Witness the LGBT/"queer" left at play, as New York's Gay City News looks in while Larry Kramer's "Gay Army" wraps itself into a politically correct pretzel.
Meanwhile, savvy opponents of gay legal equality like David Blankenhorn continue arguing against gay marriage with sophisticated sophistry (Blankenhorn likes to make references to evolutionary biology, psychology, history, anthropology, and sociology). Thankfully, he is being challenged by such worthies as IGF contributing authors Dale Carpenter, here, for example, and Jon Rauch, here and here, as well as Jon Corvino, here.
And unlike so many of our friends on the lesbigay left, they actually are engaging in debate rather than tantrum-throwing or denunciation by press release, as they seek to prove to those who actually care about ideas that our opponents conceits are built on intellectual sand.
And neither Carpenter, Rauch nor any of our other IGF-affiliated policy analysts and writers feel obliged to engage in race/gender/class self-flagellation before taking a stand.
More. Carpenter vs. Blankenhorn, round 3. Plus, what Blakenhorn said then, and what he says now.
73 Comments for “The Battle of Ideas Matters”
posted by Lori Heine on
Engaging the opponents of gay rights on a thoughtful level is definitely the way to go. I wish there more GLBT thinkers were doing this. And I wholeheartedly applaud their efforts.
posted by Throbert McGee on
My favorite detail from the story about Larry Kramer’s proposed “gay army”:
A proposed name, the Queer Justice League, was deemed offensive by some in the meeting because of the use of the word queer.
What concerns me is that the proposed name was shot down because of the word “Queer,” and not because “Justice League” sounds like some sort of role-playing club for Superfriends fetishists…
posted by Herb Spencer on
“And neither Carpenter, Rauch nor any of our other IGF-affiliated policy analysts and writers feel obliged to engage in race/gender/class self-flagellation before taking a stand.”
That’s because these writers are genuinely educated people with truly open and inquiring minds. They don’t need to trot out tired cliches to get notice and respect; “they do it the old-fashioned way: they earn it!”
“An artist who campaigns for recognition is not an artist but a politician, and deserves to be treated as one.” – W. Somerset Maugham, “Ashenden.”
posted by Amicus on
I have a question. When Jon R. and Evan W. and John C. go out among the wolves, who is their backup? Here we are, promoting marriage, the concept that two are better than one, yet, when we send out our ‘special forces’ team, they are on their lonesome. Now, there are probably good reasons for the way things are, but even Captain Kirk almost always brought along Spock.
To tie it down, what do they do when a question or formulation comes up that they haven’t thought about yet? God knows, that misled youngster Wilcox over at The (Catholic?) Institute for American Values group is burning the midnight oil coming up with ways to twist everything under the sun to be an argument against same-sex marriage. It’s for situations like these that debaters go in teams and law firms that have dough to spare send a legal team, with full artillery complement.
I’d also suggest it is a partial misunderstanding to think that George and Blankenhorn and Kurtz are “arguing”. They are propagandizing, in the old-fashioned meaning of the term. They are publishing in journals, like NRO and WS, with widespread readership, who do not print rebuttals, so much (I’ve seen only a few). That realization suggests how the debate is to be enjoined, to some extent. Notice also that the tactic of double and triple teaming.
Last, while it is easy to poke fun of Kramer, you perhaps don’t have an appreciation of how that part of the political spectrum has a place.
Whatever the case on that, consider if what may – *may* – be missing in the sophisticated debate is the full compliment of reply. That is, not just a rational appeal with some clever refutations, but someone who is going to liberally heap scorn on these arguments, to find some righteous indignation.
It’s hard for one person to do that – it’s better if one person calmly addresses the arguments, such as they are, while another goes for the jugular, so to speak.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Last, while it is easy to poke fun of Kramer, you perhaps don’t have an appreciation of how that part of the political spectrum has a place.
Indeed.
If the gay community were to dump Kramer and the rest of the artillery it keeps around out of satisfying a need for revenge, the vast majority of the attacks made against the community would become patently and obviously ungrounded and petty.
But, as long as you have gays defiling and vandalizing churches and linking hands with the militant anti-everything left, their attacks are and will remain firmly grounded in reality.
So yes, Kramer has a place; he nicely confirms that gays actually do that which these individuals accuse gays of doing.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I have little use for Larry Kramer myself, but I have a question: Isn’t the comment about defiling churches a specific reference to the demonstration against Cardinal O’Connor outside St. Patrick’s in 1989, in connection with which one ACT UP member went into the Cathedral and threw a communion wafer on the floor? Are there other similar defilements that are more recent? Many of us condemned that action so many times that we grew tired of doing so long ago. But at the same time, I have stressed that we should resist being described monolithically as a community, and should certainly not accept the preposterous suggestion that one offensive act by one radical person nearly two decades ago is somehow emblematic of the entire gay community. Based on that logic, one could cite Ted Bundy to justify a claim that hetersexual men are all serial killers.
posted by PCT on
Of course you’re correct Richard. But some people will continue to trot it out every chance they get. It’s always easier to erect a straw man, then tear him down, than to deal with reality.
posted by Fitz on
Stephen H. Miller
?Meanwhile, savvy opponents of gay legal equality like David Blankenhorn ?
Well, I think its pretty savvy to cast opposition to same-sex ?marriage? as ?opponents of gay legal equality? ?It avoids the primary issue Mr. Blankenhorn is actually addressing, while painting him as a Jim Crow like bigot.
?continue arguing against gay marriage with sophisticated sophistry (Blankenhorn likes to make references to evolutionary biology, psychology, history, anthropology, and sociology).?
He does not make ?references to? but rather ?arguments based on?. Once again pretty savy!
If you want to learn a little about sophistry (what it really is, and how it pertains to this debate)
I recommend this piece. The Future of Tradition By Lee Harris
?Thankfully, he is being challenged by such worthies as IGF contributing authors Dale Carpenter?
Well that debate seemed to fade fast. Once Blankenhorn started to challenge Dale with a pointed critique Dale has yet to respond to David?s multiple posts.
Dear Dale Carpenter (P.S.)
posted by Thomas Horsville on
Richard J. Rosendall | April 24, 2007, 3:45pm : One ACT UP member went into the Cathedral and threw a communion wafer on the floor?
He threw a wafer on the floor! Did that shake the Earth?
posted by Amicus on
If Larry Kramer were the Irgun, I’d worry. He’s not.
Besides, he and his are not drawing resources away from the “Battle of Ideas”, as Stephen puts it, in any prodigious way.
The Battle of Ideas has it’s own problems to solve, yes? Why not just focus there?
It ought to be easy enough to tell if I’m right about this only being a partial debate, if it becomes clear that they are using “debates” only to sharpen their propaganda, not advance understanding. [To me, this is extremely important to sort out.]
While I wait for a decisive conclusion on that, there is plenty of cataloging to be done (hard work and heavy lifting of activism).
To wit, George says, in his ‘Witherspoon Principles’:
“A recent report by Child Trends, a nonpartisan research organization, summarized the new scholarly consensus on marriage this way: “[R]esearch clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children …”
However, he tailors his statement to his NRO audience, as follows:
“Consider the conclusions of the left-leaning research institution Child?s Trends: Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children …”
Apparently, when you are trying to get signatures, you write “non partisan”, but when you are throwing meat to the faithful, you write “left-leaning”. Apparently, even though you are a Professor, you can ignore the important conclusions of other empiricists that Evan brings up in his book and in debate. Fancy that.
If that doesn?t boil, and where one could really use the ?passion of the Left?, is that in the year 2007, George can publish an entire piece saying what gays ought not to have without even a passing mention of what he thinks they ought to have as civil rights and responsibilities.
Anyway, it doesn?t go without saying that the pro-gay side has to listen back. It?s not obvious, to me, how that is happening, either. I don?t mean accepting a latter-day Anita Bryant ?Save the Children? campaign. I mean distilling and addressing the serious concerns, not wholesale, but within a strategic framework that allows the discriminations to end, one way or the other. In other words, the marriage waltz is not a cake walk. (What? Too gay?)
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But at the same time, I have stressed that we should resist being described monolithically as a community, and should certainly not accept the preposterous suggestion that one offensive act by one radical person nearly two decades ago is somehow emblematic of the entire gay community. Based on that logic, one could cite Ted Bundy to justify a claim that hetersexual men are all serial killers.
One certainly could, Richard.
But that logic would collapse when one pointed out that the vast, vast majority of heterosexual men condemned Ted Bundy’s actions, are demonstrably not serial killers themselves, and repeatedly take action against serial killers that do arise in their midst.
Meanwhile, gays, despite “condemning” Larry Kramer’s actions, continue to praise him, speak about how his actions are necessary, mock the fact that Christians were offended by his actions (i.e. Thomas Horsville’s post here) and justify monolithically judging Christians and other religious folk in charming phrases like this:
Ditto on Catholicism and Mormonism, which while they are seperate religions, are just as potentially dangerous as Christianity. Don’t believe me? Go into any of the three communities and watch them real closely. Underneath the pomp and ceremony and the facade of “family values”, you’ll find domestic and community violence (Christians beating up Christians, Catholics beating up Mormons, etc…), incest, alcoholism, fraud, “golden showers”, adultery, statue worship/flag worship (false gods), money laundering, corruption, teen pregnancy by the truckload, beastiality, demonology, and all other kinds of shenanigans among their kind.
In short, if gays so condemn these sorts of activities, why do they keep doing them so regularly and with hardly a peep from other gays?
posted by Thomas Horsville on
North Dallas Thirty | April 24, 2007, 6:16pm: Meanwhile, gays […] mock the fact that Christians were offended by his actions (i.e. Thomas Horsville’s post here)..
No, I was mocking the fact that some gay people still feel required to atone for an incident that allegedly occured almost twenty years ago and that was already utterly insignificant at the time.
posted by Mark on
Fitz, you should be careful reading too much into Carpenter’s silence. Carpenter actually spent a great deal of time refuting and re-refuting Blankenhorn’s argument. It could very well be that he didn’t want to or couldn’t devote even more time to the exchange.
From my read, Carpenter and Corvino thoroughly trounced Blankenhorn’s “argument.” Forget correlation and causation, we now have Blankenhorn’s “hang together” theory. What’s this guy’s academic background again?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, you are overgeneralizing about gays to an absurd degree based on a small and unrepresentative sample of urban leftists. I am sure that most gay people don’t even know who Larry Kramer is. I run into a lot of gay people, and haven’t heard anyone praising Kramer. The Ted Bundy counter-example is absolutely solid. That you thought it was conceivably necessary to explain why blaming all straight men for Bundy’s crimes would be wrong, suggests a dishonest approach to this discussion on your part. The point is that there is a gaping double standard by which gays in general are routinely blamed for actions by one or a small number of gay people in ways that no one would think of doing to straight people. And that is because of bias (including yours), not because of gay people deserving it.
Of course there are deeply foolish gay leftists, some of which are quite vocal and visible, including in gay organizations. IGF was created largely to provide an forum for alternative voices. But there is no evidentiary basis for concluding that the gay left is more than a small minority of the gay population.
posted by Amicus on
Fitz, if you want a quick-and-dirty reply, there is one on this forum, here.
ND30, I’m not sure I want to disassociate myself from the recent demonstration in Times Square. It seems like basic civil disobedience, which has a long history in this country.
posted by Brian Miller on
But that logic would collapse when one pointed out that the vast, vast majority of heterosexual men condemned Ted Bundy’s actions, are demonstrably not serial killers themselves, and repeatedly take action against serial killers that do arise in their midst.
Meanwhile, gays
Wow, one learns something new everyday from ND30. Today’s lesson — gays are directly comparable to serial killers. 🙂
posted by Fitz on
Mike (& All)
?Fitz, you should be careful reading too much into Carpenter’s silence. Carpenter actually spent a great deal of time refuting and re-refuting Blankenhorn’s argument. It could very well be that he didn’t want to or couldn’t devote even more time to the exchange.?
Well I do read a lot into his silence. While Carpenter did make several superficial post on Blankenhorns Weekly Standard article he has yet to read Davids book. I?m sure Mr. Carpenter is a busy man, but the fact remains that he barley engaged in a conversation with Blankenhorn: rather it seems he made his initial critique and then backed out of a more thorough going engagement.
Unfortunately Mr. Carpenter started off with what I and other considered an unfair characterization of his opponent?s arguments. YOU?LL KNOW THEM BY THEIR TACTICS
?From my read, Carpenter and Corvino thoroughly trounced Blankenhorn’s “argument.” Forget correlation and causation, we now have Blankenhorn’s “hang together” theory.?
Does your ?read? include reading Blankenhorns book? The author simply states the difficulty (in all social science) of ?proving? causation and goes on to demonstrate how social attitudes regarding the institution of marriage cluster around strong vs weak marriage cultures. With same-sex ?marriage? being a significant marker of cultural rejection of marital norms. (Along with a host of other arguments not addresses thus far)
In doing so both Mr Carvino & Mr. Carpenter paint an overly simplistic and culturally agnostic picture of Mr. Blankenhorns work. I demonstrate this briefly in DALE CARPENTER: answers a thesis NEVER PRESENTED
?What’s this guy’s academic background again??
Since you asked I would be happy to Link here. The relevant part Academic background is as follows.
posted by Brian Miller on
Well I do read a lot into his silence.
Of course you do. You’re a regularly-posting homophobic bigot, who strongly supports the efforts of your fellow homophobes to use government to enforce your bigotry on those who you collectively dislike.
If Jesus himself descended from heaven to call for gay marriage, you’d attack his methodology and cite Blankenhorn’s book.
So you’ll excuse me, for one, of not being too upset that Carpenter and Corvino aren’t jumping through the flaming hoops that you pseudonymnously hold out for them.
posted by Fitz on
Stephen H. Miller (writes)
“And unlike so many of our friends on the lesbigay left, they actually are engaging in debate rather than tantrum-throwing or denunciation by press release,”
Brian Miller (writes)
“You’re a regularly-posting homophobic bigot”
As if to prove Stephens point.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Fitz, I think you know perfectly well that Stephen was talking about IGF authors, not the comments boards. The IGF editors choose the articles that they publish; that is not the case with people’s comments. This is so obvious that one can only conclude that your observation was that of an unscrupulous person trying to score cheap points. I wonder what audience people think they are impressing when they do this.
posted by Fitz on
Richard J. Rosendall
I was merely trying to impress upon Brain Miller that substantial debate should take the place of name calling. If you find this tendency in my own work, then I am the worse for it. I was not ?trying to impress? anyone except Brian. The comments section at IGF can often be just as scrupulous and fair as the regular authors.
No one likes to be called a bigot, naturally a defensive rebuttal is reflexive.
Perhaps in the future I will ignore such baiting.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30, you are overgeneralizing about gays to an absurd degree based on a small and unrepresentative sample of urban leftists. I am sure that most gay people don’t even know who Larry Kramer is. I run into a lot of gay people, and haven’t heard anyone praising Kramer.
Oh really?
Look here.
Look here.
Look here.
Look here.
Your actions, Richard, remind me of the long-suffering spouse who continues to deny their partner has a drinking problem even as they load garbage bags full of bottles into their car for dropoff on the way to bail said partner out of jail for DUI.
That you thought it was conceivably necessary to explain why blaming all straight men for Bundy’s crimes would be wrong, suggests a dishonest approach to this discussion on your part.
Actually, Richard, what I was doing is applying the same rules to both gays and straights. The accusation was made; I countered it, not by claiming it was a false assumption, but by demonstrating how the facts did not support it.
The problem you’re having is that your argument is primarily based on an assumption that runs contrary to the facts I provided — unlike the “Ted Bundy” one, in which the facts support the assumption.
The point is that there is a gaping double standard by which gays in general are routinely blamed for actions by one or a small number of gay people in ways that no one would think of doing to straight people.
Indeed.
As for the GLBT who are any of these religions, you will maintain more credibility if you leave those religions behind. Unless of course, you want to be associated with the likes of Fred PHelps, because that is what society will do to you no matter how much you try to say that you tolerate LGBT folk.
And that leads us to this here:
Of course there are deeply foolish gay leftists, some of which are quite vocal and visible, including in gay organizations. IGF was created largely to provide an forum for alternative voices. But there is no evidentiary basis for concluding that the gay left is more than a small minority of the gay population.
That statement starts so well by identifying what the problem is.
But then it ends so poorly by trying to pretend it’s not a problem at all — just as you did above in your denialism that no gay people praise Larry Kramer.
And PCT, I would simply put it this way; if you want to rationalize allying with Larry Kramer, Matt Foreman, Mike Signorile, Jim McGreevey, and all the others who use their sexual orientation as an excuse for their hate actions and “everyone hates us” bigotry, I suppose honoring the history of “civil disobedience” in this country is as good of an excuse as any.
But it’s still only an excuse.
And to wrap it up, Richard, if gay leftists are such a small minority, why do we not confront them and get them out of the way?
posted by ETJB on
I know many LGBT and straight liberals who have debated with opponents to gay rights, even on marriage. I saw several debates on C-SPAN over the past few years.
“feel obliged to engage in race/gender/class self-flagellation before taking a stand.”
Yeah, isn’t white, male and middle class privledge so nice? When you got it, you can pretend it does not exist.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yeah, isn’t white, male and middle class privledge so nice? When you got it, you can pretend it does not exist.
I’m beginning to see why so many gay men have self-loathing problems.
If they’re white, they have to wake up every morning and curse themselves about how awful they are for having the temerity to be born with a “privileged” skin color and “privileged” set of genitals and Y chromosomes.
If they’re of color, they have to wake up every morning and remind themselves that, because of their skin color, the world is always against them and always will be — plus the guilt associated with having a “privileged” set of genitals and Y chromosomes.
I, on the other hand, am still waiting for someone to explain to me why I should feel guilty for being born white, male, and middle class — because I had zero control over any of them.
posted by Brian Miller on
This is so obvious that one can only conclude that your observation was that of an unscrupulous person trying to score cheap points.
Of course it was. Fitz has a well-established record as a bigot — to ignore that record and avoid the proper appellation would be irresponsible on my part. Given that I’m not a leftist, nor do I use such terminology often, it further underscores the point.
if gay leftists are such a small minority, why do we not confront them and get them out of the way
I confront gay leftists — and gay rightists — every day. With my real name.
You don’t confront, you snipe with sickly-sweet platitudes from behind a pseudonym. Confrontation requires having enough faith in your principles to stand up for them in the face of criticism from your opponents.
Richard has that courage. I have it too. Regardless of what you think of them, Andrew Sullivan, Signorile, Kramer and all the other people you mentioned do as well.
You and “Fitz” do not. Thus, your complaints are invalid. There’s no such thing as “anonymous confrontation.”
And if you don’t have the strength of character to drop the mask, you certainly don’t have the character necessary to assail others’ morality.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You don’t confront, you snipe with sickly-sweet platitudes from behind a pseudonym. Confrontation requires having enough faith in your principles to stand up for them in the face of criticism from your opponents……..Thus, your complaints are invalid. There’s no such thing as “anonymous confrontation.”
I can think of one prominent American who would disagree with you, but what did he know?
And if you don’t have the strength of character to drop the mask, you certainly don’t have the character necessary to assail others’ morality.
Mr. Miller, that assertion requires three rather large assumptions on my part.
One, that dropping my pseudonym would garner respect or acceptance of my beliefs on your part.
Two, that I actually value your respect or acceptance of my beliefs.
And three, that you and yours would not seek retribution against me or the organizations for which I work and volunteer because of my beliefs and my willingness to express them.
For one, I hardly think you would be any less critical of my hammering away at your and others’ enablement of the radical gay left and your use of your sexual orientation as an excuse for antisocial behavior if I were publishing under my real name.
For two, refer to one — and the fact that what is valued in the gay community is not one’s ideas, logic, or factual basis, but one’s adherence to the beliefs that gays are a persecuted and victimized minority and are thus justified in whatever hateful actions they take.
And for three, I have the example of GayPatriot and what was done to his associates — and GayPatriot was MILD in comparison to what I’ve done as far as criticism of HRC, NGLTF, LCR, the gay left, the Democrat Party, and the numerous others who aid and abet such harassment campaigns. My company and the organizations for which I volunteer should not have to put up with or tolerate that sort of thing.
So, in short, you give me no particularly good reason to do it in the first place, and you give me plenty of pause to think twice about doing it at all.
posted by ETJB on
“I’m beginning to see why so many gay men have self-loathing problems.”
How does stating a fact mean that you have a ”self-loathing problem”?
”If they’re white, they have to wake up every morning and curse themselves.”
Um..No, not really.
”If they’re of color, they have to wake up every morning and remind themselves that…the world is always against them.”
No. You seem to have no idea what you are talking about. If you think that such privledge does not exist then you are a fool.
posted by Brian Miller on
One, that dropping my pseudonym would garner respect or acceptance of my beliefs on your part.
It wouldn’t necessarily do that — but it would allow you to argue from a valid place.
For all I know right now, you’re a heterosexual woman pretending to be a gay man.
what is valued in the gay community is not one’s ideas, logic, or factual basis, but one’s adherence to the beliefs that gays are a persecuted and victimized minority
That’s total bullshit. I’ve taken aim at that notion, as well as several other people who post with their real names.
three, I have the example of GayPatriot and what was done to his associates
What Mike Rogers did was contemptible. However, if you don’t have the confidence to stand for your own views, you can hardly fault the rest of us for dismissing them.
After all, many of us take risks for our viewpoints as well, and have decided to be public about who we are to underscore our commitment to those views. Until you have a similar commitment to your views, it’s hard for the named and public to take your arguments seriously.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Again, ETJB, tell me why I am to feel guilty and awful about my skin color, my gender, and my being born into a middle-class family — especially since I had zero control over any of them.
And I also know why “white privilege” is being brought up — it’s an avoidance tactic.
Similar to this:
?Some have said that there is an epidemic of violent crime and murder. I think it is really genocide. You do not have to look to Darfur in the Sudan. You can find it here in San Francisco,? said San Francisco General Hospital trauma surgeon Andre Campbell, chief of the medical staff at SFGH, during testimony Monday before the Board of Supervisors Public Safety Committee.
?I think he?s characterizing it correctly about the status of African Americans in a city like San Francisco and other urban centers,? said Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, chair of the committee. There have been 30 homicides this year, mostly in predominantly African American neighborhoods. At the same time last year, there were 27 homicides.
Of course, conspicuously absent from any discussion is who’s doing the shooting.
That’s because it’s rather hard to call it “genocide” when one realizes that the vast majority of those shootings involved African-American suspects shooting African-Americans. But whites are responsible, of course, because we allegedly don’t do enough to stop African-Americans from shooting each other, and thus are guilty of genocide for allowing it to happen.
Right.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It wouldn’t necessarily do that — but it would allow you to argue from a valid place.
For all I know right now, you’re a heterosexual woman pretending to be a gay man.
So whether or not my argument is valid is based, not on what I actually say, but on my gender and sexual orientation.
Granted, this isn’t surprising — after all, usually the second rejoinder made by gay leftists after “self-loathing” is to tell someone who disagrees with them that they’re “not really gay” — but it rarely is expressed this baldly.
That’s total bullshit. I’ve taken aim at that notion, as well as several other people who post with their real names.
When it comes to using it as a reason to slavishly serve the Democrat Party, yes.
When it comes to religion or demonizing Republicans, on the other hand……
What Mike Rogers did was contemptible. However, if you don’t have the confidence to stand for your own views, you can hardly fault the rest of us for dismissing them.
Oh, I have plenty of confidence in terms of standing for my own views, Mr. Miller. I simply lack faith that you and your fellow gay leftists can restrain yourself from taking revenge on people around me for them.
If it were only my life that were the issue here, that would be entirely different. But, as the example of what happened to GayPatriot shows, gays don’t just go after the person who criticizes them; they attack that person’s family, their friends, and their business associates, and they do so with the full support and encouragement of the national gay organizations and the Democrat Party.
Given the choice of subjecting them to that, versus keeping my pseudonym and dealing with your arbitrary gender- and sexual orientation-based criteria for validity of argument, I choose the latter. That only inconveniences me, rather than running the risk that you and your fellows, Mike Rogers included, will harass my friends, family, and associates.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
This will be obvious to most readers, but let me go on the record as pointing out that nowhere have I claimed that there are no gay people who praise Larry Kramer. What I said was that I haven’t heard any of my gay associates do so. I also said that the urban gay left is not representative of the gay population as a whole. (They are merely disproportionately noisy.) As to the need to confront leftists, I already pointed out that IGF was created for that purpose, and I believe you all know that I am an IGF contributing author. I have been criticizing leftists for many years. It is sad how often some people around here resort to straw men and mischaracterizations in their arguments.
As to Larry Kramer, he has a need to be important and to issue Jeremiads. Reading his endless speeches makes me think of the need for improved access to mental health services. (Which I admit is a liberal thought, but I never said I was not a liberal, I said I was not a leftist. If you do not make that distinction, I do.) Pope Larry (elected by a college of cardinals consisting solely of himself) wants to create a gay army. As my collegue Frank Kameny said this morning, it sounds as if he wants to re-create the old Gay Liberation Front, which will be similarly short-lived. But perhaps his reference to an army is sincere, and he wants to set up a paramilitary group. That worked so well for the Panthers….
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
This will be obvious to most readers, but let me go on the record as pointing out that nowhere have I claimed that there are no gay people who praise Larry Kramer. What I said was that I haven’t heard any of my gay associates do so.
And what I have pointed out is that you must be completely deaf.
On whether that is congenital or willful, the jury is still out.
I also said that the urban gay left is not representative of the gay population as a whole. (They are merely disproportionately noisy.)
You keep saying that, Richard, yet in moment after moment after moment, these are the people that are allowed to shove their way in front of cameras, that are allowed to speak for the entire movement, that are allowed to carry out acts of violence and hatred in the name of homosexuality — with only the tiniest bits of cricket chirping in protest.
And then those crickets are derided as “self-loathing Jewish Nazis” who “aren’t really gay” — and to make certain they’re kept quiet, gay organizations and “activists” attack their friends, families, and business associates, making it clear that more will be forthcoming if they don’t comply.
Then there is silence — broken by the occasional, “Well, it was wrong, but they deserved it anyway”.
What you and IGF are doing in terms of presenting counter-arguments is laudable. But the effect of those is significantly mitigated by the fact that you are dealing with people like Larry Kramer, Matt Foreman, Joe Solmonese, and others, for whom the gay movement represents not only reinforcement of their lunatic beliefs, but of power. In short, you are sending essays on the the necessity of maintaining peasant populations regardless of their political beliefs and criticizing purges to Stalin.
posted by Brian Miller on
gays don’t just go after the person who criticizes them; they attack that person’s family, their friends, and their business associates
Rhetoric like goes a long way towards convincing me that you’re not gay. It’s certainly building on your prior claims that one can easily choose his sexual orientation, and your repeated assertions that a few hundred dollars is all that’s required to get all the tax benefits of government marriage.
Surely, you must understand that your position is severely compromised as a result.
what I have pointed out is that you must be completely deaf
I suspect he’s got decent hearing — thought he may be unable to hear the voices in your head.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Rhetoric like goes a long way towards convincing me that you’re not gay.
Rhetoric that is backed up by clear examples, that is.
If you’d like to deny what gays did to GayPatriot and his associates, go right ahead. I’ll be interested in your explanation for why you’re now denying something which you previously deemed “reprehensible”.
And my dear Mr. Miller, what I have already pointed out is that it’s a standard tactic of people who have built an elaborate structure of rationalization for their antisocial and hateful beliefs and actions on their being gay to insist that anyone who disagrees with them isn’t. You’re not doing anything I haven’t seen a hundred times over already; furthermore, since none of the previous hundred times has changed my gender or sexual orientation one whit, you’re really wasting both of ours efforts.
I suspect he’s got decent hearing — thought he may be unable to hear the voices in your head.
Again, if you care to argue that the clear examples I gave of numerous gays praising Larry Kramer don’t exist, go right ahead.
That would leave you arguing that you’re more “credible” because you post your name and make it clear that you’re a gay man, versus someone who posts under a pseudonym, but provides extensive and referenceable documentation to back up his points.
Incidentally, that’s also why I don’t think you have much to fear in terms of gays going after your coworkers, family, and friends; you rarely if ever go against the theory that being gay trumps having facts.
posted by PCT on
oh of course he (or she) isn’t a gay male.
I will let the good Lord decide whether he (or she) is a Christian. I have to say though that Jesus’ instruction to those who would follow him was pretty clear. Go to the whole world and lovingly tell them the good news, that life and freedom are available.
Frankly Mr. 30, I haven’t seen a lot of love – nor a lot of effort to lovingly share with others the good news about the new life you have discovered.
posted by Fitz on
Richard J. Rosendall (wrote)
“I also said that the urban gay left is not representative of the gay population as a whole. (They are merely disproportionately noisy.) As to the need to confront leftists, I already pointed out that IGF was created for that purpose, and I believe you all know that I am an IGF contributing author. I have been criticizing leftists for many years. It is sad how often some people around here resort to straw men and mischaracterizations in their arguments.”
Since this is an “independent” forum for gays & gay topics; one wonders were are the representatives of this “community” who are apposed to same-sex “marriage”. If I know them in my own life, why is their public voice not present?
I can even name a few prominent “independent” voices that are public; yet they don?t seem to be represented here.
One is reminded of the Log Cabin Republicans that are right wing on every issue yet seem in almost perfect sync with the rest of the chorus when it comes to issues relating to homosexuality and “civil rights.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
oh of course he (or she) isn’t a gay male.
I give you credit, PCT; at least you have the balls to come out and say what other people are only insinuating.
That doesn’t make it any more right, but at least you’re willing to stand up and state your opinion without hedging.
Unfortunately, that didn’t last.
I will let the good Lord decide whether he (or she) is a Christian.
But of course, you felt the need to clarify the matter in His potential silence by insinuating I wasn’t.
You’re absolutely right that whether or not I am a Christian is God’s to judge. But, having correctly handed that decision over to Him, you should probably refrain from backseat driving.
posted by dalea on
Richard, on Larry Kramer, I don’t recall ever knowing anyone who had but one opinion on him. Most people seemed to be looking at a him and seeing a mosaic. Some parts they can appreciate, some they can’t. Kramer has spent most of his out life speaking against promiscuity and hedonism in gay life. He began before the epidemic and continued doing so right up until now. ACT UP did many great things, and also some dumb ones. He is able to articulate a gay vision of mutual love and support without wild sex. But then he is so shrill and over the top he undercuts his message. A very complex figure, one I have very mixed feelings about. Larry Kramer spoke out against gay male over sexed ways of living; gay conservative Andrew Sullivan stated that HIV positive people had no obligation of any kind to their sex partners. Not even disclosure.
Which brings me to another thought. As far as I can tell, the gay left is much more committed to presenting alternatives to the bar and sex culture than the right. And in my own experience, the bar and club scene is usually run by gays who are also politically conservative. Republican libertarian if they can get away with it; very blue dog Democrat if they can’t.
During the Plague, I can remember all sorts of rather clever and workable initiatives from the left to keep our social life going in very trying times. From the gay right all we heard were grumblings and bitching about government intervention hurting their businesses. And the MCC to the extent I knew it was one of the main promoters of nonexclusivity.
It is my constant experience that the gay right is the main engine pushing fuckateria. And the gay left is the main group against it. Which is why I frequently find IGF so bewildering.
posted by Brian Miller on
That would leave you arguing that you’re more “credible” because you post your name and make it clear that you’re a gay man, versus someone who posts under a pseudonym, but provides extensive and referenceable documentation to back up his points.
The reason why I’m suspecting you’re not gay is because you’re demanding that I — as a gay man — take responsibility for the statements that others make simply because they’re gay. But you don’t seem to accord the same responsibility to yourself.
Now if I’m responsible because I’m gay — but you’re not responsible — what’s the logical inference here?
posted by Brian Miller on
It is my constant experience that the gay right is the main engine pushing fuckateria. And the gay left is the main group against it.
Broadly speaking, I think that’s probably true — although urban gay men of all political leanings tend to be more likely to choose the “fuckateria” option.
I do find it interesting how conservative Republican gay men so often advocate monogamy, marriage, etc. but get caught out having secret lives of wild, unprotected sex. It makes me wonder if this is one of the details that the pseudonymnous don’t want folks to know about — it’s so common in the right-wing community for absolute sex addicts to go on benders denouncing “slutty women” and “promiscuous gays.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The reason why I’m suspecting you’re not gay is because you’re demanding that I — as a gay man — take responsibility for the statements that others make simply because they’re gay. But you don’t seem to accord the same responsibility to yourself.
If I didn’t accord the same responsibility to myself, I wouldn’t be here commenting and criticizing these statements and making it clear that I do not agree or accept them.
I am held accountable for Larry Kramer’s moonbat activities because he does them in the name of being gay — and I am gay. Therefore, I make certain that it is clear to EVERYONE, gays included, that Kramer is lying and using his sexual orientation as a cover for antisocial behavior that has nothing to do with being gay.
It makes me wonder if this is one of the details that the pseudonymnous don’t want folks to know about — it’s so common in the right-wing community for absolute sex addicts to go on benders denouncing “slutty women” and “promiscuous gays.”
Would that you had the balls PCT does and just come right out and say what you’re insinuating, Mr. Miller.
Perhaps you lack the commitment to your beliefs to make accusations directly.
posted by Brian Miller on
ND, I’m not a Republican. Thus, unlike you, I don’t make accusations or declarations without proof. That doesn’t, however, prevent me from advancing my theories as I see them.
You’re welcome to disprove them if you so choose.
I am held accountable for Larry Kramer’s moonbat activities because he does them in the name of being gay — and I am gay.
That wasn’t what you said a moment earlier. You claimed that as a gay man, *I* was responsible for Larry Kramer’s activities — you certainly didn’t include yourself in that.
(By the way, in both cases, the premise is utter hogwash — nobody is responsible for the declarations of another unless that person is an elected leader of an organization he belongs to who is making a statement the membership voted to support).
Kramer is lying and using his sexual orientation as a cover for antisocial behavior
Then again, so are you. And speaking frankly, I don’t feel the need to apologize to the world for either Larry Kramer or “North Dallas 30.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Thus, unlike you, I don’t make accusations or declarations without proof.
Um……you just accused me of being a sex addict who repeatedly has wild, unprotected sex. Pretending it’s only a “theory” is merely a cowardly cover.
Or you could simply say that you have no proof that I am a sex addict who repeatedly has wild, unprotected sex — but, since doing so would neatly shoot a hole in your “theory” about conservative Republican gay men, I doubt it.
You’re welcome to disprove them if you so choose.
Or you’re welcome to provide evidence for your accusation, aka “theory”, that I am a sex addict who has wild, unprotected sex.
I think the reason you consistently fail to impress the non-gay and enlightened gays like myself, Mr. Miller, is because your arguments are too dependent on your theory that they are valid because you are gay and male.
That wasn’t what you said a moment earlier. You claimed that as a gay man, *I* was responsible for Larry Kramer’s activities — you certainly didn’t include yourself in that.
Mhm. Line, quote, and post, please.
And speaking frankly, I don’t feel the need to apologize to the world for either Larry Kramer or “North Dallas 30.”
That would be because you support the one and don’t believe the other is gay.
Quite a stance there.
posted by The Gay Species on
Inclusive marriage, once obtained, should be rejected by many GLBT. The institution is not working for the dominant class (heterosexuals), and it won’t work for the minority class (GLBT) any better.
Alternatively, Beloveds should make an appointment with a personal attorney, get down in writing what is vital and important to safeguard the relationship from external assault, but allow it to grow organically without a litany of “terms and conditions.”
Yes, one loses tax benefits when marriage becomes inclusive. Yes, a good attorney will cost several thousands of dollars. But the process itself will make it all worthwhile, and it will be UNIQUELY your relationship, designed by the two of you, for the two of you, and without State interference.
With the State’s 1,300 “benefits” come 24,000 state-mandated requirements. Is that to anyone’s benefit? If you want the State to “define” your relationship, because you cannot, then the “shelf product” may be better than none, but maybe not, too. Marriage is a moribund institution, wrecked, and irreparably damaged — so why would WE want it, too? So the State can tell us how to love, what beloveds must do, and how they have new rules for those 1,300 benefits?
Remember: The “justification” given by the Sullivan, Rauch, Corvino, et alia, is that it will “tame” us. Gay men run wild, and should not be harnessed to satisfy social conservatives’ moral imperatives. We cannot allow our uniqueness to be curtailed in our relationships any more than in our person.
posted by The Gay Species on
Postscript: Before some social conservative misconstrues “gay men run wild” to mean orgiastic unsafe anal sex, the allusion is to wild stallions who enjoy their freedom, yet love to be nurtured and nurture, committed to a Beloved because he is beloved. Some of the extremists on both sides get their screeds terribly wrong.
posted by grendel on
The Gay Species: that’s all well and good, but many of the rights of marriage simply cannot be contracted for since they involve third parties. No contract with your partner is going to allow you to sponsor her for immigration, or protect your joint assets from creditors, or a host of other rights that come only with marriage. Partnership agreements are fine. But they are no substitute for equal marriage.
posted by dalea on
Brian sez: Broadly speaking, I think that’s probably true — although urban gay men of all political leanings tend to be more likely to choose the “fuckateria” option.
Rural gay men do the same also, based on my years living in rural areas. Same for suburban gay men.
Regarding the ‘urban gay left’, I really do not feel that they are ‘noisy’ as much as they are ‘articulate’. Nor do I find them to be ‘left’ as much as I find them to be ‘populist’, IE speaking for ordinary gay people based on direct experience. Which leads me to wonder: what is the point of IGF? In all my years here, I have never seen a clear definition of just who and what this ‘left’ is. Just endless dumps on whoever becomes the target dujour. With certain exempt persons, aka Andrew Sullivan.
Regarding the events long ago at st patricks. How seriously can we take a religion that gives out crackers without a corresponding dip?
In fact, it seems that the whole rationale for this site is phoney. We see here denunciations of people, the ‘left’, and a great silence about obvious right wing gay movements. Like promoting the white parties.
posted by OMG on
To hold people accountable for things that they don’t do is something I see too often on the left (it is part of their collective philosophy). Radical feminists try to make modern heterosexual men feel guilty for whatever wrongdoings our male ancestors did to our female ancestors, at the same time they constantly cite the actions of a few sadistic, psychopathic criminals, rapists, in order to claim that society as whole discriminates against and oppresses women.
I belive this is crap, and that people should be hold accountable only for things that they actually did, not something their parents, or people of their ethnicity, their gender, their sexual orientation did.
Tell me, NorthDallas30, do you believe a straight man should feel guilty or should apologize for a gay-bashing perpetrated by a bunch of homophobic straight men, or for a rape-murder of a woman, if he himself did not took part in them and if he himself does not condone them?
I think your answer will be ‘no’.
I have realized that, when it comes to gays, you often let your self-righteous hysteria overshadows whatever common sense you may have in your personal life… But try to be honest and NO inflamatory in answering this question, please: If an individual straight man should not feel guilty or apologize for crimes commited by other straight men, why should gays in general – you included – apologize or feel guilty for whatever shit this Larry Kramer does?
posted by OMG on
*believe
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Tell me, NorthDallas30, do you believe a straight man should feel guilty or should apologize for a gay-bashing perpetrated by a bunch of homophobic straight men, or for a rape-murder of a woman, if he himself did not took part in them and if he himself does not condone them?
No.
But when said gay-bashers or rapists try to use the fact that they’re straight men and the argument that straight men should act that way as excuses for what they did, you bet I expect that the straight man will make it very clear that they’re full of sh*t — and that there is no way they’re getting off easy for what they did, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation.
Now, applying that:
If an individual straight man should not feel guilty or apologize for crimes commited by other straight men, why should gays in general – you included – apologize or feel guilty for whatever shit this Larry Kramer does?
I don’t ask that gay men feel guilty or apologize for what Larry Kramer does.
I ask that they make it clear that Larry Kramer is an antireligious bigot who uses his sexual orientation as an excuse for his antisocial behavior, that what he does is not acceptable, and that actions like his should be vehemently criticized regardless of his sexual orientation.
In short, as long as Kramer wants to blame his sexual orientation for his moronic behavior, it is incumbent upon gays to repudiate him, not to rationalize or make excuses for him.
Get rid of the latter two, practice the former, and I promise you — Kramer will no longer be a problem. Neither will HRC, NGLTF, or any of the other innumerable alphabet soup organizations whose sole purpose is to exploit gay people as a convenient ATM and smokescreen for their leftist nonsense.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
dalea wrote, “gay conservative Andrew Sullivan stated that HIV positive people had no obligation of any kind to their sex partners. Not even disclosure.”
I believe this claim is false. Please provide your evidence. Many leftists who hated Andrew in the first place were gleeful over the publicizing several years ago of a personal ad he had posted on the Internet, and they were quite loud with their cries of hypocrisy. But as I recall, he had self-declared that he was HIV-positive. And if one actually reads his books and essays instead of caricaturing them or accepting others’ biased characterizations of them, there is no hypocrisy at all. The vilification of Andrew by gay leftists has been built on and swathed in dishonesty and that some still persist in trafficking in these slanders says much more about them than about Andrew, who in fact wrote quite thoughtfully about AIDS. An awfuly lot of people have based their dismissals of him on rumors they read, rather than reading his writing for themselves.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Fitz asks why certain voices are not represented on IGF. You can look up the IGF mission statement. IGF does not purport to be all things to all people. It is an independent forum, which does not constitute a claim of universality. There is no shortage of other fora.
posted by ETJB on
Again, North Dallas Thirty;
I do not recall stating that you should, “feel guilty and awful about [your] skin color, …gender, and …being born into a middle-class family.” I am sorry, that you seem to feel guilty and awful about such things.
To acknowledge that white privilege exists, or privilege based on class, gender, sexual orientation, choice of political party etc. does not mean that people should feel guilty or ashamed simply for being white.
“There have been 30 homicides this year, mostly in predominantly African American neighborhoods. At the same time last year, there were 27 homicides.”
Your point being? The man seems to be saying that their are a lot of murders in predominatly African American neighborhood.
Are you suggesting that it is not true? Are you saying that is bad for African Americans to complain about violent crime in their neighborhood?
“But whites are responsible”
Well, if a white person kills an African American or another white person, then yes, they responsible.
posted by Brian Miller on
Fitz asks why certain voices are not represented on IGF.
“Fitz” obviously missed the requirements that authors get published in real periodicals and that they publish under their own names.
Oops.
posted by dalea on
A useful concept from Wikipedia. It sounds like some people we know.
Concern troll
A concern troll is also a fictitious online identity whose proclaimed beliefs are not those its creator really believes and is trying to push. [3]
The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view (for example, Democrats or fans of the Prius), and attempts to sway the group’s actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals but with some “concerns”.
For example, in 2006 a top staffer for Congressman Charlie Bass (R-NH) was caught posing as a “concerned” supporter of Bass’s opponent Democrat Paul Hodes on several liberal NH blogs, using the pseudonyms “IndieNH” or “IndyNH.” “IndyNH” was “concerned” that Democrats might just be wasting their time or money on Hodes, because Bass was unbeatable. [4]
Suspicion of concern trolls is hard to verify without clearcut information about the IP number from which their posts originate, as there are people who naturally behave in such a manner.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So that’s the newest tactic; first gays like dalea claimed that people who disagreed with their bigoted and violent tactics weren’t really gay, then they claimed that they were right-wing plants, and now they’ve moved on to “concern trolls”.
The reason why is obvious; for a person like dalea, for whom their sexual orientation is the excuse for their antisocial behaviors and any problems they face in their life, gay people who disagree with them are not merely disagreeing — they are swinging an ax at the foundations upon which these people have based their lives. It should be no surprise that dalea and his ilk then try to belittle and criticize these people as much as possible, be it through disparaging their religious beliefs, their political beliefs, their gender, or their sexual preferences.
posted by dalea on
Richard I have done a small search for stories about AS and the situation. Additionally, I lived through the whole mess. I can clearly remember the discussions here at IGF about AS and bare backing. And the sudden closure of the IGF blog as these discussions grew. Since then, IGF has been a rather barren field. Here are a few links that back up my statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010618/kim20010605
http://72.166.46.24//boston/news_features/top/features/documents/01668616.htm
Part of Michael Bronski’s article:
So why is this news? Well, let?s see. As Bay Windows editor Jeff Epperly, a former Sullivan booster who?s since become a critic, noted in a letter to MediaNews.org: ?Sullivan has made his career out of being the little snoopy old lady of the gay movement. He writes breathless expos
posted by Audrey B on
Why should I believe anything you say dalea, when you actually consider Wikipedia a legitimate source on anything?
posted by dalea on
Gee Audrey,why should anyone listen to you when you consider the source of information more important than the information itself. Sounds like a working definition of the ‘concern troll’.
posted by Brian Miller on
What’s up with all the homophobic right-wingers posting on IGF? I cannot imagine they’d welcome gay folk (of any political orientation) on their own web sites with the degree of acceptance they’re demanding here.
Bizarre.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….of course, Mr. Miller, your own “tolerance” in these matters is being made painfully obvious by the actions of your ally dalea.
Will the moderators let us have Lori’s ISP numbers so we can begin to deal with her endless lies and evasions?
The only thing Lori’s ISP numbers would allow would be harassment and hate actions being taken against her — such as trying to get her fired from her job, harassing and attacking her friends and families — as practiced by gay leftists like Mike Rogers and supported by HRC, NGLTF, and others.
All because she holds different opinions.
That, to me, shows quite starkly the attitude that gay Democrats and leftists hold — which includes you, Mr. Miller, given your support of dalea.
posted by Brian Miller on
your own “tolerance” in these matters is being made painfully obvious by the actions of your ally dalea
Once again, ND30, your insistence that I take responsibility for the statements of others is indication that there’s nothing that I’ve said that you can criticize with any validity.
Scream and flail and wave your arms all you want, but your demands are a classic logical fallacy. I take responsibility for what I say, by not only standing by it (and clarifying it), but also posting my own name and e-mail address on every post.
Meanwhile, you’re demanding that I apologize for the alleged words of another person, which cannot be verified (you could just as easily have posted using his name), but don’t have the testicular fortitude to stand up for what you believe.
Rather than try to assign positions to me that have no relevance to me (nor “leftism” nor libertarianism nor any of your other shibboleths), grow a pair and use your real name. So long as you persist in slinging around mud, accusations without proof, and a complete lack of criticism of my actual positions, you’re just going to underscore your well-earned reputation as a unscrupulous, dishonest and cowardly troll.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….Mr. Miller, you have already stated publicly that, even if I were to make my identity public, it would be irrelevant to my arguments.
And as for your pretense of “facts”, what can be shown is what happens when you attempt to lie and I hold you accountable; you attempt to argue that, because you put your name and email on your posts, your lies should be ignored and taken as valid.
Meanwhile, what is most instructive about your most recent post is how you slavishly serve as a lapdog for a violent gay leftist, spinning and whining about how you shouldn’t be held responsible for behavior you encouraged and support — and never once saying that it is wrong.
posted by Fitz on
Richard J. Rosendall | (writes)
?Fitz asks why certain voices are not represented on IGF. You can look up the IGF mission statement. IGF does not purport to be all things to all people. It is an independent forum, which does not constitute a claim of universality. There is no shortage of other fora.?
I appreciate the honesty; like many groups and collaborators purporting to be everything from ?right wing? to ?republican? ?conservative? or ?libertarian & ?independent? ; IGF seems dedicated to what is often referred to as ?full civil rights? for gays & lesbians. Under this purview one couldn?t insert a slip of paper between these voices and the voices of the far left.
Moving towards ?full equality? or ?recognizing gay relationships? is simply code for OUR agenda. take it or leave it?(no dissent).
Under this rubric (a fair & proper one, I believe) there is a shortage of other fora, a very obvious shortage indeed.
Brian Millar (responds to by question)
Fitz asks why certain voices are not represented on IGF?
“Fitz” obviously missed the requirements that authors get published in real periodicals and that they publish under their own names. Oops.
The Future of Tradition By Lee Harris – Well, further up in the post I mentioned this work and linked directly to it. Its certainly a ?real periodical? and as far as I know Mr. Harris is not using a pen name.
Brian Millar (then writes)
?What’s up with all the homophobic right-wingers posting on IGF? I cannot imagine they’d welcome gay folk (of any political orientation) on their own web sites with the degree of acceptance they’re demanding here. ?.Bizarre.
The limits of your imagination not withstanding (and I will ignore the name calling) We welcome all civil discourse at our blog that is exclusively dedicated to protecting the institution of marriage.
posted by Brian Miller on
Mr. Miller, you have already stated publicly that, even if I were to make my identity public, it would be irrelevant to my arguments.
ND, you don’t have many arguments these days, other than shouting “leftist” and slinging out cheap attacks. You’re a bit like a right wing anonymous Rosie O’Donnell in that regard — all shouting, no class.
you slavishly serve as a lapdog for a violent gay leftist
And of course you have to come back to yet another absurd and ridiculous assertion built on yet another absurd and ridiculous assertion.
I think it’s safe to say that, at this juncture, unless you’ve got meaningful content or thoughts to add to this debate, you’re irrelevant to the debate as a whole.
full civil rights? for gays & lesbians. Under this purview one couldn?t insert a slip of paper between these voices and the voices of the far left.
On the contrary, there’s a great deal of diversity and dialogue on this site — far more so than on your site, for instance.
The problem is that folks posting from your (anonymous) perspective are irresponsible and a bit fringe. Your entire proposition is that the status of gay people as human beings is a “liberal” concept — and that equal treatment by government of people who are different from you is “far left.”
That’s an unedifying and ultimately intellectually lazy position on your part. There’s precious little credibility coming from your side of the debate for several reasons:
1) We’re debating real experiences based on actual life, while you’re debating theory based on biases (and often bigotries);
2) We’re addressing not only the moral questions, but also the legal and ethical questions, while you’re ignoring all three;
3) We’re debating under our real names with our real life stories — offering compelling testimony — while most of your “authors” are anonymous individuals who lack the accountability and authenticity of a real identity.
For those reasons (plus others I could delve into but choose not to due to time constraints), it’s quite rich for you to advance your site as a similarly rigorous exercise to IGF. Anonymous blogs full of invective and light on facts just cannot compare to the scholarly and logical excellence found here.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….the spins of Mr. Miller continue.
First he insists he does not support dalea — but gushes over dalea here.
Meanwhile, what you should be aware of, Fitz, is that Mr. Miller is quite often incapable of or incompetent to provide facts — as is outlined in this thread, in which he makes an assertion, is contradicted, claims to have corroborating evidence which he cannot show, attempts to impugn the evidence presented that shows he is wrong unsuccessfully, and is reduced to hurling epithets.
posted by Fitz on
NDT
Well, I see what you mean. Even a quick perusal of our site will yield several factual errors in Mr. Miller response. We discuss the public policy problems with same-sex “marriage” and have entire posts dedicated to the legal issues involved. I myself am an Attorney. Multiple poster on our site post under their real names (does Mr. Miller expect us to include addresses and home phone numbers) We do not tolerate invective at our site. (and so forth)
I don?t dispute that IGF has civil and intellectually serious contributors. I just think it telling that it does not include any authentic social conservative thought. (and I point to gay authors who yield such thought)
posted by dalea on
Ahhh, the joys of Christian compassion, as I have come to know them.
It is interesting that here at IGF someone who is a strict libertarian is considered ‘far left’. Mr Fitz, this place is overrun with social conservatives. Which does not appear to be a good thing.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
does Mr. Miller expect us to include addresses and home phone numbers
Given the actions of his confederates, I do believe he does.
Will the moderators let us have Lori’s ISP numbers so we can begin to deal with her endless lies and evasions?
Later:
Now we just need to know how to track you down.
And this sort of thing is what gay “activists” do all the time. They call peoples’ places of work trying to get them fired; they harass those peoples’ family and friends, even misrepresenting themselves as acting on behalf of the police in order to intimidate people. All this is supported, as these “activists” brag, by the national gay organizations like HRC.
posted by Brian Miller on
does Mr. Miller expect us to include addresses and home phone numbers
Given the actions of his confederates, I do believe he does.
Oh please. You cowards are so funny.
I’m not afraid of a little accountability. My name is Brian Miller, my e-mail address is hightechfella@yahoo.com, and I’m the California chair of Outright Libertarians. No phone numbers, no addresses, no problems.
If you cannot post information that basic, it’s because you’re either lying about your identity, or are so ashamed about your prior statements that you don’t want the accountability that would come with outing yourselves.
Either way, you have far less credibility than folks who have courage enough in their convictions to post in their real names. Next to them, you are poseurs.
posted by Brian Miller on
this sort of thing is what gay “activists” do all the time. They call peoples’ places of work trying to get them fired; they harass those peoples’ family and friends, even misrepresenting themselves as acting on behalf of the police in order to intimidate people
Are you intimating that I do these sorts of things? If so, I look forward to either substantiation of your contention, or clarification that your statement doesn’t apply to me.
posted by Brian Miller on
First he insists he does not support dalea — but gushes over dalea here
I agreed with a statement that dalea made with regard to an issue where we were in agreement.
Using your “logic,” you are also my ally because you agreed with me on hate crimes bills.
Duh.
It *is* possible to agree with someone — strongly — on the issues, yet not be an “acolyte,” “ally,” or any other sort of relation. Your refusal to acknowledge this simple fact makes you look boorish and anti-social.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If you cannot post information that basic, it’s because you’re either lying about your identity, or are so ashamed about your prior statements that you don’t want the accountability that would come with outing yourselves.
Or because we simply think it’s none of your business, and don’t feel particularly compelled to do so because you think it grounds for impugning our existence.
I do admit that sometimes I do feel a bit selfish that you can’t share in the joke that Lori, BfT, GayPatriot, GayPatriotWest, and others have over watching you rant about how I can’t possibly be gay, how I’m a sex addict, how I’m closeted, how I’m ugly, and so forth.
Put simply, it’s not that I haven’t shared my full identity with others; it’s that I haven’t wasted it on people like you who have a demonstrated history of abusing such things.
And finally, Mr. Miller, while I agree with you on some issues, I invariably make it clear when I do not; hence, I do not qualify as your ally. It is not just your agreement with dalea that makes you dalea’s ally; it is your utter and complete refusal to condemn dalea’s hateful behavior.