Losin' it and losin' it and losin' it well
Published on June 18, 2005 By philomedy In Current Events
Alright, so we know Jerry Falwell, he of the raving lunacy? Good. We know the American Family Association, it of non-spongebob fame? Good. They've both lost it.

Falwell I won't really elaborate on because he's pretty much lost all credibility with me after "Spongebob is gay", but long story short he wants you to boycott Kraft for sponsoring the Gay Games. I'm sure the AFA wants you to do the same, although they aren't being so upfront. But anyways, let me hit y'all with a couple of numbers:

1) $12 million donated in conjunction with Coca-Cola and The Boys and Girls Clubs of American to fund a Youth Health and Wellness Initiative
2) $250,000 donated to food banks around the US and Canada
3)Partnership with Save the Children outlining a four year plan to build schools and donate money to education initiatives in underdeveloped nations.
4)Partnership with the Rainforest Alliance to preserve the environment while still supporting their independent coffee growers.
5)Ongoing association with the American Red Cross (and other organizations) to donate food, money and supplies to disaster areas.
6)The release of a new product whose proceeds will go towards childhood cancer research in association with Alex's Lemonade Stand.
7)ALL, I repeat, ALL IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THEY ALSO SUPPORT THE GAY GAMES.

To quote the esteemed Mr. Falwell "I don't think moral-minded Americans understand the potential power that we wield...I urge everyone to take a stand for decency by participating in this national effort..." and it goes on from there. This from the same man who says gay rights' activists whine about him being stuffed with hate like an overblown turkey, simply because they disagree with him. Of course, he then turns around and whines that everyone who doesn't support him is immoral and indecent, simply for disagreeing with him. Neither is perfect, but I'd rather be hate-filled than immoral and indecent, wouldn't you?

Alright, on to the AFA. They're throwing their fit about the Gay Games organizing parties at clubs for the athletes and participants to attend during the night. They also link to pictures of what goes on in gay night clubs. (As a side note, does it seem ironic to anyone that the AFA links to more images of softcore gay porn than any lewd pop-up ad that I've ever received? Just a thought...) So anyways, after perusing the "offensive" 3 photo spread that the AFA website displays after lots of rather serious looking red capital letters, I've established this: The photographs depict the exact same things that go on in every other night club anywhere. Shirtless men, dry humping, lots of rubbing and grinding...yawn. Go to a straight club. Go on spring break. Watch MTV. (By the way, another side note: the AFA doesn't seem to find lesbian pictures offensive...odd...)

So anyways, to recap: Apparantly the problem is not the gay games, its what goes on at gay night clubs. So, then, forgetting the fact that the same stuff happens at straight clubs and its okay, the problem has now gone from gay's "hoisting their lifestyle" onto people with PDA's to gay people convening in ENCLOSED, OFTEN FLAMBOYANTLY MARKED night clubs that it is everyone's option to avoid. Wow. Why don't we just bury them in underground pits where they won't bother anyone? Or better yet, tall towers. Did anyone see The Man in the Iron Mask?

But as balanced as the AFA is, I suppose we'll soon see their boycott of the Olympic games (which also seeks to foster an active social nightlife for the participants) and the World Cup (for which Germany is actually erecting a "sex village", a town of small huts where prostitutes can stock up on free condoms and food). I eagerly await the AFA's assault on the corporate sponsors of these events, as I doubt premarital simulated sex (homosexual or otherwise) and government sponsored prostitution falls in line with the AFA's "traditional values."





Comments (Page 6)
7 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 
on Jun 28, 2005
As so typical, drmiler, you have yet to add any substantive thoughts on this debate. Just mindless dumbass insults. You really should be banished. You dance around this fine line of what is acceptable behavior here, but always proclaim some kind of fantasy high ground. You behave like a high school cheerleader, or rather, a peanut gallery. Your ignorance on most subjects, except guns (go figure.....) is resoundingly loud.
on Jun 28, 2005
This is a view from outside filtered through the US media. Would you say that it is a fair analysis


altho i'm not sure 'stranglehold' is entirely accurate (not for want of trying), you've roughed it out pretty well.
on Jun 28, 2005
As so typical, drmiler, you have yet to add any substantive thoughts on this debate. Just mindless dumbass insults. You really should be banished. You dance around this fine line of what is acceptable behavior here, but always proclaim some kind of fantasy high ground. You behave like a high school cheerleader, or rather, a peanut gallery. Your ignorance on most subjects, except guns (go figure.....) is resoundingly loud.


I'd match wits with you anyday you'd like. But that would be like going into a gun fight with an unarmed person. Grow up why don't you? And as long as I skate on the "right" side of the line I don't need to woory now do I? Just an FYI...you can call for my banishment all you want but that will not make it so. You have no grounds for it.

Just a side note.

I REFUSE to fight an unarmed person. It just isn't sporting!
on Jun 28, 2005
Nor should they. One's sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to one's athletic ability.


Courage has nothing to do with athletic ability in either of the cases that I mentioned. Courage has to do with overcoming obstacles, which both athletes would face.

You know, if you were pressing the cause of a gay athlete who was excluded because of their sexuality, I would join you in protesting it. But I'm simply NOT going to join in a "dogpile" on AFA, especially when I agree with their issues.


I would have expected you to disagree with trying to keep gays from dancing in gay nightclubs, but alright.

(And PS, thank you for actually having remained on topic all this time.)
on Jun 28, 2005
Yes, indeed. Just as you can be a christian socialist. Unlike many European countries, where the socialist tradition has sprung largely from marxist and anti-clerical soil, the socialist movement in Britain has strong christian roots. The Labour Party was largely founded by Non-Conformists (i.e. non-Episcopalian Protestants), whereas the Tory Party used to be called "The Church of England [Episcopalians] at prayer". The Labour Party also traditionally gets the majority of the Catholic vote in Britain. An influential organisation called the Christian Socialist Movement is affiliated to the Labour Party and its members include Tony Blair.What I think some of the writers on this thread are alluding to is the unusual situation in the US where the Religious Right is extremely well organised and currently seems to have a stranglehold on the Republican Party. From what I understand, this is a cause of regret for some secular Republicans and some religious moderates. So, it's not so much a case that there is no difference between conservatives and the religious right, rather that they are in the same party "voting for the same candidate' [Dr. Guy] with the RR calling the shots.This is a view from outside filtered through the US media. Would you say that it is a fair analysis?


Wow. Actual knowledge of the subject at hand. Without attacking anyone. I like you.
on Jun 28, 2005
Your ignorance of the subject at hand is extremely FUNNY! And just an FYI...since it's not your blog the discussion is NOT ended unless Phil says it is.


Phil says it is. Phil said it was. Phil's only dropping by every couple of days now to see what you all are doing to his beautiful blog space.
on Jun 28, 2005
Both the religious right and conservatives want to shove their agendas up our asses. To me, it's a distinction without a difference.


Hmmm....that sounds like Liberals to me. If that is your conservative, then I would buy stock in KY if I was you!
on Jun 28, 2005
Pot, I believe you know kettle.


{Standing behind the police car beside Philomedy as Philomedy bellows into the Bull Horn}

Philo: Doc Guy, Give up now or we are coming in after you!

DG: You tell him Philo!
on Jun 28, 2005
So, it's not so much a case that there is no difference between conservatives and the religious right, rather that they are in the same party "voting for the same candidate' [Dr. Guy] with the RR calling the shots.


I know you are a foreigner, but I will challenge you to point out one thing on the RR agenda that is solely RR, that has been implemented?

Taint happening! The RR is not calling the shots on the right like the LLL is calling the shots on the left!
on Jun 28, 2005
Philo: Doc Guy, Give up now or we are coming in after you!


Don't you mean miler?
on Jun 28, 2005
I'm "wrong"; I don't know what I'm talking about; big government this and that.


Zink, you finally got something right!
on Jun 28, 2005
I know you are a foreigner, but I will challenge you to point out one thing on the RR agenda that is solely RR, that has been implemented?


You are right, I am a foreigner and cannot speak with any degree of expertise on American politics. That is why I said, "From what I understand...", "... filtered through the US media...." and asked for confirmation/denial of my outsider's impression. Hard to know how I could be less dogmatic

But still, your question remains and it is a good one. It reminds me of the early 1980s in Britain when the (then) opposition Labour Party was being infiltrated by revolutionary trotskyists who began to take over local party organisations in a tactic known as 'entryism'. They constituted a party within a party and some of the tactics employed have a familiar feel to me when I read about the Christian Coalition ["The first strategy, and in many ways the most important strategy, for evangelicals is secrecy." (Ralph Reed)]

How much of the trotskyist agenda "that was solely trotskyist" was actually "implemented"? Thankfully very little. However, Labour remained out of power for 18 years and only began to look electable again once the 'revolutionary left' had been purged from its ranks.

So, is CC simply a lobby group hoping to influence the Republican Party (certainly nothing wrong in that), or does it have larger, more clandestine ambitions? Please note that once again, this is a question. I may have seen a parallel, I don't have all the facts.
on Jun 28, 2005
It's kind of like all the Patriot Act stuff. People are raving in the streets about it, and yet no one can really point to anything that has been abused. When someone can show me how the US has been pressed toward a religious state, I might have more respect for the concern. From where I am sitting, we're getting more knee-jerk secular all the time.
on Jun 29, 2005
When someone can show me how the US has been pressed toward a religious state, I might have more respect for the concern


I do see what you mean. I come from a country where the head of state is annointed in a religious rite, where non-protestants are ineligible to be head of state and where there is an 'established church' whose senior bishops automatically sit in parliament and technically come higher in the Order of Precedence than the (elected) prime minister. Given this, the US, with its constitutional separation of church and state hardly seems like an incipient theocracy.
on Jun 29, 2005
The RR is not calling the shots on the right like the LLL is calling the shots on the left!


john mccain (or any other republican who hopes to be nominated as the party's presidential candidate but is found wanting by high priests of the religious right) might not agree with you on this.
7 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7