While Nick and I disagree on “Draw Mohammed Day,” we do agree in wondering at the “need” of gay activists (and their acolytes) to label everyone who disagrees with some form of the word, “hate.”
And yet, these very people harbor the greatest degree of animus against conservatives, Republicans and, well, anyone who disagrees with them, you know the people they smear as haters.*
Projection anyone?
*During the course of the campaign against Prop 8, I received more mean-spirited missives from those opposing the initiative (you know the one they labeled “Prop H8” than I did from those who advocated the ballot measure.
Sounds like just another twist on your old meme that progressives, as progressives, should tolerate your intolerance… which is bullsh*t… progressives have learned their lesson and have a longer memory these days. You enable some of the worst elements of dis-ease in society. Do you really think you should get applauded for that?
Countervail,
Intolerance? Enable disease? How so? Please clarify your statement with actual quotations to support your general statement that speaks to nothing of the post.
The left has a gift of obscurity; to obscure the subject at hand and allude to a transgression of his opponent that may or may not exist. You are the example in this post. You have zero regard for the amount of hatred within the liberal gay community and the outpouring of discrimination against those of us who are Conservative and gay. That is fine though, you are entitled to continuing the hypocrisy of the gay community in their delusion that they are a welcoming and diverse group.
The deadly disease in this society is ignorance; ignorance and hate is your revolver, I suggest you unload your misconceptions and dialogue with those of a different political persuasion and perhaps you will understand the principles that define us, rather than your vauge and uneducated assumptions.
Why exactly did you feel the need to post the same thing twice? Though since you want to keep at this subject, I was amused to see:
Followed by:
and
These comments seem pretty nasty to me.
Biologic fact is nasty?
Why do liberals hate science so much?
Countervail,
Intolerance? Enable disease? How so? Please clarify your statement with actual quotations to support your general statement that speaks to nothing of the post.
The left has a gift of obscurity; to obscure the subject at hand and allude to a transgression of his opponent that may or may not exist. You are the example in this post. You have zero regard for the amount of hatred within the liberal gay community and the outpouring of discrimination against those of us who are Conservative and gay. That is fine though, you are entitled to continuing the hypocrisy of the gay community in their delusion that they are a welcoming and diverse group.
The deadly disease in this society is ignorance; ignorance and hate is your revolver, I suggest you unload your misconceptions and dialogue with those of a different political persuasion and perhaps you will understand the principles that define us, rather than your vague and uneducated assumptions.
Those comments are only nasty if one has trouble dealing with reality.
I’m a single parent, but I don’t have to lie to myself and say single parenthood is just as good as the two-parent model. Nor is a Toyota Yaris as fast as a Lamborghini. It’s delusional to think things are equal that are clearly not.
Serenity, I have no clue how your comment relates to my post. Where do you address the animosity of those who are accustomed to calling their ideological adversaries haters?
Why not trying providing evidence to show I’m wrong if wrong I am as you (seem to) believe me to be.
Because the two sides are fighting for the middle, both sides do not have enough people to win elections so they need the middle ground voters. The first group who can paint the other as either extreme or hateful will most likely win this group over to their cause. No one wants to be thought of as being hateful or cruel so pro-marriage advocates use it as a line of attack against those who want to ban it.
Its just a tug of war, thats why one say calls one group homophobic and cruel and the other side says it will destroy society and bring about the end of times.
The attacks I quoted above are particularly vicious, even if they have a point they are utterly without tact or decency. I’d expect at least some annoyance from you, yet you’re acting like a Buddhist monk. Clearly a very dedicated follower of the Eleventh Commandment.
Well I can understand where they come from. I’ve argued the issue of same-sex marriage over and over these past five or six years, I’ve seen dozens of arguments against it, and knocked each and every one down at least twice. In the last two years, I’ve not seen any new arguments against it. I see absolutely no further logical reasons to be in opposition (other than religious ones, and the United States should not be at the beck and call of any religion). Once you’ve been through the ritual as many times as I have, you begin to get sick and tired of it, and think someone who hasn’t got it by now probably never will.
There’s also the wind being at our backs. Multiple US states allow same-sex marriage, more allow civil partnerships, several European countries have joined suit, as has South Africa. Opponents still have the referendum card to play (I love how they talked about “Damn judges, legislating from the bench” then complained when legislators took action instead, prompting “Damn legislators, legislating from the legislature” in response) but even there margins of defeat for same-sex marriage grow smaller each time the issue is raised. The time when people vote directly to allow same-sex marriage can only be a year or two away now, and opponents of same-sex marriage have no more cards left to play at that point. It’s over.
So there is that sense of “Why bother with reasoned debate? They’re not listening, they’re not important, we’ve already won in the long-run”. So we don’t get where they’re coming from, can’t see why they still hold to an obviously futile position, and don’t care to get bogged down in a debate that will go nowhere and have no meaningful conclusion.
Serenity,
First off, those quotes are from me, not from Dan.
Second, that you see a simple statement of biological fact as an attack says lots about you, but it still doesn’t make it an attack of any kind, let alone a vicious one. It’s not. Its just reality.
And the second comment was a RESPONSE to a person who had just declared that most gay relationships were open relationships and that there was nothing wrong with it.
To paraphrase Chris Christie, if you think those are vicious attacks, I would suggest that you are FAR too delicate to engage in politics, cus you aint seen nothin yet.
Biologic fact? Not really. You’re intermixing identity politics, behavior, sociology, religion and biology but labeling it “biologic fact.”
First you make the supposition that reproduction in and of itself is fundamentally “good,” something you can’t make a case for but even if you could has obvious examples to the contrary. Human overpopulation is causing strain on natural resources for example. Any species that becomes overpopulated causes an unsustainable strain on it’s ecosystem. Isn’t it rather presupposing that just because you’re alive, that’s somehow good? How is that “biologic fact” that reproduction is better than not reproducing?
Second, what’s this “save one” business? I can only assume you’re referring to the supposed immaculate conception of Jesus, which has absolutely no basis in fact or science but rather fundamentalist, unquestioned belief. There’s not a single component of “biologic fact” there either. It’s a testament to religious belief.
Finally, whether a marriage is open or not is little business of yours. We’ve come to define marriage with a host of varying strictures. Marriage doesn’t have to be about love, there’s no test for that. Marriage doesn’t even have to be about fidelity, if the partners choose. It’s essentially government acknowledgment of the partnership between two people. Heterosexual people get married for all sorts of reasons, it can be as quick and simple as a trip to Las Vegas, and they get divorced as about as easily. I can appreciate your intellectual vehemence against non-heterosexual marriage, but find it mockery with the laxity heterosexuals approach marriage themselves. But in any case, this is an issue of behavior and sociology, not “biologic fact.”
P.S. Serenity, I think I love you. 🙂
Would be nice if some of our critics addressed the point of the post. Wait, haven’t I said that before?
🙂
Not really, since liberals like yourself amazingly have refused to off yourselves.
It’s sort of the typical situation in which liberals with seven houses scream about how other people are putting an intolerable strain on the environment
Or my other favorite, in which liberals like yourself abort innocent children by the score but continue to spend enormous sums keeping alive people who rape, molest, and murder them.
I’m happy to respond to your post in kind.
This is exactly why you’re labeled haters. In the process of choosing a side to advocate on, there has to be a rational process to determine that choice. If the debate is over gay marriage and you choose to advocate against it, a choice has been made by you that there is a negative and a positive to the issue. Heterosexual marriage=good, gay marriage=bad. From all your posts it’s evident you advocate “marriage” as a concept but one you apply strictures harshly prejudiced against gay relationships and not equally applied to heterosexuals. You make it clear that much of your sensibilities on marriage are defined by historical context of marriage, and yet you even malign that by not accurately portraying the always evolving state of marriage (and societies in general for that matter). For someone who is gay alone advocating against gay marriage seems an unusual choice, that you put layer upon layer of intellectual complexity to confuse and obscure this choice only seems to highlight what seems more a personal prejudice than any true rational objection.
It’s not as if you were advocating for gay marriage in addition to heterosexual marriage within the umbrella of marriage. You are not advocating that two men or two women who live specifically as you advocate marriage are the same in your eyes. You have made a choice, one that you can give evidence to support but one that you can never know is true really. It’s the same of anyone with a prejudice or unfounded bias. Of those against DADT, we have a significant amount of evidence that gay men and women serving openly in the military have no bearing on unit cohesion or military effectiveness. Yet time and time again, people trot out their personal biases that are given the same weight as scientifically gathered evidence. This is more than preference, an inconsequential choice among equal options. This is even more than bias that may be based in some reason or personal experience. We’re entering the land of prejudice, and therefore to hate, where decisions are made simply from feeling, intuition, untested hypotheticals, unfounded fear.
Say you were blind and someone found a way for you to see but you eschewed it anyway saying that sight was only for those that had it already and that other people who were blind shouldn’t have it either. All through history people who were blind didn’t get this choice and so why should you and others get that choice now? Maybe hate is a strong work, but how is it anything but a perversion of preference turned into policy, a bigotry against what could be from what always has been? This is not an example of something you personally choose not to partake of. There is some aspect of hate there, an aversion, prejudice, a bigotry turned inward and from that outward.
Hate doesn’t have to be directed to manifest. Supporting something to the exclusion of other things is essentially a hate of those other things, a strong aversion, a dislike. But hate doesn’t inherently have to be a negative or positive thing either. It’s obvious you hate certain things, by your general tone and choice of subjects in your posts. However, the positive or negative aspect of the hate is up to the point of view. You hate something that I like and I find that negative. You hate something that someone else hates as well and they find that a positive.
So it’s fairly obvious that there is hate in your political choices expressed here. Everyone has them. My question in reply to your post is why do you take such labored step to both show your hate, which may or may not be negative depending on one’s point of view, but then not also be truthful about it. Why is it that other’s pointing out your hate, makes your squirm intellectually and challenge those accusations. I see it. Others see it. We call you out on it but your reply is always that we’re somehow wrong and you’re still somehow right. That’s a hate in itself in not even giving others the benefit of considering that viewpoint in how and where it might be true.