Print
E-mail
Straight Talk About Gay Issues
By Frank Diamond, For The Bulletin
Was a time when you could get away with the old “hate the sin, love the sinner” routine, but that doesn’t wash these days. People lose jobs and find themselves the object of scorn for daring to utter their honest feelings about homosexuality.
Former Marine Gen. Peter Pace got in trouble in March 2007 for saying “I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.”
As the approbation rained down upon Gen. Pace from Hollywood and academia, I thought: “Doesn’t freedom of speech cover this?”
Apparently not, as the evisceration of Miss California Carrie Prejean proves. When asked last month at the Miss USA beauty pageant about gay marriage, Ms. Prejean said: “I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.”
Wow! Earthshaking stuff! How can such a huge reactionary fit into such a teensy weensy white bikini? The problem with this shift in the conversation over a lifestyle choice involves what’s not being discussed.
Liberals who run society foist upon us the idea that the more libertarian we become, the more enlightened we are. Is that really the case? Societies rise and fall on the decisions of the collective. Go ahead, bet that undermining the family unit is the best way to build a better future if you want. Look the other way and mumble “live and let live.” If archaeologists ever find the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah, there’s a good chance that that’s the graffiti scrawled on the walls.
I tread with trepidation. Like anybody who is reading this, I have friends and relatives who are gay. I don’t want to hurt their feelings. I think of the late Father Mychal Judge, a gay priest and one of the true heroes of 9/11, who perished while giving the last rites to dying firemen. Yet, I also have the right to speak my mind. Drag me before the judge and ask me if I think, as Gen. Pace does, that homosexual acts are immoral, and I must say yes. Ask if I think that gay marriage is the next frontier of the civil rights movement, and I’ll demur. I could perhaps be convinced that civil unions might address legitimate concerns about equal protection under the law for couples. Yet, radical gay activists insist on marriage, and civil unions may go the way of the Articles of Confederation.
Since we’re laying our cards out, then we must also acknowledge that gays are given preferential treatment in many instances. As Obamacare-inches closer to reality, we approach a world in which smokers or the obese may be singled out. The European model of socialized medicine sees this already. Patricia Hewitt, the British health secretary, says that it’s appropriate to deny treatment on the basis of lifestyle choices. Ms. Hewitt reportedly said, “[Doctors] will say to patients: ‘You shouldn’t have this operation until you’ve lost a bit of weight or stopped smoking.’”
What about other lifestyle choices? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lays out stringent guidelines for containment of tuberculosis. Foreign exchange students from countries that have TB must be screened and, if they have it, treated.
While TB and AIDS are spread in different ways, “public health people need to be free to apply public health measures to this infectious disease [AIDS],” says Joe S. McIlhaney, Jr., M.D., the founder and chairman of the Medical Institute for Sexual Health who also served on President George W. Bush’s Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS.
A gay man having unprotected sex with multiple partners poses a threat to public health, but his doctor can do little more than urge him to get tested. “If an individual is found with HIV, then he should be investigated by public health people to find out who his sexual contacts have been,” Dr. McIlhaney told me. “I don’t think that’s being done at all.”
Gee, I wonder why? “Political correctness rears its ugly head,” notes Dr. McIlhaney.
The gay community would get 10 times the benefits from such a public health policy than it would if gay marriage became the law. “AIDS is a fatal disease for most people that get it still, and people don’t know that,” says Dr. McIlhaney. “They think that the drugs will help them live a normal life, but eventually most people who have HIV will die from the disease.”
Meanwhile, all the talk’s about gay marriage, a contradictory term. That’s what happens when one side in a debate gets to set the parameters of the discussion.
Frank Diamond can be reached at fpdiamond@yahoo.com.
Former Marine Gen. Peter Pace got in trouble in March 2007 for saying “I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.”
As the approbation rained down upon Gen. Pace from Hollywood and academia, I thought: “Doesn’t freedom of speech cover this?”
Apparently not, as the evisceration of Miss California Carrie Prejean proves. When asked last month at the Miss USA beauty pageant about gay marriage, Ms. Prejean said: “I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.”
Wow! Earthshaking stuff! How can such a huge reactionary fit into such a teensy weensy white bikini? The problem with this shift in the conversation over a lifestyle choice involves what’s not being discussed.
Liberals who run society foist upon us the idea that the more libertarian we become, the more enlightened we are. Is that really the case? Societies rise and fall on the decisions of the collective. Go ahead, bet that undermining the family unit is the best way to build a better future if you want. Look the other way and mumble “live and let live.” If archaeologists ever find the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah, there’s a good chance that that’s the graffiti scrawled on the walls.
I tread with trepidation. Like anybody who is reading this, I have friends and relatives who are gay. I don’t want to hurt their feelings. I think of the late Father Mychal Judge, a gay priest and one of the true heroes of 9/11, who perished while giving the last rites to dying firemen. Yet, I also have the right to speak my mind. Drag me before the judge and ask me if I think, as Gen. Pace does, that homosexual acts are immoral, and I must say yes. Ask if I think that gay marriage is the next frontier of the civil rights movement, and I’ll demur. I could perhaps be convinced that civil unions might address legitimate concerns about equal protection under the law for couples. Yet, radical gay activists insist on marriage, and civil unions may go the way of the Articles of Confederation.
Since we’re laying our cards out, then we must also acknowledge that gays are given preferential treatment in many instances. As Obamacare-inches closer to reality, we approach a world in which smokers or the obese may be singled out. The European model of socialized medicine sees this already. Patricia Hewitt, the British health secretary, says that it’s appropriate to deny treatment on the basis of lifestyle choices. Ms. Hewitt reportedly said, “[Doctors] will say to patients: ‘You shouldn’t have this operation until you’ve lost a bit of weight or stopped smoking.’”
What about other lifestyle choices? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lays out stringent guidelines for containment of tuberculosis. Foreign exchange students from countries that have TB must be screened and, if they have it, treated.
While TB and AIDS are spread in different ways, “public health people need to be free to apply public health measures to this infectious disease [AIDS],” says Joe S. McIlhaney, Jr., M.D., the founder and chairman of the Medical Institute for Sexual Health who also served on President George W. Bush’s Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS.
A gay man having unprotected sex with multiple partners poses a threat to public health, but his doctor can do little more than urge him to get tested. “If an individual is found with HIV, then he should be investigated by public health people to find out who his sexual contacts have been,” Dr. McIlhaney told me. “I don’t think that’s being done at all.”
Gee, I wonder why? “Political correctness rears its ugly head,” notes Dr. McIlhaney.
The gay community would get 10 times the benefits from such a public health policy than it would if gay marriage became the law. “AIDS is a fatal disease for most people that get it still, and people don’t know that,” says Dr. McIlhaney. “They think that the drugs will help them live a normal life, but eventually most people who have HIV will die from the disease.”
Meanwhile, all the talk’s about gay marriage, a contradictory term. That’s what happens when one side in a debate gets to set the parameters of the discussion.
Frank Diamond can be reached at fpdiamond@yahoo.com.
 |
 |
|
| Obama's Anti-Israel Collaborators | Outlawing Opinion |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thebulletin.us.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
PolishBear wrote on May 20, 2009 12:25 PM:
I know that your opinion that homosexual "acts" (whatever those might be) are immoral is one shared by many people. If your belief is that Gay folks are committing an abominable sin and will face fiery judgment from their maker, well then that's your right. But co-opting the law to force people to do your bidding is the real abomination. And try as you might, you will not be able to find ONE purely constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted.
I'm reminded of a Republican political candidate here in West Virginia who would purchase hour-long blocks of radio time to host his own talk show as part of his campaign strategy. I called his "show" and told him that, while I found myself becoming increasing conservative as I grew older, I was still dismayed by his disdain for Gay Americans. I said to him, "It's almost as though you're incapable of making a moral and ethical distinction between a monogamous Gay couple and someone who is promiscuous." His response? "One is bad and the other is worse." Case closed.
My question for you would be this: Why is it that it's perfectly acceptable, even admirable, for Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples to date, get engaged, get married, and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing ... but for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment. It surely can't do with sexual compatibility, since I would be no more compatible with a Straight woman (or a Straight MAN for that matter) than you would be with a Lesbian.
However, I must give you props for at least be open to the option of "civil unions" for Gay couples. As someone who is nothing if not diplomatic, I believe that compromise is possible on this issue.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Supreme Court ruled that there was no Constitutional justification for denying Gay couples the same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted, but that those benefits and responsibilities could be granted to Gay couples under a different term ... such as "civil unions." The rights under tax law, Social Security, etc. would be EXACTLY the same for Gay and Straight couples; only the terminology would be different. Opposite-sex couples would be allow the option to "marry," and same-sex couples would be allowed the option to enter into "civil unions." Social conservatives could keep the term “marriage” for themselves, and Gay couples would be granted equal protection as specified by the 14th Amendment.
Frankly, I could live with that. How about YOU? "