RSS Feed MenuJoseph Farah needs to go into rehab, and not for using the word “faggot.” Having previously argued that the Right should cede economics to the Left, and now having made the foolish choice of trying to excommunicate Ann Coulter from the Right over her decision to address the convention “Homocon,” which is hosted by the newly founded gay conservative group GOProud, Farah has finally become too big an embarrassment for anyone on the Right. Worse, he has disingenuously attempted to cast himself as the last defender of social conservatism on the map, when in fact there are more eloquent, more intelligent, more influential and more subtle thinkers who can defend socially conservative positions far more ably than he can. In fact, I have tried to count myself among them.
Farah contends that this is an issue of maintaining conservative purity in the face of gay marriage, but this is sophistry which obfuscates the question at hand – namely, whether gay people can be permitted to enter the conservative movement at all. And unlike the question of gay marriage, Farah’s opposition on these grounds can only be motivated by deep irrationality, as his argumentation clearly shows.
The first argument Farah makes – that GOProud is somehow a Trojan horse for radical gay rights groups on the Right – is laughable. Farah contends that GOPRoud has a “radical and very ‘unconservative’ agenda.” If this is true, political reality dictates that GOProud must work with equally radical groups. Yet I search GOProud’s website in vain for any mention of collaboration with homosexual rights groups at all. Indeed, perhaps the most interesting item regarding marriage on GOPRoud’s website is a news release describing how GOPRoud broke a boycott sponsored by gay rights groups. Some radicals.
Farah tries to cite evidence by mentioning two prongs of GOProud’s legislative agenda that call for a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and oppose a Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. If support for either of these two items indicates kinship with gay radicals, then I am sure that Farah must have press releases in his back pocket excommunicating Dick Cheney, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Coburn and Barry Goldwater. I hope he will release them so that we can all see just how gay federalism is.
Speaking of federalism, consider the second argument made by Farah and his cohorts – namely, that gays cannot be conservative because they have nothing to conserve. As Catholic blogger Mary Ann puts it, “Ann [Coulter] has decided that lending her name to homosexual “conservatives” (exactly what are they conserving?) is the way to go.” But Mary Ann isn’t finished – she wants Glenn Beck to know what a bad, bad man he is for quoting Thomas Jefferson’s statement that what “neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg” is no business of government:
Interesting response. It could equally justify indifference toward slavery or abortion or, for that matter, rape or spouse abuse, or pornography or any number of other moral issues. Hey, whatever floats your boat! As long as it doesn’t affect me personally, “what difference is it to me?”
Note that this woman presumes to question whether people with different sexual preferences from her own have an interest in conserving anything (the Constitution? Free market capitalism?) while turning right around and calling one of the Founding Fathers an apologist for slavery, abortion, rape, spouse abuse, pornography, etc. What exactly does Mary Ann want to conserve? Certainly not the Constitution, which has historically been used to delimit what governments can and cannot do, not what private citizens can and cannot do.
In a perfect world, Farah and his sycophants would be cast into the political outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, as Russell Kirk once proposed we do with libertarian “chirping sectaries.” Their position that gays cannot be permitted to enter the conservative movement because they have nothing to conserve places them in the same ideological company as the sort of unrepentant radicals that populate so-called radical queer groups all over the country’s college campuses, and their belief that GOProud is radical is simply uninformed by anything resembling fact. GOProud is simply a group that does precisely what its mission statement says. It “represents gay conservatives and their allies.” I am not a gay conservative myself, and I don’t know if I qualify as an ally, but I can say that when the chips are down, they are far greater assets to the conservative cause than Joseph Farah and his pack of chirping sectaries will ever be.
Rabiner // Aug 23, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Carney:
“Lost in the hysteria are a number of other inconvenient realities. Other denominations, which do not practice celibacy, are by no means immune from this phenomenon, let alone other institutions such as public schools. The Church’s scandals got more attention because more is expected of what many still unconsciously assume to be the “real”, authentic Christian church, because the media dislikes the Church’s conservative teachings and enjoys hypocrisy stories (ignoring that most molesters were “dissenters”), and because 10,000 evangelical churches with no central body of presumed wealth to sue are less of an attractive target for John Edwards types than 10,000 Catholic churches.”
While I agree with you on the majority of your post I disagree that the media focused on the Church because they dislike the conservative teachings (although hypocrisy is always loved). The issue was that clergy are people in positions of great power and influence, it is the same reason teachers when they are involved in a similar situation the media jumps on them (unless it’s an attractive woman). The other reason was because of the cover up which heightened the story significantly. As they say, its not the initial crime but the cover up that makes it worse (granted this time I’m just referring to the media aspect of it).
TJ Parker // Aug 23, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Carney,
“Thus, priests who consistently or exclusively engage in sex with males are NOT sexually normal men driven to homosexual conduct because of the vow of celibacy, but rather are simply homosexuals, who be definition should never have been admitted to the priesthood in the first place, per longstanding Church policy whose enforcement was relaxed, as too much else was, in the 60s and after.”
Ah. But gay men do not behave this way. This is criminal behavior. Is there something specific to Catholicism that makes these gay men commit these crimes?
Yes! The specific difference is that Catholic boys were taught that attraction to men was a sign of their “calling”. They were forced into a life of celibacy, and its consequences are well documented.
Again, it is obvious from statistics that gay priests were uniquely perverse. But its clearly not due to their sexual orientation. It must be that Catholic experiment.
“Furthermore, the vast majority of cases of scandal with minor males were NOT with children as the term is usually understood, that is, pre-teen pre-pubescents, but with adolescent youths and young adults. This usually ignored distinction is crucial, because while violating vows are wrong, exploiting those under one’s pastoral care is wronger, and taking advantage of the vulnerability of youth compounds the wrong as well, none of these things rises to the maximum, nuclear level of outrage we all reserve for those who violate the innocence of pre-pubescent children, whom we instinctively understand to be pre-sexual, … ”
On the contrary, a man in a position of authority and power takes advantage of a teen – perhaps under the age of consent, perhaps not – he is committing rape. Don’t think I’d be less outraged if my 17 year old or 15 year old son were raped than I would if an 8 or 10 year old were.
And so back to your original point: must we believe that these priests were all gay? No. They were denied sex, but they preyed on those in their care. And boys are just that much more accessible. But, just as raping a grandma doesn’t make one a geriatrophile, raping a teen boy doesn’t make one a gay man. You’re talking about perverts. This is not what love is. Do I need to teach you that?
mickster99 // Aug 24, 2010 at 1:45 am
Farah is simply being true to his values, his beliefs, to his spiritual inner core if you will . And by the way is that which makes him a rightwinger dingdong. To be a rightwinger you need to believe that gay people are bad. That liberals are destroying our culture, that Muslims are trying to take over the world and convert it to Sharia law. You must be true to what you believe to be the truth. If it makes you a rightwing whackjob so be it. Let others ridicule your steadfast allegiance to God and Country be go ahead f#ck the queers and ah a-rabs and commie liberals. Come on. Leave the guy alone. He’s obviously got serious personality issues.
easton // Aug 24, 2010 at 10:01 am
“16% of Americans don’t have health insurance. I’ve never known one member of the GOP who were gleeful over that fact. Besides the Republican Party isn’t keeping anyone from purchasing health insurance.”
You mean besides the part about making sure all the wealth and influence remain with the wealthiest? And fighting tooth and nail against every worker right imaginable, from worker safety to ability to Unionize? Sure, a person making minimum wage (another thing Republicans are against) can afford health insurance on top of every other living expense. Uh huh.
Amazing.
TJ Parker // Aug 24, 2010 at 10:31 am
What’s the value of health care when you have an eternal life awaiting you on the other side of death? Buy low, sell high.
DFL // Aug 24, 2010 at 10:33 am
The Republican Party can be pro-homosexual or can be pro-Christian or supportive of social conservatism. It can not be both. As homosexuals are no more than 3 % of the population, and only 25 % are willing to vote Republican, it would be wise for the Republican Party to be supportive of social conservatism. What will the stupid party do?
abj // Aug 24, 2010 at 10:54 am
Carney -
“Thus, priests who consistently or exclusively engage in sex with males are NOT sexually normal men driven to homosexual conduct because of the vow of celibacy, but rather are simply homosexuals, who be definition should never have been admitted to the priesthood in the first place, per longstanding Church policy whose enforcement was relaxed, as too much else was, in the 60s and after.”
That’s not quite right. These men aren’t “simply homosexuals,” they’re pedophiles who happen to also be homosexual. Wouldn’t you agree that there’s a difference between a normal heterosexual male and a heterosexual male who is attracted to prepubescent girls? The latter is a heterosexual, yes, but also a pedophile. Wouldn’t it also follow that priests who are attracted to young boys aren’t just homosexual, but rather are homosexual pedophiles?
Equating all homosexuals with homosexual pedophile priests is no different than equating all heterosexuals with heterosexual pedophiles.
Fairy Hardcastle // Aug 24, 2010 at 11:21 am
abj, that is not quite right. Homosexuality is a disorder of the passions which tends to dispose the sufferer to pedophiliac urges. Heterosexuality is the normal, wholesome attraction between the sexes which is consummated and perfected in a marital union — there is no tendency to pedophilia in this case.
Homosexuality is a kind of lust that cannot be satisfied in the sodomic act between physically mature men. It is similar to drug users who find they need a better high when their normal drug doesn’t quite do the trick anymore.
CentristNYer // Aug 24, 2010 at 11:26 am
Fairy Hardcastle // Aug 23, 2010 at 6:44 pm
“The Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is a disorder of the passions and homosexual acts are sinful.”
And certainly the Catholic church has never been wrong about anything. Just ask Galileo!
abj // Aug 24, 2010 at 11:36 am
Homosexuality is a disorder of the passions which tends to dispose the sufferer to pedophiliac urges.
That’s a non sequitur. Even if you believe homosexuality is a “disorder,” how does it lead to pedophilia? That’s like saying bipolar disorder leads to schizophrenia. Sure, bipolar people can be schizophrenic, but one doesn’t lead to the other.
In any event, homosexuality is simply an attraction to people of the same sex. It isn’t an attraction to children of the same sex – that’s pedophilia. The two are very different.
Fairy Hardcastle // Aug 24, 2010 at 11:46 am
Homosexuality is not a simple attraction to people of the same sex. People are attracted to others everyday for different reasons some physical some nonphysical but that in no way makes them homosexual. Homosexuality is a desire to excite and use together your’s and the other person’s sexual organs. That desire if acted upon repeatedly corrupts the soul to the point where for some there is a desire for different and younger flesh.
CentristNYer // Aug 24, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Fairy Hardcastle // Aug 24, 2010 at 11:46 am: “[Homosexuality] if acted upon repeatedly corrupts the soul to the point where for some there is a desire for different and younger flesh.”
Your church has done you enormous damage. The level of brainwashing and misinformation that you’ve been exposed to is deeply troubling. Please seek help; I’m serious.
abj // Aug 24, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Homosexuality is a desire to excite and use together your’s and the other person’s sexual organs.
Well, that’s what sexual desire is in general.
That desire if acted upon repeatedly corrupts the soul to the point where for some there is a desire for different and younger flesh.
Same non sequitur expressed in different terms. Yours is a belief-based, not an evidence-based, assertion.
And what of heterosexual pedophiles? What causes heterosexual pedophilia?
Rabiner // Aug 24, 2010 at 12:44 pm
abj:
“And what of heterosexual pedophiles? What causes heterosexual pedophilia?”
She told me she was 18? But seriously I can’t think of why there would be heterosexual pedophiles if you believe this crap that Fairy is peddling.
Fairy Hardcastle // Aug 24, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Abj,
Pedophilia is not technically broken into two types. A degenerated sexual appetite is the cause and the gender preference of the degenerate depends only upon their own prior sexual experiences.
abj // Aug 24, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Now you’re finally willing to acknowledge the point I’ve been making all along – that gender preference has nothing to do with pedophilia.
easton // Aug 24, 2010 at 2:01 pm
“Homosexuality is a desire to excite and use together your’s and the other person’s sexual organs. That desire if acted upon repeatedly corrupts the soul to the point where for some there is a desire for different and younger flesh.” And Fairy knows this due to his years of bathhouse culture! Or maybe he is not infinitely aware of his own souls corruption that he can readily recognize it in others.
honest to God, it is like reading someone who has been living in a bomb shelter for 70 years who is only now being exposed to the modern world.
CentristNYer // Aug 24, 2010 at 2:49 pm
easton // Aug 24, 2010 at 2:01 pm: “honest to God, it is like reading someone who has been living in a bomb shelter for 70 years who is only now being exposed to the modern world.”
I’m beginning to think that this guy’s posts (FH is a guy, right?) are a cry for help. His preoccupation with anal sex, as you noted in another thread, and his unthinking recitation of church propaganda are really disturbing. He could be the poster child for religious abuse and brainwashing. All his “wisdom” comes from what he’s been fed in Bible class. I have someone very close to me who’s just like him and it’s very, very sad to listen to her. You might as well argue with a stone.
Vrag // Aug 24, 2010 at 3:37 pm
fairy Hardcastle,
with your kind of thinking, your next life will be sadder then this one! that’s my thinking.
busboy33 // Aug 24, 2010 at 3:41 pm
@Fairy:
“abj, that is not quite right. Homosexuality is a disorder of the passions which tends to dispose the sufferer to pedophiliac urges.”
There is so much wrong with this . . . .
Go ahead — believe whatever you like. But your opinion about anything involving homosexuality I think can be safely assumed to be structured about wildly nonsensical fantasy at this point.
We get it. You really, really, loathe homosexuals and homosexuality. Fine. But that hardly makes you a rational party to the debate.
DifferentFrumer // Aug 24, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Fairy (snicker) Hardcastle instructs:
Pedophilia is not technically broken into two types.
We are privileged to have a Roman Catholic instructing us on this, especially since Catholics have such depth of experience with it. Still, you ought to source your statements.
JonF // Aug 24, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Re: Homosexuality is a kind of lust that cannot be satisfied in the sodomic act between physically mature men.
Millions of gay men, from the monogamously coupled to the Craigslist sluts, prove you wrong on that. surem, you can find a preferrence among older gay men for younger gay men, but that same sort of thing exists in straight men who (given the chance) will admire and go for young women. (Note: “Men” and “Women” not “Boys and girls”).
These pontifications are getting old, and not a single other poster here buys into them.
PracticalGirl // Aug 24, 2010 at 11:34 pm
“In a perfect world, Farah and his sycophants would be cast into the political outer darkness…”
Instead, they are granted White House Press credentials. Rather than have the same tired ideological bash-fest that goes nowhere, maybe we should talk about how and why this is.
TJ Parker // Aug 25, 2010 at 9:15 am
Homosexuality is a desire to excite and use together your’s and the other person’s sexual organs.
What a bizarre claim! This defintion includes homosexuality only to the extent that it also includes heterosexuality.
I understand “homosexuality” to be romantic love between members of the same sex, like that between me and my husband.
That desire if acted upon repeatedly corrupts the soul to the point where for some there is a desire for different and younger flesh.
You must be specific here. You are not describing homosexuality but rather male sexuality.
You have also phrased this deceptively: “That desire if acted upon …” perhaps. But the result is the similar or worse if the desire is not acted upon. In fact, the Roman Catholic chastity experiment on its priests demonstrates that it can be a whole lot worse.
By the way, I’ve been much too kind in not ridiculing use of spooky but essentially meaningless terms like “degrade the passions” and “corrupt the soul”.