The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force's (NGLTF) post-election press release is How Will the Election Affect Sexual and Reproductive Rights?
The release is about a joint audioconference with feminist/reproductive rights groups, but it does beg the question: Do these feminist/reproductive rights groups give gay rights equal footing with their own core agenda? Answer: Are you insane?
Along with NGLTF, self-styled 'progressive' LGBT groups, including the Human Rights Campaign and even the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, use an abortion-on-demand litmus test for the candidates they endorse/fund- which allows them to eliminate gay-tolerant conservatives who are even mildly pro-life. When such candidates know they will be adamantly opposed by the leading national gay groups, what incentive do they have to moderate their views on gay issues?
Memo to LGBT progressives: not all gays are of like mind on abortion.
52 Comments for “Whose Agenda?”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Amen.
I tend to be more pungent.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Abortion isn’t even remotely a gay issue. Gay groups should spend time and money lobbying on it only after abortion groups launch a massive campaign for gay marriage. I wouldn’t hold my breath on that front.
posted by Greg on
Certainly the issues are not identical, but they are related. Both deal with sexual rights, and with privacy issues.
I also agree that if the alliance is running all in one direction, then it should be reexamined. Relationships should be mutual. But the linking of the issues isn’t bizarre.
Abortion in this country is more widely accepted than gay marriage, so it seems unlikely that we suffer much if at all from the relationship.
Still I agree that we should keep specifically gay issues (I doubt that most lesbians would agree that abortion is totally unrelated, any more than HIV is totally unrelated) primary which might occasionally lead us to different endorsements than reproductive rights folks might pick, and that would be preferable than simply taking their endorsements as ours (if in fact that is what they did).
posted by moreon on
The only possibly logical position for a gay rights group to take on abortion would be an anti-abortion stance. One day technology might allow parents to abort a would-be gay child.
Greg,
In regards to HIV, that is an issue which does affect a lot of gay men. Abortion… well, it just doesn’t affect gay men, or lesbians, for reasons that should be obvious. (except in the possible future context I mentioned above)
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Abortion could affect a lesbian who is raped, but that is an awfully tenuous connection. I agree with Greg that the connection with gay rights is through sexual rights and privacy issues. The point is not that this makes abortion a gay issue; it does not. It is a coalition issue. And the valid point that Steve makes is that gay people are of many views on the abortion issue.
While I am pro-choice, I have always respected the folks at PLAGAL. When PLAGAL founder Tom Sena died several years ago, I sang at his funeral in St. Matthew’s Cathedral as a member of the Gay Men’s Chorus, of which he was a past member; and the chorus was allowed to appear under its own name, I suspect because Sena was respected so much for his pro-life advocacy. The funeral of PLAGAL (and Log Cabin) activist Joe Beard, also at St. Matthews, was more sad because there was no mention of any of his gay-related activism. Once Joe called me when he was considering filing a complaint with the D.C. Office of Human Rights on a PLAGAL-related discrimination case, and I advised him on what his options were. I have never gone along with those on the gay left who act as if civil rights are only for people who agree with them.
I am all for coalitions in principle, but ill-considered coalitions can narrow one’s appeal rather than widen it, which makes no sense politically. Abortion is an issue on which most people are sincerely torn, but the activists on both sides tend to take a scorched-earth approach. I always found the PLAGAL folks to be thoughtful, however.
posted by T. Bunker (Charging Rhino) on
Yet another confirmation that the HRC and NGLTF are abortion-rights organizations first-and-foremost, fronting as gay-rights organizations. When will the G/L community wise-up to this reality?
posted by Mark on
Richard:
I understand the anti-abortion position, but I don’t “respect” anyone who wants to criminalize abortion. Do you respect people who want gays to go to prison?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Well, some of us have already, Rhino. 🙂
But, to Greg’s statement:
Abortion in this country is more widely accepted than gay marriage, so it seems unlikely that we suffer much if at all from the relationship.
Not necessarily.
As polls show, while a comfortable majority of Americans would oppose a constitutional ban on abortion. However, if you add up the numbers, a strong plurality (39%) say abortion should be legal only in a few circumstances, 16% say it should be legal in most circumstances, 16% say it should not be legal as all — and, most importantly, only 26% believe it should be legal in all circumstances. Furthermore, an even stronger majority, across the board, support parental and spousal notification requirements prior to having an abortion.
The major problem is that gay groups have allied themselves with that hard-core 26% that will tolerate no limits whatsoever on abortion, including notification laws — and is significantly out of step with the majority of Americans. Worse, gays have associated the promotion of unlimited abortion WITH “gay rights”, inextricably linking the two in peoples’ minds.
As I’ve said in other circumstances, if gays want mainstream acceptance, we have to decouple being gay from supporting unpopular leftist causes. It is sheer lunacy for gays to support abortion as a gay rights issue; in deed, it’s hypocritical, given that the demographic most likely to have an abortion (black women ages 18 – 24) becomes a demographic (black men and women ages 25 – 44) for which HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of death.
Always keep in mind that the main driver of the abortion promoters like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and others, is money. Condoms, even oral contraceptives, earn these organizations mere pennies; however, abortions earn them hundreds, even thousands, of dollars each. It is in their interest to keep all limits off abortion, and it is in their interest to promote it, especially to vulnerable groups. That’s why, instead of promoting the issues on its own merit, they try to link it to nominally more-popular issues, like gay rights — and also because they know that gays are easily manipulated into supporting unpopular leftist causes.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I understand the anti-abortion position, but I don’t “respect” anyone who wants to criminalize abortion. Do you respect people who want gays to go to prison?
Well, first, we criminalize pedophiles and others who abuse sex, do we not?
Abortion is really the result of a woman refusing to accept the risks of two choices: one, having sex, and two, having unprotected sex (higher risk) or protected sex (lower risk).
In my mind, abortion is akin to allowing a “get out of jail free” card for a woman who kills someone else while driving drunk. She chose to drink, she chose to drive; why shouldn’t she be willing to bear or face the consequences?
Obviously, there ARE exceptions, as in the case of nonconsensual sex, but the simple fact of the matter is that abortion is one of the most-preventable medical procedures around. I see no reason to treat it differently.
posted by sycophantiphant on
I’m only in favor of aborting those committed of capital crimes. To sugges otherwise deliberately obfuscates the crux of the matter.
posted by Bobby on
Most abortions are the result of a woman’s own lack of logic.
A woman has 3 holes, a mouth, a vagina and her asshole. One of those holes can get her pregnant, the other two can’t. So why can’t women learn to use their safe holes?
Those creatures are too weird.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Well, I wouldn’t go THAT far, Bobby. Women should be able to do as they like, as long as they’re willing to accept the consequences of doing it. If you choose to have vaginal sex and to do so unprotected (or to a lesser risk level, protected), part of the risk you take is a pregnancy.
It really boils down to this; if you absolutely don’t want a baby, don’t have sex or have your tubes tied. Anything else, accept the possibility that you might get pregnant, and base your decisions around that.
And syncophatiphant…..perfectly put. 🙂
posted by Greg Capaldini on
One of my chief frustrations with a national gay Catholic group I supported in the ’80s was the presumption on the part of certain of its leaders that all members uniformly and absolutely supported abortion. What the ___, I wondered — it’s wrong for others to make sexual preference decisions for us, but on expedient social positions we were expected to be lock-step?
Also, this is probably unduly technical, but humans have more than three bodily openings. Eyes, ears, and any unclosed wounds can also admit foreign substances and infectious agents. Even the pores of the skin can be riskily penetrated; actress Margaret Hamilton recalled turning green from her Wizard of Oz makeup.
posted by CPT_Doom on
Reproductive rights (including the rights to contraception and sterilization, as well as abortion) and gay rights are tied together because they both represent the rights of individuals to live their lives free of governmental and other societal interference. That is the way we are all supposed to be treated under the Constitution, as adults able to make our own moral decisions about our own lives, without our neighbors having veto power over those decisions. Unfortunately, too many people want to continue the veto power of straights over gays (so they have the current right to ignore our relationships and the lives we have built) and all people over women. I certainly agree that gay rights groups should be very concerned about the potential one-sided nature of alliances with groups supporting reproductive freedom, but that does not mean we should support the limitations of personal freedom.
Abortion is really the result of a woman refusing to accept the risks of two choices: one, having sex, and two, having unprotected sex (higher risk) or protected sex (lower risk).
Clearly you don’t know many women who have faced the prospect of an abortion, nor do you understand the basics of human reproduction. In my own life I have had friends and relatives who have faced the decision of whether to abort, and sometimes I agree with their choices, sometimes I do not, but never have their circumstances boiled down to the neat little triad you mention. My own mother, denied a medically necessary abortion in 1971 by a court – at which point she nearly died, taught me the importance of a woman having the right to any and all medical care, regardless of what some politician may think. That was only reinforced when two of my co-workers faced significant health issues that could have been worsened by pregnancy. One was being treated for breast cancer when she found out she was pregnant, the other was a bipolar woman whose husband’s vasectomy reversed. In the first case, the woman chose to continue the pregnancy, despite the serious risk to her life; in the second, the woman opted for abortion, as a successful pregnancy would have required her to go off of her medication and risk permanent damage to her mind and brain.
The truth is, even with all our modern medical advances, pregnancy remains a significant threat to any woman’s health and life, and it is nearly impossible for physicians to know exactly which woman will face the most serious consequences.. God love the women who willingly go forward with the risk, but there is no reason any of us should be able to make that decision for them, any more than Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell should have veto power over my love life.
posted by ETJB on
The HRC (center-left), NGLTF (progressive) are not saying that all gay people are pro-life. They are not speaking for all gay people.
It is not their job or mission statement to do so. Almost no interest group in America really speaks for everyone.
You would have more credibilty if you didnt use pro-life slogans when you talk about abortion or admit that most of the pro-life movement is very very very anti-gay.
Along with NGLTF, self-styled ‘progressive’ LGBT groups, including the Human Rights Campaign and even the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, use an abortion-on-demand litmus test for the candidates they endorse/fund? which allows them to eliminate gay-tolerant conservatives who are even mildly pro-life. When such candidates know they will be adamantly opposed by the leading national gay groups, what incentive do they have to moderate their views on gay issues?
posted by J.P. on
I think HRC often does speak on behalf of “the lesbian and gay community,” unlike Log Cabin (clearly the voice of Republican gays) or perhaps even NGLTF (gays on the left).
And the Victory Fund claims to be bipartisan, but still has an abortion litmus test so even gay candidates who aren’t totally pro-choice are ruled out.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
To clarify, abortion is of no concern — in either “pro” or “anti” senses — especially to gay men. That gay men “like” it or “don’t like it” is about as insignificant an issue as anything that can be thought of.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Clearly you don’t know many women who have faced the prospect of an abortion, nor do you understand the basics of human reproduction.
I know what the statistics have told me about why women have abortions.
I also know the common tactic when trying to defend unlimited abortion of bringing out the extreme cases — pregnancy endangering the life of the mother, botched sterilization, rape, incest, yada yada yada — despite the fact that, according to Planned Parenthood’s own statistics cited above, those constitute, generously, 10% or less of the reasons that women have abortions.
Women like the ones you mentioned have a justifiable medical reason to have an abortion; however, as the statistics show, they are in the fractional minority. The rest are using reasons, i.e. “can’t afford another child”, “not ready to be a parent”, that they knew prior to having sex in the first place.
When you start admitting, CPT_Doom, that, as the statistics show, the vast majority of women are having abortions, not out of medical or criminal necessity, but out of choice, that starts to generate questions as to why they can’t choose to use contraception or sterilization, why they have to end another human life, and why they do it so easily and readily.
Reproductive rights (including the rights to contraception and sterilization, as well as abortion) and gay rights are tied together because they both represent the rights of individuals to live their lives free of governmental and other societal interference. That is the way we are all supposed to be treated under the Constitution, as adults able to make our own moral decisions about our own lives, without our neighbors having veto power over those decisions.
Then, to be consistent, you should repeal laws banning pedophilia, incest, bestiality, polygamy, and other things that give our neighbors “veto power over those decisions” and interferes with our right to live “free of governmental and other societal interference”.
Now that that’s kicked out of the way, let’s add the obvious; gay sex has nothing to do with reproduction. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
Finally, let’s deal with reproduction itself. You can have as much sex as you want –no one really cares, honest — but if that sex results in a child (reproduction), you have added a third party with its own set of rights to the equation.
And before you start arguing that the unborn are not people, I would simply point this ironic fact out; according to the Endangered Species Act, the penalty for destroying or harvesting eggs or fetuses is the same as if you killed the adult animal. In the US, a condor egg has more rights and protections than a human fetus. That’s sick.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
posted by dalea on
I feel that part of the reason that HRC etc support pro-choice candidates is that since the dawn of our movement, when we were just a group of silly queers and bull dykes, pro -choicers have stood with us. They were our very first allies. When everyone else was busy shunning and avoiding, they were there. This sort of loyalty should be repaid.
Another reason, and this is one that again goes back decades, is that lesbians used to be special rape targets. The idea being that once a dyke was raped by ‘real’ men, and had gone through a pregnancy or five, they would give up on being queer. Old style, but the memories and the women who went through this still linger on.
So, what is the point at abandoning our oldest and most loyal allies? For what? Maybe after 4 decades of undying support from the anti-choice people we might consider supporting them. But let’s see that support first. Until then, pro-choice all the way.
Other issue. How is this going to work? I can not really imagine any method compatible with limited government and individual rights to prevent abortion. Forcing an unwilling women to function as the unpaid life support system for another life form strikes me at least as difficult. The classic libertarian essay on the subject was: The Fetus That Wanted A Free Lunch.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Dallas,
“It really boils down to this; if you absolutely don’t want a baby, don’t have sex or have your tubes tied.”
—Well, that’s a little too extreme for me. That’s like being told “if you don’t want to deal with gay bashers, don’t go to gay areas.” Just like gun ownership is a good way to deal with gay bashers, other non-vaginal forms of sexual activity are good to prevent pregnancy.
I’m very liberal or libertarian when it comes to sex. It is the one issue where conservatives tend to be unrealistic about human behavior.
posted by raj on
CPT_Doom | November 14, 2006, 3:35pm |
Reproductive rights (including the rights to contraception and sterilization, as well as abortion) and gay rights are tied together because they both represent the rights of individuals to live their lives free of governmental and other societal interference.
It may be the case that reproductive rights represent the rights of individuals to live their lives free of governmental and other societal interference, but it is incorrect (or, at least, incomplete) to suggest that gay rights represent the rights of individuals to live their rights free of governmental and other societal interference. Indeed, the latter would seem only to apply to sodomy laws, which obviously would disproportionately affect gay people. However, there are certain aspects of gay rights that can only be achieved through government, the most obvious of which include anti-discrimination legislation (so-called “civil rights” legislation), hate-crimes legislation, and marriage.
One might quibble as to whether the federal government or states or localities should have anti-discrimination or hate-crimes legislation at all, but, as far as I’m concerned, as long as they have anti-discrimination or hate-crimes legislation covering certain categories, such as race, national origin, religion, sex, etc.–which existing legislation does–they should also include sexual orientation. If and when someone makes a serious attempt to repeal existing legislation, then it would be worthwhile to discuss whether there should be anti-discrimination or hate-crimes legislation to cover sexual orientation, but since it isn’t going to happen any time soon, it frankly isn’t worth the time and effort going into that issue now.
posted by Bobby on
A good example of San Francisco Values. You see, it’s not all about gays, in this case, it’s about hating America. So much for tolerance and diversity, if you live in San Francisco and want to join the JROTC, now you can’t. Support piece of else, Heil Trotsky!
SAN FRANCISCO
School board votes to dump JROTC program
Jill Tucker, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
After 90 years in San Francisco high schools, the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps must go, the San Francisco school board decided Tuesday night.
The Board of Education voted 4-2 to eliminate the popular program, phasing it out over two years.
Dozens of JROTC cadets at the board meeting burst into tears or covered their faces after the votes were cast.
“We’re really shocked,” said fourth-year Cadet Eric Chu, a senior at Lowell High School, his eyes filling with tears. “It provided me with a place to go.”
The proposal approved by the board also creates a task force to develop alternatives to the program that will be tried out next year at various high schools.
The board’s decision was loudly applauded by opponents of the program.
Their position was summed up by a former teacher, Nancy Mancias, who said, “We need to teach a curriculum of peace.”
The board’s move to dismantle the popular program was led by board members Dan Kelly and Mark Sanchez with support from Sarah Lipson and Eric Mar. Casting votes against it were Jill Wynns and Norman Yee. Board member Eddie Chin was absent.
“I think people should not despair too much,” Sanchez said. “I think now the work begins — to work within the community to develop new programs that will fulfill the needs of our students.”
About 1,600 San Francisco students participate in JROTC at seven high schools across the district.
Opponents said the armed forces should have no place in public schools, and the military’s discriminatory stance on gays makes the presence of JROTC unacceptable.
“We don’t want the military ruining our civilian institutions,” said Sandra Schwartz of the American Friends Service Committee, an organization actively opposing JROTC nationwide. “In a healthy democracy … you contain the military. You must contain the military.”
Students, parents and school staff from each of the seven high schools converged outside the school board meeting carrying signs and waving at cars, some of which honked in support.
At least 100 cadets edged into Franklin Street waving their signs before being pushed back to the sidewalk by their ROTC instructors.
Yet, in the end, the effort — one of several rallies in the last several weeks — fell on deaf ears.
“This is where the kids feel safe, the one place they feel safe,” Robert Powell, a JROTC instructor at Lincoln High School and a retired Army lieutenant colonel, said earlier in the evening. “You’re going to take that away from them?”
Opponents acknowledged the program is popular and even helps some students stay in school and out of trouble.
Yet they also said the program exists to lure students to sign up for the armed forces.
“It’s basically a branding program, or a recruiting program for the military,” Kelly said before the meeting.
The school district and the military share the $1.6 million annual cost of the program, with the military paying $586,000, or half the salaries of 15 instructors — all of whom are retired military personnel. The district pays the other half of salaries and $394,000 in benefits.
Earlier, Mayor Gavin Newsom weighed in on the debate, chastising the board for the effort to eliminate JROTC.
“The move sends the wrong message,” he said. “It’s important for the city not to be identified with disrespecting the sacrifice of men and women in uniform.”
Students in the program receive physical education or elective credits required for graduation.
A budget analysis found that the district could hire nine teachers with the money the district now spends on JROTC — enough to cover the gym and elective courses for the 1,600 students should the program be eliminated.
But there wouldn’t be money to create an alternative program serving that many students, Wynns said.
“I think the people who want to get rid of it have a responsibility to look at how we’re going to pay for that and what we’re going to do to replace it,” she added.
Newsom also said he believed the vote would push more city residents away from the public schools.
“You think this is going to help keep families in San Francisco?” the mayor added. “No. It’s going to hurt.”
On other matters, the board introduced a resolution that makes race a factor in deciding what school a child will attend starting with the 2008-09 school year. No action was taken.
Chronicle staff writer Cecilia M. Vega contributed to this report. E-mail Jill Tucker at jtucker@sfchronicle.com.
posted by ReganDuCasse on
This is an area where government interference ultimately becomes discriminatory, and extremely contradictory in it’s discrimination. The President has appointed people of religious values who would rather carry out the agenda of that religion, than that of an office that is supposed to serve ALL people.
Common sense and reason flies out of the window.
A woman’s access to whatever CONTRACEPTION of her choice is compromised. A skilled practicioner who must be able to meet the needs of a woman’s body, regardless of whether she is pregnant or not is what is important.
Proctologists, for example, don’t just concern themselves exclusively with whether a man is fertile or not, but whether his entire system is healthy and functioning well.
The same is vital for women, who have much more COMPLICATED organs, and those same organs are doing other things besides having babies.
The laws on marriage were changed up on gay couples in such a way that would be clearly discriminatory to the sterile, or to people with no intention of parenthood.
The views on non procreative sexual activity are archaic and unnecessary and wouldn’t be laughed at if it were making heterosexuals subject to the same standards.
And lets talk about welfare. The government is taking money involuntarily from the public and redistributing it to a population that refuses to use birth control, or take responsibility for their own reproductive irresponsibility.
The government has no qualms about that, but also seeks to enable this behavior by withdrawing the tools that enable sexual health and responsibility.
The government is inconsistent with it’s stated goals, and too intrusive and restrictive on the wrong members of the population.
Which would be homosexuals and women…again.
This is what is so difficult about legislating behavior, moral standards and personal responsibility. The government, as a representative collective….itself is irresponsible, lacks moral clarity or common sense.
posted by Craig2 on
Sorry. I am pro-choice and I regard most gay male anti-abortionists as a pack of misogynist tards.
PLAGAL is our own movement’s equivalent of anti-pornography feminism.
If they want to act as the honorary gay wing of the Christian Right, fine,
but don’t expect me to respect it.
As with anti-multiculturalism, anti-abortion myopia is one thing I don’t understand within gay conservative circles.
Moreover, why hasn’t PLAGAL clarified its position on issues like safe sex and so-called abstinence education? Or is it afraid it might offend its religious fanatic mates?
The anti-abortion movement is primarily socially conservative and religious. PLAGAL are deluding themselves.
Moreover, not everyone on the centre-right is anti-abortion, either. I know a lot of libertarian feminist women who strongly support LGBT rights and believe in reproductive choice.
Happily, down here, the anti-abortion lobby have mostly shuffled off this mortal coil, so it’s no problem
Craig2
Wellington, New Zealand
posted by ETJB on
“You see, it’s not all about gays.”
It is in the minds of most heterosexual Americans and in the minds of the Republican Party leadership.
posted by Oh let it go on
Abortion does not affect gay men and does not affect gay women as much as straight women. However, having it around doesn’t hurt the gay community, so a freedom that doesn’t hurt the gay community should be supported by the gay community. Freedom from government intrusion is something everyone should fight for.
On the flip side, what hurts the gay community is coalition building with groups whose members are intolerant of gay rights – not to be un-p.c. but certain minority coalitions whose members would rather us shut up and die or be on the “down low.”
Get it? Pick your friends wisely.
posted by Avee on
The pro-choicers did NOT stand with gays when EMILY’S LIST (then headed by current HRC honcho Joe Solmonese) supported an pro-choice senate candidate who pledged to vote FOR the federal marriage amendment. Also,I dispute the idea that abortion is only about privacy and individual rights; no, it’s about killing a fetus. And partial-birth abortion is about killing a live baby moments before delivery. Sorry, but thems the facts.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Sorry. I am pro-choice and I regard most gay male anti-abortionists as a pack of misogynist tards.
Actually, abortion is a fine example of discrimination against MEN, not women.
Why?
Because men do not have the right to eliminate their unwanted child. Women do.
If men don’t wish to father a child, they are required to abstain from sex or use protection at all times. If they do father one, they are legally liable for that child, unless the other parent consents to release them from their obligations. They absolutely cannot require the child to be aborted, nor can they kill it — in fact, they probably would be held legally liable if they did.
posted by Bobby on
“It is in the minds of most heterosexual Americans and in the minds of the Republican Party leadership.”
—It wasn’t gays who got JROTC thrown out of San Francisco school, it was liberals, some of them gay, but most of them straight.
This time liberals have gone too far. JROTC allows gays to participate, and yet in their nazi like fanaticism agains’t anything involving the military, they’re denying students and their parents the right to make a choice.
Of course, if the club that had been banned was a Gay Straight Alliance, liberals would all be up in arms against that. Hypocrites!
Pro-choice when you like my choices, pro-thug when you don’t.
posted by CPT_Doom on
I also know the common tactic when trying to defend unlimited abortion of bringing out the extreme cases — pregnancy endangering the life of the mother, botched sterilization, rape, incest, yada yada yada — despite the fact that, according to Planned Parenthood’s own statistics cited above, those constitute, generously, 10% or less of the reasons that women have abortions.
The point, ND30, is that 100% of women face the risk of death from pregnancy, even though for only a few will that risk become imminent. And for a quite a few more, the risk of health consequences will become very real as well. And medical science has absolutely no way to tell exactly who will and who will not face those risks over the course of a pregnancy. There is also no way to create anti-abortion legislation that allows those abortions you, or I, or anyone, feels should be “allowed” while stopping those we don’t like.
Not to mention 100% of women face the enormous (all puns intended) strains of going through a pregnancy, including the acid reflux, the back strain, the puking – all followed up by the lovely chance to sh*t out a watermelon. And who are you to tell her she has to go through that?
Then, to be consistent, you should repeal laws banning pedophilia, incest, bestiality, polygamy, and other things that give our neighbors “veto power over those decisions” and interferes with our right to live “free of governmental and other societal interference”.
Pedophilia and beastiality involve non-consenting partners, and therefore harm to that non-consenting partner, which is why laws against them are prudent uses of governmental interferance (even though beastiality is, in fact, legal in many places, like Texas). There are currently no laws against incest, and most states even allow incestuous marriages (at least those between 1st cousins), particularly after one or either partner has passed child-bearing years. As for polygamy, it is alive and well in this country – and completely legal. Newt Gingrich, for instance, is currently on his third wife (or, as the nuns and priests would have said, his second whore). Libby Dole is married to another woman’s husband, as was Nancy Reagan. We won’t even go into the numerous male celebrities who have littered the country with their illegitimate children (K-fed comes to mind). The law only requires that you designate only one of your sex partners as the legal spouse at any one time. You can screw, have kids with, and have relationships with as many people as you like otherwise.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
abortion is a fine example of discrimination against MEN
Oh dear.
This is what goes for “educated discourse” in today’s Republican party. No wonder they got so thoroughly routed by the ideologically weak and fractious Democrats.
JROTC allows gays to participate
No it doesn’t.
Abortion does not affect gay men and does not affect gay women as much as straight women. However, having it around doesn’t hurt the gay community, so a freedom that doesn’t hurt the gay community should be supported by the gay community. Freedom from government intrusion is something everyone should fight for.
This is true.
However, gay groups should not waste time and resources lobbying for abortion — the abortion rights lobby is well-funded and quite influential, something which cannot be said about the gay movement today.
posted by John on
I’m a liberal gay man who supports abortion rights, but it has always annoyed me whenever some liberal gays suggest or imply that there’s a proper gay position on a political matter unrelated to gay rights. It has always seemed similar to what our society in general says to us: Your individuality doesn’t matter. It’s trumped by your sexuality.
posted by Bobby on
JROTC allows gays to participate
No it doesn’t.
—Yes it does. JROTC is not a branch of the arm forces, so DADT does not apply. They were banned from San Francisco schools because crazy liberals hate the military and war, so they don’t want young people getting a pro-military perspective.
posted by John on
I’ve been a supporter of HRC and until recently was unaware that they are not entirely popular in the gay community. At first I attributed the disaffection to overwrought political junkies, but perhaps I was wrong. Any connection with heterosexual feminists is troubling. They’ve always used lesbians, though many lesbians seem to have an endless appetite for it. Sisterhood and all that. I’d like to hear more about this and, in terms of donations, what, if any, alternatives there are.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
JROTC is not a branch of the arm forces, so DADT does not apply.
It’s affiliated with the military, and is designed to line up recruits for the military. Claiming it allows gays to participate is silliness, because its primary purpose is lining up people for a career in the military — something not open to gays.
They were banned from San Francisco schools
No, they were defunded by the school district — something I support for every extracurricular group.
There’s nothing stopping the group from meeting on campus with outside funding or being a free group. It shouldn’t be underwritten with tax dollars.
posted by j griffin on
To Bobby, you’re an idiot.
to North Dallas Thirty: I agree completely with your analysis that abortion is a women-only sided issue and that men are being discriminated againt, theoretically. Also, i’ve heard that 73 percent of statistics are made up. If you are planning to use them in an arugment, at leatst have the courtesy to provided accurate citations. I can’t seem to coroborate any of the statistics you posted earlier. That seems like something Ken Melhman would do….oh wait, was that him i saw leaving from your apartment building yesterday morning?
posted by J GRIFFIN on
Ok, NDT, so i found the citation for your second set of statistics. I apoloigize for my generalization.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The point, ND30, is that 100% of women face the risk of death from pregnancy, even though for only a few will that risk become imminent.
Then, using that logic, wouldn’t it make more sense to ban pregnancy as dangerous to a woman’s health? Indeed, shouldn’t we require mandatory sterilizations to eliminate the possibility of this happening?
There is also no way to create anti-abortion legislation that allows those abortions you, or I, or anyone, feels should be “allowed” while stopping those we don’t like.
Yes, there is.
If a woman is raped or the victim of incest, she should legally be allowed to have an abortion, contingent on her filing charges against the individual who victimized her If two doctors believe that continuing a pregnancy could significantly and seriously damage a woman’s long-term physical health, she should be allowed to have an abortion.
There’s nothing extraordinarily difficult about either.
Not to mention 100% of women face the enormous (all puns intended) strains of going through a pregnancy, including the acid reflux, the back strain, the puking – all followed up by the lovely chance to sh*t out a watermelon. And who are you to tell her she has to go through that?
If pregnancy weren’t, by and large, completely avoidable, I might be prone to concede those points. However, the simple fact remains that it’s the result of a) the choice to have sex and b) the choice to accept the risk inherent in one’s contraceptive choices (or lack thereof) that results in the vast majority of pregnancies.
In short, if you want to avoid pregnancy, you have plenty of opportunities to do so prior to becoming pregnant. There’s no need for a process of dubious medical value and nonexistent moral value to allow you to avoid taking responsibility for your choices.
Pedophilia and beastiality involve non-consenting partners, and therefore harm to that non-consenting partner, which is why laws against them are prudent uses of governmental interferance (even though beastiality is, in fact, legal in many places, like Texas).
LOL….but you see, CPT_Doom, you insisted before that your neighbors should not be allowed ANY veto power over your sex life. If you, like NAMBLA and gay-rights “pioneer” Harry Hay, believe that sex with minors does not harm them, then, by your logic, your neighbors have no right whatsoever to interfere in your having sex with them. You can insist that it is the choice of the community that they not; however, you have already created judicial precedent which shows that the choice of the community can be ignored and overturned.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It’s affiliated with the military, and is designed to line up recruits for the military. Claiming it allows gays to participate is silliness, because its primary purpose is lining up people for a career in the military — something not open to gays.
Mhm. Why don’t you read a bit about it?
Thanks for screwing over gay teenagers who enjoy their participation in JROTC, NL. But I’m sure you and the rest of your fellow leftists can explain to them why their being gay requires them to give up something they care about and something they find valuable so you can win your ideological battles.
Furthermore, they were not just “defunded” — a ludicrous claim, given that the district only supplied half of the funds needed to operate the program annually. They were banned outright from campuses. You’re just trying to spin to make it more palatable.
posted by Timothy Kincaid on
Stephen,
You’ve stated that the Victory Fund has abortion position as a litmus test. I didn’t believe this so I went and checked. Sure enough, they require:
Advocate aggressive public policies and positions relevant to HIV/AIDS research, education and treatment; gay and lesbian health and wellness; and women’s reproductive freedom.
That’s sad. I don’t believe that was always the case. And it bodes ill for Victory Fund’s future ability to make a non-partisan claim.
I tend, like most people, to want to see abortion remain legal though not encouraged as a form of birth control. But I, like Richard above, have respect for those gay persons who out of principle believe that ending a pregnancy is taking the life of an individual and seek to be the voice for that individual. I do not like organizations making the requirement that to be a gay person (as in “we support gay and lesbian candidates”) you have to be pro-choice.
Sadly, the Victory Fund has changed my view of them, and not for the better.
posted by raj on
Bobby | November 16, 2006, 2:50pm |
JROTC allows gays to participate
No it doesn’t.
—Yes it does. J
JROTC is not a branch of the arm forces, so DADT does not apply.
I suppose that is possible, but, given that JROTC programs are run through and at least partially funded by the US military, I find that very difficult to believe.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
it bodes ill for Victory Fund’s future ability to make a non-partisan claim
The Victory Fund is a partisan Democrat front group, as has been rather thoroughly documented.
Thanks for screwing over gay teenagers who enjoy their participation in JROTC, NL.
My funds don’>they were not just “defunded” — a ludicrous claim, given that the district only supplied half of the funds needed to operate the program annually. They were banned outright from campuses.
No they weren’t. You cannot ban a government organization from a government campus. They were defunded and dedesignated.
Now, it’s true that it is indeed unfair (and probably unconstitutional) for schools to pick and choose who may and may not meet as student groups. But let’s not forget you’re (as usual) trying to play both sides of the issue here.
Republicrat conservatives had no problem using school authority to not just defund and dedesignate — but also out-and-out ban — Gay Student Associations in various Republican strongholds across the southeast. When a court ruled that they couldn’t selectively ban extracurricular groups, the school districts turned around and banned ALL groups — including, yes, your precious government-funded teen paramilitary group.
Was North Dallas Thirty scrambling to condemn the Republicans for their blanket ban that shut down JROTC? Nope. He was ardently defending the conservative decision to destroy all groups to make sure that gay groups couldn’t meet.
(Pardon me, ND, if your outrage therefore strikes me as nauseatingly manufactured).
JROTC programs are run through and at least partially funded by the US military
Of course they are.
And Georgia, Alabama and other districts are A-OK to shut them down in order to get gays, according to ND30. It’s only when the cities he doesn’t like targets them that he gets upset.
The classic definition of a Republicratic hypocrite! 🙂
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Not quite sure what happened with my last post. Here it is, reposted.
it bodes ill for Victory Fund’s future ability to make a non-partisan claim
The Victory Fund is a partisan Democrat front group, as has been rather thoroughly documented. As a matter of fact, the Victory Fund regularly denies funding to gay Republicans, Libertarians, Greens and independents and got caught recently when they derided one of the only openly gay candidates in Texas (a Libertarian) in an e-mail that they accidentally copied him on. The whole sorry exercise was captured on the Outright Libertarians blog.
Thanks for screwing over gay teenagers who enjoy their participation in JROTC, NL.
My funds don’t exist for Republicrats like you to tax and provide for teenage fun and games, any more than they exist to pay for shuffleboard that your old men enjoy participating in. Hands out of my wallet — if you want to have fun groups for teenagers, pay for them with your own cash. I so tire of your tax-and-spend zeal.
they were not just “defunded” — a ludicrous claim, given that the district only supplied half of the funds needed to operate the program annually. They were banned outright from campuses.
No they weren’t. You cannot ban a government organization from a government campus. They were defunded and dedesignated.
Now, it’s true that it is indeed unfair (and probably unconstitutional) for schools to pick and choose who may and may not meet as student groups. But let’s not forget you’re (as usual) trying to play both sides of the issue here.
Republicrat conservatives had no problem using school authority to not just defund and dedesignate — but also out-and-out ban — Gay Student Associations in various Republican strongholds across the southeast. When a court ruled that they couldn’t selectively ban extracurricular groups, the school districts turned around and banned ALL groups — including, yes, your precious government-funded teen paramilitary group.
Was North Dallas Thirty scrambling to condemn the Republicans for their blanket ban that shut down JROTC? Nope. He was ardently defending the conservative decision to destroy all groups to make sure that gay groups couldn’t meet.
(Pardon me, ND, if your outrage therefore strikes me as nauseatingly manufactured).
JROTC programs are run through and at least partially funded by the US military
Of course they are.
And Georgia, Alabama and other districts are A-OK to shut them down in order to get gays, according to ND30. It’s only when the cities he doesn’t like targets them that he gets upset.
The classic definition of a Republicratic hypocrite! 🙂
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Republicrat conservatives had no problem using school authority to not just defund and dedesignate — but also out-and-out ban — Gay Student Associations in various Republican strongholds across the southeast. When a court ruled that they couldn’t selectively ban extracurricular groups, the school districts turned around and banned ALL groups — including, yes, your precious government-funded teen paramilitary group.
You think?
What you don’t know, NL — but would have, had you actually read the links I provided you previously — is that JROTC is not an extracurricular group; because it covers a wide range of academic topics and emphasizes rigorous discipline and thinking skills, it is provided as an option within the curriculum. In San Francisco, for instance, participation in JROTC counted for physical education and coursework credits — and, as the story I cited shows, teaches life skills and provides stability that gay and lesbian teenagers quite often lack, giving them a driver to succeed academically.
If I were you, NL, I would read and study on this topic more before you post again. Your addiction to knee-jerk gay leftist rhetoric has already left you looking foolish when your claim that gays could not participate in JROTC was disproved by actual citations of out gay students in JROTC; now you’re comparing extracurricular and academically-unrelated social groups like gay-straight alliances to a curricular activity with demonstrated and strong links to academics like JROTC.
Finally, as for the hypocrisy charge, why don’t you explain why you’re upset over school boards refusing to sponsor extracurricular gay-straight clubs that do nothing of the sort, but praise them when they ban curricular activities in which many gay teenagers participate that give them pride and promote their academic success?
posted by j griffin on
ND30, I’m still waiting for you to provide the citations of your first set of statistics. You give no link nor do you provide any type of citation. Are you avoiding the issue because you made them up?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30, I’m still waiting for you to provide the citations of your first set of statistics. You give no link nor do you provide any type of citation. Are you avoiding the issue because you made them up?
To what, exactly, are you referring?
posted by Raot on
For gay people to form an anti-abortion organization does not serve any purpose except to make the ideological point that gay people can be against abortion too.
This is undoubtedly a big deal for gays who oppose abortion, but it\\’s not a major issue for anyone else. It certainly won\\’t tip the balance in the pro-life versus pro-choice struggle. Does anyone really think that if the anti-abortion movement has so far failed to make abortion illegal, this is because it has not received enough support from gays and lesbians?
posted by Bobby on
Northeast, try watching The O’reilly Factor, fast forward the boring segments on the war, and focus on the culture issues.
JROTC was not just defunded, but banned from meeting on campus. Unlike the Boy Scouts, they had openly gay members.
” It’s affiliated with the military, and is designed to line up recruits for the military.”
—That doesn’t matter, they’re no different than photography club, nobody’s forced to become a photographer later in life, or to join the military.
“Claiming it allows gays to participate is silliness, because its primary purpose is lining up people for a career in the military — something not open to gays.”
—Some gays keep their mouth shuts, those ones join the military.
“There’s nothing stopping the group from meeting on campus with outside funding or being a free group. It shouldn’t be underwritten with tax dollars.”
—It’s an issue of patriotism. This is America, the goverment sends tax dollars to San Francisco and many other places. They should get certain things in return. I’m sick of schools and universities getting my tax dollars and then being anti-military.
San Franciscans are ungrateful assholes, when they had their last serious earthquake, the national guard sent troops and rescued many. Maybe the next time a tragedy happens there, the military shouldn’t get involved.
I encourage all of you to boycott San Francisco. Being gay is ok, being unpatriotic never!
posted by Dave on
The main reason these two issues are so intrinsically linked together is that their opposition comes from the same place. Conservative, organized religion. There has never been a legitimate argument against reproductive rights or gay rights in the US that did not come from religious means.
Not that all churches are bad, mind you…there are plenty of great gay-affirming churches out there…but all the arguments against us, and against abortion, come from the same place. In addition, these are the MAIN two issues over which many religious groups are at odds with people who want basic rights. So essentially, we have the same enemies as those who want to maintain a woman’s right to choose, so in some ways it seems only logical that we’d work together to fight that enemy.
The challenge in that is very clearly displayed in this debate. There are plenty of gay men who couldn’t care less about a woman’s right to choose, and plenty of pro-choice advocates who don’t care if we have the right to marry or serve in the military without lying about who we are. But at the end of the day, all of the opposition for these things comes from religion, and if we don’t team up with SOMEONE, who do we team up WITH?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Sorry, but “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is not a valid argument.
As I’ve shown above, abortionists, who want no restrictions on abortion whatsoever, hold an attitude in line with barely a quarter of the US population — and the number drops even more when you include their opposition to parental and spousal notification.
Why on earth do gays want to ally with that? Better yet, why do gays want to defend a procedure that, as I also showed above, has a high correlation with the likelihood of an individual contracting and dying from HIV/AIDS?
Why do gays lack the self-esteem necessary to “go it alone”, and instead end up clinging to and being taken advantage of by self-interested leftists who wish only to use us as cover for their own unpopular positions? Or is it because we want to ally with antireligious groups and the abortionists are the most so?
posted by Craig on
Are there any readers out there who are out LGBT members of Republicans for Choice or other centre-right pro-choice groups? There’s one in the United Kingdom called Tories for a Free Choice.
Again, choose your allies more wisely. Socially liberal anti-abortionists are virtually non-existent.
Centre-right social liberals are a better bet, strategically and tactically, and they tend to support women’s reproductive choice and LGBT rights.
How about a broad tent on this issue, IGF? Again, not all centre-right LGBTs
or their supporters are anti-abortion, either.
Craig2
Wellington, New Zealand.