Gay Patriot Header Image

Using profanity to slur conservatives:
De Rigueur for the Politically Correct Gay Activist

What is de rigueur among straight celebrities seems to be especially so among gays striving to increase their time in the limelight and the favor they enjoy in the mainstream media.  They feel they just have to establish their anti-Republican bona fides to show just how broad-minded they are.

Interviewed in Newsweek, sex columnist Dan Savage does just that by using profanity to talk about a conservative he reviles, using a crude term to describe gays and making assumptions about a Supreme Court justice with whose opinions he disagrees:

Scalia isn’t gay?!? I always think the biggest homophobe in the room is clearly a c–ksucker!

Amazing the juvenile level of this guy’s discourse.  And the media has styled him as a kind of role model for gay adolescents struggling with their sexuality!

Fascinating that the folks who label opponents of their agenda as haters often do so in the most hateful terms.

(Via Newsbusters via Viking the Kitten.)

Share

285 Comments

  1. Idiots like Savage, Perez Hilton and Bawney Fwank are the ones who are really setting us back with their extremist views – not the dreaded politicos with an (R) after their name.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — December 29, 2010 @ 12:38 pm - December 29, 2010

  2. Here’s the thing: I’m a straight guy and wouldn’t use these phrases because to me, it’s like dropping the n-bomb. You just don’t do that. So why is it ok for gay men to do that? Or is it just asshole gays do it?

    And I dislike Perez Hilton – he needed to get punched in the face for a thousand reasons before he dropped the f-bomb on that one guy and got punched as a result. That made me happy.

    Comment by Nick — December 29, 2010 @ 12:56 pm - December 29, 2010

  3. This is why I told folks not to take that video series “It gets better” seriously. Dan Savage was planning that fanfare long before the spate of stories about gay teen suicides. He’s a guttersnipe. And while Tyler Clementi’s death was tragic, there were many other suicides all year that didn’t coincide with the timing of Savage’s video project, so they mysteriously never made any headlines. (For instance, at the my Army unit in June, a sergeant with soft mannerisms called gay by some people around him shot himself after being mentally mistreated for months. A gigantic investigation mobilized within the military, yet no gay activists like Dan Savage wanted to make that their poster cause celebre, because it would undermine their talking points about gays going into the military. See how it works? It’s disgusting. Nothing but crass partisan agendas. Dan Savage is the most obvious and repulsive of them, but there are people who fall even for his chicanery — think of how many gay moderates got sucked into his “It gets better” movement.)

    Comment by RO Lopez — December 29, 2010 @ 1:03 pm - December 29, 2010

  4. Amusing. Gays and lesbians go around cursing at everyone, calling them names, and being verbally abusive, and then wonder why they get fired from jobs, ostracized at school, and generally frowned upon in the public square.

    Dan Savage is a fine example of the typical gay and lesbian person. Would you want them in your workplace? Would you want them teaching your children? Would you want them in the United States military?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 1:09 pm - December 29, 2010

  5. Savage’s comment is undeniably crass. And Newsweek online has been circling the drain in terms of quality for a while. I’ve been almost shocked at the lack of quality – so much less than the print magazine ever had. But Savage is a sex advice columnist who’s known for not biting his tongue and for being more crass than the mainstream.

    It’s a bit ironic though, to see this post comment on a level of discourse, when this very blog referred to three Supreme Court justices as “insane” in a headline several months ago , just because the author of that post disagrees with them. It causes me to ask: is it acceptable to label Supreme Court justices as mentally ill but not acceptable to do what Savage did? Even granting that Savage was more juvenile, how is it different in terms of the quality (as opposed to the tone) of the discourse?

    I don’t agree with Savage’s characterization of a lot of people. I don’t really care what he thinks about Justice Scalia. I also don’t agree with Justice Scalia most of the time, but I find his legal arguments to be brilliantly espoused, especially in his writing. And I can disagree with him without either referring to him in a sexually derogatory way or as being mentally ill.

    Comment by Neptune — December 29, 2010 @ 1:18 pm - December 29, 2010

  6. Wait… That even appears in print? In Newsweak????

    What, are they trying to nibble away at the KOS / Rolling Stone readership? I write a blog that hardly any one reads, yet I would be embarrassed to post something like that. Jeez!

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 29, 2010 @ 1:45 pm - December 29, 2010

  7. “Dan Savage is a fine example of the typical gay and lesbian person.”

    Really, NDT? Are things that bad in San Francisco?

    Maybe you ought to move to Phoenix and make a better class of friends.

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 29, 2010 @ 2:06 pm - December 29, 2010

  8. Nick: Here’s the thing: I’m a straight guy and wouldn’t use these phrases because to me, it’s like dropping the n-bomb. You just don’t do that. So why is it ok for gay men to do that? Or is it just asshole gays do it?

    There are good, bad, mediocre and downright a-holes among all groups of humans. Savage did a good thing with the “It Gets Better” campaign and perhaps he’s a nice guy in his personal life, but much of the rest of his public schtick is offensive. Emily Post he is not and I’m sure he’d proudly agree with that. His choice.

    And I dislike Perez Hilton

    You are not alone.

    Comment by John — December 29, 2010 @ 2:07 pm - December 29, 2010

  9. P.S., we’d love to have you. It’s still something like fifty degrees here (above zero). Until today, when it started raining, people were out there playing golf.

    Golf! No blizzards! Hundreds of gays and lesbians in church every Sunday.

    Maybe not paradise, but close enough to it to suit me.

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 29, 2010 @ 2:08 pm - December 29, 2010

  10. FTR, the accusation isn’t always false. Just over-used. Yes, some people are anti-gay to an irrational degree, to compensate for their own sexual issues. But I can’t see that Scalia is one. Scalia just thinks differently than Savage. The problem with people like Savage is that by over-using the accusation, they make it useless. Savage is like those demented lefties who call everything that America does in its own defense, “torture”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 29, 2010 @ 2:09 pm - December 29, 2010

  11. RO Lopez: This is why I told folks not to take that video series “It gets better” seriously. Dan Savage was planning that fanfare long before the spate of stories about gay teen suicides. He’s a guttersnipe.

    I disagree, well at least with regards to IGB. Savage had a great idea which has taken off and become something even he admits is beyond what he envisioned. Good for him. Yet this doesn’t at all mean everything the man says or does is therefore excusable, because that’s not the case at all. As the saying goes even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    Comment by John — December 29, 2010 @ 2:11 pm - December 29, 2010

  12. NDT: Dan Savage is a fine example of the typical gay and lesbian person. Would you want them in your workplace? Would you want them teaching your children? Would you want them in the United States military?

    No he isn’t and it’s a lie for you to claim that he is.

    Comment by John — December 29, 2010 @ 2:12 pm - December 29, 2010

  13. Neptune: It’s a bit ironic though, to see this post comment on a level of discourse, when this very blog referred to three Supreme Court justices as “insane” in a headline several months ago , just because the author of that post disagrees with them. It causes me to ask: is it acceptable to label Supreme Court justices as mentally ill but not acceptable to do what Savage did? Even granting that Savage was more juvenile, how is it different in terms of the quality (as opposed to the tone) of the discourse?

    You’re seriously trying to equate the two? Really? Ok, that’s not a biiiiiiiig stretch… /sarc

    Comment by John — December 29, 2010 @ 2:14 pm - December 29, 2010

  14. 10: Agreed 100%, ILC.

    Comment by John — December 29, 2010 @ 2:16 pm - December 29, 2010

  15. Savage had a great idea which has taken off and become something even he admits is beyond what he envisioned. Good for him.

    The videos I saw made me want to put a gun in my mouth. Nothing inspiring from a group of moonbatshitcrazy liberals and “celebrities” nobody’s heard of who all voted to spread the misery.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 29, 2010 @ 2:32 pm - December 29, 2010

  16. Dan Savage is a fine example of the typical gay and lesbian person. Would you want them in your workplace? Would you want them teaching your children? Would you want them in the United States military?

    No, no and no.

    Savage tells people how to use dildos in their ass for a living and tries to find enough prostitute ads to fund his commie rag. He should be ridiculed every time he opens his mouth, as should anyone who tries to pass him off as a credible or respectable pundit.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 29, 2010 @ 2:54 pm - December 29, 2010

  17. “Dan Savage is a fine example of the typical gay and lesbian person.”

    Really, NDT? Are things that bad in San Francisco?

    I’m from Seattle, as is Savage, and have lived in SF too. he is very representative of gays both here and there.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 29, 2010 @ 2:56 pm - December 29, 2010

  18. I really liked a lot of the “It get’s better” video’s yeah it became a cause celebre`, but it reminded me how alone I was back in highschool and how horrible it was. I really never planned on living past 20 and here I am in my 30′s and happily adjusted and comfortable with who I am. I think I would have latched on to the videos and been inspired by them.

    Somehow I can’t help but notice that few on here condemn Rush limbaugh for an illegal drug addiction and four marriages. Or Newt Gingrich for dumping his sick wife via fax, or Sen Craig cheating on his wife so let’s not get all preachy about morals. Let’s concentrate on politics and leave the morals to people who are sure they are better than us.

    Comment by Tim — December 29, 2010 @ 3:09 pm - December 29, 2010

  19. Get. Over. It.

    When one of you allies of America’s Puritans creates something as valuable, in terms of drawing attention to the problem of suicides by young gays, then you might have room to bitch about Dan’s potty mouth.

    Comment by Auntie Dogma — December 29, 2010 @ 3:13 pm - December 29, 2010

  20. “NDT: Dan Savage is a fine example of the typical gay and lesbian person. Would you want them in your workplace? Would you want them teaching your children? Would you want them in the United States military?

    No he isn’t and it’s a lie for you to claim that he is.

    Comment by John”

    NDT’s inability to see gays as anything other than caricatures is probably as troubling to me as him blaming them for all of societies ills. His knee jerk reaction is always predictable. Like if I said “gays make great parents and I support both gay adoption, and surrogate pregnancies, he’ll shoot back about how perverted we all are and that children shouldn’t be allowed near gays lest they try to convert them.

    Comment by Tim — December 29, 2010 @ 3:14 pm - December 29, 2010

  21. Tim in #18, good point about the videos in your first ¶, but wondering what you included the stuff in your 2nd ¶ and what relevance it has to the post to which you attached this comment.

    This is a post about Dan Savage’s bigoted attitude toward conservatives and his crass expression of his prejudices. You refuse to address that while bringing up the foibles of conservatives, all deserving criticism, none related to their public statements.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 29, 2010 @ 3:16 pm - December 29, 2010

  22. So, Auntie, that means that anything valuable that we do makes us immune to criticism. By your own logic then, you can no longer offer criticism on this blog. I put forward a project at my left-leaning synagogue which earned me much praise. I’m now working on enacting that idea (“Alumni Mentors”).

    And I don’t have a, to borrow your very expression, a “potty mouth” like Dan Savage.

    (For some reason, your hypocrisy now made manifest, I don’t think an apology will be forthcoming. Nor is one anticipated.)

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 29, 2010 @ 3:18 pm - December 29, 2010

  23. On a tangent, I wonder if some liberals use the conservative bashing as kind of a “Get Out Of Jail Free Card” so that they can get away with behavior that would otherwise be unacceptable.

    The show ‘Family Guy’ in particular makes a lot of jokes that would be considered racist and homophobic, but all the producers have to do is show gestapo officers sporting McCain-Palin buttons and they get a complete pass.

    And let’s face it, without WikiLeaks, Julian Assange would just be another scumbag rapist.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 3:22 pm - December 29, 2010

  24. @dan it ties into the same thread because you see Dan Savage just as a caricature of a person, not a real father with a past and history of his own. You give a free pass to anyone that claims to be “conservative” but largely ignore their personal life saying that it should be a non-issue because you are only concerned about politics. But almost all the writers on this site have posted incredibly vicious personal attacks on people they consider liberals. I’ve personally seen high school girls attacked, I’ve seen you all beg for the death of Pfc Manning, a person how has only been accused in the media, not even charged with something. I’ve seen ad hoc attacks against pelosi, calling her a miserable c*nt, and the same for Reid. For any of you to sudden be squeamish that Savage called Scalia a c*cksucker is either the height of hypocrisy or you simply never bother to read what you write.

    ND30 regularly takes part in these attacks as well as having a history of blaming his fellow gays for all manner of social ills and crimes to the point of hysteria and I think it’s perfectly reasonable to bring it up in the same thread.

    Comment by Tim — December 29, 2010 @ 3:25 pm - December 29, 2010

  25. Also I never asked for an apology, nor did I say that contributing something valuable makes us immune to criticism but to say that only you and your friends are allowed to use profanity or call out their opponents seems patently ridiculous.

    I think we can have a higher discourse than this, It’s not likely to happen overnight but if we at least attempt it in our own homes first maybe we can encourage others to do it in theirs.

    Comment by Tim — December 29, 2010 @ 3:30 pm - December 29, 2010

  26. No he isn’t and it’s a lie for you to claim that he is.

    Yes he is, John. Look at the whole “FCKH8″ video, made specifically to benefit and support the so-called “Courage” Campaign, “Equality” California, and other such organizations. Endorsed, supported, and blessed by the gay and lesbian community, featuring children of gay parents cussing up a storm.

    The really funny thing about that video was apologist Evan Hurst at Truth Wins Out trying to claim that it represented outreach since (he claims) all people his age swear like that at home, in public, in classrooms, and in the workplace. Indeed, the whole discussion on that thread was how it was “normal” for children to swear regularly and how anyone who disagreed was a prude.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 3:37 pm - December 29, 2010

  27. Amusing. Gays and lesbians go around cursing at everyone, calling them names, and being verbally abusive, and then wonder why they get fired from jobs, ostracized at school, and generally frowned upon in the public square.

    The ones I know don’t. In fact, my sister’s lesbian friend is polite and well-behaved, while her straight friends are gawky and hyperactive. Another one I know was extremely polite and respectful to a classmate when that classmate said she opposed same-sex marriage.

    Comment by NYAlly — December 29, 2010 @ 3:39 pm - December 29, 2010

  28. When one of you allies of America’s Puritans creates something as valuable, in terms of drawing attention to the problem of suicides by young gays, then you might have room to bitch about Dan’s potty mouth.

    Of course, since Savage and his ilk support and endorse teens having promiscuous, disease-spreading bareback sex with adults, it’s kind of hilarious to watch them suddenly claim they “care” about teens’ health.

    Isn’t it hilarious to watch Auntie Dogma whine about teens’ health when he endorses infecting them with HIV?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 3:42 pm - December 29, 2010

  29. dan it ties into the same thread because you see Dan Savage just as a caricature of a person, not a real father with a past and history of his own.

    Actually, what we see is his past and history of antireligious bigotry, of foul behavior, of promiscuity, and of his actions being endorsed and supported fully by the gay and lesbian community as normal behavior.

    And as Auntie Dogma so conveniently demonstrates in this thread, Savage’s behavior and attitudes are absolutely typical of and completely supported by the gay and lesbian community.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 3:48 pm - December 29, 2010

  30. Yes he is, John. Look at the whole “FCKH8″ video, made specifically to benefit and support the so-called “Courage” Campaign, “Equality” California, and other such organizations. Endorsed, supported, and blessed by the gay and lesbian community, featuring children of gay parents cussing up a storm.

    Bully for them I suppose. However, this does not validate your premise. Savage is no more representative of gays, as you claim he is, than Howard Stern is the paragon of heterosexuality and those of such “lifestyle”.

    Comment by John — December 29, 2010 @ 3:54 pm - December 29, 2010

  31. The videos I saw made me want to put a gun in my mouth. Nothing inspiring from a group of moonbatshitcrazy liberals and “celebrities” nobody’s heard of who all voted to spread the misery.

    I saw some good ones, some really bad ones and some “eh, s’okay” ones. Overall what I saw many gay teens in a rough spot would find helpful. Not all to be sure, but many others would.

    Comment by John — December 29, 2010 @ 3:57 pm - December 29, 2010

  32. You refuse to address that while bringing up the foibles of conservatives, all deserving criticism, none related to their public statements.

    Funny, Dan, you seem to have time to call Tim out on the failings of his commentary here but have completely ignored the remarks of at least one commentor who seems to believe that Savage is typical of all gays. Why is that?

    Comment by John — December 29, 2010 @ 4:02 pm - December 29, 2010

  33. …since Savage and his ilk support and endorse teens having promiscuous, disease-spreading bareback sex with adults…

    NDT, could you back this up with a citation to any time Savage has done this? Meaning not his “ilk”, but Dan Savage himself. Because in all my years reading his column, I have never, ever seen him endorse anything of the sort. This is the same guy who supports closing bathhouses (as famously debated with Bill O’Reilly) because of the unsafe sex practices such places tend to encourage.

    Comment by Neptune — December 29, 2010 @ 4:03 pm - December 29, 2010

  34. Savage is no more representative of gays, as you claim he is, than Howard Stern is the paragon of heterosexuality and those of such “lifestyle”.

    Actually, I’ve seen LOTS of heterosexuals, including leaders of organizations, politicians, and the like, condemn Howard Stern’s behaviors and words, making it clear that his is not a typical attitude. Nor have I seen Howard Stern appearing on news programs, roundtables, and in magazines as representative of the heterosexual community.

    Dan Savage, on the other hand, has.

    So I take the news media, HRC, GLAAD, and the general gay and lesbian community at their word that he represents the typical gay and lesbian person and that his behavior is typical of gays and lesbians.

    Especially when you consider that the only gays objecting to him are ones like Dan and myself, who have been condemned by “real gays” like Tim and Auntie Dogma as “self-loathing” and not really gay.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 4:12 pm - December 29, 2010

  35. The ones I know don’t. In fact, my sister’s lesbian friend is polite and well-behaved, while her straight friends are gawky and hyperactive. Another one I know was extremely polite and respectful to a classmate when that classmate said she opposed same-sex marriage.

    Indeed. Most people I know are like this, even those who lose their tempers sometimes apologize and make amends afterwards. Heck, most of what I see online I almost never see in the real world. It’s as if some people feel freer to be a-holes online than in life face-to-face with others.

    Comment by John — December 29, 2010 @ 4:15 pm - December 29, 2010

  36. Like if I said “gays make great parents and I support both gay adoption, and surrogate pregnancies, he’ll shoot back about how perverted we all are and that children shouldn’t be allowed near gays lest they try to convert them.

    Actually, I would just point out how gay and lesbian parents dress their children up as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs, and how gay and lesbian elected leaders brag about how they take their four-year-old daughters out to stare at naked men and how fascinated they are with penises.

    All without any condemnation whatsoever from the gay and lesbian community.

    Personally, I don’t see why people who see nothing wrong with this behavior should be allowed anywhere near children, don’t you? Wouldn’t you be a bit worried if your child’s teacher talked about how she liked to show penises to four year olds and thought it was great that they were fascinated with them?

    Then again, maybe that’s the problem, Tim. You’re so steeped in gay community dogma that you really HAVE lost your ability to tell what is and isn’t normal.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 4:17 pm - December 29, 2010

  37. So I take the news media, HRC, GLAAD, and the general gay and lesbian community at their word that he represents the typical gay and lesbian person and that his behavior is typical of gays and lesbians.

    So when you boil it all done, there really is no difference between the identity politics you engage in that you also criticize liberals for doing. You stereotype and take from the extremes to label everyone the same with the best of your liberal opponents. Ok, makes sense I suppose – if one were “insane” that is. (yes, I had to use that word)

    Comment by John — December 29, 2010 @ 4:20 pm - December 29, 2010

  38. ndt340 Your incorrect as usual I think Dan is fine and it’s his blog to write on, nor do I think of him as self hating. You on the other hand have never written one nice thing about any gay, and in all my years of reading your comments you have never once treated a gay person as an individual. You always try to lump them together, assuming that if a single gay person doesn’t condemn everything that you think is wrong with gays than surely all gays must be complicit in what you think is wrong. Despite this insane logic you go on to blame gay men like Dan Savage who condemn the bath house culture and have actually worked to get rid of it as saying they support it. Are you going to apologize for that or retract your statement?

    . Nor did you answer my retort, do you think gays should be allowed to adopt and or have kids via surrogate pregnancies?

    Comment by Tim — December 29, 2010 @ 4:21 pm - December 29, 2010

  39. I’ve seen LOTS of heterosexuals, including leaders of organizations, politicians, and the like, condemn Howard Stern’s behaviors and words, making it clear that his is not a typical attitude. Nor have I seen Howard Stern appearing on news programs, roundtables, and in magazines as representative of the heterosexual community.

    That’s an excellent point. I frequently read gays on-line here insisting that “I don’t approve of things like Folsom Street Fair and I don’t know of anyone who does.” Yet, 400,000 people attend and there is no organized opposition to it in the gay community. Why is it wrong to assume from this that the kind of behavior… public exhibitionism, promiscuous unsafe sex… for which the FOlsom Street Fair is notorious is in any way out of the gay mainstream?

    I recall someone, I think it was AJ, saying he didn’t have any problem with older gay men preying on minor boys. Seriously? The gay community in general is okay with this sort of thing? I mean, Kevin Jennings brags about facilitating a gay predator and the defense offered by the gay left is, “The kid was 16, not 15.” As though that makes it just swell.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 4:23 pm - December 29, 2010

  40. So VtheK dresses his son’s up as sexual slaves? My aunt dresses her daughter up as a slut? I know these things are patently untrue and for you to lump all gay parents together while not even mentioning the entire industry of child beauty pageants (Straight) child movie stars (straight) child singers (I Whip my hair back and forth Straight!) really just goes to show that you only target gays for your scorn. That is why I call you self hating and that is why I will resist your twisted logic whenever I see it.

    Comment by Tim — December 29, 2010 @ 4:25 pm - December 29, 2010

  41. @ V the K so where are the mass protest of Mardi Gra? I’m assuming your a member of the action committee?
    Also since your agreeing with NDT30 on everything I suppose you dress your children as ” sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs”? I don’t see any retorts to this statement so I’m going to have to assume you are letting it out these as truth.

    Comment by Tim — December 29, 2010 @ 4:28 pm - December 29, 2010

  42. @V the K also before slamming Kevin Jennings perhaps you should read his book, I’ll send you my copy.

    Comment by Tim — December 29, 2010 @ 4:30 pm - December 29, 2010

  43. Actually, I don’t think V the K qualifies as gay either, mainly because he’s religious, holds a job, and doesn’t refrain from criticizing gay and lesbian people.

    That’s what is funny, Tim. You’ve spent all this time claiming that people like V the K are self-loathing irrational gays and then you try to use their behavior as smokescreens for your own.

    I take a very simple tack. Dan Savage says he behaves the way he does because of his sexual orientation. Therefore, we can state that being gay or lesbian makes you a promiscuous, foul-mouthed idiot who supports bareback sex, prostitution, and drug use, and who claims monogamy and fidelity are “hurtful”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 4:36 pm - December 29, 2010

  44. No, I only target gays who encourage or tolerate that sort of behavior for scorn… and it’s apparently most of them, otherwise things like FSF would not be such huge public events.

    For that matter, I think the whole child beauty pageant thing is a disgusting phenomenon as well, but this isn’t a forum where such parents tend to be found.

    The whole pronification of the culture is something I am opposed to. I think it’s sad that Jenna Jameson and Tracy Lords are household names. But again, those people are not what this forum is about.

    It’s wrong that anyone who suggests that there ought to be more discretion and decency in society… even that deviant behavior should be tolerated but only in closed private environment… is attacked as being puritanical, anti-sex, and self-loathing… especially from the likes of Dan Savage.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 4:36 pm - December 29, 2010

  45. I know these things are patently untrue and for you to lump all gay parents together while not even mentioning the entire industry of child beauty pageants (Straight) child movie stars (straight) child singers (I Whip my hair back and forth Straight!)

    Actually, childrens’ beauty pageants ban naked and masturbating men who get off on seeing dressed-up toddlers, which puts them quite a bit above the Folsom Street Fair and the gay and lesbian community.

    And frankly, if a naked man walked into a child beauty pageant and began to pleasure himself, I doubt there would be a single straight parent there gushing about how wonderful it was and how great it was that their four-year-old was fascinated with penises.

    You simply lack the ability to determine what is normal any more, Tim. You see nothing wrong with having sex with underage children. You see nothing wrong with dressing children as sexual objects and taking them to a sex fair to show off in front of naked and masturbating men. You see nothing wrong with bragging in public how fascinated your four-year-old is with penises and how it’s OK for people to show penises to four-year-olds in public.

    That’s the real danger of the gay and lesbian community. It brainwashes people like Tim into believing that any behavior, no matter how foolish, is acceptable and that, if you don’t support it, you’re homophobic.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 4:40 pm - December 29, 2010

  46. So when you boil it all done, there really is no difference between the identity politics you engage in that you also criticize liberals for doing.

    The interesting thing, John, is that someone who supposedly served in the military like you do doesn’t understand asymmetric warfare.

    In short, if people are bound and determined to support terrorists, there is no point in not treating them like terrorists.

    When you man up enough to tell Savage to shut up and stop supporting him, you will be differentiated from him. When you spend as much time bitching at him as you do at “social conservatives”, then you will have credibility in this regard.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 4:43 pm - December 29, 2010

  47. Let’s dissect Dan Savage’s opinion on the Folsom Street Fair.

    1. People having kinky sex in public — OK
    2. Children present while people have sex in public — Well, he wouldn’t do it, but that’s the parent’s choice.
    3. Conservatives who raise their kids with religious values are worse.

    Did I pretty much characterize that correctly? Is that pretty much the mainstream of gay opinion on the matter.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 5:03 pm - December 29, 2010

  48. omg @ND30 we’ve had a break through!! We’ve at last come to the crux of your gay bashing and compartmentalizing.
    Let me describe someone here and you tell me if you would call this person gay. Middle aged man, lives with and is in a sexual relationship with another man, posts naked pictures of himself and partner online, attends fancy drinking affairs that raise money for gay causes, only surfs gay sites, and only talks about gay issues. If I mentioned that they lived in San Fransico and liked to wear a kilt to parties it would just be the icing on the cake. And that gentlemen and ladies is a short description of ND30 a man who claims that he is some how above all the rest of us because he condemns every gay in existence as unclean except those he now classifies as something other than gay. How very special that you have the power to say who is clean or unclean.

    I don’t care who you ask, if you ask a 100 people to describe this person they would say “gay”. Some might say homosexual, but only cause they consider that gays should only be judged on their sex habits.
    You can’t accept the fact that you are gay, that no matter what fancy dress you put on your family will always label you as such. So you turn your anger at everyone else, they are the reason your family doesn’t accept you, not their own religion or narrow mindedness. If only every gay person was as pure as christ you’d finally be accepted. Grow up ND30. stop projecting your pain onto others. You’ve become a real pain in the ass, you didn’t even use to be this bad but you’ve painted yourself into an ugly corner. In your world straights are all the perfect Cleaver families, and gays are all deranged perverts.

    I for one don’t tolerate people who abuse children, my three aunts were abused by their straight cousin for years and each has had to bear a heavy price because of it. Three of my cousins were children of incest, their mother was raped by their own father and my uncle helped cover it up and took the children in. The grandfather was considered an upstanding member of the community and church. He was never charged or prosecuted. I find pedophilia a sick and twisted crime and I have never once supported it or tolerated anyone that did in my house or presence If you want to spread lies about me perhaps you should pick ones that I don’t have so much experience in you twisted little man.

    However there is a huge difference between nudity and sexuality that we as americans don’t usually face or accept, most other cultures and nations outside of the islamic world don’t really care about it or see it as blatantly sexual. Showering with your father as a child is not sexual abuse, your broad attacks are not only lies but twisted puritan variants of religion that believe sexuality itself is sinful. You really are no different than the Phelps clan, you cloak your words as moral instructions and rebukes but in action you attack everyone both pure of heart or not as evil. That Sir is the crime that I accuse you of.

    Comment by Tim — December 29, 2010 @ 5:15 pm - December 29, 2010

  49. Question: Is current Tim the same Tim who expressed that teaching middle schoolers about fisting and oral sex was okay about a year ago?

    And the same Tim who, two months before that, stomped his feet and said he would never darken Gay Patriot’s door again because of “rampant stereotyping, self-loathing, hateful, spiteful and generally mean spiritedness”… (i.e., people expressing disgust over older gay men preying on young boys.)?

    Just curious. Tim’s a common name.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 5:22 pm - December 29, 2010

  50. “Did I pretty much characterize that correctly? Is that pretty much the mainstream of gay opinion on the matter.

    Comment by V the K”

    No, not at all, why I am having to reread an article to a grown man I don’t know why, but both you and ND30 ignore both his condemnation of taking children to the event (which he states repeatedly) and says that it is the parents right to do as they wish with their child, regardless of other people’s opinions. Somehow I would think that you would respect that he both respects the idea that parents have the right to raise their children as well as the expectation that the idea entails respect both ways. Apparently your idea of freedom only encompasses your own family and needs and it’s everyone else that has to change.
    As for your objection to the Pornification of society, might I remind you about your own friggin website? If you really were objecting to the blatant sexualization of our culture why do you post the pictures that you do? http://kurlander.blogspot.com/

    Comment by Tim — December 29, 2010 @ 5:28 pm - December 29, 2010

  51. I don’t care who you ask, if you ask a 100 people to describe this person they would say “gay”.

    Funny, I can go over to Rob Tisinai’s blog, just to name one, and bring back at least a dozen examples of his commenters insisting that I am NOT gay and that all of your evidence is merely a carefully-crafted online persona.

    Why? I think one of them says it best; if I were really gay, I wouldn’t criticize the behavior of other gay people.

    And therein lies the problem, Timmy. You simply cannot criticize the behavior of other gay and lesbian people. Therefore, you rationalize your inability to do so as being normal and my quite well-developed ability to do so as being abnormal.

    Case in point: child molestation. You bring up all these allegations from your family, yet you can’t seem to bring yourself to state that gays and lesbians who dress their children as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs to “show off” in front of naked and masturbating adults are wrong.

    Why? Because it would require you to criticize the behavior of a gay and lesbian person.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 5:32 pm - December 29, 2010

  52. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by JimWilemon. JimWilemon said: GayPatriot » Using profanity to slur conservatives:De Rigueur for the Politically Correct Gay Activist http://t.co/F8AKUVm [...]

    Pingback by Tweets that mention GayPatriot » Using profanity to slur conservatives:De Rigueur for the Politically Correct Gay Activist -- Topsy.com — December 29, 2010 @ 5:34 pm - December 29, 2010

  53. Tim, reading comprehension may not be your strong suit, so let me ask you to quote the part of the article where he condemns the act of taking children to Folsom Street Fair. You can’t because he doesn’t. He only says it’s “inappropriate” (you know, like serving red wine with fish) and something he wouldn’t personally do. He never actually condemns the people who did it … but he does spend three long paragraphs condemning conservatives for not teaching their kids his own personal set of values.

    And I don’t post pron. I post cheesecake and make fun of pron. But it’s okay, leftists aren’t really expected to get humor. If I wanted a leftist audience to laugh, I’d just joke about raping Sarah Palin’s kids or something.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 5:38 pm - December 29, 2010

  54. @ V the K well I said the bit about leaving but Dan and I made up <3

    hmm it was not me that said that teaching about fist bit, though hard evidence from sweden proves that early sex education (age appropriate) has given them the lowest teen pregnancy and STD rate in the world. So I suppose if your pro-teen pregnancy and STD's than you would be against sex education (age appropriate) for children.

    "Despite all this good news, the fact remains that teenagers in the United States continue to experience substantially higher pregnancy rates and birthrates than do teens in other Western industrialized countries (see chart). The adolescent pregnancy rate in the United States, for example, is nearly twice that in Canada and Great Britain and approximately four times that in France and Sweden. Moreover, teen birthrates have declined less steeply in the United States than in other developed countries over the last three decades"

    and

    Comment by Tim — December 29, 2010 @ 5:44 pm - December 29, 2010

  55. No, not at all, why I am having to reread an article to a grown man I don’t know why, but both you and ND30 ignore both his condemnation of taking children to the event (which he states repeatedly) and says that it is the parents right to do as they wish with their child, regardless of other people’s opinions.

    Case in point.

    I for one don’t tolerate people who abuse children, my three aunts were abused by their straight cousin for years and each has had to bear a heavy price because of it. Three of my cousins were children of incest, their mother was raped by their own father and my uncle helped cover it up and took the children in.

    So what?

    After all, Tim, Dan Savage says that it’s perfectly OK to do whatever you wish with children, regardless of other peoples’ opinions. Dan Savage says that, if you want to have sex with your own child, that’s perfectly OK to do and that you don’t have to listen to other peoples’ opinions.

    You see, Tim, Dan Savage is a sexual pervert. He opposes absolutes because he doesn’t ever want to be restricted. When he starts having sex with his child, he wants a rationale in place for it, which is why he says that he has a right to have sex with his child whenever he wants.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 5:48 pm - December 29, 2010

  56. It’s always funny to me how these gay leftists will spend hours defending a teacher who facilitated the sexual exploitation of a minor … and then get their knickers in a wad over a cheesecake picture of a woman with bodacious ta-tas.

    Some peoples values are just… FUBAR.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 5:49 pm - December 29, 2010

  57. @VtheK so now you are interpreting the word “inappropriate” and finding it now to your level of outrage. I interpret the same word differently and article repeatedly states his opposition to the idea of taking children to the event. However that’s not enough for you? You are the judge and jury of the english language? Are you trying to play @ND30′s game where the other commentator has to systematically denounce everything that ND30 is opposed to and now it must meet your grammatical dissection? You two would do very well in Mao’s China, the travelling denouncement team.. going and making parents denounce their children, children their parents and friends, teachers their children, and than you would come up behind them and shoot them for not using the correct words of denouncements?
    Don’t play such ridiculous games with me I’ve watched him spin those things out for hours always going back and saying there was something else you had to denounce before your opinion could mean anything to him.
    As for reading comprehension I believe article clearly states that if you want us to ignore the ridiculous religious stories you teach your children as truth than you should probably be a little more accepting of other people teaching their children what they want.

    As a long time contributor to your site I think I can easily say that you post whatever you think will get a laugh, and you commonly exploit sex as an easy target. Therefore giggle all you want your still contributing, just like when ND30 posted naked pictures of him and his guy.

    Comment by Tim — December 29, 2010 @ 5:55 pm - December 29, 2010

  58. hmm it was not me that said that teaching about fist bit, though hard evidence from sweden proves that early sex education (age appropriate) has given them the lowest teen pregnancy and STD rate in the world.

    Or it could be simply the fact that Sweden has strict and enforced immigration laws and isn’t bordered by a third-world country in which teen pregnancy is normal and accepted.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 6:00 pm - December 29, 2010

  59. Tim in #25, It’s my turn to apologize. I wrote comment #22 in haste and meant to address it to Auntie Dogma, not use. My apologies for not including her name in that comment. WIll fix.

    As to comment, #24, please tell me where I give a free pass to conservatives for using such language as Mr. Savage does. Here, I’m not addressing his personal life, but the juvenile language he uses in his public statements. As to the personal attacks issued by writers on this site, well, they’re not coming from me. And I don’t defend their language, in fact, have criticized it — and have even asked them to tone it down.

    Finally, as to Mr. Savage, a good father should know better than to use such language. It sets a poor example indeed for one’s children to slime his ideological adversaries in such of manner instead of teaching them the means to counter their arguments in kind.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 29, 2010 @ 6:01 pm - December 29, 2010

  60. ND30 perhaps you don’t remember saying this, “You simply lack the ability to determine what is normal any more, Tim. You see nothing wrong with having sex with underage children. You see nothing wrong with dressing children as sexual objects and taking them to a sex fair to show off in front of naked and masturbating men. You see nothing wrong with bragging in public how fascinated your four-year-old is with penises and how it’s OK for people to show penises to four-year-olds in public.”

    Perhaps you don’t remember posting these lies about me?? I am well aware of the difference between abuse and sex, and how the abuse of position between an adult and a child is far different from two adults entering into a sexual relationship. That you cannot is a sad display of your moral character and a normal mode of your ad hominem attacks on my character.
    Again and again you intentionally mistate the positions of others to match your own twisted idea of who gays are. You see every gay person as the same person, You say that I must share the same ideas as everyone in the world you label a lefist. The fact that my voter registration says Republican means that I must be some sort of liar because no one who says they are republican could share my views but you are completely and patently wrong.

    Comment by Tim — December 29, 2010 @ 6:02 pm - December 29, 2010

  61. As for reading comprehension I believe article clearly states that if you want us to ignore the ridiculous religious stories you teach your children as truth than you should probably be a little more accepting of other people teaching their children what they want.

    Yes, because, according to gay and lesbian people like Tim, there is absolutely no difference between teaching your children your religious beliefs and teaching them that it’s normal for children like themselves to have sex with and sexually pleasure their parents and other adults.

    I think what we’ve stumbled onto here is the fact that being gay or lesbian also requires you to be an antireligious bigot, something that Dan Savage and Tim exhibit beautifully. That would be the only logical way in which one could draw a moral equivalence between religious beliefs and sexually exploiting your children like Savage says parents can do.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 6:06 pm - December 29, 2010

  62. Dan I think your misreading again it was John in #32

    Comment by Tim — December 29, 2010 @ 6:06 pm - December 29, 2010

  63. Or, it could be that Sweden is an ethnically and culturally homogeneous country with a population smaller than the state of Pennsylvania whose prescriptions may not be applicable to an ethnically diverse country whose population is 35 times larger.

    I further would be willing to be that if you compared the pregnancy rates of ethnic Swedes residing in the American Midwest to those of Sweden, they would be remarkably similar.

    Also, interestingly, up to 70% of pregnancies among minor girls in the USA were caused by “fathers” over the age of 20: which is a situation Tim is presumably okay with as long as they met in a bus station and a teacher said he hoped they were using a condom.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 6:08 pm - December 29, 2010

  64. I am well aware of the difference between abuse and sex, and how the abuse of position between an adult and a child is far different from two adults entering into a sexual relationship.

    Which makes your endorsement of gays and lesbians sexualizing and having sex with children all the more mystifying.

    Perhaps the reason you are so obsessed with “acceptance” is because you have sacrificed your entire sense of right and wrong to be accepted by other gays and lesbians.

    The fact that my voter registration says Republican means that I must be some sort of liar because no one who says they are republican could share my views but you are completely and patently wrong.

    Oh, not at all. Mark Foley shared your views, attitudes, and behaviors, and as far as I know, he was a registered Republican.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 6:10 pm - December 29, 2010

  65. @NDT30:

    Yes he is, John. Look at the whole “FCKH8″ video, made specifically to benefit and support the so-called “Courage” Campaign, “Equality” California, and other such organizations.

    Note that the “FCKH8″ campaign has a sequel now — the original was focused on Prop8, but this one is ostensibly about gay teen suicide. It opens with some dubious statistics: “1 in 3 queer kids have fucking tried to kill themselves!!” and “9 out of 10 queer kids are bullied, beaten, and bashed!”

    But the real point of the new FCKH8 video comes in “#4″, at about the 1:07 mark:

    “Your anti-gay votes…”
    “…help slit their throats!”

    And which “anti-gay votes” would those be? Peradventure, they’re talking about voting against initiatives at the local school-board level to improve LGBT-related training for guidance counselors and school psychologists, and to give faculty better guidelines on bullying intervention?

    No, that would be LOGICAL. But here are the anti-gay votes the ad is actually concerned with:

    “You fucking take away their right to marry…
    “…serve, and adopt!?”
    “And you’re fucking surprised when they take their lives?”
    “Fuck you, ballot-box bullies!

    So: If the H8ers vote the wrong way on certain issues that happen to be the currently fashionable political obsessions of many gay ADULTS…

    …then gay TEENS might try to commit suicide.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — December 29, 2010 @ 6:13 pm - December 29, 2010

  66. And to build on V the K’s statistic of over 70% of teen pregnancies being the result of fathers over the age of 20, the parallel would also explain why the teen HIV rate is skyrocketing.

    Seems the liberal Dan Savage gay sex movement and its support of promiscuity and bareback sex with teenagers has some consequences. Anyone else think it ironic that Dan Savage whines and cries about gay teens committing suicide when he blithely encourages and promotes behavior that injures, maims, disables, and kills hundreds more people annually?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 6:19 pm - December 29, 2010

  67. I can see it already, Dan Savage’s new YouTube Campaign: “Get AIDS, It’s Better”.

    Isn’t it amazing how all these freaks like Savage and Jennings are so unnaturally obsessed with making sure that no one teaches teens to avoid having sex?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 6:21 pm - December 29, 2010

  68. The interesting thing, John, is that someone who supposedly served in the military like you do doesn’t understand asymmetric warfare.

    Nothing like the absolute moral authority card being played by an armchair general. Try serving a tour in any of the 5 branches first, ‘professor’.

    When you man up enough to tell Savage to shut up and stop supporting him, you will be differentiated from him. When you spend as much time bitching at him as you do at “social conservatives”, then you will have credibility in this regard.

    There are quite a lot of people and organizations that I do not support in whole or in part. I was unaware that I was required to list each and every one online with reasons for my disapproval. Is this something that all folks online are supposed to do or have I been singled out for this alone for some reason? This is the first thread I’ve seen at GP that mentions Dan Savage. Perhaps there have been others but I haven’t seen them. I don’t spend my time thinking about Dan Savage as you apparently think I should do. I also rarely even read anything he writes, usually seeing it second or third-hand before hearing about it. Now if you want to take my ‘failure’ to tell Savage to “shut-up” as somehow being support for the man, well… what the hell it’s a free country so go ahead but don’t expect me to take you seriously. If anything I find it to be amusing. A bit sad and pathetic to be sure, but mostly amusing.

    Comment by John — December 29, 2010 @ 6:36 pm - December 29, 2010

  69. NDT30, why do you always have to be so HIV negative? Why can’t you be more HIV positive?

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 6:41 pm - December 29, 2010

  70. Isn’t it amazing how all these freaks like Savage and Jennings are so unnaturally obsessed with making sure that no one teaches teens to avoid having sex?

    The thing about Dan Savage is that his messages to teens is that if parents try to inhibit their sexual proclivities in any way, then they are close-minded, repressive, and the teenager should ditch their influence in favor of a peer group who will be accepting and non-judgmental of anything he wants to do.

    But, parents who flaunt polyamorous relationships, swapping partners like it was a square dance competition? He’s okay with that. Really, really okay with that.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 6:54 pm - December 29, 2010

  71. @ND30 and @VtheK if you think somehow that trying to label me as a pedophile will cause me to think any more of either of you you are sadly mistaken, however given that you two obsess about it I’m starting to wonder if you are both all right. Maybe your neighbors were right VtheK maybe you shouldn’t be around children.
    when someone emphatically and categorically deny’s something and you have to make up links to continue the verbal assault it only means that your creeps that need help. You both are the worst type of bibilcal moralists, reading and screaming only what you want to see.
    Since neither of you are rational anymore I will leave you with the fact that since you oppose the right of parents to raise their own children as they see fit you are moving dangerously close to a totalitarian mindset that will only lead you both to ruin. While I do not support everything that parents choose to do to their parents I try to ere on the side of caution, if physical or mental abuse is not taking place and the children are able to function without damage than who am I to take their children away? My brother teaches his kids that the earth is 6000 years old and that all science is a lie, (while using the internet natch) that is his and his wife’s choice, I bring up my concerns to them not the children because it would be over stepping my bounds to do other wise. He also teaches from a bible whose found patriarchs were often in polygamous marriages and believed that women where chattel of their fathers and husbands. A book that teaches it is more important to sacrifice your own daughter to your god than to break your oath. A book that teaches it is better to allow your own daughters to be raped than to break the rules of hospitality. While I find many of these ideas offensive it is his family and his religion.
    You both have taken it upon yourself to lie about my character and beliefs because you cannot accept that all gays do not think the same as the phantoms in your minds. If anything you both show the signs and symptoms of people in deep denial as well as grown men practicing extreme compartmentalization. Maybe over time you wlll realize the depth of your own pain and learn to stop projecting it on people that share your world and experiences.

    Comment by Tim — December 29, 2010 @ 7:18 pm - December 29, 2010

  72. I recall someone, I think it was AJ, saying he didn’t have any problem with older gay men preying on minor boys. Seriously? The gay community in general is okay with this sort of thing? I mean, Kevin Jennings brags about facilitating a gay predator and the defense offered by the gay left is, “The kid was 16, not 15.” As though that makes it just swell.

    I never said that, but as usual you can be counted on to put words in people’s mouths. I said I don’t judge people for having legal, consensual relationships. If they’re of age, they’re by definition, not a minor. Please don’t make up statements I never made.

    Comment by AJ — December 29, 2010 @ 8:14 pm - December 29, 2010

  73. Ah yes, I did remember accurately then. I also remember you refused to answer whether you would “judge people” for supporting slavery or segregation when those things were just as legal.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 8:21 pm - December 29, 2010

  74. V the K,

    Well I guess if you remembered accurately then you purposely lied about what I said, classy. And you willfully ignored or lied about my response to your slavery question in the thread it was brought up in. But I guess lying about what others say is right in line with those conservative values of yours. Glad you adhere to them so stringently.

    Comment by AJ — December 29, 2010 @ 8:35 pm - December 29, 2010

  75. I apologize. I missed your response. I didn’t catch that you were also sort of okay with slavery (“unfortunate… but legal”). I don’t apologize for not sharing your lack of a moral compass that doesn’t permit you to judge whether something is wrong, even if the law permits it. (Except in a few cases you alluded to but did not specify.)

    Yeah, I think it’s morally wrong, not to mention gross and disgusting for mature men to be preying on young boys. It is also wrong for teachers to break the law and not report such relationships when the law obligates them to. I know… I know… it’s a horribly radical and “judgmental” position to take, but I’m willing to stand by it.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 8:43 pm - December 29, 2010

  76. Ignoring recent comments here, which have gotten quite out of hand…

    Re the post – Daniel you hit it on the head. If you’re going to call someone else a hatemonger you can hardly engage in such rhetoric yourself. This, of course, goes for the right and the left. Perhaps it is because I am a conservative, but like you Daniel I see this business of using hateful and foul language to attach your opponents much more a characteristic of the left than the right.

    On my blog, I’ll tolerate most stuff from commenters, but I draw the line at cursing.

    Comment by Tom the Redhunter — December 29, 2010 @ 8:47 pm - December 29, 2010

  77. @VtheK That doesn’t explain why you are so eager to tar your opponents with the term when they categorically deny it. Is that part of your “moral compass”? You accuse me of something I find horrible and disgusting and think that some how that the mere accusation of it is enough to justify you continuing to use the term. I have personally seen the horror that it causes and I find you morally reprehensible for being so flippant with your accusations. I’m deeply disappointed in you V. I thought better of you.

    Comment by Tim — December 29, 2010 @ 8:52 pm - December 29, 2010

  78. V the K,

    you can judge all you want. I just find it useless and petty. Why do you worry yourself about what two consenting adults do in their own bedroom? I’m not saying that I would do it, or that people should do it, just that they have the legal ability to. Because I don’t care, either way, if two consenting adults have sex, I have no moral compass? Why is your morality the ultimate morality? Why should people be held to your standards? And what exactly determines those standards for you? Where do you derive your sense of morality from?

    Comment by AJ — December 29, 2010 @ 8:55 pm - December 29, 2010

  79. @Tom the Redhunter and that is my point, Show me a post on here that treats democrats with even basic human dignity or where they don’t slander people for assumed positions? I watched them slander a teenage girl for daring to stand up for her right to attend her own prom with her girlfriend. What level of discourse are they choosing to accept when that is the standard they aim for??

    Comment by Tim — December 29, 2010 @ 8:56 pm - December 29, 2010

  80. I thought better of you.

    That I doubt.

    What exactly have I tarred people with? There are people here who think it’s okay for men in their thirties or forties to prey on boys who are too young to legally vote, drink, serve in the military, purchase a lottery ticket, or even see an R-Rated movie. And they admit that they’re okay with it. So, in what way am I smearing them by accurately characterizing their points of view?

    (Sorry for the thread getting off-topic, but FWIW, Dan Savage was a vocal supporter of Kevin Jennings.)

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 9:09 pm - December 29, 2010

  81. You accused me of being a PEDOPHILE! and actively assisting those who practiced the sick practice,
    “which is a situation Tim is presumably okay with as long as they met in a bus station and a teacher said he hoped they were using a condom.”

    when I never said that, nor did Kevin Jennings, cherry picking your assaults and making wild accusations is not proper discourse. To think that I wouldn’t take offense at that is ridiculous. You made this about pedophilia not because of Dan Savage who actively discourages it, but because you have chosen to judge a man based on his writings in a memoir about his struggle being a gay teacher in a school system that made him repress his own knowledge and experience.

    Comment by Tim — December 29, 2010 @ 9:24 pm - December 29, 2010

  82. Saying that here are people who think that there are people who pray on children does not equate to stating that everyone here agrees with the sick practice! Nor does it justify you accusing other people of such a serious crime. it is simply a childish practice done by someone who doesn’t want to engage in an adult conversation. I don’t accuse you of supporting forced polygamous marriages or hunting down escaped brides because you are a mormon. ..unless your saying that we should all engage in wild accusations based on stereotypes

    Comment by Tim — December 29, 2010 @ 9:27 pm - December 29, 2010

  83. Uh, Tim… could you point out where exactly I called you a PEDOPHILE? No, you can’t. I didn’t. This persecution complex of yours is quite a thing to behold.

    Now, if you want to take this opportunity to clarify your positions, why don’t you just clearly and unequivocally state that 1. It is wrong for adult gay men to pick up high school boys in bus station rest rooms. 2. It was wrong for Kevin Jennings to encourage and facilitate a relationship between a minor boy and an adult man. 3. It was wrong of him to speak with pride about facilitating that relationship to gay audiences and in his memoir.

    If you are as appalled as you say you are – and not merely protesting out of some drama queen affectation of victimhood – then making a clear statement to that effect should not be a problem.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 9:44 pm - December 29, 2010

  84. You made this about pedophilia not because of Dan Savage who actively discourages it, but because you have chosen to judge a man based on his writings in a memoir about his struggle being a gay teacher in a school system that made him repress his own knowledge and experience.

    Which presumably meant that, since he started having bareback sex with strangers in bus station restrooms at age 10, he didn’t see why the mean old homophobic state required him to report such things or wanted to get his fellow gay men who hung out in such places to have bareback sex with teenagers into trouble.

    You accuse me of something I find horrible and disgusting

    But not so horrible and disgusting that you won’t defend gays and lesbians who practice it and encourage it like Kevin Jennings and Dan Savage.

    Funny how Dan Savage wants Child Protective Services called if you teach your child religion, but insists that dressing children as sexual slaves and taking them to sex fairs to “show off” for naked and masturbating adults is normal.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 9:47 pm - December 29, 2010

  85. And if you want to say it was crude and inappropriate for Dan Savage to call a Supreme Court Justice a “c-sucker,” feel free to throw that in as well.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 9:47 pm - December 29, 2010

  86. And also, since NAMBLA was an endorsed and prominent member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association for over a decade, you might as well acknowledge that clearly the gay and lesbian community has no problem whatsoever with pedophilia.

    Not coincidentally, who was right there to defend NAMBLA in court? The ACLU.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 9:53 pm - December 29, 2010

  87. Where do you derive your sense of morality from?

    The collected wisdom of a Judeo-Christian philosophical tradition that has served Western Civilization admirably for over 5,000 years. Where do you get yours? The trendy hipsters on The Daily Show?

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 9:54 pm - December 29, 2010

  88. The entertaining thing, V the K, is that Tim is screeching about us calling him a pedophile when in fact he was calling us pedophiles.

    I can only say that, as inept as Child Protective Services can be, I sincerely doubt that you escaped some serious multi-level scrutiny when it came time for you to foster and adopt your kids.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 9:55 pm - December 29, 2010

  89. Actually, V the K, we can play a new game. I call it the AJ game:

    Gay men have bareback disease spreading sex:

    AJ: “Why do you worry yourself about what two consenting adults do in their own bedroom?”

    Gay man lies about his HIV status to have bareback sex with another man:

    AJ: “Why do you worry yourself about what two consenting adults do in their own bedroom?”

    Gay man cheats on his partner with another person:

    AJ: “Why do you worry yourself about what two consenting adults do in their own bedroom?”

    And of course, if AJ objects to any of those:

    “Why is your morality the ultimate morality? Why should people be held to your standards? And what exactly determines those standards for you? Where do you derive your sense of morality from?”

    Of course, the entertaining part is that we can then use the same thing to ask why AJ’s concept of “consensual” should hold. After all, if the child is old enough to say yes, why doesn’t that constitute consent? Why should AJ’s belief that it doesn’t be the ultimate morality? Why should he be allowed to impose his standard on others?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 9:59 pm - December 29, 2010

  90. NDT, I’ve been a licensed foster care provider in two states, and I’ve adopted kids from three states… including two of the most conservative states in the country. It takes more than an internet hissy-fit to rattle me. And it may be that my parenting experience that makes me more protective of youths than other people are.

    I have a kid who just turned fifteen. If some creeper made a move on him in a bus station rest room, I might bring my friend Mr. Mossberg over for a short, abruptly punctuated, conversation.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 10:02 pm - December 29, 2010

  91. I think, V, you made the point beautifully with this remark:

    The thing about Dan Savage is that his messages to teens is that if parents try to inhibit their sexual proclivities in any way, then they are close-minded, repressive, and the teenager should ditch their influence in favor of a peer group who will be accepting and non-judgmental of anything he wants to do.

    I find it a source of endless amusement that liberals infantilize adults to the point of demanding that salt be banned from prepared foods, but insist that anyone who would dare stop children and teenagers from having as much promiscuous bareback sex with whomever they want as possible is a fascist.

    It sounds like they want absolute control over those who are smart enough to rebel and absolute removal of restraint from those who don’t have any.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 10:19 pm - December 29, 2010

  92. How about those liberals who think a sixteen year old boy is old enough to consent to sex with a 30 year old man, a thirteen year old girl is old enough to get an abortion without her parents knowing… but a seventeen year old is too immature to talk to a military recruiter because he might somehow get the crazy idea that it’s honorable to serve his country.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 10:28 pm - December 29, 2010

  93. Why should I bother presenting any credentials to two men who simply loathe other gays. It’s fairly common, my ex was the same way. I’ve already said I’ve played that stupid game with ND30 years ago and it doesn’t really matter to him or I suppose you. You are simply trying to dictate the conversation so that you than expand your circle of denouncement larger and larger thereby in your mind justifying your atrocious behavior towards others.

    As for your continued attacks on Jennings you do know that he regretted his actions, repented and works to see that they don’t happen again? http://fxn.ws/1os2Db why don’t you engage the person that did the actions instead of bystanders?
    Should I also condemn my aunt and uncle that got married when they were 14 and 16 with the full blessings of their parents?

    As for accusing you both of pedophilia, how is my ad homine any different than your wild accusations? Isn’t it true that once you start such a process it spins out of control leaving nothing but destruction and pain in it’s wake?

    Why say that all gays support NAMBLA when in fact they don’t and even when pedophilia is something totally separate from homosexuality.

    Because you are biblical moralists you assume that your understanding of morality is absolute, but in times past marrying your daughter off at the tender age of 14 was completely legal and moral. The bible you follow has many examples of things that were permissible but now are not. Things like the widow has to marry the brother, or that women having their period were unclean. Even the practice of circumcision can be drawn into the discussion, the ritual mutilation of male sex organs for no other reason than religious edict. You might want to pretend that nothing has changed since those jewish laws were laid down but they have and I think for the better.

    and yes for several years now I have spoken proudly of your decision to adopt foster kids and help them have a better life, ask my co-workers I was the one that introduced them to your blog and bragged about you.
    So believe what you want but stop assuming that you have some holy dictate to attack gays when you are no better than the rest of us.

    Comment by Tim — December 29, 2010 @ 10:29 pm - December 29, 2010

  94. So, I guess this means Tim is not going to clarify his position by explicitly stating that Jennings and Savage were wrong.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 10:37 pm - December 29, 2010

  95. As for your continued attacks on Jennings you do know that he regretted his actions, repented and works to see that they don’t happen again? http://fxn.ws/1os2Db why don’t you engage the person that did the actions instead of bystanders?

    (looks at V the K) Gee, V the K, who have we been criticizing?

    Oh, right, the gays and lesbians who rape and molest children and the ones like Jennings who cover up for them and facilitate it out of some weird sense of minority belonging.

    So we’ve got both those bases covered. And don’t you think it’s ironic to hear Jennings and Dan Savage whining about how we should be going after the people who are raping and molesting the children when neither Jennings or Savage would?

    Why should I bother presenting any credentials to two men who simply loathe other gays.

    Not all gays. Just the ones who rape and molest children and the ones who cover up for them.

    Which, since any person who criticizes such behavior is stripped of their gayhood, constitutes 100% of all “real gays”.

    As for accusing you both of pedophilia, how is my ad homine any different than your wild accusations? Isn’t it true that once you start such a process it spins out of control leaving nothing but destruction and pain in it’s wake?

    Oh please. V the K and I have been around much longer than that. We’re just enjoying watching the gay liberals like Dan Savage who namecall and attack other people suddenly start whining and crying about civility and bullying.

    But watching Savage and how gays and lesbians like him behave has certainly enlightened me. I couldn’t figure out how so many gay people were allegedly losing jobs and whatnot; now that I know Savage’s behavior is normal and typical for the gay and lesbian community, that answers the question. No business owner I know would employ someone like Savage.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 10:46 pm - December 29, 2010

  96. Of course, the entertaining part is that we can then use the same thing to ask why AJ’s concept of “consensual” should hold. After all, if the child is old enough to say yes, why doesn’t that constitute consent? Why should AJ’s belief that it doesn’t be the ultimate morality? Why should he be allowed to impose his standard on others?

    It’s not my morality or my belief and it has nothing to do with me NDT, it’s the law. The law decides who is old enough to consent to sex, it’s not a hard concept to figure out.

    The collected wisdom of a Judeo-Christian philosophical tradition that has served Western Civilization admirably for over 5,000 years. Where do you get yours? The trendy hipsters on The Daily Show?

    That’s good to know. So why is it that you spend so much time judging others when the bible consistently condemns it and says that God is the only/ultimate judge?

    To answer your question I don’t have a single source from which I form my “moral compass”. Some of it comes from Christianity, some comes from how my parents raised me, some comes from my own experiences and what I’ve seen to be right and wrong.

    And just to try and clarify it for you even further, just cause the law says you are able to have sex with a 16 year old does not mean I would ever do it, I would ever let any kids I may have do it or that I would promote it, I just don’t care if other people do. If that makes me a horrible evil person with no moral compass, then so be it, that’s your opinion and that’s fine. I just don’t feel the need to condemn others based on my own opinions and views on morality onto the rest of the world.

    Comment by AJ — December 29, 2010 @ 10:53 pm - December 29, 2010

  97. So why is it that you spend so much time judging others when the bible consistently condemns it and says that God is the only/ultimate judge?

    God is the ultimate judge of people, but we have to be able to judge whether actions are right or wrong. If we can’t tell right from wrong, how can we say it’s wrong to kill? How can we say it’s wrong to steal? How can we say rape is wrong? We can’t, unless we judge that action to be wrong.

    For that matter, how can we even write law if we can’t judge actions to be right or wrong. What if people had just said, “Well, slavery is legal under the law, so we just have to accept it.” There were a lot of people that did just that. It’s a good thing there were other people who were willing to judge right from wrong, and willing to ignore the waggling fingers of those who said “How dare you judge us!”

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 11:03 pm - December 29, 2010

  98. So why is it that you spend so much time judging others when the bible consistently condemns it and says that God is the only/ultimate judge?

    You’re not very familiar with Scripture, are you?

    It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning. God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, “You must remove the evil person from among you.”

    1 Corinthians 5:12-13

    Or:

    Dear friends, do not believe everyone who claims to speak by the Spirit. You must test them to see if the spirit they have comes from God. For there are many false prophets in the world. This is how we know if they have the Spirit of God: If a person claiming to be a prophet acknowledges that Jesus Christ came in a real body, that person has the Spirit of God. But if someone claims to be a prophet and does not acknowledge the truth about Jesus, that person is not from God. Such a person has the spirit of the Antichrist, which you heard is coming into the world and indeed is already here.

    1 John 4:1-3

    I find it amusing that liberals like AJ ignore and spit on the Bible when it tells them that being promiscuous is wrong, lying is wrong, stealing is wrong, adultery is wrong, and so forth, but then try to wave it like a cudgel and insist that others should not judge.

    Be consistent, hypocrite. You spit on it and ignore it elsewhere; you certainly have no credibility to use it now.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 11:13 pm - December 29, 2010

  99. if actions are separate than people, why do you support judging all gays by the same brush? does simply being gay make you unclean? that seems to be ND30′s comments. If actions are separate than people than all people are redeemable yet if simply being gay makes you a supporter of pedophiles than gays could never be redeemed unless they claimed to be straight and only had sex with women. Under that definition ND30 would still be unclean and an unredeemable sinner

    Comment by Tim — December 29, 2010 @ 11:13 pm - December 29, 2010

  100. if actions are separate than people, why do you support judging all gays by the same brush?

    Ah, but you see, Tim, the gay and lesbian community is all about linking actions directly to minority status, which is a characteristic of people.

    Dan Savage responds to people who criticize gay pedophiles by calling them homophobes. He makes it clear that pedophilia is a natural action for gays and lesbians and that to be opposed to pedophilia is to be opposed to gay people as a whole.

    This is typical. The gay and lesbian community uses being gay or lesbian as an excuse for all sorts of antisocial behavior. Fire a gay person who sexually harasses others, and you’re branded a homophobe.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 11:28 pm - December 29, 2010

  101. i think the Bible has a lot of good to impart to society. unfortunately, it’s often used to spread hate. sad.

    when will we ever learn.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 29, 2010 @ 11:29 pm - December 29, 2010

  102. I honestly don’t think I tar all gays with the same brush. True, I don’t think well of most gays. I also don’t think well of most straight people. I don’t even think well of most “Christians.” But this is a gay-oriented blog, so this is the place to point out aspects of gay culture I condemn; the hypersexualization for example, and the casual tolerance of inappropriate inter-generational relationships.

    In my view, there are good gays and bad gays, and it’s unfortunate, to use AJ’s description of slavery, that the bad ones … Dan Savage, Kevin Jennings, Barney Frank … seem to be so widely lionized. I also don’t condemn people who try to do the right thing but fall short. But I’m very much in the “Woe to those who call evil good” camp when it comes to… for example… the sexual exploitation of minors. Which is kind of a big deal for me in terms of things I’m not down with.

    I also don’t think that any behavior that is broadly tolerated will ever be changed. I think stigmatizing behavior can be highly effective in restraining it. We judge racism to be an affront to the values of society; why can’t we extend the same level of fierce social disgust to the sexual exploitation of minors?

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 11:30 pm - December 29, 2010

  103. ndt >> I’ve addressed your last link several times. The guy cried wolf and his ass was canned. He lost. Get over it. You’re not making any point with that link.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 29, 2010 @ 11:31 pm - December 29, 2010

  104. NDT, liberals can read the bible too.

    Luke 6:37 ESV

    “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;

    Romans 2:1-3 ESV

    Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?

    Matthew 7:1-5 ESV
    “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

    James 4:11-12 ESV

    Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?

    Romans 14:1-13 ESV

    As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. ..

    And v the k, obviously juding actions is necessary, I’m speaking of judging groups of whole people, gays, or passing judgement on people because of their actions.

    Comment by AJ — December 29, 2010 @ 11:35 pm - December 29, 2010

  105. And to be honest v the K, i have no problem with your views and what you believe in, this country allows you to hold them and I’m thankful for that. And I wasn’t trying to offend you or anything with the whole talk about age of consent laws, I’m just indifferent to them, you’re not, that’s fine. I just get a little peeved sometimes when someone tells me I should believe what they believe or act according to their morality. Just trying to make that point, don’t mean any disrespect.

    Comment by AJ — December 29, 2010 @ 11:38 pm - December 29, 2010

  106. Matthew 7: 5:

    You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

    This passage, is after all, one of the best known. I think I’ll go with it, yo.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 29, 2010 @ 11:40 pm - December 29, 2010

  107. AJ beat me to the punch. LOL

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 29, 2010 @ 11:40 pm - December 29, 2010

  108. I *love* me some Dan Savage.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 29, 2010 @ 11:41 pm - December 29, 2010

  109. NDT, liberals can read the bible too.

    Read, yes. Understand and consistently apply, as we see with this statement, no.

    And v the k, obviously juding actions is necessary

    But…but…you said the Bible has an absolute prohibition on judging anything! You quoted all these verses! You claimed that no one is allowed to judge anyone’s actions or behavior and that if you do, it’s wrong, wrong, wrong!

    And this really got funny:

    And v the k, obviously juding actions is necessary, I’m speaking of judging groups of whole people, gays, or passing judgement on people because of their actions.

    So first he claims to understand that judging actions is necessary, then he says that passing judgment on people because of their actions is wrong.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 11:46 pm - December 29, 2010

  110. I might as well chime in here too. ND30 and V the K have regularly made ad hominem attacks in response to my comments. Same as they do with everyone who disagrees with their not-based-in-reality style of rebuttal. When you make point they don’t agree with, especially of any nuance, you are a pedophile enabler etc.

    Tim and AJ, you’re wasting your breath on a very tired record created from some odd and warped vinyl. But isn’t it ironic how Dan’s original post was about a pundit using an offensive label toward someone he disagrees with and now commenters fill his blog using offensive labels against people they disagree with?

    Doesn’t that, using the logic of ND30 and VTK, brand the entire community of GayPatriot as irrational haters unless all here specifically denounce them? I’ll be first, who is second?

    Comment by Countervail — December 29, 2010 @ 11:48 pm - December 29, 2010

  111. Also, I certainly hope that AJ is consistent and states publicly that he has no problem with and does not judge people who have sex with underage children, because of course the Bible says that we should never judge anyone and AJ says that people should never be judged by their actions.

    We can fill in those who murder, steal from widows and orphans, have bareback sex with the goal of infecting others with HIV, and so forth. Good thing there are people like AJ in the gay and lesbian community who will never judge any of those things as being wrong because that would be anti-Scripture.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 11:50 pm - December 29, 2010

  112. I think you all are confused about what the word “judge” means. Are you guys really saying the message of Jesus Christ to sinners was “You just keep doing what you’re doing. Don’t change, because whatever you are doing is okay, I’m not here to judge you.”

    Really? That’s really the crush depth of your entire understanding of the gospel. SRSLY?

    Or is it just possible Jesus Christ really meant what he said about the whole “Go and sin no more” thing? I mean, that sounds like a pretty judgmental thing to say. Telling someone she could be saved, but she had to stop sinning.

    I mean, could it be possible that not judging people simply means not excluding people from grace based on past behavior. There are more than a few examples of Christ pointing out wicked behavior, and there is this idea that redemption is contingent upon turning away from sin. I mean, otherwise, what’s the gospel for?

    And, oh yeah, there’s that whole thing about people who harm children would be better off with a millstone tied around their neck. Yeah, I’m kind of getting the vibe that Jesus was pretty judgmental about people who hurt children.

    So, yeah, I think there is kind of an obligation to call out sin. And not judging people means not turning away those who are sinners. And it doesn’t mean giving up on people who have trouble turning away from sin. But it still means there is a requirement for recognizing sin and for repentance and atonement. That’s inescapable to any coherent understanding of the gospel.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 11:52 pm - December 29, 2010

  113. @vtheK so is simply being a gay male or female a sin?

    Comment by Tim — December 29, 2010 @ 11:55 pm - December 29, 2010

  114. But isn’t it ironic how Dan’s original post was about a pundit using an offensive label toward someone he disagrees with and now commenters fill his blog using offensive labels against people they disagree with?

    Actually, Countervail, all you’re trying is an old Alinsky trick.

    But, since you support and endorse Dan Savage’s behavior, your whining about other people allegedly indulging in it simply shows your own hypocrisy.

    And the reason you’re called a pedophile enabler is because you fully endorse and support dressing children as sexual slaves and taking them to sex fairs to sexually stimulate adults. You simply don’t understand that because you don’t consider gays and lesbians being sexually attracted to and aroused by children to be pedophilia, just as ILGA didn’t consider NAMBLA to be a pedophile organization because it involved men being attracted to the same gender.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 11:56 pm - December 29, 2010

  115. NDT, read Romans 13. The bible says to submit to worldly authority and laws as well. My judgement, your judgement, it doesn’t matter. God and those who He has put in power are what we need to adhere to.

    Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
    6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

    But this is getting silly NDT, all you do is take posts I’ve made, take them out of context and make them mean whatever you want them to mean. I’d love for to occasionally make your own point, without distraction, distortion or any of your other usual silly tactics.

    Comment by AJ — December 29, 2010 @ 11:59 pm - December 29, 2010

  116. is simply being a gay male or female a sin?

    Short answer – no.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2010 @ 12:00 am - December 30, 2010

  117. @vtheK so is simply being a gay male or female a sin?

    Depends. According to gay and lesbian people, here’s the typical and required belief about God.

    Actually, Bob, most “reasonable” people, if we’re using the word with a respect for its root word, “reason,” agree that there is no evidence for God’s existence, and thus no rational REASON to believe that any god or gods have determined ANYTHING, much less morality.

    Comment by Evan Hurst — May 27, 2010 @ 7:13 pm

    Hahahahaha, um. Dude. Seriously? No one in the history of the universe has ever been able to prove that the idea of “gods,” which have always been used to control populations, ever existed. It’s a ridiculous idea, created by uneducated nomads from thousands of years ago.

    GROW UP>

    Comment by Evan Hurst — May 29, 2010 @ 4:13 am

    They all rank “10″ because they’re all retarded and none of them can be proven by any human who’s ever lived.

    God, your questions are really stupid.

    Comment by Evan Hurst — May 29, 2010 @ 4:29 am

    Bob. That means your god is a weak minded little bitch who changes his mind and is definitely NOT eternal or omnipotent. He’s merely a reflection of humanity’s most disgusting instincts.

    Grow the hell up.

    Comment by Evan Hurst — May 31, 2010 @ 4:20 am

    Of COURSE, their idea of god is as a serial rapist. Fundamentalist religious people ARE essentially battered wives. They just act it out on a grander scale without such visible bruises. The really screwed up thing is that their abuser is an imaginary friend.

    But it’s a rapist just the same.

    Comment by Evan Hurst — May 31, 2010 @ 4:22 am

    Ben, everything you said was spot on. Bob’s idea of “god” is a moral reprobate, and a child at that. I wouldn’t worship a sniveling ass like that if you paid me.

    Comment by Evan Hurst — May 31, 2010 @ 4:25 am

    Now, I don’t think our host Mr. Blatt believes that. But then again, according to “real gays” like Evan Hurst and Wayne Besen over at Truth Wins Out, Dan Blatt isn’t really gay.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 12:00 am - December 30, 2010

  118. NDT, read Romans 13. The bible says to submit to worldly authority and laws as well.

    Then all those poor Christians who were put to death for refusing to worship the Roman emperor as a god disobeyed the Bible, didn’t they?

    Besides, AJ, laws and rulers judge. You have said that no one should be judged or judge. Please at least try to be consistent with your moral relativism.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 12:10 am - December 30, 2010

  119. ND30, I know you’re a pedophile, but what am I?

    Comment by Countervail — December 30, 2010 @ 12:14 am - December 30, 2010

  120. “you are a pedophile enabler”

    “I certainly hope that AJ is consistent and states publicly that he has no problem with and does not judge people who have sex with underage children”

    Wow, Countervail, your timing was impeccable.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 12:15 am - December 30, 2010

  121. Doesn’t that, using the logic of ND30 and VTK, brand the entire community of GayPatriot as irrational haters unless all here specifically denounce them?

    Too late; Mr. Blatt already started that one.

    Now, Countervail, let’s reverse it; since Dan denounced me and VTK by those standards, let’s see you and your friends AJ and Tim denounce Dan Savage.

    What’s the matter? Can’t do it, coward? Didn’t think so. Gays and lesbians like you are nothing but bratty little hypocrites, liars and thieves who demand that others follow rules that you won’t follow yourself.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 12:16 am - December 30, 2010

  122. “You simply don’t understand that because you don’t consider gays and lesbians being sexually attracted to and aroused by children to be pedophilia, just as ILGA didn’t consider NAMBLA to be a pedophile organization because it involved men being attracted to the same gender.”

    Wow, you’d think NDT thought straight pedophiles simply just didn’t exist.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 12:17 am - December 30, 2010

  123. “Short answer – no.”

    Ah, yes, of course, because being gay doesn’t necessarily mean one engages in gay acts.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 12:18 am - December 30, 2010

  124. liberals can read the bible too.

    But they haven’t the foggiest idea what it means.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 30, 2010 @ 12:19 am - December 30, 2010

  125. NDT >> Can you PLEASE address Post #103. I’m getting tired of bringing it up and it going unanswered.

    Thank you!

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 12:20 am - December 30, 2010

  126. ndt >> I’ve addressed your last link several times. The guy cried wolf and his ass was canned. He lost. Get over it. You’re not making any point with that link.

    Actually, what I’m doing is showing how the gay and lesbian community and the Obama Party call it “homophobic” and demand that contracts be taken away from businesses who fire gays and lesbians who sexually harass other people.

    With pictures and descriptions.

    As many as 50 people attended the protest including Josue Arguelles, who is a representative for San Francisco Pride at Work, a queer branch of the labor movement……

    “Worker’s Rights and Queer Rights are connected the same way we fight for Immigrant’s Rights,” said Reverend Israel Alvaran, a representative for Unite Here Local 2. “All these are issues of justice, and like what Martin Luther King said, an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere.”…..

    Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club Co-President David Waggoner believes Atos was fired primarily because Atos was attempting to unionize the workforce. “Vincent was singled out because he is gay and he was union organizer and he was fired because of that,” he said.

    “Times have changed. We want the National Parks Service to either end their contract with Alcatraz Cruises or investigate and bring charges, as appropriate, so Alcatraz Cruises can become a workplace that is safe for people that want to organize, and is safe for LGBT employees,” Waggoner added.

    Perhaps maybe this time you’ll actually read the link.

    But I understand the problem here. For you to actually acknowledge this situation would require you to criticize the gay and lesbian community and its owners, the Obama Party and the liberal left, which you simply aren’t ready to do.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 12:24 am - December 30, 2010

  127. By the way, Vince, if the guy “cried wolf”, then why were the Obama Party, the gay and lesbian community, and the liberal left, including the Obama Party’s pet unions, out there demanding that the company be stripped of its contracts and calling it “homophobic”?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 12:27 am - December 30, 2010

  128. But wait, Vince; that protest was only the first!

    There was in fact another one mere months later, the gay and lesbian community out in force to scream and call a company “homophobic” for firing a gay and lesbian employee who had sexually harassed others.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 12:31 am - December 30, 2010

  129. liberals can read the bible too.

    Well, we know what happens when liberals read the Constitution, and they find all kinds of penumbras and emanations like abortion, gay marriage and health care are Constitutional rights (although there is nothing about any of that in the language of the Constitution), but the Second Amendment doesn’t really mean anything about a citizen’s right to bear arms, and the First Amendment provides an unlimited right to publish instructions for kidnapping and raping children but requires Government regulation of political speech. Also the First Amendment requires the Government to sanitize any acknowledgment of Christian faith from any public display or utterance. And liberals will sometimes grudgingly acknowledge that there is a Tenth Amendment, but then they’ll say only crazy people really believe in it.

    Yeah, liberals find all kinds of crazy sh-t in the clear language and short length of the Constitution, so I don’t think we ought to trust their interpretation of Scripture.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2010 @ 12:31 am - December 30, 2010

  130. And of course, the gay and lesbian community is still screaming and whining and complaining even after the finding that Atos was crying wolf.

    Oh, and guess what? The story gets even better.

    Despite being openly gay, Atos is married to a woman, and this has strained his marriage.

    In short, Vince, you and the gay and lesbian community just got your asses handed to you by the fact that you are incapable of criticizing, attacking, or dealing with the fact that other gays and lesbians misbehave.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 12:38 am - December 30, 2010

  131. NDT >> Thanks NDT for your explanation. My only question is: what contracts were ended as a result of the protests?

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 12:41 am - December 30, 2010

  132. “In short, Vince, you and the gay and lesbian community just got your asses handed to you” Nope, sorry, NDT, wasn’t protesting anything, so the only think “my ass” did was bend over for you to kiss it. I’m just pointing out that nothing came as a result to the protests. Again, please provide a link to where contracts were ended as a result of the protests. THANKS A BUNCH! :P

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 12:43 am - December 30, 2010

  133. And, please don’t lump me in with them liberals just because I am questioning you. THANKS A BUNCH! :)

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 12:45 am - December 30, 2010

  134. And I would be remiss if I didn’t point this out from my previous link:

    But in a phone interview, Theresa Sparks, the commission’s executive director, said, “We’re not done with the process yet.” She said Atos had 15 days from the time he received the letter to file an appeal to her.

    “This was an administrative decision, not a director’s finding,” she said, meaning “it’s a lower level finding based on a preliminary investigation.”

    What a surprise! Militant transgender activist Theresa Sparks wants to reopen the case and trash the person who made the determination. Not based on her actually investigating it, mind you, but because, since she’s LGBT, she knows that any decision that puts the LGBT person at fault is automatically wrong.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 12:46 am - December 30, 2010

  135. Okay, NDT, when you’re ready to share something that relates to contracts getting ended or people getting fired as a result of this creep’s transgressions, get back to me, K? ;)

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 12:52 am - December 30, 2010

  136. NDT >> Thanks NDT for your explanation. My only question is: what contracts were ended as a result of the protests?

    Apparently, the Obama Party plan was to strip the concession away and terminate the contract.

    And let’s see; do you consider it “material damage”, Vince, if people picket a business, take out advertisements, make rally signs, and purchase favorable news coverage in gay and lesbian media, all with false accusations, with the intent of getting people not to purchase tickets?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 12:58 am - December 30, 2010

  137. Oh, and Vince, just to confirm; you don’t care about the fact that the gay and lesbian community, the left, and the Obama Party deliberately made up signs, picketed, rallied, and pushed national news media coverage with false accusations claiming that the company was homophobic and bigoted, right? It’s perfectly OK for the gay and lesbian community, the left, and the Obama Party to lie and smear a business as being “homophobic” for firing a gay and lesbian worker who sexually harasses people, right?

    Thanks for making that clear. I see we now have the standard that gays and lesbians again are not held responsible for their behavior. I guess that is because gays and lesbians are, by virtue of being gay or lesbian, incapable of telling the truth, so we shouldn’t expect them to be accountable for telling lies about a business and trying to harm it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 1:01 am - December 30, 2010

  138. And I really am entertained by the standards of behavior Vince is establishing for gays and lesbians. For example, gays and lesbians can carry signs that are outright lies (“Hornblower = Homophobia, Alcatraz Cruises, Racist, Homophobic”) with the express purpose of harming a business, but we shouldn’t hold them responsible for their actions because that would be “homophobic”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 1:09 am - December 30, 2010

  139. #137. In a world where Fred Phelps can go picket military funerals, I can’t imagine why any group couldn’t get their tighties in a bunch and scream as loud as they can. What do want to hold them responsible for? Blindly rallying around a creep? What should the punishment be? Throw them in jail? Oh, you just want something to piss and moan about. Okay, got it, check.

    Again, when you can illustrate the injustice that occurred, give me a shout, K? Love yah lots! :P

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 1:15 am - December 30, 2010

  140. And I find your standards entertaining too! Muah! xoxo

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 1:17 am - December 30, 2010

  141. Hornblower still has its contracts and the workers are still non-unionized, right?

    … your anguish (over the Obama Gay Inc.) SUSTAINS me!

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 1:35 am - December 30, 2010

  142. In a world where Fred Phelps can go picket military funerals, I can’t imagine why any group couldn’t get their tighties in a bunch and scream as loud as they can.

    The comparison to Fred Phelps is quite apt on multiple levels.

    What do want to hold them responsible for? Blindly rallying around a creep? What should the punishment be? Throw them in jail?

    Oh, no need for that. Simply having their credibility destroyed and the fact that they blindly and stupidly support gay and lesbian people sexually harassing others is quite enough.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 1:41 am - December 30, 2010

  143. NDT >> So this Gay Lobby you complain of went to bat and struck out. I think there are many more things in this society to be afraid of that actually wield power.

    For a tourist trap, Hornblower seems to do okay:

    http://www.yelp.com/biz/hornblower-cruises-and-events-san-francisco?rpp=40&sort_by=rating_desc

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 1:45 am - December 30, 2010

  144. So NDT, do you believe the Bible is wrong? I just quoted verses from the Bible. If you think I made a miatake then I’d love you to show me the proper interpretation of the verses I quoted. Pleases explain the verses I quoted to a simple pagan like myself.

    Comment by AJ — December 30, 2010 @ 2:40 am - December 30, 2010

  145. Lol Vince, don’t expect NDT to ever answer a question you pose. His posts are rarely based in fact. Instead of ever admitting he’s wrong he’ll just ask another question or try and change the subject. I had fun messing with him for a while, but he doesn’t actually formulate coherent arguments. He just yells about how awful all gays and liberals are.

    Comment by AJ — December 30, 2010 @ 2:50 am - December 30, 2010

  146. San Francisco Pride at Work, a queer branch of the labor movement

    Gay Communists. How fun.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 30, 2010 @ 3:39 am - December 30, 2010

  147. San Francisco Pride at Work, a queer branch of the labor movement

    Gay Communists. How fun.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 30, 2010 @ 3:39 am - December 30, 2010

  148. He just yells about how awful all gays and liberals are.

    And you proved him right.

    So NDT, do you believe the Bible is wrong?

    That was V, dipshit. But as usual you can be counted on to put words in people’s mouths. Please don’t make up statements he never made.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 30, 2010 @ 3:52 am - December 30, 2010

  149. So, in a post that addresses the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to hatred, dipsh!t isn’t exactly a term of endearment, now is it?

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 4:11 am - December 30, 2010

  150. Post #149 should be said in the voice of The Church Lady.

    *Now, isn’t that special*

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 4:12 am - December 30, 2010

  151. You know… Vince must be pretty buff, from constantly moving those goal posts and the like.

    As for Tim getting upset at (allegedly) being called a pedophile. Well if the shoe fits…

    if you really can’t see a difference between a 15 yr old engaging in consensual sex and a much younger child being molested, you need to adjust your moral compass.

    link Yes, Tim, we do believe that 15 year olds being propositioned by older men is an issue (and older women too)

    Like V the K, if an old man/woman propositioned my goddaughter, there would be a short conversation with the man that followed. In my case though it would not involve a pistol, but a blade. I’m a traditionalist.

    As for the amusing site of the resident trolls trying to quote a book they don’t believe in, here’s another quote. “Even the devil can quote scripture for his own purposes.”

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2010 @ 6:53 am - December 30, 2010

  152. Unlike Christians, liberals do not study scripture in order to acquire wisdom or become better people; they just skim through it to pull a random quote out of context for their childish ‘Gotcha’ game.

    Actually, I don’t believe they study scripture much at all, but just parrot things other liberals have said so they can continue to have an excuse to be bad people; and turn the people who actually call them out on bad behavior into the bad guys.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2010 @ 8:19 am - December 30, 2010

  153. That was V, dipshit. But as usual you can be counted on to put words in people’s mouths. Please don’t make up statements he never made.

    Here is NDT’s quote I was referring too. Wasn’t putting words in anyone’s mouth and I really don’t tend to do that, so please don’t lie about me.

    I also find it funny that you used profanity to slur a liberal. Love the hypocrisy. De rigueur for the politically correct gay conservative?

    Unlike Christians, liberals do not study scripture in order to acquire wisdom or become better people; they just skim through it to pull a random quote out of context for their childish ‘Gotcha’ game.

    And I have studied the Bible before. You lumping in all liberals together, judging people entirely based on certain opinions they hold is somewhat silly.

    Comment by AJ — December 30, 2010 @ 9:20 am - December 30, 2010

  154. LW here is an interesting take on the Jennings/Brewster saga. . .

    http://blog.mattalgren.com/2009/09/kevin-jennings-cleared-by-the-rest-of-brewsters-story/#

    about the blogger: Welcome to Asterisk, where I offer opinions about gay rights issues in both the Christian church and in US civil law. More on that in a minute, but first a few words about me and my background.

    I’m a white guy living in rural southwest Ohio. I’m in my mid-30s and I sit behind a desk and hammer away at my computer keyboard all day. I run late more often than not. I’m not as active at church as I should be and I take classes at night to hopefully someday get a BA.

    I was brought up in a little country Methodist church where for a year or so, Dad was president of the Trustees and Mom was president of the UMW. We were there just about every time the church doors were unlocked. I’ve known more good church people than bad, though I’ve had run ins with a few bad ones from time to time.

    I came out on October 11, 2007 (I swear I didn’t know about the date). Most of my early experience was positive, but I had some delayed negatives thrown in later. What surprised me was how my new openness has changed not just me, but how other people act around me.

    Comment by rusty — December 30, 2010 @ 9:46 am - December 30, 2010

  155. here is an interesting take on the Jennings/Brewster saga.

    So, in what way is a “take” that is identical to every other progressive gay making excuses for an educator facilitating the sexual abuse of a minor “interesting?”

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2010 @ 10:05 am - December 30, 2010

  156. rusty,

    Didn’t know you lived so close. We’ll have to meet in Jeffersonville for coffee some weekend.

    And my issue isn’t with Jennings (in this case) it’s with the amusing factor of Tim complaining about being called a pedophile, when he has no problem with a 15 year old cruzin for sex.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2010 @ 10:30 am - December 30, 2010

  157. Curious V the K, what sexual abuse occurred and why do you keep promoting the a lie that it did? Didn’t realize that two adults having consensual sex constituted abuse, but I guess you know better than the law and the man himself

    Comment by AJ — December 30, 2010 @ 10:40 am - December 30, 2010

  158. It’s too bad the Roman Catholic Church never availed of this “if the kid consents to it, it’s not abuse” defense.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2010 @ 10:44 am - December 30, 2010

  159. Actually, I thought this was the most salient point of rusty’s link.

    Now, if you ask me, this is a secondary issue. To out a gay 15-year-old to her/his parents in 2009 is horrifying. To do it in 1988? Brewster could very easily become one of the many LGBT teens who don’t have a home because their parents found out. Or worse, he could have become one of the many LGBT suicide victims.

    Which dovetails nicely with V the K’s summary of Dan Savage’s attitudes.

    The thing about Dan Savage is that his messages to teens is that if parents try to inhibit their sexual proclivities in any way, then they are close-minded, repressive, and the teenager should ditch their influence in favor of a peer group who will be accepting and non-judgmental of anything he wants to do.

    I love how the gay and lesbian community comes up with all sorts of creative excuses to hide their sexual exploitation of underage children. Now they’re saying that it’s always wrong to tell parents that their child is having unprotected sex with much older adults in bus station restrooms because the parents might punish the child.

    Oddly enough, that is one of the signs of child molestation; the molester tries to manipulate the child by telling them NOT to tell their parents because their parents “wouldn’t understand” and would punish them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 10:48 am - December 30, 2010

  160. Sorry LW, coffee and a good chat would be wonderful. . .but I acutally live in Seattle. The posting was a product of google search.

    I understand the importance of mandatory reporting having worked with young folk for a long time. I also know the importance of letting folk know that I am obligated to report any reported activity that might have been or might lead to exploitation or abuse.

    I also value harm reduction techniques and approaches. I also have worked with young people to make them understand age of consent laws and appropriate age and legal age boundaries.

    And I also recognize the importance of making appropriate referrals and offering support and the option of accompanying young folk to the appropriate folk to seek help and support. And most importantly I always work to discover if family is available.

    Most of my work with young adults/teens has been with street youth/displaced youth so working with adult family members was usually not an option.

    Comment by rusty — December 30, 2010 @ 10:49 am - December 30, 2010

  161. While it is true that teenagers want to screw around, adults are supposed to know better. Adults are supposed to have a responsibility to protect teenagers from their impulses, not exploit them for their own gratification.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2010 @ 10:50 am - December 30, 2010

  162. Didn’t realize that two adults having consensual sex constituted abuse, but I guess you know better than the law and the man himself

    Actually, the law required Jennings, as a Massachusetts educator, to report the situation.

    But of course, Jennings, being a good gay, overruled the law and the parents because he knew that Brewster was better served by traveling to Boston on school nights to have unprotected sex in bus station restrooms.

    Then again, when you look at perverts like Jennings, you can see why he thinks gay teenagers are only useful as sex objects and why the most important thing in the world is to keep them having promiscuous random sex with adults.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 10:52 am - December 30, 2010

  163. Should Dan Savage use such language . . . in public statements: probably not.

    Comment by rusty — December 30, 2010 @ 10:52 am - December 30, 2010

  164. So NDT, do you believe the Bible is wrong? I just quoted verses from the Bible. If you think I made a miatake then I’d love you to show me the proper interpretation of the verses I quoted.

    Actually, V the K already did that quite nicely.

    God is the ultimate judge of people, but we have to be able to judge whether actions are right or wrong. If we can’t tell right from wrong, how can we say it’s wrong to kill? How can we say it’s wrong to steal? How can we say rape is wrong? We can’t, unless we judge that action to be wrong.

    For that matter, how can we even write law if we can’t judge actions to be right or wrong. What if people had just said, “Well, slavery is legal under the law, so we just have to accept it.” There were a lot of people that did just that. It’s a good thing there were other people who were willing to judge right from wrong, and willing to ignore the waggling fingers of those who said “How dare you judge us!”

    And you previously agreed with that.

    And v the k, obviously juding actions is necessary, I’m speaking of judging groups of whole people, gays, or passing judgement on people because of their actions.

    Of course, you contradicted yourself in the process by claiming that judging actions was necessary and then whining about judging people by their actions, but we’ll just chalk that up to your typical lack of consistency.

    So AJ, since you now are opposed to viewpoints that you previously endorsed and claimed you had no problem with, I think we can safely say that the problem here is one of your own bigotry’s making.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 11:00 am - December 30, 2010

  165. This comment by Dogma Auntie in #19 has really bothered me a lot (and I hope I am not off topic) …..:

    When one of you allies of America’s Puritans creates something as valuable, in terms of drawing attention to the problem of suicides by young gays, then you might have room to bitch about Dan’s potty mouth.

    What bothers me is the whole “problem of suicides among young gays” issue and whether “drawing attention” to it helps solve the problem or increase the problem.

    First, is there a high incidence of suicide among young gays? How are the stats kept? What constitutes “young” and are we only referring to males?

    Second, in each case is there evidence that the suicide and being gay are linked? If not, on basis is the correlation assumed?

    Third, does focusing on “suicide among young gays” positively deter such suicides and specifically how? Does focusing on “suicide among young gays” further exacerbate a delicate balance in the mind of a young gay contemplating suicide? How would we know?

    Fourth, is society to blame for “suicide among young gays” by not anticipating the causes that lead young gays to commit suicide? What should society do to bolster the esteem of the young gay?

    Fifth, is there an internal struggle within the young gay about whether he can live with his impulses in an open and honest way? If so, should this be considered a psychiatric disturbance, since it may lead to suicide. Should the young gay be identified early and given treatment that will help him avoid suicide? Should young gays be seen as special needs individuals and have a full menu of gay special needs coping skills and social workers and legislation to help them affirmatively?

    Is this guy Savage (I have never heard of him) the role model and go-to guy for focusing on “suicide among young gays” and, if so, what made him so?

    Personally, I am having difficulty imagining teachers being trained to spot gay tendencies among the kiddies and getting the experts on the case as soon as a suspicion occurs. On the other hand, perhaps there is some sort of testing that has been developed that identifies leading indicators for being gay among young children. If there is such an instrument, should we push those with indicators toward the fact of being gay or sit back and see how the individual under scrutiny advances on his own?

    In my conservative view of things, this type of social justice responsibility calls for a cadre of well educated and organized government overseers. But then, when all things are relative, there really is a government answer, I suppose.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 30, 2010 @ 11:09 am - December 30, 2010

  166. With shifty characters like Jennings and Savage, one begins to wonder if their real problem with teen suicide is that it reduces the amount of available prey.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2010 @ 11:14 am - December 30, 2010

  167. With shifty characters like Jennings and Savage, one begins to wonder if their real problem with teen suicide is that it reduces the amount of available prey.

    That, V, and a few other things in my opinion:

    - They are living out their own problems with their own parents and families by projecting them onto society.

    - Since their value is based on their sexual orientation, criticizing another gay person’s behavior means they are attacking their own sense of self-worth.

    - They are paranoically terrified of having the same abuse they heap on others turned back on them

    - They are amoral individuals who have no problem exploiting a corpse if they can use it to fulfill the first three things I mentioned.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 11:20 am - December 30, 2010

  168. That and the way teen suicide gives them a pedestal from which sanctimonious lecture other people on how rotten they are, and also to demand more Government spending.

    Concern for the well-being of actual teenagers is quite a bit further down the list of reasons why the left has glommed onto its latest fashionable cause.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2010 @ 11:21 am - December 30, 2010

  169. They are paranoically terrified of having the same abuse they heap on others turned back on them

    A good quote I found today: “Nerds who get wedgies all day at school don’t dream of equality — they dream of being the one doing the beating and humiliating.”

    I think that explains people like Jennings and Savage to a T.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2010 @ 11:23 am - December 30, 2010

  170. V the K,

    I don’t know why you insist on making disingenuous, misleading statements. The Catholic Church was in trouble because some priests were molesting underage children. I don’t know why you seem to have a problem grasping the law and how it works. If you’re of legal age and you consent, no sexual abuse occurred. If you’re underage, it’s illegal, even if you consent. It really is quite simple.

    Comment by AJ — December 30, 2010 @ 11:23 am - December 30, 2010

  171. Actually, the law required Jennings, as a Massachusetts educator, to report the situation.

    NDT,

    You are WRONG!. The law requires Jennings to report sexual abuse, which didn’t occur. Please show me what law requires him to report the situation. I would love for you to back this up with actual facts, please!

    Comment by AJ — December 30, 2010 @ 11:28 am - December 30, 2010

  172. AJ, I’ve explained it to you about 50 times already. If you are too stupid to understand the difference between law and morality, that is no longer my problem.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2010 @ 11:29 am - December 30, 2010

  173. a pedestal from which sanctimonious lecture other people . . .

    can they borrow the one tucked in your closet?

    couldn’t resist.

    Comment by rusty — December 30, 2010 @ 11:32 am - December 30, 2010

  174. I understand rusty, my loss (since I don’t think I’ll be doing PaizoCon this year either).

    I’ll freely admit, I couldn’t do social work/youth counciling. I’d get too attached to my wards and either burn out wanting to help them, or become bitter and cynical (‘become?’ the voices ask) and just not care. I’ve been able to help a couple friends through the end of their marriage or the salvation of the same, but I’ve a couple lost causes too.

    Legally, Jennings did the wrong thing, whether he be 15 (as stated by Jennings initially) or 16 (as clarified/retconned) Morally I think he did the wrong thing. Could I follow the law in that situation? I think I could, but I’d not be in Jennings situation in the first place.

    Scratch that. I have been ‘approached’ by underaged kids on IM and in chat rooms. I tell them I’m not ‘talking shop’ and advise them to stay away from anyone who is. At the same time I try to keep a ‘vitrual eye’ on them to make sure I don’t read about them in the ‘local police report’ section.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2010 @ 11:34 am - December 30, 2010

  175. I’ve only been reading this blog a relatively short while. I relish Dr. Blatt’s and Mr. Carroll’s posts (especially the breadth of subjects) and I enjoy a majority of the comments and follow-ups. Recently the commentaries quickly turn to juvenile, petty, hurtful, and trite interpersonal battles (and revisits to the same) and are patently off-topic nearly from the get-go. This does a great disservice to the blog itself as well as the work that goes into it.
    Almost immediately upon my finding this blog, I’d turned both my homo- and hetero- friends on to it. I now find myself completely unable to defend anything beyond just a very few well-thought responses herein. This level of discourse with its lack of civility and its nanny-nanny-boo-boo lilt is just …it’s embarrassing and shameful.

    Comment by rodney — December 30, 2010 @ 11:37 am - December 30, 2010

  176. I have been ‘approached’ by underaged kids on IM and in chat rooms.

    And in social situations, fast food restaurants, public parks, and other places. The difference between a good person and a scumbag is that a good person does not take advantage of a vulnerable teenager in order to gratify his own sleazy desires. Nor does a good person rationalize and defend the actions of a scumbag.

    A truly good person does not define goodness in terms of “what does the law allow me to get away with?”

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2010 @ 11:40 am - December 30, 2010

  177. The Catholic Church was in trouble because some priests were molesting underage children.

    But of course, the gay and lesbian community, which endorsed and supported NAMBLA as a member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association for well over a decade and passed numerous resolutions opposing the age of consent and demanding “sexual freedom” for children, wasn’t molesting them, because the children were consenting.

    And of course, the Obama Party’s Planned Parenthood organization, which has been caught repeatedly on film refusing to report thirteen-year-olds requesting abortions as a result of sexual activity with men over twice their age, isn’t breaking the law, because children of that age can consent to both abortions and sexual activity without it being molestation.

    By the way, the latter applies to the gay and lesbian community, because abortion is a gay rights issue, according to the NGLTF, HRC, Obama Party, and other gay and lesbian organizations, and denying a thirteen-year-old her right to have sex with much older men and get an abortion is homophobia.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 11:40 am - December 30, 2010

  178. AJ, I’ve explained it to you about 50 times already. If you are too stupid to understand the difference between law and morality, that is no longer my problem.

    v the k,

    I understand the difference between law and morality, has I’ve stated numerous times. You mentioned that you wish Catholic Church had used the “‘if the kid consents to it, it’s not abuse’ defense.”

    Equating the Jennings situation to the priests who molested underage children is ridiculous. Under one situation the law was broken, under the other only your own sense or morality was broken. The defense wouldn’t work for the Catholic Church because they broke the law. Despite what you may think of yourself, people don’t have to defend themselves if they break your sense of morality.

    Comment by AJ — December 30, 2010 @ 11:49 am - December 30, 2010

  179. But again, AJ, that’s irrelevant, because gays and lesbians like yourself supported and endorsed NAMBLA,which was breaking the law.

    That’s what makes you hilariously hypocritical. You are here whining about the Catholic Church when the gay and lesbian community and its international organization, its representative to the UN, was endorsing and supporting an open group of pedophiles and demanding that countries eliminate their age-of-consent laws because such laws are “homophobic”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 11:54 am - December 30, 2010

  180. V the K,

    I’ve quoted the law and AJ still refuses to get it.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2010 @ 11:57 am - December 30, 2010

  181. I’m through with AJ. I think I have a better chance of teaching my cat to understand the IRS Code than I do of teaching a liberal about basic decency. At the end of the day, a big reason the Catholic Church gets bashed for the sexual abuse of minors and the Public School system doesn’t (even though it abuses kids at 100 times the rate the Catholic Church does) is because public school teachers give hundreds of millions of dollars to the Democrat Party and Catholic Priests don’t.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2010 @ 12:04 pm - December 30, 2010

  182. Almost immediately upon my finding this blog, I’d turned both my homo- and hetero- friends on to it. I now find myself completely unable to defend anything beyond just a very few well-thought responses herein.

    Good thing you don’t have to defend it, Rodney.

    Just like you don’t have to defend Dan Savage’s statements to be a good gay person, and that is what this thread is really about.

    What I think you’re missing is that this is likely the only gay blog out there in which Savage’s comments are being criticized. The others are either endorsing them or saying nothing, neither of which could be considered a mainstream or normal viewpoint.

    As is not surprising, this blog attracts people who, as Bruce correctly describes them, fall into the “gay Borg” category. Indeed, if you see the abuse visited on people like Dr. Blatt and fully endorsed and supported by the gay liberal community, I think your perspective on what these gay Borg and their heroes like Dan Savage consider to be normal behavior will help explain what’s happening in the threads they swarm.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 12:07 pm - December 30, 2010

  183. demanding “sexual freedom” for children, wasn’t molesting them, because the children were consenting.

    NDT, please find where I said that. In fact I’ve said quite the opposite. If they’re underage, they can’t legally consent. So please stop lying.

    And I love how you once again change the topic of debate once your other arguments falter. Where did abortion and planned parenthood come from? We were talking about Jennings and the fact that he supposedly broke a law in that situation, which you still haven’t shown to be true. But since you’re wrong and you can’t show that, you move on to another topic. This is fun!

    A truly good person does not define goodness in terms of “what does the law allow me to get away with?”

    v the K,

    I’m so glad God put you on earth to judge who the truly good people are in this world! We’d be so lost without your guidance and judgmental attitude.

    Comment by AJ — December 30, 2010 @ 12:09 pm - December 30, 2010

  184. I think I have a better chance of teaching my cat to understand the IRS Code than I do of teaching a liberal about basic decency.

    It’s antithetical to their nature, V. That’s why they make up so many interesting rationalizations for it, such as the one from rusty I quoted above.

    Now, if you ask me, this is a secondary issue. To out a gay 15-year-old to her/his parents in 2009 is horrifying. To do it in 1988? Brewster could very easily become one of the many LGBT teens who don’t have a home because their parents found out. Or worse, he could have become one of the many LGBT suicide victims.

    Notice how their automatic assumption is that the parent is always wrong. Put bluntly, they believe that it is better for a child to be having unprotected sex in a bus station restroom than it is for their parents to be told about it.

    I can’t even fathom this belief system. I mean, no rational human being would say that a teenager having sex in a bus station restroom is a desirable situation and one that needs to be covered up. But this is gay and lesbian dogma — parents are evil, so you shouldn’t tell them anything.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 12:15 pm - December 30, 2010

  185. Hey, my cat just found a way to index my expenses that’s going to save me $1,4000 next year. Way to go, Mittens!

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2010 @ 12:16 pm - December 30, 2010

  186. I think I have a better chance of teaching my cat to understand the IRS Code than I do of teaching a liberal about basic decency.

    I understand basic decency. I just understand the law as well. The Church broke it, Jennings didn’t. I guess that’s too much for you to grasp though.

    Did I ever say what Jennings did was right, or morally good? All I said is that it wasn’t illegal. I’ve never commented on his decency one way or the other. I don’t know him as a person well enough to care honestly. I’m glad you do though.

    Comment by AJ — December 30, 2010 @ 12:17 pm - December 30, 2010

  187. We were talking about Jennings and the fact that he supposedly broke a law in that situation, which you still haven’t shown to be true. But since you’re wrong and you can’t show that, you move on to another topic.

    This is entertaining.

    180.V the K,

    I’ve quoted the law and AJ still refuses to get it.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2010 @ 11:57 am – December 30, 2010

    So really, AJ, all we see is that, like a hyperactive child, you run away when you are given the evidence you want that demonstrates that you are wrong and then attack someone else for not providing it.

    You’ve done that in every single thread in which you’ve been present. That merely demonstrates that you are an irrational bigot who is unable to defend his assertions in the face of evidence.

    The way to deal with a liberal is to require consistency of them. We saw that when you started screaming at me about how I wasn’t answering your questions about the Bible, and then ran when I pointed out the fact that V the K already had and that you had agreed with him.

    We are not your parents. We’re not required to make excuses for you, nor do we think so little of you that we need to continually lower our expectations.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 12:22 pm - December 30, 2010

  188. VtheK and NDT re: #165

    Thanks for your insights on the suicide among young gays “problem.” I was wondering if the moral relativists might have some astounding point of clarity and wisdom to impart. Guess not. I suppose that leaves this Savage character as the high priest of social justice in that particular arena.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 30, 2010 @ 12:24 pm - December 30, 2010

  189. In fact I’ve said quite the opposite. If they’re underage, they can’t legally consent.

    Funny, NAMBLA and the gay and lesbian community as represented by the International Lesbian and Gay Association says they can.

    But of course, you can’t judge NAMBLA people and the ILGA who supports them as pedophiles because that would be judging people by their actions, and that’s always wrong, correct?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 12:26 pm - December 30, 2010

  190. While you guys are arguing with AJ, Mittens is filing the paperwork to have my house declared a tax exempt charitable foundation.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2010 @ 12:31 pm - December 30, 2010

  191. Thanks for your insights on the suicide among young gays “problem.” I was wondering if the moral relativists might have some astounding point of clarity and wisdom to impart. Guess not.

    Heliotrope, the primary interest of the gay and lesbian community in teen suicide is whether or not the body is usable as a trophy to attack religious people and Republicans.

    Having been told on multiple occasions by liberal gays that the world would be better off if I killed myself, or hoping that I got AIDS and so forth, it’s pretty obvious that the gay and lesbian community actually sees suicide and AIDS as useful herd-culling mechanisms.

    Also, one of the issues around sucide is that overpublicizing it leads to copycat actions. A disturbed teen who is looking for attention realizes very quickly that, if you stay and live your life, you’re just a regular person, but if you off yourself, you’re a martyr who will be remembered forever.

    Frankly, the gay community in this scenario reminds me of an episode of Family Guy in which Peter claims Chris is dying to get a canceled TV show back on the air, with the gay community in the role of the “grant a dream” foundation who is evaluating whether or not to act on the basis of how “sexy” the disease sounds and who starts hounding Peter about how they “need a body” to please their donors.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 12:32 pm - December 30, 2010

  192. To me, there is nothing so underwhelming as a liberal firing Bible references in “defense” of his moral relativism. It is the equivalent of an over the top mathematician/theologian computing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    Now we all know that both angels and heads of pins come in different sizes and that it further depends on what the meaning of “dance” is and are we to presume that the angels are dancing simultaneously or in succession and who is holding the pin or is the pin actually a metaphor for the earth is the universe or are the angels actually transitory and perhaps but a religious molecule smaller than a grain of mustard seed by thousands or a compression of spirits manifested in the penumbra of faith emanating from the core of belief and other such matters?

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 30, 2010 @ 12:35 pm - December 30, 2010

  193. Where is Levi when it is time to say Jesus Christ?

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 30, 2010 @ 12:38 pm - December 30, 2010

  194. V the K,

    See what happens when you take in Tim Geitner’s cat?

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2010 @ 12:39 pm - December 30, 2010

  195. 192.To me, there is nothing so underwhelming as a liberal firing Bible references in “defense” of his moral relativism.

    It’s actually not a defense. It’s an Alinsky tactic to argue that a “Christian” is not following the tenets of their religion and is thus a hypocrite who can be ignored.

    The ironic and entertaining counters are as follows:

    a) Gays and lesbians argue that heterosexuals cannot judge because they don’t understand the gay and lesbian experience, but that atheist gays and lesbians can judge Christians because no understanding of the Christian experience is required

    b) They are trying to hold people to a book that they claim is a fantasy who no sane person would require anyone to follow for any reason

    It gets better. They whine about how you can’t judge by one gay movement or organization while bringing up the Inquisition as proof that all Christians are evil, they complain that Christians are responsible for every wrong in society while whining about overgeneralization, etc.

    My theory of liberalism is that it comes about as a result of people who have never once in their lives been held to any sort of principle or standard. For example, it’s easy to demand that taxes be raised on others if, like Charles Rangel, you know you’re never going to have to pay them because of your skin color. Similarly, folks like AJ and Levi are all about “free healthcare” because, as the Obama Party has already shown with its waivers, as long as you do what the massa Obama says, the rules won’t apply to you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 12:43 pm - December 30, 2010

  196. I’ve quoted the law and AJ still refuses to get it.

    Thelivewire,

    What law did you quote? The law requiring Jennings to report ABUSE that occurred? Turns out having sex with a consenting 16 year old isn’t abuse in Massachusetts. You may want it to be, but it isn’t. And since we’re discussing the law, your opinion doesn’t really matter.

    If there is a different law you quoted, please point me to the post or post it again, it’s not that hard. Show me what law he broke and I’ll admit Jennings is the worse person ever and leave it alone. Otherwise you’re just wrong.

    Comment by AJ — December 30, 2010 @ 12:43 pm - December 30, 2010

  197. 190.While you guys are arguing with AJ, Mittens is filing the paperwork to have my house declared a tax exempt charitable foundation.

    That’s nothing. This morning, he found that I was eligible for Pigford reparation money because one of my former bosses was a black female whose great-grandparents had at one point in time lived on a farm.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 12:46 pm - December 30, 2010

  198. Mittens is asking for power of attorney so she can off-shore my bank accounts to the Cayman Islands.

    Oh, and she also wants Levi to know that Sarah Palin is richer and more successful than he is and has a better looking husband.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2010 @ 1:00 pm - December 30, 2010

  199. And since we’re discussing the law, your opinion doesn’t really matter.

    Actually, how about the opinion of the leadership of the school where Jennings was teaching?

    In neither story does Mr. Jennings mention any efforts to alert parents, school officials or the authorities. In the Nixon Peabody letter, he said he did not have a reason to report these events. This is difficult to understand given the statute in Massachusetts mandating the report of sexual activity between an adult and child under 18 at that time. When presented with the transcript of the Brewster scenario as recorded at the lecture in Iowa, Tara Bradley, Director of Communication at Concord Academy said that such actions on the part of a student should be reported by a teacher to school administration. Concerning the Brewster story, she added: “The Dean of Students and the Head of School are mandated reporters who have to file a 51A with DSS [Department of Social Services] in a situation such as this.”

    This points out the hilarious contradiction that Jennings claimed in a legal letter that he did not know Brewster was having sex while at the same time in his books and lectures saying that he told Brewster to use a condom.

    But of course, AJ, she’s wrong. Anyone who says Jennings didn’t do the right thing is wrong and homophobic in your world.

    Now, would you care to publish your credentials concerning analysis of Massachusetts law? Or are you just going to invoke your sexual orientation and your liberal affiliation?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 1:06 pm - December 30, 2010

  200. And that last link gets even better.

    Nowhere does Mr. Jennings say he told anyone at the Concord Academy. According to Ms. Bradley, current school policy would make Brewster’s actions a violation of the rules. Asked about Concord’s policy concerning Boarding School residents, she said, “Our current policy forbids students traveling to Boston or Cambridge unsupervised and without permission from the Dean of Students or Administrator on duty.” According to both accounts, Mr. Jennings knew the student was in Boston unsupervised and informed no one.

    And there’s more.

    In the lecture, Mr. Jennings says he was in his first month on the job when he met Brewster which would have been in the fall of 1987. In his book, he never mentions the story he tells in the lecture. He says in his book that he met Brewster in 1987 but did not say Brewster was an advisee. In fact, he said in his book that he knew something was wrong with Brewster but that he “didn’t have a clue as to why.” If the story in the lecture is true, then this statement in the book cannot be true. He states in both stories that Brewster’s attendance was sporadic but in the lecture he said he found out the reason late in 1987.

    Mr. Jennings says in the book that a female student advisee brought Brewster to him toward the end of his first year, in the spring of 1988. If both stories are true, Mr. Jennings knew the boy was going to Boston to have anonymous and unprotected sex for possibly as long as seven months without intervention. If the story in the lecture is true, then his claims to Mrs. Lenning in the Nixon Peabody letter cannot be true. He apparently did believe the boy was having sexual encounters which is why he invoked the admonition to use a condom.

    So Jennings covered up the fact that a student was breaking the rules, going to Boston unsupervised, having promiscuous and bareback sex with adults,

    But again, Jennings invokes the usual rationale of the gay and lesbian community; rules are wrong, gay sex always right, anyone who disagrees is a homophobe, and if you tell authorities or the child’s parents, the child will end up dead.

    Why would you allow a pervert like Jennings with a proven record, based on his own book and stories, of allowing and enabling the sexual exploitation of a minor to continue for seven months, in complete defiance of law and school policy, to have ANY contact with children, much less be writing the rules for “safe schools”?

    Answer: Gays and lesbians see absolutely nothing wrong with what he did. The Obama Party sees absolutely nothing wrong with what he did. Sexually molesting and defending the sexual exploitation of children is a perfectly normal function for a teacher to both the Obama Party and the gay and lesbian community, including Dan Savage.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 1:12 pm - December 30, 2010

  201. Meanwhile, Mittens was just hired as an adviser to Christine O’Donnell…

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2010 @ 1:16 pm - December 30, 2010

  202. NDT, where is the law? Actual Massachusetts code that he broke? If he broke a law, it should’t be that hard to find it.

    And honestly, their opinion doesn’t matter either, especially since they don’t know the law. They don’t have to report sexual activity, like that person said, just sexual abuse. In order to break the law, you have to go against codified rules, not an administrator’s opinion. So please, show me the law that he broke. Is that too much to ask?

    Comment by AJ — December 30, 2010 @ 1:21 pm - December 30, 2010

  203. *yawn*

    AJ did you run away from the thread so fast you forgot what was written?

    “Section 51A. (a) A mandated reporter who, in his professional capacity, has reasonable cause to believe that a child is suffering physical or emotional injury resulting from: (i) abuse inflicted upon him which causes harm or substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare, including sexual abuse;”

    Emphasis mine.

    Now if only someone has posted a link to where it was reported he was required to report it… Oh yeah, AJ was kind enough to give us the link.

    “The Washington Times reported in 2004 that “state authorities said Mr. Jennings filed no report in 1988.” A spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Department for Children and Families, the department to which Jennings — as a Massachusetts teacher — would have been legally obliged to report the situation, did not return calls from FOXNews.com.”

    Special thanks to AJ for hanging himself with his own link.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2010 @ 1:33 pm - December 30, 2010

  204. Now before AJ tries to spend that old men coming up to kids asking for sex isn’t a crime, let’s celebrate that he doesn’t feel prostitution is a crime until the act is done.

    And, apparently, flashing people in the park isn’t illegal in AJ’s world either.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2010 @ 1:34 pm - December 30, 2010

  205. #178, AJ:

    People don’t have to defend themselves if they break your sense of morality.

    Words to live by.

    The foundation of moral relativism.

    Consenting adults may proceed to get it on in Times Square in front of visiting Girl Scouts. Oooops! No they can’t. That is against the law. But, what is the law based on? Someone’s sense of “morality?” Oh, OK, then they don’t have to defend themselves. Right? The Girl Scouts have no greater right to be free from seeing consenting adults get it on in Times Square than the consenting adults have to get it on. Mate, check mate. Moral relevancy wins again!

    This is easy. I think I will marry my cat.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 30, 2010 @ 1:35 pm - December 30, 2010

  206. And honestly, their opinion doesn’t matter either, especially since they don’t know the law. They don’t have to report sexual activity, like that person said, just sexual abuse. In order to break the law, you have to go against codified rules, not an administrator’s opinion.

    Can I call it or what?

    But of course, AJ, she’s wrong. Anyone who says Jennings didn’t do the right thing is wrong and homophobic in your world.

    Now, again, would you care to publish your credentials concerning analysis of Massachusetts law? Or are you just going to invoke your sexual orientation and your liberal affiliation?

    To repeat, you’re sitting here slandering this person who IS a school administrator, who IS in a position to know the law, and who DID cite the exact form and statute under which reporting Jennings’ sex play was required. Her credentials are all out on the table.

    Where are yours?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 1:35 pm - December 30, 2010

  207. People don’t have to defend themselves if they break your sense of morality.

    Sure they do. Look at the gay and lesbian community screaming at and attacking companies for firing gays and lesbians who sexually harass others.

    It is against the law to sexually harass people, but that doesn’t matter to the gay and lesbian community. Indeed, the gay and lesbian community says it’s perfectly OK to sexually harass others and lie about it in order to slander a company as long as it doesn’t cause a company to lose government contracts.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 1:40 pm - December 30, 2010

  208. Section 51A. (a) A mandated reporter who, in his professional capacity, has reasonable cause to believe that a child is suffering physical or emotional injury resulting from: (i) abuse inflicted upon him which causes harm or substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare, including sexual abuse;

    Emphasis mine.

    Thelivewire,

    He was only required to report emotional injury that resulted form sexual abuse. Please be so kind as to show where the sexual abuse occurred between two consenting adults? Especially since the student himself said no harm was done to him. I don’t know why you have a problem reading the statute in its entirety, but if you want to ignore half of the law, that’s fine, but you’re still wrong. Legally, no sexual abuse occurred, or is that not true either in your world?

    Comment by AJ — December 30, 2010 @ 1:44 pm - December 30, 2010

  209. Now, again, would you care to publish your credentials concerning analysis of Massachusetts law? Or are you just going to invoke your sexual orientation and your liberal affiliation?

    To repeat, you’re sitting here slandering this person who IS a school administrator, who IS in a position to know the law, and who DID cite the exact form and statute under which reporting Jennings’ sex play was required. Her credentials are all out on the table.

    Where are yours?

    I slandered no one. And you don’t have to be a lawyer or have credentials to know how to read or provide evidence. I’ve done both and you’ve done neither. Please just show me the statute he broke, that’s all I’m asking. Show me the statute he broke and I’ll shut up, admit I was wrong and leave you alone. You won’t though because you can’t because you’re wrong.

    Comment by AJ — December 30, 2010 @ 1:48 pm - December 30, 2010

  210. Again, emotional injury.

    Again, from your own link: “the department to which Jennings — as a Massachusetts teacher — would have been legally obliged to report the situation”

    So you may pretend all you want, that he wasn’t legally obligated. the state of Massachusetts disagrees.

    AJ will now go expose himself to 6 year olds, since that isn’t abuse in his book.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2010 @ 1:52 pm - December 30, 2010

  211. And AJ manages to hang himself again.

    which causes harm or substantial risk of harm

    Because a child breaking the rules, sneaking away unaccompanied, and having bareback sex in public restrooms with anonymous strangers for seven months carries no risk of harm whatsoever.

    I think we’re starting to see how delusional gays and lesbians like AJ are. Indeed, gays and lesbians like AJ state that school administrators in Massachusetts whose credentials are clearly stated and who are quoting and citing the law know nothing about it, while gays and lesbians like himself who refuse to provide their own credentials are experts in it and can determine that a child sneaking off unaccompanied to a major metropolitan area to have bareback sex with multiple adults in a bus station restroom for over seven months is in no danger or risk of harm whatsoever.

    Once you realize that perverts like AJ will literally say that adults having bareback sex with children carries no substantial risk of harm, you figure out very quickly why they and people like Jennings should be banned from having anything to do with children.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 1:54 pm - December 30, 2010

  212. Wow, thelivewire.

    The law clearly says emotional injury resulting from sexual abuse. Can you please explain to me how consensual, legal sex between two adults is sexual abuse?

    Comment by AJ — December 30, 2010 @ 1:59 pm - December 30, 2010

  213. Section 51A. (a) A mandated reporter who, in his professional capacity, has reasonable cause to believe that a child is suffering physical or emotional injury resulting from: (i) abuse inflicted upon him which causes harm or substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare, including sexual abuse;

    NDT,

    Since you refuse to quote the actual law, instead of an article, I’ll do your research for you. It says ABUSE inflicted upon him which causes harm. Please explain to me how legal, consensual sex between two adults constitutes any kind of abuse, sexual or otherwise? He wasn’t raped, beaten, or anything. He had sex on his own accord and was legally able to do so. How is that abuse in a legal sense?

    Comment by AJ — December 30, 2010 @ 2:03 pm - December 30, 2010

  214. Watching AJ dance around the law he refuses to accept, and the article he linked to clearly saying it was required by law is sad.

    Let’s go back to the last thread that he never replied to. From NDT’s post.

    Section 21. As used in sections 21 to 51H, inclusive, the following words shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly otherwise requires:—

    “51A report”, a report filed with the department under section 51A that details suspected child abuse or neglect.

    “Child”, a person under the age of 18.

    “Mandated reporter”, a person who is: (ii) a public or private school teacher, educational administrator, guidance or family counselor, child care worker, person paid to care for or work with a child in any public or private facility, or home or program funded by the commonwealth or licensed under chapter 15D that provides child care or residential services to children or that provides the services of child care resource and referral agencies, voucher management agencies or family child care systems or child care food programs, licensor of the department of early education and care or school attendance officer;

    Of course, AJ will try denying the law says what he says it does.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2010 @ 2:17 pm - December 30, 2010

  215. ‘what it says it does.’ Blue Hermit needs edit button, badly.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2010 @ 2:17 pm - December 30, 2010

  216. I wish VTK, NDT and TLW would go after the parents who throw their gay children out of the home with the same rigor they go after AJ. Perhaps this would be a better world. Certainly, conservatives would do much politically.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 2:21 pm - December 30, 2010

  217. For someone who denies being a pederast, a certain person sure does spend a lot of time defending the rights of older men to sexually exploit 16 year old boys. Just sayin’

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2010 @ 2:21 pm - December 30, 2010

  218. do much [better] politically.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 2:23 pm - December 30, 2010

  219. VTK, that’s slander. And, you know it.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 2:24 pm - December 30, 2010

  220. Not if it’s true Vince. Guilty conscience much?

    As to your complaint, you know nothing about any of us. What you can inferr from our statements is that V the K and I are both, in our own way, deeply religious. V’s more active in his community than I am, and I need a spell check.

    What we know about you is that you don’t like it when someone disproves your point, so you then go and try to redefine the argument.

    For example, being unable to argue that Jennings didn’t break the law, you then say that we are all people who enjoy seeing families disrupted.

    Sad really.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2010 @ 2:31 pm - December 30, 2010

  221. Thelivewire,

    Can you please explain to me how legal, consensual sex between two adults is abuse? The statute clearly says that he must report physical or emotional harm RESULTING from ABUSE. Where in the law does it say he must report consensual, legal sexual acts between a student and and older man?

    So please, show where the abuse occurred and then the law is applicable and Jennings broke it.

    Comment by AJ — December 30, 2010 @ 2:31 pm - December 30, 2010

  222. “51A report”, a report filed with the department under section 51A that details suspected child abuse or neglect.

    Can you read that? It says a report detailing the child abuse or neglect. Clear as day. Does not matter what an article says or what some administrator says, the law is the law and it’s staring you in the face.

    Please explain to everyone here how consensual legal sex is abuse or neglect.

    Comment by AJ — December 30, 2010 @ 2:34 pm - December 30, 2010

  223. Legally, no, it isn’t, Vince. I am just asking a question, not making a specific charge. Also, before slander can become actionable, there has to be a demonstration of actual harm.

    Remember, so long as I can find a way to technically justify something within the law… it’s perfectly fine. That’s sort of my takeaway from this discussion.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2010 @ 2:34 pm - December 30, 2010

  224. Guilty conscious much? No. Slanderous much?

    “being unable to argue that Jennings didn’t break the law, you then say that we are all people who enjoy seeing families disrupted.”

    Can you please provide a link, because this is a lie.

    Again, if you went after the homophobic parents who kick their children out of their home (families disrupted much?) as you do AJ, this planet would be a lot better place.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 2:37 pm - December 30, 2010

  225. VTK, that’s slander. And, you know it.

    Is it?

    @ND30 and @VtheK if you think somehow that trying to label me as a pedophile will cause me to think any more of either of you you are sadly mistaken, however given that you two obsess about it I’m starting to wonder if you are both all right. Maybe your neighbors were right VtheK maybe you shouldn’t be around children.
    when someone emphatically and categorically deny’s something and you have to make up links to continue the verbal assault it only means that your creeps that need help.

    Funny, Tim was saying that just above and you didn’t object.

    And of course, Dan Savage was saying this about Justice Scalia:

    Scalia isn’t gay?!? I always think the biggest homophobe in the room is clearly a c–ksucker!

    And of course, AJ was saying that a woman who is a school administrator doesn’t know anything about the law or how it pertains to teacher reporting responsibilities when she was quoting specifically where and how.

    So again, Vince, you blundered into an excellent example of showing how gays and lesbians like yourself go blind when confronted with the behavior of other gays and lesbians.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 2:38 pm - December 30, 2010

  226. Calling someone a pedophile when they’re not is slander.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 2:39 pm - December 30, 2010

  227. I’m not calling anyone names here. Just because others do, doesn’t justify your doing so.

    The irony is this post is about such name calling. But, that’s already been pointed out in this thread.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 2:42 pm - December 30, 2010

  228. We have shown it several times. Best of all you showed it was required. Your own link confirmed it would be required.

    But hey, keep on denying the words you cited. It’s funny really.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2010 @ 2:42 pm - December 30, 2010

  229. The statute clearly says that he must report physical or emotional harm RESULTING from ABUSE.

    Actually, no it doesn’t.

    Remember what you actually quoted, AJ?

    Section 51A. (a) A mandated reporter who, in his professional capacity, has reasonable cause to believe that a child is suffering physical or emotional injury resulting from: (i) abuse inflicted upon him which causes harm or substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare, including sexual abuse;

    Now, AJ, why do you think that a child sneaking out of school against policy on school nights, going unaccompanied to a major metropolitan area, and having bareback sex with multiple anonymous adults in a bus station restroom over a period of several months constitutes normal behavior, and does not present a “substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare”?

    The incredible thing to me is that “progressives” would have a screaming fit if a child was out unaccompanied late on a school night CLEANING a bus station restroom, claiming that it would represent a substantial risk to their welfare and interfere with their school work….but are OK with them having bareback unprotected sex with multiple anonymous adults in the same restroom.

    Again, there’s a trend here. Liberals are always against exploitation of minors — except for sexual purposes.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 2:46 pm - December 30, 2010

  230. NDT >> Didn’t see that.

    But, again, if you guys went after the homophobic parents who kick their children out of their home (families disrupted much?) as you do AJ, this planet would be a lot better place.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 2:49 pm - December 30, 2010

  231. NDT >> Didn’t see that.

    But, again, if you guys went after the homophobic parents who kick their children out of their home (families disrupted much?) as you do AJ, this planet would be a lot better place.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 2:49 pm - December 30, 2010

  232. Just because others do, doesn’t justify your doing so.

    Funny, Tim tried that one too, without you admonishing him for doing it.

    As for accusing you both of pedophilia, how is my ad homine any different than your wild accusations?

    Pretty obvious that you’re not complaining out of principle, Vince, only out of rushing to the defense of a fellow gay or lesbian liberal.

    You know, sort of like the gay and lesbian community did for sexual harasser Vincent Atos?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 2:50 pm - December 30, 2010

  233. Section 51A. (a) A mandated reporter who, in his professional capacity, has reasonable cause to believe that a child is suffering physical or emotional injury resulting from: (i) abuse inflicted upon him which causes harm or substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare, including sexual abuse;

    NDT,

    You see that part of the statute that you seem to so conveniently ignore? It says that the harm or substantial risk of harm to the child’s heal or welfare but be caused by abuse. Now please, once again, show me where the abuse occurred during their legal, consensual sexual encounter. Thanks!

    Comment by AJ — December 30, 2010 @ 2:56 pm - December 30, 2010

  234. And you’re implying we don’t do anything, without any proof. Slander much, Vince?

    I could bore you with accounts of offering to mentor teens, of reaching out to help people. But since you’d just ask for more proof or data, or again change topic, there’s not much point.

    Oh, and I forgot, you endorced libel in 139, so you have shaky grounds at best to whine on slander.

    Actually, by implying that V the K’s ‘certain someone’ might be yourself, I think you’re the one who’s slandered yourself. Funny how that works

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2010 @ 2:57 pm - December 30, 2010

  235. There is a site I visit where a quite militant gay insists on outing celebrities, because he “refuses to play along with any charades,” like outing them is going to have a positive impact on society.

    It reminds me of how NDT keeps revisiting NAMBLA. Like constantly referencing this outdated miniscule contingent is going to start helping its numbers grow again. You take them SO seriously. Yet, do you ever look around and see that you are the only one who is?

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 2:58 pm - December 30, 2010

  236. “Slander much, Vince?” Wow. If you construe what I said as slander, then gaypatriot should delete it right away.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 3:00 pm - December 30, 2010

  237. #202 AJ presents an interesting view that is worth pondering:

    They don’t have to report sexual activity, like that person said, just sexual abuse. In order to break the law, you have to go against codified rules, not an administrator’s opinion. So please, show me the law that he broke.

    Sexual “activity” does NOT equate to sexual “abuse.” Period. That is what AJ says. Period.

    Does not sexual “activity” encompass all aspects of “having” sex? Wouldn’t it include molesting, raping, mutilation, snuffing, bondage, etc? Or, is sexual “activity” exclusively categorized as what is acceptable under the rules of moral relativity as perceived by the beholder?

    “In order to break the law, you have to go against codified rules” and so if the codified rule is not specific to the sexual “activity” then the “activity” is legal. How does this work in the case of sexual “harassment” and maintaining a code of conduct? Clearly, have sexual activity with a corpse must be a benign act in the world of moral relativity. After all, a corpse is merely a bunch of dead cells. Didn’t I once hear of a poet named Dave who kept a dead whore in a cave?

    This show me the law, show me the words, show me the tapes, show me the pictures, show me the conclusive proof flies in the face civility.

    “Civility” is the norm in the public square that permits us to navigate together without being armed and obnoxious. Now, of course, sometimes you have to shake up the public square in order to let new ways of thinking take root.

    Maybe teachers telling boys to wear a condom is an idea that needs to take precedence over this amorphous requirement left over from the in loco parentisobligations whereby teachers are required by law to report suspicions of abuse to the designated authority. Why, of course, each teacher is free to consult his own moral relativity compass in determining what qualifies as suspicion of “abuse.” Certainly, if 17 year old girl asks the teacher to play with her junk, that is just something between the two of them, right?

    Way back in #96 you say this:

    just cause the law says you are able to have sex with a 16 year old does not mean I would ever do it, I would ever let any kids I may have do it or that I would promote it, I just don’t care if other people do.

    Since your kids are “other people” how does your moral relativity compass end up putting your “sense of morality” over what any kids you may have and keeping them from doing what they want to do in pursuing their legal rights to sexual “activity?”

    Do you also diagram Chinese fire drills?

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 30, 2010 @ 3:01 pm - December 30, 2010

  238. You take them SO seriously. Yet, do you ever look around and see that you are the only one who is?

    Um, Vince, I don’t expect you to take people who molest and rape children seriously.

    You certainly didn’t when they were full voting members of ILGA and helping push through resolutions denouncing age-of-consent laws as homophobic, so why on earth would you start now?

    But out here in the real world, people get upset when you molest and rape children, unlike the gay and lesbian community, where age-of-consent laws are just another example of oppression of homosexuals.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 3:02 pm - December 30, 2010

  239. NDT never proved that the Gay Inc’s lobby efforts against Hornblower resulted in lost contracts, a unionized workforce or lost business.

    So, yes, he was pissing and moaning. Unless you can illustrate lost contracts, a unionized workforce or lost business for him, please, be my guest.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 3:04 pm - December 30, 2010

  240. Since your kids are “other people” how does your moral relativity compass end up putting your “sense of morality” over what any kids you may have and keeping them from doing what they want to do in pursuing their legal rights to sexual “activity?”

    Great point, Heliotrope; for some reason, AJ is adamantly against his own children doing something that he has no problem with other peoples’ children doing.

    Isn’t that odd? You have to wonder what he’s afraid of having happen. After all, he insists that adults having sex with sixteen-year-olds constitutes no “substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare”.

    It brings up a great point. Moral relativists like AJ do in fact have a moral compass; it simply always points in the direction they want it to, rather than following anything other than their own personal convenience at the moment.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 3:06 pm - December 30, 2010

  241. “where age-of-consent laws are just another example of oppression of homosexuals.”

    I don’t know people who think this way. Guess I don’t get out much.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 3:08 pm - December 30, 2010

  242. Calling someone a pedophile when they’re not is slander.

    Really, Vince? What material harm was caused, i.e “lost contracts, a unionized workforce or lost business”?

    Otherwise, you’re just pissing and moaning.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 3:12 pm - December 30, 2010

  243. “Liberals are always against exploitation of minors — except for sexual purposes.” Most of my friends are liberal and they would disagree with this statement.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 3:12 pm - December 30, 2010

  244. “You know, sort of like the gay and lesbian community did for sexual harasser Vincent Atos?”

    So, no, I didn’t see those like comments by AJ.

    But, let me get this logic right …

    You insinuate pedophilia.
    He returns the favor.
    I call you guys out, but don’t call him out.
    I’m playing favorites.
    I should denounce you all.

    Okay fine. You’re all wrong to do it.

    But how does that justify ME being called a pedophile?

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 3:16 pm - December 30, 2010

  245. NDT >> The protestors were blindly rallying against a corporate entity. You want to compare me to a corporate entity? I am a human being. As you are.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 3:18 pm - December 30, 2010

  246. Would it be out of line for me to suggest that, from now on, whenever someone accuses the Bush Regime of “torture,” the people who are insisting vehemently in this thread that “sexual abuse” be defined in only the narrowest most legalistic terms possible will show similar amounts of passion and commitment to refuting the charge of “torture;” seeing as none of the techniques use in coercive interrogations even came close to meeting the narrow, legalistic, technical definition of torture.

    Or, perhaps, those arguing for a narrow, legalistic definition of sexual abuse feel less passionately about defending a narrow, legalistic definition of torture.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2010 @ 4:03 pm - December 30, 2010

  247. Would it be out of line for me to suggest that y’all stop calling each other pederasts and pedophiles?

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 4:12 pm - December 30, 2010

  248. As to the slander issue, let’s say hypothetically that someone spent hours and hours of time and contributed dozens of comments in support of the proposition that beastiality (misspelling deliberate) was fine provided it took place in a state like Washington where it was legal… not just one comment, mind you, but dozens and dozen of comments defending the practice… might one reasonably conclude that such a person was not someone one ought to leave one’s Welsh Corgi with?

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2010 @ 4:14 pm - December 30, 2010

  249. So, in answer to Post #247, your answer is, yes, that would be out of line.

    Thanks for clearing things up VTK!

    Smoochies! :P

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 4:19 pm - December 30, 2010

  250. And, no, I don’t want to molest/rape your children or anyone else’s for that matter. But thanks for the kind offer! (I will dog-sit for you, though)

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 4:21 pm - December 30, 2010

  251. And, NDT (or VTK or TLW, if you’d like), feel free to comment on posts #243 – 45 when you’re ready.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 4:24 pm - December 30, 2010

  252. Would it be out of line for me to suggest that, from now on, whenever someone accuses the Bush Regime of “torture,” the people who are insisting vehemently in this thread that “sexual abuse” be defined in only the narrowest most legalistic terms possible will show similar amounts of passion and commitment to refuting the charge of “torture;” seeing as none of the techniques use in coercive interrogations even came close to meeting the narrow, legalistic, technical definition of torture.

    Or, perhaps, those arguing for a narrow, legalistic definition of sexual abuse feel less passionately about defending a narrow, legalistic definition of torture.

    I would agree. When it comes to matters of law, sticking to legal definitions makes sense. Glad we finally agreed on that point.

    I’d say people arguing that the Bush Regime practiced torture without providing adequate legal support are just as wrong, not in a moral sense but a factual one, as those arguing that Jennings broke a law.

    Comment by AJ — December 30, 2010 @ 4:29 pm - December 30, 2010

  253. Glad we finally agreed on that point.

    No, we don’t. I still believe that adults have a moral responsibility to protect vulnerable teenagers from their impulses, and that adults who exploit teenagers for their own gratification are creepy, disgusting sleazebags. Those who defend the sleazebags are not much better.

    We differ profoundly on that point.

    And Vince’s assertion of moral equivalence is silly on its face. Obviously, people who (repeatedly and forcefully) defend pederasty have no basis for accusing vocal opponents of pederasty of being pederasts.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2010 @ 4:49 pm - December 30, 2010

  254. VTK, so AJ agreed with your post #246. (No, it wouldn’t be out of line and agrees with your definition) And, then you say, “Just kidding.”

    Huh?

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 4:58 pm - December 30, 2010

  255. What was you point of post #246 then?

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 4:58 pm - December 30, 2010

  256. No, we don’t. I still believe that adults have a moral responsibility to protect vulnerable teenagers from their impulses, and that adults who exploit teenagers for their own gratification are creepy, disgusting sleazebags. Those who defend the sleazebags are not much better.

    I never said what Jennings did was good, just that it wasn’t illegal. If defending someone from slander and lies makes me a sleazebag then what does that make those who spread the slander and lies about that individual?

    I never said that adults who exploit teenagers are good people, nor did I ever defend any such actions. But you never let an opportunity to put words in my mouth pass you by.

    Comment by AJ — December 30, 2010 @ 5:12 pm - December 30, 2010

  257. Ah yes. Vince cheers signs slandering the character of the staff and management of Hornblower cruises, including apparently this Terry McCray mentioned in the sign.

    Vince celebrates the slander of the staff and management as ‘free speech’.

    Now go on Vince, move those goal posts.

    And I don’t recall anyone calling Vince a pedophile. He’s the one who seems to have decided the comment is aimed at him.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2010 @ 5:19 pm - December 30, 2010

  258. TLW “Not if it’s true Vince. Guilty conscience much?”

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 5:24 pm - December 30, 2010

  259. You were insinuating TLW. And I find it repulsive.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 5:28 pm - December 30, 2010

  260. Post #59 “Please tell me where I give a free pass to conservatives for using such language as Mr. Savage does.”

    This thread.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 5:30 pm - December 30, 2010

  261. What’s that, Mittens? I can deduct travel costs associated with getting medical care for my adopted children? I did not know that. Good kitteh!

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2010 @ 5:42 pm - December 30, 2010

  262. OH, and ND30, again you accuse Savage of being a proponent of barebacking without backing your claim (rather you barebacked your claim?). I’ve called you out on it already (as did Neptune) and you still spread the lie.

    #28: “since Savage and his ilk support and endorse teens having promiscuous, disease-spreading bareback sex”

    #43: “Savage says he behaves the way he does because of his sexual orientation. Therefore, we can state that being gay or lesbian makes you a promiscuous, foul-mouthed idiot who supports bareback sex”

    #66: “Savage gay sex movement and its support of promiscuity and bareback sex”

    So, requesting a link to back a lie up and being ignored goes for truth around here?

    Let me present the FACTS. DAN SAVAGE IS AGAINST BAREBACKING:

    http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/03/bareback_porn_child_porn

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/stranger-podcasts/savagelove/savagelove-032409.mp3

    ND30, you can no longer lie about Savage being a proponent of bareback sex.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 5:44 pm - December 30, 2010

  263. Funny, I didn’t accuse you of anything, cept maybe a guilty conscience.

    If you choose to infer from the that that you’d like to molest children, that’s hardly my fault.

    You on the other hand endorsed the slander NDT pointed to as, free speech.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2010 @ 7:08 pm - December 30, 2010

  264. Actually AJ, you’re the one who posted the link to the article stating he was required by law, to report the incident, and he didn’t.

    He broke the law, as has been cited. You won’t even stand by the link you posted.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2010 @ 7:24 pm - December 30, 2010

  265. Actually AJ, you’re the one who posted the link to the article stating he was required by law, to report the incident, and he didn’t.

    He broke the law, as has been cited. You won’t even stand by the link you posted.

    One, I believe I posted that link on another thread. Two, the link had a disclaimer at the top of the article proclaiming Jennings’ innocence. The article was incorrect with regard to the law. The law, as you have read but choose to ignore, does not say anything about sexual activity in general, just sexual abuse. Does that change the law or the fact that Jennings didn’t break it? Anyone can say someone broke a law, doesn’t mean it’s true.

    Anyways, what’s more important in determining if someone broke the law, what some link said or what the law said? Speaking of what the law said, maybe you should read it. Once you do, get back to me and explain to me how he broke it. You can’t thought without ignoring entire sections of the statute. You’re wrong, I know it hurts, and usually there is room for opinion, but you’re flat out wrong. Instead of looking at the law you keep referencing some incorrect link. Nice try, but no one would be punished in a court of law solely because some link incorrectly said they were guilty.

    Comment by AJ — December 30, 2010 @ 8:09 pm - December 30, 2010

  266. Let me present the FACTS. DAN SAVAGE IS AGAINST BAREBACKING:

    Vince, Vince, my good fellow, that’s the danger of quoting things that are out of date. You see, that was March of 2008, when Bush was still in power and Savage was screaming that sixteen-year-olds were “very young, very naive, and very vulnerable”.

    But then, in 2009 and today, what are Dan Savage and his fellow gays and lesbians like AJ saying about alleged sixteen-year-olds having bareback sex with random adults in bus station restrooms, especially with the care and enablement of his friends like Kevin Jennings?

    It says ABUSE inflicted upon him which causes harm. Please explain to me how legal, consensual sex between two adults constitutes any kind of abuse, sexual or otherwise? He wasn’t raped, beaten, or anything. He had sex on his own accord and was legally able to do so.

    So let’s see; Dan Savage supposedly opposes bareback sex by sixteen-year-olds, but defends and promotes it as perfectly normal and “consensual” when supporting and endorsing it would get one of his fellow Obama Party puppets into trouble.

    You see, Vince, if Dan Savage actually opposed barebacking, he wouldn’t argue that sixteen-year-olds doing it was acceptable, nor would he defend and support gays and lesbians like Kevin Jennings who encourage it and cover it up when children are barebacking with multiple adults in bus station restrooms. But Dan Savage is a hypocrite who supports and endorses barebacking by his fellow gays and lesbians, covering up barebacking by teachers like Kevin Jennings, and even supporting and endorsing avowed barebackers like Andrew Sulllivan.

    The man is more than a bit twisted, as you can see by his belief that protecting adults who bareback with sixteen-year-olds in bus station restrooms is preferable to parents teaching their children religious beliefs.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 9:18 pm - December 30, 2010

  267. And again AJ fails reading comprehension. The notice at the top points out that ‘Brewster’ has claimed to be 16 at the time. It doesn’t change that Jennings was required by law to report the situation regarding the child.

    Since you seem to be a little slow in the math department 16 < 18.

    Again, the link you posted showed that he broke the law.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2010 @ 10:06 pm - December 30, 2010

  268. ND30, when you’re ready to provide proof that Dan Savage endorses barebacking, get back to me, K?

    I’ve been listening to his show on/off for years. He has never said such a thing; he actually speaks against it.

    But, you’re just going to go on claiming Savage endorses barebacking, because you believe it. Facts are irrelevant to you, I guess. Carry on with the lies.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 10:07 pm - December 30, 2010

  269. Yea, and the link was wrong about that, so whats your point? That I posted a link that didn’t have all the facts straight? Ok you got me, I mean it was fox news after all.

    So are you saying a link trumps what the Massachusetts law actually says? Here’s the law again, the one he didn’t break. Or since I fail at reading comprehension, maybe you can explain to me what abuse the student had inflicted upon him which caused harm or substantial risk of harm to his health, welfare, or sexual abuse.

    Section 51A. (a) A mandated reporter who, in his professional capacity, has reasonable cause to believe that a child is suffering physical or emotional injury resulting from: (i) abuse inflicted upon him which causes harm or substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare, including sexual abuse;

    Comment by AJ — December 30, 2010 @ 10:09 pm - December 30, 2010

  270. TLW >> Have I’ve attacked you personally on this site in the past?

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 10:17 pm - December 30, 2010

  271. So, in a post that addresses the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to hatred, dipsh!t isn’t exactly a term of endearment, now is it?

    A) I was being nice.

    2) I’m not a self-proclaimed celebrity being interviewed by the media.

    C) I was being honest rather than making an assholish comment like Savage did just to be contrarian.

    Big difference.

    What bothers me is the whole “problem of suicides among young gays” issue and whether “drawing attention” to it helps solve the problem or increase the problem.

    A local blog, loosely affiliated with the Lakeland Ledger, featured a letter they got from some suicide intervention group stating that all the media focus on suicides DOES contribute to the problem. I think I still have a copy in my e-mail if you want me to look for it.

    A truly good person does not define goodness in terms of “what does the law allow me to get away with?”

    Back when I was an Assistant Scout Master, the BSA had and still has a Youth Protection policy. Part of it states that anybody over the age of 18 cannot be alone with anybody under the age of 18. If you have a counseling session with a scout under 18, you have to have another adult present or hold the meeting within full view of everybody else.

    Back when I was 18, I was working at a BSA summer camp and this one dude got fired because he was “alone” with an underage staffer in his tent. Somehow it didn’t matter that the tent flaps were open and we all could see them. I think it had more to do with the fact that he didn’t tattle on another guy who pissed on the floor of the camp director’s office, but the youth protection violation was the reason given.

    Seems to me that regardless of what the law says, folks should at least stick to the 18 y/o threshold. But I suppose that’s “puritanical” to the relativists.

    Like constantly referencing this outdated miniscule contingent is going to start helping its numbers grow again. You take them SO seriously.

    Well, that guy who wrote that “How to” guide to having sex with kids was just arrested by our own Polk County Sherrif’s Office, so yeah, they are taken seriously.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 31, 2010 @ 12:28 am - December 31, 2010

  272. TGC >> There are individualized sickos. And there are mobilized, power-wielding, policy-affecting organizations of sickos. NAMBLA ain’t one of them. And most gays wouldn’t want anything to do with a member, contrary to what ND30 believes.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 31, 2010 @ 12:35 am - December 31, 2010

  273. TGC >> The term of endearment comment was an attempt at humor. And I failed.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 31, 2010 @ 12:36 am - December 31, 2010

  274. And there are mobilized, power-wielding, policy-affecting organizations of sickos. NAMBLA ain’t one of them.

    But for how long, especially if they have the American Criminal Liberals Union on their side? One could have said the exact same thing replacing “NAMBLA” with “Gays and lesbians”.

    And most gays wouldn’t want anything to do with a member,

    Wasn’t Jennings a fan of Harry Hay and didn’t gays go apeshit spicey gonzo making excuses when that was pointed out?

    And what was that kerfuffle about Jennings and fisting kits handed out to kinds? I don’t remember the details, but I recall a blogger had a photograph of one of the kits. I told GPW that the kits contained vinyl gloves which are too permeable to be used as personal protection against body fluids and bloodborne pathogens. Lots of liberals were making excuses for the fisting kits as well.

    My sense is that gays might win more friends and influence people if they weren’t so blasé about chicken hawks having sex with kids because “hey, it’s legal”. You can’t have that attitude and go all moonbatshitcrazy over Mark Foley.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 31, 2010 @ 5:41 am - December 31, 2010

  275. [...] Using profanity to slur conservatives:De Rigueur for the Politically Correct Gay Activist [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » On Dan Savage & Civil Discourse — December 31, 2010 @ 7:36 am - December 31, 2010

  276. AJ’s getting more and more desperate. The fox article mentioned the correction at the top because of the confusion in Jennings own words when he said the kid was 15. Fox was kind enough to correct that for him.

    Now AJ, since you’ve been shown time and time again in black and white pixels the law he broke, and sincve you keep saying that it doesn’t apply, surely it should be child’s play (pun intended) for you to find the law in MA state code that requires Jennings to report the incident if he was only 15, but lets him off the hook if he was 16.

    Come on AJ. Show us the text, cite the law like NDT does. Saying “you’re wrong” doesn’t cut it. Prove it.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 31, 2010 @ 9:41 am - December 31, 2010

  277. My sense is that gays might win more friends and influence people if they weren’t so blasé about chicken hawks having sex with kids because “hey, it’s legal”.

    Well said.

    Comment by V the K — December 31, 2010 @ 9:45 am - December 31, 2010

  278. The live wire,

    I have shown u the law. It says tha he’s only required to report situations in which abuse occurred, or have u not read the MA code I’ve posted numerous times?

    Under MA law, sex with a 15 year old is illegal and thus would’ve constituted abuse, consensual sex with a 16 year old is legal and would not be abuse. Thus the reason why he wouldnt have to report it. Can you understand that?

    Comment by AJ — December 31, 2010 @ 11:29 am - December 31, 2010

  279. Because, after all, Dan Savage, a defender of Kevin Jennings, says that unaccompanied minors traveling to a major metropolitan area on school nights to have promiscuous bareback sex with multiple adults in bus station restrooms does not constitute “substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare”.

    Like I said; liberals would have a shit fit and claim it was a threat to the child’s education and welfare if they were cleaning a bus station restroom under those circumstances, but if they’re having bareback sex in it with multiple adults, go for it.

    Again, the amusement value here is immense. Liberals oppose reporting laws. They insist that children having bareback sex with strangers is not a threat to health or welfare. They cover up instances in which adults are having bareback sex with children and allow fourteen-year-olds to have abortions and medical treatment without parental consent. They DEMAND that sexual techniques and sex-promotion classes be taught in public schools.

    I mean, seriously. Liberals spend every waking minute regulating adult behavior, but for some reason, when it comes to teenagers, they insist on complete taxpayer-funded and promoted libertinism.

    I think it has to do with the fact that adults are emotionally stable and intelligent enough to say no. Children…..not so much.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 31, 2010 @ 12:31 pm - December 31, 2010

  280. “substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare”.

    Question: According to Jennings own account, the case of this young boy was brought to his attention because the youth was cutting class and performing poorly in school. Mr. Jennings further testified that the child was in a state of of psychological distress prior to their meeting.

    Are not those two factors… failing in school and psychological distress… prima facie evidence that the child’s psychological health and welfare were, in fact, at risk?

    Comment by V the K — December 31, 2010 @ 12:44 pm - December 31, 2010

  281. “substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare”.

    Question: According to Jennings own account, the case of this young boy was brought to his attention because the youth was cutting class and performing poorly in school. Mr. Jennings further testified that the child was in a state of of psychological distress prior to their meeting.

    Are not those two factors… failing in school and psychological distress… prima facie evidence that the child’s psychological health and welfare were, in fact, at risk?

    Question, what does the sentence before the small part of the law you quote say?

    abuse inflicted upon him which causes harm or substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare, including sexual abuse;

    You see those bolded words, they’re part of the law too. So yes, the student’s psychological health or welfare may have been at risk, but he is only legally required to report it if it is caused by abuse. Maybe he should have done so, but no law compelled him too because there was no abuse present. Unless you’d like to show me where.

    Here’s the law again just so you can read it in its entirety instead of taking out small bits and pieces you believe apply.

    Section 51A. (a) A mandated reporter who, in his professional capacity, has reasonable cause to believe that a child is suffering physical or emotional injury resulting from: (i) abuse inflicted upon him which causes harm or substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare, including sexual abuse;

    Comment by AJ — December 31, 2010 @ 1:28 pm - December 31, 2010

  282. No AJ, nice try. The law cited defines a child as under 18. You are the one saying that if he was 15 it would need to be reported, but if it was 16 he wouldn’t.

    Come on, show me the law, show the link. We have the agency that takes the reports saying one should have been filed, but wasn’t. We have the cited law where a child is defined as under 18 for the purposes of required reporting.

    You can’t show me the law you’re ‘citing’ because it doesn’t exist.

    You lose.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 31, 2010 @ 1:50 pm - December 31, 2010

  283. AJ,

    You certainly have plenty of time to wriggle turn your way through these long, meandering threads.

    How about this: Why not take the time to print out all of your comments and condense them and then read over the condensed version and work it down to one 4″ by 6″ index card and see if you can not come up with a reasonable premise or two from which you draw your conclusion and frame your debate. You can refine your words and know yourself out with clarity.

    Perhaps, then, you will not appear to be so ready ride off in all directions at once. As you know, I stuck with you on two threads. On the “Obamacare to limit our health care choices” you just walked away. Perhaps you can not keep track of all the charges you make. That is a fairly common problem in debate when you are not clear of what your stance is and where you are going.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 31, 2010 @ 5:32 pm - December 31, 2010

  284. LW here is an interesting take on the Jennings/Brewster saga. . .

    http://blog.mattalgren.com/2009/09/kevin-jennings-cleared-by-the-rest-of-brewsters-story/#

    Indeed it is interesting. The blogger asserts that the kid was actually 17. However in the MediaMorons posted letter from him, and linked by this blogger, he says that he was 16. I’ll wager there’s a blogger who’s spun that he was 18 and has a blurred out D/L to prove it.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 31, 2010 @ 9:45 pm - December 31, 2010

  285. That’s exactly what I was looking for you to whine, AJ.

    Remember this?

    Can’t get off unless some 16 year-old twink is “taking loads” and risking his health and quite possibly his life? Get professional help.

    Funny, isn’t it, how the gay and lesbian community gets all whiny and upset over people who get off on sixteen-year-olds having bareback sex, demanding “there oughta be a law” because kids of that age are “very young, very naive, and very vulnerable” and it’s “doing real harm to real people”.

    Except, of course, when the law is actually enforced and it would get perverts like Dan Savage and his friend Kevin Jennings into trouble for THEIR support of their fellow gays and lesbians “getting it off” by “putting loads” into a “sixteen-year-old twink”.

    THEN all of a sudden, we have AJ here blabbering that there’s nothing wrong with your child going to a city to have bareback sex, that it’s not abusive or harmful, and so forth.

    In short, AJ, you’ve proven Savage a liar. You’ve proven yourself a hypocrite. And you’ve proven Jennings a pervert and a criminal.

    You could have easily gotten out of this by stating that Jennings broke the law, that he should have reported the situation, and that his actions endangered a child. That would have been the intelligent, straightforward tack, and it damn sure would have been the tack you would have been screaming for if it had been a Christian heterosexual teacher talking about a sixteen-year-old girl.

    But all you’ve done is demonstrate that gays and lesbians like yourself, instead of making the decision that is best for the child’s welfare, will spin yourself into a tizzy to protect the bareback sex and whine about how you shouldn’t be held responsible for your illegal decision to do so.

    Your posts are the best argument that gays and lesbians should be summarily barred from teaching. Your attempts to parse abuse and your blatant hypocrisy in saying you’re OK with Jennings telling other kids to have promiscuous bareback sex while you insist that you would never let your children do it because it’s too dangerous have become almost breathtaking.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 1, 2011 @ 12:25 pm - January 1, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.