Welcome Instapundit Readers!!
So regularly do gay liberals (not just gay people, others on the left as well) misrepresent gay conservatives that I often forget how social conservatives also engage in the same sort of deception. While it seems those on the left misrepresent this blog (and its bloggers) on a regular basis, it’s been a while since a social conservative has so misunderstood us (or at least since a reader has drawn their criticism to my attention).
That changed with an item yesterday’s Inside Blogotics column in the Washington Times. Writer Victor Morton reported that Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Media Institute, took issue with Morton’s defining me as a “conservative blogger” in a previous post:
Conservatives understand the central importance of family and the threat that gay activism poses to the freedoms of speech, association and religion. Just ask the Boy Scouts. Or the pastors in Canada who have been hauled before human rights tribunals for daring to publicly criticize gay ‘marriage’ or taxpayer-funded promotion of homosexuality. A gay activist from West Hollywood, whatever else he writes about, is not a ‘conservative’ but a libertarian.
WOW. Where do I start? I ask Knight the same thing I ask some of my liberal critics: do you even read my posts? This guy hasn’t a clue about my ideas.
It’s amazing how many errors I can find in that short quotation. What drives Mr. Knight’s need to paint all gay people with such a broad brush, assuming we are anti-family or favor “taxpayer-funded promotion of homosexuality”?
How eager Robert Knight is to deny my conservatism at the same time he misrepresents my ideas.
While I do lean libertarian (with a small “L”), I am definitely a conservative. I would hardly call myself a gay activist. I do write about gay issues, but don’t militate for political action, not seeing government as appropriate institution to promote the social changes I seek.
I oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) for a great variety of reasons (basically, it’s a solution in search of problem), including a recognition of the dangers it poses to freedom of religion and association. It may make it difficult for social conservatives to exclude gays from their groups, just as it would make it difficult for gays to exclude non-gays from our groups. I may disagree with such exclusion, but do believe citizens should remain free to associate with whomever they choose.
I’m a member of a gay group which filed an amicus brief on behalf the Boy Scouts.
Knight’s notions notwithstanding, I recently wrote a piece defending the right of Canadian pastors to express their views of homosexuality, even when I disagree with those views. I took a Canadian Human Rights (sic) Panel to task when it punished a pastor for saying things I thought were just plain wrong. That wasn’t the only time I defended the right of a prominent person to make anti-gay statements.
I recognize the central importance of family to our society. I love my family more than this man could possibly know. I can still recall the sense of relief I felt when my Dad responded favorably to my coming out. Heck, I just returned from a trip to Cincinnati to be with my Mom when she went in for an operation. Those who read this blog know I think my nieces and nephews rule the world.
It’s not just because I’m conservative that I value my family. I can’t tell you the number of gay people I know, of nearly every political affiliation, who have a similar regard for their families.
Not just that, had he read this blog, he would know that I believe monogamy is a defining element of marriage. And have regularly criticized gay activists for misrepresenting that ancient and honorable institution.
But, I guess when you have a fixed notion of what gay people are, you define us by the most radical elements of our community, so you can’t possibly see us for the individuals we are. Poor Robert Knight, he’s no better than a liberal harboring narrow views of conservatives.
Just yesterday, I wondered at the left’s obsession with tarring conservatives as haters. Today, I wonder at why this social conservative is so obsessed with labeling all gay people as subscribing to the same ideology? Why, like those on the left, does he have such a narrow and inaccurate view of such a broad and diverse group of people?
Why is this man so obsessed with gays? Dr. Freud? Dr. Jung?
Dan, I would urge you to ignore this Knight fellow. Folks that far to the right have their minds made uo, their beliefs firmly in place; damn the facts.
Don’t waste any time or energy on him. The people who read this blog regularly know what you stand for, what you have written in the past, your integrity and your sincerity.
Today, I wonder at why this social conservative is so obsessed with labeling all gay people as subscribing to the same ideology?
Probably because, GPW, we are a very small drop of conservativism in a very large ocean of gay people who are overwhelmingly leftist hatemongers — as, I predict, will be demonstrated nicely in a few minutes when there are several of them like Kevin and others running around here whining about how this proves all conservatives hate gay people and trying to use this person’s ignorance as an excuse to coax us back under the plantation fence.
The question is whether or not we will give Knight the chance to become more informed — or if we will make such statements as his being “obsessed with gays”, which is neither productive or accurate with the information at hand.
You have done an excellent job of laying out why your past record does not fit his stereotype. Leave it at that.
More to the point, if some of this Knight fellow’s readers find this blog, they will see your opinions for themselves. At least some of them will give you a fair hearing, and maybe you can influence a few minds.
Reading Knights comments, I would bet money that he’s never read your posts. Funny, for someone who isn’t a conservative, a heck of a lot of conservative bloggers link to you pretty darn regularly.
As to why he paints all gays with a broad brush, dismissing your conservatism — probably because he truly is a hater. It becomes very difficult to hate a group if you are forced to acknowledge their individual redeeming qualities.
Funny thing is, unlike the “Culture and Media Institute”, I actually have heard of Gay Patriot.
But unlike Trace, I’m inclined to suggest you should contact this insignificant little man. Either respond to The Washington Times Blog (which has the added benefit of publicity) or write to the little pissant directly.
One thing I’m certain of, most people would find your brand of conservatism more attractive than his.
Let’s see if you are Gay, you are anti family? and let’s see if you are Gay, you have no values? um, isn’t he a knee jerk jack ass….please…..so only str8 people care about family and have values? or is it the nearly 2/3 that get divorced and nearly 75 to 80 percent that may have cheated in their relationship? or the ones that have multiple marriages, children from different partners or don’t marry (the old canard that str8s who procreate will marry…um, can you say “single parent household” and the many str8s that don’t pay child support..
I mean we can go on and on….and put it right back at that small minded stereotypical knee jerk wimp (and yes, I added stereotypes here to prove that yes, people can engage in them and say dumb ass things just for the heck of it)
as the saying goes ignore that moron behind that dumb ass blog that hasn’t a clue about life and people in general.
next case, step down.
Im not familiar with that old saying. Confuscious?
And just fyi, nowhere near two thirds of married people get divorced, and contrary to popular myths, its not even half.
Please, sir, may I have some more?
ugh.
Probably because, GPW, we are a very small drop of conservativism in a very large ocean of gay people who are overwhelmingly leftist hatemongers
Even if that is true, NDT, how does that excuse Knight who specifically pointed out Dan, and could find out for himself that he did not fit the stereotype.
as, I predict, will be demonstrated nicely in a few minutes when there are several of them like Kevin and others running around here whining about how this proves all conservatives hate gay people and trying to use this person’s ignorance as an excuse to coax us back under the plantation fence.
Excellent point. Thanks for pointing out how wrong it is when one “proves” something about a class of people based on an example or two, even when links are provided, as if that somehow bolsters the “proof.” 😉
Dude wake up. You don’t understand the central importance of family because you seem think gay people can and should have families of their own.
It’s not what you do or believe. It’s who you are. That’s his point. He doesn’t like you. He thinks there is something wrong with you. Your participation in the institution of marriage demeans it. Your participation in the raising of children imperils them.
By the way, I also support the First Amendment right of the Boy Scouts to associate with whomever they choose and not to associate with others. But in addition to filing an amicus brief on their behalf, I hope you also discourage your siblings and other parents from enrolling their sons in a group that espouses an explicitly bigoted and demeaning view of gay people–specifically, that homosexuality is incompatible with the Boy Scouts’ pledge to be “morally clean and straight.”
American Elephant…um, I see you didn’t read my entire post where I indicated that cliches can be stretched to say anything to be stereotypical to prove a wrong misguided notion. Again, I see you didn’t get my ironic twist on the scene from “The Wizard of Oz” about ignoring that man behind the curtain….it was meant to put a little levity in the situation and to point out how beyond the pale the attack was.
I believe Jim said it best….guys like that are hate mongers and believe that being Gay is a genetic defect ala Laura Schlesinger’s view point.
I do believe in freedom of association but when the Boy Scouts accepted public monies from governmental entities and use of public facilities for their use and 501(c)(3) donations where those organizations have a non discrimination policy then I do believe they are not entitled to use those public facilities, receive public funds or if they violate a 501 (c) (3) not for profit’s by laws non discrimination policies, then the don’t get the funds or facility use they asked for and then cry foul for being discriminated against when they use the public domain and engage in discrimination.
Robert Knight? Oh, puh-leeze. That guy is one of several wackadoodles that have the attitude “don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind’s made up”. Expend your energy on people who do read your blog & are willing to have a civilized conversation with you.
We all know that there are close minded bigots on all sides – and I commend you for pointing out the narrow minded people on the right.
Clearly he sees gay culture as a real threat to society. Sad to say, he has a point since so much of general culture is finding it easier to adopt the worst of gay culture – rather than mainstream the Gays.
Of course it is easier simply to blame the gays. The mature but much harder thing to do would be to demand that society at large reign itself in. He should actually read Dan’s post and commend people like Dan and other readers of this blog, who are trying to reform ‘gay culture’.
LIfe is much easier when you demonize the other, we all do it at some time or another – it’s one thing to do it in private -it’s another to proclaim it loudly in public like this guy did.
“Pro-Family,” as it pertains to social conservatives, has long been a euphemism for a single portrait of the American family, one that excludes gay people.
You didn’t know that?
Dan: I think this comes from some of them viewing us as being a “Fifth Columnâ€. IOW, as gays we do not hold to all of their views on homosexuality which they believe is part and parcel of conservatism. Heck, I’ve run into social conservatives before who had a problem with my being Catholic, let alone my sexual orientation.
I’m not a regular reader of this blog. I am a far right conservative. I have never heard of Robert knight. I don’t lump all gays into the categories this Knight fellow does. I have served in politics with some gay men, and they were each conservative and family oriented.
I have never come across your blog before. (Hat tip to Instapundit for the link)
Thank you for the thoughtful exposition of your views. Perhaps indicative of my own ignorance or naiveté, I’ve never known a gay who is “pro-family,” who supports of the BSA’s freedom of association, and who openly advocates monogamy.
I do have one question, though. And please know that I do NOT intend offense by the following. I really just want to know your thoughts on this. How can a practicing gay man be pro-family? Maybe it’s a matter of semantics, but I’ve always thought “pro-family” began with the affirmation of the centrality of one man, one woman, in marriage, both totally committed to each other and to their children. Am I way off on this?
I agree with American Elephant that you should send this post to Mr. Knight. If you notice, in his comment he refers to you as a “gay activist”. He certainly should have looked up your blog before passing judgement, but I don’t think he is saying that all gays are attacking the Boy Scouts or pastors that oppose gay marriage, but many self proclaimed gay activists do seek to suppress the rights of those who don’t agree with them.
I think it’s worth pointing out that not every gay blogger is a “gay activist”. Who knows, you might even get an apology!
Who the heck is Robert Knight and why does it matter what he thinks? I’m pretty conservative and I’ve never heard of the guy. Now I wish I hadn’t.
That Robert Knight person sounds like he might could be a d—.
It’s Knight’s bona fides that should be questioned. There is very little conservative about social conservatives.
It’s all about identity, and it happens on the right and left. It’s what you get when you invest your ego in your politics. In this man’s worldview you can’t be both gay and conservative, because if you were it would call into question his own identity as a conservative.
People who invest their egos in their politics are therefore fundamentally unserious, because their investment renders them unsusceptible to reason. Stupid is as stupid does.
yours/
peter.
Dr. Jay, with all due respect, I don’t practice at being a Gay man. I am one. If you are a heterosexual male, do you practice at being a heterosexual male?
As to being pro family, I always believed and felt that a family involves love, instilling good values in those we love and by your question doesn’t a family involve one mother, one father, would exclude millions of families in this country from that definition. There are families that involve one parent, two parents, step parents, grand parents and extended families that help raise children. There are families that involve single parents or same sex couples. Indeed, for many there are what is I call a family of friends (heck, look at the Golden Girls, who ended up as a family). To me, a family involves teaching values by example, instilling love, working with children to make sure they grow up with moral values, love, acceptance, an education where they do their homework, are not afraid to speak their minds, learn from their mistakes, know that they are learning the difference between right and wrong, to learn to stand up for the least amongst us, to practice the Golden Rule, etc.
If a child learns that from a loving parent, does it matter that it is a Gay or a heterosexual parent? I think not. We in the Gay community are not in the practice of recruiting people into our so called “lifestyle”. Genetics determines whether someone is Gay or heterosexual and not what family you live with.
My so called lifestyle involves being self employed for nearly 18 years, getting up to go to work every day (sick or not) and worrying like everyone else do I have enough funds to pay the bills this month and did I do my job well and lead as a regular every day life as any other person..Gay or heterosexual in this country.
I am betting my last penny (and I am not a betting man by nature) that every Gay person is pretty much the same as me…..we are the same as every heterosexual… with one exception, we are Gay and love another person of the same (if we are blessed to find love)
Even Double Talk McCain is against gay families. Click it!
Longtime reader, first-time commenter – and I’ll second what tim maguire said. There’s nothing conservative about continually brewing up tempests in teapots.
What the hell is a ‘Culture and Media Institute’, anyway?
Keep on fighting the good fight.
All best regards – T
And hither comes the Instalanche. 🙂
Perhaps indicative of my own ignorance or naiveté, I’ve never known a gay who is “pro-family,†who supports of the BSA’s freedom of association, and who openly advocates monogamy.
That’s because we’re rather few and far between, Dr. Jay. People like Pinky Bear, who are far more numerous in the gay community, talk about “gay families”, but what should be realized is that their definitions of “gay families” involve parents who dress two-year-old children as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs, as well as “married” gay people who boast about their promiscuity.
To your point, I don’t think a lot of the posters here would disagree with your statement about “the affirmation of the centrality of one man, one woman, in marriage, both totally committed to each other and to their children”. Indeed, many of the regular posters here have voiced their support and consideration of exactly that, cognizant of the fact that it covers the vast and overwhelming majority of the population and is of paramount importance for the perpetuation of society.
However, what needs to be clarified is that one can be supportive of this without it being the best choice for them. Catholic priests are forbidden by their own beliefs and situations from marrying, but that does not mean they do not support the affirmation you mentioned. In a similar fashion, the simple fact that I am gay does not mean that I cannot affirm the centrality and importance of heterosexual marriage and childraising.
Dr. Jay, I’m answering for myself, not for Dan. Pro family goes beyond you description. It encompasses children caring for their elderly parents, adult siblings looking out for one another.
One of the tragedies of many gays is that they are thrown out of that support system when their families learn they are gay. Some turn against the concept of family all together, others try and rebuild a new family unit – in that case they are the honorable gay couples who have taken on the mantle of marriage – monogamous relations, raising children, caring for eachothers’ extended families. Of course they never make the news, the only way you’d know them is if they move in next door.
Problem is, that when Gay spokesmen talk about Gay marriage – it’s all about the rights, not the responsibilities. Dan did a post about the complete lack of any reference to monogamy in the gay marriage agenda.
I understand many people who feel that the term marriage should remain for a man-woman union. Which is why many practical people are interested in the concept of domestic partnership.
Leah brings up an excellent final point.
Does it make sense for society to recognize in some way same-sex relationships? Yes.
Does it make sense for society to recognize them in the same way as opposite-sex relationships, which carry markedly-different impact in terms of biology, society, and perpetuation of ideas? No.
Doing the former will not diminish marriage or the family. It will acknowledge that society has a vested interest in encouraging the values of commitment, fidelity, and responsibility that are shamefully lacking in the leftist-dominated gay community. At the same time, it will continue to confirm that society’s first and foremost interest is in the procreative unions that produce the population, provide social protection and stability for its most vulnerable members, and perpetuate the ideals of said society.
I really don’t get this argument that no gay people should be allowed to marry simply because some gay people are unfaithful to their partners and do things such as, uh, “dress two-year-old children as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs” (which I confess I have never witnessed, probably because I’ve never been to a “sex fair”).
I don’t do those things. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to marry even if some other gay people aren’t fit for it? Why is the worst behavior of other gay people attributed to me? Straight people aren’t prevented from getting married by the fact that some straight people molest children or go to sex clubs or host swinger parties. Why should I be prevented from getting married simply because some gay people do these things?
And why should my partnership be called something other than marriage? If two names are necessary in order to distinguish same-sex unions from opposite-sex unions (and I don’t think two words are necessary), then I want the name “marriage” for mine and straight people can have “domestic partnership” for theirs. Since more than half of their so-called “marriages” end in divorce anyway, I think it makes more sense to give gay people the benefit of the doubt that to keep betting on the losing horse of so-called straight “marriage.”
I’m straight. I think homosexuality inconsistent with Man as a sexual being, and I consider it a (minor) psychological affliction. Yes, it is chosen but not by direct means. Homsexuality is abso-f******-lutely NOT immoral.
I think if gays want to marry, go ahead. (Haven’t worked out the “marriage” etymology thingy though.)
If gays want to be in the military & out of the closet, fine–just treat them (vis a vis straights (in terms of domicling, etc.)) as you would the opposite sexes of straights.
That establishes my perspective on this issue.
Here’s why a social conservatives would bash a gay conservative: religion. Read the Bible.
As for me, I’m an atheist. I’ll never be fully positive on homosexuality, limited by the above; but freedom is freedom; rights are rights; and a person’s sexual orientation is, quite frankly, irrelevant politically & ethically.
However, this is a heterosexual world, folks. (A prof once told me that singles’ nights were “viciously heterosexual.”) It has to be if we want the species to survive. (That doesn’t mean it can’t have plenty of gay suburbs.)
It should also and for the same reason be a *fully* rational world. When that happens, gays (as well as atheists & capitalists) will no longer be bashed.
It is heartening to read that many of us recognize that families come in many forms. Indeed, before WWII many families were just not the mother and father and children but involved grandparents, aunts and/or uncles and cousins all living together or nearby and all had a hand in helping raise children and in helping in each.
As far as same sex marriage, I believe that why not just allow civil unions for all couples, straight or gay and provide the same federal and state statutory rights?
If someone wishes a religious marriage, after all let us not forget that marriage licenses are not issued by the Church but by the state governments and their local governments, then one can go to a church and have a religious service if that religious church, synogague or mosque wishes to marry them.
“Family values” are not limited to the notion of one father, one mother but to all us upholding values of love, commitment, honesty, ethics and helping each other out and setting good examples for children and so on.
I think those above have expressed it well. I enjoyed reading your comments:)
Gay people are a part of families. They are sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, and cousins. They are even mothers and fathers, and in a generation may be grandmother and grandfathers. In some states, they are even husbands and wives.
There is no dissonance between being gay and being “pro-family.”
I think you were on the right track with this “But, I guess when you have a fixed notion of what gay people are, you define us by the most radical elements of our community, so you can’t possibly see us for the individuals we are.” – but I think it is broader than that.
In general, if a person has a fixed notion of what any group of people of which they are not a part are, they will define the group by the most VISIBLE elements of that community – and the most visible are often the most radical.
I am not gay but I am conservative – and I do not especially like it that many, both liberal and conservative, assume that I am therefore anti-gay. But I expect that from the liberal side – as they don’t really get conservatives anyway. From the conservative side – it really ticks me off. Being conservative means I am supposed to give up my right to think for myself?
Bob, your experience seems pretty common. Gay people (particularly of the left-wing persuasion) assume someone is anti-gay because he votes Republican or considers himself a conservative.
People like Pinky Bear, who are far more numerous in the gay community, talk about “gay familiesâ€, but what should be realized is that their definitions of “gay families†involve parents who dress two-year-old children as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs, as well as “married†gay people who boast about their promiscuity.
Jim, you have a dirty mind. I have never seen these “Sex Fairs” you speak of and dressing two year olds as “sex slaves” sounds pretty gross.
Of course, in your pedophile rant, which you must be one since you went there automatically, you blather on like some Right Wing-Nutter.
There are a lot of married straight people who aren’t monogamous, like John McSame who carried on an affair with Cindy Budweiser (who was popping pills and stealing money from her own medical charity) who got married before the ink dried on the divorce decree.
#35 – As if families like the Clintons, the Kennedys or the Edwardses have a monopoly on monogamy.
Go back into your cave, PB.
Regards,
Peter H.
I hate people like that guy because they give other conservatives a bad name. I hate having to defend myself personally before I can even discuss issues. It’s people like this dude that make that happen. Jerk.
PinkyBear, I didn’t say that. NorthDallasThirty did. If you notice, I said that I have never been to such a “sex fair” either.
There was a time when cheating spouses were held in check by shame. The simple ‘what will the neighbors say’ carried a lot of weight.
But due to the highest liberal value – thou shall not be judgmental – social shame went out the window.
Thank you Peter for bringing up all those upstanding Liberals – who since they have no values are free from criticism when while cheating on their wife they leave a girl to drown in a car. Or when they use a young woman barely older than their daughter to get sexual gratification.
Here’s the thing about reasonable conservatives (Mr. Knight doesn’t qualify). We believe that there are basic standards or ideals that are the basis for a stable society. Not everyone, even sometimes the conservative themselves can’t always live up to those ideals.
But often it’s better to try and fail than not try at all. So sure, marriages fail, people have affairs. Just because the individual fails does not mean the principle is wrong.
But if you are a liberal than the rule is simple. I can’t live up to those standards – so get rid of the standards! Whereas a conservative will say. I failed in my own life, but better than I be a personal failure than society change it’s rules so I can feel good about myself.
Beautifully said, Leah.
So Leah, what do all of your points about standards and ideals have to do with gay people, many, many of whom can and do live up to the ones you seem to value most? Your position seems to be that gay people need to “prove” their ability to be good spouses and parents before they should be allowed to be spouses or parents, a standard which straight people simply are not held to. You also seem to think that because some gay people are unfaithful, irresponsible, promiscuous, etc., no gay people should be permitted to marry or have children. Now that’s a test straight people, as a group, would be no more able to pass than gay people, as a group. Lucky for you, I guess, that all you have to do to get married is swing by the courthouse and all you have to do to have children is, well you know.
Jim,
In case you didn’t know, hetero couples who are seeking adoption also have to “prove’ their ability to be good spouses & parents.
RW— True that. Very, very true that.
So, if there is to be same-sex marriage, what will the rules and mores be? We know when heterosexual couples break the rules because there *are* rules. You have to be faithful, you have to honor your commitments. Will same sex couples be held to the same standard, or will it be a matter of doing whatever they feel like? Because if the latter is the case, SSM will have a destructive impact on society.
RW – Yeah. Duh. So do gay couples who seek to adopt. And I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the idea that gay people should not be allowed to adopt at all, as Senator McCain, who “does not believe in gay adoption,” seems to think.
V the K – What exactly are the “rules” straight people all know not to break? Fidelity? If that’s a rule for straight people, I’m afraid it’s often observed in the breach. Divorce? Ditto. The fact is that couples, to a large degree, make their own rules. They establish between one another what is tolerable and what is not. And I see no reason to think gay people won’t be able to do the same thing.
At least Jim honestly admits that gays have no intention of honoring traditional rules of commitment and monogamy.
You didn’t mention what to me is the worst part – “West Hollywood” as evidence of what you believe.
That’s no better than assuming someone from Alabama is a yahoo or someone from New York City isn’t a Christian. I find it really offensive.
poor pinky, can’t poitn to anything positive so he has to attack the other side.
Oh, and #23 I’m apparently a practicing heterosexual. Divorced Twice, so I don’t have it perfected yet 😉
Translation: you don’t believe in the freedom of association. A freedom, I remind you, that, unlike statutory laws labeling gays a protected minority, is protected by the Constitution of the United States by the assembly clause, and I guess you also need reminding that the free exercise of religion is likewise protected, and finally, I guess you need reminding that the Constitution trumps statute every time.
As for your other comment, yes, i saw your intended point, i just thought it was so silly that it required mockery.
A correction as to McCain…he did come back and state that he believed that adoption laws should be left up to the states and not decided on a federal level and not that he was opposed to Gays adopting. What McCain is stating is correct. Adoption laws are decided on state by state basis. I have no problem with that. The same is true with marriage laws which are decided by each state. DOMA on the other had I believe is unconstitutional since it violates the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution. I doubt we will we ever get the US Supreme Court to decide the issue nor will Congress overturn it….one more fine legacy of President Clinton..but that’s another topic unto itself.
Just as some lefties would denounce Obama for being too middle class, some conservatives would William F. Buckley Jr for being too elitist.
Ignore this twit and keep on posting, dude.
V the K – that’s not what I said at all. I said a lot of straight people don’t honor the rules, and that it isn’t so clear even in the case of straight people what the “rules” are, or that every married couple adheres to the same rules as every other.
American Elephant – What the hell are you talking about? I don’t think I’ve mentioned anything about a statute anywhere in any of my posts. What I said about the Boy Scouts is that I believe their freedom of association includes the right to exclude gays. I do believe that. But I also believe that conscientious parents should keep their boys out of the boy scouts (which, of course, is a perfectly permissible exercise of their own right to free association) and should encourage other parents to do the same (which, of course, is a perfectly permissible exercise of their freedom of speech). I didn’t mention a role for government anywhere.
McCain said: “I don’t believe in gay adoption.” He later “clarified” by saying that it was preferable for orphans to be raised by “caring parental figures” (note that he did not say “caring gay parents”) that it was for them to go homeless. Look it up.
Jim,
Where does my reply say it is directed towards you? I was quoting, and responding to Rocket.
I said a lot of straight people don’t honor the rules, and that it isn’t so clear even in the case of straight people what the “rules†are
Rubbish. There is a broad societal consensus that the basic rules of marriage are commitment and monogamy. Those ideals are central to marriage because adherence to them holds families together, which is the basic glue of society.
Some married couples break the rules, and a much smaller number have no intention of following the rules at all. This is, however, not the Norm.
But when you say every couple gets to define marriage on its own terms, you are proposing that commitment and monogamy no longer become central to marriage. Instead of commitment and monogamy, the central issue of marriage becomes benefits and status. That is not good for society.
Which, V the K, is rather the point of gay and lesbian liberals; witness, for example, their argument for the California ballot that “the government has no business telling people who can and cannot get married” and that, regardless of other peoples’ feelings, “people should not be singled out for unfair treatment under the laws of our state”. If the government has no business telling people who can and cannot get married, then it should immediately drop all bans on incestuous marriage, polygamous or polyandrous marriage, and child marriage, just to name a few. As the Beyond Marriage manifesto of a few years back showed, gay liberals WANT marriage benefits and status extended to sibling couples and, in their own words, “households with more than one conjugal partner”.
this is what McCain’s Communication Director said in clarifying McCain’s position:
On July 15, McCain’s communications director, Jill Hazelbaker, attempted to backpedal on McCain’s statement to the Times. “McCain could have been clearer in the interview in stating that his position on gay adoption is that it is a state issue, just as he made it clear in the interview that marriage is a state issue,” she said. “He was not endorsing any federal legislation. McCain’s expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible. However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative.”
According to the Supreme Court case: PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INS. CO. v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, 306 U.S. 493 (1939)
In rejecting this argument , the SC notes that
It also notes
It concludes
I said it was my opinion…i think I am entitled to that at the least..plus, in marriage laws, the Supreme Court has traditionally said that one state should honor the other states marriage laws (and this has been what has happened..otherwise, if you get married in say Wyoming and move to Florida you don’t have to get married again because Florida has to respect the legitimacy of Wyoming’s marriage laws….it is that basic.)
I am COMPLETELY right !
” GayPatriot » A Social Conservative Misrepresents Gay Conservatives ”
So called ” Gay ” Conservatives are CONTRADICTORY !!!
To be a conservatice ( FULLY ) one MUST be FISCALLY conservative , CULTURALLY conservative and SOCIALLY conservative !
You people PICK and CHOOSE !
” Gay ” Conservatives do NOT exist !
Stop pertaining TRUE traditional values to your SICK and TWISTED view !
It’s either being conservative or being gay …
Conservativism in this is
ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN
YOU do not FIT into this !
Therefore you are LIBERAL and AGAINST IT !
Which one is it ? Stay gay and go ( so called ) moderate if you can’t disgest liberalism then …
You are one sick and crazy dog
Traditionalism rejects you and most conservatives in and out of the West as well …
Admit it … you are trying to bring the ” gayness ” into the conservative arena ( just like vegetarians are too ) … you guys are as bad as the neo cons/religious extremists … scratch that … you are WORSE !
Because you try to mix UNRECONCILABLE points of view !
Why don’t you go and leave this traditonal mentality
( I will probably be referenced for a ” Hate ” crime here but who the hell cares … )
Go ( so called ) moderate honey
Stop calling yourself a ” GayPatriot ”
You put your sexuality above everything and anything else … a true Patriot puts his country above himself
A true conservative puts conservatism above himself
You are the shame to the TRUE conservative movement ( conservatives already have problems with the neocons/religious extremists and now they have people like you ! I fell terribly sorry for traditionalism )
Why won’t you go and live your ” lifestyle ” and leave ( full ) conservatism alone … freak