Combating Gay Bias — A Reader’s Perspective
Dan and I received this awesome email from a new GayPatriot reader. It is being reprinted with permission.
Stumbled across your blog from Instapundit, though I’ve read other excerpts from your posts on other blogs. But I believe this is my first visit. I’m not a homophobe, though I am homo-uncomfortable. VERY conservative religious upbringing and a total disconnect with homosexual behavior.
Having said that, read one of [Andrew] Sullivan’s essays years ago on the need for society to grant him the same freedoms and privileges in his relationships that the rest of us enjoy. Extremely lucid, compelling, and passionate argument. Made me challenge even more strongly some of my innate tendencies and attitudes. Motivated me to strive even more towards total acceptance of gays.
However, watching his intellectual contortions as he turned his back on everything he had professed to believe and support once the President came out in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment has been hugely disappointing. One more voice for government entitlements regardless of the cost to the country or the opinions of the majority. One more agitator for government by judicial fiat instead of laws supported by the electorate. A totally unprincipled support of “me-first” political action. Even at the cost of supporting the greater good. Disgusting.
You folks seem to be Americans, and country music fans, and talk show hosts, and dog owners, etc. – who happen to be gay. Andrew seems to be a gay guy who happens to live in America. Not that your sexual orientation is not important to you, or central to who you are. But it does not define the essence of all that you do. And I can appreciate what we have in common without being shut out by our differences.
Thanks for your blog. You can not imagine the impact you two are having on the straight conservatives in our precious nation. Dan’s recent post on the need for civil discourse, the free exchange of ideas, and the desire for
rational argument among competing viewpoints has again raised my respect for honest advocates of gay rights. Reading your thoughts on gay marriage vs. civil unions once again challenges me to confront my conscious and unconscious biases. Sharing so many views and beliefs with openly gay conservatives encourages me to appreciate our commonality and be even more accepting of our differences.Proofing this letter, I’m not sure I have communicated clearly what is in my heart and mind today. Hope you can read between the lines and gain a sense of what I am trying to communicate. Perhaps a recent comparison will serve to illuminate. As Cynthia Mckinney’s recent actions have reinforced many negative racial stereotypes, so you two serve to combat stereotyping of the gay community. You two are much more convincing advocates for the gay community than Queer Nation or Dykes on Bikes. And Bruce loves Brad Paisley! A country music fan. Who’d a thunk it? Another stereotype down the tubes.
Appreciate your work. Your thoughts, arguments, and reasoning. You are helping to forge a bridge of greater understanding between the larger gay community and straight conservatives.
This email would never have been written to us by any Democrat or Gay Leftist. Nor would any Gay Secular Liberal have ever written such a compassionate and sincere note to a Christian.
That alone speaks volumes about how far our community has to go.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
72 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Good morning.
Interesting letter.
“…VERY conservative religious upbringing…”
If he still thinks you’re going to hell…you might’ve been punk’d.
Agape.
Comment by Gene — April 8, 2006 @ 9:03 am - April 8, 2006
I think this letter shows an emerging open mindedness which has resulted from gay bloggers who use repectable language and reason that most people can identify with on some level regardless of differences. This is a person who is engaging in constructive interaction rather than the bomb throwing we see too often from other sectors of the social/political spectrum.
Comment by Dave — April 8, 2006 @ 9:18 am - April 8, 2006
This letter illustrates the innate humanity of the writer, and that is the source of understanding between people who have previously been isolated from each other. It is a two-way effort of course. In order to hate or demean an entire group of people one must view them as at least in part not human, or at least as a sub-species. No thinking person could do this consciously with any sense of fairness. By the same token, those who want to be part of a larger whole advance their purpose by celebrating commonality, not by in-your-face advertising of those aspects which have separated them into a faction, whatever it may be. This is not to say that they must abandon those aspects, just that presenting them as the ultimate statement of self is not going to advance anything. A great recent example is the Mexican flag waving. It inflamed a great negative reaction.
Comment by Kitty — April 8, 2006 @ 10:53 am - April 8, 2006
Homosexuality is a choice and it certainly doesn’t help people to tell them “you were born that way.”
I would challenge you to find the elusive “gay gene.” It doesn’t exist.
Having said that I don’t believe we should have a police state to see how people behave in the bedroom. But I’m certainly not going to change my views about gay marriage based on a myth.
Comment by Mark — April 8, 2006 @ 12:03 pm - April 8, 2006
#3: “A great recent example is the Mexican flag waving. It inflamed a great negative reaction.”
Funny, I don’t recall “a great negative reaction” when Jeb Bush had a huge Mexican flag waving in one of his gubernatorial campaign ads. I guess it depends on who does the waving. Or more precisely, their skin tone.
Comment by Ian — April 8, 2006 @ 12:08 pm - April 8, 2006
And for the 1,825th morning, Ian awakens to find his corn flakes peed in…
Sucks to be you, dude. I don’t know how you manage to get out of bed in the morning.
Eric in Hollywood
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 8, 2006 @ 12:11 pm - April 8, 2006
I too accidently stumbled across this web page linked via another source. It has been my experience that the proprietors of this web site offer lucid, compelling and straight thinking analysis of current events (Pardon the pun)
The fact that the gentlemen are gay effects me not one bit…I appreciate the experience they bring to the table and have discovered we have much more in common than not
I read this site as often as time permits, and have enjoyed the varying opinions put forth
Comment by SixStringBassPlayer — April 8, 2006 @ 12:14 pm - April 8, 2006
#4: “Homosexuality is a choice”
Well, that begs the obvious question (assuming you’re straight): when exactly did you choose to be heterosexual?
As for the “gay gene” comment, you are obviously not up to date on the latest research. There is no serious scientific debate over the involvement of genetic factors in determining sexual orientation: they ARE involved. The research is clear that other factors are also involved, most likely conditions in the womb. Nurture has little if anything to do with it. The only choice most gay people have to make is whether or not to act on their sexual orientation. That said, who cares if it is a choice anyway? People choose their religion – do you have a problem with that?
Comment by Ian — April 8, 2006 @ 12:53 pm - April 8, 2006
#6: “I don’t know how you manage to get out of bed in the morning.”
I admit it can be VERY difficult due to the hot stud with whom I share my bed.
Comment by Ian — April 8, 2006 @ 12:55 pm - April 8, 2006
#4 Mark:
Homosexuality is a choice
Wrong. The only “choice” is whether or not to keep it a secret.
and it certainly doesn’t help people to tell them “you were born that way.”
“Help”? Look in the mirror and remember: Pride goeth before the fall.
I would challenge you to find the elusive “gay gene.” It doesn’t exist.
Are you a geneticist? Have you analyzed the entire human genome and all its interacting permutations? This is quite a revelation. Have you contacted your fellow geneticists yet?
Having said that I don’t believe we should have a police state to see how people behave in the bedroom.
Well, gee, thanks. I’m sure the heteros appreciate your “concern” for their rights. If you really want to make the world a better place, I suggest you direct your anger against terrorists who persecute straight and gay alike.
But I’m certainly not going to change my views about gay marriage based on a myth.
The same could be said for your marriage. The myth is just a lot older.
Comment by gus3 — April 8, 2006 @ 1:04 pm - April 8, 2006
Well I was going to point out that part of the problem with discussions of gay issues and rights is that often the extremes control the debate. And they end up tossing out a bunch of names and talking past each other to the point where everyone digs in.
I also think many on either side of the issue get painted into a stereotypical corner (although conservative leaning homosexuals get painted into that corner from both extremes in the debate).
It would be nice to see more well thought out debate, but all too often one side or the other starts tossing bombs, and the debate spirals out of control. What is happening now is a good example of this.
Comment by just me — April 8, 2006 @ 1:23 pm - April 8, 2006
Bruce, I’d have to agree with the letter writer — you have done a lot to win friends and supporters from an unlikely place, the “Conservative camp.” I have never been anti-gay per se, but lately I’ve noticed that I’m growing more intolerant of the leftie nonsense which seems inextricably attached to gay groups in general. “Meeting” you through your blog, and also Tammy Bruce, has prevented me from lumping all gays into the ultra liberal camp. I have linked your blog and I respect you a great deal. Though I am not quite sure what I feel and think about homosexuality, in terms of reconciling it with religious beliefs I was raised with, I have to say that I feel infinitely more of a kinship with you than with liberals in general — some of whom seem to me to be bent on destroying our nation and our world. (By the way, I use to be a lifelong liberal until 9/11.)
I wish you all the best that life has to offer, and keep up the good work! I love your blog.
Comment by ladybug — April 8, 2006 @ 1:58 pm - April 8, 2006
I haven’t examined the entire human genome. Other people have done that for me and – SURPRISE – they found nothing (even though the homosexual community was rolling out the red carpet and gearing up the fireworks for the discovery of the elusive gay gene).
What scientists have discovered is that there are factors which make one MORE LIKELY to be gay. But these same factors may make other people MORE LIKELY to be alcoholics or gambling addicts. These factors are completely different than a human gene – which says “this is the way you are and you can’t change.”
I can’t choose the color of my eyes. That was determined for me. You can’t determine the preference of your sexuality. That was determined for you. You are straight, whether you want to admit it or not.
And if you want to prove me wrong, FIND THE ELUSIVE GAY GENE, that we were promised.
Comment by Mark — April 8, 2006 @ 4:18 pm - April 8, 2006
#13: Sorry, you appear to rather ill-informed on the subject of genetics. You need to bone up on alleles and penetrance among other things before we can have an intelligent discusson on the biological origins of homosexuality. Google is your friend!
Comment by Ian — April 8, 2006 @ 5:39 pm - April 8, 2006
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9) …Do not be decieved. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites.
10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor dunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
Comment by RG — April 8, 2006 @ 7:18 pm - April 8, 2006
As a heterosexual male conservative republican I find your site quite refreshing. So many in the gay lifestyle follow the liberal agenda blindly, and may end up worse off for it.
It is important that all homosexuals, like yourselves, accept your place in society until society is ready to accept you. Destroying marriage for the sake of your hedonistic and unnatural recreation while warping our precious children is not the way to gain our favor. Hopefully, with God’s grace that time will never come but if it does Im sure you will all be welcomed with open arms.
Comment by Brendan — April 8, 2006 @ 7:25 pm - April 8, 2006
One of the failures of the Gay community, is the constant attacks on the church. We must remember the church has a right to their beleifs, as much as we do to ours.
Comment by Robert Bayn — April 8, 2006 @ 8:08 pm - April 8, 2006
“If he still thinks you’re going to hell…you might’ve been punk’d.”
Who cares whether he thinks you’re going to hell? When did somebody die and make him God? It was a good letter, thoughtfully prepared and very worth reading. We don’t need to get all touchy-feely about his speculations on the afterlife. It takes more than the opinion of another mere human being (who’s just as subject to God’s judgment as anybody else) to send people to hell.
In #9, some ignoramus cites a thoroughly-discredited translation of the New Testament that includes “homosexuals” in the list of those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God. This rendering of the Greek word, “arsenokai,” used in the original text has been debunked so many times, for him/her/it to pop up on a blog and try to unveil it — as if it were some super-duper-secret bombshell nobody must ever have heard of — is just pathetic.
Most anti-gay “Christians” are blissfully unaware that quite a few gay people read the Bible, too. I’ll go toe-to-toe with any of ‘em in a face-to-face debate — just bring it on! And I bet I’m not the only one who’d take great delight in doing so.
I certainly agree with sitting down and breaking bread with people on “the other side” of the gay issue. But one of the things I’ve noticed about most straight conservatives is that they know bad manners and ill-breeding when they see it, and they aren’t terribly shy about standing up and saying so.
Ignorance and bad manners are not conservative. Nor are they Christian. And fundamentalist trolls who leave Bible verses on people’s blogs do nothing but show their own ignorance.
Comment by Lori Heine — April 8, 2006 @ 8:39 pm - April 8, 2006
#15: “Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers…”
So do you recall what Jesus had to say about adultery? Try Mark 10:11, 12 for starters. By Jesus’ own standard, Ronald Reagan was an adulterer and by happily marrying Nancy, was rather unrepentant about the whole thing. So I guess the Gipper isn’t inheriting the Kingdom of God just now.
Quite frankly, if heaven is populated by a bunch of pious Bible thumpers, then this gay atheist liberal will be happy to wind up in the other place!
Comment by Ian — April 8, 2006 @ 9:34 pm - April 8, 2006
#16: “It is important that all homosexuals, like yourselves, accept your place in society until society is ready to accept you.”
Well, all indications are that society IS ready to accept us. And increasingly, it’s attitudes like yours that are no longer acceptable. Yes, I suppose there will always be homohaters just like there will always be racists but I’m hopeful that the former will, in the near future, be as marginalized as the latter.
Comment by Ian — April 8, 2006 @ 9:39 pm - April 8, 2006
#17: “We must remember the church has a right to their beleifs, as much as we do to ours.”
Yes, but they have no right to force, by law, everyone else to live by their religious beliefs.
Comment by Ian — April 8, 2006 @ 9:44 pm - April 8, 2006
He’s a LOSER – just like you and your “Patriot” site…
Damn, glad there aren’t alot of self-hating homos like you out there… If this loser site had been around in Nazi Germany, you’d have been one of the Jews sending other Jews to the gas chambers!
Comment by He's a loser — April 8, 2006 @ 9:45 pm - April 8, 2006
#22 “He’s a LOSER – just like you and your “Patriot” site…”
Now that’s a little harsh I think. I do wonder though why it’s only been gay atheist liberals like me who have stepped up to push back against the homohatred expressed in this thread. Goodness knows if it had been some liberal on the attack there’d be a plethora of responses from the gay righties.
Comment by Ian — April 8, 2006 @ 10:41 pm - April 8, 2006
1 Corinthians 1:18-19
18) For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19) For it is written:
regarding: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9) …Do not be decieved. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites.
10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor dunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
— 11) And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. —
Comment by RG — April 8, 2006 @ 10:57 pm - April 8, 2006
#24: So do you have any comments of your own or do you just spout random Bible verses?
Comment by Ian — April 8, 2006 @ 11:26 pm - April 8, 2006
Homosexuality is NOT a choice. With a 12 Billion world population, Nature takes over and turns people into “Fishers of men”. If you hit that 18 Billion mark, you are SOL.
GOD made them that way. I know what the book says, but remember that the book is also in code.
The idea of marrige was to go forth and to multiply. It was a portion of honor and esteemed liniage that was propagated. It was of inheritance. Now, it will be survival and how you can make the most out of your life.
GOD almighty Loves Gays. God Almighty loves families more. How easy is that?
Comment by newc — April 8, 2006 @ 11:44 pm - April 8, 2006
So do you have any comments of your own or do you just spout random Bible verses?
Comment by Ian
1 Corinthians 2:4-5
4) And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
5) that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
GOD almighty Loves Gays. God Almighty loves families more. How easy is that?
Comment by newc
1 Corinthians 6:18
18) Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.
Comment by RG — April 9, 2006 @ 12:13 am - April 9, 2006
I do wonder though why it’s only been gay atheist liberals like me who have stepped up to push back against the homohatred expressed in this thread.
Because you’re the only ones who are still trying to convince yourself of the rightness of your stances.
The Bible is not some book of magic spells which, when recited, supernaturally alter reality. It is a locus by which God reveals Himself to humanity. there for them to reject if they so choose.
Thus, Ian, people can quote the Bible at me all they want. It doesn’t change who I am, what I am, or my personal relationship with God.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 9, 2006 @ 1:22 am - April 9, 2006
#27: Ah, more Bible verses. Say, what do you think of the newly discovered Judas gospel? I always thought Judas got a bum rap. After all, someone had to betray Jesus for the whole plan to work, right?
Comment by Ian — April 9, 2006 @ 1:36 am - April 9, 2006
Say, what do you think of the newly discovered Judas gospel? I always thought Judas got a bum rap. After all, someone had to betray Jesus for the whole plan to work, right?
Comment by Ian
Mathew 26:24-25
24) “The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born”
25) Then Judas, who was betraying Him, answered and said, “Rabbi, is it I?” He said to Him, “You have said it.”
Mathew 27:1-5
1) When morning came, all the chief priests and elders of the people plotted against Jesus to put Him to death.
2) And when they bound Him, they led Him away and delivered Him to Pontieus Pilate the governor.
3) Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
4) saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” And they said, “What is that to us? You see to it!”
5) Then he threw down the silver in the temple and departed and went and hanged himself.
Comment by RG — April 9, 2006 @ 3:07 am - April 9, 2006
#28. But the bible makes its way into party platforms…(well, at least very particular interpretations and translations do anyway)…
Comment by jimmy — April 9, 2006 @ 5:12 am - April 9, 2006
If you read closely, there are some who are actually posting comments of hatred — and others who are simply stating their beliefs. It takes an open mind to see the difference.
Comment by GayPatriot — April 9, 2006 @ 5:25 am - April 9, 2006
RG — April 9, 2006 @ 3:07 am – April 9, 2006
Oh, my, another Wholly Babble thumper. Apart from the obvious questions–why this supposedly omniscient and omnipotent god of yours has such a bad editor (reflected in the huge number of internal inconsistencies) and translator (reflected in the large number of translations into English alone), one might seriously wonder why anyone should pay it much attention. I’ll merely cite Kissing Hank’s Ass
Comment by raj — April 9, 2006 @ 6:01 am - April 9, 2006
My struggle with same-sex marriage under the established definition of marriage is that I as a heterosexual cannot marry same-sex either therefore I have a difficult time accepting that gay marriage is a equal rights issue. I suppose if I wanted all the benefits my best friend receives from her job I could simply apply for a job where she works or establish a contractual agreement if I want her to inherit my estate, or construct a health proxy if I want her making all the decisions instead of attempting to re-define the meaning of marriage. Further, it has yet to be scientifically shown that same-sex procreation is possible, human nature demands that in order for procreation to occur their must be a male parent and a female parent. From a biological persepctive there does not exist such concept as a ‘gay parent’.
One possible explanation as to why marriage has never allowed for same-sex unions can be found in the idea that in order for the union to exist it must be consumated otherwise the union is annuled.
I believe the problem with advocating same-sex union is that it requires words and their meanings be adjusted to accomodate whatever the moment demands, sort of like the concept of having ‘a living constitution’ which lives and breathes only in the moment. The attempt to deconstruct the institution of marriage is really what we are facing today not whether to legalize same-sex unions. The deconstruction of institutions ie., marriage, religion, individual wealth is part of the establishment of a collective state where there does not exist those entities greater than the collective. For example, if there exists a patriarchial system in which the individual male has more power over the collective whole then the collective cannot exist hence we saw the deconstruction of Motherhood. Betty Friedan coined the phrase ‘patriarchy parasite pregnancy’ as a means to destruct the purpose of Motherhood whereby undermining the established patriarchial system. Abortion is the means to which the female can achieve equalization under the collective state and there is a reason why our abortion culture reflects that of China and the former USSR. Same-sex marriage isn’t about homosexuals right to marry but is instead the collective determination to deconstruct those institutions which have greater power than the State. The collective idea believes that ridding the culture of these institutions will acheive utopia in which there is no distinction between anyone existing in an environment of one thought, one idea, one world.
I have no concern as to what Tom and Harry do in the bedroom however I must defind the institutions for they are the only defense against the establishment of the collective.
I’m not coming from any religious viewpoint but from one who once fell for Ms. Betty’s feel good words ie, equalization, civil rights, right to privacy, which turned out to be feel bad policies ie., the destruction of the patriarchy system, Motherhood and our wombs.
The question I have is why not advocate for establishing homosexual unions based upon the foundation of homosexuality instead of attempting to become heterosexuals. If gay activists insist upon becoming heterosexual that is the same as the feminist activists insisting that females are equally male.
Comment by syn — April 9, 2006 @ 7:03 am - April 9, 2006
The “born that way” debate is a non-starter – and a classic example of the sloppy, victimology-based argument that turns me off of pro-gay propaganda.
Schizophrenia
Obesity
Alchoholism
Diabetes
Cancer
Depression
… and a host of other conditions have a MUCH more solid “genetic pedigree” than homosexuality.
But it’s obvious that these “natural” conditions are not “normal” or “healthy”. They are maladaptations, pathological conditions, problems.
Even if it were proven that homosexuality was as genetically predetermined as eye color – which has most definitely NOT been proven – that still would not prove homosexuality is a “normal” healthy variant of human sexuality.
Yet that is the sloppy claim framed by pro-gay propaganda – and driven home not by reasoned argument, but by pity-me PC propaganda tricks and heavy-handed media indoctrination.
The evidence coming out of Holland and the Scandinavian countries shows that the pathological behaviors that plague the gay community – rates of substance abuse, depression, and suicide that are 4 or 5 times the general rate, compulsive promiscuity, inability to form lasting relationships – all of these persist even after complete legal and cultural equality has been extended to gays.
Almost every human culture looked at these BEHAVIORS and decided that homosexuality was a problem rather than a normal variant.
The “born that way” argument does nothing to address this – it confuses “natural” with “normal” in a totally unsupported way.
Comment by Ben-David — April 9, 2006 @ 7:07 am - April 9, 2006
[quote]The evidence coming out of Holland and the Scandinavian countries shows that the pathological behaviors that plague the gay community – rates of substance abuse, depression, and suicide that are 4 or 5 times the general rate, compulsive promiscuity, inability to form lasting relationships – all of these persist even after complete legal and cultural equality has been extended to gays.[/quote]
I am not buying this argument.
#1 while these things certainly exist among gays, they also exist among heterosexuals.
#2 many of the things you list are lifestyle choices. You can post a link to a study that says gays have this behaviors at higher rates than heterosexuals, but then you have to do the whole “chicken and the egg” thing. Is it being gay that causes those issues alone, or is there some intervening variable at work?
#3 there are plenty of gays who don’t do these things. What makes them less “pathological?”
Comment by just me — April 9, 2006 @ 7:16 am - April 9, 2006
[deleted by GayPatriot]
Comment by Queer Patriot — April 9, 2006 @ 7:41 am - April 9, 2006
syn — April 9, 2006 @ 7:03 am – April 9, 2006
One possible explanation as to why marriage has never allowed for same-sex unions can be found in the idea that in order for the union to exist it must be consumated otherwise the union is annuled.
One thing that you might want to think about is the idea that states had not provided for same-sex marriages because same-sex couples had not asked them to.
Comment by raj — April 9, 2006 @ 7:57 am - April 9, 2006
Since the “gay gene” idea was brought up in this stream of thought I felt I should chime in. The short words “gene” and “genetic” are perfect for headlines and have become the end-all and be-all of the human condition in the mind of the public. In fact, short of determining gender, they may have as little to do with human sexuality as a floor joist has to do with a rooms southern exposure.
A less headline friendly word, but one more appropriate to a discussion of human behavior and sexuality is “neuroimmunoendocrinology”. I suggest that the curious here copy the word and google it. I read a compelling article over twenty years ago about developmental neuroimmunoendocrinology which described hormonal conditions of pregnant mothers and affects on the fetus and ultimately it’s sexual orientation. Check it out!
Comment by Dave — April 9, 2006 @ 8:48 am - April 9, 2006
The “gay gene” issue is a diversion, and clap-trap to boot.
I’ll merely cite Virginia Postrel’s 1998 article from Reason Magazine The Claims of Nature : The “can gays change” debate is dodging the main issues.
Comment by raj — April 9, 2006 @ 9:16 am - April 9, 2006
GP, good post. It is persons such as the one who wrote this letter that may help us to full equality. I am glad that the writer of the letter is trying to understand our side of the argument. Now I would like to understand their side of the argument.
For those that take the Bible literally, the Bible does in fact condemn homosexuality. I’ll even assume that this is not a result of translation error or variation. My question is why do the literalists not condemn those who eat shellfish or pork, or who go to the altar with glasses as fervently as homosexuality. I realize these are talking points, but I have not ever received an answer to this. Also, realize that there are others whose basis of faith is not the Bible, or only the Old Testament. And there are others like me, who are of Christian heritage, believe in God, but also believe that the Bible is not God revealing Himself to humanity, but the authors’ rendition of God revealing Himself to humanity. We all have our personal way with how we interact with God.
To those who are religious, but do not take the Bible literally, I would also like to know why you think that homosexuality should be scorned. I realize that you may have been taught that homosexuality is a sin from the get go, but for example, Catholics have also been told to believe that birth control is wrong, capital punishment is wrong, etc. But no one goes up in arms when, say a married couple chooses to use birth control. In other words, many of these beliefs you may choose to keep, but believe that others should decide for themselves. But yet, when it comes to homosexuality, we should be denied rights.
And in general, the other thing I don’t understand is this. Gay rights is something that affects a small segment of the population, i.e., gay persons who believe that they should have the same rights as everyone else. What I don’t get is why many straight people (or gays who don’t want equal rights) feel that they need to get involved by opposing this.
Comment by Pat — April 9, 2006 @ 9:44 am - April 9, 2006
Ironically, I checked in on this thread after completing some research for my Sunday School lesson.
Humans exist in three dimensions; physical, intellectual, and spiritual. The neglect of the spiritual dimension leaves some persons empty, hollow, and bitter. This bitterness often finds expression in lashing out in rage against those who do nurture the spiritual aspect of existence, of which there is ample proof in this thread.
I don’t even waste time arguing with Christian-hating atheists, because I believe they lack the capacity to understand faith. It would be like trying to explain colors to someone who has been blind since birth.
Comment by V the K — April 9, 2006 @ 9:49 am - April 9, 2006
[deleted by GayPatriot]
Comment by Queer Patriot — April 9, 2006 @ 10:04 am - April 9, 2006
QP said…
“…what a load of piety, or presumption, not sure which in your case.”
I’m going to wait to see if QP can actually define those terms before I respond.
Eric in Hollywood
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 9, 2006 @ 10:23 am - April 9, 2006
Gay rights is something that affects a small segment of the population, i.e., gay persons who believe that they should have the same rights as everyone else. What I don’t get is why many straight people (or gays who don’t want equal rights) feel that they need to get involved by opposing this.
Because, Pat, as I noted a few weeks ago, “gay rights” is quite often about everything BUT actual gay rights.
As long as leftists and their collaborating gays try to use us as a smoke screen for pushing things which the vast majority of Americans oppose, we’re screwed. They keep taking something which DOES really affect only a very small portion of the population and linking it to something unpopular that affects a much larger portion.
So, in short, if you want people to be more accepting of gay rights, quit letting people link it to their antireligious jihads. Quit letting NAMBLA and the ACLU link it to pedophilia, quit letting abortionist groups link it to unlimited abortion, and quit letting the Democratic lobbyists that give millions to homophobic Democrats link it to voting Dem.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 9, 2006 @ 11:23 am - April 9, 2006
#36 – please read more carefully: nobody is saying any of these pathological behaviors are unique to gays. But the evidence is clear that these behaviors are 4 to 5 times more common among gays than among the general population – which includes African Americans and other groups with as long a history of prejudice as gays.
These are strong indicators of psychological distress.
The gay propaganda machine has insisted that if only, if only gays were to be treated with respect and equality, all those pathologies would go away – and swinging, gay-friendly Europe has been held up as a model to Americans.
Now Europe’s 30-year-old experiment with normalization of homosexuality is yielding clear proof that the pathologies have not gone away.
Here’s one typical paper drawn from data collected by the Dutch Ministry of Health:
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/58/1/85
Comment by Ben-David — April 9, 2006 @ 2:37 pm - April 9, 2006
#44: piety ; “religious reverence; earnest compliance in the observance of religion; devotion”
I. Am. A. Monster.
Comment by V the K — April 9, 2006 @ 3:31 pm - April 9, 2006
Dave, that’s interesting — I’m glad you brought up the concept of neuroimmunoendocrinology. It makes a lot more sense than genetic inheritance of homosexuality, though I suppose either is possible, if not yet provable.
My religion is Orthodox Judaism, and there was a pretty good documentary made about gay Orthodox Jews called Trembling Before G-d. It raised more question than it answered and in some ways, was not that encouraging — but I felt the comments by the brilliant Rabbi Nathan Lopez Cardoza made it worth watching. Obviously, it only appeals to those who find religious arguments/discussions interesting. To my understanding, Orthodox interpretation of the biblical prohibition of homosexuality has nothing to do with feelings or attractions, but like so much of our religion, it has everything to do with actions. Specifically, anal sex is what is prohibited; it is no sin for a man to find himself attracted to another man or even to show affection. Other Orthodox rabbis have pointed out, as one commenter here did, that homosexual behavior should not be viewed as more serious than any other religious infraction, such as driving on the sabbath or eating pork. All 613 of our commandments are considered equal in importance. That does not mean it should be accepted as fulfilment of the ideal in human behavior, anymore than violating the other commandments would be, only that it should not be singled out as the most horrible sin one could possibly imagine — it simply is not!
My personal opinion is that homosexuality is not a normal variant of human sexuality, but is a departure from the normal function of nature. Is that so much different from having asthma? Arthritis? A propensity to develop heart disease? These, too, are departures from an ideal physical state. I support homosexual union for all the legal rights it bestows on couples, but changing the definition of marriage seems inappropriate and unnecessary. Just my opinion.
However, I get disturbed when I see so much cruelty displayed toward homosexuals — if they have a higher rate of depression/suicide or abnormal social behavior, it’s no wonder. Everyone needs and deserves love, and to be nurtured in their endeavor to become the most they can be. I’d much rather see a healthy love relationship between two men or two women than see malignant, sociopathic relationships between heterosexuals. I understand the Christian rejection of homosexuality, but I don’t understand the hurtful and often vicious attitude. It’s so unhelpful, to say the least.
Comment by ladybug — April 9, 2006 @ 3:59 pm - April 9, 2006
One last comment — many people probably do not know that Orthodox Jewish interpretation of scripture is vastly different from that of Christians or even liberal sects of Judaism. Scriptures from the Bible were never intended to be interpreted singularly, but rather, together with our oral tradition. There are those who point to the fact that Bible followers no longer advocate putting people to death for certain sins, or that there are commandments no longer followed at all, as proof that all the commandments are just arbitrary and that modern religious people simply pick and choose what they want to follow. I agree that this may be a good challenge to pose to a Christian opponent, who is resting his entire belief system upon the literal scriptures of the Bible, but in our religion, there are certain laws that are not applicable in the absence of a Sanhedrin (high court of rabbis), which cannot exist in the absence of a temple. Other laws are not applicable in the absence of a temple, or outside the land of Israel. And in the absence of a Sanhedrin, one cannot be put to death for any crime — only the Sanhedrin can sentence a man to death. We also have a long rabbinic tradition of interpreting oral law, which augments written law. Judaism is very complicated and legalistic. I hope this explains why some prohibitions retain their force in modern times while others do not.
Comment by ladybug — April 9, 2006 @ 4:17 pm - April 9, 2006
Ladybug -
I am also an Orthodox Jew. Two points:
1) You write:
I’d much rather see a healthy love relationship between two men or two women than see malignant, sociopathic relationships between heterosexuals.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
… but the reality (beyond the carefully blow-dried lesbian couples presented to us by the media) is that malignant, compulsive, exploitative relationships are the norm in the gay world.
You have the guts to state that homosexuality is an abberration, a dysfunction – yet you cannot quite shake free from the enormous weight of PC propaganda that invites us to pity homosexuals.
This leads to non-sequitirs like those in your post: I think homosexuality is a pathology, but we still should recognize this behavior as the legal equal of normal, healthy relations.
Since when is the solution to maladapted or dysfunctional behavior legitimization of that behavior?
You cannot shake the PC indoctrination, so you feel you have to “be nice” and say something in support of gay marriage – even though it is unfounded.
2) There are definitely gradations of severity among the commandments, usually signalled by the consequences of the action.
Homosexuality – like other abberrant sexual behavior – is described with the very strong word “to’evah” – which is the word translated by Christians as “abomination”. It means “repulsive” or “disgusting”.
Comment by Ben-David — April 10, 2006 @ 4:53 am - April 10, 2006
#45
So, in short, if you want people to be more accepting of gay rights, quit letting people link it to their antireligious jihads. Quit letting NAMBLA and the ACLU link it to pedophilia, quit letting abortionist groups link it to unlimited abortion, and quit letting the Democratic lobbyists that give millions to homophobic Democrats link it to voting Dem.
NDT, I don’t buy your argument here. First, I don’t support antireligious jihads as much as I don’t support religious jihads. I don’t support unlimited abortion (and that’s all you’ll EVER hear me say about abortion on any blog), and I do not support pedophilia. And I support candidates that have the same views on the above. You’ll have to define what you mean by “homophobic” candidates? If you mean someone like John Kerry, who opposed gay marriage, it seems his view is in line with people like the one who wrote the letter to GP. As much as I want candidates who support gay marriage, most of America is not ready for it. And although I once was comfortable calling John Kerry a homophobe, I am not comfortable calling people like John Kerry, or the one who wrote this letter homophobes any more.
The key here is for may conservatives to come out and support gay rights, or at the very least make themselves known. Having conservative gay blogs is a start. But if this letter writer and others also see that there are high officials in the administration and Republican Party (if there are, and I think we both suspect there are), it would go a long way with many Americans. Right now, it seems like it’s only the gay left that are outspoken about gay rights. And as extreme as I think Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, and Carol Mosele-Braun, they are the ones that support gay marriage. It’s about time that more moderate Democrats and Republicans do so.
Comment by Pat — April 10, 2006 @ 9:16 am - April 10, 2006
That’s quite similar to the interpretation of the Scriptures in Roman Catholicism and the Eastern churches, where they are interpreted along with the teaching of the church fathers (he said, completely ignoring the pointless flaming).
Comment by rightwingprof — April 10, 2006 @ 10:27 am - April 10, 2006
#46 Ben-David — April 9, 2006 @ 2:37 pm – April 9, 2006
From all that can be determined from the abstract of the paper you cited, the survey was based on nothing more than self-reporting. It is fairly well known that self-reporting is highly unreliable.
Comment by raj — April 10, 2006 @ 10:50 am - April 10, 2006
First, I don’t support antireligious jihads as much as I don’t support religious jihads. I don’t support unlimited abortion (and that’s all you’ll EVER hear me say about abortion on any blog), and I do not support pedophilia.
I know you don’t, Pat, and you know I don’t either.
But the organizations that claim to speak in our name as gays do.
NGLTF is overtly and openly anti-religious.
HRC is providing financial support to the ACLU to help defend NAMBLA.
All of the above are calling unlimited abortion “gay rights”.
It’s not a pretty picture. But it is reality.
If you mean someone like John Kerry, who opposed gay marriage, it seems his view is in line with people like the one who wrote the letter to GP. As much as I want candidates who support gay marriage, most of America is not ready for it. And although I once was comfortable calling John Kerry a homophobe, I am not comfortable calling people like John Kerry, or the one who wrote this letter homophobes any more.
There is a substantial difference between the two, Pat.
The person who wrote the letter was wholly honest about their feelings towards gays and gay marriage. Furthermore, said person was not misrepresenting their views for the purpose of raising cash, securing votes, and advancing their own career; nor did their actions result in tens of millions of gay dollars being spent to promote antigay and homophobic views.
John Kerry did the opposite.
Holding views of this sort and expressing them is not inherently homophobic. You know full well how I feel on the matter. But holding views of this sort and misrepresenting them for the purpose of embezzling millions of dollars that could have done far more useful things is not only homophobic, it’s disgusting and repulsive.
That’s the difference.
Right now, it seems like it’s only the gay left that are outspoken about gay rights.
That is because, as I’ve previously posted only the “gay left” is allowed to be gay. The rest of us are to be hounded out of existence by paid Democratic operatives.
The key here is for may conservatives to come out and support gay rights, or at the very least make themselves known.
Here’s the problem, Pat. The vast majority of us are already out. There is no “secret reserve” of gay conservatives waiting in the wings.
But most of us don’t give a damn anymore.
Why should we save the asses of hatemongers like Mike Rogers, Queer Patriot/Pussy Patriot, and others, who do nothing but demean us, threaten us, and try to harass us and our friends to the point of trying to get us fired and pushed out of the blogosphere?
Why should we help suckwhores like Elizabeth Birch, Joe Solmonese, and others, who profit off keeping gays as victims, demonizing the Republican Party, and giving millions of dollars and endorsements to lying homophobic politicians and FMA supporters?
Why should we protect paid shills who sacrifice our rights and our history because doing so pleases unpopular unions?
The truly frustrating part of being a gay conservative is seeing things that we know are counterproductive being done and not being able to stop them. But I and others have reached the point where we realize that the gay community is beyond the point of rationality on these matters; like an alcoholic, it will have to go to prison or have a massive car crash with loss of life before it changes its tune.
In the meantime, we do what we can. But I and others are not about to lend our credibility to a movement built on hate, lies, and lobbying money. You can either purge the idiots, or go down with them in the name of “unity”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 10, 2006 @ 11:52 am - April 10, 2006
It’s always interesting to hear the input of observant Jews, especially Orthodox Jews, in the debate. Too often, the media treats them as if they don’t exist. However, Christians are not bound to follow any law but that of the Gospel. As politically-incorrect as it is for somebody to come out and say so, that fact remains.
RG, since you claim to know your Bible so well, perhaps you remember Luke 6:42:
“Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Friend, let me take out the speck in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.”
Jesus also told us we would be judged by the same standard we used to judge others. This is why we’re under grace, instead of under the Law, which would condemn us all — as NOBODY perfectly meets it requirements.
Tell us all how perfect you are, RG. Stand up and proclaim your super-righteousness! For a change, I’d like to see one…JUST ONE of those so anxious to condemn us expose their own lives to the sort of scrutiny to which they hold ours.
Living a virtuous life is a full-time job. If you’ve got enough time left over to spend following other people around and criticizing them, it can only mean one of two things. Either you’re the most sinless example of humanity since Christ Himself, or you are a hypocrite.
My church, which welcomes gays and lesbians as equals, often holds forums to discuss the issues of Biblical interpretation and homosexuality. We keep inviting people like RG to come and join our discussion, so they can add their own two cents and enlighten us. Funny thing, they never have the guts to show up.
Go read your Bible and get perfect, RG. Then come back and preach to the rest of us.
Comment by Lori Heine — April 10, 2006 @ 3:28 pm - April 10, 2006
And here’s a P.S. Societies (like those in Northern Europe) that tend, in general, to be the most permissive are usually the first to include marginalized peoples. However, they are also fraught with the problems that accompany too much permissiveness. This is called HUMAN NATURE. We live in a fallen world.
On another blog, somebody recently tried to tie the fact that these countries tend to have higher numbers of children in single-parent homes with the fact that they also permitted legal same-sex unions. What she seemed to have been trying to claim was that the latter WAS THE CAUSE OF the former. As the overwhelming majority of children are the progeny of heterosexual unions, this is laughable on its face.
Does that mean that there is no connection between the two circumstances? Of course not. Permissive societies have some good points and some drawbacks. Again, kiddies, nobody ever promised us we’d live in a perfect world.
This does not mean that people in more morally-strict societies cannot begin applying the love and mercy found in the Bible (funny thing…the same Bible from which they get all the condemnations) toward those they perhaps don’t yet quite understand.
Is there a “gay gene?” I have no idea, and neither does anybody else commenting here. I do know that it being gay is involuntary, and this is also — as I have found — a matter of common sense, observable even to many people who don’t think they approve of homosexuality.
There are many good people in this world — some of them quite conservative and very religious. There are also quite a number of jerks. And jerk-dom IS a chosen trait.
Comment by Lori Heine — April 10, 2006 @ 3:37 pm - April 10, 2006
Ben David, I actually don’t support gay marriage, which I thought I had made clear in my post (“I support homosexual union for all the legal rights it bestows on couples, but changing the definition of marriage seems inappropriate and unnecessary. .”)
I also dislike the propaganda and I dislike the “in your face” attitude of some (ok, most, gay groups). However, I have known enough gay men and women to know that most did not choose to be gay. I cannot say the same for silly highschool and college kids who now think it is cool to be gay and who therefore wear the label for a while. I’m talking about genuinely gay people. I, too, wish there weren’t any gay people; I wish everyone were traditional and conformed to my biblical idea of the universe. But that is not reality. And I just don’t see the point in making people feel bad for what they are and for what they cannot help. I also don’t want to take a pitying attitude either. Why should they not be able to live completely fulfilling and meaningful lives, reaching their potential as human beings?
You don’t know me at all so you’ll just have to take my word for it: I was anti-PC long before it was cool to be so. I was anti-PC in highschool, so strong were my opinions and personal values. Whatever views I have expressed here, I come by honestly.
No amount of persecution or ridicule by straight people is going to change the fact that some people are gay. I guess I don’t know what you expect them to do about it, or what your goal is. What do you think will actually happen as a result of your expressing these ideas and feelings? I accept that homosexuality is a fact of human existence. Now the question is how best can heterosexuals and homosexuals live together in the world. I’m sure they’d like to experience no penalty for choosing to live a life true to themselves, and many of us conservative heterosexuals would just be content if homosexuals led dignified, quiet lives, which does not mean hiding their gayness but it does mean not calling attention to it all the time, often in obnoxious ways. Maybe we can all get to that place someday.
The reason I support legal union is because I’m a nurse who has stood at the bedside of a dying AIDS patient a few too many times and watched as a devoted partner of many years was forced into the corner by suddenly reappearing estranged parents who were hostile and hysterical. (Somehow, the parents always reappear at the last hour.) In our hospital at the time, doctors and nurses were sympathetic to gays and intervened to give the partner back some power and return him to his place at the bedside, but I’d prefer that they not have to rely on the kindness of strangers in such traumatic situations. (You can only imagine how this scenario might play out in other parts of the country.) Be a little human, that’s all.
Comment by ladybug — April 10, 2006 @ 4:46 pm - April 10, 2006
Ben David, one more thing — did you see Trembling Before G-d? If so, what did you think about Rabbi Cardoza’s comments? Just curious what your impression was. He is obviously black hat, though I wouldn’t call him ultra, but his entire approach seemed to be one of thoughtful compassion while remaining true to Torah.
Comment by ladybug — April 10, 2006 @ 4:55 pm - April 10, 2006
remember Luke 6:42:
“Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Friend, let me take out the speck in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye
I’m always confused by this bible quote.
It sounds like you can never judge anyone unless you are completely without sin. I don’t want to live in a world without judgments.
This agnostic gay guy wants a good explanation.
Comment by John — April 10, 2006 @ 10:34 pm - April 10, 2006
The point of the passage, John, is that your time is better spent worrying about your own salvation than it is that of others.
Think of how the world would be different if everyone concentrated on making sure their behavior was ethical and beyond reproach, versus trying to make others conform.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 11, 2006 @ 1:44 am - April 11, 2006
#56 Lori Heine — April 10, 2006 @ 3:37 pm – April 10, 2006
On another blog, somebody recently tried to tie the fact that these countries tend to have higher numbers of children in single-parent homes with the fact that they also permitted legal same-sex unions. What she seemed to have been trying to claim was that the latter WAS THE CAUSE OF the former.
The commenter was parroting an anti-same-sex marriage article by notorious anti-gay bigot Stanley Kurtz. Various versions of the article are available on-line, including at the Weakly Standard web site http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp and the National Review Online web site http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402050842.asp
The contentions in Kurtz’s article(s) regarding opposite-sex marriage in Scandinavia (which is what the person on the other blog was referring to) have been thoroughly debunked by Lee Badgett http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/
It would be well to recall that, in one of his early anti-gay-marriage diatribes published in NRO, Kurtz argued that gays should not be able to marry (each other) because straight boys might be discouraged from marrying because they don’t want to see openly gay men in leading roles in movies. I posted on that on the internet several years ago (while rolling on the floor, laughing, of course), and nobody could figure out what one had to do with the other. Kurtz’s anti-gay-marriage diatribes (he has had more than those two in NRO) is approximately at the level of intelligence of the anti-gay bigots.
Comment by raj — April 11, 2006 @ 4:48 am - April 11, 2006
#54
The person who wrote the letter was wholly honest about their feelings towards gays and gay marriage. Furthermore, said person was not misrepresenting their views for the purpose of raising cash, securing votes, and advancing their own career; nor did their actions result in tens of millions of gay dollars being spent to promote antigay and homophobic views.
John Kerry did the opposite.
NDT, here’s the problem. When John Kerry was running for President, he always said that marriage was “between a man and a woman.” He NEVER wavered on that. So gay people knew that and decided to give him money, partly because no viable candidate at that time could be supportive of gay marriage and win the election, even against an incredibly weak incumbent. But many people, gay, straight, people of faith or not, do not believe that gays should have the right to marry. What is it that makes John Kerry homophobic, but others not?
You’ve made the point that John Kerry did flip-flop and apparently endorsed an amendment that also would have prohibited civil unions in Missouri. Yes, that’s dishonest and I am certainly disgusted by that. But in the meantime, I am painfully aware that most politicians of both parties, are dishonest in their campaigns. But also, as I mentioned, many people, because of faith or whatever, and even gay people who value their relationships are against civil unions as well. Does that make them homophobic?
By the way, I finally saw your post that you linked to about the marriage amendment. It thought it was very good. But, I still don’t get the distinction that you make between Kerry and others.
Here’s the problem, Pat. The vast majority of us are already out. There is no “secret reserve” of gay conservatives waiting in the wings.
NDT, I know you are active in the community, and I appreciate it. I think grassroots work is important. But I’m talking about high profile people. It just seems that their response is that sexual orientation doesn’t matter. It shouldn’t, but it does right now. The more that you see people in high places that are gay, the more that people like the writer will think that the Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwells, Robert Byrds, etc., are just plain wrong on homosexuality. Right now, homosexuality is only accepted by the religious right (if at all), if they are quiet about it and don’t even dare try to equate their relationships with straight people.
I understand that the outspoken people for gay rights are the extremists. And believe it or not, many of us on the gay left/moderate are not happy. Most of my (gay) friends are to the left of me, and they don’t like the way we gays are portrayed and stereotyped as well. So we don’t know what the answer is either. We only agree on what isn’t the answer.
Comment by Pat — April 11, 2006 @ 6:32 am - April 11, 2006
#50: I think you are mistaken when you say: “… but the reality (beyond the carefully blow-dried lesbian couples presented to us by the media) is that malignant, compulsive, exploitative relationships are the norm in the gay world.” What is your evidence for this outrageous claim? Sadly, I see a lot of heterosexual relationships that are malignant, compulsive, and exploitive when I look around in our culture. It is disturbing, but I try to remember that there are lots of loving couples out there, as well.
Ladybug: thank you for your many thoughtful comments.
Thanks to GayPatriot for posting the lovely letter from your reader. That’s so encouraging. Bravo for all that you do to promote civil discourse and thoughtful reflection.
Comment by Sarah Rolph — April 11, 2006 @ 7:19 am - April 11, 2006
What is it that makes John Kerry homophobic, but others not?
Back up a bit, Pat.
You know that gay-rights groups say that anyone who opposes gay marriage, especially on the basis of their religious beliefs, is a hatemongering homophobic bigot, and that anyone who supports them is a twisted self-loathing individual. More importantly, they say that people who endorse and support politicians like these are advancing hate and impeding the progress of gay rights.
Now you’re saying that these very same groups KNEW Kerry’s beliefs well in advance, and STILL a) gave him tens of millions of dollars and b) promoted him and his beliefs as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
In short, you must be joking. If Kerry didn’t lie about his antigay positions, why were gay groups calling him “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when they clearly knew he was NOT by their own definition?
You may either take the tack that Kerry lied or admit that gays gave tens of millions of dollars to people who, had they been Republicans, gays would have attacked viciously for being antigay, homophobic, and bigoted — and who would have demanded the scalps of any gays who supported said people.
The former paints Kerry as a homophobic manipulator. The latter makes gays look hypocritical and stupid.
I prefer to use the former.
The more that you see people in high places that are gay, the more that people like the writer will think that the Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwells, Robert Byrds, etc., are just plain wrong on homosexuality.
Actually, I think that the gist of the letter was that what is assisting this person’s attitude development is seeing ordinary, everyday gays like GP, GPW, and myself do ordinary, everyday things. Indeed, the commentor specifically mentioned how the actions of GP and GPW were far more effective in helping gays’ image than were the actions of celebrities and high-profile groups.
Celebrities, high-profile individuals, and the like are images, not people. For example, if you ask most folks what their views of “corporate executives” or “business leaders” are like, most will reply in the negative. However, if you ask them specifically about corporate executives or business leaders they know, the answer will be far different.
In short, we need less images and more people. And the grassroots are the only places where there are people.
I understand that the outspoken people for gay rights are the extremists. And believe it or not, many of us on the gay left/moderate are not happy. Most of my (gay) friends are to the left of me, and they don’t like the way we gays are portrayed and stereotyped as well. So we don’t know what the answer is either.
Pat, this is going to sound extremely pissy, and to some extent it is.
You already know what the answer is. What you don’t have is the will to implement it.
The answer is to do as GP, GPW, and I have been doing. Make it clear that these people don’t speak for all gays. Refuse to let them commandeer gay rights for their unpopular purposes. Let people know that gays do have opinions other than radical stupidity.
However, the question is whether or not you and other left/moderate gays, who have spent decades rationalizing why we needed the support of these moonbats and the importance of “unity”, even as the evidence accumulated that they were causing more harm than good, can actually make that break.
Pushing back against Planned Parenthood, for example, means that they will cut you off financially and socially. Are you ready to lose HRC and NGLTF’s major source of funding? Are you ready to give up cocktail party invitations and deal with the calls of “misogynist” that will be thrown at you for not supporting unlimited abortion and worse, saying that gay rights are not relevant or a reason for it? Are you ready to see the Elizabeth Birches, Hillary Rosens, Joe Solmoneses, and other lesbians and lesbian wannabes who value abortion more than gay rights leave these groups?
If the answer is “no”, then don’t bother being upset about how gays are portrayed and stereotyped; you’ve simply made a choice that the aforementioned things are more important. And you’re in good company; the Rosens, Birches, Solmoneses, and Foremans of the world have decided that it’s more important for gays to be pawns of the left than it is to be treated as people, and it’s made them millions of dollars.
It’s all a question of priorities.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 11, 2006 @ 12:27 pm - April 11, 2006
NDT, thanks for the response. Some of it did help understand where you are coming from. I agree with some of what you say, and some I don’t.
Regarding John Kerry and gay groups, again, I simply do not recall John Kerry EVER saying that he favored gay marriage during the campaign, especially when it was clear that he was going to be the nominee. I’m sure gay groups did not like the fact that he opposed gay marriage, but still thought that he was much better than Bush on gay issues. You say that these same gay groups demonized people, especially Republicans, who oppose gay marriage, but gave Kerry and others a free pass and calling them pro-gay and pro-supportive. I’m afraid that’s called hypocrisy, and it is unfortunately rampant in all political organizations and parties. As much as I cannot stand this type of hypocrisy, I honestly do not believe that this is the reason that turn off many Americans from gay rights, since most Americans witness political hypocrisy on most other issues. I do agree that if Americans see gay rights tied in with other issues that they do not agree with, especially extremist issues, that is a problem.
In short, we need less images and more people. And the grassroots are the only places where there are people.
Yes, I agree we need more people out there being ourselves. I think that has gone a long way with people that I meet, who see that not all gay people are drag queens, gym bunnies, etc. And the more people that come out the better. But I disagree about images. We do need “images” and celebrities to come out. In many communities, there are nobody in the grassroots that they can see is an “ordinary” gay person. Any person that is gay there may either decide to leave the community before they are found out. Or if they are found out, they are ostracized. Or in some cases, someone is found out, but it is okay, because they know their place and stay in the back of the bus, or run over by the bus. “He’s gay, but that’s okay, because he keeps his mouth shut and enjoys his third class status.” If we find out that a few top political persons, or more popular personalities are gay, then at least people will get some exposure, and see that not all gays have the same exact opinions, and may actually have conservative ideals. This will lead to more people in the grassroots in these communities. Anyway, I feel we need more of both.
However, the question is whether or not you and other left/moderate gays, who have spent decades rationalizing why we needed the support of these moonbats and the importance of “unity”, even as the evidence accumulated that they were causing more harm than good, can actually make that break.
I don’t need to rationalize any support from these people. The fact is that most of the people who are openly for gay marriage and outspoken about it are these extremists. And frankly, I applaud them for that. But that doesn’t mean that I support their other positions, while at the same time hoping that more moderate leaning candidates start supporting gay marriage. (I have to learn more about Russell Feingold now that he has come out in full support).
As for me personally, I don’t have to give up cocktail parties and funding, since I don’t get such invites and monies from these gay organizations. But I would have no problem stating to them what my position is if I disagree, and even if I agree, to say that it is an issue separate from gay rights. In the meantime, everything else being equal, I will vote and support candidates that I feel are best when it comes to gay rights, even if they fall short of full equality. I am not beholden to any political party or organization. I will, and have already, supported Republicans that were as strong as Democrats on gay rights.
Comment by Pat — April 11, 2006 @ 1:32 pm - April 11, 2006
Bruce, you’re a sanctimonious prig. You take every chance you get to distance yourself from the so-called GayLeft , in the process stigmatizing and stereotyping every time, and they you preen, and frown “just properly” and say syrupy aphoristic nonsense like “That alone speaks volumes about how far our community has to go.”
You don’t want community, you want blind obeisance.
Comment by God of Biscuits — April 14, 2006 @ 2:16 am - April 14, 2006
I’m afraid that’s called hypocrisy, and it is unfortunately rampant in all political organizations and parties. As much as I cannot stand this type of hypocrisy, I honestly do not believe that this is the reason that turn off many Americans from gay rights, since most Americans witness political hypocrisy on most other issues.
Really? You think the fact that Americans see gay organizations saying that Republicans are antigay and Democrats are pro-gay, regardless of what either does, isn’t registering?
Or in some cases, someone is found out, but it is okay, because they know their place and stay in the back of the bus, or run over by the bus. “He’s gay, but that’s okay, because he keeps his mouth shut and enjoys his third class status.”
The irony in that statement is this, Pat; you insist that we need more diversity of views to be represented in the community, but you exclude the people who have chosen to do as you mention above because it doesn’t fit your ideal.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 14, 2006 @ 12:37 pm - April 14, 2006
Really? You think the fact that Americans see gay organizations saying that Republicans are antigay and Democrats are pro-gay, regardless of what either does, isn’t registering?
No, because Americans who are against gay rights most likely see the Republican Party as the one who best shares their beliefs. I don’t see how any of the hypocrisy and other tactics from gay organizations changes that.
The irony in that statement is this, Pat; you insist that we need more diversity of views to be represented in the community, but you exclude the people who have chosen to do as you mention above because it doesn’t fit your ideal.
I did insist on more diversity of viewpoints in the gay community. But that doesn’t mean I want extreme views that are detrimental to the community. Just as I don’t want extreme leftist views by those trying to tie them in with gay rights, I also don’t think persons who believe in maintaining third class citizenship helps advance gay rights.
Comment by Pat — April 14, 2006 @ 10:59 pm - April 14, 2006
RG, since you claim to know your Bible so well, perhaps you remember Luke 6:42:
“Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Friend, let me take out the speck in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.”
Go read your Bible and get perfect, RG. Then come back and preach to the rest of us.
Comment by Lori Heine — April 10, 2006 @ 3:28 pm – April 10, 2006
Genesis 19:9
…Then they said, “This one came in to stay here, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with than with them.”
Genesis 19:27-28
27) And Abraham went early in the morning to the place where he stood before the Lord.
28) Then he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain; and he saw, and behold, the smoke of the land which went up like the smoke of a furnace.
Comment by RG — April 15, 2006 @ 2:07 am - April 15, 2006
I’m delighted to learn that a love of country music debunks the gay stereotype. Of course, the actuality is that it’s been incorporated into the stereotype in countless two-step clubs around the country. But let’s not tell this this chucklehead. He might feel compelled to stop listening to the stuff himself.
And then there’s the congratulations that your being gay doesn’t define who you are — except, he fails to notice, in your public life which is all about this blog.
And there’s the blows at Andrew Sullivan, so much like your own, and the mentions of Qeer Nation and Dykes on Bikes….not the usual allusions of one raised with a “total disconnect with homosexuality.”
So, you know what? Ten to 1 this letter’s a fake.
Comment by NitPicking4Jesus — April 15, 2006 @ 8:51 pm - April 15, 2006
Getting back to #57 after a break for Passover:
You write:
No amount of persecution or ridicule by straight people is going to change the fact that some people are gay. I guess I don’t know what you expect them to do about it, or what your goal is. What do you think will actually happen as a result of your expressing these ideas and feelings?
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
Like your other posts, this one is unable to totally shed the PC misinformation about homosexuality. Although you claim to believe that homosexuality is an aberration, you are still caught in the pattern of wanting to “be nice” and assuming the posture of pity and largesse that the pro-gay propaganda has primed you to feel.
You are basically asking me how I would handle things differently. Since you seem to be a medical professional, let’s summarize the facts and draw factual – not emotional – conclusions about how the issue should be treated.
This means that when we come to determine public policy, heart-rending stories about gay “spouses” at their lover’s deathbeds – and eager-to-prove-I’m-hip protestations that “some of my best friends are gay” do not trump factual observations about the gay lifestyle and its problems.
Peeling away the gobbledigook and starting with the facts:
1. After decades of research there is no solid proof that gayness is inherited in the same way as eye color. In that same time, strong evidence has accumulated that the vast majority of practicing homosexuals are behaving in ways that confirm early, pre-PC psychological descriptions of homosexuality as arrested development, or maladapted response to emotional mismatches or traumas in formative relationships.
2. There is clear evidence that between 1/4 and 1/3 of teenagers will experience transient same-sex attractions during their adolescents – and if left alone, the vast majority of these youths will go on to integrate healthy heterosexual identities (hence the description of people stuck in gayness as “arrested development”).
3. Despite attempts to shout down dissenting voices, a trickle of evidence is emerging that confirms the truth: in the minority of cases when same-sex attraction springs from developmentnal problems rather than normal adolescence, a range of therapeutic approaches can heal the psyche and allow development to proceed to its normal conclusion – heterosexuality. The techniques can be everything from simple mentoring to supply a father/mother figure, to long-term psychological counseling for deeper problems.
It’s clear that “being nice” should not extend to social and legal sanction of pathological behavior. And homosexuality is pathological behavior. So: first step in a sane public policy is No Legitimation of a Pathological Behavior.
A generation of out-and-proud homosexuals may not be willing or able to heal themselves, but normalizing dysfunction will only trap more unfortunates in this sad pathology. The pathetically low rates of gay marriage in Europe and Canada indicate that the vast majority of these people do not even seem capable of/interested in committed relationships, so shutting down the gay marriage circus will cause very little additional human grief.
This goes double and triple for Gay-Straight Alliances and other organizations that atttempt to recruit young people into homosexual exploration under the guise of “promoting understanding” or “supporting youth at risk”. The last thing teenagers need is imposition of the pro-gay agenda at this vulnerable stage of life.
These organizations should be completely removed from the schools. In their stead, counseling staffs can work to provide Big Brothers/Sisters and other mentors to the many kids whose same-sex attraction grows out of deficits in formative relationships, and can take up the hard work of actually healing the almost 20 percent of youth presenting as “gay” who have been sexaully molested.
Despite what many on this list may say, this is the truly compassionate approach in the long run.
Comment by Ben-David — April 16, 2006 @ 12:29 pm - April 16, 2006
I’m afraid to ask from #71 where these “facts” come from. Thankfully, fewer and fewer people believe the myths and outright lies from #71.
Comment by Pat — April 16, 2006 @ 10:10 pm - April 16, 2006