Skip to content

Black Shards Press

Forgetting Past Mistakes is to Repeat Them

Menu
  • Home
  • Novels
    • Liberty First Novels – The Recognition Saga
      • Recognition Free Chapters
  • Short Stories
  • Op-Ed Blog
  • About
Menu

GOP and Gays

Posted on July 12, 2007July 12, 2007 by marc

At GOP Progress today, Nate Nelson had this to say about Republicans and gays:

Without exception, the anti-gay sentiment within the Republican Party comes from those who cannot accept that people will believe and behave differently than they do. These are the people who believe that consensual sex between gay and lesbian adults should still be criminalized, simply because their interpretation of Christian scriptures tells them that it is wrong. In this, they are no different than the Islamic extremists who would impose shari’a upon the world.

This is complete garbage, of course, and the fact that this diary entry was promoted to the primary RSS feed is a sure sign that this site is going down the tubes.

I could flatter myself by saying that I’m utterly unique in America – the only Republican who opposes expansion of gay rights and yet doesn’t want to criminalize their sexual choices – but it’s more likely that Nate’s ramblings are wrong. Bummer, I was ready to go on a star trip there for a minute.

While the Bible does not condemn homosexuality beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is fairly clear on the point that homosexual behavior is not the natural way for men to conduct themselves.

Consider Romans 1:26-27:

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Pretty obvious that means gay sex was considered abnormal and undesirable, no?

But it does not follow from this passage that homosexuals should be considered criminals or that American Christians’ have any desire for this outcome. Nelson’s making a mountain out of a mole hill, I suspect, for reasons of his own whereas most Christians would probably be happy to simply be able to turn on the television without having to see the obligatory “smart cool gay guy/gal vs. the stupid hetero loser” show on every channel.

As for Mr. Nelson’s assertion that American Christianity is akin to sharia, I’m nearly stupified to silence.  But not quite.  So I’d like to encourage Nate to spend some time practicing his way of life in Saudi Arabia or Iran before writing further on that topic.  I’ll pay for the ticket myself so long as the return date is two years in the future.

Nelson goes on to say this:

…they are the ones who destroy families, by encouraging men like Gene Robinson and Jim McGreevey to live a lie, a lie that they will inevitably fail to live with eventually. They share in the responsibility for the destruction of families that results when gays and lesbians are forced to admit their sexual orientation to heterosexual spouses and to their children.

This is another foolish extrapolation. After all, one must strongly suspect that the wife of a man who has suddenly announced his gayness after a decade of marriage will immediately blame the wayward husband for destroying her family, the Republican party being rather far down the list of causes (unless she is a knee-jerk liberal). In such a case it is, after all, the man himself who has chosen to betray her and in perhaps the most cutting way of all – my choosing to reject her gender entirely.

Consider the unfortunate wife’s position. Can the poor woman really be expected to equate the act of sex as she and her husband performed it to that which he does with another man and grant the other the same value as that which she gives?

Clearly not.

Nate is quite correct in saying that gay acts should not be criminalized. But neither should society be forced to grant them the same acceptance as normal human sexuality. We need only consider the design of the human body to understand that it was meant for one use and not the other.

That fact has nothing to do with Republicans or the Bible. It simply is.

12 thoughts on “GOP and Gays”

Comments navigation

Newer comments
  1. dbroussa says:
    July 13, 2007 at 5:45 am

    There is a big difference between not wanting to give special treatment to Gays and Lesbians, and wanting to criminalize their actions. Mr. Nelson’s confuses the two. The gov’t has the right and the duty to promote choices that are beneficial to society as a whole. Thus we, as the society, have decided that nuclear families are the best way to raise children. In doing so, we provide incentives to people to have that style of families so that the next generation can be raised in the best manner possible. That is a far cry from criminalization of homosexual acts.

  2. marc says:
    July 13, 2007 at 9:38 am

    I agree.

    The question of gay marriage has been framed as one of gays being denied privileges such as spousal benefits, etc.

    While can be seen as true using one set of semantics, your point – that society’s encouragement of positive behaviors via incentives is both appropriate and quite different than penalizing undesired ones – is something that Americans need to understand and expect the government to act on.

  3. Pingback: Gays and Conservatives » The Seeker Blog
  4. Linguist says:
    July 14, 2007 at 7:00 am

    “There is a big difference between not wanting to give special treatment to Gays and Lesbians, and wanting to criminalize their actions.”

    Except of course that most of the politicians and theologians pushing hard to prevent gay couples from legalizing their relationships generally also strongly supported sodomy laws, typically aimed only at gay people.

    Governor Bush, after all, supported state laws that penalized consensual sexual behavior when between two people of the same sex while excluding that same behavior between two people of the opposite sex.

    I am afraid I just don’t buy the notion that those pushing constitutional amendments preventing same-sex couples from protecting their relationships are merely interested in HELPING opposite-sex couples. That doesn’t wash.

    Whether opposite-sex relationships are the “ideal” or NOT, there is room in this world for BOTH heterosexuals AND homosexuals. Heterosexuals give up nothing when homosexuals are treated fairly, regardless of whether you think being gay is “natural” or not. As an analogy, I don’t hear people complaining that deaf people are asking for “special rights” by being educated in sign language rather than spoken English. Does society have an “interest” in pushing education for the hearing? Of course. That hardly means it doesn’t also have an interest AND an obligation to provide education for the hearing-impaired.

    Again, our society is based on notions of fairness and inclusion. For all. You can “promote” opposite-sex couples all you want. That simply doesn’t equate to putting up obstacles in front of others whom you don’t believe are the “ideal”.

  5. marc says:
    July 15, 2007 at 8:58 pm

    Linguist, with regard to “our society is based on notions of fairness and inclusion. For all.”, what makes you think that?

    Our society is based on the idea that people have a few basic, inalienable rights and that anything goes within the confines of a general legal framework. Fairness is derived from opportunity to compete and inclusion from the core inalienable rights of life and liberty.

    Fair outcomes and inclusiveness of society’s outsiders are relatively new in terms of state-mandated policies. Formerly these ideas would have been considered charity, not social obligations.

    If you follow the trackback to the Seeker Blog in the comment above yours, a comment was made in the thread that gay marriage is viewed by some as devaluing traditional marriage just as counterfeit money devalues the greenback.

    This is my personal belief. I cannot consider the two equal, just as the majority of Americans do not.

    Neither do I accept the view that incentives to traditional marriage are obstacles to gay marriage.

Comments navigation

Newer comments

Comments are closed.

Categories

  • Abortion
  • Afghanistan
  • Africa
  • Age Issues
  • Agriculture
  • Book Reviews
  • Business
  • Celebrities
  • Child Care
  • Christianity
  • Cinema
  • Communism
  • Conservatism
  • Crime
  • Death Penalty
  • Democracy
  • Denmark
  • Discrimination
  • Drugs
  • Education
  • Energy
  • England
  • Environment
  • Evolution
  • Family Values
  • Finance
  • France
  • Free Speech
  • Gay Rights
  • General News
  • Gun Control
  • Health
  • Holocaust
  • Humor
  • Immigration
  • India
  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Islam
  • Israel
  • Justice
  • Korea
  • Law
  • Liberalism
  • Libertarianism
  • Literature
  • Media
  • Medicine
  • Men's Rights
  • Mexico
  • Middle East
  • Military
  • Music
  • My Tweets
  • National Security
  • Pakistan
  • Parenting
  • Personal
  • Philosophy
  • Political Correctness
  • Politics
  • Privacy
  • Race
  • Religion
  • Right to Die
  • Russia
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Science
  • Site News
  • Society
  • Space
  • Sports
  • Stupidity
  • Taxation
  • Technology
  • Term Limits
  • Terrorism
  • Texas
  • Transportation
  • Turkey
  • Unions
  • Venezuela
  • Welfare
  • Women's Rights
  • World
  • Youth

Archives

  • February 2025
  • March 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • October 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • March 2020
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • March 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • June 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • December 2002
  • November 2002
  • October 2002
  • September 2002
  • August 2002
  • July 2002
© 2026 Black Shards Press | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme