[WARNING: This post contains graphic and dripping sarcasm throughout. Reader discretion is advised.]
Well…. I’m just completely shocked by this news. Shocked, I tell you! (h/t – Instapundit)
UN vote on homosexual human rights was yesterday derailed at the last minute by an alliance of disapproving Muslim countries.
[GP Ed. Note — Hey, wait…. I don’t see Bush/Cheney listed here as blocking this effort!?! That can’t be right! What about the gay concentration camps that have been under construction in Idaho since Reagan’s term?!?]
The UN had been due to vote on the matter for the first time in its almost 60-year history, but five Muslim countries delayed the vote until today and introduced amendments designed to kill it off.
The amendments remove all references to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and render the resolution meaningless.
UN sources said Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia were doing everything they could to stop the resolution. “I suspect they want to stall as much as possible and lobby other countries to win support for their amendments,” said a source.
The historic resolution on “human rights and sexual orientation” was originally tabled by Brazil at the UN commission on human rights, in Geneva, with the support of 19 other countries including Britain. It calls on all UN member states to promote and protect the human rights “of all persons regardless of their sexual orientation”.
But the sentiments are anathema to many UN states; almost half outlaw gay sexual relations and more than 70 countries keep a total ban on homosexuality – in some cases it is punished by death. [Worth repeating: PUNISHED BY DEATH.]
[GP Ed. Note – Please take notice that no Western democracies whose creation was influenced by Judeo-Christian values are among those 70 countries. That includes Israel and the USA, I should add for our slow readers.]
The British gay rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell, said: “The vote has been derailed and delayed by Islamic fundamentalist states where gay people are either jailed, flogged or beheaded.”
[GP Ed. Note – Ah, c’mon Peter….the real problems for the world’s gays lie in the eeeeevil Bush Administration and American capitalism. We all know THAT! Just count the rainbow flags at the next ANSWER anti-war/anti-American demonstration.]
He said those countries’ records of gay human rights abuses showed why the resolution was urgently needed.
Quick, someone tell the Human Rights Campaign! After all, immediately following 9/11/2001, they shoved their heads in the sands of Islamofacism.
Ah, who am I kidding? They’ve been ignorant and silently complicit to the real threats against gays for years — while instead using false scare tactics to raise more money for their nice fancy offices and big salaries. Oh yeah, and protesting abortion and the Jena 6. Makes perfect sense to me. [*sarcasm off]
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
LOVE the sarcasm!! I’m sure it will soar over a few of the heads who post here, though.
John McCain has suggested we pull out of the U.N. and create an organization of peace- and prosperity-loving nations whose membership is not based upon existence alone. Finally, a Prez candidate who appears to take the issue of our being required to negotiate (translation: we pay for the U.N.’s pet projects, then we get to remain a member) with terrorist and corrupt states seriously.
This resolution was also opposed by Christian groups in the US.
So, Bruce, what was your point? That American Christians agreed with the Muslim countries on this issue? Well, I appreciate the honesty.
Maybe opposed by groups in the States but the not by the government itself.
Ah, and again, the antireligious bigot torrentprime shows up to claim that all Christian groups in the United States opposed this resolution.
Tell us, torrentprime; is it true that homosexuality is what makes you an antireligious bigot and supporter of religious discrimination? Or is it just a belief you have that you blame on your homosexuality?
Some American Christians agreed with Muslim countries on this issue. Note the emphasized phrases. Citizen’s groups in one country vs. the actual governments of others. Some of you guys really need to learn to look at issues and consider the players in them by their relative merits. The very few Christian groups in this country who go to the same lengths in their animus against gays as is normal in many Islamic countries are regarded as nutjobs even by most evangelicals. If you’re focusing criticism on something, then presumably you’re attempting to influence it. Which of these two is more important to change- lunatic fringe, or controlling element of society with the coercive power of government?
In any case, instead of belaboring the obvious- that there are some Christians who aren’t gay-friendly- this posting is about Muslim countries using the ridiculous structure of the UN to block a rights resolution. On this issue I find myself in agreement with John McCain.
Hello,
I’m Allain from Paris.
I support your very well fight to your law. Congratulations !
http://allainjulesblog.blogspot.com/
Am I supposed to be impressed that the U.S. doesn’t have a law to execute gay people? How about the fact that sodomy has only been decriminalized throughout the U.S. since only 2003? This would have been an amazing amendment. If the amendment had passed, and thus said that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was illegal, would the U.S. have been forced to comply with ENDA? If the amendment solely dealt with simply decriminalizing sodomy in those countries it would have been monumental enough. However if it was a full anti-discrimination amendment, not even our own country would pass the measure on that.
This happened back in 2003 so I can’t find the actual text of the amendment that was struck. Can anyone find it and post a link so we can see exactly what was being covered in the “Human Rights and Sexual Orientation” Amendment?
Found it:
http://www.thegully.com/essays/gaymundo/030422_UN_res_lgbt_br.html
You want to know what’s interesting. Lawrence v. Texas was decided on June 26, 2003. This amendment was proposed in April 2003. That means at the time of the amendment homosexual sex was still a crime in many parts of the country.
Question: Which of those nations are allied with the United States?
Answer: All of them.
So your point is….
The point of posts 8 – 11: rationalizing their anti-American and anti-Christian attitudes.
Is the point supposed to be that even government’s in the Middle East that are supportive of current US foreign policy are scum bags too? Because that’s what I take from it…
Yes, well, Chase, what we know is that your preferred governments in the Middle East are the ones that support terrorism against the United States and its allies AND are antigay.
So it’s not the antigay that you’re upset about; it’s the fact that these governments are actually allied with the United States.
It would have more meaning if the Bush Administration did not send refugees fleeing anti-Gay violence back to their home countries such as Jamaica and Iran (see Chertoff). Still its a good start.
Well, certainly in this country our Christian neighbors our more egalitarian than Muslims in the Middle East. That’s not the case however in central and East Africa where Christians and Muslims form a vicious alliance against gays. At the center is Episcopal Archbishop Peter Akinola who has championed a law in Nigeria that would seek to criminalize gays and lesbians in all facets of the public square, from watching a television show like “Will & Grace” to having a meal together with a gay friend in public. Violation of the law would result in three years in prison.
Religious fanatacism can cut both ways and in Africa, it does.
Torretpine
Actually the fact that Bush supports the legislation in the face of strong fundamentalist support for it actually helps gaypatriots argument here. I don’t like the GOP or Bush, and the resolution will probably not be backed up by any action, but it was still I’m willing to give him a qualified thumbs up with this.
oops I mean strong opposition to it
No, rest assured I hate them all with the same fervor for which I hate those who misappropriate my name and opinions.
I could’ve said that more succinctly, but then I likely would’ve run afoul of message board standards.
In this country people with like political/social agendas can ban together and seek to influence the government through our representative republic system of voting, legislation, and activism. In the Islamic countries no such process exists. So Gays and Christians and anyone other than a Muslim, has no rights to redress of grievances. As a Christian I am also disturbed that we call as our “friends” governments that persecute and behead Christians. King Abdullah said last year that there was no need for a reciprocal arrangement between universities to discuss , for example, Chirstianity because” there are no Christians in Saudia Arabia.” Sound familiar??? We all need to wake up. Islamofacisim is our serious enemy..they want to dominate us all and kill those they can’t. I guess we could tell the Saudiis to take a hike…but my horse riding skills are a little shaky. Linda Strickland
Well, certainly in this country our Christian neighbors our more egalitarian than Muslims in the Middle East. That’s not the case however in central and East Africa where Christians and Muslims form a vicious alliance against gays.
And again, your anti-Christian bigotry comes shining through, Chase; it is simply impossible for you to make a positive statement about Christians without following it with an unrelated “but” to prove how awful they are.
No, rest assured I hate them all with the same fervor for which I hate those who misappropriate my name and opinions.
Nope, I’m not assured.
When you start blasting Pelosi and her supporters with the same hate that you do the Bush administration, THEN I will be — especially since Pelosi is pandering in support of countries that support terrorism against the United States.
No, rest assured I hate them all with the same fervor for which I hate those who misappropriate my name and opinions.
Wow.
Where’s the tolerance? Where’s the caring? Where’s the acceptance?
Look who I’m asking. Nevermind.
#20
Thing is that the gay left throws all their money and support behind politicians who legislate against them. Then they throw their support behind Islamo-fascists who would kill them rather than piss on them. It’s all very screwey and contrary to what they claim to believe in.
Here’s how a strong US government and awake LGBT community would behave when it comes to anti-Gay violence.
1) Issue prominent travel warnings through the state department towards countries that abuse LGBT persons. Include Jamaica, Nigeria, Iran, Russia, and Saudi Arabia
2) Impose a tax on travel towards those countries. This will hit Jamaica the worst.
3) Deny visas to the US for those seeking to continue anti-Gay policies. This should include Akinola of Nigeria.
4) Stop deporting legitimate refugees from anti-Gay violence and strong discrimination
5) Tie US aid towards proper behavior. It shouldn’t be the only consideration, but it should be a strong and stated factor. This should hit Nicaragua, Jamaica, and Honduras the hardest.
6) Enact comprehensive oil mitigation strategies designed to reduce our dependence on Russia, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and Nigeria.
7) Encourage the Gay community to help itself. Any self respecting Gay man would be a fool to buy Malibu Rum or Red Stripe Beer. And yet I see them in Gay bars all the time. Sigh.
I neither tolerate nor accept when someone slanders my name. NDT said I hate the United States. That’s a lie and I hate when someone tells a lie about me.
Anytime I make a comment, NorthDallasThirty will personally insult my patriotism. It’s disgusting and shouldn’t be tolerated here.
And furthermore, I am a Christian too, for cryin’ out loud! So I don’t have an anti-Christian bias. I believe Jesus Christ is my lord and savior. However, I take issue with the way some Christians interpret and wield The Bible. I come from a Quaker and UCC background.
And yeah, that’s probably why I’m a Democrat. I come from a fundamentally peaceful background. Our family farmhouse, just across the Mason-Dixon Line, was a stop on the underground railroad, smuggling slaves out of the south. My ancestors were Quakers who fervently believed in abolition.
See, I come from good people. And my family has been here for a long time. We love America and want to see it get better.
And yeah, that’s probably why I’m a Democrat.
LOL….I wasn’t aware that there were sects of either Quakers or UCC that believed a) all Christians were murdering fanatics like your fellow Democrat arturo does, or b) considered religious belief to be superstitious and ignorant like your fellow Democrat fnln does, or c) claimed that all Christians were antigay, like your fellow Democrat torrentprime does.
Anytime I make a comment, NorthDallasThirty will personally insult my patriotism.
Patriotism from a Democrat, Chase, is best interpreted by the fact that they think Scott Beauchamp is a hero for fabricating slander about US troops. Just ask your fellow Democrat gil.
Or that they think, like Professor Nicholas De Genova of Columbia, that the US needs a “million Mogadishus”.
Or that they think, like Professor Eric Foner of Columbia, that the greatest heroes are those who find ways to defeat the US military.
Or that they, like Lynne Stewart, consider it their patriotic duty to break laws to assist terrorists.
And yeah, that’s probably why I’m a Democrat. I come from a fundamentally peaceful background.
And who’s taken this country to war the most?
See, I come from good people.
So what happened?
And as far as good people, I’m guessing you don’t mean the Quakers who would show up at Christian churches in the colonies naked?
But NDT, seriously, can you assume such people are Democrats? Yes, they defend Left talking points alot. But they could be Independent, Green, perhaps Peace & Freedom or Communist, etc. Many MoveOn.org & Kos types actually look down on the Democrats.
Bonjour, Allain! (Ou, bonsoir.) J’admire ton nouveau President, mon ami — et j’espere qu’il est fort!
***********************************************
Gee, our one-trick-pony accuses everyone of being an anti-religious bigot. I, too, come from a Christian background but grew disillusioned in part because of people like him. For many, religion is a weapon, drawn in absence of reason and fired in absence of love. Sin is especially justifiable to the self-righteous and lying about someone else is certainly no exception.
Still belaboring the obvious, I see. Yes, there are American Christians who are distinctly unfriendly to gay interests. Is their animus either as extreme or as widespread as the hatred which is normal, accepted and legally enforceable in Muslim countries? No. Choose your battles, people.
#12:
Chase, that observation leapt out at me too. Remind me again of how much aid we provide Egypt. Of course, I don’t have to remind everyone how kissy-kissy Bush and his Saudi buddies are. No, not many of the Bushies salivate at the prospect of exterminating gay people, but they sure don’t seem to care to much if their allies make the effort. Even in Iraq which we occupy and over which we exert some influence, the extermination of gay people is underway and Bush not only doesn’t lift a finger in protest, he welcomes Iraq’s leader as a friend and ally.
#32:
Something tells me that pony’s had more than one trick. ;-0
Chase wrote:
Question: Which of those nations are allied with the United States?
Answer: All of them.
Chase, I have a question. How many of the 19 countries that supported the resolution are our allies?
Answer: All of them I would bet. Hey, we have allies of all sorts, don’t we.
PS. That’s cool about you family connection to the underground R.R.
Ah, the truth comes out.
And for others, their own imaginings, hurts and accusations are.
Tom in Houston,
Post 25 is an interesting list, and worth discussion. I was unaware that Malibu Rum was made in Barbados, or that Barbados had such anti-gay laws, until reading your post.
Another thing I think would be interesting and oddly effective is a campaign co-sponsored by major Christian groups and major gay groups, raising awareness of the persecution of Christians and gays in Muslim countries. I wonder what would be the chances of such a plan coming to fruition?
I, too, come from a Christian background but grew disillusioned in part because of people like him.
Oh, don’t flatter us, my dear. You need not give us any credit when it’s so obvious that you walked out that door under your own power and by your own decision. There’s no reason to act as though you ever cared about what these folks who you scoff at as having no “reason”, who you claim don’t “love” anyone, and who you insist are nothing but self-righteous liars thought.
#34
And your sweet, precious lord BJ did what?
Oh yeah. He handed gay Americans some of the most anti-gay legislation ever. But then again, he claimed to have cried when he signed it.
AWWWWWW!!! So gays will bite the pillow as long as we’re told he cried. Nevermind that he bragged about it to score political points.
I’m shocked that you guys immediately chased that red herring…
This resolution was also opposed by Christian groups in the US.
Links please… or did you pull that out of the sky?
How can you expect those on the left to care that muslim governments systematically wipe out gays in their country? Leftists are bigoted against Christians, not Muslims! And when they’re not mass murdering gays, oppressing women, arresting people for singing and dancing, killing their daughters for looking at boys, etc, Muslims tend to say mean things about The Evil One Chimpy McHitler. And attacking the nexus of leftist bigotry and hatred gives you a lot of brownie points.
Worth repeating, PUNISHED BY DEATH. Take a good look at the photos of the two teenage boys being hung in Iran in 2005. I have never, ever heard or read of a Republican suggesting we adopt such practices. HRC and the like seem to equate marriage amendments with such actions my Muslim nations. Farcical.
Oh, and BTW, to the guy who claims a Quaker background a question. How many times have you used the word hate in your posts here? A dozen? More? I would suggest you look a little deeper into Quaker teachings, hate of anykind will not be found among them.
Chase, it´s admirable that the Quakers were aboloitionists but the Pennsylvania Quakers didn´t like the native American. They gave them virus infested blankets that nearly wiped out the tribe. So much for peace lovers.
I believe you mean, j’espere qu’il soit fort!
5: No, he said Christian groups. You said ALL Christian groups. Big difference. Is twisting othere people’s words the only exercise you get?
Enemies have at times in history been united in their hatred for gays. When the concentration camps were liberated in 1945 – guess what group was left incarcerated as criminals? As soon as the allies found out what the pink triangles meant, they kept gays incarcerated as criminals.
Also, let’s not forget that it has been the conservative representation to the UN that has opposed even the mention of birth control in resolutions over and over. I’m sure if there wasn’t the muslim faction of hatred against gays (and as mentioned, other of our allies) then our group at the UN would probably have done it.
By the way, I think it’s pretty sad that while this is a topic that all people who are gay should unite against, this site (not surprisingly) uses the topic as a ranting attack against liberals. I’m sorry, but do you have some kind of proof where liberals are saying that gays in all other parts of the world are having an easy and wonderful time compared to us? I don’t think so. It further saddens me that instead of actually doing something to support these people who are being tortured and killed in places like Iran, you like to use them as pawns in your attack against liberals.
Sorry, but freedom is something you have to keep vigilant to protect and you’re really misguided in your attacks on groups like the HRC. You conveniently ignore the constant attacks by the organized right to deny equal rights to gays in this country and their on-going attempts to remove the equal rights we do have – I think the attempt by Virginia conservatives to write into law the disenfranchising of gay people to even enter into contracts with each other is a particularly scary move. All it takes is a few little steps in the wrong direction to lead to bigger steps….
Meanwhile, Gay antagonism toward Christians continues unabated.
Speaking of gay Iranians, you’ve GOT to see this post I stumbled on this morning. Absolutely hilarious!
lauriekendrick.wordpress.com
Best,
AC
The left rails against the anti-sodomy laws that, in many states have been overturned, as a justification for their embrace of anti-gay islamic radicals. Where and in what state´s anti-sodomy laws proscribed capital punishment for offenders?
“Something tells me that pony’s had more than one trick.”
(gasp!)
Can you imagine him at the bank?
“No, I wanted a ten, a five and five ones, dammit!
No, you anti-Christian bigot, give me what I want!
Damn you, that piece of plexiglass is a window to your dark soul, bitch…now gimme my money!
Hey, what’s the problem? Just let me get my money, I just want my money…!
Don’t tase me, bro’…No!…Arrrgh, arrgh…arrrrrrrgh…!
To be seen on YouTube — stay tuned!
**********************************
I believe you mean, j’espere qu’il soit fort!
No, I mean ‘…j’espere qu’il est fort!’
No, he said Christian groups. You said ALL Christian groups. Big difference.
If he had meant “some”, he would have said “some”. If he had meant “a few”, he would have said “a few”.
Instead he opened his mouth and made his bigotry obvious — just as you did when you screamed that people who are of a certain religious belief should be denied government jobs or positions.
That’s what also makes your cries of “oppression” hilarious. You’re screaming about your “constitutional rights” being violated when you openly support breaking the First Amendment because of your antireligious bigotry.
And as for Virginia’s law, since you allege you have proof that it invalidates all contracts of any sort between gay people, provide it.
#45. Kevin, “When the concentation camps were liberated in 1945 … they kept gays incarcerated as criminals” I would be interested as to where you received that information. I was in Germany all during 1945 and this is the first that I heard that. I admit that I could not be all over Germany at one time, but I have talked with many GIs, Germans and I was at Dachau a few days after it was liberated where I talked with a ex-Jewish personer. At another time a Lutheren pastor told me that he was freed by the American Army the day before he was supposed to be hanged.
At no time was I told that homosexuals were kept in prison. In fact that word never came up at any time. Who was supposed to do this – Americans or Germans? During the period of Occupation there were many mistakes made but I can not believe this was one of them
52- NDT, he really didn’t say “all contracts” in his post. It seems that you’ve interpreted a plural noun to mean “every possible example of that noun,” but that’s not really the way the English language works. A plural noun means “more than one,” and the implied default is not “all,” it is “some.”
If I say, “My father used to hunt ducks,” I am obviously not saying, “My father used to hunt all ducks.” Further, there is no onus on me to specify, “My father used to hunt some ducks.”
Insisting otherwise does not make a different interpretation accurate, and certainly, what’s the point of insisting that someone was referring to “all” of a category when they themselves indicate that that was not what their grammatically correct statement was intended to communicate?
Try again, Phil.
I quote:
I think the attempt by Virginia conservatives to write into law the disenfranchising of gay people to even enter into contracts with each other is a particularly scary move.
Again, cough up the proof, Phil. Kevin insists that gay people in Virginia have no right to even enter into contracts with each other.
Instead of spinning and trying to obfuscate, provide proof and evidence. You can do that, can’t you?
Post 55-
The state of Virginia has been pretty clear about that.
Here’s a quote from the Washington Post:
It goes on to add that any such union, contract or arrangement entered into in any other state, “and any contractual rights created thereby,” are “void and unenforceable in Virginia.”
Here’s the link, so you can read it in context:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36314-2004Jun12.html
This is from the Washington Blade:
…the Marriage Affirmation Act, which bars gay couples in Virginia from forming contracts that resemble marriage rights.
http://washingtonblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=3427
I think it’s pretty clear that Virginia conservatives tried to write laws to prevent gay people from entering into contracts, and those articles (along with countless others, man, we’re talking about a pretty heavily-debated and controversial state law) help make clear _which_ contracts. (No one here has claimed that Virginia tried to bar gays from entering into all contracts.)
This is not to say that Virginia is nearly as oppressive as a fundamentalist Muslim regime. But why argue semantics?
Again, Phil, I repeat the very clear quote from Kevin:
I think the attempt by Virginia conservatives to write into law the disenfranchising of gay people to even enter into contracts with each other is a particularly scary move.
And the article you cited from Rauch insists that the law bans all private contracts between gays.
In the Marriage Affirmation Act, Virginia appears to abridge gay individuals’ right to enter into private contracts with each other.
He then compares gays in Virginia to slaves, who were completely denied the ability to make contracts, and claims the same is happening.
What you’re doing is spinning and trying to cover up a clear example of gay leftist duplicity and hysteria. Virginia’s law does not ban all private contracts between gays, but hysterical gays like Rauch and Kevin have to claim it does for propaganda purposes.
Do they think the American people don’t know they’re lying? Why must they associate homosexuality with public lies and propaganda?
I agree completely that the gay people in the greatest risk are those in the Muslim countries. There are other human rights abuses there as well (and related).
We should be forming coalitions with other groups. It seems that countries either respect human rights or they do not. The same places that oppress ethnic minorities and women are also hostile to gays.
But what do you suggest that we do to change that situation? I’m being serious and not facetious or sarcastic. I, and most gay people, are horrified at human rights abuses around the world. We just don’t know what to do to make a difference.
So, the difference between being brutally executed and not being able to create a certain form of contract is a semantic difference to you?
I don’t think that word means what you think that word means.
So is it Bush’s fault, or is it due to global warming?
Let’s hope not. The government has absolutely no business telling others whom they may and may not employ or associate with. None.
61 agreed.
25. do you know if there’s a list of nations with the criminal penalties for sexual orientation available? and no, Ian, “Not being allowed to mary” is not a criminal penalty. i’d find that facinating.
One of the arguments against the Ohio DOMA was that the Ammendment said that no one would be allowed to have any sort of contracts and it was doom and gloom. I read the current Defence of Marriage Act and it was the exact same language. Since the inquisution hadn’t started already, I dismissed the arguements against it as false.
Still waiting for the predicted inquisition.
Again, please admit there’s a world of difference between a DOMA and a hanging. Then we can talk like adults.
Did these gentlemen help or hurt their cause by disrupting Ban Ki-Moon’s speech in San Francisco? In the land of the free are they brave?
http://www.zombietime.com/ban_ki-moon_in_sf/
#45#53. I stated in #53 that while I was in Germany all during 1945, I had never heard the work “homosexual”. That is correct – I had never heard it but I saw it written once. Soon after the War was over, we received a flyer sent from Washington reminding us of the non-fraternization law. According to that paper the SS troops were all psychopathic homosexuals.
I was never in the Russian Zone (not allowed), so Kevin you could possible be right there.
Given that the gay left doesn’t seem to give a damn about gays in other parts of the world, I’d be inclined to say yes.
Case in point: This week I’ve gotten two e-mails from HRC regarding ENDA and one today about a hate crimes vote tomorrow. You have to go to their website to find one measley little paragraph denouncing Ahmadinejad’s comments at Columbia.
Besides, who is it that’s forcing students to read the Koran, installing footbaths and teaching tolerance toward Muslims in schools? Meanwhile you can’t pray in school, read the Bible or even mention God without being strung up by your testicles on the flag pole. All thanks to the elite liberal left.
So, the difference between being brutally executed and not being able to create a certain form of contract is a semantic difference to you?
No, what I meant was that arguing about the correct use of plurals in the English language was semantics.
That is, if the issue at hand is that gays are being persecuted severely in Muslim countries and moderately in states like Virginia, what is the purpose of NorthDallasThirty creating a straw man by arguing about whether another poster claimed that “Virginia bans all contracts between gays,” versus, “Virginia bans some contracts between gays.”
It’s a semantic argument when the person NDT is arguing with did not put forth, and is not putting forth, a claim that Virginia bans all possible contracts between gay persons. The simple fact is that Virginia _does_ ban some contracts between gays. NDT is focusing on a bit of vagueness in the way a sentence is constructed, then misinterpreting the speaker, and then arguing about the meaning of the original sentence, as if the misinterpretation were the intended meaning.
For example, NDT provides the following quote:
In the Marriage Affirmation Act, Virginia appears to abridge gay individuals’ right to enter into private contracts with each other.
…he presents that statement as if it is Rauch insisting “that the law bans all private contracts between gays.” In fact, the statement quoted does not “insist” or even imply that Virginia bans _all_ private contracts. At most, one could say that Rauch’s statement is ambiguous, but there are no context clues in the statement that indicate Rauch actually intended to suggest that Virginia bans all private contracts between gays, so it is factually incorrect to interpret the statement as such, absent some special knowledge.
And, as I said, such discussion is semantics, if the point is whether Virginia does ban any private contracts between gays. It does, and that point is not in contention. There are, indeed, private contracts that Virgin bans. Additionally, Muslim countries enact horrific penalties upon persons for engaging in gay behavior, and that fact is not in contention.
At most, one could say that Rauch’s statement is ambiguous, but there are no context clues in the statement that indicate Rauch actually intended to suggest that Virginia bans all private contracts between gays, so it is factually incorrect to interpret the statement as such, absent some special knowledge.
How about a few more paragraphs down?
Slaves could not enter into contracts because they were the property of others rather than themselves; nor could children, who were wards of their parents. To be barred from contract, the founders understood, is to lose ownership of oneself.
To abridge the right of contract for same-sex partners, then, is to deny not just gay coupledom, in the law’s eyes, but gay personhood. It disenfranchises gay people as individuals. It makes us nonpersons, subcitizens. By stripping us of our bonds to each other, it strips us even of ownership of ourselves.
Rauch is comparing gay people to slaves, who were barred from making any form of contract.
Ambuiguity is lost. Hysteria and hyperbole become obvious.
#68–
When you requested proof that Virginia was preventing gay people from entering into contracts, I searched and found two publicly available sources that established that my claim was factual.
If you have a problem with the tone or the “hyperbole” of Rauch, I really have no personal knowledge or connection to him, but you may wish to take it up with him. Certainly, he compared gay people–and children–to slaves. It may be hyperbole, and it may be cheesy rhetoric, but comparisons, and analogies, are a common literary device.
May I ask: do you believe that it is right for a state to deprive gay people of the right to enter into private contracts with each other for benefits afforded automatically to married couples? I don’t get a sense of personal stance from you. I condemn the Muslim world’s treatment of gays, and I also condemn the state of Virginia’s treatment of gays. I think posters on this thread are absolutely right that the gay community should do more to combat Islamic bigotry, but don’t think it follows that we must also accept Virginia’s discrimination, simply because it isn’t as severe.
I’m sorry. I didn’t realize that as a member of the Democratic Party I had to be in lock step agreement with everything that any other Democrat might say.
If you’re going to attribute to me every ridiculous ideological or social belief that is ever espoused by a Democrat, simply because we belong to the same political party, then I’ll just assume that you’re political philosophy encompasses that of Randy Weaver, Timothy McVeigh and Eric Robert Rudolph, as well.
So, NorthDallasThirty, how many federal agents do you plan on murdering once Hillary Rodham Clinton is the President?
You saw what happened to Miller and worse, Lieberman. There’s a guaranteed ass kicking if you don’t tow the line. Don’t think for a second that you’re immune. Best keep your mouth shut if you know what’s good for you.
Think Bush doesn’t tolerate dissent? Try crossing Soros.
53: I originally learned this information in my college history courses on the Holocaust Here’s just one link discussing it (with references to citations of information): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexual_people_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust. Unlike other prisoners of the camps, those who survived continued to be treated as criminals, with their time in the camps being counted incarceration for criminal offenses. When I did a search, it came back with 1.6 mil hits on gay, nazi, concentration camp – so there’s a lot of information out there on this topic.
59: never know what might happen if you are so sheepish to think that that everything will be ok if you give up “some of your freedoms”
Just to go off-topic for a second, and maybe inspire a new topic thread, since none of the Demonrat Front Runners would commit to unconditional withdrawal from Iraq at last night’s debate… Who all thinks that Kevin, Ian, and the rest of the surrender-monkeys will spin 180 degrees and become supporters of Victory in Iraq once a Democrat takes over in the White House?
Kevin, I never used the phrase “some of your freedoms” in response #59. Do you really understand what quotation marks are used for?
If you’re going to attribute to me every ridiculous ideological or social belief that is ever espoused by a Democrat, simply because we belong to the same political party, then I’ll just assume that you’re political philosophy encompasses that of Randy Weaver, Timothy McVeigh and Eric Robert Rudolph, as well.
Not much of a threat, since you do already.
And TGC is absolutely right; look at the hatchet job your party did on Lieberman for refusing to obey. Or what it does to black Americans who disagree with it, or what it does to gay Americans who disagree with it.
Better pull that barge and tote that bale, Chase cuz your democrat massuhs will beat your ass if you don’t.
Well, I make jokes about Lieberman sometimes too since I don’t agree with much of his foreign policy positions. At the same time, I remember that I agree with Lieberman on like 90% of the other issues.
A lot of Democrats lose sight of that. When it comes to our domestic agenda, Lieberman is a reliable vote for the Democrats.
#78: Ah, the Democrat agenda: socialism at home, surrender abroad. 2009 – 2013 is shaping up to be a repeat of the Carter Administration.
#
&2. Kevin. I finally got around to reading Wikipedia org. History of Homosexuals in NAZI Germany,. According to these articles, you may be right. The homosexuals may have been kept in prison after we liberated Germany. But I can not believe that there were many or I in some way would have been made aware of it.
I know the gays were persecuted while Hitler was dictator but that is true in every country controlled by a dictator. Good Ole Uncle Joe and Castro are two good examples that I personnelly know of. Which makes me wonder, why does liberals love Castro especially our liberal news media?
#78 I rhink you’ve hit the point too many people are losing sight of. I think it goes “The good is not the enemy of the perfect” or some such. Whoever remembers that first, wins.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. It’s Voltaire.
I had been thinking about that quote lately because it applies perfectly to the liberals’ plans to socialize our healthcare system. The closer you try to get to perfection, the more elusive it will become until you’ve gone so far that you have sacrificed the “good” that you were trying to improve on.
hi ..
this is a muslim gay guy from pakistan..
some views here shown are quite good..
keep up the god work.. love