Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, makes the thinking behind the military's "don't ask, don't tell" gay ban perfectly clear:
"I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well served by saying through our policies that it's OK to be immoral in any way."
Oh, and then there's that "unit cohesion" thing, too.
But gays are much more an open part of our world then when "don't ask" was put in place by President Clinton, at the instigation not just of congressional Republicans but of Democratic bigwigs like senators Sam Nunn and Robert Byrd. This time, GOP Sen. John Warner, one of Congress' most respected authorities on military matters and a former Navy secretary, shot pack at Gen. Pace: "I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral."
In other words, the threshold of anti-gay bigotry is much lower these days, even among Republicans (see Coulter, Ann, response to), suggesting that the gay ban is unlikely to survive the post-Bush presidency, whichever party takes the White House.
How Clintonesque.
"I have heard from many of my friends in the gay community that my response yesterday to a question about homosexuality being immoral sounded evasive. My intention was to focus the conversation on the failed don't ask, don't tell policy. I should have echoed my colleague Senator John Warner's statement forcefully stating that homosexuality is not immoral because that is what I believe."-Hillary Clinton in a March 15 statement
Her initial political inclination was to try to stay to the right of Virginia's GOP senior senator, and to thereby earn her expected Human Rights Campaign endorsement without actually having to affirm the dignity of gay people.
113 Comments for “DADT Unmasked.”
posted by Greg Capaldini on
I wouldn’t even pose this as a policy or human rights issue. We don’t pay our military personnel to make moral judgments. If we did, don’t you think a lot of them would throw down their weapons once they got a taste of combat?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Greg, yes. One argues from one’s strength. There is no need to whinge, as the Brits put it, when one is holding the high cards. This idiotic policy undermines our military readiness and harms our war effort. It is old generals who find gays icky, not the young soldiers. We are going to win, it’s just a matter of when. The last thing we should do is go along with the argument that we should not push to repeal DADT during wartime — the fact that a war is going on is the best reason to repeal DADT, otherwise we shouldn’t be pushing for it at all.
posted by Carl on
I agree with you that was a very nice thing for John Warner to say (although it does make me wonder if he’s retiring). I find it sad that bigotry is so prevalent that we are very unlikely to see any major changes any time soon.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Pace has reached a point, apparently, where he can no longer respect a basic rule of military service: Park your religious, political and personal opinions at the door when you enter the service, and do your duty.
As any of you who have served in the military know, that rule is basic. Every enlisted man, every NCO and every officer is expected to observe the rule, and almost all do. Those that can’t, or won’t, are misfits, hindering unit efficiency and combat effectiveness. The service weeds them out.
I don’t suppose that anyone in the military has the balls to tell Pace to resign flat to his face. But he should. If he can’t do what every E-1 can manage, he has no business being Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
posted by Thomas Henning on
General Pace’s comments are the definiton of irony. A man who presides over a huge organization devoted to killing calls homosexual people immoral.
Clearly, if I want to love a man, I’m immoral. If I want to kill him, I’m a patriot.
posted by Alex on
It’s amazing that other industrialized nations have gay soldiers and their militaries aren’t collapsing on the front lines. Any weakness in our military is from these distracted soldiers who are more concerned with the sex life of their soldiers than their combat readiness.
“When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one.” —Leonard Malkovich
posted by Tim on
House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she was ?disappointed in the moral judgment? voiced by Pace and the military should consider changing policy on allowing gays to serve in its ranks.
?We need patriotic Americans who exist across the board in our population,? the California Democrat said. ?We don?t need a moral judgment from the chairperson of Joint Chiefs.?
posted by Tim on
Democratic Rep. Marty Meehan of Massachusetts, author of a Military Readiness Enhancement Act that would repeal the ?don?t ask, don?t tell? policy, said Tuesday that Pace should recognize the harmful effect the ban is having on the military.
posted by James on
I think it’s important to note that gay rights are advanced more quickly by men in traditional masculine roles who are doing unselfish and courageous things. I think voters are much more likely to give a heroic soldier the right to marry and adopt children than someone who waves a thong in a parade.
posted by Tim on
James, I think that’s true. I also think it’s sad. Everyone is entitled to equality.
posted by Tim on
Bigotry That Hurts Our Military by Alan Simpson.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301507.html
But he?s a RINO isn?t he. Too bad.
posted by Greg on
James says “I think voters are much more likely to give a heroic soldier the right to marry and adopt children than someone who waves a thong in a parade.”
I don’t think the voters can ‘give’ us any rights. They can choose to honor or dishonor them. My understanding of a right is that it is something that adheres to me by being a human in a human society.
I am already married. What I want is for my marriage to be treated by the governments just like my parent’s.
posted by Brian Miller on
So where’s Ms. Pelosi’s House bill repealing the (Congressionally-imposed) DADT policy, with companion legislation in the Senate?
Democrats shouldn’t be speaking about the issue at all if they’re not willing to put their money where their mouths are (especially today when DADT has less than 30% support among the general population).
Incidentally, Pace is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, a political post who serves at the President’s pleasure. He was an ardent supporter of his old boss, Donald Rumsfeld, and the disastrous war that the administration rushed us into in Iraq based on lie after lie.
So the good general lies to get the population into a war, supports activities resulting in thousands of American military and countless more Iraqi civilian deaths, and then lectures other people on “morality.” How funny.
I honestly think this administration is plumbing the depths of political satire to create a few new living punchlines.
posted by Brian Miller on
gay rights are advanced more quickly by men in traditional masculine roles who are doing unselfish and courageous things
Not by the “traditional heterosexual masculine role models” like Pace. He likely views “masculine gay men” just like every other gay man — in his mind, disease ridden, filthy fags who corrupt and destroy our military and society.
posted by Brian Miller on
Marty Meehan of Massachusetts, author of a Military Readiness Enhancement Act that would repeal the ?don?t ask, don?t tell? policy
Window-dressing. There’s no companion legislation in the Senate, which means that even if Ms. Pelosi reneged on her vow to keep DADT off the House floor, and even more unlikely it passed, it would hit a dead end.
Without companion legislation in the Senate, the bill would never go to committee and thus has zero chance of ending up on the President’s desk. A clever gambit from the Democrats to feign concern about gay issues, but unfortunately we cynical sorts are a bit older and wiser than we were in the early 1990s.
posted by dr on
“I think it’s important to note that gay rights are advanced more quickly by men in traditional masculine roles who are doing unselfish and courageous things.”
That’s why it’s so important to conservatives to keep those men and women invisible.
posted by grendel on
Brian, I can understand your scepticism, but the bill was only introduced in the House yesterday. It’s a little soon to be declaring the House bill dead. I expect legislation will be introduced in the Senate, possibly by Feingold or even Hillary herself.
And did I miss something? I don’t recall Pelosi vowing to keep the DADT issue off the floor. I do recall her saying the repeal would not be a top priority or something like that. But that’s a far cry from a vow to block any repeal. Is there a source for your claim? If so, I will humbly stand corrected.
And, before someone goes off on a rant about how I’m nothing but a hillary-loving-liberal-democrat, let me say Hillary would be about my last choice for president. Perhaps given the choice between Brownback and her I’d hold my nose and vote for her. More likely I’d vote for a third party candidate.
The democrats have much to be criticized for. But I prefer fact-based criticism to partisan hysteria. Or let me put it this way, the facts are bad enough, we don’t need to embellish them.
posted by Timothy on
Brian,
Per the Chicago Trib
The ranking Republican of the Senate Armed Services Committee sharply rebuked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Tuesday, taking issue with General Peter Pace?s view that homosexual acts are immoral.
Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), a former Secretary of the Navy, said, ?I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman?s view that homosexuality is immoral. In keeping with my longstanding respect for the Armed Services committee hearing process, I will decline to comment on the current policy until after such hearings are held.?
This suggests to me that Warner expects there to be Senate hearings.
Considering that a majority of Democrats, Republicans, Independants, church goers, any way you slice the populace is in favor of overturning DADT, there’s a pretty decent chance that it will pass.
posted by grendel on
“Considering that a majority of Democrats, Republicans, Independants, church goers, any way you slice the populace is in favor of overturning DADT, there’s a pretty decent chance that it will pass.”
I expect so too — I also expect it to vetoed.
I predict Bush will veto every single piece pro-equality legislation that crosses his desk. On a federal legislative level, nothing is going to change until there’s a new — and much less anti-gay — occupant of the Oval Office. Either that or we get veto-proof majorities in Congress.
posted by Carl on
DADT won’t pass Congress. If it does it will be vetoed.
I just read an article at Town Hall that “joked” about calling for gays to be murdered and putting up websites saying they should be murdered. It’s funny how under the guise of free speech (ask the Dixie Chicks how conservatives feel about free speech from those they don’t like), ugly rhetoric and encouraging of violence against gays is getting a foothold.
posted by grendel on
friendly bet? I say the DADT repeal passes Congress; but Bush vetoes it, and it dies.
Perhaps the only thing that could stall the passage in Congress is a republican filibuster, but I think it has the popular support to pass — besides why filibuster when you can count on the Bigot-in-Chief to veto it?
posted by James on
It’s interesting to note that I, a gay man, fully support the overthrow of DADT and fully support gay marriage and adoption rights. Yet, I am frequently excoriated on these boards. I don’t see why, after I support gays in traditional roles, I or any other gay has to support gays who choose to reinforce the queer, flamboyant, irresponsible stereotype.
In supporting the overthrow of DADT, I want the world to see that gays are men like all other men who want to live responsible, stable lives. If we can show that through visibility in the military, then that will lead to greater visibility for gays in other careers who live responsible, stable lives. And the visibility of these responsible, traditional, courageous, patriotic gays will help us all gain the right to marry and adopt children.
As long as the stereotypical images coming from the Pride parades don’t undermine this process.
posted by Tim on
flamboyant and responsible are not mutually exclusable.
James, stop playing the victim card. You get grief for expousing bigoted viewpoints and your trying to advance your anti-fem agenda.
posted by James on
It’s interesting that supporting the overthrow of DADT and supporting gay marriage and adoption rights isn’t enough. If I don’t support everything gay, all the time, I’m a bigot. You know, supporting gays in the military and gay marriage and adoption would make me “pro-gay” in most places–even liberal! But here I’m a bigot. Go figure.
posted by Tim on
Your attitude about gay men who are less than what you consider masculine makes you a bigot.
posted by Brian Miller on
Considering that a majority of Democrats, Republicans, Independants, church goers, any way you slice the populace is in favor of overturning DADT, there’s a pretty decent chance that it will pass
There’s virtually no chance it will pass this session. Nancy Pelosi has refused to grant a repeal a cloture vote or time on the floor, and Harry Reid has refused to introduce companion legislation in the Senate.
The only way that will change is if our big gay organizations like HRC put the Dems on notice, but that has about as great a chance of happening as Mitt Romney marrying Jerry Falwell in a public ceremony in the White House Rose Garden.
posted by Brian Miller on
And did I miss something? I don’t recall Pelosi vowing to keep the DADT issue off the floor.
it was reported in the Boston Globe in January. In addition, various other folks (who I shant name to protect their identities) have reported back to Outright with news that they were told by House and Senate Democratic leaders — including Pelosi — that it would not be considered on the floor or voted on until at least two years after Pelosi’s first session as speaker.
That’s one reason why Outright Libertarians have been running our ongoing program to repeal DADT.
You can read about Pelosi’s public efforts to keep DADT off the floor, as well as sign a petition calling for its immediate consideration (and a companion bill in the Senate) here:
http://www.actionstudio.org/public/page_view_all.cfm?option=begin&pageid=7686
posted by James on
So, what attitudes do you have that make YOU a bigot? Do you welcome gay Christians into your life? Gay undocumented immigrants? Gay liberals? The fact that someone is gay doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have other attributes which I personally don’t have to like or support. I think Bush is gay, for instance, and yet I loathe him for so many other reasons. Does my hatred of Bush make me a gay bigot?
posted by Tim on
“The fact that someone is gay doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have other attributes which I personally don’t have to like or support.”
Ding, ding, ding…we have a winner. Disliking someone for being fem is bigotry, plain and simple.
posted by Brian Miller on
What does James’ fixation with gender characteristics have to do with DADT?
I think the average person accepts that his position isn’t mainstream.
posted by grendel on
Brian,
Your link does not say Pellosi is committed to blocking the repeal. It just reports the same story I remember hearing. Repeal of DADT is not one of her highest priorities. That’s a far cry from a vow to block any effort at repeal.
Steve Ralls, director of communications for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network is much more optimistic than you are. He says that a corresponding bill in the U.S. Senate will be introduced.
?We expect the bill to hit the Senate some time before this summer,? he said. ?We?re cautiously optimistic that it will be a bipartisan issue there just as it is in the House. We certainly have no shortage of allies in the Senate, but it?s just going to take some time.?
http://epgn.com/030907/1dontask030907.htm
The Senate typically moves moves slowly than the House — it is, after all known as the “Chamber of Sober Reflection” (or the “Graveyard of Good Ideas” depending upon your particular mood).
Nothing I’ve seen publicly supports your position that Pellosi is determined not to let the repeal pass. On the other hand, I admit I don’t have your access to inside information on the issue, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I stand by my prediction though. It’s gonna pass, and get vetoed.
posted by kittynboi on
James, stop trying to turnb every thread in to an argument about you. Its annoying.
posted by timothy on
Grendel,
I suspect you are correct.
There is a change (albeit quite small) that the fundies will allow the legislators that they own a pass on this one. Public opinion is such that even a majority of fundamentalist church-going born-again Christians favor letting gays serve openly. If so, this may pass with enough support to pressure Bush to sign it or to override his veto.
It will be interesting to see how it is debated on the floor. Now that the “morale” argument is dead, the only one remaining is the “moral” argument. And people don’t much like laws passed for purely moral reasons (outside the South, anyway). And I don’t think any conservatives want to have the resulting discussion about whether Iraq is “a moral war”.
posted by James on
I would love to give my full support to the overturn of DADT–and I do. I think it would be a great step forward in gay rights. I think it would be the beginning of the full integration of gays into society.
My frustration is that in order to support the overthrow of DADT, I have to support a whole bunch of other gay crap which I really don’t like. I’m tired of working toward the goal of full integration of gays in terms of the military, marriage, and adoption rights, only to have my work underminded by a bunch of flamboyant gay activists who really only want DADT overturned so they have guys dressed is sparkly lame’ uniforms in the next parade.
But those of who want to focus on giving rights to gays in traditional roles are called bigots.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
James, if you did focus on giving rights to gays in traditional roles I don’t think anyone would be calling you a bigot. Trouble is you don’t focus on that, you keep going off on a tangent and attacking fem gays. Its your attacks on fem gays and insistence that the gay community is made up of promiscuous fems that makes you a bigot, not your support of macho gays in the military.
posted by Brian Miller on
I’d be delighted if Pelosi and Reid moved to repeal DADT or let it get a cloture vote, but both Meehan and Frank were reportedly told to forget about it until “other more pressing issues” on the Dem platform were addressed.
That’s one reason we’re pushing our petition to the Dem leadership — hopefully they’ll realize that their expectations of keeping the gay vote in the face of continued inaction on this overdue measure are foolish.
After DADT comes down, the LGBT community has an opportunity to address a whole host of other issues and demand fast action on them. If the Dems don’t deliver, they can count on strong Libertarian campaigns in vulnerable districts.
Our last campaign in 2006 took enough votes from the GOP’s candidates to hand the Dems the Senate. We can easily do the reverse if Dems drop the ball again on gay rights.
posted by James on
I would like to support gays in the military and gays who want to get married and have/adopt children. I don’t want to support flamboyant, exotic, gays. When I look at an issue like overthrowing DADT, I think that this will be great for gays–it will be step towards integration and acceptance. But I also believe that such steps are easily undermined by that faction of the gay community which lives up to the flamboyant, exotic, amoral stereotype. I really don’t see that the traditionalist faction and the flamboyant faction can work together–ultimately, our goals and ideals are different. I want a world where gays can participate in traditional social roles, such as the military, marriage, etc. Flamboyant gays want to break all the rules and create a world where anything goes and traditions are barriers to be broken.
So you can see that it is important to me to see that gays are given full inclusion in the military as one step in overall societal acceptance, but with that comes the fear that this step will be undermined by a faction of the gay community which doesn’t share my values.
I don’t hate flamboyant gays, nor am I a bigot–I see that faction as a danger to my values, in the same way many people see the Bush administration as a danger to their values. In the same way that many people want Bush and the 30% who support him to not have so much influence, I would like the flamboyant gay faction not to have so much influence. That’s not bigotry–that’s democracy.
posted by Doug on
I’m sorry, James, it is bigotry. It’s no different than saying that I like light skinned african americans I just don’t like dark skinned african americans.
Bigotry is bigotry.
posted by Jamesin1930 on
I don’t have a problem with all Jews, just those hooknosed ones who are always obsessing about money. Hell, I’m Jewish myself, so I support policies to end restrictions against Jews, but let’s face it, the Jewish community does nothing to change that image. It would just be so much better for Jews if they acted more like me, and didn’t appear to be so different from regular Americans.
Can’t we abide by a Gentleman’s Agreement to be less obvious? It’s no fun being the fall guy for the kikey type.
posted by Tim on
The fem, semitic Jews are the worse. I’m a masculine,blue-eyed, Jew myself. I pass for straight and WASP.
posted by kittynboi on
James, why the hell must you turn every single thread on here in to a discussion about yourself?
posted by Alex on
kittynboi: Because we feed into it by responding
It seems that there is little political incentive to repeal it. If Dem’s pass it they’ll be painted as “pro-homosexual agenda to take your children” all over and there’s little that BGLT folks can offer in the way to overcome that. As has been noted here, we don’t vote as a monolithic group. And for some folks, it isn’t even their primary issue to consider.
posted by James on
This is not a discussion about me. It is a discussion about two different approaches to the overturn of DADT–the traditionalist gays view it one way, the flamboyant gays view it another way. I, as a traditionalist, view the overturn of DADT as an important step in the integration of gays into traditional society. To be honest, I don’t see how flamboyant gays can see it as a victory because they no doubt see the military as part of the whole patriarchal, heterosexist system which oppresses the “queer.” If marriage is an outdated, oppressive institution, and the military is an outmoded tool of the oppressor, I don’t see how flamboyant, “queer” gays can see gay inclusion in these institutions as a victory. For them, the overthrow of DADT is one more step toward assimilation into the patriarchal Borg. Getting married, raising a family, and doing our civic duty are all anathema to the “queer” crowd.
That’s why I don’t think “queers” and traditionalist gays can work together on this issue, or any issue. It’s not about me–it’s about recognizing that there are separate, competing factions in the gay community, and that it’s time we stopped the denial, and stopped pretending we can support each other.
To Jamesin1930–here’s you–“We must have unity at all costs. Find those who disagree with us and won’t toe the party line. They must be insulted–call them ‘self-loathing Germans.’ Marginalize them, ignore them, and silence them. If they are unwilling to go to our rallies, wave our brightly colored flags, and march in lock-step with us, they must be eliminated. Oooh, look at Adolf–who does his hair? I bet it’s a dye job. Oh, no, you didn’t (snap!)”
posted by God Help Me...I\'m responding to him! on
Getting married, raising a family, and doing our civic duty are all anathema to the [flamboyant, “queers”] crowd.
I have yet to meet one of these types of people that you describe at great length at every turn in the conversation. Everyone I know are the very folks that you continuously claim do not exist: Normal folk who happen to be gay. I’ll grant you one point: They aren’t conservative Christians. But they aren’t this mythological “flamboyant ‘queers'” you seem so obsessed with.
(If you can point to three posts you’ve made, in any single thread that doesn’t include an anti-Fem rant, I will apologize on this thread).
posted by The Gay Species on
“gays are immoral” is incoherent and ludicrous nonsense. Substitute “Jews,” “Blacks,” or any other identity group, and Pace would have been promptly terminated. He still should.
For a discourse more fully explanatory, see:
http://www2.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=16706223&postID=6842304362935386351
posted by The Gay Species on
Correction. URL for above:
http://gayspecies.blogspot.com/2007/03/general-paces-moral-pronouncements.html#links
posted by The Gay Species on
For clarity between ethics/morality, fact/values, is/ought, and Pace’s absurd confusion:
http://gayspecies.blogspot.com/2007/03/on-morality-on-ethics-and-on-bigotry.html#links
posted by Brian Miller on
If Dem’s pass it they’ll be painted as “pro-homosexual agenda to take your children” all over and there’s little that BGLT folks can offer in the way to overcome that
Except that said attack would be dismissed as absurd by the 70%+ of the electorate who are opposed to the present policy.
And Democrats should learn to fight for themselves from time to time.
They demand all of our campaign cash, but when they encounter just a slight bit of rhetorical adversity, they shriek and flee. Why give them millions and millions (and millions and millions) of dollars if they’re going to flee at the first sign of Republican resistance?
Libertarians are pretty good at standing up to Republicans on gay issues. Here’s what Steve Kubby, one of the candidates seeking the party’s presidential nomination, said about gay marriage in California:
There’s no ‘middle ground’ between equal treatment under the law and the dark agenda of hate and homophobia. Time to get off the fence, Governor Schwarzenegger. Ask the legislature to pass AB 43. Then sign it and bring an end to sexual segregation in California.
See? It’s not hard to use one’s brain to counter the neoconservative right wing.
Perhaps Democrats should use some of those countless millions of gay donated campaign dollars to buy some spines and some brains.
posted by grendel on
“Perhaps Democrats should use some of those countless millions of gay donated campaign dollars to buy some spines and some brains.”
and perhaps another piece of anatomy that usually comes in pairs that they also generally lack.
posted by James on
FWIW, I don’t say anything about “fems” on this thread, anywhere. My point is that there are at least two factions of gays, the “flamboyant, queer” gays and the “traditionalist” gays. I don’t believe these two factions have the same values or goals, and I think it’s time we stopped pretending we can work together.
I see the overthrow of DADT as a victory for traditionalist gays who want to be integrated into society, and a defeat for queer gays, who fear assimilation. I think that’s a perfectly valid opinion.
Seeing two distinctly different gay worldviews and naming them is not bigotry–nor is choosing which of those worldviews I want to be identified with.
posted by James on
I think this statement is bigotry against Democrats, of which I am one:
“‘Perhaps Democrats should use some of those countless millions of gay donated campaign dollars to buy some spines and some brains.’
and perhaps another piece of anatomy that usually comes in pairs that they also generally lack.”
If I said, “Perhaps flamboyant queers should use some of those countless millions of gay donated campaign dollars to buy some spines and some brains, and perhaps another piece of anatomy that usually comes in pairs that they also generally lack” I would be called a bigot.
Why the double-standard?
posted by Greg A on
James states “That’s why I don’t think “queers” and traditionalist gays can work together on this issue, or any issue. It’s not about me–it’s about recognizing that there are separate, competing factions in the gay community, and that it’s time we stopped the denial, and stopped pretending we can support each other.”
Sure we can, this isn’t a Butch are from Mars fems are from Venus kind of thing. I don’t think anyone would deny that not all gays agree on all issues.
The ‘queer’ crowd you mention are less enthusiastic about marriage, for the reason you mention, but that amounts to a ‘marriage isn’t the most important issue’ not a ‘we oppose marriage for gays’ stance. So most would support pro gay marriage legislation, they’re just not likely to be activists on this issue.
I don’t know of any queer activists that favor dismantling the military, even if they are leery of it as an institution. And I doubt any would be opposed to repealing DADT, even if they think someone would have to be daft to want to serve.
Point being, that even if our values clash, we can and should work with folks that hold the same or similar position as us on an issue.
So even if we might find our friends put us outside our comfort zone, the suits and the drag queens should work together.
It is also possible, and desirable, to support the rights of others to make choices, even if you would choose differently than they do.
posted by Brian Miller on
another piece of anatomy that usually comes in pairs that they also generally lack
Yes, they’re often so blind on the issues that I, like you, wonder where their eyes are! 😉
posted by ETJB on
On its face his statements do not make sense. We allow (correct me if I am wrong) American Athesits, Satanists, Scientologists and Communists to serve.
Is he pro-life? Does he know that people who are pro-choice can serve?
The unit cohension thing might be an issue, although I do feel it is overstated. But their has to be a better solution then this one.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
James said “For them, the overthrow of DADT is one more step toward assimilation into the patriarchal Borg. Getting married, raising a family, and doing our civic duty are all anathema to the “queer” crowd…I see the overthrow of DADT as a victory for traditionalist gays who want to be integrated into society, and a defeat for queer gays, who fear assimilation. I think that’s a perfectly valid opinion.”
James, you’re incredibly insulting and imagining things. I’ve never seen a gay that opposes the integration of gays in the military, marriage, family, or civic duty and I doubt you have either. For you to claim there are two camps of gays in opposition over this is nonsense, stop making crap up. No gay is going to see the elimination of DADT as a defeat. Fem gays are not your enemy, but you are theirs – they don’t oppose your living your life as you choose, but you oppose theirs.
James said “I don’t say anything about “fems” on this thread, anywhere.”.
Not true James, at March 14, 2007, 12:07pm you said “I think it’s important to note that gay rights are advanced more quickly by men in traditional masculine roles…” – you’re disparaging fem gays by default right there. You also said “I don’t see why, after I support gays in traditional roles, I or any other gay has to support gays who choose to reinforce the queer, flamboyant, irresponsible stereotype.” – flamboyant is associated with fem and you’ve repeatedly insisted ‘queers’ are fems and that the sterotypical gay is fem.
You said “The fact that someone is gay doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have other attributes which I personally don’t have to like or support.” and you’ve always mentioned that one of those attibutes is feminity. You said “I’m tired of working…only to have my work underminded by a bunch of flamboyant gay activists… dressed is sparkly lame’ uniforms…” – if you’re not talking about fems when you talk about flamboyant gays in sparkly lame’ uniforms who are you talking about?
James you also said ” I don’t want to support flamboyant, exotic, gays…such steps are easily undermined by…the flamboyant, exotic, amoral stereotype.”. James being flamboyant and exotic doesn’t make one amoral.
James also said “I really don’t see that the traditionalist faction and the flamboyant faction can work together…I want a world where gays can participate in traditional social roles…Flamboyant gays want to…create a world where anything goes and traditions are barriers to be broken.”.
Flamboyant is associated with fem gays and you went on and on about that and mischaracterized fem gays all the way.
Lastly, you said “I don’t hate flamboyant gays…I see that faction as a danger to my values”.
If you see fem gays as a danger to your values it isn’t credible for you to say you don’t hate them – it is human nature to hate threats. Unfortunately in this case you imagine the threat – no gay on this board has ever opposed your desire for marriage, committment, masculinity, the repeal of DADT, have they?
posted by James on
I would have a hard time working alongside the gay faction described in this article:
http://www.nyblade.com/print.cfm?content_id=1512
It is difficult to see how this gay group would support gays joining the military:
http://www.temenos.net/articles/iraq07.shtml
It seems that there is a large, visible gay faction which believes that A: Marriage is an oppressive institution promoted by a patriarchal system and B: The U.S. military is a tool of the military/industrial complex used to subdue minorities.
I don’t see how this faction of gays can support other gays who want to get married or serve their country.
If you hate marriage and the military, how can you ask for the right to be part of them?
posted by Timothy on
I soooo don’t want this to be another thread about James, but…
Fem Gays dress in flamboyant lame uniforms. They oppose the military and the institution of marriage. They value promiscuity at all costs and refuse to get in relationships. They want to break all the rules and create a world without any social cohesion or limitations. They are decadent and evil. They wear odd orange colored hair. They have funny dogs in tutus. They adore Barbara and Liza and call each other “Mary”. If you ever have questions about who is a Fem Gay, then read the above, that’s what they are like.
I oppose Fem Gays in all their nasty ways.
Fortunately, the last Fem Gay died in Boise in October 1983 while high on qualudes in an alley behind a sex club. His name was Fred. His funny dog in the tutu ran wild on the streets and is single handedly (or single pawedly) responsible for Boise’s urban blight. His false eyelashes are still on display in the Fredricks of Hollywood museum.
So now we can all stop obsessing about this ridiculous notion that some gay people are deserving of equal treatment under the law and that others are not.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I don’t know of any queer activists that favor dismantling the military, even if they are leery of it as an institution.
Oh, there’s a few; quite a few, actually.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “quite a few”. Northdallass, can you go one thread without willfully distorting reality if not outright lying?!
You quote ONE gay person calling for the dismantling of the military and in your other link opposition to the JROTC because of the military’s anti-gay policies is not the same as a call for dismantling the military.
posted by Greg A on
NDT, your cites do not support the notion of queer activists wanting to dismantle the military. One talks about barring JROTC because the military is discriminatory (that doesn’t amount to dismantling it) the other talks about one person (who I don’t know to be gay, but perhaps you do).
There are certainly folks who favor dismantling the military, but they are not predominantly queer, the are predominantly Christian. The first cite gives evidence of that in fact.
I imagine there are some queer Christians that favor dismantling the military, but I think their position comes from their Christianity, not their queerness.
posted by Greg A on
James states “I would have a hard time working alongside the gay faction described in this article:
http://www.nyblade.com/print.cfm?content_id=1512
It is difficult to see how this gay group would support gays joining the military:
http://www.temenos.net/articles/iraq07.shtml”
You prove my point. Neither article has people that oppose gay marriage, or oppose gays in the military. They question, as I said, the wisdom of spending so much of our effort on marriage in the first case, and opposes US imperialism in the second.
That is not the same thing as opposing gay marriage, or opposing gays in the military.
Why the disdain? Someone can’t have a different opinion from you without making it difficult to work with them?
Ask the first group ‘should the government ban gay marriage’ and the second ‘should the government ban gays serving in the military’ and what answers do you think you’d get?
I can only suppose of course, but I’m pretty certain they would be ‘no’ and ‘no’.
posted by James on
Let’s look at the logic here:
“The U.S. military is a tool for imperialism and oppression throughout the world
AND
I demand the right to be part of it!”
Here’s another:
“Marriage is a patriarchal institution which places unnecessary restrictions on sexual behavior in order to consolidate to the power of the white male domination system
AND
I demand the right to marry!”
Can you see the logical fallacies here? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
One talks about barring JROTC because the military is discriminatory (that doesn’t amount to dismantling it)
I wondered if you’d click through on that article cited — and read about how discriminatory JROTC isn’t.
the other talks about one person (who I don’t know to be gay, but perhaps you do).
Oh, he is emphatically gay — and, aside from being an elected San Francisco city Supervisor, was also a member of the elected San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee, in both cases with a great deal of gay support and the endorsement of gay Democrat clubs in San Francisco.
You keep trying to paint Sandoval as some sort of fringe loony; however, if he were, he wouldn’t have the endorsement of so many Democrats and gays, and not nearly that many of them would have voted for him.
And as for Randi, sure, go ahead, bob and weave, use whatever excuse you must to try to cover up and avoid acknowledging the bad behavior of other gays. We understand.
posted by Sean Kinsell on
“Can you see the logical fallacies here? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?”
I think I agree with most of your social and political positions, James–much as I dislike the pharisaic tone you adopt in delivering them–but I don’t see any logical fallacies there. It’s possible to argue that both the military and the institution of marriage have multiple flaws. Which is to say, someone who would never enlist in the armed forces because he believes they’re being used to establish a New American Hegemony could still argue that he shouldn’t be barred from enlisting just because he’s a homosexual, and so on. That’s not to say that there aren’t loudmouthed gays with inconsistent positions on the military and marriage; of course there are. But you haven’t scored the points off them that you think you have.
posted by Greg A on
NDT, I know that the JROTC takes all comers. Notice that I, as well as the folks in the article didn’t say it was a discriminatory program, but that it is owned by (and designed to feed) a discriminatory organization.
I’ll take your word that the supervisor is ’emphatically gay’ whatever that means. You’ve found one gay in the country that thinks the military should be dismantled. That doesn’t do much for your argument that there are quite a few.
That he was elected, doesn’t mean that anyone there agrees with his military position. Chances are good they learned about it the same way you did. That is not a matter of local concern. I don’t know the military positions of any of my County Commissioners, City Council people, or even state reps.
posted by Greg A on
“Can you see the logical fallacies here? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?”
James you are framing the question to create dissonance. If you reframe it replacing the I’s in the second statements with gay people, the logical contradiction disappears.
It is indeed unlikely that the individuals who find the institutions problematic would themselves participate in them. That does not mean they would not support the right of other gays to participate in them. Again, assuming you can bring yourself to be in the same room as a queer activist, ask them the direct question. Should the government ban gays from marrying, or serving in the military. What answer do you think you will get?
If they answer ‘no’ then you at least you don’t have an opponent, possibly an ally, and you can focus your attention on the opponents of your measure. Its not queers, its the radical right.
posted by James on
Speaking of queers, I just a saw a piece on Code Pink by Jeannie Most on CNN. Take a look if you want to see a gay group which is undermining those of us who are seriously pursuing change. Dressing in flamboyant clothes and standing in the way of cameras only diminishes the reputation of the gay community and trivializes the goal of marriage, adoption rights, and the right to serve in the military.
No, I can’t see how someone who hates the military would then protest for the right for others to join it. If I thought the army was going to wage war on say, the gay community in Nigeria, I wouldn’t say, “I hate this war, but I want gays to be part of it!” I would stop people from being part of it.
Here’s another fallacy:
The Christian church is based on myths and is responsible for the shame and suicide of many gays throughout history
AND
I want the right to be ordained!
See the problem here?
Oh, and here’s something else for all you pro-choice gays out there, and you know who you are. There’s a pastor who wants to treat fetuses with hormone therapy to remove the “gay gene.” Let’s take this one step further–if a woman discovers that her baby is going to be born gay, does she have the right to choose to abort the baby?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “And as for Randi, sure, go ahead, bob and weave, use whatever excuse you must to try to cover up and avoid acknowledging the bad behavior of other gays. We understand.”.
Not surprisingly, that has nothing to do with what was being said, but seeing as you brought it up and you claim to be gay don’t forget that I regularly point out your bad behavior and there’s a LOT of it.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
James, you are hilarious…Oh those nasty gays, they’re dressing in flamboyant clothes and standing in front of cameras, what dastardly deed is next! Think of the children, please, someone, think of the children!
And I guess Greg A’s post when right over your willfully blind head.
Anyone who thinks the Christian church is based on myths and is responsible for the shame and suicide of many gays throughout history isn’t likely to be seeking to be ordained, althought there’s a good chance they’ll support believing gays right to be ordained. See the problem here?
And, yes, a woman has the right to choose – her body her way.
posted by Pat on
James, I don’t necessarily disagree with your points. But you may want to give the fem, flamboyant gays thing a rest. You still are obsessed about it. Really, give it a shot.
As Dick Cheney might mumble, “Equality for gays means all gays.”
I don’t think the statement about Democrats above is bigoted. Gays have given a LOT of money to candidates, mostly Democrats, and I think it’s time we hold these candidates accountable, or better yet, withhold donations. Blind loyalty to one party doesn’t work.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That he was elected, doesn’t mean that anyone there agrees with his military position.
You’ve obviously never been to San Francisco.
NDT, I know that the JROTC takes all comers. Notice that I, as well as the folks in the article didn’t say it was a discriminatory program, but that it is owned by (and designed to feed) a discriminatory organization.
So an organization that doesn’t discriminate and, in fact, as the article points out, supports gay teenagers and gives them academic and other assistance, should be banned because leftist gays hate who owns it?
Why do you have so much trouble acknowledging, Greg, that gays like Sandoval and Sanchez are ardently anti-military and want to dismantle it — and that there are numerous other gays that agree with them and support them?
The reason is simple — propaganda.
You lack the ability to condemn Sanchez, Sandoval, and other gays; therefore, you try to work around them and pretend they don’t exist.
Instead of saying that it is wrong for Sanchez, Sandoval, and others to use homosexuality as an excuse for being antimilitary, you start spinning and trying to avoid the topic.
And that is exactly James’s point. Sanchez, Sandoval, and other antisocial individuals hide their misbehavior behind their homosexuality — and you allow them to do it.
The best argument for repealing DADT is when gays speak up loud and clear, saying that people like Sanchez and Sandoval are lunatics and that gays support the military, even if we can’t serve in it.
posted by Greg A on
James again “”I hate this war, but I want gays to be part of it!” I would stop people from being part of it.”
Pay attention now.
1. I do not support the war in Iraq (though we’re stuck with it now)
2. I would not encourage anyone to support this war.
3. I do not believe that gays should be discriminated against in any job that they pursue.
4. I do not believe that gays should be banned from working for the military.
1 and 2 correlate (2 does not necessarily follow 1, but is consistent with it), 3 and 4 correlate (4 necessarily follows 3), 1 and 3 or 4 do not correlate.
Further
5. Those that serve in the military are generally patriotic
6. Putting their lives at risk prosecuting the wars that their leaders ask them to wage is courageous.
5 and 6 remain true even if
7. Their (unfortunately our) leader ordered them into an immoral war that is most likely unwinnable.
The valor and patriotism of the troops has nothing to do with what I think about the war they are waging.
So you see, there are not contradictions here.
Just as there is no contradiction in thinking that hate crime laws are unwise, but that where they exist, gays should be covered by them. (a position that I hold).
If you can wrap your brain around that, substitute ‘marriage’ for ‘hate crimes’ and you have another statement which is just as logically consistent (but is a position that I disagree with).
If you can’t wrap your brain around that then its pointless to continue the discussion until you can.
posted by Audrey B. on
James, you might like http://www.jackmalebranche.com. Beware, though, he’s a Satanist.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Why do you have so much trouble acknowledging, Greg, that gays like Sandoval and Sanchez are ardently anti-military and want to dismantle it — and that there are numerous other gays that agree with them and support them?
The reason is simple — propaganda.
You lack the ability to condemn Sanchez, Sandoval, and other gays; therefore, you try to work around them and pretend they don’t exist.”
OMFG, talk about propaganda! Northdallass, that article you cited says nothing about Sanchez being anti-military and wanting to dismantle it, it says the JROTC was opposed because of the anti-gay stance of the military period. And Sandoval is one gay! This is far from the gay conspiracy you make it out to be. The anti-military stance of Sandoval doesn’t bear acknowledging any more than heteosexuals taking the same stance, they are a tiny minority who don’t matter! There’s a reason why you single out one gay and to falsely claim this means “quite a few” want to dismantle the military – propoganda! You could have just as easily singled out some lone heterosexual for taking the same stance, but that wouldn’t have supported your anti-gay agenda which you’ve done a pitiful job of pushing in any event. One gay is NOT “quite a few”, most of the people who elected Sandoval were heterosexual, not gay! You can’t tar all the gays who voted for him with sharing his viewpoint on dismantling the military without doing the same with all the heterosexuals who voted for him! Other than you’re being an anti-gay bigot, why don’t you acknowledge that much larger number of heterosexuals as being just as ‘anti-militarty’? Of course we see your morality is subjective once again, when gays do something they’re bad, when straights do the same thing they get a free pass from you – your bias is thick enough to cut with a knife.
posted by John on
Getting back to the topic at hand –
(1) Peter Pace’s comments were despicable because he displayed contempt and shame for some people who are dying for this country and his career (be default anyway).
(2) The dodge performed by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama show they are gutless swine who won’t back us up if and when they make it to the White House.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Other than you’re being an anti-gay bigot, why don’t you acknowledge that much larger number of heterosexuals as being just as ‘anti-militarty’?
Because heterosexuals don’t make a habit of basing their anti-military behavior on their sexual orientation.
Gays like Sandoval, Sanchez, and their supporters do.
And again, Randi, you spin, trying to divert blame on to heterosexuals for the anti-military bigotry and hatred of Sanchez, Sandoval, and other gays. Why don’t you have the courage to say they are wrong? Aren’t you capable of being honest about the bad behavior of other gays?
posted by James on
Another aspect of Pace’s comments–he admires men in lifelong, monogamous relationships. Unlike the stereotype of straights constantly discussed here–that straight, married men are all hypocritical adulterers–Pace is a man who is true to his vows and who admires other men who are true to their vows, and, no doubt, takes loyalty and monogamy as a sign of masculinity. Therefore, and please try and follow me here, a man like Pace is more like to have his mind changed by men in lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships. Dressing in thongs and wigs and jumping on a penis-shaped float are probably not going to impress a man like Pace, but perhaps, seeing men in lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships will make a favorable impression on him. Perhaps we could change his mind, not by yelling at him for his homophobia, but by showing him we share his masculine ideals.
posted by PCT on
Gosh James, I feel like a bug drawn to a bug zapper but here goes…
I wish that you were right. I wish that all we had to do is live exemplary lives, in the suburbs, taking care of our lawns, going to work, paying taxes, and then all the homophobes would look at us and say “hey, I was wrong. Gay guys are fine!” I would guess that most of the contributors to this site fit that mold; that’s why some of us are so offended by your constant comments about “the gay borg community.”
But, sadly, you’re mistaken. General Pace has read his Bible – particularly the verse that says it’s an abomination when we have sex with another man. The Bible doesn’t say it’s okay if we only have sex with one guy in our lives. So he’s not going to change his mind. It makes no difference – in his mind – how many guys we sleep with. We are – according to his beliefs – immoral. No amount of being masculine, or monogamous, is going to change his mind.
So the best option, is how about we all live our lives as we see fit?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Because heterosexuals don’t make a habit of basing their anti-military behavior on their sexual orientation.”.
LOL, Northdallas, they don’t have to because the military doesn’t prevent them from serving openly BECAUSE of their orientation. Once again you’re putting the cart before the horse. FIRST the military was anti-gay, and THEN Sanchez and others opposed the JROTC for THAT reason. And Sandoval never gave ANY reason for being anti-military let alone his sexuality.
Northdallass said “And again, Randi, you spin, trying to divert blame on to heterosexuals for the anti-military bigotry and hatred of Sanchez, Sandoval, and other gays.”.
You’re the one spinning Northdallass, you said gays were anti-military because they voted for Sandoval, but you don’t make the same observation about heterosexuals who voted for him – your morality is subjective, when gays do something you call it evil, when straights do the same thing you ignore it.
Northdallass said “Why don’t you have the courage to say they are wrong? Aren’t you capable of being honest about the bad behavior of other gays?”
Why don’t you have the courage to say the anti-military heterosexuals are wrong, why aren’t you capable about being honest about the bad behavior of heterosexuals? Why do you constantly single out the bad behavior of gays and ignore the much more prevalent examples of the bad behavior of straights? You don’t hear me whining about the bad behavior of every gay for the same reason you don’t hear me whining about the bad behavior of every straight – my life involves more than trying to police the world.
James said “Pace is a man who is true to his vows and who admires other men who are true to their vows, and, no doubt, takes loyalty and monogamy as a sign of masculinity”.
James, since when aren’t loyalty and monogamy associated with femininity? If anything its men that chase sex, not women.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You’re the one spinning Northdallass, you said gays were anti-military because they voted for Sandoval, but you don’t make the same observation about heterosexuals who voted for him – your morality is subjective, when gays do something you call it evil, when straights do the same thing you ignore it.
That is because your tactic when confronted with gays doing something wrong is to claim heterosexuals do it too, and therefore gays shouldn’t be held accountable.
But, as I pointed out, anti-military heterosexuals don’t blame their behavior on their sexual orientation — gays do.
Furthermore, it should be patently obvious that I have as much contempt for anti-military heterosexuals as I do anti-military homosexuals; the only difference is that anti-military heterosexuals have no effect on making gays appear to be anti-military bigots and hatemongers on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Gays like Sandoval, Sanchez, and their supporters do.
You don’t hear me whining about the bad behavior of every gay for the same reason you don’t hear me whining about the bad behavior of every straight – my life involves more than trying to police the world.
Ah, but you just did, Randi; you whined about “anti-military heterosexuals”, just like you did with heterosexuals who engage in public sex, religious heterosexuals, black heterosexuals, etc..
posted by Greg A on
NDT states “You lack the ability to condemn Sanchez, Sandoval, and other gays; therefore, you try to work around them and pretend they don’t exist.”
I do not lack the ability to condemn people, I choose not to do so. It is rare for me to condemn people that I disagree with because I tend to assume their motivations are good even if disagree with their positions.
You are correct, I have never been to San Francisco. Most gay people haven’t. What does that have to do with anything?
I respect the position of pacifists. So if that is Sandoval’s position than fine. I wouldn’t vote for him to be president (though I might to City Council depending on his pertinent views). I find it odd that you think he holds it because he’s gay.
Banning the JROTC because the army discriminates is a perfectly valid position. I think it imprudent, but its not immoral, or hypocritical or irrational.
One of the reasons I hold back from judging Sandoval is I don’t know him, don’t follow his politics, and don’t trust you to be an unbiased source. If I gave two figs about SF politics I would perhaps make the effort to educate myself. I don’t, so I shan’t.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “That is because your tactic when confronted with gays doing something wrong is to claim heterosexuals do it too, and therefore gays shouldn’t be held accountable.”.
See, now you’re lying again. I never said gays shouldn’t be held accountable for doing wrong. You asked me “Why don’t you have the courage to say they are wrong?” and I pointed out to you that it has nothing to do with courage, it has to do with it being as insignificant to me as heterosexuals doing the same thing.
Northdallass said “But, as I pointed out, anti-military heterosexuals don’t blame their behavior on their sexual orientation — gays do.”.
No gay criticizes the military because he’s gay – he may criticize the military because ITS anti-gay. If the military FIRST made heterosexuals’ orientation an issue by banning them from serving openly (as its done with gays) you’re damn right they’d be criticizing the MILITARY’S treatment of THEIR HETEROSEXUAL ORIENTATION. And as I pointed out Sandoval never blamed his being anti-military on DADT, Sanchez wasn’t anti-military, he was anti-DADT.
Northdallass said “it should be patently obvious that I have as much contempt for anti-military heterosexuals as I do anti-military homosexuals”.
LOL, Northdallass, patently obvious?! Give me a break, you bitch about gays day and night and one in a blue moon criticize heterosexuals as a group.
Northdallass said “the only difference is that anti-military heterosexuals have no effect on making gays appear to be anti-military bigots and hatemongers on the basis of their sexual orientation.”.
Anti-military gays don’t make gays as a group look anti-military any more than anti-military heterosexuals make heterosexuals as a group look anti-military. The military discriminates against gays and you want gays to be silent about it?! Give your head a shake – straight people wouldn’t quietly take it if it was them being discriminated against. Once again you’re two-faced, different standards for straights and gays.
Northdallass said ” Randi; you whined about “anti-military heterosexuals”, just like you did with heterosexuals who engage in public sex, religious heterosexuals, black heterosexuals, etc..”.
I would never have mentioned them if you hadn’t brought up these topics first and given your unbalanced criticism of gays. You repeatedly fail to tell the truth that heterosexuals are equal opportunity offenders.
posted by James on
Instead of protests, maybe some gay veterans in long-term relationships could invite General Pace to go to church with them, where he could see gay Christians at prayer, and then invite the general and his wife out to lunch, where they can chat about each other’s relationships. I just think that would work better than dressing as Gwen Stefani, throwing condoms at his car, and calling him a hypocritical adulterer. But that’s just me.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What I notice, Randi and Greg, is your attempt to spin away from a clear and simple solution, such as I outlined above:
The best argument for repealing DADT is when gays speak up loud and clear, saying that people like Sanchez and Sandoval are lunatics and that gays support the military, even if we can’t serve in it.
But you can’t do that, can you?
Not surprising; that would require you to a) criticize other gays and b) actually admit to supporting the military.
posted by Greg A on
NDT states “What I notice, Randi and Greg, is your attempt to spin away from a clear and simple solution, such as I outlined above:
The best argument for repealing DADT is when gays speak up loud and clear, saying that people like Sanchez and Sandoval are lunatics and that gays support the military, even if we can’t serve in it.”
You like propaganda don’t you ‘spin’ lunatic’? Not using loaded words are you?
I reiterate. I don’t know Sanchez or Sandoval, and what little (almost certainly biased) info you have provided is not sufficient for me to judge their politics, let alone their mental status.
If indeed they oppose any sort of military, then I think their position foolish.
What exactly does ‘support the military’ mean? That whatever the Joint Chief Chair states I agree with just because he states it? I can’t support that, the military, like every other government institution should be regarded critically. If it means giving our military the $$ and tools to do the job we’ve asked, then yes I support the military. If it means respecting and caring for our veterans, then yes I support our military.
If it means keeping silent about discriminatory policies, then no I don’t.
Things are seldom black or white, good or bad etc. Reality is much richer and more subtle than that.
And for the record I did serve in it.
posted by Greg A on
James states: “I just think that would work better than dressing as Gwen Stefani, throwing condoms at his car, and calling him a hypocritical adulterer. But that’s just me.”
Did somebody do that? Is he an adulterer? If he is, then he should be called on it. If not then he should not be maligned in such a way.
I agree with you that it would be nice of some Christian gays prayed with him, lunched with him etc. Of course that would require that he be receptive to such an approach. Why don’t you try it and see if he is. Seems to me that is the approach Mel White took for quite a while, but he didn’t get too many takers.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “The best argument for repealing DADT is when gays speak up loud and clear, saying that people like Sanchez and Sandoval are lunatics and that gays support the military, even if we can’t serve in it.”
What epitomizes your enmity towards gays is that you blame the gays who voted for Sandoval for being anti-military but you don’t blame the heterosexuals that voted from him for being anti-military. Your morality is subjective, you praise heterosexuals and attack gays even when their actions are exactly the same.
That’s no argument for repealling it at all! Just ignore it and support the military and it’ll go away on its own?! Give me a break. You’ve got to actually oppose DADT if you want to repeal it. You’ve got to make the case that gays can and have served with distinction and that the army is better off with every able-bodied person they can get regardless of orientation. And who says Sanchez doesn’t support the military?! Its DADT he oppposes, stop lying for a bit at least! And Sandoval is right in that all countries should be at peace with their neighbours and none of us should have armies, the resources should be spent helping the poor and making he world a better place. Where he’s wrong is in thinking we can do without defensive armies in the meantime as we are not at global peace yet. Offensive armies are always evil.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
James said “I just think that would work better than dressing as Gwen Stefani, throwing condoms at his car, and calling him a hypocritical adulterer. But that’s just me.”.
No one’s done that James, you just highlight how you lie about and distort the image of the gay community. And you wonder why you’re so unpopular.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What epitomizes your enmity towards gays is that you blame the gays who voted for Sandoval for being anti-military but you don’t blame the heterosexuals that voted from him for being anti-military.
LOL….I believe we dealt with that charge already.
Furthermore, it should be patently obvious that I have as much contempt for anti-military heterosexuals as I do anti-military homosexuals; the only difference is that anti-military heterosexuals have no effect on making gays appear to be anti-military bigots and hatemongers on the basis of their sexual orientation.
It has been demonstrated quite well that not all heterosexuals are anti-military, especially since swift invective and condemnation comes down from heterosexuals on other heterosexuals who espouse positions like Sandoval and Sanchez.
But unfortunately, what comes down from gays on anti-military gays is whining, spinning, and making excuses.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Furthermore, it should be patently obvious that I have as much contempt for anti-military heterosexuals as I do anti-military homosexuals; the only difference is that anti-military heterosexuals have no effect on making gays appear to be anti-military bigots and hatemongers on the basis of their sexual orientation.”.
LOL, and I have already dealt with that BS
“Northdallass, patently obvious?! Give me a break, you bitch about gays day and night and once in a blue moon criticize heterosexuals as a group.
Anti-military gays don’t make gays as a group look anti-military any more than anti-military heterosexuals make heterosexuals as a group look anti-military. The military discriminates against gays and you want gays to be silent about it?! Give your head a shake – straight people wouldn’t quietly take it if it was them being discriminated against. Once again you’re two-faced, different standards for straights and gays”
Northdallass said “It has been demonstrated quite well that not all heterosexuals are anti-military, especially since swift invective and condemnation comes down from heterosexuals on other heterosexuals who espouse positions like Sandoval and Sanchez.”.
LOL, and where has it been demonstrated that all gays are anti-military?! What B.S. and sooo typical of you – when ONE gay does something you don’t like you baselessly claim he represents all gays.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
More diversion and spin from Randi, I see.
Give me a break, you bitch about gays day and night and once in a blue moon criticize heterosexuals as a group.
Again, that’s because heterosexuals don’t have a habit of blaming their lunatic stances on issues on their sexual orientation.
LOL, and where has it been demonstrated that all gays are anti-military?!
Why would people who weren’t anti-military have such a hard time condemning Sanchez and Sandoval’s remarks, and instead trying to spin their way out by insisting that other people don’t criticize heterosexuals enough?
posted by Timothy on
Instead of protests, maybe some gay veterans in long-term relationships could invite General Pace to go to church with them, where he could see gay Christians at prayer, and then invite the general and his wife out to lunch, where they can chat about each other’s relationships.
And then a choir of angels will descend from the heavens and sing Kumbaya while little squirrels will gather nuts in a basket and bring them as a lovely gift to General Pace’s wife.
The problem with the world you live in, James, is that it consists of an artificial dichotomy of good gays that are admired and welcomed by homophobes and bad gays that stand it the way of progress. Neither exist.
Frankly, those who do not like gay people and who pursue activism against us are not going to be swayed by some example of a happy domestic butch gay couple. They are going to ignore that example just as thoroughly as you ignore it here on this site. Since you are completely unwilling to acknowledge that the vast majority of gay people are productive citizens indistinguishable from their peers, I’m befuddled that you think homophobes are going to see this.
And as for those awful flamboyant gays standing in the way? Ironically, most of the civil progress that has been achieved was birthed in the flamboyant rebellious type that couldn’t just assimilate and disappear.
I shuddered in the 80’s and 90’s when anyone mentioned ACT-UP. But there is no question whatsoever that it is directly do to their flamboyant activism that the FDA released drugs that saved the lives of people that I love.
And I’ve been around long enough and I’ve been politically active long enough to know that those who knock on doors and pass out flyers and talk to legislators and speak at churches and hold prayer vigils and meet with CEOs and discuss issues with their workmates and are honest with their families and appeal to religious leaders and argue before courts and sue for equality and protest IRS taxing inequality and throw a bottle at the Stonewall Inn are not those who “just want to assimilate”.
Without these non-assimilaters, there would be no marriage/civil unions/domestic partnerships, there would be no partner insurance, there would be no adoption of a partner’s children, there would be no job protections, there would be no freedoms whatsoever, but there would be prohibitions of “sensitive” employment and there would be sodomy laws in all 50 states. This was how life was before these “bad gays” stood up and said, “enough”.
Fortunately for you, these non-assimilationists were kind enough to include you in all of the liberties that they fought for.
In my life I consider the debt of gratitude that I owe to these non-assimilationist bad gays. And I’m waiting still to hear what you have accomplished.
posted by Greg A on
NDT states “Again, that’s because heterosexuals don’t have a habit of blaming their lunatic stances on issues on their sexual orientation.”
Who has done this? The articles you cited the folks based their ‘anti military’ position on the military’s policy, not on their sexual orientation. I didn’t see anyone else here saying they were anti military because of their sexual orientation.
Is your position so weak that you can’t debate honestly?
posted by Greg A on
Sandoval published an explanation of his Fox comments here
http://tinyurl.com/22gz8m
He is certainly very liberal, but his version sounds much less damning. Whether you believe his explanation or not is up to you. I don’t care one way or the other.
Also, NDT, you stated with what appeared to me to be absolute certainty that he was gay, and he may be, but his bio lists him as married (to a woman)with a daughter.
http://www.gerardosandoval.org/biography.html
Perhaps you’ve slept with him, or know a man who has and can so confidently contradict the official version, but frankly I wouldn’t believe you anyway, so unless you have a video, don’t bother.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Perhaps you’ve slept with him, or know a man who has and can so confidently contradict the official version, but frankly I wouldn’t believe you anyway, so unless you have a video, don’t bother.
OK, I won’t. 🙂
He is certainly very liberal, but his version sounds much less damning. Whether you believe his explanation or not is up to you. I don’t care one way or the other.
And I don’t.
Sandoval has a history of corrupt behavior and moronic remarks.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Frankly, those who do not like gay people and who pursue activism against us are not going to be swayed by some example of a happy domestic butch gay couple.
Interesting; that’s not the story told by another Timothy.
It?s interesting that when the protest group was still small was the only time anyone from the church came out to talk. A middle-aged woman with adorable short blond hair came out to see what we were all about and had a delightful, honest and civil talk with XGW author Timothy Kincaid for a few minutes.
What makes it more interesting is what happened when the “non-assimilationist” gays showed up.
Once the Unity Rally bus protesters arrived one of the organizers gave instructions (via megaphone) to her protesters they were forbidden from engaging church members in any sort of dialogue as to prevent from being drawn in or entrapped into an uncivil argument by some evil nasty conference attendee. This was particularly disturbing since from first hand experience at the Dallas protest and now Palm Springs, I?ve found every single time someone walks from the church out to chat with protesters they are polite, friendly, civil and honestly want to talk.
And of course, what did the “non-assimilationist” gays proceed to do?
Based on the Unity Rally?s website and literature distributed around town I was concerned by their frequent use of the word ?hate.? My concerns were confirmed at the rally where two common buzz words worked into almost every speech were ?hate? (used in connection with Focus) and ?unity? (used in connection with gay folk). Most speakers had limited knowledge of ex-gay issues since most speakers were politicians or representatives of local gay and liberal political groups. However the rally organizers took great pride in their event being a local effort. Focus/Exodus/NARTH were continuously and vaguely accused of spreading hate, hating, creating hate and so forth by speaker after speaker? UNTIL the Rev. Nick Warner of the Desert Oasis Chapel got up had the balls to say something to the effect of ?the people attending Love Won Out do not hate you? and that they were just misguided about gay people. The rally crowd seemed stunned by Warner?s radical message and several times during his speech our group from XGW had to start the crowd applauding. Bravo to you Rev. Warner for being informed about ex-gay issues and not going along with the party line and making accusations of ?hate.?
Now, the general belief here, “Timothy”, is that you are in fact Timothy Kincaid — the individual mentioned.
So if that is the case why, here, are you so in favor of the hate-flinging, violent, protesting “non-assimilationists” when you were, there, of the mind that they a) caused problems and b) put an end to necessary dialogue with people who DID want to understand and DID want to talk?
Probably because, here, “unity” is more important to you.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Again, that’s because heterosexuals don’t have a habit of blaming their lunatic stances on issues on their sexual orientation.”.
You lie, no gay has blamed their stance on their sexual orientation. And there’s nothing “lunatic” about wanting gays to have the same right heterosexuals do to serve openly. There’s no doubt that if heterosexuals were discriminated against because they’re heterosexual they would be kicking up a fuss about it just like gays.
Northdallass said “What makes it more interesting is what happened when the “non-assimilationist” gays showed up.”.
LOL, who said those gays were “non-assimiliationist”, or “flamboyant” as James put it?! Again, you make stuff up, like calling Sandoval gay when he’s married, to serve your anti-gay agenda.
Now you’re left with NO gays in your links being anti-military instead of “quite a few”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I love it when Randi contradicts herself.
Notice how she babbles, trying to claim that Sandoval can’t be gay because he’s married:
Again, you make stuff up, like calling Sandoval gay when he’s married, to serve your anti-gay agenda.
But previously, she had tried this:
You don’t know that they were all heterosexuals, many, if not most gay people are in the closet.
Then she tries to spin and lie this one:
And there’s nothing “lunatic” about wanting gays to have the same right heterosexuals do to serve openly.
Of course, she ignores the fact that gays apparently want to abolish the military — which means gays are asking for the right to serve in something they consider so despicable and evil that they want it gone completely.
LOL, who said those gays were “non-assimiliationist”, or “flamboyant” as James put it?!
That’s easy — look at Timothy’s definitions above.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “I love it when Randi contradicts herself.”.
LOL, Northdallass, there’s no contradiction. You adamantly insisted Sandoval was gay and you have no evidence for that whatsoever. You claimed all the people condemning Gingrich and the like are heterosexual and you have no evidence for that whatsoever. Odds are any given person is going to be straight (especially a heterosexually married person) and its up to you to make the case that Sandoval is the exception to the rule – and you haven’t. Odds are in any given group of 10 or 20 people or more some are going to be gay and its up to you to make the case that Gingrich’s critics are the exception and there were no gays in that group – and you haven’t made that case.
Northdallass said “Of course, she ignores the fact that gays apparently want to abolish the military — which means gays are asking for the right to serve in something they consider so despicable and evil that they want it gone completely.”.
LOL, Northdallass, you haven’t documented a single gay that wants to abolish the militarty, in fact the only person you’ve documented that wants to is straight. Meanwhile on this board numerous gays have declared their support for the military. Once again you’ve proven that your criticisms of gays are totally disconected from reality.
I asked Northdallass “who said those gays were “non-assimiliationist”, or “flamboyant” as James put it?!”
Northdallass replied “That’s easy — look at Timothy’s definitions above.”.
Timothy didn’t define “non-assimilationist”. Timothy listed “those who knock on doors and pass out flyers and talk to legislators and speak at churches and hold prayer vigils and meet with CEOs and discuss issues with their workmates and are honest with their families and appeal to religious leaders and argue before courts and sue for equality and protest IRS taxing inequality and throw a bottle at the Stonewall Inn”. If you’re defining who is assimilationist and non based on those actions then Timothy’s group at the protest was just as non-assimilationist as the Unity Ralley – of course the exgaywatch group IS assmiliationist and non-flamboyant and there is no proof that the Unity rally people weren’t as well. But as we’ve seen with Sandoval, you never let a false lable get in the way of your attacking gays.
posted by Timothy on
Well, unless I’m reading incorrectly, that article was written by Daniel Gonzales. But facts don’t really matter to NorthDallasThirty. He enjoys the fight and doesn’t seem to care about why he’s fighting. This gives him freedom to make the most bizarre of claims and leave it to others to challenge them.
Take, for example, his claim about Sandoval being gay. Nothing to support it whatsoever. And when confronted by facts, rather than apologize for making a false claim, he blusters and tries to suggest that Sandoval may really be gay, even though married with a child, and it’s wrong to assume otherwise.
Typical.
NDT may well have things to contribute to the conversation. However, the blustering, hostility, accusations, and lies make it difficult to identify those things of value. In nearly every interaction I’ve had with him, he’s been untruthful and factually incorrect.
And that is a disservice both to himself and to the cause he claims to champion.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What’s really funny is watching Randi desperately try to spin even more, especially her insistence that the fact that Sandoval is married means he can’t be gay.
But that’s understandable; she needs it to make this point.
LOL, Northdallass, you haven’t documented a single gay that wants to abolish the militarty
Of course, that’s because she regularly changes the definition of “not gay” to exclude examples who ruin that logic. And she also ignores Sanchez, who is viciously and vehemently anti-military, or the numerous gays in the Milk Club that support Sandoval and his anti-military stances…..
And for her last paragraph, it’s hard to tell what she’s trying to do; however, given her defense of the hate flingers on the very thread I cited, I think it’s best summed up by the acronym, “CYA”.
And Timothy, I fail to understand why you’re so bothered; all I did was to point out how you and your XGW compatriots were actively seeking opportunities to talk with people who might be hostile and decrying people who were blocking those conversations and flinging hate in the name of gay “unity”.
You know, just like you criticized James for advocating.
I’m always amused at how you come up with excuses for avoiding actually confronting the bad behavior of your fellow gays, instead going off on riffs about how awful you think I am as a person.
The reason I am “hostile”, as you put it, is simple; I am tired of people like Randi, Sandoval, Mark Sanchez, and others who use my sexual orientation to cover their antisocial and lunatic behavior, and I am even MORE tired of gays like yourself who stand there and say nothing to them out of some weird mystical belief in “unity”.
Get a spine. If you don’t want people like Randi running around flinging hate at Christians, tell them to buzz off and take it elsewhere. If you and your fellow XGW folks want people who know what they’re talking about on the speaker’s platform and who don’t just recite “hate, hate, hate” over and over again, plant your butt in front of group organizers and insist that they put people up there who do. Don’t just sit back, hope it will happen, and commiserate over vodka cranberries later about how much better it would have been had that happened.
And for heaven’s sake, stop automatically assuming that anyone who criticizes the bad behavior of gays hates gays.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “What’s really funny is watching Randi desperately try to spin even more, especially her insistence that the fact that Sandoval is married means he can’t be gay.”.
LOL, Northdallass the vast majority of the population is straight and an even larger percentage of those heterosexually married is straight. If you want to claim that Sandoval is the rare rare exception to that the onus is on you to prove it and so far you’ve offered no evidence whatsover to support your adament assertion that he’s gay.
Northdallass said “Of course, that’s because she regularly changes the definition of “not gay” to exclude examples who ruin that logic.”
You lie, I’ve done no such thing.
Northdallass said “And she also ignores Sanchez, who is viciously and vehemently anti-military, or the numerous gays in the Milk Club that support Sandoval and his anti-military stances”.
LOL, Northdallass you certainly haven’t made the case for that either. All you’ve proven is that Sanchez opposes discrimination against gays in the military – that’s a long ways from being “viciously and vehemently anti-military”. Of course if your mouth is flapping that’s all the evidence you need to believe what you’re saying is the truth.
And again, Northdallass whereas you baselessly claimed “quite a few” gays are anti-military you haven’t given a single example of that.
Northdallass said “And for her last paragraph, it’s hard to tell what she’s trying to do”.
I’m pointing out that you had no basis for your assumption that gays you don’t like are “non-assimilationist”. Of course, you knew that, and just didn’t want to admit it.
Northdallass said “The reason I am “hostile”, as you put it, is simple; I am tired of people like Randi, Sandoval, Mark Sanchez, and others who use my sexual orientation to cover their antisocial and lunatic behavior”.
What pisses you off Northdallas is that I hold you accountable for your lies. What evidence do you have that Sanchez is one of the tiny minority of people who are heterosexually married and gay – other than that it would be convenient to your gay bashing if he were? Given that you call opposing discrimination against gays in the military lunatic your hatred of gays is obvious.
Northdallass said “stop automatically assuming that anyone who criticizes the bad behavior of gays hates gays.”
LOL, Northdallas what makes it clear that you hate gays is your blaming all gays for isolated incidents of bad behavior while ignoring the bad behavior of heterosexuals, your habitual lying to denigrate gays, your ignoring the monogamous abstinent gays on this thread to claim most gays are promiscuous drug users, your disproven claims that the “vast majority” of gays are anti-religious and that “quite a few” are anti-military.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If you want to claim that Sandoval is the rare rare exception to that the onus is on you to prove it and so far you’ve offered no evidence whatsover to support your adament assertion that he’s gay.
(shrug) Greg told me not to bother, that you wouldn’t believe it anyway.
So I won’t.
All you’ve proven is that Sanchez opposes discrimination against gays in the military – that’s a long ways from being “viciously and vehemently anti-military”.
And again, Northdallass whereas you baselessly claimed “quite a few” gays are anti-military you haven’t given a single example of that.
Of course I did — the Harvey Milk LGBT Democrat Club. Or the numerous gays who belong to and support International ANSWER, a charming organization which claims all of our troops are murderers and should be tried and sentenced for war crimes — and which invariably seems to show up in and at pride parades.
What pisses you off Northdallas is that I hold you accountable for your lies.
Actually, what you invariably end up doing is accusing me of lying, and then backpedaling after I produce links – such as you did over Minnesota’s nondiscrimination law, such as you did over Bonnie Bleskachek, such as you did over heterosexuals condemning public sex, such as you are doing over HRC leader Hilary Rosen and DNC Treasurer Andrew Tobias, both glbt, giving money to FMA supporters, etc.
It is rather instructive, though; I’ve often wondered just how far so-called “moderate” gays like Timothy would go down with the ship, as it were, and it seems they’re more than willing to encourage, protect, and support someone who calls their religious beliefs “superstition”, insinuates they are “idiots” for believing it, disparagingly refers to them as “cafeteria Christians”, and supports people at rallies who are doing the OPPOSITE of what they claim to want.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Greg told me not to bother, that you wouldn’t believe it anyway. So I won’t.”
No, you lie yet again, Greg said he wouldn’t believe it, he made no comment about what I might believe or not. And I did believe you when you first said Sandoval was gay and only realized you were lying when Greg pointed out that he’s married with a child. You just want an excuse for not presenting any evidence to back up your unjustified claim that he’s gay because you can’t. You lied, yet again. You had a viewpoint you didn’t like and you had to force a square peg into a round hole and say he’s gay because that’s the only way you could push your anti-gay hate.
You haven’t made the case that the Harvey Milk club is anti-military, opposing discrimination against gays in the militarty is not anti-military. And your example of ANSWER is laughable, there are far more straight people in ANSWER than gays and yet you’re not claiming this proves straights are anti- military – because your a gay hating bigot.
Northdallass said “Actually, what you invariably end up doing is accusing me of lying, and then backpedaling after I produce links”.
Again you lie. I never said you lied about Minnesota anti-discrimination law – I never read the link so I couldn’t comment on your allegation. I never said you lied about Bonnie Blakely, I only skimmed the story so I couldn’t comment on your allegation. I never said you lied about heterosexuals condemning public sex I said they weren’t any more likely to do so than gays. I never said you lied about Rosen or Tobias I said I never heard of them, haven’t read your links and can’t confirm or deny any actions of theirs.
And if I “invariably” end up backpedalling after pointing out your lies after you produce links, where are your links to prove you weren’t lying when you said I have multiple sex partners, that I “demand to have public sex whenever and wherever”, that I “tear down normal and married couples as “Stepford Wives””, that I would say “the afghani tribesmen were justified in skinning the christian aid workers alive because they were “attacked””?
As far as Timothy goes, I suspect he’d be just as concerned with me as he is with you if I told lie after lie after lie, but I’m not like you, I never knowningly say something that isn’t true.
And as to your religious beliefs, the only “evidence” you’ve got for them being true is words on paper, just like Islam and Hinduism has. Given the same “evidence”, what reason do you have to believe in Christianity and not those religions?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Randi, again, your words expose the problem.
You just want an excuse for not presenting any evidence to back up your unjustified claim that he’s gay because you can’t.
And yet, what do you admit you do when I present evidence?
I never said you lied about Minnesota anti-discrimination law – I never read the link so I couldn’t comment on your allegation. I never said you lied about Bonnie Blakely, I only skimmed the story so I couldn’t comment on your allegation. I never said you lied about heterosexuals condemning public sex I said they weren’t any more likely to do so than gays. I never said you lied about Rosen or Tobias I said I never heard of them, haven’t read your links and can’t confirm or deny any actions of theirs.
And that’s why I’m not bothering, as per Greg’s request; people like you don’t read it, and I have documented proof of that fact — in your own words.
However, what I will also point out is that, despite allegedly knowing nothing about it and ignoring my links, you were more than willing to comment on things, such as the Minnesota antidiscrimination law, and make false assertions about it:
Christians do not deserve legal protection for their bigotry when the law does not similarly provide gays with protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Clearly and flatly wrong; Minnesota law DOES provide protection on the basis of sexual orientation. But you claim you’re not responsible for your falsehood because you didn’t research your statement before you made it. You constantly demand evidence from others, but you say whatever you want without evidence.
The why behind it, though, is understandable, given your previous sentence that nicely encapsulates gay leftist beliefs:
Her religious beliefs are unreasonable, its unreasonable to reject anyone for behavior that hurts no one and the accomodation of those beliefs most certainly is not reasonable, regardless of whether or not its the law.
So what we have here are gays who demand that they be given nondiscrimination protections and that no one should be allowed to ignore them, but then insisting that they have the right to IGNORE any nondiscrimination law they want and discriminate against people for whatever reason they want, including religion.
Interestingly enough, a fine example of that is lesbian Bonnie Bleskachek, who openly and publicly discriminated against male employees, demanded that female employees have sex with her in order to advance in their careers, and used her position as Minneapolis fire chief to retaliate against women who wouldn’t.
Not a single national gay organization condemned Bleskachek’s behavior. Not one. They scream and cry about how evil it is when a person is discriminated against for being gay, but they say nothing when a powerful lesbian and Democrat is caught demanding sex from other women as the price of advancement and openly discriminating against men.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
See Northdallass, the problem is you expect to lie with impugnity by changing the subject. You said “you invariably end up doing is accusing me of lying, and then backpedaling after I produce links – such as you did over Minnesota’s nondiscrimination law, such as you did over Bonnie Bleskachek, such as you did over heterosexuals condemning public sex, such as you are doing over HRC leader Hilary Rosen and DNC Treasurer Andrew Tobias”.
You haven’t produced any links where I accused you of lying about those because I didn’t. And obviously you don’t “invariably” show links to prove me wrong when I point out your lies as you have no proof or links to substantiate your false claims that I have multiple sex partners, that I “demand to have public sex whenever and wherever”, that I “tear down normal and married couples as “Stepford Wives””, that I would say “the afghani tribesmen were justified in skinning the christian aid workers alive because they were “attacked”” or that I “repeatedly assault them [religious people] in every manner possible”.
And yes, I was wrong about Minnesota law, unlike you I’m a big enough person to admit it. But you, when you’re shown to be wrong, you twist, spin, dance, and tell ever more outrageous lies to avoid admitting the painfully obvious, that, for example, you have no reason to say Sandoval is gay beyond your own desire to fabricate reality to assist you in the demonization of gays.
And as to your pitiful excuse that I “wouldn’t read the link anyway”, you don’t know that, I read half or more of your links and furthermore, I’m not the only person on this blog you need to prove your claims to, there are many, many other people here besides me and you owe it to them to back up your claims or to admit you got it wrong.
Northdallass said “So what we have here are gays who demand that they be given nondiscrimination protections and that no one should be allowed to ignore them, but then insisting that they have the right to IGNORE any nondiscrimination law they want and discriminate against people for whatever reason they want, including religion.”
Again, you lie – I never made any such “insistence”. You are one scary person, given how freely you fabricate reality to demonize others, what other horrors are you capable of? You don’t have any moral boundaries at all, do you?
Northdallass said “blah, blah, blah, Bonnie Bleskachek, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah”.
Yes Northdallas, and a heterosexual cop raped a transexual
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/01/012007txCop.htm
and a group of heterosexual cops beat a gay couple
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/01/012407cop.htm
And a Christian killed an elderly man because he wouldn’t buy his Christian music CDs
http://www.trentonian.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18085756&BRD=1697&PAG=461&dept_id=44551&rfi=6
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Classic example.
And yes, I was wrong about Minnesota law, unlike you I’m a big enough person to admit it. But you, when you’re shown to be wrong, you twist, spin, dance, and tell ever more outrageous lies to avoid admitting the painfully obvious, that, for example, you have no reason to say Sandoval is gay beyond your own desire to fabricate reality to assist you in the demonization of gays.
You see, Randi, you can’t admit you were wrong — without frantically trying to tear someone else down so you don’t look as bad.
Hence your instantaneous screaming about how bad heterosexuals are when confronted with examples of bad gay behavior. Hence your inability to say another gay person was wrong without trying to insist that someone else provoked them.
Notice, though, in all the links you provided, the person who assaulted a gay person was caught, repudiated, and punished.
Show me where a single national gay organization did that to Bonnie Bleskachek.
And as to your pitiful excuse that I “wouldn’t read the link anyway”, you don’t know that,
Actually, I knew that a long time ago.
I’ve read enough of your meandering irrelevant links that I’ve learned to ignore most of them.
And again:
Northdallass, I don’t read most of the links you provide anymore because as is the case with the link you provided in your previous post it does not prove what you say it does.
Continuing…..
I read half or more of your links
After claiming you ignore and don’t read “most” of them.
and furthermore, I’m not the only person on this blog you need to prove your claims to, there are many, many other people here besides me and you owe it to them to back up your claims or to admit you got it wrong.
Well, let’s see, Greg told me not to bother, Timothy made up his mind without, and you aren’t reading them.
Seems like nobody wants any owing — and especially since “owing” here is a lot like an old poll tax; it only applied to certain undesirable folk that they wanted gone.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “You see, Randi, you can’t admit you were wrong — without frantically trying to tear someone else down so you don’t look as bad.”.
See the problem is Northdallass, you think my rare honest mistakes should be repeatedly emphasized while you never acknowledge your very, very numerous lies. You won’t admit to your lies under any circumstances and you just keep telling more.
You said “you invariably end up doing is accusing me of lying, and then backpedaling after I produce links – such as you did over Minnesota’s nondiscrimination law, such as you did over Bonnie Bleskachek, such as you did over heterosexuals condemning public sex, such as you are doing over HRC leader Hilary Rosen and DNC Treasurer Andrew Tobias”.
You haven’t produced any links where I accused you of lying about those because I didn’t. And obviously you don’t “invariably” show links to prove me wrong when I point out your lies as you have no proof or links to substantiate your false claims that I have multiple sex partners, that I “demand to have public sex whenever and wherever”, that I “tear down normal and married couples as “Stepford Wives””, that I would say “the afghani tribesmen were justified in skinning the christian aid workers alive because they were “attacked”” or that I “repeatedly assault them [religious people] in every manner possible”. And for that matter you have no link to prove you didn’t lie about Sandoval being gay.
As far as Bonnie Bleskachek goes I said previously that if she’s guilty what she did was wrong. Obviously you lie yet again when you claim I insist all such LGBTs were provoked. And of course national gay organizations don’t catch and punish offenders, that’s the job of law enforcement – you don’t see your local Christian organization catching and punishing offenders either. And as far as repudiation goes you don’t see national gay organizations repudiating every heterosexual offender either.
The problem with you is that you pretend isolated incidents are typical of gays in general but get testy when similarly shown incidents of heterosexuals behaving badly. You think you should have a right to lie by presenting a hugely imbalanced portrayal of gays and straights.
And as far as your links go, my attention to them varies. In the past I’ve ignored most of them, but more recently I’ve read over half of them. It largely depends on whether or not I see any relevance to the argument at hand and frequently there is none. Obviously if you had proof Sandoval is gay despite being married with children that would be relevant. But of course for you that’s besides the point. We all know you’d delight in proving us wrong about Sandoval not being gay if you could and obviously the only reason you don’t is because you can’t. Your childish excuse that “we wouldn’t believe you anyway” is incredibly transparent. Its just another pathetic lie of yours to cover up a previous lie, that Sandoval was gay. Laughably, now you ask us to believe you when you suggest you could prove it but choose not to because a tiny minority of IGF readers might doubt you. You’re just too much of a cowardly liar to admit to your blatantly obvious B.S.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
This is so ironic; right after I point out Randi’s incapability of admitting she was wrong without tacking on attempts to tear down other people to make herself look better, she comes back with this:
See the problem is Northdallass, you think my rare honest mistakes should be repeatedly emphasized while you never acknowledge your very, very numerous lies. You won’t admit to your lies under any circumstances and you just keep telling more.
Again, she “admits” she was wrong — but then starts flinging mud and trying to tear me down so she looks better in comparison.
And then, her inability to admit another gay person was wrong strikes again:
As far as Bonnie Bleskachek goes I said previously that if she’s guilty what she did was wrong.
Of course — the spinning bigot Randi buys into Bleskachek’s denials. That’s what leftist glbts like Bleskachek and Randi do — they accuse heterosexuals of homophobia and sexism.
The denialism is downright hilarious.
And as far as repudiation goes you don’t see national gay organizations repudiating every heterosexual offender either.
Right.
And again, despite these proven crimes on the part of Bleskachek, not a single national gay organization condemned her behavior. Not one.
Ironic, considering they backed her “they’re after me because I’m a lesbian” defense. You think they’d have the balls to admit that a lesbian openly lied to the public about being harassed when she herself was harassing others behind the scenes.
Or maybe they’re just like you, Randi; they think anti-discrimination laws only apply to others, and that they should be free to discriminate as much as they want. They’re still not sure what Bleskachek did wrong; after all, she’s a lesbian, and lesbians and gays don’t have to follow laws.
In the past I’ve ignored most of them, but more recently I’ve read over half of them. It largely depends on whether or not I see any relevance to the argument at hand and frequently there is none.
So you don’t read links that you think have no relevance.
However, you never explain how you can determine whether or not a link is relevant without reading it.
So either you’re deeming links as irrelevant without reading them…..or you’re reading them and insisting you didn’t later so that you can plead ignorance when cornered.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Italics stop.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
LOL, Northdallass, what’s ironic is that you blame me for being unable to admit I’m wrong without tearing down others, but you yourself focus on tearing me down to avoid admitting you’re wrong! You accuse me of flinging mud to look better in comparison yet that is exactly what you are doing! Once again the key difference is I’m not afraid to admit my rare mistakes, but you lie regularly and instead of admitting it try to hide from it by attempting to tear me down with further lies.
And I don’t know anything about Bleskacheks alleged denials, I’ve never heard them and am no more interested in them than in the latest scandal involving some heterosexaul I never heard of. Its simply irrelevant to the topic at hand and a typical ploy on your part to detract attention from the topic at hand – that you lied about Sandoval being gay and despite evidence to the contrary continue to insist that he is and that you could prove it but won’t because Greg said he might not believe you. You pathetic coward. What transparent sniveling tripe.
And as I said earlier HRC most certainly hasn’t repudiated every straight doing wrong, the handful you listed isn’t even remotely close to the thousands and thousands of offenders that are caught every year. Once again you claim what you cannot deliver.
Northdallass said “Or maybe they’re just like you, Randi; they think anti-discrimination laws only apply to others, and that they should be free to discriminate as much as they want.”
Again you lie, if you ever stop I’ll think I’m hallucinating. I believe in equality and fairness for all, the law applies to everyone, not to some. If you think you ‘win’ an argument by lying about people, using obvious straw men and mischaracterizing others you’re only fooling yourself.
Northdallass said “you never explain how you can determine whether or not a link is relevant without reading it.”.
Let me give you an example I didn’t read your last link about about Bleskachek because the details are irrelevant. Why are they irrelevant? Because people do bad things, both gay and straight, some gay doing something wrong doesn’t prove all gays are bad anymore than some straight doing something wrong shows all straights are bad. What’s relevant is that you portrayal of gays and straights is wildely unbalanced, you rant endlessly about a handful of isolated gay incidents of bad behavior and completely ignore the wrongs of straights unless someone like me rubs your face in them and then you bitch that somehow that’s unfair because we should just acknowledge the wrongs of gays and never bring up the wrongs of straights, but of course you don’t think turnabout is fair play. Why shouldn’t we just acknowledge the wrongs of straights and not try to tear down gays to make straights look better, huh two-face? You’re just a spoiled little brat who’s used to getting his own way and being the centre of attention.
And of course you refuse to deal with your false claim that I “invariably” accuse you of lying, and then “backpedal” after you supposedly produce links to prove you haven’t – such as on Minnesota’s nondiscrimination law, such as on Bonnie Bleskachek, such as on heterosexuals condemning public sex, such as on HRC leader Hilary Rosen and DNC Treasurer Andrew Tobias”.
Well, where are your links showing that I accused you of lying about that?! Why don’t you just admit the truth, you made that up because you want to falsely claim I’ve been “invariably” wrong when I have pointed out your lies?
If I “invariably” falsely accuse you where are your links that prove you weren’t lying when you said I have multiple sex partners, that I “demand to have public sex whenever and wherever”, that I “tear down normal and married couples as “Stepford Wives””, that I would say “the afghani tribesmen were justified in skinning the christian aid workers alive because they were “attacked”” or that I “repeatedly assault them [religious people] in every manner possible”. Tell me Mr. “invariably” where are you links to show that those weren’t lies?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Again you lie, if you ever stop I’ll think I’m hallucinating. I believe in equality and fairness for all, the law applies to everyone, not to some.
Mhm.
Her religious beliefs are unreasonable, its unreasonable to reject anyone for behavior that hurts no one and the accomodation of those beliefs most certainly is not reasonable, regardless of whether or not its the law.
It’s OK, Randi; as we see with Bonnie Bleskachek, glbts have no problem with whining about the need for nondiscrimination laws while they themselves are practicing and advocating discrimination. You’re not unique.
And this is priceless.
I didn’t read your last link about about Bleskachek because the details are irrelevant.
Ah yes, those pesky, nasty details. Like Bleskachek claiming that people who criticized her were heterosexuals who were doing so out of sexism and homophobia. She wasn’t wrong; everyone else was. It was just a witch hunt against gays, and unfair, considering how awful heterosexuals are.
Where have we seen that before? Oh right, your posts.
Again, you’re not unique, Randi; as Bleskachek shows, it’s standard practice for gays to cover up their misbehavior by blaming heterosexuals. And any gay who tries to point out how wrong that is, as I have been doing, is met with shrieks and screams about how he’s “lying”.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, the law applies equally to all whether it is reasonable or not.
The topic of this thread is DADT and it wasn’t going so well for your attempt to paint gays as anti-military and your false claim that Sandoval is gay so you want to change the subject to Bonnie Bleskachek so you don’t have to have your face rubbed in your wrong-doings yet again.
The problem is you lied about Sandoval, vehemently insisting he’s gay and that this means gays in general are anti-military and you have nothing to back that up other than it being convenient to your anti-gay bigotry. And when I held you accountable for that lie you tried to falsely claim I “invariably” accuse you of lying, and then “backpedal” after you supposedly produce links to prove you haven’t – such as on Minnesota’s nondiscrimination law, such as on Bonnie Bleskachek, such as on heterosexuals condemning public sex, such as on HRC leader Hilary Rosen and DNC Treasurer Andrew Tobias”.
Well, you’ve been asked several times to produce those links quoting me saying you lied about those topics and you haven’t. Why don’t you just admit the truth, you made that up because you want to falsely claim I’ve been “invariably” wrong when I have accurately pointed out your lies?
If I “invariably” falsely accuse you of lying where are your links that prove you weren’t lying when you said I have multiple sex partners, that I “demand to have public sex whenever and wherever”, that I “tear down normal and married couples as “Stepford Wives””, that I would say “the afghani tribesmen were justified in skinning the christian aid workers alive because they were “attacked”” or that I “repeatedly assault them [religious people] in every manner possible”. Tell me Mr. “invariably” where are you links to show that those weren’t lies?