The White House decided to celebrate Gay Pride Month and the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell by inviting a large group of gay activists to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It made the affair into a formal reception, complete with the Marine Corps band providing the musical interludes (looking rather bilious, I might add). The gathering demonstrated its civility and inclusiveness by flipping off the official portrait of Ronald Reagan.
Each of the actvists, first individually then collectively gathered in front of the portrait of one of America’s most popular presidents to have their pictures taken insulting his memory. I’m not sure whether this proves their complete disregard for dignity and decorum or their complete ignorance of Reagan’s attitude toward gays. They did a smaller repeat performance in front of the portrait of George W. Bush, but not in front of the portrait of Bill Clinton, the architect of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
Aside from the unfortunate Marine Corps band, the guests were also entertained by readings from poet CA Conrad, author of such great works as Deviant Propulsion. Photographer Zoe Strauss was having so much fun that she posted her finger gestures on her Facebook page, eliciting fan responses ranging from “f—k Reagan” to “you forgot to add ‘with a chainsaw’.” It’s not quite clear what her protest had to do with Reagan’s view on gays, since her comments related to the Iran-Contra scandal and the invasion of Grenada.
She did, however, quote Reagan from 1980 on her Facebook site. Accurately, I might add. “My criticism is that the gay movement isn’t just asking for civil rights; it’s asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I.” That is still the opinion of the majority of Americans. But tolerance isn’t enough for the gay activists. Reagan wasn’t denying any gay rights, he was simply protesting being expected to encourage a particular lifestyle (and by inference, the diminution of the lifestyle of most Americans).
As governor of California, Reagan vetoed several anti-gay bills presented to him by a largely Democratic legislature. He personally had many gay friends. As President, he increased funding for HIV/AIDS research. But none of that matters to Strauss. Nor was it enough for Matthew Hart, a fellow attendee who also posted on his Facebook page: “Yeah, f—k Reagan. Ronald Reagan has blood on his hands. The man was in the White House as AIDS exploded, and he was happy to see plenty of gay men and queer people die. He was a murderous fool, and I have no problem saying so. Don’t invite me back, I don’t care.” I think his wish will probably be fulfilled.
There were voices of reason at the event, though largely ignored. Mark Segal, publisher of the Philadelphia Gay News posed doing a [sarcastic?] thumbs-up in front of W’s portrait, but considered that more than sufficiently snarky. Speaking of his attendance at the event, Segal said: “I have friends who work in that building. I’m not going to do something that could embarrass them or that could somehow damage a campaign that is so important. ‘Be on your best behavior’ my staff told me. I think they know me too well.” But his restraint was not contagious in the least.
Segal even made a couple of catty remarks about the choice of music, somewhat sympathizing with the poor Marine Corps band. “We come up to the main foyer, and what do they play? Barbra Streisand The Way We Were. And I thought, “are they going to play nothing but Barbra, Bette and Lady Gaga?” I was waiting for Over the Rainbow. I mean, this is the Marine Corps band!” That’s the kind of humor I’m used to from my gay friends in San Francisco. Hilarious, sardonic, but not bitter and angry.
These angry activists have forgotten (or don’t care) that there are such things as Reagan Democrats and Log Cabin Republicans. If they wanted to disrespect the memory and portrait of a past president, they would have been better off waving the middle finger in front of the most notorious presidential bigot in the Twentieth Century, progressive Woodrow Wilson. At least Segal recognized that his kind of hatred is both counterproductive and not a help in reelecting gay-pandering Barack Obama.
And doing their duty, the Marine Corps band played on. That allowed Segal to dance with his male partner, in the presidential palace. I don’t have a problem with that. I’m not thrilled with it, but I don’t have a problem with it. Maybe I’m just a little more tolerant than those finger-wagging activists.
Whether out of political expediency or genuine belief, the White House did issue a press release after word of these hi-jinx got out to the public (though not through the mainstream press). “While the White House does not control the conduct of guests at receptions, we certainly expect that all attendees conduct themselves in a respectful manner. Most all do. These individuals clearly did not. Behavior like this doesn’t belong anywhere, least of all in the White House.”
Which at least partially explains why I will never be invited to the Obama White House.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Gay Activists Show How To Woo Non-Gays
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Lawhawk
While I can speak academically about the fact that I believe that gays are they way they are due to environmental and or heridity that they can't cantrol and therefore they should not be penalized in society for what they are. I can understand this to be correct.
I know that it is not quite right to claim they are normal. Homosexuality is a defect in that being driven to mate is a necessary part of the human condition. While I believe a person would be better off if they were heterosexual this defect is not one that should in anyway diminish their place in society.
The problem is that watching two men kiss makes me nautious. Even though I know that there should be nothing wrong with them doing it and that it really does not affect me if they do it.
Still the two films I have seen where they showed it made me recoil and I had to close my eyes. I con't even no why it is something that comes from the gut. All I can think is that if homosexual acts do not create this biological primal revulsion in a person then they would not in a strict sense by heterosexual.
In the end this is the problem. Bays probably are upset by my reaction. Reading this they might get angry and think there is something wriong with me. They might try to blame me, the way I was raised, my religious beliefs or anything else in an attempt to deal with my reaction.
If it is because my Catholic religion made me hateful, or western society poisoned my mind then there is a way to correct this right. I mean after all if I were not Catholic, if I were an atheist. If society from age five on read me books about Heather's two mommies then this reaction would not occur.
Problem is this is not the case. These people are bitter because they cannot deal with the way heterosexuality make people. This initial repulsion I guess is hurtful. I think we can train ourselves to mask this and not react when we see tow men kissing but this is a poker face. And even the best poker players have their tells.
What to do about all of this I don't know. What I do think is that telling gay people they should not acknowledge the defect. Not understand that yes mating is a desired activity and their desire not to is not normal.
The politically correct elitists have decided that acknowledging abnormality is somehow synonamous with mocking and bellittling someone. Thus we must say mentally challenged and not mentally handicapped. Never mind that in the end the mentally handicapped person could probably learn more and prepare themselves better mentally if they acknowledge the learning disability and deal with it. Likewise the politically correct want to make the obvious abnormality of homosecuality a bad thing to acknowledge. The irony is that this attitude masks an acknowledgement that there is an abnormality otherwise why should we make effort to "ignore" it.
In the end it is the politically correct mentality that makes this people act with such venom and hatred. It is a distintive trait amoung collectivists who want to control the thoughts, speech and actions of others. Environmentalists, anti-capiltalist communists and radical feminist groups act in the same manner.
I don't know what to do about this however I cannot allow these people's intolerance for objective thought or disagreement to control what I think.
Reagan made a great point. There is a difference granting someone's civil rights, and asking people to recognize and accept an alternative lifestyle. Beside that, what an incredible example of lack of class on the part of these people. Assume these were largely the donors (or facilitators) who Obama was afraid to tick off, less the campaign contributions diminish.
I'm not thrilled by homosexuality (though to paraphrase an old joke, as a straight guy, I can understand lesbianism) but I've got no problem with gay marriage or gay people. I thought it was pretty nutty when one of Bolton's foreign policy advisers was fired from the Romney campaign.
I worry about heterosexual marriage for a lot of reasons, but the fear that a change of the law will change the sex preferences of a meaningful number of guys isn't one of them.
Not that there aren't guys whose behaviour is being impacted by the law/social mores, but such guys are probably behaving one way in public and another in private.
I really don't understand such behavior. I wouldn't flip off a picture of Jimmy Carter or even Obama himself--however much I might be thinking of the pleasure I would derive from making such a gesture--because that would be crude and disrespectful. Why can't we all agree to not do that in a place of public dignity like the White House, and save it for the drivers who cut you off on the freeway?
Well, the left was proven wrong by Reagan on the USSR and the economy so . . . I guess all they can do now is grasp this straw.
Yeah, that's childish.
Individualist, I have struggled with my thoughts on homosexuality, but you explained my thoughts about it well. I am not against it, but, as it is our human nature to procreate, those that are homosexuals will not be able to participate in advancing the population themselves. And also agree that they should not be penalized by society, but know that it's not normal, as you put it, purely, for me, for procreation reasons.
Hawk
I feel we all have choices in this life. Choice to be a liberal or choice to be gay the choice is up to the individual. Choose to rob someone and there is a consequence. Choose a deviant life style and there is a consequence. Choosing a deviant life style and flaunting it in front of the world shows real insecurity with your choice.
Attempting to show the deviant choice as anything but a choice is also proof of the same.
Children generally are insecure but grow up and for the most part know who they really are.
This lot you showed the picture of have failed to develop normally so must exhibit their immaturity in their effort to convince the others in their group that they are of merit.
All very childish and seriously immature.
A very disgusting and childish display. What a great way to promote a cause and win new supporters. Not.
Indi: I'm a little less nauseated by displays of public affection among gays than you, but it would have been hard to survive most of my adult life in San Francisco if I had felt otherwise. Still, I come from a very old-fashioned family that believed public displays of affection were bad manners regardless of sexual preference. I suppose I've "evolved."
My problem with the whole thing is that much of this behavior is so "in your face." Again, in San Francisco, public displays of affection have morphed into public displays of sex. I've written about the Folsom Street Fair, among other oddities in that city. I wouldn't tolerate that kind of behavior among heterosexuals, so why should I tolerate it among homosexuals? But if I state my views on "defining deviancy down" in those cases, I'm instantly branded a homophobe. That's where my complaint lies, and this display of disrespect at the White House is just another example.
Tennessee: These are undoubtedly big Obama supporters. The gay gang is one of his "victim" bases, and he was losing them. Hence, a dramatic switch in military policy (and on the gay marriage issue). But once again, he had to push it too far. There are a few other bands in the world besides the Marine Corps band, aren't there? But Obama felt the need to rub the military's nose in his decision by not giving the Marines even a moment's breathing-time to adapt to the new rules and is making them celebrate Gay Pride Month. That may pick him up a few lost votes in the gay activist community, but I'm sure it has lost him considerably more votes among the "silent majority."
Anthony: As we've discussed on this site more than once, I don't believe that gay marriage is going to change anyone's sexual preferences one way or the other. My big worry is that institutionalization of gay marriage will lead to interference with and criminalization of religious belief. This administration has demonstrated open hostility to First Amendment religious rights, and has a very European attitude towards "human rights" over religious freedom. That is also true of the courts and legislatures of several of the states. Much of the "gay marriage" campaign is really just a thinly-disguised attack on religion.
T-Rav: The Democratic Party is very tolerant of intolerance, when it suits their group politics agenda. In some ways, I see this event, complete with the Marine Corps band, as just an extension of the left's disdain for our military. You may not be old enough to remember this, but the Clinton administration was openly rude to military people when they appeared at the White House (at least until they got called on it publicly). Making the Marine Corps band play at this radical activist event was just another example of the left's desire to humiliate our military.
Kit: The funny thing is that they frequently quote Reagan out-of-context or misstate Reagan's record to prove that Obama is more conservative than Romney and the Republicans. I'm not sure if that fools anyone.
Andrew: I think most of the the liberal/radical agenda is nothing more than delayed adulthood.
Jocelyn: One side issue is that we are still living with the effects of the academy's promotion of Ehrlich's Population Bomb. The heterosexuals who should be producing children are reproducing at a rate that is less than two children per family. The gay and leftist lobbies have used that fact to denigrate the "natural reproduction" argument.
Tehachapi Tom: I hadn't seen your comment yet. But we're in agreement. As I said to Andrew, I see liberalism/radicalism, including radical gay activism, as delayed adulthood.
Writer X: Not what I would call the best way to win friends and influence people. LOL
So, as a resident of the Grand Canyon State, what do you think of the Supreme Court decision on Arizona's immigration law?
To my mind, homosexuality is on par with alcoholism. (Yes, the Rick Perry position.) There is a lot of evidence to suggest that alcoholism is influenced by genetic and/or environmental factors, as is claimed of homosexuality, yet we as a society still don't condone alcoholism. We don't penalize it per se, but we attempt to curb the abnormal behavior.
I can think of a zillion retorts to that simple statement, but I doubt I'll get any here, so I'll just leave it at that.
tryanmax: Whether a homosexual should or should not "control" his or her sexual behavior is a theological and moral argument. If, like alcoholism, it has a genetic factor, it still remains a question as to whether it is a "sin," and unlike drunk driving, arguably has no serious effects on others. Much though I have some religious objections to the behavior, I've long since come to believe that in a secular/constitutional republic, there is no legal reason to regulate the behavior in any way substantially different from regulation of heterosexual behavior. In other words I will tolerate it, the law can protect it, but don't expect me to join the gay chorus in celebrating it.
Perhaps the most interesting thing to me about gay activists is that homosexuals in the US only represent 3%-5% of the population, yet based on the amount of attention that their agenda gets you'd think they were about 25% of the US. It's clear that based on this, there is another impetus behind the gay movement that has nothing to do with gay rights.
I honestly don't care if 3%-5% of gay Americans want to marry each other. But I understand Reagan's assertion that while he supports their rights, he objects to being forced to condone their lifestyle. Even South Park had a commentary on this, when they pointed out that "tolerance" means that one puts up with something, rather than endorses it. But the clear message of gay activism is to force society to normalize and endorse homosexual behavior, and their favored tactic to do so is by marginalizing religious belief. They've already normalized homosexuality in psychology with the manipulation of the DSM IV and V, and even normalized it public education.
Marginalization of religious belief is a cornerstone of the statist agenda, so its easy to see where the additional backing for gay activism comes from. This is why conservatives can only shake their heads once gays realize that their agenda is being ignored or hijacked by liberalism: their agenda is only useful as long as it clamors for statism and the marginalization of religion. Yet these are antithetical to what the gay agenda should be: the preservation of their individual rights to liberty.
wahsatchmo: There is a lot of the tail wagging the dog in this issue. It almost seems as if the tyranny of the majority is being replaced by the tyranny of the minority.
I am in complete agreement with you on the real issue here--the left's determination to marginalize and penalize religious freedom. The radical gay activists are just the left's useful idiots.
LawHawk, absolutely! If an alcoholic manages to be constantly drunk without causing any damage to anyone else, then from the state's perspective, there's nothing to be concerned with. (I should hope that human compassion would lead one individual to help another, but that's another matter.) Likewise, I have trouble thinking of any specifically homosexual behavior which should gain the state's attention. So, then, why has it?
tryanmax: I think we both know the answer to that question. The squeaky wheel gets the grease (no pun intended). Once homosexual behavior was decriminalized and the major discrimination suits resolved, the need to go farther went from civil rights to group/victim politics. Liberals are experts at class/ group/ ethnic/racial/sexual divisive politics. They've turned America's melting-pot into a cesspool.
Post a Comment