Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Thailand News and Discussion Forum | ASEANNOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Pride Or Shame?

Featured Replies

My mistake. I'm sure the guess list was similarly large this time as well. My point still stands. A few morons out of a large group. Their behavior does NOT represent gay activists or gay Americans in any way.

BTW, over 300 people attended the 2012 gay pride Obama white house event in which the morons did the thing in front of the Reagan portrait.

http://goqnotes.com/...onth-reception/

No, I'm quite sure the actions were not representative of gay activists... but an awful lot of Americans are going to see it that way. That is where the damage is done.

Yes and no. The people jumping on this story seem to be people who already hate gays. Preaching to the converted. Yes, it's a bad thing but I doubt there is any long term political damage.

The haters are reinforced in their opinions and will tell other people, "see I told you so". Damage has been done.

  • Replies 141
  • Views 825
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Yes and no. The people jumping on this story seem to be people who already hate gays. Preaching to the converted. Yes, it's a bad thing but I doubt there is any long term political damage.

If you mean the OP, I have seen no indication at all that he "hates gays". In fact, he supports gay rights and even is even comfortable with gay marriage. There is a big difference between hating gays and objecting to activists with a radical agenda.

Yes and no. The people jumping on this story seem to be people who already hate gays. Preaching to the converted. Yes, it's a bad thing but I doubt there is any long term political damage.

If you mean the OP, I have seen no indication at all that he "hates gays". In fact, he supports gay rights and even is even comfortable with gay marriage. There is a big difference between hating gays and objecting to activists with a radical agenda.

No, I was not referring to the OP. Read the entirety of my post 25. It is clear I was talking about the sickening anti-gay hate speech I found just casually googling the story.

BTW, I completely disagree that an American who is supportive of gay civil rights (currently the majority finally support legal gay marriage in pollings) who hears about this one incident is going to say, no, now they don't deserve civil rights now because a few of them misbehaved. That's ridiculous! Again, the people all worked up about defiling Reagan are mostly republicans anyway, and the vast majority of republicans are ALREADY enemies of gay civil rights.

Yes and no. The people jumping on this story seem to be people who already hate gays. Preaching to the converted. Yes, it's a bad thing but I doubt there is any long term political damage.

If you mean the OP, I have seen no indication at all that he "hates gays". In fact, he supports gay rights and even is even comfortable with gay marriage. There is a big difference between hating gays and objecting to activists with a radical agenda.

BTW, I completely disagree that an American who is supportive of gay civil rights (currently the majority finally support legal gay marriage in pollings) who hears about this one incident is going to say, no, now they don't deserve civil rights now because a few of them misbehaved. That's ridiculous! Again, the people all worked up about defiling Reagan are mostly republicans anyway, and the vast majority of republicans are ALREADY enemies of gay civil rights.

I don't think anyone was really saying this. The issue is not as polarised as you seem to think it is. I suspect most of the people who poll to support gay civil rights have a vague sort of feeling that gays should have similar rights to the rest... but that sort of vague feeling is easily disrupted (if you can disrupt a feeling). Anyway, the incident has happened now, and as Tombkk says, the damage has already been done.

BTW, I completely disagree that an American who is supportive of gay civil rights (currently the majority finally support legal gay marriage in pollings) who hears about this one incident is going to say, no, now they don't deserve civil rights now because a few of them misbehaved.

I don't think anyone was really saying this.

You are right. No one said that. Jingthing enjoys revving up the drama from time to time.

This is over the top. Perhaps one percent of Americans at most have even heard about this minor incident! Mostly followers of wackazoid right wing, anti-gay websites. This story is a big nothing.

BTW, gay activists seeking gay equal civil rights do not have a RADICAL agenda. They have an all American agenda.

  • Author

BTW, I completely disagree that an American who is supportive of gay civil rights (currently the majority finally support legal gay marriage in pollings) who hears about this one incident is going to say, no, now they don't deserve civil rights now because a few of them misbehaved. That's ridiculous! Again, the people all worked up about defiling Reagan are mostly republicans anyway, and the vast majority of republicans are ALREADY enemies of gay civil rights.

Well, you are gay and your above opinion is only your guess. I on the other hand, am a straight, Republican who supports gay rights who was so offended by their behavior not only toward Reagan but as guest in the White House I don't feel all so supportive anymore. Not so much that I would vote against gay rights/marriage, but I would consider donating against it if the opportunity arose. Maybe that doesn't make sense but the way people react when they are offended like this isn't always logical.

It makes no sense at all! It was a few people. 300 guests. Do what you want. Gay people will always have enemies and people who react to minorities in a totally irrational way just as as all widely disliked and massively stereotyped/misunderstood minority groups do. It goes with the territory. You're on the wrong side of history. I'm confident of that. If people don't believe me about the VILE HATE against gays out there, just google the story and start reading the right wing websites. Nauseating, toxic, hate. They had it before and they'll die with it.

Any person performing such actions in the White House, straight or gay, gets condemnation from me.

The original article was in the Washington Times. I don't know how much influence this paper has... Americans may tell us.... but I would guess more than 1%. And we don't know how many other newspapers carried the story.

Yes, it is a small story about rather small people, and by itself will probably not do much damage. What does do damage is the cumulative effect of many 'small' stories.

All minorities have enemies, not only gays. In the microcosm of a public school, which we were talking about in another thread on OTB, anybody out of the ordinary is picked on... and bullied. This unfortunately reflects the real world. Gay people will always be in the minority, and have to learn to live with it. Even if we get all the rights we want.

Any person performing such actions in the White House, straight or gay, gets condemnation from me.

Me too. But you don't conclude that the group the person comes from that does "such actions" doesn't deserve equal civil rights based on that! There are MILLIONS of gay Americans. They have nothing to do with the people who fingered Reagan. Gay activists aren't elected by a gay nation. There is no gay nation.

The original article was in the Washington Times. I don't know how much influence this paper has... Americans may tell us.... but I would guess more than 1%. And we don't know how many other newspapers carried the story.

Yes, it is a small story about rather small people, and by itself will probably not do much damage. What does do damage is the cumulative effect of many 'small' stories.

All minorities have enemies, not only gays. In the microcosm of a public school, which we were talking about in another thread on OTB, anybody out of the ordinary is picked on... and bullied. This unfortunately reflects the real world. Gay people will always be in the minority, and have to learn to live with it. Even if we get all the rights we want.

The Washington Times is a right wing rag, with a long record of anti-gay editorial bias, and owned by the right wing Korean MOONIE group. In D.C. it is considered a major joke of a newspaper. Moonies are considered to be a CULT. Washington has a world class newspaper, The Washington Post. Based on a search, the Post didn't even cover this minor incident. I reckon the vast majority of serious American media didn't cover it either. You will, however, find it widely on the net at right wing, anti-gay websites. Like I said, before, preaching to the converted. There is a block of Americans that are never going to have a fair attitude towards gays. They are mostly older people.
  • Author

The original article was in the Washington Times. I don't know how much influence this paper has... Americans may tell us.... but I would guess more than 1%. And we don't know how many other newspapers carried the story.

Newspaper circulation is meaningless in the Internet Age. This story was carried on http://www.drudgereport.com/ and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ which reach far more people than the New York Times and spread all over the country, and the world as this thread proves.

The original article was in the Washington Times. I don't know how much influence this paper has... Americans may tell us.... but I would guess more than 1%. And we don't know how many other newspapers carried the story.

Newspaper circulation is meaningless in the Internet Age. This story was carried on http://www.drudgereport.com/ and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ which reach far more people than the New York Times and spread all over the country, and the world as this thread proves.

Fair enough. I still think its a nothing story and the story isn't capable of actually turning a gay civil rights supporter into a gay civil rights opponent. I don't believe you that are really a supporter of gay civil rights if you claim you are negatively influenced by this trivial incident involving a few gay people out of millions. That's absurd. If a black person did it, would anyone say let's allow bans on interracial marriages again. Maybe you're just seeking out EXCUSES to rationalize your support of inequality.
  • Author

The original article was in the Washington Times. I don't know how much influence this paper has... Americans may tell us.... but I would guess more than 1%. And we don't know how many other newspapers carried the story.

Newspaper circulation is meaningless in the Internet Age. This story was carried on http://www.drudgereport.com/ and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ which reach far more people than the New York Times and spread all over the country, and the world as this thread proves.

Fair enough. I still think its a nothing story and the story isn't capable of actually turning a gay civil rights supporter into a gay civil rights opponent. I don't believe you that are really a supporter of gay civil rights if you claim you are negatively influenced by this trivial incident involving a few gay people out of millions. That's absurd. If a black person did it, would anyone say let's allow bans on interracial marriages again. Maybe you're just seeking out EXCUSES to rationalize your support of inequality.

And whenever someone does or says any little thing against a homosexual you go crazy calling them all kinds of nasty names. You paint Republicans with the anti-gay-bigot brush, but ignore the WELL ESTABLISHED FACT that the last time same sex marriage was put to vote in California, it was defeated by the wave of blacks and Hispanic DEMOCRATS turning out to vote for The One. Yet another in an endless line of examples of Democrats causing their own failure but blaming others.

  • Author

Fair enough. I still think its a nothing story and the story isn't capable of actually turning a gay civil rights supporter into a gay civil rights opponent.

In the long term, no, it wouldn't. I would never consider donating to an anti-gay group, but after reading about what happened in the White House if I had been presented the opportunity to donate to an anti-gay rights organization I would have done it, 100%.

JT if it is true that the GLBT community are Regan haters because of how little he did for aids then by using that same standard they should love GW Bush as he spend more money on Aids then anyone before of after. Lets be honest Obama has turned the white house into a play house and along with lowering the respect for the country, the position of preseident and the dollar his policies make him another jimmy carter.

The original article was in the Washington Times. I don't know how much influence this paper has... Americans may tell us.... but I would guess more than 1%. And we don't know how many other newspapers carried the story.

Newspaper circulation is meaningless in the Internet Age. This story was carried on http://www.drudgereport.com/ and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ which reach far more people than the New York Times and spread all over the country, and the world as this thread proves.

Fair enough. I still think its a nothing story and the story isn't capable of actually turning a gay civil rights supporter into a gay civil rights opponent. I don't believe you that are really a supporter of gay civil rights if you claim you are negatively influenced by this trivial incident involving a few gay people out of millions. That's absurd. If a black person did it, would anyone say let's allow bans on interracial marriages again. Maybe you're just seeking out EXCUSES to rationalize your support of inequality.

And whenever someone does or says any little thing against a homosexual you go crazy calling them all kinds of nasty names. You paint Republicans with the anti-gay-bigot brush, but ignore the WELL ESTABLISHED FACT that the last time same sex marriage was put to vote in California, it was defeated by the wave of blacks and Hispanic DEMOCRATS turning out to vote for The One. Yet another in an endless line of examples of Democrats causing their own failure but blaming others.

drop the personal attacks and discuss the post, thanks

JT if it is true that the GLBT community are Regan haters because of how little he did for aids then by using that same standard they should love GW Bush as he spend more money on Aids then anyone before of after. Lets be honest Obama has turned the white house into a play house and along with lowering the respect for the country, the position of preseident and the dollar his policies make him another jimmy carter.

Bush was very, very good about addressing HIV in Africa, that is true, and its the one thing he does deserve credit for. Of course in Africa, HIV had a much different demographic (almost all heterosexual) than when the crisis hit in America in the 80s. But he was horribly anti-gay rights in general. When Reagan was president, sadly HIV was the main issue for gays as it was a crisis in America. By the time of Bush, it was a more normal mix of political gay issues. Bush wasn't president of Africa after all. He is not despised in the same way Reagan was but he did nothing to attract the gay vote, and he didn't get it. In fact, his political machine consistently used demonization of gays to attract money and votes. Think Karl Rove. Nothing to love there.

No, I don't agree Obama is Jimmy Carter, but understand it is common talking point.

Obama makes what Jimmy Carter did look somewhat acceptable in comparison. bah.gif

Obama makes what Jimmy Carter did look somewhat acceptable in comparison. bah.gif

We know you feel that way, but I think the general topic is around gay activists at a pride event in the white house, and related side issues, not Obama in general.
  • Author

JT if it is true that the GLBT community are Regan haters because of how little he did for aids then by using that same standard they should love GW Bush as he spend more money on Aids then anyone before of after. Lets be honest Obama has turned the white house into a play house and along with lowering the respect for the country, the position of preseident and the dollar his policies make him another jimmy carter.

Bush was very, very good about addressing HIV in Africa, that is true, and its the one thing he does deserve credit for. Of course in Africa, HIV had a much different demographic (almost all heterosexual) than when the crisis hit in America in the 80s. But he was horribly anti-gay rights in general. When Reagan was president, sadly HIV was the main issue for gays as it was a crisis in America. By the time of Bush, it was a more normal mix of political gay issues. Bush wasn't president of Africa after all. He is not despised in the same way Reagan was but he did nothing to attract the gay vote, and he didn't get it. In fact, his political machine consistently used demonization of gays to attract money and votes. Think Karl Rove. Nothing to love there.

No, I don't agree Obama is Jimmy Carter, but understand it is common talking point.

Reagan was not "horribly anti-gay rights in general". Just the opposite...

http://spectator.org...reagan-and-milk

Reagan and Milk

If you have seen Milk, the biopic of slain San Francisco City Supervisor Harvey Milk starring Sean Penn, then you will be aware that much of the plot focuses on Milk's efforts to defeat a 1978 California ballot initiative known as Proposition 6. This initiative would be defeated that November and in the movie Milk is given the lion's share of the credit for its demise.

Had Proposition 6 (also known as the Briggs Initiative, as it was initiated by Republican State Senator John Briggs) passed, it would have become legal for teachers to be fired if it were known they were gay or lesbian. A teacher could also be fired for publicly supporting homosexuality.

There is little doubt Milk's yeoman efforts against Proposition 6 were significant. Yet if it were not for the intervention of Ronald Reagan the initiative would have almost certainly passed. Milk, to its credit, notes Reagan's opposition to Proposition 6. However, its acknowledgement doesn't properly do justice to how significant Reagan's contribution was to this divisive debate. It is a shame given, the hostility directed towards Reagan by the gay community to this very day due to his perceived indifference to and inaction on AIDS.

And this link from 2004...

http://igfculturewatch.com/2004/06/10/reagan-and-gays-a-reassessment/

During Reagan's presidency the first openly gay couple spent a night together in the White House. In a column for The Washington Post on March 18, 1984, Robert Kaiser described the sleep-over: "[The Reagans'] interior decorator, Ted Graber, who oversaw the redecoration of the White House, spent a night in the Reagans' private White House quarters with his male lover, Archie Case, when they came to Washington for Nancy Reagan's 60th birthday party. . . . Indeed, all the available evidence suggests that Ronald Reagan is a closet tolerant."

You might consider reading my posts more carefully.

In saying

But he was horribly anti-gay rights in general

I was clearly still talking about BUSH.

I am glad to be reminded of Reagan's stand on Proposition 6. A bright moment for him but it happened BEFORE he had the power of president.

His inaction on Aids as PRESIDENT still remains completely unforgivable.

The blog you posted is clearly right wing apologists. Gay people want more than "tolerance"; we demand equal civil rights under the law no we will never shut up until we get what you got just being born. Whether Reagan tolerated Nancy's interior decorators (stereotypical roles) is of NO interest or political relevance.

BTW, so Reagan wrote an op-ed did he? Did he actively campaign against Prop 6? I was there and I was working as an activist with Harvey Milk at the time. I never saw one ad or media mention about Reagan's position on the matter. I don't believe Reagan was significant at all in that battle. I think that's right wing revisionist history to suggest that he was.

Yes, right wing gay republicans DO exist. The writer of the blog is clearly one of them. They represent about 5 percent of gay Americans.

  • Author

Not only was making obscene gestures in the White House as guest and posting the photos online in downright poor taste and a sign of poor upbringing, it turns out their reasons for hating Reagan so much in the first place just aren't true. It probably originates from 30-yr old slander to get the entire gay community to vote one way - Democrat.

That still doesn't mean Reagan's inaction in office around the Aids issue was excusable, because it will never be excusable.

Reagan was actually a very horrible president during the breakout of the Aids epidemic in the USA. He did almost NOTHING in response. There is no excuse for it.

From the Independent Gay Forum (One might guess that "Independent" means they think for themselves instead of repeating Democrat talking points)...

http://igfculturewat...a-reassessment/

Reagan and AIDS: A Reassessment

by Dale Carpenter on June 24, 2004

First, it's untrue that the Reagan administration "said nothing" in response to the disease. In June 1983, a year before the virus that causes AIDS had even been publicly identified, Reagan's Secretary of Health and Human Services, Margaret Heckler, announced at the U.S. Conference of Mayors that the department "considers AIDS its number-one health priority." She specifically praised "the excellent work done by gay networks around the nation" that had spread information about the disease.

Despite the oft-repeated claim that Reagan himself didn't mention AIDS publicly until 1987, he actually first discussed it at a press conference in September 1985. Responding to a reporter's question about the need for more funding, Reagan accurately noted that the federal government had already spent more than half a billion dollars on AIDS up to that point. "So, this is a top priority with us," said Reagan. "Yes, there's no question about the seriousness of this and the need to find an answer."

Second, it's untrue that the Reagan administration "did nothing" in response to the disease. Deroy Murdock, a gay-friendly conservative columnist, has reviewed federal spending on AIDS programs during the Reagan years. According to Murdock, annual spending rose from eight million dollars in 1982 to more than $2.3 billion in 1989. In all, the federal government spent almost six billion dollars on AIDS during Reagan's tenure.

The right wing revisionist history about how Reagan "wasn't that bad" on Aids is unseemly and rings totally false, especially to someone like me who is a survivor from the front lines of the epidemic and saw what went on firsthand.

Is this an emotional subject for me? You betcha it is with no apologies.

This article says it all to rebut such cynical revisionism. Please read the entire article. It is very telling, and very damning of Ronald Reagan.

http://www.sfgate.co...ath-2751030.php

As America remembers the life of Ronald Reagan, it must never forget his shameful abdication of leadership in the fight against AIDS. History may ultimately judge his presidency by the thousands who have and will die of AIDS.

...

Revisionist history about Reagan must be rejected. Researchers, historians and AIDS experts who know the truth must not remain silent. Too many have died for that.

Please don't tell people who despise Reagan for his response to Aids and mock his ridiculous legacy as some kind of right wing Demigod that they don't have very good reasons for how they feel.

Modern republicans in general have been extremely toxic towards gay people, using them as convenient scapegoats to stir up fundraising stirring up the hate the gays fundamentalist Christian base, especially in the south. For a gay person to support republicans is totally irrational, and self-hating.

Reagan was a bad president. It's hilarious how is worshiped now by conservatives who are actually way to the right of Reagan, but Reagan was bad enough:

http://www.thenation...ns-real-legacy#

  • Author

The right wing revisionist history about how Reagan "wasn't that bad" on Aids is unseemly and rings totally false, especially to someone like me who is a survivor from the front lines of the epidemic and saw what went on firsthand.

Is this an emotional subject for me? You betcha it is with no apologies.

This article says it all to rebut such cynical revisionism. Please read the entire article. It is very telling, and very damning of Ronald Reagan.

http://www.sfgate.co...ath-2751030.php

As America remembers the life of Ronald Reagan, it must never forget his shameful abdication of leadership in the fight against AIDS. History may ultimately judge his presidency by the thousands who have and will die of AIDS.

...

Revisionist history about Reagan must be rejected. Researchers, historians and AIDS experts who know the truth must not remain silent. Too many have died for that.

Please don't tell people who despise Reagan for his response to Aids and mock his ridiculous legacy as some kind of right wing Demigod that they don't have very good reasons for how they feel.

Modern republicans in general have been extremely toxic towards gay people, using them as convenient scapegoats to stir up fundraising stirring up the hate the gays fundamentalist Christian base, especially in the south. For a gay person to support republicans is totally irrational, and self-hating.

Reagan was a bad president. It's hilarious how is worshiped now by conservatives who are actually way to the right of Reagan, but Reagan was bad enough:

http://www.thenation...ns-real-legacy#

It's obvious that those articles were written by left wing extremists so there opinions are skewed and invalid. Isn't that basically how you are discounting the historical facts of Reagan not being the monster you wish him to be?

Reagan was a great president, and even if he totally ignored gay rights, it wouldn't have mattered because less than 1% of the population cared, and neither did 99% of politicians outside of Northern California.

Finally, I wish you would stop framing AIDS as a gay disease. We had it driven into our heads for decades now that it isn't a gay disease and you trying to undo all that to excuse poor behavior in the White House.

I don't believe the original figures you quoted on Reagan's AID's spending:

Consider that Mayor Dianne Feinstein's AIDS budget for the City of San Francisco was bigger than President Reagan's AIDS budget was for the entire nation. That was true for two years in-a-row in the mid-1980's. In fact, Reagan's proposed federal budget for 1986 actually called for an 11 percent reduction in AIDS spending: from $95 million in 1985, down to $85.5 million in 1986.

http://www.examiner....gacy-of-silence

The disease that we now call AIDS was first identified 30 years ago in medical journals in 1981 -- President Reagan's first year in office. It quickly took hold in the media and in the national consciousness. Yet it wasn't until May 31, 1987 that President Reagan would give his first major address on AIDS. It was at an outdoor speech in Washington organized by AMFAR, the American Foundation for AIDS Research.

In the early days of the plague, it WAS mostly gay men who were victims in America. That doesn't mean it is a gay disease. That's just how it started in the US. The virus had existed for decades, starting with monkeys in Africa.

the right wing Korean MOONIE group.

If what these individuals did was disrespectful, how do we describe, the term ' Moonie', ( in capitals no less ) more often subscribed as disrespectful and pejorative? Then throw in Right Wing and even Korean in the same sentence!! If we are going to defend the rights of the indivual or group, two rights ( or plural ) surely doesn't make a right.

the right wing Korean MOONIE group.

If what these individuals did was disrespectful, how do we describe, the term ' Moonie', ( in capitals no less ) more often subscribed as disrespectful and pejorative? Then throw in Right Wing and even Korean in the same sentence!! If we are going to defend the rights of the indivual or group, two rights ( or plural ) surely doesn't make a right.

The unification church was founded by Mr. Sun Myung Moon. A very politically right wing man who started a very politically right wing church. From Korea. Followers are called Moonies. Those are facts. Moonie is a descriptive word. Personally, I think they're a cult though.

http://www.thefreedi...nary.com/Moonie

Moonies in America have full civil rights. American gay people do NOT.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1569

Whatever Reagan's actions were and however they might be interpreted, there is still NO excuse for the actions of the gay activists while guests in the People's White House.

Try to justify away, but their actions were despicable then and are despicable now.

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.