One of the most oppressive burdens gays have to carry in the fight for equality is the permission some heterosexuals give themselves to talk explicitly in public about specific sexual practices some homosexuals may prefer. Any particular sexual act, described in lurid enough detail to a nonparticipant, can be made to sound repellant, particularly to someone who does not share the participants' taste. The Marquis de Sade was not even trying to disgust people in describing his catholic sexual escapades - most all of them heterosexual -- yet remains to this day the brand name for sexual disgust.
Which is why heterosexuals nearly always leave one another's sexual proclivities at the bedroom door. With the exception of frat-boy braggadocio (usually among single men, and usually in private) it is rare to hear public discussion of specific heterosexual acts, from the mundane to the exotic.
But anti-gay heterosexuals (and even some who are neutral) exercise something close to voyeuristic exuberance in peppering discussion of gay civil rights with vulgar and extreme descriptions of sexual acts. In 1991, California's state senator David Knowles set the standard, in an obscene tirade on the Senate floor during debate on a bill that would have done no more than prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Knowles insisted on describing "the specifics of the lifestyle" in shocking terms that left members speechless, and fearful about whether the publicly broadcast debate would violate obscenity laws. After an uproar in the chamber, Knowles's fellow conservative Republicans had to shout him down.
This is still a preferred tactic in opposing gay equality, both at home and abroad. In our own country, Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber has been quoted (by his anti-gay supporters) reducing homosexual sexual orientation to "one man violently cramming his penis into another man's lower intestine and calling it 'love' " In Uganda, a full-page newspaper ad, headlined "Top Homos In Uganda Named" provides a Sadistic catalogue of the sexual preferences of various homosexuals there.
Of all the inequalities lesbians and gay men have to endure, this one is among the most degrading. No heterosexual would stand for being diminished to the sum of his or her sexual activities, and homosexuals should not be held to a different standard. Without sex, we would all be less than human, but not even a beast is composed only of its carnality.
This obsession among some heterosexuals is more than disrespectful; it is really the only distraction they can come up with to keep us off the subject, which is equal rights under the law. We are having a civil discussion, here, and I don't think it's out of line for us to expect heterosexuals to show us the same courtesy about private matters they enforce and expect among themselves.
201 Comments for “On Vulgarity”
posted by Jimmy on
“This obsession among some heterosexuals is more than disrespectful; it is really the only distraction they can come up with to keep us off the subject, which is equal rights under the law.”
– Indeed. When a straight couple shows up at the county clerk’s office to get hitched, no one asks what kind of sex they have. That they might be the two most licentious sexual libertines in town makes no difference to the law which will still confer the gold standard of citizenship upon them the moment the marriage certificate is filed.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
David, Jimmy: I can’t tell you how many times those straight people, knowing that I’m an ally of gay folks will treat me to such graphic detailing of what they think are the sex practices of gay people, and on anatomy and what ‘normal’ bodily functions are!
It’s not even an argument of last resort that this happens, but of first resort.
ANYTHING of that, BUT dealing with Constitutional law and civil law history.
I get the TownHall daily, online.
And Mike Adams and Doug Giles initiated just such graphic details in describing what Kevin Jennings of GLSEN thinks is appropriate reading for middle school children.
Those critical of Kevin Jennings’s appointment have reduced his life’s work into ‘a radical homosexual militant who wants pedophile gay sex promoted in schools.’
The comment thread is also full of such sexual detail and reductive descriptions of gay adults that one must wonder if THAT is all straight people can think about.
At one point, I told the folks that they should get a famous study done in 1941 called “An American Dilemma” by Gunnar Myrdal.
Myrdal was a Swedish economist who wanted to study why Jim Crow was such a persistent and pernicious and widely accepted social system of government. And so brutally enforced.
He had 500 researchers interview whites and blacks and the results were in similar disparate perceptions as that between gay and straight.
And ALL of it over paranoia of sexuality and the myths and misinformation and distortion fomented by the bigoted, dominant class.
For example: whites were obsessed with black sexuality. Utterly certain that the entire motive of blacks to be integrated was sexual invasion. Their contention was that black men had an unnatural, voracious and uncontrollable lust for females and integration would promote the births of deformed mixed children.
Meanwhile, blacks concern was for social justice, access to voting and public accommodation, fairness in jobs and housing and education.
Most of all, protection from casual violence and redress and justice if it happened.
Gay people have far different concerns but I could parallel the list this way:
Straight people are convinced that gay people are lusting for children, have an unnatural attraction to each other and no restraint or moral regard for any family or social structure.
Integration of schools would promote recruitment into the ranks of homosexuals and that the safety of children and families depends on segregation from homosexuals.
Whereas, gay people are more concerned with fairness in jobs and housing. Protection from casual violence and justice after the fact.
I also might add that white men, in public would denounce the flesh of black women, but under cover of night, found them compelling in any case and ripe for exploitation.
The same could be said for straight men and lesbians. Straight men might renounce lesbians in the daylight, but find them compelling in their porn fantasies.
The gay/straight culture conflict is another ‘American Dilemma” and I would have been FAR more impressed that Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize if he’d gotten gay and straight people together on the issues that concern them both or all citizens.
Considering, THAT would be an impressive accomplishment.
But for now, I agree that straight folks being convinced that gay people are a bigger threat than say, GANG members or drug dealers, who recruit children regularly and have made America’s streets as violent as any war zone in Bahdad or the Gaza.
Obsessing about sexuality in a disenfranchised minority isn’t new. And Gunnar Myrdal proved it, and I see no difference now just because it’s gay folks we’re talking about.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Straight people are convinced that gay people are lusting for children, have an unnatural attraction to each other and no restraint or moral regard for any family or social structure.
It doesn’t really take much convincing.
Let’s start with #1, lusting for children.
Some of the most unlikely attendees of Sunday’s kinky leather fetish festival were under four feet tall.
Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men.
The twin girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store.
Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show the twins off……
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.
By the way, John Kruse is a psychiatrist. I wonder how his Obama Party and his professional association feel about his belief that dressing children up as sexual slaves and taking them to a sex fair is a good “educational experience”? Or, more likely, are they not willing to say anything about it because that would make them “close-minded” and “homophobic”?
Or:
Raising the age of consent is a veiled attempt to assert conservative moral values on youth, queer and youth-led groups told Senators today……
The proposed changes will have a disproportionate impact on gays, said Richard Hudler of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario.
“My first lover was 17 years older than me. And this is common [among gay people],” he said.
And last, but certainly not least:
Children as young as five should be taught to understand the pleasures of gay sex, according to leaders of a taxpayer-funded education project.
Heads of the project have set themselves a goal of ‘creating primary classrooms where queer sexualities are affirmed and celebrated’.
So let’s see; we have gay psychiatrists insisting that taking children dressed as sexual slaves to a sex fair is an “educational experience”, we have leaders of gay-rights organizations saying that age-of-consent laws disproportionately affect gays and that it is normal for gays to have sex with children nearly two decades their junior, and we have taxpayer-funded gay educators insisting that the pleasures of gay sex should be taught to kindergartners.
Those critical of Kevin Jennings’s appointment have reduced his life’s work into ‘a radical homosexual militant who wants pedophile gay sex promoted in schools.’
That would be because the books he promotes, supports, pushes, and demands that teachers teach contain these graphic sexual passages.
And oddly enough, all Mike Adams and Doug Giles needed to do was to quote the books directly.
The problem here, Regan, as I will repeat for the next three times, is the same one as you have based on skin color; you simply are not capable of criticizing the behavior of another gay person or accepting that such criticism is valid.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Straight people are convinced that gay people are lusting for children, have an unnatural attraction to each other and no restraint or moral regard for any family or social structure.
And now for example #2: have an unnatural attraction to each other.
Takes a bit of scrolling. Don’t worry, we’ll wait. While you’re looking, please keep in mind that this is being done in a public place, on a public street, with taxpayer-funded subsidies, and public-provided protection, despite the fact that the vast majority of the behaviors chronicled are illegal in the state of California.
Or perhaps this example, which also demonstrates what the gay community and its leaders consider to be perfectly acceptable workplace behavior, given that the person who carried it out was repeatedly promoted despite this information being out there.
Perhaps the best example was when the investigation of this behavior was denounced as purely driven by “homophobia and sexism”.
And finally, if you oppose people having sex in a public place and leaving bodily fluids everywhere, you are condemned by the gay community as “neurotic” and a “prude”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And finally, for example #3: no restraint or moral regard for any family or social structure.
Far and away the best example. I’m still not sure which is the best example — it’s a tossup between their argument that poly households, single parents, and gay “households” who decide to play musical baby are just as “socially, economically, and spiritually worthy” as committed married couples, and their insistence that marriage “should not be legally and economically privileged above all others”.
Next up, the gay community’s belief that monogamy is “harmful”, “unnatural”, “destructive”, and to be pitied.
Add to that one of the leaders of the gay-sex marriage movement mocking marriage as a “patriarchal institution” that people should avoid, and it becomes pretty obvious that there’s nothing but contempt for it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Now, back to the main point of the post.
Mr. Link, if you will look at those sources, you will find that they are all taken from readily-available public sources, including the gay press’s account of public events in public places. Even the photoessay of the Folsom Street Fair required no particular access or voyeurism; it’s a public street, in the middle of the day, into which virtually anyone can wander without any issues whatsoever.
To put it bluntly, this is not repeating what goes on behind closed bedroom doors. This is reporting what is printed in the gay press, what is stated by gay leaders, what is endorsed by the gay community, and what is practiced by literally thousands of gay people in public.
Your response is to blame straight people for noticing.
One wonders if, in the gay community, the tale of the emperor’s new clothes ends, not with the people finally realizing the emperor has nothing on, but with the little child who pointed it out in the first place appropriately punished and sent to sensitivity training.
posted by Debrah on
Heteronormativity is the new attempted assault on the cultural landscape by those who would gleefully sign onto perverts on parade and gloss over the crimes of gay men molesting their adopted children.
Roman Polanski will easily be vilified, but witness what we are told is “normal” from gay men.
I well-understand why “North Dallas Thirty” is dreaded by other gay bloggers.
He’s trying to illustrate the insanity of glorifying what everyone has witnessed many times shown in his links….alongside the continued rhapsodizing of same-sex marriage.
Men over the age of 40 openly subscribe to websites alongside teenage men where gay porn and “gay culture” abound.
You say “vulgarity” is your issue?
Good.
It’s also a significant issue for most of America.
Clean up your backyard before coming out to the front yard.
Many have had it with the double standards, the pity-parties, crocodile tears, and infantile behavior of overgrown men.
Again, you are a “minority” because of where you stick your appendage?
Other people are vulgar because they discuss what you openly display with abandon?
The only retort from these people are always inventions, personal attack, and tacky misogyny.
posted by Debrah on
“To put it bluntly, this is not repeating what goes on behind closed bedroom doors. This is reporting what is printed in the gay press, what is stated by gay leaders, what is endorsed by the gay community, and what is practiced by literally thousands of gay people in public.”
************************************
Oh G/d, thank you for making this point…….one that is painfully obvious to us all but for which any detractor will be attacked by those who use “trailer park trash” rhetoric when this reality is highlighted…….
………as one of the main reasons that same-sex marriage is considered a joke—-even by New England liberals!
posted by The Gay Species on
David,
I wonder if you noticed the irony of your own blindside? You use the word “heterosexual” and “homosexual,” with abandon, and then protest when people reduce us to our “sexual activities.” Haven’t you?
For the record, it is biologically impossible for the same (“homo”) member of the dimorphic species to reproduce (“sexual”). So people who use poorly chosen words for identifying people are just as guilty as those who reduce “homosexuals” to an act that is impossible.
Get with it guy. The language “gay” and “lesbian” was intended to overcome this defect, which you still perpetuate with your footloose “homosexual” nonsense. Even better linguistic choices are “homophile” (attracted to the same dimorphic member of the species) and their sex counterparts: Androphile (male) and Gynophile (female). Next you’ll call us “queer,” but mean something different from, “odd, counterfeit, bogus, strange.”
No wonder we lose so many causes; we cannot even talk “gay.”
posted by David on
Could you supply me with your source(s) for “as one of the main reasons that same-sex marriage is considered a joke—-even by New England liberals!” ?
I have never heard that before, seems made up.
Thanks
posted by Debrah on
David–
I know your latest is aimed toward some of the exchanges of which I’ve been a part.
Initially, I came here to take issue with “Jews” being used as an analogy for issues of the gay world because race and ethnicity have no place in this debate, IMO.
At that time, I engaged pointedly, but cerebrally.
Yet I was still met with “vulgarity” from a few rednecks who comment here.
When people choose to discuss the very activities that are openly glorified by gays, it’s somehow “vulgar”.
And I wholeheartedly concur!
Why don’t you talk with your brethren?
There’s always a hush-hush flavor to the rhetoric of gay journalists, yet they grab onto gay pornography and display and glorify their own personal habits as if Salvador Dali had just spilled a glass of “santorum froth” on a white table cloth at Le Cirque instead of wine.
Everything is overloaded gay chic when, in reality, it’s just anal sex between men.
We can lambaste heteros for their grotesquerie, but not gay men with their animal-like displays.
“I have never heard that before, seems made up.”
******************************************
Not made up.
Just something one might infer from the recent Maine and New York ballot boxes.
posted by Patrick on
ND30 if you propose your examples define gays would the same be true about heterosexuals in these posts from the BTB? I see that you trot out the folsom street fair for the millionth time, why do you always forget to mention it is mostly comprised of heterosexuals? Do you share the same distain for girls gone wild? Spring Break almost anywhere? Mardi Gras? At least the Gheys let their children out in public, how bout the heteros?
posted by Patrick on
Missing link for the last post heteros?
posted by Patrick on
Crap-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/28/austria.internationalcrime
I’m sure you will agree this defines all heterosexuals.
posted by Patrick on
Batting 0 on the links-
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/tag/heterosexual-agenda
posted by Debrah on
Everyone should be aware that David or another blog author has deleted some comments from another thread, but left up extremely dirty and misogynistic comments from a gay man.
Comments of invention with no semblance of reality and which are written in semi-literate form.
But because they are vulgar comments aimed at a heterosexual female, he leaves them there…..as the responses are deleted.
Quite a way to display fairness.
But that’s never been the goal, after all.
Double standards reign.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30 if you propose your examples define gays would the same be true about heterosexuals in these posts from the BTB?
You know, Patrick, there’s something very interesting in those things you post from Box Turtle Bulletin — like the fact that, in the first five things they post, all of those stories refer to the person practicing whatever as being arrested and/or sentenced.
Same with your link from the Guardian.
So yes, it is safe to state that those things do not represent all heterosexuals, because heterosexuals are out there condemning, arresting, and convicting the heterosexuals who do those things. Furthermore, you don’t see heterosexuals in the street shrieking that such arrests and convictions are “homophobic”, or that those heterosexuals who object to the behavior are “neurotic” and “prudes”.
Meanwhile, I can show you innumerable similar condemnations of the behavior that takes place at “girls gone wild? Spring Break almost anywhere? Mardi Gras” by heterosexuals and heterosexual organizations, as well as arrests and convictions of heterosexuals for misbehavior during those events, and I heartily concur with both.
Of course, the problem here is that, having been socialized well into the mores and taboos of the gay community, your reflexive response when confronted with gay misbehavior is to blame heterosexuals. Instead of doing that, why not simply condemn the behavior of gay individuals in the same fashion that you do heterosexuals? And if you don’t condemn the behavior of gay people, why do you condemn the behavior of heterosexuals?
posted by BobN on
Debrah, I, for one, will stop “embracing porn” and “glorifying in anal sex” when you stop wallowing in snuff films.
Oh? What’s that you say? YOU, personally, have nothing to do with snuff films? Sorry, but by your standards… your tribe, your problem.
Now, how about something less tedious than perusing ND30’s personal collection of links of depravity (for the Nth time)?
P.S. I don’t really find the Folsom Street Fair quite as depraved as ND30 does. Some of it is pretty far out there, but that stuff is pretty evenly split between straight and gay.
posted by Debrah on
“You know, Patrick, there’s something very interesting in those things you post from Box Turtle Bulletin — like the fact that, in the first five things they post, all of those stories refer to the person practicing whatever as being arrested and/or sentenced.
Same with your link from the Guardian.
So yes, it is safe to state that those things do not represent all heterosexuals, because heterosexuals are out there condemning, arresting, and convicting the heterosexuals who do those things. Furthermore, you don’t see heterosexuals in the street shrieking that such arrests and convictions are ‘homophobic’, or that those heterosexuals who object to the behavior are ‘neurotic’ and ‘prudes’.
Meanwhile, I can show you innumerable similar condemnations of the behavior that takes place at ‘girls gone wild? Spring Break almost anywhere? Mardi Gras’ by heterosexuals and heterosexual organizations, as well as arrests and convictions of heterosexuals for misbehavior during those events, and I heartily concur with both.
Of course, the problem here is that, having been socialized well into the mores and taboos of the gay community, your reflexive response when confronted with gay misbehavior is to blame heterosexuals. Instead of doing that, why not simply condemn the behavior of gay individuals in the same fashion that you do heterosexuals? And if you don’t condemn the behavior of gay people, why do you condemn the behavior of heterosexuals?
*************************************************
Put a fork in it.
It’s done.
And in superb fashion.
posted by bls on
It’s very odd that nobody ever seems to have heard of lesbians on this board….
posted by Debrah on
“It’s very odd that nobody ever seems to have heard of lesbians on this board….”
***********************************
I alluded to that fact recently.
This is an insular breed.
The key to this debate, if you’re of the opposite sex, is to be straight.
That way, they don’t have the added pressure of faking nice.
If you’re a lesbian, they have to spend time showing a little respect.
What fun is that when their interest lies in an entirely different receptacle?
posted by Robert on
It’s always a laugh when people roll out the Folsom Street Fair like it’s representative of gay people… As a typical gay college student I can tell you it’s definitely not my cup of tea. I’ve only been to one open-air gay themed event in my life and that was Houston Pride this year, and I was relieved that it was pretty tame. If anyone has the double standard, it’s people claiming that I’m someone associated with, or somehow have the burden of condemning the actions of other gay people, merely because I am also gay. This is just as ridiculous as saying that random black people should be apologizing to me for “their” statistically higher crime rates, or that the Methodist Church down the road from my house should apologize for the murder of Dr. Tiller because they are also Christian.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Oh, ND30…I am quite capable of criticizing gay people where it’s warranted.
You don’t know me, or anything about me.
Let me be clear, where children are inappropriately exposed to adult behavior is NOT EXCLUSIVE TO EITHER GAY OR STRAIGHT PEOPLE.
And regardless of that, the entire of heterosexuals are not politically and socially maintained in Jim Crow like systems of discrimination because SOME of their number are sexually aggressive and even abusive.
The point I was making didn’t require criticizing gay people, but it was analogous to how black sexuality was reported to such levels of exaggeration that the most casual of social encounters with the people who make such laws could be dangerous for black men, and in fact they are for gay men as well.
Are you trying to illustrate that discrimination and the fear and paranoia that heteros induce among themselves is JUSTIFIED against gay people?
Are you trying to tell me they’ve been right all along and gay people deserve to be arrested, institutionalized and otherwise are incapable of being integrated with ‘normal’ people?
Tell be something ND30, what do YOU know about anybody at face value?
Or that they deserve the protections and full freedoms based on their ORIENTATION only?
Where is morals test on that?
I know that sexual inappropriateness isn’t a GAY issue, but socio/political repression has consequences.
Now, I respectfully answered you. Leave it at that, and don’t put words in my mouth and interpret things I didn’t say out of the air.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I would point out that anal sex has also been disparaged as inherently sado-masochistic and radically un-egalitarian by men in the grassroots “Frot” movement — men who are as pro-gay as Matt Berber is anti-gay.
posted by Paul Ginandes on
This article is just another example of how gay rights is the last frontier for equality in America and around the world. Yes, it’s disgusting what some people do sexually, but nobody has made a crusade out of banning sexual activities amongst heterosexuals, even though they participate in every single sexual activity that gay people do! Pedophilia is overwhelmingly predominantly a heterosexual act. Not all gay men engage in anal sex, yet at least 35% of heterosexual couples do, yet gay men are branded as all ass bandits, and all het couples pictured as loving and monogamous.
This is just another attempt by homophobes to whitewash their bigotry. They tried biblical arguments and looked like religious homophobes. They tried legal arguments, and looked like anti-equality bigots. Now they want to try to paint their disgust with gay sex as some sort of reasonable scientific or sociological phenomenon. It’s not.
I want to ask each and every person who is disgusted by gay sex to imagine their straight grandparents having sex. ASk them exactly what kinds of positions their grandparents prefer and if they engage in anal sex, or fellatio, or whatever. See if they can then equate disgust or revulsion with morality or approval.
posted by Patrick on
Thanks Stalker Deb- we all can read the origional post.
ND-
Was there a law broken @ the Folsom Street Fair? If the DCF or whatever State Childrens Protection Office got involved what was the result.Are there no heterosexuals having sex with underage men? Are we talking about Canada or the US? You love those posts from other contries that have say…..different age of consent laws…and pass them off as what is happening here.Why gloss over the fact the Dan Savage blog is based on the work of a HETEROSEXUAl COUPLE??? The law is not comprised of “straight people” taking care of “straight matters”. The issues I linked to show the worst of human nature. By your logic, if I post these stories about straight people, they represent all straight people, and if I cannot find a condemnation on YOUR blog, you agree with what they do.
Again, Stalker Deb, I will not need you to repost any response as I only need to read it once.
posted by David on
“………as one of the main reasons that same-sex marriage is considered a joke—-even by New England liberals!”-Debrah
“I have never heard that before, seems made up.”-me
“blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah(goes on for a while)”
“Not made up.
Just something one might infer from the recent Maine and New York ballot boxes.”-Debrah
First- You may not know this but New York is NOT in New England.
Second- Polls show that a majority of New Yorkers DISAGREE with the NY Senate vote.
Third- While Maine may have voted down the actions of the Legislature & Governor-4 New England states (again, NEW YORK is NOT in New England) HAVE or WILL SOON HAVE marriage equality.
That is 66% of New England States. It is a real stretch (and by stretch I mean lie) to consider SSM “a joke—-even by New England liberals!”
You sure like your subterfuge.
posted by Debrah on
David–
You and “Patrick” really need to get together and coordinate your multi-consonant-multi-vowel retorts.
Does “he” say the things you’d like to? How special.
It’s almost as much fun as being back in kindergarten as I read this silliness.
You apparently like his “vulgar” trailer park fare because you’re tethered to it.
Must be a rather uncomfortable fit when on one hand you like that brand of commentary…….but you get all personally bothered by the reality of gay life being illuminated in words by someone else…..as the rest of us witness the actions.
“Vulgarity”.
As if you guys don’t wallow in it. LOL!!!
Thank you, David, for illuminating that NY is not New England.
The moment I hit the “submit” button, I knew that I should have separated the two but knowing how clumsily some of the comments here are offered up for consumption, I figured….no big deal.
For the record, I am a product of the North and the South. Many relatives there as well as in NY. They, I’m sure, appreciate your correction of this most magnificent faux pas.
It’s really going to make a difference in how the general population looks at SSM.
Thanks again for sharing and for your petty, tendentious moderating methods!
posted by george on
always provacative, and that’s why i truly enjoy reading the forum. this is a subject about which i’ve never thought, but it makes a great deal of sense.
back when i was “straight” i remember the term “fudgepacker” used to describe someone whose job i had been hired for. i resented the representation of that gay man in that fashion, but never knew why and never really gave it much thought. obviously, although i had never engaged in such sexual conduct at that time, i recognized something within me that forced me to be insulted.
fortunately, i guess i was raised right, and never felt the need to insult other groups with name-calling or to speak of gays in the manner described here. this is a discussion worthy of passing on to all of our straight friends; some of them don’t recognize the harm they do.
posted by Debrah on
“…….. some of them don’t recognize the harm they do.”
**************************
So true. So very true.
It does something to a person and the outlook they previously had on this issue when grown, middle-aged men with respectable positions sign onto the likes of Perez Hilton—(a “man” who always looks as though he’s just emerged from a train tunnel carrying round a bad Liberace impression)—and his constant use of derogatory words on all aspects of life.
How they gleefully went after a two-digit IQ woman (Prejean) for having an opposing opinion.
You guys don’t like “vulgar”?
But you visit, read, quote, reference all those “man” websites that talk about women in that fashion.
Never have I witnessed such grotesque hypocrisy!
Now that’s right. Get all pitiful on us now.
When it affects YOU, get all weepy.
Perhaps threaten someone in disagreement with you with “law enforcement”….”a current officer”. LOL!!!
Some of you will destroy even the best professional atmosphere and do harm to bonds that were made for this gay agenda that is, after all, as superfluous as the sexual lifestyle of heterosexuals.
That’s how the ultra-gay-man-game is played in the 21st century.
You show your posteriors, then try to blame observers for the fall-out.
Did any of us ask for this hypocrisy and gross misogyny?
No.
But some of us have chosen to illuminate it for the tendentious cowards and crybabies among you.
The new “minority” who want to walk another man down the aisle as they yell words like “c*nt” and “vag” and worse……to detractors.
posted by Debrah on
Moreover, please do everyone a favor and stop using the South or “below the Mason-Dixon Line” as your whipping post.
After the SSM defeat in early November, I read commentary using this old tool.
Some of you really think that alluding to this now-passé debating tool of “that peculiar institution” will be a convincing strategy.
Perhaps piggy-backing onto slavery will conjure the wedding bells?
I strongly doubt that.
It does usher in disgust when such an analogy is made.
But more importantly, it’s incorrect.
Gay mayors were just elected in Houston, Texas and in Chapel Hill, NC.
That’s “below the Mason-Dixon Line”, but not the Deep South. For that, readers are always treated to the old whipping boy—Alabama.
I’ve been to most of the states in the U. S., but I have never been to Alabama.
It must really be a “mean place”.
Kind of like those “mean places” who voted down SSM recently……..above the “Mason-Dixon Line”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If anyone has the double standard, it’s people claiming that I’m someone associated with, or somehow have the burden of condemning the actions of other gay people, merely because I am also gay.
There are two problems with that argument, Robert.
One, the immediate response on this board when I brought these things up was to demand that I condemn the behavior of heterosexuals who do the same thing as well.
Two, the reason given for people doing these things in public is that it is a normal and regular part of being gay, and that to oppose it or criticize it is “neurotic”, “close-minded”, being a “prude”, and “homophobic”.
In short, your fellow gay community members are the ones making it clear that this is what gay people do and that heterosexuals are required to condemn the bad behavior of other heterosexuals.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Are you trying to tell me they’ve been right all along and gay people deserve to be arrested, institutionalized and otherwise are incapable of being integrated with ‘normal’ people?
Let me repeat one of the quotes from above, Regan.
Raising the age of consent is a veiled attempt to assert conservative moral values on youth, queer and youth-led groups told Senators today……
The proposed changes will have a disproportionate impact on gays, said Richard Hudler of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario.
“My first lover was 17 years older than me. And this is common [among gay people],” he said.
Now why would age-of-consent laws disproportionately affect gays and lesbians, unless gays and lesbians were disproportionately having sex with underage children?
Meanwhile, this individual, this leader of the gay community, this representative of a leading gay civil rights group, states outright that it is normal and indeed “common” for gays and lesbians to have sex with children seventeen years their junior.
Now, Regan, please argue, as does this gay leader, that age-of-consent laws are wrong and that it is perfectly normal for adults to desire and have sex with underage children.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Was there a law broken @ the Folsom Street Fair?
Actually, there were several. California law expressly prohibits public urination and defecation, public exposure of genitalia, public sexual conduct, including masturbation, and exposing minors to obscene or lewd material, behavior, or conduct.
Fortunately for these participants, though, California’s Obama Party-dominated political establishment, in agreement with the gay community and its leadership, has made it clear that it is “homophobic” and therefore wrong to enforce these laws against gay people, since gay and lesbian people are not capable of controlling their sexual urges and thus cannot be held accountable in the same fashion as heterosexual people.
The issue of this mentality in the gay community is best demonstrated by this response above:
I want to ask each and every person who is disgusted by gay sex to imagine their straight grandparents having sex. ASk them exactly what kinds of positions their grandparents prefer and if they engage in anal sex, or fellatio, or whatever. See if they can then equate disgust or revulsion with morality or approval.
Notice the necessity of “imagination” in this statement. The gay community is using what they imagine peoples’ grandparents were doing in private to what rthe gay and lesbian community is demanding it be allowed to do in public.
Again, this is not repeating what goes on behind closed bedroom doors. This is reporting what is printed in the gay press, what is stated by gay leaders, what is endorsed by the gay community, and what is practiced by literally thousands of gay people in public.
This is actually a fine argument for DADT. The gay community itself is stating and demonstrating that it cannot and should not be held accountable under the same laws as heterosexuals because to do so is “homophobic”. The military is thus faced with the problem of gay and lesbian people openly carrying out actions that are forbidden to heterosexuals and which do affect unit and group cohesion without being able to stop it without being accused of “homophobia” and being required to ignore it.
posted by Robert on
I said: “If anyone has the double standard, it’s people claiming that I’m some[how] associated with, or somehow have the burden of condemning the actions of other gay people, merely because I am also gay.”
“There are two problems with that argument, Robert. One, the immediate response on this board when I brought these things up was to demand that I condemn the behavior of heterosexuals who do the same thing as well.”
People are just asking if you have a double standard towards gay people. It also has nothing to do with what I just said.
“Two, the reason given for people doing these things in public is that it is a normal and regular part of being gay, and that to oppose it or criticize it is “neurotic”, “close-minded”, being a “prude”, and “homophobic”.
Really. Did the President of Gay People tell you this? You’re delusional if you think that the typical gay person parades around naked. And yes, I, speaking for myself and only for myself, disapprove of public nudity and think that people who violate the law should be arrested whether they’re gay or straight.
“In short, your fellow gay community members are the ones making it clear that this is what gay people do and that heterosexuals are required to condemn the bad behavior of other heterosexuals.”
I’m still not sure where you’re getting this from. I read the comments and didn’t see anyone claim that to be gay is to do participate in any sort of pubic event, and even if they did, that would be their own opinion. But yes, I’d say that it’s homophobic to have a different standard for misconduct between gay and straight people. What point are you trying to make by bringing up that people have asked you if you have a double standard? You really need to drop the us vs. them mentality.
posted by Twelve-hundred on
David makes a compelling argument: âOne of the most oppressive burdens gays have to carry in the fight for equality IS the permission some heterosexuals give themselves to talk explicitly in public about specific sexual practices some homosexuals may prefer.â
This permission is not unlike the permission that the Nazi party gave itself in the systematic dehumanization of Jews, nor is it unlike the permission that Hutu Power gave itself in the dehumanization of Tutsis, nor is it unlike the permission that Solid Southerners gave themselves in the dehumanization of African Americans. Dehumanization is an effective political maneuver for heterosexuals to assert the inferiority of homosexuals. Gay sexual acts represent something both foreign and in the minority to American society, which is precisely what makes it the perfect crux for dehumanization. Our sexual behaviors ARE strange, different, and queer. Gay sex acts are one of the few identifying makers of homosexuality that cannot be covered up. Gay men can âact straightâ in public all they want, but in the bedroom with another man, âacting straightâ is not the easiest feat to accomplish. Gay sex acts are also an easy target for which there is ample ammunition. There is evidence in the Bible linking gay sex to sin, a weapon of atomic proportions to launch on a culture placing its trust in God. Gay sex is not an act of reproduction. It does not contribute to the proliferation of society, making it a threat to the American family. These reasons are what make gay sex a means of dehumanization in order to prevent gay marriage.
North Dallas Thirty similarly makes a compelling argument: âThis is reporting what is printed in the gay press, what is stated by gay leaders, what is endorsed by the gay community, and what is practiced literally by thousands of gay people in public. [Davidâs] response is to blame straight people for noticing.â
David certainly does blame straight people for using vulgarity as a means for dehumanization, but certainly Dallas does not suggest that this is a bad thing. Should we not blame straight people for harping on what they can identify as different? Should we not blame the Nazis and Hutu for targeting ethnicities they identified as different? Just because other people find differences, which they may find vulgar does not directly give them the right to dehumanize those people.
Identifying gay sex as a difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is not hard to do. Thatâs because it is the factor that differentiates gay from straight. It would be just as easy to identify the differentiating factor between whites from blacks (Hint: itâs skin color). It would be just as easy for homosexuals to target vulgar sex acts committed by heterosexuals. There IS sado-masochistic porn for straight people. There ARE straight pedophiles. There IS explicit straight behavior in the workplace. There ARE straight people who destroy family and social structure (we call them divorcees). You may link vulgarity with sexuality in homosexuals easier than in heterosexuals simply because there are fewer homosexuals (ref. the definition of minority). This becomes a problem because, as of the last time I checked, homosexuals were the ones under the microscope for inclusion into society. It would be impossible to eliminate heterosexuals from society if some of them are sexually vulgar. Homosexuals on the other hand are a bit of a mystery. There are so few of them, and there ARE cases of sexual vulgarity, we can see it just as often as we can in straight people. But homosexuals are a minority. We are scapegoats. Heterosexuals can blame US for sexual vulgarity, deflecting their own anxieties about sexual licentiousness onto a dehumanized mass which has already been identified as a sexually questionable group. And what do we do? We shove it in their faces, and call it pride.
The real question: âThe tempted or the tempter, who sins most?â
Should we blame ourselves for promoting sexual vulgarity (just as equally as heterosexuals promote the same) when we have evidence that it is going to desensitize our way into society (at the risk of angering Texans)? Or should we place blame on heterosexuals for persecuting us based on perceived sexual vulgarity?
Trick question, gotch-ya! The answer is not to place blame on anyone. We could fight amongst ourselves over who we ought to be fighting, but that would only contribute to the destruction of a unified movement. We could blame heterosexuals, but yelling at lions usually will not mollify them. We must instead reconcile what some heterosexuals find vulgar with what we find beautiful. We must, as gay society, decide what we ourselves consider vulgar and convey that decision to heterosexuals.
In light of this, nearly everything Debrah claims after her third post or so seems irrelevant. Instead of a constructive argument, she instead plays Jenga with the article comments based on her own. I agree with Robert, double standards and an âus vs. them mentalityâ. Especially if there should be hope for resolving the issue of vulgarity.
posted by Jim C. on
Oh..My..God, Debrah. What’s wrong, didn’t you get enough hugs as a child. I used to get more upset when I’d read posts by people as hateful as you are, and as completely dilusional as you are. You truly have no idea what the gay experience is. Now I realize that people who troll sites such as this to inject hate are really just very unhappy people. Maybe you just need to get laid, I don’t know.
posted by Bobby on
“Now why would age-of-consent laws disproportionately affect gays and lesbians, unless gays and lesbians were disproportionately having sex with underage children?”
—Really? Then why was Britney Spears doing videos dressed as a school girl? Why was 17 year old Miley Cyrus dancing on a pole at the Nickelodeon awards? Why did SNL did a sketch about grown men taking tickets waiting for the moment the Olsen twins turned 18? Why are movies about sexy teenagers getting it on such as Cruel Intentions so popular?
I’ve never had sex with anyone under the age of 18 and I’m offended by the assertion that my community is interested in underage children.
Besides, 15, 16 and 17 year olds aren’t that innocent, I remember being that age and going to the whorehouse with my friends, I also remember stories of my teen peers having sex with the maid and hitting on married women.
In fact, it’s the breeders that created this MILF culture in which older women are seeing as desirable by younger men.
And what about all those sexy female teachers preying on young men? Do you see any outrage about it? Bill O’Reilly has done segments where the molestation of boys by girls isn’t treated seriously nor sentenced accordingly.
posted by Debrah on
“Jim C. ‘s” is the typical soft response from someone whose crinoline is too long for the skirt.
For an attempt at condescension, you’ll need to bone up on the more current psycho-babble. That effort is stale.
And lose the “troll” retort. That went out about the same time the NYTimes began trying to charge a fee for their online publication.
Everyone knows what “the gay experience is”. Oh, G/d, do we. How can we miss it?
That’s why gay men whose careers are important to them run from the grotesque parades and constant celebration of unhygienic methods that are touted by so many of you guys.
Don’t kid yourselves. Many gays are ashamed of those displays.
I say, do as you wish.
And others will exercise their freedom of speech and commentary.
Lastly, that little “get laid” schtick is good advice.
You see, a woman actually does “lay”. No bareback break-ins necessary.
posted by Lori Heine on
Given that I’m a lesbian, and therefore — as far as the argument here is concerned — evidently do not exist, I can’t help but wonder what planet some of these gay men (who are assumed, by some here, to be representative) really come from.
I know a hell of a lot of gay men. Most are friends or acquaintances from church, so perhaps they differ from the “norm.” But most of those I know do not parade around in bikini thongs or chase little boys.
The most outrageous behavior most seem to indulge in is dressing up like Hyacinth Bucket at Halloween.
I guess, first of all, I don’t get why I need to talk about my sexual practices to strangers. When some random straight person inquires into “what I do” or with whom, I simply tell them to watch their mouths and mind their own business.
It’s always worked for me.
They seem to think we exist for their entertainment anyway. Lesbians notice this, I guess, more than gay men, because of all the leering and offers for threesomes we endure. But straight women who hang around gay men are notorious for falling in love with them and, thereafter, appropriating them as their “property.” I have several gay male friends who avoid fag hags like the plague for that very reason.
I’m not going to answer for what somebody does at some street fair in San Francisco. None of us needs to do that, unless we were there ourselves, going along with the “fun.” There’s no need to defend the indefensible, and we shouldn’t feel that, out of some misguided loyalty to “the community,” we need to do that. It only pours more fuel on the fire of those who want to lump us all together.
“Mind your own business, watch your mouth and keep your filthy mind to yourself,” again, always works wonders for me. We need to develop the self-respect to realize we don’t need to answer questions for the sake of straight people’s titillation.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Paul Ginandes wrote:
Not all gay men engage in anal sex, yet at least 35% of heterosexual couples do, yet gay men are branded as all ass bandits
Debrah, if you’re reading this, take note — you can almost guarantee that Paul is himself an ass bandit, yet is coy about admitting it, and complains about being “branded” as one.
If Paul were actually part of the minority of gay men who prefer not to have anal sex at all, he logically would’ve written something like, “while a frustratingly high percentage of gay men insist on treating anal sex as a vanilla practice to be engaged in routinely, statistics show that 35% of heterosexuals do it too…”
Paul, if anal sex is that fantastic, TAKE FUCKING OWNERSHIP OF IT.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
People are just asking if you have a double standard towards gay people.
Of course they are. That’s the standard dodge of responsibility that is typical for the gay and lesbian community; it’s an infantile response that harkens back to trying to claim that other kids’ mothers let them throw rocks at car windows. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work well when its target is willing to condemn heterosexuals who did the same thing and points out that heterosexuals who do the same thing as what is considered “normal” for gay and lesbian people get put in jail.
Really. Did the President of Gay People tell you this?
No, just the vast majority of the links I cited talking about what gay people consider acceptable behavior.
And yes, I, speaking for myself and only for myself, disapprove of public nudity and think that people who violate the law should be arrested whether they’re gay or straight.
Right. Nice and theoretical. But of course, when you’re actually confronted with examples of gay people misbehaving, your first response is to spin away and blame some nameless heterosexuals somewhere.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Then why was Britney Spears doing videos dressed as a school girl? Why was 17 year old Miley Cyrus dancing on a pole at the Nickelodeon awards? Why did SNL did a sketch about grown men taking tickets waiting for the moment the Olsen twins turned 18? Why are movies about sexy teenagers getting it on such as Cruel Intentions so popular?
Um….because none of those actually qualify as having sex with children, such as the gay community states is normal and “common”?
I’ve never had sex with anyone under the age of 18 and I’m offended by the assertion that my community is interested in underage children.
But of course, not so offended that you would actually talk to the gay people who are saying it and doing it. Easier to vent your spleen on me than risk being called “neurotic” and a “prude” by them, I suppose.
And what about all those sexy female teachers preying on young men? Do you see any outrage about it?
Um, yeah.
posted by Robert on
“That’s the standard dodge of responsibility that is typical for the gay and lesbian community; it’s an infantile response that harkens back to trying to claim that other kids’ mothers let them throw rocks at car windows.”
Your have pretty twisted logic. If one gay person someone does something that you don’t approve of, all gay people are responsible for his or her actions? And by not apologizing for the actions of people that have nothing to do with them, individual gay people are trying to weasel of the their responsibility?
“Unfortunately, it doesn’t work well when its target is willing to condemn heterosexuals who did the same thing and points out that heterosexuals who do the same thing as what is considered “normal” for gay and lesbian people get put in jail.”
“No, just the vast majority of the links I cited talking about what gay people consider acceptable behavior.”
If you really think that the average gay person struts around nude in public streets, you’re delusional. If you think that the average gay person has sex with children, you’re delusional. If you think that the average gay person thinks exposing children to graphic sexual imagery is acceptable, you’re delusional. Plain and simple.
“Right. Nice and theoretical. But of course, when you’re actually confronted with examples of gay people misbehaving, your first response is to spin away and blame some nameless heterosexuals somewhere.”
Is there some other poster here named “Robert”, because you must have me confused with someone else. Where exactly have I “spun things”? But it’s not surprising that you’d attribute the actions of someone else to me. And, by the way, there’s nothing wrong with asking if you have a double standard since gay people have been the targets of cruel and discriminatory double standards in American society. I’m sure if you just asked someone individually what their opinion was on something (e.g. Do you think pedophilia is okay?) without attributing blame to entire groups of people you’d get a direct and immediate answer. But you can’t see past your tribalism. The world must be a very simple place for you, black and white, us vs. them.
This time when replying, try to suppress the knee-jerk response and address what I actually said.
posted by Aubrey on
Usually I just pass over ND30’s staccato succession of accusations. But this time it seemed to warrant another approach.
I had to take a few minutes and look at the links ND30 cites as his “proof” that the gay community engages as a whole in ‘vulgar’ behavior.
I took 2 separate replies above (to Regan, Example #2 and Example #3)and read through each link.
What I found was that ND 30 would not let the facts get in the way of his prejudice.
I’ll try to briefly summarize, but if you want to take the time, just read the links, you’ll find the facts in most cases completely opposite of what ND30 alleges.
Example #2
“unnatural attraction…” – the link is to an article by a photographer/journalist re: the 2007 Folsom Street Fair. Where the original article acknowledges that there is a significant straight component to the fair. And ND30 never explains how a fetish-dedicated street fair in SF becomes representative of the gay community as a whole.
Now ND30 really gets off the fact train.
“this example…” – how does ND30 make the jump in thought that the ‘gay community and its leaders’ support this example of workplace harassment? RE: a lesbian fire chief in Minneapolis, MN – the article clearly discusses how the straight mayor of the city and the straight fire admin are the ones who continue to promote the person in question. How does the gay community become responsible?
“homophobia and sexism…” – is indeed used as a defense by the lesbian fire chief. But the lesbian firefighters, as well as straight female firefighters, are the ones who have made the allegations. How does the gay community bear the responsibility for one person making bad decisions and then trying to blame others? Especially when gay members of the fire department are the ones who filed the charges?
“neurotic and a prude…” – this comment was made by a gay 3-year member of a Castro gym that closed – after several gay members filed complaints about the sexual activity at the gym.
Example #3
“the best example…” – is a lonely little web site set up by a group self-described as @20 lgbt members whose goal is to go “beyond marriage.” If you read about the group, you will find that they are annoyed with the gay community for supporting notions of commitment, monogamy, and marriage values between 2 people. You can also, without much effort, find similar sites run by their straight compatriots.
“the gay community’s belief…” re: monogamy is a prime example of how ND30 twists the truth. The article is by Dan Savage, and he refers to a report on CNN which cites the work done by a straight (married 32 years) evolutionary biologist. This straight man is the one who makes the scientific claim that monogamy is not natural. Savage agrees with this, but will go so far as ‘serial monogamy’. How does this become my belief in monogamy, ND30?
“the patriarchal institution…” – comment was made by one of the No on Prop8 directors. The comment seems to me to clearly be an attempt at humor after castigating herself and others for the loss on Prop 8. The comment also directly follows her clearly stating a belief in marriage, and her acknowledgment that the No in Prop8 folks should have told the little girl in the ad that “yes, you can marry a princess”.
This is probably too much time given already to ND30s allegations.
It seems that David hit a nerve – and it is easier to call a community vulgar than to admit one’s own vulgarities.
posted by Debrah on
TO “Throbert”–
As usual, you’ve hit a nerve….simply because, like “Bobby”, you often talk about things in realistic, human terms.
“Bobby” and I were having a little chat and they couldn’t stand that he was relaying his own preferences with a heterosexual female and she was relaying facts about her (my) side of the issue.
Too much hetero female talk! We must stay on topic for those insular ones who only use a play-pretend orifice that females are born with.
Check out the responses to the commenter above who self-identified as a lesbian.
(Crickets chirping)
Few gay man are interested in “church lady” practices. They just conjure up the weepy self-righteous church lady “victim rhetoric” when the comments become too real and honest.
Either they wish to exhibit the grotesque side of “gay culture” and ram it into the faces of other people, calling it “gay pride”……or they are the ones who defend (or run from) those practices.
All of a sudden……
……when mention is made of the websites of some of the commenters here—(raw photos of men going at it) as well as the link to GAY TUBE (raw pornography for all to partake—VULGAR-to-the-max!) that was on IGF before I illuminated it, and so many more examples—all they do is attack, personally.
I say, go at it boys. Show everyone how you “debate”. Show everyone how the moderators of this blog erase comments that describe WHAT IT IS YOU’RE INTO……
…….and all of a sudden a “vulgarity” post arrives.
The truth hurts when you try to run from it.
I personally don’t give a damn what you guys do with your bodies; however, you’re not going to wax self-righteous with others as your daily methods contradict the Saturday Night Live church lady role you later try to take on when what you subscribe to and defend is put forth for all to see.
I would implore anyone to attack those heterosexual sexual freaks all you want. Who cares? I think the straight people of the world go after them with abandon–and should.
But you guys try to live in an open parallel universe and hope the rest of us will go along with you.
This debate has been about the gay community, in general; however, you guys only try to attack personally (especially if the detractor is hetero), because you essentially cannot defend the filth……and not look stupid rhapsodizing about SSM.
By the way, as an example of what is just another day in the life of a respectable gay man……
……. on YouTube there’s a channel of a guy who calls himself “Candy Boy Chick”. He’s in a skimpy little panty-like thong lying down. He identifies himself as being 18. But who knows?
The background photo is of a little blond boy holding a bird who looks no more than 10 years old.
Lots of middle-aged gay men grab onto it the way the disgusting troglodyte Larry Flynt grabs hold of the loose t!t of a grown woman.
To the casual observer—and what is on YouTube is available to the entire world—it’s almost eerie.
Heterosexual men try to hide their pedophilia, but it appears to observers that this isn’t so important to homosexual men.
Otherwise, if they didn’t think watching this eerie freak show was “normal” they wouldn’t attach their names to such a network of internet jack-offs.
So, please……..tell us all about “vulgar”.
posted by Bobby on
North Dallas, taking your kids to the Folsom Street Fair is NOT an example of “lusting for children.”
When I was 12 I was taken to the Lido in Paris where women do a topless show and dance, like a sort of choreographed strip show.
The Folsom Street Fair is NOT a NAMBLA convention for God’s sakes. Is it right for children? I don’t know, this is America after all, the only country in the world where a child can watch an R-rated movie as long as an adult sits near him.
“But of course, not so offended that you would actually talk to the gay people who are saying it and doing it. Easier to vent your spleen on me than risk being called “neurotic” and a “prude” by them, I suppose.”
—I don’t know anyone who’s doing that, so who am I gonna talk to? And if I knew anyone why would they listen to me? And frankly, I don’t care what the gay community labels me, if I did I wouldn’t be a republican.
“Um, yeah.”
—No, seriously, how come you’re always putting down the gay community when it’s in the straight community that you find a preponderance of female teachers preying on teenage boys?
posted by Debrah on
And I will add this.
Right or wrong.
Whether even the most liberal heterosexual among us—(and I live among some so far left that they are touching the backside of Ralph Reid)—will say it openly or not…..
……but it changes the way you look at someone when you know that they are woven into this brand of “gay culture”.
Even when you have deep respect and admiration for someone, when you see that this is their personal lifestyle, their image is changed forever.
You can’t be a man who salivates for little boy toys and not have that image stamped into the minds of even your friends.
The same goes for hetero men who like to fantasize about “sticking it into” little people, but do it vicariously on the internet.
Don’t bother trying to put perfume on this rotten existence.
This type of “lifestyle” which I will affectionately call “gay sh!t” destroys that which you ostensibly want to achieve.
How completely vulgar of you!
posted by Regan DuCasse on
ND30, I don’t argue with non sequitors.
And the tiresome meme that because I accept and believe that gay adults should be treated as equal to their hetero counterparts, doesn’t mean I’m ‘supposed’ to or that I’m required to argue FOR pedo and ephebophiles.
We’re talking about adult sexuality, and how prejudice and bigotry reduces the lives of gay people to sex practices, sex organs and their use and lack of civil and fair language when it comes to discussions on gay people.
We’re done. Don’t ask me another stupid question just because of your masturbatory need to be contrary.
posted by Robert Sebastian on
As a heterosexual white male, I found the tone of this article disturbuing, but only because I’ve never realized the hurt this sort of language causes. I would never discuss intimate acts with my gay or straight friends as this is, in my opinion the height of privacy and the core of intimacy. Thanks for reminding me what I already knew, but never fully realized.
posted by Lori Heine on
I’m so busy getting enlightened by Diva Deb — “weepy” and “self-righteous church lady” that I am — that I’m sure I must be on the verge of a transformation.
Wait. I’m having a moment.
Is this person (I’m guessing it’s a woman, though even from the picture one can’t be sure) under some impression that on our planet, we never get to hear from straight people? Is she the official apostle of straights who have unresolved issues with gay men?
So sorry, “Diva” dear, that I don’t conform to your stereotype. So many of us don’t, but you of course will go on gallantly ignoring that.
Again, the schtick is confusing. It’s all over the place. She seems to be the Sapphic love-child of Liza Minnelli and Michele Bachmann.
Back to your lair, sharpen your claws, and then pray regale us with more hilariously toothless rhetoric. Please expose more of your hangups for us, babe.
I thought bitchiness was supposed to have a dangerous edge. Yet she valiantly soldiers on. How lucky for all of us we get to hear what a straight person thinks about us. Again, it’s not like we’d get to do that any other way.
posted by Lori Heine on
P.S. to Robert Sebastian, please consider yourself an exclusion to the above. It’s nice to know that at least occasionally this blog gets a straight visitor who, instead of being some sort of being some sort of malignant narcissist or frightened Inner Child, is actually a decent human being.
We all know straights who are decent. Thanks for being one of them.
posted by Debrah on
TO Lori Heine–
I’m not even going to bother finishing your comment because the “church lady” was not aimed at you.
I now see that your comment mentioned that you go to church.
I was referencing the kabuki evangelical theatrics of the SNL church lady.
Sorry I didn’t make that clearer.
I also issued a reminder that no one here replied to your suggestions as a way of illuminating some obvious points that modesty is not really the objective of most here it seems—contrary to what some wish to pretend.
posted by Debrah on
“I would never discuss intimate acts with my gay or straight friends as this is, in my opinion the height of privacy and the core of intimacy.”
********************************************
You think you might be able to get that across to those who have no problem with that “core of intimacy” being invaded unless it’s presented inside the realm of reality?
You sound like me until I was recently initiated into what is rather than what seems.
You are very special, Robert.
You know that, don’t you?
Don’t ever change.
:>)
posted by Lori Heine on
“I also issued a reminder that no one here replied to your suggestions as a way of illuminating some obvious points that modesty is not really the objective of most here it seems—contrary to what some wish to pretend.”
That is quite true. People come to this site for many different reasons. NDT is consistent in pointing out that we can’t simultaneously defend immorality as being “just the way we are” at the same time we protest that we really, really, really aren’t that way. I do happen to agree with him.
But cruising Manhunt is not the only way gay men express themselves. There are a great many more out there like NDT and some of the other posters here who live moral and responsible lives. They are not the majority by any means, but they deserve to be counted.
It doesn’t matter whether people respond to my comment or not. I make it for the sake of the gay men I know (and there are many of them) who deserve to be counted as what they are — people who live responsibly, if quietly and out of the limelight straight people are all too content to shine on “the gay community.”
There is no single, monolithic “gay community.” We come from every city and town, from every religious and political tradition, and from every walk of life. IGF is one of the few brave attempts out there to show that.
My friends deserve a far better fate than to be seized in the clutches of mindless stereotype and de-personalized. That gets done to us quite enough in straight cyberspace. At a site like this one, at least, they deserve to be counted.
posted by Bobby on
“But cruising Manhunt is not the only way gay men express themselves. There are a great many more out there like NDT and some of the other posters here who live moral and responsible lives. They are not the majority by any means, but they deserve to be counted.”
—So I’m not a moral and responsible person because I used to cruise gay.com and craiglist on a regular basis? Is morality and responsability dependent on how many sex partners you’ve had in your life? I’ve had about 50, does that make me a bad person compared to someone that only had three?
And what about so-called “decent people” in monogamous relationships that beat up their spouses?
If sex takes place in a private residence or bathouse with consenting partners of legal age, it isn’t immoral.
Besides, I’ve seen pictures of heterosexual males kissing two girls at the same time at the clubs. Or why not watch that MTV show “Jersey Shore” and you’ll see two men in two different beds in the same room carrying on with their flings.
Really, I cannot understand all this sex-negativity.
posted by Debrah on
“There is no single, monolithic ‘gay community’. We come from every city and town, from every religious and political tradition, and from every walk of life.”
************************************
I quite understand fully and have experienced such.
“IGF is one of the few brave attempts out there to show that.”
************************************
Indeed.
The IGF commentariat is layered, unlike other gay blogs.
Initially, I literally couldn’t believe people like NDT, Bobby, and Throbert.
They are so “out there” and really do destroy the monolith myth.
“My friends deserve a far better fate than to be seized in the clutches of mindless stereotype and de-personalized.”
*************************************
Your friends are not who’s on the hot seat.
We’re discussing the vast and very real contradictions among the gay culture of men.
Those things need to be addressed honestly just as you would address a heterosexual issue.
You said it best, yourself:
“They are not the majority by any means, but they deserve to be counted.”
If it were your friends we were discussing, then there would be no issue.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Really, I cannot understand all this sex-negativity.”
Perhaps it’s not “negativity” at all, but merely a different vision of what sex — even in same-sex relationships — may be.
I came out as a lesbian so I could marry for love. I didn’t do it so I could cruise websites looking for quickies. Nobody is denying that people who do such things — gay and straight — exist. As to whether they’re moral or not, straight people are certainly not the only ones entitled to an opinion.
posted by Lori Heine on
P.S.: I owe an apology to Debrah. My attack was ill-considered and unfair.
It is a positive thing that she is here. How else are those in the straight world to know how wonderfully, crazily diverse our so-called community is?
posted by Debrah on
Apology accepted.
Readers should savor this one.
Not a lapidary moment on these fora.
Ha!
posted by Bobby on
“Perhaps it’s not “negativity” at all, but merely a different vision of what sex — even in same-sex relationships — may be.”
—The comment sounded like an attack on those who sleep around, a sort of “we are better than them” attitude.
“I came out as a lesbian so I could marry for love. I didn’t do it so I could cruise websites looking for quickies.”
—I doubt many lesbians are constantly having quickies the way men do. Women are socialized different than men, you know that. Our society uses the “slut” label for any woman that enjoys having lots of sex.
“Nobody is denying that people who do such things — gay and straight — exist. As to whether they’re moral or not, straight people are certainly not the only ones entitled to an opinion.”
—OK, I cannot contradict that. I’m just very skeptical when it comes to sexual morality, I think it’s like the war against obesity where everyone is being told to do the same thing as if the same thing was going to work for everyone. Shows like The Biggest Loser scream “if you’re fat you can’t be happy” while the traditional values people scream “if you’re not in a monogamous relationship something’s wrong with you.
One-size-fits-all solutions don’t exist. I know a gay couple that have been together for 25 years, in their lives they’ve had threesomes. 10 years ago one of the partners became impotent and decided to allow his significant other to seek sex outside the relationship as long as he knows who he’s doing and when.
Thus, I’m skeptical that exclusive monogamy is something that should be held to a higher standard. With the scandals of marriages like the Clintons, Tiger Woods, Giuliani, Spitzer, it makes me question if those men wouldn’t have been better off giving their spouses and themselves permission to “cheat.”
posted by Lori Heine on
“I doubt many lesbians are constantly having quickies the way men do. Women are socialized different than men, you know that. Our society uses the “slut” label for any woman that enjoys having lots of sex.”
I understand that if I were a man, it might be harder for me to remain as idealistic about monogamy. I don’t mean to imply that it’s easy.
The point I’m really trying to make, on this thread, is that gay men and lesbians who hold to more traditional sexual mores — even though they are gay and lesbian — DO EXIST. There are so many straights out there who try to deny that, who behave as if we’re invisible, that it tends to make us defensive.
I think we all need to be present in debates on gay issues. Nobody doubts that you exist. But a lot of folks are spending a lot of time, money and effort trying to deny that I do.
Even liberals hate diversity if it means acknowledging this. If gays simply chose to be gay because they wanted to get naked and screw like bunnies (as so many Right-Wingers try to claim we do), there would be no great diversity in our “community.” There is, because being gay is not merely a matter of “lifestyle choice,” but simply who we are.
That’s why the concept of diversity is not something that we should allow liberals to hijack for their own, self-serving purposes.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If one gay person someone does something that you don’t approve of, all gay people are responsible for his or her actions?
When said gay person tries to justify it based on their sexual orientation, yup.
Remember the lesbian fire chief in Minneapolis who shrieked that the investigation of her was all about “homophobia and sexism” and that her behavior was perfectly normal for her sexual orientation? Where were the gay people telling her to shut up?
And by not apologizing for the actions of people that have nothing to do with them, individual gay people are trying to weasel of the their responsibility?
No; by refusing to condemn the behavior of gay people who commit crimes and do patently-stupid things while claiming such behavior is normal and “common” for their sexual orientation.
Answer me this, Robert; why is it so hard for you to say that gay community member John Kruse, who states publicly that taking children to a sex fair dressed as sexual slaves is an “educational experience” and that anyone who disagrees with it is “close-minded” and hates gay people, is not only wrong, but is downright idiotic?
I’m sure if you just asked someone individually what their opinion was on something (e.g. Do you think pedophilia is okay?) without attributing blame to entire groups of people you’d get a direct and immediate answer. But you can’t see past your tribalism.
Really?
Meanwhile, I can show you innumerable similar condemnations of the behavior that takes place at “girls gone wild? Spring Break almost anywhere? Mardi Gras” by heterosexuals and heterosexual organizations, as well as arrests and convictions of heterosexuals for misbehavior during those events, and I heartily concur with both.
So let’s see; I condemn this sort of misbehavior regardless of who does it, meanwhile, the people here will only condemn pedophilia when it’s NOT associated with a group, and will come up for excuses why it’s right when gay and lesbian people do it.
That was my point, Robert. You are very good at saying something is right or wrong when you don’t have to do anything about it. But when confronted with an example of your fellow gay people misbehaving, your response is to blame heterosexuals. It’s sort of like your Barack Obama’s belief that racism is wrong, except when it would require him to act against his racist allies, racist pastor, racist supporters, and racist party.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
North Dallas, taking your kids to the Folsom Street Fair is NOT an example of “lusting for children.”
But dressing them as sexual slaves, taking them there to “show off” for people, and making it clear that you consider this sort of public sex ritual an “educational experience” certainly is, and that’s what the people in question did.
No, seriously, how come you’re always putting down the gay community when it’s in the straight community that you find a preponderance of female teachers preying on teenage boys?
Because in the straight community, those teachers are arrested, convicted, and put in jail.
In the gay community, they’re promoted to head the Obama Party’s Office of “Safe Schools” — that “safe” apparently referring to making the schools safe for pedophile gays who want to teach five-year-olds sex.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And the tiresome meme that because I accept and believe that gay adults should be treated as equal to their hetero counterparts, doesn’t mean I’m ‘supposed’ to or that I’m required to argue FOR pedo and ephebophiles.
And yet, for some reason, you do.
The reason why is quite explainable, though, as anyone who watches you can tell; you don’t care who does what, as long as you can blame it on white people and the “dominant culture”. You provided a prime example of that mere weeks ago, when you tried to argue that the murder and rape of a neglected black gay teenager by a gay black parolee who his family had let stay in their house against all common sense was due to white peoples’ homophobia.
Why don’t you find some other cause to be a smokescreen for your racist beliefs, Regan? I’m sure there are several other ways you could attack white people indirectly without having to make gays look bad in the process.
posted by Robert on
I said: “If one gay person someone does something that you don’t approve of, all gay people are responsible for his or her actions?
NDT: When said gay person tries to justify it based on their sexual orientation, yup.”
Wow, cute answer. Now let’s return to the real world where individual people are responsible for their actions.
–
“Remember the lesbian fire chief in Minneapolis who shrieked that the investigation of her was all about “homophobia and sexism”…”
umm.. no.
“and that her behavior was perfectly normal for her sexual orientation? Where were the gay people telling her to shut up?”
I was probably in class, sleeping, or otherwise having a life.
–
I said: “And by not apologizing for the actions of people that have nothing to do with them, individual gay people are trying to weasel of the their responsibility? [Is this what you think?]
NDT: No; by refusing to condemn the behavior of gay people who commit crimes and do patently-stupid things while claiming such behavior is normal and “common” for their sexual orientation.”
Ok, are you ready for this? This is the moment when I, Robert, speaker for all homosexuals on Earth, condemn and illegal actions they have done. I bring this in the name of my people to you, North Dallas Thirty, so you may judge me worthy and you can drop this bu11-shit.
–
Answer me this, Robert; why is it so hard for you to say that gay community member John Kruse, who states publicly that taking children to a sex fair dressed as sexual slaves is an “educational experience”…
It’s actually not that “hard” I at all. I think “John Kruse” is a fucking moron. Also, I never fucking defended John Kruse. Do you have short term memory loss?
“and that anyone who disagrees with it is “close-minded” and hates gay people, is not only wrong, but is downright idiotic?””
More bullshit I never said.
–
“I’m sure if you just asked someone individually what their opinion was on something (e.g. Do you think pedophilia is okay?) without attributing blame to entire groups of people you’d get a direct and immediate answer. But you can’t see past your tribalism.
Really?”
Yes, really.
–
Meanwhile, I can show you innumerable similar condemnations of the behavior that takes place at “girls gone wild? Spring Break almost anywhere? Mardi Gras” by heterosexuals and heterosexual organizations, as well as arrests and convictions of heterosexuals for misbehavior during those events, and I heartily concur with both.
Great, I condemn them too. Is there a reason you keep on contesting this? What exactly is a “heterosexual organization” by the way? Does the American Family Association count? Do all heterosexuals pay due to this organization?
“So let’s see; I condemn this sort of misbehavior regardless of who does it, meanwhile, the people here will only condemn pedophilia when it’s NOT associated with a group, and will come up for excuses why it’s right when gay and lesbian people do it.”
People probably are too busy being fucking offended that you’d ask them to apologize for people who are not them, or condemn the actions of another human being just because they have the same orientation they do.
–
“That was my point, Robert. You are very good at saying something is right or wrong when you don’t have to do anything about it.”
Have we met before or something? You seem to have conjured a lot of bullshit that I never said on this board.
“But when confronted with an example of your fellow gay people misbehaving, your response is to blame heterosexuals.”
Ahem. Where is this response? When did I fucking say this?
“It’s sort of like your Barack Obama’s belief that racism is wrong, except when it would require him to act against his racist allies, racist pastor, racist supporters, and racist party.”
I’m not even sure what point you’re trying to make by bringing race into this. I think I’ll just ignore this.
I really hope you’re a troll by the way, otherwise I think you might want to get yourself checked out for borderline retardation.
posted by BobN on
That’s why the concept of diversity is not something that we should allow liberals to hijack for their own, self-serving purposes.
Speaking of diversity, did you know that even some libruls are in your pro-monogamy camp? Shocking, I know. And what’s even more unbelievable is that some of those fetishists and porn consumers are what you folks call “conservatives”. The world is a complicated place.
eye-roll
posted by David on
“…when mention is made of the websites of some of the commenters here—(raw photos of men going at it) as well as the link to GAY TUBE (raw pornography for all to partake—VULGAR-to-the-max!) that was on IGF before I illuminated it, and so many more examples—all they do is attack, personally.”
You do realise the “link” you refer to was actually an add don’t you? I very much doubt it was taken down by IGF due to your “illumination”, more likely the advertiser was not getting much traffic. Your premise that we are VULGAR due to an add is without merit.As for other commentors URL’s that is on them not gay men as a whole. You are probably getting people on the defense as you seem to have launched your own attack here.
As for this statement-“Too much hetero female talk! We must stay on topic for those insular ones who only use a play-pretend orifice that females are born with.” I cannot begin to imagine what valid arguement you were trying to achive, gay men are not looking for “orifice that females are born with”
real or “play pretend” while it is obvious it was used to try to belittle gay men in general, the commentor should realize that it only served to highlight their own negative bias. Also, this is the Independent GAY Forum, notice the word gay, you dont read Architectural Digest for sports or gay website for “hetero female talk”.
posted by Bobby on
“But dressing them as sexual slaves, taking them there to “show off” for people, and making it clear that you consider this sort of public sex ritual an “educational experience” certainly is, and that’s what the people in question did.”
—The Folsom Street Fair is like Halloween, of course people are gonna dress up their kids as slaves or whatever. And unless people are having sex in public, it’s NOT a public sex ritual. You know, in France and Sweeden entire families will go to the beach together (or the bathhouse in Sweeden) and be naked in front of one another. Americans are too uptight about public nudity, they sexualize everything.
“Because in the straight community, those teachers are arrested, convicted, and put in jail.”
—Come on, men who molest kids of either gender are also arrested, convicted and put in jail. It’s women that rarely do time unless they molest someone of the same-sex.
“In the gay community, they’re promoted to head the Obama Party’s Office of “Safe Schools” — that “safe” apparently referring to making the schools safe for pedophile gays who want to teach five-year-olds sex.”
—That’s the biggest load of crap I’ve ever read. “Safe Schools” has to do with teachers that put a pink triangle on their office doors, so GLBT kids know there’s someone they can talk to about their feelings. Besides, he appointed Jennings to head the education department, Jennings isn’t a pedophile. Maybe he gave bad advice once, but I doubt every teacher calls the cops everytime they hear about dubious behavior. Maybe Jennings feared outing a kid who was growing up with homophobic parents. I don’t know.
Really NDT, I expect to hear those kinds of misconceptions at townhall.com and other conservative websites, but from you?
Besides, gays can’t be pedophiles because pedophilia is not a sexual orientation but a paraphilia, no different than bestiality, necrophilia, cropophilia, and other behaviors that have nothing to do with orientation no matter what NAMBLA says.
posted by Debrah on
“I very much doubt it was taken down by IGF due to your “illumination”, more likely the advertiser was not getting much traffic.”
**********************************
David, I won’t exercise more verbal gymnastics with you on this, as it is not terribly significant….but for what transpired later.
Perhaps “esurience” can remind you of what took place.
Those advertisers must be reading and keeping tabs on IGF every moment of every day…..for as soon as “esurience” and I had our exchange, the “GAY TUBE” porno link was taken down.
And I think that’s a good thing, given that it was on the same roster as some reputable columnists here. Yet no one thought that was odd at all.
This has been my point all along. Those two worlds are so easily mixed inside the culture of gay men. The sexual and the so-called professional.
Ok, fine.
But why issue surprise when observers don’t take the SSM démarche as seriously as most of you want them to?
As I know you recall, I came here for a cerebral, issue-oriented exchange, but on that first day a part of your commentariat wanted to take the conversation into the gutter.
My blog is a personal one—as many other people construct. There are photos from my life there. Some from the past and some taken just days ago.
One in particular—(a breast shot with a diamond necklace taken last Valentine’s Day which is both serendipitously and tastefully erotic)—was made an issue as if it was analogous to what some of you guys have on your blogs where men are going at it. Unadulterated pornography.
LOL!!!
I didn’t even realize that my blog would hold any interest for gay men—as you so ably mention.
I’m not touting anything to the world, nor am I the author of a serious issues-oriented blog—although that could change in the future if I decide to take the time to go in that direction.
But you are attempting something serious here, yet you allow dirty-semi-literate-girly-trash from your “friends”…….as you think of reasons to erase comments illuminating WHY PEOPLE OFTEN DO NOT TAKE GAY MEN SERIOUSLY.
“……’play pretend’, while it is obvious it was used to try to belittle gay men in general, the commentor should realize that it only served to highlight their own negative bias.”
**********************************
Indeed, it does.
People have to know who they are. And what they are.
They have to know exactly how what they do comes across to other people……especially when they are in the business of appealing to other people for something (i.e. votes).
That’s why I won’t be applying for the position of a diplomat any time soon.
Like my father, I can deal with just about anything and with people from all walks of life and from anywhere across the globe.
He could go from schmoozing a senator to making a homeless man on the street feel as important as anyone else.
I have his ease with situations, but I don’t spend time on verbal emollients. They are often barriers to an objective and waste lots of time.
Only in the business world do they serve any constructive purpose.
You guys want the emollients, both literally and figuratively, applied to you, but feel free to allow gross misogyny toward a detractor.
Then wax indignant later.
David, if you didn’t like the misogyny and the gross inventions by the seemingly uneducated commenter here who uses such embarrassing tactics as debating tools, you wouldn’t have left them up.
Pot, kettle, black.
“Also, this is the Independent GAY Forum, notice the word gay, you dont read Architectural Digest for sports or gay website for ‘hetero female talk’.”
************************************
No one was having an exchange with you, David.
This was between myself and another commenter who has the capacity to talk about things other than his own navel.
People here talk among themselves about lots of things as you are well-aware.
You’re making excuses for censorship because you personally don’t like what was being said.
Some of you think it’s rude to talk about the “equipment” of the female body. Are you telling everyone that your world can only take discussion of men using their bodies the way women’s bodies are constructed to be used, naturally?
Interesting.
You can’t stand to read anything but the glorification of sexual practices of gay men that most people—even those who will vote alongside you for SSM—avoid discussing openly like the plague.
No problem.
If some gay men do not envy someone with real breasts–(instead of flat nipples that have to be squeezed like little pebbles)—or if they don’t envy women with great physiques and the sexual equipment that make having sex a breeze…….
…….then why all the constant misogyny?
Misogyny that is always used in place of an intelligent discussion of issues?
People really do pay attention to what goes on…….even if they don’t always illuminate it.
Relax.
No one wants to co-opt the “gay man” agenda. I can readily assure.
posted by Lori Heine on
Try to stop rolling your eyes, BobN, long enough to think — and breathe.
This is a conservative website. You are expected to tell which team you play for the first time you post,and if you commit the transgression of choosing the wrong word the whole thread can go off the track because of the squablling it sets off.
Same thing happens on liberal websites, only over different words.
I’m a Libertarian. Which makes me a heretic in both camps, and pretty much means I need to go to the trouble of redeeming certain words if I want to use them.
“Diversity” was my vocabulary word from yesterday. Remember the post, BobN. The mere fact that I use a word like “diversity” is liable to set off angry bells and whistles here, because many automatically dismiss it as a “liberal” word.
Try actually paying attention to the thread before rushing in to comment, in high dudgeon, about what someone has said on it.
posted by BobN on
I did pay attention. In fact, you’ll notice, I’ve made three previous comments.
I realize this is a “conservative” site. The only thing more annoying about IGF than ND30’s obsessions is the reflexive dismissal and distortion of libruls.
Here’s what you said: “Even liberals hate diversity if it means acknowledging this.” “This” was:
I’m liberal, very liberal. I live in a very liberal city, SF. I know a lot of gay people who fought very hard to get married and remain in the 18,000 gay couples who are married in this state. How could these “traditional values” couples be unaware that there are gay people who believe in “traditional values” when they, themselves, are among them?
Monogamous libruls! I know. Amazing, isn’t it!?!?
posted by Lori Heine on
BobN, you managed to quote a large section of what I said and still, evidently, neglect to get my point.
I KNOW there are monogamous liberals. It is conservatives who seem to be unaware of this. It is also conservatives who persist in characterizing all gays as if they must be liberals. It sort of seems you’re doing the same thing.
The political Right used to be a very diverse group. (There’s that horrible word that so many conservatives hate again.) The Republican Party has lost much of its power precisely because it has forgotten this. It is so busy, now, purging everybody who disagrees with those they believe to be their “base” that they are losing people they can ill afford to lose.
Even a lot of people in their “base” are more complex and thoughtful than they think they are. People like NDT, who fiercely defend conservative principles, are left for roadkill by today’s Republican Party because they do not fit into simpleton notions of what “the base” is supposedly like.
This is why I am not a Republican. To simply ignore reality is dishonest. I don’t care to support a political party that has chosen to abandon its traditional moorings (which were good ones) to curry favor with a “base” that is largely imaginary.
I would be an excellent constituent for the GOP, if it would return to its Goldwater/Reagan roots and forego such foolishness. But because they haven’t, I prefer the Libertarian Party. It is consistent and honest. It doesn’t baby social conservatives by playing along with the childish desire to force others into agreement, but actually attempts to reason with people.
I try to talk to liberals when I can. This Friday, I will spend Christmas with a whole houseful of them. They will probably prove reasonable, because I can speak with them face-to-face. On blog commentary threads, they all too often try to judge everything I say on the basis of one or two quotes.
Again, of course there are monogamous liberals. Most of my family is very liberal, and since they were raised right, they are monogamous. I don’t need a lecture from you about how liberals can be monogamous.
Diversity is a good word. I wish both the Republicans and the Democrats would rediscover it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Wow, cute answer. Now let’s return to the real world where individual people are responsible for their actions.
Yes, let’s.
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, in a statement issued Thursday evening, blamed the religious right for creating an atmosphere that encourages such crimes: “The hatred and loathing fueling this morningâs vicious attack on gay men in New Bedford is not innate, it is learned. And who is teaching it? Leaders of the so-called Christian right, that’s who. Individuals like James Dobson of Focus on the Family, the Family Research Councilâs Tony Perkins, the Rev. Pat Robertson and their ilk are obsessed with homosexuality. We have witnessed seven years of vicious anti-LGBT organizing in Massachusetts–and endured the hate-filled rantings of Brian Camenker of the Article 8 Alliance and Parents Rights.”
So let’s see; no gay and lesbian person is responsible for anything another gay and lesbian person does, but all Christians are responsible for anything someone who isn’t even a Christian does.
That makes this particularly ironic and hilarious:
People probably are too busy being fucking offended that you’d ask them to apologize for people who are not them, or condemn the actions of another human being just because they have the same orientation they do.
Only gay people, though. Straight people, Christians, and everyone else can apparently be held accountable for everyone else’s behavior, regardless of whether they share the same characteristics as the person in question.
posted by BobN on
Lori, I think I got your point fine. What perplexed me and continues to perplex me is “Even liberals hate diversity if it means acknowledging this.” I don’t know of any liberals who hate acknowledging that monogamous, “traditional values” gay people exist.
posted by Bobby on
“The political Right used to be a very diverse group. (There’s that horrible word that so many conservatives hate again.) The Republican Party has lost much of its power precisely because it has forgotten this. It is so busy, now, purging everybody who disagrees with those they believe to be their “base” that they are losing people they can ill afford to lose.”
—Actually, we like ideological diversity, that’s why we watch Fox News and enjoy seeing liberals in a controlled environment. In fact, Fox News has Margareth Hoover who happens to be a pro-gay marriage republican.
What we don’t like is the RINO’s and the moderates that want all conservatives to go back into the closet. McCain for example spent more time attacking the people attacking Obama than Obama himself during the election. Sarah Pallin was muzzled and McCain’s handlers wouldn’t even let her debate Bill O’Reilly.
The reason some Washington, DC and moderate republicans hate Sarah Pallin is because she’s too real, like people in middle America. She’s unabashedly pro-gun, pro-life, pro-business, anti-tax, pro-war, and the moderate republicans hate that.
The DNC is already America’s leftwing party, even so-called moderate democrats are voting for a health care bill that demands taxpayer-funded abortions. I’m pro-choice but if you need to have an abortion you shouldn’t do it with my money, that’s extremely offensive.
So Lori, I disagree with you, the GOP isn’t in trouble, it’s the DNC that’s bankrupting the nation with entitlements, massive deficit spending, carbon-tax proposals, etc. I’d be shocked if Obama gets re-elected, I have a feeling he’s the new black Jimmy Carter, and we all know what happened to Jimmy.
posted by Lori Heine on
“What perplexed me and continues to perplex me is ‘Even liberals hate diversity if it means acknowledging this.'”
Okay, that narrows it down. What I meant was that liberals dislike diversity (some do, anyway, perhaps not you) when it shows that conservatives can vary beyond the knuckle-dragging bigot range.
I don’t think real conservatives are bigots at all. I think a lot of people who claim to be conservative are actually reactionaries.
That’s also what I mean, to clarify for Bobby. I don’t have any problem with real conservative Republicans. My parents were, and so do many of my friends both gay and straight. I have lived all my life in Arizona, which is deep in Goldwater country.
I agree, incidentally, that the DNC is full of crap. I am now a Libertarian, instead of a Democrat, for that very reason.
I do think there are a lot of people in the GOP who are more reactionary than genuinely conservative. I’ll never forget the near-Stalinist purge that raged when Barry Goldwater stood up in support of gays. The very Father of Modern Conservatism was treated like pond scum, by these people, because he dared to disagree with them that demonizing people they didn’t understand constituted real conservatism.
Even though I was a Democrat for most of my adult life, I voted for Ronald Reagan twice. I have always been something of a “closet libertarian,” and perhaps even a “closet conservative.”
It seems to me that the Tea Parties are changing things for the better. As I think I remarked on another blog, I have yet to see a single gay-bashing sign on any footage of a tea party. I think they want to bring the nation back to a more libertarian perspective.
I also watch some programs on FOX. Bill O’Reilly, Greta van Susteren and Glenn Beck are all fair and reasonable people. Beck is an outspoken libertarian. They are much fairer than the Keith-and-Rachel crowd at MSNBC.
The last straw for me, as far as MSNBC was concerned, was when they started this nonsense about the insurance companies pushing the tea parties. The big insurance companies are in favor of insurance “reform,” because it will mean millions of new, captive customers for them. Any remaining shred of credibility Keith and Rachel may have had, with me, went out the window right there. I worked in the insurance industry for thirty years, and those crackpots can tell me nothing about what insurance companies think.
posted by BobN on
Lori, try using “some” more often. Cuts down on my confusion and I need all the help I can get with that 🙂
I find myself in agreement with much of what you say about today’s “conservatives”. I’m neither conservative nor “conservative” nor libertarian. I’m a dyed in the wool liberal, but even I miss the days when the conservatives were the adults in the system. It was better for everybody.
posted by Lori Hein on
BobN, I know what you mean about wanting the adults to show up.
I was actually beginning to buy into a lot of what the Keith-and-Rachel crowd were saying. They would look mesmerisingly into the camera (at least Rachel would — she’s pretty) and say things like “Evil Glenn Beck…Evil…eeeeevilll…” and I would recoil in programmed horror. I thought if Glenn Beck was a libertarian, I couldn’t be.
Of course I’d never actually listened to Glenn Beck at that point. Then I actually stopped watching MSNBC (not enough antacid in the whole world to survive the gas it gives off) and tried FOX instead.
Glenn Beck isn’t evil. Who knew? He’s not as cute as Rachel, but at least he tells the truth.
I think there are some grownups in the room. I just wish I could bring them with me on Christmas day.
posted by Bobby on
Well Lori, I agree with a lot of what you had to say.
“I don’t think real conservatives are bigots at all. I think a lot of people who claim to be conservative are actually reactionaries.”
—I admit that’s true in some cases. Like the people accusing Jennings of being pro-pedophilia because he told a 16 year old to wear a condom instead of calling the cops right away.
And I generally like libertarians and identify with them on many issues, except for war, they don’t seem to like war.
“I do think there are a lot of people in the GOP who are more reactionary than genuinely conservative. I’ll never forget the near-Stalinist purge that raged when Barry Goldwater stood up in support of gays. The very Father of Modern Conservatism was treated like pond scum, by these people, because he dared to disagree with them that demonizing people they didn’t understand constituted real conservatism.”
—It was a different time, back then many democrats hated gays as well. The debate was really ugly, today it’s “we love you but please don’t get married,” then it was “we hate you, please don’t exist.”
Among the right today I don’t find the same virulent homophobia that was so prevalent in the 80s, even people like Pat Buchanan seem to have mellowed down. What I do find is a deep resistance to “progressive” change like carbon taxes, not saying Merry Xmas, banning nativity scene from public libraries, etc.
“Even though I was a Democrat for most of my adult life, I voted for Ronald Reagan twice. I have always been something of a “closet libertarian,” and perhaps even a “closet conservative.”
—Libertarians are the perfect balance between conservative moralism and liberal statism. I’ve been trying to find the John Stossel show on Fox Business News, he’s a perfect libertarian INMO.
posted by Jorge on
“Mind your own business, watch your mouth and keep your filthy mind to yourself,” again, always works wonders for me. We need to develop the self-respect to realize we don’t need to answer questions for the sake of straight people’s titillation.
I haven’t needed a comeback in a very long time, but I think I’m glad to have one. What a depressing topic.
…
What we don’t like is the RINO’s and the moderates that want all conservatives to go back into the closet. McCain for example spent more time attacking the people attacking Obama than Obama himself during the election. Sarah Pallin was muzzled and McCain’s handlers wouldn’t even let her debate Bill O’Reilly.
This is two different things. If conservatism means axe-grinding, under the belt-stabbing, gutter politics–which is what many of the attacks against Obama were–then it should be forced back into the closet. There is an ugly, bigoted side to many (not some, many) so-called traditional values espoused by conservatives, and a detached, cold-hearted quality to many more. What moderates remember, and what conservatives who have actually had to govern learn very quickly, is that conservative, traditional principles serve all Americans.
The reason some Washington, DC and moderate republicans hate Sarah Pallin is because she’s too real, like people in middle America. She’s unabashedly pro-gun, pro-life, pro-business, anti-tax, pro-war, and the moderate republicans hate that.
Actually, I don’t hate that and I consider Sarah Palin to be conservative without being evil about it. It’s a talent that many female, minority, and gay conservatives have. She is an especially credible and compelling spokesperson for the conservative platform who threatens to co-opt their constituencies and talking points. She is a conservative, pro-life feminist. She really is a feminist. Conservatives never used to be feminists. It used to be only up to moderates who were able to articulate and appreciate that. Frankly I think she has a lot in common with such Bush administration figures as Ashcroft and Cheney, and the President himself in the sense that I believe it is the fundamental human dignity of every American, not just ideology, that drives her.
It’s just that her being so loyal to the conservative mindset, especially when it comes to gay rights, is a difficult thing to bear about someone who is a transformative leader.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
ND30, Only YOU could be so specious.
I’m only bringing up the parallels that straight paranoia has to gay sexuality, that white paranoia had to black sexuality, BOTH of which is used to justify discrimination, inequality and political exclusion from self reliance and equal protection.
THAT’S all.
Just pointing out the similarities.
If you think that makes me racist, or whatever, it just means YOU have misread and misinterpreted my comments.
Not surprising.
I blame the death of young Jayson, on the parole system, on how easily straight men DO prey on gay teens (whether boys or girls) and the patent neglect of his parents in allowing a dangerous element into their home.
But since it means so much to you to turn around whatever I’m going to say to mean something it doesn’t and I didn’t say: you’re going to do that regardless.
WHATEVER.
I have more important things to do than argue with you.
You know, like actually being around the very criminals and crimes mentioned on this thread.
Buh bye.
posted by Bobby on
“This is two different things. If conservatism means axe-grinding, under the belt-stabbing, gutter politics–which is what many of the attacks against Obama were–then it should be forced back into the closet.”
—What do you think people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi do? It’s funny how people talk about the “hate” from the right because we have tea parties, as if nobody remember Code Pink, Cindy Shehan, Fahrenheit 911, comparing Bush to Hitler, demanding war trials for Chenney, etc.
“Actually, I don’t hate that and I consider Sarah Palin to be conservative without being evil about it. It’s a talent that many female, minority, and gay conservatives have. She is an especially credible and compelling spokesperson for the conservative platform who threatens to co-opt their constituencies and talking points. She is a conservative, pro-life feminist. She really is a feminist.”
—I’m glad you don’t hate her but MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and most of the liberal media hates her and ridicules her. I see how comedians make fun of her, Lisa Lampinelli calls her an idiot for having a down syndrome baby, yet does she make fun of Obama the same way? No. She was an effective governor in Alaska yet the media paints her like a moron. It’s so obvious that the lamestream media lives in an Ivory Tower, this people are out of touch with the rest of America and then wonder why people camp out in 10 degree weather to meet her. It’s infuriating.
“It’s just that her being so loyal to the conservative mindset, especially when it comes to gay rights, is a difficult thing to bear about someone who is a transformative leader.”
—Well, she’s not homophobic like Alan Keyes, she’ll never go around saying that homosexuality is evil because she’s not that kind of Christian even if she believes its a sin. She’s just not ready to give us same-sex marriage, and neither is Obama! The difference is that Obama gives a speech at HRC and suddenly some gays think he’s gay friendly. Smart gays know all Obama does is give tokens to our community, appoint a gay man here, issue a proclamation there, nothing but little tokens. The DNC treats us no better than house negroes.
Conservatives don’t have a minority-mindset, they don’t worry if the military has too many blacks or too few, they don’t care if there’s not enough men becoming teachers, or if there are not enough Hispanics in congress. That’s why conservatives aren’t popular with minorities, we’re not good sucking up to them and I don’t think we’ll ever be.
However, some minorities know that things like lower taxes, gun ownership, strong defense, national pride, are more important than affirmative action and diversity politics.
posted by BobN on
“She’s just not ready to give us same-sex marriage, and neither is Obama!”
Palin opposes civil unions, domestic partnerships and supports an Alaskan constitutional amendment to cement our second-class status.
You can love her as much as you want, but be PROUD of her politics, don’t lie about them.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Excellent article, Mr. Link. You’ve definitely hit upon something here.
There really is a glaring, I dare say prurient fixation among the anti-homosexual crowd, for using graphic detail about the sexual activities (or perceived sexual activities) of homosexuals. We can even see a great deal of this here in this very thread between the two (or is it one?) trolls who seem to monopolize every thread with their anti-homosexual propaganda.
I think that this tactic really does come down to creating a distraction, or smokescreen (to borrow one of the troll’s usual terms). It’s meant to evade discussing the pertinent issues themselves â like the law, and the pros and cons of recognizing social and legal equality for homosexuals & same-sex couples â by eliciting a negative emotional response, both a defensive reaction from those in favor of equality, and an offensive visceral reaction from those opposed or indifferent to equality.
This negative response is preferred by the anti-equality crowd because they don’t really have valid arguments to offer. As Paul Ginandes succinctly pointed out earlier in this thread, all their other arguments have mostly failed to resonate with the public. Outside of same-sex marriage, American majorities poll in favor of a more egalitarian treatment of us. And even same-sex marriage is more supported today than ever before.
The tide against them is rising and they know it. Look upon the hyperbole and vulgar stunts as their last frantic effort to poison the well, dehumanize us, shut down legitimate debate and cause those on the fence to default to restricting or at least leaving the civil rights of homosexuals as unrecognized as they currently are.
Though it is sad, jarring, even, that people can be so hopelessly bigoted (and there probably is no more singularly accurate description of the sort of willful ignorance, irrational prejudice, and deliberate insult that we see directed at homosexuality from some in these threads), we should at least take comfort in knowing that in many ways this is the best they have to offer.
On the other hand, as you said, most of us here are trying to have a legitimate, civil discussion. Among that discussion, I think we need to focus more on where we stand as a community or should stand. What are our values, and how will we advocate for them. Forums like this, though hijacked at times, do provide a good medium for that. Much better, I should add, than some of the other gay forums I’ve been to.
Of course we must also be aware, that as we discuss issues of values and what we stand for (which every community struggles with) that gay-hating bigots will exploit these discussions to further their own anti-equality agenda. As several here continually attempt to goad us all into.
But we cannot let them stop us from accomplishing what needs to be done. And while I think we should challenge lies, stereotypes and bogus propaganda wherever we see it (and many here have done a superb job at that), probably most of the content (garbage) that certain trolls around here enjoy regurgitating ad nauseam, would be best left ignored.
posted by DragonScorpion on
While this wasn’t directed at me, no, I really don’t see any irony here, and no, I really don’t see a comparison. There is a vast difference between using deliberately derogatory labels or referring to us through graphic imagery vs. using a label which acknowledges that, while there may be no other distinction between a heterosexual and a homosexual, our sexual-orientation is one actual difference.
While I can appreciate your point that hetero-sexual/homo-sexual may seem a somewhat bastardized term, I think you’re taking it a bit too literally. Afterall, âasexualâ is a word that is used to describe what you suggest the literal meaning of âhomosexualâ is. Perhaps its not all perfectly consistent, but then the English language is certainly not known for consistency.
Actually, I find the terms to be fairly accurate â they have certainly been used from a clinical standpoint for a long enough duration of time. As you may have noticed from my posts, I tend to use them whilst avoiding words like âgayâ and âqueerâ. And unlike “homosexual”, the original meaning of these two words had nothing to do with sexual-orientation. And usage of them in a sexual manner, once this started, was often used to describe licentiousness.
I simply don’t find the fact that some have used âhomosexualâ derisively in the past, and some in our community have decided to embrace it as such, to be sufficient in officially retiring its usage.
I did find the suggestions you mentioned (âhomophileâ, âandrophileâ, âgynophileâ)to be more linguistically sensible and probably more accurate from a literal standpoint. And perhaps we should move in this direction, someday, but given the ignorance of most folks over the suffix â-phileâ, and popular myths that homosexuals are really just closeted pedophiles and ephebophiles, I think adopting âhomophileâ might just perpetuate that falsehood.
I will say this much about the issue, I don’t think we need to give much concern about labels and trying to invent new ones. They’re cosmetic changes that aren’t likely to persuade or dissuade society from changing its attitudes about us.
Furthermore, if the label âheterophileâ is not largely embraced by society, then I don’t believe we should attempt to convince society that the proper term for us would be âhomophilesâ.
posted by DragonScorpion on
@Lori Heine
First of all, just because North Dallas Thirty and Debrah like to fixate on scatological obsessions and demonizing homosexual men in general, and just because, apparently most who post here are homosexual men(?), I hope you don’t feel marginalized. I see that unlike her clear hatred for homosexual men, Debrah is quite eager to win the acceptance of women, and will fall all over herself to apologize and ensure that she is not misunderstood by them, but I hope you know that some of us in the homosexual male category do care what lesbians think.
Speaking of which, I found several of your posts here very interesting. Some of them, frankly, unsettling.
I’ll start with the light stuff. While I am most definitely not one to âparade aroundâ in a bikini thong at some parade or club, I don’t find them particularly unacceptable as beach apparel (at the beach, that is), if community standards allow for it. Mine certainly wouldn’t, and I wouldn’t feel particularly comfortable even if they did. But I’m sure there is a time and a place for such things.
As for âchasing little boysâ. If you literally meant grown men chasing after underage boys, then no, I am quite certain that most of us are not so inclined nor should we be. Much to the contrary of the troll’s claims here, most of us do not believe that it is at all appropriate for adults to have sex with children.
If you meant a 30-year-old dating a 20 year old (which I doubt you did but I wanted to be sure), then I would certainly disagree with such a characterization. I’ve never thought of my brother, who is 10 years older than his wife, as chasing a little girl.
I don’t either, and so I don’t. But then barring situations where people could lose careers or family if their orientation were revealed, I generally see no reason to tell someone to mind their own business if they ask if I am married or dating someone or who the person’s name is. And once his name is revealed, well, that kind of let’s the cat out of the bag! I don’t find this the least bit unreasonable or militantly assertive. I don’t consider it particularly private information. And I am, actually, a very private person.
It’s something that I don’t really think about much because I can’t relate to it, but it makes sense. That kind of treatment would become very tiring very quickly… And it really does reflect a massive hypocrisy among the anti-homosexual types, that while they enjoy marginalizing issues that are important to us, like legal equality, or they consider the mere acknowledgment that our partner is a member of the same sex to be âpushing their lifestyle on us!â, or while they love attempting to âgrossâ each other out about the so-called âdisgusting habitsâ of gay men, they also seem to relish the notion of women fornicating in front of or with them.
Amen! Well said; enough said on that subject. I noticed that North Dallas Thirty didn’t have a way to spin this one, or much of anything you wrote… Curious, that. Neither did Debrah, but then she was trying to appease you.
Speaking of which. Honestly, I think you should have saved your apology to Debrah. You were right the first time…
Now for the deeper stuff. I respect your libertarianism. I am libertarian on many issues, especially social issues. I tend to despise government paternalism. But I don’t harbor contempt for the concept of government and regulation, either.
In my own personal life, I’m fairly conservative. Certainly one of those men who hold more traditional sexual mores than is seemingly typical for American men in today’s society. Overall, I would probably best be described as a progressive, but not a liberal. And yes, I believe there is a distinct difference.
I believe in a moderate, practical and incremental approach. But I also have definite ideological beliefs, including notions of equality. And sometimes egalitarianism can be viewed as too radical. That is where I have nothing in common with conservatives, who often cling mindlessly to tradition.
That brings me to my biggest issue with what you had to say. You completely, and I do mean COMPLETELY lost me when you remarked that raving, paranoid, lunatic Glenn Beck is a fair and reasonable person.
Keith Olbermann and to a lesser extent Rachel Maddow are deserving of much criticism in my opinion, but you honestly can’t see through this charlatan?
Anyway, you gave some great comments. Enjoy your holiday.
posted by DragonScorpion on
âWe must, as gay society, decide what we ourselves consider vulgar and convey that decision to heterosexuals. â ~ twelve-hundred
I couldn’t agree more! Thank you for stating it, and making an excellent, eloquent post. I think this sort of subject goes far too overlooked. At times, it’s almost as if many in our community are too afraid to appear as judgmental as the sort of bigots who have deplored us for no justifiable reason other than their prejudices and ignorance. And so we just elect not to pass judgment, outwardly, on behaviors that we may not actually agree with.
But then some of us are probably just defensive as well. Bigots like North Dallas Thirty pillories us and then demands that we condemn despicable behaviors in our community, as if we’re the least bit accountable for the behaviors of others or as if we’re demanding that heterosexuals account for the rape, child-molestation and licentiousness among them. He yanks or chain and expects us to bark on command. I, for one, don’t play that.
In spite of this, some in our community have defended, or at least been indifferent to the indefensible. And I think we as a community need to address this. Being a homosexual doesn’t qualify us as immoral. It doesn’t mean we have no standards of decency or right and wrong. It doesn’t make us more or less accountable for our actions and those in our community.
I don’t think we should be afraid to call out our own when it is warranted. But, as I said earlier, we must accept that in doing so, homophobes like some of those in this thread are going to pounce on this and beat us over the head with it, attempting to indict all of us in the actions of a few. But as others have pointed out, regardless their stunts, we are not accountable for the transgressions of others.
We should not be afraid. Least of all in a forum where we are in the majority.
posted by Bobby on
“Palin opposes civil unions, domestic partnerships and supports an Alaskan constitutional amendment to cement our second-class status.”
—That’s like saying those who support drilling for oil in ANWR shouldn’t have voted for McCain because he opposes that. We all have to make compromises, besides, supporting a position doesn’t mean being active to make it happen. There’s a ton of pro-life republicans yet abortion remains legal, the most they can do is demand parental notification which makes sense since kids need parental notification to get a tatoo.
“You can love her as much as you want, but be PROUD of her politics, don’t lie about them.”
—I’m not lying about them, I’m simply not focused on the gay stuff you like so much. I don’t have a boyfriend or a fiancee, so I could care less about domestic partnerships. I doubt Pallin opposes powers of attorney and wills, so if I ever have a boyfriend I can protect each of us under those laws.
Republicans also believe in state’s rights, so if civil unions are important to you, move to Vermont or Massachussetts. The last time the GOP tried to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage it was a disaster, so I doubt they’re gonna try again.
posted by The Gay Species on
DragonScorpion, if language does NOT color our sense of reality, then accept “civil unions” and “lovers” instead of “marriage.” If you enjoy being identified with a Jewish malapropism of the 19th century “homo-sexual,” be my guest; if “queer” as in “odd, counterfeit, and bizarre” gives you identity, call yourself a “queer.”
You don’t have to accept the dominant language of homophilia, but then don’t complain when people call us “homosexual” and insist it’s all about SEX (damn, in it is the word itself).
As beloved observes, “queers” are the most inconsistent “queens” he’s ever met. Oh, if that language annoys, then maybe your argument does expose its own inconsistency.
posted by The Gay Species on
GayIntellectual Google Pages references this blog (as it does mine) for being “intellectual.” I find the appellation appalling (I may be intelligent, but not intellectual). Most of the writers are quite bright and insightful, but it seems odd to me that NONE of you are aware of the dominant theory taught in major and minor universities, including by Queer Theorists, of a dogma called “strict social construction.”
I personally am a “weak social constructionist,” and have been since the 1960s (yes, the theory is THAT old). My mentor at Cal John Searle wrote an excellent riposte to the “strict” version, titled, “The Construction of Social Reality” (1995; still in print), but whether one adopts the “strict” or the “weak” version, there is no denying that language colors our perception of the world. Using malapropism is precisely what Gay Liberation Movement rejected, when it rejected “homo-sexual” and “queer” for “gay.”
Harry Hay, a communist androphile of the 1950s, was well aware of the “social nature of language,” and through his Mattachine Society was potent in adopting the “gay” appellation for this very reason. The words we use have consequences on how we perceive and are perceived — BOTH — a social theory going back to Mannheim before Nazi Germany. And if “words don’t matter,” then accept “domestic partnership” instead of “marriage;” “cocksucker” instead of “gay;” “fudgepacker” instead of “androphile;” “queer” instead of “homophile;” do I need any more illustrations to demonstrate my point?
posted by Lori Heine on
DragonScorpion, thanks for your remarks.
The reason I apologized to Debrah was because I was excessively nasty, and said things I really didn’t feel right about afterward. I’m satisfied with the way the exchange ended.
NDT is a regular commenter, and not a troll. Sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I don’t, but I think I understand where he’s coming from. He seems to believe we need role-models from within our own ranks, and that sometimes hard truths have to be told.
As far as Glenn Beck is concerned, I really don’t find him all that extreme. His habit of crying during almost every program is a little disconcerting, but I have learned a lot watching his show.
Thanks again for your comments. I’m just back from a very nice Christmas gathering of “voluntary” family, overstuffed with food and probably not at the top of my form. I’m also hurrying to catch “Top Gun” on TV so I can moon over Kelly McGillis.
Merry Christmas…
posted by DragonScorpion on
@ Lori Heine
You think so, eh? I fail to see what those âhard truths” actually are.
Is it that âgays have demonstrated that they are not rational individuals, and in fact, are rather pervasive and immovable bigots and hypocrites when it comes to politics.â and that âhypocrisy is typical of the gay-sex marriage communityâ? (Note the derisive use of âgay-sex marriageâ which he uses regularly)
Maybe it is things like âgay-sex marriage is only a front and a rationalization for political attacks; it has no real value to the gay community.â and also that same-sex marriage âis about destroying marriage and the “heteronormative” ideas of values and commitment represented in marriage that the gay community finds revolting.â
Or is it that same-sex marriage advocates are âhypocritesâ for referencing the Supreme Court’s determination that marriage is a âbasic civil rightâ whilst refusing to defend Warren Jeffs’ marrying underage girls to older men?
Funny thing about this, in one post he claims that we all have no qualms with adults having sex with kids, while in another post he claims we’re hypocrites because we don’t support adult-child marriage. What a web of hypocrisy he has managed to spin. But he’s only caught himself in it.
(continued)
posted by DragonScorpion on
@Lori Heine
Let’s look at some of ND30’s other “hard truths”. According to him we, ourselves, are living proof that we’re not really capable of serving in the military without screwing like rabbits. (Nevermind the fact that the military has been and is having a real problem with female soldiers being impregnated by male soldiers. That’s okay though. We can’t talk about that. Females have a right to serve. If it causes problems, then we’ll just handle it. But homosexuals? Nope. We can’t be trusted.)
Perhaps his lesson for us is that courts have no business in overturning unconstitutional laws & popular sovereignty is a legitimate excuse for stripping majorities voting away the rights of others?
Oh, I know what it is, we’re to learn the hard truth that same-sex marriage and the imagined harmful impact that it would have on society is equivalent to child marriage, plural marriage, incestual marriage and bestial marriage.
Are you noticing a pattern yet? And not a single caveat once. No qualifiers of âsomeâ homosexuals who do this or that. No positive statements about any form of equal legal treatment for homosexuals. Nope, but he’s concocted a rationale in which all homosexuals are accountable for and comparable to each other. If some have done wrong then we’re all implicated. Especially if we don’t bark on command when he pulls our chain.
By the way, Lori, consider these questions rhetorical. I don’t expect you to answer for him. Not at all. I doubt you share any these beliefs. And even if you did, you’re not accountable for his. But I wanted to make it clear to you and anyone else reading just how wide-ranging and radical his beliefs are and what he promotes here. And, why I have reached my conclusions about him.
I’ve seen and challenged this sort of propaganda on forums for years, promoted by heterosexuals (or severely conflicted closet-cases) who are determined to convince the public that homosexuality itself â the attraction to the same-sex and engaging in homosexual activity â has a direct correlation to hedonism, promiscuity, vice, criminality…
And I’m supposed to believe it is a homosexual shoveling this shit? Sorry, but I’m not that naive. No, it makes no sense that any self-respecting homosexual, who seems to have an aversion to acknowledging his being one, would drone on day after day after day with the exact same homophobic reactions, sweeping generalizations, and fallacious comparisons that socially conservative heterosexual bigots display with disgusting temerity.
He’s about as rabidly anti-homosexual as anyone I have ever encountered online. If he is homosexual, then he is the most self-loathing one I’ve encountered.
He’s also, as I remarked to him the other day, the worst case of cognitive dissonance I’ve ever witnessed. Admittedly, there does seem to be a lot of that sort of thing around here.
You say that North Dallas Thirty, âseems to believe we need role-models from within our own ranks, and that sometimes hard truths have to be told.â
If true, he has a grotesquely bizarre way of trying to encourage this. I, on the other hand, wholeheartedly believe that we need (positive) role-models within our own ranks. And I certainly believe that we have some serious issues in our community, including an acceptance of hedonism, promiscuity and an indifference or even contempt for monogamy.
That’s partly why I have been spending more time at forums like this lately, to discuss these problems amongst us, rather than at heterosexual/mainstream forums challenging anti-homosexual propaganda and arguing in favor of equality. And yet here I see the same enemy attempting to marginalize our struggle and dehumanize us as individuals…
Regardless the assumptions of those with the hate-mongering agenda, I do condemn what I find to be inappropriate behavior. You can see what I think of Adam Lambert’s lewd performance at the AMA here and at my blog. But I don’t do it on demand, least of all from homophobic bigots who characterize us as some depraved monolith. And I refuse to take any accountability for the actions of others.
This is why I appreciated your earlier comment so much. We don’t need to answer for others, nor should we defend inappropriate behavior simply because it is one of our own engaging in it. I believe we should not be afraid to have values, notions of appropriate and inappropriate, decent and indecent. And we should not be afraid to advocate for them.
posted by DragonScorpion on
@Lori Heine
I’m glad you feel better about things with Debrah. Yes, you were a bit nasty, but then so is she. Vile, in fact, with her scatological obsessions and apparent mission to attempt to insult and shame homosexual men about common sexual practices which there is nothing to be ashamed of. Post after mind-numbing post… Which is why I thought she had what you dished out coming.
But, don’t misinterpret me. I’m not trying to start a feud. I’ve seen enough already to know not to take her seriously and barely skim her posts now. I suspect most here do the same. There are legitimate discussions worth having here that do not involve broad, bigoted brushes.
As for Glenn Beck. I watched him some on CNBC. I soon found I couldn’t stomach his phony theatrics, weak attempts at being witty, contradictory calims and paranoid conspiracies. I used to watch Fox News, too, until soon after the Iraq war. I opposed it, and I just couldn’t stand their jingoism. MSNBC was bad about it too, early on. Most media was.
I even used to watch Lou Dobbs, if you can believe. I liked his independent streak, his standing up for the middle-class, and willingness to report on the many problems of illegal immigration. I started to watch less and less though as he started sounding more and more like a shill for the GOP. Democratic blame was free-flowing, but their blame so often seemed to come as an afterthought.
I tuned out completely once he started to treat the âbirtherâ conspiracies as legitimate.
So anyway. Now we know a little more about our stories. Glad you had a good Christmas, by the way. And I hope you enjoyed the movie. I always liked it. And the soundtrack. Have a good day.
posted by DragonScorpion on
If ever I actually make such a statement, then you’ll have something with that argument, until then, you don’t. Also, this terrible example of yours completely ignores the fact that âdomestic partnershipsâ and âcivil unionsâ do not (and per DOMA cannot) provide many of the legal protections and benefits of civil “marriage”. You should know that this issue is not one of semantics…
It is an interesting false-dichotomy you have concocted though â either words mean nothing and we can just use them arbitrarily, or they mean everything and thus we must deconstruct the labels for sexual-orientation that we’ve been using for over a hundred years as this will help win us more recognition. Surely there is some middle-ground in there somewhere…
Here is another one:
For the record, âwords don’t matterâ is not a quote from me. And no, you don’t need to provide any more actual malapropisms, that strawman was flammable enough.
I reject your assessment that either we have to accept deliberately derogatory descriptions and labels or we have to rename the (appropriate) labels we have now and have used for a century. Labels, I should add, which are applied uniformly, i.e. heterosexual, homosexual.
No matter what we call it, the fact remains that some of us are primarily or exclusively oriented to the same-sex is our one distinct difference from those who are primarily or exclusively oriented to the opposite-sex. Swapping â-phileâ in place of â-sexualâ is certainly not going to change this in the slightest, nor will it, in my opinion, do much to motivate society into dropping its fixation on our sexual difference.
You remarked about what words give me âidentityâ â progressive, libertarian, Caucasian, male, agnostic, sentimental, American, ideological, reserved, serious, oh, and yes homosexual.
There are others, of course, but you get the idea. As for that last one, if âheterophileâ becomes the accepted term for sexual orientation towards the opposite-sex then I’ll adopt âhomophileâ. However, I see no compelling reason to do it now.
And yes, I will continue to challenge others who attempt to reduce me to nothing more than any one of those things above. And there is absolutely nothing inconsistent about that.
posted by DragonScorpion on
@The Gay Species
I wanted to convey one more thing to you. Sadly, the fact that many of us often end up squabbling over minutia like this is the reason that we as a community can’t seem to get organized enough to accomplish more of the legal progress and address more of the fundamental issues affecting our community.
You’re obviously a bit defensive about this topic. Understandable, as it is clearly important to you and seemingly not taken nearly as seriously as you’d like it to be. But there is really no reason to be so condescending and confrontational in your remarks to me and the author. I’m not your enemy, nor do I want to be. I don’t mean any disrespect to you. And I’m not going to get into some heated exchange with you. Least of all over verbiage.
I do appreciate some of your suggestions here and your effort to get some of us to think outside the box. I really do. I just don’t think that your calling people out because of some perceived inconsistency for using a quite reasonable term like âhomosexualâ has merit. You disagree. That’s fine. I can agree to disagree.
Enjoy your day.
posted by The Gay Species on
My initial observation that David Link uses the word “homo-SEX-ual” — a 19th-century Jewish malapropism — to identify people that he then rejects should be identified by their SEX acts was “ironic.” Call oneself a “homo-SEX-ual,” and I will contemplate your sex acts, include beholding them at street fairs.
If WE refer to ourselves as “homo-SEX-uals” we should expect to be evaluated by our SEX acts. WE invite the locus of focus. If WE refer to ourselves as “queers,” we should expect to be evaluated as “strange, odd, counterfeit, and bogus” people. The philosopher J. L. Austin asked, “Must we mean what we say?” He and I answer resoundingly: YES.
Our language effects our vision of the world, which is one of the reasons why “marriage” is not synonymous with “domestic partners.” Indeed, this nominalist observation was the CORE decision of the CA Supreme Court Decision on 15 May 08, that while different nominems may be synonymous, not all synonyms are EQUAL. It was SOLELY on this nominalistic front that the 5:4 decision was rendered — in effect insisting that calling the SAME thing by different NAMES amounts to discrimination, barred by federal and state constitutions and laws.
If the “queer” and “homosexual” communities find identity in such words, fine. I don’t. I accept my homophilia and boast boldly of my being gay. But even I recognize “gay” was merely a NAME changer; now that we have a better perspective, we understand that SEX alone does not constitute who we are, much less the SEX ACTS that we engage in, and thus the Greek hybrids of “homo-philia, andro-philia, gyno-philia” which express “an affinity for the same dimorphic member of the species” is more linguistically honest, accurate, and “means what we say.”
posted by Bobby on
“As for Glenn Beck. I watched him some on CNBC. I soon found I couldn’t stomach his phony theatrics, weak attempts at being witty, contradictory calims and paranoid conspiracies”
—There is nothing phony about Glenn Beck, he’s as real as it gets and his life is an open book. IF you don’t like his style that’s one thing, I personally prefer O’reilly’s format of different interviews and quick segments rather than watching a man who talks like a prophet. However, all his “conspiracies” are based on reality. Obama has associated with some of the worst people in the world from Van Jones to Bill Ayres to ACORN he makes Bush supposed ties to the Skull & Bones Society seem harmless in comparisson.
You need to understand that Obama is almost a Manchurian candidate, raised from birth to be a communist and trained inspired by Saul Alinsky himself (he wrote “Rules for Radicals”). Obama’s own parents where hippies, he went to college in Chicago, he became a Chicago-style politician and a community organizer, his pastor was the black version of David Duke, Jeremiah Wright. All Beck does is connect the dots that are all around this man yet the lamestream media can’t seem to see.
Obama is the typical Stalinist, when his policy doesn’t work he simply blames someone else, or has anyone forgotten his war against Fox News?
It would be unfair to compare Beck to a birther because Beck deals with facts and evidence, not wishful thinking. I should watch him more often, but the truth can make you feel angry, depressed, sad and sometimes I just can’t take it. When I watch Beck it amazes me how this commie got elected in the first place, how Americans were so desperate for a black president that they had to vote the worst black candidate in the world.
posted by Jorge on
What do you think people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi do? It’s funny how people talk about the “hate” from the right because we have tea parties, as if nobody remember Code Pink, Cindy Shehan, Fahrenheit 911, comparing Bush to Hitler, demanding war trials for Chenney, etc.
I might answer your question if you answered the point I raised about the right’s unfair, below the belt attacks on candidate Obama on its own merits. That is, if I had any confidence you were actually interested in what I hadd to say.
—I’m glad you don’t hate her but MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and most of the liberal media hates her and ridicules her.
You were accusing moderate Republicans and the DC GOP establishment of hating her.
…She’s just not ready to give us same-sex marriage, and neither is Obama! The difference is that Obama gives a speech at HRC and suddenly some gays think he’s gay friendly….
I suspect the differences are more substantive than that. I would like to know the chances of Palin speaking to the Log Cabin Republicans, for example. But in any case there are some Republicans who have the courage to realize that being pro-minority or pro-gay means more than being beholden to Democratic interest groups. The problem is that Sarah Palin does that through feminism, and feminism only.
Republicans also believe in state’s rights, so if civil unions are important to you, move to Vermont or Massachussetts. The last time the GOP tried to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage it was a disaster, so I doubt they’re gonna try again.
Yeah, for us. It was part of a tidal wave that included a lot of successful statewide anti-marriage laws that did pass. They spared one house but destroyed the town (well, I exaggerate).
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And I’m supposed to believe it is a homosexual shoveling this shit? Sorry, but I’m not that naive. No, it makes no sense that any self-respecting homosexual, who seems to have an aversion to acknowledging his being one, would drone on day after day after day with the exact same homophobic reactions, sweeping generalizations, and fallacious comparisons that socially conservative heterosexual bigots display with disgusting temerity.
Of course it doesn’t, DragonScorpion, because you cannot comprehend that a gay person would actually be willing to not only point out and confront such behaviors, but dare to hold the gay and lesbian community accountable for supporting and endorsing them.
And of course, when somebody does, you respond in the usual manner; calling them self-loathing, insisting that they can’t be gay, saying they’re “rabidly anti-homosexual”, pulling all sorts of wonderfully-doctored “quotes” to show how “radical” they are, all the usual gay equivalents to the “Uncle Tom”, “oreo”, and “house n*gger” that are so popular among your fellow bigots in the minority-shakedown business. It’s all about “proving” that someone who does not conform to your idea of “correct” minority behavior is not a member of that minority at all.
But where you truly went above and beyond was not just in making it clear how evil and awful I am, but in making me a pariah and condescending to those who would dare associate with or comment positively on me.
You think so, eh? I fail to see what those âhard truths” actually are…..
By the way, Lori, consider these questions rhetorical. I don’t expect you to answer for him. Not at all. I doubt you share any these beliefs. And even if you did, you’re not accountable for his. But I wanted to make it clear to you and anyone else reading just how wide-ranging and radical his beliefs are and what he promotes here.
Yes, because it’s certainly not like Lori has been commenting back and forth with me here and on my blog for a little less than four years or anything. And she certainly hasn’t had the same denial that she’s really a lesbian done to her, either. You were convinced she was wrong, so you set out to “prove” how misguided and ignorant she was — of course, utterly blind to the fact that she’s known me a lot longer than you have.
Ultimately, the funny part here, DragonScorpion, is that you really don’t mind “sweeping generalizations”, such as that it is normal and common in the gay community to have sex with children, when it comes from your fellow “real gays”.
Raising the age of consent is a veiled attempt to assert conservative moral values on youth, queer and youth-led groups told Senators today……
The proposed changes will have a disproportionate impact on gays, said Richard Hudler of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario.
“My first lover was 17 years older than me. And this is common [among gay people],” he said.
Now the hypocrisy here, and what really makes gays like yourself look pathetic in the public eye, is that if a straight person had stated that sex with underage children is normal and “common” among gay people, you and your fellow hate organizations like HRC and NGLTF would have proceeded to have an aneurysm. But when a gay person says it? Crickets. I guess you’re not that willing to confront your fellow gays after all.
Perhaps you don’t want to be vilified and expelled the same way you do to other gay people who don’t agree with you. Perhaps you don’t want to be condescended to by other gay people who will tut-tut at you for associating with the pariah in the fashion that you do.
posted by Bobby on
“I might answer your question if you answered the point I raised about the right’s unfair, below the belt attacks on candidate Obama on its own merits. That is, if I had any confidence you were actually interested in what I hadd to say.”
—Sorry, I don’t think the right has been unfair with Obama. It’s Obama that has been unfair with the right.
“You were accusing moderate Republicans and the DC GOP establishment of hating her.”
—They do, you may be a moderate republican who doesn’t, but you’re the exception, not the rule.
“I suspect the differences are more substantive than that. I would like to know the chances of Palin speaking to the Log Cabin Republicans, for example.”
—I doubt LCR can afford her. LOL 😉 Come on, man, HRC is full of millionare gays, of course Obummer is gonna talk to them.
“But in any case there are some Republicans who have the courage to realize that being pro-minority or pro-gay means more than being beholden to Democratic interest groups. The problem is that Sarah Palin does that through feminism, and feminism only.”
—Perhaps most republicans would rather be pro-America rather than pro-minority. Frankly, I’m sick of minority politics, the Irish suffered horrible discrimination in this country yet you don’t see affirmative-action including the Irish, do you?
“Yeah, for us. It was part of a tidal wave that included a lot of successful statewide anti-marriage laws that did pass. They spared one house but destroyed the town (well, I exaggerate).”
—State’s rights is a wonderful thing. What works in Mississippi doesn’t work in New York, so we’re better off letting Mississippi be Mississippi instead of trying to turn it into San Francisco.
In fact, there’s a new poll that says people are happiest in red states.
http://rightwingnews.com/2009/12/happiest-states-are-conservative-states/
posted by Patrick on
ND30-
You trot out that same article to make a point. I have read and re-read the article and I just don’t get the gay’s wanna have sex with children angle. What I get is gays are being treated differently by a proposed law. An arbitrary age of consent for a certain sex act that makes no sense. It is true there is a risk of harm to “hit on” one of your peers and I can see why young adults may engage in an outlet such as gay bars where the men would naturally be older. In an age where people use the “gay panic” defense to perpetrate horrendous injury to gays, I don’t fault that outlet one bit. I wonder if I can physically harm then use the “straight panic” defense on the next woman that hits on me. I myself did not have encounters with men 10-20 years older than myself when I was under the age of consent, but, I did answer personal ads and misrepresent my age, when I was 17, to meet men. I also had a fake ID and went to bars. Each of these actions were not the responsibility of “The gay community ” trying to have sex with under age boys, but, of a young gay man exploring his sexuality. I also got that the laws in Canada are different then the laws in the US, not knowing the laws of a different country or the nuances of the community I have no real opinion on the article and see no reason that I or anyone should be forced to denounce anything.
posted by DragonScorpion on
@North Dallas Thirty
You aren’t holding people accountable, you’re just bashing people into trying to conform to your indictment of the entire homosexual population.
The âgay communityâ doesn’t support and endorse this indecent garbage you keep dredging up. Some people, maybe even some segments of the gay community do, but the gay community, THAT’S ALL OF US IF YOU WERE TOO STUPID TO FIGURE IT OUT, doesn’t.
You are.
This is the first time you’ve cared to acknowledge it in any way, shape or form in all the posts I’ve read by you now.
You are.
Nothing doctored, your words reveal for all to see. And I provided all the links so everyone can see for themselves . You shovel this shit, now own it.
Oh no, not an ‘Uncle Tom’. Even an Uncle Tom might suck up to whitey, but he wouldn’t refer to his own people as the sort scum that whitey has dehumanized them. But that is just what you do here.
You don’t motivate people to better themselves, you just talk down to people. All of us. The entirety of the homosexual population, except you, if you are to be believed. By your words here we’re all out to destroy marriage, we’re all lecherous hedonists who fornicate and defecate in the streets. We all dress our children like prostitutes. And we all have sex with them. Yada, yada…
It’s the same lying, punish-the-righteous-with-the-wicked bullshit that I’ve argued against heterosexual bigots over for years. Only now, supposedly, its a homosexual bigot who is fertilizing the lawn with the stuff. I wouldn’t be surprised that you push this crap on mainstream websites so that the hetero bigots there can pat you on the back for pointing out how evil we all are. Heck, you might be able to convince a few folks to vote against us the next time our rights {oh, that’s right, you don’t believe we have any rights} are on the line.
My crystal ball wasn’t working. But I am amazed that she has stomached you this long.
I’m not sure why, I haven’t seen any raving homophobic lunacy from her. Just you, and Debrah. I expect her to chime in any time now.
Sure, because I’ve defended those âreal gaysâ how many times now? I’ve lost count. Now, let’s see. Oh yeah. NONE! But that doesn’t matter, just lump me and the rest of us here who don’t spit and sputter rancid hatred for the entirety of the homosexual population because of the actions and statements of some.
Oh, and you don’t have to repost the same damn quotes that you already have at least a dozen times now. Pull out something fresh once in a while. And start exercising some focus. You could paint the whole block in ten minutes with that brush.
Like I said before, I’m not accountable for what others do. I will condemn behavior that I find inappropriate, but I will not do it on demand.
You post on here and implicate the entire homosexual community as being guilty for the isolated incidents of licentiousness or crime that you’ve managed to find a few tired examples of. And if we don’t all rush to agree with you, then we’re in on it too. It doesn’t get much more blatantly dishonest than that. But you just wallow in it.
I’ve got news for you, pal, with that hate-filled rhetoric of yours, that condescending tone and the demands from up on your perch, I wouldn’t stand on the same side of the street as you.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Nothing doctored, your words reveal for all to see.
Really? Let’s pull a few examples:
we’re not really capable of serving in the military without screwing like rabbits.
Which somehow came from this:
This is actually a fine argument for DADT. The gay community itself is stating and demonstrating that it cannot and should not be held accountable under the same laws as heterosexuals because to do so is “homophobic”. The military is thus faced with the problem of gay and lesbian people openly carrying out actions that are forbidden to heterosexuals and which do affect unit and group cohesion without being able to stop it without being accused of “homophobia” and being required to ignore it.
Or this:
courts have no business in overturning unconstitutional laws & popular sovereignty is a legitimate excuse for stripping majorities voting away the rights of others?
which somehow came from this:
This is a classic statement of the benevolent dictatorship ideal that underlies “progressivism” — the idea that people are stupid and need government to tell them what to do.
Instead, what we have seen is that, when government tries to impose on people, i.e. the California Supreme Court decision, the people can and do change their government to their preference (Proposition 8).
Again, though, we must keep in mind your priority, which is to demonize, punish, and banish the “Uncle Tom” from your midst. It’s no surprise that, in your haste to do so, you “embellish” the story a bit; after all, you’re lying for the greater good in your mind, which is to purge the gay community of those who would dare question or criticize any of its behaviors.
posted by Lori Heine on
“I expect her to chime in any time now.”
Oh, yes, Dragon, by all means.
I may put my ass on the line on a regular basis as a writer for the “community,” get hate mail and death threats, get followed home late at night and all the rest of it, but after all the shit I went through to come out, you can definitely expect me to “chime right in” anytime with gay-bashing rhetoric.
Thanks so much for the support you, and people like you, give anyone in “the community” who dares to express an un PC opinion or even — gasp! — associate with someone who does.
I seem to recall that the Nazis worked the same sort of magic on their society. I wonder if it will work any better here.
Try finding out something about the people you trash before you trash them. But that would be fair, and I guess you can’t be bothered to do that.
Your “crystal ball” may not be working, but you’ve got bigger problems than that. Your common sense, basic decency and sense of fairness aren’t working, either.
Another thing being mindlessly attacked, from almost every imaginable angle, by stupid people has taught me is how to fight back. Maybe the HRC knew what it was doing when it took that 30-year lease on the office space in DC. Their political faction has us so busy fighting with each other that we can do little else.
The really sad thing is that you think your behavior is somehow harmony-inducing.
posted by DragonScorpion on
âOh, yes, Dragon, by all means.â ~ Lori Heine
How unfortunate. You thought I meant you. Let me make it clear that my remark âI expect her to chime in any time now.â was in reference to Debrah. I’ve noticed the two seem to follow each other. I was certainly not directing it at you. Considering the misunderstanding, I won’t take the rest of your post too personally.
I’m not really what one would refer to as PC, but I don’t defend bigoted rhetoric, particularly the anti-homosexual variety. Maybe you like to play Devil’s Advocate. That’s up to you. I don’t generally do so, and certainly not for this kind of stuff. So, while you may think I should give the guy a break, I’m sorry, but I can’t do that. I find no excuse in his sort of garbage. None. And I won’t apologize for that.
Maybe you know him better; have seen endearing qualities. I’ve seen nothing but the sort of hateful propaganda that I’ve argued against from heterosexuals online for years. I’m not going to give him or anyone else a break for the same.
When I detailed earlier much of the absurdities that ND30 has been posting here, I thought it important for anyone who had missed the other threads to know, including you. Particularly after your remark about âhard truthsâ. Honestly, I couldn’t imagine how you could be aware of all the bigotry that North Dallas Thirty has displayed here and still defend him as telling some sort of âhard truthsâ.
You’re obviously aware. But you don’t offer much criticism. For the sake of “harmony” perhaps.
You mentioned a lack of decency, common sense, and fairness on my part. Seriously? I know I’ve not been kind to him as this has progressed. But then I don’t treat bigots kindly. And painting with his kind of a brush, well, that adds up to bigotry in my view, particularly when it comes to us.
I find it bewildering that you read his posts and find them disagreeable, but mine are lacking in decency, common sense, and fairness… Maybe you can explain that one for me.
~âThe really sad thing is that you think your behavior is somehow harmony-inducing.â ~ Lori Heine
What would truly be sad is if you or others have concluded that North Dallas Thirty’s comments here are somehow, in any way, harmony-inducing.
The garbage that he is promoting here, I want nothing to do with. I want no âharmonyâ with the likes of it. And while he, or you, could assume that I must therefore be defending any indecent behaviors or some, or making excuses for what are by his own scant evidence isolated incidents, you’d be wrong.
You’d also be wrong if you concluded that I don’t have serious concerns about many things in our community that I think are too easily ignored, accepted or even embraced. But there is a right way and a wrong way to address this. And implicating the innocent with the guilty, perpetuating myths that homosexuals are somehow inherently morally inferior, which is what his posts promote, is definitely the wrong way.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Look who’s accusing who of âdemonizingâ and âlying for the greater goodâ… All this homophobic propaganda that you spew here, just because your frustrated that more homosexuals won’t support your precious anti-gay party.
These examples I provided were no lies. It’s right there in your own words, that’s why I provided the links. And now you’ve been gracious enough to repeat them here.
Your advocacy for popular sovereignty:
âThis is a classic statement of the benevolent dictatorship ideal that underlies “progressivism” — the idea that people are stupid and need government to tell them what to do.
Instead, what we have seen is that, when government tries to impose on people, i.e. the California Supreme Court decision, the people can and do change their government to their preference (Proposition 8).â
So we see your assessment of our situation, âprogressivesâ somehow forced judges to overturn unconstititional laws as unconstitutional. And for this, we deserved the populace voting away our rights. Nice to see whose side your on. âThe people’sâ who voted away our rights. You know, those things you repeatedly claim we don’t actually have, and you put ââ around mockingly.
Your assessment of DADT:
âThis is actually a fine argument for DADT. The gay community itself is stating and demonstrating that it cannot and should not be held accountable under the same laws as heterosexuals because to do so is “homophobic”. The military is thus faced with the problem of gay and lesbian people openly carrying out actions that are forbidden to heterosexuals and which do affect unit and group cohesion without being able to stop it without being accused of “homophobia” and being required to ignore it.â
And what was this âfine argumentâ of which he speaks? âThe gay community is using what they imagine peoples’ grandparents were doing in private to what rthe gay and lesbian community is demanding it be allowed to do in public.â
So according to ND30, we’re somehow demanding that what is done in private should be done in public. Who is âweâ you ask? Why, ALL of us. Homosexuals. The gay community. Us. He says it right there. ^ That monolith known as “the gay community”. Isn’t that something? I don’t recall advocating that, but apparently I did. And so did everyone else here, and the people who aren’t here. All of us. It’s all our fault.
Excellent, ND30, you make it pretty damn clear where you stand. We’re not fit to serve openly in the military because we will all be carrying out actions that are forbidden to heterosexuals and the military won’t be able to stop it without being accused of âhomophobiaâ. In other words, we’d be screwing like rabbits and the military would be forced to let us get away with it.
But, I know, you’re going to play the victim now. A narrative in which I’m the big bad bully, and you’re the poor misunderstood one.
posted by Bobby on
“Look who’s accusing who of âdemonizingâ and âlying for the greater goodâ… All this homophobic propaganda that you spew here, just because your frustrated that more homosexuals won’t support your precious anti-gay party. ”
—NDT is simply focusing on the worst elements of the gay community. Yes, some gay men are horny all the time, HOWEVER, those gay men are more likely to join a bathouse than any military branch. Sex in the military is tricky even if you’re straight, you have to find a quiet place and make sure nobody finds out.
What NDT doesn’t understand is that when gays join the military they’re the minority, so even if DADT is eliminated it’s not like gays are going to be parading, after all, marines have a tradition of “blanket parties” in which a blanket is placed on the body of a bad soldier, pieces of soap are put in socks, and the bad soldier gets beat up by everyone in the barrack.
What happened to Pvt. Pyle in Full Metal Jacket isn’t fiction, blanket parties and other methods of torture are real.
posted by Lori Heine on
“You mentioned a lack of decency, common sense, and fairness on my part. Seriously?”
Perhaps I was a little harsh there. But I think your characterization of NDT as a “bigot” is pretty harsh, too.
I have a very good friend everybody in my crowd calls “Judy the Republican.” Although originally I knew her only through mutual friends, she and I became good friends. She is an outspoken — VERY outspoken — conservative. Believe it or not, she makes NDT look like Little Bo Peep (hard to imagine, I know, but please bear with me).
Well, I’m the only person, from our original gang, who still hands around with Judy. No one else will have anything to do with her. She’s well into her seventies, now, plagued by cataracts and spinal trouble, and very lonely. She has a very kind heart, and would do anything to help anybody — but she’s a conservative, and so she’s a pariah.
I just think we should treat each other better than that — whether we agree on political issues or not. ‘Nuff said.
I hope the point never comes when I know and like a person, even if I disagree with him/her frequently, and must dismiss this person as a “bigot.”
posted by Lori Heine on
Correction: that should be “hangs around with Judy.” I don’t want anybody to think we’re into anything kinky. 🙂
posted by DragonScorpion on
I appreciate your point. At least I’m trying to.
This isn’t about him being conservative. I’m not the permissive type. And it isn’t about his voting Republican. Though it is beyond me how anyone can be so loyal, oblivious to all the harm that so many in the party; the party establishment itself has done to us and is still working to accomplish against us. I can’t imagine turning a blind eye to that. But I realize that ideology can do it.
What makes it all way too much is that there is never an attempt that I’ve seen in these posts of his to isolate people or groups. Instead, it can be the most obscure group that no one has ever even heard of, or some isolated incident somewhere that â were it so damn common he’d have a lot more than the same 1 or 2 links to show every time â and he takes these incidents as proof that the whole movement, the whole âcommunityâ is implicated. We’re all bad people.
That sort of generalization is mindless. And insulting.
And then there is the derisiveness that he uses to describe our ârightsâ, as if they just don’t exist. Shouldn’t exist. Just a figment of our imaginations, and considering our behavior clearly undeserved. âGay-sex marriageâ is another one. Reducing marriage to just gay sex. I expect that from hate-filled heterosexual homophobes. And when I encounter that, it’s bigotry. And yet I encounter it here, from him. But somehow it wouldn’t be fair for me to describe it the same way? I fail to see why. The content is the same, and I really think the intent is, too.
Out of all this, it has become more than obvious given his droning on about it, that it is because he’s so hurt that more of us won’t support his chosen party who just so happens to be unabashedly anti-homosexual.
Here is my take on what qualifies as bigotry. And he matches most of them. Which is off the charts.
As far as I’m concerned I’ve learned of a few here that no amount of reasonable discussion is possible. Some are best left ignored and I’ll do so. While I still won’t let the bigoted comments slide, most of them don’t even need to be challenged anyway. They fall by their own absurdity.
Talk to you later.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What makes it all way too much is that there is never an attempt that I’ve seen in these posts of his to isolate people or groups.
Too funny.
You have nothing to say when your Barack Obama compares gay marriage to child marriage or incestuous marriage.
You don’t say a word when your gay community leaders state that it is normal and “common” among gay and lesbian people to have sex with underage children.
You don’t say anything when your fellow gays and lesbians state that it’s normal and “educational” for gay parents to dress children as sexual slaves and take them to a sex fair, and that to think otherwise is “close-minded”.
You also have nothing to say when your fellow gay and lesbian people scream that it’s “homophobic” to check if gay parents are abusing children when there are complaints to that effect.
And then, when you are asked to isolate yourself, you start screaming about how you won’t, how your pride keeps you from doing that, and how you won’t “bark on command”.
Fine. Everyone recognizes that it’s more important to you to have “gay unity” than it is to keep children from being raped and molested. Everyone realizes that you’re going to put PR for the gay community ahead of the well-being of others. We get that your sexual orientation is the dominating and controlling factor in your life, so important that you have stated that you will not and cannot consider any other issue when voting. Indeed, you want to strip people of their constitutional rights to vote on and determine the shape of their own constitution and laws because it might be inconvenient for your sexual orientation.
And then what makes it sadly ironic is that you wonder why voters keep rejecting you.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Meanwhile, and back to the whole point of this post: every single one of the examples I provided was the gay community itself talking about its sexual conduct in public.
The inanity of Link’s original post is that he is demanding that heterosexuals keep behind bedroom doors that which the gay community is deliberately dragging OUT of the bedroom and attempting to publicize.
When Link responds with a post castigating those who lead the gay community and who are openly stating, for example, that it is common for gay and lesbian people to have sex with underage children, then he may have an argument. But until then, he is attacking heterosexuals for simply repeating what the gay community is bragging about doing.
This is indicative of a far greater problem in the gay and lesbian community; namely, that, because of its minority status, it has been infantilized to believe that it is not capable of policing itself, and indeed, that anyone who suggests that it should is somehow anti-minority.
posted by Debrah on
“The inanity of Link’s original post is that he is demanding that heterosexuals keep behind bedroom doors that which the gay community is deliberately dragging OUT of the bedroom and attempting to publicize.”
****************************************************
David’s post is, indeed, inane…..given what is allowed from a few gay male commenters on these fora.
It’s almost a creepy vibe I get when seeing the low-class ad hominems about the female body left up and no one was bothered by it.
Where do these sleazy gay men come from? Do their sisters and their mothers allow this type of trash talk? These slimy little men wouldn’t even be on the planet if their mothers didn’t have a “vagina” and the other female “equipment”.
What role on the planet do such eunuchs actually play?
The sad answer is—none at all!
This filth came from a gay male commenter the very first day I voiced an opinion. On that day, I never entertained the thought of having such an exchange; however, you learn fast around such people.
And I will give it right back to them with fervor.
Later when I left comments about “gay man ‘lovemaking’ “—if that’s what you want to call it—all of a sudden, some became bothered by that.
LOL!!!
To illustrate David’s embarrassing charade of “we can use low-class trashy language on other people—the HETEROS and WOMEN!” but if you dare put into words what we do and what we like (which is acted out in videos every day all over the internet and to which many “respectable” gay men sign up for) then all the crybabies come out of the woodwork.
This territorial and insular childishness is one reason the general population has the distinct impression they are dealing with psychologically and emotionally-arrested people.
The reason this post is so odious is that it shows the true nature and the true agenda of what you’re all about.
It illustrates the superfluousness and the comedy of making your sex lives the most prominent feature of your existence…….and then wonder why others discuss what takes place.
Your “gay man” agenda is so stale that you might have actually become malnourished off it…..consequently, unable to comprehend the hilarity of these double standards.
Perhaps you are so wedded to this insularity that you literally cannot see beyond your own eerie one-trick-pony show.
There is no barrier to what any of you are able to do in society. Your lives take on the patina you choose…..and so many choose to make their sexual orientation the most significant aspect of their existence.
We get it!
And we comment on that which you highlight about yourselves.
posted by Debrah on
I actually find “The Gay Species” to be a very interesting guy.
Intellectual and provocative.
Bobby as well as Throbert add much-needed authenticity and the ability to be objective and engage outside their self-identified box. Everyone enjoys talking to people like that.
NDT is so strong and so honest that he scares the hell out of other gay bloggers. It’s strange to me that anyone could doubt he’s gay simply because he has higher standards for himself.
Lori Heine was funny even when she attacked me. Not once were her remarks (in response to comments she erroneously assumed were aimed at her) dirty and not once did they conjure up details of body parts about a stranger on the internet…..the way a few gay men on this blog do.
That’s why it was easy to move on and not become exercised over the misunderstanding. Even in her attack, she didn’t talk about the invented notion of the t!ts and the “vag” of a total stranger the way a few gay men on this blog do.
Gay male affirmative action is alive and well here.
Poor “Dragon Scorpion” said on a previous thread that he wasn’t going to take the time to argue, but coming back here I see that he’s spent a good part of the last few days doing just that!
David applied gay male affirmative action on a previous thread and erased comments that were too illustrative of my points for gay males to take……but just look how they rattle on and on and on and on and on…….
“Dragon Scorpion” came back on a previous thread and wondering about something I had said, but couldn’t find it?
That’s because it was erased.
“Dragon Scorpion” and the sleazy semi-literate commenter on that thread looked a lot better as a result. This type of gay male affirmative action is designed to neuter opposing opinions that are too strong.
“Dragon Scorpion” has tried in every almost-subtle way to get Lori Heine to turn after an “apology”. Some of these men can’t stand anything outside their insular box.
It might interest them to know that I had an exchange with a lesbian couple at a holiday event recently and they, too, are tired of the glorification and the anal-sex-grotesquerie of gay men.
Not every gay person designs their sole identity off their sexual orientation. I know most of you say that you are well-aware of that fact, but your actions are quite the contrary.
As always, I say……do as you wish…….and the rest of us will offer commentary just as we do about all other aspects of the human existence.
For your viewing pleasure, I know you guys will enjoy a little belated holiday fare like this one: http://www.youtube.com/user/guicholos
Not even Santa can escape the “gay man” parade!
posted by Debrah on
TO Robert Sebastian–
I just want to make it clear that in my response to you last week, I was being sarcastic.
Later, I decided to allow the ambiguity and let things just slide…..instead of offering you a nice towel to wipe behind your ears.
It’s obvious that you have little experience in this arena and simply need to read more and spend some time involving yourself with the realities of some of these issues.
Then you won’t go soft and church lady-esque on everyone when crocodile tears are displayed by weepy men here……even as they wallow in the most disgusting misogyny at the same time.
Most male heterosexual men run from discussing the gay male agenda.
They are either like Robert Sebastian and are ignorant of it or are afraid of being perceived un-PC.
Or they are homophobic and think by getting close to the gay male community, their own masculinity will be threatened.
These types of insecurities keep the double standards from gay men alive. They don’t have to come up to any standard at all and simply ride on the “minority” ticket to “victimhood”.
I find this situation most disgusting in the 21st century.
Your “victimhood” is a farce and when you actually do get negative feedback, it’s because of your own obnoxious double standards and fixations.
***************************************
“I would never discuss intimate acts with my gay or straight friends as this is, in my opinion the height of privacy and the core of intimacy.”—Robert Sebastian
***************************************
You think you might be able to get that across to those who have no problem with that “core of intimacy” being invaded unless it’s presented inside the realm of reality?
You sound like me until I was recently initiated into what is rather than what seems.
You are very special, Robert.
You know that, don’t you?
Don’t ever change.
:>)—Diva Debrah
******************************************
******************************************
posted by David on
Deb opens her virtual sasshole and look at all the nuggets that fall out.
What color is the sky in your world?
You make ad hominem attacks, yet complain others are doing the same.
I won’t bother addressing all the other obnoxious qualities of your posts.
I have just two things to add.
You totally over use the word fora and leggings are not pants (the fug girls would have a field day with you).
Make that three- Just because my name is DAVID and I have a “link” (URL) does not make me David Link…asshat.
posted by Bobby on
NDT wrote:
“Meanwhile, and back to the whole point of this post: every single one of the examples I provided was the gay community itself talking about its sexual conduct in public.”
—-Are all Christians terrorists just becase a tiny minority of them enjoys bombing abortion clinics and shooting abortion doctors? You focus on the exceptions, not the rule. The story about the two pedophiles in England that pretended to be a gay couple to adopt children is not the rule in our community.
The Folsom Street Fair is the same thing, not everyone is naked, not everyone is playing with their penises, only a tiny minority of the people are doing weird things while everyone else simply looks.
It’s just like gay pride parades, everyone takes pictures of the drag queens but nobody shoots PFLAG.
Our community is not as depraved as you try to make them look.
posted by Debrah on
In his zest and zeal to respond, David must not have read very closely.
It was not I who called you “Link”.
I merely left the quotation from another commenter.
I didn’t use the word “leggings” in anything I said.
Reading what someone wrote before commenting can be a very helpful move.
Lastly, I will use the word “fora” instead of “forums”, or anything else, because I like it.
What’s up with this eerie dictator-esque behavior?
Is “fora” too female hetero?
Is that what you’re now telling us? LIS!
(I will add, however, that if you want to direct traffic around here, you could school one of your fans about the difference between single and double quotes.
We all slip up in haste and forget to use only single quotation marks inside a general quote; however, a few err with such frequency that this cannot be an accident.)
Carry on…….
posted by Jimmy on
“Our community is not as depraved as you try to make them look.”
– That is a fair and sensible statement, Bobby. If a bigot fails to paint all the members of the targeted group with the same brush, he gets his bigot card revoked.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Are all Christians terrorists just becase a tiny minority of them enjoys bombing abortion clinics and shooting abortion doctors?
Key difference, Bobby; that tiny minority is called out and condemned by the overwhelming majority of the pro-life movement itself.
Leading anti-abortion groups condemned Sunday’s shooting, emphasizing they wanted to shut down Tiller’s practice by legal means.
Operation Rescue, which has led numerous demonstrations at Tiller’s clinic, called the shooting as a “cowardly act.” And the National Right to Life Committee, the largest U.S. anti-abortion group, said it “unequivocally condemns any such acts of violence regardless of motivation.”
“The pro-life movement works to protect the right to life and increase respect for human life,” it said. “The unlawful use of violence is directly contrary to that goal.”
In contrast, if the pro-life movement functioned like the gay community, it would a) blame other people for discussing such vulgar private behavior and whine about how it should be kept behind closed doors, and b) get all huffy about being told to “bark on command”.
posted by David on
Debrah | December 28, 2009, 1:56pm | #
In his zest and zeal to respond, David must not have read very closely.
It was not I who called you “Link”.
Debrah | December 23, 2009, 11:38am | #
“I very much doubt it was taken down by IGF due to your “illumination”, more likely the advertiser was not getting much traffic.”
**********************************
David, I won’t exercise more verbal gymnastics with you on this, as it is not terribly significant….but for what transpired later.
BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH
David, if you didn’t like the misogyny and the gross inventions by the seemingly uneducated commenter here who uses such embarrassing tactics as debating tools, you wouldn’t have left them up.
HMMMMM, you kinda like to lie don’t you.
Who edits the posts? The author, DRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.
You get the WTF award this week for being full of shiznit.
posted by Bobby on
“That is a fair and sensible statement, Bobby. If a bigot fails to paint all the members of the targeted group with the same brush, he gets his bigot card revoked.”
—Well thanks Jimmy, I try to be fair and balanced just like my hero O’reilly.
“Key difference, Bobby; that tiny minority is called out and condemned by the overwhelming majority of the pro-life movement itself.”
—The media rarely listens to the condemnation when it comes from the pro-life side. After the death of Dr. Tiller, a man who performed partial-birth abortions and didn’t report statutory rape to the police, the media was very hard on the pro-life camp.
“In contrast, if the pro-life movement functioned like the gay community, it would a) blame other people for discussing such vulgar private behavior and whine about how it should be kept behind closed doors, and b) get all huffy about being told to “bark on command”.”
—Hmm, that’s an interesting statement, but here’s the difference. Gays distinguish between gays and pedophiles, that’s why gay organizations rarely condemn pedophilia since gays really aren’t into that. We also hate pedophiles who pretend to be a gay couple to adopt children.
Moreover, when gay activists speak their words are often used against them, so condemming anything in the gay community may not have the positive PR effects you’d expect, it might actually make us seem complicit.
It’s the same reason jewish organization didn’t go around condemming Bernie Maddoff even though a lot of jews are ashamed of him. But to condemn him publicly would be the equivalent of admiting collective guilt for the actions of one individual.
So like most minority groups, we attack our enemies in public and discuss our flaws in private.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It’s the same reason jewish organization didn’t go around condemming Bernie Maddoff even though a lot of jews are ashamed of him. But to condemn him publicly would be the equivalent of admiting collective guilt for the actions of one individual.
Not quite. Bernie Madoff did not go around saying that his behavior was normal and “common” among Jewish people, nor did he try to argue that people who opposed what he did and criticized him were “anti-Jewish”.
The problem is in using minority status to rationalize behavior.
The media rarely listens to the condemnation when it comes from the pro-life side. After the death of Dr. Tiller, a man who performed partial-birth abortions and didn’t report statutory rape to the police, the media was very hard on the pro-life camp.
Be that as it may, Bobby, the point is in making it clear that the behavior is wrong and is not tolerated. The media will choose to report on that as they see fit, but one should never be afraid to make a statement condemning a behavior as clear-cut in regard to right and wrong as that was because of how the media and others “might” spin it.
posted by DragonScorpion on
I can just hear the violins now… ‘Why do the gays hate the little children so much!?!?!?!?!’ You should try that at the conservative heterosexual sites, you’ll get all kinds of consensus on how evil the ‘queerosexuals’ are. They respond to dog whistles all too effectively. You could even be more subtle about it and still get far better results than you do here.
Now there is more of that over-valued sense of self, again. So now you speak for EVERYONE. Not that this is surprising, you have long been claiming that the entire homosexual community supports this and opposes that. It’s appallingly arrogant.
âWeâ? What, do you have a mouse in your pocket?
Nope, it isn’t my sexual orientation that is the âdominating and controlling factorâ in my life, but seeing to it that my rights, my partner’s rights and the rights of people in my community are protected, is pretty damn high on the list. Unlike you.
You don’t care about such things as rights, you don’t mind your heterosexual masters keeping you in a second-class status. You’ll support them no matter what they do. It turns out that propagating conservative ideology trumps even trying to get your government to treat you and those in your community like a human being and full-fledged citizen. It’s really sad. But, its YOUR mistake, for YOU to live with.
A talking-point straight out of the anti-equality, homophobic camp. The agenda being: to use a tyranny of the majority to keep homosexuals as second-class citizens. You promote popular sovereignty, just like I’ve been saying for… Since we first locked horns a week or so ago.
It’s fascinating how you always make everything so personal. If some guy rapes a child somewhere. That’s MY fault. If some guy takes a shit in the street. That’s MY fault. If some person or group claims homophobia for being held accountable, that’s MY fault, too. If a court does its duty and rules an unconstitutional law unconstitutional, that’s MY fault also. How dare I! And if voters vote away the established rights of homosexuals, they are voting against ME personally.
And it isn’t just me that you target, it’s each of us here, and all of us out there. ALL of us. All ‘the gay’. Except you, apparently, the supposed homosexual who despises all homosexuals except himself.
Again, sometimes example is the best way to get a point across. Some of your logic in action:
The fact that your precious âanti-gay partyâ votes so consistently against the interests of homosexuals and same-sex couples is why most of our community rejects YOU.
What is ironic, is that you’re too mindlessly loyal and disconnected from reality to see any of this. You keep inventing lunatic conspiracy theories â that most homosexuals in the U.S. don’t actually support or care about equality, civil rights, etc., instead, it’s all a âsmokescreenâ. We’re all just âbigotsâ to the Republican party which has been oh-so-good to us over the years…
And try as you might with your hateful rants and belligerent insults to anyone who doesn’t bark on command and toe the party line, you just turn more and more people against YOU and YOUR âanti-gayâ party.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Oh look, Debrah, the hate-breeding sock puppet is back… Here to give moral support to her comrade in arms, ND30.
It’s interesting for how ‘disgusted’ she feigns herself to be, she seems to take a voyeuristic interest in perusing gay porn sites, you tube and whatever else she can find to help make her case of the total amoral hedonism of the entire homosexual population. And, of course, ND30 does his part. A real dynamic duo, they are…
Interesting. So that’s what happened… That makes more sense now, with the comment you made.
I don’t know what you wrote and frankly, I don’t care. I’m sure it was lewd, crude and hateful. But I strongly oppose censorship and I doubt very seriously, no matter how tacky and insulting it may have been, that it merited deletion.
I don’t think the moderators here should be doing that sort of thing. Deleting spam is one thing, but I firmly believe that comments which are at least an attempt to express a point (no matter how asinine) which is at least somewhat on topic should be allowed to be viewed and weighed by its merit alone. And considering the source, I’m sure it would have been found wanting.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Correction. The article is pointing out that heterosexuals should keep the sex lives of homosexuals behind closed doors to the same extent that they do the sex lives of heterosexuals.
The fact that some homosexuals insist on being very public or even militant about sexuality, is not a legitimate justification for heterosexuals to treat all homosexuals as if their sex lives should be up for public debate.
Correction. The article is criticizing social conservatives who insist upon reducing us, our community, and our efforts to win legal protections and recognition to nothing more than sex acts. This, as well as their evoking the most graphic imagery they can invent to marginalize us. They are also judging all of us by the actions of some, and denying first-class citizenship to us based on delusions about what imagined harm ‘might’ come were we to be legally equal in status to them.
Furthermore, it is a lie that the âgay communityâ is bragging about it being common for homosexuals to have sex with âunderage childrenâ. There are several members here from the gay community. I haven’t seen anyone brag about this yet… Anyone want to brag? Anyone had sex with kids lately? It’s anonymous… Any takers? I’m sure if any of us didn’t really see a problem with it we’d be willing to say so… Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
It’s peculiar that other groups of minorities were not; are not âinfantilizedâ â due to their minority status â to believe that they cannot police themselves. There must be something inherently wrong with homosexuals… Perhaps someone can elaborate on that.
I think one would find that people are much more effective at policing themselves when they are offered constructive criticism, and are not dehumanized, condescended to, and politically marginalized.
And yet I note that most here are not doing that. But that’s okay, we can all atone for the sins of those who do. That’s fair and all.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Nope, it isn’t my sexual orientation that is the âdominating and controlling factorâ in my life, but seeing to it that my rights, my partner’s rights and the rights of people in my community are protected, is pretty damn high on the list.
You mean your entitlements.
White males under the age of 40 do not have employment protections against discrimination, despite their being citizens.
Heterosexuals do not have crimes against them automatically designated as “hate crimes” and given penalty enhancements, or have the right to claim that criticism of them constitutes “hate speech”, or to force business owners to serve them despite said business owners’ objections, despite their being citizens.
And no heterosexual has the “right” to marry anyone to which they are attracted sexually; they must all abide by the guidelines that are clearly set out in the laws established by voters and their representatives, regardless of how much they “love” the person they want to marry, despite their being citizens.
Do you call them “second-class citizens”?
Meanwhile, given that the leaders of the gay community and its national organizations openly support and endorse bans on gay marriage without being called “traitors” and banished from the community, it is immediately obvious that the gay community doesn’t really support or care about “equality”, “civil rights”, etc.
posted by Debrah on
Bravo, David!
For your (3:00 PM) comment.
I knew that my softball segue would give you some kind of a comeback.
You see how kind I can be?
Knowing that you really only have petty retorts in your stash on this particular post, I deliberately stated that: “We all slip up in haste and forget to use only single quotation marks inside a general quote…..”….
The “we all” includes myself……knowing that I had done it on this thread with that word.
I think I did it once long as well, but corrected myself.
Some here have a strange pattern of making the error their norm.
Using them correctly is something to aim for; however, you, like a few others here, seem tethered to a silly pattern of retorts for lack of substance.
I think for most of us, this faux pas does not derive from ignorance.
Just haste and not taking time to proofread.
You see how kind I have been to you, David?
You actually were able to dream up a response—goofy as it was.
LIS!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The fact that some homosexuals insist on being very public or even militant about sexuality, is not a legitimate justification for heterosexuals to treat all homosexuals as if their sex lives should be up for public debate.
Unfortunately for that argument, those homosexuals have made it clear that gay and lesbian sexuality IS a matter for public debate. Why should heterosexuals not be allowed to discuss or point it out when gay and lesbian people are clearly promoting it and pushing it publicly?
Also, since the Obama Party and Barack Obama have made it clear that heterosexual practices carried out in private, even to the point of being sealed by court order, are fit for public debate, I fail to see why the gay and lesbian community that supports and endorses Barack Obama should somehow be exempt from the rule that their own party and their own leader created.
Furthermore, it is a lie that the âgay communityâ is bragging about it being common for homosexuals to have sex with âunderage childrenâ.
Nope.
Raising the age of consent is a veiled attempt to assert conservative moral values on youth, queer and youth-led groups told Senators today……
The proposed changes will have a disproportionate impact on gays, said Richard Hudler of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario.
“My first lover was 17 years older than me. And this is common [among gay people],” he said.
Next:
It’s peculiar that other groups of minorities were not; are not âinfantilizedâ â due to their minority status â to believe that they cannot police themselves.
Oh, large swaths have been — witness Regan DuCasse, for example, who tried to argue that the murder and rape of a neglected black gay teenager by a gay black parolee who his family had let stay in their house against all common sense was due to white peoples’ homophobia, or Barack Obama’s insistence that anyone who disagrees with him is a racist, or the rantings of Kwame Kilpatrick, endorsed by Barack Obama, that a black police officer should be “ashamed” to investigate crimes by a black person or even ride in a car with a man named White, or the entire collected works of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. But if one looks, there is ample evidence that a significant portion of minority status individuals are repelled by this degree of race-baiting and the use of race as an excuse for idiotic behavior, and are speaking out strongly against it.
The gay community? Um, no.
posted by David on
@ Deb-
I do believe this was written with people like you in mind. Smell you later.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Other than in the sense that I believe homosexuals should be âentitledâ to the same equal protection of the laws, no, actually, I mean rights. Being protected from unreasonable discrimination in housing and public accommodations, military service and marriage are not âentitlementsâ they are ârightsâ. See (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Presidential Executive Order 9981, SCOTUS Loving vs. Virginia 1967)
Currently, homosexuals are being denied employment for their sexual orientation alone. Homosexuals are being discharged from the military for having a same-sex partner. Same-sex couples are being denied access to civil marriage because their relationship isn’t heteronormative. Same-sex married couples {officially married in states that allow this} are being denied the same federal legal recognition, benefits and protections that opposite-sex married couples are given as per DOMA.
That’s because people under the age of 40 are rarely discriminated against due to their age in employment… There isn’t exactly an epidemic in this country of passing over 30-years-olds for 50-year-olds… Quite the opposite, in fact, which is why prohibitions against age discrimination was enacted in the first place.
I can imagine the reasoning might have been that to add younger people would have had an unintended consequence of younger people being chosen over older and justified as non-discrimination.
I believe that protecting people from unreasonable discrimination in regards to their age was the fair, just, and necessary thing to do. And ideally, it seems to me, that discriminating on the basis of age {for those who have reached the age of majority} should apply to all. Merit should be the deciding factor. Not how young, old, black, white, heterosexual or homosexual a person is.
By law, at least most employers, must rely on bona fide occupational qualifications to determine who they hire and fire. They cannot rely on arbitrary conditions like ‘I don’t like gay guys’, ‘hiring a black person will hurt my business’, ‘women can’t handle the stress of this job’, ‘older people are too technologically impaired to do this sort of work’, etc.
That’s why we have laws like the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Civil Rights Act, et al.You know, those âprogressiveâ laws protecting people from unfair and unnecessary discrimination which you seem to take such issue with..
Wrong. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and Matthew Sheppard Act of 2009 covers instances of violence motivated by the âactual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disabilityâ of the victim(s).
In case you hadn’t noticed, âheterosexualâ is a sexual orientation. While it is much more rare for heterosexuals to be the victims of hate-motivated violent crimes based on their orientation, it is possible and such crimes are covered by these Acts.
Outside of defamation of character, which is an entirely different matter, there is no legal prohibition of âhate speechâ in this country and courts continually strike down the policies of organizations or universities which attempt to do so on free speech grounds. And I agree with this. You need to find some new talking-points, those were discredited years ago.
posted by DragonScorpion on
HETEROSEXUALS are not DENIED what the U.S. Supreme Court referred to in 1967 case Loving v. Virginia as a âbasic civil rightâ based on the GENDER of their PARTNER. Homosexuals are.
If marriage is going to be denied to a couple, then the government needs to make a compelling case as to why. ‘Activist judges’, fortunately, determined that the racial mix of a couple was not an appropriate prerequisite, much to the disappointment of the bigots of the day. They should do the same in regards to the gender mix of couples, as well.
Now it’s time to start putting your ideology where your mouth is. If you know of a compelling argument as to why same-sex couples SHOULD not be allowed to marry and be granted the recognition and legal protections that marriage grants, then state your case. Don’t be a coward and try to distract from the key points of debate on the subject.
If they, as a class of people, are denied serving in the military, public accommodations, housing, marriage, adoption, employment, et al. on the basis of their sexual orientation, then yes, it would certainly be accurate to describe their legal status as second-class. And that should not be allowed in a society that respects egalitarian principles, which I believe ours should aspire to do, and which is in keeping with the Constitution.
The significant flaw in your false comparison here, is that heterosexuals are rarely discriminated against based on their sexual-orientation or the gender of their partner in the aforementioned examples. If there have been individual incidents of this then they should be able to take action on it and they’d have a legal basis to do so.
Ah yes, this makes about the dozenth time now that you’ve posted that inane blog post. Do you get paid every time you post this somewhere? I didn’t vote for Harold Ford, Jr. I’m not even in Tenn. Who did he run against? Bob Corker? Seems to me, in regards to homosexual issues, there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between them…
The problem, again, with this BS claim of yours is that it is simply not true. There may be a few such leaders and organizations who openly support and endorse bans on same-sex marriage, but the overwhelming majority do not. Most of those are in your camp… Which seems to bring you pride, and certainly no discomfort.
By the way, of all the issues that are typically important for the homosexual community, why do you fixate so much on what you often refer to derisively as âgay-sex marriageâ?
Why don’t you talk more about the many areas in which the Democratic party or individual Democrats have been very supportive of homosexuals? Why do you ignore the fact that it is overwhelmingly the members of your ‘anti-gay Republican party’ that works so passionately against the interests of homosexuals? Who are working to ensure marriage is permanently denied to us? Who ensure that we cannot serve openly in the military? Who ensure that we cannot adopt children? Who ensure that we can be discriminated against based solely on our sexual-orientation?
Why do you defend them so fervently?
posted by DragonScorpion on
Because these anti-homosexual persons and anti-homosexual organizations of which you speak âdiscussâ and âpoint it outâ in regards to all issues involving us, in any context, regardless which of us they’re referring to. Just like you do.
They demean and implicate ALL of us, based on the actions of some. They base their arguments around denying us legal recognition and equality based on some of the criminal or morally dubious behaviors of some in our community.
Just as Mr. Link pointed out, these persons and groups âexercise something close to voyeuristic exuberance in peppering discussion of gay civil rights with vulgar and extreme descriptions of sexual actsâ.
It’s unjust, unfair, unreasonable, and if you weren’t so devoid of a sense of ethics and fairness, you’d know that.
For the umpteenth time North Dallas Thirty cites his one example of the secret pedophilia inherent in all homosexuals:
It is hilarious that for being such a supposed consensus among âthe gay communityâ, you have to produce the exact same quote from the exact same website every time this subject comes up.
It’s also quite telling that you have to find out outside the United States…
Again, hard to fathom though it may be to someone as irrational as yourself, Richard Hudler, of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario is not âthe gay communityâ, he does not represent âthe gay communityâ, his views were never voted on by âthe gay communityâ, âthe gay communityâ did not approve his position, and he damn sure doesn’t represent me.
My contention that it is a LIE that the âgay communityâ is bragging about it being common for homosexuals to have sex with âunderage childrenâ still stands. Try again.
I wondered if you’d take the bait and claim that the black community is “infantilized” and not “capable of policing itself”. You did. But at least you only condemned “large swaths” of the black community. When it comes homosexuals, of course, we’re a monolith.
If you’re going to demand explanations as to all the oh-so-horrible things Mr. Obama or Al Sharpton or Mr. Kilpatrick have done and said, provide citations….. But don’t expect much support for the last two, I don’t have much respect for either one.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
HETEROSEXUALS are not DENIED what the U.S. Supreme Court referred to in 1967 case Loving v. Virginia as a âbasic civil rightâ based on the GENDER of their PARTNER.
Yes they are. Heterosexuals cannot marry someone of the same gender. Bisexuals are cannot marry someone of the same gender. Pansexuals, or whatever they’re calling themselves these days, cannot marry someone of the same gender. The law is applied equally and evenly across the board.
What you are insisting is that there is an unlimited “right” to marry that with which you want to have sex.
If you know of a compelling argument as to why same-sex couples SHOULD not be allowed to marry and be granted the recognition and legal protections that marriage grants, then state your case.
With pleasure. Homosexual couplings do not have the same potential impact to society in regards to offspring, inheritance, or property rights, and therefore need not have identical legal structures.
Infantile gays like yourself have fixated on the absence of marriage as a means of blame-shifting for your inability and unwillingness to confront the promiscuity and irresponsibility of the gay community and of obliquely carrying out your antireligious bigotry. Since you can’t act in a manner worthy of respect, you think you will use the law to force people to give it to you.
By the way, of all the issues that are typically important for the homosexual community, why do you fixate so much on what you often refer to derisively as âgay-sex marriageâ?
Mainly because it demonstrates nicely the hypocrisy of the gay and lesbian community, which rails against Republicans for “working to ensure marriage is permanently denied to us”, but then obediently supports and endorses the Obama Party when it supports gay marriage bans, calls gays “filthy”, discriminates against gays in employment, and files legal briefs defending DOMA (which it signed and advertised its signing) that compare gay-sex marriage to incestuous and child marriages, claiming that it’s necessary for “political expediency”.
posted by Lori Heine on
DragonScorpion, there are differences between you and NDT on gay marriage, but I think you may be missing what he’s saying.
He said that “homosexual couplings” need not have “identical legal structures.”
He did NOT say you ought to be given a pink triangle and assigned a bunk at Auschwitz.
Now, here is an example of a point with which I disagree with him (and NOT because I think you ought to go to Auschwitz, either).
I do not believe the government has any business sanctioning anything more for “couplings” — homo or hetero — than civil unions.
American citizens are at war with each other trying to figure out which Peter to rob to pay which Paul. Let us keep our money, I tell the state, and stop confiscating it from some, in higher taxes, to give to others in tax breaks.
That is theft. Plain and simple. My problem with gay marriage is that it would allow us to steal from them, too, thereby accomplishing nothing so much as to finish the process of turning the U.S. into a gigantic kleptocracy.
We’ve propped up the straights long enough, and what has it gotten us? A divorce rate of over fifty percent, that’s what. Then they want to shake their fingers in our faces and lecture us about how much more “real” their marriages are than ours.
Let ’em pay for their own “real” marriages. The gravy train needs to go off the tracks.
posted by Bobby on
You know North Dallas, I once asked a homophobic white supremacist if he had a choice between his daughter becoming a lesbian and marrying a white woman or staying straight and marrying a black man which one he would prefer? Not surprisingly, he told me he’d rather see his daughter marry a lesbian.
The fact is that all the arguments about same-sex marriage being unnatural can be used against interracial marriage. In fact, interracial marriage dillutes the race by creating what white-supremacists refer to as “half-breeds” and “mongrels.”
In countries like Venezuela there were so many interracial couplings that some white couples would end up having a black baby, they call that “un salto atras” or “a step backwards” which has no negative connotations btw.
So I think that if you can marry someone of a different race with no regards to anyone’s objections, the same should go for same-sex marriage.
“With pleasure. Homosexual couplings do not have the same potential impact to society in regards to offspring, inheritance, or property rights, and therefore need not have identical legal structures.”
—Really? If John inherits from Bill you don’t think he’s going to face a big tax bill since the law doesn’t consider John and Bill to be a family? And what about the children of gay couples, custody when a partner dies, hospital visitations? Powers of attorney can help but what if the hospital chooses to ignore them and consults the biological family instead?
And even gays who don’t have kids provide a very positive impact to society. Gays are more likely to have more money to mantain their homes perfectly, we’re really great at gentrifying neighborhoods, so much so that some people in the black community hate us when we buy homes there, fix them up and flip them for a profit. It is because of us that some slums ended up becoming trendy neighborhoods that drive out the poor.
Here are some statistics.
Research shows that gay consumers are…
Over twice as likely as national index to be professionals or managers
Average household income over $85.4K
Are 3.4 times more likely to have household income over $250K
The 2000 Census showed gay men and lesbians living with partners in 99.3 percent of all U.S. counties
Research shows 9 percent of urban populations are gay and lesbian
Twice as likely to have graduated from college
Gay men and lesbians go out more, buy more, have more disposable income and are extremely loyal consumers
Gay and lesbian consumers purchase from companies/brands that advertise in gay media, deliver product messages in gay-specific advertising, support gay and lesbian community causes and are good to their own gay and lesbian employees
Four times as likely to spend over $150 on long distance monthly
Twice as likely to spend $250 on cellular service
Over 90 percent took a domestic trip this year
60 percent took a foreign trip in the last three years
65 percent identify themselves as having to have the “latest”
68 percent upgrade to a product’s latest model
77 percent “believe in indulging in themselves”
57 percent “prefer to buy top of the line”
59 percent buy themselves whatever they want
http://www.mygayweb.com/info/advertising/
posted by DragonScorpion on
Heterosexuals would not and do not CHOOSE to marry someone of the same sex, unless they’re pulling some sort of scam, of course. Homosexuals would not CHOOSE to marry someone of the opposite sex, unless it were a scam or they were in denial about their sexuality. (Which sadly, has happened far too much)
And so, as I accurately stated before, âHETEROSEXUALS are not DENIED what the U.S. Supreme Court referred to in 1967 case Loving v. Virginia as a âbasic civil rightâ based on the GENDER of their PARTNER.â
Heterosexuals CAN marry the partners they would choose, based on their sexual-orientation, we cannot (except in 4 states at the moment) And as some states allow for same-sex marriage, and some do not, the law is DEFINITELY not applied evenly…
But let’s carry your logic forward, shall we? Prior to anti-miscegenation laws being overturned in 1967, interracial couples weren’t prevented from getting married, they just couldn’t marry someone of a different race. But they could still get married, they just had to chose someone of the same race. Using your rationale, the law was âapplied equally and evenly across the boardâ.
And so, further applying your logic, the Supreme Court never should have repealed those laws, and countless numbers of interracial couples would have been prevented from marriage. And how long might that racist, bigoted prohibition have continued? Alabama just repealed theirs back in 2000 â 33 years after the US Supreme Court overturned it nationwide.
Thank goodness that justice in this country isn’t entirely left in the hands of people like you!
posted by DragonScorpion on
No, actually I’m not. Just as I stated earlier when you brought up the child marriage and single marriage distractions. But prohibitions against what sorts of couples can marry need to be based on something other than the discomfort of bigots and religious interpretations.
To my question about making a âcompelling argument as to why same-sex couples SHOULD not be allowed to marry and be granted the recognition and legal protections that marriage grants.â
North Dallas Thirty answers:
Of course they do. Same-sex couples are every bit as capable of owning property, maintaining property, and passing property to other family members, including their children, as heterosexual couples do.
Speaking of which, same-sex couples have many options for procreating children, through surrogates, just as many infertile heterosexual couples do. And many same-sex couples elect to adopt children, rather than go the surrogate route, which is very beneficial to society to help ease the tragic reality that some 130,000 are eligible for adoption each year in this country. Many of these children get left behind and could really benefit by having a permanent home. Society should want to encourage more adoption, and for same-sex households to be more stable, not less.
Now while you’ve got your measuring stick out, what âpotential impactâ to society do you think an older couple, say a 95 and 83-year-old have on society â offspring, inheritance, property rights â that should render them eligible to an âidentical legal structureâ as younger, fertile, heterosexual couples?
An interesting sidebar here, we see, yet again, that judges are rejecting the procreation red-herring which anti-equality advocates are asserting.
Arguing against attorney Ted Olson (who is making a legal challenge to same-sex marriage prohibitions in California), attorney Charles Cooper attempted to argue that the government should be allowed to favor opposite-sex marriages in order âto channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions.â
âJudge Walker appeared puzzled. âThe last marriage that I performed,â the judge said, âinvolved a groom who was 95, and the bride was 83. I did not demand that they prove that they intended to engage in procreative activity. Now, was I missing something?â
Mr. Cooper said no.
…
Later in the argument, Mr. Olson added his own observation. âMy mother was married three years ago,â he said. âAnd she, at the time, was 87 and married someone who was the same age.ââ
Funny that, all the procreation and child-rearing issues are relevant when it comes to ‘the gay’. However, older couples & infertile couples get a free pass. Oh, but it isn’t discrimination, according to those pushing the anti-homosexual agenda. What blatant dishonesty and disregard for fairness.
posted by DragonScorpion on
I was wondering when religion would enter into this. I knew there had to be something other than your mindless loyalty to conservative ideology behind your rantings.
Archaic bigots like yourself are so slavish to your homophobic masters and your Old Testament view of the world that you put the needs of real human beings aside for the benefit of political ideologies and dogmas.
People can believe in whatever superstitions they want, but in a free society, no one should have to conform to them. Least of all via the government.
And if you bother too look at my blog, you’ll see that I do criticize promiscuity and irresponsibility among many in the homosexual community. But I don’t do so on demand to satisfy anti-homosexual bigots like yourself.
When asked why of all the issues that are typically important for the homosexual community, why he fixates so much on same-sex marriage.
North Dalls Thirty responds:
Just as a I thought, it’s because you’re a partisan hack who is just trying to score some political points. You fixate on same-sex marriage because it is the only area in which you can claim that Barack Obama and the Republican Party platform are the same in regards to homosexual issues.
In quoting me there you conveniently left out all the other things I mentioned which your beloved anti-gay ‘Bush/Cheney/McCain/Palin’ party supports: ‘that we cannot serve openly in the military ⦠we cannot adopt children … we can be discriminated against based solely on our sexual-orientationâ
And that’s just how you like it. The evil gay kept in its proper place to conform to conservative traditionalism and biblical standards.
This from the guy who hasn’t offered one SHREAD of respect to the homosexual community and those in it that most certainly do not deserve his sanctimonious scorn.
I think here you mean bow and scrape? To the likes of you and your ilk? No thanks. Serving the homophobes is your chosen endeavor… Not mine. Nope, we’ll use the law, reason, activism, protests, just like every other persecuted minority before us. And like them, we will win equality without conformist drones like yourself.
posted by DragonScorpion on
~âthere are differences between you and NDT on gay marriage, but I think you may be missing what he’s saying.â ~ Lori Heine
No, I think I caught it. In the bulk of his comments, if you omit his supposed sexual-orientation and read them for their content alone, he is leading the reader to the conclusion that homosexuals are morally bankrupt and that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships and therefore we don’t need the same recognition, access, rights, and protections that marriage affords heterosexual couples. I couldn’t disagree more with such sentiments.
And make no mistake, his view has nothing to do with libertarian principles, it’s just good old fashioned social conservatism. To him, the gays do not deserve the same legal and societal recognition of heterosexuals.
~âI do not believe the government has any business sanctioning anything more for “couplings” — homo or hetero — than civil unions. â ~ Lori Heine
I agree with that. I think…
Though I’m sure I’ll be accused by the lying bigot of trying to âdestroy marriageâ, I would personally like to see âmarriageâ become a religious ceremony, with no legal benefits or protections whatsoever. âCivil unionsâ would become what civil âmarriageâ is today â certain benefits, certain protections, recognized by the state, and the state cannot discriminate based on what some theocrat’s interpretation of religion is.
The problem with all this is, it’s not very realistic. Few are ever going to go for such a thing in our lifetimes. And in the meantime, I do not believe that we should settle for separate but equal.
~âMy problem with gay marriage is that it would allow us to steal from them, too, thereby accomplishing nothing so much as to finish the process of turning the U.S. into a gigantic kleptocracy.â ~ Lori Heine
Now that’s a new one on me, legal protections and tax breaks for married couples is part a process to turn the U.S. into a kleptocracy…?
Of course, I’m a social libertarian, not a fiscal one, so I’m sure you and I will never see eye to eye on that one.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No, actually I’m not. Just as I stated earlier when you brought up the child marriage and single marriage distractions.
Yes, actually you are.
Heterosexuals CAN marry the partners they would choose, based on their sexual-orientation, we cannot
If your sexual attractions had nothing to do with it, this wouldn’t be a problem. But they do. You are demanding the “right” to marry that to which you are sexually attracted.
And that’s what makes this particularly funny.
Archaic bigots like yourself are so slavish to your homophobic masters and your Old Testament view of the world that you put the needs of real human beings aside for the benefit of political ideologies and dogmas.
And of course, you support child marriage, incestuous marriage, bestial marriage, and plural marriage, because banning them would be “putting the needs of real human beings aside for the benefit of political ideologies and dogmas”.
Because of course, you’re not going to strip people of the “basic civil right” of marriage because you don’t support what they do and who they do it with sexually. After all, you insist that peoples’ relationships don’t affect anyone but them, so you have no right to object to any of these simply because you don’t like it.
Adults are aware of the fact that we must sometimes give up the unlimited right to do whatever we want in order for there to be order in society. You simply haven’t gotten there yet. Heck, you won’t even condemn pedophilia by your fellow gay people unless you feel like doing it, because it’s more important to you that it not be done “on command”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But let’s carry your logic forward, shall we? Prior to anti-miscegenation laws being overturned in 1967, interracial couples weren’t prevented from getting married, they just couldn’t marry someone of a different race.
Ah yes, the old, “Let’s hijack a REAL civil rights movement” strategy of the gay community.
That one is shot down completely when one considers that “race” is an artificial construct that makes no biological sense whatsoever and which has multiple constitutional amendments addressing it, but gender? Oh, there’s DEFINITELY a difference there, right down to the chromosome level.
Which is probably why the same Supreme Court that rendered Loving turned down Baker v. Nelson scant years later for want of a Federal question.
Funny that, all the procreation and child-rearing issues are relevant when it comes to ‘the gay’. However, older couples & infertile couples get a free pass.
Ah, the hilarity.
I believe that protecting people from unreasonable discrimination in regards to their age was the fair, just, and necessary thing to do.
Furthermore, couples that are infertile are invariably biologically damaged in some fashion. Are you seriously stating that marriage should be denied to couples because of a birth defect that renders one of them unable to bear children?
Finally, what is the primary reason given for preventing incestuous marriage? Potential genetic damage to the offspring.
What seems logical here is that we give heterosexual couples the benefit of the doubt, for several reasons. However, there is no need for homosexual couples, because there is absolutely, positively, 100% no chance that they will ever produce offspring in the same fashion that the vast and overwhelming majority of heterosexual couples do.
Put bluntly, gay couples are dependent on heterosexuals to make children for them. THAT alone should show you the difference.
An interesting sidebar here, we see, yet again, that judges are rejecting the procreation red-herring which anti-equality advocates are asserting.
Actually, that would be one judge, who also says this:
Mr. Olsonâs problem, then, is that he may reach the Supreme Court too soon. Public support for same-sex marriage is gaining ground, particularly among younger people. But a majority of Americans remains opposed to the practice.
At the argument, Judge Walker seemed to share this concern. âArenât you just getting ahead of yourself by asserting this claim under the federal constitutional provisions?â the judge asked.
Why would the judge care about “getting ahead of yourself” — unless his bias was to try to help the case win?
Do you think a judge should be trying to advise one side of a legal case that he or she is deciding? How would you feel if you were in court, accused of a crime, and the judge was trying to give the prosecuting attorney advice on how to convict you?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And that’s just how you like it. The evil gay kept in its proper place to conform to conservative traditionalism and biblical standards.
Ah yes, the old “Poor me, I’m helpless because everyone discriminates against me” rant.
But what was it that was being touted above about gays?
Over twice as likely as national index to be professionals or managers
Average household income over $85.4K
Are 3.4 times more likely to have household income over $250K
Twice as likely to have graduated from college
Gay men and lesbians go out more, buy more, have more disposable income and are extremely loyal consumers
Four times as likely to spend over $150 on long distance monthly
Twice as likely to spend $250 on cellular service
Over 90 percent took a domestic trip this year
60 percent took a foreign trip in the last three years
So let’s see; despite being horribly discriminated against, unable to get jobs because of their sexual orientation, routinely stripped of their property and wealth, attacked, and helpless, gays somehow manage to have over one and a half times the median US income, are twice as likely to be college-educated, are twice as likely to be highly-compensated professionals or managers, and can afford to spend immense sums on luxuries.
Uh huh.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And that’s just how you like it. The evil gay kept in its proper place to conform to conservative traditionalism and biblical standards.
Yawn.
âI believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian ⦠itâs also a sacred union. You know, Godâs in the mix.â
Now what did you call that? Oh, right — “pro-gay”, “gay-supportive”, etc., etc. Not a nasty word about “traditionalism” or “biblical standards” to be found. Heck, you didn’t mind when the same person later compared gay marriage to incestuous and child marriages, which would give you an aneurysm anywhere else.
Again, I can’t really blame Republicans for not trying to be “nicer” to gays; first, it doesn’t make sense to them to dole out favors based on minority status instead of merit, and second, gays are irrationally attached to the Obama Party anyway, regardless of what said Obama Party does.
posted by Debrah on
“Put bluntly, gay couples are dependent on heterosexuals to make children for them. THAT alone should show you the difference.”
*******************************************
Oops!
Another vulgar truth that might have to be erased and hidden.
Moreover, “NDT’s” (9:04 PM) should be framed and displayed inside a gilded cage.
Such a complete dissection of this absurdity.
And yet, these “constantly craving” victims are soldiering on through their “darkest phase”.,,,,, (with apologies to K.D. Lang)
LOL!
posted by Bobby on
“So let’s see; despite being horribly discriminated against, unable to get jobs because of their sexual orientation, routinely stripped of their property and wealth, attacked, and helpless, gays somehow manage to have over one and a half times the median US income, are twice as likely to be college-educated, are twice as likely to be highly-compensated professionals or managers, and can afford to spend immense sums on luxuries.”
—That’s because there are sectors where gays are welcomed, such as marketing, entertainment, beauty, fashion, and even some corporations. However, I’ve seen horrible cases of discrimination agaisn’t gay electricians and others who do blue collar work.
Besides, statistics don’t represent everyone, I am a good example of that. Inspite of a college education, the gay-friendly ad industry and 5 years of experience, I’ve never been able to make more than $50,000 a year.
“Put bluntly, gay couples are dependent on heterosexuals to make children for them. THAT alone should show you the difference.”
—Gays can use surrogate mothers, lesbian can use sperm from gay donors if they wish.
Besides, don’t you care about overpopulation? One of the reasons the Chinese are softening their stance on gays is because they have finally realized that gays and lesbians are doing China a favor by not having children, they are a lot cheaper than paying for forced abortions other less responsible citizens have to undergo.
Not breeding IS a good thing. As a single man I’m tired of paying property taxes that benefit schools I don’t attend, and I’m tired of seeing people with kids get tax breaks I don’t get. If there was any justice in this world my property taxes would be half of what they are now.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
As a single man I’m tired of paying property taxes that benefit schools I don’t attend, and I’m tired of seeing people with kids get tax breaks I don’t get.
Let’s put it this way, Bobby; in 50 or so years when you don’t feel like climbing up on your roof to fix it, you’ll be glad those kids are around.
Parenting is a huge drain of time and resources for folks, and I don’t have any problem with providing them support and encouragement, even though it costs now; the dividends become obvious later.
As for schools, that’s a requirement of a modern democracy; either we limit voting to those who are educated, or we make an honest stab at educating everyone. But I for one do think we non-married, non-childraising folks should have a say in what exactly is going on with these things, especially since the Obama Party lunatics who run them now are cutting science classes because they think they overly benefit white people.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
American citizens are at war with each other trying to figure out which Peter to rob to pay which Paul. Let us keep our money, I tell the state, and stop confiscating it from some, in higher taxes, to give to others in tax breaks.
Yes and no, Lori.
There are plenty of things on which the government wastes money. But, as I said to Bobby above, parenting, while absolutely essential to the continuation of society and its ability to take care of itself, is expensive, both in terms of resources and time, and I have no problem with encouraging people to do it.
As it stands now, our tax structure, while creaky, already does what it fundamentally should from that perspective, which is to reward those heterosexual couples that marry and have kids. Indeed, through the magic of perverse incentive, we currently DISINCENT marriage among those who are older, since it significantly cuts into the potential Social Security benefits for people who both are eligible from work.
posted by Lori Heine on
“But, as I said to Bobby above, parenting, while absolutely essential to the continuation of society and its ability to take care of itself, is expensive, both in terms of resources and time, and I have no problem with encouraging people to do it.”
For most of human history,they did not NEED to be “encouraged,” by the government, to do it. It was simply what most people did. The human race perpetuated itself quite nicely without single people being expected to bear the burden of helping couples with children raise their kids.
It is fundamentally immoral for a majority of any sort to decide somebody died and made them God, and that they have the right to gang up electorally on any smaller group, essentially put a gun to their heads, and confiscate a portion of their earnings. It may be called taxation, but it is theft.
I understand your argument, NDT, but it is essentially yet another version of Hillary Clinton’s “It Takes a Village” line of thinking. I reject it regardless of whether it comes from the Left or from the Right. Statism has a funny way of coming around to the same point, from whichever direction it begins.
I can’t blame Bobby for wanting to be able to keep the money he works so hard to earn. And I don’t think the government should be in the business of rewarding some people’s choices and not others. When liberals do it, it’s called “social engineering.” When conservatives do it, it’s the same thing.
Statist philosophies are twins under the skin.
Tonight I finally had that argument with one of the friends with whom I spent Christmas. I couldn’t stand it anymore. She started talking about how the rich all want the poor to stay poor because they want to use them as “cannon fodder.” It was simply too much.
I asked her who died and made HER God, that it was her job to determine how rich was rich enough and how rich was too rich. I also asked her what ought to determine that decision — sheer numbers? That’s tyranny, no matter how you slice it. Tyranny of the majority was something the founders of this country warned us against.
I don’t think her reasoning is much different, though it was on a different subject. Statism always tries to justify itself in terms of raw numbers.
I had to ask my friend if she SERIOUSLY believed that she — at nearly sixty — and I, just over ten years younger than she, would be deliberately kept poor by the evil rich so they could use us for cannon fodder. Not surprisingly, she changed the subject.
We quite simply need to make the idiocy in this country stop — while we still have a country.
posted by DragonScorpion on
To my statement: âNo, actually I’m not. Just as I stated earlier when you brought up the child marriage and single marriage distractions.â
North Dallas Thirty claims: âYes, actually you are.â
No, actually, I’m not. Your serve.
Selfish… Is that how you see all civil rights movements, or just ours?
I am âdemandingâ the right for same-sex couples to be given legal parity with opposite-sex couples. And if you didn’t care so little about people being treated equally and fairly; if you didn’t have a moral issue with homosexuality, you’d agree. But then that’s what makes you, a supposed homosexual, particularly pathetic.
Ah, but I don’t. Children and animals cannot consent. I have concerns about polygamy because in the past it has been an archaic patriarchal system in which women tend to be abused, but unlike you I wouldn’t be supporting amendments to ban it. I used to know a non-religious, liberal-minded, heterosexual woman, an artist in fact, who was quite outspoken in favor of polyamory. But I have yet to see a compelling case in regards to incestuous relationships.
I’m still waiting for an explanation of the supposed harm that allowing same-sex marriage brings… Ah, but then you don’t have one. Just socially conservative prejudices against homosexuality and biblical interpretations about marriage. Funny thing about that, your bible has all kinds of polygamous marriages in it. Odd that I don’t see you taking up the torch for it…
No, I don’t. This is more of your deliberate LIES. Adults having sex with children most definitely has harmful affects on them and society. Same-sex relationships between adults does not harm anyone. Quit being a coward and explain just what it is about same-sex relationships that you find so offensive and harmful to society. Make your damn case already…
posted by DragonScorpion on
What does recognizing same-sex marriage have to do with an âunlimited right to do whatever we wantâ? Not a fucking thing. But you’re just a liar so you’ll twist and make things up to further your backward, anti-homosexual agenda.
Discrimination against interracial couples was wrong. Such relationships did not and do not harm society. Discrimination against same-sex couples is wrong. Such relationships did not and do not harm society. And you have yet to provide one iota of an argument to the contrary. Because you don’t have one. And you are no doubt well aware that hauling your bible out to back you up isn’t going to win your argument.
That’s because I have nothing to prove to you. I don’t give a rat’s ass what you think of me. And I’m damn sure not going to give a bigot like you who clearly hates homosexuals more ammunition to use against us. Obviously, due to your religious and socially conservative perceptions, you are disgusted at a perceived inherent immorality of same-sex relationships. You’re just too much of a coward to admit it, so you hide behind isolated incidents, specious logic, and deliberate mischaracterizations to make your arguments for you.
There’s that talking point again. Since the Supreme Court didn’t take up same-sex marriage once, it’s a done deal. Just as the Supreme Court refused to strike down sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), but then struck them down in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Clearly, not everything is set in stone.
That very case in particular illustrated a recognition of a right to privacy; for adults to have a right to choose who they want to have sexual relations with set a precedent, and this will be used in arguing against current bans on same-sex marriage.
But then I already provided all this information to you earlier. You just ignored it, like you do everything that contradicts your BS claims and specious arguments. So now here you are rehashing the same old tired talking-point from the homosexual hate camp.
posted by DragonScorpion on
A very inconvenient reality for bigots like yourself, isn’t it? The same sort of rationale used to deny us marriage today is that which was used against interracial couples, but you don’t like the comparison, because while its easy to bash on the gays, even a bigot like yourself knows that while a few might for some bizarre reason respect these bigoted notions of yours, likely no one here would stand for you to tear down interracial coupling.
~LOL~ Oh really! Race is most certainly NOT simply an artificial construct. Aside from varying degrees of physiological differences, you can see this in how certain diseases disproportionately effect certain racial minorities. In spite of this, it is also not a legitimate criteria for discrimination. Nor is gender. Nor is sexual orientation.
By the way, gender is addressed in the constitution. And discrimination based on gender is prohibited by multiple pieces of legally binding legislation which were legally enacted by the Congress and signed into law…
What were you even trying to suggest by all this? That it is constitutional to discriminate based on gender since it isn’t covered as comprehensively as race? Are you having to go so far as this just to rationalize why it is appropriate for the government to discriminate against couples based on their gender mix? Not that I’d be surprised, this coming from you, but that is daring.
To my statement pointing out the inconsistency of the anti-equality movement: âFunny that, all the procreation and child-rearing issues are relevant when it comes to ‘the gay’. However, older couples & infertile couples get a free pass.â
North Dallas Thirty replies: âAh, the hilarity.â
Ah, the inconsistency. You and your ilk oppose same-sex marriage on the grounds that same-sex couples are unable to procreate without surrogates, but yet this is no factor whatsoever when it comes to other {heterosexual} couples who cannot (or choose not) to procreate. Thus proving that the procreation excuse is a red-herring.
I notice you offer no explanation for your inconsistency. Typical.
Nope, I’m saying you and your ilk are hypocrites. You deny same-sex marriage on the basis of a lack of procreation, but yet you don’t deny this to infertile couples. It’s inconsistency. Unlike you, I wouldn’t deny marriage to couples who are infertile, same-sex, older, or who simply choose not to have children. You, however, apply the dubious procreation prerequisite only where it is convenient to push your anti-homosexual agenda.
Again I will ask you, why do you deny marriage to same-sex couples simply because they cannot bear children?
posted by DragonScorpion on
True. And compelling case, at that. In our relationships, however, such an outcome is not a factor. So you can’t use that as another of your flimsy excuses.
Why give them the benefit of the doubt? How do your rationalize such an inane thing from a legal perspective â give one group the benefit of the doubt, exclude another group?
And how, then, do you excuse and elderly couple who clearly are not going to be procreating together? Inconsistency…
All of your smoke and mirrors here is avoiding many very important issues, but one in particular is that many same-sex couples DO have children, either through surrogates or adoption or even through previous heterosexual marriages. Why deny these families the protections and legal benefits that heterosexual parented families are granted? Just sheer prejudice.
Someone like you would assume such an absurdity. A conspiracy theory that âprogressiveâ judges are all trying to ruin your bigoted, heteronormative system that you worship so much.
Actually, judges asking hypothetical questions like these are common in such cases. To help better determine things like the motivation for the case. Why do the parties involved feel the case has merit, why are they pursuing a case that may be quite weak. It’s a very common practice. But you’re too busy looking for conspiracy theories and avoiding the actual subject of the exchange. More smoke and mirrors. Typical.
This isn’t a criminal case, genius, try again.
Yes, yes, all gays are rich… And therefore you rationalize why it is appropriate to discriminate against us. You certainly seem to have a very strong vitriolic vendetta against us. I wonder what that stems from? Some sort of extreme cognitive dissonance over possessing physical attractions that are ‘immoral’, ‘ungodly’, ‘non-traditional’ and all that…? Uh huh. I think so.
And nice attempt to avoid the point, too. Predictable.
posted by DragonScorpion on
To my remark: âAnd that’s just how you like it. The evil gay kept in its proper place to conform to conservative traditionalism and biblical standards.â
North Dallas Thirty responds with a: âYawn.â
I’ll take that as a nod of agreement.
Nope, I call this supportive:
âWe must be careful to keep our eyes on the prize–equal rights for every American. We must continue to fight for the Employment Non Discrimination Act. We must expand hate crime legislation and be vigilant about how these laws are enforced–.continue to expand adoption rights to make them consistent –and we must repeal the âDonât ask, donât tellâ military policy.â ~ Barack Obama
âI opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying. â ~ Barack Obama
“When it comes to federal rights — the over 1,100 rights that right now are not being given to same-sex couples. I think thatâs unacceptable, and as presidentâ¦Iâm going to fight hard to make sure those rights are available.” ~ Barack Obama
“It is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided…and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history.” ~ Barack Obama
You don’t hear that kind of stuff from old McCain, or very many Republicans… In fact, I can’t think of one.
There is no getting around it, no matter how hard you try. Your anti-gay Republican party is actively working against us. Has been for a very long time now. A vote that party, generally-speaking, is a vote against homosexual equality, period.
What little support and progress we’re making is coming from Democrats. And as I have stated repeatedly now, I will support those candidates who are most viable and most with us, not those who are against us. That counts you and your ilk out.
Of course you can’t, conveniently. It’s all our fault that they, and you, hate us so much. Nice cop out. But you bring up one good point, the Republican party has rarely been one for âdoling out favorsâ based on minority status, other than their favorite minority â the rich.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Oh, the ultimate hypocritical lie! If you did, then you’d support same-sex marriage to help provide the support and encouragement that same-sex parents need… The dividends would become obvious later. But your prejudice and your warped ideologies get in the way.
Another inconsistency; another lie. If you did truly encourage people to engage in parenting, then you’d be encouraging same-sex parents, not insulting them, marginalizing their significance, and certainly not advocating for restricting access to the very sort of benefits they need. Shameful.
By the way, ND30, I’ve been meaning to ask, which technique do you prefer for eliminating the ‘homosexual problem’: reparative therapy, the reorientation therapy of Richard Cohen, or gas chambers? Or do you go for something a bit less invasive, like a good old fashioned closet of shame?
posted by DragonScorpion on
~âIt is fundamentally immoral for a majority of any sort to decide somebody died and made them God, and that they have the right to gang up electorally on any smaller group, essentially put a gun to their heads, and confiscate a portion of their earnings. It may be called taxation, but it is theft.â ~ Lori Heine
Then you must be really worked up over what ND30’s band of homophobes have been doing to us…?
posted by Lori Heine on
“Then you must be really worked up over what ND30’s band of homophobes have been doing to us…?”
I don’t think they’re ND30’s band of homophobes. I don’t choose to get into the middle of your fight with him. I get myself in quite enough trouble by getting into my own fights, and lately I’ve been enjoying the relative peace.
I don’t approve of the government being used, by a numerical majority, to infringe on the freedoms of others by force or fraud. This is true regardless of whether it’s being done by homophobes or by anybody else.
posted by Bobby on
“Let’s put it this way, Bobby; in 50 or so years when you don’t feel like climbing up on your roof to fix it, you’ll be glad those kids are around.”
—Please NDT, this isn’t one of those sci-fi films when suddeenly nobody can get pregnant and everyone starts getting old.
“Parenting is a huge drain of time and resources for folks, and I don’t have any problem with providing them support and encouragement, even though it costs now; the dividends become obvious later.”
—Read Freakanomics and you’ll see that more abortions equals less crime. Parenting is a choice, I agree with Lori’s points about statism, in a free society you should have to pay for your own choices and not demand help from the government. Breeding is not a virtue, assuming you live in Dallas I’m sure you’ve deal with an increasing traffic problem.
“As for schools, that’s a requirement of a modern democracy; either we limit voting to those who are educated, or we make an honest stab at educating everyone.”
—Considering that a lot of educated college students voted for Obama I don’t think it matters if people are educated or not when it comes to voting.
“But I for one do think we non-married, non-childraising folks should have a say in what exactly is going on with these things, especially since the Obama Party lunatics who run them now are cutting science classes because they think they overly benefit white people.”
—The Obama administration is actually cutting something? I’m shocked, I thought wasting money was their fetish. Well, I can’t believe i’m saying this but kudos to Obama.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And if you didn’t care so little about people being treated equally and fairly; if you didn’t have a moral issue with homosexuality, you’d agree.
And, I suppose, if I didn’t care so little about people being treated “equally and fairly”; if I didn’t have a “moral issue” with pedophilia, bestiality, child marriage, incestuous marriage, and plural marriages, I’d agree with those, too.
Next:
Adults having sex with children most definitely has harmful affects on them and society.
Which is, of course, why the gay community demands that five-year-old children be taught gay sex in schools, argues that sex with children is normal and “common” in the gay community, and screams “homophobe” when anyone dares investigate complaints of gay couples having sex with children.
And your response when confronted with that?
And I’m damn sure not going to give a bigot like you who clearly hates homosexuals more ammunition to use against us.
Thank you for that clear outline of your priorities. Even though you claim to think that adults having sex with children is harmful to them and society, it is more important to you to avoid what you think is negative PR for the gay community.
You clearly demonstrate the infantilized mindset of the gay and lesbian community. You are incapable of even condemning one of the most basic and visceral crimes out there because of your childish fears that doing so makes you look bad.
What kind of a community encourages this behavior? I think we know the answer to that; the kind that answers any sort of criticism with this.
By the way, ND30, I’ve been meaning to ask, which technique do you prefer for eliminating the ‘homosexual problem’: reparative therapy, the reorientation therapy of Richard Cohen, or gas chambers? Or do you go for something a bit less invasive, like a good old fashioned closet of shame?
So let’s see; first you tried to deny I was gay, then you tried to claim I was a self-hating gay, and now you’re claiming I want to eliminate all gay people. Instead of actually dealing with the promiscuous, irresponsible, and criminal behavior you claim to oppose, you attack the people who pointed it out.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oh, the ultimate hypocritical lie! If you did, then you’d support same-sex marriage to help provide the support and encouragement that same-sex parents need.
Nope.
If we fixed the problem with heterosexual parenting, you’d eliminate 99.9% of same-sex parenting — because there wouldn’t be any babies left to be adopted or fostered off.
Wouldn’t you agree that it would be better for society to avoid having the need for kids to be adopted or fostered off in the first place? Or is your concern for children only so that you can “adopt” one of them and use it to whine for how you need “marriage” as you dress it as a sex slave and take it to sex fairs to show off for your friends?
And the remaining 0.01% that want to figure out ways to rig the game to get around the fact that they’re incapable of doing something that even the lowliest heterosexual couple can do naturally don’t need any sort of subsidy or encouragement.
posted by Bobby on
“If we fixed the problem with heterosexual parenting, you’d eliminate 99.9% of same-sex parenting — because there wouldn’t be any babies left to be adopted or fostered off. ”
—Not all kids are wanted, most people want to adopt babies, specially white babies. Teenagers are rarely adopted. Even Bill O’Reilly has gone on the record supporting gay adoption after realizing that gays adopt the kids nobody wants, including those with special needs.
“Which is, of course, why the gay community demands that five-year-old children be taught gay sex in schools, ”
—Where’s the sex in Heather has two mommies, King and King, and It Takes a Family? GLESN doesn’t demand gay sex books, just gay tolerance materials. Only South Park’s Mr. Garisson was teaching kindergarteners how to put on a condom with your mouth, and he’s a fictional character!
posted by DragonScorpion on
There you go again, equating things that don’t compare again. So explain, in your oh-so-non-homophobic mentality, just what it is you find so immoral about homosexuality…
Don’t be a coward. State what you really feel. Which biblical passage is motivating you? Genesis chapters 18 and 19; Leviticus 18 and 20; Romans 1:26-27?
There’s that lie again. Correction, the âgay communityâ does not âdemandâ that five-year-old children be âtaught gay sex in schoolsâ. The âgay communityâ does not argue that âsex with children is normal and commonâ among us.
As for investigating complaints of same-sex couples for having sex with children, I don’t know who is arguing against such things (and I don’t need you to repost some blog comment someone made somewhere suggesting such a thing), but as long as such investigations are fair and motivated by reasonable complaints rather than mere prejudices like ‘they’re gay, I’ll bet their having sex with those kids’, then I’m sure most of us, myself included, wouldn’t have any problem with such investigations at all.
What is a legitimate concern is that such investigations would be no more automatic for us than they are for opposite-sex adoption.
I know you don’t answer most of my questions but I try anyways. Why do you hate homosexuals so much? Is it just because more of us don’t vote for your anti-gay Republican party, or is it because you just think people who have sex with members of the same sex is gross? Inquiring minds want to know!
posted by DragonScorpion on
There you go again. Condemning sex with children to pacify you here is not going to save one child from being abused. It is not going to further convince those of us here who already know that such things are clearly wrong.
What it would do is give some miserable, homophobic bigot like yourself satisfaction and more propaganda to further your gay-hating agenda. I’m not playing along no matter how you spin it, twist it, insinuate, accuse and otherwise distort, so kiss my ass.
Another blanket indictment of the entire homosexual population â more evidence of your unreasonable, bigoted hatred for âthe gay and lesbian communityâ.
To the contrary, I condemn such things when it actually counts, and when I’m dealing with reasonable people, and when someone is offering legitimate concerns. I don’t do it on demand here just to make you look good. I know where I stand, and I have nothing to prove to a disgusting, miserable bigot like yourself.
I’m part of that community, and yet I don’t encourage this behavior. Just as most here who are part of that community don’t encourage that sort of behavior.
And not just any sort of criticism, only the bullshit, generalized, bigoted sort of criticism spouted by people like you.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Frankly, I still don’t believe you’re a homosexual. I think you are a very, very persistent troll who is trying to push right-wing partisanship and anti-gay social conservatism and has chosen to do so as an ‘insider’.
You still haven’t bothered to admit here in all of these exchanges that you are even remotely homosexual, even if a greatly conflicted one. You just haven’t formally denied it either. So we’re just supposed to assume you are and how dare any of us suspect otherwise.
In all sincerity, you are as bad or worse than any heterosexual, homophobic bigot that I have ever had dealings with. And I’ve been doing dealing with this shit, particularly online, for a long time now.
Just like those many bigots I’ve had dealings with on local or more mainstream blogs, you rely on assumptions, stereotypes, taking isolated incidents as evidence of a
systemicno, an all-encompassing problem, the use of sweeping generalizations, questioning the motives of the entire community, impugning the character of all who don’t agree with you or who don’t offer what you deem to be sufficient criticism of bad behaviors (which would include attacking the entire community as a whole), using issues and concerns about rights and equality derisively, repeatedly suggesting through such blanket, negative caricatures that there is something inherently dysfunctional about being a homosexual, even using insulting labels like âgay-sex marriageâ, etc. It’s all in there. All the typical red herrings and non sequiturs.Your abhorrence of homosexuals and homosexuality is more than obvious. And it’s a bullshit, flimsy excuse that you are simply attempting to point out âpromiscuous, irresponsible, and criminal behaviorâ. In actuality, you are clearly trying to make a case against any efforts for homosexuals to be treated with dignity and be given legal recognition; you’re building a case against homosexuality in general.
I condemn promiscuity and what I believe to be irresponsible and certainly criminal behavior in our community, but unlike you, when I do so I don’t implicate the ENTIRE HOMOSEXUAL POPULATION.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Nice spin job, but it fails. You simply reveal more of your inconsistency.
I support giving married couples {same-sex and opposite-sex} and families the sort of legal protections, benefits and support they need. You, on the other hand, are a hypocrite on this issue. You only support giving heterosexual families the support they need. The same-sex couples out there today who are raising children or planning to in the near future, these you want to give NO support to. None. Zip. Zero. In fact, if you had your way, they probably won’t be permitted to have or adopt those children anyway.
Of course it would. It would be a far better world if there were less orphaned children. But let’s get back down to planet Earth now, shall we?
There currently are some 130,000 orphaned kids in this country every year. This in spite of all the legal and financial support that married families receive now. There are currently at least tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are raising children right now or will in the immediate future. There are currently millions of children around the world who are orphaned and will NEVER be adopted. And the sad reality is, there will always be children who will be orphaned by dead, incapacitated or irresponsible parents.
Like I said, if you ACTUALLY believed that we should give support and encouragement to parents who are raising children then you’d support same-sex marriage… But you don’t. Because you’re a hypocrite with a prejudice against homosexuals and same-sex couples.
I don’t know what more the reading audience here would need to figure you out for what a hateful, despicable person you are, but I think that disgusting little blurb there sums it up nicely.
This is what you think of all those same-sex couples who have given of themselves to have or adopt children… You reduce them to this. You are pathetic.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Frankly, I still don’t believe you’re a homosexual. I think you are a very, very persistent troll who is trying to push right-wing partisanship and anti-gay social conservatism and has chosen to do so as an ‘insider’.
(shrug) It’s a free country. Believe what you like.
You still haven’t bothered to admit here in all of these exchanges that you are even remotely homosexual, even if a greatly conflicted one. You just haven’t formally denied it either. So we’re just supposed to assume you are and how dare any of us suspect otherwise.
Actually, what I find most fascinating is your belief that anyone who criticizes the gay community cannot possibly be gay. It explains a lot about why the gay community acts the way it does, though.
Case in point:
I don’t know what more the reading audience here would need to figure you out for what a hateful, despicable person you are, but I think that disgusting little blurb there sums it up nicely.
And I think your reaction, especially given the facts, makes the point for me.
Some of the most unlikely attendees of Sunday’s kinky leather fetish festival were under four feet tall.
Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men.
The twin girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store.
Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show the twins off……
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.
Notice your disgust and your cries of “despicable person” and “pathetic” are NOT about the gay “parents” who dressed their toddlers as sexual slaves, took them to a sex fair to “show off”, claimed it was an “educational experience”, and argued that anyone who disagreed with taking children to such an event was “close-minded”.
It’s with the person who pointed it out.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Interesting. Neither an admission nor a denial.
Also interesting that you are so nonchalant about the assumptions and conclusions of others, except when it comes to your certainty that the entire homosexual population, myself included, are advocates or even perpetrators of the inappropriate, despicable, or criminal behaviors depicted in a small handful of isolated incidents which you’ve managed to compile over the years and repeat ad nauseam as propaganda…
And our refusal to adequately condemn such incidents and behaviors to your satisfaction, to you, simply further proves that we somehow agree with or engage in them.
I suppose you feel that YOU know the truth about your sexual orientation and that YOU have nothing to prove to me or anyone else. Then I’m sure you can appreciate what I think of YOUR assumptions about me. I know the truth, and what you think of me, is irrelevant.
As I clearly stated before, it is not just any sort of criticism that I find bigoted or incompatible with a self-identifying homosexual, it is the generalized, irrational, insulting, baseless variety which you propagate here that simply doesn’t pass the smell test.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Yes, I know. We’ve all read the fucking thing already. You’ve posted this expansive indictment of the entire homosexual population at least a dozen times now! And yet it no more makes your point now than than it did the first time. If it were really such a HUGE epidemic in the entire âgay communityâ then you would have no problems producing new examples of it each time you wanted to make the fallacious point.
Here are the facts, it is completely irrational, unreasonable and illogical to conclude that if one guy or a dozen takes their kid to a parade and dresses them in bondage apparel, then most or all same-sex couples merely adopt children to, as you put it, dress them like âsex slavesâ and take them to âsex fairs to show offâ to friends. Sadly, insultingly, disgustingly, this sort of gross mischaracterizing of the entire homosexual population is precisely what you engage in here over and over and over again.
â
Remember what you said about âbelieve what you likeâ? Well, ditto.
If the person (you) weren’t trying to use such examples as a bludgeon to beat, shame and blame the entire âgay communityâ with, I’d be more willing to tell you exactly what I think about such fairs and those who would let their children participate in them. I suspect that a lot of other people would to.
But cry and moan and have your grand inquisition all you want, I won’t pacify you, I won’t perform for you, nor meet your demands, nor jump through your hoops. In summation, you can kiss my ass.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I suppose you feel that YOU know the truth about your sexual orientation and that YOU have nothing to prove to me or anyone else.
Naah, I just figure people can read.
Was that expecting too much?
If the person (you) weren’t trying to use such examples as a bludgeon to beat, shame and blame the entire âgay communityâ with, I’d be more willing to tell you exactly what I think about such fairs and those who would let their children participate in them.
Actually, what would seem to be more shameful to the gay community is this babbling fool of a psychiatrist “parent” stating that this sort of behavior is normal for gays and lesbians and that anyone who disagrees is “close-minded”.
It really is classic projection. You aren’t capable of criticizing other gays and lesbians because you’ve been conditioned to think that anyone who does so is a traitor and wants to put all gay people in gas chambers, so you attack the people who point it out.
posted by DragonScorpion on
~“Actually, what would seem to be more shameful to the gay community is this babbling fool of a psychiatrist “parent” stating that this sort of behavior is normal for gays and lesbians and that anyone who disagrees is “close-minded”.” ~ North Dallas Thirty
Among other things, what bothers me is when such fools are used as evidence that we’re all morally bankrupt, craven individuals and our entire community is dysfunctional.
~âIt really is classic projection. You aren’t capable of criticizing other gays and lesbians because you’ve been conditioned to think that anyone who does so is a traitor and wants to put all gay people in gas chambers, so you attack the people who point it out.â ~ North Dallas Thirty
Oh, sure, I’m not capable of it, and that’s why I made these remarks:
At the Daily Beast
At Queerty.com
At the Daily Beast
At the Independent Gay Forum
I can criticize inappropriate behavior, including that from homosexuals, but I don’t do so to satisfy bigots. I also apply some reason and objectivity when I do instead of indicting the entire homosexual population, or the entire âgay communityâ, or all âgay-sex marriageâ supporters (as you derisively refer to us), or all same-sex parents.
I don’t set up some strawman which suggests that it is homosexuality, in itself, that is dysfunctional. You should try it sometime. For a change.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I can criticize inappropriate behavior, including that from homosexuals, but I don’t do so to satisfy bigots.
Of course not. That’s your convenient excuse so that you can avoid doing the right thing when it would make you unpopular; you just call someone who opposes dressing children as sex slaves and taking them to a sex fair a “bigot”, and then you don’t have to criticize or hold your fellow gay person responsible for their behavior, or explain why the gay-sex marriage movement claims it needs marriage so that it can adopt more children as sexual toys, like these fine examples of the gay community have.
Meanwhile, as for your “criticism”, this is typical of it:
I agree that is rather hypocritical that our heteronormative, male-dominated society salivates over lesbian kisses and then moans that a kiss by two men is “shoving their lifestyle down our throats” or some other homophobic suggestive innuendo.
Blame heterosexuals. What a surprise. Again, it’s never the gay person’s fault; it’s always the heterosexual’s fault.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Wrong, I refer to you as a bigot for using single incidents like this one as an excuse to insinuate that ALL same-sex couples do the same as he.
I refer to you as a bigot for indicting the entire homosexual community in the inappropriate or despicable behaviors of some.
I refer to you as a bigot for your derisive usage of such terms as âgay-sex marriageâ.
I refer to you as a bigot for your rabid, sweeping attacks on the ENTIRE homosexual population.
No matter how you try to spin and evade this reality, it will still remain; your words are still here for all to read in astonishment and disgust.
That’s because the SAME-SEX MARRIAGE movement doesn’t claim that it needs marriage so that it can adopt children as sex toys, you’re just a liar with a massive resentment of homosexuals because most of us don’t support your anti-gay Republican party.
North Dallas Thirty attempted to downplay the following quote from me as a typical example of my criticism of some in the homosexual community:
âI agree that is rather hypocritical that our heteronormative, male-dominated society salivates over lesbian kisses and then moans that a kiss by two men is “shoving their lifestyle down our throats” or some other homophobic suggestive innuendo.
Still, let’s apply some objectivity, shall we? No need to invent things which aren’t there because there are plenty of negative things which actually do exist that are well worth opposing. â ~ DragonScorpion [a comment I made in regards to the claim that Adam Lambert was unfairly criticized by ABC for being a homosexual]
Yep, and that’s a fact, jack.
Typical. Blame ‘the gay’ for the factual hypocrisy that I pointed out. You wouldn’t want heterosexuals to get a bad rap, you’d rather blame ‘the gay’. This is why you have a reputation as being self-loathing, because you blame everything on homosexuals, ALL of us, and allow for zero accountability and zero criticism of the despicable behaviors and double-standards employed by heterosexuals.
You see, to the objective individual, like in all other instances, it is the homosexual’s fault when it is, and when it isn’t, then it isn’t. But you’re too consumed by anti-homosexual hatred to know the difference, and too eager to serve your homophobic masters to criticize their hypocrisies.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Meanwhile, as for my criticism, this is typical of it:
âThis article is completely misguided; yet another knee-jerk reaction because a homosexual was criticized and possibly censored for being over-the-top. There is nothing in Adam Lambert’s behavior to defend here. But in doing so, some voices in our community are playing right into the narrative that we are an oversexed, anything goes, radical minority which has zero respect for decency.â
âIt’s stunts like Mr. Lambert that continues to perpetuate stereotypes about us. And for what, because he can? Sure, that’s mature. Until we realize that this kind of stuff isn’t ‘just being like everyone else’, and link this to our argument that deep down we’re really just like everyone else, little is going to change. Fight, rant, scream, invoke bigotry and double-standards all you want â you’re just making a spectacle out of us and garnering more hostility that we’ll all pay for.â
âWe can’t control what Adam Lambert and Perez Hilton do, but we can choose whether or not we condone their behavior. Shall we take the high road and show the content of our character or shall we act like spoiled children in desperate need of recognition for our antics?”
âThis is what I’m concerned about. This is MY point which YOU missed and one that our community ignores at our peril. We will never earn legitimate respect if we’re not willing to call out impropriety, most especially that in our own community.â
âWe’re not all flamboyant fashionistas who are obsessed with sexual innuendo and can’t manage to carry on a conversation without double-entendre and camp. We’re a diverse lot, and we should be portrayed as such.
I think it does far more for our cause when average homosexuals just be our unfabulous selves, than it does to have a silly but lovable caricature on every TV channel. But then this doesn’t get headlines. Militant, cartoonish thugs like Perez Hilton makes headlines.â
âI can agree that Perez Hilton is a narcissistic douche-bag, yes, but Perez Hilton no more represents the gay community than Carrie Prejean represents Christendom.â
“I know where I stand, I will point out bigotry and hypocrisy when I see it, but I will not toe-the-line and cry foul every time someone from our community is criticized for outrageous behavior.â
And my blog post about the loaded questions by certain gay forums and their bogus defenses of indecency on TV
Ooh, look at that, I can criticize homosexuals and indecent behavior, and I do, regardless what the liar claims…
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
This is why you have a reputation as being self-loathing, because you blame everything on homosexuals, ALL of us, and allow for zero accountability and zero criticism of the despicable behaviors and double-standards employed by heterosexuals.
Did you miss this above?
So yes, it is safe to state that those things do not represent all heterosexuals, because heterosexuals are out there condemning, arresting, and convicting the heterosexuals who do those things. Furthermore, you don’t see heterosexuals in the street shrieking that such arrests and convictions are “homophobic”, or that those heterosexuals who object to the behavior are “neurotic” and “prudes”.
Meanwhile, I can show you innumerable similar condemnations of the behavior that takes place at “girls gone wild? Spring Break almost anywhere? Mardi Gras” by heterosexuals and heterosexual organizations, as well as arrests and convictions of heterosexuals for misbehavior during those events, and I heartily concur with both.
For some reason, I have no problem condemning bad behavior by either homosexuals or heterosexuals, even when it “gives ammunition” to bigots like yourself. The reason is that I am concerned about the behavior, not the PR; I don’t think it’s any better for homosexuals to rape and molest children than it is for heterosexuals. You clearly have a problem with that because, since your minority status is clearly the center core of your life, for you to criticize other gays would be akin to criticizing yourself.
Typical. Blame ‘the gay’ for the factual hypocrisy that I pointed out.
Let me see, what was that factual hypocrisy?
I agree that is rather hypocritical that our heteronormative, male-dominated society salivates over lesbian kisses
Right, which is why lesbians are screaming that they’re being discriminated against for kissing, or even better examples.
I think it’s funny how the natural defense of the gay community is to project its own obsession with hypersexuality, porn, and public promiscuity onto everyone else to make theirs appear normal. You’d think if they were truly “proud”, they wouldn’t be trying to whine that “everyone else does it” to explain their behavior. But that’s just it; the vast majority of gay and lesbian community members, in my opinion, are aware that the promiscuity and pedophilia they endorse and support aren’t a good idea, but they lack the emotional and intellectual strength to do anything but go along, given that they’ll be called “traitors” and told they want to eliminate all gays otherwise.
posted by Bobby on
I don’t like anyone speaking against Adam Lambert or Perez Hilton. Lambert is the future, gay artists doing what straight artists do without shame. Where was the outcry when Madonna was going s/m and kissing Britney Spears on stage? If straights can do it, gays can do it. Straights don’t apologize for their sexuality, neither should we.
As for Perez Hilton, he’s just a successful gossip columnist. What’s wrong with that? Other than calling Prejean a cunt and referring to will.i.am as a fa–ot, he’s done nothing wrong.
You should see some of the nasty comments people leave of Perez website.
http://perezhilton.com/2010-01-01-malawis-first-gay-couple-wed-but-at-risk-of-imprisonment#respond
What people need to understand is that visionaries like Hilton and Lambert march to the beat of their own drums. I don’t remember Picasso painting what was popular or Mozart taking the King’s advice when it came to “too many notes.” And unlike that disgusting piece of shit Allen Ginsberg, neither of them are pro-pedophilia, so give them a freaking break.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Nope, and I didn’t miss all these examples of your blaming all homosexuals for what few examples of inappropriate behavior he could find
And my post following it, as well.
I thought Robert summed this up nicely, above:
âPeople probably are too busy being fucking offended that you’d ask them to apologize for people who are not them, or condemn the actions of another human being just because they have the same orientation they do.â ~ Robert
I suspect that the more you demand, the less you will get, if for no other reason our of sheer spite.
Arresting? Oddly enough, as I stated earlier, a lot of that isn’t being enforced stringently for most perpetrators. (be sure to check out the comments…)
Innumerable, even… In other words, mostly the (heterosexual) Christian religious organizations who are condemning us for merely existing. Whereas some of your average folks that might attend at a Mardis Gras-type event don’t seem to have a problem with all this nudity, etc. (see comments of link above) Yes, my, what a bold statement by the ‘heterosexual community’.
Except when you don’t bother to condemn them… Instead, nearly every post you make here is yet another indictment of the entire âgay communityâ and how we ALL either engage in or condone despicable behavior.
You see, unlike you, I’m not a bigot because, unlike you I don’t blame all heterosexuals for the actions of some. I don’t indict the entire heterosexual community because of rampant promiscuity which is so visible these days. I don’t demonize heterosexual people for adopting kids, in spite of the fact that some use them for sexual exploitation.
So, nice try, but you cannot legitimately accuse me of engaging in the sort of prejudiced, deliberate intellectual deception that you engage in.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Odd that you don’t show it. If true, then you should make this more clear instead of singling out homosexuals, which is what you’ve done in the entirety of the three separate debates we’ve had ad nauseam on the subject. And, no, I’m still not going to jump through hoops for you, so, tough luck, you’ll just have to wait until this subject comes up again when you’re not demanding everyone condemn homosexuality. Then, I think you’ll see the sort of criticism which you want to believe no one but you would ever have the ‘courage’ to display.
Oh sure, and that’s why I had no qualms about those criticisms I offered above at gay sites and mainstream sites… Try again, liar.
You read it when you responded to this, but yet you dishonestly act as though it doesn’t exist. Okay, since you want to be purposefully difficult about it, I’ll repost it, liar:
âI agree that is rather hypocritical that our heteronormative, male-dominated society salivates over lesbian kisses and then moans that a kiss by two men is “shoving their lifestyle down our throats” or some other homophobic suggestive innuendo.
Still, let’s apply some objectivity, shall we? No need to invent things which aren’t there because there are plenty of negative things which actually do exist that are well worth opposing. â ~ DragonScorpion [a comment I made in regards to the claim that Adam Lambert was unfairly criticized by ABC for being a homosexual]
Ah yes, that again. No, I think these are better examples: Girls gone wild
A rather comprehensive list of girl-on-girl in media.
Dude, where are the cops!?
Ah, but North Dallas Thirty has his blinders on, he sees nothing of the public nudity that heterosexual get away with, he sees nothing of the heteronormative, male-dominated culture in which many heterosexual males from adolescence on have a peculiar fascination with woman kissing and groping each other (as long as they’re not REALLY lesbians). He sees nothing of the double-standard in society that while girls kissing is often seen as “hot”, men kissing is usually portrayed as “gross”.
posted by DragonScorpion on
There’s that âgay communityâ again. See, this is why you are accurately described as a bigot. This is what bigots do, they resort to such utter logical fallacies of blaming ALL for the actions of some. For instance, few here display any sort of “obsession with hypersexuality”. But North Dallas Thirty is like a Rorschach test, show him a homosexual and he sees “hypersexuality”, “promiscuity”, and “pedophile”…
At least you are a little less declarative this time, and starting to admit that maybe, just maybe this caricature that you are attempting to create here on every thread doesn’t actually reflect ALL of us.
But, you’re still playing the victim, again. I think I can hear those violins now.
If you want to not be treated like a bigot, then stop acting like one. It’s really that simple. If you want to criticize promiscuity, indecency, and child abuse in society then do that. Criticize all of it. All examples. Don’t just pick and choose what few homosexual examples you’ve been able to find, repost it about 20 times, claim it’s some sort of epidemic and demand that everyone condemn it and explain why our entire community is so messed up.
Or, just troll for your gay-bashing elsewhere, no one here is biting.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I suspect that the more you demand, the less you will get, if for no other reason our of sheer spite.
No worries. That demonstrates the point nicely — that gays and lesbians are so infantile in their responses that they will refuse to condemn child molestation and exploitation out of sheer spite and a desire to defend and protect their fellow gay and lesbian pedophiles.
Which brings us to this.
If true, then you should make this more clear instead of singling out homosexuals, which is what you’ve done in the entirety of the three separate debates we’ve had ad nauseam on the subject.
Ah, but I have made it clear that I am concerned about the behavior, not the PR; I don’t think it’s any better for homosexuals to rape and molest children than it is for heterosexuals.
However, the difference is that there is no question in the heterosexual community that child molesters and rapists should be arrested, imprisoned, and publicly condemned. In the gay community, that isn’t done because gays a) don’t want to give ammunition to bigots, b) don’t want to have to criticize their fellow gays, and c) are simply spiteful individuals who would rather see children raped and molested than admit to any bad behaviors.
Next:
Oh sure, and that’s why I had no qualms about those criticisms I offered above at gay sites and mainstream sites.
Your “criticisms” that, as I pointed out, blamed heterosexuals for gay people acting like idiots and insisting that gay people aren’t really wrong, but that heterosexuals are hypocrites.
Case in point:
Ah, but North Dallas Thirty has his blinders on, he sees nothing of the public nudity that heterosexual get away with, he sees nothing of the heteronormative, male-dominated culture in which many heterosexual males from adolescence on have a peculiar fascination with woman kissing and groping each other (as long as they’re not REALLY lesbians).
Again, I think it’s funny how the natural defense of the gay community is to project its own obsession with hypersexuality, porn, and public promiscuity onto everyone else to make theirs appear normal.
And finally:
This is what bigots do, they resort to such utter logical fallacies of blaming ALL for the actions of some.
Except that, when the “all” endorse, support, and protect the actions of the “some”, it’s a fair cop to hold them responsible.
Put some effort into condemning gay pedophiles instead of making excuses for them and you might have a point. But until then, you’re just demonstrating once again that the PR for the gay community is more important than anything else.
posted by DragonScorpion on
As I’ve told you before, your guilt trips aren’t working. You can twist this however you want to serve your gay-hating agenda, but as you can see no one is buying it. No one here is accountable for what others do, and I have not yet seen anyone here defend child molestation or exploitation, least of all me. Your distortions to the contrary, are lies.
Furthermore, your insinuation that all âgays and lesbiansâ defend & protect pedophiles; and that all âgays and lesbiansâ are pedophiles just further reveals you for what you really are â a gay-hating troll who is attempting to portray homosexuality as inherently immoral, dysfunctional & an extreme danger to society.
Except that you point out no examples of child rape and molestation among heterosexuals. No links, no outrage, no sweeping generalizations about the ‘straight community’ engaging in or condoning child abuse, you make no mention of the fact that most sex abuse against children in this country are performed by what would otherwise be characterized as heterosexual persons. Instead, you focus solely on child abuse or neglect perpetrated or condoned by a few supposed homosexuals, and regurgitate the same old tired blog posts to support your twisted narrative. And worst of all, you then use the fact that some homosexuals engage in despicable behaviors to implicate the entire â not segments of, not ‘some’ â but the ENTIRE homosexual community.
And this, among other things, is why few here take you seriously. This is why few, if any, will ask ‘how high’ when you demand that we jump. I suspect that no one, other than Debrah, wants to feed your gay-bashing or your ego.
Oh really? Oh sure, and all these heterosexuals out there who are abusing these children really believe that they should be arrested, imprisoned, and publicly condemned for what they do… As do the lawyers who defend them, and the folks who think that a young boy who gets to lay his adult female teacher is âluckyâ… and… (read comments, seemingly posted by actual heterosexual human beings)
posted by DragonScorpion on
There’s that broad brush again: âthe gay communityâ, âgaysâ (read: all) don’t do this and don’t want to do that. Your ability to convey rationality and reason=fail; your ability to argue closed-minded bigotry=success.
Nope, wrong. My criticisms, unlike yours, are directed at THOSE who are at fault. The heterosexuals, the homosexuals, whomever. Read my posts again, note that my criticisms of the likes of Perez Hilton and Adam Lambert. No caveats. No exceptions. No excuses.
Ah, wrong again, liar. It is factually incorrect that the âgay communityâ âproject[s] its own obsession with hypersexuality, porn, and public promiscuityâ. What is factually accurate is that some homosexuals in the gay community have an obsession with hypersexuality, porn and public promiscuity; some homosexuals project these moral failings upon others.
Furthermore, I do not project the problems of those in the âgay communityâ onto others. I do not excuse the inappropriate or despicable behaviors exhibited by some homosexuals. I do not pass the blame of bad behaviors among certain homosexuals onto heterosexuals. Any claims you care to offer to the contrary is a lie.
What I do when I point out that hedonism is, in my opinion, all too common among many heterosexuals, or to point out the double-standard of what is deemed appropriate, is to put things into their proper perspective. A perspective you try so hard to avoid.
I believe that there is too much promiscuity in society, period. Sex, in my opinion, is treated too casually in heterosexual culture, homosexual culture, American culture, Western culture, period.
But, unlike you, I don’t have an anti-homosexual agenda. Unlike you, I don’t have to look for scapegoats nor rely on sweeping generalizations, nor implicate the innocent with the guilty, nor lump disparate groups of people into monoliths and demand that they, collectively, atone and condemn the transgressions of others.
And, as I have pointed out numerous times while you’ve tried so hard to dance around it and dishonestly twist it into what you want it to mean, there are many unfortunate double-standards in our heteronormative society, particularly in American culture, in which girl-on-girl kissing is often promoted as âevery man’s fantasyâ, while two men kissing is generally seen as âgrossâ and âshoving the gay lifestyle down the throatsâ of heterosexuals, particularly men who don’t think they should have to ever see it. This is in no way, shape or form an excuse for anyone behavior, it is, nonetheless, a fact of a double-standard that does exist.
There is one massive flaw in your rationalization: the âallâ, in your words âthe gay communityâ, does not endorse, support, and protect many of these actions which has been discussed to nauseating length. Already here we have seen multiple examples of others who have not endorsed, supported, nor protected these individuals and the behaviors they engage in. So, no, you have absolutely no legitimacy in holding those who do not engage in nor endorse child abuse as somehow responsible for child abuse.
I’ve made zero excuses for homosexual, heterosexual, or any other -sexual pedophiles. Period. You’re just a fucking liar.
As I told you so many posts ago, this has nothing to do with PR. You can make this BS claim all you want, you can guilt trip and lie and distort and pervert all you want, but it’s not going to work. You’re not going to get your way. I’m not jumping through your hoops, I’m not going to condemn despicable behaviors on command from the likes of a gay-hating bigot like yourself.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No links, no outrage, no sweeping generalizations about the ‘straight community’ engaging in or condoning child abuse
That’s because it’s pretty obvious that, when the straight community is having them arrested and imprisoned for doing it, that makes it patently obvious that the vast and overwhelming majority of straight people neither engage in or condone child abuse, and in fact are more than willing to criticize and punish other straight people for doing it.
Meanwhile, we have the leadership of gay rights organizations arguing that sex with children is “common” among gay and lesbian people, gay and lesbian psychiatrists stating that it is an “educational experience” to dress up children as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs, and gay and lesbian researchers demanding that five-year-old children be taught the pleasures of gay sex.
The gay community’s response?
You’re not going to get your way. I’m not jumping through your hoops, I’m not going to condemn despicable behaviors on command from the likes of a gay-hating bigot like yourself.
How utterly convenient. All the gay and lesbian community has to do is claim that someone is a “bigot”, and they get out of criticizing free.
What I do when I point out that hedonism is, in my opinion, all too common among many heterosexuals, or to point out the double-standard of what is deemed appropriate, is to put things into their proper perspective.
Or, more precisely, you tear down heterosexuals to try to make a gay person’s inexcusable behavior more excusable.
If it is a question of principles, what a heterosexual does is irrelevant. But as you make clear, it is not a question of principles; it is a question of avoiding criticism of gay and lesbian people because of your need to protect your minority status as the only worthwhile thing about you.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Oh, “pretty obvious” is it? Obvious enough, for your satisfaction. So, no need to point out the fact that many heterosexuals are still doing these inappropriate or inexcusable things?
Apparently this is good enough for TD30: (to use your manner of sweeping language) Heterosexual judges are marrying heterosexual adults to children and the heterosexual judicial and penal systems are
letting child molesters off with a slap on the wrist.
And this: Heterosexual community makes joke of child molestation.
Nope, there’s that lie again. You’ve got one guy that no one has ever heard of from another country. You’ve got a sentence-long quote from a head-shrinker who, again, no one has ever heard of. And you’ve got your overactive imagination about teaching the pleasures of gay-sex to 5-year-olds. If it’s such an epidemic, then lets see the overwhelming evidence, liar. Next?
Yes, I speak for the entire homosexual community. We recently had elections, I won by a landslide. I’m so honored. And, by my decree, the ENTIRE HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY, hereby rejects you and your delusions. [/sarcasm]
Only when it applies. And in this case it does. I decree it. ;D
posted by DragonScorpion on
Nope, it is precisely just what I wrote before:
âWhat I do when I point out that hedonism is, in my opinion, all too common among many heterosexuals, or to point out the double-standard of what is deemed appropriate, is to put things into their proper perspective. A perspective you try so hard to avoid.
I believe that there is too much promiscuity in society, period. Sex, in my opinion, is treated too casually in heterosexual culture, homosexual culture, American culture, Western culture, period.
But, unlike you, I don’t have an anti-homosexual agenda. Unlike you, I don’t have to look for scapegoats nor rely on sweeping generalizations, nor implicate the innocent with the guilty, nor lump disparate groups of people into monoliths and demand that they, collectively, atone and condemn the transgressions of others.â ~ DragonScorpion
If it were a question of principles with you, then you’d point out the child abuse, promiscuity, hedonism, hypersexuality, prevalence of porn, etc. that is increasingly common among heterosexual culture, homosexual culture, American culture, etc. But, you don’t.
You single out the entire homosexual community and paint ALL of us as being one giant monolith, engaging in, guilty of, condoning all the despicable/criminal behaviors in society. And you portray this in a context that WE are the only ones doing this stuff, getting away with it, and condoning it. Which is, as I think everyone has already determined by now, a LIE.
And all this is so that you can convey the typical homophobic propaganda ‘Big Lie’ that homosexuality is inherently dysfunctional; homosexuals are inherently dysfunctional and amoral; efforts to recognize homosexuals as first-class citizens is a ‘threat to civilization’. This is why you are branded a bigot. Your persistence, is why you are branded a troll.
Your serve.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So, no need to point out the fact that many heterosexuals are still doing these inappropriate or inexcusable things?
Point away. I will be more than happy to denounce and condemn their behavior.
You’ve got one guy that no one has ever heard of from another country.
Who is testifying in front of the Canadian Parliament.
You’ve got a sentence-long quote from a head-shrinker who, again, no one has ever heard of.
Google his name and professional credentials, and you might be surprised. I myself wasn’t aware how respected a psychiatrist who advocates sex fairs as education for toddlers could be.
And you’ve got your overactive imagination about teaching the pleasures of gay-sex to 5-year-olds.
Really, it doesn’t take that much imagination.
And that leads us to this:
And all this is so that you can convey the typical homophobic propaganda ‘Big Lie’ that homosexuality is inherently dysfunctional; homosexuals are inherently dysfunctional and amoral;
The interesting thing about this is that you don’t shriek about it being a “big lie” when Richard Hudler and other gay rights leaders are openly stating that sex with underage children is a right and that it is normal and common in the gay community, or when leading gay psychiatrists who regularly are leading seminars on gay family issues extol the virtues of sex fairs as educational experiences for toddlers, or when the gay community is using taxpayer dollars to force primary school classrooms to teach children the pleasures of gay sex.
In short, you only have problems with one group of people stating that homosexuality is inherently dysfunctional and amoral — those people who are quoting your fellow gays and lesbians saying it.
posted by DragonScorpion on
It is quite telling how you need people to point out hetero debauchery to you, but you take great pleasure in scouring the Net to find a few examples of despicable behavior among homosexuals. And only a few, which you keep posting over and over and over and over again as your flimsy case to indict the entire homosexual population.
No need to point out anything new, you can start with the stuff provided above. The Girls Gone Wild and related materials, the lack of citations for public indecency in St. Louis Mardi Gras events in spite of reports of plenty of it going on, the double-standards about girl-on-girl being common in media whilst man-on-man is nearly non-existent, the double-standard among many heterosexual men that when a boy sleeps with his female teacher he’s âluckyâ while a boy who has sex with a male teacher is a âvictimâ and the molester should be put under the jail, the light prosecutions of heterosexual pedophilia, particularly when women are involved.
You had every opportunity to launch into all these when provided before, but you chose not to. Instead, you just kept harping on the same old broken record â down with the gays. And attempting to distract everyone about some supposed endorsement on my part of despicable behaviors here, in spite of the fact that I’ve not done this even once.
Your lack of pointing our or condemning despicable behavior among heterosexuals, whilst focusing exclusively on homosexuals and demanding everyone join you on the gay-bashing is because you have a clear anti-homosexual agenda.
I’m not having a discussion with Richard Hudler about his warped ideas, I’m addressing the anti-homosexual propaganda that you display here. And it is interesting how you keep trying to distract from this.
posted by DragonScorpion on
~LMAO~ It is so hilarious how you literally repost the EXACT SAME LINKS to the SAME 3-4 sites. And these pitiful examples are your ENTIRE library of ‘evidence’ of the total dysfunction & debauchery of the homosexual population… You’ve been challenged countless times to provide more, but you can’t. You just repost the same old, same old…
Clearly the lesson to be learned here is that the Canadians hate their children and permit adults to have sex with them…
This guy is as much evidence of a general homosexual belief that sex with children is acceptable as Roman Polanski is evidence of a general heterosexual belief that sex with children is acceptable.
Ah, that’s because the âgay communityâ isn’t using taxpayer dollars to force primary school classrooms to teach children the pleasure of gay sex. That’s just another one of your lies. This group in U.K. doesn’t represent the U.K., they most certainly do not represent the United States, nor do they represent the homosexual community at large.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’m not having a discussion with Richard Hudler about his warped ideas, I’m addressing the anti-homosexual propaganda that you display here.
Thank you for so perfectly demonstrating the problem in one sentence.
When Richard Hudler says this, you do nothing.
When I repeat what Richard Hudler himself said about gay and lesbian people, you scream that it’s “anti-homosexual propaganda”.
The gay community cannot handle the facts of what it supports and endorses being brought to light. Its only response is to attempt to shoot the messenger.
Again, the stupidity and infantile responses of the gay community are simply beyond belief. Hudler is clearly a danger to children. His organization clearly supports and endorses pedophile sex under the name of “gay rights”.
But does anyone care? Does anyone do anything? No. Instead, they attack the people who point out what Hudler is saying.
This is not the mark of an intelligent community. It is the mark of an insular cult who considers criticism betrayal and who insists that all their problems are due to their “enemies”.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Wholly incorrect. First of all I don’t recall screaming, but I know what such loaded language is meant to accomplish.
Second, pointing out that some homosexual â whoever he is, in whatever capacity he serves in whatever country â has advocated something dubious or even despicable is not âanti-homosexual propagandaâ. Not at all. And I’ve seen no one here suggest otherwise.
What qualifies as anti-homosexual propaganda are the attempts by you to use a few isolated incidents as proof that the ENTIRE âgay communityâ (direct quote) mocks marriage, dresses children like sex-slaves, has sex in public, and leads hedonistic, promiscuous lifestyles, etc. or that ALL same-sex couples adopt children to make sex slaves out of them.
This is precisely what you have done in countless posts here. They’re all here, they’re all obvious, unmistakable, and people here read them. And this is why most here completely reject you and your phony assessment of the ‘homosexual dysfunction’.
Your tactics do not in any way, shape, or form encourage accountability or foster responsibility among those in the community. But I don’t think you really want it to anyway. You simply want to demonize homosexuals.
You paint a very ugly picture of the homosexual community, but also a very inaccurate one.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Actually, YOU are beyond belief. While you are supposedly a homosexual, you offer more derisive scorn of the concept of homosexuals having rights, and offer more blanket indictments of the ENTIRE homosexual population than even the most acidic of homophobic heterosexuals I’ve encountered online.
You are also probably the best example I’ve ever seen online of the deliberately dishonest blogger. Every time someone clearly defines for you what their stance is, or what their problem with your method of supposedly ‘holding the gay community accountable’ (or whatever it is you think you are doing and failing at abysmally), you deliberately ignore most of what they say, twist the rest, and simply concoct your own conclusions to fit the narrative which is your permanent agenda.
You come to these forums with the dogmatic belief that the entire homosexual community is promiscuous, hedonistic, oversexed, amoral. And you make your arguments from this point of view, as if it is a fact. Your proof of this is a mere handful of links which you ALWAYS provide in every thread, multiple times a thread, ad nauseam.
This, coupled with your incessant use of derisive scare quotes, juvenile labels, and insulting dismissals of both the efforts and the concept of homosexuals having things like equal protection and civil rights, manages to set most here firmly opposed to the specious case you are trying to build.
But this, too, is all part of your little scheme. Because you also come to these forums with the belief that when you offer your âhard truthsâ that the entire homosexual population, certainly everyone here, is going to attack you for it. And if the first post by you doesn’t elicit sufficient scorn for you to play the victim-card with, you just start heaping on more broadly sweeping generalizations, blanket condemnations, and BS assumptions about all those who don’t jump on your ‘hate the gays’ bandwagon.
Most despicable of all, perhaps, is that this is all deliberate by you. It isn’t mere stubbornness on your part. I think you have such a need to be right about this belief of yours that you will accept no argument to the contrary, you will accept no evidence to the contrary, no amount of logic or reason. You will offer no condemnation of bad behaviors in general, only that displayed by homosexuals. And you balk at any attempt by others to show the context (not a defense of, rather, proper perspective) that these egregious behaviors are NOT exclusive to us. You offer up the ready-made dismissal which you came into this thread with: ‘the gay community would rather attack critics than condemn child molestation’. It is exactly what you are hoping for, and you ensure that you will push everyone’s buttons to make it (appear) so.
And thus, in your mind anyway, you have proven what you set out to do all along with your first post â that the entire homosexual population is hypocritical, immature, irrational, immoral, hedonistic, hypersexualized, grossly dysfunctional and a threat to civilization.
This is all what makes you so clearly a bigot. And a troll. And why no one outside of the man-hating Debrah seems to want anything to do with you. But by all means, carry on. I’ll run circles with you until they close the forum down.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
you offer more derisive scorn of the concept of homosexuals having rights
Probably because the leaders of those organizations devoted to “rights” are out promoting, pushing, and demanding pedophilia.
Raising the age of consent is a veiled attempt to assert conservative moral values on youth, queer and youth-led groups told Senators today……
The proposed changes will have a disproportionate impact on gays, said Richard Hudler of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario.
Next:
What qualifies as anti-homosexual propaganda are the attempts by you to use a few isolated incidents as proof that the ENTIRE âgay communityâ (direct quote) mocks marriage, dresses children like sex-slaves, has sex in public, and leads hedonistic, promiscuous lifestyles, etc. or that ALL same-sex couples adopt children to make sex slaves out of them.
And again, the quote:
“My first lover was 17 years older than me. And this is common [among gay people],” he said.
Or:
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.
Again, your gay and lesbian community leaders are the ones stating that gay and lesbian “rights” include the right to pedophile sex with underage children, that it is common for gays to have sex with underage children and that laws that forbid it discriminate a disproportionate amount against gays and lesbians, and that anyone who does not support gays and lesbians dressing children as sex slaves and taking them to sex fairs is “close-minded”. Why aren’t you venting your spleen on them? Why are you blaming heterosexuals for simply repeating what your community leadership is saying about gays and lesbians, completely unchallenged?
The funny thing about this is how blatant the hypocrisy of the gay and lesbian community is. Gays and lesbians like you are so touchy that you scream “n****r” at people because other people who share their skin color voted for Proposition 8, but when your fellow gays and lesbians openly demand the removal of age of consent laws because they violate “gay rights”, crickets.
The latter defames the gay community far more, but again, the need to protect the minority status — especially since it’s been drilled into your head that that is the only thing that makes you worthwhile as a human being — takes precedence. Blame black people. Blame heterosexuals. Blame conservatives. Blame religious people. But never, never, NEVER under any circumstances are you to criticize the bad behavior of another gay person, because that makes you self-loathing. It’s always someone else’s fault.
And that’s what makes this really funny:
Your tactics do not in any way, shape, or form encourage accountability or foster responsibility among those in the community.
Please. Accountability and responsibility are anathema to the gay and lesbian community. You are talking about people who blame the pharmaceutical companies because their ads “force” poor defenseless gay people to have promiscuous sex.
The gay community exists as a means to perpetuate infantile behavior, irresponsibility, destructive attitudes, and victimhood among gay and lesbian people. As I stated before, it is an insular cult who considers criticism betrayal and who insists that all their problems are due to their “enemies”.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Wow, it took you two days to repost the same shit you’ve been reposting the past month…
Your excuse for offering more derisive scorn of the concept of homosexuals having rights than even the most acidic of homophobic heterosexuals I’ve ever encountered online is:
âProbably because the leaders of those organizations devoted to “rights” are out promoting, pushing, and demanding pedophilia.â ~ North Dallas Thirty
This is a pathetic copout as well as a lie. The fact that a few people in the homosexual community have advocated despicable things is in no way the basis of your scorn of homosexuals having rights. You propagate direct and blunt arguments against recognizing the rights of homosexuals in any way, shape or form. Even attempting to use legal arguments to refute recognizing any equality for homosexuals and same-sex couples. It’s all based on your homophobia, Christian dogmatic beliefs, and socially conservative ideology. It has nothing, NOTHING to do with what some homosexual guy or gal said in the U.K.
It’s so pathetic how you hide behind a random remark here or there like a coward because you don’t have the stones to step up and admit why you find homosexuality and homosexuals such an abomination to nature and threat to humanity.
Been there, done that. Yawn. Dig up something new, troll.
Yep, seen that one before several dozen times now, too. And just like the previous several dozen, it doesn’t prove in any way, shape, or form that the ENTIRE âgay communityâ (direct quote) mocks marriage, dresses children like sex-slaves, has sex in public, and leads hedonistic, promiscuous lifestyles, etc. or that ALL same-sex couples adopt children to make sex slaves out of them. Try again, troll.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Again, to correct your LIE. In actuality, you have cited examples where a few members of homosexual advocacy organizations have been nonchalant about pederasty. This in no way, shape, or form de-legitimizes the argument of advancing equality and civil rights protections for homosexuals and same-sex couples. This in no way shape or form establishes the entire homosexual population as pedophiles or advocates of pedophilia. Try again, troll.
Yawn. Been there done that. He’s a moron. No one here agrees with him. Move on, troll.
Because they aren’t here. You are, gay-hater.
I’m not, liar. Other than you, a gay-hating troll heterosexual posing as a homosexual, I’m not blaming anyone for citing despicable behavior, I’m blaming YOU for indicting the entire homosexual population as being pedophiles, hedonists, hypocrites, thugs and criminals because of the actions of a few.
By the way, I challenged you to âpoint out the fact that many heterosexuals are still doing these inappropriate or inexcusable things â, now perform just like you expect me to. You said, âPoint away.â Well, I pointed away. You ignored it. Get to it, troll. Live up to your words, liar.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Wrong, liar! I don’t scream n*gg*r at people because other people who share their skin color voted for Proposition 8. STOP LYING, TROLL! Can’t you manage one goddamn honest reply even once? No, of course not…
You don’t know a goddamn thing about what I feel makes me worthwhile as a human being you self-righteous scumbag, so file your assumptions away where the sun doesn’t shine.
TRY AGAIN, LIAR! It’s all at my blog and at various forums including this one. Condemnations of Adam Lambert, Perez Hilton and those who defend them. Condemnations of promiscuity and mocking monogamy.
Regardless what you want to believe, regardless how you twist it and put people in your little gay-hating box, the REALITY is that where I stand is people are accountable for their own actions. All of them. Yesterday, today, and for always.
And that includes holding gay-hating religious homophobic conservative fascists like yourself accountable for your words. And as long as I am around, you will never, NEVER live this trash of yours down.
The homosexual population is not a monolith, homophobe. If we are beyond accountability, then you are wasting yours and everyone else’s time. You obviously believe we are all beyond taking accountability, even though most of us take as much accountability as any heterosexual person does. You’ve already made your bullshit case. We’re a lost cause. Dregs of humanity.
If you really, actually wanted to correct bad behaviors among the homosexual community you’d use a method that encourages this. You would use a strategy that works. Yours fails, COMPLETELY. Miserably. Your gay-hating rhetoric and sweeping generalizations and flagrant insults pits nearly everyone here against you. And your argumentation is so dishonest that it makes everyone reject even legitimate complaints. So, congratulations, as any gay-hater would want, whatever problems the homosexual community might have, you are contributing to perpetuating them. I, on the other hand, am going to continue addressing them without crucifying the entire homosexual orientation in the process. But as long as you’re spewing your homophobic lies here, I’ll stand toe to toe with you. We can just keep wasting our time going in circles. I will never let your garbage stand unchallenged.
Like I said, you’re a heterosexual, a troll, and a homophobe. And this little rant of yours, on top of everything else, proves it. Disgusting.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The homosexual population is not a monolith, homophobe. If we are beyond accountability, then you are wasting yours and everyone else’s time.
Not really.
The problem with the gay community is best summed up using Booker T. Washington’s classic quote about the black community.
There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.
I have never been convinced, as is dogma in the gay community, that being homosexual requires you to be anything. But it certainly has provided a convenient excuse for you and millions of others like you to explain away everything from pedophilia through bad job performance and laziness on the job to pure antireligious bigotry as excuses for why you can’t get a job, can’t stop yourself from dressing your child as a sex slave, troll outside elementary schools for dates, spew racist remarks at black people, and so forth.
It’s all about the grievance-mongering and victimhood. Without your minority status, you’d have to compete with everyone else, and that scares the hell out of you — not to mention, you might actually have to look at your own behavior as the reason you have problems in life, which could shake your worldview to its core. Much better to remain in a state of blaming everyone else and “homophobia” for your failures.
I look at the obvious; the gay community endorsed and supported NAMBLA whole-heartedly until the fact that they did had consequences, at which point even their supporters turned on them.
Similarly, sanity will not predominate in the gay community until that class of those who insist on perpetual victimhood and use such to advance whatever ludicrous causes they wish under the name of “gay rights” are publicly called out, humiliated, and shamed — instead of the current state, where THEY are trying to call out, humiliate, and shame anyone who disagrees with them.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Typical hypocrisy from you. In one post you condemn the ENTIRE homosexual population as being pro-pedo, in the next post you accuse them/us of ‘turning on pedophiles’.
Actually, what I am pointing out is that NAMBLA never changed their arguments. You and the rest of the gay community simply went from supporting them, including them in parades, and praising them to suddenly discovering what awful people they were when it cost you something.
The lesson there is that the gay and lesbian community can learn to avoid bad behavior — with a hard enough push.
And this was particularly interesting:
You’re clearly a grossly dysfunctional person who is so filled with hatred and revulsion for homosexuality that it makes you feel better about yourself, and perhaps better about some of your own desires bubbling beneath the surface which conflict so bluntly with your theological delusions, to insult those who don’t carry around the same shame as you.
Actually, I don’t have any shame, for one simple reason; people always know where I stand, and I don’t see any reason to protect gays and lesbians who engage in shameful behavior, or support the community that rewards them for doing it.
I figure your accusation of “shame” is more revealing of you than it is of me.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Another lie. I haven’t offered any support of NAMBLA once in any of these discussions and yet I (and everyone else here and every other homosexual that IS part of the âgay communityâ) is implicated in supporting them. You’re literally a pathological liar.
It is certainly telling that while you blame all of us for supporting NAMBLA, because some homosexual advocacy group did so at one time, the same group offering a pointed criticism of NAMBLA (which you provided) doesn’t suffice for you to then give the âgay communityâ a reprieve or even an ounce of credit. Nope, because you’re only here to blame all of us for the worst examples among us; your agenda is to only depict homosexuals as the scum of the Earth.
By the way, I see your âpushingâ here is âpushingâ most to ignore you, condemn you, and refuse to play along with your homophobic rants… But just keep pushing, I’m sure you can convince us to start hating ourselves, and each other.
CLEARLY!! That is probably the first (and last) bit of honesty that I’ve seen from you yet. Yes, you have no shame because you obviously have no conscience.
It’s pretty obvious where you stand, though you’re too chicken shit to admit you share the theological view that ‘marriage should be between a man and woman only’.
Correction, you don’t see any reason to protect, nor even offer a shred of respect or human dignity to any homosexual â as displayed on countless posts of yours in many different threads now. You don’t merely criticize bad behavior, you criticize ALL homosexuals, everywhere, for everything.
In once sense, as it proves I have a conscience and you don’t. If I were you I’d be ashamed to blame so many people for the actions of others which they had NO involvement with and ZERO control over. You, however, find it perfectly normal, rational, logical, and fair to lump the entire homosexual population together and hold ALL of us accountable for the actions of some bad apples. That is rather revealing indeed, I don’t treat people as monoliths worthy of complete scorn, you do.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Ahh, I see it is working again! Must have been a glitch before. Good, now I’ll post my responses to your previous posts as I was forced to do in the other forum:
Hmmm… Odd to see a post here. Yesterday I couldn’t post in this thread… Let’s try again.
Uhh, yeah, really. You’re not achieving any change here. Do you see anyone here, outside of your fag-hag sockpuppet, supporting your garbage? Nope. So, yeah, waste of time.
First of all, I have a good, full-time job, so you can cram your assumptions â sideways. And my lack of being religious and refusing to conform to religious demands doesn’t make me an “anti-religious bigot”, so your distortion further illustrates how dishonest you are.
Furthermore, I don’t explain-away pedophilia, so, that’s just another lie. I don’t dress my child or any child as a sex-slave, another craven lie on your part. I don’t troll outside elementary schools for dates, yet another despicable lie from your pathological self. I don’t spew racist remarks at black people, or anyone else, and so forth. Yet more LIES from you. And all the more reason why no one, NO ONE here should believe a WORD you say about ANYTHING.
I do compete with everyone else, liar, and my homosexuality plays no role in it. I don’t wear my orientation on my sleeve, and where I live being a homosexual works against a person, never for them. In spite of this, I have a house, a good paying job with excellent benefits. My sexuality didn’t get that job for me. It hasn’t kept me that job. My homosexuality didn’t get me an education.
And as for failures, you see, again, you don’t know a goddamn thing about me. You have no idea how successful I am. You have no idea what I’ve achieved in my life. You just assume, more than that, you literally just make shit up.
You’re clearly a grossly dysfunctional person who is so filled with hatred and revulsion for homosexuality that it makes you feel better about yourself, and perhaps better about some of your own desires bubbling beneath the surface which conflict so bluntly with your theological delusions, to insult those who don’t carry around the same shame as you.
And comparing yourself to Booker T. Washington!? As if you are some kind of a hero that has done something for your own people. What have you even begun to do for the homosexual community? You talk a lot of trash. You make a pretty good argument why we should all be institutionalized (if your lies and generalities were to be believed, that is). But you don’t contribute anything positive. You don’t encourage any change for the better, foster accountability or responsibility among the community. You don’t donate effort to help advance legal equality for homosexuals, as Booker T. Washington did for blacks. To the contrary, you vehemently argue against equality right here almost every day… Your gall is beyond belief.
Hero? In reality, you are a sad, warped, horrible, horrible liar. And hopelessly delusional.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Typical hypocrisy from you. In one post you condemn the ENTIRE homosexual population as being pro-pedo, in the next post you accuse them/us of ‘turning on pedophiles’. Kind of like your lies that the âgay communityâ promotes polygamy, single marriage, etc. then claim that the âgay communityâ are hypocrites for not treating such relationships as deserving of absolute rights to marriage.
While you demand that we condemn pedophilia, you then lambaste ALL of us, for having made statements like this from the link YOU provided above, âA common thread running through this material is an utter inability to recognize a conflict of interest. These men really seem to believe that they have the boys’ best interests at heart, despite clear evidence from their own accounts that they are taking grotesque advantage of troubled boys’ need for love, attention, support, and freedom from abuse. Their subtler form of abuse directs an adult’s arsenal against the innocence of children and the nascent sexuality of young adolescents and, when it succeeds, calls the result consensual love. That people so selfish should presume to lecture others about love, much less portray themselves as victims, is a supreme achievement in self-delusion and gall. […] It is time to tell NAMBLA and its kin to express their views elsewhere, without the benefit of ILGA’s assistance or its name.â
Maybe ND30 is just pissed off because the “gay community” at large doesn’t support NAMBLA and pedophilia. Maybe he feels sold out. Obviously, as he’s badgering those in the âgay communityâ who has condemned them…
And yet you fail completely to do this. You, through the extremeness of your rhetoric, the broadness of your indictment of all, turn nearly every homosexual against you. You have completely, utterly, poisoned the well. Few, if any would want to give even valid criticisms a serious thought coming from the likes of such a bigot as yourself.
I am an example of just such a person. I do not support ANY of the despicable things that you point out, in fact, I have long had a reputation among my peers as being socially conservative, even prudish, and yet I am dead set against you and will spare no amount of effort to oppose you because of the vitriol you display for homosexuality and the entire homosexual population.
If you didn’t hate homosexuals so much, if your intentions were pure, if you were reasonable in your approach, you’d have an ally in me. Instead, you’ve made an enemy.
So congratulations, you are quite effective at killing legitimate discourse here which could contribute homosexuals to address REAL (not the BS propaganda you spew) problems in our community. It is apparent that this is what you actually have set out to do. And it is working.
So perhaps you were right about one thing, you are not wasting your time.