Disqus - Latest Comments for Brady

Re: In DC and “ Radicals ” Invade FRC

Brady — Fri, 11 Nov 2005 02:00:00 -0000

Hi Randy,
I feel like I've jumped into a heated debate, and I don't plan on getting in the middle. I was a bit confused by something you said, though. Daniel quoted it above, "when is the gay activist community going to write to PFLAG, the APA and the HRC holding them accountable for denying my religious liberties as another free expression, denying my personhood, self-determination and existence?"
I'm confused as to how these groups are denying your religious liberties. I think I follow the point about denying your personhoond, etc. (meaning they deny that someone can be ex-gay), but how are they denying your religious liberties.
Honestly, just curious, not trying to stir up the pot.

Re: In DC and “Radicals” Invade FRC

Brady — Fri, 11 Nov 2005 08:11:48 -0000

Hi Randy,

I feel like I've jumped into a heated debate, and I don't plan on getting in the middle. I was a bit confused by something you said, though. Daniel quoted it above, "when is the gay activist community going to write to PFLAG, the APA and the HRC holding them accountable for denying my religious liberties as another free expression, denying my personhood, self-determination and existence?"

I'm confused as to how these groups are denying your religious liberties. I think I follow the point about denying your personhoond, etc. (meaning they deny that someone can be ex-gay), but how are they denying your religious liberties.

Honestly, just curious, not trying to stir up the pot.

Re: In DC and “Radicals” Invade FRC

Brady — Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:11:00 -0000

Ok, good to hear *mind is now at ease*

Re: In DC and “Radicals” Invade FRC

Brady — Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:11:56 -0000

Randy, come on, I was really being honest that I was not trying to stir up the pot. Maybe I should have been more clear that I was not trying to stir up the pot in this specific post, but I was honestly asking a question with no alterior motives. If you have seen me around the sphere, you will see that I don't ALWAYS stir up the pot. The last several months of commenting on your blog have been regular conversation and well-wishes, would you not agree?

As for your answer, much appreciated. I was not trying to take it out of context, just looking for clarification for my own understanding, and you did that.

See, pot not stirred...

Re: Silencing Dissent? Are you kidding?

Brady — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 02:00:00 -0000

Randy, thanks for posting my comment ;-)
And good point about opposing views being heard by you.
I also realize it's easier for me to allow posts and respond to (nearly) all of them given my much smaller traffic and less high-profile status on my blog, so I'm sure that certainly weighs in for you too as you moderate, post, and respond to comments in your blog.

Re: Silencing Dissent? Are you kidding?

Brady — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:50:18 -0000

Randy, thanks for posting my comment ;-)

And good point about opposing views being heard by you.

I also realize it's easier for me to allow posts and respond to (nearly) all of them given my much smaller traffic and less high-profile status on my blog, so I'm sure that certainly weighs in for you too as you moderate, post, and respond to comments in your blog.

Re: HusbandOnStrike.Com

Brady — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:45:11 -0000

Randy, I heard about a year ago or so about a "mom on strike." She was complaining that her family took her for granted and she went on strike to make a point.

I can't imagine what would cause someone to want to go national about their family issues...

Re: HusbandOnStrike.Com

Brady — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 02:00:00 -0000

Randy, I heard about a year ago or so about a "mom on strike." She was complaining that her family took her for granted and she went on strike to make a point.
I can't imagine what would cause someone to want to go national about their family issues...

Re: Not Funny

Brady — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:50:42 -0000

Oh, and Randy, I updated my post on the issue to accurately reflect your feelings on the issue and this post.

Re: Carb Free Cruelty

Brady — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 03:00:00 -0000

Randy- I'v been on a health kick too, but mine is just going to the gym (I'm too partial to my bad-for-me food right now to give that up, lol).
Congratulations so far, though. It sounds like you are already making good progress. Are you seeing a difference when you look at yourself in the mirror too, or is it just the scale so far?

Re: Carb Free Cruelty

Brady — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:00:46 -0000

Randy- I'v been on a health kick too, but mine is just going to the gym (I'm too partial to my bad-for-me food right now to give that up, lol).

Congratulations so far, though. It sounds like you are already making good progress. Are you seeing a difference when you look at yourself in the mirror too, or is it just the scale so far?

Re: Kids in Castro Cause Tension

Brady — Tue, 02 May 2006 03:00:00 -0000

Randy- I really haven't heard of it. I mean, I assumed San Francisco had some sort of primarily gay neighborhood, but I'd never heard the name before. I've never been to San Francisco (or had much desire to) either, if that makes you feel less old, lol.

Re: Kids in Castro Cause Tension

Brady — Tue, 02 May 2006 08:59:25 -0000

Re: Everyday ThoughtCast #1 for May 11, 2006 - Birthday Edition

Brady — Fri, 12 May 2006 03:00:00 -0000

Happy Birthday, Randy! My birthday is this month too. Good job on the thoughtcast. It really helps put an even more personal touch to your blog.

Re: Everyday ThoughtCast #1 for May 11, 2006 - Birthday Edition

Brady — Fri, 12 May 2006 09:26:37 -0000

Happy Birthday, Randy! My birthday is this month too. Good job on the thoughtcast. It really helps put an even more personal touch to your blog.

Re: Press Conference and Phelpsianites

Brady — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 03:00:00 -0000

Hi Kurt,
Thanks also for responding. You are right, this is a very heated issue that did indeed even create differing opinions in the King family.
I agree that some people have taken the comparison between the two causes too far (as have many other groups--the illegal immigrant marches also come to mind). But, you're right, usurping a cause for another (especially one as enormous as the black civil rights movement) is not the way to go, and it isn't the right thing to do.

Re: Press Conference and Phelpsianites

Brady — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:05:41 -0000

Hi Kurt,

I had the same feeling when I went over to Phelps' site a long time ago. Pretty unbelievable.

In response to your comment about civil rights and how it irritates many black people, I would like to point out that many black leaders, including Coretta Scott King believed, and stated publically, that gay rights are a civil rights issue, so it's not only those on the "radical left" that are making such claims. Certainly slavery and gay rights are not comparable and are not the same, but I don't believe groups have to have gone through the horror of slavery, jim crow, etc. to have their civil rights infringed upon.

As for the closeted black person thought, I agree with you on that one, but I'd also like to point out that few black people are kicked out of the homes of the very families that raised them just for "coming out as black" as teens (or even adults). Gay folks are one of the few minorities that so often have that kind of reaction from loved ones.

Being black and being gay are certainly very distinct, but I believe the two groups still have similarites enough to comment on.

Re: Press Conference and Phelpsianites

Brady — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 16:00:38 -0000

Hi Randy,

I actually don't think that saying that gay rights and the fight for civil rights for blacks is the same struggle. As I mentioned though, many prominent black civil rights leaders do disagree with me (and you) on that.

I think it is unfair, though, to completely dismiss the struggle of gay people- whether it is a personal or political one. Being denied employment or housing because I am gay or perceived to be gay certainly has never happened to me, but it is fully legal in many parts of the country.

Are the struggles the same? No. Are there NO similarities at all. None? In my opinion, No.

Re: Press Conference and Phelpsianites

Brady — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:23:21 -0000

Hi Kurt,

Thanks also for responding. You are right, this is a very heated issue that did indeed even create differing opinions in the King family.

I agree that some people have taken the comparison between the two causes too far (as have many other groups--the illegal immigrant marches also come to mind). But, you're right, usurping a cause for another (especially one as enormous as the black civil rights movement) is not the way to go, and it isn't the right thing to do.

Re: The Religious “ Left ” - Eternal or Social Gospel?

Brady — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 02:00:00 -0000

Hey Randy,
I agree with Jonathan on this one. If Frank is for full disclosure, I think he should fully disclose where he got the list of position statements (hopefully i didn't just miss that somewhere). Or if he summarized these himself, I'd like to know that also.
I'd also like for him to fully disclose that the religious left is more divrerse than he gives it credit for in this list. For example, I believe myself to be religiously liberal, but I'd never believe that Jesus is not the only savior or that there are more ways to heaven than Christ. His point may be that I'm not as leftist religiously as I thought, but my thought is that he may be misrepresenting the religious left with these policies.

Re: The Religious “Left” - Eternal or Social Gospel?

Brady — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:24:45 -0000

Hey Randy,

I agree with Jonathan on this one. If Frank is for full disclosure, I think he should fully disclose where he got the list of position statements (hopefully i didn't just miss that somewhere). Or if he summarized these himself, I'd like to know that also.

I'd also like for him to fully disclose that the religious left is more divrerse than he gives it credit for in this list. For example, I believe myself to be religiously liberal, but I'd never believe that Jesus is not the only savior or that there are more ways to heaven than Christ. His point may be that I'm not as leftist religiously as I thought, but my thought is that he may be misrepresenting the religious left with these policies.

Re: Ann Coulter ’ s CPAC Remarks

Brady — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 02:00:00 -0000

Randy-
I love the new name you gave CPAC!
Here's my issue with the Coulter issue--I'm not all that shocked that Anne Coulter would say such a thing. To me, she's basically a political shock jock that loves to rile people up.
Frankly, I'm less disappointed with her (because I guess I've learned to expect it from her) and more disappointed with people like Atlas Shrugs and their readers. Atlas Shrugs, rather tha outright saying the "f" word is dehumanizing and we shouldn't use it, uses Coulter's words as an opportunity to say Edwards might be gay. If that's an issue (which I really hadn't heard of), then shouldn't they figure it out without name calling?
Then the readers go on to say that it's appropriate to use such a word. That's what I'm sad about. That regular Americans seem to think it's ok to use that word at another person.
I would like to point out that I was very happy to see many conservatives like Michelle Malkin call Coulter out for this. Props to you for the same...

Re: Ann Coulter’s CPAC Remarks

Brady — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 11:03:35 -0000

Randy-

I love the new name you gave CPAC!

Here's my issue with the Coulter issue--I'm not all that shocked that Anne Coulter would say such a thing. To me, she's basically a political shock jock that loves to rile people up.

Frankly, I'm less disappointed with her (because I guess I've learned to expect it from her) and more disappointed with people like Atlas Shrugs and their readers. Atlas Shrugs, rather tha outright saying the "f" word is dehumanizing and we shouldn't use it, uses Coulter's words as an opportunity to say Edwards might be gay. If that's an issue (which I really hadn't heard of), then shouldn't they figure it out without name calling?

Then the readers go on to say that it's appropriate to use such a word. That's what I'm sad about. That regular Americans seem to think it's ok to use that word at another person.

I would like to point out that I was very happy to see many conservatives like Michelle Malkin call Coulter out for this. Props to you for the same...

Re: Ann Coulter’s CPAC Remarks

Brady — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:17:19 -0000

Randy,

I'm not sure she was making a moral comment about homosexuality either. I was more concerned that she seemed to imply that while Anne Coulter's word choice was wrong, the question of Edwards being gay needed to be asked.

I just think using Coulter's remark as a point of agreement (basically saying, "well Anne does have a point even though...") gives at least a hint of condoning Anne's remarks. I'd rather have seen her just distance completely than half denouncing it and half agreeing with the theme of what Coulter said.

Anyway, that's it. Man, I need to work on brevity. Phew...

Re: Ann Coulter ’ s CPAC Remarks

Brady — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 02:00:00 -0000

Thanks for the link Randy. I thought you had it right from the get-go already, and your comment shows it.

Re: Ann Coulter’s CPAC Remarks

Brady — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 05:02:13 -0000

Thanks for the link Randy. I thought you had it right from the get-go already, and your comment shows it.

Re: CPAC Controversy Part II - Cpl Matt Sanchez

Brady — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 02:00:00 -0000

Randy, I agree the liberal blogs are going nuts over this, and I actually failed to see where the "huge story" was in all of it. I can see their point in a way, but I think their making mountains out of mole hills here.
Although, I'd like to say something about one of Matt's points. He says, "Let’s face it people, you’re all cynical enough to know that if I had espoused liberal causes, spoken out against the military, got a liberal award for courage and then outed with a porn-past, you’d be clamoring for my memoir, and nominating me for a diversity ticket with Barack Obama."
He's possibly right. But, with all of the criticism about the liberals being quick to yell "hypocrite" and tear someone down, I wonder what conservatives would have done if he had become the new liberal poster boy. Maybe the new campaign manager for a democrat presidential hopeful. I'm pretty sure they'd have been raking Matt through the mud too.
Let's face it, the liberal blogs overreacted here, but I think its a faul of our highly divided political system more than anything else. The conservatives would have done the same thing to him if the tables were turned. They've done it before...

Re: CPAC Controversy Part II - Cpl Matt Sanchez

Brady — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:46:51 -0000

Randy, I agree the liberal blogs are going nuts over this, and I actually failed to see where the "huge story" was in all of it. I can see their point in a way, but I think their making mountains out of mole hills here.

Although, I'd like to say something about one of Matt's points. He says, "Let’s face it people, you’re all cynical enough to know that if I had espoused liberal causes, spoken out against the military, got a liberal award for courage and then outed with a porn-past, you’d be clamoring for my memoir, and nominating me for a diversity ticket with Barack Obama."

He's possibly right. But, with all of the criticism about the liberals being quick to yell "hypocrite" and tear someone down, I wonder what conservatives would have done if he had become the new liberal poster boy. Maybe the new campaign manager for a democrat presidential hopeful. I'm pretty sure they'd have been raking Matt through the mud too.

Let's face it, the liberal blogs overreacted here, but I think its a faul of our highly divided political system more than anything else. The conservatives would have done the same thing to him if the tables were turned. They've done it before...

Re: CPAC Controversy Part II - Cpl Matt Sanchez

Brady — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 02:00:00 -0000

Randy, by saying that conservatives "have done it before," I meant they've raked people over the coals for their past indiscretions. Both sides do it, unfortunately.
I'll concede that I don't know of an example of them attacking a liberal that once did porn and now regrets it. Although I also would like to point out that I don't know of any famous politicial liberal who has a porn past.
I like the new colors, btw. I love green!

Re: CPAC Controversy Part II - Cpl Matt Sanchez

Brady — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 05:01:51 -0000

Randy, by saying that conservatives "have done it before," I meant they've raked people over the coals for their past indiscretions. Both sides do it, unfortunately.

I'll concede that I don't know of an example of them attacking a liberal that once did porn and now regrets it. Although I also would like to point out that I don't know of any famous politicial liberal who has a porn past.

I like the new colors, btw. I love green!

Re: More On General Pace and Message to Struggling Military

Brady — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 03:00:00 -0000

Jay, according to the wikipedia article, and it's citation of a quote of the policy, that probably would disqualify a person, but I'm not 100% positive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell
Bsically, homosexual conduct is not allowed, but homosexual conduct includes disclosing one's sexual orientation, so someone saying he or she currently experiences attraction to the same sex would probably fall in that category, depending on how they define homoseuality or sexual orientation.
Randy- I mentioned on another site, but I think the question is worth asking. DADT was brought up as an attempt to allow gay people to be part of the military--a compromise from the old position that allowed the military to ask in the application if somone was gay and then deny them service.
These days, you can be gay and in the military as long as you don't discuss this, but I wonder if the policy itself is immoral. Basically, it seems to me it encourages and maybe even requires gay soldiers to lie.
I promise I'm not trying to trap anyone with this question. Just a thought that maybe DADT should either not exist or go back to the old policy. I just don't think encouraging soldiers to be untruthful is such a great idea.

Re: More On General Pace and Message to Struggling Military

Brady — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:35:49 -0000

Jay, according to the wikipedia article, and it's citation of a quote of the policy, that probably would disqualify a person, but I'm not 100% positive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

Bsically, homosexual conduct is not allowed, but homosexual conduct includes disclosing one's sexual orientation, so someone saying he or she currently experiences attraction to the same sex would probably fall in that category, depending on how they define homoseuality or sexual orientation.

Randy- I mentioned on another site, but I think the question is worth asking. DADT was brought up as an attempt to allow gay people to be part of the military--a compromise from the old position that allowed the military to ask in the application if somone was gay and then deny them service.

These days, you can be gay and in the military as long as you don't discuss this, but I wonder if the policy itself is immoral. Basically, it seems to me it encourages and maybe even requires gay soldiers to lie.

I promise I'm not trying to trap anyone with this question. Just a thought that maybe DADT should either not exist or go back to the old policy. I just don't think encouraging soldiers to be untruthful is such a great idea.

Re: More On General Pace and Message to Struggling Military

Brady — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:17:12 -0000

Randy, that's a good point. I do see the distinction.

I guess my question is whether the DADT policy would agree that the worldviews are different. The policy doesn't mention being gay, rather it mentions sexual orientation and sexual attractions. I guess many people struggling with SSA would want to keep their attractions private, which would fall in line with DADT, but there are others that struggle but still want to be open with their struggle. That's where I'm wondering if the DADT policy is encouraging deceit...

Re: Video of the ENDA Press conference last week

Brady — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:49:25 -0000

Hey Randy. I was surprised to hear your talk was impromptu. I'm impressed--you played it off very well. I don't think anyone in the audience would have known at all.

I don't think your message itself was confusing. I guess my question for your story is, what if this upper supervisor hadn't been so understanding? What if instead of telling your boss to stop she allowed it to continue or even fired you? I think your story is exactly how things should work and how they usually do work (thankfully). But, what if they don't work that way? What's the recourse then?

Re: Video of the ENDA Press conference last week

Brady — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:51:24 -0000

Randy, thanks for responding. Fair enough (although I think suing wouldn't work since there isn't anything to sue for since there's no law against it. It wouldn't be wrongful termination...)

I guess then comes the question as to whether the government should be in the business of providing protective legilsation of this sort at all. All other currently protected classes have those same recourses they could use instead of asking the government to get involved. I know you've already said your side on that, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

Re: Video of the ENDA Press conference last week

Brady — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:07:55 -0000

Randy, I think the debate itself is over whether or not the gay community can prove itself as a protected class.

According to the definition you give set by the CRA of 1964, religion should not count because it is not immutable, nor can most religions show a widespread pattern of economic disenfranchisement. For that matter, a whole lot of protected classes can't fulfill those obligations, but they still get Federal protection.

This "definition" has a whole lot of ambiguity, and a lot is open to interpretation. That's why many in the gay community are arguing for protections. If white male Christians can get protections Federally (which they can--the updated CRA does not speficy which races or religions are protected--all are), why can't gays?

Re: Video of the ENDA Press conference last week

Brady — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:49:25 -0000

Hey Randy. I was surprised to hear your talk was impromptu. I'm impressed--you played it off very well. I don't think anyone in the audience would have known at all.
I don't think your message itself was confusing. I guess my question for your story is, what if this upper supervisor hadn't been so understanding? What if instead of telling your boss to stop she allowed it to continue or even fired you? I think your story is exactly how things should work and how they usually do work (thankfully). But, what if they don't work that way? What's the recourse then?

Re: Video of the ENDA Press conference last week

Brady — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:51:24 -0000

Randy, thanks for responding. Fair enough (although I think suing wouldn't work since there isn't anything to sue for since there's no law against it. It wouldn't be wrongful termination...)
I guess then comes the question as to whether the government should be in the business of providing protective legilsation of this sort at all. All other currently protected classes have those same recourses they could use instead of asking the government to get involved. I know you've already said your side on that, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

Re: Video of the ENDA Press conference last week

Brady — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 02:07:55 -0000

Randy, I think the debate itself is over whether or not the gay community can prove itself as a protected class.
According to the definition you give set by the CRA of 1964, religion should not count because it is not immutable, nor can most religions show a widespread pattern of economic disenfranchisement. For that matter, a whole lot of protected classes can't fulfill those obligations, but they still get Federal protection.
This "definition" has a whole lot of ambiguity, and a lot is open to interpretation. That's why many in the gay community are arguing for protections. If white male Christians can get protections Federally (which they can--the updated CRA does not speficy which races or religions are protected--all are), why can't gays?

Re: Video of the ENDA Press conference last week

Brady — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:13:42 -0000

Randy, I'll let this go since we're obviously arguing in circles, but I believe your statement that I'm trying to polarize an argument is exactly how I view what you are doing.

Re: Video of the ENDA Press conference last week

Brady — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:03:52 -0000

Randy,

I think I might not have been clear. Either that, or I've been taken out of context.

My point about white Christian males (which I am) was that they enjoy full Federal protection from discrimination in the workplace because of their race, sex, and religion. You said earlier that only groups that can show immutability, a history of discrimination, and economic disenfranchisement can become a "protected class."

I used white Christian males not to try to polarize (it wouldn't make sense since I identify as all of those) but to show that protected class distinctions aren't so narrowly definted and that they should cover all groups that show the possibility of discrimination.

Also, Randy, I agree that these issues should be handled in the workplace and in a capitalistic society as a whole. However, my initial point was that sometimes that doesn't work, which is why the government gives protections out. I'm just saying that we've admitted that some groups need protections, and I think to deny protections from gays, a group that has shown that it is discriminated against at a fairly regular rate per capita, (compared to other groups) seems unequal.

This isn't an us versus them it's a comparison of two groups two show that both are deserving of the same. I don't see how that's polarizing.

Re: Video of the ENDA Press conference last week

Brady — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 03:13:42 -0000

Randy, I'll let this go since we're obviously arguing in circles, but I believe your statement that I'm trying to polarize an argument is exactly how I view what you are doing.

Re: Video of the ENDA Press conference last week

Brady — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:03:52 -0000

Randy,
I think I might not have been clear. Either that, or I've been taken out of context.
My point about white Christian males (which I am) was that they enjoy full Federal protection from discrimination in the workplace because of their race, sex, and religion. You said earlier that only groups that can show immutability, a history of discrimination, and economic disenfranchisement can become a "protected class."
I used white Christian males not to try to polarize (it wouldn't make sense since I identify as all of those) but to show that protected class distinctions aren't so narrowly definted and that they should cover all groups that show the possibility of discrimination.
Also, Randy, I agree that these issues should be handled in the workplace and in a capitalistic society as a whole. However, my initial point was that sometimes that doesn't work, which is why the government gives protections out. I'm just saying that we've admitted that some groups need protections, and I think to deny protections from gays, a group that has shown that it is discriminated against at a fairly regular rate per capita, (compared to other groups) seems unequal.
This isn't an us versus them it's a comparison of two groups two show that both are deserving of the same. I don't see how that's polarizing.

Re: The Three Criteria for Protected Class Status in Civil Rights

Brady — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:24:49 -0000

David,

I don't want to talk too much about your comment, but I would like to say that I found the comment overly broad. I don't think calling gay people "these people" and then calling them tyrants is accurate or reasonable.

Randy, wow, it looks like you really did your homework on this one. I'm impressed ;-)

The problem I had the first time I saw you lay out the the 3 criteria for protected class status is that there are just too many groups that currently get some sort of protected class status that don't fit into the three criteria. I'm in HR, and as I learned about the position, I was amazed to see how many people/groups actually get some sort of protections.

Of the seven federally protected classes, familial status (being pregnant or having kids under 18), and religion don't meet all 3 of the criteria that you lay out.

Of course, there are several other protected classes at different local and state levels and even others get some protections federally. Here are some others that I don't think meet the 3 criteria you laid out (these are off of the top of my head):

Age
Marital status
Veteran or military status
Political affiliation
Health status

So, that's my take on the issue. If we're going to say that gay folks should not get special class protection because they don't meet certain criteria, then we should hold all groups to that criteria, but they really don't.

Also, the problem with the 3 criteria is that it's not just the "discriminated group" that gets the protection. For example, race is a protected class, but that means that white males get the same protected class status as black females, even though white males would undoubtedly be on the top of the income scales you mentioned in your earlier post.

Re: The Three Criteria for Protected Class Status in Civil Rights

Brady — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:24:49 -0000

David,
I don't want to talk too much about your comment, but I would like to say that I found the comment overly broad. I don't think calling gay people "these people" and then calling them tyrants is accurate or reasonable.
Randy, wow, it looks like you really did your homework on this one. I'm impressed ;-)
The problem I had the first time I saw you lay out the the 3 criteria for protected class status is that there are just too many groups that currently get some sort of protected class status that don't fit into the three criteria. I'm in HR, and as I learned about the position, I was amazed to see how many people/groups actually get some sort of protections.
Of the seven federally protected classes, familial status (being pregnant or having kids under 18), and religion don't meet all 3 of the criteria that you lay out.
Of course, there are several other protected classes at different local and state levels and even others get some protections federally. Here are some others that I don't think meet the 3 criteria you laid out (these are off of the top of my head):
Age
Marital status
Veteran or military status
Political affiliation
Health status
So, that's my take on the issue. If we're going to say that gay folks should not get special class protection because they don't meet certain criteria, then we should hold all groups to that criteria, but they really don't.
Also, the problem with the 3 criteria is that it's not just the "discriminated group" that gets the protection. For example, race is a protected class, but that means that white males get the same protected class status as black females, even though white males would undoubtedly be on the top of the income scales you mentioned in your earlier post.

Re: GSA = Gay Student Activist

Brady — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:41:38 -0000

Hey Randy. Hope all is well. So, I'll take the bait and bite on this one (well, not that you were trying to bait me, but at first I was going to not comment and now I'm back commenting...).

I feel like the word "indoctrinating" that you use is too strong of a word. It comes with a lot of negative connotations for me, and I think it plays into the minds of anti-gay people, maybe even playing into the old "recruiting our children because gays can't reproduce" theory.

I guess to be more clear--if you heard someone say that Christians were trying to indoctrinate our children as young as possible to trick them into believing in religion (and yes, I admit I have heard some people say that), would you repond negatively to it?

Re: GSA = Gay Student Activist

Brady — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:41:38 -0000

Hey Randy. Hope all is well. So, I'll take the bait and bite on this one (well, not that you were trying to bait me, but at first I was going to not comment and now I'm back commenting...).
I feel like the word "indoctrinating" that you use is too strong of a word. It comes with a lot of negative connotations for me, and I think it plays into the minds of anti-gay people, maybe even playing into the old "recruiting our children because gays can't reproduce" theory.
I guess to be more clear--if you heard someone say that Christians were trying to indoctrinate our children as young as possible to trick them into believing in religion (and yes, I admit I have heard some people say that), would you repond negatively to it?

Re: Of McCain, Romney and Alternatives

Brady — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 12:11:55 -0000

Barack has been pretty open about being a Christian and has been campaigning with several Pastors. From what I've read, he's been very active in his church for several years. I think calling him a one-time Muslim (implying he is not a believer, which is what you drew the connection from) is unfair. I'm also wondering why you used his full name in your comment.

There are a lot of believers out there that weren't always ones, and to define them by a faith they had at 10 years old or a faith that their grandparents had really isn't giving their current faith any credit.

Re: Of McCain, Romney and Alternatives

Brady — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:11:55 -0000

Barack has been pretty open about being a Christian and has been campaigning with several Pastors. From what I've read, he's been very active in his church for several years. I think calling him a one-time Muslim (implying he is not a believer, which is what you drew the connection from) is unfair. I'm also wondering why you used his full name in your comment.
There are a lot of believers out there that weren't always ones, and to define them by a faith they had at 10 years old or a faith that their grandparents had really isn't giving their current faith any credit.

Re: Fitness Friday #1

Brady — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:15:36 -0000

Good luck, Randy. It's amazing how working out can make your body feel so good, but it's so easy to get out of the habit...

Re: Of McCain, Romney and Alternatives

Brady — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:22:38 -0000

Paul, fair enough. Thanks for the response...

Re: Hutcherson Family Harassed

Brady — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:24:27 -0000

Mike- I'm hoping (and assuming) that not everyone "supposedly espousing tolerance" behaves like this. There are plenty (and I'd think the majority) that preach tolerance and practice their preaching.

Re: Hutcherson Family Harassed

Brady — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:17:56 -0000

Randy- I don't know of anyone denouncing the behavior, but then again, I've only read your take on it here and one take over at Box Turtle Bulletin, so I can't say that people aren't denouncing it based on that little coverage.

I guess my concern is the people in the story harassing Hutch don't seem to be activists--just regular people (and very possibly kids) making poor choices.

To me, Mike's comment seems to be throwing everyone in the same pile--those who want tolerance and act accordingly and those who don't. The first story here is about 2 teachers behaving innappropriately at an assembly full of people (maybe a couple of hundred?). So, judging the couple of hundred by the actions of 2 seems kind of harsh.

As for the harassment, it's sad to hear, but again, this appears to be the action of a small minority from what I can tell. I'm just opposed to having that kind of behavior tied to someone like me. I disagree with Hutch and I am pro-tolerance, but I don't like the idea of being coupled with people like this, and that's where Mike's comment feels like it's going from my POV.

Re: Hutcherson Family Harassed

Brady — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:25:33 -0000

Randy- just followed a link from BTB mentioned above, and it's a pro-gay blogger condemning the harassment: Pam's House Blend

Re: Fitness Friday #1

Brady — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:15:36 -0000

Good luck, Randy. It's amazing how working out can make your body feel so good, but it's so easy to get out of the habit...

Re: Of McCain, Romney and Alternatives

Brady — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:22:38 -0000

Paul, fair enough. Thanks for the response...

Re: Hutcherson Family Harassed

Brady — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:25:35 -0000

Randy- I deeply disagree with Hutch and think him to be very misguided. However, I will take your points about him and concede (which I already have) these people are out of line.

One side point, Pam never actually called Hutch any names in her post. Her commenters maybe, but the topic of the post was about how out of line these harassers were. She did mention several reasons she opposed him, but particular article never went ad hom on Hutch.

I guess this comment is more directed at Mike, but the comment he made made it sound as if everyone, or at the very least the majority, of people that are pro-gay behave like this, which they don't. That's my beef in a nutshell.

I realize you disagree--just wanted to clarify that my beef was about the comment itself rather than my view of Hutch.

Re: Hutcherson Family Harassed

Brady — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:24:27 -0000

Mike- I'm hoping (and assuming) that not everyone "supposedly espousing tolerance" behaves like this. There are plenty (and I'd think the majority) that preach tolerance and practice their preaching.

Re: Hutcherson Family Harassed

Brady — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 04:17:56 -0000

Randy- I don't know of anyone denouncing the behavior, but then again, I've only read your take on it here and one take over at Box Turtle Bulletin, so I can't say that people aren't denouncing it based on that little coverage.
I guess my concern is the people in the story harassing Hutch don't seem to be activists--just regular people (and very possibly kids) making poor choices.
To me, Mike's comment seems to be throwing everyone in the same pile--those who want tolerance and act accordingly and those who don't. The first story here is about 2 teachers behaving innappropriately at an assembly full of people (maybe a couple of hundred?). So, judging the couple of hundred by the actions of 2 seems kind of harsh.
As for the harassment, it's sad to hear, but again, this appears to be the action of a small minority from what I can tell. I'm just opposed to having that kind of behavior tied to someone like me. I disagree with Hutch and I am pro-tolerance, but I don't like the idea of being coupled with people like this, and that's where Mike's comment feels like it's going from my POV.

Re: Hutcherson Family Harassed

Brady — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 04:25:33 -0000

Randy- just followed a link from BTB mentioned above, and it's a pro-gay blogger condemning the harassment: Pam's House Blend

Re: Hutcherson Family Harassed

Brady — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:25:35 -0000

Randy- I deeply disagree with Hutch and think him to be very misguided. However, I will take your points about him and concede (which I already have) these people are out of line.
One side point, Pam never actually called Hutch any names in her post. Her commenters maybe, but the topic of the post was about how out of line these harassers were. She did mention several reasons she opposed him, but particular article never went ad hom on Hutch.
I guess this comment is more directed at Mike, but the comment he made made it sound as if everyone, or at the very least the majority, of people that are pro-gay behave like this, which they don't. That's my beef in a nutshell.
I realize you disagree--just wanted to clarify that my beef was about the comment itself rather than my view of Hutch.

Re: Hutcherson Family Harassed

Brady — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:43:58 -0000

Randy- fair enough. I didn't see the tag until now, glad you pointed it out. As for Mike--you're right, you are certainly in a position to know what his intentions were better than me. My comments were obviously as an outsider (but maybe that's something that carries some weight in an online discussion...).

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I'm sure I'll be back ;-)

Re: Hutcherson Family Harassed

Brady — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:43:58 -0000

Randy- fair enough. I didn't see the tag until now, glad you pointed it out. As for Mike--you're right, you are certainly in a position to know what his intentions were better than me. My comments were obviously as an outsider (but maybe that's something that carries some weight in an online discussion...).
Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I'm sure I'll be back ;-)

Re: New Study Finds Abortions can Lead to PTSD

Brady — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:11:08 -0000

When I saw this study I thought to myself, "that actually sounds like common sense to me." I agree that I think the pro-choice crowd often ignores the huge emotional impact that results from an abortion.

Re: New Study Finds Abortions can Lead to PTSD

Brady — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:11:08 -0000

Re: There’s No Place Like Northern California

Brady — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:22:44 -0000

Good point about male-male objectification. It surely does happen.

I think I'd have trouble hearing someone handing me a beer at a bar/club (where honestly the point of drinking in most of these establishments is to actually get drunk for most people). Handing me a beer at a bbq is one thing, but in an environment where he's giving people beer to help them get drunk, I dunno. Seems like a conflict.

Re: Florida Victim of Anti-Gay Beating Appears in Online Video

Brady — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:32:56 -0000

Randy, here's the article with the quote from Hutch that Brian is referring to http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/352368_fait....

I have some thoughts that lie somewhere in between what your and Jim's ideas seem to be, but I'm having trouble making them clear in my mind. Perhaps I'll respond later if I can find a way to express what I'm thinking.

Re: There’s No Place Like Northern California

Brady — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:22:44 -0000

Good point about male-male objectification. It surely does happen.
I think I'd have trouble hearing someone handing me a beer at a bar/club (where honestly the point of drinking in most of these establishments is to actually get drunk for most people). Handing me a beer at a bbq is one thing, but in an environment where he's giving people beer to help them get drunk, I dunno. Seems like a conflict.

Re: Florida Victim of Anti-Gay Beating Appears in Online Video

Brady — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:32:56 -0000

Randy, here's the article with the quote from Hutch that Brian is referring to http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/352368_fait....
I have some thoughts that lie somewhere in between what your and Jim's ideas seem to be, but I'm having trouble making them clear in my mind. Perhaps I'll respond later if I can find a way to express what I'm thinking.

Re: Confrontation

Brady — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:59:27 -0000

"Your e-mail was humanizing."

I saw that too, and in the end, I think that's the key. I liked the email, Randy.

Re: Confrontation

Brady — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:59:27 -0000

"Your e-mail was humanizing."
I saw that too, and in the end, I think that's the key. I liked the email, Randy.

Re: Shocking! A Crazy Decision By A California Court

Brady — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:45:03 -0000

I don't know a lot about home schooling, and I don't know anything about the California public education system. But, I do know that I hear horror stories of the public education system nation wide, and I often have trouble following the logic. I graduated public high school 10 years ago, my younger brother 5 years ago. I know no one that went to a private high school, and I was very impressed with the education my friends and I all received.

As for the home school ruling, I read a bit of background, and it seems the court has said that the parents need to have teaching certifications or work with an institution or tutor that does. Meaning the parent may still do the instructing provided they are paired with an institution that helps provide lesson planning, etc. Rather than seeing this as an attempt at liberal courts to squash the little guy, I see it as an attempt to make sure home schooled children are actually receiving proper education.

Re: Shocking! A Crazy Decision By A California Court

Brady — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:07:55 -0000

Ellie,

I think the issue the courts would have with your statement is "most." It may be very true that most home schooled kids in California get great educations (and I have certainly seen nothing to contradict that), but to me it seems that without some sort of standart in place, it's too easy for the system to be abused...for parents not to do what they should in some cases.

As for the home school co-ops, my understanding of the decision is that a relationship with a co-op of that sort would fit the requirements of the court ruling.

Re: Shocking! A Crazy Decision By A California Court

Brady — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:45:03 -0000

I don't know a lot about home schooling, and I don't know anything about the California public education system. But, I do know that I hear horror stories of the public education system nation wide, and I often have trouble following the logic. I graduated public high school 10 years ago, my younger brother 5 years ago. I know no one that went to a private high school, and I was very impressed with the education my friends and I all received.
As for the home school ruling, I read a bit of background, and it seems the court has said that the parents need to have teaching certifications or work with an institution or tutor that does. Meaning the parent may still do the instructing provided they are paired with an institution that helps provide lesson planning, etc. Rather than seeing this as an attempt at liberal courts to squash the little guy, I see it as an attempt to make sure home schooled children are actually receiving proper education.

Re: Shocking! A Crazy Decision By A California Court

Brady — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:07:55 -0000

Ellie,
I think the issue the courts would have with your statement is "most." It may be very true that most home schooled kids in California get great educations (and I have certainly seen nothing to contradict that), but to me it seems that without some sort of standart in place, it's too easy for the system to be abused...for parents not to do what they should in some cases.
As for the home school co-ops, my understanding of the decision is that a relationship with a co-op of that sort would fit the requirements of the court ruling.

Re: Mike Airhart blogging for Wayne Besen, Cause for Concern?

Brady — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:43:18 -0000

Interested in them or not...this is very intriguing. Nice find. I'd like to know the answers to those questions too.

Re: Mike Airhart blogging for Wayne Besen, Cause for Concern?

Brady — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 04:43:18 -0000

Interested in them or not...this is very intriguing. Nice find. I'd like to know the answers to those questions too.

Re: Mike Airhart blogging for Wayne Besen, Cause for Concern?

Brady — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:26:58 -0000

Randy... I honestly didn't mean that to come off as rude or snide.

I'm intrigued because I read Mike's old blog (I'm sure you knew that), and knew he was leaving for some unspecified new projects. It strikes me as really odd that he would not have posted on his old blog that he was working for/with someone like Wayne Besen. So, I too honestly want to know why all the secrecy and why he'd leave his old place to do something seemingly very similar (although more high-profile, but that begs the question again about the secrecy).

Does that make sense? Anyway, I was being honest by saying that I too was intrigued, and I think for similar reasons you are. It just all sounds kind of weird to me.

Re: Mike Airhart blogging for Wayne Besen, Cause for Concern?

Brady — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:26:58 -0000

Randy... I honestly didn't mean that to come off as rude or snide.
I'm intrigued because I read Mike's old blog (I'm sure you knew that), and knew he was leaving for some unspecified new projects. It strikes me as really odd that he would not have posted on his old blog that he was working for/with someone like Wayne Besen. So, I too honestly want to know why all the secrecy and why he'd leave his old place to do something seemingly very similar (although more high-profile, but that begs the question again about the secrecy).
Does that make sense? Anyway, I was being honest by saying that I too was intrigued, and I think for similar reasons you are. It just all sounds kind of weird to me.

Re: Mike Airhart blogging for Wayne Besen, Cause for Concern?

Brady — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:40:11 -0000

Ok, good. I was worried I came off that way somehow.

"apparently Mike and Wayne don’t want the same level of scrutiny they dish out."
Exactly what came to my mind also, and one of the main reasons I found it so odd.

Re: Mike Airhart blogging for Wayne Besen, Cause for Concern?

Brady — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:40:11 -0000

Ok, good. I was worried I came off that way somehow.
"apparently Mike and Wayne donâ€™t want the same level of scrutiny they dish out."
Exactly what came to my mind also, and one of the main reasons I found it so odd.

Re: APA: No Consensus On Cause of Homosexuality

Brady — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:23:25 -0000

Randy- first let me tell you that I liked your response to Phil. Honest, calm, with a touch of comic relief. What a good way to handle someone like that.

Second, I thought this was the APA's stance all along. I found [url="http://apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31"]this[/url] Q&A with a 2004 copyright on it, and it says essentially the same thing.

Re: APA: No Consensus On Cause of Homosexuality

Brady — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:25:06 -0000

Hey Randy. I posted earlier, but my post didn't show up. Maybe it's being held for moderation? Anyway, I was under the impression that this has been the APA's position for quite a while. I came across a FAQ from them from 2004 where they say essentially the same thing.

Re: APA: No Consensus On Cause of Homosexuality

Brady — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:23:25 -0000

Randy- first let me tell you that I liked your response to Phil. Honest, calm, with a touch of comic relief. What a good way to handle someone like that.
Second, I thought this was the APA's stance all along. I found [url="http://apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31"]this[/url] Q&A with a 2004 copyright on it, and it says essentially the same thing.

Re: APA: No Consensus On Cause of Homosexuality

Brady — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 03:25:06 -0000

Re: APA: No Consensus On Cause of Homosexuality

Brady — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:53:36 -0000

Hey Randy, didn't think you deleted it. These things happen. Thanks for the response. Makes sense.

Re: APA: No Consensus On Cause of Homosexuality

Brady — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:53:36 -0000

Hey Randy, didn't think you deleted it. These things happen. Thanks for the response. Makes sense.

Re: ABC’s 20/20 to Focus on ‘Gay Gene’ Debate Tonight

Brady — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:56:08 -0000

Unfortunately I missed the episode, so I can't comment on that.

However, Laura Leigh- I'm interested to know what you mean by "an non-substantiated but populuar point of view."

Re: ABC’s 20/20 to Focus on ‘Gay Gene’ Debate Tonight

Brady — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:56:08 -0000

Unfortunately I missed the episode, so I can't comment on that.
However, Laura Leigh- I'm interested to know what you mean by "an non-substantiated but populuar point of view."

Re: Christian Photographer Fined for Refusing Gay Wedding

Brady — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:58:45 -0000

Mike- I'm confused as to how the issues is the event itself rather than not doing business with non-believers. If they aren't doing gay weddings, it's the gay part that they don't want to associate with, so it's pretty clear it's about who they are doing business with (gay people), not what the event is.

Did you hear about the story last year wear a small landscape company in Houston refused to do business with a couple once they learned the couple was gay (they had originally said ok when they thought it was an opposite sex couple)? The gay couple did not sue, but turned to the internet to publicize the story.

Anyway, the issue with that landscaping company was that they did not do business with gay people (which they said outright, unlike the photographers here). I think Nick's point is that if you are going to refuse to do business with people with different beliefs, you should at least be consistent. Legality aside, the stance (especially of the gardeners and I'd argue of the photographers too) simply isn't consistent. They are choosing which non-believers to do business with and which not to. But, the problem doesn't seem to be with non-believers, it seems to be specifically with gays. It may not be illegal, but surely it's a questionable way to uphold one's faith.

Re: Christian Photographer Fined for Refusing Gay Wedding

Brady — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 03:58:45 -0000

Mike- I'm confused as to how the issues is the event itself rather than not doing business with non-believers. If they aren't doing gay weddings, it's the gay part that they don't want to associate with, so it's pretty clear it's about who they are doing business with (gay people), not what the event is.
Did you hear about the story last year wear a small landscape company in Houston refused to do business with a couple once they learned the couple was gay (they had originally said ok when they thought it was an opposite sex couple)? The gay couple did not sue, but turned to the internet to publicize the story.
Anyway, the issue with that landscaping company was that they did not do business with gay people (which they said outright, unlike the photographers here). I think Nick's point is that if you are going to refuse to do business with people with different beliefs, you should at least be consistent. Legality aside, the stance (especially of the gardeners and I'd argue of the photographers too) simply isn't consistent. They are choosing which non-believers to do business with and which not to. But, the problem doesn't seem to be with non-believers, it seems to be specifically with gays. It may not be illegal, but surely it's a questionable way to uphold one's faith.

Re: Christian Photographer Fined for Refusing Gay Wedding

Brady — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:04:00 -0000

Mike, wouldn't worshipping another God be biblically inherently sinful?

And, I'm not in agreement about the homosexuality being a core aspect of a person's identity argument. It really comes up more from non-gay people than from gay people themselves. But, that's probably a topic better discussed elsewhere.

Re: Christian Photographer Fined for Refusing Gay Wedding

Brady — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:04:00 -0000

Mike, wouldn't worshipping another God be biblically inherently sinful?
And, I'm not in agreement about the homosexuality being a core aspect of a person's identity argument. It really comes up more from non-gay people than from gay people themselves. But, that's probably a topic better discussed elsewhere.

Re: Turning 40 is Odd

Brady — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:51:27 -0000

Happy birthday, Randy!!

Re: Turning 40 is Odd

Brady — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:51:27 -0000

Happy birthday, Randy!!

Re: Gay Marriage In California?

Brady — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:02:50 -0000

Randy, I like the questions you are asking in these comments (and like your quote on marriage, although I disagree with it).

Ted, to respond to your answer to Randy-

You said, "As far as gay identified people looking at Christians as aliens who dont understand, Im not sure a whole lot can be done about that. The way I see it we are supposed to stand up for what is right and not be too concerned about the consequenes, God will take care of that.

As long as gay identifed people refuse to admit that their lifestyle is sinful, they will probably view Christians that way."

I guess my issue lies in the kind of us vs. them response. You are asking for gay people to admit they are sinful, but I didn't see you ask divorcees to admit their sexual ethics are sinful as well. While I certainly don't see Christians as "aliens," I can tell you that this is an issue I deal with.

When I came out to my dad, and he told me I was sinning and needed to get out of my sin, I had a hard time listening to it, knowing that he and my mother divorced because they could not get along and both remarried. Biblically, he is living a life that is sinful, but when I asked him about that, he explained it away (as does the church in large part).

Anyway, this is getting long, but I feel like when a community tells another, "you are sinful, and until you admit that, we won't have common ground," there just won't ever be any common ground, especially when the first community isn't necessarily addressing similar issues among themselves.

I think Randy's quote does a good job of addressing that.

Re: Gay Marriage In California?

Brady — Sat, 17 May 2008 03:02:50 -0000

Randy, I like the questions you are asking in these comments (and like your quote on marriage, although I disagree with it).
Ted, to respond to your answer to Randy-
You said, "As far as gay identified people looking at Christians as aliens who dont understand, Im not sure a whole lot can be done about that. The way I see it we are supposed to stand up for what is right and not be too concerned about the consequenes, God will take care of that.
As long as gay identifed people refuse to admit that their lifestyle is sinful, they will probably view Christians that way."
I guess my issue lies in the kind of us vs. them response. You are asking for gay people to admit they are sinful, but I didn't see you ask divorcees to admit their sexual ethics are sinful as well. While I certainly don't see Christians as "aliens," I can tell you that this is an issue I deal with.
When I came out to my dad, and he told me I was sinning and needed to get out of my sin, I had a hard time listening to it, knowing that he and my mother divorced because they could not get along and both remarried. Biblically, he is living a life that is sinful, but when I asked him about that, he explained it away (as does the church in large part).
Anyway, this is getting long, but I feel like when a community tells another, "you are sinful, and until you admit that, we won't have common ground," there just won't ever be any common ground, especially when the first community isn't necessarily addressing similar issues among themselves.
I think Randy's quote does a good job of addressing that.

Re: Gay Rights At the Expense of Religious Liberty? Part II

Brady — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:57:16 -0000

Hi Randy,

I guess my two points would be that the case your referring to is in Canada, a country that does not have nearly the legal free speech protections that we have here in the US. This type of thing could never happen in the US (well, if it did, I have to believe that it would be corrected).

As for the photographer case--this was a state issue of discrimination, not a violation of freedom of speech. The state decided the photographer was providing a public service and, because she was, she could not discriminate who she gives her services to. She was free to publish all the anti-gay stuff she wanted, if that was her desire. She also would have been similarly punished had she refused a Christian wedding.

Re: Gay Rights At the Expense of Religious Liberty? Part II

Brady — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:57:16 -0000

Hi Randy,
I guess my two points would be that the case your referring to is in Canada, a country that does not have nearly the legal free speech protections that we have here in the US. This type of thing could never happen in the US (well, if it did, I have to believe that it would be corrected).
As for the photographer case--this was a state issue of discrimination, not a violation of freedom of speech. The state decided the photographer was providing a public service and, because she was, she could not discriminate who she gives her services to. She was free to publish all the anti-gay stuff she wanted, if that was her desire. She also would have been similarly punished had she refused a Christian wedding.

Re: Gay Rights At the Expense of Religious Liberty? Part II

Brady — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:08:18 -0000

Stephen- you're forgiven, although like Randy, I was also a bit thrown off ;-)

Randy- at your "Brandy" response--hilarious! And don't worry, I like you (you know in a friendly, good-spirited-debate kind of way).

At your response to my post (and to Stephen too)- I agree with you that freedom of speech is freedome of speech no matter what country it's in. But, my point was that Canada simply does not have the Freedom of Speech protection that the US has. It never has. We wouldn't say that since Iran is an Islamic govt where they often persecute Christians that this means the US could possibly go that way. Sure its not the same, but my point is that the countries are simply different with different laws. This type of thing has always been a possibility in Canada because of how their laws are set up, which is why the US is so great--because we have better protections than that

As for the photographer- I wouldn't claim she's a public servant, but she's providing a service to the public. Much like a restaurant can't turn away a black person or a gay person (in some states), or a Christian, this woman cannot turn someone away for a protected reason, either. I'm not sure what the answer for someone like her is in that situation, other than to tell the couple she will do it, but she'd recommend they use another service because she does not agree with gay marriages, and let them go elsewhere. Although, I simply think her reasoning is faulty in the first place since I don't recall the bible saying that one can't take pictures at a gay wedding, and because I'd be willing to bet she does 2nd marriages after divorces (but obviously that's an aside and doesn't affect the law itself, which doesn't exist in my state, or most states, for the record).

As for this type of case not coming up if the person were Christian--I disagree. I think it's very possible. I've seen some anti-Christian school T-shirt cases get some decent press over the last year or 2.

Re: Gay Rights At the Expense of Religious Liberty? Part II

Brady — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:08:18 -0000

Stephen- you're forgiven, although like Randy, I was also a bit thrown off ;-)
Randy- at your "Brandy" response--hilarious! And don't worry, I like you (you know in a friendly, good-spirited-debate kind of way).
At your response to my post (and to Stephen too)- I agree with you that freedom of speech is freedome of speech no matter what country it's in. But, my point was that Canada simply does not have the Freedom of Speech protection that the US has. It never has. We wouldn't say that since Iran is an Islamic govt where they often persecute Christians that this means the US could possibly go that way. Sure its not the same, but my point is that the countries are simply different with different laws. This type of thing has always been a possibility in Canada because of how their laws are set up, which is why the US is so great--because we have better protections than that
As for the photographer- I wouldn't claim she's a public servant, but she's providing a service to the public. Much like a restaurant can't turn away a black person or a gay person (in some states), or a Christian, this woman cannot turn someone away for a protected reason, either. I'm not sure what the answer for someone like her is in that situation, other than to tell the couple she will do it, but she'd recommend they use another service because she does not agree with gay marriages, and let them go elsewhere. Although, I simply think her reasoning is faulty in the first place since I don't recall the bible saying that one can't take pictures at a gay wedding, and because I'd be willing to bet she does 2nd marriages after divorces (but obviously that's an aside and doesn't affect the law itself, which doesn't exist in my state, or most states, for the record).
As for this type of case not coming up if the person were Christian--I disagree. I think it's very possible. I've seen some anti-Christian school T-shirt cases get some decent press over the last year or 2.

Re: Pondering Gay Marriage in California

Brady — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:34:58 -0000

Ok, I guess I'm going to chime in on this one, too and try to not hit on the usual points.

First, let me say, as some may know (and some may not), I had a wedding with my partner about 2 years ago. The wedding was here in Texas, and it was the best/most emotional day in my life. I've never been so happy, scared, excited, nervous, etc. all at once. We've been together since we were 19 (9 and half years), and I can't imagine my life without him. That's the mushy stuff.

Ok, that said. My partner and I feel very married now, just as married as my straight married friends, and they see us that way too. Obviously, TX has a ban against gay marriage, so nothing is legal for us. We've done what we can to get the protections we feel are important, but we're not legally married.

Call me naive (and I know this is not the popular sentiment in the gay community), but I am happy with where I am personally in my marriage. To me, marriage is a covenant between two people and God. I have that, and call me biased, but my bond of marriage feels stronger and more secure than a lot of legal marriages I see out there. The legal part of it is just kind of an extra piece thrown in, and so far that part hasn't affected me. It'd be nice, but it really hasn't made an impact on my life so far.

I'm in favor of legalizing gay marriage. I don't think the sky is going to fall. I don't think the family unit as we know it is going to be drastically changed. And, for the record, I honestly take offense to claims that I am lacking some morality that straight people have because I am gay (not like David Benkof took offense, wow, but it still does offend me). All of that said, I honestly don't feel like a second class citizen because the state doesn't recognize my marriage. For me it's real. And, while I think the arguments against gay marriage are poorly founded, and I will debate against them, you'll never here me claim to be a second class citizen. I view that argument to be too extreme and over the top. It'd be nice to have my marriage be legal, but it won't affect how real my marriage to my partner already is in the eyes of us, my friends, and family--basically those who matter to me.

Re: Pondering Gay Marriage in California

Brady — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:34:58 -0000

Ok, I guess I'm going to chime in on this one, too and try to not hit on the usual points.
First, let me say, as some may know (and some may not), I had a wedding with my partner about 2 years ago. The wedding was here in Texas, and it was the best/most emotional day in my life. I've never been so happy, scared, excited, nervous, etc. all at once. We've been together since we were 19 (9 and half years), and I can't imagine my life without him. That's the mushy stuff.
Ok, that said. My partner and I feel very married now, just as married as my straight married friends, and they see us that way too. Obviously, TX has a ban against gay marriage, so nothing is legal for us. We've done what we can to get the protections we feel are important, but we're not legally married.
Call me naive (and I know this is not the popular sentiment in the gay community), but I am happy with where I am personally in my marriage. To me, marriage is a covenant between two people and God. I have that, and call me biased, but my bond of marriage feels stronger and more secure than a lot of legal marriages I see out there. The legal part of it is just kind of an extra piece thrown in, and so far that part hasn't affected me. It'd be nice, but it really hasn't made an impact on my life so far.
I'm in favor of legalizing gay marriage. I don't think the sky is going to fall. I don't think the family unit as we know it is going to be drastically changed. And, for the record, I honestly take offense to claims that I am lacking some morality that straight people have because I am gay (not like David Benkof took offense, wow, but it still does offend me). All of that said, I honestly don't feel like a second class citizen because the state doesn't recognize my marriage. For me it's real. And, while I think the arguments against gay marriage are poorly founded, and I will debate against them, you'll never here me claim to be a second class citizen. I view that argument to be too extreme and over the top. It'd be nice to have my marriage be legal, but it won't affect how real my marriage to my partner already is in the eyes of us, my friends, and family--basically those who matter to me.

Re: Hillary Clinton Hits It Out of the Park for Dems … and Herself

Brady — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:34:46 -0000

Yeah, I thought that shot about McCain being ok with unequal pay for women was really absurd. I hate overtly partisan stuff like that that just plainly isn't true.

Otherwise, I agree with your thoughts on this one...

Re: Hillary Clinton Hits It Out of the Park for Dems … and Herself

Brady — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:34:46 -0000

Re: The Art of Stigmatization

Brady — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:30:15 -0000

Hey Randy. I feel what you're saying about stigmatizing, and in general, I give you the benefit of the doubt (being on the other side of the debate and all). I really do believe when you say you are not out to stigmatize, and most of the time I can see that here on your blog.

I agree with you that this video is just way over the top. I hate this kind of stigmatizing, whether it's this debate or politics in general. For those that think critically, it really is unbecoming of the people launching the assualt when it all boils down.

Anyway, my one thought was that even though you try hard not to stigmatize, some of your allies certainly do, and often make a career of it. You may not call them allies, but organizations such as Focus on the Family, CWA, and many others seem to almost make a career of stigmatizing. Do you feel the same frustration when they do it as you do when your opponents do?

Re: The Art of Stigmatization

Brady — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:30:15 -0000

Re: The Art of Stigmatization

Brady — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:25:59 -0000

Leo,

The term neo-nazi is way extreme and maybe even not worth addressing. Killing people for their beliefs is in a completely different galaxy than what Randy or Exodus do, and using exaggerations like that really does no one any good. "Godwin's Law" is really all I can say (wikipedia it if you aren't familiar).

You could have argued your concern with Randy's political stance so much better had you done it reasonably.

And on a side note- to Ellie- I've said this on my blog before, but when I read your words it brought it up in my mind again...I see and agree with your understanding of abortion, sex and other issues as moral issues, but I'd like to put it out there that I don't see homosexuality as falling into the issue of moral or immoral.

Re: The Art of Stigmatization

Brady — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:04:16 -0000

Ellie- I definitely realize and understand that. It basically came to my mind again when you brought it up, and I realized that I had posted it on my blog, but never really elsewhere. I just kind of wanted to do that to differentiate my view a bit, which is basically not that I don't think being gay is immoral, rather that I don't think it is, or should be, an issue of morality at all.

Re: The Art of Stigmatization

Brady — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:25:59 -0000

Re: The Art of Stigmatization

Brady — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 03:04:16 -0000

Re: The Screaming Neenies Fear Palin Power

Brady — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:23:17 -0000

Ok, I'm going to write this and then brace myself for a possible backlash, but here goes...

I don't know Randy, many of these individual instances are quite alarming, but jumbles altogether and then blamed on the way liberals (implication of all liberals or all Obama supporters) actually has the opposite effect on me.

As an independent that has only voted democrat twice in my life, when I see individual actions like this lumped together and blamed on an entire group, it makes me look at the group that is being blamed as the victim (almost the same thing as you are saying, just the opposite).

I realize you aren't the one doing all of what I am going to post, but here goes: Blaming the entire news media for being liberal (or anti-conservative just rings more of playing the victim card than actually being based in fact--Signilore brought this up in the article you linked pointing out how the news media looked into Obama's church with never-before-seen scrutiny while leaving Palin and McCain pretty much alone). Calling Obama supporters "Obamaniacs" seems just a bit condescending at the very least and surely quoting someone that is questioning rather Palin is really a woman isn't woth pinning on liberals as a whole doesn't really do much to help politics as a whole.

I don't know, I read your post, and I hear what you are saying (and I've seen plenty of others say similar things), but then I go listen to those of the more liberal persuasion, and they've got the exact same types of accusations from their side.

It leaves someone in the middle in a bit of a tizzy. More importantly, just jaded altogether. It's like the two sides are trying to see who can play the victim card harder.

Re: The Screaming Neenies Fear Palin Power

Brady — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:23:17 -0000

Re: The Screaming Neenies Fear Palin Power

Brady — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:56:38 -0000

Hi editorgal- thanks for your response, much appreciated.

Randy- I guess my point was that most of your links weren't attacks launched by the MSM, but rather by Hollywood or radical leftists or bloggers. There are plenty of those kinds of attacks coming from similar sources launched at Obama.

I'll agree that Obama isn't really dealing with the Hollywood attacks, but man the right wing media (read Fox) and the right wing radio hosts, local and national are all over him. in fact, the rumors were getting so bad, that Obama's campaign decided to launch an anti-rumor website to confront them.

I'm still hearing one of the local right wing talk hosts implying that Obama might be a muslim (and Fox news is the one that kind of broke this story by bringing out that he was educated in a Madrasa but failing to point out he was also educated in a Catholic School). The Muslim rumors have tons of side rumors such as he got sworn in on the Q'ran, or the "57" states rumor, so they're dozens of rumors in one.

Then there's the whole Jeremiah Wright issue. It's odd that some people on the far right are trying to have it both ways--he's a muslim, but he also attends a church where they hate white people or Anti-America. And let's not forget that MSM was ALL OVER the Wright issue for weaks. Rush Limbaugh even said they were giving it so much coverage as a directive from the Clintons.

There's the claim that he won't say the pledge of allegiance.
There's the claim that Hugo Chavez or other foreigners have been funding his campaign.
Or how about Rush Limbaugh saying repeatedly that the left is viewing Obama as the second coming or a "Christ figure"
The of course there's ObamaNation by Jerome Corsi, which has been praised by many, got all kinds of MSM attention, but is full of falsehoods and was written by an author with a very questionable record.

I'll stop for now. Honestly, I hadn't heard many of the anti-McCain stuff you put up there, and it took me about 20 minutes to get these, but there is plenty of "anti" from both sides.

Re: The Screaming Neenies Fear Palin Power

Brady — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:41:32 -0000

Randy- I meant to say that I agree that all of the quotes you cited are ridiculous, and they do anger me.

That said- I still hold to my belief that it's happening on both sides with basically equal vigor (just google "Anti-Obama Fox" and see how many links pop up with anti-obama stuff, some of it "slip ups" like the Sadam/Obama text mistake, some of it more planned out.

Anyway, we disagree, but that's how I see it.

Re: The Screaming Neenies Fear Palin Power

Brady — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:56:38 -0000

Hi editorgal- thanks for your response, much appreciated.

Randy- I guess my point was that most of your links weren't attacks launched by the MSM, but rather by Hollywood or radical leftists or bloggers. There are plenty of those kinds of attacks coming from similar sources launched at Obama.

I'll agree that Obama isn't really dealing with the Hollywood attacks, but man the right wing media (read Fox) and the right wing radio hosts, local and national are all over him. in fact, the rumors were getting so bad, that Obama's campaign decided to launch an anti-rumor website to confront them.

I'm still hearing one of the local right wing talk hosts implying that Obama might be a muslim (and Fox news is the one that kind of broke this story by bringing out that he was educated in a Madrasa but failing to point out he was also educated in a Catholic School). The Muslim rumors have tons of side rumors such as he got sworn in on the Q'ran, or the "57" states rumor, so they're dozens of rumors in one.

Then there's the whole Jeremiah Wright issue. It's odd that some people on the far right are trying to have it both ways--he's a muslim, but he also attends a church where they hate white people or Anti-America. And let's not forget that MSM was ALL OVER the Wright issue for weaks. Rush Limbaugh even said they were giving it so much coverage as a directive from the Clintons.

There's the claim that he won't say the pledge of allegiance.

There's the claim that Hugo Chavez or other foreigners have been funding his campaign.

Or how about Rush Limbaugh saying repeatedly that the left is viewing Obama as the second coming or a "Christ figure"

The of course there's ObamaNation by Jerome Corsi, which has been praised by many, got all kinds of MSM attention, but is full of falsehoods and was written by an author with a very questionable record.

I'll stop for now. Honestly, I hadn't heard many of the anti-McCain stuff you put up there, and it took me about 20 minutes to get these, but there is plenty of "anti" from both sides.

Re: The Screaming Neenies Fear Palin Power

Brady — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:41:32 -0000

Re: McCain Meltdown or Obama Blew It? The “Bail Out” and True Servant Leadership

Brady — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:02:34 -0000

Howard, I wasn't aware Obama was a supporter of Farrakhan. Do you have a citation for that?

Re: McCain Meltdown or Obama Blew It? The “Bail Out” and True Servant Leadership

Brady — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:02:34 -0000

Howard, I wasn't aware Obama was a supporter of Farrakhan. Do you have a citation for that?

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Brady — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:44:42 -0000

Why does that seem like an unnecessary declaration? Given the article/post, it seems like a very pertinenet declaration.

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Brady — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:44:42 -0000

Why does that seem like an unnecessary declaration? Given the article/post, it seems like a very pertinenet declaration.

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Brady — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:56:22 -0000

Hi Mike. I guess my problem with this is that marriage can still have definitey boundaries even if gay people are allowed to marry. I'm not sure why the logical conclusion is if we allow marriage for gays we have to abolish all marriage rules. We haven't done it any of the other times we've changed the "definition of marriage."

As for marriage being a benefit and not a right...there are a lot of things in life that are "benefits" but still fall under the issue of equality and then under the common term of rights. Let's take driving for example...it's a privelege. However, it would be unconstitutional for us to deny the privelege to drive to gays, or Christians, or women, or any other legal adult. Using the internet would be similar. We don't have the right to either of these, but we do have the right to equality and freedom from discrimination, so essentially we do have the right to drive or use the internet. Just because something is a benefit or a privelege doesn't mean we can restrict it to certain groups of people.

Re: BarackBook

Brady — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:10:04 -0000

Mike- I'm pretty sure the facebook ads are paid for by the Obama campaign and that they'd take McCain ads too if he was interested.

Re: BarackBook

Brady — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:10:53 -0000

Oops, forgot to reply directly to Mike--here goes: Mike- I'm pretty sure the facebook ads are paid for by the Obama campaign and that they'd take McCain ads too if he was interested.

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Brady — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:45:25 -0000

Mike- back then the "definitiion of marriage" WAS only between people of the same race or the same religion. It also used to be a contract that was not based in love. Just because we see marriage differently now doesn't mean that it wasn't defined that way back then or that it was just some sort of small caveat or transcendance. It was the way marriage was defined by the populace. Wrongly, but defined nonetheless.

As for your justification of gay marriage...that's YOUR justification of gay marriage...a straw man if you will. It's an easy justification to knock down with a "sky is falling" type of argument.

The only problem is that's not my justification or the justification of most pro-gay marriage folks I know. My justification is that all people ought to be able to marry the person we love, just like straight people do. Not just anyone, not everyone, not the eight people we love, just the person we love. Adding on all of those extra cases is just a way to scare the populace.

If your problems are about all of the other possibilities that arise, you should take the issue up there, not with gay marriage. If gay marriage is wrong, then it's wrong on it's face...it can't simply be wrong because of what might happen next in some realm of fear. We would have never made any social progress if we let the "sky is falling" scare stop us, because it's always been out there.

The problem with the slippery slope argument is it really has no beginning or end. If we outlaw gay marriage because of what may happen next, then we should have outlawed interracial marriage for the same reason, because the definition of marriage in law in most states (if that's not definition, I don't know what is) was two people of the same race. We didn't let the slippery slope argument stop us then because the people finally knew what was right, and we should not let it stop us now.

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Brady — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:48:43 -0000

Mike...my justification is completely different. You try to strip the justification down ro what it isn't...mine describes exactly what marriage is and should be to all people.

Regardless, I'm actually more saddened by your sexual persuasion argument. Sexual orietnation is the not the same as a "sexual persuasion." I'm honestly sad that you think it is, or at the very least think it's ok to blindly mix the two.

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Brady — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:56:22 -0000

Re: BarackBook

Brady — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:10:04 -0000

Mike- I'm pretty sure the facebook ads are paid for by the Obama campaign and that they'd take McCain ads too if he was interested.

Re: BarackBook

Brady — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:10:53 -0000

Oops, forgot to reply directly to Mike--here goes: Mike- I'm pretty sure the facebook ads are paid for by the Obama campaign and that they'd take McCain ads too if he was interested.

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Brady — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 23:45:25 -0000

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Brady — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 00:48:43 -0000

Re: Palin = Straight Talk, Biden = Double Speak?

Brady — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:54:11 -0000

Randy- It is ironic that you posted this, because I had planned to post the exact opposite post on my blog. I thought Biden was forthcoming about his views and Palin was the one that lef it unclear.

Biden's answer, to me, was clear--he supported all of the rights and priveleges that straight couples get in marriage for gay couples. However, he said marriage itself was a religious institution, and he does not want the state to alter that. He said the state should not mess with the "definitiion of marriage" but should allow civil unions of sorts to give all the benefits that come with marriage to gay couples.

Palin on the other hand never fully answered the question. When asked if she supported giving couples rights to gays, she said, "well not if..." That's not an answer. She didn't say a full yes or no, nor did she explain why if she is so against it (in the "not if" statement), then why she allowed it in her state (I know the answer, but she should have addressed it imo). Then, when Biden said that he is glad that he and Palin agreed that gay couples should get all of the rights, benefits, and priveleges that straight couples do, and the moderator said, "Governor, do you agree..." she completely dodged the question and went back to say that she does not believe in gay marriage.

Biden was upfront about what he said. Yes to the rights and benefits, no to the term marriage because he viewed it as a religious institution.

Palin was evasive...she might not agree with the rights and priveleges if it means a slippery slope, but she never gave a full no. So it's a "maybe, probably not" to the rights and benefits and it's a no to marriage. Doesn't seem like straight talk to me.

Re: Palin = Straight Talk, Biden = Double Speak?

Brady — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:52:16 -0000

Randy...I will certainly give you that, and that thought came in my head too, and I was glad about it.

And, I do not agree with Biden's stance, but I honestly thought he was more forthcoming than her.

As for Palin (shocked, really?)- let me not break it down to her 3 words:
She said she is against gay marriage--check, fully forthright

She said she is in favor of hospital visits and signing contracts between two people--not as forthright. Come on, that "signing contracts" line is REALLY vague.

Then when asked by the moderator if she is in favor of all of the rights for gay couples that straight couples get (that was the question to her, not whether she agreed with same sex marriage--can we at least admit that?) she did not answer the question. So, she was given the opportunity to answer fully forthright about what she meant by signing contracts, and she chose not to answer--vague, very vague, and not forthcoming at all.

So, she answered the marriage question, but the "benefits of marriage" question she did not.

Re: Palin = Straight Talk, Biden = Double Speak?

Brady — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:55:29 -0000

Randy-- I'll admit that my response was more about who answered the question fully and who did not, not whose stance I see as hypocritical. I expanded below on Palin and why she didn't answer the question.

As for Biden's stance--I don't agree, and yes, I find it hypocritical. But I certainly disagree with Palin's more and see it simply as a more nuanced version of Biden's. We can't say he is a hypocrite because he wants all the benefits/rights of marriage and then say she is not because she only wants some of the rights.

Anyway, sorry I didn't clearly respond to the question posed in your post--guess I went off on a tangent as to what I had planned to post on my blog rather than following your thought process. I hope that clears up my views.

Re: On Marriage Palin = Straight Talk, Biden = Double Speak?

Brady — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:54:11 -0000

Re: On Marriage Palin = Straight Talk, Biden = Double Speak?

Brady — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 19:52:16 -0000

Randy...I will certainly give you that, and that thought came in my head too, and I was glad about it.

And, I do not agree with Biden's stance, but I honestly thought he was more forthcoming than her.

As for Palin (shocked, really?)- let me not break it down to her 3 words:

She said she is against gay marriage--check, fully forthright

She said she is in favor of hospital visits and signing contracts between two people--not as forthright. Come on, that "signing contracts" line is REALLY vague.

Then when asked by the moderator if she is in favor of all of the rights for gay couples that straight couples get (that was the question to her, not whether she agreed with same sex marriage--can we at least admit that?) she did not answer the question. So, she was given the opportunity to answer fully forthright about what she meant by signing contracts, and she chose not to answer--vague, very vague, and not forthcoming at all.

So, she answered the marriage question, but the "benefits of marriage" question she did not.

Re: On Marriage Palin = Straight Talk, Biden = Double Speak?

Brady — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 19:55:29 -0000

Re: Stunning Defeat for Anti-Marriage Resolution in Ft. Lauderdale

Brady — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:49:03 -0000

Randy- glad to see your comment about the word embarassment, thanks.

I was surprised to see no one showed up on the pro-gay side too. If you didn't know, is it possible that the word didn't get out to the pro-gay folks that this was even happening?

Re: “Coming Out” … Career Move or No Big Deal? Homosexuality in Hollywood

Brady — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:56:55 -0000

Hey Jay- I agree with your points here about A-list vs. B or C list stars coming out completely. I'd like to comment about stars keeping their personal lives private, though. The problem is that there are two different standards--a straight star that keeps his private life private would still do things like take a date to an award show or go to dinner with a date, or maybe even a bar, and it wouldn't be that big of a deal. He wouldn't be announcing his relationship to the world--just dating like a normal person. However, if a gay star did that and wasn't out of the closet to the world, the tabloids would pick up on it, and all of the sudden his burden would have to be to never been seen in public with a date of the same sex...not just not talk about it publicly. I don't know, I like the idea of keeping private lives private, but I think the burden on a gay star to do that goes way beyond what it is for a straight star.

Re: Stunning Defeat for Anti-Marriage Resolution in Ft. Lauderdale

Brady — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:49:03 -0000

Re: “Coming Out” … Good Career Move or No Big Deal? Homosexuality in Hollywood

Brady — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:56:55 -0000

Re: Gay Marriage in Connecticut - White House Predicts Need for Federal Marriage Amendment

Brady — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:52:02 -0000

Randy- my understanding is that the FMA would seek to say that federally, marriage is only between one man and one woman. If the main reasoning behind a FMA is to avoid the interstate conflict brought about by the US constitution, why not have an amendment that is more like DOMA, saying that if marriages are legal in one state, that doesn't mean they are legal in another.

I'm against both options, but I feel like saying the FMA would avoid this interstate conflict is a bit simplistic to what a FMA really means and would do.

Re: Gay Marriage in Connecticut - White House Predicts Need for Federal Marriage Amendment

Brady — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:09:32 -0000

Randy- is that "something's got you flustered lately" a reference to my comment over at Jay's blog last week, because yeah, that was a bad one. Actually--I STILL don't have cable or internet at home after the hurricane and I'm left to read blogs and such in a much more limited time frame than I'm used to...maybe that's it.

Regardless, on this one, I saw your caveat. I still feel the argument is too simplistic. For me it's kind of like the argument you brought up about the gay activists saying a state constitutional amendment isn't necessary because the law already exists. You're right...the real reason is they don't want the amendment, and the "law already exists" argument isn't covering the totality of the issue.

For the FMA, anti-gay marriage folks simply want to ban gay marriage....avoiding the interstate conflict isn't the reason or even a main reason, it's an argument that isn't covering the totality of the issue.

It's really similar to the "law exists' argument of pro-gay marriage folks--both arguments are kind of watered down ways to to try to convince people one way or the other. If you're in the middle on this issue, It's a lot easier to say you voted for FMA to avoid interstate confusion and battles than to say you voted against gay marriage. Conversely, it's a lot easier to say you voted because the amendment was redundant than because you wanted to ban gay marriage.

Re: Gay Marriage in Connecticut - White House Predicts Need for Federal Marriage Amendment

Brady — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:52:02 -0000

Re: Gay Marriage in Connecticut - White House Predicts Need for Federal Marriage Amendment

Brady — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:09:32 -0000

Re: Prop 8 Worker Suffers Physical Assault

Brady — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:51:49 -0000

Unbelievably sad. Why some people resort to violence is beyond me.

Re: Prop 8 Worker Suffers Physical Assault

Brady — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:51:49 -0000

Unbelievably sad. Why some people resort to violence is beyond me.

Re: Joe the Plumber - A Phenom

Brady — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:34:03 -0000

I'm in the vacation industry and we're still going strong...just saying!

How about Brady the Vacation Guy??

Re: Joe the Plumber - A Phenom

Brady — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:34:03 -0000

I'm in the vacation industry and we're still going strong...just saying!

How about Brady the Vacation Guy??

Re: More Marriage Musings

Brady — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:40:25 -0000

Hi MD. I'm sorry you feel that being gay is the worship of the self. I understand that not everyone understands or agrees wtih homosexuality or same sex marriage, but I can say from a personal standpoint that calling homosexuality "worship of the self" strikes me as a shallow or limited understanding of the feelings, emotions, and attractions that are involved. You may not care to listen, but I'd be happy to give a perspective of what being gay means to a gay person. Not so I can convince you that being gay is ok, but more so I can help show that your understanding of what homosexuality is possibly off base.

Re: Joe the Plumber - A Phenom

Brady — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:48:02 -0000

Never been to Norway, but if we're talking non-tropical plus photo safari, how about Alaska ;-) And don't worry guys, I'm tons of fun IRL, not nearly the confrontational Brady you've come to know and love online!

Re: More Marriage Musings

Brady — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 06:40:25 -0000

Re: Joe the Plumber - A Phenom

Brady — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 06:48:02 -0000

Re: Florida International University Replaces Proper Debate with Hateful Infotainment

Brady — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:25:28 -0000

Randy, I just thought of something...what's going on with you guys in Florida? First a city council meeting doesn't manage to draw a single person to speak against the marriage amendment, and now this University can't manage to get a real group to speak in favor of it?!?

Ok, seriously, I'm just kidding, but it did strike me as rather odd.

Re: Florida International University Replaces Proper Debate with Hateful Infotainment

Brady — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:25:28 -0000

Re: Letter From A Christian in 2012 - Focus Action Letter

Brady — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 23:55:32 -0000

Hey Randy- I responded to someone on my blog very briefly about a statement he made kind of along these lines. You can probably guess I disagree with this letter. My view of letters like this is that it's too easy to do. If we always make "sky is falling" type of claims, there really doesn't have to be proof to back them up. We can always point to the future and say, "well it hasn't happened yet, but it will...give it more time (again)." I'd simply rather argue actualities than theoreticals, especially when the theoreticals (to me) seem more based in fear than real precedent.

Re: Letter From A Christian in 2012 - Focus Action Letter

Brady — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:55:32 -0000

Re: Gay Couple Commit Hate Speech … or Free Speech?

Brady — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:48:38 -0000

It is absolutely never appropriate to have a representation of someone hanging in a noose. Never. I can't believe these guys are trying to defend themselves.

Re: Doing My Part - McCain/Palin Bumper Sticker

Brady — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:49:50 -0000

Believe it or not, I'm a bit shy to make it known who/what I am voting for among strangers (you guys don't count ;-) So, I haven't really ever considered putting a bumper sticker on my car. Not that I have anything against it...

Re: Letter From A Christian in 2012 - Focus Action Letter

Brady — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:03:29 -0000

Jay (and kind of Randy too)- I'm not going to get into the middle of yall's discussion here, but I wanted to make one small point. Jay- you mentioned that you try to be as professional as possible when discussing things with Randy, which is a nice gesture.

However, I've found (both online and in actual professional life now that I am old and in that world) that over email/online, a "professional" tone can often come off condescending or rude to the reader. He or she doesn't exactly know what your intentions are, so if you are arguing against someone and using a tone you think to be professional, the reader may see the argumentation and assume an attacking or confrontational tone since there is no inflection or tone of voice involved.

I know I'm not immune to coming off mean or rude from time to time, but I think generally I don't (and I try hard not to). Maybe using a tone that leans more towards "friendly" than professional would work better when arguing/debating over the internet. That way your reader knows you are arguing/debating actual points of the conversation rather than taking shots at him or her personal.

Re: Letter From A Christian in 2012 - Focus Action Letter

Brady — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:59:03 -0000

Hey Randy. I get what you are saying, but with the Westboro example, it's easier for me to go there since they are already so far out there.

With Obama, the stretch is a lot bigger imo. You might not agree on that point (well I'm sure you think it is a bigger stretch than Felps, just you still think it is less of a stretch to get from an Obama Presidency to the letter than I do).

Anyway, I see the point, I just think the jump from a presidency to those conclusions is too big of a jump to make.

Re: Christian Photographer Fined for Refusing Gay Wedding

Brady — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:14:12 -0000

Lorin- the only problem with that is when the market did get to decide, back when black people weren't allowed to go into certain places, the market decided incorrectly--that it agreed black people shouldn't be able to go to those places.

This ruling is, of course, separate, but just saying "let the market decide" could be a bit too simplistic, unless we are ready for the market to tell black people they can't go to certain places anymore.

Re: Gay Couple Commit Hate Speech … or Free Speech?

Brady — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:48:38 -0000

It is absolutely never appropriate to have a representation of someone hanging in a noose. Never. I can't believe these guys are trying to defend themselves.

Re: Doing My Part - McCain/Palin Bumper Sticker

Brady — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:49:50 -0000

Re: Letter From A Christian in 2012 - Focus Action Letter

Brady — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:03:29 -0000

Re: Letter From A Christian in 2012 - Focus Action Letter

Brady — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:59:03 -0000

Re: Christian Photographer Fined for Refusing Gay Wedding

Brady — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 01:14:12 -0000

Re: Christian Photographer Fined for Refusing Gay Wedding

Brady — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:18:46 -0000

Sorry Randy, I keep forgetting! On that note, though, it doesn't email me when I get responses (which is why I sometimes miss them). Any ideas why?

Re: Christian Photographer Fined for Refusing Gay Wedding

Brady — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 11:59:09 -0000

Thanks for figuring this out guys. Ellie- Yes, I believe that's why I never responded, especially if the post is old. Hope everyone is having a good Sunday.

Re: Christian Photographer Fined for Refusing Gay Wedding

Brady — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 19:59:09 -0000

Thanks for figuring this out guys. Ellie- Yes, I believe that's why I never responded, especially if the post is old. Hope everyone is having a good Sunday.

Re: Attacking People Instead of Principles - Far Left Hate Mongers

Brady — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 13:05:48 -0000

Randy-- I see your point, but I don't think most in the far left would like to be associated with these antics any more than the far right would like to be included alongside people that call gays names.

For that matter, there have been quite a few (even very public) figures that have gone out of the way to use false and disparaging words against gay folks. Sadly, it really goes both ways.

Re: Christian Photographer Fined for Refusing Gay Wedding

Brady — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 13:11:50 -0000

Thanks, Jonathan!

Re: Attacking People Instead of Principles - Far Left Hate Mongering

Brady — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 21:05:48 -0000

Re: Christian Photographer Fined for Refusing Gay Wedding

Brady — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 21:11:50 -0000

Thanks, Jonathan!

Re: Of Gay Activists, “Rights” and Common Ground?

Brady — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:11:56 -0000

I would like to point out, for the record, that some very high profile African Americans, many of who were instrumental in the civil rights movement, disagree with LaShawn Barber's take.

And on that note, I think her call for violence, even with the caveat, deserves condemnation rather than exaltation. I don't see this as the same as the civil rights movement, but to call violence, even hypothetically, on those that do gets us nowhere.

Re: Of Gay Activists, “Rights” and Common Ground?

Brady — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:11:56 -0000

Re: http://randythomas.org/2008/11/13/h8-against-prop-8/

Brady — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:53:26 -0000

Any vandalism that has occurred is horrible. However, there have been tens of thousands of people demonstrating across the state, and to some degree across the nation, and the huge, huge majority have been peaceful. This movement, as a whole has been peaceful, and all of the official and non-official messages have been about peacefully demonstrating. Blaming a handful of vandals doesn't seem fair.

As for blacklisting--let's not forge that the actual campaign of Yes on 8 attempted to blackmail several companies for supporting No on 8. It's kind of hard for me to accept Michelle calling one of them out and not the other.

Re: H8 Against Prop 8

Brady — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:53:26 -0000

Re: http://randythomas.org/2008/11/13/h8-against-prop-8/

Brady — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:19:17 -0000

Hi Randy,

Point taken about Michelle, although I wasn't really looking for her acceptance in the first place. Just making a point in response to hers.

As for your reference to El Coyote--the gay folks in that example are doing exactly the same as the "Yes" folks were. The Yes people sent a letter to "No" contributors and said if you don't give us money too, we will tell the world, and your business will suffer. It's exactly the same thing except the gay group didn't mail a threat first.

The Yes group was "threatening the livelihood" of those companies too. And really, for the record, it makes sense that gays would decide not to eat at a restaurant that holds opposite values of them. Christan groups do much the same thing--see boycotts of Disney, Pepsi, Ford, etc. etc.

Re: H8 Against Prop 8

Brady — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:19:17 -0000

Re: Thought Cloud For November 26, 2008

Brady — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:00:00 -0000

A comment on the Gay Patriot link. Gay may he be, he's still off on this argument in my opinion.

I think we should also look at Prop 8 as eliminating the right to due process and equal protection, rather than the "right to marry". The right to marry might be new, but those other rights are firmly written in the constitution, and this amendment certainly circumvents them.

The NAACP and other minority-based organizations that wrote in on this case on behalf of the "no on 9 crowd" have a very good point--if we establish that there is no "right to marry" (which in and of itself is a red herring--we don't have a "right" to do almost anything in our daily lives--driving, watching a movie, surfing the internet, etc.), then the minority become at mercy of the will of the people.

There is basically nothing from stopping the majority from writing in a ban on interracial marriage as an amendment to the constitution. Obviously it wouldn't pass now, but if supporters of the ban had thought of it back in the 1950's and 60's, they certainly would have been able to pass it from state to state, and then where would we be?

Sorry, but I have much more of a problem with tinkering with our constitutions than I do with tinkering with marriage, especially when tinkering with the consituttion has real, documentable risks, while tinkering with marriage only has theoretical "chicken little" risks.

Re: Thought Cloud For November 26, 2008

Brady — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:00:00 -0000

Randy, as far as the racial comparison is involved, I wasn't comparing homosexuality to race--just a minority group to another. And, I'm not the one that brought that issue to the court, the racial groups (NAACP and others) did. It's not a strawman argument--it has real correlations that can't be 100% discounted just because racial groups are not exactly the same.

Regarding your point of gay marriage leading to the further decline of marriage--that's really the straw argument here. If you look at nearly any westernized country over the period you provide, all of them saw a decline in marriage rates and an increase in divorce, single parent families, etc., including the ones that do not have gay marriage or unions. In fact, comparing the US (before any type of gay marriage came about) over that period to the European countries shows almost the exact same decline of marriage, so blaming that on gay marriage simply isn't fair or topical.

That's my problem when we are talking about "chicken little" arguments--all of the evidence that comes forth "mom and dad are better off to raise kids," "marriage is declining in Europe as a result of gay marriage, etc." aren't the full story. Mom and dads are shown to be better in studies than one mom or one dad, but no study has shown them to be better than two dads or two moms. Marriage is declining where gay marriage came about, but also where it didn't too (and that kind of leads me to my last point--maybe we should spend the $72 million we spent on Prop 8 trying to actually help the failing state of marriage as it is--Ok, so that one is kind of a strawman, but seriously, can you imagine how many better things we could have spent $72 million on)?

Anyway, thanks for letting me always be a thorn in your side Randy. I honestly like the debates. I'll try to make sure I'm not always "that guy."

Re: Thought Cloud For November 26, 2008

Brady — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:33:14 -0000

Re: Spam Flood and Registered Comments

Brady — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 02:00:00 -0000

I know, I feel like I'm on the inside now!

Ok, next (per Randy) to get a picture...

Re: Why I Read Gay Blogs

Brady — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 02:00:00 -0000

I haven't ever heard that asinine might be a cuss word.

And as for the following gay blogs thing--I agree with Julie, I kind of feel like your career would almost require you to keep updated on what the gay side of the aisle is saying, thinking.

Re: Why I Read Gay Blogs

Brady — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 02:00:00 -0000

Guys, I'm much too lazy to be posting pictures! I'll make it my goal within the next week or so, though--I feel like the only grey icon left!

Re: Same Sex Setback by Rolling Stone

Brady — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 02:00:00 -0000

Learn something new every day. Thanks!

Re: Same Sex Setback by Rolling Stone

Brady — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:00:00 -0000

Thanks, Randy!

Re: Why I Read Gay Blogs

Brady — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 02:00:00 -0000

Done and done...

Re: The Gospel According to Newsweek … Not Much Better than Jack’s Version

Brady — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 02:00:00 -0000

I just wrote a response, but it got lost. Boo!

Anyway, I don't think that just because Miller brings up divorce means she's dropping the gay marriage argument together. The divorce argument is not meant to be a tangent, but rather to point out what she sees as a hypocrisy in the biblical opposition to gay marriage. It's too convenient to just write that point off as a non-sequitir than to address the problems it highlights--that we are following two different definitions here--a biblical one for gay marriage, and a worldly one for remarriage and divorce. Her point isn't necessarily that because we divorce and remarriage we must have gay marriage, but instead that if opposition to gay marriage is biblical, how do we explain our approval of divorce (actually more apporpriately remarriage).

Also, I have trouble swallowing Mohler's comment that Newsweek is posting this article because, "The national news media are collectively embarrassed by the passage of Proposition 8 in California. Gay rights activists are publicly calling on the mainstream media to offer support for gay marriage, arguing that the media let them down in November." I haven't seen any notion that the national media was "embarrassed." And, while the gay activists are surely calling on the media, I haven't see the claim that the media let them down in November either. The claim has a nice ring to it, but it seems like more speculation than fact.

Re: The Gospel According to Newsweek … Not Much Better than Jack’s Version

Brady — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 02:00:00 -0000

Well, I don't think anyone is really saying divorce is "ok" but gay marriage isn't (and I don't think the author is either). What I'm saying is that people's arguments are inconsistent--they are claiming a biblical argument against gay marriage, but they are not applying a biblical argument against divorce (really remarriage would be more appropriate, but still no biblical argument applied). So, I'm just saying the arguments aren't consistent. If I'm against stealing, I need to be against shoplifting or burglary and white collar theft. I can't just be against one or the other.

I see your point about having to pick and choose a battle, but that doesn't mean the inconsistency isn't there. To me it's just pretty glaring that gay marriage gets picked on bc most people don't want to get gay married, and remarriage at least has the ability to affect almost everyone. Why would I limit my own right to remarry? I wouldn't, so I kind of ignore that side of it, legally. It's not that both should be right or wrong...it's just amazing to me that people have managed to slide the remarriage debate under the carpet so easily.

I agree that your example of gay activists trying to discredit your chosen path is wrong. From what I can tell, this is held on to by some gay activists, not most gays out there. That kind of leads into your next point, really...activists are activists. And unfortunately what's best for them isn't always what's best for the gay community or (maybe more importantly) individual gays (this goes for activists in most groups, too).

Re: Jon Stewart vs. Mike Huckabee on Gay Marriage

Brady — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:00:00 -0000

Hey, Randy. I posted this on my blog too. I don't watch Jon Stewart much, but happened to catch it in bed last night.

I don't think you'll agree ;-) but I was particularly moved by this quote from Jon, "I think it’s a travesty that people have forced someone who is gay to have to ‘make their case’ that they deserve the same basic rights."

I also enjoyed the debate. Maybe I spend too much time watching Bill O'Reilly or Hardball to realize that people on different sides of the aisle can actually have a civil discussion.

Re: Jon Stewart vs. Mike Huckabee on Gay Marriage

Brady — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 02:00:00 -0000

Hey Randy. You better be careful, with responses like this, we may just be bff's pretty soon.

Seriously, though, I appreciate your understanding of where I'm coming from on my comment. I also think your point about having to defend marriage is astute (and would've actually been a great response for Mike). I disagree, of course ;-), but it's a nice rebuttal.

Re: San Francisco Values Fly Right Out the Window

Brady — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:00:00 -0000

Randy-- I kind of feel like this is apples and oranges here. The gay community was full supporting The Coyote--going there every day, even having a specific gay day that the community basically set up. They chose to stop supporting that restaurant and decided to eat at places that did not oppose what they held as important values.

On the other hand, the San Francisco city is not doing anything to prevent the Coyote from continuing to profit and run a business.

The gay community is not and has not supported the Emirates Airlines, so there is no way for them to stop supporting something that they never supported. The city hasn't taken a stance here yet (it looks like according to their laws they might need to get some clarification), but much like the Coyote, they are letting the business run without getting involved.

Seems like a stretch to me on this one. Maybe it's just me.

Re: San Francisco Values Fly Right Out the Window

Brady — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 02:00:00 -0000

Randy and BT- my main answer to both of you is that you are up in arms about this boycott, and both forget, or give a pass to, the threat of the exact same thing by the Yes on 8 people. Sure, the Yes on 8 people never went through with their threat (because they won), but they threatened small business owners that they had found out had donated to No on 8 that they would publicize their names if the small business owners did not make equal contributions to their side. So, BT, if Evangelicals have never done it before (which I'm not entirely conceding, but still), they threatened to do it in this very same campaign. They sent a letter with this threat from the official Yes on 8 campaign, signed by it's leaders. They didn't go through with it essentially because their side won.

But come on, that's the exact same thing as this No on 8 stuff, exactly with what Randy is referring to about extorting (although earlier when I brought this up Randy said it wasn't extorting. Not sure how the gay boycott is extorting when the written threat by the Yes on 8 folks wasn't). And, the Yes on 8 threat came from THE TOP, the Coyote boycott just came from individuals that didn't like what they saw. There was no organized threat from the officials of No on 8 or any other major gay organization. This was just people mad because they felt betrayed.

But, to answer your question Randy--no it's not right, on either side, to extort someone. Yes, it is acceptable to stop patronizing a business that works against the values you hold dear (and really, this woman's life was 'ruined' because people stopped patronizing her business, not because of one day of protests in front of her restaurant). But, it's not right to extort anyone. But, I also disagree with your accusation that they gay side is the only one acting inappropriately in this whole ordeal.

Re: San Francisco Values Fly Right Out the Window

Brady — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:00:00 -0000

Hey BT. Here you go: the article: http://www.cbs8.com/story.php?id=144185#, and the letter: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/btb/wp-content....

Re: San Francisco Values Fly Right Out the Window

Brady — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:00:00 -0000

Hey BT. Thanks for commenting again. First things first--yes, there are definitely Mexican food restaurants in Houston known for so-so food and strong margaritas (I mean, it IS Texas!). But really, it's the atmosphere that makes those places happen, for me at least.

Ok, on to the other stuff-- I have used city search (the mexican food place I am thinking of in Houston wins their little award for best margarita in town every year, lol). Thanks for the suggestion!

Oh, second- you said "you guys" in your response once. Just to be clear--I'm certainly gay and am mostly on the gay folks' side on this one, but I don't 100% support what is going on here, and I haven't personally protested anyone nor have I supported any of these protests. Anyway, just wanted to clear that up (if that came off as mean, I completely didn't intend it to).

As for people writing bad reviews of El Coyote as a result of Prop 8--shameful. Like I said, I don't think the protests are appropriate here, and lying about a place because you don't agree with the owner is pretty low.

Now as for your most important point about having gay friends and also believing in traditional marriage. I certainly think that the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. I can guarantee I have friends that voted to amend the Texas Constitution to ban gay marriage and civily unions of all sorts. My dad and step-mom are against gay marriage, but I still have a very close relationship with them. Don't get me wrong--I think they are wrong on this marriage issue. And, it hurts me that they hold the opinion they do--I feel like they have chosen a theoretical concept over what is for me a very personal issue. Actually, let me clarify-I was hurt at first, now I'd say it's just a disappointment. But, people are disappointed with their loved ones for all kinds of things all of the time. It's part of being close to someone. So, I completely support your ability to disagree on gay marriage from your friends, gay or straight.

I think that's separate from El Coyote and these other boycotts, though. With a business owner, I have no idea what her personal convictions are. She can say that she loves gay people, but I don't know her personally. For all I know, she could actually support reenacting laws to criminalize homosexuality. I don't think that's the case here, but when there is money involved (losing money for her), it's hard for me to trust a perfect stranger. So, I have to go off of what I have seen--that she donated money to a campaign that was diametrically opposed to my personal beliefs. Basically, what I am saying is that I would cut my loved ones some slack because I know their motives, but with a stranger that is profiting off of my patronage, I'm not as willing to cut the slack so easily. Also, I think there's a difference between believing one way and voting one way, and actually monetarily supporting a campaign that I believe was untruthful and hurtful, so that would play a role in my decision not to go back as well.

I was listening to a conservative talk radio show on the radio that I listen to every day on the way to work. One of the hosts owns a very popular steak restaurant here in town. I obviously disagree with some of the stuff they say, but they keep me entertained. They've talked about gay issues before, always with viewpoints opposite mine, and said they are just against gay marriage and special rights, but they love gay people like anyone else. Basic stuff. Today, though, they were talking about Obama inviting a LGBT band to play in the inaugural parage. While reading Obama's invitation to the band, the host and restaurant owner said at one point, "yuck", and "I feel like I need gloves to even read this." This was a letter to this gay group from Obama, so it was obviously the opposite of sexually charged.

Long-winded much? Ok, the reason for that little story (that actually did happen this morning), is that at face value, this guy says that he doesn't dislike gays, he is just against marriage and special rights. Fine, I can probably get over that. However, when something like this slips out, it shows his true colors. It's a similar thing with Marjorie from El Coyote--I don't know her, so I don't know what her true convictions are. Maybe she likes profiting from gay clientele but has the "yuck" view like this radio host? Anyway, that's why I've come up with my conclusion that I probably wouldn't go back. People can hold differing views and be close friends. But, friends and patronizing a business are separate issues for me.

Re: San Francisco Values Fly Right Out the Window

Brady — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 02:00:00 -0000

Hey BT. I have to say that I smiled while reading this post. No worries on the "you guys" thing. I kind of figured it was more of a slip of the tongue than an actual equating (and I do it too, sometimes). I just wanted to be sure I was being clear about my distintion from the protesters.

If Im in LA, you are on for Vegan Ice cream (so I shouldn't be scared?). I'm guessing it's not at Ben and Jerry's then?

As for your two substantial comments--It sounds like we are on the same page on both of them. How good of a feeling is that?! Thanks for your comments. I really have enjoyed this conversation :-)

Re: San Francisco Values Fly Right Out the Window

Brady — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 02:00:00 -0000

Thanks for the video comment, Randy! How fun. I'm going to have to try this sometime!

Re: Sacramento Bee Highlights HIS Ministry and Quotes Alan Chambers

Brady — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:39:37 -0000

Hey Mike and Randy. Other than the tag-line, I found the article to be fairly even-handed. They talked to Alan and Dr. Throckmorton and both clips from them seemed fair from my viewpoint. Am I just too wrapped up in rabid liberalism ;-) to see the slant?

Re: Is Adam Lambert Chasing Off My Friends?

Brady — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:37:43 -0000

Hey Randy, I'm also still your facebook friend. Although, it's not the AI commentary that I typically disagree with anyway ;-)
First off, let me tell you that I really agree with your AI takes in this post. I especially agree that I see all of the guys you listed as potential winners, with Anoop, Scott, and Lil as having the most to prove. Kris is my favorite. I love that singer-song writer, acoustic thing he has going on.
I will admit, Adam has not been my favorite. I agree with this statement by you, "His androgynous seductive weirdness is immature and might be an interesting study in narcissistic projection. That's the only thing about "him" as a performer that I don't like and actually think is a distraction from the purity of his talent."
I think he's really good, but just a bit over the top for me. However, last night, I found myself saying that I had to see what Adam would do before I stopped watching, so I guess he kind of has me hooked. And then he killed it last night, so maybe he's converting me.

Re: Is Adam Lambert Chasing Off My Friends?

Brady — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:06:59 -0000

Ellie, you're on! If you want to add me, just email me so I can give you my top secret real name. If you want me to add you, just give me yours ;-)

Re: Is Adam Lambert Chasing Off My Friends?

Brady — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:09:13 -0000

Thanks Randy, I knew you'd feel that way, even if you might just have too many friends to know who I am. Well, that and that Brady is just my blog name. I put my real name on my blog once, but I'm one of those people that is scared of pasting my real name on the internet.
Anyway, just so you know who I am, I'll say hi next time I'm on ;-)

Re: Is Adam Lambert Chasing Off My Friends?

Brady — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:23:06 -0000

Oops, spelled my own name wrong!

Re: Love Won Out Ad Rejected - Deemed “Offensive”

Brady — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:54:20 -0000

Hey Randy. I didn't realize you guys were going to be in Texas this weekend.
Quick comment on the ad--if they are running ads for strip clubs and not for something like this, I think they should at least admit what they are doing (although, do major papers run ads for strip clubs? I thought that was more of the Village Voice type papers.).
On a separate note--I used to live in San Antonio (went to college there). Isn't it called the San Antonio Express-News (not the News-Express?)

Re: Love Won Out Ad Rejected - Deemed “Offensive”

Brady — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:57:02 -0000

I didn't realize you didn't go to the LWO conferences anymore. I bet that helps make your life a bit more calm. I imagine those things can get very hectic with all the planning and stuff.
Did my own research--it is the San Antonio Express-News. Didn't see the other name. Probably just a small oversight. It happens to the best of us.

Re: New Hampshire Legalizes Homosexual Marriage

Brady — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:04:14 -0000

Hi Randy- obviously not your numbers, but I wonder where CitizenLink came up with the 64% number for New Hampshire residents believing one man and one woman should be the legal definition of marriage. I haven't seen anything close to that. It'd be nice if they'd quote a source for further investigation when bringing up numbers like that. Heck, it'd be nice if all media folks did.

Re: New Hampshire Legalizes Homosexual Marriage

Brady — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 22:17:54 -0000

Hey Randy. Wow, thanks! Good to see you too!

Re: New Hampshire Legalizes Homosexual Marriage

Brady — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:22:37 -0000

Thanks Randy. This article: (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...) lists the question a bit differently. It says it got the question from the ED of Cornerstone, but I couldn't find the poll on Conerstone's website. The article says the question was, ""This survey concerns a new law the state Legislature just passed that will affect marriage in New Hampshire. Do you agree that marriage between only one man and one woman should be legal in New Hampshire?''.

The way the word only is set there is pretty odd. In that placement, it makes it sound like they are asking if marriage between a man and a woman should be legal, not if it should be the only legal option. Maybe that's why there was such a difference between this survey and the others that came out around the same time.

Re: Are Gay Christians Really Saved?

Brady — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:55:16 -0000

Hi Randy- I love this line, "Yet, again, there is so much more to life, and Christianity, than sexuality. I believe, again humbly submitted opinion alert, both sides need to catch that vision of Life more broadly," and I think it actually ties back in to your idea that one of the two of you (the gay Christian) would be surprised when they got to heaven. The reason being that I think you're right--someone's going to be right and wrong in this situation, but then again, in the grand scheme of things, I think most Christians (gay or not) would be surprised to hear how many other things they were wrong about too.

Lawrence- I see your point and I've certainly heard it before. My question is whether you are looking at your statement that, "In other words, to claim Christ as Lord AND Savior, & to then claim that you choose to participate in something which is antithetical to the teachings of Yeshua" is broad enough. Man, if we had to judge everyone based on people that choose to participate in someting antithetical to the Bible, would anyone be able to make the cut? I'm just worried that your comment is singling out one group, one sin, and not realizing the pass it may imply to those that don't deal with that particular attraction/sexuality/identity.

Re: Are Gay Christians Really Saved?

Brady — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:25:09 -0000

Hi Joe. I understand where you are coming from and can appreciate your conclusion. After reading your comment, though, I'm left wondering if the issue of sexual sins being more important or more serious than other sins is a settled issue for you. In reading your response, you single out sexual sins. I wonder if your response would be the same if you took out the word sexual there?

Re: Turning 40 is Odd

Brady — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:51:27 -0000

Happy birthday, Randy!!

Re: Is Adam Lambert Chasing Off My Friends?

Brady — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:37:43 -0000

Re: Is Adam Lambert Chasing Off My Friends?

Brady — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:06:59 -0000

Ellie, you're on! If you want to add me, just email me so I can give you my top secret real name. If you want me to add you, just give me yours ;-)

Re: Is Adam Lambert Chasing Off My Friends?

Brady — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:09:13 -0000

Re: Is Adam Lambert Chasing Off My Friends?

Brady — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:23:06 -0000

Oops, spelled my own name wrong!

Re: Love Won Out Ad Rejected – Deemed "Offensive"

Brady — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:54:20 -0000

Re: Love Won Out Ad Rejected – Deemed "Offensive"

Brady — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:57:02 -0000

Re: Are Gay Christians Really Saved?

Brady — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:55:16 -0000

Re: Are Gay Christians Really Saved?

Brady — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:25:09 -0000