He's right: the whole thing is about projection. The left projects its hatred of true liberals (us) onto the GOP, and substitutes the word "gay" for "right-of-center."
Is there some kind of ritual wherein one swears the oath to become the "right" kind of gay man/lesbian? Just wonderin'.
1
I was just reading about this over at Still Stacy's, and, the whole thing just makes me so angry. The Left either doesn't get the issue, or, more likely, chooses not to get the issue. Just because we may not care for a lifestyle choice, and are against gay marriage, for the most part, doesn't mean we are going to deny people that lifestyle choice. We understand about freedom, real freedom, to be who you are. Unless one is a murderer, pedophile, member of NAMBLA, choices that hurt others.
Sanchez didn't hurt anyone. But, he is not a liberal (as opposed to a Classical Liberal, as you alluded to, which is what I consider myself), so the Left has to smear and destroy him based on politics, rather then what is right.
Posted by: William Teach at March 09, 2007 04:38 PM (doAuV)
2
The ritual for becoming the "right" kind of gay/lesbian/Afro-American/whatever is to endorse the Democratic program/candidate.
Posted by: John at March 09, 2007 04:38 PM (5/lnT)
3
Teach - why exactly are you opposed to gay marriage (and by extension civil unions)?
When you look at what we really want, we don't want to force your churches to do anything, we want to be able to visit our loved ones in the hospital and be the ones responsible for medical decisions. You can say "medical power of attorney" is all that is needed, but it isn't. Parents routinely step in and over-ride decisions (and their child's written wishes) because mother and father know best.
We want to be able to inherit property under the same terms you do. If your wife were to pass away you would not have to sell the house to pay inheritance taxes. We frequently do.
The list goes on.
But you don't care. Most people opposed to gay marriage find gay "icky" and wish we would go away or back into the closet. More than one person has sort-of admitted that if feared being taken for gay should he drop his opposition.
Look back at the arguments made about inter-racial marriages. Most of the arguments made about gay marriage are exactly the same. (The quoted Bible versus change, but that's all)
As for drinking the koolaid and being accepted as the "right kind of gay," (or maybe that should be the "left kind") is easy. Adopt the political position of the Dems on every subject, from abortion to Zumbo. (Even when that position and those politicians are notably anti-gay.)
Posted by: Zendo Deb at March 10, 2007 03:37 AM (+gqOq)
4
I am opposed to gay marriage because it is against what marriage has always been: a union between a man and a woman.
That said, I do not have an issue with a gay persons life partner being give rights, such as being considered a "family member," like if they were to visit in the hospital.
I thought I made it quite clear that, though I may not agree with their lifestyle, it's not about me. They deserve rights, and to be treated in a dignified manner as a whole. Individuals should be treated as they deserve, just like with heterosexuals.
However, Zendo, you miss the point of the post. What we have is the Lefty attack on Sanchez simply because he is Conservative, and using his being gay as a way to attack him. So much for their tolerance, compassion, and support for gay rights. Anything that gets in the way of the politics of the left is open to massive smears and slurs, the politics of personal destruction.
We saw it with the Gannon kerfluffle, as well. Liberals do not tolerate anyone who strays of the reservation. They say they support gays, blacks, minorities, but will mercilessly attack them in bigoted and racially insensitive ways if they do not toe the liberal line.
Posted by: William Teach at March 10, 2007 05:29 AM (doAuV)
5
Zendo got it, William.
And, as always, I feel obligated to point out that marriage has not traditionally been one man and one woman, but one man and however many women he can afford: limiting oneself to one wife is a relatively recent discipline.
I think a lot of people are hung up on the word "marriage," so tell me how you'd feel about civil unions for gays.
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 10, 2007 06:36 AM (0CbUL)
6
Good point on one man on many women.
Civil unions, I am not opposed to, though it is almost semantics. If they love each other, they deserve some sort of link backed up by the force of law. Cause, it isn't about me, you, Zendo, Conservatives, Liberals, whoever. It is about them. To me, that is what Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is about. As long as it isn't hurting someone else, I see no problem.
I'd be hypocritical if I said I was totally against gays. To put a none too fine point on it, like most guys, I am not adverse to lesbians. Any guy who says otherwise would be lying. It may freak me out to see two men kissing or anything else, but, I can choose to look away. It doesn't actually harm me, And love is love. Who am I to stop it?
Posted by: William Teach at March 10, 2007 07:46 AM (doAuV)
7
Teach - you can say it is one-man/one-woman, and if it was just a religious ceremony and that's all fine. But it isn't.
Married partners get a deal as far as Social Security is concerned. Married partners get a deal as far as health insurance is concerned. Married partners get a deal - the deal of the century - on the death tax. They get deals on making medical decisions, investments, legal protection when the relationship ends (and that is relatively new - the abundance of divorce), etc. The list is really quite long considering all the nonsense politicians always go on about the marriage tax.
Are you willing to give up your deals in the interest of fairness? I didn't think so.
At least you admit you are prejudiced (and the 'icky' feeling you have about gay men - that's called prejudice.) And while you may not feel that way about lesbians - I can let you in on a secret. None of us want to sleep with you.
Again, I point you to the history of laws against interracial marriage. "Miscegenation of the races" was attacked in exactly the same way you are "opposed" to gay marriage. With Biblical quotes to back it up. It made people "uncomfortable." Mostly the people it made uncomfortable were the bigots.
Posted by: Zendo Deb at March 10, 2007 09:19 AM (+gqOq)
8
And yes, the Left is not the kindly and loving group of people you see in the adverts. Reality never lives up to the marketing hype.
But the outing of gay Repubs would carry less weight on either side of the aisle if the Repubs weren't so rabidly anti-gay themselves.
If fairness was the rule on the right, and if "the pursuit of happiness" included (in the view of the Right) the ability to love the way nature (or God) intended, then these outings would be resulting in a "so what" response.
But Repub politicians who are outed invariably lose elections - when they just don't resign when outed. And staffers suffer a similar fate.... for the most part.
What is it about Rudy G that has "the social conservatives" in a snit? His support of gay rights, his admitting to having gay friends, and his having enough security in is own manhood to laugh at the conventional rubes.
Yes the Dems should walk their talk. But that doesn't give the Repubs a get-out-jail-free card.
Posted by: Zendo Deb at March 10, 2007 09:32 AM (+gqOq)
9
I have to disagree on the "rabidly anti-gay
completely. Just because many stand up against gay marriage, doesn't make them anti-gay. Matter of fact, there are several gay bloggers, like the Gay Patriot, who are thought of quite well. It wasn't the right who was rabidly attacking Gannon. It isn't the right who is rabidly attacking Sanchez. And it wasn't the right who was attacking the Gay Patriot. It was people on the Left.
And when they were attacked, folks on the Right stood up to defend them. Michael Rogers, a vicious sleeze monger, attacks any conservative who is gay. He "outs" them, even when they aren't. And he went after the Gay Patriot. The Right-o-sphere came to his defense. And we will do it any time in the future, too.
It isn't anti-gay, or anti-black, or anti-woman, or anti-whatever, to say that certain groups do not deserve more protection then another group, which is where alot of the meme's that the Right is anti-something come from. Should one group be protect above another? SHould one be given preference over another? No.
Posted by: William Teach at March 10, 2007 04:56 PM (doAuV)
10
You're mostly right, William. But I've heard some people criticize Giuliani's gay-rights positions in terms that made me think it wasn't just the legislative side of things that made them uneasy: I've heard phrasing like "Mr. Yay Gay" that left me with the distinct impression some conservatives didn't like the fact that he had a gay roommate at one point.
And that made me a bit uncomfortable.
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 10, 2007 05:44 PM (0CbUL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
