Saturday, February 12, 2011

The Gay Lefts Freak out over Matt Hissey's Comments At CPAC

The gay left -  from Towelroad to Joemygod have been flipping out about Matt Hissey's comments at GOProuds CPAC party.

       He said, and I quote. "I don't really like gay people that much. Gay people frustrate me, the stereotypical gay people, it frustrates me...someone who puts on a total act. I understand that some guys are feminine, which is fine. But some guys, at some point, are normal, straight-acting, whatever and the next minute they're jumping up and down. It just frustrates me. The whole conservative thing is just be yourself, be an individual and just don't be someone you're not. If someone does or does not accept you, that's fine but don't change who you are to look different to others."

     Please tell me what is wrong with this? He is not saying in any way, shape, or form that feminine men are bad or are a disgrace to the gay community. Instead, the thrust of his argument is that to put on an act for people, to fit a stereotype, to do what other are expecting of you - then it is wrong. It is not wrong to be feminine, but what is wrong is if you are "straight-acting" aka. no one would know you were gay unless you told them, yet try to "fit in" to the gay community's mold of what it means to be a gay man. That is not being true to yourself (something that the gay community is supposed to be all about), and is instead attempting to gain acceptance from society. This is just as bad as someone staying in the closet because they want to be accepted by their friends and family, its just the other extreme.

    I have a feeling that the gay left is just throwing their own "Hissy Fit" because they know what he is saying is true.

Vice President of Human Resources at Tommy Nelson Supports Nashville Non-Discrimination Ordinance

      Jim Thomason, The Vice President of Human Resources at Tommy Nelson Publishers - one of the big name publishers of Christian material - wrote on his blog today that the time has come for the proposed Metro-Nashville Contract Accountability Non-Discrimination Ordinance to be passed into law. For those who do not know about this proposed ordinance, it will require all companies that do business with the City of Nashville to have sexual orientation and gender identity protections in company policy - so that no-one can be fired because they are not straight etc.

       Though the entire post is excellent, I would turn our attention to the following paragraphs,
Its time for this measure to pass. Discrimination is good and necessary so long as its based upon performance and behavior. You should, as an employer, pay more, give more, and advance people who perform in favor of those who don't. The word "discriminate" has a negative connotation based upon its use in the civil rights struggle, but leaders must do it every day to lead an organization. It is discrimination using factors other than performance and behavior that run counter to both Christian and American values.

and,
 But that lifestyle is not Christian," you say? Well I'll leave that theological debate to others. Almost all Christian companies employ non-Christians whether we know it or not. Chances are some of the Christians that those companies employ engage in immoral behavior at times without losing their jobs. Our goal each day should be a workplace where performance, behavior and adherence to our core values in the workplace are all that matters. Banning discrimination against gays and lesbians in all workplaces would be a huge step in that direction.
       I am thankful that people within these large Christian organizations are slowly starting to recognize that it is detrimental, as well as hypocritical, for their companies to willfully discriminate against gays and lesbians in the workplace. Regardless of all the fear-mongering that is both preached in the pulpit on Sunday and presented before government members - full justice and fairness dictate that you should not be fired for something that is not non-job related. Instead, whether you are fired or not should be based upon how you perform your functions at your job. Though I am grateful for Mr. Thomason's blog post, it is still sad that in this day and age this thinking is not more widely accepted.

Friday, February 11, 2011

Don't Throw Us Under the Bus?

Here is the video of Bishop Harry Jackson of Maryland complaining about the inclusion of GOProud in CPAC. Personally, I think that as gay rights become more of a mainstream issue (rather than just Democrat or Republican) we will start to see those in the social conservative movement do what he is doing: claiming the mantel of victim hood, and stating that THEY are the ones who are being "thrown under the bus".

My response: Mr. Jackson - these social conservative organizations that have boycotted CPAC did it of their own volition, they "threw themselves under the bus". Since when has the inclusion of another group like GOProud mean that CPAC has started to vilify the Religious Right? For too long the social conservative have been able to have their view go unchallenged in conservatism. Then, once there is animosity or a challenge to their views, it is automatically deemed "persecution".

My message to the social conservatives - If you cant have open and honest debate about the subject, and can only survive as long as your opponents are silenced, you know that you are fighting a losing battle.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Maryland Lt. Governor on MSNBC Discussing Gay Marriage

Tennessee Tea Party Group Opposed to Anti-Discrimination Law

      Though we could have seen this coming (what with the whole Rand Paul and the Civil Rights Act issue from last year) it is still quite surprising. In Tennessee, the council of Metro Nashville is introducing an ordinance that would prohibit the city from doing businesses with companies who do not have sexual orientation listed within their non-discrimination codes. As can be expected, there has been great uproar from the Religious Right over this proposed ordinance.. But now we have leaders of the Tennessee Tea Party coming on board in being against the non-discrimination policy. They claim that

"This is simply big government politicians and social scientists imposing oppressive regulations on business owners that will only open the door to harassment lawsuits,” the email goes on to say. “Nobody in these issues wins except for the trial lawyers. The costs of all this mess is then passed on to us as consumers and taxpayers.”
      A great comeback to this was offered by Council member Mike Jameson, who stated that,

"There’s a statement that it imposes ‘oppressive regulations’ when all [the ordinance] does is add four words to a requirement we’ve upheld for decades,” Jameson said. “And by alleging that nobody in these issues wins except for trial lawyers, it perpetuates the false impression that litigation results from these ordinances. And as best as we can tell from other cities that have already adopted it, it flat out doesn’t."
      Interesting thing to note. For those that still do not believe in the Tea Parties social conservative bent, it is quite convenient that the leadership of the Tennessee Tea Party was made aware of the ordinance by the Family Action Council of Tennessee  - a social-conservative Christian group whose expressed goal is protecting "traditional values". Here is their list of "reasons" why the legislation should not be enacted.

        As I have said before, I firmly believe that as the Tea Party gets what they want fiscally, the movement will start to descend into social-conservatism. It is a brilliant strategy, to hide what you really think behind the veil of something that will attract independents and moderates. But as time goes on, it is a strategy that is going to be less and less effective.

The full article quoted above can be found here.

Sunday, February 6, 2011

Ronald Reagan A Mass Murderer?

       The Advocate today re-published an article entitled Adolf Reagan - in which the author lays the blame for the AIDS epidemic directly at the feet of Ronald Reagan. The conclusion of the article is as follows -

      It is remarkable that two of the so-called “greatest presidents” have also allowed the greatest perpetrations and perpetuations of mass murder. Franklin D. Roosevelt was shamefully inept in dealing with “the Jewish question,” (see my play The Normal Heart), most ironically since so many Jews were his most loyal supporters, the Jerry Zipkins of their day. No one really writes about this. Roosevelt is one of history’s great gods. Just as no one really writes about Reagan and “the gay question.” These two major murderers so far have gotten away with helping to cause the two major holocausts of modern history. Just as Jews are asked to never forget their Holocaust, I implore all gay people never to forget our holocaust and who caused it and why. Ronald Reagan did not even say the word “AIDS” out loud for the first seven years of his reign. Because of this, some 70 million people, so far, have become infected with HIV/AIDS. I wonder what it feels like to be the son and the wife of a man responsible for over 70 million people so far becoming infected with a virus that has killed over half of us so far. I wonder what it felt like while he was alive to ponder this. For surely he must have thought about it. How could he not? He has been called the consummate actor who came to believe all his lines. Does this not make his legacy even more grotesque? It should.
Hitler knew what he was doing. How could Ronald Reagan not have known what he was doing?
But of course, no one is writing about this. Reagan too is one of history's gods.
So far he has gotten away with murder.
        Really? That is kinda the feeling that I had after I read the whole article. Myself, as both a Jewish and gay man, take offense to the correlation between these two genocides, as well as the placing of Adolf in front of Reagan - as if he was some sort of reincarnation of Hitler. The extermination of the Jews in Nazi Germany was a direct form of ethnic cleansing, targeted specifically at a people group by the government. Ronald Reagan's inaction, on the other hand, is one that we can only wonder about. We have no idea what his intentions were...did he view AIDS as a "gay disease"? Was he just following through with his limited government principles? Did he hate gay people? We just don't know for sure - thus it is downright inappropriate for the Advocate to re-print this article (or even print it in 2004 when it was first written).

      Though it may make the gay community feel good to blame a politician for failing to do something about the AIDS epidemic, this blame gets us away from the actual cause of the epidemic;The gay communities rampant promiscuity and lack of safe-sex practices. Could Reagan have been more proactive? Yes. Should we deflect the focus off of our actions as the gay community and onto someone else? No.
Related Posts with Thumbnails