Well, the Prop. 8 trial won't exactly be broadcast live, but it'll be live-ish.
The YouTube solution is an interesting compromise, sort of a tape-delay on steroids. The most important thing, to me, is to be able to see our opponents making what they believe is their very best case, not in 30-second spots or rabid emails, but in a court of law and under oath. I'm most interested to hear what legal, rational arguments they really believe support their claim that the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution does not apply to same-sex couples -- not to mention the right to intimate association and the right to privacy.
I don't know about the world, but I will certainly be watching.
70 Comments for “TV or Not TV”
posted by ts on
I’m not so sure this is going to end up being the teachable moment we all seem to think. the issue of the case is not gay marriage, or even the issue of prop 8, but whether the referendum caused the constitution to become self-contradictory. a rather dull, technical issue, and while “fancy law” lawyers and judges will find a way to make a fight of it, frankly I don’t think our side deserves to win. when you amend a constitution, the amendment overrules any and all pre-existing language, such that it can never be made self-contradictory. So the noble principle of equality under the law was amended out from under gay marriage by the vulgar masses of california. that’s one of many possible ways you can amend a constitution.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’m most interested to hear what legal, rational arguments they really believe support their claim that the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution does not apply to same-sex couples
That would be Baker v. Nelson, for starters, in which the same court that decided Loving dismissed a challenge to a state ban on gay-sex marriage for want of a Federal question.
Add to that the obvious fact that the states routinely deny marriage to heterosexuals for several reasons, not the least of which being attempts to marry same-sex partners, under the rational determination that the states do have a vested interest in what sort of relationships to which they choose to extend privileges and may choose not to do so based on society’s determination of what is and is not acceptable. The fact that these bans have not been struck down is a strong indication that marriage is NOT a fundamental constitutional right that cannot be denied to anyone.
not to mention the right to intimate association and the right to privacy
Neither of which has the least to do with marriage, since marriage is a PUBLIC matter. Link’s arguments appear to be that he should be allowed to marry whatever with which he wishes to have sex — a belief that has already been repulsed in numerous court cases making it clear that the right to privacy is not absolute and that society does in fact have the right to deny marriage based on intimate association.
Finally, what I thought was particularly hilarious about this whole episode — again, never reported by partisans like Link whose only interest is in manipulating the outcome — how the judge in the case demonstrated blatant bias by openly commiting an illegal act to try to have the trial televised.
posted by Aubrey on
RE: of what one thinks about the case itself, to say that the judge ‘demonstrated blatant bias by openly committing an illegal act’ is, well, blatantly not true.
I’ve just copied a clip from an LA Times piece on 12/18/09:
9th Circuit lifts ban on cameras in court
1 comment by Carol J. Williams – Dec. 18, 2009 12:00 AM
Los Angeles Times
Federal courts in nine Western states including Arizona will allow video-camera coverage of civil proceedings in an experiment aimed at bettering public understanding of the work of the courts, the chief judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Thursday.
The decision by the court’s judicial council, headed by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, responds to recommendations made to the court two years ago and ends a 1996 ban on the taking of photographs or transmitting radio or video broadcasts.
“We hope that being able to see and hear what transpires in the courtroom will lead to a better public understanding of our judicial processes and enhanced confidence in the rule of law,” Kozinski said. “The experiment is designed to help us find the right balance between the public’s right to access to the courts and the parties’ right to a fair and dignified proceeding.”
The first proceedings to be taped or photographed will be decided by the chief judge of each of the 15 districts in the 9th Circuit region in consultation with Kozinski, the court announcement said.
The change reflects a gradual evolution toward incorporating visual and audio media into the courtroom. (endquote)
I know Judge Walker’s decision can be appealed, but to claim that it was an ‘illegal act’ is not accurate by any measure.
You can disagree with the decision, and you can argue against the decision (as will be done in the appeals process) – but to make false accusations (re: illegality) only demeans you, not the judge in this case.
And let’s just repeat, from the above quote, that this decision follows a recommendation from the 2007 9th Circuit Judicial Council. This move has been advocated, without regard to the particulars of this case, for a while. And this decision also follows a continuous process over the past 2 decades in the 9th District of allowing more access to courtroom proceedings.
(I understand why the National Review doesn’t like the decision, but this was not one of its best articles.)
posted by Throbert McGee on
The question that I hope they’ll delve into is:
Does the current status quo in California — namely “everything but the word ‘marriage’ domestic partnerships” — run afoul of the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution?
posted by Aubrey on
Except that this case will be in relation to the California State Constitution, not the US Constitution. That will be the domain of the US Supreme Court. To where this might possibly be heading.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I know Judge Walker’s decision can be appealed, but to claim that it was an ‘illegal act’ is not accurate by any measure.
Actually, as was nicely demonstrated in further detail, it was not only illegal, it was hilariously illegal.
Next up:
And let’s just repeat, from the above quote, that this decision follows a recommendation from the 2007 9th Circuit Judicial Council. This move has been advocated, without regard to the particulars of this case, for a while.
Unfortunately, Walker’s own statements directly contradict that.
And Walker revealed during the course of the hearing that the fix was in on this issue long agoâthat the desire to televise the Proposition 8 case drove the recommendation by a Ninth Circuit committee to authorize the pilot program: âthis case was very much in mind at that time because it had come to prominence then and was thought to be an ideal candidate for consideration.â How would Walker know this? He was (surprise!) one of the three members appointed by Ninth Circuit chief judge Alex Kozinski to serve on the committee.
In other words, the specific goal of putting in this “pilot program” was to televise the Proposition 8 trial. The Proposition 8 trial was clearly cited BY THE JUDGE WHO WROTE THE ORDER as having been the motivation for the Ninth Circuit’s “pilot program”. This is clearly an attempt on the part of not only the judge on the case, but of the Ninth Circuit, to prejudice the outcome.
posted by BobN on
The term “pilot program” is highly distorting. This would have been a “test” for the Ninth Circuit. Other federal circuits have been filming trials for several years.
If you’re testing to see if there is value in taping court proceedings, by all means, pick a case with absolutely no public interest. Then nobody will watch. Makes perfect sense, of course, since the newfangled technology of video-recording is still in its infancy…
posted by Aubrey on
“without regards to the particulars of this case…” simply referred to the 2007 9th Circuit Judicial Council recommendation. Sorry I didn’t make that sentence a little clearer.
Gotta run. I’ll try to get back into the conversation on the series by Whelan in NRO – which NDT apparently takes as gospel.
posted by Throbert McGee on
not to mention the right to intimate association and the right to privacy
Earth to David Link! Come in, David Link!
The remaining state laws against consensual adult sodomy were voided way back in Aught-Three. You and plenty of other gay activists need to fucking switch gears already, because the legal principles involved in the marriage debate IS DIFFERNT.
posted by BobN on
Throbert, go read Loving v. Virgina and then get back to us on the irrelevance of intimate association.
posted by Amicus on
David,
It’s a little late to hear them in court.
There is a coherent set of arguments that the other sides makes, although it is no persuasive. I’ve been trying to get my hands on some of the things they give to legislators, in vain, so far, however.
Check out here, as one pit stop, the loathsomely misguided Witherspoon Institute.
http://www.winst.org/family_marriage_and_democracy/publications.php
posted by DragonScorpion on
North Dallas Thirty likes to drag out the Baker v. Nelson case as if it were settled law. He always ignores when I or others point out the existence of the very case in question here, and the arguments that are being made in this case (among others):
1) that Loving v. Virginia created a precedent barring the government from arbitrary discrimination which would prevent couples having fair & equal access to what the court referred to as a ârightâ to marriage.
2) the change in California’s law actually stripped away established rights for same-sex couples that did not exist in Minnesota.
3) that this issue must be re-evaluated due to the precedent set in Lawrence v. Texas which struck down sodomy laws and suggests a judicial recognition of homosexuality that did not exist previously.
ND30 and others can despise homosexuality getting any shred of recognition or acceptance among society at large and all the ‘activist judges’ that are making this a reality, but this case and arguing what some would like to believe is ‘settled’ is all perfectly legal and legitimate.
Some interesting articles on the subject:
at the New York Times
another article at the New York Times
at Reuters
Speaking of âmanipulating the outcomeâ, you can see that ND30 has already set up an explanation, just in case this trial comes out in favor of equality rather than in favor of his anti-homosexual agenda. He intends to claim that it was a biased judge. He tried to do this already in another thread when this subject came up.
I strongly believe this case should be televised. As should most. Let the people see the arguments. Let them see both sides. I certainly want to see it.
I don’t see any legitimate reason not to. But I can certainly understand why anti-equality advocates would be afraid of the public seeing well-reasoned, legal argumentation. It tends to work against them…
posted by Amicus on
What will be interesting is to see how the court ends up inspecting
(a) a ‘greenfield’ rational basis for a non-inclusive law
(b) the abjectly irrational basis for ginning up support for Prop 8 enactement by the mob
It does seem that O & B lost the first round on that, when it was decided that the motivations of the Prop 8 people couldn’t be inspected, in detail.
posted by Jorge on
Throbert, go read Loving v. Virgina and then get back to us on the irrelevance of intimate association.
Weren’t they actually arrested in that case?
posted by Aubrey on
DS,
I agree with you re: ND30 and manipulating the outcome. The NRO series ND30 references is also trying to pave that path.
As I read the NRO series by Whelan that ND30 cited, it struck me that the basis for Whelan’s (and ND30’s) intrepretation of events (the chronology in the camera decision) was seeing the 9th District (and especially Judge Walker) as biased in favor of the plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case.
Subsequently I realized that by accusing the court of bias they could then justify any contradictory outcome.
If I wanted to be as paranoid as the NRO article, I would think these accusations are also sublte attempts to culturally coerce the court.
I would have thought a truly conservative approach would have wanted clear access to the courts. Allow for transparency.
I have also been told that all witness names and testimony are public record in federal court cases. Does anyone know if that is correct?
If so, why the stress re: televising the case? The names and testimony will get out anyway.
posted by Aubrey on
Let me quickly add – I get why people are stressing about televising the court case. I was trying to be a little sarcastic (but in reading the post I sounded more likely a little naieve.)
Still – it really amazes me that the pro-Prop 8 group is so anxious about having this case televised, be it live or on YouTube.
If on appeal the case is not televised, and the court’s decision still goes against them, I would hazard a guess that the pro-Prop 8 crowd would then argue that the people weren’t allowed to see the ‘gay bias’ in the court proceedings.
And finally, as so many states now televise all their court cases, I am not sure how one argues that the federal courts should not be allowed to do so as well.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
the change in California’s law actually stripped away established rights for same-sex couples that did not exist in Minnesota.
Incorrect. Baker was a challenge to the law banning gay-sex marriage in Minnesota. The Supreme Court made the logical and obvious choice — that there is no Federal requirement for states to grant marriage based on sexual desires, and in fact, they are perfectly justified in so discriminating.
Meanwhile, as for the rest, a simple comparison in the California Constitution makes matters easy to understand.
Where is the right of voters to amend their constitution as they see fit established?
Article 2, Section 8, and Article 2, Section 1.
Where is the right of people to marry to whatever they are sexually attracted?
Nowhere to be found in the California Constitution.
Let’s see, clearly-established written right versus imaginary made-up interpolated one…..former wins.
I would have thought a truly conservative approach would have wanted clear access to the courts. Allow for transparency.
Unfortunately for that attempt at argument, it ignores that there is a very clear difference between “public”, as trials are supposed to be in the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution, and a “broadcast” one. Since a trial may be public without being broadcast, why do the latter, especially when it introduces the distinct possibility of those who publicly testify being threatened, as has already happened? Furthermore, given that the courts themselves prior to the Proposition 8 case were operating under a rule that said “the taking of photographs, public broadcasting or televising, or recording for these purposes in the courtroom or its environs, in connection with any judicial proceeding, is prohibitedâ, are you then planning to state that all trials carried out prior to this point were lacking in “access” and “transparency”?
Conservatives see no purpose in throwing out established rules that have already been well-harmonized and shown to be in compliance with the Constitution in favor of dubious theatrics that do introduce the possibility of witnesses and those who testify being harassed and harmed. Indeed, it would seem to INCREASE access to the courts and to the available information if people were able to testify without having to fear harassment, wouldn’t you think?
If I wanted to be as paranoid as the NRO article, I would think these accusations are also sublte attempts to culturally coerce the court.
If by “coercion”, you mean, “require that it follow the law and due process”, that is a constitutionally-protected right.
What worries me here is how willing gay-sex marriage supporters are to ignore law and constitution in achieving the outcome they want. I wonder if they would also support other people ignoring law and constitution to get the results they want?
posted by DragonScorpion on
Incorrect. There was no law banning same-sex marriage in Minnesota. Neither was there a law establishing marriage for same-sex couples. And neither was there a law limiting marriage to a man and woman. Thus the legal quandary.
Here are the facts of Baker v. Nelson:
âPetitioners, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell, both adult male persons, made application to respondent, Gerald R. Nelson, clerk of Hennepin County District Court, for a marriage license, pursuant to Minn.St. 517.08. Respondent declined to issue the license on the sole ground that petitioners were of the same sex, it being undisputed that there were otherwise no statutory impediments to a heterosexual marriage by either petitioner.â
Baker argued:
â[1] 1. Petitioners contend, first, that the absence of an express statutory prohibition against same-sex marriages evinces a legislative intent to authorize such marriages. We think, however, that a sensible reading of the statute discloses a contrary intent.â
â[2] 2. Petitioners contend, second, that Minn.St. c. 517, so interpreted, is unconstitutional. There is a dual aspect to this contention: The prohibition of a same-sex marriage denies petitioners a fundamental right guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguably made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and petitioners are deprived of liberty and property without due process and are denied the equal protection of the laws, both guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.â
As I said, in this case there was no law nor court decision establishing or recognizing same-sex marriage in Minnesota. Their initial dispute involved the fact that there was no stipulation in Minnesota that couples who apply for marriage must be male and female.
Compare this to the case in California, where the State Supreme Court (In re Marriage Cases) established a constitutional protection of same-sex couples from being discriminated against in legal access to marriage:
â[U]nder this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process .
â[S]trict scrutiny (…) is applicable here because (1) the statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents â like gender, race, and religion â a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment, and (2) the differential treatment at issue impinges upon a same-sex couple’s fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple.
â[T]he exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples.
â[T]he right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people.”
And then, of course, by popular vote this established legal protection was removed.
Conclusion: The cases are quite different because the circumstances are quite different. There is also the precedent set by Lawrence v. Texas.
Thus, as per the New York Times article cited above: âIn Mr. Olsonâs analysis, the situation in California presents a favorable set of facts for an equal protection argument. Proposition 8 created three classes: straight couples who could marry, gay men and lesbians who had married in the brief period before the ban, and gay couples who wanted to marry but now could not.â
So, yeah, like I said before, âthe change in California’s law actually stripped away established rights for same-sex couples that did not exist in Minnesota.â
posted by DragonScorpion on
My apologies to the forum, in my previous post I failed to cite the source for In re Marriage Cases
The argument in favor of same-sex marriage, including the current case involving California’s Prop 8 does not rest on such a claim… Strawman fails.
I would. For non-criminal trials, yes. Of course, this in no way discredits those trials or throws them into dispute. But moving forward, absolutely, I would contend that the public has a right to know particularly when a large segment of the populace is directly affected by the outcome. Which is certainly the case here.
I see absolutely no credible argument against public access and transparency in trials like this.
Also, I seem to recall that televised court trials used to take place in California. The O.J. Simpson fiasco, for instance. I’m not sure what the extreme aversion among conservatives is today, other than, like I said they are afraid of the public seeing well-reasoned, legal argumentation as this tends to work against their anti-equality agenda which is based on prejudice, slippery-slope fallacies, and theocratic ideologies.
No. Since in most cases trials are open to the public and the identities of those testifying are open to public record, such a possibility of harassment already exists.
If we were to adopt such a preemptive attitude to trials then we should also make all trials closed to the public and the identities of everyone participating in them barred from being made available on the public record.
Naturally, you won’t see the anti-equality movement agitating for this, because the so-called âfear of harassmentâ claim is a red herring.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
As I said, in this case there was no law nor court decision establishing or recognizing same-sex marriage in Minnesota.
Oops, sorry; the court disagrees with you.
We think, however, that a sensible reading of the statute discloses a contrary intent.â
And your quoting the California Supreme Court’s decision only reiterates how ludicrous and contradictory it is.
legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process
So marriage must be granted based on the INDIVIDUAL’S sexual desires and preferences, and that to prevent an INDIVIDUAL from marrying that to which they are sexually attracted, regardless of who or what, is a violation of “liberty and personal autonomy”.
Next:
â[T]he right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people.”
Therefore, any restriction on marriage whatsoever is a violation of “civil or human rights”, and should be abolished.
And this really was the hilarious one:
â[S]trict scrutiny (…) is applicable here because (1) the statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents â like gender, race, and religion â a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment
So again, sexual orientation — which is, differently stated, that to which a person is sexually attracted — is now the primary driving force. According to the California court, you apparently must be allowed to marry that to which you are sexually attracted, regardless of any other consideration.
posted by Dylan Frampton on
Please help me to come out as I am scared of what my parents, friends, and fellow students will do or think about me when I do!
posted by DragonScorpion on
Oops, sorry, ND30 needs to work on his reading comprehension!
I’ll say it again, in the MINNESOTA CASE there was NO LAW nor COURT DECISION establishing or recognizing SAME-SEX MARRIAGE when Baker made his argument…
To wit:
“[1] 1. Petitioners contend, first, that the absence of an express statutory prohibition against same-sex marriages evinces a legislative intent to authorize such marriages. We think, however, that a sensible reading of the statute discloses a contrary intent.
“Minn.St. c. 517, which governs “marriage,” employs that term as one of common usage, meaning the state of union between persons of the opposite sex./1/ It is unrealistic to think that the original drafts-men of our marriage statutes, which date from territorial days, would have used the term in any different sense. The term is of contemporary significance as well, for the present statute is replete with words of heterosexual import such as “husband and wife” and “bride and groom” (the latter words inserted by L.1969, C. 1145, § 3, subd.3).
“We hold, therefore, that Minn.St. c. 517 does not authorize marriage between persons of the same sex and that such marriages are accordingly prohibited.â ~ Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1971
To simplify this for the reading comprehension impaired, in Baker v. Nelson, Baker did not have a strong case for a legal framework allowing same-sex marriage. There was no law, there was no court decision that had ever established same-sex marriage as a legal right, a privilege or any other such legally recognized arrangement in Minnesota.
The same CANNOT be said of California, where prohibitions against same-sex marriage was ruled by the state Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Marriages were LEGAL in that state for a time. Marriages were performed in the state for a time. Marriages which were legally binding prior to Prop 8 have been ruled still legally binding and valid today by the California Supreme Court.
Conclusion: The circumstances in California are significantly different from the circumstances in Minnesota.
Lawrence v. Texas has also suggested that the Supreme Court’s recognition of homosexuality and privacy issues has changed among society and the court since Baker v. Nelson.
It is a real shame that some people, like ND30, are so cravenly dishonest and dogmatic in their anti-homosexual agenda, that they cannot even acknowledge obvious and verifiable facts, even if they may happen to disagree with the outcomes or what the implications of these facts may have later on.
Oops, it looks like the court obviously disagrees with ND30, as they certainly wouldn’t have decided in a way that they found âludicrous and contradictoryâ. But, of course, ND30 is so much more a legal authority, so better versed in the law than the court is. And he knows far more about all this and the implications of it all than Mr. Olson and Mr. Boies could possibly comprehend.
Why, the only reason the judge hasn’t thrown out the case already is because he’s âbiasedâ. [/sarcasm]
An absurd conclusion, but to be certain I suppose someone would have to attempt to marry, say, a chair, and then when denied a marriage license, one would have to sue, take the matter through the legal channels and see what the California court decided.
I think we can all rest assured that they would most certainly not find that their previous decision created a mandate that âmarriage must be granted based on the INDIVIDUAL’S sexual desires and preferences […and…] any restriction on marriage whatsoever is a violation of “civil or human rights”, and should be abolishedâ. The legal team over at ND30, no doubt, disagrees.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Gee, Dylan, everyone’s circumstances are different. I really wouldn’t know what to tell you, off hand. You might try these sites though:
Coming Out Support
Advice on Coming Out to Your Parents
Here is a support group based on the U.K.
I hope these are helpful to you.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
North Dallas 30
Define “whatever”.
Because according to basic civil marriage law, that is also agreed upon by GAY and STRAIGHT people is the one in place right now.
i.e.:
TWO consenting, non related, non married ADULTS.
“whatever” isn’t a definition that applies.
And the courts know this.
Gay couples aren’t whatevers.
The courts know this too.
Why don’t you just take your marbles and go home.
Your argument is too stupid to keep dignifying with any answer.
And it sure wouldn’t hold up in court either.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
TWO consenting, non related, non married ADULTS
Those are all the result of laws that ban marriage of people below a certain age, within a certain degree of relationship, without a specific level of awareness, and with existing marriages.
Unfortunately, the California Supreme Court, as cited above, has stated that marriage is a “right” that applies to ALL PEOPLE, with no limits on age, blood relationship, or anything of the sort, that government may not under any circumstances prevent or make a law against.
[T]he right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people.
This is where desperation to impose gay-sex marriage leads to stupid decisions. It is beyond ironic that the one lesbian on the court stated the problem in a straightforward fashion:
Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriages. But I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of Californians hold a different view, and have explicitly said so by their vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not. Therefore, I must dissent.
And this makes the hypocrisy particularly blatant from you, Regan.
Because according to basic civil marriage law, that is also agreed upon by GAY and STRAIGHT people
So in other words, if enough people agree on something, they can deny marriage to whomever they want and the denial is valid.
Except, of course, when it comes to enough people agreeing that marriage should be limited to one man and one woman, at which point Regan and the gay and lesbian community start shrieking that it is “unfair” for a majority to deny marriage to anyone.
That is the whole point. There is no “right” to marriage anywhere in the constitutions of California or the United States, for a very good reason; if it were a constitutional right, it would be virtually impossible to deny it. It is a benefit and privilege granted by law for those who are willing to meet the conditions that society imposes to receive it.
Perhaps the best example of the problem is this; had “Bishop” Gene Robinson and Jim McGreevey ditched their wives for younger women, gays would be screaming and pointing at them as “proof” that heterosexuals don’t value marriage. But when they did it for men, gays and lesbians praise them as “heroes” and blame society for “forcing” them to marry people who they got bored with sexually.
posted by Debrah on
“Perhaps the best example of the problem is this; had ‘Bishop’ Gene Robinson and Jim McGreevey ditched their wives for younger women, gays would be screaming and pointing at them as ‘proof’ that heterosexuals don’t value marriage. But when they did it for men, gays and lesbians praise them as ‘heroes’ and blame society for ‘forcing’ them to marry people who they got bored with sexually.”
*************************************************
I’ve never seen this point made before; however, it’s one that is stunningly accurate.
Similar to this recent story.
The little chubby wife was complicit and put a big “selfless” blanket on the “angst”. The gay community just adored her!
Thomas was held to no responsibility for marrying a woman knowing he was gay.
It’s OK! The chubby girl wanted a husband…..but for just a little while.
posted by DragonScorpion on
~âThat is the whole point. There is no “right” to marriage anywhere in the constitutions of California or the United States, for a very good reason; if it were a constitutional right, it would be virtually impossible to deny it. It is a benefit and privilege granted by law for those who are willing to meet the conditions that society imposes to receive it.â ~ North Dallas Thirty
According to at least two cases, Loving v. Virginia and In re Marriage cases, it is a ârightâ. Of course, these judicial bodies have no actual authority so… [/sarcasm]
Still, it would certainly be a very misguided if not naïve assessment (and in ND30’s case deliberate intellectual dishonesty) that the usage of ârightâ in these contexts (and many others) are being applied in terms of absolutes.
Even a cursory glance at the judicial bodies of most legal systems through history, including our own, would reveal that the application of law is often based on interpretation of intent, not literalism.
Ex: âfreedom of speechâ taken literally would only apply to the spoken word. âfreedom of speechâ treated as an absolute would not allow for reasonable exceptions â child pornography; yelling fire in a crowded theater; sharing classified information with foreign enemies.
Marriage has been and still is in a practical sense a âprivilegeâ with certain conditions required to legally engage in it. Those conditions have changed a great deal in the history of this country.
There was a significant change (for the better) in 1948 in California when anti-miscegenation laws there were ruled unconstitutional. A substantial change again in 1967 when anti-miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Many arguments were invoked to oppose such changes â protecting societal structure, tradition, purity of the races, theology, the slippery-slope fallacy. Such rationales were deemed inadequate justifications for denying interracial couples fair and equal access to marriage; specifically due process & equal protection of the law. Essentially, the benefits of upholding equality outweighed the supposed risks of doing so.
Naturally, what many of us are arguing today is that the same is true in regards to same-sex couples; that mixed-gender should not be a prerequisite. Essentially, the excuses provided above are not adequate for denying equal access; the benefits of upholding equality outweigh the supposed risks.
Some attempt to argue with great hyperbole, ‘but this means we’ll have to let people marry their vacuum cleaners’. The same sort of specious logic could have been (and no doubt was) applied to the interracial debate. It is not, however, a valid argument. One has to argue the merits of the issue itself and what direct effects it is likely to have, not on what it may someday lead to in some dystopian future.
Clearly, we are trying to convince society of the reasons why same-sex marriage should be legalized and why fears of the supposed harm it would bring are unfounded. However, just as 1967 so clearly illustrates, at a time when 72% of the country did not approve of interracial marriage in polling, nonetheless, a compelling argument was made to the highest court in the land and the law was changed even before much of the country was really ready for it.
We are likely to continue to have more wins in the courtroom than the voting booth for a while. But we will have wins {and some losses} in both arenas. And someday, at least from a legal standpoint, much of this will be a non-issue. By that time, it will be far less of a social issue as well.
In the meantime, let those who don’t believe that same-sex marriage should be legalized/recognized have the courage to stand up and admit it, and explain why.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Ah yes, there is that homosexual monolith again. As a homosexual, I don’t scream or even point when heterosexuals cheat on their spouse. There is certainly a grand irony, however, when the pontificating holier-than-thou types who enjoy lecturing about the sanctity of marriage end up violating one of the core components of it â fidelity.
While some certainly do, I do not generalize that heterosexuals/opposite-sex couples are incapable of monogamy. I also resent those who claim this of homosexuals and same-sex couples. And while I am unaware of any infidelity by Gene Robinson or why his being a homosexual gives some justifications to put scare quotes around his title of Bishop, I, for one, have not elevated Gene Robinson or Jim McGreevey to the status of “heroes”.
So, as usual, the ‘gays as monolith’ insinuations made by ND30 are incorrect.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
In the meantime, let those who don’t believe that same-sex marriage should be legalized/recognized have the courage to stand up and admit it, and explain why.
Let’s start with the accepted answer endorsed and supported by DragonScorpion and the gay and lesbian community.
I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.
Meanwhile, let’s also cover how the gay and lesbian community fully supports and endorses the comparison of gay-sex marriage to pedophilia and incest.
And finally, as I have stated elsewhere:
With pleasure. Homosexual couplings do not have the same potential impact to society in regards to offspring, inheritance, or property rights, and therefore need not have identical legal structures.
Infantile gays like yourself have fixated on the absence of marriage as a means of blame-shifting for your inability and unwillingness to confront the promiscuity and irresponsibility of the gay community and of obliquely carrying out your antireligious bigotry. Since you can’t act in a manner worthy of respect, you think you will use the law to force people to give it to you.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Note that ND30 had no argument against anything that I offered above. Just more anti-homosexual diatribes.
I don’t support that view, so, that’s just another LIE from ND30. Ironically, though the coward won’t admit it, ND30 does support and believe that viewpoint… He’s free to deny it, but he won’t.
Now, to further get an idea at what this coward who is generally too chickenshit to admit his belief that same-sex couples are undeserving of having legal access to marriage really supports:
âBecause our childrenâs future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman […] A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex âmarriagesâ licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter.â
This is the Party Platform of the Republican Party, a party which ND30 endorses and believes the entire âgay communityâ is bigoted against.
I should add, unbelievably, in spite of their dishonest claims of protecting âState’s rightsâ, the Republican Party enacted the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, a piece of legislation which subjects every state to being barred from conferring marriage rights to same-sex couples, even in those states which would or already have legally established same-sex marriage by judge, legislative action or popular vote.
And this is the party that ND30 wants you to support and deems you a âhypocriteâ if you don’t.
For more on ND30’s beliefs of the inferiority of our relationships compared to opposite-sex relationships:
âWith pleasure. Homosexual couplings do not have the same potential impact to society in regards to offspring, inheritance, or property rights, and therefore need not have identical legal structures.
âInfantile gays like yourself have fixated on the absence of marriage as a means of blame-shifting for your inability and unwillingness to confront the promiscuity and irresponsibility of the gay community and of obliquely carrying out your antireligious bigotry. Since you can’t act in a manner worthy of respect, you think you will use the law to force people to give it to you.â ~ North Dallas Thirty
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I should add, unbelievably, in spite of their dishonest claims of protecting âState’s rightsâ, the Republican Party enacted the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, a piece of legislation which subjects every state to being barred from conferring marriage rights to same-sex couples, even in those states which would or already have legally established same-sex marriage by judge, legislative action or popular vote.
You do realize that’s contradictory, don’t you?
DOMA simply says that neither the states or the Federal government are required to recognize gay-sex marriages. Furthermore, according to the Obama Party, DOMA is not wrong, but is in fact “fighting for our values” and “protecting religious freedom”; you yourself have stated that DOMA was OK because it was a matter of “political expediency”.
Next:
Ironically, though the coward won’t admit it, ND30 does support and believe that viewpoint… He’s free to deny it, but he won’t.
This, of course, referring to this viewpoint:
I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.
Now, DragonScorpion, what would you call a person who says this? Would you state that they are a bigot? Would you state that they are intolerant and hateful based on their religious beliefs? Would you state that they view gays as inferior and second-class citizens? Would you call them ignorant for their quotation of their faith, and insist that they are a “theocrat”?
Actually, you’ve already stated that a person who says this is wise and intelligent. You’ve already stated that a person who says this is pro-gay and fully supports gay rights. You’ve already stated that you fully endorse and support people who said this.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Incorrect. DOMA defines marriage federally, âIn determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
Legal same-sex marriages {or any ârelationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriageâ} are not eligible to the rights and privileges conferred by the federal government to married couples, which states and/or private employers or insurance companies are required to honor.
It also allows states to refuse to follow the âfull faith and credit clauseâ of the U.S. Constitution by refusing to recognize the âpublic acts, records, and judicial proceedingsâ enacted by other states.
This is another blatant lie from ND30. He manages to concoct one in each post now. Clearly he is to the point of being pathological. I have never stated that DOMA is “ok” for “political expediency”.
~âNow, DragonScorpion, what would you call a person who says this? Would you state that they are a bigot?â ~
The belief is misguided. Wrong. Enacting such as law, theocratic. Fortunately, Barack Obama opposes passing a constitutional amendment establishing marriage as only between a man and woman. Republicans, on the other hand, have tried to pass one and continue to call for one in their party platform. Barack Obama has promised to eliminate DOMA. Republicans brag about having enacted it and plan to wage a huge battle if there are attempts to repeal the law.
So, though the liar tries to spin and distort, the Democratic party, overall, HAS been and IS more supportive of homosexual equality issues than Republicans. By FAR.
By the way, I have already laid out how I determine whether a person is a âbigotâ or not. ND30 meets nearly every curricula.
More lies. This is factually incorrect. I have never, anywhere, suggested that a person is âwise, intelligent; pro-gay; fully supports gay rightsâ for holding such a view as ‘marriage is between man and woman’. The bald-faced dishonesty, intellectual and otherwise, of ND30 is literally astounding.
Speaking of which. I note that the coward, ND30, again will not simply state his agreement with the âmarriage is the union between a man and a woman […] God’s in the mixâ. He’s still trying to evade taking a stand on the issue. Very weak.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Since the other forum seems to have become too full for further comment, we’ll continue this here.
The following is North Dallas Thirty’s latest pack of lies and anti-homosexual screeds from the ‘On Vulgarity’ thread:
[end quote of North Dallas Thirty]
posted by DragonScorpion on
My response to North Dallas Thirty’s delusions:
Uhh, yeah, really. You’re not achieving any change here. Do you see anyone here, outside of your fag-hag sockpuppet, supporting your garbage? Nope. So, yeah, waste of time.
First of all, I have a good, full-time job, so you can cram your assumptions â sideways. And my lack of being religious and refusing to conform to religious demands doesn’t make me an “anti-religious bigot”, so your distortion further illustrates how dishonest you are.
Furthermore, I don’t explain-away pedophilia, so, that’s just another lie. I don’t dress my child or any child as a sex-slave, another craven lie on your part. I don’t troll outside elementary schools for dates, yet another despicable lie from your pathological self. I don’t spew racist remarks at black people, or anyone else, and so forth. Yet more LIES from you. And all the more reason why no one, NO ONE here should believe a WORD you say about ANYTHING.
I do compete with everyone else, liar, and my homosexuality plays no role in it. I don’t wear my orientation on my sleeve, and where I live being a homosexual works against a person, never for them. In spite of this, I have a house, a good paying job with excellent benefits. My sexuality didn’t get that job for me. It hasn’t kept me that job. My homosexuality didn’t get me an education.
And as for failures, you see, again, you don’t know a goddamn thing about me. You have no idea how successful I am. You have no idea what I’ve achieved in my life. You just assume, more than that, you literally just make shit up.
You’re clearly a grossly dysfunctional person who is so filled with hatred and revulsion for homosexuality that it makes you feel better about yourself, and perhaps better about some of your own desires bubbling beneath the surface which conflict so bluntly with your theological delusions, to insult those who don’t carry around the same shame as you.
And comparing yourself to Booker T. Washington!? As if you are some kind of a hero that has done something for your own people. What have you even begun to do for the homosexual community? You talk a lot of trash. You make a pretty good argument why we should all be institutionalized (if your lies and generalities were to be believed, that is). But you don’t contribute anything positive. You don’t encourage any change for the better, foster accountability or responsibility among the community. You don’t donate effort to help advance legal equality for homosexuals, as Booker T. Washington did for blacks. To the contrary, you vehemently argue against equality right here almost every day… Your gall is beyond belief.
Hero? In reality, you are a sad, warped, horrible, horrible liar. And hopelessly delusional.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Typical hypocrisy from you. In one post you condemn the ENTIRE homosexual population as being pro-pedo, in the next post you accuse them/us of ‘turning on pedophiles’. Kind of like your lies that the âgay communityâ promotes polygamy, single marriage, etc. then claim that the âgay communityâ are hypocrites for not treating such relationships as deserving of absolute rights to marriage.
While you demand that we condemn pedophilia, you then lambaste ALL of us, for having made statements like this from the link YOU provided above, âA common thread running through this material is an utter inability to recognize a conflict of interest. These men really seem to believe that they have the boys’ best interests at heart, despite clear evidence from their own accounts that they are taking grotesque advantage of troubled boys’ need for love, attention, support, and freedom from abuse. Their subtler form of abuse directs an adult’s arsenal against the innocence of children and the nascent sexuality of young adolescents and, when it succeeds, calls the result consensual love. That people so selfish should presume to lecture others about love, much less portray themselves as victims, is a supreme achievement in self-delusion and gall. […] It is time to tell NAMBLA and its kin to express their views elsewhere, without the benefit of ILGA’s assistance or its name.â
Maybe ND30 is just pissed off because the “gay community” at large doesn’t support NAMBLA and pedophilia. Maybe he feels sold out.
And yet you fail completely to do this. You, through the extremeness of your rhetoric, the broadness of your indictment of all, turn nearly every homosexual against you. You have completely, utterly, poisoned the well. Few, if any would want to give even valid criticisms a serious thought coming from the likes of such a bigot as yourself.
I am an example of just such a person. I do not support ANY of the despicable things that you point out, in fact, I have long had a reputation among my peers as being socially conservative, even prudish, and yet I am dead set against you and will spare no amount of effort to oppose you because of the vitriol you display for homosexuality and the entire homosexual population.
If you didn’t hate homosexuals so much, if your intentions were pure, if you were reasonable in your approach, you’d have an ally in me. Instead, you’ve made an enemy.
So congratulations, you are quite effective at killing legitimate discourse here which could contribute homosexuals to address REAL (not the BS propaganda you spew) problems in our community. It is apparent that this is what you actually have set out to do. And it is working.
So perhaps you were right about one thing, you are not wasting your time.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I am amused at how easy it is to demonstrate the contradictory arguments of DragonScorpion and his ilk.
Again, let’s remind them of the quote from the person and party that they state is fully supportive of and endorses homosexual equality.
I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.
You see? According to the gay and lesbian community, it’s perfectly supportive to state that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s perfectly intelligent to use your religious beliefs to set policy. It’s absolutely all right to invoke God as a reason for opposing gay-sex marriage.
And you know what else? That also applies to supporting DOMA and comparing gay-sex marriage to pedophilia and incest. Or even supporting the FMA. All of these things are FULLY supported and endorsed by the gay and lesbian community — as long as it’s the “right” party doing it, of course, just as it was with Clinton, who was excused for supporting, signing, and then advertising DOMA because it was “politically expedient”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I am an example of just such a person. I do not support ANY of the despicable things that you point out, in fact, I have long had a reputation among my peers as being socially conservative, even prudish, and yet I am dead set against you and will spare no amount of effort to oppose you because of the vitriol you display for homosexuality and the entire homosexual population.
Oh, that’s no surprise. I know plenty of gay and lesbian “moralists” like yourself who always seem to miraculously come up with reasons why they can’t criticize the “despicable” behavior of their fellow gays and lesbians. If it weren’t you accusing me of being a bigot, it would be blaming heterosexuals. Or Bush. Or because it’s Tuesday. It’s all about finding excuses for reasons not to do the right thing when the right thing would get you in trouble with your fellow minority members and disrupt the perfection of the minority status on which you’ve based your self-worth.
This isn’t something I understand at all; if something is the right thing to do, it’s the right thing to do, even if it helps someone who you not only dislike, but who has done his darndest to hurt you. But unfortunately, my view is invariably called “self-loathing” because it doesn’t automatically think that criticism of the gay community is wrong.
As if you are some kind of a hero that has done something for your own people.
Well, first off, you denied that I was gay and insisted that you weren’t “my own people”, so what exactly are you talking about? You want to throw me out, but invite me back for my money and activity? I think not.
But….
What have you even begun to do for the homosexual community?
I wonder if Lori still knows my secret identity. I’m thinking I revealed it to her many moons ago. 🙂 Suffice to say that, with my friends reading this, there’s a fair amount of snickering going on.
posted by Debrah on
“It’s all about finding excuses for reasons not to do the right thing when the right thing would get you in trouble with your fellow minority members and disrupt the perfection of the minority status on which you’ve based your self-worth.”
************************************************
Whatever your true identity…….
……..no one else zeros in like a laser beam to the heart of the issue.
posted by DragonScorpion on
I can repost things like a brokenrecord too:
âThe belief is misguided. Wrong. Enacting such as law, theocratic. Fortunately, Barack Obama opposes passing a constitutional amendment establishing marriage as only between a man and woman. Republicans, on the other hand, have tried to pass one and continue to call for one in their party platform. Barack Obama has promised to eliminate DOMA. Republicans brag about having enacted it and plan to wage a huge battle if there are attempts to repeal the law.
So, though the liar tries to spin and distort, the Democratic party, overall, HAS been and IS more supportive of homosexual equality issues than Republicans. By FAR.â
Yet another deliberate misrepresentation of {read: lie about} the âgay communityâ. And don’t forget the intellectual dishonesty. According to ND30, Barack Obama doesn’t support same-sex marriage so we are supposed to reject him and all Democrats in spite of his/their support for other homosexual equality issues and vote Republican instead. Yes, those Republicans who are the very ones which have worked so hard to implement so many of the anti-homosexual policies we’re trying to overcome. Sheer lunacy & cognitive dissonance.
I think we all saw those the first 27 times. Still doesn’t prove anything other than your hypocrisy for deriding that which you yourself agree with but don’t have the courage to simply admit.
Let’s revisit the
LIE posted above:
âyou yourself have stated that DOMA was OK because it was a matter of “political expediency”.â ~ North Dallas Thirty â
Like I said, a LIE. Here is what I’ve actually stated, the proof of which ND30 provided himself in the link:
âBill Clinton may have signed it out of political expediency, and I’ll never forgive him for this among other things, but it was in fact Republicans like Bob Barr who wrote the so-called Defense of Marriage Act which prevents same-sex couples from ever receiving most federal benefits and recognition with civil marriage, regardless whether they are domestic partners, civil union partners or, yes, even legally married. It is Republicans that still decry any attempts to dismantle DOMA. Your camp.â
No referring to DOMA as âOKâ, no legitimizing it as âpolitically expedientâ. Not even close. Thanks for providing the link so that everyone can get the full context, and read the asinine bullshit by you that I was responding to. Just keep digging yourself a little deeper…
posted by DragonScorpion on
~âOh, that’s no surprise. I know plenty of gay and lesbian “moralists” like yourself who always seem to miraculously come up with reasons why they can’t criticize the “despicable” behavior of their fellow gays and lesbians.â ~ North Dallas Thirty
Oh, sure you do… As I pointed out before, I do condemn behaviors I find despicable. More on this here, here, here, here and here.
I don’t need to go to your blog to see garbage from someone I not only dislike but who has done his âdarndestâ to try to hurt me and every other homosexual in the world with his dehumanizing rhetoric, I can see all your rantings right here.
I’ve truly lost count on your lies now, but there are several in every post and this back and forth has been going on for at least a month.
Again, as my comments here in various threads can attest, I have not suggested that criticism of the gay community is âwrongâ or âself-loathingâ. What I have stated and will reiterate is that bigoted rantings against the ENTIRE homosexual community, sweeping generalizations, attempts to blame homosexuals here for the actions of others, all of which you engage in with abandon, these are wrong. Yes, and IF exhibited by a homosexual, that would be âself-loathingâ.
But, as I’ve said before, I think you’re just a very persistent troll. I’d say Debrah’s devotion to you makes a pretty good case against your being one of us, because she clearly despises the homosexual male population.
I realize that you could be a homosexual, though, with some extreme conflicts between innate feelings and ideological/theological beliefs that are completely at odds with those innate feelings. Wouldn’t be the first time…
Oh no, don’t misunderstand, this was no invitation. You aren’t claimed nor welcomed nor wanted by me, not in the slightest. And you can keep your chump change. I’m sure the community at large isn’t that desperate.
I was merely pointing out that if you are going to compare yourself to Booker T. Washington, who offered a great deal of support to the black community, including financial support, then you should have done the same.
Instead, all you do is talk trash. You clearly have enough contempt for the entire homosexual population (you indict all of us as being guilty for the few examples of despicable behavior you’ve managed to collect and regurgitate ad nauseam) that you’ve never really done a damn thing to help any of us. And most definitely what you’re doing here every day isn’t helping us at all, not in the slightest.
Oh sure, you’ve been a real âheroâ to the community, when you’re not blaming all the problems of the world on homosexuals, or claiming that all same-sex couples merely adopt children to be sex toys and trophies to show off to their friends, or formulating specious arguments against recognizing same-sex marriage, or ridiculing every effort for homosexuals to be treated more fairly by their government.
Yes, such a loyal advocate you are. I’ll just bet you’re some billionaire philanthropist who is single-handedly bankrolling the entire equality movement and you’re just using your bigoted persona here as cover…
Maybe some of your âsnickering friendsâ could step up and detail all the miraculous things you’ve done for the community lately. Afterall, they’ve been so supportive of you thus far. Surely you could invent another sockpuppet or two. You’ve got Debrah who is always eager to offer moral support. And maybe they/you could also explain how they/you reconcile your ‘selfless acts’ vs. the disgusting vitriol you display against all homosexuals.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
According to ND30, Barack Obama doesn’t support same-sex marriage so we are supposed to reject him and all Democrats in spite of his/their support for other homosexual equality issues and vote Republican instead.
Not really.
You’re just supposed to call him an ignorant bigot, homophobe, and theocrat like you do everyone else who doesn’t support gay-sex marriage.
Or, when he defends and supports DOMA by comparing it to incest and pedophilia, you should namecall him as a bigot and hatemonger who condemns the whole gay community. Heck, that’s a twofer; you could call him a liar as well for endorsing, supporting, and defending that which he “promised to eliminate”.
Of course, if you did that, then the icky question of why your sexual orientation requires you to vote for him would come up.
Next:
No referring to DOMA as âOKâ, no legitimizing it as âpolitically expedientâ. Not even close.
Correction.
âBill Clinton may have signed it out of political expediency, and I’ll never forgive him for this among other things, but
“But.” “But.” “But.” And then, of course, a nice long diatribe exonerating Clinton and blaming those mean Republicans for forcing Clinton to sign that which Clinton later proudly advertised as “defending American values”.
Next:
I don’t need to go to your blog to see garbage from someone I not only dislike but who has done his âdarndestâ to try to hurt me and every other homosexual in the world with his dehumanizing rhetoric, I can see all your rantings right here.
Yes, because, heaven forbid, you might actually learn something.
And as for “dehumanizing rhetoric”, it remains on several levels amusing that, for some reason, when gay community leaders, gay professionals, and gay and lesbian people who stick themselves in front of the cameras say that having sex with underage children is common and normal in the gay community, that people who oppose dressing children as sex slaves and taking them to a sex fair are “close-minded”, that monogamy is “hurtful” and “foolish”, that five-year-olds should be taught the pleasures of gay sex and whatnot, that that is NOT dehumanizing or hurtful — but for some reason, pointing it out is.
But, as I’ve said before, I think you’re just a very persistent troll. I’d say Debrah’s devotion to you makes a pretty good case against your being one of us, because she clearly despises the homosexual male population.
(shrug) She can speak to her own motivations.
You clearly have enough contempt for the entire homosexual population (you indict all of us as being guilty for the few examples of despicable behavior you’ve managed to collect and regurgitate ad nauseam) that you’ve never really done a damn thing to help any of us.
Oh no; I don’t have contempt for the entire homosexual population. Just the community of minority-status victims that, by design of the few and brainwashing of the many, makes up the vast majority of it.
And maybe they/you could also explain how they/you reconcile your ‘selfless acts’ vs. the disgusting vitriol you display against all homosexuals.
They might, if they so choose; however, given the example above, you’re really not interested in anything that would show me as being different than your perception.
posted by Debrah on
“You’re just supposed to call him an ignorant bigot, homophobe, and theocrat like you do everyone else who doesn’t support gay-sex marriage.
Or, when he defends and supports DOMA by comparing it to incest and pedophilia, you should namecall him as a bigot and hatemonger who condemns the whole gay community. Heck, that’s a twofer; you could call him a liar as well for endorsing, supporting, and defending that which he ‘promised to eliminate’.
Of course, if you did that, then the icky question of why your sexual orientation requires you to vote for him would come up.”
******************************************
This is simply too cool for school!
It really leaves those who employ such bizarre double standards toward their “enemies” nowhere to go with this argument.
I supported Obama in 2008 and even I’ve been stunned by his cowardice on this issue after receiving votes from virtually the entire gay community.
Some of his staunchest gay supporters still cannot bring themselves around to reality and will never openly criticize him.
Sad, that.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Not so. As I have pointed out multiple times now, I don’t refer to everyone who doesn’t agree with same-sex marriage as an âignorant bigotâ, âhomophobeâ or âtheocratâ. These labels generally only apply to those who mindlessly spew anti-homosexual propaganda, make sweeping indictments of the entire homosexual population, hold all homosexuals accountable for the bad actions of some, or who support amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage. Like ND30.
And, of course, like I mentioned before, those who fit my criteria of a bigot. Which, again, ND30 does. A rather classic example, as a matter of fact.
Hmmm… Barack Obama compares DOMA to incest and pedophilia? Wow! News to me. Funny, I checked the website (for about the 18th time now), and didn’t see anything about that. I also still didn’t see anything about Barack Obama comparing same-sex marriage to incest or pedophilia, either.
Anyway, so the Justice Dept. defended a law that â while discriminatory and completely unnecessary and in desperate need of repeal â was passed by the Congress and signed by the President and is currently binding law. How dare they…[!]
To wit:
âJustice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said that President Obama âhas said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) couples from being granted equal rights and benefits,” she said. “However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.â
Yes, if only Republican Bob Barr hadn’t gone homophobic in drafting this travesty (DOMA) and if only that sell-out Bill Clinton hadn’t signed the damn thing, putting political expediency above justice, we wouldn’t have to worry about having to find a way to get rid of it now… But nonetheless, until it is repealed (or ruled unconstitutional) it IS the law. And it does, legally, have to be enforced.
Next…
Let’s come back to the realm of the ACTUAL world. The above claim by ND30 might be the case if my sexual orientation required that I vote for any particular person. Fortunately, my sexual orientation does not, and I have never suggested otherwise.
On the other hand, my support for improving legal equality for homosexuals and same-sex couples DOES require that I vote for those who have supported such equality issues in the past or have at least indicated strong support for them/made promises to that effect.
John McCain and Sarah Palin didn’t. Most Republicans don’t. In fact, the Republican party platform opposes many of these equality issues and seeks to implement the opposite, so they tend not to get my vote. And so it goes.
But then some, like ND30, don’t care one iota about homosexuals being treated with basic dignity and equality by their government, so he insists upon endorsing the homophobes that are working so hard to push the anti-homosexual agenda and pass legislation to undermine us.
posted by DragonScorpion on
No correction necessary. You even provided my quote and the entire context! ~LOL~ I’ll do so again:
âBill Clinton may have signed it out of political expediency, and I’ll never forgive him for this among other things, but it was in fact Republicans like Bob Barr who wrote the so-called Defense of Marriage Act which prevents same-sex couples from ever receiving most federal benefits and recognition with civil marriage, regardless whether they are domestic partners, civil union partners or, yes, even legally married. It is Republicans that still decry any attempts to dismantle DOMA. Your camp.â
Those are the facts. Inconvenient though they may be for you. Those are the facts. If it were âOKâ, as you have dishonestly claimed I have summarized it, then why would I say âI’ll never forgive him for thatâ?
Also, I probably wouldn’t have wrote things like this:
âWhile [Bill Clinton’s] change of heart [on supporting same-sex marriage] is appreciated, it comes a bit late, for one. It was, afterall, on his watch that the discriminatory ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ was passed. Of course, it would have also been nice had he been enlightened to this more tolerant perspective years ago. One wonders just why it took him so damn long.
“Mr. Clinton claims that he was “hung up” on the word. That word being “marriage”. Frankly I have to wonder if what changed for Clinton was not just an epiphany as to how unreasonable it is to deny the right of marriage to people based on their sexual-orientation, but rather that society is more approving now and therefore it is less a controversial stance.
[…]
In the end I can’t imagine how much having Bill Clinton support same-sex marriage will actually help efforts toward equality for same-sex couples. Folks who are anywhere right-of-center seem to have little respect for the man. Given his failings in marriage, as they would be quick to point out, he’s not really much of one to speak from a perspective of moral standing.â
From the likes of you? ~LMAO~ It’s not likely to be anything of substance, that’s for sure! I think I’ve seen enough of your dishonest, misapplied propaganda here (haven’t we all?), I’m quite sure I don’t need to seek out more of it…
What is truly amusing is that no one here, that I have seen, and least of all myself has EVER suggested that such attitudes are NOT dehumanizing. Nor have I suggested that these perspectives in any way, shape, or form are reflective of the homosexual community at large. Furthermore, these attitudes being dehumanizing has nothing to do with the assessment that YOUR attitude toward homosexuals and homosexuality and the entire âgay communityâ, most definitely is. And so, I point it out. And for ample reason.
And since you never offer any criticisms of her rancid insults to homosexuals, particularly men, you obviously agree with her. Afterall, according to your own logic if you don’t condemn it, you own it… She’s your devoted fan (and sock puppet), so you own it.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Oh yes; but you do:
âIn short, gays have demonstrated that they are not rational individuals, and in fact, are rather pervasive and immovable bigots and hypocrites when it comes to politics.â
âgay-sex marriage is only a front and a rationalization for political attacks; it has no real value to the gay community.â
âhypocrisy is typical of the gay-sex marriage communityâ
â[same-sex marriage] is about destroying marriage and the “heteronormative” ideas of values and commitment represented in marriage that the gay community finds revolting.â
âblame-shifting for your inability and unwillingness to confront the promiscuity and irresponsibility of the gay communityâ
âit demonstrates nicely the hypocrisy of the gay and lesbian communityâ
âYou don’t say anything when your fellow gays and lesbiansâ […] âhave sex with underage childrenâ […] âdress children as sexual slaves and take them to a sex fairâ […] âscream that it’s “homophobic” to check if gay parents are abusing childrenâ
â[civil rights for homosexuals and same-sex couples are] entitlementsâ
âThe gay community is using what they imagine peoples’ grandparents were doing in private to what rthe gay and lesbian community is demanding it be allowed to do in public.â
âWhich is, of course, why the gay community demands that five-year-old children be taught gay sex in schools, argues that sex with children is normal and “common” in the gay community, and screams “homophobe” when anyone dares investigate complaints of gay couples having sex with children.â
âI can’t really blame Republicans for not trying to be “nicer” to gaysâ
âYou clearly demonstrate the infantilized mindset of the gay and lesbian communityâ
âThat demonstrates the point nicely — that gays and lesbians are so infantile in their responses that they will refuse to condemn child molestation and exploitation out of sheer spite and a desire to defend and protect their fellow gay and lesbian pedophiles.â
âAccountability and responsibility are anathema to the gay and lesbian community.â
âAgain, the stupidity and infantile responses of the gay community are simply beyond belief.â
âThe gay community exists as a means to perpetuate infantile behavior, irresponsibility, destructive attitudes, and victimhood among gay and lesbian people. As I stated before, it is an insular cult who considers criticism betrayal and who insists that all their problems are due to their “enemies”.â
There you have it. Word for word. Everyone has an all too clear look into what ND30 thinks of all of us. The âgay communityâ by definition is the âhomosexual populationâ. âGays and lesbiansâ is, by default, a generalization of ALL homosexuals. It’s all quite clear who the targets are here, not a few, not some, not specific people. Oh no. The entire homosexual population.
This one was particularly interesting:
To my remark, âAnd if you didn’t care so little about people being treated equally and fairly; if you didn’t have a moral issue with homosexuality, you’d agree.â
North Dallas Thirty responded, proving he DOES have a “moral issue” with homosexuality: âAnd, I suppose, if I didn’t care so little about people being treated “equally and fairly”; if I didn’t have a “moral issue” with pedophilia, bestiality, child marriage, incestuous marriage, and plural marriages, I’d agree with those, too.â
Read carefully. Not only does he compare homosexuality to these examples, he is also stating here that just as he doesn’t support civil rights for pedophilia, etc. because he has “moral issues” with them, he also doesn’t support civil rights for homosexuals for the same reason.
But it’s not hard to see why, according to ND30, we don’t deserve civil rights protections: âAgain, I can’t really blame Republicans for not trying to be “nicer” to gays; first, it doesn’t make sense to them to dole out favors based on minority status instead of meritâ
I’ll just call this post some of ND30’s ‘Greatest Hits’ (at least those I am aware of) which everyone can refer back to as needed. All these quotes can easily be found on this page, and here, here, and here. Read up, if you’ve got the stomach for it!
posted by DragonScorpion on
To my remark that maybe his “snickering friends” reading the thread here could step up and detail all the miraculous things that he has done for the homosexual community, and perhaps explain how they reconcile his ‘selfless acts’ vs. his disgusting vitriol which he displays here against all homosexuals, North Dallas Thirty responded:
Yeah, we’ll see…
As for perceptions. Like everyone else in most all other things, especially online, I base mine on what I observe. And his words speak for themselves. I’ve reached my conclusions based on these. As has, it would seem, most everyone else here.
By the way, I think it really is well-worth reviewing this comment by Aubrey…
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I think this rant of DragonScorpion really gets to the root of the problem.
And since you never offer any criticisms of her rancid insults to homosexuals, particularly men, you obviously agree with her. Afterall, according to your own logic if you don’t condemn it, you own it…
I wonder if you’ll apply the same logic to David Link.
I’m with Debrah on this one. This is a subject worth our time.
Or to one of Debrah’s criticisms:
It does something to a person and the outlook they previously had on this issue when grown, middle-aged men with respectable positions sign onto the likes of Perez Hilton—(a “man” who always looks as though he’s just emerged from a train tunnel carrying round a bad Liberace impression)—and his constant use of derogatory words on all aspects of life.
How they gleefully went after a two-digit IQ woman (Prejean) for having an opposing opinion.
Didn’t you claim to oppose that at one point? Oh, that’s right; you didn’t really mean it. You were just trying to make yourself look good. When someone else says it, you scream that that is a “rancid insult” to all gay men.
It’s just the same with your Obama.
As I have pointed out multiple times now, I don’t refer to everyone who doesn’t agree with same-sex marriage as an âignorant bigotâ, âhomophobeâ or âtheocratâ.
Of course not; that was my point. Your beliefs in what constitutes homophobia, bigotry, and theocracy have nothing to do with what one actually believes, does, and supports, but everything to do with skin color and political affiliation.
And finally:
Like everyone else in most all other things, especially online, I base mine on what I observe.
Or, more precisely, what you choose to observe.
From the likes of you? ~LMAO~ It’s not likely to be anything of substance, that’s for sure! I think I’ve seen enough of your dishonest, misapplied propaganda here (haven’t we all?), I’m quite sure I don’t need to seek out more of it…
Again, to the point about my friends, why should they bother? You’ve made up your mind, you adamantly refuse to believe anything else, and you dismiss any other sources as not being “anything of substance” before having read them.
Now ironically, what else does that sound like?
is there an unwillingness to be challenged or admit that their view may be flawed?
are they closed-minded to genuinely considering and understanding contradicting views?
is there a refusal to accept new information which might undermine their belief?
What a surprise. DragonScorpion accuses others of that which he is openly practicing himself.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Nope. Because it’s not my logic. It’s yours. Just like I don’t blame all blacks for the violence and sexism of ‘gangsta culture’ or all college students for the hedonism of Spring Break or all heterosexual women for the rampant homophobia of Dr. Laura, Ann Coulter, & Debrah.
This is because, unlike you, I don’t expect people to account for others. Unlike you, I don’t demand that people step up and shout down their peers for outrageous behavior. I do, however, believe in holding people to adhere to their own so-called principles, beliefs, and most especially their DEMANDS.
Thus, if according to your rationale the âgay communityâ {read: all homosexuals} owns the behaviors and attitudes of the guy at the sex fair with the kids, or the guy with the claim that ‘gay adults having sex with minors is common’; then you own the vile insults that your biggest fan here at the forum, Debrah, spews here daily. Fair is fair. ND30, hoist by his own petard.
I’m not sure I understand the question… Oppose Debrah for lobbing juvenile insults at people? Uhm, yeah.
Do I criticize everything she says? Nope, I’m not my âsister’sâ keeper, so to speak. And I don’t expect others to be, either, except those who demand this of me. And that would be you. What’s more, I stopped reading her garbage a week or so ago. Seriously. I don’t have a clue what the hell she’s saying, nor do I care. Reading the rantings of one troll here is enough!
No, actually, your point was that I am âsupposed to call [Barack Obama] an ignorant bigot, homophobe, and theocratâ because he âdoesn’t support gay-sex marriage.â
And, according to you I don’t criticize him as such because: âif you did that, then the icky question of why your sexual orientation requires you to vote for him would come up.â
But NOW you’re claiming I don’t refer to Barack Obama as an âignorant bigot, homophobe, and theocratâ BECAUSE he’s black and a Democrat.
Can’t make up your mind. As usual, you’re just all over the place, and left swinging in the wind.
Also, as I stated before, my sexual orientation DOESN’T require I vote for any particular person; rather, my SUPPORT for advancing equality for homosexuals and same-sex couples requires that I support candidates who do or have promised to advance those causes. And that tends to leave out most of those in your party, those with the patently anti-homosexual party platform and background.
By the way, if you’re going to rely on this type of racist claim: ‘you support Obama because he’s black’, then turnabout is fair play. You hate him because he’s black. Or what is it your brother-in-arms, Rush Limbaugh calls him, âHalfrican-Americanâ?
posted by DragonScorpion on
~âOr, more precisely, what you choose to observe. […] You’ve made up your mind, you adamantly refuse to believe anything else, and you dismiss any other sources as not being “anything of substance” before having read them.â ~ North Dallas Thirty
Like I said, âAs for perceptions. Like everyone else in most all other things, especially online, I base mine on what I observe. And his words speak for themselves. I’ve reached my conclusions based on these. As has, it would seem, most everyone else here.â
As a matter of fact, I have read all these âsourcesâ you’ve provided (other than your recent blog post cited above, as I considered the âsourceâ). Granted, I didn’t re-read these links of yours the two dozen other times you reposted them! Didn’t really seem necessary, you know? But I did read them initially. Even re-read a few. And these isolated incidents were not substantive in supporting your claims of the evils of the entire homosexual community.
As for your precious blog post which is supposed to explain away all your gay-bashing, given your many âsnickering friendsâ I’m sure you don’t need more traffic.
As I said, I’ve seen enough of your garbage already. I’m really not terribly interested in the viewpoints of lying, insulting, hate-mongering, homophobes. And I certainly don’t go lurking their personal blogs… If I want to know what you think of us, I can read it right here. Moreover, I have.
And there we are, folks, ever in ND30 fashion. He has managed to explain away the most likely outcome. He began building on it right after he introduced the idea that he had friends who were watching this exchange.
So now, we are lead to presume, if none of his âsnickering friendsâ show up, it isn’t because they don’t exist, it isn’t because they don’t agree with him, it isn’t because I’m just oh-so-wrong about him, and âsecret identityâ and yada-yada. Oh no, according to ND30, it’s my fault they don’t show up because I wouldn’t be convinced by them anyway. So, as the thinking goes, it wouldn’t be worth their time to come to his rescue.
All too convenient. Just like how ND30 was poisoning the well in the Prop 8 trial in CA when it was brought up a week or so back. Judicial âbiasâ was his deliberately orchestrated rationale to discredit any outcome in favor of same-sex marriage. The judge couldn’t possibly rule in favor of the same-sex marriage advocates on merit. Why? Because, as ND30 says, the civil rights of homosexuals has no merit:
âAgain, I can’t really blame Republicans for not trying to be “nicer” to gays; first, it doesn’t make sense to them to dole out favors based on minority status instead of meritâ
posted by DragonScorpion on
How clever, I’m a âbigotâ against ND30. If that’s how he wants to characterize my refusal to buy into his BS, then I’d say better to be a bigot to one person than a bigot to an entire segment of the population.
But let’s review our first exchange, shall we?
One would see ND30 ripping the collective “gay community” as usual. And then suggesting I’m a liar who possesses “No thought, no rational decisionmaking” who just sees “Obama Party” and just mindlessly votes for it.
I’ve accepted his challenges, read his links (other than a blog post of his), debated him at length, cited my own evidence to the contrary… He demands that homosexuals condemn behavior which THEY did not engage in, demands homosexuals criticize attitudes which THEY do not espouse, demands homosexuals accept and parrot sweeping generalizations and indictments of the very community they belong to. I refuse.
I have seen the content of his character based on the views he unapologetically espouses here, and found it to be dishonest, hateful, prejudiced, and in general worthless. If he changes his stripes, I expect that we will all see it here…
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Unlike you, I don’t demand that people step up and shout down their peers for outrageous behavior.
Why not, if it’s outrageous behavior?
Answer: Because for DragonScorpion, protecting his fellow minority members is more important than criticizing outrageous behavior.
And that brings us to this.
He demands that homosexuals condemn behavior which THEY did not engage in,
So it is wrong for gays to condemn pedophilia by other gays.
demands homosexuals criticize attitudes which THEY do not espouse
So it is wrong for gays to condemn the attitudes of other gays who push promiscuity, demean monogamy, and demand that sex be taught to five-year-olds.
demands homosexuals accept and parrot sweeping generalizations and indictments of the very community they belong to.
So it is wrong to for gays to criticize and hold the gay community accountable for its support of drug use, promiscuity, and irresponsibility.
Thank you for making those abundantly clear.
I’m not sure I understand the question
Oh, you understand the question. You’re just too small-minded and bigoted to admit that Debrah holds the same attitude you claimed to towards Perez Hilton, because that would require you to assess your own beliefs in light of your bigoted viewpoint that she is wrong about everything.
Oppose Debrah for lobbing juvenile insults at people?
Your quote in that statement was:
âBut because she was intelligent enough to know the lifestyle of her brother also carries risks that other relationships do not carry.â
What exactly is the insult?
90% of new infections are among gay men and other men who have sex with men.
71% of those living with AIDS are gay or bisexual men.
73% of all HIV/AIDS cases occur among gay men, far exceeding the 53% nationally.
Or this?
The syphilis numbers are shocking because just a decade ago, the U.S. was on the verge of eliminating the disease. Now 3.7 out of every 100,000 Americans — and 6.4 out of every 100,000 American males — carry the infection, which can cause blindness, brain damage, and death if untreated.
Rates among men are six times higher than rates among women. This, Fenton said, is largely because of huge increases in syphilis infections among men who have sex with men. About 60% of all recent U.S. syphilis infections occurred in these men.
In short, Debrah is stating what is scientific fact; gay men are far more likely to have a sexually-transmitted disease than the majority of the population. Gay men optimistically at most constitute 5% of the population, but have over 50% of the existing HIV infections, 90% of the new HIV infections, and 60% of the new syphilis infections.
Why is that an insult? Do you expect people to ignore it? Are you somehow afraid that acknowledging that fact will diminish you in some respect? Do you think calling anyone who states those facts a bigot will advance your cause?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
End italics
posted by DragonScorpio on
You mean outrageous behavior like supporting the discriminatory Proposition 8 which constitutionally denied same-sex couples from the civil marriages which they had a legal right to? Gee, and here I thought you didn’t like people shouting each other down for not toeing the line…?
Answer: North Dallas Thirty only likes for other people, those HE deems inferior and worthy of the public pillory, to be shouted down, scorned & branded with the scarlet letter.
I am fully aware that there is a lot of behavior in our society, amongst men, women, heterosexuals and homosexuals that is outrageous, inappropriate or even indefensible. Such behavior or attitudes should be challenged and/or criticized. People should be encouraged to make better choices.
But ultimately people are accountable for their own actions. We don’t need lynch mobs going around browbeating others into conforming, punishing the ‘wicked’ in some sort of vigilante justice. That is not how things should be in a civilized society. And we damn sure don’t need entire segments of the population, like homosexuals, being depicted as a collective monolith who are all guilty of the worst behaviors that can be found among them and deserving of demonization.
Maybe ND30 needs to spend less time obsessing over biblical stories like Sodom & Gomorrah, where it was justified as ‘righteous’ for a deity on a power-trip, tantrum jag to destroy an entire city of people â men, women and children alike â for the crime (so the homophobes tell it) of homo-sex among the locals.
And yet in all of this I haven’t âprotectedâ a single fellow homosexual for engaging in outrageous behavior. In no way, shape, or form is it protecting bad behavior to refuse to accept blame for the actions of others nor is it to criticize those who apply such sweeping indictments of the innocent & righteous along with the guilty.
Nope, you pathetic liar, like I’ve said countless times now: it is WRONG to blame ALL homosexuals for those who engage in pedophilia. Just as it would be WRONG to blame ALL heterosexuals for those who engage in pedophilia, or ALL Catholics, or ALL men for those who engage in pedophilia…
Nope, you pathetic liar, like I’ve also said countless times now, it is WRONG to claim; or to assume; or to suggest; or in your case INSIST that the attitudes of some homosexuals is reflective of the ENTIRE “GAY COMMUNITY” of which they are a member.
The homosexual community is NOT a monolith. For the, I don’t know, 30th time or so now: the âgay communityâ {read: the entire homosexual population} does NOT support drug use, promiscuity and irresponsibility. Thus, it is patently WRONG to hold the âgay communityâ accountable for things which only some in the âgay communityâ support.
But you just keep deliberately missing the fucking point and deliberately twisting everything that others say to help argue your indefensible, factually errant, fallaciously rationalized case as to why it’s okay to hate, insult and condemn the ENTIRE HOMOSEXUAL POPULATION.
And you’re so predictable, I’m sure that as you read this you are already looking for your bookmarked handful of links and quotes to remind everyone again of the few isolated incidents which we’ve all seen DOZENS OF TIMES NOW! And in doing so you will utterly fail yet AGAIN to prove that the âgay communityâ is evil and a danger to society, etc. etc. etc…
Get it through your thick, mindless, irrational, hate-filled skull: THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT THE âGAY COMMUNITYâ. THEY DO NOT REPRESENT THE âGAY COMMUNITYâ. THEY DO NOT SPEAK FOR US. WE ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT THEY DO!
It could not be more obvious than this, but you’re such a gay-hating bigot; so wounded because more homosexuals don’t support your ‘Homophobe party’; so obsessed with your agenda to demonize homosexuals and depict us collectively as inherently evil that you have suspended all sense of reason, objectivity, and honesty that you cannot comprehend what would be obvious to a rational person.
posted by DragonScorpion on
No problem. You distortions failed. As they always do.
And thank you for making your mindless bigotry against homosexuals abundantly clear. And yet again proving what a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR you are.
Oh, no I didn’t understand it as you weren’t the least bit clear, so I asked for clarification, liar.
So now you claim I am a âbigotâ for criticizing Debrah’s vicious, near daily insults lobbed at homosexuals because we (gasp!) have sex. And you’re claiming that my criticism of Perez Hilton for his thuggery and crudeness is somehow equal to her criticism of him as âa “man” who always looks as though he’s just emerged from a train tunnel carrying round a bad Liberace impressionâ. Then your point was even more absurd and dishonest than I’d guessed.
I’m not all surprised that you support Debrah’s perspective on the homosexual problem. But then when considering how closely the times of your posts tend to follow each other (yes, after years I’ve blogging among liars I learned to pay attention to time stamps), I’m more inclined to believe she’s your sockpuppet…
I’m sure I’m not the first to wonder why a heterosexual woman with such a prurient interest in scatological topics, who relies on a few isolated incidents as a justification for generalities, and possesses such an obvious disdain of recognizing any civil equality for homosexuals including same-sex marriage, would spend so much time at a forum for the homosexual community lambasting men for having sex with other men.
And I’m sure I’m not the first to conclude that this is probably for the same reason that a supposed âhomosexualâ man, who also relies exclusively on a few isolated incidents as a justification for generalities, who possesses a clear disdain to recognizing any civil equality of homosexuals including same-sex marriage, would spend so much time at the same forum blaming homosexuals for everything but the crucifixion of Christ. Or did I miss that one?
Coincidence? I tend not to believe in such things.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Well let’s see, I have Google, too:
âAlthough African-Americans comprise only 9.6% of the cityâs [Los Angeles] population, they account for nearly 20% of those living with AIDS.â
âAlthough African Americans comprise 6% of the stateâs [California] population, they account for nearly 19% of those living with HIV/AIDS.â
âAfrican Americans, although comprising only 12% of the [U.S.] population, account for 46% of all new infections. Latinos, comprising 15% of the population, account for 17% of all new infections.â
âIn general [U.S.], racial and ethnic minorities account for 67% of those living with HIV, and 70% of AIDS deaths.â
[ source ]
âBlack and Hispanic communities have been disproportionately affected by HIV and AIDS in America. Despite their smaller share of the general population, more black people have been diagnosed with AIDS than white people, and they are far more likely to be diagnosed with HIV and AIDS.
During 2007, 50% of all new HIV diagnoses and 42% of new AIDS diagnoses were in black people yet they comprise around just 13% of the population. In recent years the numbers of HIV diagnoses have remained relatively stable in most ethnic groups.â
[ source ]
âHIV statistics tell the story of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. For African Americans in the United States, the HIV/AIDS epidemic is rapidly becoming a health crisis. AIDS data shows that in 2002, HIV/AIDS was among the top 3 causes of death for African American men aged 25 to 54 years and among the top 4 causes of death for African American women aged 25 to 54 years. Back then it was the number 1 cause of death for African American women aged 25 to 34 years. The HIV statistics are quite sobering. HIV/AIDS among African Americans is becoming a desparate problem. Here are some HIV facts to prove we have a lot of work to do.â
[ source ]
And from ND30’s own source:
âAfrican-Americans continue to be disproportionately affected by syphilis. Syphilis rates are six times higher for African-American men than among white men, and 13 times higher for African-American women than for white women.â
âThe 178,233 African Americans living with AIDS in the United States accounted for 43 percent of all people in the United States living with AIDS.â
So taking these âscientific factsâ in mind, and combining them with the assertions of Debrah and ND30, the lesson they want us to learn here is that homosexuals (mostly men) and blacks are too dangerous to be trusted, too much of a health risk to be permitted to hold babies, and should be segregated (quarantined) from the rest of society.
Neither of them are reasonable nor sane enough to understand that while these are serious issues that absolutely need to be addressed, they absolutely DO NOT need to be addressed utilizing bigoted assumptions.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Actually, it is all her crass rantings about “fur-trapping”, “poop-shoot-chasing” and ârimming well-worn azzholesâ that is truly insulting about Debrah, the witless wonder.
Those, along with juvenile, disparaging wisecracks like these:
âLastly, that little “get laid” schtick is good advice. You see, a woman actually does “lay”. No bareback break-ins necessary.â
âEven if the single parent is affluent (as many gays are because all they have to worry about is themselves!)â
âtired of the glorification and the anal-sex-grotesquerie of gay men.â
âIt’s endlessly embarrassing to see intelligent men crying over not being able to legally “marry” other men.â
âMost heterosexuals in their teens and twenties haven’t all of a sudden jumped on the poop-shoot-train as a regular activity;â
âMost people who are repulsed by the idea of anal sex being synonymous with “making love” couldn’t care less who performs it, it’s still icky….and will always be.â
I suppose we’ll just call this Debrah’s ‘Greatest Hits’. That last one was particularly telling. Apparently Debrah is part of the âFrotâ movement, too… But of course, none of this offends ND30, not in the slightest. As he supports Debrah and certainly doesn’t criticize these all-too-typical ruminations of hers. By his own logic, this means that he agrees with her wholeheartedly.
Now let’s take a look at a break down of the argument that Debrah attempted to convey to the forum, as cited above, which ND30 solidly agrees with:
â[T]he lifestyle of her brother also carries risks that other relationships do not carryâ due to âthe realities of rimming and constant anal sexâ which means not only should you not let a homosexual man hold your infant for fear of catching one of those diseases of the ass, but â[j]ust as the Constitution is not a suicide pact, “diversity”, “open-mindedness”, and “acceptance of all behaviors as normal” should not be.â
Oddly, there were no âscientific factsâ cited by Debrah. And which behaviors did she have in mind? Promiscuous sex, you ask? Nope, just homo man-sex…
Not at all, I expect people to not use it as a weapon or a justification to lump homosexuals into one big diseased category, which can then be segregated, marginalized, dehumanized, institutionalized, or legally established as pariahs… ALL of us.
Nope, but I am quite concerned that disproportions of STD’s in our community will be used as justifications for bigots to diminish myself, my partner, my community, our rights. Yeah. Look no further than Debrah and ND30 for evidence of that.
But while we’re at it, it’s certainly becoming a talking point among the anti-homosexual crowd.
ND30’s strawman just went up in flames. I NEVER referred to Debrah or ND30 as a bigot for citing statistics about STD’s among our community, he’s just a pathological liar. {See the ‘Greatest Hits’ of Debrah and ND30 above for an understanding as to why I have concluded that they/it could be most accurately described as bigot[s]}
Now, a question for ND30. Do you think all this hate-mongering displayed by your unambiguously anti-gay duo has advanced your cause? Take a look around…
Nope.
posted by DragonScorpion on
âMaybe some of your âsnickering friendsâ could step up and detail all the miraculous things you’ve done for the community lately.â ~ DragonScorpion
And yet still some 5 days later….. [crickets]
Suffice to say that, there is snickering going on alright, but not from any of ND30’s “friends”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You mean outrageous behavior like supporting the discriminatory Proposition 8 which constitutionally denied same-sex couples from the civil marriages which they had a legal right to?
I believe the whole point and premise of this country is that everyone has the right to review, hold opinions, and vote as they see fit.
The fact that you are terrified of people disagreeing with you and supporting things that you don’t support is hardly a reason to get rid of that.
We don’t need lynch mobs going around browbeating others into conforming, punishing the ‘wicked’ in some sort of vigilante justice.
But, since you and your fellow gay and lesbian leaders like Timothy Kincaid are doing exactly that, and you made it clear that you fully endorsed and supported it, those really are exposed as pretty words that mean absolutely nothing.
Just like all your other so-called “criticisms”.
Which brings us to this:
Get it through your thick, mindless, irrational, hate-filled skull: THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT THE âGAY COMMUNITYâ. THEY DO NOT REPRESENT THE âGAY COMMUNITYâ. THEY DO NOT SPEAK FOR US. WE ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT THEY DO!
Which is, of course, why you’re yelling this at me, but not at them when they STATE that they represent the gay community, that they do speak for you, and that you approve of what they are doing.
As we saw from your sniveling and obedient endorsement of Timothy Kincaid’s lynch mobs going around browbeating others into conforming, punishing the ‘wicked’ in some sort of vigilante justice, you haven’t the capacity or capability to criticize bad behavior on the part of gay people.
So you think you can get around that by criticizing anyone who would dare point it out.
All you’re making patently obvious is that it’s not the behavior that concerns you; it’s the PR around the behavior. Timothy Kincaid can go around vandalizing houses, mailing white powder to churches, phoning in death threats, and so forth, and you’re OK with that — as long as no one reports on it.
posted by Debrah on
“…….you haven’t the capacity or capability to criticize bad behavior on the part of gay people.”
“So you think you can get around that by criticizing anyone who would dare point it out.”
“All you’re making patently obvious is that it’s not the behavior that concerns you; it’s the PR around the behavior.”
*******************************************
Precisely.
So many here support, praise, and reference all those rabid gay bloggers and “activists”…….
…….as they attempt to wax self-righteous and gay goodie-goodie when there is any disagreement.
Such dishonesty.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Most people aren’t nearly so obvious with their deliberate distortions of the views of others. But ND30, is in a league all his own!
I’m not the least bit âterrifiedâ of others disagreeing with me. Nor with them supporting things I don’t agree with. I am extremely concerned, however, about mobs of people banding together to vote away the rights of others, particularly minorities which simply do not have the numbers to defend themselves at the ballot box against such a tyranny imposed by majority.
And that is exactly what Proposition 8 was. An effort to deny same-sex couples their constitutional rights in California, but also to deny the constitutional rights of homosexuals/same-sex couples to equal protection of the laws and due process. Worse, perhaps, is that this was done largely because of the theological beliefs of that voting majority. So we also have one group imposing its religious values on another…
Prop 8’s passage had both the intention and the result of denying same-sex couples access to the same civil contract that opposite-sex couples had long been afforded. This sort of thing is in no way the âpoint and premiseâ of what this country was founded upon. If it were, we wouldn’t have a Constitution, certainly not a Bill of Rights, and we would not have been founded as a representative democracy, but rather ours would be a direct democracy, instead… Which it isn’t. Thank goodness.
There he goes again, blaming me for the actions of others. And let’s finish that comment of mine, shall we:
âWe don’t need lynch mobs going around browbeating others into conforming, punishing the ‘wicked’ in some sort of vigilante justice. That is not how things should be in a civilized society. And we damn sure don’t need entire segments of the population, like homosexuals, being depicted as a collective monolith who are all guilty of the worst behaviors that can be found among them and deserving of demonization.â
This is exactly what ND30 and his fellow anti-homosexual bigots are doing in voting for and supporting Prop 8.
So let me reiterate, definitively, without equivocation, and ND30 can quote me on this on every thread here at IGF: Those in this country, particularly in California, who voted to exclude same-sex couples from marriage should be ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES. And they should be told this.
One more thing, regardless how much ND30 dislikes it, the fact is people have a constitutional right to protest in this country. Yep, even homosexuals. His gang in the anti-homosexual camp haven’t managed to vote that right away from us… not yet.
posted by DragonScorpion on
I’m âyellingâ this at ND30 because those who âstateâ that adult sex with minors is typical of homosexuals, etc. are not here, ND30 is! And HE is the one HERE who claims in every post that these people do represent the âgay communityâ, they do speak for the âgay communityâ, and that the âgay communityâ is accountable for what they say and do. And this is of course not only all a LIE, it is also a disgustingly bigoted example of the habitual scapegoating that ND30 engages in.
As for a âsniveling and obedient endorsementâ of Mr. Kincaid and these protests in question… That’s funny, I don’t recall any endorsement, other than for those who devote time to substantive issues like the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial and the ‘kill the gays’ bill in Ugranda. And I certainly didn’t see any at the post cited by ND30… Maybe someone not as prone to lies and hallucinations could point those out to me?
Now that’s just a slanderous lie. But then again, what else is new from ND30???
In no way, shape, or form am I âOKâ with Mr. Kincaid or anyone else vandalizing houses, mailing powder to churches, making death threats, etc. That kind of behavior is unethical, despicable, uncivilized, and criminal. Such actions also do far more damage to our cause than it helps. If he is guilty of it, and I’m certainly not making any accusation here, then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I am extremely concerned, however, about mobs of people banding together to vote away the rights of others, particularly minorities which simply do not have the numbers to defend themselves at the ballot box against such a tyranny imposed by majority.
Then you should be willing to speak out against bans on sex with children, plural marriage, and other such things which are supported by a minority of people who “simply do not have the numbers to defend themselves at the ballot box against such a tyranny imposed by majority”.
Or is that only a problem when it’s not something you support?
Next:
And we damn sure don’t need entire segments of the population, like homosexuals, being depicted as a collective monolith who are all guilty of the worst behaviors that can be found among them and deserving of demonization.
Which is, of course, why you and your fellow gays and lesbians like Timothy Kincaid are standing outside a restaurant screaming at and browbeating other gay and lesbian people who don’t agree with you into conforming to what the collective monolith has ordered.
Or why you would criticize gay pedophiles, but the collective monolith doesn’t look kindly on those who do, claiming that it’s kowtowing to “bigots”.
In no way, shape, or form am I âOKâ with Mr. Kincaid or anyone else vandalizing houses, mailing powder to churches, making death threats, etc.
That’s all right, DragonScorpion. You were against “lynch mobs going around browbeating others into conforming, punishing the ‘wicked’ in some sort of vigilante justice” until Timothy Kincaid reminded you that that’s what good gays support. And when he shows up on your doorstep to remind you why you should support all of those other things, he’s quite sure that you’ll once again cast aside principle in favor of minority status.
Closely related:
I’m âyellingâ this at ND30 because those who âstateâ that adult sex with minors is typical of homosexuals, etc. are not here, ND30 is!
And also because you’re convinced that I’m not gay. That’s why you had to be so quick to strip me of any minority status; it simply isn’t possible in your world for a gay or lesbian person to be critical of the behaviors of other gay and lesbian person — and especially without blaming heterosexuals or throwing in all sorts of other caveats to make it obvious that it’s not REALLY the gay or lesbian person’s fault and that those evil straight/religious/white/conservative/Republican people made them do it.
posted by DragonScorpion on
It’s a problem when it isn’t legitimate. And there is no legitimate justification to discriminate against homosexuals, no more than there was to discriminate against ethnic and racial classes.
Children can’t consent, for good reason. And there is too much of an imbalance of emotional, physical, psychological power in adult/child relationships for them to be healthy or functional and therefore legal. The same is not even remotely the case for adult homosexuals. The bigot, ND30 should stop equating us with children.
And plural marriage is completely different from 2-person marriage. It isn’t merely an issue of race or gender, it’s a radically different concept entirely involving unlimited numbers of people. This is obvious to an intellectually honest person, but then that would exclude ND30…
Now if those in favor of it want to argue for legal protections then they can make their case. Unlike ND30, I’m willing to listen. And while I am not supportive of these sorts of relationships because I believe they are throwback to patriarchal enslavement of women, you also will not see me out supporting or voting for constitutional amendments banning plural marriage.
Next:
1) those who support bans on same-sex marriage should be ashamed of themselves.
2) people have a constitutional right to protest, yep, that includes outside of restaurants.
3) those who protested against Proposition 8 did not represent the collective monolith which ND30 refers to as the âgay and lesbian communityâ.
4) I was not standing outside that restaurant. I was not protesting in California. I don’t even live there.
ND30 is a pathological liar who makes completely baseless accusations that cannot possibly be substantiated by him. Such craven dishonesty is not only extremely immature, it also suggests some form of paranoid schizophrenia.
Yet another lie. The collective monolith which ND30’s refers to as the âgay and lesbian communityâ does not defend pedophilia and does not refer to those who criticize pedophilia as âkowtowing to bigotsâ. The guy from Canada that ND30 cites as proof of this only proves how intellectually deceptive and completely irrational he is.
This is why ND30 doesn’t get folks jumping through hoops to appease him when he demands it. If one makes a declarative statement that they do not in any way support something, he just dismisses it. âCasts it asideâ as this doesn’t fit the narrative that he is trying to create, that being, The entire âgay and lesbian communityâ [read: every homosexual on the planet] actually supports and/or engages in every despicable behavior known to humankind.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Correction: It simply isn’t possible in my experiences for a self-respecting homosexual to exhibit anything even approaching such vile contempt for ALL homosexuals as ND30 does. This includes repeatedly declaring the entire homosexual population is immoral, hedonistic, immature, criminal, etc., ad nauseam. Blaming the whole for the actions of some. This, as well as his incessant efforts to marginalize the legal status of homosexuals and deride the value of same-sex couples [“gay-sex marriage”, he calls it] as ND30 does here daily.
There is positively no distinction between ND30’s comments here and those from countless heterosexual homophobic bigots who are demanding we either be âcuredâ or remain as segregated and secluded in our closets from the rest of society as possible. ND30’s comments here doesn’t in any way, shape, or form encourage the community address its problems. Nor has it. Nor will it. It’s just for the purposes of hate-mongering. Attacking homosexuals simply because he views us as inferior and he’s upset that most of us won’t support his anti-gay Republican party.
Factor all this into the deliberate lies ND30 invents as a response to someone’s actual statement which can clearly be seen by everyone here in it’s original form, and yet we’re expected to believe it’s impossible that this gay-hating troll managed to concoct something on his blog about being a homosexual which has no basis in reality…?
Nope, I’m not convinced. Maybe ND30 is one of those âcuredâ homosexuals that supposedly exist. That would certainly explain a lot.
As for accountability, those heterosexuals/religious fanatics/social conservatives/Republicans who engage in demonizing homosexuals and pushing to exclude us from legal equality need to step up and take responsibility for what they do. And so does ND30. It is for these actions that they are blamed and held accountable, and should be.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
This includes repeatedly declaring the entire homosexual population is immoral, hedonistic, immature, criminal, etc., ad nauseam. Blaming the whole for the actions of some.
Ah yes, that old saw of yours again, in which you apparently forget what I stated above.
“Oh no; I don’t have contempt for the entire homosexual population. Just the community of minority-status victims that, by design of the few and brainwashing of the many, makes up the vast majority of it.”
Of course, people like yourself who use your minority status as an excuse for antisocial behavior, bigotry, and hate NEED “the entire homosexual population” as an excuse. You see, if you were to demand sex from your coworkers and discriminate against those who refused you, that would make you responsible for your behavior. But if you can state that this is normal for the gay community, then you can blame an investigation of it on “homophobia and sexism”.
That’s also why you support and endorse the bigot Kincaid outside a restaurant screaming at gay and lesbian people who choose to go inside and eat regardless of a $100 donation instead of standing outside and trying to destroy the business like he wants to do. They NEED to blame their behavior on their sexual orientation, and it doesn’t work if you have gays and lesbians doing anything else; hence, they try to punish gays and lesbians who do differently.
That’s what makes your “the gay community is not a monolith” so transparently hypocritical. If that were the case, you would be adamantly against browbeating gays and lesbians like this. But you can’t. The narrative of “gay unity” and “solidarity” is what is important.
Furthermore, it makes your supposed opposition to bad gay and lesbian behavior even more obviously false. As we can see, when the gay community is actually opposed to behaviors by gay and lesbian people, it verbally beats the living hell out of them, stands in their face, screams at them, and tries to shame and humiliate them publicly. It’s hilarious that both you and Kincaid will get all self-righteous about how gays who eat at a restaurant you don’t like deserve to be shamed, but always find some sort of creative excuse as to why you don’t need to shame and humiliate pedophiles.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Such craven dishonesty is not only extremely immature, it also suggests some form of paranoid schizophrenia.
And I’m sure you can present your professional credentials to make an evaluation in that regard as well.
Or, more likely, you’re just doing like your fellow gay-sex marriage supporter Timothy Kincaid and demonstrating that science in the eyes of gay and lesbian people is just another thing that you can twist because of your sexual orientation. Personally, I wonder about psychological diagnoses coming from a community in which their leading psychiatrists advocate dressing toddlers as sex slaves and taking them to sex fairs as an “educational experience”.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Nope, I just haven’t forgotten my response detailing the incessant droning from North Dallas Thirty about all the evil things the âgay and lesbian communityâ, the âgay-sex marriageâ advocates, and the same-sex parents out there are doing and/or supporting. By the way, it looks like I may need to update that…
And here was a good one in his previous post: âscience in the eyes of gay and lesbian people is just another thing that you can twist because of your sexual orientationâ.
ND30 had chances for weeks (or months?), post after post, day after day, to correct any misunderstandings about his sweeping generalizations of the ENTIRE HOMOSEXUAL POPULATION. Instead, he just kept adding to it. . . .
As for the old âminority statusâ saw, I cleared up that distortion a long time ago:
By âminority statusâ ND30 means my equality status as a homosexual. And it is something that concerns me now more than ever, what with fascist conservatives imposing discriminatory legislation against us. Of course, the equality status of homosexuals doesn’t mean jack shit to ND30.â Thus, why he finds it so easy to deride it, and issues of civil rights concerning homosexuals.
posted by DragonScorpion on
About Tim Kincaid. Funny how we go from this statement by me: âIn no way, shape, or form am I âOKâ with Mr. Kincaid or anyone else vandalizing houses, mailing powder to churches, making death threats, etc. That kind of behavior is unethical, despicable, uncivilized, and criminal. Such actions also do far more damage to our cause than it helps. If he is guilty of it, and I’m certainly not making any accusation here, then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. â
To ND30’s repeated mischaracterization that I, âsupport and endorse the bigot Kincaidâ.
Oh, I know what it is. It’s because I stated the FACT that people have a right to protest in this country, even homosexuals… I guess that means I âendorse and supportâ Fred Phelps’ klan, too, as I acknowledge their right to protest, also.
I’m glad that ND30 reiterated for everyone his bigoted belief that the gay & lesbian community IS a monolith, as he tried to deny above. Again. What was I saying about schizophrenia…?
I can only assume we’re talking about Mr. Kincaid again and the protest at the restaurant [which I in no way have had any involvement with]. If so, then in this case the âbad gay and lesbian behaviorâ was their apparent support of Prop 8… And yes, they should be ashamed of this, as should anyone who opposes civil rights for homosexual and same-sex couples because it IS WRONG, just like those who advocated segregation and anti-miscegenation were WRONG…
I can’t speak for Mr. Kincaid, but what’s truly hilarious is the fact that I have never made any excuses about not shaming or humiliating people who molest children. Rather, ND30 has demanded we all agree with him that the gay community is mostly pedophiles. I, and I suspect most others, refuse to do so because it isn’t true.
As for that âparanoid schizophreniaâ thing involving ND30… Really, one doesn’t need a degree in psychology to know bat-shit crazy when you see it. . .
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If so, then in this case the âbad gay and lesbian behaviorâ was their apparent support of Prop 8… And yes, they should be ashamed of this, as should anyone who opposes civil rights for homosexual and same-sex couples because it IS WRONG, just like those who advocated segregation and anti-miscegenation were WRONG…
And there the contradiction becomes glaringly obvious.
DragonScorpion repeatedly, when confronted with examples of inconvenient behavior supported and endorsed by the gay community, has argued that the gay community is not a monolith, that not all gays and lesbians think the same way, and that, quote, “we don’t need lynch mobs going around browbeating others into conforming, punishing the ‘wicked’ in some sort of vigilante justice”.
And yet….here he is advocating for it and yelling that gay and lesbian people who disagree with him are “wrong” and should be “ashamed”.
You wonder why DragonScorpion needs to co-opt everyone else’s minority status to support his ideas.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Here we go with those loaded words again, âyellingâ and so forth. Yes, ALL homosexuals are just âyellingâ and âscreamingâ and âcryingâ ad nauseam, according to ND30.
There is no need to yell, except when people can’t get it THE FIRST SEVERAL DOZEN TIMES! Actually, I can state my position quite clearly for those who can read and not let their dishonesty and biases get in the way. Which of course leaves ND30 out…
First, a correction on ND30’s latest, repeated mischaracterization. I do not believe those who supported same-sex marriage should be ashamed because they âdisagreeâ with me, rather, they should be ashamed for supporting something despicable, which Prop 8 was. Just as anti-miscegenation laws were despicable, and those who supported it should be ASHAMED of having done so…
Oh, yeah, and those folks should have been told how shameful it was. But ND30 would have defended those racists. All that ‘the mobs know best’ mentality of his…
Second. Though ND30 repeatedly displays opposition for homosexuals to exercise their right to protest, I support such a right and those who exercise it as well as civil disobedience, so long as it is done peacefully. And just so this is clear (because the liar will try to twist it) this means without violence, without threats of violence, without destruction of property.
And no, though North Dallas Thirty clings to it as a matter of gospel truth, the gay community is NOT a monolith. Never has been. Never will be. Nor do I treat it like one. I advocate for what I believe in, and for what I believe others should as well, regardless their sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc.
I suppose by âco-optâ everyone else’s âminority statusâ the bigot meant illustrating the similarities between the black civil rights movement and the homosexual civil rights movement… Answer: Because they’re comparable.
ND30 doesn’t like to have to face this reality. Like most conservatives he’d like to think his prejudices against homosexuals is justified, yet he knows how bigoted it is when applying those same prejudices to people on the basis of racial classification, as was so common just a few generations ago…
By the way, it is worth noting that in so many of these responses to my statements that ND30 ignores most of what I write and doesn’t bother to challenge my refutations of his bullshit. That is all too telling. He must evade the truth, and keep employing this little distractions, the smoke & mirrors meant to mislead the audience.
It doesn’t seem to work though. Few agree with him here… In fact, so far he seems to have won over only his homo-hating sock puppet, Debrah.