NGLTF’s Broad Definition of Hate
From the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Rea Carey’s latest fund-raising e-mail:
Right-wing hate groups, emboldened by electoral victories, are determined to halt our long march to equality and put LGBT people back in the closet.
I have to wonder: what exactly are they afraid of?
We’re working to secure the most basic of human rights: fair employment and housing … freedom from bullying and violence … the ability to care for our loved ones when they’re sick … the right to form and raise stable families.
It’s hard to imagine how anyone could be against these things. But groups like the Tea Party, Focus on the Family and the National Organization for Marriage want to turn back the clock — and they’re raising millions to finance their campaigns of discrimination and hate.
It’s one thing to criticize these groups and their agenda, quite another to call them “hate groups.” And striking that she includes the Tea Party in her list of groups who want to “turn back the clock” — and raise “millions to finance their campaigns of discrimination and hate.”
That she includes the Tea Party in a list of social conservative organizations shows just how clueless she is about the right — and the agenda of the Tea Parties, assuming there is no distinction between social conservatives and conservative free marketeers. It seems to be a common prejudice of people on the left.
What, Miss Carey, are you afraid of?
126 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
One at a time:
halt our long march to equality —- Could I have a list of the “inequalities” to be overcome, please?
put LGBT people back in the closet. —- Could I have a list of organizations which have this goal?
More to the point, since every gay person is covered by the 14th Amendment, what civil rights are being denied to gay persons? It is clearly known that no gay is denied the right to marry. However, the legal definition of marriage does not accommodate the choice of same sex marriage, plural marriage or child marriage. Furthermore, gays may serve in the military if they meet the requirements, one of which not to make an issue of gay sexuality. Next of kin and inheritance issues are complicated by the laws, but only if they involve a non-related same sex person. So, the “long march to equality” does not involve the person so much as the “comfort” of the person. That is to say, it asks for a civil right for a condition rather than an entity.
The common understanding of “in the closet” is to keep one’s sexual preferences secret and hidden. What group is striving to force gays to live a hidden and secret life and what is the implied force to make them do so?
I was just in both Key West and South Beach and I did not see signs of people building fall out shelters to protect themselves from right wing nuclear winter.
And while I am at it …… LGBT is an umbrella group, but I rarely see people going to the mat for transvestites when it comes to choosing restrooms. What is that all about?
Comment by Heliotrope — December 14, 2010 @ 2:52 pm - December 14, 2010
Helio >> LGBT doesn’t represent Transvestites. They represent Transexuals. Transvestism is about cross-dressing.
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 14, 2010 @ 3:02 pm - December 14, 2010
Dan, the reason she conflates them is simple: you and I both know that within the Tea Party movement there are competing visions…there are those who are truly libertarian, and there are those who want less government EXCEPT for when it comes to things like gay rights. Then they want the government to step in and prohibit measures which would advance equality, or if you don’t like that word, measures that would advance each citizen’s equal access to freedom and liberty. Simply because there is a lot of overlap between social conservatives and the Tea Party.
Now we can argue over which vision is more pure, but that’s an aside. The fact that you have politicians like Michele Bachmann, who has taken the reigns of the Tea Party Caucus, and who advocates a HUGE government approach when it comes to limiting the rights of LGBT people is exemplary of the competing visions within the movement.
I personally wouldn’t have put the Tea Party in the same sentence as NOM and FotF, simply because the supporters of NOM and FotF are already, many of them Tea Party people, so to me it’s redundant.
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 14, 2010 @ 4:09 pm - December 14, 2010
So what has the NGLTF actually done for the LGBT community? I’m not trying to be a dick and asking – I’m curious what have they done that would make it worth while to continue their mission?
Comment by Nick — December 14, 2010 @ 3:40 pm - December 14, 2010
For the N(S)GLTF, it is always 1988.
Having said that:
Sodomy laws, for one. And all they imply: gay parents denied adoption, child visitation, etc. No, America didn’t used to always be as gay-friendly as it is now.
Heliotrope of course that is true… since there is no “right to marry” even for heterosexuals. A State license for X (driving, fishing, hunting, professional practice, incorporation, marriage) is a privilege not a right; States are only called upon to respect the 14th Amendment i.e. not practice “invidious” racial discrimination.
Having said that: Gay *couples* are, in most States, denied the *opportunity* to marry.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 14, 2010 @ 4:07 pm - December 14, 2010
(continued) and, as comparably situated (e.g. adult, unrelated, otherwise unattached) heterosexual couples are not, yes, that is an inequality. The question is, whether it is a defensible inequality? State licensing schemes exist precisely to create such inequalities – in the public interest. I claim that that particular inequality is not in the public interest, hence I support gay marriage.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 14, 2010 @ 4:09 pm - December 14, 2010
I call bullsh*t.
Evan, I’m sure you can find a few people here and there in the Tea Party who don’t like gays – just as you can find them in the Democratic Party. Think of Fred Phelps, who is a Democrat. Or of President Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, all of whom oppose gay marriage. But the Tea Party has been about the fiscal issues, from day one. To describe as a conflict of “two visions” is complete bullsh*t and Evan, you are full of it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 14, 2010 @ 4:13 pm - December 14, 2010
ILC. . .I think there are folk out there jumping on the coat tails of the Tea Party. . .hoping to impose another layer on top of those fiscal issues.
Wendy Wright, the president of Concerned Women for America, David Brody, the Christian Broadcasting Network’s White House correspondent, and David P. Gushee, Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University, discuss what place Christians have in the tea party movement.
Tea party activists believe the government has strayed from its foundation. Christians can show that the strength of that foundation is the wisdom revealed in the Bible. The tea party movement is an effective way to bring our leaders back to their roots. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/october/31.54.html
The tea party movement represents a call to arms for disaffected citizens, says Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.
“What’s happening over the last 18 months is a civil awakening,” he told Newsmax.TV during a break in the Values Voter Summit his organization is co-sponsoring this weekend in Washington. “Americans are taking responsibility for our country, and they’re getting involved.”
“That connected with the tea party. They got behind her and other conservative voters got behind her.”
He says the Republican Party isn’t ready to choose a strong presidential candidate yet. “The conservative movement is having an identity crisis that has yet to be worked out. We need a common vision for America, and then we can look for a candidate that matches that vision.”
The summit, which began Thursday and ends Sunday morning, is the fifth annual such gathering of conservative activists and politicians. Sponsors include the legislative arm of the Family Research Council, the legislative wing of the American Family Association, and the Heritage Foundation, among others.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/tony-perkins-tea-party/2010/09/18/id/370762
Comment by rusty — December 14, 2010 @ 4:43 pm - December 14, 2010
So using Evan’s standard we can condemn all gay men as pedophiles, since NAMBLA is part of the ‘competing visions’ of the gay ‘rights’ movement?
Comment by The_Livewire — December 14, 2010 @ 4:45 pm - December 14, 2010
Will Religious Conservatives Hijack the Tea Party Movement?
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/culture/activism/5751-Will-Religious-Conservatives-Hijack-the-Tea-Party-Movement.html
Comment by rusty — December 14, 2010 @ 4:48 pm - December 14, 2010
If you have to “hijack” it, then no, it isn’t yours to begin with.
And as long as GOProud is being accepted at CPAC, we can know that the anti-gay fringe of the conservative movement is far-from-ascendant.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 14, 2010 @ 5:05 pm - December 14, 2010
I hate to say it, but this isn’t unique to the gay left, anyone who rejects any part of the lefts agenda is hateful, racist, sexist, greedy, homophobic, and out to starve little old ladies, kill children, destroy the environment and eradicate entire species of cute fluffy animals.
Leftist mailing talking about hate = dog bites man
Find a leftist mailing that DOESN’T accuse conservatives at hate and that will be news.
Comment by American Elephant — December 14, 2010 @ 5:10 pm - December 14, 2010
Having said that: Christian conservatives would do well to get on board with the Tea Party – in its current big-tent, fiscal-focus incarnation. (no pun intended)
V the K said it well the other day: If we would just reduce government to its traditional functions, a lot of social-conservative issues go away. Not all, but a lot. For example, Planned Parenthood funding should be cut: not to pick on them, but along with 19 other zillion things that we just can’t afford to fund via government.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 14, 2010 @ 5:10 pm - December 14, 2010
Kinda excited to see what happens this year with GOPROUD at CPAC.
Comment by rusty — December 14, 2010 @ 5:14 pm - December 14, 2010
Actually, it is supporters of gay marriage that want MORE government. They are demanding that not only the government MUST come into their bedrooms, but it must also approve of what it sees and deem it equivalent to that which it is scientifically, fundamentally, consequentially NOT equal to.
Comment by American Elephant — December 14, 2010 @ 5:14 pm - December 14, 2010
Of course rusty, there are moments – not many, just occasional – that will make “even me” me wonder if the anti-gay (not to say irrational) fringe of the conservative movement isn’t in ascendance on this blog.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 14, 2010 @ 5:19 pm - December 14, 2010
I don’t think it’s ‘ascendant’ ILC. We (meaning the conservative posters) may disagree on what we consider ‘rights’ and ‘equality’ but I don’t think even Seane-Anna would cross the line into ‘anti-gay’. I mean, we can disagree, that’s why there’s no ‘straight white borg’ to counter the gay left borg.
Comment by The_Livewire — December 14, 2010 @ 6:00 pm - December 14, 2010
It is really quite simple — since they hate their opponents and wish to strip them of their liberties, the leaders of the NGLTF cannot fathom that the sentiments are not mutual
Comment by Rhymes With Right — December 14, 2010 @ 6:16 pm - December 14, 2010
We should also remember that these are the same folks having hissy fits over condom awareness announcements.
The irony comes when you realize they are screaming “homophobe” over mentioning a disease rate that, if it were the result of an industrial or environmental exposure, would have them marching on Washington to demand a ban on it.
For some reason, the gay and lesbian community opposes informing people of the dangers of promiscuous bareback sex, even as it shrieks for bans on salt, Happy Meals, and conservative media commenters to “protect the public good”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 14, 2010 @ 6:16 pm - December 14, 2010
TL, agreed. And I didn’t have you in mind. And you mentioned another name, that I might have and that you have confronted.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 14, 2010 @ 6:25 pm - December 14, 2010
NDT >> Your link goes to a criticism of an ad that is pro-condom use. The writer isn’t against condom use, but an ad that encourages condom use through scare tactics.
Personally, I have nothing against the ad. There are those in the gay community that find the ad insensitive. There are those that don’t (me being one). Judging from a comment thread on another site about that very ad, I would say the debate skews 50/50.
http://www.towleroad.com/2010/12/nyc-health-department-releases-graphic-hiv-psa.html
If you want to know what the gay community thinks about HIV/AIDS prevention and condom use, I suggest you check out organizations like the following (which are growing across the globe):
http://www.aidshealth.org/
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 14, 2010 @ 8:48 pm - December 14, 2010
Or I could just look at the skyrocketing HIV/STD rates and the endorsement of promiscuous bareback sex by such luminaries as Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage to understand the reality of what the gay and lesbian community believes and does.
It’s odd, really. Bigots like Kincaid and his co-bloggers Rob Tisinai and Evan Hurst will work themselves into a lather about “gay teens”, while these statistics make it clear that they seemingly have no problem infecting gay teens with dangerous and lethal diseases. It’s almost as if they’re only using “gay teens” as an excuse, and could really care less about hurting them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 14, 2010 @ 9:28 pm - December 14, 2010
NTT >> I don’t dispute the figures of your link and I’m unsure why you bring them into the conversation. I’m well aware that gay men are a huge chunk of new and existing HIV infections and there are those PC-types that are afraid of that data perpetuating a stigma. I don’t really see us having a disagreement on this. So, back on topic …
Anyway, Dan Savage is a proponent of safe-sex. I’m not sure what you’ve read/heard that has led you to believe otherwise.
And, Andrew Sullivan … not a fan. He’s been in the news lately because he disagrees with the scare tactics such as the link you’ve provided in post #19. He believes ads such as those compromise the image of an HIV+ man leading a healthy life. He endorses ads that are more positive-reinforcements (to preventing HIV+ status; excuse the double entendre) than fear-based. The argument is that the fear-based ads are ineffective and are unfair to the image of a healthy HIV+ life. I’m not convinced.
Like I said, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation was a grassroots organization whose services have exploded all over the world. And they’ve done it almost entirely from money that they’ve generated, with little government assistance. It’s organizations like this that couldn’t thrive without a deep support from the gay community.
The young gay community today, however, is becoming less responsible and has forgotten the lessons learned in the 1980′s. Because the disease is more manageable, they don’t see it as a threat to a healthy lifestyle. And that’s unfortunate.
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 14, 2010 @ 10:02 pm - December 14, 2010
NDT >> I think it’s interesting that you bring the “gay teen” issue, after mentioning the HIV issue. Are you speaking specifically of the spate of recent suicides from a few months ago?
For a lot of teens, still, today, there is a huge stigma to being gay, having grown up in a religious household were homosexuality is considered a sin and/or a choice. While people are free to believe this and share their views, if they are the views of a gay teen’s parent(s)–they are generally the immediate figures of authority a kid turns to for guidance and approval. So, while we are free to believe what we will, what we believe has a huge impact on our children. Not being accepted and supplied a network of support, safety and nurturing, and therefore not developing a healthy sense of confidence and will to live, a gay teen may not see any hope for themselves and choose to commit suicide. It all depends on genetics, socialization, etc. But, having a parent who disapproves of part of their being certainly doesn’t help.
And, you also have those who were predisposed to being more self-assured and adventures, who weren’t able to enjoy a structured and loving environment, sometimes due their sexuality, who, instead of being driven to suicide, engage in erratic and irresponsible behavior such as unsafe sex.
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 14, 2010 @ 10:14 pm - December 14, 2010
I for one call ‘bullsh*t!’ on people, poz or not, whining about being offended by this ad or that effort. Piss off!
Your mamby-pamby, hold-their-hand and give-em-all-cucumbers to practice on approaches haven’t worked for crap.
The calls for “more education” are hyped up shee-ite also, and at best, intended to wrench more funding from legitimate programs (HOPWA). I (and my former wife) volunteered for three years in HIV/AIDS education in all the venues they offered until the last year when “the biggest need” caused them to ask us to populate the public parks, seedy backrooms of bars, etc. and disseminate “education” and condoms.
Me telling a 40-yo married man to put a condom on while he’s having bi-sex in a public place…isn’t ‘education’. It’s frigging babysitting. A 40-yo man to this point in his life has had AT LEAST 25 years of ‘education’ from some program, at some point, from somewhere in his life.
So, to THIS POINT..your pansy-assed, politically correct way of doing things has failed rather miserably.
It is time to use fear (of consequences…which do, in reality include DEATH), or respect (of others or life) and similar approaches.
The commercials and PSA’s showing HIV+ people pedaling through fields of daisies and laughing as they cross the finish line of some 5K or lounging by (somebody’s) pool…may have sold a few more people on getting tested, but I’ll proffer they’ve done more to mask the horrid symptoms and facts about the disease than any other effort made to date.
Let’s show people (on tv commercials, by God) the sights that I see when I’ve helped my comrades in their last months or days…let’s show people the incontinence, the boils and the lesions, let’s have them fight inside to help a friend remember, through their OBD, what they just said moments before, let’s have people defend themselves when a loved one’s dementia makes them unsafe and dangerous.
If I have to sit and listen to Viagra commercials and detailed vaginal analyses by actors regarding this or that pre-, post- menstrual relief and the ever-threatened ‘anal leakage’ side effects….
then you can damn well listen to and see the pictures of people ravaged by a “social disease” that KILLS THEM and leaves entire nations/societies to believe being politically correct is more important than SAVING LIVES!
Comment by rodney — December 14, 2010 @ 10:35 pm - December 14, 2010
The organization is a scam – like a lot of others. Southern Poverty Law Center is making a lot of noise these days. Ya gotta Google their IRS 990 filings. For this particular dolly who pulls down $200 K+ / year we can look at:
http://www.queerty.com/the-five-worst-gay-charities-for-your-dollar-20081217/
Comment by Roy Lofquist — December 14, 2010 @ 11:08 pm - December 14, 2010
Even Seane-Anna isn’t anti-gay? Well, I’ve never quite understood what is meant by “anti-gay”. If it means opposing SSM and the repeal of DADT, then I’m anti-gay. If it means believing that homosexual behavior is a sin, then I’m anti-gay. If it means seeing gays as a sex group and not a pseudo-ethnicity, then I’m anti-gay. But if “anti-gay” means being uncomfortable around gay people, then I’m NOT anti-gay. If it means supporting violence against gays, then I’m NOT anti-gay. If it means denying gays a job and a place to live, then I’m NOT anti-gay. I could go on, but I think you get the picture. So, will someone please explain just what “anti-gay” means? I’d like to know just what it is I might or might not be guilty of.
Comment by Seane-Anna — December 14, 2010 @ 11:23 pm - December 14, 2010
Seane-Anna >> What are you views on choice/socialization vs. genetics?
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 14, 2010 @ 11:33 pm - December 14, 2010
Seane-Anna,
You are “anti-gay” if you ever refuse to give gays something, anything, they want.
Comment by American Elephant — December 14, 2010 @ 11:46 pm - December 14, 2010
See me blush.
I meant transexuals and wrote transvestites. How unclever of me.
Rights and civil rights are two different things. I can gain the right to pull someone’s teeth in exchange for money. The civil right says that I can not be denied this right because of my sex, religion or skin color.
The tolerance for gays in the public square has grown in recent times and it continues to grow. This “tolerance” is not a civil right. It comes from demonstrating to the public that being gay and being a part of the public square is not a detriment to society as a whole. From that, mutual trust and respect grows. Soon, society recognizes where barriers to “fairness” exist and the rules change. Not because of a recognition of a civil right, but from the acknowledged realization and responsibility to be civil. Sad to say, but it is an earned right.
Comment by Heliotrope — December 15, 2010 @ 12:00 am - December 15, 2010
Roy >> Which organization are you talking about specifically that’s a scam? SPLC? AHF? HOPWA? Doesn’t seem clear by the way it’s written.
Helio >> I agree. There are some things that are just going to take time, as gays get assimilated into the mainstream. The more gay parents grow in numbers and show society they can raise productive, law-abiding citizens (gay or straight), the more it will do for the community (gay, straight and in general) as a whole.
But, I defer to my post #24. Raising a child who is born gay with the belief that homosexuality is a sin and a choice does nothing for the child to develop a healthy sense of him/herself and grow up to become a well-adjusted, contributing member of society. It does nothing to help that child maximize his/her potential. So, while those like Seane-Anna’s are perfectly entitled to their beliefs (who am I to deny them that or refer to them as “haters” or “bigots’), as parents, those people work to the detriment of a gay child.
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 15, 2010 @ 12:34 am - December 15, 2010
Vince in WeHo,
Sorry for the ambiguity. I am referring to the “National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Foundation” which is featured in the link.
There are ever so many “charitable” and “advocacy” organizations out there that are out and out scams. Fortunately there are organizations that report on these various non-profits as to their required Form 990 IRS reports. Your local Fraternal Order of Police typically receives less than 5% of contributions. The “professional fundraisers” pocket most of it.
Whenever you are solicited for a contribution look em up on the web. The Sierra Club, for example, spends 95% of its revenue on “overhead”.
Personally, I confine my contributions to The Salvation Army. This is based upon research and advice from people who have earned my respect.
Roy
Comment by Roy Lofquist — December 15, 2010 @ 12:56 am - December 15, 2010
Well, this mailing that you got was clearly a bust! What a bunch of wackos. They all need to go to Basic Combat Training and get yelled at by a drill sergeant –with NO discharge option, of course — and then thrown into a big cistern full of piss.
On the other hand, I have gotten lots of crude emails from Townhall and they’re just as bad. Let me see if I can find the one about homosexuals terrorizing daycare centers….
http://colorfulconservative.blogspot.com/2010/11/this-thanksgiving-thank-god-youre-smart.html
Oh, look, there it is! I freaked out when I found out Delgaudio’s group was buying ad space on my blog. But the main point is, there are wackos on all sides and you have to call them as you see them.
@Vince, Do you ever rest?
Comment by Robert Oscar Lopez — December 15, 2010 @ 1:41 am - December 15, 2010
Holy merde, I followed NDT’s link to the Boxturtle Bulletin post about that condom PSA, and… aaaarrrggghh, I am seized by urge to kick Timothy Kincaid in his miserable nuts again and again and again and a-geh-heh-hen.
And not just Kincaid, but apparently everyone at GMHC and GLAAD, too.
What kind of spineless and irrational pansy thinks that other people’s “stigmatizing” is worse than HIV?
Comment by Throbert McGee — December 15, 2010 @ 4:42 am - December 15, 2010
There is also the case of a Roman Catholic Archbishop under attack from gay rights groups for writing that “AIDS at the beginning multiplied through sexual behaviour with all sorts of partners or else through anal rather than vaginal sexual rapports.”
It is politically incorrect to speak the truth.
Comment by V the K — December 15, 2010 @ 5:48 am - December 15, 2010
Oh no he di’int! [snapping head indignantly back and forth]
Actually, come to think of it, I suspect it was primarily the “anal” in “anal cancer” that set off BTB, GMHC, and GLAAD, and that the video wouldn’t have attracted much controversy if it had stopped after osteoporosis and dementia.
SLAY THOSE WHO INSULT FUDGEPACKING!
Comment by Throbert McGee — December 15, 2010 @ 6:16 am - December 15, 2010
Hate – the new “Racist”.
Comment by grichens — December 15, 2010 @ 7:41 am - December 15, 2010
It seems to be a common prejudice of people on the left.
It’s a common PLOY of the Left’s leadership. It is picked up by simpler minds and repeated until it becomes an accepted truth. Divide by imaginary projections.
The Right has little with which to fight against such active obfuscation except to continue to hold up the light of truth. I used to believe that was enough. . .
Comment by Joan of Argghh! — December 15, 2010 @ 7:52 am - December 15, 2010
Is it not OK to be anti-gay? I mean that as a serious question. If I own a house and my religious convictions prohibit me from renting to a gay couple shouldn’t I have the right to decide what I will do with my property? If my house or the renter is subsidized by government money (such as renting to someone getting government assistance) then I can understand the government requiring that the opportunity to rent the property should be available to all. But doesn’t freedom of association include the freedom to not associate with people you don’t want to associate with?
I don’t own rental property and if I did I would rent to anyone I thought would pay the rent on time and not trash the place. But I think people should be free and if you don’t decide how your property will be used you don’t really own it. Property rights are one of the foundational rights that all others are based on. Next thing you know, the government will be requiring me to buy insurance or trying to prohibit me from buying Twinkies because they are fattening. Where does it end?
Comment by Ross — December 15, 2010 @ 7:54 am - December 15, 2010
I’ll agree with Evan Hurst on this one. There are some who are trying to turn the tea parties into an explicitly social conservative movement.
However, the vast majority of tea partiers, and all tea party events, are fixated on the Big Three economic issues: debt, taxes, economic liberty. It’s good for everyone, even the social conservatives, that the Tea Party isn’t bothering with other issues.
What’s interesting to me is that while mainstream gays span the gamut of political affiliations, the Gay Movement(tm) is doctrinaire Left. Like many other organizations, it isn’t so much that they’re representing gay issues in the political sphere, it’s that they’re responsible for organizing the gay vote for the Left.
Notice that successful groups like the NRA back any politician that supports their cause. Groups working the Demographic Left (like the NGLTF) don’t support pro-gay conservatives at all, and always find a way to side with a marginally pro-gay democrat who gives them occassional lip service. Like, for example, the President.
We could have had gay marriage ten years ago if groups like the NGLTF hadn’t fixated on party over principles.
Comment by asdf — December 15, 2010 @ 7:55 am - December 15, 2010
Something I enjoy about this site is I often learn things or have my POV changed.Merry Christmas everyone.
Comment by corwin — December 15, 2010 @ 8:38 am - December 15, 2010
Seane-Anna,
That’s exactly what I meant. You aren’t calling for the branding/stoning/’correcting’ of people who are gay. It is the difference between tolerance, acceptance, and surrender.
You (generic you) can oppose legalization of SSM (either flat out as in SA’s case, or by judicial fiat in mine) and not be ‘anti-gay’. You can oppose DADT-repeal, and not be anti-gay. Anti-gay would seem to me to be ‘stomp them out’ Which neither you nor I are.
Comment by The_Livewire — December 15, 2010 @ 8:51 am - December 15, 2010
TO: All
RE: ‘Hate’ Groups?
It’s all ‘projection’ on their part. And they hope to keep beating that same drum until others accept it. It’s another application of the infamous ‘Big Lie’.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]
Comment by Chuck Pelto — December 15, 2010 @ 8:58 am - December 15, 2010
Ross — I am on your side. The state cannot be allowed to discriminate, but prejudice among individuals is a personal matter. I don’t have a problem with societal institutions advocating tolerance and all that ghey crap. I think being a bigot is a serious moral flaw. But I don’t think it’s the business of the state. If I don’t want to rent a property to a gay, or an atheist, or a ginger, or someone who drives a Nissan (a group of people I personally loathe), it ought to be none of the state’s business. I would merely be depriving myself of an opportunity for commerce a less intolerant person would benefit from.
Comment by V the K — December 15, 2010 @ 8:58 am - December 15, 2010
P.S. If it’s against my strongly held religious beliefs to ‘hate’ people….
….what does it mean of the religious beliefs of people like Carey to actually ‘hate’ people?
Comment by Chuck Pelto — December 15, 2010 @ 9:00 am - December 15, 2010
Also, I don’t have a problem with homosexuals or bisexuals, but I don’t care for “gays” very much. The former is a personal trait, the latter is a cultural identity. And I find most all of gay culture repugnant.
Comment by V the K — December 15, 2010 @ 9:00 am - December 15, 2010
TO: V the K
RE: State-Level ‘Discrimination’
The state cannot be allowed to discriminate…. — V the K
Actually, the state DOES discriminate.
Every law on the books is based on some form of ‘discrimination’. Examples:
• It’s bad to kill people.
• Don’t park here.
• Don’t litter.
• Mow your lawn.
EVERY LAW ‘discriminates’ between what the state considers ‘good’ and/or ‘evil’.
All law is based on some form of morality, if you dig deep enough into it. That includes ‘Income Tax’.
Hope that helps….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Those who would treat politics and morality apart will never understand the one nor the other. -- John, Viscount Morley of Blackburn]
Comment by Chuck Pelto — December 15, 2010 @ 9:04 am - December 15, 2010
OK, let me rephrase and redirect. The state ought not, in its actions or policies, be allowed to arbitrarily favor or disfavor one individual or group versus another. Is that more accurate?
Comment by V the K — December 15, 2010 @ 9:10 am - December 15, 2010
Everything the left does is based on fear, why is it not so with HIV/AIDS prevention?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 15, 2010 @ 9:10 am - December 15, 2010
TO: V the K, et al.
RE: Homosexuals
I don’t have a problem with homosexuals or bisexuals…. — V the K
Neither do I, by and large. However, I would point out that there are certain ‘discriminations’ that might be applied. Things to prevent ‘issues’.
You don’t hire a drug addict to run a pharmacy. Or an alcoholic for a liquor store.
Each of us has our particular predilections that should be considered before doing something. I can attest, personally, to one bit of ‘discrimination’ exercised by the government that ruined my career. To wit, I was a young officer in the US Army when my sister married an Iranian. In the mid-80s, I was checked for a TS clearance. [Note: This is only a few years after the Iranian Hostage thingie.] Three guesses as to what happened. THEN, three guesses as to any chance of promotion to field grade rank. First two don’t count.
And, looking back on it, the government was understandable in their actions. After all, look what happened at Fort Hood: 12 dead, so many more wounded, for the sake of political correctness. Not that I would do such to my fellow countrymen because of my Brother-in-Law, a really great guy who cannot go back home because the current government there would kill him.
But I can understand the government’s need to feel ‘safer’.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Life is a game, and you've just been finessed'.]
Comment by Chuck Pelto — December 15, 2010 @ 9:12 am - December 15, 2010
This is merely another attempt by the “professional” left to smear the Tea Party Movement as a “socially conservative” movement and not as a “fiscally conservative” movement. If you repeat the big lie enough times, loudly enough, the stupid masses are going to start believing it.
It’s up to us, centre/right bloggers, to counter this hate speech on the part of the left and far left. We just have to be vigilant enough to make sure they don’t get away with it.
Comment by Rich Vail — December 15, 2010 @ 9:28 am - December 15, 2010
Chuck, I think one of the things that defines conservatism is an acceptance of human imperfection and the inability of the state to rectify same. The progressive authoritarian delusion is that if bureaucrats and politicians create just the right set of rules and enforce them perfectly, then Utopia will follow. Conservatives know that such perfection is impossible. As a result, we are more accepting of human imperfection than the fascist left. The way in which you were screwed over by a Government policy brought that home for you.
More broadly, we accept that the Government can’t do anything well, and so needs to be restricted to those activities for which there is no other alternative; national defense, for example. The military is no more or less wasteful, inefficient, corrupt, or badly run than any other Government bureaucracy. But the military is something the state needs that there is no market alternative for. Hence, we will tolerate military spending in a way we will not tolerate Government spending on health care, welfare, housing, energy, or any other activities for which there are viable alternatives.
Comment by V the K — December 15, 2010 @ 9:31 am - December 15, 2010
Which is why Heliotrope asked the question in the present tense…
…instead of the past tense, as you misquoted.
Comment by Martin L. Shoemaker — December 15, 2010 @ 9:38 am - December 15, 2010
Shorter Carey:
Help me raise money to continue our H8 campaign against the rifgt.
Comment by Tipper — December 15, 2010 @ 9:45 am - December 15, 2010
I can’t speak for all “conservative haters” (so-called by some) but this one really loves the new unisex bathrooms. They are great for women with autistic sons who can’t be left alone outside the women’s room, but can’t be brought in either because Mom can’t stop them from peeking under the stalls while she’s answering nature’s call. Thank you, transsexuals!
Comment by Wacky Hermit — December 15, 2010 @ 9:55 am - December 15, 2010
“What are you views on choice/socialization vs. genetics?”
Is this a litmus test for you, Vince? I ask because, in many ways, I personally don’t think the origin of teh gay is of much relevence. For what it’s worth, though, I fall largely on the choice/socialization side but do feel there are likely genetic indicators that may make one more or less prone to becoming homosexual. I hold this opinion simply because being gay is defined by an individual’s actions and perceptions and is not empiracally demonstrable. Just as one is not born an alchoholic or loving the color blue, it is a condition of one’s life and self that manifests as a sum of their experiences, quite probably influenced by genetic predisposition. In support of my opinion I ask you to look at the differences in homosexual practice observed throughout history and the world that varry by culture.
That said, I again reiterate that I don’t see that it makes much difference, unless one wants to invoke the “don’t hate me, it’s not my fault” defense. In what we do and how we live, we are all, in many ways, reflecting our unremembered history, with all the good, bad, boring and freaky mixed well. If a man is born a demon or becomes one in the journey, I despise him no more or less. Likewise, a saint, regardless of origin, is still revered.
Comment by submandave — December 15, 2010 @ 10:40 am - December 15, 2010
Not afraid, just ignorant. And isn’t ignorance bliss? Why should they bother learning about the opposition, they have the truth and the purity, and the . . . oh, why bother?
Comment by Pablo — December 15, 2010 @ 10:45 am - December 15, 2010
Martin L. Shoemaker,
Thanks.
Comment by Heliotrope — December 15, 2010 @ 10:45 am - December 15, 2010
As a member of the TEA Party movement from day one, this kind of tripe angers me. With the few exceptions I have encountered, TEA Partiers submerge their social positions in the movement. The leader of our local organization is very strong in her right-to-life position, yet I have never heard her proclaim her position to the membership. I am on the fence on that issue and I am a steering committee member, but we both know that such social issues would divide our membership and overshadow our attempts to reduce government power and spending. The social issues, we agree, must, unfortunately, wait until we are victorious on the issues that strongly unite us.
I have come to the conclusion that members of the Left are totally ignorant on most issues like this or are just plain liars. On that basis, I seldom now have conversations with any progressives since they, in my experience, cannot even agree on commonly known facts. My last conversation with a progressive was ended when the public school teacher told me there were NO problems in our county’s education system. Enough said.
Comment by Al Reasin — December 15, 2010 @ 10:46 am - December 15, 2010
With regard to the original topic, the conflagration of the Tea Party with social conservative groups is just another example of the modern left’s tendancy to lump everyone and everything they don’t like or agree with into a catch-all faceless gang of the “right-wing.” Don’t like Nazis? Call them right-wing, despite the fact that they were national socalists. This is so common that many people don’t even realize that there is a difference between free-marketeers and social conservatives. I mean, when Mike Huckabee calls himself a “conservative” and Chris Christie calls himself a “conservative” they likely are talking apples and oranges.
Comment by submandave — December 15, 2010 @ 10:51 am - December 15, 2010
No one asked me, but I’ve always thought that the either/or of nature/nurture was way too simplistic. Human sexuality is complex, and I think there are multiple social, environmental, and biophysical factors that shape our identities.
Comment by V the K — December 15, 2010 @ 10:55 am - December 15, 2010
“Right-wing hate groups” like the black Christian churches that opposed Prop 8?
Comment by David — December 15, 2010 @ 11:11 am - December 15, 2010
TO: V the K
RE: Indeed
Chuck, I think one of the things that defines conservatism is an acceptance of human imperfection and the inability of the state to rectify same. — V the K
You’ve got THAT one right. And the Statists think directly the opposite. But then when the State gets to play the game, they end up trying to ‘perfect’ those who ‘disagree’ with them. It’s called ‘re-education camps’. The Soviets perfected it in the early 30s when they ‘re-educated’ several million small business and land owners. Few of the ‘trainees’ survived the rigors of the program.
Imagine what this sort could do here? Well, actually, you don’t have to ‘imagine’ it. Bill Ayers, Obama’s political science mentor, did it for US back in the 70s. He figured the State would have to ‘re-educate’ about 25 million of US.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[History repeats itself. That's one of the problems with History.]
P.S. And probably why the vaunted American public education system doesn’t teach it very well….
P.P.S. Ignorance here is less than ‘bliss’.
Comment by Chuck Pelto — December 15, 2010 @ 11:23 am - December 15, 2010
Good point about the Tea party. They concentrate almost exclusively on fiscal and size of government issues, and are generally silent, and purposely neutral on social issues, including gay issues, even though a majority of their members (but definitely not all of them, like is generally the case with repubs) probably tend toward social conservatism. That is one big reason why I favor the Tea party over traditional repubs, since I am a social moderate. Its crazy enough to call the other conservative groups anti gay hate groups, but to include the Tea Party in that list, when they dont even take a position on gay issues, illustrates how deranged and clueless these lefties are.
Note to Al Reasin. I am very glad you are trying to keep the Tea Party out of the social issue debates. Their concentration on fiscal issues, where repubs, libertarians, and moderate independents, all agree, is the secret to their unprecendented electoral success. If they ever lose that, they will just become another rump of the repub party, and will lose much of their power. To the social conservatives, this does not mean we are trying to drive you out of the Tea Party, it is just us libertarians and moderates making sure you dont drive us out of the Tea Party.
Another note to socons. If you try to advance your principles by advancing federalism, and thus asking these issues be decided at the state, local, and individual level, rather than the fed gov, or fed judges, you will find many conservative leaning libertarians will agree with you.
Comment by richard40 — December 15, 2010 @ 11:49 am - December 15, 2010
Vince writes in #24 and #31 about the gay child. This from #31:
This is about “parent abuse” which is a favorite topic of liberal social engineers who thrill over how “it takes a village to raise a child.” Don’t let them get fat, surround them with political correctness, teach them peace and harmony, mold them carefully, etc.
Sorry, but I can not help but think of Fascist Italy where the state raised babies were powdered and diapered while music played in the state nursery attended by skilled nannies.
Should attention be paid to the homophobe who worries about a hetero child being raised by homosexuals? Hum?
Or does this type of thinking sword only cut one way?
Comment by Heliotrope — December 15, 2010 @ 12:09 pm - December 15, 2010
Vince,
This is not my issue, but do you harbor the same reservations about the kids of the Folsom Street Fair key actors?
Comment by Heliotrope — December 15, 2010 @ 12:40 pm - December 15, 2010
“Should attention be paid to the homophobe who worries about a hetero child being raised by homosexuals?” I doubt it, as why would one discourage their child to be heterosexual if that’s who they are. After all, they were born that way.
That one would choose to be gay (like one would choose a religion) … seems to be a sentiment shared by a lot on here. And, unless you’re gay yourself, it’s much easier to a see a “choice” in the matter.
So many of you like to point out the high incidence rate of HIV in gay men compared to other groups (which is fact), but there is behaviors that lead to that statistic. And those behaviors are influenced by how a person is shaped in our society. And my point is that someone who is born gay and raised by someone who doesn’t love them for who they are is more likely to make unhealthier choices in life then vice-verse. That’s all.
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 15, 2010 @ 12:58 pm - December 15, 2010
Helio >> I have never been to Folsom Street Fair. So I don’t know what you mean by key actors.
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 15, 2010 @ 1:01 pm - December 15, 2010
Heliotrope,
I think you asked a good question, one where not everyone will agree; and answering it will help people see where and how their positions differ.
So I was disappointed when you got an answer to a different question. “How far have we come?” is not the same as “How much farther do we have to go?”
Comment by Martin L. Shoemaker — December 15, 2010 @ 1:25 pm - December 15, 2010
What, Miss Carey, are you afraid of?
That’s an easy one, Daniel: INDEPENDENT THOUGHT.
Comment by bastiat fan — December 15, 2010 @ 1:26 pm - December 15, 2010
Vince,
Neither have I. Google it and imagine a natural child or an adopted child raised by parents who are avid players in this “fair.” You chose to worry about a gay child raised by fundamentalists. I would think you would be equally concerned by a child raised by these people.
Which brings us back to what “society” should do about “bad” parents.
As a conservative, I am not motivated by statism. Perhaps you have a more enlightened solution.
Comment by Heliotrope — December 15, 2010 @ 1:36 pm - December 15, 2010
Hi-
Just a personal side note: I must say that, in reading most of the responses here, nearly everyone seems intelligent and respectful of others’ opinions, even when dealing with such obviously emotional issues. It really is refreshing, so thank you all.
Comment by njoriole — December 15, 2010 @ 1:47 pm - December 15, 2010
I googled as directed and saw a bunch of S & M types, as well as a cute little girl in a leather get-up. Not clear if her parents were gay or straight, but it’s irrelevant. What’s more important is that they are hippie types with no boundaries. It’s no place for a child anymore than a porn convention. At least, I can’t see taking my child or someone else’s child, for that matter, to an event like this. I think we can agree on this.
I imagine that there is a tiny percentage, both gay and straight, who would disagree with us.
Not sure how it relates to my post #24.
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 15, 2010 @ 2:10 pm - December 15, 2010
TO: Vince in WeHo
RE: Let’s Not Get….
And my point is that someone who is born gay and raised by someone who doesn’t love them for who they are is more likely to make unhealthier choices in life then vice-verse. — Vince in WeHo
….TOO far Off-Topic.
If you wish to discuss this matter, we can do so in another thread. HERE we’re talking about calling conservatives ‘haters of people’ without sufficient evidence to prove it inconclusively. When what is really happening is a desperate effort on the part of the Left to sway the political discourse through their own use of hate-speech.
Hope that helps….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The opposite of love is not hate. The opposite of love is indifference. - Simon Wiesenthal]
Comment by Chuck Pelto — December 15, 2010 @ 2:14 pm - December 15, 2010
No, I don’t have an enlightened solution.
I only believe that a contributing and productive member of society with a healthy disposition is not born that way, they are shaped that way by good parenting: structure, love, boundaries. They are also taught the difference between right and wrong, which is where our two sides reach an impasse.
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 15, 2010 @ 2:14 pm - December 15, 2010
I realize I’ll likely be flamed for saying so, but virtually every “equal rights” argument I’ve heard has been about special rights, not equal rights.
As Wacky Hermit #55 points out, the need for unisex bathrooms isn’t exclusive to the transexual community.
Similarly, LGBT couples are far from the only ones that do not benefit from a de facto grant of partnership rights (next of kin, medical directive, inheritance, etc). Think for a moment about those adults, related or otherwise, providing long-term care for an elderly person in what amounts to a civil partnership.
The simple answer is to abolish the automatic conferring of partnership rights to straight married couples, and then insist that all who wish to establish any form of civil partnership not only CAN do so, but also MUST be subject to the same documentation currently required of those in a platonic civil relationship.
These two scenarios are just two examples of disingenuous campaigns for “equal” rights that are in fact campaigns for the extension of “special” rights from one politically protected group to another.
Even though I’m friendly to need for special protection in some limited cases, my libertarian side won’t let me support allowing any government to pick certain groups to receive special protection.
The Constitution has had it covered for more than two centuries with the concept of equal protection for ALL.
Comment by Junk Science Skeptic — December 15, 2010 @ 4:21 pm - December 15, 2010
Yeah, it’s like that when Levi and Ashpenaz aren’t around.
Comment by V the K — December 15, 2010 @ 4:46 pm - December 15, 2010
Why don’t bisexuals have their own separate movement? Why have they simply been co-opted (very quietly, when no one was looking) into the gay rights movement?
If there’s really such a thing as people who are born with a genetic predispositon for desiring love and romance from members of either sex (with no preference one way or the other), then wouldn’t they have to deal with a whole different set of issues than either hetros or gays? Wouldn’t they feel like the only people who were capable of understanding the trials that they have to go through are other bisexuals?
Countless autobiographical books, plays and movies have been written by gays that deal with issues like the gay man telling his parents that he’ll never have a traditional family with a wife, kids, a dog and a house with a white picket fence. Where are all the autobiographical books, plays and movies written by bisexuals that feature a bisexual man telling his parents that because he fell in love with another man, he won’t be having a traditional family, but if things don’t work out, he might fall in love with a woman next time around, in which case, he’ll be living a life that’s right out of a Norman Rockwell painting?
People debate whether the gay population is 3%, 6%, 10%, etc, etc. Whatever the truth is, everyone knows someone who’s gay. How many people know someone, who over the course of their life, was in a 2 year relationship with a woman in high school, followed by a 3 year relationship with a man in college, followed by a 10 year marriage to a woman that ended in divorce, followed by a 15 year relationship with a man, that ended when the man died, followed by a 2 year relationship with another man, followed by another marriage to a woman who they’ve been with for the past 7 years?
Whenever I raise this point on a blog, I get responses from people who say “there’s plenty of people like this, I know several of them”. Yet, not only have I never met one in my 49 years on this earth, I’ve never met anyone else who’s ever met one. So based on my own personal experience, I choose to believe that being bisexual is all about one thing and one thing only……..deviant, taboo breaking sexual pleasure that people are often lured into by peer pressure (“hey, I’m so pro-gay I’m going to have a bisexual fling to show how open minded I am, my art school friends are so proud of me, so are all my professors”).
I also don’t think that there’s such a thing as getting a sex change. If Tiger Woods cut off his penis and grew boobs, would it fair for him to play on the ladies golf tour? No, because he’d still have superior strength. Yes, you can mutilate yourself if you want, but even the most effeminate gay queen is still a man, and can only ever be a man.
So the jump from “gay rights” to “LGBT” is why I have lost all respect for the gay rights movement. It went from preaching tolerance towards homosexuals to being an umbrella group for deviants and freaks.
Comment by The Fop — December 15, 2010 @ 5:27 pm - December 15, 2010
To help push our numbers towards that mythical “1 in 10,” obviously.
(I’m not sure why this is supposed to be helpful, because in order to get anything close to 10%, you need to include people who are deeply on the DownLow, and thus aren’t going to publicly support gay political measures anyway.)
Comment by Throbert McGee — December 15, 2010 @ 7:17 pm - December 15, 2010
Post #76, Paragraph 4. Junk Science offers the ideal solution.
The Fop >> “I also don’t think that there’s such a thing as getting a sex change … deviants and freaks.” I’m sorry you feel that way.
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 15, 2010 @ 9:23 pm - December 15, 2010
another view point. . .
In response to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s designation of 13 religious right organizations as “hate groups” because of their anti-gay rhetoric and advocacy, the Family Research Council just launched a campaign to “stand in solidarity” with those groups that received the “hate group” label (and others the SPLC labeled anti-gay) and in defense of what they call “Judeo-Christian values.”
The campaign invites signatories to a petition that reads, in part:
We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Family Research Council, American Family Association, Concerned Women of America, National Organization for Marriage, Liberty Counsel and other pro-family organizations that are working to protect and promote natural marriage and family. We support the vigorous but responsible exercise of the First Amendment rights of free speech and religious liberty that are the birthright of all Americans.
By joining together in “solidarity” — signatories include usual suspects Republican Reps. John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mike Pence, and Michele Bachmann; Republican Sens. Jim DeMint, James Inhofe, and David Vitter; and probable presidential hopefuls Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, and Rick Santorum — these groups and individuals are standing together as demonizers of homosexuality and, in some cases, supporters of criminalizing it.
The American Family Association, which received the hate group designation, and its representatives have publicly supported outlawing homosexuality. Last month Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, which also was labeled a “hate group,” squirmed when questioned by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews about FRC’s Peter Sprigg’s support for outlawing homosexuality during a previous appearance on Hardball. In that appearance, Sprigg responded affirmatively to Matthews’ question about whether we should “outlaw gay behavior.” The SPLC’s Mark Potok said that alone would have been enough for the SPLC to add FRC to its “hate group” list. Perkins, though, denied the group would be working to “re-criminalize homosexual behavior.” He then portrayed the FRC’s work as combatting the “attempt to. . . enshrine homosexual behavior as some protected class.”
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/3910/conservatives_stand_together_for_anti-gay_bigotry/
Comment by rusty — December 15, 2010 @ 9:38 pm - December 15, 2010
just a tad bit more. . .
But even as the anti-gay groups are attempting to elicit sympathy from the SPLC’s decisions, they’re overplaying their hand in a big way. After all, despite the big splash that the “hate group” designation first made, it sort of fizzled and the mainstream press continues to treat the “marriage” issue as simply a dispute over the meaning of the Bible over which well-meaning people can disagree. Bringing it up again, and involving so many high-profile Republicans, invites new and probably enhanced scrutiny of the rhetoric and actions which drew the SPLC’s attention in the first place. And even if you believe the SPLC hate group designation to be a useless or even insidious endeavor, drawing a deeper look at the belief system of anti-gay zealots is a good thing. Though perhaps it wasn’t the SPLC that did that, but rather, fittingly, the religious right’s own hubris.
Comment by rusty — December 15, 2010 @ 9:42 pm - December 15, 2010
#80,
Vince,
i’ve never understood ‘sex reassignment surgery’ myself. I understand the psych evals and all the hoops to jump through before it’s done, but it still doesn’t make sense to me. I mean we don’t lop off someone’s arm if they have Body Dysmorphic Disorder or Body Integrity Identity Disorder.
Comment by The_Livewire — December 16, 2010 @ 6:58 am - December 16, 2010
Maybe so. It could be in the ObamaCareless law nobody read. If they’re gonna spread the “wealth” (misery) around, why not go all the way?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 16, 2010 @ 7:09 am - December 16, 2010
They could argue that some poor soul, whom they wouldn’t deign to piss on if on fire, would actually want the appendage and appreciate it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 16, 2010 @ 7:10 am - December 16, 2010
I never got why it was “compassionate” to chemically and surgically mutilate the body of a “transgendered” person, but “barbaric” and “intolerant” to suggest such a person might benefit from therapy to learn to love and accept the body they were given.
Comment by V the K — December 16, 2010 @ 8:59 am - December 16, 2010
TLW #80, TGC, VTK >> I recommend the documentary “Prodigal Sons.”
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 16, 2010 @ 9:30 am - December 16, 2010
Yeah, right…. because documentaries never lie and are invariably balanced and respectful to all points of view.
Comment by V the K — December 16, 2010 @ 11:15 am - December 16, 2010
VtheK,
Years ago I worked with a sex change surgeon to help establish a set of ethics to help guide the hospital and his program. Never have I been involved in a more complicated and nervewraking set of time bombs. I will refrain from stereotyping the psychological nature of transgendered folks, but I will tell you that is territory that is nearly inscrutable.
To cobble these people, who are so burdened with different complexes than most people can imagine, into an interest group that hardly knows the potential for pain and confusion is very troubling.
I suppose that the LGBT organizers are just after the numbers and the voices. Perhaps they think they are a psychological refuge as well. Who knows? (I shudder to think that they may believe they are “supporting” the source of deep seated emotions. Psychiatry is not much developed in this area, so you know that laymen are winging it.)
What prompted me to address your comment (#86) is that over the years, we discovered that the surgery was successful, but that no one, including the patient, had any control over the psychological outcomes. The problem has vanished for me, because the surgeon moved on and the department no longer exists in my realm. Some solution! When you can’t deal with a problem, just pass it along.
Comment by Heliotrope — December 16, 2010 @ 11:43 am - December 16, 2010
TO: rusty
RE: Hate Groups List
The SPLC’s Mark Potok said that alone would have been enough for the SPLC to add FRC to its “hate group” list. — rusty
Sounds to me like the SPLC is behaving EXACTLY like Joe McCarthy did with HIS ‘list’.
Oh….the irony…..
….and the hypocrites can’t/won’t recognize it.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Where there is no religion, hypocrisy becomes 'good taste'.]
Comment by Chuck Pelto — December 16, 2010 @ 2:08 pm - December 16, 2010
Here is a response from SPLC:
This morning, 22 members of Congress and a large number of other conservatives signed on to a public statement attacking the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for listing several anti-gay religious right organizations as hate groups. Published in two Washington, D.C., newspapers as a full-page ad, the statement was organized by the powerful Family Research Council (FRC) and other “pro-family organizations that are working to protect and promote natural marriage and the family.”
The statement, whose signatories included House Speaker-Designate John Boehner and the governors of Louisiana, Minnesota and Virginia, ran under the headline, “Start Debating/Stop Hating.” It accused “elements of the radical Left” of trying to “shut down informed discussion of policy issues” and decried those who attempt to suppress debate “through personal assaults that aim only to malign an opponent’s character.” The SPLC, it said, was engaging in “character assassination.”
It was a remarkable performance, given that it was precisely the maligning of entire groups of people — gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people — that caused the SPLC to list groups like the FRC. Remarkable, too, was the accusation that the SPLC was avoiding debate — in fact, the very first public discussion of the issues raised by the SPLC came in a Nov. 29 debate between the FRC’s Tony Perkins and myself on MSNBC’s “Hardball With Chris Matthews.”
Consider a few of the comments about gays and lesbians that have come from some of the groups now denouncing character assassination. The FRC, in a booklet entitled Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys, has claimed that “one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order.” The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer wrote this year that “[h]omosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and 6 million dead Jews.” Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel, which was not listed by the SPLC but helped organize today’s newspaper ad, describes relationships between gay men as “one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love.’” Officials of several, including the FRC, have called for criminalizing gay sex.
more at http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/12/15/splc-responds-to-attack-by-frc-conservative-republicans/
Another Christian website, Canyonwalker Connections, wrote: “Lies are evil. Lies breed fear. … If we repeat the myth enough, maybe it will gain muddy traction and stick. This is what FRC and other Hate Groups do so well. They demonize the gay community. … If the church cannot police our own, perhaps God is using secular organizations to slap His children upside the head? Would not be the first time. I will stand with, beside and in front of my GLBT fellow humans to ensure that they gain equality with me. Family Research Council, you should be more concerned about where you are on God’s list of naughty or nice, sheep or goats. And Southern Poverty Law Center, I applaud you, thank you, really … thank you.”
At the end of the day, it’s hard to know if the politicians and other leaders who signed today’s anti-SPLC statement really know some of things the groups they are throwing in with support. What’s a fact is that, despite their claims, the groups have so far, without exception, failed to confront the facts of SPLC’s report.
Comment by rusty — December 16, 2010 @ 3:35 pm - December 16, 2010
Why is it hate to seek the (re)criminalization of homosexuality? If the FRC wanted to recriminalize prostitution in Nevada, would the group be accused of hate? Of course not. The fact is that there are a bunch of sexual behaviors, from prostitution to polygamy, that are illegal and/or socially stigmatized, yet their illegality or stigmatization doesn’t ruffle the feathers of the SPLC.
The truth is that slapping the “hater” label on people or groups is liberals’ strategy to demonize and marginalize those who dare to disagree with them. When liberals oppose “hate” it’s all political; it has NOTHING to do with opposing the actual feeling of animus.
Comment by Seane-Anna — December 16, 2010 @ 9:48 pm - December 16, 2010
The FRC, in a booklet entitled Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys, has claimed that “one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order.”
That is correct.
ILGA, for example, has passed several resolutions decrying age of consent laws and insisting that children be allowed to experiment sexually regardless of age.
Gay and lesbian groups insist that age-of-consent laws are “homophobic” and that it is normal and “common” in the gay community for gay and lesbian people to have sex with children seventeen years their junior.
And gay and lesbian politicians and Obama Party leaders brag about how their four-year-old children are “fascinated by penises” that they support being in full public view.
Funny how the SPLC supports and endorses that behavior, isn’t it?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 17, 2010 @ 3:41 am - December 17, 2010
And frankly, being called a “hater” by people who support and endorse “parents” showing penises to their four-year-olds and bragging about how “fascinated” they are is a badge of honor on several levels.
If gays and lesbians want to play with their sexual organs in front of children, they should be treated accordingly. Let Evan Hurst, Rob Tisinai, Timothy Kincaid, and all the others who are shrieking “hater” explain wjy they support and endorse public nudity and gay and lesbian parents having their children play with their sexual organs. Let the SPLC explain why they support and endorse it. Let the Obama Party, “Equality” California, and all the other organizations who endorse and support it be treated accordingly.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 17, 2010 @ 3:44 am - December 17, 2010
I support public nudity… as long as it’s Grace Park and not me
Seriously though, I’m sure Kevin Jennings and Henry Hay would call us ‘haters’ for opposing sex with boys, or that Columbia professors would accuse us of hate for not letting fathers drill their daughters ‘consentually’.
Speaking of drilling… What about all those hate groups (including the administration) who want to ban offshore drilling? Or those haters who want to ban Happy Meals?
‘Hate’ is thrown around a lot. Seane-Anna may be against homosexual activity, (and my own tastes) but she doesn’t want to round up and kill us all. There’s a line between disapproval and hate. too many people erase that line.
Hells, I don’t even hate Levi, he’s too pathetic to hate.
Comment by The_Livewire — December 17, 2010 @ 6:57 am - December 17, 2010
NDT >>
I love you! Quoting a NAMBLA memo from 1994. Quoting 17 year olds who want to have sex with people twice their age. Quoting government workers who aren’t intimidated by the sight of penises while spending time with their 4-year-old daughter and labeling them an Obama supporter. Bring it Hyperbole-Thirty!
NAMBLA! Who is endorsing NAMBLA these days anyway … ??? ANYONE??? And will someone shut that 17-year old up? How dare he speak up. You *know* HE was sexually abused as a child. There is just *no doubt* about it. And penises! OMG penises! KEEP THEM things covered. Bedlam. Bedlam, I tell you, BEDLAM!!!!!!!!
I only say this because Right-wing types (we were talking about extremists, rrrriiiiiggghhhhttttt????) have no history of sexual deviancy!
*cough* Eddie Long
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 17, 2010 @ 2:40 pm - December 17, 2010
“he’s too pathetic to hate.” No judgement, right?
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 17, 2010 @ 2:41 pm - December 17, 2010
VTK >> “documentaries never lie and are invariably balanced and respectful to all points of view.”
Actually, yes. “Capturing the Friedman’s” come to mind.
“Prodigal Sons” is more an interesting family story.
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 17, 2010 @ 2:48 pm - December 17, 2010
Lol at NDT. Citing a 16 year old document from a gay group most gays have probably never heard of. Someone seems to have an obsession with a few people, gay and straight, that think having sex with children is ok. People wanted to maintain the status quo and keep the age of consent in Canada at 14 and they’re radical? Reaching much?
As has been shown with the Tea Party, it is really easy to find a few extremes and label a whole group of people the same. Truth is, if you actually went out and got to know some gay people, you’d realize that they’re not really any much different from straights. But I guess finding one or two deviants and lumping them in with all other gays is an appropriate thing to do.
Comment by AJ — December 17, 2010 @ 10:25 pm - December 17, 2010
Vince, you ask who is supporting NAMBLA these days. Perhaps the better questions are why did gay groups ever align themselves with NAMBLA in the first place and was their disassociation from NAMBLA based on principle or just political expediency?
Comment by Seane-Anna — December 17, 2010 @ 10:57 pm - December 17, 2010
Seane-Anna >> Once upon a time mainstream political parties were filled with racists. Nowadays, who in the mainstream is going to associate themselves with people who judge others by the color of their skin?
Principle or political expediency?
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 17, 2010 @ 11:41 pm - December 17, 2010
Once upon a time, men in the mainstream were against a woman’s right to vote. Why did people distance themselves from them or change?
Principle or political expediency?
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 17, 2010 @ 11:42 pm - December 17, 2010
Once upon a time half of a nation fought a war to maintain slavery. And lost. Did they change overnight? And, if they did, was it because of …
(yes, good guess)
… principle or political expediency?
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 17, 2010 @ 11:45 pm - December 17, 2010
Oh, and, by the way, Seane-Anna, Since the inception of NAMBLA, there have been gay rights groups actively campaigning AGAINST them and their affiliation with any major gay rights groups.
Principle or political expediency?
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 17, 2010 @ 11:50 pm - December 17, 2010
Seane-Anna vocally takes a stand against NAMBLA. There have been rumors that she was once supported their cause.
Principle or political expediency?
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 17, 2010 @ 11:51 pm - December 17, 2010
Which directly quotes ILGA resolutions and points out how ILGA has supported and endorsed NAMBLA as a full member.
Actually, if you had read the link, you would have seen the following:
You would have also seen Hudler’s picture, which makes it quite clear that he is not a teenager — just someone who likes to prey on them, apparently.
It doesn’t take much labeling.
At the very least, had you actually READ the article you were given, you would have noticed that Bevan Dufty is a San Francisco City Supervisor — which, had you gone to see Milk, you would have recognized as the elected representative for the Castro and Noe Valley areas –and, to top it off, a candidate for mayor.
I can also show you his endorsements from the Obama Party, his praise of Obama, and all the other things that you were too lazy to look up before opening your mouth.
Finally, your ending is classic; since you yourself support and endorse this behavior, why are you trying to criticize Eddie Long for allegedly practicing it? You support rape, molestation, and exploitation of teenagers and claim that criticism of it is “hyperbole”, yet there you are trying to attack Eddie Long for doing that which you support?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2010 @ 2:32 am - December 18, 2010
The Obama Party, which is endorsed and supported by the overwhelming majority of gays and lesbians like Vince, does so regularly.
And as we see by the WeHo gays and lesbians who screamed “n****r” at black people and made other racial slurs, it certainly seems to be endemic among gays and lesbians.
And this was classic.
Since the inception of NAMBLA, there have been gay rights groups actively campaigning AGAINST them and their affiliation with any major gay rights groups.
Which is, of course, why they were an honored member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), the umbrella body that represents the gay and lesbian community to governments world-wide and which was seeking UN consultative status, for well over a decade, despite not hiding in the least who they were or what they wanted.
For some reason, the gay and lesbian community didn’t see anything wrong with NAMBLA until Jesse Helms pointed it out and it cost them UN consultative status and funding.
Political expediency.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2010 @ 2:47 am - December 18, 2010
NDT>>
“Since you yourself support and endorse this behavior.”
“You support rape, molestation, and exploitation of teenagers.”
Please support the above statements by quoting where I support anything you question. You can’t. They have a name for such things and it’s called slander.
What I don’t support is you using these materials to paint a negative picture of ALL gays.
“The Obama Party, which is endorsed and supported by the overwhelming majority of gays and lesbians like Vince.”
Again, please provide support. Otherwise, you think I support Obama because I disagree with you.
The FRC statement best summed up: gays are working towards making it legal to rape all of our children. And you agree with this statement. I find it repulsive and saddening that one would believe the thoughts/ actions of a small contingent of gays, whom I DON’T agree with, represent the majority.
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 18, 2010 @ 3:27 am - December 18, 2010
Kudos to you Vince. . .and AJ thanks
my favorite. . .’And the gay left has been licking his (clinton) balls ever since.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 17, 2010 @ 7:31 pm – December 17, 2010′
Who’s been giving the . . .usual suspects Republican Reps. John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mike Pence, and Michele Bachmann; Republican Sens. Jim DeMint, James Inhofe, and David Vitter; and probable presidential hopefuls Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, and Rick Santorum. . .
a personal rim job. . . .sorry about miss bachmann, but hey it might trip her trigger.
happy holidays everyone. looking forward to hearing the outcome of the DADT vote. FRC is in such a tizzy over it. . .
We are pledging today to endorse, and help fund, conservative primary challengers to any U.S. Senator who votes during the lame-duck session to overturn ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ FRC Action PAC will work to remove any U.S. Senator who would place liberal special interests ahead of the priorities of the American people.
Comment by rusty — December 18, 2010 @ 4:02 am - December 18, 2010
Vince seems to want to ignore that our ‘Safe schools czar” told the story for years about how he encouraged a 15 year old boy (his words) to ‘be careful’ when having sex with a much older man. He only suddenly became a 16 year old boy when it became public.
Note: Jennings broke the law, by his own statements, by not reporting this, as required for a teacher. Also note how Jennings praised Harry Hay, but then amazingly this ‘gay rights scholar’ didn’t know about his affiliation with NAMBLA. Yes, the same Harry Hay Nancy Pelosi proudly marched with.
So there’s an Administration official who boasted of breaking the law, and a congressional leader who marched with Harry Hay.
(For comparison look at the furor aimed at Sarah Palin trying to tie her to a ‘seperatist’ group. Unfounded it was).
Comment by The_Livewire — December 18, 2010 @ 11:08 am - December 18, 2010
“miss bachmann, but hey it might trip her trigger.”
Sen. Bachman’s G-spot (if she even has one) is probably so far up her ass, she’d need a coal-miner to find it.
Anyone who endorses intelligent design being taught in school as history and refers to gays as having a sexual dysfunction and identity disorder can lick my left nut.
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 18, 2010 @ 11:19 am - December 18, 2010
TLW >> Check your facts on Jennings before making slanderous statements:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910050018
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 18, 2010 @ 11:27 am - December 18, 2010
TLW >> Check your facts on Jennings and Harry Hay before making slanderous statements:
http://mediamattersaction.org/smears/200910020003
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 18, 2010 @ 11:30 am - December 18, 2010
And as far as Sarah Palin [You brought her into the conversation] … she fueled almost as many rumors about Obama as were spread about her by the American public …
Doesn’t make it right, but certainly doesn’t make her a saint.
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 18, 2010 @ 11:38 am - December 18, 2010
Vince in Weho,
Don’t post anything from media matters here, some will claim it’s not even worth reading because the source is vile and biased. Plus the facts about the Jennings case don’t jive with some people’s views on here that gays are predatory pedophiles, so they’ll willfully ignore them.
Comment by AJ — December 18, 2010 @ 1:42 pm - December 18, 2010
mistake: Rep. Bachman
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 18, 2010 @ 4:08 pm - December 18, 2010
Actually, I have “Brewster’s” actual license in my possession, which clearly shows that he was lying about his actual age (fourteen) when he was interacting with NAMBLA supporter Kevin Jennings.
I can show it to you. Just be warned that it has no name, number, address, or photo on it, just a birth date that proves my point that “Brewster” was fourteen when pedophile Kevin Jennings deliberately broke the law to cover up the fact that he was encouraging his students to have sex with adults in bus stations.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2010 @ 11:33 pm - December 18, 2010
Don’t post anything from media matters here, some will claim it’s not even worth reading because the source is vile and biased. Plus the facts about the Jennings case don’t jive with some people’s views on here that gays are predatory pedophiles, so they’ll willfully ignore them.
Meanwhile, we see how “fact-based” Media Matters puppets like AJ were going around trying to pass off a Tonight Show skit as “fact”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2010 @ 11:42 pm - December 18, 2010
Please support the above statements by quoting where I support anything you question.
With pleasure.
Quoting a NAMBLA memo from 1994. Quoting 17 year olds who want to have sex with people twice their age. Quoting government workers who aren’t intimidated by the sight of penises while spending time with their 4-year-old daughter and labeling them an Obama supporter. Bring it Hyperbole-Thirty!
As I pointed out, you flat-out lied in describing every single instance therein. Why else would you lie, other than to deliberately obfuscate and defend this behavior?
Then, as is typical, being denied denial and obfuscation, you flipped to whining about being unfairly judged as a group based on the actions of individuals — ironic, since your actions had made it clear that you were supportive of their behavior.
Perhaps when you start condemning such behavior by gay and lesbian people instead of trying to lie and spin and defend them, people will take your claim that you don’t support such behaviors more seriously.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2010 @ 11:54 pm - December 18, 2010
What I don’t support is you using these materials to paint a negative picture of ALL gays.
Why not? After all, bigot gays like Rob Tisinai and his resident bigot Regan DuCasse do exactly that to Christians.
If you watch footage from anti black mobs of the 50′s and 60′s there are Biblical passages on signs and Bible waving. There was Bible waving in the halls of legislation and the Senate to uphold Jim Crow….
Excuse my lecture, but it’s time we showed just how consistently Christians have supported the worst human rights abuses in America, and they have no more excuse to do it to gay people than blacks or women or Jews before them.
Man up, Vince. Go over and lecture the bigot Regan DuCasse about how she shouldn’t use the actions of individuals to judge all. Tell Rob Tisinai to be more responsible in his language. In other words, practice your “equality” and apply it “equally” to your fellow gays and lesbians.
Or…..if you look at photos of gay pride parades, you see NAMBLA there and leaders of the gay community like Harry Hay wearing signs quoting and supporting NAMBLA. Excuse my lecture, but it’s time we showed just how consistently the gay and lesbian community has endorsed and supported child rape and pedophilia.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2010 @ 12:03 am - December 19, 2010
Ah yes… slander is reporting Jennings own accounts of the incident.
Comment by The_Livewire — December 19, 2010 @ 1:03 pm - December 19, 2010
It is amusing watching Vince getting more and more pathetic the more he posts.
Comment by The_Livewire — December 19, 2010 @ 1:04 pm - December 19, 2010
NDT, I don’t need to lecture Regan Ducasse any more than you need to go lecture the FRC.
“If you look at photos of gay pride parades, you see NAMBLA there and leaders of the gay community like Harry Hay wearing signs quoting and supporting NAMBLA.”
I’ve been going to gay pride parades since 1996 and haven’t seen any signs from NAMBLA. Go ahead and provide pictures to prove me wrong.
Slanderers are what you are. And TLW also resorts to personal attacks (“pathetic”).
“GayPatriot’s authors disclaim and discourage the use of intimidation, violence, or any other illegal act as a way to advance one’s political beliefs.” Slander is illegal.
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 19, 2010 @ 2:47 pm - December 19, 2010
I’ve been going to gay pride parades since 1996 and haven’t seen any signs from NAMBLA. Go ahead and provide pictures to prove me wrong.
Certainly.
NDT, I don’t need to lecture Regan Ducasse any more than you need to go lecture the FRC.
But, since you already lectured me, why not apply it equally and lecture her?
Answer: Because you’re not acting out of principles, but out of political expediency.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2010 @ 8:00 pm - December 19, 2010
NDT >> You typed in “NAMBLA pride parade” into google. You’re going to have to do better than that if you’re going to provide proof.
And, you go lecture Regan Ducasse. I don’t know who she is. You make her sound like the voice of mainstream gays.
You’re certainly not acting out of principle. I asked you for recent proof of NAMBLA being in a Pride parade and you can’t.
Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 19, 2010 @ 9:22 pm - December 19, 2010
Just saw this. Vince asks for proof, it’s provided and he moves those goal posts again.l
Hint, it’s not slander if it’s the truth.
Comment by The_Livewire — December 28, 2010 @ 10:36 am - December 28, 2010