NOM BLOG

Frank Turek on Who Are the Real Gay Bigots and Bullies

 

Frank Turek is an award-winning author or coauthor of three books who also hosts a weekly TV show. He writes in TownHall:

"...the standard arguments for homosexuality and same-sex marriage don’t work. That’s why some homosexual activists will continue to smear conservatives as “bigots” in order to bully them out of the debate and even out of their jobs. In America today, it’s much easier to win with demagoguery than evidence. If you convince the majority that your opponents are “bigots,” then you automatically win even if you’re the bully actually practicing bigotry...

Will they get away with their bigotry and bullying? Not if Americans start thinking. Thinking people realize that equating homosexuality with race, though presently fashionable, is just as fallacious as calling marriage based in biology a form of bigotry. As G. K. Chesterton pointed out, “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”

22 Comments

  1. Noreen
    Posted August 29, 2011 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    The big "debate" seems to be about being gay is liken to genetics or not. The fact is, there is a strong and growing movement of the GLBT community... yes, REAL people and committed couples. The general straight populous is growing more tolerant and accepting of this reality. Groups like NOM and FRC, etc... are soon to be irrelevant. Sorry!

  2. Noreen
    Posted August 29, 2011 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    "Irrelevant" as far as the fight to deny GLBT couples a marriage licenes and certificate. We all know that such a ban is unconstitutional, and the courts ALWAYS rule in favor of equality, even though you may get a slight majority at the ballot box. The SCOTUS will end this debate, once they get to rule.

  3. Barb
    Posted August 29, 2011 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    Turek makes some very good points. Pseudo-marriage advocates can't win the debate based on the merits of their arguments. There is no "right" to pseudo-marriage and the very concept is silly at best to the average thinking person. All the SS"M" advocates have left is mud-slinging and, yes, it has become fashionable for non-thinking people to buy into it.

    Most of us believe that everyone has a right to live however they choose. The debate, and the fight, is about preserving marriage as the union of 1 man + 1 woman.

  4. Bruce
    Posted August 29, 2011 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    If Mr. Turek is so concerned about name-calling, why does he compare GLBT people with sociopaths, alcoholics, and even to those who target GLBT people for violence? I'm all for calming incendiary rhetoric, but it seems to me Mr. Turek is just faming the flames.

  5. Ash
    Posted August 29, 2011 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    The old "bigot" account is overdrawn and the card is declined. We all recognize it as a silencing tool. It's old, tired, and has lost any effect, if it ever had any.

  6. Amber
    Posted August 29, 2011 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    The other thing that I see is the GLBT community calling for a separation between church in state because in many ways the debate of marriage deals with religious beliefs. I see three things wrong with this: 1. The separation of church and state means that government officials cannot make laws based on religious beliefs, i.e. "this is right because God told me that it is." However, we do away with that anyway in a Democracy because people are allowed to vote. There is nothing that states that a politician must ignore his religious beliefs when he/she is voting. 2. I don't know about most Americans, but my religious beliefs are a part of who I am, and therefore shape most of my other beliefs. I don't shed them when I walk in to vote, so of course my religion is going to be a part of how I vote. That isn't a matter of separating religion from politics, it's a matter of being able to vote according to the dictates of my own conscience. 3. If they would like to see such a separation of church and state, then why are they attacking specific religious institutions that choose to uphold propositions against SSM? Yes, those religions are involved, but aren't they the ones making this a religious issue by choosing to attack religions who choose to uphold their beliefs in a public manner?
    I think I might call for a separation between pop culture and state, because I feel like celebrities who openly express their beliefs are taking advantage of the fact that there are millions of people who want to be just like them. Supporting a cause just because Lady Gaga supports that cause is, in my opinion, worse than supporting a cause because of the teachings of your religion.
    I think it's interesting how often we are called hypocrites or bigots. Sometimes I wonder if anyone is actually listening to the other side or seeing what they do. I see more hatred coming from the GLBT community and their supporters than I do from the anti-SSM side. I know that in my own personal experiences, I have been accepting, loving, and non judgmental to friends who live that lifestyle, and though I've been clear on my opinions, I have NEVER done it in a mean or bullying way. But that kindness is constantly returned with intolerance, hatred, and bitterness. I don't get why I am the bigot for simply choosing to follow what I believe to be true.

  7. James A. Tuttle
    Posted August 29, 2011 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    I find it very unusual that there is trial happening, right this very moment, concerning the release of the taped recordings of the Proposition 8 Trial and there is not one mention of it on this blog. Is there a fear of perhaps publicizing a loss?

  8. Posted August 29, 2011 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    This is interesting and true! I experienced being called a "Bigot", by an extremely angry man, just a few days ago while calmly and pleasantly volunteering to protect the definition of marriage at the "MN for Marriage" booth at the State Fair. I love the quote by G. K. Chesterton, “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”

  9. AndreaM
    Posted August 29, 2011 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    What those who use the argument of science pointing to genetic links regarding homosexuality don't realize or refuse to acknowledge is that this argument is irrelevant to the issue. What is relevant is the question of whether or not the behavior is an aberration and detrimental to the good of the human person, or whether it is simply a neutral behavior, with no moral or spiritual import.

    The Chesterton quote makes the point well. Same sex marriage doesn't represent an actual marriage simply because it is fashionable. By the Judeo-Christian sense, it is an impossibility, and can be argued a very destructive fallacy if accepted by a society.

  10. Louis E.
    Posted August 29, 2011 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    "Being gay" in the sense presented by Noreen is first and foremost an ATTITUDE,regardless of genetics.It represents the self-centered delusion that same-sex sexual attraction suffices to exempt someone from the obligation to avoid all same-sex sexual activity that applies "equally" to everyone.Where that belief (found in a greater number of heterosexuals these days,alas) coincides with homosexual orientation (whose cause is irrelevant) the person claims to "be gay" (in an unhappy way).And admitting that that delusion is no more than a delusion is all it takes to stop "being gay",and no longer define oneself in terms of one's weakness for a bad habit.

  11. catholicdad
    Posted August 29, 2011 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    Gewnetics are irrelevant to the marriage question, or indeed to the question of the immorality of homosexual acts.

    Anyone can certainly claim a genetic basis for heterosexual attraction- after all it is biologically expressed in the complementary design of the two genders.

    Most teenagers probably experience a surging, genetically determined rush of desire to copulate with every member of the opposite sex they see.

    This of course does not constitute an argument for polygamy.

    Unless of course one wishes to teach our children that they are beasts, and helpless slaves of their genetically determined hormones.

    Which begins to situate the issue in its proper terms: pseudo marriage is the attempted establishment of a sacrament of the secular state religion.

    It is imperative that it be defeated.

  12. Ash
    Posted August 29, 2011 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    I also think genetics is irrelevant to the marriage debate because to say that this is about genetic-based sexual orientation begs the question of why sexual relationships are of concern to the government. What is inherent in sexual relationships that are of PUBLIC concern, and warrants a legal/social apparatus such as marriage? Of course, it is the procreative capacities of the man-woman dyad, i.e. the only legitimate reason to have the government involved in marriage.

  13. P. Edward Murray
    Posted August 29, 2011 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    Noreen,

    NONE of the founding fathers were in favor of this and that is why your idea here IS Unconstitutional!

    NONE of us come here by same sex biological unions because same sex biological unions can not produce new life!

  14. Noreen
    Posted August 29, 2011 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    Louis e... How do you know all this? Are you ex-gay?
    P. Edward... "new life" is not a requirement for marriage. The Founding Fathers could see that culture changes, that's why they wrote the constitution for Americans.

  15. catholicdad
    Posted August 29, 2011 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

    Noreen: New life is not a requirement for marriage. It is, instead, the basis upon which society recognizes the unique benefits marriage provides.

    Because of this unique benefit- the union of the two complementary genders of our species in stable, long term relationships from which children commonly proceed, and are best nurtured- society extends privileges to married couples it does not extend to other couples.

    Simple.

  16. Louis E.
    Posted August 30, 2011 at 3:28 am | Permalink

    Noreen...it's a simple fact that the "gay" (other than the happy,which is the only context in which you'll see me use the word without quotes) are those persons afflicted by same-sex sexual attraction who imagine that attraction worthy of gratification.Getting over that misapprehension and acknowledging their orientation is a disorder that should not affect their lives is all it takes to leave that set.

  17. Noreen
    Posted August 30, 2011 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    Louis E...
    Again, YOU are making a claim as a "simple fact".
    I am 50 rears old , and knew I was gay when puberty hit. I was NEVER attracted to men. I am blessed to have a partner of 23 years, and we've been married since 2008. We have two 21 yr. old sons that are recent college graduates, and are very heterosexual. For folks like you to tell me you know me better than I know myself is infuriating. All my gay friends live happy normal lives in gay friendly cities.
    According to you, our lives are a "bad habit". Hey...I quit smoking 10 yrs. ago, maybe I should just snuff out my family (as you suggest) like a cigarrette, and go find a man.
    Just trying to give you something to go on, that you need to think a little more outside the box on who we are.

  18. catholicdad
    Posted August 30, 2011 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    Noreen:

    1. Attraction is irrelevant. It is not a requirement for marriage, since society can safely assume that folks getting married are attracted.

    2. You have not been married. You have been pseudo-married. The political quacks responsible for allowing the pseudo-marriage to be civilly recognized will be dealt with politically.

    3. Your two twenty one year old sons were, of course, deprived of the good of being raised by their own mother, father, or both, prior to being acquired by you and your partner. While the circumstances under which they were acquired by you and your partner are unknown, it is absolutely certain that you and your partner will never conceive children from your relationship, and can only acquire them from others.

    4. You misunderstand. We certainly do not encourage the homosexual lifestyle, since it is gravely immoral and brings death, disease, and sickness at exponentially elevated rates, due to its inversion of biological characteristics for sexual practice in our species. But that is not the issue. The issue is the definition of marriage. To the extent that homosexuals seek to impose their values through a redefinition of marriage, they will find the American people implacably, and increasingly, opposed.

    2012 will serve to drive this lesson home in even more unforgettable terms.

  19. Noreen
    Posted August 30, 2011 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    Catholicdad:
    I understand.
    I have a relationship with God that is completely different than yours. No offense, but I feel very sorry for your way of thinking. I would like to point out that you make a great argument for gays making a commitment ("pseudo-marriage")...to get us out of that unhealthy life you claim we live. If two commit, there is no spread of disease that way.
    THANKS!

  20. Louis E.
    Posted August 30, 2011 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

    Noreen,you shouldn't commit to doing something wrong,and you and your partner being of the same sex makes your engaging in sexual activity with each other wrong.It doesn't matter whether you do it with one person or a hundred.

  21. Badger
    Posted September 1, 2011 at 1:32 am | Permalink

    Louis. Did Noreen invite you into her life and her hone? I suspect not. So what right do you have to tell her what is right or wrong about her family, a family that you have never met and know nothing about? Fortunately America is a democracy not a theocracy so thank God that your opinion really doesn't matter when it comes to the private lives of others.

  22. LonesomeRhoades
    Posted September 1, 2011 at 9:00 am | Permalink

    All people are born hetersexual. This has everthing to do with biological truth. Trying to justify aberrant behavior based on feelings or attractions is just plain false.
    As far as tolerance goes, many noxious activities become "tolerant" the more one is exposed to them. The homosexual community has done a good job of numbing America to their perversion.