News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

PHB Mobile


33|175:175

About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Baristas

The Blend Blogrolls

Activism


Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...



The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)


Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008



Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)


Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"

Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.


SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend




An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.


Out On A Limb - The Gay Agenda

by: Dagon

Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 14:33:28 PM EDT


Let's face up to it once and for all.  There is a "Gay Agenda."  You know it and so do I.  Shall I spell it out for you?  Here is what I see as "The Gay Agenda."  You may feel free to add to it or to discuss what I ought to subtract from it.  But I think it is all pretty obvious.
Dagon :: Out On A Limb - The Gay Agenda
The LGBT Community in the United States of America wants:

1. We want, in a few generations, for gay, lesbian, and transsexual kids studying history to wonder why we even needed anti-discrimination laws in the old days.  Of course transsexuals and homosexuals are natural and normal and accepted by society.  What was the big deal?

2. We want the rights and responsibilities of marriage available to all American families, even same sex couples.  We want it in every state and at the federal level.  As a stepping stone we will accept civil unions or domestic partnerships that grant our families all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, but only as a stepping stone.  These place our families in a second class, which is unacceptable.  Of course, making the states and the federal government responsible only for civil unions or domestic partnerships and leaving "marriage" to religious bodies is another acceptable avenue of resolution.

3. We want to be allowed to work without fear of discrimination.  We want a fair hiring process, a fair promotion process, and to work without fear of being fired for our sexual orientation.  We want to be free from constructive discharge where employers force one to quit.  We want an end to the wage disparity between heterosexuals and homosexuals where homosexuals earn an average 14% to 20% less than similarly situated heterosexuals. We want an end to the wage disparity faced by lesbians and all women in the USA where lesbians and all women earn an average of 76 cents to each dollar earned by a man.

4. We especially want nondiscrimination protection for transsexuals.  This ought to include public funding for the healthcare costs of transitioning.  Specific enforcement of nondiscrimination work statutes will be required at first.  It is most unfortunate that now a declaration of transexuality almost certainly causes a drastic reduction in one's personal economy due to discrimination.

5. We want to be able to serve our country in the Armed Forces.  The "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy is a fraud.  More homosexual service men and women have been drummed out of the service under this policy than before it was put into effect.  DADT has failed.  Many, if not most, of our allies have successfully incorporated homosexual soldiers, sailors, pilots, and marines into their armed forces with no problems.  It is time for the United States to join Canada, Europe, and Israel in civilized policies.

6. We want the right to bear and raise children.  We want our sexual orientation to have no force or effect at child custody hearings in any jurisdiction in any state.  We want an equal chance to adopt children with any similarly situated heterosexual person or couple.  We want to be judged as foster parents on our worth, not on our sexual orientation. We want access to fertility treatments, surrogacy, and other family planning options on the same terms as heterosexual people.

7. We want ourselves and our history recognized and valued.  We want our history taught in public and private schools.  We do not want the fact that many historical persons were gay and lesbian and bisexual and transexual ignored in schools: public or private.  We want homosexuality and and bisexuality and transexuality taught as normal sexual variations in all sexual education classes at all levels.  We want families with two Mom's or two Dad's introduced at the pre-school and kindergarten level and all levels of elementary school.

8. We want adequate research dollars for breast cancer and for HIV and for AIDS.  We want a cure for all three and a vaccine for HIV as soon as possible.  We want affordable medications and treatment for all three.  We do NOT want anyone to go without treatment for breast cancer or for HIV or for AIDS simply for lack of funds or insurance.  Our society is better than that.  We want an end to discrimination in the provision of healthcare services to homosexuals, lesbians, transsexuals, and all women.  We want future studies to show no difference in time waiting for sevices or the services provided to straight white men and any other group of people needing healthcare.

9. We want Hate Crimes passed at the Federal and at the state level in all 50 states.  We do NOT want to limit free speech.  However, we recognize when a crime is committed due to bias and hate against a group of people, the crime has a chilling effect on that group of people.  The crime affects the security of that group of people.  In effect, the crime is not only against the victim, but also against the entire group.  That is the essence of Hate Crime law.

10. We want qualified gays and lesbians and transsexuals elected to public office at all levels of government.  We do NOT wish to take over any level of government.   There are not enough gays and lesbians and transsexuals in the United States to take over anything!  However, we recognize that no one can better represent the interests of the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual community than a gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual person.  This is NOT to say that we will blindly vote for a glbt candidate.  However, when there is a glbt candidate on the ballot who shares our views on a number of issues, we are highly likely to vote for that person.

11. We want to protect gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual teenagers and youth from bullying and harassment at school, church, and home.  We support anti-bullying and harassment programs in public and private schools.  We support gay-straight alliances at high schools and at middle schools, both public and private.  We know that many gay and lesbian and transsexual teens have no better option than running away from home.  We support gay/lesbian/transsexual shelters for teen runaways.  We support all efforts to help gay/lesbian/transsexual teens complete their educations.  We support all efforts to reunite gay/lesbian/transsexual runaway teens with their parents as long as their parents are supportive of the teen's discovery of their gender variance or sexual orientation.  We cannot support parental psychological or physical abuse of a teenager when the parent is not supportive of the teenager's sexual orientation or gender variance.  Likewise, we applaud those churches of all faiths which provide welcome and support to youth and teenagers discovering homosexual orientation or gender variance.  We denounce churches of all faiths which attempt to cause psychological or spiritual abuse or harm to teenagers and youth of homosexual orientation or gender variance.

12. We want the United States to provide asylum to gay and lesbian and transsexual foreigners who would be killed or imprisoned if returned to their own country, such as citizens of Iran.  We especially want the USA to stop the vigilante murder squads killing homosexuals in Iraq.

There, that's all I can think of off the top of my head. Twelve little items, a nice dozen. Feel free to add to this USA agenda ... or yall from across the globe, add your bits and pieces, too!

Additions:

*** Add "Prostate Cancer" to research and funding for treatment and cure to item number 8 above.

New 13.  We want fair representation in the media.  This does include television, movies, all print, and advertisements.  We want representation that is fair and representative of the lgbt community; that is, of the broad and diverse lgbt community ... not any one singular race or sex or gender or style or culture or ethnicity within the community.  We do not seek all gay, all the time.  But never seeing gay or lesbian couples in ads is not fair either.

New 14.  We want fair treatment, without discrimination, in public accomadations including hotels and restaurants, in finances such as loans and mortgages, and in all places of business.

New 15.  We want to live in peace and harmony with others.  We want to walk down the street holding our beloved hands or giving them a quick kiss goodbye without hearing nasty comments from complete strangers.  We want to walk down the street without hearing a carload of teenage boys yelling nasty things at us.  We do NOT want to engage in public displays of affection or to have sex in front of anyone.  Frankly, we want to mind our own business and be left alone.

New 16.  In summation, we want fair and equal treatment under the law.

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Addendum to number 6
We want access to fertility treatments, surrogacy, and other family planning options on the same terms as straight people.

"More than half of modern culture depends on what one shouldn't read." -- Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest

Good Point

I will edit #6 at your suggestion.  Excellent point.

The fight for full LGBT Equality is NOT over.  Be strong and be ready to really fight!  And read my blog in your spare time! http://ravenhurst-ravenhurst.b...

[ Parent ]
Good Point

I will edit #6 at your suggestion.  Excellent point.

The fight for full LGBT Equality is NOT over.  Be strong and be ready to really fight!  And read my blog in your spare time! http://ravenhurst-ravenhurst.b...

[ Parent ]
Cervical cancer
and gyn-initiatives in medicine are critical to Lesbians, Dagon, and sadly overlooked.

Comprehensive Gardisil coverage and availability for teens is a big one for us too.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid


[ Parent ]
All fine and good,
but the Anti-Gay Industry refers to it as the Homosexual Agenda not the Gay Agenda....you know, it's all about SEX after all.

Alliance Defense Fund alliancealert.org news page has a category just for the H-Agenda.  http://www.alliancealert.org/t...


KISS

I think we need to keep it short and simple. And I've no problem with the term, Homosexual Agenda. Every time one of the haters starts up with that, just cut 'em off with, "Absolutely, we have an agenda - Equal Rights, no more."

Of course, if that is really what we're after, wouldn't that negate our requests for hate crime legislation?


No
How does hate crime legislation apply unequally?  If it's well written, there is no issue.

Thugs who target straight people because they hate and want to intimidate straight people as a class would be subject to penalty enhancement just like thugs who target white people for those reasons currently.  The FBI does track and prosecute such crimes.

Everyone is protected by hate crime laws concerning race--because everyone has a race.  Everyone also has a sexual orientation.  What's the problem you foresee?

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto


[ Parent ]
Re: No
"Thugs who target straight people because they hate and want to intimidate straight people as a class would be subject to penalty enhancement...."

See, that kind of talk just makes me want to shake my head and walk away from any discussion. Who do we think we're fooling with that one? Yes, I'm sure someone can link up to some Limbaugh example of a gang of diesel dykes terrorizing their community, or stealth faggots who loiter outside a biker bar with chains and attitude.  But, come on....

But I know you weren't trying to be funny, so -  I personally think it as much a time-waster for us to be working for hate crime protection as it would to be trying to make rapes subject to unique penalties if the rapist demonstrably "hated on" the sex of the victim.  I don't think hate crimes legislation, had it been in effect, would have made a damn's worth of difference to the outcome (for the victims) in the Matthew Shepherd, or Brandon Teena or Lawrence King cases.

And the longer I live, the more I think societies function best when we require people to ACT a certain way, or refrain from acting certain ways, rather than when we try to require people to THINK a certain way.

Sentencing guidelines allow for stiffer penalties for different levels of violence or hatefulness in the commission of a crime.  We should leave it at that and concentrate our efforts on achieving equal rights.


[ Parent ]
Re: Re: No
I see where you're coming from on this one Pollyanna.  People's thoughts should NOT be prosecuted.  Just don't fall into the Christinazis "thought" crimes argument.
Yes, Matt Shepherd, Brandon Teena, and Lawrence King would still be dead if there were or weren't hate crime laws on the books, and in a perfect world, sentencing guidelines would be followed.

However, when I think of the need for hate crimes laws, especially federal ones, I think of the cases where law enforcement or local D.A.'s have been less than forceful in prosecuting offenders, and judges hand out "slap-on-the-wrist" sentences because the victim happended to be gay, trans, etc.  This is especially true in Southern, Bible-Belt states.

In those instances, there has obviously been a miscarriage of justice and the state and/or federal government should have the power to intervene.


[ Parent ]
"Who do we think we're fooling with that one?"
You're right, straight people are not targeted for random violence by anti-straight bigots very often.  But LGBT people are.  Isn't that fact extremely relevant when discussing the need for laws of this type?

On the other hand, it's completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not such laws are consistent with equal protection.  The level of hatred and violence, and who it's directed toward, is what is unequal.  The law itself, covering sexual orientation, would not be unequal at all.

Shake your head and walk away all you want, but you're the one arguing irrationality.  Who, for instance, is trying "to require people to THINK a certain way?"  Hate crime laws are sentencing guidelines, basically--enhanced penalties for crimes of vandalism and violence, etc. when bias and intimidation are part of the motive.  ACTS!  (In some cases, the laws also broaden jurisdiction, to ensure fair trials, as Jon mentioned.)

Hate crime laws already exist in every state and at the federal level.  If you want to oppose them, fight for across the board repeal.  Don't single out and exclude one of the criteria that most often gets people victimized.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto


[ Parent ]
Well, at least you didn't try to argue that the 1968 Civil Rights Act was necessary to protect white folks.

Hate crime laws already exist in every state and at the federal level.  If you want to oppose them, fight for across the board repeal.

I'd never waste my energy in such a fashion,  and I usually don't even bother to state my views on this subject.  Can we at least agree that special hate crime laws do bupkus for actually protecting anyone or anything before the fact? They're a feel-good type of thing which helps placate the class of people getting their asses kicked after the fact, and are something to which do-little legislators can point to indicate that they deserve the votes of the people of those classes.

But I guess it hardly matters.  Pretty soon the laundry list of protected classes will be so long that every person, piece of property and organization will be covered by specific hate crime legislation.  For all the good that does.

Will it stop ONE violent act?  And will we yet have equal rights? No to both, I think.


[ Parent ]
Well...
I guess it necessarily gets pretty philosophical when questions of that kind are asked.  Do any laws act effectively as deterrents of crimes?  I hope so, and I think so, but it is hard to prove.  I can't come up with any reason, though, why the effects of these laws would be significantly different in character from the effects of any other criminal laws.

We have first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, etc.  Do we really deter people from "pre-meditating" by giving longer sentences for first degree?  Do we deter people from becoming violently enraged by having laws against manslaughter?  Who knows?

...

As far as the civil rights law, "was necessary to protect" and "does protect" are very different things.  That's the distinction I was trying to raise in my previous post.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto


[ Parent ]
Well?
If a hate crime law stops one rape or murder, wouldn't it be worth it?



Cisgender. Because "Genetic" is so 2006.


[ Parent ]
Why we need hate-crimes law
Well, here I disagree. While bias crimes may end with assault or murder, they often start with harassment and vandalism. A better law enforcement tracking may have pegged Benjamin Smith as a person of interest before his shooting spree crossed state lines.

A second reason why it matters is that in most jurisdictions "sudden heat" is a mitigating factor that makes the difference between murder and manslaughter. This is a pivotal issue in how the defendants for the murder of Shorty Hall are making a "gay panic" defense.

A third factor is that bias crimes are often not random cases of a person acting out against some "uppity" group, they are orchestrated acts of intimidation by organized criminal groups with a pattern of escalating incidents. Again, the World Church of the Creator started with harassment and ended with murder and assassination. So the other half of hate crimes legislation is a mandate for federal law enforcement to engage in efforts to document, track, and take measures to prevent these crimes. And on the Federal level, the establishment of grant funding for local prevention, a mechanism for local DAs to get Federal investigative help, and as a last resort, the ability for the Office of the Attorney General to take jurisdiction when the local criminal justice system is part of the problem.  

And heck. Looking over the laws of my state, there is an entire laundry list of things that can be considered as aggrivating factors in a criminal trial: crimes against law enforcement, the elderly, the developmentally disabled, and children; injury or death in the commission of a property or drug crime; crimes associated with gang activity; bias crimes targeting victims on the basis of race or religion.  


[ Parent ]
Almost missing the point...
I don't think hate crimes legislation, had it been in effect, would have made a damn's worth of difference to the outcome (for the victims) in the Matthew Shepherd, or Brandon Teena or Lawrence King cases.

No, for people who are so unstable that they would lash-out and kill (or seriously injure) another fellow human being, deterrents of any sort don't work. But that's NOT the point of hate-crimes laws. They exist for the future, for the bigger picture, not necessarily for the right-now.

Hate-crimes laws send a message to society that this kind of behavior is now considered unacceptable and that it isn't just a few libruhl types who think so, but (supposedly) the majority of the population thinks so. It's to show that despite what they may have heard from their homophobic friends, the LGBT Community is not fair game to be targeted for discrimination, since society is making a point by standing-up and specifically saying, "This is wrong," rather than simply covering us by existing laws. It's a way to "push-back" against the obvious discrimination that's out there, the same ways that the civil rights laws in the 60's began to change things for blacks.

Just the fact that someone standing around the water cooler now knows they have to at least check around them before they tell a watermellon or fried chicken joke, it means they have to know that what they're doing is wrong (even though many still choose to do it, despite the potential penalty). These laws do start to change things over time for the better because of the message they send.



[ Parent ]
Hate Crimes Laws send a message
...that in our society, aggressive hatred of LGBT's is NOT acceptable and the haters, rather than the LGBTs, are outside of the mainstream of civilization.

An LGBT dies ever eight days or less, from hatred fueled by speech.

Let's at least make the deed beyond the pale of a civilized people.


I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid


[ Parent ]
of course there is a gay agenda
there is a christian agenda, an atheist agenda, a black agenda, and a gay agenda, every group looks to advance their cause.  we need to reclaim this "gay agenda" term, it has become a negative term and it should be regarded as positive.  We should be able to say heck yea im part of the gay agenda, do i look like a closed minded bigot to you?

http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com

nice summary
It's a nice summary list, well articulated.

Possibly a bit long, but I think it's better to err on the side of specificity than to leave something out.

It would be interesting research project to match up the missions and budgets of the national LGBT organizations with this agenda.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Mad Professah Lectures http://madprofessah.com
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell


great rights roundup
i don't know if this is already inherit in one of the items of your excellent and thorough list, but i would like to see sufficient representation of gay couples and families in mainstream advertisements.  we exist in the population, but we are never--with a mere handful of exceptions--depicted among the millions of cuddling and kissy hetero couples on TV and in print every year in this country alone.  this needs to change.  people need to see us whether they want to or not.  

i have to say that elements of number 8 make me slightly uneasy.  adequate and equal healthcare is definitely a priority, and while i'm a proponent of AIDS research, its inclusion implies subtle undertones of gay = AIDS.  i know that's not your meaning, but the inference has been made so many times by various groups that it's become a sensitive topic, one that they point out as a "lifestyle" issue to DIMINISH the funding of a cure.  

The gays stole my lunch money


you can actually summarize what you want in one statement
We want all citizens to have equal rights and protections under the law.

Yep, it's called the U.S. Constitution. Let's start using it in this country! n/t
.

[ Parent ]
BushCo and the religious bigots have been using it
unfortunately, they seem to think it's toilet paper :(

[ Parent ]
I agree
Everything else flows from that, and would.  Equality would mean health care, social security benefits, employment protection, marriage and the myriad benefits that brings, and so on and so on scooby dooby dooby Ooh sha sha We got to live together. . . .

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

[ Parent ]
Thanks Dagon!
That's definitely a good start.  It'd be nice to have a wallet size version that we could pull out to refresh our memory in case we're tested on it though.

You Want What?
1.  The big deal?  After 450 years America still thinks the nigger and the wetbacks are a big deal.  What makes you think she's going to be more accepting of the queers?

2.  Forget the religious bodies, even the Feds don't want the gays to marry, let alone have marriage rights.  You'll have to repeal DOMA first, but we can't even get shot of DADT in this country. Why on earth would you think America was more enlightened than South Africa?

3.  Straight American women don't yet have what you want, 80 years after the universal franchisement.  Wait your turn.

4. America can't even sort out the toilet problem with transexuals and you want funding for the op?

5.  DADT may be the first of AmJericho's walls to fall.  Most of the Armed Forces now ignore it, if they can.  Even the State Department now has "Member of Household" policies that is as non-discrimitory as the Feds allow.  Just don't hold your breath.

6.  Good luck.  As long as we keep Sally Kerns in the news, you will broadcast her agenda, same as she broadcasts ours.  Agendas never achieved normality, which is what children need, never mind their parentage.

7.  We are 10% percent or less of the population.  How do you think that merits inclusion in the curriculum beyond that children should be taught that all Americans should have the rights of all Americans?  Introduce civic lessons on the basis of that, sure, and enforce equal rights for all, at all levels, because that's what Americans deserve.  You introduce an exclusive curriculum and you feed the argument for "an agenda".

8.  Laws already exist against crimes against Americans.  Seeking laws against crimes aimed against certain Americans just promotes the idea of an agenda.  Matthew Shepard didn't die because he was gay, that would be like a bandaid on a brain tumour.  He died because his killers were stupid and ignorant, which makes his death all the more tragic.  Education, from the lowest level, in what it means to be a responsible citizen, pledging allegience not to a stretch of polyester made in China, but to the ideal that all men are created equal and sacred under the laws of the land will make more of a differnce than more useless laws that nobody adheres to.

9.  See 8.

10. Then promote them, fund them, lobby for them, and vote for them.  But, as you say, not because they are LGBT candidates, but because they advocate for equality for all. The Dobsonazis will attack them for their special interests.  They need to be promoted for their stand for all Americans.  There are many out there now who do just that.

11.  So where is your support of school kids who are bullied just because there are always bullies?  We abandon them because they're not LGBT?  Adolescents who are sexually confused, as many are, shoud surely be able to find a safe haven with their counselors to work their issues through to a place where they can be who they are meant to be.  Those who have got there should be able to be able to build straight-gay clubs, at a level appropriate to their development.  Schools need to consider this, and deeply, and come up with solutions flexible enough to deal with the flexibility of adolescence.

As for the churches, well, good luck; this is America, not South Africa.

12. When Henry Hyde wrote the foundation for the present Immigration Law, you want what, exactly?  When we turned Iraq into a mongolian clusterfuck, you want what, exactly?  When we handed Iraq over to Iran and our economy over to China, you want what, exactly?  Even in Britain, where civil parterships are enshrined in law and where Parliament sits a bare few miles from Runnymede (http://novocoboroubr1960.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!F065998406E8BE7!1078.entry)an application for asylum for an Iranian gay man was refused until the press took hold of it.  Now it's being reconsidered.  Would this happen in a country that refuses entry to HIV+ tourists?

I have a great deal of respect for you, Dagon, and have lauded your input here.  I wish you luck with your agenda.  Come to Brussels, where no one gives a shit as long as they can hide it from the taxman, and we can discuss it over mussels and white wine.


Moules, vin blanc, et--?
Ou sont les frites????

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

[ Parent ]
Ca va sans dire!
Il y a toujours des frites!

[ Parent ]
An Agenda

Howdy Brian

An "Agenda" means "things to do."  An agenda is never "things we have already accomplished."  I also think the "gay agenda" of 2008 is very different from 1970 or 1980 or 1990 or even 2000.  I am guessing it will different in 10 years.

I just think it is not very convincing when we say there isn't a "gay agenda."  I think there is one ... we just don't put it in words.

On "hate crimes."  I agree with you that "hate crimes" theory applies to everyone, of all races and creeds and all sexes.  In reality, though, it is the minorities that most often are attacked.  The exception are women, a majority that is victimized by the minority, men.  Still, I believe that hate crime legislation belongs on the lgbt agenda, so I will leave it there.
 

The fight for full LGBT Equality is NOT over.  Be strong and be ready to really fight!  And read my blog in your spare time! http://ravenhurst-ravenhurst.b...


[ Parent ]
Fair enough
sorry for the rant.

[ Parent ]
Funny - I've been thinking of writing one too
and it was considerably differnt than yours.

I think our agenda should be the elimination of all forms of discrimination and persecution of GLBT persons wordwide and complete and full equality.

I think it a mistake to start parsing our rights - which the right has been doing for years. It get us in the position of "I'll trade my right to adopt in excahnge for the right to serve in the military"

It makes us think that one politician who opposes our equality is "better" than another based upon paragraph three of their position papers, and it divides our community.

(ENDA was the biggest example of that, but I see it all the time with people wh say "I don't care about marriage but I do care about ...)

And I would like a mention of tctics - I think that our present tactics of begging for a little liberty is obviously not working and "by any means neccessary" needs to become our rallying cry


I agree with this, too
As thoughtful as the agenda is, Dagon, it starts to sound like a laundry list or a party platform, and I could see opponents saying, Well, rank them in order, or something ridiculous like that.  Full equality, now, everywhere.  That's the alpha and omega.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

[ Parent ]
Christian agenda vs. gay agenda
A fundamental difference between the Christian agenda and the gay agenda is that, while gays seek equal rights (no more and no less), Christians assume entitlement to the right of dominion over everyone else's life.

Not only do Christians already have equal rights, they have special rights, but that is not enough for them.

The gay agenda is neutral in its effect on people outside the gay community. The Christian agenda is all about controlling the lives of people, not only inside, but outside their community as well.

It took me a long time to understand that the fundamentalist concept of "religious freedom" really does involve their assumed god-ordained freedom and duty to rule.


Some Christians do want special rights
All the fuss about hate crimes legislation did not arise until there were attempts to add sexual orientation to existing legislation.  Then the right wing started coming up with many reasons why hate crimes legislation was wrong - but all they wanted to do was prevent orientation from being added.  I've never seen them push to have the existing legislation removed.

Merits of hate crimes legislation can be debated, but if there is such legislation it should include sexual orientation.


[ Parent ]
Prostate cancer research and treatment should be added to #8...
If breast cancer is an issue for the gay agenda then prostate cancer should be too since it affects and kills as many men (including gay men) as breast cancer affects and kills women (including lesbians).

Prostate Cancer

You're probably correct.  I'll add it.

The fight for full LGBT Equality is NOT over.  Be strong and be ready to really fight!  And read my blog in your spare time! http://ravenhurst-ravenhurst.b...

[ Parent ]
General versus Specific
Tiponeil wrote:

"I think our agenda should be the elimination of all forms of discrimination and persecution of GLBT persons wordwide and complete and full equality."

I think this a great summation.  However, I believe one has to be specific.  What does full equality look like now?  What exactly do we want?  What is getting in our way right now?  That's whhy I wrote the list.

Tiponeil continued:

:I think it a mistake to start parsing our rights - which the right has been doing for years. It get us in the position of "I'll trade my right to adopt in excahnge for the right to serve in the military"  (skip) I see it all the time with people wh say "I don't care about marriage but I do care about ...)"

I see people being people.  In th 1980's and early 1990's I cared desparately about gay parenting ... I was a single gay parent.  From 1996 to 2008, I cared deeply about same sex marriage ... then my husband died and I care a little less about the issue to be honest with you.  I have always been a pacifist so gays and lesbians in the armed forces has been a stretch for me ... still it irks me now that they can't serve openly.

I am now at the point that each of these inequities burdens my soul.  I am angry about them all.  Even DADT.  Especially transexual rights, especially transexual workplace discrimination. BUT I realize that everyone will care more for some issues than others.  And that is A-OK.  It is OK to be human.  And as people get older, they will care about all the issues.  It is the nature of things.

Trading one issue for another?  It can happen.  It should not but it can.  Whether we list issues or not, the issues exist.  And people do stupid things.  I can't help that.

Tiponeil continued:

"And I would like a mention of tctics - I think that our present tactics of begging for a little liberty is obviously not working and "by any means neccessary" needs to become our rallying cry"

I would like to discuss tactics also; but this diary entry was about a gay agenda.  Tactics of achieving each piece in each locale is a different discussion.  One I will gladly participate in.


The fight for full LGBT Equality is NOT over.  Be strong and be ready to really fight!  And read my blog in your spare time! http://ravenhurst-ravenhurst.b...


Agenda
As a heterosexual male, I have no right to have an opinion way one or another on gay people. That being said, I might assert the fact that several of my dearest friends have been gay and, at times, I've been accused by bigots of being gay myself (because I wouldn't snub homosexuals). I mention these facts by dint of establishing that I'm very sympathetic to the concept of equality and Judging-People-Based-on-Individual-Merit. Despite that, however, I kind of feel bad about some of the things on this "agenda". I mean, it seems like a pipe-dream to expect that--some day--the odd bigot on the street won't register disgust when two gays or transgendered people indulge in public displays of affection. I don't agree with the bigots. I'm just saying, "How does one go about enforcing opinions"? Society would have to be remade along new Stalinist lines where everyone was brainwashed to have certain "politically approved" opinions. That world is an even uglier prospect than the one in which the fat kid is mocked, or the ugly girl shunned, or--yes--even the gay couple heckled.
  I'm with you in spirit, but when you start thinking it's the province of any movement or agenda to criminalize people's thoughts (or, yes, even their thoughtless utterances), then you lose me. I don't want to live in that world.
  And do gays, really? (Eleanor Roosevelt said that you have to give someone your consent to be made to feel inferior. The point: You have to NOT care what idiots say. That's the answer. Not creating a new Stalinist society in which your particular group wields more power and can criminalize certain thoughts or attitudes. That way lies tyranny.)

[ Parent ]
Oh, ffs
Another load of bullshit about "thought control".  Everyone already is brainwashed to have certain politically approved opinions, Drooperdoo.  That's what happens when you live in a human society.  Societies have morals and mores and standards and customs and expectations and ideas about what is right and what is wrong.

You start talking about Stalinism when someone says that they hope anti-gay bigotry will, in the future, be so rare as to be shocking.  That is nothing but a clear projection of your own homophobia and bigotry.  Stalinist society?  Because you'll no longer have the "right" to feel revolted by gay people?  Please.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto


[ Parent ]
Who said anything about criminalizing thought!!!

Howdy Drooperdoo,

Hope I got your name right, and welcome to the conversation, straight guy!  I mean that.  But neither I nor anyone said anything about criminalizing teenagers harassing gays and lesbians or creeps making nasty comments about a kiss on the cheek.  I only said I want to live in a "live and let live" kind of society ... that is definitely on my agenda.  You read government intervention into my dream; it is not there.

But I think the poster above me is correct.  There is a Rogers and Hammerstein song in "South Pacific" (aren't I the perfect queer guy?) that goes "You have to be carefully taught to hate."  It is about being to be racist.  But I think it applies to homophobia too.  No one is born homophobic.  We are each carefully taught homophobia and sexism and racism in the USA.  I would like a USA where the kids are NOT taught those things.  Too much to ask?  Time will tell.

Nice to hear your thoughts though.  Keep posting!

The fight for full LGBT Equality is NOT over.  Be strong and be ready to really fight!  And read my blog in your spare time! http://ravenhurst-ravenhurst.b...


[ Parent ]
Thought control?
I don't recall thought control mentioned in the history books being used to stop people reacting with disgust when straight people kissed in public the way they used to!

Or when a woman shows her ankle in public does she get called a trollop or guttersnipe anymore?

What about women wearing pants or bathing suits without legs or sleeves?

See, in just a little over a hundred years reactions to things that were very much publicly unacceptable have drasticly altered and not a bit of stalinist thought control was used to get it.


[ Parent ]
Not quote
Drooperdoo,
My impression, from that statement is not a strict or even passive enforcement of that idea, but rather that it should be the end result of other efforts.

In other words, we'd like to live in a world where two men holding hands, walking down the street is so positively boring that nobody says anything.  Or that if someone does heckle, the rest of the people on the street think, "what's HIS problem?"  That can be achieved through exposure.  If you raise people in a world in which gay people are not treated as "bad" or even "special" then eventually, we will achieve this normalization naturally.  Just as today, most people see an interracial couple and don't bat an eyelash. I'm sure there are areas where they get heckled, too, but it's my impression the "hecklers" are becoming fewer and farther in-between.

Pam, am I close?


[ Parent ]
In much the same way
I understand the thought which makes one question how we dictate opinion....but the real objective isn't to do that.
I don't personally care how a straight person views me or anyone else in the lgbtq community. I just don't want to fired or discriminated against because of it. This is accomplished the same way it was done with Black people. There will be trial and error. And an overnight success, I'm not expecting, but I am expecting us to try. To fight for it.  If every civil rights activist simply said how can i make white people think I am equal, instead of doing SOMETHING.....where would I be....where would every other black person be.
I refuse to operate in the negative. It hasn't done us much good in the past.

[ Parent ]
A common misconception
I don't personally care how a straight person views me or anyone else in the lgbtq community. I just don't want to fired or discriminated against because of it.
And hate crimes legislation does not address employment discrimination.  Put your energy into working for something which will have actual benefits for you and the community.

[ Parent ]
Why is the concept of hate crimes controversial?
There is a clear parallel to the anti-lynching laws. Lynchings, like hate crimes, are not just murders, although the crimes in each case are plenty bad on their own.

But Hate Crimes, like lynchings, are designed to terrorize a whole segment of the population. Hence the quest for enhanced penalties.

Isn't this obvious? Those who strongly resist clearly show their hatred soon enough.  


Excellent summary of the whole shebang
Great work, Dagon, and I would wholeheartedly endorse it. Although point 2 may need a rewrite for clarity...

"we will accept civil unions or domestic partnerships ... These place our families in a second class, which is unacceptable."

We will accept the unacceptable?

Here's what I find about compromise--
don't do it if it hurts inside,
'cause either way you're screwed,
eventually you'll find
you may as well feel good;
you may as well have some pride

--Indigo Girls


Exposing the Gay Agenda
http://blog.fritzliess.com/200...

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.


Priceless!
That's one for the ages...

[ Parent ]
Aigh!
Fritz; I was tempted and I LOOKED! Without the Bibles and holy water! I must now immediately provide sexual gratification in a vey subservient manner for my husband's pleasure! Then clean the house and decorate in a pleasing manner... ;)


"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

[ Parent ]
Thought Crime
I worried about criminalizing thought, and a few posters responded by saying something to the effect of, "Who wants to criminalize thought?" or "You're reading into the statement things that aren't there!" But right under my initial post, someone advocates hate crimes legislation--which also appears in the "Gay Agenda" (as posted at the top of the page). Hate crimes legislation is thought crime. It PRECISELY criminalizes thought.

Why do I say this? Because there are ALREADY laws against harassment, assault, murder, etc. Hate crimes wants to add an EXTRA penalty for the THOUGHT behind the crime.

I don't care what reason a bully has for beating up a person. It's not his thought that is currently illegal--but his act.

Once society adds an extra penalty for the thought behind a crime [say, giving him EXTRA time in prison if the victim happens to be a gay] then it gives the State extra power--power that no government should have: penalizing citizens for the thoughts BEHIND actions.

When that happens, we get into the territory of thought-police.

So it's disingenuous to say, "Who wants to criminalize thought" and then in the very next breath to say, "We need hate crimes legislation". Because if you ARE for "hate crimes" legislation you ARE, ipso facto, for thought criminalization.


"I don't care what reason..."
Our criminal justice system cares quite a bit about what reason a crime is committed, though.  Prosecutors call it the motive, and along with the overall mindset of the perp at the time of the crime, motive is considered by the jury when they're trying to understand what crimes were committed, and it's considered by judges when they determine sentencing.

I gave an example above: pre-meditation might get you a first degree murder conviction rather than second.  Would you argue that thinking about killing someone is therefore a crime currently?  Or that thinking about how to kill someone without getting caught is a crime?  And that this is an unjust and unconstitutional situation?  Just like with hate crimes, there is no crime until the act against another person has actually been committed.

No one has a moral right to unjustified hatred of an entire class of people.  But it is true that everyone in this country does have a constitutional right to hate.

However, no one has either a moral or constitutional right to act out violently or criminally against another person because of that hate.  The whole idea that violence against gay people (or against anyone) is a protected form of free expression is deeply offensive.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto


[ Parent ]
not quite
First, the thoughts and motivations of the criminal aren't irrelevant to the crime or the case.  Why do you think we have manslaughter?  Murder is intential killing, manslaughter is more along the lines of accidental or spur-of-the-moment.  If that's not criminalizing "thought" I don't know what is.

We have trials in which it certainly matters what kind of attitude the criminal has toward his victim.  We even allow insanity pleas, so don't kid yourself, thoughts are definitely part of our judicial system already.

If thought, motive, had nothing to do with it, we wouldn't need a trial.  The accused would not need to have a jury of their peers judge their motives, character, and crime.

Even still, hate crime legislation does not criminalize thought, It criminalizes action.

Let's take an example:
Example1:Graffitti shows up on the side of a building.  It's a dragon, or a panther, or some sort of animal or whatever that's unrelated to the business.  That's a crime.

Example2: Graffitti shows up on the side of a Church that has an upside-down cross on fire and says "GO AWAY" underneath it.  Now we have two crimes:  Graffiti, and intimidation.  One crime used to achieve another.  The graffiti is not only vandalism of property, the image and words used are meant as a "message" to the church, it's followers, and it's community that they are not welcome, and that if they do not head this warning, other crimes may follow.

Hate crime legislation is meant to make sure that Example 2 is not treated exactly like example 1.  That the intimidation is not ignored by law enforcement.


[ Parent ]
You've been drinking too much Fox News kool-aid
...or something, Droopydoo.

A Hate Crime is characterized by a crime which is intended to terrorize a whole group of people.

If you hang around outside gay bars waiting to beat up queers, or burn down a LGBT youth center, your intent is to terrorize a community, not just your victim.

Additionally, I really shouldn't have to point this out but hate crime laws for race and religion have been on the federal law books since 1969. Are your thoughts controlled by those?
LGBT's just want to be added to the list, because we get as much if not more prejudicial and often anonymous violence directed at us as any already-protected group.

The law establishes intent after a crime has already been committed, not before. This isn't a new concept, it's already the law in this country, just not for LGBT's.

If you are really opposed to hate crime laws in principal, maybe you should go to the NAACP or JDL websites and tell them you think they should give up their hate-crime protection, instead of criticizing a frequently-victimized minority that doesn't even have them yet.

Slightly off topic, I'm really sick and tired of reading comments about this on right-leaning sites where the author claims these laws are unnecessary because Matthew Shepard and Lawrence King are the only examples in the last 20 years. That sentiment sickens me to my core and I see it constantly. Those are the only examples that permeated the MSM, that's all. There have been thousands more.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/...



____________________

Donate to Carmen's Place


[ Parent ]
Good Points
Good points. But still--on some level--disturbing.

I'm not anti-gay, I'm anti-State. That is to say, I'm of a libertarian persuasion. So any power tranferred from the people to the government horrifies me. I'm also one of those crazy people who indulges in another thought-crime: belief that the government used gays as guinea pigs for AIDS experimentation. It might interest you to know that the same Rawstory link that brought me hear had a link to an article by a Dr. Alan Cantwell about the evidence pointing to Aids as a manmade disease, and that gays and blacks were the "undesirables" that it was tested on. (And before you yell at me, check out ABC News' story last year about the government busted testing drugs on kids in orphanages without their knowledge. Or read Russ Kick's "50 Things You're Not Supposed to Know" to see a long list on the history of government experimentation on its own population.)

So handing any more power to the State seems like madness to me.

They're already using "emotions"--like hate--as an excuse to imprison people and send them to mental wards. As they say "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". It starts out with noble objectives--like hate crimes. But after you hand the State that precedent, they use to for other (less noble) ends. Like in the old Soviet Union: if you criticized the State, you were a "hater," and sent to a mental hospital for re-programming or to a Gulag. Legislation is up before Congress now to do something similar in the United States. People who have "radicalized" beliefs [i.e., they don't have blind faith in George W. Bush) or people who, say, for example, think 9/11 was an inside job can be scooped up, called "haters" and sent to re-education camps.

Once the State gets into the business of thought-crime, it doesn't end. History is replete with examples.


[ Parent ]
But it has been pointed out to you
that it has nothing to do with "thought crime".

That is right wing propaganda - "thoughts" - and "speech" - are perfectly legal no matter how hateful.

that's why they are called hate "crimes", not hate "thoughts".


[ Parent ]
Heard it all before...
Sorry man. I'm also a libertarian in theory if not in action and it works like this:

Libertarians object to the principle of hate crimes. But there are already many on the books. So as a libertarian, you either have to extend them evenly to all groups who experience abnormally high levels of community violence, or you have to convince the people who already have them to give them up.
So I'll ask you again, what are you doing here bothering us queers with your objections? We don't have federal hate crime protection..yet. If your objection to hate crime laws is libertarian in basis then you need to be arguing with the Black, Jewish, Asian, Christian, Hispanic organizations, convincing them to let go of these extra federal protections which they already have.
From a purely libertarian point of view... all of those groups, especially the Christians, giving up their 'special protections' is never going to happen in a million years. So why do LGBT's have to be the only group who experience community violence but don't get the protection? If you hold true to that view by telling gays that nobody needs anymore "special rights," without waging your campaign at the people who have them already, that is purely anti-gay. Sorry, but it is.

____________________

Donate to Carmen's Place


[ Parent ]
Right wing propaganda
Hate crimse laws are both neccesary and effective, and have nothing to do with "criminalizing thought".

I have seen it work in my own neighborhood, where the local sport 10 years ago was for the rich suburban high schoolers to pop into their cars on Saturday night with baseball bats and drive to the gay bars looking for someone to stomp, for fun

That has stopped and it is now safe to walk the sreets because the police targeted these hate crimes.

It has nothing to do with "more punishment" - the federal law did not even include greater penalties for "hate crimes" - and everything to do with targeting and eliminating the types of crimes which have the intention and effect of terrorizing a particular population, and which often are ignored or even encouraged by local law enforcement.

And such laws work amazingly well, unlike laws that criminalize domestic disputes, for instance.

Without such efforts the KKK would still be lynching blacks in Alabama and the efforts were not about sending KKK members to jail for longer sentences than someone who killed is wife because the pot roast was undercooked.


[ Parent ]
I KNEW it!!
That damn gay agenda!! Who do they think they are? People?

Zoey

No matter how thin you slice it, it's still boloney.


[ Parent ]
Be wary
You've made some very good points. For instance, it was a damned good point about how "thoughts" can be used as a mitigating factor in a trial--say, changing a murder conviction into manslaughter. If you can demonstrate that a person suffered diminsihed capacity, then a jury can take that into consideration in sentencing. You made a cogent point: It's long been part of juris prudence.

I'm not attacking you on that point--nor appealing to cheap emotionalism.

We're all on the same page, reviling bigotry, stupidity and violence. We just have different opinions about what can be done.

You call on the power of the state; I am of a philosophy that is deeply distrustful of the State. I mean, the same liberals who--rightly--point out that the death sentence is NOT a deterrent to future crimes are left in a bind--because then they have to turn around and make the case that hate crimes legislation will halt future attacks.

I don't believe that punishment acts as a deterrent. In other words, hate crimes will never stamp out the Neanderthals who attack people who are perceived as weaker or different. Just as the death penalty will never stamp out future killers.

I take a darker view of humanity than you do. After all, you think "the power of the state" can be used to make things better. I don't believe that for an instant. Power corrupts. (Look at how the Bush Adminitstration promised that expanded executive authority wouldn't be used in Nixonian "enemies lists" and warranetless wiretaps wouldn't be used against political enemies--and now we learn that Eliot Spitzer in New York was spied on under "the Patriot Act" and that that Governor in Alamaba was imprisoned under the same auspices.) They're abusing power to unseat Democratic governors all around the country. In other words, the state inherently abuses powers we grant them. The same with hate crimes. It's already being abused and perverted--whether you want to face that or not. (And apparently not, since you didn't address any of the comments I made about it.)

Because my aversion to it has nothing to do with emotionalism or homophobia, or any other silly thing that people on this website want to impute to me. Quite the contrary: Abandoning emotionalism, I see clearly, lucidly that we're handing the State powers it should never have.

And let's be frank: If you tie a red ribbon around a seagull's leg, the others in the flock will peck it to death. It's "different," therefore it must be weeded out. It's Nature's way of combatting disease, deformity, etc. Getting it out of the gene pool. Human beings of low intelligence have the same reaction--not just to gays, but to redheads, fat kids, people perceived as "different," etc. It's always been the case, and always WILL be the case. Government will never be able to stamp out intolerance and stupidity. If that's what you expect than, in the words of Lincoln, you want "what never was and never will be".

But in the process, you will be handing the State Soviet-like powers--which it is even now starting to abuse.  


[ Parent ]
You are stuck in an ideology that is not reality based
and keep repeating the same false slogans, as if they were true.

"because then they have to turn around and make the case that hate crimes legislation will halt future attacks"

Actually it is very easy to make the case that hate crimes laws DO halt future attacks. They ahve been used in the past and have been very effective. If you don't believe me ask the KKK.

And their effectiveness has nothing to do with "punishment", which seems to be your hang up, as with "enforcement".

"In other words, hate crimes will never stamp out the Neanderthals who attack people who are perceived as weaker or different."

Again, you are factually incorrect. Again refer to the KKK.

Denying reality is not quite what I would call "thinking lucidly"


[ Parent ]
Curious
To be consistent, is your position that the death penalty works?

Just curious.

Does it work as a deterrent?


[ Parent ]
Why would that be 'consistent' ?
or even related ?

It's obvious that for most crimes, such as domestic violence, "punishment" does not work.

If you are more interested in "consitency" that facts, it just shows that you are thinking ideologically and not rationally.

Hate crime legislation DOES work and that has been established by crime rates many times.

Also, to repeat, the reason that they work has nothing to do with "punishment".

The federal hate crimes legislation does not even provide for more severe "punishment" for hate crimes.

What it DOES do is focus law enforcment on enforcing laws against certain types of crimes.


[ Parent ]
Hate crimes info
"Hate crime laws generally fall into one of several categories: (1) laws defining specific bias-motivated acts as distinct crimes; (2) criminal penalty-enhancement laws; (3) laws creating a distinct civil cause of action for hate crimes; and (4) laws requiring administrative agencies to collect hate crime statistics."

This is about action....ie an actual crime....There is nothing here about thoughts.
The Stalin thing is a strawman....
"At its heart, the issue of hate crimes legislation must touch upon what a government is and how it interacts with its people. There are those say that the government should not make social policy. I say, that is utter bullshit. Government, at its most ideal, is the voice of the village. Americans fought a gorilla war to replace the king with a body of elected legislators. Our society shed blood in order to choose our own destiny. The state is an instrument of social change. Whether that change is mandated early on or too late, no great social change can take place without the laws and government of the land. Slavery was abolished by the state. Universal Suffrage was established by the state. Segregation was abolished by the state. Inter-racial marriage was backed by the state. Anti-Sodomy laws were struck down, by the state."
Hate crimes a must for the Gay Agenda.  Ask those "dearest" friends of yours.


[ Parent ]
Be wary of power, period.
I think it's pretty healthy to be somewhat skeptical of government power, but only because it's healthy to be somewhat skeptical of the power of any person, institution, or organization which has it in significant amounts.

Multinational corporations and the incredibly wealthy people who own major stakes in them spend a lot of money trying to convince us all that government should have less power.  Conveniently, when government withers away, they're the ones left with more power--over our economic system and over significant aspects of the lives of all of us.

Someone or something always rushes in to fill any power vacuum--and often whatever it is is less democratic, less concerned with the general welfare, less just, less fair, and less honest than our government, even as flawed as our government is.

So yes, be wary!

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto


[ Parent ]
Rather than changing people
rather than changing certain bigoted murderers, hate crime statutes would monitor the local officials who could be bigoted themselves, and turn a blind eye to gay people being assaulted.

The current bill in Congress does NOT involve penalty enhancement. Rather includes extra power for investigation and prosecution of criminals.

In other words it makes sure violent criminals are caught.

You might distrust the government, but surely you expect it to catch violent criminals.

Whether or not this will change these criminals, or discourage future criminals, is an unwritten story. We can write that story using any proposed theory out there.

But we all agree that violent criminals should be caught, and prosecuted sufficiently, yes no?


[ Parent ]
Yes, but---
You're an extremely intelligent person, and clearly more than a match for an intellectual lightweight like me. But even YOU are guilty of some misstatements of fact. For instance, "laws" did NOT take the KKK down. It had more to do with the IRS than with the judicial system. They took them down by taxing them out of existence. (Read up on the history of the KKK.)

And you're incorrectly attributing to the KKK powers it didn't have. Racism, for instance, wasn't the unique domain of the KKK. Nor lynchings.

Both existed BEFORE the KKK came into being, and happened long after the KKK fell out of power.

Just a few years ago--with no KKK involvement whatsoever--white kids dragged a black man behind a car and killed him.

Racially-motivated crimes STILL happen all around the country, and--according to the ADL and other watch-groups--are actually on the rise.

So your naive statement that "the KKK is pretty much gone" therefore racism against blacks stopped is juvenile. Racism DIDN'T stop with legislation, nor will homophobia.

So you want "what never was and never will be"--to quote Mr. Lincoln again.

The mechanisms for black oppression were wholly different than the situation with homosexuals (who were socially held in low esteem, preached against, reviled, etc.). But there wasn't this massive international infrastructure to kidnap gays from their homes, beat them, enslave them, and profit economically from the iniquity. So homosexuals--though suffering, too--were not quite in the same system blacks were. And it WAS a "System". Black oppression wasn't the purview of crazy hate-groups (as you seem to think), but was mainstream and in fact enforced BY THE GOVERNMENT. [Read up on "Jim Crow".} It was the government ITSELF that oppressed blacks, killed them and even in many cases experiemented on them. [See: Tuskeegee Experiments].

So the government wasn't this superhero that came in to save the black man--as your model suggests. It was historically the mechanism to control and oppress him. And change came not because people were inherently decent and good, but because there were a whole raft of political, historical and economic actions in play.

And despite that, black men are STILL chained and dragged behind speeding cars--still incarcerated at rates far beyond the white population; discriminated against; shafted; and, if one believes the mountains of documentation, singled out for scientific experimentation by their own government.

So if that's the model you want for gays . . . well, I'm just telling you to be more thoughtful of other factors. That's all.


Just because...
black men are STILL chained and dragged behind speeding cars doesn't make it right.
Look this hypothetical Gay Agenda can be re summed up in Dagon's appended Item New 16: In summation, we want fair and equal treatment under the law.

We're talking policy here.  Policy leads to management and enforcement..as you point out it will take a whole "raft of political, historical, and ecomonic actions in play" to give GLBT citizens equal treatment under the law and people like yourself (heterosexual libertarians with dearest gay friends and anyother way you care to describe yourself) can continue to "THINK" anyway you want.

Bring on ALL 16 points of the Gay Agenda!


[ Parent ]
Yes
As a libertarian, I'm actually your best friend. You probably hate him, but I frequent gay-Conservative Andrew Sullivan's blog (and we've even exchanged emails on occasion). It was he who made me realize that one of the most important fronts on the war for Individual Liberty was the gay marriage issue. Before examining the subject, I was viscerally against it. But--in really doing so soul-searching--I had to concede that the intellectual honesty was on the side of the gay marriage advocates; and, if I was to be consistent in my own philosophy, I'd have to agree that not only do gay people have the "right" to marry, but that it was a critical fight in a much, much larger war against Statism.

I live in Dyed-in-the-wool Republican/Baptist South Carolina, so I've actually had neighbors turn against me and shun me for backing gay causes. Not BECAUSE they were "gay". But because their struggle was part of a larger struggle for the freedom of ALL people. A lot of people I thought I knew revealed themselves to be so full of antagonism and downright hate. You'll laugh again, but I backed Ron Paul for President, and one of my neighbors said, "I could never back someone who didn't protect marriage".

But to Paul, like me, it's not about gays or anti-gays, or whatever. It's about the single fact that the State should never have had the right to hand out marriage "certificates" in the first place. That's the purview of the church. Government had no right to get into the marriage business in the first place; and it only did so to promote racial hygiene during the age of eugenics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Learning of the history of government interference in the subject--and seeing how it led to Hitlerism and all sorts of other evils--I had to agree with Mr. Paul that the government should never have usurped that authority in the first place.

The things the State gets mixed up in is chilling. Like sterility programs and on-going eugneics campaigns. ABC News ran a story of a North Carolina woman a black person] who was sterilized in the 1970s without her knowledge or consent!!! [Link:

THIS is what government does, and why its powers should always be limited.


[ Parent ]
Who are you responding to, droo-doo?
Tip? His point was obviously that the KKK has been officially recognized as a hate group and marginalized. That's it.

Few people here are brainless enough to equate LGBT experience with Black experience, but you don't know much if you think gays haven't been systematically oppressed by this government and this society in their own unique ways.

You seem stuck on this notion that we think we can change society's attitude towards us with these laws as opposed to simply having a tool to combat violence. That is totally missing the point.

You've decided to focus on the "Black model" in your argument. OK then, what about Christians who make up over 70% of the population? Every time a church is a victim of arson in this country, it is considered a hate crime and is prosecuted as such. How does that fit into your argument of  who deserves protection?

I'll ask you for the third time, from that libertarian perspective of yours, why are gays the only victimized community that shouldn't have hate crime protection? And if that is your issue, why aren't you taking it up with those that have the protection already?
I can think of a number of lovely Christian websites where they'd LOVE to debate that with you...


____________________

Donate to Carmen's Place


[ Parent ]
But ?
Actually it was the FBI more than anything else.
And I'm only attributing to the KKK actions performed by the KKK - it doesn't matter where "racism" came from,
the government targeting hate crimes successfully stopped them.

"So your naive statement that "the KKK is pretty much gone" therefore racism against blacks stopped is juvenile."

It certainly is "juvenile" which is why I never said it - you seem to be unable to debate honestly.

The KKK IS pretty much gone - which is a tribute to the effectiveness of the governmet targeting hate crimes.

hate crimes legislation cannot eliminate racism or homophobia or, it appears, stupidity - but they can greatly reduce hate crimes and convince racists and homophobes not to terrorize people because they know they will be apprehended.

As for your advice - since I have personally seen the effectivness of targeting gay-bashing crimes, I will take it for what it is worth.

The dishonest argumentation of an ideologue


[ Parent ]
What ?!?!?!?!

Mr. Droop

Are you really THAT unaware of government oppression of gays and lesbians?

It is the GOVERNMENT which:

Outlaws our families through denying us marriage thus denying us healthcare through Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security Benefits.  We cannot sponsor our spouses into the country.  We cannot avail ourselves .... 1, 138 federal benefit and a host of state benefits.  I was prohited from choosing my husbands funerl home BY THE GOVERNMENT!  How dare you say the GOVERNMENT is not oppressing us.  It OUTLAWS our families.

PREVENTS us from serving in the Armed Forces.  Maj. Rogers DIED in Iraq recently.  A gay man, one of many gays and lesbians secretly serving, he was actively trying to overturn the horrible Don't Ask Don't Tell policy.  This "liberal" policy has caused MORE gays and lesbians to be drummed from the service than before it was implemented BY THE GOVERNMENT.  The government is oppressing gays and lesbians who only want to voluntarily serve their country.  What an outrage.

CALLS US UNFIT PARENTS!  In state after state judges rule lesbians and gay gay men unfit in custody fights simply because of thier sexual orientation.  The GOVERNMENT takes their children AWAY from them.  What OPPRESSION!  And state after state prevents us from adopting or fostering children because we are queer.  THAT is OPPRESSSION by the GOVERNMENT.

I could go on and on abou GOVERNMENT OPPRESSION of gays and lesbians.  Don't you dare tell me that we are not oppressed by a systematic effort of the government of the United States and its individual states.  Don't you dare.  I live it.  I feel it.  You don't.  So you can now shut the heck up.

The fight for full LGBT Equality is NOT over.  Be strong and be ready to really fight!  And read my blog in your spare time! http://ravenhurst-ravenhurst.b...


Gays
Read my earliest posts on here. I actually believe that--as with blacks in the Tuskeegee Experiments] gays were experimented on and infected with the manmade virus, AIDS.

You'll laugh and heckle, but I've read some damning evidence that points in that direction, and that is backed up by documentation as well as by internationally-respected geneticists and biologist.

So I think the situation is WORSE than you probably do: I think that the State has behaved disgustingly toward gays, and has indulged in crimes against humanity.

So, no, I am not downplaying the oppression of gays. Just stating that the situation with blacks is NOT a perfect parallel (though its resorted to as a mainstay by rehtoricians).


[ Parent ]
Check-over
"We do NOT want to engage in public displays of affection or to have sex in front of anyone."

Well, we DO want the option to kiss and touch in public, just as heterosexuals do. But having sex in front of others would seem a fair and equal prohibition for all of us.


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Report TOS Violations



Join the Blend Chat Room



Premium Sponsors



BlogAds






Search the Blend
Current site


PHB 2.0 Web
Search Blend 1.0 Archives
Ad Networks


BlogSheroes BlogAds


Miscellany

RSS Feeds

Subscribe with Bloglines

Visit NCBlogs


frontpage hit counter

Stats

Powered by: SoapBlox