This New York Times news story asserts that there is no difference between the positions on matters gay among Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani and McCain. (In fact, Huckabee and Romney court the religious right and support a federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage; Giuliani and McCain don't.) Yet...
[The Democratic candidates] all support same-sex civil unions and say they would fight to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. And each of them says he or she would champion a federal anti-discrimination law that would protect lesbians and gay men.... All of the [GOP] candidates hold opposite positions from the Democrats on those matters, and although gay rights have not dominated the Republican contest so far, if past elections are any guide, they will become an issue after the primaries, [unnamed liberal] political strategists say.
To further make his case, reporter Andrew Jacobs misleading reports flatly that Giuliani opposes civil unions (Giuliani has stated "I support civil unions" but briefly and unfortunately was critical, specifically, of New Hampshire's version). In October, liberal Times columnist Frank Rich wrote, "No matter how you slice it, the Giuliani positions on abortion, gay rights and gun control remain indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton's."
Meanwhile, in Jacobs' reportage all the Dems are equally wonderful and splendiferous (even if they all oppose same-sex marriage). There is no attempt to hold the Democrats' rhetoric up to comparison with their records (no pro-gay congressional battles have been led by any of the big three: none, zero, nada) or their likelihood to spend political capital on gay issues in the future (and I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in).
Out of the presidential contenders who were serving in Congress in 2004, the only one who did risk political capital by speaking out forcefully and eloquently against the federal marriage amendment was...John McCain (CNN.com's coverage is here; read it).
Just shoddy journalism, or an effort to help ensure that lesbigay voters keep mindlessly giving their votes and dollars to the one true party? You decide.
104 Comments for “Lies of the Times”
posted by bls on
I’d be glad to vote for a Republican – if there were any not happy to pander to the GOP’s rabid anti-gay base, that is….
posted by TJR on
Ok so yes the democratic candidates don’t support gay marriage or have any sort of success in bringing forward LGBT legislations. We can all agree they are failures where this is concerned, but one thing the democrats have done is actually speak to the LGBT audiences, acknowledge our existence by bringing hate crimes legislation to the floor, support civil unions and the repeal of DADT. They are worlds ahead of the GOP presidential candidates when it comes to compassion for LGBT issues. The present GOP presidential field openly pander to the rabid right wing extremists within their own party by supporting a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage, and continue the irrational belief in DADT. Last I remembered Rudy Giuliani no longer supports civil unions and is in favor of DADT. Since the beginning of his hopeless run for president, Giuliani is running quickly away from LGBT issues. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney are competing for flip flopper of the year award.
I’ll support any democrat over the current crop of GOP presidential field who preach their Holier than Thou hate and support legislation to discriminate against Americans who deserve to be treated equally.
posted by john m. on
Did you happen to read the article in the Times about what a bully Guiliani was, and see that lgbt and AIDS groups were either silenced or punished during his term if they disagreed with him on things like safer sex education in the public schools?
I guess not since since you think that nothing the Times writes can be true, but lots of us lived through the supposedly pro-gay Guiliani administration and the idea of President Guiliani is a nightmare. If he represents the “moderate” wing of the Republican party, then yes, I will vote for any Democrat before him to keep a fascist out of the White House.
You feel, perhaps rightly, that LGBT people sell their votes too cheaply to the Democrats, but gay Republicans seem to charge even less for their votes. It’s enough that Rudy put on a dress once and bunked with a gay couple for a while, and perhaps gave a few gay flunkies some patronage jobs.
posted by Bobby on
“but gay Republicans seem to charge even less for their votes.”
—No, it just so happens that we care about other issues and gay rights isn’t our first priority. Simple as that. Besides, of course the democrats are gonna promise you to repeal DADT, Jimmy Carter even gave a speech in a gay bar once, but once they get elected, let’s see how much they care about you.
And for those who criticize Giuliani, remember that he got rid of lots of crime and vandalism in that city. The town used to be a shithole under Dinkins, people use to urinate in the subways, ride them without paying, the city was covered in grafitti and Times Square was nothing but porn stores. So if he didn’t go along with some stupid AIDS group that wanted to teach the kids how to get fisted or God knows what (and you know there are gay activists that talk all kinds of craziness), I’m sorry, but what happens in public schools is everyone’s business, not just AIDS groups.
posted by john m. on
Please Bobby, you know not of what you speak. The truth is that the city became the shithole you refer to under Ed Koch and prior mayors who bankrupted the city. In fact, the turnaround started under Dinkins, under whose watch crime started its decline with the shift to community policing. Look it up. “That city” is where I live, and I lived through Guiliani’s crap for eight years. Remember how he wanted to cancel the election in 2001 because he thought we couldn’t live without him after 9/11? We’ve actually done pretty well since then, without a mayor who puts a disaster response center in THE WORLD TRADE CENTER AFTER IT HAD ALREADY BEEN THE TARGET OF A TERRORIST ATTACK!
The “stupid AIDS groups” wanted to teach sexually active teenagers how not to get AIDS, not how to fist. You are correct. What happens in public schools is everyone’s business, and when they fail to prepare kids for threats like HIV.
Oh yeah, and by the way, lgbt Democrats actually vote on more than one issue too, like the war, like Social Security, like domestic surveillance, like international trade, like health care.
Sorry but my vote isn’t cheap and I’m not one-issue. But I also won’t leave my gay issues outside the voting booth. Perhaps that makes me one of those “crazy gay activists.”
posted by tristram on
My first visit to IGF, and after reading ‘Forging a Gay Mainstream,’ I’m intrigued and encouraged. Maybe this is the unicorn of websites – a serious forum for intelligent, honest, snark-free discussion of important issues among people who happen to be gay. So one of the first posts I read is entitled “Lies of the Times.” Somewhat coincidentally, I had just read the NYT story which Stephen Miller purports to critique, and it was clear that Miller either missed the point or was so eager to dump on the author or the Times that he wasn’t about to let an honest characterization of the article get in his way.
So what is Miller’s point? That we should vote for Rudy and then hope that the Democrats in the Senate will be able to prevent him from populating the Federal bench – from your local District Court to the Supreme Court – with judges who are sworn to expunge the idea of a privacy right (and most of equal protection) from constitutional jurisprudence? Maybe Tony Scalia’s campaign to reverse Lawrence is not so quixotic after all.
posted by Avee on
tristram, it seems that you’re the one who is being “snarky” here. One of Miller’s points, which he’s been developing in a number of recent posts, is that gays need to cultivate support in both parties to achieve legal equality, and that giving Democrats a free ride ensures we get little beyond positive rhetoric from them.
Superficial reporting such as this Times piece, which clearly suggests there are no differences between the equally bad GOP candidates, are deeply misleading.
posted by Bobby on
Well John, I don’t live in New York, but I know New Yorkers who love Giuliani and like his approach.
“The “stupid AIDS groups” wanted to teach sexually active teenagers how not to get AIDS,”
—Yeah, and maybe the way they were going about it was controversial. Parents have rights too, this idea of the all-mighty teacher that can teacher whatever he likes, and brings whoever he likes into the classroom is irresponsible.
“Oh yeah, and by the way, lgbt Democrats actually vote on more than one issue too, like the war, like Social Security, like domestic surveillance, like international trade, like health care.”
—Sure, and gay republicans vote republican because they have a whole different takes on those issues. I agree with domestic surveillance if it prevents a terrorist attack, I don’t support government funded health care if I have to pay taxes for it, I support the war (which doesn’t really affect anyone since there’s no draft and the people in the military need their wars to get their promotions, besides, it’s the war that’s gonna end DADT, I already read lots of military commanders are ignoring the policy).
“But I also won’t leave my gay issues outside the voting booth.”
—I will, my gay life has been excellent under the republicans, I can find men on craiglist.com, I work in advertising so I’ll never be discriminated against for being gay, my taxes aren’t too high so I can go shopping more often. What can the democrats offer me to improve things in my life? I don’t really need gay marriage since most men only want to fuck me, not marry me. I don’t need hate crime laws because I can fight an attacker without those silly laws. I don’t need free health insurance because I already pay $44 from each paycheck to have it. And I don’t care about ending the war because it doesn’t cost me a dime.
And I’m not alone, John, there’s lots of gays who think like me, but they might not admit it so publicly.
It might be popular for Obama to talk about change, but not all change is good. Hitler, Stalin and Castro also advocated “change.”
posted by Sampson on
“I can find men on craiglist.com …. I don’t really need gay marriage since most men only want to fuck me, not marry me.”
This is so sad. Bobby basically says he doesn’t need gay marriage because all gay men act as if gay marriage isn’t an option (and of course, it isn’t!). I phrase it this way to highlight the twisted, circular, self-fulfilling nature of Bobby’s logic. Perhaps if Republicans didn’t so vehemently oppose gay rights then we might have more gay persons who expect more and less people like Bobby who settle for the gay culture that is in so many ways a product of the conservative ideology he trumpets.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Bobby said ” I don’t support government funded health care if I have to pay taxes for it…I don’t care about ending the war because it doesn’t cost me a dime.”.
Bobby I can see you’re enjoying wildly lashing out but you’re contradicting yourself. You ARE paying taxes for the war, that’s a VERY expensive venture. Its mighty hypocritical of you to say you don’t want government funded health care because you don’t want to pay for it and then to say you don’t care about the war which you are paying for. Fact is you’re going to pay for your health care one way or another, taxes, or out of pocket. At least with govenment funded health care everyone can be covered, although I can see you don’t care about that because you don’t give a damn about anyone other then yourself. Our government funded health care in Canada costs considerably less than your system and everyone gets taken care of.
And as to your “not needing hate crimes laws because I can fight an attacker” – so naive as to be laughable. There’s always going to be someone bigger and stronger than you bobby, someone better armed. You’re obviously a young pup, it hasn’t occurred to you that you’re not going to be strong and fight ready all your life – you’re going to get old Bobby. Who ya going to beat up then?
And as to Guilliani not wanting to “go along with some stupid AIDS group that wanted to teach the kids how to get fisted”, stop lying and grow up. You’re not going to impress anyone by being blinded to the truth with indiscriminate anger.
posted by Richard on
I suspect that Ron Paul probably also voted against the Federal law. If Mccain was left out of the report, it might be because he is not do well in the polls.
The Democratic Party candidates are better on gay rights then the Republican Party candidates, and we only have two viable choices.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So according to Sampson, gays and lesbians like himself are incapable of practicing monogamy or commitment unless there are legal penalties for them not doing so.
Odd, I know several straight couples who are committed and monogamous without being married. Could it be that gays and lesbians CHOOSE to be promiscuous, and that blaming the lack of marriage is a cop-out by gays making excuses for gay promiscuity?
And as for hate crimes laws, Matt Shepard’s killers were investigated, prosecuted, and punished without one, demonstrating quite nicely that, as Bobby states it, they’re unnecessary.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, Sampson never said that you liar. Straights like you like to talk about what a good and important thing marriage is and how it benefits couples. You can’t have it both ways and say its helpful to straights but of no need for gays.
The purpose of hate crime laws is to punish both crimes – the crime committed against the person, and the crime committed against the community that person belongs to, fear and intimidation.
posted by Bobby on
North Dallas is not straight, Randi, if he was, he wouldn’t bother with this site.
“You ARE paying taxes for the war”
—Not really, Rangel actually wanted to raise taxes to pay for the war, other democrats want us to share the burden. So far we’ve had the same taxes we’ve always had. What is done with my money is a different issue. But I’m willing to bet you that Obama or Hillary is elected, they’re not going to cut taxes. They might raise them to pay for the war and government health insurance.
“Fact is you’re going to pay for your health care one way or another, taxes, or out of pocket. At least with govenment funded health care everyone can be covered,”
—That’s a myth. Do fat canadians get free gastric bypasses? No. Do they get to see public doctors whenever they want? No, sometimes they have to wait 6 months to see a doctor. That’s why lots of Canadians go to private doctors or America when they can’t afford to wait.
“although I can see you don’t care about that because you don’t give a damn about anyone other then yourself.”
—And who gave a damn about me when I was working for a gay newspaper, making $8.5 an hour? Or when I was making $30,000 in Texas, working for an ad agency? Or even now when I make $50,000, and have a mortgage to pay and I have to suffer in a higher tax bracket? Wake up and smell the coffee, nobody cares about anyone, not really, you have to take care of yourself first. America should not end up like Belgium, where everyone pays high taxes and those in welfare work in the black market to enjoy a double income. Socialism doesn’t work.
” There’s always going to be someone bigger and stronger than you bobby, someone better armed.”
—-Tell that to 85 year old grandmothers that have stopped home invasions by much younger thugs by using their legally purchased handguns. We’re not like England where a farmer went to jail for shooting a burglar that had robbed him 4 times. In America, we don’t have compassion for criminals, at least not in the southern states. In Vermont, it’s a different story, judges love giving pedophiles probation and suspended sentences. Fortunately, Vermont has very pro-gun laws, so I’d advise vermonters to shoot their criminals first since the courts are more likely to free them later.
posted by Hank on
Hey Bobby I disagree with you – of course he’s straight – people do all kinds of weird things – and one thing that gets some people off is to be a troll on gay websites.
Secondly, you talked about Canadians who flock over the border for our health care. I mean this as a legitimate question – what evidence do you have for that? I hear that a lot – I wonder if someone has actually done a study, or is it just urban legend generated by people who like the status quo.
Thanks.
posted by john on
Good lord Bobby, sounds like you have everything you want. Men to fuck from craigslist, lots of money to spend from not paying too much taxes, cheap health insurance, a war that doesn’t affect you since Bush has deferred the cost to the next the administration with a monstrous deficit.
And oh yeah, Canadian health care sucks, which is why American seniors are organizing trips to buy their medications. Ah, but you’ll never age, never be out of work, never lack money or resources, never need any help from government or anyone else.
Glad to hear it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Straights like you like to talk about what a good and important thing marriage is and how it benefits couples.
It is. It affirms that two people have made a commitment to each other and to a monogamous relationship ALREADY.
However, gays and lesbians like Sampson insist that they CANNOT make that commitment to each other and to monogamy WITHOUT marriage.
Straight people have demonstrated that monogamy and an end to promiscuity exist independently of marriage for them. LGBTs like Sampson insist that monogamy and avoiding promiscuous sex REQUIRE marriage.
Furthermore, if marriage truly caused monogamy and ended promiscuity, straight people would be less promiscuous than gays — which you, Randi, scream is not the case. You have consistently denied that straight people are less promiscuous than gays, which indicates that the presence or absence of marriage has nothing to do with promiscuity and monogamy.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And oh yeah, Canadian health care sucks, which is why American seniors are organizing trips to buy their medications.
That is because Canadian pharmaceutical companies merely copy US pills and receive a government subsidy, paid for out of Canadian tax dollars, for doing it.
Any American company that has operations in Canada, the UK, France, or anywhere there is a national healthcare scheme knows two things — one, their workers utterly refuse to get zero health benefits from the company despite their “full coverage” from the state, and two, the company ends up having to pay both the taxes to fund the national scheme AND the cost of private health insurance for their workers.
In the US, we eliminate companies being required to fund both; overall, they only have to pay for benefits for their workers as they choose to offer them.
Hey Bobby I disagree with you – of course he’s straight
I believe that was already covered.
posted by Pat on
So according to Sampson, gays and lesbians like himself are incapable of practicing monogamy or commitment unless there are legal penalties for them not doing so.
NDT, careful, I don’t think that’s what Sampson said or meant.
Odd, I know several straight couples who are committed and monogamous without being married. Could it be that gays and lesbians CHOOSE to be promiscuous, and that blaming the lack of marriage is a cop-out by gays making excuses for gay promiscuity?
In a black or white world, with no shades of gray, that might be true. But since I know gay people (like me for instance) who are monogamous, marriage is not necessary for monogamy.
I do believe that because of marriage for straight people there is less promiscuity amongst heterosexuals than there would be otherwise. It is absolute? Of course not. But I do believe that after a generation of having legalized gay marriage, promiscuity will lessen in the gay community. Of course, it won’t go away entirely, just as it doesn’t for straight people. And I also guess that the percentage of gay people being promiscuous will still be higher than straight people. So what? Having gay marriage will benefit society greatly, just as heterosexual marriage has.
North Dallas is not straight, Randi, if he was, he wouldn’t bother with this site.
Bobby, although I do believe straight people have come here to troll, NDT is gay, not that he needs my affirmation for that.
I don’t really need gay marriage since most men only want to fuck me, not marry me.
For the reason I mentioned above, if we already had gay marriage your chances of finding someone who want to marry you and not just the other thing, would increase. In the meantime, I’m curious. The ads from people you want to meet on Craig’s List. Don’t any of them say that they are looking for long term relationships? And if they do, it ends up being bullsh&t? If so, that’s too bad. Sounds a lot like the bar scene.
posted by grendel on
I have to respond to this, “Do fat canadians get free gastric bypasses? No. Do they get to see public doctors whenever they want? No, sometimes they have to wait 6 months to see a doctor. That’s why lots of Canadians go to private doctors or America when they can’t afford to wait.”
My husband and I left the US and moved to Canada two years ago. My experience with Canadian health care has been overall very positive. Would a “fat Canadian” get a free by-pass? Yes, if it was medically necessary, which by the way is the only way insurance is going to way for it in the US. Can I see a public doctor whenever I want? Well, I can pretty much get an appointment to see my family doctor for routine things in a couple of days — better than I could ever do in the states. I’ve never had to see a specialist, I understand there can be a wait. But my sister in the States has had to wait months to see a specialist down there for her son, so I don’t know if there is that much of a difference. And in any case, the waits are for nonemergency situations; if it’s an emergency, you get it. The Canadian health care system is not perfect. But Canadians live longer than Americans, have better heart attach survival rates, and lower infant mortality. Americans are unjustifiably smug about the superiority of their health care system.
posted by Bobby on
Grendel, I don’t deny the achievements of Canada, but I think there are socialized medicine horror stories as well.
“if we already had gay marriage your chances of finding someone who want to marry you and not just the other thing, would increase.”
—I don’t think so, gays can have commitment ceremonies, they can get married in Canada, yet in spite of all the screaming about gay marriage, the large majority of gays seem uninterested or unable to find someone reliable.
Pat, some ads on Craig’s List are about relationships, although not the majority. I don’t think it’s worse than the bar scene, I think it’s better. Men never hit on me when I go to the bars, they do write when I post an ad.
posted by Pat on
I don’t think so, gays can have commitment ceremonies, they can get married in Canada, yet in spite of all the screaming about gay marriage, the large majority of gays seem uninterested or unable to find someone reliable.
Bobby, I don’t think having marriage is going to be a cure all, but I still believe that it will help. Keep in mind that marriage for straight persons have been around a long time, and children grow up seeing that and with some expectation of marriage. Most of us, as children, grew up with no marriage and not even told “gee, even if you’re gay, you can still find someone special to spend the rest of your life with.” In fact, too many grew up being taught that being gay is worse than being a drug addict.
You may end up being right that gay marriage will not have any effect. But until we are at the point where children grow up with the knowledge that being gay is fine and as okay as being straight, and there is a tradition of marriage or civil unions of gay people, of say at least a generation, and there is still no change in promiscuity and behavior, then I’ll admit my opinion is wrong.
Pat, some ads on Craig’s List are about relationships, although not the majority. I don’t think it’s worse than the bar scene, I think it’s better. Men never hit on me when I go to the bars, they do write when I post an ad.
Fair enough. So I’m guessing that those who write that they are interested in LTR are either full of it. Or they may really be sincere in an LTR, but will try to score before letting the other person that they’re not interesting in a relationship with him. If that’s the case, I see only one way to ferret out most of these people.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
I said to Bobby “You ARE paying taxes for the war”
Bobby replied “Not really, Rangel actually wanted to raise taxes to pay for the war, other democrats want us to share the burden. So far we’ve had the same taxes we’ve always had.”.
Yes, REALLY, you ARE paying more taxes. Get real Bobby, that war is costing billions of dollars and the money has to come from somewhere. If you trully are paying the same taxes that means the deficit is being run up to pay for the war and you’ll pay eventually, or if not that money going to the war would have otherwise be coming back to you in the form of tax cuts or going to other more needed programs. Don’t be absurd Bobby, there’s no such thing as a free war.
I said ” There’s always going to be someone bigger and stronger than you bobby, someone better armed.”
Bobby replied “Tell that to 85 year old grandmothers that have stopped home invasions by much younger thugs by using their legally purchased handguns”.
A rare, rare, rare exception. I know you don’t want to admit you’re wrong Bobby, but you know as well as we all do that when it comes to a violent conflict between an old person and a young one the young one is going to win virtually every time. You’re going to get old Bobby and not be able to defend yourself with certainty against younger, stronger, and better armed thugs – you can’t depend on your ability to fight off everyone forever. Someday you may be damn glad to have hate crimes laws.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “gays and lesbians like Sampson insist that they CANNOT make that commitment to each other and to monogamy WITHOUT marriage.”.
Yawn…another typical lie. He never said any such thing.
Northdallass said “Straight people have demonstrated that monogamy and an end to promiscuity exist independently of marriage for them. LGBTs”.
They’ve demonstrated no such thing – straight people have always had access to marriage.
Northdallass said “if marriage truly caused monogamy and ended promiscuity, straight people would be less promiscuous than gays — which you, Randi, scream is not the case. You have consistently denied that straight people are less promiscuous than gays, which indicates that the presence or absence of marriage has nothing to do with promiscuity and monogamy.”.
You lie, again…I never made any assertions about the promiscuity of straight people as a whole, what I pointed out was that SOME straight people are promiscuous, just as SOME gay people are.
And as to your false assertion that marriage has nothing to do with promiscuity or monogamy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/22/AR2008012201742.html
“The researchers did find that same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to end their relationships than same-sex couples in civil unions or married heterosexual couples. This suggests that protections offered by a legalized relationship may have an impact on same-sex couples, said the researchers, who plan to examine that question in future research.”
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said ” Canadian pharmaceutical companies merely copy US pills and receive a government subsidy, paid for out of Canadian tax dollars, for doing it.”.
Not the case. Drug prices are set by the Canadian government merely shrinking the 1000+ percent markup of the drug companies to a few hundred percent, it costs taxpayers nothing.
Northdallass said “Any American company that has operations in Canada, the UK, France, or anywhere there is a national healthcare scheme knows two things — one, their workers utterly refuse to get zero health benefits from the company despite their “full coverage” from the state, and two, the company ends up having to pay both the taxes to fund the national scheme AND the cost of private health insurance for their workers.”.
Nonsense very few employees of American companies in Canada have any additional health insurance.
And Northdallass is clearly not gay. Gays who hate gays as much as he does don’t refer to themselves as gay, they call themselves “exgay”, brag about finding “freedom” from homosexuality, and try to get other gays to deny their sexuality. As
Hank noted just above the link Northdallass posted in this thread at January 30, 2008, 3:57am, Northdallass frequently trips up and refers to gays as “them” or “they” and not “we” or “us”.
posted by grendel on
not to hijack the thread but I’m tired of Americans putting down health care in other countries. In reality, the U.S. is 37th according to the World Health Organization’s ranking of national health care systems. Overall, France came in at #1. (Thank ought to gall a few conservatives.) And in a study published last May by the Commonwealth Fund, the United States ranked last or next-to-last compared with five other nations ? Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom ? on most measures of performance, including quality of care and access to it. Americans don’t have the best health care system in the world not matter what Bush says. Get over it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You lie, again…I never made any assertions about the promiscuity of straight people as a whole, what I pointed out was that SOME straight people are promiscuous, just as SOME gay people are.
Impossible, since you claim access to marriage completely eliminates promiscuity – and gays like Sampson claim that gays would not be promiscuous if they could get married.
The examples you cite of straights being promiscuous disprove your argument that marriage eliminates promiscuity. It may be useful for LGBTs who need an excuse for their promiscuous behavior, but it’s not realistic.
The researchers did find that same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to end their relationships than same-sex couples in civil unions or married heterosexual couples.
Which, as I pointed out, is perfectly explainable, since the authors of the “study” deliberately left out unmarried heterosexual couples as a comparison, presumably in an attempt to slant the data.
Another study cited therein made it clear that legal status “didn’t seem to be the overriding factor affecting same-sex relationships”.
And finally:
Nonsense very few employees of American companies in Canada have any additional health insurance.
Uh huh.
And that was just one of them.
There are many, MANY more.
Odd, since the argument of so many American liberals is that, if the government takes over healthcare, companies won’t have to pay any more for it — an assertion disproved by the fact that employers must pay for BOTH government and private health insurance in countries like Canada.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Impossible, since you claim access to marriage completely eliminates promiscuity”.
I never said any such thing, as is typical you’re lying because you can’t argue rationally against what I do say.
Northdallass said “gays like Sampson claim that gays would not be promiscuous if they could get married.”.
Stop it already. He said no such thing. Stop lying, you claim to be a Christian and your bible says that its a sin to lie, stop breaking your ten commandments.
Northdallass said “The examples you cite of straights being promiscuous disprove your argument that marriage eliminates promiscuity.”.
More lies. I never argued that marriage eliminates promiscuity, I said it discourages it. There’s a big difference there that even a small mind like yours can grasp if you weren’t so dishonest as to pretend you can’t.
The article stated “The researchers did find that same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to end their relationships than same-sex couples in civil unions or married heterosexual couples.”
Northdallass replied “Which, as I pointed out, is perfectly explainable, since the authors of the “study” deliberately left out unmarried heterosexual couples as a comparison, presumably in an attempt to slant the data.”.
You’re not in any position to make that judgement. If unjoined same sex couples were more likely to end their relationships its a reasonable assumption that the same would be true of heterosexuals.
Northdallass said “Another study cited therein made it clear that legal status “didn’t seem to be the overriding factor affecting same-sex relationships”.”
No, it was the same study, and not the “overriding factor” is not the same as saying it had no affect, which is the idiocy you’re asserting and which is refuted by the study.
I pointed out to Northdallass that very few employees of American companies in Canada have any additional health insurance.
Northdallass responded “Uh huh. And that was just one of them. There are many, MANY more.”.
The existence of companies offering additional coverage in no way proves your assertion that “their workers utterly refuse to get zero health benefits from the company”. Some of the may, but certainly not all or most of them as you implied.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The existence of companies offering additional coverage in no way proves your assertion that “their workers utterly refuse to get zero health benefits from the company”.
Which is a rather transparent attempt to spin away from the proven, referenced fact that companies in Canada do offer health insurance — versus your prior assertion that they didn’t.
Meanwhile, you’ve just admitted publicly that marriage doesn’t end promiscuity and that gays and lesbians would still be promiscuous if they could get married.
That’s all I needed.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Which is a rather transparent attempt to spin away from the proven, referenced fact that companies in Canada do offer health insurance — versus your prior assertion that they didn’t.”.
No, you lie yet again. I never said that no American companies in Canada offered seperate health insurance, what I said was that most Canadian employees don’t get it. Its you that suggested the all do:
“their workers utterly refuse to get zero health benefits from the company”.
You haven’t proven that because it is decidedly untrue.
Northdallass said “Meanwhile, you’ve just admitted publicly that marriage doesn’t end promiscuity and that gays and lesbians would still be promiscuous if they could get married.”.
No, you’re lying again. What I’m saying is that marriage will reduce promiscuity. I most certainly never said all gays and lesbians are promiscous as you’re implying.
I suggest you stick to verbatim quotes of me to assist you in avoiding your desire to lie.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
what I said was that most Canadian employees don’t get it
No, you said “very few” — which was why I cited HSBC, just to name one example of the hundreds of large Canadian companies with thousands of employees each that do offer health insurance.
What you also probably aren’t aware of is that, prior to 2005, private health insurance in Canada was banned to eliminate competition with the national system — not unlike the Democrat Party wants to do in the United States.
In short, Canadians didn’t even have the right to buy insurance, with their own money, that would allow them to avoid the long waits, restricted formularies, and whatnot of their socialized system.
What I’m saying is that marriage will reduce promiscuity.
So you admit LGBTs like yourself cannot stop themselves from being promiscuous unless there are legal bans against it like you claim marriage is.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “No, you said “very few” — which was why I cited HSBC, just to name one example of the hundreds of large Canadian companies with thousands of employees each that do offer health insurance.”.
You really are willfully dense, aren’t you. Saying most employees don’t get it and saying very few do get it are the same thing. The point was you claimed in American companies operating in Canada “their workers utterly refuse to get zero health benefits from the company”.
Your saying all workers have additional coverage, that’s a lie, very few do and you’re pointing out that some of these companies offer additional health insurance in no way proves that “their workers utterly refuse to get zero health benefits from the company”.
Northdallass said “So you admit LGBTs like yourself cannot stop themselves from being promiscuous unless there are legal bans against it like you claim marriage is.”.
No, what I’m saying is that marriage discourages promiscuity, stupid. And I never claimed marriage is a legal ban against promiscuity.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
As Grendel pointed out “Canadians live longer than Americans, have better heart attach survival rates, and lower infant mortality. Americans are unjustifiably smug about the superiority of their health care system.”
posted by grendel on
I really don’t want to get dragged into an argument with a troll, but about that private health insurance in Canada …
Many employers do offer that we call up here “extended care insurance” Some people buy it privately, but that it not so common I think. Public medical coverage doesn’t include eye glasses (except for senior citizens I think) or dental work, so many people get extra insurance to cover these. Extended care insurance usually also pays for extras like private hospital rooms and TV and stuff that are not otherwise covered. Private insurance doesn’t buy better medical care, it just pays for some extra perks.
Again, while the Canadian health care system is not perfect, there are few Canadians who trade it for what you have down south.
posted by Hank on
Thanks Grendel and Randi – interesting to actually hear from Canadians.
posted by Sampson on
Just a quick note to ask North Dallas Thirty to stop mischaracterizing my post. I did not “INSIST” that gays “CAN’T” be monogamous without marriage.
If you can’t make a point without distorting others’ words, you should probably just keep your fingers off the keyboard.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Again, while the Canadian health care system is not perfect, there are few Canadians who trade it for what you have down south.
Given that I pay $44 a month for complete health coverage, including vision, dental, and prescription drug, with immediate access to specialists and an average wait time for procedures and appointments of two days or less, all while still having much lower tax rates…..one wonders why.
Then again, I’m not surprised; after all, the Canadian government has been telling people for years that it’s a GOOD thing that they banned private health insurance that competes with government healthcare and force everyone into the public system, whether they want to be or not. I consider the fact that the Canadian government bans it out of a fear of what competition would do to the system to be a commentary on just how effective that system is in comparison.
Saying most employees don’t get it and saying very few do get it are the same thing.
And, as I demonstrated, both are wrong; hundreds of companies with thousands of employees offer health insurance in Canada because, despite the much higher taxes Canadians pay for their “free” healthcare, it is still inadequate.
I did not “INSIST” that gays “CAN’T” be monogamous without marriage.
Yes you did; you blamed Republicans and the absence of marriage for gay promiscuity and lack of monogamy. That makes it clear that gays lack any capacity whatsoever to choose to be monogamous and instead are wholly dependent on what society does to control their sexual behaviors.
Republicans have nothing to do with gays’ choice to be promiscuous and non-monogamous. That’s merely a rationalization to avoid taking responsibility for their behavior and to avoid confronting promiscuity among gays.
posted by Pat on
Yes you did; you blamed Republicans and the absence of marriage for gay promiscuity and lack of monogamy. That makes it clear that gays lack any capacity whatsoever to choose to be monogamous and instead are wholly dependent on what society does to control their sexual behaviors.
Come on NDT, knock it off. We’ve even told you that’s not what we said or meant. The argument some of us are making is that gay marriage will eventually discourage promiscuity and encourage monogamy. No one is making any absolute claims such as ALL people must need marriage to be monogamous or that promiscuity will COMPLETELY end with gay marriage. Can we at least not mischaracterize what others, including me, are saying even if you disagree with our opinions.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
All of you need to realize that ND30 is the IGF’s patron saint of Conservative politics. It his right (which he wields with Nero-like impunity) to defame and lie about others. Just for the record and the comfort of my IGF overlords I wish to state once again that I agree with everything ND30 writes. I agree with him that liberals are responsible for the spread of AIDS, that Buddhists are a bunch of tree worshiping nutballs and that blacks should be grateful for slavery because it got them out of Africa. Bravo ND30, for your continued struggle against the manipulative lies of liberal queers.
posted by Alex on
Did I miss someone identifying which GOP candidates support same-sex civil unions; Say they would fight to repeal the military’s “don?t ask, don’t tell” policy; Say he or she would champion a federal anti-discrimination law that would protect lesbians and gay men?
Is there a declared difference among the remaining GOP candidates or is it only Gov’s Romny & Huckabee are saying it loud and proud while McCain is keeping it quiet.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “I consider the fact that the Canadian government bans it out of a fear of what competition would do to the system to be a commentary on just how effective that system is in comparison.”.
Your opinion is worthless. The facts speak otherwise.
http://www.yesmagazine.com/article.asp?ID=1503
Note that in a side by side comparison of U.S. and Canadian health care infant mortality in Canada is lower, life expectancy is higher, and the per-capita cost is about 1/2 that of the U.S.
I pointed out to Northdallass that contrary to his assertion that all employees of U.S. companies in Canada have extra health insurance few do which is the same as saying most don’t.
Northdallass responds “And, as I demonstrated, both are wrong; hundreds of companies with thousands of employees offer health insurance in Canada because, despite the much higher taxes Canadians pay for their “free” healthcare, it is still inadequate.”.
You demonstrated no such thing. You pointed out three companies that offer their employees additional health insurance, not hundreds and that in no way proves your original assertion that “their workers utterly refuse to get zero health benefits from the company”.
Sampson pointed out to Northdallass “I did not “INSIST” that gays “CAN’T” be monogamous without marriage.”
Northdallass responded “Yes you did; you blamed Republicans and the absence of marriage for gay promiscuity and lack of monogamy.”.
No he didn’t, you lied again as you’ve done dozens of times in this thread alone. What he said was “Perhaps if Republicans didn’t so vehemently oppose gay rights then we might have more gay persons who expect more and less people like Bobby who settle for the gay culture that is in so many ways a product of the conservative ideology he trumpets.”
Nordallass added “That makes it clear that gays lack any capacity whatsoever to choose to be monogamous and instead are wholly dependent on what society does to control their sexual behaviors.”.
Grow up you idiot, that’s absurd and no one person’s opinion would “make that clear”. Go away troll.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And to re-iterate what Grendel pointed out:
“Public medical coverage doesn’t include eye glasses (except for senior citizens I think) or dental work, so many people get extra insurance to cover these. Extended care insurance usually also pays for extras like private hospital rooms and TV and stuff that are not otherwise covered. Private insurance doesn’t buy better medical care, it just pays for some extra perks.
Again, while the Canadian health care system is not perfect, there are few Canadians who trade it for what you have down south.”
posted by Randy on
I would venture to guess that the millions of Americans who have no health care would appreciate the Canadian system far better than the US system. Even if the health care system isn’t as good as the US (a debatable point), some health care is better than none.
posted by Hank on
“If you can’t make a point without distorting others’ words”
Ahh Sampson my naive little friend. That’s what he does – and he’s proud of it…he thinks it’s clever and biting and controversial. When in reality it just shows how small minded he is. And how little he actually knows about his proclaimed Christian faith.
Colorado, I like your style. Maybe if we all told him every day how wonderfully insightful he is, he’d get bored and go bother someone else.
Nahhhh, i doubt it…..
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Your opinion is worthless. The facts speak otherwise.
Ah yes, the dreaded “per capita cost” comparison.
Keeping in mind, of course, that that is comparing US plans, which cover an enormous range of expensive prescription drugs, minimal limits on seeing specialists or requiring referrals from a general practitioner to see them, include semiprivate hospital rooms, and cover vision, dental, and numerous other medical procedures — versus the Canadian national plan, which cuts cost by denying service, requiring long waits for appointments, preventing you from seeing specialists without referral, refusing to cover more-expensive prescription drugs, requiring patients to stay in wardrooms with multiple other patients, and not covering certain medical procedures, vision, or dental.
In other words, you’re comparing a Honda Accord to a Yugo and claiming that the Yugo is better because it’s cheaper and has less features.
And as for the slight difference in mortality rates and life expectancy, duh; Canada has a population of just over one-tenth of the United States. Furthermore, Canada is already screaming that the quarter-million or so immigrants they take in annually is threatening to collapse their social welfare system — an amount that is barely a third of just the 750,000 – 800,000 thousand illegal immigrants alone that the United States takes in annually.
In short, we don’t mandate cost cutting and we allow everyone to enter the country. It should be no surprise that we fare “worse” than a country that by law and geography blocks the highest-risk and least-healthy immigrants and then forces everyone into what amounts to a bare-bones US HMO.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Come on NDT, knock it off. We’ve even told you that’s not what we said or meant. The argument some of us are making is that gay marriage will eventually discourage promiscuity and encourage monogamy.
Awfully convenient, isn’t it, Pat?
I mean, now you don’t actually have to DO anything; you can sit back and moan, “If only you’d give us gay marriage, we’d stop being promiscuous and practice monogamy,” make promises that you will behave better in the future, and blame the Republicans for the way you behave now.
I say that if you don’t like promiscuity and prefer monogamy, you should be talking to the people who are practicing the one and not the other, and you should be doing it right now, rather than making excuses and putting off action.
But then again, that would require you to criticize gay peoples’ CURRENT behaviors, versus what you’re doing now, which only requires you to criticize Republicans and make vague promises about hypothetical future improvements that you would never have to keep.
The latter is far more popular in the gay community and requires far less effort. Sort of like how, given the choice between confronting gays who have unprotected sex and filing lawsuits against Pfizer that claim their Viagra ads cause gays to have unprotected sex, the gay community goes directly for the lawsuit.
And finally to Hank:
Colorado, I like your style.
Not terribly surprising, that.
But again, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, Hank, despite his alleged disdain for foul language, disrespect, and anti-Christian behavior, seems quite willing to endorse and support it when it comes from liberal gays with the “correct” ideological beliefs — even when those gays tell other people Hank doesn’t like to commit suicide.
posted by Pat on
I mean, now you don’t actually have to DO anything; you can sit back and moan, “If only you’d give us gay marriage, we’d stop being promiscuous and practice monogamy,” make promises that you will behave better in the future, and blame the Republicans for the way you behave now.
I said all that?
I say that if you don’t like promiscuity and prefer monogamy, you should be talking to the people who are practicing the one and not the other, and you should be doing it right now, rather than making excuses and putting off action.
Yes, you’re right, I put a filter on this website that only monogamous people can read my comments stating my opinions about monogamy, but those who are promiscuous cannot read my comments. I’ll turn the filter off.
But then again, that would require you to criticize gay peoples’ CURRENT behaviors, versus what you’re doing now, which only requires you to criticize Republicans and make vague promises about hypothetical future improvements that you would never have to keep.
So, in other words, you like to blame other people than taking responsibility for yourself for you own self worth as a person. You make this clear by attacking others who want full equality, when you prefer second class citizenship, so you can gleefully tell others that’s all you deserve.
The latter is far more popular in the gay community and requires far less effort. Sort of like how, given the choice between confronting gays who have unprotected sex and filing lawsuits against Pfizer that claim their Viagra ads cause gays to have unprotected sex, the gay community goes directly for the lawsuit.
The whole community? I hope I get a good settlement from it. I know straight people aren’t that stupid, because there aren’t commercials for birth control pills that warn people it doesn’t protect against HIV and other STDs.
posted by Karen on
“I know straight people aren’t that stupid, because there aren’t commercials for birth control pills that warn people it doesn’t protect against HIV and other STDs.”
Ooooh, zing! Good one, Pat.
In ND30’s world, when a straight person files a frivolous lawsuits, they act alone. But when a gay person files a frivolous lawsuit, it is on behalf of and with the blessing of every other gay person.
Idjit.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ahem…
“ColoradoPatriot | February 2, 2007, 5:20pm
I’m a bad bad man and nothing is going to stop me from saying deplorible things…see ND30, you and I have these two things in common. And, by the way, I’m just taking a piss about shooting yourself. Please PLEASE don’t off yourself, I get too much enjoyment out of watching you make a complete ass of yourself here to ever want that to stop.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So, in other words, you like to blame other people than taking responsibility for yourself for you own self worth as a person. You make this clear by attacking others who want full equality, when you prefer second class citizenship, so you can gleefully tell others that’s all you deserve.
Actually, it’s the reverse, Pat; you’re the one who’s arguing how awful your life is because you don’t want to abide by the rules that everyone else does relative to only marrying one adult of the opposite sex who’s not closely related to you.
Furthermore, given that Democrat gays and lesbians, which constitute an overwhelming majority of gays, fully endorsed and supported people who want to ban gay marriage at the state and Federal level as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, your argument about “wanting full equality” doesn’t hold water.
Yes, you’re right, I put a filter on this website that only monogamous people can read my comments stating my opinions about monogamy, but those who are promiscuous cannot read my comments. I’ll turn the filter off.
Cleverly phrased, but notice the point; you only exhort the benefits of monogamy, but refuse to condemn or criticize promiscuity.
I know straight people aren’t that stupid, because there aren’t commercials for birth control pills that warn people it doesn’t protect against HIV and other STDs.
Next time, Pat, read the lawsuit details.
As Pfizer points out, Viagra already carried the STD warning you were talking about; gays and lesbians were suing to block its advertising because they claimed the advertising caused gays to have unsafe and promiscuous sex.
Do you agree?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “In other words, you’re comparing a Honda Accord to a Yugo and claiming that the Yugo is better because it’s cheaper and has less features.”.
The longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality rates of the Canadian system shows that it is the Honda Accord and the U.S. system is the Yugo. As to your lies about what the Canadian system does and doesn’t cover, that’s standard fair for you.
Northdallass said “And as for the slight difference in mortality rates and life expectancy, duh; Canada has a population of just over one-tenth of the United States”.
You moron, that’s irrelevant to the fact that our health care system performs better.
Northdallass said “Furthermore, Canada is already screaming that the quarter-million or so immigrants they take in annually is threatening to collapse their social welfare system “.
Lies, that’s one newspaper reporters opinion, he most certainly doesn’t represent Canada.
Northdallass said “an amount that is barely a third of just the 750,000 – 800,000 thousand illegal immigrants alone that the United States takes in annually.”.
And given that Canada has 1/10 the U.S. population that means we take in 3 times more per capita, see population ratios matter here. Besides, you have nothing to back up those supposed numbers so we must assume you’re lying about them yet again.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said ” I’ve pointed out elsewhere, Hank, despite his alleged disdain for foul language, disrespect, and anti-Christian behavior, seems quite willing to endorse and support it when it comes from liberal gays with the “correct” ideological beliefs — even when those gays tell other people Hank doesn’t like to commit suicide.”
You lie, Hank never endorsed or supported such comments. What is highly amusing is that he never named the evil person he was referring to, he just listed of all the despicable lying and actions of that person and you recognized yourself right away. The fact is, and Hank knows it, the “wrongs” of others on this board doesn’t remotely even begin to compare with the evil that you spew day in and day out, that’s why he only mentioned you.
And proving that you’re all hot air about opposing gay promiscuity, you don’t support the one thing that would help diminish it, equal marriage for same sex couples. You love it when you hear about a promiscuous gay, it gives you a chance to tar all gays with the same brush and bash the entire community as you so enjoy doing. You don’t give a damn about right and wrong, you just feel it eases your anguish to attack innocent decent people that you can’t measure up to. That’s why you lie awake at 3 in the morning furiously trying to salve your bruised ego by attacking gays.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Pat; you’re the one who’s arguing how awful your life is because you don’t want to abide by the rules that everyone else does relative to only marrying one adult of the opposite sex who’s not closely related to you.”.
This coming from the man who argues that there’s no valid reason someone should be prevented from having an incestuous or polygamous marriage – that’s rich. Your suggestion that gays should be happy to marry someone of the opposite sex highlights your idiocy. No straight person would sit back smug and satisfied if the law only allowed them to marry someone they’re not attracted to and yet like the idiot you are you assert that gays should be.
posted by Pat on
Actually, it’s the reverse, Pat; you’re the one who’s arguing how awful your life is because you don’t want to abide by the rules that everyone else does relative to only marrying one adult of the opposite sex who’s not closely related to you.
Gee, I now said that too?
Furthermore, given that Democrat gays and lesbians, which constitute an overwhelming majority of gays, fully endorsed and supported people who want to ban gay marriage at the state and Federal level as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, your argument about “wanting full equality” doesn’t hold water.
So, in other words, you like to blame other people than taking responsibility for yourself for you own self worth as a person. You make this clear by attacking others who want full equality, when you prefer second class citizenship, so you can gleefully tell others that’s all you deserve.
Cleverly phrased, but notice the point; you only exhort the benefits of monogamy, but refuse to condemn or criticize promiscuity.
Hmmm. Okay. I must have left the filter at your address. I’ll go ahead and remove it and let me know if it works.
Monogamy = good, Promiscuity = bad, Unprotected sex = really bad
As Pfizer points out, Viagra already carried the STD warning you were talking about; gays and lesbians were suing to block its advertising because they claimed the advertising caused gays to have unsafe and promiscuous sex.
Do you agree?
When I get time, if I feel like it, I’ll read the lawsuit, and let you know what I think, in case you misinterpreted what the lawsuit is (which is a pretty good chance). I’d rather pet my dog now. But it doesn’t appear it will matter what my answer will be, because you’ll misinterpret my answer anyway.
In the meantime my point was that there are stupid people out there, gay and straight. Does this make gay people more stupid than straight, I don’t know and I don’t care. I hate asinine lawsuits no matter who does them. All I can tell you is I didn’t file the lawsuit, and I didn’t have anyone file the lawsuit on behalf of me.
posted by Pat on
And as for the slight difference in mortality rates and life expectancy, duh; Canada has a population of just over one-tenth of the United States.
Oh my God, I just caught this. You really didn’t mean that the difference in population was relevant to mortality rates and life expectancy, did you? Yikes.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
That is rather hilarious, isn’t it Pat. Northdallass is so used to trying to twist people’s words to claim they said something they didn’t he can’t keep himself from twisting his own ideas until he says something really stupid.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Let’s see; I said the Canadian system, for example, doesn’t cover dental care or vision or semiprivate/private rooms.
Randi screamed that I was lying.
As to your lies about what the Canadian system does and doesn’t cover, that’s standard fair for you.
But prior to this, Grendel had said:
Public medical coverage doesn’t include eye glasses (except for senior citizens I think) or dental work, so many people get extra insurance to cover these. Extended care insurance usually also pays for extras like private hospital rooms and TV and stuff that are not otherwise covered.
And Randi repeated it as true.
In short, when Grendel says that the Canadian system doesn’t cover dental care, Randi agrees and even repeats it herself; when I say it, she screams that it’s a lie and that I’m lying.
Can it be made any more obvious that LGBTs, as Randi exemplifies, determine truth based, not on facts, but on who is saying something? Here you have an example of an LGBT person saying that one person is lying and another person is telling the truth when those two persons are saying the same thing.
And next:
And proving that you’re all hot air about opposing gay promiscuity, you don’t support the one thing that would help diminish it, equal marriage for same sex couples.
So marriage is the only thing that would diminish promiscuity among gays.
Or, in other words, having a legal ban on it is the only way that gays can stop themselves from having promiscuous sex.
Randi said clearly, “one way”. No other ways were mentioned. She made it absolutely clear that there is no other way to diminish promiscuous sex among gays.
In short, what LGBTs like Randi are doing is telling the straight world, “Give us marriage, or we’ll keep having promiscuous sex and giving ourselves lethal and disabling diseases.”
Furthermore, given Canada’s and western Europe’s rising HIV rates, we can see quite nicely that gay marriage and whatnot does little to nothing to reduce promiscuous sex and spreading disease among gays.
posted by Hank on
Thanks Randi, and good luck. I can’t do battle with the troll – but I’m glad you and Colorado and so many others here do that. Reading his tripe is like listening to Fred Phelps. The more that you shine the light of truth on it, the more that all can see the depravity of his thinking.
posted by Hank on
I will add one thing.
ND said
“Randi said clearly, “one way”. No other ways were mentioned. She made it absolutely clear that there is no other way to diminish promiscuous sex among gays.”
Of course that’s not what she did. Your conclusion is stunningly inappropriate. And what is disturbing is that I am confident you know it. (Or else you’re just too stupid to turn on a computer.)
So given that you know you’re lying, and drawing totally bogus conclusions from the words of others, what conclusion should we draw about your morality, ND?
The reason this is important is that I take my Christian faith seriously. Many many gay people have rejected Christianity. And it’s partly because of the continued abuse from people like you, who so loudly proclaim to be defending the Christian faith. If you really are a Christian, as you claim to be, then I urge you to seriously rethink the way you treat others. It ain’t very Christ-like. And if you’re not, then please come out and say so, so that at least good folks like Randi won’t associate you with my faith.
Randi I think you were right on in a recent post. The guy is probably going through some sort of ex gay therapy. That would explain his temperament. Most straight people any more have a live and let live attitude toward me. It’s only the ex-gays – for the most part – who are on a crusade to prove that their journey is real, by denigrating my gay “life”. And it’s kind of pitiful – they’ve been conned into a bogus program promising them change in orientation. Later they find out that it doesn’t happen, and the only way they can avoid the fires of hell is to be celibate forever. I suppose I might be as bitter as ND in that situation. (But I still wouldn’t spend my days obsessively documenting every comment someone ever made on some silly website.)
posted by Pat on
So marriage is the only thing that would diminish promiscuity among gays.
Or, in other words, having a legal ban on it is the only way that gays can stop themselves from having promiscuous sex.
Randi said clearly, “one way”. No other ways were mentioned. She made it absolutely clear that there is no other way to diminish promiscuous sex among gays.
In short, what LGBTs like Randi are doing is telling the straight world, “Give us marriage, or we’ll keep having promiscuous sex and giving ourselves lethal and disabling diseases.”
So, in other words, you like to blame other people than taking responsibility for yourself for you own self worth as a person. You make this clear by attacking others who want full equality, when you prefer second class citizenship, so you can gleefully tell others that’s all you deserve.
posted by Pat on
Okay, NDT, I’m done with the games here. My last few posts were to make a point.
The response that I repeated three times are conclusions that were mischaracterizations of your posts and incorrect inferences. If they seemed ridiculous and unfair, keep in mind that’s exactly what you have done on this topic. It’s frustrating when I state that your characterization is false, but you continue to do it. So out of frustration I deliberately mischaracterized your posts and added the sarcastic posts. (BTW, I still believe your relevance re: population size and mortality rates was wrong.)
I will attempt one more time why your characterization is absolutely false.
Actually, it’s the reverse, Pat; you’re the one who’s arguing how awful your life is because you don’t want to abide by the rules that everyone else does relative to only marrying one adult of the opposite sex who’s not closely related to you.
NDT, I’ve stated that I am rather happy with my life, and I will do fine whether or not we get gay marriage. You have never explained why it’s not possible to be happy, but still want equality. Now, it’s the Internet, so for all anyone knows I could be a miserable wretch. I’ll explain how it’s possible to not have an awful life and still want equality, since you’re inexplicably having difficulty here, in the paragraph after the next.
First, I found the not “want to abide by the rules” comment disturbing. For over 200 years, there have been many rules that people thought were unfair and felt they were rules that no one should abide by. These include slavery, the right for women to vote, the rights for Black people to vote, the right of adults not being limited to their own race to marry, come to mind. People rightly realized how grossly unjust these rules were.
Martin Luther King Jr., Susan B. Anthony and many others were instrumental in changing some of these unjust rules. Even before their successes, I’m sure they were pretty happy in their lives, and would have fared more than okay before such equality. I have all the respect for these individuals who could have done nothing, but yet fought for justice and equality for others.
NDT, you are passionate against promiscuity. That’s great. But consider that since you are not, and perhaps never was, means that you most likely not contracted HIV and never will. But if I followed your logic, I must conclude that you have an awful life because other gay persons are promiscuous.
And I argue that as a gay Christian, your full inclusion into your church should not be abridged because of the actions of other gay persons, whether it be others’ promiscuity or anti-religious views. And even if it is, I’m sure you have fared well in spite of it.
That’s the argument I’ve been making for gay marriage. I believe that it is fair and just, while gay marriage prohibitions are unfair and unjust. Further, I don’t believe that the gay community should have to attain some promiscuity ceiling level in order to prove that a gay couple is worthy of marriage. I also believe, that in time, promiscuity will lessen. If true, that’s just an additional benefit to society. If I’m wrong, I still believe that marriage should be available to gay couples that want it, and still benefits society.
Despite your insistence, this does not mean that I believe EVERYONE needs marriage to be monogamous. This does not mean that ALL straight people need marriage to be monogamous. This does not mean I excuse bad behavior because we don’t have marriage.
I’ve stated this before and pointed out the flaws in your argument. Instead of defending them, you just repeat your mischaracterizations of what I said.
NDT, I’ve enjoyed our discussions in the past, even when we vehemently disagree. I respect your opinions and have made every attempt to not mischaracterize your points. And a previous comment suggesting that I form my opinions to be accepted by the crowd was not only incorrect, but a cheap shot, especially when you know that is NOT true (my opinions on GayPatriot, for example, were not shared by most there).
I am not prepared to state whether your mischaracterizations are deliberate or due to obtuseness on your part. But it appears that on some subjects you are unwilling or incapable of discussing in good faith. And it’s unfortunate, because I think we both could get something good out of it.
I will continue to discuss in good faith and hope you will to. But if you can’t or won’t, I will move on.
posted by grendel on
“I’ve stated this before and pointed out the flaws in your argument. Instead of defending them, you just repeat your mischaracterizations of what I said.”
here’s no doubt about it. ND30 is about the perfect exemplar of “ferrous cranous” that you could ever hope to come across in cyberspace.
For those who don’t know, Ferrous Cranus is particularly nasty specious of internet troll:
“Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration “Philosopher” will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or “Therapist” will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.”
Read more about Ferrous Cranous and other denizens of the net at http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/
posted by grendel on
not enough coffee yet this morning I guess, that first part should read:
here’s no doubt about it. ND30 is about the most perfect exemplar of “ferrous cranous” that you could ever hope to come across in cyberspace.
For those who don’t know, Ferrous Cranus is particularly nasty species of internet troll …
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Let’s see; I said the Canadian system, for example, doesn’t cover dental care or vision or semiprivate/private rooms. Randi screamed that I was lying. “.
That was far from the only claims you made about what was/wasn’t covered. You haven’t proven your claims and based on past history we’re well advised to assume you’re lying again.
Northdallass said “Furthermore, given Canada’s and western Europe’s rising HIV rates, we can see quite nicely that gay marriage and whatnot does little to nothing to reduce promiscuous sex and spreading disease among gays.”.
Wrong. The statistics mentioned in the article you linked to only cover the period up until 2005 when gay marriage was introduced in Canada. This article says nothing about HIV rates after gay marriage, once again something you posted doesn’t say at all what you claim it does. In fact according to the Dutch ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport the Netherlands have reduced their aids transmission rates by 55% since they instituted gay marriage.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I think it’s time, Hank, that it be demonstrated what you consider to be good behavior by “good folks”, given your endorsement and support of the behaviors of ColoradoPatriot (who also claims to be Christian) and Randi.
For ColoradoPatriot:
Try a .357 to your ear canal to clear that out, you’d be doing us all a favor.
And:
ND30: “Thank you, but I feel no need to commit suicide just to make you happy.”
It wouldn’t just make me happy, it would make me fucking ecstatic…but seriously, die painfully you worthless twit.
For Randi:
How typical, I point out the evil that you worship, your worship of a character that murders and tortures the innocent for the wrongs of the guilty, a sadistic psychotic baby killer and you laughably call that abuse. You defend pedophilia and when I call you on your evil ways you consider that abuse – Puhleeze.
The fact is that as I’ve demonstrated your bible describes a god character carrying out one immoral perverted act after another and rather than doing what’s right and condemning that evil you defend and promote it. You’re in no position to be preaching morality to gays or anyone. Take the log out of your own eye before you worry about the splinter in your own.
Your god brags about punishing children unto the fourth generation for the sins of the father. Your god sanctions the killing of 42,000 men because someone mispronounces “shibboleth”. Your religion insanely says babies who’ve done nothing should be eternally tortured because they’ve inherited the sin of an ancient ancestor. Condemn that evil now or stop lying about you are being abused and stop lying about how you publicly call out someone who claims to be Christian on their bad behavior.
And:
Child molestation is nothing compared to your Jesus eternally torturing innoncent babies because they inherited the sin of Adam.
Not only have you failed to condemn this abomination, you’ve praised it and identified this as your perfect role model. No gay has every done anything to remotely compare with the evil you worship. And you yourself have defended pedophilia in the past, so don’t give us this feigned outrage over it now.
What you consider “moral” shifts 180 degrees dependent on whatever you feel is most expedient to your goal of waging war on innocent LGBTs.
Picton murdered 50 women because he followed the commandments of your bible. Condemn this evil book now or fail to and make it clear you support the evils of Christianity.
So let’s just be clear on this: according to LGBT “Christian” Hank, it IS “Christian” behavior to a) tell other people to commit suicide and b) blaspheme and mock Jesus, the Bible, and Christianity.
What I think that makes obvious is that, while Hank’s Christian faith may be important to him, it’s not nearly as important as endorsing and supporting his fellow LGBTs — and that, when LGBTs do something that’s contrary to the Bible or Christianity, that LGBTs are always right and the Bible and Christianity are always wrong.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Stop being an idiot Northdallass, Hank didn’t endorse or support those statements by either me or Coloradopatriot. What is hilarious is that Hank complained about an evil commentor on Independent Gay Forum and never mentioned a name, but you recognized yourself based on the bad behavior he listed and took ownership of it. If you truly believed others had behaved as badly or worse than you you wouldn’t have automatically acknowledged that this unnamed evil person was you.
Instead of acknowledging the wrongs you’ve committed your excuse is to point to others and say “they did it too”. You’re “like the immature teenage girl who argues that she should be allowed to do something because “everyone else” is doing it.”.
Take responsibility for your wrongs for once instead of whining like a child and claiming “they did it too.”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That was far from the only claims you made about what was/wasn’t covered. You haven’t proven your claims and based on past history we’re well advised to assume you’re lying again.
Let us just be clear on this; despite the fact, Randi, that a claim has been made, and that you have stated that that claim is true by repeating it yourself as true, when I say it, it is a lie.
Furthermore, as Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin pointed out, this is typical of you:
You seem satisfied that your extraordinary claim can be backed by only one study and we should all accept it. But it seems that you would like me to fill this thread with examples to support my non-extraordinary claim. I provided two. You dismissed Barlow, Sakheim, and Beck?s paper as a theory, but it was a theory based on their own study, which they replicated again in 1987.
We have an entire ex-gay industry that is predicated on one or two small studies. You have based an accusation against one individual on one lone study. If you cannot see that you are doing the same thing as the ex-gay industry, then I can?t help you.
Furthermore, it is rooted in, as David Roberts at Ex-Gay Watch pointed out:
Oh please Randi, this is the second time someone has asked you to stop playing martyr. You can question something, but you are never content with that where faith is concerned. You appear to be so angry over your fear of hell that you just can?t stop yourself from slipping from questioning to berating, and then you begin to evangelize for your own form of worship……
Second, you don?t talk about it Randi, you assault it. What is worse, you have been banned (ironically only temporarily because of my suggestion) in the past for just this same thing. Yet you continue past all attempts to warn you. You just don?t appear to care.
At times Randi you have interesting things to add to the debate, but you seem so tortured by whatever you believe about hell that you just can?t stop lashing out here.
And finally, Randi, it’s not just HIV rates; other diseases spread by promiscuous and unprotected sex among gays are skyrocketing in these countries, including Canada.
Gay marriage does not stop promiscuity. Holding promiscuous LGBT people responsible for their behavior and criticizing their actions does. But you aren’t capable of that, Randi, because you aren’t capable of doing anything other than defending LGBT people, regardless of how they behave and what they do.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Stop being an idiot Northdallass, Hank didn’t endorse or support those statements by either me or Coloradopatriot.
Oh yes he did.
Colorado, I like your style.
And:
Thanks Randi, and good luck. I can’t do battle with the troll – but I’m glad you and Colorado and so many others here do that.
Hank has fully endorsed and supported your actions. If he wants to come back and make it clear that he’s changed his mind, he’s welcome to do it.
Next:
What is hilarious is that Hank complained about an evil commentor on Independent Gay Forum and never mentioned a name, but you recognized yourself based on the bad behavior he listed and took ownership of it. If you truly believed others had behaved as badly or worse than you you wouldn’t have automatically acknowledged that this unnamed evil person was you.
The fact that he did not have the courage to name me does not remove the obvious fact that he was accusing me.
As I have pointed out, Randi, Hank doesn’t think it “evil” or “bad” behavior to tell others to commit suicide or, as you do, to blaspheme his entire professed belief system, the divine being on which it is based, and its holy writ.
Furthermore, his actions in citing Ex-Gay Watch as a model, then endorsing and supporting someone like you who has been banned from Ex-Gay Watch for outright antireligious bigotry and hate, make his accusations even easier to refute.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Let us just be clear on this; despite the fact, Randi, that a claim has been made, and that you have stated that that claim is true by repeating it yourself as true, when I say it, it is a lie.”.
You claimed far more than that dental and vision weren’t covered by the Canadian health care system. Based on your past history of lying we are well advised to assume you’re lying until such time as you prove your claim to be true, which you haven’t.
And as Far as Jim Burroway is concerned, you don’t respect him anyway, you stated you and him are “exact ideological opposites”. As far as Jim is concerned he says that the position that erections are caused by sexual arousal is an “extraordinary claim” but that his position that they are equally likely to be caused by anxiety is not. Its obvious to every reasonable person that the exact opposite is the case, his assertion is preposterous.
David Robert’s opinion is just that, an opinion. The fact is that they promised me I could express my opinion and when I did they secretly banned me from participating further.
Your assertion that gay marriage won’t help promiscuity is absurd and refuted by the experts.
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2005/05/same-sex-unions/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4708710.stm
Your rants that gay marriage doesn’t reduce promiscuity can’t account for the fact that according to the Dutch ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport the Netherlands have reduced their aids transmission rates by 55% since they instituted gay marriage.
And by the way, I never claimed to be Christian and Hank never asserted I was so your assertion that Hank said my posts were “Christian” behavior is a lie.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Hank has fully endorsed and supported your actions.”.
That’s a lie. He never said anything of the sort. General statments that he “likes your style” or thanks for battling with the troll in no way suggest he endorses and supports everything we’ve ever said or done.
Northdallass said “The fact that he did not have the courage to name me does not remove the obvious fact that he was accusing me.”.
LOL, yes, it was obvious because only you fit the pattern of evil he described and you knew it as well as anyone. And you’re mistaking a lack of courage with a politeness you didn’t deserve.
Northdallass said “Furthermore, his actions in citing Ex-Gay Watch as a model, then endorsing and supporting someone like you who has been banned from Ex-Gay Watch for outright antireligious bigotry and hate, make his accusations even easier to refute.”.
Once again, just because you support somethings someone does doesn’t mean you support everything they’ve done. Only in your bizzaro world is every statement assumed to be an absolute.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Based on your past history of lying we are well advised to assume you’re lying until such time as you prove your claim to be true, which you haven’t.
But, Randi, as has been shown, Grendel explicitly said that the Canadian system does not cover, for example, dental, and you affirmed that fact; then later, when I said it does not cover dental, you screamed that I was lying.
In other words, I stated something which YOU YOURSELF have previously asserted is true, and you screamed that I was lying.
To Jim Burroway’s words:
You seem satisfied that your extraordinary claim can be backed by only one study and we should all accept it. But it seems that you would like me to fill this thread with examples to support my non-extraordinary claim.
In short, people of different ideologies have pointed out that a) you follow a much lower standard of evidence for yourself than you do for others and b) that you refuse to accept others’ statements or evidence when they contradict your own.
And by the way, I never claimed to be Christian and Hank never asserted I was so your assertion that Hank said my posts were “Christian” behavior is a lie.
Hank claims he only supports and endorses behavior that matches his beliefs of what constitute “Christian” behavior; therefore, since he supports and endorses you, he considers your behavior to be in line with his beliefs of what is “Christian”.
Would you like to state that Hank endorses and supports behavior that is not “Christian”?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Once again, just because you support somethings someone does doesn’t mean you support everything they’ve done. Only in your bizzaro world is every statement assumed to be an absolute.
Gotcha.
Picton murdered 50 women because he followed the commandments of your bible. Condemn this evil book now or fail to and make it clear you support the evils of Christianity.
So, applying your own standards, Randi, if Hank does not condemn your behavior, he makes it clear that he fully supports it.
That again illustrates Jim Burroway’s point.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “In other words, I stated something which YOU YOURSELF have previously asserted is true, and you screamed that I was lying.”.
You stated several things above and beyond what Grendel stated and that was what I was referring to when I made it clear that based on your past behavior we best assume you are lying.
Northdallass said “In short, people of different ideologies have pointed out that a) you follow a much lower standard of evidence for yourself than you do for others and b) that you refuse to accept others’ statements or evidence when they contradict your own.”.
Nonsense. Jim never made his case. He asserted that its just as likely as not that erections are caused by anxiety and denied the fact that the vast majority, if not all, erections are caused by sexual arousal. Jim made an extraordinary claim and he doesn’t have the extraordinary evidence to prove it.
Northdallass says “Gotcha.”.
LOL, not quite. Hank never made any statements saying that he unconditionally supports everything we’ve ever said or done. You on the other hand have unconditionally supported EVERYTHING the bible says and Picton was merely following it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You stated several things above and beyond what Grendel stated and that was what I was referring to when I made it clear that based on your past behavior we best assume you are lying.
No you were not.
As to your lies about what the Canadian system does and doesn’t cover, that’s standard fair for you.
You didn’t say “some of them”, or “just certain ones of them”; you made it clear that, in your opinion, ALL of them were lies and that not a single one of them was true.
Nonsense. Jim never made his case.Hank never made any statements saying that he unconditionally supports everything we’ve ever said or done.
Again, Randi, I cite your own requirement:
Picton murdered 50 women because he followed the commandments of your bible. Condemn this evil book now or fail to and make it clear you support the evils of Christianity.
You state quite clearly that failure to condemn something means you support it.
And if that isn’t enough, here again:
And typical of Northdallass, when Christians committ horrible crimes and behave immorally he can’t just condemn their actions he has to criticize the person bringing Christian crimes to light.
And then, when I did, you then changed your requirement so you wouldn’t be wrong:
Typical Northdallass, blame Pickton and take no responsibility whatsoever for the role and motivation his bible and Christians played in commanding and justifying these murders.
Your bible commands that unmarried sex partners be murdered, Pickton was merely following what your “good” bible commanded. Your bible sets the example over and over again of your “god” murdering the innoncent for the wrongs of the guilty, its no surprise that Picton would use it to justify murder of prostitutes. Picton most certainly didn’t pervert the idea of what the bible is all about, he epitomized it – unjust torture and murder of innocent people. Stop making excuses for that bible of yours Northdallass, do what’s right and condemn the evil book that motivated and justified these murders, genocide, and all manner of injustice. Stop making excuses for the evil that Christians like you distribute and promote. Accept responsibility for a change.
Contrary to your lies about LGBTS you are the one in a state of denial about the evil being promoted by Christians, namely your bible.
Again, Randi, by your own logic as outlined there, if Hank does not condemn ALL of your actions, he supports and endorses you completely.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You stated several things above and beyond what Grendel stated and that was what I was referring to when I made it clear that based on your past behavior we best assume you are lying.
No you were not.
As to your lies about what the Canadian system does and doesn’t cover, that’s standard fair for you.
You didn’t say “some of them”, or “just certain ones of them”; you made it clear that, in your opinion, ALL of them were lies and that not a single one of them was true.
Nonsense. Jim never made his case..
Again, that comes from the same mouth that screamed that I was lying when I stated something that a) had been stated by someone else as fact and b) that that mouth had CONFIRMED ITSELF was fact.
The reason you argue that Jim “never made his case” is simple; you do not accept evidence or proof from other people that contradicts your own bigotry and prejudice, and you insist that they are liars.
Hank never made any statements saying that he unconditionally supports everything we’ve ever said or done.
Again, Randi, I cite your own requirement:
Picton murdered 50 women because he followed the commandments of your bible. Condemn this evil book now or fail to and make it clear you support the evils of Christianity.
You state quite clearly that failure to condemn something means you support it.
And if that isn’t enough, here again:
And typical of Northdallass, when Christians committ horrible crimes and behave immorally he can’t just condemn their actions he has to criticize the person bringing Christian crimes to light.
And then, when I did, you then changed your requirement so you wouldn’t be wrong:
Typical Northdallass, blame Pickton and take no responsibility whatsoever for the role and motivation his bible and Christians played in commanding and justifying these murders.
Your bible commands that unmarried sex partners be murdered, Pickton was merely following what your “good” bible commanded. Your bible sets the example over and over again of your “god” murdering the innoncent for the wrongs of the guilty, its no surprise that Picton would use it to justify murder of prostitutes. Picton most certainly didn’t pervert the idea of what the bible is all about, he epitomized it – unjust torture and murder of innocent people. Stop making excuses for that bible of yours Northdallass, do what’s right and condemn the evil book that motivated and justified these murders, genocide, and all manner of injustice. Stop making excuses for the evil that Christians like you distribute and promote. Accept responsibility for a change.
Contrary to your lies about LGBTS you are the one in a state of denial about the evil being promoted by Christians, namely your bible.
Again, Randi, by your own logic as outlined there, if Hank does not condemn ALL of your actions, he supports and endorses you completely.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “You didn’t say “some of them”, or “just certain ones of them”; you made it clear that, in your opinion, ALL of them were lies and that not a single one of them was true.”.
No, I never said ALL of them, you lie.
Northdallass said “The reason you argue that Jim “never made his case” is simple; you do not accept evidence or proof from other people that contradicts your own bigotry and prejudice, and you insist that they are liars.”.
Nonsense I stated he never made his case because he didn’t. His idea that its an extraorinary claim to say erections are caused by sexual arousal is preposterous.
Northdallass said “You state quite clearly that failure to condemn something means you support it.”.
No, as a Christian you claim the bible is your unchallenged guide to life. You’ve made it clear again and again that you support it without condition. Until you repudiate it it is clear that you support what it says and Picton was merely following what your bible told him to do.
By your own logic you didn’t bring Picton’s wrongdoing to light so you were trying to hide it.
Northdallass said “Again, Randi, by your own logic as outlined there, if Hank does not condemn ALL of your actions, he supports and endorses you completely.”.
Of course he doesn’t condemn ALL my actions and he never claimed to support and endorse me completely – you’re a liar.
You’ve accepted that Hanks description of this evil person is an accurate portrayal of you but instead of apologizing for the evil you’ve done you try to excuse yourself by falsely claiming “they do it too”. You’re “like the immature teenage girl who argues that she should be allowed to do something because “everyone else” is doing it.”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Nonsense I stated he never made his case because he didn’t. His idea that its an extraorinary claim to say erections are caused by sexual arousal is preposterous.
And again, Jim answered that issue nicely in his post.
And speaking of extraordinary claims, you began with one. Yes, the claim that homophobes are almost all secretly gay is an extraordinary claim that has not been backed with extraordinary evidence.
I?ve read several scores of articles on the study of homophobia over the years, and I?m aware of only one that comes close to trying to make that extraordinary claim – Adams, et al. As far as I know, that study, which is based on a convenience sample and which has several weaknesses that the authors themselves cite (no standards for measuring homophobia, no standards for plethysmography, anxiety as a confounding factor), and which has not, to my knowledge, been duplicated.
That is an extraordinary claim backed by only one study. And those study authors did not treat anxiety as an extraordinary claim, for good reason. From Freund in the 1960?s to Bancroft to McConaghy and so many others who have worked in the field of plethysmography, they?ve noted the problems of trying to determine whether they were dealing with pure sexual arousal, anxiety, or a possible combination in some instances.
You were caught and you tried to lie and spin your way out of it. And even now, you lie and attempt to spin, rather than to admit the truth of what you were told.
That whole thread further demonstrates that you refuse to acknowledge evidence even when it is presented to you.
For instance, when Jim provided scientific evidence to counter your original claim, you immediately answered:
I note that the authors themselves claim that anxiety can cause erections but they fail to include any citation to back that up.
Then, when Jim specifically provided the citation:
Randi, please re-read the quote. The authors cited ?Barlow, Sakheim, and Beck?s (1983).?
you changed your argument; rather than admitting that you were wrong, that you had not read the evidence, and that you were accidentally or deliberately incorrect when you claimed the authors had not made citation for their claim, you tried to spin.
Yes, Jim, I read it and re-read it. It refers to Barlow, Sakheim, and Beck?s theory. Theory, not evidence.
And now, just as then, you are changing your story and trying to deny what you said; you are trying to spin and deny that you said my statements that the Canadian system does not cover things, including dental and vision, are lies, even though I have provided proof that Grendel said so and that you agreed with Grendel when he said it.
Furthermore, let’s demonstrate something else.
No, as a Christian you claim the bible is your unchallenged guide to life.
And what did Hank say?
The reason this is important is that I take my Christian faith seriously.
Therefore, this would also apply to Hank:
Until you repudiate it (the Bible) it is clear that you support what it says and Picton was merely following what your bible told him to do.
Or, as you stated before:
Your bible commands that unmarried sex partners be murdered, Pickton was merely following what your “good” bible commanded. Your bible sets the example over and over again of your “god” murdering the innoncent for the wrongs of the guilty, its no surprise that Picton would use it to justify murder of prostitutes. Picton most certainly didn’t pervert the idea of what the bible is all about, he epitomized it – unjust torture and murder of innocent people. Stop making excuses for that bible of yours Northdallass, do what’s right and condemn the evil book that motivated and justified these murders, genocide, and all manner of injustice.
Now, Randi, say that all Christians, including Hank, including “Bishop” Gene Robinson, and others, FULLY support “unjust torture and murder of innocent persons” unless they condemn the Bible.
And the funny part is that I wager the LGBT Hank WOULD condemn the Bible just to stay in your good graces. He’s made it clear that his being LGBT and satisfying your whims is more important to him than anything else.
Furthermore, since you haven’t attacked Soulforce, “Bishop” Gene Robinson, and other gay people who profess to be Christians and demand the same from them, the only thing I can conclude is that all of these LGBT “Christians” HAVE condemned the Bible and God as you asked them to do.
You’ve made it clear that, unless people condemn something, they support it. Therefore, by your logic, unless Hank condemns your actions, he supports you.
You’ve accepted that Hanks description of this evil person is an accurate portrayal of you but instead of apologizing for the evil you’ve done you try to excuse yourself by falsely claiming “they do it too”.
Actually, what I’ve done is pointed out that Hank ‘s version of “good” is defined by anti-Christian bigotry, hatred of the Bible and of Christians, and telling other people to commit suicide.
Hence, one can expect that he would consider me to be “evil” in that context, since I don’t do any of those things, and in fact are opposed to them.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “given your endorsement and support of the behaviors of ColoradoPatriot (who also claims to be Christian)”
Please stop lying on these boards.
posted by Pat on
What I think that makes obvious is that, while Hank’s Christian faith may be important to him, it’s not nearly as important as endorsing and supporting his fellow LGBTs — and that, when LGBTs do something that’s contrary to the Bible or Christianity, that LGBTs are always right and the Bible and Christianity are always wrong.
Hank has fully endorsed and supported your actions. If he wants to come back and make it clear that he’s changed his mind, he’s welcome to do it.
Hank claims he only supports and endorses behavior that matches his beliefs of what constitute “Christian” behavior; therefore, since he supports and endorses you, he considers your behavior to be in line with his beliefs of what is “Christian”.
You didn’t say “some of them”, or “just certain ones of them”; you made it clear that, in your opinion, ALL of them were lies and that not a single one of them was true.
You state quite clearly that failure to condemn something means you support it.
Again, Randi, by your own logic as outlined there, if Hank does not condemn ALL of your actions, he supports and endorses you completely.
Now, Randi, say that all Christians, including Hank, including “Bishop” Gene Robinson, and others, FULLY support “unjust torture and murder of innocent persons” unless they condemn the Bible.
Furthermore, since you haven’t attacked Soulforce, “Bishop” Gene Robinson, and other gay people who profess to be Christians and demand the same from them, the only thing I can conclude is that all of these LGBT “Christians” HAVE condemned the Bible and God as you asked them to do.
Actually, what I’ve done is pointed out that Hank ‘s version of “good” is defined by anti-Christian bigotry, hatred of the Bible and of Christians, and telling other people to commit suicide.
The irrational mischaracterizations never end. It’s like watching a train wreck.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Please stop lying on these boards.
Tell us, ColoradoPatriot; what was the alleged lie?
Is it that you are a Christian?
Or is it that Hank supports and endorses your behavior?
I can’t do battle with the troll – but I’m glad you and Colorado and so many others here do that.
And:
Colorado, I like your style.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Then, when Jim specifically provided the citation:
Randi, please re-read the quote. The authors cited ?Barlow, Sakheim, and Beck?s (1983).?
you changed your argument;”
No, what I pointed out was that contrary to what Jim said the authors didn’t cite any EVIDENCE, they refered to Barlon, et al’s THEORY. The idea that erections are caused by anxiety is an extraordianry claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence which Jim didn’t present. The vast majority of men will tell you that they’ve never had an erection due to anxiety, that its always been due to sexual arousal.
Northdallass said “You’ve made it clear that, unless people condemn something, they support it. Therefore, by your logic, unless Hank condemns your actions, he supports you.”.
No, you’ve made it clear through all your past writings and rants about being a “Christian” that you follow the bible as your inerrant guide to morality and that you support it fully. If you want to claim that isn’t the case then you need to condemn it.
Northdallass said “Actually, what I’ve done is pointed out that Hank ‘s version of “good” is defined by anti-Christian bigotry, hatred of the Bible and of Christians, and telling other people to commit suicide.”.
Nonsense, you’re a liar, Hank never said any such thing.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The irrational mischaracterizations never end. It’s like watching a train wreck.
Pat, I suppose we should acknowledge your willingness to confront what you allege to be irrational mischaracterizations. Clearly, you would not stand quiet in the face of such things being said about anyone and say nothing, correct?
You’re one sick puppy Northdallass, I wouldn’t be surprised if you had an eight year old chained in the basement so you can molest him every day.
Or:
The troll here is clearly not gay – not based on his beliefs, but simply his use of pronouns.
And
He speaks about his own success and happiness. Yet from reading his posts, that’s clearly untrue.
Or:
Try a .357 to your ear canal to clear that out, you’d be doing us all a favor.
And farther down in that thread:
ND30: “Thank you, but I feel no need to commit suicide just to make you happy.”
It wouldn’t just make me happy, it would make me fucking ecstatic…but seriously, die painfully you worthless twit.
And finally:
Picton murdered 50 women because he followed the commandments of your bible. Condemn this evil book now or fail to and make it clear you support the evils of the Christians portrayed in it.
And yet, if one looks up and down those threads, there is not a word from you against any of those statements — even the ones that were repeated here in this very thread.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And again, Jim answered that issue nicely in his post.
And speaking of extraordinary claims, you began with one. Yes, the claim that homophobes are almost all secretly gay is an extraordinary claim that has not been backed with extraordinary evidence.
I?ve read several scores of articles on the study of homophobia over the years, and I?m aware of only one that comes close to trying to make that extraordinary claim – Adams, et al. As far as I know, that study, which is based on a convenience sample and which has several weaknesses that the authors themselves cite (no standards for measuring homophobia, no standards for plethysmography, anxiety as a confounding factor), and which has not, to my knowledge, been duplicated.
That is an extraordinary claim backed by only one study. And those study authors did not treat anxiety as an extraordinary claim, for good reason. From Freund in the 1960?s to Bancroft to McConaghy and so many others who have worked in the field of plethysmography, they?ve noted the problems of trying to determine whether they were dealing with pure sexual arousal, anxiety, or a possible combination in some instances.
Again, YOU made the extraordinary claim, Randi. But when you were confronted, you spun and tried to deny what you had said.
That whole thread further demonstrates that you refuse to acknowledge evidence even when it is presented to you.
For instance, when Jim provided scientific evidence to counter your original claim that anyone who opposes gays in any way is a closet gay, you immediately answered:
I note that the authors themselves claim that anxiety can cause erections but they fail to include any citation to back that up.
Then, when Jim specifically provided the citation, which you had claimed wasn’t there:
Randi, please re-read the quote. The authors cited ?Barlow, Sakheim, and Beck?s (1983).?
you changed your argument; rather than admitting that you were wrong, that you had not read the evidence, and that you were accidentally or deliberately incorrect when you claimed the authors had not made citation for their claim, you tried to spin.
Yes, Jim, I read it and re-read it. It refers to Barlow, Sakheim, and Beck?s theory. Theory, not evidence.
Add to that your banning from Ex-Gay Watch for your incessant antireligious bigotry and prejudice, and we see that Hank made a very poor choice of people to support and endorse.
Thanks Randi, and good luck. I can’t do battle with the troll – but I’m glad you and Colorado and so many others here do that.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
LOL, Northdallass, Hank knows what he’s doing and he’s rejecting the evil of someone like you who goes out of his way to promote hatred against gays and to deprive them of equality under the law. Hank described an evil person based on their bad behavior, never mentioned who that person was and you recognized yourself immediately and claimed ownership of that representation.
Northdallass said “For instance, when Jim provided scientific evidence to counter your original claim that anyone who opposes gays in any way is a closet gay…you changed your argument; rather than admitting that you were wrong”.
No, you lie. As I pointed out to Jim the authors didn’t cite any EVIDENCE, they refered to Barlon, et al’s THEORY. The idea that erections are caused by anxiety is an extraordianry claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence which Jim didn’t present. The vast majority of men will tell you that they’ve never had an erection due to anxiety, that its always been due to sexual arousal.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL, Northdallass, Hank knows what he’s doing and he’s rejecting the evil of someone like you who goes out of his way to promote hatred against gays and to deprive them of equality under the law.
Or, more precisely, when he endorses people like you and ColoradoPatriot who tell others to commit suicide and who claim all Christians support murderers.
What Hank makes clear is that his LGBT identity trumps everything, and that he will even support telling people to commit suicide or condemning his fellow Christians as supporters of murder, rape, and polygamy if it’s another LGBT doing it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The idea that erections are caused by anxiety is an extraordianry claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence which Jim didn’t present.
Again, what Jim said:
And speaking of extraordinary claims, you began with one. Yes, the claim that homophobes are almost all secretly gay is an extraordinary claim that has not been backed with extraordinary evidence.
I?ve read several scores of articles on the study of homophobia over the years, and I?m aware of only one that comes close to trying to make that extraordinary claim – Adams, et al. As far as I know, that study, which is based on a convenience sample and which has several weaknesses that the authors themselves cite (no standards for measuring homophobia, no standards for plethysmography, anxiety as a confounding factor), and which has not, to my knowledge, been duplicated.
That is an extraordinary claim backed by only one study. And those study authors did not treat anxiety as an extraordinary claim, for good reason. From Freund in the 1960?s to Bancroft to McConaghy and so many others who have worked in the field of plethysmography, they?ve noted the problems of trying to determine whether they were dealing with pure sexual arousal, anxiety, or a possible combination in some instances.
Then he calls out your behavior specifically:
You seem satisfied that your extraordinary claim can be backed by only one study and we should all accept it. But it seems that you would like me to fill this thread with examples to support my non-extraordinary claim. I provided two. You dismissed Barlow, Sakheim, and Beck?s paper as a theory, but it was a theory based on their own study, which they replicated again in 1987.
posted by Pat on
Pat, I suppose we should acknowledge your willingness to confront what you allege to be irrational mischaracterizations. Clearly, you would not stand quiet in the face of such things being said about anyone and say nothing, correct?
Even though you twisted the premise to suit your needs, I’ll try to address it without further mischaracterizations on your part, but I won’t be holding my breath. So here goes.
First, except under extraordinary circumstances, I tend to stay away from other people’s nasty behavior with each other. This includes, until very recently, when you have mischaracterized others’ posts, I pretty much stayed out of it. What’s funny is the links that you have provided shows you repeatedly doing the exact same thing.
Second, some of the things you cited do fall under what I would consider extraordinary circumstances. And on those threads that I have actively participated on, I believe I have made appropriate criticism or condemnation. In fact, I do recall seeing ColoradoPatriot’s comment and condemned it. On this thread I believe I stated that others’ claims that you were straight were false. I didn’t condemn them, because I didn’t feel that claim fell under the extraordinary circumstances, and not nearly as bad as the claims you’ve made against me (despite my protestations otherwise) and to others. Keep in mind too that your own behavior doesn’t help, and it makes it harder for me to defend you.
Third, while you are not the only one guilty of mischaracterization, it’s rather chronic with you, and no one else has come close to the level that you have done. Further, no one else has mischaracterized my posts. If and when someone does, I will be as patient with them as I was with you.
I try to be as consistent as possible in dealing with people as best as I can. I’m sure there are examples where that was not the case, and I don’t claim that I am perfect. But I believe I have been more than patient with you and extended every courtesy to you and painstakingly asked you not to mischaracterize my posts. I was more patient with you because you are many times alone against everyone else (although many times because of your own doing). And when you did mischaracterize a statement of mine three times (in addition to others) despite my saying it was false, my patience grew quite thin.
Also, keep in mind that you have been told by other posters here and in other sites (including people we mutually respect) have called you out on the same thing. What can I say? It ticks people off when you misrepresent what they say, come to irrational inferences, and make unfair generalizations. And using words and phrases such as “obviously,” “clearly,” and “in other words” doesn’t excuse your mischaracterizations, especially when you are told point blank that they are false.
I have utmost respect for you in holding opinions even in the face of being the sole voice of that opinion in a forum. I lose respect when, under the guise of self-righteous superior virtue, you either deliberately or obtusely alienate yourself with your bad behavior.
So consider the fact that you’re wrong here and accept responsibility. You are passionate about people accepting responsibility. Here’s your chance to do it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So consider the fact that you’re wrong here and accept responsibility. You are passionate about people accepting responsibility. Here’s your chance to do it.
Sorry, but not anywhere in my statements have I told people, as I pointed out to commit suicide, denied their sexual orientation, insisted they had children chained up in their basement to molest, or demanded that they condemn the Bible or be accused of supporting a serial killer.
What I HAVE done is pointed out when gays and lesbians try to blame promiscuity on their lack of marriage, when gays and lesbians flip flop and insist that the Canadian system covers things which they denied it covered mere posts ago, and when gays and lesbians who claim to be nominally “Christian” endorse and support people who are vehemently anti-Christian and people who tell others to commit suicide.
What provoked this whole problem, Pat, is that I challenged the gay and lesbian dogma that blames promiscuity on the absence of marriage and the Republicans, pointing out that a) marriage is not necessary for monogamy and stopping promiscuity and b) gays and lesbians who do so are making excuses rather than taking responsibility for their own choices to be promiscuous.
And, as I just showed, gay marriage and whatnot have NOT reduced the rate of promiscuous sex among gays, as demonstrated by the explosion of HIV and other STDs in other countries.
What that should make patently obvious is that gay marriage does not stop promiscuity. Holding promiscuous LGBT people responsible for their behavior and criticizing their actions does. Furthermore, that can be done IMMEDIATELY, and it would be SUPPORTED by the overwhelming majority of straight people.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Stop hyperlink
posted by Pat on
Sorry, but not anywhere in my statements have I told people, as I pointed out to commit suicide, denied their sexual orientation, insisted they had children chained up in their basement to molest, or demanded that they condemn the Bible or be accused of supporting a serial killer.
(Shakes head in disbelief) As far as I know, that is true, and I didn’t say you did. And I didn’t say that was the issue I was having with you. I’ve said you’ve mischaracterized my statements. When I pointed that out to you, your response was another mischaracterization.
What I HAVE done is pointed out when gays and lesbians try to blame promiscuity on their lack of marriage, when gays and lesbians flip flop and insist that the Canadian system covers things which they denied it covered mere posts ago, and when gays and lesbians who claim to be nominally “Christian” endorse and support people who are vehemently anti-Christian and people who tell others to commit suicide.
Actually, what I saw was that not only did you mischaracterize my posts, you did so with others. I saw you do it. Anyone, except you apparently, can see that you did just that.
Let me give you an example. In my post, I said I respect your opinion. Someone else, even one who really dislikes you could have turned it around and said, “Oh, so Pat respects everything that NDT does.” So far, it hasn’t happened. If it did, you can be damn sure I’d do my best to set the person straight.
In the case above, when Hank (or whoever it was) supported one of ColoradoPatriot’s statements, instead of saying, “Hank, did you know that CP suggested I should put a bullet in my head, do you endorse that” and give him a chance to respond, you said, “Hank supports statements that I put a bullet in my head.” No matter how many times people said otherwise, you couldn’t get it through your head otherwise. I never saw Hank endorse that statement. You simply took an all or nothing approach.
In short, a person makes a statement A, you conclude that the person meant statement B (which is something that either makes the person look like an idiot, insane, or evil). The person counters and says, “no I said statement A” and explains why they did not mean statement B. Instead of countering it, you blindly state statement B again. Don’t you realize how frustrating that is for others? Don’t you realize how dishonest that is? You’ve done that to me several times, I’ve seen you do it to others on this blog and other blogs. And I’ve seen others, who I believe you respect, call you out on it on several occasions. Can you at least admit that you might be wrong, i.e., take responsibility?
What provoked this whole problem, Pat, is that I challenged the gay and lesbian dogma that blames promiscuity on the absence of marriage and the Republicans, pointing out that a) marriage is not necessary for monogamy and stopping promiscuity and b) gays and lesbians who do so are making excuses rather than taking responsibility for their own choices to be promiscuous.
And the funny thing is, I agree with pretty much your statement here. In fact, in a) not only do I agree it’s not necessary, it’s not sufficient either. And I said that people should take responsibility for their actions.
I’ve said several times that I believe gay marriage will, in time, lessen promiscuity. You disagreed with that statement, and that’s fine. But you went beyond that and decided that I meant something else. And no matter how many times I said I didn’t mean what you said, you still insisted otherwise.
And, as I just showed, gay marriage and whatnot have NOT reduced the rate of promiscuous sex among gays, as demonstrated by the explosion of HIV and other STDs in other countries.
The thing is, others have shown statistics that show otherwise. Regardless, I’ve stated that it would take at least a generation. I’ll just add that another benefit, I believe in time, is we’ll have less people like Larry Craig and Ted Haggard marrying women. I’ve even conceded I may be wrong, but still thought marriage should be available for gay couples that want it.
The other thing is that statistics have a way of being grossly misinterpreted. And wouldn’t you know, that when people do so, it’s usually in a way that supports their opinion. I’ve demonstrated in the past that you have done that. In another note, when one has two sets of data where the smaller set has a population as large as Canada’s population, the difference in population is totally irrelevant when comparing means.
What that should make patently obvious is that gay marriage does not stop promiscuity.
Whether the statistics are interpreted correctly or not, I agree that gay marriage does not stop promiscuity.
Holding promiscuous LGBT people responsible for their behavior and criticizing their actions does
Fine, go for it. I’ll do my part too.
Furthermore, that can be done IMMEDIATELY, and it would be SUPPORTED by the overwhelming majority of straight people.
I suppose so. Maybe even by promiscuous straight people. So what? They have marriage, and don’t have their rights stripped despite the fact there are plenty of promiscuous straight people, and plenty of people who can’t keep their marriage vows.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Pat said “So consider the fact that you’re wrong here and accept responsibility. You are passionate about people accepting responsibility. Here’s your chance to do it.”
Northdallass said “Sorry, but not anywhere in my statements have I told people, as I pointed out to commit suicide, denied their sexual orientation, insisted they had children chained up in their basement to molest, or demanded that they condemn the Bible or be accused of supporting a serial killer.”.
What you have done is said that most gays are deviants, falsely accused others of having public sex and repeatedly assaulting heterosexuals and religious people in every possible manner, said that blacks should be grateful for slavery, repeatedly spouted the lie that one gays wrongdoings means all gays are bad, and when I opposed polygamy, incestuous and pedophillic marriages you DEFENDED them saying “all of your statements are discriminatory. It should not be automatically assumed that children are incapable of consent; that’s age discrimination. It should not be automatically assumed that being related to someone prevents you from giving informed consent; that’s discrimination on the basis of lineage or family. It should not be automatically assumed that all multiple marriages are exploitive; that’s discrimination based on assumptions about private lifestyle decisions…your attitude that people should not be allowed to marry their preferred sexual partner or partners is unconstitutional”.
That’s why people wonder if you have an eight year old chained up in the basement to molest. And NO ONE said you did.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And Northdallass your assertion that gay marriage won’t help promiscuity is absurd and refuted by the experts.
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2005/05/same-sex-unions/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4708710.stm
Your rants that gay marriage doesn’t reduce promiscuity can’t account for the fact that according to the Dutch ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport the Netherlands have reduced their aids transmission rates by 55% since they instituted gay marriage.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And I quote Northdallass suggesting blacks are better off because of slavery “And to your specific point, Randi, concerning slavery in the United States, I have always thought it would be interesting to do a Wonderful Life-type flashback for African-Americans, showing them what would have happened had their ancestors never been brought to the United States in bondage. What do you think they would see?”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Let me give you an example. In my post, I said I respect your opinion. Someone else, even one who really dislikes you could have turned it around and said, “Oh, so Pat respects everything that NDT does.”
Well, they could, Pat, but it would be kind of silly, given that the rest of your post makes it clear and specific that you don’t support what you describe my behavior as being.
I never saw Hank endorse that statement. You simply took an all or nothing approach.
No; I simply figured that Hank would respond if he didn’t — as you say you would.
So far, it hasn’t happened. If it did, you can be damn sure I’d do my best to set the person straight.
Don’t you realize how frustrating that is for others? Don’t you realize how dishonest that is?
Ah, the irony.
And Northdallass your assertion that gay marriage won’t help promiscuity is absurd and refuted by the experts.
Let us demonstrate the entertainment value of Randi Schimnosky right here and right now.
When Randi Schimnosky is confronted with evidence that contradicts her bigotry and prejudices, she states the following:
As I pointed out to Jim the authors didn’t cite any EVIDENCE, they refered to Barlon, et al’s THEORY.
Therefore, she establishes that theory, in her world, proves nothing.
But what does she cite from the BBC article as her absolute proof?
But the doctors in the latest study added further research was needed to prove the theory.
And finally, with your quotation from Ex-Gay Watch, that is from May of 2005, and it states rates of syphilis have gone down. I quoted from 2005 December of 2007, and it pointed out that, in retrospect, STD rates, especially syphilis, have gone UP.
And really, you must have been desperate to publish that thing from Ex-Gay Watch, because even it admitted that gay marriage had a statistically-insignificant effect on HIV.
But again, this is a dogma of the gay community, because it allows promiscuous gays to blame everyone but themselves for their promiscuity.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Randi, why not provide the link?
Probably because it includes this part.
“Grateful” is a loaded word. No, I don’t think people should be particularly grateful for being ripped from their families, their culture, and their way of life through a process that was pure hell and to a new existence that at best was liveable and at worst was utter brutality for centuries.
And here’s the original comment where I mentioned it.
The “grateful” came solely from ColoradoPatriot, as I allude to in that first link, and was part of a comment that was deleted by the moderators.
Then ColoradoPatriot repeats it on this very thread:
blacks should be grateful for slavery because it got them out of Africa
Randi repeats it on this thread:
said that blacks should be grateful for slavery
Now, to Pat’s description:
In short, a person makes a statement A, you conclude that the person meant statement B (which is something that either makes the person look like an idiot, insane, or evil). The person counters and says, “no I said statement A” and explains why they did not mean statement B. Instead of countering it, you blindly state statement B again.
Notice how LGBTs like Randi and ColoradoPatriot are allowed to, with impunity, do exactly the thing that Pat criticizes, and in fact are endorsed and supported by people like Hank, saying they “like your style”, and more specifically:
Thanks Randi, and good luck. I can’t do battle with the troll – but I’m glad you and Colorado and so many others here do that.
In short, LGBTs on Independent Gay Forum are attacking people for that which they freely endorse, support, and allow to continue among their own who are more ideologically-correct and who they like personally. It has nothing to do with the behavior; only with whether or not the person conforms ideologically and is “liked”.
posted by Pat on
Notice how LGBTs like Randi and ColoradoPatriot are allowed to, with impunity, do exactly the thing that Pat criticizes, and in fact are endorsed and supported by people like Hank, saying they “like your style”, and more specifically:
Notice how you once again you completely missed the point. If they mischaracterized MY posts to the level you did, they would NOT be getting away with it, just like I’m not letting you get away with it. So far, I don’t recall anyone other than you mischaracterizing MY posts.
It seems like what you are saying is that since Randi is mischaracterizing your posts, that it’s okay for you to mischaracterize mine. If that’s the case, I don’t buy that.
I mentioned that, for the most part, I stay away from others’ squabbles. You and Randi apparently have a long history, and I don’t know the reason why you don’t respect each others’ opinions on religion on other matters, and I am in no position to know who started what, etc., and who is ultimately culpable for the bad blood there. And I already mentioned that I personally condemned ColoradoPatriot’s remark to you.
In short, LGBTs on Independent Gay Forum are attacking people for that which they freely endorse, support, and allow to continue among their own who are more ideologically-correct and who they like personally. It has nothing to do with the behavior; only with whether or not the person conforms ideologically and is “liked”.
You know what, NDT, you’re only going to see what you want to see. In my participation on this forum, I see many different ideological beliefs. But almost all of the nastiness that I see involves you with others on this forum. Does this make everyone else automatically innocent? No. But it should at least maybe let you think that it’s not your opinion and beliefs that is the problem, but your rhetoric.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, its clear what you meant when you said “And to your specific point, Randi, concerning slavery in the United States, I have always thought it would be interesting to do a Wonderful Life-type flashback for African-Americans, showing them what would have happened had their ancestors never been brought to the United States in bondage. What do you think they would see?”.
You realized how bad that looked and tried to weazel out of it and claim you didn’t mean it but obviously you did. And not only did you do that, you falsely claimed said that most gays are deviants, falsely accused others of having public sex and repeatedly assaulting heterosexuals and religious people in every possible manner, repeatedly spouted the lie that one gays wrongdoings means all gays are bad, and when I opposed polygamy, incestuous and pedophillic marriages you DEFENDED them saying “all of your statements are discriminatory. It should not be automatically assumed that children are incapable of consent; that’s age discrimination. It should not be automatically assumed that being related to someone prevents you from giving informed consent; that’s discrimination on the basis of lineage or family. It should not be automatically assumed that all multiple marriages are exploitive; that’s discrimination based on assumptions about private lifestyle decisions…your attitude that people should not be allowed to marry their preferred sexual partner or partners is unconstitutional”.
That’s why people wonder if you have an eight year old chained up in the basement to molest. And NO ONE said you did.
And as to your two links, they prove nothing. The first doesn’t even address overall STD rates, it merely mentions the outbreak of a rare STD in men in TORONTO, not CANADA as a whole. The second doesn’t distinguish between gay and straights unlike the link which I provided from Exgaywatch where the authors study specifically says “the empirical evidence presented here is consistent with the view that gay marriage reduces
risky sexual behavior”.
And I loved your excuse that you should be allowed to mischaracterize others comments because “they did it too”. You’re just like the “immature teenage girl who argues that she should be allowed to do something because “everyone else” is doing it.” And this isn’t the first time you’ve done this.
In this thread
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31424.html#commentform
You falsely claimed “What Jefferts-Schori is demonstrating is that her only excuse for her behavior is “they do it too”” and then like the hypocrite you are in the exact same thread you whined “Since the American church demands the right to break canon law at will, I see no reason why other churches should be restrained by it”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It seems like what you are saying is that since Randi is mischaracterizing your posts, that it’s okay for you to mischaracterize mine.
No, I’m simply pointing out that your criticism is based, not on the actions themselves, but on the persons involved.
But it should at least maybe let you think that it’s not your opinion and beliefs that is the problem, but your rhetoric.
That would be if I were working under the assumption that other LGBTs are always right and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You realized how bad that looked and tried to weazel out of it and claim you didn’t mean it but obviously you did.
Again, ah, the irony.
In short, a person makes a statement A, you conclude that the person meant statement B (which is something that either makes the person look like an idiot, insane, or evil). The person counters and says, “no I said statement A” and explains why they did not mean statement B. Instead of countering it, you blindly state statement B again.
But don’t worry, Randi. As long as you don’t criticize any of them, no LGBT will hold you accountable for your behavior.
Next:
The first doesn’t even address overall STD rates, it merely mentions the outbreak of a rare STD in men in TORONTO, not CANADA as a whole.
Why? Is gay marriage not allowed in Toronto?
You said gay marriage always reduced STD rates, Randi. If that were the case, this wouldn’t have happened at all.
The second doesn’t distinguish between gay and straights unlike the link which I provided from Exgaywatch where the authors study specifically says “the empirical evidence presented here is consistent with the view that gay marriage reduces
risky sexual behavior”.
Third paragraph, first sentence:
Most cases of syphilis are in men, and experts point to more risky sex among gay men as the chief cause for the resurgence.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, its clear what you meant when you said “And to your specific point, Randi, concerning slavery in the United States, I have always thought it would be interesting to do a Wonderful Life-type flashback for African-Americans, showing them what would have happened had their ancestors never been brought to the United States in bondage. What do you think they would see?”.
You realized how bad that looked and tried to weazel out of it and claim you didn’t mean it but obviously you did.
Pat said “It seems like what you are saying is that since Randi is mischaracterizing your posts, that it’s okay for you to mischaracterize mine.”.
Northdallass replied “No, I’m simply pointing out that your criticism is based, not on the actions themselves, but on the persons involved.”.
Thanks Northdallass, you’re finally admitting that you are mischaracterizing people’s posts, even though you try to justify it by whining “they did it too!”. Trouble is you then go on to yet again mischaracterize my post – you never learn from your wrongs, you just keep on repeating them:
Northdallass said “You said gay marriage always reduced STD rates, Randi. If that were the case, this wouldn’t have happened at all.”.
I never said gay marriage “ALWAYS” reduces STD rates, you’re a liar. What I said was that marriage discourages promiscuity and those that have actually specifically studied gays and marriage have pointed out that that’s true.
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2005/05/same-sex-unions/
The authors study specifically says “the empirical evidence presented here is consistent with the view that gay marriage reduces risky sexual behavior”.
Northdallass points out this line in his link: “Most cases of syphilis are in men, and experts point to more risky sex among gay men as the chief cause for the resurgence.” but because it contradicts the lie he wants to spread he hides the line that immediately follows it:
“But more cases are being seen among heterosexuals, both men and women, too.”. None of the statistics actually given in the article distinguish gay men from staight men and women and none of the statistics specifically looked at the effects of gay marriage amongst gays and STD rates.
Once again, just as with your wild claim that employees of American companies in Canada “utterly refuse to get zero health benefits from the company”, you haven’t proven your case.
Hank had you nailed to a “T”:
“The troll here is clearly not gay – not based on his beliefs, but simply his use of pronouns. Watch his language carefully, you’ll find he slips once in awhile and uses words like “you” instead of “us”.
He loudly proclaims his Christianity, yet one of the first things that Jesus taught was that we were not to judge others. Contrast Jesus’ words with the troll’s condemnation of Christian leaders like Bishop Robinson who lead lives different than he would wish. Does that mean the troll is lying when he talks of his Christian beliefs? I would not go that far, but the Bible clearly teaches that one of the ways you will be able to recognize Christians is by their obvious love for their fellow man.
He speaks about his own success and happiness. Yet from reading his posts, that’s clearly untrue. Is there anyone else on these forums who pores over past writings like he does, then triumphantly posts his “gotcha” comments? Not exactly consistent with a happy life – instead, a compulsive recluse, sitting at his computer all day.
His language is foul, and worst of all, he exhibits a total lack of respect for others who have the temerity to disagree with him.”
Despite not being mentioned by name you recognized yourself by the bad behavior listed and acknowledges that this describes him.
You whine about people wondering whether or not you’ve got an eight year old chained up in your basement to molest when you’ve aroused the suspicion yourself by attacking those that oppose incestuous marriage, polygamy, and pedophillic marriages: “all of your statements are discriminatory. It should not be automatically assumed that children are incapable of consent; that’s age discrimination. It should not be automatically assumed that being related to someone prevents you from giving informed consent; that’s discrimination on the basis of lineage or family. It should not be automatically assumed that all multiple marriages are exploitive; that’s discrimination based on assumptions about private lifestyle decisions…your attitude that people should not be allowed to marry their preferred sexual partner or partners is unconstitutional”.
posted by Pat on
No, I’m simply pointing out that your criticism is based, not on the actions themselves, but on the persons involved.
Come on, NDT. Are you that obtuse? I said I criticized YOU, because You mischaracterized MY posts. So far, Randi, and others have not. IF they did, I would be as patient with them as I was with you, but I wouldn’t let them get away with it, just as I didn’t let you get away with it.
If Randi is mischaracterizing your posts, take it up with Randi.
That would be if I were working under the assumption that other LGBTs are always right and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.
What on earth are you talking about here? Now you’re making absolutely no sense.
It’s your rhetoric I’m talking about, not about who’s always right or who disagrees with them.
You make the good talk about personal responsibility. You should take your own advice now, and take responsibility for your behavior here.
On that note, I’m out of this thread. I don’t think this dead horse can be beaten any more than it has.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If Randi is mischaracterizing your posts, take it up with Randi.
Pat, do you even remember how this started?
NDT, careful, I don’t think that’s what Sampson said or meant.
Not you. Not your post. Sampson. Sampson’s post.
Yet you didn’t tell him to take it up with me. You attacked me immediately.
Or this?
Can we at least not mischaracterize what others, including me, are saying even if you disagree with our opinions.
You didn’t tell those others to take it up with me. You yourself stepped in and attacked me for allegedly mischaracterizing the posts of others.
So, Pat, it is easily demonstrated that you have no problem jumping in and criticizing people for allegedly mischaracterizing posts that aren’t yours.
Which, given your refusal to do the same when it comes to your fellow LGBT gay marriage supporters like Randi, makes it even more obvious that your criticisms are based, not on the actions involved, but on the persons involved.
posted by Pat on
NDT, on this point you are partially correct. You’re in error on when this started, however. After you began the multiple mischaracterizations of my posts (which is where it started as far as I was concerned), I did in fact, do what you said. I did so in frustration and it was my error. I also included a post that contained several passages of yours addressed to other posters. For that, I apologize.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
OK, I was wrong on when this started.
Pat, I don’t care that you stepped in and attacked me for allegedly mischaracterizing the posts of others. In fact, if you genuinely felt that others were being treated unfairly, that’s admirable that you did it.
What I do care about is whether or not you can do the same thing for people who you don’t agree with or particularly like.