Blog Archives
Best Mayor in America…if by “Best” You Mean Most Hypocritical and Opportunistic
Menino will give this guy’s mosque $1.8 million, but he wanted to ban Chick-fil-a.
Then again Mayor Tom Menino of Boston IS a liberal, which probably makes those qualities a necessity when people like Elizabeth Warren are judging who the “best” mayor in America is.
This recent resurgence in Menino’s name being mentioned on the internet, now that he is retiring after 2 decades, gives me a chance to talk about something that I briefly touched on back during the whole Chick-Fil-A debacle last year.
You might remember that Mayor Menino led the charge against Chick-Fil-A, saying that he would block Chick-fil-a from opening stores in Boston. Unsurprisingly to anyone that actual understands the law, it turned out he couldn’t do that.
Perhaps he also remembered that blocking a private company, whose CEO supports traditional marriage, from coming to the city would be more than a little hypocritical after he sold $2 Million worth of land to a mosque (for $175,000, essentially donating $1.8 million to the mosque – separation of church and state anyone? Anyone?) and even spoke at the ribbon cutting, the Islamic Society of Boston (which built the mosque) has ties to Imam’s that have called for a second holocaust of the Jews and believes that the only disagreement in Islam about homosexuals is whether they should be burned to death or thrown off a tall building.
I think ‘sensitive’ is the last thing I want to be when it comes to pedophilia
I just wrote an article the other day that said this:
Look, the fact that you disagree with the words I say is not license for you to beat me up…That’s how civilized people function! We disagree, we argue, we possibly insult each other’s intelligence, but we don’t hit people. That’s one of the first things you learn in kindergarten…
- Link
Now we know which kids grew up to be to draft Army handbooks on ‘tolerance’. They were the kids that never actually learned that hitting wasn’t an acceptable way to deal with someone disagreeing with them. These are the kids who blamed their victim constantly and they’ve grown up to be the people telling our soldier’s that their opposition to pedophilia and support of women’s rights are the reason they are being attacked in Afghanistan and, well…they should just stop that.
American soldiers should brace for a “social-cultural shock” when meeting Afghan soldiers and avoid potentially fatal confrontations by steering clear of subjects including women’s rights, religion and Taliban misdeeds, according to a controversial draft of a military handbook being prepared for troops heading to the region.
The proposed Army handbook suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture, not Taliban infiltration, has helped drive the recent spike in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces.
….
The draft handbook offers a list of “taboo conversation topics” that soldiers should avoid, including “making derogatory comments about the Taliban,” “advocating women’s rights,” “any criticism of pedophilia,” “directing any criticism towards Afghans,” “mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct” or “anything related to Islam.”
Umm, no. Someone needs a visit from their sassy gay friend right about now.
This wouldn’t have happened if this group of Army researchers had a sassy gay friend.
It’s not like we are trying to advocate for democracy or equality in other countries.
No, we only do that here in the United States. Women’s rights in Afghanistan, that’s not our thing, these politicians say.
Strangely similar to how liberals will claim to support gay rights and equality and then turn around and support Hamas and other regimes in the Middle East that execute and imprison gay people. Not hypocritical at all, nope.
So now we are institutionalizing blaming the victim when it comes to our troops.
Blaming the victim because they dare to advocate for equality for women or homosexuals or stopping pedophilia.
Our troops are just SO horrible aren’t they? How dare they tell a backwards culture that they are, well, backwards. How dare they institute their morality on these people, they have their own culture, just because we don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
But wait, it’s not my morals that say that killing gay people, subjugating women, and having sex with children is wrong (well it is my morals, but there is more) it’s my belief in individual liberty. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.
These are the things our military are protecting and personally I want our military to stand up for the our rights and project those rights onto everyone around them, so they can protect those people as well.
What is going to happen in the future is that a soldier is going to protect a woman from being beaten, a homosexual from being murdered, or a child from being raped and when they are murdered for it, our oh so wonderful government will…apologize for that soldier not being sensitive to that culture/religion’s differences.
That soldier? He just shouldn’t have been where he wasn’t liked. That is, after all, the same lesson the left wants Steven Crowder to learn. Why not apply it to soldiers too.
We have it in us to be the better men.
Professor Charles Xavier: We have it in us to be the better man
Erik Lehnsherr: We already are. We are the next stage of human evolution, you said it yourself.
Oh I can already hear your grumblings. “Great, she’s doing another X-men/Gay rights comparison. Isn’t she ever going to get tired of comparing these two things?”
Short answer: No.
However, this post isn’t about gay rights so much as it is about how the gay community in general (the gay liberal community specifically) is missing their chance to be the better men in this scenario.
Erik Lensherr was wrong, being a mutant didn’t make him any better than non-mutants. Just as we, the gay community, are not better, more tolerant, or more deserving of respect, simply by virtue of being gay. Put away that victim card, stop playing it. If someone criticizes your belief, your behavior, your politics, or your attitude, the response of “but I’m gay!” or “You’re only saying this because your self-loathing/homophobic” is irrelevant and smacks of asking for special privileges to act however you want because you were bullied as a child, maybe your parents tried to “pray away the gay”, or you aren’t able to marry who you want.
Let me tell you right now, I don’t really fucking care about your sob story. Everyone, and I mean everyone, has one. It’s not an excuse to treat others like shit.
In fact it should be the reason that you treat others better than you were treated. I know the glbt and liberal community have (in general) no great love for the Bible or Christianity, but maybe a refresher course on The Golden Rule is in order.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Matthew 7:12
It doesn’t say “Do into others as you think they will do unto you” or “Do unto others as others have done unto you”. And maybe you aren’t a Christian, that’s fine, neither am I, but at the very least this one verse is one that should be followed.
And when I say that we are losing the opportunity to be the better men, it is because the gay community insists on returning hate to those that disagree with them and, on occasion, hate them. I don’t deny that there are those out there who actively hate gay people, but having a difference of opinion doesn’t equal hate and it doesn’t deserve hate in return. In fact, true hate does not deserve hate in return. In light of tomorrow’s holiday, I will quote Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend.”
Why do I choose today to say these things? Because in the last couple of days, a fellow gay conservative blogger, The Gay Republican (aka Ethan Sabo), has come under extreme and hateful fire from the left. I don’t always agree with all of his ideas, nor do I always support all the same things that he supports. We have a difference on opinion on several social topics such as abortion and even our ideas on gay marriage differ in some ways. His support of Santorum I do not understand, as Santorum is one of the least Conservative candidates on display currently. I’m also not a fan of Ron Paul, for several reasons.
However those differences in opinion are things that we occasionally discuss. We both have good, strong reasons for believing what we do and the odds of us changing each other’s opinions is slight at best. We do not insult each other, we rationally discuss our differences, and agree to disagree on those occasions that we differ in opinion.
Now I understand that there are rational gay liberals, I know a few personally, who would not stoop to the insults, vulgarity, and hatefulness that Ethan has received. However that doesn’t change what has happened to him, what happens to me in comments and emails as a result of this blog, or what happens to other gay conservatives who dare to stand up and make their beliefs known.
In Japan they have a saying, “the nail that sticks up gets hammered down.” It means that if you are part of a group and you insist on having different beliefs, political views, or attitudes than the rest of the group and you make them obvious, the rest of the group, the majority, will pound at you until you get back in line with the rest of the group…or just sit down and shut up.
Sorry, I insist on being the nail that sticks up and the squeaky wheel in the machine of the gay political movement. Someone has to be and I’m proud to be that person, along with Ethan Sabo, Mel Maguire, and all the other gay conservatives out there who daily stand up for their beliefs, no matter how unpopular they are and no matter how hurt they may feel by the hateful words that get thrown at them for those beliefs.
In closing, here are some of the videos that have sparked this backlash at The Gay Republican.
One of the amazing things I would like to comment on, is that gay conservatives can receive such levels of abuse from comments and then, when we defend ourselves like Ethan does in this next video. WE are accused of being the hateful ones.
And finally, a response to the hate, made by Mel Maguire from Gay Conservative.
Foreign aid now comes with strings attached and that’s a good thing. So why is it wrong when domestic government aid comes with strings?
Britain and the United States have both decided that enough is enough. They aren’t going to be handing out anymore foreign aid to countries that ban homosexuality or do not adhere proper human rights in other cases. David Cameron, the Prime Minister of Great Britain says that aid should come with more strings attached.
“Britain is one of the premier aid givers in the world. We want to see countries that receive our aid adhering to proper human rights. We are saying that is one of the things that determines our aid policy, and there have been particularly bad examples where we have taken action.”
And in the United States
“I am deeply concerned by the violence and discrimination targeting LGBT persons around the world,” Obama said in a memorandum. “Whether it is passing laws that criminalize LGBT status, beating citizens simply for joining peaceful LGBT pride celebrations or killing men, women and children for their perceived sexual orientation.”
Obama said, “I am directing all agencies engaged abroad to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons.”
Much to my chagrin, I have to say that if Obama actually enforces this plan, I’ll have to applaud his actions. We can’t give money to countries that are doing things we disapprove of. It would be like continuously giving out free money to people who are only going to spend it on drugs and not on bettering themselves.
Of course I would be a little happier if Obama had decided that any violations of human rights would be enough to nix foreign aid for a country, similar to David Cameron’s plan. Making it only about issues discrimination and violence toward the GLBT community just seems a bit like he is ignoring all the other violation’s of human rights that happen all over the world that have nothing to do with homosexuality.
Liberals are, of course, very excited about this move on both country’s parts. Most of the Conservatives I know are also pleased and if they aren’t, they should just remember something that The Conservative New Ager said to me a couple of days ago. If America is only giving aid to countries that don’t discriminate against against homosexuals, then the countries we give aid too will shrink drastically (good for the deficit) in fact the number will probably shrink down to only 1…Israel.
Of course there is something ironic about Liberals being okay with, even excited about, financial aid coming with more strings attached. Remember that comment I made about giving money to someone so they could just spend it on drugs? Yeah, you may not have read this post I wrote in June, but give it a read really fast.
Liberals were in an uproar about how wrong it was to give people drug tests before they could qualify for welfare. Isn’t that basically the same thing as telling other countries to shape up or we won’t give them money? America and Britain don’t want to subsidize the violence and bigotry of other nations, I think we can all agree that is great. So why is it suddenly wrong when the tax payer’s of America don’t want to subsidize someone’s illegal drug habit?
My faith in humanity is redeemed just a little
This comes right on the wings of a post I was writing about I truly doubted that this women would be fired, yet people are being fired (or at least people are requesting the firing) of people who express their (negative) opinions of homosexuality on their own time.
(If they do it in class or harass a student specifically that’s different entirely, just fyi.)
I’m not saying that this woman should not be fired, I’m not saying that the New Jersey or Florida teachers who criticized homosexuality shouldn’t have been fired, nor that the Arkansas school official shouldn’t have resigned after saying that gay people should all kill themselves.
My remark would be that there is not nearly the same public outcry against a teacher who says anti-Semitic commentary outside the classroom as their is with someone who says anti-gay or, say, reportedly expresses white supremacist views.
What I’m saying is that ANY PERSON who has such a deep and abiding hatred for a racial group or sexual orientation that they say they “need to leave the country” or “need to kill themselves” does not need to be a position of power, of education, over children. A Jewish child would feel as uncomfortable around the women The Conservative New Ager mentioned as a gay student would be around the school official who thinks, essentially, that the only good homosexual is a dead homosexual.
So as I said, this post takes some of the wind out my sails on the original post…so I won’t post it. I just paraphrased my points here. However…let’s wait and see what happens with the situation in the future when she inevitably sues the LAUSD.
Which side is mysoginistic, racist, and homophobic again?
“Actually, sweety-pie, if a statement is blatantly satirical (as mine was) then it’s not defamation. So, piss off.
“
Yeah, so that happened on twitter tonight. It was a response to me calling out a guy who goes by the handle “amazingatheist” (a real credit to Atheists, I’m sure the non-assholes ones that respect women really love you.) when he posted something that was clearly libel and was not blatantly satirical, as he obviously does not like Andrew Breitbart (who the original comment was aimed at), the comment contained no hint that it was meant satirically, and his twitter is not a satirical twitter page. Therefore, as I said, libel.
After he called me sweety-pie, which isn’t something I would put up with anyone calling me, let alone some liberal idiot on a twitter page, I told him not to talk down to me by using such language in reference to me. At which point he preceded to call me “snuggle-bug” and “sugarplum”. I actually felt like I needed to take a shower after that. I mean…eww.
What’s worse is that someone called this guy witty!
Uh, what? Vulgar libel against an active political commentator, misogynistic debating practices, and creepiness equals clever now? I seemed to have missed that definition of wittiness.
This isn’t the first time this has happened to me when debating liberals. It isn’t the first time I’ve seen it happen to others. Michelle Malkin and SE Cupp are both regularly attacked with misogynistic and racist rhetoric.
And then let’s start with the blatant anti-semitism that is all over the place at the Occupy Wall Street protests and the Liberal political agenda in general.
For that I direct you here, here, here , here, and over and over again in the decisions of this administration.
As for homophobia. How about this video here, where an occupy wall street protestor (I thought they were all liberal, equality is good, love everyone except the rich, types?) calls the man making the video a faggot. Or the post I wrote detailing how I found the President’s decision that, suddenly, when gay marriage came up…that state’s rights became a big deal for him…and how I found that a bit fishy. Or this attempt to push gay people into seeing homophobia as the same thing as Islamophobia…I mean, really?
And it goes on and on and on.
May I remind those that have forgotten, or educate those who were never taught, of something important. Which party was it that opposed the abolition of slavery? That’s right, the Democrats. Which president was it who, when elected, opposed Women’s suffrage…and, in fact, opposed it until it became unpopular to do so? That’s right, Democrat Woodrow Wilson. All these stories about Democrats paving the way toward social change…they really aren’t true. They talk a big talk these days, they subsidize a lot of federal aid which keeps people “on the dole” as the Brits say, but they don’t really walk the walk.
I mean, when I feel less vicitimized by my mother’s distaste for my homosexuality than I do by the gay liberal’s hatred for my being a gay conservative…clearly something is rotten in the state of Denmark. For a party of acceptance, I see more hate, insults, and vitriol from political liberals than I do from political conservatives.
Feel free to leave more instances of misogyny, racism, and homophobia from the left in the comments below. I can hardly keep up with the whole of the internet.
I’m fairly sure Mrs. Belforti doesn’t quite understand the concept of Freedom of Religion
About a month ago I wrote a post about city clerk’s in New York state that didn’t want to do their jobs because they involved signing marriage licenses for same-sex partners.
If the job you want to have is likely to conflict with your personal convictions, which you can’t compromise, then you need to find another line of work.
If your job changes, a new duty is added to it (such as signing same-sex marriage licenses) which you cannot do then you also need to find new employment. You might have been their first, but that does not mean you have the right to expect special treatment at your job.
What’s even more unsettling is this is just the latest action in a trend that has begun. A trend of people demanding special exemptions from doing their jobs.
Today I’m following up on that post, because one of the clerks got herself a front page story in the New York Times.
Rose Marie Belforti is a 57-year-old cheese maker, the elected town clerk in this sprawling Finger Lakes farming community and a self-described Bible-believing Christian. She believes that God has condemned homosexuality as a sin, so she does not want to sign same-sex marriage licenses; instead, she has arranged for a deputy to issue all marriage licenses by appointment.
As I said in the other post I linked to, the fact that she is allowed to believe in any religion she wishes in the country, does not give her the right to not do her job.
Belforti doesn’t get that, she seems to think that Freedom of Religion means “Freedom to not do my job, but still get paid for it, if a part of my duties go against my religious morals.”
Which she essentially says.
“New York law protects my right to hold both my job and my beliefs,” she said in an interview last week, pausing briefly to collect $50 from a resident planning to take 20 loads of refuse to the town dump. “I’m not supposed to have to leave my beliefs at the door at my government job.”
She’s exactly right. In fact, federal law protects her right to hold her job and her beliefs, as well as state law. She does, however, have to check her beliefs at the door to a certain extent. Just as teacher’s in public schools can’t hold public prayers or put a Bible, Qran, or Talmud on their desk or push certain religious beliefs on their students. You’re beliefs are your own and you are entitled to hold them without fear of repercussions…as long as you do not force those views on other people or use them to justify not doing your job.
The facts are that the state of New York now allows same-sex marriage, therefore a town clerks job now includes the duty of providing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This is the way things are now. Either get with the program or find a new program, don’t try to change the rules of your job to suit you.
Belforti wouldn’t be the first town clerk to disagree with the new changes in New York. So far two town clerks have resigned over the issue. Belforti is the first to try to change the rules and keep her job, by claiming her religion protects her from being fired for not doing her job. *rolls eyes*
Governor Cuomo is not buying Belforti’s argument. He said “When you enforce the laws of the state, you don’t get to pick and choose,” and issued a memorandum to clerks that refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples would be a misdemeanor.
“For me to participate in the same-sex marriage application process I don’t feel is right,” she said. “God doesn’t want me to do this, so I can’t do what God doesn’t want me to do, just like I can’t steal, or any of the other things that God doesn’t want me to do.”
Yes, well, your job doesn’t require you to steal. It does require you to give out marriage licenses.
What’s more annoying is that this job is not her only job, she barely spends any time doing it (9 hours a week) and she was voted into office. This job is not necessary to her survival, so it sounds like it’s time for her to get out of the job if it’s such an imposition on her religious morals.
Belforti, for her part, doesn’t seem to know why she’s fighting this fight. First she says:
“This is about religious freedom,” she said. “This is not about trashing gay people.”
And then she said:
Ms. Belforti said she had no regrets. Her re-election campaign literature consists of a handout that trumpets her maintenance of nine different record-keeping computer databases and the town’s Web site. She also notes that she is facing a challenger, “because I have taken a stand on same-sex marriage.”*
*My emphasis.
Which is it Mrs. Belforti? Were you taking a stand for religious freedom (in a completely ridiculous and idiotic way, might I add) or taking a stand against gay couples?
As for the town in which this is occurring?
“You get about a 50-50 split,” said Jim Wilcox, 42, who runs the white-clapboard Wilcox General Store and who got his own marriage license from Ms. Belforti a few years ago. He called the Marriage Equality Act “a long time coming” and worried that the controversy could paint Ledyard in a bad light. “We’d hate to be the ones who slowed down the wheels of change here,” he said.
Another resident, Ed Easter, is now seeking to defeat Ms. Belforti in a write-in campaign when she is up for re-election in November. Mr. Easter, 40, who works in a wine tasting room, said he felt that someone needed to challenge her, rather than assuming the courts would eventually settle the matter.
“The easiest way for her to go, and to settle this whole issue, is to take it to a vote — just vote her out of office,” he said.
I have to agree with Ed Easter. She was voted in, she can be voted out. But in interest of this not happening again, it needs to be made clear that you must do the job you are hired/voted in to do regardless of your personal, political, or religious beliefs.If you don’t want to perform those duties…well this is not the USSR, you are free to quit your job and seek other employment.
That’s the way America works.
In closing, I’ll mention that the verse that Mrs. Belforti read to the NYTimes reporter
A Protestant who worships at several area churches, Ms. Belforti read to a reporter a passage from the first chapter of Romans, which she says condemns homosexual activity, offering it as an explanation for her stance.
Is likely Romans 1:26-27, which is mentioned in my Fish Out of Water review. I will be addressing that verse and why it does not, in fact, condemn homosexuality as Mrs. Belforti claims.
Genesis 19:1-29 “Sodom and Gomorrah”
(3 of 7 from the Biblical verses “condemning” homosexuality in the documentary Fish Out Of Water.)
(Genesis 1:1-31 and Genesis chapter 2)
It’s been an unconscionably long time since I worked on this series of posts, feel free to harass me for that.
I’ve already done one post about Sodom and Gomorrah, but I did want to address the topic again because of some of the arguments used by the scholars in the documentary. It amazes me that sometimes a new argument can still come out of left field and surprises me. With a lot of these verses I thought I knew all of the arguments for and against them.
So the verses that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah come from can be found here.
Now, I highly doubt that anyone who knows anything about Christian mythology/theology is unaware of the story of Sodom. The term “Sodomites” (coined in the late 13th or early 14th century) is pulled from the name of this city, based on an idea that Sodom was destroyed for sexual immorality.
But that’s simply not true, not based on the translations and interpretations that modern Biblical scholars have found.
Sodom was the story of the failure to provide hospitality. It is the failure to honor the stranger in your midst.
-Rev. Gregory Dell
My favorite animation in the entire documentary begins here, to go along with Bishop John Shelby Spong’s rather snarky telling of the Sodom and Gomorrah story. Why is it my favorite? Because the two angel’s are complete and total hipsters…nothing is better than that.
These two angels go into Sodom and they sit on the curb in the town square, waiting to see if someone will offer them hospitality and as it gets later and later in the evening, the people in the village begin to say “ah, we’re gonna have some entertainment tonight.” You know, they didn’t have television of the Yankees to watch.
And then Lot, around sundown, comes out and offers the hospitality of his home. That frustrates all these people ans so they go storming to Lot’s home, every man in the village it says, including the two sons who are engaged to be married to Lot’s daughters.
Hmm…I guess they weren’t all exactly homosexuals then were they.
And they beat on the tent of Lot and demanded that these visitors be brought out so that they might “know” them. The word “know in Hebrew carried sexual connotations. “And Adam knew Eve and she conceived” is sort of the same word.
And Lot refuses, because he says “I’ve given my word.”
Of course Lot isn’t exactly blameless, not when you see what he says in verse 8.
8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
Yeah…
The angels suddenly discover they have angelic power at that time and they blind everybody in the crowd. Then the angel says to Lot and his wife and their two daughters.
“12 The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.” “
Of course, if you know the story. The two son-in-laws believe that Lot is crazy and for some reason God decides that if any of Lot’s family looks back at Sodom while fleeing they will be turned into a pillar of salt. So by the end of their escape, the only people left are Lot and his two daughters.
Spong continues with the story…this being the part that people generally leave out, since it sort of destroys the whole moral high ground that Lot’s family had in this situation.
But where do you go? They wanted to go to the next village, but they knew what happened to strangers when you come into a village without protection. So they decided they wouldn’t do that. So they decided to go up into the mountains to live in a cave.
And the two daughters suddenly awaken to the fact that in the law of the world in which they live the only place they can get husbands was from their tribe.
And so this is what happens in verses 31 through 36.
31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father.
Spong ends by saying, with a rather incredulous look on his face. “That story is used to condemn homosexuality?”
Yeah, I’m a little iffy on how that works as well.
The Sodom and Gomorrah story is, by all modern Biblical scholars, primarily a story about violations of hospitality.
- Rev. Dr. Fred Neidner
Well there’s a kind of irony about that, because, in fact, it’s used to condemn people who are often considered to be strangers from the majority of society.
- Rev. Gregory Dell
A very good point. But probably the best point, and one that I feel goes back to a point I made in my original post on Sodom and Gomorrah, is the point made by Dr. Amy Jill Levine.
It is about lack of hospitality, it is about violence. The true since in the Sodom and Gomorrah story, to me, is when Lot says ‘here are my two virgin daughters, why don’t you gang-rape them instead’.
That, I think, would be something we’d want to talk about. Thereby preventing abuse of children or parents marketing their children as sex slaves.
To elevate these texts and say the real concern is homosexuality is to show that our priorities are messed up.
Gutfeld: Homophobia and Islamophobia the Same Thing?
Back in March my friend over at The Conservative New Ager sent me a link to a Greg-alogue from Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld, a late night news and comedy show on Fox news. The show is the conservative answer to comedic news shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report on Comedy Central.
Keep in mind that the Greg-alogues are rather tongue-in-cheek, but they do address serious issues.
Also keep in mind that Red Eye is a show whose main commentators, Greg Gutfeld, Bill Schulz and Andy Levy have never come across as homophobic in the least. They are good natured, silly, friendly, and, occasionally, foul mouthed, but never homophobic. They respect people for their accomplishments and disrespect them for their lack there of…never for their gender, sexuality or race.
The video is here
Here’s part of a letter from a group of concerned types, who claim the march will “oppress other marginalized groups.”
“We want both homophobia and Islamophobia addressed as a collective problem and not feed one against the other, we do not recognise these as distinct categories.”
So let’s rewind. Homophobia and Islamophobia are the same thing.
So I got to ask, do you think they would also group homophobia and anti-Christian attacks as one in the same? Do they see crude jokes aimed at Mormons as no different than anti-gay jokes?
I don’t think so.
So why are they embracing Muslims as marginalized brethren and not others?
Well, for one, it’s harder to protest around people who really hate you, so better to stay out of Islam’s way and target the gentler dissenters like white, pudgy Christians (the people who remind you of dad and don’t want you dead).
So here we have fear masked as tolerance forcing gays into contortions even circus performers wouldn’t try.
I mean, how can the gay left defend a religion whose practitioners want gays punished? They’re joining hands with folks who in other more extreme lands might cut off theirs.
Anyway, let me remind you that I hate all parades, so I don’t mind if this one’s cancelled. Marching to celebrate something you are as opposed to have achieved seems odd. And later I always wake up naked in a bush
I find it amusing that I wrote a post saying exactly the same thing that Greg says in that final paragraph and I wrote it months after, without input from the Greg-alogue.
As for the rest. I completely agree with Greg.
It is completely unconscionable to stand up in defense of one religion, which hates you more than (or at least as much as) Christianity, while attacking Christianity for being too judgmental of the gay community.
Homophobia and Islamophobia are in no way the same thing. The gay community in the UK is living in a fantasy world if they truly believe that. If the Muslim community wanted to embrace the gay community then they would have no problem with the gay pride parades in the first place and, therefore, the gay community would not need to feel they were hurting the Muslim communities feelings by having their parade.
But why should I be surprised?
The majority of the gay community seems to have bought into the liberal ideology that Christianity is evil and violent (and if the liberal is a Christian they should feel guilty about it and try to distance themselves from most of the religion) but every other religion (especially Islam) are wonderful and peaceful and should be respected and openly embraced.
Sorry. I choose to judge all religions equally and by my judgment…Islam is not worthy of my respect, nor is it worthy of my changing the way I live because it might hurt the Muslim community’s feelings. If I’m not willing to change my life to suit Christians, why the hell would I change it to suit Muslims?
That is a question that the gay community in the UK (and in other parts of the world) needs to be asking itself.
