GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Powered by Genesis

Another Testament to the Endless Navel-Gazing of the Gay Left

September 2, 2015 by V the K

Sometimes, I think being a leftist means nothing more than being hostile to all things normal and good and coming up with convoluted ways to explain it.

Seriously, how mental do you have to be to embrace this lunacy?

straight-not-hetero

 

HT: The Political Hat

Filed Under: Gay Culture

Comments

  1. Heliotrope says

    September 2, 2015 at 10:02 am - September 2, 2015

    positioning “queer/cishet” as a mutually exclusive binary doesn’t make any sense and undermines the entire stated goal of queerness

    OK. I have put emphasis on two phases.

    The entire stated goal of queerness is a wonderment to me. Where can I go on the net to read up on the entire stated goal of queerness? Is it in manifesto form and does it carry the LGBTQXYZ official seal of approval?

    Doesn’t make any sense is crystal clear and sums up the entirety of this word salmagundi perfectly. It is to laugh.

  2. Ted B. (Charging Rhino) says

    September 2, 2015 at 10:05 am - September 2, 2015

    IN strange times like these, I’m very glad that I live far, far removed from the local ‘gayborhood’. It must be very strange in that echo chamber of the confused.

  3. Roberto says

    September 2, 2015 at 11:37 am - September 2, 2015

    What abunch of gobbledygook! A waste of time to read it.

  4. Just Me says

    September 2, 2015 at 11:38 am - September 2, 2015

    I think many on the gay left are far more interested in being victims and creating drama than living normal, happy lives. If there isn’t a tornado of drama swirling around them they have to go stir one up.

  5. CthulhuDreaming says

    September 2, 2015 at 12:34 pm - September 2, 2015

    1. If we suppose that straight/gay refers to the desires of the individual and hetero/homosexual refers to the actual behavior, then he(?) has a valid observation.

    2. To make the most sense of his…interesting…thought process, it would be prudent to reverse the strict definitions in 1. So: straight/gay=behavior; hetero/homosexual=desire.

    3. There are accepted norms to behavior. Those norms were created by and for the middle class, most of whom are white. So, true.

    4. Why does positioning them as mutually exclusive not make any sense? If this guy accepts the existence of bisexuality, then it makes perfect sense. If a man sleeps with a man, he is gay. if a man sleeps with a woman, he is straight. If he is not choosy, he is bi. The only system where the first of this guy’s…conclusions (if I dare call it such)…remains coherent is if he denies the presence of bisexuality in behavioral form.

    5. The stated goal of queerness, if we suppose it to be distinct from the straight/gay and hetero/homosexual continuum, must be acceptance of one’s desires and acting upon those instead of suppressing them. (Which is not a good plan for the long term, just ask an honest fat guy how is love of food is going for him.) However, placing them as binary mutually exclusive positions is the only way to ensure complete conformity of the desires and the desires of the arbitrary individual. Suggesting that they are not exclusive as such is an argument for the broad acceptance of bisexuality, or pansexuality, or whatever they are calling it these days. But he does not believe in bisexuality.

    TL;DR: point three is irrelevant, and he is arguing for the acceptance of something he does not believe exists. Which begs the question: why is he doing that? Is this an elaborate strawman about what he thinks sane people think?

    6. You know, that last line there, about hell, is probably accurate. Take the two groups of people, call them leftys and rightys–for simplicity’s sake, and separate them into two separate but equal versions of Earth. Which, over the course of a few decades, would be hellish?

  6. Heliotrope says

    September 2, 2015 at 3:13 pm - September 2, 2015

    Whoa!! Now I am completely lost.

  7. Kimthe says

    September 2, 2015 at 6:49 pm - September 2, 2015

    These idiots need to STFU already.

  8. Steve says

    September 2, 2015 at 9:31 pm - September 2, 2015

    It actually took a while for me to realize that the organization
    People Against Goodness And Nicety was not an actual leftist org.

  9. Sean L says

    September 2, 2015 at 10:09 pm - September 2, 2015

    Alternate hypothesis: many straight people think we are weird and freakish because many of us ought to be on antipsychotics and insist on parading our fetishes in public. Any agreements?

  10. Rod says

    September 2, 2015 at 11:52 pm - September 2, 2015

    @CthulhuD (Gesundheit)…
    “There are accepted norms… middle class.. white… (puke, puke, puke).
    If, as you say these accepted norms are only middle class and only white…
    Why did and do we find these norms in ancient-to-modern civilizations of the Incas, Aboriginals, American Indians, Huns, Mongols, Feudal Japan, unmolested tribes in the Amazon; blacks, browns, blues galore!
    All recognizing queerness and faggotry to be detrimental to their social structures, moralisms and restricting its involvement wherever possible?
    Or did the poor little ole white folks just come along and spoil it for everyone?

  11. Rod says

    September 2, 2015 at 11:53 pm - September 2, 2015

    Moderators:
    It’s hardly my first comment; it’s just been a while and I’ve never violated the ToS.

  12. rjligier says

    September 3, 2015 at 2:34 am - September 3, 2015

    Never leave it to a delusional 2-3%er leftist to define reality. The leftist 2-3%ers are even confused by their own nomenclature for homosexuals, bisexuals and heterosexuals aka gay, straight and breeders. Idiots……….

  13. CthulhuDreaming says

    September 3, 2015 at 12:36 pm - September 3, 2015

    I had hoped to discover some dread meaning in the ramblings of a lunatic, but it seems that the only use these people have for language is in creating some slogan or another.

    As for the alternate hypothesis:

    1. there is a conclusion in the hypothesis, which is a no-no (ought to be on anti-psychotics)
    2. its test-ability is questionable due to the appeal to other people’s thoughts

    Suggestions:

    Hypothesis: If enough people do not want sexual fetishes made public, then those who do it are considered as “freaks”.

    Conclusion: Therefore, any group of “freaks” ought to be on anti-psychotics.

    Requirements: A normative definition of “enough” such that mental disorder can be plausibly established and defended. A broad polling concerning whether or not people want to see other peoples’ fetishes on display, this should be made sexuality non-specific to avoid political bias.

    Problem: Is homosexuality a fetish? Given its relative rate of incidence in any given population, it seems a distinct possibility. Thus, would not gay pride or other open declarations of gayness be considered public forms of fetish display? If so, is there a need for legal protection within certain bounds of gay behavior? Or, should all gays be subject to anti-psychotic drugs thereby making homosexuality effectively illegal?

    Note: quotes are meant to indicate a particular usage of a word and not cast doubt upon that word’s validity.

  14. Evans Tibetsy says

    September 8, 2015 at 12:16 am - September 8, 2015

    What does “Cishet” mean?

Categories

Archives