Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Monday, March 22, 2010

Last month, Mark Maxwell and his partner Timothy Young tried to join the YMCA of Northwest North Carolina as a family. The men have two adopted children and they are getting ready to adopt a third. But they were turned down. "Discrimination is something I don't accept," Maxwell said. "If I accept it, I'm saying to my children that policies that are wrong are OK."

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

OohRah

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

This was in my morning paper... the story concerns a local YMCA. Sort of ties in with that other thread about the bed and breakfast.

Apparently the Y is comprised of districts(?) and each district sets its policies regarding what constitutes "family." If you scroll to the end of the story you can see how other Ys in the state have dealt with this issue.

Damn Village People.

Wow! Two threads today playing the maudlin violin for "persecuted" gays. These people are mentally ill and the kooks out there can't admit that.

While I think that any privately funded organization should be allowed to decide how can and cannot join, the fact that most other YMCA's provide an option for gay families shows this one is the exception rather than the norm and will eventually bow to consumer demand.

Wow! Two threads today playing the maudlin violin for "persecuted" gays. These people are mentally ill and the kooks out there can't admit that.
#3 | Posted by Diablo at 2010-03-22 11:09 AM

Actually, the Gay American experience isn't too unlike any other persecuted minority. The differences being substantial in the minds of bigots.

"Actually, the Gay American experience isn't too unlike any other persecuted minority."

Personally, I don't know why people would spend their time opposing gay marriage and stuff like that but your statement just doesn't hold water.

Most of the strangers you meet probably have no idea that you're gay. Even if they would care if they knew, it isn't going to come up in most cases.

A black guy living under Jim Crow was viewed as a baclk guy living under Jim Crow 100% of the time.

While I think that any privately funded organization should be allowed to decide how can and cannot join, the fact that most other YMCA's provide an option for gay families shows this one is the exception rather than the norm and will eventually bow to consumer demand.
#4 | Posted by richardspirit at 2010-03-22 12:03 PM

I grew up going to the Y with about equal numbers of Black, Asian and White children. They've never discriminated to my knowledge. This particular YMCA is the exception, apparently.

"Consumer demand" - because that's what you perceive all of us "lesser beings" employ to trick the public thereby augmenting our social power? Why wouldn't the Y just "do the right thing" and adopt their neighboring Y's successful policy? Perhaps it's really because this particular Y is managed by bigoted, small-minded idiots? Perhaps they allege themselves to be Christians? Such fellowship they inspire! And you are sooo right - by denying these three children access to the YMCA they have successfully stemmed the tide of GAY CONSUMERISM! HALLELUJAH!! AMEN!!! MAZELTOV!

"Actually, the Gay American experience isn't too unlike any other persecuted minority."

Personally, I don't know why people would spend their time opposing gay marriage and stuff like that but your statement just doesn't hold water.
Most of the strangers you meet probably have no idea that you're gay. Even if they would care if they knew, it isn't going to come up in most cases.
A black guy living under Jim Crow was viewed as a baclk guy living under Jim Crow 100% of the time.
#6 | Posted by Sully at 2010-03-22 12:37 PM

To this day we still see the effects of minstrelsy on generations of Black Americans. Perhaps there are elements of the Gay American experience that also reverberate long after the persecution and lynchings? The Y's denial of service wasn't uncommon to mixed couples either. Nearly 100% of it stems from institutionalized religion teaching politics, both in school and church, generation upon generation. Imo, Republicans are particularly familiar with bigotry because they are often still victimizing themselves through orchestrated denial which also avoids addressing those real issues of institutionalized viewpoints. It's not uncommon how circular their situation is from any other social grouping. Theirs happens to be socially damaging.

What Sully is saying is that a gay man could always join the Y. A gay man and his partner or husband or whatever they call themselves could always join the Y. They could always sit at the same table in a restaurant. Any restaurant.

But if you were black, nope. If gays want to pretend they're having some kind of civil rights movement experience, more power to ya. But to compare it to blacks in America doesn't make sense, and is probably insulting to blacks.

But go ahead.

What Sully is saying is that a gay man could always join the Y. A gay man and his partner or husband or whatever they call themselves could always join the Y. They could always sit at the same table in a restaurant. Any restaurant.
But if you were black, nope. If gays want to pretend they're having some kind of civil rights movement experience, more power to ya. But to compare it to blacks in America doesn't make sense, and is probably insulting to blacks.
But go ahead.
#9 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-03-22 01:29 PM

I've heard this simple argument before and still don't believe you know what you are talking about.

It's my observation that most of your "weighing the unjust" attitude is imposed behavior upon generations of Americans and it extends to any minority. I'll bet your unexplained comparison was made each and every instance whereby equality is demanded - wouldn't you be surprised if it weren't? Compare the injustice based on what you want and contrast it however you will, the fact is that it's not new to White, Blacks, Asians, etc. Gay people have had to fight for their rights in every race, culture and creed since at least the foundation of the Big Three. Persecution of minorities is manufactured and organized through institutionalized religion.

Blacks were even forced to pray in separate churches! Praise Jesus Christ, at least they get to go!

Remove religion from the Y and allow every family membership.

"I've heard this simple argument before and still don't believe you know what you are talking about."

You're pretending that others are being "simple" while acting as if simple factual statements are open to interpretation.

Most gay men can't be easily identified as gay by a stranger.

99.99% of black men who have ever lived couldn't hide the fact that they were black from any stranger.

So one group was dicriminated against 100% of the time while the other can only be discriminated against in situations where they have been identified as homosexual.

That isn't an arguement. No matter how "complex" you want to pretend the situations are, the above statements are undeniable facts.

Sully,

What you are saying is comparable to someone saying that they weren't as abused since he only stuck a finger in his ass and not his whole cock. The argument should never be about who was treated worse as discrimination regardless of severity is still created by the same mind frame and therefore must be treated the same in order to be effective. In my example above it does not matter the severity of the abuse it only matters that it needs to stop.

I always thought the YMCA was were all the gays went to frolick in the pool. Didn't the Village People play cops and robbers at the YMCA

"I've heard this simple argument before and still don't believe you know what you are talking about."

You're pretending that others are being "simple" while acting as if simple factual statements are open to interpretation.

I'm being snarky, nothing new. Sorry.

Most gay men can't be easily identified as gay by a stranger.
99.99% of black men who have ever lived couldn't hide the fact that they were black from any stranger.
So one group was dicriminated against 100% of the time while the other can only be discriminated against in situations where they have been identified as homosexual.
That isn't an arguement. No matter how "complex" you want to pretend the situations are, the above statements are undeniable facts.
#11 | Posted by Sully at 2010-03-22 03:02 PM

Alright, religious discrimination also shouldn't be dependent upon appearance, but it often is - and that's wrong.

There are a majority of Gay people who don't fit your stereotypes - that's right, and there are some who might. Archetypes occur naturally but are also invented through careful "social grooming", this isn't new to any one race either, as I've mentioned the minstrelsy programming that is still so apparent in Black Americans today. Asians have their own minstrelsy and so do Jews and Gays. We are all still having to act subservient to the power structure of a Straight White Christian minority who have exacted control through inequality and committing injustices since they followed the original settlers here and began massacring the Native Americans for their religion.

Once a person is discovered to be homosexual they would be "put to death", ie brutalized, humiliated, sexually abused and ultimately ritually murdered. Enslavement was more of a delayed sentence. But I can understand your confusion over such unimaginative distinctions. It probably "feels" different for Gays than Blacks, right?

"What you are saying is comparable to someone saying that they weren't as abused since he only stuck a finger in his ass and not his whole cock."

No it isn't.

"The argument should never be about who was treated worse as discrimination regardless of severity is still created by the same mind frame"

I've never said that discrimination was justified or that it shouldn't be addressed.

That doesn't mean that matters of degreee don't exist. One undermines their own credibility when they make melodramatic comparisons that the average immediately recognizes as exagerated. That gays should have equal rights is a position that can stand on its own merit without co-opting the far harsher experiences of others.

"We are all still having to act subservient to the power structure of a Straight White Christian minority who have exacted control through inequality and committing injustices since they followed the original settlers here and began massacring the Native Americans for their religion."

And homosexuals - ableit closeted - didn't participate in this at all? LOL.

"It probably "feels" different for Gays than Blacks, right?"

Does it feel different to be discriminated against 100% of the time than it does to be occasoinally discriminated against? Of course. You can go months without being made to feel like a lesser person over who you are. Pre-civil rights movement, that a black person was reminded multiple times every day. I really don't understand your need to pretend otherwise.

"What you are saying is comparable to someone saying that they weren't as abused since he only stuck a finger in his ass and not his whole cock."
No it isn't.
"The argument should never be about who was treated worse as discrimination regardless of severity is still created by the same mind frame"
I've never said that discrimination was justified or that it shouldn't be addressed.
That doesn't mean that matters of degreee don't exist. One undermines their own credibility when they make melodramatic comparisons that the average immediately recognizes as exagerated. That gays should have equal rights is a position that can stand on its own merit without co-opting the far harsher experiences of others.
#15 | Posted by sully at 2010-03-22 03:26 PM

"Far harsher" sounds like a Scandinavian village. I don't claim that more Gays were persecuted than Blacks, but that the struggle for equality is precisely the same, the injustices are exactly the same as well. Only, instead of a choice of enslavement we were brutally murdered, black or white.

"No it isn't"

So because you say so that ends it? Any logic to back up your assertion?

"But I can understand your confusion over such unimaginative distinctions."

I'm not confused. I disagree with you because you are clearly wrong.

"So because you say so that ends it? Any logic to back up your assertion?"

Yes, that's the rest of my post. There is a clear, substantive difference between being treated like a sub-human 100% of the time by by a an apartheid society and having no recourse and the experience of gays in America today. And I've explained why a few times already.

I really don't understand the need to pretend otherwise.

"the injustices are exactly the same as well."

"Only, instead of a choice of enslavement we were brutally murdered, black or white."

I'm talking about the modern struggle for gay rights - which mostly surrounds statuses like "married" or "family".

Do I support gays in their desire to be viewed the same as other families? Yes.

Does that mean I am willing to pretend we're talking about the same injustices that were pepetrated against blacks pre-civil rights movement? No. That's ridiculous.

"We are all still having to act subservient to the power structure of a Straight White Christian minority who have exacted control through inequality and committing injustices since they followed the original settlers here and began massacring the Native Americans for their religion."

And homosexuals - ableit closeted - didn't participate in this at all? LOL.

"It probably "feels" different for Gays than Blacks, right?"

Does it feel different to be discriminated against 100% of the time than it does to be occasoinally discriminated against? Of course. You can go months without being made to feel like a lesser person over who you are. Pre-civil rights movement, that a black person was reminded multiple times every day. I really don't understand your need to pretend otherwise.
#16 | Posted by Sully at 2010-03-22 03:30 PM

We are involved in every aspect of daily life - we are your brothers and sisters because we occur just as naturally as heterosexuals. Treating us differently is wholly unnatural.

As a Gay person I will tell you first-hand that I've been denied food and services from walk-in restaurants and stores, coffee shops, been harassed by strangers, bosses, police and PGE have all given me the "faggot" treatment. I'm respectful and never make a scene (although I have left a penny tip twice) but the point is that both Black and White are taught to hate Gays. My first experience with hate from a cop was a Native American who gave me a ticket for going 60 when my little mopeds engine doesn't reach over 30mph. It wouldn't matter if I were Black - in fact, it's undoubtedly much more difficult to exist as a minority of a minority, but the hate crimes are always the same. None of us are legally equal citizens so long as discrimination excludes any of us.

Are you Black? Can you describe this 100% of the time discrimination and possibly differentiate that from discrimination against Gays?

"Are you Black?"

No. But what I'm talking about is historical record, not anectodotal evidence so it hardly matters.

"Can you describe this 100% of the time discrimination and possibly differentiate that from discrimination against Gays?"

Go research pre-civil rights southern apartheid.

This shit is common knowledge. Perhaps the issue is that you are ignorant to what others experienced.

"Are you Black?"

No. But what I'm talking about is historical record, not anectodotal evidence so it hardly matters.

"Can you describe this 100% of the time discrimination and possibly differentiate that from discrimination against Gays?"

Go research pre-civil rights southern apartheid.
This shit is common knowledge. Perhaps the issue is that you are ignorant to what others experienced.
#23 | Posted by Sully at 2010-03-22 03:58 PM

Well, I'm glad we've established that the struggles of yesterday and today are so similar. And I fully agree that being ignorant to your history is a really sad excuse for perpetuating those mistakes, like those assholes busting The Rainbow Lodge a couple weeks back and those teabaggers yelling "nigger" at the two Black representatives and screaming "faggot" the Gay one. Crimes against Gays are ongoing to this day.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has recently claimed that Gays do not exist in Iran.. I wonder how they might persecute their Gays without all of the Black/White divide to classify their hate crimes? Should they scream "niggot" or "fagger"?

"Well, I'm glad we've established that the struggles of yesterday and today are so similar. And I fully agree that being ignorant to your history is a really sad excuse for perpetuating those mistakes"

I'm not sure we've agreed on anything but if it makes you feel happy....

"Crimes against Gays are ongoing to this day."

Never said they aren't. What I said is that not to the same degree - either in frequency or harshness - as crimes against blacks pre-civil rights movement. And that's still true.

"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has recently claimed that Gays do not exist in Iran.. I wonder how they might persecute their Gays without all of the Black/White divide to classify their hate crimes? Should they scream "niggot" or "fagger"?"

Not sure what Iran has to do with what we were talking about. If you want to say that gays in Iran have it as bad or worse than blacks did in this country prior to the civil rights movement, I wouldn't disagree with you. As for what word they use, I don't know what they are are but I'm sure they have many.

"Well, I'm glad we've established that the struggles of yesterday and today are so similar. And I fully agree that being ignorant to your history is a really sad excuse for perpetuating those mistakes"

I'm not sure we've agreed on anything but if it makes you feel happy....

It would make me less inclined to believe that you are averting from the main thrust of and excuses for inequality throughout centuries or decades is precisely the same then as now.

"Crimes against Gays are ongoing to this day."

Never said they aren't. What I said is that not to the same degree - either in frequency or harshness - as crimes against blacks pre-civil rights movement. And that's still true.

That's not correct. The violence committed against Gays can be far more disturbing and long-standing imo. Ever since the Christian fundamentalism has gotten it's claws on this Nation we've experienced precisely the kind of inequality as any other fundamentalist Nation currently displays. Social hate programming is ongoing and perpetuated by institutionalized religion.

"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has recently claimed that Gays do not exist in Iran.. I wonder how they might persecute their Gays without all of the Black/White divide to classify their hate crimes? Should they scream "niggot" or "fagger"?"

Not sure what Iran has to do with what we were talking about. If you want to say that gays in Iran have it as bad or worse than blacks did in this country prior to the civil rights movement, I wouldn't disagree with you. As for what word they use, I don't know what they are are but I'm sure they have many.
#25 | Posted by Sully at 2010-03-22 04:39 PM

You kinda put that together already - that Gays are cruelly murdered by religiously intolerant brothers and sisters. A rather unnatural reaction to each other propagated by religion. Prior to the civil rights movement Blacks were not permitted to marry Whites - this is precisely the same argument today with Gays. We have yet to achieve what ethnic minorities have, yet we represent every ethnic minority. Astounding!

"That's not correct. The violence committed against Gays can be far more disturbing and long-standing imo. Ever since the Christian fundamentalism has gotten it's claws on this Nation we've experienced precisely the kind of inequality as any other fundamentalist Nation currently displays. Social hate programming is ongoing and perpetuated by institutionalized religion."

Where do you live? I've never been anywhere in the US where violence against gays in acceptable but there is much of the country I haven't seen. Seems to me if this were happening on a large scale, it would be reported.

"It would make me less inclined to believe that you are averting from the main thrust of and excuses for inequality throughout centuries or decades is precisely the same then as now"

I haven't made any excuses for inequality nor have I avoided the issue. For example, I see no reason why anyone would care whether gays marry each other other than being a total asshole. I'm still not going to say apples are oranges. They might be similar but they are not the same. Gays do not suffer institutionalized apartheid that affects every aspect of life. That doesn't mean I don't see that they are denied some rights or that I don't have a problem with it. Quite frankly, I don't know why people care so much about gay marriage.

"It would make me less inclined to believe that you are averting from the main thrust of and excuses for inequality throughout centuries or decades is precisely the same then as now"

I haven't made any excuses for inequality nor have I avoided the issue. For example, I see no reason why anyone would care whether gays marry each other other than being a total asshole. I'm still not going to say apples are oranges. They might be similar but they are not the same. Gays do not suffer institutionalized apartheid that affects every aspect of life. That doesn't mean I don't see that they are denied some rights or that I don't have a problem with it. Quite frankly, I don't know why people care so much about gay marriage.

forgive me if someone already said this, i was to lazy to read all the comments, but they were told a legal marriage by the state law or joint tax return represented a family. i'm sure the people who refused them had ulterior motives, but their definition of a family is not completely exclusive to same sex couples. if a gay couple who had one or both of the requirement applied for the family discount, would they be accepted.

I still don't understand why it's acceptable for lefties or gays to use the term "teabaggers" as an insult. You can't have it both ways. You can't decry the term "faggot", then term around and denigrate the other side by calling them faggots.

they are named teabaggers for the boston tea party. many of them call each themselves and each other that without taking offense. the phrase has a double meaning and a different co notation depending on context and maturity of the one using it. "faggot" on the other hand has a very bad connotation diverging from when gays where more heavily persecuted. look it up before you make an invalid comparison.

They refer to each other as Tea Partiers. Teabaggers was introduced on MSNBC, and the guy who used it apologized.

How about "queers"? That okay? I've heard of Queer Nation, after all. They also call each other Queens, had a big band and everything. So why do they take umbrage when Barney Frank is called "The Banking Queen"?

Just askin'. I think it's all kinda funny that gay jokes are in again, and it's all because of Joe Scarborough.

i've seen footage of tea partiers calling themselve teabagger. there are some people angry about the "banking queen" but the gay people i know think it's funny. a joke here and there are not all that bad, it is refusing service biased on orientation that is.

on a side note, do you think they did this because of recent events, or they would have always held this stance.

so let me get this straight

the Young mens CHRISTIAN Association wont allow gays to join..
GEE....isnt that strange of some of you to blow a gasket over this..

dont get all juiced up over health care bankruptcy from last night..settle down and prepare.... for the revolution begins tomorrow

They refer to each other as Tea Partiers. Teabaggers was introduced on MSNBC, and the guy who used it apologized.

That's not how it started. Some Tea Partiers called themselves "teabaggers" and had signs about teabagging people. This spread like wildfire among liberals who knew the sexual meaning thought it was funny as hell.

dont get all juiced up over health care bankruptcy from last night..settle down and prepare.... for the revolution begins tomorrow

#35 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2010-03-22 09:00 PM | Reply | Flag

why did you put that in. it has nothing to do with the topic on hand. keep the raving to a related thread.

dont get all juiced up over health care bankruptcy from last night..settle down and prepare.... for the revolution begins tomorrow

#35 | Posted by afkabl2

What? Are you going to double up on your Geritol and stay at the library until closing...again?

So why do they take umbrage when Barney Frank is called "The Banking Queen"?

Blacks call each other nigga all the time. You try calling a black person a nigga, even a friend of yours (assuming you actually have any black friends).

Get it?

Actually, the Gay American experience isn't too unlike any other persecuted minority. The differences being substantial in the minds of bigots.

#5 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2010-03-22 12:29 PM | Reply

Right...skin color versus where someone sticks their pecker.

Who someone is versus what someone does.

One it is impossible to change, one people make decisions to act out on or not everyday.

Too subtle for you, I guess...or you enjoy name-calling.

"versus where someone sticks their pecker."

So since that's such a benchmark for you, let me ask you two questions:

1. Do you support second-class citizenry for all heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex?

2. Do you support complete equal rights for gay couples who don't engage in anal sex?

"one people make decisions to act out on or not everyday."

Really? Do you have to make a decision every day whether or not to "stick your pecker" into another man's anus?

Who someone is versus what someone does.

A gay person is gay regardless of whether they have gay sex. It is sexual orientation, not behavior.

Quite frankly, I don't know why people care so much about gay marriage.

I see no reason why anyone would care whether gays marry each other other than being a total asshole.

You answered your own question there Sully.

Who someone is versus what someone does.

I can already see a pileup forming over this one, but let me just add this:

Your statement clearly demonstrates that you have never had a gay friend, or maybe never even talked to a gay person at all.

So if they have adopted kids ages 14 and 20--which name, if any, did the kids take??

------

It seems that the definition of family needs to updated.

In the meantime, they can sign up at the YWCA as is. And it's around the corner.

sick of gay rights... wtf is that... you choose to be with who you choose. no need to get rights for it... keep your sex life to your self. How fucking hard is that.

The Y has the right to turn down who ever they want. If you don't like it. don't go to the Y. don't give them your money. Go start a gay only club.

The Y has the right to turn down who ever they want.

If they turned down white people, or conservatives, you'd be bitching and you know it. Don't be so obtuse.

no need to get rights for it

Heterosexuals get rights. So why not homosexuals?

#49 I would just not go there and tell everyone I know not to spend money there. Would I sue? no. They are free to do bizz like that.

you think they should get righs like a minority?

Maybe they are using GayDar

you think they should get righs like a minority?

Are they a minority? If so, yes. And that's the least I could expect. Ideally, sexuality does not have a majority/minority status. Everyone enjoys sex, regardless of color, race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc.

Can't we all just fuck along?

Remove religion from the Y and allow every family membership.
^^
Uhm, you do know that its the "Young Mens CHRISTIAN Association" right?

Kind of interested in the motivation to be honest. Why, if someone is so sensitive about discrimination, would they want to join an organization that doesn't want them as a member???

It's fun to stay at the ...YYYYY...

* record scratching noise *

Sorry? Wot's that?

Wotta ya mean "NOT a family"?!

FTA: The YMCA of Northwest North Carolina is the only large metropolitan YMCA in the state that doesn't allow same-sex couples to get family memberships.

Ah, one of them last pockets of regressive resistance to moral evolution.

In North Carolina ya say?

Well, knock Spud over with a feather why don't ya!

Qu'elle farking surprize!

Be Well.

The Y didn't say they cannot join, they only said they cannot join as a Family (ie with a discount).
They can join as indiviuals. Ohhh, poor little gay couple has to pay full price. What an injustice.

Ohhh, poor little gay couple has to pay full price. What an injustice.

Would you be offended if they gave you the same deal for whatever reason? Be honest.

Ohhh, poor little gay couple has to pay full price. What an injustice.

If it's no big deal then why not grant gay couples equal status with straight couples?

Why continue to discriminate?

To make a point?

Wot point would that be?

Be Well.

Or, to eliminate the problem, why not get rid of family discount? Then everyone is equal.

To be told you don't get the special, you have to pay full price is not real discrimination.

Some asshole decided to be an asshole. He did not refuse service. He is not the government, so you can't cry about equal protection.

I don't have a problem with gays, they have been around for as long as humans have been.

I agree that the term family needs to be modified to include anyone each person considers to be part of their family. If my best friend is in the hospital and only "family memebers" can visit, then I want to be included. My friend should be able to say, here is a list of people to be considered my family.

But the Government is a whole nother issue.

This thread is about a private entity, not the government.

:@))

Have a gay old time!

Maybe our "american culture" should bring back bath houses...or maybe locker rooms should be segregated by gender AND sexuality. Hell, segregate EVERYTHING like that! Does that sound homophobic?

Kind of interested in the motivation to be honest. Why, if someone is so sensitive about discrimination, would they want to join an organization that doesn't want them as a member???

#55 | Posted by Lohocla

ah yes GROUCHO....good one

It's fun to stay at the ...YYYYY...

* record scratching noise *

one of the stupiiest and worst songs unleashed on man ..well maybe 2nd to achy breaky heart

DAMN...wish I had written either one...lol

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$

When will the Dems learn that waving gay-rights all over the place loses them votes?

#62

Sorta but reversed....Groucho wasn't interested in joining a club that actually wanted him to be a member. :)

Loh

LOH,
Closer. Groucho would never join any club that would allow a person like him to join it.

The word represented by the "C" in YMCA is "Christian." Christians can not support homosexuality nor should they be compeled to do so.

Christians can not support homosexuality nor should they be compeled to do so.

But they should help homosexuals. Hate the sin, not the sinner.

68 | Posted by kanrei

Amen, tight-wad!

;-)

Maybe they are using GayDar
#53 | Posted by daprof at 2010-03-23 12:56 AM

Wow, what an interesting article. Quite excellent.

I agree that there are at least four physical sexes and only two of them possess equal rights.

As for the "Christian" in the name - I've never experienced anything like discrimination from the YMCA or YWCA which I've been lucky enough to have available growing up. The fact is that individually we generally can "get along", but en mass representing a religion and "we do what we're told" [pause] "told to do" [awesomeness]. This isn't natural, it's behavior that's likely been implanted, blah, whimper, whatever. Yes, deep within their families, families order was strictly maintained. It's when the specific individuals are encouraged to be excluded from their family, removed from any hope of "normal" relationships ever. That's that. Actually, it's not enough - because it turns out that we're all likable enough they know full well what they are doing is wrong. To ostracize and enforce homophobia is hypocritical at least of Christians. The fucking Village People outed them fabulously! What more could they ask? This YMCA is acting like that gold-digging acquaintance around whatchamafuckit's face.. Garn?

Actually, the Gay American experience isn't too unlike any other persecuted minority. The differences being substantial in the minds of bigots.

#5 | Posted by redlightrobot

Same with the American experience of having 3 wives. I was born this way and I don't understand why sociital norms matter. I want it, so you should throw out your stupid antiquated morals, and make the government endorse it with special protections.

This is why there are NO CHRISTIANS on the left.

"and make the government endorse it with special protections"

Name one "special protection" gays want that my wife and I didn't get the moment we said "I do".

Hate crime legislation

I don't think they allow unmarried "straight couples" to have family memberships either.

Sully:

How many black kids were throw out on the streets from their homes - for being black?

How many black kids have committed suicide because they were black and persecuted.

How many blacks have been kicked out of the military for being black in the past 15 years?

How many blacks have been fired in the past 25 years for being Black.

How many blacks have been ridiculed and excised from their churches for being black?

Which is worse? Meeting a black and treating him bad from the start because of your prejudice?

Or meeting someone, becoming friends, finding out your friend is really gay and then CHOOSING to be a bigot.

Which is worse: Fucked-Up Socially intilled prejudice, or Fucked-Up religiously instilled PRE-MEDITATIVE prejudice?

I know which TWO Jesus wouldn't like. Obviously you don't.

And that's because the real problem in both civil rights struggles are the people like YOU. Not blacks. Not Gays.

If people like YOU didn't treat Gay people as horrible as you do, with unfettered religious-nutured hatred, there would be no need for a civil rights movement at all.

Look in the Mirror, Moron. YOU are the threat you seek.

"Hate crime legislation"

My head is going to explode.

So, because gays are specifically picked on, and don't want to be specifically targeted for hate crimes, that's a "special protection"???

What a moron.

"I don't think they allow unmarried "straight couples" to have family memberships either."

But there's one big, fundamental difference. Are you smart enough to figure it out?

"Same with the American experience of having 3 wives. I want it..."

Misplaced indignation, with no sense of reality. As logical as your imaginary world may seem when you dream it up, it is no substitute.

But for the sake of argument :)

If you did somehow manage to convince 3 women to marry you, do you think you'd be fired from your job because of it? Denied housing because you have too many women fawning over you? Beaten in the street for holding hands with your three wives?

"This is why there are NO CHRISTIANS on the left.

#71 | Posted by RIGHTPOLICY "

You're a joke.

We have a few at our YMCA. They don't bother anyone. They stick to the butt firming equipment.

For a panty waist lib FINDER makes a good argument, unlike LETUSPREY who makes the usual "liar liar pants on fire" arguments.

"butt firming"

"panty waist"

I'll bet it's crowded in that closet.

"For a panty waist lib"

hehe, I will take the compliment :)

I'll never understand church-style religion and the war against gays, so I guess I'm doomed to always be a liberal. Gays are one of those groups though, that if everybody lets go of pre-conceived notions/stereotypes and tries to engage each other honestly, both sides might find out they aren't as different as we all seem to think.

There will always be obnoxious gays that grate on your nerves just like any other obnoxious person would, but I think a lot of gays just want the chance to show their lifestyle can be lived in a healthy, American way. The more we demonize them in speech, and the more actual oppressions they have to hold up as examples, the more likely they are to feel the need to distinguish themselves from the perceived norms.

Just imagine how it would ruin the day for so many liberals if being gay was just normal and left alone? They'd have nothing to bitch about! No self-righteous sense of injustice to lord over their more conservative countrymen.

Surely, even a conservative can see the appeal here :)

Yes FINDER, everytime some gay suffers the slightest mistreatment, conservatives everywhere take some shots. You said it more eloquently, thanks.

"Actually, the Gay American experience isn't too unlike any other persecuted minority. The differences being substantial in the minds of bigots.
#5 | Posted by redlightrobot"

Same with the American experience of having 3 wives. I was born this way and I don't understand why sociital norms matter. I want it, so you should throw out your stupid antiquated morals, and make the government endorse it with special protections.
This is why there are NO CHRISTIANS on the left.
#71 | Posted by RIGHTPOLICY at 2010-03-23 04:47 PM

Morality = normalcy? Well, that's rather up for interpretation. There is an obvious unity that permeates the best Disney communities, but that's unfortunately not the "norm", is it? Every neighborhood contains dozens of unique family "experiences" and each generation apparently becomes less socially recognizable to it's predecessors. Society's tapestry evolves and crude, fraudulent behaviors are generally less and less tolerated or encouraged, religious fundamentalism being an important uncompromising component. Pacifism should be complimentary to safety, and sometime dictatorships like the Church interestingly end up depending upon aggressive tactics to combat enlightened elements that threaten to change it's power structure. One favored tactic being "the bigot".

Dehumanization is the simplest means to bypassing most rational resolution to a bigot encounter - expect this in kind. You can usually expect them to hungrily go after brains (like in the movies) so be prepared with a shovel or an axe to remove the godhead, the most certain way to kill a bigot. Most of you probably possess anatomical charts displaying your favorite techniques, but in this demonstration we're merely attempting to subdue, then rend, nothing aesthetically preconceived - but that doesn't mean that you are not expected to use a little brain power.

First it's always important to wash your hands before you decide to hunt out a bigot to decapitate. Attempting this process without this first step is the most common hunting accident. Prepare yourself with honesty and lemon squares.

Next you might need to massage your bigot - they are in actuality extraordinarily tamable under many conditions. This sometimes requires alcohol, but could quickly devolve from "hysterical hootenanny" to "bigatron bashathon" upon the wrong musical score, so do not succumb to the excitable likes of Korn or Tool until you have secured the bigots and prepared your appropriate verbal cutlery.

Since all of the best bloodsport involves fashionable posing and trite one-liners make a short list of Japanese game show ridicules. Spike is rife with these sorts of monkey affairs. Record these for posterity if possible.

After you've completed grandstanding the subdued bigot is next divided into simplistic themes, often decrying persecution and flailing absently. This is an indication of a comfortless, anti-social response and might appear distracting, so a shovel-load of sympathy to the face tends to slow down their rage for only a few moments. Clarify your intentions and expectations whenever prudent.

Sometimes the best defense is a good pre-emptive strike. Assume that Jesus wouldn't associate with militants of their ilk - churches having been the centerpiece to this debate since their inception. In this regard the bigot can obviously find fault with many other faiths, which merely helps to determine their own cruel, "religious" intentions.

"Which bigotry is the right bigotry?" quoth the moron, and so there is no good explanation for which religion deserves institutionalization and which elements are "evolved". The debate might end with "I prefer none" or even the surprising "all or none" approach - be creative when wrapping this issue up!

By now the bigot will be simpering on it's knees, probably blubbering loudly. The best position for severing their ideology is to allow them to do it first. If this doesn't work you could try the fire and brimstone methods to social awareness and employ your own militant religious zealots. Again, think creatively.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable