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 practice 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 Blame an ingrained sense of outdated modesty.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 wether 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 moralality.

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.

Views: 13


You need to be a member of TCUnation to add comments!

Comment by Avin Shum on June 26, 2009 at 11:17pm
Christina, don't confuse ceremonial laws with moral laws

"The Holiness Code"
Comment by Philip Hoskins on June 12, 2009 at 1:33pm
Well Roe v. Wade isn't a government program, is it? Whether you think the decision was right or not, all it did was declare a right to be free from the government intrusion.
Comment by Nancy Morgan on June 12, 2009 at 1:13pm
Then maybe the government should repeal Roe V Wade
Comment by Philip Hoskins on June 12, 2009 at 12:21pm
Nancy, I do not think the government has or should have any interest in marriage, or any other arrangement. I do not think it should promote or interfere with any, except where there is a demonstrable harm. If family, child bearing and all that is included are good things, then why not leave it to individuals and groups to promote what they think is best?

I just don't see why there is a governmental interest. But then that gets into why I say I am a conservative -- I think government does a poor job with moral issues and ought to keep its nose out of all of them.

There are good reasons for criminal laws that need no "moral" basis and we should just make political decisions on the basis of fact, not one kind of morality or another.

It is not any legitimate interest of government whether the birth rate is one level or another, else we end up with Chinese-type solutions. So, I still see absolutely no legitimate role for government in that arena.
Comment by Nancy Morgan on June 12, 2009 at 5:35am
"Nancy, I think one common ground we have is that rights do not belong to groups."

Very well put, Philip.
I believe the state does have a vested interest in protecting marriage as it is the vehicle that assures the propagation of our citizens and the culture.
In Italy, the culture will be almost extinct in 2050 due to the fact their replacement birth rate is not at a sustainable level.
I believe the traditional family is essential to the health of our society. The unifying bonds it creates are essential, just like the tribal ties in Iran are enabling them to wage war against us.
Question: If you had a small business in Utah that catered to Mormons, would you hire as a salesperson a cross-dresser? Or would you prefer the government dictate crucial business decisions for you?
Comment by apackof2 on June 11, 2009 at 6:07pm
Comment by Philip Hoskins on June 11, 2009 at 5:09pm
Nancy, I think one common ground we have is that rights do not belong to groups. I am not a fan of "hate crime" laws either. On both counts, I think it emphasizes a really bad trait in humans and that is to categorize, label and then make assumptions based thereon.

But businesses do not have the right to hire or fire as they please, at least under laws long held to be Constitutional. That is my point.

It is extremely insulting to say my marriage is the equivalent to allowing a horse to marry a human. But leaving aside the insult, there would be a proper state interest in preventing such a marriage, would there not?

What would be the state interest in preventing gay marriage? Not the religious or moral reason, but a legitimate state interest. I cannot fathom one. My marriage to a man does absolutely nothing to your marriage or anyone else's. It would not harm any one in any way, except that you do not like it.

Well, I am sorry, but just as you do not want to be forced to accept me as I am, which is legitimate, I do not want to have to accept you. Your being disgusted, upset or similarly affected is not my problem and it should not be the problem of the state or federal government.

You see, in some ways I am much more conservative than you. I actually believe government should stay out of each of our lives except when there is a demonstrable communal need for the intrusion.

I do not think it the role of government to establish or enforce "morals". Today they may enforce yours, but tomorrow mine. Then you will see what I mean.
Comment by Nancy Morgan on June 11, 2009 at 4:27am
Regards gays being fired: owners of businesses have the right to decide who to hire and fire.
I remember going to a wig shop in Palm Springs that had openly trans sexuals as sales people. Yes, they have that right, but I would not take my children there, thus the business owner loses money. It should be his choice. No-one said life is fair. Life is a series of trade-offs and people who object to the gay lifestyle, either through religious, moral or homophobic reasons, still have that right.

Every right granted to one group, takes away a right from another. There is a lot of grey area.
Comment by Nancy Morgan on June 11, 2009 at 4:21am
Using your premise, why then would not one be able to exercise their right to marry a , say, horse...or 4 different people. We're talking slippery slope here. If gays have the right to marriage, how can you refuse the same right to anyone at all who wants it??
And yes, the Constitution protects the choice of gays, but it does not give them the right to demand others accept it.

I appreciate your comments. I firmly believe if we continue to let the media and government control the conversation, all we will get is polarized hate. I welcome legitimate debate between right and left with, hopefully, both sides making the effort to understand the opposing POV. As Americans, we have a common culture and vested interest in a workable society. I bet we even have more in common than most think.
Comment by Philip Hoskins on June 11, 2009 at 12:27am
And what does it matter if it is a choice rather than something by birth? Doesn't the Constitution protect my choices just like it does yours?




© 2018   Created by Earl B.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service