Sexual Predator Honored With U.S. Postage Stamp

[BuddyRey]

The thing with this particular dude, though, is that he's being honored BECAUSE of his sexuality. That isn't the case for the others you mentioned.

That's actually a very valid point, and one I hadn't considered. One thing I particularly dislike about progressives is their tendency to invest a great deal of significance in incidental attributes of a human being that should be of little importance (race, gender, sexual orientation, handicap, etc.) They think they're combatting hatred by celebrating people being black, gay, or handicapped, but really they're just drawing even more attention to the differences instead of letting the people with those differences be just...people.

The few gays I've known in my lifetime were so unremarkable...such run-of-the-mill, average Joe, flannel-and-workboots type folks that their preference didn't even come up in conversation until I'd already known them for months. So I sometimes wonder if the most tragic victims of this whole "celebrate gay people because of their gayness" movement might not be gays themselves, who now feel like walking spectacles because of such a minor part of their identity. Not to mention the fact that someone landing on a postage stamp just for being a public figure in one of those minority groups reeks of the soft bigotry of low expectations.

 

[Christian Liberty]

100% agree. Abe Lincoln has been on our currency for a hundred years now, people. A warmongering tyrant who jailed thousands, killed millions, and took a big ol' dump on that Constitution thing we all like to talk about so much. I think that's worse than some gay "statutory" rapist who may or may not have actually been a rapist since it was all apparently consensual making it to a postage stamp. Does anyone even send letters anymore? We should bring that back. Letters rule.

I don't like any of it.

That's actually a very valid point, and one I hadn't considered. One thing I particularly dislike about progressives is their tendency to invest a great deal of significance in incidental attributes of a human being that should be of little importance (race, gender, sexual orientation, handicap, etc.) They think they're combatting hatred by celebrating people being black, gay, or handicapped, but really they're just drawing even more attention to the differences instead of letting the people with those differences be just...people.

The few gays I've known in my lifetime were so unremarkable...such run-of-the-mill, average Joe, flannel-and-workboots type folks that their preference didn't even come up in conversation until I'd already known them for months. So I sometimes wonder if the most tragic victims of this whole "celebrate gay people because of their gayness" movement might not be gays themselves, who now feel like walking spectacles because of such a minor part of their identity. Not to mention the fact that someone landing on a postage stamp just for being a public figure in one of those minority groups reeks of the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Yep. As I joked earlier in this thread, if they need to put a gay public figure on there, they should put Justin Raimondo. But of course, the progressives wouldn't do that, since the man is actually concerned about liberty and opposition to government murder (war) and those things are much more important to him than the "Sexual orientation" crapola.

BTW: Regarding the figures you mentioned, I respect Martin Luther King's methods of peaceful activism and his opposition to war although I obviously don't agree with him on everything he did or believed (I know he was a socialist, BTW)... I don't know the other two, but as for the Mormon "prophets" screw them