Gaystapo

[darkeyes]

Just read this.. gave me a gud giggle 2... kno cuppla bi guys who call the more extreme elements in the gay world "Gaystapo" so its not very 'riginal..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/08/anglican-newspaper-defends-gaystapo-article

Not gonna comment on it.. have heard most of it before and 2 b honest it gets tedious an it's dishonesty gets on me tits..:(


..and in a country where the proper Gestapo once held sway, found this a much more cheery an' hopeful lil article...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/08/polish-transsexual-gay-mps-parliament

[Long Duck Dong]

gaystapo.... yes its a term I would use to refer to some gay people in NZ... cos their attitude is what this guy talks about

I am referring to the rabbit island issue amongst others, a area that is a family recreation area, and some of the gay community have decided that full sex amongst adults in full view of the public, is acceptable, even if children can see it, cos the rights of adults to have a area for cruising and unrestricted sex over rides any legal laws in NZ

people that have pointed out that it is a a family area and what the people are doing is illegal, immediately get called homophobes and gay haters.... when in fact many of them are just concerned citizens that want the area to remain for the general public, not a area for illegal and x rated activities....and have the rules apply to all, equally.......

while most LGBT are still trying to get basic rights and equal rights, we have the ones like the gaystapo, that now feel that they are the elite class of people, and that non gay people are the undesirables.......

gaystapo may not be a nice term, but its not really any different to calling them gay supremists or gay elitists and lets be honest, in every group of society, you have the majority of people that are good people, they want rights and they enjoy what they have... and then we have the people that mirror the same behievour they fought against for years and say its ok for them to do that

[LastGent]

About public sex and nudity, I have often wondered why it is considered a virtue to block minors from reality? Letting them see sex or nudity, which is an actual crime in some countries-because, they're going to do it anyway when they reach puberty. Why do elders have such hang ups about this? Why hide this truth from children? Humans have sex, and they are naked at some time every day, so what?

[Long Duck Dong]

the answer would be simple, last gent, not all people can be trusted to act in a intelligent and mature manner about sex and sexual issues.... and some people do not understand that children are not there for others sexual enjoyment....

the issue of why hide nudity and sex, is one of personal understanding and choice.... its a lot like nudists that are happy to be nude, but they want not to see other people doing the funky chicken in broad day light.....
it can be argued about peoples rights to express themselves, but what about the rights of people that do not want to see public acts of sexual expression..... and not all of them are prudes either....

it really comes down to our thinking, we see nothing wrong with public sexual interaction and nudity, therefore we can see no reason why it should not be legal..... apply the same thinking to the groups like AMBLA ( american man boy love association ) that want the legal age of consent lowered as they can not see issues with older men with younger boys...... however a lot of parents do not see things that way, as its their children that could be the *younger boys *

[darkeyes]

gaystapo.... yes its a term I would use to refer to some gay people in NZ... cos their attitude is what this guy talks about

I am referring to the rabbit island issue amongst others, a area that is a family recreation area, and some of the gay community have decided that full sex amongst adults in full view of the public, is acceptable, even if children can see it, cos the rights of adults to have a area for cruising and unrestricted sex over rides any legal laws in NZ

people that have pointed out that it is a a family area and what the people are doing is illegal, immediately get called homophobes and gay haters.... when in fact many of them are just concerned citizens that want the area to remain for the general public, not a area for illegal and x rated activities....and have the rules apply to all, equally.......

while most LGBT are still trying to get basic rights and equal rights, we have the ones like the gaystapo, that now feel that they are the elite class of people, and that non gay people are the undesirables.......

gaystapo may not be a nice term, but its not really any different to calling them gay supremists or gay elitists and lets be honest, in every group of society, you have the majority of people that are good people, they want rights and they enjoy what they have... and then we have the people that mirror the same behievour they fought against for years and say its ok for them to do that

We all know that the lgbt movement throughout the world has its share of arseholes.. however much this article talks about it being just the leadership and thats an important point, he tars them all with the same brush, the author goes on to tell tales and make points which are only half truths at best and are intended to discredit homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism, and to tar us all with the brush of authoritarian intolerance. It is intended to frighten, create reaction and perpetuate bigotry.

I hate those within the lgbt who are just as u say.. they do exist and we are fools if we dismiss them as fantasy.. but we are also fools if we allow people like the author of this article to peddle what may exactly not be lies but are certainly far from the whole truth unchallenged..and by speaking as u do.. u provide him with just the platform and credibility he desires...

[Gearbox]

There is an increased perception among some Christian groups that it is harder for the devout to live out their faith because of legislation such as the Equality Act. Christian guesthouse owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull are in court this week trying to overturn a ruling that they broke the law by refusing to allow a gay couple to stay in a double room, while a group of politicians and peers are holding "select committee style" hearings to establish whether or not British laws discriminate against Christians.
Don't ya just love it?:bigrin:
Apparently it's against the law to be a practising devout Christian in the uk these days.lol It's not Jesus's fault! It's equalities fault!:rolleyes:

Those gays that LDD mention are just as bigoted as the church, and should be view as bigots just the same IMO. After all it's that part that we all should be against.
(spoken as a true equality bigot.:tongue:).

[tenni]

"Following a plethora of equalities legislation, homosexuals are now protected and privileged by sexual orientation regulations and have achieved legal equality by way of civil partnerships. But it's only 1938 and Nazi expansionist ambitions are far from sated."

The examples given of discrimination by Christians needs to be explored by a legal system.

"Their clients have included Colin Atkinson, an electrician who wanted to display a crucifix in his van, and Owen and Eunice Johns, who refused to tell foster children in their care that homosexuality was acceptable."

Questions in my mind are about whose van was Atkinson wanting to display a crucifix. If it is his own personal van, then I do not see an employer having much ground to ban it. If the van is the company's van or the employer contributes a good amount of money to maintain the van etc. then no Atkinson may be asked not to include a crucifix. He might if he argues that the religious symbol is important and rationalizes it in reference to his religious daily practices. Does he pray daily while in the van? Has the crucifix been blessed? If the clients travel in the van (unlikely), then that strengthens not letting him have a crucifix.

As far as a foster parent refusing to tell foster children in their care that homosexuality is acceptable I think that I read where it was more of the foster parents stating and preaching that homosexuality was wrong. If the foster parents are receiving public funds to care for these children then no they do not have such a right to promote bigotry towards a minority whether that minority is disabled people, old people, a racial minority or sexual orientation.

I think that I have posted before that Canada may have resolved this issue (not to certain people's beliefs though) that a person may not be discriminated based upon their religious beliefs but nor may they discriminate where public funds are involved. A Christian B&B may no more discriminate against GLBT than they may discriminate against a racial minority. There are ways around that though and they may find avoidance methods. It is their home though then they would have a few more rights than say a hotel which is more public than private residence. I suspect that in Canada that they might be able to discriminate based on religion as to whether they permit any person from staying in their home.

To refer to Nazism in any form is inappropriate when used by a Christian group attempting to argue that they are discriminated against after many years of discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

As far as referring to any group as Gestapo (any sexuality or religious group) is probably still inappropriate and reflect bigotry to and sensationalism to make a point. It happens though.

[DuckiesDarling]

On the first link. Comparing anything to Nazis is an automatic loss in my opinion, nothing can equal what the Nazis did to the Jews. Religion needs to step away from sexual issues and then maybe the world would be a better place.


On the second link. I'm happy that they are progressive enough to have elected people of alternate sexualities but unless it's a token move then the sexuality has no place in what they do as politicians for their country.

[Long Duck Dong]

We all know that the lgbt movement throughout the world has its share of arseholes.. however much this article talks about it being just the leadership and thats an important point, he tars them all with the same brush, the author goes on to tell tales and make points which are only half truths at best and are intended to discredit homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism, and to tar us all with the brush of authoritarian intolerance. It is intended to frighten, create reaction and perpetuate bigotry.

I hate those within the lgbt who are just as u say.. they do exist and we are fools if we dismiss them as fantasy.. but we are also fools if we allow people like the author of this article to peddle what may exactly not be lies but are certainly far from the whole truth unchallenged..and by speaking as u do.. u provide him with just the platform and credibility he desires...

I am sorry fran, but I am not supporting his stance on the GAY leadership at all, I was refering to members of the gay community that have a elitist stance and not singling out the leadership of the gay community v's the *average * gay person

if you want to challenge his statements, then challenge them, be vocal about how wrong he is, but please learn the difference between his stance and mine.... I am refering to people that have a direct and disruptive effect on the community in nelson and rabbit island, not the leadership of the LGBT community and I am refering to people that are supportive of actions that are illegal under NZ law.

just a lil hint, be wary that in challenging his statements, you may become the type of person that he is taking about, that tries to silence any opposing opinion to the LGBT movement.

[darkeyes]

I am sorry fran, but I am not supporting his stance on the GAY leadership at all, I was refering to members of the gay community that have a elitist stance and not singling out the leadership of the gay community v's the *average * gay person

if you want to challenge his statements, then challenge them, be vocal about how wrong he is, but please learn the difference between his stance and mine.... I am refering to people that have a direct and disruptive effect on the community in nelson and rabbit island, not the leadership of the LGBT community and I am refering to people that are supportive of actions that are illegal under NZ law.

just a lil hint, be wary that in challenging his statements, you may become the type of person that he is taking about, that tries to silence any opposing opinion to the LGBT movement.

Duckie, sometimes I wish you would question and criticise more those who carp on about us and our little failings and those who are responsible for stamping on us than those among us whose attitudes are worthy of criticism. Of course we have among our number all that you say, but they are by no means the lgbt, nor do they control it or are they overly influential, they are far from a majority and they certainly arent Nazis, nor can they be compared to nazis.. they may be arseholes and they may be elitist but they are not what is claimed..

And there was no need for your "lil hint"... I am brighter than that, more free of thought, care too much and know what silencing those who disgree with me means and would make me.. I don't want him or any other opponent silenced.. I want them challenged and not allowed to get away with dishonesty and untruth..

..and listen to Darlin' darlin... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/09/gaystapo-alan-craig-gay-rights?INTCMP=SRCH

[Long Duck Dong]

Duckie, sometimes I wish you would question and criticise more those who carp on about us and our little failings and those who are responsible for stamping on us than those among us whose attitudes are worthy of criticism. Of course we have among our number all that you say, but they are by no means the lgbt, nor do they control it or are they overly influential, they are far from a majority and they certainly arent Nazis, nor can they be compared to nazis.. they may be arseholes and they may be elitist but they are not what is claimed..

And there was no need for your "lil hint"... I am brighter than that, more free of thought, care too much and know what silencing those who disgree with me means and would make me.. I don't want him or any other opponent silenced.. I want them challenged and not allowed to get away with dishonesty and untruth..

..and listen to Darlin' darlin... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/09/gaystapo-alan-craig-gay-rights?INTCMP=SRCH

fran I question everything, not just what suits me..... and I do not sit on one side of the fence, I lube up fence posts and sit on them so I can see both sides of the fence.....

like I said, i would use the term * gaystapo in reference to some people.....and I defined why I would say that and who i would say it about.....
now considering I know first hand the people I am talking about, as I have faced off with them, I would suggest you back up a lil.

the people I am refering to, are known amongst the LGBT community as gay elitists and very obnoxious people that would call people like you and me, hetero sympathisers, and closeted gay haters.

so, in simple terms, you are carping on about a article and a term of reference, I am refering to people I actually know and who are disliked by most of the LGBT community, the type of people that act with a sense of belief that they are the *superior race * the *aryan nation * of sexuality in you like, and they will stamp on anybody they want, if it suits them.

I would suggest you continue on your rant about the article and the remarks I make about a situation in NZ, with people I happen to know.... and see that they are two very different situations, the only connection between the two, is the term * gaystapo *.

the difference between you and me, is I do not pick and choose my fights, I will fight equally for the rights of all, and yeah i will defend the authors right to express himself in terms that can be offensive to the LGBT, its called freedom of speech and I have no idea who he is actually refering to by his label of LGBT leadership.

[darkeyes]

the difference between you and me, is I do not pick and choose my fights, I will fight equally for the rights of all, and yeah i will defend the authors right to express himself in terms that can be offensive to the LGBT, its called freedom of speech and I have no idea who he is actually refering to by his label of LGBT leadership.

U cheeky sod... my whole life is about getting, extending and defending rights for all.. I have always argued that my sexuality and the fight for lgbt rights is subservient to the greater fight for human rights.. it is not that I pick and choose fights.. we all do that to some degree even u Duckie... it is that fights often pick me... in life we are at least as reactive as we are proactive.. regarding freedom of speech what he thinks and wishes to say is his affair... like u I have no problem with him saying what he belives and will defend his right to say it.. but I will not allow him to say it unchallenged...

[tenni]

"I have always argued that my sexuality and the fight for lgbt rights is subservient to the greater fight for human rights."

I believe that you have presented this point several times. I also remember an activist friend state that it is important to "pick your battles". I have seen a friend aquaintance fight every battle that he can find. He spends a great deal of his time at pointing out injustices. He is disabled and I understand his background a bit. I can see where he is coming from. It does however become overwhelming when he posts (Facebook in particular) issue after issue after issue. Many I agree with but go back to my activist friend's statement about picking your battles.

Is this a battle that darkeyes believes needs to be fought? Is it a point to bring to people's attention and then let it go? How does darkeyes decide which battle to fight?...;)

[darkeyes]

"I have always argued that my sexuality and the fight for lgbt rights is subservient to the greater fight for human rights."

I believe that you have presented this point several times. I also remember an activist friend state that it is important to "pick your battles". I have seen a friend aquaintance fight every battle that he can find. He spends a great deal of his time at pointing out injustices. He is disabled and I understand his background a bit. I can see where he is coming from. It does however become overwhelming when he posts (Facebook in particular) issue after issue after issue. Many I agree with but go back to my activist friend's statement about picking your battles.

Is this a battle that darkeyes believes needs to be fought? Is it a point to bring to people's attention and then let it go? How does darkeyes decide which battle to fight?...;)

This isnt a battle Tenni babes.. its just a very minor skirmish.. sometimes all that is needed is to bring something to peeps attention.... in this instance the man discredited himself by his own rehetoric and so as such it isnt worthy of the name battle.. but it is a minor skirmish in the more serious battle against religious intolerance of homosexuality.. that is a battle I have been fighting ever since before I even kissed one of my own gender..

How do I pick battles? Not whether or not they are winnable thats for sure..some have to be fought even when we are sure we will be overwhelmed by our opponents.. what matters is whether we believe ourselves to have the right of it.. I have always tried to fight much too actively over many battles in the past.. I am one person and cant do everything.. so now it isn't that I pick a battle to fight, several things come to mind which determine how active I will be.. how deeply I feel for a cause and how useful I feel I can be in furthering that cause.. and ...

...I have passions for many causes, but I have a life too...and I will live that life and will enjoy it.. and do.. commitments to family determine how much time I can give to any cause.. sacrifices will always be made if I believe in a cause and already sacrifice a great deal of time and money in pursuit of things I believe in.. which means the sacrifice of time with the family I love and adore... but I will not sacrifice family on the altar of cause.. getting the balance right is important and once that balance is right, and we are at our happiest, we can have the support of family for the things we do and by having our life in balance, we are better able to commit effectively to both family we love and the causes in which we believe.

While we are at it, Tenni.. its nice to cya postin' 'gain... glad yas still around.. can think sevral peeps who will b gobsmacked that ya still r.. but Im pleased 2 cya.. even if it will be only a matter of time b4 u an I are goin' at it head 2 head an toe toe 'gain...:tong:

[tenni]

thanks darkeyes.

As another person who stands up for what she believes in, it is always interesting on how decisions are made.
Justice and injustice is not always universal.

[Long Duck Dong]

part of the issue is, fran, that you have shared his opinion to a wider audience, that means that people that may support his opinion, now know about it and him....

its the same principal as the WBC, the more people talk about them, the more of a audience they get.... and the more supporters they can gain..... even if you are wanting to oppose them..... and that results in more attention for them.....

in a sense, you create a issue by seeing a issue and giving the person more of a voice by creating more of a audience.... and its amusing how often its a persons naysayer, that is actually their best audience, as they tend to spread the persons opinion faster and wider than his supportrts do.....

if I wanted to object to a persons opinion like the gaystapo remark, the first thing I would do, is not share his opinion with others and increase the number of people that could potentially agree with it and add to his support base

[12voltman59]

While I am not a fan of much of what comes from "gay culture" I do totally reject the notion that somehow there is this army of gay soldiers out to make the world a totally "gay" one that we have to be on the lookout for manning the watchtowers and ramparts of hetero society to protect the great elements of hetero culture---whatever they are--from being destroyed by the gay hordes.

It is just more fear mongering and total hogwash-we have enough REAL shit to worry about and to get things right--its gonna take "all hands on deck" to set things to right.

To use some more tired cliches---its shit like this article that seek to "divide and distract" people from each other and from getting together to work to"get our shit together!!"

[Hephaestion]

part of the issue is, fran, that you have shared his opinion to a wider audience, that means that people that may support his opinion, now know about it and him....

its the same principal as the WBC, the more people talk about them, the more of a audience they get.... and the more supporters they can gain..... even if you are wanting to oppose them..... and that results in more attention for them.....

in a sense, you create a issue by seeing a issue and giving the person more of a voice by creating more of a audience.... and its amusing how often its a persons naysayer, that is actually their best audience, as they tend to spread the persons opinion faster and wider than his supportrts do.....

if I wanted to object to a persons opinion like the gaystapo remark, the first thing I would do, is not share his opinion with others and increase the number of people that could potentially agree with it and add to his support base

Understand what you are trying to say LDD with good intentions.

However, burying things is not necessarily a good approach. Often unbiased publicity allows 'the bad' to discredit themselves. Knowledge cannot be bad. The dangers of overwhelming taken into consideration, accurate information feeds a healthy democracy and allows challenge to be formulated (or ideas / concerns to be adopted).

.

[darkeyes]

part of the issue is, fran, that you have shared his opinion to a wider audience, that means that people that may support his opinion, now know about it and him....

its the same principal as the WBC, the more people talk about them, the more of a audience they get.... and the more supporters they can gain..... even if you are wanting to oppose them..... and that results in more attention for them.....

in a sense, you create a issue by seeing a issue and giving the person more of a voice by creating more of a audience.... and its amusing how often its a persons naysayer, that is actually their best audience, as they tend to spread the persons opinion faster and wider than his supportrts do.....

if I wanted to object to a persons opinion like the gaystapo remark, the first thing I would do, is not share his opinion with others and increase the number of people that could potentially agree with it and add to his support base

The one thing we do not do Duckie.. is to ignore something which is not a problem and allow it to fester and spread and become a problem... it is how myth is born.. and it is better to expose and challenge the myth as myth before it becomes fact in the minds of those who may well do us harm, and worse, those who do not wish us harm but may be seduced by the lie into the arms of the liar.

[Long Duck Dong]

Understand what you are trying to say LDD with good intentions.

However, burying things is not necessarily a good approach. Often unbiased publicity allows 'the bad' to discredit themselves. Knowledge cannot be bad. The dangers of overwhelming taken into consideration, accurate information feeds a healthy democracy and allows challenge to be formulated (or ideas / concerns to be adopted).

.

people say shit about the LGBT all the time, should we all do the name and shame thing... or just ignore them..... cos going after this guy, is gonna fuel the fire by proving ( in his eyes ) that hes right, the gaystapo ( in his eyes ) are trying to silence him and strangely enuf, thats what he is saying people are trying to do, in his articles......

leave him alone and you will simply have a man making statements about things that are his opinion, go after him and you give him things to hold up as proof that he is telling the truth and suddenly his words are no longer a opinion, he has proof of people trying to shut him up ( in his eyes )

his rants are not affecting our fights for rights.....but it looks like a case of we do not have enuf people against us, lets go find others to wind up....

[Long Duck Dong]

The one thing we do not do Duckie.. is to ignore something which is not a problem and allow it to fester and spread and become a problem... it is how myth is born.. and it is better to expose and challenge the myth as myth before it becomes fact in the minds of those who may well do us harm, and worse, those who do not wish us harm but may be seduced by the lie into the arms of the liar.

and that is how the gaystapo think and act..... its not a issue at the moment but we have a issue with him, so lets make it a bigger one so we have a reason to go after him

how many times have I said in the forum that before long, it will get to the point that we are starting to make head way in the fight for lgbt rights and rather than be content with that, and accept that not everybody will be happy for us, we will decide that we want to target non accepters for voicing their opinion and end up creating more issues than we needed to....

now you are proving what i said, to be correct......

I would let sleeping dogs lay, before we turn 8000 people into 80,000 people

[darkeyes]

now you are proving what i said, to be correct......



The only thing it proves Duckie babes.. is that u and I have a disagreement.. no more.. no less... unusual I know but there ya r..;)

[dafydd]

gaystapo.... yes its a term I would use to refer to some gay people in NZ... cos their attitude is what this guy talks about


The guy in the article isn't complainging about the 'elitist gays' ur talking about Duck; he's got an issue with 'homosexuals' having equality, and wanting equal rights isn't over-zealous or elitist.

'Gaystapo' is a dumb term based soley only a stupid wordplay. The Nazis sent lesbians and gay men to the gas chambers in the war, as well as disabled, Roma travellors and the Jews.

The Christian B&B that bans gay couples is tied to the Goods and Services Act. A B&B is a business, and as such cannot discriminate against one group or another. No one is forcing Christians to give up their homes to gay couples, but if they are running a money making enterprise, then can't pick and choose guests based on race, sexual orientation, gender etc. It would be like a Chinese restaurant in Soho turning away a black couple because they weren't Chinese. Don't forget there are many caveats in the Equality Law that still give religion the trump card e.g. faith schools pupil intake
/curriculum

LGBT people in many countries only have rights now due to decades of hardcore 'militant' LGBT activists who never stopped demanding equality, who never stopped irrating and agitating and appearing over-zealous and elitist and who picked all the battles they came across, because fighting for equality was fighting for their survival. It's only 55 years ago in Britain that you'd go to jail for even writing about gays or bisexuals or lesbians as we do so freely here.

I think the problem right now in Uk definitely is that there is a certain hysteria around anything which is percieved as homophobic, almost nonsensical villification of anyone who doesn't agree with LGBT lifestyle. It is not illegal to be homophobic anywhere e.g. recent gay couple who reported a street preacher to police who quoted from bible about gays. Dumb. He can say what he wants. It's not illegal to hate gays. But hurting gay people through hate crime is. The press and certain facets of the gay LGBT community are stuck in this victim mode where there is no critical thinking and, I think, sometimes LGBT are made to feel more worried and afraid of 'homophobic society' then they need to be. Though I understand how disenfranchised groups don't easily shift from opression to celebration e.g For many older gay men cruising and public sex was part of their culture in a repressed society, where you had to hide and subvert your desire. It's natural they feel in some ways more comfortable in that mode and defensive of that way of life then a new generation that in growing cities can engage in same-sex hand holding.

much better to ask ourselves, what am I doing in support of LGBT rights? than criticise anyone fighting for theirs, no matter how annoying their voices get, or how absurd their demands.

d

d

[æonpax]

Long time ago (relatively speaking), I tired of those who constantly fell into the Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) routine.

But on a related note, I do not like the idea of Gay's deliberately outing other Gays, which I consider offensive.

[dafydd]

Long time ago (relatively speaking), I tired of those who constantly fell into the Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) routine.

But on a related note, I do not like the idea of Gay's deliberately outing other Gays, which I consider offensive.

I heard about that law but it's not in effect on this post. The post actually started with debate oevr militant gay/nazi comparison, it was the subject of discussion, and couldn't be avoided, not a meandering product of.

[tenni]

Thank you dafydd for a clear and intelligent posting on this topic. I may be wrong but it is similar to Canada's equality aspect in the Charter of Rights. Where there has been some modification(s) in Canada to respect the rights of the religious/religions is that I suspect that a BB may discriminate as it is there home. We have marriage equality and weddings of same sex may not be forced upon religions/religious leaders if it is against their religious beliefs. However, if it is a secular justice of the peace they may not refuse to marry same sex couples. It is a difficult balance to respect the freedom of religious rights as well as equality rights based on sex/ sexual orientation equality.



The guy in the article isn't complainging about the 'elitist gays' ur talking about Duck; he's got an issue with 'homosexuals' having equality, and wanting equal rights isn't over-zealous or elitist.

'Gaystapo' is a dumb term based soley only a stupid wordplay. The Nazis sent lesbians and gay men to the gas chambers in the war, as well as disabled, Roma travellors and the Jews.

The Christian B&B that bans gay couples is tied to the Goods and Services Act. A B&B is a business, and as such cannot discriminate against one group or another. No one is forcing Christians to give up their homes to gay couples, but if they are running a money making enterprise, then can't pick and choose guests based on race, sexual orientation, gender etc. It would be like a Chinese restaurant in Soho turning away a black couple because they weren't Chinese. Don't forget there are many caveats in the Equality Law that still give religion the trump card e.g. faith schools pupil intake
/curriculum

LGBT people in many countries only have rights now due to decades of hardcore 'militant' LGBT activists who never stopped demanding equality, who never stopped irrating and agitating and appearing over-zealous and elitist and who picked all the battles they came across, because fighting for equality was fighting for their survival. It's only 55 years ago in Britain that you'd go to jail for even writing about gays or bisexuals or lesbians as we do so freely here.

I think the problem right now in Uk definitely is that there is a certain hysteria around anything which is percieved as homophobic, almost nonsensical villification of anyone who doesn't agree with LGBT lifestyle. It is not illegal to be homophobic anywhere e.g. recent gay couple who reported a street preacher to police who quoted from bible about gays. Dumb. He can say what he wants. It's not illegal to hate gays. But hurting gay people through hate crime is. The press and certain facets of the gay LGBT community are stuck in this victim mode where there is no critical thinking and, I think, sometimes LGBT are made to feel more worried and afraid of 'homophobic society' then they need to be. Though I understand how disenfranchised groups don't easily shift from opression to celebration e.g For many older gay men cruising and public sex was part of their culture in a repressed society, where you had to hide and subvert your desire. It's natural they feel in some ways more comfortable in that mode and defensive of that way of life then a new generation that in growing cities can engage in same-sex hand holding.

much better to ask ourselves, what am I doing in support of LGBT rights? than criticise anyone fighting for theirs, no matter how annoying their voices get, or how absurd their demands.

d

d

[dafydd]

Long time ago (relatively speaking), I tired of those who constantly fell into the Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) routine.

But on a related note, I do not like the idea of Gay's deliberately outing other Gays, which I consider offensive.

I heard about that 'law' but it's not in effect on this post. The post actually started with debate over militant gay/nazi comparison term 'Gaystapo', it was the subject of discussion, and couldn't be avoided, not a meandering product of.

I kind of support Outrage! though who only 'out' public gays if they are harming other gays and so expose their hypocracy.e.g. politicians who vote for anti-gay laws whilst paying for rent boys on the side.

[æonpax]

I heard about that 'law' but it's not in effect on this post. The post actually started with debate over militant gay/nazi comparison term 'Gaystapo', it was the subject of discussion, and couldn't be avoided, not a meandering product of.

I kind of support Outrage! though who only 'out' public gays if they are harming other gays and so expose their hypocracy.e.g. politicians who vote for anti-gay laws whilst paying for rent boys on the side.


To each, their own, sir. I usually always ignore nazi analogies not only because they are overused but they are overused mindlessly. Any idiot can use a nazi analogy. It take a bit more thought to create one that is less common.

Outing a politician (or any figure in the public trust and payroll) is justified, if it is warranted. Outing a non-politician or community leader because someone wants to destroy them for personal gain, is evil.

[12voltman59]

When it comes to discussions of RIGHTS---it seems to me that if as a society--we really fully and truly believed in the words in declaratory and aspirational documents such as The Magna Carta, the Declaration Of Independence, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights----then we would not have need to fight for the "rights" of women, ethnic or "racial" groups, "gays" or any other group---we would seek to make certain that all people had the same degree of "rights"--surely we would not have put up blocks in their path to being granted their full slate of rights "due" them as people.

When some group seeks to gain access to that full slate of rights they have been denied---it always gets perverted that they are somehow seeking "special rights" which has often proven to be total BS since what they seek is the right to do things like be able to vote without blocks, being able to work, marry who they want to, not be targeted for being beaten or killed simply because of who they are and other "rights" that are actually pretty fundamental to their "pursuit of life, liberty and happiness."

[dafydd]

To each, their own, sir. I usually always ignore nazi analogies not only because they are overused but they are overused mindlessly. Any idiot can use a nazi analogy. It take a bit more thought to create one that is less common.

yes i agree with u aeonpax. that's part of what I had wrote in response to the source article.
sorry i couldn't find the ash sign on my comp (where is it?)

[12voltman59]

I had not heard of Godwin's Law before--but I think he nailed his points pretty well.

From both sides of the spectrum----it does seem to be so easy a thing for one side to hurl the accusation that the other is Nazi-like--but when you really do THINK about it-----there is no comparison between the totality of the brutality and destruction wrought by the Nazis save perhaps other similar things like Stalinism, the Maoists and their Cultural Revolution in China, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and a few other such thuggish groups.

As repugnant as those on the left or right might find the other side to be here in the West (in this specific case, The Great Gay Conspiracy)----none of those groups can come even close to the Nazis for their depravity and true evil if there ever is or was such a thing I think the Nazis surely qualify to be considered EVIL.

It is just an easy charge to make off the top that "the other" is Nazi-ish and it is intellectual laziness to hurl such charges against those we don't like and think are out to destroy life as we know, want or think it should be.

[dafydd]

I had not heard of Godwin's Law before--but I think he nailed his points pretty well.

From both sides of the spectrum----it does seem to be so easy a thing for one side to hurl the accusation that the other is Nazi-like--but when you really do THINK about it-----there is no comparison between the totality of the brutality and destruction wrought by the Nazis save perhaps other similar things like Stalinism, the Maoists and their Cultural Revolution in China, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and a few other such thuggish groups.

As repugnant as those on the left or right might find the other side to be here in the West (in this specific case, The Great Gay Conspiracy)----none of those groups can come even close to the Nazis for their depravity and true evil if there ever is or was such a thing I think the Nazis surely qualify to be considered EVIL.

It is just an easy charge to make off the top that "the other" is Nazi-ish and it is intellectual laziness to hurl such charges against those we don't like and think are out to destroy life as we know, want or think it should be.

I've been thinking about this and i think that in the context of the original quote (a homophobe using the word "Gaystapo",) the mention of the nazi party is actually more calculating and clever then "lazy".

e.g. by comparing gays to the Gestapo, the connotation he makes is
"My views on gays aren't facisct, because its clear I think gays are as bad as faciscts"

He imediately dumps gays and fascists together on one side of the river, whilst distancing himself and his ilk on the other side: the (better anti-fascist) shore of morality. It's actually incredibly savvy from a PR perspective.

[12voltman59]

I've been thinking about this and i think that in the context of the original quote (a homophobe using the word "Gaystapo",) the mention of the nazi party is actually more calculating and clever then "lazy".

e.g. by comparing gays to the Gestapo, the connotation he makes is
"My views on gays aren't facisct, because its clear I think gays are as bad as faciscts"

He imediately dumps gays and fascists together on one side of the river, whilst distancing himself and his ilk on the other side: the (better anti-fascist) shore of morality. It's actually incredibly savvy from a PR perspective.

A good point--this is sort of like the comments made by people like Rick Santorum, a former Republican politician here in the states who seeks the nomination for president for that party--but thankfully is nowhere in the polls---who equates gays and the rest of us in the GLBT banner as being as much a danger to the US as are radical Islamic terrorists.

He is not the only one---a few years ago---there was a member of the US Congress who made several speeches on the floor of the US House of Representatives with those speeches going on the official records.

I know that these folks are very calculatingly making a case that "Gays" are a "clear and present danger" to our "American way of life."

Scary thing that!!!!