6 Responses to George Gilder: Sayer of Things That Must Not Be Said
Ashley says:
December 23, 2011 at 6:33 pm
I would like to hear more from him on the issue of same-sex marriage. We need hard-hitters like that. We have the genteel types, like Maggie Gallagher, although SSMers probably don’t consider her to be “genteel.” But what if they were to get a dose of this guy?
It appears that he has a good reputation among libertarians. He made a great point about how social conservatism is not at odds with progress and freedom.
It was exhilarating to hear such a politically incorrect view of homosexuality and same sex marriage. I tried to find everything I could on Gilder after watching this.
Gilder appears to have the knowledge to pick apart the whole “all mental health organizations agree with us on the nature of homosexuality” mantra that is repeated on the ssm side. Describing the nature of homosexuality isn’t particularly important to winning the argument against ssm, IMO. But it is relevant to conveying some of the risks of ssm to regular folk, i.e. that their children will be taught that same-sex relationships are equivalent to the coital relationship, before they get to, as he said, “crystallize” their sexuality.
It’s difficult to explain the drawbacks of this “inculcation” to SSMers. The discussion usually turns into a continuous loop of “you can’t make a person gay” or “homosexuality is perfectly normal, the APA says so!” Or, they’ll try to claim that ssm and lgbt education are separate issues. But Gilder seems capable of making the connections and articulating the drawbacks to average, non-ideological Americans.
I’ve now watched this video several times, back to back. It’s quite addictive. I don’t know if you’ve seen this, but congrats on ruffling some gay feathers, lol:
Knowing that you’ve pissed off your opponent is a form of positive feedback.
That said, the people over at Ruth kicked me off their blog. They said I was being too sarcastic. Funny the post that got me kicked off (The Most Loathsome People in the World) was utterly free of sarcasm. I really mean it when I say that I find people who sue others to get their thoughts properly cleansed to be more contemptible than terrorists. (Terrorists, are of course, more evil, just less contemptible).
I think the NOM people were trying to run from the controversy my post caused. But I doubt it’s feasible to avoid controversy in the business they’re in.
Sarcastic? That’s a pretty interesting excuse. I agree that it was just a way for them to distance themselves from that particular post, which wasn’t bad, IMO.
I was shocked when they kicked you off. It didn’t accomplish anything, IMO, except to deprive us Ruth Institute supporters, and to pander to opponents.
SSMers still, and always will, hate NOM and the policy positions of the Ruth Institute. They’ll be sure to get offended by something else.
You kidding me? The SSMers released a post about how even though their execrable blogger is gone, Ruth is still horrible and here are a list of their awful posts.
I would like to hear more from him on the issue of same-sex marriage. We need hard-hitters like that. We have the genteel types, like Maggie Gallagher, although SSMers probably don’t consider her to be “genteel.” But what if they were to get a dose of this guy?
It appears that he has a good reputation among libertarians. He made a great point about how social conservatism is not at odds with progress and freedom.
It was exhilarating to hear such a politically incorrect view of homosexuality and same sex marriage. I tried to find everything I could on Gilder after watching this.
I ordered his book “Men and Marriage” but have yet to read it.
Gilder appears to have the knowledge to pick apart the whole “all mental health organizations agree with us on the nature of homosexuality” mantra that is repeated on the ssm side. Describing the nature of homosexuality isn’t particularly important to winning the argument against ssm, IMO. But it is relevant to conveying some of the risks of ssm to regular folk, i.e. that their children will be taught that same-sex relationships are equivalent to the coital relationship, before they get to, as he said, “crystallize” their sexuality.
It’s difficult to explain the drawbacks of this “inculcation” to SSMers. The discussion usually turns into a continuous loop of “you can’t make a person gay” or “homosexuality is perfectly normal, the APA says so!” Or, they’ll try to claim that ssm and lgbt education are separate issues. But Gilder seems capable of making the connections and articulating the drawbacks to average, non-ideological Americans.
I’ve now watched this video several times, back to back. It’s quite addictive. I don’t know if you’ve seen this, but congrats on ruffling some gay feathers, lol:
http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201109010010
And I’m being sincere when I say “congrats”
Thank you.
Knowing that you’ve pissed off your opponent is a form of positive feedback.
That said, the people over at Ruth kicked me off their blog. They said I was being too sarcastic. Funny the post that got me kicked off (The Most Loathsome People in the World) was utterly free of sarcasm. I really mean it when I say that I find people who sue others to get their thoughts properly cleansed to be more contemptible than terrorists. (Terrorists, are of course, more evil, just less contemptible).
I think the NOM people were trying to run from the controversy my post caused. But I doubt it’s feasible to avoid controversy in the business they’re in.
Sarcastic? That’s a pretty interesting excuse. I agree that it was just a way for them to distance themselves from that particular post, which wasn’t bad, IMO.
I was shocked when they kicked you off. It didn’t accomplish anything, IMO, except to deprive us Ruth Institute supporters, and to pander to opponents.
SSMers still, and always will, hate NOM and the policy positions of the Ruth Institute. They’ll be sure to get offended by something else.
You kidding me? The SSMers released a post about how even though their execrable blogger is gone, Ruth is still horrible and here are a list of their awful posts.