Gay Patriot Header Image

Will Gay Groups Criticize Mean-Spirited Tactics of Angry Prop 8 Opponents?

Opponents of California’s Proposition 8 claim that in taking issue with those who favor the traditional definition of marriage, they’re standing against hate (or H8, as some put it).  And while, to be sure, there has been some mean-spirited rhetoric from supporters of the successful ballot initiative, the bulk of the hatred in this debate has come from those opposing the initiative.

In an article in yesterday’s Business section, even the New York Times acknowledged as much:

FOR the backers of Proposition 8, the state ballot measure to stop single-sex couples from marrying in California, victory has been soured by the ugly specter of intimidation.

Some donors to groups supporting the measure have received death threats and envelopes containing a powdery white substance, and their businesses have been boycotted.

In her post linking the article, Michelle Malkin asks, “What took” the supposed paper of record “so damn long?

I would offer that it upsets their narrative, that the ugly tactics of intimidation are supposed to come from social conservatives, in this case, those opposing gay marriage and not the supposedly progressive advocates of social change..

Now, I don’t hold all gay marriage advocates responsible for the mean-spirited tactics of the most extreme supporters. Indeed, I don’t even hold most protesters responsible, provided they did not carry hateful posters or shout mean-spirited epithets.

That said, it would be nice if they could distance themselves from such tactics by condemning them and pressing for a civil and serious discussion of the meaning of marriage and the imperative of the state recognition of same-sex marriages.

By standing against these angry and juvenile tactics, they would help show not only that they are serious about having that conversation, but also about the importance of extending the benefits and responsibilities of that ancient institution to same-sex couples.

Why are they so afraid to condemn the mean-spirited tactics and rhetoric?  Does it upset their narrative too?  Or, are do they approve of such tactics?

ADDENDUM: If you can provide links to any gay groups or blogs condemning these tactics and/or rhetoric, I will link them in this post.

Share

62 Comments

  1. After so many centuries of oppression followed by a few decades of oppression, I can why some gay people are angry about the Prop 8 debate. I object to you agreeing with Michelle and you lumping together two different groups. I have no trouble with the activists boycotting businesses that supported Prop 8. But I’m quite sure that the death threat people are not the kind of people who I have any desire to meet. In fact, they should be harshly condemned.

    But I don’t think the real issue for conservative gay people today to toady to the line of conservative homophobes about this. Instead, we need to work to make sure that gay groups don’t follow feminists and racial groups into the awful twilight of having achieved every legitimate goal and starting to pursue silly leftist goals. I say gay marriage and we shut up!

    Comment by thuja — February 8, 2009 @ 8:55 pm - February 8, 2009

  2. Um, thuja, how I am toadying to conservative homophobes?

    I think we need criticize the angry activists precisely to prevent ourselves from becoming like the feminist and racial groups. It would be a sign that we recognize the serious objections to gay marriage and wish to engage them on the plane of ideas.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 8, 2009 @ 9:31 pm - February 8, 2009

  3. What “centuries of oppression”? The only oppression homosexuals have experienced is that which they have brought on themselves since the self-defeating tactics of Stonewall. If you actually read history, you’ll see that homosexuals have always had well-established social roles. Look at Ancient Greece, Egypt, Native American societies, the liturgies of the Middle Ages, Michelangelo in the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Ruskin and Tchaikovsky in the Romantic era, Tennyson, Thoreau, Whitman, the photos of cowboy couples, etc. etc. you’ll see that homosexuals have never been oppressed. That is a gay myth. They’ve also been able to visit each other in hospitals, raise children, etc.

    It is only since Stonewall that gays have experienced oppression. Since Stonewall, there has been a world-wide backlash. Pride parades and rallies have caused people to misunderstand homosexuality and associate it the most subversive and angry part of society. The Prop 8 protests have only reinforced Stonewall stereotypes and hardened people’s resolve to refuse any legal backing of same-sex relationships.

    I support Prop. 8. Homosexual couples have an important, but different, place in society. Civil unions will give us the chance to build lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships which are “separate but better.” We don’t need to call it marriage because it isn’t–it is faithful same-sex love, like that between the clearly not-oppressed Achilles and Patroclus, Sergius and Bacchus, and all those loyal couples who serve as our greatest examples.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — February 8, 2009 @ 9:57 pm - February 8, 2009

  4. Ashpenaz,

    Uhh, so your argument is that it’s only since gays came out of the closet that they faced oppression? Do you believe gay people should go back into the closet? Are you closeted yourself?

    Comment by esurience — February 8, 2009 @ 11:53 pm - February 8, 2009

  5. Uhh, so your argument is that it’s only since gays came out of the closet that they faced oppression?

    Actually, no; it’s that only since gays decided to link sexual orientation with being promiscuous antireligious bigot leftists that they’ve had problems.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 9, 2009 @ 12:12 am - February 9, 2009

  6. So… in, say the 1800s one was free to be openly homosexual, and to publicly have a relationship (IE, not kept secret out of fear of retribution), and that only changed when the Stonewall riots happened, and the general public changed its stance and states changed their laws?

    Oppression did not start at Stonewall. That is absurd

    Comment by Bart M — February 9, 2009 @ 12:51 am - February 9, 2009

  7. It is only since Stonewall that gays have experienced oppression.

    Actually, no; it’s that only since gays decided to link sexual orientation with being promiscuous antireligious bigot leftists that they’ve had problems.

    Really? How about the Buggery Act brought into law in 1534 which proscribed the death penalty for homosexual sex. Ashpenaz, do you not believe that mandating the death penalty for homosexual sex constitutes oppression? North Dallas Thirty, do you not believe it constitutes a problem?

    Ashpenaz, are you aware that Stonewall wasn’t just a spontaneous riot, but was a response to a police raid? Are you aware that the New York State Liquor Authority disallowed bars from serving homosexuals alcohol? Do you not believe that this constitutes oppression? Do you not think it worthy of a response — a demand — for civil rights?

    Asphenaz, North Dallas Thirty: Now that I’ve disproved your claims, please retract them.

    Comment by esurience — February 9, 2009 @ 12:52 am - February 9, 2009

  8. I can only partically agree with Achpenaz and NDT. At our induction in the army in 1942 the Head Shrink asked each of us if we fucked and if we liked it. That made us furious. We had no idea what it was all about. We had never heard the word “queer” used as a noun. Regardless of what some of us told him, we were all sworn into the army at the end of the day. That is all but one. He claimed that he was illiterate and when the Shrink started to ask him the same question, he notice on his card that he was an illiterate, so he changed the question and asked him who the president was. The boy with a slow drawl said, “I don’t know but they tell me that it is some dam dumb Roosevelt”.

    As I look back over it now I realize that there were a number of the guys that was homosexual but we were all buddies and in many cases that was even being closer than brothers. However after the war homosexuals were treated very badly. At one party, in 1949, while I was working for the FFA, one guy kissed another lightly on the cheek. He was fired the next day. I don’t know why we went from one extreme to another. However, President Truman was partly to blame with his remark about homosexuals.

    John

    Comment by John W — February 9, 2009 @ 2:13 am - February 9, 2009

  9. Uhh, so your argument is that it’s only since gays came out of the closet that they faced oppression?

    That happens when you chose to piss people off.

    Ashpenaz, do you not believe that mandating the death penalty for homosexual sex constitutes oppression? North Dallas Thirty, do you not believe it constitutes a problem?

    The liberals, here in the U.S. have passed the most anti-gay laws. They oppose gay marriage and regularly side with bigoted homophobes. Consider Chairman Obama. He campaigned with bigots & homophobes, opposes gay marriage, refused to speak with the gay media, refused to be, knowingly, photographed with gays and yet gay liberals still throat the cocks of the DNC, who fired their gay community laison because his bf wouldn’t tow the line.

    What could be more “self-hating than that? Do you not believe that constitutes a problem, e-surance?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 9, 2009 @ 6:18 am - February 9, 2009

  10. Are you aware that the New York State Liquor Authority disallowed bars from serving homosexuals alcohol? Do you not believe that this constitutes oppression?

    Refusing to serve alcohol to people constitutes oppression? So when a bartender cuts you off and refuses to serve you, that’s “oppression”? When a liquor store refuses to sell to minors, that’s “oppression”?

    Really, e-surance? REALLY???

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 9, 2009 @ 6:21 am - February 9, 2009

  11. Refusing to serve alcohol to people constitutes oppression? So when a bartender cuts you off and refuses to serve you, that’s “oppression”? When a liquor store refuses to sell to minors, that’s “oppression”?

    1. To a specific group of adults, and not to others, yes.
    2. No.
    3. No.

    Really? How about the Buggery Act brought into law in 1534 which proscribed the death penalty for homosexual sex.

    I think that constituted oppression as well. As well as sodomy laws.

    The liberals, here in the U.S. have passed the most anti-gay laws. They oppose gay marriage and regularly side with bigoted homophobes. Consider Chairman Obama. He campaigned with bigots & homophobes, opposes gay marriage, refused to speak with the gay media, refused to be, knowingly, photographed with gays and yet gay liberals still throat the cocks of the DNC, who fired their gay community laison because his bf wouldn’t tow the line.

    I agree with that somewhat. There’s plenty of blame to give the Democrats. Unfortunately, the Republicans in the six years they controlled the White House and Congress from 2001-2007, for example, did not overturn DOMA or DADT. In fact, the president pushed for FMA, which was overwhelmingly supported by Republicans.

    I think Ashpenaz’s point is that as long as gay persons “behaved” themselves in a certain manner, like leaving freedom for others, and using euphemisms, such as “confirmed bachelor” and “roommate,” you might escape jail time or the death penalty. So that, somehow, is not oppression.

    Comment by Pat — February 9, 2009 @ 6:52 am - February 9, 2009

  12. And the silence of condemnation on the left is… par for the course. As to Ashpenaz’s comments, he was likely referring to the historical precidents as the Thebian Speckled Band, the poetry of Sapho, and the relations of Heracles and his sidekick in the Iliad.

    And as for ‘centuries of persecution’ *feh* are you now comparing being gay with being Jewish? Or Rrom? Or even left handers?

    Comment by The Livewire — February 9, 2009 @ 7:08 am - February 9, 2009

  13. Ack, filtered. Hmm, S-a-p-h-o

    Comment by The Livewire — February 9, 2009 @ 7:10 am - February 9, 2009

  14. Pat
    “I think Ashpenaz’s point is that as long as gay persons “behaved” themselves in a certain manner, like leaving freedom for others….” Yes, that part is correct. As long as gay persons accepted their “tolerated” and “illegal to be discriminated against” status , everyone else was fine. It was when the very hostile and in-your-face gay lobby decided that that wasn’t enough – and rallied to force Everyone to Embrace the homosexual lifestyle as elevated, normal, and “just like marriage” that the “homosexual” tag became downright offensive to others. (a la the Prop 8 fallout disgrace) It is not – for all people – a good or right thing to have sex with your same gendered partner. For many faiths, it is not right to have sex with anyone to whom you are not married, for the purposes of having children. It conflicts with many theologies and many many social constructs of our heritage. People can accept that some choose an alternate lifestyle. But they will not accept that their ancient and faith-based traditions are stomped on by this hostile (criminal a la Prop 8) lobby. There is a clear differentiation between people who sincerely feel thattheir life partner is of their same gender and the very vocal, shock-n-awe, SanFran FreakShow gays who just want to tear down other people’s norms.

    Comment by suze — February 9, 2009 @ 8:58 am - February 9, 2009

  15. “Gay” is a euphemism–it is a word which does not state directly what it means. “Drag” is a euphemism. “Queer” is a euphemism. “Rest room” is a euphemism. “Sleeping together” is a euphemism. Yes, “confirmed bachelor” is a euphemism as is “beloved friend” and “devoted uncle.” A euphemism is not being in denial or in the closet. It is signalling the truth to those who know how to interpret the signal, and allowing people space if they choose not to interpret the signal.

    Lincoln slept in the same bed with another man for many years. No oppression. Tennyson wrote an incredibly popular poem to another man. No oppression. Whitman talked freely about his sexuality. No oppression. The same for Richard I, Michelangelo, Achilles, Alexander, Lawrence of Arabia, D. H. Lawrence–no oppression. Cowboy couples, Native American Two-Spirits, Enlightenment inverts–no oppression.

    There is nothing in the “gay gene” about subverting tradition or freeing people from patriarchal structures. Homosexuals have simply moved from euphemism to euphemism throughout history, adapting themselves to society, playing their required roles as confirmed bachelors, gay blades, devoted friends, and comrades-in-arms. Being homosexual does mean being “in your face” and it is not oppression to wear a social mask–everyone does it.

    Creating a culture of victimhood, which began with Stonewall, creates a backlash. Supporting Prop 8 gives us a chance to show we are not undermining marriage. Civil unions shows we are willing to create our own social roles, as we have always done. We can be “separate but better,” as we have always been.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — February 9, 2009 @ 10:13 am - February 9, 2009

  16. Umm–corrections–being homosexual does *not* mean being in your face. Also civil unions *show* we are willing. . . .Where’s that darn edit button?!?

    Comment by Ashpenaz — February 9, 2009 @ 10:16 am - February 9, 2009

  17. I have been gay all my life and have never ever experienced “oppression,” “hatred” or “contempt” except from other gays who found out I was a conservative Republican. Everyone else treated me with respect and dignity.

    Maybe it’s because I never went around pretending to be a screaming liberal queer victim. If you want to be respected, you first have to respect yourself.

    And I don’t know who on the thread stupidly claimed that “sodomy laws” were intended to discriminate against gays. If you knew history, you would know that in the south and west, sodomy laws were put in place to protect women who were the victims of rape whose attackers used the back door instead of the front. A rapist could get charged with both rape and sodomy depending upon the approach he used.

    Really, the ignorance on the left is utterly appalling.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 9, 2009 @ 10:54 am - February 9, 2009

  18. Actually, no; it’s that only since gays decided to link sexual orientation with being promiscuous antireligious bigot leftists that they’ve had problems.

    Bingo.

    Aw, Hell… I’m just going to come out and say it. At least the closet had a kind of sincere, quiet dignity that contemporary screaming, drama queen gay culture lacks. It is a shame that gay culture has come to be defined by what ought to be the fringe.

    Comment by V the K — February 9, 2009 @ 11:04 am - February 9, 2009

  19. If you want to be respected, you first have to respect yourself.

    Liberals cannot respect themselves because they are perennial victims. As the insipid Cher whined over the weekend, she doesn’t understand how any minority could be a Republican. Liberals are liberals because they identify internally as victims of… life. They cant get ahead because someone else is keeping them down. They cant have stable relationships because others wont validate them. It is the responsibility of government to take care of them… The power in their lives always resides with someone else. Liberalism is incompatible with self-respect.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 9, 2009 @ 11:25 am - February 9, 2009

  20. As the insipid Cher whined over the weekend, she doesn’t understand how any minority could be a Republican.

    Blogged about it…

    http://tehresistance.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/newsflash-insipid-celebrity-git-hates-republicans/

    Comment by Gregory of Yardale — February 9, 2009 @ 11:59 am - February 9, 2009

  21. Homosexuals have been persecuted and accepted for millenia depending upon the time, place, and culture. The violent, screaming activism we’ve seen re. 8 is a recent development but so are the constructs of civil unions, gay adoption, etc. Is there a rough parallel in the relationship between the priveleges extended to homosexuals and many homosexuals’ self-perceived victim status, i.e. the more they’ve been granted the more they demand? Probably some indirect causality, but that shouldn’t determine the value of any legal/social construct nor its beneficiaries.

    Anyone who suggests that persecution of gays is a recent phenomenon should read the biography of Oscar Wilde. (I’m sure there are many earlier examples, but I’ve only had one cup of coffee.) Anyone who thinks gays have been history’s most persecuted population should read about the First Triumvirate.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 9, 2009 @ 12:06 pm - February 9, 2009

  22. The most persecuted people in the world now are the gays in Iran. But Iran is a friend of the Liberals. I suppose being hanged is not half as bad as being denied a marriage ceremony.

    Comment by John W — February 9, 2009 @ 12:58 pm - February 9, 2009

  23. Don’t EVEN play the Oscar Wilde card, girlfriend! (snap!) Wilde’s problems were only indirectly related to homosexuality. Mostly, it had to with his boyfriend’s crazy father. The set of circumstances which led to Wilde being in prison are entirely unique and not an example of homosexual persecution everywhere throughout all time.

    So. Think of another example of a noted person suffering gay oppression and persecution. Go on. I’ll wait. Do-de-do. Hum, hum. Weeeee-ooooo. Nothing yet? Keep thinking.

    Now, think of Michelangelo. He was in one of the most oppressive atmospheres ever–The Vatican (low organ music)!!!! He was openly homosexual. Everyone knew how he worked late into the night with his models. He also wrote openly erotic sonnets to his various beloved friends. No oppression. He lived to a ripe old age, in the company of attractive young men. What would happen if we looked to Michelangelo as our hero instead of Harvey Milk? Is there really any comparison?

    Comment by Ashpenaz — February 9, 2009 @ 1:05 pm - February 9, 2009

  24. Wow, what a collection of denial and revisionist history. Raids on gay establishments, laws about wearing clothing of the “correct” gender, anti-sodomy laws, fear of exposure, shame, the threat of losing you job JUST for being gay and on and on and on, are all OK. The answer to all of the above is to be really really good, deny your relationships, sneak around in the dark to meet people, don’t gather together, don’t EVER admit that you are a homosexual and then MAYBE you won’t get fired, beat up, thrown out of your church or despised by your family. Accept the fact that you are sick, depraved, disgusting, less than a man and most importantly accept all the abusive names that are heaped on you. All this is acceptable to you folks?!?!?!? Stonewall didn’t cause these things, it was a response to them.

    “At least the closet had a kind of sincere, quiet dignity”

    So, go back there. In the world that you folks apparently want to live in this website would not exist. AE says liberals have no self-respect. What the F&*^ do you call advocating hiding because that’s what the closet is. Do you want to go back to the days when our relationships had to be hidden and lied about. You think it would be good that you can’t acknowledge your partner, and living together an invitation to attack?

    How you can be so blind is amazing. Obsessed with blaming liberals for everything you are willing to totally ignore and deny the reality of life in this country before the birth of enough self-respect and concern for the future to start working towards equality. And that started well before Stonewall

    You want to be outlawed, maligned and denied the liberty that EVERY citizen of this country has, that’s your problem. This has nothing to do with promiscuity or liberals or parades or protests. You admire the closet, fine you’re welcome to go back there. But spare the rest of us your pure hatred of the awful sickness you have that makes you sexually and emotionally attracted to people of the same sex. Live in your word of darkness, your choice. You enjoy the justice and freedom to live your life the way you feel is right BECAUSE of the fight of those in the past, both the battles within the system and the angry demonstrations. If you think that’s so wrong then move to some country where the only right homosexuals have is to be locked up, murdered or executed by the gov’t. That is the world you dream of so fondly.

    SOME of the actions of Prop 8 opponents are despicable and should be condemned. But there is nothing wrong with the anger and the drive to continue fighting for what we believe. Personally I think that marriage isn’t where the energy should be focused, there are plenty of other issues far more pressing. Oh wait, they don’t really exist, it’s just silly f*ggots that want to have sex all the time.

    Comment by a different Dave — February 9, 2009 @ 1:16 pm - February 9, 2009

  25. “Really, the ignorance on the left is utterly appalling.”

    So, go folk were never arrested for private, consensual sexual contact? Who cares what the laws were intended for the issue is how they were used. What’s appalling and ignorant is denial of the truth which is the same thing as approving how the laws were used. SICK

    “As long as gay persons accepted their “tolerated” and “illegal to be discriminated against” status , everyone else was fine.”

    What “illegal to be discriminated against” status EVER existed before the birth of the gay rights movement? “Tolerated”, think again there was then and there still is today a large number of people who don’t believe in “tolerating”. They resist ANY legal protections for ANY aspect of our lives. Sadly it seems that some on here support that and advocate giving in to them and returning to the “good old days”. And they are NOT a psycho fringe element as some so naively claim. When people like Sally Kern and Tom Coburn are voted in and then re-elected despite there pure hatred of homosexual (or maybe because of) the lie of “tolerating” is exposed for what it is. Y’all spend so much time attacking liberals for real and imagine sins but completely ignore (or maybe support) the threat from the right. You will reap what you sow, count on it.

    I know that the original post was about tactics and many of the responses were also. That I agree with. The “bend over then lay down so they can walk on us” is repulsive

    Comment by a different Dave — February 9, 2009 @ 1:34 pm - February 9, 2009

  26. What would happen if we looked to Michelangelo as our hero instead of Harvey Milk? Is there really any comparison?
    Um, gay relationships would be called shellbacks? Kowabunga would have an entirely new subtext?
    (Yes, I know, wrong Michelangelo, but I couldn’t resist, that’s information I didnt’ have on the painter, thank you).

    You want to be outlawed, maligned and denied the liberty that EVERY citizen of this country has, that’s your problem. And again adDave can’t provide proof of liberties for ‘every’ citizen, except him.

    If you think that’s so wrong then move to some country where the only right homosexuals have is to be locked up, murdered or executed by the gov’t. That is the world you dream of so fondly.
    If you’d look past your own petty hatreds adDave, you’d see that the world you’re talking about is Iran. You know that country that the President wants to have open negotiations with? Oh, but you conceeded the President would do or say anything to get elected.

    SOME of the actions of Prop 8 opponents are despicable and should be condemned.But adDave never will…

    Comment by The Livewire — February 9, 2009 @ 1:40 pm - February 9, 2009

  27. What would happen if we looked to Michelangelo as our hero instead of Harvey Milk? Is there really any comparison?

    Um, gay relationships would be called shellbacks? Kowabunga would have an entirely new subtext?
    (Yes, I know, wrong Michelangelo, but I couldn’t resist, that’s information I didnt’ have on the painter, thank you).

    You want to be outlawed, maligned and denied the liberty that EVERY citizen of this country has, that’s your problem.

    And again adDave can’t provide proof of liberties for ‘every’ citizen, except him.

    If you think that’s so wrong then move to some country where the only right homosexuals have is to be locked up, murdered or executed by the gov’t. That is the world you dream of so fondly.

    If you’d look past your own petty hatreds adDave, you’d see that the world you’re talking about is Iran. You know that country that the President wants to have open negotiations with? Oh, but you conceeded the President would do or say anything to get elected.

    SOME of the actions of Prop 8 opponents are despicable and should be condemned.

    But adDave never will…

    Comment by The Livewire — February 9, 2009 @ 1:42 pm - February 9, 2009

  28. whoops double post, with the second formatted correctly

    except the attributions were lost.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 9, 2009 @ 1:43 pm - February 9, 2009

  29. Re. Oscar Wilde:

    …his intimate association with Alfred Douglas led to his trial on charges of homosexuality (then illegal in Britain). He was sentenced two years hard labour for the crime of sodomy. During his first trial Wilde defended himself, that “the ‘Love that dare not speak its name’ in this century is such a great affection of an eleder for a younger man as there was between David and Jonathan, such as Plato made the very basis of his philosophy, and such as you find in the sonnets of Michelangelo and Shakespeare… There is nothing unnatural about it.” Web article here.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 9, 2009 @ 1:55 pm - February 9, 2009

  30. If You read adDave’s posts while imagining them delivered in a high-pitched “Yosemite Sam” voice while he gesticulates wildly with a pink feather boa, the entertainment value increases exponentially.

    Comment by V the K — February 9, 2009 @ 2:09 pm - February 9, 2009

  31. New York Times Has a Sick Feeling Over Eightmaps.com…

    Michelle Malkin and GayPatriot weigh in on the NYT finally getting a clue about the problem happening with some militant gay activists targeting their opponents on a local, and personal, level in California.
    Michelle writes ( cuss word alert ):
    Hell is…

    Trackback by ETC: Everyday Thoughts Collected — February 9, 2009 @ 2:50 pm - February 9, 2009

  32. #29 – Actually, V, I always thought ADD would sound a lot more like Bawney Fwank with spittle flying in all directions.

    Though I do agree about the pink boa – it would be a nice touch.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 9, 2009 @ 2:56 pm - February 9, 2009

  33. Still waiting for a non-Wilde example of a noted personality in all of human history who was ever persecuted for homosexuality.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — February 9, 2009 @ 3:42 pm - February 9, 2009

  34. Have responded. Filtered.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 9, 2009 @ 5:37 pm - February 9, 2009

  35. Peter H, I also first thought of Elmer Fudd or Porky Pig, but neither had that touch of spittle-flecked drama queen madness that adD so perfectly embodies.

    Comment by V the K — February 9, 2009 @ 6:29 pm - February 9, 2009

  36. Pink boa, that would be quite a sight. Livewire, I didn’t say that I (or we) don’t have the freedoms that other citizens do. What I said was that without the hard work of our predecessors we would not have them today. And yes, I was talking about Iran, a county where religious and secular bigotry have run wild and resulted in the hell that it is not for gay people (not exclusively gay folk either). The attitude displayed by some on here is an open invitation to that kind of attitude towards us, if not the exact same actions. If we were to cut off contact to all countries whose actions towards it’s citizens are offensive, and at times deadly, it would include a number of countries in Africa, Jamaica and others. Dialog is crucial for any kind of lasting change. Ignoring what happens in the countries in order to maintain “peace” is unforgivable. I have yet to read anyone supporting what goes on in Iran, but Matt Barber and some of the fundie crowd think that it’s a-ok that in Zimbabwe you can be arrested simply for being a homosexual. That’s the “tolerance” that some here would turn there back on in order to not be “in your face”

    And Livewire, you too join the ranks of those who claim things about me that are pure hallucination. I have and will continue to criticize the acts of violence by LGBT protesters. I will also continue to criticize those who attribute such attitudes to all the gay communities and who have never said anything positive about us.

    Comment by a different Dave — February 9, 2009 @ 9:24 pm - February 9, 2009

  37. I would argue that this violent intolerance of gays in the Middle East and Africa only began after Stonewall. Only after homosexuality became associated with subversion and undermining tradition did it cause any sort of backlash. It is certainly OK for gays to do their darndest to make “gay” mean “overthrowing the patriarchy,” but they better be prepared for a negative response in those areas where the patriarchy actually exists. It is not homosexuality per se that these countries condemn–gays were free under Saddam–it is the association of gayness with Western amoral values.

    Actually, Islam has historically pretty much ignored homosexuality–please read about Lawrence of Arabia. Or see the movie Midnight Express which says it best–”Sodomy is considered one of the greatest crimes over here, so naturally everybody does it all the time.” I keep going back to Stonewall and the subsequent Pride rallies and parades as having brought worldwide backlash against homosexuals. Those gays who take to the street with flamboyant, exotic, subversive behavior are responsible for reinforcing stereotypes and endangering the lives of innocent gays in Iran, in Africa, and all over the world.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — February 9, 2009 @ 9:43 pm - February 9, 2009

  38. Ashpenaz,

    No wonder you were banned from IGF. You were constantly spreading lies and trying to defend them with more lies. You are a pathological liar who spins a make-believe gay history. You should have your head examined if you expect anyone to believe the fairy tales (no pun intended) you pull out of your kiester.

    #1: “I say gay marriage and we shut up!”

    Fine with me. Or after that we work towards gay rights in other countries that need it badly (most of them non-Western).

    And as long as people hide behind religion to justify anti-gay attitudes, gays will respond in kind. That’s not a threat, but a promise.

    Comment by Attmay — February 9, 2009 @ 10:31 pm - February 9, 2009

  39. adDave,

    I must have missed where you condemned the actions of teh people in this post.

    Also nice to see you’ve come around and understood that Marriage is a privilege and that the government has the right to legislate it. There’s hope for you yet.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 9, 2009 @ 10:32 pm - February 9, 2009

  40. Rumi, a gay man, is considered one of the greatest Muslim poets. Muslims know that his greatest poetry was written to his beloved Shams. His popularity continues today in the Middle East. It is difficult to see the success of an openly gay poet in Islamic society unless they are mostly pretty tolerant of gays. How do you explain Rumi’s success? How do you explain the tolerance of gays like Rumi and the tolerance of gays under Saddam? (so to speak). What do you think changed their attitude and why did that change come so soon after Stonewall? Just coincidence?

    Again, I am waiting for an example of one noted person in history anywhere, anytime (before Stonewall) who was persecuted for being gay. Anyone? Anyone?

    It is interesting that my thesis, “Gays haven’t been all that oppressed, really,” isn’t greeted as good news. I would think that such a positive attitude toward gay history would be welcomed. Pointing out gay men who were fully integrated into their society, such as Michelangelo, Whitman, Ruskin, Richard I, etc., should be seen as positive and affirming, I would think. Claim all the victimhood you want and lash out at those who don’t buy it–but history simply doesn’t support gay oppression.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — February 9, 2009 @ 10:49 pm - February 9, 2009

  41. What a bunch of crock! One can not rationalize with people who are committed to be suppressed. Their reasoning is beyond comprehension. They claim not to be self hating, but their actions speak louder than words ever will. It is to bad, they will benefit from all the benefits that will come from those who fought so hard while they sniveled in the dark of self oppression.

    Comment by DaveA — February 10, 2009 @ 3:08 am - February 10, 2009

  42. And I don’t know who on the thread stupidly claimed that “sodomy laws” were intended to discriminate against gays. If you knew history, you would know that in the south and west, sodomy laws were put in place to protect women who were the victims of rape whose attackers used the back door instead of the front. A rapist could get charged with both rape and sodomy depending upon the approach he used.

    That might have been me that mentioned it, thanks. I don’t dispute how the laws originally came into being, although if you’re notion is correct, then the laws could have simply been written that those activities are only illegal in the commission of rape, as opposed to consensual sex. Regardless, in time, it has been used to mean sexual acts between persons of the same sex, and in many cases, sodomy was only legal if between opposite sex persons.

    As long as gay persons accepted their “tolerated” and “illegal to be discriminated against” status

    Suze, I’m afraid things weren’t even that good. But even so, don’t you think the goal of anyone should be a tad higher?

    “Gay” is a euphemism–it is a word which does not state directly what it means. “Drag” is a euphemism. “Queer” is a euphemism. “Rest room” is a euphemism. “Sleeping together” is a euphemism. Yes, “confirmed bachelor” is a euphemism as is “beloved friend” and “devoted uncle.” A euphemism is not being in denial or in the closet.

    Ashpenaz, “gay” used to be a euphemism. It no longer is. It is a term widely accepted to mean a person attracted to other persons of the same sex. Confirmed bachelor means a person who doesn’t want to commit to any other person. So a gay person in a committed relationship is not a “confirmed bachelor.”

    Can you imagine a woman, when introducing her husband saying, “Oh, I’m a confirmed bachelorette, this is my roommate.” I’m sure her father would love that one.

    We’re talking about freedom here. Not necessarily “in your face.” If one wants to demean his own relationships with “confirmed bachelor” or “roommate” or “dear friend,” or have no problem being called “the funny uncle” or whatever, that’s certainly one’s right. One is certainly free to return to their perception of what the 1900s or previous eras were. Don’t expect the rest of us too.

    Pointing out gay men who were fully integrated into their society, such as Michelangelo, Whitman, Ruskin, Richard I, etc., should be seen as positive and affirming, I would think.

    Um, if what you attribute to Michelangelo is true, the parade of young males, etc., that should not be affirmed as positive, especially if any of these young males were boys.

    Again, I am waiting for an example of one noted person in history anywhere, anytime (before Stonewall) who was persecuted for being gay. Anyone? Anyone?

    How about Edward II. Google him and check out what his punishment was. It’s a beaut.

    That’s great that plenty of celebrities knew how to play the game and how to survive back then. That’s great. But they did not have the option to be open and free as their straight counterparts.

    And further, it’s not all about well-known persons. We simply don’t know about the countless others who were persecuted, jailed, or put to death for being gay. And it’s funny that you mentioned Stonewall. Do you know why that happened in the first place. It started when men chose to dance with another man at the Stonewall bar. Not outside in other potentially offended straight persons, but inside a bar.

    And how about those who, even today, are persecuted by their own parents for being gay. Whether they go to a gay pride parade, or are flamboyant, or wear women’s clothes, etc. This happened before and after Stonewall. Saying, “but Mom, I just want to be a ‘confirmed bachelor’ and live with my special ‘roommate’ doesn’t seem to mitigate the persecution.

    Comment by Pat — February 10, 2009 @ 7:09 am - February 10, 2009

  43. Wow. Edward II. Thousands of years of human history and so far, we have come up with Oscar Wilde and Edward II. Does that not suggest to you that gay persecution is wildly exaggerated?

    Here’s the point–you have your opinion, I have mine. What frustrates me, and what the original blog is about, is that the gay community simply cannot tolerate dissent. I would think I’m exhibit A of a homosexual who can’t express a divergent opinion on even the most conservative gay blogs without being demeaned and insulted. Why is that?

    If I said, “Extremist pro-life rallies are causing women all over the world to die in back-alley abortions,” most gays would go, “Huzzah!” But if I say that extremist Pride rallies are causing problems for gays in conservative countries, then I’m a hate-monger. Until the gay community is willing to consider approaches other than victimhood, they will never make any gains in traditional society.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — February 10, 2009 @ 9:10 am - February 10, 2009

  44. reading the comments on this post I suddenly found myself singing Helen Reddy, with a slight twist…

    I am Victim, hear me roar
    in numbers too great to ignore…

    Comment by American Elephant — February 10, 2009 @ 10:01 am - February 10, 2009

  45. #43 – AE, we need to get you into therapy. Now. ;-)

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 10, 2009 @ 10:53 am - February 10, 2009

  46. You think that requires therapy? Oh, it gets much worse! I had a HUGE crush on Helen Reddy when Pete’s Dragon came out. (of course I was only like 7 at the time)

    Comment by American Elephant — February 10, 2009 @ 4:55 pm - February 10, 2009

  47. Wow. Edward II. Thousands of years of human history and so far, we have come up with Oscar Wilde and Edward II. Does that not suggest to you that gay persecution is wildly exaggerated?

    Ashpenaz, you asked for another name, and I gave you one. But I also pointed out that persecution happened to countless other non-celebrities/historical figures. Or they don’t count?

    Here’s the point–you have your opinion, I have mine. What frustrates me, and what the original blog is about, is that the gay community simply cannot tolerate dissent.

    You may have a point there. However…

    I would think I’m exhibit A of a homosexual who can’t express a divergent opinion on even the most conservative gay blogs without being demeaned and insulted. Why is that?

    I don’t know. The thing is, you are entitled to express your opinion, and you did. And I respect that. Now others are entitled to share their opinion as well. You’re not trying to play the victim here are you?

    Until the gay community is willing to consider approaches other than victimhood, they will never make any gains in traditional society.

    I agree, but mostly for individuals. But it goes both ways though. The gay community has plenty of faults. I think that is something we can all agree on. But one can’t keep saying it’s the gay community’s fault and blaming them for ones own shortcomings. You don’t want to use any community as an excuse for not having a partner, a social life, etc., and wait until they change to your satisfaction. If so, it’s going to be one hell of a miserable life ahead.

    Sure, I kvetch about what I believe are injustices against gay persons. I do this in the hope that things can be better for others. Just like when conservatives gripe about how bad or stupid liberals are, I don’t necessarily assume they are victims. As for me, I’m fine. Victimhood sucks.

    Comment by Pat — February 10, 2009 @ 6:04 pm - February 10, 2009

  48. But if I say that extremist Pride rallies are causing problems for gays in conservative countries, then I’m a hate-monger.

    No. It just means that you are inaccurate. That’s all.

    Comment by Pat — February 10, 2009 @ 6:07 pm - February 10, 2009

  49. How about the Buggery Act brought into law in 1534 which proscribed the death penalty for homosexual sex.

    There were also laws in 1534 that allowed the death penalty for petty theft.

    Do you have a point? And if so, what is it?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 11, 2009 @ 1:19 am - February 11, 2009

  50. You will reap what you sow, count on it.

    And that is exactly the point of this post; the gay community has reaped the seeds of promiscuity, antireligious bigotry, leftist politics, taking children to sex fairs, and spoiled-brat behavior that it sowed.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 11, 2009 @ 1:27 am - February 11, 2009

  51. Oh, and adDave, all you’ve shown on this thread is that you’re the typical screaming gay leftist who namecalls anyone who calls you and your leftist friends on their bullshit. You seem to be under the delusion that you can scream “closet queen” at everyone and we care.

    The reason we don’t is simple. We have principles. We are not going to turn a blind eye to people who advocate sexualizing five-year-olds because of their sexual orientation and insist that anyone who criticizes that hates gays, like you do. You have absolutely zero moral values or principles; your only rule is that your sexual orientation makes all the decisions for you. You are the equivalent of the black racists like Kwame Kilpatrick; you will excuse any crime, any action, anything of the sort based on your sexual orientation or that of your fellow gays, and that is why you have problems.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 11, 2009 @ 1:43 am - February 11, 2009

  52. There were also laws in 1534 that allowed the death penalty for petty theft.

    Do you have a point? And if so, what is it?

    The point is that homosexual sex, like petty theft, was recognized as a crime. That’s not enough? If heterosexual sex was also recognized as a crime punishable by death, that might be a problem as well.

    Comment by Pat — February 11, 2009 @ 6:54 am - February 11, 2009

  53. Pat, around that time, being left handed was a sign of being a witch and burned at the stake.

    your point?

    Comment by The Livewire — February 11, 2009 @ 7:01 am - February 11, 2009

  54. Pat, around that time, being left handed was a sign of being a witch and burned at the stake.

    your point?

    That homosexuals and left handed people shouldn’t have been persecuted. And these acts shouldn’t have been punishable by death. That ignorance reigned supreme back in the day. At least it doesn’t for lefthandedness anymore.

    Comment by Pat — February 11, 2009 @ 9:01 am - February 11, 2009

  55. Good thing we had Left handed pride marches, left handed affirmative action, left handed court cases…

    Oh, wait. We didn’t.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 11, 2009 @ 10:57 am - February 11, 2009

  56. #50 – And ND30, isn’t it ironic that blacks and Hispanics, who they themselves perceive as perpetual victims of a so-called “racist” society, are the first ones to the polls to vote on DOMAs? And that the black community at large is still homophobic to this day?

    I have the statistical proof in terms of voter breakdowns for any screaming liberal queen (hello, ADD) that dares to refute it.

    Go ahead. Make my day. ;-)

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 11, 2009 @ 11:03 am - February 11, 2009

  57. #50

    Perhaps you will note that “closet queen” was only mentioned in response to the one who suggested what a nice place it was.

    As usual the rest of your drool is so far off base it’s not worth answering. Maybe someday you will grow up and see how ignorant and baseless your attacks are. I doubt it.

    Comment by a different Dave — February 11, 2009 @ 11:08 am - February 11, 2009

  58. Is adDave talking to himself again?

    Comment by The Livewire — February 11, 2009 @ 3:27 pm - February 11, 2009

  59. #57 – Either to himself or one of his other personalities. Of course, he used the typical libtard “it’s-my-game-and-I’m-going-home” routine since he can’t top ND30′s logic.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 11, 2009 @ 4:45 pm - February 11, 2009

  60. Good thing we had Left handed pride marches, left handed affirmative action, left handed court cases…

    Oh, wait. We didn’t.

    Good. Glad you didn’t need to. I guess left handed persons don’t have to marry right handed persons, and marry those with the same handedness now. :-)

    isn’t it ironic that blacks and Hispanics, who they themselves perceive as perpetual victims of a so-called “racist” society, are the first ones to the polls to vote on DOMAs? And that the black community at large is still homophobic to this day?

    Yep. It’s a darn shame.

    Comment by Pat — February 11, 2009 @ 8:19 pm - February 11, 2009

  61. Perhaps you will note that “closet queen” was only mentioned in response to the one who suggested what a nice place it was.

    How quickly they forget.

    So, go back there. In the world that you folks apparently want to live in this website would not exist.

    You are not referring to a single individual. You are referring to all of us; however, as usual, you are trying to dodge and spin out of your obvious behavior because you got called on it. Just like you and your fellow liberal gays who practice and promote promiscuous sex, who spread lethal diseases to others, who are sexualizing five-year-old children, and who act like irresponsible spoiled brats try to avoid accepting any responsibility for how other people view them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 12, 2009 @ 2:29 am - February 12, 2009

  62. [...] shrill invective against proponents of the ballot initiative. Here’s one such excerpt from a February 8 post by "GayPatriotWest" entitlted, "Will Gay Groups Criticize Mean-Spirited Tactics of [...]

    Pingback by WaPo Heralds ‘Chorus’ of Gay Bloggers, Ignores Conservative GayPatriot Blog — But As For Me — February 24, 2009 @ 1:20 pm - February 24, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.