It’s clear as of early June 2007 that the Republican presidential candidates are still confused about sexual orientation and same-sex marriage. It’s embarrassing to see grown men unable to recognize – or articulate – the obvious fact that the issue is nothing more than a discussion about how a person likes to have sex and with whom.
When the subject comes up and you hear a candidate talk about being against “discrimination” it’s a sure thing they don’t realize that “homosexual rights” isn’t about the equivalence of race or ethnicity and it’s certainly not about a “third gender.” This debate is all about human sexual impulses.
The Washington Times recently reported that the “Log Cabin Republicans” are optimistic about 2008 because of the candidacy of pro-“homosexual rights” Rudy Giuliani. They believe the GOP next year will rally around economic and foreign policy issues and avoid “divisive social issues.”
Let me say it’s always been more than a little puzzling that men and women would want to form organizations based solely upon how they like to have sex. The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, for example, says it seeks to –
“…work within the news industry to foster fair and accurate coverage of LGBT issues. NLGJA opposes all forms of workplace bias and provides professional development to its members.”
The only reason their sex life is an issue for anyone is that they’ve made it an issue. I’m willing to bet that most people are like me in having an instinctive “bias” against anyone who sees their identity primarily in how they like to have sex. It’s natural to prefer not to know anything about anyone’s sex life. We wouldn’t have to if they didn’t tell us.
It’s humorous that the Log Cabin Republicans – a group of people who like same-sex sex and want to push a radical social agenda on the country – complain about the existence of “divisive” social issues.
An easy way to take one big “divisive” social issue off the table is for them to keep their sexual predilections to themselves. There is no reason why their sex life should impact public policy or be discussed at all.
As far as the laughable use of the word “discrimination,” since civilization began clear-thinking adults have always understood that how a person decides to react to inner impulses is properly subject to the judgment of others.
The Log Cabiners should also be encouraged by the candidacy of Mitt Romney. Last December he was interviewed by National Review and had this to say:
“Like the vast majority of Americans, I’ve opposed same-sex marriage, but I’ve also opposed unjust discrimination against anyone, for racial or religious reasons, or for sexual preference. Americans are a tolerant, generous, and kind people. We all oppose bigotry and disparagement.”
Romney and his staff probably think they’re being clever with this kind of answer – thinking they’re satisfying both sides. Instead what they’re doing is showing ignorance. We’re discussing an appraisal of behavior. And I would send them to a dictionary to look up what “tolerance” means and doesn’t mean.
The American Psychiatric Association recognizes at least 23 “sexual orientations.” Since Romney or his pro-“homosexual rights” advisors don’t specify which ones I’m assuming he really means what he said. This presents him a problem as he attempts to get the GOP nomination.
Republican primary voters understand that observing a person’s behavior is a way to measure a person’s judgment. Unlike in 2000, I doubt that Republicans this time will nominate a person who thinks it’s immoral to discriminate against a person who is “oriented” bisexual, exhibitionist, sexual sadist, necrophilia, autogynephilia, voyeurism, exhibitionism, zoophilia, necrophilia, klismaphilia, urophilia, or coprophilia. By the way, that such an individual claims to have been “born that way” is immaterial.
The above list is only a few of the “orientations.” Another one is that of “Gender Identity Disorder” – which despite efforts of social extremists is still considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association. It’s important to note that “Gays” and “Lesbians” lock arms with those sad mentally ill individuals – that’s what the “T” is (“transgendered”) in LGBT. You would think that would be a red flag for Republican presidential candidates and offer a clue as to what it is were dealing with.
Republican primary voters who aren’t confused by pop-culture-talk about homosexuality (as evidently Romney and his staff are) still await a candidate with the brains and guts to put this discussion in its proper context. The subject of sexual orientation is now and always has been a discussion about how people like to have sex and who they like to have it with. Thus, discriminating is a good thing.
Tammy Bruce wrote in her book “The Death of Right and Wrong” that those who see “all behaviors as morally relative and beyond judgment” engage in an all out effort to “literally change what things mean.”
The effort to pretend this isn’t about human sexual impulses hasn’t succeeded completely yet. Though I admit at times the job of setting the proper terms of this debate looks a lot like the job of those who sought to dissuade Japanese citizens during World War II that their Emperor didn’t actually descend from a deity.
Fortunately societies can and do come out of mass delusions and eventually ours will too. A little campaign shorthand might be in order. To paraphrase the 1992 Clinton slogan – “It’s about how they like to have sex, stupid!”