October 11, 2010

I Guess He's Not The "Teabagger" Candidate After All

Carl Paladino is winning friends influencing people in the New York gubernatorial race with speeches like this:

Flame-throwing Republican Carl Paladino erupted again, declaring Sunday that being gay is "not the example that we should be showing our children."

"I don't want [children] brainwashed into thinking homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option - it isn't," Paladino said to applause at a meeting with Hasidic Jewish leaders in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.

In a version of the speech distributed by a rabbi, the rant went further, charging there is "nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual."

Paladino, who's running for governor, winced as he got to this section of the text, and he never spoke the line.

His campaign later said it had days of discussions with Orthodox leaders about what Paladino would say, and the text distributed to some reporters was not produced by the campaign.

Unfortunately for Paladino, the voters he impressed the most were all from Westboro Baptist Church.

I can't quite understand how Paladino and his allies get it into their heads that being gay is an "option" like being between cloth or leather seats in a new car. You are attracted to who you are attracted to, and I find it baffling for him to suggest that being gay is a choice, because that also asserts that the vast majority of us choose to be straight.

At no point in my life was I handed a multiple choice test on this.

I like women, find them intoxicating. It simply isn't in my makeup to view men in the same way. But that doesn't mean that men who view other men (or women who view other women) as sexually desirable are evil, even if they are notably "deviant" from a statistical point of view. It just means they are different, not evil, and this sort of bigoted pandering isn't good for anyone.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at October 11, 2010 09:14 AM

Don't let the social cons ruin the small government movement currently underway. Small government and less taxes are good for the country. Picking on gays is not. The social cons are as bad as liberals at trying to control people.

Posted by: tm at October 11, 2010 09:20 AM

@CY and TM


Posted by: Dan Irving at October 11, 2010 09:43 AM

The question becomes this:

Would gays in New York rather pay higher taxes and have larger government but have the governor march in a pride parade?

Or would they rather have lower taxes, jobs and smaller government but without the governor marching in a parade?

Their choices but either way the voters will get the government they deserve.

Posted by: datechguy at October 11, 2010 09:46 AM

I think sexual preference is a private matter. Those who air it publicly are what is referred to in my upbringing as 'lewd'. That is the real problem with the whole gay movement. It is lewd. Stay away from my bedroom and I stay away from yours. There. Problem solved.

Posted by: Odins Acolyte at October 11, 2010 12:05 PM

It is further incongruous that a "small govt" candidate would use the power of government to force this issue either way. The whole point is supposed to be less government intrusion into private lives, not more.

Why can't a political candidate ever say, "that issue does not fall within the power of the office to which I aspire"?

Posted by: Professor Hale at October 11, 2010 12:27 PM

I doubt this politician has any problem societally/legally with who or what anyone is ATTRACTED to or what they WANT to do to them: same or other gender, child or adult, married or unmarried, animal or human, pain or pleasure based; I'm betting he, like me and many others, have a big problem with people legally getting to ACT on that attraction when morally they should not (and legally in still a few instances they can be punished for such immoral acts). This includes adults enticing/molesting minors (pedophilia), married people carrying on sensuously with anyone beyond the only spouse, anyone committing sensuous acts with animals, anyone participating in human physical or psychological pain for sensual gratification, or anyone of one gender sensuously enticing or acting with anyone of the same gendor. While the people who want to do these things, which admittedly includes almost everyone in some way at some time or other, know the desire and the behaviour is morally prohibited, they do it anyway, demand freedom to do these things, and in many cases insist that they be celebrated in doing them or seek to punish those who won't celebrate the immorality. I think for many, knowing something is immoral, then asserting their selfish desires over the morality they know, and the illicit thrill from that, is a big part of the motivation for the immoral action. Barring the few genuine sociopaths, pretty much everyone knows what genuine, physically and morally safe for all, sexual morality is if they divorce the discussion from their personal lusts. As the Bible points out, broad and easy is the path to destruction. It is always the easy choice to do what we selfishly want. Then we inherit the Bible corollary for those on the broad path, it eventually becomes a great burden because "the way of the transgressor is hard". The flip side: “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." And "A highway will be there, a roadway, and it will be called the Highway of Holiness. The unclean will not travel on it, but it will be for him who walks that way, and fools will not wander on it." Through the narrow way, a life of serving God first, comes an easier, light burden, and if you get over the hard hump of doing the right thing at the point of decision, the follow-up IS easy. No more lies to cover up lies, no more enslavement to (and idolatry for) a particularly set of immoralities.

Repent and believe; come to Christ for salvation and walk after Him; God is patient, but life is short, and then comes judgment.

And even beforehand, the way of the transgressor is hard. Selfishness, including sexual selfishness, is harmful to others and yourself.

Posted by: RepentNLive! at October 11, 2010 03:02 PM

I don't get the gay thing either. For that matter, I don't understand why we have politicians going on about moral concerns. I know a few politicians and consider their morals sadly lacking. But, as many of you have voiced, it seems that both parties are intent on telling us what to do. Your only choice is what aspect of your life that you want them to control.

The other consideration. Our country is going down the tubes with the gas on. Yet here is some idiot concerned about marriage. Why doesn't he focus on getting the government out of business so it can grow and create jobs? Why doesn't he rant about the size of all government from city to state to Federal? Why doen't he go on about reducing taxes? Instead he talks about gay marriage. Actually this is the only thing that government can control. Everything else seems out of their hands and spiraling out of control.

Posted by: David at October 11, 2010 03:08 PM

He didn't say it. It was in the written speech, which was leaked.

Posted by: Pandora at October 11, 2010 04:22 PM

Oops; hit post too fast.

As it was "distributed", not spoken, the most objectionable part omitted, I fail to see the objection to his opinion that homosexuality should not be presented as nothing more than an equally-fine "alternative" lifestyle. This is not an out-of-the-mainstream opinion and needs to be said in view of the mainstreaming and normalizing of it to kids in almost every venue.

Posted by: Pandora at October 11, 2010 04:35 PM

You need some help. As to morals, that is a persoanl thing. Just because you can find a document that is against a particular act does not mean that the rest of us should be held to that "moral" imperative. I find absolutely nothing wrong with sex. I do not see that it is a moral issue unless your actions are endangering others. That is the attitude our government should have. After all, if I adher to the religious dogma with the expectation that I will have a reward in the after life (as many do), wouldn't it be better if I follow that code voluntarily instead of having it enforced on me by the government?

Posted by: David at October 11, 2010 06:08 PM

I can't accept that sexual orientation is always hardwired. I don't accept that there is one "cause," or explanation for it if you prefer. The gay lobby, such as it is, dearly want to find the genetic or other determinant in order to say "See, it isn't our fault!" The anti-gay lobby would also like that, so perhgaps it could be cured.

And those in the middle would like them both to shut up. I don't want to listen to people condemning homosexuality, since it appears ot me to be as pirvate as one could get. But neither do I appreciate the childish exhibitionism of (some) of the gays. You really want me to believe that being gay requires on eot minch around wearing pancake makeup and a feather boa while screeching in falsetto?

No, that's just stupid, whomever you want to have sex with.

I have known many gays who were well adjusted, and aside from that small datum were mainstream and "ordinary." I have known many that had serious personality problems, that appeared to be linked with their sexual preference. I have also known some who, out of the blue, said "Hell with this, I don't want to do it anymore" and turned hetero. And of course it's a certain bet that I have known many gays whom I did not know were gay. And why would it matter?

From this I conclude that some gays are wired that way, some are gay because it's how they deal with, or at least express a personal problem, and some are because for whatever reason they chose to be.

In any event I believe that it is an issue that ought to remian private, and nobody else's business. I would like that courtesy from both sides of the argument.

Posted by: Steve Skubinna at October 11, 2010 08:12 PM

@Professor Hale 'It is further incongruous that a "small govt" candidate would use the power of government to force this issue either way. The whole point is supposed to be less government intrusion into private lives, not more.'

And yet that's not at all what that speech says, is it? So why do you interpret it that way? There is no suggestion in what's quoted that Paladino wants to use the power of government to intrude into private lives. In fact, what he is suggesting is that it is not the role of government to promote certain lifestyles.

Using the power of government to force certain attitudes on the citizenry is what the left does.

'Why can't a political candidate ever say, "that issue does not fall within the power of the office to which I aspire"?'

Because they're all power hungry. It doesn't occur to them that they are our servants, because we haven't treated them that way. Throw the bums out more regularly, and perhaps they'll get the message.

In the end, the citizens of New York will decide if Paladino is palatable.

Posted by: Paul Schmehl at October 11, 2010 09:12 PM


We can all use a little help. In this case, please help me understand your assertions. The first seems to be that "morals" are personal and therefore should not be under legal control/sanction. Yet behavior is routinely either legally restrained or allowed by legal systems, based on the "morals" of those in authority (in our case, our representatives selected by our votes). We do this with a gamut of behavior, from murder to jaywalking (even if, hey, jaywalking and maybe getting run down is "my right to chose"), if we think it wrong and harmful (even if just as a bad example, e.g., just one person arrested for public drunkenness or indecent exposure) we legislate some moral behavior. All such criminal law and regulation "legislates morality".

Mr. Paladino seems okay with some legislation that restrains some activity; in his case here, government promotion of homosexuality to children. We have had much more restrictive laws for most of US history (e.g., sodomy acts.) Mr. Paladino is not going so far as I would (restraining homosexual acts criminally); he just doesn't want it constantly promoted by governmental authority such as schools to kids, and to have our goverment facilitate "recruiting" people while young for self-destructive habits/lifestyles. Kids are impressionable, and that kind of societal blessing and encouragement to "check it out" has an impact on some people. Again, he is not advocating restraining the behavior (which I do, just as much as murder, robbery, slander, or jaywalking).

Why would I challenge you and the others here to support Mr. Paladino on this issue, or others taking a stronger stance? Because I know that the behavior offends God based on my presupposition that He exists and is exactly Who He says He is in His word, the Bible. That includes defining homosexual thoughts and acts as evil and sin. And seeing government's role to restrain evil (though not evil thoughts, that is a personal responsibility in Scripture). My post attempts to draw people to that point, and through it to the Bible, and through it, perhaps to Jesus Christ.

Second point, "nothing wrong with sex. I do not see that it is a moral issue unless your actions are endangering others." Neither do I, but I think immoral sex DOES endanger others, and therefore want such actions legally restrained. If you are diligent, you can see some complications with sex beyond traditional marriage that are potentially harmful, too.

You next point seem to be following religous dogma earning salvation if done voluntarily. Biblically, following religious dogma or obeying a law does not earn you salvation in the next life. Christians follow Christ voluntarily to please God because of the salvation given them that was earned by Christ. We can never work well enough to earn salvation.

But more to your point, whether your forced obedience to a legislated morality/legal code you don't always agree with is voluntary or not, the code will restrain many from damaging others (even if not voluntary on their part) by incenting them to restrain themselves even though they want to entice others into sharing their immmoral/illegal act. You argue "no harm done", but the only sex act that generally impacts only one person is masturbation. All others have some impact on others. You think that impact good if participated in freely, but you limit your definition of harm by making that assumption. Maybe you think there has to be an immediate harm such as obvious loss of health or wealth. Well, some behavior is restrained for "the good of society/most all people" (what morals are all about), whether traffic regulations, health codes, etc., even without an immediate, visible impact from the behavior. From unwed mothers and their children with higher crime and unemployment rates, to health (e.g., STD rates) and sanitary issues, to serious psychological problems with participants in "unusual" sex, to a lot of emotional hurt and pain as people swap live-ins in and out, the same, plus the impact on kids for adultery, major distraction from long term commitments that are beneficial to society such as careers, education, and families, etc. There are harms, and just because your situation may leave you unlikely to be impacted by them, does not give the society as a whole a pass.

So yes, some more restraint than we have today would be great. I'm not talking bedroom police (an over-exagerated, strawman arguement). But laws keeping people from behavior that is somewhat, for many, harmful, and the same behavior that most people's conscience tells them is wrong. I know this, even without Biblical wisdom, because logically if immoral sex were really totally harmless and just added fun, why isn't everyone making this the key to all their time? Work, family, public service, church, art, etc, seem to get much more time, even with the draw of immorality. Lifetimes of time. Some restraint on those unwise enough to not have figured out some of the downsides to immoral sexuality will help them exercise some self-control that helps all generally. On the whole, even if a little limited to sex-obsessed, a good thing.

Mr. Paladino's restrait is really only a "yellow light" when a "red light" is needed. But that is better than his opponant, who wants the Obama "child safety" czar, Mr. NAMBLA, Kevin Jennings, teaching your kids, nieces, and nephews, well before puberty, about sex that is all harmless, fun, different, and interesting. If you want Mr. NAMBLA, under the guise of "safe schools," pushing and encouraging homosexual acts by minors, even pre-pubescent kids, well, I guess Mr. Paladino will not get your vote.

Posted by: RepentNLive! at October 11, 2010 11:47 PM

He's wrong when he says it's not a successful option, most of the gay-dudes I know are extremely successful, and quite a few are NOT Lefties, even out here on the West Coast. Even Ann Coulter said it at Homocon, that gays are among the wealthiest demographic groups in the country. Hasn't he heard about a little thing called "Gentrification."

Posted by: DirtCrashr at October 12, 2010 02:57 PM

Funny, I can see the same issue with religion that you do with the choices of others. I guess we should outlaw religion.

I really think that the attitude of the religious right is the same as the attitude of the liberals. The only difference is the aspect of control desired. Both being bad.

Posted by: David at October 12, 2010 03:59 PM

Don't think he won many converts from the Westboro Baptist Church. They're Democrats, with a long history of supporting Democrats. (Wierdly enough)

Posted by: Georg Felis at October 14, 2010 10:54 PM