The Hypocrisy of Ruben Diaz

I hope I’m not out of line in saying this, but I’ve long been a proponent of re-defining that dreaded word “faggot”. It meant sticks, then poor people, then old women, then–for some reason–cigarettes, now it means gay people. I say we should redefine the word once more to mean “people who are actively anti-gay and homophobic who cannot justify their rabid, shrill, and strident screeds”. It’s doubly effective, because since the word “faggot” currently means homosexual, the “new faggots” will also have to deal with the emotional stress of being labelled with a word that used to mean gay.

In that light, Ruben Diaz is a huuuuge, flaming, twinkle-toed faggot… and nothing about him is fabulous.

I think I got this – he’s right, and wrong, whereas gay marriage is just wrong, so he’s right, right?

Wow… that was quite the horrible, confusing, offensive interview. But thank you, Hemant, for posting so often on gay marriage issues. As a gay atheist, I definitely appreciate it. 🙂

Did you notice the dodge in directly answering the question on whether he thinks divorce should be legally allowed? Yeah I think we all did.

This guy’s never going to actually change his mind on this, that’s clear. It’s pathetic that the vote would rest on him. Let’s find some more republicans to try and turn, this guy’s a dead end.

next ask him if he would like to make divorce illegal.

It’s fag for cigarette in Malaysia. Faggot is a gay slur which we imported from the US.

I read that excerpt and I simply don’t get it: Why hasn’t Senator Rubén Díaz’s head exploded yet?

He never said that gay marriage is criminal, only that it should not be legal i.e. a legally sanctioned union. He seems pretty consistent in his beliefs to me. He admits that divorce is wrong and that his own divorce was wrong. And even though he is divorced he would probably support efforts to make divorce illegal. He’s a gigantic theist moron, but I don’t see any gymnastics or hypocrisy (he condemns divorce, he condemns his own divorce) in his statements.

The question should’ve been, does he think he should’ve been legally allowed to divorce and whether other should be allowed?

And even though he is divorced he would probably support efforts to make divorce illegal. He’s a gigantic theist moron, but I don’t see any gymnastics or hypocrisy (he condemns divorce, he condemns his own divorce) in his statements.

Please show me where this asshat has indicated he’s in favor of making divorce illegal. The implication of the questions he is being asked are obvious. He said both marriage equality and divorce are wrong while never saying they should both be illegal when he could easily have done so. He knows he is being a hypocrite in his application of his own standards. It’s easy to condemn something after you’ve already done the deed. The moral high ground comes from not doing it in the first place if it’s wrong in your own eyes.

That and the way he continues to repeat his biased views instead of defending them and explaining a rational reason for the double standard in the interview constitute his gymnastics.

It’s like he’s saying “Yes, but I don’t need to explain why I did something that is wrong and still support its legality because gay marriage is just wrong. Oh, did I mention gay marriage is wrong?”

It’s a tangled mess of intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy.

I just gotta say, there is nothing more juvenile than when someone says, “Yea, so?” Ticks me off every time.

Isn’t this the guy that said “I am the the church AND the state.”

My jaw dropped, literally.

This is a NYS elected official who is also a Pentecostal minister. Imagine in this day and age having your policy decisions made by somebody who believes in speaking in tongues.

Happy Cat, that was a really great interview by Juan Manuel Benitez. Here’s a transcript:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/19358/guest-column-by-tony-varona-virulently-antigay-ny-state-senator-rev-rubén-d%C3%ADaz-grilled-on-ny1

Regarding the etymology of the word “faggot,” it was always my understanding that a faggot was originally a “tied bundle of sticks” used as a fire starter, in other words, kindling wood. These bundles of sticks were passed out to villagers who would use them to ignite the fires of those being “burned at the stake,” that is, faggots (kindling wood) were the collective tool by which punishment of evil-doers was meted out. Later, this led to a slang term for a cigarette, being a small bundle of leaves that will burn, can kill, and was thought by some to reveal the user to be a person of low character. This may have been tongue-in-cheek, like calling cigarettes “coffin nails.” It’s dark humor. What is LESS humorous is that this word for “kindling wood” also morphed into an identifier of homosexuals. Homosexuals were seen as so inherently evil and sinful, they were destined to “kindle the fires of Hell.” That is the derivation of this word that describes bundles of sticks, cigarettes, and homosexuals. They were all seen as fodder for the fires of sin! Faggot is a nasty word. It is filthy with connotations of religious judgement, sin, and retribution.

he’s right, and wrong, whereas gay marriage is just wrong, so he’s right, right?

Two wrongs don’t make a right, but three rights make a left.

Well, Tigerboy, I’m sure it’s related, but most of the people who were burned at the stake were old women, from the 16th century onward which is coincidentally when “fagot” meaning old woman was first recorded.

Given that “old woman” to this day is used to refer to what Mr Schwarzenegger reputedly refers to as “wimpy girly men” (for instance here) it seems far more likely that the slur we are discussing is simply insulting the manhood of men who don’t go for women.

Not that this makes it any less offensive of course. All insults had less-insulting meanings before they were insults.