September 26, 2007
"Give me an address so we are also aware of what happens in Iran."
Says Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, repeating his assertion that as far as he knows, there are no homosexuals in Iran. He is saying things in a form that looks like a joke, and people here in the United States laugh. We're primed to laugh and not think at the utterance of words in the form of a joke. (Jay Leno is still on television.) But Ahmadinejad is talking about murdering human beings. It's not a joke.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
65 comments:
They said it was important for us to give this guy a microphone, because that is the way for us to know what he says.
But he said what many of us already know.
Has it caused anyone on the left, or the right, to change their opinions about Iran and what we should do with Iran?
No.
So maybe it was important because letting him speak, and our reaction to his speech, would tell us a lot about ourselves.
But, again, has it caused anyone, on the right or the left, to change their opinions about anything?
No.
We have reached the point where if it is not about George W. Bush directly, then we care about it and are moved by it about as much as we are by celebritneys.
Saying that Israel should be "wiped off the face of the map" was NOT talking about mudering human beings?
I may gave to take back my post from yesterday to the effect that the monster should not have been given the prestige of addressing Columbia University. It seems that his statements to the effect that homosexuals are (figuratively) "wiped off the face of the map" finally made a few over here see that Mad Mahmoud really WAS talking about murdering human beings.
As long as Iran speaks against Bush and the West, it won't matter what they say.
Paul Johnson was right: they are trying to commit national suicide.
Bush is the real terrorist.
I blame Bush.
Richard, while I agree with you completely, I think the difference for some readers is:
when he says Israel should be destroyed, that is just talk, he couldn't really mean that could he? (one thinks about Mein Kampf here).
when he talks about executing gays, he's got a track record, so you gotta believe he'll kill the next one also.
frankly, he's a scary guy and our avowed enemy since 79.
Richard, I don't understand your comment. Who minimized what he said about Israel?
That Iran occasionally kills hundreds of homos in crackdowns appears to have little effect on the big bucks Hollywood gays convinced Bush is Hitler, war is wrong for any reason, and the #1 issue facing humanity is the right to gay weddings.
Kind of like all the Jewish communists in America that trotted out like the good little Stalinists they were, to praise the Nazis after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, to echo the Soviet Party Line.
Nazis good for Jewish Progressives because Stalin our hero says so!
FDR should be impeached.
Ultimate enemy is British and American Capitalism...
Thinking how future history books will have a laugh or two about it - there is nothing quite so "precious" as GLBT students and Activists locking arms with Muslim Islamist political activist groups and progressive Jewish moneymen - praising Ahmadinejad and condemning the evil Bush....
I once asked an Egyptian military officer how gays are perceived there.
"They can live their lives out if they are very discrete. Think of all society acting with your American "don't ask, don't tell". But if they become open or cannot bribe officials, they are beaten. Then jailed and beaten there - some are raped as raping a homosexual does not make another a homosexual for doing so..Then with a criminal record for perversions, life becomes hell. Their families must scorn them in public..But in my village I could mention several who I knew or suspected were homosexuals who attracted no trouble because they were absolutely discrete to avoid disgracing their families."
That was in moderate Egypt.
In Iran, the place American lefty gays demand be left alone, substitute "hanging" for "beating".
Start with the fact that for many in that culture, when a grown man (top) has sex with a male, young enough to not has body hair, (bottom) its not considered homosexual activity. The rest of that silliness makes sense.
I'm sure I'm wrong about that....
You can't have "slaughter" without "laughter." And the root word in "fundamentalist" is "fun!"
Lighten up, will ya!?
Prof. Althouse, the comment was just a rhetorical device, although sound clips I've heard on various radio programs suggest that there are in fact people who merely wondered why Ahmedinejad can possibly "say the kinds of things that he does", the implied comment clearly being that he really doesn't mean what he says about Israel.
That and the audience reaction at Columbia suggested that it was the comments about gays that finally seemed to push the right buttons.
Put in context with your post- he can bash Jews and Israel in his public statements all he wants without risking opprobium from the American left, but talk trash about gays, and now we're really mad.
I can't wait to hear what he has to say about African Americans. Maybe then the rest of us will finally wake up to the fact that this is a really bad actor trying to get his hands on some really nasty stuff to do us harm.
Or maybe he's smart enough to know better than to push THAT button.
The laughter from the Columbia audience when he made his remarks about there being no homosexuals in Iran was derisive.
Thinking how future history books will have a laugh or two about it - there is nothing quite so "precious" as GLBT students and Activists locking arms with Muslim Islamist political activist groups and progressive Jewish moneymen - praising Ahmadinejad and condemning the evil Bush....
Who are those GLBT students locking arms with Muslim activist groups? The audience at Columbia included gay students, or members of gay rights groups, including an Iranian queer group, protesting Ahmadinejad's appearance. The reports I've read since then routinely quote gay rights activists condemning him and Iran for its tyranny. Stop making shit up.
I recall a line by Whittaker Chambers about us in the West listening to and watching Soviet leaders and behavior, trying to discern their intentions.
As we watched them, there were millions of others, behind the barbed wire and guards, who were watching and listening to us.
Okay, so we've made our conclusions about Ahmadinejad. What are his conclusions about us?
And what are the Iranian people thinking?
SMG
In Iran, the place American lefty gays demand be left alone...
Really, cedarford, quote some "lefty gays" demanding Iran be left alone. Not just one isolated idiot, but a sample of actual gay rights groups. Put up or shut up.
Beth, Spewing hostility and profanity doesn't really help us understand your position on Iran, Iraq, Iran's infiltration and covert actions in Iraq, your position on whether Iran should join the nuclear community, whether Ahmadinejad is better or worse than Bush, etc. In fact, no lefty has seriously articulated these issues in this comment thread.
We suffer from the lack of a Whittaker Chambers for this generation.
Pogo, Is David Horowitz close?
In fact, no lefty has seriously articulated these issues in this comment thread.
Because those aren't the subject of this thread. Nice try at changing the subject.
Beth, I think it is on topic. I also think perhaps you are too conflicted to respond.
UM Prof. Juan Cole says: "It would be nice for the US Right to have us forget that they pull the Ahmadinejad act with regard to gays every day."
So at least one lefty equates murdering gays in Iran to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Not very thoughtful analysis, if you ask me.
Chambers is a different sort altogether. He is a metaphysician, and an excellent writer. He is not a conservative, and disliked being so called. He was always concerned about freedom and the soul.
Horowitz is a good writer and a fierce opponent of the left's excesses. Chambers was a very learned man, a political moderate who rejected totalitarianism in any form, and saw our last best hope in religion. He was not a Republican or Democrat.
He destroyed his career fighting the Soviet agent Hiss (now proven beyond any doubt)and died quite poor due to health problems. He influenced quite alot of people, and I don't really see any similarly inspiring person among us.
Fearless Leader: What does Pottsylvania have more than any other country? Mean!
We have more mean than any other country in Europe! We must export mean
(Rocky and Bullwinkle)
In the US it's a crime to tap your foot in a bathroom.
In Iran it's also a crime, it's just that they think it's a crime worse than the crime of rape of an adult woman.
Is it murder when the state executes someone or is it only murder when the state in question is some country other than the US?
What's clear is that many Americans go out of their way to misinterpret everything that nutcase says.
We need to get our own hands clean before we wash his. He's not a danger to us. But the US government is a danger to us. Let's fix that first.
brylun, thinking doesn't make it so. The questions you fired at me have nothing to do with Mahmoud A's shifty "joke" about there being no gays in Iran, and are simply an attempt to change the subject to things for which you assume you can criticize the left, via me. That's a crass rhetorical technique, and I'm not taking the bait.
My responses to cedarford's lies are clearly on topic, and I made a valid request of him to present evidence of this swell of support in the gay community for Iran. Your example of Juan Cole doesn't answer my questions. I have no idea, first, if Cole is gay. Second, his faulty comparison of "don't ask, don't tell" with Iran's executing gays is no example of gay leftists "linking arms" with Muslim fundamentalists and demanding that Iran be left alone.
I don't know whether Juan Cole is gay either, but here's a quote from the Columbia Queer Alliance on this issue:
"Our cultural values and experiences are distinct, but the stakes are one and the same: the essential human right to express our desires freely. Moreover, we would like to strongly caution media and campus organizations against the use of such words as "gay", "lesbian", or "homosexual" to describe people in Iran who engage in same-sex practices and feel same-sex desire. The construction of sexual orientation as a social and political identity and all of the vocabulary therein is a Western cultural idiom. As such, scholars of sexuality in the Middle East generally use the terms "same-sex practices" and "same-sex desire" in recognition of the inadequacy of Western terminology. President Ahmadinejad's presence on campus has provided an impetus for us all to examine a number of issues, but most relevant to our concerns are the complexities of how sexual identity is constructed and understood in different parts of the world."
This doesn't sound like a condemnation of the murder of gays in Iran, does it?
And Andrew Sullivan has a photo of the hangings.
Hi Beth? Here you go.
Now, you shut up.
Hi Beth, here's another. As a preliminary, I postulate that virtually all MSM'ers are leftists and many are homos.
By all means, please continue to shut up.
You're kidding Beth, right? GLBT groups, Hezbollah affiliated groups, and the Muslim Student Association have spent so much time together protesting the evil Bush-Hitler, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, and "widening the insane war to Iraq" that lefty gays and muslims are on a 1st name basis and on each other's speed dials.
Granted, not all are like the Jewish communists who dutifully praised the Nazis because First Comrade Stalin was praising them.
Some sites, like Scrappleface, and Drudge, love running photos of radical queers, Islamists, lefty Jews on the same stage at a "joint rally" denouncing "American murder" in Afghanistan, Bush murder on innocent Iraqi babies, denouncing Qu'ran flushing and Gitmo abuse of "freedom Fighters".
They will be in future history books for a laugh, just like speeches by Jews at the Communist Worker's Daily saying the Brits were the true capitalist enemy and that Father Stalin had taught them that Hitler was their friend....
Yes - There are also many gay lefties who "abhor and deplore" Iran ...But the same dolts who do so while saying that any actions by the US against Iran would be monstrous and unacceptable. "If we had only treated Iran better, there wouldn't have been all those root causes America is responsible for that force our Muslim freedom-fighter brothers to kill civilians and hang gays..."
paul a'barge's first link (above) of Sally Kohn's Daily Kos posting has me wondering.
She says: "I know I'm a Jewish lesbian and he'd probably have me killed. But still, the guy speaks some blunt truths about the Bush Administration that make me swoon..."
Is it BDS that makes lefties lose perspective?
paul a'barge:
Your first post is a good example of a gay person (idiotically) praising Ahmadinejad.
Your second post is not at all an example of that.
So, thus far, the sum total of cases of gay lefties expressing support for Ahmadinejad is one poster at Daily Kos.
We can do with a little less hysteria about "lefties" praising Iran or wanting to commit national suicide.
Darkbloom, What about Prof. Cole equating murder of gays in Iran to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?"
Isn't there a huge difference between being murdered and not being able to get a marriage license in the US (except Massachusetts)?
Cal David and Cal Playing a video Game] You're *gay* now?
David: No, I'm not gay I'm just celibate.
Cal: I think? I mean, that sounds ga- I just want you to know this is like the first conversation of like three conversations that leads to you being gay. Like... there's this and then in a year it's like, "Oh you know, I kinda wanna, ya know, get back out there but I think I like guys" and then there's the big, "Oh I'm I'm a g-gay guy now".
David: You're gay for saying that.
Cal: I'm gay for saying that?
David: You know how I know you're gay?
Cal: How? How do you know I'm gay?
David: Because you macramed yourself a pair of jean shorts.
Cal: You know how I know *you're* gay? You just told me you're not sleeping with women any more.
David: You know how I know that you're gay?
Cal: How? Cuz you're gay? and you can tell who other gay people are.
David: You know how I know you're gay?
Cal: How?
David: You like Coldplay.
(The 40 Year Old Virgin)
Isn't there a huge difference between being murdered and not being able to get a marriage license in the US (except Massachusetts)?
Of course, and to suggest that they are similar is stupid. Cole was attempting to extrapolate from Ahmadinejad's statement about there being no homosexuals into Iran a parallel with forces in the US who attempt to make gay people invisible through tactics like Don't Ask Don't Tell and denying them the right to marry.
So he wasn't comparing murdering gays with US policy, he was comparing the attempt to make gays invisible.
Still not a comparison I would make. Iran's policy towards gays is so much worse than the US that any attempt to make a comparison is foolish.
But it's not "supporting" Iran, which is the claim Beth was objecting to. Cole doesn't like Iran's policy, as he states in that article, he's hardly a supporter. So I would argue you shouldn't use his rhetorical sloppiness/stupidity as an excuse to paint "gay lefties" as something they are not.
David: You know how I know that you're gay?
Cal: How?
David: You like the movie "Maid in Manhattan".
Cal: You know how I know *you're* gay?
David: How?
Cal: I saw you make a spinach dip in a loaf of sour dough bread once.
David: You know how I know that you're gay?
Cal: How?
David: You have a rainbow bumpersticker on your car that says "I love it when *balls* are in my face".
Cal: That's *gay*?
David: [David loses second match] Goddamnit!
Cal: I'm ripping your head off right now. It's off, and *now* I'm throwing it at your body.
[shouts]
Cal: Fuck you!
David: Aww.
David: You know how I know you're gay?
Cal: How?
David: Your dick tastes like shit.
(The 40 Year Old Virgin)
paul, brylun, cedarford,
You're conflating lefties arguing that the U.S. is on shaky ground in complaining about human rights violations elsewhere with the assertion that gays are warm and cuddly with Iran. The statements from gay organizations just don't support that view. There are valid reasons to argue that our own house needs to be in order that do not detract in the slightest from critizing Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. And if you're actually expecting anyone to argue that we should invade Iran because of their execution of gay people, you're nuts.
Conservatives are latching onto his remarks on gay people to do exactly that, fan the fires of the people who want to launch an air war against Iran, and also to pat themselves on the back because hey, at least we don't execute queers here! So they should shut up about same-sex marriage and all those damn in-your-face issues. Just be glad they're not hanging from a pole!
You offer one lone idiot as your support, so no, I'm not shutting up. Sally Kohn's post was stupid, and if it was an attempt at irony, it failed miserably. But it doesn't make the case cedarford is pushing. The Time article depicts Mahmoud A. as manipulative and attention-hungry, so if that's your idea of the MSM kowtowing to him, well, not so much.
"That Iran occasionally kills hundreds of homos..."
Calling gays homos is like calling blacks the N-word. I won't let the SCUM of the Earth, Cederford, get away with it. U R a racist, sexist, antisemitic piece of dog crap. You are also an evil, hate-filled, unintelligent, miserable pseudo-historian. You try to come off as some kind of sophisticated intellectual, but you are just a plain ol' hick bumpkin fool.I hope you get eaten by a bear in woods as you try to kill Bambi. You should be beaten over the head with your own shotgun. Worthless hater/hunter SCUM you!
uh oh, Trooper. I hope Mahmoud A. doesn't rent that movie, or he'll know how to track down the Iranian gays!
What's really insidious about his "joke" is that of course, there are people informing on gay people in Iran, responding to the instruction to "give me an address."
Osama Bin Laden also has gay men in his rag-tag army executed.
Beth, It's not just the execution of gays. It's the Holocaust denial. It's the threatened destruction of Israel. It's the enslavement of women. It's the imminent potential for nuclear disaster.
So it's OK to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons? If not, then what's your solution?
From Sally Kohn (and the tacit support of multitude at the Daily Kos) to the Columbia Queer Alliance, to Juan Cole, and others, the main focus is on Bush hatred and not on the much more important issues.
I thought we could just offer him his own set of gaydar with the special breathalyzer attachment…..somehow it seems that he might like it.
Beth, it's disappointingly hard to tell that the left utterly and completely rejects and repudiates Iran and Ahmadinejad.
Maybe if I had the secret decoder ring, I could better parse Columbia University, KOS, Newsweek, and the NYTimes.
brylun, the topic in this thread is exactly the execution of gays, so once again, you're spoiling for a fight over whether to invade Iran, but that's not what I came here to comment on.
No one right now has a good answer on how, or whether, to keep Iran from going nuclear. If you think you have a simple plan for that, I don't believe you. There are big risks and flaws in any military solution right now, and there's always risks in negotiating with Iran. But there are some of the same risks in negotiating with North Korea, and yet we're doing that, and there have been some small successes there. So, no, I don't have a solution, and neither do you.
Pogo, what do you mean by "utterly reject Iran"? That's incomprehensible to me. Iran isn't a monolithic thing to reject or accept. I support Iranians trying to fight the repressions that are part and parcel of the Islamic Revolution, and Mahmoud A. is a symbol of that revolution. But I have no clue what you mean by "reject Iran" -- what form would that take, exactly?
The American left and liberalism aren't monolithic, either. Nor are the right and conservatism. You'll find a range of opinions on Israel and the Palestinians all over the spectrum, some abhorrent, some opportunistic, some naive. I support Israel's right to exist, and in reading blogs that lean left, I've been pleased to see vigorous condemnation of anti-semitic comments, along with condemnation of comments that go to silly extremes in comparing Bush and Mahmoud A.
Beth, I am somewhat relieved that you find Iran's nuclear status troubling.
I don't think I ever recommended invading Iran. Although, given the positions taken by its leader, I wouldn't take that option off the table.
Sarkozy is attempting to get the EU to act against Iran using sanctions. If successful (Germany is resisting), that would be the first effort.
But ultimately, a reasonable person has to say that there is no way that Iran can be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. Period. There's just too many human lives at stake.
As for the murdering of gays, First they came...
Let me add Lynne Stewart and Glenn Greenwald to the above list of lefties.
Re: ""reject Iran" -- what form would that take, exactly?"
Refusing their President a speaking engagement at Columbia, for a start. Kos not getting weak-kneed about their bellicosity toward the US for another.
The American Rightwing must be green with envy over the power of Ahmeid\d...jad to suppress the homos.
Hey Alpha, maybe you forgot that Fred Phelps is a Democrat.
The American Rightwing must be green with envy over the power of Ahmeid\d...jad to suppress the homos.
And you can cite these envious people of Ahmadinejad for us?
The "Rightwing" held complete political power - both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue - for six years and "suppresed homos" how?
What laws did they pass? Emphasis on pass ('cause I know the response).
SMG
Pogo, I disagree about Columbia 's decision. I believe our tradition of free speech is bigger and better than Iran's tyranny. One of the first thing the Islamist revolutionaries did in 1980 was to shut down their universities, and when they opened back up, they had their thugs sitting in the classrooms, monitoring the teaching. Read "Reading Lolita in Tehran" for a good insight into that clash of values. We don't have anything to fear from the words of someone like Ahmadinejad.
brylun, I don't know what list you're compiling. Certainly not one of gay leftists embracing the Muslim fundamentalists. Greenwald's column does nothing of the kind, and Stewart is where she belongs, in jail, for violating the law. She's not a credible representative of any gay rights group with which I am familiar.
Richard: Thanks. I get it. (And understand that it wasn't aimed at me.)
Stewart is where she belongs, in jail...
Stewart is not in jail.
Greenwald's column does nothing of the kind...
Greenwald's column (I refuse to link to it) is adament in calling the US hypocritical for condemning Ahmedinejad when (in Greenwald's perverted view) we have not granted "full rights" to homosexuals here at home. In other words, because there is a DOMA and many states have banned "gay marriage," we have no moral standing to condemn Iran's current policy of executing homosexuals.
Greenwald is a dangerous fanatic, and Beth, if you presume to defend him, you are making a serious mistake.
The distinction between supporting Ahmedinejad and saying we aren't allowed to criticize him is negligible.
During the late 1930s, Germany responded to Britain's criticism of its concentration camps by pointing out that Britain had used them during the Boer war. Greenwald is using the same stunt here. There are no morally pure people -- condemning criticism of vast evil on the grounds that the person offering it is guilty of minor sins has the same effect as defending evil.
Greenwald is completely correct.
Let's put it this way. Anti-gay bigots don't get to speak for gay Americans. Ever.
But it is absurd to blame Iran's execution of gays on Ahmadenajad. It is the mullahs who create these laws. Let's blame the real power structure in Iran, not a token President with no power.
And gays are executed by our allies.
Pakistan for example.
Or Nigeria.
Or Saudi Araba.
Or Iraq.
And guess what???? The anti-gay bigots in America are SILENT on those executions. In fact, the Bush Administration was silent when Iran executed the gay teenagers. SILENT.
But even if Iran was a democracy, they would STILL kill gay people. Because the Middle East is filled with anti-gay bigots who hate gays and would gladly vote to have them executed.
So if we really want to help gay people, let's ask the anti-gay Americans like Gedaliya whether or not she supports asylum for gay Iranians who want to take refuge in this country.
Here's Greenwald's EXCELLENT commentary on the subject.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html
Gedaliya, Greenwald's no great thinker, but he's not a dangerous fanatic, either. That's really hysterically over the top. DTL points out some important truths: right now, the American right is having a field day pointing to Iran's executions and oppression of gays, but there hasn't been much outrage over the same treatment in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern nations we count as "allies." That does undermine our moral authority; we're selective about our criticism.
the American right is having a field day pointing to Iran's executions and oppression of gays, but there hasn't been much outrage over the same treatment in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern nations we count as "allies."
Untrue. I can point to numerous (probably countless) examples of articles, essays, and commentaries wherein conservatives have decried the human rights abuses that exist in the countries you mention.
The source material I refer to can be found in the National Review, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, First Things, The Weekly Standard, and other conservative publications.
I also strenuously insist that Glenn Greenwald is a dangerous fanatic. I've known him for many years, and I can tell you that he hates the United States with unbridled passion. His mind is unbalanced. I challenge you to find a single example in his mountain of tedious prose wherein he has anything positive to say about anything in our great nation.
Untrue. I can point to numerous (probably countless) examples of articles, essays, and commentaries wherein conservatives have decried the human rights abuses that exist in the countries you mention.
I'm calling you out on this. Please find ONE example where they explicity condemn the treatment of gays in one of those countries.
Just one.
In fact, please find ONE example where one of these magazines has ever had ANYYHING supportive or sympathetic to say about gay people, except when they have an alternative agenda (i.e. starting a war with Iran in this case).
The WSJ, National Review, etc. couldn't give a rats ass that gay people are being executed. All they care about is USING that incident to advance a war. I read the WSJ daily for two decades and subscribed to the National Review for 8 years when I was younger. So I know for a fact that you'll be digging for quite a while. And I honestly doubt you'll find anything. You'll find thousands of condescending remarks about gays though.
I'm calling you out on this. Please find ONE example where they explicity condemn the treatment of gays in one of those countries.
Where did you see the word "gay" in my comment? I used the term "human rights." Did that escape you?
I know you have a penis obsession, and there are countless examples of it affecting your reading comprehension, but in this case the example is particularly egregious.
I refuse to divorce the rights of homosexuals to live in peace and dignity in the Arab Middle East from that of Christians, Jews, non-Arabs, and other religious and ethnic minorities. Conservatives have consistently decried the lack of laws protecting basic human rights in these countries, and have done so for decades. Conservatives believe that all humans deserve legal protection from persecution (even those in the womb!), and we are vocal in our criticisms of the lack of such protections in the Arab Middle East. Only you seem to believe that conservatives exclude homosexuals from these admonitions. It is shameful that you do so, but that is the way you conduct yourself around here, and frankly, it is tiresome.
You've just proved my point Gedaliya.
You're the shameful homophobic bigot Gedaliya. And you've just proved my point.
The WSJ, National Review, etc. is using the fact that Iran has executed gay people to prove how much they care about GAY people. That's what they're implying - that THEY love the GAYS. Which of course is complete bullshit. And its exactly the point that Beth and I were making.
But of course, once you're talking about a country outside of Iran, suddenly they don't give a shit about the gays. And when gays are executed in Nigeria, the WSJ, National Review, etc are SILENT. And just because they MAY have mentioned human rights violations in one of those countries in an article three years prior doesn't cover up for the fact that they IGNORE targeted discrimination against gays.
In fact - please show me one article about the WSJ or National Review complaining about human rights violations in a country that they considered our ally. Let's say, South Africa during Apartheid, or Taiwan or South Korea when they were dictatorships. Or any of the South American dictatorships.
The conservatives care about human rights? That's a crock of shit too.
know you have a penis obsession, and there are countless examples of it affecting your reading comprehension, but in this case the example is particularly egregious.
And this is a perfect example of your homophobia. By the way, in case you didn't notice, this post is about GAY people.
I'm gay, which is why I talk about gay rights. You're straight. It is VERY curious why you're so interested in our sex lives.
Where did you see the word "gay" in my comment? I used the term "human rights." Did that escape you?
Well, you characterized this statement -- the American right is having a field day pointing to Iran's executions and oppression of gays, but there hasn't been much outrage over the same treatment in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern nations we count as "allies."
as "Untrue." So, even if you yourself didn't use the word gay, that statement is about the treatment of gay people, not human rights generally. So when you say it's untrue, you are making a statement about the treatment of gay people.
That you backtracked and insulted DTL when he called you on it is a pretty convincing sign that you don't know what you are talking about.
P.S. When you characterize someone's view that the US doesn't grant equal rights to gays as "perverted," you sacrifice some of that moral authority on the treatment of homosexuals that you like to wield with such vehemence.
Post a Comment