Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Barack Obama is gay



Well, of course Barack Obama is gay. You wouldn't support civil rights for other people, would you?

Obviously, you wouldn't support civil rights for blacks and Hispanics if you're white. You wouldn't support women's rights if you're a man. You wouldn't support freedom of religion if you're a Christian. (Oh, you'd support freedom of religion in majority Muslim countries, just not here.)

I mean, it just goes without saying that your own civil rights are all that matter to you, right? At least, if you're a right-wing nutcase, anyway.

The rest of us recognize that our whole society benefits when civil rights are extended to everyone. And yes, we live in that society, so we tend to benefit, too. But does that mean I don't care about people in other societies? Of course not!

But we're seeing more and more of this libertarian attitude that nothing matters but your own individual benefit. Greed is good. Selfishness is good. No one else matters, just you.

These aren't exactly the same kinds of right-wing crazy, but they're very close. (That's why Ron Paul is a Republican.) We'd still have slavery if we'd always thought like this. And that would be just one of our problems today, if our forefathers had thought like this.

The religious nuts want to force everyone else to think as they do. The secular libertarians just fail to recognize that we're a social animal, that our society is critical to our well-being, that we all benefit when each of us benefits. Both lack empathy. Both lack common sense.

6 comments:

m1nks said...

Why can't a person be prosecuted for saying these sorts of things in public? Does america have any laws at all that would make this sort of thing feasible?

To make such outrageous lies and just be completely free of any consequences - that's so not right.

WCG said...

Free speech, m1nks.

There are limited protections for private individuals, but it's virtually impossible to slander a public official, no matter what you say about him.

But there are reasons for that. In a democracy, we want to be able to criticize our government - and other public figures - so the courts bend over backward in free speech cases, as they should.

This is one of the downsides, but it's not as bad as censorship would be.

(From what I hear, Britain's censorship laws demonstrate that. Haven't homeopaths been using Britain's libel laws to censor legitimate criticism of their quack treatments? I know I was supporting that free speech campaign, awhile back.)

Jim Harris said...

I thought Obama should have come out for gay marriage right after his first election. I'm glad he came out now, instead of waiting until after the second election. I already thought he had no balls for not supporting gay marriage sooner. I want my liberal leaders to be liberal.

It also bugs me when Christians go around throwing stones. I want Christians to be Christians and show some compassion.

Jeff said...

"There are limited protections for private individuals, but it's virtually impossible to slander a public official, no matter what you say about him."

Do you suppose this is why Susan Fluke hasn't sued Rush Limbaugh yet? Did she make herself a "public" figure by testifying before Congress? I don't know.

WCG said...

That's certainly part of it, Jeff. And I suspect that it's deliberate. The right-wing has punished Sandra Fluke for testifying. That will make other people think twice about getting involved and becoming 'public figures' themselves.

It might be, too, that Limbaugh was careful to express opinions, rather than make deliberate lies about facts. After all, what's a 'slut'? That's just a value statement, isn't it?

And what would happen if she did sue him? Limbaugh would just get more publicity, which he revels in. And Fluke would be inviting even more slander, as his lawyers attempted to prove that 'slut' label by digging through her private life.

No, even if she could win such a suit, she'd probably still lose.

WCG said...

Jim, I don't think that Barack Obama is as liberal as his supporters or his detractors would wish. And I really do think that his opinions on gay marriage have been evolving, along with the rest of the nation.

Coming out now took balls enough, since it will probably hurt him in the election (though maybe not too much). And if you can't get elected, then it doesn't matter much what your positions are.

There's a balancing act here. I recognize that. Still, I do wish he'd used the bully pulpit of the presidency, right from the start, to push this and other liberal issues.

PS. I expect Christians to be Christians, which is why I don't expect compassion - not from all of them, anyway.