Leslie Robinson

Keeping It Unnatural With Pat Buchanan

Filed By Leslie Robinson | October 27, 2011 10:00 AM | comments

Filed in: Media
Tags: Nazi, Pat Buchanan, prejudice, Roman Empire, same-sex marriage, Weimar, white supremacy

220px-Patrickjbuchanan.jpegPat Buchanan, currently flogging his new book, guested on NPR's "The Diane Rehm Show" yesterday. Go ahead and put yourself in a testy mood by reading part of the show's transcript:

REHM: And another question. You've written in your columns of homosexuality, that in a healthy society, it will be contained, segregated, controlled, and stigmatized. You've also called homosexuality a disorder that can be handled with therapy. Do you still stand by those statements?

BUCHANAN: Well, the statement that homosexuality is disordered is a statement from Pope Benedict in Rome, as well. It's the view of the Catholic Church.

REHM: And you accept that?

BUCHANAN: Well, I believe that homosexuality is -- that it is unnatural activity. Unnatural and immoral. I realize individuals are maybe born -- nature or nurture, I don't know what it is -- I assume nobody actually gets to be 13 or 14 and suddenly chooses this. But I do think -- and people may not be able to control their orientation -- but I do believe as a Catholic that people can control their conduct. And that is where I think, I would say, that kind of conduct should be discouraged in a good society, in a healthy society. And it used to be discouraged. And I do think that the idea that men can marry men and women marry women in the USA is a sign of a civilization in its final throes. I mean, we saw things like this at the end of the Weimar Republic. Things like this at the end of the Roman Empire. And they are attendant to a declining nation and a declining civilization.

More after the break.

Well, Pat, in the first breath you say homosexuality is unnatural, but in the second you say people are born gay. I'm confused. But so are you.

By the by, Pat, you benefitted directly from America becoming more tolerant. You ran for president as a devout Catholic. For much of this country's history, such a thing was impossible. Maybe the ghost of Al Smith will pay you a Halloween visit to remind you. Hang on to your candy corn.

I gather your book, Suicide of a Superpower, maintains that America will be in deep trouble when whites lose their majority status. You even appeared on a "pro-White" radio show the other night. Spending Saturday night with a white supremacist... Pat, you know how to have a good time.

A changing racial makeup and gay rights spell the end of our civilization, huh? Well, there's always the Nazi approach to both, but I'm sure you're not advocating that... Are you, Pat?

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

The world makes no sense. My Ron Paulite nephew keeps sending links to me by Justin Raimondo, Buchanan's long time diehard supporter. It's a mad, mad world.

Freeking scary video, right heah:


"Well, Pat, in the first breath you say homosexuality is unnatural, but in the second you say people are born gay. I'm confused. But so are you."

There is a birth defect known as [=anencephaly=]. Essentially, what happens is that the brain fails to form so severely that the fetus does not survive until birth, or survives only briefly after birth. In essence, anencephaly is being born without a brain.

Even though anencephaly occurs in nature, few would argue that being born without a brain is "natural" or "normal" ... and that is exactly why I think the LGBT argument "I was born this way" is so specious. Many very abnormal things do occur in nature, and we must resort to other lines of argument if we are to establish that we, LGBT people, are not some of them.

Pat Buchanan and The Pope are obviously correct on one point: Whether homosexuality is somehow inherent or somehow a choice, it is not so compulsive that people cannot resist suppressing or repressing the sex drive. The same is true of heterosexuality as well -- and even though The Pope may regard heterosexuality as the ideal of sexual formation, He and The Church still require that all the Roman Catholic orders of clergy live as celibates. So, neither whether homosexuality is "inborn" nor whether it is "compulsive" is hardly at question -- the only important question is whether it is more moral to disapprove of homosexuality and promote socially oppressive attitudes against homosexual individuals, or whether it is more moral to allow people to relate to someone of the gender they naturally gravitate toward, and for society to tolerate that gravitation, if not celebrate it.

I will stop this argument here. My point today is that one gets the wrong answer if you start out by asking the wrong question. Which is another way of saying: If we want people like Pat Buchanan to ever pull his head out of his ass, we need to start by pulling our own heads out of our own collective asses.

But arguments of morality are perhaps the most difficult; do we base them on dogma, or tradition, or culture, or our own reasoning? Humans have never agreed even on how to decide what is moral.

A J, you wrote:

"Many very abnormal things do occur in nature," Actually the word he uses is "unnatural". I don't think it is. I think less usual or maybe unusual but homosexuality occurs in all species. I think celibacy may have its advantages for some but I think celibacy is more unnatural. Intersex occurs in all species, too. The transsexual phenomenon is exclusive to humans but I think it is a logical adaptation for people who are born a certain way.

I think Buchanan's view derives from an early twentieth century fascination with Darwinism and eugenics and Roman Catholic patriarchical control over reproduction. I was raised by Irish Catholics who had a lot in common with him. John McLaughlin of the McLaughlin Report was a grade ahead of my father all the way through Catholic elementary school and Catholic High School. People like Buchanan will have a paralyzing affect that will stunt the development of anyone who does not conform to their notions of a male ideal.

I agree with what Badash when he says:

"When will the free market refuse to financially support people who spew hate speech, and when will the main stream media refuse to give them a platform, and pay them for their “opinions?”

People like Buchanan give literal meaning to the expression "bully pulpit". Too bad, he is an intelligent guy, just such a sexist bigot.

I don't entirely disagree with you, Edith, even though my spin on this is slightly different from yours. In some cases, a decision by the scientific community about whether a particular condition is "abnormal" or "unnatural" can be as subjective as an argument over whether a glass of water is half-empty or half-full.

Of one detail, I do disagree with you: you say that transsexual phenomena are unique to humans. However, there are some species that are known to have the ability to switch from one sex to the other, such as male fish that develop female organs in the presence of estrogen-like pollutants in their water. Of course, we don't know what "sexual identity" crisis or "gender confusion" the fish experience, since it is difficult to interview a fish about such psychological matters -- but I think you will agree that this counts as some sort of "trans-gendering" phenomenon.

I should have said, "I share Badash's sentiment when he asks:"

When I say "eugenics", I realize Buchanan would never approve of abortion but he takes a romantic preservation of the species point of view which involves competition among those who are able to impregnate the most desirable, so the strongest suitors are the ones who prevail and build a society with its rewards around that; while realizing there would be those who could not conform, left in the margins and held in contempt so their genes would have a greatly reduced opportunity to enter the gene pool with the only other possibility left open for them, to renounce the world and dedicate themselves to a life of celibacy.

I am pretty sure, actually, almost positive my father knew there was something "wrong" with me. He constantly encouraged me to become a priest. That was before gays became the scapegoats for the pedophiles. The reality of transsexualism and intersex is still very hard to accept and often conflated with homosexuality which I am sure both my parents did when it came to me.

What people like Buchanan fail to realize is that diversity is very important where creativity is concerned and also for the ability for a species to adapt. Of course, the fact that lesbian, gay , etc. people are less likely to reproduce seems to provide evidence that traits that would theoretically make one lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, intersex, etc. would have been bred out long ago. I don't think that would necessarily be the case. If that were the case and there were less social pressure to conform to rigid heterosexual mores, one would think people like Buchanan should be able to see that the best thing that could be done to have the kind of society he desires would be to let things "naturally" run their course.

A J, you sucked me in with the ol' nature/nurture trick. Again, I this question basically comes down to what Badash says, society should end its compulsion of trying to please people like the Pope and Buchanan.

Everyone brings up the fall of the Roman Empire and homosexuality. What people don't seem to get is that homsexuality was ALWAYS a part of Roman culture but it was its conversion to Christianity that happened just before the Empire went to the dogs. Seems to me that Christianity brought about the end of Rome, not homosexuality. Most "enlightened" culture allowed homosexuality including Rome, Greece, and Japan. Maybe the thing that is unnatural is religion and all the childish fantasy they sell to the idiots who believe such utter nonsense!

Om Kalthoum | October 28, 2011 3:13 AM

Pat's bad comb-over is unnatural.

My only objection to Buchanan is that he's a fascist.

Color me Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov.

"But I do think -- and people may not be able to control their orientation -- but I do believe as a Catholic that people can control their conduct. And that is where I think, I would say, that kind of conduct should be discouraged in a good society, in a healthy society."

This is not a far fetched statement, orientation controllable -NO, promiscuity - YES.

Brad Bailey | October 28, 2011 6:26 PM

Pat Buchanan is an unabashed white supremacist and homophobe for whom MSNBC has provided a steady mouthpiece for his racist and homophobic talking points.

An organization called the Color of Change has issued a petition to get Buchanan fired from MSNBC and I whole-heartedly support them.

Below is the link to the original Huffpost article:


Here is the link to the petition urging MSNBC to fire Buchanan:


Om Kalthoum | October 29, 2011 1:20 PM
Pat Buchanan is an unabashed white supremacist and homophobe for whom MSNBC has provided a steady mouthpiece for his racist and homophobic talking points.

Of course he is and of course the network has. And it has because MSNBC feels his presence contributes towards its ratings success and hence, ability to attract advertising dollars.

Most petitions of this sort only make the signers feel good about themselves. You'd do better to target a sponsor for retribution and inform the network why you're doing so.

But really, what influence does Pat Buchanan have on anything or anybody anymore?