But, but but...it's the FAGS that are persecuting Christians

[Lord Jim]

There's an ironic, symbiotic PR relationship between "hate mongers" and the "anti-hate organizations" that oppose them...

If the KKK didn't exist, how would the anti-KKKers make the argument that we must be vigilante against them? (and raise money accordingly...)

Scott Lively needs anger against gay people to keep his fans whipped up and sending their donations...

But gay activist organizations also need the Scott Livelys to show that there is a threat...

And get their donations flowing in...(If Scott Lively is just one big bigoted loudmouth who really doesn't amount to much, he wont seem like much of a threat...)

You know I hate to be cynical, but that seems like a difficult argument to disagree with...

They hate each other, but they need each other...

[rubato]

Right.


That hasto be in the running for a prize.


If hate groups did not exist the groups which oppose them would never have come into being.

You don't see groups fighting against bigotry towards green-eyed people because bigotry against green-eyed people does not exist.*


Although religious and superstitious people often organize, fundraise and whip up hatred against things which are imaginary; demonic possession, witches, heresy. Perhaps that is where you get such ideas.


yrs,
rubato

* To any significant degree.

[Lord Jim]

I knew this would come in handy:

The path to perpetual ignorance leads through self-delusion.

[Scooter]

Well I guess I must be perpetually ignorant and self-deluded as well, because, to me, this:

But gay activist organizations also need the Scott Livelys to show that there is a threat...

sounds a lot like you are suggesting that there is no real threat, and that "gay activist organizations" exist solely for raising money to perpetuate themselves. If that is your meaning, I would certainly take GREAT exception to that assertion.

I can't imagine even ONE gay person or organization I know of that would not have preferred the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Jimmy Swaggerts and Anita Bryants and Phyllis Schlaflys and Scott Livelys to never have existed to be spewing their venom and influencing public policy against us. To even suggest that gay people are glad for the existence of these Neanderthals spreading their hatred for us throughout the populace, because it helps us raise money, is an obscenity I would have thought unworthy of you.

[MajGenl.Meade]

To even suggest this:

...

gay death penalty law under the U.S. Constitution. So what then? Is the federal gov't going to send troops to save gays from the firing squad? A Democratic president might, a Republican president almost assuredly would not

.

...is an obscenity to which all the silent voices on this board should be responding. A Democratic president might ? A Republican president would not?

Are you all so buffaloed by this poisonous shit that you won't even speak out when he displays the utmost bigotry against the United States, its government and its people - including all of you apparently?

ETA you can bet if it was some non-liberal like lib you'd be all over his case.

[Lord Jim]

sounds a lot like you are suggesting that there is no real threat

In reviewing what I posted, I think I may have made my point inelegantly...

There certainly are real threats...I didn't mean to suggest that there aren't...If I gave that impression, I apologize...

There are parts of the world where being gay remains criminalized, and other places, (like Russia) where official persecution of gay people is on the rise, (the US is not one of those places, but threats here certainly remain from thugs and bullies who will beat up gay people or seek to treat them with cruel ridicule)

But given an environment where there are real problems anyway, it certainly doesn't hurt to have particularly obnoxious high profile types like Lively to use as a rallying point....

That having been said, I have to join Gen. Meade in condemning the latest comments of yours which he quoted...

I think the idea that a President, (any President, without regard to party) would not intervene to prevent "firing squads" against gay people (or any other group of innocent people) is absolutely ludicrous. It's an accusation that strikes me as bizarre.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Shouda quoted me, LJ. He's had me on ignore forever

[Lord Jim]

Okay...

Here's the comment that Meade quoted that I was referring to:

Is the federal gov't going to send troops to save gays from the firing squad? A Democratic president might, a Republican president almost assuredly would not.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Chicken

[Scooter]

I apologize, that went too far.

Memories of an earlier time when politicians sat on their hands while gay people (me almost included) were allowed to die, precisely because they were gay, are still too raw, I guess.

[Sue U]

The social dynamic today is much different than in the civil rights era of the 50s and 60s. I do not think the vast majority of heterosexual Americans would sit on their hands if confronted with anti-gay violence, because the vast majority of heterosexual Americans have now become comfortable with the fact that they have gay sons, daughters, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, friends and/or co-workers who they love. Indeed, it seems to me that the vast majority of Americans is now frankly uncomfortable with all forms of discrimination, and more likely to be vocal and active about it -- especially since so many of us now have much more diverse families than was common 50 or 60 years ago. Even the terrible and feeble response to the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s seems like ancient history now, when we've had George W. Bush himself actively championing HIV treatment and prevention programs with American foreign aid. And even 10 years ago, would you have believed that by 2015 same-sex marriage would be a reality in 37 U.S. states and recognized by the federal government? The arc of the moral universe, despite it length, nevertheless can have some steep freakin' slopes to it.

[dgs49]

Lies and bullshit. From the headline to the end.

(1) Nobody is proposing or threatening to execute anyone for "being homosexual." Indeed, it would be impossible to do so. Homosexuality is an innate tendency, not necessarily accompanied by any overt behavior. Just like my strong desire to copulate with Jennifer Anniston. A celibate homosexual or a person in a faithful, conventional marriage would have nothing to fear from this (preposterous) ballot initiative.

(2) There are no "threats" against homosexuals in this country, and that is precisely why people and groups supporting "gay rights" have to search diligently for nut-ball examples like this guy to keep themselves relevant. If they confined themselves to actual threats they would be out of business.

(3) homosexual sodomy (aka "buggery") was a criminal offense in most U.S. jurisdictions within all of our lifetimes, and no one suspected that such laws - seldom enforced in any event - were a violation of any "constitutional" rights. And yet somehow sodomites managed not to be executed by any of the States, including Alabama, despite their criminal behavior. It is a wonder, is it not?

(4) The vast majority of Americans profess religious faiths that condemn homosexual sodomy, as a serious moral offense against God's law (or "natural law" if you prefer). And yet a majority of Americans are willing not only to allow homosexual activity to persist without government interference or protest, but to sanction homosexual relationships in legal marriages. Where or what is the threat? That the USSC will force the states (excepting maybe Utah and Alabama) to do what they are entirely willing to do if necessary (i.e., legalize gay marriage)?

(5) People who whine about the lack of funding for AIDS research and treatment over the years must be wearing blinders made of lead. The percentage of the population that is seriously threatened by HIV is a tiny fraction of the population endangered by heart disease, various forms of cancer, and other diseases, and any rational analysis concludes that overall AIDS spending has been and continues to be disproportionately generous, ESPECIALLY when one considers that (and I realize it is politically vulgar to consider that) AIDS is in the vast majority of cases brought about by voluntarily engaging in behaviors known to be dangerous.

(6) Any homosexual who is not a complete idiot would recognize that we are living in a Golden Age for people of that tendency

[Big RR]

AIDS is in the vast majority of cases brought about by voluntarily engaging in behaviors known to be dangerous.

so is heart disase, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, hpv (and its link to cancer), etc. Is the funding for research and treatment of those diseases also disproportionately generous?

[dgs49]

I disagree. Most of those are "brought about" by a genetic predisposition and exacerbated (possibly) by diet and a long pattern of self-destructive behavior. I have had hypertension since I was 23 years old, caused by nothing other than genes.

Is it possible to eliminate, to a virtual certainty, one's chances of experiencing heart disease by modifying one's behavior? NFW. But it is possible, easily, to eliminate one's chances of contracting the HIV. Indeed, contracting HIV (except in extraordinary circumstances) requires that one engage, voluntarily, in behavior that is known to be dangerous - when preventive measures are cheap and easy to implement.

No comparison.

[Big RR]

Genetic dispositions count, but I would bet a large proportion (if not majority) of those who suffer from the ailments I listed also had many bad lifestyle choices (eating/drinking too much, eating high fat foods, not exercising, etc.). sure some people develop them anyway despite making good choices, but nearly every type 2 diabetic I have met is fairly overweight, and many with further complications ignored advice and refused to modify their lifestyle until it was too late; ditto for hypertension and heart and liver problems.

eta: as for HIV, one can contract it in many ways, including through sexual relations (including ordinary heterosexual practices as well as homosexual ones). Yes, you can limit the risk by use of various prophylactics, but it does not rive it to zero. And even though a vaccine (Gardasil) is available to prevent women from acquiring HPV from sexual intercourse as are prophylactic methods, we still fund studies into cervical cancer. I think the same should be true for HIV/AIDS.

[Scooter]

I we're going to use genetic predisposition as an excuse for diseases with behavioural risk factors, then HIV trumps any of those mentioned. Infection with HIV occurs through attachment to a CCR5 receptor on the CD4+. Expression of this receptor is controlled by a gene - a copy on both strands of the genome causes profuse expression of CCR5 and therefore susceptibility to HIV infection. A single copy will greatly reduce expression of CCR5 and consequently reduces the risk of HIV infection. The complete absence of the gene result in no CCR5 expression, rendering immunity to HIV.

So according to the premise that Dave has established, HIV is primarily a genetic, rather than a behavioural, disease. He will no doubt sputter some incoherent nonsense in response to being hoisted on his own petard.

[Scooter]

Christian Talibangelists win another round in war to strip gay people of the ability to work, shelter themselves, and contract for other necessities.

[Big RR]

Here comes Hobby Lobby II.

[Scooter]

There are dozens of these being passed all over the country. It makes a complete mockery of the 14th Amendment and yes, the SCOTUS opened the door with that odious decision in Hobby Lobby.

[Scooter]