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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. What was you point of post #246 then?

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 4:58 pm - December 30, 2010

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. TLW “Not if it’s true Vince. Guilty conscience much?”

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 5:24 pm - December 30, 2010

  9. You were insinuating TLW. And I find it repulsive.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 30, 2010 @ 5:28 pm - December 30, 2010

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. […] 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

  26. 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

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. 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

  30. “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

  31. “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

  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. 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

  35. 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.