Marc Ambinder has the draft of the Dems' 2008 platform, which is still subject to revision. Like the 2004 platform, it supports ENDA, and it more prominently and specifically calls for ending the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on openly gay service (see page 30). In 2004 the platform opposed the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage; in 2008, and in line with Barack Obama's publicly stated position, it goes further by opposing the Defense of Marriage Act.
Here's an interesting change, though.
From 2004:
We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families.
And 2008:
We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections.
Something went missing there. In fact, if I'm searching correctly, the 2008 platform omits any mention of the words "gay" and "lesbian." Will gay groups raise the issue? Will the platform committee dare to speak our name?
75 Comments for “What’s in a (Missing) Name?”
posted by krizten on
No, they don’t use the words gay or lesbian, they also don’t use the words black, hispanic, jewish, or any other gender/ethnic label, they use the word all, which is better, it’s inclusive, it’s equal, & isn’t that what we’ve been fighting for for all these years? Equality? I mean, I know there are a few queens out there who’d like use to be seen as superior, but really, this is what we want, this is sending a good message, that we don’t need to be specially pointed out, that we’re just like everyone else, that we’re normal, that when someone mentions human kind as a whole it goes without saying that we are included as part of that whole.
At least that’s how I like to see it.
posted by tavdy on
I agree with Krizten – “all” is inclusive. It does not define a group and thereby exclude those that fail to make the definition. The first quote excluded bisexuals, heterosexuals and transsexuals, amongst others. The second did not. I know which one I prefer.
posted by Pat on
I’m fine with “all” as long as it really includes GLBT. The best test is we’ll know by their actions.
posted by Eric on
Isn?t this a sort of positive development? Isn?t it ultimately demeaning to insist on qualifying the word ?family? with the word ?gay? as though a relationship involving two individuals of the same gender needs to be formally categorized separately?
posted by Dale Carpenter on
Jon is right to highlight this. In a world where gay families are specifically hit with discrimination in numerous ways, and where the very notion of a “gay family” is hotly contested, it is indeed important to have the word “gay” used. It’s a sly form of closeting to use the word “all,” when everyone takes a different meaning away from that.
Of course, this does not detract from the underlying truth that the Democratic platform is miles ahead of the GOP platform.
posted by Richard II on
Well, we could take a good look at the Republican Party’s platform when it comes to LGBT rights….But I doubt it will be pretty.
We could look at the platform of the major third parties; i.e. Constitution, Green, Libertarian and Socialist…..
posted by Craig Nelson on
As a non-American, I think that what counts is the actual commitments not whether they use one or another ‘tag’ like LGBT etc.
The commitments are clear and are actually quite positive in a number of helpful areas. There is no equivocation here.
To me the absence of such ‘tags’ enhances the mainstream seriousness of the pledges.
posted by Mistereks on
Just like I prefer “marriage equality” to “same-sex marriage” because it reinforces the ideal that we are all part of the same community, I also prefer our families be called “families,” not “gay families.”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I agree with Jon and Dale. I was bemused when I looked through the platform the other day and could find “sexual orientation” but not “gay.” On the other hand, party platforms are about as important in practical terms as the constitution for the state of New Columbia which was drafted some decades ago in anticipation of D.C. becoming the 51st state. It pretty much declares heaven on earth.
posted by Timothy on
I find this also to be food for thought. I know that when anti-gays fear that an anti-bullying program in schools will say, “don’t beat gay kids”, they always try to say, “oh, let’s just say don’t bully all kids”. But the truth is that “all kids” don’t get bullied. And it has been proven that if you don’t specifically say, “don’t beat the gay kid” then some bullies will never think that you shouldn’t beat up the vile evil effiminate anti-Christian perverted abomination.
So when I see “gay” replaced with “all” I know it isn’t without context. It makes me go “hmmmmmm”, especially with the hearings on Howard Dean.
posted by Tony in Seattle on
I prefer “all” families, too. I think that’s the point we’re trying to make — all families should be equal under the law, not just GLBT ones. I think we further our cause when we emphasize that we are part of “all” families, rather than separate ourselves out as “GLBT.”
posted by Jim on
It is just ridiculous how this blog takes a protoscope to everything Obama and the Democrats say and do while bending over backwards to excuse, mitigate, or rationalize the explicit bigotry of McCain and the Republicans. Lets not forget these gems from the 2004 GOP Platform:
“We affirm traditional military culture, and we affirm that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.”
“We strongly support President Bush?s call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.”
Then, of course, there is John “I don’t believe in gay adoption” McCain.
I know you’ve said the reason for this double standard is that gays and gay organizations lavish their votes and, more importantly, their money on Democrats, but that really seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Are they supposed to vote for or give their money to McCain because he made a half-assed and self-serving non-retraction of his insult to gay parents? Let’s get real.
posted by Richard II on
Oh you big silly, we are suppose to give McCain and the anti-gay Republicans lots and lots of money and ignore independents and third party candidates so that people who help fund the IGF will keep writing their checks…
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It is just ridiculous how this blog takes a protoscope to everything Obama and the Democrats say and do while bending over backwards to excuse, mitigate, or rationalize the explicit bigotry of McCain and the Republicans.
McCain isn’t receiving tens of millions of gay dollars and unqualified support.
Furthermore, Jim, gay Democrats have made it clear that there is nothing bigoted or wrong about opposing gay marriage, supporting state and Federal constitutional amendments, or supporting the religious right — given that they and their organizations pumped their votes and tens of millions of gay dollars into supporting and endorsing all of the above as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
posted by arthur on
Thanks for the laugh. The Left is not PC enough for the Right!
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Howard Dean came in for a great deal of criticism for the pandering to evangelical homophobia in the link to the cbn.com article that ND30 provided. Ah, but for ND30’s purposes, anything that any Democrat says becomes the view of Democrats generally.
ND30’s style of argument depends significantly on a strict either/or approach to the world. Reality is messier. For example, most elected Democrats are opposed to marriage equality, yet collectively they are demonstrably much better on gay issues–including gay family issues–than their Republican counterparts. Most politicians fall somewhere between the “best friend” and “worst enemy” categories.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ah, but for ND30’s purposes, anything that any Democrat says becomes the view of Democrats generally.
Problem is, Richard, Howard Dean is not just “any Democrat”; he is the head of the DNC.
What you are telling us is that the leader of the Democrat Party, who has had the office for nearly four years, holds views that are opposite to what you claim the majority of other party members believe.
Sort of like how Obama was in complete opposition to and always condemned Reverend Wright’s racist beliefs, even though Obama fully, wholeheartedly, and completely endorsed and supported Wright for two decades, with thousands of dollars, gushing compliments, and paying him homage as his “spiritual mentor” and the man responsible for Obama’s personal values system on multiple occasions and in two books.
Furthermore, Richard, that “great deal of criticism” means nothing. It didn’t change Dean’s behavior. It didn’t change the behavior of gay syncophants who, as you’ve even demonstrated in this very post, will claim that people who oppose gay marriage are neither homophobic, bigoted, or wrong as long as they’re Democrats.
Furthermore, the Democrat Party being “demonstrably better” on gay issues involves their support of gays having public sex, their support of taking children to sex fairs dressed as sexual slaves, their support of unlimited abortion, even allowing infanticide when a baby is aborted alive, their support of diverting HIV/AIDS funds away from rural locations in favor of wealthy gay communities in cities like New York and San Francisco, and their support of gay and lesbian people who sexually harass others in their workplace — none of which really qualify as “gay issues” or have anything to do with sexual orientation, but for which gays can use sexual orientation as a smokescreen.
posted by Pat on
Furthermore, the Democrat Party being “demonstrably better” on gay issues involves their support of gays having public sex, their support of taking children to sex fairs dressed as sexual slaves, their support of unlimited abortion, even allowing infanticide when a baby is aborted alive, their support of diverting HIV/AIDS funds away from rural locations in favor of wealthy gay communities in cities like New York and San Francisco, and their support of gay and lesbian people who sexually harass others in their workplace — none of which really qualify as “gay issues” or have anything to do with sexual orientation, but for which gays can use sexual orientation as a smokescreen.
You’re a riot, NDT. You even had me laughing at that one.
Okay, question for anyone here. Those who believe that Democrats are generally better on gay rights, believe that to be true because of the following:
a) Democrats allegedly support public sex (as opposed to sex in toilets or with prostitutes, like Republicans).
b) Democrats allegedly support bringing children to sex fairs (even though Republicans approve parents excoriating their gay children, as if that’s better).
c) Democrats allegedly support gay and lesbians sexually harassing at the work place (as if this was somehow worse than harassment of gay individuals.
d) Because Democrats allegedly pillage, murder, rape, steal, while Republicans are pure as the driven snow, and never used self-serving needs, manipulation, lies, etc., to advance an agenda.
posted by Pat on
Okay, question for anyone here. Those who believe that Democrats are generally better on gay rights, believe that to be true because of the following:
Let me restate.
For those who believe that Democrats are generally better than Republicans, how many believe that that is the case because of any of the reasons outlined?
posted by Priya Lynn on
Yeah Pat Northdallass is a riot, he’s like an outrageous parody of himself. If he didn’t exist proper thinking gays would have to invent him to demonstrate the inanity of the bigots.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
a) Democrats allegedly support public sex (as opposed to sex in toilets or with prostitutes, like Republicans).
Unfortunately, Pat, Republicans don’t.
b) Democrats allegedly support bringing children to sex fairs (even though Republicans approve parents excoriating their gay children, as if that’s better).
As I pointed out, why would you NOT excoriate a person who belongs to a community that openly states that bringing children to sex fairs is an “educational experience”?
c) Democrats allegedly support gay and lesbians sexually harassing at the work place (as if this was somehow worse than harassment of gay individuals.
Given that the definition of “harassment” obviously does not include insulting and besmearing gays in order to get them fired, of what exactly are you speaking?
d) Because Democrats allegedly pillage, murder, rape, steal, while Republicans are pure as the driven snow, and never used self-serving needs, manipulation, lies, etc., to advance an agenda.
If that’s how you want to describe deliberately rerouting AIDS funding away from areas that need it most to areas where it rewards gay donors, or insisting that abortion is a matter of gay rights, then go to it.
None of which, of course, is dealing with the point — which is that the definition of what is wrong and/or “bigoted” changes with party affiliation, that being against gay marriage and supporting laws to ban it is neither homophobic or hateful when you’re a Democrat, and that Howard Dean, the leader of the DNC and the Democrat Party, does in fact not represent the views of the Democrat Party.
If that isn’t enough of a riot for you, you might want to try Priya Lynn’s claim that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in my basement to molest. That’s an excellent indicator of the fact- and reality-based mentality of gay liberals and the Democrat Party.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
You know what’s really funny here is the degree to which gayLefties and gayDemocrats will apologize for nearly everything adverse THEIR party does to the interests of gay civil rights and still try to convince other gays that pulling the Democrat lever is the answer to all our problems. I didn’t join the GOP because of gay issues… I joined because they don’t blame America first, they don’t want a Prez to a “Citizen of the World” first and an American second… because they want a fed judiciary that is constrained and not just making-up laws as they go along… they want lower taxes… they want a strong natl defense and properly empowered military… they want smaller govt… they want local decision making and devolving federalism… and they understand the military isn’t our enemy or our foe but our guarantee of freedom.
On the major policy issue affecting gays today (gay marriage) the Democrats are no better than the GOP. BarryO thinks marriage is between a man and a woman. On other lesser issues, it seems it’s a state-by-state battle -exempting DADT.
Here’s the biggest problem I have with gayDemocrats who try to keep the gayVote hostage for the Masta’… maybe as a gay individual we don’t have to select a party based on gay limtus tests established by gayDemocrats… maybe this upcoming election is about far more important issues and gayDemocrats are simply using VictimPolitics to appeal to gays who feel injured, mistreated, unequal or –God forbid– unloved by society.
I think the approach of gayDemocrats to rally the gayVote is pure, unabashed pandering of the lowest order and it hurts the progress of gay civil rights by painting us as “victims of society” rather than as a constructive part of society. It’s no different than the adverse impact of Rev Wright on black civil rights… sometimes the loudest mouths in our community aren’t the best ones to be doing the speaking for all.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallass I never claimed you had an eight your old chained up in the basement to molest, I merely said I wouldn’t be surprised if you did. Unlike you I left open the possibility that you might be innocent. You on the other hand claimed I have multiple sex partners, demand to have public sex and have assaulted heterosexuals and chrisians in every possible manner. You left no room for the possiblity that I might be innoncent of things you couldn’t possibly know. That’s the difference between the two of us.
posted by Priya Lynn on
And as to anything I say being “an excellent indicator of the fact- and reality-based mentality of gay liberals and the Democrat Party” how profoundly stupid can you get. I speak merely for myself.
There you go Michigan Matt a chance for you to do the right thing and point out how absurd that statment of Northdallass was. Either do it or make it clear you care far more about partisanship than right or wrong.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Michigan Matt said “On the major policy issue affecting gays today (gay marriage) the Democrats are no better than the GOP”.
You’re not fooling any gays with that lie. Obama favours repealing the paradoxically named “Defense” of Marriage Act whereas Mccain does not. Obama opposes the attempt to ban equal marriage in California, Mccain supports it. Try speaking the truth for a change Matt.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And as to anything I say being “an excellent indicator of the fact- and reality-based mentality of gay liberals and the Democrat Party” how profoundly stupid can you get. I speak merely for myself.
Obviously not, Priya, since none of your fellow liberal gays are contradicting your statement that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in my basement to molest.
After all, you insist that Michigan Matt’s silence would make it clear that he agrees with me; the same would then logically apply to your statements.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You’re not fooling any gays with that lie.
Given that gays like Priya support state and Federal bans on marriage when their masters tell them to do it, who’s lying?
Furthermore, what’s really funny is watching gays like Priya, who scream that anyone who believes the Bible or believes in God is some kind of psychopath, attempting to shill for Obama.
All this does is demonstrate that Democrat gays’ supposed reasons for disliking Republicans are reasons that they call “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when it comes to Democrats.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Another lie. “gays” like Priya do not support state and federal bans on marriage regardless of who suggests it.
I said “And as to anything I say being “an excellent indicator of the fact- and reality-based mentality of gay liberals and the Democrat Party” how profoundly stupid can you get. I speak merely for myself.”
Northdallass replied “Obviously not, Priya, since none of your fellow liberal gays are contradicting your statement that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in my basement to molest.”
I never said you had an eight year-old chained up in your basement to molest there is no such statement to contradict. Its not surprising that no one wants to challenge the fact that I wouldn’t be surprised if you did, not even your republican readers on this blog.
Northdallass said “After all, you insist that Michigan Matt’s silence would make it clear that he agrees with me; the same would then logically apply to your statements.”
Once again it would be no surprise if all did agree that I wouldn’t be surprised if you had an eight year old chained up in the basement, what reason do any of them, including your republican friends have to doubt it.
As to your false claim that gay liberals and democrats think you actually DO have an eight year old chained up in your basement to molest that’s absurd given that none of them has expressed such an opinion.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallass, by your logic, the lies that you made up about me(I have multiple sex partners, demand to have public sex and have assaulted heterosexuals and chrisians in every possible manner) “an excellent indicator of the fact- and reality-based mentality of gay conservatives and the Republican Party. Do you want to admit to that or acknowledge that you were wrong in the first place to suggest what I say represents the mentality of liberal gays and Democrats? You can’t have it both ways.
posted by Priya Lynn on
That should be “ARE and excellent indicator of the fact…
posted by Priya Lynn on
Arrggh! That should be “ARE AN excellent indicator of the fact…
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Another lie. “gays” like Priya do not support state and federal bans on marriage regardless of who suggests it.
The links demonstrate quite nicely that gays like you support state and Federal bans on marriage as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when your Democrat masters do it.
As to your false claim that gay liberals and democrats think you actually DO have an eight year old chained up in your basement to molest that’s absurd given that none of them has expressed such an opinion.
They don’t have to express an opinion; as you made clear with your challenge to Michigan-Matt, failure to challenge a statement means they agree with it. Their silence means they support it.
Northdallass, by your logic, the lies that you made up about me(I have multiple sex partners, demand to have public sex and have assaulted heterosexuals and chrisians in every possible manner) “an excellent indicator of the fact- and reality-based mentality of gay conservatives and the Republican Party.
Unfortunately, Priya, you’re the only one who believes those are lies. Most everyone else has seen, for example, your screaming fits in which you assault all Christians who believe in God and the Bible as being murderers.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Well, I’d love to stay and argue with you Nortdallass, but I have a life and its obvious to all reasonable people I’m telling the truth and you’re not. Your transparent frothing hatred of all LGBTs precedes you and discredits you readily.
posted by Pat on
Unfortunately, Pat, Republicans don’t.
I see. I missed the notice when Craig and Vitter were expelled from the Senate.
As I pointed out, why would you NOT excoriate a person who belongs to a community that openly states that bringing children to sex fairs is an “educational experience”?
Yes, I know it would be SO difficult for parents to accept their children, but tell them such activities are wrong. Kind of like walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Given that the definition of “harassment” obviously does not include insulting and besmearing gays in order to get them fired, of what exactly are you speaking?
Maybe that’s your definition, not mine. I’ve criticized Dean for those actions, and have done so directly to a representative of the Democratic Party.
If that’s how you want to describe deliberately rerouting AIDS funding away from areas that need it most to areas where it rewards gay donors, or insisting that abortion is a matter of gay rights, then go to it.
Okay, enough with this game. I was obviously making a point on how you twisted one’s arguments to the absurd. Congratulations for missing the point and continuing this shameful tactic.
None of which, of course, is dealing with the point — which is that the definition of what is wrong and/or “bigoted” changes with party affiliation, that being against gay marriage and supporting laws to ban it is neither homophobic or hateful when you’re a Democrat, and that Howard Dean, the leader of the DNC and the Democrat Party, does in fact not represent the views of the Democrat Party.
NDT, I never claimed Democrats are perfect, they are far from it. Some times you have to cut through the bullsh&t and look at the votes. End of story.
If that isn’t enough of a riot for you, you might want to try Priya Lynn’s claim that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in my basement to molest. That’s an excellent indicator of the fact- and reality-based mentality of gay liberals and the Democrat Party.
You know what, NDT. I was going to stay out of the battle between you and Priya Lynn. But since you’re pushing it here, well, you asked for it.
First of all, I don’t believe that you have an eight year old in your cellar. Second of all, my recollection is that Priya Lynn said that she wouldn’t be surprised if you did (although I would be surprised). I’m not condoning that statement at all, but I’m just stating what I believe is a fact as to what was actually stated. You bring this cellar thing up and you failed to address this distinction (definitive vs. wouldn’t be surprised) by first admitted that was the case, and then perhaps saying it’s still bad or something like that.
Sorry, NDT, but from where I stand, your behavior with Priya Lynn is worse than hers. I haven’t seen all the encounters between you two, so I may have missed something that would change my opinion. And it appears MichiganMatt would disagree with me, so be it. Yes, Priya Lynn has been very critical and has badmouthed religion. But it has been tame compared to your criticism of Democrats and liberals.
You’ve made the point that persons should criticize others for bad behavior even if they agree ideologically. And under different circumstances I would defend you. But I’ve seen you lie and mischaracterize my posts, and continued to do so after I would tell you several times. No apology. Not even try to explain why your statement is correct. You simply repeat it. I’ve seen you deliberately take my positions and twist it as to make it a caricature. I’ve seen you outright slander another poster in another forum, and to my knowledge, you haven’t publicly retracted it and apologized for it. Instead you justified your slander with logic that a ten year old could see as idiocy.
Further it’s tiring that when you respond to a poster, then you claim that it represents others. You know, the liberals like so and so crap. As a bonus, many times your representation of the person’s opinion was distorted anyway.
I respect your opinions and points of view. I’m glad to engage with someone with views that are different than mine. But more and more, you’re not showing the same respect back. You defend your points by twisting the other person’s to make it look absurd, by spreading falsehoods (and repeating them when challenged without refuting the arguments that showed it was false), and the other shameful tactics mentioned above. Providing multiple links that are either irrelevant or don’t support your point makes it more pathetic. Since you need to resort to these poor methods of argumentation to defend your views, you should honestly consider that maybe some of your views are indefensible? You disagree? Then argue your points fairly, respectfully, and truthfully.
No, you’re not the only one who is behaving poorly here. If someone presses me, I’ll blurt out what I think. Otherwise, I’ll stay out of it. In the meantime, stop excusing other’s bad behavior for your own and take responsibility. No, this does not excuse others’ bad behavior or exempt them from responsibility (by the way, see how it’s possible for all party’s involved should shoulder responsibility for bad behavior?). I’ll be happy to defend you at an appropriate time. But it’s hard to do that when your behavior isn’t much better than the trolls that come on this site. So knock it off, okay.
posted by Richard on
The Democratic Party platform mentions no endorsment of public sex or taking kids to S&M festivals or engaging in sexual harassment.
I doubt that either major party platform endorses such activities. In fact, of the active minor parties, I can think of, only the Libertarians who might endorse some of the activities.
The LP might argue that parental rights are pretty much absolute, and that sexual harassment might just be a contract between two adults.
Since the 1980s, the DNC platform has generally expressed support for some gay rights issues, while the RNC platform has ignored the issue or opposed most gay rights issues.
Part of the reason is that the type of people who tend to vote in a primary or attend a convention are dedicated party loyalists, often left-liberal Democrats and right-conservative Republicans.
That may change, to some extent, in a given election but it is one of the challenges with our weak, two-party system.
The simple fact is that the GOP is not going to abandon those socially conservative, evangelical Christian voters who think that homosexuality and cross-dressing are a sin and want public policy to oppose sin.
They are part of the GOP Southern Strat pioneered by Nixon in the 1970s and successfully used by Reagan, Bush sr. and Bush jr. As the major goal of eithe party is to win elections, they rarely stop using a strat that works.
As an Independent, this can be very frustrating. I am probably more hawkish on foreign policy then most liberal Democrats, but probably more socially liberal then most conservative Republicans.
I think that 2nd Amendment does protect an individual right, and I believe that the Constitution protects a right to privacy and seperates Church and State.
Yet, have no problem with prayer in school or Ten Commandment icons on public land.
I support univesal health insurence coverage, but also support faith based initiatves.
None of which, of course, is dealing with the point — which is that the definition of what is wrong and/or “bigoted” changes with party affiliation, that being against gay marriage and supporting laws to ban it is neither homophobic or hateful when you’re a Democrat, and that Howard Dean, the leader of the DNC and the Democrat Party, does in fact not represent the views of the Democrat Party.
If that isn’t enough of a riot for you, you might want to try Priya Lynn’s claim that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in my basement to molest. That’s an excellent indicator of the fact- and reality-based mentality of gay liberals and the Democrat Party.
a) Democrats allegedly support public sex (as opposed to sex in toilets or with prostitutes, like Republicans).
Unfortunately, Pat, Republicans don’t.
b) Democrats allegedly support bringing children to sex fairs (even though Republicans approve parents excoriating their gay children, as if that’s better).
As I pointed out, why would you NOT excoriate a person who belongs to a community that openly states that bringing children to sex fairs is an “educational experience”?
c) Democrats allegedly support gay and lesbians sexually harassing at the work place (as if this was somehow worse than harassment of gay individuals.
Given that the definition of “harassment” obviously does not include insulting and besmearing gays in order to get them fired, of what exactly are you speaking?
d) Because Democrats allegedly pillage, murder, rape, steal, while Republicans are pure as the driven snow, and never used self-serving needs, manipulation, lies, etc., to advance an agenda.
If that’s how you want to describe deliberately rerouting AIDS funding away from areas that need it most to areas where it rewards gay donors, or insisting that abortion is a matter of gay rights, then go to it.
None of which, of course, is dealing with the point — which is that the definition of what is wrong and/or “bigoted” changes with party affiliation, that being against gay marriage and supporting laws to ban it is neither homophobic or hateful when you’re a Democrat, and that Howard Dean, the leader of the DNC and the Democrat Party, does in fact not represent the views of the Democrat Party.
If that isn’t enough of a riot for you, you might want to try Priya Lynn’s claim that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in my basement to molest. That’s an excellent indicator of the fact- and reality-based mentality of gay liberals and the Democrat Party.
posted by DUMP on
Richard? Oh, you are a troll AND a sock puppet. Way to go, idiot.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yes, Priya Lynn has been very critical and has badmouthed religion. But it has been tame compared to your criticism of Democrats and liberals.
Well, first, Pat, you might want to know that Priya Lynn was previously known as Randi Schminosky.
Second, let’s compare.
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.
Or this is actually my personal favorite in terms of demonstrating Priya Lynn’s typical behavior — and this is with a fellow liberal.
You bring this cellar thing up and you failed to address this distinction (definitive vs. wouldn’t be surprised) by first admitted that was the case, and then perhaps saying it’s still bad or something like that.
Tell us, Pat; if Priya were to state that she wouldn’t be surprised if you had given AIDS to teenage boys, would you consider that a legitimate supposition, or would you consider it an attempt to insult you?
Now remember Priya’s rationalization:
I left open the possibility that you might be innocent.
Finally:
You’ve made the point that persons should criticize others for bad behavior even if they agree ideologically. And under different circumstances I would defend you.
Which means that you only agree with that point under certain circumstances.
So tell us, Pat; under what circumstances should you refuse to criticize others for bad behavior when they agree with you ideologically? This is something rather foreign; after all, I’ve defended one who people would consider my worst enemy when I thought he was being unfairly treated.
posted by Pat on
NDT, I don’t have much time, so I’m going to make this quick
Well, first, Pat, you might want to know that Priya Lynn was previously known as Randi Schminosky.
Yes, I do know that.
Second, let’s compare.
Yes, that was pretty much the way I recall it. No, it’s not pretty. But what’s wrong with it? I’m pretty sure you’ve read the Bible, and I read a decent portion of it. You have to admit, God doesn’t come out looking nice, fair, and just all the time, does He? While I would put it more delicately, Priya Lynn didn’t sugarcoat it. What I disagree is her conclusions that follow. I don’t know what correlation the Bible itself had to due with all the crap that has transpired in the name of religion. I put responsibility on the grossly inhuman religious leaders, not the Bible.
I think the problem here is that you are unable to look at religion objectively. This may be hard, but try to imagine that you did not grow up with Christian theology, and you only learned about the Bible in say, the past couple of years. So any criticism or condemnation of the Bible is no better or worse than criticism or condemnation of a political party. Now read your comments vs. Priya Lynn’s objectively.
I’ve seen you say really bad things about liberals and Democrats. And that’s somehow okay. But when someone calls religion a superstition, you take great offense. If you can’t see how this is much more tame than the way you characterize liberals at times, then you cannot view religion and Christianity objectively.
Tell us, Pat; if Priya were to state that she wouldn’t be surprised if you had given AIDS to teenage boys, would you consider that a legitimate supposition, or would you consider it an attempt to insult you?
Of course it would be an insult. And if anyone ever said that… So being told, “I wouldn’t be surprised that you have an eight-year-old locked up,” is an insult. No argument there. But that’s not what you stated she said. You’ve stated something different. So instead of getting to the heart of the statement, you, for some reason did not even address her actual statement, and say that it was still wrong for her to say it. But you apparently did say or imply that Priya Lynn had multiple sex partners or demanded public sex. And during this current exchange you didn’t say anything about it. You didn’t refute that you said it. You didn’t claim you were misrepresented and tried to show what you really said or meant. You left it alone, and chose only to address the anti-religious stuff. So one can only wonder what your silence means.
Which means that you only agree with that point under certain circumstances.
So tell us, Pat; under what circumstances should you refuse to criticize others for bad behavior when they agree with you ideologically? This is something rather foreign; after all, I’ve defended one who people would consider my worst enemy when I thought he was being unfairly treated.
I’m not sure of the point that you are trying to make here. First of all, I stated before that I try to stay out of others’ spats and let people defend themselves, except under certain circumstances. Usually when I believe when a poster went way over the line. And on this forum, I did condemn a poster who went over the line with you. But, in my opinion, in your exchanges with Priya Lynn, you have been the worse of the two. So under those circumstances, and also the fact that I haven’t defended Priya Lynn (except to say, when you pressed me, that your behavior was worse than hers), why would I defend you in this exchange?
In all fairness, I will acknowledge that you (and another conservative poster) have defended me at another blog against one of the webmasters (the severely irrational one, opinions may vary). I was very appreciate of it, and still am today. I’d like to think that I conduct myself there in a respectful manner (most of the time at least). So I’m posting there again, but usually sticking with the posts from the nice, rational webmaster.
Anyway, I would like to look forward to some respectful and fair exchanges in the future. Have a good weekend.
posted by Jim on
Do gay Democrats sometimes give their party a free pass when it panders or fails to come through on gay issues? Sure. That’s a fair, if by now very familiar, criticism.
But it’s gay Republican who have to twist themselves into pretzels in order to excuse or ignore the fact they choose to make common cause with people who think they are filthy subhuman degenerates and with a party that shamelessly scapegoats gays and exploits the worst prejudices of its members whenever it is politically expedient.
Am I happy that Barack Obama says he opposes gay marriage? No. But I also understand that Democrats need to be a bit more middle of the road than I would prefer in order to get elected. Although I would prefer it if Obama were a black, liberal, gay marriage-supporting, proudly athiest Democrat, for now I will have to settle for black, liberal, generally pro-gay, ostentatiously religious Democrat.
Gay people sure as shit aren’t going to make any progress if Democrats don’t win a few elections now and then. If you don’t think that’s true, you’re living in fantasyland (which appears to be somehwere around North Dallas).
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But it’s gay Republican who have to twist themselves into pretzels in order to excuse or ignore the fact they choose to make common cause with people who think they are filthy subhuman degenerates and with a party that shamelessly scapegoats gays and exploits the worst prejudices of its members whenever it is politically expedient.
But, Jim, as you’ve made clear, you don’t think that opposing gay marriage, supporting state and Federal marriage bans, or supporting the religious right is wrong when Democrats do it.
Indeed, despite your insistence that Republican positions indicate that Republicans are “people who think (gays) are filthy subhuman degenerates”and are a party that “shamelessly scapegoats gays and exploits the worst prejudices of its members whenever it is politically expedient”, you state that Democrats who proudly state that they hold the “same position” as Republicans are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
In short, you support and endorse behaviors as “necessary to get elected” in Democrats that you condemn in Republicans. Furthermore, you fully endorse and promote giving gay dollars and votes to Democrats who perform behaviors that you insist should disqualify Republicans from ever receiving either.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
End hyperlink
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But when someone calls religion a superstition, you take great offense.
Which happened exactly where in this quote?
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.
That would appear to be far more than calling religion a superstition. Perhaps you ought to bring forth some of what you claim I am saying about Democrats and liberals that is so objectionable.
Of course it would be an insult. And if anyone ever said that… So being told, “I wouldn’t be surprised that you have an eight-year-old locked up,” is an insult. No argument there.
Which is why I treated it as one; its point was clearly to state that I was a child molestor. The addition of “I wouldn’t be surprised” is little more than a transparent attempt to avoid accountability for the insult, and as such, can be ignored.
But you apparently did say or imply that Priya Lynn had multiple sex partners or demanded public sex. And during this current exchange you didn’t say anything about it. You didn’t refute that you said it. You didn’t claim you were misrepresented and tried to show what you really said or meant. You left it alone, and chose only to address the anti-religious stuff. So one can only wonder what your silence means.
That is a rather interesting definition of silence, given my response above.
Unfortunately, Priya, you’re the only one who believes those are lies. Most everyone else has seen, for example, your screaming fits in which you assault all Christians who believe in God and the Bible as being murderers.
So under those circumstances, and also the fact that I haven’t defended Priya Lynn (except to say, when you pressed me, that your behavior was worse than hers), why would I defend you in this exchange?
The question I asked, Pat, was this: under what circumstances should you refuse to criticize others for bad behavior when they agree with you ideologically?
posted by Richard II on
As an Independent, this is often the prospect I face on election day;
(1) Do not Vote; or
(2) Vote for a Democrat who may support some gay rights issues.
(3) Vote for a Republican who probably does not support any gay rights issues.
(4) Vote for an Independent or Third Party candidate who cannot win the race.
(5) Write my own name in or someone elese..
I have never lived in a district or a state where the Democrat had a perfect record on gay rights issues and the Republican was anything other then the religious right’s bitch.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard2, you are far far far away from being anything like a “political independent” and much more like the image I’ve outlined for you: a gayDemocrat hiding under the sheep’s wool of “independent” –with you thinking that claim gives your unctuously smarmy flimsy pronouncements the appearance of a weighty yet unbiased opinion.
It doesn’t; you ain’t.
Come out of the closet, Richard2… if DUMP can admit he’s really CharlesWilson hiding behind yet one more cyber name, you can admit your true political alliances and stop the ficition… or am I too caught up in the audacity of hope?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Jim writes “But it’s gay Republican who have to twist themselves into pretzels in order to excuse or ignore the fact they choose to make common cause with people who think they are filthy subhuman degenerates and with a party that shamelessly scapegoats gays and exploits the worst prejudices of its members whenever it is politically expedient.”
Gee, Jim, you haven’t been listening or reading have you? The GOPers I know and work with don’t think me or my partner or my family to be subhuman, as your gayDemocrat mind might like to project.
They might complain about my madras jackets, but they don’t see me or my partner or our family as “filthy degenerates” –as your gayDemocrat mind might like to project.
Ive explained here why I am a part of the local, state and natl GOP and being gay doesn’t define me first and foremost –being a patriotic American with Midwestern values does. You chose to secret yourself away with a group of politico types like JohnEdwards who’s made it clear he doesn’t feel comfortable about “you (gay) people” and now you’re supporting a natl candidate who is intent on denying you the right to be married –the #1 leading gayLeft civil rights agenda item.
You blithely support a natl Party with a Chair (ScreaminHowieDean) that was very willing to toss the successful and highly effective Gay Outreach Office at the DNC out on the street… you support a Party that panders to nearly every single VictimRights group but, for the last 2 years in control of both chambers of Congress, hasn’t done squat on advancing even the gayLeft’s agenda.
You offer that the GOP hates gays… thinks of them as subhuman degenerates… well, that’s all about you being a good little lapdog for the Democrats.
’cause when it comes to pandering to gays, the Democrats win a prize hands down… and you’re more content to lap-up a pink cosmo and pretend that’s success and progress –I’m not.
The truth is that you’d be a Democrat irrespective of whether or not you’re a gay. I like to say that you never had to think or examine your political allegiance because it was just assumed you’d be a Democrat… and you don’t disaapoint the Masta’ because you don’t have a clue to what level of vote-slavery you’ve been sold into… just like many innnercity blacks… felons in prison… or enivronmental extremists.
It all comes down to “you don’t know any better” and that’s why you keep pulling the Democrat lever.
Which, I submit, you’d do even if you weren’t gay.
posted by John on
No, this is not the progressive, inclusive move we’ve longed for. It’s is an election year, campers, and Democratic “leaders” still quail at being identified with support for equal rights. They’re scrubbing not just words but *people*, so that they can always claim to be talking only about “real” families.
The party of appeasement is not showing courage here; they putting off, yet again, the day when they will have to demonstrate it. The spin we’re seeing is them them pretending, as Colbert does for a joke, not to see sex or sexual orientation. If the Dems ever get serious about equal opportunity for families, you’ll know, because you’ll see official support for same-sex marriage.
Until then, our GLBT brothers and sisters are still second-class citizens, and we’re supposed to cheer and accept it–because surely, comrades, you do not want Jones back?
posted by Hank on
ND30, a couple comments. I’ve expressed these before – you’ve chosen to ignore them. I feel compelled for some self flaggelation kind of reason to try again.
In your comments to Priya, you often talk about her hatred of God and the Bible. Have you ever asked yourself why her feelings are so strong? I personally have no idea, only speculation, but perhaps somewhere she was disowned by her church or her family? Perhaps it’s because of the constant drumbeat of lies told about us by so called Christian organizations like Focus on the Family, or high Bishops in the Catholic Church?
I don’t know, and unless she has told you, neither do you.
But she comes here and makes the comments she does.
You, on the other hand, seem to see yourself as a defender of traditional Christian values. So let’s talk about that. What is the responsibility of a Christian when confronted with a person who hates Christianity? You’ve chosen to write long posts, pointing out how wrong she is, digging up old insults, linking to your own site.
I would suggest that you’re missing the boat. The responsibility of any Christian when faced with someone like Priya is to love her; to show her that Christians are evaluated by their love, not their judgment of others (which is probably all she has seen from Christians.) We are commanded to turn the other cheek, to aggressively find ways to dazzle our opponents with Jesus’ love for them. We are specifically NOT commanded to argue, to intimidate, to parse words, to remember old insults.
ND, it’s easy for you to love someone like Michigan Matt – he agrees with most of your philosophy. What you need to do though, what you are commanded to do if you claim to be a Christian, is to aggressively show Jesus’ love to those like Priya Lynn, who you don’t like so much.
Can you do that?
posted by Richard II on
One of the more typical bigoted attacks against Independent Americans is to pretend that we do not exist, bad mouth us, tell us what we really think and then expect us to vote for their candidate.
In terms of platforms, the Democratic Party platform is more supportive of LGBT-rights then the Republican Party platform. I really do not see how anyone can suggest otherwise, without lying.
Granted, American major party platforms do not mean too much, beyond giving a possible sign of what certain party members might be thinking or feeling.
Progress was made under President Carter and President Clinton. It was not made and often went backwards under President Reagan and the two Bush’s.
Unless I am mistaken, McCain does not want to make any progress on LGBT-rights issues. Not a single one. Obama does on certain issues.
This can be different from how individual citizens — who claim to belong to one party or the other — may feel about or treat LGBT people.
Neither major party can force candidates to follow the platform, so it would be rather silly to expect them to force the platform on voters.
LGBT Republicans, who are not in the closet, tend to argue that they do not want their sexual orientation or gender identity to define them, but rather — and this is often invoked like a campaign slogan — their belief in God, country and good old fashion values. Uh, huh.
This is how they defend voting for a party that, on the whole, is more anti-gay, and more willing to pander to vicious bigots, then other major party.
They just tell us Democrats and us Independents that they care far more about the GOP’s platform on non-gay issues then the party’s general opposition to gay rights.
I suppose they have a right to make this argument, but it has not been too successful in enlarging the ranks of the LCR and it is not a terribly too effective at selling Independents, like me, on voting GOP.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Very nice, Hank.
Now, to your point, perhaps you can tell us where in Scripture Jesus told us to encourage and support people who tell others to commit suicide, as you have.
Perhaps you can also point out to us where Jesus said you should encourage and support people who make bigoted and hateful statements against Christians to continue to do so, as you have.
Finally, perhaps you could explain how you are “aggressively dazzling (your) opponents with Jesus’ love for them” by namecalling them, insisting they are lying, and making unkind statements about their life.
What this makes evident, Hank, is that your idea of “showing the love of Jesus” is to encourage and support your fellow LGBTs who are blaming Christians for serial killers, who are claiming the Bible is all about “unjust torture and murder of innocent people”, and who insist that Christians who follow the Bible are “distributing and promoting evil” — and who are telling gay people who disagree with them to commit suicide because, quote, “you’d be doing us all a favor”.
The highly-entertaining thing about Priya’s statements is how she rails and rants against all Christians as superstitious, ignorant, and evil supporters of a hateful book who want to impose theocracy — but seems quite willing to suspend that argument for those of the correct political affiliation.
That really is an insight into your mindset, Hank. You know full well the hostility of other gays towards your religious beliefs; thus, you support and encourage those who express the hostility towards them, twisting Scripture to make Jesus’s command to love and not to judge into a rationalization for your endorsement and support of those who judge Christians and express hatred against them, even to the point of telling them to commit suicide.
One can’t say that takes away your Christianity; after all, Jesus is still in there. He’s just playing second fiddle to your need to fit in with and be supported by other LGBT people, and He can be conveniently set aside in the name of “love” when you need to encourage those LGBT people who slander Christians and tell others to commit suicide to keep on doing it, and when you need to tear down their targets.
posted by Hank on
Thanks for your response Dallas.
Sadly it’s pretty much what I expected.
It amazes me that someone as obviously intelligent as you are can be so obtusely unaware of how the words you choose to use affect others.
Priya, I would say something to you, if you’re still reading this. Dallas obviously has been hurt somewhere along the line, which has caused an enormous amount of bitterness. As someone who claims to be a Christian, he really has no excuse for hanging on to his bitterness. But for some reason, he refuses to give it up, in spite of the clear teachings of the Bible, which he claims to believe.
But I would ask you to not let your bad experiences with people like him, or perhaps others in the Christian community, affect your spiritual life. There are many people who are Christian and gay, and we are trying to live our lives accomodating and integrating both those facets of our lives. Sometimes we don’t get it right, sometimes we do.
But please, before you let Dallas influence your spiritual life in the negative way he does, google Christian and gay and check out some of the sites there.
Good luck sweetie.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It amazes me that someone as obviously intelligent as you are can be so obtusely unaware of how the words you choose to use affect others.
Versus, one supposes, people who tell others to commit suicide that you “like their style”, and those who insist that Christianity is evil, that the Bible is evil, and that all Christians are ignorant and superstitious idiots that you’re “glad” that they’re here to “do battle” — or who personally states that someone is a “troll”, insisting that they are lying, and making unkind statements about their life.
What makes this even more entertaining, Hank, is that ColoradoPatriot, your friend in the suicide business, also claims to be a gay Christian, yet you seem quite unconcerned about how his choice of words telling people that killing themselves would be “doing us all a favor” affects others.
Dallas obviously has been hurt somewhere along the line, which has caused an enormous amount of bitterness. As someone who claims to be a Christian, he really has no excuse for hanging on to his bitterness. But for some reason, he refuses to give it up, in spite of the clear teachings of the Bible, which he claims to believe.
Again, your mindset is showing. Rather than hold Priya Lynn and ColoradoPatriot responsible for the words they have clearly stated and the behaviors in which they have clearly engaged, you choose to speculate about other people in an attempt to make excusable their words and behaviors.
Jesus did not excuse adultery, blasphemy, or other sins on the basis that other people were “bad Christians”, nor did He allow the people who did them to make said claim. Indeed, Jesus was the antithesis of your behavior, Hank, for He was just as willing to hold His disciples accountable for their behaviors as He was people who weren’t.
The problem here, Hank, is that you have allowed your sense of right and wrong to be subverted by your allegiance to those of your sexual orientation. Since Priya Lynn and ColoradoPatriot are LGBT, you must defend and support them at all costs. That is why, in our first encounter, you tried to deny that I was gay, and later tried to claim I was in “ex-gay therapy”; you needed to establish that I was not gay, and therefore, you could treat me differently. You could not comprehend that another gay person could put their allegiance to their faith ahead of their allegiance to others of the same sexual orientation.
posted by Jim on
Michigan Matt – How boring when people choose deliberately to misunderstand what you say . . .
I didn’t suggest, or mean to suggest, that all Republicans think gay people are filthy subhuman generates. But most Americans who do think that are Republicans, and, what is much, much, worse, the national Republican party exploits the hatred and prejudice of these people in order to win votes. In 2004 in case you’ve forgotten, carried out a deliberate strategy of more-or-less irreversibly writing anti-gay discrimination into the constitutions of a dozen states in order to increase Republican turnout and win four more years for GWB.
It’s their association with this is the kind of things that gay Republicans have got to twist themselves into pretzels to excuse. Care to try?
posted by Jim on
Richard II – good point: “LGBT Republicans, who are not in the closet, tend to argue that they do not want their sexual orientation or gender identity to define them, but rather — and this is often invoked like a campaign slogan — their belief in God, country and good old fashion values.”
Or, as one my funnier gay Republican friends puts it, “We’re here, we’re queer, we don’t like welfare.”
I fully understand the frustration some gay people feel at the suggestion that their politics must be defined by their sexual orientation. (I recently ran into a co-worker who solicited a political donation from me not because she knew anything at all about my political beliefs, but because she knows I’m gay and assumed I am a Democrat. For that one moment, how I wished she was wrong!).
The only thing that bugs me about gay Republicans, and it’s a trait I detect in this blog, is a degree of over-reactivity. In their eagerness to prove how unencumbered their political thinking is by the accidental fact of their sexual orientation, they overcompensate, failing to recognize or acknowledge when Democrats do something good for gay people, and bending over backwards to excuse Republican pandering to the worst and most bigoted elements of their party. The double standard that this blog applies to McCain and Obama is a perfect example of this unfortunate trait.
The said thing is that this kind of reactionary thinking is just another species of intellectual slavery. Instead of reflexively cleaving to Democrats because they are gay, they reflexively reject them, but again because they are gay!
Which is why, although he meant it as a criticism, I hope Michigan Matt is right when he says of me: “The truth is that you’d be a Democrat irrespective of whether or not you’re a gay.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
In 2004 in case you’ve forgotten, carried out a deliberate strategy of more-or-less irreversibly writing anti-gay discrimination into the constitutions of a dozen states in order to increase Republican turnout and win four more years for GWB.
Which, of course, the Democrat Party fully supported, even bragging about how they shared the “same position” as the Republicans.
All of which, of course, received the endorsement of HRC and other gay leftist groups, as well as innumerable gay Democrats like Jim, resulting in tens of millions of dollars, votes, and chants of “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
So the better question is this, Jim; why are you going on about Republican gays having to “twist themselves into pretzels” when the people to whom you gave money, who you endorsed, and who you claim are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” are not only doing the same thing for which you bash Republicans, but publicly stating they have the same position as Republicans?
Answer: Because, as you stated above, you have no problem whatsoever with Democrats doing such things to get elected, no matter what.
posted by Jim on
John Kerry is not “the Democrats.”
Let’s recall, there were people in each of those states who fought bravely, if unsuccessfully, to defeat those amendments. Do you think most of them were Democrats or Republicans? And where do you think their money came from?
And who, based on what they have said and done, do you think will do more to advance the cause of legal equality for gay people: John McCain or Barack Obama.
You are living in a dream.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
John Kerry is not “the Democrats.”
Of course he is. He was the Presidential candidate nominated by a vote of all the party delegates. Are you trying to tell us that the Democrat Party Presidential nominee did not represent the Democrat Party? Better yet, if he was so bad, why did gay and lesbian people and groups like HRC give him tens of millions of dollars, all while chanting how “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” he was?
Talk about living in a dream.
Let’s recall, there were people in each of those states who fought bravely, if unsuccessfully, to defeat those amendments. Do you think most of them were Democrats or Republicans? And where do you think their money came from?
You could ask Matt about Michigan, since he was one of them. You could ask me about Texas, since I was there.
But of course, Democrats like yourself were sending your money off to Kerry instead, because, as you rationalize, it’s OK for Democrats to support such things if it helps them get elected, right?
And who, based on what they have said and done, do you think will do more to advance the cause of legal equality for gay people: John McCain or Barack Obama.
That depends on how you define “legal equality”.
You see, Jim, in 2004, gays claimed banning gay marriage at the state level would qualify as “advancing the cause of legal equality” — and you said it was perfectly all right for Kerry to support that in order to get elected.
Now, please state publicly that anyone who opposes gay marriage, and especially that anyone who says that they believe so because marriage is a “sacred union”, is a hateful homophobic person before we proceed.
posted by Hank on
“Rather than hold Priya Lynn.. responsible”
The difference of course is that you say you are a Christian. Priya doesn’t. She’s not a disciple, you claim to be.
So yes, I imagine that Jesus will hold you accountable someday for your stiffnecked refusal to reflect His love to her, to turn the other cheek, to attempt to serve her.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The confusion here, Hank, is that you equate reflecting Jesus’s love with supporting and encouraging her to make hateful statements against Christians and — ironically — to go on about how evil, hateful, and awful Jesus and God are.
Just as you support and encourage your fellow “gay Christians” like ColoradoPatriot who tell gay people they don’t like to commit suicide, saying that “you’d be doing us all a favor”.
Jesus didn’t mind being unpopular with the social circles of the day; indeed, He made it clear that Christians would take quite a bit of heat for practicing their beliefs precisely because they were contrary to popular thought and what humans invariably want to do. You and your fellow “gay Christians” have turned that quite on its head; Jesus is to be believed and followed only when other LGBTs say so, and to be ignored when His words are inconvenient to the LGBT mainstream that holds attitudes like Priya and ColoradoPatriot.
posted by Pat on
That would appear to be far more than calling religion a superstition.
NDT, I don’t disagree with that. My point was that you find it insulting when someone calls Chrisitianity a superstition, but it’s okay to see that Democrats and/or liberals are whiners, or victims, or immoral.
Perhaps you ought to bring forth some of what you claim I am saying about Democrats and liberals that is so objectionable.
Okay.
Furthermore, the Democrat Party being “demonstrably better” on gay issues involves their support of gays having public sex, their support of taking children to sex fairs dressed as sexual slaves, their support of unlimited abortion, even allowing infanticide when a baby is aborted alive, their support of diverting HIV/AIDS funds away from rural locations in favor of wealthy gay communities in cities like New York and San Francisco, and their support of gay and lesbian people who sexually harass others in their workplace — none of which really qualify as “gay issues” or have anything to do with sexual orientation, but for which gays can use sexual orientation as a smokescreen.
If you can’t see that your statement is more vicious and defamatory, then, in my view, you are not and perhaps cannot be objective regarding religion.
Now if the argument is, “well, at least what I’ve stated is true.” Nope. At least half of the statement above is false. Whereas what Priya Lynn’s statements of the Bible (not counting the last two sentences, which was her opinion as to what to do about promoting the Bible) are true, and were not refuted by you.
Which is why I treated it as one; its point was clearly to state that I was a child molestor. The addition of “I wouldn’t be surprised” is little more than a transparent attempt to avoid accountability for the insult, and as such, can be ignored.
While I have no idea why she used “I wouldn’t be surprised, you may well be correct as to what the reasoning was, and what was meant by it. But by you ignoring what was stated, you two ended up wasting time on what was said instead of addressing what was said.
That is a rather interesting definition of silence, given my response above.
The “silence” I was referring to was regarding your claim (according to Priya Lynn) that she has multiple partners and demand to have public sex. I saw clearly that you were not silent regarding “assaulting all Christians” stuff.
The question I asked, Pat, was this: under what circumstances should you refuse to criticize others for bad behavior when they agree with you ideologically?
I apologize for not answering your question. I’m not quite sure I understand it (or the point behind it), but I’ll try answering.
The circumstances would be always, with the following exceptions. 1) If the behavior, in my view, crosses the line. 2) When the behavior is directed at me. Under normal circumstances, persons entering fora like these should be able to defend themselves. 3) When a poster presses me, either directly (or sometimes multiple times indirectly) to speak up about a conflict with another poster. When that happens, I’ll focus more on the behavior of the person that pressed me.
The first two criteria I established from another site, and decided to apply to all fora. The third one wasn’t necessary until this thread. Also, the criteria is the same for all posters, not just the ones that I agree with ideologically.
I hoped that answered your question. If not, please restate it and/or explain the point that you are trying to make with that question.
posted by Richard II on
Some Democrats — voters and candidates — did support the 2004 State Constitutional Amendments. Of those voters who oppose them, I suspect most of them also voted for Democrats or progressive independents.
Of these candidates who opposed them, I suspect that most of them happen to be progressive Democrats or progressive independents.
I doubt, very much, that many federal Republican politicians opposed the amendments. Polls showed that opposition to these anti-gay amendments tended to come from Democrats or Independents.
John Kerry was the 2004 Democratic party presidential candidate, which is not the same thing as being the Democratic Party.
Candidates can go one way and the party can go another way.
Depending on who you ask — and Kerry was not a great campaigner — Candidate Kerry opposed same-sex marriage, but supported civil unions.
Candidate VP Reublican Cheney seemed to suggest that he opposed same-sex marriage but was more open to something like civil unions. Candidate (President) Bush made a similar — possibly — comment on Larry King.
Basically, both of the major party camapigns were probably trying to have things both ways when it came to an emotional issue like same-sex marriage.
They wanted to appeal to the vast majority of voters who opposed gay marriage, but theyalso wanted to appeal to a significant minority of voters who were willing to possible entertain the idea of civil unions.
Few major party candidates are going to endorse legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Not until public opinion changes.
It is really question of degrees. If they both oppose gay marraige, which one supports a greater degree of civil rights and or equality?
Furthermore, the HRC is hardly a ‘leftist’ organization. They are a moderate, slightly left of center group, as is most gay political groups because that is where most gay people seem to stand.
posted by Pat on
Getting back to the article, I just read the last paragraph, which I missed the first time I read it. While using all inclusive language is fine, I am somewhat troubled by the fact that it appears that the Democratic Party has apparently chosen to omit “gay” and “lesbian” from the platform. And I’m afraid I’m not surprised. I receive a lot of letters from Obama campaign and the DNC, which of course, they are soliciting money. I don’t expect every letter to address gay rights, but so far, I haven’t seen one. While the Democrats are not, and have not been perfect regarding gay rights, they had steadily moved in the right direction. Since the 2004 election, they have retreated somewhat. As such, I have not contributed to the Obama or national campaigns.
While I agree that there is some blind loyalty to the Democratic Party, it is still very clear that the Democrats are generally better when it comes to gay rights. Forget the rhetoric, forget that apparently gay Republicans are treated cordially and respectfully by most Republican politicians, forget the campaign promises. The votes still lean heavily in favor of the Democrats.
Sure, there are exceptions.* Just as I don’t think that homophobes (including self-hating ones) such as Larry Craig, Sam Brownback, Trent Lott, Rick Santorum, and Tom Coburn belong in the Democratic Party, the same is true for bigots such as Robert Byrd, Harold Ford, and Fred Phelps.
Saying that the Democrats are no better than gay rights than the Republicans is like saying that the Republicans are no better than the Democrats on pro-life issues. Then again, Bush pushed for, and an overwhelmingly vast majority of Republican senators and representatives supported FMA, while Bush has failed to provide the same fervor for a pro-life amendment.
*Republicans from states such as Michigan, California and New Jersey, are generally more rational and supportive of gay rights. Of course, there are exceptions there. We have an assemblyman in NJ who makes Fred Phelps look sane when it comes to gay rights.
posted by Pat on
Furthermore, the HRC is hardly a ‘leftist’ organization. They are a moderate, slightly left of center group, as is most gay political groups because that is where most gay people seem to stand.
Richard, I agree with about everything in your post, except this one. I would characterize HRC as more left of center than you would. I wouldn’t have a problem with that, but they are trying to purport themselves as more centrist while their actions show otherwise.
One of the problems that I have with HRC is the seemingly blind support for Democrats (again, exceptions here, as they have supported some Republicans in the past). I understand the reality that many times you have to support one candidate, who has some shortcoming on gay rights, over another candidate with a poor record on gay rights. But HRC should make it clear when they make their endorsements, and should make it clear exactly what the shortcomings are for the candidates they are endorsing. If they can’t do this kind of endorsement without making it clear that the candidate is still better, then the candidate is not worth endorsing at all.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Whereas what Priya Lynn’s statements of the Bible (not counting the last two sentences, which was her opinion as to what to do about promoting the Bible) are true, and were not refuted by you.
Well, let’s take a look at that.
Your bible commands that unmarried sex partners be murdered
I’m surprised that people who regularly attempt to quote, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” are not aware of the fact that the place where that is found in the Bible is a case in which Jesus (and God) used it to argue against the arbitrary execution of unmarried sex partners. Another stellar example is Jesus’s encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well who, as Jesus made clear He knew, was committing adultery; however, He did not call for her death, but called her to life instead.
Meanwhile, as for Democrats supporting public sex and taking children to sex fairs, that is easily demonstrated, given that the gay community brags about having the support of the Democrat Party and its leadership.
As for unlimited abortion, even allowing infanticide when a baby is aborted alive, Barack Obama just admitted he voted against banning it.
For “their support of diverting HIV/AIDS funds away from rural locations in favor of wealthy gay communities in cities like New York and San Francisco”, I covered that last fall, and for supporting gays and lesbians who sexually harass others in the workplace, who do you think put in place Bonnie Bleskachek despite her already-hideous record?
Bleskachek’s sexuality has been raised in several discrimination lawsuits filed against her as chief by dismissed male firefighters who said they were singled out because of their heterosexuality. The lawsuits are still pending, but Bleskachek is dismissive of the complaints.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
NDXXX writes: “You could ask Matt about Michigan, since he was one of them.”
I saw the real, unadultered face of Democrat Party leaders during the Kerry-Edwards race in ’04 because Michigan had an anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot.
Those great, loving supposedly pro-gay Democrat leaders ran –RAN– for cover from being brought into the debate over the anti-gay marriage amendment because they didn’t want to lose votes for Kerry-Edwards. They knew they had a virtual lock on the gayVote… it wasn’t going anywhere but the Democrat column.
Gov 2 Penny Jenny Granholm, MIA
Dem Sen Carl Levin, MIA
Dem Sen Debbie StupidCow, MIA
Dem Party Chairman Mark Brewer, MIA
Michigan Dem Congressional Caucus, MIA
State House Dem Caucus, MIA
State Senate Dem Caucus, MIA
BigLabor groups, MIA
MEA & TeacherUnions, MIA
Black church groups, MIA
InnerCity Democrat mayors, MIA.
But guess what, two years later in ’06, when blacks were targeted with a similar anti-black affirmative action repeal amendment… the Democrats came out in force!
All the above: solidly against the ballot proposal, provided funds to defeat it, lots of speakers, lots of commercials.
Plus, the Democrats were able to pull in groups like the Catholic Conference and other nonpartisan groups to shill for the Party’s #1 Victim… blacks.
Oh, and the final vote tally? Both amendments were approved by a nearly identical margin –60% versus 40%.
Oh yeah, those Democrats just love us gays. On the #1 gay civil rights issue of the gayLeft agenda, the Democrat leaders in Michigan were hightailing it out of town and leaving us high and dry.
What was that about one party being better on gay issues?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
I wrote “… I saw the real, unadultered face of Democrat Party leaders”. I meant to write unadulterated… I guess when I think of Democrat leaders, adultery is easily brought to mind.
My apologies to seasoned adultery expert John Edwards… who is yet another Democrat politician uncomfortable around us gays, anyway.
posted by Pat on
Oh yeah, those Democrats just love us gays. On the #1 gay civil rights issue of the gayLeft agenda, the Democrat leaders in Michigan were hightailing it out of town and leaving us high and dry.
Matt, did the Michigan legislature vote on the amendment before it went to the voters? If so, what was the vote breakdown?
What about the vote breakdown on other gay rights issues that came to the Michigan legislature?
What was that about one party being better on gay issues?
Maybe in Michigan, the Republicans are as good (or bad, depending on how you look at it) as the Democrats. All I know is that nationally and in New Jersey, the percentage of votes pro-gay for Democrats is overwhelmingly much higher than the Republicans.
posted by Pat on
I’m surprised that people who regularly attempt to quote, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” are not aware of the fact that the place where that is found in the Bible is a case in which Jesus (and God) used it to argue against the arbitrary execution of unmarried sex partners. Another stellar example is Jesus’s encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well who, as Jesus made clear He knew, was committing adultery; however, He did not call for her death, but called her to life instead.
NDT, you’ll have to ask Priya Lynn which passage(s) in the Bible she was referring to when she spoke about it. Anyway, I know many times that it’s difficult to prove a negative. It’s impossible this time, because there is no negative to prove. There are many passages in the Bible in which God just isn’t nice, fair, and just. Off the top of my head, God smited virtually all the residents of Sodom and Gemorrah, including Lot’s wife for the crime of looking back, but sparing Lot and his daughters who went on to commit incest. Having Abraham on the brink of sacrificing his son wasn’t good either. And he wasn’t that nice to poor old Job either. Oh, and having the first born child die of a plague for something bad that some others did, i.e., killing innocent children. Even sugarcoated, it isn’t pretty.
Meanwhile, as for Democrats supporting public sex and taking children to sex fairs, that is easily demonstrated, given that the gay community brags about having the support of the Democrat Party and its leadership.
LOL. The logic is really embarrassing, NDT. That was REALLY bad.
Let me give this a try.
NDT supports bringing children to FSF.
Proof: FSF is in San Francisco. Some reprehensible gay parents take their children there. NDT, lives in San Francisco and is gay. Therefore, NDT supports bringing children to FSF.
for supporting gays and lesbians who sexually harass others in the workplace, who do you think put in place Bonnie Bleskachek despite her already-hideous record?
Oh, good. Bonnie’s back. She and FSF are a tandem. But you forget to conclude how the DNC platform fully supports gays and lesbians only sexually harassing colleagues.
posted by Hank on
Nah Dallas, as usual you are clueless about what I think, or advocate, or believe. So easy to erect straw men isn’t it.
I think that Priya and many others like her need to know Christians who love her just as she is.
You disagree with that – obviously – your scenario is that she must be argued with, and corrected, and criticized for her baliefs. Then when she admits she’s wrong, well who knows – maybe you’ll treat her with some respect.
It’s just wrong – it won’t work, and it’s not Biblical. But you are so caught up in your own bitterness and maintaining your own grudges, that you simply can’t see the harm you are doing to the cause of Jesus Christ.
So I’ll go away and let you spew your bitterness – it’s ALL ABOUT YOU after all (is there anyone else here who maintains every blog post where they have been “insulted”?)
But hopefully priya and anyone else who might be considering what to do about the claims of Jesus Christ will look at others too – and not judge all Christians by your example.
Now I’ll go and let you get in the last word – I know how important that is to you.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oh, and having the first born child die of a plague for something bad that some others did, i.e., killing innocent children
If you’re referring to the tenth plague on the Egyptians, Pat, you might want to go check way back in Exodus 1, where it speaks as to what the Egyptians were doing.
Then Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, gave this order to the Hebrew midwives, Shiphrah and Puah: ?When you help the Hebrew women as they give birth, watch as they deliver. If the baby is a boy, kill him; if it is a girl, let her live……….”
Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: ?Throw every newborn Hebrew boy into the Nile River. But you may let the girls live.?
Or, in reference to Job, you might want to look at Job 42.
When Job prayed for his friends, the Lord restored his fortunes. In fact, the Lord gave him twice as much as before! Then all his brothers, sisters, and former friends came and feasted with him in his home. And they consoled him and comforted him because of all the trials the Lord had brought against him. And each of them brought him a gift of money and a gold ring.
So the Lord blessed Job in the second half of his life even more than in the beginning. For now he had 14,000 sheep, 6,000 camels, 1,000 teams of oxen, and 1,000 female donkeys. He also gave Job seven more sons and three more daughters…. In all the land no women were as lovely as the daughters of Job. And their father put them into his will along with their brothers.
Job lived 140 years after that, living to see four generations of his children and grandchildren. Then he died, an old man who had lived a long, full life.
In short, as Paul Harvey might put it, there invariably is a “rest of the story” when it comes to these cherry-picked passages about how awful God is. That’s kind of the point of studying the whole Bible.
NDT supports bringing children to FSF.
Proof: FSF is in San Francisco. Some reprehensible gay parents take their children there. NDT, lives in San Francisco and is gay. Therefore, NDT supports bringing children to FSF.
Well, you could try that proof, Pat, but it’s pretty obvious from my repeated statements that I don’t support people doing that.
Meanwhile, though, I did provide proof of Nancy Pelosi endorsing and supporting the activities of the Folsom Street Fair. Furthermore, I don’t see why she wouldn’t, inasmuch as it’s considered “close-minded” and antigay to oppose taking children to such fairs dressed as sexual slaves.
But you forget to conclude how the DNC platform fully supports gays and lesbians only sexually harassing colleagues.
When did we move from the clear example of the Democrat Party endorsing and supporting Bleskachek to what the DNC platform says?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You disagree with that – obviously – your scenario is that she must be argued with, and corrected, and criticized for her baliefs. Then when she admits she’s wrong, well who knows – maybe you’ll treat her with some respect.
It’s just wrong – it won’t work, and it’s not Biblical.
You must have missed quite a few examples in the New Testament of John the Baptist (Matthew 3, Luke 3), Jesus Himself (Matthew 12, Matthew 15, Matthew 22, Matthew 23, Luke 5, Luke 7, just to name a couple), and Paul (Acts 13) criticizing and correcting people in less-than-subtle fashion.
Are you planning to tell Jesus that He was wrong to criticize the Pharisees’ behavior, that He should have supported and encouraged it to show “love”, and that his correcting them was hateful?
Instapundit had a link to an excellent article today about the consequences to which this sort of utter absence of criticism or correction leads. Suffice to say, you do no one any favors by allowing them to persist in bad behavior — and indeed, supporting and encouraging such behavior out of a misguided sense of “love” or “tolerance” makes matters even worse.
Again, Hank, as your behavior shows, it’s not Christianity that leads you to attack me, inasmuch as you fully support and “like (the) style” of gay “Christians” like ColoradoPatriot whose example of reflecting Christ’s love is to tell others to commit suicide, saying it would be “doing us all a favor”. The consistent pattern in your behavior is one of subverting any matter of right or wrong to be dependent on sexual orientation; simply put, if gay or lesbian people do it, it must be right, even if that requires tossing Jesus and God under the bus for convenience’s sake.
posted by Pat on
In short, as Paul Harvey might put it, there invariably is a “rest of the story” when it comes to these cherry-picked passages about how awful God is. That’s kind of the point of studying the whole Bible.
NDT, that’s a fair statement. But you can study the whole Bible all you want. It does not discount the fact that the Bible portrays God as an unsavory character many times. You can also state how it’s a metaphor, or there’s a lesson in there, or whatever you want. Still doesn’t change how God is portrayed. By the way, I doubt very much that God is as heinous as he is portrayed in the Bible, because the Bible was written by persons who have written what they believed God might have done.
Well, you could try that proof, Pat, but it’s pretty obvious from my repeated statements that I don’t support people doing that.
That’s what I thought. But when I applied your logic, it was clear that you support bringing children to FSF.
Meanwhile, though, I did provide proof of Nancy Pelosi endorsing and supporting the activities of the Folsom Street Fair. Furthermore, I don’t see why she wouldn’t, inasmuch as it’s considered “close-minded” and antigay to oppose taking children to such fairs dressed as sexual slaves.
(Sees NDT is still missing the point) Just like you support toilet sex and prostitution, because you vote for Republicans, and the Republicans have not expelled Craig and Vitter.
When did we move from the clear example of the Democrat Party endorsing and supporting Bleskachek to what the DNC platform says?
Just following your REALLY BAD logic. As ridiculous as my arguments sound to you, that’s as ridiculous as yours are. The fact is that I recognized them both as silly arguments. You have failed to recognize yours as silly though. It’s because you have your (many times incorrect) conclusions, and any argument that you make is going to be sound in your mind. But it’s not.
Remember what the original point was? You said that
Furthermore, the Democrat Party being “demonstrably better” on gay issues involves their support of gays having public sex, their support of taking children to sex fairs dressed as sexual slaves, their support of unlimited abortion, even allowing infanticide when a baby is aborted alive, their support of diverting HIV/AIDS funds away from rural locations in favor of wealthy gay communities in cities like New York and San Francisco, and their support of gay and lesbian people who sexually harass others in their workplace — none of which really qualify as “gay issues” or have anything to do with sexual orientation, but for which gays can use sexual orientation as a smokescreen.
For the moment, I’ll even concede, for the sake of argument, that Republicans and Democrats are just as good when it comes to gay rights. But persons who “wrongly” believe that Democrats are demonstrably better has NOTHING to do with your (wrong) claim that Democrats support public sex, bringing children to sex fairs, and sexual harassment by gay and lesbian persons.
That was one of the most inane arguments that you have come up with. Reading it was like watching someone scratch a chalkboard. So instead of playing who can come up with the most asinine argument game with you, I’ll simply just point out your poor logic and move on.
posted by Pat on
When did we move from the clear example of the Democrat[sic] Party endorsing and supporting Bleskachek to what the DNC platform says?
(Rereads statement) What??? How is one person who appointed Bleskavich a “clear” example of the Democratic Party endorsing and supporting Bleskavic?
I’m really at a loss here, NDT. I invite any Republican/conservatives here that can make sense of NDT’s arguments and willing to defend his statements on this thread?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Just like you support toilet sex and prostitution, because you vote for Republicans, and the Republicans have not expelled Craig and Vitter.
And again, Pat, that runs into the fact that I have said quite the opposite, not to mention what the national party did.
The problem here, Pat, is that this is quite a conundrum; you don’t want to support public sex fairs to which gay parents are bringing children dressed as sexual slaves to “show off” in front of naked and semi-naked adults having sex, but you want even less to condemn the Democrat Party and Nancy Pelosi for endorsing and supporting it.
What??? How is one person who appointed Bleskavich a “clear” example of the Democratic Party endorsing and supporting Bleskavic?
You obviously missed how gay and lesbian and Democrat groups hailed the choice of Bleskachek as a “trailblazer” when she was promoted to chief — of course, quite ignorant of the fact that she had already been sexually harassing people for years.
Again, Pat, it’s quite a conundrum; you don’t want to support gay and lesbian people who sexually harass their coworkers and hide behind nondiscrimination laws to do it, but you want even less to condemn the Democrat Party and the gay and lesbian organizations who support and endorse these people.
posted by Pat on
And again, Pat, that runs into the fact that I have said quite the opposite, not to mention what the national party did.
NDT, you keep on missing the point. I know you don’t support toilet sex. But when I use the same awful logic and argumentation that you use, I can easily “conclude” that you support toilet sex.
And that’s nice that the party stripped Craig of leadership posts or whatever it was. Maybe this is a big deal in the Capitol Bldg, but to me and most people it’s worthless and meaningless. A slap in the wrist would have been more meaningful. No expulsion. No censure. And what about Mr. Vitter? Looks like a lot more was done to punish Bleskavich.
The problem here, Pat, is that this is quite a conundrum; you don’t want to support public sex fairs to which gay parents are bringing children dressed as sexual slaves to “show off” in front of naked and semi-naked adults having sex, but you want even less to condemn the Democrat[sic] Party and Nancy Pelosi for endorsing and supporting it.
Are you serious. A conundrum??? I have in no uncertain terms condemned parents dressing their children and bringing them to sex fairs. So I have no idea what the heck you are talking about here.
And I have no problem condemning the Democratic* Party when it’s warranted. In this case, I have seen zero evidence that the Party supports adults bringing children to sex fairs. Same for Pelosi. If you have a link, I’ll have to read it myself and see. You have an unfortunate penchant of providing links that do not support your point.
Besides, I have never been crazy about your representative. My representative is a Democrat, and he doesn’t support this garbage. If your representative does, well, get her the hell out of office then. And I don’t know what else to tell you. All I can say is if parents were allowed to bring children to sex fairs in the city where I live, I wouldn’t be spending any free time talking about it on a forum. I’d be getting my butt out there until this disgrace was stopped. And if necessary, move the hell out of a city that would allow that trash if it didn’t stop. So don’t ever dare to try state or imply that I would ever even tolerate such trash. It is disgusting, and I’m tired of defending myself against such allegations that I would be in some damn conundrum over such an issue.
You obviously missed how gay and lesbian and Democrat[sic] groups hailed the choice of Bleskachek as a “trailblazer” when she was promoted to chief — of course, quite ignorant of the fact that she had already been sexually harassing people for years.
I didn’t miss it at all, NDT. I read it and saw, how once again, you provided a link that did not support your point.
1) I understand that Bleskavich was appointed fire chief despite the fact that there were allegations. And it probably would have been best to not appoint her, at least until they could determine the allegations were unfounded (which apparently was not the case). While it was probably wrong for the appointment to continue, it’s a stretch to conclude that the Democrat(s) (I assume) that appointed her to fire chief, in any way, condoned sexual harassment. People sometimes are put into office despite allegations. I know of someone who became president despite allegations that he used cocaine on several occasions, got arrested for drunk driving, went AWOL, and stupid enough to admit that he didn’t know whether or not homosexuality is a choice. Can you believe that? But it is a stretch to assume that the people, except for maybe a very small minority, who voted for him support people using cocaine, driving drunk, going AWOL, or are stupid enough to believe sexual orientation is a choice.
2) Even if the Democrats in Minneapolis knew and approved of sexual harassment (which hasn’t been demonstrated), this is a far cry from saying that Democrats support sexual harassment any more than saying Republicans support toilet sex and prostitution.
Again, Pat, it’s quite a conundrum; you don’t want to support gay and lesbian people who sexually harass their coworkers and hide behind nondiscrimination laws to do it, but you want even less to condemn the Democrat Party and the gay and lesbian organizations who support and endorse these people.
Again, that is false. I condemn the actions of any political party or group that supports any kind of sexual harassment.
*I noticed three times in this thread of your grammatical error regarding the Democratic Party. Normally, your grammar is excellent, so I thought I should point out that…
Democrat is used for a noun, Democratic is used for an adjective. Republican is used as both a noun and an adjective. I’m not sure why the inconsistency, but that’s how the parties identify themselves.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Hey Pat, this may be too old to respond to, but I agree with Prez Hoover –there’s nothing especially democratic about the Democrat Party and those who people its ranks.
I really don’t care what the Democratic Party leadership thinks it ought to be called –or linguistic academicans who are probably card-carrying Democrats want us to call them.
To me they are Democrats. To me it’s the Democrat Party. And after the flipflopping around on the value of superdelegates by BarryO, the party is even less democrat than it was under SlickWilly.
It’s like trying to argue that open ballot voting for union representation is somehow respectful of democratic principles… it isn’t. But then BigLaborGoons aren’t exactly interested in American values… they just want whatever they can take. Democrats aren’t democratic and don’t respect American values like fair play, honest pay for day’s labor, pulling oneself up by the bootstraps, God, the military, etc.