First African-American LGBT state legislator.
By on Feb 19th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
First African-American LGBT state legislator.
Today, Connecticut State Rep. Jason Bartlett (D) publicly announced that he is gay, becoming the “first and only openly LGBT African American state legislator.”
UPDATE: Gordon Fox, the Majority Leader in the Rhode Island State House of Representatives and “son of an Irish father and a Cape Verdean mother,” is also openly gay and “calls himself black.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bailout
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Earmarks
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Politics
Race
Radical Right
RNC Convention
Rove
Terrorism
Third Bush Term
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
I had to look up LGBT. At first, I thought it had something to do with liquid natural gas!
February 19th, 2008 at 3:52 pmI wonder how long before the anti-gay crowd starts posting here?
Good for Rep. Bartlett!!! I wish him many future terms in office!
February 19th, 2008 at 3:55 pm“Calling Dr. Matt, calling Dr. Matt?†This thread is for you. It has gay and race issues.
Comment by Southern Man — February 19, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
funny how fast you got here.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:59 pmDemocrat, African-American, AND gay??
Connecticut is going to progressively drag-queen the U.S. into a black hole!!
Repent! The End is near!
/snark off
February 19th, 2008 at 4:00 pmNah, Southern Whore, it’s Gayrll’s favorite subject, just throw in a little religion and Gayrll will have a very full afternoon.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:01 pmI wonder how his constituents feel about learning that after he’s in office. NTTAWWT.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:04 pmWhere more gays and lesbians are confidently expressing themselves like any other American would, it makes taking a stand all the worthwhile in the face of neocon fear tactics. Progressivism, indeed.
Reminder to repubs: Gays aren’t out to hurt anyone, not anymore than straights.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:06 pmWhen a republican is gay, he gets bashed in here.
- - That’s because they’re closeted and routinely bash gays and work against gay rights. Name ONE gay Republican that’s been bashed on this board JUST because he’s gay. G’head.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:07 pmComment by Southern Man — February 19, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
It’s the hypocrisy, SM, the hypocrisy.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:08 pmTrolls don’t get nuance.
Or anything else…
February 19th, 2008 at 4:08 pmWhat are you insinuiating LP? That i’m gay? Is there anything wrong with being gay? If not, why insinuate that I am gay?
Comment by Southern Man — February 19, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
Being a little defensive, huh?
February 19th, 2008 at 4:09 pmComment by Southern Man — February 19, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
Its the hypocricy and you damn well know it.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:09 pmWhen a Republican that has been persecuting gays is outed, its the hypocrisy, stupid.
They feel they can say anything without retribution, and they are right, because they have gotten away with it for so long.
Comment by Southern Man — February 19, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
What a whiny sissy! Look, your party is the one doing all the gay-bashing, name-calling and anti-American bigotry legislation. When you bigoted hypocrites get called on it, the tears start to flow! ROTFL!
February 19th, 2008 at 4:11 pm12: What are you insinuiating LP? That i’m gay? Is there anything wrong with being gay? If not, why insinuate that I am gay?
- - That’s a nice riff on Joe Pesci, GoodFellas.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:11 pmSomehow I doubt he’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. At least two of those cancel each other out. Why not just say he’s an openly gay black legislator? An OGBL, if we must acronymate.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:12 pmWhat are you insinuiating LP? That i’m gay? Is there anything wrong with being gay? If not, why insinuate that I am gay?
Comment by Southern Man — February 19, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
There’s nothing wrong with being gay, unless you’re a republican. Then, you’re supporting those that would gladly imprison of even kill yu for being born different. If you are gay, wake up, and come into the light, where you’ll be wlcomed and treated like a human being. Otherwise, you’re just whining and crying like a two-year-old.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:13 pmGood one, Badmoodman. :)
February 19th, 2008 at 4:13 pm“first and only openly LGBT African American state legislator.â€
——————————————————————————
Why are you Lefties so obsessed with peoples sexual preferences and skin color?
Can’t you get past it?….You’ll sure feel a whole lot better when you do.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:14 pmCan’t you get past it?….You’ll sure feel a whole lot better when you do.
Comment by Charles James Napier — February 19, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
It’s just a statistic, Charlie Dingleberry.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:16 pmSomehow I doubt he’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. At least two of those cancel each other out. Why not just say he’s an openly gay black legislator? An OGBL, if we must acronymate.
Comment by toasterhead — February 19, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
How about just a “person”?
February 19th, 2008 at 4:17 pmNovel idea, eh?
Hey Righties - Is your sky falling?? Are you doing it with dogs yet??
February 19th, 2008 at 4:18 pmIt’s just a statistic, Charlie Dingleberry.
Comment by Zooey
———————————
Then why has TP posted a thread on the subjct?
The guy is gay….and black too! Wow!
I guess this kind of information is important to the Left.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:19 pmI see the whole Troll Patrolâ„¢ is refreshed after a long weekend, ready to rumble in defense of the Chimperor.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:19 pmWhy are you Lefties so obsessed with peoples sexual preferences and skin color?
Comment by Charles James Napier — February 19, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
It’s not “the Lefties” legislating what people can and can’t do in their own bedrooms.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:20 pmIt’s not “the Lefties†legislating what people can and can’t do in their own bedrooms.
Comment by Wayne
————————————————-
Who is?
February 19th, 2008 at 4:21 pmThe guy is gay….and black too! Wow!
I guess this kind of information is important to the Left.
Comment by Charles James Napier — February 19, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
As opposed to the Right, who would NEVER note a person’s race, gender or sexual orientation when mocking — I mean, assessing them.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:21 pmWhat are you insinuiating LP? That i’m gay? Is there anything wrong with being gay? If not, why insinuate that I am gay?
Comment by Southern Man — February 19, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
Please calm down. All we need is for republicans to the remove obsession with cementing straight marriages into the constitution of the united states, removing discrimination from the military and the workplace, and not bothering to incite fear against otherwise good people.
I’m personally not gay and I don’t support same-sex marriages, but I feel I must tolerate it. I must respect it. I have no right to smear someone because of any physical difference. Someone’s sexual orientation is not a threat to my personal safety.
If gay members on the right wish not to make their orientation known, we’d appreciate their turning down the volume on the passionate anti-gay preaching.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:22 pmHow about just a “person�
Novel idea, eh?
Comment by Wayne — February 19, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
Boooooring! It’s so much more fun to acronymize.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:23 pmComment by Charles James Napier — February 19, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
Nothing is more pathetic than a troll that is ignorant of his own party’s platform and legislative push.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:24 pmOr are you just being deliberately obtuse?
Hey, Southern Man @ #7:
The reason that “gay” Republicans get bashed is because they are HYPOCRITES - and that goes for the “Log Cabin” variety as well.
If it were not for the fact that the GOP has used the gay rights issue as a wedge for the past several election cycles then there might not be a problem. If the GOP were not so vehemently anti-gay, then maybe we wouldn’t make so much fun of homosexuals in the Republican Party.
If men like Larry Craig - who is anti-gay in public but likes to engage in homosexual activities in private - were not so prevalent in the GOP then maybe we’d “bash” them less.
And I say all this as a gay man myself. I applaud Rep. Bartlett for coming out and encourage every other closeted politician to do the same. The more visible and honest we are about ourselves, the less ammo the right has to whip Joe and Jane Sixpack into a homophobic frenzy.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:26 pmThen why has TP posted a thread on the subjct?
Comment by Charles James Napier — February 19, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
Gee, I don’t know. Why don’t you email them and ask?
February 19th, 2008 at 4:27 pmNothing is more pathetic than a troll that is ignorant of his own party’s platform and legislative push.
Or are you just being deliberately obtuse?
Comment by Wayne
——————————————
There is nothing in the Republican party platform that promotes “legislating what people can and can’t do in their own bedrooms”.
If their was I would be against it.
The sodomy laws that are on the books in some states are very old and were put in place by Democrats mostly (although not entirely).
February 19th, 2008 at 4:29 pmThey insult women when doing so wouldn’t you agree Zooey? They insult gay people as well. I hope Rep. Bartlett does a good job; good luck sir.
Comment by Southern Man — February 19, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
It is an insult to women and gays to be compared to a trolls — I agree.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:29 pmThere is nothing in the Republican party platform that promotes “legislating what people can and can’t do in their own bedroomsâ€.
Comment by Charles James Napier — February 19, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
What do you think “traditional values” means?
Do us a favor when you leave the Republican party — become an Independent.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:30 pmYes, I used the word ‘their’ when I should have said ‘there’ in a sentence posted above.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:31 pmDon’t worry Zooey, the Republicans will not be passing any new laws making it illegal for you (and whomever) to stick things up your bottom while behind closed doors.
Relax.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:36 pmDaryll is in the house.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:36 pmI cannot sugarcoat this issue.
Comment by Daryll — February 19, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
And thats why you’re Republican, right Daryll, so you can push to persecute “teh gays”?
February 19th, 2008 at 4:39 pmThis is shameful. His name will not be next to the Tuskegee Airmen. His name will be listed on the book to be sent to hell, if he does not change his ways. I cannot sugarcoat this issue.
Comment by Daryll — February 19, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
So, again, Daryll, you’re a little flexible on the whole “Judge Not” issue, huh?
February 19th, 2008 at 4:40 pmCharles, meet fellow Republican, Daryll.
As you were saying?
February 19th, 2008 at 4:40 pmCan you really lump LGBT together? I know you canfor support groups and advocacy, but come on… I suspect he isn’t much of a lesbian. I am not sure about his affinity for sex with women or his thoughts on his own sexual identity. But either way, this seems like a broad brushstroke, with which to paint him.
I can’t think of a good analogy right now. Maybe calling the first Jewish congressperson the first Jewish/Muslim/Atheist congressperson? It just seems like too many descriptors. Inaccurate ones, at that!
February 19th, 2008 at 4:45 pmtheir foolish deed, which is full of perversion. God will make them pay.
Comment by Daryll — February 19, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
Flexible?
“Judge not, lest ye be judged”?
Daryll?
February 19th, 2008 at 4:46 pm1. Who cares? Barney Frank has been an openly gay congressman for over a decade. Our first black congressman was elected before 1900. This is a truly un-noteworthy Reeses Peanutbuttercup story. Not to take away from the man’s accomplishments in life, c’mon, state senate?
2. He’s an openly “Gay” State legislator, not an LGBT Legislator. Not all gays are down with the transgenders and it isn’t fair to automatically lump them in there.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:47 pmYEAY, the one of the 3 trolls brought out his Super-Christ persona for this threaad!!
I was hoping I’d get my daily dose of crazy.
HAI DARRYL
February 19th, 2008 at 4:49 pmGood for Bartlett!!
February 19th, 2008 at 4:49 pmThis is a truly un-noteworthy Reeses Peanutbuttercup story..
Comment by deebaser — February 19, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
Agreed. But it sure do make powerful troll-bait!
February 19th, 2008 at 4:51 pmCharles, meet fellow Republican, Daryll.
As you were saying?
Comment by Wayne
—————————————
First of all, Daryll believes that homosexality is a sin. Many religious Democrats believe that as well.
There is a world of difference between viewing homosexuality as a sin and legislating private sexual behavior.
Secondly, those Americans who view homosexuality as a sin are actually more tolerant than those who approve of homosexuality.
For you can’t “tolerate” something with which you approve now can you?…In order to “tolerate” something you must, by definition, disapprove
February 19th, 2008 at 4:51 pmof it first.
I agree, let them continue to freely commit their foolish deed, which is full of perversion. God will make them pay.
Comment by Daryll — February 19, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
Do you think God will punish with equal vehemence the other violators of His law? Like those who eat shellfish?
February 19th, 2008 at 4:53 pmAnd who is that DS? When a republican is gay, he gets bashed in here. But being a gay democrat, you get a slap on the back and an atta-boy. There’s nothing wrong with being gay unless you belong to the Log Cabin group.
As usual, another troll with no critical thinking skills. It is unable to understand that no one here has ever criticized anyone for being gay (Republican or Democrat). We have simply criticized people who attack gays, while gay, or who refuse to admit they are gay, all the while attacking gays.
Since it has so few critical thinking skills, I’ll try to make it easy for them:
W E D O N ‘ T L I K E H Y P O C R I T E S!
Was that slow enough for it to understand, do you think?
February 19th, 2008 at 4:53 pmGod will make them pay.
Comment by Daryll
———————————
Noe of us are without sin.
There are things for which God will also make YOU pay.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:53 pmSecondly, those Americans who view homosexuality as a sin are actually more tolerant than those who approve of homosexuality.
For you can’t “tolerate†something with which you approve now can you?…In order to “tolerate†something you must, by definition, disapprove
of it first.
Comment by Charles James Napier — February 19, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Black is White.
Up is Down.
Slavery is Freedom.
Now I see where they get these ideas. They talk themselves into them because it’s easier than changing their minds to more closely conform to reality.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:54 pmOh, of course this thread brought out the hypocritical troll Darryll. I wonder how it knew the thread was here and that it was time for it to jump in with it’s own brand of idiot posting.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:55 pmThere are things for which God will also make YOU pay.
There are many things that God will make Darryll pay for starting with the fact that it has no soul and tries to convince people that it does have a soul. That’s called misrepresentation.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:56 pmComment by Charles James Napier — February 19, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
You’ve got it wrong. Sending kids to die for juicy defense industry profits is the SIN worthy of discussion here.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:57 pmSo, again, Daryll, you’re a little flexible on the whole “Judge Not†issue, huh?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 19, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
Daryll’s extremely flexible on a lot of biblical directives.
Try asking him about his cache of gold and his euros, and how they relate to Matthew 6:19 - but then expect him to disappear for a while.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:03 pmI guess this kind of information is important to the Left.
Comment by Charles James Napier — February 19, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
yes, because it shows that you racist scumsuckers aren’t in control any more. it’s great news for America! America will be a free nation as soon as the GOP is dead and buried, but not before.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:07 pmDo you think God will punish with equal vehemence the other violators of His law? Like those who eat shellfish?
Comment by toasterhead — February 19, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
In the interest of getting this correct, which I know you want to do because you want to represent scripture accurately, you need to demonstrate the source of you assertion.
Where in the Old Testament is the punishment for eating shellfish?
February 19th, 2008 at 5:10 pmWhere in the Old Testament is the punishment for eating shellfish?
Comment by bitblt — February 19, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
who cares, really? the whole thing is a collection of superstitious nonsense. except for the incest.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:12 pmNow I see where they get these ideas. They talk themselves into them because it’s easier than changing their minds to more closely conform to reality.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama
————————————————————
Your comprehension of language isn’t too good is it?
Let’s try again: In order for one to “tolerate” something one must first disapprove of it, for how can one tolerate something for which one already approves?
Does one “tolerate” a fine meal?….of course not. One only “tolerates” things that one does not like or approve of.
If you think homosexual behavior is perfectly fine then their is no tolerance required on your part, because you already approved of it.
A person can only be tolerant of that which he disapproves of, yet chooses to tolerate.
Now do you understand?
February 19th, 2008 at 5:15 pmI practice Matthew 6:19. I give to various charities, but I use my investments in my portfolio as a financial contingent plan for a monsoon.
Comment by Daryll — February 19, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
Nice rationalization there, so how about the whole “judge not” concept? You see some room for flexibility there, right?
February 19th, 2008 at 5:15 pmwho cares, really? the whole thing is a collection of superstitious nonsense. except for the incest.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — February 19, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
That you don’t care, bitblt believes.
However, bitblt would have assumed that some posters on TP would want to represent others’ beliefs accurately.
If you’re going to lie out right about others’ beliefs, please have enough respect to be up front about it.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:15 pmIn the interest of getting this correct, which I know you want to do because you want to represent scripture accurately, you need to demonstrate the source of you assertion.
Where in the Old Testament is the punishment for eating shellfish?
Comment by bitblt — February 19, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
Never read Leviticus? Maybe it’s time you started.
Start with 11:9
February 19th, 2008 at 5:17 pmA person can only be tolerant of that which he disapproves of, yet chooses to tolerate.
Now do you understand?
Comment by Charles James Napier — February 19, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
And how do “conservatives” demonstrate their “tolerance” for gay people? By not burning them at the stake? Or perhaps by launching drives against “the gay agenda”, promulgating the “defense of marriage act” and even working to ban civil unions between gay people (see Oregon).
Your attempts to rationalize homophobia are laughable.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:19 pmI practice Matthew 6:19. I give to various charities, but I use my investments in my portfolio as a financial contingent plan for a monsoon.
Comment by Daryll — February 19, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
A “monsoon”? Where are you living these days, Daryll?
Matthew 6:19 doesn’t say anything about charities, Daryll, it says not to store up your treasures, which is exactly what you’re always bragging about doing.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:21 pmYour comprehension of language isn’t too good is it?
Let’s try again: In order for one to “tolerate†something one must first disapprove of it, for how can one tolerate something for which one already approves?
Does one “tolerate†a fine meal?….of course not. One only “tolerates†things that one does not like or approve of.
If you think homosexual behavior is perfectly fine then their is no tolerance required on your part, because you already approved of it.
A person can only be tolerant of that which he disapproves of, yet chooses to tolerate.
Now do you understand?
Comment by Charles James Napier — February 19, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
My comprehension of language is just fine, Chuckles. I understand the point you’re trying to make. I also understand that it is bunk.
What’s “not too good” is your tortured twisting of the word “tolerate” to try to make it seem like intolerant people are actually more tolerant than anyone else.
But who should be surprised? It’s what right-wingers do.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:21 pmMatthew 6:19 doesn’t say anything about charities, Daryll, it says not to store up your treasures, which is exactly what you’re always bragging about doing.
Comment by gummitch — February 19, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
We all know Daryll never read the Bible, now you told him we know……
lmao
February 19th, 2008 at 5:23 pm…to make it seem like intolerant people are actually more tolerant than anyone else.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama
————————————————————-
That’s not what I’m saying at all.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:26 pmComment by gummitch — February 19, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
bitblt is aware of what is called ceremonial uncleanliness:
“…unclean till evening. ”
Don’t believe this is the punishment suggested by
you think God will punish with equal vehemence the other violators of His law? Like those who eat shellfish?
o you think God will punish with equal vehemence the other violators of His law? Like those who eat shellfish?
Comment by toasterhead — February 19, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
To bitblt’s way of thinking “…unclean till evening,” doesn’t qualify as “…punish with equal vehemence…other violators”
Homosexuals could be killed under Old Testament Law - that’s with vehemence.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:27 pmI’m pretty sure that the main reason that most religious organizations do not tolerate homosexuality is that those unions don’t usually produce many little religious babies….that grow up to donate to the religious groups.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:29 pm…to make it seem like intolerant people are actually more tolerant than anyone else.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama
————————————————————-
That’s not what I’m saying at all.
Comment by Charles James Napier — February 19, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
My fault; I understood that when you said,
those Americans who view homosexuality as a sin are actually more tolerant than those who approve of homosexuality.
For you can’t “tolerate†something with which you approve now can you?…In order to “tolerate†something you must, by definition, disapprove
of it first.
Comment by Charles James Napier — February 19, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
that you were saying that those who allow others to live their lives as they choose to are not being “tolerant”, but those who disapprove of how others lead their lives but can do nothing to stop them are the tolerant ones.
By your logic, the most anti-social, disapproving scold alive is actually the most tolerant individual possible. As long as he just grumbles about how others are “destroying marriage” or “destroying the English language” or “destroying the Christian character of America” but doesn’t do anything to change it.
He’s not misanthropic and lazy — he’s TOLERANT! That is just awesome, Chuckles.
You’re in the Bush press office, aren’t you?
February 19th, 2008 at 5:34 pmralph the wonder llama finds bitbit’s habit of referring to itself in the third person rather pretentious.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:36 pmmary,
Most religious organizations do not approve of homosexuality but they DO tolerate it.
Islam, as practiced in many countries around the world, is the one religion that truly does not tolerate homosexuality as it is punishable by death under sharia law.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:37 pmBy your logic, the most anti-social, disapproving scold alive is actually the most tolerant individual possible. As long as he just grumbles about how others are “destroying marriage†or “destroying the English language†or “destroying the Christian character of America†but doesn’t do anything to change it.
——————
Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:40 pmCJN - see Daryll’s post at #40
February 19th, 2008 at 5:42 pmYes, that’s what I’m saying.
Comment by Charles James Napier — February 19, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
Then I DO understand what you’re saying.
And it is bunk.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:42 pmor CJN - see Daryll’s post at #47. Would you be a member of a church that told you that you were going to burn in hell for being gay?
February 19th, 2008 at 5:44 pmor CJN - see Daryll’s post at #47. Would you be a member of a church that told you that you were going to burn in hell for being gay?
Comment by mary
—————————————
No, but I am a member of a church that believes that homosexual acts are sinful…..as are many other things, some of which I am guilty of as well.
Daryll sounds as if he harbors hatred in his heart towards people who are homosexual; that too is a sin.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:49 pmThen I DO understand what you’re saying.
And it is bunk.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama
———————————————————
Actually, it makes more sense than I think you are willing to concede.
Think about it for a while.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:51 pmBy your logic, the most anti-social, disapproving scold alive is actually the most tolerant individual possible. As long as he just grumbles about how others are “destroying marriage†or “destroying the English language†or “destroying the Christian character of America†but doesn’t do anything to change it.
——————
Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
Comment by Charles James Napier
……………………………………………………………………………………….
Then I DO understand what you’re saying.
And it is bunk.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama
———————————————————
Actually, it makes more sense than I think you are willing to concede.
Think about it for a while.
Comment by Charles James Napier
……………………………………………………………………………………………….
Here charlie…..you better read it again……I think you missed something.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:54 pmActually, it makes more sense than I think you are willing to concede.
Think about it for a while.
Comment by Charles James Napier — February 19, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
I’ve thought about it and am still left convinced that it is a pathetic attempt to either a) degrade the potency of the term “tolerant” or b) undercut the claim of the Left to a principle much valued in contemporary, pluralistic society.
And it fails on a linguistic level, too.
In short, it only makes sense if you are willing to submerse yourself in a swirling soup of convoluted, self-serving interpretation and rationalization. Once you poke your head above that swill, you realize you’re swimming in it. You realize it’s bunk.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:57 pmHomosexuals could be killed under Old Testament Law - that’s with vehemence.
Comment by bitblt — February 19, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
Leviticus doesn’t say anything about killing homosexuals; it lumps that behavior into the same category as adultery and having sex with a menstruating woman: the perpetrator is to be driven out of the tribe.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:59 pmHere charlie…..you better read it again……I think you missed something.
Comment by Fred
————————————————————
The curmudgeon who disapproves of the pot-smokers next door, yet doesn’t call the police is MORE tolerant than the neighbor who does not care one way or the other about pot smoking.
The same applies to homosexuality or any other controversial activity.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:01 pmThe curmudgeon who disapproves of the pot-smokers next door, yet doesn’t call the police is MORE tolerant than the neighbor who does not care one way or the other about pot smoking.
The same applies to homosexuality or any other controversial activity.
Comment by Charles James Napier — February 19, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
I don’t think you’ll sell that concept to very many folks, Chuckles. Liberal or conservative.
I don’t think you really understand the concept of “tolerance”.
Let’s examine it clinically.
Let’s take WordNet’s definition first:
1. put up with something or somebody unpleasant; “I cannot bear his constant criticism”; “The new secretary had to endure a lot of unprofessional remarks”; “he learned to tolerate the heat”; “She stuck out two years in a miserable marriage”
2. recognize and respect (rights and beliefs of others); “We must tolerate the religions of others”
3. have a tolerance for a poison or strong drug or pathogen or environmental condition; “The patient does not tolerate the anti-inflammatory drugs we gave him”
4. allow the presence of or allow (an activity) without opposing or prohibiting;
Now, if the only definition of “tolerate” were the first, you would be absolutely right. But there are others. For instance, recognize and respect (rights and beliefs of others). Your curmudgeon who grumbles but “doesn’t call the cops” has no respect for the beliefs and habits of his neighbors. Neither does Daryll have any respect for the beliefs or habits of homosexuals.
That’s not tolerant.
Similarly, we have definition 4: allow the presence of or allow (an activity) without opposing or prohibiting One can oppose a practice without actively working to end it. By your logic, this person would be “tolerant”, in defiance of the WordNet definition of the word.
I think if you’ll follow the link to dictionary.net, you’ll find that I did not cherry-pick my definitions. in fact, I chose the one best suited to your defense. WordNet was the only one of the three sources listed that mentioned “enduring something unpleasant”.
So, sorry, but I still call bunk.
Black is NOT white. Up is NOT down.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:13 pmThe curmudgeon who disapproves of the pot-smokers next door, yet doesn’t call the police is MORE tolerant than the neighbor who does not care one way or the other about pot smoking.
The same applies to homosexuality or any other controversial activity.
Comment by Charles James Napier — February 19, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
Not at all. The person who realizes that his neighbor’s behavior is none of his business is the one practicing tolerance. Once he “disapproves”, he is no longer tolerant regardless of his actions.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:14 pmThanks, gum. You said it much better than I did.
And in far fewer words, too.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:17 pmComment by ralph the wonder llama — February 19, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
I was pressed for time. Had to get the roux ready and the gumbo cooking.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:24 pmroux? gumbo? when’s dinner?!
February 19th, 2008 at 6:33 pmTwo or three hours, mary.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:37 pmTolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world’s cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. Tolerance is harmony in difference.
————————————————————————————
So according to UNESCO if I want to tolerate my neighbor who plays bad classic rock at high volume, late into the night then I not only have to
February 19th, 2008 at 6:37 pmaccept it, but appreciate it too?…Please.
Once he “disapprovesâ€, he is no longer tolerant regardless of his actions…
————————————————-
That is the exact opposite of the truth.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:39 pmI was pressed for time. Had to get the roux ready and the gumbo cooking.
Comment by gummitch
Is roux the saltwater bath for the crawdads?
February 19th, 2008 at 6:42 pmOnce he “disapprovesâ€, he is no longer tolerant regardless of his actions…
————————————————-
That is the exact opposite of the truth.
Comment by Charles James Napier — February 19, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
Not according to most definitions of the word.
Only in wingnutland is disapproval the highest embodiment of tolerance. Just like eliminating pollution controls demonstrates a commitment to “Clear Skies”, opening forest land to clearcutting is a valentine to “Healthy Forests”and the president who has admitted to spying on Americans without a warrant is “among the most respectful of all leaders ever when it comes to the civil liberties and rights of individuals.“
Good luck with that line, Chuckles.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:46 pmI just did a little digging and it turns out that this whole definition of tolerance thing is being debated quite a bit in the religious community these days.
Here’s a good bit I found:
Tolerance vs. acceptance
‘Let’s talk for a moment about what I believe the difference is between “tolerance” and “acceptance.” When I hear the word “tolerance” the impression it conveys to me is “I don’t like you, but I feel obligated to be nice to you and make you feel welcome because it’s the right thing to do. I cannot stand certain things about you and feel that those things elevate me to a level superior to yours. But, to keep the peace I will put up with you.”
“Acceptance” elicits a very different and far more positive response from me. It says to me, “You are different from me, and though there are things I may not understand, I see you as a child of God and equal to me. And, though I may not be like you, I support your rights, feelings, and identity as much as I would my own.” In response to the question “What Would Jesus Do?” I feel He would choose the latter as the more loving option.’
http://www.whosoever.org/v6i6/campbell.html
February 19th, 2008 at 6:47 pmI was pressed for time. Had to get the roux ready and the gumbo cooking.
Comment by gummitch
Correct my if I am wrong but a dark roux is the way to go on this. Most people have neither the knowledge nor patience. You culinary expertise is clear.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:48 pmDaryll is in the house.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 19, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
The nut house I hope.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:51 pmLeviticus doesn’t say anything about killing homosexuals; it lumps that behavior into the same category as adultery and having sex with a menstruating woman: the perpetrator is to be driven out of the tribe.
Comment by gummitch — February 19, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
There are two sections of Leviticus that mention homosexuality. The section in Leviticus 20 is the second one. Leviticus 18 is the first one.
Believe you are correct that the punishment for sexual sin is pretty the much the same.
Leviticus 20
February 19th, 2008 at 6:54 pmPunishments for Sin
Comment by bitblt
what the hell does leviticus have to do with it………if you are a christian in America you use the new testament…….new rules for those who beat the drum……….jesus said so.
February 19th, 2008 at 7:00 pmWell, this is nothing if he just “came out” publicly (after being elected while in the closet). Alabama (officially) elected an out lesbian Democrat in November 2006*. Of course, this came after African-American Democrats tried to strip her of her primary run-off victory because she’s white and was running in a majority-black district.
*Since she didn’t have any Republican opposition, she actually won the seat in July of 2006 but because of the challenge to her victory and a State Democratic Party sub-committee’s decision to nullify the run-off’s results, she didn’t actually win until the State Democratic Party’s Executive Committee voted to accept the run-off.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:30 am#68 - “However, bitblt would have assumed that some posters on TP would want to represent others’ beliefs accurately.” Comment by bitblt — February 19, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
Why does Bitbit follow SOME words of Jesus, but completely ignore OTHER words of Jesus? Bitbit cannot only follow the verses that support Bitbit’s prejudices, and then (oh-so convenitently) ignore the ones Bitbit find inconvenient!
Mark 10:11-12 “…Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
Also see: Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:8-9, Luke 16:18
Until the self-described Christians who use the Bible to bash gay people make a stand against heterosexual divorce, they do nothing but prove their hypocrisy, over and over again!
February 20th, 2008 at 7:32 am#7 - “And who is that DS? When a republican is gay, he gets bashed in here. But being a gay democrat, you get a slap on the back and an atta-boy.”
SM, you’ve sure shoved your head into the ground quite firmly there! Republicans “claim” to be the party of “family values” and live & die by the dictates of the untra-radical right-whining “c”hristians! Gay Republicans are generally hounded because their party is the one that’s been fighitng to roll back gay rights and non-discrimination laws!
“It is truly amazing to watch the homophobes on the left show their true spirit by hididng behind slang that they feel comfortable with because they are on the left. They feel they can say anything without retribution, and they are right, because they have gotten away with it for so long.” Comment by Southern Man — February 19, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
And how many times have you excoriated the vastly higher number of homophobes on the right? Hmm? Come on, I’m sure that since you’re up-in-arms about this issue, you can count the number of times you’ve stood up to the homophibes on the right.
If you bothered to read the referenced article, Rep. Bartlett is the “first and only openly LGBT African American state legislator.†Why do you think that the very first and only openly gay African American state legislator is news that should be brushed under the carpet, expecially in february???
February 20th, 2008 at 7:43 am#104 - Oh, Bitbit! Why start at Lev. 20:13? Why not start a vew verses earlier!
“10 - If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.
11 - If a man disgraces his father by lying with his father’s wife, both the man and his stepmother shall be put to death; they have forfeited their lives.
12 - If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death; since they have committed an abhorrent deed, they have forfeited their lives. ”
Why isn’t Bitbit calling for the death of all adulterers? Is Bitbit fearful that doing so will eviscerate the ranks of the Republican party? (I’m not claiming that democrats are any better, it’s just that hypocrisy is as heinous a “sin” as adultry, and to Republicans it would be both!)
I suppose that Bitbit only picks & chooses the verses of the Bible that support Bitbit’s prejudices, and ignores all else.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:49 am