denis
2012-03-26 19:40:13 UTC
There is without any doubt a queer agenda that has as its goal the
forced acceptance of queers - socially, culturally, politically and
legally. It extends far beyond mere equal civil and legal rights,
which
- if that were the extent of the activism - would be largely
unobjectionable.
* forced cultural acceptance
Queers agitate for cultural recognition and acceptance. You can't
listen to NPR or watch PBS, or pick up a mainstream media
newspaper,
and not be hit over the head with a constant stream of stories
about
queers; essentially, "what it's like to be queer in America."
* forced social acceptance
That's what that pernicious California law, SB 48, to mandate
teaching
about queers in school, is about. This is not about teaching
school
children not to bully or harass queers - it is intended to force
children
to *acknowledge* queers, continually. It's about policing thought
in
the schools.
* special legal rights
Queers agitate for "hate crime" legislation that forces a common
crime
committed against a queer to be treated more harshly than the same
crime
committed against a normal person. This is another instance of
attempting
to criminalize thought. Criminalizing thought is totalitarian.
* suppression of liberties of critics of queers
Queers regularly agitate for limitations on free speech rights, if
not
the outright abolition of First Amendment rights, of critics of the
queer agenda.
I know three queers and one carpet muncher who are publicly
self-identified as queers; obviously I probably know some closeted
queers without knowing they're queers. One of the queers, and the
carpet muncher, are just intolerably aggressive in promoting the queer
agenda and loudly and flamboyantly making their queer identity into a
club with which they beat people over the head. The other two queers,
while I think they probably subscribe to some of the queer agenda,
don't
make it known. One of them is an extravagantly flamboyant queer,
while
the other is much more subdued. Even the flamer is fairly tolerable,
however, as he is never obviously pushing an agenda.
The queer and the CM who are aggressively pushing the agenda are just
fucking obnoxious, and I generally avoid them (the other two make for
fairly good social company.) I don't care that the queers prefer the
sausage platter while the CM prefers the sushi bar - what I can't
stand
about them is their constant pushing of an obnoxious agenda that has a
huge element of entitlement built into it - a bitter, corrosive sense
of
entitlement to things to which I don't feel they are entitled.
forced acceptance of queers - socially, culturally, politically and
legally. It extends far beyond mere equal civil and legal rights,
which
- if that were the extent of the activism - would be largely
unobjectionable.
* forced cultural acceptance
Queers agitate for cultural recognition and acceptance. You can't
listen to NPR or watch PBS, or pick up a mainstream media
newspaper,
and not be hit over the head with a constant stream of stories
about
queers; essentially, "what it's like to be queer in America."
* forced social acceptance
That's what that pernicious California law, SB 48, to mandate
teaching
about queers in school, is about. This is not about teaching
school
children not to bully or harass queers - it is intended to force
children
to *acknowledge* queers, continually. It's about policing thought
in
the schools.
* special legal rights
Queers agitate for "hate crime" legislation that forces a common
crime
committed against a queer to be treated more harshly than the same
crime
committed against a normal person. This is another instance of
attempting
to criminalize thought. Criminalizing thought is totalitarian.
* suppression of liberties of critics of queers
Queers regularly agitate for limitations on free speech rights, if
not
the outright abolition of First Amendment rights, of critics of the
queer agenda.
I know three queers and one carpet muncher who are publicly
self-identified as queers; obviously I probably know some closeted
queers without knowing they're queers. One of the queers, and the
carpet muncher, are just intolerably aggressive in promoting the queer
agenda and loudly and flamboyantly making their queer identity into a
club with which they beat people over the head. The other two queers,
while I think they probably subscribe to some of the queer agenda,
don't
make it known. One of them is an extravagantly flamboyant queer,
while
the other is much more subdued. Even the flamer is fairly tolerable,
however, as he is never obviously pushing an agenda.
The queer and the CM who are aggressively pushing the agenda are just
fucking obnoxious, and I generally avoid them (the other two make for
fairly good social company.) I don't care that the queers prefer the
sausage platter while the CM prefers the sushi bar - what I can't
stand
about them is their constant pushing of an obnoxious agenda that has a
huge element of entitlement built into it - a bitter, corrosive sense
of
entitlement to things to which I don't feel they are entitled.