Comments for Candace Gingrich: A Letter to My Brother Newt Gingrich »
Posted By david_nwpa 1 year, 1 month ago in Political NewsI recently had the displeasure of watching you bash the protestors of the Prop 8 marriage ban to Bill O'Reilly on FOX News. I must say, after years of watching you build your career by stirring up the fears and prejudices of the far right, I feel compelled to use the words of your idol, Ronald Reagan, "There you go, again."
Read Full Story at huffingtonpost.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 66
-
90%
david_nwpa1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sounds like Thanksgiving at the Gingrich household this year ought to be loads of fun. Think Newt and his sister will make up in time to pass one another the sweet potatoes? I highly doubt it. Prop 8 did divide brothers against sisters, and sometimes against one another. Candace is right; the younger generation sees the hatred involved in Prop 8 and the bigotry now enshrined in the California Constitution. May their Supreme Court have the wisdom to remove it with all due speed!
Reply-
100%
UnusualSuspect1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"This is a movement of the people that you most fear. It's a movement of progress -- and your words on FOX News only show how truly desperate you are to maintain control of a world that is changing before your very eyes." - Candace Gingrich
Reply
She's right...the Republicans, after losing badly three weeks ago, know that they are losing supporters in droves.
Time they woke up...if they want to continue being a party of any substance, they better learn how to adapt with the times...
-
-
boots72_Comment removed: Hard Banned18 Replies
-
94%
not2needy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I guess Candice told old Newt off, but good! HAHAHA
Reply
Now as to the above comments.. I didn't see anything in the article that said anything about teaching same sex or straight marriages in the schools at all. I'm not sure what influence a school could make on a person's sexual orientation anyway. It is what it is, and i don't see how sex ed could change a gay person into a straight, or vice versa!
Live and let live, it's not our place to judge anyone.-
100%
StevieGee1 year, 1 month ago
-
0%
DaneL1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You might want to look at this.
Reply
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/firstaids.html
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=544...-
earthlingererComment removed: Spam
-
earthlingererComment removed: Spam
-
93%
ForrestPhelps1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To DaneL:
Reply
So you would rather schools tell students: "Being gay is wrong, but you're still not allowed to beat up gay students."?
There was time not so long ago when children were picked on in school because of their parents' religion, or ethnicity? Were you OK with that?-
-
-
-
100%
not2needy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks for taking on one of the toughest jobs in this country David!
Reply
All of my family were teachers, Mother, Aunts, Uncles, brother and my sister still teaches. Terrible pay, long hours, awful parents, kids sent to school sick, hungry and dirty, and that's just the beginning.
I was a social worker, terrible job too!
-
-
-
-
-
-
75%
hamy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Those "articles" are offensive.
Reply
Just letting children know that gay people exist is not promoting or teaching homosexuality. You can't make a child gay just like you cannot make a child straight. Believe me, my mom and dad tried really hard.
And there is no "GAY AGENDA" that you people keep screaming about. It doesn't exist. People like you created that term and use it to scare people. Your propaganda is not working anymore.
AIDS is not a gay disease. Do you ever read anything? AIDS/HIV is a world problem and it is affecting every population. And you know who you can thank for research, treatments and the science of understanding how the disease works? That's right. The hundreds of thousands of gay people who died fighting Reagan and Bush the first for funding.
Those protesters from ActUp. Silence = death. And we certainly won't be silent ever again.
Enjoy living in ignorance, Dane.
Everyone else, be sure to observe the Day Without Gays in December.
http://daywithoutagay.org/
-
-
-
-
-
earthlingererComment removed: Spam
-
100%
slate1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In the end of this argument I agree that any ’adults’ in love should be allowed to be married and have all the rights. My marriage will in no way be harmed by gays that love each other being married. Fighting over this word isn’t doing anyone any good.
Reply
My best friend at work is a gay woman; she refers to her partner by name, but like me, keeps talk about family to the minimum. She and I don’t talk about sexuality. We don’t have to, it’s obvious to us what that is. She doesn’t wear her sexuality on her sleeve nor do I. We talk politics; which are heated, since she and I have opposing views, she voted not for Obama per se, but more against Palin. In the end there many things we agree on.
The one thing she has told me she has distain for is the overt parades she sees on TV held in California. She tells me that sexuality is too important and private to her to be involved in such a public way. Hey she’s just like me in that sense.
Now I will let the devil’s advocate in me come out for a minute.
If the gays get this wish, will it be over and the gays will feel vindicated and equal, and we can move past it all? Will they (you) go live their (your) lives in peace and anonymity about your sexuality as most do including my friend? Or, is there the ‘next’ step of a planned agenda that will be their focus?
Don’t lambast me; just answer the simple notion as concisely and respectfully as possible. I’m just interested in what the gays feel about it. Will you then be cool with your standing in this country after getting this or are there other things that you will then turn your energy towards with the same zeal after this step is complete?-
100%
david_nwpa1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Frankly, if gays and lesbians are allowed to wed their beloveds, I am ready to attack some more. I say go after the travel and tourism industry that allows straight people to decorate hotel lobbies.
Reply
Seriously, no hidden gay agenda exists. In this struggle for equal rights, this is the last major hurdle. I am still concerned about DADT, but then so are 100 retired military officers and 150 Reps in Congress. Equal rights are all we seek. Gays and lesbians do not have an indoctrination program, that's the Scientologists.-
-
100%
frctm51 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree with you that sexuality should not be on parade in public. I am no prude, but I find it annoying when two people are too intimate in public whether gay or straight. However, I think the notion that homosexuality is fine as long as it is hidden from the public view is not the proper way to deal with this issue. As long as people, gay or straight, are discreet and respectful of others while they are in public, they should not have to hide the nature of their relationship or fear retribution because of it. When you are straight, it is easy to take for granted that you can go most anywhere and not live in fear because of your sexual orientation. Imagine having to approach every person in your life and wonder whether or not this will be an issue for them or whether you can live your life comfortably and in the open. If gays and lesbians can get mainstream acceptance, our society can put this issue behind us and begin working on more important matters. I think its high time we get past this issue that some people are less human than others for matters of race, gender, or sexual orientation. None of these qualities should determine whether this person is good or bad.
Reply-
100%
david_nwpa1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think some of the younger gay crowd fails to understand the historic significance behind the pride rallies and parades of our past. We put on those gala events in part to show the straight world that we refuse to retreat to the safety of our closets. We intend to remain vigilant and expressive of who we are in order to secure our rights. If that makes you feel uncomfortable, then take notice. Many of those drag queens fought for civil rights to break down the closet doors. I too would love to see the NEED for them to come to an end. This applies to almost all the parades, except Mardi Gras. That is just way too much fun for all.
Reply-
100%
frctm51 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think you misinterpreted my comment. I am not making a literal reference to parades. I understand fully the need for political activism and self celebration and pride. I am referring to the daily actions of individuals in everyday life and don't express a standard that is different for either gay or straight. Personally, I don't find it pleasant when people start making out in public. Modest displays of affection such as holding hands, a hug, or an occasional peck on the lips is one thing, but when it becomes a protracted display, my thinking is always "get a room!". This has nothing to do with sexual orientation but decorum.
Reply
For the record, I am not gay, but my father was and my sister is. I live in San Francisco and I have attended gay parties, been at gay weddings, and been to a few of the gay freedom day parades to show my support. I am not saying gays are more inclined toward public acts of intimacy than straights. In fact, I would say they are even less inclined to do so. There is nothing scientific about that observation but i rarely witness two gays in public doing much more than holding hands. My comment is that sexual intimacy should be performed in private whether it is gay, straight or somewhere in the middle. I would include in that definition all the heavy petting and kissing that leads up to this stage. I am not referring to casual displays of affection.-
-
100%
frctm51 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thank you David. I am a strong proponent of the notion that the freedom that others achieve in their struggles for dignity and equal treatment frees all of us. I hope some day that the stigma of homosexuality is lifted and all the energy that was squandered on irrational fears and prejudices can be applied to more constructive and meaningful pursuits. We have enough problems that we face collectively as a people not to stray down paths that have no promise and are a dead end. The more we learn to celebrate our differences and recognize our common interests, we will continue to evolve as a society and fulfill the promise of America.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
hamy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Remember, the first steps toward equality?
Reply
The police in New York would raid the gay bars almost nightly and arrest the patrons of that establishment and then print their names and photographs in the newspaper the next day. Usually the patrons would go peacefully and do anything to try and keep their names out of the paper and sometimes they were beaten into submission by the police.
One night, (it happened to be the anniversary of the death of Judy Garland) a group of drag queens were being arrested in the nightclub Stonewall. They decided that they weren't going to take it any more.
They started to fight back. They picked up a rock and threw it at the police who were beating someone in the street. Others from inside the club came out and joined. It was the first time that gay people realized that they didn't deserve to be arrested and beaten for being who they are. That we aren't any less human because of who we love.
That one act of pride is the reason that those parades happen. It is the reason that AIDS/HIV advocacy happened. It is the reason that the President Elect was able to say the word "gay" during his victory speech.
If other presidents had the balls to say it, maybe we wouldn't have to fight anymore.
-
-
100%
slate1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't want them to 'hide', holding hands and being affectionate is ok for anyone. But the overt sexualness turns me off, no matter who does it. I care little for the girls gone wild in public as I do the gays go wild in public crowd. Have a respect for others, often children are watching.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
100%
hamy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The point of those parades that everyone has such a big problem with is pride. The parades are there because they have to be. If they weren't, would any of this be happening? I long for a day when we don't need the parades. When we can just be happy and live our lives without having to fight.
Reply
But since I was a child, we have been fighting. We were fighting for our lives in the 80's and 90's and now we are fighting for our rights to live those lives without fear. -
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My opinion is that exclusivity needs to go. To brand yourself as something prompts inequality and segregation. We need to start considering ourselves as purely Americans. To say that you are straight or gay, black, brown, green, white, pink, etc... does not bring us together, it separates us.
Reply
Unfortunately, you bring up an important point with your question. When is enough, enough? I believe that there is power in furthering a belief or cause to the point where the power is more important than the actual purpose. Sort of like all those newly elected congress representatives that pledged themselves to term limits in 95. Sounded great and it looked like good idea that fell into line with the whole contract with America thing. I wonder how many actually followed through with the term limit promise. My representative did not, Steve Latourette.
My point is what starts out as a belief or a cause becomes a vocation or career. The focus goes from doing what's right to doing what keeps you employed and important.
I think this prompts the need for another cause once the present is reached.
What are they going to do once they get married and are hit with the marriage income tax rate? Not as bad as it used to be, but it is still unequal. Look at that, another inequality. Maybe they can help us fight that one.-
-
100%
wtagg1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Understood. I have no issues with anyone wanting to marry or not be married. It is about personal choice.
Reply
Funny thing is that conservatives are for choice. Anyone not wanting to allow you that choice is not conservative. It should be your personal liberty, regardless of religion, lack of religion, race, creed, etc....
I do believe Slate has brought up a valid concern. Is the movement itself more powerful than the goal?
Some of this has already been pushed upon by the publication of someone's sexual preference. That is a private concern that is no business of anyone not directly involved unless those involved agree. When I see someone outed by someone who believes they have the right to because they believe it empowers the movement, I think a line has been crossed that is very troubling. Reminds me of Hendrix and the Black Panther party wanting to use him. He just wanted to make music and quite frankly, that was more influential and important in crossing the barrier than anything the Black Panthers did. -
-
-
-
-
100%
frctm51 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
At the root of this issue is fear and insecurity and a dysfunctional culture. Some men have spent a life time building up a persona of masculinity and fear acceptance of homosexuality undermines that image. When you have a lot invested in this image, its a full time job to keep, maintain, and defend. Among religious zealots, they can't face the reality that the morality of the bible is not equipped to handle the complex truth about human relationships, behavior, and psychology. In order to embrace the simplistic concepts of sin, and good and evil, as laid down in the bible, everything must be placed into two categories of right and wrong which find no true expression in the real world of human affairs. God's judgment is final and unequivocal so their views must place all issues between these two extremes.
Reply -
100%
Poulenc1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The notion that one can teach sexual attraction in a school or outside of it is plain idiotic.
Reply
What boots means is that he or she doesn't want young people to be exposed to the different, to the Other: to those who aren't like me or we (as far as that we is known).
Through ignorance, fear, ill-education or obtuse morality, he or she has learned to identify gayness with wrong. But gayness, like straightness, is in itself morally neutral: it's as morally inconsequential as, say, the preference for vanilla ice cream over chocolate.
Gayness, like straightness (and aren't these really arbitrary bifurcations annoying?)has been with humanity since the year one, and before. A certain percentage of the population in every culture has and will always be gay.
Gayness is a harmless fact of human life/ a harmless human sexual variation; to be against it makes as much sense as being against left-handedness.
Religions with draconian sexual-category views are well and good for those who choose to practice them, I suppose; but those practitioners cannot and should not dictate the terms of human love for the whole population. -
100%
Poulenc1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
frctm5, may I please amend this part of your post, above, as it reveals an erroneous assumption:
Reply
"At the root of this issue is fear and insecurity and a dysfunctional culture. Some men have spent a life time building up a persona of masculinity and fear acceptance of homosexuality undermines that image."
Gay men are just as "masculine"--or not--as straight men: they exhibit as much variation in conforming to stereotypical gender definitions as their non-gay brothers.
It would be more accurate to say that many straight men are heavily invesed in not apearing gay, as, traditionally, to be gay has "meant" forfeiting malness.
Defensiveness of this type is, I believe, at the very root of homophobia: to the degree that one has, usually unconsciously, judged oneself harshly for having gay feelings, one will try to make others wrong for having them. One will hate in others what one hates or fears in oneself.-
100%
frctm51 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you read my statement carefully, I was not subscribing to a belief, just describing it. This does not reflect my opinion of whether gays are masculine or not. I am fully aware of the variations that exist within all groups but we all make generalizations to make points if you'll forgive that generalization. The culture promotes archetypes. In America, we have this cowboy image of maleness that runs as a continuous thread through the historical and cultural narrative. He is stubborn, plain spoken, and self assured. Empathy and sensitivity in general are regarded as only proper for females except in a few contexts. I would add to this stereo type that the cowboy is not intellectual but earthy and pragmatic. He is intuitive and gut driven and these instincts make him superior to all the pointy headed academics and touchy feely types. This is the persona that many believe Bush exemplifies and his source of charisma and enduring appeal to a certain mindset. There are plenty of variations on this theme as well, but I don't have the time or the desire to write a comprehensive thesis in this forum. I simply attempt to describe a powerful cultural force that exists and persist and is one contributing factor to the debate.
Reply
-
-
0%
prater56001 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Since this seems to be a gathering of gay marriage proponents, I'll hop in here to present the viewpoint of the other side.
Reply
I don't really give a sh!t whether prop 8 passes of fails. But I was asked to vote on it and I voted for it. Not because of religion, but because of science, or rather the lack of it.
For decades, I have heard gay proponents insist that being gay is inherent. Yet I have never seen any evidence to support that assumption.
I remember about twenty years ago reading a Los Angeles Times article about a scientist who observed that a gland at the base of the brain appeared to be larger in men he knew to be gay. The scientist himself said that this should not be used to prove one way or another that homosexuality is inherent because his studies did not include women, and some of the men died of AIDS. The very next paragraph in the story quoted a member of GLAD, who said that this study proved what they had said all along, that there was a genetic predisposition to being gay.
I'm for intellectual honesty. If you want gay rights, fine. It won't affect me, so I don't care. But stop with the insistence that it's inherent. There is no scientific proof of this. The only proof I've seen on these boards is anecdotal. How is it that a group who is quick to criticize opponents as being anti-intellectual wants others to accept what is at this point a BELIEF that homosexuality is inherent?
And another thing. Insulting EVERYBODY that agrees with you, regardless of their reasoning, only shows that there is intolerance on both sides of the aisle. Not only that, it's a damn stupid way to convince people to come to your way of thinking.-
100%
frctm51 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If I interpret your argument correctly, as long as gayness is genetic and not a choice, you would support it, but because it is a decision, and therefore errant behavior, you won't lend your support? The odd thing here is that if homosexuality is not genetically predisposed, than by the same argument neither is heterosexuality. If is is a matter of choice, then why doesn't choice factor in both directions? Remember, statistics are only anecdotal. Many genetic factors are merely predispositions. If you have a gene that means you are susceptible to alcoholism, this doesn't mean you will become an alcoholic. I am sure that you are straight but do you think you could just decide one day to be attracted to your own sex? Is sexual desire a product of intellect? A rational decision? If not, what is the mechanism at work here? If, as the religious people suggests, and this is telling in its own right, homosexuality is a moral failing, and a choice, it would imply that such urges are natural and the sin was giving into it. I find this a bit amusing because it shows a lack of self examination on the part of the people promoting such ideas. They want us to condemn a form of behavior in others that they say is a moral failing and a choice, but they could only claim superior status by admitting the same temptation in their own lives but not giving in to it. If that is not their argument, you might as well take credit for having green eyes as well. I doubt many would admit to having such urges.
Reply-
0%
prater56001 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First off, thanks for responding with intellect rather than insults to my intelligence. If more people were like yourself, I'm pretty sure that prop 8 would have been defeated.
Reply
My point was to illustrate that gay rights proponents have said over and over again that they are born that way without any scientific proof. That makes it a belief in my book. I just find it ironic that an ideology that so readily embraces science would resort to anecdotal evidence to justify anything, let alone homosexuality.
I've been discussing this for years with gay proponents. Almost every time I have brought up that gay proponents insist that they are born that way without scientific evidence, I am called a homophobe, bigot, small minded, etc. What I don't like is the blanket dismissal of every opposing viewpoint. Do you really believe it's irrational to ask whether or not homosexuality is genetic? Especially when proponents have said it for years without having any evidence to support their claims?
Let me make it clear: I don't have a religious objection to gay marriage. If prop 8 was defeated, I would have just said oh well. I'm just trying to give you all insight as to what the other side thinks. I know there are lots of people who object strictly for religious reasons, but there are plenty like myself who are tired of being called intellectual cretins because we dared to have a politically incorrect viewpoint.
I know you've heard people making claims for years that people are born homosexual. Why can't I ask them for proof of that?
I wish I could respond more on the religious aspect, but that's not why I voted the way I did.-
100%
frctm51 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do you hold straightness to the same standards of scientific rigor? If a straight person tells you that they always knew they were straight, would you question that assertion pending genetic proof?
Reply
I am basically an atheist or agnostic depending on which day of the week you ask me, but at the same time, I have not made science my god. Even though I value the objective pursuit of the truth and the intellect and all the products it has created and the understanding that it provides, I also know that it is no replacement for emotion, feeling, compassion, and empathy and the spontaneous warmth of life that makes it rich and full. I don't need to know the scientific reason why puppies are cute to know that puppies are cute. I just go with it. Life must be a proper blending of prudence and passion. It is easy for us to be detached from an issue where we have no emotional investment in it but imagine that your straightness were regarded as dirty, shameful, or inferior by many of your peers. What if your sexual preference were central to your feelings of self worth, self esteem, and ability to enjoy life in the same manner that many of us can take for granted. It is far easier in this case to regard this issue as simply an intellectual exercise when you have so little at stake in the outcome. Science has not evolved to the point where it can answer many of our moral questions but we humans have known for centuries the value of moral ideas long before science as a discipline could shed light on human behavior or biology. Science can have a place as a component in the debate but it can't be the sole arbiter.
I appreciate your willingness to keep debate on a civil level as well. I prefer to debate ideas than resort to insult. Generally, when the argument turns nasty, I just walk away as I don't see any point to it when this happens.
-
-
-
-
-
100%
hamy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I responded to you saying that you don't care one way or the other, but voted for the proposition which takes away the marriage rights of LGBT people. Even though you yourself said that it doesn't affect you or harm you, you still decided to take those rights away from a group of people.
Reply
The rest of what you said didn't matter. There is no proof that heterosexuality is inherent as well but you believe that don't you? Did you ask your doctor for proof that you are born straight? Americans are born with rights. For you to say, "if you prove to me that you are not just choosing to be gay I will give you rights" is disgusting. Did you ask for black people to prove that they weren't just painting their faces before they were granted full citizenship? I'm just asking.
And FLIPPANT isn't an insult. It merely describes the manner in which you decided to take rights away from a group of American citizens.
-
-
-
Neutral
sinophil491 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
prater - There is, indeed, a fairly large body of scientific data that compellingly shows, but not absolutely prove, that gayness is both genetically and biologically inborn.
Reply
There are several centers or nuclei in the brain that are different in gay vs straight people. These centers were measured by researchers who were blinded to the sexual orientation of the subjects. The measured differences were very consistent statistically. One site I read said that homosexuals simply don't have the brains to be attracted to women.
The incidence of gayness is about 3-5% in the general population. That is the same incidence found in siblings of gay individuals. Among fraternal twins, the incidence of gayness in the twin if the other was gay is 22%. Among identical twins, the incidence of concordant gayness is 50%.
There is evidence that sexual behavior in gay males is determined by a testosterone surge produced by the fetal testicles in one week of fetal development. If the testosterone surge is too low or too late, then the incidence of gayness increases significantly.
There is a gene marker (called XQ28) on the X chromosome that is different in straight vs gay men. That is probably the reason why there is a tendency for male gayness to run in the maternal side of the family. The mother donates the X chromosome; the father donates the Y chromosome.
The establishment of sexual orientation, both straight and gay, is multifactorial - genetic, biologic, and probably social to some degree. That is why the incidence of gayness in identical twins is 50%, but not 100%.
All medical and social work practitioners recognize that the attraction to alcohol and drugs is largely determined by genetic factors. That is why the struggle to remain alcohol and drug free is a life-long battle. Addicts can not be un-attracted to substances. They can only struggle to refrain from using it.
By the same token, gay people can not be un-attracted to the opposite sex. They can not be "re-educated" to become straight. If you want them to not be gay, the only option is for them to refrain from gay behavior. But the gay attraction is forever there.
It is like asking a straight male to be not attracted to a beautiful, sexy woman. It is impossible.
-
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.