Category Archives: homosexuality
A thought experiment (via Conservative New Ager) and a few follow up thoughts on my letter to the editor.
Before we begin this thought experiment, a disclaimer. If you burn anyone’s holy book intentionally you’re an asshole (burning a trash heap and they just happen to be in there, that’s not intentional). That is a given. No need to really discuss it because the assholishness of the act is self-evident. It shouldn’t be a crime, but if you do it just to be obnoxious, there is something wrong with you.Now for our thought experiment.
If I burned a copy of the Tao Te Ching, how many Taoist do you think would riot?
If I shredded….(continued at link)
via A thought experiment.
As one of the intelligent responses (probably the only one) said: Your reactions were all very dramatic and, ultimately, only proved that Ms. Walker’s assessment was, at least in part, right. The reaction to her criticism was completely disproportionate to the criticism itself.
So from me, to the State Press and all those who responded to my letter, I extend a heart felt thanks.
You proved my point completely. Learn to take criticism where criticism is due. This religion is not based around peaceful ideology (which was my point, my point was not ‘all muslims are crazed terrorists’ as you seem to be thinking, can you read?), this religion is not respectful of women, homosexuals, or Jews.
Quite simply, you are lying through your teeth…or still deluding yourself.
Do you remember the reports surfacing that Iran was going to be putting ships, equipped with long range missiles, just outside America’s maritime borders to intimidate us?
Not that it worked, because, in the words of one of the comments on an article from that day “They would fry their own equipment”. I mean, it’s Iran. The idea that any of their missiles would actually hit us or that their ships could even make the trip and set up some sort of Flotilla, as the Iranian Navy commander, Admiral Habibollah Sayari, called it back then, is just about as laughable as the plot of the new Red Dawn movie.*
But the viability of their plan isn’t why I’m reminding everyone of this.
I’m reminding them of this, because Obama seems hellbent on being Ahmadinejad being his new best friend and organizing play dates between the United States and Iran, while he stops excepting Netanyahu’s calls and removes Israel from America’s friend’s list.
Israel has been our ally for a very long time, may I remind you.
Israel is one of the few countries in the Middle East who celebrates freedom, has equal rights for women and LGBT members of their society (while other countries strip women of their rights and strip LGBT people of their lives), and promotes freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
These are things that mirror American ideals. So why is our President cancelling meetings with Netanyahu and, instead, verbally getting cozy with Ahmadinejad, the leader of a country that has intentionally tried to militarily intimidate our country and doesn’t exactly mirror us in their view of freedoms.
In fact, they don’t have any respect for the freedoms we hold dear in our country, their constitution doesn’t even respect the sovereignty of other nations, because their intent is to put a one world ISLAMIC government in control.
Don’t believe me? Here’s part of their constitution’s preamble.
in accordance with the aims and aspirations set out above, with the hope that this century will witness the establishment of a universal holy government and the downfall of all others.
- based on a translation provided by the Iranian embassy in London
Where we have a Bill of Rights, even the preamble of their constitution goes against the very basic freedoms that America should be promoting.
Want some examples?**
WOMEN IN THE CONSTITUTION
In the creation of Islamic foundations, all the human forces which had been in the service of general foreign exploitation will recover their true identity and human rights. In doing so, women who have endured more tyranny up till now under the idolatrous order, will naturally vindicate their rights further.
Women were drawn away from the family unit and (put into) the condition of “being a mere thing”, or “being a mere tool for work” in the service of consumerism and exploitation. Re-assumption of the task of bringing up religiously-minded men and women, ready to work and fight together in life’s fields of activity, is a serious and precious duty of motherhood. And so acceptance of this responsibility as more serious and – from the Islamic point of view -a loftier ground for appreciation (lit: value) status (lit: greatness) will be forthcoming.
You know how feminist’s these days get so upset about women who ‘sell-out’ by choosing to stay home and be full-time mom’s and homemakers?
If Iran had their way that would be your ONLY option ladies.
Because having a life outside the home, having choices, that’s EXPLOITATION. No, your real freedom comes from being coerced into being a housewife with no rights outside those that your husband gives you.
THE RELIGIOUS ARMY
In the organization and equipping of the countries defense forces, there must be regard for faith and religion as their basis and rules. And so the Islamic Republic’s army, and the corps of Revolutionary Guards must be organized in accordance with this aim. They have responsibility not only for the safeguarding of the frontiers, but also for a religious mission, which is Holy War (JIHAD) along the way of God, and the struggle to extend the supremacy of God’s Law in the world.
“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of God and your enemies, and others beside”.
Quotation from the Arabic
Jihad, extend the supremacy of God’s (Allah’s) Law in the world, religious mission, strike terror into the heart of the enemies of your God (which would be anyone who doesn’t follow their God, fyi).
THE JUDICIARY OF THE CONSTITUTION
Thus provision must be made for the establishment of a judicial system on the basis of Islamic justice, manned by just judges, well acquainted with the exact rules of the Islamic code.
Sharia Law anyone? Sounds lovely.
THE PUBLIC MEDIA
The public media (radio-television) must take their place in the process of development of the Islamic revolution, and must serve in the propagation of Islamic culture. In this sphere they must look for opportunities for a healthy exchange of differing ideas, and must rigorously refrain from the propagation and encouragement of destructive and anti-Islamic qualities (ideas).
Freedom of the press? Not so much.
Yeah, that seems like a good country to be allying ourselves with.
Great job Obama.
Great job liberals.
I think they’ve lost the plot, maybe we all have, but I’m here to help you find it again.
*who thought that implying North Korea could invade America was even a plausible plot? Seriously. They should have kept the plot they originally, wrote. At least China has the numbers to attempt an invasion.
** All examples come from the Iran Chamber Society.
*packs bags to switch political camps*
Because I’m not a moron.*
First of all, you are a gay person and think this means that the Democratic party cares about you one iota, you are naive…and a moron.
Just the same way you are a moron if you think that Obama’s jury-rigged, executive order dream act (which not even top officials at ICE agree with) means they care about illegal immigrants.
As Mark Steyn, over at National Review, put it: You are the Democrats house pets. You are convenient now, but the moment you aren’t good for their cause they will cut off all the favors and nice words.
As an exercise in sheer political muscle, it’s impressive. But, if you’re a feminist or a gay or any of the other house pets in the Democrat menagerie, you might want to look at Rahm Emanuel’s pirouette, and Menino’s coziness with Islamic homophobia. These guys are about power, and right now your cause happens to coincide with their political advantage. But political winds shift. Once upon a time, Massachusetts burned witches. Now it grills chicken-sandwich homophobes. One day it’ll be something else. Already in Europe, in previously gay-friendly cities like Amsterdam, demographically surging Muslim populations have muted leftie politicians’ commitment to gay rights, feminism, and much else. It’s easy to cheer on the thugs when they’re thuggish in your name. What happens when Emanuel’s political needs change?
Liberal politicians regularly cozy up to Islam, a religion which, the the countries where it runs the show, encourages institutionalized hatred of women and homosexuals. Want to talk about American culture ‘blaming rape victims’? Let’s talk about women being whipped for being raped in Muslim cultures under Sharia law, the law of Islam.
In Muslim countries, homosexuality is still a punishable offense with either prison or death being the punishments in most cases. In Iran, only months ago, 4 gay men were hanged for being homosexuals.
But liberals have an uncomfortable habit of viewing Islam as “an unfairly maligned religion of peace” as Sam Harris pointed out earlier this year.
But hey, no need to worry about that, because liberals will let us get married! Don’t worry about the fact that the groups which they considered allies (The Muslim Brotherhood), support (Hamas), and protect (Iran), are all in a hurry to kill or imprison all of us.
No need to make a stir over the fact that the same Boston mayor (Tom Menino) who said “There is no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail” in reference to the owner of Chick-fil-A saying he supports traditional marriage, also have given $1.8 million of municipal land to the new mosque of the Islamic Society of Boston. Who lists Yusuf-al-Qaradawi as a trustee.
In case you don’t know who that is, he’s a man whose tolerant view of homosexuality led him to say “Some say we should throw [homosexuals] from a high place, [s]ome say we should burn them, and so on. There is disagreement. . . . The important thing is to treat this act as a crime.”
Yeah, no cause to worry about what liberals REALLY think about gay people.
No reason to think they only want to support us for as long as we are useful.
Because, hey, they say they are going to put gay marriage on their platform.
*Also, it would helps because I don’t support gay marriage, but if you read my blog you already know that…I hope.
For those of you who are confused. No, I haven’t suddenly morphed into a liberal. (At least 2 people have permission to perform a cognitive recalibration [aka hit me really hard on the head]* if that ever happens.)
You see, it’s very hard to get me really invested in the same-sex marriage debate, since I’m a person that doesn’t believe that marriage should be a government contract at all. I think, as that post says, that there should be civil union on the government level and marriage on a religious level. It’s a simple solution that leaves nobody with what they actual want, but that’s what compromise, on a political level, is really about.
The very morning that this news occurred, I was writing a post about why Obama’s “evolving” views on gay marriage did not impress me. Luckily nothing I was planning to write in that post needs to be changed, because I’m still not impressed.
While it may be hard to criticize his view on this particular topic, as I share the feeling that this is a state level issue, this really goes back to consistency and the willingness to do what you believe, instead of saying one thing and doing another as a way to ensure campaign donations. Forgive me if I find it hard to believe that this was not a timed and orchestrated ‘confession’ of support, but zero action, on the President’s part. Timed after the vote on North Carolina’s ‘Amendment 1′ and just before the Washington Post’s questionably researched hatchet job about Romney prep school years.**
But the real issue is that I just don’t give a flying flip what Obama personally feels about gay marriage, just as I don’t give a flying flip what Romney personally feels about gay marriage or gay people.
The proof is in the actions you take, not in the personal “evolution’ if how you feel about a topic.
Obama is still refusing to repeal DOMA and the only other actions the LGBT community can point to is the repeal of DADT, which was not even Obama’s doing. Congress passed the repeal, Obama merely signed it. Despite promises in 2008 to repeal DADT, Obama waited until he lost the House in 2010 to begin his attempt this repeal, instead spending the first 2 years of his term (when he had a Democratic majority in the House and Senate) to shove a healthcare “reform” bill, that the American people overwhelmingly did not support.
Let’s consider Romney now. He is against same sex marriage on a personal level. Something which has been the case for a long time. Despite this, he did not suspend his action to do what was legally correct when it came to signing same sex marriage into law in Massachusetts when he was governor. When asked his opinion, he gave it honestly, instead of hemming and hawing and making excuses about “evolving” views.
That’s why the title of this post is “Keep your personal opinions out of my bedroom.” because that is what I ask from all politicians, whether I agree with their personal views or not, because I am well aware that others may not agree with that view even if I am convinced that I am 100% correct in my views. The key is not to rely on your personal view of the situation, but what is actually the right way for the government to handle the situation, based on our constitution and laws.
So, no President Obama, your “evolution” does not impress me, nor should it impress any of the gay community. The members of the gay community who have swooned and cheered at your “support” should take care to not become puppets in failing President’s scheme to gain more campaign funds and another term to cause more harm to our economy and the American way of life.
For another, beautifully eloquent, article on this issue, please check out J. Michael Heilig’s post over at the Politify Online blog.
Our President has proven himself inadequate to lead this nation. In spite of the deficit, a failing economy, rising inflation, a continuing war effort, nuclear threats from Iran, strained ties with foreign allies, the death of labor jobs in the US and a job market that is all but dead, and the many other woes that face our families day in and day out our President remains aloof. He is more concerned with birth control and marriage and other social issues. Why is this? Why is this man’s mind so narrow? It is because he is pandering to minority voters.
Shame on anyone who supports this administration for it’s stance on social issues! Shame on anyone who denies the Obama record and votes for this man on the merit of his word! Shame on anyone who goes to the polls not knowing fully what this President stands for! And shame on those who have turned their backs on the American people and vote in blind obedience to a party system that has failed both you and I as well as everyone else in this suffering nation! Shame on all of you because you have cast your vote in ignorance! Shame on you for taking for granted the rights that the founders of this nation bestowed upon you to select our leaders and for using these rights to elect a man who ignores the plight of his people!
**Which I don’t mind saying, even with my limited studies of journalism, is the most rambling, incoherent, hatchet job I have read in a long time.
(This is the first, in what may be 2 or 3 posts on this issue. This is a general response, next I will respond to the rest of his speech, and perhaps another post to deal with some of the responses that liberals have had to the completely justified outrage that conservatives are feeling about this.)
I spent most of the day, yesterday, trying to figure out how to start this post.
I’m usually quite witty (if I do say so myself), but I’m honestly just very angry about this. Wit has deserted me in favor of mental equivalent of “HULK SMASH!”
Now let me preface this with something that I don’t talk about often.
I am not a Christian. Let’s get that out of the way so that I won’t be categorized as a “religious bigot”, “butthurt Christian”, “conservative fundie”, or any of the other terribly tolerant language that the liberal blogs have been categorizing anyone who takes issue with Savage’s language as.
Yes, that’s right, I’m personally pro-life and extremely conservative in most other ways…but I don’t believe that Jesus Christ rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, ate the last supper with the 12 apostles, or died on a cross and rose again 3 days later.
I do believe that the Bible has some good stories and some good lessons to teach, just as I believe about many religions. I believe that it shows a unique look at a society (or a religious history, for the Jewish people, if you are looking at the Old Testament) and it must be read in the context of its time, as a form of history. (Something even my mother who, unlike my father, can be a bit of a Biblical literalist, freely admitted in a conversation with me last night).
The Bible, similar to most other philosophies and religions, has some bad parts as well. The large portion of the Old Testament is history and some truly awful shit has gone down in every society/religion at some point.
Now, having said that.
What Dan Savage said in his rant (yes, that’s what I categorize it as. Lot’s of anger, no real substance) just made him a bully and destroyed his credibility as a promoter of “anti-bullying” views.
Yes, calling a holy book, or part of it’s contents, “bullshit” is sometimes accurate (I often say similar words about things that about the Q’ran) however, saying the things he said in a pre-planned speech, to a group of high school students, was bullying. This wasn’t said in the heat of the moment, when he was angry at someone coming after him personally, this was pre-meditated and there is no way he did not know that many students and teachers in that crowd would be Christians. That would be a statistical improbability.
Then, of course, he took it a step further and called those who did the mature and walked out (rather than I would have done, even as a non-Christian, which would have been stand up and take him to task…or possibly pop him in the mouth…depending on my mood) “pansy assed”. Which, unless I’m wrong, is a pejorative used to refer to effeminate gay men.
Oh the irony inherent in a man who hates the bullying of gay people, using a gay slur to insult others.
Maybe he should have just called them faggots and gotten it over with.
I have an intense problem with hypocrisy. It is the one thing that will automatically make me lose all respect for you.
I may not like the views of certain groups (PETA, liberals in general, the Taliban, etc) but if you can remain consistent in your views and actions, I can at least respect that you know your own mind…even if I can’t stand the way your mind works.
It is the hypocrisy of Dan Savage’s views that kills me.
You cannot truly know yourself or your beliefs if you believe that bullying of one group is wrong, but bullying of some other group is fine…because you don’t like them.
You can’t be believed or respected if you say “It Gets Better” from one side of your mouth, while the other side says that you wish an entire political group was “just fucking dead”.*
You can’t demand respect for gay people, while using gay slurs to categorize those that you don”t like.
You can’t demand change and respect from people, when your actions against those who disagree with you is to make up vile uses for their name.
Not only has he shown his hypocrisy, but Savage has once again shown his sheer lack of intelligence (Yes, I think you are unintelligent if you can’t hold consistent beliefs, it isn’t hard to do) and his immaturity.
Is this really the person the gay community wants to represent the great future that is in store for young GLBT people?
How can life “get better” if the role model for a better life is so filled with anger, so bitter and hurtful to others?
You can’t fight fire with fire Mr. Savage. Perhaps it was your intent to live up to your name, but you are doing a great disservice to those you claim to be trying to help.
As Perez Hilton said** “Can’t we just be good and kind to each other? Isn’t faith in love and honesty and kindness all any of us really need?”
That is what will get our world where it needs to be, not divisive language and anger towards anyone who doesn’t fall in line with your ideal.
*As a gay conservative/Republican I would like to know what that means for me. Should I just die to make Savage happy? Or does life get better for me too, since I’m gay?
**Yes, I was shocked that he was one of the people to speak out about this.
It’s been a while since I worked on this series. Even longer for those of you reading this on my personal blog (The Snark Who Hunts Back) as opposed to the articles on Queerlandia. (Yes, they are posted in both places. It’s relevant to both blogs).
Here is the review of the original documentary that this information comes from, for the most part.
I’m writing about both Leviticus verses in one post today. Each verse on it’s own would be terribly short and both have some similar issues.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”
- Leviticus 18:22
“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
- Leviticus 20:13
Before we get to bogged down in analysis of this verse, I would like to mention that Leviticus 18 (in fact all of Leviticus) is a lot more complicated than a simple book of the Bible that tells a story like the Gospels, or Esther or Ruth (my two favorite books of the Bible, if you want to know). It is ritual and theological moral and legal code that was devised to govern the priest class (Levites) and the other tribes of Israel. The code was established by people interpreting theological ritual into rules for a society. I know of no serious Biblical scholar that refers to Leviticus as a book that was “inspired” by god.
Now that we have that out of the way.
Let’s talk about the actual meaning of these verses.
First we hear from Reverend Gregory Dell and Dr. Amy Jill Levine on the purpose behind these two particular verses.
The purity codes, the holiness codes from which Leviticus 18 is taken had a very specific design. And that design was to help distinguish themselves from the other cultures and faiths around them.
- Reverend Gregory Dell
The text is interested in categories and everyone and everything fits into an appropriate category. The categories do not mix.
- Dr. Amy Jill Levine
Then of course there is the constant issue that we find with Leviticus.
All we ever hear about from religious fundamentalists is “homosexuality is an abomination – Leviticus 18:22″.
What they seem to forget, is that Leviticus was a code of conduct for a people group over 2,000 years ago and they had a lot of funky ideas about proper behavior and what was an “abomination”.
[I]f one in the church must insist on using Leviticus then it seems only appropriate for those members of the Christian church to look at other laws in Leviticus.
To pick and choose which laws to follow and which laws not to follow, at the very least we need to determine why are we choosing this law and not that law.
- Dr. Amy Jill Levine
In chapter 18 of Leviticus alone there are at least 19 prohibitions against different types of sexual relations.
That’s not to mention the incredible amount of truly odd things that are mentioned in the book (as well as the rest of the Old Testament) as being “abominations” and “detestable” outside of sex.*
One of the prohibitions mentioned specifically in the documentary is Leviticus 18:19.
“‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.”
When this is mentioned, Pastor David Ickes had this to say.
Okay, but still, how does that support homosexuality? All that does is tell me that we should start preaching against people sleeping with their wives on their cycle. That doesn’t give you any justification whatsoever.
Okay, so here is where I earn the name of my personal blog, because hoo-boy does this comment deserve a lot of snark.
Where do I start? (this could almost be a blog of it’s own).
First thing. He says “people sleeping with their wives”. People? Shouldn’t that be “men sleeping with their wives.”? For someone that is all about heterosexual marriage, he’s being very PC in his language.
Secondly, the point wasnotthat the sheer number of silly prohibitions invalidated the one about homosexuality. (We’ll get to that later). The point was that you can’t run around preaching that homosexuality is an abomination and ignore all the other rules that you and your congregation are breaking without looking like a horribly hypocrite.
If there is one thing that I truly hate in this world, it’s a hypocrite. I don’t use the word ‘hate’ lightly.
Third. So why don’t you preach to men and tell them not to have sex with their wives during their period or the 7 days after it?
Try it. You’ll be laughed off the pulpit. People are happy to listen to prohibitions on other people’s sex lives, but a pastor who starts telling people how and when to have sex with their spouse and you will be out of a parish really damn quick.
That’s the same reason why most churches, even the American Catholic church, barely even look askance at divorce anymore. Or remarriage after divorce. That second one, specifically, carries a penalty of death in the Bible.
Okay, now I’ll leave Ickes alone. He’s not all that bright it seems, but that isn’t the point of this post.
Here’s where the real issue of this verse becomes clear.
This verse isn’t, just like the rest of these verses, talking about homosexuality at all.
What Leviticus actually says is “A man shall not lie with a man, as a woman”. In other words ‘a man shall not treat another man, sexually, as if that other man were female.
- Dr. Amy Jill Levine
Greek homosexuality had the same concept. Men were not women, you could have sex with them, but you couldn’t treat them like a women. You could even have a relationship with another man (as women could with women, y’know…Sappho) but that man would not be another women. He was intrinsically going to be more than a women, based on that culture, and he would be more your equal.
Every woman in that time was the property of some man. A part of the way you claimed and made this property your own was the consummation of the marriage through intercourse. If you have sex with a virgin who isn’t properly betrothed to you, you have damaged another mane’s property. So all of thsi is really just property law and according to the understanding of this law code a man cannot own another man like that.
- Reverend Dr. Fred Neidner
Guess what…you can’t own anyone that way in this country in this day and age. So does that make heterosexual marriage invalid as well?
*List compiled at Canyonwalker Connections by Kathy.
So the Prop 8 Court decision came in a few weeks ago and along with the Birth Control Mandate helped push Rick Santorum up in the polls.
And the gay rights community rejoiced. Which I found odd, as usually, people don’t rejoice in their own downfall (ignoring the Obama inauguration and mythical behavior of Nero). Wait, ruling that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional is bad for gay rights?
Professor Charles Xavier: We have it in us to be the better man
Erik Lehnsherr: We already are. We are the next stage of human evolution, you said it yourself.
Oh I can already hear your grumblings. “Great, she’s doing another X-men/Gay rights comparison. Isn’t she ever going to get tired of comparing these two things?”
Short answer: No.
However, this post isn’t about gay rights so much as it is about how the gay community in general (the gay liberal community specifically) is missing their chance to be the better men in this scenario.
Erik Lensherr was wrong, being a mutant didn’t make him any better than non-mutants. Just as we, the gay community, are not better, more tolerant, or more deserving of respect, simply by virtue of being gay. Put away that victim card, stop playing it. If someone criticizes your belief, your behavior, your politics, or your attitude, the response of “but I’m gay!” or “You’re only saying this because your self-loathing/homophobic” is irrelevant and smacks of asking for special privileges to act however you want because you were bullied as a child, maybe your parents tried to “pray away the gay”, or you aren’t able to marry who you want.
Let me tell you right now, I don’t really fucking care about your sob story. Everyone, and I mean everyone, has one. It’s not an excuse to treat others like shit.
In fact it should be the reason that you treat others better than you were treated. I know the glbt and liberal community have (in general) no great love for the Bible or Christianity, but maybe a refresher course on The Golden Rule is in order.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
It doesn’t say “Do into others as you think they will do unto you” or “Do unto others as others have done unto you”. And maybe you aren’t a Christian, that’s fine, neither am I, but at the very least this one verse is one that should be followed.
And when I say that we are losing the opportunity to be the better men, it is because the gay community insists on returning hate to those that disagree with them and, on occasion, hate them. I don’t deny that there are those out there who actively hate gay people, but having a difference of opinion doesn’t equal hate and it doesn’t deserve hate in return. In fact, true hate does not deserve hate in return. In light of tomorrow’s holiday, I will quote Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend.”
Why do I choose today to say these things? Because in the last couple of days, a fellow gay conservative blogger, The Gay Republican (aka Ethan Sabo), has come under extreme and hateful fire from the left. I don’t always agree with all of his ideas, nor do I always support all the same things that he supports. We have a difference on opinion on several social topics such as abortion and even our ideas on gay marriage differ in some ways. His support of Santorum I do not understand, as Santorum is one of the least Conservative candidates on display currently. I’m also not a fan of Ron Paul, for several reasons.
However those differences in opinion are things that we occasionally discuss. We both have good, strong reasons for believing what we do and the odds of us changing each other’s opinions is slight at best. We do not insult each other, we rationally discuss our differences, and agree to disagree on those occasions that we differ in opinion.
Now I understand that there are rational gay liberals, I know a few personally, who would not stoop to the insults, vulgarity, and hatefulness that Ethan has received. However that doesn’t change what has happened to him, what happens to me in comments and emails as a result of this blog, or what happens to other gay conservatives who dare to stand up and make their beliefs known.
In Japan they have a saying, “the nail that sticks up gets hammered down.” It means that if you are part of a group and you insist on having different beliefs, political views, or attitudes than the rest of the group and you make them obvious, the rest of the group, the majority, will pound at you until you get back in line with the rest of the group…or just sit down and shut up.
Sorry, I insist on being the nail that sticks up and the squeaky wheel in the machine of the gay political movement. Someone has to be and I’m proud to be that person, along with Ethan Sabo, Mel Maguire, and all the other gay conservatives out there who daily stand up for their beliefs, no matter how unpopular they are and no matter how hurt they may feel by the hateful words that get thrown at them for those beliefs.
In closing, here are some of the videos that have sparked this backlash at The Gay Republican.
One of the amazing things I would like to comment on, is that gay conservatives can receive such levels of abuse from comments and then, when we defend ourselves like Ethan does in this next video. WE are accused of being the hateful ones.
And finally, a response to the hate, made by Mel Maguire from Gay Conservative.
If you are gay and conservative and you live in the Phoenix Metro Area (or Arizona in general, depending on how far you want to drive), then I and Lori Heine (a fellow gay conservative blogger from the area) are starting up a group to bring us all together.
I know that I, for one, can sometimes feel very alone as a gay conservative. I’m surrounded by people that don’t understand why I’m a conservative and it sometimes seems that I can’t hold a conversation with another gay person, without defending my views constantly. It makes a person feel isolated, even with people like Daniel Blatt at Gay Patriot (who has advertised our group on that blog as well) and groups like GOProud out there, making themselves visible.
Sometimes you just want to go grab a cup of coffee or spend an evening with people that understand you and that you can have a serious political discussion with and not want to scream.
So if you are from the area and are sick of being in the closet about being a conservative, then you need to comment here, shoot me a message on Twitter, email me at Sakasamanochou@gmail.com, or check out our facebook group and join us. We already have a few that are interested and we hope to find more in the future.
And if you are a gay conservative who is from some other area, there are more of us than you probably think and if you start looking you will find others around you and maybe you can start up a group of your own.
Foreign aid now comes with strings attached and that’s a good thing. So why is it wrong when domestic government aid comes with strings?
Britain and the United States have both decided that enough is enough. They aren’t going to be handing out anymore foreign aid to countries that ban homosexuality or do not adhere proper human rights in other cases. David Cameron, the Prime Minister of Great Britain says that aid should come with more strings attached.
“Britain is one of the premier aid givers in the world. We want to see countries that receive our aid adhering to proper human rights. We are saying that is one of the things that determines our aid policy, and there have been particularly bad examples where we have taken action.”
And in the United States
“I am deeply concerned by the violence and discrimination targeting LGBT persons around the world,” Obama said in a memorandum. “Whether it is passing laws that criminalize LGBT status, beating citizens simply for joining peaceful LGBT pride celebrations or killing men, women and children for their perceived sexual orientation.”
Obama said, “I am directing all agencies engaged abroad to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons.”
Much to my chagrin, I have to say that if Obama actually enforces this plan, I’ll have to applaud his actions. We can’t give money to countries that are doing things we disapprove of. It would be like continuously giving out free money to people who are only going to spend it on drugs and not on bettering themselves.
Of course I would be a little happier if Obama had decided that any violations of human rights would be enough to nix foreign aid for a country, similar to David Cameron’s plan. Making it only about issues discrimination and violence toward the GLBT community just seems a bit like he is ignoring all the other violation’s of human rights that happen all over the world that have nothing to do with homosexuality.
Liberals are, of course, very excited about this move on both country’s parts. Most of the Conservatives I know are also pleased and if they aren’t, they should just remember something that The Conservative New Ager said to me a couple of days ago. If America is only giving aid to countries that don’t discriminate against against homosexuals, then the countries we give aid too will shrink drastically (good for the deficit) in fact the number will probably shrink down to only 1…Israel.
Of course there is something ironic about Liberals being okay with, even excited about, financial aid coming with more strings attached. Remember that comment I made about giving money to someone so they could just spend it on drugs? Yeah, you may not have read this post I wrote in June, but give it a read really fast.
Liberals were in an uproar about how wrong it was to give people drug tests before they could qualify for welfare. Isn’t that basically the same thing as telling other countries to shape up or we won’t give them money? America and Britain don’t want to subsidize the violence and bigotry of other nations, I think we can all agree that is great. So why is it suddenly wrong when the tax payer’s of America don’t want to subsidize someone’s illegal drug habit?