Skip to comments.Conservatives and Gays: Where Do We Stand? (We can oppose same-sex marriage without being anti-gay)
Posted on 05/09/2012 4:30:36 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In addition to labeling conservatives and Republicans anti-woman (for opposing government-mandated free contraception), anti-black and anti-Hispanic (for advocating photo identification for voting), and anti-science (for skepticism regarding the belief that man-made carbon emissions will destroy much of the planet), Democrats now regularly label Republicans anti-gay (for opposing same-sex marriage).
All these charges are demagogic. But when it comes to the anti-gay charge, conservatives need to clarify to ourselves as much as to the general public where we stand.
As an opponent of the most radical redefinition of marriage in history (more radical than outlawing polygamy), I have argued for the Defense of Marriage Act before Congress and have written and spoken on behalf of amending state constitutions to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. I believe that the ultimate aim of the LGBT movement and the rest of the cultural Left is nothing less than to end gender distinctions.
But I am not anti-gay. Proponents of same-sex marriage may conflate opposition to same-sex marriage with being anti-gay. But conservatives must not.
Those of us who fear the consequences of redefining marriage asking children if they hope to marry a boy or a girl when they get older, banning religious adoption agencies from placing children first with a married man and woman, denying the importance of both sexes in making families, choosing boys to be high-school prom queens and girls to be high-school prom kings, and much more must make it clear that we regard homosexuals as fellow human beings created in Gods image just as heterosexuals are.
This issue has most recently arisen with regard to Richard Grenell, a foreign-policy aide to Mitt Romney, who resigned shortly after his appointment. It is not yet clear why he resigned, but many assume that he did so because he is a gay man who is an outspoken proponent of same-sex marriage and, as such, not a good fit for the Romney campaign.
The Grenell case notwithstanding, no conservative should oppose a competent gay serving in a Republican administration so long as the person shares the values of the Republican party. Even support for same-sex marriage should not necessarily rule someone out of a leadership position in the Republican party. Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton supports same-sex marriage, and he is, for good reason, a hero to conservatives (although I could not back anyone for president who supported redefining marriage).
Only if a person is an outspoken advocate of same-sex marriage would he or she, whether homosexual or heterosexual, be a poor choice for a high position in a Republican administration just as an outspoken defender of nonmedically necessary abortion would be.
Conservatives must object to values, not to individuals.
As it happens, there are far more gays who hold conservative values than many gay activists or conservatives realize. And we should embrace these people. Being gay does not automatically mean that one is on the left, and conservatives should not make that assumption. Otherwise, we risk pushing gay conservatives leftward.
Conservatives have to be true to social as well as economic conservatism. But there is no reason why a gay should not be a conservative.
I am close to a gay man and his partner who lives in the heart of San Francisco. This man is a major fundraiser for Republican candidates. And given his homosexuality and where he lives, his Republican activism is courageous. He should be regarded as a major asset to the conservative cause.
It is the gay Left that argues that every gay person must think like a leftist. Conservatives should not help these leftist activists by objecting to gays holding positions of influence in the conservative political arena. I am not arguing that the Romney campaign should have retained Richard Grenell. I am arguing that Mitt Romney was right when he told Fox News last week that his campaign hires people not based upon their ethnicity, or their sexual preference or their gender, but upon their capability.
This is not only the right moral position; it is also the right political position. We have a much better chance to win young and independent voters whenever we show in word and deed that Democrats and others on the left are engaging in smears when they accuse conservatives and Republicans of being anti-woman, anti-minority, or anti-gay.
A gay person who believes in the American Trinity Liberty, In God We Trust, and E Pluribus Unum and who believe in small government, in American exceptionalism, and in the need for America to be the strongest military and economic power in the world is one of us. And we should embrace him as such.
Dennis Pragers book Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph was published by HarperCollins on April 24.
The real question is can gays be republican without being gay activists and making their sexual preference central to everything they do?
The “Civil Union” bill slipping through the Colorado House today, doesn’t have any “Conscience Protections” in it, which sets the stage for future battles with the Catholic Church and others.
It amazes me how much time and ink is spent on language and thought processes twisting some kind of grey area out of an abomination.
So what is wrong with being anti gay?
RE: The real question is can gays be republican without being gay activists and making their sexual preference central to everything they do?
I think the answer is ‘YES’. That is — if they don’t succumb to the temptation. Politics is much more then one’s sexual preference.
The faggots took the word gay and are the ones who have radicalized. They use their perversion to call Tea partiers “teabaggers”. If they want conservatives to “get along” they should try changing their ways.
that would NOT be anti-science....that would be anti-sucker.(many scientists who are in the know....know that it is bogus)
as the purveyors of anthropomorphic global warming are left wing ‘religious zealots’ whose purpose is to turn America into just another 3rd world backwater.
Koran, Shura 7:80-84...
I don't mind being called a Tea Bagger...as the loser-leftists are, in fact, Tea-Baggies...who do not mind (and probably enjoys) what dangles in their faces.....”
Not a dadgum thing.
Nothing in the anti-hetrosexual agenda has anything to do with equal rights. It’s tyranny and special rights for anti-heterosexuals.
Conservatives and Gays: Where Do We Stand? (We can oppose same-sex marriage without being anti-gay)
NO. As a Conservative, an American, a Christian, a human being, I must be anti-perversion. Does not mean I am against the particular person per se. I am against the perversion they participate in.
Homosexuality is a illness and we (all of the above) have allowed the Socialist/Communist/Progressives to remove it from an illness and even to bring it under protection of the Government. We messed up big time.............
I must confess, I am anti queer, when it's "in your face normal person, you must accept me and my perversions as normal".
Prager is talking about a hatred of gays as a whole, not just the hatred of their “lifestyle”. In that regard, the problem with being anti-gay is that you discard the whole individual on the basis of a personal failing. So many of these people are Libertarians or are mostly conservative aside from their sexual preference. Did you read the article?
Prager, a Jewish man I believe, is reflecting Christ like values. Look, we are called by God to love people but not embrace or endorse sin. I have known (and do know) homosexuals that are good, decent people. I won’t encourage their lifestyle—and in fact hope they repent.
We are all in need of God, and to deliver that message it often is best to let those around us know that in a manner they can receive and understand. Some (most) lost people are very spiritually deaf and dumb, so a gentler approach to them is needed.
Public policy issues, though, are a matter for us to stand strong to preserve a sane society. Again, it can be done gently....but must be done FIRMLY.
I HAVE noticed how the media isn’t reporting this vote was a BLOWOUT. More media bias.
‘In the closet, or in the crosshairs.’
Gay this, gay that... enough of the identity politics. If gays could drop their gay activism and simply be Americans then we wouldn’t have a problem.
Keep your perversions to yourself!
What’s wrong with being anti-gay? Why do so many conservatives buy the line that says we have to qualify our opposition? Gay-ness can’t exist without someone practicing it. Eliminate the gay people and you eliminate gay-ness. (And by “eliminate,” I don’t mean murder or assault; I mean convince them of the wrongness of their actions).
I understand the “hate the sin - love the sinner” meme. But one doesn’t “love the sinner” by tolerating a practice that will doom him to hell. One rejects the behavior — and its practicioner — and demonstrates that within that particular circle, perversion is not welcome. Repent. Change. Abjure the soul-robbing belief that you can copulate with others of your sex and we’ll welcome you back. Continue in your wanton and willful ways and you will dwell beyond the pale.
What’s wrong with that? Don’t we have the right to reject people whose behavior we find abominable?
I had to scan through lots of rambling to get to the above which his main objective of this article.
He wants Republicans find a way to look like they are accepting of homosexuality (LGBT “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender” is the new term ) to appeal to young voters without alienating the conservative base, good luck on that.
How about LGBT discrimination laws? He avoids that one completely.
How about appealing to Hispanics without amnesty? Republicans have no ideas there,
I used to believe homosexuality was a choice. I could never understand what 'natural selection' process would give an advantage to males not being able to procreate, and have a 'gay gene' of sorts. I now believe most homosexuals are defective, in the sense that something happened with the X or Y chromosome in the early stages of life that prevented them from becoming fully male or fully female.
So yes, I too have sympathy for them, as I do any handicapped person or sinner. Adultery and homosexuality are both sinful acts. "hate the sin - love the sinner"
Do homosexuals deserve more rights? No. We all have our God given rights.
The author needs to define “anti-gay”.
Without a definition, that type of discussion has no meaning.
“So what is wrong with being anti gay?”
Nothing. I won’t even use the word gay anymore. They are homos, or Sodomites.
That should be bronzed.
Remember the big picture.
The big target of the left is the family.
They seek its destruction.
Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. I am proudly anti-homosexual. I feel sorry for people that have this chemical imbalance/mental disorder, especially the many who became homosexual after being sexually molested as a child.
Where we stand is “Live and Let Live” is not nearly good enough for the growing activist portion of the gay community.
I am anti-gay agenda.
I will also oppose any gay-agenda promoting person, whether gay or not.
Am I anti-”people who are homosexual”? No more than I am anti-”people who drink and drive”.
I’m not happy with chronic “dwi”ers, but they generally don’t stand up in public and loudly proclaim that everyone should be doing it.
For homosexuality to flourish, it must of necessity be SOLD or IMPOSED by a representative. After all, 2 gays don’t make babies. Gays are made, not born.
I Always get confused.
Was it General Sherman or General Sheridan who said...”the only god queer is a dead queer”?
In 30 years:
"As it happens, there are far more people engaging in beastiality who hold conservative values than many beast activists or conservatives realize. And we should embrace these people. Engaging in beastiality does not automatically mean that one is on the left, and conservatives should not make that assumption. Otherwise, we risk pushing beastiality conservatives leftward."
The person who controls the meaning of words controls the outcome of the debate. So, what exactly is “anti-gay” mean, exactly with respect to public policy and personal morality?
I take my personal morality from Scripture, which forbids sexual immorality of any kind. Moreover, Scripture tells us that it is God who defined marriage, not man. And Jesus tells us that although man has taken unto himself the power to alter marriage, that “from the beginning” it was God’s intent that marriage only is one man married to one woman. (see Matthew chapter 19).
I find sodomy to be revolting, disgusting and degrading.
Marriage is a God-define, not a government-defined institution. When we allow government to make decisions or to consider the marital status of any citizen for purposes of taxation, then we must allow government to decide and codify who it considers to be “married” and who is not. Because of the pervasive nature of government, and especially of the ever-expanding Leviathan State that we sadly have, the governmental definition of “marriage” takes on an authority all its own, apart from God’s statements on the subject in Scripture.
And that brings us to today’s political and moral tension, when the body politic becomes too detached from the idea that God defines marriage and starts to allow that the State can do so, no matter how unsuited it really is to do so.
Christians who defend the Scriptural definition might be tempted to say that it doesn’t really matter, but it does.
When you review the public positions and background material published by advocates of any-sex marriage, like the Human Rights Campaign (http://www.hrc.org/issues/marriage), you find that when the reasons are listed, most have to do with taxation, and personal decisions in the event of incompetence. But most of these issues are already addressed in other ways in existing laws.
Two unrelated people can already designate to each other the power of attorney so if the other is unable to make medical decisions, the other is legally empowered to do so.
Two unrelated people can designate property inheritance upon the death of either one.
The main issue has to do with allowing an unrelated person to gain access to the tax-exempted and employer-subsidized medical insurance of another person. This is yet one more horrible consequence of the decision made in World War 2 to allow employers to pay for the medical insurance premium with pre-tax money.
But every one of these issues could be repaired by simple changes in federal or state law. Yet, that is not what is being advocated. What is? The redefinition of marriage, not so that people can form same-sex unions, but so advocates of homosexuality can force everyone else to give something they yearn for very deeply- the approval of their sexual immorality.
It matters to me because as a parent, if I live in California and send my children to public school, it is official policy for the school to instruct my children on the benefits to society of this form of sexual immorality. If am forbidden to object or withdraw my child from this indoctrination.
It matters because if I am in business and I decline to provide services to same-sex couples because of how morally revolting they are to, they could use government to destroy my business. This is exactly what happened in California to a wedding photographer who declined to accept the work of photographing a same-sex “wedding”.
It matter because if I am an employer, and I have a company event, the same-sex “spouse” of an employee expects to be treated exactly the same as all other spouses, which is something I cannot do.
Having said all that, we live in a Constitutional Republic. I do not want to have a government that is so powerful that it can tell me what I may or may not do in the privacy of my own home, or with consenting adults. I cannot demand privacy for myself and my wife without granting privacy to everyone else. However, advocates of rights for homosexuals are not satisfied with that. If we could just end it there, I could live my life and they could live theirs. However, they want to rub what they are doing in my face, so they can force me to approve of it.
Because, in the end, what they really want is approval, which they are never going to get. The are welcome to move to States where they can force people to approve, or at least prohibit them from objecting in public. That is not going to end well, for already California is becoming the most graphic example of social self-selection. That is, people who agree with that that state is doing are moving there and residents who can’t take it anymore are fleeing. As a result, Cali is becoming Greece and Sodom all wrapped into one. This is not just a matter of preference because at one time, California had the 7th largest economy in the world. It is slipping fast. And so, in a long string of moral consequences, we see how damaging “alternative lifestyles” can be to both personal morality and to our common prosperity.
RE: Was it General Sherman or General Sheridan who said...the only god queer is a dead queer?
See post number 11 of this FR thread:
And as such his lifestyle and choices contributes to the moral decay of not only the party but the nation. Sorry, Dennis. You can keep your half-conservatism.
One can be against Homosexual or Lesbian ACT but no need to be rude or crude against the person. I’m sorry I will not lower myself to a liberal level of calling people names simply because they don’t abide by God’s rule. Jesus himself said “I’ve come NOT TO JUDGE but to save”.
I treat everyone with respect (whether gay or not)the way they treat me. We treat Homosexuality as a the bigger sin just remember Heterosexual also have sexual sins which is not favor of God’s eyes. I myself am agaist Same Sex Marriage but no one should be deny jobs, insurance, etc. simply because of sexual orientation.
I feel sorry for them, as my mother always said “just pray for them”. I have doubt that I believe the majority were molested as a child. Again let us not lower ourselves to the liberal level of name calling.
That's very true.
The problem appears when gays want the right to do whatever they want to do by claiming privacy, yet want legal approval of those private acts.
On a personal level, I'm willing to let whatever happens in Vegas stay in Vegas, but legal recognition of someones 'sexual orientation' or 'gender choice' based on the fallacy of 'discrimination' is ludicrous.
There is no discrimination. We are all naturally born with a gender, and gays have the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender as everyone else does.
That is why we are losing America. You enable liberal causes
If you want a lovely chapel ceremony, a lavish reception and a honeymoon cruise, go ahead: that's what vendors (including -- ahem -- certain religious vendors) are all about.
If you want to co-sign on car loan or a bail bond, or a 30-year mortgage --- if you want somebody else to be your health care proxy, your financial proxy, or the sole heir of your estate --- more power to you: that's what contract law is all about.
None of this requires government approval -- a marriage license --- because there is no state interest (no civil, secular, public interest) in what you and your Extra Special Other have decided to do with yourselves for the nonce, for the weekend, or even for the rest of your lives. Two People In Love --- two adults pursuing their own fulfillment --- can do that on their own. Go ahead. No matrimonial certification required.
A public interest --- and hence, civil marriage --- arises only in the context of the one-and-only kind of sexual relation that can beget offspring: new human beings who are NOT adults, and whose identity, kinship and provenance are (usually, used to be "normatively") defined and sorted out by their origin in their parents' union.
That constitutes the core public interest in civil marriage.
As for all the rest?
It's a free country.
"We don't need a piece of paper from the City Hall."
Follow your bliss.
And leave me out of it.
“I have sympathy for those with homosexual attractions that they can’t control. We need to have compassion on such poor souls.”
Do you also “have sympathy for those with heterosexual attractions that they can’t control”?
Last time I checked, we call those folks “sexual harassers” if they have a little restraint, and “rapists” if they have none.
If you want to throw in the old “consenting adults” caveat, then you have fornicators and/or adulterers. Not real popular terms these days, but accurate, nonetheless.
Do you remember what “Imprinting” is from your biology and behavioral psychology school days. If not do some research.
I think God has designed children to be imprinted for good but unfortunately God's design has been perverted...........
> We can oppose same-sex marriage without being anti-gay.
We could, but then that would be implied approval.
I oppose homosexual everything.
I agree. Also, I’m sick of conservatives running scared, and hastening to “clarify” their beliefs when leftists start to screech and yelp. This defensiveness must stop.
The question why did Jesus come, has a lot of answers, It is Gods word that will judge us and we can and should use Gods word to inform others. In fact, if we do not speak the truth to them, we don't love them. It will be Jesus who saves us IF if chose that, but it will be Gods word that judges us, we DO NOT escape judgemt.:
“I came to testify to the truth”
“I came not to bring peace to the world but to divide..............” Homosexullity is a behavior. You and I discriminate on behavior all the time because they reflect character. Are you going to hire someone who embezzled from their former employer. Are you going to hire some one who cheats on his wife, are you going to hire someone who does drugs? I judge people all the time and then hold myself to the same standard. Evidence of repentance and change are always part of the process. Again homosexualitly is a behavior, behaviours are complex because God made us complex. Do some research on "imprinting" which I think is part of Gods design for us but has been perverted. Now think about what is imprinted on the kids these days.
In Washington State, “civil unions” came first, then “gay” marriage happened very quickly afterward. Don’t believe it, when they say it won’t.
Truly, hate the sin, love the sinner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.