Mefi userbase: more Chstian-right post GOP-favoring election? November 5, 2004 6:58 PM   Subscribe

Is it just me, or has the recent GOP win emboldened the christian right here at mefi? More inside folks...
posted by Richat to Etiquette/Policy at 6:58 PM (107 comments total)

Aaronshaf has been spouting scripture right, left and centre, and today, Sonserae enters an inappropriate derail with what appears to be frightening misinformation, bragging about her IQ. I really truly, miss election-filter crap! Does anyone else find this scripture-quoting off-putting, and perhaps unwelcome here at mefi? I mean, I encourage various points of view, but personally, I find the bible quoting a little cowardly on occasion, as docpops pointed out. What do other mefites think?
posted by Richat at 6:59 PM on November 5, 2004


Well, didn't Bush say he wasn't going to force anyone to his religious point of view? Maybe that was a signal to his followers that they should force as many people as possible to his religious point of view?

I have noticed a stepped up but no more rational, reasonable or understandable attacks.

I don't know, I prefer philosophical quotes over Biblical ones, they make alot more sense to me.

And bragging about a 140 IQ here is like going to a shoot out with a water pistol.
posted by fenriq at 7:08 PM on November 5, 2004


You mean we had Christian-right types here who weren't named konolia? Sweet Christmas.
posted by darukaru at 7:13 PM on November 5, 2004


Can we stop responding to other people's arguments with "fuck you?" It doesn't help. I'd think that the 140 IQ and the monkey sex stuff speaks for itself without necessitating that we get dragged down into the poop pile.
posted by PrinceValium at 7:14 PM on November 5, 2004


i think so, Richat (and Paris too)
posted by amberglow at 7:14 PM on November 5, 2004


"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled." -- Ezekiel 23:20-21

TAKE THAT AND THINK ABOUT IT
posted by cmonkey at 7:17 PM on November 5, 2004


Love 'em or hate 'em, you can't just kill 'em.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:18 PM on November 5, 2004


Maybe... ignore them? Attention they seek. Give it to them you should not.
posted by eustacescrubb at 7:18 PM on November 5, 2004


Yoda spoken has. : >
posted by amberglow at 7:19 PM on November 5, 2004


Well, I agree with PrinceValium...the replies of nastiness do seem rude. But, I don't get the idea of the scripture posting. Is the hope that we will all be, like, "Wait a minute, that archaic-ly worded passage that refers to a world nothing like my own has made me realize that there is a friendly man in the sky! Damn those homos!"?

Are they simply trolls? I don't mean to be rude to aaron, or hell, even Sonseria, but konolia, whom I really disagree with a lot, tends to appear respectful of others beliefs, or lack thereof.

Really, is this behaviour (the new stuff, not konolia) not unlike the other trolls who are shown the door?
posted by Richat at 7:25 PM on November 5, 2004


Actually I've noticed a lot of people posting here lately that I haven't seen before or haven't posted in a long time, on both sides.
posted by loquax at 7:25 PM on November 5, 2004


Is there nothing Yoda knows Yoda doesn't? Wait, I think I just broke my brain...
posted by Richat at 7:26 PM on November 5, 2004


Your kids are gonna have to learn this stuff in school now, might as well get a handle on it.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:27 PM on November 5, 2004


hey hey now, a lot of good came out of Sonserae's comment. Our users' responses made me laugh out loud.

Good show mefities. Good show.
posted by Stynxno at 7:27 PM on November 5, 2004


Nothing sonsarea spouts will take away from 2 people's love. If she took action against them, that would be different.

Having said that, my blood boils at the bigotry. I have just deleted seventeen words beginning with 'c' aimed at her. Just didn't look right on the page.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:37 PM on November 5, 2004


dash, that is part of really pissed me of about aaron's beginning and sonsarea's continuation of the derailment. The thread was about the love of two people, not where they put their peepees. It was sooo rude, and inapproprate and well, it made me made. I have found myself really upset at the bigotry displayed by those intolerant of the love ot two people, bigots both christian and non-christian, but dammit, won't someone comment on whether these people deserve a timeout or not?

I really think it is wrong I guess.
posted by Richat at 7:48 PM on November 5, 2004


Can someone call Steve and get him to call aaron and sonserea cockfaces maybe?
posted by Richat at 7:49 PM on November 5, 2004


What I don't understand is why they saw the thread's topic as open season to snark about "teh gay is evil". It was obvious from the FPP that this was about a gay marriage ceremony. As in, past tense. Happened. If you read the essay, it's obviously not about digaman forcing his beliefs on others. So why, in response, do people feel the need to pass judgment on him/his story?! Did they honestly think they were going to sway opinion?
posted by somethingotherthan at 7:49 PM on November 5, 2004


Best option: give 'em enough rope...

There's something about the general quality of discourse on Metafilter that makes comments like that of Sonserae seem well out of place. It's like something you'd see on Usenet, not on Metafilter. I mean, most of the bigots around here are at least smart enough to avoid discourse on the level of "but they take it up the pooper!"

You can't get through to these people, just take joy in the knowledge that their moral values are highly depraved compared to your own, and watch them talk themselves into an ever more brainwashed stupor.

And never mind arguing on the "separation of Church and State" point, because that's beyond the real issue. Jesus wasn't a political activist. Jesus never advocated state-controlled imposition of God's law. Indeed, Jesus argued against it and emphasized that faith and obedience was a personal choice, not something imposed under threat of prosecution. State religious laws hurt both believers and non-believers (not to mention those who believe something different all together). If a religion is so weak that it needs to have it's beliefs imposed by federal law, then it's clearly in it's death throes.
posted by Jimbob at 7:51 PM on November 5, 2004


Richat, relax. It's just a couple instances of religious folks using religion for their argument, it's not "the GOP taking over" at metafilter. Ease up on them.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:53 PM on November 5, 2004


neither seem to be trolls either, for the record. aaron has been here for ages and occasionally pops up to a) attack the mormons or b) attack the gays. he doesn't go pp-crazy shouting at people, just quotes scripture and reminds us all that we should be bigots for god. or something.

but really i am posting to defend both of them, as they seem genuine rather than trolls, which is worth... well, something. i think.
posted by bargle at 8:07 PM on November 5, 2004


Richat, I'm not particularly qualified to make this statement, but that doesn't stop anybody else, so here goes:

They're mentally ill. I don't mean it as an insult to them, and I don't mean it to be smarmy, but there seems to be some fundamental thinking errors going on here that everyone (Christians included) can recognize.

I think the election did bolster them, and I haven't a clue what can, or should, be done about it.

And Space Coyote's comment is hysterical, but part of me is afraid I wont be laughing for too long.
posted by Doug at 8:10 PM on November 5, 2004


bargle, so we should accept the most virulent sort of hatred if it's "genuine" and "not trolling"? Help me out, here...

Also, what Doug said. Their brains have been colonized by a self-replicating structure that depends vitally for its survival on shutting down empirical thought, etc. It's as good a definition of mental illness as any, and better than most.
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:21 PM on November 5, 2004


goddammit, he said 'render unto ceasar', not 'club him to death and steal his job'.
posted by quonsar at 8:27 PM on November 5, 2004


And bragging about a 140 IQ here is like going to a shoot out with a water pistol.

Why?
posted by Kwantsar at 8:31 PM on November 5, 2004


How bright can you be if you be if you work with computers and yet call yourself a "cyber pioneer" because you had an Earthlink account seven or eight years ago? Hell, I have domains that old. I had email and USEnet fifteen years ago and as far as I could see I was pretty late to the party compared to many of my peers.
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:37 PM on November 5, 2004


Kwantsar:

Because "IQ" is a bad joke, and if you don't know it, you should.

Because "having a high IQ" means that you scored highly on a battery of tests designed to be tabulated on Hollerith cards, and which were largely devised to keep Negroes out of Pershing's Army.

Because even knowing and/or caring what your IQ score is is the sign of a desperate insecurity.
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:47 PM on November 5, 2004


Well, Sonserae repeatedly calls a penis a "thingy," which I think is pretty much grounds to ignore her right there.

Aaronshaf and the other one-trick scripture ponies are irritating, definitely, but I think that people make a mistake by arguing with them. They make it pretty clear that they're not interested in any kind of logic, just in spouting their stuff to get a rise out of the heathens. Responding, whether by trying to reason with them or by calling them names, just deepens their martyr tool-of-god reinforcement.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 8:52 PM on November 5, 2004


It's a shame, really, 'cause "Sonserae" is such a pretty name, too.
posted by adamgreenfield at 9:02 PM on November 5, 2004


agf, you read my mind.
posted by notsnot at 9:08 PM on November 5, 2004


It's a great post, but Sonserae successfully derailed it with the stupidest trolling I think I've ever seen on MeFi. That's sad.
posted by homunculus at 9:57 PM on November 5, 2004


Because even knowing and/or caring what your IQ score is is the sign of a desperate insecurity.

Bit over the top, there.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:12 PM on November 5, 2004


Someone actually uses the phrase "put their thingy where the poop comes out" in what appears to be full seriousness and you're afraid of a Christian Right takeover because of something else this person said?

Things are worse than I thought.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:30 PM on November 5, 2004


Know your IQ stav? :)
posted by graventy at 10:48 PM on November 5, 2004


Is it just me, or has the recent GOP win emboldened the christian right here at mefi?

What, shouldn't it have?
posted by scarabic at 10:51 PM on November 5, 2004


The bible was never written by God, and it isn't anything like the writing of the followers. It has been edited many times in history. If people think that doesn't matter, I feel sorry for them.
posted by Keyser Soze at 11:06 PM on November 5, 2004


it's not "the GOP taking over" at metafilter

Yet...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:07 PM on November 5, 2004


140 IQ is decent, but what's your THAC0?
posted by Hildago at 11:09 PM on November 5, 2004


15, with a +2 bonus versus fundies, trolls and other poop-flinging creatures.
posted by euphorb at 11:36 PM on November 5, 2004


"Oh, no! Someone who does not agree with us is stating their opinion! We're being oppressed!"
posted by MrAnonymous at 12:03 AM on November 6, 2004


I thought we were an autonomous collective.
posted by scarabic at 12:11 AM on November 6, 2004


You're fooling yourself! We're living in a dictatorship! A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the posting classes...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:24 AM on November 6, 2004


Eh; if it was trolling, I got trolled.

This stuff makes my blood boil, too. And in the state I'm in after the election, I'm really itching for a fight. Plus the whole internet-impersonal-abstract-distant quality to posting a comment...

I swear, I'm nothing like that in real life.

On a more serious note:
At what point do we decide that these comments have crossed the line from trolls or legitimate expressions of religious beliefs to ugly hate speech? Yeah, I know, "hate speech" is a tricky term. But would we, as a community, tolerate openly racist language in threads? If someone started arguing that racial minorities should be deprived of legal rights and started to use crude, derogatory language about these minorities, wouldn't that person get shouted down by the community? Might that person not get a Metafilter time out? Why should it be any different for discriminatory and derogatory language toward sexual minorities?
posted by mr_roboto at 12:32 AM on November 6, 2004


"Oh, no! Someone who does not agree with us is stating their opinion! We're being oppressed!"

I'm not so sure that's the issue in this case. It's a matter of a form of argument or discourse that we rarely see around here: the Christian Bible quote as absolute answer to any discussion.

Q. What do you think about A as a solution to a particular complex issue?
A. It doesn't matter because the Bible says B (insert quote from Proverbs or whatever).
posted by stevis at 12:52 AM on November 6, 2004


sonserae's comments elicited several deep belly laffs from me, and for this i am grateful. i especially liked her parting comment... i can't believe she actually said that, it's still cracking me up :-D

you know, you spend so much time wondering and worrying over some people's wrongheadedness, that sometimes from a certain angle you just have to/can't help but laugh at them.
posted by t r a c y at 12:59 AM on November 6, 2004


Is IQ worked out like MeFi user numbers? because if it is, then I've got a better IQ than the lot of you. Ha!
posted by seanyboy at 1:07 AM on November 6, 2004


rather than exchanging reasons to ignore, laugh at, or disparage people that make up half your country, maybe you should try listening? you never know - you might learn something about the world you live in.

and if you treat them as people - normal human beings with hopes, fears, troubles, just like the rest of us - and talk to them instead of sniggering, dismissing, and flaming, then perhaps (just perhaps) you'll be able to teach them something too.

because at the moment all you're doing is digging yourselves a deeper hole. this place is collapsing into a self-referential snit of negativity and isolationism.
posted by andrew cooke at 2:28 AM on November 6, 2004


andrew cooke ... you are right ... you can't convince people on moral questions by ridiculing them ... and the sooner people on the left realize that much of what we're talking about has moral as well as political implications, the better

no one's going to accomplish anything by calling 51% of the population stupid ... even if some of them say stupid, appalling things like sonserae did
posted by pyramid termite at 3:27 AM on November 6, 2004



and if you treat them as people - normal human beings with hopes, fears, troubles, just like the rest of us - and talk to them instead of sniggering, dismissing, and flaming, then perhaps (just perhaps) you'll be able to teach them something too.


Guys, let's stop fighting. What we need to do is just sit down and, you know, rationally talk about your irrational prejudices, the ones you believe in because of a book that was written about Christ years and years after he died and then re-written for James. How anyone can attempt to take everything in the bible verbatim given its history just absolutely escapes me. I mean you have this cool (I think fictional, but that's beside the point) book about this guy who loved everyone and was killed for it and only wanted people to learn from what he did, and it gets perverted and twisted into this hateful trash. And we're supposed to, what, try to have rational discourse with these people?

Keep in mind I'm not talking about all religious people, only those who like to use it as a tool to divide with hatred and ignorance.
posted by The God Complex at 3:37 AM on November 6, 2004


And we're supposed to, what, try to have rational discourse with these people?

yes. of course.

what other options do you have?
posted by andrew cooke at 3:43 AM on November 6, 2004


Sigh. Shake my head. Hope their kids turn out better? I mean, seriously, how many times in your life have you convinced someone who blindly and fully believes something that they're wrong through rational discourse? Your media can't even convince people that Iraq wasn't behind 9/11 and they only heard that a couple years ago.
posted by The God Complex at 3:47 AM on November 6, 2004


(incidentally, i don't know how either. but i at least refrain from making them feel more isolated. i don't make things worse.

case in point - yesterday, after getting extremely pissed off with some thread in the blue about how we lost the election because of some conspiracy between diebold and the spawn of the devil, i found "Our Traditional Non-Traditional Wedding". i went to the blue and wrote a post, linking to it, with text something like "this is what a political post should be like, you fucking morrons". thankfully, i killed the browser rather than pressing the final post button. 10 minutes later matt posted the same link with a warm, sensible, slightly humorous comment, and it was an excellent post.

another example - in another meta thread someone is complaining that it's difficult to descible matt's handling of anaonymous posts in a simple, self-consistent way. as an anally-retentive, obsessive-compulsive nerd i understand that objection completely. believe me - i write code, and i do it well because of exactly that. but i'm also smart enough to know that the reason this place works is because of matt's good judegement (it certainly isn;t his programming ability, right?). i don't kno how he does it - i certainly couldn't. but he does, and everyone can see that. so the best i can do is give him support.

if you can't make it better, don't make it worse.

the most sympathetic view i have of y6, amberglow, matteo, etc etc posting all that anti-right crap over the last few months is that they saw the right doing the same and thought that's what politics was about. it's not. and it's pointless copying the worst from them. good spin might help a little, but it's not what really counts. you need real human warmth. look at clinton, the best fucking president you've had for years. a walking miracle. that wasn't spin. that wasn't painting rednecks as idiots. that wasn't spin, or division. that was a good man doing good things. why on earth are you trying to learn more from karl fucking rove than bill clinton? it makes absolutely no sense.)
posted by andrew cooke at 3:56 AM on November 6, 2004


our "ignore the fundys" users seem unwilling to consider the fact that, as of today, the "don't put your thingie in my pooper because God says it's bad" people are a large, key constituency in American Politics.
they're hateful and laughable and ignorant? of course. and you can ignore them on MeFi all you want, but they'll be the ones driving the American political process from now on.

and since even a lot of Kerry voters voted against gay marriage, well, America is now officially anti-gay, and it'll be like that in the future.

Sonserae and the other gay-haters aren't a small minority one can just ignore. they're the ones in charge, in America. deal with it. America joined God in the hate for homosexuals. America Hates Fags. you have election results to prove it, after all. we can make fun of Sonserae and the others -- but they will laugh all the way to Congress, and the Supreme Court.
posted by matteo at 4:11 AM on November 6, 2004


oh, and by the way, for our Bible-thumpers: most of the anti-gay, anti-women, pro-slavery crap comes from the deuteropauline letters. it's not unimportant to consider that.

of course, that is if you actually know what "deuteropauline" means. many Bible-thumpers don't seem to read very often the book they're using to bash other people's brains in
posted by matteo at 4:15 AM on November 6, 2004


If you think homosexuality is bad, you're a moron. If you believe in your vengeful God, then you're a moron. If you think the war in Iraq is a war on terror then sorry, you are a moron. This isn't about adults agreeing over the esoteric points of some complex moral argument, it's about fundamental things. I hold these truths to be self evident. The fact that some of you think differently fills me with little but contempt.

I'm all for difference in opinion on MeFi, and the treatment some of the righ wingers get appalls me. I welcome the republican to Metafilter.

If, however, you think that your choice of partner makes you evil, then you're both nasty and stupid. I don't care who told you to believe it, but you are Nasty. And. Stupid.
posted by seanyboy at 4:40 AM on November 6, 2004


I have really enjoyed this, my first post to MeTa. Thanks to everyone for the discussion.

I am a little shamefaced that I have managed to get Matt to tell me to relax, and I do see his point, and I also agree with Andrew that Matt’s good judgment is often what keeps Mefi the place it is. I think it is the best joint on the web, and I continue to see discussion and ideas that convince me of that on a daily basis. I really respect the shit out of a lot of people here. As a guy who at one time thought he was the only sane voice in the crowd, to have found, on the internets, a large crowd at least as sane, and often more sane/wise/able to see many sides of an issue, etc, I am thrilled.

I agree with t r a c y too…These troll attempts are often a great opportunity to let the wit shine through. The absurdity of the comments is often quite funny, and the return volleys are often gut-busters themselves.

But, again, I wonder about mr roboto’s point about hate speech. How is this different (at least in sonserea’s “judgment from above” threatening example) from other types of minority-bashing that would not be tolerated here?

Honestly, I don't think I am as clenched as I seem here...I am (again) horrendously offended by the intolerance that people think is okay, as long as it is aimed at the gays. The last time I posted this much was a couple months back, and it was this very issue (gay marriage rights) and the vitriol that people seem to feel safe levying against homosexuals that got me all riled up then. Apparently it still has the same effect.

While my GOP-taking-over-Mefi comments was 100% tongue in cheek, and I well realize that this is nowhere near the case, I am curious Matt, where is the line drawn to protect the sensibilities of Mefi members who don’t wish to read about the utter wrongness of the gay life? When have the anti-gay posters gone too far? When they advocate violence by someone other then an arguably imaginary diety?
posted by Richat at 6:29 AM on November 6, 2004


you never said anything about the GOP taking over!
posted by mcsweetie at 6:59 AM on November 6, 2004


You know, mcsweetie, after my last post I sat back and really re-read the comments in their entirety. I realized the same thing. I feel a little silly, defending something I didn't even say. You see, it is just like me to use exaggeration to make a point though, so I assumed I had!

On a side note, I am freakin' comma happy today. I keep editing to get rid of the unbelievable amount of commas I am using. I don't know why I am so in love with the comma. It must stop.
posted by Richat at 7:11 AM on November 6, 2004


Fundies make me head spin like Linda Blair...
posted by LouReedsSon at 7:15 AM on November 6, 2004


bargle, so we should accept the most virulent sort of hatred if it's "genuine" and "not trolling"? Help me out, here...

never said that. if a post is a troll it's meaningless, no matter how much it riles people. if it isn't a troll, it's a useful view of the attitudes and beliefs of other people. simply saying they are trolls is too close to pretending people like them do not exist.
posted by bargle at 7:51 AM on November 6, 2004


andrew cooke, you cannot have a rational dialogue with people dedicated to your annihilation.

Gandhi recognized, for example, that his tactics would have failed utterly had the imperial power in India been Germany or Russia. You cannot counter einsatzgruppen with ahimsa; you cannot counter visceral fear and hatred with rationality.

We believe, to our real and enduring detriment, that this is all about education and enlightenment - that, if we could only explain ourselves, if we could only show the haters how purely happy gay marriage makes its celebrants, they would surely desist from their course.

Nothing of the sort will happen.
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:55 AM on November 6, 2004


Pyramid termite, how can we have a reasoned discussion when one side of the commenters refuse to acknowledge any possibility of their position being wrong or even subject to change because of what they claim (at the moment, in this particular discussion) is written in a book? Please, I'd love to know the way to do this.
posted by billsaysthis at 9:59 AM on November 6, 2004


What adamgreefield and matteo amd bill (and others) said. Discussion just isn't possible with some people, and about some topics. It's too bad this is a site devoted to just that.

And Richat, don't bother--anti-gay anything is ok here, in ways that anti-other people stuff isn't, unfortunately.
posted by amberglow at 10:17 AM on November 6, 2004


No, amber, it's Not OK here - not as long as we have our voices. I'm not trying to be preachy, I know you know this.
posted by adamgreenfield at 10:23 AM on November 6, 2004


At what point do we decide that these comments have crossed the line from trolls or legitimate expressions of religious beliefs to ugly hate speech?
Wonderful question. A previous user posted a lot of stuff about gays- much to the oposition of the mass majority of MeFi. However, most of the stuff he posted is stuff I hear straight out the conservative Catholic corner. I honestly think he was posting from religious beliefs- not for the intent of hate speech- but it obviously came off that way.

Amberglow: OK according to who? If it's Matt, you're right. If it's to the MeFi majority, you're full of shit, no offense.
posted by jmd82 at 10:25 AM on November 6, 2004


Is it hate speech if it comes from ignorance? Most people who act in a bigoted fashion have little to no experience of that which they hate. Whether this stems from fear or something else I honestly could not tell you.

I do so love living in a country where religion is absolutely 100% unimportant. It is positively uplifting. Half my friends are Muslims and they are exactly the same as everyone else. There is no difference between white, black, asian, straight, gay, christian, muslim, hindu, sikh or whatever.

I only wish people could get over whatever "ick-factor" has been inculcated into them and just dig people for who, not what they are.
posted by longbaugh at 10:47 AM on November 6, 2004


These made me laugh:

There's something about the general quality of discourse on Metafilter that makes comments like that of Sonserae seem well out of place.

...where is the line drawn to protect the sensibilities of Mefi members who don’t wish to read about...


This made me sigh:

And in the state I'm in after the election, I'm really itching for a fight.

And this made me glad that andrew cooke said it better than I could have:

rather than exchanging reasons to ignore, laugh at, or disparage people that make up half your country, maybe you should try listening? you never know - you might learn something about the world you live in.

and if you treat them as people - normal human beings with hopes, fears, troubles, just like the rest of us - and talk to them instead of sniggering, dismissing, and flaming, then perhaps (just perhaps) you'll be able to teach them something too.

because at the moment all you're doing is digging yourselves a deeper hole. this place is collapsing into a self-referential snit of negativity and isolationism.


"Christian" does not equal "out for our destruction." Do any of you know any actual Christians out there in the real world? Believe it or not, a lot of them are reasonable, tolerant, caring people. A lot of them are gay. A lot of them voted for Kerry. If you inquired closely, you might even find there are Christians in your family or among your acquaintances! A shocking thing to contemplate, I know, but don't worry -- you won't catch teh Krischun from them. It might teach you a little tolerance, though.
posted by languagehat at 10:48 AM on November 6, 2004


anti-gay anything is ok here,

Huh?

MeFi has got to be the gay-friendliest community I've ever joined.

Am I misunderstanding? If you honestly think you're persecuted at MeFi for being gay more often than others are for being, say, conservative or Christian, then, well....see jmd82's comment.

Preview: nicely put, languagehat.
posted by dhoyt at 10:56 AM on November 6, 2004


MeFi has got to be the gay-friendliest community I've ever joined.

*thinks of the other communities dhoyt must have joined, shudders*
posted by matteo at 11:05 AM on November 6, 2004


WTF?
posted by dhoyt at 11:22 AM on November 6, 2004


Honestly, matteo, we have maybe 3 or 4 vocal homophobes here, whom nobody takes seriously and who are torn apart by logic rather quickly.

If that's too much for you to handle, then I don't know how you manage to leave the house in the morning.
posted by jonmc at 11:26 AM on November 6, 2004


If that's too much for you to handle, then I don't know how you manage to leave the house in the morning.

I never said it's too much to handle, jon, don't put things in my mouth (or Sonserae will run away, horrified, shielding her pooper with her Bible). I just say that if our resident homophobes, for example, wrote "nigger" instead of "black" or "African American" (or "kike" instead of Jew), they'd be banned from MeFi.
I dare you to prove the opposite -- you can't. or, post a FPP calling Colin Powell a "nigger", and see what happens. I bet you'll be banned. and rightly so.
but on the other hand, gays (fags?) are pretty much fair game around here. look up 111's output if you don't believe me.

but yes, there's also people who think that MeFi is full of commies -- I literally laugh out loud when our resident right-wingers accuse of all people y2karl, that secular Tory, of being "left wing".
one shudders to think what'd happen if they actually met a real, you know, Communist. like, somebody (not an American, of course) who actually voted/votes for Communist parties. or is, like, a real Anarchist
posted by matteo at 11:38 AM on November 6, 2004


you never said anything about the GOP taking over!

Don't worry, he was just cock-teasing linnwood.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:40 AM on November 6, 2004


It might teach you a little tolerance, though.
posted by languagehat at 10:48 AM PST on November 6


How does that work again?

A thread about the christian right and it's possible resurgence on Mefi, as in the Land of the Free, with especial reference to it's homophobic platoon, gives LH a chance to tell the lefties and presumably the gays to be tolerant.

Oh, wait, it's a parody. OK - I get it now....
posted by dash_slot- at 11:44 AM on November 6, 2004


forget it, matteo--they just don't see it.
posted by amberglow at 12:13 PM on November 6, 2004


I just say that if our resident homophobes, for example, wrote "nigger" instead of "black" or "African American" (or "kike" instead of Jew), they'd be banned from MeFi.

But these "resident homophobes" routinely call gays "fags" with impunity? You've got a few links for this, I assume.
posted by Krrrlson at 12:20 PM on November 6, 2004


forget it, matteo--they just don't see it.

You've got a few links for this, I assume.


quod erat demonstrandum

*snicker*
I wouldn't want to write "snigger", anyway
;)

posted by matteo at 12:40 PM on November 6, 2004


We're knee-deep in smug now, aren't we?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:55 PM on November 6, 2004


I like how the blatant racism still shown against blacks and (less so) hispanics can be equated to not allowing gays to get married. You people are living in a fantasy world if you can honestly claim that the two are equivalent. There are some parallels between the two, of course, and definitely some prejudice is being shown against gays in the US, but overall the gay population is better educated, richer, and are subjected to far less overt acts of aggression than their black or hispanic counterparts.

Quite frankly, I'd love to see the black community lash out against your terrible theft of their fight for civil rights. Unfortunately, because they're poor, undereducated, and continually oppressed to this day, they can't. Being able to receive equal pay, equal education, equal treatment under the law is NOT the same as being able to get married. Let's see: not getting lynched by crazy white people or recognizing the union between a man and a man. Hmm...tough to say which is more important. (Yes, this is hyperbole, but there is a larger point)

One of the major issues for Republicans was the sanctity of marriage and traditional, Christian values. These values run against gay marriage, and many members here attempted to take on the church to win an election. DUMB move. There are far more people in this world who believe in God than those who don't. And when you take on the church, the way gays did, and do, you're bound to piss off the silent majority of people who hold traditional Judeo-Christian values.

The recognition of gay civil unions is very important to equality in the country. But gay marriage is NOT a government issue. Marriage, in general, should not be a government issue. Marriage is a religious/social value that should be kept private and out of the hands of politicians. Hate to say it, but the SF mayor really did fuck up by making it such a public issue. Gays raised a stink and were shut down because minorities have a difficult time beating majorities, period. Especially religious majorities.
posted by BlueTrain at 1:08 PM on November 6, 2004


quod erat demonstrandum

*snicker*


What, don't like your nose shoved into your own bullshit?
posted by Krrrlson at 1:28 PM on November 6, 2004


A thread about the christian right and it's possible resurgence on Mefi, as in the Land of the Free, with especial reference to it's homophobic platoon, gives LH a chance to tell the lefties and presumably the gays to be tolerant.

See, you automatically equate "Christian" with "right-wing homophobic platoon." I dislike Sonserae's brand of viciousness as much as anyone, but I also dislike the rabid anti-religion prejudice around here that seizes on the most far-out, nasty examples as typical. Why, it's like claiming that the fact that Arabs flew planes into the WTC means all Arabs are evil! Oh, wait, that's the bad kind of prejudice.
posted by languagehat at 2:05 PM on November 6, 2004


I don't think anyone is doing that. I think you're setting up a kind of straw man here.
posted by adamgreenfield at 2:16 PM on November 6, 2004


I like how the blatant racism still shown against blacks and (less so) hispanics can be equated to not allowing gays to get married.
The word miscegenation entered the language in the Southern USA. For a century, it was common for white southern advocates of the social status-quo to accuse advocates of the elimination of slavery, and later the advocates of civil rights for African Americans, of actually having the goal of miscegenation and the "destruction of the white race."...After World War II, many white southerners accused the US civil rights movement of Martin Luther King of being a Communist plot funded by the U.S.S.R. in order to destroy the United States through miscegenation.

In most of the southern states, various laws were passed making it illegal for members of different races to marry; these were known as miscegenation laws, like the South African Immorality Act. Interracial marriage was prohibited by state laws, the constitutonality of which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Pace v. Alabama" (1883). That decision was not overturned until the United States Supreme Court ruled in "Loving v. Virginia" (1967). At that time, 16 states still had laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
Yeah, it's a stretch.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:34 PM on November 6, 2004


Let me clarify a second: I think the issue is with the Christian right, as is enunciated pretty clearly and consistently throughout this thread and the others along the same lines.

I think people naturally feel some disgust and perplexity at anyone who could warp the message of Christ into a hammer of revenge and retribution. I think that's OK, and I also think it has little or nothing to do with castigation of Christianity per se. I'm baffled why you would portray things otherwise.
posted by adamgreenfield at 2:48 PM on November 6, 2004


Being able to receive ... equal treatment under the law is NOT the same as being able to get married.

Uh...
posted by Eamon at 2:52 PM on November 6, 2004


Laramie, BlueTrain. Your point is well-taken but turn the volume down, willya? It's not all Audis and hair-gel in gay America. The marriage issue is the legal point of our times, but it's not the sole gay rights issue in the world.

No, you can't equate centuries of slavery to *anything* really. But to compare things is not necessarily to equate them.
posted by scarabic at 3:14 PM on November 6, 2004


See, you automatically equate "Christian" with "right-wing homophobic platoon."

Er, no, I didn't, so please reread my comment.

BlueTrain: since when did any group have sole ownership of civil rights? And when were they rationed? You make it seem like there's some queue, or priority order before equality is achieved for all. Who made the list? I guess it wasn't Ellen DeGeneres, Jackie Mason & Muhammed Ali.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:01 PM on November 6, 2004


you automatically equate "Christian" with "right-wing homophobic platoon."
Not Christian per-se, but Real Christian. As in one that follows the word of the bible as proscribed by his/her religous leader.
So actually. Yes I do.
I'm tired of arguing that the bible doesn't abhor homosexuality & Leviticus & etc, etc. In it's modern form, as translated by the priests, vicars, reverands and everyone else, it says that homosexuality is bad. You can't change this. If you count yourself as a gay Christian, or if some of your "best friends" are gay christians, then I say - Shame on you. Find or write yourself a new book in which to celebrate your monotheistic deity. The modern bible is a crock, and you're doing yourselves a disservice by standing next to it.
posted by seanyboy at 4:14 PM on November 6, 2004


Do I think the Republicans and the Christian fundamentalists are having a little victory dance? Yes I do. They fought us and were able to flex a bit more muscle-- so they're swaggering a bit. But it will pass, and it doesn't threaten me personally, in fact I find it a bit fascinating.

On the issue of bible quoting. I equate it with whining. When a child whines, the best way to train her/him out of it is to pretend you don't hear. Only when the message is given in a normal tone of voice do you respond.

And so it is with bible quoting. I don't respond to anyone quoting biblical passages at me. I've had years of experience because I come from a very long line of Methodist ministers and bishops, and now I have fundamental in-laws. You should hear two ministers go at it-- it's like biblical dueling. But since there is no thread of consistency, and there is a heavy use of parables and symbols, the bible can be used to mean whatever you want it to mean.

Quote away, dear friends! It is all water off a duck's ass.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:24 PM on November 6, 2004


So are we complaining about their position in the discussion or about the fact that they posted a biblical quote to support it? Because it seems to me that they are entitled to the former and I like quotes, when they are succinct, well-written, and on-topic. It would hardly be fair to make quotes from one particular book off-limits while accepting all others as an acceptable way to frame a point.

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the word of God. It...has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind. —Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
posted by rushmc at 4:55 PM on November 6, 2004


"Do any of you know any actual Christians out there in the real world?" ( Languagehat) - I do, and I can report that they apppear as normal humans. Two ears, two eyes, and so forth.

I've looked at Kristhuns from both sides now, from near and far.....
_____

"after getting extremely pissed off with some thread in the blue about how we lost the election because of some conspiracy between diebold and the spawn of the devil," - Andrew Cooke, you appear to have the devil very much on your mind, because there is no devil mentioned in that main post. Do you want to talk about it ? Devils creep in often when faith grows weak, and I'm very familiar with matters of faith.

"Nothing of the sort will happen." - adamgreenfield, think on this - where does societal change originate ?
posted by troutfishing at 9:48 PM on November 6, 2004


Quite frankly, I'd love to see the black community lash out against your terrible theft of their fight for civil rights.

What the fuck?

I was holding my tongue in the main topic about my essay about my marriage, but this is just uninformed, poisonous bullshit, and Karl Rove would thank you for spreading it. Bayard Rustin, one of the architects of the black civil rights movement, was proudly gay and vilified for it. The gay liberation movement was launched by black and Latino queens who rioted at the Stonewall bar in the face of police harrassment. This is Coretta Scott King on the subject:

"For many years now, I have been an outspoken supporter of civil and human rights for gay and lesbian people... Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions."

Let's see: not getting lynched by crazy white people or recognizing the union between a man and a man

As if gay people don't get murdered all the time, and the suicide rates of gay teens are still higher for those of straight ones. Legalizing gay marriage would be a huge step forward toward giving gay teens something to live for.

The thing that most disturbs the religious right about gay people getting married is that it's an assertion that they're ordinary human beings. Gay people and other minorities are allies in that struggle, and Karl Rove banked on black church leaders being convinced otherwise.

I do like your MeFi name, though, BlueTrain, knowing where it comes from.
posted by digaman at 10:33 AM on November 7, 2004


I'm going to say right up front that I don't have the time or the heart to debate this issue in this topic -- my essay triggered a lot of email, and I want to deal with people who took the time to write me directly, plus I'm working on an article for Wired that feels even more important after the election. But when civil rights are so scarce that minorities end up fighting with other minorities for them, the scarcity is the problem -- not one group's "theft" of the struggle from another.

Unity is our only hope, especially now.
posted by digaman at 10:40 AM on November 7, 2004


digaman -

brilliantly said. this minority salutes you.
posted by Stynxno at 11:23 AM on November 7, 2004


Blue Train's comment was about as wrong as it could be.

First, unlike other groups, under federal law and in most jurisdictions, gays have no guaranteed equal protection under the law. They can be prevented from sitting anywhere but the back of the bus, shopping at a store, sitting at the lunch counter, working at a job (and they can be fired from a job for being gay), using the same drinking fountains, buying a house or renting, anything on the simple basis that they're gay. If that's not a lack of equal protection under the law, I don't know what is. If that's not a lack of civil rights, I don't know what is. If there's a segment of American society that is this large in combination with being this exhaustively denied basic civil rights, I don't know who it could be. The civil rights movement in the US at this point should belong at least as much to gays as anyone else, perhaps more. Because they have none.

On the particular matter of marriage: yes, marriage is a religious (or cultural) institution and as such is not necessarily within, or should be within, the realm of governmental regulation. But...um...what the fuck, Blue Train?? Government in the US does regulate marriage; and, furthermore, given governmental, legal recognition of marriage, government recognizes certain rights and grants benefits to people government recognizes as married. Gey people, because they are not allowed to be married in the legal, governmental context, are not given these benefits or have these rights recognized.

The only generous way I can parse your comment is if you think that a governmental recognition of gay marriage would encroach on how any particular religion defines marriage. It would not. Nor formally, at least.

I can't speak for gays, but I'd wager that most would be quite satisfied with a governmental recognition of "civil unions" that grants the same rights and benefits as does marriage. Many of them would say that they were married, and then you'd take up their use of language with them, I'd guess. But, mostly, gays and lesbians don't want "gay marriage" because they are interested in forcing everyone else to accept that gay people can marry so much as they are, at this point at least, really pissed off that a whole bunch of basic civil liberties relating to the governmental recognition of marriage, and a variety of benefits related to the governmental recognition of marriage, are denied them.

Yes, there's a deeper cultural struggle here and, at bottom, gays and lesbians want "marriage" because it is an ancient and meaningful cultural institution and they want to be able to participate in this institution just like anyone else. I think they're right in wanting that. I also don't really have a problem with someone claiming that their worldview doesn't allow such a thing because it's nonsensical. There's still people that don't think black people are fully human. I think they're wrong, but, hey, people believe what they believe.

But what people believe and the essential cultural conflict involved in this is a related but distinct issue than the issue of basic civil rights. What I see cultural conservatives doing is conflating the two, denying gays their legal civil rights, because they believe that recognizing their civil rights will be a crucial lost battle in the larger cultural war. Which may be true, but it's dishonest to claim it's about the civil rights when it's really all about the cultural conflict. It's like the racist fighting civil rights for black people because, really, they recognize that doing so partly undermines their argument that black people are just not as good as white people. Any reasonable person recognizes this hidden motivation; most people understand that this is why "seperate but equal" was a sham.

Cultural conservatives don't want to endorse in any sense the acceptability of homosexuality. Therefore, even if a more tolerant or civil-liberty-minded cultural conservative has qualms about discrimination based upon sexual orientation—not being allowed to see someone in the hospital, being fired from a job, being refused the sale of a home, whatever—they're perfectly willing to set aside those qualms on the basis of their fear of losing ground on the larger cultural question. Which reminds me a hell of a lot of the more moderate, non-KKK, southern white majority that nevertheless also fought the civil rights movement every step of the way.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:34 AM on November 7, 2004


Ethereal Bligh speaks for me.
posted by digaman at 11:57 AM on November 7, 2004


BlueTrain's comment was taken completely out of context and distorted to villify him.

As I said above, I do believe that gays deserve the ability to have legally recognized civil unions. Further, I believe that gays are persecuted and for that, something must be done. Finally, I believe that there are some very strong parallels between the civil rights struggle of blacks and the fight for gay marriage.

However, as I mentioned before, the term marriage (MARRIAGE) is a religious/social construct that should not have any sort of government regulation, which is where I believe I'm being confused. Gays went after the term "marriage" and didn't have a strong enought focus upon the term "civil union". Partly because the right forced the term "marriage" upon the public, thereby polarizing the nation. But also because gays, and many Democrats, went after the church in an attempt to liberalize it's tenants, which as I'm saying for the second time, was a dumb move.

Further, and more important, I believe that the struggle for blacks is that much more difficult and continuous. Gays can pretend to be straight. But blacks...well, they're easy to spot out. I believe that the battle for race equality trumps the recognition of marriage every time. And quite frankly, although many here may agree with that, the language expressed says otherwise.

My comment is seen as blasphemous in this arena because many of you are very liberal and refuse to accept any alternatives. Over the past year, I've noticed a similar problem with my own beliefs. I recently reassessed my values and discovered that in many ways, I'm far more "liberal" than Kerry, Edwards, and the party in general. I associate better with Sharpton (his recent speeches, not his early stuff) and find myself at odds with pretty much everyone around me.

Luckily, I also understand what causes policy change, which is incremental steps. Many people here have made a grave error in assuming that their "centrist values" are just that, centrist. What you've discovered is that the US is not ready for your values. Which isn't to say that you are correct, because I agree with many people here; what I vehemently disagree with is the language and animosity that is often displayed. I like people...a lot. So I understand that despite a sincere difference in values, only through commonalities will you EVER persuade a person to understand your position.

I understand that this idea stands at complete odds with Republican success, which is mostly yelling, fear-mongering, and carefully crafted lies. You'll have to forgive me if I think there might be a better way.
posted by BlueTrain at 1:31 PM on November 7, 2004


Gays can pretend to be straight. But blacks...well, they're easy to spot out.

Wow. Just...wow.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:38 PM on November 7, 2004


It's fun being white, isn't it Ethereal Bligh? Unfortunately, I can only imagine that "privilege". Racism never hits home for most Americans. For the honor of dealing with racism, I consider myself cursed and blessed.
posted by BlueTrain at 1:45 PM on November 7, 2004


And note that I agree with the pragmatic argument that pushing for gay marriage by gay rights activists is probably counter-productive for the same reasons you're saying. My claiming this really pissed off amberglow recently.

But.

But the proposed but failed anti-gay-marriage amendment included language that essentially outlawed civil unions. Ohio passed a constitutional amendment outlawing civil unions (as we are talking about them: recognizing the same rights and priveleges that government recognized marriage does). And you're completely ignoring my point that regardless of what should be true, what is true is that all levels of government in the US is actively involved in certifying, regulating, and recognizing marriage. If it weren't, we wouldn't be having this argument.

The claim that this is purely a religious matter is bogus. Because it's not. It's a legal, governmental matter. Right now, in some churches, gay can be married. It's not in the religious context that gays are completely shut out of the community institution known as marriage, it's in the civil, legal, governmental context that they are shut out from marriage. No one, as far as I know, is asking that the government force any church to recognize gay marriage within the context of the church. In contrast, they are asking that government recognize that gay couples have the same rights and benefits as straight couples do. So it's not the gay rights movements that's putting this into "religious" territory. It's the cultural conservatives.

On Preview: you may think my "wow" was in response to your second sentence. It was not. It was in response to your first. And, anyway, that whole line of reasoning completely seems to be ignorant of the sad history of "passing" which, in its divisiveness, its encouragment of self-hatred, and a host of other reasons, has been at least as much a curse as a benefit—both for those that pass and the whole african-american community. And for the struggle for civil rights. That gays can "pass" for straight people is not the wonderful attribute you seem to think it is. That I can "imagine" that this is not a "privilege", even though I'm straight, might indicate that the difference between our worldviews is not so much that I'm white and you're not as it is something else.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:00 PM on November 7, 2004


Look, I realize that my opinion will be pretty unpopular here. Rest assured, I am very pro-gay rights. I think it's pathetic that this country is horrified by same-sex couples. It's disturbing to know how ignorant a majority of the voting population really is.

But, but, but...if the exit polls are true, and morality truly was a wedge issue that Bush won, I put a huge amount of blame upon the gay agenda for allowing Bush to win. Plain and simple. I remember when this issue was first discussed and EVERYONE agreed that Rove and Bush were simply using gay marriage to divide the nation and win an election. I completely agreed as well. But the gay agenda was not dropped. In fact, gays, and gay advocates, became more and more vocal regarding this issue and helped polarize the nation.

You know why Iraq and the economy weren't #1? Because more people can be outraged by two guys kissing that by dead soldiers in a far away land. I'm enraged that Bush won. Abortion wasn't enough for Bush. There are too many pro-choice voters in the US, as seen by the success of Clinton. But stick abortion together with gay marriage and the fear instilled by 9/11 and suddenly religion and morals were important values.

BTW, judge me all you want Ethereal Bligh. Convey to me your intellectual superiority. But understand that my distaste for the gay agenda only exists because I'm of the belief that this country is not ready to face that battle. It's sad, but true. Call me Machiavellian, but a little part of me wanted to win this election (the end) and ignore the means to get there (supporting gay rights). Kerry would have had a much easier time dealing with the issue once in power. As a "Massachusetts Liberal" he had no credibility with the heartland of America.
posted by BlueTrain at 2:19 PM on November 7, 2004


I put a huge amount of blame upon the gay agenda for allowing Bush to win. Plain and simple. I remember when this issue was first discussed and EVERYONE agreed that Rove and Bush were simply using gay marriage to divide the nation and win an election. I completely agreed as well. But the gay agenda was not dropped. In fact, gays, and gay advocates, became more and more vocal regarding this issue and helped polarize the nation.

You'll have to prove that statement. Show us how WE (the mysterious "gay agenda") did that. Show us how WE thrust the issue into the election. Show us the pushpolling and campaign mailings WE sent out. Show us the preachers at churches all over the country that demonized us weekly. Show us the talking points WE propagated in the media continually. Show us the equivalent of the 700 Club and rightwing talk radio that WE aired daily all over the country. Show us the Senators that spoke against Santorum and his friends when they said on the Senate floor that gay marriage was a worse threat to this country than terrorism. Show us the millions of voters guides WE sent out. ...

The fact is that every community under attack speaks out. We are not to blame, and you assigning blame to us is simply another attack, and more scapegoating.
posted by amberglow at 3:03 PM on November 7, 2004


(the mysterious "gay agenda")
posted by homunculus at 3:51 PM on November 7, 2004


When I talk about this issue (the practical consequences of gay rights activists talking publicly about "gay marriage") I do so as someone who has long been outspoken in public about gay rights, been a member of gay rights activist groups, and, basically, considers myself a gay rights activist (in the non-professional sense). I may not be gay myself, true; but I believe I'm actively involved in this struggle and, therefore, I think about strategy and consequences.

When you talk about it, you talk about gays and gay rights activism with a very alienated tone, with a strong sense that, to you, these folks are very much the "other". Coupled with your (perhaps reckless and probably not completely earnest) denial that "civil rights" is not at all about gays and that "they've" appropriated this from the black people to whom it truly belongs...well, I dunno.

Regardless of the pragmatic matter of whether gay rights activists should aggressively pursue gay marriage rather than other things (like civil unions)—and I think that's a worthwhile discussion to have—the simple truth is that gays are in general, and specifically in the matter of legal rights and privileges associated with marriage, deeply discriminated against in this country and there is no basis whatsoever—none—to deny them their moral right to fight against this injustice. Your arguments about the former (the pragmatic argument) seem to bleed into and become arguments against the latter.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:18 PM on November 7, 2004


Lying to the American citizenry to get elected...you decry it when Bush does it but advocate that the Democrats should do the same, BlueTrain? That's pretty...appalling.
posted by rushmc at 5:31 PM on November 7, 2004


rushmc, I just reread all my comments and cannot find a single instance of my suggesting that Democrats lie to get elected. The only example I can find of where you may have misunderstood my comment is when I wrote:

Call me Machiavellian, but a little part of me wanted to win this election (the end) and ignore the means to get there (supporting gay rights).

But that does not mean lying. My comment suggests careful exclusion of said issue, which, under the circumstances, in NOT a lie by omission. It's called categorizing your party's core issues. Democrats need something from the American people (getting elected). So if they soften their position in a couple of issues to become more palatable, I consider that compromise, not lying.

amberglow...I thoroughly empathize with your dilemma (as much as a straight guy can). I understand discrimination all too well. However, I believe that Bush got lucky in that he was able to capitalize on some vague notion of moral values, coupled with the fear generated from 9/11. I believe that many people turned to their faith after seeing those towers fall and Bush was able to use that to promote his own agenda, which is why, at this time, I believe it to be remarkably dangerous to go after the church with gay "marriage".

Ethereal Bligh...my tone is aggressive. I'll admit that. The rest of your assumptions seem to stem from a personal attachment to the issue moreso than a true understanding of my position. I'll leave it at that.
posted by BlueTrain at 6:04 PM on November 7, 2004


But as others have pointed out, the Democrats will never again have that luxury with regard to this issue. It will be brought up in every debate and in every other forum to which they open themselves. Should they do like Bush and seek to make themselves unavailable to the press? Or should they lie about their beliefs and the direction they wish to take policy when directly asked? It's not a matter of making gay rights a major plank in the official party platform; it's a question of how to respond now that the issue has made its way into the public arena.
posted by rushmc at 9:33 PM on November 7, 2004


« Older Anonymous askme: what percentage fail to get...   |   Followup: first date was a success. Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments