Why should we care? Natural abhorrence must not prevent Americans from facing homosexuality's threat to the sanctity of our families, the freedom of our beliefs, and the foundation of our society. (Cover Story: Culture War).

"Senators, my opponent has the advantage of me," commented the Roman orator Cicero in one of his speeches condemning Marcus Antonius. "He has done things a gentleman cannot discuss in public." A similar reluctance sometimes seizes decent people regarding the topic of homosexuality, inspired partly by the sense that any public discussion of the practice -- even to condemn it -- abets the effort to undermine our society. And indeed, as the previous article documents, homosexual activists encourage widespread discussion of their chosen vice to help desensitize the public.

Another reason morally committed Americans recoil from discussing homosexuality is the belief that as long as the practice remains private, it should be ignored. It is true that there is relatively little that government can properly do to combat homosexuality in the private sphere (as opposed to discouraging or punishing its practice in institutions such as the military). But advocates of limited government make a potentially fatal error in assuming that homosexual revolutionaries share this principled reluctance to use state power. In fact, leaders of the Lavender Revolution are quite candid about their intention to use governmental power, and any leverage they obtain within private institutions, to force normal society to embrace homosexuality. This would mean reconstructing all human associations and institutions to accommodate people whose sense of identity is defined by a dysgenic, self-destructive vice.

To understand the innate evil of homosexuality, one should first recognize that the practices grouped under that term do not constitute "sex" -- the physical union of male and female. A married couple deriving sensual gratification from physical intimacy experiences what Aristotle called a good of "second intent" -- something that is worthwhile, but derivative of a much greater good. It is the family built around the nucleus of the husband and wife that is the good of "first intent." This is why stable societies, both in the Judeo-Christian and pagan worlds, have sought to preserve the marital bond against the ravages of promiscuity -- including homosexuality.

That homosexual practices stimulate and gratify certain people is as indisputable as it is mystifying. But those practices are utterly sterile, representing the emancipated appetite in one of its most abhorrent forms: The heedless pursuit of orgasm at the expense of every other consideration -- even self-preservation.

"Were Ito discover that my only possibility of happiness lay in excessive perpetration of the most ...