“Certainly one should oppose the barbaric practices of the semitic monotheists which include ritual animal sacrifice (and in the case of Christianity, human sacrifice as the centerpiece of the faith). The highest spiritual practices of the dharmic religions eschew meat in favor of a strict vegetarian diet. Since anyone with a passing familiarity with Hindu, Jain and Buddhist beliefs and practices would be familiar with this, I can only assume your background is Semitic monotheism, or you are referring to the essentially defunct practices of pre-Hindu Vedic religion. Alternatively, you might refer to left handed tantric practices, but those are a) hardly mainstream Hindu practices and b) largely employ symbolic sacrifice.”
“Well it passed by the second lowest margin of all amendments being considered in 2004; the only one that passed by a lower margin was Oregon's. I don't think you can take the 2004 vote and assume that the outcome would be the same today; polls show an overwhelming majority of the state's residents favor civil unions, and over forty percent support marriage. And a lot has changed since 2004; marriage in six or seven states, civil unions and domestic partnerships in others, etcetera. I think that the amendment would probably fail if it was offered in the current environment, in a presidential election year.”
Ed Baker on Jan 18, 2012 at 12:02:44
“The world doesn't have 50 years to wait for them to catch up.”
“Give LGBT people equality under the law and the issue will go away.”
KAYLEE BURRIS on Jan 18, 2012 at 13:19:27
“ok semi,now i have to fan and fav you,for your common sense 8)”
EmmaDarian on Jan 18, 2012 at 11:16:48
“Exactly what I was going to say.
We've had marriage equality for over seven years in MA, and you don't hear anything about it, except for efforts for full federal recognition. Other than that, we're going great (still have the lowest divorce rate in the country for those oh-so concerned about families).”
“Perhaps this new antisemitism you speak of would diminish if Israeli politicians were not busy slaughtering Palestinians and attempting to influence the outcome of the US elections by campaigning for Republican candidates.”
“You know as a gay guy who has *only* worked on campaigns that have no direct relationship to gay rights, I take great offense to your article and to Roseanne's suggestion, which in my opinion was rightfully condemned and retracted at the time. I know a number of gay men and women who work in the public interest, virtually all of them outside of the narrow confines of the LGBT movement.
As far as LGBT advocates, that is their *job,* to focus specifically on LGBT issues. Does anyone insist that women's advocates or the various interest groups organized along ethnic and religious lines go out of their way to advocate for the causes of other groups? Of course not. Yet time and again I hear this demand being made of LGBT groups and inidividuals, as though there is some special responsibility on their part to do so, to prove that they are not "selfish" just as (apparently) other groups have proven.
I also find your "proudest achievements" examples extremely ironic, as one of the reauthorization bills for Ryan White led to the national adoption of laws criminalizing nondisclosure of one's HIV status (now universally condemned by HIV rights advocates) and the ADA has an amendment that specifically states none of its protections extend to sexual orientation. Maybe you are sitting on an article where you call out the NAACP and unions for not doing their fair share to help pass the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, but I somehow doubt it.”
Chris Marshall 3 on Oct 18, 2012 at 12:54:10
“I get this alot of times from people who just dont get it. They tell me that I am a single issue voter because I look to see if a candidate supports full equal rights for us LGBT first, before I look at the plethora of other things they support. I will never vote for any candidate that has a problem with my family, my friends, and our people in any way.
Also as you said I completely agree with the problem of others telling us LGBT rights advocates that we need to spread ourselves out and support more than just ourselves. To those people I say this. When the bias crime rate against LGBT drop to 1% (which will never happen this century) then we can talk about that. When every same sex family is allowed to marry in all 50 states and territories, then we can talk. When we remove "right to work" and "at will" policies that are used to fire LGBT from their jobs without the employer facing repercussions, then we can talk. When we no longer allow any bullying (be it religious or otherwise) to go unchecked against LGBT students in schools, and ban the "day of truth," then we can talk. And finally, I say to them, when we as a entire country outlaw the extremely unethical torture of ex-gay therapy for both children and adults and prosecute those who are caught ministering ex-gay therapy, then we can talk.”
“No, it is not homophobic to exclude gays from your circle of potential sexual partners if you are straight. I'll go one step further: It isn't homophobic to exclude gay men from your circle of potential sexual partners if you are a heterosexual female, and it isn't homophobic to exclude lesbians from your circle of potential sexual partners if you are a straight male.
As I said, refusing to associate with people *at all* on account of race or nationality, or sexual orientation, or gender, etcetera is a sign of bias. But that's not what the comment I was responding to suggested. You seem to be moving goal posts now. We are talking about racial preferences in dating, not racial preferences in friendships, employment, etcetera.”
“As an (evil white) gay man who has briefly lived in Southeast Asia and is pretty comfortable dating outside of his own racial and ethnic group, I take exception to this article. First, the idea that gays are *more* racist than (implicitly) straights is laughable; on the whole, same-sex couples are more likely to be biracial and/or binational than opposite-sex couples. Second, I could make the argument that people prone to dating outside of their race and culture are engaging in the fetishization of the objects of their affection, arguably a species of racism itself. Third, Asia is extraordinarily racist by American standards. Which is to say, racism is open and not the object of social opprobrium it is here. In America, it is illegal to advertise a public nightclub as restricted to one ethnic group, or to advertise a price difference on the basis of race. Yet in Thailand I freqently saw "Japanese only" clubs, and one price for "farang" or whites, another for Thais. If you are willing to categorically state that Caucasians in Asia are arrogant, what must you think of the Asians themselves?
What is your response to black men who only want to date black men, or Jewish men who prefer other Jewish men? Is racial bias acceptable for racial minorities, or if linked to religious observation? What's next for cultural marxists, an article condemning Dutch gays as Islamophobes for supporting political parties that will protect them against Islamist gang violence?”
joe1964 on Feb 27, 2012 at 09:15:01
“The whole fetishism thing was in the back of my mind but I couldn't put it into words.
E de Mas on Feb 26, 2012 at 16:56:33
“Interesting and factual, however perhaps not for the vast majority of the populace who score under 90...”
“Why would you assume that? I date outside of my own race and ethnicity and, in fact, I'm primarily attracted to Arab and Latino men; I'm mostly Northern European. I'm attracted to black, white and brown men from lots of different ethnic groups across lots of different continents, and I have no objection to dating outside of my ethnic group. Still, I strongly disagree with the argument that refusing to *date* outside of your ethnic group is racist per se. Again, is refusing to date outside of your linguistic or religious group or gender conclusive evidence of xenophobia, religious bigotry or sexism? Of course not. And the New Left proponents of your own position realize this, because the *only* ethnic group that they attack for refusing to date outside of their own racial and ethnic background are Caucasians. When gay black men restrict themselves to "brothers" or gay Jewish men restrict themselves to other gay Jews, there's no objection from the same quarters that cry foul at the slightest aversion to interracial dating on the part of the purportedly evil gay white male. This exposes the objection as political ideology on the part of the increasingly out of touch academic and anti-racist left, not any reasonable observation of racial bias.”
“I agree that closing yourself off to that many people on account of race is stupid, but is it racist? A thing can be asinine without being evidence of animus. If I decided to only date Americans, am I xenophobic? I'd argue that *refusing to associate* with any foreigners would make me xenophobic, but refusing to date foreigners just makes me someone with bad tastes.
And it can't just be the fact that you have written off billions of people that makes it problematic. Straight and gay men have both written off half of the global population; does that mean the only ones who aren't sexist or heterosexist are bisexuals? We just don't associate that preference with bias, while we insist that racial preferences in dating *must* be linked to bias.”
Ian Ichinisan on Feb 27, 2012 at 13:51:56
“Is it homophobic to exclude gays? The same arguments that the preference/ it's not really racism crowd makes can be made by straight people regarding sexual orientation.
I don't hate gay people. I just don't want to be around them. I have gay friends so I can't be homophobic. I just am not attracted to gay people and on and on.”
“That's nonsense. Refusing to associate with members of a particular race would be evidence of racial bias; a dating preference is just that. It may be stupid; if you refuse to date or have sex with people of any particular race, you're probably closing yourself off from some very satisfying potential relationships and sexual encounters, but that doesn't mean you harbor racial animus, any more than the desire to have sex with men means you are sexist. It does make you prejudiced, but only in a very limited and irrelevant way.
For all the time spent discussing the racial environment of gay hookups, not much time here has been spent discussing anti-fat bias, or fear of dating people with HIV. Those are much bigger issues in the gay community, one thinks, just not worthy of mention because most of the "anti-racism" advocates find those prejudices acceptable.”
nzchicago on Mar 1, 2012 at 07:14:47
“If not being attracted to a certain set of facial features or skin colour is not particularly a big deal, then why would not being attracted to an obese body type be any more or less of an issue? Especially as race is always immutable, but body shape can sometimes be lifestyle or health related.
As for HIV, we are talking about a deadly disease, and people's fear of it, whether rational or not. I feel this is a very different type of "prejudice" than either of the other two.”
loubque on Feb 26, 2012 at 14:05:20
“Your second paragraph is really what should be discussed other than this bullshit of food based named and choices to not date a race, because you are right the anti-fat bias is the biggest thing I have seen, the rudeness people display for "fatties".”