RECENT  POSTS:  » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama » In 2008, the AFA was the same on LGBT rights as President Obama; and I was a flying unicorn » The Hitching Post plot thickens in a truly remarkable way  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

02/04/2010

Their tone is just so juvenile infantile

by Jeremy Hooper

Their marriage stances are loathable. Their calls for our criminalization and exportation are outrageous. Their constant accusations in regards to the way we supposedly treat children, hallowed institutions, or each other are absolutely deplorable.

But ya know, when it comes to the far-right social conservatives, all that just might take a back seat when you compare it to another of their truisms: Their willingness to say such stupid sh*t. Like, for example, the following sentence, which is how the Family Research Council begins their latest attack on Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal efforts:

There were 7,340 words in President Obama's State of the Union address last Wednesday--but Congress is only fixating on 32 of them.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell--Don't Bother! [FRC]

Uhm, okay: NO! Congress is focused on a whole slew of issues, just like all American people are multi-focused. Even LGBT Americans. We aren't one track minds who can think only of our own struggle. In fact, we would love to never even THINK of our sexual orientations or gender identities as a struggle: It's just that groups like FRC force us to do so! So yes, we do push for principled policy matters like basic military fairness, because the cruel stain of discrimination still forces us too. But we, as well as our friends in Congress, make those pushes part of our life, not our definitives.

Yet every time any of our matters come up for debate, these "pro-family" crews make it all about how we gays want to hijack congressional time, just like we supposedly want to hijack marriage, schooling, television, children, the constitution, and anything else that the so-called "moral" team thinks can earn them mileage. They resort to fourth third second first grade, anti-intellectual talking points that deprive all human beings of the ability to multitask. All while they themselves are concurrently wasting congressional time, pushing for things like repeal of D.C. marriage. It's all so ugh!

As lovers of the same gender, we can't help but see these groups as offensive to our hearts. As lovers of deep thought, we're sick of the way they offend our minds. But as human beings who should use their bodies for the purposes of peace rather than polarization, these folks are perhaps directing the greatest offense towards their own mouths! If they'd only stop being so hypocritical, childish, and hurtful, then we could all focus our time on TRUE social ills. Until they do, we'll all continue to sink in this absurd sandbox.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Actually, groups like FRC are the ones focusing solely on those 32 words, as they do any hint that LGBT people might be afforded the rights others take for granted. A politician could give a three hour speech in which he promised to eat live babies every day, nuke five foreign nations, torture all people with names ending in "e" for the sheer fun of it and allow LGBT people to serve openly in the military. The "pro-family" faction would immediately be screeching about the travesty of homos in the military.

Posted by: Buffy | Feb 4, 2010 9:01:21 PM

And, the reason that FRC is focusing solely on those 32 words is because with those 32 words they can attempt to foment more hatred, fear and loathing of LGBTs. And, that's how they keep the base fired up. That is where their bread's butter comes from. The rich white suits pay their salary, but that salary is earned by keeping the minions pissed off and distracted from issues that they should be focused on, like universal health care, the implementation of plans to recoup the rest of the tax payer monies that bailed out Wall Street, and maybe balancing the budget, and punishing companies for off-shoring their workforce - rather than giving them tax benefits.

As much as we feel the pain that they inflict, to them, we are just a wedge issue. A wedge issue that they can use to dupe more stupid morons into believing that the FRC (and the billionaires who support the FRC) give(s) a shit about them. What is truly infantile is that those buffoons (those stupid, moronic, sheepish minions) so willingly and wholeheartedly fall for the deceptions - so much so that they don't even realize that they are just fucking themselves.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Feb 4, 2010 9:28:05 PM

How is Peter Sprigg not getting the mainstream attention he deserves this week? Truly sad.

While he actually does have almost a point (namely that it really is against the law for gays to serve), he completely misses the obvious fact that when people say, "end DADT," they really mean, "change the UCMJ to allow gays to serve openly and legally."

Another issue that has been coming up a lot lately is how the pro-DADT people keep repeating that military life is different than civilian life, so the military shouldn't be subject to civilian mores. What alarms me in that thinking is that it belies an attitude that the military is (or should be) above-the-law. Hate to remind those people, but the military is subject to laws passed by Congress, which is elected by civilians.

Posted by: DN | Feb 5, 2010 10:35:27 AM

Why are you being so insulting to infants?

Posted by: Daimeon | Feb 5, 2010 4:16:15 PM

Ha @ Daimeon!

Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 5, 2010 6:23:50 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails