Comments on: GayPatriot Critic Defends W’s Advocacy for Gays in Islamic Lands

By: The_Livewire

The_Livewire — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:42:13 +0000

Hmm, kind of quibbling in the article.

‘We condem this kind of language’
‘What about Mookie Al Sadir?’
‘No comment’

By: The other Peter H

The other Peter H — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:10:25 +0000

When did we come out and condemn violence against gay people as a country? Headline news in India. Should we know who Ian Kelly is?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/US-condemns-anti-gay-violence-in-Iraq/articleshow/4642419.cms

By: The other Peter H

The other Peter H — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:09:09 +0000

Ugh! Wrong comment… Please delete above…

By: Peter Hughes

Peter Hughes — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:50:23 +0000

#7 – DDGR, if the previous administration had ever tried using the “he might have meant this” argument with GWB, we would have never heard the end of it. But the State-Run Media gives The Snob benefit of the doubt.

Bias? What liberal state-run emasculated media bias?

Regards,
Peter H.

By: DoDoGuRu

DoDoGuRu — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:52:09 +0000

It’s amusing to me how often Obama gets the benefit of the penumbral “he might have meant this, so he did” argument.

By: ThatGayConservative

ThatGayConservative — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:42:31 +0000

By that very argument, George W. Bush was a regular defender of the rights of gay people.

I missed the exchange, but I would have said pretty much the same thing.

Further, am I to understand that Chairman Obama proclaims that we can’t insist our values on other countries and then he does it anyway?

By: Duffy - Native Intelligence

Duffy - Native Intelligence — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 01:48:36 +0000

Huh??? I am supposed to believe that the quote has anything do with advocating for gay rights? I suppose that I need someone to “translate” all that the Democratic President says to what it actually means. Humm…we probably need another government department to accomplish that in my lifetime.

By: ILoveCapitalism

ILoveCapitalism — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:38:33 +0000

let’s hope gay groups acknowledge [Bush's pro-freedom, and thus pro-gay] efforts.

That’ll be the day.

By: ILoveCapitalism

ILoveCapitalism — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:37:12 +0000

GPW, thanks for the hat tip.

By: Leah

Leah — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:54:07 +0000

That kind of parsing and innuendo only work if the person is question is a Democrat. Then we can infer that he actually was standing up for gay rights.

No matter how many times a Republican says the same things, it can never be considered in any way pro gay, or pro any minority. It is simply meaningless words. Even if those words were followed up by real action, like freeing the people of Iraq and allowing democracy to take root there.

Unfortunately in Iraq gays are being treated the same as everywhere else in the Arab world, they are being tortured and murdered in vile ways. Liberating the Iraqis from tyranny did not change that at all.

By: Ignatius

Ignatius — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:36:36 +0000

I don’t appreciate it when foreign visitors arrive on our shores and proceed to criticize how we choose to live, whether through the United Nations, news articles, speeches, or flying planes into buildings. It isn’t Obama’s job to advocate for homosexuals in foreign lands, particularly as a visitor. As President, he only indirectly advocates for the lawful tolerance of homosexuals in his own unless he makes explicit statements otherwise. As to his statements, I disagree with some aspects of the Obama statement you’ve quoted — particularly the invocation of ‘human rights’ — but I generally agree with lazarus: expecting him to lecture his hosts is unreasonable and unproductive; to do so might in fact be counterproductive and dangerous to the very victims whose only connection to you that has earned your advocacy is sexual orientation.

Is an implied advocacy enough? Some minds and cultures are very slow to change, but I think it can be safely assumed without any undue generosity (political or otherwise) that neither Bush nor Obama are at all in agreement with the treatment of these victims. While I consider the Cairo speech a mostly vague potboiler, requiring the recitation of a laundry list of subcultures particularly during such an anticipated address is highly strange.