The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

blatham wrote:

Actually, you guys are right to jump on me here. I made an assumption regarding the motives of the FDA's decision-makers here which I ought not to have insisted upon.

A common mistake. I like to make it myself. Smile

0 Replies

I have dim memories of perhaps, long ago, making such errors myself.

0 Replies

Well thinking here. When admitting my own culpability, does this morning count as 'long ago?"

0 Replies

Certainly depends on how dim your memory is.

0 Replies

Well they say short term memory is the first to go.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Certainly depends on how dim your memory is.

On thingd like that, Walter, it is very dim.... hardly works at all. Smile

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

On thingd like that, Walter, it is very dim.... hardly works at all.

That's all genetic and thus fully pardonable! (I suffer from this disease, too.)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well they say short term memory is the first to go.

I thought it was the motor skills.

0 Replies

Well the subject was 'remembering things' Tico. But yes, it is said certain physical abilities suffer with time. But it's all good as that opens up a whole new area of marketing possibilities. Now where did I put that phone number to order that 'Focus Factor' I keep hearing about on the radio?

0 Replies

I'm going to link a piece here from "the Nation". It's not a pretty story in a number of ways, but it has clear relevance to FDA personnel and decision-making driven by ideology on matters of sex and reproduction.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050530&s=mcgarvey

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

I'm going to link a piece here from "the Nation". It's not a pretty story in a number of ways, but it has clear relevance to FDA personnel and decision-making driven by ideology on matters of sex and reproduction.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050530&s=mcgarvey

This man, Dr. Hagar, makes me sick and angry.

Dr. W. David Hager, an obstetrician-gynecologist, is a Bush Administration appointee to the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

He occupies a political position of great influence over women's rights, yet he does not believe in the equality between men and women. On the contrary, he believes that men are expected to act as benevolent authority figures for the women in their lives. This probably explains why he thought he had the right & sexual authority based on his male gender to force anal sex upon his own wife against her will; but how can he consider his repeated sodomizing rapes of his own wife to be "benevolent" in any manner whatsoever?

His "family values" consists of requiring wives to sexually submit to their husband's sexual desires whether they want to or not. His wife, a Christian herself, says that probably wouldn't have been so bad if the sex was vaginal--but he forced nonconsensual anal sex upon her.

Quote:

According to Davis [his former wife, Linda Hagar, nka Linda Davis], Hager's public moralizing on sexual matters clashed with his deplorable treatment of her during their marriage. Davis alleges that between 1995 and their divorce in 2002, Hager repeatedly sodomized her without her consent. Several sources on and off the record confirmed that she had told them it was the sexual and emotional abuse within their marriage that eventually forced her out. "I probably wouldn't have objected so much, or felt it was so abusive if he had just wanted normal [vaginal] sex all the time," she explained to me. "But it was the painful, invasive, totally nonconsensual nature of the [anal] sex that was so horrible."

Hagar claims he's a victim of religious persecution. Get real. Do we want a man like this formulating any governmental policy with respect to women's health and rights?

0 Replies

I habitually default to ignoring accusations of sexual misconduct in political debates. Even if false, such accusations are just too easy to make, too hard to defend against, and too politically convenient. True or false, political players would be foolish not to try them against their adversaries whenever they can get away with it. But in Mr. Hagar's case, the accusations of abuse are also completely unnecessary to make the case that he's scary. The fundamentalist Christian nonsense he is peddling is bad enough to not want him in any public office -- much less one where he has such large responsibilities for Americans' sexual health.

0 Replies

Agreed. But for the element of gross hypocrisy. This administration, and its supporters, have used sexual issues to frighten and to divide and to slander - all towards the end of increasing political power and effecting what is really an ideological totalitarianism ("I don't like it, so YOU can't do it"). Even if the fellow is guilty of what his ex-wife charges, this administration will keep him in place if they can get away with it. They will lie, they will stonewall, they will attempt to divert attention (Jeff Gannon) but continue to support him so long as he's achieving policy objectives.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Even if the fellow is guilty of what his ex-wife charges, this administration will keep him in place if they can get away with it.

I agree, and I'm sure we will figure out some probability of him being guilty. If he starts pressing libel charges at some point, that would lead me to guess the probability is rather low. If someone sues him for marital rape, I would guess the probability is fairly high -- nearly certain if he gets convicted. Until any of that happens, I have no major problem with the Bush administration not seeing the accusations as a reason to fire him. If we started sacking officials for the mere accusation that they committed a crime, I would have a much bigger problem -- as I'm sure you did when the shoe was on the other foot, and when Kenneth Starr tried to get Bill Clinton impeached over the Monica Lewinsky affair.

What Hager said and wrote in public is so damaging that it's foolish to get side-tracked by the sexual stuff.

0 Replies

We are as one. Without the cuddling, I hasten to add.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Agreed. But for the element of gross hypocrisy. This administration, and its supporters, have used sexual issues to frighten and to divide and to slander - all towards the end of increasing political power and effecting what is really an ideological totalitarianism ("I don't like it, so YOU can't do it"). Even if the fellow is guilty of what his ex-wife charges, this administration will keep him in place if they can get away with it. They will lie, they will stonewall, they will attempt to divert attention (Jeff Gannon) but continue to support him so long as he's achieving policy objectives.

The administration will support Mr Hager though not for the reasons stated in that post - he is indeed achieving policy objectives (and nobody can doubt the credibility of his ex-wife, given the contemporaneous medical and other data) foremost among which is to totally and irrevocably discredit the homosexuals' defense that AIDS is also transmitted via heterosexual activity and so therefore homosexual men shouldn't be stigmatized.

The "just say no" policy combats overpopulation, Medicare/Medicaid or pension fund deficits, prostitution, drug addiction, new drug-resistant infections and assorted issues - all at one go - by simply killing off the prospective patients. It's a brilliant budgetary maneuver and not a moral issue at all - but it does take a Republican (and/or a mathematician) to spot the technique at work <G>

0 Replies

Not sure, if this had been posted here already:

Christian telco in gay smear allegations

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,469469,00.jpg

The "Anti Gay Telephone Call" can be heard (in original English) on this (German) Spiegel website (it's in the middle of that page).

0 Replies

Great link, Walter.

0 Replies

I read Blatham's link fron The Nation concerning Dr Hagar. I am not at all familiar with this person and have no particular opinion about him. Mireover I know nothing of his past relations and current discord with his former wife.

What struck me the most was the breathless prose style in the article. It could have come straight out of some Victorian-era depiction of the vices of the lower orders, only this time the shoe is on the other foot. I'll confess that I am not a regular reader of The Nation, but I had assumed its prose would be a bit less juvenile.

The information and detail cited in the article was a particularly interesting foil for what was left out. (What, by the way is this "emergency contraception" that Dr Hagar so wrongfully opposes? Sounds a bit like a euphamisim. What exactly does it mean? ) The tone and content of the article and the manner in which his religion and supposed moralistic statements are presented are certainly consistent with his assertion that they are motivated by prejudice - that is prejudgement of a person, merely on the basis of one or two attributes. It is possible that the detail and impression conveyed by the article are a fair and well-balanced picture of the whole man, good and bad. However I am inclined to doubt it.

Just arrived for a beautiful weekend here in San Francisco. This place is getting better and better , though more crowded. Up early tomorrow for a trip to the Alexander Valley and a reception with friends among the redwoods. My best to everyone - Blatham too.

0 Replies

Isn't it something? The more right-wing they are, the kinkier they get!

0 Replies

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know