...and as a result, I'm not sure when I'll be doing the bloggin' thing. I've got a couple of things swirling around in the noggin', but little time to focus, what with all the merriment abounding over the next few days. And to make it all a bit more challenging, our second oldest has been hospitalized over what seems to be food poisoning. After a few days of sick-to-the-stomach-ness and it's attendant unpleasantries, she had finally dehydrated to the point of kidney failure and now is being treated to constant IVs and daily transfusions in order to get her back to square one. We've been seeing those platelettes go from around 4 to double digits and will continue until she's in the triple digits once again. So the holidays will be enjoyed bedside in a city hospital with dinners to take place next week or the week after, recovery allowing.
But we still are filled with the Spirit of Christmas and it is at this point that I wish to say to all who visit here, no matter who you are:
One of the biggest frustrations of debates in the blogosphere is the constant denegration of someone's sources as "biased" or "slanted" to one way of thinking at the expense of another. When person A makes a point, person B insists on evidence or sources. When the evidence or source is presented, person B denies its credibility due to bias. But bias does not imply dishonesty, underhandedness or the purposeful manipulation, distortion or ommision of facts and details pertinent to the issue. Either the info is true or it isn't and only when a source has been proven to have engaged in any of the above behavior repeatedly in order to support an otherwise unsupportable position can it truly be cast aside as lacking credibility.
For example, recently Les had dismissed my use of a Human Events article because, well, it's Human Events, and gave me another link to another article by the same Jed Babbin, I guess to show his bias. Well, OK. Jed's biased. But is what he reported true or isn't it? That's all that really matters. And we won't always know for sure, but if the guy or the source has no history of bad reporting, what difference does his bais make? Another example is seeing some lefties claim that Bush is a heartless creep for vetoing the SCHIPS deal. But rightwing people explained that Bush supported the plan but not the Dems idea of how much more to fund it. He, too, was up for increasing the funding, but not as much as the Dems wanted. So the lefties in question have diminished credibility for lying, not for being lefties.
In any case, the point of posting this is that I'm inviting everyone who cares to offer examples of who they think is UN-baised. It can be a periodical, like a newspaper or magazine. It can be a person, like a columnist or talk-show host. If anyone disagrees with another's offering, please cite examples of how they slanted a story away from the truth rather than simply denying their objectivity. Have fun.
Another downside is the impact on the language. Now that it's Christmas time, how many people, for even a split second, experience a mental double take singing, "Don we now our gay apparel."? Fairies are mythical creatures of magic, faggots are bundles of sticks and for a time actually meant a derogatory term of a woman or a child. For these and other words, homosexual connotations have come about only recently. I remember an episode of "WKRP" wherein newsman Les Nesman was out on the ledge about to jump because someone referred to him as a queer fellow and others heard it and thought he was a homosexual. Now, I refuse to use those terms except in their original meaning (unless I'm feeling surly, but even then, I'm far more likely to use a more generic term like, "rat bastard!"). I use only "homosexual" and its abbreviation, "homo", which has garnered me heat. Apparently, calling them what they are is akin to the dreaded "hate speech". So this downside is the redefinition of words for the benefit of 2% of the population, including, if they have their way, "marriage".
And this is yet another downside. Marriage. Those of us who oppose homosexual marriage are now accused of feeling that our personal marriages are at risk. This one is stupid. It's the institution, not a specific marriage that is at risk. And in the Netherlands, where such marriages are legal, out of wedlock births are around 60%, as people no longer place the same importance on the instutution now that it has been granted to homosexuals. Whether or not that's the actual reason is something I'm not prepared to say. Let us just say that it has gotten that bad since the change has taken place.
And here's a downside that is sure to raise a few hackles, whatever that is: Law enforcement agencies claim that on average, murders committed by homosexuals are more brutal. Another source says spousal abuse is far more rampant, with, strangely, lesbians being the worst for knocking each other about.
Well, that's enough. There is more, but I'm done. Needless to say, these stats aren't offered to imply that every person of the persuasion is hellspawned vermin to be shunned and cast out into the wastelands. I've known a few homosexuals in my 52 years and liked them personally. I've also known a few drug dealers in that time and got on famously with them as well. It doesn't mean I agreed with their lifestyles. But all I've put down can be checked at the sources mentioned in the first post and from there one can decide for one's self whether to believe it or to offer proof that any of it is blatantly false.
As to that, I insist that for anyone who wishes to decry my sources as biased, you'll get no argument from me. You'll still have to prove they lie. Bias doesn't mean dishonesty or underhandedness. And for many, if not most, especially among people of faith, opposition to homosexuality isn't intolerance (except for the bad behavior in which they engage), but concern for our society and the homosexuals themselves. And that IS the truth.
Well. I began the last on the 10th, but just published it now. Why Blogger dates your stuff from when you start composing rather than when you publish, I don't know. I also don't know why it won't indent in the typical and traditional fashion. Damned technology!
Another downside of the movement is seen in the conflicts their self-promotion has caused between them and the rest of us. It has, per it's agenda, gained a lot of ground in the demonizing of those who oppose them. People of faith, that is, people who truly wish to adhere to their religous beliefs, believe God exists as surely as the person next to them or as the chair upon which they are sitting. He is tangible and real and thus, the desire is to not only live accordingly, but to spread the Word in hopes of bringing others to the faith. This becomes a problem when a small segment of society has convinced others that thousands of years of tradition and belief is wrong. Those that still adhere to those traditions and beliefs are now seen as intolerant, controlling, oppressive, fascist-like. All because we choose to believe what our Holy Books teach us, rather than the interpretations of so-called progressive, post-modern, liberal theologians who see things never seen by traditional theologians in the previous 4000 years. In countries where homosexual supporters have succeeded in gaining state sanctioning, clergy have faced legal ramifications when preaching the Word, and all who dare speak against the movement risk charges of committing a hate crime for doing so. Hate crime. An assinine term if ever there was one and wildly inappropriate here. In short, our Constitutionally protected freedom of religious expression will be at risk should the movement succeed in its goals.
In the same manner, our freedom of association is likewise threatened, as employment laws are twisted to accomodate the movement in all its varied versions. So, if some ugly dude with a voice like Barry White is feeling pretty, it's likely that the place where he works will have to pay for gender reassignment surgery through the company insurance plan. It won't be seen as elective because he can't help the gender confusion under which he lives. And the employer now has far less say as to how his company, an extension of himself, is represented by his employees. If he's a devout person of faith, he'll be forced to enable those who engage in sinful behavior. Even religious organizations will be impacted.
It has impacted our school system already. A man in Massachusetts is prohibited under a restraining order from tresspassing on the grounds of the school where his kindergarden aged son was being taught about same-sex parents. The parents have no say if the district has enough well-meaning but certifiably goofy liberals in the majority running the schools. They are told to like it or pull their kids out. Talk about forcing an ideology down the throats of others! Christians are constantly accused, but these jerks are guilty! It's no secret that this is an incredibly hot-button issue, but the parents don't get a say. There has never been sexually tinged issues like this in schools for kids so young ever before the movement began gaining the support of the left.
And it gets worse. Junior high was the average point at which sex-ed, or "health class" was offered in schools. It was all very clinical as to how the parts worked and what they did. But now, the kids are being indoctrinated like a freakin' gulag to create more supporters for the cause and often doing so without parental notification. In Illinois High School District 214 (if I'm not mistaken) summer reading lists contain books that are really porn literature, exposing kids to all sorts of sexual hijinks, and of course, it's supposed to be a good thing. At Stevenson HS, a closed door seminar with students lectured by homosexuals was to be "between us" as the school said. "Let's keep this between us. No need to let anyone know outside this room what we talked about, including your parents." (Visit CultureCampaign.org for details on these two incidents.) And of course, the Gay-Straight Alliance presents its pro-homo propaganda in almost every high school in the nation, in many cases providing actual "how-to sex literature" for those who think they might be homosexual or just curious. Isn't that nice? And don't forget about the incredibly stupid annual day of silence, which would be improved upon if they added another 364 days.
Sidebar: This is not to say that I would not want kids who question their sexuality to have some place to go in their schools, to feel safe in their schools, and to be protected against abusive behavior during this hormonally charged period in their lives. But encouraging any kind of sexual exploration and experimentation does NOT make their lives easier. It only opens them up for more heartache, including the potentially fatal health risks. This is actually the worst time to be telling a teenager that it's OK to be a homosexual since he might only be feeling the effects of his hormonal activity. It exacerbates the most confusing time in a kid's life, and whatever he feels about himself during this period will most assuredly pass away if left alone. But to insist to the kid that the feelings he has prove he's homosexual is frankly, child abuse. Sexually speaking, there is no feeling upon which a teenager should be encouraged to act. Instead, he/she should be guided to endure until adulthood when his/her actions won't impact his/her entire family, and possibly for naught if the feelings aren't true.
This post is in response to a request of sorts by Les who insisted that I prove to him that a downside exists to the pro-homosexuality movement. Most of what I'll write here is personal opinion, of course, but it's based on things I've read from various sources. Some of those sources include, but are not limited to, Americans for Truth, Concerned Women for America and articles from Conservapedia.com, as well as various columns, articles and interviews to which I've been exposed over the course of time. Though some of the sources may be faith based, I would hope that supporters of the movement would suspend outrage and focus on the points presented. But to that point I would like to say that I believe totally in the ability of faith to promote incredible degrees of change within a person, whether that person has faith in a deity or only his own self, as long as that faith is strong. An important point to remember. At the outset, I want to emphasize that I in no way, shape or form condone harrassment or attacks on anyone simply for their being a homosexual. They are still people, of course, and are equally deserving of kindness and respect like anyone else. It serves no noble cause to point them out, ridicule or physically assault them. Next, I feel strongly the need to declare that the concept of homophobia is a big, steaming pile of crap. I reject any accusations to that affect, so spare yourselves the keystrokes.
When Les and I were discussing like mature adults this topic, I left off with what I called the first evidence of the downside. We find ourselves in our current situation as a result of what has gone before, namely, the sexual liberation movement of the 50's and 60's. What is going on now could never have begun without it. Thus, this is a natural progression of the bigger picture problem of promiscuity, a tangent which has become its own distinct negative on our society. As this snowball has been working its way downhill, we are seeing a push from polygamists for consideration using the same arguments of the homosexuals. (This is apart from the dude recently put in jail for polygamy, some radical and abusive Mormon rejected by the larger organization.) And in the last year, a film was given some props at a festival, I believe it was Sundance, on the topic of bestiality. But Rick Santorum was just a homophobic boob. Sure, these are not on the scale of the homosexual movement. Give it time, especially if all goals are met by the movement. So support for the homosexual movement is like pushing that snowball faster down the hill of the moral degradation that began fifty years ago and continues to this day.
The obvious downside is in the realm of public health. I read where one medical person stated that homosexual sex is ideal for the transmission of disease. As in, custom made for it. In an earlier discussion, Les was quick to point out that many of the sexual practices of homosexuals are engaged in by heterosexual couples. This is true. But the frequency of of outbreaks of STDs is highest among homosexuals. One source stated that as much as 80% of new AIDS cases still come from the homosexual community, roughly 2-5% of the population. The same holds true for many other diseases, such as syphillis. This is due to the fact that, just as using tools for purposes not intended by their design damages them, so too with the human anatomy. Right from the start, the physical expressions of homosexual lust are harmful. Not so the primary physical expression of hetero lust. To support the homosexual agenda is to invite problems that could overburden our health care system and without a doubt, health care insurance. It would be akin to being forced to insure stunt people or rather, insuring everyone against the possibility that they would engage in dangerous stunts. Things will get more expensive. And this would be true keeping in mind the 2-5% aspect.
I'm going to end it here as I have serious reservations regarding the space limitations of a single post.