anti gay agenda among right wing

[Prospero]

It is curious that we have in our ranks here people - especially OnMyKnees - who are clearly on the hard right of an increasingly homophobic Republican party and yet are members of this forum. There is surely a contradiction here.

Is OMK a fiscal hardliner but a social liberal I wonder - or does he and his lackeys actually support the sort of agenda that is increasingly obvious among the new breed of teaparty conservatives - a clear hatred of the gay and transgendered?

The latest news overnight from the heartland of the new Republican landscape was a decision to block the appointment in Virginia of a prosecutor as a judge because of his sexuality.

http://dcist.com/2012/05/virginia_rejects_man_with_homosexua.php

What do OMK and his fellow Reublicans think about this? And if they support this decision why are OMK and other tea party supporters members here I wonder? In the past 48 hours OMK described the people here as "slime and cock hounds." Is his presence simply because he is a provocateur from the right. He clearly is NO ally in any push back against the right wing homophobic backlash.

Perhaps he'd like to elucidate?

[robertlouis]

It is curious that we have in our ranks here people - especially OnMyKnees - who are clearly on the hard right of an increasingly homophobic Republican party and yet are members of this forum. There is surely a contradiction here.

Is OMK a fiscal hardliner but a social liberal I wonder - or does he and his lackeys actually support the sort of agenda that is increasingly obvious among the new breed of teaparty conservatives - a clear hatred of the gay and transgendered?

The latest news overnight from the heartland of the new Republican landscape was a decision to block the appointment in Virginia of a prosecutor as a judge because of his sexuality.

http://dcist.com/2012/05/virginia_rejects_man_with_homosexua.php

What do OMK and his fellow Reublicans think about this? And if they support this decision why are OMK and other tea party supporters members here I wonder? In the past 48 hours OMK described the people here as "slime and cock hounds." Is his presence simply because he is a provocateur from the right. He clearly is NO ally in any push back against the right wing homophobic backlash.

Perhaps he'd like to elucidate?

The fish aren't biting, P. I challenged omk on this very topic about a week ago on the General threads. No reply.

He's too busy desperately trying to breathe life into dead news like John Edwards' prosecution.

And hey, omk, I hope the lying scumbag goes down too, we all do. So where do you go from here?

[trish]

The following email was recently intercepted by internet surveillance software:

"My Dear Sweet Fox News,

I'm a culture warrior fighting the good fight at HungAngels' General and Political Forums. I believe that if we can break that stronghold of filthy gay, lesbian and transgender liberalism we will have succeeded in breaking the back of the Democrat party itself. So I faithfully repeat all the Fox News talking points, often just copying and pasting Fox News articles that I don't really understand. I've been perfecting the O'Reilly technique of affecting moral outrage to avoid rational criticism, because like O'Reilly, I believe there is nothing more communistic than a rational argument. Rationality restricts the free exercise of the entrepreneurial imagination and attempts to regulate it with socialistic laws like modus ponens, modus tollens or contradiction. I'll have none of that.

Lately I've been having trouble avoiding the question, "How can a closet case guy like me who loves fawning over chicks-with-dicks (huge, erect, ooze dripping dicks...aaaaaaahhhhh) justify supporting the very politicians who would just as soon see me and my beloved dick-girls burn for eternity in hell and who are writing legislation that strips gays, lesbians and trangenders of their civil rights? I really need to post something fast. I wait eagerly for your response.

Love
oooooxxxxxx
OMK"

It may have been written by our OMK. If so, it would explain why he hasn't answered yet. On the other hand, the number of spelling mistakes in the letter don't meet OMK's minimal standards.

[Prospero]

You are a brilliant woman, Trish. I laughed out loud.

[Stavros]

But in the interests of balance, I wonder how many people who don't vote Repubican in the US or Conservative in the UK are also alarmed at the advances made in legislation on LGBT rights. I don't mind it myself, but from my past experience in the Labour Party I know there are quite a lot of people on that side of politics whose views on LGBT issues, abortion, and immigration for example, are little different from the worst exemplars of the 'right': did you ever have an intelligent conversation with a Trotskyist from the old Militant Tendency? Their views on a range of issues were repuslive. And in any case there are plenty of Conservatives in the UK whose views on this subject are as liberal as most people on this forum.

So is the Republican Party truly homophobic, or is it a problem with their core voters, and in particular the Tea Party supporters? After all, most Muslims are conservative in attitude even if they mostly vote Labour, but I wonder how George Galloway -a Muslim himself- negotiates his way through that issue on which he has claimed to be supportive of gay rights even though such rights were never mentioned in Respect's manifesto in the 2010 election. But then homosexuality, we are told, is verboten for Jews and Christians too...

[hippifried]

The Republican party is just kising ass to the religious zanies. That's become their base. They're gambling that the blatant hatred won't become an issue with the rest of the people who would probably vote for them.

[Prospero]

Very true Stavros. Prejudice does cut right across all party lines. Of course it didn't exist in the Soviet Union of Mao's China. Funny that. And strong religious beliefs tend to oppose homosexuality. (Except i think Buddhism - though whether that is tecnically a religion is a moot point.)

[Stavros]

Very true Stavros. Prejudice does cut right across all party lines. Of course it didn't exist in the Soviet Union of Mao's China. Funny that. And strong religious beliefs tend to oppose homosexuality. (Except i think Buddhism - though whether that is tecnically a religion is a moot point.)

Puzzled by your sarcasm -you know perfectly well that 'homophobia' is not exclusively a problem for the Republican Party in the USA, and that there are plenty of Republicans whose position on LGBT rights is as liberal as yours. As for the Soviet Union, I think you also know that homosexuality was de-criminalised after the 1917 Revolution. When Grigory Batkis -director of Moscow's Institute for Sexual Hygiene- went to 1923 conference of the World League for Sexual Freedom in 1923, he said of the USSR:
"Concerning homosexuality, sodomy, and various other forms of sexual gratification, which are set down in European legislation as offences against public morality, Soviet legislation treats these exactly the same as so-called ‘natural’ intercourse.”

Stalin re-criminalised it in the 1930s -one wonders what wasn't criminalised (!); and it is also true that in spite of the revolutionary spirit and the freedoms that the early years of the Revolution enjoyed, there was still a lot of prejudice against it in Russia; it remains a hostile environment for the LGBT community.

In China, homosexuality has never actually been illegal, as far as I can find out; Confucius had nothing to say about it. In Chinese classical culture, same-sex relations are either explicit or implicit, the Dream of the Red Chamber being one well-known example. Attitudes to same-sex relations across China tend to be based on ignorance, superstition and prejudice -pretty much like everywhere else. Funny that, eh?

[robertlouis]

You are a brilliant woman, Trish. I laughed out loud.

I suspect our boy is locked away in wherever trolls go for rehab.

[Ben]

It is curious that we have in our ranks here people - especially OnMyKnees - who are clearly on the hard right of an increasingly homophobic Republican party and yet are members of this forum. There is surely a contradiction here.

Is OMK a fiscal hardliner but a social liberal I wonder - or does he and his lackeys actually support the sort of agenda that is increasingly obvious among the new breed of teaparty conservatives - a clear hatred of the gay and transgendered?

The latest news overnight from the heartland of the new Republican landscape was a decision to block the appointment in Virginia of a prosecutor as a judge because of his sexuality.

http://dcist.com/2012/05/virginia_rejects_man_with_homosexua.php

What do OMK and his fellow Reublicans think about this? And if they support this decision why are OMK and other tea party supporters members here I wonder? In the past 48 hours OMK described the people here as "slime and cock hounds." Is his presence simply because he is a provocateur from the right. He clearly is NO ally in any push back against the right wing homophobic backlash.

Perhaps he'd like to elucidate?

President Obama, by affirming his support of gay marriage, is light years ahead of the Republican Party. (I mean, someone like President Eisenhower, too, would be a left-leaning Democrat by today's standards.) But the Party has to appeal to its base. The base are Christian Fundamentalists. Enough said. So, it explains the homophobia, the sexism, the classism and on and on.
I should point out: I don't have blind allegiance to President Obama. Nor should anyone. He's a politician. He's part of a system and structure that at its core is about power. Not democracy. Not meaningful democracy. But power. And part of that power structure is the concentration of private capital. Which he dutifully serves -- and has to.
You praise him when he does something good. Like endorsing gay marriage. And critique him when he does something, well, less than stellar.
Anyway, the so-called hard right, again, has to appeal to their [homophobic] base.
And I can't really speak about OMK because I don't know him....

[Prospero]

A note to you all that today is International Day Against Homophobia & Transphobia (IDAHO Day). Let's hear how many o the denizens of this site support this.

[Prospero]

...and so today Romney and co refuse to comment on Virgina barring of gay Judge.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/17/mitt-romney-virginia-gay-judicial-nominee_n_1524036.html?1337267647&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008

[hippifried]

IDAHO day? I wonder how that's going over in Cour de Alene.

[robertlouis]

This so-called Christian pastor wants to see all homosexuals put in concentration camps and left to die.

Let's note that he's resident in that shining light state of compassion, North (spit) Carolina.

Watch out for the Carolina Taliban.

Oh, and I presume that this hatefilled douchebag and his congregation enjoy charity status under your IRS rules. What a sick joke.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/21/pasto/

[Ben]

Republican Colin Powell supports gay marriage.
It simply shows that today's so-called right are moving more and more to the right. I mean, in all likelihood Romney has come out against gay marriage for tactical reasons.
Politics is a game of cunning and deception. (Adam Smith pointed out that the role of businessmen is to deceive and oppress the public. One can say the same about politicians.)

Colin Powell: "No Problem" with Gay Marriage - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZxeXZDnWds)

[robertlouis]

Here's a clip of the British Home Secretary, Theresa May, stating her personal commitment to supporting gay marriage. As her record on gay rights hasn't always been so progressive, this is a very welcome sign.

She is from the right wing of our governing coalition, the Conservative Party.

Can you imagine anyone in that socially retarded bunch of hatemouths in the US, sorry, The GOP, coming out with something like this?

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTsXoNkiY3g

[Ben]

Here's a clip of the British Home Secretary, Theresa May, stating her personal commitment to supporting gay marriage. As her record on gay rights hasn't always been so progressive, this is a very welcome sign.

She is from the right wing of our governing coalition, the Conservative Party.

Can you imagine anyone in that socially retarded bunch of hatemouths in the US, sorry, The GOP, coming out with something like this?

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTsXoNkiY3g

David Cameron supports gay marriage, too. It says something. It says that the Conservatives in England are way to the left of the U.S. Republicans.
But if David Cameron were running for President in ol' America he'd have to take the opposing position. He'd have no choice. Such is the game -- :)

David Cameron Supports Gay Marriage legalisation. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCLF2ji0rZI)

[Ben]

Robert, this is what we have to contend with in America:

Kirk Cameron says 'Homosexuality is unnatural' - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhGQUKoH_TE)

[Ben]

Lewis Black reacts to Kirk Cameron remarks - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXRNogFkM8k&feature=relmfu)

[robertlouis]

David Cameron supports gay marriage, too. It says something. It says that the Conservatives in England are way to the left of the U.S. Republicans.
But if David Cameron were running for President in ol' America he'd have to take the opposing position. He'd have no choice. Such is the game -- :)

David Cameron Supports Gay Marriage legalisation. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCLF2ji0rZI)

To be fair to Cameron - and I am utterly opposed to his austerity-one-club economic remedies - he is consciously going against the right wing and regressive elements in his own party, and I commend him for his courage. It's also probably true to say that Cameron's faction at the head of the Conservatives in the UK is well to the left of most Democrat politicians in the US too, at least as far as policy pronouncements go.

But you're probably right, Ben, although the fact that any politician of the right seeking office in the US would have to take a negative or overtly hateful stance on an issue such as gay marriage in order to succeed, speaks volumes for the polarised political polity you have to endure over there.

[Dino Velvet]

As someone who considers himself more Conservative(right of center) the Bible Thumping and anti-gay crap of the GOP is discouraging. I realize my liking of transgendered girls puts me in their crosshairs too. Let's debate this with Newt face to face and see how he lives his life too. I just want some smaller gov't with less waste and lower taxes/less fees. That doesn't make me a heartless fascist. I like a lot of stances Libertarians take but they lose me eventually too.

[Ben]

As someone who considers himself more Conservative(right of center) the Bible Thumping and anti-gay crap of the GOP is discouraging. I realize my liking of transgendered girls puts me in their crosshairs too. Let's debate this with Newt face to face and see how he lives his life too. I just want some smaller gov't with less waste and lower taxes/less fees. That doesn't make me a heartless fascist. I like a lot of stances Libertarians take but they lose me eventually too.

Dino, you're probably a Milton Friedman conservative:

Milton Friedman - Productivity and Smaller Government - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-A_Wuq5Tvc)

Milton Friedman - Solutions to Market Failures - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPnJHfiFWJw)

And here ol' Milton appears at the 33 second mark talking about externalities. Which are a serious problem in a market system.
For example: someone buys a car. The seller and buyer are looking for the best deal possible. What they don't take into account is the cost on others. Like more gridlock, more pollution and higher gas prices. As Milton explicates: these are real problems.

THE CORPORATION [4/23] Externalities - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCGTD5Bn1m0)

And Milton was rational and sensible about the issue of drugs. Unlike most so-called mainstream politicians:

Milton Friedman - Why Drugs Should Be Legalized - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY)

[robertlouis]

As someone who considers himself more Conservative(right of center) the Bible Thumping and anti-gay crap of the GOP is discouraging. I realize my liking of transgendered girls puts me in their crosshairs too. Let's debate this with Newt face to face and see how he lives his life too. I just want some smaller gov't with less waste and lower taxes/less fees. That doesn't make me a heartless fascist. I like a lot of stances Libertarians take but they lose me eventually too.

It must be tough, Dino. The fundamentalist and fanatical edge of the republican party must be a driving a wedge through those Americans whose views tend towards the conservative when what they mostly hear from their party is extremist hate aimed at minorities.

There are a few guys on HA who love to tell us about the failings and lies of the Democrats - and a lot of the time they're quite right to do so - but I'm not aware of their spokespeople coming out with the venomous hatred that seems to characterise too much of Republican debate nowadays.

[Dino Velvet]

It must be tough, Dino. The fundamentalist and fanatical edge of the republican party must be a driving a wedge through those Americans whose views tend towards the conservative when what they mostly hear from their party is extremist hate aimed at minorities.

There are a few guys on HA who love to tell us about the failings and lies of the Democrats - and a lot of the time they're quite right to do so - but I'm not aware of their spokespeople coming out with the venomous hatred that seems to characterise too much of Republican debate nowadays.

They all fail. One side is intolerant and manipulative and the other sticks his/her hands in my pocket every chance he/she gets and also manipulates. There are plenty of Dems in my local/state gov't that I would throw up on pikes too. I don't know how anyone could follow either herd with confidence. I just vote for the one I loathe the least. Seems to be a common problem everywhere.

[Ben]

It must be tough, Dino. The fundamentalist and fanatical edge of the republican party must be a driving a wedge through those Americans whose views tend towards the conservative when what they mostly hear from their party is extremist hate aimed at minorities.

There are a few guys on HA who love to tell us about the failings and lies of the Democrats - and a lot of the time they're quite right to do so - but I'm not aware of their spokespeople coming out with the venomous hatred that seems to characterise too much of Republican debate nowadays.

There are slight differences between the Dems and Republicans. (But the Dems base aren't religious fanatics. So, they don't have to appeal to, well, crazed Christians, as it were. Unlike the Republican Party. That's why issues like abortion, gay marriage, the sanctity of the Bible, loving God predominates Republican politics, as it were. The core of Republican followers, as it were, are crazed Christians. And more moderate or very moderate Christians tend to vote Democrat. And, too, the problem we have: NO THIRD PARTY. Unlike Britain. Where they have a slew of political parties. Whereby Britons do have choices.)
Noam Chomsky said there's one party in America. The business Party. You just have different factions of that Party. And, too, Chomsky did mention that corporate interests aren't considered special interests. But everyone else -- whether they be a small business owner, a nurse, a teacher, a carpenter -- are considered special interest. Just thought I'd throw that in -- :)

[robertlouis]

There are slight differences between the Dems and Republicans. (But the Dems base aren't religious fanatics. So, they don't have to appeal to, well, crazed Christians, as it were. Unlike the Republican Party. That's why issues like abortion, gay marriage, the sanctity of the Bible, loving God predominates Republican politics, as it were. The core of Republican followers, as it were, are crazed Christians. And more moderate or very moderate Christians tend to vote Democrat. And, too, the problem we have: NO THIRD PARTY. Unlike Britain. Where they have a slew of political parties. Whereby Britons do have choices.)
Noam Chomsky said there's one party in America. The business Party. You just have different factions of that Party. And, too, Chomsky did mention that corporate interests aren't considered special interests. But everyone else -- whether they be a small business owner, a nurse, a teacher, a carpenter -- are considered special interest. Just thought I'd throw that in -- :)

I suspect that what you say about the Business Party may be largely true, especially in the DC context, Ben, but it's just as true here, where the Labour Party, in its "New Labour" guise under Tony Blair, became so business-friendly that it almost became a mirror image of the Conservatives. They're rowing back a little under Miliband, and the Tories have almost become once again the tooth and claw capitalists of caricature.

But is it fair or accurate to sweep all politicians under the same stone, or is their subservience to business really so complete and inevitable?

Hmm, it's certainly that way with the banks, who take our money from us and then fuck us again and again while the politicians do nothing.

There are many evils in the world, but until the evil of the banks has been addressed, there is no hope of returning the economy and society at large to any form of acceptable equity. And when I call the banks evil, I'm not exaggerating.

[broncofan]

They all fail. One side is intolerant and manipulative and the other sticks his/her hands in my pocket every chance he/she gets and also manipulates. There are plenty of Dems in my local/state gov't that I would throw up on pikes too. I don't know how anyone could follow either herd with confidence. I just vote for the one I loathe the least. Seems to be a common problem everywhere.
I know I probably got off to a bad start in that other thread of yours, but I've always wanted to ask reasonable and thoughtful conservatives a question about their views on economic policy. I'm not trying to weave Prospero's thread in another direction. I'm just curious how you can think that if you are making something like over 200k a year, a 39% federal tax is too much of a burden? Or that estate taxes should be eliminated. Or that dividend taxes are unfair when they are only charged because corporations get limited liability as a conscious trade-off (that they choose when they establish the corporate form). Or that social programs should be slashed because some people abuse them but our bloated military budget should remain, well bloated?

I agree with you that the Republican party has allowed religious loonies to take over the agenda. But I think that their aims have gotten less ambitious as the Supreme Court has put limits on how far they can go. The Supreme Court has ruled anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. They have ruled that state constitutions cannot be amended to create an additional legislative threshold to pass civil rights statutes that protect gays. And now, the final frontier is the gay marriage debate which is predicated on the phony, disingenuous argument that the institution of marriage needs to be consistent with a strict and literal interpretation based on its historical and largely religious-based roots.

This is not to call you a hypocrite or say you cannot enjoy what you see here and reconcile that with conservatism. I think the only reason OMK gets that is because he ducks the issue and then launches sneak attacks before disappearing. But personally, I've always seen the conservative agenda as systemically flawed, and the approach to gay rights as not being an inconsistency with their approach to many other issues.

[broncofan]

Dino?

[Ben]

I suspect that what you say about the Business Party may be largely true, especially in the DC context, Ben, but it's just as true here, where the Labour Party, in its "New Labour" guise under Tony Blair, became so business-friendly that it almost became a mirror image of the Conservatives. They're rowing back a little under Miliband, and the Tories have almost become once again the tooth and claw capitalists of caricature.

But is it fair or accurate to sweep all politicians under the same stone, or is their subservience to business really so complete and inevitable?

Hmm, it's certainly that way with the banks, who take our money from us and then fuck us again and again while the politicians do nothing.

There are many evils in the world, but until the evil of the banks has been addressed, there is no hope of returning the economy and society at large to any form of acceptable equity. And when I call the banks evil, I'm not exaggerating.

It's pretty much all over the world... where political parties and governments are subservient to corporate power.
Therefore we've a dearth or lack of meaningful democracy. Because governments are not responsive to their populations but are merely kowtowing to corporate power.
There's an interesting book by David Korten.... Pic below -- :)

[robertlouis]

Thanks Ben. Here's a talk by the British writer John Lanchester. The background is his book about the crash, Whoops. Well worth a read.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0RbK2kuN2c

[Odelay]

I think a distinction needs to be made btwn opposing gay marriage and homophobia. I think eventually the line will blur but there are still people who generally support gay rights and GLBT's, but who currently don't sanction gay marriage. These are people who aren't beating up gays. As employers, they're not discriminating against gays. They socialize with GLBT community. For whatever reason, they draw the line in the sand, currently, at gay marriage.

This type of person might seem like a unicorn, but he/she isn't. I have a brother who started a company almost 15 years ago. His first hire was a friend who was gay - in a committed relationship, no less. His fifth hire was a lesbian. To this day, he's against gay marriage.

I also have a nephew who is gay and he could care less about gay marriage. He's already 25 yrs old and he avoids all activism around gay marriage. When he's 40 and meets that special guy will that change his views? I really have no idea.

The above, is not meant as a defense of the conservatives on this board. Frankly, they don't need defending. The conservatives on Hung Angels do give me hope that the transgender community might some day be acceptable to wide swath of society. Call them the early adopters amongst their right-leaning brothers.

[trish]

I'm curious as to whether the "unicorns" are clear that there's a distinction between legal marriage and religious marriage. The former is simply a contractual agreement between the couple and the state whereas the latter is spiritual bond between two people sanctioned by one's religious community. They sometimes get confused because frequently the person who presides over the religious ceremony (if there is one) also has been given the state authority (a matter of convenience) to accept the couple's legal oath as well as their religious oath.

[robertlouis]

I think a distinction needs to be made btwn opposing gay marriage and homophobia. I think eventually the line will blur but there are still people who generally support gay rights and GLBT's, but who currently don't sanction gay marriage. These are people who aren't beating up gays. As employers, they're not discriminating against gays. They socialize with GLBT community. For whatever reason, they draw the line in the sand, currently, at gay marriage.

This type of person might seem like a unicorn, but he/she isn't. I have a brother who started a company almost 15 years ago. His first hire was a friend who was gay - in a committed relationship, no less. His fifth hire was a lesbian. To this day, he's against gay marriage.

I also have a nephew who is gay and he could care less about gay marriage. He's already 25 yrs old and he avoids all activism around gay marriage. When he's 40 and meets that special guy will that change his views? I really have no idea.

The above, is not meant as a defense of the conservatives on this board. Frankly, they don't need defending. The conservatives on Hung Angels do give me hope that the transgender community might some day be acceptable to wide swath of society. Call them the early adopters amongst their right-leaning brothers.

I think that's fair comment. However, it isn't the "unicorns" that are loudly shouting their message of hate and intolerance, and they're the ones who are more likely to sway politicians.

[trish]

True enough about who has the loudest voice, but in states where gay marriage is a referendum issue it's the ordinary voter who needs to be persuaded.

[robertlouis]

True enough about who has the loudest voice, but in states where gay marriage is a referendum issue it's the ordinary voter who needs to be persuaded.

That's very true, Trish, but at state level are the issues explained impartially and with equal weight?

[trish]

That's very true, Trish, but at state level are the issues explained impartially and with equal weight?Definitely not as many state legislatures tend to be conservative on the issue and the lobbies against gay marriage and against other progressive social issues are always vigilant.

[Stavros]

Is this really going to be such a critical issue in the forthcoming election? I know a lot of people are passionate about it, but I don't see it as a 'decisive' issue. In the UK when Labour came into power in 1997 there were hours and hours and hours of prattle on both sides about fox-hunting which was eventually banned by Parliament but still continues in various restricted and semi-restricted ways. I can see the point of Trish's argument about the difference between a legal and a religious marriage, but I think other issues are of greater importance.

[robertlouis]

Is this really going to be such a critical issue in the forthcoming election? I know a lot of people are passionate about it, but I don't see it as a 'decisive' issue. In the UK when Labour came into power in 1997 there were hours and hours and hours of prattle on both sides about fox-hunting which was eventually banned by Parliament but still continues in various restricted and semi-restricted ways. I can see the point of Trish's argument about the difference between a legal and a religious marriage, but I think other issues are of greater importance.

I think we'd all agree with that, Stavros. The issue is more to do with the US's ability to come to terms with social progress or otherwise.

Cameron won't lose the next election in the UK because of his support for gay marriage either. The economy will see to that.

[Odelay]

I don't believe it will be a big issue in this election. It was a huge issue in 2004 where Karl Rove made sure that a lot of battleground states had the issue on the ballot that November, goading people to vote against gay marriage and John Kerry at the same time. Since 2004, the polling on the issue has changed considerably. I think it was a pretty low risk move by Obama to support it.

[Odelay]

And Trish, you are right. The unicorns aren't the vocal ones, although if you get them one on one, they'll give you an earful sometimes. But basically, it's the homophobes running the message for the GOP right now and I don't believe that's helping them right now.

[trish]

And Trish, you are right. The unicorns aren't the vocal ones, although if you get them one on one, they'll give you an earful sometimes. But basically, it's the homophobes running the message for the GOP right now and I don't believe that's helping them right now.

I was wondering, if it's not too personal, whether your brother makes the distinction between legal and religious marriage? If yes does he provide different reasons for denying both to gays and lesbians? I can't help but think there must be some way to reach the people who are halfway there...but how?

I agree the issue probably won't play a definitive role in this election. The demographics seem to indicate that sooner or later the right will have to yield on gay marriage. In the mean time many couples will continue to suffer the injustices and hardships of being denied the legal rights that accompany marriage.

[fastingforlife]

I have witnessed a non-stop progression of gay acceptance and legal rights for 40 years. Perhaps the liberals and gays can take a breather from their relentless pursuit of personal gain and anti christian bashing. And, begin to lend voice and support to their LGBT brothers and sisters being persecuted and murdered in Muslim majority nations throughout the world.

[robertlouis]

I have witnessed a non-stop progression of gay acceptance and legal rights for 40 years. Perhaps the liberals and gays can take a breather from their relentless pursuit of personal gain and anti christian bashing. And, begin to lend voice and support to their LGBT brothers and sisters being persecuted and murdered in Muslim majority nations throughout the world.

WTF? "Non-stop progression"? It hasn't been without struggle and sacrifice. And yes, we do condemn anti-gay actions in Muslim - and majority Christian - countries. That's Africa and anywhere that the Catholic church holds sway.

And personal gain/ Where the fuck did that come from?

Come back with some reasoned argument when you've calmed down a bit.

[fastingforlife]

WTF? "Non-stop progression"? It hasn't been without struggle and sacrifice. And yes, we do condemn anti-gay actions in Muslim - and majority Christian - countries. That's Africa and anywhere that the Catholic church holds sway.

And personal gain/ Where the fuck did that come from?

Come back with some reasoned argument when you've calmed down a bit.

I am extremely calm, you are the one with your panties in a bunch.

[trish]

To categorize the securing of one's civil rights as personal gain is a rather odd turn of phrase. But then I think when the 1% lobbies for tax cuts it's all about personal gain.

So how much money have you contributed to the schooling of women in Afghanistan? Do you support aid for the building of schools and hospitals in the developing Islamic countries?

The Pope's policy against the practice of birth control even in developing nations deserves more bashing than it gets.

[Ben]

I have witnessed a non-stop progression of gay acceptance and legal rights for 40 years. Perhaps the liberals and gays can take a breather from their relentless pursuit of personal gain and anti christian bashing. And, begin to lend voice and support to their LGBT brothers and sisters being persecuted and murdered in Muslim majority nations throughout the world.

Exactly. "... progression of gay acceptance..." is a horrible thing. It should "... take a breather...." And "liberals" shouldn't just concentrate on personal gain -- ha ha! Not sure what one means by liberal. And should one lump all leftists together?
I'm not even sure if liberals are of the left.... I mean, there are stark differences in the leftist movement.
I mean, there are huge differences between, say, anarcho syndicalism and anarcho primitivism. One wants workers to control the factories. The others want the factories to be non-existent. Again, stark differences in those leftist movements. There's a lot of infighting in leftist circles -- ha ha!
And there are differences in the right-leaning movement, as it were.
I mean, there are classic conservatives who believe in top-down control. And who've a fervent loathing of democracy.
But then there are conservatives who believe in local control and local markets. And we shouldn't forget that conservatism came out of classical liberalism.
And then there are libertarians (of the American tradition).
Noam Chomsky explicates classical liberalism/conservatism. (Conservatives believe in the Magna Carta [albeit it ain't perfect] and traditional values, morality and the rule of law.)

Noam Chomsky on Enlightenment, Classical Liberalism, Anarchism (2/8) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60z2zGbGbfE)

[robertlouis]

I am extremely calm, you are the one with your panties in a bunch.

OK, back to Fox.

[broncofan]

I have witnessed a non-stop progression of gay acceptance and legal rights for 40 years. Perhaps the liberals and gays can take a breather from their relentless pursuit of personal gain and anti christian bashing. And, begin to lend voice and support to their LGBT brothers and sisters being persecuted and murdered in Muslim majority nations throughout the world.
This seems like an obfuscation. Why can't liberals be concerned about gay rights in the United States and oppose the execution of homosexuals in Muslim countries? Do we lack the energy or the time for both? No. Actually it's because we are not citizens of those countries and cannot participate in their political process. That doesn't mean we should do nothing, but surely you can see that as an obstacle.

And the non-stop progression of gay acceptance comment also sounds like you think that some civil rights are enough. I think the gay community wants full equality, not just something like it.

Odelay, it is a good question as to whether opposing gay marriage is per se homophobia. Theoretically, it is not. One can have a very restrictive or sacred view of what marriage is that doesn't recognize the role it has come to have in a multi-cultural, multi-religious culture. I just haven't heard a really good or fair explanation of why preventing homosexuals from getting married is such an important item on the agenda for Republicans. One Republican I know told me that homosexuals getting married would dilute the significance of his marriage. I've seen his wife and let me tell you, it's already pretty watered down. :tongue:

[trish]

I always figured that which does not kill marriage strengthens it! You know, law of the jungle, survival of the fittest; isn't that what the GOP is all about?

[fastingforlife]

Back in March, all 57 Islamic United Nations members voted down equating gay rights with human rights. Meanwhile, gays and lesbians, here at home, sit teary eyed, unable to send out their "save the date" notices.

[trish]

And because of the fucking Christian fundamentalists a majority of loving same sex couples in this country aren't allowed to get legally married, aren't allowed the legal advantages afforded to married couples, aren't allowed the power of attorney when their life partner is hospitalized and aren't even assured they will have visitation rights. Time to take care of things our own country before we go fixing the world, don't you think? Of course you don't.

[fastingforlife]

And because of the fucking Christian fundamentalists a majority of loving same sex couples in this country aren't allowed to get legally married, aren't allowed the legal advantages afforded to married couples, aren't allowed the power of attorney when their life partner is hospitalized and aren't even assured they will have visitation rights. Time to take care of things our own country before we go fixing the world, don't you think? Of course you don't.

We have 737 military bases throughout the world (I would prefer if we had zero), many of the new jobs created by fortune 500 companies in the past 35 years have been created abroad, not in the USA. We are all connected economically.....ever heard of Greece? And of course we have been engaged in war for over 10 years. We have alot invested in the rest of the world, so we better start caring. Nobody, including our first black president, Bill Clinton, lifted a finger to save the lives of 850,000 blacks butchered in Rhwanda......primarily because they were black, and perceived not worth saving by our leaders.


The problems that gay people face in the country is bullshit compared to what gay people are encountering in those 57 Islamic nations. Imprisionment and death trumps inconvenient visitation requirements at Mount Sinai hospital. There are alot of gay people in the world who need our help....or do we continue to turn a deaf ear to their plight?

[Ben]

Interesting article by Chris Hedges:

The War on Gays:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_war_on_gays_20120528/

[trish]

We have alot invested in the rest of the world, so we better start caring...

The problems that gay people face in the country is bullshit compared to what gay people are encountering in those 57 Islamic nations. Yet THEY ARE OUR CITIZENS AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE FULL COMPLIMENT OF RIGHTS provided by the Constitution. Tell me, how is the fight in the U.S. for same sex marriage at all competing with U.S. foreign policy regarding human rights? Is it taking money away from the fight for human rights elsewhere? No. Do tax cuts for the rich diminish our efforts to modernize human rights in the developing world? Yes. Do outmoded Christian mores encourage the stigmatization of gays and lesbians in African countries? Yes. If you care, get out there and do something. Donate some time and money. But don't tell people who are fighting to secure their own civil rights to give up because their success is making you uncomfortable.

[Ben]

Billionaire Christian zealot David Green. (Also: he's a major funder of Liberty University.)

Billionaire David Green: The power of tithing, faith, and the Holy Spirit - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ0XZ0qgMy8)

Bill Maher Knocks Liberty University: It Cheapens My Degree From a Real School - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V35ymLxox0k)

[fastingforlife]

Interesting article by Chris Hedges:

The War on Gays:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_war_on_gays_20120528/

This is one of the most over the top articles I have read in a long while. As I stated earlier, I have been the witness to 40 years of constant improvement of the lives of gay people in the USA. And, I expect more improvement lies ahead.

In the matter of Tyler Clementi, I am very sorry he killed himself.

During his first week at Rutgers University, rather than immerse himself with his studies, get out and meet people, and get involved, he was spending his time on gay websites looking to hook up with someone. That someone was a 30+ y/o man.

Clementi had recently come out to his family, who were not very supportive of his lifestyle.

Most likely he was down over his families lack of acceptance, as well as his recent encounter with an older man. The man likely had pedophile tendencies, or else why was he going after an 18 y/o boy, and visiting a freshman colege dorm. Do you realize how truly odd that is?

When Tyler looked at his life, being abandoned by his family, along with the prospect of being a plaything for older men....he was disgusted, and ended it.

It is a disgrace that his family has put all the blame on Ravi, as a way to hide their own guilt, as he did not factor at all in what Tyler did. They have also disgraced their son by implying that he killed himself over a trivial matter. I am confidant that he did not. Although that in no way justifies what he did, at least I can understand it, too bad his parents have denied themselves the same insight.

[fastingforlife]

Yet THEY ARE OUR CITIZENS AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE FULL COMPLIMENT OF RIGHTS provided by the Constitution. Tell me, how is the fight in the U.S. for same sex marriage at all competing with U.S. foreign policy regarding human rights? Is it taking money away from the fight for human rights elsewhere? No. Do tax cuts for the rich diminish our efforts to modernize human rights in the developing world? Yes. Do outmoded Christian mores encourage the stigmatization of gays and lesbians in African countries? Yes. If you care, get out there and do something. Donate some time and money. But don't tell people who are fighting to secure their own civil rights to give up because their success is making you uncomfortable.

Don't speak so harshly about the Christians. If it wasn't for the bravery of the Crusaders, you would be living in a Muslim country, and you would have alot in common with the gays in those 57 Islamic Nations. Essentially Christians saved your life! What about that?

[Stavros]

Don't speak so harshly about the Christians. If it wasn't for the bravery of the Crusaders, you would be living in a Muslim country, and you would have alot in common with the gays in those 57 Islamic Nations. Essentially Christians saved your life! What about that?

I am baffled by this interpretation of history, I don't think I ever read an account of the Crusades (all three of them) which suggested it was Europe defending itself from 'the Muslims', and your argument presupposes a complete collapse of Christianity and no resistance across Europe that I find impossible to believe.

You are of course right to condemn the abuse of human rights in 'Muslim' countries where the law is used to make illegal what we now have legalised -when I was born, same-sex relations in the UK were illegal and homosexuals were regularly blackmailed because of this; suicide was also illegal and punishable with imprisonment, the law was not changed until 1961.

Across sub-Saharan Africa in mostly Christian countries homosexuality is illegal, the situation in Russia is just as bad. As far as I am aware there are gay activists who regularly raise these issues (in the UK an activist called Peter Tatchell has been partcularly vociferous).

There is, in fact, an agenda here. Part of the critique of 'liberal society' that argues 'it all went dowhill in the 1960s' relates -in the US in particular- the laws on civil rights with the emergence at Stonewall of sexual liberation legislation which morphed into an 'industry' of 'minority rights' campaigns so that now employers have had to change their adverts and application forms to state explicitly that they do not discriminate against -followed by a list.

To some conservatives this is 'cultural Marxism' which elevates minorities over the 'silent majority' or to be blunt, White Christians. The Conservatives agenda thus sees increases in the rights of minorities as an erosion of the cohesion that used to exist, and along with 'multiculturalism' and immigration is is a deliberate tactic of the left to undermine the concepts of nationalism which they rely on as signfiers of their belonging; it loosens the fabric of society, it legalises sodom and gomorrha and so on. In fact the real bogey is welfare, but the ideas of Charles Murray about the 'curse' of 'entitlement' is as much part of this discourse on gay rights as it is on welfare. Apparently 'Cultural Marxism' is a precursor to revolution; that most immigrants tend to identify srongly with the values of their new home doesn't seem to matter to this analysis.

I don't think the specific issue of gay marriage is important, but I do see it as one of a cluster of social issues that the Conservative bloc sees as an obstacle to 'making America great again'. It doesn't really work in the UK as an argument since it is hardly likely to lead to a call to rebuild the Empire...!

[Prospero]

Fastingforlife's position is rather absurd. It is essentially that things are worse elsewhere so be thankful for what you've got and praise The Lord. On that basis there'd never have been a civil rights movement because, after all, the fate of the oppressed in the Soviet union or mao's China were much worse than that of disenfranchised african americans. So the treatment of Gay and transgendered people under islam is despicable. In that the Christian Right and the Fundamentalist Muslims agree. It is really a major piece of common ground.

[Odelay]

I was wondering, if it's not too personal, whether your brother makes the distinction between legal and religious marriage? If yes does he provide different reasons for denying both to gays and lesbians? I can't help but think there must be some way to reach the people who are halfway there...but how?

I agree the issue probably won't play a definitive role in this election. The demographics seem to indicate that sooner or later the right will have to yield on gay marriage. In the mean time many couples will continue to suffer the injustices and hardships of being denied the legal rights that accompany marriage.

I don't want to generalize too much from my brother's views. That said, he's an agnostic. I'm sure his respect for religion plays a part in his views on gay marriage (he's no atheist), but it's not the whole story. He lives in a state that protects civil unions. He had a civil union himself with his eventual wife, years before they got married. I guess he feels gay relationships should stop at civil unions. It's a stunted view on human rights. Now to generalilze... I'm guessing that many on the rational right will have opinions that continue to evolve with time.

[Prospero]

Can't resist - but rational and right wing are not two things I'd generally place in the same sentence in any positive way. The US Right (fiscally) seems to have been buried in an avalanche of social and scientific irrationality as a result of the need for the few remnants of liberal Republicanism to court the evangelical right. Hence its anti abortion, anti female rights, anti science position - its belief in creationism and when that is accepted to be absurd of intelligent design.

[fastingforlife]

Fastingforlife's position is rather absurd. It is essentially that things are worse elsewhere so be thankful for what you've got and praise The Lord. On that basis there'd never have been a civil rights movement because, after all, the fate of the oppressed in the Soviet union or mao's China were much worse than that of disenfranchised african americans. So the treatment of Gay and transgendered people under islam is despicable. In that the Christian Right and the Fundamentalist Muslims agree. It is really a major piece of common ground.

Can you point me to any Christian religions or majority Christian states that support the imprisionment and murder of gays?

[Prospero]

Oh no Government in Christian majority countries imprisons gays now - though there are plenty of murders of Gays in the Bible belt. I wasn't suggesting that. Simply that fundamentalist Christians and Muslims agree on their hatred of Gay people.

[robertlouis]

Can you point me to any Christian religions or majority Christian states that support the imprisionment and murder of gays?

Homosexual acts, even between consenting adults, were illegal in most western countries within the last 50 years. Thankfully, we have in the main progressed since then.

The only major exception is in the US where fundamentalist Christians would happily see such relationships recriminalised and at the extremes, see homosexuals herded into camps and left to die. Hitler tried that.

Oh, and don't forget the Catholic church whose resolute hatred of gays has in some part probably led to the obscenity of child-rape by priests - which they still try to hush up.

I am not defending the horrendous laws and practices of Islamic states, but you need to get your head out of your arse and have a closer look at what your so-called Christian brothers and sisters have done and continue to do.

[fastingforlife]

Oh no Government in Christian majority countries imprisons gays now - though there are plenty of murders of Gays in the Bible belt. I wasn't suggesting that. Simply that fundamentalist Christians and Muslims agree on their hatred of Gay people.

I don't know of any Christian faith, no matter how fundamentalist, that espouses hate. Of course individual members can do what they please.

I don't believe the bible belt is the friendliest place for gay people, however it is news to me that the murder rate for gays is higher than anywhere else in the USA, I will have to investigate that.

[fastingforlife]

Homosexual acts, even between consenting adults, were illegal in most western countries within the last 50 years. Thankfully, we have in the main progressed since then.

The only major exception is in the US where fundamentalist Christians would happily see such relationships recriminalised and at the extremes, see homosexuals herded into camps and left to die. Hitler tried that.

Oh, and don't forget the Catholic church whose resolute hatred of gays has in some part probably led to the obscenity of child-rape by priests - which they still try to hush up.

I am not defending the horrendous laws and practices of Islamic states, but you need to get your head out of your arse and have a closer look at what your so-called Christian brothers and sisters have done and continue to do.

Similar to rape, pedophilia is an act of power typically committed by straight men and women. Incidences of gay men commiting these acts are very rare. So I don't think the Catholic Church's past and current views on homosexuality are a contributing factor.

I do not know of any Christian faiths who endorse the use of concentration camps for people living alternative lifestyles. If there are, I would like to read about it.

Gay people in free nations may not endorse what is happening to gay people in those 57 Islamic nations, but they are oh so quiet about it, aren't they?

[Prospero]

"Gay people in free nations may not endorse what is happening to gay people in those 57 Islamic nations, but they are oh so quiet about it, aren't they?"

No - not really. No quieter about it than anyone else since gay people are part of the wider spectrum of society and not all are at all politicised.

[Stavros]

Can you point me to any Christian religions or majority Christian states that support the imprisionment and murder of gays?

How about Uganda? 'Kill the Gays' bill...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill

[broncofan]

I don't think anyone has any trouble with your argument that homosexuals are discriminated against in many Muslim countries and more attention should be paid to it. Start a thread and discuss it.

However, your suggestion that because there is discrimination in other countries that homosexuals in the United States should not fight for greater civil rights is illogical.. It is merely an excuse to stunt further developments in the arena of civil rights by saying that they cannot be advanced until they are uniform everywhere.

As for the discrimination against homosexuals by Christian fundamentalists, it does not need to be compared to that of Muslim fundamentalists in order to be evaluated. I agree that if in Iran homosexuals are executed, homophobia might seem trivial elsewhere. But Christian fundamentalists do recommend gay conversion therapy which is a harmful form of mental abuse inflicted on teenagers who cannot change their sexual orientation through willpower or otherwise. They not only oppose gay marriage but have opposed hate crime legislation that includes gay bashing as a bias crime. This is as far as I know a completely unprincipled stand based on mean-spiritedness and not any legitimate legislative goal. And in the past, anti-sodomy laws have been supported by many religious Christian organizations. These laws are now defunct and are not coming back.

It is not Christian bashing to say these things. And it is not turning a blind eye to homosexuals being executed in Iran to oppose this type of homophobia here. Your argument is entirely illogical.

[Prospero]

I don't think anyone has any trouble with your argument that homosexuals are discriminated against in many Muslim countries and more attention should be paid to it. Start a thread and discuss it.

However, your suggestion that because there is discrimination in other countries that homosexuals in the United States should not fight for greater civil rights is illogical.. It is merely an excuse to stunt further developments in the arena of civil rights by saying that they cannot be advanced until they are uniform everywhere.

As for the discrimination against homosexuals by Christian fundamentalists, it does not need to be compared to that of Muslim fundamentalists in order to be evaluated. I agree that if in Iran homosexuals are executed, homophobia might seem trivial elsewhere. But Christian fundamentalists do recommend gay conversion therapy which is a harmful form of mental abuse inflicted on teenagers who cannot change their sexual orientation through willpower or otherwise. They not only oppose gay marriage but have opposed hate crime legislation that includes gay bashing as a bias crime. This is as far as I know a completely unprincipled stand based on mean-spiritedness and not any legitimate legislative goal. And in the past, anti-sodomy laws have been supported by many religious Christian organizations. These laws are now defunct and are not coming back.

It is not Christian bashing to say these things. And it is not turning a blind eye to homosexuals being executed in Iran to oppose this type of homophobia here. Your argument is entirely illogical.

I agree 100 per cent this echoes what i said earlier.

[broncofan]

I don't know of any Christian faith, no matter how fundamentalist, that espouses hate. Of course individual members can do what they please.

I don't believe the bible belt is the friendliest place for gay people, however it is news to me that the murder rate for gays is higher than anywhere else in the USA, I will have to investigate that.
There were a number of religious Christians who expressed the view that AIDS was a plague sent by the lord to wash away the sin of homosexuality. I think that is hatred. It is only when such views were condemned by rational people that their expression became muted and a thing of the medieval past (aka the 1980's).

I also think that gay conversion therapy is a form of mental abuse. Is it not hateful to mentally abuse someone and tell them that if they are virtuous enough that they will no longer be attracted to members of the same sex? That their sexual orientation is malign enough that it needs a radical psychotherapeutic cure and that when that cure fails it is the patient's fault and not the shortcoming of the cure? This is hatred. It is not all Christians who feel this way, but there are some Christians who do.

Anyhow, if you don't believe that there are numerous Christian organizations that have supported all of the policies I stated say so and I'll provide the proof. If you would instead like to argue that such views and policies are not hateful, then please do so.

[broncofan]

Similar to rape, pedophilia is an act of power typically committed by straight men and women. Incidences of gay men commiting these acts are very rare. So I don't think the Catholic Church's past and current views on homosexuality are a contributing factor.

Yes, a blanket analogy between homosexuality and pedophilia is as you suggest very wrong. However, when a rapist chooses targets of one gender over another, I think it is probably suggestive of sexual orientation even if the crime of rape is more a crime of power than sex. If as you say, a majority of acts of pedophilia are committed by straight men and women, then I would say the fact that so many such acts have been committed by priests against members of the same sex says quite a lot. I know you will likely say that the priests only had access to members of one gender and so the choice was one of convenience, but in reading the literature on sex crimes, most often perpetrators are not indiscriminate about which sex their victims are.

[broncofan]

I agree 100 per cent this echoes what i said earlier.
You're right it does. I actually only missed one of your posts before writing that but that was the one. A lot happened on this thread since I was last here:tongue:

[Prospero]

Pat Robertson was one of those who claimed AIDS was a punishment on the gay community.

[trish]

Robertson also claimed God punished gulf coast residents with hurricanes because the communities there didn't rise up against gays. When the Dover court found against the creationists in Pennsylvania Robertson warned God will send a natural disaster.

Just last week the Pope told American nuns that they were spending too much effort seeing to the needs of the poor and not enough effort discouraging birth control and homosexuality.

Fundamentalist entertain themselves reading novels about how God will confuse and punish those not received by Heaven in the last days. Their Jesus rides a white steed and wields a sword. The God of LOVE seems a bit vengeful.

[Prospero]

Ah... the rapture.

[hippifried]

Can you point me to any Christian religions or majority Christian states that support the imprisionment and murder of gays?
How about Uganda? The "kill the gays" bill is still pending. David Bahati has been touted as some kind of international hero & role model by lunatic evangelicals here in the US, including members of Congress. It may be just a coincidence (although I doubt it), but he introduced that bill within days of his meeting with US evangelical fanatics who ranted about homosexuality being the downfall of "the family". Sound familiar?

"We don't do that anymore" becomes more & more lame as an excuse when you realize that you're just comparing degrees of assholishness. An asshole's an asshole. Just because there's laws that make it harder for them to be as big an asshole as they'd like to be, doesn't mean there's been any kind of social change. The real change has been in the willingness of law enforcement to go after the perpetrators of crimes against all kinds of people, based on who they are. Of course it could be the realization that there's too many eyes watching to let it slide & get away with it.

The "Bible belt" having the highest murder rate against gays wouldn't surprize me because I see this as lynching. It's not as uncommon as you think. The incident in Laramie a few years ago shoved this problem in front of everybody's face, but of course memories are short. The death of the lynching victim isn't the object of the act of course. Lynching is an act of terrorism. As for the lesser degrees of assholishness, It's the courts that have stepped in for the most part. How long did that Alabama case bounce around on appeals? (the one where the cops raided the wrong house on a drug raid, but caught 2 guys in the act.) Maybe it was Texas. It's been so long, decades, but it seems like it was just in the news again a copule of years ago. Still on the books I guess.

You have to have your own house in order before you can dictate to others. This isn't a Muslim problem.

[trish]

About a decade ago man at a rest stop in Tennessee was waiting outside the restrooms for his wife, she told him to hold her purse while she used the facilities. He was mistaken for being gay, beaten and killed.

More recently, 2010 I believe, Belmont University (of the Volunteer State) fired their women's soccer coach when it was made known that she and her lesbian partner planned on adopting a child together.

Also in 2010 in Vonore TN, a lesbian couples home is burned to the ground. "queers" was spray painted on the garage door.

Even though Tennessee is in Bible Belt, these crimes were more than likely perpetrated by Islamic terrorists or worse yet, atheists.

[fastingforlife]

How about Uganda? 'Kill the Gays' bill...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill

Thanks for the link.

[Ben]

This is one of the most over the top articles I have read in a long while. As I stated earlier, I have been the witness to 40 years of constant improvement of the lives of gay people in the USA. And, I expect more improvement lies ahead.

In the matter of Tyler Clementi, I am very sorry he killed himself.

During his first week at Rutgers University, rather than immerse himself with his studies, get out and meet people, and get involved, he was spending his time on gay websites looking to hook up with someone. That someone was a 30+ y/o man.

Clementi had recently come out to his family, who were not very supportive of his lifestyle.

Most likely he was down over his families lack of acceptance, as well as his recent encounter with an older man. The man likely had pedophile tendencies, or else why was he going after an 18 y/o boy, and visiting a freshman colege dorm. Do you realize how truly odd that is?

When Tyler looked at his life, being abandoned by his family, along with the prospect of being a plaything for older men....he was disgusted, and ended it.

It is a disgrace that his family has put all the blame on Ravi, as a way to hide their own guilt, as he did not factor at all in what Tyler did. They have also disgraced their son by implying that he killed himself over a trivial matter. I am confidant that he did not. Although that in no way justifies what he did, at least I can understand it, too bad his parents have denied themselves the same insight.

FFL, I tend to agree w/ you when you write: "This is one of the most over the top articles I have read in a long while."

[Odelay]

he was spending his time on gay websites looking to hook up with someone. That someone was a 30+ y/o man.
...

The man likely had pedophile tendencies, or else why was he going after an 18 y/o boy, and visiting a freshman colege dorm. Do you realize how truly odd that is?

Umm... no! An 18 year old is an adult in our society. And that's a conservative age to place adulthood at. Many other societies make adulthood at a much younger age. And in fact, adulthood is a phased in structure in the USA. A 15 yr old girl can date an 18 yr old man, 16 - 19, 17 - 20, etc.

And pedophiles are people who pray on adolescents, i.e. 13, 12, 10 yrs old, and younger.

30 year olds will go where the action is, and there's always been plenty of action on college campuses.

[Odelay]

Can't resist - but rational and right wing are not two things I'd generally place in the same sentence in any positive way. The US Right (fiscally) seems to have been buried in an avalanche of social and scientific irrationality as a result of the need for the few remnants of liberal Republicanism to court the evangelical right. Hence its anti abortion, anti female rights, anti science position - its belief in creationism and when that is accepted to be absurd of intelligent design.

I agree with you about the far right, or extreme part of the right wing, that rationality isn't their strong suit.

However, I do believe the rational right is a term coming more into vogue. And it's not being popularized so much at the media level but at the street level. I hear it more often amongst friends, co-workers, family, etc. I think there is a large swath of people in America from the left to the center-right who are genuinely concerned about the drift of the right to a crazy extreme.

[fastingforlife]

Umm... no! An 18 year old is an adult in our society. And that's a conservative age to place adulthood at. Many other societies make adulthood at a much younger age. And in fact, adulthood is a phased in structure in the USA. A 15 yr old girl can date an 18 yr old man, 16 - 19, 17 - 20, etc.

And pedophiles are people who pray on adolescents, i.e. 13, 12, 10 yrs old, and younger.

30 year olds will go where the action is, and there's always been plenty of action on college campuses.

Except Tyler looked 15. And, not to many 30+y/o guys are visiting frosh dorms to date 18 y/o boys. From my own experience, that is highly unusual, which got Ravi's attention, making him concerned about his personal stuff in his room. Also, Ravi thought the guy looked shady.

[trish]

Don't you just love how some people think some other people just look shady?

[broncofan]

Except Tyler looked 15. And, not to many 30+y/o guys are visiting frosh dorms to date 18 y/o boys. From my own experience, that is highly unusual, which got Ravi's attention, making him concerned about his personal stuff in his room. Also, Ravi thought the guy looked shady.
I haven't followed the case at all, but from my experience this doesn't ring true. Someone is broadcasting a hook-up of his roommate either because his roommate is engaging in a gay hookup or because his hookup is thirty years old? You think it's the latter? And the third possibility is that he was worried about his personal stuff? Does that require broadcasting the hookup AND letting other people know about it?

That's just not believable. Let's try another one. I'm stealing a plasma tv either because I want a really cool tv to watch football games on or I'm starving to death and want to pawn it for life-sustaining food? The latter?

[broncofan]

A man is robbing a bank either because he wants the cash in the vault OR because he thinks the bank's interest rates are a point too high?

A man punches a guy who is french kissing his wife because he is jealous OR because he is worried about his wife catching strep throat?

[fastingforlife]

I haven't followed the case at all, but from my experience this doesn't ring true. Someone is broadcasting a hook-up of his roommate either because his roommate is engaging in a gay hookup or because his hookup is thirty years old? You think it's the latter? And the third possibility is that he was worried about his personal stuff? Does that require broadcasting the hookup AND letting other people know about it?

That's just not believable. Let's try another one. I'm stealing a plasma tv either because I want a really cool tv to watch football games on or I'm starving to death and want to pawn it for life-sustaining food? The latter?

Ravi never broadcast anything. As soon as they started to kiss, he turned it off. Ravi's mistake was to let Tyler have guests in the first place. The 30+y/o guy did not belong in a Freshman dorm anyway. This case was pushed by the parents who were seeking revenge. They have sullied the reputation of their son. He may have been a bit of an oddball, but he did not kill himself over such a trivial matter. I will never believe that.

[broncofan]

Ravi never broadcast anything. As soon as they started to kiss, he turned it off. Ravi's mistake was to let Tyler have guests in the first place. The 30+y/o guy did not belong in a Freshman dorm anyway. This case was pushed by the parents who were seeking revenge. They have sullied the reputation of their son. He may have been a bit of an oddball, but he did not kill himself over such a trivial matter. I will never believe that.
Either he never broadcast anything or he never broadcasted anything after the kiss? If it's the second option, then your first sentence is wrong.

A girl living next to me in my dorm in college had a 30 year old male visitor and he slept over frequently. This was against rules. The way to protest this is to complain, not to embarrass someone over their sexuality.

It was a mistake to let him have guests if he felt his only alternative was to humiliate him based on his private activities. I'm sure if given the choice, Mr. Clementi would have preferred to not have the guest than to be spied on.

[broncofan]

Ravi never broadcast anything. As soon as they started to kiss, he turned it off. Ravi's mistake was to let Tyler have guests in the first place. The 30+y/o guy did not belong in a Freshman dorm anyway. This case was pushed by the parents who were seeking revenge. They have sullied the reputation of their son. He may have been a bit of an oddball, but he did not kill himself over such a trivial matter. I will never believe that.
People don't kill themselves for one reason and one reason alone. However, can you say that if he had never been humiliated in such a way he would have definitely killed himself?

[fastingforlife]

People don't kill themselves for one reason and one reason alone. However, can you say that if he had never been humiliated in such a way he would have definitely killed himself?

Ravi never sent the feed from the camera to the internet like was first reported. That is what I meant by broadcast.

I can never be certain about what someone is thinking. But, I feel 99% certain that this "minor" event played no role in Tyler's death. Did you know that after this incident, Tyler asked Ravi if he could have the room again to spend time with his friend? This time his friend put a sheet over the computer.

Ravi thought the guy was shady, so he wanted to keep an eye on his stuff...no big whoop.

[fastingforlife]

Ravi goes to jail over nonsense, and Chambers, who murdered Victoria Carmen White was found not guilty. The jury was not about to put a young man in jail for killing someone they thought was sub-human. Now that is a jury with an anti-trans agenda!

[broncofan]

Ravi never sent the feed from the camera to the internet like was first reported. That is what I meant by broadcast.

I can never be certain about what someone is thinking. But, I feel 99% certain that this "minor" event played no role in Tyler's death. Did you know that after this incident, Tyler asked Ravi if he could have the room again to spend time with his friend? This time his friend put a sheet over the computer.

Ravi thought the guy was shady, so he wanted to keep an eye on his stuff...no big whoop.
I haven't seen any news reports. So nobody else saw the feed of Tyler kissing a man? When I first read the story months ago it sounded like a bunch of college kids gawking at someone who had an intimate male guest. Wasn't there a woman involved who plead guilty? No biggie. You don't have to explain it to me. I'll read about it one of these days. It is true that new facts always come out at trial.

[fastingforlife]

I haven't seen any news reports. So nobody else saw the feed of Tyler kissing a man? When I first read the story months ago it sounded like a bunch of college kids gawking at someone who had an intimate male guest. Wasn't there a woman involved who plead guilty? No biggie. You don't have to explain it to me. I'll read about it one of these days. It is true that new facts always come out at trial.

New Yorker magazine did a very indepth piece a few months back....its worth a read, just for the human interest part.

Ravi did joke about showing it to everyone, the second time the guy showed, but nothing much came of that.

[broncofan]

New Yorker magazine did a very indepth piece a few months back....its worth a read, just for the human interest part.

Ravi did joke about showing it to everyone, the second time the guy showed, but nothing much came of that.
I'll look into it. Thanks.