> I read the "full quotes" section of him at your link (link below), and whether I agree or disagree with him on things he said, I don't think that can be construed as gay-bashing. If he had been suggesting throwing gay people into prison, that would be a gay-bashing statement, but his stance is that he doesn't think homosexuality is OK and he doesn't think it should be rewarded with special rights. Even if you don't agree with him, I don't think you could say he's a gay-basher, at least not based on the statements you've shown me.

Those quotes actually make me think more highly of Pat Buchanan than I had before. Homosexuality is a touchy subject these days, because it's not politically correct to be anything other than wholly accepting; if you're not, you're pigeonholed as a hateful bigot -- and there certainly ARE plenty of those around, too. I'm not sure Buchanan isn't still going too far. By my personal beliefs, homosexualITY is wrong; homosexUALS are people, no better or worse than anybody else. I denounce the lifestyle but do not condemn those who live it. If I were to give in to social tides and be lax about my ideas of homosexuality, I couldn't look myself in the mirror and fool myself into thinking I was holding to tenets I accepted when I gave my life to Christ. Yet if I held prejudices or spite for homosexuals, or judge them as people, or were in any way less loving of them as anyone else, just as Christ surely does too, then I would arguably be even worse off and certainly no better.

So my stance on gay-related laws are determined by whether the laws are about the people or about the lifestyle. Do I support gays in the military? I can't think of a good reason not to.* Do I support state-recognized same-sex marriages? No. Gay rights? Sure. Special rights for gays only? No.

The other quotes I'm more confident about agreeing with him on. Affirmative action is a short term solution that (1) infringes on personal rights, and (2) aggravates the root of the problem by increasing racial friction, thus making a long-term solution more difficult.

All learn English? Absolutely. I wouldn't think of moving to France and not learning French; to Spain and not learning Spanish; to any other country in the world and not learning the native tongue. People who want to come here and reap the benefits of this country but express utter disdain for learning the local language utterly disgust me.

-

* The only possible argument against it I can think of that's the least bit logical relies on facts I have never heard confirmed, denied, or even mentioned, namely, the same argument against women in the military. In combat situations, mixed troops of men and women soldiers tend not to perform as well, because what often happens is the men's protective instincts kick in, and they start taking unwise risks to keep the women safe. Consequently, for purely practical purposes, I am against mixing genders in individual troops. Separate divisions, however, I'm ok with, so I'm not utterly against women in the military. At any rate, I have no clue if gays in the military would trigger this same sort of phenomenon or not (and if it I did, I can't imagine it being as severe anyway).