Monday, October 4, 2010


I have a quick nit to pick with the media - stop referring to animus as "insensitivity."  Today's example comes from, which refers to Mike Pence's claim that stopping gay marriage is more important than the economy as "insensitivity to gay Americans."  But Mike Pence isn't being insensitive to the LGBT community, he's declaring outright war against them.

Unfortunately, I see this time and time again when it comes to describing what politicians said.  When Senator DeMint says that gays and sexually active women shouldn't be allowed to teach, he's not being insensitive to their interests, he's actively saying that all unmarried women are sluts, and gay men are pedophiles.  That's not "insensitive," its an expression of antipathy (go ahead, look up the definition of antipathy, I'll wait).  Is the KKK insensitive to African Americans and Jewish Americans?  No, the KKK actually wants to forcibly remove all non-White people from the United States in as violent a way as possible.

All this leads to the ultimate non-apology, apology - I'm sorry if I said anything that offended you.  My favorite examples of this include Trent Lott saying that he wished segregation still existed, the University of Colorado football coach who said it was okay for the kicker to be raped because she was a terrible kicker (definitely a reason to either quit the team, or play your best at all times), and let's see. . .I'm blanking now.  But even though these guys said horrible things, its apparently the fault of the listener that they got offended.  Um, no. 

So please media, stop saying that someone is "insensitive" when in reality, the person is a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe, or a homophobe. 


  1. Treading a fine line there...Just because I don't think that gay marriage is a good thing for society, does not make me a homophobe. As a matter of fact, I would be all for gay marriage, as long as we open it up to polygamy as well. Tie those two together and I am all for it. See, not a homophobe, just a personal rights kinda-guy...that I believe that Marriage is a Religious thing that the State has decided to recognise for the betterment of society. If you are going to hijack it and make it your own, just make sure you do so fairly!

  2. Well. . .maybe. Polygamy (which allows a man to marry more than one woman) would be a discriminatory practice, and unconstitutional. Plural marriage, on the other hand, would pass constitutional muster, but even then, it could be problematic. I need to think more about that.

    Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, would not change the marriage landscape that much. Rather, it would bring a minority into the fold of society, and that's a good thing. St. Paul's homophobia aside - and his views on homosexuality appear to be more extreme than the Old Testament's - his idea of using marriage as a way to regulate human sexuality is a good one, even when it comes to gays and lesbians.

    So, I don't think you are a homophobe, but (like the President) you need to be enlightened on the subject.

  3. Well, actually Polygamy is multiple spouses, regardless of sex ( not just limited to a man...and if Gay marriage is to be allowed, then Polygamy must be as well.

    What about Bi-Marriage? I mean, why limit it to just legalizing gay marriage. If I were bi-sexual, wouldn't it be discriminitory to not allow me to get married to a man and a woman?

  4. I completely disagree. While there are some people who aren't monogamous, there are other options available to them (open marriages, etc.).

    Being gay in American right now means that you cannot serve your country openly and you cannot have your relationship recognized by the state. Not a relationship between you and your ten wives, but a relationship between you and one person that you love. For the two people involved, there is no recognition of any kind by the State.