Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dan Savage says extremely nasty things based on a chain of rationalizations. First, he assumes that gay marriage is an unquestionable absolute -- if you do not support it, you hate gay people. The notion that civil unions are a less emotionally exhausting route for progress, the concept that perhaps GLBTs can find other routes to happiness than a tradition that traditionally views them with distrust, or the simple belief that gender matters enough to make same-sex and heterosexual couplings different -- all these intellectual positions are shunted for bumper-sticker formulae.
Second, disagreement means a surrender of civility. Fail his shibboleths and he will respond with barbarity. If he finds out that there are same-sex tendencies in you or someone close to you, he will use the basest forms of anti-gay invective as a weapon against you, with help from Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, and Perez Hilton.
Some GLBT folks have taken Savage on. Jasbir Puar took Savage to task in The Guardian, calling his view of gay liberation "narrow." Camille Paglia refused to accept his justifications of "out-of-control" tactics by ACTUP. Jesse Daniels had this to say:
What Dan Savage and other privileged white gay men fail to understand is the way one struggle is connected to another[.] [...] [S]uch an analysis makes visible the white privilege that still adheres to the lives of LGBT folks like Savage.
So what causes these privileged gay white males to go out of their minds crazy with hate and intolerance?
Dan Savage says extremely nasty things based on a chain of rationalizations. First, he assumes that gay marriage is an unquestionable absolute -- if you do not support it, you hate gay people. The notion that civil unions are a less emotionally exhausting route for progress, the concept that perhaps GLBTs can find other routes to happiness than a tradition that traditionally views them with distrust, or the simple belief that gender matters enough to make same-sex and heterosexual couplings different -- all these intellectual positions are shunted for bumper-sticker formulae.
Second, disagreement means a surrender of civility. Fail his shibboleths and he will respond with barbarity. If he finds out that there are same-sex tendencies in you or someone close to you, he will use the basest forms of anti-gay invective as a weapon against you, with help from Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, and Perez Hilton.
Some GLBT folks have taken Savage on. Jasbir Puar took Savage to task in The Guardian, calling his view of gay liberation "narrow." Camille Paglia refused to accept his justifications of "out-of-control" tactics by ACTUP. Jesse Daniels had this to say:
What Dan Savage and other privileged white gay men fail to understand is the way one struggle is connected to another[.] [...] [S]uch an analysis makes visible the white privilege that still adheres to the lives of LGBT folks like Savage.
So what causes these privileged gay white males to go out of their minds crazy with hate and intolerance?
As the gay terrorists continue their attacks against creative freedom, free speech, freedom of expression, and the english language as a whole even the liberals' Hollywood hippy heroes are fighting back against them.
Susan Sarandon has defended Glee bosses after they were criticised for using the word 'tranny' in their recent Rocky Horror tribute - insisting certain gay rights groups are "way out of control."
When quizzed about the controversy by the New York Daily News, she replied, "What should they (Glee) have said? (GLAAD is) getting like PETA - way out of control."
See, even diehard libnutters eventually come around to the right side.
This is indeed quite odd, I thought liberals like Sarandan were all about using the iron fist of government to force their agenda's down our throats. If you personally do not like what someone else is doing or saying, just get government to pass a law to make it illegal. Isn't making it against the law for someone to do or say something that offends illegal, the ambition the all liberals strive for?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
