sigelphoenix

I'm assuming that Seattlites have heard about the quotes on Starbucks cups? In particular, the controversy over the quote by author Armistead Maupin:

"My only regret about being gay is that I repressed it for so long. I surrendered my youth to the people I feared when I could have been out there loving someone. Don't make that mistake yourself. Life's too damn short."

What's funny is that, minus the gay, people would overlook this as a fluffy feel-good inspirational quote. (There are, in fact, several dozen different quotes being used, but this is the one getting the most attention.) But oh noes! It has teh gay in it! And now Concerned Women for America (must not mock ... really ...) "is accusing the Seattle-based coffee maker of promoting a homosexual agenda."

Uh, what now? What kind of "agenda" could be pushed by this quote? Someone please tell me how these sentences, prettily written as they are, but ultimately empty of political content, are supposed to incite activism. What, is it that he's telling gay people not to repress their sexuality? For shame! Or is it that part about not fearing? Live in fear people, that's the way to honor Jesus! And, clearly, that "Don't make that mistake yourself" bit is gay-speak for "hie thee down to the nearest queer bar and get thee some manly buttsex."

The group also "says most of those quoted on the coffee cups are liberal." Take a look at the sample quotes given in that article. Granted, it's only a selection, but they're mostly about feelings and stuff. Where does the "liberal" come from? Is it that they're about creativity and other "impractical" concerns? That most of the sources are women, and black women, at that? Or that they're artists (oh noes hippies!)? I mean, really.

And here's a gem:

"Richardson, of the women's organization, cites possible support by Starbucks for pro-life clinics and the Boy Scouts of America as ways the company might offset its support of Planned Parenthood Federation of America and gay pride."

Uh-uh, sweetie. This isn't about "offsetting" and reaching some sort of balance of ideologies. See, we so-called liberals (read: supporters of human rights) are not about giving credence to every opinion that spills out of a self-righteous ideologue. Despite popular opinion, we're not about touchy-feeliness and never offending or disagreeing with anyone. We've got plenty of absolutes. Among them, love is love no matter what the genitalia you're aiming at. Pregnant women deserve to know about their options. And also, if it walks like a conservative, talks like a conservative, and lobbies like a conservative, you can bet that any edicts about what public culture and its figures should do will be taken with a massive grain of salt.

In the mean time, I'd really really like to know when giving people decent consideration as human beings won't be equated in value with "not offending conservatives and people of faith," and when we'll admit that the latter is not nearly as important as the former. Christ on a pogo stick.