I admire Mr. Hawkins, I link to him, and I love his work. I am wondering if he will re-examine his support for HomoCons based on what I think are the brilliant arguments from many of his readers. His article in support of HomoCon is here. His arguments are mostly a re-hash of all the liberal claptrap that we are used to hearing, but dressed up in an attempt to sound “conservative.” We’re all sinners. HomoCon are really conservative [except for the fact that they advocate for gay rights] and are thus much better than Log Cabin Republicans. And oh, by the way, why the disapproval of Coulter’s recent decision to give a speech to them when other politicians spoke at Log Cabin rallies. Besides, Right Wing News supports other gay conservative bloggers, and they support us (now if ever there was a stupid, self-serving “reason” for supporting HomoCon, I haven’t seen it). Yes, John Hawkins believes homosexual acts are “sins” but hey, we all sin. Blah blah blah.
Some of his posters destroy his arguments better than I ever could:
You wrote: “That being said, guess who else sins? You, me, and everybody else on the planet at the moment. Being aware that I’m a terribly flawed sinner myself keeps me from getting too high and mighty about other people’s sins.”
“This is about the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.”
“Do I sin?
“Am I ashamed and disgusted by my sinful inclinations?
“Do I consider myself to be part of a community of other people who are also subject to the same kinds of sin?
“Do I organize sinners like myself into pressure groups to get political parties, churches, and society at large to understand, recognize, and affirm my sinful behavior?
CavalierX wrote: “John, the very idea of your supporting a victimhood group that campaigns for special rights is appalling to me, whatever their politics. You say that “no matter what your race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation may be, you should be welcomed into the Republican Party and the conservative movement.” Sure, but not if you center your identity on those things and demand special rights on that basis.”
And in response to this from John Hawkin’s article, “When there is more than an enough of a commonality to overcome, some will overlook established misgivings of others to achieve a common goal,” CavalierX nailed it:
“So when the KKK comes and says “look, we’re mostly conservative like you guys, we just hate black people is all,” we should overlook that tiny little difference and welcome them as a “Racist Conservative” sub-group? Oh, I think not. If the purpose that drives a sub-group is antithetical to the aims of the larger group as a whole, then the people involved are welcome to leave that sub-group and join the larger group as individuals, but not to bring that group’s agenda with them and identify it with the larger group. I would say the same were we discussing a “women’s rights” group, the KKK, or any other group which existed to push its identity-based agenda and wanted support because they were Conservative in every other way. Identity politics is not Conservative. For the record, I don’t give a damn if someone’s gay. Knock yourselves out. Just don’t try to use my support as a Conservative to push a gay agenda item like changing the definition of marriage. That’s not in any way, by any definition of the term, conservative. Neither would, say, a sub-group that was mostly conservative, but wanted race- or sex-based quotas. Sorry, not Conservative. A sub-group that was mostly conservative, but wanted to allow areas where Shari’a law ruled? Sorry, but no. I can keep going, if you like.”
But hell, that’s just my simple biggotted opinion. What say the readers of Smash Mouth Politics?
p.s. Exit interview question: Why are queers always trying to divide us? Go, have sex with whomever you want and STFU about what you do and to whom you did it.
p.p.s. How about some other “conservative” advocacy groups? Conservatives for NAMBLA? ConservativeThievesUnited? Conservative Audulterers And Proud!?