VIRGINIA REPUBLICANS PLAY QUEER CARD
Marc Stauffer
The following article appeared in todays The Washington Post. It makes me
vomit that the ads that are running are strictly homophobic. While Mark
Early and the Democratic ticket aren't of the Jeffords or Barney Frank
quality they are head and shoulders above their GOP opponents. The Log
Cabin Republican's in Virginia have taken what I would call a mildly
negative stand, they are again practicing apologetics.
As I've said before - the non presidential election years like this one are
as important or more important than the election for President. We have to
mobilize and mobilize now to defeat any candidate - Republican or Democrat
who uses this type of ad to promote hatred and exclusion from society.
I've called for a National Boycott of Virginia- "Virginia is for Bigots"
should be plastered every where. Strange - since I've moved to Virginia
some 13 years ago - I've voted for one Republican in the general elections.
Sad that a party that calls for societal stability does everything in its
power to destabilize healthy relationships - they don't even think about
the savings in public funds if gay unions were to be allowed.
If you are a Virginian - scream loud and long. THE QUEER CARD IS BEING
PLAYED AGAINST US!
Warriors - Marc
FYI - perhaps Chief Thracian is a little paranoid- but the reality of
candidates for governor here in Virginia make me wonder if we are paranoid
enough.....or is it reality hurts.
You have been sent this message from Stau...@washpost.com as a courtesy
of the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com).
To view the entire article, go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21791-2001Aug30.html
Va. GOP Attacks Democrats on Gays
By Craig Timberg
RICHMOND, Aug. 30 -- Republicans eager to portray the Virginia Democratic
ticket as "the most liberal" in state history are using mailings and radio
ads to paint the candidates as champions of homosexual rights and gay
marriage.
All three candidates on the ticket headed by the Democratic nominee for
governor, Mark R. Warner, today called the Republican ads
misrepresentations of their records. Gay rights organizations, including a
group of gay men and lesbians who are Republicans, criticized the ads as
distorted, divisive and irrelevant to the election.
Republicans are unapologetic. Warner's GOP rival, Mark L. Earley, has
touted his "Virginia values, not Vermont values," a reference to a state
that recognizes gay civil unions. The GOP nominee for lieutenant governor,
Jay Katzen, has been quoted in a Richmond magazine as saying that AIDS is a
product of people choosing to be homosexuals.
The Republican Party ads that started this week on mostly rural radio
stations feature a man and a woman talking about several policy positions
supposedly held by the Democrats, though only Warner's name is mentioned.
The ad never makes clear that Warner has voiced opposition to legalizing
gay unions.
The man says of the Democratic candidates, "One of them wants to legalize
gay marriage in Virginia." The woman responds: "Wait. Gay marriage in
Virginia?"
The man continues: "Oh, you haven't heard the worst of it. Mark Warner
opposed welfare reform and the abolition of parole for violent felons." The
ad ends by saying, "This message brought to you by the other guys, the ones
who share your values . . . the Republican Party of Virginia."
The tactics are similar to those used by U.S. Sen. George Allen (R) last
year in his successful campaign against Democratic incumbent Charles S.
Robb, when he portrayed Robb as out of step with Virginians. Allen coined
the term "Vermont values" to describe Robb and made frequent reference to
Robb's support for allowing gays to serve in the military and his
opposition to a bill that would have blocked federal recognition of gay
civil unions.
Similar tactics have emerged in campaigns across the nation, said Winnie
Stachelberg, political director for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's
largest gay political group. She said the attacks are becoming less common
but are still polarizing.
"This kind of appealing to fear and bigotry has no place in campaigns in
2001," Stachelberg said.
Ed Matricardi, executive director of the Republican Party of Virginia, said
the radio ads are fair because Warner and his running mates are portraying
themselves as centrists, not the liberals Matricardi said they really are.
"We don't think we've gone that far out on a limb," Matricardi said. "It's
overwhelming. . . . The people of Virginia do not support gay marriages."
Earley spokesman David B. Botkins said the issue illustrates "how Mark
Warner and his ticket mates are out of step and out of touch with the
majority of Virginians."
The GOP ad campaign grows out of comments made by Timothy M. Kaine, the
Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor, at a debate in May, before the
party primary's election.
Kaine, the mayor of Richmond and a civil rights lawyer, said he supported
the right of gay men and lesbians to enjoy the "civil benefits" of married
couples, such as the ability to hold property and pass it to heirs. He
added, "I also believe that civil benefits that are accorded to
heterosexual married couples should also be accorded to gay and lesbian
couples in long-term relationships."
Some newspapers reported the next day that Kaine supported legalizing gay
civil unions. Republicans have amplified those reports in their mailings
and in the radio ad.
Kaine vehemently denied today was his position, saying that although he
opposes discrimination against homosexuals and believes that the state's
hate-crimes law should protect gays, he is against allowing homosexuals to
marry or to join in a legally recognized civil union.
He also blasted Republicans for seeking to use the issue against him and
Warner.
"It's a campaign of bigotry and division," Kaine said. "Virginia's seen a
lot of that in its history, and it's never done one good thing for the
state."
In reply, Katzen issued a statement accusing Kaine of distortions and
asked, "Just what civil benefits do you have in mind for gay and lesbian
couples, Mr. Kaine?"
Last month, Katzen was quoted in Richmond's Style Weekly magazine as
saying: "AIDS is the product, sadly, in most cases of a choice that people
have made. . . . We recognize that homosexuality is a choice. It's a
lifestyle with public health consequences."
David Lampo, a spokesman for Log Cabin Republicans of Virginia, a group of
gay Republicans, said the candidates should stick to more important issues
such as tax policy and transportation. He added that club members were
discouraged by the Republican mailings and the radio ad and would register
their discontent with party leaders.
"If the Republican Party is going to grow, then it has to be an open,
inclusive party," Lampo said.
--
This is message #215.
**********
To post, send mail to <gay...@groups.queernet.org>.
To unsubscribe, send mail to <gaynet-un...@groups.queernet.org>.
(This may fail if your address has changed since you signed
up; if so, or for other assistance, contact <gaynet...@groups.queernet.org>.)
For information about other lists, or to create and manage a list on
a topic that interests you, see <http://www.queernet.org> for details.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Sean Robertson
vote for Early!!!! ;-)
--
This is message #216.
Marc Stauffer
Sean - Thanks for that - YES - VOTE for MARK WARNER - DEMOCRAT FOR GOV.
OF VIRGINIA
I was thinking Democrat but with Sen. John Warner the Republican....it's
hard to remember that this time the Warner is a Democrat.
Marc
--
This is message #226.
Chief Thracian
<stau...@washpost.com> wrote:
>FYI - perhaps Chief Thracian is a little paranoid- but the reality of
>candidates for governor here in Virginia make me wonder if we are paranoid
>enough.....or is it reality hurts.
Thank you. Clearly, IMO, most are not paranoid enough. I remember a
women's activist who said some years ago, that her definition of
paranoia is "heightened awareness". (Sorry, I forgot who it was.)
Today, it's boycott Virginia, tomorrow it's boycott all the southern
states, and the next day, it's boycott the entire friggin nation!
We are being steamrolled, no doubt about it. After all, science needs
our bodies. We can't compete with the enemies of Islam, if we don't
also begin experimenting for biological warfare, on real human bodies,
instead of guinea pigs, monkeys and computer software. Gays are the
most likely target for these laboratories.
You all should also know that our communities across this country are
being infiltrated by fundamentalists. They send attractive men and
women to hang out at our bars, cafes, clubs, etc., and befriend us,
pretending to be gay or at least gay friendly. Then once they've won
you over, they begin to insert anti-gay ideas in a "loving" and
"concerned" fashion, in order to begin the process of "conversion".
And if you don't go along with their agenda, you are written off as
salvageable, and put on their hit list...for the experimentation labs.
I have no doubts that these charlatans are lurking in *every gay list
or newsgroup, including GayNet...and participating.
Accusing such critics like myself as "paranoid" is a simple shield
that works quite well, in duping the dumbed-down masses. After all, if
gays at large weren't so easily duped, then none would ever vote for
the likes of "W" or Jesse Helms...or against a social safety net for
the less fortunate.
---
Hail Athenia, brave new gay nation!
Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #232.
Cheopys
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:37:32 -0400, "Marc Stauffer"
<stau...@washpost.com> wrote:
>FYI - perhaps Chief Thracian is a little paranoid- but the reality of
>candidates for governor here in Virginia make me wonder if we are paranoid
>enough.....or is it reality hurts.
Thank you. Clearly, IMO, most are not paranoid enough. I remember a
women's activist who said some years ago, that her definition of
paranoia is "heightened awareness". (Sorry, I forgot who it was.)
Today, it's boycott Virginia, tomorrow it's boycott all the southern
states, and the next day, it's boycott the entire friggin nation!
We are being steamrolled, no doubt about it. After all, science needs
our bodies. We can't compete with the enemies of Islam, if we don't
also begin experimenting for biological warfare, on real human bodies,
instead of guinea pigs, monkeys and computer software. Gays are the
most likely target for these laboratories.
Marc Stauffer
Dear Cheopys:
I want to make it clear that depending upon the region of the country where
you live a little paranoia can be very healthy. In Maryland - just across
the river from where I live there is a vigorous attempt at repealing equal
rights legislation.
In Virginia we have ads running state wide that say basicly that any
support or sympathy for gays is enough not to vote someone into our
governorship.
In Virginia it is illegal to offer domestic partner benefits - which The
Washington Post wanted to do for our Independent Contract Agents.
In Florida we have the Republican Judiciary ruling that the state does
indeed have a compelling reason not to allow gay adoptions. My niece called
her lawyer and was told that even though I am a blood relative that her and
her husband's wish that I be my niece's foster father in case of her and
her husbands death would not be allowed. My orientation over rides even
the nuclear family / blood connection.
In many states it is illegal for elderly gay couples to live in the same
apartment in assisted living facilities.
My lover can't collect my pension.
My lover will be taxed 20% off the top on my 401K and then have to pay
income tax on top of that - something a heterosexual wouldn't have to
deal with.
My lover won't get a death benefit from Social Security when I die or have
the option of choosing which is more - like a heterosexual spouse.
I think Mr. Heersink stated and he is certainly a tad more conservative
than me - that the term Religious Reich is indeed a good and appropriate
one. We have the Pope considering the excommunication of Catholic office
holders if they represent their constituents instead of the view of the
Roman Catholic Pontiff. We have Southern Baptists and Methodists and other
mainline Protestant denominations who teach "Homosexuality is not
compatible with Christian Beliefs."
I also agree with Mr. Heersink when he says that the word holocaust is
tossed about to casually. The only group in the United States to suffer a
holocaust and genocide is Native Americans. We use it so casually that its
real meaning and the horror of it is demeaning to those Jews, Gays and
Gypsies who died in concentration camps and to those among us who survived
and are still living.
In every high school in the United States we have gay teens bullied every
day of the year - and its perfectly legal.
I still work in the system - but a little paranoia is healthy when it is
obvious that we are being used as scape goats. Anger is also called for
being backed into an untenable corner by the examples I've mentioned and
many more that others could cite.
Yes, Since I was 18 at the time of Stonewall I've seen much progress; but
the older I get which brings yet new issues into my consciousness I am very
aware that the battle is long from over.
I'm not endorsing Chief Thracian, but to many gays are far to comfortable
disappearing into the woodwork thinking they can hide their orientation.
Warriors Marc
--
This is message #242.
Cheopys
I'm not endorsing Chief Thracian, but to many gays are far to comfortable
disappearing into the woodwork thinking they can hide their orientation.
But I had to take a second before I replied to your sentence above. This is a sentiment I have encountered over the years that frankly makes my blood boil.
Somewhere between "hiding our orientation" and being a demonstrative and rigidly-conforming clone there is a whole continuum of behavior and comportment, and it's important because the great majority of us are neither closeted nor Castro-Klones. Most of us are somewhere between these two poles; we're not closeted but neither are we in-your-face about being gay; that would be unnatural and false to us.
What bothers me is that people like Mr. Krahlin are quick to condemn those of us who are "gay but not queer" as being in hiding, as living with undeserved comfort behind a mask of respectability while our "queer brothers and sisters" are taking the brunt of the prejudice by being On around the clock. And then comes then sentiment I believe you are echoing above, that by not being as On as the others we are somehow letting them down, hiding, not doing our part.
Rubbish.
This is just another kind of rigidity and intolerance, eerily like that we claim to be against. What those who accuse us of "hiding" are really saying is that by being gay and respectable at once we're somehow less than authentic. You're not truly gay unless people six blocks away can tell you're gay. And that means, of course, you have to act and walk and talk and THINK exactly like ... people who act like obnoxious sixth-graders every hour of their lives.
Sorry folks but "accepting diversity" works both ways. There is more than one correct way to be gay. There are going to be extreme gays, locked into an unfinished and lifelong act of coming out; there are going to be closeted gays who even in a bigotry-free world would still not want anyone to know; there are going to be gays in just about every cross-section of life in America. There are even going to be Republican gays, though that one beats the hell out of me.
Sean Robertson
> OF VIRGINIA
>
> I was thinking Democrat but with Sen. John Warner the Republican....it's
> hard to remember that this time the Warner is a Democrat.
My boss recently made the same mistake. She started giving me greif for
having a Warner bumper sticker on my car (right next to my rainbow sticker,
and a "Freedom, Reason, Tolerance" Unitarian bumper sticker. (I'm sure
everyone at work knows I'm gay as a result of the sticker, but I don't ever
have a reason to talk about it. Needless to say, I corrected her and
prevented yet another good Democrat from voting Republican. ;-)
I can see Warner having a real problem with that. He's got a serious case
of reverse name recognition going on. Then again, who knows, maybe as many
Republicans will vote for him as Dems for Early. ;-) Until now they did not
list party affiliation next to the candidates name on the ballot, so you
have no idea who the hell you're voting for on some of the less-publicised
elections. I'd ordinarily vote straight Democrat, but with the way the
ballots used to be, you'd have no way of knowing. Thank God they're finally
fixing that; should start with the Novemeber election, IIRC.
--
This is message #247.
Cheopys
But just down the street - my neighbor's neighbor - insists on displaying his Rainbow Flag anytime he pleases, despite his agreement. That angers the neighbors, and they've complained about it. When management comes down on him, he screams they just hate gays and his flying his flag isn't hurting anyone, and those homophobic a**holes can just go to hell. I'm talking a loud, emotional tirade on his front porch.
But guess what? I forgot to mention something about the neighbors: They're immigrants to the United States from Germany. Their complaints to management have not been about Steve flying his Rainbow, but asking permission to display their home flag on specific days of commemoration.
To me... that's not homophobia.
In fact, to me, that's a gay going out of his way to create controversy for some reason... much like my thoughts/feelings of Ezekiel's postings.
Sounds like he thinks being gay gives him special rights.
Ooops.
Alison Hymes
killing in the Nazi holocaust and continues to be at risk around the
world--people living with psychiatric disabilities. The first gas chamber
was tested and used on people with psychiatric labels and more people with
psychiatric labels were killed in the holocaust than gay men. Today,
neoeugenics pushes infertility on people with psychiatric labels through
medications and it was only 25 years ago that the last person with a mental
disability was forcibly sterilized in the state of Virginia. It is not
irrelevant to gays in general it seems to me since in the past adult gay men
and lesbians were committed for their orientation and today gay and lesbian
teens continue to be. If one US citizen can be forced into
"treatment--forced medication" against their will without being a danger to
self or others than any US citizen can.
Alison
>I also agree with Mr. Heersink when he says that the word holocaust is
>tossed about to casually. The only group in the United States to suffer a
>holocaust and genocide is Native Americans. We use it so casually that its
>real meaning and the horror of it is demeaning to those Jews, Gays and
>Gypsies who died in concentration camps and to those among us who survived
>and are still living.
>
--
This is message #253.
Chief Thracian
wrote:
>I would add another group living around the world that was singled out for
>killing in the Nazi holocaust and continues to be at risk around the
>world--people living with psychiatric disabilities.
Tell us something we don't already know.
>The first gas chamber was tested and used on people with
>psychiatric labels and more people with psychiatric labels
>were killed in the holocaust than gay men.
First of all, dearest, homosexuals were regarded as "psychiatrically
disabled", and so I'm sure many fell under that category, and were
counted there. You claim that more people with psychiatric labels were
exterminated, than were gays.
Let's say you have two counts: one for homosexuals, and another for
psychiatrically disabled. Since the homosexuals are likely to be
counted a second time, under this psychiatric label...then of course
it's going to look like less gays than this other minority, were
persecuted.
But where is the value in comparing numbers to justify supremacy of
one group over another? This is an old trick used against gays, and to
convince people to put gay rights on the back burner, as there are far
"more urgent" issues.
I find your gay bashing highly inappropriate, as well as insulting,
when there is no need to do so, in order to give account to other
non-Jew minorities who suffered The Holocaust.
Furthermore: are you implying that all the psychiatrically disabled
were heteros? Isn't that a bit of a stretch?
---
"Give us marriage or give us death:
Slay the beast of homophobia!"
-Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #265.
Chief Thracian
>Mr. Krahlin
>paints a picture of universal oppression that is so far from reality that
>it makes him, and by inference, us, look like a bunch of idiots.
Sorry, but the sad reality IS universal oppression against queers.
Even Holland, the most gay-friendly culture on this planet, is
suffering major losses in gay acceptance and safety. Muslim immigrants
and Romanian crime syndicates seem to be the major contributors to
this recent anti-gay mileau.
>we're not closeted but neither are we in-your-face about being
>gay; that would be unnatural and false to us.
Is a black person, just because his or her skin color is dark on the
face too, being "in-your-face"? Should they soften the impact with a
little powder and lighter flesh tones? So you claim that always
wearing a pink triangle or other gay button, no matter where you are,
is "in-your-face'; that is: "militant"? Or that a gay person has no
business letting new acquaintances know that he or she is gay, in
order to spare him/herself wasted time cultivating a friend that turns
out homophobic?
>What bothers me is that people like Mr. Krahlin are quick to condemn those
>of us who are "gay but not queer" as being in hiding, as living with
>undeserved comfort behind a mask of respectability while our "queer
>brothers and sisters" are taking the brunt of the prejudice by being On
>around the clock. And then comes then sentiment I believe you are echoing
>above, that by not being as On as the others we are somehow letting them
>down, hiding, not doing our part.
Well, I couldn't have said this better myself. Thank you.
>This is just another kind of rigidity and intolerance, eerily like that we
>claim to be against.
One must assume a strongly rigid, intolerant stance against
homophobia. It is a sneaky, slimy snake that is very clever,
seductive, and surreptitious. We must become much more vigilant than
ever before in our time. I equate such rigid intolerance in this
matter, to a strong stand against the Catholic Inquisitions of old.
>What those who accuse us of "hiding" are really
>saying is that by being gay and respectable at once we're somehow
>less than authentic.
Whoa; trick sentence. If you are concealing your gay nature to gain
respect, it is wrong. You are indeed hinding--staying in the
closet--if you don't make it clear to friends, coworkers and family
that you are homosexual.
>You're not truly gay unless people six blocks away can tell
>you're gay.
You got it! Why would one limit one's friends to a few tiny blocks, if
one were not in the closet?
>And that means, of course, you have to act and walk and talk
>and THINK exactly like ... people who act like obnoxious sixth-graders
>every hour of their lives.
That's nonsense. You only need to wear a tasteful gay symbol every
day; or bring up a relevant gay topic on a regular basis...or
something else you can come up with, to prohibit heterocentric notions
from forming all about you. And you can't do this by saying "I'm gay"
just once in your life, or wearing a pro-gay button on Gay Pride Day.
>There are even going to be Republican gays, though that
>one beats the hell out of me.
Well, they're about to beat the hell out of a lot of us, considering
all the commands they've just received from the Religious Reich.
"Round up all your liberal factions!"
Hey, guess I'm among the first to be arrested, eh? Thanks to some here
who are actively REPORTING me to the enemy. Good work, pups; now
here's a new faggot bone to play with as your reward.
---
I am Cerberus who guards the gates of hell,
protecting my gay pups from the wrath that
shall soon pour fourth from these gates.
I am Damien, The Werewolf.
---
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #268.
Chief Thracian
>immigrants to the United States from Germany. Their complaints to
>management have not been about Steve flying his Rainbow, but asking
>permission to display their home flag on specific days of commemoration.
Yeah, Hitler's birthday and Kristallnacht.
---
I am Cerberus who guards the gates of hell,
protecting my gay pups from the wrath that
shall soon pour fourth from these gates.
I am Damien, The Werewolf.
---
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #270.
che...@home.com
--
This is message #271.
Chief Thracian
>Chief Thracian wrote:
> >
> >>immigrants to the United States from Germany. Their complaints to
> >>management have not been about Steve flying his Rainbow, but asking
> >>permission to display their home flag on specific days of commemoration.
> >
> >Yeah, Hitler's birthday and Kristallnacht.
>What a bigot you are!
Hey, since you are doing a rather half-assed job of demonizing me, I
figured I'd help you along a bit. You can't even do something WRONG
well!
---
I am Cerberus who guards the gates of hell,
protecting my gay pups from the wrath that
shall soon pour fourth from these gates.
I am Damien, The Werewolf.
---
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #274.
Cheopys
>And that means, of course, you have to act and walk and talk
>and THINK exactly like ... people who act like obnoxious sixth-graders
>every hour of their lives.
That's nonsense. You only need to wear a tasteful gay symbol every
day; or bring up a relevant gay topic on a regular basis...
But just for the sake of pretense, just for the sake of giving you your soapbox in front of the courthouse, why don't you lay out what you see as the goal of gay activism. And you can leave out all the "heteronormatives" and the "supremacies" and the rest of the doggerel you invent by stringing hopelessly general words together. I want specifics. I want a smattering of detail.
My money says you can't put together anything remotely coherent.
Eric Payne
Chief Thracian wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:33:04 -0700, Cheopys <che...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >immigrants to the United States from Germany. Their complaints to
> >management have not been about Steve flying his Rainbow, but asking
> >permission to display their home flag on specific days of commemoration.
>
> Yeah, Hitler's birthday and Kristallnacht.
You are a complete and total idiot. Once again, you jump in and make some bigoted
anti-het comment at a place you think is appropriate and somehow "supports" your
commentary.
When I was hospitalized for heart surgery last year, and a three-day stay became -
because of complications - a two-week fear ride, guess who was there everyday for
Bill? Hmmm? The neighbors - Hans and Ellen. After I came home, guess who came over
everyday and very, very frequently simply made more to eat at their dinner, to bring
the "leftovers" over to Bill and I? Even now, when I'm home alone all day, guess who
knows how dramatic climate changes effect my lungs and, when the weather suddenly
changes to extremes, makes sure I'm okay?
In many ways, our being neighbors is a throwback to suburbia of the sixties - where
you knew your neighbor's names, their kids, their schedule, and kept an eye on each
other's home and belongings.
They dislike the single gay man on the other side not because he's gay, but because
he is in violation of the Park rules, to which he agreed when he purchased his home.
They have never protested his display of a Rainbow flag, only the fact he flies his
regularly, they'd like to do the same for the flag of their homeland.
Ah.. I see... it's because it's Germany, huh? That automatically makes them Nazis!
Wow! How could I possibly have missed that! Obviously the window air-conditioner
they flat-out gave us when the switched to central air is some type of device for
the dispersement of Zyklon gas, huh?
I mean... those Germans.. they're all alike and only want one thing, huh?
Just like those faggots.....
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
--
This is message #280.
Chief Thracian
>Where do you get this stuff? Who appointed you the arbiter of our
>individual responsibility to The Movement?
Angels. Or elves. Or whatever you want to call these spirit guides and
guardians, and lovers. Best orgasms I've ever had! You silly excuses
for "men" aren't good enough for the likes of me!
(I guess the Christian Fundamentalists were right all along. What with
my fantasies of becoming a werewolf and all, I guess bestiality DOES
come after Gay Marriage.)
>People like you have had enough
>say in the effort to gay equality, and in my opinion attitudes like yours
>have done absolutely nothing but damage.
"People like me?" My, my, your conservative claws are out! I'd say
there's NO ONE like me; I'm one of a kind. Plus, your overly-general
attack upon me, is an attack on many gay men and women who are
liberal, who have laid down their lives for the sake of our freedom.
So, we "have done absolutely nothing but damage", have we? Let your
accussation go down on record, to be filtered through the Gates of
Cerberus. If you are innocent, they will not bother you with a visit.
>But just for the sake of pretense, just for the sake of giving you your
>soapbox in front of the courthouse, why don't you lay out what you see as
>the goal of gay activism.
The major goals of gay activism as I see it, are to:
-win the equal right to associate with, love, and marry another of the
same sex, with no walls of prejudice remaining to suppress our civil
justice.
-establish gay spirituality as the guiding measure for all humanity,
on this planet and beyond.
-put an end to macho violence in all its many variations. Down with
heterocentric dogma!
-set a model of Utopian Democracy, where folks of all skin colors and
beliefs truly work together as a loving, responsible species.
-heal the world of all misery, injustice, and McDonalds.
---
I am Cerberus who guards the gates of hell,
protecting my gay pups from the wrath that
shall soon pour fourth from these gates.
I am Damien, The Werewolf.
---
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #293.
Chief Thracian
<webolu...@webolutionary.com> wrote:
>My God,
Your God? What about mine?
>you really are an ass!!
Hey, if my ass is good enough for Jesus to ride, I'm happy, thank you.
>Do you think that was at all necessary??
Indubitably
>It could not have been any less appropriate.
Yes it could; bite me.
>I suggest you check yourself before people start petionining
>TPTB to remove you from the list on the grounds of your
>incessant attitude
I don't need them; they need me. No loss for me, to depart. Better men
than myself, have been chased off this list before.
>and lack of contribution to the community.
"Lack of contribution?" How one-dimensional you are. You haven't read
very many of my messages, I'd say. Or (as is more likely) you're just
a very hateful person who can't deal with true gay sensibilities.
---
I am Cerberus who guards the gates of hell,
protecting my gay pups from the wrath that
shall soon pour fourth from these gates.
I am Damien, The Werewolf.
---
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #324.
Warri...@aol.com
First I want to thank you for your most polite response to my posting. Second
I appreciate you staying with those items you disagreed with and the why.
Civiilized discussion and education go so much further this way.
My view is from the city ( Washington, DC ) where I work and Arlington, VA
where I live. Which is by the way the biggest concentration of Gay couples in
VA. I'm not saying you have to be in your face or even a visible activist.
I approached our CEO about Domestic Partner Benefits from the point of view
of economics - showing him how during a long and serious illness my life
partner had saved the company close to a quarter of a million dollars. There
were those who said I was to political and I do complain loud and long about
our coverage of certain stories. I do have a picture of us on my desk along
with us with our niece, my parents - the sweet family gatherings.
There are those though who deny the constant torment that happens daily even
here - in a rather gay progressive city. My lover was fired for taking earned
vacation time to go to the hospital when I was most critical - they said it
wasn't that important - it was essential he stay on the job site - managing a
propety when there were at least 8 others who could have covered for him. We
won the law suit but the kept nitpicking and he was finally fired........he's
been in therapy for severe depression and Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome for
5 years.
Our's isn't the only such case. I do think that the "professional/country
club" gay should take the opportunity to present the "Conservative Argument
for Gay Rights." Their silence is to deafening. They can go to county board
meetings, school board meetings. They can reply as I did at a local school
board meeting when questioned about my speaking on a issue - "Why should we
listen to you? You don't have children!.
My simple reply was - True, I have no children but I pay taxes and have a
vested interest in the future and quality of our schools. I want my tax
money spent wisely - that's why I have a right to speak.
Marc
Chief Thracian
>he's been in therapy for severe depression and Post Traumatic Stress
>Syndrome for 5 years.
You have my complete sympathies in this matter. The great love of my
life was/is a Nam Vet (who disappeared on me since 1991; we met in
1984). He suffered terribly from PTSD, and even attempted to kill
himself by his own gunshot, by The Wall in DC. Ironically, it was this
bullet that brought us together...for he didn't die, instead the
bullet he aimed at his heart went around it instead, and lodged in his
right shoulder blade. It has since been removed, and given to me as a
present, to wear around my neck. I am VERY PROUD to wear "the
bullet"...for it's truly my own Holy Grail.
Anyways, I flew to Wash. D.C. after he shot himself, and stood by his
side for three weeks, to heal him to good health again...and to
profess my love for him. We became lovers as a result, and it's been a
very bumby ride ever since. His cousin Kitty lives in Arlington, where
she graciously provided a home for Randolph, whenever he was in the
D.C. area.
So both Arlington and D.C. hold a special place in my heart, for the
great Odyssey of my life, that began there.
Stand by your buddy, for always. He will finally overcome all these
challenges, and love you like nobody's business. Do not even doubt for
a moment, that anything could ever destroy your fine
relationship...least of all homophobic idiots. While Randolph is still
"missing", his spiritual presence is so strong for me, that I am sure
he will soon return to me, in the flesh (yummy!).
>Our's isn't the only such case. I do think that the "professional/country
>club" gay should take the opportunity to present the "Conservative Argument
>for Gay Rights." Their silence is to deafening.
And they wonder why I chastise them.
>My simple reply was - True, I have no children but I pay taxes and have a
>vested interest in the future and quality of our schools. I want my tax
>money spent wisely - that's why I have a right to speak.
IMO, paying taxes is not the qualification to having a voice. Being
born is enough. I do not pay taxes; I collect a monthly stipend from
Social Security. And you bet I have a voice (though many would
suppress it; and many have, from time to time).
---
I am Cerberus who guards the gates of hell,
protecting my gay pups from the wrath that
shall soon pour fourth from these gates.
I am Damien, The Werewolf.
---
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #350.
Cheopys
>Our's isn't the only such case. I do think that the "professional/country
>club" gay should take the opportunity to present the "Conservative Argument
>for Gay Rights." Their silence is to deafening.
And they wonder why I chastise them.
Try reading http://www.indegayforum.org/; Jonathan Rausch, Dale Carpenter, Andrew Sullivan, many others.
But these are hardly "conservative" arguments, unless your idea of "conservative" is any viewpoint that values commitment, maturity and self-restraint. I guess that makes me "conservative." That's ironic as hell.
D Stephen Heersink
>Try reading http://www.indegayforum.org/ Jonathan Rausch, Dale Carpenter,
>Andrew Sullivan, many others.
>
>But these are hardly "conservative" arguments, unless your idea of
>"conservative" is any viewpoint that values commitment, maturity and
>self-restraint. I guess that makes me "conservative." That's ironic as hell.
This is an excellent website that makes the discussion on this list
frequently pale by comparison. I note with interest that one of the
principal topics is "open marriage" to all genders, a topic I believe
to be the most important battleground for gay rights both today and in
the future. I disagree that the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 is of much
use to gays, as long as the "origin" of homosexuality remains an
enigma. As long as most people believe that homosexuality is a choice,
they are not going to "buy" the argument that the Civil Rights Act
affords.
But, where I DO think we have clout is with the Fourteenth Amendment
to the Constitution, which guarantees Equal Protection under the Law.
To deny gays the right to marital benefits and commitments, the
country is violating the equal rights of at least 5% of the
population, regardless of whether their sexual orientation is a matter
of choice or inheritance. Equal protection is guaranteed regardless of
choice or necessity.
Making "civil marriage" the test case is equally propitious to the
desired outcome. We cannot legislate what religions choose to do
(although some are beginning to consider blessing beloved unions), but
we can, and must, argue that we have equal protection under the
Constitution to the rights afforded heterosexuals. (This is
essentially what Vermont argued.)
The timing of the case will be critical. Theoretically, this is a
"conservative" or "strict constructionist" interpretation of the
Constitution. Again, theoretically, the Rhenquist Court is made up of
a majority of "conservative" and "strict constructionist" jurists.
Still, I cannot imagine Anton Scalia voting to extend marital rights
to homosexuals.
So, CHR and other legal beagles will need to pick and choose their
fights wisely. By ONE vote, this court could decide on our behalf, but
that's one vote to close, because, if the Court should decide against
the equal protection clause, it will be hard pressed later to reverse
itself. But this is where the real battle for equal rights will be
fought and determined. Support CHR and other pro-gay legal agencies
that are fighting for us.
________________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@worldnet.att.net
--
This is message #384.
Roger B.A. Klorese
>I note with interest that one of the
>principal topics is "open marriage" to all genders, a topic I believe
>to be the most important battleground for gay rights both today and in
>the future.
Many believe that workplace and housing protections are far more important
than the right to marry. In fact, I'm beginning to think that the focus on
the right to marry was driven by people who fundamentally don't wish to
achieve real equality, but rather, wish to move from the gay underclass to
the married uberclass, and to lord it over singles. ENDA benefits us all;
marriage does not.
--
This is message #387.
Cheopys
At 04:29 PM 9/2/2001 -0700, you wrote:
I note with interest that one of the
principal topics is "open marriage" to all genders, a topic I believe
to be the most important battleground for gay rights both today and in
the future.
Many believe that workplace and housing protections are far more important than the right to marry. In fact, I'm beginning to think that the focus on the right to marry was driven by people who fundamentally don't wish to achieve real equality, but rather, wish to move from the gay underclass to the married uberclass, and to lord it over singles. ENDA benefits us all; marriage does not.
This überclass nonsense is one of the shallowest things I've read in quite a while. But I'm not going to leave it at that.
Marriage involves accepting both privileges and restrictions and frankly a lot more of the latter than the former. When I hear gay men express their disinterest in the right to marry that disinterest is always expressed with scorn, with derision, and with a sneer. If anyone is lording anything over anyone it's the other way around. Those people aren't willing to accept the restrictions just to get to the privileges.
The idea gay marriage would benefit only those who would personally marry is typically American in its maniacal individualism.
Gay marriage would benefit ALL of us. Mr. Klorese; it would benefit gay teenagers whose probable marriage was years in the future, just by knowing that life held more in store for them than a few years of anonymous sex. It would help the many, many gays who want a domestic gay life more than anything. And it would help those who scorn it because it would take some of the wind from their sails, and give them one fewer injustice to obsess over.
The idea that wedded married people would "lord it" over singles ... I don't know where you get this stuff. It's certainly not a valid argument, and frankly it strikes me as a puerile thing to say.
As for housing and workplace versus marriage, it isn't a zero-sum game. And we're way ahead on workplace and housing then we are on marriage, so it needs the most work.
Cheopys
Cheopys <che...@home.com> writes:
>Try reading http://www.indegayforum.org/ Jonathan Rausch, Dale Carpenter,
>Andrew Sullivan, many others.
>
>But these are hardly "conservative" arguments, unless your idea of
>"conservative" is any viewpoint that values commitment, maturity and
>self-restraint. I guess that makes me "conservative." That's ironic as hell.
This is an excellent website that makes the discussion on this list
frequently pale by comparison. I note with interest that one of the
principal topics is "open marriage" to all genders, a topic I believe
to be the most important battleground for gay rights both today and in
the future. I disagree that the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 is of much
use to gays, as long as the "origin" of homosexuality remains an
enigma. As long as most people believe that homosexuality is a choice,
they are not going to "buy" the argument that the Civil Rights Act
affords.
Some people intone over and over that we choose to be what we are, and I haven't seen one yet who could tell the difference between attraction and behavior. In other words, people who continue to believe that we choose to be gay are stupid people. It doesn't take a lot of critical-thinking skill or introspection for a doubter to realize that he never made a conscious decision to be attracted to the opposite sex.
But, where I DO think we have clout is with the Fourteenth Amendment
to the Constitution, which guarantees Equal Protection under the Law.
To deny gays the right to marital benefits and commitments, the
country is violating the equal rights of at least 5% of the
population, regardless of whether their sexual orientation is a matter
of choice or inheritance. Equal protection is guaranteed regardless of
choice or necessity.
Making "civil marriage" the test case is equally propitious to the
desired outcome. We cannot legislate what religions choose to do
(although some are beginning to consider blessing beloved unions), but
we can, and must, argue that we have equal protection under the
Constitution to the rights afforded heterosexuals. (This is
essentially what Vermont argued.)
The timing of the case will be critical. Theoretically, this is a
"conservative" or "strict constructionist" interpretation of the
Constitution. Again, theoretically, the Rhenquist Court is made up of
a majority of "conservative" and "strict constructionist" jurists.
All sounds very nice but as we have seen so clearly in the last months, or for that matter in the last 20 years, today's "conservatism" has as little to do with traditional conservatism as collegiate speech codes have to do with Jeffersonian liberalism. These thugs will go strict-constructionist on the Second Amendment just like they'll talk "market forces" when it comes to corporate largesse. But when it comes to standing up against one of the imperatives of the religious right, be ready for some judicial activism coming into your life.
Still, I cannot imagine Anton Scalia voting to extend marital rights
to homosexuals.
Roger B.A. Klorese
>Marriage involves accepting both privileges and restrictions and frankly a
>lot more of the latter than the former. When I hear gay men express their
>disinterest in the right to marry that disinterest is always expressed
>with scorn, with derision, and with a sneer. If anyone is lording
>anything over anyone it's the other way around. Those people aren't
>willing to accept the restrictions just to get to the privileges.
Well, it's based on a belief that for some of the privileges, there's no
reason for many of those privileges to be tied to those restrictions.
>The idea gay marriage would benefit only those who would personally marry
>is typically American in its maniacal individualism.
>
>Gay marriage would benefit ALL of us. Mr. Klorese; it would benefit gay
>teenagers whose probable marriage was years in the future, just by knowing
>that life held more in store for them than a few years of anonymous sex.
Marriage does nothing to increase or decrease the probability that they'll
have anonymous sex. Being a man who is sexually interested in men
increases the likelihood; being a woman who is interested in women
decreases it. Neither has anything to do with marriage.
Besides, knowing you'll be able to work and have housing is far more
important than knowing who you'll fuck.
>It would help the many, many gays who want a domestic gay life more than
>anything.
Again: with no work and housing protections, it won't do squat for them.
>The idea that wedded married people would "lord it" over singles ... I
>don't know where you get this stuff. It's certainly not a valid argument,
>and frankly it strikes me as a puerile thing to say.
Ask any thirty-something single woman if they do. I get the idea from real
life.
>As for housing and workplace versus marriage, it isn't a zero-sum game.
As to our energies, it is. And the recent trumped-up focus on marriage as
our number one issue has cost us significant momentum on the universal
issues of job and housing protections.
>And we're way ahead on workplace and housing then we are on marriage, so
>it needs the most work.
Achieving 50% of a lot of goals isn't as useful as 100% of one or two.
--
This is message #393.
Dana S. Leslie
willing to abandon the T community at the slightest insinuation that they
advocate filling all public restrooms with men in mustaches and dresses.
Blessed Be,
Dana
D. S. Leslie, née C. R. Guttman
dsle...@alumni.princeton.edu
dsle...@home.com
dsle...@yahoo.com
dsle...@hotmail.com
--
This is message #421.
Natalie Davis
>ENDA *WOULD* benefit us all if HRC, Barney Frank, and others weren't so
>willing to abandon the T community at the slightest insinuation that they
>advocate filling all public restrooms with men in mustaches and dresses.
AMEN! If ENDA doesn't work for all of us, it doesn't work for me.
************************************************************************************
"A good [person] would prefer to be defeated than to defeat injustice by
evil means." - Sallust, Jugurthine War
--
This is message #424.
Roger B.A. Klorese
>ENDA *WOULD* benefit us all if HRC, Barney Frank, and others weren't so
>willing to abandon the T community at the slightest insinuation that they
>advocate filling all public restrooms with men in mustaches and dresses.
First, I don't agree with the excusion.
Second, ENDA even as written benefits entire categories of definition, not
just those who choose to marry. Even if, for instance, ENDA only applied
to lesbians, it would thereby affect *all* lesbians, since we all need to
work and live somewhere.
--
This is message #426.
Roger B.A. Klorese
>Second, ENDA even as written benefits entire categories of definition, not
>just those who choose to marry. Even if, for instance, ENDA only applied
>to lesbians, it would thereby affect *all* lesbians, since we all need to
>work and live somewhere.
...not that I'm a lesbian, mind you.
--
This is message #427.
ferris
"Dana S. Leslie" wrote:
>
> ENDA *WOULD* benefit us all if HRC, Barney Frank, and others weren't so
> willing to abandon the T community at the slightest insinuation that they
> advocate filling all public restrooms with men in mustaches and dresses.
I don't think Frank is saying anything about what the T community is
or is not advocating. I think he is pointing out (presumably based on
his experience as a legislator), that the public restroom issue could
become the locus around which the right-wing would organize opposition
to ENDA, thus taking the debate entirely off on a minor (but hot-button)
tangent. The TV talk shows would spend their time talking about restroom
etiquette rather than protection from job discrimination.
Patrick
--
This is message #428.
Dana S. Leslie
ENDA *WOULD* benefit us all if HRC, Barney Frank, and others weren't so
ready and willing to abandon the T community at the slightest insinuation
that they (HRC, Frank, et all)
advocate filling all public men's rooms with men in mustaches and dresses,
and public women's rooms with pre-op MTFs waving their dicks about. Of
course, extending ENDA's protections to the T community would not have these
consequences. But, at the slightest hint of the smear tactic of claiming
that it would, HRC, Frank, et al cave right in.
Blessed Be,
Dana
D. S. Leslie, née C. R. Guttman
dsle...@alumni.princeton.edu
dsle...@home.com
dsle...@yahoo.com
dsle...@hotmail.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "ferris" <fer...@biosgi.wustl.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.gaynet
To: <bit-lists...@moderators.isc.org>
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [gaynet] Where the Most Important Gay Battle Will be Fought
>
>
> "Dana S. Leslie" wrote:
> >
> > ENDA *WOULD* benefit us all if HRC, Barney Frank, and others weren't so
> > willing to abandon the T community at the slightest insinuation that
they
> > advocate filling all public restrooms with men in mustaches and dresses.
>
> I don't think Frank is saying anything about what the T community is
> or is not advocating. I think he is pointing out (presumably based on
> his experience as a legislator), that the public restroom issue could
> become the locus around which the right-wing would organize opposition
> to ENDA, thus taking the debate entirely off on a minor (but hot-button)
> tangent. The TV talk shows would spend their time talking about restroom
> etiquette rather than protection from job discrimination.
>
> Patrick
> --
> This is message #428.
> **********
>
> To post, send mail to <gay...@groups.queernet.org>.
> To unsubscribe, send mail to <gaynet-un...@groups.queernet.org>.
> (This may fail if your address has changed since you signed
> up; if so, or for other assistance, contact
<gaynet...@groups.queernet.org>.)
>
> For information about other lists, or to create and manage a list on
> a topic that interests you, see <http://www.queernet.org> for details.
>
--
This is message #429.
ferris
"Dana S. Leslie" wrote:
> My syntax was unclear. Let me restate and amplify what I meant.
>
> ENDA *WOULD* benefit us all if HRC, Barney Frank, and others weren't so
> ready and willing to abandon the T community at the slightest insinuation
> that they (HRC, Frank, et all)
> advocate filling all public men's rooms with men in mustaches and dresses,
> and public women's rooms with pre-op MTFs waving their dicks about. Of
> course, extending ENDA's protections to the T community would not have these
> consequences.
Not in the hyberbolic way you're putting it. But let's not pretend
it's a non-issue. Earlier in the year we discussed a law suit in New
York about transgendered access to restrooms. If ENDA includes
transgender rights there will certainly be court cases about this.
Employers will have to deal with it. If we ignore this issue the right
wing will run with it on their terms. They'll go wild speculating how
"liberal activist judges" will interpret ENDA. You may not want to talk
about it, but O'Reilly does.
Patrick
--
This is message #432.
Chief Thracian
<dsle...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>ENDA *WOULD* benefit us all if HRC, Barney Frank, and others weren't so
>willing to abandon the T community at the slightest insinuation that they
>advocate filling all public restrooms with men in mustaches and dresses.
That is similar to when gay groups are accused of being pedophiles...
which then causes most to back off from any youth outreach.
But I believe that trannies are "gay", in that this is the community
with which they identify. So I'd think that gay protections would
immediately protect trannies too, without an additional, seperate
clause for them.
Perhaps a rider to any gay protections should be included, that
defines "gay people" as including gender-changers. Else, adding
another "type" to the actual law, would be just pointing out a subset
within the gay community. Once we do that, we'd need to include all
the other subsets, too...and then it would get out of hand.
Perhaps black people need to add a rider to their protections, to
offer greater security to those with the darkest skin colors?
Perhaps we should drop the gay issue totally, and just focus on
trannies? That their legal protection would automatically wind up
protecting all gays?
Or perhaps women's rights should take on the mantle of MTF trannies
rights...and men's rights take on the mantle of FTM trannies? Leaving
the gay issue to focus on its true message: "love between two people
of the same sex, is beautiful and righteous."
>Blessed Be,
Cursed ye!
---
THE TALKING SHEEP
Once upon a time, there was a talking sheep...of sorts.
He'd only speak two words, the same two all the time.
And he'd only say them once he started humping a
stranger's leg: "My baaaaad. My baaaaad."
---
Lavender-Velvet&Wool Revolution
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #433.
Chief Thracian
wrote:
>The TV talk shows would spend their time talking about restroom
>etiquette rather than protection from job discrimination.
Including, I hope, some tips from Beatrice Arthur.
---
THE TALKING SHEEP
Once upon a time, there was a talking sheep...of sorts.
He'd only speak two words, the same two all the time.
And he'd only say them once he started humping a
stranger's leg: "My baaaaad. My baaaaad."
---
Lavender-Velvet&Wool Revolution
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #434.
Dana S. Leslie
maturely addressed, head on. HRC, Frank, et al should not abandon the T
community just because they would rather duck the issue than face down the
kind of hyperbolic smears I mentioned. And, while those smears are
hyperbolic, it is not hyperbolic to suggest that such smears are likely to
be raised. The (fortunately small) opposition to Rhode Island's recently
enacted Transgendered civil rights amendment raised exactly those bogies as
just about their only talkingpoints. Fortunately, the leadership of the
Rhode Island Alliance for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights and the Rhode Island
legislature had the guts. to face them down. But HRC, Frank, et al don't
seem to have the same degree of courage/integrity.
Blessed Be,
Dana
D. S. Leslie, née C. R. Guttman
dsle...@alumni.princeton.edu
dsle...@home.com
dsle...@yahoo.com
dsle...@hotmail.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "ferris" <fer...@biosgi.wustl.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.gaynet
To: <bit-lists...@moderators.isc.org>
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: [gaynet] Where the Most Important Gay Battle Will be Fought
>
>
--
This is message #436.
Cheopys
"Dana S. Leslie" wrote:
>
> ENDA *WOULD* benefit us all if HRC, Barney Frank, and others weren't so
> willing to abandon the T community at the slightest insinuation that they
> advocate filling all public restrooms with men in mustaches and dresses.
I don't think Frank is saying anything about what the T community is
or is not advocating. I think he is pointing out (presumably based on
his experience as a legislator), that the public restroom issue could
become the locus around which the right-wing would organize opposition
to ENDA, thus taking the debate entirely off on a minor (but hot-button)
tangent. The TV talk shows would spend their time talking about restroom
etiquette rather than protection from job discrimination.
The opposition will talk about restrooms instead of job discrimination because they know people will feel a visceral unease at the idea of running into a transvestite while they're zipping up their flies. And frankly they should not have to.
For the maybe one transvestite out of a hundred who really has GID I have limitless compassion and willingness to help; I don't even mind paying the taxes to install special bathrooms in certain buildings, nor to fund their gender-reassignment surgery. Nature dealt them a lousy hand. But the other 99 who are just doing drag to get attention, I don't care if their bladders burst.
Roger B.A. Klorese
>If my experiences on work-related gay discussions are any indication, the
>right-wing fear campaign would plant the seeds but the trannies themselves
>would pour on the fertilizer. You're not going to get people used to the
>idea of running into gender-impersonators in public restrooms, and you can
>scream homophobia all you want but you're not going to shove equanimity
>down the public throat.
Transgendereds are not impersonators, and life isn't a drag-show for them.
>The opposition will talk about restrooms instead of job discrimination
>because they know people will feel a visceral unease at the idea of
>running into a transvestite while they're zipping up their flies. And
>frankly they should not have to.
Who zips up their fly in a space others can watch? Do it in a stall or
pressed tight to the urinal like a normal person.
>For the maybe one transvestite out of a hundred who really has GID I have
>limitless compassion and willingness to help; I don't even mind paying the
>taxes to install special bathrooms in certain buildings, nor to fund their
>gender-reassignment surgery. Nature dealt them a lousy hand. But the
>other 99 who are just doing drag to get attention, I don't care if their
>bladders burst.
Yes, and 99% of the women receiving SDI are welfare queens who are gambling
it away and buying Cadillacs.
And, of course, surgery is the only acceptable answer for the ones you
deign to confirm legitimacy on, right? Wrong.
PS: please post to the correct address, which is gay...@groups.queernet.org.
--
This is message #441.
Cheopys
Yes, and 99% of the women receiving SDI are welfare queens who are gambling it away and buying Cadillacs.
And, of course, surgery is the only acceptable answer for the ones you deign to confirm legitimacy on, right? Wrong.
This is what the third time you've done this, gone snide and bristling at something that sounded like an endorsement of one outlook over another.
I mentioned two considerations that the government could do to assist (genuine) transsexuals and which I am not opposed to helping to pay for. You see it as some sort of herding people into surgeries, federal surgeons screaming for more.
That doesn't mean that surgery is the only option open to them. It's one. Get a grip and try reading the words instead of arguing with the voices in your head. But it's not exactly as though gender-reassignment surgery is unheard of.
Any by the way ... this "absolute relativism" is *so* passé.
Roger B.A. Klorese
>Wow, you're like a wind-up toy.
Pot, meet kettle.
>I think I could write just about anything and you'd go off on one of these
>tangents. You're not answering me, that's for sure.
It's by no means a tangent, as I'll explain.
>This is what the third time you've done this, gone snide and bristling at
>something that sounded like an endorsement of one outlook over another.
So you were just expressing the reaction of the masses without either
endorsing it or advocating we develop our strategies in ways that defuse
rather than debunk their ridiculous fears? Yeah. Right.
>I mentioned two considerations that the government could do to assist
>(genuine) transsexuals and which I am not opposed to helping to pay
>for. You see it as some sort of herding people into surgeries, federal
>surgeons screaming for more.
What was the other consideration: three restrooms, His, Hers, and Its?!
What I responded to was your dichotomy: the 1% of legitimate "GID" people
-- must paint as a disease! -- who should be pitied and allowed free
surgery, and the 99% who are just playing at drag to piss off you and the
world.
That's just total nonsense.
>That doesn't mean that surgery is the only option open to them. It's
>one. Get a grip and try reading the words instead of arguing with the
>voices in your head. But it's not exactly as though gender-reassignment
>surgery is unheard of.
It's not exactly like it's the best or only appropriate response for all
transgendereds, either.
>Any by the way ... this "absolute relativism" is *so* passé.
Sorry, Chris.
--
This is message #444.
Cheopys
Making civil marriage the battleground benefits singles as
well as couples. By making us "equal" in the eyes of the law, and by
granting us the "right" to have abundant life in the married state,
marriage accomplishes all our needs in one fell swoop. Our equality in
marriage brings with it equality for benefits for couples in the
workplace -- and by extension, benefits for individuals. Our equality
in marriage brings with it equal protection under the law to housing
and employment -- for they follow from the same principle.
We cannot make a homophobic public like us, but we can make
them accept us as equals at the same table. To gain that access,
marriage brings us and all our other concerns together in one case,
rather than having to fight multiple battles over housing and
employment (this still may have to be done, but with equal protection
guaranteed under marriage, the other rights will follow in success).
... So, why fight multiple battles with dubious results when with
one case all the walls come down?
All this is predicated on the idea that those who interpret the Constitution do so fairly and objectively. If that were so we would have no task before us other than properly articulating our sound Constitutional argument and sitting back to wait for the legal system to chew it up and reverse centuries of legal discrimination.
Remember what Morpheus says to Neo when they fish him out of the water?
King Daevid MacKenzie, UltimaJock!
> Clearly, IMO, most are not paranoid enough. I remember a
> women's activist who said some years ago, that her definition of
> paranoia is "heightened awareness". (Sorry, I forgot who it was.)
...kinda sounds like the gag from Robin Tyler's act -- "If you're paranoid, it's
justified, and if it's justified, you're not paranoid!"...
--
+++++++++
King Daevid MacKenzie, UltimaJock!
kingd...@elknet.net
heard on WMCW Harvard IL/WSUW Whitewater WI
Love your enemies. It drives them right up the bloody wall.
--
This is message #467.