Posted by Penis:
"...this thread has absolutely nothing to do with gay rights, in reality it all boils down to what dwight and his ilk expect from government. they feel incapable of taking care of themselves and are scared that gop conservatives will make them take more individual responsibility, stop being parasites and have some repect for taxpayers -- NOT TAXUSERS!! Big government is your real enemy!!"

I don't agree with you, Penis. The real enemy is a collective force of people who dismiss those who are not afraid to challenge the status quo. No one is above being challenged. None of us are separate from the current American system that undeniably favors certain genders/ethnic groups/sexual orientations over others.

When you suggest that certain people are parasites who don't know how to stand on their own, are you suggesting that certain non-White or even non-male individuals who aren't heterosexuals demand "special rights" when they claim that they don't get the same benefits as others in America?

You are clearly one of the new species of Dot.Com Guppies that Swallow alluded to when he mentioned gays who sell out ideals for the benefit of their pocket books. You may be sitting pretty now. But, woe be to you and YOUR ILK when the bucks are gone. Then you will just be another faggot without position or cash to buy him a place at the Captain's Table.

Guppies like you, the Andrew Sullivans, and the Log Cabin groupies are not part of any revolutionary movement interested in promoting gay freedom. You are out for yourselves while you can afford to be out for yourselves.

Unlike the the grass-roots activists who took to the streets during the historical Stonewall riots, you couldn't care less about breaking a sweat if it does not earn you a buck. Your motives are clear. Your objectives are purely financial.

"Get Big Government Out Of Our Lives" translates to "I can't be bothered with people who can't make it in White corporate America because they cannot pass for White, or are not men, or cannot pass for straight."

Watch it, Penis. Those welfare folks, brown-skinned peasants, and radical faggots might get real angry REAL soon and pull you and your ilk out of their ivory towers and into the steets again.

It's happened before.

jake~ i am a blue collar, NON UNION, bi-sexual male who drives an 18 wheeler for a living. I live in a very working class neighborhood. My sexual preference is strictly caucasian for both sexes. I have zero attraction nor sympathy towards black people and make no apologies for the way I feel. Many gay or bi-sexual white males reject your concept that we are victimized, persecuted, oppressed and discriminated against! Black people must learn to accept the fact that at certain places they just are not welcome! I can repudiate every one of your arguments based on logic, reason and data from reliable sources. Name calling and personal attacks are diversion tactics used when you are unable to properly defend your arguments!! I don't and have never belonged to any white supremacist organizations. I am sick of political correctness and my real hatred: socialism!

Every time I read one of Jake2001's thinly disguised Neo-Marxist renderings, I hear a faint tune in the background that sounds vaguely familiar like the Internationale of a bygone era. What next Jake2001? Storming the Winter Palace in Saint Petersberg (Florida)?

We Gay Capitalists (read: Conservatives) eschew Leftist dogma that proclaims "revolution" in the pursuit of gay rights. What we are about is equal rights for gays -- not special "gay" rights or a special class distinction. Our principled position remains unchanged; we seek equal rights for gays because it is a moral entitlement and imperative. We continue to seek equality before the law, maximum freedom of association, and the social disapproval of discrimination. Discrimination against people simply because of their sexual orientation exists and is wrong. But, it is not the role of law to correct every wrong. Law is not, and has not been, the panacea to sex and racial discrimination and will not be for sexual orientation. We must have rights equal to straights. We are entitled to nothing less--but also nothing more.

Posted by Penis:
"I have zero attraction nor sympathy towards black people and make no apologies for the way I feel. Many gay or bi-sexual white males reject your concept that we are victimized, persecuted, oppressed and discriminated against!"

Many gay or bi-sexual White males are NOT discriminated against in the manner that non-White males -- Gay or Straight -- are in America. Obviously, that makes it easier for them to reject concepts of victimization, persecution, oppression, or discrimination that probably never enter their world. White Gay men are often not subject to the same level of discrimination nor do many of them experience it to the same extent that non-White Gay men OR WOMEN suffer it in America. Your dismissal of Black people validates my my point about arrogance and cultural insensitivity. Your comments make it clear that you see no reason to understand or feel compassion for those who are not White.

Posted by Penis:
"Black people must learn to accept the fact that at certain places they just are not welcome!"

This comment says it all. No need to respond to it.

Posted by Penis:
"I can repudiate every one of your arguments based on logic, reason and data from reliable sources. Name calling and personal attacks are diversion tactics used when you are unable to properly defend your arguments!! I don't and have never belonged to any white supremacist organizations. I am sick of political correctness and my real hatred: socialism!"

Socialism was never mentioned by me. I broght up the differences in cultural experiences in America. That makes me a Socialist in your eyes? Where is this name calling and these diversionary tactics that you speak about, Penis? Take a look at your own comments. I don't even need to spell things out. You have done a beautiful job of exposing your own tendency to insult others who are not White while also making accusations that apply more to yourself than others.

Posted by Sun:
"Every time I read one of Jake2001's thinly disguised Neo-Marxist renderings, I hear a faint tune in the background that sounds vaguely familiar like the Internationale of a bygone era."

Here we go again with the Commie/Pinko name calling. Your accusing ME of reminding you of a bygone era, Sun? LOL! Your Red baiting Neo-Conservative stance went out with Joe McCarthy in the 1950's. LOL!

Posted by Sun:
"We Gay Capitalists (read: Conservatives) eschew Leftist dogma that proclaims 'revolution' in the pursuit of gay rights. What we are about is equal rights for gays -- not special 'gay' rights or a special class distinction. Our principled position remains unchanged; we seek equal rights for gays because it is a moral entitlement and imperative. We continue to seek equality before the law, maximum freedom of association, and the social disapproval of discrimination. Discrimination against people simply because of their sexual orientation exists and is wrong. But, it is not the role of law to correct every wrong. Law is not, and has not been, the panacea to sex and racial discrimination and will not be for sexual orientation. We must have rights equal to straights. We are entitled to nothing less--but also nothing more."

Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Sun, you talk in such strategically political circles without ever saying anything or making a firm stand that it is beyond laughable. Let's get this straight, Bud. You want rights equal to straights. But, you don't want "special rights" or a "special class distinction?"

Sun, I have never heard such HORSE SHIT in my life. You consistently parade Gays about as if they are just like Straight people -- except for the fact that some like to fuck each other up the ass and get bashed for looking queer, etc.! You don't see how assanine your stance is regarding Gays and "normal" standards as dictated by White heterosexual men in America?

Let me point something out to you. The reason Gays get bashed, killed, entrapped, discriminated against, etc. is because they are obviously seen as a threat because of their DIFFERENCE. Ignoring this and trying to "blend" won't change the hatred that breeds homophobia.

You are a sell-out, Sun. The fear inherent in your "conservative" agenda disgusts me. But, it explains your dismissal of those (like me) who continue to rock the boat. We bring Gays like you unwanted attention. How you must hate us. Yet, I also suspect that you somehow envy us as well, Sun. We have something that you and your "conservative" buds lack. We are not afraid to admit to being different. We have the courage to celebrate our cultural difference and embrace our diversity. This goes against everything that you promote in your wishy-washy posts that glorify blending and conformity.

God forbid anyone should see you as a bona fide HOMOSEXUAL.

You're a lightweight, Sun. You belong outside of the ring with the other "viewers" and non-contenders. The rest of us are not afraid to stay IN the ring as heavy-weight contenders.

[This message has been edited by Jake2001 (edited April 06, 2001).]

Well jake you did exactly as I expected: personal attacks & name calling.Logic & reason are not in your vocabulary! Black folk are 95% liberal democrats. Jesse Jackson,Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, naacp, etc. seem to speak for you and represent your ideas.It almost seems as if every black thinks the same way. We constantly observe that gay/bi sexual males are far more diverse and there is a broad spectrum of opinion, which I think is fantastic! You have learned that not all of us will 'kiss your ass' nor are we afraid to disagree with you! My question to you: Would you allow professior shockley or jensen's theory to be heard, objectively and rationally discussed???? No booing, jeering, heckling, disruptions, etc. Verite means the truth- are you afraid of it??The nation has every right to hear what these scientists had to say.You must learn to attack the message not the messenger!!

Posted by Penis:
"Well jake you did exactly as I expected: personal attacks & name calling.Logic & reason are not in your vocabulary! Black folk are 95% liberal democrats. Jesse Jackson,Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, naacp, etc. seem to speak for you and represent your ideas.It almost seems as if every black thinks the same way."

Again, I would like you to point out where this alleged nasty name calling you accuse me of is evident in my post, Penis. I disagree STRONGLY with your values as expressed in your comments about Black people and Gays conforming to heterosexist "norms." I am entitled to disagree with you just as Black people and others who cherish diversity have a right to react with anger to your insulting remarks. Perhaps, you are not used to people that you have no time for (like African-Americans, liberals, women, or radical left-wing Gays) speaking back to you. Maybe you would prefer that we remain quietly in our place and do as we were told by guys like you? Your pretense to claims that you are about freedom of speech without personal attacks is laughable. You attack Black people by claiming that you feel they have to get used to not belonging in certain areas, and then you have the nerve to accuse others (like me) of attacking you. Your denial and hypocrisy speak for themselves. Nothing that I could say could implicate you for your nonsensical sense of White superiority and denial about your own Gay identity any worse than your own posts.

Posted by Penis:
"My question to you: Would you allow professior shockley or jensen's theory to be heard, objectively and rationally discussed???? No booing, jeering, heckling, disruptions, etc. Verite means the truth- are you afraid of it??The nation has every right to hear what these scientists had to say.You must learn to attack the message not the messenger!!"

Yes. I welcome people to express their views freely. I think that it is important for all of us to be reminded of just exactlty what is out there. Your values clearly indicate that many of our worst enemies are members of our own gay community (like yourself) who alienate non-White cultural groups. Your comments dismiss the validity of the oppressiveness that many non-White people experience in America. YOU have clearly made comments which attack the integrity of liberal thinkers and non-White cultures. YOU must learn that when YOU attack others, it is not inappropriate for them to react strongly and defend themselves.

There are many Gays who are proud of diversity and cherish the experience of other cultural groups. You are clearly not one of them.

You are also not the type of Gay man who has historically made any difference for Gays in America. It is ironic that it was dark-skinned drag queens who inititated the Stonewall riots so that conservative Guppies like you could have the freedom to speak out. It is precisely the people who you dismiss who made your current freedom to speak out possible, Penis. You would not have this forum or many of the other freedoms that you currently take for granted if it was not for them.

Somehow, the significance of this fact and the reality of Gay history seems to escape you and your other Gay pals who staunchly defend conservative, White, heterosexual values as acceptable norms.

Shockley? LOL...Tell ém who financed Shockley´s study, Penisman. And don´t forget: Sun is African American (and a Libertarian parrot).

Whatta loony bin.

Someday some Sociologist will uncover the signicance of how a website supposedly DEVOTED to Gay cruising and the pursuit of sex (including PUBLIC sex) attracted so many die-hard conservatives on the message boards. LOL!

They say that like attracts like in relationships. So, the question to ponder is what there is about the message boards at CFS that attracts the type who protest sexual fredom and liberal values. It is not a stretch to assume that a site that promotes itself by supporting Gay sex and Gay public sex would attract a lot of Gay people who support these values. Yet, many of the comments on the message boards contradict this assumption.

The next question is whether or not the select few who visit the message boards at CFS truly represent "the voice" of the Gay community at large -- or are they simply a few guys looking for a way to sound off about the world according to them?

The internet breeds strange bedfellows. I do not doubt that some people who post on these boards are genuine about their views. I also have no doubt in my mind that there are probably some posers who simply post in order to provoke and instigate others for the sake of flaming. Some are genuinely educated and politically informed. Others are giving themselves false titles and making false claims in order to promote themselves and their agendas. This happens on the net everywhere. There is no avoiding it. There is also no use getting overly upset over it.

But, the conservative posts here are striking considering what CFS proports to support and promote. That does say something significant. Someday someone will uncover what the contradictions indicate.

I just love it when these hysterical Neo-Marxists get angry and throw a fit. They immediately launch an adhominem attack when somebody lights a fire under their condescending, pompous arses. What is particularly sad about these Neo-Marxists and their outdated revolutionary vision of the world is they have truly marginalized themselves by their socialist rhetoric. What is particularly troubling to these Neo-Marxists (read: Kindergarten Bosheviks) is most gays already are a part of the mainstream in America.

Most gays and lesbians do not view themselves as outside the mainsteam. To the contrary, we are very much a part of mainstream America. Our principled position and focus has never changed. We seek an end to state (government) discrimination and gays are entitled to the same rights in law as straights. The principle here is Civil Equality -- not Gay Rights which are neither human rights nor civil rights.

What the extreme Left has attempted to do is shift the focus from demanding equal rights to special rights -- for Gays only. The Gay Left has sought Anti-Discrimination Laws on the misguided assumption these laws would protect Gays as a special class of people. Quite the contracy. Anti-discrimination laws would threaten civil liberties, society in general, and gays.

Gays and Lesbians are a permanent minority in America and always will be a permanent minority. We have long recognized that discrimination against people simply because of their sexual orientation exists and is morally wrong. But we also recognize that it is not the role of law itself to correct every wrong in our society. We also know that with enough money, it is far easier to cajole and change the minds of lawmakers than it is to change the attitudes of millions of voters. Law is not, and has not been, the solution to sex and racial discrimination and will not be for sexual orientation.

I recognize that many gays on the left get frustrated when you don't share their narrow viewpoint of the world. It's best to keep our squabbles in perspective. As a Gay Conservative, I know the Left thinks we're overbearing or self-righteous. But, at least we're not demanding the state lock up Gays under the rubic of a sodomy law. Just remember the line from an old movie: they may be rancid butter, but they're on our side of the bread.

It's understandable why some on the Left have animosity towards Gay Conservatives. The only people they've ever known as "conservatives" told them they were immoral, unnatural, or worse. This does not, however, excuse the Left for its own lack of understanding of our conservative approach to achieving equal rights under the law. If anything, it underscores our obligation to educate and fill in the large gaps in their understanding of our principled position in achieving the goal -- Civil Equality under the law.

Posted by Sun:
"But we also recognize that it is not the role of law itself to correct every wrong in our society. We also know that with enough money, it is far easier to cajole and change the minds of lawmakers than it is to change the attitudes of millions of voters. Law is not, and has not been, the solution to sex and racial discrimination and will not be for sexual orientation."

Your solution appears to be that "with enough money" Gays will be able to change things more effectively than through the social grass-roots movements that enacted change in the past. Money is not the cure-all, Sun. But, your argument gets to the core of your thinking and those who think like you.

You have bought into the belief that you can BUY your way into the American mainstream. You don't think that those who have the money and the power are not wise to this "bargainig" rationale? Of course they are, Sun! When you make a financial "deal" with the White heterosexual Big Boys who control corporate America, it is never at a greater cost to them. They are not the fool that you are when it comes to bargaining. You may gain some financial profit -- at the cost of an openly Gay identity and as long as you play by THEIR rules. But, bet your sell-out ass that they will NEVER allow you, or any other suspected Gay man, of making MORE than them or taking their place at the royal throne, Sun.

Historically, your way has not been proven effective. It was SOCIAL activism and grass-roots movements that brought about DRAMATIC changes for Gays, African-Americans, and women in America during the turbulent 60's, 70's, and early 80's. Your approach also excludes those who may be blocked out of the financially privileged fold by things like - OH - discrimination, harassment, and higher-paying jobs. Or do those hings exist or get acknowledged in your get-rich-quick scheme for a better world for Gays?

Sun, your games and political posturing have really worn thin. In previous posts you adamently claimed that you did not defend "conservative" values. Yet, here you are contradicting yourself - AGAIN - by coming out as a bona fide, self-professed conservative.

Proof? Allow me to refresh your convenient memory;

SunDogg
Cruiser posted March 05, 2001 01:53 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sun strongly disagrees he defends conservative values.
---------------------------------------------
Now, compare that post to this statement by Sun:
SunDogg
Cruiser posted April 05, 2001 11:45 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every time I read one of Jake2001's thinly disguised Neo-Marxist renderings, I hear a faint tune in the background that sounds vaguely familiar like the Internationale of a bygone era. What next Jake2001? Storming the Winter Palace in Saint Petersberg (Florida)?
We Gay Capitalists (read: Conservatives) eschew Leftist dogma that proclaims "revolution" in the pursuit of gay rights.
---------------------------------------------
Any other confessions or contradictions while you are coming clean, Mister?




[This message has been edited by Jake2001 (edited April 06, 2001).]

Jake2001. I think Sundog is deliberately fucking with your mind. He has baited you several times and you have responded very predictably. He certainly has put you on the defensive based on the tone of your responses. But, that is what happens when you let someone get inside your head.

I do have some practical advice I'd like to offer. Argumentum ad hominem is pointless. There is no doubt you both have firm convictions based on political ideology and principle. This is abundantly clear in both of your postings. It is commonplace in this age of special-interest groups and bitter partisanship to personally attack a person rather than deal with the issue that was raised. On that point alone, I would strongly suggest there should be no topic that cannot be discussed and debated publicly and in full without being subjected to attempted intimidation by character assassination.

In truth, there is no reason why any topic, however contentious, cannot be discussed in a civil manner. It is my belief that whenever people reveal themselves to be uninterested in discussing a topic, they should be ignored. They are following the totalitarian model where one's opponents are not bested in arguments but shouted down, intimidated and, in the end, coerced into silence.

I think you will agree that disagreement is an artform in healthy debate on issues. Argumentum ad hominem is not a suitable substitute for defending anyone's point of view.

I think both you and Sundog need to turn down the rhetoric and stick to the topic.

Posted by Mercury:
"Jake2001. I think Sundog is deliberately fucking with your mind."

No doubt this is probably true. It probably has been true throughout most of these threads.

If you read my responses I think that you will see that I consistently try to affirm WHY I disagree with the POLITICAL stance that Sun and those who share his agenda support.

Some agree. Some do not. But, this IS all part of the point of the discussion. Such posts are completely relevant to any thread discussing Gay politics.

I agree with your point about Sun baiting me and others.

I also think that I understand what you are trying to say about keeping the discussion polite. Well, I see your point to a certain extent. But, politeness did not win wars and politeness was not what Stonewall was all about when the drag queens confronted their oppressors. Sometimes, a little aggression and confrontation is a healthy thing. Personally, I think it is what is lacking in the Gay community today -- which explains why we are being pushed back into the closet again.

Frankly, I am surprised that someone even had to ask a question like, "Are all Right-Wingers homophobic?" Any Gay person should realize at this point in time that, historically, the political RIGHT has consistently supported agendas that encourage financial benefits while ignoring SOCIAL issues. The fact that so many Gays are willing to overlook the SOCIAL aspects of being an oppressed culture because they are blinded by potential financial rewards reflects a return to homophobic standards. Homophobia is a SOCIAL disease. You don't get rid of it with money.

I cannot get anymore direct than that, Mercury.

Posted by Mercury:
"I think both you and Sundog need to turn down the rhetoric and stick to the topic."

In all fairness, your ENTIRE post was about nothing but your feelings about the way you perceive Sun and I in our responses to each other. NOTHING in your post addressed the political aspects being discussed. Is THAT keeping on the topic? I get what you think about Sun and the way that you perceive me responding to him. But, what do YOU think about the topic being discussed?

[This message has been edited by Jake2001 (edited April 06, 2001).]

Generally speaking, I would probably say that the most organized threat to our civil rights, although not the only threat, comes from the religious right. The religious right is what I call the Moralists because they are anti-gay. These same Moralists also emphasize cultural issues and social issues over economic concerns too.

Specifically, I would not agree that all Republicans must be homophobic just because the religious right or moralists constitute a small segment of that party.

Sad to say, the gay civil rights movement has always been seen as being on the political left, as one more whining special interest group claiming entitlement to all sorts of special treatment from the government. Or we have been seen as having a simply grand old time cavorting at Gay Pride parades and throwing condoms at Catholic services. Whether as crybabies or as Dionysian celebrants, we always appear as outsiders or misfits. I cringe at both images. Most gay men and women do not go around demanding government favors or living a hedonistic "gay lifestyle" which is code for irresponsibility. But just enough of us act out these images, or tolerate them, that they become real in the public mind. I think Middle America feels uncomfortable about this, at the very least. Our right-wing homophobes love it, because it gives them someone to hate and someone to use as a foil for attracting mainstream support to their own causes. In this respect, by accepting, and in some cases cultivating, these negative images of the gay lifestyle, we lose friends and help our enemies.

One last word on the religious right. I don't hate Jesse Helms, Pat Robertson and their allies. Let's leave the hating to them. They will eventually destroy themselves, as Joe McCarthy and other haters did.

I wish I could drop out, go to graduate school and hang out in the Student Union. I would drink coffee and debate issues like whether sexual dissidents are the only real radicals still around. Or whether bourgeois homosexuals exemplify the repressive tolerance that Marcuse wrote about in the 1960's What lively arguments we would have in the mid-afternoon. But alas, my student years are over.

These days I go with what works for me, whether it's intellectually defensible or not. Among my discoveries is that I don't worry about being manly. I was never manly, and now it doesn't bother me. I'm also admitting that not much of an American either. People talk about "our" plane going down over China, and I don't give a rat's ass about it!

It does concern me that I am more likely to be locked up as a criminal when the Republicans are in power than when the Democrats are. That's why I support the Democrats. I am not scandalized that Democrats are politicians. If I was that upset about purity I'd go to grad school!

Mercury and Dwight;

Thank you for those respnses. I will offer my own thoughts later. But, I appreciate what you both had to say about the issues.

>>Sad to say, the gay civil rights movement has always been seen as being on the political left, as one more whining special interest group claiming entitlement to all sorts of special treatment from the government. Or we have been seen as having a simply grand old time cavorting at Gay Pride parades and throwing condoms at Catholic services. Whether as crybabies or as Dionysian celebrants, we always appear as outsiders or misfits. I cringe at both images.>>

What´s the point here? The identical criticism was made of black people during the civil rights movement and of women during their struggle shortly thereafter. Both extremes have their place. We have legitimate grievances and, as sexual rebels because of the nature of our desire (whether inherent or culturally perspectivized), we are comparatively Dionysian.

HOw is it that people forget that "women´s libbers" were called whores or whiners, that black people were called immoral or reparations-seeking welfare scum? This just comes with challenging the dominant culture. You don´t avoid it by trying to clean up your image.

>>Most gay men and women do not go around demanding government favors or living a hedonistic "gay lifestyle" which is code for irresponsibility. But just enough of us act out these images, or tolerate them, that they become real in the public mind. I think Middle America feels uncomfortable about this, at the very least. Our right-wing homophobes love it, because it gives them someone to hate and someone to use as a foil for attracting mainstream support to their own causes. In this respect, by accepting, and in some cases cultivating, these negative images of the gay lifestyle, we lose friends and help our enemies. >>

This is an After the Ball-Place at the Table argument. It assumes that image will effectively leverage us politically. It strikes me as almost amazingly naive that gay people still subscribe to this argument at this time in history. I suspect that in 30 years people will look back at the claim that gay people are immoral sexual lunatics with the same emabarassment we look at the way Gloria Steinem was called a ¨"man-hating lesbian whore."

I have to say, Mercury (assuming YOU aren´t also Sun), that I find your taking Jake to task for ad hominem argumentation a bit odd in view of your fundamentally image-preoccupied polemic.

Oh....We know quite well that Sun, the pinko-baiter, has no cohesive content, only a predictable structural role as provocateur. (The man even claimed to be black one day.) The only way to deal with that kind of oscillation is to respond as you do to a polemical cartoon, the Toon´s Guide to Ayn Rand, if you will.

[This message has been edited by bongo (edited April 07, 2001).]

I believe the point about image and social acceptance goes to the heart of the matter. It's about how mainstream America views us. Among ourselves, we must be willing to talk about morals, to impose them on ourselves and to do so conspicuously. As long as our primary image is one of gleeful promiscuity, an image promoted not only by our enemies but also reinforced by our own magazines, our own bars, and our own public behavior, we will still be ostracised by society in general. Until we start imposing honesty, fidelity and emotion on our lives, in other words, until we are willing to talk about moral standards, we will make little or no real progress in social acceptance.

I don't believe you can gain social acceptance in Middle America without facing up to the facts. Working towards that aim means bringing out the best in ourselves and offering something admirable to Middle America.

I disagree with Bongo's assertion that image does not provide effective political leverage for gays. Social acceptance by Middle America is a nessasary condition for removing legal barriers. We don't enhance our image by conducting an assault on mainstream American values and institutions. If anything, such assaults isolate us from Middle America. We must show the broad middle of America that gays do not monolithically oppose them on a wide range of important economic and social issues. Winning the trust and support of Middle America is foundational to forging a coalition which will bring equality.

Instead, many of our organizations and leaders have repeatedly taken political stands that are calculated to offend middle America. We cannot expect to enlist their support if they see no advantage in standing up for us. Gay equality is very consistent with the traditional values and institutions of middle America.

My comments on argumentum ad hominem are consistent and correct. If your first and only response is to attack the messenger, then we must infer a person has nothing of substance or relevance to rebut it.

Admittedly, I am a genetic contrarian, so I will continue to say what I think without regard for whoever claims to be mildly offended.

No, I'm not Sun or anyone else. I did, however, chuckle to myself when Bongo (assuming he is not Jake) http://web.cruisingforsex.com/ubb/smile.gif substituted his own odd polemic and aptly demonstrated my previous point on argumentum ad hominem.

Okay. This is my response.

First, you assume correctly, Mercury. I am not bongo. The Sun issue about multiple identities? I don't really care anymore. I doubt that anyone else does either. Whether it is a case of multiple identities or a genuine collective group of separate individuals, I do not share the values that they support and encourage.

Poltically, I find the "mainstream" argument archaic. It reminds me of the breed of ANTI-women's libbers who claimed that if women had just stayed in the kitchen instead of joining the work force, we wouldn't have so many divorces or children with problems. First, economically most families cannot afford to have one person working while the other stays at home anymore. Children are smarter and more aware than previous generations that simply did as they were told. They question authority, and they have seen that many authority figures are not what they are cracked up to be. Many teenagers have to start working (even in middle-class homes) while they are still in high school. Many of the problems experienced in straight families have NOTHING to do with breaking with the traditional mainstream roles that were believed to work so well for Americans. The problems are often about economics and a lack of effective attunement to the real needs of the individuals involved. Preaching traditional values to people in these situations doesn't address the conflicts inherent in people who feel stifled and trapped due to economic pressures and middle-class role expectations.

The same principles apply to the Gay community today. Trying to tell Gays to put on a smiley "STRAIGHT MASK" in order to win friends and influence people implies a class system of acceptable behavior. Gay is bad. Straight is good. If you want to be with the "IN" crowd, act and dress like them. Don't make waves. Be glad to be part of the clique instead of the scapegoat everyone picks on in the schoolyard. This argument is the same rationale that THIRD-GRADERS use in order to fit in at the elementary school level. Is that where we are at these days in Gay culture? Has a return to "peer pressure" rationalizations taken over adult individuality and diversity?

Under all the smiles and "play nice" talk, there is a very nasty tone to your arguments, Mercury. Each line of your arguments dismisses Gays who don't play by the IN-groups' rules. What about Gays who don't like suburbia or monogamy or any of the other list of qualifications that you mention in order to make the grade with mainstream heterosexual American? Are they just discards now? Funny. Those "discards" that you suggest give us such a bad rep are the very folks that broke down barriers so that uptight queers like you could have a place like this to speak out.

I don't buy the "civil" crap you are throwing out in the name of intelligent discussions. Ditto for the polite bit about Gays learning to be good little boys just like their Straight buds. There is a very nasty undercurrent to the "love" that you claim to be sending. It dismisses and insults a lot of people who don't "blend" the way that you think they should.

By the way, I consider any comparisons to bongo a compliment. That goes for Swallow as well. Those are at least TWO guys who post at CFS with a political bite that I value.

[This message has been edited by Jake2001 (edited April 07, 2001).]

You are correct Mercury. I do bait Jake2001. It puts him on the defensive. All you need to do is take a position that doesn't "conform" to his radical viewpoint. His adhominem attacks, frustration and anger speak for themselves.

Like all movements for social change, the gay and lesbian struggle for equality has spawned radical offshoots. Sometimes these radicals supply energy and verve as we saw with the early incarnation of ACT UP. But, sadly, these radicals fall prey to a nihilistic impulse and a counterproductive collectivistic ideology.

To be certain, these radicals are getting attention in the various media. They are getting lots of negative attention. The anti-gay activists on the far right are using the radical's own rhetoric to buttress anti-gay arguments that homosexuals are out to subvert the moral order. The radicals in the gay rights movement have made it a very easy and clear choice for mainstream America to make.

It isn't just the far right who are using the radical's leftist rhetoric against gays. Last year, the New York Times specifically focused on the radical group Sex Panic. The New York Times told America how Sex Panic bemoans the backlash against the sexual practices of homosexuals. The New York Times quoted Sex Panic who argued that "anonymous sex with multiple partners" and "having as much sex as possible, as publicly possible" is the cornerstone of gay liberation. The New York Times also noted that the debate occurs against a backdrop of evidence that homosexuals are returning to what they called 'bareback sex', a practice that's been defended by some Sex Panic activists. If the anti-gay right and not the Liberal Times newspaper were promoting this image of gay life, our media watchdogs would be up in arms.

When radicals, like Sex Panic, presume to speak for the entire Gay civil rights movement, it should not surprise anyone (including radical pinko leftists) why mainstream America rejects us outright. It is also for this reason why it is important for Moderates and Independents to counter the radical image of the extreme left.

So, what do we make of a group of radicals that is in open revolt over efforts to gain acceptance by mainstream America?

It is mainstream America's attitudes, not the far right's, that we must change toward us. When radicals within the gay movement are in open revolt against mainstream America, I can guarantee you that acceptance of gays into general society will not be the choice of mainstream America. And make no mistake about it; Gays will never gain acceptance into society by revolting against and attacking mainstream America.

Back to you ... Jake2001 or Bongo, whatever. http://web.cruisingforsex.com/ubb/smile.gif



[This message has been edited by SunDogg (edited April 07, 2001).]

You miss the point, Sun.

I do not want acceptance from "mainstream" America. You and others like you are more than welcome to march in that direction. It is not my desire, and it has never been one of my aims. I am not seeking approval from heterosexuals anymore than I would expect African-Americans to seek acceptance from the KKK in an attempt to get the cross-burners to start treating them nicely.

You fail to see that the "radical" examples of Gay "leftist" behavior are no different than the racist "examples" of Blacks and the sexist "examples" of women that were used not too long ago. The "militant" members of those cultures were used to implicate them of going against the grain of American acceptability. Now, the same thing is being done to homosexuals.

Check your history and come to your own conclusions.

Posted by Sun:
"You are correct Mercury. I do bait Jake2001. It puts him on the defensive. All you need to do is take a position that doesn't 'conform' to his radical viewpoint. His adhominem attacks, frustration and anger speak for themselves."

And your smugness speaks volumes about your lack of ability to understand anyone who doesn't "conform."

Sun, you don't get under my skin to the degree that you might like to believe. You are annoying -- childishly so -- because I know that you are simply playing games and lack genuineness in your postings.

'Nuff said?

[This message has been edited by Jake2001 (edited April 07, 2001).]

>> believe the point about image and social acceptance goes to the heart of the matter. It's about how mainstream America views us. Among ourselves, we must be willing to talk about morals, to impose them on ourselves and to do so conspicuously.>>

LOL...This presumes we don´t have morals. What you really mean is that we need to self-impose the morals of the conservative dominant culture.

>>As long as our primary image is one of gleeful promiscuity, an image promoted not only by our enemies but also reinforced by our own magazines, our own bars, and our own public behavior, we will still be ostracised by society in general. Until we start imposing honesty, fidelity and emotion on our lives, in other words, until we are willing to talk about moral standards, we will make little or no real progress in social acceptance. >>

Did you read my earlier post? This has no basis in history. All people who find themselves ostrascized by the dominant American culture are accused of being immoral or dependent. Women and blacks didn´t make their strides by trying to look nice. Indeed, it was well understood that the effort to placate by a nice image was part of the problem. You are positing something without any regard for historical context and you´re not responding to its citation.

>>I don't believe you can gain social acceptance in Middle America without facing up to the facts. Working towards that aim means bringing out the best in ourselves and offering something admirable to Middle America. >>

Really? Why? I think the idea that homosexuality, buttfucking as identity, is going to be "accepted" anytime soon is very far-fetched. Most of us would settle for equal protection under the law. I don´t understand how it is that so many conservative queers want to, on the one hand, not be identified on the basis of theire sexual behavior...but want, on the other, to be accepted on the basis of some "other" identity. Sorry, Charlie, what makes you queer is what you do with your dick. The dominant culture, at heart, doesn´t give a shit if you´re promiscuous. Its members care about the nature of your desire and they use the argument about promiscuity (contextualized with AIDS usually) as an effective straw-man argument since it doesn´t condemn sexual identity, over which people have little control, but pathologizes it by creating a false symptom.

>>I disagree with Bongo's assertion that image does not provide effective political leverage for gays. Social acceptance by Middle America is a nessasary condition for removing legal barriers. We don't enhance our image by conducting an assault on mainstream American values and institutions.>>

Honestly, that strikes me as funny. Promiscuity is hardly an attack on american values. We have the world´s largest porn industry, the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in the world. I could go on. This business about promiscuity is an absurd screen. Gay men need to open their damn eyes and look at who is calling them promiscuous....and then ask themselves why we are so responsive to being called an offense to the dom culture on that basis by members of our own community.

>>If anything, such assaults isolate us from Middle America. We must show the broad middle of America that gays do not monolithically oppose them on a wide range of important economic and social issues. Winning the trust and support of Middle America is foundational to forging a coalition which will bring equality. >>

Yeah right. I think this contention is naive. It operates on the assumption that our image, not our DESIRE, is what alienates us. I´m just sure the folks who elected Dubya are gonna say: "Well, now that we understand you aren´t all into fucking in toilets, just buttfucking privately, we really want to give you a place at the table."

>>Instead, many of our organizations and leaders have repeatedly taken political stands that are calculated to offend middle America. We cannot expect to enlist their support if they see no advantage in standing up for us. Gay equality is very consistent with the traditional values and institutions of middle America. >>

Gee, I thought we ended up offending American whatever our position. Didn´t Dubya refuse to see them nice Log Cabin boys for the longest time? Yet didn´t Clinton open the doors to the White House to quite a motley assortment of queers? Where are your FACTS, man?

>>My comments on argumentum ad hominem are consistent and correct. If your first and only response is to attack the messenger, then we must infer a person has nothing of substance or relevance to rebut it.>>

Your attack on image, those whose morals oppose yours, is fundamentally an ad hominem attack, like Sun´s calling people neo-Marxists.

>>Admittedly, I am a genetic contrarian, so I will continue to say what I think without regard for whoever claims to be mildly offended. >>

And without regard to the responses you receive either, apparently.

>>No, I'm not Sun or anyone else. I did, however, chuckle to myself when Bongo (assuming he is not Jake) substituted his own odd polemic and aptly demonstrated my previous point on argumentum ad hominem. >>

Your ad hominem ad hominem is another straw man. Anytime anyone disagrees with You the Collective in any sharp way you reply with this ad hominem style of your own. It´s knifing with a smile.




[This message has been edited by musclehead2 (edited April 08, 2001).]

>>When radicals, like Sex Panic, presume to speak for the entire Gay civil rights movement, it should not surprise anyone (including radical pinko leftists) why mainstream America rejects us outright. It is also for this reason why it is important for Moderates and Independents to counter the radical image of the extreme left. >><

Oh please. Sex Panic does not presume to speak for all gay men and its receipt of attention by the media doesn´t mean they intend that. That´s like saying a story in the Times about bogus African American pinko baiters living in Florida trailer parks is an effort to represent all people who live in trailer parks.

And I might remind you that Keith, the esteemed Cruisemaster, attended the Sex Panic convention in San Diego. He is, like you, a libertarian, Sun, and hardly represents a radical threat to America.

This is a potent example of your bottomless willingness to misrepresent actuality. Unlike Jake, I find your self-representation in multiple identities reprehensible, because it is the purest example of the nature of your integrity.

>>So, what do we make of a group of radicals that is in open revolt over efforts to gain acceptance by mainstream America? >>

LOL....Wanting the freedom to do what Cruising for Sex provides people information to do is an open revolt over efforts to gain acceptance by mainstream America?? What the hell are YOU doing here, Sun?

>>It is mainstream America's attitudes, not the far right's, that we must change toward us. When radicals within the gay movement are in open revolt against mainstream America, I can guarantee you that acceptance of gays into general society will not be the choice of mainstream America. And make no mistake about it; Gays will never gain acceptance into society by revolting against and attacking mainstream America. >>>

LOL...Yeah, like your fellow black folks, right, Sun? It takes radicals and mainstreamers, a diverse coalition that waxes and wanes in its dominant character, not your de-historicized dream of homogenization.



[This message has been edited by musclehead2 (edited April 08, 2001).]

You go, Man!!!

At last, a voice of intelligence in the midst of all the game playing by Sun and his ilk!

There's a need for new scholarship into the diversity of gay experience in America. Most people are aware of people who share their values but don't know much about people who don't. I don't know any gays who are looking to joing the local Chamber of Commerce, and I assumed (incorrectly?) that there weren't many.

Similarly, I do not recognize myself in some of the accusations guys have made against me on this forum. I am not a social victim myself -- do I have to be? I believe this society has arbitrary victims, and that we don't do enough to correct things that ought to be corrected. Maybe my accusers, in stereotyping my beliefs, don't know any better.

Well sun?

Looks like you are outgunned. Not only does muscle have your number, but he is using it to make you look like an idiot. Not that it is a real challenge, but it is fun to watch.

Seasoned citizens like yourself often fall into the trap of limbaughesque rhetoric. Too bad you pine for inclusion in a community that will have nothing to do with you. I have to know, does the irony escape you, or did you remember to take your ginko today?

Anywhoo, your writing has improved. But you still lack the intelligence to pull off the multiple identity facade. Your attempts are so transparent that they would be funny were they not so desperate and sad. Here is a hint: don't claim to be a brother when your vocabulary is completely white bread. [that little episode ruined your credability but gave most of us the biggest laugh of the year 2000. I still chuckle over it!]

However, in the interest of inclusion I will congratulate you on your position as moderator. I am sure you relish it. I have stepped up my travel due to a recent promotion and haven't had time to hang around here as much. But I do notice the signifigance of the double G. Real cute.

So good luck Sun. Maybe the rest of us should hold your hand and tell you how right you are. That is what we do for most delusional old people. Why treat you any differently?

Tell us what you would like to hear. We will all repeat it back to you. right after matlock goes off and before you fall to sleep. Ha Ha HA!

Musclehead2, you are one sexy dude in how you xpress yourself. I'm sucking you off in my mind while you wax poetic and loving every minute of it... . Keep talking to me, man!

Some of these posts belong in the "cruising for a straight-acting husband in Middle America" website - there must not be one out there yet, so the posters come here, where I see so many postings for bareback sex I think this must be cruisingforHIV.com. But that's another topic... .

I'm constantly amused by references to "mainstream America," "traditional values," and "special rights for homosexuals" in what passes for political discussions distributed by our media. These are all code words in long-term use by, yes, right-wing homophobes. But no, I don't think all people who describe themselves as politically conservative are homophobic.

America is streaming alright, and that means it's constantly changing, constantly on the move. Are the Hindu Indian communities of Dallas and Silicon Valley mainstream America? Is an eighth generation New Mexican novelist and tarot card reader who can trace her history back to the Spaniards mainstream American, or is it the 19-year-old undocumented kid from across the border who delivers her pizza and loves Eminem? Is any native American anywhere mainstream American? Is a single, 60-year-old divorced accountant and wheelchair-bound Vietnam vet from Columbus OH mainstream America, or is it his circuit boy CPA son with three boyfriends and a girl friend he occasionally plays with? I'm just pulling images out of a hat at random, but it would be interesting to see how some of these posters would fill in the blanks, what I've not said about each character, based on our assumptions and experiences of what is America, or maybe what people think it SHOULD be. Why would we presume to know what ANY of these characters' politics are? And yet any one of them might describe himself or herself as "mainstream" depending on how the question is phrased.

"Traditional values" always means "I hate gays," in my mind, when I hear a person say it. "Mainstream America" might mean "anywhere you find large concentrations of overweight, Baptist heterosexuals who watch a lot of tv, don't earn a lot of money, and resent it," I suppose. "Special rights for homosexuals" ALWAYS means "equal rights for homosexuals" when I hear someone refer to it, because the speaker invariably is NOT in favor of equal rights for gays. So the right wing coined this term, "special rights," because it so neatly plays to the resentment and discontent of the dispossessed, disenfranchised and economically disadvantaged str8 white men who might be a part of that "mainstream America" referred to here. Many of these people and their forebears fought against CIVIL rights for African-Americans for the same reason, because at least being white, like being straight, conferred (and still does in many parts) SPECIAL rights for so long, at least in comparison to whomever could be kept lower on the totem pole.

All I can say is, thank god I live in New York, where there are tons of happy homos of all shapes and sizes, lots of willing dicks to suck, where ultra-capitalists and old-timey labor organizers co-exist (though never in the same co-op), where nelly drag queens (like our Mayor - ugh) rule, where theatre is everywhere, where you can get a great meal at almost any hour, and where Republicans, though rare, are also very nice and tolerant and mostly concerned with lowering taxes, protecting the environment and keeping government small, efficient and out of their lives. The latter, among those I know, are definitely not homophobes. Many are homos!

I have another question, the answers for which might reveal a great deal about our political views as gay, bi and cock-sucking "straight" men (LOL): who would you rather have dinner with, a conservative, str8-acting closet queen with a buff bod and a daring subscription to Out Magazine, or a 60-year-old pot-smoking, out-of-shape Radical Faerie, and WHERE (name a restaurant)?

[This message has been edited by Lex (edited April 08, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Lex (edited April 08, 2001).]

HornDogg (the moderator of "SEXUAL POLITICS") and SunDogg are the SAME person???

Say it isn't true! THE HORROR! THE HORROR! LOL!

If it is true, that certainly might explain the moderator's tendency to constantly get on bongo's back while looking the other way when Sun consistently instigates and provokes flaming (AND admits he enjoys "baiting" others). What silly game-playing.

At this point, it should be clear to everyone that Sun is a jackass. He shuld not be taken for anything but the instigator he takes such pride in boasting that he is in his own posts.

[This message has been edited by Jake2001 (edited April 09, 2001).]

Dear Abby (read: Guyncol and his Gang of One):

If I believed that I was 'outgunned' by a majority of 'one', I would not be posting here on the Sexual Politics Forum. http://web.cruisingforsex.com/ubb/smile.gif

Before this forum was created, most political discussions were found on the Sex Advice Forum. That forum contained some lively discussions on politics too --- until one of the Cruisers decided he needed to take 'control' of those discussions. Once that Cruiser became the Moderator for that forum, his intent to dominate the political discussions became clear. It became clear to everyone ultruism and objectivity were not the reasons he wanted to control that forum.

Establishing this new Sexual Politics forum, to separate it from the Sexual Advice Forum (read: Dear Abby), was a good move on Keith's part. Keith took our "suggestions" to heart and established a separate forum. That is perhaps the best reason why Guyncol is better suited to moderate his Dear Abby Column in the Sex Advice Forum. Whether it is giving advice on Dress Codes for Cruising or educating straight brother-in-laws on gay cruising techniques at local city parks, you can be sure Guyncol will rise to the occasion.

You can now return to moderate your Dear Abby Column Guyncol. This 'dog' like 'other dogs' doesn't bury his bones in other people's yards.

As for Jake2001/Bongo/Swallowme/Musclehead/Lex/(fill in the blank...Guyncol) it really does take one 'dog' to know another 'dog'.

Here Dwight...fetch!

The Whitehouse announced today that Scott Evertz, an 'openly' gay Log Cabin Republican (so sorry ...Gay Stonewall Demos), has been nominated to head the newly reorganized Whitehouse AIDS Office. He will also become a member of the Whitehouse Domestic Policy Council.

See Dwight run. Run, Dwight, run. Fetch!

Whoosh! The sound made by knee-jerk reactionary Neo-Marxists on the Extreme Left when deprived of O2.

Let's see the usual knee-jerk convulsions from the revolutionary council of queer theorists--as expected and predicted. http://web.cruisingforsex.com/ubb/smile.gif


:eek: nullLet's see the usual knee-jerk convulsions from the revolutionary council of queer theorists--as expected and predicted.

[ April 14, 2001: Message edited by: IGF Mbr2000469 ]

[ April 14, 2001: Message edited by: IGF Mbr2000469 ]

Ugh. I used my sex-cruising handle, musclehead2, erroneoulsy in this forum. Just want to be clear about that. I don´t want to give the impression, like some people, that I am trying to create a consensus through multiple screen names.

Sundog, are you or not the moderator of this forum? I think we have a right to know.

[This message has been edited by bongo (edited April 09, 2001).]

No, I am the mod. of this forum, I am Horndogg. If anyone would take the time to look at my profile, I'm from Salisbury, NC. I am from Charlotte,lived in New Orleans for several years. I'm 33 single, 5,11 180lbs work in the construction industry. Hiv+ for over 10years and don't want any pity, As I have said before I'm new at this and I am trying to keep a even and upper hand at the silly name calling and bitchy snipps from several of you. Gabe and Keith were babysitting last week because I was at a trade show in south beach and I cannot do this on the road, so please leave me out of the name calling and wondering if I'm several people or posting under several names. Thanks.

Sundogg-g-g-g-g...

while i appreciate being placed in the esteemed company you mentioned, i have only one "handle" on CFS. i guess it makes it easier for you to be smug in your beliefs if you think you are only arguing with one person, that way you don't look so out of it.

as for the Uncle Tom, er, Log Cabin Republicans' appointment to the White House "AIDS office"..last thing I heard/read about it was that the contact phone number for the office was simply an aswering machine in an empty office...appropriate symbology for an empty gesture from the Chief Homophobe.

Why not ask the Moderator himself? Duh?

Oh yes, I forgot. You have accused the Moderator of being unfair, biased, and in collusion with others -- conspiring to silence all the voices in your head.

Why would you ask the Immoderator anything after burning your own bridges? Since you obviously believe he and I are the same person, why bother?

I will say this much. Unlike Guyncol, the other phantom moderator from the Dear Abby column of Sex Advice, he hasn't censured our postings. Given that fact alone, one might infer reasonably and objectively, the moderator and I are not the same person.

The reason why we have a Sexual Politics Forum is because we no longer need to post in the Sex Advice Forum. The moderator of this forum, unlike the moderator for the 'other' forum, does not censure our postings to silence unpopular disent and disagreement with 'his' point of view. The moderator of this forum has been very fair and has not attempted to silence us.

Maybe you should try to be just a bit more charitable in your criticism while casually overlooking the obvious.

Nuff said?

Yeah, Swallowme, if you say so.

But...You still have to deal with your 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' sellout by the Clinton Administration. No matter how you spin it, you can't distance yourself from it. Sellouts in the name of political expediency are very painful reminders that some wounds never heal. And you thought Bill Clinton was your good buddy. Let us know when you finally leave Clinton's liberal plantation. Playing the willing role of a Liberal Plantation houseboy is so ungay.
=============================================
Horndog ~

I will apolgise for the fact that Jake2001 and others have suggested you and I are the same person. Owing to the fact that Bongo has admitted he posts as others, I would not expect anything to the contrary. You've been very tolerant, unbiased, and neutral in this forum. My thanks to you.

[This message has been edited by SunDogg (edited April 09, 2001).]

No alter ego or alternative handle here, Sundogg, just another individual with an opinion. I'm glad Bush named a gay man to head the national AIDS office and that the responsibilities of the position are increased, too. I hope they found someone who is up to the challenge.

The one article I read is not promising: Evertz himself implies that kissing Bush's ass when he visited candidate Bush with other LG Repubs in Texas last year might have made all the difference in getting the job ("my partner's daughter campaigned for you in the WI primary!"). But I suppose an ass-kissing middle American publicly gay man in the administration is better than none at all. I don't know Evertz's qualifications beyond his immediately past jobs as a fundraiser for AIDS nonprofits in WI. I know that he went to Marquette and has worked with Catholic nonprofits and gay Catholic groups in the past. This, too, does not make me very comfortable, though I admire and respect many Catholic clergy and lay people (I was raised Catholic). The problem is that the Catholic Church hierarchy in the USA and overseas has had an official policy of prohibiting, opposing and/or discouraging promotion of safe sex and condom use as cornerstones of sound public health policy. These policies are exactly those that have helped gay white men in this country arrest the spread of HIV in their subgroup. The Church's active opposition to this cornerstone of public health policy in the age of AIDS has not made fighting the spread of HIV and easier and arguably has cost more than a few lives.

I hope Evertz has been able to negotiate that obvious tension between Catholic authority and public health mandates with skill and confidence in his previous jobs without compromising his integrity. Let's see how he does in this job, which is a massively greater and more complex responsibility.

I think Colin Powell's personal interest in addressing Africa's epidemic of the disease may have helped preserve this office generally, because apparently the new administration previously had thought to eliminate it.

This administration is only a couple of months old. I've expressed my deep concern about its tax cut proposal and environmental positions in other posts, without suggesting that anyone who disagrees with me leave the Republican party or betray their personal political beliefs, in fact without calling into question anyone's politics but the President's. I'd just like to hear rational arguments in favor of the administration's actions, including more information about why this particular gay man is the best choice for this job. So far I've heard very few arguments in support of Bush's specific policies and proposals, just a lot of name-calling, mud-slinging and personal invective against some of us who've argued against some of the Republican party's positions.

Yeah, Lex, if you say so.

To sum up your last Liberal tirade ...blah, blah, and blah...the Catholic Church...blah, blah, blah.

With so much Political Ass Rimming from the last administration, ass kissing seems so tame. http://web.cruisingforsex.com/ubb/smile.gif Monica may have sucked cock, but Don't Ask, Don't Tell was the real fucking Gays got. Do Liberals fuck any different?

I don't share your reservations about the proposed Bush budget plan. But, I will specifically mention a fact you trivalized by not addressing it at all. In Healthcare, increasing the budget in medical research for AIDS and other diseases is a step forward. Additionally, increasing the NIH budget by $2.8 billion for conducting federal medical studies (which includes AIDS) is a positive step too. If you want more specific details of the budget, you'll just have to 'read' it -- the Budget Plan.

As for the environment, I think you should make your case to the people out in California. California's self-destruct on their own self-induced energy crisis has run head on with environmental protection. Instead of Ecology 101, the people should be taking Economics 101.

Lex. Instead of getting ALL your information from just one article, you might want to do what most people do. Think for yourself. Show us some independent thinking. You don't have to live on the Liberal's plantation. You are free to think for yourself. You should avail yourself of many sources before coming to any conclusion. Coming to your conclusions first and then seeking to justify those conclusions based on Liberal hyperbole is rhetoric.

Living in New York does not have to be a bad experience even if you did vote for what's her name and you got 'him' in that sorry mix.

Though I live in NYC most of the time I vote in PA and voted for Arlen Specter, a Republican, FYI. Rcik Santorum, on the other hand, is an embarrassment.

I read widely including lots of right-leaning journals, magazines etc. I'm familiar with legal resources such as findlaw.com that present the information in a straightforward way without need for politicizing, though they accommodate plenty of political postings on their message board.

I agree that it's great that Bush is increasing funding for AIDS research, and NIH funding too. I didn't trivialize that by not mentioning it, I mentioned administration policies that concerned me, and I specifically asked someone to tell me why this Evertz guy is so qualified for this job, specifically because I only read one article. You had no new information to share about this guy, so I suppose you didn't even read the one article I read.

You have not forwarded any detailed arguments to refute my opinions other than tossing off nasty comments and suggestions. I'm interested in discussion, not mud-slinging. Can you possibly control your rhetoric enough to try and illuminate people, rather than bash your imaginary opposition?

As someone who has voted Republican on occasion, who loves our country's free market impulses and totally approves of hunting and the right to bear arms for nonlethal noncriminal uses (among other political beliefs of mine), I don't think I fit neatly into your "demon" slot, though I never thought the terms Liberal or Conservative as insults per se.

You may be more than remotely aware of the origins of the political term Liberal, so I know you won't want to fall into the trap of using that term so frequently to denigrate people. I think you really mean "socialist" or "social engineer," something like that. You'd make a great speech-writer for Dana Rohrabacher or some other proud representative of your political ideology.

Could you possibly concede that NIH funding under both republicans and democrats made possible a lot of private sector profits in AIDS medication research & development? Perhaps government health r&d with tax revenues is an area where democrats and republicans can agree. Your postings show no interest in the bipartisanship and cooperation that keeps such programs in place over many administrations, you're just blindly defending Bush's overall strategy to date. Don't YOU think for yourself? Don't YOU read more than what you agree with in advance?

I haven't defended the Clinton record - Bill or Hillary's - in any postings. I fully support and contribute to the Servicemembers' Legal Defense Fund and totally oppose Don't Ask Don't Tell as a failed policy, but I do recognize the nasty roles that Sam Nunn, Democrat, lots of Republicans, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff played in thwarting Clinton's original and flawed, grandstanding proposal to dismantle the anti-gay policies of the armed forces. I agree that Clinton set back gay rights mightily by not doing the politically smart thing by building consensus behind closed doors before announcing what he intended to do. I agree that signing the Defense of Marriage Act was reprehensible, and a permanent stain on his Presidential record.

Now would you agree that the Republican Party includes a conservative right wing, a fundamentalist Christian religious right wing, that is organized and powerful and has influenced policy and law on a local and national level for years, and that is motivated in part by a deep animosity toward gay men and women that is evident in the passage of Defense of Marriage, and local and statewide laws and initiatives throughout the country that constrain equal rights for gay men and women? Could you possibly concede that much? Or are you just a blind apologist for conservative dogg-ma?

I'd also be interest in hearing you give a little more detail than "blah blah blah Liberal blah blah" in response to my assertion that the Catholic Church's position on condom use has been a destructive counterweight to the fight against the spread of HIV. You may be aware that most Catholic Americans use condoms themselves, and that there are huge divisions within the Catholic Church, like many other established religious groups, including the clergy and laity on nearly every political issue on which the Church has taken an official stand. Why is it so-called Liberal blather for someone raised Catholic to critique the Church's role in public health policy and specifically AIDS prevention?

I'm not going to hold my breath awaiting a civilized, detailed, informed response from you. Like I said, thank god I live in NY, where Republicans and Democrats know how to have a good political argument without shooting each other. I can't believe it's come to this, that NYC is more polite and civilized than the rest of the country!

[This message has been edited by Lex (edited April 09, 2001).]

Ooooooooh!

It looks like Sunny is black and blue! LOL! Did we collectively hit a nerve, Sunny? LOL! I too am glad to be included in the esteemed company of Guyncol (the SHARPEST and BEST moderator on these boards as far as this man is concerned!), Swallow, bongo, and any of the other independent thinkers you mentioned who refuse to be fooled by your game-playing and obnoxious baiting, you asshole.

It amazes me that you have been allowed to get away with the outrageous crap that you have been pulling on these boards for so damn long, Sun. People may use different handles here at CFS for any variety of reasons. But, YOU are the only poster I know of who actually uses multiple identities IN THE SAME THREAD to engage in self-congratulatory talk with each other in order to defend your own rhetoric. JESUS!

It certainly is no mystery to me why you are so venomous towards Guyncol. He alone is the ONE moderator at CFS who read your beads to you a LOOONG time ago. He also came very close to exposing your masquerade when he went to check the IP log to reveal where several of your identities ACTUALLY came from at one time in the not too distant past. I am sure that you will NEVER forget or forgive him for that one, Sunny. Your imaginary "gay youth" identities that you ushered in to support your desire to "mentor" young boys, etc. They miraculously vanished from threads Guy was moderating when a confrontation took place. Of course, you knew that Guy would not let you get away with your baiting, phoney game-playing, and you had your "siblings" make a hasty departure.

Ass rimming? I just about puked when you trashed Guy while brown-nosing the moderator (Horndogg) of this forum for not confronting you the way that Guy did in his forums.

I wish you would get a bunch of your checker playing gin buddies and go play charades somewhere else, Sun.

Your welcome here has worn REAL thin with quite a few people besides this man.

From Sun:
>>Horndog ~
I will apolgise for the fact that Jake2001 and others have suggested you and I are the same person. Owing to the fact that Bongo has admitted he posts as others, I would not expect anything to the contrary. You've been very tolerant, unbiased, and neutral in this forum. My thanks to you. >>

LOL...Nice try, Sun. The difference is that I have a different screen name only for cruising. When I erroneoulsy used it in this forum, I immediately identified myself. You, as Jake has said above (and others of us have said for months), don´t identify your various handles, all of which are created to confuse people, create false concensus and even to gratify your fantasies.

As Jake said, your real objections to Guy are that he called you on this months ago and, ever since, you have been at least cautious about which handles you use in THAT forum. I think it´s too bad Horndogg doesn´t give as much attention to matters of such integrity and their effect on discourse as he does to his incoherently applied policy of "name calling."

[This message has been edited by bongo (edited April 10, 2001).]

From Sun, who doesn´t call people names or sling mud, to Lex:

>>Instead of getting ALL your information from just one article, you might want to do what most people do. Think for yourself. Show us some independent thinking. You don't have to live on the Liberal's plantation. You are free to think for yourself. You should avail yourself of many sources before coming to any conclusion >>

Hahahahahahah. Anyone here can point his browser at a libertarian site and find that ¨"independent thinking" Sun´s words are often virtual paraphrases of that canned ideology. Honestly, Sun, you neither think for yourself, nor do you even engage in discourse. YOu did not in any way respond to the challenge above to your grotesquely weird posturing about Sex Panic and the agendas this board shares with radical sexual liberation movements. When cornered, you never do anything but turn a few degrees, wind yourself up and let loose (after a bit of the invective you claim to despise) with another one of your libertarian tirades.

And by the way, show us the actual increases in the AIDS research budget. You already pulled that one through one of your bogus handles and I challenged you then to give us the actual facts.