Gay Patriot Header Image

Not tolerant because we’re gay but because we’re conservative

One reason I remain skeptical of the sincerity of many of the leading gay marriage advocates is that whenever someone comes out in favor of traditional marriage, instead of arguing with them, they insult them, calling them bigots, haters or worse.

And then there are the more serious advocates of this social change, namely folks like Jonathan Rauch who understand that someone can oppose gay marriage without hating gay people.  These individuals take issue with advocates of traditional marriage by acknowledging the points they raise and contesting them with carefully thought-out arguments.

Seems our fellow gay conservatives showed a similar respect for such ideas when Ann Coulter (to her credit) brought up the topic at this weekend’s Homocon in New York.  According to columnist Lisa de Pasquale:

Politico reported that there was “nervous laughter” when Coulter addressed the frequent argument that gay marriage is a civil right and akin to denying blacks their rights. Coulter pointed out, both with truth and in jest, “Gays have the highest income of any demographic group in America. Blacks must be looking at gay rights activists in bewilderment thinking, ‘Why couldn’t we be oppressed like that?’”

There was no “nervous laughter” except, perhaps, by a reporter unsure of the location of the 14th Amendment.

Toward the end of her speech, Coulter gave a reasoned argument for traditional marriage. She said, “The purpose of marriage isn’t for society to honor the strong feelings people have for one another, it’s solely and exclusively to provide children the best environment for developing into law-abiding, socialized, productive citizens—so they don’t end up on welfare or mugging us someday.”

There was no booing. No haughty retorts. No one left the room in a dramatic huff. Members of the audience were tolerant not because they’re gay, but because they’re conservatives.

And the reason I say it’s to Coulter’s credit that she voiced her opposition to gay marriage at a gathering of gay conservatives is that we should appreciate people who speak their mind (in a civil tone) and don’t pander to their audiences.  How can we take issue with someone’s argument if we don’t know where they stand on the issues of the day, particularly the controversial ones?

Kudos to Coulter for daring to be so outspoken.  And kudos to those gay conservatives who attended Homocon for giving her such a respectful hearing.

Now that we know where she stands, we can better take issue with her arguments, should the need arise.

Share

20 Comments

  1. Kudos to Coulter for daring to be so outspoken. And kudos to those gay conservatives who attended Homocon for giving her such a respectful hearing.

    Now that we know where she stands, we can better take issue with her arguments, should the need arise.

    Formal debate relies upon the primary understanding that the participants agree to disagree.

    Political Correctness was invented to strangle formal debate. After all, if you are so crass as to speak what is censored, you will leave the streets strewn with victims of worse than Victorian swoons and seizures.

    Comment by Heliotrope — September 29, 2010 @ 1:17 pm - September 29, 2010

  2. Conservatism and homosexuality easily walk arm in arm when thought through. Coulter points out, gay folks have the highest income of any demographic, so it only makes sense the LGBT community would lean to the right.

    So why the overall disconnect by the majority of people in the LGBT community with the GOP. That’s simple enough to figure out….. Hell it’s easy to rally around a banner that makes you believe someone else can do for you what you have failed to do for yourself.

    For proof, one has only to look at the way most African Americans rush to support Democrats…. They repeatedly vote for the very same people controlling the agendas that have continued to fail in most Big cities……… And Conservatives had a hard time understanding why…… You see, when poverty, crime and the drop-out rate run rampant throughout inner city neighborhoods, it’s always gonna be easier to point a finger outside a locality and blame the woes of a community on someone folks living there can’t relate to…. This is why the TEA Party has become such a force to reckon with… For the 1st time in at least 3 generations, a conservative movement has arisen from the grassroots…. speaking common sense that all people (if they will listen) can relate.

    Comment by Spartann — September 29, 2010 @ 1:20 pm - September 29, 2010

  3. For the 1st time in at least 3 generations, a conservative movement has arisen from the grassroots…. speaking common sense that all people (if they will listen) can relate.

    And notably largely silent on social issues. I find much common cause with TEA Party folks on fiscal matters and wish them great success in that arena.

    Comment by John — September 29, 2010 @ 1:35 pm - September 29, 2010

  4. One reason I remain skeptical of the sincerity of many of the leading gay marriage advocates is that whenever someone comes out in favor of traditional marriage, instead of arguing with them, they insult them, calling them bigots, haters or worse.

    Yet somehow you have no problem accepting the sincerity of Coulter, despite her own long record of being just as much a verbal bomb-thrower? Okay….

    Comment by John — September 29, 2010 @ 1:37 pm - September 29, 2010

  5. So John doesn’t like Coulter because she throws bombs. As a WW2 Veteran I say there is times when it is necessary to throw bombs.

    Comment by John W — September 29, 2010 @ 2:05 pm - September 29, 2010

  6. correction” there ARE times..

    Comment by John W — September 29, 2010 @ 2:30 pm - September 29, 2010

  7. So John doesn’t like Coulter because she throws bombs. As a WW2 Veteran I say there is times when it is necessary to throw bombs.

    No, I dislike the BS of crying foul when one side does it when yours is doing it just as much. Coulter is Olberman in drag, which is fine if that’s what you like but I find both of them to be peas in a pod.

    Comment by John — September 29, 2010 @ 2:46 pm - September 29, 2010

  8. I take issue with the assertion that gays have the highest income of any demographic group in America. Disposable income? On average, maybe slightly higher than the norm. However, we come from all walks of life and our community transcends all boundaries of class, race, gender, and income level. If we want to make any progress on gay issues we have to get away from these elietest, superficial notions that gay automatically equals money and influence. There are gays in Pensacola Florida, Compton California, Bensonhurt New York, even Wasilla Alaska, and I feel like people forget about them when they push these kinds of notions. People become so self absorbed with living up to this lifestyle that they forget about the others in rural America or poor inner cities who can not or choose not to abandon their prospective communities.

    Comment by armymedic80 — September 29, 2010 @ 4:22 pm - September 29, 2010

  9. Why Concervative?

    Comment by Samantha — September 29, 2010 @ 4:45 pm - September 29, 2010

  10. Toward the end of her speech, Coulter gave a reasoned argument for traditional marriage. She said, “The purpose of marriage isn’t for society to honor the strong feelings people have for one another, it’s solely and exclusively to provide children the best environment for developing into law-abiding, socialized, productive citizens—so they don’t end up on welfare or mugging us someday.”

    “Solely and exclusively”? Please tell that to my dad’s retirement community, a hotbed of new marriages that can never and will never produce children.

    “to provide children the best environment?” – Please tell that to the wonderful single parents in our country who adopt and raise foster kids. If a single-parent environment is in principle a good enough environment for kids to let them be adopted into it then, in principle, so is a two-gay-parent environment – two parents being better than one. (Naturally, specific cases may vary.)

    Also, what about the gay couples that already have kids of their own? Don’t their kids deserve protections?

    Coulter’s argument may be “reasoned” in that reporter’s estimate, but that is insufficient to make Coulter’s argument correct.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 29, 2010 @ 4:48 pm - September 29, 2010

  11. Formal debate relies upon the primary understanding that the participants agree to disagree. Political Correctness was invented to strangle formal debate.

    On that, Heliotrope, I think we can agree to agree.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 29, 2010 @ 4:49 pm - September 29, 2010

  12. I do NOT get this recurring argument that the purpose of marriage is to provide a proper environment for raising children. My husband and I can’t have kids, and we knew that before we got married. Does that mean we shouldn’t have been granted the right to marry??

    And what about the American Academy of Pediatrics longitudinal study that showed children raised by lesbian parents were far more well-adjusted?

    SOO many holes in that argument, people.

    Comment by Christina — September 29, 2010 @ 4:52 pm - September 29, 2010

  13. On a day where another gay youth dies of hanging I love how polite your being, like her verbal bomb throwing doesn’t encourage others who encourage their children to taunt and bash gays in schools. That each of these deaths is some individual event that ties into nothing else.
    Personally I think any partisan talking head is little more than a pointless rabble rouser working hard to make money being being so over the top that people buy their materials for the sheer spectacle. Your glorifying the fact that she spit on the gay community and you paid her to do it is your problem. You telling people that you hate leftist bomb throwers while paying a right wing one is little more than partisan hypocrisy. You talk about conservative values but all you are chasing is money and social status.
    Each of us her that read this and are gay have most likely been tormented by our peers at one time or another. Some of us were big enough to fight back, some of us look more masculine than other. Some of us gay bays are as feminine as they come. You may think that you are not taking part in the gay schism, trying to divide up this already fragmented community but by universally smearing any who have a different perspective as ‘leftist’, or socialists, or whatever your favorite derogatory term of the week is that you are helping to educate but are doing little more than trying to bully other gays with words. The same thing you accuse others of.
    Why don’t you ever work to build bridges? why is it that you think partisan politics will help gays? I firmly believe that we have to work from both political camps to push forward our needs but I will never cravenly beg for attention from either side by paying lip service to their party attacks. If you want real intellectuals to take you serious stop this pointless ideological warfare. You may not be for gay rights but you could at least attempt to help stop some of the bullying that is claiming gay lives every day. You made it through the meat grinder., now help someone else do the same.

    Comment by Tim — September 29, 2010 @ 5:55 pm - September 29, 2010

  14. “The purpose of marriage isn’t for society to honor the strong feelings people have for one another, it’s solely and exclusively to provide children the best environment for developing into law-abiding, socialized, productive citizens—so they don’t end up on welfare or mugging us someday.”

    No wonder libs want so badly to change the definition!!!

    Comment by American Elephant — September 29, 2010 @ 7:27 pm - September 29, 2010

  15. You may not be for gay rights but you could at least attempt to help stop some of the bullying that is claiming gay lives every day. You made it through the meat grinder., now help someone else do the same.

    The entertaining part is that the gay-sex liberals like Tim who whine about namecalling and telling other people to commit suicide are some of the finest practitioners of same.

    By the way, that one piece was endorsed and supported by Truth Wins Out, which is an organization fully endorsed and supported by Rachel Maddow of MSNBC.

    Also, Evan Hurst, who represents Truth Wins Out, fully endorses and supports this sort of namecalling and telling people to commit suicide, and in fact encourages more of it.

    So put bluntly, Rachel Maddow, Wayne Besen, and Evan Hurst support harassing and bullying gay and lesbian people and telling them to commit suicide, and thus are complete and total hypocrites.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 30, 2010 @ 2:58 am - September 30, 2010

  16. NDT, I hadn’t visited your blog in awhile… I love the new tagline! :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 30, 2010 @ 9:38 am - September 30, 2010

  17. Tim…
    I’ll take your rabble seriously if you can show me proof you heretofore have chastised the Left/Liberals/Democrats, etc. for this same behavior and asked them the same questions regarding “building bridges” and “partisan politics.”

    Comment by rodney — September 30, 2010 @ 12:15 pm - September 30, 2010

  18. Oh, and
    DEAR GOD, am I sick and tired of everyone declaring “bridge building” the answer to everything.
    Did ya ever think maybe I don’t want people from the stark, desolate, self-afflicted, failed policies side of the river over on this side?
    For my life, my education, my present state of wealth, relationships, success and general conditions of life…I’m quite happy…And I FORDED and SWAM the river myself; I FISHED the river to provide for me and mine and I cannot stomach those that would sit aside and wait for someone bigger than me (govt) to come take my fish, take my swimming enjoyment, take my encampment in safety and give it to those who have not taken and used the selfsame advantages and opportunities of the riverI did.
    Build your damn bridge…I’ll wait for you on this side.
    Now where’d I put that gun oil?

    Comment by rodney — September 30, 2010 @ 12:23 pm - September 30, 2010

  19. Every time I check out the Gay Patriot blog (which is not often), one of the things that always comes to mind is Stockholm Syndrome. That whole episode with Ann Coulter has to be the best evidence yet.

    Oh, and so far, Tim is the only rational one in the comments for this post.

    Comment by Richard R — September 30, 2010 @ 7:30 pm - September 30, 2010

  20. Stockholm Syndrome, Richard, please do tell how we are made captive by the Republican Party — and how they are oppressing us.

    Thanks.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — September 30, 2010 @ 7:42 pm - September 30, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.