I subscribe to the homosexual agenda

I also subscribe to Newsweek and Spin, for what it's worth. Seriously, though, I am so tired of hearing bigotry masquerade as "values," hatred as "compassion." I'll be blunt: If you do not accept homosexuality, do not think that gays should marry, you are a bigot. You're not old fashioned. You're also not Christian. Again, you are a bigot. And an idiot. And I'm tired of people not calling things for what they are.

And let's spend a little time discussing the "homosexual agenda." Or the "gay agenda," whichever mindless Right-leaning idea you read about. These homosexuals – who (and I checked) are actual people and not a nameless, faceless, well-dressed mob – are apparently out to get special rights and privileges from the government. They want (gasp) to be able to marry and enjoy the benefits associated with such unions. They want (God forbid) to be able to visit their dying partners in the hospital, to make arrangements should they die. And they also want (heavens) to be treated with the same dignity the rest of us are afforded.

The nerve.

Why would homosexuals want these things? Why would they, for some strange reason, want to be on the same footing as the rest of society? Why? Why are they so in our faces with the "We're here! We're queer! Get used to it!" chants? Why do they push their radical, let's-all-have-equal-rights, agenda down our throats? Why would they stop with one single-sex marriage partner – why not marry their dogs?

If you asked any one of these questions without tongue firmly planted in cheek, there are several things you should know: This Web log isn't for you. You are a bigot. You are an idiot.

You'll hear the Right claiming to not be homophobic. They'll tell you they're live and let live (as long as you don't live next to them – especially if you're gay or black). They'll also tell you that, like them, most Americans agree that the "institution" of marriage is something worth protecting. Like homosexuals and like-minded individuals everywhere are – as seen in that hateful campaign brochure distributed this fall – out to ban their Bibles. Let's look at this confusion in depth:

If someone's religious rites don't respect everyone's basic civil rights, then something is wrong. They see it as "us" (for lack of a better term) trying to change their religious standards. But it appears to me that "their" religious views – views that not everyone subscribes to (different religions, no religion, etc.) – are being used to prevent someone from holding their basic rights.

Again, there's not an army of homosexuals on the prowl to ruin someone's religious rite. Let's say Ohio's Issue 1 (constitutional ban on same-sex marriage) failed or is somehow ruled unconstitutional. Your church could still refuse to marry homosexuals, because it doesn't have a legal obligation to do so. Do I agree? No. Could they? Sure. But I don't think your religion has the right to tell the state how it should govern a legally binding agreement.

There are two definitions of "marriage" being discussed here: Religious and civil (not as in civil unions, but the "marriage" that comes from getting the paper at the courthouse). How churches and theologians legislate the former is their business. How the government legislates the latter is their business. Never the twain shall meet.

If you don't like it that a church may in the future marry homosexuals in the religious rite, that's up to you. But it's not up to you to use your religion (one of myriad religions) to define how the state sees marriage. Because, if you do, you're somehow suggesting there's a state religion – something, if I'm remembering correctly, we fought hard to avoid back in the day.

Plus, why do we never see the religious marriage-defense roadblocks fly up when two atheists get married? Because homosexuals – like blacks and women before them – are easy targets for them to marginalize. Where does it stop? When will it end?

I'm also tired of hearing the vast red state populace complain about being preached to and looked down upon by the "liberal elite," as though we were a bunch of wine-swilling foppish dandies. Hey guys, until you get with the program and up your collective intelligence quotient a bit, get used to being preached to and looked down upon. Like a father scolds his petulant son, we must scold you for being so God damned stupid. So hateful. So misled. If you're wrong, expect to be set straight.

Here's something else you won't hear in their anti-gay, manly posturing: They're scared. They are more afraid of "Will and Grace" than al Queda attacking their local Piggly Wiggly. They see Janet Jackson's nipple on television, see "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and are scared. It wasn't so long ago that the sight of a black person in their diner provoked the same response. Fear of change is a dangerous thing. Dangerous for those afraid to change and, even more so, for those seen as the "changers."

This fear has led many to develop a terribly misled view of homosexuals. If they're allowed to marry, they say, marriage will be ruined. Why, then, is the state that allows gay marriage (Massachusetts) the one with the lowest divorce rate? If they're allowed to raise kids, they say, those children will grow up mal-adjusted. Why, then, was it reported just today that children of same-sex couples are just as well off as those with mixed-sex parents? What are you so afraid of?

And you can keep your values. I really have a hard time believing Jesus would rather keep gays out of His church and ban abortion than feed the hungry, clothe the poor and cure the sick. Remember those values? You won't hear about those at your local WASPy mega-church these days. God is Love doesn't quite ring as true any more, does it?

America is at a dangerous crossroads: We, as a nation, could remain old fashioned, looking to a hate-filled past for our values. Or we could look to the future, embrace diversity as an ideal and move forward. If I were a praying man, I'd pray for the latter. It's our only hope.

For more such debate, read this (and then these responses), as well as this.

Comments

[Ken]

Thanks..I couldn't have said it better. And you're right, with all forms of change, fear rules these people's lives. I think it has partially to do with forcing them to have to think for themselves & find out what their real opinions are on a variety of topics.
I still (crazily so) hope that there is still hope left for America without resorting to a division of the country into the thinkers & the fearful idiots. Short of that, it's off to Canada!

[doog]

Damn skippy bro!
Right square on the money.
Well said.

[Grant G.]

I couldn't agree more with your message! However, be cautious that you don't copy the abusive and intolerant views of others by referring collectively to those with right wing views as stupid and worthy of being looked down upon. My experience is that many of those with left wing views are intolerant, prejudiced, moralising and abusive of those on the right. Aren't these the values we seek to eradicate?

[Joseph]

Maybe so, but I'm tired of being nice about it. I plan on calling bullshit on right wing bigotry and insulting every last prejudiced one of them every chance I get. Yes, I realize that intolerance anywhere is to be eradicated. But worse than being intolerant toward bigots is bigotry itself.

[El]

So very well said. Today I read about James "Latent Homesexual" Dobson boycotting Ford and discontinuing biz relations with Wells Fargo bank. I almost never get off my own lazy ass but for whatever reason, I wrote to both Ford and Wells Fargo and told them not to be swayed by the hatred and idiots at Focus on the Family. That indeed many decent people, gay and straight alike, would respect them for standing up for some semblance of decency.

I'm not gay, and I actually don't like or respect Ford or Wells Fargo, but I felt it was better to provide one voice of support for them in the context of the bullying by James "Asshat" Dobson.

When are we going to wake the f&&& up?!?!?

[j w snow]

My two cents worth: the posturing by the Falwells and Dobsons of the world is done for the purpose of keeping the Falwells and Dobsons of the world wealthy. It is an ancient practice to solicit funding for the work of the lord. This is done by inflaming the prejudices and fears of the people. Enough of them will swallow the bait, and once hooked, contribute money 'for the cause'. It is really sad that this ploy is still wildly successful in the 21st century.
Prejudice and fear are not amenable to the logic that says 'what is best for me is what is best for you, and vice versa'. It does not serve my own interests to dictate how you should live in your personal life. You will only resent me for that, and wish me harm.
How on earth could another person's being homosexual affect me? Unless I fear that I will give in to my own homosexual feelings or that my children will and I couldn't live with either of those possibilities.

[Conservatives are smarter than liberals]

If ours is the party of bigotry, then how come we put more blacks into high ranking positions than you do? How come yours is the party that frequently engages in race-baiting and fear mongering?

At the time of this writing, it's too early in the morning for me to give all the examples, so just go read something like this:

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=11376

As for how conservatives feel about homosexuals, you're dead wrong. I have a very close bisexual friend. The problem is the in-your-face attitude. I don't condone in-your-face hederosexuality anymore than in-your-face homosexuality, so stop telling lies; saying that we're all a bunch of bigots. You should know better than to generalize like that.

The point is, keep it in the bed room, and let our kids grow up without being forced to think about sex all the time. The reaction to seeing Janet's nipple on TV had nothing to do with fear. TV and radio are censored for reasons that you clearly just don't understand. I'd speculate that you'd like to have porn available on public TV.

Paragraph 11 shows your true colors. You preach about diversity, tolerance and acceptance, and at the same time, show that you are really just full of hate and giving yourself reasons to direct it at a portion of our nation that you have mischaracterized to fit your notions.

Please, leave the US. We will be happier without you, and you will be happier in Canada or Europe.

Ours will still be the country to--once again--save you from another Hitler.

[Joseph]

What an idiotic comment. While you have your Condoleeza Rices and Colin Powells, think of how little you've done for those less fortunate African Americans. Think about New Orleans ...

"I have a very close bisexual friend." Is that the new, "But my best friend is black"? And cut the crap about the in-your-face attitude, I stand by what I say. If you don't accept it, you're a bigot. Plain and simple. These people are born this way. You may as well be descriminating against blacks and women. Oh wait ...

I can't leave ... somebody's got to be here to save Americans from your party.

[Rex]

Ours will still be the country to--once again--save you from another Hitler.

Hitler won't save you from Hitler....America is being run by self serving Elites..who care NOTHING for the average American. Religion has inter-twined itself into OUR POLITICAL GOV'T. THE LINE IS BLURRED and UNTIL Americans wake up - we are heading towards Fundementalizm faster then you think.

[dude]

Duh! The line has always been blurred, it says "in God we trust" on our cash, you idiot! I'm not a biggot, I support homosexual's rights to the same benefits as hederosexuals. The statement that I have a friend who is bisexual shows that your notion that conservatives are homophobic is wrong.

I'm not a biggot. Not everything is as you see it.

One thing that conservatives do for blacks is support school vouchers. Surveys show that blacks also support school vouchers. With vouchers, black families could choose to give their money to better schools so their kids could get a better education. You libs--on the other hand--don't support vouchers, because you don't want teachers to have to work to keep their jobs. It's no wonder we have teachers having sex with students in school, and kids having sex in class while the teacher watches. But to you this is good. You'd say they're "exploring their sexuality".

New Orleans was a natural desaster and the people who are truely responsible for what happened there is the local liberal government and the idiots who wouldn't leave. They've known this would happen for decades.

You're not saving America, you're destroying it with your messed up socialist ideas, like gun control.

Anyone who thinks Bush can be compared to Hitler is a complete moron and needs a serious wake-up to reality. Try to set aside your hatred just long enough to truely examine the facts.

[Joseph]

Will somebody wake this man up from his coma?

[Karl]

Nah, he's funnier this way.

[abqnmboy]

"...the people who are truely responsible for what happened there is the local liberal government and the idiots who wouldn't leave..."

sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and you, my friend, are an idiot.

[Richard J. Palmer]

I love the comments and also the bad spelling..hederosexual and biggots. Ha, ha. We gays are being excluded today again from the St. Patrick's day parade in New York. Why? Because of Catholic bigotry. Not that Protestant bigotry isn't just as intense. Look at those two factions and Irish history. And they talk about values and tolerance. I don't want to be tolerated by anyone. That sounds like I am playing the radio too loud and the neighbors have to put up with it. I am an old man now and have suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous straight intolerance my whole life. Each new generation has the intolerance inculcated into them very early on. Will & Grace and a couple of gay movies will never move the straights. Nearly all of our parents were or are straight and until we came out to them, they had in them all the Archy Bunker crap our society has picked up over the years and refuses to let go of. If they could only walk in our shoes for about a month. Maybe then they would understand what it is to be the low man on the totem pole, the lowest of the minorities and all because of the cruelty of a so-called Christian nation. The Muslims are even worse and execute and stone gays. Is this the 21st century? And we are supposed to have an agenda? Beats me what it is.

[Yellow Dog]

"In God We Trust" wasn't on our currency until 1866 and "under God" wasn't in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. Adding both was no a show of faith as much as it was politically expedient. Neither was placed there by God, since there is no God.

[oblio]

The thing that continually makes me smack my forehead is that they keep trotting out amendments to state Constitutions forbidding same-sex marriage.

Since when do we get to VOTE on people's civil rights?

Put a Constitutional amendment to outlaw interracial marriage on the ballot -- see how that does.

[Gavortnik]

You're right, Joseph. I don't care how many school vouchers you support. If you've "got something against gays," you're a bigot.

Oh, but he has this bisexual friend. And you'd be surprised how many Nazis have this Jewish friend. They get along just fine, as long as Der Jude gets back into the ghetto by curfew.

What puzzles me is how marriage as an institution can survive wars, plagues, earthquakes, fires, mass migrations, slavery, Crusades, inquisitions, the Reformation, the COUNTER-Reformation, the Renaissance, humanism, the Industrial Revolution, suffrage, depressions, women's rights, the birth control pill and legalized abortions... but CAN'T survive two guys putting rings on each other's fingers.

(BTW, it wasn't a conservative who kicked Hitler's ass, people. It was Franlkin Delano Roosevelt, possibly the most LIBERAL president in history. You know, FDR? New Deal, WPA, welfare and all that? "Conservatives are Smarter than Liberals"? That remains to be proven...)

[David C]

Boy, so sorry to be "IN EVERYONE'S FACE," as a gay man, wanting the federal government to provide me with the same rights and responsibilities of marriage that straights get.

How DARE a gay person want the same rights as others.

We gay people have such an IN YOUR FACE attitude to want to be treated equally.

Imagine our audacity!!!!

[ben]

I totally agree. Even though it is not a straight marriage it should get the same benefits. I feel the same way about my job. I work in the welfare system and it is totally unfair how these people are treated. I didnt always think this way but now I know that its my fault they are on welfare and the cash, free rent, and medical insurance they get is not enough. I want my taxes raised make us EQUAL. We need to increase the assistance so more can put rims on whatever hooptee they drive. That will make us more EQUAL. As far as gay marraige, you should definatly be able to get married. Especially in my church. What right does my church have to say who can and cant get married there.

[Joseph]

Ben, you honestly can't be as dumb or bigoted as your last two comments reveal, can you?

[Nathan]

"Bigot - a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices" - Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary.

"...I stand by what I say. If you don't accept it, you're a bigot. Plain and simple." - author of this article

...nuff said

[Joseph]

Thanks, Mr. Dictionary. Don't lecture me about intolerance. Lecture the people that hate others for simply being born a certain way. Next.

[JOHN]

BLAH BLAH BLAH
I HATE REPUBLICANS THEY ARE
SO MEAN THEY KEEP EVERYONE
DOWN THEY ONLY LIKE RICH
WHITE PEOPLE....PLEASE
COME UP WITH SOME NEW LINES
THOSE ARE QUITE PLAYED OUT

[Joseph]

I'll come up with some new lines when A. YOU STOP USING CAPS and B. The old ones aren't true any longer.

[opit]

I like the line you walk on this. Religion gets to do its thing but the state has to be kept free of the ability to put its people in different strata of citizenship on the basis of "inherent" attributes.
The only reason to push for gay "marriage" is the framing : equal opportunity and responsibility under the law. That is a legal concept to be ignored at peril to justice.