My comment goes back to context. There are a zillion issues to bring to the front, and a gabilion holidays or other opportunities to discuss issues that are utterly unrelated to the gay community. Most if not all of those are overlooked, unless in a gay context. That makes the one totally non-sequitor article stand out.

Labor is a hot-button issue right now. Serious, fire-branding, protest-leading, crazy protest hot-button issue. It’s one of the principle fracture points of debate over the past 12 months.

So it’s into that heated vortex where a subject pops up out of the blue, pretty much uniquely. It came across to me like a “and while we’re discussing liberal… err… I mean gay issues” not in conTENT, but in much larger conTEXT. Not a huge deal, but enough that you noted it in your opener (which was what actually caught my attention). And it reminded me of the kerbillion instances in which I’ve had to listen to people make assumptions about my value systems and beliefs solely because of my sexuality. Worse, I see that a lot in our community — anyone not in lockstep with Democratic dogma must be a self-hater, evil and cruel, stupid, or a total asshole.

But what set me alight was the responses to my comment. Where I was making a point before, I got very upset at the responses I got, many of which not only reinforced my original objection, but some of which got rather nasty (again, not from you — you were cranky and exasperated, but never nasty), and several of which seemed trapped in mindless dogma and weak “but we’re all people so everything is connected by the force, Luke” pie in the sky thinking. (Did I mention I hate clowns and parades?)

There are few things I object to more than hypocrisy – so when people constantly demand tolerance while calling anyone who doesn’t see things their way “heartless” and “clueless”, I object. When someone calls me clueless but can’t actually employ logic or read what I wrote clearly, I object. And I’m a little bored in the afternoon, so I have the time to, well… you get the idea.

Like you and Tim, I’m also a patchwork of hard-earned belief systems, and most of all, I’m a critic. I completely mistrust authority, but loathe the rule of the masses. I believe in multiculturalism, but have a big problem with illegal immigration. I believe in limited government, but think my taxes are far too low. I supported an incursion into Iraq but was incensed by the timing, its pathetic execution, and being lied to about the reasons for going there. I’m inspired by 19th and early 20th century labor, but fervently angry about the behavior of public sector unions over the past 40 years. And I’m driven nuts by anyone who can’t navigate nuances between these concepts — or worse, faults me for doing so.

We need to make room for complexity in our discourse in an era of bumpersticker politics, but we need to be mindful of how we present ourselves not only within our community, but also – perhaps especially – outside our community to folks who don’t know us (or don’t want to). It’s hard – it means anticipating that people don’t know what you mean, where you’re coming from, or will draw their own contextual conclusions that could be hostile to your interests or intentions.

And as one of the chief contributors, you have a metaphorical bullseye on you. So buck up :) You are appreciated and respected. You’re also going to catch flak — both for good reasons and bad. Just take it as it’s intended — 2 cents tossed into a bucket of pennies.

I’m an agnostic/atheist liberal Democrat. The other major contributor, Timothy Kincaid, is conservative and a practicing Christian. Between the two of us, we’ve managed to piss off everyone, including people even from our own sides of the aisle as well as, on occasion, each other. But it’s what I think is so valuable here. I can’t think of any other web site with such divergent opinions sharing the front page. So yeah, talk about diversity…

1) I really am still very surprised that you find the post so controversial. I simply fail to see exactly what it is you object to except for the fact that it’s “not gay.” On that, we’re in agreement. But if you think everything should fit insuch tight, neat little boxes, then that’s a pretty tiny world we’d be living in. LGBT people don’t work in a vacuum. Life doesn’t work in a vacuum. And where there are parallel experiences, lessons to be learned, and sacrifices to be honored, I see no reason to put blinders on suddenly because it’s “not gay.”

2) Other thinking is welcome. However, that is not to say that other thinking goes unchalleneged. You challenged me, I challenged back. As for sensitivity, I would question who’s being sensitive here — the guy who wrote the post, or the guy who spent days writing 2,200 words worth of rebutalls which are about to overtake the original post in volume. “Muzzles indeed.”

3) And finally, this:

Basically, you just assumed that everyone here is a supporter of the modern labor movement because we happen to be gay.

Well, no. I assumed that we were all celebrating Labor Day because we are all Americans. And that we are all grateful that labor practices which were perfectly legal 80 years ago are now banned. And that is somehow connected with this national holiday. Fer christsakes, it’s not like I was talking about the right to coffee breaks. It’s about one segment of a populaton engaging in the wholesale denial of the basic human rights and dignitiy of a dimsissed minority, a story which many of us find familiar. Which brings me back to #1. I’m flabberghasted that this is so controversial, and that it obviously bothers you so deeply.

I’m sorry, I thought this was a website devoted to “News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric”. What you’re saying is that in fact it’s a human rights site, since gay rights are indistinguishable from human rights, and that’s all inclusive. In fact, you’re saying it’s a “whatever I feel like site”; you really should change your banner to “Jim’s personal blog”.

Read what I’ve said again. I’m not saying what you say I said. And I’m not downplaying the plight of the miners.

I resent your abuse of Mrs. King here to elevate yourself. If CSK had posted a history of the Stonewall Riots in the NAACP newsletter without any context, I think you might have a parallel. But that’s NOT what she did.

When CSK spoke out on gay rights as human rights, she did so in venues that discussed human rights in a larger context. Or when asked specific questions as the doyenne of the Civil Rights Movement, a leading thinker, widow, and helpmate of MLKJr.

She didn’t tuck handy little gay histories into the Black History Month newsletter because all blacks OBVIOUSLY think gay rights are inseparable from the battle for racial equality, and these stories would be received without question.

When CSK spoke to the issue of gay rights, she did so in a way that explained how she got to that line of thinking. She spoke to the larger humanity and wrote about the issue as one of human rights.

You tucked in a very well written history project because you felt like it.

Basically, you just assumed that everyone here is a supporter of the modern labor movement because we happen to be gay.

And while folks INCLUDING MYSELF stand in awe of those generations who went before, who suffered under intolerable conditions, fought and died for improved labor conditions, that’s NOT the same as assuming that all of us are on the same side in the fights over labor TODAY.

My point was to draw a sensitivity to the stereotyping gays experience as liberals.

I’d point out that this stereotyping is something you highlighted in a parallel article YESTERDAY in which we see someone demeaning keynesian theory because Keynes was gay, and we know what THAT means. We know what that means. Because we know how all gays think. Because they all think the same way.

The response I got was:

Of course all gays ARE liberals! Anyone who thinks otherwise is “clueless” and “heartless”, wants to cripple free speech, and wants put a muzzle on Coretta Scott King !!! (emphasis added)

In short, what I got was “other thinking is unwelcome”. Also known as “we’re tolerant, but only when you agree with us”. Oh, and “if you don’t like it, why don’t you go somewhere else”, which I thought was a nice touch.

Look, if you’re supersensitive, then by all means require membership, or block the comments. But I resent like hell having to tow your philosophical line in order to be able to speak out as a gay man. Muzzles indeed.

“I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people. … But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.”

I guess she was being “partisan” for daring to go where her followers didn’t want her to go. I don’t see human rights as liberal or conservative. Liberal and Conservative arguments can be made for the same thing. And bringing up strawman arguments that haven’t been raised here will not garner you any points.

If you’re dissatisfied with the fact that I have no intention of putting blinders on when it comes to human rights, then you are perfectly free to start your own web site, and that will give you the prerogative of deciding what belongs and what doesn’t.

Frankly, a post about the horrible abuses endured by West Virginia Miners who were living under conditions of virtual slavery — a term I almost never use — is the last thing I ever thought would be controversial. But maybe different people have different perspectives on controversial. As you say, not all gays think alike.

I really appreciate that Blackdog uses the phrase “my feeling is” — because s/he correctly identifies that it’s a personal perspective, and one to which we are all entitled. Or should be.

Without the name calling and finger pointing or vituperative anger which apparently this has stirred up. Which is to say, justme — screw you and get your head out of your butt you whackadoodle marxist. there, is that namecalling enough for you, or am i just too indoctrinated?

Let me say this. Human Rights is arguably inclusive. LGBT rights and race rights and other rights are NOT nearly so. You can’t tell me that reparations for african americans is an LGBT issue unless you are willing to depart from the specifics and bend it into overarching themes of… human rights. You can’t tell me that abortion access is an LGBT right… unless you get into over-arching issues like freedom to choose about ones body, etc. — in which case you have departed from the LGBT category and returned to the “big box” of “human rights”. Which is fine. But for the sake of LOGIC please learn to separate them out and be willing to accept that such a thing may be possible, even if you don’t agree with doing so. And, for the record, not everyone who is gay is either going to care, or believe about issues in the same way.

But when folks get on board and and lump all of them together and call names and get radically angry as a few of you have, with anyone who disagrees with them, well, it can’t hardly be surprising that such stereotypes exist. Can’t hardly figure out where the streotype of the angry intolerant radical liberal gay person comes from.

So I guess my question is: is this an LGBT site, or is this a “human rights” site. Because if it’s the latter, the focus is awfully narrow. And if it’s the former, then it is what it is.

Yes, all human rights are connected. Yes, all human rights must be protected. No, none of us are free until all of us are free.

This isn’t a weakness in the face of out-of-control billionaire-based corporate/religious persecution, it’s our greatest strength.

We, the vast majority, are, indeed, all in this together.

There is only right and wrong. Only freedom and oppression. Labels like “liberal” and “conservative” are utterly meaningless except to the extent that their use shows the extent to which their user has been successfully indoctrinated by our enemies.

My feeling is that ALL of these issues are intertwined, and that’s why people need to fight for equality for everybody…not just fall into “special interest group” thinking where everyone is fighting for scraps in some kind of zero-sum game where if one group has rights, somehow another doesn’t.

That seems to be how the Anti-gays, the Fundamentalists, and movement “Big C” Conservatives think…i.e. the typical arguments against marriage equality…that if gays have the right to marry it will adversely affect everyone else’s marriage somehow.

Of course Race is an LGBT issue and LGBT issues tie into religious issues and religious issues tie into freedom of speech and until people realize that it’s all connected, we’re all human, and if we all worked together then the divide and conquer games that corporations and politicians and preachers play would stop working so well.

Idealistic, I know…

Andrew: I frequently see race showing up as an LGBT issue.

Race is definitely an LGBT issue. Greta Christina frequently points out the serious mistakes made on race in the early days of the gay rights struggle (paralleling similar mistakes made on race and class in the early days of the feminist movement) as a warning to atheists not to commit the same errors in our movement.

The mistakes on race in the days before and after Stonewall fed the perception that the gay rights struggle was a struggle for the rights of middle class, white, urban gay men. And the fractures from those early mistakes are still showing. Every writer on these issues will tell you that race is still an LGBT issue.

TRiG.