Leave it to Andy Towle to put me on the same side of an issue as William Donohue. (shudder)
The ad-heavy gay blogger has rushed predictably to the side of John Edwards' recently hired hate bloggers merely because they're allegedly "pro-gay" — i.e., they're sufficiently liberal.
But Malcontent points out that Amanda has only written one post in the last six months under GLBT.
In other words, to a certain brand of blogger — and gay activist – "pro-gay" and wildly liberal are automatically synonymous, despite any evidence to the contrary.
The lesson to be learned: Even hate-spewing simpletons are to be defended, as long as their politics are far enough to the left.
I view this narrow-mindedness the same way I view Amanda's vision of feminism: if you aren't for abortion rights, you aren't a feminist. Well, there's obviously a similar standard for gay rights supporters.
Why aren't people allowed to hold a variety of views--some similar, some contrary--and still be seen as legitimate?
Because you liberals claim to be tolerant, while silencing debate on subjects with shrill name calling. Why can't there be a calm discussion on Global Warming, instead of trying to take jobs away from meteorologists who don't believe?
ReplyDeleteWhy is Dr. James Sherley forced to go on a hunger strike at MIT to gain attention to his railroading there? He was denied tenure because of his race (he's black) and his refusal to use human embryos as lab rats. Thus, he is expelled from the Ivory Tower.
Where are the true liberals who say,"I may not agree with what you say, but I will give my life for your right to say it"?
I think the credit for that type of thinking rightly goes to the members of the military.