Sep 24, 2011
commented on John Shore To Christians Who "Hate the Sin": Turn, Friend.
While I may agree with Mr. Shore, I'm not sure the cheap video he created really does much justice to his rhetoric. There's something about those creatures' flat, emotionless faces and monotone voices that honestly creeps me out more than anything. Maybe it's just me.
Sep 19, 2011
commented on Prejudice
I honestly didn't really find the song very funny... was it supposed to be funny? I kind of felt like Tim was trying to take the piss out of America's racism problem by making the song about a word which is an anagram for... well... yeah. I guess I really just don't like Tim Minchin's music.
Aug 31, 2011
commented on Rick Santorum ≠ Seth Walsh
I have to admit that your first thought about the Canadian-head Dan Savage was likely my first thought as well. I thought it was kind of a funny caricature, honestly.
Aug 17, 2011
commented on Santorum Spews: Gay Marriage Tanked the Economy
When speaking rhetorically, less is sometimes more. Santorum is utilizing a method of argument in which he attempts to connect every one of society's contemporary issues to the "threat" of gay marriage. However, the problem with this method is ever-increasing distance between argument and truth. Santorum's claims have become so outlandish that I posit they will actually begin to hurt his case against homosexuality rather than help it.
So, as a gay guy, I encourage Santorum to keep running his mouth. He might just say something so stupid he can never recover from it. One can hope...
Aug 7, 2011
commented on NPR: Debate Rages Over Whether Gays Can Go Straight
While reading the article, I came across this rather... unusual statement.
"Research has demonstrated that when news outlets present both sides of a political issue without commenting on which side is correct, readers tend to feel powerless to determine which position is actually the right one."
In response, i'd like to state that while I agree completely with the writer's position on how the debate over ex-gay therapy is misrepresented, I disagree with this weird claim about how news organizations are responsible for telling people which side of a debate is correct. Pointing out, for example, that proponents of ex-gay therapy have been using junk science to justify their claims is different from simply telling viewers and readers "which side is correct" on "a political issue". Call me really nitpicky if you want, but these sweeping claims just bother me. The article was really good until I read this part and... it just made me sad. Also, what research has shown this?