Gay Patriot Header Image

Freedom, the underlying principle of modern conservatism, benefits all people, including (and perhaps especially) gays

While, as you can guess, I quibble with the title of Cynthia Yockey’s post that Glenn linked earlier today, she offers something which bears consideration and conversation:

. . . in the name of family values, we are forced out of our own families. However, gays have responded to discrimination by becoming entrepreneurs and professionals, which makes gays a natural constituency of fiscal conservativism and explains why 31 percent of gay voters voted for Republicans in 2010 (including me). Gays are the most getable demographic in 2012 for Republicans because there’s no voting bloc Obama and the Democrats have screwed over more than gays and they are furious and looking for a new home.

(Read the whole thing.  While I don’t agree with everything she has to say, she does raise some important issues and make some thoughtful observations.)

Now, while I do believe gay people are a natural constituency for a fiscally conservative GOP, I wonder how many have become so politicized by our overly political (gay) culture that they can’t see how free market policies benefit creative types, particularly the creative entrepreneurial types.  And gay people do seem to succeed in such professions, in numbers disproportionate to our representation in society at large.

As I learned in my conversation with Palin-effigy hanger Mito Aviles, state and local regulations on small business place unusual burdens on creative small business folk.  Their desire to scale back intrusive regulations correspond with the very principles of the Tea Party movement.

The question is:  how do we break them from their prejudiced view of the GOP, particularly given how the media dwell on social conservatives’ (alleged) dominance of the movement — and the ignorance of many gay leaders of the underlying philosophy of the Republican Party as it has evolved since the nomination of Barry Goldwater in 1964 and the election of Ronald Reagan sixteen years later.

Share

59 Comments

  1. For Pat @ #44

    “Do you support raising the age of marriage to at least 18,”

    Sure. I believe the age of majority should be 18 for everything, marriage, voting, drinking, military service, everything.

    “The problem with your argument is that homosexuality is fairly mainstream right now (despite your opposition to it). Polygamy and pedophilia is not. That is why many persons support same sex marriage and not polygamy or marriage between adults and children.”

    The problem with your argument, Pat, is that nobody is demanding gay marriage because homosexuality is now mainstream. Gay marriage supporters are demanding the redefining of marriage in the name of freedom and equality. Simply put, SSM supporters’ prime argument is that people should–must–be free to marry whomever they love, and to not allow them to is discrimination of the worst sort.

    Some other arguments for gay marriage–and the normalizing of homosexuality generally–include: 1. it’s wrong to impose one’s own personal morals or beliefs on others 2. it’s wrong to make people deny their true selves 3. gay marriage won’t effect straight people’s relationships 4. marriage has changed in the past so it’s reasonable to accept change to it now.

    As The Live_Wire said, all the arguments for gay marriage can be used for other relationships. And all the arguments for normalizing homosexuality can also be used for other sexualities. That, Pat, is the gist of the slippery slope argument, and you have not refuted it.

    “What may help to clear up your perceptions of anyone’s preconceived notions of your opinion, is perhaps to come right out and say it…What is it would you like?”

    Pat, I have come right out and said what I’d like. I said on a thread many months ago that I believe in tolerance for homosexuals, and you sneered at that. Remember? You said it would be irrational for gays to stop at tolerance. Remember? You agreed with my statement that gays lied for 30 years when they said they just wanted tolerance, and that what they really wanted was for everyone to stand in awe of their sexuality. You agreed with that. Remember, Pat? So don’t ask me what I’d like when I’ve already told you and you spit in my face for it.

    Comment by Seana-Anna — June 28, 2011 @ 11:25 pm - June 28, 2011

  2. Sure. I believe the age of majority should be 18 for everything, marriage, voting, drinking, military service, everything.

    Seane-Anna, thanks for clearing that up.

    The problem with your argument, Pat, is that nobody is demanding gay marriage because homosexuality is now mainstream.

    Actually, change the word “demanding” to “supporting” then. Most people aren’t demanding same sex marriage. But now most think it’s a good enough idea to have. Yes, there are those who “demand” it. But if they were the only supporters of same sex marriage, it wouldn’t happen.

    Gay marriage supporters are demanding the redefining of marriage in the name of freedom and equality.

    Again, change “demanding” to “supporting.” As I mentioned plenty of times, marriage has been redefined plenty of times over. Now, most people in New York believe that the redefining of marriage to from “one man and one woman” to “to two adults” is a good thing. Just like many of the redefinitions of marriage over time.

    Yes, freedom and equality is a good part of it. And in order to deny it, there should be good reason for it. But as I also stated, this obviously can’t be decided solely by my opinion, or by your opinion. That’s what we have legislatures for.

    Simply put, SSM supporters’ prime argument is that people should–must–be free to marry whomever they love, and to not allow them to is discrimination of the worst sort.

    Like many things that are “simply put” they are wrought with half-truths. Many SSM supporters’ argument is that there is no good reason to deny SSM. I personally find it unfathomable that my partner cannot legally marry me (I live in neighboring NJ), but a woman (even a lesbian) can.

    I have stated there is damn good reason to prevent adults from marrying children.

    Despite all of this, I do understand many, like Livewire who prefer a different term. That’s fine. And this will be sorted out through time which will ultimately be accepted. But, for you, if I understand you correctly, is not about marriage. You don’t even want civil union recognition for same sex partners.

    Some other arguments for gay marriage–and the normalizing of homosexuality generally–include: 1. it’s wrong to impose one’s own personal morals or beliefs on others 2. it’s wrong to make people deny their true selves 3. gay marriage won’t effect straight people’s relationships 4. marriage has changed in the past so it’s reasonable to accept change to it now.

    1. Somewhat true. For example, I’m sure you don’t want some governing authority telling you that you cannot practice your own religion.

    2. That should be obvious. For example, why on earth should we encourage a gay man to marry a woman? As we know, that usually doesn’t work out well. Let’s put it this way. I believe that sexuality is a gift from God. But like most gifts from God, it is incumbent upon us to use it wisely and responsibly. Yes, we have seen the results when people use homosexuality irresponsibly. It isn’t pretty. Same thing with heterosexuality. In fact, it can be worse, since unwanted children can result. Many gay people use their sexuality responsibly, and I personally believe that it is unfair to deny them any of the liberties and freedoms that are straight brethren enjoy.

    The same thing cannot be said to those whose sexual attractions are geared toward children. I think we agree that there is NO responsible way that this gift can be acted on.

    3. That should be obvious. One argument against same sex marriage (or civil unions) is that a piece of paper shouldn’t make a difference. Okay fine. Then I don’t see how a gay couple’s piece of paper make a difference for a straight couple.

    4. Exactly. And that’s what’s nice about free society where we can decide such issues. However, we still leave it up to each religion to decide for themselves who can marry.

    Pat, I have come right out and said what I’d like. I said on a thread many months ago that I believe in tolerance for homosexuals, and you sneered at that. Remember?

    Vaguely. But yes, you reaffirmed your tolerance of gays. But can you imagine if I went to your blog and stated I “tolerate” Black persons, or “tolerate” women, or “tolerate” Christians, but proceeded to announce any of the categories as deviants. I think you might sneer at me too, and with good reason.

    You said it would be irrational for gays to stop at tolerance. Remember?

    Of course. They same way it would be irrational for Black persons, or women, or Christians to stop at tolerance. Agreed?

    You agreed with my statement that gays lied for 30 years when they said they just wanted tolerance, and that what they really wanted was for everyone to stand in awe of their sexuality.

    Yeah, we should have been happy accepting second-class citizenship. Oh well. Seriously, I may have agreed to the use of “lied,” but let’s look at things closely. I’m not sure that even as 50 years ago, homosexuals could have imagined full acceptance and equality. Tolerance was better than what they had before. I would attribute what you call “lying” as human nature. This has nothing to do with sexuality here. I’m not a historian, so I don’t know if Black people in the South prior to 1860 said that they would be happy for tolerance. Maybe, even then they stated they wanted full equality, which obviously they should have had. But reality doesn’t always work that way. It still took another 100 years for that to happen. Unfortunately, it often takes baby steps to get there.

    You agreed with that. Remember, Pat? So don’t ask me what I’d like when I’ve already told you and you spit in my face for it.

    My intention was not to spit in your face. The problem is tolerance still covers a wide area. And your tolerance obviously has limits. For example, you do oppose civil unions. You oppose homosexuality to become mainstream. That’s a start. The questions I posed above would help in defining exactly what your tolerance is.

    Comment by Pat — June 29, 2011 @ 7:54 am - June 29, 2011

  3. Many SSM supporters’ argument is that there is no good reason to deny SSM.

    Sure there is.

    Marriage as an institution exists primarily to protect and support the raising of children; since gays and lesbians choose to engage in non-procreative relationships of their own volition, there is no reason for marriage to be extended to them, there is no value provided to society by government doing so, and there is no need to encourage or support marriage as a means of mitigating or preventing societal ills.

    Cut and dried, very straightforward.

    The real agenda of the gay-sex marriage movement is best revealed in their contradictory behavior. For instance, gay-sex marriage supporters, being overwhelmingly liberal and Obama Party members, insist that people should pay more in taxes, that tax loopholes should be closed, and that, in particular, the estate tax should be applied to everyone.

    Then they whine and scream about how they need gay-sex marriage because they’re paying more in taxes.

    It’s nothing but hypocrisy and lies. If gay-sex marriage supporters wanted lower taxes, they could cut taxes. If they wanted no estate tax, they could eliminate it. But they clearly don’t; they want special treatment and privileges while providing none of the benefits to society, such as childraising, for which those privileges and benefits exist.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 29, 2011 @ 1:30 pm - June 29, 2011

  4. Tolerance — that golden word so beloved by the Left — is a weasel word.

    A person who “tolerates” another believes herself to be the superior of the recipient of her “tolerance.” No equal speak so loftily of his or her attitude toward another. The superior kindly “tolerates” you — but reserves the right to annihilate you if you piss her off.

    The problem is that both sides in the SSM issue are fighting over the use of force, and the ability to confiscate the money of others. In this, they are no better than common armed robbers.

    No citizen should benefit materially, at the State’s behest, because of his or her lifestyle choices. Regardless of whether that citizen is gay or straight.

    I have no problem debating “gay marriage” with those who do not support the concept. They might be surprised to find that I don’t support it either, as it is framed in the debate. But they’d damn sure better get their fist out of my face, and their hand out of my pocket, while we’re discussing it.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 29, 2011 @ 5:53 pm - June 29, 2011

  5. Pat, I’ll make this quick because it’s late and I’m tired. In reference to tolerating gays, you brought up Blacks and women and asked if they should’ve settled for “mere” tolerance.

    Pat, I’ve told you before that I don’t accpet equating Blacks and women with gays because I don’t accept the leftist construct of gay as an identity. “Gay” isn’t an identity; it’s a sexual attraction. Gays aren’t pseudo-ethnics, they’re an aberrant–anomalous, not true to type–sex group. I explained to you before that “Black” and “female” are different from “gay” because they’re static conditions that have no intrinsic behavioral impulses which must be acted upon for someone to be fully and authentically Black or female. Also, non-Blacks and men don’t have to extend approval to a behavior or lifestyle in order to be truly non-racist and non-sexist. When you demand acceptance, approval, or tolerance for homosexuals you are inherently demanding acceptance, approval, or tolerance for a behavior. So, imo, equating the fight for gay rights with Blacks’ and women’s struggles for equal rights is disengenious and reeks of political opportunism. It doesn’t sway me at all.

    Good night, Pat.

    Comment by Seana-Anna — June 30, 2011 @ 12:57 am - June 30, 2011

  6. Good morning, Seane-Anna. So, in answer to my question, you do not stop at mere tolerance for being Black or being a woman. Now you know where I’m coming from. Thanks.

    Just to be clear, my question should not be construed to mean I was equating gay rights with civil rights or women’s rights. Also, I remember your discussion about the differences between identity and behavior.

    So I guess your point is that I should accept mere tolerance because being gay is not an identity. I would disagree with that, just as I believe that being Christian would also be an identity. But as you know, one does not have to remain a Christian and can change if one so chooses, so I guess you wouldn’t regard being a Christian as an identity. So I guess that means you would accept mere tolerance as a Christian. We’ll have to disagree on that as well.

    Comment by Pat — June 30, 2011 @ 6:32 am - June 30, 2011

  7. Pat, Lori,

    I think you and I have different definitions of ‘tolerance’ To me it means accepting the existance of, while not embracing wholeheartedly.

    I tolerate the Somali immigrants in Columbus (Well the ones that aren’t trying to blow me up). I don’t tolerate people who refuse to assimilate (speak English, etc). I tolerate gay couples, polygamists, etc. I don’t tolerate child molestors.

    I tolerate polite-but-misguided-liberals like Pat, I don’t tolerate totalitarian leftests like Levi, etc. 😉

    The post Dan made on RI vs NY kind of sums up where I draw the line on tolerance. I tolerate the decision of the legislature of New York to redefine marriage. I’m not happy but I tolerate it. The people who want the victory in RI torpedoed because it’s not enough are intolerant of the viewpoints of others and the legislative process, and can take a flying leap.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 30, 2011 @ 8:00 am - June 30, 2011

  8. “To me it means accepting the existance of, while not embracing wholeheartedly.”

    That’s because, TL, you’re a normal, psychologically-healthy person with a realistic sense of where you end and others begin. It’s the way most reasonable people see it.

    When we’re dealing with a self-absorbed megalomaniac, we must understand that she or he has never developed a normal sense of these things. We are dealing with a seriously-disturbed individual at war with herself over her own impulses — which she has been taught to believe have nothing to do with sex, sex, sex, and which she finds shameful.

    Various people come to this blog for various reasons. Most of us come to read the posts, which are always very interesting and thought-provoking, and to chat with each other on the commentary threads. Some bring their own dark little agendas. When I figure out what Seane-Anna’s is, I intend to write about it. She’s a fascinating case.

    “I tolerate polite-but-misguided-liberals like Pat, I don’t tolerate totalitarian leftests like Levi, etc.”

    I tolerate everybody because I have no choice. God made us all, and unlike some of the trolls who comment here, I would never deny that. But I do so, as you surely do, without believing I’m Queen of Planet Earth, and that everybody else should gratefully bow to me because I deign to extend my tolerance to them.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 30, 2011 @ 3:50 pm - June 30, 2011

  9. One correction (I HATE these little boxes for typing in text). The Royal She in question believes her impulses have EVERYTHING to do with sex, sex, sex, and nothing to do with anything else. She seems to keep her brain in her shorts.

    Rarely to we get the chance to study such an extreme case. Perhaps that is why the bloggers choose to keep her on here. It certainly can’t be because of the originality of anything she says. Nothing ever comes out of her that we haven’t all heard five thousand times before.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 30, 2011 @ 3:52 pm - June 30, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.