Posted by
Andrews on Wednesday, January 07, 2009 3:37:00 PM
I know in theory liberals are supposed to be understanding and tolerant. They claim that they do not judge and that they accept "alternate lifestyles". They think that whatever one chooses to do is fine by them, and that we are all fine as long as we "follow our own bliss" "an it harm none" and all that other hippy-dippy stuff.
My question is this. If you find homosexuality so acceptable, then why do you so often use it as an insult?
For example, if a man went up to someone and said "What's wrong with you, you sound like a n*gg*r" would you not suspect he was a racist? After all, he is not just using a racial epithet, but suggesting there is something wrong with members of that race.
However, when a leftist writes the following (taken form a real comment today):
She
is a bullish diike lespian. Is she married? Why not? Is that an adams
apple I see? Coulter has the intellectual depth of cat pee. She is a
whiney coward.
There is not a word of complaint.
Or let us look at another example, the Larry Craig case. Now, the left often claims we should be understanding of those "struggling with sexual identity" and that there is nothing wrong with a man having sexual feelings toward another man. So, how do they explain their mockery of Larry Craig?
They say they are pointing out the hypocrisy of the right. They say they are just mocking the right who claims to be opposed to homosexuality yet is often gay. However,t hat really doesn't work. Think again about my racial slur example. Would you believe him if he said he was just mocking the racism of the person he was addressing? No? Neither would I, nor do I believe the left when they mock Larry Craig.
The truth seems to be many on the left have a not very covert distaste for homosexuals. The same way they often adopt condescending attitudes towards blacks and other minorities, it appears they do the same with gays. They think blacks and gays are good enough to vote for left wing causes, and should be helped out by the state, but the reason is that they simply can't survive on their own. In other words, they view anyone other than their white liberal peers (and a few black liberals, perhaps) as inferiors who would suffer and die but for their benevolence.
I am sure some will disagree with me, but can anyone else offer anything approaching a coherent explanation of the left's use of homosexuality as an insult? Or perhaps explain how their belief that minorities can only succeed with government help is in no way demeaning? Or why it is not insulting that they accept behavior from minorities and third world residents they would not accept from white Americans? What explains that except for a patronizing, demeaning view of minorities and foreigners?
Then again, this is the same group who argued we should have left the Iraqi people to be tortured and killed as "they aren't ready for democracy", so I think any explanation is going to have to be pretty good to convince me they have anything approaching a real respect for anyone except their own little clique of liberal elites.
POSTSCRIPT
Since someone will doubtless suggest I hold some view I do not, let me make this clear, I think the government should take no notice of one's sexual orientation. In fact, I think the government should take notice of very little about an individual at all. Except for recognizing whether one is an adult or minor, whether one is a citizen or alien, and whether one is a free individual or incarcerated, I think all should be pretty much identical as far as the state is concerned. And as we are discussing politics, that is all that matters in this case. Individuals are free to hold whatever views they wish, and I think that too should be outside the scope of the state. What you choose to believe, who you choose to praise or denigrate, that should be of no concern tot he government. Outside of matters of actual force, fraud or theft, and the enforcement of civil contracts, the state should simply ignore everyone.
See how simple that makes things? It is only once you involve the state in too many matters that you have to start asking "Is he X or Y?" and have to create so many special groups. When the state does very little, those things stop mattering.