On covering gays in the conservative movement
Earlier this week, a reader sent me Ben Smith’s Politico post on what he deemed, “The Gay Republican tide“. I found the blogger’s word choice interesting:
This year’s iconic Conservative Political Action Conference was beset by controversy over the inclusion of a gay Republican group — but that was just the start of gay demands for acceptance in the broader conservative moment, according to an OUT story calculated to inflame social conservatives:
Emphasis added. Granted Smith may have penned this post in a rush, as we bloggers often do. That said, as is, his word choice suggests that gay Republicans have adopted a confrontational tone with the GOP. That may have been true in Log Cabin’s early years, but today, we’re not so much demanding acceptance as finding a welcome.
Yeah, there still remain social conservatives loath to include us in conservative conclaves, but, by and large, we’ve found a welcome. Conservatives today are more concerned with the size of government than they are with the private lives of individuals — and pretty much have been for the past forty years, only the media do seem to dwell on the presence of religious conservatives in the movement as if said indviduals define it, rather than represent one aspect of it.
60 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
We may never be accepted by the social conservatives in the GOP but they are only one portion of the GOP – which is certainly not perfect; simply the lesser of two evils.
Comment by Redneck Fag — May 6, 2011 @ 3:52 pm - May 6, 2011
Unfortunately, the media still sets the narrative for the average American who isn’t paying attention.
To move to a Tea Party example… I have an acquaintance, somewhat hazy centrist/moderate but pro-gun, pro-liberty at heart. He’d be a natural for the Tea Party. I asked him if he’d ever been to a Tea Party rally. He said no, he didn’t believe in the religious right! (Yes, I proceeded to say what it’s really like and that he should go see for himself.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 6, 2011 @ 4:15 pm - May 6, 2011
I just read Ben’s story — and the OUT Magazine piece.
Both seem to be very odd and have a lot of pre-conceived notions tarnishing their perspectives.
Comment by GayPatriot — May 6, 2011 @ 5:05 pm - May 6, 2011
O_o Dan it’s statements like this one that make me so bewildered. Sometimes you seem like you have a solid understanding of politics and other times you say things that make think that possibly you are so naive as to be a pawn in a much larger game. The only reason I supported GoProud was because they were so brash and aggressive. The strategy has had a few set backs like getting you kicked out of CPac this year but all in all it bolstered support among republicans that don’t mind having gays in the group by driving a wedge between fiscal and social conservatives. I mean why do you think that liberal bloggers always mention your events? It’s because even if they don’t agree with your views they still acknowledge that keeping the spotlight on gays helps all gays regardless of party.
Comment by Tim — May 6, 2011 @ 5:13 pm - May 6, 2011
Actually, Tim, you betray the point.
You and your fellow liberal gays want dissent, discord, and destruction among conservatives. That much is obvious in the fact that you and they only support GOProud when you feel that they are attacking conservatives.
Otherwise, when they are praising and being supportive of conservatives, you and your fellow liberal bloggers call them backstabbing quislings, traitors, Jewish Nazis, kapos, self-loathing, Stockholm syndrome sufferers, and so forth.
As long as insane antireligious bigots like yourself, who scream about the rich, want to punish businesses, and insist that people who oppose your having sex with underage children need their moral compasses adjusted, are the public face of the gay and lesbian community, you’re damn skippy conservatives will oppose gays and lesbians.
As they should.
And you know what, Timmeh? It’s your fault.
You and your fellow liberal gays have whined that opposing abortion is homophobic. You’ve whined that opposing higher taxes is homophobic. You’ve whined that having religious beliefs is homophobic. You’ve whined that allowing people to keep their own money instead of redistributing it is homophobic. You’ve whined that having to work for a living is homophobic. You’ve whined that being fired for sexually harassing others is homophobic.
If you could just once take credit for your own beliefs instead of blaming them on your homosexuality, THAT would be progress. But since you and your fellow liberal gays use your minority status as an excuse for being hatemongering leftists, you’ve made it clear to people that being gay and being conservative are completely incompatible — and that, if people want to live and govern by conservative principles, gays have to be excluded.
Typical shortsighted stupidity on your part, Timmeh. But we expect that.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 6, 2011 @ 5:39 pm - May 6, 2011
Yes, but Tim, look how GOProud has been brash and aggressive — in taking conservative stands as gay people.
Chris Barron made a mistake in attacking a leader of the movement — and apologized for it.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 6, 2011 @ 5:42 pm - May 6, 2011
the GOP – which is certainly … the lesser of two evils.
Yup.
Comment by V the K — May 6, 2011 @ 5:52 pm - May 6, 2011
@ND30 you’re so adorable on fridays, Have you ever considered that it’s all you’re fault for not being compassionate and setting a horrible example of what being a far right religious gay is?
Comment by Tim — May 6, 2011 @ 6:08 pm - May 6, 2011
Sometimes, the personality disorders are so deep regardless of rational arguments. Tim is a lost cause. You will never convince him, ND30.
Comment by RJLigier — May 6, 2011 @ 6:26 pm - May 6, 2011
Tim is who they had in mind when they invented Thorazine™.
Comment by bastiat fan — May 6, 2011 @ 6:32 pm - May 6, 2011
@Dan for the greater movement it doesn’t matter which ideals you have as so much as you are vocally passionate about them. This is the fundamental difference between Log Cabin and GOProud, and I think one of the reasons that GoP was more successful. Barron is much more media savy than the Log cabins and because of that was able to make inroads that the other didn’t. In your view in it the message but to other bloggers and even people like Joe Jervais and Pam is that they are forcing engagement by those whose chosen strategy is to marginalize and disenfranchise us by choose to pretend we aren’t real or even people. Barron simply ran into deep party politics among those that truly hate gays. It was most likely inevitable given his position and I hope in time he recovers his political capital and again assails the republican top ranks with the fact that he both exists as a gay man and a republican.
Comment by Tim — May 6, 2011 @ 8:08 pm - May 6, 2011
Well said on the whole, Tim.
I grant there are some who were always ready to pounce and Chris gave them the opportunity when he criticized a leader of the movement. He’s very media savvy, but even such folks have occasional slip-ups.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 6, 2011 @ 8:18 pm - May 6, 2011
@Dan yup I respect his enthusiasm, it’s good for us gays. i think he at least identified those that are completely against us. let us continue striving! I have started to worry that the republican party is diametrically opposed to us, but i maintain hope that we will endure and persevere, so that one day it is not even an issue
Comment by Tim — May 6, 2011 @ 10:58 pm - May 6, 2011
[...] Funeral at US Embassy in LondonFLEECE MEDoes America even know what courage is anymore?GAY PATRIOTOn covering gays in the conservative movementObama’s Greatest Success Vindicates Bush-Cheney PoliciesFRUGAL CAFENitwit Joy Behar Wants to Stop [...]
Pingback by Right Wing Extremists: Kentucky Derby Edition | REPUBLICAN REDEFINED — May 7, 2011 @ 3:44 am - May 7, 2011
Tim, it is not diametrically opposed to us. You’ve been reading too much gay media. Go to a GOP meeting, attend a Tea Party, tell them you’re gay and gage the reaction.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 7, 2011 @ 3:54 am - May 7, 2011
Well, BDB, might wanna consider those Tea Party / GOP meetings that lie outside of WEBWEHO and SF, try to imagine those events in eastern WA, northern Idaho, Montana, not to mention the Bachman territories
Comment by rusty — May 7, 2011 @ 11:38 am - May 7, 2011
Should be just WEHO
Comment by rusty — May 7, 2011 @ 11:39 am - May 7, 2011
Rusty, if the experience of our readers is any indication, the welcome may not be as warm in other regions, but it will still be a welcome.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 7, 2011 @ 2:22 pm - May 7, 2011
Well, BDB, might wanna consider those Tea Party / GOP meetings that lie outside of WEBWEHO and SF, try to imagine those events in eastern WA, northern Idaho, Montana, not to mention the Bachman territories
Sorry, rusty; that only works with those of us who aren’t familiar with Aunt Phillis’s Cabin and its exposition of the Obama Party’s views toward minorities.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 7, 2011 @ 2:59 pm - May 7, 2011
We are much sooner accepted as gays in Republican/conservative circles than we are accepted as Republican/conservatives in gay circles.
Comment by Julie the Jarhead — May 7, 2011 @ 3:00 pm - May 7, 2011
not disagreeing that ‘the welcome’ isn’t real, just limited in it’s scope.
and I find it refreshing to hear of the ‘real’ tent of inclusion when it come to the GOP and Tea Party folk. Half of my immediate circle of bio family run with the GOP crowd.
sidenote: NDT nice change / morph of screech to scream. . .always nice to hear from your alter, Miss Beads
Comment by rusty — May 7, 2011 @ 3:21 pm - May 7, 2011
Conservatives are far more accepting than the MSM leads one to believe; it is not the true narrative the MSM wants, but it must be changed from within like GOProud & alternative media such as GayPatriot. The MSM narrative is false in the first place.
Comment by Sebastian Shaw — May 7, 2011 @ 6:04 pm - May 7, 2011
@Dan I will have to continue judging republicans on their voting records, not just things they say off the records. It’s shameful and needs to change, until than no matter how many gay staffers they employ or what they say in private it is their voting and their flocking to groups like the AFA that I take note of. When every single major contender for the republican nominee calls for the return of DADT I can’t say I’m very impressed. I’m hoping for something different from Gary Johnson at least. When they are willing to stand up to their own party and say that they aren’t willing to target gays for their vote than I will take notice that the party has matured. I grew up a republican, I have a strong voting history of supporting republican candidates but I’m re-evaluating this in light of their open bigotry since 2004.
Comment by Tim — May 7, 2011 @ 10:05 pm - May 7, 2011
Speaking as one of the “religious right,” I think that Republicans/conservatives/TEA Partiers who balk at including gays in the conservative movement have no true understanding of Jesus. Jesus calls us to love everyone, to pray for everyone, to treat others how we would like to be treated. Those who are not inclusive are not showing Christ, they are showing self-righteousness.
Comment by Patriot Mom — May 8, 2011 @ 9:40 am - May 8, 2011
Whatever. The acceptance of gay Republicans is most lacking among the hateful, liberal borg of gay liberals that scorn anyone that disagrees with them. And this is coming from CD6. Michele Bachmann’s district!
Comment by quin owen — May 8, 2011 @ 10:35 am - May 8, 2011
I’m more Republican than Democrat. Can’t say I’ve had trouble among conservatives, but my heavens, try acting Republican amongst GLBT. Accusations of “Jewish Nazi” all the way!
Comment by Ellen — May 8, 2011 @ 10:42 am - May 8, 2011
in the words of Boortz, if the Rep party kept out of womens pants, they would find a lot more voters, if not more members. Almost all of the new Republican governors have tried to hinder abortion access in their states. That is nothing more than red meat for O and the Dems next year.
Comment by Rae — May 8, 2011 @ 11:28 am - May 8, 2011
Speaking as one of the “religious right,” I think that Republicans/conservatives/TEA Partiers who balk at including gays in the conservative movement have no true understanding of Jesus. Jesus calls us to love everyone, to pray for everyone, to treat others how we would like to be treated. Those who are not inclusive are not showing Christ, they are showing self-righteousness.
very true, Patriot mom. The same goes for the abortion issue. I’ll admit it is loathsome, but the self-righteousness on both sides of the issue totally ignores the “love thy fellow man” goal that JC had in mind as he sacrificed himself for us.
Comment by Rae — May 8, 2011 @ 11:31 am - May 8, 2011
I haven’t read all of the comments. I skimmed through and find that even here there is an undercurrent of judgment and assumption decidedly against social conservatives and they are simply written off.
Oh and it is well deserved in most cases. Again, I only skimmed so someone may have made the point I am about to make and if I missed it I am sorry.
I was once as liberal and proudly gay as you could get but am now a social conservative. But I am also a true GenX and hate the five labels (including GenX) I have used so far in this paragraph. That said, as a social conservative on the left fringe of the religious right… (now that is just fun to say) I have loved my conversations with those who identify with gay conservatism.
… and I am not making it up. I have had more than a few of those kind of conversations.
Yes, we will be steadfast opponents on some crucial issues but because we are conservatives at least we have a civil understanding and agreement on the “process” of resolving those issues within the checks and balances of our three branches as afforded in The Constitution.
On other issues I have no problem standing arm in arm with you to defend free speech, defeat Obama in 2012 and liberating future generations from the trillions of debt being currently heaped on their shoulders. Among other things …
So, I think social conservatives and gay conservatives need to stop paying negative lip service to one another, stop old school culture war stigma and polarization and start defining exactly what it is we can and can’t work on together. Because life is so much more than one issue and our nation’s problems are huge and cover a myriad of problems. And I am not exaggerating with the word use of “myriad.”
One, or even four
, social issues should not prohibit us from uniting on the myriad of others that could actually preserve, create or modify public policy into something that actually works.
And thus concludes my once a quarter comment on the Gay Patriot blog
.
Comment by Randy — May 8, 2011 @ 12:16 pm - May 8, 2011
For those of us who don’t give a rat’s behind about “personal” issues, including who – and how – someone else loves, the advent of GayPatriot, GOProud, et al. is an encouraging sign that more and more people realize what’s at stake in this country. Godspeed!
Comment by njoriole — May 8, 2011 @ 12:54 pm - May 8, 2011
Except that a majority of Americans now identify as pro-life, and because by 70% majorities, Americans support commonsense restrictions on abortions such as parental consent and bans on late-term abortions-of-convenience… that are vehemently opposed by pro-abortion Democrats.
Democrats are willing to accept absolute government dictatorship over every aspect of life outside the bedroom because they imagine that someone is somehow going to restrict what they do within it.
Comment by V the K — May 8, 2011 @ 1:19 pm - May 8, 2011
The open schism between the social conservatives and the financial conservatives is perhaps the most significant development in American politics of the past half-decade. The two really have almost nothing in common aside from that word “conservative”. But the MSM seems intent on obfuscating the distinctions between the two, thus using widespread distaste for social conservatism to mask the basic good sense of fiscal conservatism. I believe that the fiscal conservatives don’t much care what anybody does in his spare time, so long as he doesn’t wallow too seriously in bolshevik fantasies. Nothing else is terribly important.
Comment by tom swift — May 8, 2011 @ 2:07 pm - May 8, 2011
“if the Rep party kept out of womens pants, they would find a lot more voters”
Perhaps the greatest tactical failure of modern liberalism is its refusal to face the abortion question head-on, instead trying to pretend that it has something to do with women’s rights. The real question isn’t about women and their pants; the question is, what is a fetus? Is it one of our most vulnerable fellow citizens, due the protection of the state, or is it just a tumorous growth? The question of women’s pants is, compared to that, inconsequential.
Personally, as I get older, I find the disposable tumorous growth theory increasingly intolerable. Others may believe differently; but in either case, ignoring the conflict won’t make it go away.
Modern liberals have sacrificed the concepts of freedom and personal responsibility, substituting instead a self-conscious libertinism, and they imagine that somehow they have come out ahead on the trade. Some people conventionally lumped together as “conservatives” think otherwise.
Comment by tom swift — May 8, 2011 @ 2:22 pm - May 8, 2011
Now you have Gary Johnson running as a fiscal conservative and social libertarian; I guess we’ll see if all of those people who claim that social conservatism is what keeps them from supporting fiscally conservative Republicans will put their money where their mouth is.
Comment by V the K — May 8, 2011 @ 2:35 pm - May 8, 2011
I can most certainly attest that it’s far, far easier to be a queer amongst the conservatives then a conservative amongst the queers. Even the most hateful conservative imaginable doesn’t deny that I exist. I cannot say the same for the oh so tolerant and inclusive Left.
Comment by alexthechick — May 8, 2011 @ 3:42 pm - May 8, 2011
I think the last spat of comments since I posted (#23) is generally encouraging, and I hopes this marks a turning point from these last 6 years. Let’s hope that more of the candidates running listen to people like these and manage to man up against those who think we need DADT or DOMA on the books.
Comment by Tim — May 8, 2011 @ 6:00 pm - May 8, 2011
My BF and I have a running joke when we’re in redneck areas of saying “NASCAR!” and “Titties” loudly to blend in. I wonder if conservative gays similarly shout things like “socialized health care” and “hope and change” when surrounded by leftist idiots.
Comment by V the K — May 8, 2011 @ 6:19 pm - May 8, 2011
@V the K I’m am over joyed to know you have a bf, as for blending in with liberals in general it’s easier to just make a joke about Cheney shooting someone in the face. That way you make a gun joke and bash a repub while maintaining your core beliefs.
Comment by Tim — May 8, 2011 @ 6:32 pm - May 8, 2011
“One, or even four
, social issues should not prohibit us from uniting on the myriad of others that could actually preserve, create or modify public policy into something that actually works.”
There is only one social issue that matters to all the others, it is LIFE! without it, the rest don’t exist. If we continue to be a Country that kills its own defenseless children, we are a Country doomed to failure, the left knows it which is why they push it so damn hard! It is only a matter of time before “science” will identity the “gay” gene and parents will make that decision to kill or keep…..this social issue seems so simple….LIFE is the answer.
Comment by JadedByPolitics — May 9, 2011 @ 6:21 am - May 9, 2011
The Tea Party has a very strong libertarian streak, and is generally neutral on social issues, Thus they are a very friendly home to gay conservatives, and also libertarians.
And the Tea Party influence is moving the repub party in a libertarian direction.
As long as libertarians and conservatives remain unified in the repub party, they will win majorities. The moment of hazard will occur when fiscal conservative goals are achieved, with a balanced budget, like what occurred in 2000. Then the social conservatives will start demanding their goals, and fiscal conservatives will get apathetic, as occured during Bush, and the coalition will break apart.
Comment by richard40 — May 9, 2011 @ 2:50 pm - May 9, 2011
I really don’t understand what’s so horrible about social conservatism. Letting states decide on their own abortion laws. Getting secular indoctrination out of the schools. Tolerance for the public expression of Christian faith. I don’t have a problem with any of these things.
Comment by V the K — May 9, 2011 @ 5:24 pm - May 9, 2011
@VtheK define secular indoctrination please and how is it different from teaching tolerance in a multicultural society that promotes and fights for freedom of religion? I tolerate the WBC existing but I don’t believe tolerance is the same as blind ignorance. When faith lets parents kill their children or deny them life saving medicine for treatable conditions how is that any worse than abortion? I tolerate christians praying in public but that’s a far cry from letting christian’s force children to pray in school. Christians want to pretend that there are no negative effects or draw backs from forcing their beliefs on others, but when given sway they remove sex education from schools which leads to a direct and correlated increase in teen pregnancy and STD transmission. A secular approach uses fact based finding to develop teaching regiments that are beneficial not just to the student but to society at large. Religious groups attack Planned Parenthood, while railing against teenage pregnancy. Over the last 100 years every attempt to rely solely on abstinence or shame based sex education has failed, whether in the military as in WW1 or in high schools through out the the nation. Teaching that gays are an abomination has a direct correlation to increased suicides, why is that in the best interests of the nation? Social conservatives continue to rally to the same cries over and over again ignoring every bit of data that contradicts their beliefs. Planned Parenthood was created specifically to reduce poverty among the poor by teaching family planning and reducing venereal disease in the community. As a fiscal conservative the ideas not only make sense they are common sense answers to everyday problems.
Comment by Tim — May 9, 2011 @ 8:06 pm - May 9, 2011
When faith lets parents kill their children or deny them life saving medicine for treatable conditions how is that any worse than abortion?
According to statistics, a little less than 2,000 children per year in the United States die due to child abuse or neglect.
Planned Parenthood alone kills 150 times that many.
So when one considers that Planned Parenthood is responsible for only about a third of the million-plus abortions performed in the United States annually — which, for the record, Timmeh, means abortions kill 500 times as many children as abuse or neglect does — there is an ENORMOUS difference.
Especially since Timmeh is demanding that we spend billions of dollars subsidizing this infanticide.
Now let’s take a look at some more of Timmeh’s distortions:
Christians want to pretend that there are no negative effects or draw backs from forcing their beliefs on others, but when given sway they remove sex education from schools which leads to a direct and correlated increase in teen pregnancy and STD transmission.
Correction. Overwhelmingly they state that schools should teach children two things — one, to abstain from sex, especially with adults, and two, to report any attempts by adults to coerce sex from them.
For some reason, Timmeh and the rest of the gay and lesbian community are insanely terrified of children being taught to abstain from sex, especially with adults, and to report any adult who tries to coerce them. Instead, they want children taught sexual positions, sexual techniques, and that it’s OK to have sex with adults — indeed, leading psychiatrists in the gay and lesbian community openly state that children should be dressed as sexual slaves and taught to expose themselves sexually in front of naked and masturbating adults for an “educational experience”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 9, 2011 @ 8:58 pm - May 9, 2011
Religious groups attack Planned Parenthood, while railing against teenage pregnancy.
Mainly because abortion is not automatic, Timmeh. Pregnancy is the result of a conscious choice to have unprotected sex, a choice encouraged and supported by Planned Parenthood and other abortion pushers in order to sell services.
Planned Parenthood does not oppose teenage pregnancy. Indeed, it wants more teens to get pregnant so it can charge for abortion services. Hence, it encourages irresponsible behavior among teenagers and children and covers up for adults who have sex with children and pimp children out for sex.
Why should taxpayers be paying to facilitate fourteen-year-olds having sex, Timmeh? What “social value” does that serve?
Over the last 100 years every attempt to rely solely on abstinence or shame based sex education has failed, whether in the military as in WW1 or in high schools through out the the nation.
And of course, despite being openly hostile towards any type of abstinence, promoting teenagers to have sex, pushing “safe sex”, and in general avoiding any sort of value judgment, limitation, or responsibility whatsoever when it comes to public sexual activity, the gay community still takes the overwhelming prize in terms of disease, injuries, and deaths as a result of STDs.
Liberal gays like you have no business whining about STD rates, Timmeh, and especially not about STD rates or suicides among teenagers, given the utter death and destruction you’re producing. You and your fellow libertine gays have utterly failed, and you’ve sickened and killed hundreds of thousands of people in the process.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 9, 2011 @ 9:09 pm - May 9, 2011
I would also point out that Timmeh’s gay community, in terms of “social cost”, has saddled society with the disability and welfare payments for literally MILLIONS of people and BILLIONS of dollars as a result of liberalism’s complete opposition to any type of abstinence, personal responsibility, or behavioral controls related to sexual activity.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 9, 2011 @ 9:10 pm - May 9, 2011
Schools should focus on literacy, mathematics, science, and history. Teaching “tolerance” ought to be the job of families, churches, and communities. Sexual values even moreso. Not only should the schools not teach it, they also suck at it.
If the secular left weren’t constantly poking its nose into people’s business, didn’t insist on using Government institution to promote its social agenda… there wouldn’t be a social conservative political movement in this country. It wouldn’t be necessary. The left is fanatical about promoting teen sex and counter-culture values through the school system and other public institutions, and equally fanatical about suppressing any Christian alternative to their message.
Comment by V the K — May 9, 2011 @ 10:25 pm - May 9, 2011
teens were having sex long before PP was around, teens will continue to have sex even if PP disappeared and many teens who end up with unintended or unplanned pregnancies often have never been to PP or are even close to a PP clinic.
postponing sexual relations is the primary goal of comprehensive sex ed.
but like most teenagers, the definition of abstinence gets really fuzzy and distorted, and the definition takes on different meanings for different folk.
and then those lovely absintence-only programs have those new conditions for those who already have crossed the line and reach out with ‘reclaim your virginity’ options.
‘our youth need honest informations to make the best decisions’
for unlike those trophy ceremonies, award banquets and ‘high-five’ moments parents truly love to share with their kids, most yout’ don’t even consider sharing the moments when they lose their virginity.
and then there exists that lovely double standard of when a young man loses his virginity, ‘stud factor’ is applied. . .and you all know what young women get labeled when they lose their virginity before marriage.
abortion might become a significant issue, if and when the father of the an aborted fetus is recognized through DNA testing and is documented with a report or something. but that is really talking about the reduction of choice.
Comment by rusty — May 10, 2011 @ 12:09 am - May 10, 2011
@V the K Why is teaching physics fine but teaching them about biology SCIENCE and the bodies they inhabit is wrong?? Do you want the Westboro Church teaching your kids values, they’re a church and part of the community? Wouldn’t you like their kids to be exposed to something other than pure hatred and twisted screeds? You have absolute zero control what any of the tens of thousands of churches teach as normal. Any one of them could develop the most screwed up theology at the drop of a hat or the introduction of a new preacher. Your method has zero minimum standards and where practiced has increased divorce, teen pregnancy, and STD rates. How is this desirable? Why is the assumption that families always know best? If the community already has education rates it might work but it’s a disaster waiting to happen, like when we expected local communities and churches to take care of the mentally ill when we dismantled the state agencies and instead we just dumped them all in jail? Social conservatives want to stick the fingers in the ears and blush when people talk about sex education because they are taught to be ashamed of their own bodies. My co-worker thinks condoms are a scourge because his church taught him that. Your social champion Palin’s own daughter couldn’t stay abstinent but somehow it’s going to work for everyone else??
Comment by Tim — May 10, 2011 @ 12:19 pm - May 10, 2011
“28. Jesus calls us to love everyone, to pray for everyone, to treat others how we would like to be treated. Those who are not inclusive are not showing Christ, they are showing self-righteousness.”
In response to this, the Golden Rule is important, but it doesn’t mean Christ calls for people to be inclusive if there is a fundamental rejection of Christ and repentence. Figuratively, there is no need to fit a square peg into a round hole. You are made round if you have faith and repent of your sins. As such, sin is what everyone has with no exception.
I find it funny how people who try to show the right way of living is described as “self righteous.” You criticise them for living as they should be living according to their faith. They should be commended instead of ridiculed. I think this criticism contributes to animosity between the faithful as it sows division. I don’t think that’s what you intended, but it exists.
According to statistics, 1 to 3% of the population is gay. This is a small number yet the laws will be changed to accommodate them. It is a BIG DEAL to say the least.
Comment by anon23532 — May 10, 2011 @ 2:22 pm - May 10, 2011
postponing sexual relations is the primary goal of comprehensive sex ed.
Which is why, of course, it is completely and totally opposed to telling children not to have sex and insists that children must be taught sexual positions and sexual techniques.
Sort of like postponing teenage drinking by insisting that anyone who tells you not to drink is wrong and that you need to know cocktail recipes and what kinds of alcohol appeal to what palates.
but that is really talking about the reduction of choice.
Yes, just as murder laws reduce your choice for dealing with conflict, drunk-driving laws reduce your choice for getting home, and embezzlement laws reduce your choice for earning a living.
Abortion has nothing to do with choice. It has everything to do with avoiding the consequences of choices. In no other situation is it socially acceptable to kill someone else because of your refusal or failure to plan.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 10, 2011 @ 3:28 pm - May 10, 2011
Do you want the Westboro Church teaching your kids values, they’re a church and part of the community?
Oh, I see how this game works; Westboro represents all churches and all communities.
Know what, Timmeh? At least at Westboro, they wouldn’t be teaching people to rape eight-year-olds and give them HIV. So it seems pretty obvious that Westboro is a whole lot better than the gay and lesbian community in this regard.
Now you don’t understand that, Timmeh, because to you, sexual exploitation of children and giving them a lethal, disabling disease is nothing special. Indeed, you’ve defended gays and lesbians who do such behavior, so to you, Westboro certainly must be worse. It would be better in your mind to have eight-year-olds having sex and coming down with AIDS than it would be for them to have any exposure whatsoever to religious beliefs.
You could have benefitted from some science education, or any education for that matter, Timmeh. But as is typical for most liberals, your whining about “science” has nothing to do with actual science and is, in fact, nothing more than an attempt to put some kind of rational facade on your irrational hatred of religious beliefs.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 10, 2011 @ 3:42 pm - May 10, 2011
#smh there is a difference in being a federal citizen and being religious!! Everyone is a federal citizen and entitled to certain rights and due process. This does not stop you from being religious! You are not a Citizen of Christland or the Muslim ummah. Not to delve to deep into this but insisting that only your way of religion is correct is an anathema to the entire concept of freedom of religion. But I guess the social conservatives have decide to ignore that little part of the the constitution. It doesn’t matter if you believe that you have the most perfect system in the world. As long as other peoples beliefs, religions, or lack thereof are not impinging on your free course of life you let them be. It’s not up to you bring them to jesus with the firm hand of the government. You insisting that you have God’s plan for the world is not different than every crusading muslim, buddhist, or hindu in the world.
Comment by Tim — May 10, 2011 @ 4:28 pm - May 10, 2011
As long as other peoples beliefs, religions, or lack thereof are not impinging on your free course of life you let them be.
So, Timmeh, can you explain how NAMBLA, pedophile groups, bestialists, or plural marriage supporters are impinging on your free course of life?
If you can’t, then why don’t you “let them be” and demand that they be allowed to marry their objects of sexual desire? Isn’t your not allowing them to do so a denial of their “rights” and of “due process”?
Or are you just a hypocrite?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 10, 2011 @ 4:42 pm - May 10, 2011
Do you want the Westboro Church teaching your kids values, they’re a church and part of the community?
I would rather have the freedom of choosing what values my kids are raised with, rather than have them force-fed the values of Kevin Jennings and Bill Ayers at taxpayer expense. I think every parent is entitled to the same.
Comment by V the K — May 10, 2011 @ 7:42 pm - May 10, 2011
The people who want to use the schools to teach values of inclusiveness and tolerance make a video.
Comment by V the K — May 10, 2011 @ 9:40 pm - May 10, 2011
@VtheK I think the issue is that you don’t really think people would freely adopt your principals therefore you must eliminate any contrary voice. After all if you believed that you had sensible ideas and raised your kids accordingly study after study has shown they will adopt your beliefs not the schools or strangers. (this is in my latest textbook if you’d like me to scan you the chapter). Did someone turn you gay James? of course not, and someone isn’t going to turn your kids into democrats just by talking about inclusiveness and federal rights.
Comment by Tim — May 11, 2011 @ 11:09 am - May 11, 2011
Late to this, but this made me laugh…
So is Tim saying that political orientation is genetically related? Doesn’t that make his posts slamming conservatives a hate crime?
In any event, Tim’s all for teaching 15 year olds all about sex. He hates when his dating pool is uneducated.
Comment by The_Livewire — May 11, 2011 @ 2:31 pm - May 11, 2011
Shorter Tim: I support the Government indoctrinating people in what I believe.
Comment by V the K — May 11, 2011 @ 3:19 pm - May 11, 2011
@Livewire I said that family contribute more to the developmental mindset of their children than any outside force. (Steinberg, 2001)
Also you support the murder of children by their religious parents.
Comment by Tim — May 11, 2011 @ 10:12 pm - May 11, 2011
@V the K yes obviously teaching children empirically proven data and lessons is an important belief. Unlike teaching them about magic and lies that the social conservatives keep trotting out as fact despite centuries of failure. Let me guess an invisible being created the world and than hid fossils in the dirt to test the faithful.
Comment by Tim — May 11, 2011 @ 10:15 pm - May 11, 2011