The Myth of Gay-Rights ‘Tolerance’

Posted on | May 17, 2012 | 50 Comments

Any conservative who has ever tried to have a rational discussion about what progressives call “marriage equality” understands the problem: The very fact of your opposition to this radical policy becomes the basis for attacks on your motives and character.

Never mind that you are defending 5,000 years of civilization, while your antagonist is a deranged fanatic demanding that a fundamental social institution be altered (some would say, abolished) to conform to a theoretical abstraction of “equality.”

No, it is you — standing on the side of settled custom and common sense — who will inevitably be accused of “hate” you do not feel and diagnosed as suffering from an irrational “phobia.”

The fact that your accuser (volunteering also as an amateur psychologist) is demonstrably a fool, unfit to judge the morality and mental health of others, ought to serve as adequate evidence that any “debate” is a futile waste of time and effort. One might as well debate heroin with a junkie as to debate gay rights with Andrew Sullivan or Dan Savage.

They don’t want to debate, they want to lecture, and their preferred method of “argument” is to silence critics. So when conservatives post a video critical of same-sex marriage, what happens?

Did you try to watch that video against gay marriage that we posted yesterday?
You can’t. Now.
If you try, you’ll instead see this: “This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube’s policy prohibiting hate speech.”
So much for the free expression of ideas. . . . .
[T]here is an element of gay fascism behind the whole gay marriage movement.
The fact of the matter is that these gay rights extremists believe in censorship. They will attempt to remove from public discourse anything that calls into question the morality of their behavior.

Such tactics ought to cause concern. If these are the means, what are the ends? What does it say about a cause, that its advocates endeavor to silence opponents as practicing “hate speech”?

Part of the problem, it seems to me, is that conservatives are making the wrong arguments. Defenders of tradition should not stoop to the level of their foes by engaging in “debate” with frothing lunatics who routinely resort to the tactics of totalitarianism. Rather, resolve yourself calmly to convey a simple determination: They are wrong, and we are right; therefore, we must win, and they must lose.

For a careful exposition of this problem, please see my article, “Gay Rights, Gay Rage,” The American Spectator, Nov. 17, 2008.

Category: Gays

Comments

50 Responses to “The Myth of Gay-Rights ‘Tolerance’”

Datechguy
May 17th, 2012 @ 8:26 am

I think we should note a caveat for our friend Cynthia Yockey who is a notable exception to way of being
robertstacymccain
May 17th, 2012 @ 8:41 am

The fact that Cynthia Yockey (and, for that matter, such of my friends as Chris Barron and Bruce Majors) aren’t rage-filled fanatics like Sullivan and Savage, does not change the fact that they are on the wrong side of the argument.

What I would say to Cynthia, et al., is quite simple: Why have you let these demented radicals convince you that your “rights” are being infringed if society does not extend the designation of “marriage” to your relationships? No conservative that I know of is advocating persecution of homosexuals, and so the gay-rights mob’s invitation to wrap yourself in the rainbow flag of identity-politics victimhood should be rejected.
Thursday Morning News and Links | Darth Chipmunk
May 17th, 2012 @ 8:49 am

[…] Other McCain: The Myth of Gay-Rights ‘Tolerance’ Share this: This entry was posted in News and Links. Bookmark the permalink. ← Quote of […]
David
May 17th, 2012 @ 8:53 am

right is right so it’s just a matter of figuring out how much damage will be done before they admit they were wrong.

Could add up to quite a bit, and they are not listening to us, so it’s probably safe to assume the crash position.
Tim
May 17th, 2012 @ 8:54 am

“You’re a bigot!”Response: “A bigot is a person with strong and prejudiced views who will not listen to the opinion of others. Are you willing to listen openly to my point of view? If not, then who is really the bigot here?”
joethefatman
May 17th, 2012 @ 9:04 am

Even my homosexual uncle says that the gay marriage crowd is pushing too hard for this. He thinks that civil unions are the right way to go, for now. He figures, as do I, that with civil unions, people will be gradually persuaded to relent on the idea of calling it a marriage. He thinks that’s a good thing and I don’t. I think marriage is a covenant between the couple and God. The government should not be in the business of marriage in the first place.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
May 17th, 2012 @ 9:25 am

Even with Cynthia (who I greatly like), I have had federalism arguments on same sex marriage not make it on her site. That of course is her right. But I am for same sex marriage (and would vote for it) but I think it is absolutely wrong for courts to “find” a equal protection right for it when we know that no one intended that when the 14th amendment was drafted or when state governments, like California, passed their equal protection clauses.
robertstacymccain
May 17th, 2012 @ 9:26 am

Perhaps you did not follow the link to the article at the end. Perhaps you do not grasp the actual conservative argument in defense of traditional marriage, because you have become accustomed to hearing the bad arguments made by dimwit Republican spokesmen who call themselves “conservative.”

The facts are these: Marriage pre-existed both democratic government and codified law. Our laws concerning marriage are necessary, just as our laws concerning property are necessary, but these institutions — marriage and property — were not created by the government, and may not be altered or abolished by the government. The arguments being made against traditional marriage, like the arguments made against property and free markets, are rooted in an egalitarian conception of “rights” that is alien and hostile to the Anglo-American common-law tradition.

If you had never considered the significance of such obvious facts (contradicting the premises of arguments made by Sullivan, et al.), it is not your fault, as one seldom hears them cited by today’s soi-dissant conservatives, most of whom are woefully deficient in the study of history, logic and rhetoric.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
May 17th, 2012 @ 9:29 am

I do not see gay marriage changing traditional marriage. Marriage, as a license from the state, is a lot more about property than a sacrament. And a collection of presumptions and rights about the partner acting on your behalf.

I understand the arguments both sides. There are disagreements. The federalist approach (which is what I eschew and which now so does Barack Obama) will eventually result in some states that recognize it and some that do not.

It may not be perfect, but that is democracy.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
May 17th, 2012 @ 9:44 am

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/16/Pacquiao-banned-LA-Mall It is stuff like this that alienates people and makes them want to oppose same sex marriage more.
joethefatman
May 17th, 2012 @ 9:52 am

To be clear about why I think the government needs to be removed from marriage, if they license a right then they control that right. If they control it, they can then end it. A God given right shouldn’t have to have a government sanction to be utilized. Maybe that isn’t in total agreement with your views, but that’s my view. I did read the linked article.
Ric Locke
May 17th, 2012 @ 9:54 am

There are two things going on here.

Societies got along for millenia without civil police, and during that period there was simply no way to enforce prejudices because there was no mechanism for it. Then police were invented, and ‘way too many people went “Aha! Now we have a way to suppress those disgusting b*ds! Let’s go for it!” It’s stupid, and leads directly to the overregulatory regime we live in. The plain fact is, “what, and with which, and to whom” is nothing the State should concern itself with.

And it doesn’t take much, if any, attention to the arguments for “gay marriage” to get to the core of it: Homosexuals are desperate to be seen by society as fully the equals of heterosexuals, which is why they demand “marriage” rather than “civil unions”. Trouble is, there is not and has never been a society that regarded homosexuality in that light, and there never will be. Equally, the Sun won’t rise in the West and rocks won’t fall up. But they, too, see that they have policemen available, and see no reason why their prejudices shouldn’t be equally enforced — and they’re right about that. It won’t work, but it can sure as H* do a lot of damage in the process of not working.
Bob Belvedere
May 17th, 2012 @ 10:23 am

Same thing with so-called ‘Conservative Feminists’.
ThePaganTemple
May 17th, 2012 @ 10:46 am

I guess Thomas Knapp will be on here sometime today and tell us we are advocating “marriage apartheid”, as though the homosexual population makes up ninety-eight percent of the population and we two percent of the heterosexual population are denying them their rights to be married. Unfortunately for homosexuals, the number is actually the other way around so marriage apartheid is a nonsensical term as applied to this issue.

The fact that they have the gall to exercise their influence to have a YouTube video taken down due to a TOS violation is just another in a long line of such tactics to shut down disagreement. Unfortunately, such relatively minor incidents as this barely make a ripple and are quickly forgotten. But they manage to do enough in the meantime they will stay in the public consciousness and all the cries of bigotry and homophobia isn’t going to change the reaction. We saw this played out to full effect in North Carolina, and in Obama’s recently plummeting poll numbers.

Their nonsense needs to be pointed out often, from the antics of the Folsom Street Fair to Dan Savages hateful comments to the attempts to influence public education policy at all grade levels.

Not only do I oppose gay marriage, I seriously and strongly advocate getting their asses back in the closet where they belong. The most contact any decent person should have with a homosexual is when they are humming The Sound Of Music while they’re styling your hair. And I personally won’t even put up with that. I’ve totally had it with these idiots. The End.
fondatori
May 17th, 2012 @ 11:03 am

“Part of the problem, it seems to me, is that conservatives are making the wrong arguments.”
I think that most of the conservative arguments against gay marriage are a bit too intellectual for most people. I mean when you are quoting Aristotle to get your point across it can be a bit less effective to a certain psychology than the ‘argument’ that consists of just repeating the word ‘bigot’ over and over. Someone won’t intellectually agree with the person using the word ‘bigot’ but they will be intimidated into taking the position since agreeing would be the path of least resistance.

Supporters of traditional marriage are paradoxically in a good position now that ‘gay marriage’ has been introduced into a couple of jurisdictions. Gay-marriage enbling laws have demonstrated one obvious fact: contra to the propaganda that is everywhere in the media, actual homosexuals are not romantics aching to ‘get married’ as demonstrated by the very small number of actual gay marriages (and large percentage of these ‘marriages’ that become gay divorces). The reason there are so few ‘gay marriages’ and that so many of these ‘marriages’ end quickly is that by and large homosexuals do not live or see themselves as living in or desire themselves to be living in a state that approximates actual traditional marriage with the responsibilities and restraints that entails (no doubt a very small number do). This is quite contra to the propaganda which stated that there were tons and tons of gays living in a marriage-like state and faithfully waiting for society to catch up (many conservative commentators seem to believe this rather than challenge it – noticing reality isn’t what nice pundits do). At least one mainstream conservative commentator seems to have noticed the chasm between reality and fantasy though: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299944/gay-divorcees-charles-c-w-cooke

So conservative arguments should focus more on the fact that ‘gay marriage’ is an imposition by the government of a fake institution that doesn’t exist in reality (“Yes, emperor, your new gay marriage is lovely”).
Mahtomedi
May 17th, 2012 @ 11:17 am

It does no good to engage the Progs on most issues anymore. Once they are infected with the Prog Mind Parasite, there is no ‘treatment’. Sad, but true. I’ve never been happier since I stopped debating them altogether.
PaulLemmen
May 17th, 2012 @ 11:21 am

We’ll see how long the video in today’s post on my blog stays up.
It’s interesting to see that the tweets from last night wherein I was being attacked for being “anti-gay marriage” have disappeared. I especially liked the one where the young lady claimed that homosexuality has enjoyed widespread acceptance since Plato published “Love the Boy” in Greece and the repressed Republicans are trying to de-legitimize it.
How utterly delusional!
Bob Belvedere
May 17th, 2012 @ 11:36 am

Stacy wrote: Our laws concerning marriage are necessary, just as our laws concerning property are necessary….

Any government where the people are the Sovereign must have laws which protect property and marriage because these are two areas where common, enforceable standards are necessary to maintain order and preserve civil society.

There are certain of our God-given rights that require a government to protect because individuals cannot muster adequate forces to perform this necessary task.

However, as Stacy states, this does not give the state the right to abolish said God-given rights. They have been merely deputized to act in the Sovereign’s name to insure that said God-given rights are protected from those who would eliminate or distort them. Enumerated powers cannot be expanded by whim.
Bob Belvedere
May 17th, 2012 @ 11:37 am

But we are not a Democracy.
PhillyCon
May 17th, 2012 @ 11:41 am

See Alan Bloom’s, “Closing of the American Mind.”

How ironic, these are supposed to be the free thinkers and open minded types.
Tracy Coyle
May 17th, 2012 @ 11:45 am

I have the right to ‘marry’ whomever I chose and whom agrees to marry me. Neither the state nor society can change that. Both the state and society can refuse to acknowledge or recognize such a ‘marriage’ and frankly, I don’t care. Gay marriage does not end traditional marriage, does not threaten it, does not change the 99% of marriages that will be between straights. It is correct that gay relationships that last are far and few between. The fact that V and I were together for almost 19 years is by far the exception. Your article of 2008 Stacy is basically correct – that the Left will use whatever means to promote it’s agenda and that includes every facet of tyranny they can get away with. “The gay agenda’ is just the current incarnation as the ‘black agenda’ has burned so many bridges with it’s incessant screams of ‘racist’ that it means ‘disagreer’ and nothing much else.

99% of the people in our life treated us as a couple: family, friends, neighbors, businesses. They treated our family as another family in the neighborhood. As more couples are stable and raise children in ways that are consistent with other families, the acceptance will continue.

I don’t need government to give me a right, I don’t need you or anyone else to acknowledge a right – I assert my right and will defend it.
joethefatman
May 17th, 2012 @ 11:48 am

Ok. I concede the point.
ThePaganTemple
May 17th, 2012 @ 11:59 am

“Widespread acceptance” was when young boys were handed over to pervert
“philosophers” for education and were made to spread their ass cheeks
wide and accept their master’s dicks. They were sick freaks and I seriously doubt they
were the norm in ancient Greece, the majority population of which
consisted of hard scrabble farmers, shepherds, and fishermen, and
various craftsmen. These were people who spent their days working and raising their families, which consisted of one wife and children. Faggotry didn’t come into the equation.

Granted, it might have been far more prevalent in some Greek city states, like Sparta and Athens than in others, but other than possibly Sparta, due to the intense military culture and discipline, I doubt it was anywhere near the norm, even in Athens.

But to hear these fags today tell it, all of Greece was comprised of these ancient faggots, and here’s where it gets interesting.

They actually applaud the history of ancient Greek pederasty, the concept of Man-Boy “Love”, and posit that it was not considered wrong and shameful in that society. Which might give you a pretty damn good clue as to what they have in mind for today, if you just stop to think about it.
ThePaganTemple
May 17th, 2012 @ 12:02 pm

“Widespread acceptance” was when young boys were handed over to pervert
“philosophers” for education and were made to spread their ass cheeks
wide and accept their master’s dicks. They were sick freaks and I seriously doubt they
were the norm in ancient Greece, the majority population of which
consisted of hard scrabble farmers, shepherds, and fishermen, and
various craftsmen. These were people who spent their days working and raising their families, which consisted of one wife and children. Faggotry didn’t come into the equation.

Granted, it might have been far more prevalent in some Greek city states, like Sparta and Athens than in others, but other than possibly Sparta, due to the intense military culture and discipline, I doubt it was anywhere near the norm, even in Athens.

But to hear these fags today tell it, all of Greece was comprised of these ancient faggots, and here’s where it gets interesting.

They actually applaud the history of ancient Greek pederasty, the concept of Man-Boy “Love”, and posit that it was not considered wrong and shameful in that society. Which might give you a pretty damn good clue as to what they have in mind for today, if you just stop to think about it.
Quartermaster
May 17th, 2012 @ 12:25 pm

And were never meant to be. From the incipient chaos we see now we can see why the founders abhorred Democracy. It is, indeed, mob rule, and the mob is trying to shove their immorality down our collective throats.
Adobe_Walls
May 17th, 2012 @ 12:29 pm

To apply the federalism argument to same sex marriage is to concede that it is not a right. “Rights” are our birthright, they are ours or they are not, the states have no say in the matter.
Quartermaster
May 17th, 2012 @ 12:33 pm

Over at AmSpec’s blog, Ross Kaminsky challenged Occam’s Tool to produce credible studies that Queer “marriage” has a negative effect on traditional marriage. Tool then cited a number of them, and Kaminsky then waffled trying to discredit Tool. The reality is that queer marriage does have a negative effect, and the opposition has only quicksand to stand upon.

There is *NO* conservative case for Ghey marriage, and the very term is an oxymoron.
PaulLemmen
May 17th, 2012 @ 12:46 pm

On the money. Additionally, Plato’s “Love the Boy” in English wasn’t published in the US until the 1970’s after the censors ban was lifted. Prior to then, it was only published overseas or in scholarly journals here in the original Greek. SCHOLARLY, not for general consumption, putting the lie to “widespread” acceptance. See the laws against sodomy in most of the states prior to the 1970’s. The march #Forward of the cultural Marxist propaganda machine (i.e., the media, education and entertainment sectors) continues …
jwallin
May 17th, 2012 @ 1:13 pm

Allowing same sex marriage obliterates the fundamental reason FOR marriage; the instinct for the perpetuation of the human race. Thus human’s interest in the production, nurturing and training of a future generation. Without a next generation, civilization would descend into chaos by the cutting of our mental and spiritual bonds to the future.

By means of the institution of marriage, the respective partners are assured (as much as they can be) that their partnership is recognized IN LAW and that the parties rights and obligations will be enforced (if necessary) by the State. Also, children are recognized as needing special protection from the vagaries of human relationships. This is beneficial for the State AND the parties concerned.

To allow same sex “marriage” is to sully the institution and remove the fundamental need for enforcement and the special relationship on which marriage is normally founded; the spiritual, emotional and physical desire on the part of two people to create a child from their bodies. The legal institution is merely a recognition by the State that that relationship must be given special protection and be encouraged.

Dissolution of the underlying unspoken requirement of a marriage as being the production of a child removes the pressing need for enforcement of that special relationship. Indeed, the immediate effect will be for others who desire their particular unconventional relationships to be sanctioned by law or removed from it’s denial to press their complaint and desires upon the State. We all know the slippery slope here; the range of possibilities is limited only by the extent of depravity that humans seem able to reach.

One has to ask; what to gays really want from this fight? Do they wish a recognition of a particular relationship? It does not seem to be as they have refused to accept partnership laws and thus the regulation of their relationship as being sufficient. I believe that gay marriage is their goal because it will be:

1. shocking and disturbing to the “breeders” (I use their term here.)
2. require the church to perform a ceremony against their beliefs and wishes. (my pick)
3. they can claim other “rights” now that the state has recognized that one.
4. because they can. (homosexuals have an large capacity for emotional outrage and the desire to cause it.)
5. like all movements, they fade away once the reason for their existence disappears. gays don’t want the sense of power this movement gives them. it’s the most many of them will have over their lives. (that’s their claim. the say that homosexuality is passed in the genes. therefor they have no control over the miserable lives they lead.)
6. it allows them to claim that THEIR lifestyle is the equivalent and therefore of equal value to civilization. (but it’s not and never can be.)

I can just about guarantee that having gotten the State to acknowledge and enforce “gay marriage” that still won’t be enough for them. It never is. They are gluttons at all levels.
From the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans
May 17th, 2012 @ 1:18 pm

[…] regard to this, and this, and this, etc., etc., etc., we are in a very serious situation in America, but Christians have had to deal […]
Buzz Links | I'm a Man! I'm 41!
May 17th, 2012 @ 2:36 pm

[…] The Myth of Gay-Rights ‘Tolerance’ […]
Wombat_socho
May 17th, 2012 @ 4:16 pm

Yeah, as if logic ever worked on these people.
Wombat_socho
May 17th, 2012 @ 4:19 pm

Before the police, the enforcement of prejudices (and to a certain extent the common law) was handled by angry mobs. See also: lynching, pogroms, hue & cry…
Mike G.
May 17th, 2012 @ 4:48 pm

Here’s my lovely wife Phoebe’s take on it and I agree with her assessment. http://thatmrgguy.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/4678/
Mike G.
May 17th, 2012 @ 4:49 pm

See reply to Stacy.
Mike G.
May 17th, 2012 @ 4:50 pm

And the mob is such a small percentage of the population taken as a whole.
Bob Belvedere
May 17th, 2012 @ 4:55 pm

They use logic all the time, which is merely following a pattern that makes sense based on what came before.

What they lack is Reason, which involves rational thought plus sound sense plus grounding in the Real World.

Logic is neutral in and of itself and can lead to Good and Evil.

Reason is always Good because it is based in Reality.

[Apologies for being such a stickler – been reading too much Jeff Goldstein and Russell Kirk, perhaps]
Bob Belvedere
May 17th, 2012 @ 5:00 pm

Well put, Pagan [Paul, too].

Sodomy was a luxury that could only be practiced by those who had a lot of time on their hands.
ThePaganTemple
May 17th, 2012 @ 5:37 pm

You’re right, next will come the demand for homosexual adoption of children, and the threat of lawsuits any time a homo couple is turned down, resulting in cases being approved that shouldn’t be (as if there were any at all that should be) just to avoid an expensive lawsuit. The next thing you know, any two old alcoholic, drug addled faggots living on the streets can get a ramshackle apartment, some food stamps, and adopt a kid to get more money. Talk about kids being fucked up for life, we have no idea what the concept is until that shit gets started.
Can there ever be a tolerant discusion with the Left? « The Daley Gator
May 17th, 2012 @ 5:39 pm

[…] makes it an unreachable goal. Basically, the Left seeks to silence all debate on any topic. Stacy McCain has a post concerning the debate over defining marriage that does a nice job explaining… Any conservative who has ever tried to have a rational discussion about what progressives call […]
ThePaganTemple
May 17th, 2012 @ 5:44 pm

What really pisses me off is these fags today try to portray these ancient elites and aristocrats as representative of the entirety of the ancient Greek population. In point of fact, yes, the overall population might have “accepted” it, but what damn choice did they have? We have no way of knowing what those ancient common people thought or felt about the subject, and we never will. The “great philosophers” and other elitists of the day didn’t seem to care enough about their opinions to record them for posterity. And even if they did their accounts should be considered highly suspect.

So until today’s fucking pole smoking fudge packers come up with a long lost diary or journal written by an ancient Greek farmer, shepherd, brick layer, etc., what they should do is just shut the fuck up.
ThePaganTemple
May 17th, 2012 @ 5:53 pm

I’m saying there’s no compelling evidence that it was widely accepted even back then. In fact, if it was that common, widespread, and accepted, why would Plato even waste his time writing something with the title “Love The Boy”.

That would be like somebody writing something like the following-

“Winter Is Approaching-Why You Should Dress In Warmer Clothing”

“Hope For The Hungry-What Is Food And How Can It Help?”

“New Technique Known As Sleep Offers Potential Cure For Exhaustion”

Fags are just full of fucking shit, regardless of the era. I’ve gotten to the point where I have zero sympathy for them and their self-aggrandizing self-serving bullshit.
RKae
May 17th, 2012 @ 7:52 pm

What astounds me are the conservatives who keep conceding and trying to strike a truce with the belligerant liars in the gay rights camp. Every time they concede a point, there’s more thrown at them. How can they not see this?

“OK, OK, I’m for gay marriage. Will you leave me alone now?”

“Not yet. We now have to stop you from disliking it. And we’re going to use the power of the state to do that. It’s for ‘anti-bullying,’ you understand.”

There’s ALWAYS something they want next.
Thane_Eichenauer
May 18th, 2012 @ 6:55 am

What’s wrong with it?
Thane_Eichenauer
May 18th, 2012 @ 7:02 am

Do you have a URL?
ThePaganTemple
May 18th, 2012 @ 7:24 am

It put my reply to Paul Lemmon on that spot where I said it was a piece of shit, so I copied and pasted it where I meant it to go, and then when I tried to delete it from the wrong place it fought my like a wildcat to keep me from doing so. That happened once before a while back and there’s been other problems with it. IntenseDebate is a hundred times better.
Bob Belvedere
May 18th, 2012 @ 8:47 am

Justice Scalia warned us in Lawrence v. Texas.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html
Bob Belvedere
May 18th, 2012 @ 8:48 am

The Left loves them some incrementaliam. And they know that the GOP will always play along out of fear.
WyBlog - Obama tramples on the religious liberty of military chaplains
May 18th, 2012 @ 10:15 am

Obama tramples on the religious liberty of military chaplains…

“Tolerance” for thee, but not for me….
Roundup | Eternity Matters
May 19th, 2012 @ 4:53 pm

[…] The Myth of Gay Rights ‘Tolerance’ – Great summary by Stacy McCain. I see this all the time. Read it all. Any conservative who has ever tried to have a rational discussion about what progressives call “marriage equality” understands the problem: The very fact of your opposition to this radical policy becomes the basis for attacks on your motives and character. […]