Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Spirituality » Have I Become A Bigot Regarding Fundamentalists?

Have I Become A Bigot Regarding Fundamentalists?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Have I become a “Fundamentalist” bigot?

In the tag line of my personal blog, I talk about my “insane ramblings.” Maybe I should just expose some of them so I’m not guilty of false advertising.

Just like the word “Liberal,” the word “Fundamentalist” seems to have taken on a new meaning.

Why is that?

Fundamentalist gangs in Afghanistan are beating women on the street just for showing any part of their hair or even an ankle. Does this sound reasonable?

Why is it that the words “Jewish”, “Muslim”, “Christian”, and ”Islamic” seem to always precede the word “Fundamentalist,” and a description of an act of extreme hatred or prejudice follows it? Fundamentalism is the reason that in the Middle East right now, children are being taught from birth that their only reason for existing is to kill Jews, and in order to get into heaven, they must suicidally blow themselves up, taking as many souls with them as they can!

Remember when Afghan Fundamentalists dynamited giant Buddhist statues, all centuries old and irreplaceable monuments to a culture, just because they didn’t agree with their religion?

Could we be heading towards having Christian Fundamentalist groups cruising the streets and fining public buildings for not having Christmas decorations up or crucifixes over their door? Could a bill hit Congress banning the word “holiday,” replacing it with “Christian” or “Christmas”? Happy holidays! As if pretty lights, Santa Claus, and chopped-down pine trees have anything to do with the birth of Christ or why we still revere him over 2000 years later.

Could a bill be heading to Congress this minute to destroy any faces on Mt. Rushmore that even vaguely represented the Democratic Party’s point of view because the Congress is Republican? Don’t laugh; there are bills that have been introduced repeatedly encouraging replacing Democrats on our currency with Ronald Reagan on the $10 bill and/or the dime. Even our national airport was renamed after him. Will a huge battle result in Congress, after the Democrats take it back, over whether to have Reagan’s name taken back off the building again?

Could someone actually take Kennedy’s name off of the airport? Don’t laugh; Cape Canaveral the city in Florica with all the launch pads, used to be known as Cape Kennedy, but the name was changed because of a twist in the opposite political direction!

Is it me?

I’m beginning to feel as if, oh I don’t know, that if someone feels powerless in their life, if they have no respect, or no one loves them, then all they’d have to do is evoke the name of God, or wave the Bible around, memorize the Constitution or the Torah enough to quote it, and convince a few people that they just might speak for God, George Washington, Allah, or Mohamed, or better yet, that he’s speaking through them, and suddenly they feel power because everyone else gets the “what if” syndrome. What if he actually is speaking for God, and even if he isn’t, would St. Peter judge me at the gates for not believing him?

When you use God, suddenly people fear you, as if cursing you is cursing God. The fundamentalists have somehow also made the words “Christian”, “Flag,” and “American” to mean the same thing. It’s like their new “holy trinity,” as though you can’t believe in one unless you believe in all three; and if you don’t, they might convincingly brand you a heathen, a traitor, or worse: a Liberal. The opposite is true too; if you see a Flag bumper sticker, or the whole back window of a pick up truck taken up with a flag graphic, do you say, “There goes a Democrat?” No, the republicans have taken ownership of our national banner!

When did this happen?
Why did this happen?

People like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson raise untold, untaxed millions and billions a year. They say it’s to help the hungry little children in some far-flung country, but when you see their lavish homes, the huge university campuses that they command, and the elaborate church grounds with dozens of ornate buildings, you know without a doubt where the money came from for that, don’t you?

And yet everyone keeps sending it!

You’re also buying politicians whose only qualifications are that they’re up for sale! But by giving it to the Falwells of this world, you’re giving themthe power, not you. No one in Congress knows what anyone stands for any more, because they stand for whoever contributed the most to their campaign, their sponsors, instead of their own or our views! Members of Congress don’t represent their constituents any more; they represent their financial sponsors!

I miss a time when being on the “Left” or being on the “Right” was respected as an opinion, as a party affiliation, from people who respected a different point of view as much as their own.

Why are the days gone, and I remember them well, when a President got elected and suddenly the rancor disappeared; everyone shook hands and we all stood behind him united as a country because “we the people” elected him. Now, we’re all bad losers. If we didn’t vote for him, we immediately plan to do our damnedest to bring him down or discredit him. We’re so divided now, no longer “indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” any more. Just look at the popular election vote results for 2000 and 2004 for proof of how much this country is divided, with liberty and justice now being the possession only of those who can afford to buy it.

Any more, when I see the word “Fundamentalist,” an article follows on war, oppression, hatred, or judgment. It has happened in each generation, and will happen again. Our culture today is being fed by the self-righteous fundamentalist community whereby someone has to be hated in the name of “morality” in order to make people agree with their radical ideas. To be one, means they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Is this the only way to unite a nation; to find someone to hate as a collective group, so we can claim something in common? I disagree with gay marriage, therefore I’m voting for Bush, not Kerry.

Why?

Did voting that way keep us out of war?
Did voting that way prevent 9/11?
Did voting that way make our economy go from great news to great deficits?

Well, I’ve fulfilled my “insane” claim, and my “rambling” claim.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

Powered by

About Jet Gardner

I like collecting books, music, movies, chess sets and friends
  • Nancy

    I think a lot of this got started in 2000 (as far as elections are concerned), when almost half the country, rightly or wrongly, perceived that the election had been stolen & their voting rights nullified by a partisan supreme court which IMO should never have gotten involved, no matter how long the recount took or who it shook up. The nastiness with fundies of all stripes – especially Christians – has been developing at about the same time, when the far Right/GOP made it their business to ally themselves with the fundies & be driven by them & their extreme agendas, at about the same time the Muslim fundies were coming out of their holes to do their most spectacular crimes to date.

  • Steve

    Nancy, of course, most of the Christian fundamentalism in the US has been stirred up by the social changes forced upon the country in the last century. The notion that somehow, all this stuff came from nowhere is simply not the case. Most Christians just want to live in peace, but if you push them, they will push back, just like most ordinary folks. If you don’t want them to react, don’t give them anything to react to. Simple really.

    Re. the 2000 election, I must say, I do agree with you, a recount should have been allowed, even if it had turned out to be redundant. In politics, even the appearance of right being done, is better than nothing at all.

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    “If you don’t want them to react”… follow their rules (even if you don’t agree with them or believe in funadmentalist religious notions), don’t criticize the fundies, and bow to them as the entity in charge. Do all this and there are no worries about fundies. Right.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    most of the Christian fundamentalism in the US has been stirred up by the social changes forced upon the country in the last century.

    I suppose it would have been nice for many, if we still lived in an Amos N Andy atmosphere, where gay people were closeted out of fear, where African Americans had separate drinking fountains, where Christian holidays were celebrated by everybody with no regard for those of different faiths, where women were not equal and did not have a voice over their own bodies, however progress does cause society to accept a lot of change and it’s unfortunate that the sleeping giant has awoken, unhappy that it’s one-sided limited narrow view is being trampled upon by Lady Liberty.

    Most Christians just want to live in peace, but if you push them, they will push back, just like most ordinary folks. If you don’t want them to react, don’t give them anything to react to. Simple really.

    I actually agree with that, and that’s why the ideological right and conservatives are constantly portraying Christianity as being under attack. It’s the only way to get them to react. That is why people like ex-Judge Roy Moore portrayed the obstacles to him putting the 10 commandments in a federal building as an assault on all Christians when nothing is further from the truth. That’s why removing mandated prayer and references to a Christian God from public school is perceived as an attack on one’s faith, when actually it is trying to be inclusive to all faiths including the faith of atheism. That is why conservatives say that store chains saying Happy Holidays is an attack on Christianity when realistically we know that’s absurd. Christians can still buy their christmas gifts and trees at the store.

    The liberal way is to follow Jesus and to try to include all. The right wingers have done an excellent job of convincing mainstream Christians that this is exclusionary and an attack on their faith. It’s either their faith or the highway. This is what is pushing Christians to react and that is too bad, for it shows they have abdicated thinking to those with nefarious motives.

  • Nancy

    Politicians never seem to understand – or refuse to try to understand – the old dictum about Ceasar’s wife being above reproach. As for the SC, they have no excuse for not knowing any better. Since the start of the USSC, SC jurists have gone out of their way to avoid even the vaguest appearance of partisanship, because that’s what gave the USSC its credibility – a credibility that has since evaporated. Alas, reputations are very, very fragile, easily lost, and almost impossible to regain intact.

  • Steve

    Well, NR, it seemed like you are arguing that they should be bowing to your views, I was just saying you were being naive. Of course, when I showed you what it’s like with the shoe on the other foot, I guess you realised that.

    Well, Steve S, certainly, I would not agree with the notion that change is ALWAYS bad for society, and some good things have been accomplished. However, change is not ALWAYS good for society either. Which is why some changes have been accepted and some haven’t.

    I guess the concern for fundies is, that liberals don’t seem to know the difference between liberty and license. A society built on the basis of licence is never going to survive in the long term. That’s what kills most societies in the end.

    Re. politics and religion, in almost every issue you mention, I can easily think of compromises between the two extreme positions that are taken on those issues (re. the judge, et al), but as long as you have a two party system set up like it is, compromise is very hard to achieve. Of course, to change the system, everyone who is unhappy need to be creating new parties in the hope they supercede the current paradigm. Alas, the only folks I see active politically right now, support one of the two major parties. I wish you folks who complain so much about politics would start thinking outside the ‘party’ box.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    I guess the concern for fundies is, that liberals don’t seem to know the difference between liberty and license. A society built on the basis of licence is never going to survive in the long term. That’s what kills most societies in the end.

    Most societies are killed by outside forces, i.e. war, rather than freedoms used irresponsibly, which I assume you mean by ‘license’. Can you give one example of a society that was destroyed by using freedoms irresponsibly? Perferably actual scientifically proven demises, not fire and brimstone destruction from a punishing father figure ala the Bible. Something concrete.

    in almost every issue you mention, I can easily think of compromises between the two extreme positions that are taken on those issues

    yes, they are resolved, but the Christian still feels the personal faith is under attack, so the damage is done.

    I wish you folks who complain so much about politics would start thinking outside the ‘party’ box.

    I’m not inside one of the two boxes.

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    No, Mr. Steve (the other one, *not* SteveS), I don’t want you or anyone to bow to my wishes. I just want EVERYONE treated equally under law. There is a HUGE difference between what I am trying to do and what the fundies are doing quite successfully.

    The anti-GLBT religious fundies want their views codified legally in such a way that it inhibits the way in which nonbelievers, etc., live their lives. I don’t wish to force my views on how fundies live their lives except to keep them from having power over me and mine via the law. Changes to law acknowledging everyone’s legal equality won’t affect their churches and what they preach to their congregations and what they choose to view on TV and at the cinema. However, many religious fundies insist upon impacting the lives of other people. Their aim is plainly spoken: They want to reclaim America for Christ – through the laws, through the media, through so many avenues. Does having the right to discriminate under law mean so much to them? Obviously – they believe they have the right to supremacy, to deny equality to others and the law, as of now, agrees. That’s criminal. That you and others don’t or can’t see it doesn’t surprise me, but I can’t think of much that is more sad, depressing and disgusting.

    But it must be said: Not all Christian fundamentalists are on this team to form a covert US theocracy. There are fundies with hearts and brains out there who believe what they believe and feel no need or compulsion to force their beliefs on others through force of law. Goddess bless them.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Hmmm, I seem to be getting better at this writing blogs stuff. It’s kinda like hitting a nest with a stick and seeing how many bees swarm out of it.

    I wrote this post from my heart and mean every word of it.

    Thanks Nancy, Steve NR, and SteveS

  • Steve

    NR, I don’t see anyone suggesting that only religious leaders (ministers, reverends etc.) should be allowed to be politicians!! THAT would be a theocracy. Please tone down the rhetoric here, you’re sounding way over the top.

    NR, no matter who wins the debate, the results will affect society as a whole. This is not only about one group’s rights. That would be a narrow viewpoint indeed.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    You haven’t spoken to Arch Conservative lately have you?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    This is not only about one group’s rights.

    Since you are referring to the gay rights topic that NR brought up, it most certainly is about one group’s rights. The Christian still has the right to discriminate, but there is no right to have society propagate prejudice.

    There can be no discrimination against gays and lesbians in the school system, that does not infringe upon the right of the Christian to disapprove personally. The right to marriage for all, does not force a church to have to perform the ceremony against their will. The right to have all families receive social security benefits for loved ones, since all families pay into it, does not infringe upon the right of the religious to maintain bigotry.

    Since NR spoke specifically of anti-GLBT groups, I respond in kind. The Christian has a right to their belief of prejudice and condemnation, on their own personal level. There is no right to have oppression and ostracization put into societal wide practice.

  • Steve

    I’ve seen his postings Jet, but haven’t really connected much, from what I recall anyway.
    Though I am socially conservative for the most part, I am probably more centrist on economics. So I wouldn’t be totally comfortable with a moniker like his.

    Re. your article, Jet, though I have respect for your political institutions (White House, Congress, Senate) I really wish you’d scrap that two party system you’ve got, it really sucks. Reality is way too complicated to be fitted into a two party paradigm. I prefer Canada, it’s political landscape is a little more nuanced, maybe not as much as I would like, but anyway…

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    I’ve been out a physical therapy, so I’ll take these one at a time, instead of in bulk

    Nancy

    “I think a lot of this got started in 2000″ To be truthful I’d love to agree, but I see it as far back as the Nixon/Kennedy election of 1960 that was for all intents and purposes tied. At the time I was on the right-wing’s side and watched my father foaming at the mouth, of course I was only 5 at the time. Jack was asassinated before any organized opposition came to fruition, (though some claim that’s why he was killed) and after his death, even opposing Lyndon Johnson was looked at as disrespecting Kennedy’s memory. Back then it had to do with race, not religion. So it stayed bottled despite Bobby’s death, and of course Martin Luther King’s. Then Nixon and Watergate, boiled over, and Ford turned the heat off the pan by pardoning him, but stirred the left up in the process.

    I’d say this current batch of partison trouble happened when Reagan sold the Rupublicans to the Religous right, and the NRA in order to get elected. It’s been simmering and came to a boil when the republicans took over congress under Clinton and it’s been brutal and polorizing ever since.

    …of course that’ only my opinion.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Nancy:
    “The nastiness with fundies of all stripes – especially Christians – has been developing at about the same time, when the far Right/GOP made it their business to ally themselves with the fundies & be driven by them & their extreme agendas”

    I agree, but it was more the Policital right conning the religous right into joining them to gain power, one feeding off eachother. The Republican party would be completely dead right now if they didn’t have their far right fringe and the right wing religous freaks.

    In other words, the republicans gained power by allowing themselves to be bought in the late 70s

    …but that’s only my opinion

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Steve:

    “Most Christians just want to live in peace, but if you push them, they will push back, just like most ordinary folks. If you don’t want them to react, don’t give them anything to react to. Simple really…

    Yeah, don’t poke the sleeping bear. But what if the damned thing is sleeping in the middle of your driveway?

    The trouble with your premise is that the Christian right won’t keep their noses in their own horsetough, so to speak, and seem determined to be in our way at all times, just to assert their moral power over the rest of us. We’re not allowed to back our car out of our own driveway so to speak unless we have their permission, and that’s just wrong.

    Now that’s a metaphor kids before I hear a bunch of BS about Bear’s rights.

    Now that they’ve “saved” everyone in their little churches, they need more power, so they start peeking their noses into other people’s private lives and trying to legislate morality.

    God would be better served if they’d study their bibles instead of picking and choosing phrases to make their point.

    thank you for your opinion, my friend

    and this was mine.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Steve:

    “…most of the Christian fundamentalism in the US has been stirred up by the social changes forced upon the country in the last century.”

    Yes, like the religous right bringing on prohibition, and causing a constitutional crisis?

    Like using bible passages to rationalize segregation?

    Like putting “In God we trust” on all our currency and acting like it’s been there since the country was founded?

    Hmmmm
    That coin has two sides my friend!

  • Dave Nalle

    Fundamentalism is by its nature absolutist. Absolutism is characterized by its incompatibility with any points of view other than its own. What’s more, most fundamentalism is also expansionistic in nature. They are intense about their beliefs and also think that because those beliefs are the absolute only correct ones, they must be imposed on everyone else, whether they are willing or not.

    That kind of attitude is basically incompatible with the essential rights of everyone else in the world. The question we all have to ask is whether it’s better for the world to change or for the fundamentalists to change. And the answer, of course, is that there’s nothing wrong with being bigoted against fundamentalists, because they’re bigoted against your freedom.

    Dave

  • Steve

    Steve S, since Canada adopted same sex marriage last year, there are now already cases pending in Canada against ministers who preach that homosexuality is a sin, even though the bill had provisions for religious freedom. And the government then had to scramble to find legal arguments against polygamy. If you think this is only about one group’s rights, that’s a mighty big sand dune your head is stuck in. You’re just opening a pandora’s box here, I’m afraid.

    I don’t expect those within the one group to notice these things but it is important for the rest of us to point these things out.

    By the way, I’m not arguing about benefits or the school system here. Not sure what GLBT stands for…Gay & Lesbian… ?… ?…

    Re. same sex marriage, if the government steps into this to ‘approve’ them, then over time, those folks’ rights who oppose them will inevitably be undermined. And I’m sorry, Steve S, if you think this is about hate, then you truly are brainwashed. Of course, I suppose it’s easy for you to think that when folks with my position get angry with you for your extreme naivete. We just want you to wake up, that’s all.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    NR Davis

    “Do all this and there are no worries about fundies.”
    You hit it right on the head of the nail, that’s exactly what they want.

    Thank you

    They’re acting like a big schoolyard bully, but sooner or later they’re going to discover there aren’t as many gang members standing behind them on the playground as they think there are.

    …but of course that’s only my opinion

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Steve #4

    I can’t find a damned thing to argue with on that count.

    Now what fun is that?

    Thanks
    Jet

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    Mr. Steve (*not* the redoubtable SteveS): “I don’t see anyone suggesting that only religious leaders (ministers, reverends etc.) should be allowed to be politicians!! THAT would be a theocracy. Please tone down the rhetoric here, you’re sounding way over the top.”

    Why? Because you say so? LOL… How like one of your ilk – you don’t like what I’m saying so you intimate that I am over the top. Nice try.

    Fact is, many are on to the truth: The fundies involved and their faithful sheep won’t call it theocracy, but that is what they are attempting to achieve. And they are well on their way. Check out the political activities of an organization called Reclaiming America (that’s how it is listed on google and it’s what the group is called in news items, but the full name is the Center for Reclaiming America for Christ; it was founded by D. James Kennedy, the Focus on the Family guy who has Dubya’s ear and was privy to the deep skinny on Harriet Miers). Investigate the role of the Religious Wrong in Republican Party politricks. Explore horrid groups with frightening acronyms: AFA, FRC, CWA, FOTF. Probe the so-called ex-gay movement, which is increasingly vocal, nasty, medacious and POLITICAL. Then tell me a covert theocracy isn’t under way. Sure, they won’t have the actual clerics in elected-offhosicial roles (although those fundie pastors and “family” group leaders do seem to find their way onto ballors from time to time, don’t they? and god knows we’ve seen the pols bow to fundies time and again – hell, the “prez” is honorary chair of a discriminatory private organization that is a fave of fundies *because* it violates the claimed american ethos that all are equal), we know who is running the show. We know. An American “president” in the year 2006 speaks publicly about adapting the constitution to enshrine discrimination against a particular group of citizens? Absolutely that is the work of theocracy-minded, control-freak Christian fundies who want to reclaim America for their deity and who have Shrubbies’ nuts within their holy grasp. Even dumbass Dems are falling prey to it – recall Slick Willie after the anti-american DoMA was enacted a decade ago. Those sorts of things – DoMA, the proposed FMA – are all about enshrining religion into law and forcing the rest of us to obey. You call it whatever you like. I call it moving toward covert theocracy. It’s a dangerous and disgusting thing that many of us will oppose tooth and nail. Will the anti-equality fundies get their way? Probably. But those of us opposed to their vile reclamation quest will never surrender. We will not go along with the smokescreen. And we certainly will not take seriously those who don’t have the guts to admit the true goal behind their movement. It’s theocracy they’re working toward, no matter what they call it.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Steve S, since Canada adopted same sex marriage last year, there are now already cases pending in Canada against ministers who preach that homosexuality is a sin, even though the bill had provisions for religious freedom.

    Canada has hate crimes speech laws which stem from Nazism. Unless you can link to sources that show otherwise, these preachers are not being prosecuted under marriage laws for not performing marriages but for hate speech. Perhaps hate speech isn’t exempt from the pulpit in Canada, I don’t know. I’m not labeling it hate speech and I’m not saying it isn’t, I make no claim of my own but am pointing out that being charged with hate speech would still be in place whether or not the marriage laws were in place.

    And the government then had to scramble to find legal arguments against polygamy.

    The government needs to get out of the business of defining our relationships anyway. We are grown consenting adults.

    If you think this is only about one group’s rights, that’s a mighty big sand dune your head is stuck in.

    You want to deny millions of gay and lesbian families basic protections so that the majority who already enjoy them can have their rights protected and my head is stuck in the sand dune?

    And I’m sorry, Steve S, if you think this is about hate, then you truly are brainwashed.

    I said bigotry and prejudice. I ask you to point out which comment I said hate. Please quit putting false words in my mouth.

    We just want you to wake up, that’s all.

    What do you want me to wake up to? To second class citizenship and denial of basic rights, liberties and privileges for my family so you can continue your prejudice? You want me to say ‘oh, okay, my family will continue to be unfairly taxed and my family will continue to pay into governmental programs like SS but get less back in return for your family so you can maintain your belief of superiority? Is that what you want me to wake up to?

  • Joey

    I’ve noticed that a very huge issue dividing voters is abortion. Absolutely. We base our elections on Abortion. It comes up in every election, it’s a key to establishing whether a politician is fit to run, or an appointee (Supreme Court) is fit for selection.

    Abortion. The United States bases its political goals, agenda, strategy on whether or not officials believe in abortion or not.

    Abortion is running this country, it may even be effecting world events. There is something wrong with that.

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    That’s how it appears from here. And when I look at my life, that’s what I see – the effects of second-class citizenship and betrayal by “fellow citizens” who wouldn’t understand the real meaning of “equality under law” and “equal protection” and “separation of church from state” if those terms bit them in the gonads.

  • Maldive

    Let’s give the Christians 3 or 4 states, be fair about it and send them there!!!! Wouldn’t it be a surprise if they prosper?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    I would hope they prosper. I hope we all do.

    I never got an answer (unless I missed it, someone please point it out), as to what societies took license with liberties and perished because of it. Specific examples.

    Also, here’s another question for fundamentalists to answer. Currently marriage has 1,000 benefits, rights and privileges from the federal government and 700 state benefits, rights and privileges.

    Denying me those, but keeping them for yourselves is a violation of my rights. The claim here is that if they were given to me, the rights of Christians would be violated. I ask, specifically which rights?

    Let’s get these claims addressed before we move on throwing out more innuendo without anything substantial to back it up please.

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davissl

    Why, Steve, they have a God-given right to discriminate against us under secular law. Acknowledging our equality would violate their right to punish us under the law of the land.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Dave #18

    Absofuckinlutely!

    Thanks Dave for your input.
    Jet

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Steve #13

    I’d give anything to be able to scrap our two party system, but I’ll tell you two things from experience.

    In 1980 I couldn’t bring myself to vote for either Reagan or Carter, so I thought I was voting my conscience by pulling the lever beside Anderson. At the time it looked like a good thing to do, but now it just looks like a wasted vote. I see that as a milestone in my political path because after not only supporting and campaigning for Ford in 1976, from 1984 on, I was a democrat, sometimes reluctantly, but a democrat.

    Most important, as I’ve said before, this country couldn’t survive on anything more or less than a two party system, because in a close three way tie, the man eventually sitting in the white house would’ve been elected by only a little over one third of the voters. He’d be doomed from the start, because two out of three people would say “I didn’t vote for him”

    It’s a terrible thought that some of mankind’s best ideas are just out of reach in one way or another.

    Jet

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    That seems to be the obvious answer Natalie, but I think if we are to be entitled equality because it violates anothers rights, they owe it to us to at least explain which rights specifically and why those rights supercede our equality. Is that too much to ask, America?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Joey,

    thanks for your comments, but as I’ve said on another subject.

    Did voting based on abortion keep us out of the gulf war?

    Did voting based on abortion take this country from fiscal responsibility to great (huge and growing) deficits?

    Did voting based on abortion in 2000 keep 9/11 from happening?

    No, I think the only thing it did was make the President of the United State, owe the Religous Right a quid pro quo, and now we have a supreme court that may cause nightmares for years to come.

    …but that’s only my opinion

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    I would love to hear that answer too, but in 40+ years, they haven’t said one reply regarding this issue that IMO justifies anything or even resembles something intelligent or humane.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Thanks NR… I guess the answer must be no…

    Alas

  • Joey

    Jet, #32…

    Did Bush say he was against abortion? No, he stated that he would uphold the law.

    So, we really didn’t vote for someone for or against abortion. We voted for (both candidates) stumpers who chose not to take either side of the issue. If you recall Kerry went through some angst with the Catholic Church regarding his stance.

    In answer to your talking points…. we don’t know as Bush did not take a stance.

    “Did voting based on abortion keep us out of the gulf war?”
    Bush did not take a stance, except in appeasment to uphold the law. The answer is NO.

    “Did voting based on abortion take this country from fiscal responsibility to great (huge and growing) deficits?”
    Bush did not take a stance, except in appeasment
    to uphold the law. The answer is NO.

    “Did voting based on abortion in 2000 keep 9/11 from happening?”
    Bush did not take a stance, except in appeasment to uphold the law. The answer is NO.

    “I think the only thing it did was make the President of the United State, owe the Religous Right a quid pro quo, and now we have a supreme court that may cause nightmares for years to come.”

    The religious right (and religious left — there is one BTW) was not “due” anything since Bush did not take a stance except to uphold the law.

    You can substitute Kerry for Bush, or Clinton, or any other politico… as they never take a stance… YES or NO. Which was the intent of my observation in #24.

    Perhaps I ment to say is that NO ONE, gets into the process unless they shout “uncle” to the arm twisting abortion question. It has become the test question which has become some sort of standard developed and applied by the press. Isn’t it odd that the press has set a standard based on how much damage they (the press) can inflict, dependant on the answer received. I can safely assume that the press would crucify any candidate or appointee, or selectee that would answer the question in any other way except that to uphold the law, or that they were in agreement with the abortion issue.

    Therefore…. my comment in #24 (which states) that “Abortion is running this country, it may even be effecting world events. There is something wrong with that.” — stands as written.

    It has become a standard. I contend that given the state of world events… the standard is weak (as standards go) in determining who “qualifies” to be the leader of a country which really is a very powerful global influence.

  • Baronius

    Fundamentalists have been part of the US since the beginning. They fought in the Revolution, they freed the slaves, they prohibited alcohol, they educated the Indians, they hid their polygamy, they marched in Selma, they picketed abortion clinics. It’s all in how you define fundamentalism. If you collect the three or four worst things that have been done in the name of religion and label them fundamentalism, then fundamentalism will appear evil.

    FDR did more to violate the independence of the Supreme Court than any other individual. Horrid groups with frightening acronyms like ACLU have politicized the Christmas tree. The election of 2000 showed how united we are as a country, as the fabric held together under extraordinary circumstances. I can’t imagine another country surviving the virtual ties of 1994-2004 at the presidential and legislative levels without blood in the streets.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Joey,
    Thanks for your insight, I do like to see all sides of a good debate, unlike some.

    However I was referring to the voters that were taken in groups in church busses for the “specific” reason that Abortion, or anti-gay marriage was the only reason they were going to vote, or that their ministers/priests/reverends instructed them to vote.

    I appreciate you caring enough to make your views knows, juat as I hope you appreciate my right to post them.

    Thanks

  • Joey

    Jet, another good point… Busing in voters is a tactic used by all parties.

    And you just hit my nail, right on the head. Those folks bused in to vote for Bush, based on his “stance” regarding abortion… were duped.

    Bush (or Kerry) did not take a stance on the abortion issue. It would have cost them the nomination, let alone the election.

    The power of the press is scary, especially when it interferes with the political process.

    An old editor of the Washington Post (and I can’t remember his name) used to insist that his reporters did not vote. Now today that would be considered a flagrant violation of one’s civil rights. But his reasoning was that… if his reporters voted, then their reporting would be biased. That’s interesting.

    Should/could that be applied today? Say to the press, and the military, and other public servants who hold sway or uphold law.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Joey, I meant that the reverends made it an issue, not Bush.

    I wonder if they have that voting policy over at Fox News?

    Thanks for your input.

  • Joey

    All parties, means all parties. Not just polictal parties. Shriners included.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Oh, I’m leaving if your gonna invite the Shriners.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Anyone who thought or still thinks that Bush has ever been ‘pro-life’ in the sense that the religious right uses the term is a fool and a dupe.

    Dave

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    That’s sort of what I was getting at. The Republican party has sort of pimped themselves out to the religious right, and will follow their script as long as they’re paying the rent on the White House.

    …but of course that’s only my opinion

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    That’s one way of looking at it, Jet. The other way is that the GOP insiders have manipulated the religious right into supporting them while paying their causes only lip service in most substantial ways.

    Dave

  • Joey

    Gee Whiz Dave and Jet… isn’t that what I said.

    Only I guess I’ll just remove the glove.

  • http://chantalstone.blogspot.com chantal stone

    Jet, did you see RealTime with Bill Maher? Sen. Joe Biden said he was running for pres. 2008.

  • Steve

    Re. #30, Jet, plenty of countries manage quite nicely without a majority vote for one party. It may be a problem for the US if it were a democracy, but as far as I know, it’s a Republic.

  • Steve

    OK, Steve S, let’s try this again.

    Re. benefits, I don’t have a problem with people claiming benefits who live together, married or not.

    Re. the govt. and ‘consenting adults’, actually the State has a vested interest in encouraging marriage between people of child bearing age. If there are not enough children being born in a society, naturally, it’s going to die out!! So I think your argument hits a rock there.

    The problem with your ‘equality’ argument is that there is nothing equal between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual one. I thought this would be obvious but apparently not, so let me explain…

    For starters, procreation is naturally impossible between two same sex couples. A third party has to be brought in to accomplish that. So it is not the same as heterosexual marriage.

    There is no equality in intercourse. The vagina has features that make the insertion of objects safer and easier, unlike the anus, which does not have those same features, making intercourse far more risky to both partners’ health (hence the high premature death rates among homosexuals).

    There is no equality between heterosexual and homosexual couples vis a vis parenting. In heterosexual couples, a father and a mother can be present for raising a child. Not possible in a homosexual marriage relationship.

    How you could miss all the above self evident truths is completely beyond me. That’s why I can only conclude that you are truly brainwashed.

    Finally, re. ministers performing marriages, I think by your statement –

    “I’m not labeling it hate speech and I’m not saying it isn’t, I make no claim of my own”

    that even you realise that if you are right, then this religious freedom will not be with us beyond the generation that accepts your arguments here.

    Which is why I say to you, if you think this is about only one group’s rights, you are only deceiving yourself.

    I could go on but this comment is long enough.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Chantal, Yes I did, but I was on the phone and only got to see the last 3/4 of it. It’s one of my favorite shows, and I’ll try to catch a repeat later in the week.

    I have a lot of respect for Joe.

    Interesting if we could get Hilary as his vice president.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Steve,
    I had a lover about 30 years ago, that was killed in a car accident.
    His parents hated me because they blamed me for “turning” him.
    Because I wasn’t next of kin, I couldn’t get any information about his condition. His parents banned me from the funeral, and then just before the burial, they changed their minds and invited me to come to the funeral home.

    When I got there, I was told they changed their minds and were now refusing me entry.

    When I got home, I discovered they’d used his key, and stripped our home of everything that was his, leaving me one blue plaid shirt, which is why the end of Brokeback Mountain hit me so hard.

    Had I the rights of straight couples, I’d have been able to get information out of the hospital, I would’ve had property rights, and next of kin rights.

    I ache over this to this day.

    I don’t want special rights, I just want the rights that other couples are afforded.

    Jet

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    “”Re. the govt. and ‘consenting adults’, actually the State has a vested interest in encouraging marriage between people of child bearing age. If there are not enough children being born in a society, naturally, it’s going to die out!! So I think your argument hits a rock there.””

    Adopted children, who’ve been abandonded, or from a mother who couldn’t bring herself to get through a determined and hateful picket line, or the red tape of an abortion clinic, are being raised in a stable, loving relationship, in homes all over this country, by both gay and straight couples, with no ill effects. There’s also the “gay gift” where a gay male couple and a gay female couple agree to donate sperm and egg, with half the resulting children going to each couple, thus gay couples can procreate.

    “”The problem with your ‘equality’ argument is that there is nothing equal between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual one. I thought this would be obvious but apparently not””

    You’re absolutely right, just as in interracial couples, it takes more love, more understanding, and more commitment of a gay couple, in order to stand and survive the pressures of self-righteous members of our hate-filled society, than it does in a straight one. That’s probably why the straight divorce rate is so high, compared to committed gay couples.

    “”There is no equality between heterosexual and homosexual couples vis a vis parenting. In heterosexual couples, a father and a mother can be present for raising a child. Not possible in a homosexual marriage relationship””

    Unless you’ve been in their homes and experienced a commited loving gay couple with children, you have absolutely NO IDEA of what you’re talking about, and you sir are the one that’s brainwashed.

    … and that’s not just my opinion
    Jet

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    I’d like to remind everyone that Fundamentalists also oppose such things as oral or anal sex between straight couples, or in some cases even regular copulation that isn’t meant for procreation, and that they are determined to interfere with much more than just gay rights, there’s also banning certain books from public libraries, keeping certain movies out of theaters, and upsetting the entire political landscape of this country, and changing the constitution for their religous reasons.

    As I’ve quoted before…

    First they came for the jews, but I wasn’t Jewish, so I didn’t protest

    Then they came for the homosexuals, but I wasn’t gay, so I didn’t care

    Then they came for the Catholics, but I wasn’t one, so I didn’t speak out.

    After the Jews and the Gays were exterminated, as it is instructed in Leviticus, the the Catholics were herded into special training camps and retaught their way of thinking.

    After they’d rooted through everyone else, who dared not to conform, they came for me, but there was no one left to speak in my defence.

    …Everyone keep your Southern Baptist “Jesus First” pins handy just in case there’s a knock on your door!

    This may sound a little paranoid, but it’s meant to be, in order to encourage discussion.

    …but that’s only my opinion

  • Arch Conservative

    Ok so Jet and I aren’t exactly on the same page when it comes to most things……..

    That being said I’d like to just run down a laundry list of things in which I believe and see if I am a “fundamentalist” according to Jet. I consider myself a traditionalist not a fundamentalist.

    1. I don’t believe in gay marriage. I believe that marriage is a unique bond between a man and a woman. I do believe that civil unions should be legal conferring all the legal rights upon the 2 individuals that marriage allows but also subject to the same restraints.

    2. I do not think gay people should be allowed to adopt children as I believe in the traditional family, a mom and a dad. I feel that this is the best environment for children to grow up in as they have a male and female role model. This isn’t brainwashing either for this is not to say that I don’t think gay people are incapable of becoming good parents. I just feel that there are many heterosexual couples of good character that would make good parents but are unable to concieve themselves looking to adopt and priority should be given to them. Studies have been done that show two good parents, one of each sex, is the best situation for a child.

    3. As for religious fundamentalists and thier attitude toward gays……….. As a Christian I don’t believe the gay lifestyle is what god intended. However I also don’t think that god wants me to harm anyone who is gay or make thier life miserable because I don’t approve. I don’t think god hates gay people. I don’t think gay people deserve to die. I don’t think aids was created by god to punish gay people. I don’t think the life of a gay person is worth less than that of a straight person if thier character is equal with regard to everything aside from thier sexual orientation.

    4. With regard to the promotion of gay lifestyle in American society. I have no problem with people wanting to see, read, or learn about things pertaining to the gay lifestyle. I do however have a problem when someone calls me narrow minded, homophobic or anything else like that just because I have no desire to see brokeback mountain or “celebrate the gay liffestyle.” You wanna be gay? Fine with me….. just don’t be so in your face with it……..It seems as if most gay people define themselves by thier sexuality as though there were nothing else to them that makes them who they are as a person. Then again there are probably many gay people who never mention it at all. It’s just that there are so many that are in your face, flambouyant and annoying. They and pop culture seem to want to label everyone who doesn’t love everything gay, which to them is the superior lifestyle (it’s trendy to be gay), as homophobic.

    4a. I do not think all gay people are sexual deviants or pedophiles. I believe that the gay population as a whole will have some people like this amongst them just as the general population as a whole will. I do believe however that the ultra liberal media covers it up when these people do horrible things and happen to be gay because the media wants to do all that it can to be portray all homosexuals in a positive light. Does anyone know who Jesse Dirkhising is? He was a 13 year old boy who was raped and murdered by Joshua Brown, a 22 year old gay man in 1999. The mainstream media completely ignored this story because the perpetrator was gay and it didn’t fit into thier agenda. Is this right? You can bet your ass they would have reported it if Brown had been straight.

    5. I could care less what 2, 3, 4, 5, or 22 consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms as long as they aren’t hurting anyone else. Laws that try tell consenting adults what they can or can’t do in thier own bedrroms are stupid and unconstitutional.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    There you have it folks…

  • Arch Conservative

    That’s the best you can do?

    Have what?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Arch con man, in the brief time I’ve known of you, I’ve learned the heard way that you have a hard head and refuse to acknowledge anyone’s opinions but your own.

    Therefore it’s usless to debate you on any topic, and best just to ignore you whenever possible, like a misbehaving 5 year old who just wants attention.

    …but of course that’s just my opinion

  • Arch Conservative

    UMMM Jet………

    In case you haven’t noticed, pretty much everything posted on BC is subjective opinion.

    That’s what BC is for. You post your opinions, others disagree with you and say why.

    I don’t expect everyone to agree with me but I always “acknowledge” other’s opinions. I don’t always agree with them and often critisize them as others critisize mine. I have no problem with people makign substantive arguments with anything I post.

    But saying “There you have it folks…” and then in your next post continuing to adddress anything I actually said……..that’s just lame.

    Seems like your’re the one incapable of acknowledging opinions that run contrary to yours, not me.

    If anyone is anti-gay marriage they’re not worthy of a response from you?

    …but of course that’s just my opinion

  • http://chantalstone.blogspot.com chantal stone

    I have a few things to add…..

    First…Steve, you know I love you, but we disagree on this issue. There are a few points I want to make:

    “…procreation is naturally impossible between two same sex couples.”

    That’s obvious…but as Jet pointed out, gay couples can and DO provide loving and stable homes for children by adopting…and many gay couples are the ones open-minded enough to adopt older children or minority children. These kids need homes and love too, and I thank God that there are loving couples willing to open their homes to them.

    “There is no equality between heterosexual and homosexual couples vis a vis parenting. In heterosexual couples, a father and a mother can be present for raising a child. Not possible in a homosexual marriage relationship.”

    All we need for equality here are a few laws to be changed…..easy enough.

    Jet…..re. comment #50….I’m sorry that happened to you. Ignorance is really the most dangerous threat to our society, IMO.

    Arch Con……in response to your #2 in comment #53….
    “….I feel that this is the best environment for children to grow up in as they have a male and female role model.”

    What about single parents then? Should their children be taken away from them because there isn’t both a male and female parent in the house? Many kids are being raised solely by one parent, and many suffer from that. I agree that to successfully parent, two parents are needed, but what difference does it make if the are M/F, M/M or F/F??

  • Arch Conservative

    Chantal……

    NO biological parent should have their child taken away from them unless they are a harmful influence on the child.

    Adoption is different though. When you have a child for adoption you get to choose the parents unlike a child being raised by birth parents. therefore you can look at potential parents before they are given custody of the children and weigh all aspects of thier character, household environment and anything else that would be appropritae.

    Given this opportunity..I feel it would be best if the adoption agency placed the child with one female and one male who could provide the child with a happy, healthy, loving environment in which to grow up. I also believe that having a role model of each sex is better for the child than two of the same sex.

    I am not saying that all heterosexuals make better parents than all homosexuals. I am merely saying that given the amount of heterosexual couples capable of being good parents but unable to concieve themselves, they should be given preference.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Arch the con man, it was addressed in #51

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Regarding comment 48 from Steve: I’ve never laughed so hard in my life.

    actually the State has a vested interest in encouraging marriage between people of child bearing age. If there are not enough children being born in a society, naturally, it’s going to die out!!

    There are over 6 billion people on the planet. This has long ceased to be a concern with life expectancy rates at an all time high for us.

    The problem with your ‘equality’ argument is that there is nothing equal between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual one.

    both contain two consenting legal adults.

    For starters, procreation is naturally impossible between two same sex couples. A third party has to be brought in to accomplish that. So it is not the same as heterosexual marriage.

    If the purpose of marriage is to have children, then sterile heterosexuals should be forbidden from marriage. Also all women past menopause and men with ED and anybody else who CHOOSES to not have children. By allowing them to get married in violation of YOUR purpose for marriage but not allowing me is discrimination. Period. Courts agree with that. I would LOVE for you to use this line of reasoning in a court of law. WHen it’s used, you’ve lost every time.

    There is no equality in intercourse. The vagina has features that make the insertion of objects safer and easier, unlike the anus,

    The genitals have nothing to do with marriage. People share their genitals outside of marriage all the time. Marriage is not a license to use genitals, the government cannot give or take a license for that. And you think I’m the dumb one?

    There is no equality between heterosexual and homosexual couples vis a vis parenting. In heterosexual couples, a father and a mother can be present for raising a child. Not possible in a homosexual marriage relationship.

    As a gay man raising a child, you have just slammed MY parenting, Steve. You have continually laid outlandish claims at me all over this site without responding to my continual call for statistical proof. You have said that people taking license with liberty destroy societies but you ignore my calls for proof. You said that me getting married infringes on the rights of Christians but you ignore my calls for which rights specifically. YOU, Good Sir, are full of it.

    Since you insult my family by calling it inferior to other families because a female is not present I demand statistical proof that that is the case.

    From WebMD Same Sex Parenting Raises Well Adjusted Kids
    The American Psyciatric Association writes:

    “Numerous studies have shown that the children of gay parents are as likely to be healthy and well adjusted as children raised in heterosexual households. children raised in gay or lesbian household do not show any greater incidence of homosexuality of gender identity issues than other children. Children raised in nontraditional homes with gay/lesbian parents can encounter some special challenges related to the ongoing stigma against homosexuality, but most children surmount these problems.”

    i.e. the problems children face are from bigots.

    The AMerican Academy of Pediatrics writes:

    …prime task was to determine if there is a disadvantage conferred upon a child who is being raised by two men or two women, in comparison to the same child being raised by a man and woman. Perrin said: “We felt that the data were very conclusive that the answer to that question is ‘no.’ ” Thus, the AAP will support legal and legislative efforts to allow adoption by gay and lesbian couples.

    The AMerican Psychoanalytic Association endorses same sex parenting.

    source for above three studies

    Steve, you insist on promoting the continued oppression and ostracization of my family and you continue to do so by throwing out things you REFUSE to substantiate. I DEMAND you back up your claim that my family is inferior with data. Note that data from a right wing organization with an agenda is NOT acceptable nor is quoting the bible. We are talking about my basic liberties and I am serious. Now back up your claim or shut the hell up about something you clearly know nothing about.

    Answer my three questions I have posed to you or let it be known to everybody here know that you have nothing to back up your prejudice.

  • Georgio

    Jet ..Another great article and good comments ..When I was a kid everyone told me ..Never argue politics and religion ..and now that I am old the only thing I am interested in is politics and religion…years ago nobody cared what religion you where and homosexuality was not accepted,,being the brother of a homosexual I am glad to see them getting closer to equality for all..If we can shut the religious right fanatics up we may see equal rights for all ..I don’t fear war or terrorists but I fear this group because they want to use the bible to make the laws of this country,,they are too stupid to realize that religious politicians determined what bullshit went into the bible not God who they claim wrote it or inspired it ..
    I was pleased to see that Dave Nalle gave positive comments to your article and I love your Idea of Joe Biden for President and Hillary as vice President ..

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Okay, all right, would everyone please re-read my comment #51?
    specifically the item about the “gay gift” between gay and lesbian couples in regards to gay couples having biological children.

    Archie the con man, you’ve obviouly ignored Chantal’s remarks concerning single parents. And I’d like to add that a man who has become a widower can raise a child without a mother figure just as well as a couple.

    Another thing. I LOVE and respect everything Chantal has written here, whether I agree or not, but she’s secure in her own INTELLECT to know that without my doing a line-item acknowledgement of each and every point she and the other nice people who’ve taken the time to comment as made, unlike you who need me to say it.

    Okay here you are Arch the con man. You are absolutely right in everything you have said, or will say!

    Now……. do you have anything to add to that?

    ooooxxxxxChantal!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Steve, as to you’re comment 61. Are you like Arch and need me to acknowledge each point, or can I just give you a hearty ABSOFUCKINLOOTLY!!!

    Just wondering
    Jet

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    To quote my favorite cartoon growing up as a kid Georgio, Linus said, “There are three things you must NEVER discuss with a friend. Religion, Politics, and the Great Pumpkin!

    Thanks for adding your voice and opinions sir.
    Jet

  • Druxxx

    Steve

    There is no requirement that straight married couples have children, so please stop bringing it up in regards to the gay marriage debate. I don’t see have the fact the anal sex is more difficult has anything to do with this debate either. Heterosexual couples have anal sex. And BTW, some heterosexual married couples have no sex at all.

    Most do believe, and I think most current statistics will back it up, that two adults of opposite sex are best for raising children. These statistics will change as more people become open minded about gay parents. IMO many of the problems that gay parents and their children have are a result of a society that doesn’t agree with their lifestyle.

    People who oppose gay marriage continue to throw out tired arguments that are based on logic from a long gone era that will never come back and never should. They fail to take into account that heterosexual marriage has changed and in many cases doesn’t fit into their old box.

    Arch

    Your opinions can be anything you want them to be, but they are not any more valid then mine, Jet’s, or SteveS’s. Any one groups opinions should not be written into law.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Arch Conman says:

    Studies have been done that show two good parents, one of each sex, is the best situation for a child.

    Arch, I have provided sources above from legitimate medical establishments that prove otherwise. Now you need to back up your claim and show these studies, keeping in mind that religious institutions with a proven agenda against the equality of gays and lesbians is not an acceptable source.

    Has anybody noticed how the right wingers on this site continually spout things off and NEVER back up their claims? Who can believe this stuff. They might as well say that woman came from man’s rib or that the earth is flat. Every claim they make people should be demanding proof. No wonder this country is in the toilet.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Jet, you only need to respond to comments directed at you. Many times the comment section can take a life of it’s own. It’s indicative of a voliatle (sp?) topic. Support for one’s ideas (an amen or an absolfuckinloolty) is always good to show that one is not alone in their opinion.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Just caught this:

    Steve in comment 48 twists things yet again:

    Finally, re. ministers performing marriages, I think by your statement –

    “I’m not labeling it hate speech and I’m not saying it isn’t, I make no claim of my own”

    that even you realise that if you are right, then this religious freedom will not be with us beyond the generation that accepts your arguments here.

    I pointed out that the ministers in Canada are not being charged with refusing to perform marriages. Something Steve tries to insinuate here yet again. The ministers are being charged with hate speech from the pulpit and that has absolutely nothing to do with marriage.

    Even when corrected, Steve still tries to twist things around.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    To quote Simon and Garfunkle

    “A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest…”

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Ruvy, I suprized, and a little disappointed that you haven’t jumped in here, I’d really like your views.

    Jet

  • Steve

    Steve S, alas I’m not going to be home the rest of today either, but I will follow up tomorrow when I have more time. What I find curious is, you are not willing to look at any source but those that support your own view –

    “keeping in mind that religious institutions with a proven agenda against the equality of gays and lesbians is not an acceptable source.”

    How ummm…open minded of you lol.

    By placing the issue as being with people rather than facts, shows to me that it doesn’t matter what the facts may be, who people are is more important to you than what the truth is. I’m sorry you prefer to be surrounded by ‘yes men’. Of course, if you really were right, that would not be necessary. It’s not who the messenger is, that’s important…the issue is, is the messenger telling the truth. Tomorrow then…

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Every medical institution on the planet is a ‘yes men’ to me? I gave you evidence from the American Medical Association, The American Pediatric Assocation, The AMerican Psychoanalytical Association and you call them yes men?

    A religious institution with a proven anti-gay agenda is not considered to be open minded and you accuse me of being close minded?

    Steve, you are just getting laughable in your debate. Thank goodness it is all on record here to show everybody you have no verifiable, expert source to prove your claims.

    The three claims you’ve made that you cannot substantiate are:

    1) People taking license with liberties leads to societal downfall. You claim this but can provide no examples of this. The insinuation here is that there should be a limit to an individuals liberties.

    2) Giving a gay or lesbian full equality infringes upon the rights of a Christian, but no specific right can be pointed out. It’s just some nebulous right that we can’t put a finger on.

    3) Children do better in male/female households, yet there is no medical establishment that you can point to, to back up your claim. Religious anti-gay agendas, you claim, should be valid sources equatable with the medical establishment, otherwise people are being close minded.

    Let’s get this on record.

    Have a good day.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Steve, and all of you, The above is very thought provoking, but as you must know we all have our own “truths” just as we all have our own “facts”

    Facts and truths can be fluid, just look at the mess “the Book of Judas” is causing. Can you imagine the bible being rewritten this late in the game, especially when so many fundamentalists consider the Bible their absolute be-all “fact” just the way it is!

    New books of the bible are being discovered and some are being supressed. What if every ancient text, including the ones in the bible (translated directly, not by some “King James”” were included in one volume, would our view and faith in the historical picture of that era change? I believe it would, because we’d see the whole story, not just the pieces that the original framers deemed acceptable.

    That’s what I’m doing here. I want to see what everyone thinks, I want the whole picture; ugly or not.

    I value fluid opinions. I hope mine aren’t set in stone, which is why I brought this whole subject up in the first place.

    I’ve said before that I’m wrong on occasion, and I’d like to explain that…

    I learn from my mistakes. I respect anyone who has the guts to admit they’re wrong, because to constantly submit that you’re never wrong is a sign of a closed mind, that has shut down from learning anything new, because it’s convinced it knows everything already, so why bother.

    I hope I never become that.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    I was proof reading my above statement when the above was posted, I was referring to #73, so there’s no confusion.

    Thank you SteveS for the above, I value you
    Jet

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Duh, I meant I was referring to #72

    Wrong again
    oy

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Jet,

    Re: #71. There are two reasons that I have not jumped in on this conversation. The first is that I keep the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a 25 hour period that we Jews get to contemplate G-d and what He says and does, as opposed to what we ourselves desire to say and do. That means no writing, no igniting flames, no working on the computer etc,. This piece either came out right when I turned off the computer or a short while after.

    The second is that this piece deals with the United States. I don’t live there. There are lots of little things that you pick up in the wind that I cannot. Also, a big event that appears to have really changed things there, the destruction of the World Trade Center, happened after we left. So it’s a whole different country now – one truly foreign to me.

    Shavua Tov – have a good week

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Ruvy, I’m sorry that the line “Fundamentalism is the reason that in the middle east right now, children are being taught from birth that their only reason for existing is to kill Jews” didn’t get your attention.

    Alas maybe next time
    Jet

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Jet,

    This does get my attention. Fundamentalism is a Christian term, rightly and properly used to describe certain Christian sects and their attitudes.

    To attempt to shove this term onto other religions distorts what the other religions are about and distorts the true events wherever this term is used.

    There is no such animal as a Jewish fundamentalist, just as there is no such animal as a Moslem fundamentalist.

    If you want to describe Jews or to describe Moslems, please take the trouble to learn and describe us in our own terms, so that you truly understand the phenomena you see around you, rather than distorting them in the lenses of lazy American journalists.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Okay Ruvy, Thankyou.
    In the U.S. they’re referred to as Muslim Fundementalists took to the street to protest a Danish Cartoon. or maybe Islamic Estreemists.

    or

    Jewish Fundamentalist clerics convened on Jerusalem today to make their position known about the Palestinian problem. Or I’ve even heard them referred to as Jewish extreemists.

    As the title says, I’m trying not to be a bigot, but for that to happen, for any bigot to stop being one I have to be willing to be educated and someone has to be willing to teach me. That’s why I called you out in the first place.
    I respect you and your opinions.
    Educate me, sir. I’m not afraid to admit I’m wrong, what are they supposed to be referred to as???

    I’m not trying to distort anything, and had no intentions of bringing any nationalist views into fray.

    I await to be enlightened. You obviously know the meaning of the term, I THOUGHT I did. so please tell me what a Fundamentalist is to you.

    Thanks
    Jet

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Jet,

    I just told you what “fundamentalist” means to me. It has nothing to do with Judaism or Islam.

    What you need is to learn what the proper Moslem and Jewish terms are.

    That gets tricky. Secular and anti-religious newspapers like Haaretz or Ynetnews (Yediot AHronot) will happily use the term “fundamentalist” in their English editions or extremist in their Hebrew editions to paint religious Jews in colors unfavorable to them as part of the kulturkampf here. So you may well see “fundamentalist” in the English on-line edition of Haaretz or Ynetnews.

    The more appropriate term is National camp or “rabbis agreeing with the National camp.”

    As far as Moslems go, the appropriate term is going to depend on who is doing what. Most often, the term Moslem extremist is most applicable to members of the Wahhhabi sect or its allies, the Moslem Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, the Taliban. It is harder for me to talk about the Shia Moslems because I’m a tad less familiar with the groups within their fold.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Your most welcome. By the way, I did not perceive you as a bigot in any of your statements. Had I, believe me, you would have heard about it.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Hence the title of this post. I’m trying to determine if I can react to people like Chantal without thinking they’re someone like Arch Conservative before I even meet them, just because they proudly consider themselves christian…

    When you’ve grown up wanting to be a Presbyterian minister, only to find out your different, and then you find the very people you respect the most condemning you, prounouncing a pervert, and telling you on no uncertain terms that you’re going to hell, after a while it becomes an automatic defense.

  • http://chantalstone.blogspot.com chantal stone

    Jet, I understand that reaction (from #84). Many Christians are intolerant bigots, and I can understand that when some people here the term “Christian” this is what they automatically think. I, for one, do not fit the stereotypical mold of what “Christian” is, but I think you know this by now. :)

  • Baronius

    Ruvy – thanks. I was trying to make this point earlier, but you fleshed it out nicely. The term “fundamentalist” properly refers to those who focus on the fundamentals of their religion. There is nothing inherently extremist about such a position. The fundamentalist Christian on TV ends every broadcast with a plea to pray a conversion prayer, because he believes that’s all that matters.

    In Christianity, the Protestant is more fundamentalist than the Catholic, because the Protestant accepts the authority of the Bible only, whereas the Catholic accepts the tradition of the Church in interpreting the Bible.

    In Islam, the Shiite is more fundamentalist than the Sunni, because while both accept the Koran, the Sunni relies on the hadith, the oral tradition of the subsequent leaders of Islam.

    In Judaism, there are some fundamentalist movements which accept the authority of the Torah only, while most Jews accept the Talmud as well (which is, again, the written record of the oral tradition of rabbinical interpretation).

    Within Mormonism (sing this with me, because you already know the words), there is a fundamentalist movement which holds to the teachings of LDS founder Joseph Smith, while the mainstream of Mormonism believes that the church is guided by “continual revelation”.

    Often, the fundamentalist holds more extreme positions, but this isn’t always the case. Counterexamples include the diminishing sexual morality within Protestantism, and the zealotry of Wahhabism. “Fundamentalist” is one of those terms that is often misused in the American press.

  • Steve

    Good point, Baronius.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Baronius, I learned something today, thank you.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Chantal, it’s people like you that are helping me heal

    My prayers and my thanks
    Jet

  • Steve

    Re. comment #84, Jet, I hate to say this but…if you go telling Christian folks that you’re gay, and those folks believe that’s a sin, I don’t see what other response you can expect. And those words apply to any sinners. Just like if you went up to them and said, “I’m an adulterer”, you would get a similar response. Of course, you never see that happen to anyone else typically because Jet, when people sin, they usually don’t go telling it to people unless they want help in stopping it/how to deal with it.

    I realise you don’t view it the same way, Jet, because you don’t believe you’re sinning, but why you would think things could be different when dealing with folks like that, given your background, is a real puzzle. After all, if an adulterer came up to a Christian and simply said “I’m an adulterer”, what would you think about the Christian who replied, “That’s great! Keep right at it!!”???

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Sorry Steve, but you believe it.
    But I’ve lived it first hand.

    Adultry is a choice, thus is a sin
    Being gay is not a choice.

    It used to be believed that being left-handed was evil and parents would actually train their kids to use their right hand, causing everything from stuttering, to deeper problems.

    No difference.

    I didn’t wake up one day and say, I want the whole world to brand me a Pervert or a sinner. I didn’t choose to stay gay, when I realized the life of being straight would be so much easier or peaceful.

    You choose to be an adulterer
    you don’t chose to be gay.

    Your results may vary

  • gonzo marx

    another one for Steve…

    in some Philosophies, the Fundamentals and even the Bible some follow are considered the Work of a DemiUrge to deceive and distort the Path of Man…confusing them and leading humanity astray and into the Dark

    utilizing this as a hypothetical Postulate, and expanding the same Reasoning you suggest…then when an Evangelical approaches such a person…would it not be reasonable to said individual to denounce this servant of the Dark and attempt to show them the errors of their Way?

    after all, they have the Choice and the powers of their own Reason…

    whereas, in the example of a gay individual, they do not…

    and so…how can any consider there to be “sin” if there is no Choice?

    is that not the Lesson taught in the Genesis story regarding the Tree that bore the Fruit of Knowledge between Good and Evil?

    objects in mirror are closer than they appear

    Excelsior!

  • Steve

    Well, Jet, if ex-gay ministries haven’t proven that it’s not necessarily a choice, hard to see anything else that would convince you. If that is not evidence, I don’t know what is. I think it is true however, that the longer one lives the lifestyle, the harder it is to change. That’s true of most sins. Until we reach the end of our rope, at least. And self pity can make one very contrarian indeed. However, no matter what sins beset us, we can choose not to act on them, with God’s help.

    Of course, the Bible does not say that left handers are evil or sinful lol. It is important not to confuse old wives’ tales with what the Bible says. I am right handed, though I have managed to train my left hand to use a mouse for example, just to give my right one a break.

  • Steve

    See comment #93, gonzo. We have different assumptions, therefore we have different conclusions. How about that!!

  • gonzo marx

    and once again..you confuse the hoice of denying what you are with actual change

    those “ministries” do not stop folks form being gay…they merely coerce them into denying it

    much as nuns used to coerce folks into not being left handed

    but as long as you are going to choose to consider a person’s sexuality with “sin”…based on Leviticus, all the while ignoring the rest of the prohibitions and “laws” concerning “sins” in Leviticus…you and others like you will be constrained into hypocrisy and denial

    my Hope is for the time when you Awaken and see beyond the dogma imposed by the priest class and instead study the Lessons directly spoken by the Teacher you revere and “worship”

    Excelsior!

  • Steve

    Chantal, thank you for your kind words in comment #58.

    My point was, the notion that there is biological equality between heterosexual and homosexual relationships is obviously not true. So why should they be treated as the same when they are obviously not??? It’s a nonsensical argument.

    However, rights for any significant others should be granted re. Jet’s comments about his lover’s death etc. but there is simply no good reason to call those other relationships marriage.

  • Steve

    “those “ministries” do not stop folks form being gay…they merely coerce them into denying it”

    gonzo, you’ve talked to ex-gays have you?? And they admitted that to you??? Methinks you are making assumptions again.

    And by the way, gonzo, prohibitions re. same sex relations are in the NT also, 1,000+ years after Leviticus!! So let’s not start a fight over a straw man, shall we??

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Jet, you’ve used a term applicable to Christianity to distort other religions. You do not get to determine what is “fundamental” to a religion. The practitioners do. To a “fundamentalist” Christian, the term is a compliment. You’ve turned it around into a bad word.

    In Judaism, the group which denies the validity of the Talmud is called the Neturei Karta. They are not fundamentalists, they are rebels who have been kicked out of the faith.

    In Islam, the Wahhabi are rebels who hasve seized control of the faith. Imagine, if you will, that in 1800 a sect of Christians who had been excommuncated by the Vatican seized control of the Vatican and installed their own boy as pope. That is analogous to what happened in Islam. Rebels thrown out of Islam by several Halifs over three centuries seized Mecca and Medina in the 1920’s. It is now this rebel version of Islam that you hear from the minarets of Medina.

    Again, the word fundamentalist does not apply here. It is the application of a lazy journalist (not you) unwilling to do the research necessary to describe facts.

    Unfortunately, your definitions distort facts rather than make them clear because you are attempting to use the terms of a lazy journalist to deal with issues that bother you.

  • gonzo marx

    well Steve, by those NT things you mean stuff written by Saul of Tarsus..(aka St. Peter) correct?

    how about we agree that he was a man and NOT Yeshua(Jesus)…and thus spouted a man’s opinion…

    agani, his History…like that of Constantine, leads one to view his “conversion” as much a political vehicle as a spiritual one

    and yes..i have spoken with more folks than you might imagine in my time…i do try my best not to make any assumptions…

    unlike what you appear to be doing when you assert…
    *if ex-gay ministries haven’t proven that it’s not necessarily a choice,*

    no proof there, anecdotal incidents…not scientific evidence, nor any “proof” that would be acceptable in court

    or
    *My point was, the notion that there is biological equality between heterosexual and homosexual relationships is obviously not true.*

    such is not obvious..and i would ask you to cite or link to the scientific studies in biology that lead you to make such statements…

    now, when you state…
    *So why should they be treated as the same when they are obviously not???*

    how about basic human Rights and dignity? you know “christian mercy and compassion” kind of thing?

    you are much closer to being factually correct when you state…
    *We have different assumptions, therefore we have different conclusions.*

    you operate from the assumption of your Religion…i operate from postulates formed by my understanding of Facts and attempt to form working hypothesis from there

    so, yes…we obviously come to differing conclusions…and i have no problem with that

    pardon me if i am a bit touchy about it at times…folks like yourself have a history of burning folks like me at the stake after some nice rounds of torture…

    still, i remain…apostate and heretic

    Excelsior!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Gonzo! Steve! Ruvy! Absofuckinglootly amazing!!! Thank all 3 of you so much. I must’ve fallen asleep just as this was going on, and boy am I sorrr I missed it!

    Thank you, all three for your contributions.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Ahhhh research! This might illustrate how I feel in today’s times. Imagine that you’re left handed in the following article. The predujice shown in the following was just as prevolent as it is against gays now. Even by people who consider themselves supporters of gay rights.

    This is how I feel that “fundamentalist” think of me. Maybe some day waaaaaaaaaay in the future, gay won’t matter as much as Left Handed does now.

    …For thousands of years, the Devil has been associated with the left hand in various ways and is normally portrayed as being left-handed in pictures and other images. In the seventeenth century it was thought that the Devil baptised his followers with his left-hand and there are many references in superstitions to the “left-hand side” being associated with evil.

    As an example, in France it was held that witches greet Satan “avec le bras gauche” or with the left hand. It is also considered that we can only see ghosts if we look over our left shoulder and that the Devil watches us over the left shoulder.

    Evil spirits lurk over the left shoulder – throw salt over this shoulder to ward them off. In Roman times, salt was a very valuable commodity, giving rise to the word “salary” and was considered a form of money at the time. If salt was spilled, that was considered very bad luck, that could only be avoided by throwing some of the spilled salt over your left shoulder to placate the devil.
    Joan of Arc (burned at the stake in 1431 for being a heretic and a witch) was not necessarily left-handed, she may have been depicted in this way to make her seem evil.

    Getting out of bed with the left foot first means that you will have a bad day and be bad tempered . i.e. getting out of bed the wrong side.
    A ringing in the right ear means that someone is praising you. In the left ear it means that someone is cursing or maligning you.
    An itchy right palm means that you will receive money. An itchy left palm means you will have to give money.

    Wedding rings worn on the third finger of the left hand originated with the Greeks and Romans, who wore them to fend of evil associated with the left-handThe Romans originally considered the left to be the lucky side and used for augury. However, they later changed back to the Greek methods and favoured the right-hand side.

    The right hand often symbolises ‘male’ while the left hand is ‘female’.
    If you hear the sound of a cuckoo from the right it will be a lucky year. If the sound comes from the left it will be unlucky.
    The Meru people of Kenya believed that the left-hand of their holy man has such evil power that he had to keep it hidden for the safety of others.
    If your right eye twitches you will see a friend, if it’s your left eye that twitches you’ll see an enemy.
    When dressmaking it’s believed to be bad luck to sew the left-hand sleeve onto a garment before the right sleeve.
    When leaving to go on a journey, if your right foot itches you’re bound to have a good journey. If your left foot itches it will end in sorrow.
    It is thought to be bad luck to pass a drink to another person with your left-hand or anti-clockwise around a table.

    I leave you to ponder

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Men have female breast nipples… why?
    Because sex in the womb isn’t determined until a time after the nipples have already developed.

    I’m carrying this over from an intelligent design discussion on another string, because it might contribute here.

    If we can accept that assumption as natural, that men have female characteristis, which is evident as there’s no such thing as a male that doesn’t have female breast nipples, why is it so hard to accept that sexual orientation can, and would be carried over in about ten percent of the population naturally over in the same way.

    Another question would be WHY when he created Adam, did he give him breast nipples. Eve was created from Adam as an afterthought, and only after God saw that Adam was lonely and decided to create a companion for him. If that’s the case, that’d tend to lead you to think that biological reproduction was an after thought, after all if it was “his” intention, he’d have created Adam and Eve at the same time!

    If Adam didn’t have nipples, why did God tinker with his “perfect” creation afterward, to give them to him, something that he DIDN’T NEED????

    Thank you gonzo…you inspired it, but I came to the conclusion

    …but that’s only my opinion

  • troll

    *Men have female breast nipples… why?*

    so that there’s something on that manly chest to pierce with a ring – ?

    troll

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Okay, I can see the logic in that. That probably is why god did that. You’re probably right!!!! Of course if your erection lasts for more than 4 hours, you should consult an physician immediatly!

    by the way, what are you wearing?

  • troll

    combat boots…

    perhaps G-d saw the need for another erogenous zone…He is such a slut

    troll

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Jerry Falwell just rolled over in his grave.
    Oh wait he’s not dead yet.
    Hmmmmm

    Oh well, I’m not into camauflage jock straps anyway, I’m not that kinky

    Remember if you erection last for more than 4 hours consult a physician immediately!

    …this has been a recorded announcement :p

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    PS People tell me I’m too ugly to be gay, click on my url and you’ll see!

  • http://chantalstone.blogspot.com chantal stone

    I just want to elaborate more on gonzo’s point in comment #99 about Paul…..

    In 1 Corinthians ch 7.(NT, for those who don’t know) Paul talks about marriage, and the benefits of marriage. Here he discusses that a woman’s body belongs to her husband, a man’s body belongs to his wife, blah blah blah……

    But then in ch7:12 Paul says this:

    “To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her…”

    My point here is that Paul freely admits that he is preaching his own opinion, not the teachings of Jesus. If he is so willing to add his own spin on the idea of marriage here, who’s to say he didn’t pepper the rest of the NT Letters that he wrote with his own rhetoric?

    It is Paul who speaks against homosexuality in the NT. Many scholars might (and have) argued that Paul, himself, was nothing more than a self-loathing homosexual, using the teachings of Jesus for his own political gain.

    It’s my belief that homosexuality was a non-issue to Jesus. There are far more important things in this life to worry about than that. If modern day Christians would put half the effort an energy into fighting poverty and suffering and injustice in this world as they do trying to fight homosexuality, this world would be a much better place.

    I said it before…the greatest threat to our society is ignorance.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    I just want to say to all of you, how priveledged I feel, th have such serious and throught-provoking comments from you. I’ve learned a lot, and hope to learn more.

    thanks Chantal

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Regarding the comments earlier about ex-gays. Even ex-gays will tell you that they are still gay, they just learn to refrain from acting on their desires. Their failure rate is over 70%. For further information on the destructive, harmful and less than successful attempt at getting people to live lives other than those God created them for, check out the Ex-gay watch blog

    Being gay is not a choice. Nobody chooses oppression, ostracization, ridicule, and to be subjected to bigotry and discrimination. We call it falling in love not walking into love, because falling clearly points out that we do not control who we fall in love with. It happens on it’s own.

    Steve, I assume at this point, since you are still not answering my questions about the claims you made, that you are conceding they are baseless, including the insult against my own family.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    There’s a beautiful blog called Rising Up Whole, about a Christian gay woman recovering from her experiences in the ex-gay movement.

    I also recommend checking out Abigail Garner’s blog Damn Straight, the daughter of a gay man, who will show you that the anti-gay agenda of the religious right harms the children of gay parents more than anybody else.

    There’s also Queerspawn, an aggregator of blogs, similiar to blogcritics, except it is exclusively for children of gay parents. There they talk about it all, the good and the bad.

    Just, you know, in case anybody is interested in the lives they actually go trampling on, in close-minded pursuit of their religious agenda.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Just to add my own non-gay two cents on the ex-gay thing, I found the movie But I’m a Cheerleader to be a pretty thorough skewering of the entire gay deprogramming subject, and humorous as well.

    Dave

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    SteveS, as always, you’ve given me a lot to read and a lot to think about.

    my grateful thanks.

  • gonzo marx

    w00t…chantal and SteveS to the rexcue…better than any cavalry when it comes to calm, rational discussion on some of these topics…

    also heavily armed with Facts

    thanks folks…made my waiting for coffee time much better…

    Excelsior!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Dave, Believe it or not, I haven’t seen that yet, but on your recomendation, I will.

    Maybe I’ll even get a good movie review out of it.

    Thank you.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    To be frank with all of you, I’m just as worried about the Fundamentalist movement legislating heterosexual mores. I mean after they’re done with us, you know they’re coming after you.

    Outlawing doing business or traveling on sunday, except to go to church, and possibly even compulsary church attendance, or maybe even a tax on wages “tithing” directly to churches.

    heterosexual sex that doesn’t produce children

    Those “Faith Based” institutions, could be expanded so that places like the YMCA would require people in need to attend religious services.

    The whole constitutional crisis if they decide to leglslate morality by changing it as they did during prohibition.

    The list is endless.

    Legislating which version of the lord’s prayer is legal to display in a school or courtroom.
    “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us” or is it “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors” I actually had to stand in the corner in a public school in 2nd grade in 1962 because I recited the Presbyterian version instead of my teacher’s Catholic version.

    I’m almost as afraid of the laws that’d change, as the reaction after, when the general population yells “enough is enough” and rises up against them as they did in order to repeal prohibition.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Jet, there might be more hope than you believe, though this does require a bit of real historical knowledge, a rare commodity in your country these days.

    The founders of you country were all nominal Christians, but nearly all were Deists – something a little different from a Christian. In other words, there are real arguments that go to the heart of the fact that America is a Deist country – not necessarily a Christian one.

    Therefore there is a limit to how far one can legislate religion without violating the will of the founders. Gonzo or Dasve Nalle can argue these points better than me. I’ve forgotten a lot of my college American history course that detailed all of these philosophies.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    It’s simple really, but it is twisted by the fundamentalists.

    There is a right to freedom of religion. That means that a person has a right to believe (for example) that a gay person is a sinner).

    However, they cannot create something like a public school system, that is run off of the taxes of all legal citizens (like gay people) and have that public school system condemn gay families.

    Fundamentalists in this country try to get you to believe that is an assault on your religion, but it is not, because it doesn’t affect what you believe.

    That’s just one example out of many.

    The bottom line that America needs to decide is how far does one’s right to express their religious belief go? Clearly, there is ample evidence that on a large scale, religious belief inflicts upon the rights of others. Does that mean religious belief has gone too far? In my opinion, yes.

    The right to maintain your religious belief is important, but should it be allowed to supercede the basic rights, liberties and equalities of others? That is what every Christian, every Jew, every person of faith should be asking themselves in this country.

  • taxpayer

    “Fundamentalists in this country try to get you to believe that is an assault on your religion, but it is not, because it doesn’t affect what you believe.”

    I think what they don’t want is to have their children in public schools taught that homosexuality is normal behavior.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Dear Ruvy, You bring up a good point, but as we speak, the religious right is determined to change and rewrite history. Pat Robertson and his ilk are at this moment painting the pilgim’s sailing a mission from God, and that not only was George Washington on a mission from God, but that Washington was created by God to save us.

    We are running close now to seeing a bunch of 19 to 25 year olds who don’t know whether to believe in the creation of the earth within 6-7000 years, or the evolution of the earth over millions of years, because of creationists disputing what’s taught in astronomy and science classes vs the bible!

    This is damage that can’t be reversed because that’s how they were taught, Fundamentalists point to the failure of our schools as an argument for private religious schools instead, but they’re the ones that sabotaged public schools by legislating through “stacked deck” local school boards that decree that Intelligent Design be taught beside of, or in some cases instead of science, to the point where the U.S. is falling way behind other countries such as China, India, and Japan in Science knowledge.

    There’s also the problem of the kids being taught “fatalism” where since it’s promised that Jesus is coming very soon anyway, that not only would it possibly be a SIN to believe or study scientific theories, but it’d almost be blasphomous (SIC) to do so. Why study it, if God’s coming soon to reclaim the earth anyway?

    I appreciate your input, but I respect it as well

  • Steve

    Re. comment #51, it doesn’t change my basic point, under normal circumstances, heterosexual marriage gives two partners the chance to conceive their own biological children. Homosexual marriage cannot facilitate that between two people, therefore, it cannot be equal to heterosexual marriage.

  • Dave Nalle

    Steve, you make the mistaken assumption that under law marriage should ever be anything more than a contract between two people. The same as a partnership agreement or an agreement to sell a car for an agreed price. It’s just a legal arrangement and as such it should be gender neutral.

    Dave

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Steve,
    It’s just like a straight couple who’s infertile, only in this case all four party are fertile.

    Sperm from both male lovers, and eggs from both female lovers are mixed together, fertilized and reimplanted producing two pregnancies-one each of the lesbians.

    By prearrangement, the children are split up between them, and they are the couple’s BIOLOGICAL children, and no contact is allowed afterward between the male or female couples unless agreed upon because they want to raise sisters and brothers. If contact is allowed, they’re usually refered to as cousins between the lesbian couple and the gay couple.

    Unless DNA tests are done, neither male lover or female lover KNOWS which child is who’s, therefore they are given unconditional love as if they were their biological children.

    This bond is stronger than an adopted child could have. As long as the true biological parentage is not revealed, if the couple breaks up, which is very rare in those cases, the trauma of separation is as real as straight couples for the kids, and so is the love.

    Love is not gender specific, two sources of love equal parents.

    Chantal explained most of this to you, I just got into the specifics…

    Enough!!!
    sheesh

  • Arch Conservative

    Yeah Dave what’s wrong with you?

    Don’t you know that Jet is an “enlightened progressive” and therefore always right?

    Sheesh!!!

  • gonzo marx

    ummmm Bing……Mr Nalle is basically agreeing with Jet and in opposition to Steve(not Steve S’s) opinion when it comes to homosexual marriages

    reading comprehension 4 the win!

    Excelsior!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    To Taxpayer

    1. No two people on this earth, have the same definition of “Normal”. That depends on region, culture, and religion. Normal could be one thing and be completely different right next door.
    A couple having two kids is normal, a couple having 8 kids isn’t, but are they persecuted for it?

    2. By the same token, we don’t care if it’s taught that it’s “Normal”. We want them to stop teaching that it’s abnormal, and give honest and open answers if the question is asked.

    Thanks for your imput
    it’s appreciated
    Jet

  • Joey

    Jet you need to change the title of your Blog. It has morphed in to the Dr. Phil show.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    I’ll take that as a compliment, considering how popular Dr. Phil is.

    Thanks
    Jet

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Ohhhhhhhh Archie, how I’ve missed you. Where you been, cheatin’ on me at the bar?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Kinda scary ain’t it Gonzo?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Arch con man, I take issue with your comment 124!!

    That should read

    Don’t you know that Jet is an “enlightened progressive” and therefore always Left

    Sheesh and heavens to meratroid!!!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    regarding comment 119 from taxpayer: I think what they don’t want is to have their children in public schools taught that homosexuality is normal behavior.

    I am a taxpayer too. It is not a crime in this country to be gay. As a taxpayer who is a legal citizen of the U.S. I am entitled to not be demonized within the school system. I would like my children to be taught by the school system that religion is brainwashing and indoctrination. Certainly that’s what you believe Scientology is, right? Or perhaps Witchcraft, or paganism?

    It’s all bogus except when it’s the one you believe in, that’s how religion works.

    And basically you want the school system to further YOUR religious belief. Can’t do that.

    As a legal taxpayer, I am exempt from public institutions that I fund demonizing me. See YOUR dilemma?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    I refer everyone back to comment #116
    I refer everyone back to comment #120

    that’s your reading assignment for today, the will be a quiz later.

    love
    jet

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    comment 121 by Steve says:

    Re. comment #51, it doesn’t change my basic point, under normal circumstances, heterosexual marriage gives two partners the chance to conceive their own biological children. Homosexual marriage cannot facilitate that between two people, therefore, it cannot be equal to heterosexual marriage.

    You are absolutely entitled to believe that same-sex marriage is not equal to heterosexual marriage. However since getting married is not correlated in any way with actually bearing children, as has been pointed out, such a premise is a personal prejudice only and has absolutely no weight in a court of law or before Lady Liberty.

    Jet, I agree with you on what the fundamentalists are doing to our school systems, to our history books, to our science, to our judicial system, etc. They are taking control of it all to further their agenda, I agree with that completely.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    It will be interesting to see how creationists try to continue their takeover of science classes and their attacks on evolution, given that the missing link may not be missing anymore.

  • Steve

    Steve S, if your argument is that heterosexual and homosexual marriage are equal, when in fact they are not, to continue to argue that it’s about equality, is simply illogical. No one was stopping you from having same sex relationships before same sex marriage, and I certainly wouldn’t deny benefits to those that are raising children whether they’re married or not. Some countries give benefits to same sex couples but can still deny them same sex marriage, so your argument that it has to be all or nothing is simply fallacious.

  • gonzo marx

    well Steve…you appear to be mixxing up the religious sacrament of “marriage” with the purely secular and legal institution…which is what most of us are talking about

    in the legal sense…and marriage in this country IS a legal Issue…then we are talking about an equality under the Law thing

    now, any church has a Right NOT to “recognize” such…but our Society does NOT have a right to NOT recognize such under the Equal protection bits of our Constitution

    which, by the way, is what was foudn by the Mass Supreme Court last year…

    just some food for Thought

    note to the gentle Readers: see how far away from the original topic the comments can sometimes go…and who drags shit there?

    Excelsior!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Some countries give benefits to same sex couples but can still deny them same sex marriage, so your argument that it has to be all or nothing is simply fallacious.

    nonsense. Just because some countries discriminate doesn’t mean it justifies this country doing so.

    The answer, Steve, is to get the government out of defining relationships. Far too many people cannot see the danger in the government putting the definition of family on a sliding scale. These families are preferable to those families, etc. It’s why single moms suffer, it’s why gay families suffer, it’s taken a long time for women to get over the stigma of being divorced, etc.

    No one was stopping you from having same sex relationships before same sex marriage,

    no one is stopping me now, I’m not sure where you are going with that.

    I certainly wouldn’t deny benefits to those that are raising children whether they’re married or not.

    But those benefits are denied, unless we can get married, which is conveniently denied as well. There are family discounts in social settings that this family cannot participate in, we must go through additional financial hurdles to get what you take for granted. You and your spouse (if you lived in the U.S. which I gather you do not) pay into Social Security and when one dies the other gets the payments. Me and my spouse pay into Social Security and when one dies, the other is screwed.

    There is a clear distinction between civic marriage and religious marriage. You and those who believe as you blur the two. The answer is in making them distinct and separate. As a taxpayer, I AM EQUAL to the next taxpayer, even if in his bigotry he can’t see it. Period.

  • Steve

    Arch, gonzo –

    I’ve discovered that Dave may be a fiscal conservative, but he sure isn’t a social conservative. I’m not surprised at all.

  • taxpayer

    “We want them to stop teaching that it’s abnormal, and give honest and open answers if the question is asked.”

    Why are we teaching anything at all in public schools about homosexual behavior? Homosexual behavior is abnormal behavior, and considering what it does to society, a costly behavior. If we teach anything at all, with “honest and open answers”, it should be about how homosexual behavior has spread AIDS.

    How many billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent because of this abnormal behavior?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    AIDS has NOTHING to do with homosexual behaviour.

    In nearly every country in the world, AIDS is a HETREOSEXUALly transmitted disease.

    You need to do some research.

  • gonzo marx

    to “taxpayer”
    a lot less than spent for a single week of a pre-emptive war launched from dubious reasoning

    and if you consider what 10% or so of humans engage in as “abnormal” than you have more problems than can be dealt with via mere communication

    too bad

    Excelsior

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    someone explain #139 to me??
    Are you trying to drag Dave Nalle into this, who’s had nearly nothing to do with this discussion, or are you screaming for help, because you’re frustrated.

    I’m trying to find a sensible and fair-minded response to this, but I have to comprehend it first.

    Someone enlighten me…

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Thanks Gonzo #142

  • taxpayer

    “AIDS has NOTHING to do with homosexual behaviour”?

    What planet are you living on?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    GONZO! Bless you! Maybe that’s the motivation we’ve been searching for! Bush needed to pay back the Fundamentalists for getting him elected, so he invaded Iraq, opening it up for Christian evangelists.

    Once they’re all converted, they’re so grateful that they donate their oil and its revenues to Pat Robertsons 700 club.

    I think that’s it!!!

  • gonzo marx

    Jet…Steve is a bit upset because he had thought to find a “fellow traveller” in Mr Nalle…and while Nalle may be many things…a “social conservative” by Steve’s definition he is not

    for taxpayer in #145….Earth…unfortunately the Reality of living here doesn’t appear to be something you have any passing familiarity with

    Excelsior!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Earth, find me CREDIBLE INFORMATION regarding AIDS in either ASIA or AFRICA (the hardest and most thoroughly hit areas on this planted) as being homosexually caused.

    It was the right wing religous freaks that branded it a gay disease, which gave Ronald Reagan and excuse to waste YEARS before he’d back research into helping find a way to combat it, and that caused thousands of lives.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    On this planet, excuse me…

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    I’ve got dinner waiting, will be back in an hour, when I hope to find calmer and saner minds present.

    Oy

  • taxpayer

    The planet I live on believes that ‘abnormal behavior’ is deviating from the normal or average behavior, especially when departing from the usual or accepted standards of social behavior.

  • gonzo marx

    sane?

    i guess that leaves me out…

    heh…

    Excelsior!

  • gonzo marx

    to taxpayer in regards to #151

    again…who defines this “normal” you speak of?

    average is easily determined mathematically, but has NO bearing regarding sociology…or even culturally

    so, i am forced to infer you mean “normal” by some cultural standard…

    might i suggest what you are inferring is impossible to actually quantify…

    example: in Maine it is “normal” to eat lobster in the summer months….it is NOT normal to do so in Montana

    both are social behaviors…and in neither case does the practice of one bahavior harm anyone in the other instance

    the EXACT same thing can be postulated for sexual behavior…as long as it remains between consenting adults….who can say what is “normal”?

    and why the fuck should it be anyone’s business but those involved?

    “free your Mind, and the rest will follow”

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Okay kids, the oven timer’s set for another 10 minutes… Welcome back to the Jerry Springer show.

    Let me tell all of you something.

    The fact that all of us got a little hot-headed mans a lot to me because it means you CARE enough to get mad, and I’m grateful

    Thanks.

    Noe where were we?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    ohhhhhhh taxpayer….Please see the first paragraph of item 126
    NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

  • gonzo marx

    me?..mad?….well, they called me mad at Masters and Johnson’s…

    but i ain’t angry

    now that that is cleared up

    to taxpayer in #151…welcome to Earth…i am glad that you speak for your entire planet…might i ask if you are the absolute Ruler, or do your people utilize a Hive Mind and thus speak with one, unified Voice…of which you are the representative?

    just curious

    Excelsior!

  • taxpayer

    The following is not credible:

    “Find me CREDIBLE INFORMATION regarding AIDS in either ASIA or AFRICA (the hardest and most thoroughly hit areas on this planted) as being homosexually caused”

    The answer is simple. AIDS had its start in homosexual men in this country in the early 1980’s. It then spread from homosexual men who had sex with women prostitutes to homosexual men. That is how it spread to the general population in the United States. Only later did it spread to countries around the world.

    In the early 1980’s, the medical community was calling AIDS “the gay disease”. That name was dropped because homosexuals complained it gave them bad press.

    AIDS had its start in homosexual men in the United States.

    Read your history.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Gonzo-#153 ABSOFUCKINGLOOTLY, and thank you for staying

  • gonzo marx

    ummmm..taxpayer..your “factoids” are completely incorrect

    check the CDC…the first case in the US was a male airline steward, who contracted the disease somewhere in Africa

    which is where current scientific theory states it originated…and on which continent there is the largest number of humans suffering from the disease

    try harder

    Excelsior!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    WRONG Taxpayer.
    AIDS began in africa. tribesmen kept pets of a species called “Green Monkeys”. Often they were bitten by these pets, and a mutation from a disease common to monkeys mutated to human form, similar to what’s going on with Bird Flu.

    During all the violent revolutions of the 80s many Africans fled to Haiti, and when the revolution began there, they fled to Miami, bringing the strain with them.

    In florida, unable to find work, the women and men became prostitutes to make ends meet and it spread through out the country from visiting tourists returning home.

    Check you facts (Personal attack deleted)

    I love being my own censor!

  • taxpayer

    “the first case in the US was a male airline steward, who contracted the disease somewhere in Africa”

    He must have been a homosexual from San Francisco who while in Africa got hard up and fucked an infected monkey.

  • gonzo marx

    and again..rather than dealing with the Facts…or even admitting and correcting your mistakes…you would rather make a feeble attempt at an attack on a dead person, and a segment of the population you obviously dislike…

    it is also patently obvious that further discourse with you is futile since you are either extremely closeminded in what passes for your opinions…

    or are some regular here at Bc using a pseudonym and attempting to bait…

    /ignore

    Excelsior!

  • Steve

    Well, folks, looks like I’ll have to leave this conversation. Your comments from #130 – #160 are all incomplete or blank. I hate it when a thread gets bigger than about 125 comments!! It either gets really slow to scroll, or it blanks out like this one has. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Steve, I’m back, and having no trouble. Sometimes I have trouble with my web accellerator and have to turn it off to view big discussions.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Anyone interested in the TRUE HISTORY OF AIDS??

    Fresh from the research department…

    The earliest reported case of AIDS was believed to have been in a seaman from Manchester England in 1959 The man died of an immunodeficiency associated infection. Some tissue from the dead seaman, which had been preserved in paraffin blocks, showed that DNA from HIV was in cells from his bone marrow, spleen, kidney and pharyngeal mucosa. There is another case of HIV infection dating back to 1959. In scanning 1200-stored plasma samples from various parts of Africa, one tested positive for HIV antibodies. The sample came from an HIV-infected Bantu man in Kinshasa (Congo).

    They were able to detect HIV DNA in the sample as well. The earliest known presence of HIV in the US was in 1969 in a teenager whose cause of death involved immune deficiency. The earliest case in Europe was in a Danish surgeon who had worked in Zaire and died in 1976.

    Many scientists assert that AIDS appears to have started in Africa. The fact that several monkey and chimpanzee species found in Africa are infected with retroviruses that are closely related to HIV has led to the conclusion that HIV arose from a simian (monkey or chimpanzee) derived retrovirus. Several hypotheses have been put forward as possible mechanisms by which the simian-derived strain of the retrovirus, SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus), may have been introduced into humans. SIV seems to cause no illness in chimpanzees, even though humans and chimpanzees are 98% genetically similar (Altman).

    Mutation of the simian-derived SIV strain may then have yielded a strain not only capable of replication in human cells but also far more pathogenic in humans.

    There are several ways by which humans may have become infected by a simian retrovirus. One hypothesis believes its emergence came from human use of monkeys. HIV-2 is very closely related to a strain of SIV found in sooty mangabees and the location of sooty mangabees in West Africa coincides with the incidence of HIV-2. There is evidence that sooty mangabees are occasionally killed and eaten in this region. A hypothesis suggested by F. Noireau in 1987 suggested cross-species transfer of SIV to humans might have occurred when monkey blood was applied to human genitals after pubertal circumcision.

    Such practices could have eventually led to the emergence of a new strain of SIV capable of infecting humans and causing AIDS. Based on the DNA sequences of SIV and HIV-1 and HIV-2, it appears that SIV may have given rise to HIV-2. The origin of HIV-1 is unknown but it is presumed to have arisen from another monkey virus. It is thought that HIV may have begun to spread in Africa after the Second World War when medical personnel began to administer antibiotics by syringe. Syringes were often limited in supply and were generally reused. HIV could then easily be transmitted from an infected individual to an uninfected individual. The virus then might be carried from a rural population into an urban population where it would continue to spread by sexual contact, transfusions etc. It is possible that individuals would have died of some opportunistic infection like Pneumocystis Carinii pneumoma, and no one would have known it was AIDS

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    TRUE HISTORY OF AIDS FOLLOWS…
    Steve, while I disagree with you, I still value your opinion, try this.
    After you’ve clicked on it, wait for the scroll bar to shrink and repeatedly hit END on your keyboard, it’s faster and it works for me.

    History lesson see #165

    …and thank you for you’re support.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    my page of comments will start to black out when comments reach about 250, since I see I’m not the only one this happens to, I can assume it has to do with memory, maybe the amount of memory allocated to the browser. In any case, the whole concept of AIDS on this thread stems from the concern of taxpayer in teaching homosexual behavior in school. I am unaware of any school that teaches in sexual activity from a gay standpoint, but then again my daughter is only in preschool.

    As for me, I don’t think the school necessarily should have to teach about sex at all, whether straight or gay, that’s not what I refer to in my comments to taxpayer and to Steve when I talk about not being demonized in the school system.

    My daughter, in later years, may attend public school, and the school should be able to acknowledge to other classmates that there is nothing wrong with her family. Books that refer to two dads and the like should not be banned from the library. It’s along these lines that I’m referring to, I don’t really need anybody to be educated on what they ASSUME I do in the bedroom.

    Our families should not be demonized or shoved in the closet. We are legal taxpayers, period. As far as schools discussing specific activities, I’m not endorsing that, that’s a separate issue from what I’m talking about. Take that up with your school board, don’t take that out on my family.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    And AIDS is spread by contact with infected blood. Period. Worldwide, more heterosexuals are infected than homosexuals.

  • taxpayer

    “It is possible that individuals would have died of some opportunistic infection like Pneumocystis Carinii pneumoma, and no one would have known it was AIDS”

    Many things are “possible”.

    But it took San Francisco homosexuals to make AIDS an established fact in the United States.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Jet, when I was a member here a year or so ago, there were a few individuals who would always bring the topic back to AIDS. It is the equivalent of punishing the entire straight community for their gonhorrea, unplanned pregnancies or domestic abuse. Of course you don’t see them blame their entire community for that, so it’s a clear demonstration of their prejudice from the get-go. You will not get them to see reason.

    The fact is, in the beginning, AIDS had an up to 7 year incubation rate, and given that relationships among gay men were condemned and had obstacles thrown at them by the straight community at every turn in life, many men went from relationship to relationship, unable to settle down in a hostile environment. Relationships were unknown for us in the beginning, relatively. And given the 7 year incubation rate, people cannot be faulted for a disease that NOBODY knew of.

    Certainly promoting monogamy, family and marriage among gay men would curtail taxpayer’s irrational fears.

  • taxpayer

    “more heterosexuals are infected than homosexuals”.

    If there was only one homosexual in the world infected with AIDS, and he had sex with another person, how long would it take before “more heterosexuals are infected than homosexuals”.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    So I presented that whole thing for nothing.

    Aids has been proven to exist since WWII, but no one knew what it was, and mostly it was until tissue samples from waaaaaaaaaaaaay back when were retested and found to have the HIV virus.

    The first case of AIDS was in 1956 in the US, mr. Taxpayer, and back then Gays weren’t allowed to exist publicly, much less start a movement about it.

    It was only until it was discovered, and named, and Reagan refused to do anything about it, that San Francisco gays took the initiative, and you should be thankful they did. Otherwise a lot of straight people with hemophilia etc would’ve been branded gay when they died from it. Like the fundamentalists calling innocent people witches and burning them.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Speaking of world war II, Taxpayer. Let’s talk about normal.

    During world war II, it was normal to see soldiers happily dancing with eachother in public, and especially during USO shows and in foriegn bars, and up till the late 60s it was “normal” to see two women dancing together or holding hands walking down the street, without anyone giving a second thought of their sexuality.

    To this day, two women can still kiss to greet each other.

    In most of Europe, men kiss eachother as a greeting. Even today. Want to see an example, watch any episode of the Sopranos on HBO and count how many times Tony gets kissed by a male per episode. Perfectly normal-perfectly acceptable.

  • Nyugen

    Here is only one reasoning why Fundamentalist after you, and why you bigot for them.

    Lesbian Sues Pro-Family Activists for Exposing Truth About Pro-Homosexual Event

    April 7, 2006

    A lesbian who was fired for her role in the notorious “Fistgate” conference at Tufts University has brought a civil suit against two Massachusetts pro-family activists who attended the 2000 conference and then proceeded to expose what went on at the pro-homosexual event.

    The statewide conference that took place March 25 of that year was actually called “Teach-Out,” and was sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Education, the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. The event’s scandalous nickname comes from one of the many sexually explicit topics discussed at the conference before audiences that included children and teens.

    Several presenters tried to foster “open discussion” by familiarizing their listeners with graphic details about homosexual sex and sexuality. At one point in the conference, “fisting” was discussed by one Teach-Out presenter, who described the practice as “an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with … [and] to put you into an exploratory mode.”

    Many concerned parents learned about “Fistgate” and its sexually graphic content through the efforts of Massachusetts pro-family activists Brian Camenker and Scott Whiteman, who attended the “Teach-Out” specifically to bear witness to and gather evidence of what went on there. That is why the two men are now facing legal action, along with the Parents Rights Coalition, which is also named in the civil suit.

    Former state employee Margot Abels alleges Camenker and Whiteman violated her free-speech rights by tape-recording two workshops in which she instructed children as young as 12 years of age in how to engage in homosexual sex acts.

    Abels claims the men broke an obscure Massachusetts wiretapping law that was designed to fight organized crime. In her lawsuit, she argues that the audiotape and her subsequent firing have both caused her emotional distress. But Camenker, who heads the pro-family group Article 8 Alliance, believes she is just resurrecting a dormant lawsuit in an effort to punish him and Whiteman for blowing the lid off “Fistgate.”

    “The statute says that you can be charged with a crime and punished and sent to jail and fined,” the pro-family activist points out. However, he notes, “Nobody ever charged us with a crime; nobody every fined us. None of this every happened. I think they knew they couldn’t pull this off as a real crime, so they’re trying to use the civil suit approach.”

    And Camenker believes the plaintiff’s attorneys are eager to attack. “They are really out to go after us,” he contends. “The lawyer has already said to me, point blank, ‘What are your assets; do you own a house?’ She said that they’re going to do their best to get as much money out of us as they can.”

    But beyond that, the Article 8 spokesman asserts, “The homosexual movement wants to punish anyone who exposes their activities with kids.”

    Nevertheless, the pro-family advocate says he means to put up a fight and even intends to play the tape recording of the Teach-Out presentation at trial. “And we’re certainly going to let the court know,” he adds, “that if we committed a crime, [we weren’t informed of it.] How come we weren’t charged with anything?”

    Attorney Steve Crampton, chief counsel of the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy is representing Camenker in the case. A judge has set a July 10 trial date for the lesbian activist’s lawsuit against Camenker, Whiteman, and the Parents Rights Coalition.

  • gonzo marx

    and yer point is???

    Bog and JuJu spare us the nosy busybodies and help us to tell “Mrs. Grundy” to fuck off

    Excelsior!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Since I’m not into fisting, nor apparently are any of the commentors of this topic, I fail to see your purpose in posting this, other than to expose a seedy side of sexuality which is more prevolent in the straight scene than the gay scene. Mentioning gays, sex, and children in the same article usually signals that the source is some condemning born-again propaganda rag, determined to lump anything with an “Ick” factor to gays, but I’ll admit I’m wrong if proven wrong.

    I thank you for the effort, now go back to my original editorial, and find something to discuss concerning that or, the follow up on #116

    thanks for sharing…
    I think

  • http://chantalstone.blogspot.com chantal stone

    “So I presented that whole thing for nothing.”

    No you didn’t Jet, that was interesting. Thanks for looking it up.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    regarding comment 174, whenever you come across topics like that, you have to look into the situation before you clutch your pearls and scream Mary. I did a google search on Fistgate, anybody who’s interested, I recommend do the same.

    ALL the sources about the topic are right wing groups with anti-gay agendas. There is no news source like CNN, like FOX News, like Yahoo, nothing. It’s all right wing ultra conservative fundy sites.

    So right there, that tells me that things are being taken out of context.

    Reviewing a link of topics that said organizations discuss in safe sex scenarios in school, none recommend the practice, none seek to indoctrinate people into a gay lifestyle, none force anybody to learn anything against their will or the will of their parents. In that situation, it seems the parents were not involved in learning about what their children will be taught, apparently they just signed a consent form and didn’t look into anything further.

    If you do a google search for fistgate and click on the FIRST link (an ultra right wing source), EVEN THAT SITE will tell you that it wasn’t part of an agenda, but WAS ANSWERING A QUESTION FROM A STUDENT. The student asked ‘what is fisting’. ANd so was told.

    Do a google search for fistgate, click on the first right winger link (the first link returned) and see for yourself, it’s even presented in ‘edited form’ here by Nyugen, completely out of context.

    Geez, people, look into the nefarious agenda of right wingers. They will lie and distort to continue their bigotry.

    If Joe Schmo on the east coast wants to do that stuff, that’s his own business and has NO correlation with my civil liberties or me not being demonized in a public forum. Common sense people, please.

    If one person or one group goes too far in a discussion in a classroom, handle that there, you don’t punish an entire class of citizenry for it. Where is the common sense? Where is the tolerance of Jesus, fundies, huh?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Kind of proves the premise of my original writing. I still hate the fact that I cringe when someone proudly announces to me that they’re a christian.

    I wish to god I didn’t and people like that didn’t justify it.

    I feel like a hypocrite sometimes, but at least I understand why a little better.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    My thought, Jet, as a dillusioned Christian who is more agnostic now than anything, is that Christianity has been hijacked for an agenda. I truly believe that gay people are pawns in a culture war, but that we aren’t the targets. Mainstream Christians are, the battle is for control of them, and we are just some of the pawns used to control/motivate them, primarily through the use of misinformation and fear. You can clearly see that they are driven to fear. Fear for their children, fear for marriage (that’s why they use terms like ‘defense of marriage’), fear for their faith not being promoted in public forums like school, fear their holidays aren’t promoted in the market square, etc.

    As such, I feel I have to do what I have to do to protect and defend my own family. And if that involves misidentifying a tolerant Christian, or saying something that offends them, I can only hope that ultimately they will understand. Whether we are 2% of the population or 15%, we don’t have the numbers to protect ourselves from the fundies assault on the judicial system and the hijacking of our Constitutions. The only thing that will save us is the moderate/tolerant Christian standing up and taking their religion back. They need to tell the world what the real principles of Jesus are, the Jesus who was compassionate towards sinners, prostitutes, lepers, and who abhored the hoarding of wealth (something the ‘Christian’ party of Republicans is very good at). Until the moderate Christian speaks out and retakes their faith from the corrupt evil machines who drive it today, they will just have to understand if we put the defense of our own selves and our families first and foremost.

    That’s my two cents on that. I know and respect tolerant Christians, but when I get going on this topic, if they know me, they know to get out of the way and to not take it personally. I am defending my family from evil and corruption.

  • gonzo marx

    Jet…everytime the identifier of “christian” makes you cringe…think of someone like chantal here…

    what this world needs are more like her, and less like Robertson/Fallwell and their ilk

    just a thought

    Excelsior!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    I took 60mg of Cymbalta this morning at 8 and I think it’s starting to wear off.

    Gonzo, Dave N, SteveS, and Chantal, you fill my heart, I hope you know that.

    More when I can,
    Wishing you love, luck and laughter
    Jet

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I’d like to know where Nyugen took that article from. It sure doesn’t read like something any sensible news outlet would publish. Looks like propaganda to me. Plus it makes very little sense. What does ‘fisting’ have to do with child molesting.

    Kind of proves the premise of my original writing. I still hate the fact that I cringe when someone proudly announces to me that they’re a christian.

    How do you feel when they say ‘have a blessed day’ to you? I know that makes me want to slap ‘em.

    Dave

  • http://chantalstone.blogspot.com chantal stone

    re. comments #181 & 182….thanks guys, that makes my night :)

    and Dave…the “have a blessed day” thing annoys the crap outta me too.

    I used to work with this guy who also went to the same church I do, and every time I asked him “how are you” he would always reply with “I’m blessed”. He’s one of those ultra-“Christians” who believed everything he heard, instead of actually picking up a book and reading something to try to expand his mind. It took every ounce of my being to keep from slapping him whenever I saw him.

    enough from me….I don’t do well on less then 4hrs sleep a night…..peace out folks.

  • Baronius

    Jet, I’m left-handed. I was born that way. But using my left hand is a choice.

    I’d guess that someone is going to reply that just as it’s wrong to prevent someone from using their dominant hand, it’s wrong to pressure the homosexual into a straight lifestyle. But this is exactly where the analogy falls apart. Youhave to use a hand. You don’t have to sleep with anyone.

    Someone earlier, probably one of the thousands of Steves who post here, made the comparison between being gay and being an adulterer. The difference between the two is acting on the urge. You can have as many crushes on guys as I do on gals, and it’s not sinful. The sin comes in acting on it. The sin would be made greater by defending the action. If homosexuals seem to be the target of Christian groups, it’s because adulterers aren’t marching under a banner proclaiming their actions to be good.

  • Dave Nalle

    I suspect that when that guy was saying “I’m Blessed” what he was really saying was “I’m blessed and you aren’t”, which is EXACTLY why so many people look at intense/fundamental christians with a very jaundiced eye. It also suggests that at heart he’s really very insecure in his faith. If your faith is strong and real you shouldn’t have to proclaim it at every opportunity.

    Dave

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Dave: Have a blessed day… no I just want to tie one of their plastic grocery bags over their heads.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com Christopher Rose

    Prompted by Gonzo’s observation in #162 as to dear Taxpayer’s familiarity, I had a quick look and there have been 1,239 comments from that IP address going back to the 17th of August last year when a certain “RKC” started making comments.

    It doesn’t necessarily mean they are all one person of course but, for the public record, other ids using the same address include “Pedantic Prof”, “Realist”, “Abe”, “practical joe” (remember him?), followed by “Historian”, “Newshawk”, “Alice” (!), “Bong”, “Howard”, “nitpicker”, “mo”, and “Icanread”.

    Unusually, not a single one of these comments has been linked back to a blog, other website or email of any kind at all. I’m guessing that would be statistically unlikely if they were all different people but you never know.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    “It doesn’t necessarily mean they are all one person of course but, for the public record, other ids using the same address…”

    Chris, if I were a lawyer, I’d love to have you for a witness. What a damningly understated way to drive home a point!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Baronius, If your brain is hardwired to be lefthanded, WHY are you using your right?

    Back when I was a teenager, a communicants student in church, and my hormones were exploding all around me, I dated girls, because I was supposed to date girls, because I was expected to date girls.

    But my hormones didn’t react to girls. I could see a girl as pretty, as sexy, as attractive, and be sitting in a booth having a good time, but if a good looking guy walked by, I was suddently distracted, as if I had no choice but to pay attention to him.

    My eyes couldn’t help but follow his…

    To use your analogy, if I’d married a women, just as you force yourself to use your right hand, I’d be miserable now. I’d be like Ennis del Mar in Brokeback Mountain.

    You’re suggesting I do something that really would be a sin. To use a girl, just so I could conform to your ideal of being “normal”. To cause a wife to live an existance of misery the rest of her life, next to a man who longed for something other than her. To have children brought into a marraige, who grew up, knowing Dad didn’t love Mom.

    And you preach about sin?

    Either that or live a life of perpetual loneliness and abstinence just to conform to the likes of you?

    I could no more do that than you could roll into bed with Jerry Falwell and service him to orgasm… or have you?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Christopher #188, thanks for going to the trouble of doing that research.

    I appreciate it my friend!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Ruvy, 189… Absofuckinglutely, or Amen! Which ever you prefer!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Oh by the way Baronius…

    Have a blessed day

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Chris, if Icanread is his most recent, that explains a lot, about what I’ve put up with on a few of my strings

    Thanks

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Just a few thoughts about “blessed days” and the like. Fundamentalists might be mirroring a different culture to you without realizing it.

    In any Hebrew letter to someone, it is considered common courtesy to sign “blessings” or “in blessing” where Americans would sign “sincerely.” “Shabbat shalom” means “Sabbath peace” and it too is a very common greeting here from Thursday afternoon until the end of the Sabbath (Saturday afternoon). Religious Jews, asked how they are doing, will say “Barukh haShem”, “Blessed is the Name (of G-d).” This is said to indicate gratitude. Even secular Jews will make use of the phrase “b’ezrát haShém” – with the help of G-d.” None of these phrases are meant to shovel religion down anyone’s throat – they are part of Jewish culture and have been for a long time.

    Given that and given that Fundamentalists tend to look to the Hebrew Bible a lot for guidance, maybe they are asbsorbing the basic habits of Jews?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Ah, Christopher. You went into greater depth than I did when I noticed that Mo was stalking me on another thread. All I had to do was track him back to ‘Practical Joe’ to know exactly which unpleasant little crank we were dealing with.

    Dave

  • troll

    Icanread through all of his permutations adds valuable and wonderfully wacked commentary to BC

    of him it will be written – he kissed no ass

    of course being a troll myself I may be biased

    troll

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Well, he certainly kissed no Jew-loving ass, anyway.

    Dave

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Ruvy 195: Every time you write something here , I learn something here.

    Thank you
    and I value you

    Blessings
    Jet

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Am I posting articles on a blog site or a police station?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Wow, it would be cool if we could post articles on police stations. Might not be suitable for a general audience, though.

    Dave

  • troll

    re #198 – true Dave – spewing anti-Semitic tripe is one of his endearing traits

    troll

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Troll: Dave or Bush???

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Someone earlier, probably one of the thousands of Steves who post here, made the comparison between being gay and being an adulterer. The difference between the two is acting on the urge. You can have as many crushes on guys as I do on gals, and it’s not sinful. The sin comes in acting on it. The sin would be made greater by defending the action. If homosexuals seem to be the target of Christian groups, it’s because adulterers aren’t marching under a banner proclaiming their actions to be good.

    Barionus made this statement above, and this needs to be said in reply. It is not a crime to be gay in this country. My rights as an American should not be infringed upon by a Christian’s belief that I am a sinner. I should be free from religious persecution in this country. I should not be targeted by hate crimes in the street, I should not be demonized in the school system or on the public airwaves. I should not be denied the same basic rights, privileges and liberties as a Christian because they are punishing me for THEIR faith.

    Do you not believe, Baronius, in being free from religious persecution in America? Reread your comment I put in italics here, and tell me, in all seriousness, the justification for the persecution of gay people in this country.

    For the ip address problem, it is clearly trolls who do this, they cause mayhem…with no blogs they add nothing to the site, they skew perception by posting under multiple addresses. Would it harm BC and it’s amount of traffic if registration were required to comment? Trolls do run off actual contributors if left unchecked.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Jet, troll is talking about icanread/taxpayer/practical joe. (Practical joe was one of the ones who threatened my child way back) Apparently he’s anti-semitic too.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    You know what just occurred to me SteveS. I have a lesbian couple who are friends of mine, and guess what… BOTH women are the BIOLOGICAL mothers of their baby girl!!!!

    Karen donated an egg, which was fertilized, and then it was injected to Michelle, who gave birth!

    That means their both the biological parents!

    by the way thanks for the above contriubiton

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    re 205, did he have to go to Denmark to become Alice? see 188

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    I’m unfamiliar with Alice, Jet, but I imagine he looks quite fetching in a dress. I am the biological father of my daughter, so don’t let right wingers debates about biology twist the topic of marriage up. What they end up doing is negating or setting to a second class level, every adoption in this country, whether gay or straight.

    Convicted murderers in prison can get married, but loving gay couples who have been monogamous for 2 decades cannot.

    Deadbeat dads, moms like Andrea Yates, abusers, the list is endless as to when biology goes wrong. The definition of a family is founded in love.

  • Char in Oregon

    I am injecting my comments here as a response to a request by Jet, who says he respects my opinion. I just read through this whole thing and found it to be quite interesting, somewhat educational and definately thought provoking.

    I will begin by saying that I think that the whole argument about “fundamentalist Christians” is somewhat misplaced as far as what is happening in our country. I would also like to say that religeon, -most religeons, have very little or nothing to do with God or Jesus Christ. To quote Gandhi, ” I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ”. I believe that God is love, literaly! And, I don’t remember in anything I’ve ever read about the teachings of Jesus where he judged, condemned, or taught people to hate or be prejudiced. When I think of Jesus Christ, I think of love, compassion, acceptance, non-judgement and forgivness!

    Most religeons have distorted the teachings of the different prophits (Jesus, Mohamed, Budda, etc) in the name of power and profit! These prophits did not differentiate. They pretty much taught that we are all one. Jesus was not a “Christian”, he was a Jew! I believe that the bible is an interesting history, storybook, that was intertwined with personal prejudices belonging to those who tried to write stories that had been passed down for years. In my mind, the teachings of Jesus can be simplified into one quote, “do unto others as you would like for them to do unto you”!

    So, I ask of everyone, “When did we lose sight of the fact that we are all one people?” Why would a loving God create diversity so that we could hate each other for such superficial reasons? And, as far as raising children goes, the crucial ingredient is love, irregardless of the sex of the parents or their sexual preferences! And, wouldn’t the world be a much better place if we all chose to uplift each other?

    The values that we seem as a society to have lost track of are: love and acceptance, truth and integrity, and fairness and equality. We are all reflections of each other. I believe that we bring people into our lives so that we may learn things about ourselves from them. The true “devil” is fear! So, when did we decide as a people that God should be feared? God is love and the opposite of love is not hate, it is fear. So, in my mind all of the extreemest activities that are happening right now have grown out of fear. When will we get that the best way to eliminate our enemies is to make them our friends? How many people have to die before we realize that when we kill others, we are actually killing ourselves? And, when will we understand that when we judge and condemn others, we are judging and condemning ourselves?

    Right now our country that was founded on religeous freedom and “liberty for all” is in great jeopardy from a government that has been taken over by looters! The Christian fundamentalists are being used by the Bush administration as much as they are using the Bush administration. We have become a country that is about profit over people and it seems that this administration is out to destroy and disenfranchise the middle class. To quote King George, “this job would be a lot easier if this country was run by a dictator,–just as long ad I’m the dictator!” The executive branch of our government is way out of control and we are losing rights almost on a daily basis in the name of “fighting terrorism”. If we don’t wake up soon and put some balance back into our government, we could be in big trouble here!

    A secular government is in the best interest for all religeons! Why do we keep voting against our best interests? How can so many have been duped into believing that George Bush would bring back “integrity” to the white house when he has been caught in lie after lie and has been responsible for murdering so many! Integrity is not outing a CIA agent and putting hundreds of people who put their lives on the line for America’s lives in peril. Integrity is not lying to the American people to get us to back a war that is really about oil and profit. I could go on and on and on……….

    Discrimination against homosexuals or any group is merely a symptom of a much bigger problem that we must address before any of these issues will begin to fall into place. The changes need to take place within each and every one of us, and when this happens it will grow like ripples in the water! When christians begin to live what Christ actually taught, then change will begin to happen. When all of us begin to look inside of ourselves for peace and love and humanity, then things will begin to change. We are all connected and when just one of us chooses to do the right thing, then the ripple begins. Changing the world has to begin in each and every one of our hearts and we have to approach our “enemies” with love and forgiveness in order to teach them these ideals.

    So, now you have something more to think about, and I hope we can all decide to make a difference.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    And now folks, you see why I respect Char’s opinion!

    Bravo!!!!!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    comment #180 – As such, I feel I have to do what I have to do to protect and defend my own family. And if that involves misidentifying a tolerant Christian, or saying something that offends them, I can only hope that ultimately they will understand. But when someone misidentifies you, do you show that same willingness to understand? It wouldn’t appear so from your comments…

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    two things to say to comment 211, Andy.

    First, over the last month or so, multiple people have come to my blog and asked me to come back to blogcritics. People from the ideological left and right. The comments are that I use facts, proven data and stick to rational debate. I can use snarky comments and I can be condescending, but the general consensus is that I am not overly hostile.

    Given that I am in the minority and the one being persecuted by the religious majority, I would think that I would be entitled to hostility and the fact that I refrain from it is not surprising that those on the fundamental side cannot see. To them, me simply saying I am gay can be seen as activism and shoving it in their face.

    Secondly, I do not believe the analogy is comparable. As I mentioned, my family is being persecuted by the faithful in this country. If I misidentify, I ask for understanding in the defense of my family. When the ‘bully’ misidentifies, you are damn right I will point it out.

    You are trying to hold the victim to the same accountability as the hostile aggressor.

    Again, apologies to all the tolerant Christians out there, your faith is hijacked and being used against me. I’m doing what I can to defend my family.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Andy, so there is no misunderstanding, it should be pointed out that I have never jumped on someone verbally for just saying they are Christian, and made an assumption they are anti-gay. Not to my knowledge anyway.

    When I talk about me misidentifying someone and hope they understand, in a debate, I will sometimes attack Christianity overall, or the faith in general. That’s what I mean by misidentifying. It gets weary having to differentiate between those who abuse it and those who stand by allowing it to happen. Hey, I’m constantly subjected to it’s punishment and condemnation whether or not I want to be a part of it. I’m entitled.

    The true definition of misidentification, you can look up at this thread to the likes of taxpayer. He is trying to condemn people like Jet and myself for AIDS, in spite of the fact that I have been monogamous for over 2 decades. THAT is misidentification.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Dear Steve,
    For some reason, I’m not sure why, I have to ask people about stereotypes here.

    As soon as everyone knew I was gay did you begin reading my words with a lisp and a swish?

    I think I just discovered something else I’m a bigot about… Gays!!!!

    Not all of them, just the fairy queens, who act more feminine than masculine, have a waving limp wrist, wear make up and mince around screaming “Oh girl!!!”.

    I’m ashamed of myself to a degree, because the “Stereotype” isn’t me. If we met in person, and you had no idea who I was, you’d never know my sexual preference. For that reason, when a fundementalist, or just a redneck points a finger at a “Queen” and looks at me and says with condemnation “See?” it’s all I can do to contain myself.

    I’m finding more and more I’ve gone from being embarrased by them, to resenting them, because they’re the most VISIBLE part of our population, bulk the bulk of the Gay population is for all intents and purposes INVISIBLE!
    I hate to think of them as an embarrassment, and I feel like not only a bigot, but a hypocrite!

    It’s not right, but I’m trying to change…

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Are you directing that question to me or the other Steve?

    No, I made no assumption about your affectations. They are irrelavant and your own.

    Besides, you can see with my googling, I try to be thorough in everything, you are more likely to learn the truth that way. I had visited your blog long before I made my first comment on one of your threads here.

    My partner and I are from Oklahoma, Jet, although we moved to more tolerant California some years back. I won’t say we’re cowboys like Brokeback Mountain, but we are country, accent and all.

    I get stereotyped for that more than for being gay. Especially when I tend to be with a child. Most everywhere I go, people say, ‘oh it is so nice to see daddy give mommy the day off.’ There’s no mommy and no day off. I quit letting it bug me, they have no way of knowing and I can’t win that one anyway, it would just give me added stress if I let it get to me. (What bugged me was the fact that I wasn’t getting recognition for being the primary parent, but am constantly viewed as someone giving the primary parent a break).

    It never would occur to me to take my frustration out on the moms who are primary parents, just because others assume I’m the stereotype of ‘dad is baby sitting – not raising’.

    Likewise, it is absolutely wrong to take your frustration out on someone who is naturally feminine because others are repulsed by it and lump you in with it. You know where the problem is in that situation, don’t blame the victim.

    Sometimes gay people may play up their affectations, exaggerate them on purpose rather than naturally, it is a way of being defiant in a condemning world and it helps to keep their spirit from breaking. They want to become proud of their orientation. While that might be an act, it’s still wrong to blame them for how they choose to handle oppression.

    For that reason, when a fundementalist, or just a redneck points a finger at a “Queen” and looks at me and says with condemnation “See?” it’s all I can do to contain myself.

    Because they would have you believe that the queen is what is keeping you from being accepted by the fundamentalist or redneck, but that is not the case, they will turn on you when they find out you are gay. Truth be told, you become a bigger threat because they see your blending as deceit and they see the femininity of other gay men as a weakness, harmless, the jester or the clown to be made fun of. ‘Straight-acting’ (for lack of a better term) gay people are often more at risk because we do shatter their stereotypes and that freaks them out. As a victim of a hate crime, I can attest to that.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Don’t feel so bad, Jet. We have the same problem here. There are certain Jews – and I’m not referring to specific groups of individuals – who give the rest of us a bad name. They sicken me and if I wasn’t already bound by the commandments, there are times when I could join a David Duke fan club.

    I won’t mention the name I use to describe these fine specimens of humanity – I’ll NEVER live it down. This is the internet after all – no forgiving and no forgetting.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Most everywhere I go, people say, ‘oh it is so nice to see daddy give mommy the day off.’

    Odd. When I go around with our little tyke no one says anything like that. Must be something about Austin. Or else they just think I’m abducting her.

    Dave

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    maybe you don’t give off an approachable vibe. ;-)

  • Dave Nalle

    Sad but true, Steve. I’m just scary looking. Big and hulking with a giant bald head and a face like the frankenstein monster. I’d think people would be trying to rescue the kids when they see me with them.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    Actually, Dave, you look a little like a wrestler I’ve seen photos of. Just not as bulky, altho it’s hard to tell. I think it’s the mustache + shaved head.

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    i’ve always thought dave looks like anton lavey.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    I’m almost afraid to ask how all this came up?

  • Dave Nalle

    If only the head were shaved and not mostly bald naturally. Then I could have some dignity. For the record I have shaved off the facial hair, but I’m not sure it’s an improvement.

    Dave

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    just as long as you don’t take up playing cheesy music on an organ (not to mention satan-worship), you’ll be all right.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Alright, before we get back on subject (assuming you all aren’t bored with it yet) we all know that by clicking on my URL you’ll find a terrifying photo of me. How do I find sickening photos of you, so I can picture you in my mind as I’m typing to you.

    Somehow maybe I should rephrase that…

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    i don’t allow photographs…they steal your essence, don’t ya know!??

    seriously, i’ll be attaching a pic to my writer’s bio within the next week or so.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    How do you do that, I just noticed the frightening one that Dave has on his. No wonder SteveS’ kids would be scared of him!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS
  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    actually, it’s Austin kids. I think mine would warm right up to him.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    KRISTIN IS ABSOFUCKINLOOTLY BEAUTIFUL!!! And you ain’t so bad yourself!

  • gonzo marx

    side note to Jet…cuz yer a new person around here and may have some interest…

    on the right sidebar ( the Leaderboard) click my name , and ya will be able to get to the whoel 4 posts i’ve written fer BC

    i only mention it cuz i think i’m gonna be silent for a while to ponder the sense of Futility i experience at times…

    keep it real kiddies

    Excelsior!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Thanks. You can see her future and protecting her family is worth fighting for.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    futility in what, gonzo?

  • gonzo marx

    in effective communications Steve(S)…

    inj most instances, conversing here at BC is like pissing into the wind….there are folks who will usually agree…and those that usually disagree

    rare indeed are the Instances where effective communication can occur and someone actually percieves something different than their pre-conceived notions or partisan viewpoint

    i do flatter myself that i have achieved this on a few, rare occasions….at least made someoen think about soemthing…or maybe just raised a smile

    but for the most part, it’s sheer Sissyphus…and i get real pissed at the rock and hill…ya know?

    so i get all existential, and wonder why i bother, the Answer is usually just for my own amusement and to help me clarify my own thoughts on a subject

    but the last few days have once again re-enforced the Idea to me that no matter what….the partisan bullshit noisemakers will out

    and while most regular Readers know i won’t shy from a “fight”…

    i find myself wondering “why bother”…just to read myself think?

    thanks for Asking…and all my best to you and yours…as i’ve stated before, if it does get hairy for you…contact me and i can help with pure physical security as needed….you deserve it

    meanwhile…we will see, i have a lot to look inside about…

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • http://chantalstone.blogspot.com chantal stone

    gonzo…..i know exactly what you’re talking about.

    but just know, for the record, that although we seem to be on the same side of the fence on many of the issues discussed here on BC, you have opened my eyes to many things I knew little to nothing about.

    and for that, I thank you.

    be well, and if you go, don’t stay away too long.

    ;)

  • Dave Nalle

    What gonzo glosses over is that on subjects where everyone tends to agree and share thoughts of happy bunnies, there’s no discussion at all, which creates the impression that all discussion is acrimonious, when the truth is that there’s lots of hidden agreement and shared ground, but no motivation to talk about it.

    Dave

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    I thought I’d provided a forum both pro and con on the subject, without suppressing anyone’s opinions.

    Was it something I said?

  • troll

    gonzo marx – I don’t think that you realize the number of readers that you influence here with your perspective and humour – and your ability to keep up with the slippery sophist – and your dyslexic style

    with all respect…quixotic not good enough anymore – ?

    troll

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Char wrote:

    “The values that we seem as a society to have lost track of are: love and acceptance, truth and integrity, and fairness and equality. We are all reflections of each other. I believe that we bring people into our lives so that we may learn things about ourselves from them. The true “devil” is fear! So, when did we decide as a people that God should be feared? God is love and the opposite of love is not hate, it is fear. So, in my mind all of the extreemest activities that are happening right now have grown out of fear. When will we get that the best way to eliminate our enemies is to make them our friends? How many people have to die before we realize that when we kill others, we are actually killing ourselves? And, when will we understand that when we judge and condemn others, we are judging and condemning ourselves?”

    Well we’ve partually named the problem; now what’s the solution?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Well Char named the problem; what’s the solution. She wrote…
    The values that we seem as a society to have lost track of are: love and acceptance, truth and integrity, and fairness and equality. We are all reflections of each other. I believe that we bring people into our lives so that we may learn things about ourselves from them. The true “devil” is fear! So, when did we decide as a people that God should be feared? God is love and the opposite of love is not hate, it is fear. So, in my mind all of the extreemest activities that are happening right now have grown out of fear. When will we get that the best way to eliminate our enemies is to make them our friends? How many people have to die before we realize that when we kill others, we are actually killing ourselves? And, when will we understand that when we judge and condemn others, we are judging and condemning ourselves?

  • zingzing

    this site is a little world. there are those with whom i will almost always disagree (bing, anthony grande, big guppy), those who i will most likely agree (mmm…), and those that drive me up a wall. that’s the big list… dave nalle, ruvy, nr davis, many others… you infuriate me. not because i always disagree… but because sometimes i do. sometimes i don’t want to. sometimes you make a good point. sometimes you say the most ridiculously stupid things… i have to laugh, it’s lovely. i rarely look at anything except politics (because it’s fun to argue) and music (because i love music)… it’s all about love and hate. this is entertainment. nothing said here matters anywhere else. we aren’t going to change the world. no one is looking to anyone here for ideas. so when you find yourself running around in a circle with one of the idiots that opposes your point of view, remember this: you couldn’t hit them in the face if you wanted to. so just call them a prick and start another argument somewhere else.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    gonzo, when I debate politics, because what I debate is so personal and affects the family, I have to take time away so that it doesn’t affect the homelife.

    But one thing I’ve always known, is that in my situation, I will never convince my opponent. But that’s not what I’m in it for, I’m in it for anybody who reads with an open mind. In a debate between you and somebody else, you might not convince the person you are talking to, but who knows how many readers were influenced?

    In my case, my opponent is driven by his/her interpretation of God, and so there is no compromise. I’ve often said this about politics as well, not just gay civil rights issues. When fundamentalism goes into politics, and when people begin legislating by their religious belief, it definitely becomes a theocracy or even a dictatorship. There is no two party, there is no compromise. A fundamentalist cannot compromise their faith, so when their faith gets in politics, there is no compromise, there is only their way and if that means hijacking the system and rewriting history and rewriting historical documents, then they have to do it. They cannot compromise faith.

    That’s my battle. But they can be voted out of power, so I debate. And I can only hope that anybody that reads sees my reason in my battles and maybe I can at least slow the tide down for awhile or something.

    If you want to feel like pissing in the wind, debate a fundy on what sin is. For my God, love is no sin. Pure pissing in the wind to debate that with them though. But think of those who read you, and who will never tell you, but that you made a difference for. I know they’re out there.

    You just gotta have faith. :-)

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Very well put, Steve

    thanks
    Jet

  • gonzo marx

    aaAAAAaaaaRRRrrrRRRggGGGgghHHHhhh!!!!!!

    ok…ok…i get it…

    dreck and feh and fewking hells…

    thanks you…all of you, dopey gonzo that i am…sometimes i forget…

    Sancho!….my Armor…my Sword!!!

    Excelsior!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Mr. Spock, please report to Aux. control with the universal translator. ON the double please!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    zing – that was pretty good…especially the last line…like you said…I like to laugh too!

  • Nancy

    I dunno, I’ve been convinced a few times here, and actually gave serious consideration to alternative arguments before changing my opinion – sometimes just a little, sometimes a lot. Gonzo, I understand your frustration, but there is also that you speak for a lot of us who aren’t that adept to argue for ourselves. I know for myself, I can’t marshal all the background data etc. you seem to be able to come up with – which is a valuable educational resource in itself. So, if you leave, you leave many of us much poorer for it. Indeed, Don Gonzo Quixote, re-saddle that horse: you write not just for yourself, but many others, like it or not.

    Besides, it’s Mud Season down in Maine. What else ya gonna do for fun & entertainment?

  • troll

    *I’ve been convinced a few times here, and actually gave serious consideration to alternative arguments before changing my opinion – sometimes just a little, sometimes a lot.*

    me too Nancy

    troll

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Looking back over this string, I’ve seen some incredibly sensible and intelligent input. All of you are of value, and “We” are the sum-total of all of us.
    “should you leave, my friend, We wouldn’t be “us” any more.

    Please give it some serious reconsideration
    Love
    Jet

  • joey

    Gono… er I mean Gonzo

    “aaAAAAaaaaRRRrrrRRRggGGGgghHHHhhh!!!!!!”

    Wow, I haven’t seen you do that in like a year! Okay everyone, take note… how to get under Gonzo’s skin…. Gee, this is like being in the Navy on submarines for 6 months…. or something.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    GONZO GET YOUR ASS BACK HERE! I forgot, what were we talking about again?

  • gonzo marx

    /sigh….

    ok…

    /start translator for Jet

    the end of comment #244 refers to troll in #238 when he rightly sub-refs me on being quite …well, de la Mancha-esqe at times

    the “pirate noise” like scream was from being “just when i thought i was out, they drag me back in” feeling, due to the sentiments expressed by many folks…i am chagrined and humbled….well…chagrined if nothing else

    but i digress

    /end translator

    Excelsior!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Oh, well if THAT’S all it was, then go away again, I thought it was something important!

    NOT

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Just to be silly, I’ve elected to reprint this in the fruitless (forgive the pun) hope of getting back on the subject…

    To be frank with all of you, I’m just as worried about the Fundamentalist movement legislating heterosexual mores. I mean after they’re done with us, you know they’re coming after you.

    Outlawing doing business or traveling on sunday, except to go to church, and possibly even compulsary church attendance, or maybe even a tax on wages “tithing” directly to churches.

    Heterosexual sex that doesn’t produce children

    Those “Faith Based” institutions Georgie loves so much, could be expanded so that places like the YMCA would require people in need to attend daily religious services.

    The whole constitutional crisis if they decide to legislate morality by changing it as they did during prohibition.

    The list is endless.

    Legislating which version of the lord’s prayer is legal to display in a school or courtroom.
    “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us” or is it “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors” I actually had to stand in the corner in a public school in 2nd grade in 1962 because I recited the Presbyterian version instead of my teacher’s Catholic version.

    I’m almost as afraid of the laws that’d change, as the reaction after, when the general population yells “enough is enough” and rises up against them as they did in order to repeal prohibition.

  • Dave Nalle

    Yes, but Jet, Jet…none of the stuff you suggest in #254 is really likely to happen, now is it? The Fundies generally hold themselves to limited but realistic objectives. They had a lot of the stuff you mention 20 years ago in many states – blue laws, laws against fornication, etc. The vast majority of the population doesn’t want these back, much less some of the more extreme things you suggest. We’re not on the hotrails to theocracy no matter what you may fear.

    Dave

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    There are some things to be concerned about. They are seeking to have pharmacists and doctors dispense medicine and health care contingent upon religious belief. Somebody who’s way of life does not fall outside of their religious belief is not going to be as concerned about this, of course.

    They WILL get abortion back before the supreme court and it may well be overturned.

    There are instances of religious groups like the Southern Baptists refusing to assist hurricane victims with basics like water, because of religious belief.

    While we might not go back to a medieval society, there is cause for concern with the massive attempt to put religion, a specific religion no less, into practice for us all on a society wide scale.

    It doesn’t matter if we are on the hotrails to a theocracy (which it looks like to someone constantly persecuted by said religion) or taking just a few baby steps backwards (as it looks like from someone who has yet to be impacted by oppression), religion is being misused and even a single step meshing church and state has victims.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Yes Dave Nalle, but is it just a fear?
    Most of the population didn’t want prohibition either.
    A minority group of fundalmentalists mobilized to not only catch regular folks off guard and get local ordinances passed, but eventually got the Constitution changed!

    All this right under the noses of people who’d become complacent figuring the radical notions of a few would never be voted for, thus they skipped going to the poles.

    Our constituion was changed and then had to have part of it repealed, because People looked at the situation and laughed “the sky is falling, the sky is Falling!!!” instead of taking action before it was too late.

    …but that’s only my opinion

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Steve re:265 Yes that’ve very true, here in Ohio there’s quite a controversy about pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control etc, like you said. Also, a bill about parents refusing medical treatments for their children on religous grounds.

    In South Dakota there’s only one doctor and one clinic in the whole state that does abortions, so why was a bill NEEDED to ban them? Answer: so that’d it’d go all the way to the Supreme Court in attempt to repeal Roe v Wade, now that Bush has the Court stacked in his favor.

    You’re right, Southern Baptist love to say that it was “God’s will” and they should not undo it.

    Your last paragraph is very well put.

    Thanks for your input

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    SteveS sorry about that, I’m dislexic today, I meant 256

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Andy Marsh #257…Funny you don’t look like a little chicken, or is that a chicken little?
    Hmmmmmm

    Anyway, thanks so much for your stimulating and thought provoking comment. It added depth and a considered intellectual approach, which were sorely needed to such a…

    Oh forget it.
    Thanks

  • MCH

    “i’ve always thought dave looks like anton lavey.”

    Wow, Mark, you’re right!! They could almost be twins!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Well, I had to google Anton Levey to figure out who it was (Wellll excuuuuuuuuuuse me!) Dave, my god! They’re right!

    Does your wife know about the horns?

  • Bliffle

    Anton Lavey? Hmmm. Perhaps mystical deviltry accounts for Firefox presenting lots of whitespace where textual comments should be. Hmmmm.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Bliffle #264, I’ve discovered that if the temporary files on my web accellerator are too full this occurs. I’d get into options and delete the files, but it only worked for a day or so before I had to do it again.

    I couldn’t even get onto some of my strings. It got to the point where I had to remove the program, and then redownload it, because it either got overloaded or corupted-or probably both.

    Since I did that this afternoon, I’ve had no problems so far.

    Jet

  • Yuri

    Jet, to answer the question asked in the title of this piece.

    “Yes”

    No matter who or what offends. Don’t be a hater. Love is a masterful tool, not possessed by many.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Yuri #266: “Love is a masterful tool, not possessed by many.”

    Now go teach that to a few fundamentalists and I’ll change my mind!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Re #266 If Yuri’s remarks on my “vocabulary” lesson are any indication, there must be more than one “Yuri” posting under that name!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    My friends, my sister just called me to tell me my father passed away at 6:30 this evening, so I’ll leave you to fight this out on your own for about a week.

    More when I can
    Jet

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    ArchBingBat asked if the only thing I write about has to do with sexual orientation, Hmmmmmmmm?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    It’s interesting that now that election time is near, all this rhetoric as resurfaced, as if the only way Republicans think they can be elected is to start another “A vote for Democrats is a vote for fags” campaign.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Interesting how this little vocabulary lesson seems to sound more familiar the closer we get to election time doesn’t it?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Alas poor Jerry, I knew him well…

  • Lenin Chavez

    Hey Jet,

    Be my friend. Too many people can’t see what you’ve posted here and I’ve spent the better part of the last 5 years trying to get people to see. They lack the language tools that will allow them to see this.

    Please be my friend. I miss regular human interaction that didn’t involve a period of lambastion against some nearby individual.