Andrew Sullivan being gay and the gay agenda on CSPAN.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Andrew Sullivan being gay and the gay agenda on CSPAN.

I like this guy. He is catholic, AND GAY, but sees ALL minorities, not just gays, going about becoming mainstream the wrong way. He, like I, as a minority atheist, do not see government protectionism as the proper tactic. He says by doing such those who don't like us, will see us as getting special treatement and create more division and hate.

He has the same attitude I do as an atheist. Let the words fly and FIGHT BACK. He says that he is unafraid of what any bigot has to say and the best way to counter them is not to silence them, but to raise one's own voice.

HE also says that he wishes minority activist groups wouldn't have to exist. I agree, much like many soldiers or police which that their jobs didn't exist. He says that he, like I do, want to see a day when we are seen, not as "African Americans" or "Irish Americans" or "gay Americans" and I think he would include "atheist Americans, in that we are simply all individuals.

I get down on people who have really good intent in wanting to end bigotry and my issue has never been intent, but tactic. He would agree with me that SOME on the left, are going about it the wrong way. He like I would say, "Don't silence the bigots", fight back with your own voice.

He would say, "BRING IT ON!. I AM NOT AFRAID OF YOU".

I am the same way as an atheist. I don't tell others not to say,"You are going to burn in hell". I simply say, "You are full of shit and have no evidence".

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/292154-1

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Always nice to hear a devout

Always nice to hear a devout catholic accuse the pope of bigotry.

If that guy's a conservative, then so am I.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Always nice

Anonymouse wrote:

Always nice to hear a devout catholic accuse the pope of bigotry.

If that guy's a conservative, then so am I.

"conservative" is a broad label just like "liberal".

He describes himself as "conservative" most likely on the issue of abortion and economics. He did spend some time in his speech talking about the Log Cabin republicans.

One can be economically conservative but socially liberal.

I myself am socially liberal but don't agree with law being used by the left to censor speech. I am in the middle as far as ecnomics. I don't think government planned economies work, but our current "free for all, every man for himself" market isn't working either. I prefer less government, but that depends on the responsibility of our free market self regulating and shouldn't be surprised when government steps in to protect the middle and poor classes because of market abuse.

I am for gun ownership, even though I won't own one myself. BUT I also believe that having an armory in your house is a bit too much.

I would be for the death penalty IF we didn't have such a lopsided justice system that doesn't protect the poor accused . Since there are too many flaws in our system that don't go far enough in protecting the poor, I am against it.

"liberal" and "conservative" depend upon specific issues and are bad generalizations of individuals.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
He has some interesting

He has some interesting things to say, but the fact that he's so clearly a misogynist makes a lot of the other things he says seem suspect. And when you translate his defense of the Boy Scouts to equal opportunity employment laws for people of color, it starts to look quite a bit more wide reaching and sinister than just "learning how to camp." Some of the things he proposes are just downright dangerous. "Bring it on?" Seriously? I applaud the courage of the Stonewall drag queens as loudly as he does, but I'd like to see him say that to the friends and family of Matthew Shephard, or to the incredible number of women who are raped every day. Not everyone is capable or willing to fight in the same way as others, and they deserve just as much to live without fear.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:He did spend

Brian37 wrote:
He did spend some time in his speech talking about the Log Cabin republicans.

Yeah, about how there aren't any anymore. And then he mentioned how many openly gay MPs are going to be in government if the conservative party wins the next election in GB. That was pretty interesting. Didn't even know they had that many.

Brian37 wrote:
"liberal" and "conservative" depend upon specific issues and are bad generalizations of individuals.

Oh, I completely agree. How some americans use those terms confuses the heck out of me anyway.

Still, it was refreshing to hear a guy ,who describes himself as conservative, admit that the republican party is now a fundamentalist party. And I have to say, I like this guy too. Not the best speaker I ever heard, but he seemed genuinely angry about the american involvement in the ugandan anti-gay laws. Even though I heard all his arguments before, he seemed sincere and involved in what he was saying. I think I'll be sending this link to a couple of catholics who are on the fence about the whole gay issue.

"By reason, not by feeling, this argument is over" 

Yeah, maybe some day...

Anyway, good vid. Thanks for posting.

 

 

 

 


 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:He has

smartypants wrote:

He has some interesting things to say, but the fact that he's so clearly a misogynist makes a lot of the other things he says seem suspect. And when you translate his defense of the Boy Scouts to equal opportunity employment laws for people of color, it starts to look quite a bit more wide reaching and sinister than just "learning how to camp." Some of the things he proposes are just downright dangerous. "Bring it on?" Seriously? I applaud the courage of the Stonewall drag queens as loudly as he does, but I'd like to see him say that to the friends and family of Matthew Shephard, or to the incredible number of women who are raped every day. Not everyone is capable or willing to fight in the same way as others, and they deserve just as much to live without fear.

Smarty, neither him being gay, or I being atheist are saying that everyone should fight the same way. But what I see is that SOME, NOT ALL, but some on the "left" don't want anyone taking our tactic and don't want anyone blaspheming any minority ever for any reason.

I myself would suggest if you don't want to be " in your face"' becuase of fear, that is understndable.

Long before I was an atheist, growing up I was bullied and beaten up by the kids on the block, and constantly had to worry about the jocks in highschool. I know the fear of of looking over your shoulder, the pain of being an outsider because I was different, a dork, geek. I know that pain. Being beaten up and called names doesn't change the pain. You don't need a label to feel pain.

But you are not special because of your label. I am not special because I am an atheist. What happened to blacks, Native Americans, women, Jews, gays and even the distrust of atheists today, IS NOT unique to human behavior in our entire species evolutionary history. WE SHOULD NEVER FORGET THESE HORRIBLE EVENTS.

MY ISSUE has never been "either/or" but TACTIC.

Do not confuse issues. If you are not comfortable jumping in their face with the boxing gloves on, dont. What I don't like is the tactic of using government laws to silence someone who says mean things about you. WE say mean things about theists. They will see what we say as mean, EVEN IF IT ISN'T.

You cannot deny that out of the 10s of thousands of posts on this website there isn't ONE? That a Christian could look at and say, "That is hate speech, government silence them!" Do you really want government having that kind of power over you?

The people it will hurt the most by silencing others are the ones the laws are supposed to protect.

You DON'T have to be an "in your face fighter" like me or others. Just don't silence others, including those who don't like you. All I am saying is use your own voice, be it in a polite manor, or a boxing ring manor, to fight your battle.

Intent and tactic are different subjects. I love the social intent of progressives on the left. I simply don't like censorship via government as a tactic. If you want to fight your battle in the library, fine. But others are not afraid of jumping in the ring. And the worst thing you can do to your own voice is to demand the  silence of those who don't like you in the majority because they in turn will use those same laws to silence you.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:smartypants

Brian37 wrote:

smartypants wrote:

He has some interesting things to say, but the fact that he's so clearly a misogynist makes a lot of the other things he says seem suspect. And when you translate his defense of the Boy Scouts to equal opportunity employment laws for people of color, it starts to look quite a bit more wide reaching and sinister than just "learning how to camp." Some of the things he proposes are just downright dangerous. "Bring it on?" Seriously? I applaud the courage of the Stonewall drag queens as loudly as he does, but I'd like to see him say that to the friends and family of Matthew Shephard, or to the incredible number of women who are raped every day. Not everyone is capable or willing to fight in the same way as others, and they deserve just as much to live without fear.

Smarty, neither him being gay, or I being atheist are saying that everyone should fight the same way. But what I see is that SOME, NOT ALL, but some on the "left" don't want anyone taking our tactic and don't want anyone blaspheming any minority ever for any reason.

I myself would suggest if you don't want to be " in your face"' becuase of fear, that is understndable.

Long before I was an atheist, growing up I was bullied and beaten up by the kids on the block, and constantly had to worry about the jocks in highschool. I know the fear of of looking over your shoulder, the pain of being an outsider because I was different, a dork, geek. I know that pain. Being beaten up and called names doesn't change the pain. You don't need a label to feel pain.

But you are not special because of your label. I am not special because I am an atheist. What happened to blacks, Native Americans, women, Jews, gays and even the distrust of atheists today, IS NOT unique to human behavior in our entire species evolutionary history. WE SHOULD NEVER FORGET THESE HORRIBLE EVENTS.

MY ISSUE has never been "either/or" but TACTIC.

Do not confuse issues. If you are not comfortable jumping in their face with the boxing gloves on, dont. What I don't like is the tactic of using government laws to silence someone who says mean things about you. WE say mean things about theists. They will see what we say as mean, EVEN IF IT ISN'T.

You cannot deny that out of the 10s of thousands of posts on this website there isn't ONE? That a Christian could look at and say, "That is hate speech, government silence them!" Do you really want government having that kind of power over you?

The people it will hurt the most by silencing others are the ones the laws are supposed to protect.

You DON'T have to be an "in your face fighter" like me or others. Just don't silence others, including those who don't like you. All I am saying is use your own voice, be it in a polite manor, or a boxing ring manor, to fight your battle.

Intent and tactic are different subjects. I love the social intent of progressives on the left. I simply don't like censorship via government as a tactic. If you want to fight your battle in the library, fine. But others are not afraid of jumping in the ring. And the worst thing you can do to your own voice is to demand the  silence of those who don't like you in the majority because they in turn will use those same laws to silence you.

You're missing the points. There is a hierarchy, sad to say. Blacks weren't systematically led into gas chambers by a fascist government. Gays weren't subjected to forced labor or systematically lynched by mobs in the name of some corrupt form of "justice." And no one ever got strung up on a fence and left to die a painful, terrifying death for being a "geek." Suicide might be a different story, but that's a personal choice, and it's well documented that we've historically led in those numbers, as well.

What I'm saying is that his call to arms on behalf of the whole group is dangerously irresponsible. If he wants to fight it out, he's welcome to do so. Matthew Shephard was clearly incapable, or out-numbered, or whatever else, and paid for it with his life.

It's the difference between words and actions, and I've discussed the connections between them elsewhere. I'm obviously not bothered by a heated argument, but I don't want to be surrounded by a bunch of angry rednecks in a back alley who think I want them to "bring it on."

The same goes for the Boy Scouts. If companies and organizations were allowed to do this across the board, we'd be living in the 1940s. If all the largest corporations with the highest-paying jobs were to individually decide on moral grounds that they'd refuse to hire any people of color--and were protected by their right of "Free Speech"--not only would the economy collapse worse than it has, but you'd see a wide-spread oppression of a specific group of people that I'm sure you'd find abhorrent. This may be only one small, mostly irrelevant institution, but the principle is the same. I'd also like to point out that until somewhat recently, black children were not welcome in the Boy Scouts, either.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I don't know what you are

I don't know what you are leading to, but I hope you wouldn't say "If this guy takes an in your face tactic he is responsible for any gay harmed". I hope that is not what you are saying. Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

Secondly, as far as the Boy Scouts. WHO SAYS their discrimination should be put up with? Not me.

You are confusing issues here.

He and I would say that their free speech should be protected. Just as you and I would want our free speech protected.

AGAIN, you are confusing that with TACTIC. The issue is HOW one goes about fighting bigotry.

If you want to cut of public funding to that organization because of their discrimination I am with you. You want to boycott a business or organization, I am with you. You want to write letters to that organization or to the media to appeal to the masses as to why they should end their discrimination, I am with you.

WHAT NO ONE CAN OR SHOULD DO is outlaw something because we find it offensive or hateful.  This site could very easily be seen as a "hate speech" site, if Christians really wanted to use claims of bigotry towards them to silence us. You start letting government have that kind of law language you can very easily put government in the position of playing morality and thought police. Considering that atheists are outnumbered, I think that is a BAD TACTIC.

Here is a worldwide reality. There are 6 billion people and it is impossible to get everyone to always like you or always say nice things about you. For either side of any position to expect such is DELUSIONAL.

WHAT is realistic is COMMON LAW, the idea that we don't want to be harmed with the empathy that we also want to be free from fear from our neighbor or goverment when we bitch about things we don't like.

Laws are ALREADY IN PLACE that make it criminal to harm someone or advocate the harm of someone.

Ireland is where good intent will lead. Atheists there can now risk hefty fines and or arrest for merely offending a Christian whom can merely say "That is hate speech".

THAT is where your good intent will lead given enough time. Be careful what you wish for.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I like this

Brian37 wrote:

I like this guy. He is catholic, AND GAY, but sees ALL minorities, not just gays, going about becoming mainstream the wrong way. He, like I, as a minority atheist, do not see government protectionism as the proper tactic. He says by doing such those who don't like us, will see us as getting special treatement and create more division and hate.

He has the same attitude I do as an atheist. Let the words fly and FIGHT BACK. He says that he is unafraid of what any bigot has to say and the best way to counter them is not to silence them, but to raise one's own voice.

HE also says that he wishes minority activist groups wouldn't have to exist. I agree, much like many soldiers or police which that their jobs didn't exist. He says that he, like I do, want to see a day when we are seen, not as "African Americans" or "Irish Americans" or "gay Americans" and I think he would include "atheist Americans, in that we are simply all individuals.

I get down on people who have really good intent in wanting to end bigotry and my issue has never been intent, but tactic. He would agree with me that SOME on the left, are going about it the wrong way. He like I would say, "Don't silence the bigots", fight back with your own voice.

He would say, "BRING IT ON!. I AM NOT AFRAID OF YOU".

I am the same way as an atheist. I don't tell others not to say,"You are going to burn in hell". I simply say, "You are full of shit and have no evidence".

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/292154-1

 

 

I completely agree with this premise... changing language fosters bigotry... changing the "F" word to "fag" does more harm than good...

 

For instance my personal opinion is that Gays should be accorded every liberty the general population has... In my opinion, this shouldn't even be an issue as social discrimination is unconstitutional.... So adoption, marriage...whatever... equal (and more) rights for everyone... Gay people make the world better...period... art, music, dance... all the things that make the world a better place they are representative of... in my opinion... if every gay person came out of the closet... things would be much better, and the republican party would be devatated...

 

But that having been said... when it comes right down to it... Gays choke each other's mules, and pound one another in the keister... personally I think that's hilarious, and I am going to make many jokes about it... There is NO Hatred involved here... I do this in the same spirit that I make fun of people with my same ethnic background on "Jersey shore"... to imply that a population as large as the Gay community has no members who warrant satire because of their sillyness is in itself, Biased... in Short... Fags Rule... but like every other minority group who try to use language to gain political advatage... it will ultimately backfire (pun intended)...

 

I really shouldn't post before coffee...


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I don't know

Brian37 wrote:

I don't know what you are leading to, but I hope you wouldn't say "If this guy takes an in your face tactic he is responsible for any gay harmed". I hope that is not what you are saying. Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

Secondly, as far as the Boy Scouts. WHO SAYS their discrimination should be put up with? Not me.

You are confusing issues here.

He and I would say that their free speech should be protected. Just as you and I would want our free speech protected.

AGAIN, you are confusing that with TACTIC. The issue is HOW one goes about fighting bigotry.

If you want to cut of public funding to that organization because of their discrimination I am with you. You want to boycott a business or organization, I am with you. You want to write letters to that organization or to the media to appeal to the masses as to why they should end their discrimination, I am with you.

WHAT NO ONE CAN OR SHOULD DO is outlaw something because we find it offensive or hateful.  This site could very easily be seen as a "hate speech" site, if Christians really wanted to use claims of bigotry towards them to silence us. You start letting government have that kind of law language you can very easily put government in the position of playing morality and thought police. Considering that atheists are outnumbered, I think that is a BAD TACTIC.

Here is a worldwide reality. There are 6 billion people and it is impossible to get everyone to always like you or always say nice things about you. For either side of any position to expect such is DELUSIONAL.

WHAT is realistic is COMMON LAW, the idea that we don't want to be harmed with the empathy that we also want to be free from fear from our neighbor or goverment when we bitch about things we don't like.

Laws are ALREADY IN PLACE that make it criminal to harm someone or advocate the harm of someone.

Ireland is where good intent will lead. Atheists there can now risk hefty fines and or arrest for merely offending a Christian whom can merely say "That is hate speech".

THAT is where your good intent will lead given enough time. Be careful what you wish for.

You're just incorrect. I'm not talking at all about the things anyone says or writes; that and that alone is what "free speech" protects. But the general population can't be trusted to do what's right on their own. There are too many people with too many backward ideas, and usually they're frightened of change. You couldn't leave it to the general population of the South to decide whether or not slavery should be abolished, even proposing that would've been absurd. That's actually a very tidy example, as well, since their clinging to the system was as much economic as it was racist and inhumane. Bringing the rights of Christians in this country into the conversation is like saying we have to protect the rights of white people. They're in the majority and not an oppressed group, furthermore they wield all the power. You really should read up some more on the ways that power and oppression flow and operate.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:There are too many

Quote:
There are too many people with too many backward ideas, and usually they're frightened of change.

Right, so the way to make the change is beat them up the way you got beaten up? Treat them the way they treat you?

If you want your voice it would stand to reason they do too. So the only thing humans can agree on beyond disagreement is basic. You agree not to physically harm each other or advocate harm to others. But to say bitching is only afforded to one label is absurd. THAT is the human empathy that I see far too many people missing.

You confuse my defense of those I disagree with and hate as being as advocating their position. It is a mere recognition that I am human with the same flaws and emotions.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37