Who posts this trash on FB. Good call to people who told me not to give it pageviews, so editing to include the text instead of the link. It is written by Matt Walsh on his blog. Re-edited down to highlights because someone told me I have to and I like to do what I'm told. Also I added some very brilliant and eloquent commentary and summation..summarization?
If you want to prove you don't hate gays, all you have to do is worship at their feet
I have never in my life encountered a religion as oppressive, cold, and stiff as Progressivism. I've never known a faith more eager to burn heretics at the stake. Even a fundamentalist Iranian Muslim would flinch if he came face to face with a western liberal's rigid dogmatism. I imagine that even a Saudi Arabian Islamic cleric would take one look at how American left wingers react when anyone deviates ever so slightly from their established orthodoxy, and say to himself, "man, these people REALLY need to chill."
Bla bla bla.
I hope that all of my fellow Christians and conservatives soon catch on to this reality. It seems that many in our camp have been too afraid of confrontation and too addicted to approval and affirmation, so we sent up the white flag and surrendered the culture entirely. "Hey, you do you, it's none of my business," we said, and moved on to arguing over safer things, like the economy or foreign policy. We rejected political candidates who dared to venture onto the forbidden soil of 'social issues' and instead nominated milquetoast moderates who run around regurgitating platitudes about how we should 'just talk about jobs.' But the progressives have concentrated almost exclusively on winning the culture and reshaping our society in their image. While conservatives set up shop way off in the outskirts, liberals have burrowed right into the heart of America and gone to work subverting and perverting our civilization at its most foundational level.
Something about the "slaughter" of the nuclear family? Bla bla bla.
So I suppose my point here is simple:
...Either/or, black or white, right or wrong. Sorry, there are only two options, and you have to choose one. Progressivism says that you are either with it or against it, and on that point I agree.
Sports rage against Michael Sam.
Is an unspectacular player worth the media circus that will follow? Would any coach in their right mind relish the thought of being accused of bigotry if Sam has to be cut to make room for better players? Does any football organization want to be tossed into the middle of a 'gay rights' fight when their only concern is winning football games? One poor team answered 'yes' to these questions, but 31 did not. Tony Dungy echoed the sentiments of the 31 teams — the sane ones.
More sports rage. Talking about how Michael Sam is a "pseudo" equal rights crusader, and not very good at sports.
This dude is on a crusade, and it's got nothing to do with making the playoffs and bringing home the Lombardi Trophy. He's not worth the trouble, not by a longshot. Any rational person can see that, and Tony Dungy is a rational person.
Some people called for some bigot's firing on Tweeter, and so Progressives are bad. Or something. We are intolerant of intolerance I guess.
We have now reached a point where you are a homophobe and a scumbag if you wouldn't hypothetically draft a negligible late round homosexual defensive prospect to your hypothetical football team. There is no reason or sanity left in the ranks of the progressive cultists. There is only absolute obedience, conformity, and hate.
Yes! Just like Nazis, right? You have to all conform, and you all hate. Methinks someone is getting scared because of a minority complex...since everyone around you is not such an asshole. Asshole minority!
Something about a white guy talking to a black guy about Civil Rights stuff.
In any case, his view is the liberal view. Homosexuality and abortion come first for these people. Everything else is second. They will say anything, no matter how absurd or degrading, in order to defend the only two things they seem to really care about.
Who you calling "these people"?
Now, if I wanted to explain why you can't compare pre-civil rights blacks to modern gays, I might point out the dramatic disparity in how the two groups were treated. I might say that black people went from being used like farm animals to being 'freed' but still deprived of their most essential human rights and most basic protections under the law. I might point out that gays are not subject to that kind of oppression, and to insist otherwise is to demonstrate a complete lack of integrity or sanity. I might tell you that a black man could be hung from a tree without legal repercussion, whereas a gay man in modern times can't even be refused a wedding cake without the full weight of the justice system coming down upon the offending baker.
I am not equipped to decide whether the Civil Rights movement and the Gay Rights movement are on the same playing field (they're not the same but that doesn't negate the importance of the latter). Let people do what they want, h8er.
I might go a step further and explain that blacks are a people. A culture. A race. A heritage. Black is part of their identity, by any measure. Physically, genetically, socially, culturally. Homosexuals, on the other hand, are not a race. They are not a people. They are people, individually, but they are not an actual community as a whole.
1. Can he say "blacks" like that (honest question)?
2. It seems like...you can't decide what a community is and isn't?
These are all of the things I might say, but it's probably useless. This isn't a discussion, anyway. When you degrade and attack a man for holding a sensible and utterly unremarkable opinion about something as inconsequential as hypothetical draft strategies, you are obviously not interested in having a conversation.
I'm sorry, I think what you meant was When you degrade and attack a man for loving another man you are obviously not interested in having a conversation.
You're either with them or against them.
Well, at least you are correct about one thing!