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

Obama First Gay PresidentMy post the other day about the gay rights movement didn’t touch upon the movement’s merits. Instead, I posited that the movement grates on me because the Democrats are using it as an avoidance technique to distract people’s attention from the administration’s myriad failures in every area within the executive’s scope. The comments I got from all of you were amazing.

Eidolon’s comment resonated especially strongly with me since it touches up the intellectual dishonesty, bullying, and Alinsky-ite targeting behind the whole “homophobia” movement. I therefore took the liberty of re-printing that comment here:

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.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Eidolon says

    Wow, thanks Book! Now I wish I hadn’t made grammatical mistakes.
     
    As Ymarsakar pointed out the left has not given up its interest in socialism or communism. I added that parenthetical after writing out the sentence. I don’t think leftists actually endorse eugenics anymore, although their policies could be said to be eugenic to some degree by the disproportionate abortion of black children. The US and I believe the UN also continue to push population control measures on many third world nations which amount to a form of eugenics; as I recall the US has made foreign aid contingent on population control in some cases. I’m not sure if that’s due to bureaucratic inertia from an earlier era or if there are some strategically placed leftists still pushing what are essentially eugenic policies.
     
    My point of course is that eugenics was all the rage at one time. Everyone who had any intelligence, who knew anything, was studying how to apply eugenics to the betterment of our country and people. Many awful things were done to people in the name of progress. And the modern media’s apparent ability to stampede a non-religious people in one direction or the other on cue should be terrifying to anyone who loves freedom. Even well-intentioned people could do tremendous damage (and have) by moving public opinion quickly without a serious consideration of the issues and possible consequences (DDT, for example). Liberals see cultural inertia as an evil to be overcome, but by adopting new things slowly we can get some idea of what consequences they may have before we commit too completely to them. We don’t just give new drugs to people because we think they’ll help, we first do long-term trials to ensure that they won’t have dire and unexpected effects.
     
    Then it occurred to me that this is exactly how dictatorships operate. Whatever we say today is true, and whatever we said yesterday didn’t happen. Sticking with what we said yesterday is just as bad as opposing us. Say what we tell you to say today or suffer punishment until you get in line. It’s an un-American way to approach issues. In America we recognize that other people are human beings, and that they have the right to have different views and beliefs than we have. The supposed anti-gay discrimination is nothing compared to slavery, and yet abolitionists were far more understanding of the humanity of their opponents. I’m concerned that some elements of the left may be using this method of stampeding the people on an issue as a test-run for other items on their agenda. I see no logical limit to the range of issues this approach could be used on.

  2. says

    The reason why the Left considers gay genes born, blacks, and women as being more important than the normal slaves is because the Left believes in Genetic Superiority.
     
    That is in essence, eugenics.
     
    My point was that the Left has not given up on eugenics and those who think they have, are why they don’t understand why the Left is evil and powerful in the US. Or why it has come to things as they are. Things are the way they are because that’s how the Left wanted it to be. It’s nothing much more complicated than that.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply