The Human Rights Campaign has now endorsed Obama for President, despite his refusal to oppose the California ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage (as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle), and despite his stated position that marriage can only be between a man and a woman-neither of which is mentioned in HRC's gushing endorsement announcement.
As noted in the item below, the Economist reports that African-Americans overwhelmingly oppose same-sex marriage, and Obama is likely to fire up a much larger African-American turnout in California this November. So why an endorsement with no strings attached? Because HRC exists to serve the party, silly.
More. HRC even beat the Stonewall Democrats in getting out their endorsement message, showing which organization is the more effectively partisan.
Furthermore. The San Francisco Chronicle article states:
Obama ... has said repeatedly that marriage itself should be reserved for a man and a woman. With an amendment outlawing same-sex marriage on the California ballot in November, Obama will probably be called to defend his carefully nuanced position when he campaigns in the state.
Gee, maybe HRC should have gotten him to strongly, and publicly, condemn the amendment and work against its passage as a precondition for their endorsement, you think?
43 Comments for “No Surprise from These Party Animals”
posted by Pat on
I don’t have that much of a problem with HRC endorsing Obama. My issue is the full, enthusiastic support. In the endorsement, the HRC should have made it clear that while Obama is clearly better than McCain on GLBT issues, Obama does fall short, such as gay marriage.
It’s been about three years since I’ve donated any money to HRC. About a year ago I received a letter from them with a survey asking why I no longer contributed. I filled it out and sent out a nice two page letter explaining exactly why, and asking for a reply. I’m still waiting for my reply.
About a week ago, I get a call from an HRC representative asking for a contribution. I explained that I sent a letter and no reply, and said I won’t be sending any money until I get a reply. He said it probably got lost and I said that it probably didn’t get lost, but they filed it under “G.” He suggested I send the letter again, but I recall sending an email stating that I sent a letter that wasn’t replied to, and no response from there either. When he said that HRC really needed my contribution, to which I replied that wasn’t the case since they didn’t reply to my letter.
posted by Pat on
In case anyone is interested, this is the letter I sent.
June 27, 2007
Joe Solmonese, President
Human Rights Campaign
P.O. Box 98098
Washington, DC 20077-7081
Dear Mr. Solmonese:
Thank you for the opportunity to explain my reasons for no longer contributing to HRC. I have contributed in the past, because HRC appeared to me at the time, for fairly pushing for attaining gay equality. However, in my view, HRC has strayed from their original mission.
Your organization has always claimed to be nonpartisan. Now we can agree that the Democratic Party is generally better than the Republican Party when it comes to gay rights. And on the occasion that the Republican candidate is at least as good as the Democratic candidate, HRC has endorsed the Republican candidate, and perhaps still does so today. However, there is the appearance that HRC is simply an arm of the Democratic Party, or to put it more accurately, wants to be. And as such, the Democratic Party takes advantage of it, by taking the vote of GLBT persons for granted. The HRC, as it should, does criticize Republicans when they promote anti-gay policies, but I don?t see the same when Democrats promote anti-gay policies. If it?s a matter of endorsing the lesser of two evils, that?s fine, provided HRC makes it crystal clear and emphatically denounces the candidate?s anti-gay stances. HRC supported John Kerry despite his anti-gay marriage stance without any clear reservation. He was not criticized by HRC even when he supported banning marriage in his own state, and when he endorsed the Missouri amendment that also banned civil unions. HRC needs to show that they are beholden to NO political party, will support any candidate who supports full equality, and at the very least, denounce ANY candidate?s anti-gay stances.
When FMA came up for a vote, HRC was out spending money so that the amendment would lose. However, HRC utterly failed to provide a reasonable amount of money to defeat anti-gay marriage amendment in the various states, including those where the vote was close. I attended a gay pride celebration last year in Asbury Park, NJ. I met with a representative from HRC who was looking for donations to help defeat FMA. I told her that I have suspended donations to HRC, partly because of the reasons mentioned above, and asked her to explain HRC?s rationale. Instead, I got some silly talking points and she remained on a completely narrow scope of the FMA. She didn?t even attempt to explain HRC?s position even when it could have possibly meant a donation for me at the time. Frankly, I don?t blame this representative, but the people responsible for the decision to train people to represent HRC with a pathetic narrow scope, and it really made me question if HRC is really for equality, or just out for political posturing.
In addition, HRC?s mission is specifically geared towards gay right?s issues. While many people who are supportive of gay rights are also supportive of other issues such as reproductive rights, I believe HRC?s entering into the arena of abortion or other issues does a great disservice to those who want gay equality. I say this as a person who is supportive of most of the other issues that HRC supports, but do not believe it is appropriate to endorse or not endorse a candidate based on other issues. There are other organizations, such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood, for GLBT and other citizens who are pro-choice, that they can donate to if they believe in that particular cause.
Although the practices I noted are not unprecedented, I do believe the trend continuing away from HRC?s mission is now hurting the advancement of gay rights. In the past even when the Democrats voted for anti-gay policies such as DOMA and DADT, at least I believed that generally the country was moving in the direction towards gay equality, and that Democrats were leading the way. Now I see the Democrats stagnating on gay rights, and in some cases regressing. I see this regression in HRC as well. While I still see a clear difference, in general, between the two main political parties when it comes to gay rights, I am no longer satisfied with choosing the lesser of two evils. Almost all of the current candidates for President do not support marriage equality. After the 2004 election, I thought at least half of the candidates would. But we saw the Democrats regressing on gay rights issues in the 2006 elections, despite facing a weak party in office. Again, where is HRC in pushing for gay equality from ALL candidates?
I also am troubled by the inconsistency HRC has had in denouncing all anti-gay attacks. For example, HRC pointed out how the U.S. sided with Iran and other notoriously anti-gay nations, on a gay rights issue. However, where was HRC in denouncing the horrid anti-gay policies of Iran, including the hanging of two teens? Also, Tyler Whitney, a campaign worker for a despicable homophobe was outed. Subsequently, he was trashed not only by the homophobes, but by many gay persons as well, including threats and publishing his and his parents? addresses. Why didn?t HRC firmly and unequivocally denounce these actions? True, the candidate he worked for is atrocious on gay rights. One can argue hypocrisy, but Whitney is only 18 years old, and has just come out. And threats of violence are unwarranted under any circumstances. It appears to me that the inconsistency is rooted in politics, and should not be a factor for any anti-gay attacks. HRC has lost credibility with their selective condemnations.
Now if HRC plans on being an arm for the Democratic Party, will only pursue some gay rights issues (state or national), and is satisfied with the current stagnation and endorsing lesser of two evil candidates without denouncing the anti-gay stances, then I strongly suggest that the mission be changed to reflect that. I wouldn?t support those changes, but then I could at least see what HRC stands for, look at the pros and cons, and then decide if HRC is still worthy of my donations. I also note that the mission statement does not speak to international issues. Since HRC does speak towards these issues, you should consider adding that to your mission, but as stated above, should be consistent in denouncing anti-gay actions by any individual or government.
I look forward to your reaction and comments. I will reconsider my current decision to not donate to HRC depending on your comments. But more so, I will need to see action by HRC that is consistent with the mission.
Sincerely,
Patrick Sime
posted by Richard on
Once again, gay partisans seem divorced from reality in order to promote their own party.
On the right, gay partisans want to try and pretend that both McCain and Obama are the same on gay rights issues or that somehow McCain is better.
On the left, gay partisans either endorse Obama, as the lessor of the two evils, or support the Greens.
The Stonewall Democrats is a partisan gay rights organization much like the Log Cabin Republicans.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Stephen Miller, you’re hillarious. Who do you suggest HRC endorse instead, Mccain?! That would be absolutely idiotic. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
posted by Douglas on
The real quesation is whether Obama will attempt to get the Federal government to recognize all valid marriages performed in the states, whether or not he approves of them.
Many people disapprove of first cousin marriages, but they are recognized by Washington if they are valid in the state where they were performed.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Obama promises to get rid of anti-gay legislation in the U.S.:
http://www.ukgaynews.org.uk/Archive/08/Jun/0604.htm
posted by Priya Lynn on
Contrary to what Stephen Miller says I didn’t see anything in the San Franscisco Chronicle article that he linked to that said Obama refused to oppose the California attempt to ban marriage equality. I did however find this Gay City News article:
http://www.gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19750322&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568857&rfi=6
It says at the bottom that Obama opposes the California ammendment.
posted by avee on
I can’t find any direct quote from Obama saying he opposes the California amendment. Andy Humm, the leftwing activist who wrote the Gay City News piece, asserts Obama’s opposition but gives no quote. Did Obama whisper it into someone’s ear? Sorry, that doesn’t count!
posted by Ashpenaz on
I’m one of those old, angry white Democrats who won’t vote for Obama. I don’t agree with McCain, but I like him. McCain and Obama have exactly the same stand on gay marriage, except I think McCain doesn’t really mean it, and Obama does–Obama comes from a very homophobic world and I suspect he doesn’t like gay people. Probably for the same reason Ted Haggard didn’t like gay people if what I read in the Examiner and Enquirer is correct–oh, no, he didn’t!
posted by Bobby on
So HRC has no integrity whatsoever. Well, I’m not surprised.
The right thing to do would be not to endorse anyone and focus on the local elections.
On same-sex marriage McCain and Obama are both the same, they don’t believe in constitutional amendments and they’re both willing to let the states handle this issue on their own.
So HRC, you’re pretty screwed with either one. The thing to remember is this, the liberal media will give Obama a pass with everything he does. They’re all in love with him. He’s the new and improved JFK. I can’t believe people are buying his false hopes.
posted by Jorge on
It’s a foregone conclusion, but I’m a little disgusted. Obama is not perfect, and neither is McCain without redeeming features. At the very least they could have explained the endorsement, why they rejected McCain. Of course, if they did that, they would be drawing a line that one day a Republican would cross better than a Democrat.
My two cents: First of all this talk about “positions” is very Democat-centric, as if gay rights is only about which and how many laws you support or oppose. Barack Obama may say the right things more quickly and more often, but he says little that is substantive or new about gay rights–unlike for almost every other topic. It’s the same liberal boilerplate that depends on convincing Democratic/progressive voters (who are too few in number) that they have to elect a mass of Democratic/progressive legislators (that does not exist and never will exist) in order to pass the same unpopular legislation that has been vetted by maybe 12 percent of the population. It’s not going to work. I believe Senator Obama knows exactly what he is doing and has no intention of taking any political risks on gay rights, much less stepping out in front of the gay rights establishment.
John McCain isn’t as friendly, but he’s more honest. When he speaks about gay rights issues you get the sense he is speaking personally, from his own convictions, even when he’s trying to run away from the topic (which is most of the time). He gives the impression that he actually knows gay people and is thinking about them, instead of about their votes. He puts his thoughts out there and tells you how he arrived at his positions.
To put it another way, contrast Obama’s appearance at the HRC sponsored debate last year to McCain’s appearance on Ellen recently. Those are both statements acknowledging and valuing gay people, but they’re said in completely different ways.
posted by DaleA on
HRC should have waited at least until Obama has a running mate. If he picks someone with a bad record on us, like Sam Nunn or Chuck Hagel, no endorsement is warrented. And, HRC should really stop being so Democratic Party centric. Endorse Green and Libertarian when merited. We have got to stop being the door mat movement.
Ashpenaz, I am with you. Don’t like Obama. Don’t trust him on gay concerns. From what I can see, he has virtually no out gays around him. His campaign staff is as queer free as Bush’s. He has no gay friends of long standing. He comes from a violently homophobic culture. He lives in the one area of Chicago that does not really have many out gay people in it. Probably will vote Libertarian or write in Hillary this fall.
Have noticed all the checkout line stories about gays and Obama. These rags really have it in for him. They love Hillary, who always provides drama. But Obama, everything I have seen is negative. According to someone at NO QUARTER, the count is up to 3 recent murders of gay men from Obama’s church. This looks like the start of a Vince Foster discourse.
posted by BobN on
It never ceases to amaze me how some gay people on the right can so twist reality. Obama prefers civil unions for gay people. He considers marriage to be between a man and a woman, BUT he also opposes writing discrimination into state or the federal constitutions. He also wants civil unions (and marriages in those states that offer them) to be fully recognized at the federal level.
McCain also believes marriage is between a man and a woman, BUT he supported the constitutional amendment in Arizona to ban not just marriage but civil unions and domestic partner registries (this is the ONLY anti-gay amendment to a state constitution that has failed — it was so extreme, the citizens of Arizona didn’t adopt it).
Anyone who can’t see a HUGE difference in those two positions just isn’t operating in good faith.
posted by Richard on
Again, who should the HRC have endorsed? It would have been incredibly stupid to have endorsed McCain — who has opposed just about every gay rights idea — and no third party candidate is going to win the white house.
Despite the spin from the partisan gay right, Obama and McCain do have different records on gay rights. McCain has voted against us every single time he has had the chance.
Obama is not perfect, no major party caniddate is likely to be, but he has shown more willingness to advance good legislation.
Obama comes from a culture, like most people, with lots of forms of prejudice, fear, hatred and intolerence. Yet, his record on civil rights legislation is better then McCain’s.
Talk about being politically indept. The fact that a candidate or first lady shows up on a talk show, with a lesbian host, does not mean that they are making any sort of political statement.
At best, it is suggesting that while they will oppose every single gay rights bill, they may do it with a nice smile and nite some of the ‘better’ class of gays to fancy dress parties.
According to someone at NO QUARTER, the count is up to 3 recent murders of gay men from Obama’s church. This looks like the start of a Vince Foster discourse.
posted by Richard on
Or…treating tabloid trash and rumors as actual facts.
If you do not want to be a political ‘door mat’, then you better demonstrate a better grip on our legal and political institutions.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Actually, the Enquirer is pretty reliable. They were the first ones out with Jennifer Flowers and Paula Jones. I always trust their Who’s Gay and Who’s Not edition–though Jason Statham has yet to make the list. I suspect the rumors about Obama will prove to have some basis in research.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Again, who should the HRC have endorsed?
As Bobby adroitly put it:
The right thing to do would be not to endorse anyone and focus on the local elections.
Obama knows full well that HRC and DNC gay staffers fully endorse and support as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” those who support the FMA and state constitutional amendments.
And, as we see in BobN’s post, the “marriage is between a man and a woman” that was previously called “homophobic” is now pro-gay, and the civil unions that were previously called “second-class citizenship” and “discrimination” are now hunky-dory since Obama thinks so.
posted by DaleA on
The trash tabloid items are not ‘facts’. I never said they were. That they are out there, however, is a fact. That Rush etc will use these is not yet a fact. But most likely will become one. Having seen how the Foster event was used, I can clearly see that this is something that can be used in the same way.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Bobby said and Northdallass supported “The right thing to do would be not to endorse anyone and focus on the local elections. “.
That would assume that Mccain and Obama are equally good candidates for the LGBT community, that’s a long ways from the truth. While there are occaisional republicans who are better on gay issues then democrats as a rule democrats are far better on gay issues and gays would be much worse off with a republican president than a democratic one. The last thing gays in the U.S. need is a republican president appointing more conservative justices to the supreme court and vetoing gay equality legislation.
posted by tavdy on
Endorsing the least distasteful candidate – the one that will do the least damage – makes sense. Modern British elections are won by the least distasteful party – that’s why the NeoLabs have held power for so long, despite being massively unpopular at the last elections – they weren’t as unpopular as the Tories. Why should America be any different?
You should feel fortunate that you have candidates worth listening to.
posted by Richard on
“The Enquirer is pretty reliable.”
Shh. It’s OK. Keep smoking your crack pipe and ignoring the reality.
The Human Rights Campaign is a federal LGBT-rights organization. They do not focus on local or state elections and, in fact, are pretty inept when they tried to do so.
Until public opinion changes, major party candidates are probably not to support gay marriage. Until election laws change, minor party candidates are not viable.
Obama supports civil unions, McCain does not. “Pro-gay” means a serious, electable candidate who has a better gay rights record then the other candidate.
The assumption is that people know that we have a two-party system electoral system.
posted by Ashpenaz on
If Obama is so pro-gay, why does he surround himself with such anti-gay pastors like Rev. McClurkin?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The Human Rights Campaign is a federal LGBT-rights organization. They do not focus on local or state elections
Mhm.
While there are occaisional republicans who are better on gay issues then democrats as a rule democrats are far better on gay issues and gays would be much worse off with a republican president than a democratic one.
That depends on how you define it.
For example, Regan points out a problem that adversely and disproportionately affects gay people. Here in San Francisco, the latest craze among the gangs, many of whom are illegal immigrants with criminal records, seems to be gaybashing, both for purposes of robbery and now for purposes of initiation into the gang hierarchy.
Obama’s “solution” is to pass a hate-crimes law; however, since California already has one, what we see is that that doesn’t make a hill of beans worth of difference, especially since local law enforcement refuses to act on current criminal law or assist in enforcement of Federal immigration laws because the supporters of Obama and the Democrat Party call it “racist”.
McCain could care less about a hate-crimes law, but he insists on thorough enforcement of existing laws against illegal immigration and criminal behavior, regardless of the skin color of the perpetrator.
The latter sounds much better.
posted by jason on
What is unclear about this, Stephen?
“Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.
On the issue of constitutional amendments, Senator Obama has been on record for some time: He opposes all divisive and discriminatory constitutional amendments, state or federal. That includes the proposed amendments in California and Florida.”
Obama personally supports civil unions, but also supports states making their own decisions with regard to marriage, and furthermore does not support constitutional amendments that ban marriage or civil unions for gay couples. In the case of California and Massachusetts, this position is effectively pro-gay marriage.
I’m with you as to the main thrust of this post re: HRC’s endorsement scheme. But why do you have to make up things about Obama’s position? Or do you just not KNOW what Obama’s position is? Or did you read the statement I quoted above (that he issued the day the California Supreme Court handed down its decision), but lacked the reading comprehension skills to fully process it?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
PriyaLynn pines: “as a rule democrats are far better on gay issues and gays would be much worse off with a republican president than a democratic one. The last thing gays in the U.S. need is a republican president appointing more conservative justices to the supreme court and vetoing gay equality legislation.”
Let’s see, as for gays being far worse off with a Democrat vs GOP prez? I think the test would be the last two prezs… Clinton, the Democrat, gave gays DOMA and DADT… Bush, the GOPer, supported conceptually FMA.
My count that makes it Clinton = 2 strikes against gays; Bush = 0 strikes.
Now, what was that about Democrats being better for gays than GOPers, Priya Lynn? I think you’ve been inside the Democrat Party spin machine so long you’ve left reality.
Finally, as for GOP appointed judges… you seem to be overlooking (how special) the role that GOP appointed and GOP judges had in the CA case.
But you go ahead and keep proving to all independent gays how beholding ALL gays ought to be the Democrat Masta… with opinions like yours, it’s no wonder gays are a block of voters long sold into vote slavery to the DNC by the gayLeft’s leadership.
In the Midwest, Priya Lynn, we call that being a tool.
posted by Pat on
My count that makes it Clinton = 2 strikes against gays; Bush = 0 strikes.
MichiganMatt, my count is different. First, I’ll grant you Clinton, regarding DOMA. So that’s one strike. But DADT was an improvement than what existed before. However, Clinton had promised that he would get rid of all discrimination in the military, But gave in to the Republicans and Sam Nunn. So, I’ll give you the second strike.
Now let’s look at Bush’s count. In the 7 1/2 years he’s been president, Bush did, on no occasion, asked to have DADT repealed and replaced with full acceptance into the military. That’s one strike. Also, Bush did, on no occasion, push to have DOMA repealed. In fact, he twice pushed for the FMA (I’m not sure what you mean by “conceptually”). So that’s two more strikes, for a total of 3.
I get the gist about that we should not be beholden to one party regardless of what the strike totals are for Bush and Clinton. However, I think using the terms, “Masta” and “slavery” detract from the point you are trying to make.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat, thanks for summarizing that it’s indeed two strikes against the former Democrat prez Clinton (who was once famously introduced as the “gay President” by gayLeft leaders just like Clinton was famously called the “Black President” by black civil rights leaders).
I meant conceptually because Bush, with all the political chits of the WH and his 1st term afresh, couldn’t get FMA passed. Just like BarryO and SenatorMcCain, Bush also believes that a marriage is between a man and a woman. So his position is no different on that score than the current and presumptive Democrat nominee who will probably also be called “the next gay President” by some shill of the gayLeft before this election cycle is over… even tho’ BarryO has a legendary reputation of avoiding the gay press, avoiding tough questions on the stump, avoids gay fundraisers and sends surrogates to mouth or hawk his wares at natl gay events.
But we weren’t talking about demerit points for BarryO; we were talking about Bush and Clinton and how equally under-performing they were for gay civil rights.
Frankly, we shouldn’t even be comparing the two because, as we all know, the Democrats love us, embrace us and support our agenda for change… and, therefore, I think they ought to be held accountable for their lackluster performance on our interests. But we all don’t do that… the gayLeft just keeps saying they’re better than the other party that the gayLeft has been demonizing for years.
Like NDXXX is fond of pointing out: why should the GOP embrace gay civil rights when the gayLeft leadership -for years- has been making them out to be the enemy of progress and change? Heck, even the supposedly GOP-ish LCRs couldn’t distance themselves from the gayLeft shills who often play interference for the Democrats… when they didn’t endorse Bush, trashed Romney and have worked openly to recruit Democrat candidates to run against their Party’s candidate.
It’s no surprise that party animals like BarryO’s new “gay” outreach coordinator comes from the gayLeft organizations he helped keep down on the Plantation… oops, my bad.
posted by Pat on
MichiganMatt, I’m fine with what you’re saying except the following…
Just like BarryO and SenatorMcCain, Bush also believes that a marriage is between a man and a woman. So his position is no different on that score than the current and presumptive Democrat nominee
On that position alone, the three agree. However, Bush has gone beyond that and twice pushed for amendments. Maybe I’m offbase here, but I think he was sincerely hoping it would become an amendment. Or if he saw that the 38th state was about to adopt it, he would have told us he wasn’t really serious? Clinton didn’t propose an amendment. Now, it may have been because he didn’t see a need to. If he would have supported it given the same conditions, then I’ll give Clinton a third strike. We’ll see if Obama or McCain, when president will push for the FMA and see if either is as bad as Bush in this area. We’ll also see if Obama or McCain does push for federal rights, such as civil unions or DPs for gay couples when they take office. Granted, I’m not holding my breath for either, but I’ll wait and see.
Like NDXXX is fond of pointing out: why should the GOP embrace gay civil rights when the gayLeft leadership -for years- has been making them out to be the enemy of progress and change?
NDT also uses this to excuse the anti-gay religions’ continued bigotry and hate against all gay persons. I don’t buy it. In fact, if this was true makes the GOP look worse. The fact is that the GOP (and Dems) should support gay civil rights whether or not they have majority support of gay people or not. In fact, even if it was 99% of the gay people who dislike the GOP, I would still have that position. But what is it, about 23% of gay people who supported Bush and the GOP in the last two elections? I cannot get myself to believe that they WOULD be more supportive of gay rights, but are basically saying too bad for these 23% because of the opinions of the majority of gay people. I’m not a big fan of Bush and the GOP, but I honestly don’t believe the GOP is that reprehensible, and would really be surprised if you and NDT thought that poorly of the GOP.
As for LCR, not sure what to say about that. It didn’t appear that Romney is any worse than McCain on gay rights. However, I’m guessing they didn’t like the fact that Romney went from being “more progay than Kennedy” to being like any other GOP candidate for president.
he helped keep down on the Plantation… oops, my bad.
No need to apologize, or whatever. I’m not particularly offended by these terms at all. I gave you my opinion that I believe the terms take away from the good points you make. If you believe otherwise, so be it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
NDT also uses this to excuse the anti-gay religions’ continued bigotry and hate against all gay persons. I don’t buy it.
Mhm.
Typical Northdallass, blame Pickton and take no responsibility whatsoever for the role and motivation his bible and Christians played in commanding and justifying these murders.
Your bible commands that unmarried sex partners be murdered, Pickton was merely following what your “good” bible commanded. Your bible sets the example over and over again of your “god” murdering the innoncent for the wrongs of the guilty, its no surprise that Picton would use it to justify murder of prostitutes. Picton most certainly didn’t pervert the idea of what the bible is all about, he epitomized it – unjust torture and murder of innocent people. Stop making excuses for that bible of yours Northdallass, do what’s right and condemn the evil book that motivated and justified these murders, genocide, and all manner of injustice. Stop making excuses for the evil that Christians like you distribute and promote. Accept responsibility for a change.
Or, my personal favorite, the one in which a national gay organization blames Christians for the actions of someone who, by all accounts, was totally and completely contemptuous of Christianity and was in fact not even involved in it.
I cannot get myself to believe that they WOULD be more supportive of gay rights, but are basically saying too bad for these 23% because of the opinions of the majority of gay people.
First, they’re aware of the fact that being gay, according to HRC, NGLTF, the Democrat Party, and the vast majority of gay leadership, requires you to be anti-business, anti-religious, pro-abortion, and pro-tax, all of which are emphatically against Republican core values.
Second, they realize that those 23% are people who are more concerned that things passed be better for everyone than they are for minority pandering — and, by doing so, have made themselves “not really gay” in the eyes of the gay community.
posted by Pat on
Mhm.
Mhm is right. I’m not at all disputing your links. But you completely, and perhaps intentionally, missed the point. I know full well that there are gay persons and organizations that are anti-religion. So my statement stands.
Second, they realize that those 23% are people who are more concerned that things passed be better for everyone than they are for minority pandering — and, by doing so, have made themselves “not really gay” in the eyes of the gay community.
They’re anti-gay, but let’s put a good spin on it so it’s okay.
First, they’re aware of the fact that being gay, according to HRC, NGLTF, the Democrat Party, and the vast majority of gay leadership, requires you to be anti-business, anti-religious, pro-abortion, and pro-tax, all of which are emphatically against Republican core values.
Oh, so now you’re saying the GOP has an IQ below 75 now. Come on, NDT, you can do better than this lame excuse. Again, what about the 23% of the gays that don’t think as you purport most gays think?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oh, so now you’re saying the GOP has an IQ below 75 now.
Nope. I’m pointing out that they read gay organization press releases.
For instance, did you know that promoting heterosexual marriage and two-parent families is antigay?
Did you know that opposing partial-birth abortion is antigay?
Did you know that tax cuts are antigay?
Did you know that changing Social Security is antigay?
The problem here, Pat, is that you expect Republicans to believe the opposite of what the national gay organizations, funded, supported, endorsed, and praised by millions of gay people, are saying and doing.
Same with religion.
Again, what about the 23% of the gays that don’t think as you purport most gays think?
Those are the people who have realized that it’s not “antigay” to espouse any of the things I’ve mentioned above.
posted by Pat on
Nope. I’m pointing out that they read gay organization press releases.
If they are reading these press releases, and concluding, for example, that gay people think that tax cuts are anti-gay, then they do have a collective IQ of below 75.
As for promoting heterosexaul marriage, no, it’s not anti-gay. And I don’t think the NGLTF was even arguing that. They, right or wrong, thought it was a bad idea. The parts they think are anti-gay are the side issues that came with the proposal, such as abstinence-only education (no sex until heterosexual marriage). Don’t you agree that’s anti-gay, or you believe that it’s such a good idea that you will remain celibate until you marry a woman? Or are you an elitist in that you believe it’s a good idea for the lower masses, and it doesn’t apply to you?
The problem here, Pat, is that you expect Republicans to believe the opposite of what the national gay organizations, funded, supported, endorsed, and praised by millions of gay people, are saying and doing.
Same with religion.
Not at all.
What I expect for the GOP and religion is, while realizing there are some (or even most, depending on the situation) gay persons are opposed to their points of view, is to realize there are still many who support their points of view. To accept those persons who are their supporters and not tar them with the same brush. Is that really too much to ask for?
You are a perfect example of a gay person who is very supportive and respectful of the GOP and Christianity. Why shouldn’t the GOP embrace you and your partner as full and equal citizens with the same rights as others? Why shouldn’t the church that you grew up accept you and your partner as full and equal members of the congregation?
Those are the people who have realized that it’s not “antigay” to espouse any of the things I’ve mentioned above.
Good for them, but that was not a point I was ever arguing. I get your previous point that the 23% believe that there are more important issues than gay rights. No problem there. Most Black Americans support Democrats, even more so than gay persons. Does the GOP advocate stripping marriage rights (or other rights) from Black persons, including their own supporters, because there are more important issues, and because of what they may read from Black organizations?
In the meantime, the 77% of other gays still see that, in general, Democrats are more supportive of gay rights. And even though Democrats are far from perfect, everything else being equal, gay people will vote for the lesser of two evils when it comes to gay rights. And even on the occasions when the Republican candidate is as good (or as bad) as the Democratic candidate, may still vote for the Democrat based on other issues. Or they, like the 23%, see that there are issues more important than gay rights.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If they are reading these press releases, and concluding, for example, that gay people think that tax cuts are anti-gay, then they do have a collective IQ of below 75.
You know, Pat, it would make more sense to blame the organizations who put out these press releases claiming that tax cuts are antigay and the people who support them than to insist that Republicans are stupid for not automatically assuming these organizations are lying in their releases.
The parts they think are anti-gay are the side issues that came with the proposal, such as abstinence-only education (no sex until heterosexual marriage). Don’t you agree that’s anti-gay, or you believe that it’s such a good idea that you will remain celibate until you marry a woman? Or are you an elitist in that you believe it’s a good idea for the lower masses, and it doesn’t apply to you?
LOL…I notice how you had to apply that parenthetical modifier to abstinence education, Pat, apparently to spin it as horribly as possible.
First off, though so-called “sex education” curriculums supposedly also contain abstinence as the best idea for teens. Do you now consider them antigay as well?
Second off, I don’t think abstinence education is in the least antigay. Indeed, if teenagers were to abstain from sex, it would avoid handily problems like this one:
Barlow believes a combination of ignorance and emptiness led to his seroconversion. ?At that time I was the dumbest thing walking ? I thought I was invincible and could do whatever and not get ill,? said Barlow, who was 15 and dating a 35-year-old man. ?I thought I was in this relationship with this man who loved me, why do we need to wear condoms??
Third, the point of abstinence education is to teach children that a) they should see sex as something special and deeply meaningful, b) that commitment, monogamy, and fidelity should be highly valued, and c) that they are responsible for controlling themselves sexually.
How exactly are those “antigay”?
You are a perfect example of a gay person who is very supportive and respectful of the GOP and Christianity. Why shouldn’t the GOP embrace you and your partner as full and equal citizens with the same rights as others? Why shouldn’t the church that you grew up accept you and your partner as full and equal members of the congregation?
Let’s see, I can vote, I can own property, I can pay taxes, I can speak my mind, I can worship as I please, I have the right to a jury trial and whatnot, and I have all the other rights that are guaranteed to citizens of the United States.
Furthermore, I have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex and to serve in the military without disclosing my sexual orientation as does anyone else. I have the same absence of guarantee for my job and the fact that crimes against me will be punished based on the crime committed and not given any special enhancements because I’m a white male under 40.
What, pray tell, am I missing?
And as for my church, Pat, the First Amendment gives them the right to think and to act as they see fit. Furthermore, I’m a Lutheran; it’s not as if we haven’t dealt with the question of whether or not being cut off from the temporal carries repercussions for the spiritual before.
What I expect for the GOP and religion is, while realizing there are some (or even most, depending on the situation) gay persons are opposed to their points of view, is to realize there are still many who support their points of view. To accept those persons who are their supporters and not tar them with the same brush. Is that really too much to ask for?
You know, that really had me laughing. Mere lines after calling me an elitist and insinuating that I’m a hypocrite because I dared to challenge and call out a leftist gay organization’s worldview, you suddenly act all concerned about how Republicans and religious people are not “accepting” me and “tarring” me.
In short, you’re telling Republicans and religious people that they should be nicer to gays because of gay people who are religious and Republican — while you are simultaneously mocking these religious and Republican gays as hypocrites and elitists.
Sort of like the NAACP and other black organizations who claim that Republicans hate and namecall black people at the same time as they’re namecalling black conservatives as “Uncle Toms” and “Oreos”.
posted by Pat on
You know, Pat, it would make more sense to blame the organizations who put out these press releases claiming that tax cuts are antigay and the people who support them than to insist that Republicans are stupid for not automatically assuming these organizations are lying in their releases.
A couple of things here.
1. I’ve criticized both and will continue to do so. I’ve stated before that I believe that gay organizations, like HRC, should stay out of other issues. Didn’t you see my pretty cool letter (second post)?
2. Who’s lying? Someone from some organization gives their opinion. So what? They don’t speak for me. I don’t agree with all of their opinions.
3. Perhaps my problem is that I expect more from government, political parties, and churches, and rise above this garbage. Perhaps you’re right, and they are no better and they are just as petty, and should be regarded as such. I may rethink this.
LOL…I notice how you had to apply that parenthetical modifier to abstinence education, Pat, apparently to spin it as horribly as possible.
Okay, forget the spin, and you tell me. In Bush’s promoting marriage, etc., and the part about abstinence only. Is part of it to tell teens to abstain from sex until they are married? If no, I retract my statement. If yes, I ask you again, isn’t this anti-gay?
Second off, I don’t think abstinence education is in the least antigay. Indeed, if teenagers were to abstain from sex, it would avoid handily problems like this one:
If only I could stick my head in the sand and think that was really true.
Third, the point of abstinence education is to teach children that a) they should see sex as something special and deeply meaningful, b) that commitment, monogamy, and fidelity should be highly valued, and c) that they are responsible for controlling themselves sexually.
How exactly are those “antigay”?
I agree with the above. And if that’s what it says, it’s not anti-gay. But if b is laced with the term marriage, then I believe it is anti-gay. How could anyone who is gay and does not plan to be celibate from this point on, support a program that tells teens to wait until they are married to have sex? I cannot, in good conscience, do so.
Let’s see, I can vote, I can own property, I can pay taxes, I can speak my mind, I can worship as I please, I have the right to a jury trial and whatnot, and I have all the other rights that are guaranteed to citizens of the United States.
No kidding. Me, too. Not bad for second class citizenship. But that’s not what we’re arguing.
Furthermore, I have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex and to serve in the military without disclosing my sexual orientation as does anyone else.
Yep, this was more of what I was talking about. These are two of the points we’re we do not have equality.
What, pray tell, am I missing?
Like I said, you hit two of the points. Also, hate crime laws covering sexual orientation (where there are hate crime laws, unless one advocates getting rid of all of them immediately). ENDA protections for sexual orientation as other classes. And before our dear friend Bonnie comes up, I don’t want laws protecting scum.
And as for my church, Pat, the First Amendment gives them the right to think and to act as they see fit.
Of course. I wouldn’t have it any other way. But the First Amendment gives me the right to not to excuse petty, unrighteous, and unjust behavior. So if a church prevents you and your partner from full membership, because of “other” gays, then that’s exactly what that behavior is.
You know, that really had me laughing. Mere lines after calling me an elitist and insinuating that I’m a hypocrite because I dared to challenge and call out a leftist gay organization’s worldview, you suddenly act all concerned about how Republicans and religious people are not “accepting” me and “tarring” me.
Who called you an elitist? I didn’t. However, if one does support abstinence education that says that everyone should wait until they are married (to the opposite sex), but yet one engages in homosexual sex, then that person is either an elitist, a hypocrite, or both. I was giving you a chance to answer the question. I also invite you that if you do support this policy, then how do you reconcile it with your own behavior. In other words, how does this not make you elitist or a hypocrite?
And whether or not you are an elitist (which, again, I have not concluded) is beside the point, in the GOP’s behavior towards those who are supportive of them.
In short, you’re telling Republicans and religious people that they should be nicer to gays because of gay people who are religious and Republican — while you are simultaneously mocking these religious and Republican gays as hypocrites and elitists.
No. I’m only mocking those who publicly support things for others. But don’t think those things apply to them. I’m sure you’re not suggesting all in the GOP and religious persons are elitists or hypocrites. I certainly wasn’t.
Sort of like the NAACP and other black organizations who claim that Republicans hate and namecall black people at the same time as they’re namecalling black conservatives as “Uncle Toms” and “Oreos”.
Exactly! The Republicans aren’t trying to deprive Blacks of their rights because of what Black organizations are saying.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Didn’t you see my pretty cool letter (second post)?
Of course — which made your insistence that Republicans had “an IQ of 75” for pointing out gay organizations doing exactly the same thing that you were criticizing them for doing rather peculiar.
If yes, I ask you again, isn’t this anti-gay?
Not unless you believe encouraging people to be sexually responsible and wait until they are committed to be “antigay”.
An attitude of “if I can’t have it, no one can” is childish, and moreover, it’s socially irresponsible. If one screams that encouraging heterosexual marriage for the good of society is “antigay” and that that should outweigh everything else, then no one is going to believe a word that person says when they try to extol the societal benefits of gay marriage.
If only I could stick my head in the sand and think that was really true.
Of course it’s true, Pat. The problem is that, when you tell teenagers they can’t be expected to control themselves sexually, they won’t; it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
These are two of the points we’re we do not have equality.
How so? After all, straight people are limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex, too. Otherwise, it’s confusing “equality” with “convenience for your sexual desires”.
Also, hate crime laws covering sexual orientation (where there are hate crime laws, unless one advocates getting rid of all of them immediately). ENDA protections for sexual orientation as other classes.
Again, the “if I can’t have it, no one should have it”.
In other words, how does this not make you elitist or a hypocrite?
I see; you’re calling me an elitist and a hypocrite, then kindly giving me the opportunity to prove I’m not one.
The Republicans aren’t trying to deprive Blacks of their rights because of what Black organizations are saying.
Well, given that black organizations define racial quotas, skin color in lieu of performance or grades, and the belief that white people are to blame for all of black peoples’ problems as “rights”….
posted by Pat on
Of course — which made your insistence that Republicans had “an IQ of 75” for pointing out gay organizations doing exactly the same thing that you were criticizing them for doing rather peculiar.
Nope. You have it all wrong. I’m not at all insisting that Republicans have an IQ of 75. I’m saying that if Republicans are reacting to gay rights organizations as you insist they are, then yes, they would have an IQ of 75. Since I don’t buy your premise, I don’t believe they are as stupid as you make them out to be.
Not unless you believe encouraging people to be sexually responsible and wait until they are committed to be “antigay”.
I already said that I don’t believe that statement (as worded) is “antigay.”
NDT, that wasn’t my question, because, in my understanding, that’s NOT what teens are being told. My understanding, right or wrong, is that they are being told to wait until they are married to have sex. And as such, the implication is clear that “married” means to a person of the opposite sex.
So my two questions are:
1) Is my understanding correct, i.e., that under the promoting heterosexual marriage initiative, that teens are being told to wait until they are married to have sex?
2) Even if my understanding is not correct, then hypothetically, if teens are told to wait until they are married to have sex (and again, to a person of the opposite sex), would this be antigay?
Again, I don’t believe it is antigay to tell teens to wait until they are in a committed relationship to have sex. We are in full agreement on that point. But again, that was not my question.
An attitude of “if I can’t have it, no one can” is childish, and moreover, it’s socially irresponsible. If one screams that encouraging heterosexual marriage for the good of society is “antigay” and that that should outweigh everything else, then no one is going to believe a word that person says when they try to extol the societal benefits of gay marriage.
Once again, promoting heterosexual marriage, in and of itself, is not antigay. I am merely exploring the other issues that go with it under the initiative.
How so? After all, straight people are limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex, too.
Yes, I know straight people are rushing out there wanting to marry someone of the same sex. Can we have our own water fountains and “separate but equal” schools and churches, too?
Otherwise, it’s confusing “equality” with “convenience for your sexual desires”.
Talk about convenience. Arbitrarily decide that a straight man must marry another man, I’m sure he’ll say, “okay, no problema, I wouldn’t want to marry a woman out of convenience for my sexual desires.”
Again, the “if I can’t have it, no one should have it”.
That’s not my argument at all, and one that I was never intending to make. But it does illustrate that if one finds hate crimes as just, then excluding a class of people, like gay persons, who would need it as much, or more so, than other groups, then we clearly have another example where gay persons are not equal.
I see; you’re calling me an elitist and a hypocrite, then kindly giving me the opportunity to prove I’m not one.
Sorry, but you are either misreading or misinterpreting my posts. I have said I’ve made no such conclusion. First of all, you haven’t answered my questions. What I did say was that if you’re answer was yes to one of my questions (see question 2 above), then it would appear to me that you are an elitist or a hypocrite. And if you did answer yes, I wanted to give you the opportunity to explain how you reconcile your answer with your own behavior.
Well, given that black organizations define racial quotas, skin color in lieu of performance or grades, and the belief that white people are to blame for all of black peoples’ problems as “rights”….
Fine, whatever. But the point is that Republicans are not stripping rights of Black persons simply because most Blacks do not support Republicans.
posted by Pat on
What I did say was that if you’re answer was yes to one of my questions (see question 2 above), then it would appear to me that you are an elitist or a hypocrite.
“Yes” should have been “no” here above.
Let me rephrase to avoid further confusion.
Do you support telling teens to wait until they are married (to a person of the opposite sex) to have sex?
If you answer yes here, I would be interested in hearing how you reconcile your answer with your own actions.
Like I said, I cannot, in good conscience tell teens that they can only have sex with someone of the opposite sex (after they married), when I, myself, have no intention to do so, and believe my own actions are moral and healthy.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’m saying that if Republicans are reacting to gay rights organizations as you insist they are, then yes, they would have an IQ of 75.
And again, Pat, you are blaming Republicans for not assuming that gay organizations are lying when they publicly state that opposition to these leftist causes, opposition to partial-birth and abortion-on-demand, and support of committed marriage and monogamy is “antigay”.
Republicans don’t bother with you, Pat, because they know you’re just going to blame them for everything that gays do wrong. You blame them for gay promiscuity. You blame them for AIDS. And now you blame them for the fact that you let gay leftists hijack your national organizations.
But then again, that’s understandable; you probably don’t want to be namecalled as an elitist and a hypocrite by your fellow gay and lesbian people, or subjected to the same tactics as used on Tyler Whitney with the approval of gay and lesbian organizations like NGLTF and HRC.
Now, on to a key point (emphasis mine):
Yes, I know straight people are rushing out there wanting to marry someone of the same sex.
And again, society regularly denies people the right to marry who they “want”.
Marriage exists within a certain set of parameters that are meant to stabilize, protect, and perpetuate society by giving maximum advantage to its future — children — and the relationships that produce them.
Since no same-sex couple can naturally produce children that belong to both members of the couple, versus the fact that the vast and overwhelming majority of heterosexual couples can, arguing that it is “unequal” to treat them separately makes about as much sense as arguing that separate bathrooms are “unequal”. Furthermore, since effects on procreation, childraising, and “abnormal” family environments are used as grounds to deny marriage to polygamists, blood relatives, and underage children, it is perfectly legitimate to recognize that difference.
But it does illustrate that if one finds hate crimes as just, then excluding a class of people, like gay persons, who would need it as much, or more so, than other groups, then we clearly have another example where gay persons are not equal.
As a white male, I have no hate crimes protection — and, since I’m under 40, I have no job protection either, just like every heterosexual in the same situation.
That is equal treatment under the law. Anything else would be patently unequal.
What I did say was that if you’re answer was yes to one of my questions (see question 2 above), then it would appear to me that you are an elitist or a hypocrite. And if you did answer yes, I wanted to give you the opportunity to explain how you reconcile your answer with your own behavior.
Again, you were branding me an elitist and a hypocrite, then kindly giving me the opportunity to prove I wasn’t one.
First, the logical impossibility of proving a negative; second, the practical impossibility of proving anything to someone who has already branded you an elitist and a hypocrite before they had even heard your answer.
posted by Pat on
And again, Pat, you are blaming Republicans for not assuming that gay organizations are lying when they publicly state that opposition to these leftist causes, opposition to partial-birth and abortion-on-demand, and support of committed marriage and monogamy is “antigay”.
You’re missing the point here. I’m sure the Republicans believe the gay organizations about their positions, which is fine. You have contended (and correct me if I have misinterpreted you), that because they see what gay organizations state, that this applies to ALL gays. This is the argument that you appeared to be making. And IF that is really the case, then yes, Republicans are stupid. Gay organizations don’t speak for me. Heck, HRC didn’t speak for me even when I contributed money to them. Are you saying they speak for you? Or are you saying that the Republicans are stupid enough to believe the gay organizations speak for you?
Republicans don’t bother with you, Pat, because they know you’re just going to blame them for everything that gays do wrong. You blame them for gay promiscuity. You blame them for AIDS. And now you blame them for the fact that you let gay leftists hijack your national organizations.
Sorry, I don’t know where you got that from. You apparently took a statement of mine, and twisted it big time.
But then again, that’s understandable; you probably don’t want to be namecalled as an elitist and a hypocrite by your fellow gay and lesbian people, or subjected to the same tactics as used on Tyler Whitney with the approval of gay and lesbian organizations like NGLTF and HRC.
If Tyler Whitney’s only problem was that he wrongly thought, like you, that he was called a hypocrite or an elitist, he would have been okay.
By the way, if I thought I was called an elitist, I would, at least make an attempt to find out why the other person really thought so, and not evade direct questions.
Marriage exists within a certain set of parameters that are meant to stabilize, protect, and perpetuate society by giving maximum advantage to its future — children — and the relationships that produce them.
And like many good things, been extended to others.
Since no same-sex couple can naturally produce children that belong to both members of the couple, versus the fact that the vast and overwhelming majority of heterosexual couples can, arguing that it is “unequal” to treat them separately makes about as much sense as arguing that separate bathrooms are “unequal”. Furthermore, since effects on procreation, childraising, and “abnormal” family environments are used as grounds to deny marriage to polygamists, blood relatives, and underage children, it is perfectly legitimate to recognize that difference.
And you advocate denying marriage to same sex couples as legitimate. I don’t. I’m not arguing the facts here. It’s the arbitrary conclusion from the facts that you are making that I disagree with.
Again, you were branding me an elitist and a hypocrite, then kindly giving me the opportunity to prove I wasn’t one.
Okay. I went over all of my posts in this thread to see if I called you an elitist and a hypocrite. I don’t see where I did. The only thing I came up with was when I posted
I also invite you that if you do support this policy, then how do you reconcile it with your own behavior. In other words, how does this not make you elitist or a hypocrite?
The second sentence (which you posted in another post without the preceding sentence), BY ITSELF could be interpreted to mean I called you an elitist. But I thought it was in clear context of the previous sentence which referred to IF you answered my question a certain way. Further, on several occasions, I repeated that I had not concluded that you were an elitist because you DIDN’T answer my questions yet. So I’ll try one more time.
Do you support telling teens to wait until they are married (to a person of the opposite sex) to have sex?
If you answer yes here, I would be interested in hearing how you reconcile your answer with your own actions.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’m sure the Republicans believe the gay organizations about their positions, which is fine. You have contended (and correct me if I have misinterpreted you), that because they see what gay organizations state, that this applies to ALL gays.
What Republicans also see, Pat, is the continual hate and abuse rained by these gay organizations on gay and lesbian people who do not do as they’re told by these gay organizations — as well as the blatant hypocrisy of these gay organizations endorsing and supporting politicians whose views are, by these politicians’ own admittance, “the same” as the Republicans these organizations are namecalling as “homophobic and hateful”.
In short, Republicans see clearly that the vast majority of gay people support this hypocritical and hatemongering behavior. Hence, they are going to look with a very jaundiced eye at laws that allow these people who clearly have no problem with hatemongering, harassment, and hypocrisy to have special job protections, for example, that most people don’t currently have. And they especially don’t want people who exhibit the same antimilitary bigotry and hate that HRC, NGLTF, and other gay organizations do serving in the military.
By the way, if I thought I was called an elitist, I would, at least make an attempt to find out why the other person really thought so, and not evade direct questions.
Not really necessary when their mind is so obviously made up when they first make the accusation.
Or are you an elitist in that you believe it’s a good idea for the lower masses, and it doesn’t apply to you?
posted by Pat on
In short, Republicans see clearly that the vast majority of gay people support this hypocritical and hatemongering behavior. Hence, they are going to look with a very jaundiced eye at laws that allow these people who clearly have no problem with hatemongering, harassment, and hypocrisy to have special job protections, for example, that most people don’t currently have. And they especially don’t want people who exhibit the same antimilitary bigotry and hate that HRC, NGLTF, and other gay organizations do serving in the military.
Shorter, you believe it’s okay for Republicans to be bigoted against you and other gay Republicans because of your perception of what most gay persons think.
NDT: Not really necessary when their mind is so obviously made up when they first make the accusation.
Pat (from a previous link): Or are you an elitist in that you believe it’s a good idea for the lower masses, and it doesn’t apply to you?
Besides failing to see how such a question automatically brands you an elitist, especially when you did not answer the question, I have stated several times clearly that I did not believe you were an elitist.
And I see you still did not answer my questions.
I don’t know if it’s because you are afraid to answer the questions (while using the guise that I already branded you as an elitist, or if this is some part of some sick, twisted game. Or maybe it’s something else. Who knows?
By the way, I realize I did brand you as a slanderer elsewhere, so it’s not like I’m afraid to call your outrageous behavior out, or need to do it in a sneaky fashion. I still don’t know if you’re an elitist as well. But it’s no surprise you continue with another false accusation.
Anyway, unless you can come back to this discussion in good faith and stop resorting to false accusations, I’m done here.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Shorter, you believe it’s okay for Republicans to be bigoted against you and other gay Republicans because of your perception of what most gay persons think.
You do also realize, Pat, that, for example, I don’t think it’s bigoted to be against special job guarantees for gay people?
That would be because, as a white male, I’m very well aware of the fact that white males have no special job guarantees whatsoever. I don’t think it’s fair that I should have them when other white males don’t — and especially not when I see the damage that liberal and Democrat gay and lesbian people like Bonnie Bleskachek can do when protected by them.
Same with hate crimes laws. I believe in punishing all crime equally, not in punishing people differently based on who they beat up.
Furthermore with the military. I see in San Francisco the same leftist and Democrat gays who whine about DADT banning JROTC from the schools and calling the Marines “unwanted and unwelcome intruders”. I fully support the right of the military to exclude out gays because, quite frankly, we are a tiny minority, we are not required to serve, and our service creates unnecessary problems with the much greater majority. DADT is a perfectly acceptable compromise.
And I see you still did not answer my questions.
Ironically, you gave a perfectly good reason as to why not in the next sentence.
I don’t know if it’s because you are afraid to answer the questions (while using the guise that I already branded you as an elitist, or if this is some part of some sick, twisted game.
You’re doing such a good job of answering your own questions with the answers you want to hear that it would be churlish of me to intervene.
posted by Pat on
You’re doing such a good job of answering your own questions with the answers you want to hear that it would be churlish of me to intervene.
Why don’t you try anyway?