r~ LiBl’RAL Cl’LTl’Ri:n•//if (Jiifslfor PffU’cnIn :i iiwiit //»/(“.irlii li-.ihoul toi.iini-nii’-f «<-• ii-.ul:nlllr lokl- ni.irkrl i’^ lIU’ ‘^.IMU’ .!^ lluiiiiki’nIric/r iii:ir’ki’ln\ h;il iKw [JO.siiliililiis llii> Mij^yiM-. lornllu’ hillioii-diilhii’. l’liii’iil.i.|iM.'(l. hlooniniil^ iiKlll->li’. pi’dillulioiKll kli’j: :IM nllirn1)1,1 Ini’ iKi niiki’s I’shiM or hiiiii|ii.i’nsliiUi’r wiih i’M.r l(li;r.ini piirtli.isvniiiiuhl iiih:iiu I’ >.ik>-.nindividuals by their group affiliations,” itnis said, and that is so. But it is only a partialntruth, The whole truth is that, to thendegree that the individual is a bona fidenmember of a given group, some predictionsncan be made and should be made.nFurthermore, if predictions are madenabout several people belonging to thatngroup the odds for being correct will gonup sharply. Statistics tell us that thenlarger the sample, the more true to thenexpected pattern the predictions will be.nConsider aU the decisions in life whichnmust be made on the spur of the momentnor, worse, when the people about whomndecisions must be made are not interestednin candor, and may even prefer deception.nAnyone who has made thenwrong choice knows how difficult, expensive,nand interminable—if not impossible—itnis to get rid of the wrongntenant, the wrong employee, or thenwrong person inside the house. For thisnreason it is irresponsible to attempt tonlegislate away a person’s need to stereotypenothers, and to force him to behavenas if he didn’t see the trouble coming.nAnd yet this is what we are asked to donwith regard to homosexuals. The factnthat as a group they lead lives that arencharacterized by promiscuity—^frequentlynconducted with people with whomn*>»>:nChronicles of Culturenthey have the briefest of acquaintance,nperhaps no more than the use of thennext urinal—^is to be ignored. The greatlynincreased likelihood that they, as angroup will, because of their behavioralnpatterns, bring strangers into theirnhomes, makes them and their premisesnmuch more likely to be involved inncrimes. Their promiscuity and their sexualnpractices make them as much as 10ntimes more a health hazard than “straights.”nDespite all of that and much more, thenstraight majority is accused of stereotypingnand hence is labeled “homophobic,”ni.e., sick or evil. And the homosexualnmovement is busy lobbying, withnoodles of liberal help, for laws to punishnpeople who are trying to keep a clearnview of reality, in this case the reality ofnhomosexuals as a group.nLiCt us move over (to the left) andnexamine the carrot-and-stick ideologynof the movement. To begin with it is expressednin terms of human rights, privacy,nminority rights, discrimination,ndignity, mid freedom These code wordsnare difficult to resist in their own rightnand are used to disguise the central conceptsnof this ideology; that is the carrot.nThe stick is homophobia A single examplenof the use of such code words willnnnsuffice:nAn enlightened and civilized societynmust ultimately rid itself of its prejudicenagainst homosexuals. The vastnmajority of homosexual men andnwomen ask only to be accepted asnhuman beings, and be allowed to liventheir oum lives free bom persecutionnand discrimination [emphasis added].nThis is a plea for accepting homosexualsnas another legitimate minority.nWhat, however, is the outcome of suchnacceptance? Inevitably the same legalnrights as are guaranteed to other recognizednminorities will follow (indeed thenabove quotation comes directly fromntestimony given in behalf of prohomosexualnbill H.R. 2074). Put into practice,nsuch legislation will make it extraordinarilyndifficult: to protect children fromnrecruitment or possible seduction bynhomosexual teachers; for families tonavoid renting an upstairs apartment ornpart of their home to a “gay” couple whonmaintain an “open” relationship. Suchnideas may sound farfetched; they are not.nThus, it is clear that liberal code wordsnneed to be examined carefiilly in termsnof their acmal consequences in real life,nregardless of what group they refer to innany given version.nPerhaps the strongest of the movement’snideological positions is its antifamilynstance: “The child should haventhe right to decide whom to live with,nwhether a lesbian mother or a gay fathern… a boy-lover, or someone else”; andn”Insofar as it manifests a belief in thenbiological abilities of the female to nurmrenthe young—^abilities allegedly absentnin the male of the species—the family,nand religion, oppress young people.”nThese from the mouth of a spokesmannfor NAMBLA (North American Man/BoynLover Association). Apart from the obviouslynself-serving nature of the abovenstatement of homosexual goals one cannalso discern one of the classic aims ofnthe revolutionary left, the destruction ofnthe traditional family unit. It is easilynestablished that the homosexual movementnis frequently involved in causesn