Tragically, the lights of free speech and individual liberty are going out all over Europe. A new dark age is descending.

It’s known as liberalism.

In short, the Democrats will shriek “Bush lied” regardless of the facts.

Projection.

Remember their arguments on Iraq? “We would have supported it if we had proof of….”

Meanwhile, you have Iran, which is even more positively linked to terrorism, defiance of the UN, human rights abuses, and terrorism than Saddam (which takes effort, mind you), and is now bragging that they have missiles capable of hitting Europe.

And what’s their response?

Along with their call for the return of the troops from Iraq, organizers said, the march was meant to express opposition to any military action against Iran. The event was organized by the group United for Peace and Justice.

“We’ve been lied to, and they’re going to lie to us again to bring us a war in Iran,” said Marjori Ramos, 43, of Staten Island. “I’m here because I had a lot of anger, and I had to do something.”

In short, the Democrats will shriek “Bush lied” regardless of the facts.

In case anyone is wondering about the Iranian references: Iran hangs gays, is involved in international terrorism, and its President has recently begun threatening to boost its involvement in terrorism to new heights.

Iran is a rich, vibrant, in-touch-with-nature, third-world culture! And they don’t export terrorism, they export the proletariat’s struggle against evil Joooo imperialism! Just ask somebody from Queers For Palestine!

And “Christianist/Christianism” isn’t offensive — just stupid.

It’s the intention of the usage and no, it is not at all clear the word would have “exactly” (your claim) the same meaning for you and Mr. Bawer.

I hope this is dead and nailed in the ground now. I will decline to spend further time on it.

Re-read the post. No Ian: Bawer didn’t say “Christianist”.

He did say “ChristianisM”, putting it in suitable scare quotes. I.e., quotes not added by me. Implying that Bawer, too, questions the word or distances himself from it, on some level. OK?

You don’t. I saw you use it (in the past discussions you’re referring to) with more of a direct, hurtful or ad hominem type of intention. OK? Clear now?

Now, my comments here are limited to the text in the post. Obviously Mr. Bawer may come back and say “I do use the word Christianist”. Which would be a new discussion.

So, Gryph - Having spent upwards of 20 minutes on you today, I have spent enough time arguing with people who refuse to understand the discussion and apparently wish to degenerate it. Goodbye now.

“…I’m making a point about the visibility of American Christian anti-gay groups in comparison to the lack of visibility of Islamist anti-gay groups.”

Understood 100%, all along. And again: It is a bad, i.e. invalid, point. What part of Islamo-fascist terrorism - and anti-gay, anti-Jew and anti-woman qualities - are somehow NOT more visible than Falwell or Robertson??? Again, people would have to CHOOSE to not see them.

Now, admittedly, Iran’s hanging of gays hasn’t received the mainstream media attention it deserves, so people are less to blame there - and the media, correspondingly more - as I brought out in #5.

“But in this country Islamist groups simply don’t have as much influence or visibility as the Christian ones do.”

Again - referring to the sense you mean: hogwash.

It would be true that Islamist groups and terrorist cells in America both tend to hide somewhat. It would also be true that, in 400 years, Christnianity has had much more (helpful) influence in building up our country, than Islam has had.

But going back to the sense of the words you intended: What part of American life has NOT been influenced by 9-11 and the War on Terror???? HOW could it not be visible to anyone, except by the person’s choice to play ostrich?

You said: “The “Homosexual Menace” is a phrase that dates from the 50’s…”

Third and more important: even granting you the quote, please explain how they are worse for us gays than the Muslim leaders bin Laden, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, Ahmadinejad, Khamanei, etc., who seriously kill us.

Well, Old Bird, if you would actually read my posts instead of going into girly-man hissy fits, you would see that I’m making a point about the visibility of American Christian anti-gay groups in comparison to the lack of visibility of Islamist anti-gay groups.

And as I say above that doesn’t mean that I think Islamists are less of a threat to gay rights or less virulent. But in this country Islamist groups simply don’t have as much influence or visibility as the Christian ones do.

The “Homosexual Menace” is a phrase that dates from the 50’s and is used in some of the old anti-gay public and military service announcements. On a side note, the “Homosexual Agenda” phrase you often see bandied about is actually the title of a chapter of an old anti-gay screed written by former Rep Dannemeyer.

So Caralato, there you go.
You can go back to your regularly scheduled hissy fit now.

Thanks for your work! I was a huge fan of Stealing Jesus, Beyond Queer, and A Place at the Table. I just ordered the new one

#11 - Gryph, first of all, either be glad that I gave you attention, or ignore me. If something is questionable in what you said, I may question it. (Or correct it, if it’s messed up as at other times.) If you don’t like that, feel free to ignore me and equally, feel free to disagree - but whining is unbecoming.

Second: please be so kind as to furnish the quote of Robertson or Falwell referring to “Homosexual Menace” (quote you provided). I tried to Google for it, and only saw it on paranoid anti-Bush sites.

Third and more important: even granting you the quote, please explain how they are worse for us gays than the Muslim leaders bin Laden, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, Ahmadinejad, Khamanei, etc., who seriously kill us.

Because, you see, the last time I checked, building / possessing a small Western media empire just DIDN’T AFFECT my life as a gay man the same way as trying to establish a real-life Islamist, anti-gay empire of death through terrorist acts (or threat thereof).

Therefore, it continues to be very curious that you omitted them (initially) from your list of anti-gay Muslim leaders.

For the record, I (1) never advocated keeping leather and S&M people (or anybody else) out of pride parades and (2) am not and never have been into leather and S&M. The authors of Different Loving, Gloria and Will Brame, are old and dear friends of mine, and I was honored to be mentioned in the acknowledgments to that book, an important, richly perceptive study of a subject that had rarely, if ever, been given such serious treatment.

Gladly.

Here’s another.

And yet another.

And I am being nice and assuming that Garrison Keillor wasn’t serious when he said it.

Meanwhile, to this:

That means oipposing the political agenda of antigay Christians and their puppets in the GOP.

LOL….bull, Ian. You have no problems whatsoever with antigay agendas when Democrats push them.

Let’s see you and NitPick say that stripping gays of rights based on religious beliefs is wrong, evil, and homophobic — and then say that John Kerry, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, John Edwards, and all the other Democrats who advocated for it are wrong, evil, and homophobic. Just like you do Republicans.

You too, NitPick.

As for NDT, he rarely presents an honest argument and, from my experience, is best ignored.

I will oppose Islam as I will oppose any dogma promoting homohatred but my focus has to be the here and now: the USA in 2006. That means oipposing the political agenda of antigay Christians and their puppets in the GOP.

How delightful to see dear old Mr. Bawer show up here, one of our original hypocrites. After producing screeds about the need to improve the image of gay people by keeping leather people out of pride parades, he ex-patriated to Ansterdam where he could live his own leather/ S&M lifestyle outside the scrutiny of the people he attacked here. (Check out his coded acknowledgement in “A Different Loving,” definitive text on BDSM.) Of course, he later squirmed out of this contradiction by claiming what he MEANT to say is that he wants pride parades free of stereotypes. But he didn’t explain how he can be into leather and S&M and not be stereotype while mere participation in a Pride Parade makes others a stereotype.