"You're a fag!" A discourse upon liberal debate

[The Redneck]

There are two beliefs I have come to over the years. One is that no one is more mean-spirited and intolerant than those who claim to fight 'means-spiritedness and intolerance'. The second is that the people most likely to swear that you are an evil person if you do not sing the praises of homosexuality are also usually the very first to accuse you of it.

The term "homophobia" is not the first--although it's one of the more obvious; the term meant to imply that if you don't approve of homosexuality and accept it with open arms, it must be because you yourself are homosexual, and thus oppose 'open' homosexuals for fear of temptation. (Don't try to find the logic in it. Liberal argument contains a few tenets--conservatives are evil; capitalism is evil; Christianity is evil; Ronald Reagan is incredibly evil--and everything else shrinks or expands to fit.)

Joe McCarthy exposed dozens of Communist spies in the higher echelons of the federal government--not only have Soviet officials confirmed the status of these spies (both defectors and those who could speak freely once Reagan had defeated the Soviet Union), but it's also been confirmed by Soviet cables intercepted and decoded in the Venona Project. Liberals promptly claimed that McCarthy was a homosexual. One of his employees, Cohn, who was a homosexual (McCarthy's staff included black people (this was in the days of segregation), women, and homosexuals--not that liberals took much note) and was hounded relentlessly for it--by Democrats and the liberal press.

Whittaker Chambers was a Soviet spy, before leaving the USSR's employ and pointing out the status of, among others, his formerly fellow-spy, Alger Hiss. Chambers was not only accused of homosexuality, but of having sex repeately with his own brother--not just as an epithet, but as part of Hiss' defense in court.

J. Edgar Hoover, who also discovered several spies in the federal government--as well as speaking against the interrment of Japanese immigrants during WWII, another move that Democrats and the liberal press ignored--and is now referred to, without a shred of evidence, as a cross-dresser and a "closet" homosexual.

Hell, even Lincoln (who was a worthless tyrant, but he was also a Republican, and that's enough for liberal emnity. Probably the only worthless tyrant they didn't support) was claimed to be a homosexual, by some guy who said he'd found the diary of Lincoln's lover. He wouldn't say where it was, wouldn't let anyone else look at it, but he got plenty of front-page space over it.

Wait another ten or twenty years and see how many of Reagans "lovers" come up.

[DMKA]

Umm...I'm not seeing your point...o_O

[The Redneck]

Clarity is preferred over blatant flaming. -- foa

[The Captain]

If I understand you're argument correctly, liberals accuse people of being homosexual as a defense mechanism?


Take care all.

[nik0tine]

The term "homophobia" is not the first--although it's one of the more obvious; the term meant to imply that if you don't approve of homosexuality and accept it with open arms, it must be because you yourself are homosexual, and thus oppose 'open' homosexuals for fear of temptation. (Don't try to find the logic in it. Liberal argument contains a few tenets--conservatives are evil; capitalism is evil; Christianity is evil; Ronald Reagan is incredibly evil--and everything else shrinks or expands to fit.)

What the hell? Okay, now your just making sh*t up.

[The Redneck]

Clarity is preferred over blatant flaming. -- foa

Partly, and partly as a simple ad hominem attack.

[The Captain]

I think neither party has their hands clean with regards to this issue to be frank. It's become such a soapbox issue when really it should be something between the person and their lover/companion, not something to throw around to further polarize the nation.

Take care all.

[nik0tine]

I am not advocating it, but I assume that some Democratic politicians would attack a conservative based on sexual preferance because conservatives themselves tend to hate homosexuals. If you have Republicans hating other Republicans based on something as trivial as sexual preferance, Democrats win. John Kerry did this, albeit briefly, during one of the presidential debates. He briefly, and unnecessarily, brought up the fact that Dick Cheneys daughter was a lesbian. I thought this was wrong, but thats politics for ya. Our politicians, both liberal and conservative, are bad people. They are out to accomplish thier political agendas and fill thier pocket books, not to make the world a better place, or to help you and me.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

Liberals do this, conservatives do that, I've long since realized that people seldom fit into neat little categories like you seem to think. How do you define a liberal? How do you define a conservative? Throwing out all sorts of stereotypes, both positive and negative and not always applicable, you have nothing. Liberal and conservative are merely ways to try to categorize people so they fit neatly into some blase little world of black and white, and such simply isn't the case. Your argument is moot merely because you present your case against "liberals" and proceed to present all sorts of stereotypical evidence that attacks a group that doesn't even necessarily exist in the parameters you specified. People are too diverse to be classified as "liberal" or "conservative", and I'd say it's pretty foolish to conform to either ideal, I'd say it makes for pretty flat individuals.

[Shlup]

Alright, I get what you're saying... and I think, in this case at least, you're totally full of it. Besides the fact that I dissapprove of your liberal (excuse the pun) use of the term "liberal" (if I were to label myself one of these ways, I would be conservative, just so you don't immediatly label me as liberal), I've never seen anything like that happen.

I've never seen anyone be called homophobic simply because someone didn't "embrace homosexuals." The only times I see a person be labeled as homophobic is when they (a) admit to being afraid of homosexuals or (b) are very openly anti-homosexual. And when someone is blatantly anti-homosexual, there is evidence to support that them being afraid of their own sexuality is often a reason.

As for your examples, I've never heard a one of them. If they were popular rumors I think I would have caught wind of at least one of those cases. Of course, I don't doubt they exist. You can find rumors about anything or anyone that some nutjob has written down somewhere. Didn't you know we've had alien presidents too? I suppose that's also the fault of someone of some generalized political label.

[Sasquatch]

Ah, so now "you're totally full of it" and "conservatives themselves tend to hate homosexuals". Would those fit in your other thread, Redneck?

I have been labeled "homophobic" before, simply for disagreeing with homosexuality. Not for saying anything like "all fags are going to Hell" or anything like that, just for saying I think it's wrong. Hell, if I remember correctly, it's happened on this forum. It's a typical tactic.

[nik0tine]

One can disagree with homosexuality all they want. However, the very second you look down on someone for being homosexual you have become homophobic in my books.

(For the record, I do not know if that is what you did, Sasquatch, and I, therefore, am not accusing you of it.)

[Shlup]

Well, Sasquatch, it would depend on who called you homophobic. Not everyone on this message board is exactly fit for CNN, you know.

[CloudSquallandZidane]

The term "homophobia" is not the first--although it's one of the more obvious; the term meant to imply that if you don't approve of homosexuality and accept it with open arms, it must be because you yourself are homosexual, and thus oppose 'open' homosexuals for fear of temptation.

This part of ur arguement is correct. Its totally riddiculous to label someone who doesnt "like" homosexuality as a homosexual themselves. It makes as much sense to me as labeling someone who doesnt "like" spiders as arachnophobic then calling them, themself a spider.

(Don't try to find the logic in it. Liberal argument contains a few tenets--conservatives are evil; capitalism is evil; Christianity is evil; Ronald Reagan is incredibly evil--and everything else shrinks or expands to fit.)

Now i call bs. As a liberal i am a Saved and Baptisted, Baptist. I beileve whole heartedly in Capitolism. And most of my friends happen to be conservatives, and good people... and well Reagan was pretty evil...

I wouldnt go around classifying peoples arguements, somebody just might suprise u.

[Big D]

There are indeed plenty of "ultra-liberals" who are overzealous in the way they try to force their views upon others.

Some will openly attack the Christian church because its texts prohibit homosexuality; some have a hatred of all who hold political power. In their quest to see everyone treated equally, they forget to extend the most basic courtesy and right by allowing others to disagree with them. Harmless disagreement is fine; it's only actively harmful prejudice that should be opposed. Ultra-liberals frequently forget this.

However, just because some liberals are like this does not mean that all are. To make that accusation is little more than sensationalist stereotyping, like saying all conservatives approve of racism or that all Bush supporters enjoy war. These are, generally, untrue and unfair statements. As is, "[d]on't try to find the logic in it. Liberal argument contains a few tenets--conservatives are evil; capitalism is evil; Christianity is evil; Ronald Reagan is incredibly evil--and everything else shrinks or expands to fit."

I'm rather perplexed by the argument that "liberals accuse people of homosexuality in order to attack them." Since liberals apparently embrace homosexuality, I don't see why that'd be viewed as an attack by them. Besides, it'd make no difference to me whatsoever if McCarthy or Lincoln was homosexual. It'd only matter if I somehow believed that homosexuals are inherently inferior, which I don't.

...once Reagan had defeated the Soviet Union

Now this is something that makes no sense to me at all. How and when did Reagan "defeat" the Soviet Union?