Appointing lesbians or homosexuals to political office precisely as representatives of their lifestyle is a perversion of politics. (See front-page story)
The initial perversion is the homosexual ‘lifestyle,’ as it is euphemistically called. An additional perversion is to lift this socially regressive, personal sexual activity to the status of an ‘ethnic minority’ group deserving special protection over and above the rights which every other citizen has. In Ontario this special protection was legislated by the Liberal government in 1986.
A further perversion is to appoint members of this group to high office.
The erroneous arguments used in 1986 are the same ones used today to justify the appointments. Laura Rowe’s statement that her lesbianism “is part of who I am, (and) doesn’t have any bearing on my competence” as a member of the Toronto Police Board contains two such errors.
The idea that lesbianism is as natural to a person as the color of one’s skin is false. Homosexual activity is an act of the free will. In other words, it is not a feature inherited at birth. Rowe herself is an example of this; she having adopted her new lifestyle after her marriage had ended in divorce. As the Toronto ‘Gay’ tabloid Xtra! (April 26) put it, “Married and a mother at 18, Rowe moved to Toronto at 21…Once settled here, she discovered feminism, lesbianism, and her vocation as a counselor…with the Rape Crisis Centre.”
A second error is the notion that personal behavior has no bearing on one’s public ‘competence’ or behavior. For hundreds of years this spurious claim was used to defend King Henry VIII, supposedly a bad husband but a good king. But Henry VIII was a bad husband and a bad king, and the reason he was a bad king and a tyrant was not least because he became a lecher.
Lesbian Carmen Paquette is surely correct in seeing her appointment as a Human Rights Commissioner as a recognition and encouragement for the homosexual lifestyle.
She is wrong in seeing herself as part of a legitimate minority. She is also wrong in claiming that 10 percent of the population is homosexual. It is one of those wild figures promoted by the homosexual community for which there exists not the slightest evidence. Even the famous Kinsey Report never claimed more than four percent. And today this report is wholly discredited after the discovery that Kinsey collected his ‘scientific’ data from among the homosexual community and not from among the general populace, as he had claimed. One half of one percent seems much closer to the truth.
The most critical error of all is the idea that homosexual/lesbian activity is different from, but morally equal to, normal married relations between husband and wife. It is nothing of the kind.
In religion homosexual activity is an offence against God’s law and, therefore, a sin. In culture lesbianism represents the asocial and total regressive feminist rejection of men, while homosexuality is an abnormal pre-occupation with self, leading to sexual egotism. Both result in the rejection of the family.
Appointing members of the homosexual community to high office is disastrous. It intensifies the process of alienation already so prominent in Canadian politics in an entirely new and fundamental way. The proper end of political activity is the material and spiritual well being of society.
Lesbians and homosexuals cannot fulfill this condition.
