• Gay BlogAds


  • Gay News Watch


  • Chris Tweets



  • « LGBT equality doesn't cost anything | Main | Barack Obama and Lyndon Johnson »

    December 06, 2008

    More stress along gay-race faultlines

    Posted by: Chris

    Diaz600 Yet more signs of serious cracks in the political alliance among racial/ethnic minorities and the cause of gay rights. Rhetoric among these traditional Democratic constituencies has been overheated ever since exit polls showed black Californians backed the Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage, and blacks and Hispanics together overwhelmingly backed an even more draconian ban in Florida.

    Now this report (discussed by Andoni here) that gay marriage may have also been the pawn in a struggle between black and Hispanic Democrats over wresting control of the New York state Senate, which has been in GOP hands for more than 40 years. With three Latino Democrats threatening to throw their support, and with it control of the Senate, over to the Republicans, Senate Democratic leader Malcolm Smith, who is black, cut a power-sharing deal.

    Apparently even more important to Bronx Democrat Rubén Díaz Sr., another of the holdouts, was a guarantee from Smith "that there will be no vote in the Senate next year on legislation to legalize gay marriage, something which most Senate Democrats support but which Mr. Diaz strongly opposes."

    Many gays were furious with the backroom deal, considering that New York Democrats had raised tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands from gay donors by pointing out that with Democrats in control of the Senate, gay marriage legislation would no longer be held hostage. A marriage equality bill already has the backing of Gov. David Paterson and a majority in both the House and Senate, but it was kept bottled up by GOP Senate control.

    “All civil rights movements have moments where they move forward, and moments of perceived setbacks,” said Assemblyman Daniel J. O’Donnell of Manhattan. “If in fact our civil rights were bargained away, that’s deplorable. But in the end, I think justice and fairness will prevail.”

    The stunned reaction from many gays is that the knives are out among groups considered friends within the Democratic and civil rights coalitions. It seems inconceivable that those who have suffered so greatly from discriminatory treatment could so easily slip into the shoes of the oppressor.

    The reality, unfortunately, is that black and Hispanic Americans have never been as supportive of gay rights as their political leaders, as a Gallup poll this week once again confirmed: only 30% of blacks and 22% of Republicans support gay marriage, as compared with 57% of non-black Dems.

    But before we wag our fingers at homophobia as the reason for that disparity, it's worth considering how the data suggest the real culprit is framing legal recognition of our relationships as a moral issue, rather than one of civil rights. The percentage support for gay marriage closely tracks views in the same groups -- including non-black Demcrats -- over whether our relationships are "morally acceptable": Only 31% of black Democrats said yes, roughly equal to the 30% of Republicans who agreed. As on marriage, moral approval of our relationships among non-black Democrats was double -- 61%.

    Gay rights advocates aren't the only ones who have failed to convince African Americans that an issue they see as a moral question is in fact a civil rights issue. Look at support for abortion rights, from the same Gallup survey: only 37% of black Democrats and 25% of Republicans, as compared with 54% of non-black Democrats. Those percentages once again track the viewpoints among these groups about related moral questions, including whether to have a baby or even have sex outside of marriage.

    If we accept for the sake of argument that blacks (and Republicans) are trailing in support for gay rights because they insist on letting their political view be governed by their moral and religious thinking, then the challenge is clear:

    1. Change their minds on whether gay relationships are immoral.
    2. Change their minds on whether their moral view is valid justification for their political position.

    Either challenge is daunting, and the best course no doubt is to push on both fronts, as the movement as done so for decades. We are distracted from these very real challenges, however, when we revert to easy rhetoric about homophobia and hate. Unless we plan to shame these folks into voting against their conscience, we would be better served meeting them where they are on the issue, and addressing these two questions head-on.

    (Photo of Rubén Díaz Sr. and his son, Assemblyman Rubén Díaz Jr., via the New York Times)

    |

    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e20105364a0afb970c

    Comments

    1. Lucrece on Dec 6, 2008 7:48:26 PM:

      All the "outreach" in the world can go on; the fact is that they sold us out without much hesitation.

      Even more, perhaps you should ask HRC spokepersons who have gone and have discussions, only to have the black/Latino reverends reply with sarcasm and patronization, approved by their congregation.

      It's even more curious how blacks and Latinos had to do no outreach to the LGBT community to possess its support on their issues, but the LGBT community on the other hand does need to do outreach.

    1. gkruz on Dec 7, 2008 12:09:37 AM:

      Outreach to religious bigots, just because they're black or Latino? They know the arguments, they've heard it all before, and they disagree, vehemently. You can't change their minds through rational suasion, anymore than you can change the minds of white Republicans and fundamentalists, and for substantially the same reasons: the Bible tells them so. De-convert them and you might stand a chance of changing their minds, otherwise it's a waste of time.

    1. Patrickometry on Dec 7, 2008 2:29:18 AM:

      Lucrece and gkruz make good points.

      I would say that the fundamental reason certain parts of society - whether black, latino or white - supported Prop rests on fundamentalist religious indoctrination by bigoted religious leaders.

      If you are someone indoctrinated since childhood by religious fanatics who teach you that gay people are sick, abominable child molestors then no amount of outreach will ever change your mind.

      That's why this battle for gay civil rights inclusion is also a battle against religious fundamentalism. If we gay people, religious and non-religious, want to have the most impact, we ought to abandon the fundamentalists in all minorities and concentrate on the middle reasonable folk.

      Talk over the fundamentalists. Shame them. Praise the moderate religious folk who are our allies. Give our pro-gay religious allies money. Remind the religious bigots that they can change and have an alternative to their rigid legalistic irrational barbaric medieval views in the form of these other more moderate religious institutions.

      Many people, black and white, feel comfortable as bigots if they feel their bigotry is mainstream. We must ACT UP and begin making it more difficult for people to feel that anti-gay bigotry is mainstream. We must marginalize anti-gay bigotry in the same way the Black Civil Rights Movement marginalized white supremacists.

      In time, anti-gay religious bigots will be consigned to the talk shows where they will be viewed as extremist freak leftovers of society.

      No appeasement for anti-gay bigots. Love the bigotry; fight the bigot. Equality is our birthright; The Law must be made to reflect that reality.

    1. Tim on Dec 7, 2008 8:49:28 AM:

      The posters before me all make valid points, especially Patrickometry. I, instead, want to point out the moral hypocrisy of one of the gang of three, Pedro Espada, Jr., courtesy of Saturday's New York Times. The entire article, including Espada's condescending comments, can be read here: www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/nyregion/06espada.html?scp=3&sq=Malcolm%20smith&st=cse

      ALBANY — Pedro Espada Jr. who is expected to become the majority leader of the State Senate in January, owes more than $60,000 in fines to New York City’s Campaign Finance Board, dating to his 2001 run for Bronx borough president. He has appealed the fines in state court.

      State Senator-elect Pedro Espada Jr. has incurred various fines dating to previous campaigns. He has appealed them in court.

      In addition, state elections officials in Albany say that Mr. Espada did not register his campaign for Senate this year; and he could face more than $6,000 in fines. It is not the first time he has run afoul of the State Board of Elections: His 2000 Senate campaign was fined for failing to submit finance reports.

      In 2005, three employees of a Bronx nonprofit health care company run by Mr. Espada, the Soundview HealthCare Network, pleaded guilty to diverting $30,000 from programs for family care and AIDS treatment to one of his campaigns. Mr. Espada was never charged.

    1. Kevin on Dec 7, 2008 2:55:57 PM:

      If the gay movement doesn't plan on successfully changing hearts and minds among Republicans and blacks with equal commitment and fervor, then we all might as well pack it in, ladies.

      Do it or die, basically. You choose.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Dec 7, 2008 9:12:59 PM:

      This new emphasis on "shaming and marginalizing" is pretty entertaining. Let's test it.

      How about "Patrickometry" and his ilk shaming and marginalizing gays who think sex with children seventeen years younger than they are is "common"?

      How about "Patrickometry" and his ilk shaming and marginalizing gays who think dressing children as sexual slaves and taking them to a sex fair to "show off" constitutes an "educational experience", and that anyone who opposes it is "close-minded"?

      How about "Patrickometry" and his ilk shaming and marginalizing gays who, despite being HIV-positive, knowingly and deliberately have unprotected sex with people, even when they're HIV-negative?

      But I bet they can now come up with all sorts of reasons for why shaming and marginalizing people doesn't work and is counterproductive.

      Finally, the reason religious people tend to have severe difficulties with gays has to do with their knowledge of what gays actually think about them and their beliefs.


      Prime example:

      God Beings are imaginary. Prayer is superstition like horseshoes or finger crossing. The Bible is repulsive, medieval, barbaric. Faith in the supernatural is bizarre and indefensible. An Afterlife is nothing more than wishful thinking.

      Perhaps it's time for marginalizing and shaming the gay fundamentalists who use their sexual orientation as an excuse for their outright antireligious bigotry first.

    1. Charlie on Dec 7, 2008 10:17:40 PM:

      But I bet they can now come up with all sorts of reasons for why shaming and marginalizing people doesn't work and is counterproductive.

      NDT -- Is there some subtext I'm missing here? I would guess that the first two groups you mention are about as marginal as can be. And the third group, while perhaps less marginal, is still denounced from all corners of the gay community. I'm just not following your argument at all. How does shaming and marginalizing these already marginal groups in any way prevent the power certain religious groups are wielding in this country, specifically wielding against us? If there's something I'm missing, I'd love a clarification.

      Members of any faith are entitled to their beliefs, in this country. That's what this country was founded on. But fundamentalist christians use their faith as a way to hide their real feeling about us: hatred and fear. All the reasons they offer for feeling so strongly about gay marriage are seriously flawed:

      1. It is called out in the Bible. Yes. But as the Proposition 8 Musical video points out so heavy-handedly, so is shrimp cocktail. Or less absurdly, so is divorce. I'm not a biblical scholar, but I'm pretty sure divorce is called out as a profoundly bad thing many, many more times than any reference to homosexuality.

      2. Marriage is a religious institution. Maybe. Hard to pinpoint which religion invented it. Seems like marriage pre-dates any of the relgions we have around today. Doesn't that make it more of a social institution and less a specifically religious one?

      3. Gay marriage is bad for children. This is so ridiculous it pains me to even type it. If we're so worried about preserving the traditional family unit, for the sake of children, why are we not outlawing divorce? Rather than being speculation, there is plenty of hard research that shows how traumatic divorce is on children.

      These are all weak excuses. People convince themselves of these things as a way to justify their own hatred and fear. Religion can be a beautiful thing, but when used a tool for hate, it turns into something ugly and unfortunately very powerful. While I do not want to deny anyone their faith, I draw the line when faith is used to gather people together to legitimize hatred and the denial of rights to any group, particularly if its a group of which I'm a member. They need to be stopped.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Dec 7, 2008 11:16:29 PM:

      I would guess that the first two groups you mention are about as marginal as can be. And the third group, while perhaps less marginal, is still denounced from all corners of the gay community.

      Oh really?

      Where do we see these gays being sent hate mail and white powder?

      Where do we see these gays having their houses protested?

      Where do we see gays demanding that these people be fired from their jobs and boycotting businesses that employ them?

      Where do we see these gays being chased out of the Castro by a screaming mob?

      Where do we see these gays being publicly denounced in the news media and being referred to in the vein of "rigid legalistic irrational barbaric medieval"?

      Where do we see mocking and inaccurate "musicals" being made to belittle these gays?

      It's odd, really; promiscuity and irresponsible behavior have done more to kill and injure gay people and destroy the gay community's reputation than anything else, but for some reason, gays seem quite unwilling to put the same effort into attacking those that they do into antireligious hatemongering.

      Wonder what would happen if gays actually focused on the former rather than the latter?

    1. Lucrece on Dec 7, 2008 11:53:05 PM:

      Dear Charlie, I've got a hint for you:

      Do not feed the _____.

    1. Chuck on Dec 8, 2008 3:35:53 AM:

      God Beings are imaginary. - But they are, Blanche. They are!

      Prayer is superstition like horseshoes or finger crossing. - But it is, Blanche. It is!

      The Bible is repulsive, medieval, barbaric. - But it's so, Blanche. It's so!

      Faith in the supernatural is bizarre and indefensible. - But it is, Blanche. It is!

      An Afterlife is nothing more than wishful thinking. - It's twue, Blanche. It's twue!

      You score 100.

      Go directly to the head of the class.

      And DO collect $200.

      The get out of jail free card is mine, however. You can't have it.

    1. Patrickometry on Dec 8, 2008 4:34:26 AM:

      Oh my. I fear North Dallas Twenty flatters me by quoting my religious views precisely. I'm touched by his thoughtfulness.

      And, do I fondly recall his odd indignation while quoting and maligning the black community when they similarly belittled religious white supremacists?

      This North Dallas Twenty guy has an awfully horribly big heart: there ain't no mainstream supremacist bigotry he can't rationalize. Shucks he must be popular with 'em!

      And while he's at it, he's generous enough to throw a few low blows at his fellow gay man along the way. I don't know how he does it. His unique talent, and it is a talent, to zero in on the worst possible most negative (emphasize 'negative') interpretation of a situation and his powerful almost epic skill at avoiding any hint of empathy... I am truly impressed.

      If I know his kind at all, and I think I do, we'll be hearing more from him and shortly. He just can't resist being part of the problem. No, he's much too gregarious in that "death of the party" sort of way.

      Of course, we would never compare him to a Harvey Milk but neither would we call him milquetoast. I'd say he's a real Harold from the film 'The Boys in the Band' kinda guy. Yes, that I'm certain.

    1. Strict Scrutiny on Dec 8, 2008 10:19:01 AM:

      Patrickometry:

      You post above regarding the role of religion in the Prop 8 issue is right on the money. Shaming and marginalizing the fundamentalists would be effective and is long overdue.

      That said, we must also try to make inroads with communities of color, even if many of them are influenced by fundamentalist religion.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Dec 8, 2008 11:58:29 AM:

      Shaming and marginalizing the fundamentalists would be effective and is long overdue.

      Yes, because, as we know, Strict Scrutiny, it's worked so well the other thirty-plus times you've tried it in multiple and different states -- including this last time in California.


      Oh my. I fear North Dallas Twenty flatters me by quoting my religious views precisely. I'm touched by his thoughtfulness.

      Yup. And those views should be proclaimed far and wide as both representative of and majority in the gay community.

      After all, those so-called "moderate" religious organizations should have no trouble supporting gays even when it's made known that gays consider them to be "bizarre", that their faith is "indefensible" and "wishful thinking", and that their moral code is "repulsive, medieval, barbaric". Add that to the fact that liberal gays are going around calling people of color by racial epithets, and it becomes immediately understandable why these issues keep losing.


      And while he's at it, he's generous enough to throw a few low blows at his fellow gay man along the way. I don't know how he does it. His unique talent, and it is a talent, to zero in on the worst possible most negative (emphasize 'negative') interpretation of a situation and his powerful almost epic skill at avoiding any hint of empathy... I am truly impressed.

      Those are only "low blows", a "negative interpretation", and lacking in "empathy", Patrickometry, if you think there actually are good interpretations for sexualizing toddler-age children for an "educational experience", for insisting that having sex with children is normal and "common", and deliberately having unprotected sex while you know you are carrying and can spread a lethal disease by doing so.


    1. Tim on Dec 8, 2008 2:57:09 PM:

      LOL oh Patrick, NDT can't see good things, only bad. If he were straight this is how it would go.

      Young Couple, "We'd like to get married please"

      NDT, "Married I think not! Have you no shame?? no decency?"

      Young Couple looks baffled, "excuse me?"

      NDT, "You two want to get married? Have 'intercourse" maybe pop out a few babies?"

      Young couple, " Uh yes, Do You have a problem with that?"

      NDT. "Problem? Yes I have a problem, it says right here that you did not denounce a gang rape by 14 year old youths in Detroit, 7 years ago"

      Young couple, "what does that have to do with us?"

      NDT, "Just about everything! young straight people need to understand the magnitude of their choices, of consequences. They have a unique ability to corrupt the youth and the gay children. If they don't all shape up and make sure their neighbors are doing what's right, and that their children aren't abusing their bodies or their playmates. Than they don't deserve to get married!!"

      Young couple, "So we can't get married because some people have abused the privilege? Is there any way to get off this list and make up for it?"

      NDT, "No you can never get off this list! It's forever because the moment we start lowering standards, or letting people try again,other people will start raping babies!"

      NDT, gasping, "If you had to understand the pressure you are putting on young impressionable gay youths!! They see you flitting about kissing, hugging, touching!! It's just to much, straights are sick twisted beings. Just yesterday yet another father was found to be abusing his children. did you denounce that? When will you stop being so evil."

      Young couple, " We are evil because someone raped his own kid? That's sick! How are we suppose to stop every single straight person from ever doing anything wrong?"

      NDT, "YES! and not only are you responsible for things that are going to happen, you are responsible for things that have already happened long before you were alive!"

      Young Couple, " your standards are crazy how could we be responsible for other when we don't even know them?"

      NDT, "Don't know them? How could that be, your STRAIGHT! you all know each other, you all talk and spread your evil. "

      Young couple, " your insane, why do you hate straights so much? What did they ever do to you?"

      NDT, " They insulted GOD himself!! they criticized his holy word and dared to question it's tenets! It's blasphemy!!"

      Young couple, "Who did we are devote christians??"

      NDT, "Oh yeah think you are? well I say your not! Your all just dirty dirty people who use drugs and abuse their children!"

      Oh I could go on but you get the point. NDT will judge you based on his on preconceptions and religious beliefs and there is no room for any deviation. Any attacks on him or the Holy church of pedophiles, will result in your utter banishment to hell.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Dec 8, 2008 3:30:03 PM:

      Oh I could go on but you get the point.

      No, please do. It'll be interesting to see what other claims and accusations can be made now that we're in the realm of the totally hypothetical.

      Not surprising that we're there, though, given that there's one of two choices: either argue that there is a good and reasonable explanation for sexualizing toddler-age children for an "educational experience", insisting that having sex with children is normal and "common", and deliberately having unprotected sex while you know you are carrying and can spread a lethal disease by doing so....or make all sorts of accusations, real or imagined, to trash the person who points out and criticizes all of the above.

    1. Strict Scrutiny on Dec 8, 2008 4:25:21 PM:

      Hah! Tim, your post above was great. Totally true and absolutely priceless.


    1. Tim on Dec 8, 2008 4:45:21 PM:

      all pointless red herrings that you don't give a damn about. How is it that you hold other gays responsible for this but not yourself? I had no part in any of these articles or opinions and spoke out against them, but you still have to find some reason, no matter how ridiculous, to hold others in contempt. you only use them as a conversational foil in an effort to focus the conversation on what you want to talk about. Which to sum up every comment you ever troll is, "it's the gays' fault". You never highlight gays that make it, that contribute to the greater good. You never highlight positive long term relationships, You never highlight actors like Ian McGregor and his constant and consistent effort to break the hold of the closet on gay actors. You have never, to my memory highlighted a person or event that you supported or believed in. Or who you thought was a positive gay role model. Why is that?

      Please I've been sparring with you online for three years and you move from issue to issue caring about none. After all you could have spent your time going to porn sets and handing out condoms or giving free HIV tests. You could have adopted a kid and tried to teach them your morals, hell you could have taught a sunday school class and taught about proper sex. You just rail on everyone else who calls themselves gay. You don't care that both myself and many others live responsible lives and have decent jobs and contribute to the community. You definitely don't care as we fight for couples rights in states that added constitutional bans to our existence. No you rail on the excess's caught in the media's spotlight and go off on gays that don't believe in god.

      As for sexualizing toddlers, there are countless reams of historical data showing that throughout the ages, children as young as 5 and 6 were sold into brothels. The human race survived, god didn't drown the world, and society cleaned itself up for a time. Are you going to rail on your ancestors now and preach to them how they didn't have the right to raise children because they were disgusting beings? Kids at that age have no understanding of sex outside of a general idea. No matter what you teach them.

      As for the rest you should know my position, I'm for monogamous relationships, de-glamorizing drugs, and heavy involvement in keeping gay teens alive through high school.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Dec 8, 2008 5:53:31 PM:

      all pointless red herrings that you don't give a damn about. How is it that you hold other gays responsible for this but not yourself?

      Mainly because I've made it pretty darn clear that I am opposed to all of the above, have spoken out against them, and have emphatically criticized them.


      You never highlight actors like Ian McGregor and his constant and consistent effort to break the hold of the closet on gay actors.

      Word of advice, Tim; if you're going to cite trophy gays, learn how to spell their names correctly. Otherwise, it makes it obvious that you're merely namedropping instead of initiating an actual discussion of relevant information.


      You have never, to my memory highlighted a person or event that you supported or believed in. Or who you thought was a positive gay role model. Why is that?

      Because you've got a rotten memory, that's why.

      Then again, as we see, you've never let reading anything get in the way of your imaginary accusations. But why should you? After all, you get praised and supported for trashing people.


      After all you could have spent your time going to porn sets and handing out condoms or giving free HIV tests.

      I know Kevin is laughing at this one; possibly Chris is, if he still remembers my identity. Heck, anyone who looked hard enough could figure out that, of the things I do in regard to the gay community, blogging is among the least of the time commitments I make.

      But again, the No on 8 drones don't praise you for careful evaluation; they praise you for trashing people.


      You don't care that both myself and many others live responsible lives and have decent jobs and contribute to the community.

      News flash, Tim; while you may think that your calling other peoples' religion the "holy church of pedophiles" and insisting that taking two-year-old children dressed as sexual slaves to a sex fair is OK because "kids at that age have no understanding of sex" is responsible and contributing to the community, that attitude is a definite minority view -- except in the gay ghetto, of course.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Dec 8, 2008 6:03:09 PM:

      As for the rest you should know my position, I'm for monogamous relationships

      Oh really?

      Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, “Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.”

      Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: “I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything.”

      Which is, of course, echoed elsewhere and emphasized in gay community statements about the necessity of marriage for "households with more than one conjugal partner".

      Now watch how quickly monogamy disappears as a condition of marriage when Tim is forced to confront that other gays and lesbians oppose it.

      Same thing with drugs, same thing with gay teens; only until it becomes inconvenient for another gay, at which point the moral code will be revised to avoid having to criticize or condemn the behavior of another gay person.

    1. Tim on Dec 8, 2008 7:16:25 PM:

      OMG someone, somewhere else said something different than myself, therefore my opinion must be erroneous and you should just assume that I'm really saying that I support pedophiles like the catholic church has historically done. Yes that is logical, NDT utterly logical.

      You trash people every day but because they are gay you don't see it as wrong. You see it as some kind of noble deed. Why when you decry something you mean it, but when anyone else does it you call them a liar.
      "As for the rest you should know my position, I'm for monogamous relationships

      Oh really?

      Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, “Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.”

      Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: “I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything.”

      Now it should be noted that I said I believed in monogamy. You dig up an article from the internet, that has nothing to do with me, and call me a liar. Well, fuck you. I've witnessed you call decent and upstanding people liars for years dragging in some ridiculous story like a 2 year old sex pot. (wait was that britney? maybe Lindsey Lohan?) where are your on high pronouncements against child talent shows???? Where?? does that make you a hypocrite? NO, because something exists does not mean you stand for it, nor does it mean you oppose it. You should be old enough to know better but since you do this every day, I must suppose it's either intentional or you are woefully ignorant. As for this particular article perhaps you forget the 200+ post we did on Malcontent in which you decried gay marriage, said gays didn't deserve relationship protection, and that if they just filled out a few forms they could rest comfortably in the shadows with you. Short memory my ass, the only reason I care enough to act as your foil is because I think your seriously messed up inside and I want others to know you have a long history of trolling.

      I have told you for years that I support gay marriage because I think in the long run it will provide a way for gays to stabilize and leave old habits behind. I think that the majority of gay excess's stem from abandonment and loneliness. You have always countered that gays could never be monogamous. I don't know if this stems from past experience, religious beliefs, or the simple fact that you have cheated and therefore think that no one else could resist. How ever, is it not much better to approach the problem with a desire to change it, than to take yours and simply call every gay person a liar and a pervert, and tell them they can never change with out abstaining from all forms of life? I've taken apart your arguments before, I've analyzed your strategies and again I'm telling you. You are trying to offset your own family issues by blaming outspoken gays for their intransigence, somewhere inside you believe that if gays cleaned up and looked and acted like everyone else your family would love and accept you like your siblings. Not all whites are KKK members, not all straights lock their daughters up in their cellar and raped them with child for 20 years. But If I were to use your logic I could easily make the same connections.
      Lots of gays can't stand other gays, lots of women can't stand other women. It is the nature of certain social groups to promote discord over unity. Your not different NDT your just like all the other catty gays in the bars. You just do your snarking online.

    1. Tim on Dec 8, 2008 7:24:22 PM:

      You have never, to my memory highlighted a person or event that you supported or believed in. Or who you thought was a positive gay role model. Why is that?

      Because you've got a rotten memory, that's why.

      uh you don't say you support or like any of these people, You just talk about them. Was I suppose to read in support? Maybe you should re-read your own posts.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Dec 8, 2008 8:29:07 PM:

      uh you don't say you support or like any of these people, You just talk about them.

      Oh really?

      To which I say: You're OK, Roy. Choose what you think is important, rather than what others tell you is. You're a winner in my book either way.

      You did actually bother to go read those citations, didn't you?

      Now it should be noted that I said I believed in monogamy. You dig up an article from the internet, that has nothing to do with me, and call me a liar.

      Correction: I stated as follows:

      Now watch how quickly monogamy disappears as a condition of marriage when Tim is forced to confront that other gays and lesbians oppose it.

      Liar, no. Moral relativist whose idea of right and wrong changes with gay and lesbian behavior, yes.

      Case in point:

      You have always countered that gays could never be monogamous.

      So of course, had I actually said that, it would be wrong in your eyes.

      Meanwhile, though, gay liberals are saying that gays cannot be monogamous because it's not "practical" and "men are pigs".

      So, Mr. Erbelding said, “Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.”

      Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: “I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything.”

      But there's nothing wrong with that in your eyes. No protest, no public screaming fit, no namecalling, no attempts to smear by psychoanalysis, nothing. Indeed, you backpedal, insisting that criticizing this behavior indicates some sort of self-loathing on my part.

      And finally:

      I think that the majority of gay excess's stem from abandonment and loneliness.

      Of course you would think that; both abandonment and loneliness meet the standard in the gay community that requires all causes of behavior to be blamed on everyone but yourself. Furthermore, they neatly meet the spoiled-child mentality that gays like yourself embody, namely, "It's not MY fault that I did this, it's YOUR fault for not giving me exactly what I want!"

    1. Charlie on Dec 8, 2008 8:45:12 PM:

      Oh really?

      Where do we see these gays being sent hate mail and white powder?

      Where do we see these gays having their houses protested?

      etc. etc.

      We don't. That doesn't mean they aren't being shamed. And it doesn't mean that they deserve the same level of shame that the proponents of Proposition 8 do. While I don't support some of the tactics you list (and am surprised you didn't provide helpful links to the stories about them) as appropriate to use against ANYONE, I do believe the level of attack we have to wage against the religious right is much greater than the attack we have to wage within our own community, at least for now.

      I get that you believe that if we cleaned up our own act, that we would earn the respect of the mainstream, but you know what, I just don't buy it, and unless you can provide evidence, I will continue not to buy it. These people (the religious right) are being indoctrinated to believe homosexuals are BAD. It serves them to do so, to have an enemy, now that it's politically incorrect to be publicly hateful about all the "other" groups. Racial intolerance is frowned upon, even religious intolerance, which leaves pretty much only us. That fear is how they control their members. They need an enemy. That enemy is us. And no matter how much we try to clean up our own act, there will always be people like you, NDT, who are more than willing to take ONE bad example and generalize it to the community at large. So we work really hard on tamping down promiscuity and drug use and unsafe sex and what else, cross-dressing and love of musicals, but there will ALWAYS be gay people who refuse to conform to those ideals, and it's the people like you who will find those examples and forever use them against us.

      I'm all for cleaning up our own act, but if you think it's going to get us more acceptance, you are truly delusional.

      I appreciate that you have a very different set of religious views than I do, and very different than most, if any, of the other people who come here. I try to respect that. But I think you let it cloud your reasoning.

      Suppose I have a religious belief, handed down by my God and written in my holy text thousands of years ago, that says that unmarried women who have sex before marriage should be put to death. You have to respect that I believe that, right? But what if I, and thousands and thousands of members of my religion, mobilize and start to try to influence public policy to legislate this belief? To make it law: women who have sex before marriage will be put to death.

      It's a bit of an absurd analogy, I realize, but how do you, how does anyone, draw the line defining what religious beliefs, regardless how wildly held, can be allowed to deny essential civil liberties to other groups? And if we stop talking about marriage rights but start talking about things like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, would you continue to sit back and suggest that picketing people's houses is a step too far?

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Dec 8, 2008 9:39:08 PM:

      And it doesn't mean that they deserve the same level of shame that the proponents of Proposition 8 do.

      Really, Charlie?

      You truly believe that it is more important to attack people who oppose gay marriage than people who, despite being HIV-positive, deliberately have unprotected sex with other people who aren't?

      You truly believe that it is more important to go after religious people than it is to go after gays who not only dress children up as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs, but proudly state that doing so is an "educational experience" and that anyone who disagrees is "close-minded"?

      What makes this particularly funny is that, for all its bluster, the gay community has exactly zero problem with people who think that marriage is a "sacred union", who support and endorse as "role models" the very religious leaders who gays want to "shame and marginalize", and who support Federal and state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Heck, as is seen by the complete and utter absence of protests outside certain religious buildings and against certain religious denominations, the gay community has no problem with religious people who oppose gay marriage and vote accordingly -- as long as people vote in alignment with the correct political party.

      In other words, it is rather obvious that the gay community is using gay marriage as a proxy fight for the real battle here, which is antireligious bigotry being rationalized under the guise of sexual orientation.


      But what if I, and thousands and thousands of members of my religion, mobilize and start to try to influence public policy to legislate this belief?

      Knock yourself out.

      Voting and elections exist so that people can determine the direction their government should go, not to ratify the decisions that the government has already made. If the latter is preferable, Venezuela and Cuba are accepting applications.

      Meanwhile, you have no idea how entertaining I found your second paragraph. Let's just say it has something to do with how often I am deemed "the enemy" and subjected to verbal abuse to demonstrate what happens to any gay person who happens to disagree.

    1. Tim on Dec 9, 2008 10:48:18 AM:

      You adjusting your message mid-comment?
      Now watch how quickly monogamy disappears as a condition of marriage when Tim is forced to confront that other gays and lesbians oppose it.

      Same thing with drugs, same thing with gay teens; only until it becomes inconvenient for another gay, at which point the moral code will be revised to avoid having to criticize or condemn the behavior of another gay person.

      You are saying directly and unequivocally, that despite my stating otherwise, that I believe in monogamy, that I will change my opinion and suddenly hand out drugs to teens and ask random guys to have sex with my boyfriends rather than stick to my original convictions?

      Have you done this? Are you saying that when faced with these same issues you rolled over and changed your opinion?
      Often you make yourself the, "enemy", like Charlie I often agree with your underlying argument that the gay culture has huge glaring problems that need to be addressed. However I do not care about religion. I do not care that the self same preachers who preach biological nonsense on sunday, and drive their followers to acts of violence against gays are driven out of the Castro district. I do not care that the church group that raised 20 million dollars to fight gay rights is protested. I think those protests should be law abiding, but I think they are warranted. You however are still an apologist for them and have always taken offense anyone who disliked or ridiculed religion. You can't stand that anyone should find fault with your beloved god. You refuse to see how many gays have been personally hurt by religion. So be blind if you want to, but don't be dumb.

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    © Citizen Crain - All Rights Reserved | Design by E.Webscapes Design Studio | Powered by: TypePad