jump to navigation

Conservative Gay Angry With ‘Urban Gays’ August 23, 2006

Posted by newsfittopost in hate crimes, lgbt Issues, violence.
4 comments

Bruce at GayPatriot, a conservative gay political blog, spends the majority of his time being angry with “liberal” gay and lesbian advocates and the organizations they work for. It is important for more conservative members of the LGBT communities to communicate their positions and criticisms, but a recent post shows complete disregard for facts and recent happenings in New York City.

The New York Daily News reported on an incident in the West Village in which a straight man was attacked by several lesbians after he had spit on one of their friends. The women involved said the man was sexually harassing the lesbian and that the group attacked the man after he spit on her. The man was beat with their belts and was stabbed with a steak knife.

The man claims the group of lesbians committed a hate crime and has said it was a “lesbian gang” that attacked him. He continues: “It was a hate crime against a straight man by a ton of lesbians. This is what the world is coming to.”

It fascinates me that the man has the luxury of believing the world is just coming to this. Gay men and lesbians have had to worry about walking out of gay clubs in New York City and other places since the liberation movement. Hate crimes, whether this incident was motivated by sexual orientation or not, is not a new phenomena as he seems to believe.

Investigators are still attempting to figure out whether the stabbing was self-defense or a flat-out attack. Nonetheless, it seems as if this group of women overreacted and took the incident to a level it should not have reached. If investigators find he did not provoke the attack, they should be charged.

Bruce at GayPatriot, however, has quickly characterized this event and several incidents in Provincetown (all non-violent) as a “do as I want, not as I do” intolerance on behalf of the LGBT community. Here is his thoughts on the attack from a post he titled “And You Thought Iran Was Crazy…”:

But isn’t it interesting that it is automatically a hate crime when the stab victim is accused by a lesbian? What about the reverse hate crime when the straight guy is pounced on by a pack of knife-wielding wild urban lesbians?So yet again while the urban gays whine about the world being “intolerant” to our community, I didn’t see an account of the straight guy going for his weapon in this story. Come to think of it, I haven’t seen a lot of devout Christians leaving their churches brandishing weapons against gays in America.

Of course the “do as I want, not as I do” theory of tolerance by the Gay Left is becoming a pattern this year.

I’m guessing that these types of attacks will be praised and encouraged by the Human Rights Campaign as “appropriate reparations” for years of oppression.

His response to the attack is troubling and misguided. First of all, this incident comes in the wake of nearly a dozen attacks on gay and lesbian people in Chelsea and the West Village. A number of bartenders and patrons of gay bars in these areas have been robbed and beaten in the last few months. A little over a month ago, one of my friends was leaving the bar XL (where he is a waiter) and was surrounded by a group of men who proceeded to rob him and beat him. This is only a few minutes walk from where the “gang of lesbians” attacked the straight man who was harassing one of their friends. It is entirely possible that this group of women attacked the man (after he harassed and spat on their friend) out of fear from recent hate crimes in the area.

I am not sure why Bruce continues to classify us “urban gays” as somehow different from “rural gays” or “suburban gays”, but some “urban gays” here in New York City have been avoiding certain bars and clubs because of the recent increase in hate crimes against LGBT people. Most haven’t gotten to the point of carrying around steak knives, but it does not surprise me that some people feel the need to.

Bruce goes on to say “devout Christians” aren’t brandishing weapons against gays in America. That’s true, but one violent incident against a heterosexual doesn’t mean gay people are up in arms either. If one gay person is a pedophile, does he believe all gay people are pedophiles? For someone who is constantly angry about categorizing all gay people as “liberal”, it seems odd that he would categorize “urban gays” as violent or intolerant after just one incident.

Bruce also writes that “these types of attacks will be praised and encouraged” by the Human Rights Campaign as fair revenge for the oppression of gays and lesbians. Now, I am a not a fan of HRC either, but it seems as if his anger towards LGBT organizations has warped into delusion.

Lastly, don’t compare one violent crime against a heterosexual to the oppressive regime in Iran. Exaggerated comparisons can be useful, but not when you are equating one violent crime with a country that oppresses women and executes people for being gay. That’s just wrong.

Sometimes I enjoy GayPatriot… it can bring an interesting perspective to LGBT issues that are often opposed to the more traditional positions. But if GayPatriot actually wants to support the LGBT communities through conservative ideals, he needs to calm down the angry rhetoric. Anti-gay organizations spew enough anger at the LGBT community… adding to the anger will never help advance his conservative ideas for the movement.

Bush: “Sometimes a Show of Force by One Side Can Really Clarify Things” July 25, 2006

Posted by newsfittopost in bush administration, international, middle east, politics, violence.
1 comment so far

As Lebanon continues to be bombarded with Israeli bombs and the television news continues to show innocent civilians dead on the streets, it is hard not to ask “what if”.

The Arab-Israeli conflict is decades, some say centuries, old, but this new wave of violence comes after a relatively peaceful five year period between Lebanon and Israel. Anti-American sentiment has grown to enormous proportions in the Arab world, and I believe some of this is a result of an overly-aggressive pro-Israeli stance on behalf of the administration.

Lebanese need to have faith in the power-brokers of the Middle East… most notably the United States. Although Hezbollah has been around for some time now, it is safe to say that its recruitment numbers have gone up partially because of continued anxiety towards the West.

From the One Percent Doctrine by Ron Suskind:

…it became clear at the start of 2001 that this administration was to alter the long-standing U.S. role of honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to something less than that. The President, in fact, has said… Clinton had overreached at the end of his second term, bending too much toward Yasser Arafat… [Bush said] “We’re going to tilt back toward Israel… Sometimes a show of force by one side can really clarify things.”

Bush’s statement captures his ideology on foreign policy, one that has played out in Iraq and Lebanon: force before diplomacy. Although the above statement came before 9/11, it was clear even then that Bush was willing to watch the slaughter of hundreds of Lebanese or Palestinians in hopes that something good comes out of the bloodshed. We are watching that ideology play out right now in the Middle East.

America needs to be the “honest broker” the Lebanese government was hoping for. Not only does it have the potential to create good-will among the more moderate Arab nations, but it is the right thing to do. The European Union and the United Nations has called for an immediate cease-fire… where is the United States?

Bush and Condi argue we need a long-term solution before Israel ends its terror. We have not been able to find a long-term solution in decades… how long will it take and how many lives will be lost before we come up with something even remotely close to this ideal solution? In times of relative peace we have not found common ground, so how are we to find it when hostilities are at their peak?

Believe it or not… America’s foreign policy has failed again. The majority of the “blame” lies with Hezbollah and Israel, but I cannot help but wonder “what if”.

Middle East Fighting Should End Today… World Gay Pride is Cancelled July 22, 2006

Posted by newsfittopost in anti-gay activists, international, lgbt Issues, middle east, religion distorted, violence.
6 comments

Rabbi Pinchas Winston:

Why does this [Middle East] war break out this week, all of sudden with little warning? Because this is the exact week the Jewish people are trying to decide whether the gay pride parade should take place in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.

If recent anti-gay statements by rabbis are true, the fighting in the Middle East should come to an end by nightfall today. They say the intense fighting between Israel and Hezbollah was started not because of two kidnapped Israel soldiers or because of an over-reaction on Israels part… the military campaign was God saying “No Gay Pride in Israel”.

WorldNetDaily – a conservative web site that devotes more articles to promoting its writers’ books than reporting on actual news – had said rabbis were blaming the Middle East crisis on an upcoming World Pride Parade in Jerusalem. The rabbis believe the violence erupted because God was punishing Israel for allowing gay and lesbian people to live and celebrate within its borders.

But the World Pride Parade in Jerusalem has been cancelled because of the violence in Israel, so I am assuming these rabbis are expecting the violence to stop any minute. These rabbis have told us the violence is less about Hezbollah or Israeli soldiers, and more about same-sex couples wanting to hold hands while walking down the middle of a damn street. Well, the gays have done their part to stop the violence, let’s see peace happen.

In a WorldNetDaily article announcing the parade’s cancellation, it seems odd that none of the rabbis expect an end to the violence. These anti-gay rabbis seem to have wire-tapped God, knowing the cause for the fighting and all, so why haven’t we had any recent news about the end to violence?

Every time a disastrous event happens, right-wing nuts blame it on God punishing the world for being kind and tolerant to gay and lesbian people. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson both blamed the September 11th attacks on America’s supposed acceptance of gay people. “Christian” group Repent America blamed Hurricane Katrina on an upcoming gay pride parade in New Orleans. And now gay people have started an entire war in the Middle East… talk about a powerful lobbying group.

But if these events are God’s punishment for the existence of gay people, why is it that the almighty decides to target heterosexuals instead of just waiting to strike once the gay parades begin? I feel like God could kill two birds with one stone: Tell the people of the world that he wants gays and lesbians to be treated as subhuman by throwing a hurricane, tornado, or WMD at gay people while they are congregated in one place. Kill them and teach others like them a lesson at the same time.

If hearing these death scenarios as acts-of-God makes you uncomfortable, that’s good. It should make you uncomfortable. But realize that anti-gay religious leaders like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and the rabbis in the WorldNetDaily article hope and pray for disasters such as these. Nothing would fuel their ministries more than the mass death of gay and lesbian people, and I have little doubt that they hope for this on a daily basis. These are not normal people of God… they are psychopaths fueled by some intense hatred that they mistake for something divine.

Other Blogs Are Talking:

Middle East Gay Journal – World Pride Parade Cancelled

Good As You – Violence Cancels WorldPride; in a Perfect World, That Sentence Would Be Reversed

Boi From Troy – No Parade, But Pride Continues in Jerusalem

Right Side of the Rainbow – Joe is Going Down; Israel is Going In

Battalion of Deborah – J’lem Gay Parade Called Off Due to War

Understanding Hezbollah and Avoiding World War III July 16, 2006

Posted by newsfittopost in international, iraq, middle east, politics, terrorism, violence.
16 comments

Courtesy New York Times

The Lebanese extremist group that may be credited with starting a Middle Eastern war is a powerful organization, but one without overwhelming support from most Lebanese. The mainstream media has made it clear that Hezbollah, not the Lebanese government, kidnapped two Israeli soldiers in what Israel now calls “an act of war”. But many Americans, perhaps with the help of bloggers, have confused the Lebanese people with supporters of Hezbollah. There are some Lebanese that support Hezbollah, but those numbers are marginal… at least before these recent events in the Middle East.

In the 2005 Lebanese election, Hezbollah won 23 seats out of 128 in parliament.** A little less than 18 percent of elected Lebanese officials are from Hezbollah’s political wing. This is not a majority party and does not have majority support. You could likely find 18 U.S. Senators that believe we should bomb North Korea, but that does not mean the U.S. government believes North Korea should be bombed. There are radicals in every government, but it is a disservice to the government and to democracy to characterize an entire country by its radicals. Does America really want to be known by its radicals, like Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.), who talks more about bestiality than health care?

That said, Israel cannot stand idly by while a militant group attacks its people. Hezbollah is dedicated to destroying Israel and establishing a non-democratic Islamic rule in Lebanon… it should not exist. The problem is, Israel has treated Hezbollah’s aggression as if it was the will of the Lebanese government and people. All 23 Hezbollah government members were elected from Southern Lebanon… not one from the North. To keep public opinion against Hezbollah while trying to root it out, Israel should be attacking Southern Lebanon, not northern urban areas like Beirut.

If people in Beirut, who have not supported Hezbollah, watch a relative die in an Israeli air-strike… will these people continue to oppose Hezbollah or will the radical group gain sympathy with the Lebanese people? I believe the latter, which is a scary scenario for Israel, the Middle East and the world.

Newt Gingrich, ever the optimist, told Tim Russert on Meet the Press this morning that we are heading towards World War III. Although Tim Russert’s other guest, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), disagreed with Gingrich’s analogy, the events of the past week could easily lead to a war of gigantic proportions in the Middle East.

I won’t pretend to have the solution that avoids all out war. However, it seems relatively obvious that the United States and other potential negotiators should be throwing its support behind Israel and the Lebanese government, while working cooperatively to destroy the militant wing of Hezbollah. But this is not happening. Lebanon is a democracy that depends on public opinion. Just as would happen in other democracies, if innocent Lebanese continue to die, the general public will become more radicalized and the government will be quick to follow.

A crisis that could potentially involve Israel, Palestinians, Lebanon, Iran and Syria will also have a tremendous impact on the Iraq war. Some Iraqis have protested Israel’s offensive into Lebanon, which they believe is supported by the U.S. government (picture above). America is already losing the public relations war in Iraq, and its refusal to take a strong stand against excessive Israeli force will only make the situation worse.

I have tremendous sympathy for Israel and believe it needs to fight Hezbollah and its militants. Israel just has to remember that it is fighting Hezbollah, not the Lebanese government, and that the vast majority of Hezbollah supporters are in Southern Lebanon. Leave Beirut and other northern areas alone so the military can concentrate forces and air-power on the terrorist group that started this whole mess in the first place.

**CNN reports that there are only 14 Hezbollah members in the Lebanese parliament (11 percent). I have yet to determine for sure which of the two reported numbers are correct.

Loss of Moral Authority: The Lackluster U.S. Response to the Middle East Crisis July 13, 2006

Posted by newsfittopost in bush administration, international, middle east, politics, violence.
3 comments

As events sprial out of control in the Middle East, it becomes clear that America has lost its moral high-ground to speak about overly-aggressive actions. In response to three kidnapped soldiers (one by Hamas, two by Hezbollah), Israel has used the “shock and awe” strategy of the Bush administration to devestate civilian infrastructure throughout Lebanon and Gaza. Hundreds of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli air-strikes.

No nation is innocent in these events leading up to what could be another war. Hamas needs to control its militants, the Lebanese government has to control its southern border and Israel needs to respond to violence appropriately.

Under different circumstances, the United States may have been able to play the mediator or warned Israel about measured responses. But America has lost its moral high-ground. To avoid utter hypocrisy, the Bush adminstration is unable to urge Israel to alleviate its attacks to a more appropriate level. America started a war in Iraq that has cost tens of thousands of lives and it was a preemptive war. No American had been killed as a result of recent Iraqi government actions: there were no weapons of mass destruction and there was no collaboration with al-Qaeda. Our preemptive war has forced us to remain relatively unresponsive in a situation that could lead to all out war in the Middle East.

The European Union responded to events in Israel and Lebanon today:

The European Union is greatly concerned about the disproportionate use of force by Israel in Lebanon in response to attacks by Hezbollah on Israel. The presidency deplores the loss of civilian lives and the destruction of civilian infrastructure. The imposition of an air and sea blockade on Lebanon cannot be justified.

The European Union’s strongly worded response was in stark contrast to the Bush administration response. Bush focused the blame on Syria and Iran, saying Syria “needs to be held accountable” for Hezbollah’s actions. He went on:

If you really want the situation to settle down, the soldiers need to be returned. My attitude is this: there are a group of terrorists who want to stop the advance of peace. Those of us who are peace-loving must work together to help the agents of peace.

I agree that peace-loving people need to work together, but Bush’s one-sided verbal attacks on Lebanon is not going to help a situation being escalated through Israeli warfare. Israel needs to defend its people, but with an appropriate response. I just wish the United States had the moral authority to say so.

And while the politicians carry out their battle plans, we should be thinking about the innocent Israelis, Palestinians and Lebanese who are dying because their leaders believe might is right.