November 09, 2006

Bill Maher's Sex Slaves

It seems that liberal comedian pundit Bill Maher (if you've never heard of him don't feel bad; the comedian label is something of a misnomer) intends to play "the outing game" according to an interview he did with Larry King on CNN. His targets, as you may well expect, will be prominent Republicans he feels might be gay.

The liberals at the Huffington Post and always acrid John Aravosis of AmericaBlog are absolutely livid that Maher's naming of RNC Chair Ken Mehlman was edited out of later rebroadcasts of the King interview.

For those on the "tolerant" left, it seems that being gay and Republican--or for that matter, almost any minority and a Republican-- is a sin of the first order. Punishment for this "sin" is the practice of being "outed," whereby liberals that hate prominent Republicans for their policy differences also pronounce them gay in a public forum, whereby other liberals can join in and share in hating them for the compounded sin of being gay and Republican.

In this worldview practiced by too many liberals, one's views on social security reform, healthcare, taxes, defense matters, foreign policy, trade, the death penalty, abortion, religion, etc, are all superceded by which gender you are attracted to.

What this means for homosexuals according to liberals, is that even though you might favor small government, low taxes, a strong military, an aggressive foreign policy, closing the borders to illegal aliens, free trade and 90% of the planks on the Republican platform, you are a traitor if you aren't liberal. If you are gay, goes their logic, you must, by their decree, be liberal.

If not, you'll face such lovely, constructive, adult perspectives such as these culled from the HuffPo comment thread:

Out the gay bastards who undermine their own lives by working for the GOP....
Gay Republicans are guilty of self-loathing and by serving a party that's harmful them they feel relieved of their guilt. Maschochists.

The great sin, in their warped perspective, is that of hypocrisy.

But what people that hold to a slate of political ideas that are conservative across the board, and happen to be gay? Should they suborn the larger part of their belief system to their libido just to appease someone else's radical politics?

I'd say making someone a social and political slave to their sexual attractions is the greater hypocrisy, but what do I know.

I'm one of those intolerant conservatives.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at November 9, 2006 04:41 PM | TrackBack

"Should they suborn the larger part of their belief system to their libido just to appease someone else's radical politics?"

Suborn their beliefs to their "libido"?

Are you kidding? Do you really think that being gay is simply a matter of "libido"?

Man, and here I thought that the idea that all wingers were homophobic was simply a stereotype. Guess I was wrong.

Posted by: mklutra at November 9, 2006 05:38 PM
Do you really think that being gay is simply a matter of "libido"?

Well, I've only had a dozen or so gay friends in the course of my life and that did seem to be the most obvious difference between us. I didn't see any extra limbs, or anything.

Please, explain why the should abandon all of their other beliefs based just upon their sexuality. Your position that someone should be liberal because they are gay is every bit as retarded as saying hetrosexuals must be conservative, or that bisexuals must be--oh, I don't know--libertarian?

That's it! Glenn Reynolds must be bisexual because he's libertarian. If he's straight... OH THE HYPOCRISY!!!

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 9, 2006 06:15 PM

It's all so simple for you folks, isn't it? It all comes down to which gender you are attracted to.

Let me ask you this: Do you think it is possible for a gay person to love his or her family as much as a straight person does? Do you think it might be possible that a gay person might want to protect his or her family just like a straight person does? Do you think that gay people should enjoy the same protection from job discrimination that straight people enjoy? Should gay people be allowed to include their families in their health insurance the same way that straight people do? Should a gay person be allowed to visit his or her partner in the hospital and make medical decisions for them when they themselves are unable to do so, like straight people do?

In short, do you believe that gay people should have the same rights and privileges as straight people? Should they enjoy equal protection under the laws of our nation?

It's a lot more complicated than "libido." Somehow, though, I'm not surprised that you believe it isn't.

Posted by: Len at November 9, 2006 06:20 PM

Strange how the Left pushes so hard for the right to privacy, and then will ignore it completely when they think it is in their favor to do so. Welcome to the Authoritarian Neighborhood of Mr. Rogers, where privacy is what he thinks it is on matters sexual. So nice of them to determine THAT for other people now, isn't it? They can spare me anything on the NSA after those wonderful goings-on, lately, where committed ideologues decided to play judge,jury and executioner on just what is and is not private not just for Congresscritters but for non-partisan staff that serves the Government, not either party.

But then I do see the rights of individuals as being for ALL individuals, without respect to party, religion, sexual persuasion or carbonated beverage preference.

Posted by: ajacksonian at November 9, 2006 07:36 PM


As every. single. thing. you just described is common to almost all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, you've proven my point. Thank you.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 9, 2006 08:11 PM

I used to not mind gay marriage, but now I would vote against it because the left gay mafia is vile.
This is what happens when you create a backlash, places like Wisconsin pass marriage initiatives. In an election that favored Dems, most states protected marriage. You catch more flies with honey, not hatred and belittling the American people.

Too bad, the gay leftist crowd set back gay marriage by decades with their stupid stunts.

Posted by: Stormy70 at November 9, 2006 08:41 PM

Yankee: Wait a minute. You think that gays already have all those things I asked you about? Wow. What world do you live in? I only ask because I think I might want to visit sometime.

As for proving your point, I'd really appreciate it if you'd explain to me how I did that. Your point was that being gay is nothing more than choosing with whom you want to have sex. An ignorant view at best, and definitely not one that I would "prove."

Posted by: Len at November 9, 2006 08:47 PM

You think that gays already have all those things I asked you about?

Everyone has those concerns. They are not unique to gays.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 9, 2006 09:01 PM

Concerns? Civil rights are now concerns? Equal rights and equal protection under the law for all Americans has now been diminished to a concern?


Thank the heavens for concerned people.

Posted by: Len at November 9, 2006 09:23 PM

Gays have a choice in their mode of lifestyle, as all people do. You can act like Stalinists or act like you live in a Republic and advocate for your position using reason and persuasion. Instead, we get the gay Republican witch hunt with cries of homophope to anyone who wants to protect marriage from unelected judges. Connecticut was a fine example of legislating civil unions. No hue and cry from the electorate because the correct people were making the law.
Gay conservatives exist in and out of the closet. Yet, they have no freedom to choose their lifestyle, since the left considers them fair game. Until you treat gay Republicans with respect, I will consider your arguments hollow. You want allegience to your political beliefs, not true gay rights.

Posted by: Stormy70 at November 9, 2006 10:23 PM

You are all retarded. It doesn't matter what the motivation of either side is. You don't edit out a comment on a news channel to pretend it never happened. And to edit it out of the written transcripts is an absolute travesty?

If you want to stop speech you don't like convince the person speaking it they are wrong. To pretend it was never said is a disservice to everyone and goes against everything this country was founded on.

Get a set of journalistic principles you retarded hyenas.

Posted by: JC at November 10, 2006 01:54 AM

You don't edit out a comment on a news channel to pretend it never happened.

Why did they edit it?

Because they were EMBARRASSED?

Why are you so defensive?

Some questions answer themselves.

Posted by: lonetown at November 10, 2006 06:04 AM

The media is a private business, they can edit out whatever the hell they want.

When I need to know how to snort coke off a barely legal teen hooker, I will look to Mayer. Otherwise, he is just a hedonistic drug addict.

Posted by: Stormy70 at November 10, 2006 07:28 AM

Well I propose you DO edit it out if it is a rumourous accusation that could expose your company to a libel suit. I mean CNN is a private company, not like you can claim 'censorship' or some crap.

Posted by: Buddy at November 10, 2006 08:56 AM

anyone see American Dad last Sunday? If you can find it online, it's quite relevant (and pretty damn funny).

Posted by: ez at November 10, 2006 09:37 AM

A clip...

Posted by: ez at November 10, 2006 09:42 AM

I am having a considerable amount of difficulty following the arguments and reasoning that have been presented so far. The difference in the groups is clearly implied in their respective names with the division being sexual in nature. I think the conservatives have issues with homosexuals as they are demanding law to be passed and judges to create laws that make them an exclusive group. If you do that then you will and should be descriminated against.

As to the list of things that gay couples can and can't do. That is bull. If a gay couple wants to marry they can do so. It is called a contract. The only difference with heteros is that the contract is mandated by the state to protect women and children. As to not seeing people in the hospital, thank your local Democrat and his passage of the HIPPA laws. On the insurance, I can't get coverage without a job as it is and I am a physician.

Republican gays represent those individuals that have finally awakened to the fact they do not care to give all their money to the government and become socialist (unless they also realize Lincoln was gay as well).

Posted by: David Caskey at November 10, 2006 12:21 PM

Civil rights are now concerns?

What else might they be? Please be specific.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 10, 2006 01:37 PM

Maher's distasteful conduct is a logical extension of identity politics. While straight people can be doctors, lawyers, parents, teachers, construction workers, etc., gays are always first and foremost gays -- people defined, not by their accomplishments, but by their bedroom activities. Everything is secondary to their sexuality. The same holds true for those whose primary identification is their own skin color.

No wonder those on the Left, deeply invested in identity politics, consider it treasonous for people to try to escape the bedroom or the racial ghetto, or whatever overarching label has been attached to them. They've suddenly ceased to be malleable and easily identifiable, and have become thoughtful people reacting to a variety of different issues in their lives.

Posted by: Bookworm at November 10, 2006 04:58 PM

Not much of a surprise. Like most Democrats and Progressives, Maher isn't educated in World History nor current events. When he got his hat handed to him (on his own show) in a debate on Iran, he claimed that the Mullahs had only threatened Israel, not the U.S.

Does "We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization... we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles. There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them." count as a threat?

Posted by: directorblue at November 10, 2006 07:38 PM

As a radical Libertarian, I find myself torn on this issue.

On one hand, 'outing' is, in all its forms, a cheap political manuever and a complete subversion of personal privacy.

Furthermore, I hate deterministic politics. Being gay doesn't mean one has to accept the liberal agenda, anymore than being a a white protestant male means one has to accept the conservative agenda. I applaud gay conservatives on the grounds that this country desperately needs more unique people.

But what is neglected here is the obvious fact that the republican party RUNS on gay hatred. Santorum thinks they are sub-human. Alan Keyes disowned his lesbian daughter. Cheney denies his daughter the pursuit of happiness. You can call this a big tent party all you want, but it doesnt make their core any less intolerant.

When blacks are ostracized by the left for being Republican, its disgraceful, because republicans don't campaign on black hatred. But when gay people are ostracized for being republican, I think it is somewhat more justified.

Personally, I think dignity matters. Were I a gay person, I would not trade my dignity for tax cuts. Doesn't mean I don't support tax cuts, just that it should take a back seat for a while.

Again, there is valid points on both sides.

Posted by: Neal M at November 11, 2006 01:11 AM

Cheney never denied his daughter, she ran his campaigns.

Gays overreached, and suffered the backlash for it. I don't feel sorry for them. The left ran the gay outing campaign and destroyed any sympathy I ever had for their plight. Much like the Palestinians, sometimes you deserve what you set in motion. They should have never gone after the tradition of marriage, but advocated for civil unions through the elected representatives. Since I am in Texas, I mostly know the conservative gay crowd, not the libertine pinko gay mafia. I had no problems with civil unions, now I am sick of the derisive campaign ran by the left against anyone with differing political views. I will vote against anything that would make those people happy.

Posted by: Stormy70 at November 11, 2006 11:52 AM

I didnt say Cheney denied his daughter.

I said he, like every person opposed to gay marriage, does not believe in the pursuit of happiness, a right only this country guarentees. And you clearly do not either, since you admit to basing your votes on denying people happiness. What an American! Bravo, sir, Bravo!

No conservative has ever articulated for me how two gays getting married in Massachusetts actually harms a strait married couple in Alabama. Until they do Im tarring them as freedom-hating fascists.

Posted by: Neal M at November 11, 2006 03:54 PM

No gay has advocated why marriage must be put in place by judges, instead of going through the lawful process. Now gays will have to overcome actual constitutional bans voted on by the people, instead of going for civil unions. Even gay leadership has stated this was the wrong way of going about gay marriage.
Nice dig at my Americanism, though. Right out of the Left's playbook. I thought the left hated it when people questioned their Americanism. I am not the one who chose the judicial fiat route.

Posted by: Stormy70 at November 12, 2006 08:36 AM

Neal M.,

Perhaps if all of the "married" gays would stay in Massacusetts it wouldn't harm a straight married couple in Alabama. The problem is that states are compelled to recognize marriages performed in other states.

I therefore propose that all gays who wish to be "married" move to Massachusetts.

Posted by: noprisoners at November 13, 2006 06:43 PM