Sentinel on PFOX
I hope The Sentinel doesn't mind if I copy and paste a recent editorial into the blog. It's too good to let it pass without sharing.
Editor’s Notebook by Brian J. Karem
PFOX: Once more into the breach
My favorite atavistic agents of destruction are at it again, and while I probably should just ignore them, I can't help but find them somewhat amusing - in a moronic sense anyway. I am of course referring to the wonderful civic organization called PFOX, or the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays.
This feisty little group of cerebrally challenged adults consider themselves "friends" of those who are attracted to their own gender, but are strident in their efforts to change the sexual orientation of anyone attracted to their own gender.
I guess, in this way, you could call Judas a friend of Christ or Benedict Arnold a friend of George Washington.
Me? I love laughing at hypocrisy and in my truest "Pogo" fashion can never quite stop chuckling at those whose enemies are themselves.
PFOX is definitely on about something again.
This time they're upset at former Vice President Dick Cheney. I am too, but because I think he's a war criminal among other things.
Not the good ole people at PFOX.
They think Cheney's kind of gone soft. They prefer the old Attila the Hun mentality - at least when it comes to Gay bashing.
Subtle as PFOX is - well which if one is honest is about as subtle as a blow to the head with a hammer - their true colors can't help but shine through.
Cheney came out recently stating that people ought to "get a shot" at same-sex marriages.
Showing a complete about-face from his long-held public stance, Cheney proved that all of his heart wasn't lost with his heart disease - he's trying to reach out to his lesbian daughter.
PFOX doesn't see it that way. Under the guise of "love" and "understanding" the director of PFOX says "The forced restructuring of society and attempts to deny Americans the right to vote against redefining marriage will not provide approval for homosexual couples nor a Mom and Dad for children."
Arguing that "children do best when raised by their mom and dad," PFOX said President Ronald Reagan "never let his children's liberal views get in the way of his running the nation," and that "As responsible members of society, we must look to what is best for our culture as a whole."
Where to start?
Okay, I can think of plenty of times when it isn't best for children to be raised by "their mom and dad," and I was one of those children. My mom did it fine by herself, thank her very much, and children living in abusive home situations should never be forced to live with both a mother and a father if it will do them=2 0harm.
What children need is a loving environment. If that can be provided by two "moms" or two "dads," what matter does it make to anyone else?
The truth is, after you talk to some of these PFOX people for awhile, is that they fear, and I mean really fear, that same sex households will somehow brain wash little children into becoming homosexuals.
Secretly I think many of them are insecure about their own sexuality and have not faced it squarely. As for the garbled sentence about "forced restructuring of society," that's just a bunch of garbage that doesn't mean anything - other than being a thinly veiled attempt to scare the life out of people who don't know any better.
But for me, the most wonderfully ridiculous statement is holding up President Ronald Reagan as a paragon of virtue.
Anyone who venerates that tired, old horribly mentally incompetent President should not only have their head examined, but their ability to vote restricted to County Council elections and mayoral elections in Rockville.
In the end, I agree with one statement made by PFOX - something akin to children needing love. But if we're really going to look out for what is best for our culture as a whole, it's better said by John Lennon - "All you need is love."
Doesn't matter what gender. Love is all you need.
I guess I’ll even have to love the folks at PFOX - which I do because they make me laugh.
posted by JimK at 9:27 AM
25 Comments:
"I guess, in this way, you could call Judas a friend of Christ or Benedict Arnold a friend of George Washington."
Actually, in the way the guy in the white coat is a friend to lunatics.
Anyone who was surprised that Dick and Lynne Cheney were closet supporters of gay marriage all along could use the services of one of those nice white men in their nice white coats.
Anyone surprised by PFOX's position needs a team of these fellows in the nice white coats to observe them round the clock.
I'm sure lots of people have an opinion on this. Why does PFOX rate an editorial?
Here's a hint:
"But for me, the most wonderfully ridiculous statement is holding up President Ronald Reagan as a paragon of virtue.
Anyone who venerates that tired, old horribly mentally incompetent President should not only have their head examined, but their ability to vote restricted to County Council elections and mayoral elections in Rockville."
Here, the editorial writer reveals himself as a partisan lunatic by attacking the greatest President of the second half of the twentieth century.
Reagan's wife was in town this week as a bi-partisan group placed a statue of Reagan in the Capital rotunda. She had a lovely lunch with Michelle Obama and Sir B.O. set up a commission to plan festivities for Reagan's 100th birthday.
Probably none of these people has ever read the Sentinel.
http://news.aol.com/article/obama-in-germany/513388
Sir B.O. really likes to be all things to all people.
Memba when he attacked NAFTA is the Midwest during the election then went to Canada and told everyone there he was just doing that for votes?
This week he went to the Mid-east and shared fond stories of his Muslim father and his roots at the Islamic school in Indonesia.
Now, we have the picture from the last comment of him giving a Nazi salute in Germany.
What is this?
Political bait and switcheroo?
"Now, we have the picture from the last comment of him giving a Nazi salute in Germany."
I just looked at the picture. It seems to me that the wisdom and skill of President Obama is causing the extreme right wing in this country to be having a collective nervous breakdown.
I do agree that the Sentinel characterization of Ronald Reagan is over-the-top. He plainly was a man of exceptional abilities, even though, for example, his blind spots were awful and his views on the unfettered free market were, in my view, terribly wrong. His ability to take Yes for an answer from Gorbachev was a major (although, in my view, his only significant) positive achievement.
None of us know at what point the Alzheimer's set in, but Brian Karem's statement about Reagan was not fair.
That said, Karem makes some very telling points in his article. I'd expand on it a bit: The Cheneys clearly had and have a much better relationship with their children than the Reagans did. And the Reagan Presidency would have greatly benefitted from better family communication: I've seen and heard Ron Reagan, Jr., over the years, and he seems to be a very reasonable Left of Center person. The problem with the Cheneys is that they were, as a family, too closeted too long, and refused to use their high standing with conservatives to talk some sense about sexual orientation when it really could have made a big, positive difference in many people's lives. Now, he is almost behind the curve. Still, better late than never. Though, in Cheney's case, not nearly enough.
aw, David, you're no fun
I was only joking about the Nazi thing, hoping to get a rise out of some of your hyperboliuc friends here
I'm sure Barry was just waving and Merkel just loooked like she was returning the salute
I do think that remarks in the Arab world were funny when you consider how hard Obama tried to disassociate himself from his Muslim roots in the campaign
still, I think he's actually wise to be reaching out to moderate Muslims and I think he's proving adept at diplomacy
Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, revolutionized our understanding of economics
his one huge error was selecting George Bush for VP rather than Jack Kemp
but, that's history
Karem's right.
With friends like PFOX, who needs enemies?
so, an enemy is someone who encourages you to resist unhealthy desires?
and, I guess in TTF Land, drug dealers are Big Brothers and drug counselors are the enemy
oh, that last post was from the Lad of Lightning
It’s Saturday morning. Shouldn’t you be out flying a kite or something with your wife and child? And don’t forget to pick up after little Sparks. He’s a handful since you got him, isn’t he? But it’s all worth it to see the smile on your little boy’s face, isn’t it? And the way your wife looks over at you with that twinkle in her baby blue eyes...
Give them my regards, will you?
No flash, an enemy is someone who tries to get you to live your life locked away in a closet of celibacy and/or dishonesty instead of being free to marry the person you really love.
Emproph's advice is good advice. Go live your life and love those you love. Maybe you'll see that's the way it should be for everybody.
Have a nice day.
Yay!
Yay!
The miltary ain't gay.
Thanks to Barry O for his help in keeping it that way:
"WASHINGTON (June 8) -- The Supreme Court on Monday agreed with the Obama administration and upheld Pentagon policy barring gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.
The court said it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
The federal appeals court in Boston earlier threw out a lawsuit filed by Pietrangelo and 11 other veterans.
He was the only member of that group who asked the high court to rule that the Clinton-era policy is unconstitutional.
During last year's campaign, President Barack Obama indicated he supported the eventual repeal of the policy, but he has made no specific move to do so since taking office in January.
Meanwhile, the White House has said it won't stop gays and lesbians from being dismissed from the military.
In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that "don't ask, don't tell" is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman referred requests for comment to the Justice Department, but said the military policy "implements the law."
"The law requires the (Defense) Department to separate from the armed services members who engage in or attempt to engage in homosexual acts; state they are homosexual or bisexual; or marry or attempt to marry a person of the same biological sex," Whitman said in a statement."
"lightning in a jar"(sic)said: "Yay!Yay!The miltary ain't gay."
Are you really that naive and ignorant? Get real.
Of course, if you are just engaging in some childish doggerel (not very creative or well-written at that), we might be able to forgive your infantilism. You really are becoming such a "ho, hum" troll.
Citizen
Hey Lightning whatever:
You might find this information enlightening:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120764/Conservatives-Shift-Favor-Openly-Gay-Service-Members.aspx
by Lymari Morales
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans are six percentage points more likely than they were four years ago to favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military, 69% to 63%. While liberals and Democrats remain the most supportive, the biggest increase in support has been among conservatives and weekly churchgoers -- up 12 and 11 percentage points, respectively.
The only exception to the trend in favor of openly gay service members is seen among those with a high school education or less, who showed 57% support in both surveys.
Gallup Poll data from 2009 reveal that majority support among Americans for repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has only strengthened in recent years. Repealing the policy is a promise Obama made on the campaign trail and is one that gay rights groups have recently been more vocal in urging him to fulfill. While the administration to date has not taken action on the issue, the Gallup Poll data indicate that the public-opinion environment favors such a move.
In particular, the more conservative segments of the population who could be expected to be most resistant to such a policy change have shifted in favor of repealing the existing ban, to the extent that majority support now spans all segments of the population.
"The times they are a-changing"
RT
"The times they are a-changing"
you guys have been saying that since 1971
hasn't exactly been a steady progression
truth is, gays were tolerated more in the late 70s than now
Do you remember the late 70's honey? Did you live in the Castro or Key West, or something?
rrjr
yeah, doll baby, I do remember the 70s
the AIDS crisis was incubated by a bunch of random nightly promiscuity by gays in bathhouses and public parks in major American cities
until the AIDS virus showed Americans the consequences of such behavior, the public had become blase' about it
the no 1 TV show in America had Billy Crystal playing a gay male in a lead role
the biggest selling popular music artist was Elton John, an open gay, and others like David Bowie and the Rolling Stones were fauning bi-sexuality
the first, and only, x-rated film to win a best picture Oscar had a gay protagonist
contrast that to now
Adam Lambert loses American Idol, most everyone agrees because of his open homosexuality
Brokeback Mountain, considered shoo-in for best picture, was a surprise loser
every time a TV actor says he's gay the ratings on the show fall
the progress you think you've made to tolerance is mostly an illusion fanned by the media
sorry, Charlie
You know much more about American Pop Culture than I do, so I'll bow to your wisdom.
I myself know a fair amount about attitudes in schools, my family, and legal approaches to lgbt people.
The 70's were tolerant? Oh, please.
BTW, the AIDS crisis was incubated among straight people in sub-saharan Africa.
One wonders how you supposedly know so much about gay culture in the 70s, much as one wonders how Peter knows so much about fetish events.
Bug" you have, and exhibit, such a lack of reality and the ability to deal with it that many of us in here worry about your health and welfare. Your wishful thinking about GLBT people just simply disappearing in order to make your life nice and tidy is a fantasy.
If you can't correct that flaw in yourself, there are professionals out there who would be willing to help you.
"One wonders how you supposedly know so much about gay culture in the 70s"
Well, everyone at the time was aware of the pop culture stuff.
As for the gay activity, it was well covered by the media. I remember an especially disturbing news special with Tom Brokaw called "The End of the Rainbow" chronicling the then public random promiscuity in public places at night in major cities.
People who worked in inner city ministries at the time were also aware of the problem when gays were moving into certain areas and squeezing long-time lower-income residents out.
Forget the monkeys in the jungle, man. AIDS took hold here because of the gay culture.
sorry, Charlie
"monkeys in the jungle"?
Please explain.
rrjr
well, since you said please:
the story is that the virus originated in monkeys and passed to humans in Africa somehow
surely, you've heard that
anyway, that doesn't explain how it became established in America
it happened through the rampant and random promiscuity of the gay community in large cities
Forget the monkeys in the jungle, man. AIDS took hold here because of the gay culture.
"Bug", et al.: you revel in lying! You are wrong, as usual. You definitely are learning your lessons from the likes of Hannity or Limbaugh or O'Reilly or Gingrich or one of the many other neo-fascist, right-wing racists and bigots.
You are what's wrong with America these days!
wrong about what?
Wrong about your assessment of your own cleverness, honeybunch.
actually we never discussed how clever I am
we discussed the fact that tolerance for homosexuality is not a straight upward arrow but a penduluum and it was higher in the not-too-distant past
we also mentioned what caused the most recent remission form this tolerance, namely a recognition that homosexual behavior patterns caused the establishment of a new, invariably fatal disease within our population
so which was I wrong about?
Post a Comment
<< Home