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.

That is the crux of it.

Sadly it will affect what people on the fence will now think.

I know JT said these folks do not represent him but that is his personal choice/opinion.

In the same way I can say Obama sure does not represent me.

That does not change the fact ...sadly...that he is President & does represent America.

In that same way these folks who acted poorly in the White House represent the gay population

as a sort of ambassador to the White House & this type of behavior is just wrong in that position.

I 100% understand that many gay folks probably wish it did not happen as it does in fact reflect badly on

*their* cause

To try & turn this around by saying what a poor president Reagan was is useless in this matter.

What matters is how these folks behaved in the PRESENT time at the white House.

I do hope for the gay communities sake they step up & apologize...if not already done?

They badly need some damage control now.

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.

A supporter will not change his mind, but it is about the many people who sit on the fence. As a similarity, many people are Republicans and many are Democrats, and no election campaign will change that. However, millions of dollars are spent by each candidate to sway the undecided.

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.

Your spin here is unfair. I have personally repeatedly condemned the actions of those few people at the white house. There were 300 people in attendance. It was a pride celebration. I have NEVER said their actions are justified! Got that? Good. The issue of Reagan's horrible performance on Aids was naturally brought up but again, despising Reagan (which IS totally justified) does not justify what those few people did. Another point: the spin here that this is a major story with major impact is laughably wrong.

...

I do hope for the gay communities sake they step up & apologize...if not already done?

They badly need some damage control now.

I would also like to see these few people apologize publicly. However, I doubt that their apology would even be covered if they did or do, as this is such a nothing, passing story. This projection that major damage has been done to the gay civil rights cause over this minor incident is basically absurd. On a scale of significance of this incident, 1 to 100, this is a 1.

...

I do hope for the gay communities sake they step up & apologize...if not already done?

They badly need some damage control now.

I would also like to see these few people apologize publicly. However, I doubt that their apology would even be covered if they did or do, as this is such a nothing, passing story.

Apology? Anyone who reads the link in the OP will see this:

Mr. Hart didn’t return a call seeking comment, but he told Philadelphia magazine that he despises Mr. Reagan’s legacy.

“Yeah, f– Reagan,” Mr. Hart said. “Ronald Reagan has blood on his hands. The man was in the White House as AIDS exploded, and he was happy to see plenty of gay men and queer people die. He was a murderous fool, and I have no problem saying so. Don’t invite me back. I don’t care.”

Yes I found that later. So a person or two or three won't apologize. So what? He won't be invited back. Mountain out a molehill.

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.

I am aware that the unification Church was founded by Moon, a Korean. And yes Moonie is a descriptive word, but if you post a link, it is best to read it through, Moonie is a perjoritive description, read your link. There are a lot of descriptive words for a Homosexual, most are unpleasant, but because they are descriptive, does that make it OK?

They are not called Moonies by their followers, and certainly not from everyone who is not a member.

I last attended a Gay Pride event in 1996 in London with some friends. I would have thought by now the issue of what happened in the '80's would have been laid to rest.

Sad to see such anger and unpleasantness rear its head. I'm just glad my friends are based in the UK.

I was in a taxi tonight in the Highlands and talking to the driver he told me his son was off to Uni soon. The conversation turned to what he should spend his time doing and I suggested he find a girlfriend and spend his time studying and enjoying her company.

His response? "Well whatever his orientation I will be happy as long as he is."

Doubt you would have heard that up here 20 years ago.

Perhaps a long struggle but moving forward somewhere at least.

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.

I am aware that the unification Church was founded by Moon, a Korean. And yes Moonie is a descriptive word, but if you post a link, it is best to read it through, Moonie is a perjoritive description, read your link. There are a lot of descriptive words for a Homosexual, most are unpleasant, but because they are descriptive, does that make it OK?

They are not called Moonies by their followers, and certainly not from everyone who is not a member.

OK, I'll stop using the word Moonies even though that is how most everyone knows this group of people. I'll call them what they would prefer to be called Unificationists, a word very people are aware of.

The issue of Unificationists came up because of a link to their propaganda organ, The Washington Times.

Sadly, the anti-gay American right wing has "married" the Unificatationist movement. The Unificatationist newspaper, The Washington Times, was Ronald Reagan's favorite and he was reported to be a regular reader.

To wit:

http://www.guardian....24/usa.religion

They're really into marriage, but they're also really into denying the same rights they have to gay people:

I last attended a Gay Pride event in 1996 in London with some friends. I would have thought by now the issue of what happened in the '80's would have been laid to rest.

As you see, it is not settled. I only recently learned of this sickening right wing movement to try to resurrect Reagan's reputation about Aids. Believe me, survivors who were there won't let that happen! History will know the truth. He was truly a villian on that issue. I think the Reagan idolators want to see Reagan on some kind of paper money and/or on Mount Rushmore. They want him to be the conservative Lincoln like icon. They know the darkest blot on his record is how he didn't deal with Aids. So to wash that over, they are attempting to change history.

BTW, I am not really convinced that the M-word for Unificationists is not acceptable in many mainstream publications and indeed this website.

To wit, from the NATION, posted on this website by its news service:

http://www.thaivisa....1/#entry4667210

And also:

http://www.guardian....oonies-uk-event

I decided to elevate this question here:

I last attended a Gay Pride event in 1996 in London with some friends. I would have thought by now the issue of what happened in the '80's would have been laid to rest.

As you see, it is not settled. I only recently learned of this sickening right wing movement to try to resurrect Reagan's reputation about Aids. Believe me, survivors who were there won't let that happen! History will know the truth. He was truly a villian on that issue. I think the Reagan idolators want to see Reagan on some kind of paper money and/or on Mount Rushmore. They want him to be the conservative Lincoln like icon. They know the darkest blot on his record is how he didn't deal with Aids. So to wash that over, they are attempting to change history.

Good luck withe your crusade but why don't you pursue it at a forum where you are likely to convert people to your way ofr thinking, or at the very least, encounter people who give a shit.

Let me suggest to leave the discussion about the Moon sect out of this thread. Thanks.

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.

Your spin here is unfair. I have personally repeatedly condemned the actions of those few people at the white house. There were 300 people in attendance. It was a pride celebration. I have NEVER said their actions are justified! Got that? Good. The issue of Reagan's horrible performance on Aids was naturally brought up but again, despising Reagan (which IS totally justified) does not justify what those few people did. Another point: the spin here that this is a major story with major impact is laughably wrong.

There is no implied "you" in my post. Everything around here doesn't revolve around your opinions.

My statement was a generality and is appropriate for the topic.

As you see, it is not settled. I only recently learned of this sickening right wing movement to try to resurrect Reagan's reputation about Aids. Believe me, survivors who were there won't let that happen! History will know the truth. He was truly a villian on that issue. I think the Reagan idolators want to see Reagan on some kind of paper money and/or on Mount Rushmore. They want him to be the conservative Lincoln like icon. They know the darkest blot on his record is how he didn't deal with Aids. So to wash that over, they are attempting to change history.

This is such total BS. The gay activists that hate Reagan are just Democrats. If the "darkest blot" on Reagan's record is just that he didn't give a major public speech devoted to AIDS early enough, then forget about Rushmore, the man deserves his own freaking mountain. For the record, the "darkest blot" on Reagan's record is the Iran-Contra Scandal.

If presidents have the personal power to do so, WHY hasn't Obama cured AIDS yet? He's the Messiah, surely he can take out a few minutes to wave his magic wand.

I think the reason behind the poor behavior of the gay activists at the White House is NOT only because of their hate for Reagan, I think it's because a hallmark of gay public behavior is to be outrageous in order to get attention. You can bet there are a lot of straights who visit the White House who would love to flip off the portraits of Clinton or Bush 43 but we are expected to restrain ourselves in these situations. The gay community should try a little restraint now and then (and no, it is not a "human right" to act like an ass in public, it is a personal choice with consequences).

[whoops, unificationist/moonie comments deleted]

If presidents have the personal power to do so, WHY hasn't Obama cured AIDS yet? He's the Messiah, surely he can take out a few minutes to wave his magic wand.

I think the reason behind the poor behavior of the gay activists at the White House is NOT only because of their hate for Reagan, I think it's because a hallmark of gay public behavior is to be outrageous in order to get attention. You can bet there are a lot of straights who visit the White House who would love to flip off the portraits of Clinton or Bush 43 but we are expected to restrain ourselves in these situations. The gay community should try a little restraint now and then (and no, it is not a "human right" to act like an ass in public, it is a personal choice with consequences).

Please do not say that "the gay community" agrees with the gesture. I would say the majority of the gay community agrees that these two individuals should have shown restraint.

See, JT, this is what I mean: People think these individuals represent the gay community. They have done damage.

If presidents have the personal power to do so, WHY hasn't Obama cured AIDS yet? He's the Messiah, surely he can take out a few minutes to wave his magic wand.

I think the reason behind the poor behavior of the gay activists at the White House is NOT only because of their hate for Reagan, I think it's because a hallmark of gay public behavior is to be outrageous in order to get attention. You can bet there are a lot of straights who visit the White House who would love to flip off the portraits of Clinton or Bush 43 but we are expected to restrain ourselves in these situations. The gay community should try a little restraint now and then (and no, it is not a "human right" to act like an ass in public, it is a personal choice with consequences).

Please do not say that "the gay community" agrees with the gesture. I would say the majority of the gay community agrees that these two individuals should have shown restraint.

See, JT, this is what I mean: People think these individuals represent the gay community. They have done damage.

I agree, it isn't fair, but you're right, this is what happens when members of a group misbehave. This is not an unfamiliar phrase, "Remember, while here you're representing ___________ so behave yourselves".

It's not different than if some random members of the New York Giants championship team which was invited to the White House had done a similar thing. People would be talking about the New York Giants, not the individual player involved (unless it was one of the superstars like Eli Manning).

Ronald Reagan, aids criminal?

Our murderer is dead. The man who murdered more gay people than anyone in the entire history of the world, is dead.

http://www.advocate....06/adolf-reagan

"Ronald Reagan and his administration could have made a substantial difference, but for ideological reasons, political reasons, moral reasons, they didn't do it," said the San Francisco dermatologist, who now deals with a new generation of AIDS patients. "President Reagan and his administration committed a crime, not just a sin."

...

But other activists point to Reagan's early silence on the AIDS crisis as doing the bidding of the far right, with devastating results. In San Francisco the number of AIDS cases peaked during the Reagan administration. AIDS activist Rene Durazzo remembers it as a frightening time when "chronic death" seemed to pervade the city streets. "The number of people dying was horrific," Durazzo said. "The disease was very visible; people were suffering and wasting. It was a very volatile environment. There was so much anger at the government for not paying attention."

In response to an announcement by President Bush on Monday that all federal government offices would close on Friday in recognition of a national day of mourning for Reagan, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force said it would close its offices in memory of all those lost to AIDS.

http://www.advocate....tion-aids-12709

My take on it JT is that they didn't really have a clue about what was happening...and rather than say something damaging simply chose to say nothing at all.

We had a similar approach in Europe as well until more facts were apparent. It is not a gay disease exclusively and wasn't then either.

My take on it JT is that they didn't really have a clue about what was happening...and rather than say something damaging simply chose to say nothing at all.

We had a similar approach in Europe as well until more facts were apparent. It is not a gay disease exclusively and wasn't then either.

I was there. I witnessed the history first hand. Reagan's administration decided that gay people deserved their plague for biblical reasons. The people that were dying were the people their POLITICAL BASE was happy to be dying. They called themselves Christians, ironically. The evidence is there if you seek it out. They were EVIL in their inaction. Reagan's official biographer goes into it. Don't pretend to understand the right wing American mindset if you haven't experienced it yourself.

If you want to take about how Aids happened in Europe fine. But if you don't know anything about what happened in America under Reagan, please don't make silly assumptions that they were the same thing.

Frankly, people trying to rationalize Reagan's record on Aids really does remind a lot of people, including me, of holocaust denial. There is no excuse to try to whitewash what Reagan did and the harm he did ... by doing NOTHING.

So yes, gay people who are aware of history and/or lived through the Reagan era have very good reasons to totally despise and disrespect Reagan.

My take on it JT is that they didn't really have a clue about what was happening...and rather than say something damaging simply chose to say nothing at all.We had a similar approach in Europe as well until more facts were apparent. It is not a gay disease exclusively and wasn't then either.

I was there. I witnessed the history first hand. Reagan's administration decided that gay people deserved their plague for biblical reasons. The people that were dying were the people their POLITICAL BASE was happy to be dying. They called themselves Christians, ironically. The evidence is there if you seek it out. They were EVIL in their inaction. Reagan's official biographer goes into it. Don't pretend to understand the right wing American mindset if you haven't experienced it yourself.If you want to take about how Aids happened in Europe fine. But if you don't know anything about what happened in America under Reagan, please don't make silly assumptions that they were the same thing.Frankly, people trying to rationalize Reagan's record on Aids really does remind a lot of people, including me, of holocaust denial. There is no excuse to try to whitewash what Reagan did and the harm he did ... by doing NOTHING.So yes, gay people who are aware of history and/or lived through the Reagan era have very good reasons to totally despise and disrespect Reagan.

Fair enough JT....and yes that was very much from a UK angle.

I was there. I witnessed the history first hand. Reagan's administration decided that gay people deserved their plague for biblical reasons.

I don't suppose you have a link to back up this allegation?

Fair enough JT....and yes that was very much from a UK angle.

No, you were right the first time.

Fair enough JT....and yes that was very much from a UK angle.

No, you were right the first time.

Well I was simply taking an "as I see it" approach. I haven't spent hours or days researching the finer points. I'm happy to concede others are better informed but that is I suspect how many ordinary people will view things.

I was there. I witnessed the history first hand. Reagan's administration decided that gay people deserved their plague for biblical reasons.

I don't suppose you have a link to back up this allegation?

I wouldn't say anyone in the Reagan aministration felt this way specifically, but you may remember this was a time when just about anyone that was on the conservative side of center had to pander to the Moral Majority. The Moral Majority (an Orwellian oxymoron) DID see AIDS as God's retribution to abject sinners. I believe Reagan himself was a personally caring, compassionate and sympathetic man but there were just huge segments of his own administration he didn't have any particular interest in. Unless it was defense/cold war related or one of "Mommy's" pet projects he wasn't much available.

I would say his Surgeon General C. Everett Koop did a pretty good job in those years working within a largely indifferent administration. He was instrumental in getting funding for research doubled and redoubled and multiplied again. He was the administrations face in the Aids War. When he thought they were too slow he went straight to the public raising awareness of risk factors and such.

Oh, they just flipped of a picture? By the heading and lead in by the OP I thought they took pictures of themselves tea-bagging The old Gipper. I think I have flipped of his picture before too, and that Bush and Bush jr. They all deserve it. Wouldn't do it in The White House though.

Oh, they just flipped of a picture? By the heading and lead in by the OP I thought they took pictures of themselves tea-bagging The old Gipper. I think I have flipped of his picture before too, and that Bush and Bush jr. They all deserve it. Wouldn't do it in The White House though.

Correct. Wouldn't do it in the white house.

Oh, they just flipped of a picture? By the heading and lead in by the OP I thought they took pictures of themselves tea-bagging The old Gipper. I think I have flipped of his picture before too, and that Bush and Bush jr. They all deserve it. Wouldn't do it in The White House though.

Correct. Wouldn't do it in the white house.

...and therein lies the rub. The White House is exactly where they did it.

Yes, a few people out of 300. Time to let it go. A good anti-gay, anti-Obama talking point for a few days. Nothing more, nothing less.