Gay Patriot Header Image

But, Nancy, you didn’t hold a vote on DOMA repeal when you were Speaker (& Democrats Held Majority in the House)

On Facebook, super-sweet left-wing blogress Pam Spaulding links this article from the Washington Blade, Pelosi vows to drop DOMA defense in Democratic House:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) vowed to drop congressional defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in court if Democrats retake control of the House in November.

Um, Nancy, please do tell me why you don’t bring up DOMA repeal when you were Speaker and had a 76-vote (256 Democrats to 178 Republicans) majority in the House.  We wouldn’t have to worry about litigating this issue if Congress had repealed the legislation.

RELATED: When they had a majority, House Democrats never voted on repealing DOMA, yet now they’re campaigning on Obama’s support of same-sex marriage

Share

119 Comments

  1. I was thinking the SAME THING when I saw the post on PHB.

    Comment by Neptune — June 7, 2012 @ 2:11 pm - June 7, 2012

  2. super-sweet left-wing blogress Pam Spaulding

    Really? The same one who slags Republicans and conservatives as Nazis as she imagines, VERY wrongly, that racists aren’t Democrats and don’t vote for Obama – that Pam Spaulding? :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 7, 2012 @ 2:25 pm - June 7, 2012

  3. Another sure sign that Democrats know they are going to be thumped and dumped in November. Promise away Botox queen, because you have no fear of having to deliver.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 7, 2012 @ 3:09 pm - June 7, 2012

  4. In the interest of “bipartisanship” and the “new civil tone,” I refuse to comment on this issue until Levi, Amy and Vince proffer their wise opinions first.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — June 7, 2012 @ 4:00 pm - June 7, 2012

  5. So, another story about “Democrats aren’t perfect on LGBT rights, therefore we should… vote Republican? I guess?”. Not sure what else there is to say, I think everything that can be said about this story already has been said at least ten times because it’s the exact same story Dan posts at least once a month.

    Comment by Serenity — June 7, 2012 @ 4:48 pm - June 7, 2012

  6. 5.So, another story about “Democrats aren’t perfect on LGBT rights, therefore we should… vote Republican? I guess?”.

    Comment by Serenity — June 7, 2012 @ 4:48 pm – June 7, 2012

    Oh, that’s easy, Stupidity.

    All you need to say is that the rules are different and that Obama Party members can do what you would shriek was “homophobic” if Republicans did it.

    When people realize that bigots like you scream “homophobe” for the same reason that bigots like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton scream “racist”, both epithets lose their effect, and you are seen clearly as whiny, spoiled brats.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 7, 2012 @ 4:57 pm - June 7, 2012

  7. another story about “Democrats aren’t perfect on *are hypocrites on* LGBT rights, therefore we should… vote Republican?*use our brains more and try to be well-rounded human beings who vote on a balance of gay and other issues, on most of which, today’s Democrats happen to be pretty darn bad*

    FIFY

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 7, 2012 @ 5:57 pm - June 7, 2012

  8. If you’re that bored, Pomposity, you could always go away and take up a hobby. May I suggest crochet?

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — June 7, 2012 @ 8:53 pm - June 7, 2012

  9. @ILoveCapitalism: So by ‘fixing’ my post, we’re back to where we started, avoiding the elephant in room, which is a very appropriate analogy since it’s a two-party system in the United States. The Democrats are not perfect, but there have been modest gains on LGBT rights under Obama, most of which was due to the Democrats with the help of a few Republicans crossing party lines.

    Saying the Democrats are hypocrites on LGBT rights because of what they didn’t do while in power to do is like saying the Republicans are hypocrites on government spending because of all the cuts they didn’t make while in power. In other words, totally accurate, but it’s not going to change anyone’s mind because look at the alternative. I mean, just look at them.

    Of course there is the argument that voting strictly on party lines is getting a worse idea for LGBT rights these days precisely because of those Republicans helping with them, and if you have a choice between two pro-gay candidates, then good for you (notably I’ve pretty much a choice of three pro-gay candidates next election, lucky me). But most of the time, you don’t, and if LGBT rights are important, the party does effectively become a factor.

    The other factor of voting on different issues is also a powerful one, and one that I’ve really no argument against, or at least none I’m going to bother making here. LGBT rights are a factor to be considered though. Others can override it, and I’ve not that much problem if you vote based on those. What gets to me though is supporting an anti-gay candidate based on other issues, then pretending the candidate is perfectly fine on LGBT rights and their opponent is worse, when the opposite is plainly true, simply to try and keep up the façade of being a crusader for the LGBT community. That’s just dishonest.

    @Bastiat Fan: Even the best hobbies get boring sometimes. We seem to be in a really bad season here right now, I’m hoping things will pick up soon.

    Comment by Serenity — June 7, 2012 @ 9:33 pm - June 7, 2012

  10. LGBT rights aren’t important. INDIVIDUAL rights are.

    Comment by AZ Mo in NYC — June 7, 2012 @ 11:46 pm - June 7, 2012

  11. @AZ Mo in NYC: LGBT rights are human rights, it’s all ultimately part of the same long battle. However, the battle is one that is fought in parts, with individual battles for each disadvantaged group. This is not a case of losing focus, it’s a case of moving towards the same end from different sides.

    Comment by Serenity — June 8, 2012 @ 1:36 am - June 8, 2012

  12. #9: “Saying the Democrats are hypocrites on LGBT rights because of what they didn’t do while in power to do is like saying the Republicans are hypocrites on government spending because of all the cuts they didn’t make while in power. In other words, totally accurate, but it’s not going to change anyone’s mind because look at the alternative. I mean, just look at them.”

    Serenity,

    The difference is that conservatives have mobilized and taken action to oust GOP dinosaurs whose actions have not been consistent with conservative ideals such as smaller/limited government, lower taxes, and lower government spending. In 2010, GOP establishment RINOs faced the prospect of a primary challenge for the first time in their careers, and many of them lost. Even John McCain had to overcome a primary challenge to run for the Senate seat he had occupied for four previous terms. The Tea Party backed and elected dozens of first-time politicians to Congress and gave many entrenched GOP politicians the boot because their actions were not consistent with the conservative principles they claimed to believe in.

    In contrast, when it comes to “LGBT issues,” Democrats have done nothing but support the same candidates over and over again, falling for the same promises, platitudes, and pats on the head year after year, while condemning their opponents as homophobes and bigots. If liberals had any integrity, they would pursue the ALTERNATIVE of launching primary challenges against the politicians who have done nothing but lie to them, but they don’t have any integrity. Nor do they have the capability (or fortitude) of mobilizing the grassroots effort it would require to take such action like conservatives have. And the proof of that is revealed by your comment, specifically your understanding that the only (unacceptable) “alternative” would be for gay leftists to vote for GOP candidates (“I mean, just look at them.”) In short, it DIDN’T EVEN OCCUR TO YOU that challenging dishonest, hypocritical politicians in the Democratic Party is an alternative to continuing to support them.

    But this is not a surprise. As I said, recognizing such an alternative (not to mention actually pursuing it) would require integrity and since you’re a liberal, you have none.

    Comment by Sean A — June 8, 2012 @ 2:38 am - June 8, 2012

  13. #11: “@AZ Mo in NYC: LGBT rights are human rights, it’s all ultimately part of the same long battle. However, the battle is one that is fought in parts, with individual battles for each disadvantaged group. This is not a case of losing focus, it’s a case of moving towards the same end from different sides.”

    The fu*k it is “part of the same long battle,” Imbecility. For leftists like you, it’s about inventing special “rights” and privileges for the various grievance-mongers who support the Democratic Party, typically in violation of the rights of other groups that liberals despise. Case in point, the Obama Administration’s crusade to force Catholic institutions to provide/subsidize contraception coverage.

    Please take your arrogant, lofty blathering about “human rights” and CRAM IT.

    Comment by Sean A — June 8, 2012 @ 2:50 am - June 8, 2012

  14. Sean A said, “For leftists like you, it’s about inventing special “rights” and privileges for the various grievance-mongers who support the Democratic Party, typically in violation of the rights of other groups that liberals despise. Case in point, the Obama Administration’s crusade to force Catholic institutions to provide/subsidize contraception coverage.”

    That’s a typical example of those who whine endlessly about the violation of their freedom and right to trample over those who don’t believe and behave as they dictate. And then if those being trampled over voice objection, they are characterized as “grievance-mongers” seeking “special “rights” and privileges.”

    And, speaking of special rights, yes, Catholic institutions should be forced to cover contraception, just like other institutions. It’s mind boggling to realize that the primary qualification for receiving special rights is having superstitious beliefs.

    Comment by Richard R — June 8, 2012 @ 9:12 am - June 8, 2012

  15. LGBT rights are human rights

    Oh.

    Did someone say the LGBT “community” is not human?

    What makes LGBT rights different from pedophile rights if “being human” is the ultimate decider?

    Why should there be any discussion of right or wrong if being human gives you superiority to any “right” you espouse? Let’s hear it for infanticide, cannibalism, sadism, polygamy, bigamy, extortion, mutilation, all manner or social pathologies, deviancy, and whatever.

    Oh? Did you say I am comparing LGBT with pedophilia? Nope! I am only looking into all the various rights demanded by humans which are, by Serenity’s formula automatically “human rights.”

    Silly, Heliotrope! Serenity is saying that “consensual” LGBT rights are human rights.

    Oh.

    So whatever two willing parties or a group consents to is a human right? Like radical Islamists stoning gays and women? Like that?

    Maybe somebody needs to think deeper than a saucer on this issue.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 8, 2012 @ 10:03 am - June 8, 2012

  16. Why should there be any discussion of right or wrong if being human gives you superiority to any “right” you espouse? Let’s hear it for infanticide, cannibalism, sadism, polygamy, bigamy, extortion, mutilation, all manner or social pathologies, deviancy, and whatever.

    LAME really really LAME

    If two adults, agree to a consentual relationship, that creates no harm to each other, or to any other person or persons, then what is the problem.

    heliotrope, really. seems like you be the one with the shallow saucer.

    trying to cast homosexuality into your list of deviancy is quite tiresome. most of your deviant, social pathology is much more common and much more evident in the heterosexual branch of HUMANS

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 10:27 am - June 8, 2012

  17. And yes, Pelosi and the DEMS failed. FAILED to act on DOMA at a time when they should have . . . guess some more folk evolved and now feel safer to make public statements of support.

    But BDB, I think there were folk pushing for DOMA repeal and DADT repeal, but don’t remember a lot of R’s behind those names.

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 10:30 am - June 8, 2012

  18. If two adults, agree to a consentual relationship, that creates no harm to each other, or to any other person or persons, then what is the problem.

    Ah, but you see, rusty, you have whined and cried that no one else should be allowed to decide if anyone else’s relationship is good, bad, or harmful, because that is bigotry.

    And you’ve also stated that you and your fellow bigots like Richard Rush should have absolute veto power over anything that offends you, such as public expression of religious beliefs.

    What Heliotrope is doing is neatly backing you into a corner and demonstrating that all your caterwauling about “rights” is nothing more than selfish and narcissistic hypocrisy, a smokescreen for you demanding the ability to compel others to do whatever you want and pay your bills for you at gunpoint.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2012 @ 10:42 am - June 8, 2012

  19. whatevs NDT

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 10:45 am - June 8, 2012

  20. Furthermore, rusty, I’ve already demonstrated using scientific evidence that gay-sex relationships are quite harmful, especially to minorities, children, and teens.

    So why should society subsidize and encourage them?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2012 @ 10:46 am - June 8, 2012

  21. omg-d NDT you geenious! I am in awe of your discovery. please get this published, quickly now.

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 10:49 am - June 8, 2012

  22. In fact NDT, since there are gay and lesbian folk here at GP that have been in long term relationships and even some, that I have become aware of, even have children, and have even headed some off into the big world,

    I am wondering if you would send them your scientific fact of this harm. And you can also pass on your judgement that they aren’t worthy of society’s subsidies.

    Maybe you could work out some sort of personal statement without hiding behind your GP moniker. just to add that little human side.

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 10:54 am - June 8, 2012

  23. Heliotrope, if you’re unable to discern the difference between consensual adult same-sex relationships, which harm no one, and pedophilia/infanticide/cannibalism/extortion, which harm many, then you are woefully unqualified to be discussing the subject. But, of course, you and many others are not unable, you’re just unwilling because there are no legitimate arguments against homosexuality, and thus you have little choice except to exploit the commonly used deception of changing the subject and establishing false equivalencies. And lots of people are willing to fall for it because they need something to cling to for justifying their bigotry.

    Comment by Richard R — June 8, 2012 @ 11:03 am - June 8, 2012

  24. In fact NDT, since there are gay and lesbian folk here at GP that have been in long term relationships and even some, that I have become aware of, even have children, and have even headed some off into the big world,

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 10:54 am – June 8, 2012

    Hilarious, rusty.

    You want to invoke the morality of other people on GayPatriot, when you and your bigot friend Richard Rush call said morality and religious faith “superstitious beliefs”.

    You want to call other people on GayPatriot examples of typical gays and lesbians, when you and your bigot friend Joe Jervis, endorsed and supported by GLAAD and the leadership of the gay and lesbian community, call them “traitors”, “quislings”, and “Uncle Toms” suffering from “Stockholm syndrome”.

    You whine about giving other people on GayPatriot respect when you and your bigot friends like Dan Savage are wishing them dragged behind pickup trucks and dead.

    You want to use other people on GayPatriot raising children as an example when you and your bigot friends hope their children die of SIDS.

    And you whine about treating other people on GayPatriot with decency when you and your fellow bigots like Evan Hurst and Wayne Besen post this about them.

    I love it when vicious, violent, abusive types like you, rusty, start screaming and crying about “civility”. It just proves that you are nothing more than the grossest of hypocrites when you whine and complain about your “rights”, as freely as you violate what you designate as “rights” for others.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2012 @ 11:15 am - June 8, 2012

  25. Richard R,

    I have to disagree with you. heliotrope, as having demonstrated in the past, is very qualified in making legitimate arguments and produces great fodder for a great mind munch. heliotrope certainly has produced many a great nosh, food for thought and reflection.

    I guessing he needs to refresh himself on his recipe, review his prep and revise his presentation. But Richard, heliotrope does serve up a fine dish most of the time.

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 11:15 am - June 8, 2012

  26. So NDT, you can probably put together, say a 2 – 3 minute video, longer if you like, review and edit if necessary and then post.

    Would love to see you, without hiding behind your moniker / GP tag of NDT,
    be able to present your evidence of science that Gay and Lesbian Folk are evil and must be destroyed diatribe. Or in your words, are not worthy of society’s blessings.

    Please direct them to the folk here and out in the world of conservative queers who believe in gay marriage, gay adoption and even gay sex.

    Can hardly wait, for with your tech skills and time, it will certainly be amazing.

    There is the challenge NDT. A video post of you, you can reduce the lighting if need be, but a post of you denouncing that GAYS and LESBIANS (gay-sex folk) are harmful to children.

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 11:21 am - June 8, 2012

  27. Heliotrope, if you’re unable to discern the difference between consensual adult same-sex relationships, which harm no one

    Comment by Richard R — June 8, 2012 @ 11:03 am – June 8, 2012

    Actually, Richard Rush, as I’ve shown, they harm many people, especially children, teenagers, and minorities.

    You and yours have done nothing for the past thirty-plus years but sicken, maim, and kill millions of people and run up billions of dollars in health care costs.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2012 @ 11:23 am - June 8, 2012

  28. Rusty, my comment #23 was only intended as a response to heliotrope’s comment #15.

    Comment by Richard R — June 8, 2012 @ 11:30 am - June 8, 2012

  29. Would love to see you, without hiding behind your moniker / GP tag of NDT, be able to present your evidence of science that Gay and Lesbian Folk are evil and must be destroyed diatribe.

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 11:21 am – June 8, 2012

    And there we see the desperate rusty resort to lies.

    This is what I stated:

    20.Furthermore, rusty, I’ve already demonstrated using scientific evidence that gay-sex relationships are quite harmful, especially to minorities, children, and teens.

    So why should society subsidize and encourage them?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2012 @ 10:46 am – June 8, 2012

    Nowhere do I say anything in there about “Gay and Lesbian Folk are evil and must be destroyed”.

    That is rusty’s desperate lie, and it is because rusty refuses to deal with the evidence presented. Calling people a Nazi and a homophobe is rusty’s way of shutting down debate.

    Why? Because rusty is a coward. He doesn’t have the balls to state that barebackers and bigots like Richard Rush, Joe Jervis, Dan Savage, Evan Hurst, and Wayne Besen are wrong and that their behaviors are destructive. Instead he cowers and tries to blame other people, just like he and his fellow pigs were screaming that it was Republicans’ fault that he and his couldn’t stop barebacking and using crystal.

    Please direct them to the folk here and out in the world of conservative queers who believe in gay marriage, gay adoption and even gay sex.

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 11:21 am – June 8, 2012

    LOL. The little coward and bigot tries to hide behind the people he and his fellow bigots call traitors, kapos, quislings, and Uncle Toms, and tells to kill themselves.

    Nice try, rusty, but if you really cared about conservative gays, you might have said something while your bigot Dan Savage was calling for them to be murdered, your bigot Richard Rush was calling them superstitious fools, and your bigot Joe Jervis was comparing them to Nazis.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2012 @ 11:30 am - June 8, 2012

  30. 28.Rusty, my comment #23 was only intended as a response to heliotrope’s comment #15.

    Comment by Richard R — June 8, 2012 @ 11:30 am – June 8, 2012

    LOL. Does anyone else want to see the lying bigot Richard Rush say that Christians are all idiots and that being gay and Christian means you need to “grow up”?

    The problem here, rusty, is that Richard Rush is a lying bigot. Moreover, Richard Rush is the worst kind of bigot, in that he and his fellow bigots like Evan Hurst want to use the government to punish and prosecute religious belief.

    Why do you support that, rusty? Why not tell your religious friends that you claim to have about how you support bigot gays like Richard Rush?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2012 @ 11:34 am - June 8, 2012

  31. Richard, THANKS. I did like to point out heliotrope’s marvelous contribution here at GP.

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 11:43 am - June 8, 2012

  32. ND30, I’m hurt that you didn’t include me in your growing list of barebackers. You’ve called me one on more than one occasion (so it must be true). How quickly the mind forgets. It’s almost like you’re suggesting I practice safe sex. Can you please set the record straight and continue your assertion that I’m a barebacking whore? Or, I’m going to have to start believing that you think I use condoms (or, gasp, don’t have sex at all). The people on here who are sticklers for consistency will appreciate it, I’m sure.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — June 8, 2012 @ 11:44 am - June 8, 2012

  33. Sorry, you be right NDT,

    ‘Nowhere do I(NDT) say anything in there about “Gay and Lesbian Folk are evil and must be destroyed”.

    But where did I use NAZI. HMMM
    and can’t find me using the term homophobe in this thread.

    Maybe some other folk posted it somewhere online in the big internet world, but, like you do so often, NDT, you try to attribute it to

    mean mean mean lil’ ol’ me. and others.

    But let’s get back to that little challenge where you get in front of a camera, make a short video proclaiming your scientific facts that

    I, NDT, already demonstrated using scientific evidence that gay-sex relationships are quite harmful, especially to minorities, children, and teens.

    Still waiting NDT. Still Waiting. tap tap tap

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 11:50 am - June 8, 2012

  34. Oh, NDT, most of that scientific evidence kinda leaves the women folk in the world of the homo out in the cold. Not a lot of NDT links to lesbians and their gay-sex.

    But I would like to offer this video youtube link as a possible template. This is a great!

    But I would expect you to don a suit NDT. a t-shirt maybe, will leave it up to you

    but take a look at the video. it’s only 3 minutes

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 12:00 pm - June 8, 2012

  35. Omg-d, it just hit me. You can Youtube your scientific based rant. Then we can share it with so many more.
    That way you won’t even have to worry about publication. who reads those publications anyway?

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 12:02 pm - June 8, 2012

  36. Wow, here’s an oldie but a goodie. Libel includes accusing someone of molesting children. Which you did, Lovely Rita, meter maid.

    And you called me “sick!” I’m sure you didn’t mean it as a complement! Although, maybe I misinterpreted.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — June 8, 2012 @ 12:09 pm - June 8, 2012

  37. Just something to chew along with your raw steel cut oats this morning, DAN!

    777777777777777777777777777777

    Comment by Cinesnatch — June 8, 2012 @ 12:24 pm - June 8, 2012

  38. But let’s get back to that little challenge where you get in front of a camera, make a short video proclaiming your scientific facts that

    I, NDT, already demonstrated using scientific evidence that gay-sex relationships are quite harmful, especially to minorities, children, and teens.

    Still waiting NDT. Still Waiting. tap tap tap

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 11:50 am – June 8, 2012

    LOL, why?

    What should make me think that you’ll listen then, when it’s clear you don’t care about the facts now?

    That way you won’t even have to worry about publication. who reads those publications anyway?

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 12:02 pm – June 8, 2012

    Meanwhile, why should I make it easy for you and yours to try to get me killed, like you’re doing to other conservative bloggers?

    I mean, this is nothing new; thirty-plus years ago, you and yours were spitting on and threatening people like Randy Shilts who were correctly pointing out that it was your behavior that was spreading HIV, not those eeeeevil Republicans, conservatives, Christians, and whoever else you needed to blame. And I must say that you’ve done an amazing job of making sure that your welfare cash cow of new HIV infections continues unabated; after all, the US having an HIV rate twice that of sub-Saharan Africa took some serious work on the part of “activists” like yourself. Normal people would have realized by now that promiscuous and irresponsible choices by LGBT people is what spreads HIV, but you’ve successfully managed to convince the vast majority of LGBT that drug use and bareback sex are a-OK and that the real menace causing HIV spread is little old ladies who go to church and vote Republican.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2012 @ 1:17 pm - June 8, 2012

  39. Hmmm, thirty years ago rusty was in elementary school.

    Rusty, were you a barebacking whore already before you hit your teens?

    Maybe if regan actually acknowledged AIDS, rusty and I may have reconsidered our barebacking whorish ways during recess, as you see it anyway, raw steel oat-eating Dan. But, hey, we’re all burn with free will, common sense and self-respect. Right?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — June 8, 2012 @ 1:31 pm - June 8, 2012

  40. I just thought it should be noted that just because a person is highly intelligent doesn’t necessarily mean they are not totally batshit insane.

    Comment by Richard R — June 8, 2012 @ 1:37 pm - June 8, 2012

  41. JFTR, Dan. Rusty and I volunteered together at our house of Portland back in the 90′s. But I have only made a thimble-full of contributions to the community compared to rusty. And there are many others who have gone on record attesting to this, as well as his character.

    You might want to disclose your philanthropic record and think twice before placing the word “activist” in “quotations.”

    Also, rusty didn’t teach me bareback sex and drug-use were “okay.”. You were actually the one who said I did (minus the drug use; can’t remember, must check the ND30 LOL–library of links), so it must be true.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — June 8, 2012 @ 1:43 pm - June 8, 2012

  42. Actually CS, I was 19, thirty years ago.

    But back to your video proclamation NDT.

    TAP TAP TAP. Sound Check!

    coming soon. NDT will produce and release his video smackdown that the Gheys are out to harm minorities, children and teens.

    NDT >> @20 ‘Furthermore, rusty, I’ve already demonstrated using scientific evidence that gay-sex relationships are quite harmful, especially to minorities, children, and teens.

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 1:44 pm - June 8, 2012

  43. #36: “Libel includes accusing someone of molesting children. Which you did, Lovely Rita, meter maid.”

    What an interesting complaint coming from the same person who had this to say about the relevance of the 50-year-old story of Romney giving a classmate an unwanted haircut:

    “So is the psychological makeup, especially in light of Romney’s recent response. 
Or, maybe if you found out someone who molested a child in his youth, but got softened by the institution of marriage, was fit enough to watch your children.
” Comment by Cinesnatch — May 12, 2012 @ 9:29 pm – May 12, 2012

    When I asked the huge, steaming pile of FAIL known as Cinesnatch to explain how the psychological makeup of a teenage male who holds down a male classmate and cuts his hair is analogous to the psychological makeup of a young male who sexually molests a child, she predictably vanished, unable to defend such an ignorant and inflammatory comparison.

    Comment by Sean A — June 8, 2012 @ 1:59 pm - June 8, 2012

  44. Hmmm, thirty years ago rusty was in elementary school.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — June 8, 2012 @ 1:31 pm – June 8, 2012

    Followed by:

    JFTR, Dan. Rusty and I volunteered together at our house of Portland back in the 90′s.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — June 8, 2012 @ 1:43 pm – June 8, 2012

    But then:

    Actually CS, I was 19, thirty years ago.

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 1:44 pm – June 8, 2012

    So let’s see; they supposedly worked closely with each other, knew each other well, can comment at length on each other’s “contributions to the community” — but are decades off on each other’s age.

    LOL.

    But back to your video proclamation NDT.

    TAP TAP TAP. Sound Check!

    coming soon. NDT will produce and release his video smackdown that the Gheys are out to harm minorities, children and teens.

    NDT >> @20 ‘Furthermore, rusty, I’ve already demonstrated using scientific evidence that gay-sex relationships are quite harmful, especially to minorities, children, and teens.

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 1:44 pm – June 8, 2012

    And as I said before, rusty, to do so would be a waste of effort and a great opportunity to have my family threatened and perhaps killed.

    I am aware of the game. The more children you sicken, the more you can shove out in the front of the camera and blame Republicans and Christians — and the more welfare money you can demand from the government.

    There is literally zero incentive for you to do anything about HIV/AIDS. Zero. You need sick, disabled, and dead children to justify your existence, to keep getting paid, and to use to carry out your revenge fantasies against Christians, conservatives, and Republicans. This is how you and your fellow sick Obama supporters like Dan Savage can scream and cry about teen suicide one minute and then encourage Christian and conservative teens to kill themselves the next. Having the right people sicken and die is what pays the bills and satisfies your revenge fantasies.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2012 @ 2:29 pm - June 8, 2012

  45. well we certainly don’t want you or your family to be harmed. NDT.

    Maybe you would have to don some sort of mask, and use some sort of voice modulator.

    Sure seems you anonymity provided with you online moniker certainly give you much comfort and yet a sense of privilege to pop off at will.

    But then again, still would be quite the ‘Man Up’ action to make that commentary with hiding in the shadows.

    Remember you have an important mission to prove and demonstrate using scientific evidence that gay-sex relationships are quite harmful, especially to minorities, children, and teens.

    It is up to you wheteher you choose to accept.

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 2:45 pm - June 8, 2012

  46. This site is full of nuts!!
    Why don’t you ever criticize the republicans for trying to enforce DOMA, reinstate DADT and amend the constitution to permanently deny our rights, instead of criticizing people who at least pay some lip service to our gay causes?
    If you have to chose from two evils, you people pick the worst one.
    Would you ever hope that Rommey would speak up for gay marriage, never, ever!!!!
    So you crazy nuts, are going to vote for Rommey, because……Obama……something that makes sense only in your twisted deranged minds.

    Comment by George — June 8, 2012 @ 2:47 pm - June 8, 2012

  47. Both are pretty insidious, Sean A, (and yes i would agree with you that one is much worse than the other, no question), but if you choose to credit nd30′s libel by going out of your way to attack the object of his libel instead, by all (any) means (necessary).

    Just a reminder, The point you referenced concerned “the softening effect of marriage,” but I can see how your myopic disdain for me may have clouded your vision. Happy PRIDE, Sean A. Be well. And stay cool. It’s gonna be a hot summer.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — June 8, 2012 @ 2:55 pm - June 8, 2012

  48. CS and I volunteered at Our House, a hospice program that was developed by the Sisters of Providence in Portland Oregon. The facility was provided by the Sisters of Providence, had a small paid staff of nurses, but was staffed by volunteers. It was a 24/7 facility.

    Our House was created after a nurse and a local philanthropist created a safe space in the late 80′s for folk who were living on the streets and in flop houses/run-down hotels in the Old Town Portland. Many of these folk were ostracized by familiy and had no resources and were often discovered living / dying due to HIV infection. This was during the period of ARC. . .AIDS Related Condition or pre-AIDS diagnosis. I was also part of this early program working with the Sisters of Providence.

    In 1990 Juniper House morphed into Our House.

    I restarted working with Our House in 1994 and continued until 2000, having taking a break to live in DC and then Seattle. (Between 1988 and 2004, while in Seattle I became a Red Cross HIV educator and worked in the Public Market public housing program providing support to low-income folk afected with HIV.)

    Vince and I both were volunteers at the hospice, but as I recall, haven’t ever met formally. I spent time at the hospice on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings.

    That was close to 20 years ago. so forgive me if my memory doesn’t allow me to get all the details out.

    http://www.ourhouseofportland.org/about/history/

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 3:01 pm - June 8, 2012

  49. Sorry about getting your age incorrect, rusty. I mistakenly thought we were the same age. Thanks for sharing the background. I volunteered on sunday afternoons (when i lived in forest grove and took the one-hour bus ride with transfer to get there; and then changed to weekdays when i moved into the city), and would see you as you were finishing up. I was very shy at the time (well for the most part), and there were always a lot of people milling about, whether they were residents, nurses, personal care volunteers, meal volunteers, vendors, etc.

    Sorry about putting you in a position like that, but you did share info that I had either forgotten or never knew.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — June 8, 2012 @ 3:17 pm - June 8, 2012

  50. I volunteered from 1995 until 1997. Marched in my first pride in 1996 (with Phoenix rising, where I also volunteered on their info line) in 1996.

    Happy PRIDE to BDB, all the Angeleno GP’s, and everyone else. Wish me luck with finding parking when I get back home tonight.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — June 8, 2012 @ 3:21 pm - June 8, 2012

  51. CS and I volunteered at Our House, a hospice program that was developed by the Sisters of Providence in Portland Oregon.

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 3:01 pm – June 8, 2012

    Oh, you mean these Sisters of Providence?

    The Sisters of Providence of Holyoke, Massachusetts, are a congregation of Roman Catholic religious sisters.

    How ironic. Anti-Catholic bigots like Richard Rush, Dan Savage, Joe Jervis and their ilk were calling Catholics superstitious idiots, attacking their services, vandalizing their churches, and taking to the media to call them hatemongering homophobic people who should be punished by the governmen — while simultaneously dumping their thousands of victims on the Catholics’ doorsteps.

    I am always amazed at the level of denial required to be a LGBT activist like you, rusty. Somehow, you and your bigot friends like Richard Rush, Joe Jervis, and Dan Savage can find the energy to scream at little old ladies going to church, accuse them of causing teenagers to kill themselves, and demand that the law be changed to punish them and their religious beliefs….but utterly ignore HIV-positive people who have promiscuous bareback sex with these same teens and children, and then dump them on those little old ladies’ churches.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2012 @ 3:37 pm - June 8, 2012

  52. wicked, you just be so wicked NDT

    picking on mean mean mean lil’ ol’ me

    The Sisters were always so dear to me.

    One Sister, Sister Nancy at the Hospice had a favorite quote

    Just because you sick and dying and possibly angy,
    Doesn’t give anyone the right to be an a$$hole.

    smooches NDT
    http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l569/rusty98119/smooch.jpg

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 3:48 pm - June 8, 2012

  53. Richard R @ #23:

    Heliotrope, if you’re unable to discern the difference between consensual adult same-sex relationships, which harm no one, and pedophilia/infanticide/cannibalism/extortion, which harm many, then you are woefully unqualified to be discussing the subject.

    Heliotrope @ #15:

    Oh? Did you say I am comparing LGBT with pedophilia? Nope! I am only looking into all the various rights demanded by humans which are, by Serenity’s formula automatically “human rights.”

    Richard R @ #23:

    But, of course, you and many others are not unable, you’re just unwilling because there are no legitimate arguments against homosexuality, and thus you have little choice except to exploit the commonly used deception of changing the subject and establishing false equivalencies.

    Heliotrope @ #15:

    Silly, Heliotrope! Serenity is saying that “consensual” LGBT rights are human rights.

    Oh.

    So whatever two willing parties or a group consents to is a human right? Like radical Islamists stoning gays and women? Like that?

    Maybe somebody needs to think deeper than a saucer on this issue.

    Sorry, Richard R, but I believe I fully covered what you apparently either did not read or did not comprehend.

    Let us be more specific. You do not get “human rights” based on the choices you make as a human. That is where Serenity went off the rails. She declared @ #11:

    LGBT rights are human rights

    That is to say: If you are LGBT and claim a right you are claiming a human right.

    Huh? That is preposterous and inane. I wrote my comments to demonstrate it.

    But, clearly, you did not come close to understanding the point.

    So, Richard R, what makes anything a human in the LGBT world claim as a right any different from any claim another human in another “affinity group” claims as a right? Sure I went to the absurd. You got caught in that snare without even attempting to see yourself in the folly of demanding “rights.”

    The argument shifting was when Serenity declared LGBT rights as human rights as if the whole UN is going to hover over the LGBT world with its vast arms of protection like in Bosnia, Dafur, Somalia, Sudan, or the LGBT Christian society in Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and, soon, Egypt.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 8, 2012 @ 3:55 pm - June 8, 2012

  54. the history of the Sister of Providence in the NW

    We take our inspiration from Mother Emilie Gamelin, who founded the Sisters of Providence in 1843.

    Mother Emilie Gamelin

    Emilie Gamelin, a young widow of Montreal, founded the Sisters of Providence in 1843. Emilie was moved by the love of Christ to serve the many poor, hungry and sick people who lived around her. The people, who looked upon Emilie as “providence” for the needy, named her work “Providence.”

    Mother Joseph of the Sacred Heart

    In 1856, Mother Joseph of the Sacred Heart and four other sisters traveled to the Pacific Northwest, establishing schools, hospitals, orphanages, and other homes of care for those in need.

    In 2006, the Mother Joseph Province celebrated 150 years in the West.

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 3:57 pm - June 8, 2012

  55. The Sisters were always so dear to me.

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 3:48 pm – June 8, 2012

    Which speaks well for them, considering all the abuse you and your bigot friends like Richard Rush, Joe Jervis, and Dan Savage were heaping on them.

    One Sister, Sister Nancy at the Hospice had a favorite quote

    Just because you sick and dying and possibly angy,
    Doesn’t give anyone the right to be an a$$hole.

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 3:48 pm – June 8, 2012

    I think you missed the point of that quote, rusty.

    Because your definition of “anyone” seems to explicitly exclude you and your bigot friends like Richard Rush, Joe Jervis, and Dan Savage.

    Which makes it like the vast majority of things you post: it’s a nice quote, but since you clearly have no intention of following or enforcing it equally, it becomes rather irrelevant.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2012 @ 4:22 pm - June 8, 2012

  56. mean mean mean lil’ ol’ me

    sorry, NDT, but have never met Richard Joe or Dan. I have seen Dan at a Pride event prior to him speaking, I do read JMG and I am not sure if Richard R is Richard Rush, but we have never met either.

    in the kind words of another GP poster. . .have a blessed day and happy pride Dan

    smooches
    http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l569/rusty98119/smooch.jpg

    but you keep tossing that big o’ net of yours. big broad strokes

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 4:34 pm - June 8, 2012

  57. Rusty, sounds like a nice charity you worked for, and glad that you had a good experience with the Sisters of Providence. I especially love the quote by Sister Nancy.

    Comment by Pat — June 8, 2012 @ 4:35 pm - June 8, 2012

  58. THANKS Pat! :)

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 4:39 pm - June 8, 2012

  59. That’s a typical example of those who whine endlessly about the violation of their freedom and right to trample over those who don’t believe and behave as they dictate. And then if those being trampled over voice objection, they are characterized as “grievance-mongers” seeking “special “rights” and privileges.”

    And, speaking of special rights, yes, Catholic institutions should be forced to cover contraception, just like other institutions. It’s mind boggling to realize that the primary qualification for receiving special rights is having superstitious beliefs.

    What on Earth are you talking about? Not forcing the Catholic church to cover contraception is giving them “special rights”? That does not make any sense.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — June 8, 2012 @ 6:31 pm - June 8, 2012

  60. #46: “Both are pretty insidious, Sean A, (and yes i would agree with you that one is much worse than the other, no question),…”

    So, you admit that one is ‘much worse’ than the other but you nonetheless analogized them as equal with regard to Romney because his reputation (or anyone else’s for that matter) is inconsequential to you.

    “…but if you choose to credit nd30′s libel by going out of your way to attack the object of his libel instead, by all (any) means (necessary).”

    Completely unintelligible.

    “Just a reminder, The point you referenced concerned ‘the softening effect of marriage,’ but I can see how your myopic disdain for me may have clouded your vision.”

    Actually, given your admission that the two offenses you compared are NOT analogous, clearly it’s YOU whose vision was clouded by your myopic disdain for Romney.

    “Happy PRIDE, Sean A. Be well. And stay cool. It’s gonna be a hot summer.”

    Go fu*k yourself.

    Comment by Sean A — June 8, 2012 @ 6:56 pm - June 8, 2012

  61. Rusty @ #16:

    Why should there be any discussion of right or wrong if being human gives you superiority to any “right” you espouse?

    Exactly my point.

    Serenity declared LGBT rights to be human rights.

    Well, does that mean that pedophiles, who don’t get their “rights” granted are not human?

    This is not very deep.

    All rights are human rights (unless you are some gaia whacko) and all rights are either natural rights or transitory according to the culture.

    I am not trying to shift the argument. I am trying to keep the argument out of the silly transformation into some sort of universal truth and understanding. In that respect, take your LGBT “rights” to the Islamic world and tell them that they are out of touch with the basic understandings of universe.

    LGBT as humans have the exact same rights and due process of law that other humans have in the United States. If you want to carve out same sex marriage as a special right accorded to the LGBT world in the United States, have at it. But it is not a universal human right and to go there is to totally ignore reality.

    If you are going to argue any right as a human right, then where is the discussion of right and wrong based?

    Comment by heliotrope — June 8, 2012 @ 7:02 pm - June 8, 2012

  62. I will leave you with this heliotrope. . .you had commented before on is before

    It deserves a second viewing

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

    Thank you for your consideration.

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2012 @ 9:56 pm - June 8, 2012

  63. Kisses Sean A.

    Hugs too.

    Love how you roll.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — June 9, 2012 @ 12:19 am - June 9, 2012

  64. Do two things must be equal in order to be analogous?

    Just wondering.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — June 9, 2012 @ 12:20 am - June 9, 2012

  65. After consulting the dictionary, I learned that I actually understood the word after all. Analogous: comparable IN CERTAIN RESPECTS.

    As in, the mindset of one’s youth not being completely erased by the institution of marriage.

    I did not insinuate Romney was a child molester, only what he did to that kid was evil (a lesser evil, no doubt, but an evil none-the-less)

    You know, Sean-Anna, thank goodness you have the internet, or who knows what you would do with all of that pent-up anger demonstrated by your nasty tone.

    Much love.

    Kisses.

    Happy PRIDE!

    Comment by Cinesnatch — June 9, 2012 @ 2:24 am - June 9, 2012

  66. Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren is thrilled about President Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality, but she wants him and the Democratic Party to go even farther and push for a national law guaranteeing the right to same-sex marriage for all Americans.

    I guess you nuts are going to criticize her for something and expecting to convince us that republicans are better to our gay causes.

    You are a bunch of crazy biatches

    Comment by George — June 9, 2012 @ 2:32 am - June 9, 2012

  67. Hey, has anyone actually bothered to address why Granny Rictus McBotox never bothered to bring up repeal of DOMA while she was in control of the house?

    Anyone???

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — June 9, 2012 @ 8:49 am - June 9, 2012

  68. My Sharia Moor, I’ll address it. My guess is at the time, even though there was a 76 vote majority, there probably was still not enough Democrats to vote in favor of it. That at least 38 would not have favored repeal. Sure, she could have called a vote on it anyway. But political expedience probably go in the way. Further, we were waiting for a president to “evolve” on this issue, which was his way of saying he was waiting for three more years for the voters to evolve, and be more supportive of same sex marriage. Since we all seem to agree that this should have been voted on, perhaps the current speaker or the speaker after the elections can call for a vote.

    Comment by Pat — June 9, 2012 @ 9:01 am - June 9, 2012

  69. Heliotrope, I think the first person I heard who stated publicly that LGBT rights are human rights was Hillary Clinton. And if I recall correctly, it was said in the context of several nations, particularly non-secular Islamic nations, with poor records of human rights with respect to gay persons.

    I’m not disagreeing with what you are saying at all, with respect to the literal way you interpreted the statement. Pedophiles, in that respect, are afforded human rights. We simply cannot allow them to harm other persons (children) in their pursuit of happiness. This is not the case with two consenting adults of the same sex.

    Also, same sex marriage would not be a special right to LGBT persons. Heterosexual persons would be allowed to marry a person of the same sex if they so choose, just like gay persons today are allowed to marry persons of the opposite sex.

    Comment by Pat — June 9, 2012 @ 9:12 am - June 9, 2012

  70. http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l569/rusty98119/97946e6c.jpg

    Pat here is a great quote from Hillary

    Comment by rusty — June 9, 2012 @ 9:48 am - June 9, 2012

  71. #65: Cinesnatch, you poor pathetic thing. You looked up the definition of analogous and you STILL don’t get what it means or how it applies. But don’t feel bad. Dim-witted leftists have never been able to understand or apply them.

    As you know, the actual conduct Romney purportedly engaged in and the conduct that child molesters engage in are dramatically different. And while you assert that both are evil, you concede that the two are not equally or comparably evil. Consequently, they are NOT analogous. It is not enough that you consider them both evil, because that would mean that EVERYTHING evil, regardless of degree is analogous, which would be absurd and contrary to very purpose of analogies.

    Now beat it, you ignorant dum-dum.

    Comment by Sean A — June 9, 2012 @ 10:32 am - June 9, 2012

  72. The GOP gay trajectory

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/opinion/sunday/the-gops-gay-trajectory.xml

    Comment by rusty — June 9, 2012 @ 10:38 am - June 9, 2012

  73. Kisses Sean A.

    I’ve only skimmed this thread, can’t participate on the substance of it yet… but, to sidenote on the above quickly: You can’t pull it off, Cinesnatch. Just a word to the wise. To pull it off (like say rusty does), you have to mean it, in other words, you have to actually be a well-intentioned person.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 9, 2012 @ 11:55 am - June 9, 2012

  74. (contined) Go back to picketing online memorials, Cinesnatch. Or see if you can violate some fellow commentor’s confidence and/or privacy, somewhere. They better suit your real intent.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 9, 2012 @ 12:02 pm - June 9, 2012

  75. Touchy, touchy Sean A. I think they have something for that at your local pharmacy.

    English doesn’t appear to be your first language, either. Stick with your mother tongue.

    Muah.

    And, yes, ILC, I will engage you briefly to agree that Rusty is an upstanding man/commenter. /engagement

    Comment by Cinesnatch — June 9, 2012 @ 1:46 pm - June 9, 2012

  76. I guess you nuts are going to criticize her for something and expecting to convince us that republicans are better to our gay causes.

    You are a bunch of crazy biatches

    Comment by George — June 9, 2012 @ 2:32 am – June 9, 2012

    No, George, because you couldn’t understand the logic.

    That requires actually working, paying taxes, and having to deal with the consequences of what the screaming Communist Warren wants to do to punish any sort of gainful business or employment in this country, all of which are clearly outside your area of expertise.

    What Warren and her owner Barack Obama have demonstrated quite nicely is that people who have never worked a minute outside the faculty lounge or the bureaucrat’s cube haven’t a clue about the economy, business, or anything other than using taxpayer dollars to purchase votes and minority status to demand special privileges. And as a result, that’s the only people to whom they appeal.

    You fall squarely into that category. As do the vast and overwhelming numbers of LGBT people, who are lazy welfare addicts like yourself who don’t care about anything other than demanding others pay your bills for you and give you the money and respect you won’t lift a finger to earn.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 9, 2012 @ 2:52 pm - June 9, 2012

  77. So you crazy nuts, are going to vote for Rommey, because……Obama……something that makes sense only in your twisted deranged minds.

    Comment by George — June 8, 2012 @ 2:47 pm – June 8, 2012

    It’s actually very simple, George: because the screaming racist liar Obama wants to take everything I own from me at gunpoint and give it to lazy welfare cases like yourself who won’t work and demand that everyone else pay their bills for them because they’re a minority.

    You are the classic example of the aphorism that the government who takes from Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul. And that’s all you care about — whining and screaming how the government needs to pander to you based on your minority status.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 9, 2012 @ 3:00 pm - June 9, 2012

  78. “This is not the case with two consenting adults of the same sex.

    Also, same sex marriage would not be a special right to LGBT persons.”

    According to what logic marriage, an institution that predates christianity and predates any major religion, a rite that is present in today indigenous tribes of amazonia or remote lands has never been between people of the same sex? even when homosexuality was widely practiced (taking a leaf from gay propaganda here) such as ancient greece or the roman empire? The first body of law in history of human kind is the Hammurabi Code. No mention of same sex marriage. Alexander the great, a homosexual himself (still taking this from the gay propaganda) with a sort of steady male on male relationship never bothered to legalize it, in spite of being ‘the law’ himself. Among the greek gods, Zeus got involved with Ganimede, what better chance to introduce to ancient greeks a way to legalize their sexual behaviours.

    Gay marriage is not a human right. I’d like to marry my father so when he dies I do not have to pay inheritance taxes and also I can get his pension.

    Comment by susan — June 9, 2012 @ 3:46 pm - June 9, 2012

  79. Granny Rictus McBotox

    LOLOL.

    More bluntly, IMO it was a matter of keeping gay marriage as a wild or get-out-of-jail-free card for Obama’s second and last Presidential election. “Vote for me and I will do this.”

    If he was able to stay in for as long as his Party and the electorate would have him, as Prime Ministers in the British Commonwealth do, he might have had to play that card immediately – because to hold out the promise until the moment of desperation would have been too obvious.

    But because of the makeup of the US electoral system, he knows he gets only one more shot at this and unlike a Westminster PM who might for any one of a number of reasons be forced to an early election, he also knows exactly when that shot is coming. So he can save up all his wild cards for that big throw-down and not have to worry about the crap he has left in his hand afterwards.

    (Yes, I know the terms don’t have to be consecutive, but he would look so stupid bowing out at this late stage and hoping for a nonconsecutive second term down the road, I think we can ignore that option)

    Comment by perturbed — June 9, 2012 @ 7:07 pm - June 9, 2012

  80. Hey, Susan, when easily frightened people have no legitimate arguments against change, one of the things they fall back on is, “I need things to stay the way I perceive they’ve always been, because otherwise, my anxiety level will be unbearable.” It’s all about you, isn’t it? I dare not marry the the man I’ve been with for over thirty years because you (and others like you) just cannot bear the thought of it. Beyond your emotional problems, what tangible quantifiable negative impact would my marriage have on your life?

    And if you want to wax nostalgically about real traditional marriage, you should prepare yourself for arranged marriages, having no say in who you marry, women being the property of men, young teenage brides, and polygamy.

    Comment by Richard R — June 9, 2012 @ 8:09 pm - June 9, 2012

  81. Hey Richard, funny words coming from someone who can’t even answer a simple question.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 9, 2012 @ 8:39 pm - June 9, 2012

  82. Off topic, then again this entire thread is off topic, but if anything this blog site strongly gives support for the claim that one cannot be simultaneously; sane, gay and conservative. Regardless, if you actually support many Republican policy preferences, one simply cannot be sane, gay and conservative.

    I’ve only been aware of this site since the articles on Dan Savage were on here and in that period I’ve gone from believing it was possible to be both a Republican gay to doing a whole 180 and believing unless your insane, or self-loathing it is impossible.

    The same moderator, who went crazy that Dan Savage said there, was BS in the bible we as a society ignore both culturally and more importantly legally, a claim, which is 100% accurate. Says nothing about a commenter, who calls everyone who is left of him a bigot or racist, who states gays are vectors for HIV/AIDS and other STDs, accuses other commenters of engaging in promiscuous unsafe sex, condones violence and harassment of gays, and states that gays and lesbians are lazy, welfare addicts, who contribute nothing to society and steal other peoples money. The lies and says he didn’t actually say these things. There is no way such attitudes could possibly be condoned, these comments are hate speech. The silence and refusal to condemn these comments, especially in light of the fact that moderator asks for civility, either implies the moderator, whose duty it is to prevent such hate speech from spoiling the intellectual exchange of ideas, condones or is indifferent to such vile hate speech. Regardless, thank you Mr. Blatt for proving to me that one simply cannot be sane, gay and conservative. I’ll be sure to use this site as a example of such to any friends or associates who may still believe otherwise.

    Comment by JPerry2006 — June 9, 2012 @ 8:44 pm - June 9, 2012

  83. Wow, JPerry. Underwear chafing a bit?

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — June 9, 2012 @ 10:42 pm - June 9, 2012

  84. Actually, JPerry2006, the reason you are called a racist and a bigot is because, as I previously demonstrated, you ARE a racist and a bigot.

    And your whiny attempts to complain about “hate speech” are easily neutralized when one points out what you and your fellow liberal liars like Evan Hurst say about <a href="

    Dan Blatt is a loathsome piece of sh*t who will sell out other gay people in order to curry the favor of straight Republicans who pat him on the head every now but then call him a c*ck-sucking heels-in-the-air fudge-packed girlie-boy behind his back (even though only the girlie-boy part is actually true). Dan says all this stuff because the probability that any gay man would ever give enough of a sh!t about Dan to visit him in a hospital, much less to have a relationship with him, is remote — as remote as the possibility that Dan will ever have sex with anyone other than a blind leper in a darkened truck stop in rural Alabama, and even then the leper will have to down a fifth of Jack Daniel’s before he can bring himself to do it. F*ck you, Dan, you wretched, illiterate prick.

    Add to that how you and your fellow Dan Savage liberal bigots tell people here to kill themselves, and your screams and cries for “civility” are exposed as nothing more than the rankest hypocrisy.

    Oh, and before you start bleating that you can’t be held accountable for such statements?

    Choke on your own rules.

    The silence and refusal to condemn these comments, especially in light of the fact that moderator asks for civility, either implies the moderator, whose duty it is to prevent such hate speech from spoiling the intellectual exchange of ideas, condones or is indifferent to such vile hate speech.

    In short, since you haven’t condemned any of those statements by your bigot friends, you support and condone every single one of them.

    Your rules. Live up to them, liberal.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 10, 2012 @ 12:15 am - June 10, 2012

  85. And now, let’s keep this going.

    Remember JPerry2006′s rules:

    The silence and refusal to condemn these comments, especially in light of the fact that moderator asks for civility, either implies the moderator, whose duty it is to prevent such hate speech from spoiling the intellectual exchange of ideas, condones or is indifferent to such vile hate speech.

    Comment by JPerry2006 — June 9, 2012 @ 8:44 pm – June 9, 2012

    So JPerry2006 wants all Republicans dead and says all Republicans should be dragged behind pickup trucks and murdered.

    Why? Because he hasn’t condemned Dan Savage and Dan Savage’s statements, so he supports them.

    So JPerry believes in the rape and molestation of children.

    Why? Because he hasn’t condemned NAMBLA — or ILGA’s support and endorsement of NAMBLA for decades.

    So JPerry2006 supports and endorses calling for the children of conservatives to die of SIDS.

    Why? Because he hasn’t repudiated Joe Jervis’s blog and Joe Jervis himself for doing it.

    So JPerry2006 endorses and supports dressing children as sex slaves and taking them to a sex fair to show off in front of naked and masturbating adults and then saying that anyone who objects is homophobic.

    Why? Because he hasn’t repudiated people for doing it.

    I can keep this up for quite a while, JPerry2006. And the beauty of it is that you’re merely being forced to live under your own rules — so any objections that you have to it immediately expose your attacks on Dan as hypocritical.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 10, 2012 @ 12:28 am - June 10, 2012

  86. I can’t attest to anyone’s sanity, but my own. However, being a liberal, I’ve learned plenty from gay conservatives on this site. And, it isn’t easy, because a bleeding heart must confront things within his or her self, rather than stubbornly stand in denial, which is what a lot of liberals accuse conservatives of.

    I can’t say that I don’t agree with some of the stuff that commenters like Richard Bell and Sonic have to say, who, to my understanding, are not liberal. It’s much more challenging to read their comments verses say, someone like Levi or Serenity, whose opinions I tend to agree with more often than not. And, it’s challenging, because a lot of what Richard Bell and Sonic have to say makes sense and stands in conflict of what I believe.

    I don’t know everything. I don’t know much. I think most of you on here will agree. And it’s a struggle to reconcile that which I don’t know with what I believe.

    It isn’t easy to admit that.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — June 10, 2012 @ 1:48 am - June 10, 2012

  87. So as I read through, I can’t find anything to add that I haven’t said before. To wit:

    - NDT, you treat every leftist as though they support and endorse the worst things that have ever been said or done by any leftist. That explains why your targets go “Huh?” a lot. I can see why you do it: it’s how many leftists have long treated conservatives. You’re throwing their tactic back in the face. Still, it’s not a choice I would make. I think it creates too much confusion; that the tactic adds to “the fog of war” (in this war of ideas) unnecessarily.

    You also bring in articles to support your points, which is great and I love it.

    You have a valid point that, if government is supposed to be our Great Ruler in health matters and provide so-called “free” medical care and/or “insurance” (which is where leftists would take us – and something we don’t agree with), then why don’t leftists advocate restrictions on gay male sex – which, as currently practiced by many, adds to health care costs.

    - rusty: I personally don’t sense the nastiness in you, that I do in some others. And so I welcome your presence. Still, I more often see you shoving heliotrope’s and NDT’s valid points aside, than really answering them.

    “Would love to see you… present your evidence of science that Gay and Lesbian Folk are evil and must be destroyed” – NDT hasn’t done that. What he’s done is to say in effect, Look, here is the scientific evidence that MSM (Men who have Sex with Men) have higher HIV rates and spread it more… so are you on the Gay Left out fighting that? Or are you just calling for society to pay for their bad choices (i.e., pay the medical consequences)? In your case, yeah, maybe you’ve been out fighting it. But again, I think the broader question is fair.

    - As for Cinesnatch: Ugh. Just ugh. As in, the less said, the better. Well here’s a little something to say anyway: he prattles about being libelled… while libelling another. You gotta love *that* kind of clueless, abusive capacity for projection. Also, Cinesnatch: Again, you really aren’t able to pull off the “Much love” thing, it clashes just too much with your intent and other behavior. Sometimes a clashing note will fabulize an outfit; other times, like when it’s done with no self-awareness, it looks dumb.

    See? Just what I’ve said before. ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 10, 2012 @ 3:08 am - June 10, 2012

  88. Thanks ILC, I appreciate your attempt at being an arbiter. Much appreciated.

    But when NDT decides to start acting liking a reasonable adult rather than his chosen alter of high and mighty Miss Rita Beads, espousing her platitudes with hands on hips,
    Then I along with several others may not be so quick to dismiss Miss Rita.

    NDT aka dan is supposedly a nice person. Fine. Then act like one. NDT is not only rude, condescending, critical, hyper . . .(fill in the blank)

    And heliotropes subtle comparisons of the Mo’s to deviants and atrocious behaviors. Please ILC you are not going to condone this.

    But Happy Pride All. Enjoy!

    Comment by rusty — June 10, 2012 @ 3:38 am - June 10, 2012

  89. your attempt at being an arbiter

    No, really just my reactions. I figure, if I take the trouble to read it, I may as well react. No agenda beyond that. “Arbiter” would be too much responsibility.

    heliotropes subtle comparisons of the Mo’s to deviants and atrocious behaviors

    He’s posing the question: How do you make the distinction? I have an answer to that, I don’t know if he buys my answer, but I have one. He’s asking if you do. I don’t think heliotrope is anti-gay, i.e. against responsible and private gay expression. heliotrope, if I’ve misread you, then you can correct me.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 10, 2012 @ 3:45 am - June 10, 2012

  90. Sometimes a clashing note will fabulize an outfit

    Normally, ILoveCapitalism, your comments make a lot of sense to me, but I can’t make sense of this. These words together don’t seem to mean anything. I am just curious as to what you are saying here.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — June 10, 2012 @ 4:13 am - June 10, 2012

  91. Never mind, RS.

    One more thing for rusty though: What makes you think you are onto NDT’s name? I’ve met him, and let’s just say that I’m surprised that you think you’re onto it. So was it something he said, or are you repeating something you heard? Whether the purported info is right or wrong, if I was against Eric trying to power-trip Pomposity with whatever he thought he knew about her outside of her choice (and I was), I am going to be against you doing it, too. To be clear: whether the info is right or not, it’s douchebag behavior. (If it’s not info that the person revealed themselves.) Ask CineDouche, he acted like that recently and I told him as well.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 10, 2012 @ 4:56 am - June 10, 2012

  92. richard r,

    the armageddon you have described (arranged marriages, patriarchy etc) is an outdated scare tactic and straw man that shows your emotional problems.

    But let’s pretend you’re right and banning gay marriage results in a neanderthal like kind of living. It is absolutely better than being considered an egg, an oven and a human incubator by gays like yourself. The misogyny of the gay community is far more unbearable than the maschilism of heterosexual men.

    The financial protections within marriage laws have been put in place to protect children and the weak party (which still is the one that bears pregnancy and sustain a sensitive step back in her carreer and financial status). I do not see in a gay couple the need to protect one that will never have a carreer stop.

    Gay propaganda never fails to remind us that gay couples and gay individuals are way more wealthy than the heterosexual counterpart (not to mention more intelligent, educated and overall better than the rest of us, as they say) so you are perfectly capable to use the tools offered by the current law to ‘protect’ whoever you wish.

    Comment by susan — June 10, 2012 @ 7:35 am - June 10, 2012

  93. ILC,

    Dead on. I am posing the question. Many LGBT people seem to see themselves as deprived by society. How come they can’t see polygamists as deprived by society? How come the Judeo-Christian ethic is the battleground, but they have no thoughts or courage when it comes to radical Islamists who would and will kill them. Kill them painfully and unmercifully?

    I know the price to be paid for lumping LGBT with tried and true perverts. But the perverts are human too, so maybe we all need to hear them out on their human rights claims. Wouldn’t that be the tolerant, diversity driven, progressive, politically correct thing to do?

    And as a side note: the “B” is bi-sexual, right? So, shouldn’t the bi-sexual have the human right to marry one of each?

    I am not mocking. I am trying to get beyond the boiler plate response of hurt feelings you get from the likes of Richard R.

    I figure I am attacked by these particular guys because they can’t deal with trying to be honest and thoughtful.

    As least no one (yet) has thrown the thread into how rotten hetero marriage is and therefore homo marriage can hardly bring marriage any lower. That is my least favorite of reasons to support gay marriage. That makes me want to call the pedophiles and the polygamists and the man-beasters and tell them to come to the party. Once again, the radical Islamists have this covered. You want a woman for the evening? Marry her, do her and then divorce her all before midnight when you go home and beat your wives. Classy. Marriage has more than one model and I am sure the expectations many gays have for marriage can be morphed into whatever floats each couple’s boat.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 10, 2012 @ 8:38 am - June 10, 2012

  94. ILC, I follow the links, read other blogs and have chatted with folk over the last 4 plus years of my GP ‘schooling’. Becoming personal is my attempt to makes these interactions a little bit more ‘human’. I am using the name on a post that NDT scripted at his site, a very genuine Xmas message.

    Treating people with disrespect and uncalledfor ugliness has not only been challenged by those attacked by NDT, but there have been repeated calls for civility by BDB and even Bruce’s reminder to keep things ‘classy’ on deaf ears.

    I have been around the block and, really, don’t consider NDT’s attempt to discredit folk a real positive approach, folk who come here trying to provide some opinion and are attempting to join the conversation as a positive contribution. I do appreciate some of his commentary, and ILC, I realize that this blog has some many thoughtful and wonderful folk sitting at ‘puterz’, tablets, and smartphones engaging in online chit chat and posting commentary.

    But NDT’s treatment of Pat is uncalled for, NDT gets all ruffled with SF, and even recognizes it and apologizes, and then the way Lori was treated. . .at least they supposedly had a ‘come to J-sus meeting and had kiss and make up nice-nice.

    NDT attempt to belttle by screaming down the well : ‘it puts the lotion on’

    is an awful attempt, while hiding behind his screen name / moniker,
    To push people into a very ugly corner.

    So, I will continue to follow GP and BDB. BDB has attempted to address the issue of civility, yet NDT and Bruce are twitter budz, commenters still get the ugly treatment.
    I am a big boy, with a very strong constitution and a history of taking on more than most.

    NDT can rant on and attack me all He wants. A good Dish is always appreciated and is great sparring practice. Nobody really comes close to the Handz on Hips banter that NDT spews out.

    But ILC, my attempt is to raise Dan’s awareness that the folk here he is attacking are human beings, and some of them deserve better treatment and a sincere apology.

    Comment by rusty — June 10, 2012 @ 10:33 am - June 10, 2012

  95. Happy Pride to GP folk
    http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l569/rusty98119/abfeea64.jpg

    Comment by rusty — June 10, 2012 @ 10:49 am - June 10, 2012

  96. Civility is at issue and we must put forth some effort to restore it. Perhaps not with the same pizazz shown by Mr. Slater but a simple statement of “please don’t talk to me in that manner,” or “please remember be respectful of other people,” or “the rules apply to everyone.” This would not be wrong, and I call all of you to join me. Further, the service industry would do well to not only allow but require their employees to softly remind their gentle customers to mind their manners. After all, if they’ll do it to a clerk they’ll do it to your other customers. Turnabout is fair play on this issue; customers have obligation to remind the people waiting on them to remember their manners as well.

    ILC. This is a quote from a link via NDT blogger info that lists a Time to Stir
    http://atimetostir.blogspot.com/

    Comment by rusty — June 10, 2012 @ 11:08 am - June 10, 2012

  97. I am using the name on a post that NDT scripted at his site, a very genuine Xmas message.

    Thanks rusty! I didn’t know. Assuming it’s true (and I have no reason to guess that it wouldn’t be), that’s a complete answer to my question/concern at #91 and I appreciate it.

    I… don’t consider NDT’s attempt to discredit folk a real positive approach

    He paints individuals with a broad brush, ascribing to them the worst things said or done by any leftist. He’s not alone. Leftists do it. Kindly drill down on where I started at comment #2: an instance of supposedly “super sweet” Pam Spaulding tarring conservatives as racist Nazis, because racists could never EVER be Democrats, or Obama supporters. (cough)

    Being very honest with you: I love NDT’s fighting spirit, even if I think his tactic wastes ammo or creates excessive smoke on the battlefield. You’re right: there’s not really a lot to be gained by calling Pat a bigot. NDT’s wasting time there, IM HO. Pat’s a nice guy, even if, say (in a recent instance), Pat did cast aspersions on Romney without being able to identify what Romney had done wrong. None of us are perfect, and Pat is reasonable most of the time. I love that about him.

    On the other hand – and also being very honest – Pat isn’t really injured, when NDT calls him a bigot. Like you, Pat’s not a kid, he’s a grownup. And NDT hasn’t libelled him; that is, NDT hasn’t made an accusation to injure a known real person in real life. “It’s just words.” Throwing “bigot” out there is NDT voicing a personal opinion about an unknown person. It’s not the worst thing that’s being done around here. Some people do things around here that, in my scale of values, are worse… even more incivil.

    Which brings us to Cinesnatch. But I’ve already said my view, on that subject. Let me just call out one bit more. At comment #36, Cinesnatch claims to be a libel victim. He links a thread wherein, supposedly, NDT accuses Cinesnatch of being a child molestor. Read the thread. At no point does NDT do so. His accusations are all on Cinesnatch’s positions and rationalizations (not his real-life actions). And I call that fair, because in the thread, Cinesnatch did offer his usual messed-up rationalizations on the Kevin Jennings matter. Bottom line, Cinesnatch’s claims at #36 that he was accused of child molesting in the linked thread, are only so much drama – or lying. I find *that* incivil. Libel accusations, especially false ones (in themselves a form of libel), could spill out into the real world, in a way that harms somebody.

    My answer made short is: NDT’s not perfect… and, there are worse things going on around here. If you don’t like him, then don’t engage him. Don’t put him in your sights. Getting upset about someone’s incivility rarely pays – especially on blogs.

    NDT, I apologize for talking about you in the third person, in front of you.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 10, 2012 @ 11:59 am - June 10, 2012

  98. Please point out where I have put NDT in my sights ILC

    And please point out why I am not the only one pointing out NDT attacks.

    Yes we are all in this sandbox together and freely choose to engage in chatter here.

    Comment by rusty — June 10, 2012 @ 1:08 pm - June 10, 2012

  99. Sorry ILC, disregard that last request. If I need to deal with Dan, I will and certainly don’t need to get you involved. Your attention is appreciated and consideration makes me smile. ;)

    Comment by rusty — June 10, 2012 @ 1:23 pm - June 10, 2012

  100. Please point out where I have put NDT in my sights

    I think it starts around #22… but all that I meant was: your choice to engage with him, maybe kind of taunt him. That’s it. I meant no put-down of you.

    please point out why I am not the only one pointing out NDT attacks

    NDT has chosen to attack multiple people.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 10, 2012 @ 1:27 pm - June 10, 2012

  101. Civility is at issue and we must put forth some effort to restore it.

    I don’t know about that. The only person whose behavior we can control, is our own. Unless we’re the hosts, i.e. Bruce/Dan. I think they could take some steps, like putting Pajamas Media-style instructions in the comment form itself, where everybody must see them, every time they comment:

    PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:

    1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.

    2. Stay on topic.

    3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.

    4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.

    5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.

    These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don’t assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion.

    That’s a great little policy. And then Bruce/Dan could take enforcement actions on especially bad violators, BUT, I leave that part to them. I don’t expect them to spend a lot of time on it. And I’m willing to put with whomever they are willing to put up with… that is my part, as a li’l’ ol’ guest here.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 10, 2012 @ 1:38 pm - June 10, 2012

  102. I’ve gathered that there’s some to-do over at Ace, about civility in the comments. I’m not sure what it is… but Ace seems to think that registration (for the privilege of commenting) will help?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 10, 2012 @ 2:32 pm - June 10, 2012

  103. I’ve gathered that there’s some to-do over at Ace, about civility in the comments. I’m not sure what it is… but Ace seems to think that registration (for the privilege of commenting) will help?

    ILC – I believe that Ace is cracking down on commenters who post things that put him in greater jeopardy re: Brett Kimberlin. He’s sticking his neck out by blogging about it, and he’s asked his readers to be very careful not to post anything that increases his exposure.

    Comment by jman1961 — June 10, 2012 @ 3:02 pm - June 10, 2012

  104. ILC and Rusty, thanks for your comments. ILC, you are correct that I can take care of myself, and do my best to do so. I try not to start any attacks of commenters. I’m sure there have been times where I am at fault for that, but think I have done a good job of not starting the attacks. When I am attacked, I will defend myself as best as I can within the parameters of Dan and Bruce civility rules. One thing I have done is tried to stay out of personal attacks that do not include me, in the interest of not adding more fuel to the fire. When I am attacked, I do feel a little hamstrung when trying to defend myself while following the rules against someone, such as NDT, who appears to have no interest in following the rules (although I realize he either somehow doesn’t see it that way or feels justified in violating the rules).

    Pat did cast aspersions on Romney without being able to identify what Romney had done wrong.

    That is a fair criticism. To me something didn’t add up in the Grenell episode, and thought Romney could have done a better job of handling it. However, I fully realize my intuition could be wrong, and Romney did only what he could. In other words, I withdraw my aspersions of Romney regarding this incident.

    Comment by Pat — June 10, 2012 @ 6:49 pm - June 10, 2012

  105. Hey Susan, you misunderstood. I was not describing an imagined armageddon. You were the one who brought up marriage in ancient times. I was merely pointing out how you conveniently omitted the ancient (and not so ancient) reality that marriage was largely about arranged marriages, having no say in who you marry, women being the property of men, young teenage brides, and polygamy. The notion of people choosing their spouses is a fairly radical modern construct in the overall context of human history.

    You said, “The financial protections within marriage laws have been put in place to protect children and the weak party . . .” So, why do all the heterosexual couples without children get to share in all the goodies that marriage offers? Obviously they get a pass simply because they are penis/vagina based marriages. If marriage is really ALL about children, why doesn’t marriage require procreation, and procreation require marriage? And your assertion that gay couples would not have a “career stop” for child rearing is simply false.

    Why should my partner of 30 years and I have to go to the expense of developing legal documents that would not be required if we could be married. Oh, wait, that’s right, it’s all about you being entitled to the utmost comfort and contentment, and being free of the anxiety that comes with knowing that inferior people are enjoying the same good things in life that you enjoy. And my responsibility is to cater to your needs.

    Comment by Richard R — June 10, 2012 @ 7:48 pm - June 10, 2012

  106. I was merely pointing out how you conveniently omitted the ancient (and not so ancient) reality that marriage was largely about arranged marriages, having no say in who you marry, women being the property of men, young teenage brides, and polygamy. The notion of people choosing their spouses is a fairly radical modern construct in the overall context of human history.

    Comment by Richard R — June 10, 2012 @ 7:48 pm – June 10, 2012

    And yet, through all those changes, one thing has remained clear: male-female.

    Obfuscate, spin, and lie all you want, Richard Rush. Millennia of human existence has overwhelmingly produced and supported male-female marriage.

    Why? Because they recognized the basic fact: male-female interaction produces children, and those children need protection.

    Children are the reason for marriage. Since you and your gay-sex partners cannot produce, will not produce, and are incapable of ever producing them, there is no need for society to waste the money and social support on you.

    And thus we get this whine:

    Why should my partner of 30 years and I have to go to the expense of developing legal documents that would not be required if we could be married.

    Because you are adults, not children, and can afford to work, earn money, and pay for it yourselves.

    The children produced by opposite-sex couples are not. They are dependent, unable to care for themselves, unable to pay their own bills, unable to represent themselves legally, and unable to create such documentation. Marriage was created to do and provide all of those things for them.

    And you will never produce children. You are physically and physiologically incapable of producing children by having sex with another man. Therefore, giving any money to you is a pure waste and steals from the dependent children who need it.

    The fact that you are a mental and emotional child who needs other people to pay your bills for you is not society’s problem. Spend your own money and contribute your “fair share” instead of stealing money from REAL children, Richard Rush.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 10, 2012 @ 8:46 pm - June 10, 2012

  107. But ILC, my attempt is to raise Dan’s awareness that the folk here he is attacking are human beings, and some of them deserve better treatment and a sincere apology.

    Comment by rusty — June 10, 2012 @ 10:33 am – June 10, 2012

    Actually, rusty, I already answered this question — by simply pointing out the treatment that you and your fellow gay liberal bigots decided that people here “deserved”.

    And that’s why you can take your “civility” claptrap and cram it. It has nothing to do with “civility”, because clearly you, the gay and lesbian community, and the Obama Party neither respect or demand “civility”; it’s all about making other people shut up.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 10, 2012 @ 10:03 pm - June 10, 2012

  108. heliotrope said, “As least no one (yet) has thrown the thread into how rotten hetero marriage is and therefore homo marriage can hardly bring marriage any lower. That is my least favorite of reasons to support gay marriage.”

    Just wondering: What is your most favorite of reasons to support gay marriage?

    Comment by Richard R — June 10, 2012 @ 10:06 pm - June 10, 2012

  109. New on NRO . . .
    JUNE 10, 2012 6:00 P.M.
    Is Gay Parenting Bad for the Kids?
    Children of gay couples are disadvantaged — because of family instability.
    By Charles C. W. Cooke

    So this is what the republicans are writing about gay issues and you are attacking Pelosi. Don’t you see how crazy and mistaken you are!

    Comment by George — June 10, 2012 @ 10:48 pm - June 10, 2012

  110. Smooches NDT

    “Gay people are born into, and belong to, every society in the world. They are all ages, all races, all faiths. They are doctors and teachers, farmers and bankers, soldiers and athletes. And whether we know it or whether we acknowledge it, they are our family, our friends, and our neighbors. Being gay is not a Western invention. It is a human reality.”. Hillary Clinton

    http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l569/rusty98119/abfeea64.jpg

    Comment by rusty — June 10, 2012 @ 11:53 pm - June 10, 2012

  111. So this is what the republicans are writing about gay issues and you are attacking Pelosi. Don’t you see how crazy and mistaken you are!

    Comment by George — June 10, 2012 @ 10:48 pm – June 10, 2012

    Nope.

    Because when you talk about Pelosi, you are talking about a delusional nutjob who says unemployment is better than employment and that non-unionized workers should lose their jobs.

    Now, George, I’m not expecting this to make a dent in your skull, because you’re clearly a bigot who doesn’t have a grasp on reality and will do whatever Pelosi says because she’s an Obama Party leader.

    But it amuses the hell out of me to post the fact that gays like you who scream and rant about gay employment protections and the like actually support and endorse mass unemployment.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 11, 2012 @ 12:52 am - June 11, 2012

  112. ND30: “You are truly sick, Vince … you … are molesting their children.”

    ILC: “At no point does NDT do so … Cinesnatch’s claims at #36 that he was accused of child molesting in the linked thread, are only so much drama – or lying. I find *that* incivil. Libel accusations, especially false ones (in themselves a form of libel), could spill out into the real world, in a way that harms somebody.”

    I’ll leave it up to everyone on here to judge for themselves. Won’t you?

    But, I must say, ILC, I am surprised by your use of context. Kind of reminds of the Shirley Sherrod matter. LOL.

    Bottom-line, ILC, 1) We’re watching the same program and seeing two different things. 2) That’s never going to change. 3) Either one of us saying “I’m right” bears no more relevance than the other’s assertion within the realm of just you and me.

    To disagree with this is to just perpetuate the cycle that keeps turning between us.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — June 11, 2012 @ 3:55 am - June 11, 2012

  113. Civility is in the mind of the beholder.

    Emily Post, Miss Manners, Ann Landers, Judge Judy, Maury Povich, Jerry Springer, Whoopi Goldberg, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, GW Bush, Barack Obama, Ed Schultz, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Huckabee, Chris Matthews, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Bill Clinton, Jessie Jackson, and on and on and on …… all practice and demand “civility” in different ways.

    It is a side show to get caught up in it. I far prefer for Bruce and Dan to pull the plug when they have had enough of the mud slinging. It is subjective and the right of the site masters. To try to objectify civility is to play an endless back and forth with Cass, Serenity and Levi with all manner and shades of pet peeve artists in between.

    NDT is a lightening rod to some. Apparently, it does not affect his digestive track to the same degree it offends others. If all he had to say was to troll in here and smear someone, I would vote for his eviction. But he is a master at making his point specific and providing links to illuminate it. That is not common dyspeptic troll flame throwing.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 11, 2012 @ 9:13 am - June 11, 2012

  114. Some uses of ellipses (…) are legitimate because they simply let readers read more quickly; they do not divorce the words from context enough that they change a quote’s meaning. Other uses of ellipses may be sleazy, because they alter meaning.

    Let’s restore context now to Cinesnatch’s quote of NDT, shall we? In the thread, NDT spoke repeatedly of a group of people – “you and your fellow liberal gays”, or similar phrases – as holding a philosophy which gives molesters too much room in which to operate, effectively giving cover to molesters among them. NDT did NOT, I believe, claim that every individual in his grouping is a molester in personal action. At least that’s what I understood as a reader of NDT’s English original:

    How does sex abuse occur when no sex took place, particularly involving a student who was above the age of consent?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — November 14, 2011 @ 3:17 pm – November 14, 2011

    [NDT speaking:] Very simple.

    1) Allowing a minor student to leave campus without adult supervision was a violation of school rules

    2) Having a minor student report sexual activity with an adult to a teacher is a violation of Massachusetts reporting requirements and constitutes facilitating of sexual abuse

    3) Failing to report 2) to the state, school administrators, and parents, all of which were required by law or school policy, constitutes facilitating of sexual abuse.

    And in regard to all of these, the argument about “age of consent” and “no sexual relationship” came out only AFTER the person was called on the carpet for having claimed exactly the opposite in their book and in numerous speaking and lecture tours — and was backed up, not by an actual revealing of the person’s identity, but by an attestation by an anonymous person using a driver’s license with all identifying information blacked out.

    Libbies like to put in place laws and regulations, Cinesnatch. It’s very interesting that you don’t support them being followed and that you don’t believe they should be enforced against gays and lesbians, especially in the area of child sexual abuse.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 14, 2011 @ 3:31 pm – November 14, 2011

    30. [Cinesnatch being quoted:] Butt-raping a child will never be rationalized as acceptable or anything less deplorable.

    [NDT speaking:] Actually, it has been and was by the ILGA and its established member NAMBLA. I believe their wording was that it was helping children explore their natural sexual instincts.

    But this one really took the cake.

    [Cinesnatch being quoted:] And one of these days, when kids like the character of Steven in What’s Wrong With Anger? or Augusten Burroughs in his Running With Scissors memoir can grow up in an environment where they have parents who have their back and support them for who they are while raising them with a principled foundation, they won’t need to run to people like Kevin Jennings.

    [NDT speaking:] What. The. Hell.

    You are blaming PARENTS for their child being molested?

    You are claiming it’s the PARENTS’ fault when gays like Kevin Jennings have sex with their children or hide the fact that their child is having bareback sex with adults in bus station restrooms?

    You are rationalizing the fact that you and your fellow liberal gays and lesbians can’t keep your hands off children by claiming that it’s their parents’ fault for not being “accepting”.

    You are truly sick, Vince. And I hope everyone who comments here finally realized the depth of depravity to which you will go when you are blaming parents for the fact that you and your fellow liberal gays are molesting their children.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 15, 2011 @ 12:42 pm – November 15, 2011

    Let me state for the record that I read the quotes the day NDT posted them, and not for one second did I take NDT’s words as a suggestion that Cinesnatch was personally a molester. Not one second. “You are truly sick” – that’s NDT expressing a personal opinion or feeling. “You and your fellow liberal gays” – that’s the group-philosophy thing.

    In short, I had no problem, at the time and in context, in understanding that NDT was expressing personal opinion in assigning a general kind of moral responsibility to a group of people. I find Cinesnatch’s choice to personalize the matter interesting, and equally so, his reliance on ellipses to misrepresent NDT’s quote.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 11, 2012 @ 11:36 am - June 11, 2012

  115. (continued) Having said that, I do also believe that NDT’s frequent use of “you and your fellow…” phraseology with people is a less-than-ideal practice, because it elicits an emotional response in the person who is being grouped (or accused of general moral responsibility). I couldn’t say if NDT intends to elicit an emotional response; but doing so promotes “Internet flame wars”, i.e. lots of smoke, not so much light.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 11, 2012 @ 11:48 am - June 11, 2012

  116. Finally, as to this:

    the cycle that keeps turning between us

    It’s not a cycle, Cinesnatch. It’s a straight line, your choice. You choose to come to the blog and lob stink bombs, like a junior high-schooler trying to get even. You choose to be “determined to depict [a great man, and friend of the blog] as disingenuous and lack [sic] integrity” in his memorial thread. You choose to violate confidences and/or privacy of other commentors. You choose to offer apologies that miss the point to begin with – and then you cancel them. You choose to engage NDT. You choose to take NDT’s words as an accusation about personal action, then misrepresent them to help you feel justified. In short, you choose to come here and make enemies. It’s not me being involved in any “cycle” with you. It’s you, choosing a nasty path.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 11, 2012 @ 12:10 pm - June 11, 2012

  117. @ George

    So what is being hailed as “The largest” study, is to be derided, because you disagree with it? If the study or methodology is flawed, then I’m sure you can attack it.

    If it isn’t, then you’re upset that they’re discussin concern for the wellbeing of children, over adults. Talk about selfish.

    Here’s a quote from Maggie Gallagher.

    On 25 of 40 outcome measures, adult children who reported their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship fared poorly compared to children raised by intact biological married parents. This should surprise no one. It doesn’t mean that gay parents are bad parents. Plenty of kids raised outside of intact married families do fine. Nonetheless, this new research tends to affirm that the ideal for a child is a married mom and dad.

    [Emphasis mine]

    So a study shows a result you don’t like, therefore talking about the study is evil? Brilliant argument there.

    But hey, Obama thinks states should be allowed to define marriage! So let’s ignore everything else, he’s embraced the status quo. He tolerates us! He really tolerates us!

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 11, 2012 @ 3:43 pm - June 11, 2012

  118. ILC >> You have demonstrated that you can’t agree to disagree with me. So, please continue on your quest of seeing yourself as the grand arbiter of truth, as that is how you are coming across to me (perhaps I’m the only one, or perhaps others agree and do not express it). If I’m on a nasty path, that’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it. Obviously. And if others choose to have the same opinion of me and my conduct on GP, whether or not they express it, the same goes for them.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — June 11, 2012 @ 9:50 pm - June 11, 2012

  119. See #89, Cinesnatch. As previously stated, I don’t think I’m the arbiter of anything. But I do call ‘em as I see ‘em. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 15, 2012 @ 3:36 pm - June 15, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.