LOL

Ron Paul's campaign slogan should be 'Im gay'

Sorry leave me out of it . Excuse me , just one comment. As a heterosexual, I have homosexual friends whom I respect and they do the same for me. So, live and let live.

Thanks! If the GOP is not ready for Ron Paul, I say we take it to the whole nation. It is not right to let some Romney supporters deprive the American people of a real alternative to Obama. Otherwise, the game is over when Romney is nominated.

Ron Paul for president all the way. Gay or not I'd vote for sure. Nice article :P

Sorry, error in spelling my last name. (see previous comment)

So when we do not agree with someone else's opinion, we can tell him or her "so we agree to disagree." Then we can still be friends or cordial to that person and not resent them!

It has become almost impossible to talk across the great divide. People are increasingly (self) segregating by political belief down to the level of zip code and precinct--taking great care in choosing friends, employers, and news sources...shielding themselves from differing viewpoints...trusting their own side to accurately report the views of others. Communication across the gap tends to be via personal attack. Eric Mao is one of the few people that I know who can understand an idea even if he disagrees with it. Granted that is an odd statement, since one cannot disagree with what one does not even understand. (Otherwise, it is mere personal distaste.) But such is our current society. He is also the rare soul that can disagree without being disagreeable. We all know that cultures fall. As Arnold Toynbee said: "Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder." In retrospect, we can see the incomprehensible errors made by falling nations. But they didn’t seem so at the time. Indeed, when a culture is falling it seems somehow “common sense” to rush into the sea like lemmings. (Or, in later stages, to at least view it as unavoidable.) In a falling nation, things are often reversed: right becomes wrong, and vice versa. Priorities transpose. We have a sense of righteous indignation...which sometimes bleeds into self-righteousness: and it tends to get twisted--by the very confirmation bias discussed above. But here is the critical point: in a falling nation, one must see the confirmation bias in others, but NEVER look in the mirror at self. Indeed, dissent must not be tolerated: otherwise, how could we all rush into the sea? (To anticipate the obvious rejoinder: yes, I know this is not funny; and that is is speciesist; and that it based upon lemming stereotypes which may even be inaccurate. Quite shocking, really. :-) Moreover, how could it be otherwise? Falls have painful consequences! (Granted, for a while it looked like the British empire came in for a soft landing: but we are seeing that their fall is not yet over.) Societies could diminish, but not really fall absent blindness (which also requires strong sanctions against using one’s vision). We’ve come increasingly to the point where there is no shared sense of reality, and no shared sense of values, as a basis for communication. Indeed, dissent (which used to be the highest form of patriotism when Bush was in office) is now literally a diagnosable mental illness (a phobia). So, there really is nothing to discuss, is there? Treatment is the only answer. Perhaps voluntary. Perhaps once power is consolidated further: involuntary. A friend’s mother used to say something like this about progressives (by whatever name): "There are all sorts of people who want to change the whole world--bringing universal peace and love--but who cannot maintain a permanent relationship with even one other person...not even a person of their own choosing." Ideology is inhuman on a number of levels. As to the immediate issue, my experience with homosexuals is that--in general--they are by no means deficient in senses of humor, and are quick to make fun of both homosexuality and heterosexuality. In fact, if something really is not funny, then it is pointless to announce it. Rather, something else is going on: the desire to attack and control (which if combined with government power becomes totalitarianism). The poisonous “j’accuse” legacy of the French Revolution. But people really don’t like to be attacked and controlled--which partly accounts for the aforementioned problems in maintaining basic human relationships. A friend who was a veteran of many debates with feminists made this observation which applies to “progressives” (progressing towards what?) in my experience. The basic premisses of the most common progressive arguments: 1. I’m a good person. 2. I believe X. 3. You don’t believe X. 4. Therefore, you are a bad person. (Racist, sexist, homophobe, Nazi, Fascist, chauvinist, pig, wing-nut, redneck, greedy, capitalist, insensitive, uncompassionate, hater, Islamaphobe, imperialist, reactionary, religious nut, religious right, right wing, Faux News reader, tool of the rich, repressed, repressor, war monger...I could go on for pages). For decades conservatives tried to contest premiss number 4: “No, gosh, I’m not a bad person.” There are no good arguments against such insults, but many pathetic ones. Then came a witty comedian, who is unaccountably misunderstood to be a political commentator: Ann Coulter. (I will pause here for your primal scream. :-) She essentially said: you effete, wimpish conservatives! The faulty premiss is #1! Good people don’t play gotcha games--especially with friends. They don’t slander. They don’t misrepresent and demonize based upon honest disagreements about policies. They respect others. I spent a year in a radical dorm in college, and two years in a largely radical department: I had never observed such hate, intolerance, and blind conformity in my life. I don’t recall hearing a single original thought during that period. The same terms. The same “arguments.” The same insults. As that ideology has spread to the wider culture, I have seen little change since. I don’t know what you mean by “homophobia”: but it the ordinary meaning of it is to claim that it is mental illness to believe that marriage is primarily about responsibilities, rather than rights, and the PRIMARY purpose of the institution--and in particular governmental involvement in it--concerns raising the next generation. As for bigotry, that is indeed a serious problem: but it is the most serious in the places and the ways least imagined by progressives.

Sue, If the government’s involvement was just “educating and communicating about the detrimental effects of homophobia and racism,” I could accept it provided very limited amount of tax dollar was expended. Nevertheless, we need to be mindful that taxation is part of the coercive apparatus of government, all things done by government are based on force and threat of force, and thus the government’s role should be limited to defense, public safety and resolving dispute between citizens. As I observe, the government has overstepped the boundaries of “educating and communicating," as it always does. In fact, it has instituted coercive measures such as affirmative action, an equal employment opportunity agency, and other laws and policies aimed at righting the wrong by overcompensating. These measures will only engender laments in a reasonable person and more hatred in a hateful individual, both of which go against harmony in society. Despite the apparent equality that this policy creates, people filled with prejudice are becoming angrier, which is no way of correcting any biased views. Moreover, the imposed equality is fragile and nothing but distorted justice. There will always be homophobes and racists in society and the government’s meddling can never fix that; on the contrary, it only makes the problem worse, with other unintended consequences. Despite some anti-social members of society, humans possess the faculty of reason and the sense of right and wrong. The progress in overcoming prejudices has been made in spite of the government, not because of. With the government out of the way (I hope), we as a society will get better at a faster pace. As to the remaining few prejudiced individuals, they will be ostracized by public opinion.

I agree that homophobia, racism and other prejudices are detrimental to harmony. However, I am also very well aware that resistance to change is also human nature and people do not change without some form of intervention. In other words, people usually are not aware that their views are biased and continue to perpetuate their biased, prejudiced views unless there is some sort of a catalyst, event, or intervention that leads them to think otherwise. This is because most people tend to be victims of confirmation bias. People tend to look for evidence that matches their belief and ignore the evidence that contradicts it. This is one of the reasons why racism and homophobia still exist today. I do not believe educating and communicating about the detrimental effects of homophobia and racism is a coercive apparatus of government imposing harmony. Rather, this is a way to help people be more open to new ideas and concepts and as a result, it promotes harmony in our society.

Sue, You said, “…by saying that since we have elected our first “gay” president we are not homophobic anymore, we don’t actually do anything about changing our homophobic attitudes, values, beliefs, and etc. Similarly, it is idiotic to think that electing an African American president frees us from our racist attitudes, beliefs, stereotypes that are still pervasive in American society.” Well said, and this is exactly the point of the sarcasm in this article. You stated, “Is anyone interested in addressing the real issue at hand here including Ron Paul? Homophobia and racism are deeply ingrained in every day American life.” Division of labor is vital for our survival and prosperity, and that is why we humans live in society. Society functions better with harmony. Homophobia, racism and other prejudices are detrimental to harmony. Harmony comes from people’s hearts, and thus the coercive apparatus of government imposing harmony only masks the problem and aggravates it at its root—how people feel about each other. Unfortunately, prejudice against people different from oneself is human nature; on the other hand, wanting a harmonious society is also human nature. With the faculty of reason, we have made progress in this area over time, despite all the unintended consequences of government meddling. P.S. Dr. Sue Bae is my wife. Many people wouldn’t believe husband and wife can have world views that are so different. Sue and her progressive friends actually help me gain insight into liberal minds without actually getting into debate in the family or when we are hanging out. Yet, you can probably catch debates between us on this blog.

This is not funny. This is very sad and offensive. Is anyone interested in addressing the real issue at hand here including Ron Paul? Homophobia and racism are deeply ingrained in every day American life. Ron Paul being gay or saying he is gay will not do anything about homophobia in America. In fact it will only reinforce and perpetuate homophobia. For example, by saying that since we have elected our first "gay" president we are not homophobic anymore, we don't actually do anything about changing our homophobic attitudes, values, beliefs, and etc. Similarly, it is idiotic to think that electing an African American president frees us from our racist attitudes, beliefs, stereotypes that are still pervasive in American society. This kind of thinking even in jokes and kidding around does not make American life better and goes against pursuit of liberty.