Reply #448: Yes, to bring down one HYPOCRITE HOMOPHOBE [View All]

[scottxyz]

You didn't answer any of the points in my post, and you just chose to talk about "bringing down one to endanger the many".

I guess I'm talking about bringing down a homophobe and a hypocrite. Whereas you're worrying about bringing down a homosexual.

So you think you're being "liberal" by protecting Dreier because he might be homosexual. You're saying that gives him the right to be a hypocrite and a homophobe, and if I try to point that out, I'm engaging in a "witch hunt" and I'm "stooping to the same tactics the right wing employs".

I think you are overly sympathetic for Dreier because you think he might be gay. Now he's become a sacred cow to you, as a way for you to show how "liberal" you are.

If he had been a married man seeing a prostitute (and passing laws against adulterers), you'd probably be all for exposing him. But being a homosexual is some kind of "protected status" in your book, because you think that's what being a liberal is all about.

And your language about "endanger" is revealing - and patronizing. It does not "endanger" Clarence Thomas for us to point out that as a black person, it is ironic for him to oppose measures which would help black people. It does not "endager" Phyllis Schafly for us to point out that as a woman, it is ironic for her to oppose measures which would help women.

But those poor homosexuals. We can never point out that one of THEM might be self-hating, because that might "endanger" them all.

Stop being so patronizing. Barney Frank and all the other homosexuals in Washington DC and the rest of the world will not be "endangered" if we point out the irony of an anti-gay gay in Congress.

The only person here who is "endangering" homosexuals is Dreier himself - whether or not he is gay. He's the one passing laws that deprive gay people of the right to partner health benefits. If it were to emerge that he were in fact gay, it wouldn't "endanger" him - but it might endanger the support he's had.