GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2007/06/11/christians-homophobia/trackback/

  1. So the theory here is that all these people were murdered and/or committed suicide because of Christians?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 11, 2007 @ 7:17 pm - June 11, 2007

  2. Nope and apparently you don’t read very well.

    Comment by John — June 11, 2007 @ 7:22 pm - June 11, 2007

  3. I thought it would take the reflexive defenders of the right more than one post to kneejerk into a response, but I underestimated their efficiency.
    ND30: What causes might you think lead to the ~3x rate of suicide among gay teens versus straight teens? Think the constant drumbeat of “you’re going to hell/evil/pervert/sodomite/destroying America/sexually confused/pedophile” chants by Christian pastors might have something to do with it?

    Comment by torrentprime — June 11, 2007 @ 7:28 pm - June 11, 2007

  4. John, what a great post. I am sure there will be some derogatory posts from both sides on here, which is sad, because this is something that we ALL can relate to and work to make better.

    Comment by jon — June 11, 2007 @ 7:30 pm - June 11, 2007

  5. I think a very good answer might be found in the hate you’re currently spewing against Christians.

    How, exactly, is a kid supposed to deal with gays like you, torrentprime, who tell them their family is wrong, their church is wrong, the Republican Party is wrong, everyone hates them, and that the only thing they have to look forward to is a life of constant victimization?

    Furthermore, look at how shallow and superficial the gay community is; gay teens are told that they’ll never get any unless they have the body of a model, unless they do drugs, and unless they put out.

    But that would put responsibility on the gay community itself, torrentprime, and gays like yourselves refuse to do that; instead, you blame Christians for all of your problems.

    Bigot.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 11, 2007 @ 7:37 pm - June 11, 2007

  6. Nope and apparently you don’t read very well.

    I read exactly what the video said.

    You show these people and you make it clear that they’re dead because of Christians.

    I simply call it what it is.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 11, 2007 @ 7:44 pm - June 11, 2007

  7. I think a very good answer might be found in the hate you’re currently spewing against Christians.

    Of course you do, NDT. You seem to excel in finding what you wish in people’s comments instead of what is actually there. If I hated Christians I’d have to hate myself as well. Now since you have trouble reading clear English, let me remind you that I specifically did not include all Christians and even gave a very large loophole for those believing that homosexuality is sinful. Yet of course that escaped your attention which somehow doesn’t surprise me.

    How, exactly, is a kid supposed to deal with gays like you, torrentprime, who tell them their family is wrong, their church is wrong, the Republican Party is wrong, everyone hates them, and that the only thing they have to look forward to is a life of constant victimization?

    How many of these dear ones kill themselves, are beaten by others, or are murdered because this?

    Furthermore, look at how shallow and superficial the gay community is; gay teens are told that they’ll never get any unless they have the body of a model, unless they do drugs, and unless they put out.

    Once again you single out gays as if this is unique to us. Why is that? It isn’t, not by a long shot. Such messages are fed to straight kids, especially girls, on a daily basis.

    But that would put responsibility on the gay community itself, torrentprime, and gays like yourselves refuse to do that; instead, you blame Christians for all of your problems.

    Nope, but this doesn’t let bigotry in the name of Christianity off the hook either. Gays do have a responsibility to resist those bad messages just as straights do yet this is a poor excuse for ignoring the effects of bigotry.

    Comment by John — June 11, 2007 @ 7:48 pm - June 11, 2007

  8. I read exactly what the video said.

    You show these people and you make it clear that they’re dead because of Christians.

    I simply call it what it is.

    Than in the past I’ve given you credit for having far more intelligence than you actually have. My bad.

    Comment by John — June 11, 2007 @ 7:49 pm - June 11, 2007

  9. Not every GLBT organization preaches that “the only thing we have to look forward to is a life of constant victimization”.

    http://www.pinkpistols.org

    Comment by Maggie Leber — June 11, 2007 @ 7:53 pm - June 11, 2007

  10. Now since you have trouble reading clear English, let me remind you that I specifically did not include all Christians and even gave a very large loophole for those believing that homosexuality is sinful.

    Oh really? And where is that in your video?

    How many of these dear ones kill themselves, are beaten by others, or are murdered because this?

    You must be joking.

    Don’t you remember what GayPatriot himself went through because of his political beliefs?

    Haven’t you seen what kinds of sick and disgusting things gay leftists were wishing on Mary Cheney, Heather Poe, and their newborn baby?

    Haven’t you heard the blatantly-antireligious comments so many gays make and insinuate about how religious gays are unevolved and stupid?

    I myself have not received a fraction of the hate from Christians that I have from other gay people, and I don’t think I am that unique among commentors here.

    If I hated Christians I’d have to hate myself as well.

    John, you’re simply taking what I call the Soulforce tack; you’re trying to curry favor among antireligious bigots by attacking Christianity.

    If you want to show pictures of gay teens and insinuate that Christians are responsible for their deaths, go right ahead. But at least have the balls to call it what it is.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 11, 2007 @ 7:58 pm - June 11, 2007

  11. And incidentally, John, my post at #5 was directed at torrentprime at #3, which was why it was labeled as such. Post #6 was directed at you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 11, 2007 @ 8:01 pm - June 11, 2007

  12. Oh really? And where is that in your video?

    Besides the fact that no statement or indictment of all Christians was given in the video, “many” usually isn’t intrepreted as meaning “all”. You again see that which you choose to see instead of what is actually there.

    You must be joking. Don’t you remember what GayPatriot himself went through because of his political beliefs? Haven’t you seen what kinds of sick and disgusting things gay leftists were wishing on Mary Cheney, Heather Poe, and their newborn baby?

    How odd. I didn’t realize that Bruce (Gay Patriot) and Mary Cheney were really straight, believe homosexuality is sinful, etc. Now either they are these surprisingly enough or you once more demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension.

    John, you’re simply taking what I call the Soulforce tack; you’re trying to curry favor among antireligious bigots by attacking Christianity.

    I do? Really? Where, exactly? I do not agree with all of Soulforce’s positions, but I’ve yet to see where they attack Christianity itself.

    If you want to show pictures of gay teens and insinuate that Christians are responsible for their deaths, go right ahead. But at least have the balls to call it what it is.

    When I feel like doing that which you accuse me of, I’ll give you a call. Until then, sit tight by the phone…

    Comment by John — June 11, 2007 @ 8:11 pm - June 11, 2007

  13. And incidentally, John, my post at #5 was directed at torrentprime at #3, which was why it was labeled as such. Post #6 was directed at you.

    Alright. Yet I fail to see what is anti-Christian in post #3. Perhaps you’d care to explain or is any criticism of Christians automatically hatred in your eyes?

    Comment by John — June 11, 2007 @ 8:13 pm - June 11, 2007

  14. How odd. I didn’t realize that Bruce (Gay Patriot) and Mary Cheney were really straight, believe homosexuality is sinful, etc. Now either they are these surprisingly enough or you once more demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension.

    Um, no.

    The point, as I made clear in the original post from which you pulled that, was what gay people are telling gay kids and demonstrating by their actions.

    Simply put, if you dare to be politically conservative, if you dare to be religious, and even if you dare to come from a family they don’t like, you’re nothing but meat to be insulted, namecalled, and have hate poured upon — unless, of course, you completely reject all of the above.

    And that leads into this:

    Yet I fail to see what is anti-Christian in post #3. Perhaps you’d care to explain or is any criticism of Christians automatically hatred in your eyes?

    Let’s see; that post blames Christians for the suicide rate among gay teens — and mentions nothing else.

    A lesson, John; just because something is popular belief in the gay community doesn’t mean it’s not anti-Christian.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 11, 2007 @ 8:29 pm - June 11, 2007

  15. The point, as I made clear in the original post from which you pulled that, was what gay people are telling gay kids and demonstrating by their actions.

    You made no indication that these kids were gay, but given what you were responding to you seemed to refer to straight Christian kids being told by gays their family et al. were wrong. Now if you are clarifying your earlier remarks to limit this gay kids, ok. This still raises the same questions I posed. You will note that nowhere did I comment on more conservative gays being alienated by liberal ones, something I’m well aware of.

    Let’s see; that post blames Christians for the suicide rate among gay teens — and mentions nothing else.

    Given the subject matter, there was no need to mention anything else nor did I see him blame all Christians and only Christians for this high suicide rate. This raises the question once more, how is post #3 anti-Christian?

    A lesson, John; just because something is popular belief in the gay community doesn’t mean it’s not anti-Christian.

    Obviously, just as the reverse is true as well.

    Comment by John — June 11, 2007 @ 8:38 pm - June 11, 2007

  16. All the people shown in this video were driven to suicide or were murdered because they were gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.

    NDT, this is from John’s post, NOT the video. He does not say that these teens killed themselves or were killed by Christians. READ the post again, please. Again, this is something that we can ALL work on together. John made a great post and, unfortunately, you jumped to an incorrect conclusion. Stop fighting each other, is this really helping?

    Comment by jon — June 11, 2007 @ 8:40 pm - June 11, 2007

  17. [...] Original post by Average Gay Joe [...]

    Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Christians & Homophobia — June 11, 2007 @ 8:53 pm - June 11, 2007

  18. Actually, jon, we need to add the sentence that follows that statement.

    All the people shown in this video were driven to suicide or were murdered because they were gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. Is this what the “love of Christ” is supposed to be about?

    That is clearly blaming Christians for these peoples’ deaths.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 11, 2007 @ 9:06 pm - June 11, 2007

  19. - The video juxtaposes images of gay people who have committed suicide or been otherwise tragically victimized, with epithets that bigots – whether religiously-motivated, or otherwise – throw at gays.
    - The video is titled “Christians and Homophobia”. That implies – it does NOT state, but would seem to give an impression – that it is addressed to Christians, who are at fault.
    - It asks these generalized Christians, “Why do you hate us so much?”

    Please note, I’m saying the above in a totally neutral, descriptive way. Not making any point yet.

    As for points to make: I can see both sides, in the discussion above. On the one hand, I’m quite sure some Christians need to see this video. On the other hand, to say “Not all Christians are like this” is rather an understatement. I believe (based on personal experience only) that in the twenty-first century in the U.S., only a minority of Christians are like this.

    #9 – Maggie, Pink Pistols rule! ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 11, 2007 @ 9:08 pm - June 11, 2007

  20. Given the subject matter, there was no need to mention anything else nor did I see him blame all Christians and only Christians for this high suicide rate.

    So he mentioned nothing else….but you insist he didn’t just blame Christians.

    That contradicts itself.

    Perhaps you and torrentprime can clarify that you’re not anti-Christian by bringing up other factors that you would think lead glbt youth to commit suicide.

    But then that kind of weakens your argument, doesn’t it?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 11, 2007 @ 9:09 pm - June 11, 2007

  21. The title of your post does not say, “Some Christians and Homophobia.”

    It says, “Christians and Homophobia.”

    And that says it all.

    I was hoping gaypatriot would steer clear of such Christian-bashing.

    Julie the Jarhead

    Comment by Julie the Jarhead — June 11, 2007 @ 9:19 pm - June 11, 2007

  22. I’m sure I’ll get flamed but NDT has some valid points.

    Yes, too many gay kids commit suicide but the causes are numerous. Not the least is that lots of kids, gay and straight, commit suicide due to our worsening culture.

    I can only speak for myself but I was “alienated” in high-school (a long, long time ago – OK, the 70′s) but I can’t imagine what life as a high-schooler would be like today. The culture has intensified the adolescent experience far more than those of us of past generations can even imagine.

    Gay kids today grow up in a culture far more accepting of gays than it was back when I was in high-school.

    I was in the closet (I must be some sort of case study in the depths of denial) until I was almost 40. What kept me there? Yes, the culture (I’m not religious).

    But also my perception of what it meant to be gay. I knew in high-school that I liked guys but all I knew of “being gay” was what I saw on TV (Pride Parades and the like). Seeing a grown man in a leather thong being led on a leash was so far outside of my ability to relate that I just decided that I was “nothing”. Drag queens?

    Now, that stuff is funny. But to some kid trying to come to terms with his/her sexuality – terrifying.

    There’s no doubt that some gays have been victimized, both directly and indirectly, by people who are convinced that they’re doing God’s will. But most are victims of people who are simply wicked.

    Trying to make Christians (or conservatives) scapegoats for all that’s wrong is little different than efforts to make gays scapegoats for what’s wrong with the culture.

    Hanging the blame on various identity groups simple relieves individuals of their responsibility.

    Comment by Robert — June 11, 2007 @ 9:32 pm - June 11, 2007

  23. #13:

    is any criticism of Christians automatically hatred in your eyes?

    Bingo! That’s exactly NDT’s attitude.

    FWIW, your video is quite moving. Of course, not all Christians preach hatred of gay people. Indeed, it’s really only a small minority that preach actual “hatred.” Unfortunately, there are a large number of Christian ministers and priests who preach opposition towards any inclusion of gay people as full and good citizens and members of society. This then serves as justification for many who are predisposed towards violence against the GLBT community. After, if you’re heading to hell for being gay, it’s not that much of a leap in a demented mind to help you get there sooner rather than later.

    There are also far too many Christians who, while not anti-gay, permit those Christians who are to put forth their bigotry unchallenged as Christian dogma.

    Comment by Ian S — June 11, 2007 @ 9:49 pm - June 11, 2007

  24. It is really tragic when anyone especially ones so young commit suicide or is murdered.

    But I have to agree with North Dallas Thirty… this video blames Christianity for the deaths of these young people outright and that is just wrong.

    In all of my 50 years I’ve witnessed some sad situations, but always found my strength in faith. So I challenge the video maker to document those of us who have survived through our faith as Christians.

    Comment by Good vs. Evil — June 11, 2007 @ 9:50 pm - June 11, 2007

  25. That is clearly blaming Christians for these peoples’ deaths.

    As you wish, NDT. It’s clear to me that you will always think the worst no matter what.

    Comment by John — June 11, 2007 @ 9:51 pm - June 11, 2007

  26. #22: I put forward my points as pertaining to violence against gay people but they’re equally appropriate in understanding how so many gay people may be driven to self-destructive behavior up to and including suicide.

    Comment by Ian S — June 11, 2007 @ 9:52 pm - June 11, 2007

  27. NDT, I think John had a valid point. As I see one meaning in his post, you, obviously, see another. Is either one of us right? Hardly. I think that, yes, there are some of these people who may have harmed themselves by what was said in church. But, also, I know that at least two or three were killed by people who possessed pure evil and hatred in their soul. So, neither side can claim superiority on the issue (nor should they). Again, John was making a post, and while I agree with your right to counter that post, demeaning and negative comments only lessen the argument on either side.

    Comment by jon — June 11, 2007 @ 9:54 pm - June 11, 2007

  28. ILC:

    The video juxtaposes images of gay people who have committed suicide or been otherwise tragically victimized, with epithets that bigots – whether religiously-motivated, or otherwise – throw at gays.

    Yep and was directed at those who are Christian and engage in such activity. As for those who behave in that manner yet not for religious reasons, specifically Christian beliefs, this video wasn’t directed at them. After all, I doubt they’d even care what Jesus says in the Gospel of Matthew.

    The video is titled “Christians and Homophobia”. That implies – it does NOT state, but would seem to give an impression – that it is addressed to Christians, who are at fault.

    Since perception is an individual thing, I will grant you that perhaps it could have been made clearer yet since I created the video and why I put in what I did, I have a pretty good idea of what it is saying and to whom it is addressed.

    On the one hand, I’m quite sure some Christians need to see this video.

    As I’ve said before, this is a point I would agree with.

    On the other hand, to say “Not all Christians are like this” is rather an understatement.

    “Not all” doesn’t imply a minority or a majority or any number whatsoever other than not a totality.

    Comment by John — June 11, 2007 @ 10:00 pm - June 11, 2007

  29. It says, “Christians and Homophobia.”

    And that says it all.

    I was hoping gaypatriot would steer clear of such Christian-bashing.

    So if I titled something “Christians & Adultery” or whatever, you are going to ignore the contents and context and accuse me of claiming that all Christians are adulterers? That’s practically a leftist nutjob level of reasoning and hypersensitivity…

    Comment by John — June 11, 2007 @ 10:04 pm - June 11, 2007

  30. Yes, too many gay kids commit suicide but the causes are numerous. Not the least is that lots of kids, gay and straight, commit suicide due to our worsening culture.

    Indeed or for any of the number of reasons that straight kids commit suicide over.

    Gay kids today grow up in a culture far more accepting of gays than it was back when I was in high-school.

    Yep, much better than the 80s when I was in HS. Yet there is still much room for improvement.

    I was in the closet (I must be some sort of case study in the depths of denial) until I was almost 40. What kept me there? Yes, the culture (I’m not religious).

    A story similiar to my own, except I am religious and this was one of the main reasons I remained in the closet for so long.

    Seeing a grown man in a leather thong being led on a leash was so far outside of my ability to relate that I just decided that I was “nothing”. Drag queens?

    Indeed and there is more than these which I still cannot relate too. Yet once I came to understand that being gay does NOT mean adopting these fetishes and that many gays simply are NOT like this, that’s when my perception began to change. Having little contact with gays and being forced by societal and religious restrictions to remain in the closet so long only exacerbated the problem. This is why exposure to more than the “Will & Grace” or “Queer As Folk” concept of being gay is important.

    There’s no doubt that some gays have been victimized, both directly and indirectly, by people who are convinced that they’re doing God’s will. But most are victims of people who are simply wicked.

    Indeed. Yet appealing to such people with the faith and lingo of Christians would make little sense.

    Trying to make Christians (or conservatives) scapegoats for all that’s wrong is little different than efforts to make gays scapegoats for what’s wrong with the culture.

    Agreed.

    Comment by John — June 11, 2007 @ 10:13 pm - June 11, 2007

  31. In all of my 50 years I’ve witnessed some sad situations, but always found my strength in faith. So I challenge the video maker to document those of us who have survived through our faith as Christians.

    I’d start with myself. If I hadn’t of had such a strong faith I probably wouldn’t be here today.

    Comment by John — June 11, 2007 @ 10:16 pm - June 11, 2007

  32. Well John, thanks for the careful reply.

    Nothing excites gay people’s passions like religion – this could be another discussion in the 100s! :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 11, 2007 @ 10:28 pm - June 11, 2007

  33. There are also far too many Christians who, while not anti-gay, permit those Christians who are to put forth their bigotry unchallenged as Christian dogma.

    Sorry Ian, but you and your fellow gay Democrats and leftists lost any credibility over hate speech with these lovely remarks.

    And given how many times I’ve been told to commit suicide by your fellow leftists, I also am not buying the theory that gay leftists and Democrats give a rat’s ass in the first place.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 11, 2007 @ 10:51 pm - June 11, 2007

  34. “just because something is popular belief in the gay community doesn’t mean it’s not anti-Christian.”
    Even in your absolutist, black/white mind, you have to allow that some christians use their faith to discriminate and promote hate. This video and its preceding comments are obviously directed at that segment.

    Why the knee jerk defense in the face of valid criticism?

    Comment by keogh — June 11, 2007 @ 11:13 pm - June 11, 2007

  35. Keogh, see my response to Ian above.

    In short, I get far more hate speech from you and yours than I have ever gotten from Christians, so if you want to deal with hate speech directed against gays, shut your own mouths.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 11, 2007 @ 11:22 pm - June 11, 2007

  36. Ha!
    Since some on the left suck ALL on the left suck.
    Another absolute truth!

    Comment by keogh — June 11, 2007 @ 11:40 pm - June 11, 2007

  37. #31:

    Sorry Ian, but you and your fellow gay Democrats and leftists lost any credibility over hate speech with these lovely remarks.

    That’s as moronic as someone claiming that Christians have lost any credibility due to all Fred Phelps’ lovely remarks.

    Comment by Ian S — June 12, 2007 @ 12:13 am - June 12, 2007

  38. NDT, there is a good reason to address this specifically to Christians, as opposed to “homophobes”, “haters” or “those who say cruel things to gays” – because, as Christians, we should all know better, and as the Body of Christ, we are unified by our faith. We can’t just write off what “other” Christians do – there is no such thing, and the world knows it, and holds us accountable for the actions of all of us. We have a particular model to follow – Christ – and when we fail to love, when any of us spews out hatred like “queer,” “faggot,” “dyke” or what have you, we have no excuse for it… as followers of Christ, we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

    And yes, it is absolutely true that not every Christian says these things – not even every Christian thinks the “kinder” version, believing that God has given us up, and that is why we are the way we are – but too often it is there… and part of the responsibility of being a Christian is to call out the church when it is in error. John here is speaking prophetically to a church that has gone astray by persecuting us, and yes, doing so in God’s name. Addressing this video to anybody other than Christians would defeat the purpose entirely – we owe it to our brothers and sisters in Christ to be honest with them when they are sinning against us through their cruelty. It is Christians who are being un-Christlike in their rejection, and Christians in whom gays have a right to be more disappointed than we would be from your run-of-the-mill thug who is at least honest with himself about liking to abuse those whom he can. Christians claim our creed is to love, and claim that love is an action, not an emotion. When actions are not loving, it is justice and mercy to humbly, as John has here, show them the fruits of their deeds.

    Comment by Casey — June 12, 2007 @ 1:24 am - June 12, 2007

  39. That’s as moronic as someone claiming that Christians have lost any credibility due to all Fred Phelps’ lovely remarks.

    And, given that gay leftists and Democrats repeatedly cite him………

    and part of the responsibility of being a Christian is to call out the church when it is in error

    I seem to remember a particular quote that works well for this situation, with illustrative hyperlink:

    “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

    And this is why I have no use for Soulforce, Casey; if they truly want to fight hate and violence, they could start among gays. Practice what you preach among your own kind before starting out trying to point the finger at everyone else for hate.

    But if you did that, you wouldn’t be popular in the gay community — and that really is the point of what you and John are doing. Blaming Christians for everything is popular.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 12, 2007 @ 1:59 am - June 12, 2007

  40. What holy book is this in again?

    “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

    Comment by Vic — June 12, 2007 @ 2:40 am - June 12, 2007

  41. I know that not all Christians are like this,

    But you lump us all together anyway?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 12, 2007 @ 3:05 am - June 12, 2007

  42. Some nice bits of notice:

    John aked: How many of these dear ones kill themselves, are beaten by others, or are murdered because this?

    Possibly about as many due to the fault of Christians. Do we have any kind of tally of suicides, assaults etc. were because Christians supposedly don’t like them?
    I can tell you that in my 8 years of 911 EMS in Houston, I met a lot of kids who attempted suicide. Quite a few were gay. Not all of them wanted to die because Christians or anybody else hated them. I can think of at least one gay kid wanted to die because of his grades. His family and friends loved him. BUT, we all ASSume that just because he’s gay and attempts suicide is because somebody hates him. That way we can perpetuate the victimhood. Can’t be any other reason because that wouldn’t fit the template and would knock a few numbers off a special interest group’s “facts”.

    And John, before you go apesh*t, no I am not saying that these folks don’t commit suicide because of hate. I’m just saying that that’s not always the reason why. Problem is, not too many people are interested in the “why”. All they care about is that gay kid + suicide = somebody hated him and that gives them a “cause”.

    Further, you can put all the hifalutin spin on it you can think of. You can even call me “knee-jerk” or whatever you want, as you know, I don’t care. However, your target was Christians and you gave everybody else a pass. NDXXX made some valid points, but you had your mind made up and you criticized him for not knowing what you were thinking.

    Next, Ian posits:

    After, if you’re heading to hell for being gay, it’s not that much of a leap in a demented mind to help you get there sooner rather than later.

    Talk about demented. Yeesh!

    And of course we can’t forget Keogh who brilliantly states the obvious:

    Ha!
    Since some on the left suck ALL on the left suck.
    Another absolute truth!

    You said it, not me. Frankly, I’ve not seen any evidence to the contrary in the last several years. Ergo, without contradictory evidence, we can only conclude it’s the truth.

    Just as we should accept global warmism based on a “consensus”, I think we could come up with a consensus that all liberals suck.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 12, 2007 @ 3:59 am - June 12, 2007

  43. I am not so sure this kind of video is fair.

    It is essentially a generalization with little specifics, and the disclaimer that it isn’t about “all”Christians, but all, many, some, most, etc are all kind of weasely words that really have no meaning other than for the person using them. To you many Christians may be 30% but to me it may be 70% and there isn’t really a way to decide between the two.

    Also, I agree with #42-I think in a lot of these cases it is probably a huge leap to say that they committed suicide because of something a Christian said.

    Comment by just me — June 12, 2007 @ 7:03 am - June 12, 2007

  44. One of the problems with the gay community is that we don’t speak out enough against anyone else in our community when the behavior is wrong. This point has been brought up many times in this blog, and that is still true. What happens many times is that when such an action happens, most may disagree with it, but remain silent. But I believe this is typical of most communities, including the Christian community.

    I am not particularly religious myself, but do come across many people, in one way or another, who are as active, or more so, in the Christian community as I am in the gay community. Most of the ones I encounter are very gay friendly and supportive, and that’s great. However, when the Pope, a bishop, pastor, etc., comes out and denounces homosexuality, calling it evil or unnatural, all but implying we remain shells of our pathetic selves, the same thing happens. Christians will disagree with the comments, but there is rarely public criticism against the leader for their comments.

    I don’t know John (AGJ) well enough, but I’m assuming from his posts that he considers himself a gay Christian, or a gay person of faith. And I’m also assuming as members of both communities, he has criticized wrongful actions of some gay persons when he felt warranted. Now it appears that he is speaking out against wrongful behavior by some Christians. So now the question is the video fair criticism.

    The fact is that many gay people have died because of hate, and that the suicide rate for gay teens and young adults is much higher than their straight counterparts. Of course, there are many complex reasons for suicide among the group as a whole, as well as an individual. And certainly, many gay persons commit suicide for the same reasons a straight person does. But the fact that homosexuality is still not quite accepted is an added burden to the gay teen, and compounds other factors that lead to suicide.

    As for the murders and assaults, we can point out in many examples, where a person is attacked simply because they are gay. Now granted, just about all religious leaders, except freaktards like Phelps, will condemn such actions publicly. However, many of these same Christians will go back and condemn homosexuals, state those who have homosexual sex are going to hell, about how 9/11 or hurricans occurred because of homosexuals and that some in society are starting to accept it, etc. This is the garbage we hear more of.

    So how much responsibility should fall to Christians for these murders and suicide? On the one hand, one could say none. Because in all the examples given in the video that I know of, the perpetrator didn’t state that he attacked the victim because he is Christian and it is his duty to kill gays. And I don’t know if the suicide victims indicated that they killed themselves because they are gay, and Christians compelled them to do it. But there is hatred of gay people and homosexuality. And I think it’s fair to ask where it comes from.

    We’ve come a long way since the dark ages, and even the early 20th century in terms of accepting homosexuality. But it is still acceptable to say that homosexuality is not normal. It is still acceptable to say that because of the Bible, homosexuality is a sin, even though eating pork is okay. It is still acceptable to say that gay persons should not have the same rights as straight people. Yes, I know that people cannot marry their dog or tree, or they can’t marry an underage child. But should we really still be viewed comparably? And when one hears the condescending and ignorant remark that gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex, when most rational people know that it is morally wrong among other things, you know there is a long way to go. We still have supposed leaders like Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush, whom I believe personally are accepting of homosexuality, but cannot even state that homosexuality is not a sin. So why is this? Are they pandering to the gay left? the atheists? to religious groups that are truly welcoming to gay persons (as opposed to the love the sinner hate the sin crap attitude towards gay persons)?

    I don’t think it’s right that anti-Christian gays spew hate against Christians, just as I don’t think it’s right that that anti-gay Christians spew hate against gay persons. And it would be great if those in either community speak out against the hate in their respective communities. Although it would be great if both groups unilaterally cease and desist with the hate, but, in reality, that’s not going to happen soon. I’m afraid that as long as homosexuality is viewed as a sin by the majority of Christian doctrine, there will be gay persons that will be passively anti-Christian as well as those who are very outspoken about it. And while one reason that many Christians are not accepting of gays because of the vocal minority of anti-Christian gays, that only masks the fact that they still view homosexuality as a sin. Otherwise, why not be accepting to gay persons that really want to be Christians? For one to not accept a group of people, because of the actions of some in that group no matter what reason seems quite unChristian to me.

    Comment by Pat — June 12, 2007 @ 10:43 am - June 12, 2007

  45. But if you did that, you wouldn’t be popular in the gay community — and that really is the point of what you and John are doing. Blaming Christians for everything is popular.

    No, blaming groups of people for all manners of ill has been a regular practice of some Christians. Other religious groups and even some political ones engage in this as well, but appeals to them from Christian beliefs would fall on deaf ears. You do resort to twisted logic, NDT. The reasoning you put behind the this prooftext, would disallow gay Christians from speaking up to the “gay community” as well. If I truly wanted to blame all Christians and hated Christianity I wouldn’t even bother but instead take a leftist nutjob page of working to tear it all down.

    Comment by John — June 12, 2007 @ 11:11 am - June 12, 2007

  46. But you lump us all together anyway?

    No and I gave up such self-loathing years ago.

    Comment by John — June 12, 2007 @ 11:12 am - June 12, 2007

  47. However, your target was Christians and you gave everybody else a pass.

    “Everybody else” doesn’t look to the Christian faith for inspiration on what they believe (at least not in the same way Christians do). Why is this so damn difficult? I could have easily made something completely trashing Christianity and doing every thing you and NDT have accused me of, well except for the detail that I happen to believe in Christ, but I didn’t. I appealed to Christians as a Christian, which is something that has been done in the Christian faith since the Pentecost.

    Comment by John — June 12, 2007 @ 11:18 am - June 12, 2007

  48. Also, I agree with #42-I think in a lot of these cases it is probably a huge leap to say that they committed suicide because of something a Christian said.

    What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. (Matt 15:18-19)

    Is Jesus saying that every single word and utterance that comes out of our mouths and everything coming from the heart is evil? No. By the standards of NDT, TGC, and others, apparently He did. Yet the point of what He said is clear: guard what you say for bad words not only can cause evil themselves, they can lead to sinful behavior as well. That is also essentially the point of my video. It is not to say that ALL Christians are homophobic or that ALL suicides and murders of gays are the fault of Christians. Someone may not kill themselves or be murdered because of what I call them, but my words and actions do help contribute to creating the conditions in which such can occur.

    Comment by John — June 12, 2007 @ 11:28 am - June 12, 2007

  49. But it is still acceptable to say that homosexuality is not normal. It is still acceptable to say that because of the Bible, homosexuality is a sin, even though eating pork is okay.

    I really wonder about gay people sometimes.

    In my office alone, there are two people who considers eating meat to be a sin, one who considers drinking caffeinated beverages to be a sin, and one who considers it a sin not to worship your ancestors. If we spent as much time obsessing about whether we think each other is “sinning” as do gay leftists and Democrats, we’d never be able to walk into the same building, much less work together.

    You have to wonder why gay leftists and Democrats are so terrified of the concept that someone might think differently than they do.

    It is not to say that ALL Christians are homophobic or that ALL suicides and murders of gays are the fault of Christians.

    And yet, as numerous people have pointed out, it does a fine job of doing that anyway.

    The reasoning you put behind the this prooftext, would disallow gay Christians from speaking up to the “gay community” as well.

    Um, no.

    Jesus’s point was to have your own house in order before you start chasing after someone else.

    That is both from a practical and spiritual standpoint; he knew, for example, that it would look really stupid for you to be whining about “Christian hate speech” causing problems for gays when gays were overwhelmingly making vicious and hateful statements about Christians, conservatives, and even other gays who didn’t toe the gay ideological line — and even telling them DIRECTLY to commit suicide.

    Along those lines, John, I notice you’ve been playing with Pam Spaulding and her merry group of hatemongers lately. How do you feel about her latest rant and comments being made about what should happen to a young person who comes out but — gasp! — dares to be and stay conservative?

    Another self-loather working against his own interests, but it’s really sad — the young man is only 18; clearly he’s working through issues.

    Issues is an understatement. I hope he jumps ship and learns to love himself.

    He was probably raised by nutjobs

    Time for him to be stung, and stung hard.

    Make sure he never gets laid outside his little incestuous fascist circle ever ever again. He targets other gay people for acceptance of his fellow trolls, he deserves to be ostracized.

    I hope he gets his act together and finds his true identity whatever it is. If not he is in for a very difficut life.

    Only one person said to leave him be, and they were promptly ignored.

    In other words, gays claim to be “accepting” and “tolerant”, but espouse the wrong political beliefs or ideology, and they’ll hang you from the rafters, namecall and insult your parents, and demand that you be hurt and permanently ostracized — even if you’re just a teenage kid just now coming out.

    And where are you, Soulforce, and Ex-Gay Watch, John? That’s right, sh*tting yourself over Christians supposedly “creating the conditions”, but ignoring the stream of foul-mouthed, hateful, and far more obvious rhetoric coming from gay people.

    But again, bashing Christians is popular; telling hatemongering gay leftists and Democrats to behave themselves will get you ostracized and deny you sex.

    Gee, I wonder which one you’ll choose…..

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 12, 2007 @ 12:41 pm - June 12, 2007

  50. What Pat said….

    Plus, I would say this is not an isolated Christian problem per-see, but a God problem in general. Most if not all monotheist religions, to the best of my knowledge, prohibit being gay. Is there any mention of homosexuality in Hindu or Buddhists texts? If there is I haven’t heard of it. In a society that values the traditions of the past, not only on a personal level, but within governance as well, we are always dealing with a number of irrational societal taboos, and religions have been a great vehicle for perpetuating these ancient cultural standards and fears that probably should have died out long ago.

    But I’m no expert on things religious, so all the preceding thoughts could be pure rubbish.

    PS. Interesting that no-one has yet to respond to Vic’s quotation at comment #40.

    Comment by sonicfrog — June 12, 2007 @ 12:43 pm - June 12, 2007

  51. PS. Interesting that no-one has yet to respond to Vic’s quotation at comment #40.

    The reason is simple in my case, Sonic; if Vic wants to quote the Bible, he can tell me why he’s doing it.

    But my default in these cases, especially after years of dealing with gay leftists, is that their reason for quoting it is to bash it, and that doesn’t deserve an answer.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 12, 2007 @ 12:52 pm - June 12, 2007

  52. It would have been more honest in the movie if the murderers and their religious background were identified. And of those who were self-identified as “Christian” I suspect few if any were regular church goers. God was their justification regardless.

    PS. I hate it when poeple try to do Gods work. Humans are imperfect and not up to task. God is perfect and omnipotent; I think he can handle it just fine on His own without us screwing it up.

    Comment by sonicfrog — June 12, 2007 @ 12:53 pm - June 12, 2007

  53. And, since I’m on a roll relative to things, I’m already going to anticipate the response to #49 from our usual gay leftist and Democrat apologist contingent, which is that this kid deserves the hate being flung at him because of who he is and for whom he works.

    Just like Mary Cheney, Heather Poe, and their newborn baby did.

    It’s always fun to watch gay leftists and Democrats self-immolate when confronted with their own hate speech — especially right when they’re whining about what’s supposedly coming from other people.

    Basically, their logic is this; if I don’t like who you are, what you believe, or for whom you work, I am totally justified in describing you in the most hateful terms possible, calling for your ostracism, demanding that you be punished, boycotting your employer, and whatnot.

    But that’s always wrong if you’re doing it to me!

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 12, 2007 @ 1:05 pm - June 12, 2007

  54. But my default in these cases, especially after years of dealing with gay leftists, is that their reason for quoting it is to bash it, and that doesn’t deserve an answer.

    I don’t know, I think his reason for doing it is obvious – to start a flame war. But on the other hand, the quote is relevant to the topic of the post. As a friend and political ally (most of time) I am curious about your or others thoughts on it. You can e-mail me if you don’t want to deal with it here.

    Comment by sonicfrog — June 12, 2007 @ 1:12 pm - June 12, 2007

  55. Jesus’s point was to have your own house in order before you start chasing after someone else.

    You may wish to re-read that again. He makes that point elsewhere on judging people, but that wasn’t His point in the part I quoted.

    Along those lines, John, I notice you’ve been playing with Pam Spaulding and her merry group of hatemongers lately. How do you feel about her latest rant and comments being made about what should happen to a young person who comes out but — gasp! — dares to be and stay conservative?

    Is this a purity test, NDT? Did you actually read what I posted there or the mere fact I was there was enough for you? Overlooked my comments to RadicalRuss & some guy named Joshua? 113 posts starting on May 9 because of the Knight story and ended on May 24th. Given what you’ve posted here, why should I comment on what Pam said in this latest post of hers? After all, should I not concentrate of getting the conservative house in order first? Nevertheless, since I don’t subscribe to your reasoning: as usual when it comes to talking about conservatives her rhetoric is over-the-top. Personally I would leave this kid alone for the most part, any response would be dictated by his actions. Lord knows I said and did things at 18 I regret now. However, if it is true that he was at a public protest holding a sign exhorting gays to “go back into the closet”, he invites public criticism. While I don’t agree with the approach Pam has taken, I do agree some criticism of the hypocrisy here is in order. The beauty of this here is that since this kid is a conservative you can’t even condemn me for saying this since after all I’m just getting our house in order before laying in on libs.

    Comment by John — June 12, 2007 @ 1:26 pm - June 12, 2007

  56. Is this a purity test, NDT? Did you actually read what I posted there or the mere fact I was there was enough for you?

    Of course I read what you posted there, John.

    Like this thread and its description of how you want Christians to be “humiliated”.

    But what takes the cake, in my opinion, was this one.

    Especially the juxtaposition of this statement from leftist hatemonger “Radical Russ”, aka Pam Spaulding’s co-blogger:

    I do not think you nor any of the 96% of pseudo-rational religious people are celebrating a religion-based honor killing. However, by saying that those extremists are “abusing” religion or taking religion to an “extreme”, you provide cover to those very extremists by legitimizing their excuse for misbehavior.

    and your statement above:

    It is not to say that ALL Christians are homophobic or that ALL suicides and murders of gays are the fault of Christians. Someone may not kill themselves or be murdered because of what I call them, but my words and actions do help contribute to creating the conditions in which such can occur.

    Same song, darn near same verse.

    What you don’t realize, John, is that people like “Radical Russ” are more than happy to use tokens like yourself, Soulforce, and others for their purpose of ridiculing religion. And instead of directly confronting them on their hatred as being the primary issue and the blatant MISUSE of sexual orientation to cover up their antireligious bigotry, you try to buy their acceptance by bashing Christians.

    However, if it is true that he was at a public protest holding a sign exhorting gays to “go back into the closet”, he invites public criticism.

    That’s fine; freedom of speech.

    While I don’t agree with the approach Pam has taken, I do agree some criticism of the hypocrisy here is in order.

    Which hypocrisy — the kid exercising his freedom to believe and speak as he thinks, even if it seems to you to be at odds with his sexual orientation………or the lesbian Pam Spaulding, who supposedly supports the freedom to believe and speak as you think without responding with hate speech or intolerance, screaming about how awful this kid is, how he’s self-loathing, and demanding that he be “stung” and “socially ostracized”?

    The reason Pam gets away with it, John, is because you think the kid deserves what she’s flinging. Just as the reason Russ gets away with it is because you think Christians need to be “humiliated”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 12, 2007 @ 2:05 pm - June 12, 2007

  57. In my office alone, there are two people who considers eating meat to be a sin, one who considers drinking caffeinated beverages to be a sin, and one who considers it a sin not to worship your ancestors. If we spent as much time obsessing about whether we think each other is “sinning” as do gay leftists and Democrats, we’d never be able to walk into the same building, much less work together.

    NDT, when a teen or young adult feels ashamed and has to hide in the closet about being a meat eater or a drinker of decaffeinated coffee, and even kills himself over it, I’ll agree we have a real issue there.

    Many gay leftists and Democrats do obsess about each other’s sinning. But until gay leftists and Democrats regularly try to strip the rights of those who call homosexuality a sin, I think the anti-gay Christians still have a leg up on obsession of sin. I admit to being a late bloomer, but still, when I was in college, I was amused that the anti-gay Christians seemed to know more about homosexuality than I did.

    Also, I am not going to defend those comments by Pam and others on Pam’s House Blend. In fact, I condemn the especially hateful ones. Unless Pam made these up, the far most obvious hateful rhetoric came from Bristow who “has opined that if he had a gay son he would kill him, and that homosexuals should be in prison.” and Whitney who held a sign “Go back in the closet.”

    I agree that organizations such as Soul Force and Ex-Gay Watch should criticize hate from both sides. Soul Force’s main charge, if I understand correctly, is to help gay students at colleges with anti-gay bigotry. That seems to be a bigger problem. If there is a growing problem with young gay students who are being ostracized from the gay left, then Soul Force should include these students in their charge as well.

    Sonicfrog, I agree it’s not just Christianity. Obviously, it is much worse in countries where Islam is the religion of most of the citizens, in general. I’m guessing that Buddhism is not obsessed with homosexuality. As for Hinduism, I have no idea. In Judaism, Reformed is quite gay friendly and now Conservative is coming more gay supportive. Orthodox is another thing, to my understanding. They take the food restrictions as seriously as the sex restrictions. I take less issue with Orthodox Judaism, because, for whatever reason, they are not trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of the country.

    I don’t know, I think his reason for doing it is obvious – to start a flame war. But on the other hand, the quote is relevant to the topic of the post. As a friend and political ally (most of time) I am curious about your or others thoughts on it.

    I agree it was an attempt to start a flame war, but the question is interesting nonetheless. I have seen some attempts to answer this, but none that were too satisfactory. It’s not so much the quote that is interesting, it’s the fact that the quote is so much adhered to, while others are clearly not. One explanation I heard was that somewhere in the New Testament it basically said the diet restrictions are passe, but said nothing about repealing the restrictions on homosexuality. And that there are plenty of other quotes that supposedly supercede the anti-gay quotes. There are also issues regarding the various nuances in the translation. My answer would simply be to read and understand the Bible in the context and the times it was written in. And to remember that even if the Bible is divinely inspired (however one takes that to mean), that it was still written by humans. Now it’s just a matter of not obsessing over the homosexuality just as a lot of the other quotes are not obsessed over.

    On a related matter, I had once asked how one can square being a gay Christian, at the same time being critical of others’ “cafeteria” Christianity. I still haven’t seen a satisfactory answer to that.

    Comment by Pat — June 12, 2007 @ 2:37 pm - June 12, 2007

  58. Also, I am not going to defend those comments by Pam and others on Pam’s House Blend. In fact, I condemn the especially hateful ones. Unless Pam made these up, the far most obvious hateful rhetoric came from Bristow who “has opined that if he had a gay son he would kill him, and that homosexuals should be in prison.” and Whitney who held a sign “Go back in the closet.”

    Well, actually, Pat, you are defending them, because you’re saying that, while Pam is hateful, these people are more hateful.

    Which is what she and her fellow hatemongers depend on — the fact that others can always rationalize that someone else is worse as an excuse for not acting against her.

    I agree that organizations such as Soul Force and Ex-Gay Watch should criticize hate from both sides.

    Good. MAKE them do it. I’m sick of “shoulds”; I want to see some action.

    After all, gays can bitch and whine about Christianity all day and can start and give money to organizations whose sole goal is to bash Christians, but for some reason, they go completely blind when it comes to forms of hate they practice; in many cases, they even supportit, such as HRC’s gay hatemonger Mike Rogers.

    If there is a growing problem with young gay students who are being ostracized from the gay left, then Soul Force should include these students in their charge as well.

    Well, given these comments from Mike Signorile’s blog, it might be a bit worse than that.

    My heart bleeds, but not for the likes of him. Make him bleed. Make them all bleed. If you aren’t up to it. Don’t watch, or stay out of politics. This is not a polite and civil endeavor.

    Of course, this is after another commentor above, also one of Pam Spaulding’s regular commentors, says that this young person needs to be “stopped dead in his tracks”.

    And before anyone starts whining about how Pam, Signorile, Aravosis, etc. shouldn’t be held responsible for what their commentors say, consider this; they have ZERO trouble banning, editing, and deleting comments from conservative gays or people who disagree with them, claiming that they shouldn’t have to put up with such things.

    The fact that they leave threats of death and physical violence against other gays who they disagree with ideologically thus speaks volumes.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 12, 2007 @ 3:14 pm - June 12, 2007

  59. Like this thread and its description of how you want Christians to be “humiliated”.

    Unless you are saying that Christianity is synonymous with a particular faction of the Republican Party, try again. I said no such thing. What I did say, however, is that the GOP and the Religious Right need to be humiliated by losing a couple of elections. They have forgotten how to govern by conservative ideas and have mingled religion in with the business of the State far too much. This doesn’t mean I want the Dems in charge, though that would unfortunately be the result, but it does express unhappiness with the current crop of leadership in the GOP.

    Same song, darn near same verse.

    Somehow it doesn’t surprise me that you’d say this, since introspection ans self-examination is something you apparently fear. Just because I find the DNC to be worse than the GOP does not mean I believe the Republicans are “God’s Own Party”. Conservatism does not equate perfection either. RadicalRuss condemned ALL religious beliefs because he is an atheist with a heckuva superiority complex. I did no such thing here, on my blog, or in my video.

    Which hypocrisy — the kid exercising his freedom to believe and speak as he thinks, even if it seems to you to be at odds with his sexual orientation………or the lesbian Pam Spaulding, who supposedly supports the freedom to believe and speak as you think without responding with hate speech or intolerance, screaming about how awful this kid is, how he’s self-loathing, and demanding that he be “stung” and “socially ostracized”?

    What does one have anything to do with the other? If anything you are adopting the mentality of those on the Left you criticize. Taking the line that “We may have problems but those guys are far far worse” to the degree you wish to is absurd. It does nothing to address the problems on our side and goes a long way to excusing them because after all, we ain’t libs by God! That does no favor to conservative ideas and certainly isn’t what Christianity has stood for. Why do you launch into an attack on Pam right after defending this kid’s free speech rights? Does she not have the right to make an ass of herself as well? What happened to your admonition of getting one’s own house in order before commenting on somebody else’s? Is this something that doesn’t apply to you or only a convenient device against criticism you don’t like? Must you always juxtapose the Left and Right together, thereby ignoring the problems on the Right just to make an attack on the Left?

    The reason Pam gets away with it, John, is because you think the kid deserves what she’s flinging.

    Then how stupid of me to say otherwise here. Pam could be the spawn of Satan and that changes nothing with what is wrong with this kid doing what he did.

    Comment by John — June 12, 2007 @ 3:31 pm - June 12, 2007

  60. Well, actually, Pat, you are defending them, because you’re saying that, while Pam is hateful, these people are more hateful.

    Tell you what, let’s make this easy and remove one side of this equation: Pam and liberals like her are the most evil, diabolically amoral people to ever walk the face of the earth. These spawns of Satan and purveyors of all that is bad and evil in this life do not hold a candle to the blessedness of the Republicans and conservatives in general. Better? Now that that is out of the way, what excuse will you give to avoid the problems on the Right?

    Comment by John — June 12, 2007 @ 3:38 pm - June 12, 2007

  61. Pat – As usual I agree with everything you’ve said :-). The only thing to add is re: Vic’s quote from Leviticus. My understanding is that this section of Leviticus is called the Holiness Code and was meant to be applied to the Hebrews of the time. The context I was given by a pastor was that the Hebrews found themselves in a strange and hostile land surrounded by strange and hostile people. This section of law along with the preceding section of Leviticus (the Priestly Code) mostly contained rules and regulation regarding cleanliness and conduct of holy men and the Hebrew people. From the interpretation I was given, the intent of these laws was to ensure the purity of their belief system in the face of temptation and threats from the surrounding Caananite population, but also to keep them healthy so they could propagate the species (many of the laws involve not eating carrion and washing with water after touching “creeping” things).

    To your point, most Christians disregard much of the Holiness Code, particularly the parts dealing with the death penalty (adulterers, disobedient children, prostitutes) and the parts dealing with animals – not touching the skin of a pig (e.g. – football), using wild animals to devour the children of those found guilty of breaking the Code, etc. I’m almost certain that somewhere in the New Testament, Jesus disavows the entire purity code, but as I can’t find the actual text, don’t quote me.

    Just my two cents…

    Comment by HotMess — June 12, 2007 @ 3:44 pm - June 12, 2007

  62. What I did say, however, is that the GOP and the Religious Right need to be humiliated by losing a couple of elections.

    Ah, I see; so you think tying in your support of antireligious bigotry with the rationalization that it’s to purify the Republican party of “social conservatism” and thus ensure electoral success is going to work.

    I seem to remember an entire immigration debate last week in which that tactic was tried by the “moderates”, only to be soundly rejected by the vast majority of commentors.

    Somehow it doesn’t surprise me that you’d say this, since introspection ans self-examination is something you apparently fear.

    So you’re not going to counter-argue, you’re just going to tear me down personally. Got it.

    Why do you launch into an attack on Pam right after defending this kid’s free speech rights?

    Because what Pam (and you) are doing is criticizing and calling “hypocrite” a kid for a sign he was holding and people with whom he was associating before he came out.

    In contrast, in the very thread in which she is supposedly attacking people for hate speech and violence, she and her commentors are practicing it themselves.

    There are, as you mentioned above, things that you did previously that you now oppose; indeed, for many people, they did things that could be called antigay before they came out. Does your (or their) change of heart and action on the matter make you (or them) a hypocrite?

    What this kid is doing takes guts and courage. He is being out with people who you might not expect to be supportive — and because of him, they are being supportive towards him. That is exactly what our community needs, and is key to our future; after all, we insist that the best thing to do is to come out and to show people that gays are not all stereotypical leftists.

    Pam and her band of shrieking harpies are demanding blood and punishing him for doing it. Indeed, as I cited elsewhere, they’re demanding that he be “stopped in his tracks” and “made to bleed”.

    But what you want me to do is focus on punishing and making feel guilty for making gays commit suicide and Republicans lose elections the very people who are now accepting and supporting him.

    Brilliant, John; you have a great future ahead of you as a gay activist.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 12, 2007 @ 4:12 pm - June 12, 2007

  63. And, Pat and HotMess, that to which you are referring is Jesus’s reference to the “new commandment” in John 13.

    Acts 10 describes the application of that; the apostle Paul goes into much greater (and tart) detail in Galatians 3 and Ephesians 2.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 12, 2007 @ 4:28 pm - June 12, 2007

  64. Ah, I see; so you think tying in your support of antireligious bigotry with the rationalization that it’s to purify the Republican party of “social conservatism” and thus ensure electoral success is going to work.

    So it is a purity test, no surprise there. Borrowing a line from more unsavory elements that repeating a lie often enough will make it true? Putting that aside, social conservatism isn’t monolithic nor is this faction of the GOP and conservatism comprise the totality of both. I’ve yet to see you take on Ace of Spades, QandO, or even Bruce and Dan, all of whom from what I can tell are not part of the Religious Right, and castigating them for not being pure enough by your standards of what a Republican and a conservative is supposed to be. FYI, I’m not a Republican. Neither am I a Democrat. The GOP gets my vote more often than not but this doesn’t mean I agree with everything that party stands for.

    I seem to remember an entire immigration debate last week in which that tactic was tried by the “moderates”, only to be soundly rejected by the vast majority of commentors.

    Something I seem to recall other conservatives who are not part of the Religious Right condemn as well. Why be so coy, NDT? Put your cards on the table and spell it out clearly: only the Religious Right are true conservatives and only they are real Republicans in your eyes.

    So you’re not going to counter-argue, you’re just going to tear me down personally. Got it.

    A tactic you taught me so well, just in this thread alone. Nevertheless, you are dodging once more and avoiding the issue which again doesn’t surprise me. You excel at that.

    Because what Pam (and you) are doing is criticizing and calling “hypocrite” a kid for a sign he was holding and people with whom he was associating before he came out.

    If true that puts his actions more into perspective, but still wouldn’t totally erase the hypocrisy on his part. He’s not alone, I too was a hypocrite in some things as well before I came out. In fact hypocrisy is probably one of mankinds greatest failings as we all seem to engage in it from time to time. Yet once again, you cannot resist the temptation to condemn the Left while examining problems on the Right. You have no ability or inkling to look after our house so why do you keep slinging this BS on me?

    That is exactly what our community needs, and is key to our future; after all, we insist that the best thing to do is to come out and to show people that gays are not all stereotypical leftists.

    Indeed.

    Brilliant, John; you have a great future ahead of you as a gay activist.

    If so it wouldn’t be a long one given the liberal attitudes within many of these groups. Nevertheless, you make a great apologist yourself for the Right but not so swell for truth.

    Comment by John — June 12, 2007 @ 4:47 pm - June 12, 2007

  65. He’s not alone, I too was a hypocrite in some things as well before I came out.

    And that’s a major spot where we differ.

    I don’t hold you responsible for not taking into account what you were going to believe in the future when you did something in the past.

    I’ve yet to see you take on Ace of Spades, QandO, or even Bruce and Dan, all of whom from what I can tell are not part of the Religious Right, and castigating them for not being pure enough by your standards of what a Republican and a conservative is supposed to be.

    That’s because my standards don’t require adherence to the “religious right” to qualify as a Republican.

    Where you and I differ substantially, though, is that I don’t believe in throwing people out because they belong to the “religious right”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 12, 2007 @ 5:17 pm - June 12, 2007

  66. I don’t hold you responsible for not taking into account what you were going to believe in the future when you did something in the past.

    That’s great, though I’d hardly care one way or the other what your view was. Nevertheless, this wouldn’t lessen my own hypocrisy at that time.

    That’s because my standards don’t require adherence to the “religious right” to qualify as a Republican.

    Sure. I believe you. No really, I do. One thing that is clear though is that your standards prohibit any criticism of the Religious Right.

    Where you and I differ substantially, though, is that I don’t believe in throwing people out because they belong to the “religious right”.

    Not my party so invite in or dismiss whomever you wish. Just don’t be surprised though when a faction others may have strong disagreements with takes power that your party will suffer the consequences at the polls.

    Comment by John — June 12, 2007 @ 5:39 pm - June 12, 2007

  67. Nevertheless, this wouldn’t lessen my own hypocrisy at that time.

    (shrug) If you want to continue self-flagellation, it’s your back and your whip.

    But a) it’s really not necessary, b) you’re not really impressing anyone, and c) you’re making yourself easier to exploit.

    One thing that is clear though is that your standards prohibit any criticism of the Religious Right.

    Wrong, and more wrong.

    Where I draw the line is at gratuitous criticism, for one reason; being totally against someone else means you quite often miss good ideas.

    Just don’t be surprised though when a faction others may have strong disagreements with takes power that your party will suffer the consequences at the polls.

    LOL…..if it were people who had demonstrated that they were disagreeing on a rational basis, I might be worried.

    But, as the 2004 and 2006 election cycles showed, gay leftists and Democrats have no problem with electing, supporting, endorsing, or working for homophobic candidates; they just have to be Democrats.

    Furthermore, as “Radical” Russ shows, these people like Pam and him disagree with religion, period, and bash Christians and Christianity regardless of what they do; sexual orientation is just a convenient cover for what amounts to flat-out antireligious bigotry, considering people who are religious to be irrational and stupid.

    Do you really think that aligning the gay movement with that is going to work in a country where 90% of people would then qualify as “irrational and stupid’?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 12, 2007 @ 6:03 pm - June 12, 2007

  68. Nevertheless, this wouldn’t lessen my own hypocrisy at that time.

    If you want to continue self-flagellation, it’s your back and your whip.

    But it’s really not necessary, you’re not really impressing anyone, and you’re making yourself easier to exploit.

    One thing that is clear though is that your standards prohibit any criticism of the Religious Right.

    Wrong, and more wrong.

    Where I draw the line is at gratuitous criticism, for one reason; being totally against someone else means you quite often miss good ideas.

    Just don’t be surprised though when a faction others may have strong disagreements with takes power that your party will suffer the consequences at the polls.

    LOL…..if it were people who had demonstrated that they were disagreeing on a rational basis, I might be worried.

    But, as the 2004 and 2006 election cycles showed, gay leftists and Democrats have no problem with electing, supporting, endorsing, or working for homophobic candidates; they just have to be Democrats.

    Furthermore, as “Radical” Russ shows, these people like Pam and him disagree with religion, period, and bash Christians and Christianity regardless of what they do; sexual orientation is just a convenient cover for what amounts to flat-out antireligious bigotry, considering people who are religious to be irrational and stupid.

    Do you really think that aligning the gay movement with that is going to work in a country where 90% of people would then qualify as “irrational and stupid’?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 12, 2007 @ 6:04 pm - June 12, 2007

  69. Nevertheless, this wouldn’t lessen my own hypocrisy at that time.

    If you want to continue self-flagellation, it’s your back and your whip.

    But it’s really not necessary, you’re not really impressing anyone, and you’re making yourself easier to exploit.

    One thing that is clear though is that your standards prohibit any criticism of the Religious Right.

    Wrong, and more wrong.

    Where I draw the line is at gratuitous criticism. Such as your video blaming Christians for gay murders and suicides.

    Just don’t be surprised though when a faction others may have strong disagreements with takes power that your party will suffer the consequences at the polls.

    LOL…..if it were people who had demonstrated that they were disagreeing on a rational basis, I might be worried.

    But, as the 2004 and 2006 election cycles showed, gay leftists and Democrats have no problem with electing, supporting, endorsing, or working for homophobic candidates; they just have to be Democrats.

    Furthermore, as “Radical” Russ shows, these people like Pam and him disagree with religion, period, and bash Christians and Christianity regardless of what they do; sexual orientation is just a convenient cover for what amounts to flat-out antireligious bigotry, considering people who are religious to be irrational and stupid.

    Do you really think that aligning the gay movement with that is going to work in a country where 90% of people would then qualify as “irrational and stupid’?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 12, 2007 @ 6:05 pm - June 12, 2007

  70. And I will warn GP and GPW right now that there are two posts caught in the spam filter that repeat what I was saying in 67, so they don’t need to be published.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 12, 2007 @ 6:07 pm - June 12, 2007

  71. But it’s really not necessary, you’re not really impressing anyone, and you’re making yourself easier to exploit.

    Admitting one’s mistakes is at the heart of Christianity, NDT, or did you forget this? It isn’t about impressing anyone (my life simply isn’t that exciting anyways) or about pseudo-mascochism.

    Wrong, and more wrong. Where I draw the line is at gratuitous criticism.

    I could believe you if I saw that this was true. Yet on this blog, your own and on others I’ve seen you on this is precisely that stance you have taken. Anyone criticizing anything about the Religious Right you turn on.

    But, as the 2004 and 2006 election cycles showed, gay leftists and Democrats have no problem with electing, supporting, endorsing, or working for homophobic candidates; they just have to be Democrats.

    That’s their problem and it shouldn’t be a surprise anyways. Now what 2006 also showed was that many in the GOP are tired of the current leadership of their party, as are GOP-leaning voters. Let’s hope the GOP remembers this for next year.

    Comment by John — June 12, 2007 @ 6:29 pm - June 12, 2007

  72. And I will warn GP and GPW right now that there are two posts caught in the spam filter that repeat what I was saying in 67, so they don’t need to be published.

    They have a touchy filter here, with comments of mine and others being caught all the time. Beats me.

    Comment by John — June 12, 2007 @ 6:30 pm - June 12, 2007

  73. Admitting one’s mistakes is at the heart of Christianity, NDT, or did you forget this?

    Admitting your mistakes is one thing, John; wallowing in them and going on about how awful and evil you were is something else entirely.

    As one person wisely put it, “God doesn’t dwell on your past sins, and you shouldn’t either.”

    I could believe you if I saw that this was true.

    Which was why I gave you those links.

    But, as our Lord knew well and opined, those who do not wish to see will not, regardless of how much they are shown.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 12, 2007 @ 6:45 pm - June 12, 2007

  74. As one person wisely put it, “God doesn’t dwell on your past sins, and you shouldn’t either.”
    Indeed. Yet mentioning them isn’t dwelling upon them either.

    Which was why I gave you those links.

    That did nothing to dispell what I’ve seen you do.

    But, as our Lord knew well and opined, those who do not wish to see will not, regardless of how much they are shown.

    Indeed. Not exactly relevant to this though since I reject what you are implying here.

    Comment by John — June 12, 2007 @ 7:12 pm - June 12, 2007

  75. Christians and Homophobia…

    Over at Gay Patriot, blogger Average Gay Joe posts this video he made, and comments ensue. I wanted to post it here and start a new conversation, because it deserves its own thread over here. I have two complaints about Joe's video: First, the inc…

    Trackback by Stand Firm — June 12, 2007 @ 7:18 pm - June 12, 2007

  76. #56:

    Pam Spaulding, who supposedly supports the freedom to believe and speak as you think without responding with hate speech or intolerance, screaming about how awful this kid is, how he’s self-loathing, and demanding that he be “stung” and “socially ostracized”?

    Pam did state the guy was self-loathing – and I would agree – but she never said the rest you attributed to her. You’re simply lying again.

    I would cut the guy some slack since he’s only 18. But he really was involved with some nasty people. Hopefully, he can get his act together, accept his being gay and not wind up a whiny, bitter, and mendacious old queen.

    Comment by Ian S — June 12, 2007 @ 8:15 pm - June 12, 2007

  77. Well, actually, Pat, you are defending them, because you’re saying that, while Pam is hateful, these people are more hateful.

    Which is what she and her fellow hatemongers depend on — the fact that others can always rationalize that someone else is worse as an excuse for not acting against her.

    NDT, believe what you wish. You linked Pam’s post, and while I saw the remarks from the gay left criticizing the person in question, I thought it was worth posting that the hate is coming from both sides. For some reason, you only pointed out the hate from the lefty posters, and apparently chose to ignore the hate from the individuals that Pam quoted. So does your silence on these individuals mean that you are defending them? I’m guessing not. But are the hatemongers from the religious right depending on this?

    This does not mean I am defending Pam and the others by also, in my view, pointing out the hate from the other side. To me, pointing out both was relevant to this thread, and I didn’t find it necessary to have two different posts critical to both sides of the issue. Also, John’s original post was critical of some Christians. Because I started off my first post by being critical of the gay community, I don’t believe I was defending the hateful actions of some Christians. I did say that the comments coming from the right towards the kid in question were more hateful. I said it, because in my view, that was the case in this instance.

    For the record, I haven’t posted on Pam’s blog for a long time, or for that matter read it, some for the reasons you mention.

    As I stated a week or two ago in another thread, I am rethinking about being critical of opposing sides in the same post. I honestly believe that the times I did it, I was not trying to mitigate either side. More like trying to put things in perspective and how hate can come from both directions. The kid in question is an example of just that. It just seemed to me that I would be missing an important piece by neglecting to mention it.

    NDT and HotMess, thanks for the info on the “Holiness Code” and the “new commandment.”

    Comment by Pat — June 12, 2007 @ 8:17 pm - June 12, 2007

  78. Without other evidence, I don’t have any reason to believe that all of these young people committed suicide or were killed because they were homosexual. Given that, I hope whoever made this video received permission from the victim’s families to use the photos of their loved ones in this context.

    Comment by Dubious — June 12, 2007 @ 8:54 pm - June 12, 2007

  79. Pam did state the guy was self-loathing – and I would agree – but she never said the rest you attributed to her. You’re simply lying again.

    As I stated over yonder, Ian, Pam Spaulding is more than capable of exercising a heavy hand on the comments deletions and bans when she disagrees with something.

    But, as we saw with the death threats made on her blog, she only acts on those when she’s been publicly embarrassed first.

    Since she deletes and bans that with which she doesn’t agree, we can safely state that she supports every one of the statements I cited.

    On the same topic, though, how does it feel to sit there and whine about Christians allegedly calling gay teens names when there is documented proof of gay leftists and Democrats like yourself doing it, publishing the kid’s home address and phone number and encouraging people to harass him, and even demanding blood — because the kid in question is of the wrong political ideology?

    Where have we seen that before…..oh, that’s right, when it was done to GayPatriot and innumerable other gay Republicans who you and yours find objectionable.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 12, 2007 @ 11:47 pm - June 12, 2007

  80. For some reason, you only pointed out the hate from the lefty posters, and apparently chose to ignore the hate from the individuals that Pam quoted.

    That is because I feel no need to belabor the obvious.

    But I do feel an extraordinary need to point out the hate being flung by those who are supposedly against it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 13, 2007 @ 12:02 am - June 13, 2007

  81. publishing the kid’s home address and phone number and encouraging people to harass him, and even demanding blood — because the kid in question is of the wrong political ideology?

    I remember this being done to Malkin and if I recall correctly it was done earlier to a few other liberal and conservative bloggers. Pretty despicable in any case. I skimmed through the comments at that site since that kind of drivel gets wearisome after awhile, but it was good to see that the webmaster had removed it from the comments and seemed to admonish the person who did it. The antipathy for conservatives, especially gay ones, doesn’t surprise me and is one reason why I hold the DNC is such contempt.

    Comment by John — June 13, 2007 @ 12:23 am - June 13, 2007

  82. That is because I feel no need to belabor the obvious.

    It would be nice if you’d extend this courtesy to us as well. I could spend a lifetime replying to the remarks made by liberals and it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference. I pick and choose my battles carefully and since you say you read my blog that should be clear.

    Comment by John — June 13, 2007 @ 12:24 am - June 13, 2007

  83. It would seem, John, that taking the time to do this would put to rest any concerns you may have about me not being willing to extend other people courtesy.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 13, 2007 @ 12:36 am - June 13, 2007

  84. Okay, enough. Maybe I’m just tired with the late hour and popping back and forth between packing and the puter. Let’s leave it at agree to disagree on this thread and move on. Btw, as for the cacophony of bile from some quarters against this Tyler fellow if they’d hope to change people’s minds I can see it back-firing. Frankly I’m feeling a bit sorry for the guy and don’t even know him. He has undoubtedly made far more mistakes in his young life than has been reported, as have we all. He isn’t the spawn of Satan for crying out loud. I sent him an email telling him that he isn’t alone in being gay and conservative, which is nothing to be ashamed of. Loving another guy says nothing about one’s beliefs concerning defense, taxes, etc. That’s something that has always rankled me about the Left. Eh, doubt he’ll even see it since he’s probably been inundated with messages since this broke. Sucks to have one’s coming out used as a political football. Thank God I didn’t have to go through that.

    Comment by John — June 13, 2007 @ 12:50 am - June 13, 2007

  85. This argument that most gay bashers aren’t Christian is mainly a red herring. What about the family background of gay teens being kicked out of their homes? What about the main causes of most gay suicides? Also there have been a few suicides with those involved in so-called ‘exgay ministries’ as well. Are those ministries not Christian?

    I do not doubt that a great deal of conservative Christians, like those Anglicans that have have made a trackback to this post, have good intentions while following their strict theology concerning sexuality. However, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Conservative Christians have been and are primarily responsible for the negative atmosphere that has inflated gay suicides because of their beliefs. It can have quite an impact on your mental health when you hear that the only compatible and responsible relationship you can have is disapproved by society and is considered a sin. Their ministering to LGBT has caused more irreparable damage than good, as documented countless of times on XGW.

    My take on John’s video is that he didn’t emphasize more on this negative atmosphere. It would have been more potent if he had listed tragedies directly resulting from conservative Christian influences such as ‘exgay’ suicides, and testimonies of ‘formerly conservative Christian’ parents losing their children.

    Comment by Xeno — June 13, 2007 @ 12:52 am - June 13, 2007

  86. Ah, Xeno, good to see you.

    And since we all know how tolerant you are of gay teens who don’t toe your exact beliefs and lines, why don’t we share that with people?

    You have to nip these people in the bud. Today he’s fronting for YAF, tomorrow he’ll be the Roy Cohn of the 21st Century. To me, people like him are no better than a Black person passing for white and joining the Ku Klux Klan. (I’m not gay but I am Black and that’s how I see it.) When someone is working against the rights of people just like him (or her — Mary Cheney springs to mind, as do Clarence Thomas and Kenneth Blackwell), he needs to be stopped dead in his tracks.

    In short, you’re whining about “bad atmospheres” allegedly created by Christians when you’re merrily and documentably creating your own in plain view.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 13, 2007 @ 1:01 am - June 13, 2007

  87. Sorry NDT, but that’s another Xeno. Looks like that Xeno is a black heterosexual, which I’m neither. While I don’t necessarily don’t agree with his Roy Cohn comparison, since that machiavellian pathetic excuse for a human being never came out of the closet, he hardly creates a negative atmosphere for pushing the kid to return back to the closet.

    As for Whitney, judging from his myspace profile, it seems that his views have evolved away from antigay trash ever since he came out of the closet. Still, if he feels like leaving his sexuality entry as blank from straight, then something he still has a long while to evolve.

    Anyhow, leaving Whitney as your straw man in the field, and cutting out the ad hominems towards me, let’s return back to the conversation about my questions concerning the suicide of ‘exgays’ and the background of homeless gay youths. Shall we?

    Comment by Xeno — June 13, 2007 @ 2:00 am - June 13, 2007

  88. Then, if that is not you, I apologize for stating that it was.

    However:

    Anyhow, leaving Whitney as your straw man in the field, and cutting out the ad hominems towards me, let’s return back to the conversation about my questions concerning the suicide of ‘exgays’ and the background of homeless gay youths. Shall we?

    There really wasn’t much in the way of questions in your post — only a conclusion.

    Conservative Christians have been and are primarily responsible for the negative atmosphere that has inflated gay suicides because of their beliefs.

    That’s a very convenient method.

    You see, when one considers this:

    What about the family background of gay teens being kicked out of their homes? What about the main causes of most gay suicides? Also there have been a few suicides with those involved in so-called ‘exgay ministries’ as well. Are those ministries not Christian?

    the problem becomes that you cannot pin every single one of those occurrences on Christians or Christianity; after all, far more gays have committed suicide OUTSIDE ex-gay ministries than have within, for example.

    So since you can’t explain why atheist gays, gay children of nonreligious parents, and gay people who never went anywhere near Exodus International still are kicked out of homes and commit suicide, you blame it on the “negative atmosphere” that “Christian conservatives” create — which neatly protects you from actually having to document your proof that Christians are the ones out murdering and driving gays to suicide.

    Meanwhile, you gloss over the fact that there are documented cases, TODAY, of popular and well-regarded gay leftists, atheists, and Democrats calling for the harassment of, death of and wishing harm on gay people and their children because they are of the wrong political ideology.

    Right now, to use Whitney as an example, it’s not the conservative Christians that are ostracizing him because of his sexual orientation; it’s other gays.

    Which is the experience I’ve had, and which I believe numerous other commentors here have had. I’ve never heard GayPatriot say, for example, that Christian conservatives called up his office and harassed him and his co-workers, trying to get them fired….but I have heard him specifically state gay leftists and Democrats who did it.

    So tell us, Xeno; are you actually concerned about hate and intolerance that drives gays to commit suicide and to be physically assaulted….or are you only concerned about it to the extent at which it justifies Christian-bashing?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 13, 2007 @ 2:25 am - June 13, 2007

  89. Here’s a radical idea, John. How about instead of zeroing in on gay victims of homocide and suicide, focus on all of them. Instead of zeroing in on Christians, focus on all the purveyors of hate.

    Just think, you could wear more ribbons on your chest proving that *YOU* give a damn more than anybody esle.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 13, 2007 @ 5:36 am - June 13, 2007

  90. Wow, John. I’ve had a look around and you do seem to be setting out on a anti-Christian crusade there. Naturally, you excuse it the same way liberal Christian bashers hide out by the obligatory “I’m a Christian but…” or some derivative thereof.

    What’s going on in your world?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 13, 2007 @ 6:33 am - June 13, 2007

  91. TGC, I’m not going to play this game with you anymore. Go bait someone else.

    Comment by John — June 13, 2007 @ 6:54 am - June 13, 2007

  92. That is because I feel no need to belabor the obvious.

    That’s fine. So you chose your way to make the points you feel are necessary, and that we shouldn’t construe from it that you are not condoning or defending the hateful actions of some Christians. By my choosing to point out the actions of some hateful gay leftists (as opposed to not belaboring the obvious in this case) as well as pointing out the actions of some hateful Christians, that shouldn’t be construed as my defending or condoning the actions of the hateful gay leftists. Fair enough?

    But I do feel an extraordinary need to point out the hate being flung by those who are supposedly against it.

    Which is another reason why I pointed out the hateful remarks by the Christians quoted in that post.

    Right now, to use Whitney as an example, it’s not the conservative Christians that are ostracizing him because of his sexual orientation; it’s other gays.

    It depends on how you look at it. As far as we know, no conservative Christian has on a blog or otherwise publicly ostracized Whitney directly. But signs that say, “Go back in the closet” and a person who opines about killing a gay son and sending gays to prison count as ostracization to me. I’m guessing that this is only the tip of the iceberg. I can only imagine the bile he heard growing up.

    And as a bonus, he now is getting ostracized by some of the gay left.

    Comment by Pat — June 13, 2007 @ 8:12 am - June 13, 2007

  93. #90

    No, TGC, it’s not John/Joe, it’s you.

    You can’t take that enormous leap of logic needed to link Christians with gay suicides.

    Welcome to the club.

    Julie the Jarhead

    Comment by Julie the Jarhead — June 13, 2007 @ 8:31 am - June 13, 2007

  94. Re: #51 Because I can’t get comfortable to enough to sleep without pain medications. Because I walk with a slight limp. Because I’ve had chronic back pain for the last 25 years.

    All as a result of christian “love”.

    Comment by Vic — June 13, 2007 @ 8:41 am - June 13, 2007

  95. #81:

    I remember this being done to Malkin

    Yeah, but only after she published personal information about a couple of students at UCSC.

    Comment by Ian S — June 13, 2007 @ 9:39 am - June 13, 2007

  96. #79:

    Pam Spaulding is more than capable of exercising a heavy hand on the comments deletions and bans when she disagrees with something, blah, blah, blah

    So, I was right: she never said what you claimed she did.

    Comment by Ian S — June 13, 2007 @ 9:42 am - June 13, 2007

  97. 92, the “not” in my second sentence should be deleted.

    Comment by Pat — June 13, 2007 @ 10:01 am - June 13, 2007

  98. All as a result of christian “love”.

    So all Christians are to blame, then.

    In that case, since Bonnie Bleskachek sexually harassed, discriminated against, and negatively affected the careers of numerous people, can the religious right state that all glbt individuals want to do the same?

    Even the worst of homophobes has decency enough to condemn acts of violence against gays. But gays continue to use Christianity as their excuse, as they have with Tyler Whitney, for flat-out hatemongering, bigotry, and threats of violence.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 13, 2007 @ 12:02 pm - June 13, 2007

  99. Yeah, but only after she published personal information about a couple of students at UCSC.

    You mean, after she reproduced and linked to a press release on which these students had put their names, phone numbers, and email addresses.

    In retaliation, these leftists posted her private home address, phone numbers, pictures of her neighborhoods, racist slurs against her and her family, and encouragements to people to assault her.

    And by the way, the rally at USCS, in which gay leftists physically assaulted and namecalled military recruiters, is the best argument for DADT I’ve ever seen. Not one single gay organization — even SLDN — condemned it. They said nothing as their fellow soldiers were physically assaulted and called war criminals by leftist gays.

    So, I was right: she never said what you claimed she did.

    So you’re screwed; since she deletes and bans everything else with which she disagrees, your argument that she doesn’t support this sort of hate speech is blown right out of the water.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 13, 2007 @ 12:13 pm - June 13, 2007

  100. So you chose your way to make the points you feel are necessary, and that we shouldn’t construe from it that you are not condoning or defending the hateful actions of some Christians.

    You don’t have to “construe” anything, Pat; as I referenced above to John, I have made my feelings obvious on the matter of homophobia.

    As far as we know, no conservative Christian has on a blog or otherwise publicly ostracized Whitney directly. But signs that say, “Go back in the closet” and a person who opines about killing a gay son and sending gays to prison count as ostracization to me.

    So what that means is that what is happening now should be made irrelevant because of what happened previously

    That reminds me of this line from Lake Wobegon Days: “Even if you had to go back thirty years, you could find where they took the wrong fork in the road that led directly to their house burning down, their car being hit by a truck, their hands being eaten by corn pickers.”

    When we invent a time machine, feel free to go backwards and confront Tyler Whitney when he is actually holding said sign or allegedly being buddy-buddy with people whose viewpoints you don’t like. But, in the interim, how about confronting the people who are flinging hate and ostracizing him now?

    Oh, and one more thing for Ian; before you start whining and crying to protect your fellow violent leftists, read and weep.

    The next day, Malkin copied the cell phone numbers and e-mail addresses of three student activists at the demonstration from a news release intended for journalists and pasted them in her online column titled “Seditious Santa Cruz vs. America.”

    Funny how the little hatemongers were all about pushing out their phone numbers and email addresses in publicity releases — but started shrieking about “privacy” when they actually started getting used.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 13, 2007 @ 12:28 pm - June 13, 2007

  101. NDT:
    the problem becomes that you cannot pin every single one of those occurrences on Christians or Christianity; after all, far more gays have committed suicide OUTSIDE ex-gay ministries than have within, for example.

    You’re splitting hairs here. I’ve stated that conservative Christians are the primary influence for the negative atmosphere that has inflated gay suicides. By inflating, I do not mean that all gay suicides are a result of cC influence, but a large majority of them are manifested by the constant pressure of a conservative family and/or society.

    So since you can’t explain why atheist gays, gay children of nonreligious parents, and gay people who never went anywhere near Exodus International still are kicked out of homes and commit suicide, you blame it on the “negative atmosphere” that “Christian conservatives” create — which neatly protects you from actually having to document your proof that Christians are the ones out murdering and driving gays to suicide.

    Funny that you mention nonreligious parents instead of atheist ones. True that some nonreligious parents have kicked gay sons and daughthers out of their homes, but their nonreligious aspect hasn’t stopped them from using conservative Christian arguments against homosexuality. Ergo, conservative Christians have influenced nonreligious antigay parents regardless of their differences in beliefs.

    Meanwhile, you gloss over the fact that there are documented cases, TODAY, of popular and well-regarded gay leftists, atheists, and Democrats calling for the harassment of, death of and wishing harm on gay people and their children because they are of the wrong political ideology.

    Straw man and unrepresentative sample

    Right now, to use Whitney as an example, it’s not the conservative Christians that are ostracizing him because of his sexual orientation; it’s other gays.

    Correction, not because of sexual orientation, but because of his questionable political activities. Big difference there.

    Which is the experience I’ve had, and which I believe numerous other commentors here have had. I’ve never heard GayPatriot say, for example, that Christian conservatives called up his office and harassed him and his co-workers, trying to get them fired….but I have heard him specifically state gay leftists and Democrats who did it.

    You honestly think that political Christianists are happy that there are a lot of gay staffers in the GOP establishment? Obviously that’s one of the reasons they feel betrayed by the GOP since the last election.

    So tell us, Xeno; are you actually concerned about hate and intolerance that drives gays to commit suicide and to be physically assaulted….or are you only concerned about it to the extent at which it justifies Christian-bashing?

    I’m more concerned over the underlying factors that causes such suicides, and most of these factors do arise pervertedly in the name of Christ. Like John stated, cleaning your own house deserves higher priority.

    Comment by Xeno — June 13, 2007 @ 1:36 pm - June 13, 2007

  102. NDT, I’ll let Vic speak for himself, but the point has been made that not all Christians are to be blamed. That there are good Christians that are gay supportive and don’t buy the homosexuality is a sin, no more than they buy that eating pork is a sign.

    I’ve said before, and I’ll restate the obvious. Bonnie Bleskavich’s actions were reprehensible. And the fact that people in power let that happen for a while before acting is almost as bad.

    I don’t know if all of the religious right will conclude that all glbt people are like that wretched creature, but the fact that at the very least, is call me and other homosexuals sinners is bad enough.

    Even the worst of homophobes has decency enough to condemn acts of violence against gays. But gays continue to use Christianity as their excuse, as they have with Tyler Whitney, for flat-out hatemongering, bigotry, and threats of violence.

    Decency? Because their hate is compared to the threats of death by leftist jerks? So they come out against violence on persons. How Christian of them. Besides, as I pointed out, some of the comments of “Christians” have been laced with violence. But even the ones who condemn violence against homosexuals still preach hate against homosexuals. So what’s their excuse. Something other than their perceived notion of Christianity? And what’s worse, it’s this rhetoric, in my view, that is more damaging, than the sick threats on blogs by repugnant creatures.

    And by the way, the rally at USCS, in which gay leftists physically assaulted and namecalled military recruiters, is the best argument for DADT I’ve ever seen.

    The people who assaulted military personnel are thugs and criminals. HRC and other other organizations should have condemned the assaults. Agreed. But how does it follow that gay individuals who would not assault anyone in the military, does not harbor animosity towards the military, and WANTS to serve their country in the military should have to be closeted in the military while their straight counterparts don’t have to.

    Comment by Pat — June 13, 2007 @ 1:54 pm - June 13, 2007

  103. You don’t have to “construe” anything, Pat; as I referenced above to John, I have made my feelings obvious on the matter of homophobia.

    I made my feelings obvious on the matter of gay leftists threatening violence too. If it’s still not obvious, here I go. I condemn the reprehensible remarks and threats against persons such as Tyler Whitney and other persons they do not agree with.

    So what that means is that what is happening now should be made irrelevant because of what happened previously.

    Nope. Far from it. As I pointed out, in Tyler Whitney’s case, hate is coming from both sides. And as far as I know, these anti-gay Christians haven’t changed their views and have stopped condemning homosexuals. And sorry, when I hear individuals in one side of their mouth say that one’s sexual orientation shouldn’t matter when speaking of an individual such as Tyler Whitney, and the other side of their mouth still spew anti-gay hate, that doesn’t mitigate their hate. I also hope that the hate from some of the gay left, but I’m not optimistic about that either.

    When we invent a time machine, feel free to go backwards and confront Tyler Whitney when he is actually holding said sign or allegedly being buddy-buddy with people whose viewpoints you don’t like. But, in the interim, how about confronting the people who are flinging hate and ostracizing him now?

    I don’t know too much about Tyler Whitney other than what was posted here, and the little that I saw on the link to Pam’s House Blend. It wasn’t clear to me whether he held the particular sign or not, and I don’t feel like linking again there to check again, because it doesn’t matter. He is 18 years old, going through a tough time, and as such, I don’t have an issue with his previous, or current beliefs for that matter. (BTW, even if I did, I still would condemn the threats against him).

    As for confronting those, I’m not sure what you think I should do. I don’t post or read Pam’s blog any more, so I wasn’t planning on commenting on her blog. I would do so, if someone said spewed such hate on this blog or another blog I read currently. I’m not an activist by any stretch of the imagination, but I do let my feelings known in my own little circle. This includes condemning hate no matter where it comes from. When DNC or HRC calls, I’ve made my feelings known about their hypocrisy, and have withheld contributions.

    If I had more time and gumption, and wished to become more of an activist, I would focus more on the anti-gay bigotry from the religious right. In my view, their hate rhetoric is more damaging to young gay people.

    Comment by Pat — June 13, 2007 @ 2:42 pm - June 13, 2007

  104. Xeno, your duplicity in your attempts to hide your flat-out antireligious and hateful bigotry is simply astounding.

    You say:

    By inflating, I do not mean that all gay suicides are a result of cC influence, but a large majority of them are manifested by the constant pressure of a conservative family and/or society.

    But then you turn around and say this:

    Ergo, conservative Christians have influenced nonreligious antigay parents regardless of their differences in beliefs.

    In other words, you blame every single case of gay suicide on Christians regardless of whether they’re involved or not.

    Now to Pat:

    NDT, I’ll let Vic speak for himself, but the point has been made that not all Christians are to be blamed.

    No, it has not. Not when you have Xeno stating that gay suicides are all the fault of Christians, regardless of whether or not they were involved, and not when you have Vic trying to do the same.

    Back to Xeno:

    You honestly think that political Christianists are happy that there are a lot of gay staffers in the GOP establishment?

    What I know is that the gay left and Democrats are making threats of death and violence against those very staffers and trying to get them fired from their jobs.

    Isn’t it amazing that you whine about “political Christianists” supposedly wanting these gays hurt and fired, but say nothing about the fact that you and your fellow gay leftists want and are actually doing exactly the same thing?

    Back to Pat:

    Decency? Because their hate is compared to the threats of death by leftist jerks?

    Yes, Pat; as the saying goes, “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

    If you need it clarified to even greater effect, Pat, the First Amendment expressly allows people to hold whatever religious belief they like and to express it, even if you don’t like it; however, there is no law saying that you are justified in threatening and murdering someone because you don’t like their political ideology.

    Therefore, common sense and the law says that people who express religious beliefs you don’t like, but condemn violence against gays, are far more decent and Constitutionally-protected than are those who threaten and murder people with whom they disagree.

    But in the “LGBT community”, the former is obsessed about, and the latter is minimized and ignored. Sick.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 13, 2007 @ 3:32 pm - June 13, 2007

  105. The people who assaulted military personnel are thugs and criminals. HRC and other other organizations should have condemned the assaults. Agreed.

    Good.

    But how does it follow that gay individuals who would not assault anyone in the military, does not harbor animosity towards the military, and WANTS to serve their country in the military should have to be closeted in the military while their straight counterparts don’t have to.

    Because, as the USCS incident shows, openly-gay people are thugs and criminals who have no qualms or restraints on attacking military personnel — and organizations that purport to represent openly-gay people not only refuse to condemn, but actually support, these actions.

    Like I keep saying, when SLDN and HRC start speaking out against these sort of violent actions being taken against military personnel by other gays and leftists, then that argument is significantly weakened. But all SLDN has done in response to the UC Santa Cruz incidents is bitch and whine about how “unfair” it is that glbts and their supporters who physically assaulted and attacked military personnel were — surprise! — put on a list that identified them as a possible source of physical danger to military personnel.

    And that kind of leads to this:

    As for confronting those, I’m not sure what you think I should do.

    You seem to have no trouble denouncing Christians. Try putting some effort into denouncing the people who are, in your name, making you look like a violent and bigoted idiot.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 13, 2007 @ 3:42 pm - June 13, 2007

  106. Oh, and Pat, as I just reported, turns out the haters at leftist blog JoeMyGod — after their birthday celebration for Crixi, who you may remember is the individual who wished SIDS on Samuel Cheney and who Ian and the rest of the gay hate apologists have been insisting wasn’t a real person and was in fact a right-wing plant — have just published, not just Tyler Whitney’s home address, phone number, and email, but his parents’ address as well — all for “informational purposes”, or so they claim.

    Are you ready to do something yet, or are you just going to sit there and let these hatemongers, who have threatened to assault and kill this person, use that information?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 13, 2007 @ 9:11 pm - June 13, 2007

  107. #102:

    The people who assaulted military personnel are thugs and criminals.

    Pat, don’t believe a word NDT says unless you can independently verify it. Nobody assaulted the military personnel at the UCSC protest. NDT is simply lying again.

    Comment by Ian S — June 14, 2007 @ 1:09 am - June 14, 2007

  108. Crap!

    Back in #’s 89 & 90 I wrote John instead of Joe. Too early to be writing.

    Comment by ThatGayConservatives — June 14, 2007 @ 3:00 am - June 14, 2007

  109. I’ve stated that conservative Christians are the primary influence for the negative atmosphere that has inflated gay suicides.

    And you know this how?

    Comment by ThatGayConservatives — June 14, 2007 @ 3:06 am - June 14, 2007

  110. Nobody assaulted the military personnel at the UCSC protest.

    Regardless of whether they were or not, Stalinist liberal douchebags disturbed the peace and interfered with the rights of the other students.

    Comment by ThatGayConservatives — June 14, 2007 @ 3:13 am - June 14, 2007

  111. And don’t we all love seeing what gay leftists like Ian support and do.

    Next time tell your thugs not to take so many of their own incriminating pictures, Ian.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 14, 2007 @ 3:16 am - June 14, 2007

  112. Because, as the USCS incident shows, openly-gay people are thugs and criminals who have no qualms or restraints on attacking military personnel — and organizations that purport to represent openly-gay people not only refuse to condemn, but actually support, these actions.

    You may wish to rephrase this, NDT. For all the false accusations here that I made a blanket smear against all Christians, I never came even close to this. As an “openly-gay” man myself I would NEVER support such actions and I’ll bet most of the people here (including yourself) wouldn’t either.

    have just published, not just Tyler Whitney’s home address, phone number, and email, but his parents’ address as well — all for “informational purposes”, or so they claim.

    The same was done for Kyle Bristow and his parents as well. Apparently all of this information was obtained through public sources online, which is scary in and of itself. That aside, the intent of drawing attention to it is clear and is utterly contemptible. It’s bad enough to do this to Whitney and Bristow, but to drag their parents into it as well? As if Whitney at least isn’t struggling with issues since his coming out? Opposing asinine comments both may have made (from the videos on You Tube, Bristow certainly has at least) is one thing, this kind of harassment is something entirely different. For all the complaints of McCarthyism that the Left has made over the years, many of their number seem to adopt such tactics with relish abandonment which makes them hypocrites to boot.

    Comment by John — June 14, 2007 @ 8:49 am - June 14, 2007

  113. You seem to have no trouble denouncing Christians. Try putting some effort into denouncing the people who are, in your name, making you look like a violent and bigoted idiot.

    NDT, that’s sort of correct, if by “no trouble dencouncing Christians” you mean that I have no trouble dencouncing anti-gay Christians, who not just use their faith as an excuse to hate gays and insist homosexuality is a sin, but moreover, spout their anti-gay hate and rhetoric. Sure, they have the First Amendment right to do so. But so do I by saying that their rhetoric is harmful to gay people.

    And I believe I have put in the same effort in denouncing the anti-Christian gay left as I have with the anti-gay Christians. This thread was about anti-gay Christians. There are plenty of other threads in GayPatriot about the evils of gay leftists, and I have made, in my view, appropriate condemnations when warranted. I could understand if John, the author of this thread, was critical because I also chose to address the misdeeds of the gay community (and the gay left in particular). He could have argued that I had tried to minimize or excuse the behavior of hateful Christians. But apparently my criticism of the gay left was not good enough, because I addressed the wrongful behavior of anti-gay Christians (the subject of this thread), that’s somehow wrong.

    If it seems to you that I stated more about wrongful Christian behavior than wrongful gay leftist behavior it is because a) this thread was about anti-gay Christian behavior, b) even when I even the score by condemning behavior of gay leftists (which I believe you initiated), you were critical of the way I did it.

    Even when you brought up the gay left behavior, I didn’t suggest (initially) that you excused the Christian behavior, and did so only until you couldn’t apply the same courtesy to me. However, not once on this thread did you condemn anti-gay Christian behavior. Yes, you did post two links to it that you made in the past. However, I clearly put more effort into denouncing the gay left in this thread than you have in denouncing the anti-gay Christian behavior. I could just as easily take your statement, “Try putting some effort into denouncing the people who are, in your name, making you look like a violent and bigoted idiot.” and say the same to you as a Christian, but that would be unfair, right?

    Comment by Pat — June 14, 2007 @ 9:36 am - June 14, 2007

  114. #108: You claim there were assaults on the military but you have not provided any evidence. The links you provide certainly do not. This is your typical M.O. and many here are finally figuring it out: you make wild false accusations that you can never back up.

    Comment by Ian S — June 14, 2007 @ 9:53 am - June 14, 2007

  115. Yes, Pat; as the saying goes, “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

    If you need it clarified to even greater effect, Pat, the First Amendment expressly allows people to hold whatever religious belief they like and to express it, even if you don’t like it; however, there is no law saying that you are justified in threatening and murdering someone because you don’t like their political ideology.

    Therefore, common sense and the law says that people who express religious beliefs you don’t like, but condemn violence against gays, are far more decent and Constitutionally-protected than are those who threaten and murder people with whom they disagree.

    Yes, the sticks and stones thing certainly works in isolated cases in the kindergarten school yard. But tell that to the young gay man who has been constantly taunted by friends and family about the sins of being gay. And then as a bonus, being sent to some God awful Ex-gay ministry to be further harassed and denigrated. Or worse, ends up committing suicide. Yes, it’s legal and all that. But don’t suggest to me that, because it’s constitutional protected, that these twisted individuals are “far more decent” than these thugs who have threatened violence on blogs. If that’s your opinion, that’s fine. I find both of them despicable, and threatening violence is worse, but I can’t find any way to say that someone like Peter LaBarbera is “far more decent” than the other.

    Because, as the USCS incident shows, openly-gay people are thugs and criminals who have no qualms or restraints on attacking military personnel — and organizations that purport to represent openly-gay people not only refuse to condemn, but actually support, these actions.

    Well, that’s what it shows you, and that’s up to you how you want to interpret that incident. Interestingly enough, General Pace isn’t as convinced as you, since he chose to spout his anti-gay bigotry for his rationale for keeping DADT instead of saying that all openly gay people are thugs. Which is good, because he might have to support a DADT policy for all Christians, because of people like LaBarbera, and other Christian organizations failing to condemn his actions.

    Ian, I honestly have no idea what happened at UCSC. I don’t know if military personnel were assaulted. If so, I don’t know if any of the perpetrators were gay or gay supporters, and if so, if they committed the act because of their sexual orientation. If so, then I am disturbed that gay organizations did not denounce the violent actions, and will let them know about it. I already stopped contributing money to HRC for other reasons.

    Comment by Pat — June 14, 2007 @ 10:07 am - June 14, 2007

  116. Oh, and Pat, as I just reported, turns out the haters at leftist blog JoeMyGod — after their birthday celebration for Crixi, who you may remember is the individual who wished SIDS on Samuel Cheney and who Ian and the rest of the gay hate apologists have been insisting wasn’t a real person and was in fact a right-wing plant — have just published, not just Tyler Whitney’s home address, phone number, and email, but his parents’ address as well — all for “informational purposes”, or so they claim.

    Are you ready to do something yet, or are you just going to sit there and let these hatemongers, who have threatened to assault and kill this person, use that information?

    NDT, I had no idea of the identity of the person who made the despicable SIDS comment. I only recall Ian and some others suggesting it could be a plant, and frankly I thought of that possibility myself. I saw the address posting myself, and again, I condemn such hateful actions.

    But what is it you would like me to do? And why is your call to arms just addressed to me? Because I have the temerity to call out wrongful Christian behavior, and not solely wrongful gay left behavior?

    Comment by Pat — June 14, 2007 @ 10:31 am - June 14, 2007

  117. As an “openly-gay” man myself I would NEVER support such actions and I’ll bet most of the people here (including yourself) wouldn’t either.

    Ah, but remember John; since both you and I are religious, lean conservative, and have voted for Republicans, we’re not really gay, according to real gays like HRC, SLDN, and Ian.

    And that is the point. HRC, SLDN, and national gay organizations have made it clear that being openly gay means being anti-military. They and their members like Ian spin day and night in support of thugs and criminals attacking and assaulting our troops — and then attacking and assaulting people who point out their misdeeds using their own press releases.

    Just as they have made it clear that being openly gay means being antireligious — and in that, they are backed up by organizations like Soulforce, which say nothing when gays rant against religions, but attack Christians for supposedly creating a “bad environment”.

    If you want to know why most Christians don’t trust gays, think about how you would react if someone stormed into your church, defiled the altar, and stamped on the Host — and then claimed they were perfectly justified in doing so because they were gay.

    And the gays who did so are rewarded as heroes.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 14, 2007 @ 12:20 pm - June 14, 2007

  118. Ah, but remember John; since both you and I are religious, lean conservative, and have voted for Republicans, we’re not really gay, according to real gays like HRC, SLDN, and Ian.

    Perhaps, but I truly do not care what they think and that isn’t the issue anyways. I was accused of anti-Christian bias on far less than what you posted while my point was overlooked and ignored. You made a blanket statement with nothing stating what you just said above.

    If you want to know why most Christians don’t trust gays, think about how you would react if someone stormed into your church, defiled the altar, and stamped on the Host — and then claimed they were perfectly justified in doing so because they were gay.

    A despicable act that occurred one time 22 years ago, NDT. If we are not supposed to hold all Christians accountable for the actions of nutjobs, which we shouldn’t and in many cases would be a tad self-loathing anyways, neither should all gays be treated likewise for the actions of queer idiots.

    Comment by John — June 14, 2007 @ 12:37 pm - June 14, 2007

  119. But tell that to the young gay man who has been constantly taunted by friends and family about the sins of being gay. And then as a bonus, being sent to some God awful Ex-gay ministry to be further harassed and denigrated.

    Yes, because, as we all know, gays are such wonderful and tolerant people who are welcoming of everyone, regardless of faith or political affiliation.

    The problem is simply this, Pat; you obsess over “Christians” and theoretical situations, over whom you have very little, if any, influence, versus gay hatemongers, who are members of your own community, doing this in your name, doing it far more directly and obviously to someone, and threatening to assault and kill them AND their parents — right in front of your nose.

    But what is it you would like me to do?

    Well, for starters, you could simply go over to Signorile, JoeMyGod, Aravosis’s, and Pam’s blogs and tell them what they’re doing is wrong.

    And — this is the amazing part — by demonstrating that you are tolerant and accepting of someone, even though they may work for someone you don’t like, hold beliefs you don’t like, and whatnot…..you shame those who aren’t, like the “Christians” against which you are agitating.

    As eloquently put in Proverbs 25: 21 – 22 (and referenced in Romans 12: 14 – 20):

    If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
    if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.

    In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,
    and the LORD will reward you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 14, 2007 @ 12:58 pm - June 14, 2007

  120. Perhaps, but I truly do not care what they think and that isn’t the issue anyways.

    Well, you might want to start caring, because their denigration of you as self-loathing, twisted, and not really gay colors the perception of those who might otherwise be willing to accept that gays do hold a multiplicity of opinions.

    What the gay community will never get is that, if it continues to call anyone who isn’t an antireligious, antimilitary liberal Democrat “mentally ill”, people are not going to listen to those who aren’t — and gays will thus be judged by the behavior of said liberals.

    Not only do we need to speak up ourselves, we need to speak out against leftist groups like SLDN and HRC that hide antimilitary thuggery behind our names.

    If we are not supposed to hold all Christians accountable for the actions of nutjobs, which we shouldn’t and in many cases would be a tad self-loathing anyways, neither should all gays be treated likewise for the actions of queer idiots.

    Notice a key difference here, John.

    When it comes to people who beat gays in the name of Christianity, what do even the most homophobic say?

    People who make obscene, threatening phone calls or stalk homosexual men to harangue them and beat them with metal pipes are not reading the Americans For Truth website — nor are they reading their Bibles — nor are they Christian in any sense of the word. They are wicked and must be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

    But what happens to gays who, as you put it, are “idiots” who vandalize and defile churches?

    They are lauded as heroes.

    In short, you are insisting that Christians should be held accountable for behaviors they condemn, and that gays shouldn’t be held responsible for behaviors they encourage, support, and laud.

    The problem is, John, that speaking up against those sort of abuses makes you a target for hate and violence in the gay community. Meanwhile, bashing Christians gets you fairly-overwhelming support.

    Given that, I’m not surprised you chose the latter.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 14, 2007 @ 1:13 pm - June 14, 2007

  121. By the way, everyone should read commentor Vic’s point concerning the whole “outing” furor.

    And I owe him an apology for my prejudice toward him.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 14, 2007 @ 1:23 pm - June 14, 2007

  122. Watched your video, just wondering something. Why is it offensive to GLBTQ to be called names but then use the same names themselves to promote their own agenda. For instance, your video puts “DYKE” before a young woman comes on but here in Atlanta they will have the Dyke March during Pride week. If it’s so offensive, then why is it still used?
    It’s a double-standard and the same way that blacks can use the n-word but not anyone else.

    Comment by stpyouth — June 14, 2007 @ 1:24 pm - June 14, 2007

  123. Well, you might want to start caring, because their denigration of you as self-loathing, twisted, and not really gay colors the perception of those who might otherwise be willing to accept that gays do hold a multiplicity of opinions.

    There is a difference between not caring (as in not letting it bother oneself) what one’s opponents may say about them and obsessing over it. They make asses of themselves, which they are free to do in this. As a reader of my blog, you know very well that I take such groups to task when I believe it’s necessary. That I do not turn my whole blog over to responding to such groups is because such is not why I chose to blog nor something I feel the need to do.

    When it comes to people who beat gays in the name of Christianity, what do even the most homophobic say?

    Action speaks louder than words. Violence against gays isn’t the only issue here.

    But what happens to gays who, as you put it, are “idiots” who vandalize and defile churches? They are lauded as heroes.

    Are you seriously trying to compare acts of violence to a despicable act of vandalism from 22 years ago? Who lauds these perps as heroes? Every single gay person regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative? Somehow I seriously doubt that.

    In short, you are insisting that Christians should be held accountable for behaviors they condemn, and that gays shouldn’t be held responsible for behaviors they encourage, support, and laud.

    While you do likewise with all gays? Seems rather hypocritical of you in the extreme. Nevertheless, I said no such thing and the biggest problem you are having is inserting words and intentions into people’s mouths instead of actually listening to what they say. That makes you no different and no better than those whom you criticize.

    Given that, I’m not surprised you chose the latter.

    Bearing false witness against someone is still considered to be a sin, NDT. You may wish to consider that when you persist in repeating this lie.

    Comment by John — June 14, 2007 @ 2:01 pm - June 14, 2007

  124. Watched your video, just wondering something. Why is it offensive to GLBTQ to be called names but then use the same names themselves to promote their own agenda.

    “Agenda”? What exactly do you mean by that? The video used slurs in making a point about not using them against gays. As for some gays using these words themselves, beats me. It depends upon how they are used and in what manner along with the person who is it used upon.

    Comment by John — June 14, 2007 @ 2:04 pm - June 14, 2007

  125. I just told you the example…..the agenda (or purpose if you like that word better) of the Pride festival is to promote unity, visibility and self esteem among lesbians, gays, transgendered and bi-sexuals and promote a positive image, etc.
    In that Pride festival is a Dyke March, a word (dyke)used in your video that you say is a slur. Do you promote/accept this event or does this offend you?
    I’m just wondering, who is safe to use this word, who is it safe to use to or on and under what set of circumstances is it OK?

    Comment by stpyouth — June 14, 2007 @ 2:21 pm - June 14, 2007

  126. There is a difference between not caring (as in not letting it bother oneself) what one’s opponents may say about them and obsessing over it.

    Agreed.

    Now try that with Christians.

    Are you seriously trying to compare acts of violence to a despicable act of vandalism from 22 years ago?

    Yes.

    Because the acts of violence were condemned and the acts of vandalism were praised by the communities in whose names they were allegedly done.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 14, 2007 @ 2:23 pm - June 14, 2007

  127. Now try that with Christians.

    I do. It would be nice if you’d extend the same courtesy to gays and others.

    Yes.

    Then you are as bad as those you criticize and hypocritical to boot for you are doing precisely what they have done. The two are not comparable.

    Btw, I added an update to clear up any misunderstandings some people may have had with the video though God knoweth how they did.

    Comment by John — June 14, 2007 @ 2:33 pm - June 14, 2007

  128. NDT, time is running low for me, so I’m going to cop out a little bit and say that John’s responses to you, pretty much echo what my responses would be. So I’ll just add my own thoughts.

    I am not obsessing over Christians any more than I am obsessing over gay leftists, and certainly much less than you are obsessing over gay leftists.

    I admitted to not being an activist, but in my own little world, and on blogs that I regularly visit, I let my views known when actions that we discussed occur. Maybe I should do more, and perhaps I will. If it appears that I have been bashing Christians more than bashing gay leftists (and I realize you haven’t used that term yet towards me), keep in mind that you have been critical of the way of I have chosen to call out wrongful behavior here, specifically at anti-gay Christian behavior. No one, not even the gay leftists on this board, or criticized my condemnation of wrongful gay leftist behavior. So there was no need to “obsess.” over that.

    And for some reason, you seem to think I didn’t go far enough in terms of the gay leftists, but too far with Christians. I reject that, but that’s your opinion, so be it. On the other hand, you have really come down hard on the recent gay leftist behavior, and except for two links to posts, you have not even condemned hateful Christian behavior of the kind specified in this thread. You did say that something I referred to was two years ago, and brushed that off, while going on about gay leftists for something that was over 20 years ago. Further, when it comes to hateful gay leftists, I should take the fire and brimstone approach, but when it comes to hateful Christians, I should “give [them] food to eat…[and] water to drink.”

    But let me back up a bit. Humor me if you will. Do you find the actions of Peter LaBarbera and others like him, who advocate homosexuals going into ex-gay programs, and worthy of condemnation? If so, then at least we have some common ground, but disagree on how to counter the hate. If not, then we’ll have to agree to disagree. Because I contend as horrific as the recent hateful comments from some scumbag gay lefty individuals have been, LaBarbera’s actions are more destructive and harmful. But at least I will understand why you feel such Christians should get a pass.

    Anyway, to try to close on a positive note, despite my criticisms of some aspects of Christianity, I do know and am friendly with a lot of nice Christians, including sisters in the Catholic Church. Most of them have been supportive of me and have no issue with my homosexuality. And I don’t hold them responsible for the things I have been critical about Christianity. I am not a religious person, but I personally would identify as a Christian as opposed to another religion. And I apologize if I have offending you, NDT, or anyone else. We obviously have differences regarding this issue, but it was never my intent to offend anyone.

    Comment by Pat — June 14, 2007 @ 4:21 pm - June 14, 2007

  129. Do you find the actions of Peter LaBarbera and others like him, who advocate homosexuals going into ex-gay programs, and worthy of condemnation?

    Pat, when I come up to street level tonight at Montgomery Station, especially given the balmy weather, there are likely going to be Scientologists there, trying to advocate that people come, join them, go through a thorough cleansing or dianetic reboot or whatever it is they do, so they can change their behavior and become socially acceptable.

    Do I care? No.

    Same with Peter LaBarbera.

    Sure, you can try to argue about how much more “pervasive” Christianity is and whatnot, but what it boils down to is this; he has the right to speak and advocate, and I have the right to take his mumbo-jumbo at whatever face value I care to put upon it. His words do not matter, just as the words of the Scientologists have no power to force me to hook up to their machine.

    If you want to go off about elections and such, I will simply say this; you and he have exactly as much power when it comes to influencing an electorate. He simply builds a better case that resonates with more people.

    And the reason why is quite obvious; which do you think voters prefer, the rhetoric coming from Pam Spaulding, John Aravosis, JoeMyGod, Signorile, etc., calling for someone and his family to be harassed, attacked, and even killed, with their names and addresses being published to facilitate the fact…..or LaBarbera’s statement unequivocally condemning those who would attack even those gays with whom he disagrees?

    Confronting hatemongering gay leftists like Pam, etc., is not easy, Pat, because it could really hurt you. I doubt you really care one way or the other of what most Christians think about you; as a result, it’s not to difficult to point a finger in their direction, and the consequences are quite minimal. In fact, you’d likely be cheered by most gays if you went out and bashed Christians.

    However, as the example of Mr. Whitney shows, if you step outside the ideological lines when it comes to GAYS, you will be ostracized, hunted down, and humiliated in front of your entire community. You learn to work past it, true, but seeing stuff on this order said about you (follow the thread downwards) takes its toll over time. You saw what happened when leftist Mike Rogers, who was endorsed by these same people like Signorile and Pam and received support from HRC, LCR, and the Democrat Party, set out to get GayPatriot fired from his job and harass and threaten his friends and family.

    So I’d ask you the question, Pat; do you REALLY think Christianity is the biggest risk to gaykind, or is that just the easier choice to make when you know saying otherwise will get you this?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 14, 2007 @ 5:28 pm - June 14, 2007

  130. #129: Gawd, you’re whiny. Why do think it bothers you so much that so many people think you’re a jerk?

    Comment by Ian S — June 14, 2007 @ 11:50 pm - June 14, 2007

  131. I consider the source, Ian; after all, these are the same people who get giggles out of posting a kid and his parents’ names, addresses, and phone numbers, then encouraging people to call, harass, and even violently attack them.

    All from behind anonymous IDs without even an email, of course.

    Sort of like yours.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 15, 2007 @ 12:12 am - June 15, 2007

  132. NDT, Thanks for your answer regarding LaBarbera. But I can’t buy the “unequivocal” condemnation of attacking gays, when he contradicts himself by supporting ex-gay garbage, and his other anti-gay hate. And if he gets a pass because of free speech, then so should the despicable creatures who post addresses from supposed public sources or wish death on a baby. Sorry, none of them get a pass from me. But I’ll agree to disagree regarding LaBarbera.

    Confronting hatemongering gay leftists like Pam, etc., is not easy, Pat, because it could really hurt you. I doubt you really care one way or the other of what most Christians think about you; as a result, it’s not to difficult to point a finger in their direction, and the consequences are quite minimal. In fact, you’d likely be cheered by most gays if you went out and bashed Christians.

    A couple of things here. First, you are wrong about me not caring about what most Christians think about me. As I said, most of the Christians I know are supportive of me. I should have also mentioned that most of the people I know ARE Christians as well. This includes my friends that are gay.

    I will admit that it doesn’t matter to me any more what the hateful Christians think of me. In other words, the ones who will either hate me no matter what I do, or only accept me if I be a good little boy, accept my pathetic existence, shut up about my sexuality, and don’t have the temerity to support equality. But I’m 42 now. Many gay teens and young adults don’t have that luxury yet.

    As for the “finger pointing” that I have pointed into the direction of Christianity, I did it not because I will be cheered by gays. But because I simply believe the criticisms I’ve made. And what forum did I make it? Pam’s House Blend? JoeMyGod? BlogAmerica? Places that you say would welcome such criticisms. No, it was GayPatriot. So I don’t think I did it to win any popularity contests here for that point of view. Oh, BTW, have you taken a look today at the JMG thread in question?

    So I’d ask you the question, Pat; do you REALLY think Christianity is the biggest risk to gaykind, or is that just the easier choice to make when you know saying otherwise will get you this?

    Is this supposed to be an either/or question? I’ll try to answer. Right now, I think the biggest risk to gaykind in this country are some elements of Christianity. These are the people in “power” such as LaBarbera, Dobson, Robertson, and others who while “unequivocally” condemn attacking gays in their words, really don’t by their hateful actions. And unfortunately, there are still enough people that buy their crap. And what may even make it more disappointing is I honestly don’t believe that the people above actually believe half of the stuff they spew. And I already stated my disappointment that “leaders” like Bush and H. Clinton pile on by not even stating that they cannot even state that homosexuality is not a sin, when I honestly don’t believe that they believe it is. Maybe this is obsession of sin as you suggest, but why the obsession of pandering for something that’s not that big a deal?

    Does this mean that this is the only problems that gays have to deal with? Of course not. As we now see, Tyler Whitney is facing hate from some conservative Christians as well as some gay leftists. It’s horrific enough to, among other hateful comments he’s heard throughout his life, but now getting harassment and hate from the left. He certainly can use some real support now.

    So do I have this belief because it’s “easier”? No. It’s because it’s what I believe. Do you have your beliefs because you intentionally want to take the more difficult route, or do you have your beliefs because that’s what you believe?

    Comment by Pat — June 15, 2007 @ 3:11 am - June 15, 2007

  133. #131: A non-response to my question. Of course, I do provide a valid email to comment here and Dan has my phone number. I don’t see you providing much more than a throwaway yahoo email on your blog. At least I provide my first name.

    Comment by Ian S — June 15, 2007 @ 9:40 am - June 15, 2007

  134. Pat, I think you just answered your own question.

    Maybe this is obsession of sin as you suggest, but why the obsession of pandering for something that’s not that big a deal?

    So even you admit it’s not a big deal, but you still obsess over it.

    A non-response to my question.

    And a frantic, spinning response to mine.

    You and your fellow pathetic gay leftists have no trouble whatsoever publishing a person’s full address, name, and phone number, Ian; cough up your own.

    Coward.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 15, 2007 @ 2:21 pm - June 15, 2007

  135. NDT, not quite. I would like to think it shouldn’t be a big deal, but apparently it is when a “leader” can’t answer a simple question. So my “obsession” isn’t just about whether homosexuality is a sin.

    It makes me imagine this type of exchange.

    Questioner: What do you think about the death penalty?
    “Leader”: I’ll leave that question to the conscience of each individual.
    Questioner: What do you think about stem cell research?
    “Leader”: We are all sinners.
    Questioner: What is your plan for the economy?
    “Leader”: I’ll leave that question to the conscience of each individual.
    Questioner: What would you do regarding Iraq and the War on Terror?
    “Leader”: I believe people should pull out the log in their own eye first.

    So if a “leader” has a problem with the “no big deal” questions, then I have issues when it comes to the questions that are more of a big deal.

    I’ll be fine either way, really. I am more concerned about young gay persons struggling. I believe we should condemn those that are trying to harass young gay persons from wherever it’s happening. But I also look for a positive approach, and people like Bush and Hillary Clinton could have stepped up to the plate. Such an honest answer, in my view, would go a long way in healing the hurt in young gay persons and start marginalizing the LaBarberas, Robertsons, and Dobsons. Too bad they couldn’t, or more likely wouldn’t.

    Comment by Pat — June 15, 2007 @ 3:20 pm - June 15, 2007

  136. Pat, please tell me you are not putting matters like the economy, the death penalty, and the war on terror into even the same league as whether or not one thinks homosexuality is a sin.

    And it’s NOT a simple question. Remember what you wrote above?

    Anyway, to try to close on a positive note, despite my criticisms of some aspects of Christianity, I do know and am friendly with a lot of nice Christians, including sisters in the Catholic Church. Most of them have been supportive of me and have no issue with my homosexuality. And I don’t hold them responsible for the things I have been critical about Christianity.

    I don’t think you demand a yes/no answer out of them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 15, 2007 @ 3:35 pm - June 15, 2007

  137. it’s interesting to note that over 150 officials in the Department of Justice are graduates fo Pat Roebertson’s “Law School”. I think so-called Christians having such an influence in a secular government Justice Department is pretty scary.

    Comment by Kevin — June 16, 2007 @ 8:21 am - June 16, 2007

  138. Pat, please tell me you are not putting matters like the economy, the death penalty, and the war on terror into even the same league as whether or not one thinks homosexuality is a sin.

    No, and I thought I made that point clear when I said
    So if a “leader” has a problem with the “no big deal” questions, then I have issues when it comes to the questions that are more of a big deal.

    And it’s NOT a simple question.

    Okay, let’s see.

    Questioner: Do you think homosexuality is a sin?
    Pat: No.

    That was pretty simple to me.

    I don’t think you demand a yes/no answer out of them.

    It depends on how close we are. I would have a problem being close with a friend or family member who thought homosexuality was a sin. And also it depends if they are running for a position of leadership such as President. So yes, I do demand an answer in that case. And I do demand they don’t pander with cutesy non-answers.

    Comment by Pat — June 16, 2007 @ 9:46 am - June 16, 2007

  139. This was a good effort, but I was waiting for the story behind each of the people shown here. There was nothing. Could do without the music. A narrative of how these people died would be much more effective than the background music.

    Comment by Dan — August 25, 2007 @ 1:34 pm - August 25, 2007

  140. I am not nor ever have been a homosexual, but when my now deceased parents bought a cottage for their retirement in Cheshire in the U.K. they fell foul of some developers because of water rights in a nearby field. The police began a hate campaign against me by telling people that I was a convicted homosexual with a similar name to mine, a distant relative in fact called Edwin Flint. No, the U.K. police are not wonderful, many of them are corrupt. No, I am not a homosexual but I have had a taste of how bigots react. I do not know what the crime or crimes of Edwin Flint are, people just speak behind my back. I moved to London and was able to stop the Metropolitan police from spreading these lies because the London police are better than the provincial police, and in any case they had been fed lies about me. People go to jail for what the Cheshire police did to me, it is a serious criminal offence. The local Cheshire police have been merged with another police force but the hate campaign continued even though both my parents are now dead. The people whom we trust to maintain the law break the law themselves upon the behest of local politicians and business persons. These developers bought land with public funds from rates, and they could not buy the water rights because their crininal activities would come to light, so they persecuted the two former owners of the property both called Fletcher (they were brothers), and all subsequence owners after my parents left after eight years of hell, and the police were part of this continual persecution of each owner of the property. This is reality in the U.K. Yes people have tried to kill me because of the lies spread about me, unfortunately I do not know what these lies are, so I have been nearly killed for the crime or crimes committed by another person, I do not know why because I do not know what these crimes are. People have shouted after me calling me a perve, a shit-dick, and so on, even though I am strictly hetro. I do not wish to receive mail so please do not write to me.

    Comment by David Flint — September 26, 2007 @ 4:46 am - September 26, 2007

  141. You can find Compstall where my parents lived on Google Earth. Compstall is near Marple, south of Manchester, England. It is off George Street. There is a small road leading to a field. What happens is that the police tell people that I am this Edwin Flint, and people start acting in a strange way, but they are all moral cowards because they do not tell me what has been said, by whom, where, and when, so without evidence I cannot do anything about it. To this day I have no idea what crime this Edwin Flint committed. People in England are really shitty. There are men in England in police uniform who should be in prison uniform sitting in a jail cell. But that’s the way it is. By the way in the U.K. the cops can beat and kick you to death and they are never prosecuted, so you get criminals working as policemen who have the power of life and death over the people they arrest. A chilling thought. Homosexuals are of course a main target for police brutality. What happened is that a builder called Deakin and an entrepreneur called Doctor Binless got together to build a private housing estate in the fields behind Prospect Place, but Deakin held the main card in that Deakin owned Prospect Place and the water rights. Deakin wanted a bigger share of the profits and fell out with Binless. Enough for now. More later perhaps.

    Comment by David Flint — October 1, 2007 @ 8:03 pm - October 1, 2007

  142. All I know about Edwin Flint is that he is a homosexual and that he committed some kind of sex crime. I am not a homosexual but I have been accused of being a homosexual so often that I did a web search for “Gay Boys in Bondage” and the pictures were rather funny and amusing. Not my sort of thing but it was interesting. I have always found Christians to be the biggest hypocritical bastards ever, so if you are going to do the job the best place is to break into a church and do it on the altar.

    Comment by David Flint — October 1, 2007 @ 8:12 pm - October 1, 2007

  143. Hi AGJ, Im sure this discussion is now exhausted as i can see it started quite some time ago. I have just come across the video myself and have read just some of the comments posted. I myself am a Christian and have been for about 10 years, i just want to say im sorry for how you have been treated by Christians and society as a whole there is no excuse. Im sorry that people have commited suicide because of how they have been made to feel, im sorry that poeple have been murdered because of anger and bitterness. When Jesus came to change humanity he didnt tell it how bad it was and hurl insults at it, he simply sacrificed his life then gave humanity a choice, because he loves us ALL and we ALL fall short of Gods glory. Take care X

    Comment by Mandy — October 3, 2007 @ 6:15 am - October 3, 2007

  144. The trouble is Mandy that in the U.K. we have the English Establishment in England, the Protestant Ascendency in the Province of Ulster, and the Kirk in Scotland. Other parts of the U.K. like the Channel Islands are French, which speaks for itself, and of course there is the Isle of Man. The English Establishment was founded by king Charles II. This was an arrangement between the followers of Jacob Hermanson, called Arminian Protestants, in the Church of England, the King’s Party (i.e. Tory, later Conservative Party), and the Monarchy. A copy cat Establishment arose in the American colonies, which eventually stretched along the Atlantic seabord from Newfoundland to Georgia. Canada became Tory and the U.S.A. became Whig. King Charles II had as an exiled prince royal in France intinmate knowledge of the Acient Regime in France, and so upon the restoration of the monarchy he created the Establishment, which allows successful people of the right calibre to join but which ejects Establishment members who fail to live up to Establishment stans. The great and wonderful American War of Independence actually arose because the English Establishment and the American Establishment could not get on together, all the rest about freedom, representation, etc., was just bunkum American Establishment propaganda, the idiots did not get it right because when they wrote in the constitution that they believed all men to be equal they did not write all white men are equal excepts gays and white liberals, thereby excluding all spics, spooks, tontos, kikes, gooks, white niggers, and all non-members of the K.K.K., and of course women, which goes without saying of course. Things are rotten, including Christianity, in England because of the English Establishment. By the way did you look up Compstall on Google Earth?

    Comment by David Flint — October 6, 2007 @ 3:14 am - October 6, 2007

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.551 Powered by Wordpress