Today, I got a tip from my online buddy
Nate Nelson that a fellow named
Matt Sanchez apparently thinks that certain gay rights activists qualify as-- get this--
"gay jihadists".
Yes, you read that right. Gay activists (or at least some of them) are "jihadists." Wow.
The post whose comment thread played host to this extraordinary comment features
here. Apparently, Mr. Sanchez has had the good sense to remove the "jihadist" comment-- but that still doesn't change the fact that he made it in the first place, or make it any more acceptable.
Nate rightly points out in his post on this subject that it is ridiculous hyperbole to label any kind of activist who a) doesn't behead anyone b) doesn't blow things up (other than, maybe, fireworks, or balloons) and c) doesn't fly planes into big buildings full of innocent people a "jihdist." He's also correct to note that flinging the "jihadist" label about diminishes the power of the term, and the significance of what it connotes.
But, of course, my big problem with the comment is that it seriously purports to equate gay activists, even if just some of them-- and the threat that they supposedly pose-- to Osama bin Laden and his supporters. This is even more evident when you read the full comment made by Mr. Sanchez: "Taught me to see through the shallowness of the militant gay movement and realize what
a huge threat gay jihadist (sic) present for the country, culture and civilization." (my emphasis added)
Like Nate, I'm not a huge fan of some left-wing gay activists and left-wing gay activist groups. For example, the guy who was outing "closeted" gay, Republican staffers on Capitol Hill in the wake of the Mark Foley affair last year was, in my opinion, ...
> Read more & share