![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From Twitter..
Mar. 5th, 2010 05:54 pmRegarding this: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/03/04/crimesider/entry6266524.shtml (tl;dr: anti-gay republican congressman gets arrested DWI after leaving a gay bar with another man)
I expressed some schadenfreude over this. It's a kneejerk reaction, and it has been called the most unpleasant of the emotions. I feel I should explain.
Part the first: There's nothing wrong with being gay, and what goes on in relationships in terms of non-monogamy isn't a problem if all parties agree to it. If they don't, that's another story, but it is a problem primarily within the bounds of the relationships in question. The extent of what he has done in that evening that is actually a publicly shamefully wrong act is drink driving.
Part the second: However, he is a member of the republican party, and his voting record includes some very strong anti-gay rights activities. I do not agree with those, and I think that makes him a bad person. Though I admit I was not familiar with them until his arrest (let's just assume all members of the republican party suck on this count though)
Part the third: While I believe in forgiveness, I have a bloodlust for people who do the wrong thing on an on-going basis. In this instance the wrong thing was voting anti-gay, repressing the rights of gay people, and being a member of the republican party. But that said, someone's sexuality is by and large their own business, unless they try to make other people's sexuality an issue (ie through legislating against them), then it's game on.
Part the fourth: I'm sure it can't be easy to be gay or of alternative sexuality (suicide rates amoung gay teens for example are terrible), and I can understand why people would want to hide it (but they shouldn't). They deserve compassion and understanding. And if you live your whole life without the companionship you want because of it, that's sad. However, there's a level some people seem to go to in their denial: hate.
As an intermission, here's a brief run down of some of the recent sex scandals of the family values party.
Part the fifth: if you have a politically valuable secret, stay out of politics. He had freewill. He could choose not to run for government, he could choose to resign and become a lobbyist or businessman, he could choose to vote for gay rights, he could choose to come out either with a big announcement like Ellen Degeneres or a quiet realisation by popular media like Lindsay Lohan.
He had lots of choices to make this not an issue but for his drink driving, but he chose not to, all the while trampling the rights of people just like him, but the starts aligned to make it a perfect news story. That makes his downfall a shameful joy to watch. Such is the nature of "news". Too often it is slanted to encourage higher ratings through rousing emotions, not inform of important events. And as I acknowledged, I was suckered in by it.
--
While I'm at it with my ranting, don't get me started on The West Australia's beatup series of articles on the Poor Young Mum being refused a liver transplant in WA because she's A) had one already and B) has a wrecked liver because she was a heroin addict up until .. 8 weeks ago. Sure, there's a measure of second guessing to be done on that decision but you either say it's ok to give a third liver to someone who has already required a liver transplant because of drug use, then had that transplant fail, or you say it isn't. There need to be guidelines, and they shouldn't be subjective.
I expressed some schadenfreude over this. It's a kneejerk reaction, and it has been called the most unpleasant of the emotions. I feel I should explain.
Part the first: There's nothing wrong with being gay, and what goes on in relationships in terms of non-monogamy isn't a problem if all parties agree to it. If they don't, that's another story, but it is a problem primarily within the bounds of the relationships in question. The extent of what he has done in that evening that is actually a publicly shamefully wrong act is drink driving.
Part the second: However, he is a member of the republican party, and his voting record includes some very strong anti-gay rights activities. I do not agree with those, and I think that makes him a bad person. Though I admit I was not familiar with them until his arrest (let's just assume all members of the republican party suck on this count though)
Part the third: While I believe in forgiveness, I have a bloodlust for people who do the wrong thing on an on-going basis. In this instance the wrong thing was voting anti-gay, repressing the rights of gay people, and being a member of the republican party. But that said, someone's sexuality is by and large their own business, unless they try to make other people's sexuality an issue (ie through legislating against them), then it's game on.
Part the fourth: I'm sure it can't be easy to be gay or of alternative sexuality (suicide rates amoung gay teens for example are terrible), and I can understand why people would want to hide it (but they shouldn't). They deserve compassion and understanding. And if you live your whole life without the companionship you want because of it, that's sad. However, there's a level some people seem to go to in their denial: hate.
As an intermission, here's a brief run down of some of the recent sex scandals of the family values party.
Part the fifth: if you have a politically valuable secret, stay out of politics. He had freewill. He could choose not to run for government, he could choose to resign and become a lobbyist or businessman, he could choose to vote for gay rights, he could choose to come out either with a big announcement like Ellen Degeneres or a quiet realisation by popular media like Lindsay Lohan.
He had lots of choices to make this not an issue but for his drink driving, but he chose not to, all the while trampling the rights of people just like him, but the starts aligned to make it a perfect news story. That makes his downfall a shameful joy to watch. Such is the nature of "news". Too often it is slanted to encourage higher ratings through rousing emotions, not inform of important events. And as I acknowledged, I was suckered in by it.
--
While I'm at it with my ranting, don't get me started on The West Australia's beatup series of articles on the Poor Young Mum being refused a liver transplant in WA because she's A) had one already and B) has a wrecked liver because she was a heroin addict up until .. 8 weeks ago. Sure, there's a measure of second guessing to be done on that decision but you either say it's ok to give a third liver to someone who has already required a liver transplant because of drug use, then had that transplant fail, or you say it isn't. There need to be guidelines, and they shouldn't be subjective.
