Comments Posted By Chance Randel
Displaying 1 To 2 Of 2 Comments
DEMOCRATIC PARTY PARTISANS TO 'OUT' GAY REPUBLICANS
Travis Monitor Said:
"As such, the outing can be seen as an attempt to personally destroy any individuals (ie gay conservatives) who hard-core identity politics leftists think are illegitimate"Yes but, again, I think you're missing the point...
Nobody would question the propriety of the wider black community frowning on and applying pressure to a black man that voted in favor of Jim Crow. Nobody would suggest that it was improper for Jews to come down hard on a Jew that supported anti-semitic laws. Well, the gay community is sick of closeted gays that further actions and laws that they believe violate their fundamental human rights and, as an internal matter, they are identifying them and pressuring them to change or at least not pursue actions that are seen as damaging the larger group as a whole.
If you think that's tyranny then you need to take a deep breath and acknowledge the wider reality around you - Social groupings have internal policing. Going against the grain of any social group you are part of WILL result in friction and stress. This is the price that one pays for going against that grain. If it's a matter that one feel strongly about - if it's a core value - then one gladly pays that price and moves along with life.
The Amish shun - Catholics excommunicate. - Republicans and Democrats toss people out of caucuses - People are barred from PTA meetings - Families turn cold shoulders to black sheep at the family reunion - etc. etc. ALL social and all identity groups police themselves.
Republicans and conservatives losing elections after being outed as homosexuals to the wider public is spillover. Republicans and conservatives - It's not about you. It's about the gay community responding to what is widely perceived within the gay community as an existential threat. Whether or not it is actually an existential threat is a different matter entirely. (I believe it is a serious threat.)
Who is seriously suggesting that any community shouldn't respond to actions perceived as a threat to it's good health, continued existence, and fundamental human rights? Or is it somehow less legitimate when the gay community does it as apposed to some other community you approve of?
Comment Posted By Chance Randel On 27.04.2009 @ 09:44
I don't think this can, or should, be viewed as a matter of pure politics. There is simply not a large following for this man within the general left or the Democratic party in particular. There is, however, a following within the gay community. (A different kettle of fish entirely.)
While the gay community is not monolithic on the subject of gay rights it would be a wild stretch of the imagination to suggest that there is anything other than a general consensus on the matter within the gay community. That consensus hinges on the idea that gay marriage etc. are predicated on full and equal human rights. Anything less than that would be seen as a betrayal of the community. In short, most gay men and women will see this less as pure politics and more as a matter of addressing "their own".
It might also be noted that conservatives who are truly blind to personal sexuality should be hard pressed to see this as an act of destructive smearing. How is it destructive or denigrating to confirm that someone is homosexual if sexuality is truly personal and not a basis for exclusion or shame?
Comment Posted By Chance Randel On 24.04.2009 @ 11:33
