It's hard to take veteran gay activist Larry Kramer seriously when he says things like, "I believe that Ronald Reagan is responsible for more deaths than Adolf Hitler." Or when he luxuriates in victimhood by proclaiming, "I wish I could make all gay people everywhere accept this one fact I know to be an undisputed truth. We are hated."
The gay enragee has re-emerged into the spotlight with a highly publicized "open letter" in the Los Angeles Times and a speech at New York's LGBT Center (here's a video).
Kramer has accomplished much good, often despite himself, co-founding Gay Men's Health Crisis and even ACT UP (which, in the early days, brought much needed attention to the AIDS crisis despite some woefully wrongheaded attacks). But he has never understood that a case has to be made for changing society, that the need to make radical alterations cannot simply be assumed, with all who oppose such transformations labeled "haters" or "murderers."
More Kramer:
"We must cease our never-ending docile cooperation with a status quo that never changes in its relationship to us. We are cutting our own throats raising money for Hillary or Obama or Kerry or, God forbid, Giuliani, or anyone until they come out in full support of all the things I am talking about..."
While it's refreshing (and somewhat rare) to see Democrats held to the same standard that their party's gay activists routinely hold Republicans to, the idea that it must all be Now, that there can be no forward if incremental steps toward progress, is in its own way frighteningly totalitarian.
If society readily accepted fundamental transformations without struggle, we'd be in a constant state of revolution, and revolutionary terror. That sort of upheaval and the tyranny that (not always, but often) follows, would be our daily fare. Resistance to demands to alter the social fabric, even to the over-reaching and often counter-productive social engineering of the welfare state, is a societal self-defense mechanism.
This is especially true of demands for change made by those who think that the purity of their rage is testament to the rightness of their cause.
Of course we must fight for gay equality, and often that requires expressions of great passion. And some of our opponents are, in fact, motivated by an ugly animus (while others shamelessly see gay-baiting as their path to power). But demonifying all who oppose gay equality based on conservative impulses is not a successful strategy. Rather, working to enlighten a majority- demonstrating, over and over again until the message gets through, that gay equality is not destabilizing toward families and society, but actually makes both stronger-is a painstaking but necessary requirement.
It is just not enough to base our identity on victimhood and expect that this will move us toward our goals, no matter how much we "act up."
More. It's not about Larry Kramer, but George Will writes today on how political rage has become pandemic. "Today, many people preen about their anger as a badge of authenticity: I snarl therefore I am. Such people make one's blood boil."
71 Comments for “The Conservative Impulse Is Not Evil”
posted by Brian Miller on
If society readily accepted fundamental transformations without struggle, we’d be in a constant state of revolution, and revolutionary terror.
Oh, what utter nonsense.
Gay equality under the law isn’t “a fundamental transformation,” it’s simply recognition of the Constitutional rights of LGBT Americans as defined in the bill of rights.
Unless the Bill of Rights is a “revolutionary terrorist document” (and given the Republican sympathies of many authors on IGF, I don’t doubt that’s a position of a few), there’s nothing revolutionary or “sea-changing” about equality under the law for LGBT folks. The experiences of people from Massachusetts to Taiwan illustrate this with clarity.
As for Kramer et al, who cares? What’s the relevance these days?
Neither conservatives nor liberals like Kramer have answers for gay folks anyway.
posted by James on
Larry Kramer represents the worst of the gay community. However, I bet he would join with many of you in hating me, so be careful before cutting him down.
I bet he would hate my plan for gay equality–
Support the military
THEN
ask for the overthrow of DADT
Form lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships and make them visible
THEN
ask for the right to marry
Consistently tell gay kids that they should wait until they are in a permanent relationship before having sex
THEN
ask for gay kids to be included in sex education courses
Join a church and participate in the community
THEN
ask to be ordained.
Or, you can do it Larry Kramer’s way. Good luck with that!
posted by dew on
So Brian, may we assume that you libertarians have all the answers to society’s problems? Your constant attacks on everybody else (Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives) are tiresome ad hominen. Perhaps you could spend more time laying out the libertarian solutions to all fo the problems.
Query: if you and your friends possess such great policy answers to today’s problems, why have they failed to catch on?
posted by dew on
James:
Support the military
THEN
ask for the overthrow of DADT
Most gays already support the military, both by serving in it and by supporting our brothers’ choices to serve.
Form lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships and make them visible
THEN
ask for the right to marry
Most gays already form lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships, and make them quietly visible to friends and family. It’s also true that most gays — just like most straights — experiment with casual sex before settling down. Once in committed relationships, gay — just like straights — struggle with honoring their fidelity commitment, and sometimes fail. (What is the divorce rate of straights in this country, James?)
Join a church and participate in the community
THEN
ask to be ordained.
Many gays have joined churches, which is a brave thing considering that most Christian churches condemn homosexuality. It is those very gay church members who have risen within their churches and studied to become ministers, who now ask to be ordained. Your formulation suggests that it’s non-religious gays, outside of the churches, who demand to be ordained, which is obviously nonsensical. Indeed, you have claimed in this forum that most gays are irrationally predisposed to be non-religious, so the idea that those who eschew religion would demand to be part of its leadership is logically incoherent.
George Will’s commentary is the most dead-on assessment of today’s sad state of affairs I’ve seen in years. For evidence of his point, one need look no further this forum, at the posts of James, North Dallas Thirty, Brian Miller and the many leftists whose hatred has reached the point that they believe that conservatives have nothing of value to say on any subject.
If you care about this country, knock it off.
posted by Chris Fox on
Sounds like more of that glorious Stonewall legacy. As though the true goal of activism is to have everyone heterosexual strapped into theater seats and forced to listen to shrieking tirades that we hate you, too!
Conceding solely repeat solely for the sake of argument that there ever was a place for all that belligerence and “all those in your face” theatrics, that time has certainly passed. We’re here, we’re queer, and it turns out that most people really don’t give a damn.
I’ve always felt that the radical separatist gays and the fundies should get a room, they seemed to both want the same thing for us. To hell with them both.
Hated? Not me. Look in the mirror, Larry.
posted by PCT on
I thought Will’s column was great too. The other thing Americans seem to luxuriate in, besides anger, is victimhood. Fundies are victims of the “gay agenda”. Gays are victims of the hatred of right wing Christians. James can’t be himself because of all those flamboyant gay guys out there ruining his life. Flamboyant gay guys have to be that way because they were rejected by their churches. And on and on.
>I’ve always felt that the radical separatist gays and the fundies should get a room, they seemed to both want the same thing for us. To hell with them both.< Amen....
posted by Randy on
I was rather infuriated by George Will’s column. (Hows that for irony!) But seriously, he has a lot of nerve to talk about anger in the public arena. I don’t recall much anger in the 1980s, although there was some directed at Pres. Reagan. The real anger, however, came from people like Rush Limbaugh, who started calling all women who like their rights “feminazis”, labeled all environmentalists as extremists who hate capitalism, condemned gays, blacks, drug users, anyone who didn’t love a gun, and so on.
It was Limbaugh who started this whole anger stuff, and it was picked up by Hannity, and James Dobson and others. Sure, liberal pundits began too, but they simply didn’t have the following that any of these people did. And don’t me started about Ann Coulter! (At least Will had the integrity to single her out).
But if Will is upset about the tenor of political discourse, he should look in the mirror, especially when he takes snide swipes at liberals, and all his friends on tv and radio who rally the base by frightening them about all the homos coming after their children.
posted by dalea on
Some time ago, I posted a link to a survey on gay religious attachment and activity. James consistently refuses to acknowledge what is known about gay people and religion. Which is that gay people are by and large religious. The number of atheists is low. The number of gays who are actively religious is high in some denominations; low in others. Pagans and Buddhists are the most active of gay religious people. Mainline protestants and evangelicals are usually not very active. But almost all gays claim a religious identity.
So James, just who are you talking about? What proof do you have for your claims? Any at all? And why do you keep misrepresenting what is known?
This thing about being a member of a church, and active, before asking for ordination is puzzling. James makes it sound like gays barge into all sorts of denominations and demand ordination. Every gay guy I ever knew who wanted to be a minister had been a long time adherent, had graduated from seminar and then been denied ordination.
So James, just who are you talking about? When and where did these events take place? Do you have any evidence to support your smearing and besmirching of gay people?
If you do, lay it out. If not, STFU.
posted by Alex on
I’m going to read everyone’s comments in a moment. But would like to point out that the Larry Kramer’s of the world can serve a useful function of making the issue visible. Also, I think there is a value to being the guy that “mainstream” gays can point to and say: You can deal with us, or you can deal with him…
Lastly, his rhetoric is no more spiteful than the Conservative standard bearers: Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Bill O’Riley, etc…
posted by James on
For a snapshot of the gay community, you might want to look at Gay.com or Planetout. I don’t see them talking about the nature of Jesus’ divinity or the just war doctrine or how to teach kids to save sex for marriage. What do you see?
Since your response will be that these hugely trafficked sites are not representative of most gays (who are monogamous, churchgoing couples with yellow ribbons on their SUVs), which site, of all the sites in the world, would you say is best at representing the typical gay man?
And if it’s OK for Larry Kramer to be mean and sarcastic, why isn’t it OK for me?
posted by Alex on
Brian: Survey’s have been done where the Bill of Rights is taken out into the street and most people, when asked to identify them, thought they were a communist manifesto.
Dew & delea: Responding to James? Good luck with that! Many (not all) of his posts seem to be unencumbered by any intaction with real live gay people. Every conclusion is drawn from the American media, which is designed to titilate not inform us.
Also, I think there is a value to being the guy that “mainstream” gays can point to and say: You can deal with us, or you can deal with him… and we’re less annoying.
posted by Alex on
which site, of all the sites in the world, would you say is best at representing the typical gay man? None, since “we’re everywhere.” Every kind of sub-culture has gay people. From skinheads to Republicans. From orthodox jews to athiests. From boardrooms to plant floors.
Except for advertising purposes, Gay.Com & PlanetOut couldn’t honestly represent themselves as “typical gay people.” Not that I think you’ll listen this time (when you haven’t listened to date): They certainly do represent me or any of the people that I know.
Your “snapshot” is incomplete, at best.
In your posts you present a point of view suggesting that you are just about the only religious gay person in the country. A quick search on google finds these sites, and many more. You’re not the only one.
Gay Christian Network
Gay Christian Online
Whoseoever: Online magazine for GLBT Chrisitians
GayChristian.Com
posted by EssEm on
Ah, La Kramer. When Vito Russo died, Kramer spoke at his memorial, to a room with many hundreds of grieving people who were paying tribute to Vito’s talent, work, and his sweet and warm character. All Kramer could do was to tell us that we were to blame for his death because we didn’t do enough, or some such rot. I haven’t listened to a word that this narcissistic harpy has said since.
posted by Chris Fox on
I can’t believe people are talking about George Will, the man is a buffoon, an unlettered person’s notion of an intellectual. Come on, people, one step lower and we’re discussing Britney an’ Jennifer.
But anyone who thinks that attack dog rage politics began with Limbaugh has never seen the target of a gay villification campaign. Any gay man who failed to toe the orthodox line got treatment the Kremlin could admire. Remember the early days of HIV, some of us thought the bathhouses should close? I bet Limbaugh was taking notes.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So James, just who are you talking about? What proof do you have for your claims? Any at all? And why do you keep misrepresenting what is known?
You mean, wherever would one get the idea that gays are antireligious?
Oh, I don’t know….maybe statements like this, in which gays demand that people who request religious accomodation at work be identified so that gays can urinate and vomit on them, or accuse Christians of wanting to murder their spouses, for starters.
Add to that Randi’s repeated claims that religious people are superstitious, idiotic, irrational, and mentally ill, and Sir Elton John’s statement that he would ban religion completely, and I think the point is very well made.
By the way, what I find amusing is that the first site Alex mentions — Gay Christian Network — has already been discussed here, with numerous dismissive comments from the gay intelligentsia and ideology about how he wasn’t throwing off the “yoke” of religious oppression.
And once more to a point of Alex’s:
Many (not all) of his posts seem to be unencumbered by any intaction with real live gay people. Every conclusion is drawn from the American media, which is designed to titilate not inform us.
Then you would think that gays would be getting upset at people like dalea, Randi, raj, and condom-throwing church-vandalizing people like Larry Kramer and demanding they stop hijacking the microphone and using their status as “gay” as a cover for activities and verbal bombardments that most gay people would never even consider doing.
I have. But I’ve found it to be a very lonely position. And when I have, more often than not, I’ve been blasted as being against “gay unity”.
I will put it simply; if it is fair for Larry Kramer to use Ann Coulter or whatever fantasy he has about all Republicans and conservatives wanting to put gays in concentration camps and exterminate us, then it is fair for James Dobson to do the reverse.
And if gays don’t like Dobson doing it, they should make it clear that Kramer’s not allowed to do it either.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Die, hyperlink, die!
posted by dew on
If I understand James, Randy, North Dallas Thirty, and Chris Fox, their point is this: they [insert ideological opponent] started it, so we can act the same way. Would you like to throw in a few grade-school taunts to go with your logic? Perhaps a “nah nah nah nah”?
I think the reality is this:
Gays on the left, who feel victimized (rightly or wrongly) by straight society, cannot break free from the rage they feel from past slights. That explains why they regurgitate remote events like the “early days of HIV” to justify their rage, even more than 20 years later. Reveling in indignant rage is so much empowering than moving on, acknowledging positive change, and debating policy in a civil manner.
Gays on the right, who feel victimized (rightly or wrongly) by gay society because their political views are in the minority, cannot break free from the rage they feel from past slights. That explains why they regurgitate remote and isolated events, such as North Dallas Thirty’s incessant linking to past arguments, to justify their rage today. Reveling in indignant rage is so much empowering than moving on, acknowledging positive change, and debating policy issues in a civil manner.
Those on the far left and far right ARE the problem with our society. Grow up, stop acting like spoiled children, move on and learn to discuss policy like adults.
posted by The Gay Species on
Kramer is one rebellious juvenille who refuses to grow up. Besides alienating Bay Area residents with his ACT-UP stint of closing the Golden Gate Bridge, he reviles Coulter for her “faggot” remark, having written a book, the title of which is “Faggot.” The Fallacy of Special Pleading has found its home in Kramer, who worships at the altar of stpudity. As one of my dear friends repeats endlessly: Being gay is not an excuse for stupidity. Not even for Kramer. Sadly, his outrageous nonsense gets press, and gives me embarassment. But being gay does not exempt one from stupidity, either. Lately, it seems everyone’s rage.
posted by jomicur on
Support the military, James? Not when things like this are going on:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1153
Now it’s your turn, James. Go ahead and tell us that 1) this is a lie posted by liberals, or 2) it’s an “isolated incident,” because most in the military just love us to pieces, or 3) whatever other rubbish your fevered little brain can concoct.
posted by dew on
Jomicur posts to this report on a bitch fight between an army recruiter and a young gay man to blast James. James is often fairly criticized for making sweeping generalizations about the “nature” of the gay community. Now, apparently believing that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, jomicur cites to this bigoted army recruiter to imply that the entire US military hates gays. Again, rage overcomes reason.
I linked to this article because I believe it illustrates my argument above. The recruiter, a Native American woman, tells a gay African-American man that he’s immoral and disgusting, and he should go back to Africa. Clearly, she’s reveling in her rage. How should the young gay black man respond to her tirade? Ignore her: she’s too filled with hatred and rage to be reasoned with. Instead, he fell victim to the ragehood that all the rage (pun intended), and mouthed off about her “rain dance.” At the end of the day, what did they accomplish? Nothing, except generate more hatred between citizens of this country.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “You mean, wherever would one get the idea that gays are antireligious?
Oh, I don’t know….maybe statements like this, in which gays demand that people who request religious accomodation at work be identified so that gays can urinate and vomit on them, or accuse Christians of wanting to murder their spouses, for starters.”.
This is the most common form of lie Northdallass tells. He takes the action of one gay and blames gays for it thus smearing the whole community with false responsibility for the action of one individual. When confronted with such a lie he’ll typically tell another lie to smear the gay community while changing the subject – he’ll falsely claim no one criticized this action, or that gays support such statements.
And of course he lies by ommission, leading people to believe the bus driver was innocuoulsy “requesting religious accommodation” without noting that she was spreading a message of hate by refusing to drive a bus with a gay advertisement on it. While not excusing Dalea’s comment, it certainly does put it in context – its not like Northdallass leads one to believe with Dalea suggesting some bus driver be urinated/vomitted on just because she’s religious.
Northdallass said “Add to that Randi’s repeated claims that religious people are superstitious, idiotic, irrational, and mentally ill.”
With the possible exception of you I never said religious people were idiotic. I don’t believe I ever specifically said they were superstitiuous either and if I used the phrase “irrational” it was likely in reference to beliefs, not the person themselves. And I was joking about Christians being mentally ill to illustrate how absurd some Christian’s claim is that they don’t hate gay people but that they see being gay as an illness – the same tripe can be used on Christians.
Once again, Northdallass makes the unqualified statement that “gays” are anti-religious and claims a minority of three anti-religious LGBTs show this while ignoring the large number of gays on this board who’ve demonstrated a positive view of religion and the survey results Dalea presented some time ago that show, if I remember correctly, over 2/3’s of gays are religious. He’ll totally distort reality to demonize gays.
posted by Brian Miller on
may we assume that you libertarians have all the answers to society’s problems? Your constant attacks on everybody else (Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives) are tiresome ad hominen
I don’t know what’s funnier — the fact that in most posts, I link to LP solutions to various problems. . . or that Republicans and Democrats are complaining about ad-hominem attacks. 😉
The reality of the situation is that Republicans and Democrats, with their monopoly on power, and unwillingess to consider alternative points of view, are entirely responsible for all the existing systemic problems in the country. No getting around that, sorry.
if you and your friends possess such great policy answers to today’s problems, why have they failed to catch on
Because folks like yourself are unwilling to consider them — preferring, instead, to try the same failed policy for the 34th time, hoping that this time it really will work.
posted by jomicur on
des, I hate to prick your self-righteous, self-important little bubble, but you might want to consider the possibility that I posted the military link because yanking James’s chain is FUN. Granted, it’s easy, like shooting fish in a barrel or tripping a dwarf, but none the less it’s FUN. Rage, darling, just simply doesn’t enter into it.
posted by dalea on
Randi, the idea of puke-ins actually seems to predate ACT-UP. The tactic was used against Cracker Barrel restaurants in the late 70’s or early 80’s. AIR, there was only one puke-in. Which was enough to convince the target they never wanted to go thru that again. A piss-in also has that effect.
I am firmly convinced that part of the reason our opponents feel they can pull off their stunts is that we do not fight back often enough. Nor hard enough. We need IMHO to raise the cost of being anti-gay. Which my proposal does do. And which I do not see anyone else here advocating. Just more choruses of ‘walk all over me’ and ‘I am a doormat’.
The most effective campaign tool for dealing with the Catholic church that I ever saw was a proposal to out individual priests. And the method was to focus on priests known personally to us, those who frequented the bars etc. So the targets were selected. And the posters made. Someone informed the targeted ones, which seems only fair. Next thing, the archdiocese calls: can they send someone over to check this out. Sure, more than welcome. Priests show up and examine the signs. Before we could go protest, the archdiocese withdrew its opposition to the gay rights bill. Which quickly passed. And one or two of the targeted priests were moved to leave the priesthood and live openly as gay men. They thanked us for helping them finally come out.
IGF seems to be the wussies and weenies forum. I say bash back. But do so in a splashy, public way.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And of course he lies by ommission, leading people to believe the bus driver was innocuoulsy “requesting religious accommodation” without noting that she was spreading a message of hate by refusing to drive a bus with a gay advertisement on it.
Which, as Dale Carpenter ably points out, really had no effect on gay people whatsoever — and, since Minnesota law requires that reasonable accomodation be made for requests based on religious belief, just as it does sexual orientation, is perfectly legal and sensible.
Once again, Northdallass makes the unqualified statement
Excuse me, but there are plenty of links that I provided to qualify matters.
What you’re asking us to believe is that you, dalea, and Raj, among others, are completely unrepresentative of gays and that, in fact, the vast majority of gays do NOT believe they have to be antireligious because they’re gay.
If that’s so, why do you comment so much, and why do they comment so little?
In conclusion, thank you, dalea; it is always amusing to watch Randi spin and make excuses for why urinating and vomiting on people is somehow appropriate, only to watch you demand that more and more of it be done, as well as adding blackmail to the list.
Furthermore, I will say this; since dalea justifies physical assault against people and demands that gays urinate and vomit in places that displease them, that those who are against gays should be allowed to similarly defile and vandalize LGBT community centers, gathering places, and so forth — and to tape or otherwise record gay people in compromising situations with the full intent of publicizing it in an attempt to harm them.
Those of us who argued against both warned you not to do it. But it seems the only way you’ll learn is the hard way.
posted by frank on
Actually, Kramer’s tactics have worked very well, and they will be necessary again. The leader of the largest Christian denomination, Benedict XVI is our mortal enemy. He has written that if we are murdered, we bring it on ourselves by pursuing civil equality. He and many leaders of the Christian right need to be met with as much political force as possible We would do better to awaken people to the dangers that religion poses in our world than to try to assimilate into it.
The Vatican proposed that members of the United Nations make it illegal to criticize religion. We must fight religion for basic human rights.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Gays on the right, who feel victimized (rightly or wrongly) by gay society because their political views are in the minority, cannot break free from the rage they feel from past slights. That explains why they regurgitate remote and isolated events, such as North Dallas Thirty’s incessant linking to past arguments, to justify their rage today. Reveling in indignant rage is so much empowering than moving on, acknowledging positive change, and debating policy issues in a civil manner.
Oh, we can, dew. That’s why I am heavily involved in raising funds and volunteering for HIV/AIDS services organizations here in the City, and also serving as a subject matter expert on glbt legal, workplace, and benefits issues for my professional association.
I, for one, have “moved on, acknowledged positive change, and debate policy issues in a civil manner”.
With straight people.
Gays….well, if there’s one lesson I’ve learned, it’s that most gays aren’t interested in any debate that doesn’t acknowledge their victimhood up front and focus primarily on blaming other people for their problems. The reason I support the organizations I do is because they demand accountability; they can help, but only if you make a commitment to get help and participate. They’re not like organizations like the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which instead of confronting endemic unsafe sex among gay men, claims Viagra ads make them do it.
And the reason I link to previous events has nothing to do with individual rage; it simply serves to confront gays who are ignoring matters into confronting the hate, intolerance, and antisocial behavior within their own community. It does no good to speak out about violence against gays, for example, when you have people like Dalea encouraging gays to commit acts of violence and people like Randi making excuses for it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Thank you, Frank, for again demonstrating that gays believe that being gay requires one to be antireligious.
And again, why should religious organizations be ordaining gays, when gays are out calling religion a “danger”, opposing ANY assimilation into it, and insisting that gays must “fight” it?
posted by Chris Fox on
Anyone claiming that our urban gay culture really does celebrate diversity is lying. There’s always been a gay orhtodoxy and it’s always been rigid and it’s always been enforced ruthlessly. Religiosity is just one part of it; the real rage was reserved for those who didn’t buy into the sanctity of promiscuity. Google “antisex.”
Having said this I feel obliged to continue and note that I don’t have a lot of sympathy for those gay Republicans who feel oppressed by the overwhelmingly liberal politics of the community .. those whose politics are at odds with their physical self-interest should not be helped to live with the contradiction.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Physical self-interest?
Aren’t we past the “Republicans want to march us off to camps” rhetoric of yore?
And given that those “overwhelmingly liberal” folks seemingly have no problem with antigay constitutional amendments, pandering to evangelicals, and giving money to FMA supporters, I think we can safely say that the “overwhelming liberality” of the gay community has little to nothing to do with liberals being supportive of gays — and everything to do with gays making sheep look assertive.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, the “accommodation” of that anti-gay bus driver gives tacit approval to her and other employees to discriminate against gays. Once she and they have been shown that they can reject buses with gay ads it gives them the idea that they can reject gays in general, that maybe the next time they see an effeminate man at a bus stop they can just pretend they didn’t see him, or that they can promote their anti-gay message to passengers, or that mid-level managers can maybe just “pass over” that gay potential employee as a “religious accomodation” to bigots like her.
Northdallass said “What you’re asking us to believe is that you, dalea, and Raj, among others, are completely unrepresentative of gays and that, in fact, the vast majority of gays do NOT believe they have to be antireligious because they’re gay.”.
As the study Dalea showed the vast majority of gays are religious contrary to your lies that they are anti-religious. And no gay is anti-religious because they are gay any more than people are anti-religious because they are tall, short, or blond. Some gays are anti-religious because most religion is anti-gay – you’re trying to put the cart before the horse.
Northdallass said “why do you comment so much, and why do they comment so little?”.
I comment so much because you lie so much and I point it out – surely you’ve noticed that the main thing I do is point out your lies. Think of me as the conscience you never had. And religious gays do comment frequently on this board, you just ignore it because it doesn’t suit your anti-gay agenda.
Northdallass said “it is always amusing to watch Randi spin and make excuses for why urinating and vomiting on people is somehow appropriate”.
I never said any such thing – you lie.
Northdallass said “Thank you, Frank, for again demonstrating that gays believe that being gay requires one to be antireligious.”.
Again, Frank never said that being gay requires one to be anti-religious, he said that the religionists anti-gay attitudes requires one to be anti-religious. Typical of Northdallass, he excuses the hate of the religious to blame the conflict on gays.
Northdallass said “I, for one, have “moved on, acknowledged positive change, and debate policy issues in a civil manner”. With straight people.”.
Exactly the problem with Northdallass, he excuses straight people’s oppression of gays and attacks gays for fighting against unequal treatment and then has the nerve to tell the lie that he’s volunteering to AIDS organizations. Its clear his goal is to attack and destroy the gay community and then pretend that somehow this is a good thing.
posted by Chris Fox on
North Dallas Thirty: yes, physical self-interest. As opposed to mere political congruence. When you vote for people who want employers to be able to fire you for being gay then you’re not voting very intelligently.
As for the rest it’s hard to tell what lane you’re driving in .. who is doing this pandering to evangelicals? Did you switch from “gays” to “the Democrats” in midstream or something?
I don’t see the docility you mention, not at all. I see a long history of reflexive belligerence and a lot of personal catharsis masking as activism. Any more constructive approach than shock and revulsion and chanting is just fine with me.
Chris Fox
Woodinville, WA
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So Randi advocates that employers disobey the law and refuse reasonable accomodation to religious people because of what they MIGHT do.
In that case, given the example of Bonnie Bleskachek, employers are justified in disobeying the law and refusing any accomodation to gay people because they will discriminate against and harass people who refuse to have sex with them.
Now, let’s see her rant about how employers should be allowed to discriminate against religious people based on what they MIGHT do, but cannot discriminate against gays DESPITE what they are clearly doing.
Meanwhile, what do you have to say, Randi, about dalea’s call to “bash” people, urinate, and vomit upon them and their places of business? Perhaps you can come up with some “context” for that to explain why it’s really right and justified and make excuses for it, just as you did previously.
And I love your desperate spin over Frank’s remarks, trying to insist that he only meant “some” religions and “some” attitudes when his post does not differentiate. Perhaps that’s because it makes obvious that antireligious hate and bigotry is endemic among gays, and especially the gays like yourself that claim to be the “conscience” for our community.
Exactly the problem with Northdallass, he excuses straight people’s oppression of gays and attacks gays for fighting against unequal treatment and then has the nerve to tell the lie that he’s volunteering to AIDS organizations.
LOL…..I AM tempted to put evidence up that would make it patently obvious how foolish and bigoted that statement is on your part, Randi, but there really would be no point. We watch you spin, make excuses, and blame everyone else for your hate and bigotry often enough, and this would drive you to new levels.
And for Chris:
When you vote for people who want employers to be able to fire you for being gay then you’re not voting very intelligently.
Unfortunately, Chris, as I cited above, gays like Bonnie Bleskachek have used their sexual orientation as an excuse for their bad behavior.
Not a single national gay organization condemned her actions. Not one.
Meanwhile, they’re running to Congress, demanding that gays be “protected” — evidently so that they can discriminate against religious people, as Randi advocates, and they can discriminate themselves, as Bleskachek did.
Why should Congress vote for laws that are being abused by glbts now?
Gays like myself, who do not hate straight people and blame straight people for all their problems, are doing quite well, thank you. Interestingly enough, our companies have policies that make it clear that we will not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation — even in my former company in Texas, where it was not required by law.
Perhaps that’s because we — unlike Bleskachek, Randi, and other gays — have something to offer other than our sexual orientation. Glbts like them NEED the government to protect them from being fired — which is why Bleskachek is still working for the Minneapolis Fire Department, instead of being out on her can like any private company would do to a manager who demanded that employees have sex with her in order to advance.
posted by Pat on
Lots of interesting points and comments. Some random thoughts and comments.
Regarding religion, it’s a tough call. First, it seems to me that religious people should be the ones that should hold the higher ground here. I usually don’t like schoolyard mentality for adults and war situations, etc., but I’m afraid religion started it first. They are the ones that have said that homosexuality is evil, an abomination, a sin, etc. It’s no wonder many gay people (although a minority) are not religious, and that a small subset of these individuals are downright hostile towards religion. I can’t understand how religious authorities would use that as an excuse to continue to ban ALL gays, and ordination of gay persons, etc., simple because of the actions of a minority. Why should the religious gay person be banned (or their ordination) simply because of the actions of other gay persons. It just is simply not consistent with the benevolence that is supposed to come with religion. If any religion uses this as an excuse, shame on them. Besides, there are many straight people who are hostile against religion, but I don’t see any religion using that as an excuse to ban all straight people from the religion. And in the Catholic Church, many priests (straight and gay males) were found to molest children. But the Church still ordains men (and not women) as priests.
I have no problem with anyone, gay or straight, who is antireligion. Heck, it is America and all. And I suspect there is a higher percentage of gay people that are antireligious, athiest, etc. Again, I can’t blame persons who were shamed by churches when they were kids for being gay not liking religion. Despite that, most don’t, and it’s unfair to tar every gay person with the same brush. Similarly, it’s unfair for anyone to tar all religions with the same brush. There are some religions that are completely gay inclusive, and there are some individual churches of anti-gay religions that are themselves gay inclusive. But just as I am against the hate of religionists like Dobson, Robertson, etc., I am against the hate that is thrown by anyone against religions as well. Throwing urine, and all that other stuff, just doesn’t have a place in solving disagreements such as this. And I question the effectiveness that any of these stunts allegedly have had in the past.
As for issues of faith, and what not. It doesn’t seem like an athiest is going to convince a religious person of their philosophy and vice versa. As one who has gone back and forth with belief in God, I do see both sides of the argument. I can see how an athiest can see any of the religions as a superstition or whatnot, because of what is written in a (divinely?) inspired holy book. Or how a religious person cannot see how an athiest, or a person of another religion don’t see things their way because of faith. But what does it matter? I see no reason why both groups can’t be respectful to the others faith or lack of faith.
As for the issue of gays and political parties. I have been of the belief that, in general, Democrats have been better than Republicans on gay rights, and have, in general, advanced gay rights in the past 40 years or so. Yes, I know there are exceptions of individual persons and individual policies, and that other people here disagree with that. I have seen Democrats starting to backtrack on gay rights since after Kerry lost to Bush, and am no longer confident that the Democrats will continue to advance gay rights. I am particularly disappointed with Hillary Clinton. One of the things that I found extremely dissapointing about Bush was his answer to whether homosexuality is a sin, which I found extremely condescending. Now both Bush and Clinton, I’m sure, are friends with plenty of gay persons, as well as professionally connected with many, and Bush and Clinton’s husband have appointed gay persons. And also connected with professionals who know that homosexuality, in and of itself is not some deviance. If either of them had any guts and integrity, there answer should have been an easy “no” to the question if they believe homosexuality is a sin. But Clinton’s recent answer to that question was not much better than Bush’s. So I’m withholding any support (money) to either party until they get their act together. In all the mailings I get from the DNC, none of them even address gay rights. I haven’t received any mailings recently from the RNC, so I don’t know if they address gay rights (in a positive way, that is), but I’m going out on a limb and say that they don’t. Probably will have to hold my nose for the next election.
I have to agree with Brian’s point regarding the Democrats and the Republicans on most issues. They both have been a failure on many of them, including the current war on Iraq. And it does seem like we just vote for the same people who try the same failed policies, and expect a different result.
A strong third party candidate might help things along.
posted by Brian Miller on
Perhaps that’s because we … have something to offer other than our sexual orientation
Well knock me down dead. I actually agree with ND30 on a meme of his. Of course, his “solution” to the problem — unquestioned partisan loyalty to the GOP — leaves much to be desired.
I propose an alternative approach. Take a look at your life, and the lives of your family and friends. What’s hurting them? What’s helping them? How have politicians caused those problems?
Then vote for the candidate — regardless of party — who earns your vote based on the issues. And argue based on those issues, rather than assinine “triangulation” or “strategies” that never come to fruition.
For instance — no self-respecting gay person for whom gay rights is a top priority can make any rational argument for a vote for any of the declared GOP or Dem candidates (apart from Kucinich) based on their opposition to marriage equality.
Sure, you can argue that supporting those candidates fulfills some Machiavellian “strategy,” but you cannot argue, from the positions, that they’re a decent vote for a gay person — any more than one could argue that blacks in the 60s should vote for George Wallace.
Now that we have that issue clearly laid out on the table, the second issue becomes this — who are the “victims?”
Conservatives and liberals love to claim victim status. Someone said mean things about them, they’re just so wounded and offended, etc.
Who are they trying to fool? They have had absolute power — or have it now. They’ve had every opportunity to put their “visions” into law over the past 100 years.
We hear about “small, limited government” from Republicans — who grew the government, spending and taxes to unheard of levels over the last few years.
We hear about “defending our rights” and “stopping illegal wiretapping” from Democrats who voted to give Democrat Bill Clinton the ability to tap into people’s phone conversations via the ECHELON program back in the 1990s.
On virtually every issue, this is how it goes. Yet we’re told to “vote strategically” once again for these folks because this time it will be different. And if you point out their hypocrisy on policy, they get indignant.
Every person, of any political belief, should demand better. Before we’re libertarians or liberals or conservatives, we’re Americans — and we should demand much, much better.
posted by Pat on
NDT, regarding Bonnie Bleskachek, her behavior was outrageous, and she should have been canned. But I still support a law like ENDA. I’m assuming that the type of discrimination that was used by Bleskachek as well as her or anyone else excusing her sexual orientation for actions against employees under her would also be punished by ENDA. If not, then any proposed bill should include that. Yes, straight people should be protected as well against despicable actions.
posted by Chris Fox on
ND30: you seem to be engaged in combat with multiple posters in this little blog, I submit that this isn’t a threaded message board and is ill-suited to back-and-forth discussion (he says, responding).
But your response to me is a classic straw man .. you mention a single extreme instance of abuse and draw conclusions. Perhaps the silence of national gay organizations reflects the prurience of the woman’s claim; why bother taking a position at all? She’s demented. Gay organizations with work to do should not be required to stop the presses and issue statements every time some moron makes an absurd claim.
Were we ten years ago I would worry that this silence could be taken as assent by a wavering public but no longer. We’re too familiar for any but the most determined bigots to see a news story like this as reflecting on all of us. Familiar as we are, we now have the luxury of making asses of ourselves alone. Party on. No, I’m not marching.
Chris Fox
Woodinville, WA
posted by thom on
Pat ~ Thank you for being a voice of moderation, and posting a reasonable response to unreasonable ones! A response that acknowledges reality, and the vast grayness between the extremes, is rare in this blog.
posted by PCT on
Brian – most of the talk on here degenerates into bitchy attempts to one up each other.
But I have what I mean to be a legitimate question for you. I like a lot of things about the whole libertarian philosophy. Like i have said on other posts, I tend to believe a little bit more that we’re all in it together and perhaps the government has a role in certain things, like health care. But for the most part, I think we’re better off always erring on the side of liberty. Let people do what they want, as long as they are not affecting me.
But here’s my question to you – other than a few minor city council seats around the country, the libertarians don’t seem to actually win elections. That can’t be just because of inertia – at some point don’t you have to actually begin to win a few big elections to be taken seriously? And why isn’t that happening, given the fact that probably a good many Americans would agree with many libertarian goals? Like I say I mean this as a legitimate question – as someone who has entertained the idea of joining the state Libertarian party here. For now though I’m sticking with the Democrats, not because they’re great on gay issues, but at least most of them don’t hate us. And most Republicans I know remind me of North Dallas – always shrieking about obscure comments that some idiot somewhere said. Dittos to what Chris said.
Thanks for your thoughts.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I can’t understand how religious authorities would use that as an excuse to continue to ban ALL gays, and ordination of gay persons, etc., simple because of the actions of a minority. Why should the religious gay person be banned (or their ordination) simply because of the actions of other gay persons……Besides, there are many straight people who are hostile against religion, but I don’t see any religion using that as an excuse to ban all straight people from the religion.
Perhaps, Pat, were religious gay people as vigilant as religious straight people in making it clear that those who espouse antireligious hatred and the like are NOT speaking for the majority of gays, you might have something.
But the response of people like Mel White and “Bishop” Gene Robinson to the anti-religion rantings of someone like Larry Kramer falls into one of two categories — silent or equivocation. Gay unity trumps doing what is right again.
That relates to Chris’s point.
Perhaps the silence of national gay organizations reflects the prurience of the woman’s claim; why bother taking a position at all? She’s demented. Gay organizations with work to do should not be required to stop the presses and issue statements every time some moron makes an absurd claim.
The problem is that Bonnie Bleskachek is not just “some moron”. She was the first out lesbian fire chief of a major city in the country. She was praised and lionized by gay organizations and gay publications like the Advocate as a pioneer and a shining example, her rants against discrimination read as gospel.
Pretending that she doesn’t exist once it’s realized that she herself was discriminating on an epic and blatant scale and basically making it impossible for anyone who wasn’t a promiscuous lesbian to be promoted or advance in the Minneapolis fire department is not an intelligent strategy. It smacks of cover-up and, again, of putting “gay unity” ahead of right and wrong.
But I still support a law like ENDA.
The irony is, Pat, that people like yourself don’t need it. You make it clear that your sexual orientation is not the driving force in your life and that you have no difficulty criticizing other gays for bad behavior.
The fact that so many companies already have nondiscrimination policies should tell you how necessary ENDA isn’t. But what we keep running into is the fact that gays like Bleskachek, who also supported ENDA and Minnesota’s nondiscrimination ordinance, do so because they want the right to discriminate themselves without repercussion — and that’s what these laws do.
Case in point: Harry Stonecipher, Boeing’s former CEO, a white male, carried on a consensual affair, which had no effect on the business, with a female executive who did not directly report to him. When it was made known to his employer, he was immediately and unceremoniously fired, period, end of report.
Contrast that to Bleskachek, a lesbian, whose discriminatory behavior, sexual harassment of subordinates and coworkers, and retaliatory actions against people who refused her sexual advances was going on for years and had an obvious and material effect on multiple peoples’ careers and advancement. She was merely demoted.
Why?
Bleskachek has shown “extremely poor behavior” and committed “deep violations of public trust,” (Minneapolis Mayor R.T.) Rybak said Friday. He said he wanted to go the route of a settlement rather than running the risk of a lawsuit, which could have left Bleskachek in a position to supervise others.
“I will not risk having her return as a manager in this city,” said Rybak.
In short, Minnesota nondiscrimination law, which is similar to the proposed ENDA, made it possible that a lesbian who had systematically sexually harassed people for years could sue and regain or keep her management role, which again put her in the position to harass or retaliate against people.
Do you now understand why I’m not a huge fan of ENDA?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “So Randi advocates that employers disobey the law and refuse reasonable accomodation to religious people because of what they MIGHT do.”.
Again you lie, I never advocated that employers disobey the law. Just as the bus driver’s employers wouldn’t excuse a racist from driving a bus that had an ad for a magazine for black people on it, they shouldn’t have excused her from doing her job. So tell me Northdallass, if a racist bus driver didn’t want to drive a bus because it had an ad aimed at black people on it, would you be proudly calling that a “reasonable accommodation”?
Northdallass said “Meanwhile, what do you have to say, Randi, about dalea’s call to “bash” people, urinate, and vomit upon them and their places of business?”.
I’d say no, that’s going too far. Although I do like the proposal of outing anti-gay priests.
Northdallass said “And I love your desperate spin over Frank’s remarks, trying to insist that he only meant “some” religions and “some” attitudes when his post does not differentiate.”.
Again its blatantly obvious you’re lying – his post absolutely did differentiate. He specifically referred to the pope and Catholics being anti-gay and that that “many”, not all, Christian leaders need to be met with as much political force as possible.
Northdallass said “I AM tempted to put evidence up that would make it patently obvious how foolish and bigoted that statement is on your part, Randi, but there really would be no point”.
LOL, Yeah Northdallass, just like you could prove Sandoval was gay despite being married with children but “chose” not to. If you truly didn’t do it because you thought I just wouldn’t listen you wouldn’t have put up links about Bleskacheck for the same reason. Obviously you can’t prove you’re not lying or you would.
Northdallass said “Not a single national gay organization condemned her actions. Not one.”.
And not a single national christian organization condemned the murder of a transwoman near San Francisco
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/20/BAGPSOO9RI1.DTL&hw=transgender&sn=003&sc=851
or the murder of Andrew Anthos. Funny how you always find a way to criticize gays but never notice the same flaws in religious heterosexuals. Bigot. Your morality is subjective, when gays do something wrong you can’t stop screaming about it, when religionists or heterosexuals do something wrong we listen to the crickets chirping.
Northdallass said “Meanwhile, they’re running to Congress, demanding that gays be “protected” — evidently so that they can discriminate against religious people, as Randi advocates”
You lie, I never advocated that religious people be discriminated against. Typical of Northdallass, he can’t make an anti-LGBT argument that stands on its own merits so he has to embellish it with lies. Contrary to what many of the religionists do gays are seeking to be included in non-discrimination laws without asking that other groups, such as religionists be excluded. You make excuses for the religionists who expect to be protected from discrimination but work to deny gays the same rights.
See, that’s the problem with you Northdallass, other than you no one’s stupid enough to buy your insane encouragement to ignore gay inequality, vote Republican, demonize gays, and imagine that somehow this will be good for LGBTs. Of course its obvious you want to hurt the gay community and come here solely to antagonize people, that’s why your not afraid to destroy your long term credibility by habitually lying, in the short run you’re content to annoy people and lying does that pretty well.
posted by thom on
Brian ~
I echo PCT’s questions to you. Because of your constant attacks on both major parties (or perhaps despite your attacks), I checked out the LP website yesterday, and took the self-quiz. According to the quiz, I am a Libertarian. It’s not exactly a fair test, but I definitely have a lot in common with the LP platform.
But I have many of the same concerns as PCT, and would genuinely like to get your input on those questions.
Thanks.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Pat said But I still support a law like ENDA.”.
Northdallass replied “The irony is, Pat, that people like yourself don’t need it.”
Once again, Northdallass, your characterization of reality does a 180 degree turn depending on what you think best demonizes LGBTs. When in a bout of poor judgemnent I posted one of the commenter’s name on this blog you went on and on about how that could cost him his job. So, were you lying then about gays being in danger of losing their jobs for being gay, or are you lying now about ENDA not being needed?
posted by thom on
I followed the links provided by North Dallas Thirty about Chief Bleskachek. Bleskachek’s conduct was reprehensible, and NDT’s right that she should have been fired. Her conduct is an embarrassment to us.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So tell me Northdallass, if a racist bus driver didn’t want to drive a bus because it had an ad aimed at black people on it, would you be proudly calling that a “reasonable accommodation”?
Assuming that, as happened with the aforementioned case, that the driver’s wishes could be easily accomodated without impairing business operations or harming customers, of course. Advertisements have nothing to do with bus operations, and the presence or absence of them has zero tangible effect on people.
The point of nondiscrimination laws that are well-written is to clarify that employees do have a right to their own opinions/behaviors/actions — within limits. A bus driver who requested to not pick up black people would significantly impair business and have a negative impact on customers; therefore, that request could not be reasonably accomodated and could be ignored.
But advertisements? Forget it.
Again you lie, I never advocated that employers disobey the law.
You are saying that employers should refuse reasonable accomodation to people who make requests on religious grounds. That is illegal and it is a direct violation of the law, both nationally AND specifically in Minnesota.
And not a single national christian organization condemned the murder of a transwoman near San Francisco
Question, Randi; just how much do you know about that death? Because if you know that it was committed by a straight Christian, the SFPD would love to hear from you. Right now, they’re sort of lacking on clues.
or the murder of Andrew Anthos
Oh, this is just too sweet.
And some people who lack compassion and self-control instinctively recognize homosexuality as unnatural, and, most regretably, they respond to their repulsion to homosexuality with verbal abuse and even brutal physical violence that Jesus Christ would (and will eternally) condemn?and which we also condemn.
People who make obscene, threatening phone calls or stalk homosexual men to harangue them and beat them with metal pipes are not reading the Americans For Truth website ? nor are they reading their Bibles ? nor are they Christian in any sense of the word. They are wicked and must be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
of course, we can expect you to start spinning now, explaining how that doesn’t count because “they don’t really mean it”.
Obviously you can’t prove you’re not lying or you would.
Actually, I think I should get a bit more out of you first. Given your insane hatred of me, I don’t want these organizations getting ranting phone calls from you or people urinating/vomiting in their offices unless there’s something worthwhile involved.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
When in a bout of poor judgemnent I posted one of the commenter’s name on this blog you went on and on about how that could cost him his job.
Hardly.
Your revealing Thom’s identity may have just outed Thom’s boyfriend and forced him to resign from his career — all so that you could take hate-filled revenge on a blogpost.
And the reason why that was a bad idea was made clear well before you launched your vitriol attack against thom.
And without giving too much away about thom’s identity, I can assure you that his employer does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Again…..die, hyperlink, die!
posted by Pat on
But the response of people like Mel White and “Bishop” Gene Robinson to the anti-religion rantings of someone like Larry Kramer falls into one of two categories — silent or equivocation. Gay unity trumps doing what is right again.
I admit freely that I do not follow every person’s response or nonresponse to hateful acts. But I don’t recall persons like Gene Robinson or Mel White specifically responding against antireligious activities of straight people. If they do, but ignore the antireligious activities of gay persons, then I agree with you. I don’t think I heard from the anti-gay folks that want to split away from the Anglican church have specifically condemned these actions. They seem to hate all gay persons, period.
But unity of a particular group or community in not responding to despicable actions does not seem to be limited to gay people. I’m still waiting for Bush and other conservatives to condemn the actions of fellow conservatives like Dobson and Robertson, and telling the American people that reparation therapy is a farce. And yes, liberals revel in similar hypocrisy.
As for ENDA, I agree with some of your points. Yes, I don’t fully define myself by my sexual orientation. But I am protected in my job, because of NJ state law that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And even without that, I could make my employers lose lots of money trying to get rid of me, and I would, if it was solely based on my sexual orientation, so it probably wouldn’t be worth it for them. But many others, unfortunately, do not have that luxury. Maybe someday, but in the meantime, it seems prudent to have a law. First of all, any nondiscrimination law that protects all these classes but NOT homosexuality always gives me cause for concern. I don’t know the exact statutes of ENDA, but if it would protect persons like Bonnie Blaskacheck, then clearly the law is flawed and needs to be amended. Perhaps that’s the problem with the Minnesota law. The law should protect all persons, not just gay people, and punish any person that discriminates and harasses, not just straight people.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Your revealing Thom’s identity may have just outed Thom’s boyfriend and forced him to resign from his career — all so that you could take hate-filled revenge on a blogpost.”.
Once again, your insistance that Thom’s boyfriend could lose his job by being outed directly contradicts what you told Pat, “”The irony is, Pat, that people like yourself don’t need it [ENDA].”
Were you lying then, or are you lying now?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
First, Randi, nice attempt to spin away from what you said in the first place about how it was one of the commentors, not their boyfriend:
When in a bout of poor judgemnent I posted one of the commenter’s name on this blog you went on and on about how that could cost him his job.
Second, the presence or absence of ENDA would have nothing at all to do with thom’s boyfriend losing his job — as I previously outlined and linked.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “The irony is, Pat, that people like yourself don’t need it. You make it clear that your sexual orientation is not the driving force in your life and that you have no difficulty criticizing other gays for bad behavior.”.
In other words,if you’re gay and criticize other gays no one’s going to fire you from your job for being gay. Absolutely absurd and directly contradicted by his acknowledgement that Thom’s boyfriend can be fired from the military merely for being gay.
Northdallass said “Oh, this is just too sweet.”.
But of course you failed to identify a single national Christian organization that condemned the murder of that transwoman, once again, your attention is highly selective and discriminatory. This shows you that just as national gay organizations don’t criticize every wrongdoing by a gay person national christian organizations don’t criticize every wrongdoing by a straight person.
Northdallass said “You are saying that employers should refuse reasonable accomodation to people who make requests on religious grounds. That is illegal and it is a direct violation of the law, both nationally AND specifically in Minnesota.”.
Allowing the bus driver to refuse to do her job as assigned is not a resonable accomodation, its discrimination against gays which is against Minnesota law as you pointed out.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Second, the presence or absence of ENDA would have nothing at all to do with thom’s boyfriend losing his job — as I previously outlined and linked.”.
LOL, as is typical Northdallass, the link you posted doesn’t make that point at all. And the point is that you were telling Pat that as long as gays criticize other gays and don’t make their orientation the driving force in their lives they don’t have to worry about being fired for being gay, while previously you acknowledged in regards to Thom’s boyfriend that gays do risk being fired for being gay. You want it both ways and you can’t have it both ways. You were lying then, or you are lying now.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Example A, Randi, of why we need not bother.
Your first statement:
And not a single national christian organization condemned the murder of a transwoman near San Francisco or the murder of Andrew Anthos.
Then, when confronted with clear evidence to the contrary for Anthos, your attempt to save face:
But of course you failed to identify a single national Christian organization that condemned the murder of that transwoman, once again, your attention is highly selective and discriminatory.
Mhm; I’m having trouble finding a national GAY organization that has condemned it. It’s not in any of the NGLTF or HRC.
The only thing I could find was GenderPAC; however, I would encourage them, as I encouraged you, to go to the San Francisco police, because you both claim to know how and why it was done — which means you evidently know who did it. The police don’t.
In short, why bother? Even when given direct evidence of a national Christian organization condemning the murder of a gay person, directly contrary to what you previously stated, you ignore it — and try to change your request in order to “condemn” Christian organizations for not weighing in on a matter that national GAY organizations haven’t even weighed in on yet, mainly because no one really knows the circumstances surrounding the crime.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But I don’t recall persons like Gene Robinson or Mel White specifically responding against antireligious activities of straight people. If they do, but ignore the antireligious activities of gay persons, then I agree with you.
Key difference, Pat; antireligious straight people generally do not blame their antireligious activity on their sexual orientation.
Gay people like Kramer do.
And even without that, I could make my employers lose lots of money trying to get rid of me, and I would, if it was solely based on my sexual orientation, so it probably wouldn’t be worth it for them.
Then what’s the worry?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Mhm; I’m having trouble finding a national GAY organization that has condemned it.”
But, you did find one. And once again, this proves my point. Not every national organization, Christian or gay, criticizes every wrongdoing by every person – your whining about Blekachek is irrelevant.
Northdallass said “antireligious straight people generally do not blame their antireligious activity on their sexual orientation.”.
You lie again. Gay people do not blame their being anti-religious on their sexual orientation, they’re anti-religious because most religions are anti-gay. If there were religions that were anti-heterosexual you most certainly would see heterosexuals being anti-religious for that reason.
And once again, you told Pat that as long as gays criticize other gays and don’t make their orientation the driving force in their lives they don’t have to worry about being fired for being gay, while previously you acknowledged in regards to Thom’s boyfriend that gays do risk being fired for being gay. You want it both ways and you can’t have it both ways. You were lying then, or you are lying now.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And once again, this proves my point.
Or, more precisely, whatever you changed your point to be.
You see, this was your first “point”:
And not a single national christian organization condemned the murder of a transwoman near San Francisco or the murder of Andrew Anthos.
which changed to this when I produced evidence concerning Anthos:
But of course you failed to identify a single national Christian organization that condemned the murder of that transwoman, once again, your attention is highly selective and discriminatory. This shows you that just as national gay organizations don’t criticize every wrongdoing by a gay person national christian organizations don’t criticize every wrongdoing by a straight person.
which changed to this when I pointed out that national GAY organizations weren’t condemning the murder and I challenged you to provide proof that a straight person had committed the murder, since both you and GenderPAC claimed that you knew who the suspect was and why they committed the murder:
Not every national organization, Christian or gay, criticizes every wrongdoing by every person
Again, the “point” changes with every piece of evidence brought forward. So why bother?
posted by joeperez on
I agree with Stephen over Kramer. But then who exactly is Kramer’s constituency these days? Anyone else notice that ACT UP doesn’t seem to be all the rage.
My alternative to Kramer’s ideology of victimhood and Miller’s “conservativism is not evil” response is developmental. I say identifying with the victim is a stage in a larger developmental drama, the whole of which must be appreciated and every healthy stage of which must not be degated. See this column here:
http://gayspirituality.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/does_god_approv.html
posted by Pat on
Key difference, Pat; antireligious straight people generally do not blame their antireligious activity on their sexual orientation.
Gay people like Kramer do.
Regardless of the chicken and egg argument here, I don’t see why it’s a “key” difference. I’m not sure why these people need to be specifically singled out if the antireligious behavior is due to their blaming it on sexual orientation, as opposed to whatever straight people blame it on.
Then what’s the worry?,
Funny, I was thinking about that too, and it got me thinking of one of the other problems that seems to occur in the gay community for some. So let me go off on a tangent first.
I’ve noticed on blogs and elsewhere, when it comes to any gay equality issue, many basically have the attitude, “Well, I had a tough childhood (or I was able to spend tens of thousands of dollars to have legal arrangements, or I was beaten up when I was a kid), but I made it and I got what I want, and tough on the rest of you.”
A couple of things here. Yes, we need to play with the cards we have, and not play the victim if you want to get the best out of life. But that doesn’t mean that we should just stop at anything less than equality and have gay people continually being dealt sh&t cards, even if many of us have been able to make it (like I have with job security). I would like to see a fair and equal playing field regarding sexual orientation, so that it is NEVER the reason for someone to not achieve or maintain what they have.
I’m doing fine, but there are others who weren’t as fortunate growing up or as an adult. If I had to go through what many other gay persons had to go through, I honestly don’t know if I wouldn’t have been able to make it. I didn’t have parents throw me out when they found out I was gay. I didn’t have to go to a church every Sunday listening how evil homosexuality is. I never got beaten up or harassed from others, because I guess I was butch enough, or knew how to play the game. I don’t have to worry about losing my job because of my sexual orientation. And I live in a state that is fairly accepting to homosexuals, and aside from a couple of right wing sicko idiots, our politicians are fairly gay accepting (although corrupt, but that’s another issue). I never felt pressured* to have to marry a woman to hide the fact I was gay (although I was asked frequently when I was getting married). Unfortunately, this is not the case for many gay people.
So getting to your question, personally, I don’t have to worry. But the fact that many gay people still have to worry, and that we even have reverse discrimination a la Bleskachek, means that more work needs to be done. And I hear too frequently in the news that transgendered persons have been subject to discrimination in the workplace.
*Yes, I know gay persons were not forced by gunpoint to marry a person of the opposite sex. Not my point here. I don’t know of any straight person who was pressured to enter a long term relationship with a person of the same sex. Just pointing out an obstacle that some gay people have to face, and shouldn’t have to.
posted by dalea on
OK, some here think that vomiting or urinating on homophobes is a tad extreme. Why? Do you have a better way to make the point that this is hateful behavior? That gay people will no longer put up with it. And it is behavior that no organization should accept from any employee. So, I am open to hearing suggestions and plans of action from people who don’t like my thoughts. What do you propose to educate this employee?
We could always use the example provided by right wing evangelical religious icon Ann Coulter. The baseball bat! As born again Ann has said, the only way you can speak to some people is with a baseball bat. Would this be preferable to my plan? If not, why.
Regarding the fecal matter that posts as ND whatever, ignore him. Do not feed the trolls.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’m not sure why these people need to be specifically singled out if the antireligious behavior is due to their blaming it on sexual orientation, as opposed to whatever straight people blame it on.
Because, Pat, your sexual orientation has nothing to do with your choice of whether or not to be antireligious.
But that doesn’t mean that we should just stop at anything less than equality and have gay people continually being dealt sh&t cards, even if many of us have been able to make it (like I have with job security)
But the simple fact of the matter is we aren’t. And, even more so, no law is going to bring about a fair and equal playing field — especially when Democrat gays like Bleskachek openly abuse said laws to protect their own hate and bigotry.
Why do you think you don’t have to worry about your job, Pat? Is it because of nondiscrimination laws preventing your employer from firing you, or is it because you’re a valuable employee?
The former is the victim mentality. The latter is the empowered individual.
posted by thom on
NDT ~ Can you provide a link that demonstrates that Bleskachek is a Democrat? I didn’t see that in the articles I read. Thanks.
posted by Pat on
Because, Pat, your sexual orientation has nothing to do with your choice of whether or not to be antireligious.
Probably not, but it did have a part in my choice to be nonreligious. I mentioned in some other thread a while back that I am troubled that the Catholic Church, which I originally belonged to, has maintained it’s anti-gay stances. I have thought about joining another (gay-friendly) Christian religion, but have opted not to at this point. Another reasons for me being nonreligious, is that as I got older, I did question matters of faith personally, and applied Occam’s Razor, and concluded that it is more likely that certain things didn’t happen but was written that it happened, than those certain things actually happening. But I respect those who applied Occam’s Razor or whatever and came up with a different conclusion. So I guess that makes me nonreligious, but not antireligious.
But getting to the original point, which was whether Bishop Robinson or Mel White should speak out against anti-religious behavior. My point is why should they specifically speak out against gay anti-religious people (who use or do not use sexual orientation as their excuse) as opposed to straight people who are anti-religious? What difference does it make for the motivations of these anti-religious people?
Why do you think you don’t have to worry about your job, Pat? Is it because of nondiscrimination laws preventing your employer from firing you, or is it because you’re a valuable employee?
Both. It is mostly because my employers find me valuable enough, and would not like me to leave. So that’s nice. However, we are kinda sorta under the jurisdiction of the archdiocese here, and the current archbishop, to my understanding, is a petty jerk and fairly anti-gay. A couple of years ago, the archdiocese did try to implement some silly policy that nobody here wanted, and thankfully it went nowhere. I don’t know if he would want to implement discrimination against gay employees, and I’m thankful I don’t ever have to find out, because he can’t do it legally in NJ.
But again, others aren’t so lucky. Being a valuable employee may not be enough. Yes, it may be victim mentality, and I would suggest that for such an employee, if there is no recourse for the discriminatory action, to jump back in to the job market and find another job. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight against this type of discrimination.
Dalea, personally, I don’t think returning hateful behavior with the type of behavior which you describe and is more than hateful. First of all, I think it’s classless. Further, I don’t think it helps. Maybe it has helped in the past, and I can’t disprove it. But I don’t think one can prove it either. Things may have changed for the better in a particular instance, but it’s seems difficult to pin it down as a result of a classless action such as vomit targetting.
People like Ann Coulter, James Dobson, and Pat Robertson are now being seen for the type of people they are. Yes, some still like hateful people like her. And more and more people are starting to see them as clowns in a freak show. Now when gay persons start throwing urine at them, it makes those individuals look bad. And if it keeps happening, fair or unfair, it will make the rest of us look bad.
So the answer is to condemn the hate of your opponent, and not precipate actions that are even worse than what your opponent has done.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Again, the “point” changes with every piece of evidence brought forward. So why bother?”.
No, the point was that not every national gay organization criticizes every wrongdoing just as not every national Christian organization criticizes every wrongdoing – you’re harping on gay organzations for doing (or not) the same thing Christian organizations do (or not).
Northdallass said “Because, Pat, your sexual orientation has nothing to do with your choice of whether or not to be antireligious.”.
And no gay hates religion because they’re gay, they’re anti-religious or non-religious because religion is anti-gay – just as Pat said “I am troubled that the Catholic Church, which I originally belonged to, has maintained it’s anti-gay stances”. Once again Northdallass falsely tries to blame gays for disliking religion’s being anti-gay.
Northdallass said “But the simple fact of the matter is we aren’t [dealt sh&t cards]”.
And of course that lie is directly contradicted by Northdallass ranting that Thom’s boyfriend was in danger of losing his career if Thom was outed. Fact of the matter is Northdallass, no true gay is stupid enough to believe your insane insistance that everything is fine in terms of gay equality and LGBTs should just sit back, like it, and vote Republican. Its positions of yours like that that make it clear you’re lying about being gay as part of your ploy to demonize and hurt gays.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And of course that lie is directly contradicted by Northdallass ranting that Thom’s boyfriend was in danger of losing his career if Thom was outed.
And who outed thom and created this danger, Randi?
It wasn’t me.
It wasn’t straight people.
It wasn’t the Navy.
It was you.
You attacked thom by outing him publicly.
You made the decision to jeopardize thom’s boyfriend.
And now you are attempting to blame others for a problem that you created and you perpetuated because of your utter lack of self-restraint and your hatred.
And that really is the problem here. Bigots like Randi, dalea, and Bleskachek use homosexuality as an excuse for their antisocial behavior and inability to control themselves or function normally in society — and demand that laws be created to give them immunity from ever being held accountable for their behavior because they are glbt.
The reason you, dalea, and Bleskachek receive “sh&t cards”, Randi, has nothing to do with your sexual orientation. It is because you can’t control your mouth or your emotions. It is because dalea believes it’s right to assault people. It is because Bleskachek believes it’s right to discriminate and demand sex from people as the price of career advancement.
Gays like Pat and I, who do not do all of these things, who respect their straight and religious neighbors and coworkers, and who feel no need to use our homosexuality as an excuse for lack of education, social skills, or work ethic, have a remarkable lack of “sh&t cards”.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Dalea asked “OK, some here think that vomiting or urinating on homophobes is a tad extreme. Why? Do you have a better way to make the point that this is hateful behavior?…What do you propose to educate this employee?”
Dalea, one can never justify responding to a non-physical attack with a physical attack – that’s a glaring boundary we should never cross as moral people. Crossing such boundaries is an escalation which encourages greater escalations in retaliation and takes us to a path of violence we should choose to avoid not for the least reason of which is that as a minority we can’t win a physical war. If we overrespond to hate that makes the victimizer look like the victim and we lose the battle over public opinion.
I would propose picketing the employee’s workplace with signs that say this is hateful and unacceptable behavior, organizing sit-ins on the bus-driver’s route where groups get on her bus and chant “Gay is OK, homophobe serve all or go away” or some such thing.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “And who outed thom and created this danger, Randi?”.
Well, contrary to your lies, it is the army that threatens gays jobs, not me.
And once again you change sides on whether gays are discriminated against or not. Well, which is it scumbag? Are gays discriminated against or not?! You keep trying to have it both ways on this thread – when you want to attack me, you claim gays are in grave danger of being mistreated for being gay. When you want to attack gays in general you claim gays aren’t in any danger of being mistreated for being gay, you then claim “But the simple fact of the matter is we aren’t [dealt sh&t cards]”. Your characterization of the mistreatment of gays changes 180 degrees depending what you think best helps you attack others – you are a sadistic liar.
Northdallass said “The reason you, dalea, and Bleskachek receive “sh&t cards”, Randi, has nothing to do with your sexual orientation.”.
LOL, Northdallass, I never claimed to receive “sh&t” cards, I live in Canada where all are equal, I don’t get any sh&t cards here. Unlike you, my concern is for others such as my American LGBT neighbours to the south who are discriminated against while sacks of sh&t like you tell disingenously them “don’t worry, be happy”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Well, contrary to your lies, it is the army that threatens gays jobs, not me.
yup, I figured you wouldn’t take responsibility for it. You never do.
LOL, Northdallass, I never claimed to receive “sh&t” cards, I live in Canada where all are equal, I don’t get any sh&t cards here.
And here you were complaining several threads ago that you had been repeatedly verbally and physically assaulted because of your glbt status.
Or was it because you, like Bleskachek and dalea, thought you could hurt other people and then try to use nondiscrimination laws to protect yourself?
Your vicious attack on thom, your deliberate attempt to hurt him by outing his boyfriend, and your refusal to take responsibility prove well how you treat your “neighbours”.
And quite frankly, we can do without.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
It figures, Northdallass tries to dodge the issue by telling more lies about me. On one hand you want to claim gays are in danger if its known that they are gay and on the other hand you want to claim there is no danger in being identified as gay and no need for things such as ENDA.
Northdallass said “And here you were complaining several threads ago that you had been repeatedly verbally and physically assaulted because of your glbt status.”.
You lie, I never claimed I was assaulted because I’m LGBT.
Northdallass said “Your vicious attack on thom, your deliberate attempt to hurt him by outing his boyfriend, and your refusal to take responsibility prove well how you treat your “neighbours”.
You lie. I never deliberately attempted to hurt Thom and I never outed his boyfriend. And according to your claims earlier in this thread Thom and his boyfriend had nothing to fear from being known as gay and revealing his name was anything but vicious or an attack – funny how quickly you change your lies when you think it better suits your attacks on someone. The fact is you consider the truth disposable in your insane war on LGBTs.
posted by dalea on
Hmmmm, as I recall, Stonewall was a riot. That is when our movement started to gain ground. And beyond that, the early actions against the psychiatric inquisition involved a lot of pushing, shoving, yelling and being disrespectful. All through the early years of gay liberation there were actions of this type throughout the developed world. Things settled down in the mid 70’s. In large part because our pushy aggressive actions, which you probably would have opposed, did work. People began to see that sitting down with us, getting to know us, responding to our issues was preferable to being our target.
In the 80’s as the health crisis worsened, once again we had to turn to being confrontational and aggressive again. ACT-UP did many things on the order of what I suggested. Guess what, it worked. I can remember staging a screaming rant in an emergency room to get someone to care for my friend. After a few years of this, the medical profession decided it was easier to work with gay people than to ignore us.
I suspect both Randi and Pat are considerably younger than me. And do not have a first hand knowledge of the 70’s and 80’s and early 90’s . Nor have a very clear idea of gay history. It used to be that two men dancing together would be arrested. The undercover cop would call in the cops and haul people off to jail. Until one night there was a riot when this happened. The cops fled in terror. And soon appointed a liaison to the gay and lesbian community. And began sensitivity training for cops. One little blow up ended decades of arrests.
So, my answer is to say that to rule this out automatically, simply empowers homophobes. Which I regard as foolish. Read up on gay history sometime. See the huge number of actions and riots. This actually happened. And it seems that just letting your opponent know the lengths you are willing to go, inspires them to reasoned discussion. But you gotta show it sometime or it isn’t real.
posted by Chris Fox on
Stonewall was in 1969, right? Well if it was such a pivotal event one would expect its influence to have been growing and growing ever since the event, culminating in the era of confrontational belligerence that did so little good in advancing our equality. Nothing like telling people you hate them, nothing like mocking peoples’ most precious institutions, to make them pause and reflect on how unjustly they’ve been treating you.
Anyway, go look through newspaper records, look through gay activism publications from 1969-79 and let me know if you find and reference to Stonewall. You probably won’t; it was more than anything else a scuffle that attracted a crowd, not hard in 1969, and the photos from the arrests look a lot more like anti-Vietnam protesters than drag queens.
Stonewall was a non-event pulled from the trash can and promoted to pivotal status by a bunch of self-annointed activists who were waaaaay too far “out of the closet” to ever enjoy acceptance in any society and to whom belligerence was the only option and personal catharsis the only reward.
We shouldn’t need myths.
posted by ETJB on
(1) Larry is certainly pretty far out their in terms of his politics. But he does say many truthful things.
(2) Reagan-Bush 1 era polices on gay rights and AIDS were generally poor to embarassing. For the record, I was a Republican during this time.
(3) You have to remember that prior to the mid/late 1990’s gay rights were pretty much seen as fringe left-wing issue and people did not think twice about saying and doing really cruel things to gay people.