Liberty and Virtue

A person who experiences same sex attraction and who endeavors to live chastely in accordance with his religious beliefs keeps an eye out for examples of gay activists' (1) showing intolerance and hatred of traditional religious and moral beliefs and believers, (2) attempting to deny freedom of speech, assembly and religion to others, and (3) trying to cause the government to impose liberal views on sexual morality on society. Other stuff of interest to blogger may also occasionally be posted.

Gay activists do not speak for all those who experience same sex attraction!

Not all those with SSA reject traditional sexual morality!

Not all those with SSA support promiscuity!

Not all those with SSA believe the gay activist ideology of “gay pride”!

Not all those with SSA believe in making their sex drive their primary public identity!

Not all those with SSA support public indecency in “gay pride” parades!

Not all those with SSA support government promotion of homosexual activity!

Not all those with SSA support same sex marriage!

Not all those with SSA support biased teaching in public schools on homosexual matters!

Not all those with SSA demonize traditional religious believers!

Not all those with SSA wish to deny basic freedoms of speech, religion and association to those who disagree with the gay activists’ ideology and agenda!

Christian charity for persons does not require affirmation of sinful or immoral activity!

Thursday, December 16, 2004

Pro-Gay, Pro-Values, Pro-Bush

As someone whom Richard Tafel once compared to the Taliban in a private email to me, I'm not necessarily Mr. Tafel's biggest fan. However, he does have an interesting article in National Review Online yesterday in which he raises some good points. First, he points out that many with same sex attraction voted for President Bush despite the President's lack of endorsement from all the gay activist groups, including the group Mr. Tafel used to head, the Log Cabin "Republicans." I'm glad to have that pointed out again, because it shows, as I have stated before, that the gay activists do not speak for all of those with same sex attraction. He also correctly identifies the patent phoniness of John Kerry:

Social conservatives aren't the yahoos the Kerry campaign took them for. Senator Kerry became a cartoon of what the Left thinks of the Right. His team believed that by gay-bashing, church-going, and geese-shooting, Kerry could make conservative voters believe he was one of them. It didn't work.

Gays didn't believe Senator Kerry either. They gave him a wink and a nod as if to say, "If you need to bash us to beat George W. then do it — anything to win." Gay journalists and leaders rushed to defend Senator Kerry's actions as politically astute. They too believed Senator Kerry was pretending to be a social conservative to get elected.

Mr. Tafel also rightly calls to task the typical gay activist demonization of Republicans and conservatives, as here (although I reject Mr. Tafel's notion of a "gay community" -- there may be a practicing homosexual community, but that does not include all who experience same sex attraction):

Now that the election has passed, the part of the gay community that has built a movement on the demonization of Republicans will not engage in self-reflection. It will tell its followers that George W. Bush won because he gay-bashed. This will only convince the administration that it has nothing to gain from engaging the gay community in dialogue. A rigid standoff will ensue, and the gay community can look forward to four more years in the wilderness.

Mr. Tafel's analysis for the votes for President Bush among those with same sex attraction is that national security trumped moral values:

Gays who voted for President Bush had a simple logic. They recognized that both candidates opposed gay marriage for political purposes. Their primary concern was the war on terror. They believed that we are engaged in a war for the future of our country and our way of life. They believed that the rise of militant Islam is a real and deadly threat. They believed that our country, with all its faults, is a force for good in the world. They believed that our enemy cannot be reasoned with. They believed that we needed a leader who understood the world in terms of moral values, and they didn't scoff when the president used the words "good" and "evil" to describe the battle against terror. They realized we've made mistakes, but also realized that the only thing worse than making mistakes is not even trying. Many gays understood all of this and voted for President Bush, showing that they are people as well as gay people and that they have concerns beside their group interests. They wanted someone who in the difficult months ahead would stand firm in his beliefs.

I am glad that unlike many gay activists, Mr. Tafel recognizes that those with same sex attraction are entire human beings and not just animals solely motivated by their sex drive and the gay political agenda. And it may be that Mr. Tafel correctly describes many practicing and open homosexuals who voted for Mr. Bush. However, if by the term "gay" Mr Tafel refers to all who have same sex attraction, Mr. Tafel is too broad and sweeping in concluding that all those with same sex attraction who voted for Mr. Bush did so because of national security alone. Some of us with same sex attraction, and I know that I am not the only one, voted for President Bush on moral values as well as national security. Those with same sex attraction have the right to believe homosexual activity immoral and to believe that the government should not promote it through civil same sex marriage. Even if we are a minority of those with same sex attraction, we do exist, and I believe our numbers are greater than generally thought since those who reject the gay activist ideology may be more likely to choose not to make their sexual proclivities their defining public characteristic.

Charles S.


Post a Comment

<< Home

<< # St. Blog's Parish ? >>