the problem. Suppose it were discovered that George Bush prefers having sex while wearing socks. Somewhat odd, but a private, personal choice. It's doubtful much would be made of the fact were it to get out (although some Dems would try). So if homosexuality is an equally, morally neutral behavior, Liberals and homosexual activists could push for acceptance on that ground. But no, they aren't satisfied with that. They want to use pseudo-science, political pressure, and outright scams to claim that sexual orientation is genetic. That takes us to a completely different ball park. No longer is it simply a occasional choice, but a physiological attribute. Under the "homosexuality is genetic" myth, it's not just the occasional act—they are a homosexual all the time. "In the closet" grows from being discreet about physical intimacy, to hiding "who you are."
The idea that our lives are biologically pre-determined haunts some people—a lot of people—especially teenagers, who are trying to "find themselves" which means trying to figure out how they fit in a world of billions, while still being a unique individual. To con them into thinking that their sexual orientation is biologically pre-determined, and if they have any inclination toward the same gender, then they'll be miserable if they deny it, is an outrageously cruel joke. But homosexual activists, Liberals and the MSM push that message virtually minute by minute.
See, by creating the "genetic" myth, homosexual activist can move the issue into one of "You hate me because of who I am!" That's nonsense. Remove the "genetic" myth and the typical response to homosexual behavior is comparable to the typical response to eating raw fish, disgusting, but no one would reasonably accuse you of hating someone because they enjoy doing something you find distateful. I firmly believe people who smoke are doing an evil thing to their body. Actually Liberals go much farther than I do and are actively working to ban smoking in every place they can. What if the tobacco companies decided to claim that smoking is genetic (they actually would be able to find much more proof than has been found to support the "homosexuality is genetic" myth). Would that make anti-smoking Liberals, hate-mongers?
Here's the point: How is marginalizing the choice smokers make any different than marginalizing the choice homosexuals make?
- Smokers aren't wailing that they are being denied their "true self".
- Smokers aren't calling those who dislike smoking "Nicophobes".
- Children aren't being told at an early age that if they find the smell of tobacco in any way pleasant, then they are born to smoke, and will be miserable if they don't.
- Smokers don't call the dirty looks they get when they smoke in public, "Smoker bashing"
Franks, Sullivan and others who blame "The Closet" for Foley's eventual turn to young boys not only ignore the very high rate of pedophilia among openly homosexual men and women, but also the fact that "The Closet" as they describe it, is of their own making, by turning a simple choice into an obligatory, lifetime obsession, thus creating an inescapable shame some people see no choice but to hide.
Oh, for those who are saying, "Well, there's no 'patch' for quitting homosexuality." Yes, there is. His name is Jesus Christ, and there's no sin He can't help you conquer.
[*I, in no way, intend to imply Rice and Coulter are lesbians, just noting the accusations, silly as they may be.]
Posted by Danny Carlton at October 5, 2006 12:22 PM