Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Friday, November 5, 2010

The Double-Standard of the Homosexual Left

Irish Independent columnist Ian O'Doherty raises the following in an article titled "Stephen -- a gay homophobe?".

"it'll be interesting to see how the thought police react to Stephen Fry's remarks that: "If women liked sex as much as men there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas. Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking, 'God, I've got to get rocks off' or they'd go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to shag behind a bush."

Reducing the perception of gay men to that of them being simply rapacious horn dogs with permanent priapism and no morals is exactly the kind of misperception the gay community struggles against, so expect to hear a loud chorus of condemnation levelled at Fry (opens window, listens for half an hour, only audible noise is the chirping of crickets and the occasional tumbleweed).

Ah well, he's gay so he gets a free pass, eh lads?"

It would appear that a double-standard exists here in this case. If nobody from the gay community is offended, then what's the problem, right? Columnist Mike Adams encountered some members of the organization PRIDE recently when he spoke at the University of North Carolina's (Charlotte) campus who might have been inclined to think they have a right not to be offended, however it would seem that Adams won them over to his point of view in the end.

"The day I came to speak at UNCC, several concerned (read: offended) gay rights activists called in the local media to help them publicize their objections to my appearance. The president of PRIDE went on camera and told the local news station that my appearance was an example of “bullying.”

Did you hear that one? Speech equals bullying and bullying must be stopped. It’s just another self-proclaimed liberal asking the free press to help him destroy the First Amendment.

When I gave my speech at UNCC, a news camera was there. So were about 25 members of PRIDE. They were very attentive and very polite. They nodded in agreement with many of my arguments and they applauded sincerely at the end of my speech.

During that speech I pleaded with the members of PRIDE to avoid embracing the notion that they somehow have a right to be unoffended. I told them that if they confront offensive speech they should not censor it. They should instead use it in an effort to show that they have an important agenda that proposes real solutions to real problems.

It is reasonable to impose time, place, and manner restrictions to keep Fred Phelps away from military funerals. But it is not reasonable to ban his speech altogether. In fact, groups like PRIDE should do the exact opposite. They should record his speech, post it on their websites, and promote it as a way of showing that hatred is real and that they, the members of PRIDE, have a better way.

The members of PRIDE understood what I was saying even though people like Neal Boortz do not. Boortz would prefer to use the long arm of the government to threaten university students with expulsion for refusing to agree with politically correct views on sexuality."


It's amazing that gays would embrace the left-side of the political spectrum when the right is much more concerned with free speech and trying to make it more open, not restrictive. Although the Left might be more open to uncritical acceptance of such a lifestyle, conservatives struggle against the soft tyranny that would prevent all opposing viewpoints to be heard and not just certain politically correct ideals that are fashionable at the time.


17 comments:

Froggie said...

"It's amazing that gays would embrace the left-side of the political spectrum when the right is much more concerned with free speech and trying to make it more open, not restrictive."

That is fundamentalist code for:
"We want to retain the right to spew hate speech."

Your argument that the right is somehow more friendly to gays, you must have ate too many trees for lunch.

Froggie said...

"Your argument that the right is somehow more friendly to gays, you must have ate too many trees for lunch."

Should have been:

"Your argument that the right is somehow more friendly to gays, Indicates you must have eaten too many trees for lunch!"

Whateverman said...

It's amazing that gays would embrace the left-side of the political spectrum when the right is much more concerned with free speech and trying to make it more open, not restrictive.

You know, there was plenty in your post to react to, but you just blew it out of the water with the above statement. After spending millions (billions?) of dollars over the last 50 years to equate "conservative" with "Christian", can you really be incredulous at homosexuals leaning to the left? I mean, really?

And lest we lose sight of the details, remember how we labelled criticism of the buildup (and execution) of the Iraq war? "Communist", "liberal", "unpatriotic", "socialist" etc. The right side of the political fence is no less willing to stifle freedom of expression.

Whateverman said...

By the way, I'm going to offer an opinion that has nothing to do with this topic, and (honestly) isn't meant as criticism:

I'm really disappointed at the way you run this blog. For the most part you raise topics, make a comment or two, and then let them die. You don't often follow through. Why? I'm not going to be a cynic about it - this is your blog and you can do whatever you want. But it's almost as if you make no attempt to avoid the perception that you're cutting your losses and running away. If you posted more often, at the least we'd have a better idea of your actual beliefs - rather than the stereotype you don't seem interested in dispelling...

JD Curtis said...

That is fundamentalist code for:
"We want to retain the right to spew hate speech."


What hate speech? And besides, I already conceded that the Left is more apt to uncritically accept the lifestyle in question.

I was referring more to free speech. And who exactly are the big Name Conservatives pining for the return of the Orwellian-named Fairness Doctrine?

JD Curtis said...

This just in. As if it was known that this would be today's topic...

"Exit polls suggested that Democrats had lost about half their support from the GLBT community, compared with two years ago, reported Before It’s News.com on Nov. 4. The site said that gays have become Obama’s most vocal critics--"Even louder than the Tea Party"--and cited CNN as saying that 31% of self-identified GLBTs had cast their votes for Republican candidates. The article noted that in 2008, only 19% of GLBTs voted Republican--with 63% of the LBGT community voting Democratic....

The Advocate credited gay voters with helping to "propel" the political shakeup that took place on Election Day. In a Nov. 4 article, The Advocate cited conservative gay group GOProud as offering the election results as proof that the Tea Party not only had room for GLBT members, but that gays, like many straights, favor smaller government--and might hope for limited government to translate into less interference in their lives.

"The gay left would have you believe that gay conservatives don’t exist," said Jimmy LaSalvia, the group’s executive director. "Now we see that almost a third of self-identified gay voters cast ballots for Republican candidates for Congress in this year’s mid-term. This should be a wake-up call for the out-of-touch so-called leadership of Gay, Inc. in Washington, D.C., which has become little more than a subsidiary of the Democrat Party."

Prior to the election, LaSalvia had called for gay voters to swing rightward. "The men and women that GOProud is endorsing and recommending will help bring common-sense conservative solutions to the challenges facing gay Americans and the country as a whole," LaSalvia declared in a GoProud press release.

"While the Democrats talk a good game when it comes to gay issues, their record speaks for itself," said GOProud Chairman Christopher R. Barron. "On jobs and the economy, on taxes, on retirement security, and on healthcare the Democrats reign in Washington has been an absolute disaster for gay people."

Link to full article. Looks like they are starting to wake up.

Whateverman said...

What, GLBT folks aren't immune to a bad economy? Shocker!

Here's what's going to happen: the economy gets better, and conservative candidates begin talking about "lifestyle choices" and "family values" again; they're noticeably silent about those issues today. Once the rhetoric begins anew, you'll see the GLBT community move back to the left.

It's not rocket surgery...

JD Curtis said...

Eh,

I think the key part of the cited link was " gays, like many straights, favor smaller government--and might hope for limited government to translate into less interference in their lives." I guess time will tell.

In the meantime, I came acros this article in the Belfast Telegraph by Julie Burchill that gave me a good laugh re: Fry's above, quoted remarks. Link

Whateverman said...

I think everyone, at this point, favors smaller government. I hope we get some, regardless of who's at the helm...

In an interesting turn of events, perhaps the lack of homosexual uproar over Stephen Fry's comments is due to the fact that people don't think they're portrayed in context...

Coco said...

Hi all -- I'm a big flaming gay man and I love the Right. I have a crapload of posts on my blog about why the Left is the worst place in the world for gays. I wish I had time to post links but have to dash off -- check out my archive for the other side of the argument.

GentleSkeptic said...

…the Left is more apt to uncritically accept the lifestyle in question.

Note that the acceptance is, naturally, uncritical. Because if it were critical it wouldn't be acceptance. Or something.

JD Curtis said...

I meant "uncritical" in the sense that nowhere near the full range of consequences of such a lifestyle are taken into consideration ranging from mental health to general happiness and fulfillment.

GentleSkeptic said...

I understood it exactly how you meant it.

I'd say the Right is more apt to uncritically accept bogus claims about gays and their inherent mental health problems and lack of personal happiness and fulfillment. Of course, I mean "uncritical" in the sense that they wouldn't check with the AMA, APA, or any number of other professional organizations that agree that it's not a 'lifestyle', it's biologically determined.

You know, as a more conservative 'liberal', I would love to have access to a political party that reflected all my views more cleanly… but I'm stuck with the lesser of evils. As long as Republicans want to violate state's rights and personal liberty and freedom of speech with DOMA and DADT and the like, I fail to see how they're the sensible choice for self-respecting gay people.

I'm also very curious to know if Coco feels that he has mental health problems or is intrinsically unfulfilled.

GentleSkeptic said...

And I would also say that the "Democrats reign in Washington has been an absolute disaster for gay people" in the exact same way that the Republican reign of 2000–2006 was an "absolute disaster" for hardcore Pro-Lifers. Unpopular minority constituencies get thrown under the bus at the negotiating table. Such is politics.

JD Curtis said...

Thought this might interest you. Does God Love Gays?

GentleSkeptic said...

Of course you did.

GentleSkeptic said...

Anecdote ≠ data. Correlation ≠ causation.