Wrecking a Pro-LGBT RINO: My Response to Mario Guerra's Defense of "PRIDE Tweet"

Here's the extensive response that I gave to RINO former mayor Mario Guerra's pathetic response to myh initial letter regarding RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel's Pride Tweet in June:

Dear Mr. Guerra:

Thank you for your
response to my letter. I know that I am making a difference when leadership is
compelled to respond.

However, I must say that
I found your response to be juvenile, emotionally immature, unrepresentative of
both the RNC and CAGOP platforms, and marinated in logical fallacies.

Since you are a former
mayor and a current deacon in the Catholic Church, I expected a rigorous,
serious argument. Please do better next time.

Let me take apart your
very unprepared remarks.

I am also the former Mayor of Downey, current Civilian Aide
to the Secretary of the Army, a proud Republican, and a member of the Catholic
Clergy (ordained in 2002). I am telling you this, so you know that my response
to you is totally from me personally. 

Mario, I know who you are, and you know who I am.
These formalities were not necessary.

I loved all my brothers. While two were gay
they were part of who I am as a family. As a Christian I can vouch for what I
know to be God's love for them as much as me. 

I was embarrassed in my early years about
their homosexuality and would not want my friends to know. I overcame this as I
matured, understood who they were and as my faith grew. They did not choose to
be gay by the way, just like you or I choose to be straight.

This is a fallacious
straw-man argument, Mario. Never once did I saw that homosexuals choose “to be gay.”
However, I maintain the argument based on science and statistical research that
homosexuality and transgenderism (gender dysphoria) are not genetic components
of an individual, nor are they natural or healthful manifestations within a
person. For the record, we can love and cherish friends and family who struggle
with LGBT behaviors. That does not mean we have to celebrate or accept their
behaviors.

I am happy to see that
our party nationally is accepting of everyone. As they say in politics, our
tent is big, and everyone is welcome.

With due respect, no, a
political party should not accept “everyone”:

·        
We should not accept
convicted felons who have not changed their lives or made restitution to
society.

·        
We should not accept
child abusers or pedophiles.

·        
We should not accept
domestic or international terrorists.

·        
We should not accept
registered Democrats, Libertarians, etc. They are required to change their
political affiliation before joining the party, are they not?

·        
We
should not anti-Semites or other racialists or racists, since such views
violate natural law and natural right. Consider that the CAGOP leadership
rightly removed failed US Senate candidate Patrick Little from the 2018 CAGOP
Convention for his horrific, false, anti-Semitic smears. Even the previous
CAGOP leadership did not accommodate your false notion of “accept everyone.” (Click here for more information)

·        
Once again, you are treating
homosexuality as an identity. Once again, that is a biological and
philosophical fallacy.

I must remind you that
churches and other communities which abandon their fundamental precepts are
losing members at an alarming rate. The same principle holds true for political
parties. A party, like a tent, must stand for something, cover something, and
be grounded in something. Otherwise, it’s just a cloth on the ground that
everyone walks on.

A political movement
must have clear and convincing principles, like defense of natural marriage and
the family. The growing movement of Hispanic voters to the GOP column in Texas,
Florida, and even in California indicate that the CAGOP must embrace and retain
its bona fides on cultural issues, not abandon them. The same trend holds true
for African-American and Asian-American communities. A political party is
supposed to grow, and it cannot grow by driving away potential members with a
consistent unwillingness to stand for something.

Throughout your
response, you have cited that you are a Catholic Christian. Let me provide you
seminal statements from Scriptural and religious authorities which your
Catholic upbringing should revere regarding homosexuality:

“But that we write unto them, that they abstain
from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and
from blood.” (Acts 15:20)

And

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile
affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is
against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which
is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which
was meet.” (Romans 1:26-27)

Let me also provide you
pertinent statements from the Catholic Catechism on this matter:

# 2357: Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which
presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (Cf. Genesis 19:1-29;
Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Timothy 1:10), tradition has always
declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” (Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith, Persona humana, 8). They are contrary to the natural
law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a
genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they
be approved.

Sir, I am not a
practicing Catholic myself, yet even I appear to have a greater understanding
of Catholic doctrine on the matters of homosexuality than you do. I can also assure
you that a growing segment of the Catholic community in the state of California
are also well aware and informed of these standards. Again, I am surprised that
I have to explain these elemental facts to you.

For the record, my
opposition to homosexuality does not stem from religious conviction or
traditional adherence, but rather to a sound appreciation of biology,
epidemiology, psychology, and sociology. I have made my arguments based on
science, not vain appeals to emotion and superficial religious fervor.

While I do not usually
respond to such unbelievable hateful rhetoric, I couldn’t help myself in this
case. I felt the need to respond to you. I have been praying for guidance all
morning since I read your email.

I am happy to see that
our party nationally is accepting of everyone. As they say in politics, our
tent is big, and everyone is welcome. We should be spending time on electing
Republicans and avoiding hate speech.

We all want the
government out of our churches, out of our bank accounts and out of our
bedrooms. We should ask no less for our party. We should push hate speech like
yours out of our party also.

I will respond to the
last paragraph first. This libertarian temptation “we want the government out” is
rife with fallacies, and misunderstands the proper role of government. Indeed,
governments do regulate behavior in the bedroom. Prostitution and incest, two
examples of consensual sexual acts, are properly criminalized. The question is
not “whether the government should regulate …,” but rather which acts should
be deemed deviant or criminal.

Considering that even
first-world nations like the Republic of Singapore still criminalize sodomy,
and considering also that thriving, developed nations like Hungary and Poland
have rejected LGBT hegemony, perhaps it’s rather hateful on your part to deem
opposition to homosexuality as hateful or backwards.

Again, regarding the
role of government, the government is indeed involved in our banking industries.
For example, banks cannot over-leverage their holdings via excessive fractional
reserve banking. Such dangerous, unethical practices cause bank runs. Banks are
also not permitted to release individual or corporate accounts to other claimants
without court order. That is a government intervention, to ensure private
property is protected. Banks are also required to provide reports of dubious or
suspect accounts and transactions, as well, to deter terrorism, drug
trafficking, and money laundering. As a reminder, the very First Amendment
exists to ensure that the government does not impose its own religious dictates
on the citizenry, and also ensures that entities and actors, whether public or
private, cannot occlude or frustrate our freedoms.

Earlier, you made
numerous references to “hate speech.” Frankly, such denouncements come from the
pen or mouths of individuals who are intellectually unsure or emotionally immature.
Those who are incapable of making a strong defense, intellectually insecure or
unsure, will often label points of view with which they disagree as “hate speech.”
Social justice warrior activists on college campuses, for example, resort to
this empty epithet because they have never considered that there are
differences of opinion to begin with.

Intellectual insecurity
or lack of assurance can stem from emotional immaturity, from a greater need to
be accepted by one’s peers rather than courageously to stand for truth. Mr.
Guerra, you have demonstrated in the past an insistence on seeking the approval
of others rather than doing what is right or principled. For example, you
withdrew your name as a delegate to the 2016 RNC Convention, when activists in
your community criticized you for being on the delegate short list. Your
decision to bow out of the delegate list showed the emotional immaturity that
comes with refusing to stand for what is right for fear of disappointing
others.

Regarding further your
juvenile invective “hate speech,” Mario, I must further ask:

·        
Do you consider “The
Declaration of Independence” hate speech?

·        
Is an article from
Nature.com “hate speech”?

·        
Is the growing body of
research which affirms that homosexual conduct is not only learned or acquired
innate, and that a growing number of people have abandoned homosexuality and transgenderism,
are those records and testimonies “hate speech”?

·        
Do you consider the
tenets outlined in the New Testament, the Torah, the Quran, even the Confucian
Analects regarding natural relations between man and woman “hate speech”?

·        
Are the RNC and CAGOP platforms
hate speech?

·        
And I must further ask:
is telling the truth about homosexuality and transgenderism hate speech, too?

Then there are your
appeals to authority and emotion towards the end of your statement:

Ivanka Trump, President Trump's
daughter and presidential advisor, recently stated, "I am proud to support
my LGBTQ friends and the LGBTQ Americans who have made immense contributions to
our society and economy." 

I will pray for you and those
who feel the way you do.

Help us to see that every human
being is an image-bearer who must be afforded compassion, love, kindness,
respect, and dignity. Keep us from engaging in hateful and harassing behavior
toward any individual or group.

An appeal to authority
such as Ivanka Trump is more troubling than compelling, Mario. She was never in
elected office, and she is not a standard-bearer in the state or national Republican
Party apparatus. A growing number of grassroots activists and office holders throughout
the United States, including California, find her views and values either
irrelevant or contrary to the Republican Party.

Your pathetic (pathos)
appeal to compassion, love, and kindness is initially commendable. However, is
it truly loving, compassionate, or kind to celebrate behaviors which on average
cut the lifespan short of its practitioners by 20%? It is loving or
compassionate to lie to the public, especially our precious children in the
classrooms, that homosexuality and transgenderism  are normal behaviors when in fact they are
inherently harmful and demeaning?

And regarding the larger
LGBT hegemony, is it love to force bakers to bake a cake for a gay wedding,
when it goes against the conscience of the bakers? Is it compassionate to force
churches, charities, and small businesses to disregard their proprietary rights
and force them to accommodate an agenda based on fraudulent science and fraught
with errors? Is it kindness to deprive children of a mother and a father, to
deprive our communities of an essential fabric for its durability (the natural
family), and to undermine public health and moral well-being?

Mr. Guerra, I will pray
that you can take a better opportunity to respond to my statements with mature,
thorough, and forthright statements rather than the intellectually deficient,
morally failing, and emotionally overwrought arguments you proffered. I will
repeat, since you are a former mayor and a current deacon in the Catholic
Church, I expect a rigorous, serious defense of your views. Please do better
next time.

Last of all, my demands
on the CAGOP leadership remain outstanding. The RNC Chairwoman should be
rebuked for celebrating “PRIDE Month,” and she should face calls for her
resignation for abandoning the platform and plants of the Republican Party. 

Thank you.

Sincerely

Arthur Schaper

Delegate, California
Republican Party

Organization Director,
MassResistance