The libertarian Cato Institute today hosted a forum on the topic "Is There a Place for Gay People in Conservatism and Conservative Politics?," featuring Nick Herbert, MP, the British Conservative Party's openly gay Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs. Responses to Herbert's remarks (an affirmative reply to the above question) were provided by Andrew Sullivan, a supporter of President Obama who detests the Republican party, and anti-gay activist Maggie Gallagher, who opposes any conservatism that might grant gay people the freedom to legally marry and thus equal liberty under the law.
Rick Sincere has blogged a richly detailed account, which I highly recommend. It's well worth reading.
More. I see that over at Positive Liberty, Jason Kuznicki also has blogged his views of the event (as a libertarian, he's skeptical of the proposition). While Dan Blatt at the proudly conservative and pro-Republican Gay Patriot site takes umbrage at the absence of an actual gay American conservative on the panel.
Corvino, John
{ 114 comments }
← Previous Comments
“My political heroes, insofar as they exist, are Ronald Reagan and Hillary Clinton … who are/were gutsy and willing to take a lot of heat to stand firm on their convictions”
Mine are Barry Goldwater and Robert Kennedy, an equally odd mix, for the same reasons.
“Glenn Beck? Rush Limbaugh? My God . . . are you serious?”"
—This isn’t advocate.com, a lot of gays here don’t fit into the stereotypical progressive mold.
“Next, you’ll tell me that Sarah Palin is a towering intellect who is destined to be president.”
—She has more common sense in one finger than Obama has in his entire body. She was a wonderful governor in Alaska, she improved things there. Besides, who says we need a towering intellectual? Obama is supposed to be an intellectual (I say “supposed” because he hasn’t released his grades from Harvard) and I think he’s a terrible president. Besides, I’ve known plenty of A-students that do terrible outside the academic world. This is not the United States of Elitism, government is by the people, not by the academic elite that went to Harvard.
“Uh huh. If your news sources are these folks, it is no wonder you look at the world the way you do, Bobby. Try getting really involved in a Republican or Tea Party campaign and see how much they “know” about respecting differences.”
—I’m a frequent guest at conservative blogs and I’m treated very well for the most part. It’s at places like advocate.com that people call me all kinds of names when I express politically incorrect opinions. Tell me, have you been involved with the Tea Party people? All they’re asking is for government to stop the spending spree and get out of people’s lives. The Tea Parties are not about abortion, same-sex marriage or any controversial issues, they’re about returning this country to what the founding fathers created.
Sigh . . . I realize this isn’t The Advocate, but nor should it be the Baptist Church bulletin or Republican National Committee talking points memo. As for Palin . . . she’s an embarrassment to me as an American and I’d be perfectly content if she went back to Alaska and tried finishing something she started, you know, unlike her TWO years as governor of that state, before deciding it was more important to have someone else write a book so that she could reap the profits.
I’m not a fan of Obama and haven’t suggested that. You seem to assume that because I’m not spouting the GOP line and smooching the backsides of the party I must be a liberal Democrat. Actually, I consider myself an independent-libertarian. I used to be like you – believing that the two major parties should be the only game in town and their coalitions were the only ones that counted. It’s amazing what a little independent thought can do for you.
It’s amazing how quickly you and others here leap to your feet to trumpet your “it’s about more than being gay,” when it seems that it’s about everything BUT being gay for you and, in my view, you are pulling down the efforts to attain things that our community has been denied so far in American society. I also noted how you didn’t address a single comment I made about not having inheritance rights, hospital visitation, etc. Guess those things do not matter to me. You must be single, because if you shared your life with someone you’d see how important that is. I’m just guessing here.
Lori, your suggestion seems to be that a person cannot be FOR gay rights and take foreign policy, taxes, etc. seriously at the same time. Yet, you, Bobby and others here appear to have the attitude that accepting second-class citizenship is fine and dandy, the way America is supposed to be. And it may be good enough for you, but not me and millions of other gay people. All the stuff you bring up is a deflection from not having to deal with the fact that you are gay but, apparently, wish otherwise. Again, I’m guessing, because nothing you write indicates that you are aware of your sexual orientation. You seem to subscribe to the same beliefs that the haters follow religiously – you know, that being gay is a choice, is all about sex and why give it any recognition? I’ll say it one more time – that may suit you, but not me.
If I have a choice between Barack Obama and Sarah Palin in 2012, or Obama and just about any Republican, I’ll have to find another candidate. I wish the Libertarian Party would get its act together and provide the millions of libertarian-minded voters like me a REAL choice. And no, Bobby, the tea partiers and the GOP are NOT it. They may not talk about abortion, same sex marriage and other cultural issues now, but rest assured, once they obtain power it’ll come back in spades. And you and Lori and others like you will just stand there . . . shrugging your shoulders and saying. “Yeah, but they want to cut my taxes.” Pathetic.
You know, Bobby, the more I think about it, you sound an awful lot like an evangelical parading as a gay guy to vent your views here and pass them off as what most IGF contributors and posters believe. Funny. How many times have you heard Rush or Glenn make fun of gay people? The songs, the parodies? I’m picturing you howling with delight, perhaps flailing your arms about in mock laughter at the “queers” being put in their place. It’s called internalized homophobia, and every time you engage in it, you create more and more self-doubt.
There are no excuses for not supporting the rights that you should have. But even worse, there are excuses for gay people to cling to some hope that they’ll be accepted by a party and movement that views who and what they are as sinful and a flippant choice.
The funny thing about watching Anthony is that he tries to shame and humiliate gay people into doing what he wants by linking them to other people who he claims are trying to shame and humiliate gay people into doing what they want.
Apparently his goal in life is to convince the rest of us to be as miserable and as oppressed as he believes himself to be — and what better way than to namecall us as “self-loathing”, call our beliefs “silly notions”, compare us to battered spouses, claim that we lack “courage and fortitude” and state that we are in “self-denial” and “medicating” ourselves. I imagine he’ll get to the “Jewish Nazi”, “kapo”, “Judas”, “Uncle Tom” and other comparisons here shortly that make it clear just how inferior we are to “enlightened” gays and lesbians like himself.
Or maybe he’ll just jump to the favorite of his fellow liberal gays and lesbians on this very website — telling us, quote, to “Try a .357 to your ear canal to clear that out, you’d be doing us all a favor” or wishing death and injury on the children of conservatives.
Wow…..and the hits just keep right on coming from Anthony.
Claiming that we’re incapable of independent thought:
It’s amazing what a little independent thought can do for you.
Claiming that we don’t care about our relationships:
You must be single, because if you shared your life with someone you’d see how important that is.
Claiming that we hate our sexual orientation:
All the stuff you bring up is a deflection from not having to deal with the fact that you are gay but, apparently, wish otherwise.
Claiming that we hate ourselves:
It’s called internalized homophobia, and every time you engage in it, you create more and more self-doubt.
And my personal favorite; claiming that we’re not even gay or lesbian:
You know, Bobby, the more I think about it, you sound an awful lot like an evangelical parading as a gay guy to vent your views here and pass them off as what most IGF contributors and posters believe. Funny.
And then wrapping it up with his final summary about our beliefs and our lives.
Pathetic.
In other words, Anthony has spent this entire thread, again, trying to shame and humiliate other gay and lesbian people because they dare to think, act, and behave differently than he does.
He’s like a lavender Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.
Anthony, you clearly speak for an abysmal ignorance. I am a seasoned and often-published writer for the LGBT Christian media and have been so for a number of years. I have stood up tirelessly for gay rights — sometimes in the face of death threats — and probably done more for the advancement of our equality than many of those who whine about oppression and call gay conservatives and libertarians names.
You might want to find out something about the people you malign before making a fool of yourself.
Then again, like most “progressives,” I guess you think you know it all already.
Furthermore, if anyone here is creating a false choice between advocating gay issues and advocating every other important issue, Anthony, it is you.
Pot – kettle – black.
One more observation. An anti-gay ranter was just booed off the stage at CPAC. Yes, this was the very event all those smart “progressives” told us we’d be frozen out of.
How edifying and enlightening it would be to hear Anthony and his cohorts try to spin this. That is, if their heads don’t explode first.
The incident with that individual at CPAC is the only indication in recent memory of any signal that the Republican party, which used to have a few decent people in it, might actually pull itself back from going headlong over a cliff.
What a vivid imagination you’ve got, sonny! But the thing is, even if I found Rush or Beck hilarious (which I don’t), or indeed listened to them at all (which I don’t — see previous parenthetical), the very last thing I would do is howl and flail my arms around, because that’s just too dang theatrical. And by “theatrical” I mean “faggy.” Instead, I’d guffaw while holding my belly, or something like that. Es más macho.
Oh no, Jimmy . . . you shouldn’t have uttered anything the least bit critical of the GOP here. NDF and Lori will go over the edge. I wonder why THEY aren’t at CPAC? Wouldn’t you need a token or two just to give the room some semblance of diversity?
And Lori, do you really think that one speaker being booed off the stage makes up for the huge mountain of anti-gay venom that these people and their supporters spew on a regular basis? I took the time to check out that speech and the speaker wasn’t booed for the reason you so desperately want to believe. You really are a dupe for these guys.
As for Palin . . . she’s an embarrassment to me as an American and I’d be perfectly content if she went back to Alaska and tried finishing something she started, you know, unlike her TWO years as governor of that state, before deciding it was more important to have someone else write a book so that she could reap the profits.
I’m not impressed by your reasoning. I could say the exact same thing about Obama, especially if Palin has some sort of grand strategy to be president. So why do you think she’s pathetic again?
You know, Bobby, the more I think about it, you sound an awful lot like an evangelical parading as a gay guy to vent your views here and pass them off as what most IGF contributors and posters believe.
Oh, please. Bobby is much too… commandingly libertarian for my tastes to possibly be a fake. He’s unpredictable enough not to be a fake, too. Also even I’m more evangelical than he will ever be. The giveaway between different types of conservatives is what they hate the most.
Re: This anti-gay ranter being booed off the stage. Now that was really obscure. I hate going on these scavenger hunts, but I had to see for myself:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201002190044
Hmm, now that I’ve seen it, I’d like to see how “Anthony and his cohorts” will spin it, too, but I’m not willing to wait for them.
Notice how young this guy was? And how belligerant toward the audience? It’s not an isolated incident, he’s of a type I’ve seen before. Young Republicans and conservatives may be more accepting of gays and gay rights than the older ones, but there’s a couple of very young, very intelligent, very tempermental (very irritating) young conservatives who seem to enjoy attacking the gay rights movement with an anti-PC fervor.
An effective leader among conservatives would be able to maintain both a GOProud supporter and an anti-GOProud person–if not necessarily the two speakers in question–on the same team. I’ve seen it done.
You know what? I take that back.
I think older conservatives are more accepting of gays but less accepting of gay rights than younger conservatives. There is something to be said for age.
“The giveaway between different types of conservatives is what they hate the most.”
*******************************************
Although I’m not a “conservative”, politically speaking, I would very much like to see this intriguing statement explored further.
For the basic spine of the statement could be transposed and used to analyze other “groups”.
By the way, I hope that Anthony cuts back soon on his Starbucks expresso (made with l’eau minérale, of course).
That guy is going nuclear with his rants.
Anthony, I am certainly not an evangelical by any means. And if you think my views are controversial, learn about Steve Yuhas, that guy served in the military, is gay, and supports don’t ask don’t tell.
As for the Rush Limbaugh music parodies, most of them aren’t about gays except the really funny one, “Banking Queen” about Barney Frank. Is that homophobic? I don’t think so, calling Barney a queer would be homophobic, making a song called “banking queen” when the gay is obviously gay and somewhat effeminate is fair game.
” A lot of straight people don’t like us, are afraid of us, and have negative reactions to us. Live with it. It is a fact of gay life, and the only way to change that would be to cease to exist.”
*********************************************
Well…….I don’t have to live with anything.
It doesn’t matter who you are—a member of my family or my lover—I won’t edit my opinions. No one should.
I don’t know anyone out there who is “afraid” of anyone else.
It’s perhaps more of an issue of some gays using the “victim” schtick to get away with behavior that most people would find very objectionable. And this does happen quite often in ultra-liberal areas and where there’s a powerful gay community.
Nothing’s wrong for any self-identified “minority” to have clout and representation. Who cares? However, many in-your-face gays border on the repulsive.
In an academic atmosphere, there is nothing hostile going on. Quite the contrary. Criminals who are gay and who have even admitted to their criminal behavior are treated with kid gloves so that no one will come off as a “gay-basher”.
Some of the same men who whine about the “rights of gay and lesbian citizens” choose to avoid the very real special treatment that is given by those who are “afraid” of being accused of homophobia.
When the three innocent young men (lacrosse players) at Duke University were going through that miscarriage of justice a few years ago, many of the professors there were not only using the worn-out race/class/gender agenda to slander them before there was ANY evidence of guilt, but a number of those professors are tethered to the gay agenda as well.
It was like watching something out of the KKK era taking place. And they LOVED going after macho straight boys. To them, it seems like a gift from heaven for their Leftist agenda.
But when this took place among their own, there was SILENCE.
Bobby can tell you about that guy’s (a high official employed by a prestigious university) “wish list” on his Amazon page…….which has now been erased.
The gay community, which is powerful, circled the wagons and the guy received absolutely none of the treatment that the innocent lacrosse players received.
It’s an egregious way of operating; however, that’s what a lot of “gay activism” is about.
And don’t even think about saying that this case was an aberration.
The gay community feeds the suspicion that observers might have by their silence on such matters. The university was silent, but they did have to “let him go”. LOL!!! LOL!!!
We all know that there’s unfairness and discrimination in this world; however, the “victims” are often the “victimizers”…….even as they continue to whimper.
Oh my goodness . . . just saw a story on “the” CNN about gay Republicans at CPAC. Seems they’re not being well received by most attendees. Shocking. A few of the folks interviewed even suggested that gay relationships are “undermining and destroying the American family.” Others said they “tolerated” gays but wouldn’t go any further. So, Lori and NDF, still feeling embraced and validated by this crowd? Of course you are, because how you are treated, viewed and marginalized and misrepresented is of no concern. It’s all about hating Obama, demanding proof that he’s an American citizen, cutting your taxes, etc.
Seems to me it can all be boiled down to whether you value yourself as a gay person or not. If you are complicit with being treated unfairly, that’s your decision and you can vote for people who will see to it that you remain less than equal. If you think you’re not worth fighting for, again, you have plenty of candidates to support that stance. But, if you demand that you be treated equally and fairly and will not accept anything less, you are left with few voting choices.
Most of what I see here represents the “we’re gay but wish we weren’t” crowd, people who apologize incessantly for the haters because they clamor for their approval and recognition. They have no problem with the rantings of the anti-gay lobby and its cavalry of fans in the GOP and with some Democrats too. They refuse to see the world for what it is, somehow believing that they can just cower in the corner and speak out in the safest of venues where they won’t be shouted down or told to go away because they are freaks or do not belong in proper society. Sigh. Why am I posting here? It’s a bright, sunny day where I live . . . time to get out there and enjoy it and leave the self-loathing rationalizations to others.
Seems to me it can all be boiled down to whether you value yourself as a gay person or not.
Actually, it’s whether or not the only thing you have of value is being a gay person.
Obviously Anthony is in that situation; the only thing that makes him worthwhile or of any value to society, in his mind, is his sexual orientation.
And given his behavior here, he’s quite likely right.
NDF . . . do you think by ignoring all the facts around you that you can send me a message that I’m somehow unworthy because the only contribution I can make to society is via my sexual orientation? You have yet to offer one ounce of a rebuttal to my comments about CPAC or the numerous laws that discriminate directly against gays. Why? I have no clue. When presented with all these examples (and there are countless others), you seem to just bask in the glow of denial and think because a few people post here in agreement with you that you’re correct.
You simply cannot deny that the GOP national (and the vast majority of states) platform is implicitly anti-gay. And the Texas GOP platform has been particularly evil in its treatment of gays. Like it or not (and I’m beginning to think you do enjoy it), these are facts. You choose to align yourself with people who tend to view you with contempt and disgust, barely able to allow you to be truly free. Wasn’t Texas the state where the nation’s last sodomy law overturned a few years back? Hmm.
It’s STILL about self-respect and seeing yourself as worthy of being a FULL American under and by the law. As long as gay people are denied things like marriage, federal employment protection, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, all sorts of tax breaks afforded married people, not being able to serve as who you are in the military (all the while being able to die for the country that denies these rights), then you’re not truly free. Something tells me you’re not troubled by any of that, because freedom isn’t something you wait for others to grant you, you have to demand it.
Bobby–
I’d be interested in your take on this goofy one.
This is why people just go “ugh” and why some should just shut up and sing.
LIS!
You choose to align yourself with people who tend to view you with contempt and disgust
And meanwhile, you are viewing us and treating us with contempt and disgust.
Yours is nothing more than the rant of the typical abuser, screaming to their spouse or significant other that no one else loves them, that they’re an awful person whose beliefs and attitudes are all wrong, that their perceptions are totally incorrect, that they just need to shut up and listen to you, and that they should be grateful to you for willing to put up with them, even as you wish death on their children or tell them that killing themselves would be “doing us all a favor”.
I suppose if I or others here had no respect or confidence in ourselves, that might work. But unfortunately, there is far too much life experience out there for me, and I daresay for Lori and Bobby and Jorge and Throbert, to buy into that one. Since you demonstrably refuse to respect and in fact outright condemn our own lives and views, you frankly present a worse picture than the comically-demonized one you try to paint of “the right”.
You couldn’t possibly respect yourself and post the things you do. The theme here seems to be agree 110 percent or get the hell out, kinda like the GOP in general. I get it. See ya.
“The theme here seems to be agree 110 percent or get the hell out, kinda like the GOP in general.”
**********************************************
Such a teller of falsehoods you are!
This is one of the most diverse and open-to-free-speech blogs on the internet.
I have voiced my disagreement on many things and there have been a number of bloodletting sessions, but the only freak show that had to be put down because of dirty tactics and false information being posted came from a someone on YOUR side of the ideological aisle.
And I am not even gay!
You’re program just isn’t as strong as many of the men here. Otherwise, there would be no need to run.
Wow, Deb, you are amazingly insightful.
Hey Debrah, I totally agree with Bill O’Reilly calling Elton John a pinhead for saying Jesus was gay. Elton John is not a religious person, I doubt he reads his bible on a regular basis, also, there is no proof that Jesus even had a sexual orientation.
If however, Elton had said that David and Jonathan were lovers because David said “thy love is superior to the love of a woman,” that might get fly, although I know Christians who think David meant “love” in a spiritual context vs. a romantic context. In the end, it’s better not to make statements about religious dogma unless you know what you’re talking about.
This is my first time commenting on this site. I usually never take part in debates on websites, but I felt compelled to comment because of North Dallas Thirty and Debrah.
North Dallas Thirty: I used to be like you – absolutely convinced of my beliefs, absolutely convinced that everyone on the ‘opposite side’ was wrong and awful and stupid. Except, I was on the opposite side of where you’re standing; I was a far-left liberal. I used to frequent Democratic Underground and many other sites for ‘extreme’ liberals.
Used to. Not anymore. I realized years ago that it was wrong of me to demonize republicans and conservatives. I realized that I – and most of the other members of Democratic Underground – was engaging in the exact same behavior I so hated and condemned. I stopped going to that site, and became more moderate in my thoughts.
Sir, you must realize that you’re doing the same thing I did years ago – demonizing the opposite side. I understand that you’re bothered by the way some liberals are. I know there are a lot of liberals out there who demonize conservatives and treat them like they aren’t even human. These people are wrong. But you have to realize it isn’t only liberals who do this. Some conservatives – not all, but some – do this as well, to liberals. And it’s equally as wrong when they do it.
Sir, you seem like an intelligent person, which is why I’m pleading with you to revise your views on liberals. Not all liberals, or progressives as you call them, are bad. Some think and say awful things, but not all liberals are that way.
Debrah, a post you left above is making my blood boil.
“It’s perhaps more of an issue of some gays using the “victim” schtick to get away with behavior that most people would find very objectionable. And this does happen quite often in ultra-liberal areas and where there’s a powerful gay community.”
Examples, please.
“Nothing’s wrong for any self-identified “minority” to have clout and representation. Who cares? However, many in-your-face gays border on the repulsive.”
Why is the word minority in quotes?
“Who cares?” A LOT of people care. If a lot of people didn’t care, then there wouldn’t be any gay rights movement, because gay people would already have equal rights.
“In an academic atmosphere, there is nothing hostile going on. Quite the contrary. Criminals who are gay and who have even admitted to their criminal behavior are treated with kid gloves so that no one will come off as a “gay-basher”.”
Really, Debrah? Can you present us with some examples? And please don’t just give 2 or 3 examples. That isn’t enough to justify your words. You have to show me that there really is a strong undercurrent of ‘gay favoritism’ in criminal justice.
“Some of the same men who whine about the “rights of gay and lesbian citizens” choose to avoid the very real special treatment that is given by those who are “afraid” of being accused of homophobia.”
Once again, examples. And once again, give plenty of them. Prove your case, instead of just making accusations.
And why did you put afraid in quotes?
“When the three innocent young men (lacrosse players) at Duke University were going through that miscarriage of justice a few years ago, many of the professors there were not only using the worn-out race/class/gender agenda to slander them before there was ANY evidence of guilt, but a number of those professors are tethered to the gay agenda as well.”
‘Gay agenda?’ Debrah, come on! I thought you were better than that. Even though I disagree with a lot of your opinions, it always seemed like you were above these things. I can’t believe you of all people would actually, seriously, use the term ‘gay agenda.’
“But when this took place among their own, there was SILENCE.
Bobby can tell you about that guy’s (a high official employed by a prestigious university) “wish list” on his Amazon page…….which has now been erased.
The gay community, which is powerful, circled the wagons and the guy received absolutely none of the treatment that the innocent lacrosse players received.”
What happened to the lacrosse players was a tragedy, but you’re playing it out as if the situation were some conspiracy orchestrated by gay people to slander these straight lacrosse players.
Admittedly, this is the first time I’ve heard of this Frank Lombard. But, once again, you make it seem like there was a conspiracy (orchestrated by gay people, of course) to cover this up. Is there really any evidence of that?
“And don’t even think about saying that this case was an aberration.”
Okay, I won’t say that. Instead, I’ll ask that you provide ample evidence that it isn’t.
“The gay community feeds the suspicion that observers might have by their silence on such matters.”
What do you mean by this?
“We all know that there’s unfairness and discrimination in this world; however, the “victims” are often the “victimizers”…….even as they continue to whimper.”
Gay people do bad things sometimes. Some gay people are outright awful human beings. As is the case with heterosexuals and bisexuals. I’ve never heard anyone claim that gay people were all angels who never did anything wrong.
Debrah, I’m sorry if I appear unnecessarily bitchy in this post. I just really, really don’t like the things you said (well, typed) in your post, and I had to respond.
Anthony, I am certainly not an evangelical by any means. And if you think my views are controversial, learn about Steve Yuhas, that guy served in the military, is gay, and supports don’t ask don’t tell.
You Go, Girl!
Lately he’s been VERY quiet about it, though, or did I miss his reaction to Obama’s State of the Union Speech? I think it’s more significant that he opposes gay marriage laws.
The short version, Deborah, is that there are not only different degrees of right-of-center people, there are also different types. There’s the religious right, libertarians, Hawks, etc. Each has a different reputation for evil and heartlessness among the left, which has painted the Republican Party as all of the above. There is much confusion and many do not realize there are such things as moderates, let alone different types of conservatives.
Although the Republican Party does embrace various American conservative ideologies and oppose various American liberal ones, each type of conservative reserves the most rancor for the (usually liberal) policy idea or social trend it is most diametrically opposed to.
Been reading the back and forth here. Not a big fan of ideologues or people who think they’ve settled issues for all eternity. Will go back to reading more rational stuff and wish you guys the best in being so certain of what you think you believe. I knew I was in trouble when I kept seeing Beck’s name pop up as a hero.
Beck=hero correlating with people thinking they’ve settled issues for all eternity?
Does not compute. Beck following is a reactionary, anti-Obama trend.
” In the end, it’s better not to make statements about religious dogma unless you know what you’re talking about.”
*******************************************
True, Bobby.
And I must admit that I am one who hasn’t spent an inordinate amount of time on that subject matter; however, I see that you and a few others here easily reference the Bible for appropriate contexts…..(as in your David and Jonathan analogy).
“Although the Republican Party does embrace various American conservative ideologies and oppose various American liberal ones, each type of conservative reserves the most rancor for the (usually liberal) policy idea or social trend it is most diametrically opposed to.”
**********************************
To my surprise, the Repubs are much more diverse than I used to think; however, from personal experience, the very Liberal element of the Democratic Party often behaves like clones.
A seasoned groupthink that I’m not sure will ever evolve.
TO “Mesa”–
I appreciate your very thoughtful comment and the way you express yourself without going nuclear.
It’s obvious that you feel very strongly about this subject….and rightly so.
Many of us do.
I initially started to make a journey across the web and gather links for you on this matter, but decided that the amount of time I would have to spend doing so would never convince you that there is an issue here that needs to be addressed by serious gay rights proponents.
Not in some official way, but in everyday handling and discussion of such cases as the Lombard case—which is one of the most egregious you will find.
This Lombard guy lived in a kind of communal neighborhood which is inhabited by other gays who hold key positions in that town as well as the university.
it would be impossible to explain in a comment here the enormous disconnect…..the contrasting nature of the media coverage of that case compared to the rabid media frenzy when a drugged-up prostitute accused three Duke lacrosse players of rape in the Spring of 2006. (As of Thursday, February 18, 2010, the false accuser in the Lacrosse Hoax is back in the news and has been arrested for attempted murder, along with a list of other charges.)
I can’t or won’t rehash that case here, but to get the definitive account of everything to which I refer, pick up a copy of “Until Proven Innocent”. It graphically outlines everything you will need to know about the 88 professors at Duke, their ideology, and all who support such an odious and harmful ideology.
One of the main culprits is a hefty lesbian who dresses like a man and who could double as Stanley Crouch on a good day. She’s been tenured but has not produced a publication or a book in over a decade. Since being tenured, her CV lists everything as “forthcoming”…….but the only thing “professors” like this one put “forth” is a race/class/gender agenda which plays easily in the academy as well as in the media.
It’s a do-nothing, parasitic existence. Therefore, going after young men who represent everything they hate—the “heteronormative” world—is something they yearn for.
But when someone like Lombard, who worked alongside them, was found to be leading such an egregious lifestyle, they said nothing.
Tell me. What can be more egregious than a man adopting two black baby boys—(Ooooh, gah, gah! “Minorities” just love that Madonna-esque-we-are-the-world kabuki bull-sh!t!)—for the purpose of turning them into his rimming partners, as well as offering them up to strangers on internet web cams?
Please read about this guy.
Yet NO ONE from the gay community—who had come out so rabidly slandering and maligning innocent men at their university whose parents’ $50,000/year tuition tabs fund their own salaries—spoke out against such a person who was a high official at the very school that had to pay millions to the lacrosse families for how they handled that case.
The issue for me is the same issue you find in almost all very Liberal communities and academic milieus, as well as in the mainstream media: whenever cases of molestation surface involving gay men and young boys or children, it’s deliberately avoided.
With the Lombard case, even some who castigated and criticized the behavior of the Duke professors and the administration and supported the innocent lacrosse players tried to avoid highlighting the very pertinent Lombard case.
In some cases this was because those people or that person is gay and, IMO, simply would not exhibit the integrity and the courage it would have taken to discuss this topic openly.
The fact that gays—especially the “activists”—did not come out and openly show disdain and contempt for such a case….even as they wail and moan for “gay marriage” to be the law of the land…..makes me throw up.
I put quotes around the word “minority” because I find the idea of a group of people attempting to act like “victims” because of the way they express their sexuality to be not only juvenile, but offensive.
And particularly offensive is that some continue to use race and ethnicity as analogies on which to piggy-back and plead their case.
I suppose it both angers and frustrates me to have seen very intelligent people behaving so emotionally and “girlishly” by making whatever goes on between their legs more significant than anything else.
And yes, ND30 is capable of providing a never-ending list of such examples of which I speak.
there is no proof that Jesus even had a sexual orientation
I don’t know about other theologies, but according to Catholic theology, Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Hence, he had human frailties and experienced human failures. I suppose he might have been asexual (a disposition that has recently been gaining traction as a bonafide sexual orientation in and of itself), but I suspect that’s rather unlikely. Why the Bible doesn’t mention sexuality probably has more to do with the authors and, my personal favorite, later editors.
As to which sexuality — hetero- or homo- — well, I think we can come down on the hetero- side, just for statistics sake. Not that I vehemently disagree with Elton John, since he could be right. If it’s any consolation for the pro-gay-Jesus side, we can return to statistics and consider the likelihood of same-sex activity in His youth. In the Middle East then, as today, the chances are high, very high.
…..
Fine. I might be convinced if we saw evidence that some of the other famous prophets and so-ons in the Bible (I’m thinking of John the Baptist) were gay. Not that I even know the basis for Elton John’s statement in the first place.
Hey BobN,
“I don’t know about other theologies, but according to Catholic theology, Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Hence, he had human frailties and experienced human failures. I suppose he might have been asexual (a disposition that has recently been gaining traction as a bonafide sexual orientation in and of itself),”
—That could be, some say he was a member of the Essenes which were a group that believed in chastity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes
“Why the Bible doesn’t mention sexuality probably has more to do with the authors and, my personal favorite, later editors.”
—Could be, although the bible does mention plenty of sexuality in the Song of Salomon, Leviticus, the letters of St. Paul, and others sources. Think about it, the bible even mentions crazy sexuality like the daughters of Lot getting their father drunk and having sex with them. (after the destruction of Sodom they thought they were alone in the world).
“If it’s any consolation for the pro-gay-Jesus side, we can return to statistics and consider the likelihood of same-sex activity in His youth. In the Middle East then, as today, the chances are high, very high.”
—I don’t know, the Hebrews were never crazy about homosexuality and I doubt Jesus, a rabbi, would violate his own religion. I doubt he had any same-sex activity further than a hug and a kiss (kissing men on the cheecks is common in the middle east).
Either way, it doesn’t matter what sexual orientation Jesus had because the world isn’t ruled by the bible. While a few homophobes may quote the bible, the people in power are for the most part using secular arguments in their defense or attack of our sexual orientation.
the bible does mention plenty of sexuality
I meant the bible does not mention anything about Jesus’ sexuality.
I doubt Jesus, a rabbi, would violate his own religion
You miss the point about what it means to be “fully human”.
kissing men on the cheecks is common in the middle east
So are a lot of other things.
the people in power are for the most part using secular arguments in their defense or attack of our sexual orientation
Nonsense. What secular arguments? The opposition is largely religion-based.
“You miss the point about what it means to be “fully human”.”
—But the son of God is not supposed to commit any sins, otherwise why worship him? Why would anyone worship a flawed God?
“So are a lot of other things.”
—You think homosexuality is common there? I think it would be like every other country, a minority thing.
“Nonsense. What secular arguments? The opposition is largely religion-based”
—The people who support the opposition may be religious, but their leaders don’t use religious arguments. Instead they talk about tradition, “natural law,” what’s best for children or they find statistics about bad gay couples and use it against us. For example, if you visit the American Family Association you’re not going to find quotes from Leviticus, they know that to win they need secular arguments that can’t be dismissed as holly-roller propaganda.
Under Catholic theology, Jesus is free from original sin. Mary as well. Jesus is not only fully human, he is the only human who has never sinned.
Under some interpretations the original sin of Adam and Eve was sex (Catholics are rather loath to acknowledge that Jesus’s “brothers” were biological.) Look, just because the Vatican has a picture of Jesus with an erection in plain view of the chapel the Pope comes out of doesn’t mean Catholics concede he’s not a virgin.
Hmm, wait a minute. I’m assuming that being gay means you actually have sex. Never mind.
Many other centre-right political parties have indeed recognised that LGBT rights has been effectively mainstreamed. New Zealand’s National Party has a gay Cabinet Minister in the current government, which has just dispensed with the provocation defence, one of the remaining inequalities in criminal law. Indeed, it was an earlier centre-right National Party government that was responsible for passing New Zealand’s LGB-inclusive antidiscrimination laws.
What needs to happen in the United States is that the Republicans need to be shown that the Christian Right is an untrustworthy and duplicitous extremist liability to its political success.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
Craig, the Christian-right will always be a part of the republican party, they are not a liability at all. In fact, the way the system works is that every party has a base and to win they have to fight for the independents. The economy was bad so the independents went to Obama and the democrats, now that they see how dangerous progressives are, they will go back to the GOP.
By the way, conservatives are pissed off that Scott Brown has shown progressive colors by voting for the democrats job bill.
http://rawstory.com/2010/02/conservatives-livid-scott-brown-backs-dem-jobs-bill/
I hope Brown redeems himself with other votes, either way, the problem of American politics isn’t the Christian right but the progressive cancer that exists in both parties. And please, let’s not confuse progressive with liberal, let me state the obvious differences.
Liberals: Support gay rights.
Progressives: Try to put homophobic preachers in jail.
Liberals: Support abortion
Progressives: Want pro-lifers to pay for abortions.
Liberals: Support affirmative-action
Progressives: Accuse everyone of racism, as long as they’re white.
Progressives are the real extremists, these are the people that shout down speeches at universities if the speaker isn’t one of them. I’d rather deal with the reasonable Christian-right than the lunatic progressive left.
Hmmm. Well, that may be the case in the United States, although to be frank, abortion is a non-issue here. Granted, we still have a tiny anti-abortion movement, but it’s composed of elderly overly
religious sock cons. And New Zealand has had LGB-inclusive antidiscrimination laws for the last seventeen years, civil unions and relationship equality for the last five etc. Granted, this may have something to do with our rapidly declining levels of religious observance.
Down here, our centre-right is more concerned with strengthened criminal justice sanctions than issues of religious morality. Indeed, it has to be, for any such displays of militant fundamentalism have proven electorally poisonous beforehand to them. Our current centre-right PM even voted *against* pre-emptive obstruction of same-sex
marriage proper, back in 2005.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
And it wouldn’t be a bad idea if IGF featured centre-right social liberal and LGBT politicans from elsewhere in the world from time to time. Britain’s current Conservative leader, David Cameron, would be an excellent start…
Oh wow.
The IGF commentariat perhaps should avoid being too nice to one another in the future.
Contributors, as well as further commentary, have been paralyzed for days, it would seem.
LIS!
By the way, Bobby. Some of your political allies cleaned up in Texas; however, word is that Alaska dame Palin has become too celebrity-driven and will have no political future as a result.
Plus!……even mono-brow Pelosi will not be able to save Charlie Rangel this time.
The comedy never ends.
Hey Debrah, yeah, my party is taking over and as long as they concentrate on economic issues and don’t start trying to pass constitutional amendments, I think they’ll do just fine.
Craig2, what works in New Zealand doesn’t necessarily work in America. We’re talking about two very different societies here, for example, I don’t think a Rush Limbaugh could make a living in your country without being persecuted by the government.
And let’s face it, progressivism is not good for us, we’ve already seen what it has done in California:
Progressives against free speech at UC San Diego.
“Free-speech advocates are crying foul after a UC San Diego student government official’s decision to freeze funding for 33 campus media outlets after one organization aired an offensive commentary about a controversial student party.”
http://californiawatch.org/watchblog/ucsd-muzzles-student-media-while-free-speech-groups-cry-foul
Here’s what they do in Australia:
Defamatory commenter hunted down and sued
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=32538379&postID=7610464080614825028
Here’s what it does in Italy:
Google Italy ruling threat to internet freedom
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=32538379&postID=5017227445791471429
Bobby, your referenced article has gotten quite a bit of attention.
And the scenario is so typical of the academy in this country; however, in Europe it’s even worse.
There’s such a disconnect in the media regarding what people around the globe think of America. If you ask anyone on the streets of European cities what they think of us, most of what you get is overwhelmingly positive……a kind of admiration.
But if you talk with someone in academia in those countries, it’s almost always negative.
And it’s the negativity that is covered and highlighted by our own mainstream media.
Many of those in the academy would have no career at all without one based on “grievances” and “race/class/gender/sexual orientation”…….etc ……
The UC-San Diego Chancellor Marye Anne Fox is a simpleton, and like most who kneel at the altar of political correctness and its insidious, tyrannical agenda, she will be forced to acquiesce.
She was at NCSU—where the late Jim Valvano used to coach—before going to San Diego. I think she’s probably getting whiplash from handling this case.
LOL!
Anything that abridges internet freedom is a bad thing.
Defamation is not protected speech.
If a university has a policy that is understood by a given student group going into the agreement that grants them funding, it should be no surprise that the university will enforce the consequences when that policy has been broken. If you don’t like the policy, don’t accept the subsidy.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.