I’ve finally figured out why I dislike the gay rights’ movement — and it has nothing to do with my support for gay civil rights

Obama First Gay PresidentI’ve always thought of myself as someone who’s cool about gays.  For many years, I could honestly say that many of my good friends, and some of my best friends, were gay.  I didn’t appreciate their lifestyle excesses (especially because I lost a lot of friends to AIDS because of those lifestyle choices), but I appreciated the qualities that made them my friends.  These were the same qualities I looked for in any friends, female (straight or gay) or male (straight or gay):  humor, kindness, intelligence, loyalty, etc.

Lately, though, I find myself increasingly uncool about gays and I haven’t been happy about that feeling.  I kept asking myself, “Am I a homophobe?”  My answer was, “I don’t think so, because I wish all American citizens well, and I pray for the well-being of all victimized people at home and abroad.  I don’t see where homophobia fits into that world view.”

It was Ben Shapiro’s article about the failed Sochi Olympics that made me realize what was bugging me.  It’s not the gays that bother me; it’s the way the Democrat establishment, from the White House down, is hiding behind gay rights to avoid being called upon for the Obama administration’s myriad failings in every area of domestic and foreign policy.

Here (in no particular order) are just some of the headlines that should concern the President:

Venezuela is teetering on the brink of revolution.

America is completely reliant on China and India for prescription drugs — countries that frequently provide tainted or defective medicines

Syria peace talks have failed, leading to increased tension between Russia and the United States

Islamist rebels in Africa are attacking Christians at an accelerated pace

Obamacare is proving to be a costly, destructive train wreck (no link needed for that, right?)

America’s debt now stands at $17 trillion, and that number is growing at an exponential rate

Our jobless rate is artificially low, because many people have just given up

Obama is paving the way for a nuclear Iran

The routine persecution everyone (including gays) in Muslim countries.

America is running out of clowns

Those are some pretty damn significant issues, and all of them fall within the purview of a President who owns half of Congress and who, for two years, owned all of Congress.  Moreover, this is a president who came into office with all the goodwill in the world to give him a head start on tackling big issues.

Obama and his friends, however, are not interested in big issues.  Instead, here is what the administration and its spokespeople are talking about:

Climate change, despite the fact that there’s ever-increasing evidence that the earth’s temperature hasn’t risen in almost two decades, that any change is natural and cyclical, and that we’re losing the benefit of the lovely warming period that’s made the earth so fruitful for the last few centuries.  In other word’s, climate change is a con.

Gay rights as the “unfinished business of the 21st century.”

Gay football players

Gays in Uganda (when the administration should be talking generally about the dysfunctional, corrupt Ugandan political scene)

Transgender bathrooms in California’s public schools

Gays at the Sochi Olympics

Persecution of gays in Christian countries (although persecution of gays in Muslim countries and societies continues to be the persecution that dares not speak its name)

And, of course, gay marriage, gay marriage, gay marriage

Just about the only thing lately that gets the Obama administration excited is a report of discrimination against gays anywhere in the world.

Let me be clear:  It’s morally right to take a stand against discrimination against gays, whether in Russia or the NFL or Uganda or the entire Muslim world.  No one should ever be imprisoned, murdered, beaten, fired, barred from employment, harassed, or otherwise accorded violent or oppressive treatment at the hands of the state or of fellow citizens simply because that person does not embrace heterosexuality.

My complaint, therefore, isn’t that the administration regularly takes a principled stand for gay civil rights.  My complaint is that, in addition to Obamacare (a terrible, destructive failure), and anthropogenic climate change (a non-falsifiable theory that is almost certainly a con), LGBTQ rights are the only things that excite the administration and its base. In that context, gay rights are a shell game, meant to distract the American people from the fact that the administration is routinely failing in its responsibilities to ensure that all Americans, not just gay Americans, can thrive at home.  It’s also failed to fulfill America’s traditional role (since WWII) of keeping the world a safer, more democratic place, something that benefits all people regardless of race, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

The whole gay rights thing puts me off, not because I hate gay rights, but because the administration uses it as both shield and sword to ignore much more pressing matters, some of which, if they were addressed (such as rising Islamism or increasing Russian oppression), would benefit gays along with everyone else.  I don’t hate gays or gay rights; I hate false flag operations that hide policy failures with real world consequences, not just for gays, but for everyone.

As long as the Democrat establishment cynically uses gay rights as a way of avoiding the real issues, I’m going to have a negative visceral reaction every time I see yet another Democrat talking head or media figure (but I repeat myself . . .) mouthing off about gay rights issues at home or abroad.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • vanderleun

    “I’ve always thought of myself as someone who’s cool about gays. ”
    Well…. you are NOT. Nothing other than slavish, down on your knees, acceptance of EVERYTHING on the gay agenda will do. That includes Obama’s endless quest to dump Michelle and marry Reggie. So just quit bitching about the state of the world and GET WITH THE GAY PROGRAM! OR! ELSE!

  • Libby

    Well said, Book!
    I think the Obama administration has set the military on a path to discord with ending DADT (again, more interested in gay soldiers than heroic ones) and the recent loosening of the military dress code to include Islamic beards, turbans & hijabs. 

  • sabawa

    Sadly, that’s a great list, Book.
    Name me something wonderful the guy has done, on purpose, to keep our country strong, fuel the economy, show leader-type leadership……anything?!

  • Blick4343

    Book, the Gay agenda is just the cause du jour.  Liberals/leftists are in moral rebellion and resent/rebell against anything that is positive morally. They do not propose any positive outcomes or better ways of living. They live for the protest, for the march, for the resistance. If something is destructive, liberals are for it.  Promoting the gay agenda is just “in your face” liberal protest. That’s why they won’t let it go. 

  • Danny Lemieux

    I wish that we would all accept “don’t ask, don’t tell” as the social standard for discourse, no matter what one’s sexual proclivities.

  • terrapin

    So you dislike the movement and its quest for equal rights for all citizens because you disagree with the Administration’s other policies? 
    Why should Americans who seek equality suffer because you are not fond of the ACA? Why are you holding the President’s policy regarding Iran against a same-sex couple in Texas who wants to have the same rights as an opposite-sex couple so their children have full protection and dignity?
    Rarely have i seen an argument that makes less sense. You are basically saying that people should settle for second-class citizenship because you think climate change does not exist. That is like me saying that Christians should not have rights because I don’t think that supply-side economics is a failure. 

    • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

      Terrapin: Thank you for demonstrating my point so perfectly. This post isn’t about gay marriage. It’s about the fact that the administration is using gay rights as a means to avoid substantive responsibilities at home and abroad. Your gay marriage argument is the equivalent of the cry “Squirrel!” It has no place here.

  • expat

    It does irritate me that the gays rights agenda is constantly expanding and wants to take priority over all the other problems we face. How many more letters must we add to LGBT to satisfy gays, and why isn’t there a movement among gays to defend our pronouns from the nutty gender activists?

    • terrapin

      To state that just because a group of Americans want equal rights means  that it demands priority over all other issues is nonsensical. We are a complex and intelligent society, and we can focus on more than one issue at once. Perhaps you should have courage in your convictions, and just be truthful. I suspect you do not want gay folks to have equal rights. 
      And those poor pronouns. Oh the humanity.  

  • Charles Martel

    Book, I didn’t realize that you were targeting a same-sex couple in Texas. Thank God Terrapin was here to point that out!

    • terrapin

      It is called an example.

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    Suspect what you will, Terrapin. I’ll continue to hold to my position until the administration gets as excited about anti-socialist revolutions in Venezuela as it does about the Sochi opening ceremonies. 

    • terrapin

      I was addressing expat. 

      • expat

        Actually those pronouns are pretty important if you want to read and understand something written  100, 50, or even 5 years ago. That is the perfect example of  activists putting their narcissistic wants above the value of our language. They simply don’t care that the censorship  they woud like to impose could make much of what we were bequeathed by our ancestors unintelligible to future generations. They just don’t care.

  • jj

    The clown shortage is genuinely worrying… or would be, if it weren’t for politicians and courts.
    I’ve never managed to give a damn about anybody else’s sexual orientation.  I suppose I fit into the “I didn’t ask you, so why the hell are you telling me?” category of disinterest.  We’ve spent enough time banging around in “la show biz” on both coasts (out here it’s “el show biz”) to mostly not need telling, anyway.  I’m in complete agreement that the “movement” is far more annoying than most of the individuals it purports to encompass and represent – though this could be said about most movements.
    They’re loud, they’re often annoying, and yes:  they give perfect cover to those clowns we do have in endless supply: politicians.  If you can babble along the lines of your previous commenter, there, you can probably buy forgiveness for not having your eye on a ball that might actually matter.  Or even, in the case of the Pelosis of the world, forgiveness for not noticing that there is a ball in the air at all.
    And though it’s not the point of your post, I do think one aspect of the way it’s gone is worth talking about.  I think it’s getting dangerous.  The American people have been – for the most part – raised to have faith in the idea that in this country we vote for stuff.  Or we vote against it.  The idea that a vote was the final arbiter of questions was planted deep – as it should have been – well watered, and firmly rooted.  I wonder how the millions of people, a majority of them, who voted “no” to gay marriage in CA like being told by some bozo in a ball gown – who, if he had any understanding of the job would have recused himself –  that their votes do not matter.  It’s now happened again, in Virginia, a much more logical place than California.  They’re so logical that they noticed almost immediately that the ball-gowned bozo who decided millions of their votes don’t matter apparently cannot distinguish between, and does not seem to know there’s a difference between,  the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  They don’t seem pleased.
    Nationwide the judicial system is not held in such esteem that disenfranchising and generally pissing off millions of people because some “judge” doesn’t agree with them seems to me to be the way to go.  You haven’t created a disgruntled minority here: you’ve created a disgruntled majority, which is a somewhat different thing.  We’ve only done that once before (that occurs to me offhand) in this country, and that was when the nine retired ambulance-chasers of an earlier day decided that the states had no right to make law within their own borders, and abortion everywhere was the way it was going to be.
    Has there been a more divisive decision in the history of the nation?  And it’s a decision that an increasing number of people are increasingly aware was wrong.  As science advances and we are better and better able to take clearer and clearer looks at what goes in the womb at earlier and earlier dates, the evidence begins to pile up to support the Pope’s view that life begins at conception.  (Can’t imagine who told him…)
    And here we are, with a new wave of decisions with which the majority of the people involved do not agree.  And many of them are saying: “but we voted on this!  Here in this country where voting is supposed to be the final arbiter!”  And they’re going on to add: “who told this bozo his or her private view outweighs the expressed view of millions of people?”  And that is a dangerous question for the continued well-being of any legal system.  If the courts continue to piss people off in their millions, the “rule of law” – which Obama and Holder have made a bad joke anyway – may be in for interesting times.  What a court says is only meaningful because the people say it is.  If the people begin to wonder about that – interesting times. 

    • Blick4343

      JJ you are exactly correct. When institutions lose the respect of the masses, all bets are off.  If the IRS has no respect for the taxpayers, why should the taxpayer respect the IRS, its agents and its rules.  Judges only have the respect of citizens to support their status as fair arbiters of society’s problems.  Lose that respect and become just another political hack.  ( One judge named his boat “integrity” just to claim he had some. )  If the EPA no longer follows good science but is just another bully, they lose the grudging respect from citizens. 
      This country is on the threshold of chaos as politicians, judges, agency executives become arbitrary.  The calculation becomes “what can I get away with?” not “should I be a good citizen”. 

    • terrapin

      Constitutional rights are not up for a vote. We have three equal branches of government, and, like it or not, the courts decide on constitutionality of laws.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    I’ll let Book’s natural defenses take care of Troll monster here. But if it’s still here in a few days, I’m going to drop my filters by a couple of percent and begin pulling triggers. Fair warning.

    • terrapin

      I love how you need to label anyone not in lockstep with the Amen chorus on here a “troll.”

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Guess what Neo just posted, Book.
    Over the years that I’ve read your blog and hers, I often noted how there was a synergistic energy that I could only attribute to the similar mental journey you both took out of the land of Leftist zombiehood.

  • Charles Martel

    I agree with Book that the constant, pervasive pounding on “gay” rights is done deliberately, not only to distract people from the train wreck of America under Obama, but also as a way demoralize so-called homophobes even as they are being demonized.
    People of conscience (sorry, folks, that that phrase sounds almost as stupid as “people of color”), who exist in numbers far greater among conservatives than even the most “educated” liberals can count up to, certainly don’t want to see homosexuals harassed or persecuted, or denied equal protection under the law.
    But what that has to do with making political allegiance with the queer-hating cult of Islam, or blasting out endless propaganda about the wonderfulness of marriages based on sodomy, or pushing the long-debunked notion that AIDS in America is a dire threat to straights, I don’t know.
    I do know, however, when I am being offered swill. And all gay, all the time is swill.

  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

    What Danny said!!


    Fear not Bookworm. The administration will return to its original program and programming following the end of the Sochi Olympics. I know this to be true because our current Sec’y of State  has declared from Indonesia, where he planted his big fat carbon footprint, that climate hot/cold change is the “most fearsome” weapon of mass destruction.

  • Blick4343

    Its hard to hear what the warmists say; their lifestyle blocks the sound.
    Prime examples: jon carry and al gore. If they believed there was a imminent crisis they would lead by example.
    Oh wait, maybe they are. They are just 1% elitists pissing on the peasants.

  • 11B40

    Two quick bits as hopefully the dinner bell will be ringing shortly.
    1)  Lately my mind has been working on the “bullying” aspects that Progressives seem unable to recognize in themselves as they lecture others whom they find guilty of doing likewise or similarly.  The homosexual rights campaign against Russia and the Sochi Olympics would be a case in point, although sadly far from the only one, of that monomania in full tilt boogie mode.  Not only was the actual issue never addressed, (Does Russia have a right to limit homosexual propaganda in its own country similar to the way tobacco propaganda has been limited in this country?) but the President of the former USofA makes a point to send a handpicked coterie of homosexuals, the long, the short, and the tall and on the taxpayer dime to show how far he has devolved on the issue of protecting the rest of America from the homosexual zealots.
    2)  And, as anyone who has ever even walked past a Jesuit should be asking, “Aren’t there some responsibilities that come along with these new-fangled “rights” or is the rest of America now required just to endure along this sexual dysfunction’s many manifestations by which I mean such as bathhouses “glory holes”, AIDS/HIV, “Up Your Alley  Fairs” ???

  • bizcor

    Nero fiddles as Rome burns.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Under the best defense is a good offense principle: the best way to deal with someone who calls you a homophobe or racist is to call them a pedophile (“Hey, have you got your pedophile inclinations under control there?).
    Hey, if they want to get into trash talking, then let’s do it right. 

  • Charles Martel

    Danny, I’m curious as to how far you could go with an accusation like that. I’m assuming that you’d be attempting a sort of jiu-jitsu with leftists’ minds, wherein they always get to decide capriciously and arbitrarily, like Humpty Dumpty, what racism or homophobia is.
    You’d press the pedophile accusation the same way, no? If so, I’d be cautious about hoping for success in getting them to understand the point you’re trying to make. After all, logic and objectivity are imperialist, patriarchal concepts. Leftists are not allowed to play with children who come bearing those particular cooties.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Well, Hammer..wouldn’t it be grand if we could hammer them into a self-loathing admission that, yes, they do have pedophile tendencies? At which point, of course, we should invite them to share with as many others as possible.
    Alternately, it could be fun just to watch their flatulant heads explode.

  • Eidolon

    I know this isn’t directly on-topic, but why exactly is the term “homophobe” used? What is it supposed to mean? Is there any evidence that anyone anywhere has ever been fearful of gay people?
    Some people suggest that gays are subject to discrimination, so it would seem that the objection is that others treat them in a way that’s sort of equivalent to racism against people of specific racial or ethnic groups. So wouldn’t the equivalent term be “orientationist” or some such? Is there such a thing as an Afro-phobe? Would anyone distinguish an “Afro-phobe” from a racist? Would those mean different things?
    I ask because the use of deliberately insulting and, as far as I can tell, completely incorrect (if not meaningless) terminology points to a general moral and/or intellectual bankruptcy among those who use such a term. When a conservative calls another person a “socialist” or a “communist,” aside from personal insults it’s because they have demonstrated policy preferences consistent with those ideologies. But when someone is called a homophobe it makes no sense — the person in question has almost never expressed the slightest fear of gay people, nor is it clear what it would mean to express a “fear” of homosexuals. Am I a crimophobe because I don’t want to live near criminals? A pedophobe if I don’t want to live near pedophiles? What does it mean to “fear” a group of people? Does it mean not wanting those people to have their preferences granted?
    If so, am I a felonophobe because I agree with the policy of removing the right to vote from felons? Am I oppressing them by endorsing the removal of their ability to express political power and reducing their ability to be granted their preferences? Is it illegitimate to have particular feelings toward a group of people due to their behavior and the effects of that behavior on society?

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    The Left uses a generally iron clad instinct amongst humans, called stranger phobia. Anyone outside the tribe is a potential enemy, thus it’s easier to obey commands to kill them or raid them for resources. Thus the Left, by declaring GLBT superior to normals and normals that resist the Left’s Authority as being outside the tribal social security net, they are able to dehumanize a group of people.
    After dehumanizaton and demonizing is complete, then the burning of the witches is enforced and commenced. Even if the logical execution is withheld, the capability is still stored for later use. It’s not about Jews and it’s not about Nazis, it’s a human condition bred over tens of thousands of years for social survival. It’s part of the modern military conditioning that allows orders to kill to be obeyed by members of a society or nation, whereas before the natural human instinct was to avoid killing or harming fellow humans. By dehumanizing a certain group and making them inferior, using GLBT as the tribal delinear, this human “safety” valve is overrided and the limit is removed.

  • Charles Martel

    Eidolon, I think the horse is out of the barn on that one. Even though homophobe literally means fear of gays, it has been distorted to mean simple philosophical or political opposition to radical homosexualism. It’s hard to explain the word’s real meaning to people who have no interest in using language honestly or expertly.
    One thing that cracks me up is whenever somebody criticizes Islam, invariably one of that cult’s defenders will charge racism as the motive for the criticism. Such use of the word reveals an abyssal ignorance, and a blithe disregard for adult use of language. There’s a reason why Orwell reserved one of his greatest literary putdowns for the non-thought processes of the totalitarian left: Duckspeak. 

  • jj

    It’s an interesting collision, isn’t it?  So we go back to first principles.  Here’s the thing with democracies – such as we are not; and representative republics – such as we are: when you get right down to it the Constitution is whatever the people say it is.  Courts get to have an opinion about whatever the people say they can have an opinion about.  If the people get a Constitutional convention organized next Thursday and by next Friday have decided the nation doesn’t require 98% of the governmental interference we have – most especially from the allegedly “supreme” court – then that will be the way it will be.   
    Because it’s a rather complicated operation to change the Constitution, people on one side of the spectrum, like our friend Turtle there, have evolved and taken to heart a bunch of crap about how the Constitution is a “living” document, and can therefore be “adjusted” at the whim of any retired ambulance-chaser who happens to have a whim.  These sorts of ex-shysters – and there are by most counts five of them on the supreme court, which means we have at least five Justices who don’t understand the job – create wholly spurious “rights” on the basis of this kind of thinking.  (If “thinking” is the word.)  They have somehow attained adulthood supposing that anyone outside their immediate families gives one damn about what they think.
    The problem with this kind of crap is, of course, that it spills all the way downhill throughout the system of privileged characters the law schools create.  As the obvious example, look at our esteemed attorney general of the United States.  The job of the AGUSA is to impartially  enforce and defend  the laws of the USA – period.  It’s a simple job, requiring no thought whatsoever.  But Holder – he keeps thinking he’s supposed to think!  (I mean, again: if “think” is the word for what he does.)  He supposes it matters to somebody whether he approves of a law or not!  He imagines he has a choice about whether to enforce or defend a law or not!  What this does of course is, politically, make him overripe for impeachment and firing, he should be fired reflexively.  The other thing it does is get him disbarred, because he is not zealously acting in the interests of his client: the United States.  He is ethically – and legally, if he wants to keep his license – bound to serve the interests of his client, which translates to: “defend the laws of the nation.”  He doesn’t get to choose about this, it’s the job.  No need for thought, nobody cares what he thinks.  In the real world, not Obamaland, he gets fired and disbarred.
    Same, by the way, for every state AG, like Jerry Moonbeam who, when he was CA AG declined to defend Proposition 8.  He didn’t feel like defending California’s marriage laws, so he chose not to defend them.  That’s not a choice he – or any AG -gets to make!  Again: no thought required, Jerry!  The CA bar should have instantly pulled its collective head out of its collective ass and disbarred him, right then.  There aren’t too many rules that genuinely interfere with lawyers, they’ve arranged it so they pretty much skate above everything – but this is one, and it’s a big one: the duty you owe to your client.  Old Jerry, AG, owed his client, CA, the best job he could do in defense of its law.  That’s pretty much the only thing a state AG has to do.  He declined to do it.  Why is he still a lawyer?
    The same question could be asked about Kamala Harris, PA AG Kathleen Kane, and VA AG Mark Herring – at least those three.  They clearly do not understand, on the most basic of levels, what the job of AG entails.  All three abandoned their duty to represent their client’s legal position zealously in court.  That buys you a ticket on the bus to ex-lawyerville, in the seat right next to Holder.
    Except it evidently doesn’t, these days.  At least in the matter of gay “rights,” whatever those are.  Herring has declared that he “wants to be on the right side of history,” which is cute, give the man a lollipop – but it ain’t the job.  And not doing the job is (a) impeachable, and (b) grounds for disbarment.  This is the same thing as him saying: “I’m a putz and I don’t understand the job, so fire me immediately.”  Isn’t it?  How is it not?
    And this is the kind of crap that happens when a jerk in a ballgown decides that, according to his/her reading of the Constitution, a state’s marriage law should be struck down, no matter what 15 million other people had to say.  (Even if he is himself, as the genius in CA was, an advocate for “gay rights.”  Children in the third grade recognized that he was conflicted, and should not have ruled, he should obviously have recused himself.  But he didn’t see a need: he is after all a judge.  He puts on the ball gown, and he can defecate strawberry ice cream, for which the rest of the peasants should be grateful to get a bite.)
    I will repeat: this is dangerous.  The legal system is already not well-loved.  It routinely creates rights where none exist, and has a recent history of a judge – one, single, all-wise judge – feeling perfectly at home in overriding the plainly expressed wishes of millions of people.  We have AGs from Holder right on down through the rest of the swamp doing whatever the hell they please, in clear violation of both their jobs and their profession.  And there is no consequence.  This is not good.  People already don’t much respect the courts and the system, and it’s increasingly easy to understand why.  The American people, when they vote on something, don’t expect to be routinely imposed upon in the opposite direction by somebody who is in fact not Jesus Christ, but just went to law school.  (And couldn’t make a living at the law, so became a judge.)  It ought to be cause for thought.   

  • Eidolon

    One thing that really gets to me about all the “gay rights” stuff is the insanity of insisting that anyone who doesn’t change their beliefs as facilely as the most hardcore advocates do is evil. Holding the view that Obama had when he was elected in 2008 is now hateful and bigoted.
    I can’t understand the thinking here. There is no new factual information; there’s been no “gay gene” discovered (not that I see how that would matter either, but at least it would be something new), there’s no definitive fact that changes the nature of the situation. It’s not as though something has changed which invalidates the positions of nearly all people throughout all of history on the subject. It’s not as though it has been clearly proven that the Earth is not flat, in which case I can understand feeling that those who cling to the old view without evidence are backwards.
    Besides, do they think that people like Hillary, who in the 90’s gave an impassioned speech that amounted to “how dare anyone suggest that I’m any less dedicated to marriage being between one man and one woman than anyone else,” hated gays then but suddenly stopped hating them recently? Did Obama hate gays until a couple of years ago? Or do you have to change your views constantly in order to not hate gays? It’s amazing that if you were an advocate for civil unions 10 years ago and are still one today then you went from loving to hating gays while standing still.
    MLK argued successfully that racial discrimination and segregation were not consistent with the moral foundation of the United States, nor with the Christian faith. He understood that not all people who opposed him were evil, and continued making his case to them. He said that one must love others if one is to change their minds. The gay rights advocates, apparently know better; one must constantly accuse, belittle, lie to, and sue those with whom one disagrees. One should not acknowledge any evil done in the name of one’s cause, and should proudly trumpet any lies that might be useful to the cause. One need not acknowledge this his opponents are human beings, and should freely call them bigoted monsters while giving no new evidence or argument as to why he should change his view. Leaving others alone with whom one disagrees is not enough to not be evil, one must enthusiastically endorse the correct views.
    Do they not see how dangerous this is? How this exact mechanism, bullying demands of acceptance without making a remotely convincing case, dismissal of all disagreement of any kind as bigotry, and rejection of the accumulated knowledge of the generations, could be used for anything at all? You could certainly use this mechanism to convince people to practice any number of awful things. This would be an excellent way to implement eugenics, population control, or other evil policies that can be made to sound nice when you don’t think about them.
    I know they control the culture, so they think that would never happen. But apparently they’ve forgotten that liberals once passed Jim Crow laws and endorsed eugenics (not to mention socialism and communism). Cultural inertia meant that these practices didn’t catch on as much as they could have in America, and eventually their evil was exposed and they were discarded. Terrible, terrible damage could be done if we rush to judgement and force the views of a small elite on the general populace in this way.

    • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

      In other news, Danny. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/184219/ See how many of their friends, family, relatives, and connected pols are like that?
      “Do they not see how dangerous this is? How this exact mechanism, bullying demands of acceptance without making a remotely convincing case, dismissal of all disagreement of any kind as bigotry, and rejection of the accumulated knowledge of the generations, could be used for anything at all? You could certainly use this mechanism to convince people to practice any number of awful things. This would be an excellent way to implement eugenics, population control, or other evil policies that can be made to sound nice when you don’t think about them.”
      You talk like these are bad things the Left should avoid.

    • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

      “But apparently they’ve forgotten that liberals once passed Jim Crow laws and endorsed eugenics (not to mention socialism and communism). ”
      Once passed? Is that what people believe, that the Left just gave up on Jim Crow and eugenics, is it. That’s rather amusing.
      “eventually their evil was exposed and they were discarded.”
      Discarded is it, heh.

      • Eidolon

        I was thinking of eugenics, at least the overtly racist kind, when I wrote that. The left did not, of course, actually abandon their interest in socialism or communism. I don’t think the modern left thinks about abortion enough to consider its eugenic effects; I think it’s a sacrament to them and should not be questioned at all.
        The explicit, overt forms of eugenics were found to be bad and not brought up again, in America. They have, however, continued to be a pernicious force in other parts of the world where our country pushes population control measures on developing nations. I’m not sure if this is due to bureaucratic inertia or a small number of evil people continuing to push these policies below the radar. 

        • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

          The Left thought Sarah Palin’s decision not to abort a child with Downs, on the argument that quality of life necessitates the moral justification of euthanasia and termination for comfort and greater good.
          Are we supposed to believe here that this means the Left gave up eugenics?

  • Call me Lennie

    I have a word for what ails you, Book — “Homomania” — a deranged emphasis on anything to do with homosexuality, to the exclusion of everything else.  Once again liberals are demonstrating perhaps their worst flaw — a total inability to understand limits …. or perspective

  • Danny Lemieux

    Oh, Eidolon and Ymarsaker, I don’t think eugenics ever strayed too far from the Liberal-Progressive consciousness. Just recently we had Head Gaia Priest AlGore pronounce on the need for Africans and other “human flotsam” to go sterilize themselves. Not far from Margaret Sanger, Madison Grant and Robert Ely, indeed. They are very contemptible and scary elitists that will stop at nothing in pursuit of their Utopian visions.

    • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

      No matter how powerful the mortals of the Left are, one thing they can never exceed and overcome is Death.
      Eugenics is mostly about their ice and chocolate flavored dream. Death is about the end of all things. Including their dream.
      Everything that lives, can be killed.

  • Pingback: Follow-up to my post about the gay rights movement (as distinct from gay rights)()

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Partying At The Brink Edition()

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Partying At The Brink Edition | askmarion()

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Partying At The Brink Edition | Virginia Right!()

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Partying At The Brink Edition | Liberty's Spirit()

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Partying at the Brink Edition | therightplanet.com()

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Partying At The Brink Edition | Nice Deb()

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Partying At The Brink Edition | NoisyRoom.net()

  • Pingback: Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Partying At The Brink Edition()

  • Pingback: The Colossus of Rhodey()

  • Pingback: The Razor » Blog Archive » Council Nominations: February 19, 2014()

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Partying At The Brink Edition | www.independentsentinel.com()

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council nominations for February 20, 2014()

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results()

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results | askmarion()

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results | Liberty's Spirit()

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results | Virginia Right!()

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results | therightplanet.com()

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results | Nice Deb()

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results – 02/21/14 | NoisyRoom.net()

  • Pingback: Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results – 02/21/14()

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results | www.independentsentinel.com()