Dave Rubin is a gay hypocrite.

Someone linked me this video from Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report. The Right is just falling over itself to be love-struck by good old Dave. You see, he used to be a progressive but then saw the light and he’s now one of us! Isn’t that bitching! So cool, dude. Here he is with his new video where he explains why he’s not a leftie anymore.

I was watching the video and I was thinking that it was okay, nothing new but okay, when suddenly out of the blue came this line:

I’m a married gay man …

Hang on a second – you’re a what? (And no, I didn’t know that Rubin was gay. Everyone is fucking gay these days. It’s like we’re getting to the stage where you just have to assume someone is gay unless he tells you otherwise …

I’m not gay …)

Dave’s admission of having a gay marriage clashes rather abruptly with his earlier statement that progressives hate everyone who is a white Christian male.

So let me get this straight. Dave was all hip with the progressive stuff, (his show even began on The Young Turks), and he even got married to another man. It was only at that point that he became a little uncomfortable with which way the wind was blowing.

Isn’t that nice? Dave wants to have his gay cake and eat it too. Gay marriage is not about giving gay’s “rights”. It’s about normalizing homosexuality and undermining the sanctity of the Catholic Church which is one of the three central pillars on which our Western civilization is built. Which makes it kind of a big deal to so many people. Particularly those white Christian males that he was apparently all keen on defending.

Dave is prancing around saying that he’s not a progressive anymore at the same time that he’s saying that he is a gay married man. Sorry Dave, that’s called being a complete hypocrite. We might begin to take you seriously when you cancel your blasphemous marriage. Otherwise you’re just as bad as the progressives that you claim to have disavowed.

 

28 thoughts on “Dave Rubin is a gay hypocrite.

  1. Rob Sutherland

    I never in a million years thought I’d be defending The Aly Weed but if we practice what we preach for god’s sake let him call admin workers “bogans” if he wants to. Otherwise, get your knickers in a knot just like the other crew

    Like

  2. MarkT

    Your political views should determine your sexuality (or vice versa)? And if the two don’t go together in the way you approve you’re a hypocrite? Are you serious or taking the piss?Some of your views on other topics (eg: climate changes) are sound and very well argued, but when you write shit like this you’re just as bad as the left.

    Like

    1. Where did I say that political views should determine your sexuality? Gay marriage is one of the prime weapons of the progressive Left to undermine the family unit and Western civilization. And here we have a former progressive proclaiming to the heavens that he is now a conservative while flaunting his gay marriage. Are you kidding me?

      Like

      1. tehy5

        honestly, I don’t buy that gay marriage is a weapon to undermine the family unit and western civilization, at all

        in terms of traditionalism being undermined, it’s more everything else. At the end of the day, most people will still admit that two married adults is the best path. Now as to whether or not children need a parent of each gender…sadly, they well may, but I don’t think you need to be married to adopt a kid, so it’s not like gay marriage specifically created that situation, and it will have to be dealt with outside of that regardless.

        So let’s get into it more seriously – why do you think gay marriage undermines the family unit and Western civilization?

        Like

      2. MarkT

        Ok, it’s the fact he’s gay and married you have an issue with, not just that he’s gay. But still, how does a gay marriage (as is now allowed in NZ where I reside) harm my heterosexual marriage and our 2 sons? If you can’t tell me that, I have to assume your position has more to do with religion than it does politics, in which it just relies on an arbitrary assertion as to what defines a ‘marriage’. As I see it we have religious doctrine on the one hand (eg: that all marriages must be between a man and woman), versus SJW doctrine on the other (eg: that both woman and men must play AFL) – both with no connection to reality.. A marriage is just a legal union between two people, and if they want the law to recognise a union between members of the same sex, so what?

        As for it being a weapon of the left, well that reminds me of the argument that because ISIS want the West to attack and encourage a war, we should therefore let Islamic terrorists get away with it. If you are just the opposite of what you’re enemies are, even when they happen to be right, you’re actually letting them define you. In this case I think your position strengthens rather than weakens the left. It helps them portray their opposition as wanting to force their religious views on others, and therefore helps to get them a free pass when they seek to do the same.

        Like

      3. Marriage is a religious institution that the state usurped from the Catholic Church. It is not “just a ceremony” and it is certainly not law, although the state wants you to believe that.

        You see no threat because you have been successfully indoctrinated by progressive propaganda. You take it for granted that marriage is “a legal union” when it is traditionally nothing of the sort. Thus when the state seeks to transform marriage, and by proxy society itself, you see no threat because you have been conditioned to believe so.

        Some of us clearly see the threat. Instead of coming up with ludicrous analogies I suggest you do some research.

        Like

      4. MarkT

        So assuming everything you say about it having a catholic origin is true; I ask again, so what, and how does it harm or even effect me in the slightest? And assuming you are religious ( I am not), what’s stopping you taking marriage to mean whatever you want it to mean, whether it be secular or religious? Aren’t there are enough real threats from the left to worry about?

        Like

      5. “Gay marriage is one of the final nails in the coffin. It is actually not about gay people at all. They are merely the convenient tool that is being used to further the progressive aims. Destroy the family and make individuals beholden to the new sanctity of the state.”

        How? And what does that even mean, specifically?

        “And now we have gay marriage, and once again the left is shouting from the rooftops that having two gay parents will not affect children in any way.”

        But as I’ve already noted, gay people can adopt kids anyhow. So why does this have to be about gay marriage, then? I can see the argument that people argue that gay people being both parents is used to support gay marriage, but why not just tackle that specific argument? I mean, people already don’t necessarily view marriage as just there to raise kids anymore. It just seems like you’re tackling the idea of marriage instead of the idea of child-raising, which is at best bad tactics. Then you try and correlate the two even though most don’t automatically do so. Well, it is what it is.

        Like

    2. safespaceplaypen

      lol this is retarded. Getting “gay married” isn’t a result of ones sexuality, but of ones political, philosophical, and ideological views. Supporting and being “gay married” is in fact a political issue, not an issue of sexuality, as there are fags who know their gay but don’t support gay marriage because its not good for society.This is in fact of case of wanting to have ones cake and eat it too. These “gay married conservatives” like the libertarian aspect of conservativism (i should be able to do what i want and not be judged lolol!!!!!!), but don’t give half a shit about traditional values unless it serves their dick-sucking agenda lol. Its similar to feminists who want to be treated like princesses, through men sucking up and protecting them, while also being “strong and empowered” through the ability to vote, equal-pay laws, affirmative action,a nd so on.

      Like

    3. Sjonnar

      Your argument that it does not affect you because it concerns only the two individuals involved in the marriage is specious, Mark. Courts in both Colorado and Oregon have ruled it illegal to refuse wedding services to gay couples on religious grounds, on penalty of heavy fines. Thus have they ruled that the marriage in question is not solely a personal matter, but a public one. Clearly the judicial systems of these two states think that gay marriage both does and should affect you, and that their right to marry (and receive your support for their marriage) supersedes your right to refuse to associate with them for either personal or religious reasons – arguably a violation of your first amendment rights. (Specifically, two Supreme Court cases that support an individual’s or group’s right to refuse to associate are NAACP v Alabama and Boy Scouts of America v Dale)

      Now, that’s all in the US, not NZ. And maybe the NZ government won’t fine a private business for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Maybe. But it’s pretty damn clear the left thinks that gay marriage should be everybody’s business, and that governments everywhere should enforce willing participation in same. And they are pulling every string they can reach in every government they have influence in to make it so. Still think it’s none of your affair?

      Like

      1. MarkT

        “it’s pretty damn clear the left thinks that gay marriage should be everybody’s business…”

        Then that’s the problem, not gay marriage as such. That the Left may abuse it provides no justification for criticising Dave Rubin for choosing to be married. The problem with the Left is that they think everything should be either compulsory or banned. This discussion shows me conservatives can be the same. They think it should be compulsory, you think it should be banned. You’re both wrong, and if you think it’s the state’s role to dictate these things you are fundamentally both on the same side.

        Like

      2. Dear Mark,

        I am running out of patience with you. I will spell it out for you one last time:

        Conservatives do not think that this should be compulsory. We believe in conserving our society the way it was handed to us, hence the name. There is nothing compulsory about fighting to preserve our culture and society. If you think that that is in of itself a form of compulsion then you are splitting hairs to the point of ridicule.

        We do not think that it is the state’s role to dictate this. I specifically said before that the state appropriated marriage from the church. It is a religious institution that the state stole. How much clearer do I have to be?

        The answer is, I don’t. If you refuse to understand this and keep misrepresenting my arguments then I must conclude that you either have bad intentions or you are stupid.

        Like

      3. MarkT

        That’s a very disappointing and weak response. At the outset I posed a very simple question: how does someone’s gay marriage harm you or me? Not whether the state forcing us to bake a cake for someone’s gay marriage harms us (it obviously does), but how someone like Dave Rubin getting married harm us, enough to justify calling him a “hypocrite”? Unlike the other moron commenting on this thread, you should be capable of distinguishing the two issues, and give me a simple answer. Telling me that marriage was invented by the Catholic Church centuries ago doesn’t come close to answering it.

        Like

      4. Our society is based on freedom and virtue. The two are entwined. The underlying base of all of this is the family unit. In order to protect the family unit the Church instigated marriage.

        All of your freedoms and thus all of your prosperity stem from that. If you cannot or will not see it then that is on you.

        As for calling myself and Sjonnar morons, meh. Your insults mean nothing to me and Sjonnar is perfectly capable of taking care of himself.

        Like

      5. Sjonnar

        Mark, you are either an idiot or you are being deliberately obtuse in order to misrepresent the issue.

        The choice is not between compulsory or banned. Compulsory gay marriage would be the state forcing all men to marry men, and women to marry women. That is obviously not what is happening. The choice is between permitted or banned – and obviously by the state, since who else would be doing the permitting or banning? It is clearly the role of the state as determined by its citizens to decide whether to permit or to ban any activity.

        If you argue that the state has no authority to permit or ban any activity, then by that logic, the state has no authority to ban murder, and you’re an idiot.

        If instead you argue that the state has no authority to permit or ban this specific activity, then why not? What makes this specific activity different? If you insist that it affects only the two individuals involved, then you’re being deliberately obtuse (and are also possibly an idiot). I have given you two examples where the activity is being used (by leftist-controlled states) to negatively affect other, uninvolved individuals.

        You are arguing that the activity should be permitted, but you haven’t given a reason why other than that it shouldn’t be the state’s call, which boils down to “muh libertarianism.” The left is arguing that is should be permitted because they are clearly using it to restrict the personal liberties of others, which ought to offend the hell out of “yuh libertarianism”, but, as I’ve already noted, you’re an idiot/being deliberately obtuse.

        Adam and I, on the other hand, are arguing that the activity should be banned, because it is clearly being used to further restrict personal liberties and make inroads on abolishing the individual’s right to free association. And we would prefer to not have that happen.

        By the way, I voted in favor of gay marriage, back in 2008 (this is in Florida, and it was not passed). I changed my mind just a couple years ago after seeing how it was being used against everyone else. No zealot like a convert, I guess.

        Like

  3. Sjonnar

    Comment awaiting moderation? Trolls must be busy today.

    Congratulations, Adam. You know you’re a real Eeeeevil Right-Wing Fascist when you personally piss off Soros enough for him to send CTR after you.

    Like

  4. Floyd R Turbo (American)

    The institution of marriage has existed for thousands of years and has done so on almost every country on earth – it has almost always meant one man and one woman. It is not appropriate for a “court” in one country at one point in history to unilaterally redefine what “marriage” means in order to make one insignificant but politically fashionable group, happy at the expense of BILLIONS of other people. The court DOES NOT HAVE STANDING..
    .
    If I was to decide that henceforth I wanted to unilaterally redefine what it meant to be “black” because I felt excluded, and if I could get a court to do it, would that be OK? Of course not – only black people have “standing” to define what is meant by “black”. People who are NOT black and who attempt to redefine the term’s meaning should be told to fuck off.
    .
    The fact that black people wouldn’t be “harmed” by redefinition isn’t relevant.
    .
    If various kinds of perverts want to associate in some kind of contract that is analogous to marriage I don’t care – just don’t call it marriage. The fact that political organizations INSIST on calling it marriage rather than a “civil union”, indicates their true objective. Holland has had gay marriage since 2000. Only 20% of the people who COULD have gotten gay married have done so – if GAY people don’t care enough to support it, why should WE?
    .
    There have been a number of cases recently where “gay-married” men have adopted little boys and subsequently sexually abused them. Something like this happened with the catholic priests a few years back. Nobody remembers that the Catholic church didn’t want to allow gay seminarians in the sixties but caved to political and legal pressure. The result was THOUSANDS of sexually abused little boys. Something similar is going to happen with gay marriage, and this was entirely preventable.
    .
    I hope that at some point in the future people like “MarkT” who insisted that society put the interests of perverts ahead of children, be made to pay for their actions – in much the same way that the tobacco companies have been made to pay for lying about the effects of tobacco.

    Like

  5. Pingback: Gay marriage and the Chesterton fence. – Adam Piggott

  6. Domino33

    I don’t care to wade into the gay marriage deal, but once Rubin made the claim that Jesus was hanging out with Muslims because “Middle East”, I knew his grasp of history was a wee bit skewed and that he could be effectively ignored.

    Like

  7. John

    I give credit to Rubin for bringing conservatives and other non-Left people on to his show. Adam Carolla’s appearance was especially good. He seems to be particularly fond of Milo and I think witnessing Milo’s rise first-hand has had some ideological influence. Rubin has taken to harking back to classic liberalism to justify his rightward move and insulate himself against whatever Left backlash he was expecting. I didn’t expect to see a a response like this article, from the opposite side, so to speak. I largely agree but want to insert a major caveat:
    Marriage as an institution has been around much longer than the Catholic Church. It’s modern iteration is more a cultural creation than anything else. That it maintains a religious component is as much coincidental as being sprung from the religiousness of the couple. Since Rubin invokes classic liberalism while balancing on the Left/Right fence I think he can claim at least a small bit of consistency. When marriages (Western marriages) began to shift from arranged or strictly within class, race, nationality, it came as natural reaction to a growing society, a Western migration that blended castes organically. It was classic liberalism that made those cultural shifts possible. Also, the notion of happiness gained prominence, not only mass culturally but in religious sermons and overall considerations. So, really, which is to blame for the meeting of gay marriage and claims to a religious relevancy? I agree that the Left has spent generations conditioning us to accept the undermining of “our” institutions, but those institutions have allowed themselves to intersect with the secular. Of course, simply running parallel to culture risked being sidelined. Either way, they mishandled the eventual cross-point. Now, for Rubin to “marry a guy” means he is true to his conscience – there really is no higher virtue to classic liberalism than that.

    Like

    1. I don’t see how you can claim that marriage maintaining a religious component is coincidental. The fact is that Christianity has been a core component of our civilization for over a thousand years. Wherever marriage originated is irrelevant in the face of Christianity being one of the building blocks of our culture and civilization.

      Liberalism is a result of democracy, not a feature of it. Happiness is a recent concept which is a progressive disease and a source of much unhappiness ironically enough.

      I completely agree that the Church has allowed itself to be subsumed by progressive ideology. The answer is not to continue along the same course but to return the Church to its rightful path. A return to Latin would be a very good start.

      I care not one whit for Rubin’s conscience. This idolization of the individual is what started the rot in the first place.

      Like

  8. Dan

    This is one of the most useless articles I’ve read recently. The man has had an interesting and genuinely intriguing series. Then he stands up against the nazi socialist agenda coming out of the left. Feeling he has to expose the fraudulent actions his party is making and you’re calling him a hypocrite. You can’t call him a racist or a homophobe so you’re going to stoop attempt in shaming him because he has balls big enough to say you’re wrong. He is the strong one here speaking out again your narcissistic platform of hate, bigotry and perversion of the truth.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s