I didn't accuse you of anything...Only mentioned you were the one that had the link...

Not if the gay groups were also pushing for illegal activities such as pedophia as I pointed out earlier...

If more gays knew about that aspect, I'm sure they wouldn't want these kinds of groups representing them at the UN either...

Are you NOT sure?...Do you think most gays would think that's OK?...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

First off nambla is reprehensible. That is just plain disgusting. If you read the last paragraph of the wiki article the gay groups want nothing to do with them. I have no problem with guilty pedophiles being in jail.

***IF*** they actually snuck in on this one and I missed it then mea culpa (it was late and the dog woke me up to go pee), but you can't for one second think that we will believe that the gay community sanctions this.

1. Just as most Christians are opposed to the actions and philosophy of Fred Phelps, so too are the homosexuals against NAMBLA. These two specific groups represent the fringe of society, both going to extremes.
2. Are there things that Phelps and your average local minister can agree upon? Sure. That doesn't mean that they see eye to eye all the time nor is it evidence that they support one another. The same can be said for your local gay rights activist and NAMBLA. There are some things that they can agree upon, but they generally don't see eye to eye.
3. As evidenced by the article you yourself quoted, the Human Rights Campaign is vehemently opposed to NAMBLA's participation. You have a clear example of the mainstream gay rights activists opposing NAMBLA.
4. There is a large difference between trying to associating groups based on generalities and associating an individual with a group he/she associates with. Trying to associate all gays with NAMBLA is like trying to associate all Christians with Westboro Baptist Church. It just doesn't fit. When you examine specific individuals and how they are related to different groups it's a great deal more representative. It is meaningful that one person (the President) has associated himself with an individual who has slandered homosexuals (Robertson)? Yes. It's a direct link. Do I link the President to Phelps? Not until I see them associating with one another.

__________________

Everything you've sid proves my point...You're arguing PAST ME...

Look at these two sentences and tell me if you disagree with them...

1) Westboro Baptist Church might say SOME things mainstream Christians believe, but the mainstream Christians would NOT want them to represent them in any way, shape or form because of other stances they've taken...

2) A gay group that condones or is tacitly complicit with pedophilia might say SOME things mainstream gays believe, but the mainstream gays would NOT want them to represent them in any way, shape or form because of other stances they've taken...

Both are TRUE statements!..WTF's the problem?!?!?...

If Bush blocked certain gay groups from getting this status because of issues like pedophilia...and you say that pedophilia is an abomination to gays...and you think gays wouldn't want groups that condone it to represent them...

...then Bush did gays a favor!...

Why is this so hard to understand?...Oh yeah...It's Bush, so he MUST be up to no good...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Go read it again...

The ILGA voted 214-30 to remove NAMBLA...

Do YOU want a group representing gays at the UN where 14% of the group voted to KEEP NAMBLA?...

If that number ain't ZERO, there's MAJOR concerns...

***IF*** you go through the article again, you'll see that AT NO TIME did Human Rights Watch mention WHAT groups were denied and AT NO TIME did Human Rights Watch supply a reason for the denial from the person(s) that denied it...

With the way they worded it, gays just read "Bush stops gay groups" and gays went into a tizzy...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

My issue isn't that Bush is going after NAMBLA, my issue is that the President holds in contempt mainstream organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign, instead following the advice of his personal adviser Pat Robertson on such issues. While the President knows that it's political suicide to be verbally blatantly anti-gay, he has no qualms proposing and supporting legislation that is inherently anti-gay.

Bush has done the homosexual community NO favors since becoming President yet has performed numerous favors for his pet groups, many of which are supported by Robertson.

__________________

So your hatred supercedes the discussion at hand...

gays - Bush blocked gay groups at the UN!!!!!!

redd - some gay groups have been known to back pedophilia; this may be the reason

gays - well I don't like him for other reasons anyway!!!!

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

The discussion is much broader than the simple issue of the UN.

redd: Iran Kills gays.

gays: That sucks, and we have gay issues at home.

redd: Bush is supporting the gays

gays: reality check, Bush is against the gays

This thread has been dealing with the broad scope of gay rights. Iran violates the rights by murder, US violates by policy/law.

__________________

The you haven't been following the thread...

It went a different direction when an article was put forth that the US and Iran both voted against certain gay groups receiving a certain status at the UN...

I pointed out that although the votes may be the same, the reasons are very different and the lack of information put forth by the Human Rights Watch is purposely done to push an agenda...

This is what they've done...Imagine this scenario...

For the sake of argument, let's say you don't want Obama as president...

Now here is your statement...

Now let's look at the KKK's statement...

Now do you think it would be fair to you in the media if it was reported like this?...

It's a true statement...but is it a fair statement?...

Of course not...The different reasoning isn't shown and just groups you in with the KKK...You'd be offended fiercely...

Which is exactly what the Human Rights did in their article...gays on this very forum even said that the article made them more negative towards Bush, yet the article stated no such information as to why decisions were made, making gays make who've read the story make ASSUMPTIONS...

And of course, since gays think Bush=gay-hater, those assumptions were all negative...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

You think I have half a brain? Aw shucks.


But seriously, the ILGA dissolved their association with NAMBLA. By an overwhelming majority.
I have no problem monitoring them for any "NAMBLA" actions, and discussion on revoking their status if they go that route.

But WHERE did Bush say anything about THIS being his concern?
Over and over again, all I see is right-wing neo-conservative Christians telling him that he needs to not support the gay group in the U.N. because they are gay.

NOTHING to do with NAMBLA at all.

And furthermore, if we took a poll of Christians, how many do you think we'd find with similar extremist ideals (in their own venue).
Does that mean we should ignore Christianity?


Where the heck did you show anything about Bush's "reason" being an issue with regards to "NAMBLA"?

I could just as legitimately claim that was Iran's reasoning...