How many times can you find the complete phrase "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender" in this short mission statement? Even worthy activism is made to sound like merely a politically correct exercise by this sort of ritualism.
Worse, the LGBT mantra assumes that important issues of identity and strategy have been resolved in favor of some mythic "LGBT community." This side steps a number of still highly debatable matters, such as whether bisexuals face discrimination only when they are perceived as gay-acting. And while transgendered individuals certainly endure prejudice and oppression, the issues confronted by those who range from heterosexual cross-dressers to post-op folks now legally the opposite gender of their birth (and thus who, for instance, can gender-appropriately marry) may be so different from the issues that confront gay people that assuming LGBT singleness becomes stunningly inappropriate.
But if you listen to mainstream LGBT organizational voices, those questions are settled and the matter closed.
78 Comments for “LGBT-itis”
posted by Craig2 on
Sorry, have to disagree on this one. For one thing, LGBT is a good way to signal the progress in our broad agenda, and doesn’t offend the sensibilities of older gay men by using That Q Word.
Okay, let’s think about this. Lesbians and gay men share concerns related to discrimination issues, hate crimes, same-sex marriage/
civil unions and issues related to same-sex parenting.
The trans community focuses on issues of discrimination, and may also be in the situation of applying for a civil union if one participant is pre-op, and therefore technically “still” the same sex as their intended spouse. So, civil unions and same-sex marriage are relevant to those members of their community. They are certainly targets of hate crimes, and also face parenting discrimination.
Actually, the real problem in all this may be bisexuals, as they never seem to articulate particular political demands of their own to evaluate or assess.
Therefore, as far as I’m concerned, it *is* LGBT.
Craig2
Wellington, New Zealand
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
We have an LGBT community.
It consists of all those people whose sexual orientation forces them to be Democrat, socialist, anti-war, pro-abortion, and antireligious.
Those of us who do not buy into that, regardless of our sexual orientation, are not LGBT.
posted by Xeno on
I’m with craig2 on this one. The primary set of issues are shared between these different groups of people, and there are relevant cultural links between gay and transgendered culture. Some would even write LGBTI to include intersexuals.
And ND30 forgot anti-family (as in pro-gay families) in the list, which Dobson’s ‘Focus on The Family’ and the late Falwell add. Honestly though, for gay moderates, fiscal conservatives, and independents, you sound no more different than an antigay conservative.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Because if I really WERE “pro-gay”, I’d be Democrat, socialist, anti-war, pro-abortion, and antireligious, right Xeno?
And that, again, is what this is really about; “LGBT” has nothing to do with issues around one’s actual sexual orientation, and everything to do with using sexual orientation as an excuse for being Democrat, socialist, anti-war, pro-abortion, and antireligious. That is made abundantly clear by the fact that the “LGBT community” supports this, this, and this as “pro-gay families” — when spoken by the appropriately-aligned Democrat, socialist, anti-war, pro-abortion, and antireligious individuals, of course.
posted by Craig2 on
Not neccessarily. In the United Kingdom and New Zealand, there are libertarian right activists who are pro-gay, pro-choice on abortion, anti-war (“the warfare
state is no better than the
welfare state”), atheist or
agnostic. We do have some supportive liberal Christians too, but we tend to be a far less religious society than the United States, and it doesn’t play as much of a role in our politics as it does yours.
I may have differences of opinion with them over welfare policy, but I still regard them as part of our community. Not everywhere is as polarised as the United States.
Craig2
Wellington,
New Zealand
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So let’s see….you’re willing to give a little on the socialist requirement, but they still have to be antiwar, pro-abortion, and antireligious, or they’re not part of the “LGBT community”.
As we say in the States, that’s mighty white of you.
posted by Xeno on
ND30:
Because if I really WERE “pro-gay”, I’d be Democrat, socialist, anti-war, pro-abortion, and antireligious, right Xeno?
Did you read the last sentence of my post? I’m saying that you pigeonhole every gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender as being those things you describe, and these accusations are also parroted by antigay conservatives. Quite frankly, I imagine that you would be a complete antigay bigot if you ended up straight, and I’m quite sure a lot of readers here see it the same way.
And that, again, is what this is really about; “LGBT” has nothing to do with issues around one’s actual sexual orientation, and everything to do with using sexual orientation as an excuse for being Democrat, socialist, anti-war, pro-abortion, and antireligious.
LGBT is just an acronym representing a set of people that have an inherent sexuality different from the majority of people, and nothing more. We share common issues and views on discrimination, and legal recognance of our families, but nothing much else. There are some radical exceptions of course: like the antigay far right and the queer far left fringes, you share their opposition on same-sex marriage, no?
That is made abundantly clear by the fact that the “LGBT community” supports this, this, and this as “pro-gay families” — when spoken by the appropriately-aligned Democrat, socialist, anti-war, pro-abortion, and antireligious individuals, of course.
Who the fuck cares about what Dean or Kerry or even the rest of the high profile Democrats and Republicans say? It seems that for the presidential nominations, both parties have panderers lacking in leadership and principle, but you seem to be only noticing the shit from the Democrats.
Also, you think a lot of LGBT peeps like the Democrats? Fact of the matter is that most of them vote don’t vote because they’re a good party, but because they’re the lesser of two evils. Sure you might boast that you’re not a single issue voter, however it encourages the RUC to keep an official antigay platform and choose antigay candidates when people keep electing them.
posted by Brian Miller on
LGBT is just an acronym representing a set of people that have an inherent sexuality different from the majority of people
Precisely right. People on the right who complain excessively about nomenclature commonly used to describe gay people are as tedious as their PC bretheren on the left. Is it a perfect set of terms? Of course not. But it’s the best and most commonly used descriptor out there.
Those of us who do not buy into that, regardless of our sexual orientation, are not LGBT.
That’s also patently absurd victimhood schtick. One reason why 30+% of LGBT voters don’t vote is because there’s so little of substance offered by either the Dems or Reps — just complaints of victimhood that, while they sound different, are identical.
Who wants that?
posted by Boo on
“This side steps a number of still highly debatable matters, such as whether bisexuals face discrimination only when they are perceived as gay-acting.”
Aside from the right to marry and adopt, pretty much all the discrimination homosexuals face is only when we are perceived as gay-acting. If someone perceives a gay person as straight, they don’t discriminate against them for being gay.
“And while transgendered individuals certainly endure prejudice and oppression, the issues confronted by those who range from heterosexual cross-dressers to post-op folks now legally the opposite gender of their birth (and thus who, for instance, can gender-appropriately marry) may be so different from the issues that confront gay people that assuming LGBT singleness becomes stunningly inappropriate.”
A large majority of transsexuals are part of the gay community at some point in our lives, either before or after transition (sometimes even both). And while many gay men may not want to admit it, the simple fact is that anti-gay discrimination at bottom is based on violating gender norms. If you’re the straightest-acting gay man on the planet, you’re still violating a gender norm by loving another man. Gay folk who are at the greatest risk of violence are those who are most visibly violating gender norms. There are gay people who think transfolk are dragging them down (no pun intended) and transfolk who think gay people are dragging them down, but isn’t it better to simultaneously work together on commonalities and recognize differences?
posted by EssEm on
LGBT, plus I and Q sometimes…it’s the sexual equivalent of Yugoslavia.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’m saying that you pigeonhole every gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender as being those things you describe, and these accusations are also parroted by antigay conservatives.
It’s rather ironic that you reference the last sentence of your previous post in making that statement.
Honestly though, for gay moderates, fiscal conservatives, and independents, you sound no more different than an antigay conservative.
This is the gay equivalent of calling a black conservative or moderate an “oreo” or “house nigger”.
Your view is clear, Xeno; gay moderates, fiscal conservatives, and independents, who don’t toe the the Democrat, socialist, anti-war, pro-abortion, and antireligious model, are antigay. That is the view shared by gay organizations like HRC, which supports harassment campaigns against gays who aren’t Democrats.
And the dangers into which that mindset leads are obvious in this statement:
It seems that for the presidential nominations, both parties have panderers lacking in leadership and principle, but you seem to be only noticing the shit from the Democrats.
That is because the Republicans are not asking for gay money, demanding gay fidelity and support, and being endorsed by gay organizations as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
In essence, you are complaining about people not asking you for support when you’ve made it obvious that you are completely against them — while ignoring the fact that the people to whom you gave your cash and undying loyalty in exchange for something are doing the exact opposite.
One would think that, if you were concerned about discrimination against gay families, you would have said something about a leader of HRC, a DNC staffer, and the entire HRC and Stonewall Democrat establishments endorsing and giving millions of dollars to supporters of the FMA and state constitutional amendments who pander to people like Pat Robertson.
But that would get you kicked out of the LGBT community, wouldn’t it?
posted by ETJB on
“gay moderates, fiscal conservatives, and independents, who don’t toe the the Democrat, socialist, anti-war, pro-abortion, and antireligious model, are antigay.”
Frankly, I suspect LGBT people probably as a capable of being partisan and mean to people that dont share their viewpoints as most Americans.
LGBT conservatives certainly have been known to attack LGBT liberals, even on this very form for being anti-gay or un-American or ‘pro-abortion’ or ‘anti-religious.’
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yes, because we all know that pointing out that someone is pro-abortion and anti-religious is as horribly evil as the gay liberals who call religious gay people “fundy housewives” and demand their identification so that they can “deal with” them — an action which, as we know, involves harassing their employers in attempts to get them fired and their friends/family as well, all with the blessing of “GLBT” groups.
In short, call me back when gay conservatives start wishing publicly and loudly for the children of gay liberals to be born deformed and for those selfsame liberals to suffer horribly — just like the “GLBT community” wishes for conservative and other gays.
posted by Brian Miller on
That is because the Republicans are not asking for gay money, demanding gay fidelity and support, and being endorsed by gay organizations as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
Instead, they’re choosing to raise money froIn short, call me back when gay conservatives start wishing publicly and loudly for the children of gay liberals to be born deformedm gay people by pandering to the basest impulses of the most vile bigots in American society — people who call for the legal segregation, imprisonment, and even execution of gay people.
In short, call me back when gay conservatives start wishing publicly and loudly for the children of gay liberals to be born deformed
Yes, you’re such victims. Gay conservatives are nothing but truthful, honest and loving. They never attack liberals or libertarians and have *never* insulted or attacked anyone else.
In fact, gay conservatives are perhaps the most oppressed victims in the world today. They stand boldly, refusing to engage in hyperbole or distortion of the opinions of those who disagree with them — unique amongst the nations!
(Jeeebus).
posted by Brian Miller on
Oh dear. Post screwup. Here’s the post as intended:
That is because the Republicans are not asking for gay money, demanding gay fidelity and support, and being endorsed by gay organizations as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
Instead, they’re choosing to raise money from gay people by pandering to the basest impulses of the most vile bigots in American society — people who call for the legal segregation, imprisonment, and even execution of gay people.
In short, call me back when gay conservatives start wishing publicly and loudly for the children of gay liberals to be born deformed
Yes, you’re such victims. Gay conservatives are nothing but truthful, honest and loving. They never attack liberals or libertarians and have *never* insulted or attacked anyone else.
In fact, gay conservatives are perhaps the most oppressed victims in the world today. They stand boldly, refusing to engage in hyperbole or distortion of the opinions of those who disagree with them — unique amongst the nations!
(Jeeebus).
posted by Craig2 on
Actually, I’ve found very few LGBTs (or straights) down here who support the Iraq War (which New Zealand is neutral on) and as for being pro-choice, again, the United States is the only known country with a gay anti-abortion group.
Added to which, the anti-abortion
movement down here is tiny and
rapidly ageing fast, so one’d be
hard-pressed to find any anti-
choicers, happily.
As for being religious or not, well, that’s a private choice. Personally, I hold with Elizabeth I that “I am not come to make windows into others souls” Hey, even the NZ evangelical community is starting to thaw out on LGBT issues…
Craig2
Wellington
New Zealand
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Instead, they’re choosing to raise money from gay people by pandering to the basest impulses of the most vile bigots in American society — people who call for the legal segregation, imprisonment, and even execution of gay people.
Ah yes, the old “Republicans want to put gays in concentration camps” — particularly amusing, since selfsame “LGBT community” members seemingly don’t consider it to be “calling for the legal segregation, imprisonment, and execution” of gay people when Democrats do it.
One would think, Mr. Miller, if you were intellectually consistent, you would direct at LEAST the same level of vitriol and hate against the Democrat Party, which not only practices the same behavior you criticize among Republicans, but, even worse, actively solicits and demands millions of dollars in funds and endorsements from gay people while carrying out what you decry as pandering to those who want to execute gays.
But, as always, being “LGBT”, aka pro-Democrat and anti-Republican, trumps intellectual consistency.
As is also neatly shown by the fact that you oppose hate-crimes laws and employment protections — positions that you scream are “anti-gay” and “segregation” when held by Republicans.
In fact, gay conservatives are perhaps the most oppressed victims in the world today.
Oh, I wouldn’t say that. After all, we are the reverse of most gay people; we get along with the vast majority of people in our society, and are only loathed by that small but vocal minority that is the “LGBT community”.
posted by dalea on
Don’t forget to add ‘2S’ for the Native American two spirit people. And a second Q for questioning. So then we have: GLBTQ2SQ.
It would be helpful, but probably will never happen, for those who hurl around the ‘anti-religion’ charge to actually produce some evidence. Beyond the St Patrick’s action from 20 years ago. Which may have been anti-catholic butI am not convinced that equates to anti-religion.
Further, my reading and experience has always been the religious gays are usually what IGF calls ‘leftist’. Just check out White Crane Journal or RFD. Very pro-religious places indeed. Then are the very excellent Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence who are a Shamanic religious order. And pretty much left wing.
Almost every gay atheist I have ever known was a conservative gay, usually with Ayn Rand in his background. Which tells me this charge is simply counter factual. What prominent gay public intellectuals are religious? Maybe Gore Vidal, but even that is stretching things.
posted by Timothy on
Yet again a thread has devolved into left and right vomiting at each other. Lovely.
I personally don’t often use LBGT unless I specifically intend to discuss all of the four groups. In discussing discrimination, I tend to discuss “gay men and women” because that’s what I know about. Transexual issues are a whole different realm and I’m just not informed enough to comment.
However, to claim that all those who identify as LBGT or “pro-gay” are Democrat, socialist, anti-war, pro-abortion, and antireligious is patently ridiculous. It’s hard to take serious anyone who would make such a claim.
I am definitely pro-gay and do identify as part of the LGBT community. And I am none of those things. But, then again, rationality is not the strong suit of those who really only want to scream at each other.
posted by Timothy on
Gore Vidal refuses to identify as LGBT. So would that make him a conservative?
This pigeon-holing and stereotyping gets soooo confusing.
posted by Jimbo on
Actually, the organizers of our local pride celebration has called the community the “GLBTQIA” community. Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, Questioning, Intersexed, & I honestly don’t know what the “A” stands for. Can anyone help me? Oh boy, this alphabet soup is getting confusing.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I am definitely pro-gay and do identify as part of the LGBT community. And I am none of those things.
The difference between you and I, Timothy, is that you sit still and say nothing as others rant about how one must be Democrat, socialist, anti-war, pro-abortion, and antireligious based on their sexual orientation in order to qualify as “LGBT”.
Well, maybe not COMPLETELY silent; you’re always ready to attack those people who speak up and say that being gay doesn’t require you to be Democrat, socialist, anti-war, pro-abortion, and antireligious, and roundly make clear that those who claim such things are blowing smoke.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Gore Vidal refuses to identify as LGBT. So would that make him a conservative?
Actually, I applaud Mr. Vidal’s refusal to be defined by his sexual orientation, or to claim that his beliefs are a result of it. Instead of hiding behind “LGBT, LGBT” as a cover, he speaks what he believes as a person, not as a minority.
Refreshing. And very rare.
posted by ETJB on
North Dallas;
Yup, LGBT Americans are just as capable of being petty, mean, impolite, hysterically patisan and downright intolerant of some one political party choice or political philosophy as straight Americans. Shocking! :0)
I seen and read LGBT Democrats, Republicans, Independents, third political party supporters, self-identified liberals, conservatives and moderates do it.
While we will probably always disagree about something (we are Americans, after all), much of the problem seems to come
(1) From on top. LGBT groups of one political party/view point tend to not want to do too much with LGBT groups of another political party/viewpoint.
(2) Also its only been fairly recently that LGBT Republicans started coming out and seek to change their party. Heck, the LCR was not on the national media rader until 1996.
(3) I think that LGBT people really do not spend as much time as they should on voting rights & election law reform issues and hence a LGBT third party supporter is not going to be taken seriously or especially well liked.
Yes, because we all know that pointing out that someone is pro-abortion and anti-religious is as horribly evil as the gay liberals who call religious gay people “fundy housewives” and demand their identification so that they can “deal with” them — an action which, as we know, involves harassing their employers in attempts to get them fired and their friends/family as well, all with the blessing of “GLBT” groups.
In short, call me back when gay conservatives start wishing publicly and loudly for the children of gay liberals to be born deformed and for those selfsame liberals to suffer horribly — just like the “GLBT community” wishes for conservative and other gays.
posted by ETJB on
“A” stands for allied. You know, the heterosexual majority who we need to get stuff done.
GLBT Democrats and Republicans; liberals, conservatives,
GLBT Greens and Libertarians, etc are capable of reducing a poltical discussion to sound bytes, talking head point memos and general childish and meanness.
During the events leading up to the current Afghanistan & Iraq War, I had many a LGBT conservative Republican accuse me of being pro-Taliban, pro-mass murder of gays, pro-molesting children and the list went on. Why? I disagreed with President Bush and his foreign policy.
LGBT Democrats & Republicans have often launched similar verbal jabs at me when I advocate and lobby on behalf of campaign law reforms; i.e. fair ballot access laws, IRV and even PR.
LGBT people have the same political party/political values range as straight people. Yes, most LGBT vote for Democrats, but that does not mean they are all left-wing or socialist.
Yes, roughly 20% of gays will vote Republicans, but that does not mean that they are all hiding out in the closet and hoping to be gased for a tax cut.
A person does not have to be a “Democrat, socialist, anti-war, pro-abortion, and antireligious” in order to qualify as being LGBT. In fact very few LGBT people (or straight people) belong to the Socialist Party.
Although Socialist Parties tend to have a great record on LGBT rights. In fact they were some of the early supporters of gay rights (that and classical liberals and anarchists).
Again, people who are pro-choice generally do not see themselves as being “pro-abortion”. Likewise people who are pro-choice with guns generally dont see themselves as being for mass murder. These little slogans and sound byte terms often turn a debate in any American community into a high school locker room verbal spat.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Yes, the LGBT bug is cumbersome enough without the LGBTQIA, which has been cropping up more lately. Enough! My editor at Bay Windows uses LGBT (and not GLBT, by the way) fairly routinely. Because I get into enough fights as it is, I have not fought her on this score. But the obligatory litany is one of my pet peeves.
Gore Vidal doesn’t use LGBT any more than he uses “gay” — he says “same-sexers” a lot — because he claims that everyone is bisexual, which is rubbish. I don’t have the slightest shred of a heterosexual impulse.
In most contexts where LGBT (or a longer variation) is used, “gay” would serve just as well. But then all the balkanized professional victims start squawking. Then there’s “gender queer,” which I assure you I will fight if that ever makes it to my editor’s style sheet. Having objected to the Washington Times changing “gay” to “homosexual” in a letter I sent them four years ago, I would certainly not sit quietly if someone started changing “gay” to “gender queer” on me.
I tend to treat “LGBT” as a bit of noise. A friend of mine likes to say “Gay BLT,” as if he’s talking about a sandwich.
posted by Xeno on
It’s rather ironic that you reference the last sentence of your previous post in making that statement.
…
This is the gay equivalent of calling a black conservative or moderate an “oreo” or “house nigger”.
Nonsense, I have no beef with most gay conservatives and moderates, and in fact I share some of their views. What I do have an issue with are gay apologists for antigay policies and figures, such as yourself. And before you start going on another tirade about ‘leftists,’ yes that includes some gay Democrats that have supported or still support questionable and pandering Democrats that have been lukewarm or downright hostile on gay issues.
Your view is clear, Xeno; gay moderates, fiscal conservatives, and independents, who don’t toe the the Democrat, socialist, anti-war, pro-abortion, and antireligious model, are antigay. That is the view shared by gay organizations like HRC, which supports harassment campaigns against gays who aren’t Democrats.
And where did I implied this exactly? To paraphraze Ronald Regan: there you go again ND30, falsy assuming that everyone that oppose you are part of the ‘gayLeftBorg’ conspiracy.
That is because the Republicans are not asking for gay money, demanding gay fidelity and support, and being endorsed by gay organizations as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
Instead, like Brian Miller patially stated, they raise money and rile up religious conservatives by using gay-baiting tactics, sometimes they have gay staffers such as Robert Traynham or John Schafly helping them out. And worse yet, some of them are even closet cases that have spouted antigay rhetoric and supported antigay policies, yet fuck around with escorts. Face it, both parties have awful hypocrites.
In essence, you are complaining about people not asking you for support when you’ve made it obvious that you are completely against them — while ignoring the fact that the people to whom you gave your cash and undying loyalty in exchange for something are doing the exact opposite.
Nope, I’m simply criticising politicians or activists that use gay-baiting tactics as well, regardless of their party affiliations, something you never do. I haven’t ignored lukewarm and hypocritical Democrats such as the Clintons, Kerry, Dean, or even the few DemoRats in the Massachusetts house that have voted for a fraudlent and constitutionally dubious petition.
One would think that, if you were concerned about discrimination against gay families, you would have said something about a leader of HRC, a DNC staffer, and the entire HRC and Stonewall Democrat establishments endorsing and giving millions of dollars to supporters of the FMA and state constitutional amendments who pander to people like Pat Robertson.
I sure do have something to say to them: You won’t get any of my money, show some transparency, stop supporting insipid politicians, put a lot more pressure on their backs, and get back to grassroots activism instead of stuffing yourself in the temples of Gluttony on K Street.
But that would get you kicked out of the LGBT community, wouldn’t it?
Nope, because I have the same interests on gay issues as the majority of the LGBT community. Question is, do you share those interests on gay issues?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Well, this is interesting.
Nonsense, I have no beef with most gay conservatives and moderates, and in fact I share some of their views. What I do have an issue with are gay apologists for antigay policies and figures, such as yourself.
Of course, that differs rather substantially from what was said in the first place:
Honestly though, for gay moderates, fiscal conservatives, and independents, you sound no more different than an antigay conservative.
This is sort of like the Democrats who got cornered on the “house nigger” business and tried to insist later that they only meant those black conservatives, moderates, etc. who voted against their “racial interests”.
Again, mighty white of you.
And where did I implied this exactly?
See above, where you claimed gay conservatives/moderates were no different than antigay folk.
Instead, like Brian Miller patially stated, they raise money and rile up religious conservatives by using gay-baiting tactics, sometimes they have gay staffers such as Robert Traynham or John Schafly helping them out.
If gay staffers helping antigay politicians bothers you so much, start calling them out by name elsewhere.
Otherwise, kiss off.
Nope, I’m simply criticising politicians or activists that use gay-baiting tactics as well, regardless of their party affiliations, something you never do.
LOL….which was why one of my most famous phrases over on GayPatriot prior to the 2004 election was, “Both Bush and Kerry are antigay bigots”.
And personally, I happen to think that nine-tenths of what the “LGBT community” calls “gay-baiting” is merely telling the truth about what the “LGBT community” is — Democrat, socialist, anti-war, pro-abortion, and antireligious. I hardly think there’s something wrong with pointing out, for example, that gays consider religion to be “superstition useful for political control” and “institutionalized oppression”, claiming that you haven’t “evolved” if you still “believe the unbelievable”, or that it’s antigay to support limits on abortion, underage minors avoiding sex, marriage, and that kids should have a mom and a dad; after all, isn’t the “LGBT community” proud of what it believes?
“Gay-baiting” wouldn’t work if it were clear to people that you don’t have to be Democrat, socialist, anti-war, pro-abortion, and antireligious to be gay, Xeno. But ironically, as long as you and yours promote ideological purity as a litmus test and claim that gay moderates and conservatives “sound no more different than an antigay conservative”, you’re not going to make very much headway in that regard.
I sure do have something to say to them: You won’t get any of my money, show some transparency, stop supporting insipid politicians, put a lot more pressure on their backs, and get back to grassroots activism instead of stuffing yourself in the temples of Gluttony on K Street.
See above for why they know that’s a load of horse-hockey.
I’ll give you a hint; it has something to do with the fact that, when confronted with examples of Democrat homophobia, gays go screeching off about how Republicans want to “segregate, imprison, and execute gays”.
In other words, they don’t have to change; they just have to wait for you to come up with a good rationalization for why you’re going to support them anyway.
Nope, because I have the same interests on gay issues as the majority of the LGBT community. Question is, do you share those interests on gay issues?
Let’s see….abortion, nope, religion, nope, socialism, nope, Democrats only, nope.
Meanwhile, since the “LGBT community” has, as I have demonstrated, no apparent problem proclaiming that those who wish to ban gay marriage on the state and Federal level, or pander to religious leaders like Pat Robertson, are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, to what exactly are you referring when you call me bad on gay issues?
posted by dalea on
If the exceedingly dim bulbs who pass for the leadership at IGF let the previous post pass, well, they have confirmed every leftist diatribe ever posted against the gay right is valid. The forum reaches out to gay ‘moderates, classical liberals and libertarians’ in its public statements. As far as I can tell, there is no reaching out to the ‘gay conservatives’ which appear from what we see before our eyes to be a gathering of the unhinged. Please take steps to empower the original clearly stated premise of IGF.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Which part of that “clearly stated premise of IGF” that you want to “empower” includes your calling the leaders of it “exceedingly dim bulbs”, dalea?
Furthermore, you forgot something in your “quote” of to whom IGF reaches out:
We include libertarians, limited-government conservatives, moderates, and classical liberals.
Furthermore, your transparent and laughable attempt to get me banned from IGF is no different than your stalkeresque attempt to intimidate and harass Lori into shutting up when she had the temerity to air her nonstandard opinions and disagree with you. What you can’t bully or manipulate into silence, you try to destroy.
And as for “unhinged”, I can show you that — on this comment thread from “LGBT community” leader John Aravosis, showing the reaction of “real gays” to the birth of Mary Cheney’s child. I thought they couldn’t top this, but, as always happens, Aravosis and his ilk can always sink to the occasion.
And, just to anticipate the arrival of the enabler squad whining about how this isn’t representative of all gays…….instead of whining about how mean I am for pointing it out, how about growing a spine and telling Aravosis and his fellow hatemongers to get bent? How about using those leather lungs that can scream day and night about imaginary concentration camps to actually deal with some REAL hate in obvious and tangible form — even if it is other gay people doing it?
The IGF leadership will do as they will, dalea. But if you think for one minute that I’m going to quietly allow you and your fellow bullies to use my sexual orientation as an excuse for your leftist, hatemongering, antisocial behavior, you’ve got another thing coming.
The beauty of being gay is that it does nothing, absolutely nothing, to prevent us from being black, white, Catholic, Protestant, atheist, agnostic, Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, outspoken, introverted, male, female, or anything else. It is a characteristic of certain people. We who have it are people like everyone else.
You and your fellows, dalea, have perpetuated the lie for far too long that sexual orientation requires you to be anything else. And it stops here. Right now.
posted by Brian Miller on
One would think, Mr. Miller, if you were intellectually consistent, you would direct at LEAST the same level of vitriol and hate against the Democrat Party
As you well know, I am an outspoken critic of both the Democratic and Republican parties — which, as I’ve pointed out numerous times, differ mostly in their cast of clowns.
Their actual legislative policies on most key issues (including gay ones) are indistinguishable from a practical perspective. I choose to focus on the substance of the matters at hand with facts and logic — not vomiting (lovely choice of words from Tim) a bunch of emotional gobbledygook about “hate, vitriol” and “victimhood.” That impoverishes the debate of substance.
Unfortunately, both the Republican and Democratic parties have deprived most of our country’s cities, towns and villages of their idiots.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I choose to focus on the substance of the matters at hand with facts and logic — not vomiting (lovely choice of words from Tim) a bunch of emotional gobbledygook about “hate, vitriol” and “victimhood.”
That remark will be filed right next to the one in which you stated that Republicans want to segregate, imprison, and execute gays.
Which brings us to the next question; since you insist you criticize Republicans and Democrats equally and that the two groups are identical on policies, will you now say that Democrats want to segregate, imprison, and execute gays as well?
posted by Timothy on
The difference between you and I, Timothy, is that you sit still and say nothing as others rant about how one must be Democrat, socialist, anti-war, pro-abortion, and antireligious based on their sexual orientation in order to qualify as “LGBT”.
Perhaps that is because you are the only person I hear making that rant. No one else believes it.
It’s clear to me that you are a pretty angry guy and need someone to despise. If you need to believe that 90% of gay people have the attributes that you find despicable in order for you to feel superior and justify your anger and loathing, then there’s very little I or anyone else can say to change your mind.
posted by Timothy on
Brian,
Unfortunately, both the Republican and Democratic parties have deprived most of our country’s cities, towns and villages of their idiots.
Sadly, though a Republican, on this I have to agree. Or almost. They did leave some idiots to work on talk shows and write blogs and be political pundits.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If you need to believe that 90% of gay people have the attributes that you find despicable in order for you to feel superior and justify your anger and loathing, then there’s very little I or anyone else can say to change your mind.
It’s less a matter of needing to believe, Timothy, than it is in pointing out the obvious.
Take, for example, antireligious bigotry among gays.
Insulting and hateful descriptions of the religious? Linked.
Harassment and intimidation of gays who publicly express their beliefs and speak out? Linked.
For anti-Republicanism, diatribes that Republicans want to segregate, imprison, and execute gays, even wanting to put gays in concentration camps? Linked.
Or my favorite all-time combination — for two women and a family that are not Democrat, socialist, anti-war, pro-abortion, and antireligious, wanting a newborn baby to die in a manner most painful to his family.
And all you can do is sit and insist that these are figments of my imagination, a result of an anger problem.
Unfortunately, the fact that you lack the spine to stand up and confront the reality of this hate and bigotry — if, indeed, you even disagree with it in the first place — does not render it nonexistent.
In short, Timothy, I can bring facts to bear to demonstrate my point; all you can do is sit and accuse me of being mentally unbalanced.
posted by Timothy on
Believe whatever you need to believe.
(just as an aside, self-referencing generally isn’t very convincing.)
posted by Lori Heine on
“Just as an aside,” Timothy, the examples NDT gave ought — for anybody with a modicum of decency and common sense — to be self-explanatory.
It was not “self-referencing” for him to refer to the fact that Dalea threatened to “deal with” me because I had (gasp and double gasp!) dared to say something he didn’t like.
The Leftist Elite doesn’t have time to attack real anti-gay bigotry or homophobia. It’s too busy attacking its own, or supporting and enabling others who do.
It would be funny, if it were not so deeply pathetic, that people attack folks like NDT for supposedly being self-hating when they themselves are the ones who attack other gays and lesbians. We’re simply supposed to be too busy kowtowing to political correctness to notice this.
But of course, you will certainly take your own advice and “Believe whatever you need to believe.”
posted by Xeno on
See above, where you claimed gay conservatives/moderates were no different than antigay folk.
Really? Let’s go back to that sentence:
Honestly though, for gay moderates, fiscal conservatives, and independents, you sound no more different than an antigay conservative.
Next time, I suggest you put your reading glasses on before babbling on nonsense.
And personally, I happen to think that nine-tenths of what the “LGBT community” calls “gay-baiting” is merely telling the truth about what the “LGBT community” is — Democrat, socialist, anti-war, pro-abortion, and antireligious.
*yawn*
Actually what I hear from the antigay crowd are things like “the radical homosexual agenda”, “recruiting our children”, spouting the lies of Paul Cameron concerning the life expectancy of homosexuals. This stuff is heared a lot more than just one tenth of the time, and it’s even more popular with certain Republican politicians as well.
I hardly think there’s something wrong with pointing out, for example, that gays consider religion to be “superstition useful for political control” and “institutionalized oppression”,
Well that’s partially true in that religion has been used as a political tool for power and oppresion. Take Saudi-Arabia for example, one of the most extreme cases where religion pretty much strangles the society.
claiming that you haven’t “evolved” if you still “believe the unbelievable”,
How many gays have stated that? Are you implying that the large majority of gays and lesbians are atheist? If so, back it up with some evidence.
or that it’s antigay to support limits on abortion,
What does abortion have to do with being antigay? Again, statistics for the record.
underage minors avoiding sex, marriage, and that kids should have a mom and a dad;
Finally, we’re getting into some red meat.
underage minors avoiding sex? Only a gay issue if consensual laws aran’t equal for both homosexual and hetersexual sex.
marriage? Despite some disagreements on semantics and strategy, every sane LGBT supports equal recognition of their relationships.
By kids should have a mom and a dad, you mean that same-sex couples should be barred from adopting and parenting children, while hundreds of thousands orphans get rotated between foster homes, simply because they’re unfit to be parents due to the nature of their relationship? Sorry, but the data already shows that same-sex couples can make just as great parents as opposite-sex couples. To ignore the massive surplus of kids needing a home, the evidence on gay parenting and make such a claim is considered antigay.
after all, isn’t the “LGBT community” proud of what it believes?
Read above about what I stated on LGBT again. It’s not a monolithic bloc that agrees on everything outside of real gay issues.
Let’s see….abortion, nope, religion, nope, socialism, nope, Democrats only, nope.
Sorry, but these aren’t gay issues at all.
Meanwhile, since the “LGBT community” has, as I have demonstrated, no apparent problem proclaiming that those who wish to ban gay marriage on the state and Federal level, or pander to religious leaders like Pat Robertson, are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, to what exactly are you referring when you call me bad on gay issues?
Well for starters, your defense and leniency of unconstitutional petitions, and your support and leniency for antigay politicians. Didn’t you vote for that sleaze ball Rick Perry?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Next time, I suggest you put your reading glasses on before babbling on nonsense.
Which is why you tried to argue that your reference to plural groups only referred to me specifically. Right.
Actually what I hear from the antigay crowd are things like “the radical homosexual agenda”, “recruiting our children”, spouting the lies of Paul Cameron concerning the life expectancy of homosexuals.
Well, it’s not like gays aren’t calling for the abolishment of marriage (Beyond Marriage), demanding standards for teaching lesbian sex in schools (Sheila Kuehl), and, despite being a small fraction of the population, making up well over half of the HIV cases in this country (three-quarters of them in California).
Just as with national gay leaders like Matt Foreman blabbing that unlimited abortion is a gay-rights issue, if you don’t want these things being thrown back at you, make it clear that the gays who are pushing them are blowing smoke out their asses, instead of whining and crying about how telling the truth is now “gay-baiting”. The fact that you don’t have the spine to come to grips with what people are prostituting your sexual orientation for does not mean it stops happening.
And before you start bawling about “thousands of foster kids”, show me the thousands of same-sex couples lined up around the block to adopt them. The problem in the foster system is that there are too many of them and not enough parents, period; if your point were the children, rather than using them to make a political statement, you would be pushing for more parents to foster regardless of their sexual orientation.
Well for starters, your defense and leniency of unconstitutional petitions, and your support and leniency for antigay politicians. Didn’t you vote for that sleaze ball Rick Perry?
One, let me cite to you a document that may be of some interest in the matter concerning your claim that petitions are “unconstitutional”:
Legislative power shall continue to be vested in the general court; but the people reserve to themselves the popular initiative, which is the power of a specified number of voters to submit constitutional amendments and laws to the people for approval or rejection
Two, are you planning to call gays who supported this, this, and this, which would include HRC, NGLTF, and every single gay person who voted for or gave money to any of these individuals, out for their “support and leniency for antigay politicians”?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And one more thing, Xeno.
How many gays have stated that? Are you implying that the large majority of gays and lesbians are atheist? If so, back it up with some evidence.
Witness, Xeno, how lesbian Democrat Pam Spaulding, who is regularly called upon and put forward as an example of the “LGBT community” and what it believes, shows what she and her counterparts think about religion.
Personally, I’m just tired of having to coddle and tiptoe around plain facts, scientific truths, and observable reality just because it may offend any one of billions of people’s Invisible Superfriends. Until the human race can escape the intellectual immaturity of literal belief in miracles and religion, we’ll never reach a place where we can coexist peacefully……
We live in a country where a large majority of the population literally believe there are invisible angels flying around us all the time. Do you suppose that might have something to do with us falling behind India and China in math and science……
To not recognize that it is religion at the heart of the problem and to minimize it by limiting it to extremist religion is somewhat like when the NRA tries to minimize the gun control issue — guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Yeah, but the gun sure helped! Similarly, religions don’t kill people, extremists kill people… but the religion sure helped! It’s hard to be one of the 0.003% of religious extremists if there aren’t 96% of the religious moderates who keep the religion alive.
As for “How stupid can [I] be?” Not so stupid as to misspell “asinine” or believe a three-day-dead corpse can reanimate and float up into the sky, I suppose…
Or, if that’s not good enough, how about “moderate” Michael Demmons over at GayOrbit?
Like I said above, when Lori dared to air her faith and beliefs publicly, she was mocked as a fundy housewife” and threatened with harassment.
So, to summarize, you have gays denouncing religion, and you have gays attacking and threatening other people who air their faith publicly. And in all such cases, we hear nothing but silence from you, from Timothy, from “Bishop” Gene Robinson, from Soulforce, and whatever other myriad groups are out there.
Like I said above, feel free to make it clear that these people are blowing smoke out their asses. But until then, the evidence looks pretty clear.
posted by Brian Miller on
That remark will be filed right next to the one in which you stated that Republicans want to segregate, imprison, and execute gays.
And where I pointed to examples:
1) Segregation: The GOP’s strong support for anti-gay military policies and banning gay marriage;
2) Imprisoning: The GOP’s strong opposition to the Lawrence vs. Texas decision that threw out sodomy laws. No less than Republican President George W. Bush signed laws against same-sex relations that imprisoned gay people, and even faux-libertarian Republican Ron Paul went apeshit when the Supremes struck down anti-gay state laws.
3) Executing gays: Republican activist Paul Cameron is on the record about this. So are numerous Republican religious leaders who regularly participate in prayer breakfasts at the White House.
So you see, ND, it’s not hyperbole when the facts are on my side! 😉
While you whine about a few out-of-context comments that anonymous posters on a blog are making, your party is actively supporting policies to segregate, imprison, and even execute gays. It’s a simple matter of public record.
You’ll forgive me if my outrage against your party is thus much higher than my outrage against a couple of anonymous pseuds (including, of course, yourself!)
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Bologna, Mr. Miller — for a very simple reason, as I outlined in my previous post:
Which brings us to the next question; since you insist you criticize Republicans and Democrats equally and that the two groups are identical on policies, will you now say that Democrats want to segregate, imprison, and execute gays as well?
In short, since you have insisted that Republicans’ policies “prove” that they all want to segregate, imprison, and execute gays, and that Democrats’ policies are “indistinguishable from a practical perspective”, you must then state that all Democrats want to segregate, imprison, and execute gays as well.
Or you can start backflipping, insisting that the fact that some Democrats also support DADT, banning gay marriage, sodomy laws, and pandering to religious activists doesn’t mean they all do — which will further demonstrate your hypocrisy and protection of actions you would deem “homophobia” elsewhere among Democrats.
Next:
Executing gays: Republican activist Paul Cameron is on the record about this. So are numerous Republican religious leaders who regularly participate in prayer breakfasts at the White House.
Provide links.
But of course we all know, such as when Timothy masterfully caught you in one of your usual undocumented assertions, you don’t have to provide links or facts; you can say whatever you want.
While you whine about a few out-of-context comments that anonymous posters on a blog are making
Considering I cited your statements about how gays should oppose religion because it’s only “superstition useful for political control” and “institutionalized oppression”, as well as claiming that gay people haven’t “evolved” if they still “believe the unbelievable”, it seems rather odd that you are now trying to declare yourself “anonymous”.
posted by Lori Heine on
Cowards who make anonymous threats on blogs have become so valuable to the Left’s Victimization and Smear Machine that it is, evidently, important to “The Cause” to gloss over their vile antics.
People who stoop to such tactics are the dregs of the dregs. Are we now to hold such thuggery and poltroonery up as a shining example of what needs to be done to further our efforts?
Those in our midst who insist upon acting like damaged little poster children for the efficacy of corporal punishment — wallowing in whiny and victimmy self-pity and morphing into wild-eyed nutballs every time someone mentions a topic as mainstream as religious faith — are only marginalizing us.
“I can staaaand having to hear about…religion!…sob! I’ve just been so…victimized! Can’t EVERYBODY feel my pain?!”
Those who are incapable of living in the adult world are worthy of pity. Unless they simply dedicate their lives to pitying themselves. In that case they leave the rest of us with no room for any reaction but contempt.
posted by Timothy on
Lori Heine | May 24, 2007, 8:45pm | #
“Just as an aside,” Timothy, the examples NDT gave ought — for anybody with a modicum of decency and common sense — to be self-explanatory.
Lori, NDT’s underlying assertion is that the vast majority of the gay community (90% was his figure) is – and beleives all gay people must be – Democrat, socialist, anti-war, pro-abortion, and antireligious. That is utter nonsense as has been substantiated over and over and over.
Linking to a sole example of an individual that has one or more of those characteristics is neither “self-explanatory” or convincing. Anecdote is not evidence (I’ll refrain from making comments here about common sense).
posted by Timothy on
Brian,
3) Executing gays: Republican activist Paul Cameron is on the record about this. So are numerous Republican religious leaders who regularly participate in prayer breakfasts at the White House.
Paul Cameron is not a “Republican activist”. I don’t know his party affiliation but suspect it is not Republican.
Further, though he clearly thinks favorably about this, he has not actually called for execution of gays. Quarantine, yes and also tattooing (he’s fond of referencing the work of Rudolf Hoss), but execution has only been presented as a possible future necessity. (clearly this guy is one evil dude)
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,020.htm
But I have never of ANY Republican religious leaders who participate at prayer breakfasts calling for execution. In fact, I don’t know of any religious leaders of any political leanings who support that idea (and I think I would). If you have substantiation, please provide a link.
posted by johnny on
the list keeps growing, it seems. many groups in these parts have now added the intersexuals to lgbt.
posted by dalea on
Lou Shelton of the Traditional Values Coalition has called for concentration camps for gay people.
Rev Bob Enyart, Denver CO, long had a Christian teevee program where he regularly called for putting gay people to death. His program was syndicated throughout North America. In Colorado it was the number 1 rated Christian offering. Among his many innovations were ‘May is Homos Make Me Puke Month’ widely celebrated by conservative Christians in Colorado. His ‘how to spot a homo obituary’ was extraordinarily popular. His technique was to pick out an obituary of a gay man, call up the listed survivor and scream hell fire and damnation at the guy. In the spirit of Christian community, Rev Bob would also put the phone number on the screen and urge his viewers to call up and do the same.
During his time on the air, Rev Enyart always ranked first in numbers of viewers. And not one, repeat not one, evangelical Christian leader ever expressed any reservations about Rev Enyart’s approach.
posted by Brian Miller on
In short, since you have insisted that Republicans’ policies “prove” that they all want to segregate, imprison, and execute gays, and that Democrats’ policies are “indistinguishable from a practical perspective”, you must then state that all Democrats want to segregate, imprison, and execute gays as well.
Sure. Support for those policies I outlined before were certainly bipartisan. In fact, many of the policies that your party’s leader, George W. Bush, advocated as “unifying people” were anti-gay policies that got significant support from both sides of the aisle.
Of course, that in no way abrogates your party’s responsibility for those policies (and their support for them).
Provide links.
Once again, I’m not going to be bothered with playing your “provide links to publicly known common information” game, ND30. If you cannot be bothered to learn about Paul Cameron and his agenda, then you shouldn’t be positioning yourself as an informed participant in the debate.
Paul Cameron is not a “Republican activist”. I don’t know his party affiliation but suspect it is not Republican.
Cameron first made his call for execution of gay people as keynote speaker at CPAC — as Republican an organization as MoveOn is a Democratic one.
Further, Mr. Cameron has engaged heavily in Republican party primary politics, made endorsements of Republican candidates within those primaries, and works for the Family Research Institute, which is hardly a Democratic, Green, Libertarian or independent organization.
though he clearly thinks favorably about this, he has not actually called for execution of gays
The passionate defense of Cameron from Republicans, which wavers between claiming he’s not a Republican, and then claiming he never made his repeated calls for execution of gays, is indeed hilarious.
His statement leaves little ambiguity in the matter:
“At the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference, Cameron announced to the attendees, ‘Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.’ According to an interview with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending the extermination option as early as 1983.” – Mark E. Pietrzyk, News-Telegraph, March 10, 1995.
So either Dr. Koop (a moderate Republican last time I checked) as well as the CPAC are defaming Cameron, or Cameron did indeed call for the extermination of homosexuals.
I don’t know of any religious leaders of any political leanings who support that idea
You do, you simply don’t like to brook the idea.
Go hang out in fundamentalist churches (and mosques) sometime and listen to the speeches when the nonbelievers/kuffar aren’t believed to be in earshot.
The constant demands for “substantiation” of well-known facts about Republican Party leaders simply underscores my prior belief that queer Republicans are in a state of deep denial about their own status within their party (and society at large). Your party doesn’t like you, doesn’t want you, and never will — no matter how much you lash out at the critics of your Fearless Leaders!
posted by Brian Miller on
not one, repeat not one, evangelical Christian leader ever expressed any reservations about Rev Enyart’s approach.
And many guests on his program have been regulars at WH “Prayer Breakfasts” under both the Clinton and Bush administrations. I guess it’s “unfair” to note that, too, because of the GOP’s doctrine of plausible deniability.
In Republicratland, the ACLU’s defense of the free speech rights of other organizations — including ones with contemptible political goals like Nazis or NAMBLA — are “efforts to promote Nazism and pedophilia.”
But Republican religious leaders who advocate the desirability of “extermination of homosexuals” at THE major conservative Republican political pow-wow, CPAC, are “simply discussing an option — not supporting it.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The constant demands for “substantiation” of well-known facts about Republican Party leaders simply underscores my prior belief that queer Republicans are in a state of deep denial about their own status within their party (and society at large).
Which you need to substantiate your own belief that your problems are the result of your sexual orientation and not your behavior.
However, like all ideological beliefs that take the place of reality, this one has some problems. Take, for example, this contradictory statement:
So either Dr. Koop (a moderate Republican last time I checked) as well as the CPAC are defaming Cameron, or Cameron did indeed call for the extermination of homosexuals.
Since Koop obviously disagreed with that, where does that leave your theory that all Republicans want to exterminate gays?
Meanwhile, to clarify:
Sure. Support for those policies I outlined before were certainly bipartisan. In fact, many of the policies that your party’s leader, George W. Bush, advocated as “unifying people” were anti-gay policies that got significant support from both sides of the aisle.
Better, but you need to clearly say the following: “Because their policies are indistinguishable from Republican policies, it should be clear that all Democrats want to segregate, imprison, and execute gays as well”.
posted by Brian Miller on
you need to clearly say the following: “Because their policies are indistinguishable from Republican policies, it should be clear that all Democrats want to segregate, imprison, and execute gays as well”.
ND, if I need a Republican troll to put words in my mouth, I’ll get the words from a more literate and scrupulous individual than yourself.
I honestly couldn’t give a fig about your compulsive need to tie every ill thing to gays, Democrats, or anyone else. My arguments are consistent and principled, whereas yours involve playing lots of word games.
I just demolished your claims that Cameron wasn’t a Republican. I demolished your claims that he didn’t call for the execution of gays.
Someone with a bit of character would have given up at that point, rather than trying to engage in further sliminess.
Then again, you *are* a Republican. . .
posted by Timothy on
People,
When asked for links, please just provide them. If you are factually correct there’s no reason to refuse. And often others, such as myself, want to read the source information – If it supports your position, I would think that you would want us to read it.
OK, now for some specific responses:
Dale, thanks for the info on Enyart. I didn’t know much about him but he sounds like one nasty piece of work. Do you know if he ever spoke at a National Prayer Breakfast? If so, I’ll retract my statement. I don’t know how high his profile is – his chuch doesn’t seem to even have their own building – but I really don’t know.
And considering that he favors replacing the constitution with a monarchy, I’m not sure that Enyart is likely to be tied in to Republican party establishment.
And many guests on his program have been regulars at WH “Prayer Breakfasts” under both the Clinton and Bush administrations.
That may be true. But then again I don’t think that means that everyone who was a guest supported extermination. That seems like a stretch to me. After all, the original claim was not that those who were speakers at White House Prayer Breakfast also had been on a show who’s guest supported extermination.
So either Dr. Koop (a moderate Republican last time I checked) as well as the CPAC are defaming Cameron, or Cameron did indeed call for the extermination of homosexuals.
Well, not exactly. While I do think that Cameron favors extermination, he’s been careful to stay just this side of an actual call for such. He talks in terms of “possible” or “eventual”. That doesn’t make him any less heinous, just careful. I’m not disagreeing with your premise that he supports extermination, but I think we need to be accurate when we make claims (but maybe that’s just me).
Cameron first made his call for execution of gay people as keynote speaker at CPAC — as Republican an organization as MoveOn is a Democratic one.
Are you sure you want to stand by your claim that he was the keynote speaker?
The passionate defense of Cameron from Republicans, which wavers between claiming he’s not a Republican, and then claiming he never made his repeated calls for execution of gays, is indeed hilarious.
Well since I was the one causing hilarity by “passionately” defending Cameron, let me correct your misconceptions. I said that I doubted that he’s a Republican but don’t know his party affiliation. I still don’t – nor do you. He’s certianly conservative and may be Republican but I’d be inclined to guess Constituion Party or some such thing. I’ll gladly concede if proven wrong – ain’t no skin off my nose.
As for the “repeated calls”, well as I said before, we’ve not been able to track down an instance of when he didn’t stop just this side of doing so. And it isn’t because we haven’t been trying. I’d LOVE to find a quote where he is on record for actually calling for extermination. I know he believes it, but we just haven’t yet been able to get an unqualified call.
If anyone has a reference PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let me know.
I don’t know of any religious leaders of any political leanings who support that idea
You do, you simply don’t like to brook the idea.
Actually, I don’t know of any leaders that do. Fred Phelps probably does – but he’s hardly a leader.
Robertson, Falwell, Bakker, Graham, Campollo, Schuller, The Pope, Williams, Hinn, Lucado, Jakes, Dobson, Swindoll, McLaren, who am I forgetting? I don’t really know of a single religious leader influential in this country that favors extermination.
Really, Brain, if you do I would love to know who it is. Not just to argue, but to use the information effectively.
The constant demands for “substantiation” of well-known facts about Republican Party leaders simply underscores my prior belief that queer Republicans are in a state of deep denial about their own status within their party (and society at large).
The problem with “well known facts” is that they are often not facts. And if they cannot be substantiated externally that’s probably because they aren’t true.
Now I know that it’s much more fun to lob accusations at others and pretend that we are right and to get offended and insultive if someone disagrees or challenges our assertions. But come on people – of all parties – if we’re going to make any intellectual progress we need to be factual and specific. This whole “you’re bad cuz your party is evil” stuff doesn’t really make us seem particularly logical or, well, intelligent.
posted by Timothy on
Sorry about the bold run-on
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
My arguments are consistent and principled, whereas yours involve playing lots of word games.
Which is why, of course, you refuse to make the consistent statement that would reflect your stated principles — namely, “Because their policies are indistinguishable from Republican policies, it should be clear that all Democrats want to segregate, imprison, and execute gays as well”.
Furthermore, considering that your so-called “demolishment” was framed around statements made in this post, I fail to see your point.
Finally, since Ron Paul is a Libertarian who supported the Texas sodomy law, you yourself need to state that Libertarians — your party — support “segregation, imprisonment, and execution” of gays.
Or you can start whining that the Libertarian Party shouldn’t be judged based on one person — and thereby undercut your entire argument.
posted by Xeno on
Which is why you tried to argue that your reference to plural groups only referred to me specifically. Right.
You, and pretty much everyone that shares the same vitriol you spout, which include antigay conservatives.
Well, it’s not like gays aren’t calling for the abolishment of marriage (Beyond Marriage),
And it has been shown to you that these people calling for the complete abolishment of marriage are an unrepresentative sample among LGBTs in North America.
demanding standards for teaching lesbian sex in schools (Sheila Kuehl),
If there’s a sex-ed course given in schools, then wouldn’t be fair that there should be a component on homosexuality? If you don’t believe there should be such a component, and are ok with the abstinence until marriage bullshit spouted by antigay organizations, then it’s obvious who you are in league with.
and, despite being a small fraction of the population, making up well over half of the HIV cases in this country (three-quarters of them in California).
You once accused me of being an ‘enabler’ of irresponsbile behaviour within the gay community, which is rich since you’re ‘enabling’ the antigay crowd statement and views that all homosexuals are irresponsbile, promiscuous, and deserve no respect in society.
Just as with national gay leaders like Matt Foreman blabbing that unlimited abortion is a gay-rights issue,
Another hasty generaliztion concerning the views of LGBT folks
if you don’t want these things being thrown back at you, make it clear that the gays who are pushing them are blowing smoke out their asses, instead of whining and crying about how telling the truth is now “gay-baiting”. The fact that you don’t have the spine to come to grips with what people are prostituting your sexual orientation for does not mean it stops happening.
So homosexuals ‘recruiting kids’ or ‘perverted sick individuals’ isn’t gay-baiting, but the actual truth?
And before you start bawling about “thousands of foster kids”, show me the thousands of same-sex couples lined up around the block to adopt them. The problem in the foster system is that there are too many of them and not enough parents, period; if your point were the children, rather than using them to make a political statement, you would be pushing for more parents to foster regardless of their sexual orientation.
And, where did I say I didn’t support more people adopting children?
One, let me cite to you a document that may be of some interest in the matter concerning your claim that petitions are “unconstitutional”:
Legislative power shall continue to be vested in the general court; but the people reserve to themselves the popular initiative, which is the power of a specified number of voters to submit constitutional amendments and laws to the people for approval or rejection
And let me cite you what is written under that paragraph:
In other words, petitions cannot be used against a judicial decision, and since that judicial decision was based on the commonwealth’s constitution, it pretty much leaves this petition dead in the water.
Besides, there were some irregularities about how the petition formed, making it even more dubious.
Two, are you planning to call gays who supported this, this, and this, which would include HRC, NGLTF, and every single gay person who voted for or gave money to any of these individuals, out for their “support and leniency for antigay politicians”?
Voted for? Not really, because your electoral system make people vote for the lesser of two evils, which is a shame since I’d like to see some greens and libertarians having some political clout. Gave money to? Absolutely. Those that gave money to these clowns are just as bad as you are.
Now don’t get any ideas that I think all Republicans are bad. There quite a few gems espcially in New England, but the majority is just junk.
BTW, Ron Paul is a republican, not a real Libertarian. It seems like a lot of
posted by Xeno on
sorry, last sentence was cut off:
BTW, Ron Paul is a republican, not a real Libertarian. It seems like a lot of ‘Republican-lite’ bigots are trying to hijack the Libertarian Party these days.
posted by dalea on
Timothy,
It has been years since I followed Enyart. AIR he frequently had state level elected Republicans as honored guests on his program. He claimed to be active in conservative Republican circles behind the scenes. And did speak at some of the county level GOP conventions. He also claimed to have been interviewed and quoted by Rush Limbaugh. I seem to remember several occasions when Limbaugh called in kind words to Enyart’s program.
All things considered, Enyart was very much a part of conservative Repulicanism in Colorado. His right to life activities included screaming obscenities at women going into Planned Parenthood; I worked nearby and could hear them at my desk. A chorus of: slut, slut, whore, whore. And picketing the homes of PWA’s with bullhorns telling them about how queers go to hell. At Pride, they could always be found screaming obscenities at the marchers. With bullhorns.
On holidays, he would lead pickets at the homes of liberals. They would attempt to chase off guests. And would scream and yell until quite late. The idea is to ruin the holiday for people so that the ruinees will accept Jesus as their personal savior. Not to mention Hell House, another Colorado specialty.
In many ways, Rep Marilyn Musgrave is the most presentable of the Colorado conservatives.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I think, Xeno, that the best way to deal with you is to demonstrate the problem with this statement here:
You once accused me of being an ‘enabler’ of irresponsbile behaviour within the gay community, which is rich since you’re ‘enabling’ the antigay crowd statement and views that all homosexuals are irresponsbile, promiscuous, and deserve no respect in society.
Which apparently involves pointing out HIV statistics among gay men.
Why is that, Xeno?
Is it because the statistics make it clear, both those I cited previously and these, that HIV/AIDS happens disproportionately among gay men, and, in the overwhelming majority of cases, is due to sexual contact?
Is it because of this epidemiological evidence?
The highest HIV infection rates are found in many sub-Saharan African populations because up to 40 percent of adolescent and adult males and females in these populations routinely have multiple and concurrent sex partners, and they also have the highest prevalence of factors that can greatly facilitate sexual HIV transmission. In most other heterosexual populations, the patterns and frequency of sex-partner exchanges are not sufficient to sustain epidemic sexual HIV transmission.
UNAIDS and most AIDS activists reject this analysis as socially and politically incorrect, saying it further stigmatizes groups, such as injecting drug users, sex workers and men who have sex with men. However, all available epidemiologic data show that only the highest risk sexual behavior (multiple, concurrent and a high frequency of changing partners) drives HIV epidemics among heterosexuals or men who have sex with men, anywhere in the world.
Is it because, as other evidence shows, gay men continue to hold the runaway infection prize, year after year after year?
What this all adds up to is this; promiscuous, irresponsible sex is far and away the best way to get HIV, and the group far and away the most likely to have HIV are gays — therefore, those most likely to be having promiscuous, irresponsible sex are gays.
Bluntly put, it is mathematically impossible for a population that is less than 10% of the total to be having 72% of the occurence of a disease — unless something about that population is encouraging its spread. And, since we know that the vast majority of HIV cases are among men who have sex with men, we can thereby infer, given the epidemiological evidence that HIV is spread primarily by having unprotected sex with multiple partners, that men who have sex with men are far more likely to have promiscuous and irresponsible sex.
That isn’t a pretty truth. But it IS the truth, and we can either deal with it or not.
In other words, petitions cannot be used against a judicial decision, and since that judicial decision was based on the commonwealth’s constitution, it pretty much leaves this petition dead in the water.
Unfortunately, the petition isn’t to reverse a judicial decision; it is to amend the Massachusetts Constitution to prohibit gay marriage.
And I find it absolutely hilarious that you quote KnowThyNeighbor.org, an organization specifically set up for the sole purpose of harassing and making threats against people for signing said petition, to complain about “irregularities” in the petition. As I recall, it got roughly three times the signatures it needed, and gay hatemongers — sorry, “activists” — are insistent that it has to be stopped, even if doing so violates the Constitution, at the Legislature, because they know they’ll lose if it goes to the ballot box.
Perhaps setting up hate organizations like KnowThyNeighbor.org to harass voters, letting loose antireligious bigots to call voters who have religious beliefs superstitious idiots, and trying to break the Constitution by blocking a legislative vote wasn’t a good idea, eh?
BTW, Ron Paul is a republican, not a real Libertarian. It seems like a lot of ‘Republican-lite’ bigots are trying to hijack the Libertarian Party these days.
Mhm. That’s why he was the Libertarian Party candidate for President in 1988, why he addressed the Libertarian Party convention in 2004, and why he was just endorsed by Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party candidate for President in 2004.
posted by Timothy on
BTW, Ron Paul is a republican, not a real Libertarian. It seems like a lot of ‘Republican-lite’ bigots are trying to hijack the Libertarian Party these days.
Mhm. That’s why he was the Libertarian Party candidate for President in 1988, why he addressed the Libertarian Party convention in 2004, and why he was just endorsed by Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party candidate for President in 2004.
You do know, don’t you, that Ron Paul is running for President as a Republican this year? I don’t think they’d let him in the Republican debates if he were not a Republican.
posted by Timothy on
And I find it absolutely hilarious that you quote KnowThyNeighbor.org, an organization specifically set up for the sole purpose of harassing and making threats against people for signing said petition, to complain about “irregularities” in the petition.
No. I believe that the guys who started this have been pretty clear that their intent is to have conversation and to try and sway opinions.
Now I suppose that you can claim that the “real” purpose was something else. And at first some gay groups were worried about the efforts because they were afraid it would turn into confrontation. That didn’t happen.
Now I’m sure you can hunt up a small handful of examples of people who have been “harrassed”, but from what I have read (and I do follow this pretty closely) the listing has served two purposes: starting respectful dialog with neighbors, and identifying those on the list who were there fraudulently.
Not surprisingly (to me, anyway) there were quite a few people that were shocked to see their names there, including some folks who were pretty vocal about their support for marriage equality.
But something about your comments, NDT, trouble me. You seem delighted that so many Massachusans signed the petition and gleeful that it may pass. I find that a curious response. It almost seems like you want Massachusetts to change their constitution to ensure that gay people cannot marry each other.
Surely you aren’t so opposed to gay people that you would wish them to not have this ability?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No. I believe that the guys who started this have been pretty clear that their intent is to have conversation and to try and sway opinions.
Then they should try walking out their front door and talking to real, live, actual people.
But rather than actually interact with real, live, actual people, they stuck up a website, demonized the names on it, and encouraged harassment of anyone who exercised their constitutionally-protected right to sign said petition.
That opened conversations, all right — but given that they’ve desperately tried to do anything, regardless of how extralegal or unethical, to avoid having the people with whom they were “conversing” vote on the matter, one has to wonder if the effect was what they intended.
But something about your comments, NDT, trouble me. You seem delighted that so many Massachusans signed the petition and gleeful that it may pass. I find that a curious response. It almost seems like you want Massachusetts to change their constitution to ensure that gay people cannot marry each other.
As you put it, believe what you want to believe.
I will tell you this; I put a higher priority on obeying the democratic process outlined in the Massachusetts Constitution and respecting the opinions of other citizens in our republic than I do on scoring an ideological victory — because if it is established as precedent that people can harass and harm those who exercise their rights, can order the Legislature to ignore the Constitution because they don’t like a petition, then all hell will break loose shortly.
And the reason why is simple.
Ask yourself, Timothy; how comfortable would you be with a website that posted names and addresses of gay people, then exhorted everyone who read it to confront these gays and publicly shame them?
How much would you like it if the Legislature were allowed to ignore and kill at its whim a petition raised by gay people according to the established constitutional process because it didn’t like them?
How pleasant would you consider it to have gays mocked in the same fashion as the gays in Massachusetts (and here) calling the religious superstitious idiots?
What this boils down to is this, Timothy; are you OK with using extralegal, unethical, and unconstitutional methods just because you’ll lose a vote over gay marriage?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You do know, don’t you, that Ron Paul is running for President as a Republican this year? I don’t think they’d let him in the Republican debates if he were not a Republican.
Apparently you missed something, Timothy:
Mhm. That’s why he was the Libertarian Party candidate for President in 1988, why he addressed the Libertarian Party convention in 2004, and why he was just endorsed by Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party candidate for President in 2004.
And the man’s not stupid. People are not going to hear the Libertarian Party debate, but they are going to hear the Republican one. Paul has been doing this for years; he affiliates Republican, but he votes any damn way he pleases.
posted by Timothy on
NTD,
I think you may wish to take a more careful reading of the HIV/AIDS statistics.
Yes it is true that HIV first appeared in the US in the gay community and that for many years it remained there. However, the CDC statistics for 2005 (the most recent available) indicates that the face of the epidemic is changing. In that year, only half (53%) of new transmissions reported involved male to male sex. The 74% figure used by AIDS/LifeCycle is cumulative, not current trends.
In fact, the largest factor in HIV transmissions in the US – straight or gay – is race, with roughly half of all transmissions occurring in African-Americans.
But really, what is the point you are trying to get across? Is it that gay people are inherently more promiscuous? Is it that black people are inherently more promiscuous? Is it that black gay men are most promiscuous of all?
Before we go down that road, may I remind you that HIV is not transmitted by promiscuity. It is transmitted in gay men by unprotected sex, not by the number of sex partners or the quantity of sex one has. A slut can go without getting HIV while a virgin might on his very first time.
I believe that most epidemiologists would tell you that currently the biggest obsticle is that in the African-American community there is a cultural pressure that often results in same-sex attracted men being unwilling to accept their orientation (the “low down” phenominon) and to thus be outside the avenues of protection/testing/safety that is currently being used to fight the spread of HIV.
Additionally, there continues to remain those few people who just think it won’t happen to them or who have self esteem issues or self-destructive behaviors.
But given that there are probably between 4.0 and 4.5 million gay men in the US, the 20,000 that will seroconvert in any given year is less that 1/2 of one percent of that population.
posted by Timothy on
they stuck up a website, demonized the names on it, and encouraged harassment of anyone who exercised their constitutionally-protected right to sign said petition.
Do you have a source for “encouraged harassment” or “demonized the names”, or is that just hyperbole?
the gays in Massachusetts (and here) calling the religious superstitious idiots
oh yawn. Here we go again with “the gays” as though one gay person represents all.
It almost seems like you want Massachusetts to change their constitution to ensure that gay people cannot marry each other.
As you put it, believe what you want to believe.
Well I guess that answered that question. I’m not surprised.
What this boils down to is this, Timothy; are you OK with using extralegal, unethical, and unconstitutional methods just because you’ll lose a vote over gay marriage?
Nope. But it looks like the legislature may well not have the 25% needed to put it on the ballot. It’s a very close call at the moment.
And I believe that even if it did make it on the ballot in 2010, it would lose. And probably pretty heavily by that time. The polls are trending pretty strongly with support going up by quite a few percent each year.
Nonetheless, I’d like to see it killed by legal legislative vote this year.
posted by Timothy on
Apparently you missed something, Timothy
I don’t think so. He was Libertarian, is now Republican. Probably leans pretty heavily towards the ideals of the Libertarian Party. What am I missing?
he affiliates Republican, but he votes any damn way he pleases.
And you think that’s a bad thing.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But given that there are probably between 4.0 and 4.5 million gay men in the US, the 20,000 that will seroconvert in any given year is less that 1/2 of one percent of that population.
Approximately forty-four hundredths of a percent.
Now, given that there are approximately 34.9 million black Americans, the 13,260 of them that seroconverted in 2005 represent approximately FOUR-hundredths of a percent of their population — or approximately one-eleventh the proportion of the gay population that seroconverted.
And they’re screaming about an epidemic and clamping down hard on promiscuous sex, while gays try to point fingers and insist other people are doing it to avoid precisely that, despite the fact that the rate among gays is eleven times the proportionate rate among blacks.
I believe that most epidemiologists would tell you that currently the biggest obsticle is that in the African-American community there is a cultural pressure that often results in same-sex attracted men being unwilling to accept their orientation (the “low down” phenominon) and to thus be outside the avenues of protection/testing/safety that is currently being used to fight the spread of HIV.
Well, let’s see what the epidemiologists tell us.
The stigma associated with homosexuality may inhibit some men from identifying themselves as gay or bisexual, even though they have sex with other men [38, 39]. Some men who have sex with men and with women don?t identify themselves as gay or bisexual [40]. Research among black men has shown that even if these men do not identify themselves as gay or bisexual, they do not engage in risky behavior more often than the men who do identify themselves as gay or bisexual [41].
In reality, the “down-low” represents a convenient fantasy for denialist gays that allows them to blame straight people and cultural homophobia for their own inability to stop themselves from having promiscuous, irresponsible sex.
Before we go down that road, may I remind you that HIV is not transmitted by promiscuity. It is transmitted in gay men by unprotected sex, not by the number of sex partners or the quantity of sex one has. A slut can go without getting HIV while a virgin might on his very first time.
And, in theory, a gambler has the same odds to hit a jackpot on any one pull of the slot machine as does the person who’s only pulled it once. However, what favors the gambler is the fact that s/he does it repeatedly and regularly — as does the slut — which increases their overall chance of hitting the jackpot.
As I cited above, sex with multiple and concurrent partners is the number-one, far and away behavior most likely to give you HIV and spread it in the population.
And that leads us to this:
But really, what is the point you are trying to get across? Is it that gay people are inherently more promiscuous? Is it that black people are inherently more promiscuous? Is it that black gay men are most promiscuous of all?
Depends on what you mean by “inherently”.
I don’t particularly believe that gay or black people are any less capable of exercising sexual restraint than any other particular comparison group.
But I believe that the culture of both groups glorifies sex, ties success to sexual conquests and sexuality, encourages promiscuity and unsafe behaviors, and applies little or no constraint to the end results of it. I also believe that both groups have a strongly-developed distaste and mocking for anyone who would advocate sexual restraint or responsibility in sexual decision-making, with gays in particular calling it “repressive” and “homophobic”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Do you have a source for “encouraged harassment” or “demonized the names”, or is that just hyperbole?
Better question: will you read it?
oh yawn. Here we go again with “the gays” as though one gay person represents all.
Feel free to prove differently — although, Timothy, that would require you to actually stand up for what you believe, instead of saying nothing as gay people call other gays who do stand up “fundy housewives” and insisting that they aren’t “evolved”.
Remember, according to the “real gays” on this site like Brian Miller, dalea, ColoradoPatriot, and Randi, neither Lori or I are gay. Are you really willing to risk that kind of attack by arguing that being gay does not require you to be an antireligious bigot?
Well I guess that answered that question. I’m not surprised.
Ah, Timothy, I can’t take credit for an answer when you quite obviously already had your mind made up.
posted by Timothy on
Do you have a source for “encouraged harassment” or “demonized the names”, or is that just hyperbole?
Better question: will you read it?
Oh. Hyperbole.
Thanks for clarifying.
(The article confirmed what I said. NDT uses the claims of “critics” as support for his unsubstaniated claims about the demonizing and encouraging. Surprising, no. Shameful, only to those who actually care about the truth)
Are you really willing to risk that kind of attack by arguing that being gay does not require you to be an antireligious bigot?
Sure. I hereby declare that being gay does not require you to be an antireligious bigot.
Are you willing to recognize that being religious does not require one to be an anti-gay bigot?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
(The article confirmed what I said. NDT uses the claims of “critics” as support for his unsubstaniated claims about the demonizing and encouraging. Surprising, no. Shameful, only to those who actually care about the truth)
Right.
One St. Peter’s parishioner, Yvonne Cabral, was verbally accosted last Friday by Provincetown Magazine publisher Rick Hines after Hines learned that Cabral signed the petition, according to police.
Police Chief Ted Meyer plans to seek charges of disorderly conduct against Hines, who saw Cabral shopping and loudly called her a “bigot,” according to both Hines and Meyer. Other people who signed the petition — and subsequently had their names posted on the same website — said manure has been spread on their properties in recent months, Meyer added.
So if even the police say that harassment is taking place, it can be ignored.
I also thought this particular point of “tolerance” as practiced by “real LGBTs” was interesting:
Winsome Karr, 45, originally from Jamaica, has worked in town since 2002. Lately, she said, the off-color comments stem from gay visitors who mistakenly believe that all Jamaicans share the views of an island religious sect that disagrees with homosexuality.
Karr’s strong accent reveals her Jamaican roots.
Next:
Are you willing to recognize that being religious does not require one to be an anti-gay bigot?
Absolutely. I will gladly state that being religious does not require one to be an antigay bigot.
posted by Timothy on
One St. Peter’s parishioner, Yvonne Cabral, was verbally accosted …
I’ll just cut and paste what I said above.
Now I’m sure you can hunt up a small handful of examples of people who have been “harrassed”,…
oh, except it was only one. And, of course not relevant to your hyperbolic claim:
they stuck up a website, demonized the names on it, and encouraged harassment of anyone who exercised their constitutionally-protected right to sign said petition
hmmmm… still no evidence of demonizing or encouraging harassment. But what are the odds that NDT will back down on this claim… zero. Like always.
cuz it’s hyperbole
posted by Timothy on
And they’re screaming about an epidemic and clamping down hard on promiscuous sex, while gays try to point fingers and insist other people are doing it to avoid precisely that, despite the fact that the rate among gays is eleven times the proportionate rate among blacks.
That is simply untrue.
Well, let’s see what the epidemiologists tell us.
Thanks for the link. I think it supports my earlier statement:
“Black and Hispanic MSM are less likely than white MSM to live in gay-identified neighborhoods [42]. Therefore, prevention programs directed to gay-identified neighborhoods may not reach these MSM.”
Which is pretty much what I said (to thus be outside the avenues of protection/testing/safety that is currently being used to fight the spread of HIV). However, you are quite right to correct me on my misimpressions about non-“low down” black gay men. I wasn’t aware that self-identifying black gays had the same behaviors as non-identifying black gays. But it does illustrate that we need better methodology at reaching this particular subset of our populace.
However, collectively, though some subsets of gay people have not yet gotten the message somehow, this does show that the gay community (or at least that potion which lives in identified gay neighborhoods) has been effective at reaching and effectively reducing HIV transmission rates.
But I believe that the culture of both groups glorifies sex, ties success to sexual conquests and sexuality, encourages promiscuity and unsafe behaviors, and applies little or no constraint to the end results of it.
I can’t claim to speak for the black community.
I agree that the predominant gay culture does glorify sex and sexuality – perhaps even more so than heterosexuals. But to claim that it encourages unsafe behaviors is simply untrue.
posted by Timothy on
this is a test
test
test of the bold text feature and how to revert to standard text
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL…..and that really demonstrates my point here, Timothy.
Despite being given a clear example of a woman who was targeted, with a name, a perpetrator clearly linked to KnowThyNeighbor.org, and a police report to demonstrate it, you continue to deny that this person was harassed.
Also, I repeat what I said above….how comfortable would you be with a website that posted names and addresses of gay people, then exhorted everyone who read it to confront these gays and publicly shame them?
posted by Timothy on
Despite being given a clear example of a woman who was targeted, with a name, a perpetrator clearly linked to KnowThyNeighbor.org, and a police report to demonstrate it, you continue to deny that this person was harassed.
No. She was yelled at in a store and called a bigot because she signed the petition. No one is aguing with that.
But it does not in any was support your assertion that the guys who set up knowyourneighbor.com were “encouraging harassment” or “demonizing”.
Do you understand the difference?
posted by Timothy on
Also, I repeat what I said above….how comfortable would you be with a website that posted names and addresses of gay people, then exhorted everyone who read it to confront these gays and publicly shame them?
No. Probably not.
But that doesn’t mean that I get to engage in untruthful claims about knowyourneighbor.com.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
However, collectively, though some subsets of gay people have not yet gotten the message somehow, this does show that the gay community (or at least that potion which lives in identified gay neighborhoods) has been effective at reaching and effectively reducing HIV transmission rates.
Effectiveness in that context is very relative — especially given that gays, who are a tiny fraction in comparison to heterosexuals, still outnumber hets in the number of NEW cases each year caused by sexual contact.
I agree that the predominant gay culture does glorify sex and sexuality – perhaps even more so than heterosexuals. But to claim that it encourages unsafe behaviors is simply untrue.
If you have another explanation for the infection rates, I’m sure the world would love to hear it.
About the website:
No. Probably not.
Now apply why that sort of website would make you uncomfortable, how you would perceive it, and what you would think of the people who made it to Knowthyneighbor.org, and you’ll have a better understanding.
Also realize that the existence of Knowthyneighbor.org legitimizes that sort of website being created.
posted by Timothy on
If you have another explanation for the infection rates, I’m sure the world would love to hear it.
The world has heard it. You’ve heard it. It doesn’t fit with your desire to despise gay people so you ignore it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The world has heard it. You’ve heard it. It doesn’t fit with your desire to despise gay people so you ignore it.
Actually, I cited it above.
The highest HIV infection rates are found in many sub-Saharan African populations because up to 40 percent of adolescent and adult males and females in these populations routinely have multiple and concurrent sex partners, and they also have the highest prevalence of factors that can greatly facilitate sexual HIV transmission. In most other heterosexual populations, the patterns and frequency of sex-partner exchanges are not sufficient to sustain epidemic sexual HIV transmission.
UNAIDS and most AIDS activists reject this analysis as socially and politically incorrect, saying it further stigmatizes groups, such as injecting drug users, sex workers and men who have sex with men. However, all available epidemiologic data show that only the highest risk sexual behavior (multiple, concurrent and a high frequency of changing partners) drives HIV epidemics among heterosexuals or men who have sex with men, anywhere in the world.
Also, to what I think you’re referring is this:
In fact, the largest factor in HIV transmissions in the US – straight or gay – is race, with roughly half of all transmissions occurring in African-Americans.
Race is not how HIV is transmitted; behavior is how HIV is transmitted. What we know is that black people made up a larger share of new HIV/AIDS cases than whites did; however, if you look at the statistics, the number one, runaway leader, transmission category is male-to-male sexual contact. Indeed, the number for each year listed there is higher than the combined value for high-risk heterosexual contact for men and women.
The simple fact of the matter is this; gay culture and expectation pushes the highest-risk, most-unsafe behaviors. Countries in Africa that have seen the most spectacular improvements in their HIV infection rates use the ABC method; the gay community, on the other hand, uses C because A and B are too “repressive” and ridiculed by gay culture, and wonders why our reductions aren’t even close.
Gay men don’t abuse Viagra because we need it. We abuse it because it allows you to perform multiple times. To a great extent, that’s why crystal meth is abused as well; its best value is as a sexual enhancer and endurance increase. There is a reason for the high correlation between people who regularly use amyl nitrates (poppers) and HIV; the whole point of taking them is for better and more prolonged sexual performance. And in an environment where sex with multiple partners is prized and practiced, HIV is going to be endemic; that’s all there is to it.