Gay Patriot Header Image

Kevin Jennings & the Prevailing Gay Sexual Ethos

While I think some of the coverage on conservative blogs about the latest Kevin Jennings hullabaloo (James Taranto might call it a kerfuffle) a bit overheated, I have not yet found any cause to rescind my earlier call for his resignation.  Simply put, he is not the kind of man who should be supervising a program for elementary and secondary schools in the federal Department of Education.

That said, while I think it’s highly relevant to study the content of the books he recommended for middle and high school students, I don’t know how relevant it is to bring up the “youth conference” his organization GLSEN sponsored at Tuft’s University in March 2000 where facilitators* taught the finer points of “fisting” and asked rather inappropriate questions of young teens. It appears that GLSEN did a better job policing its workshops since then.***  More recent conferences apparently have not included such seminars.  (At least I have seen no evidence that they have.)

Let us hope that they fired the individuals responsible for said workshops and the person who, by including them in the conference, deemed them appropriate for adolescents.*** Anyone who thinks it appropriate to teach such things to teens shouldn’t be allowed to teach teens (or facilitate workshops for them).  Such seminars have nothing to do with teaching adolescents responsible sexual behavior nor do they help them develop an adult attitude toward sexuality.

But, the “curriculum” there does seem to be part of a pattern for Mr. Jennings, wishing to impart to adolescents an attitude toward sexuality where indulgence is the operative idea and intimacy and affection are reduced to occasional (and perhaps welcome) side effects.  And the rules of safe sex are the only limits.

As I’ve said previously and it bears repetition, we can’t make a final judgment on the nature of the books on the GLSEN list without putting the sexually explicit passages in context.  That said, books with such descriptions are not appropriate for young teens (up to age 15 or 16) and should only be recommended to older ones after first consulting their parents.

What I find troubling in this whole story is something I have encountered all too often in my own experience coming out and living as a gay man, that our (gay) culture reduces our sexuality to its mere sexual expression.  Not just that, those who put themselves in positions of guidance to gay adolescents very often just mimic the culture; they don’t try to improve it by encouraging their charges to tether sexual expression to emotional connection or even to make them aware of the importance of that connection.  They seem to have reduced sexuality to (with apologies to Catullus) a mere grinding of loins.

And Kevin Jennings seems to be no different.  But, then again, I haven’t read all his writings, so acknowledge the incomplete nature of my information.  (While I have purchased most of his books, I have not yet gotten around to reading them as I would like. (I just haven’t had the time.)) But, from what we do know, it doesn’t look very good for the Obama Administration official.

It would be nice if we could find something from his pen or from his lips where he casts a critical eye on the predominant sexual ethos of our community.  (As of today, i have found nothing**.)  Maybe he doesn’t want to stand apart.  There does seem a wariness among prominent gay men to do that, even the leading advocates of gay marriage for whom such criticism should come naturally.

—–

*or seminar leaders (or whatever new age-y PC word they used to describe them).

**If you are aware of any such criticism, could you let me know so I can update this post accordingly.

***UPDATE, comment 3 below confirms that GLSEN did a better job of policing the conferences since then. And the seminar organizers were fired.

Share

58 Comments

  1. People like Kevin Jennings and the perverts at GLSEN give a lot of ammunition to those who equate homosexuality with paedophilia. It’s unhelpful that these people are honored, not repudiated, by the Gay Activist community as a whole.

    Comment by V the K — December 9, 2009 @ 8:37 am - December 9, 2009

  2. This doesn’t surprise me–not because Jennings is gay, but because he’s progressive. “Reducing sexuality to its mere sexual expression” is something that ALL progressives, gay or straight, seem hell-bent on doing, likely because they’ve decided to use sex (of any kind) as the “bread and circuses” that will placate the masses while they govern from on high.

    Comment by Kwakerjak — December 9, 2009 @ 9:14 am - December 9, 2009

  3. Love y’all’s commentary and coverage here at GayPatriot. I’ve been meaning to meet up with Bruce. Gosh, we live in the same city, you’d think we’d have met up by now. Life keeps us both busy.

    I did want to insert a a few facts on the Jennings situation, which I think has been blown out of proportion by several conservative media outlets and bloggers, many of whom have used false information to further smears against him.

    On “fistgate,” the leaders of the seminar were actually employees or contractors of the Massachusetts Department of Education, not Jennings’ organization. After the event, Jennings said he had concerns about the seminar and took steps to address it. Further, all the seminar organizers — gov’t employees — were either fired or resigned: “The seminar’s organizers were fired or resigned as a result. According to a May 20, 2000, Boston Herald article, of the three state Department of Education employees or contractors who led the seminar, one was fired, one resigned, and one had his contract canceled, as a result of the discussion. From the Boston Herald: “One presenter at the workshop was fired and a second resigned. In explaining his actions yesterday, [then-Massachusetts state education czar David P.] Driscoll said the sessions ‘went too far’ with explicit discussions about sexual techniques. Driscoll said he had canceled the contract of a third presenter at the March workshop, which included frank talk about how to use a condom and how to perform oral sex.”
    http://mediamatters.org/research/200912070022

    The book list in question wasn’t intended to hand out to teens and adolescents willy-nilly. The book list clearly contained a warning to parents and school staff:
    “Washington Times cropped GLSEN disclaimer on reading list to omit that GLSEN recommended that adults review content before providing to youths. The Times wrote of GLSEN’s Booklink disclaimer: “The organization Web site reassures us, ‘All BookLink items are reviewed by GLSEN staff for quality and appropriateness of content.’” The Times omits that the GLSEN disclaimer goes on warn that “some titles for adolescent readers contain mature themes,” and “recommend[s] that adults selecting books for youth review content for suitability.”"
    http://mediamatters.org/research/200912080025

    In your earlier post on Jennings and in your call for his resignation, you even impart false information to readers. The boy in question wasn’t a “boy” at all. At 16, not 15, years old, the young man was of legal age of consent. There was nothing Jennings could have done and nothing his parents could have done to keep the boy from having sex. Jennings did what he could: Make sure the boy was safe in an day and time where friends were dropping like flies from HIV/AIDS. Should Jennings have handled the situation slightly differently and his apology valid in that sense? Yes. I’m 23 — one year younger than Jennings was then — and if confronted with the same situation I’d give more advice than to simply use a condom, including advice telling the young man he might not be making the wisest decisions. But, even here in North Carolina the age of consent is 16. There’d be nothing I could legally do to stop it.

    Thanks again for y’all’s coverage and commentary from the conservative gay perspective. I appreciate it, although I might not always agree, and believe it is a needed voice in our community.

    Comment by Matt Comer — December 9, 2009 @ 9:39 am - December 9, 2009

  4. I’ve worked with teens in the past in different organizations. One would be booted out for having such discussions with kids. Besides, common decency SHOULD tell you that it’s wrong to have such discussions.

    It’s not the roll of adults to be their “friend”.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 9, 2009 @ 9:40 am - December 9, 2009

  5. Howdy Matt!

    So Jennings shouldn’t be held responsible for anything. Check. What’s more, according to his story, the boy was 15. A lame-ass “copy” of the boy’s DL with only the birthdate visible, as provided by MediaMorons doesn’t cut it.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 9, 2009 @ 9:45 am - December 9, 2009

  6. @ThatGayConservative (9:45 am) I never said Jennings shouldn’t take responsibility for past mistakes. We all must take responsibility for mistakes we’ve made. But, when media and bloggers start reporting on these mistakes, those reports should include accurate facts and history. Media professionals and bloggers with the power of the word and pen have their own responsibility to report accurately and fairly. Failure to do so results in washed down, untrustworthy and uncredible journalism, and a failure to best server readers and the public.

    Comment by Matt Comer — December 9, 2009 @ 9:55 am - December 9, 2009

  7. What Medea Mutters doesn’t tell you is that a year later in 2001, GLSEN held the same conference and conspiscuously excluded journalists and parents from taking part. Which suggests they didn’t change the content, they just restricted it from getting out.

    The second rationalization is absurd on its face. An advisory that “Here’s our recommended reading list, some of its content is filthy?” is supposed to make it all right that the books that were on the list contained content that does glorify underage and inappropriate sex. WTF? The books were recommended by GLSEN. They were disgusting. End of story.

    Also, people talking about “truth and accuracy” shouldn’t be relying on one-sided, Soros-funded left-wing organizations like Medea Mutters for their “facts.”

    Comment by V the K — December 9, 2009 @ 10:17 am - December 9, 2009

  8. Simply put, he is not the kind of man who should be supervising a program for elementary and secondary schools in the federal Department of Education.

    As there is no system of federal elementary and secondary schools, there is no need for the federal Department of Education to have a person supervising a progran for elementary or secondary schools. Heck, there is no reason for a federal department of education.

    That said, the person supervising a program for elementary and secondary schools probably should be wrapped up in improving achievement in the “3 R’s” and leaving social activism untouched. To my knowledge, the gay student population is not the prime target group for remediation due to abysmal learning skills.

    I won’t bother mentioning the huge numbers of some groups that experience chronic and generational failure in educations. But, it is my conviction that making them aware of what it means to be gay is not even close to solving their problems.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 9, 2009 @ 10:34 am - December 9, 2009

  9. Welcome to the comments, Matt.

    I’ve met Dan, and he’s a cool guy, not met Bruce though.

    As has been pointed out, the ‘license’ and ‘testimony’ attributed to the (now a) man in question are suspect. It also doesn’t deny the fact that Jennings is required to report the incident, and chose not to.

    Come in, sit down and make youself comfortable. We do take reasoned thought from all types, heck they let me post here!

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 9, 2009 @ 10:34 am - December 9, 2009

  10. Kudos to Matt for doing more research than the people who run this blog on the issue. Again, he found that probably relatively easily, just by doing a little research. Yet you continue to fill these entries with shady suggestion and implication. If you really felt as strongly as you do on this, why do you feel the need to qualify every half-accusation you make?
    More recent conferences apparently have not included such seminars. (At least I have seen no evidence that they have.)

    Mr. Jennings, wishing to impart to adolescents an attitude toward sexuality where indulgence is the operative idea and intimacy and affection are reduced to occasional (and perhaps welcome) side effects. And the rules of safe sex are the only limits.

    Your major problem with this guy is he isn’t teaching intimacy of gay relationships? I think the public schools are charged with a very narrow view concerning the mechanics of sex, and I think if he tried to teach any morality involved with it, much less the “intimacy and affection” of gay relationships, he’d be crucified. How do you simultaneously hold him up to this standard, knowing full well if he were teaching it, he wouldn’t have a job because the same right wing nuts who object to this would be equally upset about “teaching the normalization of homosexuality in schools” and the like. They know if they teach them nothing and abstinence only education, they are more likely to engage in these risky behaviors, so they teach the purely physical aspects because they know they can’t teach morality, and they’d rather teach them something than nothing.

    The reality is, and a commenter with less of an axe to grind has shown, Jennings doesn’t go through the materials of every presenter in every state that GLSEN has conferences. My guess is it’s nationwide for this national organization to do presentations and if you want to dig through every pamphlet ever given out ever for this man’s job, you’re again holding him up to an unreasonable standard that shows complete ignorance of the system and field in which he works. The applicable parties were removed and disciplined. You make it sound like he had the gloves on and was lubing up some 15 yr old himself.

    Not that it will matter here, but in the real world people can recognize the full on trip you’re trying to make connecting this man to these acts and that’s why he won’t be resigning anytime soon, despite your impassioned pleas.

    I have encountered all too often in my own experience coming out and living as a gay man, that our (gay) culture reduces our sexuality to its mere sexual expression.

    Now here’s something that would actually make an interesting post. What sorts of examples can you provide from your life on this, Dan? I think there are segments of gay populace (just like straight) that do over emphasize sex, but it’s your choice to a)focus purely on those and actively characterize all gay people as such when there are plenty who don’t fit into this paradigm and b)choose to not engage or participate in the rest. But your habit of sweeping generalizations of gays continues, because anything else, I fear, would be too much work when you can simply continue to spout off about how horrible and horny the gays are and just cherry pick stories that only reaffirm that worldview.

    Bravo on your narrow-mindedness and unwillingness to investigate the lives or morals of any gays who don’t fit your preconceived notions of the world.

    Comment by Tim — December 9, 2009 @ 11:50 am - December 9, 2009

  11. I don’t know how relevant it is to bring up the “youth conference” his organization GLSEN sponsored… It appears that GLSEN did a better job policing its workshops since then.

    Yeah but… they had to ‘police’ their own workshops? What does that fact say?

    we can’t make a final judgment on the nature of the books on the GLSEN list without putting the sexually explicit passages in context. That said, books with such descriptions are not appropriate for young teens

    That strikes me as self-contradictory, Dan. Sorry. Your latter sentence is a judgment. (Which is a good thing: protecting kids requires such a judgment.)

    It’s clear that you are trying to be careful and nuanced in this post, but with respect, I think you reached the self-doubting, flip-flopping, “overly careful” zone this time around.

    those who put themselves in positions of guidance to gay adolescents very often just mimic the culture [of sexual indulgence]; they don’t try to improve it

    Indeed. I daresay that some of them (which means, too many of them) hope to ‘benefit’ personally from it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 9, 2009 @ 11:53 am - December 9, 2009

  12. @Tim #9

    I think if he tried to teach any morality involved with it, much less the “intimacy and affection” of gay relationships, he’d be crucified. How do you simultaneously hold him up to this standard, knowing full well if he were teaching it, he wouldn’t have a job because the same right wing nuts who object to this would be equally upset about “teaching the normalization of homosexuality in schools” and the like.

    You lost me right out of the gate: he approved a more explicit curriculum to forestall right-wing objections?

    And are these the right-wingers in the Obama administration or the right-wingers back in Massachusetts?

    Best wishes,
    -MFS

    Comment by MFS — December 9, 2009 @ 12:31 pm - December 9, 2009

  13. While I think some of the coverage on conservative blogs about the latest Kevin Jennings hullabaloo (James Taranto might call it a kerfuffle), I have not yet found any cause to rescind my earlier call for his resignation.

    Dan, you might want to revisit this opening sentence – it’s odd. I was raised in the south, and we use the term “hullabaloo”, but not quite in this fashion.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 9, 2009 @ 12:33 pm - December 9, 2009

  14. MFS-
    Well, yes in a way. He approved an explicit non-judgemental non-moral explanation of safer sex practices. The whole point is you can teach kids how to put on a condom, how to safely fist an ass, BUT don’t teach anything about whether Jesus or Buddha or Allah approves. That’s one of the major problems I think with Christianism and it’s fight with public education is that it doesn’t want “morality” or “religion” taught, but it will compromise on giving kids a basic understanding of how sex works and how it can be safe. Just physical vs. moral separation in terms of sex education.

    Comment by Tim — December 9, 2009 @ 1:11 pm - December 9, 2009

  15. Matt Comer, a couple things, first of all, anything on Media Matters must be verified by an outside source. They do not have a reputation for accuracy. That they cite the Boston Herald means I can now change the text of my post above and will do so.

    GLSEN’s disclaimer notwithstanding, these are books they saw fit to recommend to teenagers–and I address that issue (of the disclaimer) in my first post on the matter.

    You tell me I impart false information in a previous post, well, then, provide the quote to show where the information was inaccurate. As to whether or not “Brewster” was of legal age, please note that my point doesn’t go to the legality of the matter, but the appropriateness of the guidance Jennings offered. I address that issue in my various posts on Jennings.

    And Tim, if you bothered to understand the point of the post, it was about what people like Jennings teach adolescents about sexuality. If you read my posts, you might have a better appreciation for my libertarian attitude. Your various comments indicate your conviction that I judge gays with different attitudes toward sexuality than my own. I don’t. They have made their choices and I appreciate that.

    If Jennnings weren’t putting himself forward as some paragon of how adult gay men should teach kids,then well, I would pay no attention to him at all. His choices are his own.

    Oh, and if you’re going to tell me what kind of post I should write (as seems to be your wont), why don’t you first address some of the points I raise in the posts to which you attach your comments. Please provide evidence where Jennings questions the prevailing ethos.

    Perhaps, you don’t realize that it actually takes time to write a post and check my facts and sometimes I don’t have time to check everything hence the conditional of the sentence your first cited. We bloggers are often dependent on our readers to correct typographical errors we might miss and to fill in the research when we run out of time.

    And, Tim, morality ain’t just Jesus and Buddha. Too bad you have such a narrow view of sexual ethics, but your use of the term Christianism gives it all away.

    Sonic, I like the word hullabaloo. :-)

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 9, 2009 @ 1:36 pm - December 9, 2009

  16. Media Matters must be verified by an outside source. They do not have a reputation for accuracy.

    Can you please provide some evidence of this? I’ve asked for it before from other commenters and never gotten actual examples of them providing falsities or bad information, just stuff that refutes what the commenters here believe.

    And Tim, if you bothered to understand the point of the post, it was about what people like Jennings teach adolescents about sexuality.

    What is the little girl whining you always come up with? You can have adult conversations without little comments like that. “If you bothered to understand the point of the post…” I understand the point of the post and disagree. Your little digs at people when you can’t even download a spell check program just make you look more childish in trying to address big boy points. Just because I don’t post your praises over and over doesn’t mean I don’t get the point of the post.

    Please provide evidence where Jennings questions the prevailing ethos.

    I don’t think the burden of proof is on Jennings here. You have a view of gay people and make it quite clear what it is here. I try to argue that I know many highly functioning gay adults in various places who aren’t all sexed crazed demons after little kids. You reject this and provide one pamphlet at a conference Jennings probably never saw, but did see and took action against as evidence of your point. I point out taking this one instance in which he took appropriate action shows he’s a reasonable adult and not try to fuck kids. You ignore this and say I can’t read. You really did go to Barney Frank school of debate, didn’t you?

    Perhaps, you don’t realize that it actually takes time to write a post and check my facts and sometimes I don’t have time to check everything hence the conditional of the sentence your first cited. We bloggers are often dependent on our readers to correct typographical errors we might miss and to fill in the research when we run out of time.

    Then you’re a shitty blogger. Number one, there are a lot of free spell check programs out there and most blog hosting services even provide them. Even this comment window I’m typing in right now manages to underline misspelled words, yet you can’t? Find me one reputable blogger who is dependent on readers to provide spell check? Get real.

    Two, that’s fine if you don’t want to check facts, but don’t ask people to take your seriously if you won’t do the work, and second you live in an era where bloggers are held to the same journalistic standards as everyone else, meaning if you commit libel or slander or just outright lie, you’re subject to the same consequences. According to the law, if you repeat accusations without fact checking them, you can be legally liable. That’s J school 101, puppy.

    Yes, I know Buddha and Jesus aren’t morality, but my use of a term doesn’t reveal anything. It only reveals a small minded, self-important, illiterate, self-hating gay blogger who can’t even see the irony in his scolding me about my lack of reading skills with misspelled words. You are smart enough to know what I meant, but instead choose to sidestep the issue and make another personal attack. You have the capacity of engaging people and having a higher level of discussion, but not as long as you revert to petty attacks and name calling before actual engagement of issues.

    Comment by Tim — December 9, 2009 @ 2:53 pm - December 9, 2009

  17. The whole point is you can teach kids how to put on a condom, how to safely fist an ass,

    No! No! No! The point is these things shouldn’t be taught to kids, and anyone who thinks they should is a sicko. And anyone who personally wants to give such instruction is a pervert.

    You wonder why people associate homosexuality with paedophilia? That’s why!

    Comment by V the K — December 9, 2009 @ 3:26 pm - December 9, 2009

  18. Oh, Tim, Tim, Tim, quit it with your juvenile little jibes. You routinely making assertions about my attitudes which have no basis in reality, notably this latest one, “You have a view of gay people and make it quite clear what it is”.

    Do I?

    Where?

    Please show me where I suggest that gay adults are “sexed crazed demons after little kids.” And where I, as you claim, reject the notion that we’re not. (Glad to see you define the “Barney Frank school of debate” as a juvenile method of argument.)

    And please note the very text of the post where I wrote, “It appears that GLSEN did a better job policing its workshops since then.***  More recent conferences apparently have not included such seminars.”

    Please note as well the added footnote where a reader confirmed an observation I made (but was unable to confirm at “press time”). So, no, I didn’t ignore your point; I had already addressed it in the post.

    So, if I’m such a “shitty blogger,” why then do you spend so much time here? Typographical errors are not just spelling mistakes. Indeed, once you caught an error of mine that spellcheck wouldn’t have caught (when I had used “over” when I meant “offer”.)

    As to your second point, you get me wrong. Please note what I wrote (the words you quote), “to fill in the research when we run out of time.” Note what I wrote: fill in the research. I used the word “appears” because I could not confirm (at thetime I wrote this post) what I had recalled reading. I would have liked to have written “GLSEN has done a better job policing its workshops since then,” but I couldn’t confirm it, so I erred on the side of accuracy.

    Oh, my, my, my, Tim, just caught your last paragraph where you give away your game with the typical left-wing slur against gay conservatives, calling me “self-hating” while throwing in a number of other adjectival insults to boot. Meanwhile, while leveling such personal attacks, you accuse me of personal attacks. My, my, my, my, my.

    Please identify the things I have said that define me as self-hating. Thanks.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 9, 2009 @ 3:40 pm - December 9, 2009

  19. Please show me where I suggest that gay adults are “sexed crazed demons after little kids.”

    I don’t they all are, but the ones who are hell-bent on teaching fisting to middle schoolers definitely validate the stereotype.

    And it speaks volumes that Tim is oblivious to how creepy and disgusting this is to normal people.

    Comment by V the K — December 9, 2009 @ 3:46 pm - December 9, 2009

  20. The boy in question wasn’t a “boy” at all.

    Sorry Matt – In a world where men of 22 are commonly referred to as “kids”, 16 is definitely “a boy”.

    At 16, not 15, years old, the young man was of legal age of consent.

    … which goes to show the age of consent is too low. It should be at least 18. If you’re not old and responsible enough to vote, you’re not old and responsible enough to give a meaningful consent to an older person preying on you.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 9, 2009 @ 4:06 pm - December 9, 2009

  21. Also: By Jennings’ own account, he believed at the time that the boy was 15. So, -by what was known to Jennings at the time-, Jennings was encouragaing someone under the age of consent to carry on a relationship with an older predator.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 9, 2009 @ 4:11 pm - December 9, 2009

  22. While I think some of the coverage on conservative blogs about the latest Kevin Jennings hullabaloo (James Taranto might call it a kerfuffle), I have not yet found any cause to rescind my earlier call for his resignation.

    The thought is incomplete. You think the coverage is what? You didn’t say what you thought about the coverage.

    “While I think some of the coverage on conservative blogs about the latest Kevin Jennings hullabaloo is overblown‘” or “excessive” would better complete the sentence.

    PS. Hullabaloo is a fine word. “DooDad”, a strange, undefined, or indescribable object is another fave.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 9, 2009 @ 4:24 pm - December 9, 2009

  23. Not only that, ILC, Jennings bragged about his role in facilitating the relationship for years afterward.

    “(The 15 year old) left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years, until he graduated.”

    Question: If Glenn Beck and others hadn’t challenged him, would Jennings still be bragging about his role in facilitating this highly inappropriate relationship?

    Comment by V the K — December 9, 2009 @ 4:28 pm - December 9, 2009

  24. The thought is incomplete.

    I think it strange that you thought his sentence ungrammatical.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — December 9, 2009 @ 5:16 pm - December 9, 2009

  25. oops, Sonic, I’ll fix it. I am all but certain I had described the coverage as “overheated” and must have accidently deleted that word when I was editing the post.

    Thank for catching that!

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 9, 2009 @ 5:36 pm - December 9, 2009

  26. In 2005, GLSEN was caught directing kids to leather bars. So, maybe they didn’t clean up their act after getting caught in 2000 after all.

    Comment by V the K — December 9, 2009 @ 5:57 pm - December 9, 2009

  27. The very next year in 2001, the GLSEN-sponsered conference offered “fisting kits” containing a latex glove and instructions on how to make a dental dam. So, no go on the better policing mumbo-jumbo.

    Comment by Amy K. — December 9, 2009 @ 7:48 pm - December 9, 2009

  28. And I agree 100% with V the K, you have completely blown any credibility you might have with the average parent with your matter-of-fact acceptance that it’s fine to teach middle-schoolers the basics of fisting and condom usage.

    If I had a kid, gay or straight, he would be homeschooled. I don’t want any stranger teaching my children about sexual matters. That’s my business.

    Comment by Amy K. — December 9, 2009 @ 7:57 pm - December 9, 2009

  29. Media professionals and bloggers with the power of the word and pen have their own responsibility to report accurately and fairly. Failure to do so results in washed down, untrustworthy and uncredible journalism, and a failure to best server readers and the public.

    You’re absolutely right. We need to see more stories about the women Tiger Woods DIDN’T screw. Then we would find out he’s really not such a bad guy after all.

    BTW, when are we gonna get that accurate reporting on Chairman Obama?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 9, 2009 @ 8:01 pm - December 9, 2009

  30. I’ve met Dan, and he’s a cool guy, not met Bruce though.

    I’ve not met either. Sometimes I wonder, though, if Bruce isn’t one of Dan’s characters. Although, I heard he’s sorta a reclusive hermit who lives with his dogs and partner in a mountain cabin.

    Some say he only comes out on a full moon to hunt for BBQ pork butt and Cheerwine.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 9, 2009 @ 8:08 pm - December 9, 2009

  31. offered “fisting kits” containing a latex glove

    Something just occured to me:

    The glove in the picture is a vinyl glove. You won’t typically find doctors or EMS personnel using vinyl gloves because they’re more prone to leakage and don’t maintain their integrity as long. They do not provide the barrier (for patients and medical personnel) to pathogens and fluids as well as latex does and therefore are not suitable for medical use.

    Believe me, I’ve worn so many latex gloves over the years, it’s not even funny.

    The inclusion of a vinyl glove tells me that this “kit” was put together on the cheap. I also find it negligent to include a vinyl glove in the “kit”. In other words, the person who put it together was worried about saving money and was either ignorant of or didn’t care about the possibility of exposure to bloodborne pathogens.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 9, 2009 @ 8:28 pm - December 9, 2009

  32. I knew I recognized the name Tim. Found it when I was looking up a post from talking points.

    Are you the same tim who went away in a huff a few months ago?

    Hope not. Though if you did come back, must be because you didn’t find any 15 year olds to bugger.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 9, 2009 @ 9:29 pm - December 9, 2009

  33. TL, if I remember correctly, Tim “went away in a huff” more than that one time. I think it’s a drama queen move or something.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 9, 2009 @ 10:04 pm - December 9, 2009

  34. Looking at Michelle Malkin’s report, I get very embarrassed. I feel like these actions by the gay community further back. The comments after her article bring out the haters. I count the “f-word” at least 4 times. others wishing all gays would die .

    When our conservative icons expose bad liberal behavior in the gay community , does anyone else pause and think? I begin to wonder who is out to expose legitimate bad stuff, and who is looking for excuses to trash all gays. I hate to try reading people’s minds. That’s liberals “forte”.

    Comment by Wes — December 9, 2009 @ 11:42 pm - December 9, 2009

  35. When our conservative icons expose bad liberal behavior in the gay community , does anyone else pause and think? I begin to wonder who is out to expose legitimate bad stuff, and who is looking for excuses to trash all gays.

    Should they instead ignore it all just so they don’t hurt anyone’s feelings? That’s liberal’s forte too.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 10, 2009 @ 5:22 am - December 10, 2009

  36. Not excusing the vitrol of some of the commenters on Michelle’s site, but it’s a knee jerk reaction to feeling their way of life is being threatened.

    Part of the reason, I feel, that parents should step up and take more responcibility. Keep the health class to “Inserting tab a into slot b is how babies are made, and you can also get x, y, z. Inserting tab a into slot c can do this that and the other, and keep that education in High school.” Let the parents decide if they want to raise the kids to believe where to put their tabs, and what’s right and wrong.

    [grognard]it was good enough for me as a kid, damnit! Now get off my lawn![/grognard]

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 10, 2009 @ 8:04 am - December 10, 2009

  37. The little black book is horrible- it’s nothing more than a shocking pornographic “how to” manual for the promotion of very bad sexual
    and personal behavior. It advocates multiple partners, it advises how to responsibly use DRUGS while having sex, it recommends places to find and have sexual encounters, and they make no attempt to legitimize the “little black book” by staying even remotely technical, using slang and slurs for anatomy and acts. It’s as if it was written by deviant South Parky/teenagers, with an agenda to bring everyone down into the gutter with themselves! I’m sorry but the other posters are correct, this and the other GLSEN conduct, does more harm than good for the gay & lesbian community.

    Comment by Trish — December 10, 2009 @ 8:42 am - December 10, 2009

  38. Tell me again about how instruction on “fisting” is just a right of passage sort of thing and something the state must impart to our children.

    Tell me again how gays want to stake their acceptance in the public square based on “fisting” education.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 10, 2009 @ 9:21 am - December 10, 2009

  39. What’s worse, Trish, is that so many gay activists are like Tim, and won’t even say to themselves, “Gosh, maybe those people have a point. Maybe we shoudn’t be discussing all that gross stuff in public; let alone teaching it to middle schoolers.” They’ll just dig in their little heels and scream, “Back off hater! We do what we want!”

    Comment by V the K — December 10, 2009 @ 10:15 am - December 10, 2009

  40. Shame on ANYONE who thinks GLSEN’s curriculum in our schools is in anyway appropriate for children. It is our moral obligation to protect the innocence of our children, to preserve their right to a childhood, no matter WHAT their orientation. Get these lunatics away from our kids!

    Comment by FEDupwithhypersexualizationofourkids — December 10, 2009 @ 10:21 am - December 10, 2009

  41. The root cause of this little “problem” is the original decision that the public schools should be teaching sex education. It is the responsibility of the parents to teach this. Sex education is not a valid function of the public school system.

    Comment by OldNuc — December 10, 2009 @ 12:01 pm - December 10, 2009

  42. Heck, when I see Britney Spears, I think “I can kinda, sorta, maybe see a tiny little bit of Osama bin Laden’s point.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 10, 2009 @ 12:35 pm - December 10, 2009

  43. [...] other night, when finishing this post, I wanted to confirm two things I had seen on the web earlier in the day.  For one, the question [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » On the Kevin Jennings’ Kerfuffle & the Silence of the MSM — December 11, 2009 @ 3:54 am - December 11, 2009

  44. Variety of idiocies.

    For those of you who operate under the assumption that homosexuality is strange, bizarre, or unnatural, it is clear that any “measured” discussion is impossible. That goes for the host of the blog, who by his acquiescence to the claim disqualifies himself from any journalism about it. This is logical by the same mechanics you use to condemn Jennings himself. If gay people are dangerous, we must act. If they are in any way or in any proportion a threat to, say young children or livestock or patriotic statuary, then you should promulgate a law to jail or execute them or otherwise curb that awful behavior. Instead we see this middle road, where gay activists are pilloried for various minor infractions or faked-up outrages. The same people never notice the frequent parallel outrages committed in the heterosexual population. Why such an interest in gay people? Why the histrionics? Answer: the people you despise as individuals are proxies for the class or group. That is bigotry, by definition. You are bigots.

    “Media Matters is unreliable.” So too must be any source which contradicts the pattern of wisdom? All, or just one? Because Media Matters is not alone in, for example, demonstrating that the Jennings allegations are hairsplitting at the very worst, and complete BS in average.
    No, what you mean is Media Matters stings. It’s perfectly reliable, though like many news organizations its articles create controversy and they are not always (nor do they ever claim to be) the arbiters of perfect truth. MM makes a convincing case that you (ie archetypal archconservative haters) live in a strange world clogged with biases, claims, and assumptions that are materially and obviously false. (that, by the way, is also a kind of bigotry if we call it bigotry to despise people who lie and quibble to destroy reputations and therefore create political power.) If you don’t think or ‘believe’ that you are operating on lies, then MM is going to need to be ignored or explained away. Easily done in a closed chamber such as a minor political blog with a sycophantic comment line.
    MM does feature commentary, but most entries are documented and sourced and consist of the presentation of two simple pieces of information–typically a clip or excerpt from a show or article placed next to evidence of some weakness or fault. It takes a major leap of arrogance to wave that away as unreliable; it’s quite simple. If you believe fundamentally that, say, Glenn Beck is always right, then MM is either unreliable or you are a psychopath. A simple evaluation of fact renders the “MM is unreliable” claim not just false, but clear evidence that you are unhinged.
    If you don’t want to be contradicted by Media Matters, then I suggest you avoid subscribing to concepts, like the Jennings smear or “death panels” or the like, that are so easily and completely debunked.

    ice9

    Comment by ice9 — December 11, 2009 @ 5:03 pm - December 11, 2009

  45. I *love* your ongoing parody of homophobes in your character as the self-hating gay. It’s hilarious! I particularly enjoyed this post. You know that the assorted homophobes and ninnies who take you seriously will lap up the concept that all gays are obsessed with sex and think it’s all about fisting and buttbanging rather than kissing and flowers and nice wine, like we all know it is. The idea of a gay man who spends hours of his life reinforcing hatred of gay men is hilarious, and you’re to be commended for the lengths you have gone to to parody the homophobia that poisons American discourse. Keep up the good work!

    Comment by Dr Zen — December 11, 2009 @ 7:39 pm - December 11, 2009

  46. Dr. Zen, please show me how I’m a self-hating gay. Thanks.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 11, 2009 @ 7:52 pm - December 11, 2009

  47. BD–he didn’t call you a self-hating gay. He described your parody, the doubly dishonest process of feeding the great Troll of other-hatred that powers the right, while at the same time offering yourself as a true believer of some miracle of bothness, both conservative and gay. The math suggests self-hatred, since conservatives hate gays and you are gay. That’s neither here nor there to me, since my philosophy is (as I suggest it should be for all) to leave folk alone to their own business. But if you feed that Troll its best dish, that concoction of fearmongering and titillation that won the 2004 election and continues to cause mayhem and pain among reasonable and worthy American citizens, then the only question is why you would do it. It’s obvious that it’s contemptible.

    Two options suggest themselves. One of course is the idea that you are above the fray, an idealist (a Patriot, perhaps? Oh, how hot!) That suggests principle, altruism, etc. I suppose it’s a possibility, but your foamy exgurgitations and malleable logic suggest otherwise. the good Dr. and I think another option is more likely–that you are a limited person who sees no contradiction in these views, and so contorts freely and happily toward the conclusion that will keep the commenters, who by the way hate and fear you according to their doctrine, happily though cautiously approving. See, in ConservativeLand, one counterexample is sufficient to void an entire class of people into second-class anything.

    That’s not “showing how”–a childish demand anyway. Show me how you’re not a Dick–That’s just Occam. You’re hopeless. If you tomorrow strip your gears and come across to Code Pink, I wouldn’t care, because it’s not about individuals. It’s about community, country, and law. In a judicious discussion of reversing a multimillenial injustice, you’re the person who argues for maintaining that injustice, and does it with inflammatory, hairsplitting character assassination based on wrong facts. That you are yourself gay is simply irrelevant. It’s not that you hate yourself; it’s that you hate other people who are evidently more deserving than yourself of unqualified membership in our society.

    Zen–how’d I do?

    ice9

    Comment by ice9 — December 11, 2009 @ 9:09 pm - December 11, 2009

  48. um, ice, so if my blog post is a parody, as you claim, please show how this is so. You’ve posted to my blog and leveled an accusation, so back it up. Thanks.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 11, 2009 @ 9:14 pm - December 11, 2009

  49. Dr. Zen and ice9, great parodies of liberals. You almost had me convinced. You might tone it down just a little. It was just a little too over the top to be completely believable.

    Comment by Amy K. — December 12, 2009 @ 12:22 am - December 12, 2009

  50. So, Amy, guess I wasn’t the only one. :-)

    Thanks!

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 12, 2009 @ 12:46 am - December 12, 2009

  51. The same people never notice the frequent parallel outrages committed in the heterosexual population.

    Feel free to point out these outrages, and watch how quickly you find out that condemnation of pedophiles is universal regardless of their sexual orientation — except among gay liberals, of course. But for some reason, poor Media Matters is never able to do that; instead, they sit there like a whining child who is claiming that everyone else’s mother lets them smoke crack.

    Meanwhile, as for Media Matters, the simple fact is that Media Matters is paid to lie about and propagandize against conservatives, just as they did when they publicized and pushed the forged Bush ANG documents, just as they did when they spread the Barack Obama lie that Trig Palin is not Sarah Palin’s son, and that Kevin Jennings was “proved” right when they produced a photo of a fake ID with no picture, no name, no address, no number, and a random birth date with no ability to link it to any specific person, living or dead. It’s not the facts; it’s the need to attack and try to destroy conservatives over imaginary slights, while ignoring the real behaviors their fellow Bushitler screamers are doing, that makes them such a laughably-hilarious modern counterpart of Goebbels and Baghdad Bob.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 12, 2009 @ 12:51 am - December 12, 2009

  52. For those of you who operate under the assumption that homosexuality is strange, bizarre, or unnatural, it is clear that any “measured” discussion is impossible.

    When gay liberals like yourself argue that it is synonymous with teaching fisting to underage children, taking children to sex fairs dressed as sexual slaves for an “educational experience”, and demanding that children as young as five be taught gay sex, then yes, it IS “strange, bizarre, or unnatural”.

    The problem here, ice9, is that gays like yourself, Jennings, and your friends over at Media Matters simply can’t bring themselves to be open about their need to sexualize and have sex with underage children, and instead need to try to smokescreen it by claiming that all homosexuals do this. Then, in a charming attempt to make sure that no one disagrees with you, you’ve started this whole screaming fit that, if you object, self-loathing gay. Not unlike how your fellow liberals insist that, if you don’t support government-controlled health care, you’re not really black, or if you don’t worship Barack Obama, you’re an “oreo”, “house slave”, and “Uncle Tom”. In the world of liberal bigotry, homosexuality isn’t confined to simply to whom you’re attracted; it’s an all-over experience that dictates what you breathe, wear, eat, support, endorse, spend your money on, and vote.

    The amusing thing is that gays like yourself and Dr Zen insist that we turn the other way and not judge pedophiles who want to sexualize elementary-school kids, but then wonder why people don’t think gays should teach in schools, adopt children, be in law enforcement, or hold elective office. You simply are making it clear that your sexual orientation is incompatible with life in a civilized society.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 12, 2009 @ 1:03 am - December 12, 2009

  53. I’m a straight guy with three kids and no fisting, though I’m flattered that I came off as gay. I vote for some republicans (though not lately since my choices have been pretty scary crazy death-to-fags types.) I favor honest political arguments over hatred, especially when the dishonest ugly hatred has real consequences upon innocent folk. I waste my time in these jabbery forums because I frequently find myself involved in this conundrum with real people and real, often life-or-death problems around homosexuality, and this is good practice at working through the logic and testing it against principle.
    To be clear: I don’t care a bit about whether your panties are bunching over being called a self-hating gay. That’s your lookout, and as a rather active participant in your own comment thread you can take care of your own delicate structures of opinion. PS your demands for being shown things remind me of the playground at Wakefield Forest, where as a third grader I was more than once called “gay” by Christians. Didn’t understand it then but it still hurt.
    I care about dead kids, and this conversation is a symptom of the disease that kills them. Get that? Ken Jennings may somewhere have increased the chance that a high school boy has at this moment a fist up his ass. Stipulated. Jennings is gay in a position of authority; he helps kids come out. You and your commenters don’t like that; the argument seems to (or should) be whether that is permitted or discouraged. Getting Jennings fired is the scalp-collecting tactic of the moment in your insurgency against the Obama administration; I think it’s cowardly and ugly and I think folks who do it are dicks.
    To get Jennings fired and rack up your victory, you have to edge fairly close to being an out-and-out gay hater; that leads to the sideshow about whether our host hates himself. Who cares; that’s secondary to the fact that gay haters kill kids. This is obvious to me, but conflicts rather dramatically with your logic that Jennings hurts kids by gaying them up. And conflicts with your alleged attraction to Jesus, but the hypocrisy there is foundational and can wait.
    I’d guess Jennings himself has made a calculation that fist-in-ass beats suicide, or something like that, but again, he’s just one person, so it’s both irrelevant and unimportant. My interest is in calling gay haters bigots and proving the point, and when possible pointing out to the most rational and attentive of them that they are a party to suicides that look a lot like murders . This may be hyperbole but is not false. Gay haters such as the people in this thread kill kids by confining them to a closed space where there are only three exits–become comfortably gay, stop being gay, or shoot yourself in the head with Dad’s second-amendment pistol. In each individual’s case—there’s that individual vs. group thing again—we can’t exactly know what’s best. Stipulated. Sometimes the best thing for a kid is being gay; sometimes not. Never the bullet, though. Nevertheless, there’s a lot of death going on. I’m a straight guy with three kids who works with lots of young people, and I can name one and probably two who are dead because of this attitude. Dead.
    That’s on you.
    By the way, I don’t split hairs over Jennings’ famous moment with the drivers-license kid. Faced with an individual actual human being in that situation, you would do the same thing, or you’re a bastard. Kids in distress don’t do preaching; usually preaching has already not worked. Sexual uncertainty is a powerful engine. Leviticus don’t stop a bullet, or a fist for that matter. The rampant, oblivious hypocrisy of anti-gay arguments is a grotesque crime against the three gay-confused-uncertain kids who kill themselves for every one kid who kills himself for other reasons (and gay fear, of course, figures secretly in many of those ones.) In other words, your much-vaunted principle is a crap argument when confronted with a kid whose parents are, well, you, and who has no exit. I have been in that situation a time or two, but I can report happily that, at least on the real kid/real parent level, that isn’t happening as much these days; fewer parents are, well, you when the actual situation arises; they go to love over hate. All the more reason to call out the haters when they make their masturbatory declarations in forums such as this one, which are comfortably removed from real decisions. I only hope that we can reduce the suicide rate, and bring the more grotesquely benighted regions of the nation into a more rational way of thinking before many more die. Jennings, and Milk, and Dan Savage, are in large part responsible for the more love/less hate problem solving going on. Jennings’ firing would therefore hinder my hope to keep a bunch of real live kids alive.
    So, to review for the slower students: when you aim at one person and derive a rationale for bigotry against a group on that basis you are making a parody of logic, of a rule of law, of journalism, or of an entire politic based on equality and liberty. If you happen to be attacking yourself in that process, that’s a second level of bonus parody (I’d call it irony, but we settled on parody so there it is.)
    If what you derive is built on shaky grounds, that’s a third level. Not saying Jennings or somebody somewhere didn’t do something inappropriate–folk got fired, after all–but that’s still shaky grounds to condemn a whole program, a whole idea, a whole class of people that seem to keep appearing, unrecruited, in the same proportions, no matter what you do.
    But you do derive, and condemn; so what do we get, what exactly? Fire Jennings before he uses his position to do some unspecified damage to kids who are already at deep risk of etc. etc. etc. Clear and present threats–the right is seldom so shy about acting on them, law-and-ordering stuff three deep. But now why so coy?
    Fire Jennings, then, and appoint someone else. Jennings was the problem, you say. The most sanitized, straight-acting gay guy in that same position is still going to face ginned-up charges and conflation of icky gay stuff with every move he ever made and every move he makes. Why indeed?
    The charge that Jennings is doing damage to kids isn’t real, or if it is real it is vastly exaggerated as a tool for political gain. Just like in the abortion debate, the idea of the threat is a political weapon, but if we’re actually going to, say, criminalize abortion or fire gay schoolteachers then the reduction to absurdity you are guilty of will look fairly pathetic in the light of the voting booth so you don’t do that, do you. It’s a loser. So you split hairs and try to hang individuals to claim the same effect. Makes you dishonest bastards, not just bastards. (you’d be more honest to call for their stoning deaths, and there’s no shortage of people doing that. But that would be impolitic! )
    “Pedophiles who want to sexualize elementary school kids”—I could not have created a better example in my wildest fevered imagination. Pedophiles are criminals; no pedophiles have been mentioned in this discussion. You mean, of course, all or some mysterious proportion of regular gay people. Under the hyperbole regular gay persons who are nothing like what you describe, who are quite normal in all respects, who are completely deserving of freedom from your (the entire right wing, choose any politician, you-you, all of you) character assassination, who pay taxes and don’t want to sexualize anybody because they understand that human beings sexualize themselves.
    This fantasy of gay danger has been gospel standard for centuries now, but it is still fake and ugly; you who purvey it benefit from a general trend to accept it because it’s been gospel standard for so long. I certainly see why you feel aggrieved as the nation moves past it, but that doesn’t excuse the weaseling and caviling, the parody of a civil discussion, the pretension to honesty and logic and proof.
    Salud
    Ice9

    Comment by ice9 — December 12, 2009 @ 11:28 am - December 12, 2009

  54. #53: “By the way, I don’t split hairs over Jennings’ famous moment with the drivers-license kid. Faced with an individual actual human being in that situation, you would do the same thing, or you’re a bastard.”

    So, a 15-year-old boy informs a teacher that he was picked up in a bus station restroom by an adult man who took him home and had sex with him and the only non-bastard way to deal with that scenario is to say to the kid, “I hope you used a condom”? Fascinating. Since you “work with lots of young people,” what’s the non-son-of-a-bitch way of handling it, ice9? Handing the kid a pack of Trojans and a bottle of poppers?

    Comment by Sean A — December 12, 2009 @ 12:27 pm - December 12, 2009

  55. I’m a straight guy with three kids who works with lots of young people, and I can name one and probably two who are dead because of this attitude. Dead.
    That’s on you.

    Really?

    I can name at least twenty people who are dead, twenty who are seriously disabled, and fifty who are medication-dependent for life due to HIV infection that they acquired through promiscuous sexual activity with older men during their teens.

    That’s on you.

    But you don’t care about those kids because you can’t blame their deaths on conservatives, Republicans, and religious people. in fact, you openly state that you don’t care if promiscuous pedophiles and child-sexualizers like Jennings damage children.

    The charge that Jennings is doing damage to kids isn’t real, or if it is real it is vastly exaggerated as a tool for political gain.

    Oh, it’s real all right.

    New HIV diagnoses for gay and bisexual men under the age of 30 have increased by one third over the past six years in New York City, according to the city’s health department. Furthermore, new diagnoses have doubled among gay and bisexual men between the ages of 13 and 19, while the rate has declined by 22% for men over 30.

    And this is in New York City, a liberal bastion in which GLSEN and their promiscuous-sex curriculum teaching gay teens how to fist, have sex with adults, and “use a condom” has been in place for years.

    In short, you don’t care that kids are being damaged by Jennings’s behavior. You are dead-set on supporting Jennings, no matter what happens. You blabber about pedophiles being “criminals”, but when confronted with clear examples of gay pedophiles and pedophile supporters like Jennings, you refuse to criticize them or condemn their behavior, even as your support of sexualizing and preying on children leaves more and more of them dead, disabled, and drug-dependent.

    Indeed, one wonders if the only thing that troubles you and Jennings about gay teens killing themselves is that it takes another trick out of your pool. You certainly don’t seem to care about the ones you kill through your promotion and support of promiscuity; maybe it’s because you were able to use them for your own gratification before they died.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 12, 2009 @ 1:38 pm - December 12, 2009

  56. “If I had a kid, gay or straight, he would be homeschooled. I don’t want any stranger teaching my children about sexual matters. That’s my business.”

    So you’ll be calling for the resignation of any elected official who wants abstinence taught in the schools when, exactly?

    Furthermore, when we follow the links from this site, to Gateway Pundit, to their ultimate source, we find Mass Resistance and Mass News, two organizations with a history of lies and deceit at their core. Anyone remember Brian Carmenker’s immortal “a kid got beat up on the playground because his parents are anti-gay activists” routine? Of course not. The irony is that the “fisting” kit portrayed at Mass News has an illustration showing its use as a dental dam for oral sex between lesbians. The “fisting” claim is made up by those wishing to sensationalize this matter–”ohhh…look at what those icky gays do!” But that’s par for the conservative course. Lie, lie, lie, sensationalize, demonize. Citing Gateway Pundit and Mass Resistance as your unimpeachable sources might impress the rubes who follow your every word, but in the real world, the world in which actual evidence and not mere claims count for something, your post here rates a fail. Nice work though, trying to get some of the crumbs from the wingnut gravy train.

    Comment by Dot — December 13, 2009 @ 8:06 am - December 13, 2009

  57. So you’ll be calling for the resignation of any elected official who wants abstinence taught in the schools when, exactly?

    So you oppose teaching children under the age of consent that they should not be having sex with adults?

    Figures. Why is it that gay liberals demand that underage children be taught sexual techniques in schools? Is it because you think it’s not rape if they’ve been “informed” in advance when you force yourself on them?

    And of course, since you can’t answer, you try smearing those who point out what you and your fellow NAMBLA supporters like Jennings do to children.

    Citing Gateway Pundit and Mass Resistance as your unimpeachable sources might impress the rubes who follow your every word, but in the real world, the world in which actual evidence and not mere claims count for something, your post here rates a fail.

    And there has been ample evidence provided of how Jennings and the gay left believe in sexualizing underage children through the schools.

    You simply are incapable of condemning pedophilia. That’s your problem. One would think that you wouldn’t have any trouble doing it if pedophilia weren’t inherent to your sexual orientation, but the fact that liberal gays like yourself not only teach pedophilia, but demand that sexual techniques be taught to underage children, adamantly oppose teaching children not to have sex with adults, and refuse to report to the law cases in which gay people are having sex with underage children, makes it obvious that pedophilia and its support are inherent to being a gay liberal.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 13, 2009 @ 4:28 pm - December 13, 2009

  58. [...] too long ago, one of our critics faulted me for not fact-checking a line in a recent post.*  I had said something appeared to be true because the only confirmation I had (of this point) [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » AGW Guru Pachauri is Economist, not Climate Scientist — December 20, 2009 @ 7:10 pm - December 20, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.