Last active
not recently active
  • pauliji commented on the blog post Book on anti-gay propaganda becomes number one online success

    2013-05-19 05:07:26View | Delete

    I think this book is just what is needed.
    I would also love to see a bullet list condensation. Something that could easily show the plain truth about the anti-gay industry in just a couple of sentences.
    Thanks Alvin!

  • Well, I understand that a decision which affects only the 9th Circuit might not immediately affect you, wherever that is. But it would be an incredibly significant first step. It’s highly unlikely that any state ban on marriage equality could stand in light of that precedent. One step at a time. Wish it were faster, but there you are. Think how far we’ve come in the last fifty years. The struggle for universal suffrage for women took almost ninety years to achieve.

  • Tweeted them all. Thanks for the contact info.

  • Isn’t this the same guy who is hosting an event in Memphis TN where a non-existent university is giving an honorary degree to Brian Brown?

  • good one. I bet they play online only.

  • And I just noticed that American Urban University is still listed at an address in Long Beach, which is a condominium unit nestled in a quiet neighborhood. I don’t think the good ol’ U. ever existed at all.

  • The bishop’s wife also has a phony degree from a non-existent university: Imani Kumba U, in San Diego, CA. Their listed address is a single family home in a modest neighborhood. Totally fake. I guess lying is a family trait with this couple.

  • When Bryan says that ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will end enlistment and usher in the draft, he is in direct contradiction to the public statements from the highest ranking military officer in the nation, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, who added that the end of DADT, ” helps create “a force of more character and honor – more in keeping with our own values.”

  • The response I find most interesting to this particular line of “thinking” is to ask for a concrete, real world example of how marriage equality deprives any child of either a mother or a father. The opposition will splutter and say something like, “Isn’t it obvious? Two women means no father”. To which I say, “Do you honestly believe that if this loving couple isn’t allowed access to the protections of marriage that they will split up, and forget all about their dreams of raising children?”. Clearly the only people who the haters want to exclude from marriage are gay people, and since gay parents have kids with other gay parents, then clearly there’s no positive impact by continuing this discrimination. It only creates unmarried gay parents. Nobody can ever give me an example of how kids acquire additional opposite gender parents by keeping gay parents unmarried. Nor can anyone show me how straight parents have less kids if gay people get married. Simply put, there is no scenario in which a direct cause and effect can be established between the banning of marriage for gay people, and the reduction of either single parenting, or the increase in two opposite gendered people having children. None, not one example.

  • Thank you Laurel! I have heard the arguments around this talking point so many times, but never have I heard it put so succinctly! ” If it’s equal, why isn’t it called the same?” Amazing. Brilliant. I can’t wait to use this one! It’s freakin’ deadly!

  • And on the other hand, seeing him get his ass handed to him in a debate might be a valuable experience.

  • Wow, I mean, just, wow. Pat Robertson is really, really, really unattractive. If he thinks that marriage and companionship is based on physical attraction only, then I feel very, very sorry for his wife. Again.

  • Wow, just had a quick read of the handwritten note in the picture. Such horrible spelling and punctuation to match the vile sentiments and intentions of the writer. Suggests a certain lack of intelligence and critical thinking skills.

  • pauliji commented on the blog post Does Cardinal George Serve God, Or Mother Nature?

    2013-01-02 03:26:40View | Delete

    Cardinal George’s “natural law” argument is a re-hash of the works of St. Thomas Aquinas. So there’s a long history of using this argument in catholic tradition.
    And when I encounter this argument I also ask where in nature we see marriage. What we see in nature is a great deal of sexual activity, almost all of it not associated with monogamy, let alone commitment and none of it involved with joint checking accounts, pension inheritance and hospital visitation.
    Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with nature. It’s a man-made custom. It isn’t part of the natural world, any more than tango is, or bon dancing.

  • Straw man argument. Nobody is trying to restrict anybody’s free speech. We are trying to end religious homophobia inserting itself into the laws of our nation. Actions are the problem, not words. Are you a troll, or what?

  • pauliji commented on the blog post Will the Chick-fil-A ‘kiss-ins’ help or hurt?

    2012-08-03 06:04:57View | Delete

    I totally understand your point of view on this subject. But I’m getting pretty tired of waiting for the news media to treat the subject of gay rights in a positive light. I don’t think I can remember that happening. I do remember hearing from perhaps one or two spokespeople like Keith Olberman being on our side, or Rachel Maddow. But other than that, the usual news media reaction to a story like this one is to show a few clips of the event and then have Tony Perkins comment on them. If we’re lucky we might get someone from our side to counter, but usually the media just reinforces whichever belief they had before the whole story aired.
    In other words, why can’t we just work on the people who are there. If a person is so disgusted by the sight of a gay couple kissing that they are motivated to react, that’s a pretty good representation of their true feelings. Right now, I think that is the issue. There’s been way too much spin doctoring from the haters, about how this is free speech, or family values or christian business practice, or whatever pleasant euphemism they have employed to provide cover for their disgust and animosity. I would welcome an opportunity to graphicly demonstrate the level of hatred and disgust that actually inhabits their hearts. And I suspect it would be mighty obvious to anyone else watching the footage too.
    And I cannot stress how little we have to lose. Those who oppose gay rights aren’t going to start thinking well of us. But they might become uncomfortable publicly aligning themselves with the kind of haters who will be positively foaming at the mouth in defense of CFA.

  • pauliji commented on the blog post Will the Chick-fil-A ‘kiss-ins’ help or hurt?

    2012-08-03 02:58:21View | Delete

    Actually, I think it’s a very appropriate demonstration technique. Confronting these restaurants with this sort of peaceful protest will force them to either grit their teeth and endure it, all the while imagining how icky it is, or have the protesters arrested on the spot. If they arrest, they are going to look like total asshats. I consider it a direct comparison to those African Americans who opted to sit down at whites-only lunch counters and endure the calumny of the patrons and staff, and were arrested too. Anything which drives the haters to even more visible displays of hatred is only going to work for us. Face it, we’re not trying to change anyone’s mind. People don’t change their mind about homosexuality based on political action. This kiss-in might just stir the pot enough to get some complacent gay people and our allies to counter the elevated levels of hate from CFA and their supporters. That might lead to more consciousness raising. That is really the ultimate goal. That is what the women’s rights movement did. Nobody in America can now say things like “mailman” without wondering if they have used a sexist term, because they have had their consciousness raised. We need to do the same thing. Our biggest problem, as a movement, is that we have let the opposition frame the debate, right from the beginning to now. The christians have done a great job portraying their hatred as “love” and their revulsion as “morality”. How is arresting a couple who are kissing going to look like either thing? I think it’s brilliant.
    Most Americans are completely unaware that gay people live largely without any anti-discrimination protection. Most Americans believe that gay people are all doing just peachy, and do, in fact have not only equal rights, but “special rights”. We need to show them just how America really feels about us.

  • Indeed there is a reason why John McCain didn’t talk about his military service. He knew that killing a few of his own compatriots in avoidable accidents and stupidity, then getting himself captured for five years isn’t really an accomplishment of any kind, other than the drive to stay alive. He even stayed below decks during the fiery events he precipitated, and watched the rescue work on closed circuit video. Some hero. He only got out of that Vietnamese prison alive because his father was an admiral in the navy, and the Vietnamese figured he’d be a high value prisoner to trade for their own pows held by the Americans. And that’s how it ended up.

  • Thanks Alvin, as always. It also seems to me that there is a consistent effect at work here. The religious right is almost always accusing gay rights advocates and defenders of the very things which they themselves are guilty of. It seems to apply here as well.
    1) I can’t imagine that anyone would deny that fundamentalist religious groups seem to be obsessed with all matters sexual, both hetero and homo. Witness the ever growing number of such dogmatics who have been caught in flagrante delicto: Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggert, Newt Gringrich, Larry Craig, Eddie Long, George Rekers, etc. The religious right seems to have a great deal of repressed sexual frustration, probably as a result of their dogma, which is unnatural and unrealistic.
    2) There is now some legal protection for free speech in America. But it wasn’t that long ago that just telling someone you were gay could get you thrown in prison. And talking about gay issues is currently forbidden in some school systems, and if the cranks in TN (Stacey Campfield et al) get their way, it will be illegal there too. In effect, these religious bigots wish to imprison, fire, or otherwise threaten all those who speak out for gay rights.
    There are states in the US, like Texas, where the state Republican Party platform includes a desire to re-criminalize homosexuality. Who is throwing who in prison?
    3) Conservative religious bigot groups are after our children, and indeed all children. This kind of hatred must be taught from an early age. If they fail the get the kids indoctrinated before age 7 or 8, their lies will fail to be inculcated properly. Anybody with a modest amount of reasoning and logical skills can easily see through their bull, which is why they need to get the kids. And of course, these anti-gay marriage amendments do harm the children of gay people. The opposition from religious bigots to anti-discrimination law, and anti-bullying law harms gay kids in school and out. In addition, the bigots work tirelessly to deny us the right to foster or adopt wherever possible. Again, they are targeting not only our existing children, but the rights we might have had through adoptive process.

  • I predict that NOM will just continue to ignore campaign finance and disclosure laws, just like they always have done. They overreached in their desire to have the courts put their stamp of approval on such behavior. But it’s equally clear that law enforcement officials almost never do anything to those who break such laws.

  • Load More