Why gays should be wary of "equality"

[Kulindahr]

I guess we all took the bait... I really try to stop myself from responding to threads like these, but can't help it.

Anyways... isn't it odd he's not posting an argument himself about the article?

Sometimes he seems to think that his glib enthusiasm for something without substance is enough argument.

More belching.

 

[JayQueer]

I guess we all took the bait... I really try to stop myself from responding to threads like these, but can't help it.

Anyways... isn't it odd he's not posting an argument himself about the article?

I did not give my personal views about the article because the point of the thread was to draw attention to the point that most gay conservatives are not enthusiastic about the concept of "equality" because it implies that the state or government will act as the interpreter, mediator and arbiter of what "equality" means. Inherent in the concept of "equality" is the institution of a "Big government" that conservatives (straight & gay alike) do not support.

Further, most gay conservatives do not like the concept of "equality" because it has a socialist connotation. If we are truly "equal," then it follows that we should be compensated the same, regardless of our occupation. If we are truly "equal" then it is not fair that some people have more money in their bank accounts than other people do. If we are truly "equal" it is not fair that some people live in a mansion while others struggle to the pay the rent of a small apartment. "Equality" can be extended to mean that we should all live in the same conditions, be paid the same wage (regardless of what we do), have the same amount of money in our bank accounts, etc etc.

Gay conservatives prefer the terms "liberty" and "freedom" because it connotes the ability to live your life, the way you want, on your own terms, WITHOUT interference from the state or government.

 

[Kulindahr]

I did not give my personal views about the article because the point of the thread was to draw attention to the point that most gay conservatives are not enthusiastic about the concept of "equality" because it implies that the state or government will act as the interpreter, mediator and arbiter of what "equality" means. Inherent in the concept of "equality" is the institution of a "Big government" that conservatives (straight & gay alike) do not support.

Oh, rubbish. Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists believe in equality, so it hardly implies big government.

Further, most gay conservatives do not like the concept of "equality" because it has a socialist connotation. If we are truly "equal," then it follows that we should be compensated the same, regardless of our occupation. If we are truly "equal" then it is not fair that some people have more money in their bank accounts than other people do. If we are truly "equal" it is not fair that some people live in a mansion while others struggle to the pay the rent of a small apartment. "Equality" can be extended to mean that we should all live in the same conditions, be paid the same wage (regardless of what we do), have the same amount of money in our bank accounts, etc etc.

You really think Thomas Jefferson, along with Adams and Franklin, was a socialist?

Weird.

What you're doing is buying into socialist propaganda. That's a bizarre thing for "conservatives" to do. Equality => "same amount of money" only as much as liberty => I'm allowed to beat up people who piss me off.

Gay conservatives prefer the terms "liberty" and "freedom" because it connotes the ability to live your life, the way you want, on your own terms, WITHOUT interference from the state or government.

Without equality, there's no liberty. Liberty and equality are two aspects of the same thing: self-ownership.

 

[White Eagle]

Oh, rubbish. Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists believe in equality, so it hardly implies big government.



You really think Thomas Jefferson, along with Adams and Franklin, was a socialist?

Weird.

What you're doing is buying into socialist propaganda. That's a bizarre thing for "conservatives" to do. Equality => "same amount of money" only as much as liberty => I'm allowed to beat up people who piss me off.



Without equality, there's no liberty. Liberty and equality are two aspects of the same thing: self-ownership.

Doesn't the government have to get involved to assure that all are equal?

Originally Posted by JayQueer View Post
Gay conservatives prefer the terms "liberty" and "freedom" because it connotes the ability to live your life, the way you want, on your own terms, WITHOUT interference from the state or government.

I don't think you would be equal because his "liberty" and "freedom" would have to go through the government or else the conservatives and GOP will do everything to make sure that gays are second class citizens. That includes conservative gays.

 

[Just_Believe18]

Bait, indeed. It's funny how JayQueer has lately been flip-flopping from his alternate personalities. He must be testing the waters to see which one fits best.

Equality is not a socialist concept, rather socialism strives for the concept of equality. Socialism, itself, is a regular practice of Western culture. There are many elements of the United States that are socialized including education, the post office, retirement, health care for certain vulnerable populations such as the poor and elderly, firefighters, and the police. So let's abandon the idea that socialism is somehow an ugly, and bad term.

As for the main topic, equality in this context is represented by equal civil rights. It's not calling for equal pay, equal housing, etc. Gay rights is advocating for equal recognition in society. A gay or lesbian has every right to live the benefits and lifestyle of any heterosexual. That includes employment, housing, marriage, children, public and military service. This will require government recognition and intervention, as it is government that is currently repressing large segments of the American population. The Civil Rights era only concluded when the American people lobbied the federal government to end Segregation in the United States.

To criticize "equality" for gays is to endorse the notion that black Americans did it all wrong, and that it is perfectly understandable to accept that Segregation could still exist because we don't want government getting involved with this "socialist idea of equality."

 

[White Eagle]

That's what I was trying to say. Thanks JB18.

 

[Kulindahr]

Doesn't the government have to get involved to assure that all are equal?

Not necessarily. Some form of governance is necessary, but it doesn't have to be government.

I don't think you would be equal because his "liberty" and "freedom" would have to go through the government or else the conservatives and GOP will do everything to make sure that gays are second class citizens. That includes conservative gays.

Yes, but that's a perversion.

All equality means is that as a person I don't get any special advantages or disadvantages just because of who I am. Today's Republicans don't believe in that at all.

So they don't like equality, which means they don't actually like liberty. So when they say "freedom", just what does it mean?

 

[Kulindahr]

As for the main topic, equality in this context is represented by equal civil rights. It's not calling for equal pay, equal housing, etc. Gay rights is advocating for equal recognition in society. A gay or lesbian has every right to live the benefits and lifestyle of any heterosexual. That includes employment, housing, marriage, children, public and military service. This will require government recognition and intervention, as it is government that is currently repressing large segments of the American population. The Civil Rights era only concluded when the American people lobbied the federal government to end Segregation in the United States.

To criticize "equality" for gays is to endorse the notion that black Americans did it all wrong, and that it is perfectly understandable to accept that Segregation could still exist because we don't want government getting involved with this "socialist idea of equality."

Yes. It boils down to freedom of association, and the Republican party opposes it. There are classes of people with whom they don't want to associate, and they love to try to write that into law, using the machinery of the state to enforce their prejudices.

 

[rareboy]

Bait, indeed. It's funny how JayQueer has lately been flip-flopping from his alternate personalities. He must be testing the waters to see which one fits best.

Equality is not a socialist concept, rather socialism strives for the concept of equality. Socialism, itself, is a regular practice of Western culture. There are many elements of the United States that are socialized including education, the post office, retirement, health care for certain vulnerable populations such as the poor and elderly, firefighters, and the police. So let's abandon the idea that socialism is somehow an ugly, and bad term.

As for the main topic, equality in this context is represented by equal civil rights. It's not calling for equal pay, equal housing, etc. Gay rights is advocating for equal recognition in society. A gay or lesbian has every right to live the benefits and lifestyle of any heterosexual. That includes employment, housing, marriage, children, public and military service. This will require government recognition and intervention, as it is government that is currently repressing large segments of the American population. The Civil Rights era only concluded when the American people lobbied the federal government to end Segregation in the United States.

To criticize "equality" for gays is to endorse the notion that black Americans did it all wrong, and that it is perfectly understandable to accept that Segregation could still exist because we don't want government getting involved with this "socialist idea of equality."

This.

We have an admittedly dishonest person basically casting baited lines out there to see who bites.

I am increasingly coming to the conclusion though, that the Republican apologist poli-op will be the one we see throughout 2012.

What this stupid little blog piece illustrates though, is the lengths that closeted, self-hating homos with limited intellectual scope will go to, in order to satisfy their own egocentric, pocket book based, view of the world.

The logical conclusion is that the phrase 'created equal' doesn't apply anymore today than it did over two hundred years ago. Some are born women. Some are apparently born to be slaves.

The idea that 'big government' is inherent in ensuring equality is absolute and utter bullshit and if the blogger doesn't understand this, then he truly is one of the stupidest creatures that one sperm and one egg ever produced.

The fact that it takes the community to enforce the notion of equality is the gravest condemnation of Americans' abilities to be entrusted with the responsibility of respecting the rights of all others and regarding these rights as equal to their own.

 

[Kulindahr]

The fact that it takes the community to enforce the notion of equality is the gravest condemnation of Americans' abilities to be entrusted with the responsibility of respecting the rights of all others and regarding these rights as equal to their own.

Spot on.

Community enforcement of equality should be in the extremis, not the norm.

 

[JayQueer]

This.

I am increasingly coming to the conclusion though, that the Republican apologist poli-op will be the one we see throughout 2012.

I'm not a "Republican apologist." But I refuse to simply blindly follow liberals or Democrats, simply because "all the other gays are doing it." I don't like liberals OR conservatives trying to control my life & tell me what to do.

There is a pattern here on JUB that if you disagree with someone, then suddenly the personal insults & attacks come flying.

For the record, I never gave my personal views in this thread. I shared what gay conservatives think, so you can get some insight into their world-view. You don't have to agree with it. You can understand someone else's point-of-view without agreeing with them.

The idea that 'big government' is inherent in ensuring equality is absolute and utter bullshit and if the blogger doesn't understand this, then he truly is one of the stupidest creatures that one sperm and one egg ever produced.

Okay, you can let Dan Blatt, the gay conservative blogger from West Hollywood know that, on his blog.

 

[White Eagle]

I don't like liberals OR conservatives trying to control my life & tell me what to do.

What do you think the Republicans/conservatives are going to do to you. They are going to control your life and tell you what to do. You are NOT supposed to be gay! You have to be Str8 and live with your wife and have children who will not be told about gays.

 

[rareboy]

I'm not a "Republican apologist." But I refuse to simply blindly follow liberals or Democrats, simply because "all the other gays are doing it." I don't like liberals OR conservatives trying to control my life & tell me what to do.

There is a pattern here on JUB that if you disagree with someone, then suddenly the personal insults & attacks come flying.

For the record, I never gave my personal views in this thread. I shared what gay conservatives think, so you can get some insight into their world-view. You don't have to agree with it. You can understand someone else's point-of-view without agreeing with them.



Okay, you can let Dan Blatt, the gay conservative blogger from West Hollywood know that, on his blog.

Why would I bother? Who has time for stupid?

And frankly, no, I don't have to understand some homo attention whoring blogger's stupid position. It would require that I need to know what influences in his early or later life left him intellectually vapid and emotionally retarded. When someone asks for 'understanding' of their point of view, they are actually only asking for tacit acceptance to keep spewing the same nonsense, or for the undecided to agree with their (often fucked up) personal perspective.

It would be like asking me to 'understand' the stuff you've posted over the past months...much of which, we subsequently discovered was dishonest and misleading. Why do I have to waste my time trying to 'understand' your position on something. I couldn't care less as to how you get to your opinions anymore; it is only enough to know to know what they are.

And you know what? Even the blogger you are citing can't speak on behalf of all gay conservatives. What you did was present the one blogger's position with no personal commentary or opinion.

CE&P doesn't need a HuffPost re-broadcast service. We know what a lot of idiots already think. We're here to have a discussion about the issue and the person who posts needs to put some skin in the game as well. Your failure to elucidate your own position and to present arguments in support of the premise you are mooting is why we always feel we're just getting trolled most of the time.

But thanks for playing.

 

[Centexfarmer]

I'm not a "Republican apologist." But I refuse to simply blindly follow liberals or Democrats, simply because "all the other gays are doing it."

Apparently you're missing some of the points that are being made here.

Like minded "Straight Patriotic Americans" seem to be supporting the "notion" of "equality" as well.

I don't like liberals OR conservatives trying to control my life & tell me what to do..

But apparently they are, and they're both attempting to use our elected representatives to speak "the will of the people."

When we, or individuals appear to align themselves with one side or the other, there's a huge "middle" (or moderate segment of the population/electorate) that gets left behind.

You've done more than your fair share of harping for right wing conservatives on our boards here in the past, so own this and stop being so defensive when being called out to make whatever point that you're trying to share.

First impressions that you've presented here are not something that the Moderators can fix or repair for you.

Seriously! What type of responses were you expecting?

 

[TX-Beau]

I'm not a "Republican apologist." But I refuse to simply blindly follow liberals or Democrats, simply because "all the other gays are doing it." I don't like liberals OR conservatives trying to control my life & tell me what to do.

There is a pattern here on JUB that if you disagree with someone, then suddenly the personal insults & attacks come flying.

For the record, I never gave my personal views in this thread. I shared what gay conservatives think, so you can get some insight into their world-view. You don't have to agree with it. You can understand someone else's point-of-view without agreeing with them.

LOL I saw the thread title and I just knew it was JayQueer. Still singing this same tired old ditty are we. The only pattern here is that you post incendiary crap knowing you'll get shit for it.

I picture you sitting there at your computer in your parents basement furiously flogging your cock in the ecstatic throes of your victim complex.

What you did was post one persons opinion and pretended that this guy was somehow spokesperson for a demographic you made up in your head (that would be the hordes of gay conservatives for whom this guy supposedly speaks.)

You don't post any personal opinions (and indeed I've never seen you post an argument) because I suspect what you are really after is the sweet angst of believing yourself martyred.

 

[opinterph]

I did not give my personal views about the article

So you wrote a zero-word commentary on an 83-word article by Daniel Blatt commenting on a thousand-word article by Joshua Hawley commenting on a six-thousand-word speech delivered by the President.

Mr. Hawley’s article is apparently scheduled to appear in the December 19 edition of The Weekly Standard. It is interesting that Hawley’s article doesn’t really contain much substance relating to the President’s speech. It is more like a rant. In the article, he basically argues that the American left hasn’t had any new ideas in quite a long time and that President Obama’s only solution for all the problems in America is more government, which he illustrates to mean more federal spending and higher taxes. He reminds readers that the proper role of government is to enact policies that “foster an environment where every worker can support himself by the work of his own hands, not depend on government payments or social welfare services.”

Hawley’s article does mention how liberals advocate government as the guarantor of equality and how that is code speak for “a shared national identity.” Pretty scary stuff.

Not surprisingly, his article seems to reflect themes from his book, Theodore Roosevelt: Preacher of Righteousness. This leads me to regard the article as somewhat opportunistic and repetitious, rather than a genuine attempt to consider the words from the President’s speech. Oh well – at least he is promoting his own commercial profit, rather than standing around in Kansas clapping hands with all the other co-dependent fools.

Skimming through some related online discussions, his view seems to suggest that liberalism leads to individual isolation by making liberty somehow connected to (dependent upon) other people by virtue of everyone’s (required and enforced) membership in a so-called, “free state.” He notes how such an expectation for conformity represents coercion against individual members of society and how it prevents them from exerting control over their own life. He advocates self-determination (where every worker can support himself by the work of his own hands) as the preferred and proper design for society and exposes themes of epicurean influence with which liberalism has become intertwined.

On the other hand, maybe I got the wrong impression, looked at the wrong sites, or even misinterpreted the intent of his message. It appears that his book was published in February 2008, so it was probably not originally conceived as an indictment of the Obama Administration. I also note that Mr. Hawley once worked as a law clerk for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

“Equality” can be extended to mean that we should all live in the same conditions, be paid the same wage (regardless of what we do), have the same amount of money in our bank accounts, etc etc.

Lots of things can be extended when you find yourself on a slippery slope.

Buster Wilson, the General Manager of the American Family Association’s American Family Radio, yesterday on AFA Today told co-host Ed Vitagliano how marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples will ultimately lead to not just the legalization of polygamy but also legal approval of marriages to buildings, cars and dogs! [Right Wing Watch]

Rep. Michele Bachmann’s recently appointed Iowa campaign co-chair Tamara Scott … was so concerned about what marriage equality will do to this nation she made the half-baked claim that allowing homosexuals to wed will lead to people marrying inanimate objects like the Eiffel Tower. No. Really. She did. [hypervocal]

I recall learning how back in 2005 the original GayPatriot, Bruce Carroll, was compelled to remove one of his blog entries in which he suggested that several public figures were “Wanted,” because they were gay terrorists – a technique that Rachel Maddow has mentioned a number of times on her television show.

After law enforcement and legal counsel became involved, the blog entry titled “WANTED: GAY TERRORISTS” was replaced by another entry titled “GayPatriot Advocates Non-Violence.” At that time, gaypatriot also ceased blogging on the site and his co-blogger GayPatriotWest became its sole contributor.

I wonder if that qualifies as an example of how the state sometimes uses coercion to force individual conformity.

The GayPatriot website currently lists Bruce Carroll Jr.(GayPatriot) and B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest) as its “Bloggers In Chief.” I found another site that referred to Mr. Carroll as Colorado Patriot. I’m not sure if he still serves on the GOProud Board.


Related links:

Remarks by the President on the Economy in Osawatomie, Kansas


America's Epicurean Liberalism (by Joshua Hawley, National Affairs, Fall 2010)

 

[JayQueer]

I picture you sitting there at your computer in your parents basement furiously flogging your cock in the ecstatic throes of your victim complex.

Well most houses in California don't have basements.....

What you did was post one persons opinion and pretended that this guy was somehow spokesperson for a demographic you made up in your head (that would be the hordes of gay conservatives for whom this guy supposedly speaks.)

You don't post any personal opinions (and indeed I've never seen you post an argument) because I suspect what you are really after is the sweet angst of believing yourself martyred.

No, I'm not saying that Dan Blatt speaks for all gay conservatives. However Dan Blatt, who is openly gay & a resident of West Hollywood, is the main author of the most-read gay conservative blog on the internet.

A theme that most gay conservatives do believe is that a "big government is the problem." Many gay conservatives point to Ronald Reagan as their favorite president. In fact, after President Reagan passed away, David Frum or some gay conservative wrote an essay on the "Frum Forum" about how Ronald Reagan has been misunderstood by gay liberals & the gay community as a whole.

This thread was just an attempt to present the gay conservative' point-of-view when it comes to LGBT issues.

I believe that gay conservatives and gay liberals share many of the same end-goals when it comes to advancing LGBT issues, but that their philosophy and their beliefs on how to get there are completely different.

Gay conservatives are no perfect group either. Gay conservatives, like Chris Barron of GOProud has called gay liberals "Angry, hateful, and full of sh*t..."

If both gay liberals & gay conservatives can understand each other (without demonizing & tearing each other down), it will be good for all gay people....

In the words of Rodney King, "why can't we get along?"

 

[JayQueer]

The GayPatriot website currently lists Bruce Carroll Jr.(GayPatriot) and B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest) as its “Bloggers In Chief.” I found another site that referred to Mr. Carroll as Colorado Patriot. I’m not sure if he still serves on the GOProud Board.

@Opinterph,

Bruce Carroll ("GayPatriot") still serves on the GOProud board. I believe he lives in the Charlotte, NC, area.

B. Daniel Blatt, or "GayPatriotWest" is the main blogger for the site, and he is from West Hollywood.

"Colorado Patriot" was a former blogger for the site who is an actively serving military man, who is gay. He is still closeted to everyone (from what he has written). He used to blog for the site up until last year, but I don't think he blogs for the site regularly anymore.

 

[opinterph]

@Opinterph,

Bruce Carroll ("GayPatriot") still serves on the GOProud board. I believe he lives in the Charlotte, NC, area.

B. Daniel Blatt, or "GayPatriotWest" is the main blogger for the site, and he is from West Hollywood.

"Colorado Patriot" was a former blogger for the site who is an actively serving military man, who is gay. He is still closeted to everyone (from what he has written). He used to blog for the site up until last year, but I don't think he blogs for the site regularly anymore.

Okay. Thanks for that info.

 

[GayLad87]

I have not read the rest of the post. I am a gay conservative (British Tory). The word equality to me is a horrid word.