Bryan Fischer: The myth of the gay conservative - Bryan Fischer

[TomSea]

The myth of the gay conservative

By Bryan Fischer

A new and quite insidious trend has been launched in some conservative circles, a trend that unless it is stopped will eat away at the foundation of conservatism like a cancer until the foundation rots away and the whole thing collapses.

This trend is the notion that one can be a practicing homosexual and a conservative at the same time. It's impossible. Now it is certainly possible for a homosexual to hold conservative views on certain issues, and even defend them on talk shows, but it is not possible for him to be a conservative.

He, for instance, might be able to articulate a conservative view on national defense, or Second Amendment rights, or school choice, or repealing and replacing ObamaCare. But he cannot be a conservative.

Why? Because at the center of conservatism is a non-negotiable view of human sexuality and the family. At the heart of a conservative view of the world lies the family. Not the individual, mind you, but the family. At the heart and soul of conservatism is the notion that marriage consists of one man and one woman and a family consists of a married father and mother and the children they conceive together through their love for each other.

Continued: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/170215

There is a Gay Patriot blog that has been around, this sounds like it is possibly aimed at that Milo fellow.

[geronl]

I wonder if Judge Napolitano will write a response?

[EC]

Odd. I thought it was conservative to tend to your own and not to scream like a frightened virgin about what someone else is doing somewhere else. Prolly just me. 

[jmyrlefuller]

Because at the center of conservatism is a non-negotiable view of human sexuality and the family.

Actually, well, no. That may be one of the planks, but it's not the non-negotiable center. It never was.

In fact, basic biological truth is neither a conservative nor a liberal view. It's just being in touch with reality, something much of Western society seems to have lost for the sake of adhering to the prevailing dogma, to the point where they'll trot out group-thinking "scientists" to create a false truth of their own, just so they feel better about believing it.

[TomSea]

Odd. I thought it was conservative to tend to your own and not to scream like a frightened virgin about what someone else is doing somewhere else. Prolly just me. 

@EC
That's sort of how Barry Goldwater saw it and in this, we are a bit in waters that are both Conservative and Libertarian. Goldwater warned the GOP back in the day of becoming taken over by the Moral Majority Christian types. At the same time, Reagan was certainly a social conservative.

[truth_seeker]

I don't recall Reagan rejecting the "Log Cabin" Republican's support.

Dennis Hastert was never questioned during his tenure, either.

So if Republicans care all that much, the evidence escapes me.

[Cripplecreek]

 

[Doug Loss]

Odd. I thought it was conservative to tend to your own and not to scream like a frightened virgin about what someone else is doing somewhere else. Prolly just me. 

Not just you.  Read my .sig below and see how many of us feel about it.

[Cripplecreek]

What you people are desperately avoiding here is the fact that the only reason you know about gay "conservatives" is because being gay is central to their being and must be part of an agenda.

You are being effectively liberalized and even adopting the language of the left to protect yourselves from the uncomfortable truth and clowns like that Milo idiot take great joy in your fear of him.

No conservative cares about whether someone is gay or not but these people who are calling themselves "gay conservatives" are pushing an agenda.

[EC]

Fear milo? That'll be the century.

[Cripplecreek]

Fear milo? That'll be the century.

Yes they do fear him. Its why he pretends to perform oral sex on a microphone or brags about seducing a priest. He knows conservatives don't have the stones to tell him to take a hike and risk being called homophobes.

I don't care what people do in their bedrooms but these gay conservatives can't seem to keep it to themselves aside from a few like Tammy Bruce.

[mountaineer]

I don't believe there is a single definition of "conservative."  A lot of things go into it.

If a homosexual truly stands for smaller government and fiscal responsibility, he certainly shares something of conservativism with me. And if he helps me elect a representative who stands for those principles, great. If he and I agree on even more issues, even better.

[EC]

There's a lot more that do keep it to themselves than don't - and I'm not just talking conservatives.

But, there are some that do get in your face about it. What's the best way to combat that?

Not caring. If you don't care, they shut up. It's also easier on the blood pressure.

[Silver Pines]

What you people are desperately avoiding here is the fact that the only reason you know about gay "conservatives" is because being gay is central to their being and must be part of an agenda.

You are being effectively liberalized and even adopting the language of the left to protect yourselves from the uncomfortable truth and clowns like that Milo idiot take great joy in your fear of him.

No conservative cares about whether someone is gay or not but these people who are calling themselves "gay conservatives" are pushing an agenda.

@Cripplecreek

Exactly right.  As an example, recall Peter Thiel at the Republican convention last summer, with his "proud to be gay" speech.  What he does to whom was irrelevant, or should have been.  But he went on to say that the culture wars are nothing but a pointless distraction.

I was just reading a post at TOS.  Someone was gushing that, thanks to Milo, he finally realized that gays are born that way.  Milo, this sheep says, ts the most important conservative voice today, and a very dangerous prima donna homosexual.  He's so glad he made this important philosophical discovery, and finishes up with, hey, give homosexuals like Milo a chance...they're going to save conservatism where straight white people have failed.

Seriously.

Want to bet he isn't the only one who thinks that way?

[geronl]

Milo is not a conservative by his own admission, he literally hates conservatives

[EC]

Milo is not a conservative by his own admission, he literally hates conservatives

Same with video games and gamers - his previous rabble rousing incarnation. Milo is nothing but a self promoting whore who would die without attention.

[Frank Cannon]

Actually, well, no. That may be one of the planks, but it's not the non-negotiable center. It never was.

In fact, basic biological truth is neither a conservative nor a liberal view. It's just being in touch with reality, something much of Western society seems to have lost for the sake of adhering to the prevailing dogma, to the point where they'll trot out group-thinking "scientists" to create a false truth of their own, just so they feel better about believing it.

 

[geronl]

Milo is nothing but a self promoting whore who would die without attention.

I think he would love that label.

[TomSea]

But per some remarks, saying "well, gays can keep it to themselves", at the same time, they could say "keep your opinions on gays to yourselves" and then, we are back at square one.

Per the Goldwater thread: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,223312.0.html



Goldwater was a bit radical on this issue; but I think his opinions on it were formed in a different time but he was talking about a different social issue.  Some of what he said could still stand though; in a sense, one could say "you are imposing your Christian morals on others". 

That's what is hard about this because eventually, it comes down to many issues being like this.

[Silver Pines]

But per some remarks, saying "well, gays can keep it to themselves", at the same time, they could say "keep your opinions on gays to yourselves" and then, we are back at square one.

@TomSea

If they're going to constantly shove their sexual behavior in my face and demand that I approve it, exactly why should I shut up about it?

Can you answer this directly?

Is that what you think conservatives should do?  Keep their opinions about homosexuality to themselves?

[TomSea]

@TomSea

If they're going to constantly shove their sexual behavior in my face and demand that I approve it, exactly why should I shut up about it?

Can you answer this directly?

Is that what you think conservatives should do?  Keep their opinions about homosexuality to themselves?

Without your condescending personalization of your statement; again, if one is denying others the right to marriage, that is not about them shoving their sexuality in others faces.

If this is not a debate forum but an acting self-righteous forum, then, we can leave the conversation there. These are simply questions asked on this topic.

I think the States should deal with legal matters per same-sex marriage, does that answer your question?

[Doug Loss]

Without your condescending personalization of your statement; again, if one is denying others the right to marriage, that is not about them shoving their sexuality in others faces.

If this is not a debate forum but an acting self-righteous forum, then, we can leave the conversation there. These are simply questions asked on this topic.

I think the States should deal with legal matters per same-sex marriage, does that answer your question?

The fundamental difference here is the definition of the term "marriage."  If you consider marriage to be a spiritual union between one man and one woman, "same-sex marriage" by definition doesn't exist.  If you consider marriage to be some state-sanctioned contractual relationship, you alienate a large portion of the religious public.  Many of us on the more libertarian edge of things believe that there should be no laws dealing with marriage at all.  For legal and inheritance purposes, the state should sanction civil unions between any people meeting whatever criteria it sets.  Just don't call it marriage and most religious people would have no objections.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I don't believe there is a single definition of "conservative."  A lot of things go into it.

If a homosexual truly stands for smaller government and fiscal responsibility, he certainly shares something of conservativism with me. And if he helps me elect a representative who stands for those principles, great. If he and I agree on even more issues, even better.

 

[Silver Pines]

@TomSea

Without your condescending personalization of your statement

;

"Personalization"?  Who was I speaking to besides you?  Never mind...

again, if one is denying others the right to marriage, that is not about them shoving their sexuality in others faces.

Sure it is.  As far as I'm concerned, a man and a woman can marry.  Including "others" is a redefinition of the entire concept but it isn't marriage. 

The entire push for gay marriage has nothing to do with "equal rights"; rather it's a demand that their lifestyles be met with wholesale approval.  Witness the related cases of bakery owners who won't bake their cakes being driven to ruin.  They have zero tolerance for the slightest dissent or disapproval.

Have you personally known any gays?  I have.  I can attest to the truth of the article I'm linking below.  They're notoriously promiscuous, even those who claim to be monogamous/married.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/26/most_gay_couples_aren_t_monogamous_will_straight_couples_go_monogamish.html


"And in legalizing gay marriage, we are accepting a form of sanctioned marriage that is not by habit monogamous and that is inventing all kinds of new models of how to accommodate lust and desire in long-term relationships."

It's naive to believe otherwise.

If this is not a debate forum but an acting self-righteous forum, then, we can leave the conversation there. These are simply questions asked on this topic.

So in other words, if we don't think like you about gays and gay marriage, we're self-righteous.  Yeah, I see where you're coming from.

I think the States should deal with legal matters per same-sex marriage, does that answer your question?

Yes, you've answered that one and others, as well.

[TomSea]

Unfortunately, there are real issues to look at in this, after the Supreme Court struck down "sodomy" laws; it's simply hard to prevent the snowball down the hill of same-sex marriage.

States have always regulated marriage and should have been allowed to continue to do so.

That; or as said, just issue contracts but that again, puts it back to the municipalities and states.

The Federal Government originally gave tax breaks to couples in raising children. Those were good intentions but nowadays, the focus has shifted to "equality".