The state should not approve homosexuality, said Reagan
Society has always regarded marital love as a sacred expression of the bond between a man and a woman. It is the means by which families are created and society itself is extended into the future. In the Judeo-Christian tradition it is the means by which husband and wife participate with God in the creation of a new human life. It is for these reasons, among others, that our society has always sought to protect this unique relationship. In part the erosion of these values has given way to a celebration of forms of expression most reject. We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality.—Ronald Reagan, July 12, 1984.
America’s best known “conservative” advocate of homosexual rights is not pleased
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 09, 2004 03:51 PM | Send
If we only had such a leader in The White House today, fighting the Fifth Column—here at home. Instead, the best we get is Laura Bush saying she doesn’t agree with Mrs. Reagan about opening up stem cell research.
There are two acts that Bush 43 could do that might bring some conservatives back in to the fold (I am not one, for he has gone too far left for me, but possibly others would be)—and that would be to fire or accept the resignation of Karl Rove AND in the same breath, publicly break ties close White House friend Grover Norquist.
But on the subject of homosexuality, Bush 43 seems to be quite tolerant. He should be speaking out against sodomy and child abuse. I can’t recall him ever doing so. He seems to be a man driven by vote getting, and that is a complete abandonment of what many of us thought he was all about—moral leadership.
I once wrote this to Steve Sailer (In reference to Sullivan’s position on the Iraq War, but I think the title fits on this issue, too):
“If Richard Perle is the Prince of Darkness, can we start calling Andrew Sullivan the Queen of Darkness?”
I think I may start referring to him in those terms whenever discussing him and his writings.
Mr. Jose: Perhaps “Queen of the Night” would be even better! :)
I find the quote interesting because I had always assumed the Reagans to have a rather benign view of homosexuality given all the time they both spent in the movie industry. Also, I can’t recall the man’s name, but there was a friend of Mrs. Reagan’s who escorted her around when her husband was unable to who was well known to be homosexual. I would view this as a separation between Reagan’s personal views and the views he took as President.
To matt (lower case),
A modicum of intelligence and reading comprehension is expected of posters at this site. Reagan spoke of the special protections afforded marriage in our society, and said that government should not endorse homosexuality. He was not saying that homosexuals as persons should be shunned.
Thank you for that condescending response. I was addressing what I thought were Mr. Reagan’s personal views of homosexuality with his views as President; I can only assume the distinction was too subtle for you. I apologize.
Unless we are to accept the notion that all opinions are equally logical and cogent and equally deserving of respect, then it’s necessary at times to be what matt calls condescending. Some statements may be wrong, though still reasonable and arguable and thus deserving of respectful treatment. Some statements are so palpably illogical and uncomprehending that they ought to be identified as such so that they will not continue to be made. I was attempting to draw matt’s attention to his gross misunderstanding of what Reagan had said. But matt still doesn’t get it. matt thinks he has found a contradiction between Reagan’s personal view of homosexuality and his public view. But there is no such contradiction, zero, zilch, nada. Opposition to the official endorsement of homosexuality is not the same as a wish to shun all homosexuals as people. Therefore there is nothing contradictory about the Reagans’ socializing with some people who are homosexual.
This is a typically liberal fallacy, though many conservatives today are infected by it as well. They assume that morality means a single, monolithic system, so that you’re either following that system or else you’re being “hypocritical.” And since it’s impossible for anyone to follow such a single monolithic system, and since it’s not good to be hypocritical, people should just drop the notion of morality altogether. That’s what liberals want. They turn morality into an impossibility so that morality will simply be junked.
The truth is that there are degrees of morality appropriate to different circumstances, and common sense tells the difference between them. This is not liberal subjectivism, but traditional morality. An example of this traditional morality is the idea that we condemn the sin, not the sinner. This is a differentiation that modern people reject, because for them there is only the self, there is no truth beyond the self, so it’s impossible to make a distinction between the sin and the sinner, or between a defect and the person who is defective. Therefore, if you say that homosexuality is not the normal path of mankind and should not be officially endorsed, to a modern that means that you hate all homosexuals as people. If you say that blacks are on average less intelligent than whites, that means that you hate blacks as people. If you say there is too much immigration, that means that you hate immigrants as people. As I said, this outlook affects many conservatives today. Thus, when I argued once to a well-known conservative writer that he was denying the objective truth of morality, he replied that I was claiming to be morally superior to him. On such a basis, it becomes impossible to discuss anything, it becomes impossible to have politics, because if you say someone is wrong, that’s tantamount to saying that you’re superior to him as a human being. All this is the result of the liberal loss of the experience of transcendence, so that for modern people there is only the self—with no truth, no logos, no right and wrong, outside the self.
Hmmm… Ok I don’t have anything earth-shattering to add here so you might as well just skip this comment and mosey on. This post is just self-indulgence, really. But I do kind of feel the need to point out in times like this that not *every* gay person is like Andrew Sullivan. I’m gay, and while I don’t have any moral issues with active homosexuality, I do think there’s something special about heterosexuality which deserves to be celebrated. As I am fond of saying, gay or straight we are all of us the product of a heterosexual union. Shouldn’t we recognize that? Isn’t it only just to give heterosexuality a unique position in the law, given that heterosexuality itself is uniquely procreative? Like I said, nothing earth-shattering. Nothing you haven’t heard before. I just feel the need, whenever Andy Sullivan goes off the deep end on gay marriage, to show that there are gay people out there who “get it”.
Marc is thoughtful, and I don’t know how to react. He dares to be different, and some of us cannot empathize with his differenceness. What a courageuos fellow.
I agree, Marc actually “gets it” - much to his credit. I just wish that half of the brainwashed straight population “got it” as well as Marc does. If they did, the politicians who support this kind of nonsense would have to look for some honest work for a change.