Gay Patriot Header Image

The gay sheriff and the Tea Party

Yesterday, in a piece manifesting a misunderstanding of conservatives prevalent on the gay left, Peter Casseis discussed the dilemma facing conservatives in the Sheriff Babeu hullabaloo, given that the story falls at the intersection of “the twin hatreds of gay men and immigrants.”  He then calls the tough-talking conservative “ne of a long line of anti-gay conservative government figures forced out of the closet”.

Seems that for some on the left, a strong advocate for conservative principles must necessarily be (to borrow an inaccurate depiction of another outspoken conservative) “a racist, sexist, homophobe.

Turns out, however, as Casseis, to his credit, begins to acknowledge (in the second page of his article), that anti-gay sentiment really isn’t a defining issue for many, if not most, conservatives and Tea Party supporters.  Over at Big Journalism, Brandon Darby reports something which comes as little surprise to gay conservatives:  most grassroots activists couldn’t care less about his sexual orientation:

The state’s tea party grassroots continued to see Sheriff Paul Babeu for what he is; namely, a man who has done a good job in the many positions of service he’s held throughout his life and career.

An Associated Press article from February 26th says it best: Tea Partiers Stick with Outed Gay Sheriff. In the article, members of rural Arizona’s Yavapai Tea Party spoke out on their support for the Sheriff the Left needed to stop. The AP writer quotes 64-year-old Air Force pilot and Tea Party leader Bill Halpin as saying: “I care less. I just care less. Don’t preach it on me. Don’t push it on me and, by golly, I respect your rights.”

Read the whole thing.

Share

57 Comments

  1. Just FTR, I know that lots of people nowadays say “I could care less” or “I care less”, but what they should say, for the expression to mean what they mean, is “I couldn’t care less.”

    (Next comment up: “ILC, I could care less” ;-) )

    [Duly noted and subsequently fixed -- Ed.]

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 3, 2012 @ 12:28 pm - March 3, 2012

  2. Tea Party leader Bill Halpin is quoted as saying, “Don’t preach it on me. Don’t push it on me and, by golly, I respect your rights.”

    “Don’t preach it on me. Don’t push it on me.” I think that sums up what a lot of people mean when they say they couldn’t care less about someone’s homosexuality. It comes very close to expressing how I feel. I’m a traditionalist. Contrary to the ignorant opinion of Pat (liberal Pat, not Afrikaner Pat), that does NOT mean I hate gays. To put it succinctly, being a traditionalist means I want marriage to remain what it’s always been: monogamous, heterosexual relationship. That’s not hating gays or wishing them ill.

    In every day life, liking, laughing, and mourning with people who happen to be gay is no different for me than doing those things with straight people. I think, though, that’s because the gay people in my life DON’T preach or push their sexuality on me or anyone else. It’s the preaching and pushing; it’s the screaming, “I’M GAY! I’M GAY! AND YOU BETTER APPROVE OF ME OR YOU’RE A BIGOT!”, that turns me and, I believe, most social conservatives, off of the “gay thing”. Such behavior is obnoxious, intimidating and intolerant of any dissent from the PC view of homosexuality. That feeling is exacerbated when gay activists go into the schools and push their agenda on children, often behind the backs of their parents.

    If gays want their rights to be respected then they have to respect the rights of others and recognize the reality of a tyranny of the minority. They have to acknowledge that demanding that the whole of society serve their sexuality and promote their self-esteem comes very close to establishing said tyranny. Gays should have the right to live in peace and safety. They shouldn’t be fired from their jobs or denied housing because of their sexuality. They should have the right to pursue happiness as they see fit, like everyone else. But that does NOT mean that the 5% gay tail should wag the 95% straight dog. In other words, society can and should allow room for a tiny percentage of people to pursue love unconventionally WITHOUT ALTERING THE LEGAL AND CULTURAL MEANING OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY FOR SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. Such an arrangement would give gays, straights, liberals and conservatives most of what they want. At the very least, it would allow for peaceful coexistence between adversaries, if I can use that term. Alas, it’s not enough for people like Pat who want their “gayness” to be put on a pedestal and worshiped by ALL. So much for compromise.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — March 3, 2012 @ 3:20 pm - March 3, 2012

  3. Well said, Seane-Anna.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 3, 2012 @ 3:30 pm - March 3, 2012

  4. Wasn’t the controversy about the sheriff allegedly abusing his power by trying to deport his ex-boyfriend over a personal dispute? His sexuality isn’t the issue. It’s curious that the left keeps focusing on that.

    Comment by Mitch — March 3, 2012 @ 3:32 pm - March 3, 2012

  5. He was accused of abuse of power, but there is no proof. He points out that not only does he not have the power to deport people, but also that his ex-boyfriend is in the USA legally.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 3, 2012 @ 4:08 pm - March 3, 2012

  6. Orozco’s visa was for a decade, but was it for a un-interrupted decade? Does anyone know if this information has surfaced?

    Also, now, there’s the boarding school matter.

    This guy’s a scandal-magnet. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire? Or, somebody out there is systematically throwing spaghetti against the side of Babeu’s house?

    If Babeu did have a relationship with a 17-year old who was a student of the school he was running, I hope ND30 and others raise the same kind of stink against him as they did Kevin Jennings for advising a student to use condoms. Which aren’t even comparable, but, whatever …

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 4:34 pm - March 3, 2012

  7. Contrary to the ignorant opinion of Pat (liberal Pat, not Afrikaner Pat), that does NOT mean I hate gays.

    Seane-Anna, if you believe my opinion is “ignorant,” fine by me. However, I don’t recall that I ever said that you hate gays. If I did (and I forgot), please accept my apology, and I’ll recant it. In fact, I’ll take your word that you don’t hate gays. However, if my rhetoric towards your sexuality, religion, or race was as negative as your rhetoric is against gay people, I doubt that you wouldn’t be convinced if I said that I didn’t hate adherents of your religion, etc. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    To put it succinctly, being a traditionalist means I want marriage to remain what it’s always been: monogamous, heterosexual relationship. That’s not hating gays or wishing them ill.

    Again, I don’t believe I said “hate,” but I did say “negative.” And if that was your only rhetoric regarding gays, I wouldn’t even have used “negative” to describe your views on gays. I understand you may not regard your views towards homosexuality as negative. That’s fine. I can agree to disagree.

    I think, though, that’s because the gay people in my life DON’T preach or push their sexuality on me or anyone else.

    While there are plenty of people, gay and straight, who do preach and push their sexuality, my guess is that, from your perspective, you notice it only when it’s a gay person. In other words, when a straight male talks about his wife, or which woman he’s going on a date this weekend, etc., you probably don’t blink an eye. But it probably sets off your radar screen is a male talks about his husband, male partner, boyfriend.

    A little anecdote: I typically don’t reveal my sexuality when I meet people. But I was once acquainted with this young woman, who I met a couple of times. She apparantly noticed I was wearing a wedding band on my ring finger. So at one point, she asked me something about my wife. Now, if I never planned on seeing this person again, I would probably have let it go. But I did mention that I wasn’t married to a woman, but in a civil union with a man. Believe me, it was no biggie, she felt a little embarrassed, but I made a point of saying she had nothing to apologize for. Heck, I might have made the same assumption under the same circumstances. But this goes to show that we do take heterosexuality for granted. In any case, I’m guessing you would agree that I wasn’t pushing my sexuality. But it just seems like if I was just as matter of fact about it like a typical straight person, you might regard it as pushing my sexuality. I understand my assumption may be wrong here, but I do recall you saying something about not wanting homosexuality to be mainstreamed. So perhaps if I was as casual or mainstream as a straight person, you might regard it as pushing my sexuality.

    Alas, it’s not enough for people like Pat who want their “gayness” to be put on a pedestal and worshiped by ALL. So much for compromise.

    Sorry, Seane-Anna, but you are way off base with your assumption here, WAY OFF. I am one of the lowest key persons you’ll ever meet. I’m not the type of person who has to stand out at a party, etc., and this includes my sexuality. So I certainly do not want to be put on a pedestal or be worshipped any more than you or anyone else.

    Comment by Pat — March 3, 2012 @ 4:40 pm - March 3, 2012

  8. I support Sheriff Babeu and I am a hetero woman who is a conservative-libertarian. I give not one jot what sexuality he, or anyone else is and it drives me mad when people assume I should. Why can’t the liberals get it? I am not a Racist-Sexist-Homophobe.

    I am just wondering – do the liberals think he is a self-hating gay man now that he is out as a conservative gay man? Is that the meme these days?

    Comment by aanjheni — March 3, 2012 @ 4:49 pm - March 3, 2012

  9. Don’t know why the left is so eager to smear Babeu. They can always have Holder send in the Alphabet Cops to take over and shut him down, as they’re trying to do with Arpaio.

    Comment by DaveO — March 3, 2012 @ 4:49 pm - March 3, 2012

  10. I just misread the post and it sounded like the title of a short story or magazine article …

    “The Gay Sheriff at the Tea Party”

    LOL!

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 5:05 pm - March 3, 2012

  11. Just wondering what the popular consensus is here. What’s worse?

    1) Picture it: a 1980′s school, U.S. of A. A student who is of the legal age of consent approaches a teacher and asks him for advise on having sex with a guy in another town and instead of failing to report the student to the administrator, the teacher advises him to use condoms. Boy never goes to have sex with stranger. Teacher regrets not going to the administrator.

    OR

    2) Picture it: a school in the late 1990′s/early 2000′s New England. The school administrator f*cks a student, who is of the age of consent, on a continual basis.

    I’m just wondering on the “morally relative”-relative site that is GP, if these two men in question (namely #1′s teacher and #2′s administrator) are of equal disparagement, or if the teacher is clearly the more evil of the two? I’m just asking, so I know what the answer is the next time the question is on the test.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 5:53 pm - March 3, 2012

  12. Cinesnatch, in #10, thanks! I often try to make my titles catchy. Looks like I succeeded this time.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 3, 2012 @ 6:05 pm - March 3, 2012

  13. If Babeu did have a relationship with a 17-year old who was a student of the school he was running, I hope ND30 and others raise the same kind of stink against him as they did Kevin Jennings for advising a student to use condoms.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 4:34 pm – March 3, 2012

    Of course.

    But therein lies the difference, Cinesnatch; you want Babeu’s head for something that hasn’t even been proven that he did, but you refuse, adamantly refuse to even acknowledge that what Kevin Jennings did was not only immoral and stupid, but completely illegal under Massachusetts required-reporting laws AND against school policy that required parents to be notified of children having sexual liaisons with adults.

    Perhaps as an act of good faith, you could condemn Jennings’s actions with the same vigor that you demand of Babeu’s.

    But of course, we’re joking there. You are not acting out of principle; you are acting out of blind, stupid partisanship, the kind that leads you to demand punishment for allegations against a Republican while adamantly insisting that any punishment or consequence for a liberal Obama supporter is wrong.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2012 @ 6:24 pm - March 3, 2012

  14. ND30 >> So, if the charges leveled against Babeu turn out to be true, your outrage would only meet the level of the outrage you felt towards Jennings, not exceed it?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 6:32 pm - March 3, 2012

  15. The greater point is that I would have outrage regardless of the political affiliation of the perpetrator, Cinesnatch.

    You, on the other hand, have demonstrated that pedophilia and encouragement of child sex and promiscuity are perfectly OK if it’s a) an Obama supporter like Jennings or b) if you deem the parents “homophobic”.

    I call ‘em as I see ‘em. Track record and all.

    It’s again a principled opposition to pedophilia and encouraging sex with underage children, Snatchy. You wouldn’t understand.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2012 @ 7:13 pm - March 3, 2012

  16. … wow …

    Anyone else feel the same way as ND30? Namely, the judgment agains an authority figure advising an of-age kid to wear condoms is the same as an authority figure f*cking an of-age kid?

    Or is he the only one? Just wondering. Feel free to chime in either way. Just testing the current temperature of the GP waters.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 7:22 pm - March 3, 2012

  17. Paul Babeau is a real conservative who has the daunting task of protecting the people of Pinal County. He’s never run on social issues, and for that I’m glad. Experience shows that those who run on social issues are without exception big government types. The two republicans who oppose him in the primary are professional politicians who have been redistricted, and both are running on the social conservative plank.

    Comment by man — March 3, 2012 @ 7:29 pm - March 3, 2012

  18. Anyone else feel the same way as ND30? Namely, the judgment agains an authority figure advising an of-age kid to wear condoms is the same as an authority figure f*cking an of-age kid?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 7:22 pm – March 3, 2012

    Well, Cinesnatch, you didn’t ask for that comparison.

    THIS is for what you asked.

    Picture it: a 1980′s school, U.S. of A. A student who is of the legal age of consent approaches a teacher and asks him for advise on having sex with a guy in another town and instead of failing to report the student to the administrator, the teacher advises him to use condoms. Boy never goes to have sex with stranger. Teacher regrets not going to the administrator.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 5:53 pm – March 3, 2012

    I mean, even that leaves out that Jennings was obligated by state law and school policy to report the fact to the authorities, the school administration, and the parents, and ignored all of these.

    Not to mention the fact that Jennings himself stated the child was underage repeatedly in lectures AND books.

    So let’s repeat that; you consider allegations against a Republican to be equally as serious as confirmed, factual evidence that an Obama Party teacher knowingly and willingly encouraged an underage minor to travel by himself to Boston to have sex with adults in bus station restrooms AND refused to report this fact to state authorities, school administrators, and the parents of the child, as he was mandated to do by state law.

    If you think there’s no comparison, then why did you deliberately leave facts out when making it?

    Answer: Because, again, this is not about principles; we already know you support and endorse pedophilia and having sex with children when Obama Party supporters and your fellow gays and lesbians do it. It is about your blind partisanship and hatred of Republicans leading you to apply standards to them that you would never presume to apply to your own Obama Party.

    Which makes you a bigot.

    Furthermore, you’ve now cornered yourself. You stated that Babeu had sex with this child. Please turn over ALL evidence that you have of this sort, or be immediately branded a liar.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2012 @ 7:38 pm - March 3, 2012

  19. Again,

    Anyone ELSE feel the same way as ND30?

    Emphasis added by Cinesnatch. TM

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 8:04 pm - March 3, 2012

  20. As the father of a sixteen year old son, let me simply state that if a school official sent my son off to hook up with a guy he met in a bathroom with just a mild suggestion that he should use condoms… the school district and I would be having words.

    Jennings is a creep. The people who find legal (and dubious) technicalities to defend his creepiness are almost as bad.

    Comment by V the K — March 3, 2012 @ 8:57 pm - March 3, 2012

  21. VTK >> Thanks for taking part in the survey.

    So, for Post #11, we’ve had ND30 and VTK answer #1. Anyone else?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 9:00 pm - March 3, 2012

  22. Right and Wrong is not a popularity contest.

    Comment by V the K — March 3, 2012 @ 11:18 pm - March 3, 2012

  23. That’s in the normal world, V.

    In the gay and lesbian world that Cinesnatch inhabits, right and wrong is determined by what the community tells you to do, not by any sort of abstract or straightforward principle. It’s essentially living in a perpetual junior-high mentality when the rest of us have long since moved on to adulthood.

    The hilarity of this is that that’s why Cinesnatch and his ilk see “homophobia” everywhere they turn. In their junior-high mindset, it’s OK to lie when you screw up at work, or send nasty emails critiquing their coworkers’ bodies to their friends. But when they get fired for this, their immediate reaction is that their boss is “homophobic”, because it’s certainly not anything they did.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2012 @ 11:29 pm - March 3, 2012

  24. cinesnatch,

    I feel the same way as North Dallas Thirty.

    Comment by DaveO — March 4, 2012 @ 12:39 am - March 4, 2012

  25. Put me down as Yes on Prop #11.

    Comment by SDN — March 4, 2012 @ 5:45 am - March 4, 2012

  26. Okay, folks, we have four down for Kevin Jennings. ANYONE want to put their vote in for the hypothetically guilty Sheriff????

    Come on, is this going to be a landslide? Or is anyone going to represent for calling out #2 over #1? (I think you all know where my vote is going)

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 4, 2012 @ 5:51 am - March 4, 2012

  27. If anyone needs a write-in candidate, I could suggest the gay Democrat mayor of Portland Oregon, Sam Adams, who is quite open about his chickenhawkery; and is much beloved by his gay constituents and his party.

    Comment by V the K — March 4, 2012 @ 8:36 am - March 4, 2012

  28. FYI ND30. I’ve stopped reading your comments. There are more productive and fulfilling ways of wasting one’s time. But, by all means, don’t let reality stop you.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 7:54 pm – March 2, 2012

    Heh.

    Comment by V the K — March 4, 2012 @ 8:55 am - March 4, 2012

  29. Cinesnatch, regarding your survey, it’s almost like choosing between a dOu*he and a tu&d sandwich. They are both pretty bad. Based on how you wrote the hypotheticals and assuming no other information, my vote is #2 is worse.

    But when you add the particulars, the vote could change. For example, if Jennings did suggest the student should continue hooking up with older men, then the situations come fairly equally close. And of course, if #2 never happened as alleged, then obviously #1 is worse.

    Comment by Pat — March 4, 2012 @ 10:17 am - March 4, 2012

  30. Pat >> I agree with you.

    ND30 >> Put that in your link library and smoke it.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 4, 2012 @ 1:11 pm - March 4, 2012

  31. Pat, agreed.

    I don’t know anything about Kevin Jennings. However, if he sent a student to have sex with a stranger in some seedy joint, it probably would be worse than #2. Even if the student was legal, that doesn’t matter, it is still reprehensible. And that goes for #2 as well.

    I haven’t heard anything about these new allegations against Sheriff Babeu, but I’d not indict him until there is any evidence (if there isn’t already).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 4, 2012 @ 2:00 pm - March 4, 2012

  32. Nothing has been proven, so I tried to be careful to put it in hypotheticals (watch that statement get torn to shreds).

    What I find intriguing is, from what I’ve read, the allegations are either 1) true or 2) considering the ex-lover controversy (please, note how I’m not asserting anything either way; but, if you want to disagree with me that it did not become a controversy, despite its origins, so be it), someone with MONEY really has it in for the Sheriff. It will be interesting to see how things unfold.

    Like Savage, though, he doesn’t strike me as someone I’d care to rub shoulders with. (a statement of which, ND30 might easily dispute, for I don’t know what reasons)

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 4, 2012 @ 2:05 pm - March 4, 2012

  33. To Rattlesnake at #3, thanks!

    Comment by Seane-Anna — March 4, 2012 @ 3:44 pm - March 4, 2012

  34. To Pat at #7, thank you for your rational and civil dissent from my comment at #2. It’s very refreshing and a big encouragement for me to be equally rational and civil. There are a couple of things I’d like to clarify, though. First, by gays “pushing” their sexuality on others, I don’t mean gays casually mentioning some aspect of their private life. You know, something like a man saying, “That Mexican restaurant me and my boyfriend ate at last night was great!” A statement like that is NOT pushing one’s sexuality. By “pushing their sexuality” I mean things like gays copping the attitude of “you better approve of me or else…”, or gays going into the schools and indoctrinating children behind their parents’ backs. See what I mean?

    Now to the “hate” thing. No, Pat, you’ve never overtly accused me of hating gays but, imo, you use the word “negative” here almost like a synonym for hate. I’m not really clear what you mean when you say I speak negatively about gays. Is it when I oppose gay marriage? Is it when I oppose the mainstreaming of homosexuality? Is it when I object to the equating of gays with blacks and the gay rights movement with the civil rights movement? In short, Pat, is it when I repudiate the entire PC narative of homosexuality? Is that what you mean by me speaking “negatively” about gays?

    Lastly, Pat, you seemed to imply that people take heterosexuality for granted out of some sinister bigotry against gays. Wrong. Pat, people take heterosexuality for granted BECAUSE IT’S THE NORM. The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of people are straight; that’s just the physical, biological reality of life. So of course people take being straight for granted. And what disturbs me about gay activists in particular and (many) gays in general is that they want to make it a crime for society to acknowledge and organize itself around that reality. That’s why I oppose the mainstreaming of homosexuality. It’s not just because of my Christian values. It’s because I see the effort as an attempt to, in effect, outlaw reality. Traditional marriage and family, on the other hand, not only acknowledge but naturally flow from physical reality, which was created by God. So, my religious and “naturalistic” views mesh together on this point. But I feel I’ve just opened another can of worms with you Pat, so I’ll stop now.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — March 4, 2012 @ 4:51 pm - March 4, 2012

  35. Nothing has been proven, so I tried to be careful to put it in hypotheticals (watch that statement get torn to shreds).

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 4, 2012 @ 2:05 pm – March 4, 2012

    Yup.

    2) Picture it: a school in the late 1990′s/early 2000′s New England. The school administrator f*cks a student, who is of the age of consent, on a continual basis.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 5:53 pm – March 3, 2012

    ‘Cause there’s no hypotheticals anywhere in that statement.

    You stated that Babeu raped a child and demanded that we condemn him for doing it. Now that you’re losing the “popular vote” that you hilariously demand be taken, you’re backing off and spinning, trying to blame other people for being so mean to you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 4, 2012 @ 4:52 pm - March 4, 2012

  36. Now that you’re losing…you’re backing off and spinning, trying to blame other people for being so mean to you.

    The sun also rises.

    As for Prop #11: Typical Cinesnatch obfuscation tactics. First, the boy in the Jennings incident *was not* of legal age… until *after* the controversy broke. That is, in early tellings of the story, the boy was 15. Only after some controversy arose, did the boy’s age magically increase to age-of-consent in all re-tellings.

    Second, the correct answer to Prop #11 is that both are wrong; positing a choice between them is misleading and false, like saying that we can only condemn one of rape or murder, and then asking which we would prefer to condemn. The right answer is, F*ck your phony choice. Plus the rest of what NDT said: “you want Babeu’s head for something that hasn’t even been proven that he did… Perhaps as an act of good faith, you could condemn Jennings’s actions with the same vigor that you demand of Babeu’s… I would have outrage regardless of the political affiliation of the perpetrator.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 4, 2012 @ 5:59 pm - March 4, 2012

  37. In scenario #2, I don’t name Sheriff Babeu. Please provide the evidence where I called Babeu a child rapist. He wasn’t. Age-of-consent explains this. And, I never expected to get the popular vote, [censored] as it was clear #1 was going to prevail at GP.

    Keep up ND30.

    Wanting the head of Babeu for something that hasn’t been proven? Sounds a little familiar … like wanting the head of the NAACP that … well, hasn’t been proven. The #1 kid was legal. And in the hypothetical #2, that kid … hmmn … did the hypothetical sheriff know the object of his blind lust was legal?

    Please weigh in resident-mind-reader, since you feel comfortable hijacking the example.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 4, 2012 @ 6:22 pm - March 4, 2012

  38. Seane-Anna, thanks for your response. I get your point about what you mean by pushing sexuality, and I agree mostly with what you are saying here. But this is where we probably disagree, where you oppose a gay person insists of being approved. Most persons don’t like it when they believe they are dealt an injustice, and will fight for it, as opposed to doing nothing. We probably agree that some of the tactics to do so are unacceptable. On the other hand, I suspect we disagree about there being injustices to gay people.

    With respect to taking heterosexuality for granted, I agree with most of you say here. Sure, most people are straight, so it’s no wonder that an assumption of heterosexuality occurs, just as I indicated in my anecdote above. But I’ve heard people say something along the lines “it’s okay that you’re gay, but keep it to yourself.” So some of these people may not have any problem hearing about one’s sexual exploits with the opposite sex, but don’t want to hear about a guy and his boyfriend going to a Mexican restaurant. That you (and more and more people) do not object to the latter is encouraging, indeed.

    Regarding hate vs. negative, perhaps I’m suggesting there is a fine line here. I don’t know. But I believe it is possible that you can feel negatively against one (or a group) without hating them. Where I believe I’ve seen negativity from you is that you have stated and reaffirmed with your post here that you don’t want homosexuality mainstreamed (more on that later). You also used the term “aberration” to describe homosexuality and homosexuals. While you are technically correct, aberration is usually used in a negative context. Perhaps you don’t mean it in a negative context. But my suggestion is that when you are with your friends, that you don’t refer them or their sexuality as aberrant. Also, regarding homosexuality as a sin is, IMO, negative. That this may be because of your religious beliefs does not make it any less negative. FWIW, I believe the verdict is still open as to whether God opposes homosexuality. I suspect we disagree on this point as well.

    I agree with you that the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement are not equal. However, there are a lot of similarities, and will sometimes cite similarities. But this does not mean that they are the same.

    I get what you are saying about mainstreaming, and your opposition to it. In addition, I would also understand your opposition to mainstreaming homosexuality if that also meant to accept rampant promiscuity. But this is not what I’m talking about. It’s more like applying the values you have regarding expections of adults regarding sexual responsibility for straight persons as for gay persons. For example, I assume you want to encourage straight children to grow up, form stable relationships with persons of the opposite sex, and eventually marry that special someone. Why not do the same for gay children, with the exception that they should form stable relationships with persons of the same sex? And if you object to marriage, then at least a civil union.

    I understand the biological realities. And I understand the importance of having stable families for children. However, just as I see both of us encouraging marriage for those who are infertile (including elderly women), why not the same for homosexuals (again, call it civil union or “Fred” instead if you prefer)?

    Traditional marriage and family, on the other hand, not only acknowledge but naturally flow from physical reality, which was created by God. So, my religious and “naturalistic” views mesh together on this point. But I feel I’ve just opened another can of worms with you Pat, so I’ll stop now.

    Even though we disagree here, I don’t see a can of worms here. I’ll be honest though. I’m not sure if marriage was created by God or not. Marriage is a social construct. If (and how) it may have been divinely inspired, I believe, is subject to debate. Regardless, this construct has evolved during time. And now we are at the point if this change should now include persons of the same sex. In any case, I also see my religious and “naturalistic” views meshing as well.

    Comment by Pat — March 4, 2012 @ 6:24 pm - March 4, 2012

  39. In scenario #2, I don’t name Sheriff Babeu.

    But of course you don’t, Cinesnatch. That would have required guts. So you just leave it to implication, making sure that everyone knows exactly what you mean (while you maintain a shred of deniability, not really “plausible deniability”, as you are the only one who finds it plausible).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 4, 2012 @ 6:30 pm - March 4, 2012

  40. Amusing. Cinesnatch has failed to persuade anyone to his side and has been forced to furiously back-pedal on his own hypothetical; but he still thinks he’s winning.

    Comment by V the K — March 4, 2012 @ 6:34 pm - March 4, 2012

  41. Kind of like the guts that was required to prove racism on the part of the NAACP in the video?

    I think you’re well-versed in implication, both in regards to that subject as well as other areas of implication. Mazel.

    VTK >> Amused that you didn’t bother to read that two commenters chose #2 over #1.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 4, 2012 @ 6:46 pm - March 4, 2012

  42. And, again, you, “guys,” the purpose wasn’t to garner votes for #2. The purpose was to show that there are actually “people” on this site that would say #1.

    When *most* people in the *real* world would respond “#2.”

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 4, 2012 @ 6:49 pm - March 4, 2012

  43. Kind of like the guts that was required to prove racism on the part of the NAACP in the video?

    No, more like the guts that you needed (and so totally lacked) to admit my claim, that your own transcript of the video proved: that the NAACP laughed at the point when Sherrod explained her plan to discriminate against the white farmer.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 4, 2012 @ 6:57 pm - March 4, 2012

  44. (i.e. the NAACP audience… laughed with a sense of enjoyment)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 4, 2012 @ 6:58 pm - March 4, 2012

  45. When *most* people in the *real* world would respond “#2.”

    Nope, wrong again.

    I don’t know how “most” people would respond – and neither do you. But most moral and rational people (a subset) might respond *something* like this:

    the correct answer to Prop #11 is that both are wrong; positing a choice between them is misleading and false, like saying that we can only condemn one of rape or murder, and then asking which we would prefer to condemn. The right answer is, F*ck your phony choice. Plus the rest of what NDT said: “you want Babeu’s head for something that hasn’t even been proven that he did… Perhaps as an act of good faith, you could condemn Jennings’s actions with the same vigor that you demand of Babeu’s… I would have outrage regardless of the political affiliation of the perpetrator.”

    Which is not a response of “#2″.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 4, 2012 @ 7:00 pm - March 4, 2012

  46. If you think most rational people would agree to most anything ND30 (aks Miss Rita Beads) says (via you referencing him), you’re drinking some really strong Kool-Aid.

    That gets two huge LOL’s, a wide-arced *eye roll*, and a *sniff* *sniff* “who had beans for dinner?”

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 4, 2012 @ 7:06 pm - March 4, 2012

  47. Shorter Vince. Since I can’t get the answers I want, I’ll make up people who answer my way. And since I can’t win, I’ll resort to cliche’ insults.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 4, 2012 @ 8:01 pm - March 4, 2012

  48. … says the master of cliche insults …

    “Now, *hush* Levi, ADULTS are talking.”

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 4, 2012 @ 8:04 pm - March 4, 2012

  49. Advice, Cinesnatch, that you could benefit from heeding :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 4, 2012 @ 8:30 pm - March 4, 2012

  50. Regarding hate vs. negative, perhaps I’m suggesting there is a fine line here. I don’t know. But I believe it is possible that you can feel negatively against one (or a group) without hating them.

    With regards to the issue of people disapproving of homosexuality hating homosexuals, this is how I think about it. I live in an area where a lot of people smoke marijuana recreationally, and I know several people that do so. I strongly disapprove of marijuana use, but I don’t hate them. Just like I assume there are people that don’t approve of homosexuality, but don’t hate all homosexuals. I think it is easy for homosexuals to take it personally, but it probably isn’t meant to be personal in most cases.

    And, FWIW, I don’t really consider sexual orientation negative, but I also don’t consider it positive. It’s just there, and it doesn’t cause any explicit harm, per se. But I also realize homosexuals constitute a very small minority of the population, so it is technically an aberration (in one sense of the word). Why that would make homosexuals feel inferior is beyond me, but I suspect it has to do with the victim mentality that is common among the gay community.

    If you think most rational people would agree to most anything ND30 (aks Miss Rita Beads) says (via you referencing him), you’re drinking some really strong Kool-Aid.

    Not that NDT needs anyone to defend him, but if I understand his modus operandi, he simply demonstrates the absurdity of certain arguments that the left commonly uses by using them himself against them. And he does it well. It isn’t something I would personally do, and I often don’t agree with what he says (and I suspect he doesn’t either), but I am not going to support the claim that he, or anyone who generally supports or references him, is drinking “Kool-aid.”

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 4, 2012 @ 9:35 pm - March 4, 2012

  51. Rattlesnake, I appreciate your comments. Just to clarify a couple of points. First, I understand that certain comments may not be meant to be personally intentional. But that does not mean the comments aren’t negative.

    I consider sexual orientation neutral as well. And as I stated, the term “aberration” is technically correct, but it is usually used in a negative context. Whether it makes one feel inferior (it doesn’t in my case, by the way) is irrelevant.

    he simply demonstrates the absurdity of certain arguments that the left commonly uses by using them himself against them.

    Perhaps it can be effective when used sparingly to counter someone who is pulling that tactic. It is counterproductive when used often, or at all, to someone who does not use such tactics. In any case, I’m with you as it as something I would not do. I recall trying it once or twice in the past, but I recall feeling dirty doing it.

    Comment by Pat — March 4, 2012 @ 11:59 pm - March 4, 2012

  52. In first paragraph, should be…may not meant to be personal.

    Comment by Pat — March 5, 2012 @ 12:01 am - March 5, 2012

  53. Pat at #38, thanks for your response, too. Very rational and civil once again. I’d like to say more but it’s waaaaaaay past my bed time and I’m about to fall asleep at my computer . Maybe we can continue our “debate” tomorrow. Good night.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — March 5, 2012 @ 12:46 am - March 5, 2012

  54. Just to clarify a couple of points. First, I understand that certain comments may not be meant to be personally intentional. But that does not mean the comments aren’t negative.

    To clarify, I don’t view marijuana use as a neutral thing, I view it as a negative thing. I don’t hate people who use it, but I view it as a negative trait. I was trying to disambiguate between hatred and negativity. So, my anti-marijuana positions are not personal, but they are still negative.

    Perhaps it can be effective when used sparingly to counter someone who is pulling that tactic. It is counterproductive when used often, or at all, to someone who does not use such tactics.

    Yes, I’ve made that point before but I didn’t think of it when writing my comment #50. For the record, I maintain the position that it is counterprouctive at times. However, it does seem like just about every liberal that comments here uses some underhanded tactic. By the way, Pat, your reasoned comments are much appreciated by me, especially if you are, in fact, a liberal (it is refreshing to see a reasonable liberal, as opposed to the more common troll).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 5, 2012 @ 12:48 am - March 5, 2012

  55. Rattlesnake, I definitely get your points regarding marijuana. And thanks regarding your comments. I enjoy reading your arguments, even when I disagree. For the record, I do admit to sometimes using some underhanded tactic, but try my best to eliminate it, because it is wrong and counterproductive. When I read an argument in opposition to my view that’s well reasoned, and doesn’t rely on any underhanded tactic, I can appreciate the argument, sometimes find myself more in agreement with the opposing than I otherwise would be, and on some occasions, have even changed my view.

    Comment by Pat — March 5, 2012 @ 6:32 am - March 5, 2012

  56. Okay, Seane-Anna. I’ll look forward to your response.

    Comment by Pat — March 5, 2012 @ 6:33 am - March 5, 2012

  57. I take issue with the characterization of this being an issue of someones “private life,” it is not, it is someones “personal life.” There is a difference, and if a gay couple goes out to dinner, then tells you about it, it is hardly private. Their sex life is private, at least we all hope they didn’t go out to a restaurant and have sex there. But this isn’t just about sex. This is about relationships, and the desire of gay people to freely express their love in public. Some wish to prevent that, like those that wish to reinstate DADT. Some think that witnessing, or aknowledging gays, is pushing it on them. It does not seem those posting here would agree, though there are some that do. So the “dont’t preach, don’t push” comments have little meaning without some context or explanation, as some here have provided.

    As far as ‘hate’ goes… Only the person making the comments knows from where their opinion comes from. It is possible, however, to be hateful without intending to be so. When it comes to gay marriage, comparing it to pedophilia, or bestiality, IS hateful. Neither children, or animals can consent, or enter into legal agreements. That makes for a for an argument that has no basis, and shows either someones ignorance, or for some, their hate.

    Comment by Jason — March 5, 2012 @ 3:20 pm - March 5, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.