GayPatriot covered the Iranian hangings extensively last year when the news got out and, in fact, we were the avenue that brought the slaughter to the attention of the conservative blogosphere.
Due to returning from vacation and pressing matters at work last week, I was unable to mark the 1st Year anniversary of the Iranian gay youth hangings. I did keep the emails I received from the British group, OutRage!
To mark the first anniversary of Iran’s hanging of two gay teenagers, Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni, gay campaign groups OutRage! and IDAHO have declared 19 July 2006 an International Day of Action Against Homophobic Persecution in Iran (IDAAHOPI).
They are calling for worldwide protests against the “murderous homophobic Iranian regime” and “in commemoration of Asgari and Marhoni, the two gay teenagers executed in the city of Mashhad on 19 July last year.”
19 July protests are confirmed in five cities: Amsterdam, London, Provincetown, San Diego and San Francisco.
How come there is no mention of the Iranian hangings at America’s Leading Gay Rights Organization’s website — Human Rights Campaign? Perhaps George Bush is too much of an enemy for them to battle and not Islamic fascist regimes actually murdering gays?
I don’t recall seeing much of this happening anywhere in the USA…
… of course I don’t live in the hateful and made-up world that the GayLeft Fundamentalists live in either…
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
“… of course I don’t live in the hateful and made-up world that the GayLeft Fundamentalists live in either…”
What!?! Is there a parallel universe?
Every serious topic turns into a “hateful” diatribe against others who share most of your concerns.
Rationale is vitiated by emotion which overwhelms logic.
Agape.
Along the same lines, the president of the local Stonewall Dems accused us, since we are Republicans, of advocating for a “police state” and working to “destroy the rights and civil liberties” of citizens. Perhaps I should send a copy of the photo with this post to illustrate just how silly and unserious they sound.
Gene, I think you again miss the forest while contemplating who’s in the bushes.
Bruce posits that some in our community– eager to condemn anything GOP or Bush or conservative– will even embrace a common enemy like the PLO, hammas, Hezbollah or Islamofascists and other world terrorists bent on the destruction of the West. “Embrace” may be too strong a word to those on the GayLeft who undermine national security, poo-poo uber-secret monitoring programs and demean our troops and civic morale by trotting out and glorifying snots like CindyZeroSheehan and CodePink.
But, from my vantage point, embrace is what the GayLeft is doing when it validates the actions of terrorists and seek to sanction the US Govt for doing what the national govt was designed to do: protect its citizens’ safety.
It’s telling to me when someone like TeddyK can do a near-gleeful “speech” on the Senate Floor highlighting “American atrocities” at abu Ghraib but the GayLeft can’t find a way –ANY way even if it’s to condemn Rice et al for not moving fast enough– to join in the condemnation of Iranian fascists hanging gays. Very telling indeed.
You write: “Every serious topic turns into a “hateful” diatribe against others who share most of your concerns”. Nothing could be farther from the truth and if you took a moment to comprehend the post, I’m certain veracity would find its way into your comments. You might need to tackle it, muzzle it, and work it to submission –but veracity can find a way into your comments.
#2 – gay libs sounding silly and unserious? jamais dans la vie! 😉
See here.
Has there been a peep out of the Bush malAdministration over this sad event? Not that I’ve seen. Far from it.
If not, the apologists here for the Bush malAdministration and the national Republican party should be ashamed for even raising the issue.
And never mind that Bushco actually does stuff to bring down the Iranian regime and halt the spread of its anti-gay terror and fascism!!!
#6: So unless Bush comments on the issue personally we should shut up?
Bruce: Seeking clarification: Are you saying that anti-gay killings are rare in the US or state sanctioned murder of gays is unheard of?
Bruce, I just find it inconceivable that the Moonbat Left and their willing allies in the DNC and the MSM would equate what happened to these youth in the Middle East to what they believe will happen or is happening here in our republic. Yet they still trot out the old “killing fags/put them all in concentration camps” argument. Are these libtards simply not in touch with reality? THIS IS REALITY, GUYS. The GOP is not killing gays; MILITANT ISLAM IS.
Know the real enemy, guys. It is not America. It is Islamofascism.
Regards,
Peter H.
Has there previously been a peep by the RajIan Coalition of the Unserious and Silly regarding this sad event? Not that I’ve seen. Far from it.
If not, IanRaj should be ashamed for even commenting on this issue.
You guys have discussed Blackwell earlier. This quote is from the Advocate’s newsletter today, July 25.:
“In a newspaper interview Sunday, the Republican candidate for Ohio’s governorship, J. Kenneth Blackwell, compared gay people to arsonists and kleptomaniacs who can be “changed.” The religious conservative and current secretary of state made the controversial remarks in a question-and-answer session with The Columbus Dispatch, Ohio’s largest paper.”
Not for one second would any rational person on the Left think this guy speaks for the vast majority of the Right.
Now, can you find a quote to support this claim: “but the GayLeft can’t find a way –ANY way even if it’s to condemn Rice et al for not moving fast enough– to join in the condemnation of Iranian fascists hanging gays…”?
Who, specifically, refused to join the condemnation, and, in context, what was their rationale if they did so? And what are their credentials?
The brouhaha over last weekend’s protests seems, according to the “memo” published on line, to run the gamut of outrage, from a measured caution not to act rashly to a spewing of vituperation against the Iranian Islamo-fascist regime.
And by what stretch of logic does the discussion of the propriety of warrantless wire-tapping apply? It’s fun to cast a wide net, but it doesn’t stand scrutiny.
I can’t think of a single time when someone of any respect or responsibility said, “I’m against wire-tapping and I support Islamists hanging my fellow gays.”
It is illogical to conflate and equate serious questions about Constitutional rights and responsibilities and limits with “embracing” the common enemy.
Seriously, you don’t believe that the GayLeft (whoever that might be) embraces the common enemy, do you?
Agape.
Not for one second would any rational person on the Left think this guy speaks for the vast majority of the Right.
Pity there are so few rational people on the Left.
Seriously, you don’t believe that the GayLeft (whoever that might be) embraces the common enemy, do you?
I think, Gene, that if it is anti-Bush, the GayLeft will embrace it.
#6
Has there been a peep out of the Bush malAdministration over this sad event? Not that I’ve seen. Far from it.
I didn’t see it on the front page of al-NYT either. Must not have happened, eh Reinemachefrau?
#9
Bruce: Seeking clarification: Are you saying that anti-gay killings are rare in the US or state sanctioned murder of gays is unheard of?
Holy Flirking Schnitt!!! Are you serious?
#14 ThatGayConservative — July 26, 2006 @ 12:28 am – July 26, 2006
I didn’t see it on the front page of al-NYT either. Must not have happened, eh Reinemachefrau?
Poor silly boi. I know that you aren’t really interested in facts–if you were, you might do an internet search. It really isn’t difficult.
It might not have been on the front page of the NYT, but it was reported by (gasp! gasp!) the “left-wing media outlet” last week in the Washington Post. I’m not going to bother doing another of those impossible searches on the NYTimes web site to try to determine whether, how and when they reported on the murders, but I’ll merely note that the WaPo article stated:
Deeply disturbing? Probably to some people, but apparently not to more than a few of the Bush apologists.
Gene, I appreciate your point that a lone voice of unreason amongst a group should not be interpretted as being common for the group. However, based upon past experience with reporting of Republican “slurs” against gays I have to abstain from judging Mr. Blackwell’s comments until I have had the chance to read them without the reporter’s filter. In support, I offer the following two specific cases that come to mind:
1. A while back Sen. Santorum (a favored whipping boy of the left) said that if Gay Marriage were recognized it would open the door for similar recognition of polygamy, marriage within a family and even marriage with animals. This was reported as Sen. Santorum comparing being gay to polygamy, incest and beastiality, even though he was clearly speking about the legal repurcussions resulting from gay marriage.
2. A while back James Dobson objected to a series of programs using popular animated characters to teach diversity and tollerance to elementary students that included teaching tollerance for gays and lesbians. I completely agreed, not because I believe in intollerance toward gays but because to understand that concept requires an understanding of sexuality that I don’t want my seven-year-old’s school forcing on my daughter. This was widely reported as Dobson saying “Sponge Bob is gay.”
Apparently HRC and others like the RajIan entity find them so disturbing that they don’t want anyone to find out about this outrage. How importantcan the hanging of a couple of Iranians when compared to the absolutely critical mission to paint Republicans as the worst enemy of gays on the planet?
#16. Also, Santorum was right. After legalizing gay marriage, the Massachussetts legislature subsequently put forth legislation to decriminalize bestiality. Also, the Canadian Justice Ministry issued a report recommending that marriage rights be extended to polygamists. Hollywood responded with launching the pro-polygamy Big Love program on HBO (co-produced by two gay men). (Note: Hollywood is currently working on a movie in which Dakota Fanning, age 12, has a nude scene. Her mom thinks it will win her an Oscar.) And pro-polygamy groups began drafting lawsuits based precisely on the suits used by same-ex couples to sue for legal marriage.
But, hey, let it never be said traditional values are under assault…
#18 V the K — July 26, 2006 @ 11:22 am – July 26, 2006
After legalizing gay marriage, the Massachussetts legislature subsequently put forth legislation to decriminalize bestiality.
The legislation that you are referring to is here. That legislation would have amended the relevant state statute from
Chapter 272: Section 34. Crime against nature
Section 34. Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years.
to
Section 34. Whoever commits a sexual act on an animal shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in a house of correction for not more than 2 ½ years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
Big difference, other than eliminating the “either with mankind” bit? Not really–the “mankind” bit had been declared unconstitutional by the state’s supreme court years ago.
Now, let’s compare that to, for example, Texas, where bestiality has long been decriminalized, long before Lawrence and Garner were arrested in Houston. So, in Texas, according to the Texas state legislature, it was OK to have sex with an animal (a non-human animal, that is) of either sex, but not with a human of the same sex.
Sounds to me like a bit of hypocrisy to rail against the Massachusetts state legislature for doing a little bit of what the Texas legislature did years before. And, note, that unlike the Texas state legislature, the Massachusetts state legislation would still have held bestial acts to be criminal.
You wingnuts make it so easy to ridicule you. You really should consider reading things other than WingNutDaily.
#19 To be more precise it was the Texas Legislature, with Democrat majorities in both the House and Senate that passed the anti sodomy statute that Lawrence and Garner were arrested under. It was signed into law by Democrat Ann Richards who, after her defeat by George Bush, became a lobbyist for among others, the tobacco industry.
RajIan you’re really demonstrating remarkably sloppy arguments.
To paraphrase you in #19, you Dems make it so easy to ridicule you. You really should consider reading things other than DNC press releases and Kos comment pages.
raj/ian writes at #19: “You wingnuts make it so easy to ridicule you. You really should consider reading things other than WingNutDaily.”
LOL. God Almighty. You, raj/ian, are seriously facts-challenged and truth impaired.
Getting most of the salient points in your OWN comments wrong –time and time and time again– if that’s not bad enough to take away your DebateDanceCard, I don’t know what is… go get thee to an hospital emergency room, Mr Ambulance Chaser.
#20 BoBo — July 26, 2006 @ 12:38 pm – July 26, 2006
To be more precise it was the Texas Legislature, with Democrat majorities in both the House and Senate that passed the anti sodomy statute that Lawrence and Garner were arrested under. It was signed into law by Democrat Ann Richards…
Actually, the “homo-only sodomy law” was initially enacted in 1973. I’m sure that the majority in the Texas state legislature in 1973 were “Democrats”–actually Dixiecrats–as probably was the Texas state governor, but recognize that 1973 was fairly early in the implementation of Nixon’s Southern Strategy designed to lure the Dixiecrats to the Republican party.
Note that the cited page reports that, in 1999, the legislature, then dominated by Dixiecrats comprising the Texas Republican party, refused to consider repealing the homo-only sodomy law.
I don’t know what hand Democrat Ann Richards had in this. Maybe when she was governor, she just signed a recodification of the state’s criminal laws. But I doubt very seriously that she was governor when it was initially passed. And she certainly wasn’t governor in 1999.
#21 Michigan-Matt — July 26, 2006 @ 3:53 pm – July 26, 2006
You wingnuts make it so easy to ridicule you. You really should consider reading things other than WingNutDaily.”
LOL. God Almighty. You, raj/ian, are seriously facts-challenged and truth impaired.
Oh, let me see. V the K didn’t get his comment “After legalizing gay marriage, the Massachussetts legislature subsequently put forth legislation to decriminalize bestiality” from here? If not, where did he get it from? Renew America? The ridiculously named Family Research Council?
I’m sure that V the K can speak for himself. Unless, of course, you are his spokesman and he your sock-puppet.
No raj/ian, one thing conservatives and liberatarians share that you DON’T is a character trait called “Integrity” –look it up someday but I doubt you’ll find it in any legal dictionary for trial lawyers.
Integrity, raj/ian. We don’t need sockpuppet artistry like you employ on a daily basis… funny, whenever you are in the midst of commenting, the other half “Ian” doesn’t show up unless it’s to validate your position after you were caught in the sockpuppetry. Hmmmm.
#22 RajIan You are correct when you state the “homo only sodomy law” was initially enacted in 1973 by overwhelming Democrat majorities in the Legislature and signed into law by a Democrat Governor. Good for you but not relevant to the discussion.
History repeated itself in 1993 when it was reauthorized by the Democrat controlled Texas Legislature and signed into law by Democrat Ann Richards. Before she signed it into law the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas (largest group of it’s kind in Texas) and other gay groups organized a protest in front of the state Capitol to condemn “second-class citizenship”.
However Ms. Richards was up for election the next year and valued votes over equal treatment for her mainly Democrat gay constituants. This calculation was shown to be correct when the very same groups that had protested their second class treatment by her and the Democrats endorsed and campaigned for her. She subsequently lost to George Bush but is affectionately know as “Saint Ann” in many gay circles. Go figure.
You got the reference to 1999, at least in the context of this discussion, wrong too. The bill you refered was introduced in the Texas House and died in committee. The House at that time was still run by a Democrat majority and the committee Chair who killed the bill was (guess what) a Democrat.
In closing I’d like to thank you for moving my point forward which is Democrat politicians never miss a chance to screw the gay community when thay think that there are votes to be gain or saved in doing so. In fact, every instance you cited illustrated my position clearly.
Danke Schoen!!!
All of you who’ve expressed concerns about Shiite Islam’s threat to western democracies need to read Bruce Bawer’s “While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within”.
The big problem is that Europe’s politics, academia and media are dominated by raj-type thinkers (or unthinkers).
# BoBo — July 27, 2006 @ 10:58 am – July 27, 2006
History repeated itself in 1993 when it was reauthorized by the Democrat controlled Texas Legislature and signed into law by Democrat Ann Richards.
It’s nice that you mention that, but the issue demands a citation. Under what circumstances was it supposedly “reauthorized” by the Texas Legislature or signed into law by Ann Richards? As far as I could tell, the 1973 law did not sunset. If it was part of a recodification of the law, if the legislature had failed to pass the recodification, or if she had vetoed it, the status quo ante would have prevailed–in other words, the 1973 law would still have been in effect.
You got the reference to 1999, at least in the context of this discussion, wrong too. The bill you refered was introduced in the Texas House and died in committee. The House at that time was still run by a Democrat majority and the committee Chair who killed the bill was (guess what) a Democrat.
You call them Democrats, and I call them Dixiecrats. It was well known that there were actually three major parties in the US for a number of decades of the 20th century, the Republicans, the (primarily Northern) Democrats, and the Dixiecrats. For a number of decades of the 20th century, the Northern Democrats could pay off the Dixiecrats to keep them in the Democratic caucus. Starting largely in the 1970s, the Republicans figured out that they could pay off the Dixiecrats, and entice them into their caucus. And now the Republicans are being wagged by the tail of the Dixiecrats.
After having been distracted by some of the comments here from the peanut gallery, I’ll address one of the topics from the post
How come there is no mention of the Iranian hangings at America’s Leading Gay Rights Organization’s website — Human Rights Campaign? Perhaps George Bush is too much of an enemy for them to battle and not Islamic fascist regimes actually murdering gays?
Um, is this post really supposed to suggest that regimes that the GWBush malAdministration sets up in the Middle East will be significantly more favorable to gay people? If so, let me disabuse you of that notion, Mr. self-described Gay Patriot:
From GayMiddleEast.com:
Iraq : Gays flee as religious militias sentence them all to death
Iraqi police ‘killed 14-year-old boy for being homosexual’
(Fourteen years old? One wonders how the Iraqi police might have believed that he was homosexual.) and
BBC News : Gay Iraqis fear for their lives.
That was only on one page of MiddleEastGay.com on one day, and these are occuring in American occupied Iraq. What leads Mr. GP to believe that anything would be different in American occupied territory anywhere while the Bush malAdministration is running the show? Because you’re wishing? Sorry, despite what you might have learned from Disney, wishing doesn’t make it so.
#27 In 1993 major parts of the Texas criminal law were “reauthorized” (that’s the term that was used to describe the process) Part of that process included the anti-sodomy law. Every gay organization in Texas appealed to Gov. Richards and the Democrat Legislature to drop this provision. When it was left in protests were held in front of the Capitol and maximum effort was expended to get the Gov. (who was heavily supported by the gay community) to veto the package. She refused for fear of losing votes in upcoming election. This was the last time that the DEMs controlled both Houses and the Govs office and they refused to decriminalize gay behaivour. When the choice was between making gay citizens criminals or getting votes, the Democrats clearly demonstrated the depth of their commitment to the gay community.
Your second point, that these DEMs are “Dixiecrats” is interesting. Does that mean that all Democrats in the South are “Dixiecrats”? If not, how does one tell the difference? Given your extensive knowledge of the political dynamics of the southern US, I eagerly await your reply.
#29 BoBo — July 28, 2006 @ 11:06 am – July 28, 2006
That’s interesting. Still no citation to an article that describes what actually occurred.
If he provides citations, you’ll just attack the source without reading it.
And you don’t think the problem with gays in the Middle East might have something to do with the teachings of Islam? You actually believe that the Koran has a single nice thing to say about gays?
I was there so you can use me a a primary source. As for additional sources, you seem to lead the league in responding to such requests with “do your own research” I prescribe to you some your own medicine. There’s plenty of info out there, take a look.
I’d still like to see your answers to the Dixiecrat questions in #29
#32 BoBo — July 28, 2006 @ 1:33 pm – July 28, 2006
I was there so you can use me a a primary source.
Sorry, no. What evidence is there that you were understanding what you were supposedly observing? I gave you above a few possibilities of what was occurring, and you apparently do not understand them.