Sunday, December 19, 2010

Hate Groups: The Post Clouds the Issue

The Washington Post this morning published a piece that misrepresents the concept of hate and the categorization of several anti-gay groups as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The piece opens with the statement:
In the debates over gay marriage, "hate" is the ultimate conversation-stopper. In the gay marriage debate, stop playing the hate card

and then goes on to list three stories of educators or students who took an anti-gay stance and received negative feedback for it. One person was dismissed from his job and reinstated, one was "denounced," and one group was "marginalized" by the college. Woo, those anti-gays sure have it tough.

Then the writer, Matthew J. Franck, comes to his bread-and-butter paragraph:
The Southern Poverty Law Center, a once-respected civil rights organization, publishes a "report" identifying a dozen or so "anti-gay hate groups," some for no apparent reason other than their vocal opposition to same-sex marriage. Other marriage advocacy groups are put on a watch list.

The SPLC has made it very clear, over and over, that nobody was put on their list because of their opposition to same-sex marriage. From the introduction to the report:
Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.

Lies and groundless name-calling. Not "vocal opposition to same-sex marriage."

A little farther down in the Post piece, the author says this:
The SPLC's report on "hate groups" gives the game away. It notes that no group is listed merely for "viewing homosexuality as unbiblical." But when describing standard expressions of Christian teaching, that we must love the sinner while hating the sin, the SPLC treats them as "kinder, gentler language" that only covers up unreasoning hatred for gay people. Christians are free to hold their "biblical" views, you see, but we know that opposition to gay marriage cannot have any basis in reason. Although protected by the Constitution, these religious views must be sequestered from the public square, where reason, as distinguished from faith, must prevail.

Marginalize, privatize, anathematize: These are the successive goals of gay-marriage advocates when it comes to their opponents.

Let's be clear. I have heard Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council speak many times, I have appeared opposite him on television, I have sat in meetings with him, and here is his message: gay people are promiscuous, perverted, disease-carrying pedophiles who want to recruit our children into their lifestyle. He expresses this opinion behind a well-constructed curtain of researchy-sounding terminology, his sentences are well formed, his vocabulary sophisticated, he tends to smile when he speaks and I have never seen him raise his voice. His is the face of hate that the SPLC observed.

We first met Peter Sprigg when he spoke out against a sex-ed curriculum that would introduce the topic of sexual orientation, and he said nothing about marriage equality -- I don't know if I have ever actually seen him address that particular issue. I'm sure he opposes gay people marrying, but that's not what makes him a hater. The truth is, he opposes everything about gay people. He has assembled all the arguments he can find to support the most disgusting stereotype of gay people, and he travels around the country persuading ignorant people that the stereotype is accurate. He spoke in our county (read the transcript HERE), the topic was "myths about homosexuality" and every point he made supported the idea that the nastiest, most hateful stereotype of gay people is absolutely true. And he did not once mention gay people wanting to marry. The SPLC's classification is not based on any group's opinion of marriage equality.

Franck has changed the subject from the classification of certain groups as hate groups to an analysis of the debate for and against gay people marrying. It's kind of fascinating to see how he is going to try to elicit sympathy for the haters, the reader is supposed to agree that they have been wrongfully vilified simply for having traditional Christian beliefs:
First, ignore the arguments of traditional marriage's defenders, that marriage has always existed in order to bring men and women together so that children will have mothers and fathers, and that same-sex marriage is not an expansion but a dismantling of the institution. Instead, assert that no rational arguments along these lines even exist and so no refutation is necessary, and insinuate that those who merely want to defend marriage are "anti-gay thugs" or "theocrats" or "Taliban," as some critics have said.

Second, drive the wedge between faith and reason, chasing traditional religious arguments on marriage and morality underground, as private forms of irrationality.

Finally, decree the victory of the new public morality - here the judges have their role in the liberal strategy - and read the opponents of the new dispensation out of polite society, as the crazed bigots of our day.

First, those arguments against marriage equality do not deserve countering; there is no way in the world that gay people marrying will damage the marriages of straight people or the institution of traditional marriage. It's not that you have to "ignore" the argument or call anyone names over it, it just doesn't make sense.

BTW, I followed his links. The phrase "anti-gay thugs" is used by a commenter in the first article. The commenter then goes on to say, "Personally I think we should have a 'gay gas' that can transform straights into gays. Then we should drop a 'gay bomb' on America and let things develop." So, you have a ... strange person writing that comment, I can't tell how much of it is satire but there is no sign that the author of the article agrees with any of it. The article itself looks at the link between the GOP and an anti-gay group in Arizona, and is pretty good.

The word "theocrat" is used one time in the article The Post says calls people who oppose marriage equality that, even though the site is called "Theocracy Watch." The word is used in a link and not in the text. Also, there is no use of "theocracy," "theocratic," or any other form. The article does not call people who oppose marriage equality "theocrats," Franck is simply hoping you won't do what I did, and follow the link.

And the third link is a post by Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos, author of American Taliban, talking about the similarities between the rabid religious right in our country and the Taliban. There is a quoted comment that mentions same-sex marriage, but Kos never says anything about it. He certainly is not saying that everyone who opposes marriage equality is like the Taliban. Post editors should have clicked on the links before they allowed this piece of propaganda to go out to the public.

As for his second point, that opposition to marriage equality is seen as irrational, if some religious group chose not to allow marriage between individuals of the same sex, nobody would care. It is not a question of the irrationality of the belief, it is a question of trying to get people who are not members of that religious faith to abide by their system of taboos. Some religious groups don't eat ham, which I think is delicious; I don't care if they eat it or not, it's their business. I do not judge whether the belief is rational or irrational. I would care very much though if they tried to make it illegal for me to eat ham. And that is exactly what the Christian right is doing to gay people, making it illegal to marry the person they love whether you are a member of their church or not.

His final point, about the "new public morality," might have a kernel of truth to it. There is a new public morality. Gay people have done a really good job of opening up to the world and letting the rest of us see that they are just people, not so different from us. Fifty years ago they had to be secretive about their orientation, and now most people understand the simple fact that some people are attracted to people of their own sex. It's not a big deal, it turns out, it doesn't hurt anything if some people are gay or lesbian, but not many years ago it was a secretive, mysterious thing that most straight people knew nothing about. Now, people who continue to propagate to the old-fashioned stereotypes in spite of obvious truth are, indeed, viewed as the "crazed bigots of our day." Because that's what they are.

This article presents a false idea and then argues against it. Franck alleges that the SPLC classified some groups as hate groups because they oppose same-sex marriage, and that is simply not true. If his premise had been correct, then the article might have been worth reading, I would agree that holding an opinion and hating are two different things, and that it would not be nice to classify someone as a hater just because they don't think gay people should marry. But that isn't what the SPLC said.

I'm sorry to see The Post headed this way. This piece does not clarify any issue but only confuses readers who might not be following the culture wars as closely as we are. The SPLC had very good reasons for designating those anti-gay organizations as hate groups.

26 Comments:

Blogger Emproph said...

JimK “I'm sorry to see The Post headed this way.”

Touché

Matthew J. Franck: “Although protected by the Constitution, these religious views must be sequestered…”

Your Constitutional religious protections end where those religious "views" actively deny those same protections to other American citizens.

"Hate" cannot be permitted to be the conversation stopper in the same-sex marriage debate.”

Defining my Constitutional rights as debatable is the hatred, dear.

“On a left-wing Web site, a petition drive succeeds in pressuring Apple to drop an "app" from its iTunes store for the Manhattan Declaration, an ecumenical Christian statement whose nearly half-million signers are united in defense of ... marriage between man and woman ... The offense? The app is a "hate fest."

I autopsied the Manhattan Declaration’s statement on marriage some time back and it is indeed just another gussied up hate fest:

M.D. “it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships? No.”

As usual, I was left to conclude one or more of the following:

1. They know these arguments are bogus and are fully aware that they are lying.
2. They just don't care about the truth.
3. They really are that stupid.

December 19, 2010 9:28 PM  
Anonymous grantdale said...

This article presents a false idea and then argues against it.

And that, of course, is exactly what FRC does about gay men and women. They create an image based on false stereotype, and then they argue against what isn't true in the first place.

They do it to such a revolting and obvious extent that they can be properly regarded as deliberately malevolent. Hence the inclusion as a hate group by the SPLC.

If the SPLC included anyone simply because they 'oppose' gay couples being able to marry ... that list would be 5 miles long. It isn't.

ps: I suppose I'd better do this now (before I forget) and give everyone here at Teach the Facts our very best wishes for the Season. We hope that 2011 proves to be a happy, healthy and prosperous one for you and yours. Cheers everyone!

December 19, 2010 9:28 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Happy holidays everyone.

December 19, 2010 9:38 PM  
Anonymous parteeee! said...

WTH

Priya's back?

This should be fun!!

She's almost as valuable to pro-family side as improv and Robert put together:

"WASHINGTON -- The 2010 census report coming out Tuesday will include a boatload of good political news for Republicans and grim data for Democrats.

The population continues to shift from Democratic-leaning states to Republican-leaning states, a trend the Census Bureau will detail in its once-a-decade report to the president. Political clout shifts, too, because the nation must reapportion the 435 House districts to make them roughly equal in population, based on the latest census figures.

The biggest gainer will be Texas, a GOP-dominated state expected to gain up to four new House seats, for a total of 36. The chief losers - New York and Ohio, each projected by nongovernment analysts to lose two seats - were carried by Obama in 2008 and are typical of states in the Northeast and Midwest that are declining in political influence.

Democrats' problems don't end there.

November's elections put Republicans in control of dozens of state legislatures and governorships, just as states prepare to redraw their congressional and legislative district maps. It's often a brutally partisan process, and Republicans' control in those states will enable them to create new districts to their liking.

The combination of population shifts and the recent election results will make Obama's re-election campaign more difficult. Each House seat represents an electoral vote in the presidential election process. That sets a higher bar for Obama before his re-election campaign even starts.

Republicans now control the governor's offices and both legislative chambers in competitive presidential states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Indiana, Maine and Wisconsin. They hold the governors' chairs in other crucial states, including Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia and Iowa."

December 19, 2010 10:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Southern Poverty Law Center, a once-respected civil rights organization"

well-judged

the SPLC has now tainted itself by contributing to the gay agenda

it likely won't recover

the Post piece is an insightful piece of journalism

"people who continue to propagate to the old-fashioned stereotypes in spite of obvious truth are, indeed, viewed as the "crazed bigots of our day." Because that's what they are."

viewed by who?

let us know when you succeed in getting one state's electorate to support gay "marriage"

"I would agree that holding an opinion and hating are two different things, and that it would not be nice to classify someone as a hater just because they don't think gay people should marry."

so, they have an opinion different from yours as long as they don't state any reason for having it- then, they are haters

brilliant tactic

December 19, 2010 11:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow!

when the Washington Post, one of the major newspapers in America, says you were "once respected," you're in trouble

December 19, 2010 11:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Your Constitutional religious protections end where those religious "views" actively deny those same protections to other American citizens."

all Americans have the same rights

no one has the right to redefine marriage to include deviant relationships

"Defining my Constitutional rights as debatable is the hatred, dear."

if you want to create a new one, you'll have to debate

that's what the Founding Fathers did

it's not surprising you want to avoid a debate though

every state that has considered and debated gay "marriage" has declined to approve it

defining marriage however you want is apparently not a right Americans wish to endorse

December 20, 2010 12:25 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon noted:

“no one has the right to redefine marriage to include deviant relationships”

There is no effort afoot to stop deviant heterosexuals from marrying. No one interviews them before hand to check for that kind of thing. They really should. It could spare a lot of women some very abusive boyfriends and the lives of a number of small children. If you’re not going to stop deviant heterosexuals from marrying, there’s little ground for arguing that homosexuals shouldn’t marry. Heterosexual polygamist marry all the time, but they only tell the US government about their first marriage, so they can collect foodstamps and welfare payments for “single” mothers with lots of children. They call it “bleeding the beast.” US authorities have done very little to stop it, despite the fact that most of these “wives” are married off at 14 years old. So it essentially amounts to state sanctioned pedophilia. How come the “pro-family” groups aren’t up in arms about this?

Oh yeah, because they’re too busy putting out fake statistics about how damaging the “gays” are.

And, by the way, you have no right to define all the relationships between consenting gay adults as deviant… no matter how much your religion, friends, or parents have brainwashed you. I’m sure you THINK you do, but you don’t. You simply don’t.

The biggest “redefiner” of marriage was a flaming heterosexual by the name of King Henry the VIII. He redefined marriage from “the person you’ve committed before God to spend the rest of your life with” to “… the latest person I decided I wanted to shack up with.” He even started his own new church to promote the concept. Marriage hasn’t been the same since. If you want to keep marriage sacred, you’ve got to go back a few steps, and fix it within the heterosexual community first.


Have a nice day,

Cynthia

December 20, 2010 1:12 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

WAPO: “Marginalize, privatize, anathematize: These are the successive goals of gay-marriage advocates when it comes to their opponents.”

As well they should be.

December 20, 2010 2:42 AM  
Blogger Steve said...

Gay Marriage: Why I speak out
http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/gay-marriage-why-i-speak-out/

December 20, 2010 6:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sooo intolerant of other’s viewpoint if they disagree with you. In calling the other person a hater ==you loose the argument and paint yourself as a bully.

December 20, 2010 2:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous"
"Sooo intolerant of other’s viewpoint if they disagree with you.

An excellent example of "The pot calling the kettle black"!

December 20, 2010 4:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There is no effort afoot to stop deviant heterosexuals from marrying. No one interviews them before hand to check for that kind of thing. They really should. It could spare a lot of women some very abusive boyfriends and the lives of a number of small children."

actually, most conservative Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic church, as well, require premarital programs where the couple is asked lots of questions before the church will marry them

"If you’re not going to stop deviant heterosexuals from marrying, there’s little ground for arguing that homosexuals shouldn’t marry."

except that homosexuality is intrinsically deviant whereas any deviance among heterosexuals would not be their heterosexuality

"Heterosexual polygamist marry all the time, but they only tell the US government about their first marriage, so they can collect foodstamps and welfare payments for “single” mothers with lots of children. They call it “bleeding the beast.” US authorities have done very little to stop it, despite the fact that most of these “wives” are married off at 14 years old. So it essentially amounts to state sanctioned pedophilia. How come the “pro-family” groups aren’t up in arms about this?"

now, you're getting wacky

get a dirty blanket and a cardboard sign and sit in Lafayette Park to tell the world your "views"

"Oh yeah, because they’re too busy putting out fake statistics about how damaging the “gays” are."

how do these statistics damage gays?

by making them look bad?

hahahahahaha!

"And, by the way, you have no right to define all the relationships between consenting gay adults as deviant… no matter how much your religion, friends, or parents have brainwashed you. I’m sure you THINK you do, but you don’t. You simply don’t."

thanks for making it simple

as usual, gays think free speech is not a right

"The biggest “redefiner” of marriage was a flaming heterosexual by the name of King Henry the VIII. He redefined marriage from “the person you’ve committed before God to spend the rest of your life with” to “… the latest person I decided I wanted to shack up with.” He even started his own new church to promote the concept. Marriage hasn’t been the same since. If you want to keep marriage sacred, you’ve got to go back a few steps, and fix it within the heterosexual community first."

a fascinating tale but I don't think we can blame Mr. VIII for the current state of marriage

currently, it is under attack by gays

December 20, 2010 6:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For the American gay rights movement, this is the big question that follows Saturday's repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy by the lame duck Congress.

Is the Senate vote the end of one struggle or a turning point for many others?

Activists are hoping that the repeal - which will allow gays to serve openly in the U.S. military - gives them significant new leverage. For the first time they can argue that if the Army trusts gay men and women with rifles, why shouldn't society trust them with wedding rings?

(oh yeah, makes a lot of sense)

But analysts say the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," was a near-perfect issue for gay activists. Its standard-bearers were proven patriots, and they were asking only for the government to be indifferent to their sexual orientations, not to certify them. The movement's upcoming fights, centered on gay marriage and anti-discrimination laws, will be on more difficult ground.

Said George Chauncey, a professor who studies gay and lesbian history at Yale University. "Let's note that it took 17 years to overcome 'don't ask, don't tell.' "

"That's not a sign of gay political power but of continuing gay political weakness," Chauncey said.

At the same time, the right to marry - an important cause to many of these gay groups - has regularly been denied. Thirty states have amended their constitutions to bar same-sex marriage. In 2008, California voters struck down gay-marriage statutes already on the books, and the same happened the next year in Maine. In November, Iowa voters ousted three state Supreme Court judges who had ruled in favor of gay unions.

The conservative Family Research Council opposes gay marriage, senior fellow Peter Sprigg said, because "it ceases to send the crucial social message that marriage sends now, which is that opposite-sex sexual relationships are important, they are unique."

Sprigg said his group believes that the public still sees these debates in a different light than it views the question of repealing "don't ask, don't tell."

The repeal debate, he said, seemed to be about giving gay people a right that everyone else has. But Sprigg said the question of gay marriage asks voters to take a bigger leap.

"Allowing a homosexual to serve in the military does not change the definition of what a soldier is, or what the military is," Sprigg said. But, he said, allowing gays to marry would "change the definition of what marriage is. To legalize same-sex marriage is to officially affirm and celebrate homosexual relationships. And that's a step that I don't think the American public is ready to make."

The next battle over gay marriage may take place in New Hampshire, where Republicans took control of both houses of the state legislature in November. Conservatives there say they plan to push for a repeal of that state's gay-marriage law.

The gay "marriage" idea has been kicking around Congress since the 1970s, and few think the new members of the Republican House majority will be the ones to put it over the top.

In other words, the gay agenda has likely had its last victory for a long time to come.

December 20, 2010 9:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

December 20, 2010 9:25 PM  
Anonymous slippery said...

To social conservatives, DADT's demise is a collapse of values. It's an abandonment of "character," an attempt at "reshaping social attitudes regarding human sexuality" that would "destroy the military's moral backbone." A focus group participant sums up their fear: "People view the military as the last bastion of morals and what is good. If we break that down here … What's left?" The initial worry of these groups, bolstered by the military's report on repealing DADT, is that straight, unmarried personnel will demand the same partner benefits accorded to gays.

Conservatives point to the slippery slope from homosexuality to anything-goes. Many of the arguments for repealing DADT, coupled with ongoing efforts to reform military sex laws, do point in that direction. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif, told her colleagues that after repealing DADT, "there is more work we have to do on this whole issue. There is still a lot of unfairness in our laws—partners not being able to have the same rights as married couples. That is another whole issue we will work on."

The distinction between marriage and partnership isn't the only institution being challenged. Technically, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts-Martial prohibit sodomy, bigamy, adultery, "wrongful" cohabitation, and incest. Reformers are trying to repeal them.

If sodomy and adultery laws are repealed on the grounds that consensual sex is private, it's hard to explain why the reform shouldn't extend to other laws. What about bigamy and incest? The "polyamory community," claiming support from the ACLU, accuses the military of persecuting polyamorous troops. A Web site dedicated to "Full Marriage Equality" calls on supporters of the DADT repeal to consider:

"the men and women who risked their lives (and those who gave them) and endured so many things in service to their country, who haven't been free to be who they really are and share their lives openly with the person or persons they love. Shouldn't someone who risked their life for this county be able to marry someone of the same sex, or more than one person, or a biological relative? Or at least share a life with the person(s) he or she loves without a fear that their own government will be against them? Is bravery and valor negated if a man loves another man, or his long lost sister?"

It's a serious question. If DADT repealers are correct that sex is a matter of personal liberty and it doesn't matter "who you love," why shouldn't that defense cover polyamory and sibling couples? Switzerland is proposing to drop its incest law on exactly this basis.

The military has a very strict code of conduct … Everybody in the military must adhere to it. So, clearly, homosexuals in the military, when they misbehave in a sexual way, are going to be punished. Improper homosexual behavior will not be tolerated.

December 20, 2010 11:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon is very eloquently explaining that conservatives cannot deal with the concept of freedom.

December 20, 2010 11:12 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Steve: "Gay Marriage: Why I speak out"

From your article, you quote:

“the dissolution rate of homosexual couples was more than three times that of heterosexual married couples, and the dissolution rate of lesbian couples was more than four-fold that of heterosexual married couples” (JMF)

That quote was lifted directly from the Family Research Council (FRC) (or some other “family” group), who’s source was:

Lawrence Kurdek, "Are Gay and Lesbian Cohabiting Couples Really Different from Heterosexual Married Couples?" Journal of Marriage and Family 66 (November 2004): 893.

Here’s part of the author’s summation of his own study:

Lawrence Kurdek: “For 50% of the comparisons, gay and lesbian partners did not differ from heterosexual partners.

Seventy-eight percent of the comparisons on which differences were found indicated that gay or lesbian partners functioned better than heterosexual partners did.

I conclude that the processes that regulate relationship functioning generalize across gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples.”
--
From the American Psychological Association’s use of his [Lawrence Kurdek] studies:

APA: “…the evidence clearly supports the position that the social stigma, prejudice, discrimination, and violence associated with not having a heterosexual sexual orientation and the hostile and stressful social environments created thereby adversely affect the psychological, physical, social, and economic well-being of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals.

…research indicates that ... many lesbians and gay men have formed durable relationships.

… Researchers (e.g., Kurdek, in press) have also speculated that the stability of same-sex couples would be enhanced if partners from same-sex couples enjoyed the same levels of social support and public recognition of their relationships as partners from heterosexual couples do.

…research has found that ... relationship stability are remarkably similar for both same-sex cohabiting couples and heterosexual married couples (Kurdek, 2001, in press).”
---
So, in their effort to show that same-sex relationships are inherently dysfunctional, the FRC used a scientist who’s studies show that organizations like the FRC are detrimental to same-sex relationships.
---
Pastor, the quotes you used were OBVIOUSLY taken out of context. Had you done the slightest bit of research you would have discovered that.

Instead you exploited the real pain of others to register complaint about being labeled hateful.

COMPLAINT REGISTERED.
--
That study also says that violence among whites is several percent less than that of mixed races. [33]

Tell me pastor, at what percentage point are we to deny an entire race of the right to wed?

December 21, 2010 7:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

actually, the article was from Salon, a generally liberal site

so you agree that polygamists and those involved with incestuous relationships should be protected from discrimination by the military? the service shouldn't interfere with their freedom to do as they please?

because the writer of the article says that is what flows from the logic of the DADT repeal

December 21, 2010 8:48 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Was this a Post article or an editorial? What has happened to the Post? Are they modelling themselves after the New York Post? This doesn't come across as news.

December 21, 2010 5:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon...
Free speech and action are two different things. You are without a doubt in favor of taking action against GLBT people. Trying to hide behind a right, which by the way, has a concomitant responsibility that goes along with this right, does not protect you from criticism of your views, even when they are psychotic.

December 21, 2010 5:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gay advocates win victory at U.N.
"Gay people are a minority group in need of special protection from unjustified killings," revised resolution says
BY ASSOCIATED PRESS

U.N. member states have restored a reference to sexual orientation that was dropped amid much controversy last month from a resolution opposing the unjustified killing of minority groups.

The removal of the reference, done at the committee level last month, alarmed human rights advocates who said gay people are among minority groups that need special protection from extrajudicial and other unjustified killings.

The assembly on Tuesday voted 93 in favor of the United States' proposal to restore the previous language, with 55 countries against and 27 abstaining. The assembly then approved the amended resolution 122 in favor, with 0 votes against, and 59 abstentions.

December 21, 2010 8:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Was this a Post article or an editorial?"

It was an article. It was factual and objective not opinionated.

"This doesn't come across as news."

Much of it was apparently news to TTF.

"Free speech and action are two different things. You are without a doubt in favor of taking action against GLBT people."

Well, I generally only favor free speech.

The only actions I would favor for gays is to jail them and interrogate them.

"Trying to hide behind a right, which by the way, has a concomitant responsibility that goes along with this right, does not protect you from criticism of your views, even when they are psychotic."

my, doesn't that sound civilized

as a matter of fact, Cinco said I had "no right" to define gay relationships as deviant

I do have that right

it would be upheld by any court in the land

doesn't come with any "concomitant" responsibilities

"Gay advocates win victory at U.N."

wow!

a victory at such a influential and sensible organization

they're almost as big as the Nobel Committee was before they gave prizes to Al Gore and Barry Obama

they're almost as big as the SPLC was before they named Focus on the Family a hate group

they're almost as big as Bill Cliton was before he let gays in the military

what do they do again?

btw, word is tonight that the resolution passed Saturday by the Senate is improperly worded

technically, it repeals DADT but merely returns us to the situation before DADT was concocted by Bill Clinton:

the military was free to oust gays under any circumstances

too late to fix it

oh well

December 21, 2010 10:31 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

"The only actions I would favor for gays is to jail them and interrogate them."

Anonymous is a hate group all by herself.

BTW, darling, you're right about the repeal returning the policy to the situation ante. The difference is the commitment on the part of the top brass to change the UCMJ.

December 22, 2010 5:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert, you've been reading this stuff long enough to know I was joking about jailing and interrogation. I was responding to the moron who wrote this:

"You are without a doubt in favor of taking action against GLBT people"

I have long advocated libertarianism concerning homosexual behavior.

My only concern is about having the government institute and maintain policies to encourage and defend homosexuality.

Schools should teach all the facts about the history and viewpoints of various cultures about homosexuality and about the consequences of the activities of the homosexual community in the U.S.

Governments shouldn't redefine marriage as a way to endorse homosexual relationships.

The military shouldn't be forced to hire homosexuals if they aren't compatible with military service.

"The difference is the commitment on the part of the top brass to change the UCMJ."

there isn't uniformity and those who favor changes likely are simply supporting the current Commander-in-Chief

things aren't going to be that easy and come 2013, we'll have a new Commander-in-Chief

December 22, 2010 8:49 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

"Schools should teach all the facts about the history and viewpoints of various cultures about homosexuality and about the consequences of the activities of the homosexual community in the U.S."

What you really mean is that when schools say lgbt people are OK, they should also teach that some people think queer people are abominable. Sorry, my friend, that belongs in Sunday School, not public school.

Would such a sentiment lead the SPLC to label you as a hate group? Would that violate your right to freedom of religion?

Youre libertarianism is the libertarianism of those in power to oppress those who aren't. This is kind of the libertarianism of the middle ages, when governments did almost nothing. I don't think it's acceptable in a civilized society. Yielding permission to those with power is cowardice, not political thought; it's where extreme libertarianism (rf. Ron Paul) fails as a philosophy.

December 22, 2010 2:57 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home