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


Linda Harvey's Republican party: A teeny tiny tent that will collapse in on itself

by Jeremy Hooper

Bill O'Reilly, Margaret Hoover, Charles Krauthammer, Dick Cheney, Cindy McCain "and her silly daughter," Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, Prop 8 defense attorneys, Maggie Gallagher, Stand For Marriage Maine, and Warren Throckmorton.

The above might be a list of competitors that we'd never dare to challenge in a game of Trivial Pursuit: Ronald Reagan edition. Or it could be a rundown of Keith Olbermann's list of Linda-Harveypeople who the Nielsen ratings should never meter. But today it serves one purpose and one purpose only: It's the list of people who uber-far-righite Linda Harvey thinks are too leftist when it comes to basic respect for LGBT people. Here's just snippet of her "reasoning" why:

If anal sex between males is noble enough to sell to our children, I have truly missed something as a conservative. If intentionally childless and lifeless unions really signify “progress,” then perhaps the sky is actually green and Elvis is still alive in Kalamazoo. Moral fog, though, has a way of dispersing when parents consider the effects on children. Even some libertarians pause when little ones are told Heather’s two mommies are a functional family and that detractors are evil. Huh? Diversity-pushing teachers gather them for a “gender-bender read-aloud” at school without parental notice. Why do many parents flinch at a homosexual student club, and the growing presence of these in middle schools? It’s the last hopeful vestige of common sense.

That gut-level protective instinct confirms what we all know: this deviance is not intrinsic, no matter how many business-suited “gay conservatives” manipulate organizations that used to stand on principle. These Alinksy-inspired revolutions from within would make Obama proud. It doesn’t matter how many trendy “gay” producers are bending the ears of the Fox News show hosts, insisting their “love” is ordained by God.
FOOLISH FULL PIECE: Conservatives Who Aren't [Mission America]

Well, Linda is right in that conservatives like Gallagher who oppose gay people for a living must acknowledge the overheated foes like Linda, who some would say most fully define the unrighteous cause of anti-gay bias. In every election, Gallagher and Co. hide the most aggressive among their movement so as to seem more palatable (something Linda pointed out after the Maine vote). The deliberate shunning of a large portion of the anti-gay base is patently wrong, and unfair to both sides of the debate. If those who are pushing LGBT inequality want the votes, then they need to own the network of support that they rely upon (no matter how eye-opening that network may be)!

But as for the idea that Republicans can't be Republican if they hold even the most basic bit of respect for LGBT people? Ridiculous. Acknowledging the reality of humanity is not an (R) or (I) or (D) matter: It's a (RID) the world of discrimination matter. A non-partisan no-brainer.

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

Your thoughts

So when fairy tales about men and women falling in love and living happyily ever after are read to our children, does this mean anal sex between men and women is noble? No, because we do not describe those practicing heterosexuality based on their sex acts. If we did, parents would be up in arms over that, too.

Radical anti-gay activists like Ms. Harvey are so wrapped up in worrying about what same-sex couples do in bed that it's creepy. It's filthy minded people like Ms. Harvey who should not be allowed to speak around our children.

Posted by: Michael | Feb 22, 2010 11:16:17 AM

"If anal sex between males is noble enough to sell to our children,"

That's it! I'm quitting college to become an anal sex vendor outside middle schools across America.


Is Harvey deliberately trying to make herself sound like a moron??

Posted by: KZ | Feb 22, 2010 12:50:34 PM

HA! @ KZ

Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 22, 2010 1:23:54 PM

"If intentionally childless and lifeless unions really signify 'progress,' then perhaps the sky is actually green and Elvis is still alive in Kalamazoo."

Yet folks like her peddle the crap that gays are supposed to remain single, celibate and loveless their entire lives lest they face the wrath of an anti-gay God. Yeah, that makes sense... /sarc

Posted by: John | Feb 22, 2010 1:47:54 PM

but there are plenty of intentionally childless unions entered into by heterosexuals! doesn't this woman think before she speaks?

Posted by: keltic | Feb 22, 2010 2:22:58 PM

Keltic, there's plenty of butt-sex among heterosexuals as well - especially among the chastity-avowed younger sect.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Feb 22, 2010 3:10:51 PM

Dick Mills: that is a mind-boggler, isn't it? all these young people who have been taught to save themselves for marriage, more directly, young ladies who have been told to save their virginity for marriage, are finding so many loopholes (oral and anal sex) and still claiming that they are "chaste". this is what the fundies have done to their young'uns!

Posted by: keltic | Feb 22, 2010 3:20:56 PM

Hmm, one of my closest friend and his wife don't plan on having kids. Didn't they get the memo they're supposed to be married solely to produce kids?

Posted by: Zach | Feb 22, 2010 10:15:23 PM

You wonder what exactly happened to Linda Harvey to make her into such a harpy. Can you imagine how unpleasant it would be to be at a party with her?

Posted by: homer | Feb 22, 2010 11:23:16 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails