Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Despite what various proponents of social justice, anarchy, and similar D/S/C “movements” say, America is a fundamentally tolerant nation.  That tolerance, circa 2020, is in significant ways, more broad and deep than ever before, except, of course, on the Left, where cries for “diversity” mean sharing precisely the same, narrow beliefs.

D/S/C presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is jumping the boundaries of tolerance.  The source of this particular conflict is his sexual orientation; Buttegieg is a very much “out of the closet” gay.  This, by itself, is not generally an issue for most Americans, unless a gay person makes it one as Buttigieg has repeatedly done.

He has done this in two primary ways: through his constant attacks on Christians and Christianity, and by being a gay candidate.  You can’t say that!  That’s homophobic!  On the contrary, Buttigieg has forced these issues to the fore, as Michael Van Der Galien at PJ Media reports:

In what must be one of the most troubling political rallies hosted by Mayor Pete up to this point, the former South Bend mayor turned Democrat presidential candidate invited a 9-year-old boy to come on stage to announce to the entire world that he’s gay.

Yes, you read that right. Mayor Pete encouraged a boy of not even ten years old to come out of the closet. On stage. During a presidential campaign.

In a question submitted to the Buttigieg campaign, the boy thanked the Democrat ‘for being so brave.’ Because ‘I want to be brave like you,’ he added, he asked him for help to ‘tell the world I’m gay, too.’

Circa 2020, there is no bravery in publically proclaiming gayness.  Most people will, if they spend any mental energy at all on such pronouncements, merely shrug and go back to their daily lives.  The Left, for which gays are a favored victim group/constituency, will deliver some measure of praise and support.  There is really no downside, hence, no bravery, unless the gay proclaimer expects everyone not only to approve of their choice, but to fulsomely praise them.  However, not being universally praised for one’s choices should not be thought a trial or tribulation requiring unusual courage.  It’s a daily condition of life.

Instead of telling the boy that he didn’t have to concern himself with such issues considering that he hasn’t reached puberty yet and can, therefore, literally not know to whom or what he’s attracted. Buttigieg praised the young Zachary. ‘I don’t think you need a lot of advice for me on bravery. You seem pretty strong to me,’ Buttigieg said. ‘It took me a long time to figure out how to tell even my best friend that I was gay, let alone to go out there and tell the world and to see you willing to come to terms with who you are in a room full of 1,000 people, thousands of people you’ve never met that’s, that’s really something.’

He then told him ‘a couple of things that might be useful.’ The first thing? ‘It won’t always be easy, but that’s okay, because you know who you are. And that’s really important because when you know who you are, you have a center of gravity that can hold you together when all kinds of chaos is happening around you.’

Who, at the age of 9, knows “who you [they] are”?  Who, considering any sexual issue, has a clue at that age?  Who, at 9, is intellectually or physically capable of such understanding?  What 9 year-old, for that matter, might understand the abstract concept of a “center of gravity that can hold you together?”  Might such crass exploitation be termed a form of child abuse?

Buttigieg’s problem is not that he is a politician that happens to be gay, but that he’s a gay politician.  This is not mere semantics, but a fundamental distinction.  Americans easily accept politicians that happen to be black, white, Asian or female, but tend not to want to know much, if anything, about their sexual preferences.  They also rightly have a real problem with black politicians, Asian politicians or female politicians.  Don’t quite follow?  Real bravery is required for one to brand themself a white politician.  That would occasion screams of “white supremacist,” and “racist!”  Is the distinction clearer?

A politician who happens to be black can be expected to be sympathetic, to at least some degree, to contemporary “black” issues, but they can also be expected to put their duty to represent all of their constituents diligently, equally and fairly, first.  They can be expected to be fundamentally color blind, and not obsessed with the politics of blackness, whatever they might be at the moment.  Black politicians, however, tend to focus on being black rather than their jobs, which they see as a means of wielding power for their pet concerns.  Politicians that happen to be black tend to be inclusive and tolerant, black politicians, not so much.  It is interesting to observe that politicians that happen to be black tend to be Republicans, while black politicians tend to be D/S/Cs.

Pete’s own words…

The same is true of gay politicians.  Being gay consumes them.  It is their identity, their essence, the never-ending thought impulse that drives them and overcomes duty, responsibility, reason itself.  What politician in their right mind so luridly exploits 9 year-old children to validate, to celebrate, their own obsessions?  It is certainly reasonable to believe a President Buttigieg would be president for gay, and probably other LGBTQWERTY, activists first, and other Americans to a much lesser degree.  Any POTUS must have far greater concerns than sexual orientation.

Oh, but some people don’t like gays!  So?  Is there a constitutional right to be universally loved?  This is another substantial problem with people who are gay rather than people who happen to be gay.  They demand not only equality, but that everyone praise their superior morality and intellects.  Failing that, they feel victimized, terribly oppressed, the eternal victims of homophobia.  This is why Buttigieg continually lashes out at Christianity, which views homosexuality as sin.  Such enlightened being’s sexual orientation cannot possibly be sinful, so rather than conform to Christianity, Buttigieg demands Christianity—and Christians–conform to his desires. Fox News reports:

Do you think that it’s impossible to be a Christian and support Trump?’ CNN host Erin Burnett had asked Buttigieg during a town hall.

‘I’m not going to tell other Christians how to be Christian,’ Buttigieg said, ‘but I will say I cannot find any compatibility between the way this president conducts himself and anything I find in Scripture.

Clearly, part of Buttigieg’s anti-Christian motivation is pandering to the D/S/C base, many of whom consider Christians to be hateful, stupid, unsophisticated God and gun clingers, and smelly, toothless, Flyover Country WalMart shoppers.  Buttigieg’s attacks on Christians are revealing of a guilty conscience.  Christians know everyone sins, and are therefore far more forgiving of sin than Buttigieg, but they also expect people to recognize and admit their sins, and make an honest effort not to repeat them.  This, Buttigieg will not do, thus his anti-Christian rhetoric.

God’s word on homosexuality is unambiguous.  However, D/S/Cs also pretend not to be able to understand the Constitution, and equally want to observe or ignore it as their personal and political beliefs dictate.  Buttegieg’s brother-in-law, a Christian minister, is not impressed:

Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg’s brother-in-law, Pastor Rhyan Glezman, slammed the Democratic hopeful for his comments Tuesday night, when the candidate claimed he doesn’t see ‘any compatibility’ between supporting President Trump and the teachings in Scripture after declaring that God ‘does not belong to a political party.’

‘Yeah, it’s the height of intellectual dishonesty for Pete to make claims that there’s no compatibility with being a Christian and voting for Trump, [when] Pete, in fact, is the one who is pushing agendas and rhetoric that is against, clearly against Scripture,’ Glezman said on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Wednesday.

‘Just everything that Pete is pushing is, it’s anti-God. I’m just gonna be honest with you,’ Glezman said. ‘Nothing lines up with Scripture for him to make cases like to say that you cannot be a Christian and vote for Trump. He’s the one that is openly contradicting God’s word over and over.’

That’s what happens when one chooses to be gay first.  For another, valuable, perspective, visit this article by Dana Loesch.