Georgia Log Cabin Republicans
Georgia Log Cabin Republicans
Written By Laurie Higgins   |   02.19.09

Reading Time: 3 minutes

An un-righteously indignant James Ensley, President of Georgia Log Cabin Republicans, has sent a vitriolic tirade against Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth to the new chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele. For those unfamiliar with Log Cabin Republicans, they are a homosexual political action group that is committed to subverting the Republican Party position on issues pertaining to “gay rights.”

Once again, the hypocrisy of the claims of homosexual groups’ commitments to tolerance is laid bare in all its ugliness in Mr. Ensley’s letter. He has charged Mr. LaBarbera and anyone else who shares the orthodox Christian, mainstream, historical view of homosexual behavior as immoral with being bigoted, anti-American, anti-Christian, fringe, radical, extremist domestic terrorists who shouldn’t have a voice in the Republican Party.

Here are some inconvenient truths upon which Mr. Ensley and other like-minded dogmatists might spend some time ruminating:

  • There is no research proving that homosexuality is biologically determined: none.
  • There is no research proving that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to race or biological sex: none.
  • It is no more anti-American to believe that homosexual behavior is immoral than it is to believe that polyamorous or incestuous behavior is immoral. I think it’s safe to assume that most, if not all, of our pro-American Founding Fathers believed homosexual behavior to be immoral. It would be fascinating to see what evidence Mr. Ensley would provide to justify his rather remarkable claim that beliefs about the immorality of homosexuality constitute anti-Americanism, particularly since those arguments tend to rely on the erroneous and unproven presupposition that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to race.
  • There is a body of thought emerging from the homosexual community called “queer theory” that holds that homosexuality is neither inherent nor immutable.
  • Although homosexual feelings are not chosen, homosexual conduct is.
  • Even behaviors that emerge from feelings that may be shaped in some way by biological influences are not automatically moral. All humans experience feelings that are likely shaped in some way by biology, but that existential reality does not mean that it is always and automatically morally legitimate to act upon those biologically influenced feelings.
  • The view that homosexual conduct is moral is an unproven, ethical belief -not a fact.
  • The belief that homosexual conduct is immoral does not constitute incitement to violence or hatred. It no more constitutes hatred of homosexuals than does the belief that polyamory or selfish behavior is immoral constitute hatred of polyamorists or selfish people.
  • The belief that volitional homosexual behavior is immoral is not an extreme position. Throughout history, it has been the dominant cultural view and remains so both in this country and many other countries throughout the world.
  • Ensley’s comparison of those who believe homosexuality is immoral to Nazis is a classic association fallacy, best known as “guilt by association.” He is implying that because conservatives believe that homosexuality is immoral and Nazis believed it’s immoral, then conservatives are equivalent to Nazis. It’s a fallacious and absurd non-argument. Surely, Mr. Ensley recognizes that he likely shares in common some views with some Nazis. The fact that conservatives believe that volitional homosexual behavior is immoral and that some Nazis believed that also does not prove that the belief itself is evil.
  • It is not bigotry to believe that homosexual behavior is immoral. The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines a bigot as a person who is “obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.” Clearly, there is a distinction between bigotry and moral views. Bigotry cannot simply refer to holding opinions or being in possession of moral precepts, for if it did, everyone but sociopaths would have to be considered bigots because everyone but sociopaths holds certain behaviors as moral and others as immoral. Moreover, “prejudice” refers to “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.” As such, opinions formed, even negative opinions, after careful consideration do not represent prejudice.

It appears that James Ensley just came out of his bigot closet, hurling pernicious charges -with no evidence-at not only Mr. LaBarbera but also at countless others who share the view that homosexual behavior is immoral behavior. In the future, it might behoove the ad hominem-hurling Mr. Ensley to study the art of argumentation.

Laurie Higgins
Laurie Higgins was the Illinois Family Institute’s Cultural Affairs Writer in the fall of 2008 through early 2023. Prior to working for the IFI, Laurie worked full-time for eight years...
IFI Featured Video
The Problem of Gambling in Illinois
Get Our New App!