January 20, 2005
Spongebob Squarepants: Gay Tool!
I sometimes bristle at the haughty sneers in Red America’s direction from the coasts. I used to live in a red state – Iowa. It was still barely a blue state then, and it’s barely a red state now. Blowing it off as “Jesusland” not only denies the state’s complexity and diversity (yes, I am talking about Iowa here), it’s also a snot-nosed condescending attitude unbecoming of grown-ups.
Still. Some people on the more crimson end of the spectrum don’t do Red America’s image any favors. Look no further than the latest hysterical outburst by the brainless, bigoted blowhard James Dobson.
Posted by Michael J. Totten at January 20, 2005 07:09 PMYo.Dobson is a complete idiot.I was wandering around Free Republic today and the posters there were making fun of him.You gotta know you are way outside the Conservative mainstream when everyone at FR thinks you are looney-tunes.
Getting upset about a CARTOON !!!
Lunacy appears to be an equal opportunity affliction.
Posted by: dougf at January 20, 2005 07:17 PMDougf: I was wandering around Free Republic today and the posters there were making fun of him
I'm slightly surprised, but that's good to know. Got a link? I'm curious what they are saying.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 20, 2005 07:20 PMTo MJT--- Your wish is my command(as long as it does not involve money,untoward behaviour,or agreeing with DPU).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1324955/posts
Posted by: dougf at January 20, 2005 07:27 PMSpongeBob has given me a totally different outlook on seafood. My foodie orientation will never be the same.
Posted by: chuck at January 20, 2005 07:42 PMGay, eh? This is deeply humiliating to me. I've always had a little thing for Spongebob, but I assumed it was a girl.
Oh, my god! Am I gay??!!
Posted by: Jim at January 20, 2005 08:32 PMWorse, Jim. You're a Spongeist.
Posted by: jeremy in NYC at January 20, 2005 09:04 PMYeah - I was surprised that Free Republic was making fun of this too. They are one of the most anti-gay websites I know. I figured that out after they banned me from posting within 30 minutes of finding out I was gay.
And of course - they still ARE anti-gay. Check out their comments on this SAME subject from only two weeks ago.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1316670/posts
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 20, 2005 09:22 PMDobson has definitely jumped the gun. But I think it's worth keeping an eye on.
There is a gay agenda, and they are targeting the youth for their propaganda.
Now, you may be in favor of that agenda, and that's your prerogative, but others aren't. And they have every right to know what you insidious Lefties are up to when it involves their children. So they're keeping their eyes peeled.
Again, Dobson probably jumped the gun on this one. Folks are jumpy.
Posted by: David at January 20, 2005 09:34 PMAnd of course - they still ARE anti-gay
So, are you saying they are mistaken? That Spongebob really is gay?
Again, Dobson probably jumped the gun on this one. Folks are jumpy.
I don't even want to think of the implications. Arrggghh, not Dobson too.
Posted by: chuck at January 20, 2005 09:53 PMDavid: There is a gay agenda, and they are targeting the youth for their propaganda
Is "be nice to gay people" really propaganda? You know, if it were for asshats like James Dobson the "gay agenda" wouldn't even need to exist.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 20, 2005 09:59 PMIs "be nice to gay people" really propaganda?
No, it's not.
Is that all it is?
We'll see.
Posted by: David at January 20, 2005 10:07 PMDavid: Is that all it is?
What else would it be? A screed against "breeders?" A "Sodomy for Dummies" cartoon? I'd love to see some evidence for that.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 20, 2005 10:16 PMMichael - Exactly right! What the religious right are up in arms about is that somebody is promoting a music video that has a vague reference to a website, and on that website there is an obscure pledge that people can sign on their own accord that says "I will be be nice to people of different races, religions, sexual orientation, etc."
And as all know - that will make people gay!
I'm gay, and happen to find these "diversity" days pretty sappy. I'm sure children aren't even paying attention. But to say this is part of some evil gay "agenda" is absurd.
The "gay agenda" is pretty simple: People are perfectly free to have their religious views about homosexuality, but the "civil" laws of this country should not discriminate against gay people. Bigotry should be a private concern, not official government policy.
The agenda of the religious right is to make discrimination against gay people the law of the land, to make homosexuality illegal so that they can throw gay people in jail, to put gay people back in the closet, and to ostracise and demonize gay people wherever possible, and to try and "recruit" gay people into heterosexuality with dangerous conversion programs that don't work and do a great amount of harm. That is not stretching the truth. Go to any religious right website (like Dobson's) and the hatred of gays comes through loud and clear.
And lying about the "gay agenda" is just one facet of the hate emanating from the religious right.
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 20, 2005 10:16 PMDavid, is your post a parody of the writer MJT has linked?
You're surely not seriously proposing that there is a "gay agenda", and further that people are recruiting?
Further, that people's sexual preference can be ascribed to a political preference?
Posted by: viacollins at January 20, 2005 10:16 PMYou're surely not seriously proposing that there is a "gay agenda", and further that people are recruiting?
viacollins,
Recruiting? That's what you heard, but that's not what I said.
And yes, I do believe in the fabled "gay agenda." But you obviously don't know what I mean by that, and I'm not on this blog to educate people about it.
Posted by: David at January 20, 2005 10:21 PMThe agenda of the religious right
oh, I see. There is no gay agenda. Just a "religious right" agenda.
Phew! thanks for that!
Posted by: David at January 20, 2005 10:24 PMDavid - Of course there's a religious right agenda. And you're propagating it on this board and you're not even aware of it.
I already told you what my "gay agenda" is. Tolerance, respect, and civility towards gay people, even if you happen to personally think homosexuality is a sin. But I guess that's asking to much from society, right?
The religious right agenda: intolerance against gays, no respect for gay people, uncivil behavior against gay people. Spreading evil lies about gay people to boot by spreading lies about their "agenda". Trying to force gay people to change their sexuality (looks like the religious right is the one doing the "recruiting".
Here's some examples from the Religious Right, directly from their own mouths:
http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/afa.html
Can you please find me this secret "gay agenda" that you're talking about.
It's pretty clear to me that you're a bigot David. That's your perogative. But don't act shocked when people point the obvious out to you.
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 20, 2005 10:37 PMGolly.I hate this topic even more than 'leftist'politics,and that is saying something,because I despise leftists to pieces.This is just nasty,guys.Gots to run.
Posted by: dougf at January 20, 2005 10:37 PMI too wonder what the 'Gay Agenda' is, maybe it's like the 'Jewish Conspiracy'
Never underestimate the innate blowhardness of the white protestant religious hard right.
Posted by: Epitome at January 20, 2005 10:46 PMwhite protestant religious hard right.
What does white have to do with it?
Posted by: chuck at January 20, 2005 10:54 PMDowntown Lad: Trying to force gay people to change their sexuality (looks like the religious right is the one doing the "recruiting".
An excellent point that I had not thought of before.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 20, 2005 11:01 PMYou will know, if you have or are around grade school aged kids that they are the meanest and most hateful human beings in the world - in the sense that they will torment and torture anyone who has any sort of identifiable difference (i.e.; not like them).
I'm not sure if this Spongebob thing is a waste of time or not, but any attempt to get these little miscreants to be nice to each other has the potential to dramatically improve the state of our world and is ok with me.
Posted by: too many steves at January 21, 2005 05:08 AMWell I will have to take a contrarian position on this. It has nothing to do with gay rights - I am still at heart a liberal (whatever that means anymore). But to me there is just something distasteful about getting children to sign a pledge. It brings to mind the widepread use of children to sell things door to door. This probably started with Girl Scout cookies but now it's Christmas wrapping paper - which doesn't seem so bad unless you're a non-salesman type person who has had to suffer the indignity of having to sell something you don't believe in (my own dignity was jeapordized in the service of vinyl thermopane replacement windows. Perhaps I should be proud of the fact that I never made one sale in 3 months of half-hearted effort).
I don't really care how noble the cause of "tolerance" is. Trying to get kids to sign a "pledge" for tolerance smacks of bullshit PC. That little pledge doesn't just include sexual identity. It includes "beliefs". Does that include the beliefs of the KKK (or is that now more precisely called the "Aryan nation")? Does it include the "beliefs" of the anti-Semites? The radical Islamists? So "tolerance" is unequivocably good?
Posted by: Caroline at January 21, 2005 05:29 AMOkay - so I was being a real crank in my previous post. However, the petition does refer to tolerating both "beliefs" and "cultures" that are different from my own. I do take issue with that. I think the petition would have more credibility if instead of touting "tolerance" - it stated "I will not tolerate intolerance". But that's really a bit much for kids isn't it? Considering that even adults seem to be having a hard time figuring it out?
Posted by: Caroline at January 21, 2005 05:41 AM"I don't really care how noble the cause of "tolerance" is"
Believe me, I've noticed.
Hey, if you're gonna right straightlines, then don't complain when people go for the (not very dignified) punchline.
On a related note, yes people should be tolerant of others' beliefs no matter how loathesome (being tolerant does not mean accepting such beliefs or sparing the believers the consequences of their beliefs).
On the other hand, they do not need to be tolerant of actions, especially illegal actions. When Spongebob endorses tolerance for actions that harm others I'll go Tarantino on his porous gay ass, until then I'm not much alarmed.
"I don't really care how noble the cause of "tolerance" is"
Believe me, I've noticed."
Man and I thought I was the crank.
"On a related note, yes people should be tolerant of others' beliefs no matter how loathesome (being tolerant does not mean accepting such beliefs or sparing the believers the consequences of their beliefs)."
Well once you bring in the idea that the holders of such "loathsome" beliefs are not spared the "consequences" of holding said beliefs, it seems to me you've opened the door pretty darned wide. Where lieth your inviolate notion of "tolerance" now?
Posted by: Caroline at January 21, 2005 06:46 AMOFF-TOPIC Alert ----
I found the conversation at the 'Belmont Club'to be right on the money today,so am attaching a link below.Just FYI,and on this thread only because it is the most current,and therefore the most active.
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming--
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2005/01/unrepentant-thomas-friedman-observes.html
Posted by: dougf at January 21, 2005 06:47 AMDavid - Of course there's a religious right agenda. And you're propagating it on this board and you're not even aware of it.
Downtown,
I haven't denied there's a religious agenda. I just think it's the height of Leftist disingenousness to claim there is no gay agenda (even as you yourself engage in promoting it). Like one-handed clapping right? Of course you don't see the promotion of your worldview as an "agenda". You only see someone else promoting their worldview as an agenda. How convenient for you, no?
And I understand that your beliefs are all about "love" and "tolerance" and "candy and ice cream" and all that is good in the universe. I get that. And I get that the religious right is all about "hate" and "villainy" and having to eat your vegetables before dessert, etc. etc. Good. I understand that too. And you're welcome to your worldview and your desire to propagate it. We live in a democracy after all (even though you'd prefer to pursue your objectives through the courts and thereby bypass the democratic process). But let's just keep the kids out of it ok?
Parents say no to 'gay' agenda in schools
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31171
Lawmakers 'sanction' use of district-approved porn
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26192
Schools sued over pro-homosexual skits
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26337
And ps., this is my last post on the topic. I'm not particularly interested in it, and I'm here for the foreign policy wars, not the culture wars. You kids keep playing.
Posted by: David at January 21, 2005 06:52 AM
Actually, as one raised in Iowa (but born in India) I'd have to say Iowa is like the rest of the US - polka dotted blue with swathes of red in between (sorry, watching too much Project Runway lately). Iowa City is pure blue, Ames (yeah, Ames!) is bluish with red edges, Des Moines is bluish with red speckles and then lots of the spaces in between are red. Unless you count the strong sense of isolationism that is sort of ingrained in that part of the Midwest (though not as much as Minnesota). Is isolationism blue or red? Dear me. Maybe we have to come up with a different color?
Also, when my parents immigrated to Iowa from India in the late 60's they said it was very provicincial, but kind. Couldn't order a cup of tea in restaurant, only coffee then, but kindness kinda trumps the other stuff, huh? And I remember, way back in the 1980s, having my high school invite the parents of a gay man to talk about gays and how hard it is to be one in our society. They also invited a minister who talked about how he didn't think it was right, but I thought it was a very good thing to have an open and honest and civil discussion about the whole thing. The administration was concerned that some gay students were not being treated well and wanted to just get it all out in the open and stress tolerance. Those darn red state Iowans!
( PS - this Dobson fellow is just plain foolish.)
Posted by: MD at January 21, 2005 07:01 AMI did preview, and yet, I still spelled provincial wrong and left out an 'a'. Sigh. Not a good advertisement for Iowa schools, huh?
Posted by: MD at January 21, 2005 07:04 AM"Well once you bring in the idea that the holders of such "loathsome" beliefs are not spared the "consequences" of holding said beliefs, it seems to me you've opened the door pretty darned wide. Where lieth your inviolate notion of "tolerance" now?"
True tolerance is like water, you can't hold it in your hand, you can only swim in it.
True tolerance is like fire, it can light up the darkness and keep you warm, but you must remain vigilant and not let it escape the hearth lest it consume you.
Is that clear, grasshopper?
Posted by: Michael Farris at January 21, 2005 07:16 AMYou bristle at the haughty sneers in Red America’s direction from the coasts?
You're taking the "Red State" thing a little too seriously. People from the coasts have always sneered at the heartland. It doesn't, really, have anything to do with politics. On my local Boston sports station the very pro-Bush sports jocks have no issue saying that people from Indiana are hicks or that people in Western PA are missing most of their teeth. If you spend any time in New York you'll realize that Bush supporting New Yorkers often laugh at midwesterners and southerners.
Posted by: Vanya at January 21, 2005 07:32 AMThe SpongeBob episode I found egregiously offensive showed Patrick at a Bikini Bottom party dressed in desert camo and sporting a swastika armband.
Posted by: Deuce at January 21, 2005 07:47 AMBig Cities, like Prague in the Czech Rep, have always had folk that sneer at others. This is one reason Slovaks, who mostly just visited Prague when visiting the Czech Rep, felt so looked down upon by the "Czechs" (in Praha) -- 'cause the Praha folk look down on all. Like NYT looks down on NY state folk NOT from the Big Apple, etc.
Dobson is neither brainless nor an idiot, nor that much of a blowhard. (Where's the full quote in context?) He's a person who sincerely wants to minimize homosexual behavior in the USA... While accepting that gay sex remain legal -- it's not clear to me that he wants to reinstate any sodomy laws or use of more force to punish that behavior. He is strongly opposed to any promotion of the gay agenda (gay lifestyle is 'equal but different' to straight lifestyle). He also believes the Bible calls gay sex "sinful", and he is concerned that the gay agenda includes declaring parts of the Bible as unacceptable*, for instance as "hate speech". As has already occurred in Europe AND the USA*.
Michael, I know you disagree with this desire. You have fine gay friends. I do (did?) too. And I see there hasn't been much AIDS discussion here, either.
AIDS, as well as the demographic trends (noted by Wretchard), has convinced me, on "civilization utilitarian" grounds, that homosexual promotion is a mistake. As is the more serious sexual promiscuity; even more serious abortion ethic (is OK); and the most serious huge divorce rates (as high among Christians as non-believers, to the shame of Christian family folk.)
The high divorce rate problem (my mother divorced 3 different men; my father 4 different women -- I have a half-sister and a half-brother who are unrelated to each other) is a little bit like human rights violation in China. Just too big a problem to do much about. Even though it might be the biggest, worst problem.
Let's remember that the pro-abortion courts "forced" the pro-abortion morality into the Law of the Land. It wasn't done by democratic votes. Whenever I hear opposition to having "morals shoved down their throats", this fact doesn't seem to come up. The FMA is a democratic response to stop the imposition of pro-gay morals by the courts.
On AIDS, most gays who have been infected were infected ... by irresponsible gays. If not criminally irresponsible. But I don't see many calls, here or elsewhere, to hold infectious gays to anything close to the same level of responsibility as drunk drivers, for instance.
How many gays have to die before "infecting another" (knowingly OR unknowingly) is a crime that is actually enforced? If Sully (great writer!) indulges in his preferred bare-back riding sex play, and infects somebody, should he be treated as a criminal? I think so.
*In Sweden a preacher was sentenced to jail (don't know if he served) for hate speech against gays. In America, a Christian former-lesbian, separated from prior lesbian lover, was prohibited from reading parts of the Bible on homosexuality to her daughter.
Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at January 21, 2005 08:28 AMOK, how's this. Some politically active gays, claiming to speak for all, have an agenda approximating thaqt identified as "the gay agenda".
Posted by: triticale at January 21, 2005 08:45 AMMichael,
Completely O/T.
LGF has a picture from the march downtown yesterday.
No biggie, right?
THe morons were actually wearing tinfoil hats
Even as irony (which isn't apparent), that is a bit much. Even for Portlanders.
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 21, 2005 08:57 AMIs it really that much of a stretch to think that they would create a gay character in order to subvert the minds of our children and indoctrinate them early on into the gay agenda? Do your research before you dismiss this as quackery.
1)Watch the show sometimes and wonder why the lead character is so unnaturally effete? Also wonder, why have all the strong male role-models, like Superman and Popeye, been wiped out altogether from children’s programming in exchange for feminized talking sponges.
2)This show is property of Viacom, the same people also own MTV. You know, MTV, the people who brought you the super bowl fiasco, three-way Madonna Britney Spears kiss, as well as other decidedly pro-homosexual-agenda programming, and then market it to your teenage daughter.
3)The very same network that airs this repulsive show, aired another one some 10-15 years ago called “Ren and Stimpy.” Now get this: this show featured a similarly flamboyant dog and cat who also had a very seemingly unwholesome relationship. Now, 15 years later, the show makes a comeback. All the kids who used to watch it are all grown up, and guess what: it’s revealed that the dog and cat are and always have been full-blown homosexual partners! Now think about the psychology involved in this. You have your childhood icons you grew up with. You’ve known, say, Batman all your life, now all of the sudden it’s revealed he’s gay, turning every preconceived notion you’ve ever had on its head.
They’re very smart and their methods are insidious. This kind of trickery and dishonesty should not be tolerated. I think parents have a right to know that this kind of brainwashing is happening to their children. Last time I checked, we still live in a free society where no one has the right to impose his crooked agenda on anyone else.
Posted by: Kay Hoog at January 21, 2005 09:06 AMKay, you know too much. Expect a knock on the door at midnight ... soon.
Posted by: Michael Farris at January 21, 2005 09:19 AMLast time I checked, we still live in a free society where no one has the right to impose his crooked agenda on anyone else.
Mr. Dobson- that means you too.
Posted by: Stephen Silver at January 21, 2005 09:25 AMI tell ya, I'm gonna have to go on vacation just to figure out all the conspiracies that exist in our society.
The Right-Wing Christian Conspiracy
The Gay Conspiracy
The Stoner Conspiracy(those people advocating Medical Pot are just trying to get it legal in order to smoke it and make girls horny).
The Bush/Saudi Conspiracy
The Left is really a bunch of Authoritarian bastards.
The Right is really a bunch of authoritarian bastards.
The Pagans are trying to subvert the Christians
The Christians want to burn the Pagans, again.
WMD's were a lie for Revenge
WMD's were a lie for Oil
WMD's weren't a lie and they were secretly spirited away to 'X'.
The Skull and Bones is secretly controlling the President.
Kerry sucked to ensure that his fellow Skull and Bones brother stayed in power.
Ohio cheated.
----
Almost everyone on this board seems to believe one or more of these conspiracies, then laugh at the 'foolishness' of people who believe the other ones listed.
I think thats funny, especially when I know what the real conspiracy is.
It's obvious.
the illuminati, using their private security forces (known as the knights templar), have long been engaged in a secret war with the hashishem (which were not actually destroyed by the mongels) the hashishem, of course are headed by "the old man in the mountain", abdul alhazred (also known as the mad arab), who has been posing as bin laden since bin laden was killed during a freak accident in saudi arabia, involving an oil tanker and a young, drunk, george walker bush, bush thinks that bin laden has survived (which is what the illuminati wants him to think) and so has mounted attacks on abdul alhazred (thinking that he is bin laden)in order to keep his dui secret, this gives the illuminati good ground support in their war against the hashishem, in some of their magic rituals they pull on the psyche of american citizens and are unable to offer this 'essence' if it comes from a gay person because tsathogghua is a homophobe, therefore they are actually behind the christian conspiracy, while the gay conspiracy wants to make everyone gay in order to starve tsathogghua of his precious essence, all of this, of course, was documented by da vinci, but has been hidden by the wiccans who are trying to take over tsathogghua so that they can wipe out the christians with his power in retaliation for years of being used as heating fuel.
I think.
Posted by: Ratatosk at January 21, 2005 09:59 AMTosk,
the fallacy of your thinking is to assume that simply because you're "neutral", then both parties must therefore be either right or wrong in equal measures (pretty standard Lefty thinking, by the way).
I call it the Reuters model. Because they choose to assume "neutrality" (so-called), they would violate that "neutrality" by recognizing the superior claim of one party over another. Even if that claim is obviously superior. Therefore, neither party has a superior claim over another--both parties are to blame in equal measure. This explains, for instance, why they can't use certain words like "terrorist", because it would recognize the superior claim of one party and thus violate Reuter's "neutrality." Unfortunately, neutrality and fairness are rarely ever one and the same. You're doing pretty much the same thing. By standing in the middle and minimizing the claims of both parties, you're denying that any one of the parties might have a superior claim. Both sides are equally foolish. But statistically, you, as the neutral party, have only a 1 in 3 chance of being correct; no better a chance than any of the two parties whose claims you're mimimizing. And let me reiterate, that is a huge blind spot in contemporary Lefty thinking. The fallacy of neutrality.
Your impartiality
Posted by: David at January 21, 2005 10:15 AMThe gay conspirators are everywhere. I can see them peeping out of my wife's blouse. Oh, and Superman comics? His tights were a bit, um, tight, as if to say, "Read this comic young man, consider the sleek contours of Superman's thighs, gaze upon his pert buttocks and ample chest. Let your imagination run wild." Get the drift?
Oh, and Elmo? Please. I'm not stupid. He talks in a high voice.
Posted by: Jim at January 21, 2005 10:18 AMTosk! Man, you are NOT supposed to reveal those things in a place like this! Get a grip man!
Posted by: too many steves at January 21, 2005 10:18 AMDavid - No wonder you're so messed up. You go to "World Net Daily" to find your "gay agenda".
Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? World Net Daily is oen of the prominent sites that propagates hatred against gay people.
It's the equivalent of going to the Nazi World Review to find evidence of the "Jewish conspiracy". Pretty lame if you ask me. And not very intellectual.
When I gave you evidence of the "Religious Right agenda", one of which is to demonize gay people - I gave you quotes directly from the Religious right. Why don't you just go to the American Family Association website (http://www.afa.net/) to see clear evidence of anti-gay hatred. In fact, one of the headlines there today is "P&G Chairman Gives Thousands to Promote Homosexual Agenda". How can you deny that the religious right does not have an agenda to demonize gay people?
If you could please provide me links to gay websites that are supposedly propagating this "gay agenda" I'd be interested in seeing it. Here's a link to the most prominent gay periodical. http://www.advocate.com You don't have to agree with it, but it looks pretty mainstream to me. You'll even find an article from a Reverand who is advocating the need for the gay community to partner with people of faith.
Let's get this clear. You're propagating hatred against gay people, as are others on this board. And then you take offense when we point out that the religious right hates gay people. Why does that so offend you? But you do hate gay people! So stop taking offense when people point this out to you.
As a gay person, I take offense at people who insist on making their anti-gay beliefs public policy, i.e. trying to interfere with my life. I have no qualms about saying that. Any rational person would feel the same way. But the only objection I have with the religious right is that they keep trying to interfere with my life. If they would stop doing that, I'd stop complaining about them.
Your beliefs are no different than racism or anti-semitism. You can try and justify it all you want, but if you're going to sit here and say that the gay lifestyle should be stopped, you are lying to yourself if you're trying to claim that you don't have an anti-gay agenda.
You're entitled to your beliefs. But to pretend that you are tolerant of gay people is a fraud.
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 10:23 AMLet's get this clear. You're propagating hatred against gay people, as are others on this board.
dude, stfu. Your post isn't even worth responding to just based on your above statement.
Posted by: David at January 21, 2005 10:25 AMTom Grey,
You must be on drugs if you think Dobson does not want to reinstitute the sodomy laws. Of course he does. He wants to put gay people in jail. Just ask him. Look at his writings. Read his comments when Lawrence V. Texas overturned the Texas Sodomy laws.
You act as if only an extremist would want to put gay people in jail, yet George Bush did just that when he was Governor of Texas, and advocated in 1994 that the sodomy laws should stay in place (only for gay people of course).
And now the religious right wants people placed on the Supreme Court who will overturn Lawrence V. Texas, which would make gays criminals again.
Your talk on AIDS is silly too. You use AIDS to malign all gay people and use that as a reason to punish homosexuality. Why? What does AIDS have to do with lesbians, who have a lower AIDS rate than the general population? What about the vast majority of gay people who do NOT have AIDS and practice safe sex. What AIDS does have to do with is promiscuity, not homosexuality. And promiscuity SHOULD be discouraged. But you're not helping your argument much, since you are against gay marriage. Gay marriage would obviously do tons to LOWER promiscuity.
But you're really not interested in lower promiscuity amongst gay people, now are you? Of course not. You're just against gay people period.
Please pardon me your crocodile tears. You were against gay people before HIV was even discovered, and you'll be against them when there's a cure. If you'd just admit that and argue that you're against gay people SIMPLY because the Bible says so, you'd have more credibility in my book.
You're entitled to have your religious beliefs. If you really think being gay is a sin, then you know what, don't be gay. If you think divorce is a sin, then fine, don't get divorced. But why you take such an interest in how I live my life as a consensual adult is beyond me.
But we shouldn't have laws in this country, SOLELY becauase the Bible says so.
David,
You are in denial if you claim that you don't hate gay people. Let's look at some of your quotes:
There is a gay agenda, and they are targeting the youth for their propaganda. - David
And yes, I do believe in the fabled "gay agenda." - David
Now let's play a little game here. Let's change the words "gay" for "Jewish".
There is a Jewish agenda, and they are targeting the youth for their propaganda. - David
And yes, I do believe in the fabled "Jewish agenda." - David
Sound anti-semetic to you? Of course it does.
The reason you can't see your hatred of gay people is that you are blind to it. I'm sure the KKK gets upset when people call them racist. I'm sure the PLO gets upset when people call them anti-semetic. Just like you're getting upset when people call you anti-gay.
But you are.
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 10:43 AMThe Religious Right is far too happy to be the bogeyman. Geeks and freaks like Mr. Dobson do more to harm the reputations of the devout than anything else today. (I'm including Catholic Priest shenanigans; those perverts may have done more damage to their congregations and their religion, but I'm talking about perceptions of the deeply faithful by those who aren't that tight with God.)
And speaking of flamers, Hugo Weaving of "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" fame also had a bit part in another movie where his character famously says "Me, me, me."
Behind Dobson's quotes, that's all I perceive he's thinking. If it looks like a publicity whore and acts like a publicity whore, well, you know.
Posted by: Mark Poling at January 21, 2005 10:47 AMDowntown,
you're basically reading from your talking points. I'm sure your screed is pretty standard for you by now, and everybody "hates gays" who isn't of your thinking. It's like moonbats calling everybody "racists" who isn't of their thinking. Minimal impact. But it does tell me who I'm talking to and how seriously I'm going to take them. In this case, not much.
I give you worldnetdaily, and it's all "lies." But I'm supposed to read your crap from a site called "hatecrimes.org"? Don't be infantile. Woldnet just links to stuff, just like your "hatecrimes.org". You can choose to read it or ignore it, but you're on equal footing with me, and your standard accusations of "hate" aren't making much of an impact on me right now.
All I can say is, let's keep the children out of this, shall we?
Posted by: David at January 21, 2005 10:53 AMYou have your childhood icons you grew up with. You’ve known, say, Batman all your life, now all of the sudden it’s revealed he’s gay, turning every preconceived notion you’ve ever had on its head.
Batman wasn't supposed to be gay? I mean c'mon, tights, Boy Wonder (a teenage syncophantic acrobat in tights)? And Ren and Stimpy not being gay in the 1990s? Please.
That said, Lad's hysterical rants are alomst as much of a crude stereotype.
Gay marriage would obviously do tons to LOWER promiscuity.
Oh, really Lad? Like the Massachusetts gay men who got married and them loudly proclaimed their "open" marriage? OK, fine then, marriage for lesbians but not for gays. Oh, wait, that wouldn't be very fair (logical, but not fair). PLease spare us the moral indignation when someone points out that there exist gay men far less morally upright than, and are perhaps in the majority of the gay population. And don't pretend that the gay activists speak for only a fraction of gays.
Ten years ago gays said they wanted rights, they'd never want marriage ("Scoff, who'd want that uptight, straight thing, darling?") Now the mainstream gay man is all too hypersensitive about his marriage rights.
In fact, what you're doing is making a compelling case for lesbians only to be treated on par with heterosexual couples. (greater fidelity, less VD, etc). You're actually making the case against applying these standards to gay men.
Will I admit my dislike for promiscuous gay male culture? In a heartbeat. And it's not just based on Biblical precepts. It's based on numerous social and cultural factors that are, when magnified to social acceptance not toleration, corrosive to society.
It's like muslims decalring Islam is the religion of peace when their compatriots are sawing off a head in the back room. Unless and until mainstream gay culture repudiates dangerous and morally reprobate practices, gays can forget about acceptance from more than a few Americans.
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 21, 2005 10:57 AM"far less morally upright than [yourself]"
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 21, 2005 10:59 AMDavid,
Everyone knows exactly what you are talking about when you say "let's keep the children out of this."
Your disgusting implication is that all gays are pedophiles.
Stop the hatred David. Stop the lies. Your actions are evil.
I gave you direct quotes from the religious right. Direct quotes. I also gave you links to the American Family Association website. World Net Daily is another perfect example. Why in the world do they have three current articles up there demonizing gay people??? That is evidence enough of an anti-gay "agenda".
Again - the religious right agenda is to demonize gay people. Just like you are doing.
The real "gay agenda", what every gay person wants if you would just talk to them (which you obviously haven't) is to stop people from demonizing them. So? Is that so bad?
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 11:02 AMKay Hoog: You have your childhood icons you grew up with. You’ve known, say, Batman all your life, now all of the sudden it’s revealed he’s gay, turning every preconceived notion you’ve ever had on its head.
I couldn't care less if Batman is gay. I never thought about it one way or another. I don't have preconceived sexual ideas about cartoon characters. They're cartoon characters.
I have gay friends. Am I supposed to have some kind of a problem with gay people? Well, I don't, and you're not going to change my mind. I used to be anti-gay, but that was when I was a stupid teenager. I have moved on and am not going back.
What if you found out Batman was Jewish? Would you care?
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 21, 2005 11:05 AMHobgoblin,
That's great. Quote one gay couple out of 4000 who said they are going to have an open marriage and use that to malign the other 3,999.
Guess what Hobgoblin? There are straights with open marriages as well.
Then you put out the LIE that gay people have said they didn't want marriage. Huh? Gay people have been clamoring for marriage since the gay rights movement began. Andrew Sullivan argued for it in the 1970's. The Economist had a magazine cover article on it almost 15 years ago (in favor of it by the way).
You know nothing about gay people except the viscious propaganda you read on anti-gay websites.
But at least you admit you're a bigot. Good for you. Now maybe David will do the same.
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 11:07 AMYour disgusting implication is that all gays are pedophiles
you truly are an idiot. And most people here know that even though I get passionate I rarely call people names. You deserve it though, what can I say.
'Keep the children out of it' means let parents raise their kids the way THEY want to raise them and stop using the fact that they're captive audiences in the schools to push your insidious agenda on them. Is that "hate"? Good. Then it's hate.
NOT pedophilia you dimwit.
Posted by: David at January 21, 2005 11:07 AMthe fallacy of your thinking is to assume that simply because you're "neutral", then both parties must therefore be either right or wrong in equal measures (pretty standard Lefty thinking, by the way).
Your view of my view, is a dim view at best.
I don't particularly think that both parties are right or wrong in equal measure. In fact, I tend to believe that some conspiracies are real, while many may contain only an element of truth and a few seem to be outright paranoia.
What I do think is equal, is the fanatical, dogmatic thought process, displayed by those who see conspiracy, only when it fits their worldview.
By standing in the middle and minimizing the claims of both parties, you're denying that any one of the parties might have a superior claim. Both sides are equally foolish. But statistically, you, as the neutral party, have only a 1 in 3 chance of being correct; no better a chance than any of the two parties whose claims you're mimimizing.
Alas, you are yet again looking through the glass of your computer monitor... darkly.
I am not taking a stance that both sides are equally wrong or right. In fact, I don't think that I stated my belief or disbelief in any of the conspiracies listed. I merely made fun of the lot of you, because you tend to paint yourselves with bright colors, glue feathers to your naughty bits and run up and down the blogsphere screaming about the death of America from the Gays, Liberals,IslamoNaziCommuFacists, Pagans, Science Teachers or anyone else who disagrees with your worldview (or scream about the death of America from the Republican, BushNazi, Oil Baron, Christian Zealots.
I'm not judging the validity of what your saying... I'm just making fun of the spectacle you make of yourself.
So the way I see it:
You believe in the Gay/Liberal/Insert whatever here Agenda.
Your opponent believes in the Conservative/Christian/Big Business Agenda.
I believe that you all act like howler monkeys that found Hunter Thompson's stash of LSD.
So either:
You are right, I am right and your Opponent wrong.
Your Opponent is right, I am right and You are wrong.
You are Wrong, Your Opponent is Wrong and I am right.
They way I count that is one for you, one for your opponent and three for me.
Better yet, I get to act like a howler monkey, blessed by Lucy and have a three in three chance of being right. Thats a really good deal!
Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord
Muncher of The ChaoAcorn
Chatterer of The Words of Eris
POEE of The Great Googlie Mooglie Cabal
(and all night BBQ)
Not sure I get the difficulty in finding a 'gay agenda'. Surely we haven't forgotten Mayor Newsom and the Massachusatts Supreme Court? These actions surely weren't undertaken at the beckoning of the religious right.
Posted by: Matthew Ryan at January 21, 2005 11:08 AM
I'm tired of arguing with the bigots, so this is my last post today. I don't expect to change their minds. I just want them to leave me alone and let me live my life as I see fit.
I don't think that's asking for much.
I know exactly where these people are coming from. I had similar reactions with people from my own family. I had family members who have the same beliefs, and claimed to not be anti-gay. Yet, when I came out to them last year, they stopped talking to me. Enough said?
I've elaborated on my coming out experience in detail on my blog. It's an eye-opener, especially since I consider myself to be pretty conservative on most issues (pro-life, low taxes, pro-war, etc.) You can read it below if you're interested.
http://downtownlad.blogspot.com/2004/10/gay-and-conservative-oxymoron.html
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 11:13 AMI'm tired of arguing with the bigots
You're not "arguing" with bigots. All you're doing is calling them bigots.
That's why you're a waste of time.
Posted by: David at January 21, 2005 11:14 AMOne last post.
David - Two posts ago you said gays have an "insidious agenda". Then, you claim you're not a bigot.
The sane people on this post can see through your crap.
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 11:18 AMHere's a scary thought: what if Dobson decides to run for President in 2008?
Posted by: Sean at January 21, 2005 11:20 AMRegardless of however we are "supposed" to feel toward homosexuals, of which I am keenly aware thanks very much to MTV shoving it down my throat since I was 10 (I'm now 25), it doesn't change the fact that homosexual behavior is both socially, and sexually deviant.
Now in perspective I'm sure Mr. Dobson and his ilk would take offense to some of me an my fiance's bedroom activities, most likely preferring that we sleep in separate beds with a 3" wooden board between us at night. Therefore I don't claim any moral superiority over those who prefer the same sex, but don't try to tell me that it's natural and I should accept and embrace it as I would heterosexuality.
It is just that assertion that I think causes so many people to reject greater tolerance of homosexuals. That and their propensity to quite literally parade their sexuality about, and behave with self-righteous indignance at the mere suggestion that homosexuality doesn't have to be accepted as a social norm.
I would also like to point out that I am not ignorant of homosexuals. I actually know and enjoy the company of several people of that pursuasion, both male and female. And I accept them as they accept me and my daughter, who was born out of wedlock. But just as I have stated that homosexuality should not become a social norm, neither should the fathering of illegitimate children. It is there where I draw my parallel.
Tolerance is a good place to start, but forcing something like homosexuality upon the populace as a social norm is neither tolerant nor progressive, and is in a great part at fault for the reactionary hypersensitivity which allows for dolts like Mr. Dobson, Rev. Jerry Falwell, and the like, to have a voice.
Posted by: Mike at January 21, 2005 11:26 AMOne last, last post! :)
The Secret gay Agenda. Here it is!
http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?story_id=1039561&t=Opinion&c=22,1039561
Money quote:
"The secret agenda? It’s apparent with almost everyone I spoke with. Life. Love. Family. A good job. Growing old with someone special. It’s the same agenda almost everyone has. It only has to be a secret when you’re gay."
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 11:27 AMBigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
While I'd agree that David is 'one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, and politics', I'm not yet sure about his 'intolerance of those who differ'.
He's a blowhard, he talks a lot, he rants a lot.... I think he would very much like a society where anything not 'Conservative Christian' was considered 'bizarre' and treated like the readheaded stepchild. I think it would tolerate it, but you can bet he'd love to see it live in the lottle room under the stairs and have only bread and water for nourishment.
Of course, since I only know him from the blog, that could be completely in error. He may blow off here, while be a quiet scared little man in real life, or he may be a friendly tolerant guy who just gets excited in debates. Or perhaps he's a real prick. I don't know.
Posted by: Ratatosk at January 21, 2005 11:27 AMHe's probably my brother-in-law . . .
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 11:31 AMSome parsing of "gay agenda":
To use argument, rhetoric, and imagery to
(Agenda A) ...try to get Americans to stop hating gays and instead to tolerate them even if not approving of them; also perhaps even to get Americans accept gay marriage.
(Agenda B) ...try to make America more gay, to recruit more gays, to suggest to children that they consider becoming gay, to try to legalize sex with boys, etc.
Of course there are a few nut jobs with Agenda B. But Agenda A is above board and not deserving of condemnation (athough there is room for reasonable disagreement about the propriety of tactics such a public high school classes having a unit on how it's okay to be gay.)
Vehemently to condemn Agenda A is bigoted, although to disagree with parts of it may not be bigoted. To condemn Agenda B is not bigoted. To claim that all Agenda A is really B in disguise is paranoid. To mistake the two agendas and condemn the whole ball of wax can make one seem like a bigot, even though one really just needs to distinguish the two agendas.
Posted by: Jim at January 21, 2005 11:31 AMLad,
But at least you admit you're a bigot.
My aren't you just epitomizing the ad hominem flinging, spittle flying, hysterical gay stereotype? You have no idea who I am.
Up to this point, I had not stooped to call you any names at all. I called your rants hysterical, and I stick by that now. I've got little concern what you do in private (toleration), but that not what you want, is it?
The real "gay agenda", what every gay person wants if you would just talk to them (which you obviously haven't) is to stop people from demonizing them. So? Is that so bad?
Now, that wasn't directed at me, but let's use the marriage thing as an example. Marriage is a societal institution (perhaps based on Judeo-Christian norms, but heterosexual marriage exists in every culture across the world irrespective of religion). What did gays want? Toleration? No. They wanted to change a fundamental societal institution. It'd be similar to Orthodox Jews lobbying for everything to close on the Sabbath and driving to be outlawed. You're no longer asking for toleration, your asking for acceptance, and that's a different ball of wax.
So too with the "child-indoctrinization." It's not enough that kids are told not to tease the "queer" kid and to just get along. No, that's not good enough. No, now children must learn, at increasingly younger ages, what everyone does in their bedroom. That's not only distatesful, iits brainwashing. Lots of different people have lots of different opinioons about what is and isn't appropriate sexual behavior, even among married adults. How is it "tolerant" to force one libertine ethos into the minds of all children?
Got news for you, it's not.
Now I don't know where David's coming from, and maybe he is less than tolerant of homosexuality. That's fine, this is America. But calling everyone who disagrees with you a bigot, even when done respectfully, is a crock of shit.
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 21, 2005 11:32 AMMy aren't you just epitomizing the ad hominem flinging, spittle flying, hysterical gay stereotype? You have no idea who I am.
I know. Who in their right mind would get into an argument with that.
Posted by: David at January 21, 2005 11:40 AMDavid and Hobgoblin would make a great match for each other. I'm sure they are lusting after each other right now.
Geez - Not even the gay people I know are this obsessed with other gay men.
Talk about closet cases.
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 11:45 AMSean: Here's a scary thought: what if Dobson decides to run for President in 2008?
Let him. He won't win a primary, and I'll be interested to know what percentage of the GOP actually takes his bullshit seriously.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 21, 2005 11:47 AMDavid and Hobgoblin would make a great match for each other. I'm sure they are lusting after each other right now.
So when you aren't delivering your pre-prepared hysterical screed, you descent to that level of intelligence?
I was right to dismiss you.
Posted by: David at January 21, 2005 11:48 AMWow Lad, that's a petty shot. You really had nothing more intelligent to offer than a pitiful attempt to exploit an assumed sexual insecurity? Who's the narrow-minded bigot now?
Posted by: Mike at January 21, 2005 11:49 AMApparently, tolerance was a lesson some of the people posting to this site missed out on while they were children.
This is not a new concept. In the 70's, when I was a kid there was this movie, "Free to be You and Me." And it included a song about a little boy, Billy, who had a doll. Maybe Billy, was gay, maybe he wasn't - but the message was, it's OK if Billy wants to play with a doll, it's no big deal.
If kids will relate to Sponge Bob saying it's ok to be different - then by all means let's encourage it. Hatred and bigotry breed hatred and bigotry. We should sieze every opportunity possible to interrupt that pattern and influence children NOT to hate and to accept diversity for what it is - something different (and really not all that different), not something wrong.
A docmentary called "Paper Clips" tells a story about a middle school in the middle of Tennessee and a teacher who wanted to develop a class to teach a group of white protestant children about tolerance. In a town where there were literaly no Jewish residents, the teacher decided to focus on the Holocaust. The reaction of the children and the support they get make a great and inspiring story. The documentary underscores the importance of introducing these concepts into places without a lot of exposure to diversity - not places that are "backward" or "ignorant", but places that simply are not exposed to such issues. I encourage you all to read about the project and to see the documentary if given the chance. (Miramax picked it up for theatrical release)
That is what we are talking about here, right, among the jabs of conspiracy (very humourous Ratatosk) and who-hates-who? A project, using popular icons such as Sponge Bob and Barney to teach our kids to be kind (tolerant) to other people.
...Of course it all could be part of that national security threat, the "back-door" gay draft, or NOT.
Posted by: Chris at January 21, 2005 11:50 AMMike,
Yes, I admit I am bigoted against anti-gay bigots. And blacks are bigoted against the KKK. And Jews are bigoted against the Nazi party.
And your point is?
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 11:52 AMHobboglin: What did gays want? Toleration? No. They wanted to change a fundamental societal institution. It'd be similar to Orthodox Jews lobbying for everything to close on the Sabbath and driving to be outlawed.
If Downtown Lad marries a man it doesn't affect you. If he lobbies to force you to marry a man, that is similar to Orthodox Jews closing down your favorite restaurant on Saturday.
No one wants to force you to marry another man. (I assume you're a man because "hobgoblin" just isn't feminine.)
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 21, 2005 11:52 AMWho's the narrow-minded bigot now?
Mike,
the point isn't that he's a bigot, it's that, well, he's dumb. His post at 11:45 pretty much outed him about that.
Posted by: David at January 21, 2005 11:56 AMMJT,
My analogy was aimed more at the idea that toleration does not imply fundamental changes to the structure of society. A toleration of gays does not necessarily imply a redefinition of marriage.
Rights? OK. Equality under the law and all that.
But the structural definition of marriage is just that, a siocietal structure. Asking to change the structure of society so it conforms to one's beliefs and actions (as opposed to their existence as with slavery/Jim Crow) is not "tolerance."
It's a radical political agenda.
And Lad, you are an ignorant, bigoted, juvenile fool. How do you know I'm not gay? Or female? Or both? Or none of the above? Moron. Now why don't you spend some energy decrying the rampant promiscuity of gay men and the dangers it poses to full legal equlality for gays.
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 21, 2005 12:01 PMThanks Michael. That's an excellent point.
I like to compare homosexuality to smoking cigarettes (no pun intended). I, myself, despise cigarettes. But I don't want to ban them. If people want to smoke cigarettes in the privacy of their own home, let them. If people want to advertise cigarettes. Let them. I don't care. I don't even care if people light up a cigarette next to me. I'm pretty tolerant. Other people should be tolerant of smokers as well. How many times have you heard people yell at smokers, even when they are not smoking???? I think these anti-smoking zealots and the anti-gay zealots and the anti-drinking zealots are all of the same breed. They are like the Church Lady on Saturday Night Live.
If you think being gay is a sin, then don't be gay. If you're against gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex. If you're against smoking, then don't smoke. But why do you really care if somebody else does?
This desire to control other people's actions is a very strange one to me. I don't want the government in my private life, and that includes telling me who I can and cannot marry.
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 12:01 PMTosk:
The Left is really a bunch of Authoritarian bastards.
The Right is really a bunch of authoritarian bastards.
As Dobson and Downtown Lad so elegantly demonstrate, forcing a worldview on an unwilling audience is an intramural sport. I wouldn't call those conspiracies. (We HATES nasty filthy artificial dualities. Gollum! Gollum!)
WMD's weren't a lie and they were secretly spirited away to 'X'.
Personally I'm keeping an open mind on this one. (By the way, I never assume something proven to be untrue was a lie if it can be equally well explained by stupidity and/or incompetence. Hence, I believe Mapes and Rather may really have believed the Killian Papers to be authentic. May still believe it. Another truism is to never underestimate the seductive power of willful ignorance.)
Posted by: Mark Poling at January 21, 2005 12:05 PMRen and Stimpy, in my opinion, was never intended for children.
That is all.
Posted by: john at January 21, 2005 12:07 PMRampant promiscuity? And how exactly would you know this?
It certainly doesn't apply to me. It doesn't apply to my gay friends. And it's not really up to me to tell others (straight or gay) who they can or cannot sleep with.
I do know that I CAN encourage government policies that would reduce promiscuity, amongst both gay and straight people. Marriage is the most important one.
So as far as I can tell - you are the one advocating gay promiscuity, not me, since you are doing everything possible to discourage gay people from settling down (by banning gay marriage). I'm favoring policies that will reduce it.
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 12:08 PMLad: Yes, I admit I am bigoted against anti-gay bigots. And blacks are bigoted against the KKK. And Jews are bigoted against the Nazi party
My point is that if the situation were as you would like us to believe, then I'd support you. But judging merely by his posts, David is not a bigot. Reactionary, sure; bigoted no.
Therefore by simply assuming he's sexually insecure and lobbing that pathetic attempt at an insult, you exposed your own prejudice. You've made up your mind, like so many of your peers, that anyone not in total accordance with complete acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is a homophobe.
Or in other words you're a hypocrite.
Posted by: Mike at January 21, 2005 12:08 PMHeh, chris said ""back-door" gay"
heh.
Seriously, Dobson's a kook, Spongebob is weird, but tolerable, and not everyone who recoils from the idea that America should be restructured to fit every grievance group's particular gripe is a bigot.
MJT, I guess what I'm really trying to say w/r/t marriage is that we don't know what making such fundamental changes will do. No fault divorce has proven to be an incredibly corrosive agent on society. Abortion likewise (whether it's a constitutional right or not aside---some rights are corrosive to society). How could court-ordered gay marriage prove much different?
When a legislature passes a gay marriage bill without pressure from a court, I'll be fine with it as an expression of the popular will. Until then, how can anyone say the drive for such treatment isn't (1) an agenda, and (2) possible harmful to society?
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 21, 2005 12:12 PMMike - that's the definition of the word homophobe. Yes, someone not in complete acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is a homophobe. Again, what's your point?
Secondly, calling somebody gay is not an insult. In fact, my post was in jest. But there was some truth there. People who are that obsessed with proving their "straightness" by lobbing anti-gay assaults, may very well stem from some same-sex feelings that they are struggling with. I came out at 36, so I went through the same thing.
And David is indeed a bigot. Bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. That describes him perfectly.
As I said previously. If somebody is anti-gay, but lets me live my life as I see fit, I have no issues. When he insists on DICTATING how I live my life through restrictive laws, damn right I have a problem with that!
Smokers don't have a problem with me, even though I hate smoking, because I don't dictate my views on them. Smokers have every right to have a problem with people who want to outlaw smoking.
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 12:16 PMlad
"I don't want the government in my private life, and that includes telling me who I can and cannot marry"
News flash: the government can't tell you who you can or can't marry. It only tells you what marriages it will recognize. That's government intrusion into your private life. You want to get married? Great, go down to the nearest Unitarian Church and get hitched. No government in your private life there.
Oh, not good enough, you want the rights? OK, here's a civil unions package.
Not good enough, you want "acceptance"?
Tough shit. You can't legislate acceptance, and nothing anyone will do can change that. Say I'm a polygamist: why can't I have acceptance? Aside from your own narrow, narcissistic view, there's no logic to the demand for gay marriage that's not equally ablicable in 100 different situations.
Face it, you're not asking for tolerance. You're asking for a pat on the head from a society that doesn't have any duty to do so.
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 21, 2005 12:18 PMFace it, you're not asking for tolerance. You're asking for a pat on the head from a society that doesn't have any duty to do so.
That pretty much sums it up.
You want a pat on the head Downtown? Daddy didn't give you enough of that? That might explain a few things.
Posted by: David at January 21, 2005 12:24 PMGee, from my unsophisticated perspective, I would have thought there were lots of different homosexual lifestyles. I though maybe David just wasn't comfortable with the hypothetical subset of the Gay community that wants to start teaching Politically Correct Thought in elementary schools. (My take: no scripture, no "Heather has Two Moms.")
Does that make me a bigot?
Posted by: Mark Poling at January 21, 2005 12:25 PMThat's why it's interesting to have these debates. The truth is exposed.
Lad's gone from "tolerance" to "Yes, someone not in complete acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is a homophobe.
Really, Lad?
Glory holes?
Am I a homophobe if I say that's gross? Gosh, 'phobe me up.
Guys I know like you (politically) are the exact same way. Start out all reasonable, until at some point it comes out that no, nothing's good enough until they brainwash all the drooling rubes into loving them. What happened to "gay activists are only a small unrepresentative part of the population"
You have power to speak out. You have a blog. You comment in places like MJT. Think, man, think. Evaluate your positions. As MJT has realized, deviation from teh party line can get you ostracized and attacked, but sometimes, just sometimes, the party line is wrong.
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 21, 2005 12:26 PMhobgoblin - Liz Taylor got married and divorced 9 times. Was the government and society giving their "acceptance" of that by making it legal?
No. But they are letting her live her life as she sees fit. Society, rightly, lambasted this mockery of marriage. But she's still free to get married again, as she should be. It's her life, after all.
Why are you trying to control my life? There are over 1000 rights that come with marriage. Why are you denying me the right to have those?
And the government could indeed arrest a gay person who gets married. If a married gay couple moved to Virginia they could get arrested. They have not done it yet, but they could if they wanted to.
Read the history of Loving V. Virginia if you don't believe me. Virginia was going to put an interracial couple in jail for a year, even though they were married out of state.
You're really think that can't happen? You really think it won't?
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 12:30 PMJesus, Lad if you consider lack of total acceptance homophobia then don't read my first post here. You might expect me to throw on a black shirt and start hauling gypsies, jews and queers out of their homes.
I agree that some U.S. citizens shoudn't have their rights curtailed more so than others just because of sexual preference. But the gay lobby isn't just fighting for equal rights under the law, they want impose on the entire society what role they feel they want to play.
Furthermore anyone who objects is a bigot and a homophobe. As people should be tolerant of you, you should tolerate them and respect that your lifestyle is offensive to some. I think my vegetarian friends are rediculous, but I still don't order a rare T-bone when we go to dinner. We need less PC, and more mutual human respect.
Posted by: Mike at January 21, 2005 12:33 PMYes hobgoblin - You are a homophobe. I thought you would have been proud of that.
News flash: Most Americans are homophobes. My parents are homphobes. My siblings are homophobes.
I never said homophobes are evil people. Homophobes are simply uncomfortable with gay people and the gay lifestyle. From my perspective, I'd say only 40% of America, at best, is not homophobic.
Your glory hole comment will not even be answered. Do you really think that is common in the gay community? Probably a lot less common than prostitution is in the straight community.
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 12:36 PMLiz Taylor got married and divorced 9 times.
I think it was only 8
Posted by: Stephen Silver at January 21, 2005 12:41 PMBut, all of my friends that play in the polyamory, glory hole, swinger areas are straight or bi. Mostly, the guys I know that are into this sort of lifestyle just enjoy having two or more girls in bed at once.... and who wouldn't? (well, I guess the gay people wouldn't)
I've seen gay glory holes, but more often I've seen women waiting behind the wall.
(I've been in some pretty bizarre places)
Now, if I read David and hobgoblin correctly, since some gay men are promiscious, then all gay men should be considered dangerous to society... because they might spread AIDS. Isn't that, though, like saying since some religious leaders have raped children, then all religious leaders should be suspect and considered dangerous? I mean, really, isn't it like saying that Jews are stingy or that Christians are a bunch of murderers since some crazy christians have killed abortion doctors?
Isn't it just like every other intolerant stereotyping attitude?
Posted by: Ratatosk at January 21, 2005 12:43 PMMark Poling - No, you are not a bigot. Not even close. As I, myself, stated previously, I think diversity day activities are "sappy".
But people who start talking of "insidious gay agendas", making it sound like a conspiracy that all gay people are secretly part of, yes, that is getting into bigotry. It's the exact same thing as those who talk about a "Jewish conspiracy".
How did "sexual orientation" even get into the pledge in the first place? Did anyone even possibly consider the fact that a STRAIGHT person put it there?
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 12:45 PMNow, if I read David and hobgoblin correctly, since some gay men are promiscious, then all gay men should be considered dangerous to society...
Ok, now who's the blowhard. Show me where I said that.
Posted by: David at January 21, 2005 12:46 PMLad,
Liz Taylor got married and divorced 9 times. Was the government and society giving their "acceptance" of that by making it legal?
Yep. Yep. And yep.
That's what legality IS, dude.
And after Lawrence, no homosexual can be arrested for engaging in sodomy. Period. I would have thought you knew Lawrence backwards and forwards.
If a married gay couple moved to Virginia they could get arrested
BZZZZT. WRONGGG!!! (McLaughlin voice)
You're getting hysterical again with the comparison in Loving (and potentially offending quite a few blacks).
We had a war over whether race mattered in America. Racists lost. The Fourteenth Amendment fundamentally changed America's thoughts on race. It took 100+ years to finally fulfil the meaning of the 14th Amendment, but it was always the law during that time. Apples and oranges, me boy.
There's been no public consesnsus on sexuality. Hell, here in deep Blue Oregon, they voted against gay marriage. Trying to impose it by judicial fiat is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever seen.
Are you really "conservative-leaning?" Do you know what that means? It means you let society catch up at its own pace.
No one wants to control your life. You want to change the very building blocks of the society in which we live. Pardon me if I think that's a bit rushed, radical, and stupid to boot.
Oh, and have you decided to put me on the homophobe train to re-education camp for not liking "gay coughsexparlorcough lifestyles"?
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 21, 2005 12:46 PMLad, I'm for gay marriage, but if you intend to howl until everyone "totally accepts" homosexuality, don't count me as an ally. It is possible for a reasonable person to believe that homosexuality is unwise (and why you count that person as "homophobic" is unknowable except to you). It's unreasonable to howl at reasonable people.
Ratatosk: That's disgusting, the booth with the lady behind the hole. Now, where exactly did you see this booth?
Posted by: Jim at January 21, 2005 12:49 PMBut people who start talking of "insidious gay agendas", making it sound like a conspiracy that all gay people are secretly part of, yes, that is getting into bigotry. It's the exact same thing as those who talk about a "Jewish conspiracy".
Downtown,
In fact, I don't blame most gay people for the activistas and professional hysterics like yourself. When I say "insidious", I mean YOU, and your type. Not all gays. And if thinking YOU and YOUR agenda to indoctrinate kids while they're in school is insidious, then tough luck for you. Because most people in America feel the same way my friend. And if that makes us "homophobes", then who cares. The more people you call that, the less power the word has.
Posted by: David at January 21, 2005 12:51 PMFurthermore anyone who objects is a bigot and a homophobe. As people should be tolerant of you, you should tolerate them and respect that your lifestyle is offensive to some. I think my vegetarian friends are rediculous, but I still don't order a rare T-bone when we go to dinner. We need less PC, and more mutual human respect.
Mike - There are lots of bigots and homophobes, including my family. I'm not intolerant of them. I deal with them every day.
I have already made a committment to my family that I will never discuss any facet of my gay life ever in their presence. That means that they will never meet my boyfriend, they will never hear what movie I went to see with him last weekend, they will never hear about my vacations with him, etc.
You trying doing that with your girlfriend/spouse, never bringing up her name in any conversation that might imply you are heterosexual. Imagine not bringing up her name ever in any conversation?
That's the life I live, so please don't imply that I'm not tolerant of people's attitude of homosexuality that might be counter to mine.
But you know what. If I want to marry my partner, I should be able to. If I want to join the military, I should be able to. If I want to arrange for medical care for my partner, I should be able to.
But I can't. And I think I have every right to pissed off by that fact. I'll keep my family out of my life if they really want that. But I get mighty pissed off when the government starts telling me how I should live my life.
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 12:53 PMhobgoblin,
I agree with much of what you've said. We cannot legislate society, we should not try to legislate society. I think that the pro-gay groups that have pushed for legal judgements to protect marriage were dumb dumb dumb. Americans a bullheaded, no matter what you want them to do, don't try to force them... I think thats part of the problem with the anti-Bush people.
However, I do have to state one key difference between you and I. I see ,b> "gay coughsexparlorcough lifestyles" as homophobia. Any rational person who would care to take a look at the " "coughsexparlorcough lifestyles" would find many, many heterosexual and bisexual people, living that life. Are they a majority? Of course not, but I have never seen evidence that gays live a "coughsexparlorcough lifestyles" in a higher ratio than straights.
Those sort of statements really make you sound like a bigot, though the rest of your comment was well thought out.
do de do de do
Posted by: Ratatosk at January 21, 2005 12:54 PMIndoctrinate kids to be nice to gay people. That's insidious?
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 12:58 PMRad
"then all gay men should be considered dangerous to society... because they might spread AIDS."
No, at least I think that's incorrect. No, rather the "gay lifestyle" (of which I must believe or be tarred with the horridly awful moniker of 'phobe) is in its current form corrosive of society, and should not be fostered or held up as a paragon.
Homosexuality was frowned upon in Greek culture, but they had an open acceptance of homophilia. Men were romantic (and indeed sometimes sexual, but not openly so), and society tolerated it as an inevitable result of sex-segregated living.
The problem with most politically militant gays I know and see is that they want to impose acceptance---not tolerance---of their (often deivant) sexual practices. Really, what is the guy in a leather cod and chaps marching down the street trying to say?
It's not about his fundamental humanity, unless his humanity consists of nothing but sexual drive.
This mindset cheapens humanity and acts to mainstream even more promiscuity into the culture. That's a bad thing.
So, too with the extension of "marriage" to gays. If it's just legal benefits, Lad, we can talk. You start going on about social acceptance, you've lost me. Too much of the gay male culture revolves around promiscuity and sexual immorality (not even talking about the sex act itself).
And compounding it all, the militant gays are pushing the agenda through the courts, in full knowledge of massive public disapproval. Want to talk about how to make a disaffected citizenry? The "gay agenda" as it pertains to mainstreaming the "homosexual lifestyle" and gay "marriage" is highly dangerous to society.
Gay male promiscuity, standing alone? Only dangerous to themselves, no problem.
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 21, 2005 12:59 PMIn fact, I personally enjoy the occasional orgy. I think, though, it gets out of hand once you have more than 12 people or so.
Posted by: Ratatosk at January 21, 2005 12:59 PMI've linked to it already, but I don't think anyone read it. THIS is the gay agenda:
http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?story_id=1039561&t=Opinion&c=22,1039561
Despite what you think, I do not want or need your approval. I really don't care. I just want you to stop running my life.
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 01:02 PMHomosexuality was frowned upon in Greek culture
Only if the reciever was over the age of 10. Under the age of 10, it was not considered sex with a Man.
what is the guy in a leather cod and chaps marching down the street trying to say?
Probably the same thing as the straight guy who wears that outfit... the straight guy just prefers that girls use the whips and paddles. Let me tell ya, my lovely Sjaantze is damn good with a riding crop.
Posted by: Ratatosk at January 21, 2005 01:02 PMTosk (I thought there was a "d" there, sorry---Tosk is easier)
point taken. While a that particular practice involves a minority, gay male promiscuity is hardly something that's infrequent in gay culture. And it's certainly significantly more prevalent that in heterosexual or lesbian demographics.
and really, my point was to illustrate the absurdity of the "total acceptance" idea of Lad, but there are better ways to do that, agreed.
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 21, 2005 01:03 PMTosk,
"marching" was the operative verb. as in parade. for political reasons
A personal (though hardly philosophical) objection to gay activism is the conflating of a sex act with a political status. It both cheapens politics and elevates animalistic desires far beyond their relative worth in life. For instance, do you feel that swingers' groups (which you seem to know and understand) should be given marriage licenses as a matter of constitutional law?
b/c that's essentially the logic Lad is using.
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 21, 2005 01:08 PMBy the way - If I'm the "radical", you guys have a problem. Here's my philosophy:
Pro-Life
Lower Taxes
Less government spending
Pro War
Against gun control
Privatization of public schools
So essentially, it really doesn't matter what your ideology is. As soon as you declare that you're gay, you are suddenly part of the "radical gay agenda".
Whatever that means (be nice to gay people????)
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 01:09 PMhobgoblin,
I agree that no American needs to 'accept' any lifestyle other than their own. I think that gays that expect this sort of behavior are fooling themselves.
However, if you are disgusted by promiscuity, then be disgusted by promiscuity... not specifically Gay promiscuity. It's akin to slamming the evil Irish who drink too much, leaving the rest of us drunks out of the condemnation.
Or is it?
Posted by: Ratatosk at January 21, 2005 01:12 PMI’ve disliked James Dobson ever since he said that toddlers should be smacked around.
He said "pain is a marvelous purifier." I don’t want to violate Godwin’s law here, because I think it’s too extreme, but the word ‘purity’ has always been a red flag to me. At the very least, it indicates a very intolerant and exclusionary worldview.
The worst special interest groups have a thing about purity. Some feminist, Christian and black organizations start out by seeking equality, and then they slide down the slippery slope of claiming special rights because of past ‘victimization’. Once a groups says ‘it’s a womyn/Christmas/black thing, you wouldn’t understand’ , it’s proof that this special interest group has outlived its usefulness.
I’m pro-equal rights for gays, but I hope gay rights groups never descend to the level that some feminist groups like NOW have.
I choose to define my community as the people with whom I interact and choose to be represented by the political party for which I vote. Why should I, in community terms, have more in common with a Muslim from Bradford than with a Jew from Tonttenham or a Christian from Ramsgate?Why should Dobson have more in common with a Christian from Tennessee that with his gay neighbor down the block? Why does he even have a special interest group? Dobson already has his rights – fellow Americans who happen to be gay aren’t trying to take anything away from him, they’re just trying to get their rights too.
More proof of the corrosive effect of special interests – reasonable grownups are getting into a knock-down-drag-out fight here about Sponge Bob Square Pants.
Once equal rights are won, the formerly disadvantaged should change attitudes by proving what they can do, not by using a group to push everyone into seeing things their way. Once rights are legally won, it’s time for the special interest group to dissolve, for its members to rejoin the rest of the world.
As Joe Bob Briggs said, ‘a good monster movie has got to realize its limitations. Once that monster is dead, those credits have got to roll.’
Posted by: mary at January 21, 2005 01:12 PMLad,
In truth I haven't made up my mind about the Gay Marriage issue. Ideally I think each state should let it's citizens decide for themselves, and decide if they want to recognize the decisions of other states. However, I have no interest in limiting the rights of homosexuals to come together in civil union, and enjoy many of the rights and benefits of heterosexual couples. (I say many and not all b/c I don't think gay couples should have equal standing as heterosexual couples regarding adoption)
Secondly, I don't care if gays are in the military or not. Personally I could give a shit if the soldier next to me likes men, as long as he's got courage and can aim well, it's good enough for me. Gay or not, those men and women are standing watch and I am grateful.
Third, I'm sorry for your family that they do not have the capacity to love and accept their son unconditionally. And in that I'd say you do have a legitimate grievance, but that doesn't extend to everyone else. By labeling anyone who disagrees with total acceptance a "homophobe" or a "bigot" you are closing the door on compromise, and delivering an indictment upon all those who disagree with your lifestyle.
Posted by: Mike at January 21, 2005 01:13 PMSwingers are not forbidden from marrying. Swingers are not kicked out of the army. Swingers are not the target of religious right hatred.
Gay people are.
Again, your comparison between behavior (promiscuity) vs. sexual orientation is pretty disgusting. It implies that sexual orientation is a choice.
Of course the only people who believe that sexual orientation is a choice are straight people.
Still waiting to find that one gay person who "chose" his sexuality.
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 01:14 PMDowntown Lad, you need to settle down and get married. The local Unitarian-Universalists will gladly perform a same-sex wedding. Hell, they'd marry you to the Aurora Borealis, if you wanted. But thanks for pointing out gays are just as diverse in their views as everybody else and nobody is necessarily a part of any agenda but their own.
Posted by: Deuce at January 21, 2005 01:15 PM"do you feel that swingers' groups (which you seem to know and understand) should be given marriage licenses as a matter of constitutional law?"
Honestly?
I think that people confuse the two types of marriage. Common law marriage is the stuff that people have used for centuries in most countries. These may or may not be presided over by a religious official, but is usuall a social/civil function, not a religious one. Cannon law marriage, is a newer Religious wedding, which was only available to the privledged class throught the Late Middle Ages and the Early Renissance.
I think that the States made a mistake when they marginalized Common Law marriage. In my personal view, I would say that Cannon Law marriages would be marriages blessed by the Church (or whatever religious institution), while a Common Law marriage is simply a social contract that is honored and enforced by the government.
I would never suggest that Christians facillitate gay, lesbian, or swinger marriages.
However, if four people moved in together and all worked to support each other financially... then I think they should be able to get the same benefits of two people supporting each other financially.
If four people care enough about each other to form a single unit. Then who am I to say no? It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.
Posted by: Ratatosk at January 21, 2005 01:21 PMLad,
I'm not trying to be condescending with this, but if you can't see that changing the definition of society's core institution isn't radical, then you're being deliberately obtuse.
That great that we share so many other values. I feel proud to have another person who generally feels the same way as myself about so many issues as you do. And I, for one, am not accusing you of being completely enthralled with the entirety of any putative "gay agenda"
But any agenda that does exist is certainly far more broad than "be nice to gay people," and you admit that yourself in supporting gay marriage. You're not being honest, and you're not addressing the inconsistencies in your position. In this way, you're a lot like Andrew Sullivan (which you might take as a complaiment, but it's not) in that you have a blind spot when it comes to gay marriage because it's so personal and close to your emotions.
Well, all I can say is that re-defining marriage is radical. Whether you think that telling first graders that Heather has 2 mommies is right or not, it's radical. Preaching "acceptance" instead of toleration is radical. You have a radical spot when it comes to gay issues.
You're a gay radical.
You might be conservative about everything else, vote straight ticket Republican, and I'm sure the republicans will accept your vote. But you are indeed in a different position on gay issues, and the folks with whom you share that position tend to fall on the far(ther) end of the gay activist spectrum.
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 21, 2005 01:23 PMLad: Again, your comparison between behavior (promiscuity) vs. sexual orientation is pretty disgusting. It implies that sexual orientation is a choice.
Yeah I'm gonna have to go with Lad on this one. Have you been around the internet lately? Not that I ever look at porn, ahem but straight people do some pretty perverse stuff too. And I can't imagine anyone making the consious choice to be a social outcast b/c of their sexual orientation.
Posted by: Mike at January 21, 2005 01:24 PMMike - I'm not closing the door on compromise, because these people have already made up their mind. They will never tolerate gay people, period.
When I say acceptance of the gay lifestyle is required to not be a homophobe, that does not mean you have to favor gay marriage. I am talking about acceptance of gay people, i.e. not prejudging them based on their sexual orientation. Let's face it, if I said "I don't completely accept the Jewish lifestyle", or "I don't completely accept the black lifestyle", you would have to admit that I at least had some subtle anti-semitic or racist attitudes, wouldn't you? It is no different with homophobia.
Homophobia is ingrained in society. Both on the left as well as on the right. I don't expect that to change anytime soon. Certainly not in my lifetime.
Maybe you have to live through it to understand. Trust me - when you hear your sister tell you that she will never accept you and that you can no longer see her children - when you came out to her as gay at 36 years old, that is a major eye-opener!
And her response was "I don't have a problem with gay people".
Sure - she doesn't have a problem. Yeah right. I just can't see her or her kids anymore, becaues I'm gay.
(she has since mellowed by the way)
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 01:24 PMHobgoblin - By your definition then, every gay is "radical". Because yes, almost all gay people want basic rights.
And I guess all black people were "radicals" prior to segregation being disbanded.
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 01:28 PMtosk,
We lost on heterosexual promiscuity with no-fault divorce (screw around on the wife? no big deal, just a quickie divorce). And it's not gay promiscuity itself that is troubling. OK, that's the way some men want to live. No skin off my back.
But in light of the prevalence of gay promiscuity, it would make extending marriage to gays seem all the more like dangerous and futile pandering to the latest grievance group.
(and lad, almost every gay man I've ever known has a story about when they "turned" gay, not all of them by specific, conscious choice, but an action nonetheless, and a concrete occurrance).
However, if four people moved in together and all worked to support each other financially... then I think they should be able to get the same benefits of two people supporting each other financially.
yes, but would you DEMAND that everyone call it "marriage." No.
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 21, 2005 01:32 PMLad,
Like I said I'm sorry about your family. I'm not patronizing you either, I really do feel for you. I agree that is a prejudice, your sisters actions speak louder than her words.
But am I a homophobe because two men showering and making out in bed on MTV's "The Real World" offends me? I don't want my daughter to see that, and it's disgusting to watch.
What you do in your home is your own damn business, and if you want to leave that home to your partner should the worst happen, then so be it. But it's not right to force acceptance of a lifestyle on society just b/c it's yours and you feel you have a right.
Posted by: Mike at January 21, 2005 01:32 PMI guess all black people were "radicals" prior to segregation being disbanded.
I would say so, yes. The problem is that in modern society, radicals are considered bad. This scares me, since I am of the opinion that anything that doesn't continue to grow and change, anything that maintains the 'status-quo' becomes stagnant and dies.
Stagnation is the only sin and the US is fast beginning to go stale.
Posted by: Ratatosk at January 21, 2005 01:34 PMin light of the prevalence of gay promiscuity
Here's the main bit we disagree on hobgoblin, I'm not at all sure that gays are more promiscious than straights... I think that promiscious gays are 'more open' about their actions than most straights, but I doubt that there is a large difference in the ratios.
And no, I think its foolish to whine about a word. Marriage, Civil Union, Tax-Break-For-You-Lover, call it whatever people will bitch about least.
I don't want my daughter to see that, and it's disgusting to watch.
Then take personal responsibility and don't watch it. If you let your daughter watch Real World, expect to see the 'alternative lifestyles' that exist. If you don't want her to see alternative lifestyles then don't let her watch Real World.
How is it that conservatives understand the beauty of personal responsibility when it comes to economics, environmentalism, retirement and gun control... yet miss the same beauty of personal responsibility in choice of entertainment?
Posted by: Ratatosk at January 21, 2005 01:41 PMTosk: Then take personal responsibility and don't watch it. If you let your daughter watch Real World, expect to see the 'alternative lifestyles' that exist.
I agree, but it should be treated the same as typical programming and relegated to a time when young children are not typically watching TV, not on all day marathons over the weekend.
And it's a bit telling of the narrow-minded liberal secular view of anyone who doesnt agree with them, when they have the token guy from Alabama witha southern draw who starts out "hating queers" but by the end of the season has some epiphany and accepts gay relationships just like any other.
Meaning: Red Staters who don't accept homosexuals are stupid and ignorant.
Posted by: Mike at January 21, 2005 01:50 PMI wouldn't let your daughter watch two men kissing. Bad things could happen. She might end up being attracted to men for example . . .
Hobgoblin - I have no clue what you are talking about when you say that they "turned" gay. And I doubt you know many gay people (just a hunch - albeit a strong one).
Unless of course you're referring to "puberty". Most people are aware of when they "realized" they were gay. Just like most straight men are probably aware of when they "realized" they liked women.
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 01:51 PMI wouldn't want to be part of any orgy that would have me as a member.
Posted by: Mark Poling at January 21, 2005 01:58 PMOh and Tosk,
I love how you and others take my position on one issue and automatically slap a Conservative stamp on me. David's done it to me too, only he said I was a liberal.
Posted by: Mike at January 21, 2005 01:58 PMI agree, but it should be treated the same as typical programming and relegated to a time when young children are not typically watching TV, not on all day marathons over the weekend.
Why? Are you unable to teach your daughter your morals so that she would know that you found images of two men kissing to be unacceptable? My parents taught me a strict christian morality... and I never watched anything that might have been bad, even if it was available on Television.
Well, until I was 17 and mmy best friend got a porn video.
And it's a bit telling of the narrow-minded liberal secular view of anyone who doesnt agree with them, when they have the token guy from Alabama witha southern draw who starts out "hating queers" but by the end of the season has some epiphany and accepts gay relationships just like any other.
It's MTV of course its got a specific (usually liberal) view. It's not like they're CBS news. ;-)
There is nothing wrong with having a biased tv show, is there? I mean I could find an agenda in Seventh Heaven if I were a paranoid weirdo (and if Jessica Beal weren't such a hottie).
Ray Stevens, in a song once said "There are just some things, I don't wanna know... but you can't have that attitude and subscribe to cable".
If you're worried about liberal shows influencing your child's nmind, save $50 a month and drop cable service until you can trust your daughter.
Posted by: Ratatosk at January 21, 2005 02:02 PMLad,
Even though I know all bout your sister, your family, and your political leanings, you know almost nothing about me.
Admittedly you call it a hunch, but you're pretty clear in your assertion. Guess what, you're wrong.
I always hate the "some of my best friends" crap, and I won't say that. None of my "best friends" are gay. But friends, acquaintenances, clients, professional colleagues, and random folks I've met have been gay. Scores of people. Hundreds even, (ok maybe not hundreds). Plenty.
And sacre couer!, I've also gotten along well with them. Those gays I know who believe as you do about marriage simply avoid the discussion with me. Gay marriage has been part of my professional life for almost a year now. And in a different aspect of my work, a large portion of clients are gay men. Some are more conservative and some are more radical. I avoid discussing the topic of marriage with them generally, but I've heard first hand stories from gay men to back up every asserition I've made here.
Again, I've got less of a problem with "gayness" than you can possibly imagine in your cramped, dim, little cell of persecution you've built up for yourself (with a good deal of help from your family it unfortunately seems).
I do have a problem with people mucking around with forces they know nothing about and which they cannot control. Gay marraige (especially court-ordered) represents just such ignorant tinkering.
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 21, 2005 02:02 PMMike,
I'm sorry I should have been more clear about the final paragraph... it was a comment and not directed specifically at you (it just flowed from your comment).
Sorry if I mislabeled you :)
Posted by: Ratatosk at January 21, 2005 02:05 PMI'd always assumed Squidward was the one who was gay. Into scented soaps (lilac!), interpretive dance, broadway show tunes, etc., etc....
Posted by: DennisThePeasant at January 21, 2005 02:09 PMOk, so if I didn't want her to watch a show that only casts black people in subjugated roles you'd feel the same way right?
Didn't think so.
Posted by: Mike at January 21, 2005 02:09 PMAnd on a more serious note, Lad, I do think indoctrination of young children is a bad thing. Specifically, I think the idea of seeding their heads with all these descrete never-the-twain-shall-meet pigeonholes is a bad idea. The message "play nice" shouldn't need the qualifier "even if johnny is gay" when these kids still don't have pubic hair.
And Rat, I agree that anyone who wants The Holey One removed from Cable TV shouldn't be called Conservative. (As I understand it, specific channels can be blocked. Empower the individual parent, that's my preferred solution.) But the meta-messages being taught in the public school system is a different class of problem entirely.
Posted by: Mark Poling at January 21, 2005 02:10 PMThanks Tosk, I appreciate the apology.
Posted by: Mike at January 21, 2005 02:10 PMHobgoblin: Glory holes?
What do glory holes have to do with anything? I always thought glory holes were a straight thing. It's not me scene, so what do I know? I guess it makes sense if both straight people and gay people go to glory hole clubs.
So? What would you say to a gay person who tried to discredit "the heterosexual lifestyle" by pointing to straight glory holes? I would think that person was hysterical and reactionary, but maybe it's just me.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 21, 2005 02:15 PMOk, so if I didn't want her to watch a show that only casts black people in subjugated roles you'd feel the same way right?
Actually, yes I do.
I feel that people should make what tv shows they think people will watch (and will therefore provide advert money for). If advertisers find it something distastful, they won't attach their name to it. If no one watches it it will go away. If enough advertisers and viewers like it, what business is it of mine? I won't watch it.
I don't watch Real Life because I think it sucks.
Posted by: Ratatosk at January 21, 2005 02:18 PMAlright Tosk, checkmate. My white flag is up. : )
Posted by: Mike at January 21, 2005 02:22 PMMJT,
Again, it's Lad's reference to accepting the "gay lifestyle" without reservation and qualification.
See the context?
Lad's gone from "tolerance" to "Yes, someone not in complete acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is a homophobe."Really, Lad?
Glory holes?
Am I a homophobe if I say that's gross? Gosh, 'phobe me up.
I've never heard of glory holes for straights, as the only time it's ever come up in my life was in one particular instance of a gay guy talking about what he did in the past.
Plus, I absolutely despise the whole "anyone who disagrees with me is a _____-phobe" It's an utter b.s. argument.
Posted by: hobgolbin at January 21, 2005 02:30 PMThe crazy thing is that I highly doubt that it is promiscuous gay people who want to get married. Just like promiscuous straight people, they are perfectly happy being single.
Instead, it's the committed gay couple, who have been together for years, who want to get married.
Can you imagine denying marriage to straight people, because some young men and women happen to be promiscuous?
That's how these arguments sound to me. Sigh.
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 02:31 PMhobgoblin,
I've never heard of glory holes for straights, as the only time it's ever come up in my life was in one particular instance of a gay guy talking about what he did in the past.
Then... perhaps you had a false perception of what glory holes are and who frequented them. Nearly all the glory holes I have seen/heard about have been for straights.
PS - I've never personally experienced one, as there are some things that are too weird, even for me. Especially if they include lime jello and chickens. That is right out.
Posted by: Ratatosk at January 21, 2005 02:34 PMWill I admit my dislike for promiscuous gay male culture? In a heartbeat. And it's not just based on Biblical precepts. It's based on numerous social and cultural factors that are, when magnified to social acceptance not toleration, corrosive to society. - Hobgoblin
Hob - Are you really denying that you're not homophobic? You've got to be kidding me.
I don't like the term, because it's a made up one. But it generally means someone who has a dislike for gay people.
Surely you have at least a mild dislike of gay people? Again, I thought you wore that as a badge of honor.
Are you really denying this?
Posted by: Downtown Lad at January 21, 2005 02:37 PMUnder your definition of the word ("the entire gay lifestyle," made up from whole cloth as you said) I assuredly am.
As a general rule though, as people, I don't like or dislike gays on the basis of how they "take their tea." Just don't much care. I dislike militant gay activists for sullying politics and elevating a sex act to political weight, but not for engaging in their sex act.
When I meet a(n obviously) gay guy, I don't think "ewwwww, gay." If he's a mincing queen, I think, "God, what a mincing queen," but I think the very same thing about effete straight guys too. (the whole Alexander controversy was like that for me---it's not like the dude didn't like men, obviously he did. The problem is that Stone made the conquereor of the known world a pansy. I know all homosexual men aren't pansies. That in itself should have proven more offensive to the easily-slighted "gay community")
If your ultimate question is whether I approve of gay sex, then the answer's no. But gay sex is not a gay person.
Am I going to go watch a play about the trials of gay life performed through modern dance techniques? Nope. Sit through a movie about the struggles of "gayness." Nope.
But will I give a guy the benefit of the doubt and live and let live, even though he&