Conservative comes out as gay, defends religious Americans

[Havard]

buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/a-fox-news-contributor-on-being-gay-the-gop-and-religious-li#.emn8kYqDr

Some of his quotes:

“The vast majority” of people who oppose marriage equality “are not bigots,”

“I think a lot of gay people have felt for generations, obviously, that they have not been treated fairly, and I don’t think that coming to a point of social harmony and then pushing further in this almost vengeful, ‘Let’s get ‘em,’ hounding people out of jobs … *t’s not productive, it’s not good for the country.”

“I’m for civil marriage, I’m for nondiscrimination laws — but I think there should be broad carve-outs for religious organizations, in particular, and narrow carve-outs for closely held businesses that serve the wedding industry."

Not surprisingly, he’s been slammed by mainstream (i.e., progressive) gay outlets. *

 

[Darryl_Revok]

Two thoughts:

1. His misfortune was to willingly contribute to a channel that, to be honest, has been the generator and focus of a lot of anti-gay animus over the past 15 years. Indeed, FOX News has been a rallying point for the forces of the Culture War, and its combatants have heretofore dealt only in absolutes (the counterproductive fight against the very idea of civil unions, for instance). And, in any war, Les Collaborateurs are the most despised of all.
2. His wisest course before championing gay conservatism would have been to sever and sterilize his connections to FOX and their ilk, and set himself as an independent thinker rather than another FOX talking head, one who is indistinguishable save for his sexual preference. As it is, and however unfair it is, he’s doomed to be dismissed as a sexual equivalent of the “self-hating Jew” or the “Uncle Tom”.

 

[Zachary]

If you don’t say exactly what the open-minded want, you are a traitor. There’s no room for descent in the tolerance movement.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Two thoughts:

1. His misfortune was to willingly contribute to a channel that, to be honest, has been the generator and focus of a lot of anti-gay animus over the past 15 years. Indeed, FOX News has been a rallying point for the forces of the Culture War, and its combatants have heretofore dealt only in absolutes (the counterproductive fight against the very idea of civil unions, for instance). And, in any war, Les Collaborateurs are the most despised of all.
2. His wisest course before championing gay conservatism would have been to sever and sterilize his connections to FOX and their ilk, and set himself as an independent thinker rather than another FOX talking head, one who is indistinguishable save for his sexual preference. As it is, and however unfair it is, he’s doomed to be dismissed as a sexual equivalent of the “self-hating Jew” or the “Uncle Tom”.

Fox presents one side of the argument, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and their ilk present another. Fox is vilified because it does not generally present the “popular” view of something. Their reporting is no more biased than their counterparts.

The fact that this person chose to go to Fox may mean that Fox was the only agency willing to present his story, or it may simply mean that he trusts Fox to present his views accurately. Fox stands on it’s beliefs, and does not compromise to appease the masses. This is commendable, whether you agree with them or not.

The inappropriate labels people may apply to him for this view only goes to support the notion that the gay agenda is being irrational vengeful and hateful towards those who do not fall in line with their dogmas.

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

If you don’t say exactly what the open-minded want, you are a traitor. There’s no room for descent in the tolerance movement.

That is the most ironic post I ever read.

And sadly also the most accurate description of the “tolerance movement” I ever read as well.

 

[PseuTonym]

If you don’t say exactly what the open-minded want, you are a traitor. There’s no room for descent in the tolerance movement.

Whether or not he gets the label “traitor” depends on what country he was talking about.

“I’m for civil marriage, I’m for nondiscrimination laws — but I think there should be broad carve-outs for religious organizations, in particular, and narrow carve-outs for closely held businesses that serve the wedding industry."

If he was talking about a country where Islam is the official religion, then he does not get the label “traitor.” Anybody who gives him the label “traitor” should anticipate being denounced as an Islamophobe and bigot.

 

[BigdogAman]

I wonder how many homophobic remarks people at Fox News made to him?May the ways of the Gay guide us all.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I wonder how many homophobic remarks people at Fox News made to him?May the ways of the Gay guide us all.

You mean the utter disregard for the commandments of God as pertaining to the nature of human sexuality?

No thanks, I’ll stick to God’s laws.

You do realize that this man works with Fox frequently, and was given the free platform to voice his views from Fox? They did not censor the things which are in contrast to Fox’s general views, and they allowed him to openly present his case.

In exchange for this freedom, this man has been vilified by the “tolerant” masses for not ascribing to all of the liberal dogmas. Have you read the comments on that website? He is receiving such hatred from the “tolerant” people because he supports religious freedom. They are wholly intolerant of him because he does not support every last point of their “tolerance.”

 

[Havard]

I wonder how many homophobic remarks people at Fox News made to him?May the ways of the Gay guide us all.

I don’t see a reason to suspect any. Other conservative gays like Ric Grennell and Tammy Bruce have both been FNC contributors for years.

 

[Convert1]

As Pope Francis declares the upcoming “Year of Mercy” (Dec. 2015 to Nov. 2016)
I would hope to believe that we do not judge situations such as this; but we look within ourselves and pray for these people.
The Pope said at his homily April 11th:

"The life and action of the Church, he said, “is authentic and credible only when she becomes a convincing herald of mercy”, a mercy that “knows no bounds and extends to everyone without exception.”

Everyone without exception.

 

[Neofight]

So, if I understand correctly, the vast majority of posters here believe that secular marriage of same sex couples is fine, as long as the church is not mandated by government to perform ceremonies?

I would have never thought that to be the case.

If it is, you can bet there is no stopping the same sex marriage tidal wave.

Maybe I’ve misread the posts, or the posts represent the minority opinion of Catholics.

Can somebody fill me in?

 

[Darryl_Revok]

Fox presents one side of the argument, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and their ilk present another. Fox is vilified because it does not generally present the “popular” view of something. Their reporting is no more biased than their counterparts.

Let’s look at FOX away from the lens of ideological bias. I think it’s a fair statement that FOX’s coverage and the opinions of their talking heads have been, shall we say, less than supportive of same-sex marriage and gay rights. I also think it’s uncontroversial to say that this lack of support is shared by a sizable portion of its target audience. Whether its views are popular or not is irrelevant; it matters only that, in the process, they’re anathematic to the interests of the gay population of the United States.

Which is fine; there’s a right to free speech and free expression. However, there are certain compromises involved in the process of engaging in free speech. Benson is only now finding this out.

The fact that this person chose to go to Fox may mean that Fox was the only agency willing to present his story, or it may simply mean that he trusts Fox to present his views accurately.

Or option C: he’s trying to sell a product, and FOX enables him to reach the greatest number of potential consumers.

People forget that modern cable news is much like an infomercial, and the opinions of talking heads like Benson are commodities packaged and sold to a prospective audience. It’s no coincidence that he chose to come out of the closet in a commercially-available book on his political musings.

The inappropriate labels people may apply to him for this view only goes to support the notion that the gay agenda is being irrational vengeful and hateful towards those who do not fall in line with their dogmas.

As I said, one does not work for an organization contrary to the perceived self-interest of one’s specific cultural group and expect to come out unscathed. It would be akin to Bill Donohue having a regular column in Playboy magazine. No matter how correct his views or salient his points, his message would be inexorably tainted by association.

 

[estesbob]

Two thoughts:

1. His misfortune was to willingly contribute to a channel that, to be honest, has been the generator and focus of a lot of anti-gay animus over the past 15 years. Indeed, FOX News has been a rallying point for the forces of the Culture War, and its combatants have heretofore dealt only in absolutes (the counterproductive fight against the very idea of civil unions, for instance). And, in any war, Les Collaborateurs are the most despised of all.
2. His wisest course before championing gay conservatism would have been to sever and sterilize his connections to FOX and their ilk, and set himself as an independent thinker rather than another FOX talking head, one who is indistinguishable save for his sexual preference. As it is, and however unfair it is, he’s doomed to be dismissed as a sexual equivalent of the “self-hating Jew” or the “Uncle Tom”.

It only took to two post for the obligatory FOX News is evil comment. Can the "it’s Bush’s fault "post be far behind

 

[Darryl_Revok]

It only took to two post for the obligatory FOX News is evil comment. Can the "it’s Bush’s fault "post be far behind

I never said FOX News was evil; I merely gave an account of their historical views, and prominence in the debate. I don’t think my interpretation (that they, as an organization, have a history of animus towards gay rights) is very controversial.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

So, if I understand correctly, the vast majority of posters here believe that secular marriage of same sex couples is fine, as long as the church is not mandated by government to perform ceremonies?

I would have never thought that to be the case.

If it is, you can bet there is no stopping the same sex marriage tidal wave.

Maybe I’ve misread the posts, or the posts represent the minority opinion of Catholics.

Can somebody fill me in?

No, I don’t think that’s the point at all. The point is the hypocrisy of gay rights advocates who advocate for “tolerance”, are slamming Benson not for opposing same- sex marriage, for he himself supports it, but merely for stating there should be “carve outs” for religious organizations and small private businesses, that people with religious objectons should not be forced to take part in such services.

So, not only are they not tolerant to those who hold opposing beliefs, they aren’t even tolerant of the people such as Benson who are guilty simply of tolerating those opposite beliefs, even if he doesn’t hold them himself. I think what incidents like these expose is the truth that the politically active homosexual movement has long ago moved beyond the idea of tolerance. They don’t want tolerance, they want acceptance. They want everyone to fully accept that same-sex relationships are 100% as legitimate as heterosexual ones, and they want the people who don’t agree with them to suffer.

Note that one effect of the “marriage equality” movement, as noted by Karl Keating himself in his CAF blog, is that many Americans actually think 25% or more of the population is gay! This far exceeds the “10% Plus” stat thrown around when I was in high school (almost 20 years ago).

I have also noticed that the “sexual minority alliance” has become larger and larger, from “Lesbian and Gay” to “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender” to “LGBTQ” to “LGBTQA”; the Q stands not for Queer but for Questioning, and I believe A stands for Ally. I think other letters have recently been added as well.

The strategy of the politically active “gay” movement these days, really seems to be based not on the premise that “we are an oppressed minority that needs protection from the majority” but actually a premise that “we are no longer a minority, we have enough allies that politically we are a MAJORITY, and now that we have the power of the majority, we are going to use it to crush those who oppose us.” I think Benson’s point about a vengeful mentality is very true.

BTW, Benson’s opinion regarding same-sex marriage, actually is the majority opinion in the US on this issue, at least based on polls I’ve seen; a small majority supports same-sex civil marriage (a little over 50%), but a large majority (70-80%, perhaps more) does NOT think private business owners should be forced to provide services for those weddings, much less actual religious institutions.

Also, as I recall, although Catholics don’t support civil same-sex “marriage”, even some Catholic bishops have approved the idea of “civil unions” that provide not only sexually involved same-sex couples, but any two people, to commit to each other (such as platonic friends, siblings, cousins, etc.) and gain some of the legal benefits of marriage. However, the movement doesn’t want just the legal benefits, I think they see legal gay marriage as the ultimate PR success that proves non-heterosexual relationships are 100% equivalent to heterosexual ones.

I also have talked to actual gay people who are not as obsessed with the idea of “marriage equality” as the politically active ones would like us to believe. Yes, they want the legal benefits, but not all gay people are set on officially marrying their partners. Some (mostly lesbians) don’t even believe in marriage as a concept to begin with, but find it a “patriarchal institution” that they want no part of.

ETA: Re Fox News, I think few would deny they have a conservative slant on the news, but it’s not exactly like everyone who works there on a regular basis share the exact same beliefs, much less people who are paid for the occasional guest appearance. Shepard Smith is rather moderate, as is Bill O’Reilly, compared to, say, Sean Hannity, and I’d say he’s moderate compared to a Mike Huckabee (though I know Huckabee doesn’t actually work for Fox anymore). Saying that is just as overly simplistic as saying all people who identify as “gay” or “homosexual” have the exact same political beliefs.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

Also, as I recall, although Catholics don’t support civil same-sex “marriage”, even some Catholic bishops have approved the idea of “civil unions” that provide not only sexually involved same-sex couples, but any two people, to commit to each other (such as platonic friends, siblings, cousins, etc.) and gain some of the legal benefits of marriage.

The whole “civil unions” ship sailed a long time ago. It might have been a reasonable compromise in the early aughts, and would have probably given the marriage protection movement some room to stand firm, but the opportunity was squandered through arrogance and overreach.

However, the movement doesn’t want just the legal benefits, I think they see legal gay marriage as the ultimate PR success that proves non-heterosexual relationships are 100% equivalent to heterosexual ones.

Of course. Why would they compromise now that total victory is within their grasp? Why settle for the merest legal veneer when the whole thing is attainable? It’s like Alexander Stephens treating for peace with Lincoln even as the final offensive was taking shape.

ETA: Re Fox News, I think few would deny they have a conservative slant on the news, but it’s not exactly like everyone who works there on a regular basis share the exact same beliefs, much less people who are paid for the occasional guest appearance.

The individual views of the various contributors are ultimately secondary to the FOX News brand, which is primarily socially and fiscally conservative and aimed at a socially and fiscally conservative audience. I earlier compared it to an infomercial; think of cable news as a series of late night Popeil ads. The product being sold might vary, the presentation might vary, but both product and presentation are geared towards a specific audience.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

The whole “civil unions” ship sailed a long time ago. It might have been a reasonable compromise in the early aughts, and would have probably given the marriage protection movement some room to stand firm, but the opportunity was squandered through arrogance and overreach.

I wasn’t even addressing that comment to you, I was just addressing Neofight’s assumption that posters defending Benson for his comments were in complete agreement totally with those comments, including his personal support of SSM, as opposed to just the portions in which he expressed his views supporting religious exemptions.

Of course. Why would they compromise now that total victory is within their grasp? Why settle for the merest legal veneer when the whole thing is attainable? It’s like Alexander Stephens treating for peace with Lincoln even as the final offensive was taking shape.

Hmm, you make it sound like that is a good thing. You seem to support a complete scorched-earth Sherman’s March type approach to this issue, as opposed to Mr. Benson, who does not. So, what is “total victory” to you? Simply a SCOTUS decision that makes civil same-sex marriage the law of the land? Do you think churches should be forced to perform same-sex marriages? Do you think anyone who disagrees is a bigot who should be prosecuted for a hate crime?

The individual views of the various contributors are ultimately secondary to the FOX News brand, which is primarily socially and fiscally conservative and aimed at a socially and fiscally conservative audience. I earlier compared it to an infomercial; think of cable news as a series of late night Popeil ads. The product being sold might vary, the presentation might vary, but both product and presentation are geared towards a specific audience.

I don’t necessary disagree with you about FOX News as a “brand” but even you admit their presentation is aimed at a “primarily” conservative audience, not ONLY for such an audience.

But I really think the FOX News issue is a secondary one. Let’s face it, a homosexual person identifying as “liberal” would also have been attacked as a traitor if s/he made the same comments Benson did.

 

[Havard]

But I really think the FOX News issue is a secondary one. Let’s face it, a homosexual person identifying as “liberal” would also have been attacked as a traitor if s/he made the same comments Benson did.

I believe so. That’s my experience, anyway.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

Update: the American Family Association has chimed in:

Townhall, by the way, is owned by Salem Media Group, which describes its mission as “targeting audiences interested in Christian and family-themed content and conservative values.” To my knowledge, Salem has yet to explain how paying an openly homosexual activist to be the political editor of its main public policy publication is consistent with this mission.

If Salem leadership is to be at all true to its own mission statement, Benson must be replaced. His values on homosexuality are not Christian, family-themed, or conservative.

In truth, the term “gay conservative” is an oxymoron, along the lines of “honest thief.” The first term is flatly and inescapably contradictory to the second.

Thus, Benson’s elimination as a credible voice is complete. His potential audience–gay people potentially open to conservatism–reject him on general principle. The ideologues of his current affiliation neither respect or take him seriously; at best, they’ll treat him like the Duke Brothers treated Billy Ray Valentine in Ordinary People. Indeed, Fischer’s response is so full of animus that it validates the antipathy gay people have towards the current conservative level of dialogue.

 

[Havard]

Update: the American Family Association has chimed in:

Thus, Benson’s elimination as a credible voice is complete. His potential audience–gay people potentially open to conservatism–reject him on general principle. The ideologues of his current affiliation neither respect or take him seriously; at best, they’ll treat him like the Duke Brothers treated Billy Ray Valentine in Ordinary People. Indeed, Fischer’s response is so full of animus that it validates the antipathy gay people have towards the current conservative level of dialogue.

Anyone that calls Townhall.com “nominally conservative” is undoubtedly catering to a niche audience himself. The fact is, gay people like Tammy Bruce and Rick Grennell have been contributors on Fox News for years. This Bryan Fischer fellow can hate on Guy Benson all he wants, but Guy Benson will undoubtedly continue to get more airtime than he will.