Are You Normal? The NC GOP Will Be the Judge of That
By Anthony | May 5th, 2006 | 11:40 pmIn the interest of keeping everyone informed, I thought I should pass on this useful bit of information. The official position of the North Carolina Republican Party is that if you are gay, you are not “normal”. From the 2005 NC Republican Platform:
We believe homosexual behavior is not normal and should not be established as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle either in public education or in public policy.
Please note, this isn’t just the opinion of some random Republicans, this is their official, state-wide, “thought it through, debated it, took a vote on it and put it in writing” position.
Unfortunately, there’s no indication of their definition of “normal” (other than “not gay”) or any explanation of why something needs to be “normal” to be considered “acceptable”. If by “not normal” they simply mean “not usually done” then it would seem that there must be a whole slew of behaviors that Republicans deem unacceptable. After all, homosexuals and bisexuals make up about four percent of the population. Compare that percentage to the percentage of mixed-race marriages in the US – about 2.5 percent in 1997. If “not normal” – as measured by frequency of a given behavior – means “unacceptable” then the North Carolina Republican Party must have an even bigger problem with mixed-race marriages, right?
Maybe by “not normal” they simply mean “not approved of by the Bible”. I’ve heard many Republicans give this as their reason for disapproving of homosexual behavior. I suppose as long as they’re limiting their pronouncements of normality to their party platform they shouldn’t run into trouble with the establishment clause by using that reasoning.
We support federal and state constitutional amendments to ensure that marriage is limited to the union of one man and one woman. We oppose attempts to legitimize homosexual relationships by placing such relationships on an equal footing with marriage.
Oops. I guess they’ll need to try to forego any religious arguments when they push for those amendments.
Well, whatever their rationalizations, it’s nice to know that state Republicans will keep us informed as to what personal behaviors are normal and acceptable.
May 6th, 2006 at 11:14 am
Hey Tater! I believe homosexuals are normal, as far as a political party goes! It may not be normal in a reproductive sense or in a statistical sense… we don’t know much about what makes someone desire homosexual sex, but it is normal biblically.
I believe marraige – defined as between a man and woman- has stood the test of time. On one hand, with no solid and consistant scientific evidence, the Gay rights crowd (which is very small compared to the gay population) argues homosexuality is not a choice, but how they were born. Now they (and advocates like yourself) argue it is wrong to use religious and sociological arguments to support tradional marraige.
So my Republican friends that would write homosexuality is not normal are as arrogant and shallow as you make them out to be. In the Bible, God condemns all sex outside of marraige as sin… and marraige is defined as strictly heterosexual. God is also clear that everyone sins- no one is righteous, not even one. So homosexuality is definitely normal behavior.
To be fair, if you say people are born Gay, how is that manifested in their life? The argument that we don’t decide who we are attracted to seems to be the only answer. “When did you decide to be heterosexual?” This is as shallow and arrogant as those Republicans. Being born Gay can only mean our sexuality is determined by our desire. Sexual desire is not something we are born with.
For that reason, I begin to understand that God’s view of sex is much higher, healthier and holier than man’s. He commands we exhibit self control over our desires, knowing we are going to stumble. (This is why we need a Savior. When we stumble (sin), we ask forgiveness.)
Even on a purely sociological level, consider the ramifications of a world where sex was held in such high regard- limited to married couples? At the very least there’d be less poverty, less disease and less devient behavior.
I say no to Gay marraige. I think Gay sex is as wrong and irresponsible as all heterosexual sex outside of marraige. It may even be more destructive than other sexual sins.
May 6th, 2006 at 11:56 am
Hi Chip – thanks for the reply. I just wanted to hit one of your points very briefly:
“Now they (and advocates like yourself) argue it is wrong to use religious and sociological arguments to support tradional marraige.”
I can’t speak for other people, but I’m not saying that it’s “wrong” in general to use religious and socialogical arguments to support your side of the discussion. I only ask that A) The arguments make sense and are consistent, and B) Religious arguments are left out when dealing with the issue from a legislative point of view.
May 6th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Good point. However, I don’t have a problem with religius views motivating legsilation.
May 6th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Chip, you may not, but many, like myself do. Hence the seperation of “Church and state” concept. The government has no business taking the precepts of one particular religion and using them for the basis to enact new laws. Just because a particular concept from one religion may seem “moral” or even for the greater good, doesn’t give the government to use that as the basis for telling me what I can and cannot do. Just because *you* think its good or moral (or deviant for that matter), doesn’t mean others do. The US is not a theocracy (at least it wasn’t last time I checked), its a democracy.
May 6th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Stew’sfriend- deviant behavior refers to pedophilia, beastiality- things like that. The condemnation of these things, which were accepted in ancient cultures- and in some nation’s today is purely religious. The Government is made of people.
We are a nation who’s laws are heavily based on Judeo Christian principles. Thank God, because it is because of those principles women are treated so differently here than other nations….slavery was abolished…Jim Crow was abolished… We owe our freedom to legislation motivated by religion.
If people took your words to heart, on what basis would you condemn pedophilia? It is often consentual. Why is poligamy against the law? On what basis would you condemn any behavior that is consentual?
The only argument neccessary to defeat Gay marraige is to fall back on its historical definition. It is between a man and woman and nothing else. There is nothing dishonorable in that. It is not demeaning or judgemental.
Republicans are wrong to say homosexuality is not normal. What if it became normal in a statistical sense? If the Republicans are invoking God’s view, which seems to be that any sex outside of marraige is abnormal, they are in a world of hurt. I believe Gay sex is sinful, but I’d never support making it illegal as it once was. I think the wise comeback to the normalcy argument is to point out – like Potato stew did- that no one has a lock on normalcy.
Finally, I believe the Government has the right to pick and choose Religious views that are in its best interest.
May 6th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Unfortunately I don’t have a lot of time to comment on things today, but I will take a moment for this:
“If people took your words to heart, on what basis would you condemn pedophilia? It is often consentual.”
On the basis that children aren’t old enough to make an informed decision, and there are often “power” issues between a child and adult that call any consensual aspects into question. We don’t allow children to drive, or drink, or vote because they aren’t equipped to handle the responsibility. The same reasoning can be applied here.
I believe that pedophelia is vile, as most people do, but to suggest that there’s no reason to condemn it other than “the bible says it’s bad” is ridiculous.
May 6th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
Your friend said that it is wrong to make laws based on religious motivation. So what are you basing the power issue on? What if I argued that people allow young 11-12 year old girls to marry in most countries and- as long as her folks don’t mind- or her… I am saying that the Bible is one standard- for a lot of people. Did I say it was the only standard?
You are saying that it is wrong make laws because of religious motivation. Who are you to say what is vile? Where does that standard come from? Did you make it up?
And don’t get stuck there…what about polygamy? If Gay marraige is okay- so is polygamy. Why do think changing the definition of marraige from a man and a woman to any other cobination will enhance our world?
May 8th, 2006 at 9:05 am
Chip, unfortunately you, like most of the religious right seem to be the one stuck on the belief that moral behavior stems from religion. It does not. Religion is riddled with hundreds of years of amoral behavior. Ever heard of the crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition, or the church’s 1000 year persecution of women? Just because its in the Bible *does not* give it a blank check to be right. Religion has its good points (and many of them) but it also has bad points (like intolerance and a bigoted, self-important world view). Something can be judged by a free, open, democratic society to be either “right” or “wrong” based solely on how that society wants its members to behave. Not because Jesus said so.
And lest I remind you, only 50 or so years ago, a black marring a white was considered “not normal”. Do you subscribe to the position that we are a “lesser nation” because couples are relatively free to do this now? And the argument that you might make that interracial couples marring is somehow different from gays being able to marry is moot. At one time, the act was considered taboo, and today it usually is not. Is this country a weaker place for it? No, quite the opposite, its stronger because it has helped to teach people to treat others with mutual respect and tolerance.
May 8th, 2006 at 9:14 am
“Did I say it [the Bible] was the only standard?” — Chip
Practically–when you said that were it not for the Bible, there would be no other reason to condemn pedophilia.
And BTW, where in the Bible is pedophilia explicitly condemned? Isn’t pedophilia actually an example where the Bible is useless in guiding jurisprudence; where lawmakers must use their own good judgement?