TCUnation
social network for conservatives
Heterosexual pride month
This article was first published June 4, 2009.
President Obama has again proclaimed June 2010 as a month to actively celebrate the gay lifestyle.
Obama came through on his campaign theme of 'equality' Monday by proclaiming June as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month". Obama lauded what he calls "the determination and dedication" of the LGBT movement.
In the same spirit of equality, I'd like to propose July to be designated as Heterosexual Pride Month in hopes of drawing attention to and appreciation for traditional moral values and marriage as practiced by heterosexuals. Heterosexual Pride Month could be an occasion to focus on the joys of being heterosexual and monogamous. And the determined and dedicated Americans who are both.
Heterosexuals, whom I'll call "happies," seldom have their voices heard or their sexual practices mentioned. Although a majority of Americans are happies, they are loath to flaunt their bedroom habits in public. Blame an ingrained sense of outdated modesty.
Most happies are advocates of traditional marriage and cling to the notion that sex should be a private affair. Some even believe that sex is a matter between a man and his wife and believe the government has no right to dictate or influence what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.
Some happies go even further and believe that God made Adam and Eve (not Adam and Steve) for a darn good reason. Most happies also believe that their sexual habits should not be thrust into the faces of those who feel differently. They call it, well, just good manners. Both of these views would be excellent topics for discussion during Heterosexual Pride Month.
Since the traditional family has long been considered a vital component of civil society, we could also use Heterosexual Pride Month to emphasize and explore the social compact that traditional marriage used to signify.
Now that Obama has brought tolerance back into vogue, I recommend using Heterosexual Pride Month as an occasion to voice the legitimate moral objections many Americans (57%) have to gay marriage and the plethora of sexual practices that Obama, in the name of equality, is demanding all Americans not only accept, but endorse.
I'd be willing to host a discussion on the topic of homophobia, and explore why 98% of happies are automatically labeled homophobic if they dare to comment on what they legitimately consider an aberrant lifestyle.
Another panel discussion during Heterosexual Pride Month could deal with whether or not gender should be optional. We could then explore the harmful effects of indoctrinating impressionable young children into the idea that gender and/or sexuality is merely a lifestyle option. Special emphasis could be placed on the documented detrimental effects of the gay lifestyle.
We could then go on to discuss the physical and mental health implications of gay vs. happy, and finish off with a quick overview of the Constitution and the role of government in dictating morality.
Heterosexual Pride Month will necessarily present quite a challenge, as many heterosexual couples these days are so busy working to pay their taxes and raising children that many of them just don't have the time to devote to activism.
Besides, most happies believe its not right to force their views of marriage and happiness on others. On this point, President Obama concurs. Just last Monday he said that the United States cannot impose its values on other countries. I'm sure he also meant 'on other citizens.' This could be another excellent topic for discussion.
In the spirit of inclusion, I'd like to extend an invitation to the LGBT movement to join us happies in making Heterosexual Pride Month a reality. With all of us working together we could have a real multicultural event with lots and lots of dialogue.
You may RSVP to nancy@rightbias.com Looking forward to a rollicking good time.
.
Nancy Morgan is a colummnist and editor for conservative news site RightBias.com
She lives happily in South Carolina.
President Obama has again proclaimed June 2010 as a month to actively celebrate the gay lifestyle.
Obama came through on his campaign theme of 'equality' Monday by proclaiming June as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month". Obama lauded what he calls "the determination and dedication" of the LGBT movement.
In the same spirit of equality, I'd like to propose July to be designated as Heterosexual Pride Month in hopes of drawing attention to and appreciation for traditional moral values and marriage as practiced by heterosexuals. Heterosexual Pride Month could be an occasion to focus on the joys of being heterosexual and monogamous. And the determined and dedicated Americans who are both.
Heterosexuals, whom I'll call "happies," seldom have their voices heard or their sexual practices mentioned. Although a majority of Americans are happies, they are loath to flaunt their bedroom habits in public. Blame an ingrained sense of outdated modesty.
Most happies are advocates of traditional marriage and cling to the notion that sex should be a private affair. Some even believe that sex is a matter between a man and his wife and believe the government has no right to dictate or influence what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.
Some happies go even further and believe that God made Adam and Eve (not Adam and Steve) for a darn good reason. Most happies also believe that their sexual habits should not be thrust into the faces of those who feel differently. They call it, well, just good manners. Both of these views would be excellent topics for discussion during Heterosexual Pride Month.
Since the traditional family has long been considered a vital component of civil society, we could also use Heterosexual Pride Month to emphasize and explore the social compact that traditional marriage used to signify.
Now that Obama has brought tolerance back into vogue, I recommend using Heterosexual Pride Month as an occasion to voice the legitimate moral objections many Americans (57%) have to gay marriage and the plethora of sexual practices that Obama, in the name of equality, is demanding all Americans not only accept, but endorse.
I'd be willing to host a discussion on the topic of homophobia, and explore why 98% of happies are automatically labeled homophobic if they dare to comment on what they legitimately consider an aberrant lifestyle.
Another panel discussion during Heterosexual Pride Month could deal with whether or not gender should be optional. We could then explore the harmful effects of indoctrinating impressionable young children into the idea that gender and/or sexuality is merely a lifestyle option. Special emphasis could be placed on the documented detrimental effects of the gay lifestyle.
We could then go on to discuss the physical and mental health implications of gay vs. happy, and finish off with a quick overview of the Constitution and the role of government in dictating morality.
Heterosexual Pride Month will necessarily present quite a challenge, as many heterosexual couples these days are so busy working to pay their taxes and raising children that many of them just don't have the time to devote to activism.
Besides, most happies believe its not right to force their views of marriage and happiness on others. On this point, President Obama concurs. Just last Monday he said that the United States cannot impose its values on other countries. I'm sure he also meant 'on other citizens.' This could be another excellent topic for discussion.
In the spirit of inclusion, I'd like to extend an invitation to the LGBT movement to join us happies in making Heterosexual Pride Month a reality. With all of us working together we could have a real multicultural event with lots and lots of dialogue.
You may RSVP to nancy@rightbias.com Looking forward to a rollicking good time.
.
Nancy Morgan is a colummnist and editor for conservative news site RightBias.com
She lives happily in South Carolina.
Comment
-
Comment by Jim Robinson on July 4, 2010 at 7:37pm -
Nancy - I firmly believe that our broad Conservative movement will ultimately prevail over the fringe elements that have infiltrated us and bastardized our message with liberal ideologies. However, it will require vigilance, courage, and boldness on our part to maintain our focus and not lose sight of the principles that guide Conservatism. This is why I encourage all good conservatives to get bold and passionate about our message without watering it down or hiding it under mumbled breath to please the fringe that hide among us and stir up endless debates and controversies.
We are working for the same cause and goals here, and I freely encourage you (and others here like you) to keep up the good fight when challenged by those with narrow vision and restricted definitions of Conservatism. The beauty of Conservatism is that it is broader than our individual and warring factions, but we must learn to both appreciate that beauty and better communicate it to others around us - or we will lose this country to Socialism and Progressivism.
As passionate Conservatives, we still have a lot of work cut out for us . . . and it won't be an easy ride, because there aren't any easy solutions to get us out of our current national troubles. Now is the right time for Conservatism to regain its footing and surge forward in the national spotlight. The November elections will be but one of many tests to gauge our progress and commitment to restoring Conservatism to its rightful place in our society and our government. God help us all if we fail to get our focused and principled message out!
-
Comment by Nancy Morgan on July 4, 2010 at 3:38pm
-
"... some fringe branches of conservatism are promoting a ragbag unprincipled mishmash of ideas that will only serve to hinder, and not help, our grassroots movement"
Jim,
Any movement or philosophy that can't defend and prevail over fringe movements is not a viable movement. The beauty of our country is that one size doesn't fit all.
My goal since 1992 has been to make available the conservative POV. The popularity of Fox News, Limbaugh, Beck etc show that once Americans are exposed to the conservative POV, they tend to agree with it.
I believe the media has done our country a great disservice by presenting, and advocating, only the liberal viewpoint. The good news is, when you give leftists enough rope, they end up hanging themselves, as they are now doing.
Nancy
-
Comment by Jim Robinson on July 4, 2010 at 2:04pm
-
Conservatives are indeed champions of tradition and limited government (a constrained view of man), whereas Liberals and Progressives are champions of socialism and big government (an unconstrained view of man). Defining Conservatism isn't the real problem here (as some have suggested) - but consistently applying the great conservative principles already passed down to us by our Forefathers and Framers is the continuing problem and challenge.
When I hear so-called "conservatives" preaching the need for more big government bureaucracy, it tells me these folks have no clue what broader conservatism is and have no business claiming to be Conservatives. If our "policies" aren't fueled by strong consistent conservative principles, then the policies cannot really be described as being conservative (except in name only). If folks don't understand that Conservatism has already been defined by those that founded this country, and that it doesn't need to be redefined to suit contemporary America, then true Conservatism will continue to dwindle and die in America. Liberal Progressivism and Conservatism are wholly incompatible with each other. Yet some fringe branches of conservatism are promoting a ragbag unprincipled mishmash of ideas that will only serve to hinder, and not help, our grassroots movement - thus the need to clearly define ourselves and boldly trumpet our message. This is my passion, and this is why I am bold and unapologetic in getting this message out to any and all that will heed it (and many that have latched onto our grassroots movement really need to hear the whole and unfettered message of Conservatism).
Our great country is at a terrible crossroads! Too much is at stake to just sit back, play nice with our enemies, engage in never-ending meaningless debates and word semantics, and allow other folks to define us and compartmentalize Conservatism to their liking. Like any other ideology (a word that need not be feared), Conservatism does have its limits - but it is most certainly an ideology worth fighting for, and it deserves our passion and boldness! As long as there is breath in my body, this conservative patriot will continue to trumpet the whole message of Conservatism (God, Family, and Country). That is my message to you good folks on this 4th of July, 2010. May God continue to bless, and not judge, America!
©2010, Jim Robinson
Tampa, Florida
owner@jrobgroup.com
-
Comment by Mike Mott on July 4, 2010 at 9:00am -
Because of the variety of policies involved it seems difficult (or impossible) to define conservative very well, which is generally how the term is used.
It seems to me that the simpler and more precise approach is to use the two forms of government, oligarchy and republic, that all other forms eventually evolve to. One could say the conservatives generally favor policies that are republican in nature and liberals generally favor policies that are oligarchical.
The best book I've read that starts with a first principle and reasons from that point to conservative and liberal philosophies is A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell. His premise is that some people have an unconstrained view of man and others have a constrained view of man. In the unconstrained view society can achieve anything through its people if only they have the right leaders. So those who lean in this direction are always looking for that leaders (Clinton, JFK, Obama) who can lead the rest of us to that most perfect of societies.
Those who accept the constrained view believe some will succeed and some will fail regardless of what government does. It is therefore best if society allows people to be all that they can be with little government interference (er, help).
Sowell examines how people with these opposing views would tend to look at the functions of society (courts, legislatures, police, and so forth). The value of reading this is that it does make one realize that the approach to society doesn't break down along traditional and nontraditional approaches to progress. The principles associated with a constrained view of man can be used to tackle modern problems as well as those of the unconstrained.
In that formulation liberals are people who have an unconstrained view of man and conservatives are people who have a constrained view. That's as close to a reasonable definition as I've seen.
Sowell's book is a difficult but good and worthwhile read.
-
-
Jim,
Defining conservatism does tend to limit it - that said, my take is that conservatives are champions of the traditional, whereas progressives tend to ignore history and try to redefine reality to their liking. Liberals want to reinvent the wheel, conservatives want to perfect it.
I object to most progressives because, 9 times out of ten, their theories don't work or have unintended consequences, which all Americans end up paying for.
I'm tired of paying for mistakes that could have been avoided by more reliance on history and less reliance on idealogy.
-
Comment by Jim Robinson on July 3, 2010 at 7:54pm
-
CJ - Setting aside our petty differences does not mean we set aside the core distinctions that separate Conservatives from Liberals and Progressives. Holding hands with these folks and singing kumbayah's won't save this country. We must define ourselves and stop giving in to the unprincipled argument that Conservatism can somehow be all things to all people - it cannot.
While our immediate goal is to get rid of this administration in the White House and Congress, our long term goal must be to restore Conservatism, in all its glory, or we will lose the greater fight in this country. This is the struggle that our conservative grassroots movement must face and overcome, and our core conservative beliefs will never be a mute point or open to never-ending debate. It's high time that Conservatives take a bold stand for who we are and what we believe; our Founding Fathers, early settlers, and Framers of the Constitution most certainly did. So can we - so welcome to mainstream Conservatism making its rebound here in America!
-
Comment by CJ Wyandotte DPS on July 3, 2010 at 1:29pm -
Nancy, I'm not sure what you are agreeing to, less definition, more definition, emotion, no emotion.
That aside, Conservatism is not a science and cannot be painted into a corner. I suppose if we were all drones, Conservatism would be easier to define but we are individuals, therefore self-reliant and independent.
There are religious conservatives, fiscal conservatives, libertarian conservatives and many others variants that blend these various ideologies. We will not agree across the board what those ideals are.
However, our differences should not exclude anyone from our primary and most important goal, fighting for Popular Sovereignty, which I believe is on life support right now. If we can't set aside our differences for a common goal, those differences will become a mute point.
-
-
You're right
-
Comment by Jim Robinson on July 2, 2010 at 3:12pm
-
Ah! But without a clear idea of who we are and what we believe as Conservatives, then the word "Conservative" becomes meaningless. Words do have meanings and definitions - and Conservatism is not a catch-all for all folks and groups in our society (if only this were so, but we know it is not).
Any refusal to "define" Conservatism, and to clearly identify who we are and what we believe, is at best a cheap cop-out and at worst sheer folly. Since Liberals don't want Conservatives to know who we are and what we believe, we absolutely must define ourselves instead of allowing them to do it for us. And too often do we (Conservatives) seem content to just allow others to define us by proxy instead of assuming our own responsibility to do so! Maybe this is one primary reason why Conservatism has dwindled over the past century here in America - to our eternal shame.
To promote Conservatism and restore it to our government and society, it is most crucial that we do define ourselves and get our message out in a much more productive manner. Let's see if the congressional elections in November will grade our efforts well or poorly in this regard . . .
-
-
Shakespeare said, "To define is to limit."
© 2013 Created by Earl B.
You need to be a member of TCUnation to add comments!
Join TCUnation