Gay Patriot Header Image

GayPatriot M.I.A. ?

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 5:50 am - January 25, 2006.
Filed under: Blogging

Nah…. just overwhelmed with work. This week is my company’s national sales meeting in Orlando. (Yes, TGC…I know I’m in your state and I didn’t let you know!!! But there’ll be no time for socializing with blogger friends this week, I’m afraid!)

I see Dan has been doing a great job here with some excellent posts! He even tackled the awesome victory by the Conservatives in Canada yesterday. PatriotPartner was hounding me to do pre-election posts about the obvious Conservative electoral win. It is nice to have our friends up North come around like so many are around the world. We need true allies in both the people and their governments in the global war against Islamic terror.

Anyway, I apologize for my light blogging this week. I’ll try my best… but this meeting is brutal.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

10 Comments

  1. Piss on you, GP. 😉

    All work and no play in Orlando? I was wondering on my last smoke break where you’d been I was thinking you were MIA. I also remembered the other night that you said you’d be in town and thought I’d missed it.

    Actually, unless you make it down to Green Bay, I wouldn’t be able to see you till Friday or Saturday anyway. We had a fatality at the plant the other day which keeps things tied up for a while. Oh well. Buy me a ticket and I’ll come up to the Triangle sometime.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 25, 2006 @ 6:05 am - January 25, 2006

  2. GP, GPW, I agree we should be concerned about the war against Islamic terror.

    That’s why I’m so disappointed the UN’s US envoy teamed up with China, Zimbabwe, Egypt, and IRAN a few days for an anti-gay vote:

    http://365gay.com/Newscon06/01/012406unGay.htm


    (New York City) The United States joined with four of the world’s most repressive regimes to reject an application by two international LGBT groups seeking to join a UN agency that advises the world body on economics and social issues.

    The application by the International Lesbian and Gay Association and the Danish Association of Gays and Lesbians was dismissed without a hearing.

    The groups had sought inclusion on the United Nations Economic and Social Council, a think tank made up of non governmental agencies from around the world.

    The United States voted with Iran, Zimbabwe, China, Cameroon against granting a hearing for the application.

    ECOSOC status allows NGOs to attend UN meetings and speak in their own name. The Council already has participation from labor and social rights groups.-

    How can the United States team up with Iran on something like this? Is this why there was so little comment from the government when those Iranian teens were hanged for homosexuality last year?

    Comment by Carl — January 25, 2006 @ 2:46 pm - January 25, 2006

  3. #2

    You bought into that hysterical rant?

    Can you explain how the U.S. “teamed up” with Iran etc.?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 25, 2006 @ 7:00 pm - January 25, 2006

  4. TGC the article explains. The United States voted with Iran and a few other countries which have very extreme records on gay rights (Zimbabwe and Egypt especially) to stop two gay rights groups from joining a UN agency.

    I think that is something which needs further explanation. So many times gays in America have been told by conservatives that gays in Iran have it much worse, and we should remember the way gays in Iran are treated before we complain about life in America. How are we supposed to feel when the US votes along with Iran on this kind of vote?

    Comment by Carl — January 25, 2006 @ 8:19 pm - January 25, 2006

  5. Here’s your answer, Carl:

    In the summer of 1993 the ILGA gained consultative status on the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) as a Non-Governmental-Organization, joining 3,000 organisations throughout the world. However, that status was suspended in 1994 after a campaign led by Jesse Helms focussing on NAMBLA’s membership in ILGA. ILGA members voted 214-30 to expel three pedophile groups but despite this was not able to convince the UN that it had no member organisations that promoted pedophilia.

    ILGA had passed a resolution in 1985 which stated that “young people have the right to sexual and social self-determination and that age of consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect.” In spite of this apparent agreement with NAMBLA on the age of consent issue just nine years before, ILGA, by a vote of 214-30 expelled NAMBLA and two other groups (MARTIJN and Project Truth) in early 1994 because they were judged to be “groups whose predominant aim is to support or promote pedophilia.” The UN removed ILGA’s consultative status “based on concerns raised about its member organizations or subsidiaries that promoted or condoned paedophilia”. [3]

    ILGA applied to have its consultative status reinstated in 2000 [4], but on 30 April 2002 the United Nations’ Economic & Social Council voted 29-17 not to grant this application. [5] The Washington Times reported that opponents blocked ILGA’s attempt to regain consultative status because the association had not provided sufficient evidence that it had eliminated NAMBLA and the other pedophile groups from its membership roster, ILGA having refused to provide UN officials with a list of its member organizations. ILGA justified keeping its membership secret on the grounds that, in many countries, homosexual activity is still criminalised and such a list would identify its groups and put them in danger. [6]

    On 3 May 2003, ECOSOC voted to again decline consultative status to ILGA. ILGA submitted another application, along with other LGBT rights organisations but it was rejected on 23 January 2006.

    Having purged all three pro-paedophilia groups from its 400-group membership, the ILGA continues its work promoting equal rights for lesbian and gay people across the world. Much is still made of the NAMBLA scandal and it is commonly used as an argument against gay rights by various groups, particularly the right wing.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 25, 2006 @ 10:25 pm - January 25, 2006

  6. #4

    Ah. So just because we happened to vote the same way means that we “joined” those countries and are now on the same level, right? By your logic, that means that the liberals who are pushing to ban gay marriage are actually Republicans. Who knew?

    C’mon. Pull your head out of Matt Foreman’s hysterical ass and get a clue. Otherwise, you look like the mad raving queen he does with that kind of statement.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 26, 2006 @ 2:08 am - January 26, 2006

  7. -By your logic, that means that the liberals who are pushing to ban gay marriage are actually Republicans. Who knew?-

    Isn’t it gay conservatives who most often say that the far left and the far right are just alike?

    -Otherwise, you look like the mad raving queen he does with that kind of statement.-

    I don’t think there’s anything mad about wondering why the US would want to go along with Iran on this or any other matter. If you really think that Foreman questioning the US voting with Iran on this or anything makes him a “mad raving queen”, then there’s really not much to say. After all the talk about the gay left ignoring Islamic homophobia, I thought someone called gay conservative would be happy a gay liberal like Foreman mentioned Iran’s campaign against gays.

    NDT, thank you for actually giving us more information on this. I guess TGC will spare you his “hysterical” label.

    Comment by Carl — January 26, 2006 @ 5:20 am - January 26, 2006

  8. I suppose you’re going to tell me how apples and oranges are exactly the same?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 26, 2006 @ 8:26 pm - January 26, 2006

  9. -I suppose you’re going to tell me how apples and oranges are exactly the same?-

    Since you don’t want to have any real conversation about this subject, I’ll spare you the burden of carrying on a conversation with me.

    Comment by Carl — January 26, 2006 @ 9:45 pm - January 26, 2006

  10. #9

    Well, I do want a real conversation on the subject, but you’ll be damned if you bother to offer one.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 28, 2006 @ 2:34 am - January 28, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.