Patterico Puts Barney’s Name-Calling in Context
Announcing a three-day respite from blogging, that sage Angeleno blogger offers this on Barney’s smearing an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court as a “homophobe”:
This is how the left has operated for eight years: foster a cartoonish view of someone based on a distortion of their words taken out of its proper context (in this case a legal one), and then level an inflammatory charge. In the legal context, the game is to judge every decision by its result rather than its reasoning.
Antonin Scalia is not a homophobe, he’s a justice who leaves matters from the culture war to the political realm. But making that argument requires an audience that can handle subtle distinctions, such as the distinction between policy preferences and legal results. More and more nowadays, such distinctions are bulldozed by demagogues out to make everything black and white, and demonize the other side for their political views.
Interesting how those who consider themselves so smart, so nuanced, have to make everything to monochromatic, so simple. They can’t just disagree with our side, they have to demonize.
135 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
GPW, unfortunately, the behaviors that you and Patterico describe (painting cartoonish word-pictures of opponents, quoting out of context, leveling inflammatory charges, aggressive monochromatic demonization, etc.) are in recent use in several comment threads on this blog. Even by some who claim, incorrectly, that (1) they’re above it and/or (2) it’s always others doing it to them.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2009 @ 1:25 pm - March 27, 2009
how were scalia’s words taken out of context?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 27, 2009 @ 3:30 pm - March 27, 2009
so scalia compared homosexuals to murderers, and frank called scalia a “homophobe”. who is demonizing whom, GPW?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 27, 2009 @ 3:44 pm - March 27, 2009
bob, I have little patience for your juvenility. Go read what Scalia wrote and you’ll see he wasn’t comparing homosexuals to murderers. He was making a point about conduct and condition.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — March 27, 2009 @ 3:49 pm - March 27, 2009
yes, GPW, and he ostensibly believes that homosexuality is a “lifestyle” and a “behavior”. can your little pee brain understand why that type of thinking can lead to homophobic sentiment?
“Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.”
i’m sorry, but how does my having consensual sex with my long-term boyfriend have anything to do w/ my ability to be teacher or to be a businessperson? why is he defending this sentiment, even if he’s not explicitly claiming that it is his own?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 27, 2009 @ 4:00 pm - March 27, 2009
bob, grow up and quit it with the insults.
Lead to homophobic sentiment? Huh? The issue here is whether or not Scalia is a homophobe.
Barney Frank’s prominence as an openly gay mean-spirited, narrow-minded, self-righteous Democrat who always blames others and never admits his mistakes could lead to “homophobic sentiment,” but I’m not accusing him of being anti-gay or self-hating.
Instead of insulting me, try to understand my arguments because so far you’ve shown a tremendous capacity to misrepresent them and substitute your opinions of what you want my thoughts to be for my own ideas.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — March 27, 2009 @ 4:06 pm - March 27, 2009
my point is, people who believe homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice” and try to separate the “sin from the sinner” are usually homophobes. what exactly would scalia have had to say in order for you to think he was displaying signs of homophobia?
try substituting “jews” in for “homosexuals” and see if you see signs of antisemitism. and before you tell me that is not a valid comparison, consider that we can all agree that homosexuality is neither a choice nor a disorder, and it is an innate part of someone’s being, just like someone’s race.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 27, 2009 @ 4:12 pm - March 27, 2009
i’ve read your comments and understood your arguments. so far you have not responded to mine.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 27, 2009 @ 4:13 pm - March 27, 2009
Part of why Frank has taken on Scalia and now Harry Reid has attacked Roberts is because they want to stir up the rabble to run around and shout as a way to deflect reaction to the ultra-liberal Obama will appoint for the nearing vacancy. June is coming and someone is doubtlessly going. Maybe the Messiah will appoint Cynthia McKinney.
Comment by heliotrope — March 27, 2009 @ 4:22 pm - March 27, 2009
GPW says: “Go read what Scalia wrote and you’ll see he wasn’t comparing homosexuals to murderers.”
that’s funny, because in your earlier post you said:
“Yeah, I would rather he had not compared homosexual conduct to murder…”
so which is it?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 27, 2009 @ 4:43 pm - March 27, 2009
but let me guess, he was talking about homosexual “conduct”, not “homosexuals”.
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
[Yes, that's it. --Dan]
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 27, 2009 @ 4:43 pm - March 27, 2009
reading scalia’s dissent makes clear that by “homosexual conduct” he was referring to any homosexual activity whatsover. in other words, he wasn’t talking about the kind of stuff that keeps NDT up at night. he’s talking about just being gay (and not relegating yourself to a loveless life because your orientation makes certain people uncomfortable).
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 27, 2009 @ 4:45 pm - March 27, 2009
The reason Scalia does so, boob, is because both you and Barney Fag, as well as the other members of your Obama Party and the gay left community, have made it clear that your sexual orientation requires you to do those things that “keep NDT up at night”, and that anyone who would dare criticize them is a homophobe.
The gay left and the gay community state that taking children to a sex fair constitutes an “educational experience” and that people who would oppose such things are “close-minded” and “against gays having children in the first place”. Do you think those are the kind of people to whom you would entrust your Boy Scout? Where is the outrage of either you or Barney Fag at gays who would use their sexual orientation as an excuse for such behavior and claim that anyone who objected is a homophobe?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2009 @ 5:34 pm - March 27, 2009
Let me put out a question: Why can’t the gay community simply come up with some norms of behavior, just so we’re clear what’s kosher and what isn’t? Religion has no trouble laying out what’s acceptable and what isn’t, so even if people break the rules there’s a yardstick to measure it against.
I mean, if you want society to recognize and value your relationships, isn’t it incumbent upon you to let society know what the rules of gay relationships are, so society can judge fairly whether they are healthy and beneficial or not?
And if a perception exists that gay culture hold in contempt things that are traditionally considered virtues… the family unit, monogamous commitment, self-restraint… would not a statement of the values and expectations of gay relationships go a long way toward correcting that perception?
Comment by V the K — March 27, 2009 @ 5:46 pm - March 27, 2009
Let me put out a question: Why can’t the gay community simply come up with some norms of behavior, just so we’re clear what’s kosher and what isn’t?
Because that would be “judging”, and it might deny some gays the self-gratification that is their birthright.
The gay community already has a guiding principle, V the K; basically, it’s “I’m gay, so I can do whatever I want, and anyone who disagrees with me is a homophobe”.
It should be no surprise that a philosophy more suited to a bratty four-year-old than to adults means that the gay community is treated like a bunch of bratty four-year-olds.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2009 @ 6:00 pm - March 27, 2009
“Why can’t the gay community simply come up with some norms of behavior, just so we’re clear what’s kosher and what isn’t? ”
and who, exactly, would propose these rules? gay people don’t have their own president who speaks for them. the important thing is that gay people have the capacity to fall in love just the same as straight people, and our relationships are no less (or more) “valuable”.
“I mean, if you want society to recognize and value your relationships, isn’t it incumbent upon you to let society know what the rules of gay relationships are, so society can judge fairly whether they are healthy and beneficial or not?”
no. firstly, the reason there aren’t societal norms for gay relationships is because, until relatively recently, gay relationships were almost exclusively on the “down low”. secondly, you’re proposing a double standard. straight people do not have to be monogamous or anything else to be allowed a marriage license. thirdly, while i would hope our society would eventually realize that gay couples have the same loving bond as straight couples, my main concern is with receiving the rights and benefits. some people will never rid themselves of their prejudices, and i should not have to wait for these people to educate themselves to be entitled to equal rights.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 27, 2009 @ 6:16 pm - March 27, 2009
oh, and just so ya know, when gay people try to educate the public about homosexuality, we’re usually accused of “forcing it down the public’s throat”.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 27, 2009 @ 6:18 pm - March 27, 2009
and NDT: STFU. you don’t contribute anything meaningful to the conversation. all you do is push falsehoods.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 27, 2009 @ 6:20 pm - March 27, 2009
bob, for the record: Homosexuality *is* a behavior. The orientation isn’t. The orientation is an orientation. But the orientation doesn’t, and needn’t, dictate behavior. That’s reality.
bob, for the record: Homosexuality *is* a lifestyle choice. See above. Homosexuals are perfectly The question is whether it’s a legitimate lifestyle choice. I believe that it is – for those who are homosexually oriented. I say the same thing about heterosexuality, that it is a legtimate lifestyle choice – for those who are heterosexually oriented.
Also, what do you mean by “homophobe”? A “phobe”-anything is, as far as I am aware, someone who is *irrationally afraid* of the thing. I’m sure that among the many varieties of people who don’t agree with your viewpoint on gay issues, there are some who are *irrationally afraid* of gays. But far more of them aren’t. And the fact that someone opposes gay marriage, or thinks that States should be able to pass sodomy laws however stupid and ill-advised those laws are, is not sufficient (or even facial) evidence of real homophobia. You would appear to think that homophobia is anytime someone doesn’t agree with you.
bob, newsflash: That’s only a statement of fact. (More so back at the time when Scalia wrote it.)
Perhaps something like, “Gays are sub-human beings out to rape my cat.”Apples and oranges. You have to plausibly define “Jewish conduct.” (Good luck.) Then you run smack into the First Amendment, which says we can’t care about religious differences. There is no such amendment, in mainstream constitutional jurisprudence, to cover sexual differences. (I believe the 9th or 10th amendments cover it, BUT they do not do so explicitly, and, sadly for me, my view is not mainstream.)
Along the lines of what I said earlier, comparing homosexual conduct to murder *is not* comparing homosexuals to murderers, because conducts (actions) are not people.
Forgive me if I don’t take your word for it. “Being gay” isn’t an action. Having gay sex with your boyfriend is an action. Doing a gay rape (or a heterosexual rape for that matter) is an action. “Being gay” isn’t. Provide your quotes where Scalia’s dissent irrationally ignores that distinction.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2009 @ 6:33 pm - March 27, 2009
Sorry, the “Apples and oranges” section above refers to, and should have been preceded by, the following quote:
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2009 @ 6:36 pm - March 27, 2009
I also want to respond to this:
Not at all. Race is a totally false construct. It can’t be “innate” in anyone, because races don’t exist; what people imagine are “races” are false categories, scientifically speaking.
Further: as already stated, homosexuality (in the sense of behavior) *is* a choice. Orientation (be it heterosexual, homosexual, etc.) would be the thing that’s innate.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2009 @ 6:40 pm - March 27, 2009
homosexuality is not a behavior. homosexuality is defined as a sexual orientation in which one is attracted to and falls in love with members of the same sex. a celibate homosexual is still a homosexual. a gay man who marries a woman and only has sex with her is still gay. he’s still gay because of the people to whom he is attracted, not the sex of the person with whom he is having sex. thus, homosexuality is not a behavior. sure, there are homosexual behaviors, if you will, but homosexuality itself is not a behavior.
you claim homosexuality is a lifestyle and that you consider heterosexuality a lifestyle as well. fine. but i’ve never heard someone referring to homosexuality as a “lifestyle” also refer to heterosexuality as a “lifestyle”. when people refer to being gay as a “lifestyle”, this is an intentional (usually) attempt to make homosexuality seem like a choice. it is not.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 27, 2009 @ 6:44 pm - March 27, 2009
“Forgive me if I don’t take your word for it. “Being gay†isn’t an action. Having gay sex with your boyfriend is an action. Doing a gay rape (or a heterosexual rape for that matter) is an action. “Being gay†isn’t. ”
so are you saying that the action of having sex with my boyfriend is comparable to the action of murder?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 27, 2009 @ 6:49 pm - March 27, 2009
Scalia is a homophobe. It’s laughable that any gay person, conservative or liberal would argue that point.
Comment by Houndentenor — March 27, 2009 @ 7:03 pm - March 27, 2009
Houndentenor, just because you assert something, blithely and with no supporting anecdote or other evidence… does not make it so.
Scalia might be a homophobe, a freemason or a wearer of women’s underwear, for all I know. But the dissent we’re talking about is not sufficient evidence of any of those things, or even facial. Or else provide your quotes.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2009 @ 7:07 pm - March 27, 2009
This is my first post on this site. I do not think I came into this pre-wired to be gay. Many factors in my childhood pushed me in that direction. By the time I was ready to acknowledge my sexuality I choose to direct my attentions towards the same sex because it seemed natural to me. Maybe some people are born gay. I don’t think we will ever know for sure. I don’t claim to speak for others. I only speak for myself.
Comment by Niall — March 27, 2009 @ 7:48 pm - March 27, 2009
Yes it is. It’s the action of engaging in homosexual (same-sex) sexual activity.
No, that is called, homosexual orientation. Orientation is not behavior. Behavior is not orientation. Orientation is not chosen. Behavior is chosen.
A “homosexual” (noun) is someone who is homosexually ****oriented*****, so yes, of course.
OK, so talk to them about it. Try engaging them. And take the chip off your shoulder; try to stay pleasant and open. They might pleasantly surprise you.
No. I mean, not if by “comparable” you mean “morally comparable” or “morally equivalent”. (Anything can be compared to anything, along some dimension.) And I’m not at all sure how the question would have arisen for you, if you understood my points accurately.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2009 @ 8:21 pm - March 27, 2009
#23: “so are you saying that the action of having sex with my boyfriend is comparable to the action of murder?”
No, but I’m sure for your boyfriend it is.
Comment by Sean A — March 27, 2009 @ 8:30 pm - March 27, 2009
#27 – Couldn’t have said it better myself, ILC!
Also – what we seem to be missing the point around here is that we are talking about fellow individuals. And the last time I checked, we individuals are what make up groups, not vice versa.
Seems to go along with my earlier postulation: conservatives like you for WHO you are. Liberals like you for WHAT you are.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 27, 2009 @ 8:30 pm - March 27, 2009
my point about the “lifestyle” thing, ILC, is that conservatives tend to use that word to imply that being gay is a choice.
as for the homosexuality definition, i think there are two definitions (at least according to my dictionary). one is the orientation and one is engaging in the actions. so i suppose we’re both right. however, my point was that we should distinguish between being gay and gay sexual acts, and we should be wary of those who conflate these things. some people try to conflate them and act as though the orientation does not exist. these people perpetuate the myth that the only part of being gay is sex. this not only discounts the emotional and companionship aspect of love gays experience, but it also discounts the fact that gay people live ordinary lives like heterosexuals, often doing boring things like raking the yard or vacuuming the rugs. in other words, it results in an over-sexualization of gays.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 27, 2009 @ 8:41 pm - March 27, 2009
and seanA, that was a pretty good one; i can’t deny that.
but somehow i don’t think my boyfriend minds.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 27, 2009 @ 8:42 pm - March 27, 2009
#30: “some people try to conflate them and act as though the orientation does not exist. these people perpetuate the myth that the only part of being gay is sex.”
You’re right, bob. “Some people” are responsible for this. They’re called: GAYS.
Comment by Sean A — March 27, 2009 @ 9:01 pm - March 27, 2009
no…sean, no. i’m pretty sure gay people realize that they do more than just have sex.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 27, 2009 @ 9:38 pm - March 27, 2009
Boob, get back to us when Folsom Street Fair is canceled for lack of interest, and the theme of the Gay Pride March is “Commitment and Monogamy Forever!”
Comment by V the K — March 27, 2009 @ 11:05 pm - March 27, 2009
Perhaps no, but trying to follow your “logic”, suffering through your spin, arrogance and defense of blatant hatred is.
That and telling NDT to STFU.
What a miserable bastard.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 27, 2009 @ 11:13 pm - March 27, 2009
Wow! An argument about the definition of gay coupled with an indictment of Scalia being a homophobe.
If gay and gay lifestyle and gay culture and gay community and gay this and gay that are all subject to varying qualifications and definitions, what is a poor homophobe supposed to do?
As an anointed homophobe, please clear this up ASAP. I would like to be clear about where to direct my mindless, blind hatred. Meanwhile, I will let Scalia fend for himself.
Thank you.
Comment by heliotrope — March 27, 2009 @ 11:41 pm - March 27, 2009
Boob, get back to us when Folsom Street Fair is canceled for lack of interest, and the theme of the Gay Pride March is “Commitment and Monogamy Forever!â€
Or, even better, when there’s no need for boob to flaunt who he wants to have sex with in an ostentatious public parade.
Isn’t it hilarious? Boob wants employment protections, welfare, greater punishment for crimes, recognition of relationships, and everything else based on who he has sex with, but then insists that being gay isn’t about with whom he has sex.
Furthermore, boob, glad to see you admit that homosexual men can have sex with women. Since you can choose to have sex with a woman, you can go ahead and marry one if you want to be married. But if you want to have sex with men instead, you’re giving up marriage for that. Deal with it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2009 @ 11:57 pm - March 27, 2009
#30: “my point was that we should distinguish between being gay and gay sexual acts, and we should be wary of those who conflate these things”
Yes, NDT, it is hilarious. bob types a statement like the one above because he truly thinks the “oversexualization of gays” and any resistance in mainstream society to view gays as “people [who] live ordinary lives like heterosexuals, often doing boring things like raking the yard or vacuuming the rugs,” is the fault of “haters” and “homophobes” like Justice Scalia. The gay left consists of nothing but a bunch of 5 year olds who want all of the privileges of mainstream heterosexual marriage without even entertaining the thought of accepting any of the parameters that go with it (and might bolster the argument for state-recognition). And it’s no defense that there are gay couples who are completely monogamous and straight couples who shamelessly cheat on one another. bob labels anyone who doesn’t see straight couples and gay couples as legally and socially IDENTICAL as morons and homophobes, yet he’s never wondered why the word “adultery” is used exclusively to refer to the infidelity of heterosexual couples (and usually whispered). Why do you think that is, bob? Any ideas?
Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 12:29 am - March 28, 2009
TCG: where did i defend blatant hatred, as you claim?
heliotrope: the point i was making is that terms like “gay lifestyle” and “the gay agenda” are generally phrases pushed by homophobes. i explained the reasons why in several posts. sorry if you didn’t understand. the other thing i was trying to say is that some people try to characterize being gay as a behavior instead of an orientation.
NDT: i’ve stopped even reading your posts because of your utter belligerence.
seana: have you ever gone on the website of organizations like focus on the family, the family research council, concerned women for america, etc.? have you ever gone to a conservative church? these are the types of organizations that push this false perception of gays about which i was talking, leading to misinformation. i’m not blaming all of mainstream society. but there are certainly certain groups of people who use certain language when talking about gay people that is dangerous. language is important.
oh, and i have a question for ya, sean. if we were to conduct a study that found conclusively that people of race “x” have exceptionally high rates of adultery, abuse, open marriages and single-parent families, should we stop allowing any people of this race to get married?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 8:51 am - March 28, 2009
bob,
when will we have a chance to own a copy of the “bob” dictionary. It is so frustrating to try to communicate without the convenience of knowing “bob speak.”
So it is settled? Behavior and orientation never blend. Two flamers French kissing on a table top at Epcot are just orientationizing.
Comment by heliotrope — March 28, 2009 @ 9:37 am - March 28, 2009
But you do have a lifestyle… a lifestyle centered on seeking out members of your same sexual orientation for companionship “and more” And gays do have an agenda… an agenda that includes redefining marriage, gaining special protection in employment, censoring the speech of those critical of their lifestyle, and forcing public schools to indoctrinate children into accepting their lifestyle.
It’s colossally dishonest to claim that there is neither a distinctive gay lifestyle, nor a progressive gay agenda.
Comment by V the K — March 28, 2009 @ 10:03 am - March 28, 2009
#39: bob, these questions have been answered for you over and over again–you just don’t like the answers. As I stated above, “it’s no defense that there are gay couples who are completely monogamous and straight couples who shamelessly cheat on one another.” You’re making the same TIRED argument that seeks to avoid the real distinction between mainstream society and mainstream gay society when it comes to the issues of sexuality and monogamy. Mainstream society still condemns adultery and other forms of destructive sexual compulsion (for now). At a minimum, it is stigmatized as “adultery.” In mainstream gay society, the same conduct is EMBRACED AND DEFENDED and given upbeat, non-judgey labels like “open relationship.” That’s the truth, and the mainstream gay “community” WANTS IT THAT WAY and screams “discrimination!”, “homophobia!”, and “hatred!” if anyone dares to criticize ANY expression of gay sexuality, no matter how depraved and destructive it may be.
And it’s not Justice Scalia’s job to change this perception. The responsibility lies with the same group that created the perception in the first place–the mainstream gay left. But bob, they don’t want to change it. Instead, they want the perception of heterosexual unions to change, though I shouldn’t say “they” because it includes YOU. Your stupid argument is “straight people do the same and worse all the time, so why not take away their rights?!” Come back and make that argument when the majority of mainstream society starts marching in the streets celebrating heterosexual adultery instead of doing everything they can to conceal it (as one naturally does with anything they are justifiably ASHAMED OF).
And bob, your statement “there are certainly certain groups of people who use certain language when talking about gay people that is dangerous” is just your way of saying that you would prefer religious groups to ignore the gay left’s DEFENSE of depraved conduct because it would be more convenient for the gay legislative agenda. But they have no obligation to excuse or ignore conduct (or the defense of such conduct) if it is inconsistent with their moral beliefs. If the gay left wants the perception to change, all they have to do is start condemning and stigmatizing behavior that harms our society. But they are clearly unwilling to do so and are offended by the very suggestion. Instead, you just keep spinning your wheels in that childish way, refusing to take any responsibility and blaming the “religious right,” “homophobes,” and U.S. Supreme Court justices for the way gays are perceived in our society (and then patting yourselves on the back for your “bravery.”) True bravery would be taking on the mainstream gay left for creating this problem in the first place, but those groups have you well trained and know they can count on you to keep pointing fingers at conservatives instead of them. Well done, bob. Good boy!
Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 10:10 am - March 28, 2009
there is no more a “gay lifestyle” than there is a “straight lifestyle” but no one uses that phrase to describe the latter. that is the point. and sure, there is a political agenda, just as you could say there is a “republican agenda” or a “environmentalist agenda”. but conservatives make it sound like the gays have this secretive, nefarious agenda that involves swooping and stealing your children and “recruiting” them and all that bullshit. and no, i don’t want “special” protection or treatment in any way. but i don’t think employers should be allowed to fire me on the basis of my sexual orientation alone. btw, this protection would extend to heterosexuals as well — i.e., your employer (if he’s gay, for example) should not be allowed to fire you because he dislikes heterosexuals.
and i think you’re confusing “censorship” with debate. i’m not trying to censor anyone. i’m trying to argue what i see as the correct side of this topic. but again, you use in that very sentence the phrase “lifestyle”…those that are critical of my “lifestyle”. my lifestyle is probably not much different than your average straight person…the only difference is the sex of my partner.
and as far as schools…i’m not into indoctrinating anyone. schools should teach children not to hate people who are different, however, don’t you think? it’s not like schools are teaching children about butt sex. reading a story about a family that looks different isn’t indoctrination. it’s a reality of life, and we shouldn’t shield our kids from basic facts of life. this actually goes to my earlier point: you guys see a story about a family with two mommies as being about sex. however, if children were to read a story about a “hetero” family with a mommy and a daddy, would your mind even leap to the idea of sex? no, you’d just think there’s the mommy and there’s the daddy. part of this reason is because most of you commenting on this blog grew up during a different time — a time in which homosexuality was completely closeted and thought of as a mental disorder. children raised in today’s world, in which they are exposed to different types of people from a younger age, won’t be as susceptible to falling to the homophobia that many on this board exhibit. homosexuality is neither “right” nor “wrong”. it just is. it’s a naturally occurring part of life, and gay people and gay relationships are perfectly healthy.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 10:20 am - March 28, 2009
question, seana: how old are you? i ask because i’m probably quite a bit younger than you. when i was in college (not that long ago), probably half of the straight people i knew had, at some point during college, a casual fling, an “open relationship” or an F buddy. i think you are a bit out of touch here. you probably don’t realize just how “mainstream” in straight culture casual sex is.
also, something you’re probably not considering in your thought process:
try to imagine, just for a moment, being very in the closet and deathly afraid that your family and/or friends will find out about you. try to imagine, then, that you would be totally afraid to be in public with another guy, to do normal things like going for a date in a restaurant or to a movie or whatever. now imagine being in your 20s and still never having had any sexual contact with someone you’re attracted to because of these reasons, despite, like all young men, having those thoughts in your head all the time.
can you start to understand why, in more conservative communities, where the social norms of society strictly condemn homosexuality, gay people end up having anonymous sex in shady areas, why healthy gay relationships are so difficult to maintain?
of course, you’re going to accuse me of making “excuses”, but i think we should all practice a little empathy before we get on our high horses and start judging. a little perspective can go a long way.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 10:44 am - March 28, 2009
#43: “i’m not into indoctrinating anyone. schools should teach children not to hate people who are different, however, don’t you think?”
FUCK NO. That’s your problem, bob. You think government schools are supposed to mold children into good little progressive, non-judgmental, environmentalists. This is why test scores in US schools are dismal–because the teachers have the kids painting signs to celebrate Earth Day instead of learning algebra. Teaching children “not to hate”? Are you serious? The public schools are all about teaching hate–hate against evil corporations for poisoning the environment and drowning the polar bears; hate against the US for its war-mongering imperialism; hate against the white Europeans who founded this country because they weren’t interested in “diversity”;…and on and on.
“homosexuality is neither “right†nor “wrongâ€. it just is. it’s a naturally occurring part of life, and gay people and gay relationships are perfectly healthy.”
Spare me, bob. Nothing in the curriculum of a government school is there simply because it just “is” or is a “naturally occurring part of life.” The public schools are utterly resistant to teaching children anything that just “is,” if it conflicts with the liberal agenda. For example, after 9/11, public school teachers were instructed not to make any statements that any particular group was responsible for the attack. Better to just talk about feelings instead of the facts and realities of the world we live in.
Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 10:57 am - March 28, 2009
schools should teach children facts. the fact is, there are families that might look different than their own, and there are people with different skin color than their own, etc. i don’t think this is indoctrination. and as for the environment, kids should be taught scientific facts, not opinions. the problem is, many on the political right don’t believe in science, and instead they want to teach their religion as science.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 11:04 am - March 28, 2009
[I]’m not trying to censor anyone.
Except people who exercised their Constitutional right to donate to a political campaign (proposition 8), whom it is okay to harass and even cause to lose their jobs, to the nodding approval of the gay activists.
And this sentence “[I]’m not into indoctrinating anyone.” is immediately contradicted by the following one. “[S]chools should teach children not to hate people who are different.” That’s indoctrination.
[G]ay people and gay relationships are perfectly healthy.
Some are, some aren’t. What the gay community completely fails to do is make a distinction. Worse yet, the party-slut, the leather-daddy, the pig, the open relationship are celebrated norms. Monogamous, committed relationships are broadly seen as an unrealistic ideal. Except in propaganda films like American Beauty where only the gay relationship is monogamous and healthy.
Or, like I said. When Folsom Street Fair shuts down for lack of interest, then you can tell me gays value monogamy and normalcy.
Comment by V the K — March 28, 2009 @ 11:23 am - March 28, 2009
[T]he problem is, many on the political left don’t believe in freedom of conscience, and instead they want to teach their ideology as the only acceptable way to think.
Fixed it for you. (And not just your infantile refusal to capitalize.)
Comment by V the K — March 28, 2009 @ 11:26 am - March 28, 2009
#44: “when i was in college (not that long ago), probably half of the straight people i knew had, at some point during college, a casual fling, an “open relationship†or an F buddy. i think you are a bit out of touch here. you probably don’t realize just how “mainstream†in straight culture casual sex is.”
Well, Lord have mercy, bob! I’ve never heard such scandal! I’m 38 and when I was in college in the 90s there CERTAINLY was none of this “casual sex” stuff going on. I’m absolutely mortified. I guess you’re right. I’m apparently too old and out of touch to have a clear perspective on these issues.
Seriously though, bob, are you even reading my comments? Are you under the impression that I dispute that there are probably a billion heterosexuals committing some depraved, shameful sexual act at this very moment? I assure you that is not my position. My point, which you have again either ignored or failed to comprehend, is that the mainstream gay community embraces, celebrates and defends depraved conduct that is harmful to our society and ultimately ruinous to the participants. Thus, it is ridiculous for gays to call conservatives “homophobes” and “hate-mongerers” because they harbor the CRAZY belief that state-sanctioned, same-sex marriage would likely be harmful to our society when its advocates are sending the message that the condemnation of “open relationships” etc. is “hatred” and “bigotry.” The fact remains that mainstream society still condemns and stigmatizes compulsive, destructive sexual behavior committed by married heterosexuals (as rampant as it may be in our society). The mainstream gay left is committed to eradicating such condemnation and judgment. It’s irrelevant that all of your slutty straight friends in college slept with a lot of people.
“can you start to understand why, in more conservative communities, where the social norms of society strictly condemn homosexuality, gay people end up having anonymous sex in shady areas, why healthy gay relationships are so difficult to maintain?”
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…….OH! I’m sorry. You started blaming conservatives for the compulsive behavior of gays again and I must have nodded off for a sec. The answer is: I reject your point completely. Mainstream society will perceive the gay community as supportive of healthy gay relationships when the community starts supporting healthy gay relationships. It’s that simple. This will necessarily require the community to judge, condemn, and stigmatize destructive behaviors. If it is unwilling to do that, then it will simply continue to be perceived as a group that condones, defends and supports depraved conduct. It’s up to the “community.” Conservatives are blameless.
Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 11:51 am - March 28, 2009
v the k: boycotting a business is a free choice, not censorship. i don’t condone any violence or physically blocking people from going into a business, but boycotting isn’t censorship.
by your definition of indoctrination, then, i guess we shouldn’t pass judgment on anything that has resulted from racism, huh? i guess the schools shouldn’t make any judgment calls about the holocaust then.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 11:58 am - March 28, 2009
seanA, gay people don’t yell “HOMOPHOBE” when someone criticizes open relationships. if you want to criticize open relationships, but all means, do so. i assume you would be criticizing them within the context of both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, though. what we call “homophobia” is when you try to brand all of as a bunch of deviant, sex-obsessed, moral-less heathens.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 12:00 pm - March 28, 2009
“The fact remains that mainstream society still condemns and stigmatizes compulsive, destructive sexual behavior committed by married heterosexuals (as rampant as it may be in our society).”
so you admit that this behavior is rampant among heterosexuals. so what good does the stigmatizing do? obviously, not much. if what you’re saying were true, then there wouldn’t be such widespread behavior that you consider “destructive” in the heterosexual community. yes, we should certainly ban straight marriage now since i haven’t heard you on tv saying that this behavior is unacceptable.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 12:04 pm - March 28, 2009
and btw, what makes you think that, when society condemns infidelity, that doesn’t apply to gays too? i’m still a party of our society, as are all gays. my morals have been developed by living in our mostly heterosexual society, just like everyone else. i don’t presume that a different set of moral standards exists for my relationship because i’m gay. i know if i cheated on my bf, he would be as hurt by it as would a girl if i were in a relationship with a girl. ultimately, however, i don’t think it is the government’s business to judge whether a certain segment of society is “moral” enough to deserve equal treatment under the law.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 12:10 pm - March 28, 2009
#46: “schools should teach children facts. the fact is, there are families that might look different than their own, and there are people with different skin color than their own, etc.”
Yeah, bob. Because that’s the objective of diversity programs and multi-cultural curricula in the public schools–making sure the children are NOTIFIED that there are people in the world with a different skin color than their own. Because how would they ever figure that out on their own? It sounds like a very worthwhile subject for the schools to be teaching. Textbook: Chapter 1–there are people in the world whose skin color is different from your own. Chapter 2–you shouldn’t hate them. Of course, they will typically be reading the textbook in a classroom surrounded by 30 other students whose skin color is, in fact, different from their own. You’re right, bob–math is for “haters” and just divides us. Let’s spend the whole semester just talking about race, skin color, discrimination, self-esteem, feelings…the test scores will be through the roof!
Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 12:10 pm - March 28, 2009
yes, seana, because that’s what i was saying…
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 12:12 pm - March 28, 2009
“…like I said. When Folsom Street Fair shuts down for lack of interest, then you can tell me gays value monogamy and normalcy.”
ok, v the k, and i’ll believe that heterosexuals value monogamy when mardi gras ceases to exist.
see how this works?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 12:20 pm - March 28, 2009
[I] guess we shouldn’t pass judgment on anything that has resulted from racism, huh? i guess the schools shouldn’t make any judgment calls about the holocaust then.
How about schools simply teach historical fact (as well as grammar and punctuation) and let families teach values.
[I] don’t think it is the government’s business to judge whether a certain segment of society is “moral†enough to deserve equal treatment under the law.
Homosexuals do get equal treatment under the law in every way that matters. Whether marriage should be redefined to accommodate same sex relationships is a matter for the people — who, in the USA are supposed to have control over the government (at least until progressive fascism is fully instituted) — to decide.
Comment by V the K — March 28, 2009 @ 12:28 pm - March 28, 2009
Actually, in the case of “hate crimes” law, homosexuals are actually given superior rights to heterosexuals, since the law permits or requires those who commit crimes against them to be punished more severely than those who commit crimes against non-homosexuals.
Comment by V the K — March 28, 2009 @ 12:30 pm - March 28, 2009
People do not have sex in public at Mardis Gras. People get arrested for indecent exposure at Mardi Gras. People do not lean out over balconies masturbating into the crowd as Mardi Gras.
A phony and dishonest comparison made by a phony and dishonest commenter.
Comment by V the K — March 28, 2009 @ 12:33 pm - March 28, 2009
actually it’s not up to the people. you should do some research into the three branches of government we have. the judicial branch is there, in part, to uphold the constitution. and whether you agree or not, a strong argument can be made that not allowing same-sex relationships the same benefits as different-sex relationships violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 12:33 pm - March 28, 2009
bob, this is pointless. You’re still ducking the issue–the mainstream gay community’s position on matters of sexuality and monogamy.
“i don’t presume that a different set of moral standards exists for my relationship because i’m gay.”
That’s very admirable, bob, but the mainstream gay community disagrees with you. The undeniable, well-established position of the mainstream gay community is that NO moral standards apply to your relationships.
Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 12:34 pm - March 28, 2009
have you ever been to mardi gras? last time i was there, i saw about 50 pairs of bare breasts, a dozen or so flashed cocks, and, when venturing into an alley, stumbled upon a drunken 20-something bending a girl over a table and doing her doggy style.
what was your point?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 12:36 pm - March 28, 2009
“That’s very admirable, bob, but the mainstream gay community disagrees with you. The undeniable, well-established position of the mainstream gay community is that NO moral standards apply to your relationships.”
what evidence do you have of this?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 12:37 pm - March 28, 2009
#58: You’re right V the K. The two events are not analogous, and you know what the biggest distinction is? Unlike Mardi Gras, the Folsom Street Fair doesn’t have an “Ash Wednesday.”
Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 12:41 pm - March 28, 2009
The Progressive Fascist philosophy in one sentence.
Comment by V the K — March 28, 2009 @ 12:49 pm - March 28, 2009
bob asking for evidence is like… Wow, I can’t even think of a comparison so absurd.
And the fact that there is “a strong argument can be made that not allowing same-sex relationships the same benefits as different-sex relationships does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment” as recently articulated by one of our Justices escapes bob in his attempt to brand any dissenting point of view as homophobic.
Also apparently bob missed civics 101 since he feels the people do not have the right to self govern.
This doesn’t surprise me, since it matches his feelings of superiority. And he apparently has time on his hands if he’s watching Marti Gras counting penises.
I’d suggest bob read up on the constitution and the ammendment process, especially the first ammendment’s rights of association and “and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” He can put that on his to do list, right after punctuation and manners.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 28, 2009 @ 12:52 pm - March 28, 2009
#63: “what evidence do you have of this?”
Oh my God. Ummmm…the expression “open relationship” comes to mind. How about the word “thriple”? The continuing existence of the Folsom Street Fair is rather weighty evidence on the issue, not to mention 80-90% of what is on display at every gay pride parade and festival from here to Ticfaw, Louisiana. bob, are you seriously trying to make the point that the mainstream gay portion of our society condemns infidelity (or any sexual compulsion for that matter) as MORALLY WRONG? Are you really going down that road? Because if you are, then this discussion is even more of a waste of time than I suspected.
Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 1:03 pm - March 28, 2009
so belief in the court system doing what it was intended to do is called fascism now? wow, that’s interesting.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 1:04 pm - March 28, 2009
people have the right to self-govern, livewire, but like most things in life, that philosophy is not black and white. the courts system is there, in large part, to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 1:05 pm - March 28, 2009
“And the fact that there is “a strong argument can be made that not allowing same-sex relationships the same benefits as different-sex relationships does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment†as recently articulated by one of our Justices escapes bob in his attempt to brand any dissenting point of view as homophobic.”
aside from your point here being grammatically inept, it is also not what i was saying. the issue of whether or not denying same-sex marriage violates the 14th amendment has not yet gone before the supreme court. the massachusetts supreme court did, however, find that denying these rights violated its state constitution. i would be interested to hear the supreme court’s opinion on this matter, and i don’t think this issue going to the supreme court is fascism. if i have to wait until people like v the k and seana grow up and get over their biases, i will never be able to get full marriage rights.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 1:09 pm - March 28, 2009
#69: “if i have to wait until people like v the k and seana grow up and get over their biases, i will never be able to get full marriage rights.”
Did you get that, V the K? Apparently, it’s just the two of us standing between bob and “full marriage rights.” I don’t know about you, but I feel drunk with power. I know that conservatives are generally blamed for all of the misery in the world and all of the “rights” that are being trampled on, but until bob singled me out, I’ve never really felt like part of the team. But now that I know I am personally standing in the way of bob’s happiness, I really feel like I’m pulling my weight as a conservative. I only pray that I have the resilience to not grow up and not get over my biases so I can keep my power over bob and his rights for as long as possible. I won’t let you down.
Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 1:31 pm - March 28, 2009
oh, and i just came across a good quote about the “homosexual agenda” that makes the point better than i could, said by our good friend barney frank himself:
Frank was accused by Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) of having a “radical homosexual agenda” and responded “I do have things I would like to see adopted on behalf of LGBT people: they include the right to marry the individual of our choice; the right to serve in the military to defend our country; and the right to a job based solely on our own qualifications.[20][21] I acknowledge that this is an agenda, but I do not think that any self-respecting radical in history would have considered advocating people’s rights to get married, join the army, and earn a living as a terribly inspiring revolutionary platform.”[21]
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 1:42 pm - March 28, 2009
i said people *LIKE* you two. there is a difference.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 1:44 pm - March 28, 2009
why do i get the feeling that seanA spends an unusual amount of time at reststops off the jersey turnpike?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 1:46 pm - March 28, 2009
#70: “the massachusetts supreme court did, however, find that denying these rights violated its state constitution”
BTW, the Massachusetts Supreme Court did a lot more than that in the Goodridge case. The Court ordered the Legislature to “take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this decision.” So, essentially the judicial branch of the state (4 unelected judges) ORDERED the state legislature (200 representatives elected by the people) to pass a law accommodating their personal desire to “do the right thing” and just let the gays have what they want. FUC*ING SCARY. But hey, what’s the importance of the separation of powers when you’ve got a bunch of dykes on your hands suffering from low self-esteem, right?
Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 2:00 pm - March 28, 2009
#74: “why do i get the feeling that seanA spends an unusual amount of time at reststops off the jersey turnpike?”
Don’t worry, bob. I wouldn’t dream of bothering you at work.
Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 2:03 pm - March 28, 2009
well if you have a few minutes sometime when your parents aren’t down around your ankles, you should come say hello.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 2:05 pm - March 28, 2009
and the supreme court didn’t make their ruling based on their desire to “do the right thing”. they found that denying gays the right to marry violated the state constitution. this is what the courts are there to do, dumbass.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 2:09 pm - March 28, 2009
Don’t worry, bob. I wouldn’t dream of bothering you at work.
LOL.
Comment by V the K — March 28, 2009 @ 2:09 pm - March 28, 2009
*pants
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 2:14 pm - March 28, 2009
Oh, bob, you poor little thing. How exactly are you trying to insult me? I hang out at New Jersey rest stops while not wearing pants? Or is it with my parents? Is that basically it? Funny. However, I don’t think anyone is buying the idea of me being some trashy rest stop hustler, especially since the one slinging the (inept) insult has already admitted that he tends to associate with these bowling-alley types:
“have you ever been to mardi gras? last time i was there, i saw about 50 pairs of bare breasts, a dozen or so flashed cocks, and, when venturing into an alley, stumbled upon a drunken 20-something bending a girl over a table and doing her doggy style”
Sounds enchanting.
Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 2:33 pm - March 28, 2009
let me spell it out for ya: you’re probably a closeted ‘mo.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 2:41 pm - March 28, 2009
And again, bob is reduced to insults and spittle.
“You make me laugh. But only ’cause I think you’re kinda pathetic.”
Comment by The_Livewire — March 28, 2009 @ 2:48 pm - March 28, 2009
And again, bob is reduced to insults and spittle.
That’s actually where boob starts. There’s really no regression involved.
Comment by V the K — March 28, 2009 @ 3:03 pm - March 28, 2009
#81: Oh, you’re not done embarrassing yourself yet, are you? You think I’m a closeted homosexual? Why? Is it because I’m critical of the gay left and its petulant demands for every privilege society has to offer while refusing to undertake any of its responsibilities? Don’t you realize you’re proving my point? You’re trying to insult me because I’ve been critical of the gay community for defending depraved conduct. Guess I’m just some closet-case hater, right bob? Thanks for illustrating how the gay left responds when anyone dares to question their unrestrained sexual expression. Well done, Einstein.
And bob, if I’m a closeted homosexual, why are you trying to insult me with it? I thought all those angry closet cases were the result of oppression from conservatives. You just said so up in comment # 44:
“can you start to understand why, in more conservative communities, where the social norms of society strictly condemn homosexuality, gay people end up having anonymous sex in shady areas, why healthy gay relationships are so difficult to maintain?”
So, conservatives cause closet cases to hang out at New Jersey rest stops looking for sex, right? BUT, you’ll turn right around and insult the oppressed closet case anyway. And what about this:
“of course, you’re going to accuse me of making “excusesâ€, but i think we should all practice a little empathy before we get on our high horses and start judging.”
Oh now I get it. Homosexual closet cases that are created by oppression from conservatives deserve our empathy and not our judgment (or, so you say). But a few comments later you attempt to insult me by labeling me a closet case. That proves that you’re a disingenuous, lying sack of sh*t, bob.
And for the record, I’m not a closet case, so you’re not only wrong, but the insult proves you’re a typical liberal who claims to care about those poor, oppressed groups of people, but in reality you could give a fu*k. I live with my partner, my evangelical parents know him and treat him like a son, everyone at work knows, he attends all work parties and retreats with me and my co-workers adore him. So, I’m pretty much OUT, dip-sh*t.
So, bob, are you done making a jacka*s out of yourself now? Or is there some other propeller you’re dying to walk into?
Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 3:26 pm - March 28, 2009
aw, you’re cute.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 5:05 pm - March 28, 2009
and yes, i said we should have a little empathy. however, when you spit the kind of venom you do on a regular basis, you lose any respect from me.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 5:08 pm - March 28, 2009
quite the defensive tone there, sean. are jersey turnpikes a part of your past that you’re trying to wash out of your memory?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 5:16 pm - March 28, 2009
ok, v the k, and i’ll believe that heterosexuals value monogamy when mardi gras ceases to exist.
Actually, the funny part is that if you go to all those websites that boob shrieks about (focus on the family, the family research council, concerned women for america, etc.? have you ever gone to a conservative church?), you’ll find something unusual; they condemn heterosexual adultery and promiscuity, and they promote healthy, monogamous relationships.
Heterosexuals have demonstrated they have morals and values. The only thing you continue to demonstrate, boob, is that you blame everyone else for the gay community’s utter lack of either.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2009 @ 5:25 pm - March 28, 2009
let me spell it out for ya: you’re probably a closeted ‘mo.
And we know you’re one. Funny how we’re the happy, well-adjusted ones despite our conservative tendencies, and you’re the one still slinking around looking for promising legs under toilet-stall doors despite your complete subservience to the Obama Party.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2009 @ 5:28 pm - March 28, 2009
And meanwhile, let’s just show what the gay community is demanding be taught in public schools.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2009 @ 5:30 pm - March 28, 2009
bob, you just can’t help yourself can you? On this thread you have given impassioned lectures demanding empathy for the sexually compulsive closet cases whose anti-social behavior is caused by oppression from conservatives. You then insulted me by implying that I was some pathetic closet homosexual trolling for sex at New Jersey rest stops without pants. And now you’re implying that I’m defensive about New Jersey rest stops even though you’re the one who keeps talking about New Jersey rest stops. Is this the best you can do? If all I’ve been doing is “spitting venom” shouldn’t you be able to defend your point of view without resorting to insults and bringing up New Jersey rest stops? Since you can’t, I’ll just accept it as a concession of loss.
Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 5:54 pm - March 28, 2009
let me try to make this simple for you. i think we need to have empathy for all different types of people, not just gays. putting yourself in someone else’s shoes and getting a fuller understand of his or her perspective is always valuable. however, when one devotes as much of his time to branding an entire group of people the way you do gay people, i’m no longer going to feel the need to exercise restraint around you or to be sensitive to your perspective. you are an ass (and not because you disagree with me; you’re an ass because of the way in which you spread your venom). it’s a larry craig effect, of sorts. you spend all your time spreading falsehoods about gays and arguing against equal rights. if you opened your eyes for a bit, you may realize that the average gay person is not the caricature you have in your mind. have you been brainwashed by a religious family or something? my experience w/ gay people is apparently much different than yours, and i take incredible exception to your characterization of an entire group of people as moral-less hedonists.
so yes, i think you are more than deserving of a little jab about the jersey turnpike. you sure know how to dish it out, so i suspect you can take it. grow up.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 7:05 pm - March 28, 2009
fuller *understanding
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 7:09 pm - March 28, 2009
putting yourself in someone else’s shoes and getting a fuller understand of his or her perspective is always valuable.
Oh, we see; our objections to gay promiscuity and to teaching five-year-olds gay sex is only because we lack “empathy” and don’t have a “full understanding” of their “perspective”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2009 @ 7:21 pm - March 28, 2009
bob, please name one falsehood I have spread about gay people. Just one. What have I said about gay people that isn’t true? Where have I “branded all gay people” anything? You persist in your failure to either comprehend my arguments or to accurately and honestly characterize them.
“if you opened your eyes for a bit, you may realize that the average gay person is not the caricature you have in your mind. have you been brainwashed by a religious family or something? my experience w/ gay people is apparently much different than yours, and i take incredible exception to your characterization of an entire group of people as moral-less hedonists.”
Again, bob, if you think my argument is that I believe all gay people are “moral-less” hedonists, then you are either lying about what I wrote or you’re just fuc*ing stupid. You blame conservatives for gays being perceived that way, and all I argued was that the perception would change if the mainstream gay elites had the guts to distinguish between right and wrong and start condemning some of the behaviors that cause so much difficulty and strife within the community. My opinion is that they have shown that they are utterly unwilling to do so. Therefore, you need to quit being a crybaby and blaming conservatives for any of the negative perceptions that you feel are so mean, dangerous, and hateful. Look at the way you’re attacking me, for Christ’s sakes. I dare to suggest that the blame might be attributable to the gays engaging in destructive behaviors and the gay elites that excuse the conduct, and suddenly I have reduced every single gay person on Earth to a libertine caricature, right bob? I did no such thing and you know it. Yours is the standard gay leftist response whenever 100% of the blame is not dropped squarely on conservatives and their “bigotry.” And you think I’m brainwashed? Puhhhleeeeze. You are such a good little soldier for the gay left on this issue–when I stated my opinion, you went right to work by mischaracterizing my arguments as condemnations of ALL gay people everywhere and then you attacked me personally as a closet case turning tricks in rest stops. bob, YOU are the gay left’s little robotic lap dog, and it is YOU that has been brainwashed. I think for myself and that is why you and I have different answers to the following little brain-teaser:
The gay community has an image problem with some of the country’s more conservative citizens. Some people perceive homosexuality as a sexually destructive lifestyle that eroticizes the intentional spread of deadly disease. This perception is not true as to all gay people, but the perception nonetheless exists in the minds of many Americans. Who is to blame for this perception? (a) the gay men unapologetically transmitting HIV to their willing “bug-chaser” partners; (b) the leaders of the gay community (nonprofits, politics, the gay media) who refuse to condemn the behavior because they would consider such condemnation judgmental and homophobic; or (c) Republicans.
For me the answer is OBVIOUSLY (a) and (b). For you (based on the comments you’ve written on this thread) it is 100% (c). I find (c) totally and completely irrational and I refuse to accept it. You respond with attacks and lies about what I’ve argued. No question: YOU are the lapdog in this situation.
By the way, I certainly can take jabs as well as I dish them out, bob. My greatest objection to your blistering “Jersey turnpike material” was that it was stupid and not funny. It was awkward, random, made no sense, and only proved that you had nothing else to say to defend your position. So, basically its effect was the same as every time any liberal tries to crack a joke: EPIC FAIL.
Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 8:21 pm - March 28, 2009
“Some people perceive homosexuality as a sexually destructive lifestyle that eroticizes the intentional spread of deadly disease. This perception is not true as to all gay people, but the perception nonetheless exists in the minds of many Americans. Who is to blame for this perception? (a) the gay men unapologetically transmitting HIV to their willing “bug-chaser†partners; (b) the leaders of the gay community (nonprofits, politics, the gay media) who refuse to condemn the behavior because they would consider such condemnation judgmental and homophobic; or (c) Republicans.”
if you think anything more than a negligible percentage of gays intentionally spread disease, then you are more brainwashed than i thought.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 8:42 pm - March 28, 2009
are there some horrible gay people out there? sure. but they by no means are the “norm”. of course, the ppl engaging in that behavior are the #1 culprits, but there people who propagate the myth that being gay is all about a “sexually destructive lifestyle that eroticizes the intentional spread of deadly disease”, and they are doing nothing but smearing an entire (and fairly large) group of people.
i’m not quite sure what you expect. do you want barney frank to go on the floor of congress and condemn what 0.05% of gay people are doing? i don’t see your logic. there is no de facto leader of the homosexuals. we are just people.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 8:47 pm - March 28, 2009
since i didn’t hear any of the “straight” leaders condemning mardi gras, spring break, and casual sex in general, should i suppose that the straight community is all for that behavior?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 8:49 pm - March 28, 2009
and for the record, you said this:
“the mainstream gay community embraces, celebrates and defends depraved conduct that is harmful to our society and ultimately ruinous to the participants.”
this to me is branding an awful lot of gay people as “depraved”. i’m about as mainstream as they come, sean, and i don’t condone that behavior, and neither do any of the mainstream gay people i know.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 8:51 pm - March 28, 2009
intentionally *spreads disease
and that should have read: there *are people who propagate the myth…
i should really start proofreading before i hit “say it”.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 8:54 pm - March 28, 2009
And bob keeps digging himself deeper. He does make me laugh…
Comment by The_Livewire — March 28, 2009 @ 8:59 pm - March 28, 2009
but anyway, sean, i apologize for calling you names. that was immature of me. but here is what i hope you take away from this:
most gay people are not depraved whores.
there is no one person or entity that speaks for all gay people.
if you want gay people to start living more “mainstream” lives, then i suggest you support efforts to give gays equal rights and for public acceptance in general. the less closeted gays are, the less their “lifestyle” will need to be alternative. i’m not placing 100% of any blame on conservatives here, as you wrongly said earlier. but there is an element to how a society treats a people and the peoples’ resulting actions. groups that spread misinformation about gays (the recruitment of children, etc.) or that spread misinformation about ex-gay therapy and the like are ultimately hurting the gay community. i would hope you would speak out against these groups more than some abstract leader of the so-called gay community for not speaking out against public nudity at a parade.
all that said, these issues are not the point. whether or not seanA or NDT or anyone else thinks there are too many immoral people of group “x” or not has no bearing on whether this group should be treated equally under the law. why should i, or you, be treated differently because we happen to belong to a group that you claim is morally depraved? we shouldn’t. i’m a monogamous person, and i would like to get married someday, not for some sort of “approval” but because i, as a tax-paying and law-abiding citizen, would like to have the same rights and benefits as my straight siblings.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 9:03 pm - March 28, 2009
if you think anything more than a negligible percentage of gays intentionally spread disease, then you are more brainwashed than i thought.
Blabber on, boob.
A researcher from Boston, Dr. Kenneth Mayer, said that study results indicated “that almost a third of the men–31.4 percent–said that they had had unprotected anal intercourse with at least one partner of unknown serostatus,” a result that Mayer shared as part of a teleconference related to the National HIV Prevention Conference.
Mayer, who is a research director at Fenway Community Health, went on to say that “almost a quarter had unprotected intercourse with a partner who they knew was HIV uninfected.”
Aside from that, if it’s only a “negligible percentage”, why are gays like boob screaming that billions of dollars are necessary to prevent it?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2009 @ 9:20 pm - March 28, 2009
those percentages are of men who are HIV-infected, not of the gay population in general, NDT. if you’re trying to generalize, you should generalize about hiv-infected gay men, not gay men in general.
big difference
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 9:28 pm - March 28, 2009
if you want gay people to start living more “mainstream†lives, then i suggest you support efforts to give gays equal rights and for public acceptance in general. the less closeted gays are, the less their “lifestyle†will need to be alternative.
What a surprise; boob blames other people for gays’ behavior. If people only did exactly what gays like himself want, then gays like himself would be able to control themselves and not have promiscuous and irresponsible sex.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2009 @ 9:30 pm - March 28, 2009
i’m guessing you didn’t read the very next sentence, yet again.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 9:34 pm - March 28, 2009
those percentages are of men who are HIV-infected, not of the gay population in general, NDT. if you’re trying to generalize, you should generalize about hiv-infected gay men, not gay men in general.
Blabber on, boob.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2009 @ 9:36 pm - March 28, 2009
#96: “if you think anything more than a negligible percentage of gays intentionally spread disease, then you are more brainwashed than i thought.”
Once again, bob–totally and completely incapable of honestly and accurately characterizing my comments. I DON’T think it’s more than a negligible percentage, douch*bag. The point is that if such a perception exists, who is responsible for it, and who can change it? I say: (a) that negligible percentage of bug-chasers; and (b) the gay establishment that has the power and media access to condemn it, but refuses. You say: (c) Republicans.
Naturally, you twisted my argument into: all gay people are bug-chasers. bob, where is this masterful intellect you keep telling us about? If you’re so fuc*ing smart then why are these distinctions lost on you? I suspect you are ignoring those distinctions on purpose because you can’t win the argument by addressing it head on without demonizing me in the process. Yeah, that sounds about right.
Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 9:37 pm - March 28, 2009
i’m guessing you didn’t read the very next sentence, yet again.
Oh, I read the next sentence. I just noticed that it was followed by another one that started with “but” and proceeded to contradict it completely by saying that gays shouldn’t condemn bad behavior by other gays and that it was all conservatives’ faults for not giving gays everything they wanted.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2009 @ 9:40 pm - March 28, 2009
1) notice i said “if”. until your last post, i was unsure of your opinion on that matter.
2) i didn’t say “republicans”. in fact, if you’ll notice, i said: “of course, the ppl engaging in that behavior are the #1 culprits…”
talk about twisting someone else’s argument…
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 9:42 pm - March 28, 2009
#97: “are there some horrible gay people out there? sure. but they by no means are the “normâ€.”
Well that’s fantastic news, bob! And if you really believe those people are horrible then WHY won’t the gay establishment say so without all the bullshit equivocations? Why won’t the editorial board of the Advocate or Out go to war with these scumbags? If they won’t and some Americans continue to entertain an erroneous belief that, i.e., “all gays are bug-chasers,” then how is that the fault of Republicans?
Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 9:45 pm - March 28, 2009
so we agree then that the majority of gay people aren’t out intentionally infecting people with deadly diseases. that’s good. i think organizations like focus on the family, the family research council, concerned women for america, and a whole host of religious organizations (yes, that includes black churches) do a lot more to spread the misperception of gays than gay pride parades.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 9:47 pm - March 28, 2009
#102: “there is no one person or entity that speaks for all gay people.”
That’s mighty convenient from the party that has declared Rush Limbaugh THE voice of the Republican Party.
Thought we were making some progress there, bob, but nope–back to square one.
Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 9:47 pm - March 28, 2009
sean, does maxim magazine condemn heterosexual promiscuity?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 9:48 pm - March 28, 2009
and i’m not necessarily saying it’s “republicans”. i’m talking more about the religious right, which, at least for the last several decades, has been voting republican.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 9:50 pm - March 28, 2009
and btw, sean, i think you are wrong to imply that no gay outlets speak out about safe sex. i have seen lots of articles promoting safe sex on all kinds of places, from gay.com to towleroad to even manhunt. you’re right that we should speak out against unsafe sex and we should educate people about the risks of unsafe sex, etc. but the fact that this apparently hasn’t been done to your liking doesn’t justify denying rights to an entire group of people.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 9:55 pm - March 28, 2009
#112: “i think organizations like focus on the family, the family research council, concerned women for america, and a whole host of religious organizations (yes, that includes black churches) do a lot more to spread the misperception of gays than gay pride parades.”
That’s it. I’m out. bob, you are HOPELESS. For a second I thought maybe we were getting somewhere, but the statement above is by far the most obtuse, absurd, unsupported opinion you’ve typed all day (and perhaps all year). You are clearly PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY unable to think rationally because if you ever had that ability, it has been completely overridden by your irrational instinct to blame Republicans first, last and often.
Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 9:57 pm - March 28, 2009
um, apparently you are the one who didn’t read my comments.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 9:59 pm - March 28, 2009
why don’t you do a little google search for those organizations and read some of their articles about homosexuality. then maybe you should head over to youtube and listen to the type of stuff people like tony perkins say on cable news channels. then get back to me, and we can have a conversation.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 10:00 pm - March 28, 2009
but, i digress. i figured you wouldn’t have the intellectual honesty to continue this conversation.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 10:07 pm - March 28, 2009
and for the record, i never said anything about being “so f’in smart”; i said i was smarter than the idiots who post on this board.
being smarter than the people who post on this blog is kinda like winning the NIT.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 10:10 pm - March 28, 2009
The funny part about this, Sean, is that for all of his ranting about those organizations and those people, apparently boob isn’t aware of the fact that they also speak out against heterosexual adultery, promiscuity, oversexualization, and irresponsibility.
Notice how boob thinks that speaking out against gay promiscuity, oversexualization, and irresponsibility is “homophobic”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2009 @ 10:11 pm - March 28, 2009
yeah, NDT, and they also speak about how gays should pray really hard so “the gay goes away.” this is misinformation that is harmful.
and i’m assuming you’re talking about FOF and FRC. concerned women for america doesn’t do that. they just attack (and smear) gays and people having abortions.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 10:14 pm - March 28, 2009
Boob, this is what you’re incapable of understanding.
Your first statement:
of course, the ppl engaging in that behavior are the #1 culprits, but there people who propagate the myth that being gay is all about a “sexually destructive lifestyle that eroticizes the intentional spread of deadly diseaseâ€, and they are doing nothing but smearing an entire (and fairly large) group of people.
Your next statement:
i think organizations like focus on the family, the family research council, concerned women for america, and a whole host of religious organizations (yes, that includes black churches) do a lot more to spread the misperception of gays than gay pride parades.
Those two statements are completely contradictory. You are claiming that these organizations “do a lot more” than the people who you previously were blabbing were the “#1 culprits”.
What this demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt is how sick and depraved you and the rest of the gay liberal culture you represent are. You realize that the number one cause of gay peoples’ problems is gay peoples’ behavior — but rather than confronting that behavior, the primary cause of gay peoples’ problems, you attack conservatives.
That is like blaming the fact that you can’t sell a house with foundation cracks on the carpet in the front hallway.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2009 @ 10:20 pm - March 28, 2009
and i’m assuming you’re talking about FOF and FRC. concerned women for america doesn’t do that. they just attack (and smear) gays and people having abortions.
Wanna bet?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2009 @ 10:25 pm - March 28, 2009
yeah, NDT, and they also speak about how gays should pray really hard so “the gay goes away.†this is misinformation that is harmful.
Uh huh, boob; meanwhile you and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters are claiming that ads cause you to spread HIV.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2009 @ 10:31 pm - March 28, 2009
Isn’t “pray away the gay” one of those phrases generally pushed by gay theophobes who don’t know what they’re talking about?
Comment by V the K — March 28, 2009 @ 10:31 pm - March 28, 2009
actually those statements aren’t contradictory. i know nuance isn’t your thing, NDT, but let me explain:
the people behaving “that” way are the #1 culprits for behaving that way. at the end of the day, we need to take responsibility for our own actions. however, what i was saying about those other groups is that they perpetuate certain myths about THE ENTIRE GAY POPULATION, smear the entire group of people, try to make the general public fear and dislike gay people, etc.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 10:39 pm - March 28, 2009
And again, boob, you claim gays should take responsibility for their own actions, but then blame conservatives and religious groups for all of gays’ problems.
This is an interesting little self-perpetuating victim cycle. Never attack the problem, just blame something else, whine about how mistreated you are, and insist that that causes all of your issues. Since you never attack the actual problem, you’ll never fix it, and since you’ll never fix it, you’ll never run out of issues. Brilliant.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2009 @ 10:55 pm - March 28, 2009
128: “at the end of the day, we need to take responsibility for our own actions”
Oh really, bob? Which “day” is that? You mean the day with no sunset? Let us know the specific day so we can pencil it in.
Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 11:21 pm - March 28, 2009
#128: “what i was saying about those other groups is that they perpetuate certain myths about THE ENTIRE GAY POPULATION, smear the entire group of people, try to make the general public fear and dislike gay people, etc”
Ah, yes. This reminds me of another excellent observation from the towering intellect of Ann Coulter. “Inasmuch as liberals are demanding that Americans ritualistically proclaim, ‘Islam is a religion of peace,’ Muslims might do their part by not killing people all the time.”
If liberals want gays to be known as fiercely monogamous, productive and positive members of society, then gays could at least do their part by not hanging out in the middle of a public street in assless chaps. But of course, even to suggest such a thing is “homophobic.”
Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 11:30 pm - March 28, 2009
#121 bob proclaims
Well, just for your information, I am smarter than the idiots, imbeciles and morons who DON’T post on this board. My IQ is greater than my body temperature minus my neck size.
Comment by heliotrope — March 29, 2009 @ 12:34 am - March 29, 2009
Don’t forget, you can find the shift key heliotrope.
It is funny watching bob backpedal all over his statements. Are we sure he’s not Joe Biden?
Comment by The_Livewire — March 29, 2009 @ 10:19 am - March 29, 2009
“Theophobe” – great word. Just learned it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 29, 2009 @ 11:45 am - March 29, 2009