The leadership at Exodus seems to have come up with a bizarre and totally unsubstantiated new talking-point claiming “most” gay people don’t care much for the work of gay-rights groups. In Exodus’ book “God’s Grace and the Homosexual Next Door” Randy Thomas is so kind as to oversimplify all gays and lesbians into three “groups of homosexuals.” From page 126 describing the “moderate” type of homosexual:
Perhaps to your surprise, I can say that most people who identify as gay or lesbian are like these women.
…Most moderate homosexuals are grateful to live in the United States and will challenge the gay establishment’s “groupthink” regarding gay activism. Many are also mortified by what the militant gay activist community proposes on behalf of everyone else in the gay community.
Alan Chambers was spouting the same thing on NPR two weeks ago. Both Chambers and Thomas cite “personal experience” as justification for this nonsense. Where Exodus hasn’t, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force actually bothered to do a survey to determine that gay people are in-fact interested in laws that protect them.
Really, why bother justifying your claims when you can just operate under the declaration of “proclaiming the Biblical truth” about “homosexuals?”
It helps to remember that the last actual contact Randy and Alan had with “the gay community” was over 10 or 15 years ago. Since then, they’ve been locked into the Exodus bubble cut off from regular society. Gay community activism has changed a lot since these guys were sitting around gay bars getting drunk, pretending to be “active” in the gay community.
These people need to decide whether they want to be “Gay” or “ex-Gay” (whatever that may be). You cannot call yourself “ex-Gay” and at the same time claim to speak for Gay people. I’m getting really tired of hearing their mess. Somebody’s getting desperate.
I know gays who aren’t in favor of gay marriage as an issue which should consume community resources, but I don’t know anyone who is mortified by the idea of gay marriage. That’s just silly and uninformed.
By saying this, Exodus is trying to provide an out for non-haters who want to oppose gay marriage without appearing to be anti-gay.
At the risk of sounding political (or cynical), this is exactly the sort of language that you hear to justify wars.
“The average citizens of Whereverstan really want democracy and freedom. If we just go in and overthrow their oppressive and extreme government then the people will rise up and shower us with flowers. So let’s go take over.”
This is all part of the great Culture War that the extreme religious right has declared on the rest of society, particularly the gay community. Chambers isn’t even remotely interested in the goals, desires, or dreams of the “moderate homosexuals”. He is simply using a proven tool to inspire the army of onward Christian soldiers in their unilateral attack on our very existence.
That’s an insightful analogy, Timothy. I hadn’t thought about it that way, but I think you’re right.
My guess is that they paraded out a picture of some kind of nearly-naked drunk go-go dancer during a pride parade and asked a log cabin republican if such a person was advancing the cause of the gay rights movement.
It helps to remember that the last actual contact Randy and Alan had with “the gay community” was over 10 or 15 years ago.
Exactly.
That’s part of American greatness, is discrimination. Yes, sir. Inequality, I think, breeds freedom and gives a man opportunity.
–Lester Maddox, ex-governor of Georgia
Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
Chambers isn’t even remotely interested in the goals, desires, or dreams of the “moderate homosexuals”. He is simply using a proven tool to inspire the army of onward Christian soldiers in their unilateral attack on our very existence.
The truth hurts, doesn’t it?
I for one have no use for HRC wasting tens of millions of dollars on antigay candidates, as they did with John Kerry.
I for one have no use with the fawning syncophants running our national “gay rights” organizations who think we need to be allied with the abortion-pushing left and oppose any restrictions whatsoever on it, despite the vast majority of Americans supporting the opposite.
I for one have no use with the moronic people who waste millions of dollars on fruitless lawsuits, but whine about how gay couples “can’t afford” legal advice on setting up and taking advantage of those protections that are available to us today.
And I am frankly sick and tired of, as I gay leftists telling me and my fellow conservative, non-Democrat gays to kill ourselves.
What is ironic about Thomas’s statements is that his trying to separate gays out into different groups is actually counterproductive to his goals. If Americans actually saw gays as something other than slavish HRC devotees who berate Republicans for actions that they call “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” in Democrats, gay rights would accelerate immeasurably — because being gay would no longer require one to be an antireligious, bigoted hypocrite.
If Thomas had targeted and named specific gay-left groups, I might have agreed with him.
But it appears that he didn’t do that. He made a sweeping statement about all gay activism and associated all of it with the bizarre word “militant” and with an undefined branch of the political left.
I had a thought the other night that maybe, just maybe, these ex-gays are really trying to justify, to themselves, the choices they’ve made. I wonder if perhaps they are so scared that maybe they are wrong, that they’ve got to prove, by whatever means necessary, that they made the right choice. I gather that they aren’t really secure in the path they’ve chosen. Perhaps it’s because they know deep down that they really didn’t change their desires…only their actions. While I don’t expect any such admissions, I’m pretty sure I’m not that far off.
j.
Jonathon, I think there’s a lot of truth in that.
And Thomas is probably just expressing wishful thinking when he claims many gays are mortified by what gay activists propose – he probably wants to think most gays aren’t against him and his ‘exgay’ agenda.
Funny, Jonathan, I always figured that this blog existed for that very reason…..that gays were trying to justify to themselves the choices that they’ve made.
What I find particularly amusing is that everyone except myself is making excuses for why they can’t agree with Chambers and Thomas — that there ARE a sizeable number of gays who are disgusted by the antics of the gay left and are squarely set against their groupthink.
It’s attitudes like that that leave the gay community dazed after every election, wondering why they spent millions of dollars to promote the homophobes who just screwed them over.
The problem with Chambers and Thomas is not the fact that they reported; it’s how they choose to interpret it. Acknowledging the fact is not the same as accepting the interpretation.
North Dallas Thirty,
Given that I’m a moderate (liberal libertarian perhaps) who volunteers for IGF and at least one of our authors is quite conservative, I fail to see how this blog exists to justify choices made by some imaginary collective of gays.
And I also fail to see how anyone is making excuses. Some folks honestly agree with NGLTF and HRC, while others disagree and have said so before — some of us disagreed with the NGLTF’s handling of the Palm Springs Unity Rally, for example.
As much as you’d like to think you’re unique here, I’m afraid you’re not.
North Dallas Thiry –
You can disagree with HRC all you like, that is your right. I’m sure that there are gays who are not completely happy with the big gay rights groups because no one is ever completely happy with everyone and everything. The same things that bring me pride in groups like HRC seem to make you unhappy. Cest la vie.
I personally love that they are willing to work with other large social justice movements (yes, that includes women’s rights because as a woman and a bisexual I don’t have the luxury of being in only one of those groups, they both impact me). I don’t mind them giving money to candidates that support me somewhat (John Kerry) in order to defeat candidates that hate my guts.
But the sucide thing is just a big old load of bullshit right there. There is nothing in any of your links in your post calling for Mary Cheney to kill herself or threatening to kill her. I have no idea how you get “gay leftists telling me and my fellow conservative, non-Democrat gays to kill ourselves” from people who are not talking anything remotely close to that. There are links that complain that Mary Cheney is a hippocrite, an idiot, and poor writer, but nothing remotely close to what you are accusing Pam and John of. Not to mention that your links are pretty stale on that front, both Pam and John have applauded her reecent actions:
https://www.pamspaulding.com/weblog/2006/10/mary-cheney-supports-effort-to-fight.html
https://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/vice-presidential-daughter-mary-cheney.html
I would try to keep a little more up to date on the issues at hand before you start screaming that the sky is falling.
NDT,
As one who is to the right of center politically and who is actively involved in politics, I think your take on this is a bit of a stretch. Disgusted is a strong word. Perhaps there are a few who are disgusted. That’s cool. Although I’m not a supporter, I’m certainly not disgusted because they’ve helped advance the cause of equality for all of us. It’s funny, I never thought I would end up where I am, but part of that can be attributed to activists who worked that I can live in a nice neighborhood, at the beach, with my partner and our child (biological even) and our dog. That we can have the typical American family dream.
I’m not disgusted! And if you really sat down and looked at your life and the benefits that some of the groups have helped you obtain, you’d probably be a little less disgusted. I don’t think that Randy really knows that many gay people. Perhaps he should introduce himself to me. I’m afraid though I’d blow his mind.
j.
North Dallas Thirty,
As a life-long Republican and a fairly involved gay man, I can say that I don’t think you represent a very dominant position within the gay community.
I do know that roughly 25% of out gay persons vote Republican. But these same people vote for the Party’s nominees for economic or other reasons and do so in spite of their anti-gay positions rather than because of them.
And I do know large numbers of Republican gays both within Log Cabin and without. I also know a large number of moderate Democrat gays and even some very liberal ones. I can say that I think I know what issues resonate and which are shrugged off.
People don’t care all that much (per my observation) about the things that don’t impact their life directly or which they don’t think is all that important. They won’t go protest about vetoing a bill funding research on senior gays or specific language used in textbooks. But they will take to the streets, liberals and conservatives, over a veto of non-discrimination or marriage or domestic partnerships.
I’ve seen it.
There are gay people of all political persuations. But other than a very few, they all support equality for gay people. Perhaps they don’t support John Kerry or some of HRC’s activities (I don’t). And some probably find NGLTF to be so far leftist as to cringe when they speak for the gay community.
But overall, gay Republicans will support non-discrimination, ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and marriage equality as readily as will gay Democrats. While as a Californian I cannot speak for certain gay Republicans in Dallas, I do have enough experience to know what I’m talking about in the nation generally.
I know that there are some who are so partisan or feel so isolated from the more radical gay activists that they oppose anything that they think is presented by the gay political “elite”. And there are those so self-loathing that they favor laws that punish gay people. But this is not a significant number.
I don’t mean to demean you or your position. But consider, NDT, that perhaps when you say “I, for one” you might be speaking more literally than you think.
NDT,
To clarify:
“While as a Californian I cannot speak for certain gay Republicans in Dallas”
I followed your link and found you are in SF instead of Dallas. Sorry for the assumption.
However, I also found that you seem to hold a particular dislike for “gay Democrats” and several posts address your complaints.
For the record and for any gay Democrats reading: gay Republicans don’t generally dislike gay Democrats. Heck, we’ll even date them.
As a Reagan Republican who detests abortion and disagrees with many positions held by the HRC, NGLTF, et al, I think you sound like a stale, angry pundit. I can’t count the number of times I have heard someone try to shore up their anti-civil rights position by claiming that “most blacks don’t even agree with [insert civil rights speaker or organization here].” And you obviously have no idea what XGW is about or you wouldn’t make a fool of yourself with such a statement.
You were politely ignored the first time because all of us can lapse into a rant now and then, but you had to scream and whine again just to make sure everyone noticed you. Well we did. Now in the future, if you want traffic use Adwords.
First, for Sarah:
Nothing short of Mary Cheney opening a vein or two would make me think twice about anything she says or does, and I mean anything! Fuck her.
Steven | 10.17.06 – 4:04 pm | #
That’s just a start.
And if you’d like more of Pam and John’s hate rhetoric about Mary Cheney, I’ll be happy to provide it, especially since it is rather amusing to watch two paid Democratic party operatives who couldn’t find it in themselves to criticize John Kerry’s antigay actions until after he lost the election to be screaming about Mary Cheney.
Next to Jonathan:
It’s funny, I never thought I would end up where I am, but part of that can be attributed to activists who worked that I can live in a nice neighborhood, at the beach, with my partner and our child (biological even) and our dog. That we can have the typical American family dream.
Actually, I would prefer to attribute it to the fact that you are an intelligent, well-spoken person who quite obviously is good at what they do and gets along well with others.
Simply put, I think you need these activists less than they need you, and that simply by being yourself, you’ve advanced quite nicely without them — and would have advanced in any case.
Next, to Timothy:
But they will take to the streets, liberals and conservatives, over a veto of non-discrimination or marriage or domestic partnerships.
Ah yes, I remember the massive street rallies of protest when this came out. Indeed, I was almost trampled in the rush to proclaim John Kerry “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” and nearly buried under the tens of millions of dollars shoveled his direction.
What I think you should more precisely state is that people will “take to the streets” in protest over a conservative or Republican’s actions. When it comes to a Democrat’s, they may take to the streets, but it will be to praise them and give them more money.
And on a more local level in California, which is to what I believe you were referring, I see no reason to waste effort in on protesting a veto of a marriage bill that is a clear violation of Proposition 22; it merely adds to the public perception that gays don’t care about the voters’ wishes and are trying to impose their will instead.
I would be more than happy to help if gays like yourself were actually pushing a public repeal of Proposition 22, but for some reason, that never seems to get any traction — probably for the same reason that Mark Leno can never seem to bring up a gay marriage bill in an election year.
And finally for David:
As a Reagan Republican who detests abortion and disagrees with many positions held by the HRC, NGLTF, et al, I think you sound like a stale, angry pundit. I can’t count the number of times I have heard someone try to shore up their anti-civil rights position by claiming that “most blacks don’t even agree with [insert civil rights speaker or organization here].”
Well, considering in that paragraph you make it clear that even you don’t agree with HRC and NGLTF, what exactly is your point in criticizing Randy Thomas’s statement that many gays don’t?
I thought I already answered your question to David, NDT —
Thomas is falsely accusing all gay activism, not just the left, of “groupthink” and militancy. In other words, he’s saying you’re not really a gay activist unless you conform to Thomas’ stereotype of gay activists as leftists.
We don’t practice groupthink at XGW, nor do a lot of moderate and independent groups that consider themselves activist or advocacy-oriented.
On the other hand, Thomas most certainly does practice groupthink as he parrots the propaganda of the religious right. As a result, he frequently gets himself into trouble due to the contradictions in what he parrots.
North Dallas 30 said “Well, considering in that paragraph you make it clear that even you don’t agree with HRC and NGLTF, what exactly is your point in criticizing Randy Thomas’s statement that many gays don’t?“.
North Dallas 30, you’re missing the important point of this thread and whining about seperate issues. Randy Thomas said “Many are also mortified by what the militant gay activist community proposes on behalf of everyone else in the gay community.“. He’s saying moderate gays don’t agree with the overall goals of gay activists like anti-discrimination laws and equal marriage for same sex couples. That’s blatantly ridiculous. Obviously some gays disagree with some of the actions and approaches taken by HRC and the like, but generally not the overall goals. Do you oppose anti-discrimination laws and equal marriage for same sex couples? If not then STFU, you’ve entirely missed the point of the criticism of Thomas.
Thank you, Randi. NDT is so determined to be a contrarian that he misses the point entirely. From his posts, it seems that he too supports gay marriage – which is what Randy Thomas claims that moderate gays find mortifying. But rather than concede that point, he wants to argue about John Kerry.
From time to time we get the “yeah, but..” type of commenters here. They aren’t interested in dialog, they’re just looking for a fight – and I suspect NTD falls into that category.
“And if you’d like more of Pam and John’s hate rhetoric about Mary Cheney, I’ll be happy to provide it”
You seem to be having some basic reading comprehension problems. In order to show me more of something, you would have to have shown something in the first place. You can’t give more of nothing. You haven’t shown me anything saying that Pam or John wants you or Mary Cheney to kill yourself. You’ve shown one commenter at John’s site. That comment thread probably has 100 comments in it, and only one wants Mary Cheney to kill herself (and says nothing about you I might add, so I think it is extremely egotistical to extrapolate that this Steven character would want you to kill yourself as well).
Likewise, do you know Steven personally? How do you know he is a liberal gay activist? Not every liberal gay is an activist. Do you know what causes Steven works for? Do you have a list of articles or books or posts he has written? Do you even know if he is gay? I know plenty of straight people that hate Mary Cheney. Do you even know he is liberal? Maybe he is a socialist. Maybe he’s a facist. You have no idea.
You’re displaying some serious 2+2=47 logic here.
I’m not even going to bother to count how many posts John and Pam have put up about Mary Cheney, but I would guess 50 between both of them. And each of those has a lot of comments on it. I don’t think Pam or John is the least bit responsible for the one lone nut that uses his right to free speech on their site to advocate someone killing themselves. And I think it is really dishonest and just plan stupid for you to blame John and Pam for it or to try to extrapolate that into a wider claim about liberal gays wanting you dead. They probably don’t want you dead, they just want you to stop pulling statements like this out of your ass.
First to Randi’s:
He’s saying moderate gays don’t agree with the overall goals of gay activists like anti-discrimination laws and equal marriage for same sex couples..
Problem is, those aren’t the overall goals of gay activists.
Want proof?
This, this (don’t miss the quote from Joe Solmonese), and this.
Given the tens of millions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of volunteer hours, and piles of endorsements as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” that gays pumped into those examples, I think it is made abundantly clear what the “overall goals” of gay activists are — and that they are to please the Democrats first, even if it enables and promotes gaybashing on the Dems’ part.
So Thomas is right — I’m mortified. And I would like to think several of you are mortified as well by the fact that the people who jostle their way up to the microphone like Joe Solmonese and claim to represent gays are more than willing to enable, praise, and fund homophobes as long as they’re of the correct political affiliation.
Now, to Mike:
Thomas is falsely accusing all gay activism, not just the left, of “groupthink” and militancy. In other words, he’s saying you’re not really a gay activist unless you conform to Thomas’ stereotype of gay activists as leftists.
So he’s saying exactly the same things as the overwhelming number of commentors on Mary Cheney that I cited yesterday — that she won’t really be a gay activist until she becomes a leftist like them.
What I really wish you’d “get”, Mike, is that people like Thomas are not making up facts; they are reporting the obvious. Look at your accounts of the Palm Springs protest — oodles and gobs of leftists and liberals. Sure, XGW was there, but if you look at the pictures, you can’t tell you and the Unity Rally coalition apart — and you yourself pointed out that only ONE out of however many speakers had any real knowledge of the issues at hand and wasn’t just parroting the liberal/leftist line.
What I find really funny is that, if XGW truly follows its values, it DOES challenge groupthink and is mortified by how other activists fling around hate constantly and use gay rights as an excuse for things like abortion.
But when Thomas points that out, your knee-jerk reaction is to deny that and claim that you share the same values as these other activists.
I don’t think Pam or John is the least bit responsible for the one lone nut that uses his right to free speech on their site to advocate someone killing themselves. And I think it is really dishonest and just plan stupid for you to blame John and Pam for it or to try to extrapolate that into a wider claim about liberal gays wanting you dead.
But I suspect you have zero problem with people like Pam or John blaming religious people for their words allegedly causing people to bash gays or gays to commit suicide.
Furthermore, Sarah, I wonder what the reaction would be here if I said the things about you that these people are saying about Mary Cheney and suggested that nothing short of you killing yourself would make me care about you in the least.
Somehow, I don’t think people would sit on their hands — or encourage it — as much as John and Pam have.
Timothy, I have a post waiting in filter that will respond to your statements; I daresay the hyperlinks kept it from going through.
I had NDT ID’d as a troll, at about the
“…Funny, Jonathan, I always figured that this blog existed for that very reason…..that gays were trying to justify to themselves the choices that they’ve made…”
point.
North Dallas Thirty, there’s no way you can compare the volume and intensity of the hate directed by religious people at gays with the volume and intensity of the occaisional moderate gay hatred directed at conservative gays. Large numbers of religious people commonly suggest gays are to be tortured for eternity compared to the rare statement suggesting Mary Cheney kill herself.
NDT apparently lives in SF and on his blog talks about enjoying the Folsom Street Fair (not my cup of tea, but whatever floats your boat).
I grew up in the Bay Area and was a kid when Moscone and Milk were killed. There was the riot at City Hall and the subsequent all out police riot on the Castro in retaliation. This was the 1970s.
Now, I have no desire to walk down Market Street in a dress, but the truth is that people that stood up and did just that have made it easier for the rest of us to come out at work and elsewhere in our lives.
Without the work of people who took great personal risks, we would not be free enought to be ourselves, and NDT would be in danger of police harrassment or worse at a Folsom Stree Fair.
As more and more Americans know someone who is gay, societal homophobia weakens. That had to start somewhere. Someone had to stand up and say they were gay and pay the price.
I don’t agree with everything any group does, but I recognize that the work of gay activitists in the 1970s makes it a whole lot easier for me and NDT to live openly in the Bay Area 30 years later.
North Dallas Thirty, there’s no way you can compare the volume and intensity of the hate directed by religious people at gays with the volume and intensity of the occaisional moderate gay hatred directed at conservative gays..
Let us review that in the light of your previous statement:
I’m not even going to bother to count how many posts John and Pam have put up about Mary Cheney, but I would guess 50 between both of them. And each of those has a lot of comments on it.
Yeah….”occasional, moderate hatred”.
Are you actually against hatred, Sarah…..or are you against it only when it’s directed at you, and not when it’s directed against people you don’t like?
North Dallas Thirty, you’re confusing my comments with SarahS, we’re two different people.
Regardless, Nothing says the posts on John and Pam’s blog were all hateful and there is no comparing a threat of eternal torture with anything written there, I suspect.
And North Dallas Thirty, before you rant on about more off-topic issues how about you address the substance of this thread, the criticism against Randy Thomas for his suggestion that many moderate gays are mortified by gay activists promoting anti-discrimination laws, equal marriage for same sex couples, and a lessinging of social repression of gays. For the second time, do you oppose those overall goals of gay activists, and if not why don’t you stop hijacking the thread for your own personal issues?
“Furthermore, Sarah, I wonder what the reaction would be here if I said the things about you that these people are saying about Mary Cheney and suggested that nothing short of you killing yourself would make me care about you in the least.”
I would feel shitty, and I’m sure that if Mary Cheney is hanging out at John’s blog reading the comments, what Steven made her feel shitty. It’s a shitty thing to say, but that is not the point.
The point is that if I went to a public place access place like a library and one person (hypothetically his name being Steven) in the building told me to kill myself to make them happy, I wouldn’t hold the workers of the library responsible for for what Stevie had to say. I wouldn’t later claim that a guy named Steven in the library telling me to kill myself is the same as the library director telling me to kill myself.
And I wouldn’t hijack a whole thread to try to convince people that up is down and blue is green. I’m done here and I challenge you to answer the other commenters asking more critical questions then I.
First, you’re right, Randi; I mistakenly attributed Sarah’s statement to you.
Next:
For the second time, do you oppose those overall goals of gay activists, and if not why don’t you stop hijacking the thread for your own personal issues?
Unfortunately, the post where I responded to you the first time is apparently still caught in the spam filter.
I’ll wait until you have a chance to review that.
Now, to Sarah:
The point is that if I went to a public place access place like a library and one person (hypothetically his name being Steven) in the building told me to kill myself to make them happy, I wouldn’t hold the workers of the library responsible for for what Stevie had to say. I wouldn’t later claim that a guy named Steven in the library telling me to kill myself is the same as the library director telling me to kill myself.
And what would you say later if you had found out that the workers and/or the library director had made hateful remarks about you themselves and encouraged and allowed people, including Steven, to do the same?
Somehow, I have the feeling you’d be much less prone to indemnify both of them for their actions.
Are you actually against hatred, Sarah…..or are you against it only when it’s directed at you, and not when it’s directed against people you don’t like?
NDT, this sums up your attitude since you started posting here. You are behaving like a troll, trying desperately to generate argument for argument’s sake by baiting, doubting the intentions of others in the discussion and generally acting like an angry malcontent who’s opinion is the only correct one. All that is fine if you do it on your own personal blog, but it does not belong here.
You are welcome to post here if you obey the guidelines, keep your comments germane to the topic and act with civility. If you continue as you have, you will lose the privilege of posting here entirely. Please conduct yourself accordingly.
David Roberts
Now to John’s post, which I can answer with a simple question:
Which do you think is more effective in reducing homophobia — a plain old everyday gay person who comes out, or a man in a dress walking down the street?
Also, do you think the queens of the 1970s would be proud of people who pander to antireligious bigots and support laws stripping gays of rights being given tens of millions of gay dollars and endorsements as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”?
NDT, your last comment is completely off topic and a clear violation of the guidelines that David Roberts cites in his comment was published at the same time as yours.
Please read David’s comment and either obey the rules or leave.
I have been watching this thread spin out for the past few days. I sympathize with ND30’s frustrations with the marginalization of conservative gays. I just wish he was more mindful of his tone which, IMO, have the appearance of not recognizing that the commenters here are not his enemy.
Also, I think he should take some time to re-read Ex-Gay Watch’s commenters guidelines, specifically:
fawning syncophants… moronic people…
Guidelines: Re: Namecalling
Nothing short of Mary Cheney opening a vein or two…
Steven | 10.17.06 – 4:04 pm | #
…And if you’d like more of Pam and John’s hate rhetoric…
Guidelines: Re: Strawman arguments.
Are you actually against hatred, Sarah…..or are you against it only when it’s directed at you, and not when it’s directed against people you don’t like?
Guideline: “Be charitable in tone toward fellow commenters.”
But I suspect you have zero problem with people like Pam or John blaming religious people for their words allegedly causing people to bash gays or gays to commit suicide.
Guideline: “Do not assume you understand an author or commenter’s viewpoint or motive; if in doubt, seek clarification.”
I wonder what the reaction would be here if I said the things about you that these people are saying about Mary Cheney and suggested that nothing short of you killing yourself would make me care about you in the least.
Guideline: “Refrain from labels and broad assumptions.”
ND30, I know that those are only guidelines, most of which fall under “what makes a good comment better.” But I’ve found them to be very useful in trying to advance an argument.
And that fact that others here try to follow them (they try, they don’t always succeed but they try) makes this forum very refreshing. And your comments very ineffective.
I’m afraid that because of your tone, it appears you now have people responding as much to the messenger as to the message. I can’t say I blame them.