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.

I’d still like to see your answers to the Dixiecrat questions in #29

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?

That’s interesting. Still no citation to an article that describes what actually occurred.

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.

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.

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.

The big problem is that Europe’s politics, academia and media are dominated by raj-type thinkers (or unthinkers).

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!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But, hey, let it never be said traditional values are under assault…

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.”

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:

Although they have circulated widely on the Internet and were printed in some European newspapers, as well as the New York Times, the images have not been seen in most newspapers here. There is nothing in the pictures taken before the execution that contains blood, or explicit violence, or nudity, the usual taboos of imagery in the United States. And yet something about them is so deeply disturbing that they have had little mainstream circulation.

Deeply disturbing? Probably to some people, but apparently not to more than a few of the Bush apologists.