Humans are complex, contradictory, and hypocritical, is how. How do you explain an assertion that it is a self-evident truth that all men are created equal being made by a slavefucker?
If you hold that faith in the face of all the factual evidence, personal testimony from friends such as this fellow, and one’s own experience in sexual awakening not involving a choice of orientation, then hell yes, it’s a stretch.
It sort of seems, from that quote, that what’s got you stumped isn’t so much that Santorum is friends with Traynham, but that Traynham is friends with Santorum.
Here, btw, is a biography of Traynham, from Cheyney University, which he’s a trustee at. It’s an impressive resume.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Humans are complex, contradictory, and hypocritical, is how. How do you explain an assertion that it is a self-evident truth that all men are created equal being made by a slavefucker?/quote]
In pretty much the same way. It’s only recently that scientific evidence has shown that the races are as similar as they are. In the 18th century, it wouldn’t have been obvious at all. Just as it wasn’t obvious that women should be equal, politically. Besides, the DoI is as much a political document as it is anything else. It represents a compromise between the many men who had to sign it, not the pure thoughts of any one individual.
What specifically do you know about the details of personal testimony given to Santorum by his friends? “One’s own experience” is often a very poor guide to scientific conclusions, which is what we’re talking about here-- especially when science and religion clash.
The one I really don’t understand is Dick Cheney, who can actively support the plans of a man who would pass a constitutional amendment that directly and negatively affects his (Cheney’s) daughter. For that matter I don’t understand Mary Cheney, who works on her father’s campaign. She deserves any discrimination she gets from the Republican majority in Congress.
The Reagans had numerous gay friends (they were from the motion picture industry, after all). Roy Cohn was among them. There are pics of them shaking hands with Roy and his toy-boy, and neither Cohn nor Reagan saw anything wrong with anti-gay rhetoric or not doing more in the early days of AIDS (which, of course, Cohn died from).
I’m not a Christian (though I did grow up in a moderately religious home), but I’ll never understand how you can say “____ is my friend. _____ is going to hell.” If ____ is going to hell then _____ must be evil, and how can you be friends with someone who is evil? And if _____ is not evil, then why should ____ go to hell? Why would you worship a God who will send good people to hell because they didn’t say some magic words he wanted them to hear? (I wonder if King Lear was written about religion? He and God [as commonly depicted] seem to have similarities, preferring proclamations of love over actual deeds.)
This is exactly why its hard for me to wrap my head around a non-heterosexual (who is generally well-balanced) working to advance the agenda of a very vocal anti-rights politician like Santorum. Civil rights is a hot-button issue for me - so much so that I couldn’t imagine the rewards of such work outweighing my conscience. I do not suggest Traynham has psychological or emotional problems, I just cannot fathom a realistic situation in which I would willingly advance an agenda that calls for writing discrimination into the Constitution and treating me like a second-class citizen.
This is an interesting point I haven’t considered! I wonder what Santorum’s response would be to this statement.
So the problem is that Santorum’s behavior does not match the stereotype of him? How dastardly of him!
The only time I’ve felt sorry for Cheney was during the VP debates when gay marriage came up—he visibly cringed and looked horribly uncomfortable, and you could see the remnants of his weak, starving little conscience thwacking him ineffectively about the head.
No, the problem is with his own hypocrisy. The inconsistencies being pointed out are between his own words and his own actions, not anybody else’s stereotyping. That wouldn’t be worthy of comment if he weren’t in a position to do real harm because of it, of course, but he is, and that requires a response.
Venturing further afield into guesswork, perhaps Traynham is of the self-hating Roy Cohn type?
Huh? Jefferson said it was “self-evident”. That’s who I’m referring to.
Only that the subject *must * have come up.
I’ve found the *strongest * argument to use against someone insisting that homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice” to be to ask them “When did *you * make *your * choice to be straight?” Is your experience different?
Well, people are hypocritical. Notify the media.
May I presume you would (for some reason) be happier if Mr S did not have any Gay friends? Why? Looks to me like the guy may be capable of change.
So, if Mr. Traynham has friends (and employers) you do not approve of he must be self-hating?
Humm, were you a hall monitor in high school? Just wondering.
I “would be happier” if Santorum weren’t using his position to promote hatred, for whatever reason he might have. Yes, it matters more that he has more power than most people to act in accordance with what he says, or yes, his hypocrisy wouldn’t be worse than most people.
I was *speculating * about Traynham’s own motivations; I made no claim about what he “must be”, as you falsely say.
What’s your problem, pal?
Paul, the name is Paul.
I attack nobody (at least in this thread, at least so far). You seem to be expressing the opinion that people with whom you disagree must be using smokescreens or acting disingenuously. While this is certainly possible, I have yet to see the proof of it.
A person can have political views with which I disagree without being a Bad Person. In this instance, Mr. S simply said some nice things about an employee. I see no reason to attack him (or the employee) for that act. Rather I take it as a rare and even interesting insight into the man as a man.
Is he proposing to amend the Constitution because of his honestly held beliefs or because he is a ‘bigot’ (your word) eager to ‘advance his political career.’
The fellow is open to attack on many issues, but this is not one of them.
I hope he is capable of change. Justice Lewis Powell said before deciding Bowers that “I don’t believe I’ve ever met a homosexual”. In fact at least one of his clerks had been gay. If they had been open, would it have changed the way he voted? He changed his mind and said he decided wrongly after he retired, perhaps after discovering that he had met gay people after all.
We all (should) pray for redemption, sometimes for ourselves, more often for others.
Yeah. Uh huh. Pray for the bad guys, pray for the enemy, pray for assholes. Got it. I have a better idea. How about the good people of Pennsylvania vote for someone else next time, and hand him his pink slip? That would work a lot better.
The debate here seems to be assuming that if you are gay then you must be a Democrat. If not, you are a self-hating Roy Cohn. That is just silly. I know a lot of gay people and I would say around half of them are Republicans. Do they buy into all the ideology of the Republican Party? Of course not. I don’t think you could find one Republican who is straight or gay who could take out the Republican Party platform and say he/she agrees with it 100%. A peson chooses a political party for many reasons and can easily ignore the aspects of the party with which he disagrees.
For instance, I used to work on Capitol Hill for a Republican Senator. Did I agree with him on every issue? No. But I agreed with him on enough of the issues that I was OK working for him. Was I uncomfortable at times in my job because I was doing work that I disagreed with philosophically? Yes, but I did it because it was my job and it wasn’t worth quitting over. I doubt you’ll find anyone on Capitol Hill who agrees with his/her boss 100% of the time.
There may also be another factor here. I know two people who work for Santorum. Both are fanatically loyal to him. Knowing people who work on the Hill, I’ve never seen this type of loyalty to any other Senator or Congressman. He seems to really inspire his staff and their loyalty goes beyond policy issues. Not having worked for him, I can’t say what it is, but perhaps some of that is going on here, too.
Let’s do both. Couldn’t hurt. Might help. It would freak them out anyway.
I understand your point. But there is a difference between supporting a friendly Republican like Arlen Specter and one who is adamantly opposed to your own civil liberties. I think that a gay man supporting someone like Santorum is Roy Cohn-ish.
Santorum’s views on gays aren’t political, although he has leverged them to advance his political career. Rather, they are entirely personal. “We need to reform Social Security,” is a political view. “Gays are filthy sinners who don’t deserve the same rights and protections as straight people,” is intensely personal, and relative to my own morailty, one cannot express that view and be anything other than a Bad Person. Which is not to say he cannot have good qualities (although I’ve certainly never seen any in Rick Santorum), but some negative qualities trump any number of positive qualities. Bigotry is one of those.
I see a need to attack him: self-defense. The man has built a career out of attacking my civil rights. That’s reason enough to do anything I can do (within the law, obviously) to remove him from a position where he can inflict harm on me. If Rick Santorum can be painted as a hypocrite or political opportunist, it will make it that much harder for him to be re-elected, which can only benefit me and any other queer living in this country.
Or, if you prefer, my “political view” is that Santorum is a hypocrite and moral coward who deserves to be forcibly ejected from Congress. Preferably through a window, although through the ballot box will do in a pinch.
He wants to ammend the Constitution because his honestly held opinions are bigotted. Homophobia does not get a pass because someone “really truly deeply” believes gays are second class citizens.
And I ain’t praying for shit.
Perhaps eventually his conscience will come back. After losing a saber duel with his daughter then seeing her victimized by Force Lightning he’ll pick up his master and toss him into the reactor at the core of the White House.