“Their are two groups of thinkers, emotional thinkers and logical thinkers. The latter are more maleable since they choose to subordinate their ego to the facts. It’s why we have democrats and republicans.”
“Everyone resists learning when it conflicts with their bias. Because, people fear change and they want to protect their investment. To them, admiitting a mistake is akin to throwing money out the window.” Anon.
“If you are over 50, you’re probably stuck with whatever your biases and accumulated wisdom has shaped.”
I agree with and appreciate most of this, but the first part is wrong:
“Their are two groups of thinkers, emotional thinkers and logical thinkers. The latter are more maleable since they choose to subordinate their ego to the facts. It’s why we have democrats and republicans.”
The line between Democrats and Republicans is definitely not the same as the line between emotional and logical thinkers. I would wager that about 90% of all people choose their party identification for emotional reasons rather than logical ones. Most people simply do not have the time or curiosity to thoroughly research every issue before choosing between the two parties. Like most group identifications, this is chosen mostly for reasons that have to do with gut feelings and a desire for belonging.
Republicans and Democrats both make emotional appeals in their arguments. Democrats do this while arguing that undocumented immigrants deserve the same rights as citizens; Republicans do it when arguing that they steal our jobs. Democrats argue that women should have a choice over their own bodies; Republicans argue that every life is sacred. Democrats argue that healthcare is a basic human right; Republicans argue that people need to take more responsibility over their own lives. Democrats show pictures of stranded polar bears to make their point about global warming; Republicans (like the Heartland Institute) put up billboards pointing out that Hitler believed in global warming too. Republicans overuse the word “socialist;” Democrats overuse the word “bigot.” Republicans say that gay marriage will destroy the foundations of America; Democrats argue that everyone should be able to marry the person they love.
Now obviously I’ve boiled these complex issues down to the most repeated and empty soundbites, but that’s the point; most people don’t think much beyond this simple phrases. That’s why politicians love soundbites. They know the average American doesn’t take the time to logically sort through every argument made. They have to appeal emotionally.
Hmmm…I don’t think I chose the Republican Party based on emotions. I embraced the party because its basic principles made sense. It was a party that, at least in theory, supports limited government, low taxes, sensible regulation, excellence in education, a safety net that helps people move back into the main stream, reveres individual charity, and a party that believes in the value of encouraging a standard for common basic morals and values and respect for the rule of law. (We don’t kill each other, we don’t steal from each other, we don’t covet, we respect privacy, we mind our own business).
I rejected the Democrat Party as a party of causes that ultimately pits citizen groups against each other, encourages division and creates dependency. I see a party whose policies lead to sluggish economies with the elites in government picking winners and losers. I see a party that uses causes and the associated emotions as a tool to create resentment and for recruitment. I see a party that believes government should have power over the individual and see’s citizens as victims. I see a party that uses the educational system, the media and the entertainment industry to propagandize and promote cause and demonize those who opposes their world view.
Is it emotional to think that our country should adopt fiscal and educational policies that empower, support, and encourage individual citizens to care of themselves and plan for their own futures?
Is it emotional to think that the best measure of success for a welfare program is the number of people who do not or no longer need them? Is it illogical to think that if that is not the case, reforms are necessary?
Is it emotional to think that, given the nature of man and the instability in the world, it is wise for our government to concentrate on military readiness as it’s first and foremost obligation?
Is it emotional to think that a simple tax structure that doesn’t require a huge bureaucratic body to collect and punish for noncompliance would be less expensive and easier to enforce?
Is it emotional to think that people should be judged or evaluated on the content of their character and qualifications and not on the color of their skin, their religion, or gender?
Is it emotional to think that sexual orientation and preference is a private matter?
Is it emotional to think that values and morality are best taught at home and schools should treat every student with the respect and require all students to do the same based on our shared humanity?
Is it emotional to think that private property rights should be respected?
Is it emotional to think that the second amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms?
Is it emotional to think that education is best managed at the local level, that it should be non-biased, and that our tax dollars should be spent on educating the kids rather than bureaucracy and administrators?
Jack I tend to agree with you: “Their are two groups of thinkers, emotional thinkers and logical thinkers. The latter are more maleable since they choose to subordinate their ego to the facts. It’s why we have democrats and republicans.”
“Is it emotional to think…”
It depends on WHY you favor a certain policy, not on the policy itself. There are emotional and logical arguments for every position. I wasn’t necessarily talking about you, and I made it clear that I think this is true among both Republicans and Democrats.
“Is it emotional to think that sexual orientation and preference is a private matter?”
Since you brought it up, here’s an example of an emotionally driven argument involving gay rights:
“We’re fast approaching a world where it ain’t cool to be straight.”
“Heteros–you say heterosexuality may be 95, 98 percent of the population — they’re under assault by the 2-5 percent that are homosexual.”
Both of these comments were made by Rush Limbaugh over the past week, and both are clear appeals to fear. There is nothing logical about them. Rush has the most popular radio show, and he’s gotten there mostly due to appeals to emotion. His job is to make members of majority groups feel afraid that minority groups are going to gain power over them, unless they vote conservative Republicans into office. Don’t try to deny this; I can provide many, many more quotes to show that this is his modus operandi.
Again, Democrats play on emotion too–they’re no strangers to using guilt and fear either. But my point is that it’s not accurate to pretend that Republicans are generally logical voters and Democrats are generally emotional voters, given that the loudest voice on your side of the aisle is basically a being of pure Id.
A poem by Rudyard Kipling that should be memorized by every child under the age of 80.
The Gods of the Copybook Headings:
AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place. Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us.
They showed us each in turn.
That Water would certainly wet us, as
Fire would certainly burn: But
we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed.
They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the
Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market
Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace. They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life (Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm
Chris I didn’t think you were talking about me. I was simply sharing my own thoughts about how I chose my party affiliation and, through the technique of asking questions, suggesting that the choice was not emotionally driven.
“Rush has the most popular radio show, and he’s gotten there mostly due to appeals to emotion.”
While I agree that Rush at times appeals to emotion, or rather frames a point in such a way as to push emotional buttons, the platform on which he stands is built on logic, reason, and basic morality and values. His basic ideals and principles are not based in emotionally constructed causes.
“His job is to make members of majority groups feel afraid that minority groups are going to gain power over them”
It’s clear that you are a liberal.
“Don’t try to deny this”
Don’t order me around!
“I can provide many, many more quotes to show that this is his modus operandi.”
All it would prove is that you are only capable of responding emotionally to those things that he says that push your PC buttons. Clearly you miss the larger serious issues that make up the basis and bulk of his programming. If you believe Rush has no intellect or logic you have missed the most important and valid reason for his success.
Clue: The more you lefties howl, the more often he thinks up something to say to push those buttons. Why? It entertains him and us and you (your group) have already shown you don’t listen for more than two seconds or think very deeply and are not standing on a firm or solid grounding.
This is why you can claim to be compassionate and inclusive at the same time that you demonize groups. It’s all emotionally driven and void of logic or reason. Your emotional response is also why you believe that people who disagree on some points for logical reasons must “hate” when their position has nothing to do with hate. The emotion blocks the ability to see that whether or not you agree the point can still be valid.
That last paragraph…you might want to read it over and give some thought to basing Republican voting patterns and standards on the voice of a single man, no matter how popular.
You might also want to think about the numerous voices on your side and the extent to which voters walk in lock step to the drumbeat of those voices. One of the reasons you are labeled the “stupid party” is because in general you all vote in lockstep. It’s the causes, stupid.
Tina: “While I agree that Rush at times appeals to emotion, or rather frames a point in such a way as to push emotional buttons, the platform on which he stands is built on logic, reason, and basic morality and values. His basic ideals and principles are not based in emotionally constructed causes.”
I have no idea how or why Rush Limbaugh came to the conclusions he’s come to, and neither do you. What matters is how he presents his arguments to the public. And those arguments are all emotional, not logical. He has not gained success by making well-reasoned arguments. He’s gained success by being a fantasy wish-fulfillment figure for all the things many older white conservatives wish they could say, but know not to in polite circles. He plays on the deepest fears of his audience in a very cynical way.
The quotes I highlighted are not isolated incidents. I know he loves to call statements like these “liberal tweaks,” but his real purpose is to stoke the fears of his conservative audience. “The minorities are coming to get you” is the overlying message.
Your repeated insistence that I’m just not giving the guy a chance and that I’m being unfair to him is, frankly, silly. He’s not just pushing liberals’ buttons when he says that heterosexuals are “under assault” by gays. He genuinely wants his conservative listeners to believe that. This isn’t satire, like Colbert, it’s bigotry hiding behind a transparent veneer of humor.
I believe your defense of Rush is entirely emotional. You have a very black-and-white worldview, and you don’t want to admit when anyone on “your team” has done something wrong.
“If you believe Rush has no intellect or logic you have missed the most important and valid reason for his success.”
And this aptly illustrates the bogusness of Jack’s original post. Selfishness, greed and fear can easily cloak themselves in a pragmatic sanctity (Rush’s speciality). But a people who see “intellect or logic” in baseless fear-mongering (Rush’s bread and butter) cannot be reasoned with.
“This is why you can claim to be compassionate and inclusive at the same time that you demonize groups.”
What groups? Groups that refuse employment and housing to homosexuals and other minorities?
If you were thinking of some other poor, sad, demonized group, let’s hear about it.
Happy Valentines Day everyone… Jack
PS I was just messin with ya Chris
Re water boy’s “I would wager that about 90% of all people choose their party identification for emotional reasons rather than logical ones.”
Emotional thinking.
Taking a break from the arguments to post what I hope we can all agree are some pretty funny Valentine’s cards.
Happy Valentine’s Day!
https://www.facebook.com/Mediamatters/photos/a.10150313151781167.336053.26595441166/10151894707551167/?type=1
Chris…agree? Why? It’s NOT VALENTINES DAY! Where do you get this liberal stuff? I refuse to believe it’s Valentines Day…!!!! lol
In the interest of balance, maybe someone can post some Valentine’s cards that take the piss out of liberals. How about, “Will you be my gender-non-specific consenting adult companion?” or a winking, blatantly dishonest “If you like your pants, you can keep your pants?” I’m just spitballing here.
You’re entitled to your own opinion, Jack, but not your own calendar. 🙂
Chris: “I have no idea how or why Rush Limbaugh came to the conclusions he’s come to, and neither do you.
I agree that you do not have any idea.
I, however have been listening to the man for over 28 years and in that time he has shared a lot about his upbringing and life and the basis of his opinions and thoughts. I do know how his opinions were formed.
You are welcome to your opinion but please don’t presume to speak for me or as an authority. Your own experience of Rush seems to be grounded solely in knee jerk reactions to a few issues and a handful of quotes that represent a tiny fraction of the total content of Rush’s time on the radio.
It’s amusing that your experience is that Rush plays on his audience’s fears. The liberal agenda for at least seventy years has been to invoke fears that those evil republicans are going to starve your kids, kill your grandmother, and harm your dog, your cat and now, all of creation. Be afraid …be very afraid…especially you minorities and gays cause they hate you and they’re coming after you and your kids. Be afraid, be very afraid cause they want dangerous guns to kill people. Be afraid, be very afraid cause they won’t educate your kids or feed the poor…they are mean, hateful, selfish, bad people…and trust us cause we are here to take care of you.
It’s all so phony.
“He genuinely wants his conservative listeners to believe that”
Rush respects his audience, He respects their ability to decide for themselves about the things he discusses.
In fact one of the basic differences between a conservative and a liberal is that conservatives don’t hold others responsible for their thoughts, opinions and experiences.
You apparently do.
Rush Limbaugh is important to you only because you fear he will influence others. This follows from your apparent belief that people are unthinking dolts until some “other” nabs them and holds them prisoner…and you want to make sure that person is someone on your team instead of Rush’s club. This in itself suggests that your team does not think.
“You have a very black-and-white worldview, and you don’t want to admit when anyone on “your team” has done something wrong.”
Especially when we don’t agree they have “done something wrong”.
Once again you are welcome to your opinion.
Black and white is far superior to me than either gray or grey, the apparent choice of the liberal.
And I sure as hell have no obligation to bend to the will of a hall monitor like you who finds judging the opinions of others is the sole reason for being.
Rush doesn’t need explaining or a defense. I do think its important to offer a different perspective to our readers when you take it upon yourself to draw an unflattering caricature of someone who, in my opinion, is worthy of a fine painting.
In fact as long as we’re quoting Rush let’s include another:
Chris if you have objections to Rush I suggest you take them up with him; its the more honorable approach when venting all that pent up emotion.
1 800 282-2882
Libby: ” But a people who see “intellect or logic” in baseless fear-mongering (Rush’s bread and butter) cannot be reasoned with.”
The only thing you know about Rush is the negative and often hateful things people on the left say about him. Mind these are the kind, compassionate, inclusive people who claim they are not judgmental.
“What groups? Groups that refuse employment and housing to homosexuals and other minorities?”
There you go! Be afraid, be very afraid!
Tina: “It’s amusing that your experience is that Rush plays on his audience’s fears. The liberal agenda for at least seventy years has been to invoke fears that those evil republicans are going to starve your kids, kill your grandmother, and harm your dog, your cat and now, all of creation. Be afraid …be very afraid…especially you minorities and gays cause they hate you and they’re coming after you and your kids. Be afraid, be very afraid cause they want dangerous guns to kill people. Be afraid, be very afraid cause they won’t educate your kids or feed the poor…they are mean, hateful, selfish, bad people…and trust us cause we are here to take care of you.”
Pretty sure I already acknowledged in my first comment that lots of liberals make emotional arguments, too, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove. My only point is that it’s not accurate to say that one party is made up of logical thinkers and the other are emotional thinkers. I wouldn’t support that statement even if the tables were turned. It’s just not true.
“In fact one of the basic differences between a conservative and a liberal is that conservatives don’t hold others responsible for their thoughts, opinions and experiences.
You apparently do.”
Of course I hold people responsible for their expressed opinions. You do too. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t quote Democrats whenever they express opinions you believe to be stupid. You’d be incapable of making any judgments about people at all.
“Rush Limbaugh is important to you only because you fear he will influence others.”
It’s not a fear; I know he is influential to others. He runs the most listened to radio show in America. That has an influence. Recognizing that is not the same as arguing that people can’t think for themselves.
“Especially when we don’t agree they have “done something wrong”.”
So you don’t think it’s wrong to say that straights are “under assault” by gays? That statement is ridiculous, Tina, and it causes real harm.
Anyway, my original point wasn’t even that it was morally wrong (though it is). My point is that it is an illogical, emotionally driven argument, meant to appeal to fear. Do you disagree? If so, why?
“I do think its important to offer a different perspective to our readers when you take it upon yourself to draw an unflattering caricature of someone who, in my opinion, is worthy of a fine painting.”
Really, Tina, this is too much. Rush presents himself as a caricature. That is his own doing.
“In fact as long as we’re quoting Rush let’s include another:
…We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims. We don’t see people we want to exploit…”
That’s a nice statement. It’s also directly contradicted by the statements I highlighted above:
“We’re fast approaching a world where it ain’t cool to be straight.”
“Heteros–you say heterosexuality may be 95, 98 percent of the population — they’re under assault by the 2-5 percent that are homosexual.”
Rush claiming that he doesn’t see groups or victims one day is meaningless if he goes on to claim the next day that straights are “under assault” by gays. It’s amazing to me that you don’t see how this language is divisive and demeaning, not to mention emotionally driven. And again, this is how Rush routinely talks about minority groups. I’ve shown you before his comments about blacks, women, the poor…too many times to count. You always respond by implying that I just don’t know the guy that well, but I listen to him a lot more than you think. And the context does NOT make any of these statements any better.
“Chris if you have objections to Rush I suggest you take them up with him; its the more honorable approach when venting all that pent up emotion.”
I’m not venting emotion. I’m making a logical refutation of Jack’s argument. Jack claimed that the difference between the Republicans and Democrats was that one party is made up of logical thinkers and the other is made up of emotional thinkers. By showing that the most listened to Republican in America relies so much on emotional appeals, I’m showing that this is not true.
That’s the only reason why I’m taking this up here, and not directly with Rush Limbaugh himself. I’ve tried calling before and never gotten through. I also don’t like the way he typically treats callers who disagree with him.
Chris: “Pretty sure I already acknowledged in my first comment that lots of liberals make emotional arguments, too, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove”
Well now, we need to get into the subject of rational fear, which is actually adult concern, as opposed to irrational fear.
Assertions to make the public believe that Republicans would starve children, go back to the days of Jim Crow and lynchings, or take grandmas Medicare away (throw grandma off a cliff) are appeals designed to invoke irrational fears.
A retort in the context of a discussion about the affects of allowing gays to openly serve in the military, is just that, a retort. It is understood as comic relief within the context of serious discussion. Whether one agrees or disagrees about gays serving openly in the military the comic relief serves a purpose…to remember it is silly (can be unhealthy) to allow our concerns, no matter how important, to cause undue distress and worry. To help us to remember that when there is nothing immediately that can be done about a situation a bit of perspective is in order.
The entire liberal agenda, on the other hand, is designed to tear apart/transforms our major institutions: healthcare, marriage, military, education, entertainment, religion,business, banking, and government. Discussing the ways that this is happening invokes rational concern for those of us who value the traditional and prefer that change, when it occurs, lead to a positive, improved result. Some of this discussion might include humor, cynicism, and poking fun at things we find bizarre, absurd, silly, unthinking, stupid, destructive, or downright evil. Invoking rational fear (concern) is healthy. Inspiring rational discussion is healthy.
“My only point is that it’s not accurate to say that one party is made up of logical thinkers and the other are emotional thinkers. I wouldn’t support that statement even if the tables were turned. It’s just not true.”
I agree in general terms that individuals are complex beings and of course have both abilities. I do not agree that liberals primarily use reason and logic to either solve problems or influence people.
As I have illustrated above the approach Rush takes is different than is the general leftist activists or comedians. Playing on fears and demonizing opponents is a game the left put in motion by design. They have a manual and they organize in groups with causes to carry out the plan put forth in the manual to eliminate and marginalize their opponents to gain power. Thus we find the gay lobby, the feminists lobby, the minority lobby, ACORN (now dispersed and formed into separately named organizations in various cities), the 99%, etc.
As Rush has pointed out on various occasions the left is very good at organizing.
The left is also very good at stirring up emotions and irrational fears.
Over the past seventy or more years the left has inserted it’s ideas into all of the traditional institutions in America, ostensibly to improve conditions and “help” the underprivileged. I can’t think of a single one that hasn’t been damaged badly in the process or damaged our overall economy and the way we interact with one another.
“Of course I hold people responsible for their expressed opinions.
That isn’t what I wrote. I wrote: “…conservatives don’t hold others responsible for their thoughts, opinions and experiences. That means I don’t hold you responsible for my experience. if I’m mad or hurt by something you say I am responsible for that emotion. Liberals blame others and attempt, irrationally, to change other people so they can be comfortable. (Thus they are (generally) unable to laugh at themselves)
“Recognizing that is not the same as arguing that people can’t think for themselves.”
But your expressed description of what Rush does and what he intends is inaccurate, possibly just projection, and you did say, “Rush has the most popular radio show, and he’s gotten there mostly due to appeals to emotion. (not true) His job is to make members of majority groups feel afraid that minority groups are going to gain power over them, (also not true) unless they vote conservative Republicans into office.”
Why would you say this if you didn’t believe his audience is unthinking and easily swayed by emotion?
One could argue that liberals use appeals to emotion because they do believe people are incapable of thinking and understanding the full ramifications of proposed solutions or programs.
I think you would have a hard time believing that Rush is a kind, thoughtful, caring, and decent human being based on what you have said. That in itself is irrational, unless you have listened more to what is said about him than to what the man actually thinks.
“So you don’t think it’s wrong to say that straights are “under assault” by gays? That statement is ridiculous, Tina, and it causes real harm.”
I don’t think it’s irrational and I don’t think saying it causes any real harm. Certainly not as much harm as has been caused by pitting groups against each other and many other things with unintended consequences that the left has pushed on our society and institutions.
“My point is that it is an illogical, emotionally driven argument, meant to appeal to fear. Do you disagree? If so, why?”
In the first place it isn’t an argument it is an opinion. In the second place the opinion invokes further thought and discussion. I mean any person can be moved to anger, fear, hatred, laughter, or any other emotion to that opinion but those are personal responses and are the property of the person. Rush doesn’t make people feel those things. Adults set their emotions aside in order to discuss matters seriously and thoughtfully. It is impossible to grow unless we CAN set aside emotional responses in discussion. The things Rush and his callers say AFTER he makes those types of statements is where the meat of the program lies.
Liberals have attempted to duplicate what Rush does on radio and they always fail because their opinion, that he is just a thoughtless, insensitive blowhard is absolutely wrong.
“That’s a nice statement. It’s also directly contradicted by the statements I highlighted above:
“We’re fast approaching a world where it ain’t cool to be straight.”
“Heteros–you say heterosexuality may be 95, 98 percent of the population — they’re under assault by the 2-5 percent that are homosexual.”
I can see why you think so. You cannot see why I don’t think so.
“this is how Rush routinely talks about minority groups”
This is how Rush sometimes characterizes groups, constructed by the themselves and by left political activists! These groups have spent several decades appeal to emotion to create division, who continuously attack and demean the opposition, who use emotion and fear to create demand for change, and who are bent on making changes in our institutions without regard to unintended consequences. Your objection is just an echo of the left strategy. You have no real interest in what would make Rush say something like that…only in the “great harm” you think a mean sounding sentence does.
My God what have we done to our children that they are so much at the effect of their emotions…that emotions now have the power to destroy people because they see themselves only as helpless victims?
“…but I listen to him a lot more than you think.”
But you don’t listen with the intent to understand. You don’t listen with a willingness to turn off the filter made up of prejudices and belief systems that you have developed. You listen defensively and emotionally. You must or you wouldn’t believe that Rush just hates the poor, gays, and women.
“By showing that the most listened to Republican in America relies so much on emotional appeals, I’m showing that this is not true”
You made the case for your opinion. I don’t think you proved Jack was wrong. In fact I think through our discussion here you demonstrated beautifully that emotion is the main driver in the progressive/liberal political and social world.
And it is and has been very destructive to America.
Tina: “Well now, we need to get into the subject of rational fear, which is actually adult concern, as opposed to irrational fear.
Assertions to make the public believe that Republicans would starve children, go back to the days of Jim Crow and lynchings, or take grandmas Medicare away (throw grandma off a cliff) are appeals designed to invoke irrational fears.”
Certainly. It is important to understand the difference between rational and irrational fears.
And believing that we are headed toward a world where “it’s no longer cool to be straight,” or that straight people are “under assault” by gay people, is an irrational fear. Obviously. (Do I need to explain this?)
“A retort in the context of a discussion about the affects of allowing gays to openly serve in the military, is just that, a retort. It is understood as comic relief within the context of serious discussion.”
I’m not sure why you’re making the assumption that Rush’s comments had anything to do with gays serving openly in the military (though he’s said some pretty nasty emotional stuff about that, too). The comments I cited were in response to NFL player Michael Sam coming out as gay.
Rush’s response was hardly accepting. Here is some context:
http://dailyrushbo.com/genital-politics-rush-were-fast-approaching-a-world-where-it-aint-cool-to-be-straight/
The exchange featured is not an intellectual, logical discussion. It is pure emotional ignorance:
“CALLER: Because it’s a private behavior. Has nothing to do with his person. His homosexuality has nothing to do with him driving the car to and from work, or paying his taxes, or going to the grocery store and buying groceries. I don’t go to the store and say, “Hey, hi, everybody, I’m a heterosexual.”
RUSH: No, but the day may come where you’ll have to.
CALLER: Yeah, if the liberals have their way, yeah, sure. And that’s why I’m saying –
RUSH: I mean, we’re fast approaching a world where it ain’t cool to be straight.”
The caller’s comparison makes no sense. No one “goes to the store” and announces their sexuality. However, they do sometimes go with their spouses or partners–and the degree of acceptance of a man and a woman holding hands or showing natural, appropriate affection out in public is about 10,000 times more than the acceptance of gay couples doing the same exact thing.
Michael Sams announced his sexuality publicly because football has traditionally been even less accepting of gays than the general public. He came out to inspire other gay players, and perhaps gay people in general, to be more comfortable with themselves and to not hide their relationships.
The only reason this has to happen is that gays have been historically NOT accepted by the public. Straight people don’t announce their sexual orientations because they don’t have to. Most people (unless they have more stereotypical traits) are naturally assumed to be straight. We face no societal repercussions from being straight. We do not have to come out to our parents and worry about their reactions to finding out we are straight.
That is privilege, Tina. That doesn’t make us any better or worse than anyone else. It’s not our fault that society is structured in a way that treats us better than others. But it does mean that calling into a radio show and expressing absolute bewilderment over why a minority would feel the need to make a thing out of their minority status, makes one look pretty ignorant. Michael Sams is not the one making a thing of being gay. Society made it a thing. He’s trying to reduce the importance of sexual orientation, not increase it.
“(Thus they are (generally) unable to laugh at themselves)”
See Comment #10.
“Why would you say this if you didn’t believe his audience is unthinking and easily swayed by emotion?”
To be honest, I don’t hold a very high opinion of Rush’s audience, and I do think they are easily swayed by emotion. I don’t believe Rush’s audience represents all conservatives.
“I think you would have a hard time believing that Rush is a kind, thoughtful, caring, and decent human being based on what you have said.”
I have a hard time believing that Rush is a kind, thoughtful, caring and decent human being based on what HE has said. He is consistently crass, insulting, and demeaning toward minorities, women and gays. It’s bizarre to me that anyone would even want to deny that. It’s his whole schtick!
“That in itself is irrational,”
No. I have made rational arguments for my judgment of Rush. I have provided more than enough evidence that my characterization of him is accurate. It is you who seems to be basing your opinion of him on emotion.
“I don’t think it’s irrational”
You really don’t think it’s irrational to say that straights are under assault by gays? WTF? How is that a rational statement? Please explain to me exactly how straights are under assault by gays.
“and I don’t think saying it causes any real harm.”
Really? Have you looked at what’s going on in Russia these days? How about Uganda?
“Certainly not as much harm as has been caused by pitting groups against each other”
How in the world does claiming that gays are assaulting straights NOT pit groups against each other? You are employing a huge, glaring double standard, which is illogical and emotional.
“I can see why you think so. You cannot see why I don’t think so.”
No, I cannot see why you don’t think so, because your opinion doesn’t make any sense. It does not make sense to say one day that you do not see human beings in terms of group identification, and then say the next day that straights are under assault by gays. That. Is. Not. Logical.
It is hypocritical of you to accuse others of not being logical enough, when you so consistently fail at making basic logical arguments.
“But you don’t listen with the intent to understand.”
This is circular logic. No matter what Rush says, you will just say that I don’t get it because I don’t have the “intent to understand.” There is literally nothing he could say that would make you change your mind about him. Even when he falsely accused the president and the military of “invading Uganda” to “target Christians” on national radio–essentially defending a vicious terrorist and child rapist group in the process–you said that this was just a simple mistake! As if accusing the president of helping Muslims “wipe out Christians” (Rush’s own words) simply because one is too lazy to use Google before making accusations on the air is just like forgetting one’s house keys.
This is not logical, Tina. You have no standing to insult the logical capacities of others.
“You don’t listen with a willingness to turn off the filter made up of prejudices and belief systems that you have developed.”
Rush claims that gays are assaulting straights and I’M the prejudiced one. Typical.
Chris: “believing that we are headed toward a world where “it’s no longer cool to be straight,” or that straight people are “under assault” by gay people, is an irrational fear.”
Is it? Or is it one way to express a very rational concern about the ongoing fundamental transformation of our culture?
“The exchange featured is not an intellectual, logical discussion. It is pure emotional ignorance”
I can see that from your perspective it is. This is a very touchy subject for you, Chris.
I found it quite logical. But I also realize you have grown up in a world where sex and orientation actually define people. In the world I grew up in people were defined by their accomplishments and abilities and personal business was just that, very personal. So to me it is rational to discuss the lengths to which the “orientation community” will go to put this subject on the front page and in our faces every hour of the day. It is also quite an affront that our children must now have this at the forefront of their learning experience in every single subject and now, even when they go to the bathroom.
So maybe whether a discussion is emotional or rational depends on one’s perspective. People have the capacity to think logically and to think creatively. We also have emotions. Of course both sides experience and use all of it. But the way the two parties operate in general terms is still pretty clear to me. Everything the left does involves a cause and is emotion driven. The right’s policies are based on reason and logic. The left asks what they can do for some victimized or helpless group. The right asks what would be good for the country generally. The left thinks government should address personal problems. The right thinks individuals should handle their own problems.
Rush didn’t assert that gays were assaulting straights, by the way. His point was that being a heterosexual male in today’s society has become the least recognized role model. The push for rights for all kinds of special groups have left boys, and their futures, out of the loop in terms of of importance. It’s a major concern for those of us who think strong healthy well educated men are important to society.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and being honest Chris. I don’t see much point in going further with this.
This article to me reflects the major difference of today’s belief the wellbeing of others is the responsibility of others while in the past during my younger years we were responsible for our own life-style, with family and church/neighbors there to help when/if needed.
As I’ve shared before a friend who had a baby in the 1970s at the county hospital when she couldn’t afford to pay the bill received a bill for her care in the 1980s with the threat of a lean being placed on her home if she didn’t pay in full.
The difference of the mindset today, that individuals don’t have to be responsible for their debts is shocking to me. With student loans forgiven, health care for all paid for by others, food stamps and other assistance now available to the middle class and millionaire entertainers and US presidents letting taxpayers support their family members it is no surprise the very rich are getting richer and the poor even poorer.
Problems and failures no longer belong to the individual/s they’ve become the responsibility of others and society in whole. And it’s the most powerful leader in our country and superstars who are setting the example for young people. What a terrible example for them to look up to.
Obama’s Celebrity Pal Has A Half-Brother On Food Stamps, Even Though She’s Worth $350 Million:
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/115254-obamas-celebrity-pal-half-brother-food-stamps-even-though-shes-worth-53-million/
Tina: “Is it? Or is it one way to express a very rational concern about the ongoing fundamental transformation of our culture?”
No, it’s not rational.
“I found it quite logical. But I also realize you have grown up in a world where sex and orientation actually define people. In the world I grew up in people were defined by their accomplishments and abilities and personal business was just that, very personal.”
I’m sorry, this is just not true.
The world you grew up in was one where people faced severe societal, and in many cases legal, consequences for being openly gay. That is a fact.
“Personal business” has never been defined in the same way for gay and straight couples. Romantic movies featuring opposite-sex couples have been mainstream for as long as movies have existed. Straight married couples put wedding announcements in the paper and were not refused service for their orientation. Straight married couples had no fear of introducing their spouses as their spouses. All of those natural parts of being in a relationship or being attracted to a member of the opposite sex are privileges that we have always enjoyed, but gays have been denied. Yet when gay people try to do the same things, they’re told that they need to keep their “personal business” private.
“So to me it is rational to discuss the lengths to which the “orientation community” will go to put this subject on the front page and in our faces every hour of the day.”
Tina, the only reason that things like gay marriage, celebrities coming out as gay, etc. make the “front page” is because homosexuality still isn’t seen as normal. If you don’t want to see these stories on the front page, you should be advocating for a society where homosexuality and heterosexuality are treated as equal. Gays are fighting for their rights. They did not make their sexuality a political issue; society did, by denying them the basic rights and respect that straights have always enjoyed. If you don’t want this to be a political issue, blame the people fighting to keep homosexuality an inferior social status.
“It is also quite an affront that our children must now have this at the forefront of their learning experience in every single subject”
That’s just not happening. This is another irrational fear.
“Everything the left does involves a cause and is emotion driven. The right’s policies are based on reason and logic. The left asks what they can do for some victimized or helpless group. The right asks what would be good for the country generally. The left thinks government should address personal problems. The right thinks individuals should handle their own problems.”
This is totally reductive.
“Rush didn’t assert that gays were assaulting straights, by the way.”
Yes, that is literally what he said:
“Heteros–you say heterosexuality may be 95, 98 percent of the population — they’re under assault by the 2-5 percent that are homosexual.”
That is what that sentence means, Tina.
“His point was that being a heterosexual male in today’s society has become the least recognized role model.”
And that point is ridiculous, whiny, emotional bullshit which can easily be proven false.
Here is a short list of heterosexual males in today’s society who are definitely “recognized role models:”
President Barack Obama
Pope Francis
Over 90% of United States congressmen
Every president of the United States so far (that we know of)
A majority of Hollywood directors
A majority of New York Times bestselling authors
Now let’s look at fictional role models. These are almost more important because stories show what a society values. Here are the main characters of some of the most popular movies of the last decade:
Superman
Captain America
Thor
Iron Man
Batman
Whatever Shia LeBouf’s name is in “Transformers,” who cares
Harry Potter
Bilbo Baggins
Frodo Baggins
The dude from Avatar
Captain Jack Sparrow (OK, kinda gay, but canonically straight)
In fact, if you look at this year-by-year list of highest-grossing movies, you have to go all the way back to 1998 to find a movie that doesn’t feature a sole male lead (and in that case, it’s Titanic, in which the male and female lead share the spotlight). There are no films on the list which do not feature a heterosexual leading man or woman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films
So, please. The notion that we are somehow experiencing a dearth of heterosexual male role models is so ridiculous that it’s barely worth engaging. We still live in a society where straight males are much more likely than others to achieve positions of power, and where the stories of straight males are considered more marketable and perhaps more valuable.
Now, it’s true that there are now more positive role models for gays than at any time in the past. That is a wonderful thing to most people, and a terrible thing to conservative groups like the Family Research Council, American Family Association, and Media Research Center, who complain every time a gay person is portrayed as anything but a depraved monster onscreen. And because it’s a big change, I can see, on an emotional level, why it might threaten Rush Limbaugh. The emergence of positive black characters on prime-time TV back in the ’60s and ’70s also made certain people nervous. Some thought that blacks were “taking over.” But this was not a rational fear. It was an emotional fear of change. White people lost nothing when we gained more positive black role models. Straight people lose nothing when we gain more positive gay role models. It’s not a zero sum game.
When Rush says that we’re entering a world where it’s “no longer cool to be straight,” what he means is that we’re entering a world where it’s no longer cooler to be straight than to be gay. That’s what he’s afraid of: losing unearned privilege. Michael Sams coming out is not going to cause straight people to be kicked out of the NFL, and Rush knows that. He’s playing on irrational fears. There are still many, many, many, many more positive straight role models in society and the media than positive gay role models, as any logical thinker can see. (This is one of those issue where statistics are more valuable than anecdotes.)
So again, your statement that “being a heterosexual male in today’s society has become the least recognized role model” is not just false; it’s comically absurd.
“Obama’s Celebrity Pal Has A Half-Brother On Food Stamps, Even Though She’s Worth $350 Million:”
This is a good example of an emotional argument.
Bonus points for the use of the emotionally charged, inaccurate terms “baby mama” and “illegitimate child.”
Chris: “I’m sorry, this is just not true.
The world you grew up in was one where people faced severe societal, and in many cases legal, consequences for being openly gay. That is a fact.”
That is ANOTHER fact but it doesn’t discount the fact that I did grow up in a world where people were defined by their accomplishments and abilities.
I was there when gays started saying, “Homosexuality is WHO I AM”.
Once they started defining their sexual “preference” as their identity the legal battles claiming special rights also began.
Sex is an activity not an identity. Relationship is a choice and the responsibility for our choices lie with us as individuals.
The American people opened up and tolerated a lot of change to accommodate the concerns of the gay community. But as liberals always do, they take things to an extreme that then begins to stomp on the toes of others. I don’t think it’s too much to ask that they assume responsibility for their own problems and choices. Propaganda in the schools that teaches morality crosses the line.
“They did not make their sexuality a political issue”
The he77 they didn’t!
“Romantic movies featuring opposite-sex couples have been mainstream for as long as movies have existed.”
Very few movies are made with little people featured as main characters. Few movies are made with handicapped people featured as the main character. Few movies (are there any) featuring Jehovas Witnesses as the main characters exist.That’s because they represent a small segments of the citizenry not because they are lesser as people. Movies have been made to appeal to broad audiences. It isn’t a sinister plot.
I have seen several movies featuring gay characters that were not offensive and were very enjoyable. One of the best was “As Good as It Gets”. On the other hand, if there is a day when the many choices offered on Direct TV don’t include homosexuality and graphic sex it is rare. Mainstreaming is the intent and you are aware that it is.
“All of those natural parts of being in a relationship or being attracted to a member of the opposite sex are privileges that we have always enjoyed”
The word privilege has been used a lot lately to imply something purposely denied.
The truth is that people were just pursuing what was natural, traditional or available to them. If for some reason they couldn’t afford something, and many couldn’t, they made other arrangements or did without. Privilege is often a matter of what one can afford. (Which is why income redistribution is one of the lefts main causes; heaven forbid someone should have something that another can’t have.)
When you are part of a minority group it will most likely be necessary to create traditions and cultivate contacts.
“…blame the people fighting to keep homosexuality an inferior social status.”
Nobody is fighting to “keep homosexuality an inferior social status”.
Gay people have the same rights as other human beings and deserve the same respect..because they are human beings…their sexual choices, preferences and status are irrelevant and nobodies business but their own.
People are simply defending established institutions, the established definitions of words, and the teaching of values being left to parents.
“That’s just not happening. This is another irrational fear.”
Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation – Grade Ten
Sexual Orientation Education necessary?
New York State Common Core Website Sends kids To Sex Quiz Website:
That page has apparently been taken down due to the backlash from parents but for those who saw it, it was clearly an indication of the intent of the district.
“The notion that we are somehow experiencing a dearth of heterosexual male role models is so ridiculous”
What we have seen in the last few decades is an explosion of (white) heterosexual males being characterized in movies and commercials as ignorant and demonized as gun toting backwoods idiots, corrupt chauvinist pigs, self-centered money grubbing wall street “wolves”, incompetent parents…almost like children that need to be managed by their much smarter spouses.
Males were first shoved aside as irrelevant by the feminist movement; now the gay community is taking its turn. The business, entertainment and sports worlds are being impacted. Some of it is good. some of it is not good.
Concerned Women for America:
You have all the right reasons for your support of gay activism. The positives for gays are good.
You do not consider, will not consider seriously, the possible unintended consequences that their methods and tactics have for others.
“your statement that “being a heterosexual male in today’s society has become the least recognized role model”
“Least recognized” may not have been the best way to put it. It doesn’t express what I meant or the concern that Rush has been talking about.
It is true that heterosexual boys are being shoved aside as gays and women activists push their issues into schools, business, sports and entertainment. This began a few decades ago and adult males are now showing the disastrous result in their lives.
Why Boys Are Falling behind in Schools – NYT written in condescending language to disparage those concerned with the way feminist cultural changes have affected boys. “The writer teaches feminist ethics at St. Joseph’s University.”
But the fact is boys are falling behind, they’re being drugged and suppressed. Their natural tendencies are being discouraged rather than positively shaped and nurtured.
Boys Are at the Back of the Class – NPR:
Your focus always is narrow Chris. There is a whole world to look at and consider.
Tina: “I was there when gays started saying, “Homosexuality is WHO I AM”.”
And they said this in response to people who told them they needed to change or hide their sexuality, or face rejection from society. Identity politics don’t spring up out of nowhere, Tina. They grow out of a response to oppression.
“Once they started defining their sexual “preference” as their identity the legal battles claiming special rights also began.”
What “special rights” would those be?
“The he77 they didn’t!”
Again, they didn’t *make* their sexuality a political issue. It already *was* a political issue. Do you also believe that black civil rights leaders are responsible for making race a political issue in the 50s and 60s? Do you believe suffragettes made gender a political issue? Those issues were already highly politically charged, for the sole reason that these groups were treated as socially inferior. Again, just because these issues weren’t discussed as much in your childhood (at least where you could see them) doesn’t mean they didn’t have a huge impact on people’s lives. Your nostalgia is emotion-based, Tina.
“Very few movies are made with little people featured as main characters. Few movies are made with handicapped people featured as the main character. Few movies (are there any) featuring Jehovas Witnesses as the main characters exist.That’s because they represent a small segments of the citizenry not because they are lesser as people. Movies have been made to appeal to broad audiences. It isn’t a sinister plot.”
The difference is that when movies and shows with little people, handicapped people and Jehova’s Witnesses are made, no one clutches their pearls and acts like any of those groups are taking over society. No one is afraid that actors like Peter Dinklage are going to make actors like Chris Hemsworth irrelevant. Yet groups like the ACA and people like Rush point to a few positive gay role models in today’s media as evidence that it’s becoming “no longer cool to be straight.” As if the relatively minor positive representation that gays have in the media is evidence of a gay takeover.
“I have seen several movies featuring gay characters that were not offensive and were very enjoyable. One of the best was “As Good as It Gets”. On the other hand, if there is a day when the many choices offered on Direct TV don’t include homosexuality and graphic sex it is rare.”
Most of that graphic sex is still between opposite-sex couples. There are a lot of cable shows that deal with homosexuality on TV today, but why is that a bad thing? How does that prove Rush’s point that straights are “under assault” by gays?
“Mainstreaming is the intent and you are aware that it is.”
Yes, but since there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality, I don’t see the problem.
“The word privilege has been used a lot lately to imply something purposely denied.
The truth is that people were just pursuing what was natural, traditional or available to them. If for some reason they couldn’t afford something, and many couldn’t, they made other arrangements or did without. Privilege is often a matter of what one can afford.”
This is a very whitewashed version of history, and it basically proves my point. You would not see the past through such rose-colored glasses if you had been one of the people who did not enjoy the very privileges I’ve pointed out.
“Nobody is fighting to “keep homosexuality an inferior social status”.”
“Nobody?” Really? That’s ridiculous. Even putting aside all of the groups such as the AFA who explicitly argue that homosexuality is inferior and should not be tolerated, there is no logical reason for opposition to same-sex marriage other than believing homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality. Opponents have tried and failed to dress their opposition in logic. They say it’s about definitions, but that’s illogical since the definition of marriage has changed many times throughout history. They say it’s about procreation, but that’s illogical because way too many straight married couples can’t procreate and there is nothing in the marriage contract requiring them to do so. None of the arguments against gay marriage are logical, in the most literal sense; the conclusions simply do not follow from the premises. That leads one to believe that the opposition comes from an emotional place, and the attempts at logical arguments are constructed after the fact, as a way to justify the premise.
“Gay people have the same rights as other human beings and deserve the same respect..because they are human beings…their sexual choices, preferences and status are irrelevant and nobodies business but their own.”
That sounds nice, but you haven’t put your money where your mouth is. You are still in favor of denying marriage rights to same-sex couples even though you have never provided a compelling reason for this arbitrary discrimination.
“People are simply defending established institutions, the established definitions of words, and the teaching of values being left to parents.”
Tina, that’s what every single group in history who have denied minorities’ rights believed they were doing. That’s what opponents of interracial marriage believed they were doing. It’s what supporters of slavery believed they were doing. It’s what opponents of women’s suffrage believed they were doing.
Appealing to tradition is a logical fallacy, Tina.
Some of the links you posted about sex ed are troubling, but they still don’t prove your exaggerated claim that sexuality is now “at the forefront of their learning experience in every single subject.”
“What we have seen in the last few decades is an explosion of (white) heterosexual males being characterized in movies and commercials as ignorant and demonized as gun toting backwoods idiots, corrupt chauvinist pigs, self-centered money grubbing wall street “wolves”, incompetent parents…almost like children that need to be managed by their much smarter spouses.”
Which would be a problem, if those were the only straight male role models available.
As I’ve shown, that’s obviously not the case. The heroes of big-budget movies are still overwhelmingly white, straight, and male.
Even if you look at shows which do have positive gay characters and bigoted white straight male characters, most of those still have positive white straight male characters as well. “Glee” probably has more LGBT characters than any other big network show, yet it still started out with two white straight male leads, and continues to have many white straight males in the cast whom the audience is supposed to identify with. In fact, if I remember correctly, the show’s most homophobic white male character turned out to be closeted himself. “Orange is the New Black” has its share of gay characters and bigoted white straight males, but it also features white straight males who are more open-minded in prominent roles (being that it’s set in a women’s prison, it would make sense if it didn’t have any white straight males at all, yet it still does).
White straight males in Hollywood, provided they have talent, have nearly unlimited options. They can play many different kinds of roles. They are far more likely to be the lead in a television show or movie than a woman or a minority. They get more dialogue. Men are even more likely to be extras in crowd scenes than women:
https://culturallydisoriented.wordpress.com/tag/dark-knight-rises/
So what exactly is the problem? That SOME straight men are portrayed as being bigots? Why is that bad? Straight male bigots do exist, don’t they?
It would be a problem if straight men were portrayed as EXCLUSIVELY bigots, the way that gay men used to be portrayed as exclusively crazy or evil, and later sassy and effeminate. Or the way that black men used to be portrayed as exclusively either simple and docile or angry and filled with rage. But straight white men don’t face anywhere near that kind of typecasting, ESPECIALLY in relation to just about every other group in Hollywood, which is still rather limited and stereotypical in its portrayals of race, gender and sexuality.
I’ll grant you one thing: straight men, especially fathers on sitcoms and bro comedies, are often written as being incompetent at household duties. But this is not a result of women or minorities being treated better. It’s also not a result of feminism. The stereotype of men being terrible at parenting and household duties goes back to the patriarchal notion of separate spheres for men and women. These comedies are not written by feminists, and they usually do not promote feminist ideals. It’s silly to blame this on feminists. There’s also the flipside of this stereotype: the women in these comedies usually has to clean up the messes of the man, and is often a lot more attractive than him too. What does this tell women? That it’s their duty to settle for this?
Other than that, however, straight (and white) men have many more options in Hollywood than basically anyone else. The fact that some are portrayed as backwards bigots does not show that straight men are facing anywhere near the same amount of discrimination or stereotyping that basically everyone else has faced throughout history and continues to face today.
“Males were first shoved aside as irrelevant by the feminist movement; now the gay community is taking its turn. The business, entertainment and sports worlds are being impacted.”
Pretty much every one of those worlds is still greatly dominated by straight men, so you’re disproving your own point.
“Concerned Women for America:”
Why would you cite this group to make your point, Tina? Not only does the CWA oppose nearly all rights for homosexuals, going so far as to claim that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles, and opposing any gay people in Bush’s administration, they also attempted to get “Harry Potter” books removed from schools, claiming that the books promote witchcraft and satanism. They’re a bunch of loonies.
““Least recognized” may not have been the best way to put it. It doesn’t express what I meant or the concern that Rush has been talking about.”
So you tried to rephrase Rush’s inflammatory and untrue statements in order to make them sound more logical, and you couldn’t do it? Is that what you’re telling me?
Sorry Chris but the idea that the very wealthy gay activist lobby, and let’s be clear that is the power structure behind the movement, is or has been victimized is seriously ridiculous.
You and I have a fundamental difference that makes discussion of this issue tiresome. I think gay people should be treated with the same respect that any law abiding American expects. I don’t think the cause is the same as the black civil rights cause. Blacks were discriminated against because they were thought to be less than human. We used “color of skin” but in actuality it was that they were not treated as human beings and they had no recourse.
We’ve been over this issue enough. You present the same leftist world view that is quite familiar to all of us. We know what the gay lobby wants and how it sees itself.
We all know you hate Rush and love to slam him at every opportunity. It is useless to attempt to create a dialogue with you about the meat of any issue he discusses when your aim is only to discredit and slime. You are a typical progressive unable to see that there is life beyond the special interest groups you see as helpless victims. It’s like group narcissism. Hello…get over yourselves.
Let’s say you won…forever, kay?
I’m done.
Tina: “Sorry Chris but the idea that the very wealthy gay activist lobby, and let’s be clear that is the power structure behind the movement, is or has been victimized is seriously ridiculous.”
In reality, LGBT people are more likely to be poor than the general population:
miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2009/03/study-lesbian-gay-bisexual-americans-more-likely-to-be-poor-than-heterosexuals.html
To be clear I was speaking of moneyed gay activists not the population at large. /they are the ones bringing the lawsuits after the people have voted and challenging the definition of words.
So what was your point? That the people bringing the lawsuits aren’t victimized because they are wealthy? First, that doesn’t square at all with your usual beliefs regarding how the wealthy are treated in this country. Second, it is still possible for wealthy people to be discriminated against, and not being able to marry the person they love because of an unconstitutional gender requirement is discrimination. Third, what does it matter if the people filing the lawsuits aren’t victimized themselves? The people they are trying to help still can be, and they are trying to help all gay Americans.
So your argument is illogical in at least three different ways. Again, I ask that you stop lecturing liberals on how illogical we allegedly are, at least until you find yourself more able to make logical arguments yourself.
Oh geez Chris…learn to think outside that PC box.
Learn to think.