GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

I don’t need the government to affirm my sexuality

by

I found Sarah Palin’s answer to Charles Gibson’s question on homosexuality satisfactory (though not ideal) in large part because of my basic political philosophy.  I don’t think someone’s sexuality should be a matter of government concern.

I don’t need the government to affirm my sexuality.  I just expect the government to leave me alone so I can affirm it in my own way.

Comments

  1. Firstly, it was an obnoxious question from Gibson. No one dares to ask a Democrat these kind of questions. The Dems dance around the subject and really do a mambo when it comes to same-sex marriage. As I have written here many times before, I favor civil unions but am uncomfortable about it being marriage. And, the people should decide, through their legislatures, not courts. As far as belonging to a church that claims they can “change” one from being gay to straight, a better question would have been does Gov. Palin agree with that position. And, I am like her. I do not know if it is totally genetic or mostly genetic and some environmently issues as to whether or not some people are gay or not. Another question. Would those who think it was terrible to bring Trig Palin into the world knowing he had Down Syndrome think it would also be wrong to knowingly bring a child into the world who would be gay or lesbian?

  3. Dumb. This isn’t about “government affirming sexuality” idiots. It’s about people–gay and straight–having equal rights and NOT having government legislate or enact moral judgment.

  4. I totally agree..as in commented in the topic on Palin and homosexuality..I want the government to keep out of our private lives and keep the hands out of our wallets.

    The government will screw up both and I don’t need to look to the government for my own happiness..that is up to me..unless of course the Democrats outlaw that and trust me if they could find a way to control our daily lives more they would and will given time. But of course we will do our best to tell them hell no….the Nanny state we don’t need nor want…thank you very much!

  5. That’s all well and good but Sarah Palin tried to fire the librarian of Wassila because the librarian refused to remove a GAY friendly book from the library shelves.

    So, not only is Palin pro censorship, wanting to dictate what Americans should be able to READ, she obviously has strong anti-gay feelings.

  6. If I remember correctly, she had been asked her personal opinion only. She had not been asked to relat that to any government policy (past, present, future). Her answer was okay, but I think she kind of punted on it.

    Is she going to be a live-and-let-live libertarian, like a latter-day Barry Goldwater? Or is she going to dig in her (high) heels and affirm, in a religion-in-the-public-sphere way, that Christians have a right to evangelize LGBT people away from homosexuality? Personally, I don’t think those two stances are incompatible – and I think she has a lot to gain if she affirms both, or makes statements that would suggest either are plausible. Mostly, I think, she has to acknowledge LGBT individuals and concerns and not let slip any frustration or barbed remarks. One thing is for sure: Democrats and the LGBT people who love them are going to try to destroy her if she makes a faux or unsure steps on this subject.

    btw, Bob Schieffer asked Kerry and Bush the same question in an ’04 debate.

  8. “I just expect the government to leave me alone so I can affirm it in my own way.”

    Ah. Good idea. Must be why Palin tried to get gay books banned from the library, and why McCain backs laws to ban gay adoption and gay marriage. Oh wait…

  9. I don’t care one way or another about the governmental recognition of marriage, which is what this question was meant to prelude, and since she was so rational, charlie had to have several seconds edited out until his teleprompter caught up with the next question before he could continue.

    I’m a pooter puncher, I like chicks, and I don’t know how gay guys do it, but that is what you do. Why? No clue, don’t care, I’m not gonna fuck or be fucked buy gay guys, but I think you are normal people.

    I don’t even think you are a subset, cuz I know some cats with some serious fetishes, and I think they are just normal cats with tastes I can’t stand, that doesn’t mean they are bad, why would I have a different standard with homosexuals?

    Now, when it comes ot marriage, I MUST ADMIT, I think marriage is for procreation, and child rearing.

    A homosexual mariage is biologicaly impossible of doing the first, and thereby unlike to accomplish the second.

    Should homosexual couples have visitation, NoK and all those other basic rights. . . . Probably.

    But thats not Mariage.

  16. My sexuality does not need approval by anyone except me. To ask the ‘personal opinion’ of a government official is setting a trap for that person so the ‘reporter’ can get a cheap headline. Gibson was looking for the ‘big’ story and what he got instead was a dud.

  17. Now, when it comes ot marriage, I MUST ADMIT, I think marriage is for procreation, and child rearing.

    A homosexual mariage is biologicaly impossible of doing the first, and thereby unlike to accomplish the second.

    Wickedpinto, I agree with much of what you say, but disagree with above. While it is biologically impossible for same sex couples to procreate, many same sex couples do rear children. Further, for many heterosexual couples, it is biologically impossible for them to procreate or simply choose to not procreate. Sure, these could be considered exceptions, and I have no desire to change laws prohibiting these persons from getting married, whether or not gay persons can marry. But instead of saying how these nonprocreating couples shouldn’t marry and leave it only to those who can and will procreate, we still enourage such couples to marry and wish them well. That’s the exact same thing I want for same sex couples.

    Dan, I don’t need the government to affirm my sexuality as well, but I also don’t want government to hinder it either. For the most part, I can say that I have not been hindered by government, because I’ve been lucky. Even though growing up, being gay was definitely a put down by peers, as an adult there’s been much more acceptance. But many others haven’t been so lucky. Many have had to put up with family members intolerance, continuing into adulthood. And many live in states or localities in which gays do not have rights that others take for granted. So when gays say they want their sexuality affirmed, it seems to me that that is what they are really saying. Or they could be saying that they want their sexuality affirmed the same way that it is affirmed for heterosexuals like it is for Obama, McCain, Palin, and Biden.

    Of course, it’s not government’s job to make people like and accept homosexuality. But I do want candidates who know better and be leaders and not pander to those who want to continue their intolerance. But we’re not there either. Both parties pander, and only promise gay rights as far as they think that will get them elected.

    As for Gibson’s question, it was a dud. The question should have been whether or not homosexuality (the orientation, not acting on it) is a choice. Palin’s answer was kind of mediocre. I was hoping with her knowledge and leadership, that she could have first answered that she didn’t know the answer the way it was framed by Gibson, but then to come out to say that it is indeed not a choice. But instead, she was more concerned about whether other people should be judged for their beliefs about homosexuality.

  18. I think what gayDemocrats were hoping for from Sarah Palin was something like: “Charlie, that’s a good question but it’s above my pay grade”.

    Or maybe, “Charlie, you know those gays back in Pennsylvania, clinging to their techno dance CDs and PrideParade banners because they’re bitter America doesn’t adore them”.

    Or maybe, “Charlie, that question is like trying to put lipstick on a drama queen who’s only interested in blending peach and violet eye shadow at the moment”.

    Unfortunately for gayDemocrats looking for a way to divert attention from BarryO’s anti-gay marriage position, they didn’t get any help from Sarah Palin.

    But that doesn’t matter.

    “Look, look, over here… McCain wants to invade Iran!!”

  20. I don’t need the government to affirm my sexuality. I just expect the government to leave me alone so I can affirm it in my own way.

    While I don’t need government to affirm the value of my relationship–I think the past fifteen years with the same man have proven that time and again–I don’t think I should be penalized because the person I have devoted my life to happens to be male. It’s not a question of the government affirming anything, rather it’s a question of the government using gender as a consideration in tax laws, benefits, etc, that is unreasonable. There’s a lot of money coming out of my pocket because the government considers the gender of my mate as somehow relevant. It’s not. Yet I support him financially just as any husband would his wife, and cannot gain the same government tax breaks that my parents share. It’s not a question of affirmation. It’s a question of equity for each individual citizen, regardless of gender.

  22. More condescension from the left – of course only the left can really approve of gay people (and cash their checks). Remember Dearies, any government big enough to approve of Gay People can make them Un-People just as easily. And who wants government regulation on the size of ferns and disco balls in gay clubs?

  23. “So your evidence is an advertisement for a book? You’re worse than a propagandist. You’re a gullible idiot.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative”

    http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1117009&srvc=2008campaign&position=15

    http://features.csmonitor.com/books/2008/09/05/sarah-palin-and-libraries/
    http://www.libraryjournal.com/blog/1010000101/post/1110032711.html

    Anyway, like I said before, it’s amazing how when presented with facts your Soviet-like ability to dismiss the truth is there.

    “Afraid of Palin”? Um, not at all. Disgusted and mortified that she could be elected vice-president? Hell yeah.

    Again, you call gay Democrats borg but are unable to see your unfailing support of Palin or McCain.

    As for comparing Obama’s position on marriage to Palin’s get real. Obama stated in his interview with the Advocate magazine he is for full equality of rights between civil unions and “marriage.” He further stated that he could get civil unions passed but not marriage and was following the path of the Civil Rights movement.

    So, let’s be logical about this. Is that possible for you? One candidate is for state recognized domestic partnership and the other candidates (McCain and Palin) are against any state recognized partnership.

    Hmm?? If you can’t tell the difference between the two, I strongly question your ability to read and analyze basic English.

    Here’s Obama’s positions on LGBT issues: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf

    Where’s McCain’s? Oh, that’s right, McCain came out in support of the anti-marriage forces in California and Arizona. He also has no gay area on his website. The same web site where he devotes space for every other group under the sun. Hell, even “Race Fans for McCain” merit their own constituent page while gays get zero space.

    What does that say? Why can’t you folks be intellectually honest? Again, gay liberals have been accused of being borg, mindless automatons. But the record shows otherwise. Gay liberals have delivered the smackdowns on the DNC. I know I criticized Bill Clinton on this site. I’ll also give a big f-ck you to the conservative, Blue Dog Democrats who side with Republican conservatives against gay rights. If you go to Americablog.com, a gay authored liberal site, the author repeatedly has chastised Democrats.

    So, if you want to argue. Argue your case with facts. I’m all up for name calling. Reading this blog, I’ve found lots and lots of name calling.

    Finally, John McCain is a liar. Karl Rove, no liberal by any means, certainly one of my choices of most evil men in America, admitted this Sunday that McCain had a problem with lying. Why can’t you folks deal with these facts? Instead, there’s this constant whining and crybaby attitude about being victimized by the mean press or gay liberals. In doing so, haven’t you become all that you accused the left of being?

    This weekend a story broke about a gay man who was bashed in Denver for being gay. The thug called the man nice anti-gay epithets. The Denver police refused to press charges because the man was gay. Since gays aren’t recognized as a protected class, the man was not allowed to seek justice. Do you agree with this?

    http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10459273

  24. Nick, you DID actually read your citation, didn’t you?

    This is what you claimed before:

    That’s all well and good but Sarah Palin tried to fire the librarian of Wassila because the librarian refused to remove a GAY friendly book from the library shelves.

    This is what your CS Monitor citation says:

    The Time story suggests that Palin may have threatened to fire the town librarian for saying that censorship would be unacceptable, but subsequent news stories (such as a recent posting by the Boston Herald) don’t seem to support this notion. According to the Herald, Palin did ask the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, questions about censorship and Emmons responded by saying that any form of censorship would be entirely inappropriate.

    Palin later attempted to fire Emmons (along with other public officials) but there is no evidence that the attempt to remove Emmons was related to the censorship question.

    Palin later relented. Emmons kept her job only to resign at a later date.

    Nor does there seem to be any evidence that any books were actually banned from the Wasilla library.

  25. Nick..you might also note that NOBama is talking out of both sides of his proverbial Marxist mouth. Nobama does not approve of appealing DOMA, which makes his comment about separate but equal false on civil unions. Ironic that he found it horrible that in some states his parents could not get married in the 1960s but separate and very unequal civil unions are fine. For NOBama to approve of same federal benefits for civil unions as marriage, then he has to be against provisions of DOMA that state that federal benefits of the incidents of marriage shall be denied to same sex marriage. So, if you want to buy his line of BS, then you really don’t wish to think for yourself. Might I add, it was a Democrat President that give us the wonderful DOMA and bragged how he saved marriage for the str8s in the 1996 election.

    Now, how come the Dumocrats who control Congress have not even held one hearing on DOMA and not passed it….and passed legislation to repeal DADT. In case you didn’t know, it will take Congressional legislation to repeal both DOMA and DADT..and where are the Democrats on these issues..where is that passed legislation? Bueller, Ferris? any one?

    and where exactly is Nobama’s position on same sex marriage..opposed to it…and yet that is way ok as he lies to you right to your face in his position since he knows that the federal government given the provisions of DOMA do NOT permit any of the nearly 1400 federal statutory rights to same sex marriage unless you repeal DOMA and NOBama will continue to lie to you as he suckers you out of your money for campaign contributions.

    I hope you continue to enjoy being thrown under the bus and run over it.

    I for one believe our elected officials should follow what the Constitution provides which is that marriage issues are left to the states to decide such issues. Of course, Dick Cheney got that right in 2000 but leave it to liberals to distort the Constitution for their own needs..

    Like the issue on Marriage, I so look forward to as other posters stated what will liberals do when it is determined that a woman can terminate a pregnancy based upon certain knowledge that their child will be Gay….

    I will take a President that follows the Constitution over one that will decide what will get him votes and BS me on issues that just aren’t grounded in fact, reality and the law. Nick, you can keep your Marxist Nobama who claims he is a constitutional scholar and enjoy the next 4 yrs with Nobama out of the White House…

    the rest of us will live in the real world with President McCain and Vice President Palin.

  26. Re #6, here’s the relevant transcript.:
    From http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004d.html

    SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, let’s get back to economic issues. But let’s shift to some other questions here.

    Both of you are opposed to gay marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion, I want to ask you a more basic question. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

    BUSH: You know, Bob, I don’t know. I just don’t know. I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It’s important that we do that.

    And I also know in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live.

    And that’s to be honored.

    I proposed a constitutional amendment. The reason I did so was because I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage, and the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the Constitution.

    It has also the benefit of allowing citizens to participate in the process. After all, when you amend the Constitution, state legislatures must participate in the ratification of the Constitution.

    I’m deeply concerned that judges are making those decisions and not the citizenry of the United States. You know, Congress passed a law called DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.

    My opponent was against it. It basically protected states from the action of one state to another. It also defined marriage as between a man and woman.

    But I’m concerned that that will get overturned. And if it gets overturned, then we’ll end up with marriage being defined by courts, and I don’t think that’s in our nation’s interests.

  27. #26

    In addition, if Comrade Obama were truly against DOMA and DADT, why hasn’t he lifted a Marxist finger to put forth repealing them? Where’s Hillary on that one, while we’re at it? If they truly gave a crap, one would think they would have done something by now.

    Or were they waiting to get cash first?

  29. And the Denver Police were wrong for not accepting his request to press charges of assult and battery. The fact that he’s gay has nothing to do with the actual physical crime of assault and battery

    You have a right to self defence. You don’t have a right to not be offended.

    (Or maybe you’re arguing that the victim was offending the man with his presence? That his dress, mannerisms and the like were offending the thug? Free speech/Expression works both ways. Insulting the victim is free (if tasteless) speech. Kind of like calling for the euthenasia of children with Downs.)

  31. Now, how come the Dumocrats who control Congress have not even held one hearing on DOMA and not passed it….and passed legislation to repeal DADT. In case you didn’t know, it will take Congressional legislation to repeal both DOMA and DADT..and where are the Democrats on these issues..where is that passed legislation? Bueller, Ferris? any one?

    Excellent point, Rocket. The Democrats have indeed dropped the ball on that. Also, they were elected in 2006 mainly because of the opposition of the Iraq War. Did nothing about that either.

  32. Also, they were elected in 2006 mainly because of the opposition of the Iraq War.

    Disagree. They were elected in 2006 because of the American majority’s opposition to *failure* in the Iraq war… and their having no other way to register a protest to the Bush Administration. That’s why the Democrats failed to stop the Iraq War in 2007. The Democrats misread their own election victory, advocating policies of self-defeat that the American people didn’t want and hadn’t voted for.