You’re right; if instead, the gay community had supported…

Which is about as non-sensical as being pissed off because you don’t have different grandparents.

You’re right; if instead, the gay community had supported people who advocated and practiced responsible behavior, it might be something of which to be proud instead of one in which Communism, pedophilia, irresponsible behavior, antireligious bigotry, and outright stupidity are celebrated and praised by its leadership.

No, you just defend it, support it, endorse it, and call the people who disagree with it and criticize it self-loathing.

If it wasn’t for all of those eeeevuhl people, NDK, you wouldn’t have a gay community to feel superior to. And if it wasn’t for a group of slave holders who believed that all men were equal, none of us would have a country to argue about any of this in.

Which demonstrates all that needs to be known about the gay community’s attitudes, behaviors, and belief systems.

Put bluntly, the gay community, exemplified by Jennings, lionizes a man who not only aided and abetted pedophilia, but openly advocated for it, linked it to being gay, and pushed endlessly for it to be legalized.

I don’t condone any of it

No, you just defend it, support it, endorse it, and call the people who disagree with it and criticize it self-loathing.

but maybe you could spend your next post condoning all the people who liked the movie MILK since he was a whore. Maybe you can write Roger Ebert and the entire academy to come out publicly and state they only gave Sean Penn the Oscar with the understanding they don’t condone relationships outside of marriage.

These people gave Roman Polanski an Oscar and have been tirelessly defending his behavior. I think it’s been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the only thing that constitutes a crime in Hollywood is a failing of allegiance to Barack Obama.

Yeah, specifically to the comment sections where you’ve sworn in an all-caps frenzy never to return.

“I suppose your main issue now that you see nobody cares and nothing is going to happen to try and maintain some sort of moral high ground.”

We don’t have to “try” to maintain the moral high ground with people who don’t think a man’s well-publicized support of NAMBLA is a deal-breaker for praise of any kind.

“The main assertion at this point is that Hay’s NAMBLA fiasco in 1994 was so well known that there is no way that Jennings could not have known about it, and therefore is obligated to completely denounce it.”

Yes, that and the fact that most of Jennings’ supporters don’t think he has an obligation to denounce it even assuming he did know.

“I’ll grant you it probable that he knew about the issue. I would also suggest that it’s probable he knew this entire man’s history and what he had done for the movement.”

So? What difference does it make? Your position remains the same whether he knew or not.

“Again, Jennings was VERY DIRECT in quoting EXACTLY what he admired of the man. Your assertion that it’s his responsibility to go through the entire life of every man he ever met in the gay rights movement and discount every negative thing ever is unreasonable.”

Nice strawman. Yes, Tim, that would be unreasonable, and that is why NO ONE here has taken such a silly position. Assuming Jennings knew about Hay’s involvement with NAMBLA, he should not have praised him for ANYTHING. The support of NAMBLA is a deal-breaker.

“Like it or not most gay rights leaders, operating for the past 80 years or so have sordid pasts. I don’t condone any of it, but maybe you could spend your next post condoning all the people who liked the movie MILK since he was a whore. Maybe you can write Roger Ebert and the entire academy to come out publicly and state they only gave Sean Penn the Oscar with the understanding they don’t condone relationships outside of marriage.”

Strawman. Part 2.

“This is really the argument you are making here. Jennings won’t address this again, and you will drone on and on about the gay community and the left being complicit in child molestation.”

Which you and Jennings have made exceptionally easy for us. So, thanks!

“Meanwhile, I’ve already seen all but the hard core crazies completely give up any sort of meaningful conversation in these threads, since it’s just met with mostly ad hoc.”

“Meaningful conversation.” Translation: (1) cast reason aside and assume Jennings knew nothing about Hay’s involvement with NAMBLA; and/or (2) agree that it’s perfectly fine to praise a NAMBLA supporter for the wonderful things he’s done (other than support NAMBLA), provided you’re very specific about it.
Try the Huffington Post for this kind of “meaningful conversation,” Tim.

“I appreciate John addressing the point of “he had to know!” but really, you can’t have it both ways. You want him to be a very good academic scholar who is knowledgeable about everything going on around them politically, reading every book on their subjects, knows all the people, and is (by all normal standards) a good scholar. But you also want them to be intellectually stupid enough to follow Marxist and leftist philosophy, which in itself is a lazy path of learned parroting of academic lines. Which is it?”

Neither. If he knew about Hay’s involvement with NAMBLA when he praised him, I want him to resign from his position as “Safe Schools Czar,” whatever that is.

“I can tell you from my experiences with academia, that professors, teachers and the like are usually people with big egos and some intelligence, but a high degree of laziness.”

SHOCKER.

“Considering this administration, many in the gay rights movements and academic standards, I think it’s entirely possible he had no knowledge of it.”

So you’ve said. Nobody cares. Your position that he did nothing wrong remains the same.

“Or he might have had knowledge of it, and made a speech about WHAT he admired (which I think is what he did and you’re crucifying him for).”

Yes, Tim. We know you don’t think it’s a big deal if he knew. Also, no surprise that you’ve used the term “crucify,” since clearly you regard Jennings as the martyr and victim in this scenario.

“But saying now, without real proof he knew, that he should come out and apologize AGAIN, is unreasonable.”

Once again, you think it’s unreasonable for there to be ANY consequences if he DID know.

“The fact is, he’s already apologized. This is over to most reasonable people.”

The fu*k it is. It’s over to IMMORAL people, Tim.

“If he needs to come out and make a public apology every time you find someone in his entire lifetime with a bad rapsheet sets a very dangerous precedent.”

Strawman. Part 3. In 3-D!

“Obama isn’t held to it. Jennings won’t be held to it.”

Correct. Thanks to moral relativist enablers like yourself. Tell us something we don’t know.

“And again, he won’t say a word because he knows it will just go away, and the people on this blog who hold onto it just fit their now accepted stereotype of crazy right wingers.”

Crazy right winger. Translation: people that still recognize the existence of objective right and wrong and can tell them apart.

“Pederasty”, my ass. I know that’s the Greek / technically correct word for molesting young teenagers. But let’s not pull our punches, OK? With NAMBLA (and Harry Hay’s defense of them, Jennings’ defense of Harry Hay, etc.), we are, in fact, talking about men who sexually molest young teenagers, and/or who support the normalization of sexually molesting young teenagers.

Comment by Tim — October 16, 2009 @ 1:06 pm

Tim, you just can’t stay away, can you?

Anyone remember this stinging declaration, that hurt all our feelings so much?

Ok, I’m done with this “blog”.

I once enjoyed coming here to read reasoned commentary and discussion from a unique perspective or gay people or gay friendly people who had conservative viewpoints. This is no longer anything resembling that.

ROFL

while it appears very likely that Jennings did know about Hay’s support of pederasty, would that knowledge obligate Jennings to qualify his praise for the man when he acknowledged how he inspired him?

Yes. Unequivocally yes.

We all find inspiration from imperfect men (and women).

…And qualify (or even self-censor) our praise accordingly. All it takes is a little wisdom and decency.

I’ll grant you it probable that he knew about the issue. I would also suggest that it’s probable he knew this entire man’s history and what he had done for the movement.

There goes the main defense I’ve seen online by Jennings supporters then.

Again, Jennings was VERY DIRECT in quoting EXACTLY what he admired of the man. Your assertion that it’s his responsibility to go through the entire life of every man he ever met in the gay rights movement and discount every negative thing ever is unreasonable. Like it or not most gay rights leaders, operating for the past 80 years or so have sordid pasts. I don’t condone any of it, but maybe you could spend your next post condoning all the people who liked the movie MILK since he was a whore.

Tim, I refuse to believe that you are this dense. You know very well that there is a HUGE difference in most people’s minds between support of pedophilia and one having a revolving door on their bedroom. Both may incite disgust but the visceral level of this is not the same between the two. Why? Simple. Pedophilia isn’t just about sex, it’s about power over and crushing the innocence of persons that most of us recognize lack the capacity to fully care for themselves. In addition, most people recognize that we have a duty and responsibility to protect children in our own families and generally speaking children in society at large. Milk or anyone else have a parade of willing adult bed-partners is simply not looked at the same as pedophilia.

Finally, contrary to what you are saying here Jennings made no attempt to qualify his 1997 remarks praising Hay.

This is really the argument you are making here. Jennings won’t address this again, and you will drone on and on about the gay community and the left being complicit in child molestation.

Your reading skills fail you, Tim. I never said any of this and you are drawing this from nowhere but your own overactive imagination.

You want him to be a very good academic scholar who is knowledgeable about everything going on around them politically, reading every book on their subjects, knows all the people, and is (by all normal standards) a good scholar. But you also want them to be intellectually stupid enough to follow Marxist and leftist philosophy, which in itself is a lazy path of learned parroting of academic lines. Which is it?

If you will recall I set his politics aside in viewing this, which is why I rejected the initial charges against him even though I oppose him politically. I haven’t a clue if he is Marxist.

I can tell you from my experiences with academia, that professors, teachers and the like are usually people with big egos and some intelligence, but a high degree of laziness.
Then what a shame that his own ego and laziness would produce his downfall. I believe these are common themes in literature.

Considering this administration, many in the gay rights movements and academic standards, I think it’s entirely possible he had no knowledge of it. Or he might have had knowledge of it, and made a speech about WHAT he admired (which I think is what he did and you’re crucifying him for). But saying now, without real proof he knew, that he should come out and apologize AGAIN, is unreasonable.

I’m not buying that he didn’t know about it nor that he qualified his remarks in praising Hays. With someone like Hays you do not get to praise him for one thing without clearly rejecting what he is infamous for lest you be suspected of either approving of the unsavory behavior (doubtful in this case) or quietly excusing it because of who he is a la the idiots defending Polanski.

The fact is, he’s already apologized. This is over to most reasonable people.

No he did not and I consider this to be far more damaging than the whole “Brewster” affair.

Maybe you guys can take a page from Sullivan and keep posting about Sarah Palin until nobody reads anymore, huh?

Oh please. Can you be any more ridiculous in trying to compare Sully’s lunacy over who conceived Trig to doubts about Jennings’ judgment?

Yet commentators accept what you type as fact and ignore the “maybe” and “if” then say that he (and all liberals) support buggery.

Erm, who said anything about “buggery”? The question has been whether Jennings supports (or condones or excuses or rationalizes) sex between adult men and young teenage boys.

But now that you’ve mentioned buggery — I find myself wondering what would happen if Jennings were to publicly express admiration for Bill Weintraub?

Weintraub being the granddaddy of the “Frot Movement,” and also a cantankerous, personally disagreeable, and sometimes foul-mouthed disparager of anal sex, referring to its practitioners as “buttboys” and “shit fairies” and whatnot.

Mind you, he’s never called for the re-criminalization of anal sex, but has merely urged (in his own rude and rather fanatical way) that gay men should go on being gay and enjoying mutual j/o and “frot” and blowjobs, while voluntarily abstaining 100% from anal sex, which he regards as disease-spreading and emasculating.

On the other hand, despite being a pre-Stonewall gay activist and having impeccable left-wing credentials, Weintraub has never, ever been an apologist for Man/boy sex — the worst he’s done is to have spent a decade or longer on his “Just Say No to Buggery” crusade, admittedly with very salty language directed towards gay men who disagree with him.

But I can guarantee you that he’s far more of a radioactive pariah within the Gay Establishment than Harry Hay ever was!

OK
But we don’t know.
All we can do is guess and say things like “ifs” and “maybes”
THen you hide behind those words so you don’t have to take a stand.

Yet commentators accept what you type as fact and ignore the “maybe” and “if” then say that he (and all liberals) support buggery.

I suppose your main issue now that you see nobody cares and nothing is going to happen to try and maintain some sort of moral high ground.

The main assertion at this point is that Hay’s NAMBLA fiasco in 1994 was so well known that there is no way that Jennings could not have known about it, and therefore is obligated to completely denounce it.

I’ll grant you it probable that he knew about the issue. I would also suggest that it’s probable he knew this entire man’s history and what he had done for the movement. Again, Jennings was VERY DIRECT in quoting EXACTLY what he admired of the man. Your assertion that it’s his responsibility to go through the entire life of every man he ever met in the gay rights movement and discount every negative thing ever is unreasonable. Like it or not most gay rights leaders, operating for the past 80 years or so have sordid pasts. I don’t condone any of it, but maybe you could spend your next post condoning all the people who liked the movie MILK since he was a whore. Maybe you can write Roger Ebert and the entire academy to come out publicly and state they only gave Sean Penn the Oscar with the understanding they don’t condone relationships outside of marriage.

This is really the argument you are making here. Jennings won’t address this again, and you will drone on and on about the gay community and the left being complicit in child molestation. Meanwhile, I’ve already seen all but the hard core crazies completely give up any sort of meaningful conversation in these threads, since it’s just met with mostly ad hoc.

I appreciate John addressing the point of “he had to know!” but really, you can’t have it both ways. You want him to be a very good academic scholar who is knowledgeable about everything going on around them politically, reading every book on their subjects, knows all the people, and is (by all normal standards) a good scholar. But you also want them to be intellectually stupid enough to follow Marxist and leftist philosophy, which in itself is a lazy path of learned parroting of academic lines. Which is it?

I can tell you from my experiences with academia, that professors, teachers and the like are usually people with big egos and some intelligence, but a high degree of laziness. Considering this administration, many in the gay rights movements and academic standards, I think it’s entirely possible he had no knowledge of it. Or he might have had knowledge of it, and made a speech about WHAT he admired (which I think is what he did and you’re crucifying him for). But saying now, without real proof he knew, that he should come out and apologize AGAIN, is unreasonable.

The fact is, he’s already apologized. This is over to most reasonable people. If he needs to come out and make a public apology every time you find someone in his entire lifetime with a bad rapsheet sets a very dangerous precedent. Obama isn’t held to it. Jennings won’t be held to it. And again, he won’t say a word because he knows it will just go away, and the people on this blog who hold onto it just fit their now accepted stereotype of crazy right wingers.

I’ll concede to you he might have known about Hay. Although I think given the intellectual laziness of most on the left he also may not have. What you want won’t happen. And by continuing to cling onto it, you just make yourself look more part of the fringe and get lumped in with birthers and conspiracy nuts. In turn you lose readers and participants on this blog who don’t want to get called names and put down because they disagree with the authors or rabid posters who troll the site. What is this the 7th post on this subject? Notice the amount of people who even read or comment goes down and down….

Maybe you guys can take a page from Sullivan and keep posting about Sarah Palin until nobody reads anymore, huh?

That works.

I guess you do provide entertainment in these threads.

heliotrope gets it!

Mainly I just wanted to put out some mythology-geek bait with “catamite”!

At first I thought you were talking about players from Western Carolina U.

http://www.catamountsports.com/genrel/011205aag.html

IF…..

IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream – and not make dreams your master;
If you can think – and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
‘ Or walk with Kings – nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And – which is more – you’ll be a Man, my son!