Marc Ambinder has the draft of the Dems' 2008 platform, which is still subject to revision. Like the 2004 platform, it supports ENDA, and it more prominently and specifically calls for ending the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on openly gay service (see page 30). In 2004 the platform opposed the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage; in 2008, and in line with Barack Obama's publicly stated position, it goes further by opposing the Defense of Marriage Act.
Here's an interesting change, though.
From 2004:
We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families.
And 2008:
We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections.
Something went missing there. In fact, if I'm searching correctly, the 2008 platform omits any mention of the words "gay" and "lesbian." Will gay groups raise the issue? Will the platform committee dare to speak our name?
{ 75 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
It amazes me that someone as obviously intelligent as you are can be so obtusely unaware of how the words you choose to use affect others.
Versus, one supposes, people who tell others to commit suicide that you “like their style”, and those who insist that Christianity is evil, that the Bible is evil, and that all Christians are ignorant and superstitious idiots that you’re “glad” that they’re here to “do battle” — or who personally states that someone is a “troll”, insisting that they are lying, and making unkind statements about their life.
What makes this even more entertaining, Hank, is that ColoradoPatriot, your friend in the suicide business, also claims to be a gay Christian, yet you seem quite unconcerned about how his choice of words telling people that killing themselves would be “doing us all a favor” affects others.
Dallas obviously has been hurt somewhere along the line, which has caused an enormous amount of bitterness. As someone who claims to be a Christian, he really has no excuse for hanging on to his bitterness. But for some reason, he refuses to give it up, in spite of the clear teachings of the Bible, which he claims to believe.
Again, your mindset is showing. Rather than hold Priya Lynn and ColoradoPatriot responsible for the words they have clearly stated and the behaviors in which they have clearly engaged, you choose to speculate about other people in an attempt to make excusable their words and behaviors.
Jesus did not excuse adultery, blasphemy, or other sins on the basis that other people were “bad Christians”, nor did He allow the people who did them to make said claim. Indeed, Jesus was the antithesis of your behavior, Hank, for He was just as willing to hold His disciples accountable for their behaviors as He was people who weren’t.
The problem here, Hank, is that you have allowed your sense of right and wrong to be subverted by your allegiance to those of your sexual orientation. Since Priya Lynn and ColoradoPatriot are LGBT, you must defend and support them at all costs. That is why, in our first encounter, you tried to deny that I was gay, and later tried to claim I was in “ex-gay therapy”; you needed to establish that I was not gay, and therefore, you could treat me differently. You could not comprehend that another gay person could put their allegiance to their faith ahead of their allegiance to others of the same sexual orientation.
Michigan Matt – How boring when people choose deliberately to misunderstand what you say . . .
I didn’t suggest, or mean to suggest, that all Republicans think gay people are filthy subhuman generates. But most Americans who do think that are Republicans, and, what is much, much, worse, the national Republican party exploits the hatred and prejudice of these people in order to win votes. In 2004 in case you’ve forgotten, carried out a deliberate strategy of more-or-less irreversibly writing anti-gay discrimination into the constitutions of a dozen states in order to increase Republican turnout and win four more years for GWB.
It’s their association with this is the kind of things that gay Republicans have got to twist themselves into pretzels to excuse. Care to try?
Richard II – good point: “LGBT Republicans, who are not in the closet, tend to argue that they do not want their sexual orientation or gender identity to define them, but rather — and this is often invoked like a campaign slogan — their belief in God, country and good old fashion values.”
Or, as one my funnier gay Republican friends puts it, “We’re here, we’re queer, we don’t like welfare.”
I fully understand the frustration some gay people feel at the suggestion that their politics must be defined by their sexual orientation. (I recently ran into a co-worker who solicited a political donation from me not because she knew anything at all about my political beliefs, but because she knows I’m gay and assumed I am a Democrat. For that one moment, how I wished she was wrong!).
The only thing that bugs me about gay Republicans, and it’s a trait I detect in this blog, is a degree of over-reactivity. In their eagerness to prove how unencumbered their political thinking is by the accidental fact of their sexual orientation, they overcompensate, failing to recognize or acknowledge when Democrats do something good for gay people, and bending over backwards to excuse Republican pandering to the worst and most bigoted elements of their party. The double standard that this blog applies to McCain and Obama is a perfect example of this unfortunate trait.
The said thing is that this kind of reactionary thinking is just another species of intellectual slavery. Instead of reflexively cleaving to Democrats because they are gay, they reflexively reject them, but again because they are gay!
Which is why, although he meant it as a criticism, I hope Michigan Matt is right when he says of me: “The truth is that you’d be a Democrat irrespective of whether or not you’re a gay.”
In 2004 in case you’ve forgotten, carried out a deliberate strategy of more-or-less irreversibly writing anti-gay discrimination into the constitutions of a dozen states in order to increase Republican turnout and win four more years for GWB.
Which, of course, the Democrat Party fully supported, even bragging about how they shared the “same position” as the Republicans.
All of which, of course, received the endorsement of HRC and other gay leftist groups, as well as innumerable gay Democrats like Jim, resulting in tens of millions of dollars, votes, and chants of “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
So the better question is this, Jim; why are you going on about Republican gays having to “twist themselves into pretzels” when the people to whom you gave money, who you endorsed, and who you claim are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” are not only doing the same thing for which you bash Republicans, but publicly stating they have the same position as Republicans?
Answer: Because, as you stated above, you have no problem whatsoever with Democrats doing such things to get elected, no matter what.
John Kerry is not “the Democrats.”
Let’s recall, there were people in each of those states who fought bravely, if unsuccessfully, to defeat those amendments. Do you think most of them were Democrats or Republicans? And where do you think their money came from?
And who, based on what they have said and done, do you think will do more to advance the cause of legal equality for gay people: John McCain or Barack Obama.
You are living in a dream.
John Kerry is not “the Democrats.”
Of course he is. He was the Presidential candidate nominated by a vote of all the party delegates. Are you trying to tell us that the Democrat Party Presidential nominee did not represent the Democrat Party? Better yet, if he was so bad, why did gay and lesbian people and groups like HRC give him tens of millions of dollars, all while chanting how “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” he was?
Talk about living in a dream.
Let’s recall, there were people in each of those states who fought bravely, if unsuccessfully, to defeat those amendments. Do you think most of them were Democrats or Republicans? And where do you think their money came from?
You could ask Matt about Michigan, since he was one of them. You could ask me about Texas, since I was there.
But of course, Democrats like yourself were sending your money off to Kerry instead, because, as you rationalize, it’s OK for Democrats to support such things if it helps them get elected, right?
And who, based on what they have said and done, do you think will do more to advance the cause of legal equality for gay people: John McCain or Barack Obama.
That depends on how you define “legal equality”.
You see, Jim, in 2004, gays claimed banning gay marriage at the state level would qualify as “advancing the cause of legal equality” — and you said it was perfectly all right for Kerry to support that in order to get elected.
Now, please state publicly that anyone who opposes gay marriage, and especially that anyone who says that they believe so because marriage is a “sacred union”, is a hateful homophobic person before we proceed.
“Rather than hold Priya Lynn.. responsible”
The difference of course is that you say you are a Christian. Priya doesn’t. She’s not a disciple, you claim to be.
So yes, I imagine that Jesus will hold you accountable someday for your stiffnecked refusal to reflect His love to her, to turn the other cheek, to attempt to serve her.
The confusion here, Hank, is that you equate reflecting Jesus’s love with supporting and encouraging her to make hateful statements against Christians and — ironically — to go on about how evil, hateful, and awful Jesus and God are.
Just as you support and encourage your fellow “gay Christians” like ColoradoPatriot who tell gay people they don’t like to commit suicide, saying that “you’d be doing us all a favor”.
Jesus didn’t mind being unpopular with the social circles of the day; indeed, He made it clear that Christians would take quite a bit of heat for practicing their beliefs precisely because they were contrary to popular thought and what humans invariably want to do. You and your fellow “gay Christians” have turned that quite on its head; Jesus is to be believed and followed only when other LGBTs say so, and to be ignored when His words are inconvenient to the LGBT mainstream that holds attitudes like Priya and ColoradoPatriot.
That would appear to be far more than calling religion a superstition.
NDT, I don’t disagree with that. My point was that you find it insulting when someone calls Chrisitianity a superstition, but it’s okay to see that Democrats and/or liberals are whiners, or victims, or immoral.
Perhaps you ought to bring forth some of what you claim I am saying about Democrats and liberals that is so objectionable.
Okay.
Furthermore, the Democrat Party being “demonstrably better” on gay issues involves their support of gays having public sex, their support of taking children to sex fairs dressed as sexual slaves, their support of unlimited abortion, even allowing infanticide when a baby is aborted alive, their support of diverting HIV/AIDS funds away from rural locations in favor of wealthy gay communities in cities like New York and San Francisco, and their support of gay and lesbian people who sexually harass others in their workplace — none of which really qualify as “gay issues” or have anything to do with sexual orientation, but for which gays can use sexual orientation as a smokescreen.
If you can’t see that your statement is more vicious and defamatory, then, in my view, you are not and perhaps cannot be objective regarding religion.
Now if the argument is, “well, at least what I’ve stated is true.” Nope. At least half of the statement above is false. Whereas what Priya Lynn’s statements of the Bible (not counting the last two sentences, which was her opinion as to what to do about promoting the Bible) are true, and were not refuted by you.
Which is why I treated it as one; its point was clearly to state that I was a child molestor. The addition of “I wouldn’t be surprised” is little more than a transparent attempt to avoid accountability for the insult, and as such, can be ignored.
While I have no idea why she used “I wouldn’t be surprised, you may well be correct as to what the reasoning was, and what was meant by it. But by you ignoring what was stated, you two ended up wasting time on what was said instead of addressing what was said.
That is a rather interesting definition of silence, given my response above.
The “silence” I was referring to was regarding your claim (according to Priya Lynn) that she has multiple partners and demand to have public sex. I saw clearly that you were not silent regarding “assaulting all Christians” stuff.
The question I asked, Pat, was this: under what circumstances should you refuse to criticize others for bad behavior when they agree with you ideologically?
I apologize for not answering your question. I’m not quite sure I understand it (or the point behind it), but I’ll try answering.
The circumstances would be always, with the following exceptions. 1) If the behavior, in my view, crosses the line. 2) When the behavior is directed at me. Under normal circumstances, persons entering fora like these should be able to defend themselves. 3) When a poster presses me, either directly (or sometimes multiple times indirectly) to speak up about a conflict with another poster. When that happens, I’ll focus more on the behavior of the person that pressed me.
The first two criteria I established from another site, and decided to apply to all fora. The third one wasn’t necessary until this thread. Also, the criteria is the same for all posters, not just the ones that I agree with ideologically.
I hoped that answered your question. If not, please restate it and/or explain the point that you are trying to make with that question.
Some Democrats — voters and candidates — did support the 2004 State Constitutional Amendments. Of those voters who oppose them, I suspect most of them also voted for Democrats or progressive independents.
Of these candidates who opposed them, I suspect that most of them happen to be progressive Democrats or progressive independents.
I doubt, very much, that many federal Republican politicians opposed the amendments. Polls showed that opposition to these anti-gay amendments tended to come from Democrats or Independents.
John Kerry was the 2004 Democratic party presidential candidate, which is not the same thing as being the Democratic Party.
Candidates can go one way and the party can go another way.
Depending on who you ask — and Kerry was not a great campaigner — Candidate Kerry opposed same-sex marriage, but supported civil unions.
Candidate VP Reublican Cheney seemed to suggest that he opposed same-sex marriage but was more open to something like civil unions. Candidate (President) Bush made a similar — possibly — comment on Larry King.
Basically, both of the major party camapigns were probably trying to have things both ways when it came to an emotional issue like same-sex marriage.
They wanted to appeal to the vast majority of voters who opposed gay marriage, but theyalso wanted to appeal to a significant minority of voters who were willing to possible entertain the idea of civil unions.
Few major party candidates are going to endorse legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Not until public opinion changes.
It is really question of degrees. If they both oppose gay marraige, which one supports a greater degree of civil rights and or equality?
Furthermore, the HRC is hardly a ‘leftist’ organization. They are a moderate, slightly left of center group, as is most gay political groups because that is where most gay people seem to stand.
Getting back to the article, I just read the last paragraph, which I missed the first time I read it. While using all inclusive language is fine, I am somewhat troubled by the fact that it appears that the Democratic Party has apparently chosen to omit “gay” and “lesbian” from the platform. And I’m afraid I’m not surprised. I receive a lot of letters from Obama campaign and the DNC, which of course, they are soliciting money. I don’t expect every letter to address gay rights, but so far, I haven’t seen one. While the Democrats are not, and have not been perfect regarding gay rights, they had steadily moved in the right direction. Since the 2004 election, they have retreated somewhat. As such, I have not contributed to the Obama or national campaigns.
While I agree that there is some blind loyalty to the Democratic Party, it is still very clear that the Democrats are generally better when it comes to gay rights. Forget the rhetoric, forget that apparently gay Republicans are treated cordially and respectfully by most Republican politicians, forget the campaign promises. The votes still lean heavily in favor of the Democrats.
Sure, there are exceptions.* Just as I don’t think that homophobes (including self-hating ones) such as Larry Craig, Sam Brownback, Trent Lott, Rick Santorum, and Tom Coburn belong in the Democratic Party, the same is true for bigots such as Robert Byrd, Harold Ford, and Fred Phelps.
Saying that the Democrats are no better than gay rights than the Republicans is like saying that the Republicans are no better than the Democrats on pro-life issues. Then again, Bush pushed for, and an overwhelmingly vast majority of Republican senators and representatives supported FMA, while Bush has failed to provide the same fervor for a pro-life amendment.
*Republicans from states such as Michigan, California and New Jersey, are generally more rational and supportive of gay rights. Of course, there are exceptions there. We have an assemblyman in NJ who makes Fred Phelps look sane when it comes to gay rights.
Furthermore, the HRC is hardly a ‘leftist’ organization. They are a moderate, slightly left of center group, as is most gay political groups because that is where most gay people seem to stand.
Richard, I agree with about everything in your post, except this one. I would characterize HRC as more left of center than you would. I wouldn’t have a problem with that, but they are trying to purport themselves as more centrist while their actions show otherwise.
One of the problems that I have with HRC is the seemingly blind support for Democrats (again, exceptions here, as they have supported some Republicans in the past). I understand the reality that many times you have to support one candidate, who has some shortcoming on gay rights, over another candidate with a poor record on gay rights. But HRC should make it clear when they make their endorsements, and should make it clear exactly what the shortcomings are for the candidates they are endorsing. If they can’t do this kind of endorsement without making it clear that the candidate is still better, then the candidate is not worth endorsing at all.
Whereas what Priya Lynn’s statements of the Bible (not counting the last two sentences, which was her opinion as to what to do about promoting the Bible) are true, and were not refuted by you.
Well, let’s take a look at that.
Your bible commands that unmarried sex partners be murdered
I’m surprised that people who regularly attempt to quote, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” are not aware of the fact that the place where that is found in the Bible is a case in which Jesus (and God) used it to argue against the arbitrary execution of unmarried sex partners. Another stellar example is Jesus’s encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well who, as Jesus made clear He knew, was committing adultery; however, He did not call for her death, but called her to life instead.
Meanwhile, as for Democrats supporting public sex and taking children to sex fairs, that is easily demonstrated, given that the gay community brags about having the support of the Democrat Party and its leadership.
As for unlimited abortion, even allowing infanticide when a baby is aborted alive, Barack Obama just admitted he voted against banning it.
For “their support of diverting HIV/AIDS funds away from rural locations in favor of wealthy gay communities in cities like New York and San Francisco”, I covered that last fall, and for supporting gays and lesbians who sexually harass others in the workplace, who do you think put in place Bonnie Bleskachek despite her already-hideous record?
Bleskachek’s sexuality has been raised in several discrimination lawsuits filed against her as chief by dismissed male firefighters who said they were singled out because of their heterosexuality. The lawsuits are still pending, but Bleskachek is dismissive of the complaints.
NDXXX writes: “You could ask Matt about Michigan, since he was one of them.”
I saw the real, unadultered face of Democrat Party leaders during the Kerry-Edwards race in ’04 because Michigan had an anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot.
Those great, loving supposedly pro-gay Democrat leaders ran –RAN– for cover from being brought into the debate over the anti-gay marriage amendment because they didn’t want to lose votes for Kerry-Edwards. They knew they had a virtual lock on the gayVote… it wasn’t going anywhere but the Democrat column.
Gov 2 Penny Jenny Granholm, MIA
Dem Sen Carl Levin, MIA
Dem Sen Debbie StupidCow, MIA
Dem Party Chairman Mark Brewer, MIA
Michigan Dem Congressional Caucus, MIA
State House Dem Caucus, MIA
State Senate Dem Caucus, MIA
BigLabor groups, MIA
MEA & TeacherUnions, MIA
Black church groups, MIA
InnerCity Democrat mayors, MIA.
But guess what, two years later in ’06, when blacks were targeted with a similar anti-black affirmative action repeal amendment… the Democrats came out in force!
All the above: solidly against the ballot proposal, provided funds to defeat it, lots of speakers, lots of commercials.
Plus, the Democrats were able to pull in groups like the Catholic Conference and other nonpartisan groups to shill for the Party’s #1 Victim… blacks.
Oh, and the final vote tally? Both amendments were approved by a nearly identical margin –60% versus 40%.
Oh yeah, those Democrats just love us gays. On the #1 gay civil rights issue of the gayLeft agenda, the Democrat leaders in Michigan were hightailing it out of town and leaving us high and dry.
What was that about one party being better on gay issues?
I wrote “… I saw the real, unadultered face of Democrat Party leaders”. I meant to write unadulterated… I guess when I think of Democrat leaders, adultery is easily brought to mind.
My apologies to seasoned adultery expert John Edwards… who is yet another Democrat politician uncomfortable around us gays, anyway.
Oh yeah, those Democrats just love us gays. On the #1 gay civil rights issue of the gayLeft agenda, the Democrat leaders in Michigan were hightailing it out of town and leaving us high and dry.
Matt, did the Michigan legislature vote on the amendment before it went to the voters? If so, what was the vote breakdown?
What about the vote breakdown on other gay rights issues that came to the Michigan legislature?
What was that about one party being better on gay issues?
Maybe in Michigan, the Republicans are as good (or bad, depending on how you look at it) as the Democrats. All I know is that nationally and in New Jersey, the percentage of votes pro-gay for Democrats is overwhelmingly much higher than the Republicans.
I’m surprised that people who regularly attempt to quote, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” are not aware of the fact that the place where that is found in the Bible is a case in which Jesus (and God) used it to argue against the arbitrary execution of unmarried sex partners. Another stellar example is Jesus’s encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well who, as Jesus made clear He knew, was committing adultery; however, He did not call for her death, but called her to life instead.
NDT, you’ll have to ask Priya Lynn which passage(s) in the Bible she was referring to when she spoke about it. Anyway, I know many times that it’s difficult to prove a negative. It’s impossible this time, because there is no negative to prove. There are many passages in the Bible in which God just isn’t nice, fair, and just. Off the top of my head, God smited virtually all the residents of Sodom and Gemorrah, including Lot’s wife for the crime of looking back, but sparing Lot and his daughters who went on to commit incest. Having Abraham on the brink of sacrificing his son wasn’t good either. And he wasn’t that nice to poor old Job either. Oh, and having the first born child die of a plague for something bad that some others did, i.e., killing innocent children. Even sugarcoated, it isn’t pretty.
Meanwhile, as for Democrats supporting public sex and taking children to sex fairs, that is easily demonstrated, given that the gay community brags about having the support of the Democrat Party and its leadership.
LOL. The logic is really embarrassing, NDT. That was REALLY bad.
Let me give this a try.
NDT supports bringing children to FSF.
Proof: FSF is in San Francisco. Some reprehensible gay parents take their children there. NDT, lives in San Francisco and is gay. Therefore, NDT supports bringing children to FSF.
for supporting gays and lesbians who sexually harass others in the workplace, who do you think put in place Bonnie Bleskachek despite her already-hideous record?
Oh, good. Bonnie’s back. She and FSF are a tandem. But you forget to conclude how the DNC platform fully supports gays and lesbians only sexually harassing colleagues.
Nah Dallas, as usual you are clueless about what I think, or advocate, or believe. So easy to erect straw men isn’t it.
I think that Priya and many others like her need to know Christians who love her just as she is.
You disagree with that – obviously – your scenario is that she must be argued with, and corrected, and criticized for her baliefs. Then when she admits she’s wrong, well who knows – maybe you’ll treat her with some respect.
It’s just wrong – it won’t work, and it’s not Biblical. But you are so caught up in your own bitterness and maintaining your own grudges, that you simply can’t see the harm you are doing to the cause of Jesus Christ.
So I’ll go away and let you spew your bitterness – it’s ALL ABOUT YOU after all (is there anyone else here who maintains every blog post where they have been “insulted”?)
But hopefully priya and anyone else who might be considering what to do about the claims of Jesus Christ will look at others too – and not judge all Christians by your example.
Now I’ll go and let you get in the last word – I know how important that is to you.
Oh, and having the first born child die of a plague for something bad that some others did, i.e., killing innocent children
If you’re referring to the tenth plague on the Egyptians, Pat, you might want to go check way back in Exodus 1, where it speaks as to what the Egyptians were doing.
Then Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, gave this order to the Hebrew midwives, Shiphrah and Puah: ?When you help the Hebrew women as they give birth, watch as they deliver. If the baby is a boy, kill him; if it is a girl, let her live……….”
Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: ?Throw every newborn Hebrew boy into the Nile River. But you may let the girls live.?
Or, in reference to Job, you might want to look at Job 42.
When Job prayed for his friends, the Lord restored his fortunes. In fact, the Lord gave him twice as much as before! Then all his brothers, sisters, and former friends came and feasted with him in his home. And they consoled him and comforted him because of all the trials the Lord had brought against him. And each of them brought him a gift of money and a gold ring.
So the Lord blessed Job in the second half of his life even more than in the beginning. For now he had 14,000 sheep, 6,000 camels, 1,000 teams of oxen, and 1,000 female donkeys. He also gave Job seven more sons and three more daughters…. In all the land no women were as lovely as the daughters of Job. And their father put them into his will along with their brothers.
Job lived 140 years after that, living to see four generations of his children and grandchildren. Then he died, an old man who had lived a long, full life.
In short, as Paul Harvey might put it, there invariably is a “rest of the story” when it comes to these cherry-picked passages about how awful God is. That’s kind of the point of studying the whole Bible.
NDT supports bringing children to FSF.
Proof: FSF is in San Francisco. Some reprehensible gay parents take their children there. NDT, lives in San Francisco and is gay. Therefore, NDT supports bringing children to FSF.
Well, you could try that proof, Pat, but it’s pretty obvious from my repeated statements that I don’t support people doing that.
Meanwhile, though, I did provide proof of Nancy Pelosi endorsing and supporting the activities of the Folsom Street Fair. Furthermore, I don’t see why she wouldn’t, inasmuch as it’s considered “close-minded” and antigay to oppose taking children to such fairs dressed as sexual slaves.
But you forget to conclude how the DNC platform fully supports gays and lesbians only sexually harassing colleagues.
When did we move from the clear example of the Democrat Party endorsing and supporting Bleskachek to what the DNC platform says?
You disagree with that – obviously – your scenario is that she must be argued with, and corrected, and criticized for her baliefs. Then when she admits she’s wrong, well who knows – maybe you’ll treat her with some respect.
It’s just wrong – it won’t work, and it’s not Biblical.
You must have missed quite a few examples in the New Testament of John the Baptist (Matthew 3, Luke 3), Jesus Himself (Matthew 12, Matthew 15, Matthew 22, Matthew 23, Luke 5, Luke 7, just to name a couple), and Paul (Acts 13) criticizing and correcting people in less-than-subtle fashion.
Are you planning to tell Jesus that He was wrong to criticize the Pharisees’ behavior, that He should have supported and encouraged it to show “love”, and that his correcting them was hateful?
Instapundit had a link to an excellent article today about the consequences to which this sort of utter absence of criticism or correction leads. Suffice to say, you do no one any favors by allowing them to persist in bad behavior — and indeed, supporting and encouraging such behavior out of a misguided sense of “love” or “tolerance” makes matters even worse.
Again, Hank, as your behavior shows, it’s not Christianity that leads you to attack me, inasmuch as you fully support and “like (the) style” of gay “Christians” like ColoradoPatriot whose example of reflecting Christ’s love is to tell others to commit suicide, saying it would be “doing us all a favor”. The consistent pattern in your behavior is one of subverting any matter of right or wrong to be dependent on sexual orientation; simply put, if gay or lesbian people do it, it must be right, even if that requires tossing Jesus and God under the bus for convenience’s sake.
In short, as Paul Harvey might put it, there invariably is a “rest of the story” when it comes to these cherry-picked passages about how awful God is. That’s kind of the point of studying the whole Bible.
NDT, that’s a fair statement. But you can study the whole Bible all you want. It does not discount the fact that the Bible portrays God as an unsavory character many times. You can also state how it’s a metaphor, or there’s a lesson in there, or whatever you want. Still doesn’t change how God is portrayed. By the way, I doubt very much that God is as heinous as he is portrayed in the Bible, because the Bible was written by persons who have written what they believed God might have done.
Well, you could try that proof, Pat, but it’s pretty obvious from my repeated statements that I don’t support people doing that.
That’s what I thought. But when I applied your logic, it was clear that you support bringing children to FSF.
Meanwhile, though, I did provide proof of Nancy Pelosi endorsing and supporting the activities of the Folsom Street Fair. Furthermore, I don’t see why she wouldn’t, inasmuch as it’s considered “close-minded” and antigay to oppose taking children to such fairs dressed as sexual slaves.
(Sees NDT is still missing the point) Just like you support toilet sex and prostitution, because you vote for Republicans, and the Republicans have not expelled Craig and Vitter.
When did we move from the clear example of the Democrat Party endorsing and supporting Bleskachek to what the DNC platform says?
Just following your REALLY BAD logic. As ridiculous as my arguments sound to you, that’s as ridiculous as yours are. The fact is that I recognized them both as silly arguments. You have failed to recognize yours as silly though. It’s because you have your (many times incorrect) conclusions, and any argument that you make is going to be sound in your mind. But it’s not.
Remember what the original point was? You said that
Furthermore, the Democrat Party being “demonstrably better” on gay issues involves their support of gays having public sex, their support of taking children to sex fairs dressed as sexual slaves, their support of unlimited abortion, even allowing infanticide when a baby is aborted alive, their support of diverting HIV/AIDS funds away from rural locations in favor of wealthy gay communities in cities like New York and San Francisco, and their support of gay and lesbian people who sexually harass others in their workplace — none of which really qualify as “gay issues” or have anything to do with sexual orientation, but for which gays can use sexual orientation as a smokescreen.
For the moment, I’ll even concede, for the sake of argument, that Republicans and Democrats are just as good when it comes to gay rights. But persons who “wrongly” believe that Democrats are demonstrably better has NOTHING to do with your (wrong) claim that Democrats support public sex, bringing children to sex fairs, and sexual harassment by gay and lesbian persons.
That was one of the most inane arguments that you have come up with. Reading it was like watching someone scratch a chalkboard. So instead of playing who can come up with the most asinine argument game with you, I’ll simply just point out your poor logic and move on.
When did we move from the clear example of the Democrat[sic] Party endorsing and supporting Bleskachek to what the DNC platform says?
(Rereads statement) What??? How is one person who appointed Bleskavich a “clear” example of the Democratic Party endorsing and supporting Bleskavic?
I’m really at a loss here, NDT. I invite any Republican/conservatives here that can make sense of NDT’s arguments and willing to defend his statements on this thread?
Just like you support toilet sex and prostitution, because you vote for Republicans, and the Republicans have not expelled Craig and Vitter.
And again, Pat, that runs into the fact that I have said quite the opposite, not to mention what the national party did.
The problem here, Pat, is that this is quite a conundrum; you don’t want to support public sex fairs to which gay parents are bringing children dressed as sexual slaves to “show off” in front of naked and semi-naked adults having sex, but you want even less to condemn the Democrat Party and Nancy Pelosi for endorsing and supporting it.
What??? How is one person who appointed Bleskavich a “clear” example of the Democratic Party endorsing and supporting Bleskavic?
You obviously missed how gay and lesbian and Democrat groups hailed the choice of Bleskachek as a “trailblazer” when she was promoted to chief — of course, quite ignorant of the fact that she had already been sexually harassing people for years.
Again, Pat, it’s quite a conundrum; you don’t want to support gay and lesbian people who sexually harass their coworkers and hide behind nondiscrimination laws to do it, but you want even less to condemn the Democrat Party and the gay and lesbian organizations who support and endorse these people.
And again, Pat, that runs into the fact that I have said quite the opposite, not to mention what the national party did.
NDT, you keep on missing the point. I know you don’t support toilet sex. But when I use the same awful logic and argumentation that you use, I can easily “conclude” that you support toilet sex.
And that’s nice that the party stripped Craig of leadership posts or whatever it was. Maybe this is a big deal in the Capitol Bldg, but to me and most people it’s worthless and meaningless. A slap in the wrist would have been more meaningful. No expulsion. No censure. And what about Mr. Vitter? Looks like a lot more was done to punish Bleskavich.
The problem here, Pat, is that this is quite a conundrum; you don’t want to support public sex fairs to which gay parents are bringing children dressed as sexual slaves to “show off” in front of naked and semi-naked adults having sex, but you want even less to condemn the Democrat[sic] Party and Nancy Pelosi for endorsing and supporting it.
Are you serious. A conundrum??? I have in no uncertain terms condemned parents dressing their children and bringing them to sex fairs. So I have no idea what the heck you are talking about here.
And I have no problem condemning the Democratic* Party when it’s warranted. In this case, I have seen zero evidence that the Party supports adults bringing children to sex fairs. Same for Pelosi. If you have a link, I’ll have to read it myself and see. You have an unfortunate penchant of providing links that do not support your point.
Besides, I have never been crazy about your representative. My representative is a Democrat, and he doesn’t support this garbage. If your representative does, well, get her the hell out of office then. And I don’t know what else to tell you. All I can say is if parents were allowed to bring children to sex fairs in the city where I live, I wouldn’t be spending any free time talking about it on a forum. I’d be getting my butt out there until this disgrace was stopped. And if necessary, move the hell out of a city that would allow that trash if it didn’t stop. So don’t ever dare to try state or imply that I would ever even tolerate such trash. It is disgusting, and I’m tired of defending myself against such allegations that I would be in some damn conundrum over such an issue.
You obviously missed how gay and lesbian and Democrat[sic] groups hailed the choice of Bleskachek as a “trailblazer” when she was promoted to chief — of course, quite ignorant of the fact that she had already been sexually harassing people for years.
I didn’t miss it at all, NDT. I read it and saw, how once again, you provided a link that did not support your point.
1) I understand that Bleskavich was appointed fire chief despite the fact that there were allegations. And it probably would have been best to not appoint her, at least until they could determine the allegations were unfounded (which apparently was not the case). While it was probably wrong for the appointment to continue, it’s a stretch to conclude that the Democrat(s) (I assume) that appointed her to fire chief, in any way, condoned sexual harassment. People sometimes are put into office despite allegations. I know of someone who became president despite allegations that he used cocaine on several occasions, got arrested for drunk driving, went AWOL, and stupid enough to admit that he didn’t know whether or not homosexuality is a choice. Can you believe that? But it is a stretch to assume that the people, except for maybe a very small minority, who voted for him support people using cocaine, driving drunk, going AWOL, or are stupid enough to believe sexual orientation is a choice.
2) Even if the Democrats in Minneapolis knew and approved of sexual harassment (which hasn’t been demonstrated), this is a far cry from saying that Democrats support sexual harassment any more than saying Republicans support toilet sex and prostitution.
Again, Pat, it’s quite a conundrum; you don’t want to support gay and lesbian people who sexually harass their coworkers and hide behind nondiscrimination laws to do it, but you want even less to condemn the Democrat Party and the gay and lesbian organizations who support and endorse these people.
Again, that is false. I condemn the actions of any political party or group that supports any kind of sexual harassment.
*I noticed three times in this thread of your grammatical error regarding the Democratic Party. Normally, your grammar is excellent, so I thought I should point out that…
Democrat is used for a noun, Democratic is used for an adjective. Republican is used as both a noun and an adjective. I’m not sure why the inconsistency, but that’s how the parties identify themselves.
Hey Pat, this may be too old to respond to, but I agree with Prez Hoover –there’s nothing especially democratic about the Democrat Party and those who people its ranks.
I really don’t care what the Democratic Party leadership thinks it ought to be called –or linguistic academicans who are probably card-carrying Democrats want us to call them.
To me they are Democrats. To me it’s the Democrat Party. And after the flipflopping around on the value of superdelegates by BarryO, the party is even less democrat than it was under SlickWilly.
It’s like trying to argue that open ballot voting for union representation is somehow respectful of democratic principles… it isn’t. But then BigLaborGoons aren’t exactly interested in American values… they just want whatever they can take. Democrats aren’t democratic and don’t respect American values like fair play, honest pay for day’s labor, pulling oneself up by the bootstraps, God, the military, etc.
← Previous Comments