Note: This is Part III of a three-part debate on whether homosexuality is compatible with conservatism. Part I can be read here, Part II here, and Part III here.
A few weeks ago activist Ryan Sorba challenged NewsReal Blog’s managing editor David Swindle to a debate about homosexuality and conservatism. This is the first round of what will be three rounds of debate.
To see "Undercover Video of Gays Admitting They Were Not "Born that Way" click here.
A few weeks ago activist Ryan Sorba challenged NewsReal Blog’s managing editor David Swindle to a debate about homosexuality and conservatism. This is the first round of what will be three rounds of debate.
To see "Undercover Video of Gays Admitting They Were Not "Born that Way" click here.
NO.
By Ryan Sorba
In an article entitled, "Should Gays Be a Part of the Conservative Movement?" News-Real managing editor David Swindle answers with a very masculine, “Yes!” then he defends shellfish eaters and masturbating (master baiting?). What a mess.
Let’s cut to the chase. The reason we are having this three-part debate is because I condemned the Conservative Political Action Conference last year (re: David Keene and Lisa De Pasquale) for bringing a cardboard box pro-sodomy organization called GOProud to the event.
Then I got booed offstage by a bunch of Ron Paul hippies for being too conservative…which was nice because that was on my “bucket list.”
In all seriousness though, with “conservatives” like them who needs Perez Hilton?
In all seriousness though, with “conservatives” like them who needs Perez Hilton?
This year almost every legitimate conservative organization, from the Heritage Foundation to the Media Research Center, has pulled out of CPAC because David Keene can’t get it through his thick skull that the homosexual agenda is not something that conservatives support.
Because libertines are pressing this issue, the question must now be formally asked, “Is it possible to be ‘gay’ and conservative?” To answer this question I must turn to my betters. Ann Coulter puts it this way:
In the '80s, Bill Buckley suggested that AIDS sufferers be required to get tattoos on their buttocks to protect other gays. As all hell broke loose over his proposal, [Joe] Sobran simply suggested that it might borrow from Dante: "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here."
No. “Gays” can’t be conservative. What part of “party of no” don’t you understand?
Of course, having grown up behind the iron curtain that is the gay-stream media, liberal-tarians believe that the term “homosexual” signifies a race of men rather than a sometime behavior. .
In my forthcoming book, The “Born Gay” Hoax I attempt re-educate the sodomy zombies, like Greg Gutfeld! They don’t call his show RedEye for nothing you know.
“Gay” activists admit in private publications that they’ve lied to the public about being “born gay.” Take Dr. Lillian Faderman for example, a winner of the Monette/Horwitz Award from the Lambda Literary Foundation. She writes the following in the Advocate, 9-5-95 pg. 43:
“Gay” activists admit in private publications that they’ve lied to the public about being “born gay.” Take Dr. Lillian Faderman for example, a winner of the Monette/Horwitz Award from the Lambda Literary Foundation. She writes the following in the Advocate, 9-5-95 pg. 43:
“We continue to demand Rights, ignoring the fact that human sexuality is fluid and flexible, acting as though we are all stuck in our category forever…The concept of gay and lesbian identity may be nothing but a social construct, but it has been crucial, enabling us to become a political movement and demand the rights that are due to us as a minority. What becomes of our political movement if we openly acknowledge that sexuality is flexible and fluid, that gay and lesbian does not signify ‘a people’ but rather a ‘sometime behavior’?”
Well, maybe Greg Gutfeld isn’t really brainwashed. Maybe he’s just trying to look sensitive for Gavin Newsome’s ex-wife.
Since sodomy “does not signify a ‘people but rather a ‘sometime behavior’” criticizing sodomites is no different from criticizing swingers or Al Gore for that matter. Let’s be honest, they’ve gotten themselves into some creepy stuff!
Conservatives don’t support special rights for sodomites, swingers and sadomasochists because these behaviors are intrinsically immoral. As Russell Kirk so aptly put it, “The conservative believes in an enduring moral order.”
For the conservative there is an inner order and an outer order. In the inner order reason rules the passions by way of the virtues. Regarding sexuality, this order leads to reproduction and unity-of-spouses in the interest of the long process required to educate children. These principles constitute the essence of marriage.
When it comes to sodomy, the order is inverted. Passions rule reason by way of vice. Thus, there is no reproduction, few if any lasting relationships, and a whole hell of a lot of over-the-top appeals to emotion.
Making an intrinsically immoral act into a fundamental right will pave the way for one group to infringe upon the legitimate rights of other groups who don’t want anything to do with immorality. This is not conservative.
The so-called “right to sodomy” has already begun to infringe upon natural rights like freedom of speech, religion, and association, effecting corporations, fraternal organizations, and not-for-profits. Many can no longer dictate what their employees wear on the job (cross-dressers), which bathroom they use (transsexuals), or the types of people they have to hire, and invite into their everyday personal and financial lives.
Not to mention in 2011 tax payers will shovel out twenty billion five hundred million dollars on HIV/AIDS treatment for those who cannot afford insurance. Three out of four HIV/AIDS patients is a male who has chosen to participate in the promiscuous homosexual lifestyle. Only about two percent of the male population chooses to adopt this lifestyle.
David Swindle chants the libertine mantra: “The people are sovereign.” But neither state nor individual sovereignty is “absolute.” When one man’s “sovereignty” interferes with another man’s natural rights, as in the case of sodomy, sovereignty must take the back seat –lest it become just another euphemism for tyranny.
YES.
By David Swindle
If you masturbate then you can’t call yourself a conservative.
If you eat pork or shellfish then there’s no room for you on the Right. If
you’ve been divorced then you’re going to need to find another political
movement. If you don’t identify as an evangelical Christian or a Jew then we
don’t want you.
There really isn’t any debate that these four statements are
absurd. Who would I ever find to engage in a debate titled “Should Masturbators
Be a Part of the Conservative Movement?” It seems silly to think that what one
does with their private parts in the privacy of their home with consenting
adults should have any relevance when it comes to the political figures and
ideas one supports.
But that’s exactly the “debate” that’s going on, thanks in large
part to Ann Coulter answering “yes” to the question in the headline by speaking
to gay conservative group GOProud. This prompted the ire of WorldNetDaily
Publisher Joseph Farah who promptly disinvited Coulter from his event. Never mind
that Coulter is a Christian who does not believe in gay marriage.
This controversy leads to this question: What does it mean to be
a conservative? What exactly is a political conservative trying to conserve?
Answer: a government based on the principles of two documents, the Declaration
of Independence and the Constitution. Conserving such a government today
requires our engagement in two interrelated fights. The first is the defense of
America at the military level from those wishing to slaughter us, most notably
today Islamic radicals and rogue regimes like Iran. We can only pursue this
first objective if we fight the second simultaneously: if we make sure that our
government does not go bankrupt.
There is no reason that gays and lesbians cannot be a part of
these fights too. It’s entirely in their self-interest to do so. Sharia’s
mandates for gays are quite clear.
So where does this leave conservatives on the question of gay
marriage? The same place where gays are. Contrary to popular belief there is no
universal position on gay marriage held by all gay people – thus there is no
“gay agenda.” There are gays who support gay marriage, civil unions, and the
status quo of no government recognition whatsoever. Therefore, why should there
be a “conservative” position on the issue? It makes about as much sense as
conservatives dictating whether people should eat pork and shellfish. Culture
and politics are not the same thing.
The only genuinely “conservative” response to the question of
gay marriage is one rooted in the Declaration and the Constitution where we
find this concept: the people are sovereign. The “conservative” position on gay
marriage is the one supported by David Horowitz and Dick Cheney: the citizens
of individual states should have the right to vote on the issue and make the
laws they want. Thus, one can find conservatives with views on gay marriage
that run across the board – and that’s what we have at NewsReal Blog.
Now, these positions stated, I turn explicitly to my debating
partner Ryan Sorba who has made a name for himself on this anti-gay – or, as he
would no doubt prefer, “anti-sodomy” -- cultural campaign. Sir, can you look me
in the eye and tell me in all seriousness that gays are a greater threat to our
nation than Islamofascists, a nuclear Iran, our backbreaking national debt, and
our Radical-In-Chief President who – as Stanley Kurtz demonstrates beyond
dispute in his new book -- is trying to transform America into a socialist
state?
You find this crusade so pressing that you would discourage gays
and their friends and family from joining us in waging these vital political
fights? And you would give further ammunition to leftists to cast us as
homophobic, hateful, and intolerant? Why?
How is it that fighting such admirable patriots as Tammy Bruce
and GOProud’s Christopher Barron can strike you as a higher priority than than
taking on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Anwar al-Awlaki, and Barack Obama?
