Really, Mr. Quick?

Posted on | May 13, 2012 | 26 Comments

by Smitty

Smitty is running a Gay Obama item a day, more or less. I know he’s trying to hurt Obama by playing up Obama’s support of gay rights with those who think gays should have no rights at all.

Hm. I can’t parse this in any meaningful way. Homosexuality, as an idea, argues its own societal utility as well as it can. I hope that we retain the right to disagree with ideas. If we have any free will, that is.

You can still be summarily fired simply for being gay in 29 states – a problem I think is of considerably more significance than being unable to marry – but herein lies my quandary.

Can you? I don’t mean “Do antiquated laws exist?”; rather “Is any private sector work termination occuring based solely upon sexual preference?” Let’s see some cases before we go throwing up our hands in despair over the medieval state of affairs. The lesson we need to get to is that we can’t legislate morality.

I support general civil rights for gays and their relationships, just as Obama does. I further regard most who oppose them as doing so almost entirely out of bigotry of one sort or another.

Does my commitment to a “form follows function” analysis of genitalia render me hopelessly bigoted? Sorry, I’m just an engineer. Systems have their design, work well, and prosper, or not. If something is in the “or not” category, then no amount of Postmodern, emotional stabbing of rationality is going to move it out of the “or not” category.

So, much as I hate Obama, and am even willing to trash my own libertarian conservative principles by voting for the execrable Mitt Romney for the sake of destroying his political career, even I can’t so soil my own beliefs as to join in the mass gay-bashing being used against Obama.
Sorry.

Bill, I’ll fall short of connecting your response with the adjective “sanctimonious”. I thought my post took as libertarian a tack as possible, prior to juxtaposing a link about Rand Paul and a link about John Travolta’s accuser. The context was that of making a joke about improving the spin of BHO’s rhetoric.

This is the internet, and I have to take the hit here for trying to trade clarity for humor.

What I’d like to get from you, Bill, in all seriousness, is some thought on the relationship between Political Correctness and bigotry.

Is PC, itself, the ultimate bigotry?
Will calls for tolerance eventually hit a crescendo where, in order to disprove bigotry, everone has to go on a local reality TV show and engage in ritualized acts of sodomy?

Update: Collins linked the preceding post in this thread.

Category: Bill Quick, Gays

Comments

26 Responses to “Really, Mr. Quick?”

richard mcenroe
May 13th, 2012 @ 2:32 pm

It’s politically-incorrect to call PC the ultimate bigotry. Denounce yourself and write a check to Planned Parenthood to make amends!
Adjoran
May 13th, 2012 @ 2:40 pm

So Bill Quick thinks it is less gehe to just put your head up your ass, then?
Adobe_Walls
May 13th, 2012 @ 2:46 pm

The answer to both concluding questions is clearly yes.
Michael Smith
May 13th, 2012 @ 3:00 pm

Mr. Quick assumes that this is all about equality…it isn’t.

“Since the most recent popular topic has been the Democrat push for
gay rights and Obama’s immaculate conversion on them, I considered this
in terms of the context of the current discussion.

It is no different with the LGBT community than it is for the other
members of the Democrat coalition. The real issue isn’t about equality,
because if it was, we would be discussing the elevation of rights via
civil unions and not using the term “marriage”. What it is about is a
faction attempting to crush a religious concept, one that is a
fundamental belief of Christians that a marriage is a union exclusively
between a man and a woman and blessed by God. It is a cynical attempt to
poke a finger in the eye of Christianity and by extension, God. This is
because Christian teaching has rejected them and their lifestyle and to
hear the din coming from the gay community, one would think that they
were being rounded up in concentration camps and killed…but they aren’t.”

On top of that, there just aren’t enough gay people to warrant this much heat. An article in the Huffington Post from April 7th of this year quotes demographer, Gary Gates of UCLA as saying that they gay population of the US is 1.8%.

“That’s one point eight percent of the over 18 population. According to the 2010 US Census,
there are 311,591,917 people in the US, 76% or 236,809,857 people are
18 or over. That means that 1.8% of that number is 426,258. All this
political power is being exercised on behalf of less than a half a
million people.

To put that into context, governments all over the US
attempt all the time to restrict the Second Amendment rights of gun
owners. According to this ABC report there are 919,831 registered gun owners in the state of Florida alone.

In the grand scheme of electoral politics, a half a million people is
insignificant – it might help Obama carry the showtune crowd in New
York, LA or San Francisco, but this really isn’t about numbers, is it?
If Obama wanted to garner votes, he could get more in the state of
Florida by “coming out” for gun rights than gay marriage but this isn’t
even about guns or gays, or even bitter clinging to religion. This is
about power. It is about cynically keeping the gay movement under the
control of the Democratic Party by blowing air kisses at them.”

I guess my post is probably homophobic:
Broadway On the Potomac at http://therionorteline.com/2012/05/12/broadway-on-the-potomac/.
t-dahlgren
May 13th, 2012 @ 3:04 pm

… with those who think gays should have no rights at all.

You’d think a sooperjeenyuss like Quick would not need to conjure up a veritable army of straw men to make an argument, or perhaps might recognize that, in doing so, he has already declared himself the loser.

Lame.
ThePaganTemple
May 13th, 2012 @ 3:12 pm

The real homophobes are those who are very well described by the closing question of this post.
Ford Prefect
May 13th, 2012 @ 3:25 pm

This is why Bill Quick is usually a useless read. Wielding all the standard liberal-style demagoguery against those with whom he disagrees is just more evidence that the guy is not a serious thinker.

He says” I know he’s trying to hurt Obama by playing up Obama’s support of gay rights with those who think gays should have no rights at all..

Well Bill, methinks you don’t “know” anything of the sort.

That’s like me saying, “I know that Bill Quick writes his blog for all the God-hating atheists out there who want to put Jews and Christians in concentration camps, I get that, but…”

Hey Bill, find me one, just ONE person who thinks homosexuals should “have no rights”. If you can produce such a person, along with some proof that he is not certifiably insane, then we can talk.

Until then, your ramblings can be taken for what they are; sophomoric.
Nospam
May 13th, 2012 @ 3:35 pm

…and there’s that word: “Homophobe”. Homophobia is a psychiatric condition; it describes feeling about gay people the same way I feel about spiders. It is currently used in the same way that people like Al Sharpton and Barack Obama use the word “Racist”. Voting for Proposition 1 in NC is no more homophobic than believing that Barack Obama is corrupt and incompetent is racist.
Ford Prefect
May 13th, 2012 @ 3:57 pm

Mike, this is exactly right.

The elephant in the room, that even conservatives don’t seem to want to mention, is that marriage in the Western world, is a Biblical tradition. That’s why it is attacked.

But it is more than just a tradition, it was meant by God to perform 3 valuable functions:

1. To build a formal foundation for a successful civilization. The bond between a man and a woman and their subsequent creation of a family unit is a fundamental building block for a civil society. There can be no denying this historical and modern reality.

2. To act as a metaphorical “type” of the relationship between Christ and His followers, the “Church”. Indeed, the principle Biblical statement of this fact is found in Ephesians 5 where Paul first quotes Genesis, and then explains what it means, “‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.” (Eph. 5 31-32)

The anti-traditional marriage types are well aware that the Bible speaks authoritatively on the meaning of “marriage”, that it is more than just a male/female partnership. They seek to weaken it because they know that to destroy its meaning is a way to attack the heart of the message about Christ’s relationship with His “bride”.

3. Even more profound than being a simple (but important) metaphor for Christ’s relationship with his followers, is that it has prophetic meaning. Google the Jewish marriage ceremony as it relates to Biblical prophesy and you will learn that the traditional Jewish wedding ceremony relates directly to the return of Christ. It was made up of three parts, the “Wedding Contract”(Betrothal), the “Wedding Ceremony”(Groom receives Bride), and the “Wedding Feast” (Guests are invited to the celebration). Each of these facets parallels very specific parts of End Time prophesies. Furthermore, each of these three components has multiple layers that help us understand just how Christ will fulfill the promise to return for His “bride”.

Traditional marriage therefore, is deeply rooted in not just the foundations of Jewish and then later Western civil society, but it is a powerful message about God’s relationship with His people and His plan for those who choose to follow Him.

Of course, there are lots of other reasons to defend marriage but let’s not leave out the most important one, it was created by God Himself with a warning from Him that no one should seek to undermine it.
RichFader
May 13th, 2012 @ 4:18 pm

It’s a little-known fact that Smitty is so intent on running “gay Obama” items that he got Andrew Sullivan to do an article about Barry as the first gay president. (By the way, does this mean we can now raise questions about whether Sasha and Malia are Barry’s kids? he asked with an evil grin.)
Ford Prefect
May 13th, 2012 @ 4:21 pm

Well, we know he’s not the first “black” president so he needs to claim to be the first “something else”.
darleenclick
May 13th, 2012 @ 4:38 pm

You can still be summarily fired simply for being gay in 29 states

Oh, Bill, dear Bill … you know in all 57 states, as a private employee, you can be fired for any number of reasons that The Fairminded(tm) would throw up their hands in horror … But the law doesn’t cover the vast majority of Unkind firing reasons because they rarely ever do happen.

Most business are in business for one simple reason. To make money. One doesn’t fire talent on a whim.

Oh sure, there are bosses from hell who have or may … I recall one specific owner who did some Friday night massacres about ever 18 months – walked into his admin offices and fired just about everyone that had annoyed him.

He lost his business.

Take a pill, Bill, sleep on it and maybe you’ll be better tomorrow.
Now, John Travolta Gets To Find Out What It’s Like To Be a Catholic Priest
May 13th, 2012 @ 4:42 pm

[…] Thanks to Smitty, who linked in a further post, after Bill Quick cut him almost to the cuticle. ShareThanks for rating this! Now tell the world […]
ThePaganTemple
May 13th, 2012 @ 4:47 pm

But-but-but-no matter how bad an employee is, if they are gay (or black, or Latino, etc.) you should always give them a second and third and maybe even a fourth chance, otherwise you’re probably really just firing them because they’re homosexual. This is a known proven fact, just ask Bill Maher or Dan Savage.
Bob Belvedere
May 13th, 2012 @ 7:36 pm

Bravo, Mike and FP. Well put, Gentlemen.
Bob Belvedere
May 13th, 2012 @ 7:37 pm

Most people who mindlessly regurgitate such arguments are lame losers.
SDN
May 13th, 2012 @ 10:25 pm

I’ve been reading Bill Quick’s blog for years. Over the last six months, he’s moved from atheist Libertarian to anti-theist willing to countenance as much statism as necessary to treat Christians as second-class citizens. Frankly, he’s started reminding me of Charles Johnson and Andrew Sullivan, and how they gave up any position to indulge their anti-religious feeling.
Here We Go Again | Daily Pundit
May 13th, 2012 @ 11:16 pm

[…] We Go Again Posted on May 13, 2012 8:16 pm by Bill Quick Really, Mr. Quick? : The Other McCain Hm. I can’t parse this in any meaningful way. Homosexuality, as an idea, argues its own […]
Quartermaster
May 14th, 2012 @ 8:31 am

Yes, Indeed!
Quartermaster
May 14th, 2012 @ 8:35 am

Phobias are , by definition, irrational. The libtards are doing their best to make us out as mentally ill. Pot, meet kettle.

I haven’t read Quick, but if that post is typical of him, I haven’t missed anything.
Bob Belvedere
May 14th, 2012 @ 8:41 am

Like all Ideologues, he has lost touch with the Real World.
Bob Belvedere
May 14th, 2012 @ 8:42 am

If what is said about James Buchanan is wrong, then Barry could be the first President on the Downlow.
Bob Belvedere
May 14th, 2012 @ 8:43 am

He’s also starting to remind me of those involved in The French Revolution.
Bob Belvedere
May 14th, 2012 @ 8:44 am

He claims he invented the word ‘Blogosphere’, don’t ya know.
Mwalimu_Daudi
May 14th, 2012 @ 12:06 pm

Quick used to be a small-government libertarian who has recently developed a taste for big government activism directed against people whom he hates. “Homophobes” – a group that seems to include anyone who does not preach the Gay Gospel chapter and verse – are his latest target.
‘It’s A Gay World’ « The Camp Of The Saints
May 14th, 2012 @ 2:35 pm

[…] A highlight from the first: [Quick wrote:] I support general civil rights for gays and their relationships, just as Obama does. I further regard most who oppose them as doing so almost entirely out of bigotry of one sort or another. […]