Updated January 31, 2009
Peter Berkowitz writes in the Wall Street Journal, Bush Hatred and Obama Euphoria Are Two Sides of the Same Coin:
It is not that our universities invest the fundamental principles of liberalism with religious meaning-after all the Declaration of Independence identifies a religious root of our freedom and equality. Rather, they infuse a certain progressive interpretation of our freedom and equality with sacred significance, zealously requiring not only outward obedience to its policy dictates but inner persuasion of the heart and mind. This transforms dissenters into apostates or heretics, and leaders into redeemers.
Indeed.
Updated January 25, 2009
Apparently independent of me (and I of him), Christian blogger Mike Ruffin discusses the demonization vs. deification meme now dominant in U.S. politics - with some of Obama's supporters, such as Washington Post columnist Harold Myerson, celebrating that the word has been made flesh. (I see others are picking up on Myerson's creepy use of biblical allusion as well.)
Updated January 23, 2009
[by Stephen Miller] From Gay Patriot: "Obama worship is the flip side of Bush hatred." I'd add that the demonization (blaming for all ills) and deification (an awe-struck expectation of deliverence) toward opposed/favored political leaders has become the religion of the left. And of the two responses, deification of the person elected to be chief administrator of the executive branch is the more dangerous for the well being of any democratic republic.
Furthermore. As neatly summed up in the comic Prickly City.
--------------
Original post
[by Stephen Miller] Well, no mention of gay equality by "O" or his selected speakers, although the breakthrough that his administration represents for racial civil rights was a key theme. As one of our commenters likes to say to LGBT Obamists, "He's just not that into you," at least not once he's gotten your dollars and votes. What Obama is into is bringing Rev. Rick Warren's constituency of anti-gay, pro-social spending evangelicals into his takings coalition.
One of Obama's first acts will be to sign two so-called paycheck equity bills that make it easier to sue (or settle with) employers who don't pay women and racial minorities, on average, the same as they pay white men for the same positions (let's leave aside that if your male employees happen to be better performers, you're hamstrung if you think you can disproportionately reward them). These measures are being rushed through so Obama can sign them within days. But take note: no measures to advance gay equality, even just by ending government discrimination, are on his near-term legislative agenda.
Expect the promise to one day move on "don't ask, don't tell," the Defense of Marriage Act, and employment discrimination to resurface in Democratic fundraising efforts before the 2010 congressional elections, to shake down gay voters once again.
So enjoy your parties, gay Obama folks. It's just about all you're likely to receive for your contributed dollars and worn shoe leather.
Added. Ok, to be fair, Rev. Joseph Lowery's benediction may have had us in mind: "O Lord, in the complex arena of human relations, help us to make choices on the side of love, not hate; on the side of inclusion, not exclusion; tolerance, not intolerance. And as we leave this mountaintop, help us to hold on to the spirit of fellowship and the oneness of our family."
Stirring words. But then, as noted in an earlier posting, Lowery was vocal in his criticism of Rick Warren, selected by Obama to deliver the Inaugural invocation.
58 Comments for “He Is Risen”
posted by Bobby on
I should have called in sick today. I can’t stand open displays of Obamaphilia!
People where listening to the inauguration at work. Oh the humanity!
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Well see, I guess.
Meanwhile, Steve, what do you think is the likelihood that GOP will have a change of heart and publicly support any of the measures listed on the White House ” Civil Rights Support for the LGBT Community” agenda in time for the mid-term elections in 2010?
Do you support any of the measures?
posted by Mark on
Stephen, must you be so partisan? Blindly anti-Democrat is just as ugly as blindly pro-Democrat. I come to this site hoping to avoid such ugly partisan posts as this one.
Perhaps we can give Obama more than a few hours to follow through on promises to the LGBT community (or is that asking too much?). I don’t believe “LGBT Obamists” donated to, volunteered for, and voted for Obama in order to get a mention in the inaugural address. If we see little action from Obama in the coming months and years on LGBT issues, then I will be the first to criticize him, but this “pre-emptive” strike of yours really just comes across as quite childish. The time has come to set aside childish things.
You can do better than this.
posted by avee on
Tom and Mark, as Steve and others have said, many times, the difference is that the Democrats, and Obama in particular, received massive support from gay people. Republicans did not. Of course we expect far more from a Democrat.
I don’t think Steve is overly partisan in a pro-GOP way; he’s "speaking truth to power," and Democrats are now the power. And the way Obama is starting out — the media-induced frenzy aside — isn’t very promising on our issues. Sorry, but it’s not.
posted by Daniel on
Just out of interest, whose inaugural parade was the first to feature an openly gay & lesbian group? Would it be Mr Obama’s parade, featuring the Lesbian & Gay Marching Band? Yeah, it’s symbolism, but it’s a potent symbolism; it’s a symbolism of acceptance and existence.
Obama’s not a saint. He’s a pragmatist. ENDA would be a serious fight to get through; DADT less so, and he appears to have the repeal of DADT as one of his priorities.
Have some faith, Stephen, rather than criticising Obama for not doing anything for the LGBT community before the inaugural celebrations are even over.
posted by Clay on
Check out the updated White House website, which now contains an explicit commitment to specific gay rights measures, such as full civil unions, all under the heading of Civil Rights (alluded to by Tom Scharbach above).
Obama may in fact disappoint, but these constant attempts to pin an anti-gay badge on him are getting both ridiculous and tiresome. Why is it called the Independent Gay Forum when it never gives up any chance to give the GOP a free pass and slam the Democrats? A Democrat opposed to full gay marriage is morally equivalent to a Republican opposed to all gay rights. Obama gives Rick Warren a symbolic gesture. The GOP offer James Dobson everyting he wants. Equivalent?
Mark calls this “partisan” above, and the shoe fits. I started reading IGF in the first place because I was sick of the knee-jerk leftism of other forums and the degree to which so many gay commentators were totally beholden to the Democrats (who, it’s true, frequently don’t give a damn about our issues). But there’s been a steady erosion of the “Independent” part of this forum. Hell, the Log Cabin Republicans sometimes show more independence than this forum does.
Blind partisan attachment to the Democrats has unquestionably held back the struggle for gay equality. It is a serious mistake to think that the opposite extreme will be any more successful.
Of course Obama must be held accountable for his actions, but to dismiss his Presidency as having failed the gay community within hours of his taking the oath is ludicrous and foolish.
This forum plays a vital role by showcasing voices and issues too often drowned out by left-wing hectoring and biases. Please preserve that vitality.
Sorry for the long-winded post.
posted by Bobby on
Not one day in office and our idiot in chief is already screwing America.
Obama seeks halt to Guantanamo trials
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_guantanamo_trials
The $825 billion stimulus:
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/106461/How-Stimulus-Affects-You
Which includes among other things…
“$6 billion for college building improvements.”
—Can’t afford Harvard? Doesn’t matter, you’ll still pay for them to improve their buildings.
“$4 billion for more preventative care programs.”
—So instead of finding cures for diseases, now we’re gonna “prevent them.” Yeah, right!
“$10 billion for science research facilities.”
—Great! So now more scientists will be able to study the mating habits of the cockroach.
“$300 million for consumers to replace old appliances.”
—So instead of letting the laws of supply and demand set up the prices on new appliances, now we’re gonna help people get brand new appliances at our expense.
“$145 billion in tax cuts for working individuals.
The tax cut would be $500 per person ($1,000 for a couple) and would phase out for people making over $75,000 a year”
—Gee, thanks for nothing Obama. $500 a year is less than $50 a month. Cut income taxes by 30% or more and then we’re talking.
posted by aubrey on
I am not a big fan of Obama’s inaugural actions, in fact I am really disappointed, but I do find Stephen’s attack a little confusing.
I thought perhaps I would remind Mr. Miller of his comments about Mr. Bush in early 2001:
“The point isn’t that Bush is the best president for gay Americans that he could be, or should be, but that his administration is not nearly as bad as we were told it would be.”
After the past 8 years, how bad did it need to be, Stephen?
Or did your early post on Bush, in very early 2001, not reflect the reality of the coming Bush administration?
Hopefully, the actions of Obama in the first day (second day?) of his admin will not reflect the coming Obama administration either.
And one last point – I agree with Mark and Clay. I came to the IGF because it provided a discussion not totally beholden to the left. I was interested in the “independent” part of the forum.
posted by avee on
Aubrey, there are plenty of articles by IGF writers that are willing to give Obama a chance. So it seems to me what you are saying is that you’re offended that there is anyone posting on the site that’s critical of Obama’s actions to date.
Given that there are a zillion LGBT websites that are celebrating Obama, I find it amazing that Steve is being criticized for the offense of not following suit.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
A Democrat opposed to full gay marriage is morally equivalent to a Republican opposed to all gay rights.
That would be because the gay left insists that, if you oppose gay marriage, you hate gays and oppose all gay rights.
Furthermore, the gay left insists that “civil unions” are “separate but unequal” and thus indicate that one hates gays and opposes gay rights.
Except, of course, when the Obama Party pushes them; at that point, everything is OK and perfectly acceptable.
In short, Clay, Obama is merely being held to the same standards that liberal gays impose on Republicans.
But, as should be expected, what we’re getting is the usual spin and whining that comes about when the rules that Obama Party members demand of Republicans are applied to their messiah.
posted by aubrey on
avee,
I was fairly abrupt in my comment earlier today – my near 3-year old was trying to get my attention (yelling, pulling on me, etc…).
I am ambivalent about Obama at this time – so I was not advocating a rah rah section for the new president at IGF.
So how do you get the idea that I was “offended” at Stephen’s article? I said I was confused, and then I also noted an agreement with Mark and Clay’s remarks.
My very weak parting barb about “independent” IGF was simply meant to note that Stephen had argued for Bush in June 2001, in effect asking the gay community to give Bush some slack.
I think a critical eye towards Obama is necessary. I think it is important we maintain it. I find his flip-flops offensive (to talk about being offended).
But this is also only the first full day for Obama as president.
My hope for an “independent” IGF is that any writer apply the same rigor to any side of the aisle – left, right, “bi”.
My reading of “He Is Risen” did not find that consistency in critique, especially after reviewing earlier writings of Stephen’s.
Again, Avee, I was not offended by Stephen.
I was a little confused, to repeat myself. Confused that Stephen would argue for giving Bush a “pass” on “gay issues” (because Bush was not as bad as anticipated, as of June 2001) while slamming Obama (for not being as strong as anticipated during his inauguration).
I’ll repeat myself again – I am disappointed with Obama. And I am very suspicious of what might come down the road for the gay community – from Team Obama.
That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to see the “Independent” in IGF stand first.
Oh well, the 3-year old wants to eat now. gotta go.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Gays and lesbians voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in this election because the Democratic Party openly and visibly supported specific, tangible legislation moving our issues forward.
Having helped them get elected, we will now have to keep their feet to the fire, so that our issues move from agenda to law. I don’t think anyone believes that anything will happen unless we keep the pressure on.
But there is something else conservative gays and lesbians need to consider.
The Democratic Party supports the issues listed on the White House website under Civil Rights only because liberal gays and lesbians worked hard for a decade to achieve that goal. If the liberal gays and lesbians hadn’t done so, our issues would not be on the White House agenda.
The Republican Party continues to oppose us on those issues. We all know that, and we all know that it won’t change so long as social conservatives control the party.
If conservative gays and lesbians want to change that, then conservative gays and lesbians need to get to work in Republican Party politics and change it.
So get to work.
I’m not holding my breath waiting for the Republican Party to have a change of heart, but I think the Republican Party should support our issues, and will, if conservative gays and lesbians get their asses out of the chair and do within the Republican Party what liberal gays and lesbians did within the Democratic Party.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Something to raise Ashpenaz’s blood pressure:
A couple days I picked up a copy of DC’s gay paper, the Washington Blade — specifically, the “Special Inaugural Issue” that was distributed on Friday, 16 Jan. (The Blade is a tabloid-format free weekly, and new issues always come out on a Friday.)
Since the early ’90s, the “adult” pages of the Blade with all the Masseur/Escort ads as well as the full-page ad run every week by DC’s “J/O Club” had been in their own self-contained section. This was originally done so that the Blade could be distributed to venues like public libraries and suburban chain bookstores minus the “X-rated” section.
But in the 16 January issue, the “adult section” was no longer self-contained, but had been integrated into the regular page count. That is, adult pages were printed on the same sheets as regular “news” and (more importantly) paid non-adult ads — thus making it a practical impossibility to remove the adult section for suburban venues. I only pick up the Blade about once a month on average, so I can’t be sure if this format change began with the 16 Jan “Inaugural” issue, or if it was something that debuted a few weeks ago with the New Year — but in any case, the change is a very recent one.
I’m not sure if this was done as a nod to the dawn of the Glorious New Messianic Age, or for prosaic economic reasons — note that a pull-out section necessitated that the paid ads plus unpaid adult content such as the sex-advice column and the ever-dwindling personals had to add up to a page count in some multiple of 4. Integrating the adult section means that if they only have, say, 5 pages of paid adult ads, they only need to come up with 1 page of unpaid adult content, rather than printing 3 entire pages of unpaid filler to create an 8-page pullout.
(IGF readers from the DC area may recall the name Karen Jo Gounaud, the self-styled “homemaker and pro-family activist” whose attempt to have the Blade removed altogether from Fairfax County Public Libraries led to the innovation of “segregating” the adult content in a pull-out section. Prior to that, the adult content had been at the back of the paper — so that some of the NC-17 ads were visible on the exterior back page, and thus shared a sheet with the front page.)
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….Tom, what you don’t get is that conservative gays understand the concept of equality under the law.
Right now, gays and straights have exactly the same level of legal protection in the workplace against being fired based on their sexual orientation. Furthermore, the laws apply equally in the case of criminal actions taken against people, regardless of the sexual orientation of the victim.
You claimed you wanted “equality under the law”; you have it.
Meanwhile, you and your fellow Obama Party members have, as I pointed out, endorsed and supported state and Federal bans on gay marriage. You have also insisted that civil unions are “separate and unequal” and thus are unacceptable.
The reason Republicans don’t really care much about gays is because gays like yourself have proven, time and again, that you are interested only in party affiliation and don’t care in the least about action. When you demonstrate your ability to attack Democrats with the same hatred and bigotry that you direct against Republicans, such as calling Obama a superstitious and homophobic bigot for his religious opposition to gay marriage like you do Republicans, perhaps then you may be taken seriously. But until then, what Republicans know is that trying to appeal to people like yourself is quite the waste of energy. Add to that the fact that you and yours have made antireligious bigotry, tax-and-spend liberalism, unlimited abortion, destruction of marriage, and governmental expansion into “gay rights” issues, and you give them even less reason.
How about you and your fellow gay leftists try being consistent for a change? Call Obama a homophobic and superstitious bigot for his opposition to gay marriage, or stop calling Republicans such. Call out the antireligious bigots in the gay movement and tell them that they need to stop blaming their behavior on their homosexuality. Admit that being gay does not make you liberal. Try stating that the gay community has serious problems with promiscuity. Make it clear that promiscuous gays who want sibling and plural marriage need to get lost and that the gay community will not support any such relationships.
You’d be surprised how far you might get if you stopped using your homosexuality as an excuse for being a leftist. But if you did that, the Obama Party probably wouldn’t want you any more.
posted by Pat on
LOL….Tom, what you don’t get is that conservative gays understand the concept of equality under the law.
Right now, gays and straights have exactly the same level of legal protection in the workplace against being fired based on their sexual orientation. Furthermore, the laws apply equally in the case of criminal actions taken against people, regardless of the sexual orientation of the victim.
NDT, that’s fine if you take that position. But the problem is that conservatives, gay or straight, have not fought for removal of other “special” classes in terms of employment or crimes with the same fervor. In fact, in many cases conservatives voted for protecting persons in employment (or hate crimes) for race, ethnicity, gender, and other factors, but specifically voted against sexual orientation or gender identity.
The reason Republicans don’t really care much about gays is because gays like yourself have proven, time and again, that you are interested only in party affiliation and don’t care in the least about action.
I just don’t buy that Republicans think that the gay community is a monolith. They have high ranking members that are gay, and don’t engage in behavior that you attribute to the gay community at large. And they know they have about a 25% base of gay persons who typically vote for the Republican candidate. If Republicans wanted to make the case that gay persons are already equal under the law, that’s fine. But too many times, they don’t stop there.
When you demonstrate your ability to attack Democrats with the same hatred and bigotry that you direct against Republicans, such as calling Obama a superstitious and homophobic bigot for his religious opposition to gay marriage like you do Republicans, perhaps then you may be taken seriously. But until then, what Republicans know is that trying to appeal to people like yourself is quite the waste of energy.
First of all, we’re not sure what the real reason Obama is against gay marriage. While he may be using his religion as an excuse, I doubt that’s the real reason. Probably more like political expediency. Just like Bush not signing the UN Resolution decriminalizing homosexuality doesn’t necessarily mean that Bush wants homosexuals put to death. By the way, if Obama fails to sign it the first chance he gets, I will condemn him the same way that I condemned Bush for his failure.
Granted, Rebublicans are not going to be able to get the hard core gay liberal vote. That would be a waste. But there are plenty of persons that could be won over easily without the still too many persons in the Republican Party that demonize homosexuality. McCain wasn’t bad, but his choice for VP was a step backwards in that regard.
I also agree with your point on being consistent. And many gay liberals aren’t. But many times, it’s still a case of supporting the lesser of two evils in individual races.
Had more to say, but have to run.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom, what you don’t get is that conservative gays understand the concept of equality under the law.
Conservative gays and lesbians may understand the concept of equality under the law — note the word “may”, because I agree with Pat’s comments — but they do not seem to be doing what liberal gays and lesbians did within the Democratic Party, which is to make a concerted, long-range effort to bring the Republican Party around to looking at the conservative case, so that the Republican Party can put forward a conservative agenda for gay and lesbian equality under the law.
Two cases in point:
It would seem to me that conservative gays and lesbians who understand the concept of equality under the law would be pushing hard within the Republican Party for repeal of DADT, because the inequality of allowing straights who serve to be open about their sexual orientation while denying gays and lesbians who serve that freedom, is obvious.
It would seem to me that conservative gays and lesbians who understand the concept of equality under the law would be pushing hard within the Republican Party for repeal of the federal-law section of DOMA, because the inequality of the federal government recognizing valid marriages contracted under state law by straights, while not recognizing valid marriages contracted under state law by gays and lesbians, is obvious.
I believe conservativegays and lesbians within the Republican Party should be building a conservative agenda for gay and lesbian equality within the Republican Party, just as liberal gays and lesbians built a liberal agenda for gay and lesbian equality within the Democratic Party. That’s the point of my comment, and I think it is a valid point.
The problem with having only Democrats articulating an agenda for gay and lesbian equality is that the agenda articulated is, inevitably, a liberal agenda. Unless and until Republicans begin articulating a conservative agenda for gay and lesbian equality, the conservative case for gay and lesbian equality has no chance of shaping our national policies.
I believe that the best case for equal treatment of gays and lesbians under the law is essential the conservative case.
I’ve written about that case, trying to articulate it, as have many others, but I am no longer within the Republican Party because the Republican Party as it is presently constituted is a repudiation of the conservative principles that attracted me to the party during the Goldwater years. I am not in a position to make the case within the Republican Party.
But others are. Those of you who remain in the Republican Party can, and I believe should, make the conservative case within the Republican Party with the energy and doggedness that liberal gays and lesbians made their case within the Democratic Party.
posted by Bobby on
Here’s just one reason why conservative gay Americans didn’t vote for Obama.
Our boy in the white house plans to issue an executive order to close Guantanamo prison.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090122/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_rdp
And why is ol’ Barry doing this? Because:
“The U.S. naval facility has been a major sore point for critics around the world who say it violates domestic and international detainee rights. ”
So we just elected a president of the world. I guess the sensitivities of the Germans, French and English matter more than the desires of common working class Americans who want to keep those dangerous terrorists overseas where they belong.
At least Bush cared more about keeping us safe, Obama just wants to be loved! What an asshole.
posted by john paradiso on
yeah, I guess my money would have been better spent if I had given it to john and sarah.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But the problem is that conservatives, gay or straight, have not fought for removal of other “special” classes in terms of employment or crimes with the same fervor.
Honestly, ‘twouldn’t bother me in the least if they were. But what those particular things have that sexual orientation does not is explicit Constitutional protection, as outlined in the First, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments.
I just don’t buy that Republicans think that the gay community is a monolith. They have high ranking members that are gay, and don’t engage in behavior that you attribute to the gay community at large.
Problem is, Pat, that nicely contradicts this assertion made above by Tom Scharbach.
The Republican Party continues to oppose us on those issues.
If the Republican Party has gay staffers, then they are following the fundamental concept of ENDA, and they are doing it WITHOUT it being the law. Furthermore, if we assume Tom Scharbach’s statement that all Republicans “oppose” gays to be correct, then they are hiring, promoting, and retaining people who they loathe; does that make any sense?
Furthermore, it is amusing to invoke Republican gays as a defense when the gay and lesbian community denies that they are gay, refers to them as “Jewish Nazis” and “kapos”, and funds and supports campaigns to harass them and get them fired from their jobs. It is obvious to Republicans that Republican gays are not typical gays, and in fact are hated and loathed by the vast majority of the gay community, just as conservative blacks are hated and loathed and called “Uncle Toms” by liberal blacks.
First of all, we’re not sure what the real reason Obama is against gay marriage. While he may be using his religion as an excuse, I doubt that’s the real reason. Probably more like political expediency.
So what’s being said here is that Obama is probably lying. Figures.
But there are plenty of persons that could be won over easily without the still too many persons in the Republican Party that demonize homosexuality.
Again, Pat, given that gay liberals support and endorse people who endorse state and Federal bans on marriage, and who make rather interesting remarks about gay people, it’s still hard to fathom what exactly you mean by “demonizing gay people”. Obviously gays don’t care about marriage bans, workplace discrimination, or hate speech, just as long as it’s Democrats practicing it. Add to that the fact of how the gay community treats Republican and conservative gays, and it seems rather silly to argue that the gay community cares about anything other than political affiliation.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It would seem to me that conservative gays and lesbians who understand the concept of equality under the law would be pushing hard within the Republican Party for repeal of DADT, because the inequality of allowing straights who serve to be open about their sexual orientation while denying gays and lesbians who serve that freedom, is obvious.
Hardly.
Conservative gays recognize a very difficult concept for liberal gays, Tom, which is that treating two things that are different differently is not “unequal”.
As it stands today, the armed forces segregate men and women from each other in housing and private areas except under extreme combat situations, and there are functions that are limited by gender. This is clearly “discrimination”, but it is done for a perfectly-logical reason; there is a considerable amount of sexual tension that can be generated from men and women living together in communal fashion, it puts both men and women into situations that have the potential for significant personal distress, and it creates the high likelihood of problems that a force that must react quickly in life-or-death situations simply cannot risk having. Separation of the sexes avoids that.
That cannot be done with gay and lesbian people short of separate housing for every individual, which is cost- and activity-prohibitive and doesn’t make sense, given the relatively-infitesimal number of gay people relative to straight. Furthermore, given that ours is an all-volunteer force, there is no compelling need to introduce these types of problems when they can be more easily avoided. There are plenty of opportunities for patriotic gays to serve their country, i.e. the Department of Defense, the CIA, the FBI, and so forth, in which the question of living quarters is not an issue. The military is a special case and should be treated like one.
It would seem to me that conservative gays and lesbians who understand the concept of equality under the law would be pushing hard within the Republican Party for repeal of the federal-law section of DOMA, because the inequality of the federal government recognizing valid marriages contracted under state law by straights, while not recognizing valid marriages contracted under state law by gays and lesbians, is obvious.
Again, Tom, this is based on the denial of the differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality, the consequences of said relationships, and the benefits of said relationships to society.
Gay conservatives recognize that heterosexual relationships have different consequences for society. Just as I put the readiness and capability of the whole of our military ahead of social engineering to make gays feel good, I put the emphasis on the importance of stable heterosexual marriage and its impact on the future of our society ahead of liberal gays and their proxy wars against religion, and I frankly find what the gay marriage movement promotes and supports to be both disturbing and destructive. It is sheer hypocrisy for Obama Party gays to whine about being deprived of marriage when they themselves want to essentially eliminate its value.
The problem with having only Democrats articulating an agenda for gay and lesbian equality is that the agenda articulated is, inevitably, a liberal agenda.
Why? Will the Obama Party not love gays like you unless you repeat their liberal talking points back at them? Will they no longer support gays if you don’t parrot everything they say and support everything they do?
Why not take some responsibility for selling out your core principles in the name of sexual orientation, Tom? The funny part is that a “Goldwater conservative” like yourself whines about how awful the Republican Party is while you gladly endorse and support the Obama Party, which is even worse. But as you demonstrate, you’ll follow anyone and do anything as long as they pretend to pander to your sexual orientation.
posted by Bobby on
“That cannot be done with gay and lesbian people short of separate housing for every individual, which is cost- and activity-prohibitive and doesn’t make sense”
—They wouldn’t have to. The military forces people of distinct backgrounds to coexist. I’ve read reports that the military has white supremacists, former street gangsters, arabs, jews, christians, pagans, etc, etc, etc. People in the military are trained to work together in-spite of their differences. Sexual orientation should be no exception.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
“He Is Risen”? Ah, how pleased with yourself you must be, Steve. If you were not so smug and petty, it might have occurred to you long since that your resort to caricature (suggesting that Obama supporters think he is the Messiah) does not strengthen your hand.
I never thought that Obama or any other politician would magically bestow policy victories on us. But it’s pretty damn obvious that our chances are better than under a President and a party that wanted to write gay people out of the Constitution. As I have pointed out many times, we ourselves have a large role to play, one that Obama has repeatedly stressed. You do not show your superiority by ignoring that in favor of your silly caricature. I wonder what you gain by making your false and trivializing generalizations.
In the meantime, Obama has signed an executive order on the closing of Gitmo. That’s not a gay issue, but it’s still good news to this patriot. Bush gave comfort to our enemies by playing into their hands and betraying American values (not to mention damaging America’s standing) in the process.
Most of what gay equality advocates want from Washington requires congressional action. Things like repealing DADT and passing the Uniting American Families Act (both of which are more important to me than ENDA or the hate crimes bill) will ripen as we collectively do the necessary organizing for them. In the case of DADT, there is sadly a consensus on the Hill that its repeal won’t move until we are on a course out of Iraq, as if the current policy on gays in the military helps rather than harms our military readiness. But that’s politics for you. Sitting back and sniping accomplishes nothing useful.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: It would seem to me that conservative gays and lesbians who understand the concept of equality under the law would be pushing hard within the Republican Party for repeal of DADT, because the inequality of allowing straights who serve to be open about their sexual orientation while denying gays and lesbians who serve that freedom, is obvious.
ND30: Hardly.
Conservative gays recognize a very difficult concept for liberal gays, Tom, which is that treating two things that are different differently is not “unequal”.
As it stands today, the armed forces segregate men and women from each other in housing and private areas except under extreme combat situations, and there are functions that are limited by gender. This is clearly “discrimination”, but it is done for a perfectly-logical reason; there is a considerable amount of sexual tension that can be generated from men and women living together in communal fashion, it puts both men and women into situations that have the potential for significant personal distress, and it creates the high likelihood of problems that a force that must react quickly in life-or-death situations simply cannot risk having. Separation of the sexes avoids that.
That cannot be done with gay and lesbian people short of separate housing for every individual, which is cost- and activity-prohibitive and doesn’t make sense, given the relatively-infitesimal number of gay people relative to straight. Furthermore, given that ours is an all-volunteer force, there is no compelling need to introduce these types of problems when they can be more easily avoided. There are plenty of opportunities for patriotic gays to serve their country, i.e. the Department of Defense, the CIA, the FBI, and so forth, in which the question of living quarters is not an issue. The military is a special case and should be treated like one.
About a million living gays and lesbians are veterans. I’m one of them.
We lived together in close quarters with straights without problems, and just as straights lived in close quarters with us without problems. The number of problems created by having straights and gays living together was miniscule, relative to the number of straights, gays and lesbians serving together.
The “significant personal distress” and “likelihood of problems” that you posit isn’t backed up by the experience of our Armed Forces to date. A million is a large enough number to provide, in my view, strong — probably conclusive — evidence that your argument has no rational basis in fact.
Tom: It would seem to me that conservative gays and lesbians who understand the concept of equality under the law would be pushing hard within the Republican Party for repeal of the federal-law section of DOMA, because the inequality of the federal government recognizing valid marriages contracted under state law by straights, while not recognizing valid marriages contracted under state law by gays and lesbians, is obvious.
ND30: Again, Tom, this is based on the denial of the differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality, the consequences of said relationships, and the benefits of said relationships to society.
Gay conservatives recognize that heterosexual relationships have different consequences for society. Just as I put the readiness and capability of the whole of our military ahead of social engineering to make gays feel good, I put the emphasis on the importance of stable heterosexual marriage and its impact on the future of our society ahead of liberal gays and their proxy wars against religion, and I frankly find what the gay marriage movement promotes and supports to be both disturbing and destructive. It is sheer hypocrisy for Obama Party gays to whine about being deprived of marriage when they themselves want to essentially eliminate its value.
I gather that you do not support same-sex marriage.
The question posed by repeal of the federal section of DOMA, though, is not whether same-sex marriage is a good idea or a bad one, but whether the federal government should recognize some marriages that are valid under state law while refusing to recognize other marriages that are valid under state law. The differentiation weakens fundamental constitutional principles concerning the nature of federalism, and, to my mind, is unjustified, unless and until those arguing, as you seem to be doing, that treating valid same-sex state marriages as invalid for federal purposes will negatively affect “stable heterosexual marriage and its impact on the future of our society”. I haven’t seen that case made, yet, with any clarity.
By the way, the fact that a few supporters of same-sex marriage make bad arguements does not affect the force or validity of the good arguments in favor of same-sex marriage. It is in the nature of things that fools will make foolish arguments. You seem to be focued entirely on the foolish (“I frankly find what the gay marriage movement promotes and supports to be both disturbing and destructive.”), rather than discussing the sensible arguments, and using the foolish arguments to dismiss, out of hand, the sensible arguments. I think that is itself foolish. It is like arguing that because Focus on the Family makes ridiculous arguments, no argument, however sensible, leading toward the same conclusion should be considered.
The best arguments in favor of same-sex marriage, to my mind, are the conservative arguments, arguments clearly, simply and powerfully articulated by Jon Rauch and other conservative thinkers. I don’t know whether you’ve read Rauch’s book “Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America” or any of the numerous articles by Rauch and other conservative thinkers stating a conservative case for same-sex marriage, but if you have not, you should consider them.
The conservative arguments in favor of equal treatment under law for gays and lesbians are largely unheard, primarily, to my mind, because with the exception of a few shining lights like Jonathan Rauch, conservative gays and lesbians seem intent on trashing the liberal arguments rather than helping to articulate and promulgate the conservative arguments.
And that is the problem I have been trying to articulate, and I think that it is a significant problem.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
We lived together in close quarters with straights without problems, and just as straights lived in close quarters with us without problems.
All that can be positively stated from that, given the circumstances, is that the ban on openly-gay military personnel works just fine, and there’s no need to remove it.
The question posed by repeal of the federal section of DOMA, though, is not whether same-sex marriage is a good idea or a bad one
Of course; gay liberals don’t want to talk about the value of gay marriage. They just want to ram it down peoples’ throats, ignoring the peoples’ right to vote and the peoples’ right to change and update their own constitutions.
By the way, the fact that a few supporters of same-sex marriage make bad arguements does not affect the force or validity of the good arguments in favor of same-sex marriage.
When you and the gay liberal community start repudiating those bad arguments and throwing those people out, Tom, then you may have a point.
Jonathan Rauch is not mainstream in the gay community. Beyond Marriage and the ACLU are. Furthermore, Rauch’s argument relies on the theory that the reason the gay community behaves irresponsibly is due to the lack of marriage, which makes of gay people helpless puppets unable to control their sexual needs and desires and needing the benevolent hand of government to force them to behave themselves.
I find that insulting and belittling to both gays and straights. I behave myself, not because of marriage, but because I am a responsible, mature adult. Blaming your misbehavior and irresponsibility on the fact that you can’t get married is a cop-out, and the whinings of an immature individual.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: We lived together in close quarters with straights without problems, and just as straights lived in close quarters with us without problems.
ND30: All that can be positively stated from that, given the circumstances, is that the ban on openly-gay military personnel works just fine, and there’s no need to remove it.
The fact that a million living veterans served in the military without incident — the “significant personal distress” and “likelihood of problems” you suggest will occur if DADT is removed — is evidence that DADT could be repealed without creating the “significant personal distress” and “likelihood of problems” you posit.
It speaks to nothing other than the merits of your argument.
It does not suggest that DADT — the ban itself — “is working fine” or that “there’s no need to remove it”.
The two are distinct. That your argument against repeal of DADT is not supported by the facts has no bearing on arguments in favor of repealing DADT, or the other arguments pro and con concerning the wisdom of the ban.
Tom: By the way, the fact that a few supporters of same-sex marriage make bad arguments does not affect the force or validity of the good arguments in favor of same-sex marriage.
ND30: When you and the gay liberal community start repudiating those bad arguments and throwing those people out, Tom, then you may have a point.
I cannot speak for “the liberal gay community” or any other “gay community”. I can only speak for myself.
My arguments — expressed in this forum, in my blog, in the arguments I make within the political arena at community forums and within various bodies of the DPW — flow from a conservative line of thought and a conservative understanding of value of marriage.
When I write or speak, the positions I take and the arguments I put forward repudiate the foolish arguments made by the fringes of both the right and the left, gay and straight alike. I’ve debated both sides over the years. Neither extreme — the far left fringe, epitomized by the Beyond Marriage and other websites you link to, and the far right fringe, epitomized by Focus on the Family, Americans for Truth and the rest — makes much sense.
I would point out to you that you are making exactly the logical mistake in this case that you make when you suggest that so long as foolish arguments are advanced in favor of same-sex marriage, then no argument in favor of same-sex marriage need be considered. Whether or not my views concerning the fringes meet your standards of repudiation, that fact has no bearing on the validity or invalidity of the arguments I express in favor of same-sex marriage.
As to “throwing those people out”, I don’t know who would have the power to do the throwing.
In any event, I won’t do it, and I oppose anyone else doing it.
I believe that free debate of ideas, good and bad alike, is critical to democracy. I trust the citizenry to sort it all out using common sense and common decency. I suppose that is quaint and unworkable, but that’s what I believe.
It seems to me that, instead, we should work to keep “mainstream” groups from being hijacked by the wingnuts. If more Republicans had listened to Barry Goldwater’s common-sense arguments about the dangers posed by the far-right Christian “religious right” in the 1980’s, the Republican Party wouldn’t be in the fix it is now in.
Having seen the disaster created by the far-right fringe within the Republican Party, I think that Democrats should work to keep the fringe elements on the left from similarly hijacking the Democratic Party. As far as I can tell, on gay and lesbian issues anyway, Democrats have succeeded. The White House website’s LGBT agenda is liberal, but it is not fringe.
I would like to see the Republican Party move away from the far-right fringe when it comes to gay and lesbian issues, return to the days when it was a mainstream political party, and adopt conservative positions supporting gay and lesbian equality. The conservative arguments exist, and are, for the most part, cogent, but they are not reflected in the Republican Party’s platform or politics. I don’t think that they are even getting a hearing in the Republican Party as it currently exists. I hope that changes.
ND30: “[Jonathan Rauch]’s argument [concerning marriage] relies on the theory that the reason the gay community behaves irresponsibly is due to the lack of marriage, which makes of gay people helpless puppets unable to control their sexual needs and desires and needing the benevolent hand of government to force them to behave themselves.”
I think this is a caricature, and inaccurate.
Jon’s argument is that just as marriage operates to encourage “settling down” among straights, marriage will, in all likelihood, operate to encourage “settling down” among gays and lesbians. He believes, as I do, that the role of marriage in “settling down” straight men and women is beneficial to society, and he believes, as I do, that the role of marriage in “settling down” gays and lesbians will similarly benefit society.
Jon further argues that it is harmful to society to continue policies that serve to discourage gays and lesbians from “settling down” by denying the validity of the stable relationships that we do, in fact, form and maintain.
He does not, however, argue that gays and lesbians are “helpless puppets unable to control their sexual needs and desires and needing the benevolent hand of government to force them to behave themselves”, or anything close to it.
In any event, we’ve strayed far from the original topic — whether or not conservative gays and lesbians should try to turn the Republican Party around to the point where it adopts conservative positions supporting gays and lesbians by the 2010 mid-term elections — and I think this exchange between us has run its course.
Feel free to the last word.
posted by Bobby on
“given the circumstances, is that the ban on openly-gay military personnel works just fine, and there’s no need to remove it.”
—Works fine for the breeders. They don’t have to hide their Playboy magazines, they don’t have to stop hugging their opposite-sex spouses in public, they can still discuss sex stuff in public. And every straight men discusses that! You can’t be straight without commenting on the opposite sex.
No, I say end the ban on gays and let the breeders grow up.
“In the meantime, Obama has signed an executive order on the closing of Gitmo. That’s not a gay issue, but it’s still good news to this patriot.”
—I hope you’re happy during the next terrorist attack. Obama doesn’t like Gitmo, doesn’t like waterboarding, doesn’t like “torture.” Fine, I hope he likes terrorism because that’s what you get when you play soft with terrorists.
And in a way, it is a gay issue. There’s a huge chance that the next terrorist target might be an area with lots of gays. Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, or Miami. Would you like to see Sears Towers blown up? Or the Golden Gate destroyed?
Bush was never given credit for all the terrorist plans he foiled thanks to his methods. So fine, let Obama play with our lives, let him get along with Europe, we’ll simply have to blame the next terrorist attack on him!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The fact that a million living veterans served in the military without incident — the “significant personal distress” and “likelihood of problems” you suggest will occur if DADT is removed — is evidence that DADT could be repealed without creating the “significant personal distress” and “likelihood of problems” you posit.
Incorrect. Since DADT and the previous ban have made it possible for gay and lesbian people to serve without incident, they should be maintained.
As to “throwing those people out”, I don’t know who would have the power to do the throwing.
In any event, I won’t do it, and I oppose anyone else doing it.
This is beyond amusing. You expect the Republican Party and Republican gays to get rid of the social conservatives you hate, but when you are asked to get rid of leftist gays, you refuse to do it.
Jon’s argument is that just as marriage operates to encourage “settling down” among straights, marriage will, in all likelihood, operate to encourage “settling down” among gays and lesbians.
Marriage appears to work that way because of the social expectation of the community that married couples will settle down, not because of anything inherent to marriage.
However, the expectations of the gay community are towards promiscuity, not towards settling down, and marriage does nothing to change that.
Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, ?Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.?
Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: ?I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn?t mean anything.?
Or perhaps you prefer this example.
Society developed the concept of monogamous, committed pairings long before it ever came up with the concept of marriage law. The law only reinforces what society has already developed and deemed as a good thing. That is why Rauch’s theory that marriage will magically confer good behavior on people like Erbelding is wrong; people like Erbelding have rationalized promiscuity as being part of the gay experience, and the gay community reinforces this promiscuity.
posted by BobN on
“I behave myself, not because of marriage, but because I am a responsible, mature adult.”
You “behave yourself” because you spend all your time on here posting ridiculously partisan tripe.
posted by BobN on
“Society developed the concept of monogamous, committed pairings long before it ever came up with the concept of marriage law.”
When was that exactly? Back when male Roman citizens took wives, yet were free to boink slaves (male or female) whenever they wanted and were free to visit prostitutes? Or back when some of our founding fathers routinely visited the slave shacks after a bit too much rum? Or are you talking about Victorian times, when prostitution was openly tolerated?
Just how long has heterosexual marriage been strictly monogamous? (Note: I’ll cut you some slack, you can leave France out of consideration, since they’ve never been big on it.)
posted by BobN on
“Society developed the concept of monogamous, committed pairings long before it ever came up with the concept of marriage law.”
What evidence is there that same-sex pairing weren’t part of that? After all, some of our close relatives in the animal kingdom seem to tolerate same-sex pairing quite well. You don’t think early man didn’t? On what authority did they hate us, you know, before Leviticus?
posted by Pat on
Honestly, ‘twouldn’t bother me in the least if they were. But what those particular things have that sexual orientation does not is explicit Constitutional protection, as outlined in the First, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments.
If the Constitution should be interpreted in that way, then why the need for laws for the classes protected by the Constitution? Again, the conservatives believe that many groups should have protections and be codified into law, but not for gay persons.
NDT: Problem is, Pat, that nicely contradicts this assertion made above by Tom Scharbach.
Tom Scharbach: The Republican Party continues to oppose us on those issues.
Let’s see if I got this right.
You believe that Tom’s statement means that 1) The gay community is a monolith, and 2) If it does mean the gay community is a monolith, that one person saying so, it must be true.
I guess I give the Republican Party more credit than you do. I refuse to believe the Republican Party is that stupid.
If the Republican Party has gay staffers, then they are following the fundamental concept of ENDA, and they are doing it WITHOUT it being the law.
The Republican Party has Black staffers as well. Did they need a law to do that?
Furthermore, if we assume Tom Scharbach’s statement that all Republicans “oppose” gays to be correct, then they are hiring, promoting, and retaining people who they loathe; does that make any sense?
It depends. First of all, some Republicans are gay supportive. In any case, it’s nice that many Republicans have reached the point where it’s okay to hire gay people, and want to stay within 40 years behind the curve. Excellent.
Furthermore, it is amusing to invoke Republican gays as a defense when the gay and lesbian community denies that they are gay, refers to them as “Jewish Nazis” and “kapos”, and funds and supports campaigns to harass them and get them fired from their jobs. It is obvious to Republicans that Republican gays are not typical gays, and in fact are hated and loathed by the vast majority of the gay community, just as conservative blacks are hated and loathed and called “Uncle Toms” by liberal blacks.
But wait a second. Now your saying that the Republican Party does not view gays as “typical gays”? So they don’t view gays as a monolith?
And once again, because some people behave poorly, you attribute it to everyone. And besides, it’s not just these persons that deny that they are gay. Craig denies he’s gay himself.
So what’s being said here is that Obama is probably lying. Figures.
Guess what, NDT. Politicians lie. Perhaps you don’t realize this, but the previous president also lied. No, it does not excuse the lie, but it happens. Too damn often, IMO. A good example of political expediency is Mitt Romney. When he ran for governor of Massachusetts, he campaigned on being even more gay friendly than Ted Kennedy (who supports same sex marriage). But as soon as he decided to run for president, he had to switch gears and become a middle of the road anti-gay Republican. How’s that for lying?
Again, Pat, given that gay liberals support and endorse people who endorse state and Federal bans on marriage, and who make rather interesting remarks about gay people,
I agree with you that those Democratic candidates should not be endorsed by gay organizations and gay persons. But it still doesn’t change the fact that in all these cases, the opponent was at least as anti-gay, and in most cases, more so.
it’s still hard to fathom what exactly you mean by “demonizing gay people”.
Just listen to the rhetoric of many of the Southern Republican senators. No, it’s not limited to Republicans either. Robert Byrd is just as bigoted as those Republicans. And in the Mississippi Senate race, both candidates were seriously trying to out anti-gay the other.
Add to that the fact of how the gay community treats Republican and conservative gays, and it seems rather silly to argue that the gay community cares about anything other than political affiliation.
In individual races, when the Republican candidate is more consistently as gay supportive (or only as anti-gay) or more gay supportive than the Democratic candidate, and many in the gay community still support Democrats, then I’ll be glad to revisit this discussion. When that does happen, I will change my political affiliation.
Conservative gays recognize a very difficult concept for liberal gays, Tom, which is that treating two things that are different differently is not “unequal”.
Thankfully, many conservative gays don’t view DADT the same way you do. Good for them.
However, the expectations of the gay community are towards promiscuity, not towards settling down, and marriage does nothing to change that.
Uh oh, Mr. Erbelding, the authority on same sex marriage, appears again. Maybe you’re right, NDT. Straights have marriage, but we see what David Vitter, Newt Gingrich, and Rudy Giuliani think of monogamy in marriage. I guess all straights are not ready for opposite sex marriage either.
Society developed the concept of monogamous, committed pairings long before it ever came up with the concept of marriage law.
I don’t see how you know that for sure. It certainly contradicts the Bible’s rendition of events.
That is why Rauch’s theory that marriage will magically confer good behavior on people like Erbelding is wrong; people like Erbelding have rationalized promiscuity as being part of the gay experience, and the gay community reinforces this promiscuity.
You’re right again. It certainly didn’t magically confer monogamy to Vitter, Gingrich, and Giuliani. That’s why we should keep opposite marriage for all, and same sex marriage for none.
Tom Scharbach, excellent arguments!
posted by Pat on
I hope you’re happy during the next terrorist attack. Obama doesn’t like Gitmo, doesn’t like waterboarding, doesn’t like “torture.” Fine, I hope he likes terrorism because that’s what you get when you play soft with terrorists.
Bobby, I honestly don’t know if closing Gitmo is a good idea or not. I don’t think that it will make a difference one way or another in combatting terrorism.
Bush was never given credit for all the terrorist plans he foiled thanks to his methods.
I give Bush all the credit for the terrorist plans he foiled. But they had nothing to do with waterboarding, or any of the other abuses that occurred.
—Works fine for the breeders. They don’t have to hide their Playboy magazines, they don’t have to stop hugging their opposite-sex spouses in public, they can still discuss sex stuff in public. And every straight men discusses that! You can’t be straight without commenting on the opposite sex.
No, I say end the ban on gays and let the breeders grow up.
Agreed. Besides, I refuse to believe our military is inferior to Canada’s and Israel’s, and that we cannot get rid of DADT. Thankfully, military personnel, more and more, are not as hung up on sexual issues as NDT purports them to be.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby, I honestly don’t know if closing Gitmo is a good idea or not. I don’t think that it will make a difference one way or another in combatting terrorism.”
—The men in Guantanamo make the cribs and the bloods look like Boy Scouts. These are people willing to die for Allah, if they where to escape from an American prison, they could do major damage. Guantanamo is the perfect place because you got the ocean on one side and the Cuban army on the other. In the unlikely case someone escapes from Guantanamo prison, they still have to walk through a minefield, and then evade capture by the cubans who don’t want them.
“I give Bush all the credit for the terrorist plans he foiled. But they had nothing to do with waterboarding, or any of the other abuses that occurred.”
—Watching the O’reilly factor I learned that sources in the intelligence department report that 50% of the important information that has prevented terrorism has been gotten through questionable records.
Frankly, the American version of “torture” is not torture at all. Real torture involves electricity, beatings with blunt objects, pulling fingernails, shoving your head into a vat of water and taking it out when you’re about to pass out. Waterboarding may feel horrible, but you’re not really drowning.
Besides, the worst thing Obama can do is tell military people how to do their jobs. Our CIA doesn’t need to be micromanaged by someone who has never faced any danger in his life.
posted by Pat on
The men in Guantanamo make the cribs and the bloods look like Boy Scouts. These are people willing to die for Allah, if they where to escape from an American prison, they could do major damage. Guantanamo is the perfect place because you got the ocean on one side and the Cuban army on the other. In the unlikely case someone escapes from Guantanamo prison, they still have to walk through a minefield, and then evade capture by the cubans who don’t want them.
Okay, I had a colleague that went to Guantanamo himself, while working for the government. While he maintains that most of those detained are most likely criminals, that hardly any of them, if any, are terrorists. Sure, he may be wrong. But why haven’t these persons been processed and tried? If any of them are terrorists, let’s find out for sure, and make sure they’re kept behind bars forever. But what about those that are imprisoned wrongly. It’s likely that some of these persons are either innocent, or guilty of a much lesser crime? It’s inhumane that these people are being kept locked up. I have a huge problem when foreign governments to that to our citizens, it’s certainly not right if we are doing that as well.
Watching the O’reilly factor I learned that sources in the intelligence department report that 50% of the important information that has prevented terrorism has been gotten through questionable records.
I question that, but let’s assume you’re right. Then it’s our obligation to be honest about what the best way is to interrogate suspected terrorists, instead of waiting it to be leaked out and make us look like hypocritical jerks. We either need to urge change in the Geneva Conventions or decide to abandon it, if doing so is impeding our defense in dealing with terrorists. This colleague said that we got the most information from a suspect who was treated nicely, flattered, etc. Of course, that does not mean that such techniques will work for all terror suspects, and I don’t advocate that these prisoners are given the red carpet treatment.
Frankly, the American version of “torture” is not torture at all. Real torture involves electricity, beatings with blunt objects, pulling fingernails, shoving your head into a vat of water and taking it out when you’re about to pass out. Waterboarding may feel horrible, but you’re not really drowning.
To me, whether waterboarding satisfies the definition of torture to some, but not to others, is not important. It is what it is. Right now, it is official military policy that such techniques do not work. If that is no longer the case, then official policy needs to be changed.
Besides, the worst thing Obama can do is tell military people how to do their jobs. Our CIA doesn’t need to be micromanaged by someone who has never faced any danger in his life.
Ultimately, the president is responsible for how the military people do their jobs. My guess is that he will listen to various military personnel, and decide such, as I assume that’s what Bush did (except, apparently, in Abu Ghraib). As for the CIA, it needs a swift kick in the @$$. For too long it has been run by bureaucrats who don’t know squat about intelligence, and more worried about pleasing their bosses instead of providing the best intelligence. Unfortunately, it looks as if Obama is continuing this trend with his choice for CIA Chief.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Steve (in latest update): “I’d add that the demonization (blaming for all ills) and deification (an awe-struck expectation of deliverence) toward opposed/favored political leaders has become the religion of the left. And of the two responses, deification of the person elected to be chief administrator of the executive branch is the more dangerous for the well being of any democratic republic.”
I agree with you that “deification”, in the sense that you define it, is dangerous.
I don’t see much evidence, though, of deification of Obama, in that sense, among gays and lesbians.
I don’t see evidence of deification during the primaries. Gays and lesbians in the Democratic Party did not flock to President Obama during the primaries. Most supported Senator Clinton. Even after President Obama won the nomination, gays and lesbians in the Democratic Party came around to supporting him with reservations, with a certain reluctance.
Gays and lesbians supported President Obama in the general election. Given the positions taken by Senator McCain — Senator McCain opposed the FMA but favored state amendments banning same-sex marriages and civil unions, opposed gay and lesbian adoption, supported DADT, supported DOMA, opposed EDNA, opposed extending the definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation and so on — that makes sense to me. But I don’t see evidence of deification.
I don’t see evidence of deification after the election, either. Many gays and lesbians have, for the most part, have been quite forthright in opposition to President Obama’s handling of the Rick Warren affair.
And I don’t see evidence of deification now. What I see is determination to hold President Obama’s feet to the fire on the promises he made during the campaign, a level of wariness.
I think you are flogging a red herring, Steve.
posted by Bobby on
“Sure, he may be wrong. But why haven’t these persons been processed and tried?”
—Some have, some are enemy combatants. Military tribunals can release the innocent if there are any. Did you hear about the guy that after serving 6 years in Guantanamo was freed and now he’s a member of a terrorist organization? It was on the news today.
“Then it’s our obligation to be honest about what the best way is to interrogate suspected terrorists, instead of waiting it to be leaked out and make us look like hypocritical jerks.”
—Well, I don’t think so. If we tell the world our methods, terrorists will simply train themselves to survive them. I advocate letting the experts in the field decide what to do.
“Ultimately, the president is responsible for how the military people do their jobs. My guess is that he will listen to various military personnel, and decide such, as I assume that’s what Bush did (except, apparently, in Abu Ghraib).”
—Abu Ghraib was a joke compared to many other places, like Cuban prisons. I’ve seen the pictures, I’ve seen worse. I think the president can declare war, pull out, but I don’t want him micromanaging the military. Stalin is a great example, at first he tried controlling his military during WW2, eventually he gave up and let his generals do their jobs. Hitler is the opposite example, Hitler was so controlling that his german army took unprecedented risks.
I’m not sure about the CIA, I think they made mistakes, but they and homeland security have managed to keep us safe after 9/11. I agree that Obama’s choice for CIA chief is terrible.
But I’m not surprised, everything that Sean Hanniti, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh said about Obama is coming to pass. The irony is that most Americans don’t want radical change, they were just tired of the GOP. However, if you vote for a senator that has the most liberal record in the senate, you get what you deserve. Obama is keeping his promises, God help us all now.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You believe that Tom’s statement means that 1) The gay community is a monolith, and 2) If it does mean the gay community is a monolith, that one person saying so, it must be true.
I guess I give the Republican Party more credit than you do. I refuse to believe the Republican Party is that stupid.
What the Republican Party knows is that the Tom Scharbachs, with their beliefs that all Republicans are evil and hate gays, dominate the gay community — and will set out to destroy any gay who differs from that opinion, as we see with the support of the hate campaigns of Mike Rogers and John Aravosis.
Hence, they see no reason to pander to the gay community in the first place.
And once again, because some people behave poorly, you attribute it to everyone.
No, Pat; I attribute it to everyone because gays like yourself spend more time whining about having it pointed out than you do in actually going after the people engaging in this poor behavior.
Another example:
Uh oh, Mr. Erbelding, the authority on same sex marriage, appears again. Maybe you’re right, NDT. Straights have marriage, but we see what David Vitter, Newt Gingrich, and Rudy Giuliani think of monogamy in marriage.
Again, Pat, instead of condemning the behavior of gays, you try to deflect and spin and make excuses.
Let’s see; were Vitter, Gingrich, and Giuliani publicly praised for their behavior, or were they publicly excoriated? Giuliani, to name one, lost his last election run in great part to his behavior.
Where has the mainstream gay community similarly and publicly excoriated Erbelding for his behavior?
I don’t see how you know that for sure. It certainly contradicts the Bible’s rendition of events.
Which is an interesting interpretation of the words in Matthew 19:5 which talks about “the two” becoming “one”, or the use of the singular as opposed to the plural in Ephesians 5:33, or the very clear dicta in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus that say specifically that those who are leaders in the church should only have one spouse.
And as for BobN’s argument, incestuous sex between siblings and between parents and children is quite common in the animal kingdom, as is killing of one’s own young. Shall we now legalize all of these as well, since we can argue that it is “biological” to want to have sex with your blood relatives and kill your children?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ah, the irony.
First, this statement:
Besides, the worst thing Obama can do is tell military people how to do their jobs.
Which nicely contradicts:
No, I say end the ban on gays and let the breeders grow up.
Agreed. Besides, I refuse to believe our military is inferior to Canada’s and Israel’s, and that we cannot get rid of DADT. Thankfully, military personnel, more and more, are not as hung up on sexual issues as NDT purports them to be.
The funny part about this is that neither Pat or Bobby would likely tell military women or men who objected to having members of the opposite sex sleep, shower, and live with them 24/7 that their concerns were unwarranted, that any objections meant that they were “hung up on sexual issues”, and that they needed to “grow up”.
posted by Bobby on
North Dallas, what about the “rights” of white racists not to serve with blacks? What about the “rights” of evangelicals not to serve with pagans? Or of southeners not to serve with yankees? The military is not Burger King, you can’t have it your way! What about this?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/07/MNG6TJRC1G1.DTL
When blacks were integrated into the military, it wasn’t a popular choice, it was a presidential order. I am not going to tell the military how to bomb a bridge or interrogate a terrorist, but I will tell them to stop discharging people for being gay.
“The funny part about this is that neither Pat or Bobby would likely tell military women or men who objected to having members of the opposite sex sleep, shower, and live with them 24/7 that their concerns were unwarranted,”
—What are you talking about? The barracks are segregated by gender, men and women don’t sleep and shower together. In basic training they don’t even train together. Maybe in some cases they work together and it does create some problems for some immature people.
That’s because breeders aren’t trained to control their sexual feelings the way we are. Well, too bad, they should be trained, and in fact, they are being trained when it comes to anti-harassment policies. Interestingly enough, the Israelis often have female drill sergeants training the way. I think that forces men to look at women as warriors and not mere sex objects. Besides, there’s nothing sexy about a woman who screams at you.
I don’t think its unreasonable to integrate gays into the military. This isn’t like letting blind people fly planes, or deaf people work the sonar. There’s no special accommodation here.
And you know as well as I that gays aren’t going to join in large numbers. So what’s the big deal here?
posted by Pat on
What the Republican Party knows is that the Tom Scharbachs, with their beliefs that all Republicans are evil and hate gays, dominate the gay community — and will set out to destroy any gay who differs from that opinion, as we see with the support of the hate campaigns of Mike Rogers and John Aravosis.
Hence, they see no reason to pander to the gay community in the first place.
Sorry, NDT. I’ve read Tom Scharbach’s posts (maybe I’ve missed some, or he’s posted in another forum), and I don’t see him making the claim that Republicans are all evil. Is it because you disagree on some core issue, that you’re projecting this? I don’t know.
Further, I don’t believe that the 75% of the gay voters who voted for Obama are supportive of Rogers and Aravosis. For example, I don’t. But let’s say I’m an exception. There are still about 25% of the gay population that supports Republicans consistently. Whatever you believe Tom’s beliefs are, it is clear that many gay persons have different beliefs. I don’t agree with all that Tom says myself, however, so far I’ve seen him articulate his thoughts well, and has been respectful to those he disagree with.
No, Pat; I attribute it to everyone because gays like yourself spend more time whining about having it pointed out than you do in actually going after the people engaging in this poor behavior.
Really? You’ve read my posts, and I have condemned bad behavior plenty of times. On the other hand, I have given you the opportunity to condemn the parents who excoriate their children for being gay. Instead, you are the one that has excused the behavior.
Let’s see; were Vitter, Gingrich, and Giuliani publicly praised for their behavior, or were they publicly excoriated? Giuliani, to name one, lost his last election run in great part to his behavior.
Where has the mainstream gay community similarly and publicly excoriated Erbelding for his behavior?
Was Erbelding publicly praised for his words? Further, Erbelding is not as well known as Vitter, Gingrich, and Giuliani. I have seen you criticize them as often (maybe) as the gay community has criticized Erbelding, and certainly less than I criticized Erbelding. I’ve made clear my belief that marriage should be monogamous. At Erbelding is honest about what he thinks of marriage. Vitter, Gingrich, and Giuliani apparently lied about it.
Also, I’ll grant it’s possible that you visit (non-gay) conservative sites, and you criticize the behaviors and bigotry of conservatives on those sites as staunchly as you do to the gay community of gay sites.
Which is an interesting interpretation of the words in Matthew 19:5 which talks about “the two” becoming “one”, or the use of the singular as opposed to the plural in Ephesians 5:33, or the very clear dicta in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus that say specifically that those who are leaders in the church should only have one spouse.
NDT, that’s nice and all. But the Bible is all over the place on marriage. We have Solomon with countless wives, and Abraham having an affair for some lame excuse (unless his community ran out of eligible bachelors, and even then). And even if we concentrate on your passages, what are you saying? That persons needed a Bible to become monogamy in marriage is the way to go? Again, that contradicts what you said about society pairing off monogamously before marriage was instituted.
And as for BobN’s argument, incestuous sex between siblings and between parents and children is quite common in the animal kingdom, as is killing of one’s own young. Shall we now legalize all of these as well, since we can argue that it is “biological” to want to have sex with your blood relatives and kill your children?
Good point, NDT. I remember some conservatives using the silly argument that homosexuality is bad because it doesn’t (in their belief) happen in the non-human animal kingdom. Besides their facts being incorrect, following their logic, we should close down schools, churches, marriage, and other institutions that animals don’t have.
The funny part about this is that neither Pat or Bobby would likely tell military women or men who objected to having members of the opposite sex sleep, shower, and live with them 24/7 that their concerns were unwarranted, that any objections meant that they were “hung up on sexual issues”, and that they needed to “grow up”.
While I agree with Bobby’s points for the most part, I don’t favor, at this point, integrating the sexes in the military. (I’m not sure if Bobby favors this either). In any case, while we all agree that the military culture is a bit different than civilian culture, it still mirrors it in many ways. This is definitely the case for separation of the sexes for bathrooms and showers. We don’t have separate public bathrooms and showers for each individual gay person.
Again, Israel and Canada can do it. I’m confident that the U.S. military can do it as well.
posted by Pat on
Some have, some are enemy combatants. Military tribunals can release the innocent if there are any. Did you hear about the guy that after serving 6 years in Guantanamo was freed and now he’s a member of a terrorist organization? It was on the news today.
Bobby, I’ll grant you I am not schooled in military justice. But it seems to me that the wheels of justice are moving very slowly for these prisoners. I certainly don’t want one single terrorist released from prison. But what can you do? Murderers, like OJ Simpson for example, are set free all the time in this country. I think we both know the principal behind this. As for the particular case, I don’t like it either. But the problem is way beyond this. The fact is that most terrorists, when recruited were not ever prisoned, certainly not in Gitmo.
Well, I don’t think so. If we tell the world our methods, terrorists will simply train themselves to survive them. I advocate letting the experts in the field decide what to do.
I would be inclined to agree with you. But the problem is our experts did not follow the procedure, violated U.S and International law, in some cases. We, as citizens, need to know that our military is following the law. If the current law undermines the military from doing their job and/or keeping us safe, then the laws MUST change.
Abu Ghraib was a joke compared to many other places, like Cuban prisons. I’ve seen the pictures, I’ve seen worse. I think the president can declare war, pull out, but I don’t want him micromanaging the military. Stalin is a great example, at first he tried controlling his military during WW2, eventually he gave up and let his generals do their jobs. Hitler is the opposite example, Hitler was so controlling that his german army took unprecedented risks.
I agree that the president should not micromanage the military. That’s the general’s and other commander’s jobs. But the president does need to make decisions on strategies and broad issues. This includes how prisoners should be handled.
But I’m not surprised, everything that Sean Hanniti, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh said about Obama is coming to pass. The irony is that most Americans don’t want radical change, they were just tired of the GOP. However, if you vote for a senator that has the most liberal record in the senate, you get what you deserve. Obama is keeping his promises, God help us all now.
I agree with the second sentence above. As for Obama, he’s already broken some promises. We’ll see which ones he will break in the future, and which ones he’ll keep.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What are you talking about? The barracks are segregated by gender, men and women don’t sleep and shower together. In basic training they don’t even train together.
And why is that, Bobby?
We have Solomon with countless wives, and Abraham having an affair for some lame excuse (unless his community ran out of eligible bachelors, and even then).
We also have it made clear that Solomon’s multiple wives were the cause of his downfall, and that the reason Abraham had sex with Hagar was because Sarah, his wife, was barren — and if you look, Sarah TOLD him to do it (Genesis 16: 1-3) so that she could have children using Hagar as a surrogate.
Besides their facts being incorrect, following their logic, we should close down schools, churches, marriage, and other institutions that animals don’t have.
Humans are not animals in the classical sense, Pat, which is why we are capable of imposing mores such as not killing and eating your children, or having sex with them. We are capable of controlling our behavior, whereas animals are not.
posted by Bobby on
“But the problem is our experts did not follow the procedure, violated U.S and International law,”
—The Israelis do it all the time and it keeps them safe. If Israel didn’t torture suspected terrorist, if they had no wall, if they had no checkpoints, there would be no Israel! People don’t realize the pressures of fighting and preventing terrorism. If we put too much emphasis on procedures, the rule of law, the Geneva convention, and all that other BS, we’re going to put our country in danger.
“And why is [the military segregated by gender] that, Bobby?”
—Because straight men can’t look at naked women without getting excited. Gay men are trained to suppress their feelings, which is why most gays can go to Bally Gym and not get an erection in a locker room full of naked guys.
I’m not saying openly gay soldiers would be accepted by everyone. Maybe there will be a few fist fights, but that’s ok. Sometimes that’s what it takes to earn some respect. But forcing gays to keep their sexuality quiet means we’ll never get a chance to stand up for ourselves. Do you like laughing at homophobic jokes? Because if your gay and in the military, it’s pretty hard to say “hey, that joke offends me” without being a suspect yourself.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Gay men are trained to suppress their feelings, which is why most gays can go to Bally Gym and not get an erection in a locker room full of naked guys.
Right, mhm, sure, certainly.
But forcing gays to keep their sexuality quiet means we’ll never get a chance to stand up for ourselves. Do you like laughing at homophobic jokes? Because if your gay and in the military, it’s pretty hard to say “hey, that joke offends me” without being a suspect yourself.
LOL….Bobby, I live in a city and interact in a community where expressing political and social opinions that are anything to the right of Marxism and hedonism can make you “suspect”. You learn very quickly that there are things that are more important than having to make a public scene, and that taking offense should be saved for times when it really matters.
posted by Pat on
The Israelis do it all the time and it keeps them safe. If Israel didn’t torture suspected terrorist, if they had no wall, if they had no checkpoints, there would be no Israel! People don’t realize the pressures of fighting and preventing terrorism. If we put too much emphasis on procedures, the rule of law, the Geneva convention, and all that other BS, we’re going to put our country in danger.
I guess if we had several terrorist groups in practically walking distance from our borders, I might feel differently. As it is right now, we have dangerous citizens within our own borders, and we don’t (or we at least agree, that we shouldn’t) throw away the rule of law. Otherwise, what’s the point of having laws, and requiring everyone to follow them?
The problem is that it appears we really don’t know how to effectively deal with terrorism. We need experts to figure this out, and find out how we can do this and remain true to our ideals. If this means changing our own laws, changing our Constitution, and disregarding International Law when it hamstrings us, then fine.
We also have it made clear that Solomon’s multiple wives were the cause of his downfall, and that the reason Abraham had sex with Hagar was because Sarah, his wife, was barren — and if you look, Sarah TOLD him to do it (Genesis 16: 1-3) so that she could have children using Hagar as a surrogate.
Yes, NDT, I know that Sarah told Abraham to do it. And instead of agreeing to remain monogamous, he obliged. So he was no better or worse than Eric Erbelding. Both were at least honest regarding their lack of monogamy.
Humans are not animals in the classical sense, Pat, which is why we are capable of imposing mores such as not killing and eating your children, or having sex with them. We are capable of controlling our behavior, whereas animals are not.
Agreed, NDT. That’s why I’ve always disregarded the arguments about what happens in the (non-human) animal kingdom, when discussing the rights or wrongs of human behavior.
posted by Bobby on
“Right, mhm, sure, certainly.”
—I went to high school. I would have gotten my ass kicked if I had been caught leering at any naked guy. The military is just the same. Do you think gays are going to be stroking their weiners in the barracks’ showers? People get beat up for way less than that!
“LOL….Bobby, I live in a city and interact in a community where expressing political and social opinions that are anything to the right of Marxism and hedonism can make you “suspect”.”
—I’m shocked you live in San Francisco. Still, you prove my point. The dominant culture dictates the rules. The military is mostly homophobic and conservative, so even if gays are allowed, there’s not going to be any crazy gay stuff going on. It’s just like the military in Israel and England. There’s still homophobia in both but at least gays there have the freedom of face it and rise above it. What freedom do our gays in arms have? None.
Besides, that gym was in the Castro, the Castro is a gay territory. What the hell are breeders doing there in the first place? That’s like me going to a black neighborhood and complaining because people sing rap and talk ebonics.
If you want gays to stop having sex in the steam room, just call the cops, they’ll get some people arrested, and then it will stop.
It’s just like prostitution. In the gay neighborhood of Cedars Springs, Dallas, the cops don’t care if a few crackwhores sell their wares openly. But if the crackwhores where in a mostly straight neighborhoods, the police would care.
posted by Bobby on
“I guess if we had several terrorist groups in practically walking distance from our borders, I might feel differently.”
—True, but do we need to wait until it gets to that point?
“The problem is that it appears we really don’t know how to effectively deal with terrorism.”
—I think we’re doing just fine. Have we had another 9/11?
posted by Pat on
True, but do we need to wait until it gets to that point?
and
I think we’re doing just fine. Have we had another 9/11?
We’ve always done fairly well on the homeland. Even during Clinton’s terms, we’ve had only one homeland terrorist incident caused by foreign terrorists. And none prior to that. So, in some sense, we are doing okay. Where we are not doing okay is in the foreign arena. We didn’t realize that our supporting the freedom fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union was going to lead to a breeding ground for terrorists. That the war in Iraq was going to unleash terrorists coming to Iraq and join the fight (which thankfully, for now at least, we seem to have under some control). And that we know of the existence and essentially the location of Hamas and Hezbollah, and they are still in existence.
So there’s plenty of need for improvement in regards to intelligence. But as you suggest, it’s been good enough to prevent a terrorist attack on our homeland for seven years. I’d like to think our intelligence is good enough to know whether we are in danger of having a terrorist breeding ground form in, or near our borders. If not, we’re in big trouble. Since I don’t believe that’s the case, we can and should still follow the rule of law in our country, and not be indiscriminate of our civil liberties in the meantime.
Besides, that gym was in the Castro, the Castro is a gay territory.
Bobby, I pretty much agree with you on allowing gay persons to serve openly in the military. But gay territory or not, sex should not occur in a public locker room of a gym. As a patron, I would be offended by that. I would complain to management, and if it didn’t stop, I would cancel my membership and demand a refund, since I didn’t pay membership for a bathhouse.
On the other hand, that’s obviously not an excuse to not allow gays to serve in the military. It’s a completely different culture, in which straight persons would be dominant over gay persons by at least a ratio of 20-1. So even if a gay person were inclined to start having sex in the locker rooms, it would happen rarely. And if any got caught, they’d probably get their @$$es kicked. Heck, even straight males try to engage in shenanigans with women, despite segregation of genders. And we don’t use that as an excuse to ban straight males from the military.
posted by Bobby on
“But gay territory or not, sex should not occur in a public locker room of a gym.”
—Well, perhaps you’re right. I’ve seen a lot of ads on craiglist about guys that want to hook up at Gold’s Gym, Bally’s, 24 Hour Fitness, etc. I can understand it. Imagine that you where a drop dead gorgeous gay with amazing abs and biceps. You live in a world where you desire and men also desire. Sex is there for the taking and thus you take it. Believe me, if women where as easy as gay men are, straight men would be having sex in steam rooms, with women!
Our culture is very advanced, although sometimes appalling. Yesterday I saw an ad from a guy that wants to get a BJ while his boyfriend is sleeping. A breeder would never do that, he would commit adultery in a hotel, but this gay comrade would cheat on his bf in the bf’s own home.
As a matter of politeness, I think since bathhouses have steam rooms, those gays should go there and avoid the gym. But like I said, it’s the freaking Castro, a breeder in the Castro can’t expect the same conduct he would see in Nashville.
“As a patron, I would be offended by that. I would complain to management, and if it didn’t stop, I would cancel my membership and demand a refund, since I didn’t pay membership for a bathhouse.”
—Well, what usually happens is people don’t complain, they simply cancel their memberships and then gays become dominant at the gym.
posted by Pat on
Well, perhaps you’re right. I’ve seen a lot of ads on craiglist about guys that want to hook up at Gold’s Gym, Bally’s, 24 Hour Fitness, etc. I can understand it. Imagine that you where a drop dead gorgeous gay with amazing abs and biceps. You live in a world where you desire and men also desire. Sex is there for the taking and thus you take it. Believe me, if women where as easy as gay men are, straight men would be having sex in steam rooms, with women!
I have no problem with persons making a connection at the gym. If I was single and looking for a hookup, I would either go to my place, his place, or a hotel. But for me personally, I never have sex with a person the first time I met him anyway.
Our culture is very advanced, although sometimes appalling. Yesterday I saw an ad from a guy that wants to get a BJ while his boyfriend is sleeping. A breeder would never do that, he would commit adultery in a hotel, but this gay comrade would cheat on his bf in the bf’s own home.
I don’t know. Some straight men can be cavalier about practically cheating under their wife’s nose.
Well, what usually happens is people don’t complain, they simply cancel their memberships and then gays become dominant at the gym.
If management wants their place to be a bathhouse with some weights and machines, they should advertise it as such. The point is that many gays would prefer not to belong to a gym in which sex happens so indiscriminantly in the locker room.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Pat,
“But for me personally, I never have sex with a person the first time I met him anyway.”
—You’re one of a few. Some gays have sex with people they haven’t even met! I’ve seen ads that say “show up, do me, then leave, no talking!”
“Some straight men can be cavalier about practically cheating under their wife’s nose.”
—Do you think a straight man would risk his marriage by asking his secretary or nanny to give him a BJ while the wife sleeps in the other room?
“If management wants their place to be a bathhouse with some weights and machines, they should advertise it as such.”
—But here’s what you don’t understand. Bathouses are open to the public, they allow ugly people to come in, they have sticky floors and a seedy ambiance. Some gyms on the other hand are very intimidating, so no ugly people don’t show up, they are clean, pretty, and don’t look seedy. Also, part of the intrigue of having sex in a public gym rather than a bathhouse is knowing that you’re not supposed to do that there. There’s a lot of psychology going on here, most of it a lack of shame.
“The point is that many gays would prefer not to belong to a gym in which sex happens so indiscriminantly in the locker room.”
—I think whenever you get a large group of gays together there’s going to be sex. In all-gay cruises, the crew walks around the ship looking for people having sex in what they think are the shadows, the pool at 2am, etc. You might as well join a mostly straight gym.
posted by Pat on
You’re one of a few. Some gays have sex with people they haven’t even met! I’ve seen ads that say “show up, do me, then leave, no talking!”
True, but I don’t think it’s a good idea. Besides the personal moral reasons, I don’t think it’s worth even the slightest risk being infected by someone (even though I would obviously take the necessary precautions) that wouldn’t even want to bother to meet up with you a second time in order to have sex. I had an absolute hottie follow me out to the subway station once, because he didn’t want to wait until the next weekend to meet up again.
Do you think a straight man would risk his marriage by asking his secretary or nanny to give him a BJ while the wife sleeps in the other room?
Some would. But I figure that most who would do that wouldn’t figure that their marriage would be in jeopardy by doing so. Go figure.
Sure, I think a lesser percentage of straight men would than gay men. On the other hand, these are not married persons or civil union persons we are talking about, so maybe it’s not a valid comparison. Although I’m sure some “committed” gay persons would still be more likely to do this, because those that aren’t monogamous are more open to their partners than straight persons. With straight men, they could do the wink-wink with their wives about keeping up the appearance of monogamy, so the wife would probably be less likely to tolerate an affair under the same roof that she is sleeping in.
But here’s what you don’t understand. Bathouses are open to the public, they allow ugly people to come in, they have sticky floors and a seedy ambiance. Some gyms on the other hand are very intimidating, so no ugly people don’t show up, they are clean, pretty, and don’t look seedy. Also, part of the intrigue of having sex in a public gym rather than a bathhouse is knowing that you’re not supposed to do that there. There’s a lot of psychology going on here, most of it a lack of shame.
I guess I don’t understand. I would think a community with bathhouses, there would be ones that would be cleaner that all the pretty gays would dominate, and it would be intimidating for the less pretty ones to go to. But maybe not. I’m sure there’s plenty of psychology going on, similar to the games that go on at bars, and whatnot.
I think whenever you get a large group of gays together there’s going to be sex. In all-gay cruises, the crew walks around the ship looking for people having sex in what they think are the shadows, the pool at 2am, etc. You might as well join a mostly straight gym.
That’s pretty much what I’ve done. Besides, I don’t think there are any predominantly gay gyms in NJ.
I’ve never been on a gay cruise. But at least the crew makes an effort to stop public sex on the ship. Geez, why can’t these people go back to their frickin’ cabin to have sex.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Pat,
“I had an absolute hottie follow me out to the subway station once, because he didn’t want to wait until the next weekend to meet up again.”
—You do realize you might never again meet a hottie like that again, unless you’re a hottie yourself, and even if you meet another hottie, it will not be him. I would have taken a chance with him. Good looking guys are few, and the few that exist generally want other good looking guys. A gay friend of mine used to like twinks (in theirs 20s), and for a while he dated one, didn’t work out. Then he met another man, fatter than he was. They fell in love, and my friend gained 40 pounds. Now they rarely have sex, his boyfriend rarely socializes, and my friend is forced to look at porn to get what he’s not getting. You see what happens when you settle?
“Some would. But I figure that most who would do that wouldn’t figure that their marriage would be in jeopardy by doing so. Go figure.”
—I don’t think so, I think most straight men know how women feel about adultery. There are no adultery pride parades.
“On the other hand, these are not married persons or civil union persons we are talking about, so maybe it’s not a valid comparison.”
—Why does that matter? You don’t need legal recognition to make that relationship real.
“I guess I don’t understand. I would think a community with bathhouses, there would be ones that would be cleaner that all the pretty gays would dominate, and it would be intimidating for the less pretty ones to go to.”
—Well, give credit to gays for not having a velvet rope. They will let you come in, maybe they will ignore you, but at least you can get through the door.
“That’s pretty much what I’ve done. Besides, I don’t think there are any predominantly gay gyms in NJ.”
—And I ask you this, why does it matter if a gym is gay or straight? Are you there to work out or to socialize?
Try this gym, it’s completly private, one on one personal training sessions, they have their own private showers, they do everything from weight loss to bodybuilding.
http://www.fitnesstogether.com/locations/studio_locator.php?state=NJ
posted by Pat on
You do realize you might never again meet a hottie like that again, unless you’re a hottie yourself, and even if you meet another hottie, it will not be him. I would have taken a chance with him. Good looking guys are few, and the few that exist generally want other good looking guys. A gay friend of mine used to like twinks (in theirs 20s), and for a while he dated one, didn’t work out. Then he met another man, fatter than he was. They fell in love, and my friend gained 40 pounds. Now they rarely have sex, his boyfriend rarely socializes, and my friend is forced to look at porn to get what he’s not getting. You see what happens when you settle?
Bobby, I’m definitely not a hottie. I think I’ve said before that GQ isn’t going to be calling me anytime soon. And sometimes I wonder what it would have been like. But here’s the thing. If we did have sex, I’m sure it would have been great and all, and then that’s it. It just becomes a distant memory. There was virtually no chance it would have turned into anything more, because this guy apparently was not interested in meeting anytime in the future. He could have easily agreed to meet a week later, and then who knows? But he was much younger than me anyway. The other thing is, he wanted to go to my place. Now maybe we couldn’t go to his place because maybe he still lived with his parents. But who knows if he planned to steal something or worse? Like I said, I only met the person that night. As it also turned out, it ended up being sort of a first date with my current partner (five years ago tomorrow). And after that night, I wasn’t going to make a date with another guy, even that soon into the relationship. So that was that. I did get to smooch a bit with Mr. Hottie, at least.
I don’t think so, I think most straight men know how women feel about adultery. There are no adultery pride parades.
Maybe so. But yet a lot of straight men commit adultery. But plenty of women are sort of okay with adultery, as long as their husbands don’t parade it, at least not too much.
Why does that matter? You don’t need legal recognition to make that relationship real.
Yet, many daughters don’t tell their fathers that the relationship with her boyfriend that she’s going to move in with doesn’t need legal recognition.
I get what you’re saying. But as long as there isn’t legal recognition of gay relationships, the dynamic is going to be different. No, this doesn’t mean that gay men will all of a sudden become only as promiscuous (in general) as straight men when same sex marriage happens. But legal recognition does change person’s perspectives and expectations. And growing up knowing that such is a possibility could change one’s approach to relationships.
And I ask you this, why does it matter if a gym is gay or straight? Are you there to work out or to socialize?
You’re right. It doesn’t matter. When I go to the gym, it is to workout, and do it as quickly and efficiently as possible. It’s not the place I enjoy hanging out at anyway.
Thanks for the link. I just cancelled membership to a gym. I don’t want to bore this forum again with another story. Besides, it has nothing to do with sex, or looking for sex. 🙂 I’ll have to do something, because I need to get in shape again.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Pat, if you want you can write me at hershelgoldberg454@yahoo.com I would love to chat more with you.
Anyway…
“If we did have sex, I’m sure it would have been great and all, and then that’s it. It just becomes a distant memory.”
—Sometimes memories is all we have. Sometimes one great sexual experience makes up for lots of bad ones. But I understand your POV, you have other priorities.
“As it also turned out, it ended up being sort of a first date with my current partner (five years ago tomorrow).”
—Congratulations. I really mean that.
“Maybe so. But yet a lot of straight men commit adultery. But plenty of women are sort of okay with adultery, as long as their husbands don’t parade it, at least not too much.”
—Well, a woman who’s ok with adultery is either latin and thinks all men are dogs, so what’s the point of changing husbands? Or she’s caucasian but co-dependent, insecure, enjoys having a husband to parade around, has political ambitions (Hillary Clinton) or is simply forgiving.
“Yet, many daughters don’t tell their fathers that the relationship with her boyfriend that she’s going to move in with doesn’t need legal recognition.”
—Breeders are held to different standards than us. If I was straight, I would be expected to date girls with the same religion and from good families. But as a gay man, I don’t care if a man worships Baal, lives in a trailer or in a condo, was in prison, as long as he’s cute, sweet and interested in me. My straight friends don’t have that freedom, if they date outside their faith, is for fun.
If there was legal recognition of gay relationships, I don’t think anything would change aside from the legal benefits. I think we shall always face bigotry just like interracial couples face bigotry.
“And growing up knowing that such is a possibility could change one’s approach to relationships.”
—That’s one reason why the enemies of gay marriage want to keep it illegal. I argue that the legalization of interracial marriage did not increase dramatically interracial marriages. Most people marry the same race, it’s not racism, it’s comfort.
“I’ll have to do something, because I need to get in shape again.”
—Good luck with that. It’s the hardest thing in the world, even my personal trainers admit they have to push themselves since the easiest thing in the world is doing nothing. If you don’t do Fitness Together, get a personal trainer somewhere else (if you can afford it).
posted by Pat on
Hey Pat, if you want you can write me at hershelgoldberg454@yahoo.com I would love to chat more with you.
Okay.
Congratulations. I really mean that.
Thanks. And we also had a civil union yesterday.
Well, a woman who’s ok with adultery is either latin and thinks all men are dogs, so what’s the point of changing husbands? Or she’s caucasian but co-dependent, insecure, enjoys having a husband to parade around, has political ambitions (Hillary Clinton) or is simply forgiving.
Well, that about covers most, if not all, the reasons.
Breeders are held to different standards than us. If I was straight, I would be expected to date girls with the same religion and from good families. But as a gay man, I don’t care if a man worships Baal, lives in a trailer or in a condo, was in prison, as long as he’s cute, sweet and interested in me. My straight friends don’t have that freedom, if they date outside their faith, is for fun.
Really? Granted, my grandmother, a Catholic, married a Protestant (I don’t know which religion), and it was a BIG deal. They had as many people at their wedding as our civil union. And actually, people did want to go, but we wanted to make it quick and quiet. I just didn’t think it was a big deal, except for Orthodox Jewish persons.
If there was legal recognition of gay relationships, I don’t think anything would change aside from the legal benefits. I think we shall always face bigotry just like interracial couples face bigotry.
It wouldn’t change things now. Whether it’s bigotry or behaviors of gay persons. But in time, attitudes and behaviors will change somewhat. For example, my partner’s niece congratulated us. When I was a teen, it never occurred to me to even acknowledge a gay couple, let alone thinking that I could have a committed relationship like any other married couple.
That’s one reason why the enemies of gay marriage want to keep it illegal. I argue that the legalization of interracial marriage did not increase dramatically interracial marriages. Most people marry the same race, it’s not racism, it’s comfort.
Maybe so, regarding interracial marriage. But I do think legalization of same sex marriage, or even federally recognized civil unions will have more of an impact on gay relationships in the next couple of generations. I may still be alive to see whether I’m right or wrong.
Good luck with that. It’s the hardest thing in the world, even my personal trainers admit they have to push themselves since the easiest thing in the world is doing nothing. If you don’t do Fitness Together, get a personal trainer somewhere else (if you can afford it).
Not sure I can afford a trainer. But it’s not just getting the exercise. It’s also about eating better, too. I’m starting to do better in that regard.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Pat,
“It wouldn’t change things now. Whether it’s bigotry or behaviors of gay persons. But in time, attitudes and behaviors will change somewhat.”
—True, but I still think people are more likely to get used to things by seeing them on TV than by any legislation. Transexuals are a great example, it’s been legal for men to change into women for a very long time. In Iran, a male to female post-op transsexual can legally marry a man. Yet why are most people uncomfortable with transsexuals? Well, because we don’t see them enough in the culture.
I’m telling you, Ellen Degeneres getting married to Portia in public was a pretty great thing. It was headline news in America and some other countries. I say change the culture first before you change the law. Get a clear majority, 60% to 70%.
“Maybe so, regarding interracial marriage. But I do think legalization of same sex marriage, or even federally recognized civil unions will have more of an impact on gay relationships in the next couple of generations. I may still be alive to see whether I’m right or wrong.”
—Gays are still gonna reject each other based on looks, personality, performance in bed, age, political views, hobbies, etc.
I often joke that gays don’t recruit, they reject!
My breeder friends are different, it takes them so long to find a woman to date, that they’ll give her every chance in the world, even dating her twice after knowing she’s not attractive. All this effort creates a desire to make that relationship work.
In our gay world there’s no effort. Sex happens right away, and if it doesn’t happen, the object of your affection might find a better candidate than you. Frankly, finding a boyfriend is too much of a hassle, I’m sure many gay men have decided to settle with porn, whores, craiglist, gay.com, bathhouses, exercise/bodybuilding, sex parties, books, movies, video-games, and whatever else fills the emptiness of living alone.
I’m telling you, at 33, I’m already used to living alone, not having a boyfriend, I don’t get depressed about it anymore.
posted by rabenie8 on
As to us LGBT, there is no difference except sexual orentation. The only thing is that we choose a different life style. Yes, we love hot andiffd sexy style. But you shouldn’t deny our honest and kind-hearted characteristic.For my circle of LGBT friends, I also know some from Bimingle com . Yes, they are hot sometimes, but also serious and honest when it comes to love. No matter whom they will show it to. Therefore, whoever needs help, we would also be kind enough to show our love and help to you. We lonove the world too.