Gay Patriot Header Image

On False Assumptions of Conservative Divas & Gay Conservatives

Every now and again, we got a comment which defines an attitude. But, it’s rare that that commenter will keep posting, continually proving how narrow-minded was his initial point about our blog, how wrong he was about our ideas and how ignorant he was about gay Republicans.

But, yesterday, not long after I announced that we were opening up nominations for our annual competition to determine the Grande Conservative Blogress Diva, reader John Santos claimed that “all those women” (emphasis added) that we were considering “have at least one anti-gay post on their blogs.” Amused by the ignorance of his statement, I chimed in in his comment asking him to back up his point with actual links.

Something which should be easy given that he had claimed that every single one of these blogresses had posted at least one anti-gay piece.

To be sure, I haven’t read every single post of every single woman I listed. I try to read a few of them regularly. That list includes blogresses whose work I (or Bruce) had read (and admired) at one time or another as well as blogresses whom readers had recommended when we held this competition in past years.

Perhaps, one of them had said something anti-gay–and that post escaped my notice. But, I highly doubt that “all of the women” had posted an anti-gay piece. Several blogresses (on our list) have libertarian leanings. One (Tammy Bruce) is an open lesbian, another has not only become a friend (Bridget Johnson of GOP Vixen), but she also regularly socializes with gay men while several others who have, from time to time, been critical of social conservatives for their extreme stands on homosexuality. I have met at least three others on the list, having identified myself to each as GayPatriotWest. None reacted adversely to this information.

When I challenged Mr. Santos to back up his point with links, he came up with only one, but in that post, Kate (the blogress with the supposed anti-gay comment) only weighed in on the fury of a transgender activist scorned. That activist got upset at the publication of a book nominated for an award by the Lambda Literary Foundation, a foundation which defines itself as “the country’s leading organization for LGBT literature.” Doesn’t sound like an anti-gay group to me.

In eighteen (18) comments posted after my challenge, Santos refused to provide a single post where a single one of the blogresses mentioned in the post made (as he claimed they all did) anti-gay comments.

Upon reading the post, Santos made an assumption about the women we gay conservatives choose to honor. Assuming (as do all too many in our community) we are self-hating hypocrites, this man is certain that we admire anti-gay women.

This man’s not interested in engaging our ideas, but in proving to himself that we are as narrow as he imagines us to be. Only, I–and a number of our regular defenders–fought back, taking issue with his ludicrous claim. Not only that, his failure to provide any examples supporting his point shows that he did not base his assumption on the reality of the situation. He just threw out a statement. Were that statement even close to true, he could have (in a matter of moments) come up with several examples.

What is it about all too many of those who spend so much time on this site that they repeatedly misunderstand our ideas, our arguments, even our rationale for supporting a party which, alas, still promotes policies (on gay issues) that we oppose? I do try to make rational arguments and know that from some of the comments (as well as some of my e-mail) that some liberals do get my points and appreciate (even while not supporting) my commitment to the GOP.

It’s too bad that others don’t take the time these people do to understand the arguments of their ideological adversaries.

All that said, perhaps someone will track down an anti-gay post one of these blogresses has written of which I am (at present) not aware. Such a post would surely lower my regard my regard for the blogress who penned it.

Having read a number of them regularly and others occasionally, I doubt any reader will come up with anything so incriminating. For most of these women appear to be supportive of rather than antagonistic to gay people.

– B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)

Share

138 Comments

  1. So, I’ll assume then that you’re from Canada. Will see if we can find Paul’s IP address so we can settle this matter.

    Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — December 6, 2007 @ 6:52 pm - December 6, 2007

  2. I can’t prove it, so this is the only time I’ll assert it. Again, I can’t prove it, but I do have a preponderance of… you know… suggestive evidence.

    But that will be enough for the people here. You want so desperately for he and I to be the same. If that’s your fantasy, then there is nothing I can do to change it.

    Paul and I and my BF have been friends for a couple of years, after meeting at TO Pride in ’05. He noticed a watch I was wearing and we began talking about this, that and the other. We’ve remained in email contact because we like each other. We’ve been to his place and he to ours. I introduced him to his current BF and they are currently in Portugal on holiday. We’re friends, like it or lump it.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 6:53 pm - December 6, 2007

  3. Of course, it’s laughably imprecise, obscenely subjective and totally useless

    You’d think it had been written by a gay conservative.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 6:57 pm - December 6, 2007

  4. Actually, when V The K removed one of Paul’s comments because he called another posters a douchebag, Paul asked why. V The k claimed he would not tolerate name calling. When Paul asked why V The K did not remove another poster’s comment, calling Paul a faggot, V The K banned him–and kept the faggot comment up.

    Add to the evidence: Knows way, way, WAY too much detail about V’s interactions 2 months ago with Paul R.

    We’re friends, like it or lump it.

    Who thus stalk and obsess about V the K ***together***???? That’s even worse!

    But hey – If Glenn Greenwald’s big defender during his “sockpuppet” scandal, who writes in Glenn’s own exact style and knows way too much about Glenn’s interactions with Internet people, can be Glenn’s Brazilian housemate – then I guess you, who writes in Paul R’s own exact style and knows way too much about Paul’s interactions with Internet people, can be Paul R’s “friend”. Thank you for at least admitting to that much. ROFL

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 7:00 pm - December 6, 2007

  5. and John, you still have backed up the point you made about the candidates for blogress diva.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 6, 2007 @ 7:00 pm - December 6, 2007

  6. That (DADT) is to blame on the Republican controlled Senate and Congress.

    Um, DADT was passed before the 1994 election.

    Who was in control of Congress between 1992 and 1994?

    THE DEMOCRATS.

    DADT was a law passed by a majority-Democrat Congress and signed by a Democrat President.

    DOMA was supported by the majority of Congressional Democrats and signed by a Democrat President, who then went on to tout the fact on radio advertisements as showing his commitment to “protecting values”.

    And then you whine that it’s OK for Democrats to support laws you claim are homophobic and for you to still support them because they have “no power”?

    Hypocrite. Hypocrite. Hypocrite.

    Party whore. Party whore. Party whore.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2007 @ 7:01 pm - December 6, 2007

  7. So, I’ll assume then that you’re from Canada.

    This is semantics, but I never said I was FROM Canada, just IN Canada.

    Will see if we can find Paul’s IP address so we can settle this matter.

    Oh, please do! And when you post the results, you will receive and email from a certain someone, with an IP addy in a certain country. Let’s see if you will be honest enough–that is, man enough–to post that info.

    By the way, you do know that there is more than one city and province in Canada, right? I mean you seemed a tad confused about their population, I thought I’d just clear that up.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 7:05 pm - December 6, 2007

  8. So, I’ll assume then that you’re from Canada. Will see if we can find Paul’s IP address so we can settle this matter.

    GPW, I wouldn’t worry about it any further.

    If you found they were using the same city, line and address: John Santos would just whip out, “Oh we’re housemates”. If you didn’t find they were using the same address, line or city: The underlying individual could have moved, could have DSL, could post from >1 location, etc. Either way, it won’t take you any closer to the truth.

    And we’ve established that, at a bare minimum, “Paul R” and “John S” obsess *together* over their little interactions with V the K (which is majorly weird and screwed up). Finally, really the ideas / issues are all that matter.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 7:11 pm - December 6, 2007

  9. GPW, I wouldn’t worry about it any further.

    And rob me of the opportunity to prove you a fool?

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 7:18 pm - December 6, 2007

  10. Already proven.

    TTFN! 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 7:22 pm - December 6, 2007

  11. (i.e., by my having spent time on you)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 7:24 pm - December 6, 2007

  12. Who thus stalk and obsess about V the K ***together***???? That’s even worse!

    This coming from a man who has spent the better part of several hours hunting me online in a pathetic attempt to turn his delusions into reality?

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 7:24 pm - December 6, 2007

  13. Or so says the man whose delusions include the belief that the Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency when DADT was passed.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2007 @ 7:35 pm - December 6, 2007

  14. Or so says the man whose delusions include the belief that the Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency when DADT was passed.

    I never climed the Republicans controlled the Presidency. And I’m still looking for a break down of how each side voted. So far, I’ve only found a tally of the votes, but not a breakdown along party lines.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 7:42 pm - December 6, 2007

  15. Aw, c’mon NDT. He has imaginary friends – and has been off in Canada. Can’t blame him for getting American political facts wrong. 😉

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 7:43 pm - December 6, 2007

  16. And also, in regards to Santos’s list of pedophiles, I noticed something:

    Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was
    charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.

    Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom
    Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.

    Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor
    working as a congressional page.

    In other words, Democrats define a “pedophile” as ANYONE who has sex with someone under the age of 18, regardless of whether or not they’re over the age of consent.

    But Santos, hypocrite that he is, claims that Gerry Studds was not a pedophile, even though Studds clearly fits the Democrat definition of pedophile that they apply to others.

    And furthermore, watch as Santos twists himself into knots trying to “prove” that the Democrat Party didn’t control Congress and the Presidency during 1992 – 1994, when DOMA was passed. Hilarious.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2007 @ 7:49 pm - December 6, 2007

  17. I’m outta here. Ugly Betty is up at 8 (with Christopher Gorham shirtless!); CSI at 9, (with dreamy Gary Dourdan battling a script drug problem,)–both fresh eppies and Mad Men, (with the yummy Bryan Batt,) at 10. It’s a repeat, but if it’s one I haven’t seen yet, I won’t be back. Feel free to trash me while I’m gone. After all, that’s what this post was all about.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 7:55 pm - December 6, 2007

  18. What a gay faggot sissy

    Comment by Vince P — December 6, 2007 @ 8:11 pm - December 6, 2007

  19. I am a conservative (Constitutionalist) heterosexual married woman, and I very much enjoy visiting your site and Tammy Bruce’s site. I also enjoy seeing Tammy’s appearances on Fox News Channel.

    Bruce, have you made appearances on TV to comment on politics or current events?

    Keep up the good work!

    And Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, and Happy Holidays to all who gather here.

    Comment by drillanwr — December 6, 2007 @ 8:17 pm - December 6, 2007

  20. #98: “Anti-gay slurs are funny?”

    Well, Santos, that would depend upon what you mean by “anti-gay.” Is there any particular definition you have in mind?

    Comment by Sean A — December 6, 2007 @ 9:47 pm - December 6, 2007

  21. I just scanned the comments and saw many by John Santos, yet he has yet to offer a link to substantiate the point he made in my previous post, the very point which inspired this very post.

    He’s much too busy transcribing all this for GLAAD to provide any silly links.

    Cankles could learn a thing or two on evasion and avoidance from this guy.

    Comment by The Ugly American — December 6, 2007 @ 10:00 pm - December 6, 2007

  22. For the record, Paul was never banned from my blog. My blog is not about people arguing, it’s a bunch of guys (and chicks) who swap crude jokes about funny pictures. Paul didn’t get this, and I eventually gave up on trying to explain to him why using the word “faggot” was funny in the context of a crude joke, but name-calling a regular a “douchebag” was not and ignored his emails. Especially when he started asking personal questions I don’t care to discuss with strangers… let alone someone who presented himself as antagonistic.

    Comment by V the K — December 6, 2007 @ 10:08 pm - December 6, 2007

  23. My name: John Santos. I’m simply stating the truth. I post using my real name, rather than an alias. I can’t say the same for all of you.

    John, that’s because there are many internet TWEAKERS out there LIKE YOU. Hello.

    Comment by SondraK — December 6, 2007 @ 10:14 pm - December 6, 2007

  24. A thread with over 100 comments, many of them from John Santos and he has yet to back up the point he made which inspired the post.

    If all those women listed had posted at least one anti-gay piece, he could easily find just one if he took the time it took to write half those comments to search those blogresses’s web=pages.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 6, 2007 @ 10:23 pm - December 6, 2007

  25. I only wish he’d give us his real address too.

    I’d like to send him a bottle of Glenfiddich to help kill the giant bug that currently residing in his colon.

    Comment by The Ugly American — December 6, 2007 @ 10:31 pm - December 6, 2007

  26. Isn’t Mad Men over yet??? Sheesh.

    Comment by SondraK — December 7, 2007 @ 1:12 am - December 7, 2007

  27. LOL…….

    Comment by The Ugly American — December 7, 2007 @ 2:10 am - December 7, 2007

  28. Conservative gays are a prime example of the nerdy kids who were never part of the in group, who grow up and will do anything to hang with the cool kids. Grow up.

    Pissy little faggot isn’t she?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 7, 2007 @ 2:16 am - December 7, 2007

  29. John Santos is a prime example of the nerdy kid who was never part of the in group, who never grew up and will do anything to hang with the cool kids.

    Comment by SondraK — December 7, 2007 @ 2:20 am - December 7, 2007

  30. JS also illustrates why people hate liberals. You can’t have an intelligent discussion with him because he just makes sh-t up. You can’t joke around with him because he wants to turn everything political and whines at you if he thinks yr inappropriate humor is offensive and his feelers get hurt. They’re like whiny, high-strung, over-emotive middle school girls. You half expect him to scream “I HATE YOU! YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING!” And go crying off to his room to TXT his friends about how horrible the adults are treating him.

    And the whole gushing over men on chick-oriented TV shows doesn’t help his “I’m not a 12 year old girl) case much.

    Comment by V the K — December 7, 2007 @ 5:28 am - December 7, 2007

  31. Just scrolled through the whole thread. How gratifying. Just might print this one.

    Comment by Jeremayakovka — December 7, 2007 @ 7:28 am - December 7, 2007

  32. So, what we have is a thirty year old man who…

    – Gushes about shirtless actors on chick-TV shows
    – Obsesses over what the ‘cool kids’ think
    – Requires constant emotional affirmation and considers those who don’t give it to him as his enemies

    Does this behavior sound more like an adult man, or a teenage girl?

    Comment by V the K — December 7, 2007 @ 8:59 am - December 7, 2007

  33. John offers: “Feel free to trash me while I’m gone. After all, that’s what this post was all about.”

    Nawh John… it’s about people making fair observations about your silliness and then you glibly, blithey and ineffectively dismissing the merit of those fair observations. Impotent gay activism never had a better poster boi for the bar’s bathroom wall.

    Like I wrote earlier, for you it’s a “Just Jack” moment. Egocentric, self absorbed, subpar.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 7, 2007 @ 9:43 am - December 7, 2007

  34. I for one frankly wouldn’t spend more time discussing this a$$hat than would be absolutely necessary…unless one prefers doing something more enjoyable, like root canal surgery.

    Where’s Vera? I need a drink, like, yesterday.

    PS to all who wished me well: I really do appreciate it. My absence from the group was not due to anything serious – I just have a new job now that (a) required 8 wks of intensive training and (b) does not allow for a lot of chit-chat time. So I will post only when absolutely positively necessary.

    Which excludes pretty much anything further for this piece of human flotsam, whom I’m convinced is either a misanthrope or the same woman who drove a teenage girl to commit suicide over a fake “My Space” admirer.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — December 7, 2007 @ 11:14 am - December 7, 2007

  35. Let’s see. “Paul R”… “John S”… who will be the next Canadian ‘friend’ in the sequence? “George T”?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 7, 2007 @ 4:12 pm - December 7, 2007

  36. #135 – How about Ringo U?

    Naw – it sounds like a college for drummers.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — December 7, 2007 @ 4:32 pm - December 7, 2007

  37. 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 7, 2007 @ 4:53 pm - December 7, 2007

  38. Does this behavior sound more like an adult man, or a teenage girl?

    On the rag.

    Whatever happened to that deaf idiot who was bigoted against people that can hear? She was fun.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 8, 2007 @ 12:28 am - December 8, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.