Get PJ Media on your Apple

Klavan On The Culture

Homofascism Should Be Crushed

June 2nd, 2014 - 7:39 am

This blog is — was, shall remain — a friend to gay people. I hope it’s a friend to any person who wants to do whatever gives him joy and hurts no one else.

Many of my fellow Christians tell me that homosexuality is a sin. Maybe so, but it’s not my sin. And on the off-chance the Gospels mean what they say and I will one day stand before the throne of God and be judged on whether I loved Him and my neighbor, whether I did what I could for the hungry, thirsty, sick, weak, enchained…  well, let’s say I’ve got approximately a lifetime’s worth of other things to think about before I start worrying myself over other people’s sins.

Anyway, though our laws are steeped in Judeo-Christian principles, one of those principles happens to be the divide between Caesar and God. We are not, nor are we meant to be, a theocracy. Gluttony is a sin, one of the seven deadlies, but Mayor Bloomberg was still an overbearing idiot when he tried to tell us what sort of sodas to drink. Sin is not the government’s business, no matter what clever rationales you come up with to make it so.

So should gay people be allowed to marry by law? I look at it this way. There are going to be gay people. They are going to have relationships. Is it better for the state that those relationships be brief, brutish and meaningless or committed, affectionate and long-lasting? You figure it out.

Having said all this, I think Homofascism — this current movement to regulate and restrict opinions and outlooks toward homosexuality — indeed, toward anything — should be crushed. Lawsuits against photographers who won’t shoot gay weddings. Television show cancellations because the hosts oppose gay marriage. Attempts to silence anti-gay preaching or force churches to recognize gay marriages. Crushed, all of it. Crushed by the united voice of the people, crushed in courts of law, in legislatures, in businesses and in conversation. When someone is sued, attacked, shamed, boycotted or fired for opposing gay marriage or just opposing gayness in general, straight and gay people alike should protest. No one should lose his television show, no one should be dragged before a judge, no one should have his business threatened. Don’t tell me about a company’s right to fire its employees. It has the right, but it isn’t right. It’s unAmerican and it’s despicable.

Gay rights, like all rights, do not in any way supersede the rights of others. A free person may have any opinion about homosexuality he chooses — or about blackness or about Judaism or any other damned thing — and he should be able to speak that opinion out loud and act on that opinion if he does no immediate harm.  Basically, as long as he keeps his hands to himself, he should be able to believe and say whatever he wants without paying any price whatsoever for it other than the disagreement — and possibly dislike and disdain — of his fellow Americans.

Does he believe that homosexuality is a sin that degrades the practitioner? He should be able to say so. Does he feel it would be a sin for him to participate in a gay wedding as a baker or photographer? He should be allowed to follow his lights in peace. Does he feel male-female marriage is a pillar of freedom? Let him fight to preserve it. Does he find gay sex disgusting? Rude to say out loud maybe, but still, within his rights. Maybe he finds it unnatural (whatever that means). Or maybe he’s a leftist and feels that all gender behaviors are pure social constructs…  hey, there’s no law against being an idiot. Me, I feel that heterosexuality is the human norm, but there are harmless variants outside the norm and, you know, who cares? I’ll say the same to anyone. We should all be able to say — and vote — what we please. It’s called freedom. It’s a beautiful thing, even when it gets ugly.

The next time a business — a TV network or restaurant or anything — finds itself under attack or boycott because one of its employees disapproves of gays, they should issue the following statement. “Our employees’ opinions do not represent our opinion. Our opinion is this: it’s a free country; to each his own. And in keeping with that philosophy, we are taking no action in this matter.  Have a chicken sandwich.”

How hard is this? How did we lose this idea? You can be free, but so is the next guy. America. Simple.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
I have a hard time separating homofascism from every other aspect of the movement. This whole thing could've been laid to rest years ago with civil unions (which is a totally normal form of marriage). That's not good enough because the true purpose of this movement is to force churches and synagogues to solemnize gay marriages. That IS the raison d'être. There is no live and let live here; most folks would be fine with that. It doesn't pick my pocket if two gay men want to say they're married. So far so good. But infringing on my religious rights is exactly what they're after--they're demanding that everyone else give up their religion in favor of homofascism. They are attempting to enforce through law a religious belief that has no basis in science, reason, logic, or history. It is pure faith, and they arrogate the right to command the rest of us to accede and bend the neck. When the backlash comes, I'm afraid that many gays who are totally innocent of this particular form of tyranny will be swept up with the guilty, and I really REALLY don't want that to happen. Yet with a highly visible few attempting to tyrannize a gargantuan majority, it begins to look inevitable.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Destruction of marriage and the family was one of the enunciated principles of the post-Stonewall gay-rights movement---a movement which was founded by radicals more extreme than the Stalinists who had started the "homophile movement" in America after WWII.

The gay-rights movement has never distanced itself from or denounced that goal. Why, then, did "marriage" go from the movement's must-destroy to the movement's must-have? Because the tag of "marriage," rather than "civil union"---the logical means for protection of same-sex relationships---gives the movement an equal-protection siege platform from which it can carry on its primary function; the destruction of free speech, free association, and free exercise of religion.

The gay-rights movement has been the primary promoter of the bogus concept of "hate speech," which the Left uses to rule topics and facts it does not like outside of the bounds of discussion. The current attacks on photographers and bakers and the like are merely laying the groundwork for direct attacks on religious denominations which do not perform same-sex marriages---or which have the temerity to teach Biblical morality.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
I always find it most disturbing to hear someone so sharp and so bright like Klavan fail to acknowledge the obvious about this issue. This is merely a piece of a greater failing of our culture, just one more manifestation of the moral decline. To treat this as if it is no big deal is shortsighted and superficial. Not words I would normally use for someone like Klavan. But somehow this issue provokes that in too many like him.

The homosexual has no argument for demanding to be treated like something he isn't, to demand his relationship be treated like it is any normal romantic relationship as between a man and a woman. It is not. It never will be. It will always be a fraudulent and poor representation of what we were created, by God OR nature, to be.

The homosexual insists he is denied rights, rights that are a result of his demand that the rest of the world regard him and his relationship as we do normal heterosexual relationships. Yet, should the whole world acquiesce, it will still be a sham and a lie, with the whole of us guilty of it.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (207)
All Comments   (207)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
"So should gay people be allowed to marry by law?"

Andrew, how is marriage and family law changed when same-sex couples are accommodated into marriage? Thanks.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Thank you, this article is spot on and I when I am asked about my feelings on the subject, I shall refer folks to it.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
MT GEOFF BLUNDERS BIG TIME ON MEANING OF "EQUALITY"

It has been pointed out by people who know how logic actually works that homosexuals already have the same marriage rights as anyone else. No one is or ever has been barred from marriage as a homosexual. They merely must marry someone of the opposite sex, exactly like everyone else, because marriage is between people of opposite sex. There is no discrimination. Period.

That's rigorous logic. People who do not want to go where logic leads always have ways of squirming out via rhetoric. Children are adept at it, as many a parent who has tried to reason with a resistant child has discovered. Just as it is much easier to break something than it is to construct it, any correct line of reasoning is easier to "refute" with rhetoric than it was to discover in the first place. A person who does not want to be led to the truth can always avoid it.

So watch what MT Geoff has done below:


Someone comments, "Homosexuals are allowed to be married - to someone of the oppose sex". MT Geoff responds, "That's a right with no value. ..."

At this point, he is doing just fine (rhetorically, that is, not logically). The emotional "thinker" is led to something like: "doesn't that make a mockery of the so called right? Shouldn't it be converted to a right that has "equal value" to everyone, by, in this case, redefining marriage?"

I would point out here that "right of equal value" has been substituted for "equal right". It's logical mush, but excellent rhetoric (this kind of stuff can be dreamed up endlessly, which is why merely pointing out the current fallacy will not stop the rhetorical attack on reason - the case must be made that the rhetorician is just that, someone who is striving strenuously to establish a falsehood).

Hey, Joe has the same right of free speech in America as Bill, but Joe's right is of much less value than Bill's because Joe doesn't speak English, so according to his "'equal right' must be 'right of equal value'" suggestion, something must be changed in order to create "equal value". Joe, and every other non speaker of English must be given a free, full-time, translator. If you're against that you are a "hater" (more rhetoric).

But MT Geoff, at this point, makes a big blunder, when he immediately adds, "I have the right to visit casinos in Montana but I don't want to do so. But defending that right is of value."

Yeah, he has just pointed out that _his_ right to visit a casino in Montana is of no value to him. By his rhetorical "'equal right' must be 'right of equal value'" suggestion, he has just made the case that something must be imposed on casinos so that his right has equal value with the value the right has to people who currently visit casinos. Let's see - casinos must be forced to repay any losses a gambler incurs. Then the social value of visiting a casino will give his right equal value to the value that current casino goers enjoy (that it would destroy casinos would be unimportant).

Has MT Geoff intended to make this case? Certainly not. He has merely gotten mixed up (what a tangled web we weave when we try to avoid the truth). He has reduced his own suggestion that "equal right" must be "right of equal value" to absurdity.

Sorry, no, just because a right is of no value to you does not mean that something is wrong. Again, I have the same right to enjoy as many winters in Hawaii as I can afford as Bill Gates does, but since I can't afford it the right is of little value to me. It does not follow that I should be given tons of money to give my right value to me.

The essential social function of marriage is that childen be properly raised. There is a wisdom that if a business that excels in a particular area of commerce expands into some unrelated area, it will not do as well. So it goes for marriage. Nothing should be done that adds to marriage something that has to do with its essential, core competence. It would be a stupid move on the face of it. But look at the hostility of the homosexual lobby to people who are defending marriage as marriage. Could it be possible that these people care at all about what children need, when they attempt to shut down the conversation with hostile action against anyone who opposes them?

No, it is not possible. They are hostile to the needs of children, and to society's need to have children raised into good adults. They are absolutely hostile to it. So, supposing society is forced into insanity and accepts that '2+2=5'. Would these people, so demonstrably hostile to children's needs leave marriage alone? Of course not. There is no reason at all why, say, divorce laws should be the same for married men as they should be for a married man and woman with children. So they will change the law of marriage to more suit there own desires as the homosexual lobby cares only about homosexuals. The feminists already wreaked terrible destruction upon marriage. You can bet your last dollar
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
" Is it better for the state that those relationships be brief, brutish and meaningless or committed, affectionate and long-lasting?"
===
This difference has nothing to do with a pseudo marriage, but only in the attitude that those involved have about each other.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, frankly, for fifty years the beats and the hips and the yippies have basically viewed marriage as an institution for squares only, out dated, and just another anachronism to go the way of private property, the clan, and the state, so I find their recent evolution on gay marriage as a universal right instead of a situational historical privilege as they extoll the hypothetical values of gay marriages that don't produce children as less than credible or serious; basically they remind me of a gang of scumbag squatters taking a dump in the house they broke into while expecting the home owners to be gracious and full of good cheer for sharing their vandalized domicile and stolen property with the less fortunate.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Gay marriage hysteria is especially irritating to us long term straight couples who have done just fine for decades w/out marriage. Trying to convince me you are suffering some kind of terrible fate due to your inability to make your union official? Go ahead and make yourself blue in the face trying to win that one. I voted for SSM in my state, but that doesn't mean I am suddenly on the matrimony train. What narrow-minded scolds these "progressive" types turn out to be.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
I respectfully disagree with the bulk of this article. Christians do not go before the Throne of God in judgement. If you are a Christian, your name is written in the Book of Life and you will go before the Judgement Seat of Christ, where you will be rewarded according to the things you have done. We are not judged, as our penalty for sin was already adjudicated by the sacrifice of Christ.

I agree that we don't live in a theocracy and should not subject others to our conception of sin. We do indeed live in a Republic steeped in Judeo-Christian principles.

The important thing is maintaining maximum freedom for all of us. To treat homosexuals and lesbians as equals to heterosexuals is imperative. But to treat homosexuality and lesbianism as the equal of heterosexuality to the point of expanding heterosexual institutions, such as marriage, to include them is what is causing homofascism in the first place.

Should homosexuals and lesbians be allowed to order their lives as they see fit? Of course they should. Should they be allowed to redefine institutions (marriage and childrearing) that have been the foundation of western civilization and have served us well for centuries so that their sexual preferences have the veneer of equality and normalcy when compared to heterosexuals? No. It is stealing our freedom of expression and religion. And there is no tangible benefit in yielding to this insanity.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
(Scratching head) on your view, all Christians essentially get a free ticket to heaven -- even if they are mass murderers -- since Christ's sins washed them away. Only the good things count. On this logic, Hitler -- who was a Roman Catholic and was never excommunicated nor formally renounced his religion -- is in heaven, since all the bad he did is washed away, while the good he did (autobahns, etc., etc.) counts. Something is very wrong here.

That said, I agree with you that to treat people as equal is one thing and to treat all *lifestyles* as equal is quite another thing. The first is tolerance, which is one thing; the second is *acceptance*, which is another.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Christians whose names are written in the Book of Life are those who have acknowledged they are sinners. They have accepted the sacrifice of Christ on the cross as paying the penalty for their sins. They have asked the Holy Spirit into their heart and live their lives thereafter in obedience to God. The salvation is free, but the obedience to God and His word often comes at a high price for many. They will be rewarded accordingly at the Judgement seat of Christ.

Hitler clearly did not live his life in obedience to God. The lives of 6 million of God's chosen people is proof of that.

25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Howdy Skeptical Thinker
It is sound Christian doctrine that those who accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christi for their sins and who repent of those sins are cleansed of them. That would include Hitler if he repented, which I doubt he did in this life.
C.S. Lewis posits in the last of the Narnia novels that we will have a chance to repent in God's presence and he posits something similar in "The Great Divorce." That's less mainstream Christian thinking.
My own thoughts are rather different in any case.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
THE SUPPOSED NEED FOR "EQUALITY OF BENEFITS" BETWEEN HOMOSEXUALS LIVING TOGETHER AND COUPLES IN TRUE MARRIAGES.

True marriages are required in order that children be raised by both parents. Society needs children, it needs them to be properly raised, but child raising is a burden and it usually results in a division of abilities between the spouses as the added burden of child raising leaves too many necessary competencies for both parents to be good at every skill needed for successful lives. Usually, that means one parent sacrifices the ability to earn an income. As society obtains the benefit of properly raised children when they become citizens, it is just that certain legal "benefits" be associated with true marriage.

OTOH, single people without children are capable of becoming competent in all the skills needed to become successful and useful. That the children of single parents have so much more trouble than the children of married parents clearly demonstrates that one person cannot normally become competent at everything needed to raise children and have a successful independent life. It shows the truth of the assertion of the previous paragraph, that when a couple raises children, neither spouse is likely to end up good at all the normal competencies needed by a single person in addition to being good at child raising.

OTOH, there is no reason whatsoever why two men living together cannot be every bit as successful as two men living in different cities who do not even don't even know each other. They are not bearing any special burden - they just happen to be living together. Their common habitation in no way benefits society.

There is no case whatsoever that two homosexuals living together are being shortchanged because they are not treated as a man and a woman who are married.

This is one of the reasons I get so angry about this. It is such shameless theiving, the antithesis of what people who cared about children and the special needs created by the burden of raising them.

It is as if a team spent the day laboring under the sun in a farmer's field and at the end of the day are brought to the farmhouse for food and a wandering vagrant who just happens to be around the labourers when they are taken for food expects to be fed too and starts shouting "unfair treatment" and demanding "equal" treatment when he finds that he is not welcome.

Liars! Liars! Liars!
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
When you write "This blog is — was, shall remain — a friend to gay people" I wonder what that's all about.

First, what does "gay" mean? It is synonymous with homosexuality. Homosexuality is an identity based on how one DESIRES to achieve a sexual orgasm. A word invented in the late 1800's, it did not even enter the vernacular until the 1950's.

Let's imagine you went back in time to visit your great grandparents. They asked you to tell them about yourself. Let's say you weren't married yet, and when they asked why you tried to set them at ease by telling them that you are a heterosexual. They would not know what you were saying. Oh, they would understand what the word meant when you defined it for them, but by then their confusion would have reached whole new levels.

Central to their confusion would be this: they would wonder what on earth must have happened to the world that members of their own family go around identifying who they are as human beings based on how they desire to achieve a sexual orgasm. It would be like your great grandchildren coming back in time and identifying themselves by the consistency of their stools.

So Mr. Klavan sees it as necessary not only to embrace sexual identity, but to go out of his way in the very first sentence to say not only that he embraces this form of human identity, but that he is particularly friendly to people who desire to achieve a sexual orgasm with someone of the same sex.

The first sentence is the foundation of the whole piece. And there is so much nonsense piled into those foundational words, that there's little point in reading anything built on top of them.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Howdy RC
People have talked about sex since people have talked. Families have talked about which members might be "different" for just as long, I feel sure.
It's true that people rarely have quite this conversation with their parents or grandparents. That doesn't mean that families have been ignorant of the issues or that our grandparents would automatically have rejected a loved family member because that person was homosexual.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All