The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Nephythys]

So if a gay person does not want gay marriage that makes them anti-gay and self hating?

So I wonder- it just seems like throwing people out who don't happen to get on board a certain issue. No individual thought, just a group think mentality that moves as one- otherwise is tossed as anti-gay or self hating?

[Gemini Cricket]

He works closely with the Feds and knows the numerous benefits of a Federally sanctioned union. Yet works against it. I'd say it was self-hating. I also think that staying in the closet is lying to yourself and others. If you're willing to do that to keep your comfy job, then your priorities are off. I'm speaking for myself and how I think. It's like a black man being in the klan. Makes no sense.
If he were out and was anti-marriage it would be a different thing. Fine don't get married, don't work towards it, but avidly work against it? That's messed up, too.

[Nephythys]

ok- another question.

The idea is to have being gay not be a big deal- as in accepted, equal. Right?

So what is with the "outing" of so called gay republicans?

The message is- "being gay is bad- you're a party of bigots- so you should reject so and so"

which seems to go directly against the idea that it should be accepted.

Just seems like a plan that would bite someone in the end. Especially because it seems to rely on some sort of institutionalized hatred which frankly I don't see.

[Nephythys]

I'm not even going to bother linking to the individual links-

Drudge Report- Germany is going to prosecute Rumsfeld

Yes, yes, I know, there's a big siren up at Drudge over Time magazine's exclusive on a lawsuit being filed against Don Rumsfeld over "prison abuse."

The German government isn't filing the lawsuit. It's 11 Iraqis and a Saudi who went court-shopping and filed in Germany because the country "provides 'universal jurisdiction' allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world." A previous lawsuit was filed on similar grounds and was dismissed. Yes, Germany has its share of weasels. But German Chancellor Angela Merkel isn't one of them and outrage at the country is premature. Calls to close our bases in Germany over this hyped news story are, with all due respect, silly.

The lawsuit hasn't even been filed yet. The Time blurb is a Friday afternoon freebie press release for the left-wing Center for Constitutional Rights--milking Rumsfeld's resignation for all the publicity they can get.

[Gn2Dlnd]

My honest answer, offered with no defensiveness on my part, is, if a Gay person, closeted or not, supports the work of an organization working against Gay equality, that person should be exposed as a hypocrite.

"Being Gay is bad" is not the message. The message is, "Being a hypocrite is bad," and, "Being against civil rights is bad."

[Nephythys]

Thank you for giving another view of it.

[Nephythys]

The comments on Mehlman made me curious-

Biography

So much for no denial.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

The comments on Mehlman made me curious-

Biography

So much for no denial.

"[You] have asked a question people shouldn't have to answer."

Good for him. He may indeed be a hypocrite, and that's something he's got to deal with. But I tend to be irked when public figures get pressured to come out of the closet, and particularly so in the political realm. One's sexuality is one's own business, no? So why is it okay to put pressure on them like that? Attack the issue, leave the individual to work their own sexuality and presumed hypocracy out for themself.

I can understand the argument that it's damaging to continued progress of gay rights if public figures are acting as if being labled gay is something to be avoided. But I think it's more damaging to be aggressive about it, and to use a person's sexuality as a political leverage point. In the end, who gives a rat's ass whether individual politicians are gar or not and what they're voting for? The righteousness of the desire for equal rights stands on its own, whether there are hypocrites working against it or not.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

"[You] have asked a question people shouldn't have to answer."

Good for him. He may indeed be a hypocrite, and that's something he's got to deal with. But I tend to be irked when public figures get pressured to come out of the closet, and particularly so in the political realm. One's sexuality is one's own business, no? So why is it okay to put pressure on them like that? Attack the issue, leave the individual to work their own sexuality and presumed hypocracy out for themself.

I can understand the argument that it's damaging to continued progress of gay rights if public figures are acting as if being labled gay is something to be avoided. But I think it's more damaging to be aggressive about it, and to use a person's sexuality as a political leverage point. In the end, who gives a rat's ass whether individual politicians are gar or not and what they're voting for? The righteousness of the desire for equal rights stands on its own, whether there are hypocrites working against it or not.

I think Gn2Dlnd hit it right on the nose. It's about hypocrisy. If a closeted gay man is advocating anti-gay legislation, that’s hypocrisy. If there were a politician of African-American descent who was able to “pass”, and did so – hid his ethnicity from the public and his family - and if he were trying to pass discriminatory laws aimed at African-Americans, then wouldn’t that be the same kind of hypocrisy? Should he not be exposed?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by JWBear

I think Gn2Dlnd hit it right on the nose. It's about hypocrisy. If a closeted gay man is advocating anti-gay legislation, that’s hypocrisy. If there were a politician of African-American descent who was able to “pass”, and did so – hid his ethnicity from the public and his family - and if he were trying to pass discriminatory laws aimed at African-Americans, then wouldn’t that be the same kind of hypocrisy? Should he not be exposed?

Perhaps. But I find there to be too much venom and not enough sympathy from a community that is fighting persecution. Should he be exposed? I suppose. I just feel the focus is a little bit too much on demonizing hypocrites (who almost invariably will shoot themselves in the foot without help, thank you very much) and not enough on addressing the actual issue.

Plus, the public calls to out public figures aren't limited to politicians, who are in a position to be actively hypocritical and affect things. It extends to celebreties (Tom Cruise, anyone?). I find the vehement calls for people like Cruise to come out to be...unseemly.

All of this exposes a dichotomy in the gay rights message. "My sexuality is my business...but public figures' sexuality is my business too." Like I said, I see it to a point, but I think it's done in an agressive, political way that trivializes homosexuality and lends support to those that would demonize the "gay agenda".