Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh writes, "the big picture is both the left and the right [are] calling for some speech restrictions, and opposing other speech restrictions." Examples over time include this from anti-gay neo-con Irving Kristol (from the summer of, appropriately enough, 1984): "I don't think the advocacy of homosexuality really falls under the First Amendment any more than the advocacy or publication of pornography does."
Volokh adds, "The advent of the left-wing feminist calls for restricting sexually explicit speech in the 1980s has evened the matter somewhat," and then tallies support for censorship ranging from politically correct speech codes (the left) to anti-flag burning efforts (the right).
Speaking (while we can) of loony rightwing speech, Maggie Gallagher's Institute for Marriage and Public Policy reposts an article from the religiously right journal First Things by Ryan T. Anderson, who opines:
Living a chaste life on a college campus is difficult. Defending your commitments to chastity, whether to your friends in the dorm room or to your professors in the classroom, is even more difficult. If you haven't been a university student for a while, think back to what the sexual climate on campus was like when you were in college. Now imagine what it's like with official university LGBT offices pushing for same-sex marriage and gay rights. ...
Think about that: Advocating the mutual commitments and responsibilities of same-sex marriage makes it more difficult for heterosexuals to remain chaste, somehow.
I suppose the thinking might be that fiddling with sexual barriers of any kind regarding homosex will open the floodgates (the Rick Santorum view), or that some LGBT activists actually do advocate the elimination of marriage and related behavioral norms as oppressive and patriarchal (thanks again, guys and gals).
But still, you have to gasp at the gall behind the assertion that exposure to the mere advocacy of gay marriage will tempt innocent straight co-eds to go, as it were, straight to hell.
71 Comments for “Free Speech for Me, but Not for Thee.”
posted by Casey on
So ridiculous. I’ll grant, as somebody who was involved very recently with both campus Christian organizations and GLBT organizations, sometimes there can be a degree of tension between activities sponsored between the two – I particularly recall GLBT groups sponsoring sex-toy seminars, condom-themed parties, and forum discussions on pornography – and if these were the target of Anderson’s criticism, then he’d have a point that there are pressures on campus that make it harder to defend one’s choice to stay chaste.
However, claiming that the mere existence of groups which support gays and lesbians, and which advocate the legal recognition of our romantic commitments is, as Stephen notes above, patently ridiculous. Commitment is commitment, and when gay groups support the institution of marriage, and articulate its importance, if anything, it helps the cause of those students who want to wait for marriage before sexual activity.
posted by James on
Which campus GLBT groups are advocating abstinence until marriage? Which ones clearly define marriage as a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship? I would bet–none! And there are straight groups that do support abstinence and traditional marriage.
I suspect that many gays don’t really want marriage and their clamor for rights has more to do with enjoying being a whiny victim.
Oh, but you say, “Not all gays. You’re just stereotyping.” The idea that the gay world is diverse is a myth. Let’s say masculinity falls on a continuum with, say, Brett Favre on one end and Richard Simmons on the other. The myth is that gay men are distributed evenly on this continuum, with just as many gay men on the Brett Favre side as on the Richard Simmons side. But this is of course a myth. If a group of gay men were put in a rowboat according to their distribution on this masculine continuum, the Richard Simmons side would sink.
I suspect the gay men on this campus are dutifully living up to the stereotypes, giving up their identities as men to fit in with the group, and making life difficult for those of us who don’t see our sexual orientation as an excuse for useless, confrontational behavior.
posted by dc on
What a politicized analysis of college life. Most American college students are more concerned with smoking weed, benge drinking, and actually having sex (gay or otherwise…just go on facebook and look at the pictures) than advocating for or against gay marriage or any other political issue. Arguments like this one are silly political stunts by ignorant people, like Maggie Gallagher, who are completely out of touch with youth culture in America.
posted by Casey on
James, show some grace, will ya? No, gay groups don’t go out of their way to define marriage as “a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship” – why? Because everybody, gay or straight, knows that’s what the ideal of marriage is in this country. We don’t clarify that because those of us who want marriage never think to doubt that it should be the same standard as straight people are held to.
Secondly, yes, you are stereotyping badly. The gay world IS diverse, and contrary to your harshly stated opinion, even those gays who are more gender non-conforming are frequently as dedicated to the ideal of marriage as anybody else. It doesn’t surprise me that you don’t think the gay populace is diverse, though – you’re so overtly hostile to gay people that I can’t imagine anybody would want to be out around you, and so, like the worst homophobes, the only gays you see are those who can’t really conceal themselves, or who simply don’t give a damn because they enjoy flaunting their sexuality and courting your disapproval.
Finally, those groups which advocate abstinence are not exclusively straight – as you should know, since you claim to have been a part of them. They’ll often accept anybody who wants to be a part, gay or straight. You do gays no favors when you define groups based on ideological or moral convictions as straight-only.
James, I’ve watched you in this forum claim to be a Christian – as one believer to another, I’m asking you to check yourself, and see if your anger and judgment is really Christ-like, and if your behavior is giving glory to God. Take care.
posted by James on
I think First Things does a great job of elucidating the conservative religious world view. They are certainly not part of the “everybody” who you say want to give up on traditional sexual morality. My values are much more in line with the writers and editors of First Things than, say, the Advocate. My goal is to show the First Things people that there are gay men who are committed to abstinence before marriage, and lifelone sexual exclusivity in marriage. I would rather have the support of the First Things crowd than the Advocate. Judging from the “wonderfully diverse” set of gays here, I suspect that I am more likely to gain the approval of conservative Roman Catholics before I gain the approval of “tolerant, open-minded” gays.
Prove that there is an even distribution of gay men on the Brett-Favre-to-Richard-Simmons continuum. You know in your heart that’s a myth.
posted by Gomer on
No wonder lispy William Kristol took speech lessons and got married – Big Daddy Oiving wouldn’t have it any other way!
posted by Casey on
Okay, you want proof that there are significant numbers of masculine gay men? How’s the fact that 1 in 7 (15.2%) surveyed in the 2000 census have served in the military, and about 13% are veterans. Manly enough for you? As to gay commitment, would you be surprised to know that 85% of those couples surveyed lived with the same partner 5 years ago? Given that stats seem to show that homosexuality shows up twice as often in males as females, those can’t all be lesbians. Finally, there are gay couples in every county in the nation, from San Francisco to South Dakota – do you really think all of them conform to your stereotypes? Not from my experience (and let me be clear – I dearly love many effeminate gay men, I simply care about not having the more traditionally masculine gay men I know made invisible). So, there you go. Hard facts. Think about it. http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/PUMS/nationalintro.htm
posted by Tim on
“abstinence before marriage”
Unless you get married at 18, abstinence before marriage is simple a cruel joke. Any GLBT that advocated that would be laughed off campus, and rightly so.
Sorry James, gay people in no way will ever be a part of “traditional sexual morality”.
posted by Alex on
Marriage equality and civil rights in this instance are a red herring. The challenge to youthful chastity isn’t the promotion of equality for my relationship, but youthfulness itself: Energy, new freedom, personal exploration, hormones, and our general culture of sex and violence seem more likely challenges to chastity.
A college campus seems like a place where ideas should be defended. Chastity may be a good and desirable position, but proponents should be able to defend their position with something more than “because it is…”.
Proponents of safer sex education do have a reason for their position: People are having sex and need to know how to protect themselves.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
It is a waste of time to try to debate James. No matter what proof you offer he will reject it as either a lie or a myth. Masculine Gays? They are just playing dress-up in daddy’s clothes. Monogamous Gay Couples? They simply don’t exist in James’ world. Gay Christians? They don’t exist in James’ world either, they are merely radicals trying to subvert “traditional” religious practices. Don’t try to reason with James, he is so blinded by hatred of himself and others like him that he is beyond the reach on rational discourse.
posted by Roy X. Penguin on
James, you only see what you want. We can’t help you. I can say that, in professional school, most of the gay men are clean cut and look and act just like everyone else. Out of like, ten guys, one is “femme.” (And he’s a cool guy.) Of course, we have a gay organization, so whoever shows up happens to be gay. However, if there weren’t such an organization, I’d be hard pressed to pick out the gays. Outside of school, I often run into groups of gay men who look like frat boys. They don’t speak with lisps, they have good jobs, and they’re just like everyone else. I suspect most gays blend in pretty well, but a few happen to flame, thereby standing out. Now, with your bizarre leap of logic, you assume that the flamer represents the majority. I think your logic is flawed. Most gays don’t feel the need to run around making noise, so, because they just go on their merry way being normal, they don’t stick out, and therefore, you don’t see them. Get it? Now, why haven’t you met them? I suspect that you are so militant and vocal in your own bordering-on-homophobia world view that the silent majority of masculine gays simply want nothing to do with you.
posted by Carl on
I find it very sad how much self-hatred continues to cripple our community. There are some gay men who would much rather spend every day lecturing us about how awful gay men are and how they aren’t one of “those” types of gays. Guess what? Those who hate gays don’t give you a merit badge if you hate gays too. They still see you as being gay.
posted by James on
Colorado Patriot said–
“Masculine Gays? They are just playing dress-up in daddy’s clothes. Monogamous Gay Couples? They simply don’t exist in James’ world. Gay Christians? They don’t exist in James’ world either, they are merely radicals trying to subvert ‘traditional’ religious practices.”
Actually, that is a spot-on description of my view of the gay world. I think I am an acute observer of the scene and you are in denial–you think my perceptions are rooted in homophobia and self-hatred.
I have seen no actual evidence that my perceptions of gays are wrong–and my perceptions are based on years of experience with gays, starting when I was a teenager, struggling with my orientation. Apparently, the evidence that would change my perceptions can only come from gay men who won’t reveal themselves to me because they don’t like me. I can only assume that Dominic Purcell is persisting in his sham marriage because his deep feelings for me are over-ridden by his disgust for my homophobia.
When the gay community reveals itself to be 90% men who, even without legal recognition, have formed lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships, and are just waiting in the shadows until the laws get passed, I will be on the sidelines, clutching my invisible pearls in shock, and repenting every angry and unfair thought I’ve had about the gay world. But until that happens, I’m trusting the evidence of my experience and perceptions.
posted by alex on
To respond is to encourage.
His conversations seem to veer way off the topic of the original posting, making the individual the center of attention instead of the topic at hand.
posted by kittynboi on
James, I have never seen you offer any counterargument against someone who disagrees with you that doesn’t simply amount to you telling them they are in denial.
Is James just bobby under another name? Or is he a new troll who brings the same nonsense in to every thread?
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
sigh…true-to-form as always James. Please seek help for your obvious mental-health problems…getting laid once in awhile would probably help as well.
posted by Great Lake GMale on
getting laid once in awhile would probably help as well. Except that his choice is for abstinence before “marriage.” (More power to him to keep that position.)
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Commitment is commitment, and when gay groups support the institution of marriage, and articulate its importance, if anything, it helps the cause of those students who want to wait for marriage before sexual activity.
Yeah….but how many gay groups actually DO that?
The only argument I’ve ever seen gay groups make for marriage is, “the Constitution demands you give it to us” — which is not true, for starters, and raises completely valid questions over why gays really want it, especially when the lesbian couples who keep filing lawsuits to get it divorce in the middle of the process or immediately thereafter.
When have any of you EVER seen a gay group call publicly for gays to respect marriage, to consider it a lifelong and permanent commitment, to practice sexual restraint, and to be monogamous within marriage?
Instead, as people here have pointed out, they’re “sponsoring sex-toy seminars, condom-themed parties, and forum discussions on pornography” — and other gays are saying that gays will NEVER be a part of “traditional sexual morality” — if they’re not arguing for it to be done away with completely.
posted by James on
Far from being off-topic, Stephen Miller just posted a new topic which reiterates what I’ve been saying. The on-campus problems described above, and the problems discussed in the newly posted topic are all the result of gay leftists attempting to speak on behalf of all gays.
This part is somewhat off-topic, though: What you all can’t accept is that there are many gays who have had toxic, negative, damaging, abusive, and painaful experiences with the gay community. These experiences–certainly, my experiences–may color their perceptions of the gay community in darker shades than are on the Rainbow Flag. If a woman has a series of abusive encounters with men as she begins to explore her sexuality, no one complains when she starts to avoid relationships and has a low opinion of men in general.
Why can’t you admit that many young men have initially abusive and exploitative encounters with the gay world which are difficult to get over? Why are you surprised that men like me continue to be angry? Would you suggest that an abused Catholic go to a priest for spiritual healing? Or just keep on talking to priests until he meets the “right one?”
Perhaps my early experiences were exceptionally negative and maybe I should take a closer look at what you all say is happening now–but I don’t want to take the risk anymore than an abused Catholic wants to go back to the Church. Until I see signs that the gay community is aware of the kind of abuse that goes on and is willing to repent and change, I don’t see gays behaving any differently than the Catholic Church who just wants to look the other way.
posted by Alex on
maybe I should take a closer look at what you all say is happening now [snip]. Until I see signs that the gay community is aware of the kind of abuse that goes on and is willing to repent and change,
I have two problems with this: If you’re not willing to look you’re not going to see. Likewise it depends on where you look. Bars & baths…it’s going to be the same stuff you rail against here. The BGLT religious group of your denomination will likely be a better place to look. Before you say they don’t exist I know that there are groups for everyone from Episcopalians to Evangelicals.
Secondly: Unlike the Catholic Church there isn’t a responsible hierarchy that can take responsibility, “repent and change.” The monolithic “community” doesn’t is a myth…at best it’s a loose confederation of free agents. (How very American?)
posted by Alex goofed on
The monolithic “community” doesn’t exist, it is a myth…at best it’s a loose confederation of free agents. (How very American?)
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “The only argument I’ve ever seen gay groups make for marriage is, “the Constitution demands you give it to us””
What an idiot…honestly, did you mean to say “ever”? Because if that is true, you need to get your fricking hearing checked. Try a .357 to your ear canal to clear that out, you’d be doing us all a favor.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Try a .357 to your ear canal to clear that out, you’d be doing us all a favor.
Thank you, but I feel no need to commit suicide just to make you happy.
I do find it interesting, though, that gay leftists like yourself who whine about queer youth committing suicide because they don’t conform to society feel the need to encourage gays who don’t conform to views like yours to do so.
And furthermore, you should be applauded for your courage; you’ve at least stood up and said what your fellow leftists have only been thinking to themselves you wish I’d do.
posted by Carl on
NDT, I would assume that when gay groups fight for marriage, that implicit in that is saying gays should be monogamous. Why do I get the feeling that if they did explicitly say gays must be monogamous, gay conservatives would then use any instance of infidelity in gay men to say gays shouldn’t get married?
–
Perhaps my early experiences were exceptionally negative and maybe I should take a closer look at what you all say is happening now–but I don’t want to take the risk anymore than an abused Catholic wants to go back to the Church.-
How sad that you compare this situation to children being abused by Catholic priests.
posted by Casey on
Worth noting, and it goes to the fact that there really isn’t a coherent community with a single agenda- I’m the one who noted that a typical gay rights campus organization last year held a sex-toy seminar – but I also saw those same organizations (often different members, certainly with different priorities, myself among them) making exactly the arguments in favor of the importance of marriage as an institution which some people here claim never happens. If one perfectly normal campus organization can be that schizophrenic and diverse, then it can be generally said that there are many voices coming from the gay community, and you can’t expect anything else to ever happen.
People will hear what they want to hear, and ignore the rest – the idea is for those of us so inclined to go for those whose minds which can be opened by a reasonable argument backed up by the visible testimony of our well-lived lives… and to hell with the other gays who by their ridiculous rhetoric and behavior are throwing sand in the gears.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “Thank you, but I feel no need to commit suicide just to make you happy.”
It wouldn’t just make me happy, it would make me fucking ecstatic…but seriously, die painfully you worthless twit.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Why do I get the feeling that if they did explicitly say gays must be monogamous, gay conservatives would then use any instance of infidelity in gay men to say gays shouldn’t get married?
Because, Carl, you always look for a reason, however fanciful, to avoid dealing with an issue.
Just because straight people occasionally screw up is no reason that straight people shouldn’t get married. But straight society sounds the message loud and clear that fooling around outside your marriage is wrong, as even Mayor Gavin Newsom is doing today. Gay society doesn’t.
Worth noting, and it goes to the fact that there really isn’t a coherent community with a single agenda- I’m the one who noted that a typical gay rights campus organization last year held a sex-toy seminar – but I also saw those same organizations (often different members, certainly with different priorities, myself among them) making exactly the arguments in favor of the importance of marriage as an institution which some people here claim never happens.
Oh, but there is a coherent agenda that envelops both of those, Casey: “We’re gay, so we can do whatever we want without any rules, responsibility, or consequences.” Or, in other words, we can talk about the sanctity of marriage one minute, make a mockery of it the next, and never be wrong or hypocritical — because we’re gay.
What seems to be confusing is the fact that people are looking at the totality, instead of just the parts gay groups want them to see, and making their decision based on that totality. It’s a bit like asking the bank to give you a car loan because of your income, then acting surprised when they turn you down because of your history of defaulting.
posted by Carl on
-But straight society sounds the message loud and clear that fooling around outside your marriage is wrong, as even Mayor Gavin Newsom is doing today. Gay society doesn’t.-
That seems to be very naive on your part, NDT. Newsom is a politician running for reelection. Saying, “I slept with a married woman and I’d do it again,” isn’t much of a campaign strategy, is it?
The truth is that many straight people, and the press in general, glorify adultery. Brad Pitt cheated on his wife Jennifer Aniston. What was the press’ reaction? And the reaction of many in the public? They slavishly covered this adulterous fling, and they flocked to see Pitt’s movie with Angelina Jolie, his mistress. They even gave the two of them a nickname. Or think back to the old pure days when marriage was supposedly more sacred. Stealing Debbie Reynolds’ husband didn’t do Elizabeth Taylor any career harm.
Your party deifies a man (Reagan) who divorced his first wife. Again, that just shows that the so-called respect for traditional marriage among straights is highly questionable at best.
I know it’s easier to talk about how bad gay people are, but this isn’t a great example of it. I haven’t seen any evidence that straight people even remotely take marriage seriously, while I know many gay couples who love each other and stay together for decades. Yet, because not all gays are this way, that’s not good enough for you.
posted by John on
Just a comment to James
90% of the gay guys I know arn’t flamers, but then, I live in Texas. Maybe it’s a regional thing? If someone could simply produce statistics to disprove him (or disprove me if thats the case) it would be appreciated. I find it highly doubtful that no ones been interested enough in this to study it.
Also, you are coming off a tad harsh, no one here needs you breathing hate down their neck, we ALL get enough of it in real life, k?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Here’s the problem, Carl.
Saying this:
I haven’t seen any evidence that straight people even remotely take marriage seriously, while I know many gay couples who love each other and stay together for decades.
doesn’t jibe with this.
Newsom is a politician running for reelection. Saying, “I slept with a married woman and I’d do it again,” isn’t much of a campaign strategy, is it?
If straight people didn’t care about marriage, having an adulterous affair with a married woman wouldn’t be a campaign issue.
Brad Pitt cheated on his wife Jennifer Aniston. What was the press’ reaction? And the reaction of many in the public?
That he did her wrong. But of course the press is going to cover that; it’s what sells papers.
Your party deifies a man (Reagan) who divorced his first wife. Again, that just shows that the so-called respect for traditional marriage among straights is highly questionable at best.
So, following that logic, doesn’t the fact that leftist lesbian Julie Goodrich divorced her partner and that Christy Woo split with hers prove that gays have no respect for traditional marriage?
Or are you just following the usual gay leftist rule, Carl — that gays should have all the benefits of marriage without any of the responsibilities or limitations?
posted by Carl on
–
If straight people didn’t care about marriage, having an adulterous affair with a married woman wouldn’t be a campaign issue.-
It’s a campaign issue because the woman Newsom cheated with was married to his campaign manager.
–
So, following that logic, doesn’t the fact that leftist lesbian Julie Goodrich divorced her partner and that Christy Woo split with hers prove that gays have no respect for traditional marriage?-
But you said that straight people care about marriage and gays don’t. So now you’re changing your logic to gay and straight people care about marriage equally?
-that gays should have all the benefits of marriage without any of the responsibilities or limitations?-
NDT, considering how casually you brushed off the examples I mentioned in this thread, you seem to have a different standard for gay couples and straight couples in regards of marriage. If you feel that way, then surely you can’t be all that upset if some gays have a standard that you object to.
Under the “gay leftist” and all that, it does seem to amount to you believing straight people can do whatever they want with relationships, but if any gay people, even one couple, doesn’t hold fidelity in the highest plateau, it’s a horrible stigma and burden on gays. If you were saying this is something gays need to work on in order to get more people to support gay marriage, I would agree with that, but you seem to just blithely assume most gays don’t care about commitment. Since you feel that way, then I don’t know if anything will ever change your mind.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It’s a campaign issue because the woman Newsom cheated with was married to his campaign manager.
Sure. And the reason Bill Clinton’s behavior was appalling was because Monica Lewinsky was a White House intern, not because he was cheating on his wife.
But you said that straight people care about marriage and gays don’t. So now you’re changing your logic to gay and straight people care about marriage equally?
No, Carl; I am merely pointing out that you refuse to apply your argument equally. Since you claim straight divorce proves that straights don’t take marriage seriously, gay divorce would then prove that gays don’t.
Your refusal can be summed up in two words: double standard.
If you were saying this is something gays need to work on in order to get more people to support gay marriage, I would agree with that, but you seem to just blithely assume most gays don’t care about commitment.
There’s really not much assumption involved, Carl; it’s quite clear.
Sorry James, gay people in no way will ever be a part of “traditional sexual morality”.
Throw in the examples of the college porn/dildo club, and it should be obvious that most gays not only don’t care, but are going in the opposite direction.
posted by Tim on
“most gays not only don’t care, but are going in the opposite direction”
Most ? Most ? Talking in sweeping generalizations doesn’t help win your argument.
posted by John on
Weasel words and straw man arguements ND30. And basing your case on posts from this (or really, from any single case in the world) is very unhelpful. Bring is some studies, science, and statistics.
Did you ever take high school or college debate? They don’t allow conviction of truth to be confused with truth it self.
posted by Carl on
–
No, Carl; I am merely pointing out that you refuse to apply your argument equally. Since you claim straight divorce proves that straights don’t take marriage seriously, gay divorce would then prove that gays don’t.-
So basically, double standards are acceptable as long as they’re from someone who favors straight marriage over gay marriage.
I really hope no one considers a post on a message board to be a majority opinion for the public. Using that logic, then everyone in America supports gay marriage, since most of the people here support gay marriage.
–
Throw in the examples of the college porn/dildo club, and it should be obvious that most gays not only don’t care,-
You do realize that many gays aren’t even in college clubs, or college at all, right?
You’re grasping at straws here, NDT. You seem to think if one gay person out there does something you don’t like, that’s your proof of horrible problems with all gays.
NDT, can you do me a favor and read about Anthony Castro? Maybe you will see not all gays are this awful, awful picture you seem to believe they are:
http://outsports.com/local/2007/0124anthonytribute.htm
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=granderson/070130
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So basically, double standards are acceptable as long as they’re from someone who favors straight marriage over gay marriage.
No, Carl; what I am saying, now for the third time, is that you refuse to apply your argument equally. Since you claim straight divorce proves that straights don’t take marriage seriously, gay divorce would then prove that gays don’t.
You wanted to claim that Ronald Reagan’s divorce proves that straights don’t take marriage seriously; therefore, the Goodrich divorce would prove the same thing for gays. The fact that you don’t like the conclusion when your rules are applied to BOTH straights and gays doesn’t invalidate it; it merely demonstrates that leftist gays like yourselves are hypocrites who won’t live up to their own rules.
NDT, can you do me a favor and read about Anthony Castro? Maybe you will see not all gays are this awful, awful picture you seem to believe they are.
LMAO…..do you even realize, Carl, the irony over whining about a gay kid committing suicide when, on the same board and same message thread, another gay person is telling a gay man to do the world a favor and commit suicide, not once,/a>, but twice?
Somehow, I just can’t get worked up about gays whining over people driving other gays to commit suicide when they seem to be completely blind to other gays driving people to commit suicide.
And don’t try your, “well, I…” argument. You DIDN’T say anything. You weren’t GOING to say anything. You sat over there in the corner holding your blankie and whining something about “gay unity”, rather than stand up and risk public ridicule for defending someone whose views differ from the gay mainstream and who others dislike from hate speech by mainstream gays.
posted by James on
Though I was never completely suicidal, the closest I came to suicide was when I was abused and exploited by gay men. I really resent the idea the straights drive gays to suicide when I suspect most young gay men become suicidal when they have been used and tossed aside by predatory gays who offer them “experience” and “sexual freedom.”
I recovered from what suicidal thoughts I might have had by giving my life to Jesus and handing over my sexuality to His lordship–thus learning how to gain respect for myself. I learned that spiritually healthy sexual expression involves lifelong committment and sexual fidelity–and I no longer want to settle for relationships with men who aren’t capable of the responsibility, maturity, accountability, and sensitivity to form that kind of God-centered relationship. I learned this model from heterosexual men in my church–men who were open about their struggles, but still kept their marriage working because they considered a good marriage a sign of masculine honor.
We don’t need men like Newsom supporting us. I have always thought that the reason some straights give support to the gay community is because it allows them to justify their own immoral behavior–“If I can get gays accepted, then my adultery and promiscuity must be OK, too.” I suspect Newsom’s work on behalf of gays had to do with justifying his own adultery to himself.
We need men in the gay community who model lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships and who can save young, confused gay men from the “first-strike” predators who feed on young gays’ confusion in order to exploit them sexually. This is the real cause of suicide in the gay community–not straights.
posted by John on
While I feel you have a very strong point James (I too disagree with the whole have fun and move on part, though we differ in that I view it as a subculture) theres simply too much evidence that straight homophobia is the larger issue. Mainly because they outnumber us. 1 waste of human in life who is gay, is not worse than 20 wastes of human life, who are straight.
This is just my opinion though. If you trust someone and they devestate you, you may not view it in such simple terms as me because your experiences have been so different (among other reasons of course).
I do think that gay people do a disservice to the rest of the group by several of the stereo type behavors. I just feel that straight people do that to each other too. You need only turn on your television to see this drug/sex culture promoted, regardless of orientation.
posted by Tim on
James, when a gay person does you wrong it’s not because they’re gay, it’s because they’re a bad person.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “I just can’t get worked up about gays whining over people driving other gays to commit suicide…”
Anthony Castro didn’t kill himself you ignorant prick…but maybe you should.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
James, when a gay person does you wrong it’s not because they’re gay, it’s because they’re a bad person.
True.
However, the reason that you get blamed for them doing something bad to you is because they’re gay.
For example, that’s three times that ColoradoPatriot has told me that I should kill myself. And that’s three times no one BUT myself or James has objected to it.
Why?
Because he’s gay. Moreover, because he’s gay AND he’s a leftist — and he’s attacking someone who criticizes gay behaviors.
If a gay kid was told by a straight person that they should commit suicide, the vast majority of you would have a meltdown of epic proportions. But have a gay person tell an unpopular gay person that they should commit suicide, and nothing happens.
This is why ColoradoPatriot continually threatens people — because he knows he can play the gay card, and the rest of you will tie yourselves into knots explaining why he’s NOT a bad person for doing so and why the OTHER person is at fault. You reinforce the behavior by removing its consequences.
posted by Carl on
–
LMAO…..do you even realize, Carl, the irony over whining about a gay kid committing suicide when,-
Did you read the article at all? He didn’t commit suicide. He was killed in a car accident. He was entering college, he was happy, he was in love, he had all kinds of friends, he was accepted in a conservative town. He had everything to live for.
NDT, this is what I’m talking about when I say you seem to want to see the worst. You are so busy railing at everyone in the gay community that when a young gay man lives the life you claim to value, you shrug him off.
posted by Marcus on
NDT: Because he’s gay. Moreover, because he’s gay AND he’s a leftist — and he’s attacking someone who criticizes gay behaviors.
Seriously…is it possible no one has said anything because the assumption is that you’re a grown-ass man and therefore able to take care of yourself? His comments to you are deplorable, but me saying so isn’t about to stop him from making them. In fact, they will probably just escalate. As to the rest of it, I don’t think anyone has twisted themselves into anything to defend his comments in this thread.
Please cool out with the “always” and “never” accusations of people you don’t know. I, in particular respect your opinions, even when I don’t always agree with them. It is likely that more people would if you avoided immediately putting them into the most extreme categories possible everytime they questioned something you said.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That is because, Carl, I know that all that would have been irrelevant to you had young Mr. Castro ever once criticized gay people or — horrors! — expressed political opinions contrary to leftist Democrat.
Instead, you would have sat and said nothing while your fellow gay leftists exhorted him to put a bullet in his head — and, when he complained, accuse him of “wanting to see the worst”.
Just like you’re doing now with me.
And what I think is even more hilarious is the contradiction between your claiming Andrew Castro as “having everything to live for” when before you were saying this before about young gay men:
A bigger problem is that many in America will always stigmatize gays. And as these young gays get a little older and realize they won’t have any rights, they may end up getting more into drugs and dangerous sex, because they know they have nothing else worth doing.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Seriously…is it possible no one has said anything because the assumption is that you’re a grown-ass man and therefore able to take care of yourself?
Fine and dandy. And by that assumption, since T.R. Knight is a “grown-ass man” and “able to take care of himself”, isn’t it strange that so many gay groups leaped so fast after Isaiah Washington?
A community whose primary industry is screaming at others for offensive speech looks downright hypocritical when it tries to shrug off bad behavior by one of its own by claiming its target was an adult and can handle it.
His comments to you are deplorable, but me saying so isn’t about to stop him from making them.
Try it.
In fact, they will probably just escalate.
Yes — as in, he might direct a verbal barrage at you. But that’s OK; after all, you’re a “grown-ass man”, aren’t you?
If you had simply said, “I don’t want to get involved because it inconveniences me personally,” Marcus, I could respect that. But as it stands, you’re just making excuses.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
I’m a bad bad man and nothing is going to stop me from saying deplorible things…see ND30, you and I have these two things in common. And, by the way, I’m just taking a piss about shooting yourself. Please PLEASE don’t off yourself, I get too much enjoyment out of watching you make a complete ass of yourself here to ever want that to stop.
posted by Marcus on
NDT: Fine and dandy. And by that assumption, since T.R. Knight is a “grown-ass man” and “able to take care of himself”, isn’t it strange that so many gay groups leaped so fast after Isaiah Washington?
I don’t know if I’d call it strange, but certainly not necessary. I’m sure every gay man on this site has been called that and worse, yet each of us lived to tell about it. Adults “screaming” about other adults calling each other names doesn’t seem to solve anything…so I guess we’re agreed on this point. As far as the “community” looking hypocritical it seems you’re implying I’m somehow representative of it. Neat job, but I didn’t get my card in the mail, nor do I know where the meetings are. Is that something you can help me with, or should I just call information?
As for the rest, to my previous point, you don’t need me to defend you, nor does my condemning someone else’s speech solve the problem. Now, if you’re feeling like I don’t care about you, I can assure you that if you, me, and CP are in a room, and he puts his hands on you, I’m the first one to step in. But as far as him telling you to put a gun to your head on the nameless, faceless internet…I hope you’re really not as hurt as you seem to be.
posted by Eric on
He may not be emotionally distraught (I doubt he is) but he is obviously upset by it. While his blog got removed from this sites list (for obvious reasons) you can still find it with a simple yahoo search. Hes blogged about the gun comment for 4 or 5 entries now.
My point is how can you critisize him, and then go down to what you consider to be his level and throw mud back in his own face? As for the nameless , faceless internet, ND30 frequents comment and blogs sites constantly, so to him it might have a little bit more meaning than to you or me.
Of course, by that logic, he should treat others much better as well, but you don’t fight a pig by getting down in the mud with him. Both sides grow up, your just giving him ammunition.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
My point is how can you critisize him, and then go down to what you consider to be his level and throw mud back in his own face?
Because I have yet to tell him to put a gun to his head and kill himself. In fact, I’ve only addressed him once, and came nowhere close to “his level”.
And the reason I have blogged about it for “four or five posts”, Eric, is simple; it exemplifies the fact that there is no crime or action that a gay person can take that other gays like you and Marcus can’t make excuses for doing.
Answer me this; when, exactly, is it acceptable for a person to tell another person to put a gun to their head and kill themselves?
posted by Carl on
-That is because, Carl, I know that all that would have been irrelevant to you had young Mr. Castro ever once criticized gay people or — horrors! — expressed political opinions contrary to leftist Democrat.-
Really? So your assumption that this man just committed suicide – without even bothering to read the article about him or his life – is somehow made up for because of how you think I feel? You don’t give a crap about him or his life on its own merits?
That’s, once again, a very odd way to think of a situation. You go out of your way to look for the worst.
This isn’t “gotcha”, NDT. This isn’t a fun game. No matter how many times you think dredging up quotes is brilliant on your part, you are still not bothering to talk about the real issues. The sad truth is that you IGNORED everything that was linked about this young man and his life, because in your mind, a young gay man who dies automatically commits suicide.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So your assumption that this man just committed suicide – without even bothering to read the article about him or his life – is somehow made up for because of how you think I feel? You don’t give a crap about him or his life on its own merits?
Carl, please. If you want to show your respect for gay peoples’ lives, you can start by going after those who tell them to commit suicide right in front of you.
And given that you can’t even do that, I think it should be pretty obvious that your admiration of Mr. Castro’s life would instantly cease were you to find out that he was conservative or criticized other gay people.
Yes, I misread the article; Mr. Castro did not commit suicide. And until the point he died, he was a fine example of what is right and good.
But had he come out as conservative or criticized gays, someone would have told him to commit suicide — and you wouldn’t give a damn about his life.
posted by Eric on
ND30, i wasn’t talking to you, i was talking to the people who critisize you, and then destroy their own high ground stance.
I thought it was clear from how it was typed, but I should have used your aliase.
posted by Eric on
PS, that doesn’t mean I agree with you, your purposely aggresive because you enjoy getting into these dirty fights.
I just disagree with how a handful of people conduct themselves here. I wish there were moderators that paid attention and just handed out bans, or deleted comments.
posted by Carl on
–
But had he come out as conservative or criticized gays, someone would have told him to commit suicide — and you wouldn’t give a damn about his life.-
So, using your logic, does that mean gay conservatives don’t care if gay liberals kill themselves?
I feel sorry for anyone who kills themselves, NDT. I’m not sure why you think just because people don’t cheerlead for you (you seem more than capable of defending yourself on a message board) that is some grand statement. Not everything is about us.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “For example, that’s three times that ColoradoPatriot has told me that I should kill myself. And that’s three times no one BUT myself or James has objected to it.
Why?
Because he’s gay. Moreover, because he’s gay AND he’s a leftist — and he’s attacking someone who criticizes gay behaviors.”.
No, Northdallass, its not because he’s gay, its because you’re a despicable liar who exagerates and mischaracterizes people. It wouldn’t matter if Colorado Patriot was straight people still wouldn’t be leaping to your defense because you’re a jerk. If your criticisms weren’t lies and gross overgeneralizations characterized by words like “always”, “all”, and “never” people would be a lot more likely to stand up for you. No one opposes your right to make valid criticisms, its just that you so rarely do so and when you do its overshadowed by your lies, exagerations, and unjustified antagonism.
Colorado Patriot, telling Northdallass to kill himself is over the line. I know he’s an asshole and its easy to feel he deserves it, but please try to take the higher ground.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
James said “The idea that the gay world is diverse is a myth. Let’s say masculinity falls on a continuum with, say, Brett Favre on one end and Richard Simmons on the other. The myth is that gay men are distributed evenly on this continuum, with just as many gay men on the Brett Favre side as on the Richard Simmons side. But this is of course a myth. If a group of gay men were put in a rowboat according to their distribution on this masculine continuum, the Richard Simmons side would sink.”.
James, this contradicts what you’ve said on other threads where you’ve repeatedly insisted that fems aren’t representative of gays and straight men are just as likely to be effeminate as gays, and that gay doesn’t automatically mean effeminate.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No, Northdallass, its not because he’s gay, its because you’re a despicable liar who exagerates and mischaracterizes people.
Mhm, yup, lies like this.
Oh, and I loved this:
Colorado Patriot, telling Northdallass to kill himself is over the line. I know he’s an asshole and its easy to feel he deserves it, but please try to take the higher ground.
Or in other words, “People, telling Randi that she should put a gun to her head and pull the trigger is over the line. I know she’s an antireligious bigot with a foul mouth who makes ignorant statements, but please try to take the higher ground.”
If you don’t think that’s an acceptable statement, Randi, then yours isn’t either.
Next, to Carl:
So, using your logic, does that mean gay conservatives don’t care if gay liberals kill themselves?
Hardly. The ability to tell someone else to commit suicide because you don’t like their political beliefs seems to be limited to liberals like ColoradoPatriot.
I’m not sure why you think just because people don’t cheerlead for you (you seem more than capable of defending yourself on a message board) that is some grand statement.
What I keep in mind, Carl, is that if someone were to tell one of the board leftists like Randi or ColoradoPatriot to commit suicide, the response, given your reaction to James’s criticisms, would not have been, “Oh, they can take care of themselves”.
You’re right; I don’t particularly need you to defend me. But what I will continue to point out is that there’s never been any shortage of or skimping on defense when people of the correct ideology are criticized, much less when they’re told that they should kill themselves.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Mhm, yup, lies like this.”.
Ah, no, lies like you saying I have sex partners or lies like you saying I “tear down normal and married couples as “Stepford Wives” or lies like you saying I demand public sex whenever and wherever I want. As I asked you on this thread http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31166.html?success=1#comments
Are you denying you told those lies about me?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Or Northdallass, gross distortions, overgeneralizations and lies like in this thread where you said “Oh, but there is a coherent agenda that envelops both of those, Casey: “We’re gay, so we can do whatever we want without any rules, responsibility, or consequences.” Or, in other words, we can talk about the sanctity of marriage one minute, make a mockery of it the next, and never be wrong or hypocritical — because we’re gay.”.
Show me one gay, not two or more different gays, who’s talked about the sanctity of marriage and then turned around and mocked it. Show me one gay
who’s said “We’re gay, so we can do whatever we want without any rules, responsibility, or consequences”.
Your habitual insane rants like that are why no one wants to defend you when Colorado Patriot suggests you kill yourself. Face it, you are a dispicable liar.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL…..and as we see again, Randi is once again trying to prove a point with her citations.
Of course, we all know accurate she is, don’t we?
As that points out, Randi sees only what she wants to see, and doesn’t bother to research or really READ about a subject before speaking on it — even if it turns out to be dead wrong.
And yet, she sits and accuses everyone else of “lying”.
posted by Carl on
–
You’re right; I don’t particularly need you to defend me. But what I will continue to point out is that there’s never been any shortage of or skimping on defense when people of the correct ideology are criticized, much less when they’re told that they should kill themselves.-
That’s fine, NDT. I just hope that in the future, when someone lives the ideals that gay conservatives claim to support, like Anthony Castro did, that you don’t automatically assume they committed suicide.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Fair enough.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
LOL…Northdallass, if you want to show I’m wrong about this you have to address this, not something unrelated. That’s logic 101, and I can see its a bit beyond you. Not surprisingly, you’re avoiding the question. Are you sying you didn’t lie when you said I have sex partners or I “tear down normal and married couples as “Stepford Wives” or I demand public sex whenever and wherever I want? If you’ve got the courage of your convictions than come out and say you didn’t tell those lies, otherwise admit you did.
And this was hilarious:
You said “And yet, she sits and accuses everyone else of “lying”.”.
Let’s see a quote of me accusing everyone of lying. Or are you just going to link to some unrelated quote of mine and hope by changing the subject no one will notice what an absurd lie you just told, yet again?
posted by Carl on
Thank you for that, NDT. And I’m sorry that we had to go on so long with the arguing. On some things we do agree. This is a very intelligent place, even if I don’t agree with everything, and I didn’t mean to spoil that atmosphere. I also didn’t mean to throw up someone’s name just to try to score a point. I hope that IGF can write something about Mr. Castro (Anthony, I mean), not because he was a saint, but because from what those articles say, he really did seem to have his head on right when a lot of people today don’t.
posted by James on
In reply to Randi, in a post up there somewhere–
What I mean by the “gay world” are those men who choose to identify as gay and adopt the gay identity and believe the gay mythology. The “gay world” does not contain all men who feel homosexual attraction.
I think that there are a lot of men who are concerned about fulfilling their roles as men. Getting married, having a family, etc., have more to do with being a man in a man’s world, and being accepted as a man, than it does with sexual orientation. Therefore, I think there are a lot of men on the Brett Favre side of the continuum who feel homosexual attraction, but don’t identify as gay.
I frankly think that if we were able to better communicate what being gay meant–that it doesn’t mean effeminate, exotic behavior, etc.–more men like that would come out. If we could gain the same respect for gay marriage that men hold for straight marriage (ho, hum, here comes the tired old “straights are all adulterers” line), then a wider range of men would be willing to be seen as gay.
But the “gay world” wants to silence every form of being gay that doesn’t involve thongs, wigs, and Jake Shears posters.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Well, James, I don’t know what you mean by gay identity. Gay means same sex attracted and gay world means the world of those who are same sex attracted.
The idea that “the “gay world” wants to silence every form of being gay that doesn’t involve thongs, wigs, and Jake Shears posters” is nonsense. Masculine men and committed couples are accepted and part of the gay community just like effeminate men and drag queens. Sure there are some of each group that don’t like the other, but that is not typical of all gays as you suggest.
posted by Marc on
James, you should listen to Randi, and stop with ridiculous assumptions about the gay world. Not all gay men want “feminine” attributes, and I wonder if you have been out enough in the gay world to make such a blatantly ignorant statement. Of course there are gay men who fit your “stereotype” – stereotypes aren’t created out of thin air — but that is a moot point. Whether some fit it doesn’t mean a damn thing. It simply means that any group of people is bound to have a diverse number of personalities.
As far as why gays don’t come out, they do it for a lot of reasons – but mainly, i think, because of rejection of family and, religious fears. I work at a gay bar, and I hear many stories from men who have been rejected by friends and families because of misplaced fears about gays being sinful, etc. Alas, your absurd generalizations only fuel such fears.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And no big surprise Northdallass doesn’t want to deny he told those lies about me because he knows he can’t.
posted by dalea on
What the gay community suffers from IMHO is a surplus of uneducated airheads, like James, who are only too glad to run off their mouths without having done any research, outreach or investigation. Here is a list of studies etc on gay men and masculinity which I found in a simple google search. These need to be read and thought about before whining about queeny gays and all the harm they do.
http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/lib/s01/lib397-01/ReStructuring_Masculinities/documents/gaymasc.pdf
http://mensbiblio.xyonline.net/gaymascy.html
http://www.psychpage.com/gay/library/gay_lesbian_violence/choosing_masculinity.html
http://www.petertatchell.net/masculinity/what%20straight%20men.htm
http://cfp.english.upenn.edu/archive/Graduate/0684.html
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-16124560_ITM
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAU/is_1_3/ai_n6168974/pg_9
http://bijourney.wordpress.com/2006/08/03/gay-masculinity-p/
http://www.amazon.com/Dirty-Pictures-Finland-Masculinity-Homosexuality/dp/product-description/0312205260
http://www.soc.washington.edu/users/brines/connell.pdf
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1163532
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1163532
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And no big surprise Northdallass doesn’t want to deny he told those lies about me because he knows he can’t.
LOL….I love it when Randi tries to provoke a response.
She also “knew” the reason the United States went into Iraq.
Or so she thought.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
We know what you’re all about Northdallass. You don’t deny you lied when you said I have sex “partners or that you lied when you said I “tear down normal and married couples as “Stepford wives”” or that you lied when you said I demand public sex whenever and wherever I want or that you lied when you said “she sits and accuses everyone else of “lying” because its all there in the record and you can’t quote me saying those things because I didn’t. When faced with your lies you can’t be a man and admit it and apologize you have to pathetically weazel around and try to change the subject.
And the U.S. did invade Iraq instead of North Korea because of oil greed. When you look at how the administration repeatedly lied about WMDs you can’t expect them to tell the truth about the real reason for invading.