Two weeks ago, news emerged that the co-founder of the website Manhunt.net had contributed $2,300 to the presidential campaign of John McCain. Uproar ensued.
Haven't heard of Manhunt?
Unless you're a gay man, that's to be expected. It's one of the most popular gay websites in the world, with 1 million registered members in the U.S. alone and 400,000 unique visitors a month. As its name implies, it's a site where many gay men go to find casual sexual encounters. Manhunt and sites like it have revolutionized one formative aspect of gay culture, taking what was once a public activity to the privacy of one's home.
Except that the Internet, as Jonathan Crutchley recently discovered, isn't really private. A successful real estate developer, he founded Manhunt with his life partner, Larry Basile, in 2001. He ran into trouble when Out, a gay magazine, published an article about the website in its current issue. The article, in passing, referred to Crutchley - who until last week was chairman of the board at Manhunt - as a "liberal Republican." That tidbit apparently shocked gay blogger Andy Towle, who within seconds found Crutchley's donation to McCain on a contributor database and posted the news on his website.
The shaming and condemnation of Crutchley was swift and unforgiving.
"Let's show MANHUNT what we in the gay community think of members of our community who support politicians who vote against the interests of the community," an anonymous commenter wrote. "Delete your MANHUNT profile!" Michelangelo Signorile, a gay liberal radio host, labeled Crutchley "asinine" simply for supporting McCain.
Rarely do you come across a political candidate who shares each and every one of your political views, and Crutchley's support for McCain was hardly different from that of any other donor who doesn't make the perfect the enemy of the good. "I believe McCain will be a better commander in chief than Obama, who also opposes gay marriage," Crutchley wrote on a website that covers the online personal ad industry. "If we have an experienced, seasoned person defending the country in this dangerous age, we will be able to argue about the gay agenda later."
That explanation might not please every gay activist, but it is a feeling shared by many gay people. According to exit polls, about 25% of gays voted for George W. Bush in the last two presidential elections (the actual number is likely higher, seeing that many gays do not identify themselves as such to pollsters).
The fact that Crutchley is a Republican ought not to come as much of a surprise then, especially considering that he's a self-made millionaire. And he's hardly a radical right-winger either. "I'm a Massachusetts Republican," he wrote, "which is about the same as being an Alabama Democrat."
But such nuance is apparently irrelevant to those who equate homosexuality with political liberalism. Manhunt hasn't revealed how many people canceled their profiles. However, just how poisonous Crutchley's politics can be in a gay milieu can be deduced from the speed with which he stepped down from his position as chairman - at "the request of the board," according to Basile. (Crutchley maintains his co-ownership of the site, meaning that subscribers will continue to put money into the pocket of an "evil" Republican in order to fulfill their sexual desires.)
In an open letter that's been all over the blogosphere, Basile reassured users of the website that his partner's political beliefs were his own. "It is too bad for the website if we lose customers, but PLEASE never refer to me as a Republican. I consider it an offense," he wrote.
Basile, who proudly pointed to his donation to the Barack Obama campaign in his letter, also claimed to the Boston Herald that the McCain campaign returned Crutchley's donation and that Crutchley, realizing the error of his ways, now supports Obama. There has been no independent verification of these claims, as neither the McCain campaign nor Crutchley have spoken to the media about the contretemps. If the intent was to silence a conservative gay voice, it appears to have succeeded.
The hue and cry over Crutchley's politics is all too familiar. Why can't gay activists countenance the idea of a "Massachusetts Republican"? Liberal intolerance. In the minds of too many on the left, gay people (like women and ethnic minorities) have to be liberal and support Democratic candidates. To do otherwise - that is, to have opinions on issues (even issues utterly unrelated to gay rights) that don't follow the left-wing line - is to be a traitor to the gay "community."
For too long, many gay-rights activists have acted as if throwing temper tantrums will magically bring about their political agenda. But labeling everyone with whom they don't agree a "bigot" does not help the worthy cause of gay equality.
The truth of the matter is that civil rights for gays can't come about without the help of Republicans. And this means that gay people - and straight supporters of gay equality - need to stand with, not silence, people like Crutchley who are working to change the GOP from within.
Gays need only look to California, where a state Supreme Court loaded with Republican appointees legalized gay marriage and the Republican governor is one of the most powerful pro-gay publicly elected officials in the country, to understand the importance of making gay rights a bipartisan cause.
Gayness is a sexual orientation, not a political one. Aside from their sexuality, gay people are no different from heterosexuals. There are gay people of all races, income levels, occupations, body types and, yes, political beliefs. Gay liberals are always crowing about the importance of "diversity" and lauding its importance on matters of race and gender. Too bad diversity doesn't count when it comes to politics.
52 Comments for “Diversity, Yes—Except for Republicans”
posted by Ashpenaz on
“There are gay people of all races, income levels, occupations, body types and, yes, political beliefs.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (spews coffee)
What is the color of the sky in your world?
I have referred to the gay community as monolithic and Borg-like and got the old “self-loathing” tag. Here is yet one more example of the gay community and its “Resistance is futile” tactics, and everyone will say I’m the one with the problem.
I am a Christian who is pro-life and believes in intelligent design. I believe that maybe marriage is between a man and a woman, and that civil unions are the best option for gays. I believe that God designed all people, gay and straight, to have sex only within lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships. I want mine to be with Jason Statham.
Let’s say I put all these beliefs on a T-shirt. How would the Pride rally welcome me? Would they say, “Thank you for adding another color to our rainbow?” or would they “Girlfriend, you need to give us back your gay card, ‘cos you is one self-loathing little queen. We don’t need your kind here!”
Gays treat conservative, Christian gays the way they claim the world treats them. And refuse to see the irony.
posted by DUMP on
Manhunt is a business. The customers were upset. The Board took the only action they had at their disposal. The upside? Free advertising from hysterical gay GOPers bemoaning the loss of cyber-privacy. This article is poorly thought-out. Mr.Kirchick, why are you hostile to the free market? Do you think that businesses shouldn’t be able to address issues that affect their customers? What kind of capitalist are you?
posted by Rob on
I am a Christian who is pro-life and believes in intelligent design. I believe that maybe marriage is between a man and a woman, and that civil unions are the best option for gays.
Blasphemy! You’re also confusing civil marriage with religious marriage. Plus civil unions is a joke in states that have them. Oh I sure can’t wait for my special day when I’m going to get …civil-unionized! No, it doesn’t have the right sound to it.
I believe that God designed all people, gay and straight, to have sex only within lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships. I want mine to be with Jason Statham.
The social conservatives say that only sex within “traditional” marriage is acceptable. Convert, and marry a woman, or remain celibate for life!
In addition, I believe that God has intended us to evolve into posthuman organisms in order to travel the stars, as well as to discard that old book of legends called the Bible. God has nothing to do with the Abrahamic cults, at least not directly.
As for manhunt.com, who the fuck cares? Like DUMP stated, the market has spoken, and to criticize the forced departure of Crutchley is tantamount to communism!
posted by Richard II on
This particular example –Manhunt — fails to prove that all or even most liberals are any more intolerant then conservatives over political peferences.
Also, as an Independent I cannot but help find it rather hypocritical given that BOTH Democrats and Republicans seem to have little trouble with discrimination and intolerance directed at Independents and minor party supporters.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
One thing IGF has come to be known for are the farLeft loons here who will vent, spew, twist and spin every condition, statement or issue into yet another rant against the evil gayGOPers or, if none prove readily available, drop chunks on their gaybrethern who dare dissent from the approved O-bamm-a chants… like Kirchick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghSJsEVf0pU
(Didn’t will.i.am do one of these for Hugo Chavez, too?)
And the second truism is that you can expect our legendary gay “independent” voice in Richard2 to let all that pass without reservation or comment –because, to Richard2, the loon rantings make sense and are perfectly consistent with the unbiased, balanced view of a supposed “independent”. Don’t look, but your skirts are showing again, Richard2, revealing all the beauty of a closeted gayDemocrat.
Kirchick gets the rants from the farLeft loons here because he dares to speak the truth and even -gasp- dissent from the gayLeft’s intolerant creed.
Diversity, dissent, depth of independent thinking and any degree of tolerating said same is against the gayLeft creed –and the self-preservation interests of the gayDemocrats here who imagine all their demonstrated loyalty to the Masta will get them the opportunity to sip pink Cosmos with uber-metrosexual BarryO.
Bottoms up, boys, because the sun is already setting on the glories you thought were your right, your entitlement, your due for hoeing the rows for da’ Masta.
It’s like 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling by Hillary weren’t enough for one election cycle; the gayModerates are making a few cracks in the pink glass ceiling of the gayLeft.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I believe that heterosexual marriage is different from gay unions in the following ways:
1. A heterosexual union is open to procreation. Many don’t choose it, but they have to stop procreation from happening. The natural result of a heterosexual union is procreation. Gay couples have to find an outside source in order to have a child–it doesn’t happen naturally.
2. A heterosexual union involves the joining together
of two families. Gay unions typically don’t involve the integration of two families at that level.
3. A heterosexual union typically involves the creation of a single identity belonging to two people. In a gay union, the partners retain their independent identities.
For me, those 3 things mean that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman. A same-sex union, while just as sacred, is not the same thing, and using the word “marriage” to describe it is, for me, a mis-identification.
Here’s the point–I bet you’ll want to attack me for that belief. I bet you’ll want me to change that belief. You can’t accept someone as gay who believes something like that. But here’s the thing–I’m gay, and I think marriage is for straight people, and civil unions are for gay people. The fact that you can’t accept me without wanting me to change tells me everything I need to know about the “diversity” of the gay community.
posted by Rob on
1. A heterosexual union is open to procreation. Many don’t choose it, but they have to stop procreation from happening. The natural result of a heterosexual union is procreation. Gay couples have to find an outside source in order to have a child–it doesn’t happen naturally.
Why should civil marriage be limited to the potentiality of procreation, especially when there are gay couples rearing adopted children?
2. A heterosexual union involves the joining together
of two families. Gay unions typically don’t involve the integration of two families at that level.
Bullshit. A lot of same-sex couples that wedded were witnessed by both their families, and in most circumstances these families interact with each other as if it were a heterosexual couple. Sure, a lot of gay couples may not have that possibility due to rejection by their so-called families, but that’s hardly a reason to prevent them from marrying and forming a new family.
3. A heterosexual union typically involves the creation of a single identity belonging to two people. In a gay union, the partners retain their independent identities.
wrong again, there are many cases where the couple share family name, be it from one couple’s family’s name, both family names hyphenated, or an original one.
For me, those 3 things mean that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman. A same-sex union, while just as sacred, is not the same thing, and using the word “marriage” to describe it is, for me, a mis-identification.
You seem to have a very limited understanding of the potential gay relationships, shown when you raised your two last points on marriage. Now you state that civil unions are just as sacred… Where in your bible does it mention civil unions? It is a civil construct, and not one of ethos, and spirit. I find that very sad.
Here’s the point–I bet you’ll want to attack me for that belief. I bet you’ll want me to change that belief. You can’t accept someone as gay who believes something like that. But here’s the thing–I’m gay, and I think marriage is for straight people, and civil unions are for gay people. The fact that you can’t accept me without wanting me to change tells me everything I need to know about the “diversity” of the gay community.
You?re entitled to that view without people throwing feces at you. However you will have a difficult time dating gay Christians who wish to hold their relationship truly sacred.
posted by Rob on
Oh BTW, in Qu
posted by Pat on
I believe that maybe marriage is between a man and a woman, and that civil unions are the best option for gays.
Ashpenaz, I’m curious. I believe in your previous postings on same sex marriage, you supported it. Now you apparently don’t. You gave three reasons (all of which I disagree with or don’t fully agree with), but I’m guessing these three reasons wasn’t something you just realized. Anyway, I’d be interested in what I believe is a change in your opinion. Thanks.
Gays treat conservative, Christian gays the way they claim the world treats them. And refuse to see the irony.
Actually, I see the irony all right. It’s unfortunately, not unusual to see this type of thing happen all the time. You get a class of people who are treated badly by one group (including from their family and peers) and when they grasp some form of power (real or perceived) in another group, they pull the same type of behavior on others in that group. And it’s not just against gay conservatives and/or Christians. Depending on the person it could be that you’re not beautiful enough, thin enough, rich enough, social enough, political enough, etc.
But this also shows that the gay community is not a monolith either. It’s just that certain segments of the gay community are more vocal.
posted by Pat on
Why should civil marriage be limited to the potentiality of procreation, especially when there are gay couples rearing adopted children?
And I’d also add that not all heterosexual unions are open to procreation either. Even the staunch opponents of same sex marriage when they see a couple in their 60s or older marry would more likely congratulate the new married couple than state they shouldn’t marry because of their inability to procreate. And further, there is no opposition to a fertile couple who chooses not to have children (like my brother and his wife).
posted by Pat on
Here’s the point–I bet you’ll want to attack me for that belief. I bet you’ll want me to change that belief. You can’t accept someone as gay who believes something like that. But here’s the thing–I’m gay, and I think marriage is for straight people, and civil unions are for gay people. The fact that you can’t accept me without wanting me to change tells me everything I need to know about the “diversity” of the gay community.
Personally, I won’t attack you for your belief, Ashpenaz, although I’ll try to convince you and others who disagree why I believe my position is right. And I’m all ears for you to defend your position. If it’s convincing enough, I’ll change my opinion.
I’ve stated above why I don’t disagree with your first point, why it is irrelevant. As to your second and third point, it depends on the couples involved. Further, it will take a while, a couple of generations or so, in order for the families of a gay couple to come together as much as they would for a heterosexual couple. It’s hard for one or both families to come together if one or both have condemned the homosexualility of their child or family member. As for the identity issue, I think what we will see is, more and more, women retaining their identity, while more and more gay couples share more of an identity together.
Anyway, I would be interested in your addressing the points made by Rob and me in support of your position. As long as my position isn’t distorted, demonized, or strawmanned, I’m fine with whatever your position is.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Where does the Bible talk about civil unions? Look at the covenant between Jonathan and David. The political ramifications of their stated, public relationship worried Saul so much he wanted Jonathan killed. Look at the covenant between Naomi and Ruth. In Christian tradition, look at the same-sex rites discussed by Boswell. These are all examples of civil unions, that is, relationships on par with marriage, but not called marriage.
Because straight couples are extremely likely to have children, even when they don’t want to, their relationships require protection for children. Gay couples may or may not include children. It is true that some straight couples are unable to procreate. But the model of marriage is based on the overwhelming majority of straight couples who can procreate. Absolutely 100% of gay couples can’t procreate unless they find alternate methods, so procreation is not a natural part of the gay partnership.
Both families going to the reception is not the integration of families. I don’t think that gays have “in-laws” per se. I don’t think the families of gay partners feel the same level of obligation to each other that families of straight couples do. That might be unfair, but I don’t think a father would hire the brother of one’s gay partner simply because he was now a “member of the family.”
Straight couples tend to merge into “The Ricardos” rather than remain Desi and Lucy. People will invite The Ricardos for dinner, but, when it comes to gays, they will invite Desi, and say, “please bring Fred along.”
I think those differences are significant enough to say that marriage is a heterosexual institution. I believe that lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships between gays are just as sacred but need another name to distinguish them. I’m content with civil unions for now.
But notice, you are trying to get me to change rather than just accept me as I am–which is what you accuse the straight world of doing to gays.
I wish people would admit that gay diversity is limited to young, attractive people who believe the right things.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Ashpenaz underscores his earlier point: “I wish people would admit that gay diversity is limited to young, attractive people who believe the right things.”
Diversity in the gay culture has never been a community value, Ash. You know that first hand. We’ve all watched it demonstrated here and in other blogs repeatedly… in fact, I’d add that intolerance toward others of differing or even dissenting opinions to the gayLeft creed is perfectly acceptable to that gayLeft block who are the very first to cry out when society doesn’t cave in to their political demands or need for validation.
The thing that is more apparent to me these days is how the gayLeft and gayDemocrats are foaming with spittle at the prospect that dissent within our community is –gasp and horrors– becoming more vocal and demanding the same kind of tolerance those gayLefties have demanded from society writ large for the last 4 decades.
Head over to any conservative gay blog on politics and you’ll find a high, screeching level of intolerance from the gayLeft visitors –and it isn’t just passion, it’s venom. And it’s almost always partisan –like the DailyKos dispatches barbed urchins daily to the next greatest threat from moderates or the gayRight.
But then, maybe the over-reaching antics of the gayLeft and the impotent gayDemocrats have finally awakened the SilentGayMajority… courage is a trait that comes first in little doses and can grow more powerful as other gayDoubters of the righteousness of the gayLeft creed speak out against injustice within our community.
Hope is on the march within our community and it isn’t carrying a BarryO banner.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Editors and IGF readers: the segment directly above is not from me but from someone lacking significant creativity. It’s been done here more than a few times, now. Crafty little gayLefties who value public discourse and civility, no doubt.
===================================
posted by Rob on
Where does the Bible talk about civil unions? Look at the covenant between Jonathan and David. The political ramifications of their stated, public relationship worried Saul so much he wanted Jonathan killed. Look at the covenant between Naomi and Ruth. In Christian tradition, look at the same-sex rites discussed by Boswell. These are all examples of civil unions, that is, relationships on par with marriage, but not called marriage.
To call those relationships ‘civil unions’ is debatable, especially concerning that David got married to Johnathan’s sister. Not exactly on par with marriage…
Because straight couples are extremely likely to have children, even when they don’t want to, their relationships require protection for children. Gay couples may or may not include children. It is true that some straight couples are unable to procreate. But the model of marriage is based on the overwhelming majority of straight couples who can procreate. Absolutely 100% of gay couples can’t procreate unless they find alternate methods, so procreation is not a natural part of the gay partnership.
You haven’t answered my question: why should civil marriage be limited to the potentiality of procreation, especially when there are gay couples rearing adopted children?
Both families going to the reception is not the integration of families. I don’t think that gays have “in-laws” per se. I don’t think the families of gay partners feel the same level of obligation to each other that families of straight couples do. That might be unfair, but I don’t think a father would hire the brother of one’s gay partner simply because he was now a “member of the family.”
Eh… I’ve already witnessed inter-family relationships between same-sex married couples. Besides, many families of heterosexual couples are rather cold or hostile toward their in-laws, some even to whom their son or daughter is married to! That hardly counts as a mandatory trait to marriage.
Straight couples tend to merge into “The Ricardos” rather than remain Desi and Lucy. People will invite The Ricardos for dinner, but, when it comes to gays, they will invite Desi, and say, “please bring Fred along.”
Where did you get that idea into your head?
I think those differences are significant enough to say that marriage is a heterosexual institution. I believe that lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships between gays are just as sacred but need another name to distinguish them. I’m content with civil unions for now.
Of the three differences you mentioned, the first one hasn’t been completely addressed, and the second and third one were spawned out of thin air.
But notice, you are trying to get me to change rather than just accept me as I am–which is what you accuse the straight world of doing to gays.
I wish people would admit that gay diversity is limited to young, attractive people who believe the right things.
Don’t be a drama queen. I’m attacking your arguments and ideas, not you personally. For all I know, you could be a friendly chap to invite for a drink, and a spirited debate.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Because straight couples are more likely to have children, there is stronger call to protect the potential children of straight couples than gay couples. Note I say “more likely” and “stronger”–there are lots of variations.
The covenant between David and Jonathan was seen as joining their houses together. I’m sure there is no Hebrew word for civil union; I’m saying it is comparable to today’s civil unions.
I stand by the last two points. I bet your observations are not backed up by most observers of gay couples and their families.
When you invite me for that drink, you’ll have to choose someplace dark where no one will see you–I am not particularly nice, I am overweight, balding, and middle-aged. You wouldn’t want any of your gay pals to think you’d be seen with me. Unless I was rich, which I’m not.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I liked this comment that was posted on the L.A. Times website in response to Jamie’s piece when it was published there:
“Considering the years of my life I’ve wasted trolling online on Manhunt, the ‘Out’ article was my moment of clarity. Out of shame and frustration, I had cancelled my Manhunt account. Pig headed intolerance isn’t just the realm of the Right. Just because I’m a gay man doesn’t mean that I’m not entitled to be angry and capricious.”
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Editors & fellow IGF readers, you can also scratch the comment attributed to me at 1:17 today.
It’s just like the comments attributed to me at 1:15 and other times elsewhere in the site.
Any chance to maybe block that IP address, editors? It’s been done at least 4 times now.
posted by Pat on
Ashpenaz, thanks for your comments. By the way, I may be trying to change your opinion, but this has nothing to do with accepting who you are. When I’m having a civil disagreement with someone, I personally like them to convince me I’m wrong, and change my opinion. If I don’t change your mind here, no biggie.
I don’t have much to add to what Rob stated, except the following to your response.
But the model of marriage is based on the overwhelming majority of straight couples who can procreate. Absolutely 100% of gay couples can’t procreate unless they find alternate methods, so procreation is not a natural part of the gay partnership.
I’ll agree with your two statements here. However, it does not convince me that this rationale should bar same sex couples from being married. What about heterosexuals couples who cannot or choose not to have children. Yes, as you said, that’s a minority, but far from a insignificant minority of heterosexual couples.
When you see a couple in their 60s get married, are you more likely to say (to yourself at least), “Oh, isn’t that a nice, cute couple” or “you know, I don’t want to change laws, and I know this is an exception and everything, but dang, this couple cannot have children, they shouldn’t have got married. They should leave it for those who will have children.”
Or when you see an apparent fertile couple who you know chooses to not have children, would say “that’s nice, good for them. I’m glad they found each other and got married” or would you instead say “you know, why don’t they just live together and fight for a civil union instead of getting married. If they change their mind and decide to have children, fine, then at that point, they can get married.”
If you’re reaction to either is the former, then I’m not sure why you would be against same sex marriage. Keep in mind that there is less chance of merging of families when the couple is in their 60s.
Anyway, I’m also interested in hearing why your position changed on same sex marriage
posted by Pat on
Matt, I agree with many of your points in your 11:14am posting (I think that was you).
Head over to any conservative gay blog on politics and you’ll find a high, screeching level of intolerance from the gayLeft visitors –and it isn’t just passion, it’s venom. And it’s almost always partisan –like the DailyKos dispatches barbed urchins daily to the next greatest threat from moderates or the gayRight.
Yes, I agree with this as well. Unfortunately, there are those on the left who spew venom. But you know as well that it is not limited to the left. We both were victims of venom by conservatives at one time or another at two sites (one of them gay, the other not).
But then, maybe the over-reaching antics of the gayLeft and the impotent gayDemocrats have finally awakened the SilentGayMajority… courage is a trait that comes first in little doses and can grow more powerful as other gayDoubters of the righteousness of the gayLeft creed speak out against injustice within our community.
Great, I hope you’re right and that’s happening. The problem has always been a Catch 22. The silent ones will say that their sexuality doesn’t matter, so it always appeared that the gay community is only like the vocal minority.
posted by Kevin on
It seems to me the Manhunt board realized they were going to have a rash of lost business, so they used their power to get rid of him. The free market does its thing without government interference. Isn’t that supposed to be a basic tenet of “conservatism”? Or is this just the latest principle being abandoned?
posted by Ashpenaz on
I am for legal recognition of lifelong, sexually exclusive gay unions with all the legal rights of straight couples. We can have this–if we don’t call it marriage. For many people, marriage is between a man and a woman. OK, Paris is worth a mass, and legal recognition is worth a different name. I am tired of my goal of having Jason Statham’s and my union not being legally recognized because the gay community has to cling to a word which really, really might not even be the best word for gay partnerships.
Of course, the other legal barrier Jason and I face is that darn restraining order.
posted by Bobby on
“I am for legal recognition of lifelong, sexually exclusive gay unions with all the legal rights of straight couples.”
—Tell that to John Edwards, Bill Clinton, and Elliot Spitzer, they certainly weren’t exclusive in their marriages. Why force everyone to be monogamous? The dynamics of a marriage are a very personal matter. I once met a gay couple in which one of the partners was going to have sex with a woman to have a baby. At that time, I thought that man was evil, that he should do artificial insemination and not degrade himself by having heterosexual sex when he’s in a gay relationship. But now I understand that he’s free to do what he wants, just like Hillary Clinton is free to forgive dirty ol’ Bill.
Marriage has nothing to do with being good. There are many breeders out there that don’t deserve to be married. There’s nothing sacred about an institution where two breeders can go to Las Vegas and get married by Elvis, or go to Mexico and get married naked, or to Florida and get married under water.
posted by Ashpenaz on
“Why do you want to change me? Why can’t you accept me as I am?”
–gay child to his parents
–gay priest to his congregation
–Rosie ‘O Donnell to every single person she has met
–me to this board
posted by Pat on
It seems to me the Manhunt board realized they were going to have a rash of lost business, so they used their power to get rid of him. The free market does its thing without government interference. Isn’t that supposed to be a basic tenet of “conservatism”? Or is this just the latest principle being abandoned?
Kevin, I agree with you on the free market. I don’t want to change that. But I’m also into free speech. Critizing those who forced Crutchley from his job is fair game too.
posted by Rob on
“Why do you want to change me? Why can’t you accept me as I am?”
[…]
–me to this board
You’re going off a wild tangent, and you’re you’re acting like a drama queen.
Marriage has nothing to do with being good. There are many breeders out there that don’t deserve to be married. There’s nothing sacred about an institution where two breeders can go to Las Vegas and get married by Elvis, or go to Mexico and get married naked, or to Florida and get married under water.
Yea… it’s serious disrespect to the King. Don’t forget the stadium marriages too.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Far from going off on a tangent, I am using myself as a case in point. I am a perfect example of the lack of acceptance described in the original article. I am middle-aged, overweight, balding, Christian, etc., and there’s no place for gays like me at the “Rainbows ‘n Pride” table.
posted by DUMP on
Why would there be a place for you at the “gay” table? You are a failed x-gay who has never had a relationship in the total of your sad life. You should go out on a date before you bemoan the fact that no one wants to marry you. Does the gentle purring of your cat drown out the sobs of discontent as you fall asleep night after lonely night?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DUMP, CharlesWilson or whatever name you’re going by these days… your comments here have been mean-spirited and spiteful toward Ashpenaz.
Ash is making a fair point that guys like you talk a diversity-game but the truth is that you want a single-size-fits-all gay ideal, 1-Party-4-all-gays and to practice on other dissenting gays the intolerance you feel you’ve had practiced on you.
Ash’s point is that you won’t accept him for what he is –you want to smash his self esteem, you want to punish him for being different than your gay ideal and you want to meet out the same harsh brutal treatment you’ve felt at the hands of str8 Americans.
Shame on you and the other gayLefties here who tolerate your hatefilled intolerant and unjust rhetoric.
posted by DUMP on
You and Ash can go fuck yourselves. Idiots the both of you.
posted by Michgan-Matt on
DUMP, Charles Wilson, wet willy, or whatever name you’re going by tomorrow (wink), it seems abundantly clear from your post that you, indeed, have no capacity for shame and no decency when it comes to treating others with respect in the public square of ideas.
Funny that an avowed gayLefty and proud former delegate to the 2000 and 2004 Democrat Natl Conventions would treat political dissent with such alarming disdain.
Well, maybe not… given your pals over at the MyDD are now claiming that GOP Veep nominee Sarah Palin tried to drown her Downs Syndrome child in the family bath tub.
You guys are the worst.
posted by Ashpenaz on
It will come as no surprise that straight people treat me better than gay people do. I suspect a lot of gay people feel the same way. I didn’t know what oppression and victimization was until I tried to find a place in the gay community. Reparative therapists only wanted me to change my orientation–gays want me to change what it means to be me.
posted by Pat on
Reparative therapists only wanted me to change my orientation–gays want me to change what it means to be me.
That’s a pretty big “only” Ashpenaz. Unfortunately, there are bad people in every community. For example, among the religious community, there are the “reparative” “therapists.” Anyway, you don’t want to use the excuse of there being plenty of bad gay persons to be a victim.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat, with all due respect, you have to admit that DUMP’s (aka CharlesWilson) underhanded, mean-spirited, vicious little stunt impersonating a playground bully –that most gay guys have had to confront in their younger lifetimes– was being used as an “excuse” by Ash.
“Unfortunately” sounds like your willingness to excuse -and maybe even discount as meaningless- DUMP’s comments to Ash strikes me as one of the reasons why bad people think they can get away with that kind of playground bully conduct.
I think Ash’s “only” is equivalent to your “unfortunately”.
One of the greatest contributions of Reagan and W’s stints as prezs, to our culture, may end up being the most illiberal notion that good people SHOULD look evil in the face and declare to be exactly that -evil.
On a thread in a gay forum about diversity and lack of tolerance from liberals in our own community, it seems queer that so many gayLefties here have been so quiet when others are bashed, bruised and battered.
So much for that fake liberal sentiment that we are first all gay brethern.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
(Sorry, the edit gods cut off this bit)
Finally, Pat, for you to focus in on the “only” in Ash’s comments and miss the bigger, far more important point –namely, “… gays want me to change what it means to be me” is astounding because you head immediately for the “liberal red meat”… reparative therapy.
Tell me you really meant to begin with something like “Ash, you’re right. Bullies like DUMP want to change who you are and what you believe in because for them, you NOT being them is a crime.”
posted by Ashpenaz on
I watched the Sarah Palin speech last night. I LOVE HER!!! She represents the morals and values of small town life I cherish. We share the same religious beliefs. I with I were a drag queen because I’d dress like her for Halloween.
Here’s the point–I would bet that she’s better for gays than Obama and the homophobes he uses as advisors (McClurkin, etc.). There isn’t a great candidate for gay rights, but at least she has extended domestic partnership benefits to Alaskan workers. But I bet the gay community can’t look past her religion and conservatism to see that she and McCain are much more likely to move gay partnerships ahead. Of course, we’ll have to call them civil unions, but, hey, that’s something I’m willing to do.
posted by Rob on
I watched the Sarah Palin speech last night. I LOVE HER!!! She represents the morals and values of small town life I cherish.
Small town life apparently isn’t all what it seems.
We share the same religious beliefs. I with I were a drag queen because I’d dress like her for Halloween.
So you’re a Pentecostalist with the Assemblies of God? How do you feel about her home church supportingan ex-gay ministry? Do you think she vocally opposes this action?
Here’s the point–I would bet that she’s better for gays than Obama and the homophobes he uses as advisors (McClurkin, etc.).
McClurkin is an advisor? And I thought he was just a bad gig. Where did you get this information?
There isn’t a great candidate for gay rights, but at least she has extended domestic partnership benefits to Alaskan workers.
Only after she was forced to do so by the Alaskan Supreme Court, and on the advice of the Attorney General, and she supports a state petition to repeal those benefits. Gay friendly indeed.
But I bet the gay community can’t look past her religion and conservatism to see that she and McCain are much more likely to move gay partnerships ahead. Of course, we’ll have to call them civil unions, but, hey, that’s something I’m willing to do.
Rubbish. McCain, and Palin don’t support civil unions either. They’re also not going to repeal DOMA, and thus preventing the federal government from recognizing civil unions and marriages, including those of gay servicemen and servicewomen, not that it matters for them since they’ll be discharged if they even get married or ‘civil-unionized’ as it would violate DADT, another fine legislation that McCain & Co. supports.
posted by Pat on
Pat, with all due respect, you have to admit that DUMP’s (aka CharlesWilson) underhanded, mean-spirited, vicious little stunt impersonating a playground bully –that most gay guys have had to confront in their younger lifetimes– was being used as an “excuse” by Ash.
Of course it was all the mean things you said it was. To be honest with you, I usually try to stay out of policing bad behavior from others, except when it is directed towards me. I assume that as posters, we can and should defend ourselves, and I also leave it to the moderators, who have said (or I thought they did) they would delete such comments. When someone goes way over line, I will step in. But this usually applies to non-trolls, if you get my drift. So I chose to only address Ashpenaz on this matter.
“Unfortunately” sounds like your willingness to excuse -and maybe even discount as meaningless- DUMP’s comments to Ash strikes me as one of the reasons why bad people think they can get away with that kind of playground bully conduct.
No willingness to excuse on my part. For example, if a gay person came on this site and said his parents excoriated him for being gay as a teen, I would advise him that it would be best to not be a victim and move beyond the bad behavior. This would, in no way, excuse the vicious and immoral behavior of these parents.
One of the greatest contributions of Reagan and W’s stints as prezs, to our culture, may end up being the most illiberal notion that good people SHOULD look evil in the face and declare to be exactly that -evil.
If that was the case, too bad they failed in that regard as well. Besides failing to call people like Dobson, Robertson, LaBarbera, and others evil, Bush failed to call his own campaign and himself evil for the vicious stunt that was pulled against McCain in South Carolina in 2000. I’m guessing we all have differences of opinion what is evil though.
On a thread in a gay forum about diversity and lack of tolerance from liberals in our own community, it seems queer that so many gayLefties here have been so quiet when others are bashed, bruised and battered.
So much for that fake liberal sentiment that we are first all gay brethern.
I get what you’re saying here. But first of all, while “bashed” is a fair characterization, I don’t think “bruised” and “battered” is. This is a forum, and it’s just words. Yes, sometimes vicious, mean words. But no one is literally being physically attacked, and we all are equally able to defend ourselves. No, this does not excuse bad behavior. I’m saying we all have the power to defend ourselves, or simply ignore the bad persons.
Anyway, I can only speak for myself, and not the others on the gay left (or anyone else) here. All I can tell you is that I do a lot of tongue biting when I see bad behavior by those on the right here as well.
Finally, Pat, for you to focus in on the “only” in Ash’s comments and miss the bigger, far more important point –namely, “… gays want me to change what it means to be me” is astounding because you head immediately for the “liberal red meat”… reparative therapy.
Matt, Ashpenaz is the one that brought up “reparative” “therapy” and made the comparison to gay bullies. As bad as the behavior on this forum can be, they have very little power than a “reparative” “therapist” who get their vicious hands on a vulnerable gay person. In other words, it appears that Ashpenaz and I have a difference opinion on “reparative” “therapy.”
Anyway, Ashpenaz gave his opinion of gay marriage. It’s different from mine, and that’s fine. But after giving somewhat of a defense, he basically said that he doesn’t want people to change him. After his point was countered, again his defense was that people want to change him.
When you are laying out why you think McCain is better than Obama for president to a leftie, how would you react if their defense was, “Matt, you’re trying to change who I am.”?
Tell me you really meant to begin with something like “Ash, you’re right. Bullies like DUMP want to change who you are and what you believe in because for them, you NOT being them is a crime.”
I try to avoid using phrases such as “(characterizations) like (specific person)” as I find them meaningless. They’re either unfair, or as in this case, I have no idea what DUMP’s motivation is.
But I do agree with the point you and Ashpenaz are making here. Most gay people have grown up with varying degrees of oppression from others, including in many cases, by those who should know better. Yet, too many in the gay community do to others what was done to them. There should be more acceptance and respect for differences. Yet we see gay people bully, blame, or namecall others either because they are conservative, liberal, religious, too butch, not masculine enough, go to pride parades, not pretty enough, etc.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat, thanks for the response. In most part, I agree.
A little nudge issue, tho’. On the thing about McCain being the target of robo calls before the SC primary in 2000… I was there. The Bush Campaign wasn’t involved; the Bush campaign leadership and the candidate strongly condemned the tactics and the attack… I was standing four feet from Bush when he learned of them and saw his anger flash at the revelation.
The liberal media and especially the gayLefties inside the DNC have kept that incorrect perception alive in the political culture.
But that “story” or fabrication by MSM reporters with an HUGE axe to grind, lives on.
BTW, McCain recently hired two of the political operatives that the MSM have long pegged responsible for the SC anti-McCain pushpoll… one to help Palin, one to manage John’s campaign operations.
So much for the MSM’s “allegations”.
posted by Pat on
A little nudge issue, tho’. On the thing about McCain being the target of robo calls before the SC primary in 2000… I was there. The Bush Campaign wasn’t involved; the Bush campaign leadership and the candidate strongly condemned the tactics and the attack… I was standing four feet from Bush when he learned of them and saw his anger flash at the revelation.
Matt, it has been my impression that McCain was supermegapi$$ed off at Bush during that whole nasty episode. So perhaps the MSM made that up as well. But McCain never stated, to my knowledge, that the media reported that he was angry at Bush over the incident was categorically false.
Maybe Bush’s expression wasn’t feigned when he found out about the allegations. I don’t know. Condemnations of the attack mean nothing if it’s just p&ssing on someone boots and telling them it’s raining.
Anyway, I appreciate your perspective on this matter, and can see how you come to the conclusion you have regarding that incident. I’m as convinced that Bush’s campaign was part of the dirty tricks there. In the meantime, when I get more time, I’ll look more into it myself and see if McCain has, in fact, backed Bush’s claim of not being involved, at around the time it happened.
Even assuming I’m correct, the fact that McCain hired two persons allegedly responsible for the smears wouldn’t surprise me. Politics is funny stuff.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat, research away on McCain’s and Bush’s response then and when they made up after the 2k convention. Bush’s expression wasn’t a fake –I’ve seen those angry eyes weveral times in my life and his Dad has a pair to match.
When you research away, remember that what is sometimes shorthand for people outside of campaigns and the MSM is to label someone a “Bush Campaigner” and that person has no real connection to the campaign or the effort… and the campaign may not even be aware of their conduct –even if it’s “on the campaign’s behalf”.
Rev Wright chatted up a storm at the Detroit NAACP dinner –shortly after BarryO tossed his bigoted, racist, homophobic butt under the ObamaBus– and at that event Rev Wright went on about how he and BarryO and the campaign had talked about a future need to distance themselves from each other… and how Rev Wright would continue to advise the campaign but he wasn’t looking for the Veep spot right now… and on and on it went.
Sometimes the people who contend they are part of the “campaign” are the single worst enemies of the candidate… just recall Sen Phil Graham’s kooky comment about whining Americans.
South Carolina has long had a reputation in GOP politics for being a state of independent operators… they’ll do what they think is right and to hell with the sissies advising the candidate.
By the way, Tucker Eskew is the guy the MSM used to point to -even if he denied it. McCain personally hired him to work with Sarah Palin the day she met the McCains before the announcement.
Yeah, politics makes strange bedfellows.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Just to circle back around… Richard2 has indicated in other threads that, despite the fact he was fully aware that I have not called him racist names nor uttered bigoted comments about him or other IGF readers and it was the highkinks of an IGF troll (angry that he got booted and blocked at IGF), Richard2 will ignore the truth and facts and continue to spread falsehoods.
I expected Richard2 to admit his mistake, retract his fraud and we could have moved on.
He hasn’t and is unwilling to listen to reason or accept responsibility for his intentional misrepresentations.
The IGF editors are aware of Richard2’s conduct. They know the facts in this matter support me and the truth.
I’m sorry to say Richard2 will likely continue his unreasonable claims. On this, he’s as deceitful as his claim of being an independent.
My apologies to IGF readers for having to dwell on this matter but Richard2 gave us no other course.
posted by JB on
I certainly didn’t respect Mr. Kirchick’s hatchet job of Ron Paul last winter, but he made some salient points in this article.
posted by Richard II on
Just to circle back around. Michigan Matt expects us to believe that some of the racist and anti-Semitic comments posted under his own name were not made by him, and those that were, not really racist or anti-Semitic at all.
He continues to argue that I should trust hin, when he continues to distort and lie about my own political beliefs and affliations.
He argues for civility, while showing other people only
hateful malice.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard2, the cowardly lion of gayDemocrats is back!
Richard2, you’ve been labeled as either an unwitting dupe of the troll who posted that or an intellectually dishonest person for continuing to spread that lie.
I don’t expect you to believe me. The editors at IGF do and know of your shameful, fluidly dishonest conduct.
That’s why, when I briefed the IGF editors on your conduct, I specifically asked them NOT to remove the post where you call me a liar –against IGF policies, which you well know. And, I asked them to keep your viciously dishonest spin machine in place so we can all see what caliber of character you fail to achieve –even when given the chance to do the right thing.
You failed miserably. The troll who posted those comments under my name didn’t know that my partner for life and co-father of our two children (soon to be three) is of mixed racial background and was raised in a Jewish household… which is a cultural part of our and my lives.
Additionally, a disclaimer was placed directly below those fake trollish comments you think were mine after IGF editors were alerted… they know it’s a troll. You saw the disclaimer.
Yet, you continue with your deceptions.
No Richard2, the cowardly lion, you’ve been punked by a troll. You stayed off IGF when you learned of it. It took you about two days to get your act together and come back, dragging your tail between your legs.
It’s time to be a man. Step up to the plate and admit your irresponsible deceptions to the community.
Of course, to do that, you’d need to borrow some character and maturity from somewhere.
Shameful conduct, Richard2. About as low as the days of CharlesWilson and DUMP around here.
posted by Priya Lynn on
James Kirchick said “In their successful campaign to push out Manhunt.net’s chairman because he?s (gasp) a Republican, gay activists exhibited exactly the kind of intolerance they ought to condemn”.
The idea that LGBTS should be tolerant of those who vote for the party attempting to oppress them is preposterous. Those seeking to create a politically intolerant environment for LGBTs don’t deserve any tolerance themselves.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Ashpenaz said “Why do you want to change me? Why can’t you accept me as I am?”.
No one’s trying to change you, they’re opposing your attempts to deprive LGBTS of equal marriage and equal rights, you’re confusing that with trying to change you.
Ashpenaz said “I am middle-aged, overweight, balding, Christian, etc., and there’s no place for gays like me at the “Rainbows ‘n Pride” table.”.
You’ve gone on and on about how transgendered people and effeminate gays should be deprived of a place at the “Rainbows ‘n Pride” table – why should anyone feel sorry for you being excluded when that is what you seek to impose on others? Its hard to be sympathetic to someone who whines and cries about being treated the exact same way he treats others.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Michigan matt said “blah blah blah blah blah blah.”.
I skipped reading all his blathering attacks on liberal gays in this thread – nothing lost at all.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Folks, PrincessPriya is having a red pad day so she’s a wee bit cranky. Crikey!
First, she makes the stupid mistake of claiming that women are flocking to BarryO’s Temple of Doom & Gloom –only to learn the polling was done by Democrat pollsters for the Democrat fundraising group “EMILYS List”… Princess thought it was a reputable poll. But it turned out to be a putative partyhack poll.
Then PrincessPriya learned that her favorite poster and gayDemocrat object here, Richard2, is unrepentant, lacks spine, and can’t apologize for the life of him.
But for the gems amongst the swine of PrincessPriya’s latest thoughts… let’s see this one turned on her: “The idea that LGBTS should be tolerant of those who vote for the party attempting to oppress them is preposterous. Those seeking to create a politically intolerant environment for LGBTs don’t deserve any tolerance themselves.”
As a gay GOPer, I could edit that to put Princess-the-nonPatriot in the box: “The idea that Americans who are patriots should be tolerant of those who vote for the party attempting to capitulate to the terrorists is preposterous. Those seeking to create a politically intolerant environment for patriots don’t deserve any tolerance themselves.”
It’s been a red pad day for the Princess. Let’s hope she doesn’t lay on a pea tonight or we’ll all pay in the morning.
posted by wildwildwest on
Last I heard, the McSame campaign returned the donation and our beloved Log Cabin (can we say Jewish Nazi?) friends have donated the money to Obama.
McCain’t 08!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
wildwestdance -our newest sockpuppet- says “Last I heard, the McSame campaign returned the donation and our beloved Log Cabin (can we say Jewish Nazi?) friends have donated the money to Obama.”
If you did, sockpuppet, I’d advise you to get your hearing aid checked… ’cause it’s permanently tuned into the NetRootNut network and they’ve gotten an awful lot wrong, wrong, wrong these last ten days of feeding frenzy fury.
McCain not only accepted LCR individuals’ contributions, he welcomed them and sent two of his highest ranking senior staffers to meet with the LCR Board and thank them while in St Paul.
Note to the sockpuppet: get that hearing aid tuned into reality, ok?
posted by Drew on
The reality is, neither conservative or liberal will acknowledge property rights or the right to enter in to a contract with another person. If this was fought for, same sex marriages would be blessed but so would many rights conservatives want to defend, like defense from imminent domain abuse.