The Hypocrisy of the Homosexual Left
This ought to generate some hate mail...
Last week, in doing some reading on the Foley scandal, I came across a blog ran by a liberal gay activist by the name of Mike Rogers. I'm not going to provide a link to his blog because I completely disagree with what he is doing and I don't want to make it easy for anyone to see what he's doing. If you feel the need to see it for yourself, google him. Anyway, this guy has been on O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson. I guess he thinks he is some sort of homosexual crusader, trying battle the evils of conservatism. Mind you, he's not battling conservatism in the arena of ideas. Oh no, he is publicly outing some homosexual Congressional staffers and one staff secretary in the White House. Why? Because they work for Republicans. He says he is trying to "expose the hypocrisy" of the Republican party, and he's doing it in the wake of the Foley scandal.
But it seems to me, what Mr. Rogers is really doing is publicly violating, what we've been told by the left for years, a Civil Right. The Right to Privacy. In thinking about this, I had to first answer some questions:
1. Is there a guarantee of the right to privacy in the Constitution? Although I've yet to actually see it in the Constitution, I do believe in the right to privacy. I think it's an individual right that should never be overlooked. And, according to the left and the Supreme Court there is a right to privacy. Roe v. Wade was a privacy case in which the Court determined the state has no right to know what takes place between a doctor and a patient. This "right to privacy" is what gave us abortion. So, obviously, the left depends heavily on this right to privacy for it's arguments on multiple cases. So, with the prevailing legal precedent handed down by the Supreme Court, there is a Right to Privacy. And the left depends on it.
2. Is a person's sexual preference considered private information. Well, we've been told for years by homosexuals or was it an episode of Seinfeld, "a person's sexual preference is nobody's business but their own." Seems to me a person's sex life should be kept private. If you want to tell the world about it, that's up to you. But it seems to me, if you don't want people to know, that should be your right. So, yes, people's sex lives are a private matter UNLESS the individual wants that information to be common knowledge.
3. Is purposely publishing information about a person's sexual desires, preference or acts considered a violation of said person's privacy. Well, I remember back in the 90's, the left told us over and over that Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky was merely a private matter and should not be subject to public ridicule or political action. It has no bearing on his ability to perform his job and it is his "PRIVATE LIFE!" So again, according to the left, sex is a private matter and nobody's business.
With those three questions, using the arguments from the left, I have demonstrated exactly how the outing of homosexual staffers on a website is a violation of the right to privacy and therefore, quite hypocritical.
Look, I'm all for exposing elected hypocrites in Washington. I think it's a sign of a healthy Republic. But publishing private information, about a Congressional staffer, on a website in furtherance of a political agenda is just mean. It's not free speech because it possesses the potential to do harm to an individual. It is an overt action being taken by the mother of all hypocrites. A gay activist that demands civil rights for gays and then violates the civil rights of gays.
Mike Rogers is not exposing hypocrites. Being gay and opposing gay marriage is not hypocritical. Privately proclaiming a desire to marry your homosexual partner and publicly opposing gay marriage is hypocritical. I know the left likes to redefine certain words, but let's not redefine hypocrisy too.
As an added bonus to this post, I'm going to post some comments from this blog to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the homosexual left. The names have been deleted to protect the hypocrites.
In reference to the Foley scandal, this is from someone who was advocating the outing of "closeted" homosexuals.:
"It is only because the GOP leadership refused to officially acknowledge Foley's sexuality that this was allowed to continue -- those emails coming from a "straight man" to a former male page would be seen as "a little weird" -- but coming from a 52 year old man that everyone acknowledged was gay they were an obvious warning sign."
My head just about exploded when I read that. So, when a 52 year old gay man contacts a young boy, it's now an obvious warning sign? Wow, kind of puts a hole in their Boy Scout leader argument doesn't it? Would you classify that as hypocritical?
From another advocate of the outing of homosexuals:
"... Out them all! I don't care if they're stupid enough to kill themselves after exposure instead of waking up and dealing with the reality of who they really are. No one ever said that politics would be a cakewalk."
Can't you just feel the love? Who cares if they kill themselves as a result of this information being published? Remember the potential to do harm to an individual that I mentioned earlier? Wow. Just wow. And they say we're hate mongers.
Bottom Line: Mr. Rogers, screaming about your civil rights while going out of your way to violate what could be someone else's most valued civil right, is extremely hypocritical. Perhaps you should think about that while you're attempting to ruin the lives of members of the homosexual community.
Last week, in doing some reading on the Foley scandal, I came across a blog ran by a liberal gay activist by the name of Mike Rogers. I'm not going to provide a link to his blog because I completely disagree with what he is doing and I don't want to make it easy for anyone to see what he's doing. If you feel the need to see it for yourself, google him. Anyway, this guy has been on O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson. I guess he thinks he is some sort of homosexual crusader, trying battle the evils of conservatism. Mind you, he's not battling conservatism in the arena of ideas. Oh no, he is publicly outing some homosexual Congressional staffers and one staff secretary in the White House. Why? Because they work for Republicans. He says he is trying to "expose the hypocrisy" of the Republican party, and he's doing it in the wake of the Foley scandal.
But it seems to me, what Mr. Rogers is really doing is publicly violating, what we've been told by the left for years, a Civil Right. The Right to Privacy. In thinking about this, I had to first answer some questions:
1. Is there a guarantee of the right to privacy in the Constitution? Although I've yet to actually see it in the Constitution, I do believe in the right to privacy. I think it's an individual right that should never be overlooked. And, according to the left and the Supreme Court there is a right to privacy. Roe v. Wade was a privacy case in which the Court determined the state has no right to know what takes place between a doctor and a patient. This "right to privacy" is what gave us abortion. So, obviously, the left depends heavily on this right to privacy for it's arguments on multiple cases. So, with the prevailing legal precedent handed down by the Supreme Court, there is a Right to Privacy. And the left depends on it.
2. Is a person's sexual preference considered private information. Well, we've been told for years by homosexuals or was it an episode of Seinfeld, "a person's sexual preference is nobody's business but their own." Seems to me a person's sex life should be kept private. If you want to tell the world about it, that's up to you. But it seems to me, if you don't want people to know, that should be your right. So, yes, people's sex lives are a private matter UNLESS the individual wants that information to be common knowledge.
3. Is purposely publishing information about a person's sexual desires, preference or acts considered a violation of said person's privacy. Well, I remember back in the 90's, the left told us over and over that Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky was merely a private matter and should not be subject to public ridicule or political action. It has no bearing on his ability to perform his job and it is his "PRIVATE LIFE!" So again, according to the left, sex is a private matter and nobody's business.
With those three questions, using the arguments from the left, I have demonstrated exactly how the outing of homosexual staffers on a website is a violation of the right to privacy and therefore, quite hypocritical.
Look, I'm all for exposing elected hypocrites in Washington. I think it's a sign of a healthy Republic. But publishing private information, about a Congressional staffer, on a website in furtherance of a political agenda is just mean. It's not free speech because it possesses the potential to do harm to an individual. It is an overt action being taken by the mother of all hypocrites. A gay activist that demands civil rights for gays and then violates the civil rights of gays.
Mike Rogers is not exposing hypocrites. Being gay and opposing gay marriage is not hypocritical. Privately proclaiming a desire to marry your homosexual partner and publicly opposing gay marriage is hypocritical. I know the left likes to redefine certain words, but let's not redefine hypocrisy too.
As an added bonus to this post, I'm going to post some comments from this blog to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the homosexual left. The names have been deleted to protect the hypocrites.
In reference to the Foley scandal, this is from someone who was advocating the outing of "closeted" homosexuals.:
"It is only because the GOP leadership refused to officially acknowledge Foley's sexuality that this was allowed to continue -- those emails coming from a "straight man" to a former male page would be seen as "a little weird" -- but coming from a 52 year old man that everyone acknowledged was gay they were an obvious warning sign."
My head just about exploded when I read that. So, when a 52 year old gay man contacts a young boy, it's now an obvious warning sign? Wow, kind of puts a hole in their Boy Scout leader argument doesn't it? Would you classify that as hypocritical?
From another advocate of the outing of homosexuals:
"... Out them all! I don't care if they're stupid enough to kill themselves after exposure instead of waking up and dealing with the reality of who they really are. No one ever said that politics would be a cakewalk."
Can't you just feel the love? Who cares if they kill themselves as a result of this information being published? Remember the potential to do harm to an individual that I mentioned earlier? Wow. Just wow. And they say we're hate mongers.
Bottom Line: Mr. Rogers, screaming about your civil rights while going out of your way to violate what could be someone else's most valued civil right, is extremely hypocritical. Perhaps you should think about that while you're attempting to ruin the lives of members of the homosexual community.
posted by Goose at 22:41
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home