|
|
|
January 18, 2005
Abominable souls for sale!
It's like pulling teeth trying to find the time to blog (and getting myself to blog at all during this transition), but I have to start somewhere. Might as well be with this fascinating pronouncement (culled by Tim Blair): They [right wing bloggers] don't care. They don't care about their own self-evaluations. What matters- the only thing that matters- is that they said something they think was really clever on the comments section of some person they've likely never met.The above comes from August J. Pollak, with whom I recall disagreeing about gun control statistics somewhere. While I think he has a point about bloggers who want to "win" arguments (something I consider a waste of time), and who leave comments they think are really clever, I must disagree that such behaviors are limited to the right. Plenty of leftist bloggers want to "win" and plenty of them leave snarky comments they think are clever. (I could provide numerous examples from this blog, but I think regular readers will see my point.) He's also right about college professors who lie. I had a bunch of them too! Whether they lied "knowingly" is another matter though; denial and ambition can blind even brilliant minds to the truth. But knowingly is a pretty strong word, and even if you can show someone was wrong, that doesn't show he knowingly lied. But there's a more intriguing assertion: "I've seen gay men sell out their very soul for the sake of pretending that their President doesn't consider them an abomination." Their very soul? How have these gay men sold out their souls, anyway? By supporting George W. Bush? Or by pretending that he "doesn't consider them an abomination"? Does voting for Bush only constitute selling out one's soul if the soul is gay? What about black souls or heterosexual souls? Did they sell out too? Jewish souls? Women's souls? What is it about Bush-voting male homosexuals that makes Mr. Pollak think they deserve such a special scolding? Why not gay women? Surely there are plenty of blacks, women, Jews, and heterosexual bloggers who were for Bush. Why didn't they lose their souls? I think the answer must be that they didn't have to pretend that their candidate didn't consider them an abomination, but gays did. What's the basis for this assumption? Is being appointed to things like the ambassadorship to Luxembourg really so abominable? I guess it could be said that campaigns of relentless harassment (particularly "outing") that conservative gays receive are an abomination, but the outing stuff doesn't really seem to be orchestrated by Bush or his supporters. So that can't be it. The only way that the selling-of-the-souls assertion can make any sense to me is if President Bush considers gays an abomination. Does he? It strikes me that handing out administration jobs is an awfully strange way to treat abominable people, but what do I know? It can't be the religious issue, for Bush is a Methodist and Kerry is a Catholic, and the last time I looked the Catholic Church took a harder line on these things. Ah! Maybe it's Bush's vague, lukewarm support for the FMA! Could it be that Bush thinks gays are such an abomination that they should be punished by the denial of the fundamental constitutional right to a marriage license? (Well, maybe not by the FMA, maybe just by letting the individual states take care of their own abominations...) The problem with that is that Kerry didn't support same sex marriage either; in his own words he and Bush had "the same position, fundamentally" on gay marriage. No one is saying Kerry considered gays an "abomination" (or that gays for Kerry sold their souls) so the abomination charge just isn't making sense to me. However, it's becoming more and more clear to me that conservative gays are considered a dreadful, horrible abomination! (Not by President Bush, though . . .) posted by Eric on 01.18.05 at 10:02 PM
Comments
Steven, you're always a welcome break from reality, and your comments always do my heart good. Eric Scheie · January 19, 2005 12:58 AM :::shaking head::: I guess I just live in a different reality than some people. I intensely dislike Bush and his ilk because he thinks of me as less a citizen than other folks. He will never come out and say that, but it's true. Preventing me and my partner from ever having the big-ticket items at the federal level that come from being able to be married is a huge thing that strikes at the very core of the quality of our lives. You can dress that up any way you want and say that he's being tough on terrorists, etc. It will never change one fact, WE ARE NOT TREATED WITH EQUAL DIGNITY AND RESPECT ***UNDER THE LAW***. And, what's more, this President that you think so highly of, would codify that into permanent law by way of an amendment to the United States Constitution. THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SUPPORTING WHEN YOU VOTED FOR HIM. That is reality. Bill · January 19, 2005 08:51 AM I am surprised by the continuing level of ignorance concerning the FMA: SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.Where in that does it say that gay marriage is banned? All it would codify is what Steven just suggested: that this issue be decided in each state legislature, and not the court system. You know, where you would have to convince a majority of your fellow citizens that your position is right? Instead of shopping around for a judge that agrees with you personally? What a shocking concept in a democracy. Joćo · January 20, 2005 02:07 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Laughing at the failure of discourse?
• Holiday Blogging • The right to be irrational? • I'm cool with the passion fashion • Climate change meltdown at the polls? • If you're wrong, then so is God? • Have a nice day, asshole! • Scarlet "R"? • Consuming power while empowering consumption • Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
As you probably remember, I wasn't too happy with President Bush when he came out for the FMA early last year. I was mad at him for it, and you probably remember that I accidentally netted you a huge Instalanche through an intemperate comment I wrote about him (paralleling a similar comment that our friend Jeff Soyer made about Kerry at the time). What I wrote then was so inflammatory, so vitriolic, that even Glenn Reynolds was shocked when he saw it -- and he's seen a lot of screeds against Bush.
I've changed my mind about him rather noticeably at least somewhat since that time. I still don't count that as one of the great moments in the history of statesmanship, but I have never believed that President Bush hates homosexuals, considers them an abomination, or even dislikes them, although, like the overwhelming majority of heterosexual men, the thought of it doesn't exactly turn him on, as far as men are concerned anyway. His attitude is basically "live and let live".
That, as we have seen, has aroused the anger of certain groups who do consider it an abomination. Some of the groups you've linked to in the past consider him to be "promoting sodomy". Some of them criticized him for having Mary Cheney and her wife (spiritually) Heather Poe up on the stage when he was giving his victory speech after the election. I, therefore, liked him and Vice President Cheney more than ever and made me glad I voted for him.
Back when Jesse Helms was making noise in the Senate, he made a big stink about a homosexual man being appointed ambnassador to Luxembourg (where I doubt the majority of the population think at all like Jesse Helms) and it was kiboshed. Looks like, with Helms out of the way, Bush is now doing it anyway. That's good.
I also don't buy the notion that the majority of those who voted for the President did so because they hate homosexuals. I hate those anti-marriage measures, but I doubt that that many people even read them very carefully before they voted on them. I still think Bush won primarily because of his stand on the War Against the Terror Masters. That's certainly why I voted for him.
Andrew Sullivan is right. Those of us who oppose the FMA must see to it that marriage is kept in the hands of the states. Stay out of the courts, and especially stay out of the federal courts. That's the "third rail" that would certainly trigger a push for the FMA.
Until that happens, I'm basically taking a vacation from the reality-based reality, focusing on holy Dawn and her holy Negro wife Norma vs. wicked Wanda and her women (Wendy, Cindy, Sandy, Candy, Brandy, Brenda, Glenda, Stella, Hannah...), spectra of ideologies, and spectra of color. I should be getting a new ideological spectrum book tomorrow. Looking forward to it, should be interesting....