You really make this too easy when you call people who want to ban gay marriage based on their religious beliefs and traditional values “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” because of their political party affiliation.

======================================
NoDick30,
Do you have these two paragraphs permanently on your clipboard? You post them when they aren’t relevent to any point being made. They are tired and sorely wrong. As you must keep pasting/posting this nonsense as your universal, “no, I’m not, so but you” childish reply, I will just sit back and think how vacuous your statments are.

Furthermore, I have yet to see you acknowledge that Democrats who support antigay state constitutional amendments are themselves antigay bigots.

You really make this too easy when you call people who want to ban gay marriage based on their religious beliefs and traditional values “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” because of their political party affiliation.

If I weren’t able to acknowledge anything outside my stereotypically perceived beliefs, I certainly wouldn’t be here.

Check and mate.

I also don’t buy it that people hate gays because of isolated –and they are isolated– “church desecration”. If that didn’t happen the usual suspects would still be upset at gays. We “recruit” children remember, etc… They don’t need reasons to hate they hate anyway.

Even when gays want to assimilate (marriage, etc) they fight all the more. Too many special interest groups simply have an incentive to keep gays marginalized.

EMPTY. Nothing there.

Chandler, dear, you’re operating under the false assumption that I naively believe there’s anything I could post that would satisfy you. It simply isn’t in your nature to acknowledge anything outside your stereotypical beliefs.

How curious are the age of his links, too. These are things which 1) don’t meet his vaunted claim of “desecration” and 2) which pre-date his flip to the gay side.

When the first one happened, I was barely a teenager. The second happened just under four months ago.

As for the “not desecration” argument, I think this article puts it nicely in perspective.

How curious are the age of his links, too. These are things which 1) don’t meet his vaunted claim of “desecration” and 2) which pre-date his flip to the gay side. Jeez, by his own admission, he was “straight” at the time, which is in itself revealing of something…

“I’m not holding my breath, Chandler. ”
Oh, how I wish you would.

You keep posting links to nothing that shows your contributions. However, thanks for reminding me that the ACT UP action in St. Patrick’ was almost TWENTY years ago. For people to be still talkingabout it so long after is quite amazing.

Or, the ever-popular this.

Because I was berated for saying so.

From another thread, Sept. 21st, North Dallas Thirty on “vocal” gay people: “People don’t want to vote for gay rights, and I daresay it has a great deal to do with the fact that the most vocal members of our community run around half-naked, desecrate churches, call people of faith “ignorant, superstitious bigots”, and make disparaging remarks about the vast majority of people in our country.”

Then next up:

But I also have to say that judging gay people by what some people do is obviously prejudicial. I don’t blame all straight people because some of them act like morons.

That’s because the straight community, by and large, has an easier time of calling out moronic behavior and condemning it among its own. Do that in the gay community, and you get yelled at for insulting people.

Specifically, I’m interested why he says he “chooses to be gay” because he is attracted to members of the same sex. To me, it would simply be more accurate to say that he chooses to act on his attaction (or orientation).

Also, your behavior can be in line with your orientation, or it can be at odds with your orientation.

I also don’t understand why he says the gay community hides its faults when he acknoweldges we run around with our shirts off, etc… It seems like we let our faults hang out. (Although I’m not sure how much church desecration gay people do.) But I also have to say that judging gay people by what some people do is obviously prejudicial. I don’t blame all straight people because some of them act like morons.

Keeping this in mind, I also agree completely with Dina in #83.

ND30,

Where is this list of of your gay republican philanthropy?
I couldn’t find it in any of the links.

I’m not being sarcastic.
If there is a legitimate apologia/exegesis I would like to give credit where credit is due.

The fact that I was born Jewish does not, in any way, mean it is not a choice. I could stop being Jewish. Or, you could start.

The Catholics of the Inquisition considered Judaism a choice and put those to death who did not convert on command. Many of Judaism’s martyrs are from that period, those who refused to convert, even under threat of death.

Hitler considered Judaism not to be a choice and killed even those who had converted. Those who died in the Holocaust are also martyrs.

The Inquisitors and the Nazis were both evil.

But to convince people of that means that you must move beyond ‘choice’ or ‘inborn’ to ‘it is not evil to be Jewish’.

Some bigots used to say that homosexuality was unnatural: no animals did it, therefore, it was obviously evil. Now, recognizing that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom, some bigots claim that it is subhuman. Those who thought the discovery of homosexuality in animals would change anything were wrong. Because, in the end, it does not matter why you are gay.

***

Now, to address your specific comments.

The most vocal/visible gay activists do suffer from the problems that NDT mentioned, although much of that is tied to the problems of many far-left liberal groups.

The equivalent in the Jewish community (since we don’t have half-naked people running around who claim to represent our community) are the Chasidim. And some of us are embarassed by the way they deliberately remove themselves from mainstream America; many more of us are embarrassed by the fact that they will move into communities, avoid paying taxes on religious grounds, and force the rest of the residents to pay higher property taxes (the Catskills is a prime example). The mainstream Jewish community feels that this reflects badly on the rest of us.

There is a difference between being black and being Jewish.

Being born Jewish would not excuse my behavior if it was bad, therefore, my focus should be arguing that it is not bad.

I don’t understand why (or when) ‘orientation’ became a bad word…I have always heard it as simply defining the quality of straightness or gayness.

I don’t understand why saying sexuality may be a choice is either pro- or anti-gay. And I certainly don’t understand why ‘husband’ is super-gay. In fact, I think gay marriage would be accepted much faster if, as a community, gays started referring to their significant others as ‘boy/girlfriends’, ‘fiancee’s’, and ‘husbands/wives’ as is appropriate to the relationship.

And NDT was perfectly clear the first time on what he meant, but, when you didn’t get it, he clarified it for you and you still choose to ignore it. And Jews do have an option for reparative thearapy: it’s called conversion. If someone I cared about chose it willingly, I would be unhappy, but accepting. If he or she were tricked, I would be angry.

And why would you dismiss my opinions just because I am straight? Can you say ad hominem? Any ‘insights’ you have about why you are a gay man should be equally relevent to why I am a straight woman.

***

You seem to be interpreting statements through your preconceived notions. Since many people who talk about ‘choice’ (and of course, ‘the gay lifestyle’) are anti-gay, you assume any statement about choice is anti-gay.

It’s not true. Take a minute to read through each statement and try to understand what the author meant. Don’t allow ‘buzz words’ to mislead you.