Pissing off the "Right"

D_Sheffield Thongbynder

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Posts
2,020
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
Stronzo said:
John,

Here's how I feel about it.

If they sign it they ought to have read it thoroughly first and known it was going to be a matter of public record. It was right there for them to read. I saw a copy of the petition too. What rights of theirs are being violated? Their right to ignorance only I'd warrant. They simply want to deny more of the rights they already take for granted to us foolish superfluous fags.

KnowThyNeighbor is an activist site and it and other mindful organizations like it will, I dare say, end this shit once and for all.

Beyond that why wouldn't these ardent detractors have the courage of their conviction if indeed they can substantiate them? I say (much as Zora has suggested about pms here) that if you're gonna write it? Own it.

But beyond all that it illustrates the cowardice of those who signed and have taken issue with the thing being published. As DC said. I'd rather they walked right up to me and said "hey Stronzo. You know I like you and what's-his-name that guy you fuck. But let's get real. My marriage is seen as legitimate in the eyes of God. You're second rate. Surely you know that, don't you?"

Then I could just punch their lights out. Done.

But most telling of all is the fact that the 4 people (signers of that petition) to whom I've sent that link who were purported friends of mine not a single one of them has written me to explain how they could think of me in such a marginalized way. Where's the courage in that? Where's the fairness in that? These fuckers want to kick me to the curb and then make nice as they say "oh aren't you two adorable together".:rolleyes:

The fuck they will.

I've been accused, during my hiatus from this site, as having an "agenda" by several. It's right there in that "Stronzo's been banned" thread. It's true too. I do have one. So does my ex-brother-in-law's wife who signed that nasty prohibitive petition. But unlike her I'm willing to stand behind my thoughts and actions and support them with reason and fairness on my best days.

Friends and colleagues? Let's face it head-on: We all have an agenda. It's just how able we are to legitimize that agenda that's really in play here.

Lex?

I just walked off the beach..........:redface:



I think Matthew Shepherd would probably disagree with that statement as would those who took a hatchet to the face last February at "Puzzles" the gay bar near metropolitan Boston.

Stronzo, by gay bashing I didn't mean manhandling them; I meant vilifying gays, denying them rights because of "inferior status, " etc.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you say above. You're right: Most people will not stand behind their opinions in public, but they will still hold them and find some way, probably much worse than signing a document, to express them. I'd rather a homophobe sign a petition to show his antipathy to gays that beat him up. In all honesty, Stronzo, other than finding out where you stood with those so-called friends and a few family members, what do you think was accomplished by that exposure of the petition? IMO, all it accomplished was that a bunch more people will be even angrier and intolerant because they feel a sense of betrayal (justified ot not). That is not an effective means towards enlightenment.
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
134
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
COLJohn said:
In all honesty, Stronzo, other than finding out where you stood with those so-called friends and a few family members, what do you think was accomplished by that exposure of the petition?

One word and you used it yourself: EXPOSURE


That is not an effective means towards enlightenment.

Most of the idiots don't even know the meaning of the word 'enlightenment' John. That's just the problem. Sure I'm an elitist snob but we're dealing with a great many dim bulbs here.

The only thing they'll really understand is exposure. And remember I live in the Commonwealth John. Friends and I were having this very conversation in Provincetown last week and the ripple effect of this thing is monstrous.

Maybe you'd have to live it to understand my point John but I hope you do. Yours is a friendship I value up with the best of them on this board and it's imperative you know that gay bashing isn't the innuendo-esque stuff you speak of more often than not. It's vile, hateful, and in your face. I've witnessed it only yesterday even in old Massachusetts as I sat waiting at a stop light and watched adolescent schoolboys say things like "what are you .. some kind of fag? Fuck you you queer!".

Them's fightin' words to those boys. They think their fucking virility is at stake. Time it was ended. No, it's well beyond that time.

This shit's pervasive John. I don't know how to convey to you the sense of mild victory that seeing these bastards without any backbone who'd deny me my Constitutional rights squirm a bit gives me.

High time.
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
I think the issue here is whether we agree that petitions addressed to public bodies (i.e. legislatures) are public.

I happen to know they are. Any document that is used in debate in parliament is entered into the public record, absent considerations such as "national security". I canvassed a couple of IM buddies and they seemed to realize that petitions to government were public, too. That somewhat reassured me that I wasn't basing my argument on an obscure fact ("petitions=public") that no one else knew. Still, I suppose that quite a few people don't know.

Interestingly, I think any outrage over the publication of the signatories (parenthetically, has there been?) can be laid at the feet of those who organized the petition in the first place. They knew - or ought to have known - that the list would be in the public domain. They ought to have informed those they canvassed for signatures. I wonder if they didn't, in order to induce more people to sign? :rolleyes:
 

dolf250

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Posts
769
Media
0
Likes
26
Points
238
Age
34
Location
The Great White North
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I tend to agree with Col_John on this one. While the names ought to be public putting them up on a website is hard to justify. This goes for all petitions. While the one in question is related to gay marriage I would not want to see any of them up there. I pretty much say what I feel, so I do not think anybody would be shocked to see my name on various petitions, but if confronted with having signed ANY petition I would tell the inquiring party to piss off.


Having said that, if KTN is just doing a public service I find it interesting to see that only certain petitions make it into their database. Perhaps a petition calling on the president to allow gay marriage should also be posted with names. I know there are many who would not mind their names being made public on either side, but to be posting all of them would lead to far fewer names on any petition. Do you really think that the majority of people who support gay marriage would want their support plastered on a public billboard any more than ones who oppose it would?


Now to state my choice publicly; you would not find my name on a petition calling for or wanting to ban gay marriage. My personal choice has become civil unions for ALL and let the church perform “marriages.” There are enough liberal churches that there would be no exclusion of any group, but it would end the damn debate. The religious right could not complain of gay marriage, as it would be their churches performing the ceremony, and the Liberal left would be silenced because ALL people would have a legal civil union and the actual church marriage be reserved for those to whom it mattered. I am just sick of hearing the arguments on BOTH sides.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
rob_just_rob said:
I think the issue here is whether we agree that petitions addressed to public bodies (i.e. legislatures) are public.

I happen to know they are. Any document that is used in debate in parliament is entered into the public record, absent considerations such as "national security". I canvassed a couple of IM buddies and they seemed to realize that petitions to government were public, too. That somewhat reassured me that I wasn't basing my argument on an obscure fact ("petitions=public") that no one else knew. Still, I suppose that quite a few people don't know.
Rob, you are quite right, well so far as the England is concerned anyway. Petitions (a right in existence since at least the Magna Carta and restated in the Bill of rights of 1688) are a matter of public record. I have never signed one only because of the ones I have been asked to sign, in each case I have felt the reverse. I can't help but think that for every petition there should be a box to say 'I think the reverse'.:tongue:

I do believe that when one signs a petition one should be clearly informed that the list of signatories may be published. As for relying on a signatory to know that this is permitted, while probably legally robust (ignorance being no defence), it is to me morally questionable. On this I agree with ColJohn. I also agree that one shouldn't sign a document attesting to one's views on a subject if one is unwilling to be accountable for them later.

It is possible that some of those who 'signed' actually didn't, at least if the section on fraud is credible.

If you want to create a petition; here's how: Rules for petitions.
 

D_Sheffield Thongbynder

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Posts
2,020
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
My last word on the subject because it distresses me that I find myself in disagreement with people whose opinions I hold very high...
1. I realize that it's legal to make public petitions. My issue isn't with the legality. It with the erosion of privacy FOR ANY REASON.
2. I abhor intolerance and empathize with you more than you can possibly realize for the insults and disenfranchisement you suffer just because you're gay, which should have absolutely nothing to do with the rights of citizenry. I support gay marriage, for Christ's sake.
3. Here are the three experiences that have molded my opinion about any sort of outing. A. My best friend was in the army for almost twenty years, receiving the highest possible ratings -- until someone found out he was gay. Suddenly he was outed and determined instantaneoulsy not to be fit to serve because another group decided it was in the best interests of America to expose him. B. My friend who was working undercover to undo a South American drug cartel was outed because another group felt all undercover operatives somehow endangered Americans. As a result of that outing, the operatives became as worthless as Valerie Plame. The drug lords were laughing at us no doubt. C. Some years ago a friend who was questioning his sexuality chose to put his thoughts down on paper. Someone found it and spread it around because he thought it was bad for esprit de corps to have a fag in their midst. In all three instances, someone felt justified to out someone else. The results of all three outings were that three outed persons suffered and no gain was to be had by those who outed them.

My opinion is that no good comes of this sort of tactic, legal or not. I think that more harm than good will come of the exposure of the petition in MA, too.

OK, you will have to hear no more on this from me. I'd rather risk your anger or disappointment than to have shut up and not voice what I felt. (I hope this thread dies a quiet and quick death.)
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
134
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I appreciate and respect your stance John. In theory it makes perfect sense to me too.

It distresses me too to be at odds with you in anything since I find you always reasonable and considerate. If anything I feel our differences on this one issue are really in nuance rather than anything truly substantive.

I will only say this: already good has come of the petition in Massachusetts. We're more aware, as gay residents, who stands against us. Knowledge, in this, for me gives me the power to know the opposition. I don't expect anyone's mind to change. But much as in civil rights they'll think a bit more deeply before they make blanket pronouncements and tell inappropriate jokes.

Here's what my very best high school girlfriend (now married with a son) said to me when that petition was going around (and remember she's one of my oldest and dearest friends and knows me and "N" really well):

"I don't know how to tell you that I disagree with it or why "Stronzo" but I do. I just do. Marriage is between a man and a woman."

If making her accountable for her beliefs is on a par with gay bashing I'd say that's a gross exaggeration.

Now this woman was raised a Roman Catholic in only the most cursory way and she calls herself irreligious. But when pressed to tell me why "N" and I could not marry in her estimation all should could say was "it's just not right".

I'd love someone to tell me how I wrap my brain around that one and still keep the same respect I had for her let alone our long-standing friendship.
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
COLJohn said:
My last word on the subject because it distresses me that I find myself in disagreement with people whose opinions I hold very high...

I no longer promise that any of my posts are my "last word" - I've found that I break promises of that nature all too often. :wink:

Anyway, I understand where you're coming from re: privacy and outing, but I have one counterpoint to make... and if you disagree with me, we'll agree to disagree...

COLJohn said:
1. I realize that it's legal to make public petitions. My issue isn't with the legality. It with the erosion of privacy FOR ANY REASON.

I would say to this that once you enter into what is a very public debate - and same-sex marriage rights is a very public debate - you give up the right to privacy relating to your position in the debate. In a real sense, the people who signed the petition outed themselves. It's not as if KTN planted listening devices into anti-gay households and then published transcripts. These people signed their names to a public document, and the only way, IMO, that one can argue that their privacy has been violated is if you assume they didn't know the rules (which, as I have stated, the organizers of the petition should have explained to them).
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
COLJohn, please do not feel distressed that we have differences of opinion. That we can discuss them, passionately but calmly and logically, says a lot about our maturity levels and our understandings and respect of each other. Our PMs have defined for me, at least, where you and I stand. I mentioned to you in one of those PMs that I value your thoughts and opinions, and I wished you would offer them more frequently... remember that one?

As I see it, there is a big difference between publishing a list of signatories on a petition, and someone vindictively outing a productive member of the military just to be spiteful, or outing undercover agents, or using some private information just to ostracize an individual.

I don't know if the fault lies with our educational system not teaching basic civics anymore, or with the individuals for not being informed when they want to be politically active. But with the right comes the responsibility. If you feel strongly enough that you have the right to deny any other citizen his civil rights, then you MUST be prepared to make that statement publicly. If you feel that you must hide your identity when you ask the government to disenfranchise a particular group, then perhaps you have no right to make that request. Again, the situation of working for political and legal change is not the same as quietly and efficiently and effectively doing your job.

You see, this is another area of my political activism that never fails to just completely leave me dumbfounded. Rick Santorum claims that it is forcing him to adopt my "lifestyle" if I am allowed to marry. His legal residence is in Pennsylvania, mine is in Virginia. I've never met him, I've never seen him in person. If I quietly married my partner, I'm violating his civil rights by forcing him to accept me? I just don't see that. I don't see how it would have any personal effect upon him, whatsoever. What he wants to do is make legislation, based on his religion, that has a direct impact upon my life by NOT allowing me to marry, if I decide that's what I want to do. Do you see the difference? What I want, I doubt he would ever know about, and would have no direct or indirect effect on him. What he wants does have a direct and tangible effect on me.

People who do not understand, or are unwilling, to accept the responsibilities of political activity should perhaps not engage in any. I would not sign a petition if I felt strongly that I didn't want anyone to know I had signed it. If it is a topic about which I feel strongly enough to sign a petition, then whether or not my name got published, I wouldn't really care. See, that also figures into part of the petition for referendum process. If you don't want to be associated with it publicly, then you don't really want the result very badly.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
I have no problem with public information being public, I don't care about someone's ignorant expectation of privacy. It's high time we, as Americans, held ourselves accountable for our words and behaviors. We could start by education ourselves on the inner workings of our government. Law inforcement tells us that ignorance to the law is no excuse, I agree on all these matters. If a group of people thought that starting a petition to limit the rights of others was private, then that only speaks to their own ignorance, which I am disinclined to care about protecting. So, they're embarassed by being exposed as homophobic bigots? Tough shit. Perhaps they should look to their own hearts and discover why they are ashamed of their own opinions. Only mushrooms grow in the dark, and they grow out of bullshit. Any good fruit grows in the light, so let's shine some light in these dark corners, good way to chase away boogeymen.
 

GoneA

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Posts
5,020
Media
0
Likes
38
Points
268
DC_DEEP said:
It seems that, more often than not, petitions are perceived by zealots as their best weapon.

I wish I had started reading this thread earlier, because I agree very much with your observation. Not to long ago, I was having a very similar argument with a friend, where I stated that it seemed that petitions are (a lot of the time) developed by fanatics of some kind.

"Well, it's good to know what the majority is thinking - to see how you measure up", he responded.

Poor thing.
 

dolf250

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Posts
769
Media
0
Likes
26
Points
238
Age
34
Location
The Great White North
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I agree that it will bring everything to light, but does you wish extend to the “other side” of the issue? Do you want those who sign petitions that you agree with (eg: promoting gay marriage) to be “outed” in a similar fashion? Certainly you do not have to be gay to sign such a petition, but do you really think that individuals who are in the closet would really want to sign for their rights knowing that a quick search will turn up their names?

The other main objection that I have is the publishing the addresses of the individuals in question. If it were a pro abortion or anti abortion petition it could, conceivably get somewhat ugly. I look at the doctor who was shot in the U.S at his home (by a Canadian, none the less) as an example of a worst case scenario. There are issues that are so hotly debated that I do not know if posting addresses and postal codes is really a good idea. Come to think of it, what a wonderful way of tracking down people to stalk from the 'net. I need some of you to sign and give me your real last names so I can begin the stalking.:wink:
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
dolf250 said:
I agree that it will bring everything to light, but does you wish extend to the “other side” of the issue? Do you want those who sign petitions that you agree with (eg: promoting gay marriage) to be “outed” in a similar fashion? Certainly you do not have to be gay to sign such a petition, but do you really think that individuals who are in the closet would really want to sign for their rights knowing that a quick search will turn up their names?
Absolutely I would, as I stated in a previous post. If I did not feel strongly about the issue, I would not sign the petition in the first place. If I did feel strongly about it, I would not care if the names were published and people would probably already know how I felt about the issue. As I've said before, you can't (or at least shouldn't be able to) have it both ways.
The other main objection that I have is the publishing the addresses of the individuals in question. If it were a pro abortion or anti abortion petition it could, conceivably get somewhat ugly. I look at the doctor who was shot in the U.S at his home (by a Canadian, none the less) as an example of a worst case scenario. There are issues that are so hotly debated that I do not know if posting addresses and postal codes is really a good idea. Come to think of it, what a wonderful way of tracking down people to stalk from the 'net. I need some of you to sign and give me your real last names so I can begin the stalking.:wink:
This I am a little concerned with. While there should be some way to distinguish between the Mr. John Smith who signed the petition and the Mr. John Smith who didn't, I'm not sure that publishing street addresses is a great idea.