Flakeloaf: nightbringerggz: So could somebody fill me in on the names of the supposed Hate Groups that are sponsored by CFA? Unless they've gone really radical in the past few years, I don't really see how Focus on the Family qualifies. Or is this just a case of people repeating the declarations of a few TV/radio loud mouths?

Here you go.

That post is a good read and the author presents one of the few sane arguments I've seen during this entire "controversy", but it still doesn't answer my question. I'm seeing a ton of posts (on Fark, Twitter, Facebook, ect) as well as news editorials and blog posts that keep saying CFA supports hate groups. I haven't seen anybody actually present any evidence to that fact, and I'd really rather see people stop making false accusations and blanket statements they can't back up.

Maybe the evidence is out there, and I'll be the first to admin I'm wrong if actual evidence can be presented. But unless that kind of information actually gets presented (which it isn't, at least not in any kind of public forum) then just spouting that CFA supports hate groups makes you sound as ignorant as the gentleman in TFA.

nightbringerggz: and I'd really rather see people stop making false accusations and blanket statements they can't back up.

My advice: leave this thread, posthaste.

Granted, they'll still be making arguments they can't back up, and on both sides, but you'll see a good deal less of them in any case.

tillerman35: indylaw: Let me ask you a question: Is it possible for someone to agree that the Constitution must allow for homosexual couples to have the same right to marriage as heterosexual couples and to accept that the civil law makes such marriages possible, while at the same time believing that gay sex is against the will of God, while at the same time not "hating" gay people?

My take on it is that hate comes first, and the scriptural justification comes later. These people would hate gays even if Christ had never been born, the Jews never got out of Egypt, Moses dropped all three tablets, etc. etc. In other words, they don't really care whether or not gay sex is against the will of God. Bible passages that support that viewpoint are just sprinkles on their ice cream cones. And based on that, they will never agree that any interpretation of Constitution (which is just an extension of their Bible, as far as they're concerned) allows homosexuals ANY rights other than to "go be gay somewhere else."

My theory on all this isn't necessarily about religion. Religion is merely the justification for how they feel. I personally believe all this started in the 60's. The baby boomers were coming of age in a time when riots were aired on TV over civil rights. Their opinions were already molded by their parents who lived in a post world war era where segregation was normal, calling a black man a n*gger or sp**k or j****boo was not only acceptable, but encouraged. And while cities like new york didn't have legal segregation, the races segregated themselves. Times were turbulant, and the civil rights movement and the laws that followed impacted the middle class more than any other.

Since then, the middleclass baby boomers have been carrying a big chip on their shoulders that the government has nailed down. The government tells them they can't express their hatred because hate (against this list of protected groups) is a crime. The 70s only saw a handfull of civil rights cases but the 80's really ramped it up, and by the time the 90's rolled around, anyone under the protection of discrimination found the greatest weapon of all, suing those who expressed hate openly. So a figurative lid was put on a boiling pot and welded closed. But someone figured out a while back there was one loophole in the discrimination protection... Gays

The gay community didn't make it out on top in the 60's. Perhaps because there were too many more important fights happening, or maybe it was designed that way. But in either case, the gays got left out. 40 years later, the pot is red hot and boiling and their only LEGAL outlet of hate is the gays.

But some of those hatemongers went to college, got an education, and wound up in places of influence: the government, on TV, on the radio, working in think tanks, lobbying firms, law firms, etc. And while the Left wing has been busy trying to find the new "civil rights cause" to try and rally people towards so they can have the 60's all over again, the Right wing has been focusing their hatred and bitterness into a refined, processed, and neatly packaged platform. They have intelligent people working hard to make sure they do not have a civil rights uprising reappear like they had in the 60's.

By twisting and turning negative, and potentially riotous acts into "constitutional rights battles" or "freedom of speech battles" so that when the legal sh*t hits the fan, on paper, they have a legal out. When The Man comes down on them, they can cry and whine that their religious beliefs are being oppressed. But hating gays, is not a religious belief. The belief that there is only one God, and that Jesus is his only begotten son; that is a religious belief. The belief that a man laying with another man as he would a woman is a sin, THAT is religious belief. Denying US citizens the right to be protected against discrimination is not a religious belief, that is hatred.

You can call me a liberal because i don't think like you, but if there's one thing that makes you liberal and me a conservative, is that in the end, i believe in liberty, and justice, for ALL...

Flakeloaf: GT_bike:
I thought liberals wanted us out of all countries where there is some sort of conflict. Out of Afghanistan, Kony is a non-issue, Iran is free to do as they want, Isreal needs to shut the F up, Palestinians need a place to call their own...I realize the back stories make a difference but it is a little schizophrenic in the way the standard is applied.

Obama seems pretty reluctant to sanction Iran and they kill gays, whar outrage? Most muslim countries are so anti-woman it's not even debatable to consider the liberal silence on the subject. It's selective application of morality which isn't helping the liberal cause.

Oh, so the goalposts are over here now? Well ok then.

There is no one "liberal cause" any more than there is one "cure for cancer". Everyone speaks up according to his own interests. The fact is that inertia is really hard to beat, so of course the people who favour leaving things the way they are are more numerous than the ones who favour actually getting up and changing them.

Since most people accept that it's either wrong, impractical or impossible (each in varying quantiites) to interfere in the activity of another sovereign state, they concentrate on fixing what's broken in their own house; Activists have to overcome their own inertia, too. If a company in your country is doing something that is objectively wrong then people feel the need to stand up and stop it. Since it's within these people's power to put pressure on CFA for their support of these loonies, that's what they're doing.

Totally OT but sanctioning Iran would rather annoy the Russians, the USA has thrown their lot in with Israel for better or for worse (but a two-state solution would solve this problem tomorrow), and while the subjugation of women in some countries is totally a topic for conversation there's not a whole lot the US can do about it because western meddling in the affairs of middle-eastern countries is a bit of a sore spot as it is. Basically, the conversati ...

I didn't move the goalposts at all you complained about CFA's profits being funneled to lobby groups who oppose intervention in certain countries doing the kind of ethnic/DNA/genetic cleansing they support.

I pointed out the hypocrisy in making CFA the target while supporters of Iran who do the same are patron saints of gay and women's rights. Obama has proven to be pretty supportive of the Muslim uprisings and we all know how women's rights and gays rights go under Taliban style governments.

Laces out

SkunkWerks: nightbringerggz: and I'd really rather see people stop making false accusations and blanket statements they can't back up.

My advice: leave this thread, posthaste.

Granted, they'll still be making arguments they can't back up, and on both sides, but you'll see a good deal less of them in any case.

True, but I'm on my lunch break =). Besides, my first question led to Flakeloaf providing me with an interesting link to read while I ate my sub. So far this has thread has been a net positive as far as I'm concerned.

So, when young punks want to stick it to the man, they go after corporate executives (see the Occupy Movement). It only makes sense for an executive to go after some dim-witted, bottom-level employee when they decide to be all rebellious.

I don't think it really applies much to this situation, but it does apply to a lot of broad responses made int his thread: you are not innocent if you work for a company with questionable practices. Not to Godwin this, but to totally Godwin it: Nazism came about because people were just following orders. Don't be an authoritarian idiot.

SkunkWerks: Joe Blowme: you have pee hands: TOSViolation: I'd like to hear your views on smokers' rights. Do you have a blog I can subscribe to?

Please provide a reasonable argument that (1) homosexual marriages affect heterosexual marriages in any way and (2) sexual orientation is a choice and your analogy might be something other than terrible.

/you's trollin

So if its not a choice is it a genetic mutation?

Albinism is a genetic mutation. Do those afflicted with it have the right to marry?

Neither do where i live, i am just worried about what other powers these mutants may develop and will they use them for good.

senseofmea: Can you think of any rational reason that state-sponsored marriage needs to bend to the will of liberal dogma?

Because ''Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival,'' maybe?

GT_bike: Flakeloaf: GT_bike: Guy was CFO not E

Chick-fil-a doesn't have a corporate stance on homosexuality but the CEO does have one on traditional marriage and supports legislation that will continue to support it.

If you read his comments he didn't say much more than he supports a biblical and traditional definition of marriage and that the profits from the company he runs go to fund groups whose stated purpose is to deny civil rights to an identifiable minority group, and that these organizations lobby the government to avoid intervening in countries where people are being imprisoned or killed for being what they are, then everyone blew a gasket.

FTFY.

I thought liberals wanted us out of all countries where there is some sort of conflict. Out of Afghanistan, Kony is a non-issue, Iran is free to do as they want, Isreal needs to shut the F up, Palestinians need a place to call their own...I realize the back stories make a difference but it is a little schizophrenic in the way the standard is applied.

Obama seems pretty reluctant to sanction Iran and they kill gays, whar outrage? Most muslim countries are so anti-woman it's not even debatable to consider the liberal silence on the subject. It's selective application of morality which isn't helping the liberal cause.

LOL whar have you been?

SkunkWerks: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Congratulations, you're the dumbest person in the thread.

"Narcissistic Personality Disorder."

I noticed that you resorted to ad hominem in the face of my mathematical proof that you were completely wrong. Interestingly, using the same personality disorder that I suggested Biological Ali (he loves to use ad hominem too) might have only days ago, you wouldn't be an alt, would you?

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Only 32 percent of the APA voted for the change. Roughly 40% who voted, voted against it. Sorry, but when you consider the level of harassment they received due to their addresses being made public by gay activists, you can't seriously count the vote as a credible, science based change. The change was pure politics and zero science.

Oh, what the hell, I'll bite.

Citations?

Yes, to Godwin this.The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: Don't be an authoritarian idiot.

So... not blaming a teenager with a summer job for her choice in employer is now "being an authoritarian idiot"? Eeeenteresting.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I agree, she's not innocent. I'm pretty sure she's guilty of something, somewhere. Just not this particular thing.

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: Not to Godwin this

Yes, to Godwin this.


Chick-Fil-A has an executive who is apparently at a loss for tact. This does not make it the new Facist Regime...


...until armbands and jackboots become the uniform dress code, anyway.

ciberido: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Only 32 percent of the APA voted for the change. Roughly 40% who voted, voted against it. Sorry, but when you consider the level of harassment they received due to their addresses being made public by gay activists, you can't seriously count the vote as a credible, science based change. The change was pure politics and zero science.

Oh, what the hell, I'll bite.

Citations?

scroll up.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I noticed that you resorted to ad hominem in the face of my mathematical proof that you were completely wrong.

So, I'm just curious, but do they cancel presidential elections when people don't turn out to vote?

Do they at least call it a draw if not in fact declare the other guy the winner when this happens?

Or do they just move forward, tabulate the votes they have- from the people who did decide to vote- and elect a winner that way?

Just curious.

GT_bike: Laces out

I'll chime in on this one...

1 - saying that people "worship" Obama is inflammatory at best, pants on head retarded at worst but really just shows that you are parroting the AM radio guys. When i see someone use the terms "liberal agenda" or "liberal cause" i can't help but crack up. The liberals don't have a singular cause... that's REALLY their problem. They can't just focus on one thing. They are too busy bickering back and forth with each other about what's the better "cause", the civil rights of animals, or banning the naturally occurring protein Gluten from bread... Seriously... STOP LISTENING TO AM RADIO. That shiat rots your brain, AND when you repeat what they say, it only exposes you as a mindless follower who can't think for himself.

2 - I don't know a single liberal who "worships" obama... There's a couple who come close, but when you ask them about certain policies, they will admit, it's a problem... Signing more government power to the president, that's a problem. Not wanting to get involved in middle-eastern affairs, that's not really a problem... we have PLENTY to deal with at home...

3 - WHO the F- in this country supports Iran's decisions... who are these mysterious Iran supporting Liberals? I just asked Ben, my gay coworker if he supports Iran, and his response was "fark IRAN". If any liberals read this post and support Iran, would you mind raising your hand please?

Seriously... stop poisoning your brain with that AM radio garbage...

Cool... Chick-fil-a gives away free water at the drive-thru...
I'm gonna do this 20 timea a day... just keep driving around and going back through the drive-thru ordering free cups of water...

indylaw: Paul has some problems, but my purpose in quoting him was to explain widespread Christian thought on sex and marriage. Matthew 19 talks about how divorce is discouraged and remarriage after divorce is a form of adultery - I don't see how that passage contradicts Paul. In fact, verse 12 talks about people who are asexual for the purpose of religious devotion, which is more or less what Paul talks about preferably.

Because in Matthew 19, Jesus was making the point that most people SHOULD get married, and that only a select few people (like the "nuns and monks" example you gave) ought to eschew worldly love for the sake of religious devotion. (Jesus was also, arguably, saying that He was cool with homosexuality, by the way). Paul, in his typical derptastic "crank it to 11" way, exaggerated this to the idea that most or all Christians should be monks and nuns.

Jesus with his "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" vibe was all about a religion normal, imperfect humans could actually LIVE. Paul was about making Christianity a fanatical cult.

We can see which one won that particular battle.

To be fair, I'm ragging on Paul a little more than he deserves. He wasn't quite as bad as I make him out to be. But he really, really had a bug up his butt about sex, and it caused him to distort God's teaching. Also, he probably couldn't read Hebrew, which means he misinterpreted translations of the Old Testament because he was (probably) unable to read them in the original. Which led him to make up a new Greek word for homosexuality. Or whatever the hell he thought he was talking about --- it's hard to tell when you just make up new words and don't explain exactly what you mean by them.

Lumpmoose: If you're making a secular argument against homosexuality, you're going against the American Psychological Association and several branches of biology.

That's a great argument, if the DSM weren't a largely political construct, currently being held up by attempts to shoehorn asperger's back in so people don't lose funding.

chewielouie: I'm sorry, and which branches of biology support the notion that anal sex is natural?

If by "anal sex" you mean "homosexual or bisexual behavior," pretty much all of them.

By the way, you make the typical rookie mistake of assuming homosexuality and anal sex are one and the same. That's ok. I know you straight guys are obsessed with it. But gay guys actually aren't. Not to mention very few lesbians think about anal sex as much as you do.

SkunkWerks: BraveNewCheneyWorld: I noticed that you resorted to ad hominem in the face of my mathematical proof that you were completely wrong.

So, I'm just curious, but do they cancel presidential elections when people don't turn out to vote?

Do they at least call it a draw if not in fact declare the other guy the winner when this happens?

Or do they just move forward, tabulate the votes they have- from the people who did decide to vote- and elect a winner that way?

Just curious.

Hey, i don't mean to interrupt your conversation, and by all means, continue arguing with each other... and please don't think i am taking sides with either of you... i just want to point out something you might want to correct:

If NO ONE turns out to vote, how are they going to count the votes they have and move on?

No one would imply not a single person voted, so mathematically, there wouldn't be votes to count...

You might want to rephrase your statement some...

nightbringerggz: So far this has thread has been a net positive as far as I'm concerned.

It's been a distraction as I troubleshoot a problem PC and do "attended" installs.

The sheer amount of pink in here is staggering though...

brianbankerus: My brother bragged about a time he went to Home Depot and the girl at the counter couldn't override the price on something, so he threw all his stuff on the floor, told her off, and walked out the door.

He honestly expected me to take his side on that one. Poor girl just doing her best, she can't make the rules or give anything away.



And I THREW IT ON THE GROUND!!!

You must think I'm a JOKE! I'M NOT A PART OF YO' SYSTEM!!!

Probably_From_Texas: There are just as many papers and studies written that state it is a choice and/or a defect. Those papers are buried and shunned for the same reasons people dont want to hear it from religious nuts: ITS NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT.

[citationneeded.jpg]



indylaw: chewielouie: If you derive pleasure from sticking your pee pee into someone else's pooper, then have at it.

Are you eight years old?

No. He just really, really likes thinking about anal sex.

Seriously, folks, I hang out with gay men. Quite a lot, actually. Talk of blowjobs is pretty frequent when we're in our "safe space." But I pretty much never hear gay guys talk about anal sex. NTTAWWT, but it's the self-identified straight guys who will not-farking-ever shut up about anal sex.

SkunkWerks: BraveNewCheneyWorld: I noticed that you resorted to ad hominem in the face of my mathematical proof that you were completely wrong.

So, I'm just curious, but do they cancel presidential elections when people don't turn out to vote?

Do they at least call it a draw if not in fact declare the other guy the winner when this happens?

Or do they just move forward, tabulate the votes they have- from the people who did decide to vote- and elect a winner that way?

Just curious.

Wait, you honestly think it's reasonable to make a comparison between a national election and scientific consensus? Even if your comparison made any sense, would an election be valid if the voters were constantly harassed to vote a certain way as the APA members were? You think it would be ok for republicans to post the names and addresses of democratic voters so republicans could visit, send mail and try to convince them to vote republican? Even if we were to dismiss that and look at the numbers, a vote of 60-40 is NOT a remotely strong scientific consensus (and that's after 3 years of harassment). And don't even tell me that you think it's ok that protesters bullied scientists into rewriting the books so they could feel warm and fuzzy inside, would you say the same thing about any other scientific field?

indylaw: ciberido: You don't generally see liberals doing the same thing in reverse, do you?

Honestly? I've seen no shortage of FARK liberals shriek that "All Your Christians believe this and are bad" whenever there's some religious fundamentalist that says or does something stupid or racist or evil. And there are similarly liberals that will not hesitate to put words in conservatives' mouths simply because of the actions of some tea party fruitbat. Both sides have their trolls and weak minded; don't fool yourself.

Well, maybe so. I'm liberal so I could be biased here.


ciberido: It's not about anything Cathy SAID.

indylaw: Sure it is. Chick-fil-A's (or at least its management's) political donations and support for conservative, anti-gay causes have not been a secret for years. The spark that ignited this silly protest and counterprotest was Cathy's statements on a radio show about his beliefs about gay marriage, and the response by The Jim Henson Company.

What Cathy said was the spark. The fuel was the money.

CeroX: Hey, i don't mean to interrupt your conversation

Sure you do. Else you wouldn't have done it.

CeroX: If NO ONE turns out to vote, how are they going to count the votes they have and move on?

In the context of the delightful little "debate" with BraveChen here (if you can call it a debate) he's basically making the following argument:

A bunch of people chose not to weigh in on the issue (we don't know why, but I'm sure BraveChen is more than happy to fill in that blank for us) at the time by abstaining from voting, so that makes the overall result of the vote somehow invalid or suspect...

...or possibly it means his team won, who knows what goes on in that sort of brain.

Mind you, the fact that remains here is that 58% of the people that did decide to vote, opted to mostly excise Homosexuality from the DSM II as a disorder, and thus from all editions moving forward. And the notion that you can cry foul just because people abstained from voting is pretty silly, honestly. Elections don't stop because segments of the population decide not to vote.

Abstinence from voting is of course considered an issue, and that's why there's whole movements dedicated to encouraging people to vote. But you can't force them to, of course, and votes go forward nonetheless.


Thus the phrase "when people don't turn out to vote", while I'll admit is somewhat vague, doesn't refer to "everyone" opting not to vote. It refers so "some". The "some" to which BraveChen is already referring. That will teach you for interrupting. The clarity I believe you requested, in any case.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Wait, you honestly think

I do. You should try it sometime.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: ciberido: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Only 32 percent of the APA voted for the change. Roughly 40% who voted, voted against it. Sorry, but when you consider the level of harassment they received due to their addresses being made public by gay activists, you can't seriously count the vote as a credible, science based change. The change was pure politics and zero science.

Oh, what the hell, I'll bite.

Citations?

scroll up.

Not the number of votes, the "level of harassment they received due to their addresses being made public by gay activists." Document the harassment by gay activists.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: scroll up.

Your citations remind me of the old joke about the hot air balloon in the field.

radiovox: secularsage: This Chick-Fil-A thing is really getting out of hand.

On the one side, you've got idealistic morons shouting that everyone who works for Chick-Fil-A is guilty by association of what the central office's politics are, never stopping to realize that Chick-Fil-A is a franchise company and that almost all of the stores are run by independent operators who may or may not share those politics. These same morons are also claiming that an entire corporation is anti-gay when, in fact, there is no evidence to suggest that even a majority of the corporation's workers feel that way. It's a parts of the whole fallacy.

On the other side, you've got idealistic morons shouting that by boycotting Chick-Fil-A because you don't agree with their politics, you're somehow trying to censor or suppress Dan Cathy's first amendment rights and, by extension, persecuting Christians. Which is, of course, a straw man argument chased with a slippery slope argument.

Neither side actually has a position - they both are just latching on to a controversy and pinning their pre-existing point of view to it. And those on the extremes are also using the situation to get media attention or, like this asshat, to be douchebags so they can get clicks on Youtube.

Why doesn't everybody just shut up and either continue eating at Chick-Fil-A, or don't? It's not like there's a lack of choices available to those who disagree with the company's executive politics. It's also not like Chick-Fil-A sold out its values and is suddenly any different than it was a few weeks ago.

THIS...so much THIS.

Oh and in about a month, no one's gonna remember any of this shiat because we will all have moved on to the next outrage du jour.

The reason people won't shut up about it is because of the right wing's response to a boycott... they showed up in droves to show their support for a gay hating company and touted as "freedom of speech" and then get all pissy when you call them out for doing a public display of hate.

SkunkWerks: CeroX: Hey, i don't mean to interrupt your conversation

Sure you do. Else you wouldn't have done it.

CeroX: If NO ONE turns out to vote, how are they going to count the votes they have and move on?

In the context of the delightful little "debate" with BraveChen here (if you can call it a debate) he's basically making the following argument:

A bunch of people chose not to weigh in on the issue (we don't know why, but I'm sure BraveChen is more than happy to fill in that blank for us) at the time by abstaining from voting, so that makes the overall result of the vote somehow invalid or suspect...

...or possibly it means his team won, who knows what goes on in that sort of brain.

Mind you, the fact that remains here is that 58% of the people that did decide to vote, opted to mostly excise Homosexuality from the DSM II as a disorder, and thus from all editions moving forward. And the notion that you can cry foul just because people abstained from voting is pretty silly, honestly. Elections don't stop because segments of the population decide not to vote.

Abstinence from voting is of course considered an issue, and that's why there's whole movements dedicated to encouraging people to vote. But you can't force them to, of course, and votes go forward nonetheless.


Thus the phrase "when people don't turn out to vote", while I'll admit is somewhat vague, doesn't refer to "everyone" opting not to vote. It refers so "some". The "some" to which BraveChen is already referring. That will teach you for interrupting. The clarity I believe you requested, in any case.

It's just a semantics thing, i know, and i am probably being nit picky, but i thought you might want to rephrase or readdress that statement before it was used against you...

I really didn't mean to, I just couldn't help it... I'm a bad person...

ciberido: Not the number of votes, the "level of harassment they received due to their addresses being made public by gay activists." Document the harassment by gay activists.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I noticed that you resorted to ad hominem in the face of my mathematical proof that you were completely wrong.

SkunkWerks: So, I'm just curious, but do they cancel presidential elections when people don't turn out to vote?

Do they at least call it a draw if not in fact declare the other guy the winner when this happens?

Or do they just move forward, tabulate the votes they have- from the people who did decide to vote- and elect a winner that way?

Just curious.

There may be a parallel here between this APA story and the passing of Amendment One in North Carolina a while back. If I remember correctly, the vote for Amendment One passed 60-40, but polls taken before the election showed that Carolinian's approval of Amendment One was less than 50 percent. What happened, apparently, is that the Religious Right galvanized their followers into showing up on election day in droves, while the liberal voters show up in typical low numbers. Similarly, polls of Americans' attitudes towards gay marriage suggest most Americans don't have a problem with it --- but you can bet a lot of those "don't have a problem with it" people aren't going to rush to the polls on election day and vote against the candidate who is against gay marriage in anything like the frenzy that conservative voters are going to to vote against the candidate who is for gay marriage.

I don't know, but I wonder if the same thing happened with this APA vote.

We've seen it in all of these Fark threads. There's always a few people saying "I'm ok with gay marriage but this is a waste of time compared to bigger issues like the economy." And I'm not condemning them for it; there are other issues going on that deserve consideration, and one has to pick ones battles.

Even so, I'm remind of the quote "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (allegedly said first by Edmund Burke, but disputed).

SkunkWerks: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Wait, you honestly think

I do. You should try it sometime.

wow, what a great debater you are!

ciberido: Not the number of votes, the "level of harassment they received due to their addresses being made public by gay activists." Document the harassment by gay activists.

"But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists. Over the past two years, gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago-in the movements most aggressive demonstration so far-a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes. 'We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered,' shouted the group's leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked psychiatrists looked on in disbelief. 'For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured!'" (Newsweek, 8-23-71, p.47)

On June 7, of the following year, 1971, Franklin Kameny wrote a letter to the Psychiatric News threatening the APA with not only more, but worse, disruptions. In this letter he states, "Our presence there was only the beginning of an increasingly intensive campaign by homosexuals to change the approach of psychiatry toward homosexuality or, failing that, to discredit psychiatry." (The Gay Crusaders p. 130-131)

"...under intense political pressure...removed homosexuality from its official list of psychiatric disorders..." (Love Undetectable, book by Andrew Sullivan, 1998, p. 107)

It should be noted that the number of "Yes" (5,854) made up only 32.7 percent of the total membership of the APA. Only slightly less than one-third of the APA's membership approved the change. It should be further noted that the "National Gay Task Force" was able to obtain APA members addresses and the "NGTF" (with-out identifying itself) and they sent creepy letters to all members urging them to vote to remove "homosexuality" from the DSM. Bruce Voeller, the head of the NGTF admits, "Our costly letter has perhaps made the difference." (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 105-106)

"We did all sorts of protests...When the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations came out of some meeting and got in his big black limousine, I remember going crazy, rocking and beating on the limousine...He had never been besieged by a bunch of homosexuals before. But he had said something that got us going." (Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.216-217) (-Author Marcus has worked as an associate producer for "CBS This Morning" and "Good Morning America.")

Gittings took place in the disruptive attacks ("saps") on the APA. She states, "I am not opposed to sap tactics. In fact, I spearheaded a sap at a psychiatrists meeting and I'm ready to do it again." (The Gay Crusaders, p.234)

"The 1970 convention in San Francisco was disrupted by a group of feminists and gay men who were enraged by what the psychiatrists were saying about them-and newspapers all around the country carried the story" (The Gay Crusaders, p.216).

"On May 14, 1970 psychiatrists became the hunted. An invasion by the coalition of 'gay' and woman's liberationists interrupted the national convention of the American Psychiatric Association in San Francisco to protest the reading of a paper by an Australian psychiatrists on the subject of 'aversion therapy,' a system of treatment which attempts to change gay orientation by keying unpleasant sensations (such as electric shocks) to homosexual stimuli. By the time the meeting was over, the feminists and their gay cohorts were in charge...and the doctors were heckling from the audience.'" (The Gay Militants, by Donn Teal, p.272-273)

"Konstantin Berlandt, of Berkeley GLF, paraded through the hall in bright red dress. Paper airplanes sailed down from the balcony. With two papers still unread, the chairman announced adjournment." (Ibid., p.274) On June 23, 1970 same-gender sex activists disrupted yet another meeting, this time in Chicago, be repeatedly shouting down the main speakers discourse. (Ibid., 275) Then, in October at a meeting at the University of Southern California, same-gender sex activists shouted down a speaker and then took over the stage and the microphone. (Ibid., pp.276-280)

Kay Lahusen and Barbera Gittings know what really happened to the APA. In the book, Making History they are quite open about the reality.
Kay: This was always more of a political decision than a medical decision.
Barbara: It never was a medical decision-and that's why I think the action came so fast. After all, it was only three years from the time that feminists and gays first sapped the APA at a behavior therapy session to the time that the Board of Trustees voted in 1973 to approve removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. It was a political move." (Making History, p.224)

The APA was thoroughly intimidated. Later in the same year (1974), after the APA's vote, Gittings was interviewed by a historian of the same-gender sex movement, Jonathan Ned Katz. Gittings brags, "That's how far we've come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared." (Gay American History, by Jonathan Ned Katz, 1992, p.427. This interview was taped July 19, 1974).

"June 16, A fist fight broke out at a Philadelphia playhouse when ten gay activists interrupt a lecture by Dr. David Rueben and denounce him as 'a criminal' for his views on male homosexuality. One policeman and a protestor are injured in the melee." (The Gay Decades, by a man that engages in same-gender sex and writer, Leigh W. Rutledge, 1992, p.69)

ciberido: BraveNewCheneyWorld: I noticed that you resorted to ad hominem in the face of my mathematical proof that you were completely wrong.

SkunkWerks: So, I'm just curious, but do they cancel presidential elections when people don't turn out to vote?

Do they at least call it a draw if not in fact declare the other guy the winner when this happens?

Or do they just move forward, tabulate the votes they have- from the people who did decide to vote- and elect a winner that way?

Just curious.

There may be a parallel here between this APA story and the passing of Amendment One in North Carolina a while back. If I remember correctly, the vote for Amendment One passed 60-40, but polls taken before the election showed that Carolinian's approval of Amendment One was less than 50 percent. What happened, apparently, is that the Religious Right galvanized their followers into showing up on election day in droves, while the liberal voters show up in typical low numbers. Similarly, polls of Americans' attitudes towards gay marriage suggest most Americans don't have a problem with it --- but you can bet a lot of those "don't have a problem with it" people aren't going to rush to the polls on election day and vote against the candidate who is against gay marriage in anything like the frenzy that conservative voters are going to to vote against the candidate who is for gay marriage.

I don't know, but I wonder if the same thing happened with this APA vote.

We've seen it in all of these Fark threads. There's always a few people saying "I'm ok with gay marriage but this is a waste of time compared to bigger issues like the economy." And I'm not condemning them for it; there are other issues going on that deserve consideration, and one has to pick ones battles.

Even so, I'm remind of the quote "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (allegedly said first by Edmund Burke, but disputed).

Oh, I don't pretend to know why they opted not to vote. I'll leave the "believin' " to my debate "partner" here.

The practical upshot of it is votes still go forward. If the result had been one BraveChen was in agreement with, he'd suddenly not be so hung up on the decision to abstain.


Oh, that and, by the way, it doesn't in any way make the overall result not a scientifically sound decision. Honestly, there's just no pathology there to support the existence of those entries. The Ego-Dystonic variety only remains because those afflicted are in danger of hurting themselves or worse. This sort of thing was never true of any of the sister classifications.

They excised a relic that existed in the DSM solely on the merits of outdated wrong-headed thinking. If a bunch of people didn't want to be on either side for that occasion, s'fine by me.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: wow, what a great debater you are!

Fortunately you don't make me try very hard.

Lorelle: He was as deliberately hateful as the assholes who went out of their way to buy stuff at that place just to hurt gay people. Farking hypocrite.

No sympathy for him...he got what he deserved.

I'm trying to avoid tying my brain into a knot figuring out how someone buying a chicken sandwich from a private company that has a CEO who disapproves of same-sex marriage actually "hurts" gay people. Does that mean that the people who show up to the Kiss-In are trying to hurt straight people? Or are they just doing what they are allowed to do in order to express their opinion?

As for Smith, screw 'em, and thank goodness for At Will Employment agreements.

SkunkWerks: BraveNewCheneyWorld: wow, what a great debater you are!

Fortunately you don't make me try very hard.

So, what's your routine for "winning debates"? Do you just type the insult and declare victory, or do follow it up by switching on an applause track while performing auto-fellatio and waving to your imaginary audience? Because you haven't been doing particularly well, and you don't seem to have noticed.

ciberido: Even so, I'm remind of the quote "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (allegedly said first by Edmund Burke, but disputed).

I would think evil would need to show some kind of effort.

Thirty-one U.S. state constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex unions have been adopted

31/50. 62% of US States...ie the government BAN same sex marriage.

Yet everyone is in a huff about a CEO who says he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. And to my knowledge no evidence that Chick Fil A has ever discriminated against anyone.

ciberido: You don't generally see liberals doing the same thing in reverse, do you? I mean, yes, sure, a liberal will give an exaggerated or over-simplified distortion of a conservative position, but that's usually done more tongue-in-cheek, usually for the sake of parody. I've never seen a liberal on Fark do it quite so earnestly.

GT_bike: is it opposite day?

No, that was yesterday. Today is "I'm rubber; you're glue" day.