Sunday, April 6, 2014

Tempering fanaticism....

The other day, noted journalist and gay rights advocate [and himself homosexual] took a stand against calls for then-CEO Brendan Eich, to resign over donations made in the past in support of California's Proposition well as support for controversial pundit and candidate Pat Buchanan.
Openly-gay journalist Andrew Sullivan expressed his “disgust” over Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich’s resignation for his one-time opposition to gay marriage, calling it a symptom of gay rights “fanaticism” and warning the movement is fast becoming “no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us. 
The former editor at The Atlantic and The New Republic is widely regarded as the intellectual father of the gay marriage movement. He wrote the first story to advocate for gay marriage in 1989 — a piece many regard as the blueprint for gay marriage laws and the normalization of homosexuality in America — and has a “tendency to view virtually everything through a ‘gay’ prism.” 
But despite his activism, Sullivan is furious over Eich’s persecution for his $1,000 donation to California’s Prop 8 campaign in 2008, which made gay marriage illegal in the state. 
“The guy who had the gall to to express his First Amendment rights and favor Prop 8 in California by donating $1,000 has just been scalped by some gay activists,” he wrote in a blog post titled “The Hounding of a Heretic.”
Daily Caller

I agree with Sullivan. Not only because opposing equal privileges and protections in the form of marriage for homosexuals is a losing opponents have been utterly unable to provide the mist basic and easy form of legal challenge...that of rational basis; but because it is never in your best interest to use the very tactics that you deride your opposition for using.

I often query fellow Conservatives, that since there already exists so much evidence in which to admonish the current Administration, and proffer rational, conservative arguments...why would they use the tactics of the left....those of hyperbole, fabrication and fanaticism?

Regarding the latest Mozilla flap, and others....George Will summed it best by calling some gay rights advocates 'sore winners'.

I suppose the temptation to be overblown and hypocritical is too much for some to abstain from, when they reach the ability to do so.


  1. It's part of their lexicon: "toleration" means that you have to agree with them; "hate speech" is anything that doesn't agree with them; "diversity" means different appearances in everything except where it actually counts - diversity of thought.

  2. Unlike "sodomy", which finds mention throughout history, "homosexuality" is a very recent development...not more than a hundred and fifty years old, i should say. And the same truth regime that's produced it has also produced "heterosexuality", "transsexuality", etc, etc.... You can compare this to the production of caricatures. When an artist wants to create a caricature, he accentuates certain lines and ignores's like taking a knife to the face. The result lacks its original fluidity, its freedom of expression. All these "sexualities" are the somebody had taken a knife to the face of reality and made deep incisions on it ... People are so much more than "gay", "straight", and so on; and yet, they are being "constrained" — yes, because they believe in them — to play the "part", to imitate what they consider to be their "reality", to imitate each other, and to wage war with others.... It's all a farce, really. Even their battle is a farce ... a battle of caricatures. It's not at all surprising, therefore, that they should make use of similar tactics; nor is there any room in it for a "reasonable" man ... a "free"man.

    And yet, like a dear blogger friend of mine once said to me: "...[given that those assumptions are pretty well entrenched in discourse,] we have to take things where we find them and do our best to maximize liberty. But i remain skeptical.

    1. I like your take on this. It's refreshing and not often heard. Society certainly does mandate roles. Sometimes it's a positive influence, sometimes not.

  3. p.s. A famous Impressionist dictum is that there are no lines in nature. I think Manet said it.

  4. Looking at firefox's feedback page the last couple days, I saw almost nothing but people complaining about Mozilla's lack of respect for free speech. I found it encouraging.

  5. I remember when I first notice the gay rights movement. If I recall correctly, there were promises made, one such promise being something along the lines of "We're not interested in marriage. We're interested in equal treatment." Etc.

    Now look at some of the things that are happening. Will any and all who disagree with societal trends be punished?

    People don't always agree with each other. Hell, sometimes I don't even agree with myself.

    The pendulum is swinging in alarming ways, I think.

    1. I'm not sure you can lump gays in like that. I'm quite sure some were not seeking marriage, but some were from the outset...and why not?

      I support the maximum expression of individual liberty and protection under the law.

    2. CI,
      I don't lump gays together.

      But the loudest voices have a way of controlling the narratives.

    3. Sorry, that probably didn't translate well. I meant that I believe there were elements who both did and did not desire marriage, when the gay rights movement started taking off.

      Regarding the pendulum, I think there is merit to what you say, but I think this is normal before it comes to rest at center.

    4. CI,
      I wasn't offended by your comment.

      Usually the pendulum comes rest to center. Not always, though.

      I do wish that "things would calm down." Won't happen soon, IMO.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.