Democratic candidates place homosexuality at the center of the American order
(Note: Below, I give my
take on what Ben is saying.)
Ben W. writes:
Yesterday I was introduced to a new term on television: LBGT (Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, Transgender). I watched the LBGT forum from Los Angeles for two hours in which the Democratic Party candidates appeared to discuss LBGT issues with the panelists and audience.
1. I have never felt such a deep divide between myself and the Democratic candidates. Each one stated that the LBGT agenda, when carried forward through legislation, will make the US overall a better place in the progressive scheme of things. The assertion—by each candidate—was not only that the gay community would have their rights guaranteed and assured as an aspect of American constitutional law, but that America as a society would move towards a higher and better historical stage for implementing the gay agenda.
2. Each candidate (except Richardson who misunderstood the question) affirmed that the gay individual is born with a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality. Or confirmed the statement that the creator (God) made the gay individual what he is. It was disturbing to see the Democratic candidates affirm positively this view of human nature without reservation. This type of affirmation transcends political assertions since it addresses the basics of human nature.
3. Each candidate specified that “not enough was being done” to push forward the gay agenda at both the state and federal levels. The reason being an obstructive Republican presidency and Congress. All the candidates stated that they would use “executive orders” to move gay demands forward.
4. Several of the major candidates said that they had been aware of LBGT issues for a long time and had voluntarily brought them up in their current and past campaigns without being prompted by the gay community. In other words, the gay community was not just another politically motivate group but a community whose significance paralleled the march of civil rights in the 60’s. This forum, each and every candidate said, was a major historical breakthrough for American political history.
Because the candidates went beyond mere political pandering to making assertions about human nature and American history, I have never felt so distanced and alienated from the Democratic Party as yesterday. If I harboured any feelings about possibly voting for say a Hillary because I did not want to see a Giuliani in the White House, that all went down the drain. I still wouldn’t vote for Giuliani but I couldn’t cast a vote for one of the Democrats because the philosophical gulf is overwhelmingly wide! It wasn’t just the political pandering to the gay agenda, it was the firm affirmation, without hesitancy or reservation, of fundamental philosophical principles by the candidates in affirming the gay view of biology and history.
So much so that some candidates even went outside the realm of politics to criticize any anti-gay theology within the churches (which I did not feel was their prerogative). However they did so when several panelists urged them to consider the question of religious influence on legislation—was it “fair” and equitable to allow religious considerations by churches to “intrude” into government policies.
As I say, the gulf widened infinitely between myself and these candidates. Would be curious if anyone else saw this forum?
Ben continues:
1. I was surprised with what ease and familiarity the Democratic candidates tossed around the LBGT acronym. Every few minutes one of them would say something like, “The LBGT agenda is high on our list” or “The LBGT community is one I’m comfortable with.” No one slipped up or slurred over these four letters—it was as if somewhere down the line “LBGT” has become incorporated as a key word in the Democrats’ political lexicon and vocabulary.
2. Probably not a lot of people saw this forum across the nation. It was broadcast on a minor, secondary channel. However I sense that its significance outweighs the size of the viewing audience. I say this because the gay view of human nature (biology) and American progress (history) now has been accepted by the Democratic Party. This is a fundamental sea-change because what was implicit has been made explicit. Not one candidate had any questions about or reservations concerning the gay view of human nature and history. The candidates’ concern was how to politically incorporate and legislatively implement these fundamental views of biology and history into the American experience. It went beyond civil rights!
My guess is the fallout from this will be considerable in the coming years, much more than people realize. America is about to see an extreme, liberal form of history and biology institutionalized in our civic structures.
LA replies:
Ben says that the “gay view of human nature (biology) and American progress (history) now has been accepted by the Democratic Party.” He writes:
Each candidate … affirmed that the gay individual is born with a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality. Or confirmed the statement that the creator (God) made the gay individual what he is…. This type of affirmation transcends political assertions since it addresses the basics of human nature.
Ben says that it is an unprecedentedly radical step for the Dems to be saying that “God made the gay individual what he is.” Here’s what I think he means.
The American political order is based on the “self-evident truths” that man’s nature is created by God, and that since this nature requires certain things for its existence and natural fulfilment, namely life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, those things are rights that come from God, and government is instituted among men to secure those rights.
If the Democrats are now saying that God makes the homosexual person what he is, then they clearly intend to integrate homosexuality within this core American understanding. They are saying, not just that man’s nature is created by God, they are saying that the homosexual nature is created by God, and therefore the things that are necessary for the fulfilment of this homosexual nature are God-given rights, and that government is instituted among men to secure those rights. They are thus placing homosexuality at the center of the American order, and making the progressive fulfilment of the homosexual nature central to America’s historical purpose.
Ben W. replies:
Your take and interpetation of my notes on the forum is absolutely right!
When you say that the gay view of human nature now becomes incorporated into American history and our country’s “fulfillment,” that is dead on. Like Condoleezza Rice saying that America wasn’t truly America until the civil rights movement.
I don’t think that the Democrats were kidding when they said that this forum was a historical moment in political discourse.
That’s why I was disappointed that there was no Republican response. The Republican candidates were invited and they all declined.
Had I been a Republican candidate I would have accepted the offer to appear at the forum. I would have come on stage and said, “Folks, I fundamentally disagree with your biological and historical views. I’m sure I won’t get a single vote from you but our views cannot be ignored; nor can your views go unchallenged.”
I would have presented them with scientific research that rebuts the genetic view of homosexuality. As well I would have taken a rational, social and historical approach (from within Western civilization) to defining marital relationships in a traditional manner. I would have also said that, like it or not, the Biblical view—the Judeo-Christian ethic—informs our understanding of law and as such pre-empts other anthropological visions.
Then I would have concluded by saying, we have profound disagreements but I am here to answer your questions from within my framework (which is not negotiable) as politely as possible. I will not get your votes but the discourse cannot be one-sided by our absence.
LA replies:
Ben, that was spoken like a true traditionalist conservative. It’s not just about winning votes. It’s about laying out the principled alternative to liberalism.
N. writes:
I wager that only a handful of people outside of the homosexual subworld saw that debate. It was played down so far as I can tell on all the news channels, although the comedian Kimmel did mention it very late on his show on ABC. The Democratic party has every reason to play down this debate, because homosexual marriage is a very divisive issue not only within the country but within the Democratic party. Black people are overwhelmingly opposed to it, for example.
Bill Clinton went out of his way to get funding from homosexuals in 1992, attending fundraising events in California. He then proceeded to carry out as one of his first official actions in early 1993 an attempt to force the U.S. military to accept homosexuals, although this was watered down to “don’t ask, don’t tell.” I did not understand at the time why he was spending precious political capital on such an unpopular, foolish and even dangerous (to military morale/efficacy) idea, but now it is quite clear it was a payback to some of his most loyal, and wealthy, supporters.
The Democratic party has not only moved to the left rather dramatically since the 1960s, it has moved into decadence. This debate certainly highlights that, as does the mainstream media’s deliberate downplaying of it.
I asked Ben what the candidates said about same-sex “marriage,” and he replies:
What did they say about same sex marriage? Very interesting tactic was used in most cases. It was the quick two-step that Astaire would have been proud of.
Obama said he did not consider it essential since the same thing was accomplished by civil unions. And only in the area of civil unions could government accomplish something legislatively. He did not come out against it; he diverted the discussion. He asked the panel, why wouldn’t they be happy with civil unions since they accomplished the same thing as marriage.
The moderator, Margaret Carlson, saw through the ruse and asked point blank, “You and I both had a ‘marriage’ ceremony that made us happy—why not extend the same to these people?” Obama once again evaded the issue by saying that civil unions accomplished everything gay people needed.
Hillary followed suite by also confirming what Obama said and took it a step further by saying that the word “marriage” had a religious connotation that government shouldn’t redefine “at this moment” but maybe in the future.
Richardson said he was neither for or against same sex marriage but that gays should concentrate on civil unions since legislatively that was a working, practical strategy, less controversial in his state.
In all cases, the discussion flipped over to civil unions from marriage in less than two seconds. John Edwards did the same thing, saying he was against same sex marriage but that did not preclude him from changing his opinion in the future. He said that he wasn’t “there yet” in his personal evolution and he wouldn’t allow religion to stand in the way. Carlson then asked him when he would arrive in his evolution at a point of approving same sex marriages. He let it go by saying let’s concentrate on those aspects of the relationship where politicians can actually help.
The gay commentators in the after forum analysis, all noticed this two-step and said that, “Much work remains to be done in this area.”
Ben W. writes:
You don’t know how right you are when you wrote,
If the Democrats are now saying that God makes the homosexual person what he is, then they clearly intend to integrate homosexuality within this core American understanding. They are saying, not just that man’s nature is created by God, they are saying that the homosexual nature is created by God, and therefore the things that are necessary for the fulfilment of this homosexual nature are God-given rights, and that government is instituted among men to secure those rights.
Melissa Etheridge, one of the panelists said to both Obama and Hillary, “God made me what I am and the Declaration says that the rights of my individual being are to be protected. This country politically should give us the freedom and protection to grow and develop according to who we are.” Both Obama and Hillary said amen to that. Etheridge invoked the Declaration explicitly.
That is where this discourse is heading. And the politicians are not backing off. Obama said that he has gone to the black community and churches to chastize them for their homophobia. Richardson said that his government in New Mexico was ahead of the people and that his failure was the inability to persuade the general populace. Notice how activist the politician has become in regards to LBGT (now I’m becoming au courant with this term).
The panel took this one step further. Two panelists asked at what stage in the educational process would the politicians advocate introducing children to the fact of the gay culture. Several of the candidates agreed that our school system should sensitize kids to the gay culture. This is what I mean when I say that the Democratic party has become active in the LBGT (there I go again) agenda. This is going beyond ensuring the civil rights of gay individuals. Historical fulfillment!
Gintas writes:
When the Democrats say homosexuality is part of human nature, I believe they are just co-opting a phrase (“human nature”) for their own use—to fool Americans—and debasing it. Liberalism doesn’t really believe there is anything immatuble about humans (human nature as we understand it), they see no constraints. If there is this idea called “human nature,” the left will work to change its definition, so that it is just another form of liberalism. Their fundamental beliefs about humans hasn’t changed a bit.
LA writes:
Yes, that is quite audacious of them, isn’t it? Especially as a main argument for homosexual liberation has been that there is no truth of nature and no truth of God by which we can say that certain behaviors are natural or good and others aren’t. Yet when it serves their purposes, they turn around and use the objective-truth language of the Declaration of Independence!
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 10, 2007 11:49 AM | Send