Being Anti-Anti-Gay
September 2nd, 2008 at 02:59am Mark Noonan
Interesting concept, from Gay Patriot West:
Some would have McCain use the issues of gay marriage and gays in the military. But, as I said in this post that would be a bad idea. It might galvanize social conservatives but would do so “at the expense of independent voters” while antagonizing many rank-and-file Republicans.
The issue, as I’ve said then and repeated ad nauseum since I first founded a Log Cabin chapter in the late 1990s, is that most Americans are neither pro-gay nor anti-gay, but they are by and large, anti-anti-gay. They may not like what we do in the bedroom, may find it “icky,” may even disapprove of my public smooch this afternoon, but they pretty much want to leave people like us alone. And would wonder at politicians who dwell on the issue.
I’m delighted that my notion of most voters being anti-anti-gay is getting some attention. It earned me a reference last month in the Washington Times‘ blogotics column.
But, I hope it’s not just conservative columnists who are paying attention to this notion. GOP Convention planners would also do well to take heed. Should they dwell on gay issues in St. Paul, they’ll drown out the reform message which resonates with the Republican base as well as independent voters.
Sage advice to the GOP. The United States is, by and large, a live and let live nation. As long as you’re not doing it in the streets and/or dragging down property values, the attitude is “whatever floats your boat”. The problem as regards homosexuality in this nation is that some gay rights activists are attempting an end-run around the constitution by getting activist judges to enforce their particular ideas about how open homosexuality shall be treated in the public square. A gay man knocking on my door and asking me to sign a petition to put gay marriage on the ballot would receive a friendly reception, a signature and, ultimately, a “no” vote on election day. A few judges telling me and the rest of my fellow Nevadans that our votes don’t count and we’ve got gay marriage whether we will or no, that is an outrageous usurpation of the rights of the people.
Now, there are some people in the United States who have been convinced - or convinced themselves - that being gay is in and of itself a bad thing and should be actively supressed and, meanwhile, that the GOP should wage unremitting war not just on judicial usurpation but on the very concept that gay people should be tolerated. To those people, I say that they are in error and as they invariably claim to be fellow Christians, I direct them to scripture and pray they’ll listen to the Word of God on the subject of sin, forgiveness, mercy and whom is allowed to cast the first stone. I will have nothing to do with any effort I perceive as being a direct affront to the basic human rights that all gay people share with all people - the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness being foremost in this concern. With this all said, I will lay out some things I won’t retreat on:
1. Marriage must be defined in law as being for one man and one woman.
2. State-supported schools must provide no instruction which tends to hold that homosexual acts are morally equal to heterosexual acts.
3. All laws and regulations must carve out areas exemption for religious bodies from having to employ or service any person or group held to be in morally objectionable circumstances. Additionally, a person claiming to discriminate based on religious stricture should be given the benefit of the doubt in suits at law provided it can be demonstrated that his religious dogma is something long held and/or central to his faith.
Other than that, I’m pretty much ready for compromise and a generalised settlement - even if it requires a constitutional amendment clearly spelling out just where, what, when, why and how we’ll deal with the subject in the public square. Count me, then, as anti-anti-gay. I don’t want to war on homosexuality, nor cause any discomfort to my fellow Americans who are gay, some of whom are very good friends of mine. As regards my religious belief that homosexual sex is a sin - that is my belief, but I have no authority nor desire to impose it upon my fellows. Ultimately, such judgements of acts are up to God, who is a much better judge of character than I am - he will be able to separate out the thrill-seeking hedonist from the sincere believer in an incorrect view (and, of course, “sincere believer in an incorrect view” will certainly include myself, at various times and regarding various issues).
Peace is much desired - and such peace will include an end to the continual fights over social and moral issues - we on the right can certainly afford to step back a bit, while not retreating an inch from basic principle…and we can pray that those on the left will cease trying to usurp and tyrannically impose.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, General Government, Justice System, Life Issues, RNC08, Religion, Republicans, Social Issues
14 Comments
1. FactCheck | September 2nd, 2008 at 3:30 am
I’m pretty much ready for compromise
Uh, not if this post is any indication.
You “won’t retreat” on the stance that “state-supported schools must provide no instruction which tends to hold that homosexual acts are morally equal to heterosexual acts” (a typically mealy-mouthed way of saying that if gays are to be mentioned at all, they are to be mentioned as inherently lesser people), and then you claim that you’re “ready for compromise?” You “won’t retreat” from the idea that religions must always be given free reign to attack gays, and then you claim that you’re “ready for compromise?”
You don’t seem to know what the word “compromise” means.
But if you are, as you claim, willing to give the gay bashing a rest, that’s a step in the right direction, at least.
2. getfreeinsurance » &hellip | September 2nd, 2008 at 3:56 am
[...] Original post by Mark Noonan [...]
3. clark smith | September 2nd, 2008 at 5:01 am
I guess what others call being anti-gay, I call being pro-morality.
Gays have mastered the art of labels, successfully (mis)labeling those who oppose the gay-rights movement as ‘homophobes,’ notwithstanding the fact that phobia has nothing whatsoever to do with the overwhelming majority of those who oppose the gay-rights movement.
“I don’t want to war on homosexuality…”
Well who does?! … save for the odd Fred Phelps type nutball? Let’s dispense, then, with the hyperbolic inference that the “anti-gays” somehow wish “war on homosexuality.”
The overwhelming majority of those who oppose the gay-rights movement simply wish to live their lives without having perverted lifestyles thrown in their face.
The gay-rights movement seeks special rights for their particular perversion, and seeks to validate itself by mainstreaming itself in the public square.
If it was only about consenting adults practicing their favored perverse sex acts in private, that would be one thing. But in the end it’s never simply that. Invariably they want it to be publicly displayed and publicly recognized. They want to adopt children. They want to be in our schools curriculums, enshrined in our laws and in our courts, plastered on movie screens, and TV programs.
When private perverts attempt to go public, they should be opposed with the same vigor by which they attempt to foist their perversion upon societal culture. That is not “war on homosexuals,” it is simply society saying to the perverts, ‘This weirdness may pass in your bedroom, but it doesn’t pass on Mainstreet U.S.A.’
4. extramedium | September 2nd, 2008 at 8:20 am
Mark - that’s a pretty fair set of compromises and well said regarding beliefs.
My only modification to your list - let’s define “marriage” as one man and one woman, but lets also add a new type of union for the state to recognize same-sex relationships (”same-sex union”?). That way you can say they can’t get “married” but they can still bind themselves together by the state and get the sorts of decision making, estate and property treatments available to hetero marrieds.
5. js | September 2nd, 2008 at 8:40 am
Compromise? Since when does anyone compromise the truth with a lie?
We need to get homosexual activists out of our public schools, and teach our children the truth about homosexual behavior. It is not a “social” grace that they should accept, but a social illness that they should come to recognize as nothing more than sexually abnomal behavior.
If we want to stand amoungst the world as viable leader, instructing about homosexuality in its medical and factual reality is a primary obligation, not some whimsical social “fad” that only promotes unhealthy and perverse behavior. There is no such thing as an “anti anti gay”, you either uphold the truth, or you facilitate the lie.
6. BARRASSO | September 2nd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
All these “arguments” against gays were once made against interracial couples. Still sounds like a bunch of petty a-holes hating those different from them.
“If it was only about consenting adults practicing their favored perverse sex acts in private, that would be one thing. But in the end it’s never simply that. Invariably they want it to be publicly displayed and publicly recognized. They want to adopt children. They want to be in our schools curriculums, enshrined in our laws and in our courts, plastered on movie screens, and TV programs.”
You could go back to a letter to the editor in the deep south in the 50’s or 60’s and see the exact same words about blacks and whites intermarrying.
7. clark smith | September 2nd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
All these “arguments” against gays were once made against interracial couples.
If BARRASSO can’t see the vast, fundamental differences between straight sex and homosexual sex, I pity him/her.
8. FmrMarine | September 2nd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
clark
>>>If BARRASSO can’t see the vast, fundamental differences between straight sex and homosexual sex, I pity him/her.>>>
maybe his name should be barrASS-0
ouch!
Ps your post # 3 - is 100% on the money!
9. Robert | September 2nd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Wow, Mark! Finally!
You actually show that you have a heart and a soul - and a brain.
Even through you do not agree with gay lifestlye, you want to treat them with dignity and respect as fellow human beings.
Maybe you are changing, after all.
JS, however, is an anti-gay bigot - who will probably end up in a Burger King with an Uzi someday - shooting anybody he thinks might be gay.
I applaud you, Mark, for actually showing some humility for once.
Please try to keep this mentality up and don’t resort to your usual arrogant self so much in the future. I know you may have slip ups, but you seem to actually make sense here.
You actually get that you don’t have to force people to believe as you do and to belittle them to get along with them.
JS, however, and probably Jeremiah might never get this fact though.
Thank you, Mark, for trying.
Keep up the good work.
There may be hope for you yet.
10. js | September 2nd, 2008 at 4:57 pm
gee robert, i would reply to something in your post but all you did was suck up to mark in a condescending kind of way and throw out more ignorant insults along the way at the messenger…
i didnt think you could or would stand up and show some moral integrity and try to tell us whats so great about sodomy…oh…you did that already and ended up eating cheese…
lol…no wonder….all you have is rhetoric…gotta laught though…you are still hanging on a rotten tree…
11. js | September 2nd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
We need to get homosexual activists out of our public schools, and teach our children the truth about homosexual behavior. It is not a “social” grace that they should accept, but a social illness that they should come to recognize as nothing more than sexually abnomal behavior.
If we want to stand amoungst the world as viable leader, instructing about homosexuality in its medical and factual reality is a primary obligation, not some whimsical social “fad” that only promotes unhealthy and perverse behavior. There is no such thing as an “anti anti gay”, you either uphold the truth, or you facilitate the lie.
12. Jacquie | September 2nd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
What exactly are you afraid of?
13. FmrMarine | September 2nd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
jacq
>>>What exactly are you afraid of?>>>
ask anyone with AIDS, syphilis, rectal cancer.
ask any one who has been molested by a homosexual pedophile.
ask any one of the homosexual community why they live 12-20 years less that hetro counterparts.
We are not afraid!.
It is a abnormality,
but the people themselves are not to be hated.
However it should not be lied about, as if it were mainstream.
Keep it in the closet = fine,
bring it into the scouts, schools, workplace it should be rejected as a normal “lifestyle”.
14. js | September 2nd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
luv the playah
hayt the gaym