Bush Aligns Himself With Southern Baptists (homophobic?)

[Alfie]

I am so sick of this nonsense... both the criticism of the left... and what Bush is doing to himself.

Bush is NOT a homophobe.  I believe he has actually appointed more gays to prominent positions than Clinton did. (or that we allowed him to do, anyway )  In fact, President Bush has faced criticism from the far-right, including from evangelicals like Ed McAteer, for doing so.  President Bush has taken political risks for some level of support for gay rights, and for that he deserves at least some credit from his detractors.

The problem lies in the need to get re-elected.  The President could have done the right thing and ignored the nutty harps from the "religious" right.   But he didn't, he couldn't.  Hell, I probably would have fallen for the pressure.  He fought the FMA for as long as he could until he just couldn't stand it anymore.  He cracked, but I respect him for holding out for so long.

The President has to find the votes in order to get re-elected.  He can't count on moderates (as so many of us are so wishy-washy on our partisanship and loyalty to a candidate *stares at bullmoose*)... so he had to find a base to count on.  And if you can count on anything, its that Christian conservatives will VOTE and will stay loyal.

I guess the ABB crowd around here will never understand President Bush. I know where his heart lies, and that's why I support him so strongly.  I know he hates bigotry and discrimination.  But I also know that he has to do what he has to do.  We must keep his leadership in office.  If he has to throw a bone to the conservanuts in order to do so, its still worth it.

You praise Bush for being "Gay neutral" and for resisting the godcon's pressure to (I guess) crack down on those uppity Gay folks.  You the state Bush "just couldn't stand it anymore.  He cracked, but I respect him for holding out for so long."  Well, I guess I'm confused, because it two different themes come to mind.

The first Gay "theme" is that Bush is not a homophone, that he is not anti-Gay, that he has appointed a number of Gays to government positions.  

I agree with all of this.  I think George W. Bush, much like George HW Bush and a whole generation of northern Republicans (Chaffee, the late great Senator from Rhode Island, Olympia Snowe, R-ME, former VP Nelson Rockefeller, etc) have shown very little interest in vilifying gays; some have been very supportive.  Hell, even Barry Goldwater, in his later years, advocated rescinding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".  GWB's history just doesn't show a pattern of anti-Gay politics, or of being in any way homophobic.

The second Gay "theme" is that Bush couldn't hang on any longer -- the heat in the kitchen just good too hot to handle.  As a result, he then went ahead with the radical godcons and hit the "Launch" button for amending the constitution to prevent Gay marriage.  In this "theme", you admire Bush for having "held out" for so long.

So both "themes" make sense.  But what does "theme" #2 say about George W. Bush?  To me, it raising a concern about the price at which he is willing to sell his beliefs down river.  Yes, most politicos make these decisions.  If they need to "gain altitude" they'd dump their grandmother overboard.  But the difference is that few politicians become president, and few politicians have the evangelical fervor and certainty that Bush seems to possess -- the certainty of being right, and of the rightness of their beliefs.  In short, if the non-homophobic, non anti-Gay George W. Bush threw Gays overboard (and he clearly did), what does this say about the clarity of his beliefs, the true "value" in which he holds these beliefs.  

Even more to the point: does George W. Bush really have a moral compass?


- Alfie

[Alfie]

I would love for any of you hypocritical liars to explain why taking a stand against homosexuality is a "phobia", while at the same time taking stands against fornication, adultery, lying, stealing, murder, etc are not considered "phobias".

I have asked this question for months on end within this forum and have yet to receive an answer.  Why has my question gone unanswered?  Is my question too difficult to understand, do I need to reword it to make it more comprehensible?  Or is the answer to the question so obvious and revealing that it silences all response?

So consider yourselves ignorant of your own bigotry against anyone taking a moral stand.  But know this, your inability to answer is duly noted.

You have itchy ears - believing only what you want to believe:

2Tim 4:3-4 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

That's an interesting question -- one I'd never asked, or been asked about.  I'll need more data.  "Phobia" does relate to mental health issues, but prejudice is more of a social disease, a misdemeanor compare to the felony of phobia.  

You state that you "stand against homosexuality."  How do you "stand" against it -- what do you do?  At one extreme, if this "stand" takes form of dragging Gays from the back of your pick-up truck.  Would that be homophobia, or political expression?"  

If your "stand against homosexuality" causes you -- compels you --to visit Gay places and people (try your local florist or hair stylist if you don't know of any), when you arrive at these locations, does your heart pound in...anger?  Do you threaten Gay people while in their space?  Or do you say and do nothing at all, or nothing offensive, and just observe?   Or have you never really felt , or had, any need to seek out Gay people in a curious sort of way?

I ask these questions more to prod my own thinking, because in asking myself, "what is homophobia", and, "who is a homophobe", I think homophobia is like art, or pornography, in that it’s hard to define, but you know it when you "see" it.    


you wrote;

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why?  I don't know -- I'm new here.  Too difficult?  No, it would take time, and a lot of thought.   And to what end?  Re-read what you stated:

"I would love for any of you hypocritical liars to explain why taking a stand against homosexuality is a "phobia", while at the same time taking stands against fornication, adultery, lying, stealing, murder, etc are not considered "phobias".[/b]

So why not drop another turd into the punchbowl?  You as yet to be defined "Stand" is still unknown, but your anger is showing, in spades... the equating of Gays with fornication and affiliated bullsh!t just leaves reasonable people cold.  It stops them in their tracks, as they think: "What kind of homophobe would write THAT?"  My answer would be, "A homophobe who wants to start an argument."  That's what my answer would be.

[Alfie]

That's an interesting question -- one I'd never asked, or been asked about.  I'll need more data.

OK

---

You state that you "stand against homosexuality."  How do you "stand" against it -- what do you do?

I "stand" against it just like I stand againt any immorality -  I do what the bible tells me to do:

2Tim 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

---

you wrote;

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why?  I don't know -- I'm new here.  

Ok, then we'll start afresh.  My anger was more of an attention getter in order to spur a response.  And I think the lack of logic behind the “phobe” label is evident.  So let’s continue.

Okay.  Here are my thoughts:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I’ve given this a lot of thought.  I almost got sidetracked on the “religious” part of  your posting, but I have been very careful in just leaving that bundle of snakes alone, for purposes of replying in a direct manner.

If there were a hierarchy of “sins” against other human beings, the pyramid would be;


1.   Racism
2.   Bigotry
3.   Prejudice


“Sins” specifically against Gays would be:
1.   Homophobia
2.   Bigotry
3.   Prejudice


Below are common dictionary definitions of homophobia, bigotry, and prejudice:


Homophobia:  A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.  A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.   An intense, abnormal, or illogical fear of a specified thing.

Bigotry:  The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.

Prejudice:  An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. S preconceived preference or idea. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.


My conclusion:


Because of the mental health implication of “phobia”, I think the word is well-worn, and may, like “anti-Semitism”, have become more of a hurled four-letter-word than a diagnosis.  The depth of anger and irrationality required to “meet” the criteria for a true homophobe is high.  I suspect you do not meet that threshold.

Are you a bigot, a “bible-nazi”, a prejudiced person, an unformed person, or simply a man of your own opinion?  I don’t know, because I know you only from what you write.  It’s not my job or my passion to go around labeling people (aside from politically) for what they believe.
 
I would only say that in the matter of sexual prejudice, religion is fundamentally a part of the problem. The same Scripture affirms segregation, no?  But again, I do not want to wander into that area.

What I do know is that deep convictions have inherent in them some very strong prejudices.  Being a Gay man, I know the sting.

- Alfie

[Alfie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.  It is unjustified, unfair, and is its own form of prejudice, to make said statement.

- Alfie

[Alfie]

People say that being against homosexuality is homophobia. Homophobia is being afraid of homosexuals. I am not, nor ever have been afraid of much of anything. I know a few homosexuals and they are really good people, their lifestyle however I find abhorent.

Which "lifestyle" might that be, Senator?


- Alfie

[Alfie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senator replied;

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But that's terribly vague.  I know many Gay folks, and I don't have an opinion as to their -- or your -- lifestyles. I just don't.  But you do have an opinion, and apparently a strong one.  You stated:

"I know a few homosexuals and they are really good people, their lifestyle however I find abhorent."

So what do you find "abhorent" (I believe you meant "abhorrent")?  I mean no matter how you slice it, or spell it, "abhorrent" is an extremely emotional term, as in:

"Disgusting, loathsome, or repellent.   Feeling repugnance or loathing.   Being strongly opposed. Offensive to the mind, morally repugnant, detestable"

So again, I ask: "Which lifestyle might that be?"


- Alfie

[Alfie]

Ah, I see.  Sodomy.  No, no pix, please!


But sodomy, and correct me if I err, is a sex act, right?  It involves the "insertion of a penis into an anus, or the mouth."  But... but... don't heterosexuals engage in sodomy?  Sure they do!


"Eight percent of males, and six percent of females reported having anal sex at least once a month during the year prior to the survey. Of these, most engage in this activity one to five times per month."


I had no idea.  That' an awful lot of people engaging in sodomy.


"76.6 percent of heterosexual adult males had performed oral sex, while 78.7 percent had received oral sex. The corresponding figures for adult heterosexual females were 67.7 percent and 73.1 percent."

My God!  Better than three quarters of heterosexuals have engaged in sodomy!  

You stated that you believe Gays have an "abhorrent" lifestyle, and the reason you believe it is "abhorrent" is because they engage in acts of sodomy.  There's no moral equivocation or doubt in your statement -- you have an issue with sodomy.  So here is the obvious question:

Where is your moral "abhorrence" towards your heterosexual friends?[/red]


- Alfie

[Alfie]

Men and Men don't belong together. Basic biology tells you the plumbing don't fit. I don't consider oral sex sodomy.

You originally posted;


"I know a few homosexuals and they are really good people, their lifestyle however I find abhorent."

You then stated, upon request, that the "lifestyle" that you find "abhorrent" is "the sexual act of sodomy"[/i] (which is not a lifestyle, but rather, it is a sex act).  I raised to your attention the fact that over seventy five percent of heterosexuals engaged in oral sex, and (roughly) seven percent of heterosexuals engaged in anal sex.  I asked "where is your "abhorrence" with straights.  You reply;

"Men and Men don't belong together. Basic biology tells you the plumbing don't fit. I don't consider oral sex sodomy."

Hate to tell you this, but an anus is an anus..  That part of human plumbing is the same for men and for women.  

So your basis for "abhorrence" for Gays is set to a very different level thans straights, even though both hets and Gays practice this same "evil".  Is that about accurate?  Is that a factual statement?


- Alfie

[Alfie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well WHAT do you think enters a woman's anus when engaging in anal sex?  AFAIK, heterosexual anal sex doesn't lead to procreation.  So WHERE OH WHERE is your "abhorrence" of heterosexuals who engage in anal sex?

you also state;

"...and yes it IS a lifestyle as homosexuals choose to be that way."

No, YOU choose to "see" it that way.  You set up your filters, and that  is what YOU "see"; it is not a "lifestyle" -- it's called SEX.

So Where Oh Where is the long-awaited condemnation of your het pals who choose to engage in sodomy via anal sex?


- Alfie

[Alfie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well WHAT do you think enters a woman's anus when engaging in anal sex?  AFAIK, heterosexual anal sex doesn't lead to procreation.  So WHERE OH WHERE is your "abhorrence" of heterosexuals who engage in anal sex?

you also state;

"...and yes it IS a lifestyle as homosexuals choose to be that way."

No, YOU choose to "see" it that way.  You set up your filters, and that  is what YOU "see"; it is not a "lifestyle" -- it's called SEX.

So Where Oh Where is the long-awaited condemnation of your het pals who choose to engage in sodomy via anal sex?


- Alfie

I am done with you Alfie. Homosexuality is wrong, plain and simple. It goes against nature as it's not natural.

Coordinated Universal Network Translation:  You, Senator, are a bigot.  "What do we have for the stoopid Senator, Jim?"

"We have Bigot, definition Number Two, Alf!!"

"2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion."

Ta, Mary!


- Alfie

[Alfie]

Alfie, one thing you must be open to is the possibility that homosexuality is disordered. Although I’m all for keeping sodomy and civil unions legal, I think that America should halt for a second and realize that homosexuality is a disorder. We know this because studies done by Psychologists (even though the APA refuses to admit this) have shown clear studies that point homosexuality as a disorder. The premises of this thesis are the following.

Premis A) Homosexuality and Pedophilia have obvious links. In a study done by Journal of Sex Research, homosexuals compromise one third of child sex abuse cases. But the effect is a result of a cause, and the cause is from homosexuals having been molested themselves with 22% of lesbians and 46% of gays having been molested as children, according to Archives of Sexual Behavior. Further, in a study done by Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 20% of homosexual children have had sexual contact with men.

Premis B) Homosexuals live shorter lives than heterosexuals. This is on account of AIDS, promiscuity, and violence. A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, which is a famous study used to support homosexuality, reported in Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women that 43% of homosexuals have had sex with over 500 partners, and 28% have had over a thousand. This is clearly above the norm for heterosexuals. Journal of Interpersonal Violence reported that 31% of lesbians had reported incidents of physical abuse by their partners. Another study by Journal of Soicial Service Research[/] in a study of over a thousand lesbians found that over half had been abused by their female lover. In the book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence the author reported that domestic violence among homosexuals is double that of heterosexuals.   nternational Journal of Epidemiology reported:

In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twentyfor gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.

Premis C) Suicide and Depression. Archives of General Psychiatry reported that homosexualsare 6.5 times more likely to commit suicide. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology studied lesbians and found that 75% of them seeked psychological counseling of some kind.

Lots of claims; zero linked cites.  Sorry, but I'll take a pass on your theories.   The "disorder" that I see spreading like wildfire in this country is the disease of groupthink -- of Rush and Sean and the other babblers of hate.  What does the APA say about them?

- Alfie

[Alfie]

They're not linked becuase I don't have links to them. Go search them yourself.

The APA is run by homosexuals (they took over the organization in 1971) so their opinion is of course going to be in support of homosexuality.

Listen, Queen, you are the one who posted the crappy, half-assed tripe.  Most intelligent people provide a link so as to (a) verify they know what they are talking about; (b) afford the reader the opportunity to peruse the cited data, and (c) afford a richer, deeper context for their posting.  That you choose not to provide links is your business, but I must say, and with no small amount of regret, that it confirms the weakness of your position, however poorly stated it may have been.

As to the APA being a "homosexual" organization... let me give you a clue: you are talking through your hat.  You know jack.  Get your nose out of the gutter press and elevate your sights, and cites.

- Alfie

[Alfie]

Re: Lt. Gov Ford's Query (or "What Becomes a Chicken Hawk Most?")



What is a Chicken Hawk?  Typically, three criteria need be met:

#1:  To be worthy of his feathers, a candidate for Chicken Hawkhood must have had the opportunity and ability to serve their nation.  Directly tied to criteria #1 is criteria #2:

#2:  Said person, who chose not to serve their nation, becomes an advocate for war.  War can be defined as the invasion or occupation of a sovereign state.

#3:  Said person believes war is a preferred solution, and during the conduct of the war will seek to glorify it.

I chuckled when I read your post, the word “moral” dripping all over the screen.  War is immoral.  It is the worst possible solution to most modern challenges.  It is an unspeakable vulgarity that guts civilizations.  In precious few circumstances war is a scalpel, and in a skilled surgeon’s hand, a scalpel is tool to lope off a tumor – a radical mastectomy that scars, but saves


To your queries:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have yet to hear a “successful” argument for modern war from a moral perspective.  Modern being post WWII.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See criteria #1.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See criteria #1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Everyone has a right to argue, just as everyone has a right to call someone a Chicken Hawk.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why would you assume that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now there’s a carefully chosen word – ”intervention”[/b].  And (Gasp!) to isolate your examples to Clinton!  Cuts no ice with me, Mister.  I believe the adventures of President Truman through and including Bush to be folly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I believe war is immoral, it doesn’t matter whether the CIC is a vet or not.  No, I did not vote for Bush or Dole, or any Pug at any level, ever.  

BTW, are you implying that Bush is a (gak!) veteran?  Please!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My pleasure.

- Alfie