creepy cult of identity politics

[_subgenius]

the primary driving force behind gay-marriage legalization is not people who believe in individual rights. This push is, rather, largely the work of the identitarian New Left, the same Marxoid juggernaut that has brought us some of the most destructive policies and concepts in our history. What should be a movement based on individual liberty is actually a Frankfurt School-tinged movement of identity politics.
...
The radical identitarian Left is all of a sudden pretending to be Constitutionalists, citing the 14th Amendment as if they actually gave a s*** about equal protection under the law — this canard after decades of shilling for affirmative action, PC campus speech codes, reparations, anti-male divorce courts, the subsidization of contraception by religious objectors, “abortion on demand,” etc. I have no time for this gang of phonies and tyrants; I don’t believe a word they say.
...
The creepy cult of identity politics, the centerpiece of modern progressivism, is something that I oppose with every fiber of every muscle of my body and mind. The corollary of this cult is the practice of liberationism — the push for amassing greater state power, which will (in theory but not in practice) be wielded for the benificent purpose of “social justice.” Anyone who has ever walked into a DMV knows how fraudulent the notion of benevolent government is. Anyone paying attention to the EU’s siphoning of wealth away from Cypriots, or to the assault on free speech in the name of political correctness taking place in Canada, the UK, and continental Europe, knows that no principle is safe these days in the face of the state.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/03/27/my ... epage=true

So, while we have same sex marriage experience a momentary legal victory at the hands of the same court that also considers corporations to be "people too" - is identity politics good or bad for all things free and American?

[_MeDotOrg]

If you can't make a logical argument against gay marriage, tie it in with everything else you don't like. All part of a vast conspiracy. Somehow Anthony Kennedy's decision is tied to Cypriot banking.

Yes, the 'Marxoid Juggernaut', led by that notorious Marxist, Reagan-appointed Anthony Kennedy. The author conveniently forgets that it is Totalitarian regimes, whether Marxist of Fascist, that have been the most oppressive against homosexuals. Liberal democracies have been in the forefront in the struggle for gay rights.

Look at history. Which movements do you admire that have predicated their own rights on the denial of those same rights to others?

[_Brackite]

If you can't make a logical argument against gay marriage, tie it in with everything else you don't like. All part of a vast conspiracy. Somehow Anthony Kennedy's decision is tied to Cypriot banking.

Yes, the 'Marxoid Juggernaut', led by that notorious Marxist, Reagan-appointed Anthony Kennedy. The author conveniently forgets that it is Totalitarian regimes, whether Marxist of Fascist, that have been the most oppressive against homosexuals. Liberal democracies have been in the forefront in the struggle for gay rights.

Look at history. Which movements do you admire that have predicated their own rights on the denial of those same rights to others?

Plus it was President Ronald Reagan, who originally nominated Vaughn Walker to be a federal Judge, and it was President George H.W. Bush who re-nominated Vaughn Walker, who was then confirmed by the Senate to be a federal Judge.

[_subgenius]

If you can't make a logical argument against gay marriage, tie it in with everything else you don't like. All part of a vast conspiracy. Somehow Anthony Kennedy's decision is tied to Cypriot banking.

Yes, the 'Marxoid Juggernaut', led by that notorious Marxist, Reagan-appointed Anthony Kennedy. The author conveniently forgets that it is Totalitarian regimes, whether Marxist of Fascist, that have been the most oppressive against homosexuals. Liberal democracies have been in the forefront in the struggle for gay rights.

Look at history. Which movements do you admire that have predicated their own rights on the denial of those same rights to others?

Yawn...gay rights? please, clarify by what measure that the specific identity of being "gay" entitles you to certain rights?

as for movements that have predicated their own rights on the denial of those same rights to others?....don't be absurd...SSM is not based on denying a right, but merely a qualification and social virtue. No more than i am denying the right to vote in America to non-U.S. citizens or those U.S. citizens under the age of 18 years.

Your argument thus far has merely confirmed the OP assertion about the "creepy cult".

[_ajax18]

reparations, anti-male divorce courts

I can't wait to see gay divorce court. The current family law standard of blaming and making the man pay for everything will be difficult to uphold for relationships that don't have a man involved to blame. I guess they can always sue the sperm bank and try to chase down the donor for child support.

William Marotta donated sperm to a lesbian couple in 2009. He is now being sued by the state of Kansas to pay child support, even though his lawyer said he had a written agreement with the couple that he would not care for the child or have any parental responsibilities.

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/h ... -1.1232394

[_ldsfaqs]

as for movements that have predicated their own rights on the denial of those same rights to others?....don't be absurd...SSM is not based on denying a right, but merely a qualification and social virtue. No more than i am denying the right to vote in America to non-U.S. citizens or those U.S. citizens under the age of 18 years.

It's even more than that however..... Because the irony is, is that THEY are the ones who are trying to deny "Heterosexaul" rights, while trying to have their own, by co-opting the Marriage Institution thus denying us our definition of marriage in society. They are trying to make our definition as their own, rather than creating their OWN Institution of Marriage with it's own definition.

They've already co-opted the word "gay" which used to mean joy, happy, etc. something wonderful and beautiful. They co-opted it turning it into THEIR perversion. The same will happen with marriage. Marriage will come to mean nothing "sacred" and beautiful anymore, but simply a legal contract that can mean anything for anyone, not something that exalts and makes society stable.

[_MeDotOrg]

as for movements that have predicated their own rights on the denial of those same rights to others?....don't be absurd...SSM is not based on denying a right, but merely a qualification and social virtue. No more than i am denying the right to vote in America to non-U.S. citizens or those U.S. citizens under the age of 18 years.

It's even more than that however..... Because the irony is, is that THEY are the ones who are trying to deny "Heterosexaul" rights, while trying to have their own, by co-opting the Marriage Institution thus denying us our definition of marriage in society. They are trying to make our definition as their own, rather than creating their OWN Institution of Marriage with it's own definition.

They've already co-opted the word "gay" which used to mean joy, happy, etc. something wonderful and beautiful. They co-opted it turning it into THEIR perversion. The same will happen with marriage. Marriage will come to mean nothing "sacred" and beautiful anymore, but simply a legal contract that can mean anything for anyone, not something that exalts and makes society stable.

Agnostics can marry. Atheists can marry. Two blood-splashed Satan worshipers can marry. And yet if two homosexual Unitarians want to get married, only THIS violates the 'sanctity' of marriage?

Using the 'sanctity' of marriage to justify your argument is a canard. Millions of people marry each year without the blessing of the Mormon Church or any church. If you want to prohibit homosexual marriages in your church, the state will not interfere, just as the state did not interfere with denying blacks the Priesthood. There are still churches that prohibit interracial couples from marrying.

The Mormon church had the right to deny blacks the Priesthood. No one would claim that it had the right to tell other religions that they must also deny blacks the Priesthood. If you want to deny blacks the Priesthood or gay couples permission to marry based on 'qualification' or 'social virtue' or 'God's will', that's fine. Just don't tell me that is what I have to do.

Catholics may not like divorce, but their Church does not have the right to define the parameters of marriage for other religions.

If you are going to object to homosexual couples using the argument that their marriages violate the 'sanctity' of marriage, what will you do to prohibit all of the heterosexual couples that marry while denying the existence of God?

And will someone please explain what the Supreme Court decision has to do with banking in Cyprus?