Cuomo Phobia

Dear Governor Cuomo: I am writing to express my deep disappointment with your recent decision to push for an expansion of the definition of marriage – one that allows for marriage between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman. Most of your recent critics are writing because they think your crusade on this issue has gone too far. I’m writing because I don’t think it goes far enough. In fact, I think your approach to this issue reflects a fundamental narrow-mindedness that is almost as distasteful as your Pharisaic moral posturing and your constant media grandstanding.

Before I continue, let me introduce myself. I was born in Mississippi in the 1960s. I am a former atheist and Democrat and who voted for Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton. I also have a younger sister named Jennifer who is single and bisexual. In other words, I have had some exposure to other ideas, cultures, and lifestyles. I’m no bigot. In fact, I was the first kid on my block to own a Flip Wilson record. That should count for something.

But let me get back to my original purpose for writing. In your recent campaign to allow same-sex marriage in New York you presented yourself as one who supports “marriage equality.” But nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, you favor a narrow definition of marriage that is based on your own irrational fears and prejudices. And it is time to show real moral leadership by embracing moral relativism fully, not half-heartedly as you have done so far.

Governor Cuomo, I want to get married. And I want to move my new wife to New York City so we can pursue our respective careers in education and art (she is a painter). But, unless your state becomes more welcoming and affirming, we won’t be able to do that because the woman I want to marry is my younger sister Jennifer.

It may shock you to hear from someone who openly advocates incest. But that is the way people used to react to homosexuality. In the case of homosexuality, the remedy for such a puritanical reaction has not been silence. It has been openness. Just as we talked about homosexuality constantly – beginning in the early 90s – we must now do the same with incest. There simply is no other way to make our lifestyle seem normal.

Under my plan tolerance of incest must begin in the public schools. We must then extend our efforts to the national media. In fact, I envision a day when every Hollywood sitcom will have at least one incestuous couple. But, at some point, we must take the fight into the political arena. And that is why I am writing you today.

When people attack you for your recent success in legalizing same sex marriage they are likely to use scare tactics. They are likely to say that you have opened the door for incestuous and polygamous marriages. I want you to resist the temptation to dismiss their remarks as homophobic. To do so would actually reinforce phobias against incest and polygamy. So, instead, please show some courage and admit that the same logic that allows for same sex marriage also allows for incestuous and polygamous marriage.

Governor Cuomo, once you have committed to the idea of marriage equality you have to see it through. And that means you should do more than simply tolerate my decision to marry my sister Jennifer. You should affirm it with the full force of the law.

Some have asked me whether I am concerned at all about the implications of marrying Jennifer. Specifically, they worry that once married to me she will try to bring a third party – one of her girlfriends – into the marriage. But I am okay with a three party marriage. I’m committed to marriage equality even if it means sharing a lover with my younger sister. Sharing is an integral part of the progressive vision.

In conclusion, Governor Cuomo, I think you have been acting like a real hypocrite. You speak of equality but, in your heart, you consider some animals to be more equal than others. And that is offensive to those of us who crave public affirmation compelled by the force of law.

Note to Readers: The author of this satire doesn’t have a sister. Nor does he own pets. But he does own a copy of A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift.

As I said before, you have a political agenda that runs on some people’s personal narcissism (excessive drive for personal praise). There’s really no endgame to it. Personally, knowing a person who was narcissist in my own life, such a person will demand praise both excessively and irrationally from you, with about zero care as to whether or not it’s at your expense. Such people turn ugly when you so much as falter in praising or questioning the validity of what they do. It is narcissism here, it’s all about what people do, and what people do that makes it just so incredibly special, and frankly it doesn’t seem to matter, like a true narcissist, the kind of expense that the agenda inflicts on others. It’s like the Emperor’s New Clothes, the fraudulent weavers didn’t care how rediculous they made the monarch or the subjects look, all they cared is that they could do and get away with without being stopped.

The case about polygamy is this:

1) Repeal age of consent, or at least lower it slightly
2) Argue that there are milder forms, or exceptions to the rule that it’s inherently pedophilic (the cast of Sister Wives).
3) Argue that we should be left alone, or that the laws are hypocritical considering that cohabitation is tolerated. Again, another political agenda was famous for saying that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, and now they want about everyone to know. Again, on the flip side, it’s good to know plenty of religious leaders are getting more on the case of people who cohabit without marriage, at least without the church sacrament, that is. They should keep working at this, and hopefully we can make something else that is not right less encouraging.
4) Argue that there is no harm. However, if these communities are really all so isolated against people who wouldn’t practice religious polygamy, there’s bills to foot regarding inbred kids, not to mention possible tax cheats, and other issues. Amongst homosexuality, AIDS, STDs, drug use and more are already highly disproportional to their proportion in the population.

The homosexual agenda has been planned since the late 60s and it is part and parcel of the hard far Left. I attended “Womens’ Liberation” meetings - about 3 of them - in around 1969 when I lived in Berkeley as a very rebellious and dropped out teenager.

When all the screaming harpies - many if not most attendees or otherwise connected with UC Berkeley - admitted that they all hated men and lusted after other women - I walked out in disgust and loathing and never looked back. The Black Panthers were just a few blocks away, so that’s the time frame.

It’s not just narcissism, those who planned the homosexual agenda and push it want to revolutionize society. It goes far, far beyond any personal narcissism. It’s a movement, a revolution, to utterly change society in every way. They have and will use violence.

“It’s not just narcissism, those who planned the homosexual agenda and push it want to revolutionize society. It goes far, far beyond any personal narcissism. It’s a movement, a revolution, to utterly change society in every way. They have and will use violence.”

Make it suit their own personal image, and without care as to what expense they inflict upon others, got it.

It's part of the left, as described on another thread:

We have to understand an undeniable truth about the Left,

which is that it seeks total, complete, unchallenged control over every aspect of society.

In that sense, the Left is a true totalitarian philosophy, since it seeks to control society in toto.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2758218/posts?page=6

Anders Behring Breivik and the tyranny of the left
Renew America ^ | 3 August 2011 | Tim Dunkin

We have to understand an undeniable truth about the Left,

which is that it seeks total, complete, unchallenged control over every aspect of society.

In that sense, the Left is a true totalitarian philosophy, since it seeks to control society in toto.

I completely agree. I hope you understand that narcissism or extensive and harsh demands for adoration is a quality of tyranny. The political agenda is super-proud, super all sorts of things. I think we both honestly agree that a San Francisco Pride parade is about as disgusting as it gets, and honestly is if anything, the kind of issue that makes people like me feel very sick about what gets demanded as a society. I am not sure how a vocab word turned into an argument. I hope we certainly both agree and work on explaining to those where it counts how certain behaviors are simply not good for oneself or others when practiced.

Thanks for your reply. I agree with you but just think that “narcissitic” doesn’t go far enough. Ideological insanity, grossly sinful and disgusting perversion, and tyranny are more than narcissism. Narcissim plays a part but only a part. Evil it is.

Cowardice allowed it to progress this far.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.