Sunday, February 04, 2007

Now, They're Attacking Tony Dungy

First, the Boy Scouts of America. Then marriage itself.

Now, partisans for the radical homosexual agenda are attacking a pro football coach.

By most accounts, Indianapolis Colts Head Coach Tony Dungy is among the finest men in professional football. Moral; upright; but with his share of family tragedy (his son committed suicide last year).

Of course, that means that he has to be attacked. It seems that Dungy has agreed to appear at a fundraiser for the Indiana Family Institute, an organization that dares to push back against partisans whose arrogance and radicalism causes them to attack the language ("marriage" should mean something other than the union between a man and a woman) and the fundamental building block of civilized society (the aforementioned "marriage"). Hence, one finds various logs (Pam's House Blend, OutSports, and AOL Sports Blog) attacking Dungy.

You see, any group that dares to push back against the radical homosexual agenda is attacked as "an organization which promotes hate toward gays and lesbians."

Of course, what the far Left calls "hatred" is simply resistance to their agenda. It's belittling and disparaging, the very opposite of rational debate, in the same way that partisans for the radical homosexual agenda dismiss their opponents as "homophobes," i.e., "those who fear homosexuals," when of course, fear has nothing to do with it.

Most Conservatives I know couldn't care less about --- and wouldn't even think about --- what homosexuals do in their so-called "private" lives. The problem arises when they demand not merely tolerance for their perversions, but public acceptance of them, i.e., when they seek to make public what they misnomer as their "private" lives.

It's long past time when Conservatives respond in kind, and reject the radical homosexual agenda for what it is: an agenda seeking to mainstream perversion. That is the standard that partisans for the radical homosexual agenda have chosen for the terms of their debate. They cannot legitimately complain when Conservatives respond in kind.


Anonymous said...

Mr. Young,

Somehow you believe that if you continue to attack gays about how they live, everything will change to the way you want things. The reality is the world is always changing and never stops changing.

There is no such thing as the radical homosexual agenda. All gay people think differently, but it is no longer considered radical for same-sex couples to get married. A number of countries allow it. I used to be an ultra-conservative Republican precinct delegate in Michigan and believed I could impose my ideas on everyone else. Well, the world did not care what I thought, and things changed regardless of what I wanted or thought. People have the right to live as they want.

If gay people want to get married, why do you care? They are not impacting your marriage. You do not have to accept gay marriage in your personal life, but if two people of the same sex want to get married by the state, that is their business.

You continue to refer to gays as "sexual deviants." Well, how would you like most gay people to live? Celibate lifestyles. If you advocate celibacy, then you should try living that way yourself. Too tough? If you are not willing to live it yourself, then you should not suggest it for others.

People are healthier when they are able to form a loving relationship with another person. The Catholic Church sex scandal could have been avoided if priests had been allowed to have relationships or get married (I am a member of All Saints Catholic Church). That's the real world.

Kirk Marusak

James Young said...

Mr. Marusak, I would prefer not to think about them at all. However, as Mona Charen has observed, what used to be "the love that dare not speak its name" has become "the love that will not shut its mouth." Partisans for the radical homosexual agenda have foisted this "debate" on the American people; but like many on the far Left, they want the "debate" to be one-sided, and attempt to silence others with belittlement and disparagement. And while I agree that "All gay people think differently," just like all people think differently, it is a fool's errand to assert that "There is no such thing as the radical homosexual agenda."

Of course, that you profess that you "used to be an ultra-conservative Republican precinct delegate in Michigan and believed [you] could impose my ideas on everyone else" tells the reader just about everything he or she needs to know about the caricatured world in which you reside.

And, of course, "If gay people want to get married," they can do so. So long as they marry a member of the opposite sex who will have them. Otherwise, it is not, by definition, "marriage." And it's utter nonsense to suggest that it "is their business" "if two people of the same sex want to get married BY THE STATE." That is, of course, a demand for public affirmation of their relationship.

But thanks for reading! And proving my point.

James Atticus Bowden said...

James Young: Succinct and cogent. Well done - nice combination.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Young,

For being a lawyer and former weekly political columnist for the Potomac News, I hoped that you would have been better able to present the conservative point of view and make better arguments against the statements that I made. You hardly identified any of the points I made or made any arguments against them.

In addition, a good debator does not call people names. You did not call me any names. But I learned in college English class never to use "buzz" words such as "radical", "reactionary" or
"commie" in arguing against other people or positions. It turns people off and loses the reader.
Calling people "sexual deviant", "radical", "left-winger" is not focusing on any issue.

Whether you believe gays are "sexual deviants" or not, you do not help your case when you use terminology such as that. George Will and William F. Buckley present the conservative viewpoint with good arguments and are well respected in their writing. I mean well when I say this to you. You could come across more polished when arguing for your point of view. Your current statements would get a lot of support at a Republican meeting or with people who share your conservative views, but you will have difficulty influencing a neutral person with your statements.

I learned to examine every issue thoroughly by looking at all arguments both for and against before coming to any conclusion. I look at a variety of solutions to problems. It is not important to me whether something is the conservative position or the liberal position. To me, what is more important is to look at the reality and what works the best in practice. I open myself up to all ideas.

You might ask another person who is unbiased how you come across to the reader in your writing. They will probably mention that your writing does not present itself as well as it could when trying to get people to agree with your viewpoint. I hope that you are not offended by that statement because it is well intentioned.

I wish you the best of luck in your political writing. Good luck on your blog.

Kirk Marusak

James Young said...

Mr. Marusak, while your comments seem well-intentioned, you really don't get the point (i.e., that partisans for the radical homosexual agenda can't legitimately complain when Conservatives respond in kind), do you?

You seem to confuse arguments that you don't like with not "identif[ying] any of the points [you] made or ma[king] any arguments against them." That, too, is sadly a tactic of the far Left (i.e., confusing an agenda they don't like and can't answer with "not having an agenda"). As for what you learned "in college English class," I strongly suspect that, if your professor was in what passes for a "mainstream" among academia today and in the recent past, he or she, too, was more interested in using euphemisms on such topics than in accuracy. It is a practice I see all too often in my legal practice, where union attorneys prefer the term "fair share fees" in lieu of forced union dues, and "collections" in lieu of state-facilitated dues seizures. Similarly, sexual deviants have all manner of euphemisms for their perversions. For example, my understanding is that members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association and other pedophiles prefer the term "boy lovers." Are we to cede the terms of the debate to them, as well? In my experience, doing so is ceding the moral high ground. You seem to suggest that no such high ground exists.

Your complaint about "name-calling" is in a similar vein. Some names are accurate. Indeed, in my experience, it is the "names" which are most accurate which are most objectionable, particularly to "sexual deviant[s]", "radical[s]", and "left-winger[s]." Or "Democrat Party," in lieu of the term preferred by members thereof, who give little evidence of being "democratic," with a small "d." 'Tis a pity that you open yourself up to such views, as part of "all views." One shouldn't have a mind so open that one's brains fall out.

And BTW: I make no pretensions about being of the caliber of the sainted WFB or George Will. Were it that it were so. Were it so, it is doubtful that I would be making a living practicing law.

James Young said...

And, Mr. Marusak, having learned of your affiliation with Perversion Prince William ... er, "Equality Prince William," I: (1) doubt the sincerity of your effort to make me more persuasive; (2) have little wonder that you would wish to deny the existence of a "radical homosexual agenda," since you are an advocate for it; and (3) understand more fully why you would object to response in kind.

And as to the point you make that "it is no longer considered radical for same-sex couples to get married," I'm sure among the circles you travel, it is not. But that "a number of countries allow it" hardly means that it is not "radical." Until just a few years ago, a fair number of countries committed to psychiatric hospitals people who believe in Western principles of liberty and democratic pluralism. Those same countries rejected the notion of private property. That they did so hardly made their practices not "radical."