Seriously, I never read the entire link that you posted. I got about three paragraphs in and experienced a true WTF? moment. I couldn’t force myself to read any more of Dolt Lady.
Oh, I knew you were kidding. You’ve been around long enough that if you were prone to posting stupid stuff, I would have noticed before.
After a final read-through, message is sent. They’ve published my letters on SSM before – let’s see how this one (and Weirddave’s and Punha’s excellent letters) does.
Must be difficult to have babies in the kitchen, though.
At least, for the first 3 or 4 of 'em. “Pick up your brother, would you?”
WeirdDave
I would appreciate it if you would reconsider your position that all fundamentalist Christians, whom you called “fundies” in your OP, are knuckle-dragging opponents of gay rights. It simply is not true.
And if you really want to take the high road, please do not simultaneously complain about bigotry while labeling people you don’t know with words intended to be pejorative. Thanks.
Rereading the OP, I don’t see where he ever said that. Methinks in your zeal to create controversy wherever you go, you have made stuff up.
Gee, Lib, that’s interesting because the article you linked mentions someone who considers himself a fundamentalist Christian who supports gay rights. My reference was to “Fundies”, a subset of Fundamentalist Christianity ( although it is almost all-encompasing, be honest if nothing else ) who do believe that they have every right to use their particular religious beliefs as the basis for secular laws, and are totaly fine with descrimination as long as they can justify using their personal superstitions.
Sorry Lib, I gotta stand by the term I used. If you consider yourself a fundamentalist Christian, yet you support things like gay rights, SOCS, the freedom of others to follow a different religion, etc…Why, then, you’re not a Fundie.
Lordy, this is like Elaine giving George his card with the nipple showing. I can shove your nose in it, but you have to open your eyes. Move your cursor to the top of the page, hit Ctrl-F, type in “fundie”, and press Enter.
Here is some info about this woman, from CBC
She has also published some of her essays which can be read at (This may shock you) http://www.conservativeforum.org. There she speaks out against Gays, Feminism, The United Nations, and Media Bias.
Also, remember that group she belongs to? Or should I rather say she is “National Vice President” of? Real Women, here are their stated objectives:
For one thing, I have no interest in your nipples. For another…
I do not see the words “All fundmentalists are anti-gay” anywhere in that. I think we can agree that while not all fundamentalists are anti-gay, the anti-gay sentiment runs pretty deep in a large portion of them. Hell, most of them will readily admit to that. Dave argued (or one could say he did, had he not cleared up his message) that where there is a lack of fundies, there might also be a lack of, or a mitigation of, homophobia. That’s not an unreasonable hypothesis to test.
You, on the other hand, seem to be seeking offense when none was offered. What’s up with that?
That would be the third objective to “Real Women”
I take no solace in knowing that you are not slurring me personally, but rather someone else. What you just said is rather like saying to a black person offended by your use of the n-word to refer to someone other than him, “Well, if you’re not a lazy person or a political agitator, why then, you’re not a n****r.”
Eh, I’m not overly worried if they don’t print mine. I figure they got at least two letters from Americans, and they probably weren’t expecting them, so maybe then run one, maybe they run both, maybe they run neither.
Weirddave was schadenfreude really the sentiment you were trying to express with that letter, or is that just what I’m getting out of it? Second, what the heck are “anatributed assertations”?
Well, Lib, people see what they expect to see, I suppose.
For example, I see the word “Fundie” as more synonymous with “asshole” than with “nigger”, as the N-word is used by intolerant people to indiscriminantly slur black people. However, “Fundie” is applied to certain folks quite discriminantly, based solely on their own behavior.
To cut it short: People need to EARN the privilege of being labeled a “fundie”. Not so for racial slurs.
Sarcasm was more the intent, although there is a certain element of schadenfreude, sure. An unatributed assertation is something that is simply stated as fact when it is no such thing. There are 3 in this paragraph alone:
“homosexual relationships last only a fraction of the length of time of most marriages – between two and three years). “Commitment” in same-sex couples is different in that sexual faithfulness is not a requirement. Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sexual partners in his lifetime.”
No proof is offered for any of these claims, and in fact they are all demonstrateably false, or at least, inaccurate, when one goes to look for proof.
Lib, what Spoofe said. Comparing a word that describes a person’s choice of how to behave and/or believe(things that are voluntary) with a word that describes someone’s innate physical characterists(things that are involuntary, beyond an indvidual’s control) is disingenious at best, and intentionally misleading at worst.
I have received a response to my email, from the CBC Ombudsman.
Just yer basic ‘I hear you’, but it’s better than nothing.
I know what an unattributed assertion is. I was questioning what an “anatributed assertation” is, as neither word appeared in my dictionary although they both looked remarkably word-like.
In other words, it was a lame spelling flame and I should probably know better. Clearly my powers of sarcasm are weak.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled game of “Just what is Lib talking about, anyway?”
This is awful.
On Mother’s Day I was at my mother’s house, and I noticed in the Toronto Star an ad taken out by Focus on the Family, with a smiling, heterosexual, white couple and their fair-haired child, surrounded by smiling, (presumably heterosexual) white people, and text along the lines of “We believe in Mom and Dad … we believe in family”
I just about choked on my Mother’s Day cheese and crackers, and prepared to write an angry letter to the Toronto Star on the subject.
And then I saw the ads printed in the Globe, and both papers continue to print them. (The Post as well, I think, and most likely the Sun, although those don’t surprise me.) And I saw letters to the editor pointing out the hateful subtext of the ads, and letters from FOTF supporters saying “Where’s this ‘tolerance’ all you gays are always on about? What about freedom of speech?” and letters from others saying ‘Your tolerance has nothing to do with me’ and a letter from the Star’s ombudsman defending the choice to print the ad (since it’s not openly ‘hateful.’) I’ve been digesting this ever since and I think I’m ready to join the debate.
And now this. This is appalling. I’ve encountered those so-called REAL women before and these are the type of people who make me hesitant to call myself feminist.
What inspires me about all this is that we the people don’t seem to be taking it lying down. The papers are hearing about the FOTF ads, and the CBC is hearing about these so-called REAL women, and they will continue to do so.
Recently the Supreme Court affirmed its previous decision on third-party advertising in election campaigns. Meaning, in the upcoming federal election, people like FOTF cannot spend much money on commercials telling us to vote Conservative. So I guess that is a good sign as well.
Well, the debate will continue. We will keep writing letters (letters@globeandmail.ca; lettertoed@thestar.ca) saying this is unacceptable. The anti-SSM folks will continue to be exposed as hateful.
cowgirl, I recently saw that ad (or a similar one) in a Calgary paper, too. It didn’t surprise me very much, as Ralph hasn’t been reticent about declaring how no gays are getting married in Alberta any time soon. Buncha rednecks around here…