A BLOG BY ALAN CHAMBERS

A Twig in the Fire

Conservative author Ann Coulter dropped a bomb with her inappropriate reference to Senator John Edwards as a "faggot," but the term "fagot" was not always a taboo word. It used to define a bundle sticks destined to burn in a fire. A "fagot ceremony" was when someone tossed a twig into the flames as a symbol of repentance and commitment. Such a ceremony might not be a bad idea for conservatives and liberals alike who have both committed transgressions in their zeal to debate cultural issues. Here are a few on the offense list.

Stop the name-calling. Lest anyone need reminding, Coulter said at the American Conservative Union's Political Action Conference, "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards." In subsequent comments, she remarked, "C'mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean." Obviously, she doesn't plan an apology.

In an ironic twist, another conservative drew scorn for an altogether different reason at the same event. Conservatives honored Marine Corporal Matt Sanchez for his support of the military at Columbia University, but when word got around on the blogosphere that Sanchez had a decade-plus past in gay porn, liberals were gleeful and attempted to smear him on MSNBC.
There was no apology on that front either.

There is nothing to be gained by denigrating others with crude slurs or personal attacks. In doing so, we disgrace ourselves and discredit the truths we seek to publicly elevate. Conservatives and liberals alike should unite to denounce this type of social discourse.

Stop the hypocrisy. It disturbs me to see policymakers and activists endorsing legislation such as the Federal Hate Crimes Legislation (H.R. 254) because it epitomizes the duplicity within our nation.

The death of Matthew Shepard is a tragic crime that deserved to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but not because Matthew Shepard was gay - because he was a valuable human life worthy of equal justice. Just as worthy as Jesse Dirkhising, a 13-year old Arkansas boy who was suffocated to death in 1999 after being bound, drugged, gagged and brutally sodomized by two homosexual predators who confessed to using him as a sex toy while torturing him to death. There have been no public memorials for him and the amount of articles written about him pale in comparison to those written about Matthew Shepherd.  Yet, both were valuable lives that were taken in horrible, cruel ways.

I confess this legislation presents a problem for me personally and for many others.  Fourteen years ago, I was living life as a gay man just like Matthew Shepard. I, however, was conflicted by the emptiness that consumed me.  Through faith, the support of many caring individuals, including that of licensed therapists affiliated with the American Psychological Association, I overcame my unwanted same-sex attractions. Today, I am a married father of two children and now represent thousands of others who have experienced the same change. We are living lives that are of no less value now than when we were living as homosexuals.

In a recent editorial, Joe Solomonese from the Human Rights Campaign and Judy Shepard, Matthew Shepard's mother, said, "Every act of violence is tragic and harmful in its consequences, but not all crime is based on hate."  I wonder how they know the motive and emotion behind each perpetrator's crime. Certainly, there is no love and compassion extended towards the perpetrator's victim. Solomonese and Shepard add, "It's time to update the law to protect everyone."   I agree on that point. Let's make the law an equal advocate for every victim because every crime is truly a hate crime.

Stop the spin. This tactic is in employed a lot when same-sex marriage is debated as a civil right. It's not, but the spin makes it sound good.

As Rev. Bob Battle, a Minnesota pastor who served as the head of the St. Paul Human Rights Department, says, "The basics for the civil rights movement is that we are all God's children, created equal in God's eyes. As for marriage, God created us male and female. That's the basics for marriage," He gets it. He knows the difference having grown up in the days of segregation in Mississippi as an African-American.

This issue has nothing to do with civil rights, special rights maybe, but not civil rights.  Liberals and activists should not undermine the integrity of the American people by dressing up their agenda in civil rights language simply because it sounds better that way. Call it what it is - a rejection of marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. It is a demand to reinvent an age-old institution and assign a new set of stipulations.

We could build a bonfire with all the twigs representing transgressions on both sides of the aisle, but these are strategic ones that inhibit real dialogue on issues that affect all Americans. Instead of name-calling, hypocritical juxtopositioning and spinning - let's engage in discourse that contributes to the national debate and elevates one another's dignity.

No Apology Necessary, General Pace

Unlike Ann Coulter's comments at the CPAC event earlier this month, General Peter Pace's personal beliefs about homosexual behavior as stated in an interview with the Chicago Tribune this week need no qualification or apology.  While I will defend Ann Coulter's right to say what she did to the death, I think our society needs to treat others like we'd like to be treated.  Ms. Coulter's remarks were rude and unnecessary.  General Pace's comments were true and firmly rooted in his upbringing and faith.

I am thankful for the fact that we still have leaders in high posts who are willing to be respectfully honest about their beliefs and opinions without regard for what is politically correct.  I am tired of our leaders caving into the intimidation that comes from the heavy handed gay activist community.  There is still room in the debate over homosexuality for the Judeo-Christian perspective.

Surgery to Prevent Homosexuality?

The 'Sheep Study' of 2005 has resurfaced.  For those of you who don't recall the 'Sheep Study' don't worry---I barely remember the details.  Suffice it to say, some researchers were trying to once again prove that homosexuality is genetic this time based upon a group of rams within the Corvallis herd that " consistently ignore females and bestow all their amorous attentions on members of their own sex".  This herd resides at Oregon State University.

Fast forward to 2007.  Not only has the study reared its baaaaad self  again, there are new questions being raised over whether or not in-utero surgery should be considered to manipulate a gay gene if it were found in a pre-born child.

WHAT?? 

Pardon me while I take a deep breath and try to remain calm. 

First of all, would we even be talking about this if a genetic link to heterosexual pornography had been found?  I think not.  There has been some credible evidence to support that there is a genetic link to alcoholism.  Have we seen any news articles discussing whether or not we should "fix" this problem in-utero?  Uh uh.

I am not sure whether or not homosexuality has a genetic link or not.  Frankly, I don't care.  What I do know is that I can logically look back at my development and understand why I struggled with homosexuality.  From my inborn personality traits to how I perceived and responded to the environment in which I was raised, I believe that most of my issues were developmental in nature.  Regardless of the roots, I believe that homosexuality is a sinful condition like so many others and my choice, based upon unchosen circumstances and feelings, was to pursue a life that lined up with my faith. 

I think that like everything else, homosexuality is multi-causal.  To simply pawn it off on genetics invalidates its complexity and my story.  To say that it is all developmental might invalidate your story and any sound genetic research that has or is being done.  To say that homosexuality is simply caused by a gay demon, in my experience and opinion, is ridiculous. 

I was asked this morning if I would have supported my mother's decision to fix any genetic mutation that might have caused homosexuality had she been made aware of the problem before I was born.  The answer is no.  And, I am sure that is what my mom would have said, too. 

In fact, as an almost 41 year old woman mom found out that she was pregnant with her 6th child about the same time she was becoming a grandmother for the 3rd time.  My mother's doctor told her that she was too old to go through with her pregnancy and that if she did she would most likely have a mongoloid baby.  My mom decided that this was her last pregnancy, she wasn't going to worry for 9 months and that she would love a mongoloid baby as much as a healthy one.

The truth is that we all have to take responsibility for ourselves.  When someone realizes that they have same-sex attractions they have to decide what to do about that.  Of course, I believe that homosexuality is changeable and I believe, based upon my own story, that it is preventable.  But, I don't believe that a pill or surgery or holding someone will provide the results that some hope for---there is no quick fix or formula to changing one's sexuality.  Instead, most successful and longterm change occurs when one decides to daily submit their mind, will and emotions to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  Some find freedom from feelings and attractions while others simply find freedom from an identity that was incompatible with their faith.

Ann the Barbarian!

I don't know where I've been, but until yesterday I hadn't heard of Ann Coulter's latest offense. Last week, Ann Coulter spoke at the American Conservative Union's Political Action Conference. During her speech she said, "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word "faggot," so I - so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."

When asked about it later she stated, "I'm so ashamed, I can't stop laughing." She added: "C'mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean."

Apparently Ms. Coulter isn’t afraid to be mean. In fact, I found her slur downright nasty. As was a comment that she made last fall to a group of conservative Christian leaders in DC. At that event she equated what the pro-gay lobby was doing with pro-gay legislation to oral sex---“shoving it down our throats”. Many of the leaders got up and left in the middle of her speech.

We do not need this kind of childish vitriol. We can disagree on politics, legislation, moral issues, whatever, but this is way out of line. Faggot is a word that school bullies and ignorant people use to inflict emotional pain on their victims. Ann Coulter should know better and her friends and those that pay her bills would do well to remind her of that fact.