John Morgan has responded to my recent effort, "Local Dems Push Poofter Rights" on his blog, The Pennsylvania Progressive. Unfortunately, since progressives are more interested in their free speech rights than mine, I harbor no illusions that I would be allowed to post a reply on his blog. Hence, here is my response:
Morgan, you old pooftah (sorry about getting the spelling wrong previously on "poofter," but I was so addled from many recent wild orgies and LSD-fueled raves on Elm Street, I rather forgot my dictionary at the office), sorry you took umbrage to my comments regarding issues involving the...ahem...gender challenged.
I was merely stating a position that seems also to be the position of the vast majority of American citizens as of about, say, last I checked, this morning. And a slur? An offense? Tish, tosh, Morgan. To point out your proclivities should not be a slur if you're proud of them. On the other hand, if you're not, well, then, the slur is in the eye of the sluree (Notice I resisted the temptation to say "slurpee" with all its attendant imagery? Point for that, eh?).
But we both know the real point of this exercise, don't we, Johnny Boy? And though I am indeed flattered, your obvious attempt to get me to notice you and further enhance your fantasy life, must be, alas, directed at another. But massive points on good taste. Besides, it would interfere with the obvious unrequited regard that a certain tall, lanky, transgender type that has been seen stalking Elm Street must harbor for you.
Cordially Yours in Raging Heterosexuality,
JF
p.s.- Second Class citizenry for you? Perish the thought! Fourth or Fifth Class should do nicely.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
It's one thing to against the agenda of the radical faction of the gay rights movement. It's another thing entirely to refer to gays as 'poofters' and to suggest that they should be 4th or 5th class citizens. I hope you aren't going to run for office again because you just hung yourself with those comments. I'm no holy-roller gay rights activist but I do have a cousin who is gay and I don't appreciate your ignorant comments.
You obviously don't understand satire, even as I expect the gays won't. I haven't the time to explain it. As for running for office again, I doubt it will have much effect at all. You overestimate your own influence.
My influence has nothing to do with it. I'm just a regular fellow who just happened to stumble onto your blog. I voted for you in the past but I won't make that mistake again.
Now, of course, my hanging myself with those comments has just turned into little old individual you not voting for me. As I say again, I will not trouble myself waiting up election night for the massive return from the gay community for Republicans.
It's funny how so many people--even Republicans--have a gay friend or family member and thus aren't as anti-gay as they may have been in the past. I'm simply suggesting that if you want a political future you might want to clamp down on the anti-gay stuff. You are certainly entitled to your beliefs but you have no right to use the state as a tool to propagate those views.
I have gay friends, but I view their movement and, indeed, the resoultion which is at the bottom of this exchange as an attempt to change what has been traditional practice for thousands of years for very good reason: it is aberrant behavior. For the most part, with regard to the offices for which I run, the issue simply does not come up. Thus, frankly, my poltical future is safe. But government *always* functions as a tool to propagate beliefs and views; otherwise, we would not have laws. Someone's morality is *always* legislated. I prefer it to be mine since it at least has the virtue of being based on traditions that are older than, say, the fad of last week.
Post a Comment