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 Blame an ingrained sense of outdated modesty.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 June 18, 2010 at 5:01pm -
Gee, CJ - what's up with the sudden daggers and personal attacks against me? Geez!
I attacked no one by name but merely addressed in general terms those few that were already on here accusing other folks of bigotry, hatred, and ignorance for disagreeing with their own vaunted opinions. You should be addressing those folks and not me, CJ. (And I too am an Independent Constitutionalist, Originalist as Mike likes to describe himself, registered Republican, and a proud Christian that openly celebrates my faith). I hardly need to apologize to you for that, so peace and save your hostilities for someone else, Sir. I am not inclined to indulge your religious intolerances or personal attacks. Good day.
-
Comment by Mike Mott on June 18, 2010 at 3:09pm -
CJ,
My apologies for thinking that was directed at me.
I look forward to getting ourselves oriented to each other's language and views.
-
Comment by CJ Wyandotte DPS on June 18, 2010 at 3:03pm -
Mike, my reference was to JRob and others on here who are intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their religious point of view. I have been a member for about 1 1/2 years and have experienced this first-hand many times. Look at JRob's comments, exactly what he accuses others of, hijacking a discussion. Is that what we did? Name calling, condescension, provocation, anger, and name calling, this is my experience of many so called Christians on this site. Have I been guilty of any of those accusations on this discussion? Has anyone else?
I very much enjoy your comments, very thought provoking, intelligent and thoughtful as well as the others involved. Heated at times yes, but that just indicates passion for one's beliefs.
I look forward to answering your question, but have chores to take care of this afternoon. I'll respond this evening or in the AM. BTW, I have family in Elko.
-
Comment by Mike Mott on June 18, 2010 at 2:35pm
-
CJ,
I'm happy with debate, and in fact it is part of my life. To make progress participants in the discussion must to agree upon the first principles and terms. Without that there is no debate.
I have voted for Democrats and consider myself an originalist. I haven't attended a church in more than 30 years and so don't know how to label myself in that regards. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, but if it was that I'm an in your face religious fanatic then you really weren't following what I said, because if there is something I am not that's it. As a Constitutionalist I would assume you understand the moral and religious underpinnings -- these are irrespective of your own personal views -- of the government left by the Founders. That's what I was, and am, trying to probe.
If those basic underpinnings of our republic are rejected -- I still don't know your position in this regards-- then how are they to be replaced? It seems like a simple question -- the answer could fill a book, I get that, but basically defining where you stand shouldn't be too difficult.
-
Comment by CJ Wyandotte DPS on June 18, 2010 at 1:18pm
-
Ah, my favorite fringe right winger, I knew it wouldn't take long. A very good debate going here, no name calling just an attempt to understand other points of view.
Mike and Nancy, I hope you can see why debate is not welcome here. Open minded and tolerant, not on this website? Get your comments in quickly because it will go downhill from here.
By the way Mike, I am a Constitutionalist and a Independent, though most of my life I was a Registered Republican and have never voted for a Democrat. What I am not, is a in-your-face religious fanatic. I am an Agnostic Deist who tries to live a spiritual life, and I believe as I said before, religion should be between you and your God.
-
Comment by Jim Robinson on June 18, 2010 at 12:10pm
-
Nancy's idea for a Heterosexual Pride Month was not based on bias, ignorance, or hatred - that is a point that Nancy has already addressed and established.
Why is it that those that claim to be the most open-minded are often the most closed-minded? Maybe because Liberalism is more than just a mind-set - it is a "disease" of the mind. I see our Liberal trolls couldn't resist coming out of the shadows and hijacking another discussion, again - but we have come to expect no less from them; no surprise there.
It's a real shame that good satire, and common sense in general, are often lost or wasted on Liberals. But life moves on . . . .
.
-
Comment by Mike Mott on June 18, 2010 at 12:02pm
-
Lee,
Gays have been offered a contract; it is called a civil union. They reject that and want marriage. What can that mean other than they want the vows forced upon the churches as well? Perhaps you can explain what else they might want. I don't get it.
Do agree that civil unions -- contracts if gays want them -- are sufficient for their purposes?
Your first paragraph totally misses my point -- completely misses it. Simple question ... on what basis do we establish moral limits? Here is the problem with the argument you seem to be making.
1. My understanding of the argument -- two free people want to get married and no one else should care. That certainly sounds reasonable. But there are underlying implications to that position that could have unintended consequences.
2. Here is the objection to that position. The nation was founded upon Christian principles; the Founders thought the nation had to be moral to maintain the republic. The limits of morality are not arbitrary they are provided by the Bible. The natural rights of our citizens are granted by a Creator. On what moral basis do we grant homosexual marriage? If we find that moral basis in principles other than those upon which the nation was founded, then how will that restrict the other arrangements that I mentioned? Why can't one man enter into a contract with 30 women? How can we say one is moral and the other is not? On the matter of sex with a dead body ... no contract is necessary. The cadaver can't object; I want to do this as a free human being. How do we establish a moral limit if we remove the moral limits upon which the country is based? This is a serious question.
So that is the problem that I see .. moral limits are to be removed so that people are free to do something. How are we then to establish other moral limits? If government is overruling the moral limits of God then how do we stop government encroaching on other moral limits or even our natural rights?
On the holiday my complaint is that Martin Luther King has a national holiday and George Washington does not. One might infer from this that Martin Luther King was more important to our national history than was George Washington. That's what irritates me about this.
-
Comment by Nancy Morgan on June 18, 2010 at 4:23am
-
Leslie,
Can you spell satire?
-
Comment by CJ Wyandotte DPS on June 17, 2010 at 11:40pm
-
National holidays for significant events in our history, I think are appropriate. I'm not sure I agree with you in regards to MLK and George Washington. I agree that we should have a George Washington National Holiday but not because we also honor MLK.
Good question, I don't know if Thanksgiving is offensive to secularists. I suppose I could be labeled a secularist in that I don't want the government interfering with my freedom to worship or my freedom not to worship.
I have no issue with Thanksgiving, Christmas or Independence Day as those holidays are significant to our culture and history, besides most countries celebrate Christmas including some non-Christian countries.
-
Comment by Mike Mott on June 17, 2010 at 9:42pm
-
CJ,
You bring up the interesting question of what holidays, if any, should the federal government declare. There are issues now with Christmas. One that annoys me is that we have a holiday for Martin Luther King and not one for George Washington (Presidents Day doesn't count).
Is Thanksgiving offensive to secularists? July 4h is a reasonable national holiday I suppose.
It makes me wonder about the criteria for deciding whether a person or event is worthy of a national holiday? Clearly picking out a group to favor is divisive, as you note and as this thread proves, was what I think was the point of the missive.
© 2013 Created by Earl B.
You need to be a member of TCUnation to add comments!
Join TCUnation