gdp's Comments

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ : Appeal over \'anti-gay\' bus adverts - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:28:35 +0000

What is so offensive about these advertisements is the fact that there is not one (not one) reputable study which has shown that it is possible to "convert" a gay man or lesbian to a heterosexual person. Here in the USA, Exodus International (the largest "ex-gay" group in the nation) refuses to release data pertaining to its "success" rate or methodology, despite making wildly outlandish claims that this rate is very high. Two of its members fell in love and denounced the group at one of its conventions. Then there are cases such as that of John Paulk, formerly a star at the Family Research Council (FRC) who claimed to have been converted and who even went so far as to get married. He was sighted at a gay bar on Du Pont Circle in Washington, D.C. by a gay rights activist who recognized him, and was photographed hastily leaving the bar after spending more than an hour there trying to pick up another man. Paulk told his handlers at the FRC that he had merely stepped into the bar to use the rest room; when it was pointed out to him that there were dozens of establishments near the bar where he could have used the rest room, he changed his story and stated that he was merely curious as to whether there had been any changed to the gay "lifestyle" since he had supposedly left it. These explanations were too much for even an organization as lacking in integrity as the FRC to tolerate, and Paulk was fired from his high-paying position. Exodus International uses marriage as a surrogate for "cure," which is ridiculous. Any gay man may marry a woman; this does not make him one iota less gay. Thus, when Exodus International makes wild claims, it is impossible to tease out the number of "successes" for which it is responsible. This problem with the bus advertisements is that it pits freedom of speech against freedom from the type of harassment, bullying, gay-bashing, and even suicides caused by such in your face invalidation of a core component of the identities of gay persons. I remember knowing, as a very young boy, that there was something different about me, but I did not know what it was. When I hit puberty and hormones started flowing, the full and shocking nature of the difference became clear to me. I am not in control of my parasympathetic nervous system, and do not choose my sexual attraction to other men. It chose me. Here in the USA, this type of advertisement may survive scrutiny by the courts based on what is referred to as "viewpoint discrimination" under the First Amendment. However, the UK is light years ahead of the US in terms of the progress and speed with which it has equalized the status of gay persons relative to that of heterosexual persons, and there is no First Amendment. While still a core component of British democracy, protections of freedom of expression in the UK are balanced against the potential harm they can cause to members of minorities. My personal prediction is that the ban of these advertisements will be upheld by the appeals court. PHILIP CHANDLER Queens, NY, USA

The New Civil Rights Movement : Harvey: Gay Marriage Will Make All American Children Victims Of 'Disease, Anxiety, Depression'

Mon, 8 Apr 2013 21:18:05 +0000

This woman's assertions fly in the face of clearly established facts derived from numerous studies involving children raised by same-sex couples (as compared to children raised by opposite-sex couples). All of the research on point has shown that children raised by same-sex couples fare just as well on a wide variety of developmental and emotional markers as is the case for children raised by opposite-sex couples. There is simply no basis in fact (or logic) for Harvey's claims.__This train has already left the station. A majority of Americans now support gay marriage, and the US Supreme Court will soon hand down two decisions involving this issue (most court-watchers believe that the Court will not go so far as to declare a fundamental right to gay marriage, but will strike down California's infamous Proposition 9

The New Civil Rights Movement : Gay Marriage A 'Pernicious Lie Of Satan' Says Focus On The Family

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 21:26:33 +0000

How absolutely typical of FOTF and its leadership. This organization has promoted flat-out hatred towards gay men and lesbians, has written countless amicus briefs arguing against gay equality (anti-discrimination laws, marriage equality, etc.), and made countless ugly and baseless comparisons of homosexuality to any number of paraphilias (sexual disorders as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V-TR). This organization is indeed an anti-gay hate group, regardless of its protestations to the contrary. Never explained is exactly HOW gay equality will lead to the collapse of the family, the undermining of Western civilization, and the overall decline of humanity. None of this is ever explained -- it is simply repeated, as though it gains credibility through sheer force of repetition. Equality is a prize to be sought after in ANY society, regardless of its religious roots or original founding faith. There is so little true love in this world -- so little true love -- that any form of love shared between competent adults should be celebrated and applauded, not relegated to condemnation and abuse. PHILIP CHANDLER

NewsReal Blog : Gay Hypocrisy or Identity Politics?

Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:23:12 +0000

Thank you not just for clarifying this, but also for providing an extensive bibliography for those who are interested to make reference. I have tried, over and over again, to point out that I never "chose" my sexual orientation -- it simply unfolded as puberty hit me, and I had about as much choice in this matter as I had with respect to my height, bone structure, or weight. There are those who will never believe this. There are those who will insist, to this day, that all gay persons are liars; that we are all part of a massive conspiracy aimed at overthrowing the family as the building block of society. What these people fail to understand is that those of us who believe in gay marriage wish to STRENGTHEN gay families -- at least one in every five openly gay persons is currently raising a child. Thank you for your message. It is long past time that we heard another voice of sanity on this thread! PHILIP

NewsReal Blog : Gay Hypocrisy or Identity Politics?

Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:20:00 +0000

Let me clarify this issue further. The only reason the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 (in Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal.4th 364 (2009)) was because all of the substantive legal rights, privileges, and benefits of marriage remain available to gay couples in California, in the form of legally binding "domestic partnerships" -- only the designation of marriage has been snatched away from gay couples. How do you feel about this? How do you feel about domestic partnerships? Should these remain available? If so, why not marriage? If the two concepts lead to substantively identical rights, privileges, and benefits, which of them (if either) should be available to gay couples -- and what reason exists for the other option not being available? PHILIP

NewsReal Blog : Gay Hypocrisy or Identity Politics?

Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:13:14 +0000

If you can argue this issue on its merits, without your anti-gay hatred obscuring factual analysis and logic, then by all means, let us debate this issue. But if you are going to insist that gay people are so worthless that we should not be raising children in the first place, expect a spirited and angry rebuttal – and expect me to call you as I see you. The choice is, and remains, entirely yours. PHILIP CHANDLER

NewsReal Blog : Gay Hypocrisy or Identity Politics?

Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:12:59 +0000

I also pointed out to you the cold fact that many gay couples raise children, and that several state supreme courts have weighed in on the importance of marriage to such families – marriage provides children who are raised by gay couples with a degree of stability and certainty that is lacking in its absence. Your response was to opine, implicitly, that gay couples should not raise children in the first place. When all is said and done, I believe you to be guilty of vicious, anti-gay bigotry of the crudest form. You cannot articulate a single coherent reason to prevent gay persons from marrying, so you fall back to positions which become increasingly difficult to defend, each of which gives way to more and more obvious animus (i.e., hatred) towards gay persons. CONTINUED...

NewsReal Blog : Gay Hypocrisy or Identity Politics?

Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:12:37 +0000

I then pointed out to you that the courts consider marriage to be a “fundamental” right. This means that any attempt to deprive any group of persons of the right to marry must satisfy the demands of strict scrutiny as a matter of law – and one of those demands is that of narrow tailoring. You went off on a tangent, accusing me of misrepresenting you when, in fact, all I did was point out that you were trying to have it both ways – treating marriage as a mere contract when it suits you, then treating it as more than a mere contract when it suits you. Make you your mind – either marriage is merely a civil contract in the eyes of the law, intended to effectuate reproduction, or it is a basic, fundamental right, with purposes other than that of merely effectuating reproduction. CONTINUED...

NewsReal Blog : Gay Hypocrisy or Identity Politics?

Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:11:53 +0000

Calvin – the problem here is that you are not consistent in your reasoning. First, you claim that marriage is merely a contract, and that the only issue that distinguishes marriage as being of any great significance, in your eyes, is that it is related to procreation. I pointed out that such a worldview necessitates the conclusion that infertile and elderly couples should not be permitted to marry, and that couples who choose not to have children should not be permitted to marry. You responded by stating that a contract does not have to include every possible exception to its general purpose. If that is indeed the case, then what is wrong with adjusting the contract so as to include gay persons too? If the contract can include some persons who are unable or unwilling to procreate, then what is your logical basis for excluding gay persons, whilst including elderly, infertile, and unwilling couples? CONTINUED...

NewsReal Blog : Gay Hypocrisy or Identity Politics?

Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:46:39 +0000

Calvin writes: "This presupposes that gay couples *should* be raising kids to begin with." ************ Response: ************ AHA! Now here, at last, we have it -- an open acknowledgement, by you, of your own homophobia. Implicit in the above statement is the judgment -- by you -- that gay persons should not be raising children in the first place. This is proof positive of your own homophobia -- your own personal animus towards gay men and lesbians. Why, pray tell, should we not raise children? PHILIP CHANDLER

NewsReal Blog : Gay Hypocrisy or Identity Politics?

Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:38:28 +0000

Calcin writes: "This presupposes that gay couples *should* be raising kids to begin with." ************ Response: ************ AHA! I finally caught you in all of your bigotry and nastiness! Caught absolutely on the hop! Implicit in the above statement -- by you -- is the notion that gay persons are incapable of raising children properly; that gay persons are somehow unworthy of raising chldren (I take it, from your response, that you don't believe that gay persons should be raising children to begin with). If ever I needed proof positive that you are motivated by contempt for gay persons, you have just provided me with that proof -- without as much as a hint of a fig-leaf of covering rhetoric. You have just nailed shut the lid of your own intellectual coffin. R.I.P. PHILIP CHANDLER

NewsReal Blog : Gay Hypocrisy or Identity Politics?

Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:31:16 +0000

To cite from Chief Judge Judith Kaye’s dissent in Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006) (the New York gay marriage case): “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them… There are enough marriage licenses to go around for everyone.” You attempt to misapply the rational basis standard of review when strict scrutiny or at least quasi-strict scrutiny is the correct standard. This lies at the heart of your inconsistency, and hence your inability to defend yourself without falling into huge holes in your logic. PHILIP

NewsReal Blog : Gay Hypocrisy or Identity Politics?

Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:30:08 +0000

Calvin writes: "A civil contract ... doesn't presuppose that every single participant will reproduce, nor does it require ...will reproduce." ************ Response: ************ This response shows just how wrong you are with respect to both the law and the facts. Marriage is more than a mere contract -- it has been described by the US Supreme Court as a "fundamental" right (see Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978), Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)). When an attempt is made to deprive any group of a fundamental right, the law requires that the state meets the burden of "strict scrutiny" -- which calls for precisely the form of "narrow tailoring" described above. You would know that had you read the relevant case law before describing marriage in such narrow and stultified terms. You are wrong precisely because your understanding of the nature of marriage is wrong. CONTINUED...

NewsReal Blog : Gay Hypocrisy or Identity Politics?

Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:17:27 +0000

Calvin writes: "The parents are not the ones who are supposed to benefit - the children are..." ************ Response: ************ And they do. This was made clear by the Supreme Courts in the states of Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, California, and New Jersey (in New Jersey, civil partnerships now exist). Had you read any of these decisions, you would have learned that one of the rationales advanced by the plaintiffs (i.e., the gay couples) pertained to precisely this point -- children raised by gay parents fare better when those parents may avail themselves of the legal rights, benefits, and privileges of marriage. Calvin writes: "With these words, you prove yourself to be a dishonorable man with no respect for honesty. You are unworthy of rational debate." THANK YOU FOR CONCEDING!

NewsReal Blog : Gay Hypocrisy or Identity Politics?

Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:07:48 +0000

bronish -- as a gay man, I am NOT interested in your religious ravings, and your insistence that I grovel and kowtow to your religion. You are free to believe whatever you want -- but the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the First Amendment prohibit you from inscribing your religious dogma into law and public policy, to my detriment. I have absolutely no interest in your appeals to "natural law" -- dressed up in simplistic explanations about the differences between male and female. Some of us -- a sizeable absolute number of us -- are different. We are entitled to the same treatment as that which you and other heterosexuals take fro granted. Religious ranting does not trump constitutional guarantees -- which is precisely the reason we have a constitution in the first place. PHILIP CHANDLER

NewsReal Blog : Gay Hypocrisy or Identity Politics?

Sun, 14 Mar 2010 02:22:11 +0000

The page layout has changed between yesterday and today. Had you logged on yesterday, you would have noticed this. But for the record -- do you really consider Horowitz's anti-gay rant in "Radical Son" to be gay-friendly? In several passages in that particular book alone, Horowitz argues that gay men are filthy and disease-ridden, and that gay men are directly responsible for the AIDS epidemic (notwithstanding the fact that, worldwide, more than 90% of cases are transmitted heterosexually). Is this what you mean by "moderate" and "very gay-friendly"? It is YOU who have not done your reading, not me! PHILIP CHANDLER

NewsReal Blog : Gay Hypocrisy or Identity Politics?

Sun, 14 Mar 2010 02:17:38 +0000

You wrote: "Your words show an embarrassing level of ignorance about what those of us who believe in preserving marriage actually think, and why we think that way, and you don't particularly seem to care about correcting your misconceptions." ************ Response: ************ Yet elsewhere you write that "I wouldn't derive any personal meaning or satisfaction from whether or not the government deems me married - that's what making my vows before my family, friends, and God is for. The only reason I believe in a government role in recognizing marriage at all is because of its reproductive aspect. " Which is it then? When it suits you, you argue that government recognition of your marriage is of little or no value to you. Then, when it suits you for purposes of policy debate, you write about your belief in "preserving" marriage and about its sincerity. Which is it? There is a legal doctrine referred to as estoppel. Do you know what collateral estoppel refers to? In this case, it boils down to not being able to talk out of both sides of your mouth. PHILIP CHANDLER

NewsReal Blog : Gay Hypocrisy or Identity Politics?

Sun, 14 Mar 2010 02:11:22 +0000

There are those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is inconsistent with their religion -- and the First Amendment guarantees their freedom of belief. However, the same First Amendment, as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, preclude the enshrinement of their religious-based disapproval in state law. Gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters, our teachers and doctors, our friends and neighbors, our parents and children. It is time, indeed past time, that we accord them the basic human right to marry the person they love. It is time, indeed past time, that our Constitution fulfill its promise of equal protection and due process for all citizens by now eliminating the last remnant of centuries of misguided state discrimination against gays and lesbians. The argument in favor of Proposition 8 ultimately comes down to no more than the tautological assertion that a marriage is between a man and a woman. But a slogan is not a substitute for constitutional analysis. Law is about justice, not bumper stickers." WHAT PART DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

NewsReal Blog : Gay Hypocrisy or Identity Politics?

Sun, 14 Mar 2010 02:10:41 +0000

"The ban on same-sex marriages written into the California Constitution by a 52% vote in favor of Proposition 8 is the residue of centuries of figurative and literal gay-bashing. California allows same-sex domestic partnerships that, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court, provide virtually all of the economic rights of marriage. So the ban on permitting gay and lesbian couples to actually marry is simply an attempt by the state to stigmatize a segment of its population that commits no offense other than falling in love with a disapproved partner, and asks no more of the state than to be treated equally with all other citizens. In 2003 the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas held that states could not constitutionally outlaw consensual homosexual activity. As Justice Anthony Kennedy elegantly wrote rejecting the notion that a history of discrimination might trump constitutional rights, "Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."... CONTINUED...

NewsReal Blog : Gay Hypocrisy or Identity Politics?

Sun, 14 Mar 2010 02:09:34 +0000

Let's cite further from the Boies and Olson article: !Countries as Catholic as Spain, as different as Sweden and South Africa, and as near as Canada have embraced gay and lesbian marriage without any noticeable effect -- except the increase in human happiness and social stability that comes from permitting people to marry for love. Several states -- including Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont -- have individually repealed their bans on same-sex marriage as inconsistent with a decent respect for human rights and a rational view of the communal value of marriage for all individuals. But basic constitutional rights cannot depend on the willingness of the electorate in any given state to end discrimination. If we were prepared to consign minority rights to a majority vote, there would be no need for a constitution..." CONTINUED....