I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love. Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving! We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register
Location: US/Canada
Registered: September 2009
Messages: 733
By Brody Levesque | BETHESDA, MARYLAND -- I am still incredulous that two GOP candidates running for the presidency actually had the temerity to sign a pledge that essentially codified in writing and on display for all to witness in a public way their disdain and bias towards their fellow citizens who happen to be LGBTQ.
I am of course referring to the "Pledge" signed by GOP candidates former Senator Rick Santorum and Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann on Thursday put out by The Family Leader, a prominent Iowa group that promotes Christian conservative social values.
The pledge is entitled, “The Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family.” Presidential candidates who sign the pledge must agree to personal fidelity to his or her spouse, the appointment of “faithful constitutionalists” as judges, opposition to any redefinition of marriage, and prompt reform of uneconomic and anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy and divorce law.
The Marriage Vow also outlines support for the legal advocacy for the federal Defense of Marriage Act, humane efforts to protect women and children, rejection of Sharia Islam, safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. military service members, and commitment to downsizing government and the burden upon American families.
For the most part, this 'pledge' espouses pretty much the party line of the so-called christian right except for this one section of the pledge's preamble touting how important the so-called model of a traditional marriage is:
Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President.
Tasteless you say? Yeah well.... News came late yesterday that the group pushing this so-called pledge had removed it from the document. However, one would have thought that a former United States Senator and a currently serving member of the U. S. House, both of whom swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States, would have at least questioned that wording unless...
Here's a typical reaction from a member of the public:
"It doesn't matter that they took it out, the fact remains that they put it in. As an African American, I despise comments like those in this pledge. And I hear them often from the right wing; the merits of slavery! I am often amazed by conservatives because they will then act as if they are dumbfounded by blacks that are unreceptive to republicans.
Yet, here they are in 2011 still talking about how, "in some ways" slavery was better than freedom for blacks. And they wonder why we are suspicious of their motivations. The fact that they can see an upside in oppressing and treating as cattle, any group of people is disturbing. The fact that they would want to make that contrast is suspicious and despicable.
But more than anything, it's wrong!
Black slaves were barely allowed to marry, and when we were, we could be sold and separated at any time. The dissolution of our families was almost guaranteed. And by the way the sanctity of our marriages was underminded by the constant raping of black wives by their masters. I hate to bring these things up because I feel as if it rips scabs off of old wounds, but I think the right unfortunately is obsessed with softening the image of slavery.
They seem to want to see the institution as something other than vicious and savage. Which is why they are constantly making points like this one!"
Hard to argue with that line of reasoning. The most cursory investigation into slavery would show that families RARELY if ever stayed together, and the idea of a "household," two parent or not, is laughable.
Of course the pledge also asserts that homosexuality is a choice, not an innate characteristic. A footnote also indicates the belief that homosexuality is a public health risk akin to second hand smoking that decreases life expectancy.
I have to ask, when exactly will the American people put an end to these tactics and this mockery of humanity?
Here's the final word on this topic from a former New Mexico Governor, Gary Johnson, who also happens to be a moderate Republican:
“This ‘pledge’ is nothing short of a promise to discriminate against everyone who makes a personal choice that doesn’t fit into a particular definition of ‘virtue’. While the Family Leader pledge covers just about every other so-called virtue they can think of, the one that is conspicuously missing is tolerance. In one concise document, they manage to condemn gays, single parents, single individuals, divorcees, Muslims, gays in the military, unmarried couples, women who choose to have abortions, and everyone else who doesn’t fit in a Norman Rockwell painting."
Interesting that you call Gary Johnson "moderate".
He's a libertarian, he's seen as a fringe candidate by the media. CNN refused to invite him to their candidates debate (FOX, on the other hand, did).
He'd stand alongside Ron Paul and Rand Paul on most issues. He's more socially progressive than those two, yet on policy would likely move in the same direction. But he'd also advocate extreme budget cuts (43% of the budget needs to be slashed according to him as the USA is 43% in debt).
I love Gary Johnson- he's my favourite candidate in the race. But it's odd to hear him called "moderate". I'd apply that label to people like Jon Hunstman (who don't support the big cuts to government spending that other Republicans do).
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Location: US/Canada
Registered: September 2009
Messages: 733
Your response Shem is a shining example of the definition of the phrase: "Apples & Oranges."
My column is discussing the ongoing American cultural wars which are demonising the LGBTQ community- NOT economic or similar related public policies.
Obviously you've missed the point.
In matters that affect the LGBTQ community- the former Governor would be deemed a moderate. I suppose that in order to help you better understand the difference, seeing as you live in suburban Melbourne, Australia - thus making it nearly impossible for you to accurately give my column 'context,' I would refer you to the blog Joe.My.God.
By the way Shem, you may find your comments quite welcome there. The commenters who reside there love political fringe types and apologists.
If Johnson is a moderate what's the extreme pro-gay marriage position?
I don't think you'll find he's a moderate there, either.
A moderate on gay-marriage is likely to offer pathetic platitudes like "civil unions".
And I was here before you.
Despite being Canadian you seem to have adopted the blinkered American view of the world. Where nothing important happens outside of America.
We don't have a Prime Minister refusing to recognise gay marriage despite her living with her unmarried male partner she believes in "traditional values". Not at all.
Our previous Prime Minister's sister isn't saying things like: "I call them the global gay Gestapo. It is the lobbying movement that is brainwashing people, particularly the young in the community that this (homosexuality) is an optional extra in life."
Gay marriage obviously isn't the one issue that our two major parties (who oppose each other on everything just to hear the sound of argument) agree on.
Yeah, it's fan-bloody-tastic here in suburban Melbourne when my boyfriend working his first day at a new job has a customer walk out because he knows Ryan is gay from school where they went together.
Wake up. Take the blinkers off. Try this: http://www.samesame.com.au/ (since you seem to ignore the news outside of the USA)
Just because I don't believe in affirmative action and I refuse to call it a "war" and refuse to demonise people along partisan political lines doesn't mean there's nothing else happening outside of the USA. Cut the patronising bullshit just because I don't agree with you.
[Updated on: Thu, 14 July 2011 19:00]
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Identity politics and culture wars are meaningless bullshit once you accept the primacy of liberty and the value of the individual.
The left will never do that, so under the custodianship of leftist governments the identity politics and culture wars will continue.
[Updated on: Thu, 14 July 2011 19:01]
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
I cut my teeth on internet trolls, an elephant that hasn't realised it's his time to start heading to the graveyard doesn't scare me.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13771
Nonetheless, you have grasped the least important, least interesting part of the article and devalued it. It was not about the person. It was about the topic. That's Ok, though, really. Thatls liberty, I imagine.
Now, did you notice that the article was about some foul and bigoted pledge, or are you so challenged in the communications department that you are concerned with one minor politico at the expense of the point, the thrust of the article?
The question I pose is rhetorical. I'm not really online this week. I am just monitoring things from afar.
So please go back and read the article and, this time, if you choose to comment at all, please try to comment about the substance of the article, not some of the minor cast of characters.
The substance of the article comes as no surprise, I guess.
What's to say other than "what morons" and have a chorus of applause?
Why come to a forum to hear your own viewpoints echoed back at you?
All of us here support equality. All of us here support gay rights. It's likely we all support gay marriage.
But Brody in the past has linked to people like Rand Paul disparagingly over issues that AREN'T GLBT related. But now when it suits his cause he supports one of the same libertarian/ Tea Party type Republicans?
My response may not have been a response to the article itself. But the silence Brody's initial post was greeted by is obviously silent agreement.
My point is part of a broader discourse that small-government types like Johnson, Paul, etc are good for gay people. I don't like to see some of my political heroes used for points when it suits a particular agenda.
If it suits, I guess we could just have Brody's articles litter the front page with zero responses or the generic "yeah, Christians in this country ::-)" response instead?
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Location: US/Canada
Registered: September 2009
Messages: 733
Shem- you speak with little or no authority, dubious credibility at best, and a principle lack of comprehension of the complexities of the American political system.
In short, you are ignorant and "know not of that what you speak," to paraphrase and borrow a line from the alleged founder of the movement that eventually became know as christianity.
I am not going to debate the merits of my column primarily since you completely missed the point and your snarking response was merely intended to elicit a "Brody rampage." Sorry to disappoint you young one- not gonna happen.
Oh and your suggestion about Same-Same dot Au? It so happens that the Executive Editor is a professional acquaintance, whom I met when he was still on the staff on at GayNZ.com prior to his being hired away to run Same-Same & I am actually a member of SS.
Also, because Des is one of my senior columnists and friend as well, I am more aware of your country's political make-up than I'd wager you actually are. Des & I discuss Oz events daily oh and yes I am rooting for Chooka to do well on the programme Australia's Got Talent which I will cheerfully admit to being a fan and faithful viewer.
Shem- you may think that I am an "elephant" which is a rather apt comparison only because in the 30 plus years of my career I've squished quite a few annoying gnats with my trunk.
Enjoy your overinflated sense of importance and superiority.
Meanwhile I'll recognise your outdated opinions and outdated, dying form of media for what it is.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Editorial- An Evil Truth Exposed 
Re: Editorial- An Evil Truth Exposed 
I'm fine 
