posted
I still don't understand how that Perry ad is being twisted into an anti-gay thing. He may himself be anti-gay, but he didn't say so . . . he did not explicitly make any anti-gay comment, he simply noted that in modern society it seems like being openly Christian is worse than (e.g. more disallowed and censured and censurable than) being openly gay.
Now, I'm neither Christian nor gay, nor am I a Perry supporter, but it seems to me that this is a valid observation in the modern culture war.
In the NFL, for instance, Tim Tebow gets media hatred for his faith, but if instead of praying on the field he stopped and french-kissed another player I rather doubt the media would be so against him. If anything, the media story would be about evil other people and wicked conservative sports fans being against him, whether there was a lot of backlash or not.
It would be best if neither faith nor preference were attacked. Even better still would be if honest and valid observations weren't attacked.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
1. Christian doctrine has long been against homosexuality. The Bible refers to it as "an abomination." I'm sure there are many who consider themselves Christian and are not anti-gay, but there's probably a lot of doublethink involved there.
2. Notice the way the statement was deliberately phrased and delivered: "...you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military..." and then a pause, and then a "but" and further qualification. You don't think that was specifically intended to be inflammatory? You may argue that the "but" part is the real meat of his statement, but it's already colored by what he said first. The gays in the military thing is clearly designed as the "hook" of the ad, which is why that's the part to which everyone is paying most attention.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Put it this way, if Perry had said, "you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when blacks can run for public office, but whites can't blah blah blah..." You wouldn't consider Perry to be making an inflammatory, bigoted statement? He is clearly using gays in the military as an example of America's supposed moral decay, contrasting it with Christians supposed inability to express their faith in public. The use of contrasts is always a clever way of emphasizing the "otherness" of a particular group of people in society, exclaiming that if they are given equal status to the majority, they threaten the majority's dominance.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: 1. Christian doctrine has long been against homosexuality. The Bible refers to it as "an abomination." I'm sure there are many who consider themselves Christian and are not anti-gay, but there's probably a lot of doublethink involved there.
I concur.
quote:2. Notice the way the statement was deliberately phrased and delivered: "...you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military..." and then a pause, and then a "but" and further qualification. You don't think that was specifically intended to be inflammatory? You may argue that the "but" part is the real meat of his statement, but it's already colored by what he said first. The gays in the military thing is clearly designed as the "hook" of the ad, which is why that's the part to which everyone is paying most attention. [/QB]
I'm pretty sure Perry isn't all about the "but".
(Sorry, had to go for the horrendous pun.)
I just read it as being a reference to openly-gay versus openly-Christian, and the modern treatment of the two.
Sure, even mentioning "gay" in the context of faith is inflammatory, so there's no doubt he's picking his side in the culture war. But even reading what you said I can't see where it's an attack on homosexuality, per se.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: Put it this way, if Perry had said, "you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when blacks can run for public office, but whites can't blah blah blah..." You wouldn't consider Perry to be making an inflammatory, bigoted statement?
I think the blah-blah is important, there, to get the meaning. Even if we go with black vs. white (which I don't necessarily think is the sort of dichotomy drawn, even though I concurred with the point above), if the blah-blah was "can't show their face in public" or something similar, then it's not racist and bigoted . . . it's a comment on the racism and bigotry already out there.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
The silly "Happy holidays" debate is even more embarrassing than the "Freedom Fries" fiasco. "Freedom fries" was just a petty dick move that lowered the US' global respect a notch, but "HH" is just surreal in it's spin-doctoring. The conservative position is approaching "Mr. President, we must not allow a MINE SHAFT GAP!"
Anyone with half a brain cell can tell Perry's workshop elves are using it as a distraction. That they didn't have the sense to stay away from D.A.D.T is hardly surprising, they're out of smoke bombs and have to make do with flour and gopher turds.
Wasting even a second on finding agendas behind "Happy holidays" is ridiculous, but I'm reminded of that story of two armed groups crossing paths, the one party saying "we won't attack if you give us the road", and the leader of the other party ordering his men to comply, but instead they open fire because the leader had said "give it to them".
[ December 11, 2011, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Nim ]
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
What makes the Perry ad so funny is his wearing the same outfit as the gay cowboy from Brokeback Mountain.
Hell, his own top pollser called the ad "nuts".
But really, you can youtube a hundred more crazy, anti-gay comments from Michelle Bachman.
And Newt's level of insensitive stupidity is a legend unto itself- now the Palestenians are "invented" nad "all terrorists". Just the kind of ultra-right crazy the world already associates with the United States- a fucking recruiting video for terrorism could not be more damaging to our image.
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeah...y'think? Makes me wonder about the morals of his asshat son- "Mr. Tea Party" that started taking massive bribes...er...contribitions from the big agriculture lobbiests in his state in minute he was elected on a "Washington is corrupt" platform. Maybe he was being honest in his motives to join them.
In other laughable news, the combover king (Donald trump) saw which way the wind is blowing and now says he's no longer a Republican- but we knew that. He's always just been an asshole.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
posted
Well for once, i am proud of Virginians... They told two fu, er, Politicians to kindly go FUCK themselves... Top-Tier Candidates NOT getting on the Primary? Wooooooooooo.... and good, too... you know, if i ever voted R etard, id actually consider the Ass juices guy (the only one with even a fucking clue...)
Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
I still regret that Texas didn't enforce its laws so strictly in 2008. Neither Obama nor McCain actually filed by the deadline there, but they were allowed on the ballot anyway.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
