Brain Fertilizer

Well, Nathan, just because GP and his commenters paint everything with broad brushes doesn't mean the rest of us have to. I think there's a difference between saying, "Even gays who support gay marriage should not make it a higher priority than the WOT in endorsing politicians or casting votes," on the one hand, and saying, "It's selfish for gays ever to intrude on the public debate with any of their controversial issues during the WOT, because dissent is disloyal to America," on the other.

The latter is pretty damned close to what some people seem to be saying, and I find it manipulative--and you know me: I don't even support gay marriage and plan to vote (without much pleasure) for Bush. When people use gay marriage to change the subject and avoid confronting WOT issues (which, I say with a heavy heart, I think Andrew Sullivan is doing lately), then yes, it's reprehensible. But the SSM question is part of a whole webwork of questions about marriage and childrearing that seem to me to be rather urgent; I don't see how avoiding it is, in and of itself, some kind of noble act.

Oh, and BTW, the fact that I'm never, ever wrong has nothing to do with my homosexuality.

Well, hold on there, pardner. I didn't actually comment on the piece, I just reacted to what one person said about people who share my political views.

I wasn't going to weigh in on the actual issue being discussed, because not being homosexual myself, I'm not allowed to have an opinion [/snark].

But actually, I agree with you. I don't think it is any more fair for GP to muzzle discussion of the issue in the name of national security than it is for other homosexual activitists to muzzle discussion of national security in the name of homosexual rights.

Personally, I think that the approach should be: all issues should be discussed, because we are complete and total persons with many complex motivations and desires. However, it really is counterproductive to make any one issue so important that it trumps all others. Such an approach tends to result in lost perspective, such as those who would oppose Bush for his views on SSM, even if it means not opposing an ideology that would prefer to execute all homosexuals, or those who would give up struggling for any of their other views just because Bush is strong on terror.
We can discuss oil dependency, taxation, no child left behind, and abortion while still dealing with security...but no issue should be discussed without at least acknowledging the impact of other issues. One should always look at the interconnectedness of politics, rather than taking any one issue in isolation.

The post was just snark. In reality, I do understand how a shift in social context can make moderation suddenly seem extreme, and vice versa.

"Pardner"? Oh, my. Thanks for the gesture of acceptance, but I don't hang out in those bars.

Anyway, I did notice the sarcasm; I just wasn't sure it went all the way down. As in, you seemed to be talking seriously about a shift in the debate, even though it was clear your characterization of your own position was facetious. Thanks for clarifying.

You know, I really wish you could show affected regional accents more effectively in typing. It would make my blogging far more entertaining and effective.

In any case, I have cleared up my position on the issue? As a general rule, no matter what the issue may be, I always favor more discussion and debate, and bristle angrily at any attempt to deligitimize anyone's opinion. "Blind men and the elephant" and all that, so the more input, the better, I always say. You can't get a 3-D view from a single viewpoint, and the more angles from which you view an object, the more accurate your understanding should be.