Thursday, October 7, 2010

David Barton and Jim DeMint on Homosexuality


by Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA


I recently had an op-ed article published in the Daily Caller, it was entitled "An Independent Conservative's View of Gay Marriage." While I am not a proponent of same sex marriage I do hold that same sex unions ought to be recognized and afforded all the same legal considerations as heterosexual unions.

My purpose for referencing my Daily Caller article is because the forces of social conservatives are coalescing around politicians like Jim DeMint, and Evangelicals are doing the same around figures like David Barton. This should give independent conservatives, Libertarians, and moderates the shivers.

DeMint recently went on record in a speech given at First Baptist North Spartanburg in which he advocated that openly gay individuals should not be teaching in the classroom. He holds the same position with respect to unmarried women who are sleeping with, their boyfriends. I assume he means the same for those who are living together. What really strikes me is apparently his standards for men who are sleeping with their girlfriends are not the same. If they were then why the omission.

To deny the opportunity for a qualified individual to teach based on their sexual orientation is discrimination plain and simple. It is unethical, as well as unlawful. As an independent conservative I for one shudder at the slippery slope DeMint apparently would have this nation return to.

I am in full agreement that any openly gay or lesbian teacher who advocates homosexuality or encourages the practice of it ought to be summarily removed and prosecuted to the fullest extent possible. Schools are to educate in the sciences, arts, and humanities. Teaches should not be advocating {or disparaging} any particular sexual orientation. Those who do deserve to be banned from teaching. Having said this, the reality is the majority of teachers are professionals with an ethical compass they follow. This applies to gay and lesbian teachers as well.

On the issues of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and etc. DeMint is on solid ground. That is were he ought to remain focused.

Even more disturbing are the comments David Barton made recently on his radio show that {perhaps} the Government should regulate homosexuality. Regulate a persons sexual orientation? First I have no idea how you would do that. Second the governemnt has no business or authority to regulate human sexuality. Barton is more than a few cards short of a full deck with this one.

Excerpts from the trascript of his remarks;


Barton: We’re a health-conscious people, no question …


Green: We are, very.


Barton: We have a Department of Health and Human Services; we have health care bills; we have health insurance and we’re trying to stop all unhealthy things so we’re going after transfats and we’re going after transparency in labeling to make sure we get all the healthy stuff in there. And we’re going after school lunch programs and we’re trying to get juices in schools and Cokes out of schools and snack machines out of schools. And we’re trying to tell McDonalds what they can use and how they can cook their french fries because it’s unhealthy. And we’ve got cigarettes and trying to get them off and raising the taxes so high that nobody will smoke them, ‘cause that’s unhealthy. And hard liquor; that’s unhealthy, we can’t do that. And salt, man, we’ve got to have salt-free diets, so we have to post the potassium, salt and all the different types of salt … just everything, obesity, overweight, we are so doggone health conscious because we want to live healthy because, among other things, it makes your health care a whole lot cheaper. You live a healthy life, no question it’s a lot cheaper …


Green: Which is typically the excuse for the Federal Government claiming we have the responsibility here, or we have the authority I should say …


Barton: … to tell you how to live a healthy lifestyle. So if I got to the Centers for Disease Control and I’m concerned about health, I find some interesting stats there and this should tell me something about health.


Homosexual/bi-sexual individuals are seven times to contemplate or commit suicide. Oooh, that doesn’t sound very healthy.


Homosexuals die decades earlier than heterosexuals. That doesn’t sound healthy.


Nearly one-half of practicing homosexuals admit to five hundred or more sex partners and nearly one-third admit to a thousand or more sex partners in a lifetime.


Green: Wow.


Barton: That doesn’t sound very healthy.


Homosexuals have an HIV prevalence sixty times higher than the general population.


Homosexuals have Hepatitis B virus five to six times more often and Hepatitis C virus infections about two times more often than the regular population.


Homosexuals are less than three percent of the population but they account for sixty-four percent of the syphilis cases.


I mean, you go through all this stuff, sounds to me like that’s not very healthy. Why don’t we regulate homosexuality?

So let this independent conservative get this all straight. DeMint and Barton are conservatives and supposedly strong supporters of a more limited role for our government. I get that and strongly support it as sound reasoning. My problem is with selective and contradictory principles which seems quite evident with their positions on gay and lesbian rights.

How a person can advocate for limited government in all things economic and fiscal, asking for the government to give us more liberty, and yet advocate for a larger and more intrusive government roll in the personal life of individual's is as contradictory as hell.

So for the benefit of this independent conservative, fierce advocate of Randian Objectivism and limited government could you explain your contradictions?

Cross posted to Left Coast Rebel

Via: Memeorandum

14 comments:

  1. So many things I could say about this. I agree with you completely. The answer to your question is that the social conservatives don't support limited government. They support some mixture of limited government and theocracy. Hopefully this big conversation we're all involved in now will clarify the fundamental statist vs. individualist schism within conservatism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I understood this to mean something different from what you did. It seems to me that Mr. Barton was being critical of the hypocrisy of a government that wants to control some unhealthy parts of our lives, such as fats, salt, school lunches, McDonald french fries, etc., while at the same time turning a blind eye to other (less politically correct) possibly unhealthy situations. I've listened to David Barton previously on many occassions and have never heard him disparage homosexuals in any way. The complaint was (in my opinion) that the government chooses to restrict our lives in this manner at all. I think you will find that Mr. Barton is against government intervention in most instances.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just when did discrimination become a bad thing? It used to be a sign of good taste and common sense. That's why I can't be a libertarian. They seem believe that the Constitution protects freedom FROM religion (and its inherent moral standards), rather than freedom OF religion. With God mentioned prominently in the Declaration, and the comment by one of the founding fathers that the Constitution is wholly inadequate to govern a non-Christian people, the intent is obvious. (At least when combined with all their other writings.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Les,

    Donald Borsch Jr, here. I just read this post of yours. (Talk about opening a can of worms! LOL!)

    As a "moral conservative", I do shudder at the reality that our children, from pre-school to college years, are being spoon-fed, in the public school system, the homosexual agenda. Ken Jennings, anyone?

    I shudder because I do believe homosexuality is not only unhealthy but immoral. However, having said this, I also believe this is indeed a morality issue and NOT a governmental issue. At all.

    I am not allowed to speak of Jesus without being forced to accommodate other gods in the public schools. (I am in no way saying it should be all "Jesus this and Jesus that", either. I'm a realistic and practical covenant Christ-follower, not some raving religious zealot!) I simply find it odd that I am not allowed to mention Jesus during Christmas in a public school without first looking over my shoulder to see if I am offending anyone. I mean seriously. It is called CHRISTmas. Jesus has a little something something to do with it. Trying to prohibit/separate the mention of His name during Christmas is kinda like trying to unscramble eggs.)

    But I digress. Sorry.

    Back to point: I do not view homosexuality as a 'victimless crime'. I does have victims. I remember back in the early 80's, reading one of the very first articles about this new disease known as AIDS that, for some reason, seemed to have manifested itself almost exclusively in the male homosexual community. Then the I.V. drug users. Then the hemophiliac started coming down with it. And so on and so on. But its first known genesis was in the male homosexual community. Is this random chance? Is this just an anomaly? Is this coincidence? Or is there actually something extremely unhealthy about men ripping the rectums of other men through sodomy and the exchange of blood and semen? Sorry to speak so bluntly, but we are all adults here.

    Say I liked to cut myself with razor blades. Say that I had friends who liked to do likewise. Say that there were nightclubs where I could engage in this fetish openly. Say then that I was able to force people to recognize myself and the rest of my 'skin slashers' as being a minority group, and we demanded equal rights along the lines of those who chose to NOT slash their skin. Then say there were a number of doctors and physicians who noted that many of the folks who engaged in such behavior, the skin slashing, were dying off. This in turn affects insurance rates, emergency rooms, and the overall psyche of communities nation wide.

    Would you tell me and my friends to stop? Would you shrug your shoulders and say, "Hey, whatever floats your boat. As long as you aren't hurting anyone, it's cool with me."? I mean, it's not like we are hurting anyone but ourselves, right? So your insurance premiums might rise because your insurance company is forced to accept folks like me with my skin-slashing fetish unconditionally, thanks to the government.

    Homosexuality is unhealthy. It is not cute and charming like a rerun of "Will and Grace". It has affected way too many folks, NOT engaging in such a lifestyle, against their wills.

    Is there a solution legally? No. Homosexuality is, and always has been, a moral issue. But it reaps its 'reward' on a secular society. Such a shame, really.

    Les, sorry. I just went back and re-read what I said and it doesn't look like I really went anywhere with it. Hm. Perhaps I needed to vent.

    Your call, Les. If you delete this because it is so f-ed up, I won't mind. I'm tried and that makes me a bit punchy. (By the way, I welcomed my second child into the world today! At 7:27 this morning. I'm a wee bit out of it.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Don - First congratulations to you and your better half. There is nothing as wonderful as being a parent! We'll... being a grandparent comes awfully close!!

    Venting is good sometimes, it is a neccessary aspect of releasing tensions.

    Homosexuality carries great risks as you say. The homosexual community has made great strides in protecting against the conserns you mention.

    That aside, I simply do not believe that homosexuality is a matter of choice. I do not understand why certain individuals are not like the vast majority of the human race ie: heterosexual.

    I do know that if our grandchild was gay he would be loved and cherished even given his "gayness."

    You are aware of my spiritual beliefs as I am of yours. But I must ask this question... Why would a loving God, and presumably the creator of life, not wish for all his children to be loved and treated as equals?

    The DeMint/Barton piece was done to create thought. To consider the inconsistencies and contradictions. Some have said it was satire with Barton... I am not convinced.

    At any rate the peice served its purpose.

    Again congratulations on your new addition.

    Be well my friend and you know you are always welcome at RN USA.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Donald Borsch, Jr: I understand what you are saying about “cutting” and as a responsible adult I would do everything in my power to help anyone who suffered from that awful dis-order. However people aren’t born with a self-mutilation gene. It’s a mental dis-order normally caused by some type of abuse and is treated with psychotherapy and/or medication. Homosexuality can NOT be treated with psychotherapy or medication.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Les: I heard that a group, I think it was NOW, wants an apology from DeMint. If he truly believes what he said then he would be a hypocrite to issue one.

    I’m not defending DeMint (I’m pro gay marriage) but last time I checked he was free to believe whatever he wanted, no matter how idiotic, and his constituents have the right NOT to vote for him due to his idiocy. IMO it benefits the constituents to know where a candidate stands on issues, so it’s good people know of this (although it was initially said back in 2004).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gorges - Having discriminating tastes, or anaylisis can indeed be a very neccessary and good thing.

    However, discrimination against an individual based on emotional an un objective criteria is not a goos thing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Linda - I gave considerable thought to the possibilty that Barton was using satire. After consideration I decided the man was semding the message as he personally sees things.

    Perhaps I am mistaken, but I don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Pam - A most accurate response to Don's comment.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Pam - Hm, your point is quite valid. DeMint need not appologise for his statement. In fact if he did as you say he would be hypocrital. I don't believe I was calling for an apology.

    I find his limited government stance refreshing. However I also find contradictions in some of what he says. From a philosophical perspective. For me this is problematic.

    He certainly has the right to his opinion and the right to freely express it. As you sais, ultimtely his constituents decide.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Les: I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I know you don't want an apology. I was talking about the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force group, they want one. And the group, NOW (Nat'l Organization for Women) condemned DeMint's comments.

    And yes a "limited gov't" stance is very refreshing! Haven't we spoken/written about that until our faces turned blue and our hands got carpal tunnel? I don't think it's sunk in yet---hopefully soon?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Pam - The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force as far as I am concerned is an in your face group. I really have little use for them or NOW.

    Emotionalism is the calling card of both groups.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It’s cool and all the information is very useful.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.