Gay Patriot Header Image

Freedom, the underlying principle of modern conservatism, benefits all people, including (and perhaps especially) gays

While, as you can guess, I quibble with the title of Cynthia Yockey’s post that Glenn linked earlier today, she offers something which bears consideration and conversation:

. . . in the name of family values, we are forced out of our own families. However, gays have responded to discrimination by becoming entrepreneurs and professionals, which makes gays a natural constituency of fiscal conservativism and explains why 31 percent of gay voters voted for Republicans in 2010 (including me). Gays are the most getable demographic in 2012 for Republicans because there’s no voting bloc Obama and the Democrats have screwed over more than gays and they are furious and looking for a new home.

(Read the whole thing.  While I don’t agree with everything she has to say, she does raise some important issues and make some thoughtful observations.)

Now, while I do believe gay people are a natural constituency for a fiscally conservative GOP, I wonder how many have become so politicized by our overly political (gay) culture that they can’t see how free market policies benefit creative types, particularly the creative entrepreneurial types.  And gay people do seem to succeed in such professions, in numbers disproportionate to our representation in society at large.

As I learned in my conversation with Palin-effigy hanger Mito Aviles, state and local regulations on small business place unusual burdens on creative small business folk.  Their desire to scale back intrusive regulations correspond with the very principles of the Tea Party movement.

The question is:  how do we break them from their prejudiced view of the GOP, particularly given how the media dwell on social conservatives’ (alleged) dominance of the movement — and the ignorance of many gay leaders of the underlying philosophy of the Republican Party as it has evolved since the nomination of Barry Goldwater in 1964 and the election of Ronald Reagan sixteen years later.

Share

59 Comments

  1. Hmmm, i wonder why MITO was in last place with almost no traction. Sorry, I just can’t gleefully acknowledge that idiot LOST big time even behind a psedo-conservative SCHMIDT.

    Comment by Zeke — June 25, 2011 @ 3:09 pm - June 25, 2011

  2. Well, here’s an answer to your post, if candidates would STOP talking about it as an abomination then it wouldn’t be a big deal. I LOVE Michele Bachmann as you know (she is # 3 or 4 on my SEXY Political Ladies list) BUT she can’t be the nominee and talk about social issues. If she stays like the BACHMANN of the debate then yes she can, but if she goes back to talking about SOCIAL issues and not believing in the BIG BANG theory in public then she might as well kiss it goodbye. Although, the Gay Marriage issue is a MUTE issue with Obama, since he also doesn’t believe in it. No matter how much his spokeshole says, that he is “working on changing his beliefs”.

    Comment by Zeke — June 25, 2011 @ 3:12 pm - June 25, 2011

  3. Well, here’s an answer to your post, if candidates would STOP talking about it as an abomination then it wouldn’t be a big deal.

    I’ve read numerous similar comments on Joe.My.Hate, Queerty and Gawker.

    Comment by TGC — June 25, 2011 @ 3:23 pm - June 25, 2011

  4. Prejudiced view? Alleged dominance? The majority of presidential candidates have suggested they would reinstate DADT. May be a reason gays aren’t so enamored with them.

    Comment by aj — June 25, 2011 @ 3:32 pm - June 25, 2011

  5. The majority of presidential candidates have suggested they would reinstate DADT.

    Would you be so kind as to support that assertion with some links, perhaps?

    Take your time. I’ll wait.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 25, 2011 @ 4:38 pm - June 25, 2011

  6. [...] also thank Daniel Blatt for his link and welcome Gay Patriot readers. Daniel ponders the following: The question is: how do we break them [Leftist gays] from their prejudiced view of the GOP, [...]

    Pingback by Conservative arguments for gay equality — Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian — June 25, 2011 @ 5:50 pm - June 25, 2011

  7. Now, while I do believe gay people are a natural constituency for a fiscally conservative GOP, I wonder how many have become so politicized by our overly political (gay) culture that they can’t see how free market policies benefit creative types, particularly the creative entrepreneurial types. And gay people do seem to succeed in such professions, in numbers disproportionate to our representation in society at large.

    If one is especially creative and entrepreneurial, how can they be so easily mislead by the ‘culture’ if, as you suggest, it is so obvious that they should be conservative? All these smart, inventive, business-savvy gays are getting duped… do you really think that’s the case?

    I think what it really boils down to is that there are a lot of Republicans who are just unbelievable assholes about homosexuality. I don’t buy for one second that homosexuality inclines someone towards one ideological persuasion or another. But when conservatives go on TV and blame gays for 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina… well it makes sense that that turns people off. Asking gay people to sign on with a political coalition that includes religious fanatics who believe homosexuality is destroying civilization is kind of absurd, don’t you think?

    Comment by Levi — June 25, 2011 @ 7:04 pm - June 25, 2011

  8. While I find myself in the odd position of having to agree with Levi about the fact that there are many Republican politicians (and cultural figures) who are open about their disdain for homosexuality, I’d also point out that that kind of thinking is a prime example of the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Just because some Republicans are anti-gay doesn’t mean that all Republicans are. By itself, though, pointing out that fallacy is not enough to win over most gay voters whose stance on the question of party affiliation seems to be more one of reaction than reflection.

    When I first started being really open with myself about my sexual orientation, I read a lot of books about gay identity and orientation, and as readers of this blog will recognize, such books go out of their way to say bad things about Republicans early and often. It is like a matter of (religious) faith to many gay people that Republicans are bad, and it’s not a hard faith to sustain because of the sort of figures Levi mentioned, the sort who are highlighted by the lame-stream press at every opportunity as a way of keeping up the faith.

    Because such a view is rooted in faith (where it lives alongside the equally reactive and illogical corollary that if Republicans are bad, Democrats must be good), it’s hard to break it with pure logic. To have any effect, it must be accompanied by the full force of experience as a way of getting gay voters to question the wisdom of voting for Democrats. Democrat politicians take gay voters for granted, and they know that they can offer just enough in the way of occasional statements or actions (however insincere) to keep the faith. Only those gay voters who are willing to learn more about the negative implications and effects of the Democrats’ left-wing policy prescriptions can break out of the cycle, but even some of them will never vote Republican, much less identify as Republican. (I think of an acquaintance of mine who disdains the political left and who once memorably remarked that “lefty gays are deracinated.” He says he hasn’t voted for a Republican since the Reagan years and he is registered as a Libertarian.)

    Comment by Kurt — June 25, 2011 @ 8:59 pm - June 25, 2011

  9. I’d say that until the social conservatives are removed from positions of power it’s really a moot point. Republicans have consistently switched from fiscal conservatives to social conservatives when they gain power, case in point the presidential race of 2004 when Karl Rove used gays as a wedge issue to drive the vote. Basically it’s hard to trust that they won’t turn to the churches after they loose the fiscal vote for being patently irresponsible everytime they control the purse strings. (Yes the democrats are too, however they don’t bash gays when they are struggling)

    Comment by Tim — June 25, 2011 @ 9:54 pm - June 25, 2011

  10. While I find myself in the odd position of having to agree with Levi about the fact that there are many Republican politicians (and cultural figures) who are open about their disdain for homosexuality, I’d also point out that that kind of thinking is a prime example of the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Just because some Republicans are anti-gay doesn’t mean that all Republicans are. By itself, though, pointing out that fallacy is not enough to win over most gay voters whose stance on the question of party affiliation seems to be more one of reaction than reflection.

    I’m pretty sure that for most people, we would rather work with/vote for/be friends with someone with whom we disagree politically but who respects us personally, than someone with whom we agree on everything, but who considers us some kind of deviant subversive that wants to bring down civilization. You can dismiss it as a small minority of Republicans if you want, but the fact is that the Democrats would run the table every election if it weren’t for social conservatives and their anti-gay attitudes propping up the Republican coalition. Every one of the Republican candidates is on the record saying something incredibly stupid or needlessly mean-spirited about gay people – so I don’t know why anyone is surprised that most gays are inherently turned off by Republicans.

    Who cares what their politics are if their leaders and significant portions of their base consider them to be subhuman perverts? I can’t really relate because I’m not a minority of any kind, but I wouldn’t care to sit through someone expressing their ideas about economics or national security if I knew that at any moment they’d have to interject something about how people like me were destroying society and corrupting the youth. I think it’s perfectly appropriate to write someone off who believes that stuff.

    Comment by Levi — June 25, 2011 @ 10:32 pm - June 25, 2011

  11. All these smart, inventive, business-savvy gays are getting duped… do you really think that’s the case?

    Actually, I think it has more to do with how gays and lesbians who dare disagree with community dogma are treated.

    Dan has taken a lot of abuse, physical and economic, for his positions. I can see where a small-business owner who can’t afford too much loss just shuts up and does what he’s told. I mean, when you realize how the Obama Party calls for women who disagree with it to be raped and murdered, you recognize very quickly that Levi treats those who deviate from the ordered party line with the same kindness and consideration that his slave-owner forbears did for those who left the plantation, and will resort to the most awful rhetoric and violence to harm those who would disagree with his Obama Party and liberal doctrine.

    Do you think as many gays and lesbians would follow the Obama Party, Levi, if you and yours didn’t attack and brutalize any gay or lesbian person who disagrees with you as a self-loathing quisling, Jewish Nazi, or kapo?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2011 @ 10:50 pm - June 25, 2011

  12. I’m pretty sure that for most people, we would rather work with/vote for/be friends with someone with whom we disagree politically but who respects us personally, than someone with whom we agree on everything, but who considers us some kind of deviant subversive that wants to bring down civilization.

    Which is hilarious, given how Obamabots like yourself insist that gays and lesbians are deviant subversives who want to bring down civilization.

    If you’re an idiot, and you’re trying to help some other idiot get into a position of power to drag down civilization with your collective idiocy, the smarter among your countrymen are going to have some harsh words for you. I’m smarter than most conservatives, this is beyond any doubt. I’m also a better person – you guys have given up any claim to that argument with your morally decrepit positions on torture and wars. If that sounds condescending, it’s because it is. And you should probably spend more of your time teaching yourself things and thinking, rather than complain about the mean people that make fun off you for not being very smart.

    People like you need people like me to drag you kicking and screaming into the future. The entire scope of human history has been a march of liberalism, and this jingoistic, laissez-faire, God-fearing path you fools are prescribing is only knocking us off the right track.

    Therefore, by your own logic, we should be telling you to take a flying leap.

    That was easy.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2011 @ 10:54 pm - June 25, 2011

  13. Levi, (many) people like you ARE destroying society and corrupting the youth. The social liberalism you believe is necessary to the uninhibited expression of your sexuality is also undermining opposition to other aberrant sexualities. Your own gay rights movement had a 20 plus year association with NAMBLA, which sometimes participated in gay pride parades. The alliance between gays and NAMBLA was severed in the mid ’90′s when it threatened to keep the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) from getting official recognition from the UN. This angered Harry “NAMBLA walks with me” Hay, who nevertheless remained THE great gay hero. Years later, the influence of pro-pederasty Hay was evident when “safe schools czar” Kevin Jennings had no objection to a teenage boy sleeping with a grown man so long as he used a condom. I’d call that corrupting the youth, Levi, no matter what you’d call it.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 25, 2011 @ 11:14 pm - June 25, 2011

  14. I think with supporters like Seane-Anne and Nd30 it’s pretty easy to see why the majority of gays avoid the republican party

    Comment by Tim — June 26, 2011 @ 12:12 am - June 26, 2011

  15. I think it would help if the gay left would stop putting all its focus on marriage and start focusing on other issues of importance to all people – including gay people. I don’t believe that most gays are as liberal as the media and some of these some of these gay organizations like to portray them as.

    Comment by MV — June 26, 2011 @ 12:45 am - June 26, 2011

  16. but the fact is that the Democrats would run the table every election if it weren’t for social conservatives and their anti-gay attitudes propping up the Republican coalition.

    Best to stick with the party of fear, hatred, loathing, envy, slavery and segregation with homophobes running the campaigns.

    Good one, dumbass.

    Comment by TGC — June 26, 2011 @ 5:09 am - June 26, 2011

  17. LOL so the consensus is that gays would vote republican if they just stopped caring about being gay?

    Comment by Tim — June 26, 2011 @ 9:57 am - June 26, 2011

  18. #17… insert the word “only” between “caring” and “about” and you have it right. The gay left is actually very self centered and self important, just like my son was when he was 13. However, 14 years later, he has matured into an adult. The gay left is still 13. Like a 13 year old, the gay left takes the picture of a few and overlays it over the whole. Like a 13 year old, the gay left seeks the approval of others to feel good about themselves. Like a 13 year old, the gay left refuses to seek out people of differing views to understand who they are and what they can contribute. Like a 13 year old, the gay left is still consumed/confused by their sexuality. Like a 13 year old, the gay left needs to mature in order to become truly productive.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — June 26, 2011 @ 10:27 am - June 26, 2011

  19. LOL so the consensus is that gays would vote republican if they just stopped caring about being gay?

    :::facepalm:::

    I’m reminded of that scene in City Slickers when Bruno Kirby was trying to explain to a technically-challenged fellow how to get the VCR to stop blinking “12:00.”

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 26, 2011 @ 10:56 am - June 26, 2011

  20. Tim @ #14, I noticed you didn’t deny or refute anything I wrote in my comment @ #13. Apparently, when you speak of “[Republican party] supporters like Seane-Anna and ND30″ you’re speaking of people who tell the truth about the gay rights movement’s history and refuse to cooperate in whitewashing it.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 26, 2011 @ 11:07 am - June 26, 2011

  21. The left offers a Faustian bargain: “In return for the unrestricted freedom to do whatever you want to whoever you want in the bedroom without any consequences, you give us the right to take away all of your other freedoms and micromanage every other aspect of your life.”

    And many gays and hedonistic straights reply, “Sounds good to us.”

    Comment by V the K — June 26, 2011 @ 12:53 pm - June 26, 2011

  22. Seane-Anna, I don’t regard Harry Hay as a hero, and I don’t know anybody, gay or straight, that advocates pedophilia or regards Harry Hay as a hero. Apparently, and unfortunately, many gay people either supported it or ignored it in the past when NAMBLA was allowed to participate in pride parades, or whatever. At least we both agree that NAMBLA is a group of wretches who have no place in a civilized society. Unfortunately, we still have many states that allow children to marry adults (some with parental consent, as if that somehow makes it okay). So I’m glad to hear that you join me in condemning such laws. Or do you somehow believe that pedophilia is justified when the two are married?

    Your “truth” of the gay-rights movement includes anything and only anything that demonizes gay persons, and highlight that, while completely de-emphasizing anything else. So you wear blinders just like the persons who are 100% gay apologists. They’re just tinted differently. The truth, like most anything else is between the extreme viewpoints.

    Comment by Pat — June 26, 2011 @ 2:32 pm - June 26, 2011

  23. The Democratic Party consists of a number of minorities (unions, environmentalists, gays) in the hope that getting them all together will make them a majority. That requires keeping those groups satisfied with whatever little progress is made so they can get another term not to solve any problems they addressed in the campaign.

    Comment by Dottie Laird — June 26, 2011 @ 2:46 pm - June 26, 2011

  24. Tim, um, please provide the evidence on how Rove used gays as a wedge issue, with information on how he got the marriage initiatives on the ballot.

    And if Republicans become social conservatives once in power, they haven’t wielded their power very well. Unless I missed some key initiatives. Please specify the anti-gay laws and regulations enacted by the federal government in the Bush era and explain how they differ from those signed by Bill Clinton, while not anti-gay per se, were certainly defined as such by gay lefties.

    Thanks!

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 26, 2011 @ 2:48 pm - June 26, 2011

  25. Tim, um, please provide the evidence on how Rove used gays as a wedge issue, with information on how he got the marriage initiatives on the ballot.

    He didn’t. Two Op-Ed pieces claimed that he did and it sounded good to the brain dead bastards of Gay Inc. Goebbles would be proud.

    Comment by TGC — June 26, 2011 @ 10:47 pm - June 26, 2011

  26. Freedom as a principle only makes sense if human beings function primarily as individuals. This is why it’s so crucial to those who would destroy freedom that they herd us together into conveniently-labeled groups.

    Then they can say that we “all” think a certain particular way — that we “all” support pedophilia, for instance, or that we “all” want to destroy marriage. This is the hallmark of the collectivist mindset: make each human being a number. Sort of like what the Nazis did to the Jews.

    Individuals make things messy. Dealing with them requires thought. They can’t always be neatly predicted. Statists don’t like that. Collectivists absolutely cannot stand it.

    Those who advocate statism try to surrender their own individuality for the sake of the herd. This is one of the saddest, most revolting, most pathetic aspects of statism, Left and Right. Their own individuality is so irksome to them that they’ll do anything to shed it. If what they try to do to others amounts to a sort of slow and stealthy murder (and it does), then what they do to themselves is a form of suicide.

    One thing we must never be gullible enough to buy into is the notion that those who come here and tell us — with the glib authority so common to such idiots — that they “know” we “all” do anything. When you hear such rhetoric, it becomes at least somewhat easier to imagine how an entire nation could have followed Hitler.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 27, 2011 @ 12:22 am - June 27, 2011

  27. V the K @ #21, the Faustian bargain you mention is exactly what Aldous Huxley wrote about in his unfortunately prophetic novel, “Brave New World”. If anyone wants to know where the destruction of traditional morality will lead us, read that book.

    Comment by Seana-Anna — June 27, 2011 @ 12:57 am - June 27, 2011

  28. “Your “truth” of the gay-rights movement includes anything and only anything that demonizes gay persons…”

    No, Pat, I wasn’t demonizing gays. I mentioned NAMBLA’s association with the gay rights movement in order to counter the pure-as-the-driven-snow version of the gay rights movement we get from the “100% gay apologists”. As the latter version is the only one most people know, and the one on which they base their view of gay rights, it’s imperative that the “dark side” of the movement is made known so that people can make a fully informed rather than propaganda-based, decision about whether or not to support gay rights/gay marriage.

    Comment by Seana-Anna — June 27, 2011 @ 1:07 am - June 27, 2011

  29. maybe we get the idea that so-called ‘social conservatives’ dominate the GOP when we hear nearly all the candidates in a debate say that they would happily amend the friggin’ constitution to prevent gay citizens from marrying.

    Comment by el polacko — June 27, 2011 @ 4:48 am - June 27, 2011

  30. Freedom as a principle only makes sense if human beings function primarily as individuals. This is why it’s so crucial to those who would destroy freedom that they herd us together into conveniently-labeled groups.

    This is the complete antithesis to reality, and one of the primary reasons that modern conservatism is such a decrepit ideology. The people who plant these ideas in your head are flattering you – but they don’t follow their own advice. You do remember the bailouts, don’t you? How, exactly, were the wealthy and powerful being ruggedly individualistic when they raided the treasury that us pleebs pay into?

    In fact, humankind has been completely dependent on social cooperation and group solidarity to attain greater degrees of freedom and individual autonomy. Historically, small minorities have been able to oppress large majorities by controlling economics, politics, religion, and culture, and what finally put a stop to that was the advent of democracy – otherwise known as ‘making decisions as a group.’ If Thomas Jefferson was functioning primarily as an individual, do you think he would have joined the Revolution, or do you think he would have preserved his own self-interest and remained loyal to the crown? If we were a nation of individuals when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, do you think we would have agreed to be conscripted to fight and die in a war on the other side of the planet? I’m sorry my friend, but the big problems are solved by solidarity, not by individualism.

    Capitalism is a great economic system, but this little bit of propaganda that individualism is superior to any kind of social consideration has had some devastating effects on our society. It serves to enrich the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the rest of us. For people like you and me, it is designed to address the mistaken impression that we are being ripped off by having to pay taxes. Despite occasional waste, we all benefit tremendously from the things that our taxes buy, but this idea demands you ignore all that and just feel cheated. If taxes are unpopular with people, the people will oppose all taxes, including those on the wealthy. We end up demanding tax cuts for the rich when there’s a recession. Services that directly benefit us and our communities are being cut so that billionaires can afford more luxuries. This is no way to run a society.

    So, you’ve got it wrong. Forming into groups is actually what protects us from people who are trying to revoke our freedoms. We’re only easier marks when we’re singled out as individuals that are indifferent to what happens to our neighbors. Think of corporations who avoid taxes by moving operations out of the country, who lower costs by breaking up unions, who increase profits by lobbying against regulation and oversight. In each of those cases, a small yet powerful group of people have conspired to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of us, who are so bought into this idea that we’re stronger as individuals that we can’t recognize that we’re being taken for a ride. The rich and powerful are helping themselves to government subsidies and tax breaks while preaching to the rest of us that we need to stand on our own two feet. They’re hypocrites, and we should know better than to fall into the trap they’ve laid for us.

    Then they can say that we “all” think a certain particular way — that we “all” support pedophilia, for instance, or that we “all” want to destroy marriage. This is the hallmark of the collectivist mindset: make each human being a number. Sort of like what the Nazis did to the Jews.

    Individuals make things messy. Dealing with them requires thought. They can’t always be neatly predicted. Statists don’t like that. Collectivists absolutely cannot stand it.

    How does that work? How does dealing with an individual require more thought than dealing with an entire community? Are you even thinking about this?

    Those who advocate statism try to surrender their own individuality for the sake of the herd. This is one of the saddest, most revolting, most pathetic aspects of statism, Left and Right. Their own individuality is so irksome to them that they’ll do anything to shed it. If what they try to do to others amounts to a sort of slow and stealthy murder (and it does), then what they do to themselves is a form of suicide.

    What the hell is? My own individuality is irksome to me? What is that supposed to mean?

    One thing we must never be gullible enough to buy into is the notion that those who come here and tell us — with the glib authority so common to such idiots — that they “know” we “all” do anything. When you hear such rhetoric, it becomes at least somewhat easier to imagine how an entire nation could have followed Hitler.

    You don’t need to take stuff so literally. People are able to recognize that there are exceptions to everything, but I am unable to detect enough dissimilarity between most conservatives these days that I consider it perfectly acceptable to lump them all into the same group. Conservatives support torture. Conservatives oppose gay marriage. Of course I haven’t met every conservative and recorded their views on these issues. But if it’s true of the majority of their leaders, then that’s good enough for me.

    In any event, nobody is trying to march you into a camp.

    Comment by Levi — June 27, 2011 @ 9:09 am - June 27, 2011

  31. 29.maybe we get the idea that so-called ‘social conservatives’ dominate the GOP when we hear nearly all the candidates in a debate say that they would happily amend the friggin’ constitution to prevent gay citizens from marrying.

    Here’s the typical liberal mindset for you. el polacko is shocked, shocked! that conservatives would use the constitutional process to achieve a result that is their preference. I’m sure he’d much prefer them to find a judge to pull a ruling in their favour out of thin air.

    Clearly, el polacko opposes lowering the voting age to 18, allowing women to vote, freeing the slaves, etc. After all, those were done by those pesky ‘social conservativamendingding the constitution.

    Tell you what, el polacko. Gay citizens have the exact same rights and responsibilities as straight citizens to get their union recognized by the government. How is that discriminatory?

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 27, 2011 @ 9:11 am - June 27, 2011

  32. No, Pat, I wasn’t demonizing gays. I mentioned NAMBLA’s association with the gay rights movement in order to counter the pure-as-the-driven-snow version of the gay rights movement we get from the “100% gay apologists”.

    Seane-Anna, I would say that most of the people who support gay rights are a little more seasoned than that. First of all, they stopped solely relying on traditional religious beliefs to come to an informed decision. Those who base their opinions on gay rights solely through religion are the ones who aren’t getting the full story. Second, since straight people see plenty examples of fellow straight persons who are flawed, it stands to reason that not all homosexuals are perfect either. Lastly, it is unfair to punish all homosexuals for the actions of other homosexuals, just as it would be unfair to do that to straight people.

    The gay movement dumped NAMBLA. Yes, I agree they should never have been associated with it. But, as I said, marriage between adults and children is still legal in many states. So will you join me in advocating elimination of such laws? Or pedophilia is only okay when straight people do it?

    Comment by Pat — June 27, 2011 @ 10:00 am - June 27, 2011

  33. Conservatives support torture. Conservatives oppose gay marriage. Of course I haven’t met every conservative and recorded their views on these issues. But if it’s true of the majority of their leaders, then that’s good enough for me.

    Breathtaking.

    And he wonders why his opinions here are instantly regarded as nonsense, regardless of how reasoned they may be from time to time.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 27, 2011 @ 10:34 am - June 27, 2011

  34. Historically, small minorities have been able to oppress large majorities by controlling economics, politics, religion, and culture, and what finally put a stop to that was the advent of democracy – otherwise known as ‘making decisions as a group.

    And now we show what a pathetic, disgusting little hypocrite and liar Levi is.

    If you’re an idiot, and you’re trying to help some other idiot get into a position of power to drag down civilization with your collective idiocy, the smarter among your countrymen are going to have some harsh words for you. I’m smarter than most conservatives, this is beyond any doubt. I’m also a better person – you guys have given up any claim to that argument with your morally decrepit positions on torture and wars. If that sounds condescending, it’s because it is. And you should probably spend more of your time teaching yourself things and thinking, rather than complain about the mean people that make fun off you for not being very smart.

    People like you need people like me to drag you kicking and screaming into the future. The entire scope of human history has been a march of liberalism, and this jingoistic, laissez-faire, God-fearing path you fools are prescribing is only knocking us off the right track.

    So little fascist Levi is demanding that majorities be suppressed and that people like himself who believe that they are better than everyone else should be in charge.

    Your hypocrisy and lies are now visible for everyone, Levi, and thanks to your idiot racist Barack Obama, your “progressive” lies about how you care about people when you’re calling them idiots and morons who need to be punished and dragged against their will is now obvious to all.

    That’s why you’re screaming and kicking and throwing tantrums. You see power slipping out of your grubby little hands and going back to the people you hate, and like the disgusting little fascist you are, you’re trying to take us all down in Ragnarok.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2011 @ 11:58 am - June 27, 2011

  35. Levi’s screed at #30 is a potpourri of dissonance. Goodness.

    Poor Levi can not comprehend that a forest is composed of trees and that compatibility and continuity gives the forest strength while at the same time allows the individual trees the space and nourishment to grow and mature.

    Levi’s sole point is that man lives in society. What an epiphany that is!

    I wonder if Levi is trying to say that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    Actually, I rather doubt it. Levi proclaims himself to be intellectually above the common man and a member of that small elite which is qualified to organize the community and determine social justice and bypass the consent of the governed.

    So, we are left reading Levi at #30 and wondering how he connects the words he writes with his schizophrenic meanderings on transforming man, the society, the shape of “justice” and the eradication of religion.

    It is neither a pretty picture nor one worth spending much time in trying to decode it. But, one must credit the lad with have treated himself to a huge helping of self esteem.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 27, 2011 @ 2:26 pm - June 27, 2011

  36. “Or pedophilia is only okay when straight people do it?”

    It’s evidently just hunky-dory when straight people do it, which is why people like Seane-Anna never utter a peep against them.

    “Lastly, it is unfair to punish all homosexuals for the actions of other homosexuals, just as it would be unfair to do that to straight people.”

    Pat, you’re trying to reason with her as if she were a real conservative. She is not. And her utter indifference to human individuality shows that more clearly than perhaps any other part of her schtick.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 27, 2011 @ 4:51 pm - June 27, 2011

  37. “that they can’t see how free market policies benefit creative types, particularly the creative entrepreneurial types”. LOL.

    This a particularly funny gay twist on the old “you’re hurting small business”.

    Where is the logical, un-biased evidence that supports this? It seems that every time I hear this kind of thing from Republicans about small biz, it ends up being traced back to big business support.

    By the way, I read the article you linked about gay voting: you might want to check out the last paragraph of the article…

    Comment by Kevin — June 27, 2011 @ 6:57 pm - June 27, 2011

  38. It seems that every time I hear this kind of thing from Republicans about small biz, it ends up being traced back to big business support.

    So what, exactly, is your problem with this??? Didn’t all “big business” begin as a small ones, or are corporations now conceived immaculately, as it were?

    Oh, wait…never mind. I think I know where this fear and loathing of “big business” comes from…

    “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money”

    Yes, that sounds about right.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 27, 2011 @ 7:50 pm - June 27, 2011

  39. “It’s evidently just hunky-dory when straight people do it, which is why people like Seane-Anna never utter a peep against them.”

    Lori, thanks for being your usual, intellectually dishonest self. Where have I ever said or implied that pedophilia is ok when straights do it? Where have I ever said or implied that pedophilia is peculiar to homosexuals? If you opened your ears and actually listened to what I and others have said here, you’d know that references to pedophilia, polygamy, etc., are made to highlight flaws and weaknesses in pro-SSM arguments. These references are NOT made to claim that homosexuality and pedophilia are the same or that pedophilia is wrong only when gays do it.

    Gays employ many arguments in favor of gay marriage as though they were Holy Writ. The Live_Wire succinctly pointed out that all the arguments for gay marriage can be used for every other kind of relationship. That is the gist of what I and others here have been saying for months. Often, in making our case, we will reference those other relationships by name, but that doesn’t mean we’re saying they’re wrong only when gays are involved in them.

    Lori, you, Pat, and other gay marriage supporters need to put aside your preconceived notions of what you think SSM opponents are saying and open your minds and actually LISTEN to us. No, that won’t make you agree with us, but it would enable you to have an honest debate with us.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 27, 2011 @ 11:57 pm - June 27, 2011

  40. Seane-Anna, you could stand to clean your ears out as well. I can’t answer for Pat, but I don’t fit the standard profile of a “gay marriage supporter.” And I have said that many times in comments on this blog, as well as elsewhere.

    I am a supporter of civil unions. I do not believe the government should be in the wealth-distribution business, and I don’t believe it should be either sanctioning or forbidding the contracts entered into by consenting adults. Gay marriage supporters want to get on the gravy train and loot single people right along with married heteros.

    As a matter of fact, you know I think this, because I have made similar remarks on threads you have been part of. So when you speak of “intellectual dishonesty,” perhaps you should be looking in a mirror.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 28, 2011 @ 12:47 am - June 28, 2011

  41. [...] Freedom, the underlying principle of modern conservatism, benefits all people, including (and perhap… [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Why I’m not a liberal (simple version) — June 28, 2011 @ 3:12 am - June 28, 2011

  42. Historically, small minorities have been able to oppress large majorities by controlling economics, politics, religion, and culture, and what finally put a stop to that was the advent of democracy – otherwise known as ‘making decisions as a group.’

    Now the small minority is liberals.

    Comment by TGC — June 28, 2011 @ 3:39 am - June 28, 2011

  43. In fact, humankind has been completely dependent on social cooperation and group solidarity to attain greater degrees of freedom and individual autonomy.

    Hence the TEA Party the liberal response, predictably, to which is to demonize and destroy. Without any evidence, liberals bandy about the usual racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe labels. Doesn’t matter that it’s not true, it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters.

    Despite occasional waste,

    Like $146 million for upgrades to first class? Or spending $3 billion adding sand to the beaches? Or $500,000 to Alaska Airlines to paint a Chinook salmon on a plane? Or $2.6 million training Chinese hookers to drink responsibly on the job?

    Services that directly benefit us and our communities are being cut so that billionaires can afford more luxuries.

    You mean “services” like union members who funnel money to rich mob bosses and millionaire liberal Congress Critters so they can afford more luxuries? Imagine all the services which could’ve benefitted from the trillion dollars your Chairman Obama pissed away on his failed porkulous (which you and that brain dead fucktard Krugman wanted to spend more).

    A few serious questions: Why do you need to raise taxes on billionaires when you can just print money out of thin air? Is it that you just HATE billionaires, unless they’re liberals who destroy economies for fun and profit while sheltering their money offshore?

    Also, why is it that we the people have to do with less, but the government NEVER does?

    I’ll remind you that it’s the eeeeevil “rich” (except for George Soros) who pay the taxes in this country. It’s also the eeeeevil oil companies who fund the US Government to the tune of $100 million per day.

    Now run away and pretend like this never happened, as usual. Coward.

    Comment by TGC — June 28, 2011 @ 6:09 am - June 28, 2011

  44. Lori, thanks for being your usual, intellectually dishonest self. Where have I ever said or implied that pedophilia is ok when straights do it? Where have I ever said or implied that pedophilia is peculiar to homosexuals?

    Seane-Anna, you never quite did. However, I addressed it to you a couple of times, and you never responded to it, until now. So now it’s clear you do not support pedophilia for straight persons as well. Now, let’s make my other point clear. Do you support raising the age of marriage to at least 18, or are you okay with marriage laws in which teens as young as 14 can get married?

    If you opened your ears and actually listened to what I and others have said here, you’d know that references to pedophilia, polygamy, etc., are made to highlight flaws and weaknesses in pro-SSM arguments.

    Of which, you and others have not been able to do. The problem with your argument is that homosexuality is fairly mainstream right now (despite your opposition to it). Polygamy and pedophilia is not. That is why many persons support same sex marriage and not polygamy or marriage between adults and children.

    Many of those who do make the comparison to homosexuality and polygamy are explaining why the courts should not be the ones that decide on same sex marriage (as this could potentially lead to polygamy, etc.). Rather it should be the legislatures. In your case (and correct me if I’m wrong), you don’t want SSM or even civil unions, no matter whether it comes from the legislature, or otherwise.

    What may help to clear up your perceptions of anyone’s preconceived notions of your opinion, is perhaps to come right out and say it. You have already stated several times that homosexuals are aberrants. That you wish homosexuality would not become mainstream and be as widely accepted as it is. What is it would you like? Would you prefer that homosexual acts become illegal again (just like pedophilia and polygamy is illegal)? Would you like us to stay in the closet and pretend that we don’t exist? Should gay persons just bow down and bootlick persons who make anti-gay comments instead of defending ourselves, like most others would do in similar situations?

    Also, as Lori suggested, we don’t all fit your pre-conceived notions of what a same sex marriage supporter is.

    Comment by Pat — June 28, 2011 @ 6:36 am - June 28, 2011

  45. Seane-Anna,

    Pat summs up my point correctly.

    You’ve chosen this hill to stand on. I’ve said in the past that we should clearly and openly ally ourselves with those whom we agree on. If falls to us, as a society, to chart our government recognition of contracts. It falls to us as individuals to see how we react to them. Just like if Tim gets his wish and he can walk his 15 year old down the aisle, I’m still going to teach my (hypothetical) kids it’s wrong and that if Timmeh ever came near a teen ager of mine, he might develop a case of terminal lead poisoning.

    What I mean is that while I stand with you opposing the expansion of ‘marriage’ to include same sex relationships, I stand with Pat and Lori on creating a legal construct (c.f. Fred) for government recognition of same sex partnerships. New York has spoken for their people, it doesn’t mean I need to call Bill and Ted married, or change calling it a ‘partnership’ Bill and Ted dont’ like it? Tough. There’s no ‘right to not be offended’ in the Constitution, but there is a right of free speech.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 28, 2011 @ 8:01 am - June 28, 2011

  46. Breathtaking.

    And he wonders why his opinions here are instantly regarded as nonsense, regardless of how reasoned they may be from time to time.

    If the people that are filtering to the top of your movement’s leadership believe in those things, if the people in conservative media who are rewarded with massive audiences and book sales believe in those things, if the vast majority of conservatives that I’ve spoken to on this blog and elsewhere on the internet believe those things, then I think it’s a safe assumption.

    Comment by Levi — June 28, 2011 @ 8:18 am - June 28, 2011

  47. Poor Levi can not comprehend that a forest is composed of trees and that compatibility and continuity gives the forest strength while at the same time allows the individual trees the space and nourishment to grow and mature.

    Levi’s sole point is that man lives in society. What an epiphany that is!Poor Levi can not comprehend that a forest is composed of trees and that compatibility and continuity gives the forest strength while at the same time allows the individual trees the space and nourishment to grow and mature.

    Levi’s sole point is that man lives in society. What an epiphany that is!

    It’s a point that needed to be made to the person to whom I was responding – who inexplicably believes that humans are more prepared to combat tyranny and oppression as individuals.

    The rest of your post sucks.

    Comment by Levi — June 28, 2011 @ 8:22 am - June 28, 2011

  48. If the people that are filtering to the top of your movement’s leadership believe in those things, if the people in conservative media who are rewarded with massive audiences and book sales believe in those things, if the vast majority of conservatives that I’ve spoken to on this blog and elsewhere on the internet believe those things, then I think it’s a safe assumption.

    So Levi accepts that the Democrat party supports Terrorists (Obama, Cllinton (both) Sean Penn) Truthers (Van Jones, Charlie Sheen, Sean Penn) Dictators (Sheen, Glover, Belefonte) Socialists (Bernie Sanders) Murderers (Anyone who supports cop killers, Ted Kennedy) Child molesters (Polanski) and Racists (Holder, Byrd) so those are the principles of the Democrat Party.

    Hmm, Dictators, Racists, Truthers. No wonder Levi fits in so well.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 28, 2011 @ 8:39 am - June 28, 2011

  49. If the people that are filtering to the top of your movement’s leadership believe in those things, if the people in conservative media who are rewarded with massive audiences and book sales believe in those things, if the vast majority of conservatives that I’ve spoken to on this blog and elsewhere on the internet believe those things, then I think it’s a safe assumption.

    Actually, it’s not. It’s a sweeping generalization, and unless you’re willing and able to cite specifics, you’re proving yourself no better than the handful of right-leaning commenters on this blog who do the same thing, Levi.

    I personally believe Olbermann and Schultz are raving lunatics; doesn’t mean I attribute everything they say to the liberal I share an office with.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 28, 2011 @ 9:41 am - June 28, 2011

  50. @ Eric,

    I just like to point out that, by Levi’s own logic, he willingly associates himself with murderers child rapists and terrorists, since “If the people that are filtering to the top of your movement’s leadership believe in those things” Then he must believe them too.

    You and I, and most rational adults, understand what you’ve said.

    Since Levi fails the ‘rational’ and ‘adult’ concept, that’s why he hides when we shine the light on his beliefs with his own words. I should feel bad about doing it though. It’s not nice to pick on the mentally challenged.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 28, 2011 @ 11:41 am - June 28, 2011

  51. For Pat @ #44

    “Do you support raising the age of marriage to at least 18,”

    Sure. I believe the age of majority should be 18 for everything, marriage, voting, drinking, military service, everything.

    “The problem with your argument is that homosexuality is fairly mainstream right now (despite your opposition to it). Polygamy and pedophilia is not. That is why many persons support same sex marriage and not polygamy or marriage between adults and children.”

    The problem with your argument, Pat, is that nobody is demanding gay marriage because homosexuality is now mainstream. Gay marriage supporters are demanding the redefining of marriage in the name of freedom and equality. Simply put, SSM supporters’ prime argument is that people should–must–be free to marry whomever they love, and to not allow them to is discrimination of the worst sort.

    Some other arguments for gay marriage–and the normalizing of homosexuality generally–include: 1. it’s wrong to impose one’s own personal morals or beliefs on others 2. it’s wrong to make people deny their true selves 3. gay marriage won’t effect straight people’s relationships 4. marriage has changed in the past so it’s reasonable to accept change to it now.

    As The Live_Wire said, all the arguments for gay marriage can be used for other relationships. And all the arguments for normalizing homosexuality can also be used for other sexualities. That, Pat, is the gist of the slippery slope argument, and you have not refuted it.

    “What may help to clear up your perceptions of anyone’s preconceived notions of your opinion, is perhaps to come right out and say it…What is it would you like?”

    Pat, I have come right out and said what I’d like. I said on a thread many months ago that I believe in tolerance for homosexuals, and you sneered at that. Remember? You said it would be irrational for gays to stop at tolerance. Remember? You agreed with my statement that gays lied for 30 years when they said they just wanted tolerance, and that what they really wanted was for everyone to stand in awe of their sexuality. You agreed with that. Remember, Pat? So don’t ask me what I’d like when I’ve already told you and you spit in my face for it.

    Comment by Seana-Anna — June 28, 2011 @ 11:25 pm - June 28, 2011

  52. Sure. I believe the age of majority should be 18 for everything, marriage, voting, drinking, military service, everything.

    Seane-Anna, thanks for clearing that up.

    The problem with your argument, Pat, is that nobody is demanding gay marriage because homosexuality is now mainstream.

    Actually, change the word “demanding” to “supporting” then. Most people aren’t demanding same sex marriage. But now most think it’s a good enough idea to have. Yes, there are those who “demand” it. But if they were the only supporters of same sex marriage, it wouldn’t happen.

    Gay marriage supporters are demanding the redefining of marriage in the name of freedom and equality.

    Again, change “demanding” to “supporting.” As I mentioned plenty of times, marriage has been redefined plenty of times over. Now, most people in New York believe that the redefining of marriage to from “one man and one woman” to “to two adults” is a good thing. Just like many of the redefinitions of marriage over time.

    Yes, freedom and equality is a good part of it. And in order to deny it, there should be good reason for it. But as I also stated, this obviously can’t be decided solely by my opinion, or by your opinion. That’s what we have legislatures for.

    Simply put, SSM supporters’ prime argument is that people should–must–be free to marry whomever they love, and to not allow them to is discrimination of the worst sort.

    Like many things that are “simply put” they are wrought with half-truths. Many SSM supporters’ argument is that there is no good reason to deny SSM. I personally find it unfathomable that my partner cannot legally marry me (I live in neighboring NJ), but a woman (even a lesbian) can.

    I have stated there is damn good reason to prevent adults from marrying children.

    Despite all of this, I do understand many, like Livewire who prefer a different term. That’s fine. And this will be sorted out through time which will ultimately be accepted. But, for you, if I understand you correctly, is not about marriage. You don’t even want civil union recognition for same sex partners.

    Some other arguments for gay marriage–and the normalizing of homosexuality generally–include: 1. it’s wrong to impose one’s own personal morals or beliefs on others 2. it’s wrong to make people deny their true selves 3. gay marriage won’t effect straight people’s relationships 4. marriage has changed in the past so it’s reasonable to accept change to it now.

    1. Somewhat true. For example, I’m sure you don’t want some governing authority telling you that you cannot practice your own religion.

    2. That should be obvious. For example, why on earth should we encourage a gay man to marry a woman? As we know, that usually doesn’t work out well. Let’s put it this way. I believe that sexuality is a gift from God. But like most gifts from God, it is incumbent upon us to use it wisely and responsibly. Yes, we have seen the results when people use homosexuality irresponsibly. It isn’t pretty. Same thing with heterosexuality. In fact, it can be worse, since unwanted children can result. Many gay people use their sexuality responsibly, and I personally believe that it is unfair to deny them any of the liberties and freedoms that are straight brethren enjoy.

    The same thing cannot be said to those whose sexual attractions are geared toward children. I think we agree that there is NO responsible way that this gift can be acted on.

    3. That should be obvious. One argument against same sex marriage (or civil unions) is that a piece of paper shouldn’t make a difference. Okay fine. Then I don’t see how a gay couple’s piece of paper make a difference for a straight couple.

    4. Exactly. And that’s what’s nice about free society where we can decide such issues. However, we still leave it up to each religion to decide for themselves who can marry.

    Pat, I have come right out and said what I’d like. I said on a thread many months ago that I believe in tolerance for homosexuals, and you sneered at that. Remember?

    Vaguely. But yes, you reaffirmed your tolerance of gays. But can you imagine if I went to your blog and stated I “tolerate” Black persons, or “tolerate” women, or “tolerate” Christians, but proceeded to announce any of the categories as deviants. I think you might sneer at me too, and with good reason.

    You said it would be irrational for gays to stop at tolerance. Remember?

    Of course. They same way it would be irrational for Black persons, or women, or Christians to stop at tolerance. Agreed?

    You agreed with my statement that gays lied for 30 years when they said they just wanted tolerance, and that what they really wanted was for everyone to stand in awe of their sexuality.

    Yeah, we should have been happy accepting second-class citizenship. Oh well. Seriously, I may have agreed to the use of “lied,” but let’s look at things closely. I’m not sure that even as 50 years ago, homosexuals could have imagined full acceptance and equality. Tolerance was better than what they had before. I would attribute what you call “lying” as human nature. This has nothing to do with sexuality here. I’m not a historian, so I don’t know if Black people in the South prior to 1860 said that they would be happy for tolerance. Maybe, even then they stated they wanted full equality, which obviously they should have had. But reality doesn’t always work that way. It still took another 100 years for that to happen. Unfortunately, it often takes baby steps to get there.

    You agreed with that. Remember, Pat? So don’t ask me what I’d like when I’ve already told you and you spit in my face for it.

    My intention was not to spit in your face. The problem is tolerance still covers a wide area. And your tolerance obviously has limits. For example, you do oppose civil unions. You oppose homosexuality to become mainstream. That’s a start. The questions I posed above would help in defining exactly what your tolerance is.

    Comment by Pat — June 29, 2011 @ 7:54 am - June 29, 2011

  53. Many SSM supporters’ argument is that there is no good reason to deny SSM.

    Sure there is.

    Marriage as an institution exists primarily to protect and support the raising of children; since gays and lesbians choose to engage in non-procreative relationships of their own volition, there is no reason for marriage to be extended to them, there is no value provided to society by government doing so, and there is no need to encourage or support marriage as a means of mitigating or preventing societal ills.

    Cut and dried, very straightforward.

    The real agenda of the gay-sex marriage movement is best revealed in their contradictory behavior. For instance, gay-sex marriage supporters, being overwhelmingly liberal and Obama Party members, insist that people should pay more in taxes, that tax loopholes should be closed, and that, in particular, the estate tax should be applied to everyone.

    Then they whine and scream about how they need gay-sex marriage because they’re paying more in taxes.

    It’s nothing but hypocrisy and lies. If gay-sex marriage supporters wanted lower taxes, they could cut taxes. If they wanted no estate tax, they could eliminate it. But they clearly don’t; they want special treatment and privileges while providing none of the benefits to society, such as childraising, for which those privileges and benefits exist.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 29, 2011 @ 1:30 pm - June 29, 2011

  54. Tolerance — that golden word so beloved by the Left — is a weasel word.

    A person who “tolerates” another believes herself to be the superior of the recipient of her “tolerance.” No equal speak so loftily of his or her attitude toward another. The superior kindly “tolerates” you — but reserves the right to annihilate you if you piss her off.

    The problem is that both sides in the SSM issue are fighting over the use of force, and the ability to confiscate the money of others. In this, they are no better than common armed robbers.

    No citizen should benefit materially, at the State’s behest, because of his or her lifestyle choices. Regardless of whether that citizen is gay or straight.

    I have no problem debating “gay marriage” with those who do not support the concept. They might be surprised to find that I don’t support it either, as it is framed in the debate. But they’d damn sure better get their fist out of my face, and their hand out of my pocket, while we’re discussing it.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 29, 2011 @ 5:53 pm - June 29, 2011

  55. Pat, I’ll make this quick because it’s late and I’m tired. In reference to tolerating gays, you brought up Blacks and women and asked if they should’ve settled for “mere” tolerance.

    Pat, I’ve told you before that I don’t accpet equating Blacks and women with gays because I don’t accept the leftist construct of gay as an identity. “Gay” isn’t an identity; it’s a sexual attraction. Gays aren’t pseudo-ethnics, they’re an aberrant–anomalous, not true to type–sex group. I explained to you before that “Black” and “female” are different from “gay” because they’re static conditions that have no intrinsic behavioral impulses which must be acted upon for someone to be fully and authentically Black or female. Also, non-Blacks and men don’t have to extend approval to a behavior or lifestyle in order to be truly non-racist and non-sexist. When you demand acceptance, approval, or tolerance for homosexuals you are inherently demanding acceptance, approval, or tolerance for a behavior. So, imo, equating the fight for gay rights with Blacks’ and women’s struggles for equal rights is disengenious and reeks of political opportunism. It doesn’t sway me at all.

    Good night, Pat.

    Comment by Seana-Anna — June 30, 2011 @ 12:57 am - June 30, 2011

  56. Good morning, Seane-Anna. So, in answer to my question, you do not stop at mere tolerance for being Black or being a woman. Now you know where I’m coming from. Thanks.

    Just to be clear, my question should not be construed to mean I was equating gay rights with civil rights or women’s rights. Also, I remember your discussion about the differences between identity and behavior.

    So I guess your point is that I should accept mere tolerance because being gay is not an identity. I would disagree with that, just as I believe that being Christian would also be an identity. But as you know, one does not have to remain a Christian and can change if one so chooses, so I guess you wouldn’t regard being a Christian as an identity. So I guess that means you would accept mere tolerance as a Christian. We’ll have to disagree on that as well.

    Comment by Pat — June 30, 2011 @ 6:32 am - June 30, 2011

  57. Pat, Lori,

    I think you and I have different definitions of ‘tolerance’ To me it means accepting the existance of, while not embracing wholeheartedly.

    I tolerate the Somali immigrants in Columbus (Well the ones that aren’t trying to blow me up). I don’t tolerate people who refuse to assimilate (speak English, etc). I tolerate gay couples, polygamists, etc. I don’t tolerate child molestors.

    I tolerate polite-but-misguided-liberals like Pat, I don’t tolerate totalitarian leftests like Levi, etc. ;-)

    The post Dan made on RI vs NY kind of sums up where I draw the line on tolerance. I tolerate the decision of the legislature of New York to redefine marriage. I’m not happy but I tolerate it. The people who want the victory in RI torpedoed because it’s not enough are intolerant of the viewpoints of others and the legislative process, and can take a flying leap.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 30, 2011 @ 8:00 am - June 30, 2011

  58. “To me it means accepting the existance of, while not embracing wholeheartedly.”

    That’s because, TL, you’re a normal, psychologically-healthy person with a realistic sense of where you end and others begin. It’s the way most reasonable people see it.

    When we’re dealing with a self-absorbed megalomaniac, we must understand that she or he has never developed a normal sense of these things. We are dealing with a seriously-disturbed individual at war with herself over her own impulses — which she has been taught to believe have nothing to do with sex, sex, sex, and which she finds shameful.

    Various people come to this blog for various reasons. Most of us come to read the posts, which are always very interesting and thought-provoking, and to chat with each other on the commentary threads. Some bring their own dark little agendas. When I figure out what Seane-Anna’s is, I intend to write about it. She’s a fascinating case.

    “I tolerate polite-but-misguided-liberals like Pat, I don’t tolerate totalitarian leftests like Levi, etc.”

    I tolerate everybody because I have no choice. God made us all, and unlike some of the trolls who comment here, I would never deny that. But I do so, as you surely do, without believing I’m Queen of Planet Earth, and that everybody else should gratefully bow to me because I deign to extend my tolerance to them.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 30, 2011 @ 3:50 pm - June 30, 2011

  59. One correction (I HATE these little boxes for typing in text). The Royal She in question believes her impulses have EVERYTHING to do with sex, sex, sex, and nothing to do with anything else. She seems to keep her brain in her shorts.

    Rarely to we get the chance to study such an extreme case. Perhaps that is why the bloggers choose to keep her on here. It certainly can’t be because of the originality of anything she says. Nothing ever comes out of her that we haven’t all heard five thousand times before.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 30, 2011 @ 3:52 pm - June 30, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.