Heads up: the Family Foundation of Virginia, a big proponent of last year's successful anti-gay-marriage constitutional referendum, has decided to tackle divorce. According to the Washington Post, the foundation
said it will lobby the General Assembly this year to amend the state's long-standing no-fault divorce law, which essentially allows a husband or wife to terminate a marriage without cause. The foundation is advocating "mutual consent divorce" for couples with children, which would require a husband and wife to agree to divorce before a marriage can be legally terminated, except in certain instances, such as abuse or cruelty. The proposed legislation would not affect childless couples.
Now that's refreshing, because it's so out of character for so-called "pro-family" groups. As IGF contributor David Boaz pointed out in a seminal New York Times article back in 1994, "pro-family groups" dwell obsessively on homosexuality but have barely lifted a finger against divorce, which breaks up families by the millions.
My guess is that the divorce-tightening idea won't even get to first base in the Virginia legislature--arguably the most vindictively anti-gay political body in the country. My guess is that the authors of the notorious "Marriage Affirmation Act" are more interested in picking on a weak and unpopular minority than in inconveniencing the majority. But let's see. Thanks to the Family Foundation for a nice little test case.
And did I mention that Virginia's divorce rate (4%) is almost twice that of Massachusetts (2.2%), where gay marriage is legal?
168 Comments for “Pro-Family or Just Anti-Gay in Va.?”
posted by James on
I, as a gay man, fully support gay marriage, and I also support tightening divorce laws for all gays and straights. I fully support making divorce more difficult for those who have children–gay and straight. I think that if the gay community in Virginia came out in support of the “mutual consent” law, they would show how serious the gay community is about lifelong, monogamous relationships with the stability necessary to raise children. What are the chances of having a “Stop Divorce Now!” float in the Virginia Pride Parade?
posted by raj on
From the cited article
The proposed legislation (to substantially outlaw heterosexual divorce) would not affect childless couples.
Odd, I had not noticed that Mathew 19:6 had an exception for childless opposite-sex couples.
Of course, we all know that these people are hypocrites. And, quite frankly, we all know why “mainstream” conservative religious operations that oppose equal rights for gay people are unlikely to support a measure like this. It’s because their customers–the ones that give them money–want the availability of easy divorce. Their anti-gay rhetoric and beating on their Wholly Babble has nothing to do with morality: it just has to do with hating gay people.
Note to James: gay people have other fish to fry than to try to deal with straight peoples’ problems. When you grow out of your high school-level reverie, you just might comprehend.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Julaine Appling of the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin is also touting an assault on divorce laws as the next target for Wisconsin’s so-called “protect family” crusaders. Given that evangelical Christians have the highest divorce and remarriage rate in the county, according to their own studies, my guess is that this latest idiocy will go over like a lead balloon, but not before folks like Julaine milk a pocketful of funding out of it.
posted by JimG on
If two married people, gay or straight,purple or orange decide that their union is a mistake/wrong and should be terminated, the government should have NO say whatsoever in whether that union should continue or not. And putting road blocks in the way of that termination is just the government putting its nose in where it does not belong. And unless there is abuse concerning the children, even in that arena the government does not belong. I realize that conservatives are supposed to be about upholding traditions and values, but are they not also supposed to be about limited government?
posted by James on
Those of us who are pro-marriage and pro-family see divorce as the greatest threat to family stability. I think that gays and straights should be on the same side of this issue–if you choose to get married, and especially if you have children, it should be difficult for you to get a divorce. Certainly, there should be no “no-fault” divorces. For both gays and straights, with the rights of marriage come the responsibilities. I think it would helpful to the gay marriage cause if gays and straights marched together in Virginia to toughen divorce laws. Perhaps that would show that when we sing “We Are Family” we are saying “We Are Lifelong Monogamous Couples Who Have The Stability To Raise Children And Who Want A Society Where Divorce Is Rare And Difficult.” Get up, everybody sing!
posted by JimG on
Actually I think the greatest threat to family stability has been the phenmena of both parents having to work outside the home in order to make ends meet.
With all due respect, James, if I ever do get married and decide that the union needs to be terminated, I, alone,with my spouse will make that decision and I do not relinquish that responsibility to any government or any other human being.
Sing on.
posted by Carl on
From what I remember, two of the big Republicans in Virginia’s state legislature are a man and a woman who were married to other people, started screwing around, and then divorced their spouses so they could get married. Both these legislators vote anti-gay.
Typical family values.
posted by JoySword on
I agree that, for the most part, this is a straight folks issue that need not concern gay folks until divorce is possible because they can actually get married. But, in the hope that that day will arrive, let’s indulge in a little dialogue about it.
I separate marriage as a civic right from marriage as a religious rite. From this view it follows that it is unlawful for government to impose criteria that have a purely religious function, such as marriage being between a man and a woman. However, it does not make sense to abandon completely the regulation of marriage. It seems reasonable to me not to allow marriages that involve minors (however defined), the incompetent, immediate family members, etc. While I?m not about to jump on James? float, it seems to me that there may be a significant societal interest in helping keep families together. However, it also seems to me that our society goes about this in a completely backward way.
Instead of making it very easy to marry and then very difficult to divorce, it should be the other way around: a marriage license should be significantly more difficult to get than a driver?s license, and divorce should be as bureaucratically untraumatic as possible. I also think we should seriously consider bringing back that fabulous institution: the marriage contract. Spell it all out before the parties actually get hitched! Let them contemplate the details of breaking up at the beginning, while they supposedly love each other, instead of at the end, when acrimony and vengeance all too often control.
posted by Randy on
I really don’t understand why people would want to make divorce any more difficult than it is. If two people are married and unhappy, what is to be gained by prolonging their unhappiness?
I understand that if there are children involved, the welfare of the children should be paramount. But every family has a different situation, and proclaiming that one size fits all hardly works, in my opinion.
posted by Novaseeker on
On the politics of this, I highly doubt this will pass the Assembly in Virginia. It’s one thing to vote against a tiny minority like gay people. That’s almost a no-brainer for the people in Richmond. But this measure would cut across the straight population of the state, and is bound to be unpopular in large portions of the Virginian electorate. My sense is that this is a political/publicity ploy on the part of the Family foundation, and it has little chance of gaining anything like the political traction anti-gay legislation traditionally enjoys in Virginia.
On the substance of the issue, it’s hard to understand what excactly they are advocating. Most couples who get divorced actually *do* agree to do so, in the form of custody agreements, property settlement agreements and so forth. This was the way my own divorce worked in Virginia, and according to numerous Virginia family law experts I talked to during my own Virginia divorce, this is the way it works for *most* couples. So I’m not sure that the proposal — if it would merely require an “agreement to divorce” — would have any significant impact on the number of divorces taking place in Virginia. More likely, it would have an impact on tactics taken in *some* divorce cases where the spouses are fighting about custody and/or property and can’t reach an agreement … currently in these cases a party can still file for divorce, and then litigate in court the custody and property issues, whereas the proposal by the self-appointed Family folks would allow a stalling tactic by one of the parties, giving that party more leverage in the property/custody negotiations by providing a “block” to the ability of the other party to file. It seems to me like that would me the main impact of this kind of legislation.
You can’t force people to stay together once they have decided to split. While I personally believe that couples with children should make every effort to reconcile, I don’t think that this kind of requirement would ultimately stop people from getting divorced if they really want to get divorced. To be honest, in most cases of people divorcing, the couple is *ready* to be divorced, and the bitterness that can be caused by a lengthy divorce dispute has a far worse impact on the children than parents who can find a way to amicably agree to end their relationship, while remaining attentive parents to their children. Divorce is a difficult situation for everyone involved. Creating legal structures that encourage more litigation, disagreement and rancor, rather than facilitating amicable, smooth separation procedures, seem a step in the wrong direction. If people are concerned about divorce rates and the impact on children, they should encourage people (1) to marry later, (2) to evaluate spouses more effectively and less romantically , (3) encourage gay people not to enter straight marriages, etc. Trying to force people to stay in a bad marriage by monkeying with the divorce laws isn’t going to make anyone — including children — happier, and ultimately isn’t going to stop folks from getting divorced.
posted by Fitz on
?As IGF contributor David Boaz pointed out in a seminal New York Times article back in 1994, “pro-family groups” dwell obsessively on homosexuality but have barely lifted a finger against divorce, which breaks up families by the millions.?
Yep.. the pro-family movement does not actually encounter massive entrenched opposition in this countries legal academy. My entire law schools ?family law department? was not made up of three lesbian polymorists, and that has nothing to do with our ability to deal with the ?no-fault? ?revolution??
In regard to the ?movement? for same-sex ?marriage? one recognizes that an almost identical set of circumstances occurred with the enactment of California?s ?no-fault? divorce law in 1969 and the proposal of a virtually identical divorce law by legal academicians in the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act in 1971
Little public discussion occurred as these proposals swept the nation. Driven by the same legal radicals that released the (extremely) influential AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE PUBLISHES PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY DISSOLUTION
http://www.ali.org/ali/pr051502.htm
Designed to ?solidify the no-fault divorce revolution.? making it essentially a ?a joint venture for limited purposes? (1)
Its Nice to have friends in high places?.No?
?[i]t is striking that the adoption of Chapter 6 of The Principles of the Family Dissolution?on ?Domestic Partnerships? took place within a month after the state of Vermont created ?civil unions?.? The first such successful court-directed adoption of absolute equal benefits for same-sex unions. The Report was released while both the Lawrence and Goodridge cases were pending. Issued only six months before the former and less than a year before the latter decisions were announced, the Report appeared intended to influence legal developments, particularly those initiated by judicial decisions.
Always nice to quote from the good old NYT, you can always rely on their open, obvious, and widely recognized slant
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E7D8173DF936A15754C0A9629C8B63
?And did I mention that Virginia’s divorce rate (4%) is almost twice that of Massachusetts (2.2%), where gay marriage is legal??
But what?s the overall rate of marriages? You cant get divorced if you don?t get married to begin with? This trope is constantly trotted out as if multiple factors are not present (from income to education, and culture is of no regard)
You may believe your own fluff, but we in the family movement know what an uphill battle we face in any endeavor regarding the family. How can one stroke your ego and pretend that your opposition ?really dosent care about marriage and the family? ? when you know your own allies think it a archaic and patriarchal construct? And they are all so well placed, indeed?
You never say Mr. Rauch if your even in favor of ?no-fault? reform, can we count on your assistance in the matter?
1. – Herma K. Hill, 88 Calif. L. Rev. 2017 (2000)
posted by James on
So, you’re saying, “Give gays the right to marry because it’s our right, dammit, but keep no-fault divorce because we might not like it.” Does anyone else see why gays might not be thought of as the mature, stable people that could make a marriage work here?
If two people, gay or straight, want the benefits society offers married people, then they have to allow society to place boundaries on when a marriage can start and end. Once you get things like shared health insurance, adoption rights, inheritance, etc., it is no longer a private decision between two people. Society has the right to make divorce difficult to protect the institutions of society from abuse. If you want the benefits, you have to be ready to pay the penalties.
“I want the right to marry but I don’t want to have to face any penalties if it doesn’t work” is not a slogan that is going to help gays get the right to marry. On the other hand, marching with those who want to strengthen the institution of marriage, and working with them to make divorce laws stronger, might convince voters that gays are ready for both the good and bad which comes with marriage.
posted by Novaseeker on
James, my point is that making the changes that this group is proposing would only make ending marriages more litigious and rancorous, rather than making them “harder to end”. If the group wanted to make them “harder to end” they would simply limit divorces to three grounds: adultery, abuse, abandonment. What they’re proposing here would not make divorces less common, it would make them more rancorous and that hurts kids.
posted by Tim on
It’s ridiculous to try to force people to stay married.
It’s not the job of the government. Unless you’re the Taliban.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
As a straight woman going through a non mutual, protracted divorce (it’s expensive), I will testify that those opposed to gay marriage got it wrong, and so do those for convenant marriages. We already used to have covenant marriages, remember?
The point is:
The argument against gay marriage are by different standards than for straight people.
That’s the first mistake that makes it impossible for gay people to EVER measure up.
The goal post keeps getting moved.
Divorce is awful. Sometimes extended families can be the cause of the problems as well as problems within the couple.
But it is extremely private, and privacy is welcome because it can be such a painful business.
I’ve never understood the anti gay marriage laws.
Our laws, cannot make people stay married or prevent problems within marriage that force divorce.
Nor can the law compel parents to support their children, married or not.
Which is why, for the first time, anti gay marriage laws do JUST that.
They prevent two consenting adults from caring for each other or their children IN LIEU of the state.
The intent of the marriage laws are REVERSED when it comes to gay people.
And obviously doesn’t and can’t effect the quality of marriage between STRAIGHT people.
Defense of Marriage Act, Marriage Protection Act.
None of those title applies whatsoever to the intent of the law.
It’s embarrassingly STUPID how our government tries to work when they are preoccupied with contributing, tax paying, committed gay folks.
posted by Craig2 on
Actually, according to the Barna group’s research, *fundamentalist-dominated* US states have higher divorce stats than more mainstream areas. See the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance websites for more info…
Craig2
Wellington, New Zealand
posted by James on
If society is going to grant benefits to married people, gay or straight, then the government has every right to see those benefits are not abused. Once you start sharing health benefits, adopting children together, and naming each other as beneficiaries, then it is no longer a private matter. The gay community is largely ignorant about what marriage is–they haven’t quite grasped their obligations to society if society grants them the right to marry. I think that the rights, responsibilities, benefits, and penalties should be the same for straights and gays–but gays need to show their capacity to understand what marriage is and what it means in society. If your relationship is a private transaction, beginning and ending purely privately, then I’m not going to support it with my tax dollars. If you want my tax dollars and my vote, then you are going to have to promise to stay together even when you don’t want to. If my tax dollars and vote don’t matter to you, then do what you want–but you can’t have it both ways.
posted by Tim on
“If you want my tax dollars and my vote, then you are going to have to promise to stay together even when you don’t want to.”
What purpose does it serve to keep 2 people together when one or both want to split ?
I find this nonsensical.
posted by Fitz on
“What purpose does it serve to keep 2 people together when one or both want to split ?”
Children raised outside of intact married
homes are more likely to divorce or
become unwed parents themselves.
Divorce increases the risk of school
failure for children, and reduces the
likelihood that they will graduate from
college and achieve high status jobs.
Children in intact married homes are
healthier, on average, than children in
other family forms.
�� Children from intact married homes have
lower rates of substance abuse.
�� Divorce increases rates of mental illness and distress in children, including the risk of suicide.
��
Boys and young men from intact married
homes are less likely to commit crimes.
�� Married women are less likely to
experience domestic violence than
cohabiting and dating women.
�� Children raised outside of intact marriages are more likely to be victims of both sexual and physical child abuse.
They conclude, ?Marriage is more than a
private emotional relationship. It is also a social good. Not every person can or should marry. And not every child raised outside of marriage is damaged as a result. But communities where good-enough marriages are common have better outcomes for children, women, and men than do communities suffering from high rates of divorce, unmarried childbearing, and highconflict or violent marriages.?2
William J. Doherty, et al., 2002. Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-One Conclusions from the Social Sciences (New
York: Institute for American Values):
posted by PCT on
James, you said: >If society is going to grant benefits to married people< and then continued with a very reasonable comment. Here's the problem though - I think the government should not be in the business of "granting benefits" at all. If you value freedom, then let free people make their own decisions about how to live their lives. Sure, intact loving marriages are better for children. At some point though, marriages often become so miserable that it's better for the children that the parents be separated. Do we really want the goverment to make those decisions, rather than the individuals who are intimately involved? I just think that the best results overall - for any of these divisive social issues - will happen if we let free people make their own decisions. Some of them are going to make dumb decisions, or decisions that you or I would not make. But I still think the greater good will occur when we let everyone make their own decisions about things like marriage and divorce, rather than letting an intrusive government be involved.
posted by Timmers on
As a person who witnessed a loveless , entirely negative hetrosexual marriage in my extended family, I don’t see how changing divorce laws to require both parties consent will make one iota of difference in a childs life. The kids in that family experienced years of negativity – verbal snipeing and general disharmony – because both parents decided to “stay in the marriage for the kids” bleh. While such a marriage might qualify under the “cruelty” exception proposed in the law, this change will do nothing but increase the cost of a divorce and make such disharmony part of the public record. It might make more sense to only allow for “marriage” when children are a product of the relationship as a prereq. for obtaining a state sanctioned marriage in the first instance. That marriage did not provide any type of model for my cousins except maybe to reinforce the notion that sometimes a divorce is the best that can be made out of what was an aweful situation.
posted by James on
The fact that some marriages don’t work doesn’t make marriage a bad thing. When you get married, the State makes an investment in your relationship because the State believes that society will be better if you have incentives to stay together. Therefore, the State offers shared benefits, adoption rights, etc. When gays ask for the right to marry, they are asking for the State to invest in their relationship–which is good. What is hard for gays to grasp is that when the State and all the taxpayer money involved is invested in your relationship, you have to provide what you promised the State–a stable, monogamous relationship. Gay marriage means that gay relationships will, like straight relationships, be monitored by the State–and if you abuse your spouse or children, or you commit adultery, the State will step in and revoke its benefits. See how this works? The struggle for gay marriage is not all about “acceptance” and “tolerance”–it’s about gays becoming responsible, stable citizens. And I don’t think a lot of gays have realized that yet.
posted by PCT on
James when you find the guy you love and marry him, and I think someday that will happen for you, do you really want the state to “monitor” your relationship? That concept scares me to death.
Timmers is right – let the adults in the situation make the decision they think best.
posted by cesqua on
james you’re already investing your tax dollars in a federally funded institution that doesn’t work: het marriage! no one can say that homos have or can damage this institution that we’ve so far not been a part of. since you were born an anomoly( full grown gay male fundie virgin) i’ll let you in on a little secret: when you tell someone no for no reason they automatically go right for it. people need to make their own mistakes like eating an apple a day or getting married to the wrong person. the hets you so admire aren’t virgins till married nor are they monagamous nor are they the ideal role models you so badly want them to be. funny, homos aren’t the drug induces sex crazed immoral fabric of the nation either. you still make me sick with your generalizations.
posted by James on
cesqua, if that is your feeling about marriage, why do you want gay marriage? Trying to get the right to do something you think is a failure to begin with seems utterly illogical.
But maybe I’m making one of those sick-making generalizations again. Still, I’d like to see how you logically defend the rights of gays to marry and then say marriage doesn’t work for anyone.
posted by raj on
~sigh~
James | January 8, 2007, 10:30am |
Society has the right to make divorce difficult to protect the institutions of society from abuse. If you want the benefits, you have to be ready to pay the penalties.
In addition to the fact that, as one commenter above (Timmers | January 8, 2007, 8:07pm | ) noted, there is no obvious benefit to society (or to the children from a marriage) from keeping two people married who do not want to be married (PCT’s statistics notwithstanding: apparently, PCT is unaware of the difference between causation and correlation), one thing that James appears to overlook is the fact that, if the state requires consent from both parties to a marriage in order for them to divorce, it is highly likely that at least one of those parties will try to extract the maximum benefit that he or she can from the other in order to obtain consent. In other words, what the party who initially wants to file for divorce would have to give up in order to obtain consent from the other would become an issue in the divorce settlement.
Vindictive? Most certainly yes. A probable tactic in a divorce case? Again, most certainly yes.
So, query. Would it be better for society to allow for relatively easy dissolution of marriages than otherwise? Probably.
posted by James on
Once again–if you don’t think marriage works, why do you want gays to have the right to marry?
Why would society want to give marriage rights to a group of people, the majority of whom think marriage is a failed institution? A community which, in fact, attacks and villifies anyone in their community who supports traditional marriage, sexual exclusivity, and permanence?
Does anyone see the problem here? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
posted by Fitz on
Fascinating finding out what homosexuals really feel about the institution of marriage.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
In other words, what the party who initially wants to file for divorce would have to give up in order to obtain consent from the other would become an issue in the divorce settlement.
Mhm. Or, in other words, marriage would be treated like any other binding contract; if you want to unilaterally break it, you are at the mercy of the other person(s) involved.
While such a marriage might qualify under the “cruelty” exception proposed in the law, this change will do nothing but increase the cost of a divorce and make such disharmony part of the public record.
Isn’t that a pity. People would actually have to pay and be held publicly accountable for their stupid decisions and immature ways of handling it.
The reason leftists demand this, especially gay leftists, is because disallowing unilateral divorces raises the specter of them not being able to marry again — because the other person refuses to consent to dissolve the relationship. What they want is the right to get benefits and protections, discard their partner when they get bored with them, and then get benefits and protections again with the new one. Hence, they support unilateral divorce because then THEY are the only ones who have to consent to ditching the old and picking up the new.
Personally, I am of the mind if a gay leftist wants to ditch their current partner for their new lover, it is the decision of the current partner as to whether or not to let them go without penalty. And if the current partner is content to stay married (which also denies them the ability to start a new relationship), that’s their prerogative.
posted by raj on
Fitz | January 9, 2007, 11:51am |
Fascinating finding out what homosexuals really feel about the institution of marriage.
Dear boi, it is fairly obvious from your log-on alias and this comment that you are nothing more than the anti-gay troll that infested the NYTimes gay rights board AND the Crooked Timber web site a few weeks ago.
Now, run along.
posted by raj on
James | January 9, 2007, 10:30am |
Just to let you know, your comments remind me more and more of something that I would expect from a New Ager. That is, it is not entirely clear what they are responding to, they make no obvious point, and they cite no facts (other than, possibly, ones that one might divine by examining one’s naval).
Did you actually mean to post something here that is relevant to what has been mentioned before, either in the post or in the comments? If so, what was it? Or are you just free-associating in some tangerine dream?
posted by raj on
North Dallas Thirty | January 9, 2007, 12:21pm |
>>>In other words, what the party who initially wants to file for divorce would have to give up in order to obtain consent from the other would become an issue in the divorce settlement.
Mhm. Or, in other words, marriage would be treated like any other binding contract; if you want to unilaterally break it, you are at the mercy of the other person(s) involved.
Um, no. Aside from the fact that, although marriage is often likened to a contract, it really isn’t It’s a relationship defined by the state. In some ways, it defines the minimal set of rights and obligations that the parties to a marriage have, but in more than a few ways (right to eschew testifying against a spouse, right to police protection against domestic violence, among others), it is very different.
It is possible to enter into a “relationship agreement” form of contract, separate and apart from marriage. My partner–now spouse–and I did so in the very early 1980s. It laid out, inter alia, what each of us were bringing to the relationship, how we would divide our property–particularly the property acquired during the relationship–if the relationship ended prior to death, and provided that we would execute cross-wills so that each would inherit the other’s property. We did that at or near the beginning of our relationship (actually, it was related to us acquiring a house together), and so we knew what we were entering into.
But that was at the beginning of our relationship. What is now being proposed regarding divorce for married people is a change in the “terms” of the state-mandated marriage relationship, which can affect myriad marriages that had previously been entered into. What that means is a retroactive revision of the terms of the marriage relationship after (obviously) the parties had entered into it. There is nothing to stop parties to a marriage to enter into an agreement (such as my spouse and I did) that would be more restrictive than those required by marriage. But, if they don’t, why should the state act to retroactively impose more restrictive terms on them that they had entered into?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And Raj, you are again indulging in your usual tactic when you cannot answer a question of attacking the questioner.
This question was clearly asked above by a gay leftist:
james you’re already investing your tax dollars in a federally funded institution that doesn’t work: het marriage!
James merely responded with a completely-logical observation; if gays believe that marriage “doesn’t work”, then why do gays want marriage?
Fitz merely pointed out that s/he is fascinated by the fact that gays think marriage is a failure and that gays oppose anything but unilateral, quick and easy divorce.
The problem is not the questioners. It’s the fact that you cannot answer the questions without revealing in how little regard you hold marriage, fidelity, and fairness; furthermore, it definitely calls into question for what reasons you want marriage.
posted by Fitz on
James seems to hold an approach to the institution that at least maintains some of the features the give it integrity.
Among these is a ?till death due us part? sensibility of permanence to the commitment.
The people have the right to enforce such a contract. Indeed this is to the public good. The vast majority of divorces are not high conflict marriages, but rather temporary disagreements that get out of control. The seven year itch becomes the seven year ditch.
As North Dallas points out, this is a fair point. A little research (as I point to above) shows how much of the cultural left holds marriage in contempt ?(ALI report? one salient fact)
Another recent and timely example can be seen here.
Bay windows openly called on people who were ?ideologically opposed to marriage? to help them defend same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.
The Bay windows piece is entitled “to your battle stations”
http://baywindows.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=008EC9FBCFF24AD18614290016BE1303&nm=Current+Issue&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&AudID=0813BC739F2044E5A03DCF2DE3FDF7C9&tier=4&id=17F7E1B3F8F24FB287EF2CF994DE080C
posted by cesqua on
james i never said gay marriage is the answer. i think marriage should be reigned in dramatically and restricted to religious ceremony only. if ANY couple wants rights and legal protections of their relationships gay or str8 it should be a civil union. the purpose of gov’t is not to define or uphold religion. all couples should have the same rights as all other couples. if a church as a private institution wants to bar certain couples from marrying, fine. it’s their right and they should be taxed. legal protections should be conferred by legal institutions and granted to any taxpaying couple. don’t assume about me; i’m nowhere near your tiny general groups in any way.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What that means is a retroactive revision of the terms of the marriage relationship after (obviously) the parties had entered into it.
Not necessarily. The law can be easily set up to “grandfather” and exempt those who were married prior to the new provisions taking effect. Those after should be aware of the implications.
And Fitz is absolutely right; I quote the Bay Windows:
Whether you are just coming out, transgender, heterosexual or ideologically opposed to marriage, you do not want to see this campaign in Massachusetts.
The author makes it clear that gays are trying to ally with groups that oppose and want to abolish marriage — yet claim they support marriage.
You could not find a better example of how irrational and twisted the gay leftists are. They have spoken unopposed for so long that they actually believe they can claim to support marriage while working with groups and people who want to eliminate it. They believe they can claim that marriage “doesn’t work”, but then demand it as a necessity for gays.
posted by raj on
North Dallas Thirty | January 9, 2007, 1:05pm |
And Raj, you are again indulging in your usual tactic when you cannot answer a question of attacking the questioner.
This question was clearly asked above by a gay leftist: (emphasis added)
Pot, kettle, black.
And that’s aside from the fact that I, in my comment at raj | January 9, 2007, 1:04pm | did not attack you. Unless, of course, you consider that actually quoting you is an attack on you. I would consider such a belief odd, but who knows?
I sincerely don’t care what or to whom James was responding to when I posted my comment at raj | January 9, 2007, 1:04pm |. It’s nice that you apparently claim that you can divine what or to whom James was responding to, since he continually neglects–or intentionally fails–to actually indicate what he is responding to.) But that is irrelevant to the issue of your comment, which I was responding to and quoted. If you have an issue with what of your comment that I was quoting, put it on the table.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It’s nice that you apparently claim that you can divine what or to whom James was responding to, since he continually neglects–or intentionally fails–to actually indicate what he is responding to.)
Well, to be quite honest, Raj, it doesn’t require much divining.
cesqua, if that is your feeling about marriage, why do you want gay marriage? Trying to get the right to do something you think is a failure to begin with seems utterly illogical.
Meanwhile, I am amused by your claim, made above, that my post at 1:05 PM is a response to your one posted at 1:04 PM. I’m a fast reader and typist, but even for me, to see your post, read it, type a response, and submit it is more than I could manage in the time you claim it took — at maximum, less than two minutes.
What would be far more logical is to tie it to your 12:33 PM post about James, in which you state the following:
Just to let you know, your comments remind me more and more of something that I would expect from a New Ager. That is, it is not entirely clear what they are responding to, they make no obvious point, and they cite no facts (other than, possibly, ones that one might divine by examining one’s naval).
Hence, why I would be referring to James in the response as your target, not myself.
posted by cesqua on
NDXXX and james:
gentlemen really! what part of equal rights don’t you get? why are you both attacking ‘gay leftists’? if this was the old arguement about interracial couples having the right to marry would you be in the same position that two different heritages will be sex crazed and drug ridden? you people are crazy!
posted by raj on
North Dallas Thirty | January 9, 2007, 2:37pm |
Well, to be quite honest, Raj, it doesn’t require much divining.
Do you actually read what you write?
James’s comment to which you linked was James | January 9, 2007, 12:49am |
My comment at raj | January 9, 2007, 8:46am | from which you quoted was obviously directed to James’s comment at James | January 8, 2007, 10:30am | (and I noted that in my comment), over twelve hours earlier.
Pay attention to the time stamps, or stop wasting our time.
posted by raj on
North Dallas Thirty | January 9, 2007, 2:37pm |
Well, to be quite honest, Raj, it doesn’t require much divining.
Do you actually read what you write?
James’s comment to which you linked was James | January 9, 2007, 12:49am |
My comment at raj | January 9, 2007, 8:46am | from which you quoted was obviously directed to James’s comment at James | January 8, 2007, 10:30am | (and I noted that in my comment), over twelve hours earlier.
Pay attention to the time stamps, or stop wasting our time.
What would be far more logical is to tie it to your 12:33 PM post about James, in which you state the following:…
Oh, is that what you were referring to in your post of North Dallas Thirty | January 9, 2007, 1:05pm | . Am I supposed to divine what you are referring to when you don’t even bother to provide a reference? As far as I could tell, you were referring to yourself.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Pay attention to the time stamps, or stop wasting our time.
You will never learn, will you, Raj?
Your current claim:
My comment at raj | January 9, 2007, 8:46am | from which you quoted was obviously directed to James’s comment at James | January 8, 2007, 10:30am | (and I noted that in my comment), over twelve hours earlier.
But when we look at the comment from which I quoted and for which I provided the time stamp, what post time/date stamp do you have referenced as your basis for criticizing James?
James | January 9, 2007, 10:30am |
So, just to review, Raj:
1. I have demonstrated by direct link, citation, and quote that your post refers to a post James made on January 9.
2. You are attempting to argue that said post references January 8.
Add to this your statement above that I was responding to one of your posts that was made one minute before I posted the response, and it seems obvious who here is not paying attention to time stamps.
posted by James on
Thanks, ND30, for the support. As to what I’m responding to–here’s a little hint: look at the post just above mine. Or the one just above that. This involves something called “scrolling” which is too complicated for me to explain, but you can call your Tech Support for help.
I still haven’t seen a good answer from those who think marriage is a failed institution. Why would want gays want the right to participate in a failed institution?
Do you think that there might be an undercurrent of anti-marriage sentiment in our public Pride displays? Do you think that people might look at Dykes on Bikes, and men in thongs and Gwen Stefani wigs throwing condoms, or guys in wet T-shirts making out with a series of other guys, and think, Hmmm–I bet these guys don’t like traditional marriage. Is it at all possible we’re sending the wrong signal?
Here’s something we could do–we could join forces with groups like those in Virginia who want to make divorce laws tougher. That would show we’re on the side of monogamy and stability. If we’ve only got time for so many rallies, why not go to the anti-divorce rally?
posted by North Dalllas Thirty on
if this was the old arguement about interracial couples having the right to marry would you be in the same position that two different heritages will be sex crazed and drug ridden?
Hardly.
But that’s because the vast majority of black and white people I know don’t argue that their skin color demands they have public sex, for starters.
Also, I don’t ever recall interracial couples claiming that marriage “doesn’t work” and allying with antireligious and anti-marriage organizations but then arguing for marriage rights.
Perhaps if it weren’t so patently obvious that gays detest the responsibilities and requirements of marriage, refuse to control themselves sexually, and are associated with people who believe similarly, the argument that we value and cherish marriage as something good would be much easier to make.
posted by raj on
James | January 9, 2007, 3:18pm |
As to what I’m responding to–here’s a little hint: look at the post just above mine. Or the one just above that. This involves something called “scrolling” which is too complicated for me to explain, but you can call your Tech Support for help.
Just to let you know, your commenting strategy might work on a slow board such as this one, but it won’t work on a fast board. There’s something called a “race condition,” which can mean that someone else can post a comment after the one that you intend to respond to, but before your comment can be registered on the board. That means that the other person’s comment can be interleaved between the comment that you intend to respond to, and your comment. If that were to occur, that would kind of ruin your commenting strategy.
That is the purpose of using time stamps, to specifically identify the comment that you intend to respond to. (Links would also work, but unlike NDXXX I don’t do those, since it requires one to actually make use of the link to find out what is being referred to.)
It also helps if you would actually copy a portion of the comment text that you are commenting on.
BTW, both (copying time stamps and comment text) can be accomplished by selecting time stamp or comment text, copying them to the clipboard, and pasting them to your comment. I’m sure that your SysAdmin can show you how to select-copy-and_paste if you are unfamiliar with the concept. It would certainly help us to have to figure out how to read your mind to figure out what you are responding to.
posted by Fitz on
The anti-marriage sentiment is not confined to public advocates alone (if so the alarm would be less)
On the contrary.. some of the most powerful and mainstream voices hope to overthrow the institution outright
You?ll want to read what the people who are actually in charge think first.
AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE PUBLISHES PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY DISSOLUTION
http://www.ali.org/ali/pr051502.htm
LAW COMMISSION OF CANADA REPORT: BEYOND CONJUGALITY
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0172.htm
Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families and Relationships
http://http://www.beyondmarriage.org/
The want to De-privilege the Privileged (traditional marriage)
And privilege the de-Privileged (any thing but traditional marriage)
posted by Randy on
It’s quite interesting that divorce was pretty much outlawed in Ireland until recently. The people overwhelmingly support liberalization of the divorce laws despite the opposition of the Catholic church. Same thing in Chile.
Why would the people of Ireland and Chile support the loosening of divorce laws if it is clearly so bad?
posted by dalea91505 on
One of the problems with outlawing divorce is that it results in murder. A spouse looks at options: he can divorce the troubling other and end up being thrown out of the communities with which he is familiar. Or, he can murder the troubling spouse, and still be a regular communicant of his religion. And if he can beat the rap, be a full time good faith looked up to christian.
All of which strikes me, at least, as a deficient form of argumentation. If not a seriously defective religion. Which I feel christianity undoubtably is.
Does anyone else here find a situation in which an amicable parting of ways is a grevious sin but the wanton shooting of a spouse is an understandablr disagreement indicative of a seriously defective line of reasoning? Just wondering. I of course realize that NDxxx will immediately jump in to justify blasting away annoying ex’es as the one true christian response.
Do the powers that be realize what a bizarre image this blog gives of conservative gays?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So the argument being made here by liberal gays like dalea is that, without liberalized divorce laws, Christians will all murder their spouses.
I of course realize that NDxxx will immediately jump in to justify blasting away annoying ex’es as the one true christian response.
Of course not. One person murdering another is not justifiable, and certainly not in a case where you want to unilaterally break your wedding vows. Furthermore, the fact that someone may be sorry for and have repented of their sins does not in any way excuse them from being held accountable for them by the legal system or from being punished by the state as a result.
You berate Christians for not automatically ostracizing criminals; even better, you berate them for supposedly not ostracizing those who “beat the rap”, seemingly expecting Christians to read minds and determine that someone is guilty even when the justice system can’t do it.
The point in your making this post, dalea, was rather transparent; it was to bait me and to criticize my religious beliefs. However, in the process, you demonstrated your antipathy towards and hatred of religion, your hypocritical demands of it, and your irrational beliefs about it.
Indeed, there was a bizarre image being portrayed; however, it wasn’t of conservative gays.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Why would the people of Ireland and Chile support the loosening of divorce laws if it is clearly so bad?
Because the thought of being able to unilaterally ditch the spouse with which you are bored and still keep a significant portion of your property holds great allure for the irresponsible, Randy. Instant gratification is a powerful force; instead of thinking BEFORE you get married, now you don’t have to do so, and you face no penalty for doing so.
posted by raj on
Randy | January 9, 2007, 8:47pm |
Why would the people of Ireland and Chile support the loosening of divorce laws if it is clearly so bad?
In Ireland’s case, part of it may be due to anti-clericism because the RCCi (the Roman Catholic Church, Inc., the hierarchy) has had Ireland under its thumb for many centuries.
That’s certainly the reason for the anti-clericism and pro-secularism in France (now including forbidding even recent immigrant groups such as Muslims from wearing artifacts of their religion in public). One of the reasons why the French Revolution was so violent and bloody was that much of it was due to the centuries-old oppression imposed on the commoners by the nation’s royalty and nobility in concert with the RCCi.
posted by raj on
dalea91505 | January 10, 2007, 12:22am |
Your first paragraph is right on the mark, and the parade of potential horribles that you recount could be expanded.
Regarding
Does anyone else here find a situation in which an amicable parting of ways is a grevious sin…
Actually, it’s not clear from the Wholly Babble Rule Book that divorce, in and of itself, is a sin. Matty 19:6 (“Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”) could be read as an exhortation, not an order. After all, Matty noted at Matty 16:7 that Moses allowed for divorce, although it was clear that that was disapproved of (Matty 19:8).
If read that way, then divorce per se is not a sin. A man divorcing his wife and taking another (wife, that is; I guess taking concubines is ok) is definitely a sin (it’s amazing how so many self-described Christian men divorce their wives and remarry anyway). As Matty 19:9 says, if a man divorces his wife and takes another (wife), he is committing an adultery, unless, of course, the ground for the divorce is adultery on the part of the wife. (NB: don’t you just find those exceptions in the Wholly Babble Rule Book so interesting? They seem to have exceptions for everything. Everything, it seems, except homo-sex. Also, it should be evident that adultery on the part of the husband is OK, and not a ground for divorce; that’s terribly sexist, don’t you think?) Matty’s commentary in 19:6 presupposes the availability of divorce, of course, so it is doubtful that divorce per se is a sin, but it is clear from 19:9 that remarriage after divorce is (with certain exceptions of course) a sin. Unless of course, there is a subsequent passage from Matty that indicates otherwise, of course.
Is that clear? A little more clear than mud?
Regarding NDXXX, quite frankly, he has sinned so often here that he should probably be shunned. (Isn’t that what good Christians do with someone who has sinned and fails to repent?) I’m referring to his constant lying, and I’m not referring to the 10 Suggestions. I’m referring to Proverbs, and the six things that his Lord hates, even seven things that are an abomination unto him. The second thing is “a lying tongue,” and the sixth is “a false witness who pours out lies.” It should be obvious that NDXXX has done both of those things while he has been posting here, and, quite frankly, on other comment threads on other web sites.
But I’m not a good Christian, and NDXXX is fun to toy with.
posted by James on
You know, not once in this long thread has anyone really responded to my question: Why would gays, who think marriage is a failed institution, want the right to get married?
(crickets chirping)
posted by raj on
James | January 10, 2007, 9:20am |
Dear, the crickets can chirp until hell freezes over, but it is clear that you are nothing but a whiny troll not worthy of a response.
posted by Fitz on
Either commentators are ignorant of our countries Divorce Laws or they are so driven by a simplistic ideology that they are forced to the extreme.
The truth is multiple states still have fault based divorce systems. Those that do not STILL ascertain fault and account for it in property distribution.
I don?t know what people killing their spouses or trapped in bad marriages has to do with anything. This is just silly hyperbole designed for a pure emotional response.
It says vastly more about the authors view about marriage than about no-fault laws effectiveness and desirability.
A move away from no-fault is a mere response to its failure for children and adults. No law can force a couple to stay together. Purposed changes however accent the peoples will to take the institution more seriously through waiting periods, fault based decisions, and increased concern for child welfare.
posted by Fitz on
“Why would gays, who think marriage is a failed institution, want the right to get married?”
As stated James..
The want to De-privilege the Privileged (traditional marriage)
And privilege the de-Privileged (any thing but traditional marriage)
They hate the Ken & Barbie world that marriage represents and wish to undermind it.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
James | January 10, 2007, 9:20am | #
“Why would gays, who think marriage is a failed institution, want the right to get married?”
Someone would probably try to answer you if your question wasn’t based wholly on biased and incorrect assumptions. Why do you hate honest discussion so much that you would try to sabotage it with lies and hate-filled rhetoric? Just for the record, I (a gay man) do NOT think marriage is a failed institution. I (a gay man) cannot wait for the day that my partner and I can be joined together in marriage. The whole thing is moot to me by the way, we exchanged rings and vows in front of our family and friends…just like King David and Jonathan.
posted by Fitz on
ColoradoPatriot | January 10, 2007, 9:56am | #
I think your being unfair to James. Just because you, yourself don?t think it?s a failed institution doesn?t mean James has not encountered many who do.
Simply read the posts above and follow the links to see the cynicism and contempt shown towards marriage.
?Why do you hate honest discussion so much that you would try to sabotage it with lies and hate-filled rhetoric??
This is just a pathetic comment? have you not read James posts.. To accuse him of hate filled rhetoric reveals your hate. The man is obviously trying to understand why those who think so little of marriage would want to join it?
This is a manifest and obvious question that you sidestep with harsh demagoguery.
posted by James on
I am a gay man who believes marriage means lifelong sexual exclusivity. How does that make me a troll? How is that hate-filled rhetoric? I guess it’s because I see that MOST of the gay community does not support lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships–but, yes, there are some gays who do. However, the minority of gays who want traditional marriage have to fight against the majority of gays who don’t–the majority of gays want to undermine the meaning of marriage. Not all, but I really, really, think the majority of gays are not mature or responsible or, frankly, man enough to deal with the responsibility of marriage.
OK, maybe that’s kinda hate-filled. But it’s true–Most, not all, the majority, again not all, gay men do not want the reality of marriage. Maybe you’re one of the gay men who does–but look around you. Really, seriously, are most of the gay men you know responsible, adult citizens? Really? Where the heck do you live?
In a lifetime of dealing with lots o’ gay men, I haven’t experienced this world where gay men are doctors and accountants, raising families with their partner of 30 years, and who spend their free time as volunteer firemen and helping at homeless shelters. Yes, yes, there might be one or two you can cite as examples in order to refute me, but in your heart, you know that those are the exceptions. If you were to be truly honest, you would admit that most gays are whiny, perpetual adolescents with very little emotional balance who can barely hold down a job.
OK, I guess I can see where you might call that hate-filled. But that has truly been my experience, and I’ve had a lot of contact with the gay world, so don’t tell me to go out and meet more gays–instead, you need to take your blinders off and take a good, hard, realistic look at the gay community. The Gay Emperor is wearing no clothes–not even a thong.
You’re right–I’m a gay man who hates the gay community. Not each individual gay, but I guess I do hate the gay community. I’m not sure that’s a bad thing–I mean, many of you hate the Christian community, so right back atcha. Until the gay community starts working on behalf of the things I value instead of constantly undermining them, I’m going to continue to hate the gay community and feel justified in doing so–the same way you get to hate Christians and illegal immigrants.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
James | January 10, 2007, 10:37am | #
“Really, seriously, are most of the gay men you know responsible, adult citizens? Really? Where the heck do you live?”
Simple answer, YES MOST OF THE GAY MEN I KNOW ARE RESPONSIBLE ADULT CITIZENS…where do I live, DENVER COLORADO. James, don’t look for stable gay relationships at the clubs or in dark rooms that you frequent, look in the suburbs.
So…Fritz, you f’ing douchebag, care to apologize for your post calling me out now that James has come right out and admitted his hatred? Here is your quote in case you have forgotten what you said, “To accuse him of hate filled rhetoric reveals your hate.” I think I can hear those crickets that James was talking about earlier…idiots.
posted by Novaseeker on
Hatred gets us nowhere, everyone. Really, the spectacle of this hatred being flipped back and forth between people who are both part of the same oppressed minority is, trro be quite blunt, scandalous and shameful.
I guess I don’t know as many gay people as you do, James. I never go to gay bars downtown, I nev er go to gay clubs. The gay people I *do* know I know from (1) work (where they are lawyers, accountants, business executives … with long-term partners who relocate with them for work, etc.), (2) church (yes I do attend a gay-affirming church were I meet many LGBT Christians) and (3) through friends of straight friends. As a result, while I know of the stories of the wild and crazy, irresponsible hedonistic libertinism of the “gay community”, I don’t know of it personally, I don’t interact with it, and it has never really been the face of the gay people to me, of gay people I know in my life. I don’t doubt that there are many irresponsible gay people, and I also tend to agree that many in the “activist” community hold views that I think are counterproductive, but I don’t see the gay world in the way that you do, James, because I haven’t interacted with that world, by my own choice.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
James, I will try to answer your question, why participate in a failed institution?
Because the FREEDOM TO CHOOSE IT, is the basis of it.
Marriage between slaves used to be illegal. Families were deliberately torn apart through lack of the ability to keep one’s own children.
That, and the lack of societal support for the stability of black people, has TO THIS DAY, kept a strong segment of black people in destructive family trends.
As a minority, eligible compatible mates become less and less available because of other social stressors.
Such as low education, employment and advancement rates.
And high addiction, incarceration and violence rates.
It is within this context that gay people fall as well.
Lack of societal support (and deliberate destruction of the same) has led to a diasporic quality to gay lives.
There are less gay people, so a compatible mate is a rarer option.
Perhaps social integration and acceptance of black people came to late, for the marriage and family stressors to be resisted as effectively.
And hopefully the same won’t happen to gay people, but it’s understandable why it might.
One not wanting what one can’t have, so to speak.
In other words, lack of hope won’t manifest as motive or skill.
My own failed marriage was interracial, I am a black woman, my husband is white.
Much, much later in our relationship did my in laws reveal something very cruel and destructive to my marriage. It wasn’t an overt prejudice. Subtle enough for them to not know it when it happened.
But it hit ME like a bomb, and was the last blow to my relationship with my husband.
Prejudice towards a group, such as what blacks and gay people struggle with, still has residual and possibly devasting consequences to hope and endurance.
Blacks and gay people have similar libertine values regarding sex especially.
With heterosexual blacks the result is a high incidence of poor and neglected children….and STD’s.
At one time, during Jim Crow, whites alleged that blacks were so lacking in moral standards and respect for marriage (citing low marriage rates and high out of wedlock births), that BANS for marriage between blacks was proposed in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama.
This should ring familiar to you.
The straight world places gay people in a category without historical context, as if gay people are this way, without STRAIGHT influence. Particularly prejudice and threat.
Same with white people and their influence on black lives.
What made any of those with the power and controlling interests of black or gay lives…think that removing such social restrictions would make things all good in just a few decades?
Being able to choose marriage or not, is very important.
What marriage provides is a lot more than outward social acceptance and state security to maintain as many protections as possible, in case of other failures besides the marriage.
James, I am single again after nearly seventeen years. I am in my late forties, and my prospects for another eligible mate are very slim.
Despite the fact that I am trim, educated and can be mistaken for barely in my 30’s closeup.
I would love to marry again. Have that social support and family network again.
I lost a lot in this divorce, more than material and social comfort.
I wouldn’t wish NEVER having it on anyone.
And I have many, many gay friends and loved ones in my life. Sharing our ups and downs helps keep us all bouyed above life’s trials and tribulations.
But one of our greatest freedoms is to be able to take or leave marriage.
The failure rate is only half, the other half matters too.
And it’s still worth choosing WHICH half one could most likely achieve.
It should be up to you, not other straight people and their double standards, whether you marry or not.
Just as the success or failure of your marriage is up to you too.
Be well, brother. I mean that.
posted by Fitz on
ColoradoPatriot | January 10, 2007, 11:20am | #
? care to apologize for your post calling me out now that James has come right out and admitted his hatred?? ,
No, and either should James. He was just submitting to your rhetorical positioning of his views. The man has experiences and accumulated antidotal evidence fro his own life. We all make judjments that way. To accuse him of ?hatred? is ridiculous, you may think in such terms but I don?t.
Holding a prejudice is not the same as being hate filled. Sometimes are prejudices are indeed accurate. Generalizations are not indicted because of the presence of exceptions.
Most men are taller than women. Producing a short man and a tall women doesn?t change this.
Regardless, my point still stands un-refuted. Mine corresponds to James point in as much as the intellectual vanguard that leads the cultural left is antagonistic to the institution of marriage. They will not concede and are openly hostile to concepts of sexual exclusivity, permanence and even its binary form.
Many gays who support same-sex marriage also hold these views. Even if they did not it is the direction this moves us towards and the direction the cultural left hopes to arrive at.
Calling a person Hate-filled because he recognizes this reality is an obvious ploy to marginalize anyone who questions the agenda.
His point stands?
“Why would gays, who think marriage is a failed institution, want the right to get married?”
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Fitz | January 10, 2007, 12:47pm | #
“To accuse him of ?hatred? is ridiculous, you may think in such terms but I don?t.”
Since you obviously can’t read Fitz (or your reading comprehension is approaching zero), let me point out a few quotes from dear compassionate James.
“Not all, but I really, really, think the majority of gays are not mature or responsible or, frankly, man enough to deal with the responsibility of marriage. OK, maybe that’s kinda hate-filled.”
or
“most gays are whiny, perpetual adolescents with very little emotional balance who can barely hold down a job. OK, I guess I can see where you might call that hate-filled.” (Nice one, James…you ignorant piece of dirt.)
or how about
“You’re right–I’m a gay man who hates the gay community. Not each individual gay, but I guess I do hate the gay community. I’m not sure that’s a bad thing.”
Now explain to me again how I’m the one who needs to apologize for my unkind words?
And, James, if gay marriage was good enough for Kind David and Jonathan how is it not good enough for me and my partner?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I (a gay man) cannot wait for the day that my partner and I can be joined together in marriage. The whole thing is moot to me by the way, we exchanged rings and vows in front of our family and friends…just like King David and Jonathan.
Mhm. So when are you planning to marry women and have children, as did both David and Jonathan?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Now explain to me again how I’m the one who needs to apologize for my unkind words?
Actually, I think James’s characterization was spot-on, especially given your habit of threatening to physically assault and harm anyone who disagrees with you. What’s to make us believe that you aren’t doing that in your workplace, or in your community, or anywhere else?
posted by James on
As Fitz points out, my decision was to accept your definition of “hate-filled.” No one would accept my desription of myself–“one who is filled with penetrating insight into the reality of the gay community which most members blind themselves to.” My goal is not to put anyone down–my goal is to wake gays up to what they actually look like and shock them into making better choices. We’d all feel better.
I really don’t understand how criticizing the shallowness of the majority-gay lifestyle and advocating lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships is seen as “hate-filled,” but if you want to use those words, fine with me. I’m hate-filled. I’m self-loathing. I suffer from “internalized homophobia.” Etc. Etc.
I am glad there are gays who have found their way out of the gay ghetto and socialize in normal ways, through churches and friends. That’s what I’m doing, too. I’m not looking for gay or straight men–I’m looking for friends, and finding some, too. One of these days, I hope that I’ll find a friend with whom I share a mutual physical/emotional attraction. But I don’t feel the need to act flamboyantly and shout,
“Hey, world, I’m gay!” at every chance I get. I’m not acting normal to get acceptance, as if I am secretly clinging to my Gwen Stefani wig and my Scissor Sisters CD in hope no one discovers the true me–I’m acting normal because I’m normal. I don’t feel the need to present myself to the world as unique or special or wise or queer or especially vicimized.
I’m annoyed when my life is made more difficult by other gays who act like idiots and create a backlash which I didn’t create and don’t deserve. If you want to go out there and do stupid things and get beat up, go ahead, but you are creating problems for every gay man who has not set himself up for bad treatment.
My hate-filled solution is that I wish the gay community would get over being queer and immature and instead find their “inner normal person,” find a lifelong partner, put on some lounge pants, and watch Prison Break (or whatever show has the sexiest cast at the moment) with someone they love. The rights we want so desperately will follow._
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “given your habit of threatening to physically assault and harm anyone who disagrees with you.”
Another lie from ND30, true to form. The fact is ND30, the only “threat” that came from me was my statment that if you tried to pull in public what you do on this board (ie lies and slander) that you (as in YOU, ND30 the ASSHOLE) would have to face the consequences. Thanks for proving my point once again….also, are you denying the marriage vows taken by King David and Jonathan to each other?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Come now, ColoradoPatriot; not only did you make the threat, you confirmed it; furthermore, as I pointed out, that was the second time you’d threatened me with physical assault.
also, are you denying the marriage vows taken by King David and Jonathan to each other?
Yup.
Both Jonathan and David married women and had numerous children.
What they had between them was a covenant of their friendship, which neither implies or requires sex with each other or romantic relationships.
The problem here is that most gays simply aren’t capable of understanding how two people could be lifelong and devoted friends without having sex with each other; after all, that’s the primary reason they have friendships or relationships with anyone.
Given your inability to interpret the Bible any other way than through your belief that lasting friendship between males means they are having sex with each other, it wouldn’t surprise me that you would interpret David and Jonathan’s actions as “taking marriage vows”. Not only does it suit your beliefs, it allows you to attempt to legitimize what you’re doing by arguing “they did it too”.
Unfortunately, you can nicely trace that interpretation of David and Jonathan’s relationship back to Oscar Wilde’s trial — in which he tried to use it as his excuse for having sex with numerous teenage and younger boys. Can we assume you’re using it in the same context?
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
From Wikipedia:
“Jonathan, the eldest son of Saul, is struck with love for David on their first meeting, “And it came to pass, when he [David] had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.” (1 Sam. 18:1). That same day, “Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul” (1 Sam. 18:3). Jonathan removes and offers David the rich garments he is wearing, and shares with him his worldly possessions: “And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.” (1 Sam. 18:4).”
Pretty Damn Friendly…ND30, you’ve proven yourself to be as knowledgeable on Oscar Wilde as you have the Bible (that is to say, ignorant of both). Thanks for providing links to my “threats” which only prove my point that what you are doing by lying and slandering people on this board would get you punched out if attempted in public. Idiot.
posted by Xeno on
Alright, enough already!
James, I’ve seen too many redundant comments of you complaining about the issues of ‘gay-community,’ and like I’ve stated before, I somewhat sympathize with you on those issues, with some exceptions of course.
In your previous comment, you’ve stated a desire to do something constructive for the ‘community’ and that life long monogamy is the ideal solution to most of the problems (which I doubt that the troll Fitz here would support you on this, since all he wants is us to be “healed” from homosexuality). However, you haven’t really given a plan on how to get to that solution, or if a plan is really needed due to growing trends. Let’s hear what you have in mind for this.
Your caricature of more effeminate gays is disturbing. I’d expect that kind of belief from antigay nuts, not from someone who thinks being gay (as in being attracted and having a relationship with someone of the same-sex) is ok. Yes it’s true that some are over the top with hysterics, but a great deal of them are decent caring people.
BTW, I recommend you to read Ex-Gay Watch from time to time, since many of the people there share a more conservative belief over relationships, but are also critical of the socon movement over its treatment and ideals of LGBT folks.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30, you’ve proven yourself to be as knowledgeable on Oscar Wilde as you have the Bible (that is to say, ignorant of both).
So now ColoradoPatriot attempts to deny that Oscar Wilde had sex with numerous teenage and little boys.
Furthermore, ColoradoPatriot denies Wilde tried to invoke David and Jonathan at his trial as his excuse for his need for sex with numerous teenage and little boys.
Wilde is just like CP; casting about desperately for anything, something, that could legitimize his sexual needs and desires and how he acts upon them. Since he is incapable of loving, having strong friendship bonds, or keeping lifelong relationships with other males without having sex with them, he naturally assumes David and Jonathan were the same way.
posted by Novaseeker on
“Your caricature of more effeminate gays is disturbing. I’d expect that kind of belief from antigay nuts, not from someone who thinks being gay (as in being attracted and having a relationship with someone of the same-sex) is ok. Yes it’s true that some are over the top with hysterics, but a great deal of them are decent caring people.”
I’ve also caught onto this, and I’ve been taken aback by it.
Honestly I’ve seen it at times in other “super-straight-acting” gay men as well: a dislike, sometimes rather intense, of fem gay men. I think it’s because they feel that these fem gays “run down the reputation of gay men” by making straight people think all gay men are fem … so they resent fem gays to one degree or other (whether they are over the top about it or not).
Fact is, some gay men are fem. It’s “normal” for them, just as acting straight is “normal” for other gay men. It’s distressing to see attacks on gay men from other gay men just because they are fem. It very much resembles the attacks on fem gays by straight men, and I think it reflects a misunderstanding that no matter how straight-acting you are, straight people do not think, generally, that loving other men is straight-acting, so you’re really just as much of a fag as the fem gay is, at the end of the day.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The key problem, Novaseeker and Xeno, is in this statement here (emphasis mine):
Yes it’s true that some are over the top with hysterics, but a great deal of them are decent caring people.
Then put some effort into confronting the people who are being unnecessarily hysterical.
The biggest single problem that the gay community has is the same as the one Europe has with Muslim extremists; we say and do nothing when people do things that are patently wrong in the name of “tolerance”.
As I pointed out above, the mentality in the gay community is such that gays can be having sex in public places and people are scared to do anything about it because they don’t want to be seen as “mean” or “judgmental” or “sex-negative”.
If you could spend half the time criticizing people who do socially-unacceptable things in the name of being gay that you do criticizing James, who advocates that gays do socially-acceptable things, then we would have progress.
But as it stands, the gay community is very much like a spoiled adolescent with overindulgent parents; gays say and do anything they want, and other gays clean up their messes, cover up their problems, and blame “society” for causing them.
posted by James on
Being “fem” has nothing, not one little thing, to do with being gay. There are straight “fems” (Neil Sedaka, David Bowie, David Spade, et. al.) and gay “fems.” Some fems happen to be gay, but it is not any more a characteristic of being gay than being blonde is a characteristic of being gay. Yes, I’m tired of the idea that “fem is gay.”
The “fem” agenda–that is, the desire for gender-bending, shocking behavior, has nothing to do with two guys who want to get married, and I wish the two were more separate in peoples’ minds.
I don’t have to like fems, gay or straight, any more than you have to like Christians or James Blunt fans or whatever. I wish them all the best, but I have freedom of association, and I really don’t like being around fems, gay or straight, and I don’t have to.
Whether or not I like fems, gay or straight, has nothing to do with whether I’m a gay man who wants the right to marry.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
David Bowie is a “straight fem”? HAHAHAHAHA! Good one James, thanks for the laugh!
Nice deflection on the quote from Samuel ND30, bravo. And although you were trying to be a negative little brat by comparing me to Oscar Wilde, the comparison is very much appreciated…if only I could be MORE like dear departed Oscar Wilde (who was married with children, by the way…just like our Gay Forefathers King David and Jonathan)!
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
At January 10, 2007, 3:34am Northdallass said “One person murdering another is not justifiable…the fact that someone may be sorry for and have repented of their sins does not in any way excuse them from being held accountable for them by the legal system or from being punished by the state as a result.”.
That’s highly hypocritical of you Northdallass – you defend your god’s murder of innocents and rewarding of murderers with heaven as long as they are sorry and repent of their sins.”. Of course hypocrisy and lies are standard form for you.
posted by Novaseeker on
“The “fem” agenda–that is, the desire for gender-bending, shocking behavior, has nothing to do with two guys who want to get married, and I wish the two were more separate in peoples’ minds.”
What is this “fem” agenda? Don’t you think that there are fem gays who are not promiscuous and who also want LTRs? I know personally 2 of them who are *in* LTRs, and who clearly present gender-different, not because they have an agenda, but because they *are* somewhat gender-different.
Anyway, at least now I understand that you don’t like fems. You’re right that you have the right to not like them, but I think it’s shameful.
“the mentality in the gay community is such that gays can be having sex in public places and people are scared to do anything about it because they don’t want to be seen as “mean” or “judgmental” or “sex-negative”.”
Now, now, you’ve seen me critique promiscuity rather loudly, so don’t hang that shingle on me. What I don’t agree with are the following notions: (1) fem = promiscuous (because that’s just flat wrong, there are just as many masc promiscuous gays) and (2) fem = bad, because, to be honest, (2) reeks of the same attitude that many straight men have towards gay men in toto. (2) smacks of saying “hey, I’m not fem, so I’m a ‘good homo’ because I’m like a straight guy”, which really just legitimates the hatred of fem men by straight guys.
So yes I’m all for being against promiscuity and criticizing the leaders of the so-called “community” who advocate for marriage while at the same time wanting to debunk marriage. I’m not really quiet about that in any meaningful way (although I don’t generally think bonking someone over his head with a 2×4 is the way to change his mind about anything, to be honest). But what I don’t get, and what I find very disturbing and personally offensive (and yes, I am somewhat fem myself) is this fem-o-phobia from some of the “straight acting” gay world.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And although you were trying to be a negative little brat by comparing me to Oscar Wilde, the comparison is very much appreciated…if only I could be MORE like dear departed Oscar Wilde (who was married with children, by the way…just like our Gay Forefathers King David and Jonathan)!
I wish you could too, CP.
Unfortunately, you apparently can’t write like Wilde, nor can you apparently have lifelong and selfless friendships with another man that don’t involve sex, as was the case between David and Jonathan.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That’s highly hypocritical of you Northdallass – you defend your god’s murder of innocents and rewarding of murderers with heaven as long as they are sorry and repent of their sins.”
There’s a key difference between God and me, Randi; He’s omniscient, and I am not.
Therefore, He is a much better judge of who is innocent or guilty than am I.
Furthermore, if you think it’s so awful to forgive a murderer, you need to start writing your legislators, demanding that all murderers be imprisoned and punished for life, regardless of anything else, and not ever be eligible for parole.
Even we imperfect and fallible humans forgive. Why would God, who is both perfect and infallible, not do the same?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But what I don’t get, and what I find very disturbing and personally offensive (and yes, I am somewhat fem myself) is this fem-o-phobia from some of the “straight acting” gay world.
As I read it, Novaseeker, James does not dislike fems per se; he merely dislikes the ones who are doing so out of a need to shock and offend others.
Or, in other words, don’t try to hide and protect the hysterical ones by invoking the ones who are naturally that way.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
At January 10, 2007, 2:37pm Northdallass responded to ColoradoPatriot “Actually, I think James’s characterization was spot-on, especially given your habit of threatening to physically assault and harm anyone who disagrees with you. What’s to make us believe that you aren’t doing that in your workplace, or in your community, or anywhere else?”.
Again with the lies Northdallass. When you tried to justify slavery CP lost his temper and his encounters with just you certainly doesn’t qualify as a “habit” of threatening to assault “anyone” who disagrees with him. Of course you never let the truth get in the way of your pathetic attempts to demonize people.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “One person murdering another is not justifiable…the fact that someone may be sorry for and have repented of their sins does not in any way excuse them from being held accountable for them by the legal system or from being punished by the state as a result.”.
I pointed out his hypocrisy, he defends his god’s murder of innocents and rewarding of murderers with heaven as long as they are sorry and repent of their sins.”
Northdallass at January 10, 2007, 6:10pm responded “There’s a key difference between God and me, Randi; He’s omniscient, and I am not. Therefore, He is a much better judge of who is innocent or guilty than am I.”
The problem is Northdallass is that your god admits to ordering the murder of innocent babies:
Deuteronomy 7: 1,2,16
“When the Lord your God delivers them over to you to be destroyed, do a complete job of it – don’t make any treaties or show them mercy; utterly wipe them out.”
Its highly hypocritical of you to say murder isn’t justified and to then attempt to justify your god’s murder of innocent babies. Not to mention was that your original comment was that murder is not justfied, not that it is justfied if the person is “guilty” of some unspecified and possibly minor “crime”
posted by Novaseeker on
“As I read it, Novaseeker, James does not dislike fems per se; he merely dislikes the ones who are doing so out of a need to shock and offend others.
Or, in other words, don’t try to hide and protect the hysterical ones by invoking the ones who are naturally that way.”
Well I don’t think people should act a certain way for shock value, they should act naturally. If that’s what was being said, I agree with that. But I read James’s post much more broadly to simply say he doesn’t like fems generally, which he is entitled to do, but which also entitles me to be offended.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “As I pointed out above, the mentality in the gay community is such that gays can be having sex in public places and people are scared to do anything about it because they don’t want to be seen as “mean” or “judgmental” or “sex-negative”.”.
Enough of your wild distortions Northdallass. Sex in public places does not summarize the gay community any more than the straight community. Straight people have sex in public places and other straights are no more likely to intervene than gays in the same situation. You never miss a chance to badmouth gays while you pretend all straights are angels – it just isn’t so and if you were honest you would be condemning straights at least as much as gays.
Northdallass said “Furthermore, if you think it’s so awful to forgive a murderer, you need to start writing your legislators, demanding that all murderers be imprisoned and punished for life, regardless of anything else, and not ever be eligible for parole.”.
Where I live the punishment for murder is 25 years and there is no problem with re-offence after such sentences. I think the punishement is adequate unlike the situation with your god where after a “sorry” and repentance there is no punishment.
Northdallass said “Even we imperfect and fallible humans forgive. Why would God, who is both perfect and infallible, not do the same?”.
Well putting aside the fact that your god character is far from perfect or infallible the problem is that on one hand you say “the fact that someone may be sorry for and have repented of their sins does not in any way excuse them from being held accountable…or from being punished” and in the next breath you say its okay for your god NOT to hold them accountable or punish them if they are sorry and repent. You can’t have it both ways. Either you believe people should be held accountable and punished for crimes like murder or you don’t. Your double standard is incredibly hypocritcal. What’s justice for the justice system must also be justice for your god. You don’t get to have two different standards at two different times.
posted by Xeno on
James:
Now James, that’s hardly a reply to my entire post. You’ve only addressed the effeminate issue I’ve made. Make a better effort and reply to the rest it, then I will reply to your post. Otherwise, like the posters have already done here, I’ll just assume that you’re a troll and simply won’t read anything more from you.
Rob
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Straight people have sex in public places and other straights are no more likely to intervene than gays in the same situation.
Mhm.
Looks like straight people have no trouble intervening and having people arrested for acts of public sex, especially in front of children.
But gays won’t do that, because it’s “sex negative”.
When you tried to justify slavery CP lost his temper and his encounters with just you certainly doesn’t qualify as a “habit” of threatening to assault “anyone” who disagrees with him.
LOL…..as usual, Randi, your smears are easily dispelled by simply citing my post in question.
The problem is Northdallass is that your god admits to ordering the murder of innocent babies
Its highly hypocritical of you to say murder isn’t justified and to then attempt to justify your god’s murder of innocent babies.
Not really.
You see, since humans aren’t omniscient, they really are no authority on who or what is or isn’t innocent. That’s why murder by one human of another human is not justifiable; the death penalty is only in the context of the established power of the state.
And as for your rants about God and “innocent babies”, Randi, I put it this way; you whine about Hitler being allowed to rise to power, but had God struck him down or ordered someone to kill him as a infant, you would have whined about God ordering the killing of an “innocent baby”.
The simple fact of the matter is that God is far better informed on the issues and outcomes than we are — because he knows them all and sees them all. That’s the whole point of omniscience. That’s why He determines who does and doesn’t get into heaven and why He determines who lives and who dies. God doesn’t have to fool with sentencing standards, or courtrooms, or all the other things that we humans must do to figure out whether or not someone is guilty, not guilty, repentant, or unrepentant; He KNOWS.
You, Randi, are like the preschooler who whines and cries about how “mean” his parents are for not letting him play in the street or drink paint thinner. From the preschooler’s narrow perspective, that IS mean and unfair, since he’s being deprived of immediate pleasure and is being made to suffer. From the perspective of the parent, that’s pure love, since they are helping him avoid a painful and horrible death.
posted by James on
I don’t like fems any more than you like Christians. Why is my dislike of fems any more shameful than your dislike of Christians? (I am referring to several previous posts here, which I read as saying “It is bad, bad, mean, and hate-filled to dislike fems.”)
A large part of my coming out process has been to realize I don’t have to support everyone who wants to be part of the gay community. I have no interest in the problems of transgenders, say, than you have of illegal immigrants. Transgender is not even remotely related to gay, and I see no reason to piggy-back their agenda onto the gay community. Frankly, I am not concerned about lesbians. If there are issues we can work on together, fine, but I don’t care about those minorities anymore than you care about the persecuted Christians in Palestine.
The only part of the gay community I care about and fight for are the men who want lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships–who want the right to get married. As far as the gay community is concerned, that’s where my interest begins and ends. I then put my energy into worrying about other minorities–undocumented workers; the Sudanese people; religious persecution of any type, anywhere; those who like all 7 seasons of Buffy–those are the minorities that deserve my attention. The queer and shocking can get along without me.
posted by Xeno on
James:
I don’t like fems any more than you like Christians. Why is my dislike of fems any more shameful than your dislike of Christians? (I am referring to several previous posts here, which I read as saying “It is bad, bad, mean, and hate-filled to dislike fems.”)
Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque
Sorry James. While I may not speak for the entirety of those who post on and read Miller’s blog, I don’t dislike christians since my bf and I are Christians ourselves.
James:
A large part of my coming out process has been to realize I don’t have to support everyone who wants to be part of the gay community. I have no interest in the problems of transgenders, say, than you have of illegal immigrants. Transgender is not even remotely related to gay, and I see no reason to piggy-back their agenda onto the gay community. Frankly, I am not concerned about lesbians. If there are issues we can work on together, fine, but I don’t care about those minorities anymore than you care about the persecuted Christians in Palestine. The only part of the gay community I care about and fight for are the men who want lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships–who want the right to get married. As far as the gay community is concerned, that’s where my interest begins and ends. I then put my energy into worrying about other minorities–undocumented workers; the Sudanese people; religious persecution of any type, anywhere; those who like all 7 seasons of Buffy–those are the minorities that deserve my attention. The queer and shocking can get along without me.
The interests of the gay and transgender community is a different subject althogether than what we are currently discussing. Perhaps we may discuss that at another time, but for now I asked you what you would do to implement your solution concerning the ‘gay community,’ and the various issues surrounding it. Please stay on the subject James, I’m still waiting for a direct reply to my first post.
If you need help on html content structure, here’s a reference:
Rob
posted by Xeno on
Looks like the special characters didn’t appear properly (at least in firefox)
If you need help on html content structure, here’s a reference:
posted by James on
Well, Xeno, I do have a plan for gays:
1. Stop with the flamboyant/queer/exotic behavior. It isn’t authentic, it isn’t your true self. Your true self want to eat something and take a nap. Listen to that Inner Normal Person.
2. Join a gay-friendly church. The church community was a large part of the civil rights movement, and we can make great gains by aligning ourselves with mainline denominations.
3. Stop the rallies and Pride parades. Just stop. You know why.
4. Pursue only relationships which have the potential to be lifelong and sexually exclusive. Be better than straights if you have to. Let being gay become associated with loyalty and stability in people’s minds, just like Mormons and geese.
5. Once you have found the above lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship, make it visible. Show the world that there is an alternative to what’s going on in the gay community.
Those are my hate-filled ideas. What are yours?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallsas said “LOL…..as usual, Randi, your smears are easily dispelled by simply citing my post in question.”.
Are you high? Your cited post in no way absolves you of the lie you made earlier:
You said to ColoradoPatriot “I think James’s characterization was spot-on, especially given your habit of threatening to physically assault and harm anyone who disagrees with you.”.
You’re the only one ColoradoPatriot has threatened. Threatening one person does not in any way constitute a “habit of threatening to physically assault anyone you disagree with.” He would have to have threatened to assault several people he disagreed with for it to be a habit of threatening anyone who disagrees with him and he didn’t – your gross exageration is a lie – as per usual and you’re not man enough to admit it and repent.
Northdallas said “You see, since humans aren’t omniscient, they really are no authority on who or what is or isn’t innocent.”.
Wake up and smell the coffee you moron. Your god killed every baby in several villages! You don’t need to be omniscient to know babies cannot be guilty of anything justifying their murder! Get a grip.
Northdallass said “And as for your rants about God and “innocent babies”, Randi, I put it this way; you whine about Hitler being allowed to rise to power, but had God struck him down or ordered someone to kill him as a infant, you would have whined about God ordering the killing of an “innocent baby”.”.
Where did I “whine about Hitler rising to power? Document that you liar. What happened to your insistence that humans have free will and that sometimes the only way people learn is by having the very worst happen?!
You insisted your god gives humans free will. That being the case your god can never justify killing a baby for something he hasn’t done and he can’t know the grown baby will do. And if he does know what the baby is going to do as an adult then humans don’t have free will and your god is going to eternally torture someone for behaving exactly as your god created him to be and knows he will act. Either way your god is responsbible for evil.
If people have free will your god can’t justify killing them for something they might or might not do.
Justice means people are punished for what they have done, not what they might do. In any event, the idea that every baby in several villages is going to commit evil justifying their murder falls apart on its face.
And let’s not let you skulk away from the most important question of all. How do your reconcile your statement “the fact that someone may be sorry for and have repented of their sins does not in any way excuse them from being held accountable…or from being punished” with your statment “Even we imperfect and fallible humans forgive. Why would God, who is both perfect and infallible, not do the same?”. How do you justify saying that being sorry and repenting doesn’t excuse one from being held accountable and punished in the first instance but that it does excuse one from being held accountable and punished in the second instance?!
Its time you repent of that hypocrisy.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
James said “I don’t have to support everyone who wants to be part of the gay community. I have no interest in the problems of transgenders, say, than you have of illegal immigrants. Transgender is not even remotely related to gay, and I see no reason to piggy-back their agenda onto the gay community. Frankly, I am not concerned about lesbians. If there are issues we can work on together, fine, but I don’t care about those minorities anymore than you care about the persecuted Christians in Palestine.”
Well James for someone who claims to be a moral person your philosophy is pretty immoral. A moral person recognizes that at some point they have a concern for the well-being of ALL people. Personally I care about both lesbians and persecuted Christians in Palestine. I want to maximize the good and minimize the bad for all people in an equal fashion. That’s at the heart of morality.
I resent you equating transgendered with illegal immigrants. What lesbians and transgenders have in common with the gay commnity (fems and straight acting included) is that we are all targets of oppression as sexual minorities. We are all singled out as undesirable by large portions of heterosexual society and are united in being targets of rejection and punishment. We have common cause in fighting injustice.
James said “Stop with the flamboyant/queer/exotic behavior. It isn’t authentic, it isn’t your true self. Your true self want to eat something and take a nap. Listen to that Inner Normal Person..
That’s where you’re wrong James. Some people are authentically flamboyant, queer, exotic, or fem. They have a right to be who they are. If you don’t want to be that way then don’t, but don’t assume you have the right to tell anyone else how to live when their lives hurt no one.
James said “Join a gay-friendly church. The church community was a large part of the civil rights movement, and we can make great gains by aligning ourselves with mainline denominations”.
Join a gay friendly church? Not even at gun point. With the exception of the UCC mainline denominations are not gay friendly.
Teaching children, or even adults, that they will be eternally tortured for crossing ambiguous and contradictory boundaries is psychological abuse.
Religion is a divider, not a uniter. When we look at the conflicts around the world at the heart of them all is the division caused by religion. Higher rates of religiousity are correlated with higher levels of social dysfunction. The world needs fewer people involved in religion, not more.
posted by dalea91505 on
“Why would gays, who think marriage is a failed institution, want the right to get married?”
Because they want the benefits being handed out to those who participate. Why is this difficult to comprehend?
BTW, where does the bible order ‘monogamy’ for men? It does for women, but I can not find it for men.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Threatening one person does not in any way constitute a “habit of threatening to physically assault anyone you disagree with.
As usual, Randi shows up to make excuses for gays who threaten to physically assault others. So predictable.
You insisted your god gives humans free will. That being the case your god can never justify killing a baby for something he hasn’t done and he can’t know the grown baby will do. And if he does know what the baby is going to do as an adult then humans don’t have free will and your god is going to eternally torture someone for behaving exactly as your god created him to be and knows he will act. Either way your god is responsbible for evil.
Ah, but you see, Randi, God DOES know not only what can, but what will happen. That’s what omniscience means. The fact that God knows the outcome in advance doesn’t mean that humans don’t exercise their will freely; it simply means that there are no surprises to Him in how they exercise it. The proof of the freedom of humanity’s will lies in the fact that humans are perfectly capable of rejecting God, even if they know of the consequences.
But really, Randi, all you’re demonstrating is what I pointed out before; you whine regardless of what God does. You whine if He stops the baby from growing up to be a mass murderer because it’s “killing the innocent”. You whine if He intervenes that He’s taking away “free will”. You whine that He doesn’t prevent things that He knows will happen, and then you whine that He doesn’t know what will happen.
Justice means people are punished for what they have done, not what they might do.
I can make that argument vanish with one citation.
Basically, what it demonstrates is that gay leftists have no problem attacking and punishing people for what they might do.
And then to this:
How do your reconcile your statement “the fact that someone may be sorry for and have repented of their sins does not in any way excuse them from being held accountable…or from being punished” with your statment “Even we imperfect and fallible humans forgive. Why would God, who is both perfect and infallible, not do the same?”.
I sometimes wonder in what kind of a household you grew up, Randi. Didn’t you ever do something wrong for which you deserved punishment…..but then, when you told your parents what you did, apologized, and promised not to do it again, they didn’t punish you?
In that case, your parents had perfect right to punish you. You confessed. You for all intents and purposes admitted that you deserved to be punished. And yet they didn’t extract the pound of flesh; they forgave you.
What I find particularly ironic in your statement, Randi, is that you argue loudly that gay leftists like ColoradoPatriot and dalea should not be punished, even though they unquestionably did things that were wrong…..but then snidely call it “hypocrisy” when God mitigates or removes completely our deserved punishment. Since you claim that it is hypocritical to not punish people fully, even if they are sorry and repent, why then do you argue that dalea and ColoradoPatriot should not be punished fully for threatening to physically assault people — especially since neither of them is sorry for what they did?
And finally, I loved this:
Personally I care about both lesbians and persecuted Christians in Palestine.
Mhm. Let’s show those persecuted Christians how much you care, shall we, Randi?
The foundation of your religion highlights its psychotic evil nature. If your god want’s to ignore and excuse people’s evil actions he certainly doesn’t need to commit yet another evil act, in the killing of the innocent Jesus, to do it. The idea that your god needs to kill himself to appease himself is sheer lunacy. The fact that this supposed appeasement does nothing to prevent any future acts of evil emphasizes its pointless futility. Its the equivalent of the justice system dealing with a murderer by killing an uninvolved jew and setting the murderer free to kill again and again. Its just wrong no matter how you slice it. Unlike if I jump in front of a bullet to save my boyfriend, the death of Jesus has done nothing to prevent millenia of torture and murder of millions. There could be no more pointless act of evil.Occaisional acts that aren’t evil don’t undo those that are. If a murderer pets the occaisional dog that doesn’t make him a good person. Only an evil god would create imperfect humans knowing the vast majority of them are going to disobey his commands and then torture them for an eternity.
Add to that the innumerable times you called their Scripture “buy-bull”, referred to God as “psychotic and evil”, and claimed that the people who believed in Him were the same, and a pretty obvious picture of your “caring” emerges.
And, as this thread has shown, your hate-filled attitudes are quite common and standard among gays, Indeed, only two people have objected to your hate-flinging, and it’s me and James; everyone else has applauded or, in the name of “tolerance”, sat back and let you confirm the stereotype of gays being irrational antireligious bigots.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Because they want the benefits being handed out to those who participate. Why is this difficult to comprehend?
Because there are ways to get benefits that are included in marriage, such as powers of attorney, wills, and the like, without marriage – but gays don’t take advantage of them. Furthermore, even when marriage or domestic partnership is offered, only a scant number of gays and lesbians sign up.
Meanwhile, gays and lesbians constantly denigrate marriage as a “failing institution” and support leftist causes to eliminate it.
You’ll have to do better than that.
BTW, where does the bible order ‘monogamy’ for men?
At the point where, as I cited above, it makes clear that a man who commits adultery is to be killed; a woman has the option of just being socially stigmatized.
posted by raj on
James | January 10, 2007, 9:20am |
Why would gays, who think marriage is a failed institution, want the right to get married?
Poor, nutty James. Apparently, you did not learn the art of punctuation when you were in school. You’re misplaced comma (for the rubes, misspelling of “you’re” intentional), reminds me of the story of the panda who eats, shoots and leaves.
posted by raj on
Novaseeker | January 10, 2007, 11:27am |
I never go to gay bars downtown, I nev er go to gay clubs.
Your choice, of course. Most of our friends of my generation (the Boomers) met their partners at gay bars downtown, at gay clubs. And most of our friends are couples who have been together 20+ years. Gay bars and clubs did and still do a service: they provide a place at which gay people can meet and socialize with one another. And, if one is so inclined (as I have been), engage in aerobic activity (I hate aerobics at the gym).
There now are other venues, of course, at which gay people might meet one another, but it would be a serious mistake to denigrate the importance of gay bars and clubs for gay people.
posted by Fitz on
Xeno (said)
“which I doubt that the troll Fitz here would support you on this, since all he wants is us to be “healed” from homosexuality.”
I find it telling that people need to misrepresent my opinions in order to marginalize them. I have never said anything like this.
I am concerned, (as I have amply proved) that the main stream cultural left that included the movement for same-sex marriage, hopes to further undermine and diminish the normative force of the institution for the wider society.
This relates to Mr Rauch post inasmuch as there IS indeed a movement to curtail divorce and reform ?no-fault? laws? It simply does not get the media attention that SSM does.
Remarks initially about how such laws should not be tightened are telling?
As are remarks about how its ?all about the benefits??
Pretty shallow stuff comparatively.
Here’s a snippet from the Washington Times (Feb-1, 2004):
“In 19 surveys between 1974 and 2002, the GSS has asked a national sample of American adults: “Should divorce in this country be easier or more difficult to obtain than it is now?”
Every survey conducted shows that a majority or plurality of Americans think divorce should be made “more difficult.”
Even in the 1970s, when no-fault divorce laws were sweeping the nation, 42 percent of Americans wanted divorce to be “more difficult,” compared with 32
percent who wanted it to be “easier.”
Today, Americans are even more supportive of tougher divorce laws. In 2002, for instance, 49 percent said they wanted divorce to be “more difficult,” while 26 percent wanted it to be “easier.”
posted by James on
Here’s a way for those of you like Raj who would like me to change my beliefs–1. Simply look like Dominic Purcell or Brett Favre or Josh Turner 2. Be attracted to me. I will believe whatever you want me to believe.
My values are just a shield to prevent me from developing ties with unattractive men. From the looks of the responses to me on this board, it’s working.
posted by James on
P.S. (snap!)
posted by raj on
James | January 11, 2007, 11:01am |
Here’s a way for those of you like Raj who would like me to change my beliefs…
Poor demented James. I really don’t give a tinker’s damn or a flying f@ck whether or not you change your beliefs. What would be nice would be if you were to stop coming here bitching and moaning and diverting comment threads to tend to your obvious need for therapy of some kind or another. You need a couch. Somebody’s shoulder to cry on. Something to assuage your inability to find gay people who do not measure up to your self-imposed, supposedly-high standards.
Why don’t you just go away and cry on shoulders elsewhere? You’ve made your point here, and most commenters here don’t agree with you. You aren’t the Ruler of the Universe, so you won’t be able to make gay people, who don’t want to, kowtow to your desires, and so give it a frigging rest. Based on your outbursts here, you are someone who I would not want as a friend–you’re boring, judgemental, and someone who has no social skills. It should be obvious to anyone why you don’t have any gay friends: they don’t want you.
Now go cry by yourself, and leave the rest of us–most of whom are adults (NDXXX excepting)–alone.
If you are really on the search for gay evangelicals who are of the same mindset as you, you had an opportunity to meet up with a few a few months ago in the NYTimes article that Stevie referenced here. Have you? If you had, why aren’t you over there, chatting with those people. If you haven’t, why haven’t you? If you haven’t, that would more than suggest that you really aren’t interested in finding like-minded people: you are only interested in annoying us here.
Are you a troll? Yes, you most definitely are.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallas said “As usual, Randi shows up to make excuses for gays who threaten to physically assault others. So predictable.”. As usual Northdallass tries to cover a lie with another lie. I never made excuses for ColoradoPatriot, I merely pointed out that you lied when you said he threatens everyone he disagrees with when it was just you.
Northdallass said “God DOES know not only what can, but what will happen. That’s what omniscience means”. Trouble is Northdallass that your god is not omnisicent in the bible, In Genesus 18: 20-33 god clearly doesn’t know if the people of Sodom and Gommorah are evil. He says he’s heard and that he’s going down to find out if its true. In another part of the bible a man hides from god in the forest and god can’t find him.
Northdallass said “You whine if He stops the baby from growing up to be a mass murderer because it’s “killing the innocent”.”.
Unfortunately for you Northdallass, your god didn’t kill the baby Hitler and according to your religious philosophy all Hitler had to do was be sorry, repent of his sins, accept your god and he would be forgiven.
How do you justify demanding that the justice system hold wrongdoers responsible and punish them but you don’t demand your god do the same? That’s hypocrisy.
Deuteronomy 7 is clear, god destroyed the 7 nations to bring the Jews into that land, not to kill future mass murderers. The idea that all the babies in 7 nations were going to grow up to be mass murderers is preposterous. Joshua 22:20 is also clear. God says himself he punished an entire nation for the sins of one. God punishes the innocent. In Exodus 20: 5 god admits he punishes the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren for the sins of their father. God punishes the innocent, but not Hitler. Your god is evil.
Northdallass said “You whine if He intervenes that He’s taking away “free will”. You whine that He doesn’t prevent things that He knows will happen, and then you whine that He doesn’t know what will happen.”.
I’m not whining, I’m laughing at the paradoxes you claim to be true. If, as you say god gives people free will, he can’t kill innocent babies for things they may not do as adults If he knows they will do something then people are pre-destined, they don’t have free will. I don’t care which way you characterize it, but you can’t have it both ways.
I said “Justice means people are punished for what they have done, not what they might do.”
Northdallass replied “I can make that argument vanish with one citation. Basically, what it demonstrates is that gay leftists have no problem attacking and punishing people for what they might do.”
You must be high. That citation in no way invalidates my point, it isn’t even relevant. That poster was responding to an action already taken, not to a “might do”.
Your talk about parents not punishing their children doesn’t reconcile your statement “the fact that someone may be sorry for and have repented of their sins does not in any way excuse them from being held accountable…or from being punished” with your statment “Even we imperfect and fallible humans forgive. Why would God, who is both perfect and infallible, not do the same?”.
You can’t insist on one hand that people must be held accountable and punished, and then on the other say they don’t have to be. That’s hypocrisy and nothing new for you. Be an adult, admit you’ve been hypocritical and retract one of your statments.
Northdallass said “you argue loudly that gay leftists like ColoradoPatriot and dalea should not be punished, even though they unquestionably did things that were wrong…..but then snidely call it “hypocrisy” when God mitigates or removes completely our deserved punishment. Since you claim that it is hypocritical to not punish people fully, even if they are sorry and repent, why then do you argue that dalea and ColoradoPatriot should not be punished fully for threatening to physically assault people — especially since neither of them is sorry for what they did?”.
Again you lie – where did I argue that Dalea and coloradopatriot should not be punished?! And punishment isn’t mitigated, wrongs are. If wrongs aren’t mitigated you god has no business reducing or eliminating the punhishment. Your hypocrisy is that you want to punish others but you don’t want to take responsbility for your wrongs. Like in this thread
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31136.html#commentform at December 18, 2006, 12:30pm when you lied and said I “tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives””. First let’s deal with your wrongs and then we’ll get to the others.
And finally regarding your buy-bull and evil god character. Just because I despise your religion doesn’t mean I don’t care about persecuted Christians. Just because I despise the disease a person has doesn’t mean I feel the same way about the person. Christianity is like a mental illness. Its unfortunate and despicable, but we need to help the people suffering from it. And the habitual lies you made throughout this thread
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31138.html#6103
close to one hundred by my estimation, indicates an evil that lies within you. Clearly Christianity has not helped you be a decent person. Its a reasonable assumption that the evil represented in your buy-bull has infected you as well.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass was asked “BTW, where does the bible order ‘monogamy’ for men? ” and responded “At the point where, as I cited above, it makes clear that a man who commits adultery is to be killed; a woman has the option of just being socially stigmatized.”.
Many holy men throughout the bible had many many wives. The bible clearly does not mandate monogamy
posted by James on
Raj post above which suggests I go elsewhere clearly illustrates the point I’ve been trying to make: You can be just gay. You can’t just be attracted to men. In order to be “gay,” and accepted in the community, you have to believe certain things, behave a certain way, and support certain causes. I share with all of you an attraction to men–but because I don’t share your values, you want me to leave.
If you discover you are attracted to men, you are suddenly recruited into a whole bunch of causes and beliefs which have nothing to do with being attracted to men. You are expected to accept a whole mythology which has nothing to do with attraction to men. My coming out process has focused simply and purely on my attraction to men and how I want to express that in an authentic way–I reject, criticize, make fun of, loathe, reject all the other stuff the gay community wants to add to my attraction to men.
This board, as far as I know, is open to men who are attracted to other men. No other belief is required–in fact, I would suspect this site is geared toward conservative gays. I am surprised that there are so many angry leftists here. But, in any case, like it or not, we all share an attraction to men–possibly, we share an attraction to Dominic Purcell. But we don’t have to have anything else in common.
Here’s where I put on my Gwen Stefani wig and sing “You Don’t Own Me.”
posted by James on
Umm–apparently you can’t go back and edit. The first line of my last post should read “Raj’s post above. . . .you CAN’T be just gay.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
This, I have to say, Randi, was the most hilarious portion of your entire post.
Just because I despise your religion doesn’t mean I don’t care about persecuted Christians. Just because I despise the disease a person has doesn’t mean I feel the same way about the person. Christianity is like a mental illness. Its unfortunate and despicable, but we need to help the people suffering from it.
Or, as it is expressed elsewhere:
“Just because I despise their behavior doesn’t mean I don’t care about homosexuals. Just because I despise the disease that homosexuals have doesn’t mean I feel the same way about the person. Homosexuality is like a mental illness. It’s unfortunate and despicable, but we need to help the people suffering from it.”
You know, basically what they’re saying at sites that you and your fellow leftists condemn as antigay, bigoted, and hateful.
And that’s typical Randi behavior; she insists her own hateful language towards Christians and Christianity doesn’t decrease her “caring”, but derides those who use the same type of language towards gays and claim to “care” as hypocrites and liars.
I never made excuses for ColoradoPatriot,
Right. Weren’t you the one who said his actions were my fault because I provoked him? But when it comes to assaults or threats of assaults against gays, you insist that no provocation whatsoever justifies those actions.
If, as you say god gives people free will, he can’t kill innocent babies for things they may not do as adults If he knows they will do something then people are pre-destined, they don’t have free will. I don’t care which way you characterize it, but you can’t have it both ways.
What you don’t understand, Randi, is that God knows what the outcomes are; that’s the point of being omniscient. The fact that God knows what the outcome will be does not in any way impede your actions; hence, human beings have free will.
You must be high. That citation in no way invalidates my point, it isn’t even relevant. That poster was responding to an action already taken, not to a “might do”.
Ah, Randi; you’ve already admitted you don’t read my posts and links and you just make statements up based on what you think are in them, and this is quite obviously one of those cases. For example:
They will push and push and push until they get what they want, which is total demonization of gays in all venues. The religious right isn’t concerned about rights, moderation, compromise — they are only concerned with winning. Had the bus company caved on this issue, you can bet that any ads for gay people would be met with fierce objection from the religious right.
“Will” and “would be” are future tense. The poster was demanding that gay leftists take actions to eliminate Christians BEFORE they do anything because, as “we all know”, that was what they WOULD do in the future.
Read the link next time.
You can’t insist on one hand that people must be held accountable and punished, and then on the other say they don’t have to be.
Try again.
Furthermore, the fact that someone may be sorry for and have repented of their sins does not in any way excuse them from being held accountable for them by the legal system or from being punished by the state as a result.
In other words, if you murder someone, regardless of whether you’re sorry or not, the court (and God) has the full right to punish you to the fullest extent of the law. However, neither the court or God is required to punish you fully; they may use their judgment on to what degree they wish to go in punishing you.
The reason you don’t understand this, leftist Randi, is because you believe in mitigating the wrong itself, not the punishment for the wrong. For instance, you believe it is more wrong to threaten and physically assault a gay person than it is to do the same to a Christian. That’s because your moral and value system has evolved around making excuses for your hate and your inability to control yourself.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
This board, as far as I know, is open to men who are attracted to other men. No other belief is required–in fact, I would suspect this site is geared toward conservative gays. I am surprised that there are so many angry leftists here. But, in any case, like it or not, we all share an attraction to men–possibly, we share an attraction to Dominic Purcell. But we don’t have to have anything else in common.
Actually, James, the reason the leftists want you to leave is the same reason they want me to — we interrupt their daily dose of reinforcement.
You see, sites like this help people like Randi, who want to believe that their demands to have public sex wherever they want and whenever they want because they’re gay are justified because heterosexuals allegedly “don’t intervene” when other heterosexuals do it. She comes here to find like-minded leftists who support her — or people who are too frightened of being seen as “different” and ostracized by other gays to speak up about it.
The truth is very inconvenient to them. And, as both you and I have seen, they do their level best to force us out, all the way from making threats of physical assault through petty namecalling.
Simply put, differences of opinions from other gays shatter their fragile facades and force them to confront their own behavior, rather than simply using the “I’m gay” excuse to justify it.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
The difference is Northdallass, is that gays aren’t hurting anyone else just by being gay. Christians are psychologially abusing children and adults by teaching them that they will be eternally tortured for crossing ambiguous and contradictory boundaries. Christians are welcome to their religion as long as they aren’t hurting others, but the ideas at the heart of it are inherently harmful. Christians that genuinely live “Do whatever you want, but harm no one” I have no problem with, but that’s not you.
Northdallass said “Weren’t you the one who said [ColoradoPatriot’s] actions were my fault because I provoked him?”
See, now you’re back to the lying again. I never said CP’s actions were your fault, I said they were mitigated by your antagonization. There’s a huge and critical difference.
Northdallass also said “But when it comes to assaults or threats of assaults against gays, you insist that no provocation whatsoever justifies those actions.”.
Stop lying! I never said that and I certainly don’t believe it. Of course there may be provocations serious enough to merit self defense with threat of or actual physical assault.
Northdallass said “What you don’t understand, Randi, is that God knows what the outcomes are; that’s the point of being omniscient.”.
Bzzzz. Wrong answer. In the bible a man hides from god in the forest and god can’t find him. God is not omnisicient. In Genesus 18: 20-33 god clearly doesn’t know if the people of Sodom and Gommorah are evil. He says he’s heard and that he’s going down to find out if its true. He debates with Abraham what he will do IF he finds godly people. He obviously does not know what the outcomes are and is not omniscient. Besides that, omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive. If god knows everything he knows everything he’s going to do and he cannot change his mind which means he’s not omnipotent. If god is omnipotent and he can change his mind that means he does not know what he will do in the future and he cannot be omniscient. Your buybull is full of one paradox after another like that. In any event the point of you bringing this up was to say that god doesn’t punish the innocent, that he knows people will be bad in the future. That’s clearly refuted by your god’s own words. He says himself he punishes the innocent. Deuteronomy 7 is clear, god destroyed the 7 nations to bring the Jews into that land, not to kill future mass murderers. The idea that all the babies in 7 nations were going to grow up to be mass murderers is preposterous. Joshua 22:20 is also clear. God says himself he punished an entire nation for the sins of one. God punishes the innocent. In Exodus 20: 5 god admits he punishes the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren for the sins of their father. God punishes the innocent, but not Hitler. Your god is evil.
And yet another lie by Northdallass “you’ve already admitted you don’t read my posts and links and you just make statements up based on what you think are in them”. I said I don’t read all your links, I never said I don’t read your posts because I’ve read them all. And far from making statements(plural) up, I got one point wrong which, unlike you I admit to. Again you lie in the form of a gross exaggeration.
And another lie , you said “The poster was demanding that gay leftists take actions to eliminate Christians”. The post you cited said nothing of the sort. You just made that up.
You said “Furthermore, the fact that someone may be sorry for and have repented of their sins does not in any way excuse them from being held accountable…or from being punished by the state as a result.
Excuse – pardon; free from duty or obligation; not demand or require; dispense with; obtain exemption or release for.
The definitions that fit your usage show that statement to be in contradiction with this “Even we imperfect and fallible humans forgive. Why would God, who is both perfect and infallible, not do the same?”. You are a hypocrite.
And again you lie – “you believe it is more wrong to threaten and physically assault a gay person than it is to do the same to a Christian. That’s because your moral and value system has evolved around making excuses for your hate and your inability to control yourself.”
I don’t believe any such thing. And considering the huge number of lies you’ve told about me I’ve controlled myself very well. It is you has the bastardized moral and value system that results in your uncontrollably lying in post after post, thread after thread and pretending to have the moral high ground over someone like me who tells the truth. If you were at all moral you’d admit the obvious, your lies in that post and the one that started it all “she and her fellow leftists tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives”.”
How about you start at the beginning and apologize for the first lie you made about me?!
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “You see, sites like this help people like Randi, who want to believe that their demands to have public sex wherever they want and whenever they want”.
Care to post my words to prove I made such demands, Northdallass, or do you just want to shock us all by admitting the obvious – that you’ve told a real whopper of a lie this time?
See, now you’re just trying to provoke me with your lies. Of course I have never demanded to have public sex but you just don’t care what you make up, what horrid lies you tell as long as you can antagonize people. And then when you make people lose their tempers you’re supposed to be the victim.
You’re not fooling anyone, and I think you know it. You’re a psychopath. You don’t have a real sense of right and wrong, you just get a perverted thrill out of trying to hurt others. All that talk of being a Christian is just the sheerest of veneers to cover up the evil inside you – I’ve got news for you, it isn’t covering much.
posted by Jack on
I check on this page from time to time and like to read commets because its an interesting spectrum on ideas. However, I felt the need to post a comment on my own, not because of subject matter of the article, but because of the combative and downright dishonest posts of North Dallas Thirty.
In the future, I suggest you quote the person you’re debating with and support your claims with more evidence (especially in the case of your paper man style arguements. It’s too easy to “win” when you make up arguements for your oponents). Also I would advise you not to ignore the arguements from those people because they are inconvenient.
Sorry for this semi pointless post, but North Dallas, you are whats known as a “forum troll”.
posted by Xeno on
James | January 10, 2007, 9:47pm | #
Well, Xeno, I do have a plan for gays:
Wow, so you can make a direct reply.
1. Stop with the flamboyant/queer/exotic behavior. It isn’t authentic, it isn’t your true self. Your true self want to eat something and take a nap. Listen to that Inner Normal Person.
So what do you plan to make them stop? Also, do you differentiate between those that are flamboyant and those who are naturally effeminate?
Most of my gay friends are ‘normal’ by your standards and would never do things like drag or anything obscene in public, however some of them are effeminate, and most don’t go for traditional gender roles imposed by society.
2. Join a gay-friendly church. The church community was a large part of the civil rights movement, and we can make great gains by aligning ourselves with mainline denominations.
That would be great for gay Christians, but unfortunately, that isn’t an option for a lot of people. For instance, my bf’s former hometown doesn’t have an affirming church, and I’m sure a great deal of gay people in rural and southern America, whom religion might matter more to them, have the same availability problem. A lot of mainline denominations are also splitting up on the gay issue, not just the Episcopalians, but the Presbyterians, Methodists, and Lutherians as well.
And what about gay Nonchristians? Do you have alternatives for them? Also, what about gay people, including some ex-ex-gays that are completely turned off from religion due to negative experiences with churches and communities?
Still, there’s a church called Revolution that is making baby steps at repairing the damage, and healing the spiritual harm that so many Christianists have caused. I think you may like that group. Too bad they only have three churches that are far away from most gay peeps.
3. Stop the rallies and Pride parades. Just stop. You know why.
Seriously James, have you ever been to a pride event? I’ve participated in one once for the queer youth march and I can say that there are a lot of decent floats and folks that go there. It’s an event for the empowerment of the marginalized, even if it’s for one day. As for the outrageous costumes and floats, there are some since it’s partially a carnival atmosphere and unfortunately, those are the only ones they show you on TV. I simply tend to ignore them and concentrate on the best aspects of pride.
4. Pursue only relationships which have the potential to be lifelong and sexually exclusive. Be better than straights if you have to. Let being gay become associated with loyalty and stability in people’s minds, just like Mormons and geese.
A lot of gays and lesbians are already in these types of relationships. How would you encourage more to do so?
As for Mormons, the national record on antidepressant drugs is the first thing that comes into mind.
5. Once you have found the above lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship, make it visible. Show the world that there is an alternative to what’s going on in the gay community.
That’s what I’m planning now, but unfortunately when I’m holding hands in public with my bf, this is also what social conservatives mean by ‘flaunting my sexuality.’ Even if conservatives do associate being gay with loyalty and stability, which is a longshot when it comes to penetrating social conservative thick skulls, they will still have that ‘ick factor’ in them that will prevent us from being 100% integrated into “normal society.” To show you an example of what I mean, just read this captured Dear Amy story.
Those are my hate-filled ideas. What are yours?
My ideas are patially mentioned above. Personally, there’s already a trend setting of LGBT families going on and it should be encouraged. Like you’ve stated in point no. 5 they should be completely visible and open, and this is a serious weapon against the socons. However, I don’t think we should discard all elements of gay culture such as the need of gay venures, although I wish for classy ones since I don’t care for clubs with loud music that much. I’ll probably start my own in the future with my bf.
posted by Xeno on
Fitz | January 11, 2007, 9:56am | #
I find it telling that people need to misrepresent my opinions in order to marginalize them. I have never said anything like this.
You implied it when you replied James with this post:
Fitz | November 29, 2006, 2:15pm | #
Although Courage emphasizes lifelong celibacy, which is far from being realistic for every single gay and lesbian to follow such path, it has been guilty of encouraging exgay therapy.
posted by James on
Where you and I disagree, Xeno, is that what you call “elements of gay culture” to me have nothing to do with being attracted to other men. If there are men who are naturally effeminate, that has nothing to do with being gay. The outrageous costumes and floats have nothing to do with being gay. Straights are perfectly capable of being effeminate and coming up with outrageous floats.
I think we should refocus the meaning of being gay back to “men who love other men”–full stop. The mythology, the flags, the floats, the lifestyle–those are all choices. Choices have consequences. If you are willing to accept the consequence of the choice of expressing your sexuality, straight or gay, in outrageous, flamboyant ways, then go ahead. Straight men have discovered that if they are wildly flamboyant, they tend not to move up the corporate ladder or achieve status in the community. If gays continue to make that choice, then they limit options not only for themselves but for those of us who express our sexuality in traditional ways.
I don’t want to be grouped with gays who make stupid choices. I want to be around responsible, mature gays who are accountable for their actions and recognize the importance of loyalty and integrity. I want that to be the norm for gay behavior. I want people to think, “We’ve need someone for this job who is a good worker and who will get the job done–let’s find a gay man” rather than “We need a guy who can sing all the lyrics to I Will Survive.”
But the gay community has to be willing to do a little self-criticism, and I don’t think it is capable of that.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
James, a lot of gay men are naturally effimnate and very few straight men are. Those few effeminate men who claim to be straight are likely closeted gays anyway. That’s just reality and you’re going to have to accept it. Complaining about it isn’t going to change it. Effeminate men don’t have to stop being who they are just to please you. You’re entitled to live your life as you choose and that entitlement doesn’t extend to telling others who hurt no one how to live.
If you’re so concerned about the image of gays, why do you applaud Northdallas 30? Look at this vicious lie he told about me – “sites like this help people like Randi, who want to believe that their demands to have public sex wherever they want and whenever they want because they’re gay are justified”. How about while you’re criticizing bad behavior you dish out a bit to this chronic liar?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
In the future, I suggest you quote the person you’re debating with and support your claims with more evidence (especially in the case of your paper man style arguements.
Been there, done that, got yelled at for doing it — by a person who, as I pointed out, couldn’t be bothered to read their own quote and report on it accurately. The same thing happened on this thread, and also with Randi elsewhere.
I found it odd that someone like yourself who criticizes others for not sourcing their statements would make such a claim; then, however, I remembered that you seem to be commenting in support of Randi, and this is what she proudly admits when it comes to referencing or researching my posts:
I’ve read enough of your meandering irrelevant links that I’ve learned to ignore most of them.
posted by James on
I don’t care how effeminate men live their lives–I don’t want them to link being effeminate with being gay. They are not the same thing.
Being gay means being attracted to other men. It doesn’t mean anything else, or require belief in anything else, or mean you have to be supportive of anything else.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Bzzzz. Wrong answer. In the bible a man hides from god in the forest and god can’t find him. God is not omnisicient. In Genesus 18: 20-33 god clearly doesn’t know if the people of Sodom and Gommorah are evil. He says he’s heard and that he’s going down to find out if its true. He debates with Abraham what he will do IF he finds godly people. He obviously does not know what the outcomes are and is not omniscient.
In all of those instances you mention, God is interacting with people. He is giving them the opportunity to speak up, to acknowledge their concerns, to think through what is taking place, and to get an insight into His thought process. For Adam, God gave him the chance to admit his sin; instead, though, he did as you do and blamed someone else. For Abraham, God showed that He would spare Sodom and Gomorrah even for as few as ten righteous people; what Abraham and the rest of the world saw is what God already knew, that there weren’t ten righteous people in the city.
What you are arguing is that, to use an earthly example, a teacher who walks through a word problem with their students, asking the students to think through and provide the next step to solving it and to the answer, doesn’t know either how to solve the problem or what the answer is. The fact of the matter is that the teacher does know; s/he is leading the student through the process and letting them find the answer because that’s how they learn.
What you display, though, Randi, is a simple truth; if you want to hate God, you’ll find reasons to do it, rational or not. You’ve already admitted that you ignore passages in the Bible that put God in a positive light and focus only on the ones that you think portray Him negatively. You deliberately ignore and avoid anything that does not fit your preconceived notions.
I never said CP’s actions were your fault, I said they were mitigated by your antagonization. There’s a huge and critical difference.
Or, in other words, CP would never have attacked me if I hadn’t antagonized him; therefore, it’s my fault.
I’ll be interested to see how you get out of this one; my money’s on you claiming that you were wrong, that it was my fault, rather than admitting that CP can’t control himself and made a stupid decision.
Excuse – pardon; free from duty or obligation; not demand or require; dispense with; obtain exemption or release for.
The definitions that fit your usage show that statement to be in contradiction with this “Even we imperfect and fallible humans forgive. Why would God, who is both perfect and infallible, not do the same?”.
Read the definitions of “forgive”:
1. to grant pardon for or remission of (an offense, debt, etc.); absolve.
2. to give up all claim on account of; remit (a debt, obligation, etc.).
3. to grant pardon to (a person).
4. to cease to feel resentment against: to forgive one’s enemies.
5. to cancel an indebtedness or liability of: to forgive the interest owed on a loan.
?verb (used without object)
6. to pardon an offense or an offender.
The actions of the individual do not by themselves cancel out the liability. The one who judges — in this case, God — forgives the “debt” required as the result of one’s sinful actions.
Again, Randi, you don’t understand this because you try to minimize the wrong, rather than admitting the wrong and allowing the judge to determine the punishment. You argue that dalea and ColoradoPatriot threatening to physically assault people should be considered a lesser crime because they were “provoked”. However, you would never allow the same defense for a gay to be threatened because they provoked someone else.
Care to post my words to prove I made such demands, Northdallass, or do you just want to shock us all by admitting the obvious – that you’ve told a real whopper of a lie this time?
Right here.
When I pointed out the tendency of gay leftists to demand the “right” to have sex in public places and call people who oppose that “sex-negative”, you replied with this defensive statement, trying to point the finger at heterosexuals to legitimize gays’ demand to have sex in public places without penalty:
Sex in public places does not summarize the gay community any more than the straight community. Straight people have sex in public places and other straights are no more likely to intervene than gays in the same situation.
Then I posted this link which demonstrates that straights not only intervened, but were more than willing to condemn and have arrested straights who engaged in public sex.
And then you ran and hid and tried to ignore it — because you know damn well that gays would never do the same for a gay person having public sex in front of children. That would ruin every single Pride parade on the planet.
You don’t have a real sense of right and wrong, you just get a perverted thrill out of trying to hurt others.
Actually, I have been more than willing to stick up for people who I think have been wronged, even if I dislike them immensely or they don’t reciprocate.
But again, Randi, I don’t expect you to actually read those links; one, you wouldn’t go looking for information that contradicted your beliefs, and two, you don’t read my links anyway.
posted by dalea on
When my life partner entered his last years of life, we had all the proxies, rights and powers of attorney that were available. We had everything that could be gotten.
All of which was worth jackshit when there were problems. These do not work; they are useless. Particularly as an alternative to marriage.
Why do you ignore the extensive documentation of the failure of these alternatives during the AIDS epidemic? AFAIK all gay men are familiar with the problems presented by such documents.
posted by Jack on
@North Dallas
I was not posting in support of Randi, I was posting in opposition to you. You were caught miss informing and lying several times. That it was Randi who caught you is unimportant, as I don’t know who Randi is. If you wanted a more detailed list of complaints with citation, I’m sorry to dissapoint.
I do not feel this negates my point , as any critical reader can see the venom you put into your posts. If Randi had been half as bad as you, I would have scolded and reported her to the editors, instead of you.
I also did not read every single post you have made, or everyone in which you are a subject matter. So perhaps my view is somewhat one sided. The fact remains that some of your posts (you could be completly civil in the majority of your posts for all I know) are completly out of line, and discredit you to many who simply read and don’t post often or at all (like me).
I did a once over your blog and saw what I can only assume was a list of places you’ve been banned from. If the behavior you displayed in this article is common for you, I think I can safely assume why.
But I don’t know you, nor do I intend to get to know you. If you are a decent person, I’d wish you’d let that shine through in your posts more often.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So, Jack you came in here with guns blazing, proclaiming me a “comment troll”, and making all sorts of claims about what I do and don’t do — despite the fact that you haven’t read all of my posts and you know your view is likely one-sided.
And then you ask me to “let my decency shine through in my posts more often” — right after you state that you have no intention of “getting to know me”, aka actually READING my posts.
Now what was it you previously said?
In the future, I suggest you quote the person you’re debating with and support your claims with more evidence (especially in the case of your paper man style arguements.
Ironic.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
When my life partner entered his last years of life, we had all the proxies, rights and powers of attorney that were available. We had everything that could be gotten.
All of which was worth jackshit when there were problems. These do not work; they are useless. Particularly as an alternative to marriage.
Really? Go into detail; tell us why all of these instruments were “worth jackshit”. Show us how these properly-executed, legally-signed document were failures, and which legal motions you filed and lost to carry them out. Share with us your detailed and outlined wisdom of why they failed.
Or just go off about how “insensitive” I am to ask such questions. Invariably that’s what happens when someone doesn’t fold and shut up when people start telling their deliberately-vague “poor widow” stories.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “…CP can’t control himself and made a stupid decision.”
I certainly did NOT make a stupid decision and I stand by EVERYTHING I wrote. You slandered me and lied about me and I responded by saying that IF (that “if” is very important to this discussion, although your lack of reading comprehension skills does offer some sort of excuse for your inablility to grasp EASY ideas) you were to try that stunt in PUBLIC you and I would have issues…it really stretches the definition of “threat” for you to be playing the victim over such a minor point for so long instead of simply changing your lying ways. I stand by what I said because I’m a man and, as such, I have dignity and demand respect (even from scummy little twits like you). You have wronged me and continue to abuse others on this board, this is behavior that would lead to conflict in the “real world.” Since this entire discussion is not “real world,” you are safe behind the anonymity your keyboard. It is sad that you are so blinded by your hate for your fellow gay brothers that you resort to baseless accusations and lies. You need to step up and assume responsibility for your boorish and atrocious behaviour on these boards. For someone so gung-ho on personal responsibility you sure don’t seem too hip on practicing what you preach. Grow up.
posted by raj on
James | January 11, 2007, 4:25pm |
Raj post above which suggests I go elsewhere clearly illustrates the point I’ve been trying to make: You can’t (corrected) be just gay. You can’t just be attracted to men. In order to be “gay,” and accepted in the community, you have to believe certain things, behave a certain way, and support certain causes. I share with all of you an attraction to men–but because I don’t share your values, you want me to leave.
Oh, please, give it up. Stop whining, and stop acting like a Queen of the May wannabe. And stop with this crap about “(i)n order to be “gay,” and accepted in the community, you have to believe certain things, behave a certain way, and support certain causes.” Look, and understand: if you are not accepted by other gay people who you claim to have met during your lifetime it is because they don’t like you. How much simpler can I put it? They don’t like you. What do you want to do? Try to make them like you? Quite frankly, if you were to bitch and moan in your inter-personal (face-to-face) relationships like you do here, I wouldn’t like you either, regardless of whether or not I might sympathize with your other issues. Your conduct here has been nothing more than that of an incessant whiner, and as far as I can tell that is a no-no in any social milieux.
You aren’t going to be able to make people like you who find you annoying like you, so maybe you should try to seek out people who don’t find you annoying. You had the option of linking up with the evangelical christian gay web site that was referenced here a few months ago. Have you? From your responses apparently you have not. So, why are you still here bitching and moaning about how the gay people that you have found are not to your liking, when you might be able to find gay people who are more to your liking over there? I would conclude that you are bitching and moaning here instead of enjoying yourself over there because you just want to bitch and moan here and in so doing annoy the rest of us. You’ve made your point here numerous times, it has been rebutted many times (which you in your “flat earth” guise refuse to acknowledge), and so so why don’t you just spare us here the task of scrolling through your whining and go over there?
posted by raj on
Xeno | January 11, 2007, 8:54pm |
Reading between James’s lines, I would almost be willing to bet that he hates effeminacy in part because, when he was a child, he or a classmate was ostracized, attacked or otherwise humiliated for being effeminate, for being a f@ggot, and that has left an indelible mark on him in later life. It’s not unusual. James Dobson of Focus on (some peoples’) Family was beaten up by an effeminate boy–of the same age–when he was a child, and that’s one reason why Dobson hates gay people (of course, he assumes that all effeminate boys and men are gay). Interestingly, Karl Rove (“Bush’s Brain”) hates Democrats in large part because, when he was a child, he was beaten up by a girl of the same age who was a Democrat.
Further reading between the lines, James has expressed a completely irrational need to belong. To belong to some community, apparently. But that community has to fit within his narrow circumscriptions. He apparently wants to belong to a gay community that doesn’t fit within those confines. Apparently a major part of that community disagrees with his requirements–and probably his conduct as evidenced–and rejects him. And he appears to have made little effort to search for a gay community that fits within his requirements–and will accept his conduct. So, he comes here to bitch and moan I can’t find anyone who I want to like me, who will like me.
Frankly, his bitching and moaning was cute at first, but it has gotten boring.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Thank you, CP, for demonstrating my point quite nicely.
I certainly did NOT make a stupid decision and I stand by EVERYTHING I wrote.
This is what happens when people like Randi make excuses for and spin the behavior of gays who threaten to physically assault others; said gays start to believe that it isn’t wrong to threaten others.
Raj exhibits the same enabling attitude above; instead of responding to James’s legitimate questions about the values, conduct, and morality of the gay community, he criticizes James for asking them in the first place.
posted by James on
I love the way you refer to me in second person and then go on to psychoanalyze me.
The gay community is formed by people who have trouble belonging and want to belong. Yes, oh God yes, I want to belong somewhere! So does everyone, so that is hardly a psychological leap. Why not say, “I bet he desires food and occasional nap–the poor, demented sod.”
“They don’t like” me because I don’t tolerate immature, self-destructive behavior. No one likes it when the abused child in the family starts naming the abuse and standing up for himself. Of course, you all want to maintain the dysfunctional family system and say that Daddy’s just a little sleepy and Mommy got those bruises from the car door. You want to look at the gay community and say, “No promiscuity here. No meth addicts here. No immaturity here. We’re one big happy family that loves each other very, very much–now snap the damn picture!” So, you find it annoying when someone decides to step out of the picture and start talking about the reality of what’s really going on.
Here’s my Psych 101 backatcha–you are the classic abusive enablers, and you strike out at anyone who names the abuse. You don’t have to have a degree to figure out what you’re doing–you just have to read Codependent No More to see your tactics. Well, I am Gay Community No More, and I’m glad you find me annoying, because that means I’m getting healthy.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “Thank you, CP, for demonstrating my point quite nicely.” What point are you talking about?
Once again ND30…please pay attention to detail. I said that IF (please note the meaning of the word) you were to attempt in PUBLIC (please note the meaning of the word) what you do on this board (re: lying and slandering others), THEN (please note the meaning of the word) you and I would have serious issues. To take such offense to this statement reveals you to be a very VERY silly person.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Spot-on, James.
Like I pointed out in the above article, the major concern of the gay leftists involved was whether or not they would be perceived as “sex-negative” if they acted to prevent people from having public sex and potentially exposing others to STDs.
Look at Randi. Her first reaction to that article was to blame others and claim the following:
Straight people have sex in public places and other straights are no more likely to intervene than gays in the same situation.
Of course, the facts show otherwise, but that’s not her concern; her concern is in rationalizing and avoiding, just like any other enabler.
You have to wonder why so many gays practice this — and why, when people like you and I point it out, they turn defensive and hateful, even threatening to physically assault us. Look at Jack above; as I pointed out, he admitted that he didn’t know the whole story, that his view was one-sided, but he came running in screaming about how awful of a person I was — evidently just because I dared to disagree with and confront another gay person over their bad behavior.
Even Xeno does it; when confronted with the Mormons’ record and philosophy of committed relationships, he makes snide and insulting remarks about their alleged antidepressant use — making it obvious that he believes a philosophy of committed relationships result in depression and mental illness.
You have to wonder why these people are so desperate to avoid or suppress anyone who points out the problems that people are making excuses for based on sexual orientation. I think you nailed it with this remark:
You want to look at the gay community and say, “No promiscuity here. No meth addicts here. No immaturity here. We’re one big happy family that loves each other very, very much–now snap the damn picture!”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Once again ND30…please pay attention to detail. I said that IF (please note the meaning of the word) you were to attempt in PUBLIC (please note the meaning of the word) what you do on this board (re: lying and slandering others), THEN (please note the meaning of the word) you and I would have serious issues. To take such offense to this statement reveals you to be a very VERY silly person.
So if a organized crime boss says, “IF I ever see you in PUBLIC with my daughter again, THEN I will kill you,” that doesn’t constitute a threat of violence.
I wonder how Randi will react to your current claim that you were NOT wrong and were perfectly justified in making your threats. Given her status as a classic leftist enabler, I think she will immediately agree with you and drop her previous statements that you might have been less than justified or right.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Jack said to Northdallass “In the future, I suggest you quote the person you’re debating with and support your claims with more evidence (especially in the case of your paper man style arguements.”
NorthDallass at January 11, 2007, 10:27pm
responded “Been there, done that, got yelled at for doing it — by a person who, as I pointed out, couldn’t be bothered to read their own quote and report on it accurately.”
Northdallass, that you’ve occaisionally quoted people doesn’t excuse the times you haven’t because you’ve lied!
Like in this thread:
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31136.html#commentform where at December 18, 2006, 12:30pm you lied and said I “tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives””. Or in this thread where you also lied when you said “You see, sites like this help people like Randi, who want to believe that their demands to have public sex wherever they want and whenever they want because they’re gay are justified”. You haven’t included a quote in either place because it was a lie, and I’m certainly not the only one you’ve done it too
That’s the kind of common behavior of yours Jack was referring to. You’re not fooling anyone by lying like that, you’re just making a fool of yourself.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “So if a organized crime boss says, “IF I ever see you in PUBLIC with my daughter again, THEN I will kill you,” that doesn’t constitute a threat of violence.”
Pretty lame attempt at deflection there idiot. What exactly did I threaten you with, by the way? I can assure you it has NOTHING in common with whatever your quote above was trying to get at. Please pay attention to the words I type…not the words that you make up and post here in some sort of attempt at slandering me further. Idiot.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I believe your exact words, CP, before they were erased (as Raj’s post inadvertently shows), was that we would have to “tussle”.
There’s another fine example here as well.
I’ll say this though, if I were ever to come face-to-face with you, you sniveling and lying little piece of dirt, I would make sure that you would never forget my anger at being slandered and lied about by such an insignificant turd like you.
Enjoy.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
…and what does that prove other than I don’t like you? Should we call out the Federal Marshals and have them investigate you for slander?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
In the bible a man hides from god in the forest and god cannot find him. This demonstrates god’s lack of omnisicience. In Genesus 18: 20-33 god clearly says He’s heard (which means he doesn’t know) that there is evil in Sodom and Gomorrah He says “I am going down to see whether these reports are true or not, then I will know”. He further sends angels to find out which someone who knows something wouldn’t do.
Northdallass tried to spin that with “God is interacting with people. He is giving them the opportunity to speak up, [blah, blah, blah, blah] to use an earthly example, a teacher who walks through a word problem with their students, {blah, blah, blah, blah, blah] letting them find the answer because that’s how they learn.”
Nice try Northdallass, that’s some of the worst spin I’ve ever heard. Like Abraham is having a hard time understanding that God shouldn’t kill the good with the wicked. In any event, its irrelevant to the reason why you brought up god’s supposed omnisicence in the first place. You said his omnisicience meant he wouldn’t punish the innocent but that’s contradicted by your own god’s words which you not surprisingly continue to hide from and refuse to condemn as justice demands you must. Joshua 22:20 is also. God says himself he punished an entire nation for the sins of one. God punishes the innocent. In Exodus 20: 5 god admits he punishes the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren for the sins of their father. You can’t justify those words so you try to ignore them. Deuteronomy 7 is clear, god destroyed the 7 nations to bring the Jews into that land, not to kill future mass murderers. The idea that all the babies in 7 nations were going to grow up to be mass murderers is preposterous. God punishes the innocent, but not Hitler. Your god is evil.
Northdallass lied and said I claimed ColoradoPatriot’s actions were his fault when I merely said CPs actions were mitigated by Northdallass’s antagonization.
Northdallass says “Or, in other words, CP would never have attacked me if I hadn’t antagonized him; therefore, it’s my fault.”.
Again with the lies, CP never attacked you, he threatened to tussel with you. Its quite likely that he wouldn’t have said that if you hadn’t antagonized him, but that doesn’t make his statement your fault, it mitigates it.
Northdallass said of wrongdoers “The actions of the individual do not by themselves cancel out the liability. The one who judges — in this case, God — forgives the “debt” required as the result of one’s sinful actions.
That’s laughable hypocrisy. When the justice system judges you say it must not excuse the individual from responsibility or punishement, but its okay for your god to do that. Your hypocrisy is highlighted by your comment in this thread:http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31138.html#commentform
On December 28, 2006, 4:59pm after I condemned YOUR god for wanting to overlook humanity’s evil by committing the evil act of killing the innocent Jesus, you lied by saying “according to your leftist logic, people don’t have to be sent to prison for their crimes; after all, can’t the justice system just “overlook” the sins of individuals?”. Again, you condemn the idea of the justice system overlooking the sins of individuals, but not your god overlooking the sins of the individual. You can’t spin your way out of that hypocrisy.
Northdallass said “you try to minimize the wrong, rather than admitting the wrong and allowing the judge to determine the punishment.”
Trouble is Norhtdallass, you asked me to judge them and I did and part of my judgment is that their wrong was mitigated.
Northdallass said “You argue that dalea and ColoradoPatriot threatening to physically assault people should be considered a lesser crime because they were “provoked”. However, you would never allow the same defense for a gay to be threatened because they provoked someone else.”.
Your pretend to be a mind reader but you are just a liar. I said earlier that a gay person certainly could provoke a justifiable threat or attack, it all depends on the provocation.
When I asked Northdallass to back up his claim that I demand to have public sex whenever I want and whereever I want with a quote Northdallass said “Right here” and then proceeded to give an irrelevant quote of mine where no such demand was made. My stating that straights offend with public sex as much as gays can’t be considered to be me demanding to have public sex by even the most twisted of minds! You’re not fooling anyone, that was one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen. When you say I demand to have public sex whenever I want and wherever I want you have to actually quote me saying that, or admit you lied. At least that’s what a rational decent person would do.
And as to your link that showed straights intervening to stop straight sex, so what? There are 10 times as many straights as gays and 10 times as many straight couples having public sex as there are gays. Of course you are much more likely to find an example of straights intervening in public straight sex than you are to find of gays. When you find 10 or 20 examples of straights intervening and none of gays then you might have an argument, but of course given your habitual anti-gay lies no one would believe that you hadn’t found a proportional number of examples of gays intervening anyway.
Northdallass said “Actually, I have been more than willing to stick up for people who I think have been wronged, even if I dislike them immensely or they don’t reciprocate.”.
That’s absurd, you’ve wronged me left and right, you’ve lied about me and what I’ve said again and again. You viciously made the false claim that I demand to have public sex whenever and wherever I want when I obviously have done no such thing. Far from sticking up for people who’ve been wronged, you’re the one wronging them!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Obviously, Randi, you missed this point I made above.
What you display, though, Randi, is a simple truth; if you want to hate God, you’ll find reasons to do it, rational or not. You’ve already admitted that you ignore passages in the Bible that put God in a positive light and focus only on the ones that you think portray Him negatively. You deliberately ignore and avoid anything that does not fit your preconceived notions.
And here we have another example:
And as to your link that showed straights intervening to stop straight sex, so what?
So once again, Randi ignores the evidence contrary to her beliefs and comes up with an elaborate spin to explain why it’s wrong.
And she makes her bigotry and prejudice even more obvious here:
n you find 10 or 20 examples of straights intervening and none of gays then you might have an argument, but of course given your habitual anti-gay lies no one would believe that you hadn’t found a proportional number of examples of gays intervening anyway.
So in other words, bigot Randi will never believe anything that runs contrary to her preconceived notion. Just as she wouldn’t believe that Minnesota law protects against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation even when she was shown the link, even as she wouldn’t believe that lesbian Bonnie Bleskachek was guilty of sexual harassment when shown the link, just as she won’t accept any other interpretation of the Bible other than her own based on ignoring passages that are inconvenient to her argument, and so forth.
And now she’s getting really strident because the gay she was protecting, ColoradoPatriot, says it was NOT wrong for him to threaten to physically assault me and that he WAS justified in doing it — which is contrary to what she previously claimed.
But she, being an enabler of bad gay behavior, isn’t capable of confronting him, so she turns on me and blames me for his actions.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Obviously, Randi, you missed this point I made above.
What you display, though, Randi, is a simple truth; if you want to hate God, you’ll find reasons to do it, rational or not. You’ve already admitted that you ignore passages in the Bible that put God in a positive light and focus only on the ones that you think portray Him negatively. You deliberately ignore and avoid anything that does not fit your preconceived notions.“.
By your logic we’d be misjudging Charles Manson if we overlooked the fact that he treated his mother nicely and that he didn’t kill most of the people he met. You make the unsupported claim that I misjudge your god, but you have no excuse for his punishing and killing innocents, you just want to hide from that because of course you know it can’t be justified.
Exodus 20: 5 can only be explained as evil:
“…And when I punish people for their sins, the punishment continues upon the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of those who hate me;”.
The evil of your god is undeniable in Deuteronomy 7: 1,2,16
“When the Lord your God delivers them over to you to be destroyed, do a complete job of it – don’t make any treaties or show them mercy; utterly wipe them out.”
Your god demands that harmless women, children, and babies be murdered. Your god demands that they be utterly wiped out even if they seek to make peace.
In Exodus 1,2 the actions of your god character show his despicable nature:
“Then the lord said to Moses, “Go back again and make your demand upon Pharoah, but I have hardened him and his officials so that I can do more miracles demonstrating my power. What stories you can tell your children and grandchildren about the incredible things I am doing in Egypt! Tell them what fools I made of the Egyptians and how I proved to you that I am Jehovah.” Only an evil god bends peoples minds to cause conflict for his own pleasure but fails to do so to prevent conflict. Its rather amusing that the god who supposedly loves all his children and created the Egyptians sees them as competition.
We see the same thing in Joshua 11: 20
“For the lord made the enemy kings want to fight the Israelis instead of asking for peace; so they were mercilessly killed, as the Lord commanded Moses.”. Again, its an evil god that forces people to fight so they can be killed for his pleasure. You have to ignore that because you know there is no way you can justify it.
In Joshua 22:20 god admits he punished an entire nation for the sins of one. You know you can’t justify that so you’ve got to point the finger at me and make the absurd baseless claim that I’m being irrational for saying that’s wrong.
In Exodus 12: 12 god says “For I will pass through the land of Egypt and kill all the oldest sons”. I suppose you’re going to ask us to naively believe none of those children were innocent either, that they were all going to be mass murderers just like absurdly claimed was the case in Deuteronomy 7.
And let’s not forget Psalms 33 8-22 where its clear god punishes even his loyal followers despite their following his every command.
And I loved this “So once again, Randi ignores the evidence contrary to her beliefs and comes up with an elaborate spin to explain why it’s wrong.”
Obviously when there are 10 or 20 times as many straights as gays
your 10 or 20 times more likely to come across a story of straights intervening in public straight sex than a story of gays intervening in public gay sex. Nothing elaborate about it, its simple but of course nothing’s simple enough to get through your willful blindness and bias. And talk about ignoring the evidence and elaborate spin! When your god refers to what he’s heard about evil in Sodom and Gomorrah He says “I am going down to see whether these reports are true or not, then I will know” and you come up with 2 long paragraphs of crap trying to twist that statment into his being omnisicient when he’s clearly saying HE DOESN’T KNOW.
Of course its obvious you don’t truly believe in the bible anyway. If you did you would have given all your money away to the poor as Jesus commanded. If you believed in the bible you’d be performing regular animal sacrifices as your god commands you to do in various places in the bible including Numbers 18: 17-19. Your god says that performing animal sacrifices for him is a permanent contract for all time. What part of permanent don’t you Christians understand?
And you want me to criticize Colorado Patriot for the umpteenth time for a rare atypical action but to ignore your habitual vicious lies. You really are a piece of work. You’re not in any position to be criticizng others when not only do you fail to acknowledge and repent of your own voluminous wrongs, but you keep committing them!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL…and again, the bigot works herself into a frenzy, trying to explain why she ignores passages of the Bible, as well as clear, referenceable citations that, that directly contradict her beliefs.
And amusingly, she shows her irrational beliefs right at the beginning.
By your logic we’d be misjudging Charles Manson if we overlooked the fact that he treated his mother nicely and that he didn’t kill most of the people he met.
Of course. You wouldn’t be considering all the facts in the matter otherwise.
But according to the bigot Randi, courts should ignore anything that doesn’t prove the accused guilty and focus only on those things that do.
Just as she does with the Bible, just as she does with sources that demonstrate that straight people don’t put up with public sex, and just as she does with anything else that doesn’t fit her preconceived beliefs.
And again the flailing bigot Randi attacks the person who points out the wrong, rather than dealing with the fact that ColoradoPatriot says that what he did wasn’t wrong and was thoroughly justified — which contradicts her previous statements.
Come, leftist Randi, say for once and for all that ColoradoPatriot was NOT wrong, that his actions WERE justified. You know you want to, and no one’s going to mind that it’s totally hypocritical.
posted by James on
Just to make a point here in the religious argument–I don’t worship the Bible, I worship Jesus. The Bible is a collection of books which witness to certain people’s experience of God. They saw God through a glass darkly, as all of us do. I want to understand their experience, and by doing so, understand my experience better, but I don’t worship their words. Frequently, their understanding of God is wrong.
I worship the Word of God make flesh in Jesus. He is the perfect expression of who God is. I trust that those who knew Him best were careful when writing their accounts of Him and their experiences with Him, but I also accept that, like all lovers, they speak with metaphor and hyperbole about the One they love. Their job is not to get me to worship their words, but to get me to see and experience the Word.
Once I have met the living Jesus, I have a relationship which goes beyond words. The documents of the New Testament, the sacraments, and the community of saints–living and dead–help me grow in my relationship with the living Jesus, but, ultimately, I have no other teacher than the Christ.
A lot of your problems, Randi, would be solved if you’d sit down and have an open-minded discussion with any Episcopal priest, or any mainline minister. You say that I cariacature gays and should meet more–same to you about Christians. Until you’ve met some more, or at least read Brian McClaren or Marcus Borg, you really don’t know what you’re talking about, any more than I know what I’m talking about when I describe the gay community.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said”..and again, the bigot works herself into a frenzy, trying to explain why she ignores passages of the Bible, as well as clear, referenceable citations that, that directly contradict her beliefs.”
That’s pretty funny Northdallass. You’re quite the hypocrite – its you that ignored the 7 passages I cited at January 12, 2007, 4:37pm and you didn’t make any “clear, referenceable citations” that contradict those passages and the conclusions a rational person must draw from them either. Obviously you’re giving up trying to defend your god. Its not surprising you don’t want to try to justify your god’s demonstrated evil – how could you?
Northdallass said “But according to the bigot Randi, courts should ignore anything that doesn’t prove the accused guilty and focus only on those things that do.”.
Well, I’m no expert on trials, but it seems to me that the courts should ignore anything that doesn’t either prove the accused innocent or guilty. The fact that Charles Manson was nice to his mother or petted dogs is irrelevant to whether or not he was responsible for the murders he was on trial for. Just like any acts of niceness by your god don’t absolve him of guilt for punishing and killing the innocent and forcing humans into conflict and death for his own pleasure.
Northdallass said “And again the flailing bigot Randi attacks the person who points out the wrong, rather than dealing with the fact that ColoradoPatriot says that what he did wasn’t wrong and was thoroughly justified — which contradicts her previous statement.”
You call me a flailing bigot and then criticize me for attacking the person. That’s rich. And pointing out that you tell vicious lies over and over, that’s “attacking” you, eh? You lie and say I demand to have public sex whenever and wherever I want and I’m attacking you?!
You lie and say I “tear down normal and married couples as “stepford wives”” and I’m attacking you?!
You lie about what I’ve said roughly 100 times and I’m attacking you?!
Why would I reward you by helping you draw attention away from your own crimes by pointing the finger at others? You’re a habitual unrepentent liar, that’s just a well documented fact. And that you continue to lie and antagonize and provoke makes your actions much more serious than anyone else’s. The sad part is that you apparently think you’re fooling somone into believing you’re in a postition to criticize the morality of others. Right and wrong are obviously concepts you don’t really understand or internalize. Morality is subjective to you. Lying is wrong when others do it, but not when you do it. I pity the people that have to deal with you in day to day life.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Well, James, that was a much more useful and decent response than anything I’ve gotten out of Northdallas.
You said “A lot of your problems, Randi, would be solved if you’d sit down and have an open-minded discussion with any Episcopal priest, or any mainline minister.”
That’s very interesting James, what do you think are my problems?
You said “You say that I cariacature gays and should meet more–same to you about Christians. Until you’ve met some more, or at least read Brian McClaren or Marcus Borg, you really don’t know what you’re talking about, any more than I know what I’m talking about when I describe the gay community.”.
But James, you insisted you know LOTS of gays and that you definitely know what you’re talking about when it comes to the gay community. Now you say you don’t really know what you’re talking about when it comes to the gay community – I’m confused, are you recanting your claims to know all about many gays and the gay community?
If it makes you feel better James, some Christians I’ve known I liked very much. In fact two of them, one man and one woman I loved very deeply. I wanted very much to have permanent relationships with them, alas, one was married and the other was conflicted over my bisexuality and disbelief in god.
They were wonderful people, though. And my sister was a nasty person when I was growing up. She got religion in her 20’s and it was a night and day difference. Clearly she was a better person for it.
And how about you James, if you want to impress us with your morality how about you tell Northdallas 30 that he was wrong to say I demand to have public sex whenever and wherever I want. That was an outrageous lie and I’m deeply offended. I would think you should have no problem pointing out the wrong in that.
posted by dalea on
Well, towards the end my partner agreed very reluctantly to an operation for a feeding tube. I had committed to supporting anything he choose, so went along. That’s what couples do, IMHO.
So, he had the operation. Which was a disaster. He ended up on a nearly lethel morphine drip, totally out of this plane of existence. The surgeon proposed another surgery to solve the problems. I wanted to hold off, to let him regain strength and get off the opiates before proceeding. Surgeon went ahead and operated, without telling me.
Went to the surgeon, he said ‘sue me’. I then went to the hospital board and laid my case before them. The board said only a family member could stop this course of action. And that was not me. They refused to accept the rights given me. Next stop, my lawyer. He looked into, talked to the surgeon and hospital. Told me it was useless.
The only way to prevail would be to go into court, which would take months. Which we didn’t have. The doctor had committed to resisting each and every suit. And had dragged the hospital along with him. So, there was no realistic way I could enforce my rights.
In the last three months of life, my partner had at least 6 surgeries if not 8. I lost track. He was under constant very heavy sedation. The bill was over half a million dollars. Then when there was nothing left, the doctor dumped him on me and a hospice. Whose good christian employees refused to provide any services.
He had decided that the feeding tube would be the last heroic measure. After that he wanted to live as best he could out of pain, with a clear mind. Because I was not a spouse in the legal sense I could not do what he had had me promise him.
Now I realize that as a christian NDXXX will find this laughable, a source of humor and amusment. But perhaps there are decent people here. Do any lawyers find this scenario familiar?
Stories of this type are all over the place. They have been a central theme in gay discourse for years. How can anyone who claims to be a gay man like NDXXX not be familiar with them?
I have known many, far too many, gay spouses who went through this same ordeal. With all proxies, powers etc. Just imagine watching your loved one die, and then not be allowed to give him the funeral he had wanted. Or be barred from his hospital room. On and on. James also seems not to be aware of how this suffering has shaped the gay world. Which makes me wonder how they can claim to be gay men. Our art and literature overflow with narratives on this theme.
And they don’t know anything about it. Not one glimmering. All they ‘know’ is how embarassing it is to see drag queens and leather numbers in public. The support I had through this ordeal came from drag queens, leather numbers, Unitarians, Quakers and straight atheists. Not from those whom we are seeing held up as exemplars.
Anyway, now you know why I want to vomit when I hear the word ‘jesus’. And why many other gay men do also.
posted by James on
I don’t want to minimize your suffering, Dalea. I’m taking care of my elderly mother, and even with the legal rights, it’s very difficult. I, too, had to fight to get her therapy, etc. She’s doing well now, but doctors don’t care–why should they care about the life of an 80-year-old woman? My point–and here is where I am being insensitive–is that my Mom wants to live just as much as your partner, but she’s considered worthless because of her age. We all have our problems, Jack.
When was the last time you fought for eldercare rights?
And then there is the plight of undocumented immigrants–people want to refuse them health care because they are here illegally. I don’t see any Rainbow flags at their rallies.
And then there are the Sudanese refugees, the Palestinian Christians, etc., etc. My point is that gays tend to be pretty narcissistic about their sufferings and their victimization. Perhaps people would be more sensitive to our issues if we ever marched for anyone else other than ourselves. Have you thought about attending a pro-life rally in support of the unborn? Someday, those unborn will be tested for homosexuality and the “gay gene”, and then, suddenly, you’ll be against abortion–but not until it affects you will anybody but those you selectively define as victims be of interest to you.
And maybe, just maybe, in those rallies for immigrants, or the elderly, or the unborn, or the refugees, you might find people who will then help you when you need a rally for someone you love.
Honestly, Randi, I don’t read all the way through the posts where you and ND30 argue. You’re on your own in that one.
posted by Xeno on
Even Xeno does it; when confronted with the Mormons’ record and philosophy of committed relationships, he makes snide and insulting remarks about their alleged antidepressant use — making it obvious that he believes a philosophy of committed relationships result in depression and mental illness.
If I remember corrently. I’ve met you on discussanything.com 3 years ago, and you’re still that antigay snivelling piece of shit.
Even if it isn’t you, how dare you put such words in my mouth when you don’t even know me!? I am in a committed relationship, and so is randi and raj you fucking prick! You backfired on this one, and Randy caught you lying several times! Why do you keep provoking everyone posting here and on gaypatriot.org when everybody here knows you’re a fucking fraud!?
Sadly, even Bobby and James make more sense than you’ll ever do. At least they have good intentions; you’re just shit a on a stick! Keep your fucking grotesque egoism, your fucking 2-bit neurons, and believe that the rest here are turning the clock back and that you’re the only one right and mighty about everything in the universe. It’s no wonder why I magine you as that fat bastard Jerry Fallwell lazily holding his hand forward in protest while chuckling like an idiot.
RANDI, COLORADO PATRIOT, RAJ, JACK, CESQUA, REGAN DUCASSE (God Bless your soul Regan, you’re the most wonderful person I’ve seen posting on the Independent Gay Forum and XGW, and not just because you’re heterosexual and full of passion), and you too JAMES (even though we disagree on certain issues), ignore what this PRICK has to say. His words are irrelevant and downright destructive. Even a human being can admit his errors. Don’t waste your time with him.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If I remember corrently. I’ve met you on discussanything.com 3 years ago, and you’re still that antigay snivelling piece of shit.
You don’t remember correctly. I’ve never been to that particular website in my life.
Even if it isn’t you, how dare you put such words in my mouth when you don’t even know me!?
I CAN read, ,than you very much — such as when James pointed out that Mormons exemplify loyalty and stability in committed relationships and you replied:
As for Mormons, the national record on antidepressant drugs is the first thing that comes into mind.
Your temper tantrum over being held accountable for making that statement is no one’s fault but your own. And it’s not dissimilar; I saw the same thing from Randi when she got caught defending threats of physical abuse against a Christian bus driver for exercising her legally-protected rights, or when she claimed above that straights would not intervene with straight people having public sex, and from Raj when he got called out for his claim that people are less free in the United States than they are in China.
At least they have good intentions; you’re just shit a on a stick! Keep your fucking grotesque egoism, your fucking 2-bit neurons, and believe that the rest here are turning the clock back and that you’re the only one right and mighty about everything in the universe.
“Good intentions”, eh?
Tell me; when Randi goes out publicly and, as I cited above, claims that God is evil, the Bible is crap, Christians are fools, etc., and she knows this because she’s gay, how exactly is this helping us?
Or when gays like Randi insist that public sex should be overlooked because straight people wouldn’t intervene either, what impression does that give of gays?
Or when someone like Raj says that the United States is evil and repressive and people are more free in China, how do you think people view gays then?
What you are, Xeno, as James pointed out above, is an enabler. For some odd reason, you feel it necessary to put up and defend this sort of thing from people — even indulging in it yourself — because they’re gay.
Now, while you continue to sit here and complain about how awful I am, I am off to my committee meeting. We have volunteer training for two hours this morning, followed by interviews and orientation for additional support persons, all of which are required when you are a) counseling gay people in financial need and b) helping gay people navigate through the human resource issues that often come up with HIV and other issues, including health care proxies, financial powers of attorney, accessing state and private benefits, managing their money, and updating their job skills for re-integration into the workplace. I will be there all day, gratis, and then will come home, shower, get dressed, and head to a party being thrown as a thank-you to some of our donors and as a get-to-know-us opportunity for others. And unfortunately, since some of them are Mormon, some of them are Christian, and the vast majority are straight, I don’t think I will be regaling them with yours, dalea’s, and Randi’s attitudes expressed here as what gay people think.
Now, I’m not naive enough to expect you’re going to believe that, because you’ve made it obvious you don’t trust me, you dislike me, and you think I’m a liar. And that’s your right.
But it’s not the reality.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “you think I’m a liar. And that’s your right. But it’s not the reality.”.
And even that was a lie. Your lies are blatant, obvious and well documented. You said “sites like this help people like Randi, who want to believe that their demands to have public sex wherever they want and whenever they want because they’re gay are justified”. I made no such demands and when Jack asked you to document such outrageous claims you attacked him for it.
And you lied again several times in your last post. I didn’t defend suggestions that the christian bus driver be abused, I said the wrong was mitigated by the bus drivers hateful actions. I didn’t claim that straights would not intervene with straight people having public sex, I said they were no more likely to than gays. I didn’t claim that because I’m gay I know your god is evil and the buy-bull is crap, I know it because of the words in your buy-bull itself. Words you cannot defend as I pointed out in my post at January 12, 2007, 4:37pm. Your god’s and buy-bulls own words are indefensible and you know it, that’s why even your running at the mouth blowhard self doesn’t even try to defend them anymore.
And then for good measure you lied againn by saying “gays like Randi insist that public sex should be overlooked because straight people wouldn’t intervene either”. I never said any such thing, you just make stuff up and then you try to say there’s no truth to the idea that your a liar! And I haven’t even touched on the lies you’ve told about all the others. You’re a despicable lying sack of crap. And the centerpiece of your despicable hateful actions has to be your mocking the horrible pain Dalea went through with his spouse. How incredibly heartless and evil. You do that and think anyone is going to think you have any sort of morality, your delusions know no boundaries.
Given your huge volume of well documented lies why should anyone believe a word of what you claim to be volunteering for?! Frankly I don’t and I doubt anyone else does either.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Xeno said “RANDI, COLORADO PATRIOT, RAJ, JACK, CESQUA, REGAN DUCASSE (God Bless your soul Regan, you’re the most wonderful person I’ve seen posting on the Independent Gay Forum and XGW, and not just because you’re heterosexual and full of passion), and you too JAMES (even though we disagree on certain issues), ignore what this PRICK has to say. His words are irrelevant and downright destructive. Even a human being can admit his errors. Don’t waste your time with him.”.
Well, I have given that a lot of thought, Xeno and I can certainly see where you’re comming from. However, I feel that if I don’t expose Northdallass’s lies and challenge his hateful bigotry then I just abandon the stage to let him make hateful lying speeches unopposed. As you say his words are downright destructive and I think good people owe it to the world to make his lying ways obvious to all. I think its very helpful that you document how he’s lied about you just as I document how he’s lied about me and hopefull everyone else does the same. When all his lies are challenged he has no opportunity for false credibility when he tries to destroy the gay community.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Dalea, my heart is heavy and I feel sickened at hearing the horrible story of your experience with your partner’s last days. You’re a wonderful person to have stayed by his side and have done your best to care for him in the way he asked despite overwhelming odds. I am disgusted that Northdallass would mock your pain and while he loves to negatively portray gay relationships he has no excuse for failing to praise and uphold yours as a shining example of dedicated love.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
James said “Honestly, Randi, I don’t read all the way through the posts where you and ND30 argue. You’re on your own in that one”.
Well, James you don’t have to read through them all to see he’s a habitual liar. I can’t imagine you are unaware of that and if you want to portray yourself as a moral person its up to you to point out and condemn his lying ways.
He said I demanded public sex whenever and wherever I want. You don’t need to have read all our posts to ask him to either document that or admit he lied.
posted by James on
Well, Randi, I guess that watching your mother have two strokes and suffer from dementia with the fear of death looming every day isn’t as heart-rending or important as someone dying of AIDS. Yes, Dalea’s story is tragic. Boy, I wish my life had all that drama, but like many Americans, I simply have to do my best to fight my way through a corrupt and uncaring system to help an older person have a good old age. But, of course, old people are wrinkled and ugly, so gays aren’t interested in their suffering.
It’s obviously more important to you to bait me into participating in an argument which I don’t care about than offer the sort of words of support you gave to Dalea. Which just shows how gays really don’t care about people’s problems unless somebody in the story is wearing a wig and singing I Will Survive.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Yes, James, I’m sorry I overlooked your suffering and pain and love and sacrifice. I didn’t mean to ignore the difficulties you face. I know its terribly hard and it seems crazy that these things should happen to someone we’ve known as vibrant, loving and enjoying life. My father died a few years back and it still seems like insanity that he should be gone. My mother is also in her 80’s and has had a stroke and is not the same person she used to be.
Dalea wasn’t wearing a wig or singing I will survive. While part of the reason I focused on Dalea’s tragedy and not yours was partisanship, it was just as much to do with Northdallas mocking Dalea’s hardship. Yours is no less an example of shining dedicated love.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And the centerpiece of your despicable hateful actions has to be your mocking the horrible pain Dalea went through with his spouse. How incredibly heartless and evil. You do that and think anyone is going to think you have any sort of morality, your delusions know no boundaries.
My concern for dalea’s situation, Randi, is twofold: I want to know why it happened, and thus what is the best and most immediate way in which we can prevent it from happening again?
And the reason why I challenged the details involved is best explained by this article discussing a good example — the 9/11 Victims’ Compensation Fund (emphasis mine).
But implementing regulations prepared by special master Kenneth Fienberg, whom President Bush named to run the program, called for leaving the decision on who was eligible for relief to the probate laws of the individual states where the victims lived.
That policy meant that same-sex partners would likely be shut out of the program in nearly all states unless the couples had wills that designated the surviving partner the beneficiary of the deceased person?s estate.
Pizer of Lambda Legal said her group knows of cases where some of the 22 known surviving gay partners worked amicably with blood relatives of the deceased person and obtained a share of the compensation allocation. Feinberg said the average disbursement came to more than $2 million for the estate of each person killed in the 9/11 attacks.
In other cases, Pizer said, parents and siblings prevented a same-sex partner from receiving any compensation. In such cases, the same-sex partners did not have a bill or other legal documents that legally recognized their relationships.
Gay leftists have a very bad habit, Randi, of covering up the fact that they didn’t bother to take advantage of the legal protections available to them — until it was too late. The fact is that the world’s and the government’s hands were open to those people who took the time to prepare the necessary documentation. People were not denied by the court system out of malice; they were denied out of the fact that they didn’t bother to establish a legal relationship.
But what was publicized was NOT the successful outcome for gays who had planned and taken advantage of protections that already existed, but the ones who hadn’t — and the reason is simple. Suffering people are good for publicity; contented people are not.
But straights know something that gays don’t, name that this happens all the time to straight people. Why? Because they don’t take the time to do things right, or worse, they depend on “marriage” to take care of everything — which, as the Terri Schiavo case showed, does absolutely nothing. Straights know that, if you can’t visit someone in the hospital or make decisions about their care, the odds are it’s because you don’t have a legal and signed health care proxy. They KNOW that, if you die without a will, the law sends your estate to your blood relatives.
Where gays could vastly improve our lot and place is that the needs of gay couples in terms of financial and other proxies are very similar to that which we see in James’s situation — and thus, solutions for them hold much greater public support. In fact, just this past year, a reciprocal benefits bill, which would have basically streamlined the granting and establishment of such proxies for those who are unmarried, had even the support of Focus on the Family — and gay leftists shot it down.
Why? Because they thought they were going to force marriage and civil unions through — and got turned down by the voters of Colorado when they tried it, even though they lined up suffering stories like dalea’s everywhere. So now Colorado gays have nothing — because gay leftists refused the opportunity they were given to get something and instead went after something which they had no chance of getting.
But then again, why should gays support something that would immediately reduce the risk and likelihood of what happened to dalea happening to anyone else and has a good chance of passing? After all, the more gay couples that suffer, the more PR we’ll have……
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And just one more before dinner……
Your god’s and buy-bulls own words are indefensible and you know it, that’s why even your running at the mouth blowhard self doesn’t even try to defend them anymore.
Actually, the reason is that you have made it clear that you will ignore any passages from the Bible or statements about religion that don’t suit your views and only recognize ones that do.
In that case, why bother? As long as you’re honest and saying that your arguments involve ignoring parts of the evidence you don’t like, I could really care less. 🙂
Given your huge volume of well documented lies why should anyone believe a word of what you claim to be volunteering for?! Frankly I don’t and I doubt anyone else does either.
Which is why I said this, Randi:
Now, I’m not naive enough to expect you’re going to believe that, because you’ve made it obvious you don’t trust me, you dislike me, and you think I’m a liar. And that’s your right.
Again, as long as you’re honest and say that your arguments involve ignoring anything contrary to your belief about me, I could really care less. 🙂
posted by James on
Thanks, Randi. My point is that many minorities are discriminated against when seeking health care, and the troubles which face gays are faced by just about everybody.
The reason I am able to help my mother is not because I’m related, it’s because I have power of attorney–health and business. I have to produce these every time I do anything on her behalf. This was taken care of at an early stage of her problems, so everything would be in place. The health care system is difficult for everyone, not just gays.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “My concern for dalea’s situation, Randi, is twofold: I want to know why it happened, and thus what is the best and most immediate way in which we can prevent it from happening again? Blah blah blah blah…blah blah blah blah, blah and on and on.
Your “concern” with Dalea’s situation is summed up by your dismising his horrible situation as a “deliberatly vague “poor widow” story”. That shows what you’re all about – never missing an opportunity to minimize, demean and disparage gays. His story is just an excuse for you to badmouth gays and rationalize marriage inequality which you of course took the opportunity to do.
As to your post at January 13, 2007, 8:56pm:
Your suggestion that you’re not trying to defend the evil actions of your god because you I won’t listen to a sound argument is laughable. You never were trying to convince me of anything, you post to the audience – you don’t give a damn what I think. If you felt there was a convincing argument to justify your god’s punishing and killing the innocent you wouldn’t hesitate to make it for the sake of the audience. You don’t do so because you don’t have a convincing argument.
And while we’re at it, if god is omniscient then why did he test Abraham’s obedience by asking him to sacrifice his son? An omniscient god would have already known the outcome as you claim. If god is omniscient, why in Job 1: 7 did he ask Satan “Where have you come from?” and “Have you noticed my servant Job?”?. And what kind of god invites Satan to torture Job to see if he remains faithful to god? God’s supposed to already know what Job will do.
And finally, you said “Now, I’m not naive enough to expect you’re going to believe that, because you’ve made it obvious you don’t trust me, you dislike me, and you think I’m a liar. And that’s your right.
Again, as long as you’re honest and say that your arguments involve ignoring anything contrary to your belief about me, I could really care less.”
Its not a matter of “thinking” you’re a liar, we KNOW you’re a liar. You’ve demonstrated that with nauseating frequency. That hasn’t escaped any regular reader of this blog. Even James isn’t sticking up for you on that one, although he hasn’t got the integrity to condemn you for it either.
And far from my arguments involving ignoring anything contrary to my beliefs about you, if you were to go 2 or 3 posts in a row without lying and maybe actually acknowledge one of your more blatant lies, I couldn’t ignore that. But you live in a delusion. You think you can lie regularly, deny it and somehow somewhere someone’s going to believe you when you say you’re not a liar.
posted by raj on
James | January 12, 2007, 12:09pm |
I love the way you refer to me in second person…
On the rash assumption that you are referring to my comment at raj | January 12, 2007, 11:23am | (you still refuse to use time stamps to identify what you are referring to), learn how to read. I was responding to an earlier comment by Xeno. So, of course, I would refer to you, or to anyone else other than Xeno, in the second person.
and then go on to psychoanalyze me.
Yup. I’ve seen kvetches like yours many times before, and they all amounted to the same thing.
“They don’t like” me because I don’t tolerate immature, self-destructive behavior.
No, they don’t like you because, if you act in your interpersonal relationships like you do here, you are annoying. And, do you know what people do with those who they find annoying? They exclude them from their circle of friends, even their circle of acquintances. Poof! You’re Gone! What have you accomplished? Nothing except for your
From your past comments here, you have more than suggested that the flaming queens (my characterization of your comments, not yours, but close enough) who participate in gay pride parades are all on drugs. You have more than suggested that those who go to gay clubs or gay bars or who participate in circuit parties are all on drugs (other than the legal alcohol, of course). You have more than suggested (actually, you did here) that that the mere taking of drugs is, itself, self destructive. You have more than suggested that you don’t want to be associated with those f@ggots who parade around in gay pride parades and who (according to your characterization) all take drugs sufficiently to self-destruct, etc.
That’s all well and good. If you don’t want to engage in those activities, don’t. But don’t presume to annoy gay people who don’t want to be pontificated to by you with your pontifications, and not expect to have them reject you for being annoying. If an when some of those other people find that they are out of control, they will seek help themselves. Isn’t that what AlAnon tells you?
What you obviously fail to recognize (BTW, your citation of Codependent No More is quite interesting, since that is essentially an AlAnon-type self-help book) is that it isn’t so much communities (the gay community, in our case) who change behavior, it is individuals. Apparently you missed that point. The individuals themselves who have come to see the need to change their behavior. The individuals who comprise the usually small circle of friends around the individuals who persuade them to seek help. It isn’t the “greater community” that changes behavior, which is apparently what you might like to see.
On the other hand, it is the case, which you apparently wish to ignore, that the greater “gay community” has tried to change behavior. I’m not exactly sure that it has worked, but that’s another issue. Example, after it became rather obvious that there was excessive drug use at gay circuit parties, there were more than a few articles in the Advocate to that effect. The proprietors of the circuit parties (more than a few of which were supposedly for “anti-AIDS” charities) supposedly cracked down on the drug use. The result? I don’t know. Articles on the subject disappeared from the Advocate. Maybe there weren’t drug-related incidents, maybe there were.
BTW, I might be interested in knowing whether or not you can produce citations indicating that illegal drug use is any greater among gay people than among straight people. Actually, no I wouldn’t. You have made it clear that you equate gay people with gay pride parades, gay bars, gay clubs, gay drag queens, effeminate bois, and the like. You have already pre-judged gay people (not your amorphous “gay community,” gay people.
Further, were it not for the differences in writing style, I would almost be willing to bet that you are yet another alias for the notorious liar NDXXX. (Sockpuppet, anyone?) On the other hand, we at the NYTimes gay rights board have noticed that commenters there who have different handles and differerent styles actually originated from the same source.
posted by raj on
dalea | January 12, 2007, 10:40pm |
I’m going to be extraordinarily cruel here. Not towards you, but towards the doctor and the hospital, and the wackos here supporting them.
Let’s understand something. On the assumption that the events that you related occurred in the United States of (expensive medical care) America, the doctor’s and the hospitals’s only interest was in maximizing their revenue. How were they to do that? By maximizing the number of procedures they perform–doctors and hospitals get compensated by the number of procedures they perform. They get compensated from the insurance companies that way, but, if there is a deficiency in the payment from the insurance company, they go against the estate of the decedent–the estate of the corpse.
So, if the doctor and the hospital runs up hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars of bills, that might have been mitigated by the signed, supposedly legal, documents that you had, his estate would have been depleted of funds, regardless of the legal documents that you had. If you owned a house JTWROS (joint tenants with right of survivorship), the doctor and the hospital would have siezed it. If you had investments in common, the doctor and the hospital would have siezed it. Regardless of whether the decedent would have wanted the “heroic efforts” that the doctors and the hospital supposedly engaged in–heroic efforts that obviously were only intended to inflate their bills, irrespective of the wishes of the patient, and irrespective of the wishes of the patient as indicated by the person to whom he has given a health care proxy/power of attorney.
The doctor, and by extension, the hospital, says “sue me.” Well, sue them. Breach of fiduciary duty.
I have known many, far too many, gay spouses who went through this same ordeal.
Oh, you don’t know the half of it. I had believed that you had been one of the posters over on the NYTimes gay rights board, but apparently, I erred.
This is from memory. One poster from the US posted that he and his partner set up their property in JTWROS (joint tenants with right of survivorship), did all the documents, and so forth. His partner died. The partner’s family descended on their abode and, like vultures, confiscated virtually everything. That was in something like West Virginia. The courts were unavailing.
Another poster posted something similar from San Diego.
Another poster, more similar to that of DaleA, was from Canada. This was from the 1980s. The partner died of AIDS. The two had an arrangement which they would be buried together in a common plot. After the partner died, the gay man sought to retrieve the body, and he was told by the hospital that the body had already been retrieved. By the “family.” They had the body cremated, and then they flushed his ashes down the toilet because he was an abomination.
James, if you want to know why I hate self-described christians who have not engaged in an ephiphany regarding hatred, you need only look at the previous paragraph.
posted by raj on
James | January 13, 2007, 10:25pm |
Thanks, Randi. My point is that many minorities are discriminated against when seeking health care, and the troubles which face gays are faced by just about everybody.
Apparently, you really are too stupid to understand what the issue is. The issue isn’t when someone who is a minority wants to obtain access to medical care. I’m sure that Negros and Mexicans–legal or otherwise– can obtain access to medical care. That isn’t the issue.
The issue is when someone who is an unmarried or unmarriable (as in the case of a gay person) partner of someone wants to intercede in that person’s medical care. The problem that you obviously want to ignore is that same-sex partners are oftentimes excluded from the issue of their partners’ medical care.
That is the issue, and stop trying to obscure it.
posted by raj on
Xeno | January 13, 2007, 6:05am |
God Bless your soul Regan, you’re the most wonderful person I’ve seen posting on the Independent Gay Forum and XGW, and not just because you’re heterosexual and full of passion
Um, er, ah, most definitely.
Um, a little bit more.
Even if it isn’t you, how dare you put such words in my mouth when you don’t even know me!? I am in a committed relationship, and so is randi and raj you fucking prick!
I can’t speak to either you or Randi, but this crap from James has more than a bit set me off.
Oh, James, who has been unable to sustain a relationship, apparently either an opposite sex relationship or a same sex relationship. I wonder why.
James doesn’t like lil’ fem bois that he believes might reflect badly on him. James doesn’t like gay pride parades that he believes might reflect badly on him. James doesn’t like other aspects of publicized gay people that might reflect badly on him.
Let’s understand something James. It isn’t all about you, you, you. And the reason that you have been uable to sustain a same sex relationship (or, more likely, an opposite sex relationship) is that you are unable to compromise. More than a few of us who have actually been able to sustain long term relationships have done so because we have been able to compromise. My partner and I have been able to compromise regarding political/economic issues (we came from very different political/economic background, him liberal, me very republican), we have been able to compromise regarding money issues (which oftentimes destroys relationships), we have been able to compromise regarding health issues (fortunately not HIV/AIDS). We have even been able to compromise regarding housing issues (I learned early on to allow him to decorate the house–the upside is the fact that he’s pretty good at it, although a bit expensive.) I could go on and on regarding the compromises that we have made to sustain our relationship.
What have you been able to accomplish? Other than to bitch and moan and annoy people here? Absolutely NOTHING.
The point should be obvious. James is like the proverbial gay guy who, after entering into a relationship, throws the other guy out merely because he sneezes incorrectly. That is not a joke. James is set in his ways, decries the fact that other guys do not conform to his set ways, and comes here to whine. What James wants to do is to ignore the fact that relationships are compromises. James isn’t interested in compromising. He’s not worth the time.
Go away James. Cry on other peoples’ shoulders.
posted by James on
Negros?
posted by dalea on
Thank you for the many kind words of support. And NDXXX, may your name be erased from the book.
I had everything that was available including wills. And could not get any authority to accept the authority that flows from them. Your rant about responsibility is a pile of shit. You do not know what you are talking about.
Raj is correct, this is not an isolated case. Gay and lesbian couples everywhere have these same problems even with all the legal documents. I have known literally dozens of gay men who in one way or another shared my experience. What helped me was that my partner’s family was 800 miles away and too drunk to do anything. The situations are very well documented in gay literature. No one else seems to give a damn.
The story on the ashes is similar to one I personally knew about. Here the ashes came to a neutral party, a Dunkard Bretheran pastor. When he learned that the family planned the toilet disposal, he refused to give them up. Instead he held a dignified and deeply moving memorial ceremony for the guy.
With one friend, a very kind wonderful woman arranged a last minute reconicliation between K and his family. The mother and brother came into town to see K. They were very tired and asked to use K’s place to clean up and rest. She let them in and planned to meet them at the hospital later. They did not show. She went to the place and found it totally stripped of everything of value. He wasn’t even dead and the family was stealing.
Another one was at home in hospice. His family showed up and tried to take the dining room set without even saying hello. Fortunately another friend was there with a gun. She stopped them. Just what someone needs in their last hours: their family stealing.
These stories and experiences are everywhere. But apparently NDXXX does not talk to actual gay people. Or read gay literature. He just comes out and spews hate. I also notice very very few of the avowed christians here have spoken back to him.
James, again you don’t know what you are talking about. I am rapidly becoming an elderly person. And am a caregiver to someone 76 years old. Get a grip and pay attention.
posted by Xeno on
Before I offcialy begin this post, I’d like to apoligize to the readers for my outburst including North Dallas. It wasn’t civil of my part. However I’m not apologizing for my statement that you’re destructive on this blog, and that you promote nothing but disunity.
I CAN read, ,than you very much — such as when James pointed out that Mormons exemplify loyalty and stability in committed relationships and you replied:
As for Mormons, the national record on antidepressant drugs is the first thing that comes into mind.
That’s not what I exactly meant by you putting words into my mouth. What I meant is your false conclusions, when you said “making it obvious that he believes a philosophy of committed relationships result in depression and mental illness.” I’ve already stated that lifelong monogamous relationships are paramount, and that you ignore that most of your critics are in such relationships as well.
This isn’t the first time you jump to false conclusion and make berating comments about other posters on this blog.
As for the Mormon statement, those are true words. They have a culture of appearance and excessant conformity which leads to pain and depression. I find it detestable that their leaders are doing nothing to stopping it, and are indirectally encouraging it. Mind you, they’re not the only ones having the same problem, as the Haggard scandal clearly demonstrate that this culture of appearence is prevalent with judgemental evangelials.
Your temper tantrum over being held accountable for making that statement is no one’s fault but your own.
I’ve apologized for the outburst. The only error I’ve really made is that you would understand what I meant.
And it’s not dissimilar; I saw the same thing from Randi when she got caught defending threats of physical abuse against a Christian bus driver for exercising her legally-protected rights, or when she claimed above that straights would not intervene with straight people having public sex, and from Raj when he got called out for his claim that people are less free in the United States than they are in China.
Tu Quoque NDXXX. I would say that some of them have said things in bad judgement, in sheer utter contempt. As for Raj, I see him mainly as a brillant cynic and some of his messages are full of sarcasm. Anyhow that still doesn’t excuse your own negative behavriour here.
“Good intentions”, eh?
Tell me; when Randi goes out publicly and, as I cited above, claims that God is evil, the Bible is crap, Christians are fools, etc., and she knows this because she’s gay, how exactly is this helping us?
For starters you can start by understanding the main source of all this bitterness comes. Now I don’t know anything about Randi’s background, and I think it’s rather sad and don’t disagree with her words, however I understand where her utter contempt for religion and her frustration that someone claiming to follow it is making false conclusion about her. Also needless to say, you’re a mediocre apologist and obviously know nothing about metaphysics, otherwise you’d be able to confront the problem of evil with competence.
Or when gays like Randi insist that public sex should be overlooked because straight people wouldn’t intervene either, what impression does that give of gays?
Where did she stated that? I somehow doubt that Randi approves of public sex.
Or when someone like Raj says that the United States is evil and repressive and people are more free in China,
See above about my comment on cynicism.
how do you think people view gays then?
Describe ‘people’ to us North Dallas. Is it the social conservatives? Then their views haven’t changed, they’d simply gloat more, and disregard virtuous LGBT folks like they always do. Is it the intelligent moderates? They wouldn’t hold views on an entire group of people with few things in common, just because of a few radical opinions. They know there’s always bad apples in every groups.
Here’s an example, I don’t hold all gay conservatives in contempt simply because of your rants on about how the ‘gay left’ is so awful and embarassing you in front of your straight friends.
What you are, Xeno, as James pointed out above, is an enabler. For some odd reason, you feel it necessary to put up and defend this sort of thing from people — even indulging in it yourself — because they’re gay.
Again with your false conclusions North Dallas. Don’t you see that this is why you bring the worst in people? Do you see this as a badge of honor?
For the record, I never have condoned or excused public acts of debauchery, wheter it’s crusing for sex in public places, having sex in public place, or making an ass of yourself. For pride marches, I think some floats shouldn’t be there or should be more modest, and that drinking excessively in public is inappropriate. However I don’t think the enitre thing should be discarded, especially the elements of a real community coming out to celebrate one day or weekend in a year for an integral part of their lives.
Now I’ll confess that I have in past said some extraordinarily statements concerning violence that pale beyond what anyone here has ever stated. Even if the targeted people deserved worse due to their deeds, there’s no excuse for the bitterness and contempt. However, you have to get past the crap, even Jesus did this when he sat and empathised with the destitute and the condemned instead of with the judgemental religious.
Now how about you North Dallas, are you an enabler for the judgemental religious? I think most here see you as one due to your previous posts. I’m trying to think that you’re not, but you haven’t really said a single thing critical of them. Even James and Bobby, despite being nearer your line of thought, have said very few critical things about them. Nil from you though.
This is afterall the Independent Gay Forum, and most authors, like Rosendall or Jonathan Rauch, here strive to make a balance between the ‘gay left’ and apologists of opressors, by using common sense.
Now, while you continue to sit here and complain about how awful I am, I am off to my committee meeting. We have volunteer training for two hours this morning, followed by interviews and orientation for additional support persons, all of which are required when you are a) counseling gay people in financial need and b) helping gay people navigate through the human resource issues that often come up with HIV and other issues, including health care proxies, financial powers of attorney, accessing state and private benefits, managing their money, and updating their job skills for re-integration into the workplace. I will be there all day, gratis, and then will come home, shower, get dressed, and head to a party being thrown as a thank-you to some of our donors and as a get-to-know-us opportunity for others.
That’s quite generous of you, however it doesn’t give you catre blanche for writting false conclusions about other people on this blog.
And unfortunately, since some of them are Mormon, some of them are Christian, and the vast majority are straight, I don’t think I will be regaling them with yours, dalea’s, and Randi’s attitudes expressed here as what gay people think.
See above on how ‘people’ view gays.
Now, I’m not naive enough to expect you’re going to believe that, because you’ve made it obvious you don’t trust me, you dislike me, and you think I’m a liar. And that’s your right.
But it’s not the reality.
Hopefully that will be your last false conclusion North Dallas, but I somehow doubt that it will. You may have good intentions, but all you’ve shown us previously is how much of a prick you can be. Hopefully you can change that attitude, but that’s up to you.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Your “concern” with Dalea’s situation is summed up by your dismising his horrible situation as a “deliberatly vague “poor widow” story”. That shows what you’re all about – never missing an opportunity to minimize, demean and disparage gays.
Yes, because, heaven forbid, actually questioning a gay person’s account is “minimizing, demeaning, and disparaging them”.
By the way, Bonnie Bleskachek called; she wants you to go harangue the Minneapolis Fire Department for “minimizing, demeaning, and disparaging” her when they questioned her record on hirings and promotions.
For your next statement, let me add some necessary emphasis:
You never were trying to convince me of anything, you post to the audience – you don’t give a damn what I think. If you felt there was a convincing argument to justify your god’s punishing and killing the innocent you wouldn’t hesitate,/b> to make it for the sake of the audience. You don’t do so because you don’t have a convincing argument.
So meanwhile, while you’re over here, rationalizing based on several highlighted assumptions, why I’m not bothering, I will simply point to your very clear statement in which you make it obvious that you won’t bother with anything that doesn’t support your already-established belief.
And as for arguing to the audience, which is more effective; continuing to engage you when you’ve already stated you won’t listen to anything that is contrary to your prejudices, or sitting back, pointing out the fact that you have stated that you ignore anything that is contrary to your prejudices, and allowing you to make progressively-wilder statements?
And far from my arguments involving ignoring anything contrary to my beliefs about you, if you were to go 2 or 3 posts in a row without lying and maybe actually acknowledge one of your more blatant lies, I couldn’t ignore that.
Ah, Randi, you underestimate yourself. If you could make the claim that Minnesota law only “allegedly” protects on the basis of sexual orientation even after I linked to it and showed it to you, I have no doubt that you can find a lie in any post I make. After all, if you’re that good at claiming a link is a lie, why wouldn’t you be able to do the same with my words?
Now to dalea:
I had everything that was available including wills. And could not get any authority to accept the authority that flows from them. Your rant about responsibility is a pile of shit. You do not know what you are talking about.
Mhm. What does “everything” constitute? Precise details, please, including whether or not they were notarized, under which state’s laws you made them, who the lawyer who drew them up for you was, and who the doctor and hospital were whom you claim treated you so badly.
After all, it isn’t too late to file claims.
And then, finally, to this:
These stories and experiences are everywhere. But apparently NDXXX does not talk to actual gay people. Or read gay literature. He just comes out and spews hate.
Mhm.
Let’s just say I’m rather skeptical of the truthfulness of someone who says that Christians who exercise their legally-protected rights should be urinated and vomited upon by gays. Given the depth of your hatred and antireligious bigotry, it should not be considered past you to slant a story so that it lines up with your beliefs.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And now, to Xeno.
However I’m not apologizing for my statement that you’re destructive on this blog, and that you promote nothing but disunity.
That is because gays have valued “unity” above everything else for far too long, and it’s screwing us over royally.
Example:
For starters you can start by understanding the main source of all this bitterness comes. Now I don’t know anything about Randi’s background, and I think it’s rather sad and don’t disagree with her words, however I understand where her utter contempt for religion and her frustration that someone claiming to follow it is making false conclusion about her.
The key difference between you and I, Xeno, is that, while I understand her issue, her way of expressing it and how it governs her behavior is appalling — and I will tell her that.
If dalea wants to vomit and urinate on Christians who exercise their legally-protected rights, I may understand why, but I still will confront her about it.
That sort of disagreement does create disunity. But if you want people not to think of dalea and Randi’s views and actions as representative of gay people, you’d better speak up about it. You are right that Jesus empathized with the destitute and the condemned, but He also told them very clearly, “Go and sin no more”.
The failure to do that is what leads to this:
Describe ‘people’ to us North Dallas. Is it the social conservatives? Then their views haven’t changed, they’d simply gloat more, and disregard virtuous LGBT folks like they always do. Is it the intelligent moderates? They wouldn’t hold views on an entire group of people with few things in common, just because of a few radical opinions. They know there’s always bad apples in every groups.
You are rationalizing bad behavior based on assumption of what you believe others are thinking. Do you consider that valid?
Now how about you North Dallas, are you an enabler for the judgemental religious? I think most here see you as one due to your previous posts. I’m trying to think that you’re not, but you haven’t really said a single thing critical of them. Even James and Bobby, despite being nearer your line of thought, have said very few critical things about them. Nil from you though.
(shrug)You tell me.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass demeaned Dalea’s horrible story by referring to it as a “poor widow” story. He then tried to justfify that by lying and saying “Yes, because, heaven forbid, actually questioning a gay person’s account is “minimizing, demeaning, and disparaging them”.
No, questioning him would be fine but you couldn’t be satisfied with just doing that, you had to trivialize his story. Calling it a “poor widow” story was minimizing demeaning and disparaging him.
And of course you have no response to the fact that your god’s punishing and killing innocent people is not justified by acts where he did not. Its just like excusing Charles Manson for the murders he committted by saying he was nice to his mother. You’re not convincing anyone with that. You don’t attempt to defend your god’s evil because you know you can’t excuse evil acts with examples of non-evil acts. If you could, I would LOVE to hear it.
Northdallass said “Ah, Randi, you underestimate yourself. If you could make the claim that Minnesota law only “allegedly” protects on the basis of sexual orientation even after I linked to it and showed it to you, I have no doubt that you can find a lie in any post I make. After all, if you’re that good at claiming a link is a lie, why wouldn’t you be able to do the same with my words?”.
Again you lie. I never said your link to Minnesota law was a lie, I said I didn’t read it. As such it was an allegation as far as I knew. As for me being able to find a lie in any post you make, that’s your fault, not mine, you’re the one lying in virtually every post. You have yet to quote for example that I demanded to have public sex whenever and wherever I want because it was an outrageous lie typical of you. Its your own fault you’ve destroyed your credibility with habitual lies.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And, just in case anyone is wondering, here’s an example of how Randi’s claims that I lie constantly are based on her own failure to read material.
Again, the way in which gay leftists like Randi work is obvious; they can say whatever they want, even though it’s untrue, and get away with it by not checking their sources.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Yes, Northdallas, I got that ONE wrong. However, you can’t explain away where you lied in this thread http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31136.html#commentform
where at December 18, 2006, 12:30pm and said I “tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives””. Or in this thread where at January 11, 2007, 5:14pm you told the whopper and said “You see, sites like this help people like Randi, who want to believe that their demands to have public sex wherever they want and whenever they want because they’re gay are justified” or at January 11, 2007, 5:06pm where you lied and said “you believe it is more wrong to threaten and physically assault a gay person than it is to do the same to a Christian.” or at January 13, 2007, 11:27am where you lied again several times in that post – I didn’t defend suggestions that the christian bus driver be abused, I said the wrong was mitigated by the bus drivers hateful actions; I didn’t claim that straights would not intervene with straight people having public sex, I said they were no more likely to than gays; I didn’t claim that because I’m gay I know your god is evil and the buy-bull is crap, I know it because of the words in your buy-bull itself. Words you cannot defend as I pointed out in my post at January 12, 2007, 4:37pm. At January 13, 2007, 11:27am you lied and said “gays like Randi insist that public sex should be overlooked because straight people wouldn’t intervene either” – I said no such thing. At January 15, 2007, 3:22pm you lied saying “After all, if you’re that good at claiming a link [regarding Minnesota law]is a lie” – I never said it was a lie but that what you said was an allegation to me as I didn’t read the link.
I can admit where I made that ONE mistake. Now its your turn to admit where you’ve lied again and again.
posted by t. jones on
I agree completely. If you want to discuss it call me.615)496-4670