Most folks have their own way of thinking about any one thing, which is all right, even when I might disagree with whatever their say-so is on the matter. On the other hand, I am pretty intolerant when the "thinking" part of concluding an opinion plays little or no role at all, rather pigheaded judgment passed without reason or common sense.
Take this one particular clown, Cliff Kincaid, editor of the AIM Report for Accuracy in Media, a "non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog of the news media that critiques botched and bungled news stories and sets the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage".
Setting records straight might be a stretch in describing what they do, actually; it doesn't take much more than a cursory perusal of the stuff over there to recognize their own particular bent on things. Cliff Kincaid is a perfect fit, hooked the same way, leaning decidedly right. But notwithstanding political bias, nuts is just plain nuts.
One fine example, his article The Gay Infiltration of the Conservative Movement. Presumably the impetus for it, the gay Republican organization GOProud's sponsorship of the Conservative Political Action Conference from last week. Kincaid, of course, was not the only one with his panties in a bunch about that, and frankly, I find it disturbing myself when gay groups fall in league with the conservatives, only from a different perspective.
Still, his piece is a jumble of irrational mess, mostly ignorant arguments backed up by others' myopic remarks about why homosexuals are unsuitable for conservatism. His reasons why make about as much sense as if I were to argue conversely how that their conservatism precludes them from being authentically gay somehow. On second though... nah, never mind.
The considerations against welcoming homos and their supportive libertarian compadres, lest they tarnish the sheen of traditional conservatism, are what you might expect, but taken to an absolutely whole new level. For the most part it seems the biggest gripe is with the sodomy (curiously, almost to the point of obsession), since apparently that is better suited to us, the more liberal folks.
Here is a synopsis of what we learn from Kincaid's article, and why this invasion of the homo-conservatives into their traditional midst is so very distressing and insupportable:
Of course, GOProud supports putting active and open homosexuals in the military, supports homosexual marriage, no surprise there. But, did you know they also advocate a foreign policy of promoting acceptance of sodomy abroad?
The latter is referred to as "Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians", which is apparently a wrong stance to take if one is a conservative.
As it turns out, Uganda is not a radical regime after all, but a Christian-dominated government. That whole execute-the-gays-and-those-who-know-them policy of theirs, just toughening the laws trying to prevent the spread of AIDS and protect their traditional moral values. I'm literally speechless about this one.
Something I'll bet you haven't thought about, but if we should put the gays in the military like the gay conservatives want... how will the openly homosexual soldiers be greeted on Muslim lands where being gay is still illegal?
No doubt they will welcome with open arms the straight ones there to blow the place apart, but the criminal sodomite soldiers maybe not so much. Stupid shit. Duly noted, though, Muslim lands the only place we seem to invite ourselves.
Another concern would be that, under the gay conservatives with their homosexual soldiers and stuff, one can only imagine them being deployed to overthrow such homophobic regimes. That would presumably be likely, since it has already been determined their goal of promoting sodomy abroad.
And too, did you realize that the founding fathers regarded homosexual sodomy as a crime against nature, and believed it should be outlawed and punished severely? George Washington himself once authorized the expulsion of a soldier from the army for that, so references Kincaid.
He also points out how that the attitude of the Founders on the subject of homosexuality was that sodomy was so reprehensible, they were ashamed even to discuss it because it was such unnatural behavior.
As an example, we learn that Thomas Jefferson indicated that in his home state of Virginia, dismembering the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. In fact, he authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration; revolutionary-era penile code. Heh.
It seems much of this history has been ignored or forgotten, even by some conservatives, believe it or not. Presumably they should get back to basics, certainly deterring the gays with doing that.
To be clear, modern-day conservatives do not necessarily want to ban sodomy, but they do not want to see it promoted in the schools or given special status by government. Like those anal sex classes we've heard tell about, and because "equal" means "special".
Also it is brought up how lots of other conservatives want the negative health effects of homosexuality to be given as much scrutiny as smoking and eating fast food. There's an ironic fag and Big Mac joke in that somewhere, but I'm lately trying to stay more mature. It is funny, though.
This one, I can't figure out why it is relevant, really, but one day before CPAC, there was a forum on gay conservatives that featured an HIV-positive writer who voted for John Kerry in 2004. The guy later got "married" to another man. And... that's that. What the hell?
Like I began, I can at least respect a thought-out opinion, however dissimilar from my own. But from starting off making the point why homosexuality and conservative principles don't mix, to winding up on some mishmash tangent touting regimes executing homosexuals and the early-American dick-chop as archetypal of true conservatism, that's pretty bugged out.
If nothing else other than being entertaining (and actually a little bit scary), where Cliff Kincaid's article did succeed is in making me prouder than ever to be a liberal. Prouder, too, to be gay since that ostensibly means being opposite of whatever it is he stands for.
As for the GOProud gang, I'm not a fan really, but God bless 'em for at least trying to introduce an element of progress into a chiefly stodgy and intolerant party. I would suggest, however, that they wisely watch their backs; necks and privates, too, maybe not such a bad idea.
Take this one particular clown, Cliff Kincaid, editor of the AIM Report for Accuracy in Media, a "non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog of the news media that critiques botched and bungled news stories and sets the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage".
Setting records straight might be a stretch in describing what they do, actually; it doesn't take much more than a cursory perusal of the stuff over there to recognize their own particular bent on things. Cliff Kincaid is a perfect fit, hooked the same way, leaning decidedly right. But notwithstanding political bias, nuts is just plain nuts.
One fine example, his article The Gay Infiltration of the Conservative Movement. Presumably the impetus for it, the gay Republican organization GOProud's sponsorship of the Conservative Political Action Conference from last week. Kincaid, of course, was not the only one with his panties in a bunch about that, and frankly, I find it disturbing myself when gay groups fall in league with the conservatives, only from a different perspective.
Still, his piece is a jumble of irrational mess, mostly ignorant arguments backed up by others' myopic remarks about why homosexuals are unsuitable for conservatism. His reasons why make about as much sense as if I were to argue conversely how that their conservatism precludes them from being authentically gay somehow. On second though... nah, never mind.
The considerations against welcoming homos and their supportive libertarian compadres, lest they tarnish the sheen of traditional conservatism, are what you might expect, but taken to an absolutely whole new level. For the most part it seems the biggest gripe is with the sodomy (curiously, almost to the point of obsession), since apparently that is better suited to us, the more liberal folks.
Here is a synopsis of what we learn from Kincaid's article, and why this invasion of the homo-conservatives into their traditional midst is so very distressing and insupportable:
Of course, GOProud supports putting active and open homosexuals in the military, supports homosexual marriage, no surprise there. But, did you know they also advocate a foreign policy of promoting acceptance of sodomy abroad?
The latter is referred to as "Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians", which is apparently a wrong stance to take if one is a conservative.
As it turns out, Uganda is not a radical regime after all, but a Christian-dominated government. That whole execute-the-gays-and-those-who-know-them policy of theirs, just toughening the laws trying to prevent the spread of AIDS and protect their traditional moral values. I'm literally speechless about this one.
Something I'll bet you haven't thought about, but if we should put the gays in the military like the gay conservatives want... how will the openly homosexual soldiers be greeted on Muslim lands where being gay is still illegal?
No doubt they will welcome with open arms the straight ones there to blow the place apart, but the criminal sodomite soldiers maybe not so much. Stupid shit. Duly noted, though, Muslim lands the only place we seem to invite ourselves.
Another concern would be that, under the gay conservatives with their homosexual soldiers and stuff, one can only imagine them being deployed to overthrow such homophobic regimes. That would presumably be likely, since it has already been determined their goal of promoting sodomy abroad.
And too, did you realize that the founding fathers regarded homosexual sodomy as a crime against nature, and believed it should be outlawed and punished severely? George Washington himself once authorized the expulsion of a soldier from the army for that, so references Kincaid.
He also points out how that the attitude of the Founders on the subject of homosexuality was that sodomy was so reprehensible, they were ashamed even to discuss it because it was such unnatural behavior.
As an example, we learn that Thomas Jefferson indicated that in his home state of Virginia, dismembering the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. In fact, he authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration; revolutionary-era penile code. Heh.
It seems much of this history has been ignored or forgotten, even by some conservatives, believe it or not. Presumably they should get back to basics, certainly deterring the gays with doing that.
To be clear, modern-day conservatives do not necessarily want to ban sodomy, but they do not want to see it promoted in the schools or given special status by government. Like those anal sex classes we've heard tell about, and because "equal" means "special".
Also it is brought up how lots of other conservatives want the negative health effects of homosexuality to be given as much scrutiny as smoking and eating fast food. There's an ironic fag and Big Mac joke in that somewhere, but I'm lately trying to stay more mature. It is funny, though.
This one, I can't figure out why it is relevant, really, but one day before CPAC, there was a forum on gay conservatives that featured an HIV-positive writer who voted for John Kerry in 2004. The guy later got "married" to another man. And... that's that. What the hell?
Like I began, I can at least respect a thought-out opinion, however dissimilar from my own. But from starting off making the point why homosexuality and conservative principles don't mix, to winding up on some mishmash tangent touting regimes executing homosexuals and the early-American dick-chop as archetypal of true conservatism, that's pretty bugged out.
If nothing else other than being entertaining (and actually a little bit scary), where Cliff Kincaid's article did succeed is in making me prouder than ever to be a liberal. Prouder, too, to be gay since that ostensibly means being opposite of whatever it is he stands for.
As for the GOProud gang, I'm not a fan really, but God bless 'em for at least trying to introduce an element of progress into a chiefly stodgy and intolerant party. I would suggest, however, that they wisely watch their backs; necks and privates, too, maybe not such a bad idea.
Honestly I find folks like Michael Steele and GOProud self-loathing. How can you belong to a party, where seemingly the majority doesn't support you? I kind of wonder about republican women too.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree. I was just going to post something similar to what you just wrote.
ReplyDelete"how will the openly homosexual soldiers be greeted on Muslim lands where being gay is still illegal?"
ReplyDeleteThat had to be THE dumbest argument I've heard them pushing yet. One minute they don't care for Muslims and want to "blow them all up and let God sort out the rest". And in the next, they pretend to be so concerned about Muslims' sensibilities and not want to dare offend them with with having the mean ol scawy gay soldier around them. PLEASE
"No doubt they will welcome with open arms the straight ones there to blow the place apart, but the criminal sodomite soldiers maybe not so much."
EXACTLY, lol. Thanks for that. Funny the way you put it but oh so true!
It boggles how they tie themselves up with trying to justify their bigotry.
It does make you shake your head in disbelief sometimes how they try to justify themselves; some like this guy don't even kind of make sense trying, not even a little bit.
ReplyDelete