Why I’m a Gore-aphobe

I admit it. Call me a bigot. Call me prejudiced. Call me narrow-minded. I don’t care. I’m a Gore-aphobe — and proud of it.

By that I mean Al Gore gives me the creeps. Take for example his recent shameless pandering to America’s latest whining, carping, victim class — homosexuals — and the fatcats in Hollywood who love to masquerade as social crusaders.

In a speech earlier this month to the Hollywood Radio and Television Society, Gore talks about the “deep responsibility” that the entertainment industry has because of its influence on American culture. Predictably, he praised “Sesame Street” for teaching children important lessons, a 20-year-old sitcom, “All in the Family,” for prodding Americans to confront their biases, and a decade-old television miniseries, “The Day After” for warning us all about the danger of nuclear holocaust (as if?). Then, he proved he had actually turned on a television in the ’90s — or, at least his speechwriter had.

“And when the character Ellen came out, millions of Americans were forced to look at sexual orientation in a more open light,” he said.

Notice the word “forced.” One more piece of evidence that this administration doesn’t have the slightest aversion to using compulsion, might and raw power to achieve its will. It should be no surprise that Gore sees nothing wrong with a group of pampered elitists who think like him exploiting the entertainment media to reshape cultural mores either. But forget all that for a minute. Let’s get to the subject of “sexual orientation.”

It’s interesting that Al Gore cited the “Ellen” example. What about the dozens of other TV shows and movies that promote another kind of acceptance of “sexual orientation”? I wonder why Gore — and Tipper, too — don’t comment on that? I refer specifically to the way Hollywood promotes adultery.

After all, adultery, too, could certainly be described as a sexual orientation. Let’s face it, men are more inclined by nature to be unfaithful to their spouses. It’s practically a compulsion with some men. And, it’s so unfair that this desire must be suppressed, because men are born that way. Only societal conditioning and religious taboos restrain them from expressing their true nature. Isn’t that narrow-minded? Isn’t it wonderfully liberating the way Hollywood crusades against such archaic notions with all of its socially redeeming R-rated fare?

What’s the difference, really, between homosexuality and the inclination toward adultery? In Christian terms, homosexual activity and heterosexual adultery are both sins. They are both condemned in scripture and in the traditions of church orthodoxy. Seldom, however, are they actually equated. They should be to clarify the issues at stake.

Are we better off as a nation since we have become so accepting of adultery? Or were we a healthier, happier, more fulfilled people when husbands and wives were more likely to stay together for a lifetime? I would submit we were far better off before the sexual revolution. I think most people would agree.

So why are we now blindly and willingly being led into a second phase of this sexual revolution in which we are to teach our children that it is just as good to be “gay”?

It’s not. No matter what Al Gore says for political reasons. No matter what Hollywood says for the purpose of creating controversy for the sake of controversy. And no matter what homosexuals tell themselves to justify their own lusts. It ain’t just as good to be gay. In fact, it’s downright dangerous.

Homosexuals die precariously young — not just because of the self-inflicted AIDS virus or prejudice against them, but because of a thousand different illnesses and deadly lifestyle choices they make during the course of their lives. Not only that but the promotion and acceptance of homosexuality as an equally valid alternative tends to destroy entire societies, according to a sweeping and persuasive research effort conducted by Los Angeles scholar and commentator Dennis Prager. It has happened throughout history, Prager notes. Every time homosexuality is embraced, it eventually consumes the culture.

But homosexual political activists — and their allies in Hollywood and Washington — want us to ignore such details and technicalities. It’s considered bigotry and bad form even to raise them for the purposes of discussion.

There’s nothing heroic or courageous about Hollywood’s promotion of homosexuality on prime-time television. In fact, it is the height of irresponsibility for an industry known for its recklessness and devil-may-care attitude.

It’s even more pathetic that we have a vice president of the United States who would sell his soul to patronize such ideas. And that’s just one reason I’m proud to be a Gore-aphobe.