Or, instead of saying "Liberty for everyone! (Except the gays)," perhaps the second part could be conveniently left out. The idea that being LGBT is somehow anathema to promoting liberty is more a reflection upon the preconceived notions of the person making the claim than on reality. If the "20-25%" you're speaking of really think of freedom as being something they need to achieve by keeping LGBT people out of elected office, then Dr. Paul deserves to languish at 5%, because that would not be in keeping with his philosophy.
The tone of the original post is very clear, even without the wisdom of context that a lot of forum-dwellers have the benefit of.
The implication is that Nancy Pelosi would be better to have in office than TonySutton or me
If that's really how you feel... there's no helping it.
If you really examine what freedom is about, you'll notice it does not confine itself to a certain creed or race or gender or orientation or any other "group." The militant supporters of oppressing one group or another, or elevating one group or another, would do well to think about that, too.
* * *
Theo, yeah, I read your post. Did you read mine? I know you're saying it's a "future problem." I'm saying it's a current problem, which oddly enough you agree with me about later in your post. Since it is a current problem, and there are so few LGBTs in any real position of power, one must surmise that the source of these ridiculous laws and "special rights" initiatives are not elected officials after all. The source, instead, is a subset of humanity that sways whichever way makes them seem "compassionate" by elevating these folks over here, then pushing those down, then pandering to these over here.
If it were to be considered a product of the demographics of the elected officials, then we really should worry more about misogynist (most of them are male), ageist (most are older), and heteroist (most are heterosexual) legislation. If your logic were sound, we would see a push for hetero-rights, harming the elderly being a hate crime, and men lobbying for special considerations in the workplace (or, more realistically, we'd see a reform of the family court system which is so unabashedly biased towards females overall). We don't see those things dominating Congress, though, do we. This is why one must question the logic of saying that more LGBTs in elected office will only lead to more laws along the lines of "hate crime" legislation.
Connect With Us