Just last night when dining with some right-of-center bloggers and allied conservatives, I met a conservative woman who upon learning I was gay asked if I knew a certain gay Republican (I did). She reported his observation that he found it easier to be gay in Republican circles than to be conservative in gay circles — something your humble bloggers have long experienced as well.
Well, when I returned home, I found in my in-box an e-mail from Bruce alerting me to post on the American Thinker from another gay man who has just learned the same thing.
Discovering posters attacking Sarah Palin on a San Francisco fence, Ray Gross tells that he is gay and living in hiding in San Francisco, “hiding from the Liberal Left”, hiding that he’s a conservative:
Gay people are used to feeling the fear of backlash and intolerance. It’s been a common theme for me, and I hid being gay for a good part of my life because of that fear.
But here I am, hiding again, hiding from those who have been telling me my whole life that they are the tolerant, loving and accepting ones. And I believed them, joining them in pinning the labels of hate and intolerance on the political right.
Now I fear them. They are not tolerant or accepting. They accuse others of hate and intolerance and yet, by their behavior they show themselves again and again to be the hypocrites they are. They are incapable of seeing the irony of the situation; that those who preach “tolerance” are intolerant, and those who champion “love” exude hate.
Like Pavlov’s dog they are trained by the left and the liberal media to salivate at the mere mention of the words “conservative” “Republican,” “right,” “Christian,” and “Bush”. Now, they have a new favorite victim for their hate and intolerance, Sarah Palin.
Yet again, these folks manifest the very hatred they claim to find in their ideological adversaries. Why do these people hate so much?
Hatred is an affliction of mind and spirit. It is within the best interest of the left to perpetuate such an afflictions because it clouds critical thinking and wisdom!
That’s why I left San Francisco after living there for 25 years.
Ray Gross can’t live as a conservative in San Francisco. Well, at least, he is not getting beaten within an inch of his life (or worse). I only am using the same logic as those who use the “try being gay in a Muslim country” argument.
Try being gay in:
Savannah, GA
or New York City
or Washington, D.C.
or Shreveport, LA
or Toronto, ON
I recognize that no one on here endorses any of this violence. And I don’t deny that San Francisco is full of arrogant, self-entitled, close-minded asshole liberals. But, can you please clarify for me what degrees of acceptance and tolerance and on what scale are we talking about. Before we start nitpicking the accessibility of expressing opinions, isn’t it more important to get passed much larger hurdles we seem to be facing in this country? Like the accessibility of living your life without getting pummeled or murdered?
I know nothing.
I forget Psych 101. Isn’t it something about not being able to toilet train properly or something like that?
Anal-expulsive personality. That’s what I was thinking of.
@”Redneck F*g” — Exactly. You didn’t feel that San Francisco was a good fit for you, so you moved away.
Before you even moved there, I’m sure you were well aware that San Francisco and “The People’s Republic of West Hollywood” (Dan’s words) are uber-liberal gay enclaves that vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic party.
A lot of conservatives & Republicans view San Francisco (The Castro especially) and West Hollywood to be the modern-day Sodom & Gomorrah.
Furthermore, going by what “North Dallas 30” says about San Francisco, it sounds like a hellish place that hates the military, detests people of faith, and promotes all kinds of deviant sexual behavior. None of those sound like conservative values to me.
So if you would rather live with more acceptance from your straight conservative peers in what Sarah Palin calls “the pro-America areas of this great nation,” you have the freedom to do so.
But don’t act surprised or complain that you moved into “The People’s Republic of ——-” only to find out that the majority of the people living there aren’t that amenable to conservatives or Republicans.
Shorter Guilty White Male: It’s OK for leftists like himself not to practice what they preach about tolerance and respecting others’ opinions.
Because they can. On the left, there is no social pressure not to hate provided one’s hate is directed at “acceptable” targets like Sarah Palin, Christians, and FoxNews.
I think it’s simpler than that. Conservatives feel that (most*) of the liberals are simply misguided. Liberals feel that Conservatives are evil.
*I say ‘most’ becasue it’s clear that the icons of the left (Che, Castro, Ayers) are evil.
guilty white male @#4 asks:
One should be allowed to be a conservative gay without being badgered and maligned for being conservative.
Since I could not make your links works, I do not know what anecdotes you wanted us to consider. But to be parallel to this post, the links would show liberal gays being badgered and maligned for being liberal.
Somehow, is suspect the posts show gays being beaten for “just being gay.” So, I will also speak to that. Savannah, GA and New York City and Washington, D.C. and Toronto, ON are all large cities and Shreveport, LA is not a small berg. I am unaware of social conditions which permit a gay “getting beaten within an inch of his life (or worse)” just for being a run of the mill, go to work and make a living gay.
How this ties into the ” ‘try being gay in a Muslim country’ argument…” baffles me.
Well, now, what part of “living your life” gets you pummeled or murdered? If it is just because of being gay, how do you propose to change things? A Nation of Gayslam replete with bodyguards for every member?
I abhor violence or bullying against anybody because of their differences. However, if one is going to push the envelope of difference with those who are bigots, one had better be able to handle himself with alacrity or be able to run like a cheetah. And if bigots seek out and beset a person because of his differences, the law must go after them with efficient and dedicated indifference.
It is the last point that is critical. None of us, gay or straight, has the assurance that any street or alley at any time of day is totally safe from predators.
Also, Heliotrope, because a gay man is a victim of a crime, why is it always assumed that he was victimized because he is gay and not just because he had the bad sense to be out late at night in a bad neighborhood?
I’m not sure why none of those links worked. Argh.
Shreveport, LA
New York City
Savannah, GA
Toronto, ON
Fort Wayne, IN
You are right, Helio. NONE of us as the assurance of safety. But, this is happening ALL the time. Gay men and lesbians are targeted violently for exactly who they are, much like blacks were in a good chunk of of the 20th century. I find that a more alarming problem than what I’ve already referenced in my previous post.
I read that article yesterday at AT, excellent.. He is a patriot. It is like a black conservative, look what they did to Clarence Thomas… They have no shame.
#4. “what degrees of…?” Easy enough! The EXACT same degrees demanded by the Left: Total, Complete Acceptance and Tolerance; regardless of attitude, action, inaction, nationality, history, culture, civility, appropriateness, decency, respect, majority, the Constitution, sensibilities, upbringing…
Fascinating. Especially since you poor oppressed homo-cons perpetually attack the gay left over what you perceive as its ‘victim’ pose.
This is not about prejudice. You cons are disliked for the ideas you espouse. If you can’t stand the heat, walk away from the debate. Better yet: Grow a pair.
I’m sure all those teens that commit suicide in the red states because of bullying they experience from the perception of being gay feel that’s it’s easier to be gay with conservatives too, right?
Political correctness demands that it assumed that gay teenagers who commit suicide do so because conservative politicians are willing to offer them civil unions with the full benefits of marriage, but not actual marriage.
I think it’s just as likely that some gay teens look at the gay activist leadership and see that they are expected to conform to a culture filled with shallow promiscuity, drug use, STD’s, and forced acceptance of weird and deviant behavior and commit suicide out of sheer disgust and horror.
If I were a teenager and I was told my role models were Barney Frank, the cast of ‘Glee,’ and Dan Savage… I’d probably think about offing myself, too.
Ah Granny, if only you could grow a pair of facts, then you’d actually have two, instead of zero.
Your very post drips of the hatred and contempt that you claim doesn’t exist.
When you parse Granny’s post, TLW, what she’s actually saying is. “Conservatives should STFU and not complain when liberals tell them to STFU.”
@The_Livewire: I never claimed it didn’t exist. I claimed you cons can’t handle what you readily dish out.
@V the K: Google “karma.”
Not how Granny, who never replies when she attempts to use facts in other posts, claim we can’t take what we ‘dish out’. Of course with facts being alien to her, we shouldn’t be surprised.
Auntie Bitch exults: “If you can’t stand the heat, walk away from the debate. Better yet: Grow a pair.”
Pot, meet kettle.
I told you I’d be on you like white on rice. Texans never forget.
Regards,
Peter H.
I think the major disconnect right now between the left and the right is that many in the “conservative side” feel that it’s perfectly reasonable to have to hide being gay, where as on the liberal side there is growing consensus that hiding being gay is not only a serious problem but contributing to the further marginalization and mental instability of gays on the whole. After examining the evidence I think they have a point. In schools where gays are treated as a normal subset of the population and students are taught that gays have always existed there is little to no bullying. Whereas in schools that actively hide or ignore their gay students bullying continues to be a life threatening event for many. Further more the same lessons is mirrored in adult life, in work places where gays hide they are more at risk for abuse by bosses and co-workers.
Bearing this in mind, giving in to religious or conservative pressure to hide what we are would be a foolish indeed. That’s the same lesson that Harvey Milk learned when facing Anita Bryant’s movement in the 70’s if people know gays and realize that they know gays they vote for us two to one, if gays are just a scary figment of their imagination they vote against by the same margin.
For those jumping on the conservatives don’t discriminate lets not get to far into fantasy land. http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201102160006 It’s all nice and good to pretend that everyone that calls themselves “conservative” will treat you like a person but let’s not forget that the religious right hijacked the word conservative a long time ago and define it to mean “Biblical morality” instead of liberal ideals.
As for this tired let’s make sure to question if a victim was asking for it meme, I find it as useful as making sure to ask rape victims if it was “really that bad” or “are you sure you weren’t sending mixed signals”. When someone beats you down while screaming F*g than burning down your house I think it’s safe to say that there can be anti gay feelings.
Since when is pointing out nasty and hypocritical behavior on the part of the left equivalent to not being able to take it? SRSLY?
Conservatives have never tried to shut down debate. Yet, the left is on a jihad to shut down conservative media outlets using Government power, they demand that people who express contrary political opinions be fired from their jobs, and they even attack the children of conservatives to prevent them from participating in debates,
Tell me, which side is it that can’t take criticism from the other side?
Or, is my pointing out the complete lack of tolerance and civility on the left just evidence that the right can’t take criticism?
George Orwell understood this quality in the Collectivist Left in 1984’s Hate Minutes and Hate Week.
This is not about prejudice. You cons are disliked for the ideas you espouse.
That’s odd. The left used to be all whiny about how everyone’s opinion had to be respected, how there were no bad ideas, how criticizing people was wrong and damaging to them, etc.
Now we see the lies of the fascist Dogma. Poor Dogma is all for tolerance and individuality — as long as everyone does what whiny Dogma says.
An icon for gay left tolerance.
@V_theK “Conservatives have never tried to shut down debate.”
this is blatantly untrue as well as being ridiculous. Conservatives are not magical fairy beings that all dress like Uncle Sam and give gold coins to children. Just as you are a Moralist, there are many variations of what it can mean to be conservative. Fred Phelps could easily be called a conservative for advocating a fanatical theocracy, muslim terrorists could be considered conservative for calling for a return to a traditional way of life. Assuming that your definition of conservative is simply poor form.
Oh, fiddle. Countervail: Please, please, please start a “gay teen bullied into suicide” watch. You keep waving that bloody shirt; now back it up or spin on it.
You could create a pink noose icon magnet for the back of a car and an enamel lapel pin to heighten awareness and MSNBC could have a regular segment about where the hotspots for gay teens being bullied are. Such continued fixation about “widespread” victimhood needs massive public airing. In fact, every high school should have specially trained counselors to steer gay teens through the rapids and sinkholes of their devastation prone existence.
Meanwhile, we must never consider being a gay teen as “normal.” If you can’t ride your a-normality for all it is worth, why be gay? Right?
I think the major disconnect right now between the left and the right is that many in the “conservative side” feel that it’s perfectly reasonable to have to hide being gay, where as on the liberal side there is growing consensus that hiding being gay is not only a serious problem but contributing to the further marginalization and mental instability of gays on the whole.
Actually, the major disconnect is the fact that gays and lesbians like Tim see nothing wrong with sex with underage children, want people to be discriminated against on the basis of their religious beliefs, and believe they should be allowed to sexually harass their coworkers — and then, when these beliefs are challenged and barred, scream “homophobe” and claim that people are trying to hide and marginalize gays.
Guess what, Tim? Your need to have sex with children and your defense of it SHOULD be marginalized. Your blatant and obvious antireligious bigotry and hatred SHOULD be publicly scorned. Your sexually harassing your coworkers SHOULD be quashed. And if these are all due to your sexual orientation AS YOU CLAIM and are defining features of your sexual orientation AS YOU CLAIM, then it is perfectly legitimate to discriminate against you based on sexual orientation.
You hide behind being gay as an excuse for flat-out antisocial and criminal behavior. Since you won’t ever give that up, I have ZERO problem with laws being put in place to make damn sure that filth like you never teach in public schools, even though it affects me personally. You and your fellow pig leftist gays who can’t and won’t control yourself have to be leashed, and unfortunately, that means the rest of us have to suffer.
Conservatives are not magical fairy beings that all dress like Uncle Sam and give gold coins to children. Just as you are a Moralist, there are many variations of what it can mean to be conservative.
That’s odd, Tim; above, you make a huge generalization about conservatives.
It’s all nice and good to pretend that everyone that calls themselves “conservative” will treat you like a person but let’s not forget that the religious right hijacked the word conservative a long time ago and define it to mean “Biblical morality” instead of liberal ideals.
So you oppose making positive generalizations about conservatives, but fully support and endorse making negative ones.
That shows your bigotry and prejudice right there.
And that’s really what this is all about. Timmy wants to be able to do whatever he wants because he’s gay, while those mean heterosexuals and religious people should be forced to shut up and do whatever Timmy says. It’s a three-year-old’s dream.
Another reason for gay teens committing suicide: older gays who lie about their HIV status, have bareback sex with teens, and give them HIV.
Given the skyrocketing rates of HIV infection among teenagers, obviously adult gays are having bareback sex with them and giving it to them. Why wouldn’t the shock of being handed a biological death sentence lead a teen to kill themselves?
Got an answer for that, Countervail?
#29: “Fred Phelps could easily be called a conservative for advocating a fanatical theocracy…”
Or you could just call Phelps what he is: a lifelong Democrat who has run for political office as a Democrat five times.
@nd30 I thought we already covered that being a catholic automatically made you a pedophile?
“You hide behind being gay as an excuse for flat-out antisocial and criminal behavior. Since you won’t ever give that up, I have ZERO problem with laws being put in place to make damn sure that filth like you never teach in public schools, even though it affects me personally. You and your fellow pig leftist gays who can’t and won’t control yourself have to be leashed, and unfortunately, that means the rest of us have to suffer.”
and people wonder why it’s easy for me to assume that you have serious mental issues going on.
Kindly provide citations of:
– Conservatives attempting to use the FCC to shut down politically liberal media outlets.
– Liberals who have been denied the opportunity to speak at college campuses because of the threat of violent protests from conservatives.
– Conservatives demanding speech codes on college campus to suppress political opinions they disagree with.
Show me the organized conservative opposition to the free speech rights of leftists with citations and examples such as those I provided in my previous post vis-a-vis the left seeking to silence conservative opinions.
Please cry some more. The GOP has rejected you, and the Gay Left will never forgive you for the damage you have caused and the anti gay stances you take.
While that is technically accurate (i.e. True), it does not fir the left-wing narrative; which demands that Fred Phelps be labeled a conservative right-winger.
You see, on the left, there is no truth, there is only, ‘The Narrative.’
Wow, Dooms really seems desperate to cast us into the wilderness.
Fortunately reality is different on his first statement. He is right though, the Gay Left would never forgive conservative gays for wandering off the reservation.
Lol Phelps has infinitely more in common with the other religious bigots in this country than any democrat. Also you may want to look at his age, me thinks he’s an old school southern democrat. Which is essentially todays GOP
why is the assumption that every one labeled a democrat is a liberal and everyone labeled a republican a conservative? I mean David Boren the HR from oklahoma votes extremely conservatively but runs as a democrat because of the voting machine here. Or Scott Brown from MA?? how is it that GOproud is considered liberal by the rest of Cpac but you only define them as conservative? Either your being really dense or purposely obtuse
“You hide behind being gay as an excuse for flat-out antisocial and criminal behavior. Since you won’t ever give that up, I have ZERO problem with laws being put in place to make damn sure that filth like you never teach in public schools, even though it affects me personally. You and your fellow pig leftist gays who can’t and won’t control yourself have to be leashed, and unfortunately, that means the rest of us have to suffer.”
http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201102160006
http://equalitymatters.org/emtv/201102120003 This is Ann coulter claiming she got GOProud to “drop the marriage plank”
http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201102160006 And this iis Al Cardenas pretty much saying GOProud won’t be re invited unless they stop endorsing gay issues.
But Goproud agrees with Britebart that gay advocacy is worse than Al-queda so that should be no problem..
In short they don’t like you, they wan’t nothing to do with you, and they only want your votes so that they can continue to use the bible to look down on you. We have terms for this psychology…
Why do people on here hate gays so much? You act like any problem in this country is the issue of gays.
Stop having a “Hissey” fit
Bazinga!
So, the cited example:
– Is not an example of conservatives shutting down speech with FCC
– Is not an example of conservatives threatening violence to prevent a liberal from speaking on a college campus.
– Is not an example of a conservative organization demanding a speech code to prevent the expression of liberal opinions.
So, in what way is it an attempt by a conservative to shut down the free speech of liberals? It reads like one guy spouting off to me with no real action behind it, and its difficult to tell without context whether he was referring to speech or to certain criminal acts condoned by leftists; failure to report sex abuse, for example.
Sorry, Dooms, but you lost all credibility yesterday with the demonstration of how gay and lesbian leftists like yourself call for the murder, torture, suicide, and rape of gay and lesbian conservatives.
This is nothing more than the game that sociopathic child rapists like yourself invariably play, Dooms, the whole “everyone else hates you, your only choice is to put up with my abuse” game.
That might have worked for the typical intellectually and emotionally stunted gay like you, Dooms, but it doesn’t fly here. You and your fellow leftists are psychological cripples who are hell-bent on making everyone else as miserable as you are. No sale.
Also, citations from left-wing websites are unpersuasive, because y’all have a reputation for making sh-t up.
North Dallas Thirty,
You’re one of the more prolific posters on this blog, and themes that come up in your posts include gay men “having sex with underage children”, persecution of people of faith, sexual harassment by gays against straights, and gay teens committing suicide because they became HIV positive. I take it that you are not a fan of what you call the “gay sex left” and “gay sex marriage.”
I’m not sure if you are a gay man, but I’m just curious what your views are about what constitutes appropriate romantic behavior for gay people. Is it best for gays to remain celibate? Or are monogamous same-sex relationships okay? If you don’t support “gay sex marriage,” what are your views on civil unions or domestic partnerships?
I’m not trying to be rude or criticize, I’m just trying to better understand where you’re coming from. If you would rather correspond with me directly via e-mail, that would be great too.
But Goproud agrees with Britebart that gay advocacy is worse than Al-queda so that should be no problem.
Actually, gay advocacy, such as the gay and lesbian community’s insistence on promoting bareback sex and drug use, is responsible for far more deaths due to HIV than al-Qaeda has been able to manage.
The death toll in the states that Barack Obama took in the 2008 Presidential election from AIDS and AIDS-related complications is annually greater than the entire death toll of 9/11. And when one considers the medical costs, drug costs, and productivity losses from gays like Dooms deliberately engaging in behavior that spreads a crippling and lethal disease, the economic impact of 9/11 is dwarfed.
Furthermore, consider how gay and lesbian advocates like Bradley Manning deliberately sabotage and attack the US military with the intent of getting soldiers killed. If al-Qaeda downloaded and sent secret military and diplomatic cables to our enemies, it would be an act of treason. Why does the gay and lesbian community, as exemplified by Glenn Greenwald, support and endorse Manning’s actions?
V the K, please explain to me how one makes up a speech that is unedited? Both links have videos of what the person said…I mean what you are doing is simply attempting to ignore facts and reality when the truth is you simply dislike the source.
Northy, what I said yesterday can easily be rolled into this, and please shut up about that crap you always bring up, no one here has advocated for anyones death/rape/murder. Like I said before go to any fox news article/Free republic/Hotair/NYpost article about gays and see what they say about you.
Look people, I provided the info, whether or not you continue to feed your ignorance is up to you, I sleep easy at night knowing I love who I am and that others do too, I don’t have to deny who I am or vote against my own interests to feel important.
Northy, do you know how many straight men and women routinely engage in unprotected sex?
It’s not simply gay men, there is a reason STD rates among the elderly spiked last year 😉
And the small minority of gaymen promoting bareback sex is just that, a small minority, and most of them are closet cases on craigslist on would assume. But whatever, you seem to think HIV is a gay disease.
Northy, what I said yesterday can easily be rolled into this, and please shut up about that crap you always bring up, no one here has advocated for anyones death/rape/murder. Like I said before go to any fox news article/Free republic/Hotair/NYpost article about gays and see what they say about you.
How typical. Poor Dooms screams and cries and tells people to “shut up” when they confront him with examples of what he and his fellow gay and lesbian liberals support and endorse, such as the rape, murder, and torture of gay and lesbian conservatives.
I guess Dooms can’t handle the truth about what gay and lesbian people really believe and do. Classic example:
Northy, do you know how many straight men and women routinely engage in unprotected sex?
Go ahead and show us, Doomsie.
Meanwhile, I can show you exactly how much gay and lesbian liberals like yourself like to bareback and spread disease — and it ain’t a “small minority”.
What is it that gives you and your fellow liberals so much pleasure about spreading a lethal disease, Doomsie? Can you explain that to us? Is it because you can’t control yourself sexually and you don’t give a damn about other peoples’ lives and health?
#39: “While that is technically accurate (i.e. True), it does not fir the left-wing narrative; which demands that Fred Phelps be labeled a conservative right-winger. You see, on the left, there is no truth, there is only, ‘The Narrative.’”
Ha ha, I love it, V the K! You post the above comment at #39 and in under 10 minutes Doom and Tim do their absolute best to prove your point at #41 and #42. Hilarious.
I think that Joe Jervis’s favorite epithet for GOProud — “Quislings” — sums up the problem pretty well.
If you’ve talked yourself into believing that Republicans and religious conservatives are the Nazis of today, perpetually scheming to shove gay people into the boxcars and thence to the ovens, naturally you’re going to hate anyone who collaborates with their evildoing.
The really funny part, Sean A, is that most gay lefties would vote for Fred Phelps as a Democrat over any Republican out of pure party loyalty.
Dooms is still trotting out that Bretibart lie?
See, this is why I say that the left has so much in common with Gobbels. They keep repeating the lie no matter how many times it’s debunked.
“Also, citations from left-wing websites are unpersuasive, because y’all have a reputation for making sh-t up.
Comment by V the K ”
That’s rich from a person that likes to shout that all gays (himself excluded) are child raping commies bent on the destruction of the universe. You follow a religion that only gave blacks souls in 1978 after a supreme court battle, that had an even longer history of forcing women into unwanted marriage to old men, and believe in golden tablets that were translated by a man under a blanket staring into a hat.
“Meanwhile, I can show you exactly how much gay and lesbian liberals like yourself like to bareback and spread disease — and it ain’t a “small minority”.
@ND30 I bet they were catholic and following the popes strict no condom policy
Tim must be one of those people who does not realize that the LDS church supports gay rights and condemns polygamy. ‘The Narrative’ says its the other way ’round.
I also don’t recall where I said all gays are “child raping commies bent on the destruction of the universe;” that’s Democrats, not gays. I believe I may have said that all gays are fish-throwing rubberheads, but then, I say a lot of things.
Doom @#51:
Hyperbole of this nature is a noose around your neck, Doom. You hang yourself with the much too much rope you use.
Why not just link to five or six FOX News gay bashing examples and five or six links to Hotair and NY Post for our edification. Or, are you only reading the comment sections where people like Doom say outrageous things and that becomes truth?
Doom: I am calling you out. Show me the links.
Tim @#58 smears V the K’s religion, which is ok, because religion is stupid and only for the gullible in Tim’s sophisticated view of things. But Tim goes on with this gem:
Tim, like Doom, has an insatiable appetite for hyperbole. He can not present a salient argument, so he paints with a fire hose.
I hereby nominate Tim and Doom for the Nobel Prize for Hyperbole Hyperventilation and Overreach in Stereotyping.
Tim: I am calling you out. Link to V the K’s examples you have cited.
Now I must go feed my crickets.
Tim, like Doom, has an insatiable appetite for hyperbole. He can not present a salient argument, so he paints with a fire hose.
Hyperbole is easier than finding examples of conservatives shutting down or threatening to take away liberal free speech rights.
It’s classic, isn’t it? It’s basically saying, “I don’t have to address your facts or argument because you’re just a religious nut who hates gay people.”
Which brings us, full circle, back to the original point of the post; the gay left has no tolerance for people who aren’t in lockstep with their dogma, and would rather attack them with smears, insults, and ridicule than address their points.
@V the K Oh I thought you were talking about a history of making things up, I never said their views haven’t softened though I find it depends heavily on the speaker these days rather than any official opinion. After all wasn’t it just last year that some gays in Salt lake city were chased off temple grounds and they came back to stage a kiss in?
You support @ND30 and these are his views so now I’m attributing them to you. After all he things all gays are inherently evil and shouldn’t have children or be allowed to adopt so I figure that fits right in with you.
If you continue ad homine attacks on others should you be surprised when they do the same to you? So just because you two like to pretend that anyone that disagrees with you or sees the world in a different way is a child raping pedophile, than lumping you in with a self hating gay in San Fransisco is really easy to do. I mean I wouldn’t say things like that James but since I saw you do it now I feel strongly compelled to use the same cheap stupid leaps of logic that you do. Wow does that mean you’re making the world dumber and less civil?
I bet they were catholic and following the popes strict no condom policy
I doubt they were. Read the article, it’s illuminating:
At baseline, the men reported a mean of nine sex partners in the previous three months. This fell to a mean of seven partners in the three months after their diagnosis, and there was a further slight fall at twelve months (mean, six partners).
This means that even after they learned that they had an incurable disease, they continued to have with multiple partners, only slightly fewer. Had their number of partners afterwards been a number like zero, HIV would not be a specific problem.
The proportion of men who reported a main partner increased from 20% at baseline to 48% at the end of the study. This increase was significant (p < 0.001). Almost half (46%) of men reported unprotected sex with a recent partner at the beginning of the study. This fell to 39% after nine months, but then increased sharply to 57% at the end of the study. There was some evidence that men were serosorting, At baseline, 14% reported having a partner who was HIV-positive, and this increased to 33% at month three and 39% at the end of the study. The proportion of men reporting recent unprotected sex with an HIV-negative partner, or man of unknown status, fell from 42% at baseline to 23% at month nine. However, the proportion increased to 50% at month twelve.
And then, it increased afterwards. I still think NDT is overgeneralizing and being too vitirolic, but his article makes a very disturbing point that the gay community will need to answer to and not simply blame on religious people and conservatives.
let’s see I start with, “I think the major disconnect right now between the left and the right is that many in the “conservative side” feel that it’s perfectly reasonable to have to hide being gay, where as on the liberal side there is growing consensus that hiding being gay is not only a serious problem but contributing to the further marginalization and mental instability of gays on the whole. After examining the evidence I think they have a point. In schools where gays are treated as a normal subset of the population and students are taught that gays have always existed there is little to no bullying. Whereas in schools that actively hide or ignore their gay students bullying continues to be a life threatening event for many. Further more the same lessons is mirrored in adult life, in work places where gays hide they are more at risk for abuse by bosses and co-workers.
Bearing this in mind, giving in to religious or conservative pressure to hide what we are would be a foolish indeed. That’s the same lesson that Harvey Milk learned when facing Anita Bryant’s movement in the 70′s if people know gays and realize that they know gays they vote for us two to one, if gays are just a scary figment of their imagination they vote against by the same margin.”
ND30 starts with, “Actually, the major disconnect is the fact that gays and lesbians like Tim see nothing wrong with sex with underage children, want people to be discriminated against on the basis of their religious beliefs, and believe they should be allowed to sexually harass their coworkers — and then, when these beliefs are challenged and barred, scream “homophobe” and claim that people are trying to hide and marginalize gays.
Guess what, Tim? Your need to have sex with children and your defense of it SHOULD be marginalized.”
Vthe K starts with this, “Because they can. On the left, there is no social pressure not to hate provided one’s hate is directed at “acceptable” targets like Sarah Palin, Christians, and FoxNews.”
Who really is painting with a fire hose Helio? After all I’m just following their example of labeling them with broad strokes because they do it to everyone else.
I don’t make assertions if I can’t back them up. If I say there is a climate on the left that tolerates hate, it’s because there is. The video clip on the top thread where a Republican governor is openly being compared to Hitler is but one example. Obama didn’t even call out the Democrat congressman who called Republicans Nazzis. MSDNC replaced the obnoxious Keith Olbermann with the even-more-obnoxious Larry O’Donnell. A Dallas County Commissioner tells his constituents “All of you are white! Go to Hell!” Bill Maher bashes Christians daily, and he gets his own show on HBO and gets invited to comment on the Sunday News Shows no one watches.
And not a peep comes from the progressive left or the media.
Because that kind of hate is okay… on the left.
So now I suppose the president should spend several hours a day going through a list of people that are inappropriate? what is he to you a nanny? I don’t remember Bush going through a list of people everyday that said inappropriate things, isn’t that just free speech? Jeesh I thought you were for small government not a nanny state.
I would submit that when the individual in question is an elected member of Congress in the president’s own party and he is behaving in an uncivil manner mere days after the president had delivered a televised lecture on civility; a president who is serious about civility could prove his sincerity by rebuking such an individual.
Besides which, how often do conservative members of congress cross the line, anyway? How often has a conservative politician had a full-in hysterical meltdown on the House Floor like Anthony Weiner How many conservative members of Congress have accused the president of watching with amusement as soldiers get their heads blown off, like Pete Stark of California did? How many conservative members of Congress have compared American soldiers to communist thugs, like Dick Durbin did? How many conservatives would accuse Democrats of wanting people to “die quickly,” like Alan “Dick” Grayson did?
It just doesn’t happen that much.
Which is why he’s BFF with that son of a racist Algore?
Don’t forget the porn companies.
Not surprisingly, one of the Tampa lawyers, who advertise at every commercial break, has added “bullying” to his repertoire. Evidently exploiting a “problem” for a shit load of cash (which will be kicked over to liberal pols) is the right thing to do.
Tim: This pure, unadulterated horse snot:
Back it up, Tim. There is no study of all the schools in the United States which led to a management of gays and straight strategy that has been successful in “little to no bullying” of gays as an outcome.
When you make these great proclamations which leak like a sieve in terms of elemental logic and really common, common sense, you only succeed in marginalizing your impact.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold created the Columbine High School massacre, not a dearth of proper social engineering. If a couple of bigots decide to bully a gay, no panel of experts and extensive training and wonderful protocols is going to make a bit of difference.
I can barely parse what you are trying to communicate in #65. But here are the basic facts: If you are gay, you had best figure out what a majority of straights will tolerate in your actions and what a majority of straights do not want in the public square. If you have a desire to go against those “norms” as established and enforced by a majority of straights, you had best hie yourself to San Francisco where you can find greater “tolerance” for doing your thing with more public panache.
Meanwhile, you really do come off as a gay who can not figure out how to be gay and happy at the same time. That happens, frequently, to people who have no core belief system. The problem with moral relevancy, is that it shifts with the needs and demands of the moment and never returns you to safe harbor. But, its your choice. A little conservatism might save you.
So now I suppose the president should spend several hours a day going through a list of people that are inappropriate?
Why not? He quite clearly spent enough time going through lists of people to see how his racist friend in Cambridge was arrested and saying that police there “acted stupidly”.
And within minutes of the Fort Hood massacre he spent his time making shoutouts to obscure people that no one had heard of prior to his mentioning them.
Wouldn’t you say, Tim, that Obama should devote equal scrutiny to both sides? Isn’t that what you liberals want?
#70: Phelps’ son I believe held fundraiser(s) for Al Gore and Phelps actually attended the first Clinton inaugural ball. The Westboro Baptist Church is aaaaaaall about the Democratic Party.
@heliotrope No it was in the UK, http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6069969 and the results came surprisingly quickly. Given my past studies of the benefits of sex education i often times read over test cases in other countries and found that they had remarkably similar issues and outlooks with the US schools.
As for your idea that somehow being conservative equates to being religious I wonder how you square the fact that churches don’t actually follow the moral code of the bible any more than we have the same government system of 2000 years ago. Like V the K’s mormon’s religions commonly shift what is morally acceptable and what is not, from eating meat on friday, or allowing divorce, frowning on spousal abuse, child abuse, slavery, health care, and a host of other ideas. The idea of voting on leaders in fact goes directly against the ideas of divine leadership, an idea espoused for nearly 1500 years. If your ideas and understanding of religion are this weak than I’m not surprised that you feel it’s okay for people that are oppressed to just deal with it because that’s the way it’s always been.
In fact this is at the crux of why my philosophies have been changing over the past few years is that I think the idea of being treated equally and not tolerating abuse is vitally important to those in our population that are gay including myself. It’s not about shoving ideas in peoples faces, it’s about other people leaving us alone and not using gays as a money making scare tactic. I don’t try to change the law when my neighbor gets married and I don’t try to change the law when they get divorced. In the same vein I don’t need to live by your religious and I’m just fine. Much better off both financially and emotionally than those who live in terror of an invisible boogey man.
Nor do I think it appropriate for people to discount attacks on their fellow citizens as “they had it coming to them for daring to act like they belong.” Should I turn a blind eye when churches are vandalized, bombed or burnt to the ground?
Tim, poor Tim. Nowhere did I equate conservatism with being religious or religion and conservatism or any other push or pull between religion and conservatism.
Perhaps you do not understand difference between moral relativity and an unwavering moral code.
You make reject all religion, some religion or selected religion. It is no skin off my nose and apparently it make you happy, happy, happy. Fine for you.
However, Tim, if you want to get along, you have to develop some set of coping skills. Even if you join a commune of sex-crazed gays, you will have to develop certain treaties so you can take time out to poop.
Good gosh, man, have you tried reality? It really isn’t too hard to survive.
Good luck to you. It is very hard to get the world warp according to your personal view.
The idea of voting on leaders in fact goes directly against the ideas of divine leadership.
Acts 1 would disagree with you on that one, but why actually read and quote the Bible, when prejudice and ignorance are so much quicker?
Should I turn a blind eye when churches are vandalized, bombed or burnt to the ground?
You already do. What’s the difference?
While we’re here, let’s just box you in by pointing out that if you try to argue that the church deserved it, your hypocrisy is obvious and blatant.
For that matter, if they’d had sexual contact with dozens and dozens of partners while strictly “playing by J/O club rules”, HIV would not spread at all, and the spread of certain other STDs would be significantly slowed.
And “playing by J/O club rules” is ALWAYS an option, no matter what the Pope or anyone else says about condoms, and no matter whether the local drugstores are open or closed, because “J/O club rules” essentially mean a mutual agreement to abstain from orifice penetration.
Another HIV-curbing measure that requires absolutely no approval from the Pope, but only voluntary behavior changes by gay men: “No anal sex before the first anniversary!” (Of course, a lot of gay men would say that’s crazy, but to me, what’s truly nutso-kooky-crazy is when grown adults who’ve never celebrated a first anniversary with anyone make the decision to have bareback anal sex because they crave “intimacy.” If your record for relationship longevity was measurable in “monthiversaries,” you don’t really understand what intimate means.)
@ND30 as a catholic you should remember that the pope has the final say on the interpretation of scripture, and fully supported the idea. from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
Catholic thought justified submission to the monarchy by reference to the following :
1. The Old Testament, in which a line of kings was created by God through the prophecy of Jacob/Israel who created his son Judah to be king and retain the sceptre until the coming of the Messiah, alongside the line of priests created in his other son, Levi. Later, a line of Judges (who were, in effect, kings) was created alongside the line of High Priests created by Moses through Aaron. Later still, the Prophet Samuel re-instituted the line of kings in Saul, under the inspiration of God.
2. The New Testament in which the first Pope, St Peter, commands that all Christians shall honour the Roman Emperor (1 Peter 2:13-17) even though, at that time, he was still a pagan emperor. Likewise, Jesus Christ proclaims in the Gospel of Matthew that one should, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s,” that is at first, literally, the payment of taxes as binding those who use the imperial currency, but more widely interpreted the offer of obedience and submission to the proclaimed worldly king (Matthew 22:20-21) in matters not contrary to conscience.
3. The endorsement by the popes and the Church of the line of emperors beginning with the Emperors Constantine and Theodosius, later the Eastern Roman emperors, and finally the Western Roman emperor, Charlemagne.
@ND30 as a catholic you should remember that the pope has the final say on the interpretation of scripture, and fully supported the idea.
The current lead post on my blog is a sermon of Martin Luther, and Tim thinks I’m Catholic.
Amazingly enough, his research gets even worse from there.
@Helio um unless I misinterpreted your comment, “Meanwhile, you really do come off as a gay who can not figure out how to be gay and happy at the same time. That happens, frequently, to people who have no core belief system. The problem with moral relevancy, is that it shifts with the needs and demands of the moment and never returns you to safe harbor. But, its your choice. A little conservatism might save you.”
You did indeed equate conservatism with religion in this statement? Would you care to rebute?
as for, “Perhaps you do not understand difference between moral relativity and an unwavering moral code. ”
Since I had to use logic, experience, and history to develop a moral code I’d like to think that I have spent a great bit more time learning about what it takes to justify living by a strong code of conduct. However even in religious faiths the idea that you will not always achieve the perfect ideal of your own philosophy is a rather embedded idea of striving towards a more perfect ideal rather than committing suicide every time you make a mistake. I know that harming others is wrong because it hurts my species, myself, and the community I want to be a part of. I find having a strong understanding of what my actions can do helps guide me better than a blanket statement from an invisible deity. Plus I can take my rules outside of the situations presented in a text 1800 years old and apply it to modern situations without worrying that I am misinterpreting a translated text, and without hiring someone to interpret the rules for me.
ND30 you spent years defending the catholic faith how was I to know you converted? Your ardent defense of the catholic churches handling of the its thousands of sex abuse and child rape trials made you seem like you had skin in the game.
Tim,
As an aging academic, I suggest that you not play the instruction game by dredging up tripe from Wikipedia for your cut and paste exercise. Before you attempt to take on the great thinkers in theology, perhaps you might spend a few years researching, studying and understanding the core beliefs you wish to debunk. Then you might hone your scholastic skills a bit before you attempt to confront two thousand years of refined scholarship. Just a passing idea. Nothing held Bill Maher back, so perhaps you prefer to walk in his footsteps and prove that an uninformed man can always make a total fool of himself while entertaining his minions.
@Heliotrope as the child of an extremely religious family with ties to the catholic, protestant, fundamentalist christian traditions I have spent many years contemplating and digesting these very things. After expanding my scope to founding and evolution of each of the major faiths I concluded that there was nothing unique to any of them besides their authority structures. More over there is an emptiness to each of them that can only be understood by understanding their beginning’s. I cited where the quotes came from, the nice thing about wiki is at least their are foot notes. Nothing is stopping you from deepening the conversation with a better history.
Since you did not actually refute any of the things I said about your comment or the fact that the catholic and anglican churches strongly supported the idea of the divine right of kings I am guessing you have nothing to add?
So, no one else sees it as a problem. Okay. That’s fine. I’m disappointed, personally.
Rome wasn’t built in a day. If it were 1980, the only gay role model would be Billy Crystal’s character on soap and the self-loathing “Boy in the Band.” Upstanding role-models take time.
Nice one.
Answers are staring at you in the face.
They hate because they are conditioned to hate. They don’t call it hate. They call it something like ’empassioned defence of gays.’ Conservatives, especially Christians, become the enemy. They are dehumanized. All conservatives become ‘them.’ Them can be attacked without fear of retribution because the leftist attacker is Righteous in striking against evil.
Military uses similar conditioning. So do sports coaches. It’s almost unremarkable. Gay literature, gay art, gay society: what are the two most prevalent themes? Sex, and fighting the evil that is conservatism (you probably thought I was going to say the Church, and I just did).
Second point is how gay folks are accepted into the GLBT community. After the feelings of anger and rage at mom and dad and the church for their betrayal of love and saying horrible things about being gay – being accepted as gay by mature folks overwhelms immature folks. And, if you get ’em at an impressionable-enough moment, you get ’em for life. Rather like the Marines. The young recruits will do everything and anything to prove their loyalty to the cause of those who have embraced them.
Unlike the military, the gay left has no means of deprogramming the hate. Hate leaves you empty. Hate uses you up. Hate requires constant feeding to stay alive.
Because of the nature of hate, haters can not understand people and group logic. They are “tolerant,” even as they vandalize the personal property of a supporter of Prop 8. They become blind.
@Daveo
They hate because they are conditioned to hate. They don’t call it hate. They call it something like ‘impassioned defense of christianity.’ democrats, especially gays, become the enemy. They are dehumanized. All democrats become ‘them.’ Them can be attacked without fear of retribution because the Christian attacker is Righteous in striking against evil.
yes my point exactly
I do agree with you wholeheartedly in this though,”Hate leaves you empty. Hate uses you up. Hate requires constant feeding to stay alive” this is why I think both sides need to calm down and remember that we are all neighbors, citizens, and people.
But I am reminded that I shouldn’t feed other people’s hate and I think I need to apologize for antagonizing ND30 and V_the_K it’s not right to do and I am open to more ideas about talking about our differences in a more constructive manner.
@DaveO also the military has no way of deprogramming it’s soldiers, PTSD is still a severe problem. my grandfather had to change his entire life because of it and ended up a farmer because he couldn’t be around other people after WW2. Sadly my friends from the current wars face the same problem and I hope that we do find a way of helping them.
I came out as a conservative lesbian while living in Oakland.
Needless to say, most of my “tolerant” queer friends stopped calling soon after.
I finally pulled up stakes and moved to Los Angeles but now I’m finding that even live-and-let-live L.A. is becoming less so due to all the libtards from NoCal (not to mention out-of-staters) moving south.
You hardly ever saw a protest in Los Angeles yet within the past year I’d guess WeHo alone has seen at least a half dozen or more.
Between all the pro-illegal immigration, anti-war, anti-Prop 8, anti-Palin, anti-Breibart, etc. etc. it’s a wonder how anything gets done in this town.
…me thinks he’s an old school southern democrat. Which is essentially todays GOP
Comment by Doom — February 17, 2011 @ 12:17 pm – February 17, 2011
I always wondered why we open our VRWC meetings with, “Dixie”.
Though I’ll admit I can never resist a good minstrel tune.
ND30 you spent years defending the catholic faith how was I to know you converted?
Wrong again. I never was a Catholic in the first place.
The reason I know so much about Catholicism is because, unlike you, I actually bother to research these things. But I understand the problem here; it’s best summed up in this statement.
Plus I can take my rules outside of the situations presented in a text 1800 years old and apply it to modern situations without worrying that I am misinterpreting a translated text, and without hiring someone to interpret the rules for me.
You cannot accept any interpretation of a situation other than your own, nor can you tolerate any guidelines that are not completely fluid and subject to change at your own convenience.
In short, Tim, you’re the ultimate moral relativist. You have no moral code or core other than your own self-gratification and self-indulgence. You refuse to acknowledge any values other than the ones that are most convenient for you at the moment.
Case in point. Let me bold the self-gratifying and self-indulgent part for you.
But I am reminded that I shouldn’t feed other people’s hate and I think I need to apologize for antagonizing ND30 and V_the_K it’s not right to do and I am open to more ideas about talking about our differences in a more constructive manner.
I fail to see why you’re apologizing when you clearly don’t believe you actually did anything wrong; as you make clear in your statement, you adamantly believe it’s all V the K’s and my fault.
And therein lies the moral relativism. Even when you have to admit you did something wrong, you don’t take responsibility for doing it; instead, you blame other people for causing it or taking offense to it.
Sometimes, Pat Buchanan leads us in a round of Munich Beer Hall drinking songs.
Tim,
I am not going to fight the Divine Right of Kings battle with you. It is a specious argument from the days of “might makes right” theology and temporal warfare. If you want to get hung up in that maze of doxology v creed, you are welcome to stew over it all by your lonesome. Pulling out the Popes who had sex with their daughters brings salacious fulfillment for people predisposed to stone all religion. Why not, instead, take on the saints one at a time and reduce them to human garbage. That should seem to be evermore fulfilling for the moral relativist.
But let’s talk about Obama as Messiah, instead. What effort did he make to tell the children like voters he assiduously rounded up that “hope and change” is a religious voodoo and not a strategy replete with blueprints, construction and finished product. How come Obama relied on blind faith in his powers instead of laying out a single developed program? Even Obamacare is still shrouded in mystery and glues together with hope and change and yes we can.
When you cut the budget, you make real and certain change. When you pour money out of the window of a speeding car, you make unknowable change among those who scramble to get evermore of a windfall that is unpredictable and largely from other people’s taxes.
Yet Progressives believe in social justice and redistribution and community organizing with childlike hearts and the right of the elite among us to herd the rest of us. Not much different from the Divine Right of Kings in my book.
I am mostly unimpressed with your “study” of religion. You have only managed to discover what you dislike. That speaks volumes about what you do not know about civilization and the peoples of the world today and over the ages.
If you can not respect differences, how do you ever expect to be a tolerant person?
@helio for an “aging academic” you have a tenuous grasp on maintaining a consistent stream of thought thru a single response. Nor do I think your jump from middle age religious teachings to labeling Obama a messiah and than wondering why he doesn’t live up to the archetype of the name you gave him seems particularly childlike. Not least since our political system doesn’t work that way. Let’s see you tied catholic history, Healthcare reform, democratic politics, socialism, social welfare, budget cutting, and than a few snide remarks that if I just studied harder that I would come to appreciate your religion.
Really the president has little to no control over how people view him, so it’s little wonder that he doesn’t live up to your expectations. Similarly I was taken aback when W Bush decided to run his entire 2004 campaign on heightening attacks on gays and pretending to care about a Marriage amendment to the constitution, something that was not only politically dead on arrival but a cheap shot at the gays like myself that had supported him and been moderately impressed by his willingness to talk openly with gay groups and politicians in 2000. What you have to realize about politicians is that we are the ones constructing their image in our own minds, and their flaws were always there to see.
As for healthcare reform it desperately needs to get done and since every little proposal was shouted thru a bullhorn as a death panel it’s not surprising that they retreated to closed doors and punting the writing of regulations to various yet discrete bureaucrats.
As for cutting the budget I agree but I think we need to start with the entitlement programs and the military, not discretionary spending while in a deep recession. reducing spending on 14% of the budget whilst ignoring 86% of it makes no sense, specially since you gut the programs in place to help the poor or struggling middle class families in their greatest time of need.
Also while I may one day find some solace in religion I’ve been constantly amazed at how much better I feel without it. It’s not because I feel unconstrained in my actions, far from it, I simply feel closer to people because I realize how amazing it is that we are here, and what we have done. Our life spans are short but we’ve come so far and our greatest threat is one another, not an invisible deity or demon.
@ND30 “And therein lies the moral relativism. Even when you have to admit you did something wrong, you don’t take responsibility for doing it; instead, you blame other people for causing it or taking offense to it.”
You seem to have a weak grasp on what any of these words mean. But luckily that’s not the point. The point is that I’ve been feeding your hate because I know it harms you, and that’s not a good thing. So While I may remark on your comments from time to time I don’t think it would be very responsible of me to do anything but advise you to relax and try to see all people as they are, not just as you have come to see them.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I feel more welcome at my local Tea Party gathering as a gay man than I do at my local gay bar as a conservative.
Regards,
Peter H.
@peter Hughes were you trying to get voters to sign a petition or something? How does that even come up? Lot’s of republicans at most gay bars here in OKC
GuiltyWhiteMale writes:
It’s pretty late in the thread, but the characterization of The Boys in the Band as “self-loathing” is a fairly commonplace trope that’s never made sense to me.
I’m inclined to wonder whether GuiltyWhiteMale has actually seen the movie himself and formed his own opinion that the tone is “self-loathing,” or if he’s merely repeating what he’s heard other gay men say about the film.
To be clear, the primary of the two central characters, Michael, IS “self-loathing,” and also desperately trying to avoid acknowledging this; while the secondary member of the central pair, Harold, may have also had some self-hatred issues, but in his case the problem has been mitigated by the fact that he’s more capable of honest introspection than Michael is.
But in smaller roles, there are six other openly gay characters besides Michael and Harold, offering a Whitman’s Sampler of “types,” and they’re all presented as more or less happy with their gay identities. (Harold’s indictment “You’re a homosexual, and you don’t want to be” is directed to Michael alone, and there’s not the smallest indication that Harold intends to address this accusation to everyone else in the room, or to gay men at large.)
So the film does affirm that (a) being gay doesn’t mean being a self-hating neurotic; and (b) there are a variety of ways to be a self-affirming gay man; you’re not stuck with just one narrow role model you have to follow.
P.S. I suspect that one reason The Boys in the Band has been characterized as “self-loathing” is that it commits the unpardonable sin of explicitly blaming Michael’s neuroses on Michael’s own attitudes, rather than taking the more fashionable route of chalking gay problems up to Straight Society’s Homophobia.
(“Don’t blame the victim! Don’t blame the victim! Awwwwk, pretty bird want cracker!”)
I have to reject the premise that the only gay role models back in the day were negative. I have a clear tweener memory of watching an AfterSchool Special where the protagonist was a gay teenager who was portrayed as an athletic, good-looking, well-adjusted guy. My view of gay people was actually more positive before I began meeting actual gay people.
I don’t remember any tv show until the Real World in the 90’s that had a gay person on it I wasn’t allowed to watch such things. as it was I had to jury rig the VCR to unblock Mtv when my parents were out. Unless you count Prince Adam on He-man.
I have a clear tweener memory of watching an AfterSchool Special where the protagonist was a gay teenager who was portrayed as an athletic, good-looking, well-adjusted guy.
V the K, is that the one where Ed Marinaro was the coach? I remember watching it. I also remember my mother making a point of wanting to see it. My guess is in addition to having an uncle and cousin who are gay, she probably thought she may have a son is gay as well.
Tim: Back in the day — specifically, the early ’80s — there was a sitcom called Love, Sidney about a struggling single mom in NYC who moves into the (very large) apartment of a successful gay male friend, played by Tony Randall.
Although the series was clear about Sidney being gay, this fact was very seldom mentioned, and AFAIK, Sidney was never once shown interacting with other gay male friends, let alone having a relationship. Although there were occasional references to the fact that he’d previously been in an LTR with another man who had apparently died (which was most likely not an AIDS reference, since the show only ran from 1981-1983).
Nonetheless, Love, Sidney was a “landmark” in that it was the first American TV series in which the lead character’s homosexuality was unambiguously acknowledged (albeit only rarely) for the viewers.
(Contrast this with, say, Too Close for Comfort, which ran 1980-87 but was aimed at a younger audience — the “Monroe Ficus” character was incredibly camp, but he was a secondary role, and for that matter I’m not sure if the show ever said directly that Monroe was gay, or if viewers had to infer this.)
I apologize, Tim. I thought you were sophisticated enough to understand the clear thread in my response. Here it is in plain words. You attack religion while being duped by shamanism in the form of Obama and the Progressive dreamscape of heaven on earth. Fool, you have fallen for the voodoo and smoke and mirrors and you don’t even understand it.
Now go attack a Pope or two. It will soothe your nerves and puff up your hollow chest. Why not pick up a homeless person or two to add to your home while you are out? Or is that just the work for church idiots?
#97 – To paraphrase Dan Ackroyd on SNL: “Tim, you ignorant slut.”
If I hear someone at my local watering hole (JR’s or Mining Company comes to mind) bitching about “teabaggers,” Sarah Palin or even George W. Bush (he’s been out of office for 3 years, girls!), I will naturally ask them why they are so uptight.
They will usually respond that they hate conservatives.
To which I reply: “I am a conservative, you know.”
Then all hell breaks loose. So much for the “tolerant” libtards who preach “compassion” and “moderating the tone of debate.”
Checkmate.
Regards,
Peter H.
@Throbert McGee interesting, like I said my TV viewing was heavily monitored, I’m sure I wouldn’t have been allowed. I think the most outlandish TV that I had was V i loved that show, do you remember Brian the Visitor that impregnated the Robin girl? I had the biggest crush on him. The Real world was the first exposure I had to gays (irregardless of my lesbian Aunt that i didn’t have a clue about) over all I thought of them as petulant but it did at least expose me to the concept that there were guys out there that soley identified as gay and that it meant they liked only men. I didn’t identify with them as individuals because they were so much more urban than I was. I know that there was more exposure in the 70’s because of Anita Bryant but I didn’t know the first thing about that till I was in my 20’s.
@Heliotrope you know when I read “Fool” I thought of you in a leopard skin outfit….
But to be serious, I didn’t vote for Obama, I voted for McCain I thought he would be more capable of confronting the over arching bureaucracy than Obama who I thought was a light weight on that front. Second I am not a neophyte, and have had my share of awakenings to the reality of politics. Your assumption that I am some kind of hardened liberal shock trooper is sadly misguided, I simply like to deal with realities not shamanism. Obama is the president and if I’m want to further myself and others I think it is prudent to try and engage in dialogue rather than diatribe to move forward. sitting on the sideline throwing rocks in a political struggle is about as smart as fishing in the desert.
I want things like gay marriage and the repeal of DADT to continue because I think it is not only good for gays but good for the Nation as a whole. Since republicans refuse to bring up such matters I treat with the democrats to pass my legislation. Ideology is the bane of useful politics. To you it might seem like you are upholding your morality if you demonize every idea of the democrats but to me it is the silliest of games.
@Peter Hughe I’m no Casanova but if someone interjected themselves into my conversation at a bar with my friends and than proceeded to try and start an argument over politics I probably wouldn’t think of them as dating material. I’m not sure why you think that a gay bar is the best place to engage in political banter but I respect your right to free speech. However if you want to Win friends and Influence people, sell yourself as a person before you engage with a stranger about personal politics.
#108 – “I’m no Casanova but if someone interjected themselves into my conversation at a bar with my friends and than proceeded to try and start an argument over politics I probably wouldn’t think of them as dating material.”
Excuse me, Tim, but obviously your reading comprehensive skills need sharpening.
For starters, how is it that I am “starting an argument” by telling someone who I am? Does that mean that if one is in a gay bar that (a) they are automatically gay and (b) are as liberal as a picnic basket?
You are about as clueless as former reporter Helen Thomas, who stated that because Obama is black, he must be a liberal (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/02/18/disgusted-helen-thomas-i-automatically-assumed-obama-was-black-therefore).
I wonder what she would say if she bumped into J.C. Watts, Allen West or Herbert Cain? But I digress.
If someone is blathering on about something and looks to me for affirmation, I will give it to them, whether they want to hear it or not. And yes, I will say it again – I have had a better reception from Tea Partiers as a gay man than I have as a conservative among gays.
Second, who says anything about dating? I don’t go to the bars to get a date. I’m not as desperate as you are.
Match, set, game. You lose. We have nice parting gifts for you.
Regards,
Peter H.
Tim, you fool!
You lay out your ideology: you are all about gay marriage and repeal of DADT which will drive you to join whoever will deliver them and then…. Ta Da !!! You proclaim that Ideology is the bane of useful politics.
Moral relativism and single issue political drive makes you a whore for any pimp you can find who get you out on the street of your dreams. Clearly, your anti-religion stuff is all about gay sin. Why don’t you man up and say so. You would obviously follow any social justice type who would try to get the churches to “modernize” their sin list.
@Peter Hughes like I said I think you would have a better chance selling yourself first than the politics. Again I say I respect your right for free speech, and you have every right to say as you please. Also I have no idea of the social dynamics that impelled you to bring politics into a conversation but remember don’t talk about politics, religion or money on the first meeting, get to know the person, than share your politics. If you bristle at every perceived insult to others, ask yourself will this help me forge a better relationship with them? I am a huge believer in love and think you will do fine. If you can meet a great guy at the tea party functions more power to you.
@Heliotrope now your just channeling Grace Jones you trollop! Um actually my ideology includes gay marriage and the repeal of DADT, it is not the sum core. Since I don’t follow any religion it seems strange that you seem compelled to to label my thoughts consumed by “gay sin”. The idea of sin comes only from a religious ideal that i do not share. I don’t really care about the ideology of any church since I accept that they are outside the nature of civil discourse. I only care when a church be it islam or Christianity seeks to impose it’s belief system on the greater whole.
Tim’s lack of reading comprehension becomes even more hilarious.
Also I have no idea of the social dynamics that impelled you to bring politics into a conversation but remember don’t talk about politics, religion or money on the first meeting, get to know the person, than share your politics.
Of course, what Peter said was this:
If I hear someone at my local watering hole (JR’s or Mining Company comes to mind) bitching about “teabaggers,” Sarah Palin or even George W. Bush (he’s been out of office for 3 years, girls!), I will naturally ask them why they are so uptight.
Notice how this works; Tim and his fellow liberals can rant left and right about politics, but if a conservative responds to their political rants, they get all huffy and whine about how awful it is that the conservative is “bringing politics into the conversation”.
Funny, isn’t it? Once again we see that Tim’s “moral code” is that he and his fellow whiny liberals can do whatever they want and everyone else has to what he and his fellow liberals want.
This is probably why Tim hates religion so much. Tim’s religion is self-worship and narcissism, and there’s no room for God in that. That’s also why Tim naturally gravitates towards the Obama Party, which says there’s nothing wrong with having sex with underage children as long as that’s what you want and enjoy.
Well, Tim, while you are zig-zagging about as to what you are, you might take time to reread how you present yourself.
What amuses me is your claim to possess a strong moral code and then go on as to how you created it all by yourself through scholarship, weighing differences, blah, blah, blah. What you have clearly shown is that you do not comprehend what a strong moral code is and how it is formed. How many people on your block each have strong moral codes which they formed on their own and yet mesh with each other’s strong moral code? Dare one of you move to Alabama or San Francisco with your self discovered strong moral code in tact? Or will you have to refine it to blend with your new neighbors? That is where the distinct smell of moral relevancy burning like toast comes into play.
You have an ideology. You say so. Period. But you hop right over your proclamation that: Ideology is the bane of useful politics. How do you square that circle?
I am done toying with your meagre efforts to be intellectual. It has been a fascinating stroll with a disorganized made up mind. As Gertrude Stein so aptly put it: “When you get there you discover there isn’t any there there.”
@Helio what amuses me is your direct violation of your Christian morals every time you call me or someone else a fool.(Matthew 5:22) – “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.”
But I’m sure you’ll apologize because you have a strong moral code
@nd30 ”Hate leaves you empty. Hate uses you up. Hate requires constant feeding to stay alive” this is why I think both sides need to calm down and remember that we are all neighbors, citizens, and people.
Oh, Tim, how typical of a non-believer to hold a believer to a standard in which the non-believer has no purchase. That is called hypocrisy. You can look it up.
I have called you a fool. I stand by it. You use your mind in foolish ways and you try to fool people with an elitist self determination that you can create a code equal to or even superior to the general ethic.
Now, apparently, you want to engage in some debate about literalism, the New Testament, etc. while not taking on any baggage of Christian responsibility yourself. Sorry, pal, but that old Christians to the lion’s den form of entertainment for the amusement of the spectators is not for me.
You are so much the fool that you would slap a Christian and then demand he turn the other cheek so you can whack him again. The depth of you shallow understand is impossible to measure. The surface hugs the bottom.
So here I stand all trollop-like in my leopard skin outfit channeling Grace Jones and not apologizing for calling you what you have so clearly demonstrated yourself to be.
#117 – Notice, Helio, that Tim – just as the Devil himself – can quote Scriptures when it best suits him.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Tim – er, I mean – liberalism.
Sorry, couldn’t resist. 😉
Regards,
Peter H.
Peter H.,
As you know, I do not do dueling Bible verses, especially with nimrods who can not begin to fathom the Bible. Typically, Tim pees on the context and creates his own platform after he wikipedia searches for something to quote. I could make a mountain of his mole hill, but the following small interpretation probably more than paves over his ignorance of the Bible and context:
See why I let amateurs slinging Bible verses choke on their own ignorance? They care not a whit about shade and nuance. They only want to bludgeon their annoying nemesis. Poor Tim, he has a religion wedgie and it chafes him raw.
@Helio lol are you sure you’re an ‘aging academic’ because you really got the definition for hypocrisy wrong. Being a hypocrite is saying one thing and doing another. You claim to be a chrisitian but choose to knowingly not live by it’s tenets despite holding others to it. If I were an atheist talking about how my faith in god I would be a hypocrite. expecting someone to live up to their own professed values is not hypocritical either, I don’t expect cops to rob me, or doctors to hurt me. You on the other hand expect me to live by your moral code yet don’t bother to even follow the direct words of your Savior. Whether you do this out of some misguided notion or another interpretation is up to you to explain.
@Peter well I did win that scholarship to a Christian college playing bible quizzes
Isn’t it amazing how you can get out of just about anything the bible says by finding a different context to what it says? Hmm This could totally explain why there are 16000 different versions of christanity in this country. Like it’s not ok to kill babies because it’s a moral imperative, but it is ok to kill prisoners and enemy soldiers. So much for “absolute morality” it all seems rather relative to me.
If I were an atheist talking about how my faith in god I would be a hypocrite.
And you are an atheist screaming about Christian values and demanding that other people live up to them.
Hypocrite.
Like it’s not ok to kill babies because it’s a moral imperative, but it is ok to kill prisoners and enemy soldiers.
That is because, Tim, you don’t see any difference between a baby and a serial killer.
Or, to put an even finer point on it, it’s because your belief system considers a baby more damaging and dangerous to society and far less useful than a serial killer. After all, as we saw with Jared Loughner, his type serve a useful purpose; they allow leftists like you to call for incarceration of your political enemies. As long as Loughner is alive, you and your fellow lefties can shriek about how evil conservatives and religious people are and how they “drove” him to murder, since it’s obviously not his fault.
But babies? No such luck. Society actually requires you to take responsibility for them. Hence they have to be eliminated.
Tim, you need to be quiet and let the feathers of your pillow soften your aching head. Each additional comment you make only makes your weaknesses more apparent.
Your ignorance of Christianity is neither surprising nor remarkable. Typically, those who assail faith, for whatever reason, come to the subject with predetermined notions they wish to reinforce. Since you lack the faith equal to a single grain of mustard seed in your heart, you have no capacity to judge those of faith. It is that simple.
Since you have no respect for the complexity of Biblical interpretation, you boldly use a Biblical phrase as a weapon much like a bully cop uses a billy club.
Thank you for judging my Christianity. Even Christians are not required to suffer fools gladly.
Finally, the common usage of hypocrisy is to identity one who holds others to standards he does not maintain for himself. You may tickle this any way you wish, but then you compare my use of the word “fool” (which you are demonstrably by your own silly ruminations on this thread) as opposed to your charges that I am a leopard skin clad trollop channeling Grace Jones and one who does not practice what he preaches.
Now, small moth that you have shown yourself to be, I humbly suggest that you stop daring your fragile wings against the flame of the accumulated knowledge of the ages.
In order for you to have it your way, you must flock with the birds of your feather. You are seemingly unequipped to wander away from your flock and mix with other plumage.
Now, small moth that you have shown yourself to be, I humbly suggest that you stop daring your fragile wings against the flame of the accumulated knowledge of the ages.
In order for you to have it your way, you must flock with the birds of your feather. You are seemingly unequipped to wander away from your flock and mix with other plumage.
Are you trying to embarrass yourself?
R, whoever your R:
Tim has a bit of study to do before he understands the scope and depth of the wisdom of the ages in theology. He cleaves to his own notions and does not venture beyond his prejudices. Here is a small list of important religious philosophers with whom he might consort. Until he makes an honest effort to understand what he attacks, his sticks and stones of thrown Bible verses just paint him as a fool.
Jesus
St. Paul
Justin Martyr
Tertullian
Irenaeus of Lyons
Clement of Alexandria
Origen
Augustine of Hippo
John Calvin.
Athanasius of Alexandria
John Chrysostom
The Cappadocian Fathers: Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Basil the Great
Boëthius
Johannes Scotus Eriugena
Anselm of Canterbury
Thomas Aquinas
St Bonaventure
John Duns Scotus
William of Ockham
Desiderius Erasmus
Martin Luther
John Calvin
Huldrych Zwingli
Jacobus Arminius
Hugo Grotius
Karl Barth
Jay Budziszewski
Joseph Butler
John D. Caputo
G. K. Chesterton
Gordon Clark
William Lane Craig
Herman Dooyeweerd
Mary Baker Eddy
Jacques Ellul
John Frame
John Henry Newman
Pope John Paul II
Josef Pieper
Alvin Plantinga
Michael C. Rea
Peter Rollins
Egbert Schuurman
Pope Shenouda III
Pope of Alexandria
Melville Y. Stewart
Paul Tillich
Have you even read the history of half these people? Cause I have and most of them were nuts, Calvin started a war and believed in predestination, Augustine feel in love with a prostitute after dumping his lover and wife, Aquinus gave us the idea of inherent sin, I’m going to write off the popes due to the nuttiness of the church, Luther was well meaning but started 300 years of warfare and civil strife. I’ll muddle through the rest but I’m not impressed, did any of them build any buildings, discover new sciences, cure a disease?
Tim, how on earth did you get into college with such inferior reading comprehension, grammar and reasoning skills? Were you a charity case or part of an affirmative-action program?
I refuse to do a battle of wits with an unarmed libtard. We’ve given you enough rope; now go and take the next step.
Regards,
Peter H.
Well, Tim, congratulations! You have no capacity for philosophy whatsoever. When Bill Clinton jumped the rails of morality, you must have had a cow. But I know you didn’t. After all, he was your man.
You have no patience with human frailty, unless the rest of the human’s opinion mesh with your own. Ah, sweet moral relativism, it is so pliable, so moldable, so useful, so generous, so liberal.
Tim, I called you a fool and I stand pat on that. But you are also an ass and a social reprobate. You really should be a pimp.
Throbert >> My, you’re the elitist. Just to be clear: I form my own opinions, just as you form your own misguided generalizations. Yes, I’ve seen The Boys in the Band, both the film and several versions of the play. I also own a record soundtrack of the original broadway production.
Perhaps, you had forgotten about Alan, who may or may not have been gay. It was never clear. He obviously had some serious issues, and they stemmed from what he thought about himself as a person. Whatever the case, he was a homophobe who liked to admire the male physique. And, lovely Larry, was never one to be tied down, more of a free spirit, wouldn’t you say? Of course, that couldn’t have anything to do with any issues he was having. And, we all know prostitutes have such a high regard themselves, as far as Cowboy Tex is concerned. And, Donald, he just loved himself, huh? He loved himself all the way down to every bottle of alcohol he drank. Hank appears the most well-adjusted. Yet, he was once married. Hmmn. A gay man who was once straight-married. That’s a healthy sign. Something we should all aspire to as young gay boys learning to except our homosexuality.
I don’t know what your definition of self-loathing is, but it sounds messed up. Role-models? If you want to go back to that world and live there, be my guest. If not, I suggest you read between the lines next time and not take everything at face value.
Gosh, it looks like “self-loathing” has gone the way of “rape” and “racism.” Any little hitch and you scream “self-loathing” all over the place.
Excuse me, but I consider “self-loathing” to be a serious, profound psychiatric problem which does not equate to being a bit bitchy.
But then, as a homophobe str8, what could I possibly know about a gay who can not come to terms with himself?
Having read guildedwhitemule’s recounting, I suppose that an overweight gay is self loathing and his partner who only has sex wearing his rain boots is too.
Helio>> I’m only defending the post that Throbert attacked. As a result, the spirit of my original post got lost.
The original point being that evolution of gay role-models isn’t like Rome being built in a day.
If you want to look to The Boys in the Band as role-models, go for it. I’m not sure why else you would be attacking my definition of self-loathing vs. Throbert’s take.
Did you just want to make up a reason so you could call me guildedwhitemule? The names you guys come up with kill me. Everyone knows that gilded mules are brownish gold. LOL And you’re only self-loathing if the rain-boots are green and you didn’t wear socks.
Helio, you wrote, “I suggest that you not play the instruction game by dredging up tripe from Wikipedia for your cut and paste exercise.”
Then if you want to impress us with your personal study of Christian thought, you might want to follow your own advice and “not play the instruction game by dredging up tripe from Wikipedia for your cut and paste exercise.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_philosophy
I mean, you didn’t even bother to reorder the list!
Rob Ian is it:
Indeed I went to Wikipedia and scanned the list. It is quite a good one. So, I merely took the names (save the contemporary scholars) to demonstrate to R whoever you R that “Tim has a bit of study to do before he understands the scope and depth of the wisdom of the ages in theology.”
Perhaps a non-academic is able to read a few encyclopedia pages and gain a great insight to the battles waged within the minds of the great philosophers. I doubt it. My comment at #83:
I copied a useful and very well constructed list of names which constitutes a basic reading list for those who wish to understand what minds they are taking on. Others may simply read and misinterpret what they read and go from there. That is typical practice for the arrogant sophomore.
If you would like to call me a plagiarist for utilizing the list Wikipedia had handy, you may go right ahead. In the finest of fine points, there might be a weak case to be made. My own list might have included a few different names and left a few out. But the overall point is that a whale of a lot of philosophical thinking has gone into Judeo-Christian theology.
Whatever your point actually is, I seem to have missed it.
Good lord, I’m not calling you a plagiarist (though I suppose you are). I’m just laughing because you stole from Wikipedia after mocking someone else for quoting it. I’ll always get a chuckle from your posts from now on.
Rob Ian is it: On second reflection, I would love your enlightened defense of this bit of academic integrity @#128:
Why pay a lick of attention to philosophy? Tim, in his infinitesimal wisdom, followed by R whoever you R which led to you created this chain of neopseudosophisticated pretension.
I am not certain what passes for humanities scholarship in the cosmetology correspondence school, but you guys are definitely on the unsatisfactory list.
Sometimes a child sums it all up best. Tell this guy there is no soul:
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=59650