Just playing Devil's Advocate for a second...gentlemanjAugust 26 2006, 08:20:15 UTC
I know using a rhetorical device like "defending heterosexist privilege" make one feel all warm and progressive, but if we can step away from PC phraseology for a moment, let's look at what's going on.
You know as well as I do that gay marriage is not a threat to Western Civilization, but a lot of people don't know that. Not everyone is as well-educated and savvy as you are. To the approximately 80% of the population that are Christians, conservatives(this includes Jews and Muslims), or just plain don't really like gay culture, well, they are scared.
They see one more institution going sideways on them, and it makes them react, mostly by voting Republican(heh heh, wait 'til 2008...man, are they gonna be conflicted!). I don't see this through Marxist spectacles; rather, I see a lot of folks who feel sincerely threatened and confused, and who are going to have to be very gradually made to realize that it's not a threat. This will take time, and revolutionary sloganeering is not going to help.
Re: Just playing Devil's Advocate for a second...entheos93August 26 2006, 12:49:37 UTC
Agreed. I recently duked this out with somebody that told me, "It's about the tax thing- if they get the marriage, then we'll all have to pay for AIDS, because everybody's insurance will go up." WTF? So somebody with AIDS, somewhere, costs more that people who are breeding? How? We support, educate, and give tax breaks to them every step of the way- how could some tiny number of AIDS patients ever compare? Let alone how bigoted that is, to assume that gay couples will necessarily carry the burden of AIDS. and just how fucked up it might be to feel that way about AIDS patients.
Re: Just playing Devil's Advocate for a second...baal_kriahAugust 27 2006, 19:02:48 UTC
This is misinformed in so many ways I hardly know where to begin. To pick just a few: First, "PC" is a label that originates with Trotskyists in their in-fighting with other extreme leftists which was then coopted by former Trotskyists who had become "neoconservatives" and used to vilify progressives who had never themselves used the term. Trotskyists and neocons, is that really the company you want to keep? Second, "heterosexist" is a completely appropriate term that is used to distinguish between heterosexuals and those who insist that only heterosexuality is acceptable. I would gladly defend the right to be heterosexual, but heterosexism is just plain wrong in my worldview (and I thought, yours; am I wrong about that?). Third, where do you get the idea that 80% of "the population" considers itself conservative, Fox News? The latest polling that I've seen shows that a majority of Americans consider themselves moderate or liberal. I'll find you a reference for that if you want, can you find a reference for your 80% figure?
Re: Just playing Devil's Advocate for a second...gentlemanjAugust 27 2006, 19:52:43 UTC
Hmm...well, actually, I was under the impression that the term "politically correct" was a term of approval used by Stalinists, originally; but I mean it in its current meaning of "acceptable to 'Progressives' and all other right-thinking folks." In other words, a form of jargon that is smug and defiantly self-righteous, like "womyn," a word I hate. It smacks of the Maoist rhetoric used by the SDS and Weather Underground--which used to be the Weatherman(a reference to the Bob Dylan song, remember?)until someone decided the term was sexist...but I digress
( ... )
Comments 9
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
You know as well as I do that gay marriage is not a threat to Western Civilization, but a lot of people don't know that. Not everyone is as well-educated and savvy as you are. To the approximately 80% of the population that are Christians, conservatives(this includes Jews and Muslims), or just plain don't really like gay culture, well, they are scared.
They see one more institution going sideways on them, and it makes them react, mostly by voting Republican(heh heh, wait 'til 2008...man, are they gonna be conflicted!). I don't see this through Marxist spectacles; rather, I see a lot of folks who feel sincerely threatened and confused, and who are going to have to be very gradually made to realize that it's not a threat. This will take time, and revolutionary sloganeering is not going to help.
Reply
WTF? So somebody with AIDS, somewhere, costs more that people who are breeding? How? We support, educate, and give tax breaks to them every step of the way- how could some tiny number of AIDS patients ever compare? Let alone how bigoted that is, to assume that gay couples will necessarily carry the burden of AIDS. and just how fucked up it might be to feel that way about AIDS patients.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment