Q: "If, in fact, as some scientific studies suggest, that being homosexual is, in fact, biologically determined, what then would be wrong with granting rights, and even the right to marry?"
 
A: "First, no study has made such a determination. . . . And I say that unequivocally. I've looked at the question many times. Second, we are all in a certain sense genetically and biologically predisposed to a kind of sexual promiscuity. We want to engage and indulge our sexual appetites in ways that have no respect for basic human requirements, conventions, family responsibilities and so forth. That's not just true of homosexual people. That's true of heterosexual people. Healthy, red-blooded males who are sexually attracted to every attractive woman they see, and vice versa.
 
"We as human beings cannot assert that our sexual drive is uncontrollable. If we do, civilization is ended. These are not things we can't control. Our passions are precisely subject to our moral will and our rationality. That's what makes us human. So if you're going to tell me that the sexual impulse of anybody -- not just homosexuals -- is uncontrollable and you've got to do it, then you have removed us from the realm of human moral choice and you have consigned us to the realm of instinctive necessity and animal nature. And we are not there. I will not deny our humanity.
 
"So I think that in this area as in all the areas of passion: our anger, our greed, our resentment, our jealousy -- these are all passions that can be very strong in us but which we know must be disciplined and regulated by our moral will for the sake of conscience and human community. And we have to expect that of one another. Do you realize that the very idea of freedom and self-government is absurd if we are, in fact, subject to uncontrollable passions? Then we're not free. We're slaves to our passions. But that's not so. We believe in this country, in liberty, in . . . true moral choice. And that moral choice is possible with respect to sexual action to such a degree you don't even have to engage in sexual activity. You can refrain from it altogether, if you think that is required by the dictates of moral conscience. And that capacity shouldn't be denied in any human being. And I don't think it's a question of homosexual or heterosexual. It's a question of humanity."

2Thes2..10 ... did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this reason GOD will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

2Thes1..8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know GOD, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our LORD Jesus Christ.
9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the LORD and from the glory of His power.

Ps94..20 Shall the throne of iniquity, which devises evil by law, have fellowship with You?

    The Clinton administration saw him as the one man who could "deliver" the Palestinians to make peace with Israel. The peace camp in Israel, championed by the late Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, more or less agreed: to them, Arafat was the thug who'd keep the Palestinian street quiet. Arafat strung them along, more or less, until his bluff was called by the Israeli peace offer at Camp David in July 2000.

    After that, there was just no point in keeping up appearances, and so came the intifada. It was a premeditated act. As Arafat had already told an Arab audience in Stockholm in 1996, "We plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion . . . . We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem."

    Arafat never espoused any vision of the kind of state he wanted for his people. He projected no sense of civil society, no social or economic philosophy, no consolidating statecraft. He enunciated no constructive hopes, but only repeated the mantra of leading a million Palestinian martyrs into Jerusalem. In continuing to encourage the Palestinian refugees and their descendants to believe they would ultimately return to their homes of a half a century before and making that a deal-killer at Camp David, he steadily championed a formula for the elimination of Israel, the only tangible goal that his voiced aspirations ever added up to.

    In recent years, Arafat had been unmasked not as a peace partner but as the main roadblock to peace. In a recent book, Dennis Ross, the Clinton administration's special envoy to the Middle East throughout the Oslo years, spared no words in laying directly on Arafat the blame for the failure of the peace talks and the resumption of violence in 2000. "Arafat could not do a deal that ended the conflict. ... He could live with a process, but not with a conclusion," Ross wrote.