Queer Cabal Confirmed
Rich gay philanthropists secretly coordinating donations to tip statehouse races away from bigots. Man, the rightwing loonies are going to love this.
Gill and Trimpa decided to eschew national races in favor of state and local ones, which could be influenced in large batches and for much less money. Most antigay measures, they discovered, originate in state legislatures. Operating at that level gave them a chance to “punish the wicked,” as Gill puts it–to snuff out rising politicians who were building their careers on antigay policies, before they could achieve national influence. Their chief cautionary example of such a villain is Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who once compared homosexuality to “man on dog” sex (and was finally defeated last year, at a cost of more than $20 million). Santorum got his start working in the state legislature. As Gill and Trimpa looked at their evolving plan, it seemed realistic. “The strategic piece of the puzzle we’d been missing–consistent across almost every legislature we examined–is that it’s often just a handful of people, two or three, who introduce the most outrageous legislation and force the rest of their colleagues to vote on it,” Gill explained. “If you could reach these few people or neutralize them by flipping the chamber to leaders who would block bad legislation, you’d have a dramatic effect.”
…
With that in mind, he assembled a bipartisan team of political operatives and tested his theory in 2004, quietly targeting three antigay Colorado incumbents; two of them went down. Through the combined efforts of a host of progressive interest groups, including many supported by Gill, Democrats captured both chambers of the legislature for the first time in forty years.
February 15th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Seems like an effective strategy.
I wonder if we can get smart people like that working on our agenda….
February 15th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
As far as I can tell these people *are* working on my agenda, or at least a portion of it. Who could possibly oppose defeating bigots when they’re still gnatty little things?
February 15th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
I think they need to do something like that in Oregon, where their state legislature is run by the most rabid anti-gun minority of the bunch. Argh!
February 15th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
All I know is it’s time to nuke the pinko gay whales for Jesus. Get on it.
February 15th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
I guess I am anti gay. I don’t care for men, never did. I like women, though. I don’t understand homosexuality, but since I am not a player I don’t suppose it is important that I do so.
By the same token I am violently and virulently opposed to someone telling me I must support homosexuality as a normal alternate lifestyle. It is alternate, but it is not equivalent to heterosexuality. Here again, I don’t believe it to be my business what you do or don’t if you don’t interfere with what I do or don’t.
I have noticed though that that position gets me labeled as a bigot. Funny how that works, isn’t it? I exhibit tolerance for those who practice it, but do not accept it for myself nor believe it to be normal. Those who practice it, not all, but most, exhibit not one whit of tolerance for my belief, but still want me to not interfere with their preferences, while they demand I state acceptance of positions in opposition to my own.
I have a gay son, I still love him. I wish he weren’t gay. I will always wish it. I will always love him, though he doesn’t love me, and that has nothing to do with him being gay or me not. In view of all this I am damn sick and tired of some asshole telling me I am a bigot because I find his sexual preference repellant. I do. I don’t apologize for it. I don’t have nor have I ever thought I had any right to interfere with another’s life so long as it wasn’t pushed on me. The pushers are the gay folks I hate. But I would hate them no more than any other pusher.
If that makes me a bigot, what does it make those that won’t accept tolerance from me while granting me none unless I parrot the party line.
February 15th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Straightarrow, disfavoring certain minorities because you find them “repellant” is the hallmark of bigotry. It’s nice that you try to live and let live (and, really, that’s probably the most important thing), but until you deal with your strange repulsion issues, yeah, you’re a bigot. If you disagree, then perhaps your definition of bigotry differs from mine.
Anyway, I hope relations between you and your son improve. I’m sort of wondering if you’ve told him you wish he weren’t gay, and how he feels about that.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
I guess the point is that people’s personal aversions to the lifestyles of others shouldn’t be used to make public policy. If privately you don’t like someone’s choices…then great, don’t choose such things for yourself.
The hallmark of freedom itself is freely and unjudgmentally letting people make choices you wouldn’t make for yourself.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Oh, and FWIW, I really don’t mind that you find his choice of partners repellant. Where you get into trouble is making value judgments like “it’s not equivalent.” Individual relationships are their own rewards and fundamentally private issues between consenting adults, and your judgment that it’s not “equivalent” is irrelevant and pointlessly condescending.
From your son’s point of view, the inferior relationship would be the one that makes him less happy than his personal preference. Why should someone change their preference to make some OTHER person happy?
February 15th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
“two of them went down.” – Nice metaphor, Huggar.
This is an issue where Republicans can really shoot themselves in the foot (or go down).
I am conservative on almost every issue and regard myself as a devout and practicing Christian.
Nonetheless, the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, and I don’t do it. Not for that reason, of course, but I don’t do it.
If someone else wants to do it, that is between him or her and God, not me.
End of discussion.
If someone else wants to, I don’t care one bit.
I am going to a party this weekend that is hosted by a gay couple, and I plan on having another gay couple at my birthday (I ain’t sayin’ which one) party in a couple of months.
For that matter, the Bible also condemns masturbation, but I have yet to hear someone masquerade as if he or she doesn’t engage in (or has never done) it.
This issue only drives people away who may otherwise support a candidate, kind of like the gun issue with Democrats.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Brutal, tossing out the phrase “bigots” helps no one. Like the word homophobic, it only tells people that they are a thing. Other than the emotional connection to the word bigot (which is quickly becoming Godwinian in utility), the word gives no reason to change one’s actual political and social views regarding a subject despite their feelings. Because it also provides an excuse for many individuals — who can either believe that prejudices experienced by a vast majority of the population can not be bigotry under the classical definition, or who now can state they merely have an innate psychological response — this statement can be actively harmful, never mind simply being disruptive and foolish in a conventional debate.
Sebastian, calling things equivalent when they’re fundamentally and obviously different won’t make your argument any stronger. Moreover, our society is based upon many, many rules that depend on whether we all find certain things to be equivalent or not, and that means individual feelings on the matter are relevant regardless of whether they can be considered offensive. Exposure to a pipeful of tobacco smoke might be equivalent to exposure to X amount of Y cleaning fumes. Public library records might be equivalent to public knowledge of access to a explosives’ encyclopedias. Or they might not.
I can think of absolutely no intrinsic reason to punish those who are cruel to non-human mammals. They own the animal, they are the only ones that have to deal with the immediate side effects, et cetera (and without prohibitions against such acts, it’s unreasonable to assume a link between such cruelty and other crimes anymore than a link between cruelty to cockroaches and to humans). I still find it very easy to prohibit merely by finding it offensive, and the relatively minimal concerns to the opposite side (too much government intervention, possible confrontations between the repulsion effect and human need for protein/animal labor) are not particularly valid or noteworthy in the circumstances where I find prohibiting animal cruelty.
Don’t try handwaving away repulsion — explain why it’s not worth getting in the way of a valid relationship, or that a valid relationship can easily occur without getting slobbery gay cooties all over you.
As to the rest… I expect the cabal to find themselves facing a strike-back soon. While you can easily make minor shifts in policy by affecting the debate itself, constantly attempting to push a subject too far without changing the public’s opinion almost always ensures the subject snaps back the other way. The might very well take out every major Republican and Democrat that goes against progay laws, but they might as likely end up scaring the populace (which would quickly be confronted with many progay laws that as a majority they might not support) and as a result, end up doing more harm than good.
I prefer the bisexual agenda : screw it.
February 16th, 2007 at 12:02 am
Chris, first of all, the bible’s ‘prohibition’ against masturbation is less than well-written. Onan’s fate was tied as much to the violation of a direct law (to continue the family line after his brother’s death) than anything else. The majority of Catholic viewpoints on the matter of masturbation and/or coitus interruptus exist not due to expressed law but rather merely the requirement for procreation to fulfill a specific covenant. There’s a reason this is such a matter of debate even inside the churches — I dunno about you, but for most folk, masturbation doesn’t really seem to kill off the urge to procreate.
A more relevant viewpoint would be the Levitican prohibition on [url=http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Lev.+11%3A9-12&KJV_version=yes&language=english]shellfish[/url] or [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%206:9-11&version=31]alcohol[/url]/.
February 16th, 2007 at 1:25 am
Then I guess I am a bigot. A vote has been taken. However, as I said before, I find it odd that no tolerance for my feelings or beliefs on the issue make you enlightened, while my tolerance for the gay community though not acceptance of their lifestyle for myself makes me a bigot. You’re goddamned sure right that our definitions of bigotry are different.
My son doesn’t know I know he is gay. He has chosen not to tell me, and I have chosen not to burden him with my outlook on it. I hope he is happy. Bigots assume I don’t understand the deep emotional and spiritual love a couple can have for each other because I don’t think the union between them is the same as the union between me and my wife. It is not. Period. Let me know the next time a gay couple impregnate each other and raise their blood children without outside contributors. Until then there is not equivalence. Maybe not even then. Marriage is a religious institution. Whether you like it or not that is so. State approved marriage is nothing more than policy as regards taxes, inheritance, and other legal considerations inherent in a contract. People were getting married for centuries before governments started regulating it. What the state does is force a contract when a marriage takes place. right wrong or indifferent that is what marriage is from a governmental view, a contract. An entirely separate thing from the custom of marriage, though the name “marriage” is retained.
To my knowledge there aren’t any religions that approve homosexual marriage. I don’t care. For the very same reason I don’t care if the state approves my marriage to my wife. It is only the business of the people involved.
Ok, if I am a bigot because I find homosexual sex and marriage for me personally repellent, does that not make homosexuals bigots for eschewing heterosexual sex?
You can’t have it both fucking ways. If I am a bigot because it is not for me, then gays are bigots because my lifestyle is not for them. Or hypocrites just seeking political and economic advantage. Make a decision which you are, because I want that answered.
Some here have assumed that sensitivity, courtesy, consideration, respect, and humanity due any human being, is beyond the abilities or proclivities of heterosexuals when dealing with people they know to be homosexual. That assumption, itself, is bigotry.
I am not going to go into a list of gay friends. It is disrespectful of our friendships, since in every case, their sexuality nor mine have a damn thing to do with the friendships. Respect for character and integrity do. Guess what? They aren’t insulted that I hold my views personally, nor am I insulted that they do it differently.
Perhaps we are more mature than most who posted here. We don’t feel the need to force each other walk in lockstep.
February 16th, 2007 at 4:23 am
I didn’t say they are equivalent; I said that SA’s arbitrary position that they aren’t or that his opinion that one particular lifestyle indicates a personality defect or ethical fiber failing or in some other way represents some sort of intellectual and social inferiority isn’t particularly healthy an attitude.
In short, I’m simply pointing out that it isn’t SA’s place to judge what anyone else does in the bedroom in the first place. Frankly I’m not sure how you misread what I was saying, it was pretty obvious.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Thanks, Gattsuru.
I had almost 10 years of all boy Catholic school, but, at this point, I am quite rusty on my Old Testament.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:56 am
I don’t dig use of the term bigot either because, frankly, it’s tossed around too much. I don’t even like the term when we pro-gunnies use gun bigot.
That said, repellent is an interesting term too. I personally am repelled by homosexual men to the extent that I don’t want to witness any PDAs by them. By the same token, I don’t generally want to see PDAs by hetero couples either.
Not sure if that’s what arrow meant or not.
Two chicks, however, i have no problem with.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:43 am
I think that’s kinda what I’m saying; from a private thoughts point of view, every person is entitled to think whatever they like about anybody else’s chosen mate. Frankly seeing Justin Timberlake next to Jessica Biel pisses me off wayyyyyy more than any two dudes making out ever could.
I don’t really have a problem with people not liking homosexuality per se. I do have a problem with people who in turn use their aversion to it as a basis for suggesting public policy.
February 16th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Marriage is both a religious and a political institution. The marriage discrimination problem is largely a result of widespread refusal to separate the two. If your church wants to be all discriminatory about who it marries, that’s your business, and I pity you. It doesn’t bother me much, even if I think it’s stupid. The point where I get upset is when people want government to conform political marriage (i.e. the provision of certain rights, privileges and responsibilities) to their own weird sense of discomfort at the thought of men kissing.
February 16th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
A much more eloquent rendition of what I was trying to say, BH. Well done.
February 16th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Uncle:
I personally am repelled by homosexual men to the extent that I don’t want to witness any PDAs by them. By the same token, I don’t generally want to see PDAs by hetero couples either.
That’s pretty much how I feel about it. I’m not anti-gay, I’m anti-PDA.
Two chicks, however, i have no problem with.
That depends a great deal upon which two chicks. Ellen & k.d.lang?
February 16th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
I agree with most of what SA says. I think “marriage” is a religious term. I think “contract” is a legal term. I think the two should be differentiated.
What I agree most with is that a person who insists that their way of life – while different than mine – must be recognized as “equal” to mine is also a bigot.
Also, I don’t have any objections to PDA’s. I used to be squeamish about male-male, but I got over it.
Back to the topic, however, is the process of acting against politicians who are against my political leanings. I think we could learn a lesson and expand upon the process of how our politicians are selected and elected. I think – as a movement – we need to promote more representatives who are not just _defending_ the 2nd Amendment, but are actively *promoting* it. By way of comparison, many people “promote” free speech and freedom of association and freedom of religion. But on the guns and arms issues, we are still in the process of “defending” our right. We need to shift from defense to offense. We need representatives who openly & proudly introduce legislation to restore our rights wrt the 2A. We need media organs who are actively promoting the positive effects of 2A-related actions. One way that shift will occur is if we actively depose politicians who will not promote our rights.
February 16th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
SA, we could at least respect you if you’d be honest about your prejudices. Sayeth you:
and
Pretty clearly if you don’t think it’s normal, you must think it’s…not normal? Abnormal? If it’s not “normal”, then you must be saying it’s something else. What then is it? What is normal anyway?
As for equivalent vs. non-equivalent NOT being some sort of smear…gimme a fuckin break dude.
Imagine if you’re at the car dealership and you ask if the F150 stacks up to the new Tundra, and the Ford dealer mumbles something about it being alternate, but not equivalent. Pretty clearly you’d be implying it’s missing out on something or otherwise deficient. Like it or not, you ARE using the same language that bigots do use. Just man up and admit it and quit pissing down our necks and calling it rain.
If not being equivalent isn’t supposed to be derogatory and denigrating, then just what does it mean?
February 16th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
It means it is not normal. That is what it means. You man up and admit you have an agenda of bending others to your will. I don’t. Einstein fell outside the norm. He wasn’t normal. Charles Manson fell outside the norm. He wasn’t normal either. I would definitely say one of those men was deficient, while one was not. Using your argument, either they are both acceptable or they are both unacceptable and they are both normal. Horseshit, give me a break. You can’t be that dense. I’ve read too much of your stuff to think you are that logically impaired.
Normal, look it up. I think you would do better to learn what words mean, rather than what you want them to mean, so you may feel morally superior. Well, man up and get a dictionary.
A fucking break won’t help you. You have an emotional investment in this I don’t have. Direct your anger at those that would do the things you falsely accuse me of.
Your statements about public policy, where did I advocate any such thing in regards to this subjec?. Where did I say it was anybody’s business but the people involved? The dishonesty isn’t on my side. You have to make assumptions in order to argue against positions I don’t hold. That is dishonest. I don’t know what your emotional investment in this is and I don’t give a shit. But don’t you fucking dare misrepresent my position again so you may call be names and disparage my character.
If you don’t like what the words mean, invent new ones and get widespread acceptance for their use. Don’t redefine what the settled meaning of words already existing are so that you feelings are soothed.
As I made perfectly clear I don’t have a problem with gay people unless they insist I be gay too. The pushers, remember. I don’t tell them what they should do. I don’t advocate anyone else telling them what they should do. By the same token I demand that same respect for me. Don’t tell me what I should do or you will call me names and try to marginalize me. I didn’t do it ot you.
Admit you are a bigot. I wouldn’t have thought so. But you have caused to have to examine that possibility. I am supposed to say what you want me to, believe what you want me to, even if we must change the meaning of words, and I am to have no volition of my own as regards this subject despite the fact that I push no such requirements on anyone. I would say you are the bigot if that causes the hatred you seem to have for me because I don’t want to have sex with a man. What the fuck is that? I don’t feel that way about you. I don’t know if you’re gay, again, I don’t care. What I do care about and has made me angry is your attitude that I must be evil or petty or of bad character because I don’t bow to your opinion of what mine should be.
You would deny me the freedom to be the way I am, even though, I wouldn’t do that to you or anyone else. And you think I’m the bigot? That’s just too rich.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Brutal Hugger I did not say I found them repellant. I said I found homosexual sex repellant. I don’t know if the obverse is true, but I would assume gay people find heterosexual sex repellant, else they probably wouldn’t be gay, would they?
But of course, you social engineers must misrepresent what I said, since what I did say not only isn’t necessarily wrong, at least, for me, others’ mileage may vary, but is also nonjudgmental regarding the character and worth of the individuals that have other priorities and passions.
How strong can your argument be if you must engage in attacking the holder of another opinion by mistating his position?
The big difference here between you, Sebastion, and me, is that my way, there is room for everyone to do and feel as they wish without censure or public policies denying them what is only their own business. Yours and Sebastion’s way seems to be to silence anyone that doesn’t sign on to your agenda. If that won’t work attack their characters. So you would it be safe to assume that you are advocating public policy that marginalizes certain people?
Why not. Go read. You won’t find one place where I advocated any action at all for or against gay folks, except to observe all the mores of courtesy, consideration, respect and liberty of the persons that any and all should be extended. You cannot say that about your position, can you?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:37 am
Straightarrow, forgive me if I didn’t take “I am anti gay … I find his sexual preference repellant” to be statements confined to gay sex. Your reduction of gay to gay sex and homosexual preference to gay sex is strange to say the least. There’s a lot more to being gay than preferring one set of plumbing to another. When you are romantically attracted to a woman, surely the attraction is not just a desire to insert your tab in her slot.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
You are being so overtly emotional about this. It’s really comical watching you rant and rave and insist I’m the bigot. You keep hoping I’ll rise to the bait. Hint: I won’t.
Define normal.
Is it the norm from a merely numerical standpoint? Surely it isn’t as gays certainly are a minority. That doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with being gay. It’s just the way some people are.
But that doesn’t really explain why you find their sexual behavior repellant. Sounds like you have deeper issues.
How am I trying to bend you to my will? I don’t care what you do. I’m just pointing out that while you do exercise that free will thing, I’m going to point out things that you’re doing that aren’t so hot, and confront you on it. Your will isn’t being bent–but your prejudices and biases are being scrutinized. If you don’t like it…don’t mouth off on a public forum.
Listen to yourself. I hate you? I want to censor what you think?
What the fuck is wrong with you?
I never said anything like that. Anywhere.
You can tell when a BIGOT is losing an argument–when he starts insisting the thought police are trying to censor him.
How the FUCK can I misrepresent your position? I’m just quoting you. I think the emotional investment here clearly is on your side.
You didn’t make it clear at all. In fact, you purposefully are leaving it muddy by not addressing the question–if homosexuality isn’t the “equivalent”, then what is it? If you’re not trying to denigrate it, why use terms like “equivalent”? Only the BIGOT would think it’s necessarily to compare them to each other. The non-BIGOT realizes it doesn’t matter either way. Equivalent in terms of what?
Your failure to address that point speaks volumes.
And who the FUCK has ever insisted you be gay yourself? Gay people don’t want YOU to be gay. They just want to be left alone while they practice their own private lives, but not as second class citizens.
You very desparately need to get a grip. I’m not denying you the freedom to do anything. You can join the KKK and burn gays at the stake for all I care. All I’m doing is pointing out the weaknesses in your effort to kick sand over the fact you DO have some unhealthy, unresolved issues with gay people.
February 17th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Brutal , I find his sexual preference repellant” to be statements confined to gay sex. Your reduction of gay to gay sex and homosexual preference to gay sex is strange to say the least.
How the Hell is that strange? Men loving men and women loving women is not a gay lifestyle unless sex is involved. It is possible to love someone of the same sex and not be gay. Without the sex it is just love of one person for another. All of us do that. What I find strange is that you are trying to take sex out of gay. The use of the word gay has come to connote homosexual sex. Check with Truman Capote, he started it.
What part of that denigrates a gay person? Not one part. The gay sex part is the part I find repellant. Why didn’t you answer the question about whether or not gay people find my preferences repellant? Answer that, and then tell me why they are entitled to be the way they are, but I am not. Also, did you miss this? Nowhere did I suggest I found gay people repellant, nor unworthy, nor deficient. I confined my remarks to gay sex, because that is the part I find repellant. What is it about that that bothers you so?
I find fried chicken repellant also, would you or Sebastian, btw, I apologize for consistently misspelling your name, I keep automatically hitting the o instead of the a, raise this big a fuss because you might like it or like people who like it. Hell, my whole damn family likes fried chicken, except for me. I truly find it repellant, yet I do not find myself thinking unkindly about my family members that eat it. Why is that different? Why are you so sensitive to it?
I never said a damn word about the characters or rights of people that have sexual preferences different from mine. I did say I find those preferences repellant for me. Right at the start. You ignored my very next statement which should have clued you to the fact that I was speaking to personal preferences.
Sebastian, you are arguing dishonestly, and you know it. I am not going to waste time deconstructing every false statement and/or implication you have made. I will address this one, just to show you are not being honest.
And who the FUCK has ever insisted you be gay yourself? Gay people don’t want YOU to be gay. They just want to be left alone while they practice their own private lives, but not as second class citizens.-Sebastian.
In reverse order. Where did I suggest anywhere anything different than it was nobody else’s business what any of us did as long as we respect the rights of each other? Yet you have implied I did, you have accused me directly of it and have said some really ugly things about my character based on assumptions of things I never said,but that you assumed I must believe.
To your question above, nobody here, but it has been done. They used all the same tactics you and Brutal Hugger are using, they just went a step farther. I can’t be truly open minded unless I have engaged in gay sex. Bullshit. I am open minded enough to know that it is not my business what they or anybody else does. That is all the open mindedness I need or am required to have.
It may surprise you to know that I find it abhorrent that gay lovers and/or life partners can be shut out of decisions and visitations of their loved ones in hospital, without some legal document specifically stating such. Something conventional couples do not have to face. That is just wrong. We love who we love and when they love us back, it isn’t anyone else’s business to interfere. That is not the only discrimination, but it is one of the worst as matters of the heart go. I am opposed to the mindset that so burdens them. Not because they are gay, but because they are people.
Why is my position on that, not enough for you? The only thing I find repellant is the sex part of gay. That is all I have said, yet two of you are on such tall ponies that a fall could very well kill you. Get off your high horse, you do not own the high ground on this.
February 17th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Marriage is both a religious and a political institution. The marriage discrimination problem is largely a result of widespread refusal to separate the two-Brutal Hugger.
I meant to say this days ago and kept forgetting. I couldn’t agree with you more. I think the two should be separated. Further I believe the political institution should equally favor everyone.
The religious institution is free to do as they wish, though I generally don’t adhere to organized religions simply because they seem to be more about what they hate than what they love. More about reward after death than how to live well and properly here. That too is just my personal feelings on it, so please don’t all the Christians start projecting all their own crap on me as BH and Sebastian have done. I don’t have a problem with church goers, just don’t try to force me to go. I hold religious beliefs just not normal ones. Oh God! Now I’ve done it.
February 17th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
How am I trying to bend you to my will? I don’t care what you do. I’m just pointing out that while you do exercise that free will thing, I’m going to point out things that you’re doing that aren’t so hot, and confront you on it. Your will isn’t being bent–but your prejudices and biases are being scrutinized. If you don’t like it…don’t mouth off on a public forum.
You’re correct, it isn’t, but you are trying. I have a prejudice, that is true. As I have clearly stated the gay lifestyle isn’t for me. Aha! a prejudice. Also, what others do isn’t any of my business or anyone else’s except the people involved. Aha, Aha! Another prejudice, or is this one a bias? Quit being a jackass. If both those clearly and repeatedly made statements qualify as projudice or bias, then they are good ones to have and you really need a big dose of them. Unless you really don’t intend to allow freedom that doesn’t meet your prejudices and biases.
Listen to yourself. I hate you? I want to censor what you think?
Of course you do. You don’t think I should “mouth off” on a public forum. But you have lied about my positions consistently. For instance, you implied that I advocated public policy to somehow disenfranchise gay folks. I did no such thing. My position has been exactly opposite that. That has been clearly stated several times, yet you argue I said something esle, because if I didn’t you have no credibility to call for me to quit “mouthing off”.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Not a damn thing. Well, except for being old, fat, bald, ugly and terminal.
February 17th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
One correction of those two prejudices I admitted to above, only the second one do I recommend universally, obviously gay folks are not going to hold with the first one, and I don’t demand they do. That second prejudice or bias that I am my accusers keep overlooking my utterances of is actually a fundamental principle of a free people. But Hell, overlook it, if makes you argument more difficult to make. You have done so, so far.