She's a lesbian, and that's all that matters. No mention is made in this brief puff piece, designed to show how progressive Houston is when it comes when it comes to sexual orientation, about what this woman's politics might be, although one could probably guess. No, it's the fact that she's a lesbian, no doubt quite liberal, that matters. Symbolism over substance, what a triumph for modern man.
Houston voters may elect openly gay mayor
Dec 12, 2009 (7:56a CST)
HOUSTON - Voters are deciding Saturday whether Houston will become the largest U.S. city to elect an openly gay mayor.
The runoff election pits City Controller Annise Parker against former city attorney Gene Locke.
Parker is a lesbian who has never made a secret or an issue of her sexual orientation.
But in recent weeks, anti-gay activists and conservative religious groups have endorsed the 61-year-old Locke and sent out mailers condemning Parker's "homosexual behavior."
Meanwhile, gay and lesbian political organizations around the country have rallied to support the 53-year-old Parker.
The thing that's always irritated me about homosexuals is that they are a "gay" (a word which I despise because it's a verbal sleight-of-hand trick calculated to lessen homosexuality's overwhelming weirdness) doctor, or a "gay" lawyer, or a "gay" fill-in-the-blank. If, as homosexuals claim, their sexual orientation doesn't/shouldn't matter in whatever goal they are reaching for, why make it the foremost part of one's identity? Because, if the truth be told, sexual orientation does matter, especially to them. When a homosexual reaches his goal, this somehow equates, at least in his mind, to some kind of validation by the heterosexual community, something he desperately craves, mainly because, deep down, he knows his sexual orientation is against the laws of nature. If a homosexual reached his goal without making an issue of his sexual orientation, then he would have been elected purely on the merits/demerits of his arguments, ideas, etc.; his victory would be hollow against the backdrop of his wider identity, homosexuality, because there would be no concomitant validation of his personal lifestyle.
None of the above should be misconstrued as meaning I believe homosexuals should be persecuted. As long as it's voluntary, people have a right to do as they wish with each other. People have a right to be wrong in this country as long as they are not infringing on another person's liberty. I just don't want/need to hear about it.