Slog
News & ArtsMonday, May 21, 2012
LGBTQITSLFA Confidential to Conservative Christians: Keep Doubling Down On Hate, Assholes
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM
There's this in today's LA Times:
"[It's] pretty extraordinary what we've accomplished in less than 50 years," said Cleve Jones, who has spent decades as a gay rights activist, starting in the 1970s as a protege of San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk. "Homosexual behavior itself was a felony almost everywhere," Jones recalled. "There were laws on the books preventing us from congregating in bars and restaurants. There were special police units in every single city whose job was to entrap and arrest and imprison us. … There's been enormous progress, astonishing progress." ...
But experts and advocates agree on one explanation above all others: Familiarity.
"People came to understand we existed," Jones said. "They worked with us. They knew us. They had [gay] family members. That demystified it and made it harder for them to hate us in an abstract way."
That was an avenue obviously unavailable to African Americans. "It isn't as if white people suddenly come to discover they have African American children or relatives," said Kenneth Sherrill, a professor at Hunter College in New York and a longtime gay activist. Gays and lesbians "are born into straight families and live in straight neighborhoods and go to straight schools and work in straight businesses," Sherrill said. "There's a kind of familiarity that's exceedingly difficult to achieve in the case of race."
And then there's this in a church in North Carolina:
In a sermon blasting President Obama for his same-sex marriage support, Pastor Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, North Carolina, offered a novel—and horrific—solution to the so-called gay scourge: build an electric fence and let "lesbians, queers and homosexuals" starve to death. "I figured a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers," he says in his sermon, delivered on May 13. "Build a great, big, large fence—150 or 100 mile long—put all the lesbians in there... Do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can't get out… And you know what, in a few years, they'll die." ... Throughout the sermon, many of his congregants can be heard calling out "Amen."
Towleroad has the video.
Keep it up, ordained hate mongers, keep it up. When you force people to choose between their imaginary friends and their real friends and family members—when you force them to choose between your church and their children—and they almost always choose their friends and family members.
2
To be fair, his recommendation doesn't suggest starving anyone to death, just to 'let them die out' because they can't reproduce. Not that it's much better, but he's not recommending murder, just imprisonment.
Of course, he doesn't seem to understand that homosexuality isn't hereditary. Which is, of course, a pretty glaring flaw in his plan.
Of course, he doesn't seem to understand that homosexuality isn't hereditary. Which is, of course, a pretty glaring flaw in his plan.
3
Even as a not gay person, this stuff really pisses me off.
Religious groups like this need to be classified as hate groups and lose ALL Federal Funding
Religious groups like this need to be classified as hate groups and lose ALL Federal Funding
5
I can see why so many Christians joyously participated in Hitler's Final Solution.
He may as well have suggested building huge ovens to shove us all into.
He may as well have suggested building huge ovens to shove us all into.
8
I'm sorry but as a gay black guy, especially from the Carolinas, if you replace gay/queers/homosexual with "uppity", "niggers", "coons", "coloreds", he sounds like he's back in the 1950s/1960s.
I'm still waiting for major commentator or politician to link the Repug's efforts to roll back civil rights and woman's health to basically the early 1950s America that the Republicans want to relive. You know the time when minorities, women and gays "knew" their place and didn't bicker about anything. Once that comes out and the media runs with that, then I think we'll start to see a huge shift in public opinion regarding everything and assholes like Glenn Beck, Limbaugh and Faux News start to openly wear their white hoods.
I'm still waiting for major commentator or politician to link the Repug's efforts to roll back civil rights and woman's health to basically the early 1950s America that the Republicans want to relive. You know the time when minorities, women and gays "knew" their place and didn't bicker about anything. Once that comes out and the media runs with that, then I think we'll start to see a huge shift in public opinion regarding everything and assholes like Glenn Beck, Limbaugh and Faux News start to openly wear their white hoods.
10
@5, @6 Yep. There's a word for people like "Pastor" Worley -- Nazis.
There are so many things in common: scapegoating, identity-chauvinism, and of course, the "Final Solution."
There are so many things in common: scapegoating, identity-chauvinism, and of course, the "Final Solution."
11
If all pot smokers similarly came out to their friends and colleagues then the continual portrayal of pot as dangerous would no longer work. but they all hide in the closet. hell, about 20% of state legislators smoke pot, yet are too scared to say so, or describe it. even medical marijuana advocates refrain from describing what it's like to be high. We commonly talk about the joys of win using lots of adjective, yet pot is still in the closet. don't expect to legalize what's kept in the closet.
12
Um... He didn't say let them starve to death. In fact he said drop food. His meaning of them dying off was that they can't breed.
He is still a disgusting idiot but I like things to be factual. :D
He is still a disgusting idiot but I like things to be factual. :D
13
@7 - Exactly! But the reason he hasn't thought of that is because in his tiny brain he thinks gays are 'recruited'... that is, swayed from the hetero. Which makes me believe he is bisexual. Anyone who believes you can turn your sexuality on a dime must be experiencing attraction to both sexes themselves...
14
That's the stupidest idea ever. The first thing that would happen is the gays would make gulag all nice and shit and then the straights would just move in too. Fuck, what a moron.
15
I think it is hilarious how homosexuality has become the defining platform for Christianity. How it has turned a belief system that is ostensibly predicated on love into what is a no longer veiled lynch mob.
I know Pastors have been calling to string people up since they hammered together the first pulpit but we're civilized now and we don't do that sort of thing any longer. Except it turns out we do.
And that is going to the be the legacy of Christ in our world. Not to love thy neighbor or act as a steward over gods creation but as a violent hate monger. We always suspected it. It took the Homosexuals to prove it.
I love it.
I know Pastors have been calling to string people up since they hammered together the first pulpit but we're civilized now and we don't do that sort of thing any longer. Except it turns out we do.
And that is going to the be the legacy of Christ in our world. Not to love thy neighbor or act as a steward over gods creation but as a violent hate monger. We always suspected it. It took the Homosexuals to prove it.
I love it.
17
@16, to do it right we have to kick someone out of the piece of land of queers select. Then we have to get the support of a super power to give us massive financial and military aid to keep the natives to the land we acquired to be under control.
I'd like someplace warm, free of tropical storms and earthquakes and near water.
I'd like someplace warm, free of tropical storms and earthquakes and near water.
18
@ 16,
We already have New York and Los Angeles.
Bully: "They oughtta put all you queers on an island."
Answer: "They did--it's called Manhattan!"
We already have New York and Los Angeles.
Bully: "They oughtta put all you queers on an island."
Answer: "They did--it's called Manhattan!"
19
@13 See, that is one of those things that has always confused me. Most people seem to be pretty hard wired in regards to their sexuality once they get past around 25 or so.
20
@15 They've murdered and raped and plundered their way through the last two thousand years. That's why we have separation of church and state to put a stop to that cycle of Christian hate and ignorance.
21
One might also note that this guy is using his status as a minister to tell people how to vote. Yet I'm sure his megachurch has tax-exempt status . . .
22
@17 You'll need somewhere in the Atlantic on the eastern boundary, like off the coast of Africa, or on the western boundary but close to the equator. My vote is for Forteleza, Brazil, based on cyclone climatology, active fault zones, and proximity to a tropical ocean. Bonus: they make tequila there.
http://www.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/#
http://www.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/#
23
Nice Mother's Day message.
His words turn my stomach and add to the sorrow I already feel. But, being the optimist, I think he should continue to use his tounge and like the clam bury himself. Dig,"Pastor", dig!
His words turn my stomach and add to the sorrow I already feel. But, being the optimist, I think he should continue to use his tounge and like the clam bury himself. Dig,"Pastor", dig!
24
@8: Funnily enough (in that way that isn't really funny at all), one of the many, many bullshit suggestions that Tom P. Brady made in his pamphlet about how Brown v. Board was going to ruin white society -- and this pamphlet helped lead to the creation of state-supported White Citizens' Councils in Mississippi; a member of one local council assassinated Medgar Evers -- was how the U.S. should create a 49th state and send all the black people there. With a huge fence around said state, no doubt.
Nothing like recycling ideas to fuel hate.
Nothing like recycling ideas to fuel hate.
25
Here's information about churches' nonprofit status (and the rules they are breaking by opposing politicking from the pulpit), as well as steps to take to REPORT THEM to the IRS!! http://ffrf.org/faq/state-church/churche… DO IT DO IT DO IT! I really want to see a church loose it's nonprofit status because this shit.
26
@13 --- Pastor Worley caught in rest-stop blow job sting operation in 5... 4... 3...
Remember this guy's name, because you know it's likely to happen before too long: it doesn't look like his knees have many years of bend left in them.
Remember this guy's name, because you know it's likely to happen before too long: it doesn't look like his knees have many years of bend left in them.
27
Why bother with this troll when this just hit the internet? http://outsports.com/jocktalkblog/2012/0…
28
Update to what I posted above - the IRS complaint form wants the nonprofit's employee identification number. I looked it up and it is: 591785709
29
Time for the Southern Poverty Law Center to open a file on Providence Road Baptist Church as a hate group, I'd say.
I know I'm flogging a comatose horse, but I think indirect subsidies to churches (property tax exemptions, deductibility of contributions) violate the Establishment Clause. (So did William O. Douglas, but he was outvoted 8 to 1 in Walz v. Tax Commission.) The Free Exercise Clause may give church-going folk the right to believe and preach whatever they want, but it doesn't give them the right to make everyone else support the dissemination of those beliefs by paying their taxes. If Fowler and his ilk want to advocate extermination camps for gays and lesbians, they should at least do it on their own dime.
I know I'm flogging a comatose horse, but I think indirect subsidies to churches (property tax exemptions, deductibility of contributions) violate the Establishment Clause. (So did William O. Douglas, but he was outvoted 8 to 1 in Walz v. Tax Commission.) The Free Exercise Clause may give church-going folk the right to believe and preach whatever they want, but it doesn't give them the right to make everyone else support the dissemination of those beliefs by paying their taxes. If Fowler and his ilk want to advocate extermination camps for gays and lesbians, they should at least do it on their own dime.
30
Speaking of bigoted douchebags...
When's Brown goin' down? Have you made a time/place offer yet? C'mon Dan, don't let it die! Show those NOM motherf*ckers what you got!
(Just a little encouragement.)
When's Brown goin' down? Have you made a time/place offer yet? C'mon Dan, don't let it die! Show those NOM motherf*ckers what you got!
(Just a little encouragement.)
31
I am really worried about the 0 point poll drop for Obama since he came out for Gay Marriage.
...
Not.
...
Not.
32
'.. i ain't gonna vote for a baby killer or a homosexual lover !.. i don't know if it's ok to say this in the pulpit or not...but can you imagine kissin some man ?'
- pastor charles worley
- pastor charles worley
33
@28
Thanks for that!
You just showed where the vast majority of churches aren't actually in violation of tax code.
Churches, like anyone else, are allowed to advocate for policy or legislation. Religious freedom means that a church may express it's views on current social issues just as an abhorrent thing like Dan Savage could. A liberal church could for instance oppose the upcoming initiative protecting marriage in Washington State. A Christian one could support it. All without violating their tax status.
Under 501(c)(3) rules secular or religious tax exempt entities aren't allowed to advocate for a candidate or party. They aren't allowed to make political activism a substantial part of their make-up.
And the IRS, loathe to abridge free expression, gives pretty wide discetion to religious and secular tax exempt entities within these guidelines.
So harrass away. It won't do you any good, or do the churches any harm.
Thanks for that!
You just showed where the vast majority of churches aren't actually in violation of tax code.
Churches, like anyone else, are allowed to advocate for policy or legislation. Religious freedom means that a church may express it's views on current social issues just as an abhorrent thing like Dan Savage could. A liberal church could for instance oppose the upcoming initiative protecting marriage in Washington State. A Christian one could support it. All without violating their tax status.
Under 501(c)(3) rules secular or religious tax exempt entities aren't allowed to advocate for a candidate or party. They aren't allowed to make political activism a substantial part of their make-up.
And the IRS, loathe to abridge free expression, gives pretty wide discetion to religious and secular tax exempt entities within these guidelines.
So harrass away. It won't do you any good, or do the churches any harm.
34
@33, they certainly are in violation, since the pastor clearly is telling his followers who not to vote for. I think you are correct if he had stopped with his comments about corralling gays. But when he continues with who he will not vote for and why, that is in violation. It's not "harrassment." It's "enforcing the rules."
35
I have to wonder how he would define the different classifications there. He definitely has queers as something different from lesbians and homosexuals. I bet he has a FABULOUS mental image for the queers - just like you, SB, right? (How's Italy, ya big faker?)
38
The ultimate irony is that if someone declared this fuckwit Führer and he actually did what he said, his vicious little concentration camp plan wouldn't work. Gays and lesbians are mostly born to straight people, so even if you eliminated every out gay and lesbian and a bulk of the clergy, there still would be fresh gays coming out of every maternity ward.
39
Okay, I realize this isn't actually the point, but: Why is he segregating the lesbians and the gays into single sex camps? What does he think they'll get up to in a mixed gender camp? It's like he hasn't thought this through.
40
@22 Tequila is made exclusively in the state of Jalisco, Mexico. If it's not from Jalisco, it's not tequila.
Do not be fooled by imitations!
Do not be fooled by imitations!
41
@8 funny how that works, isn't it? Just my 2 cents, when Civil Rights was past, Johnson said he'd lost the south for a generation for the democratic party. The Republican, then a minority party was give a huge group of voters that voting by feel. It feels 'right' to think less of another human being. Rational thought doesn't enter into these voters heads, just what group to hate this voting cycle.
Thankfully that beast is dying(too slowly), but it's cornered and scared(they always are). They keep clearing voter roles but their numbers are getting smaller. The smaller they get, the louder and crazier they are.
Thankfully that beast is dying(too slowly), but it's cornered and scared(they always are). They keep clearing voter roles but their numbers are getting smaller. The smaller they get, the louder and crazier they are.
42
"Ah'm agin' it." Talk about your stereotypes.
This guy needs to be in the clearance, overstock, dented-cans, cracked-crackers bin at the grossery store. Someone will take him home and feed those jowls, g'ar-un-teed.
This guy needs to be in the clearance, overstock, dented-cans, cracked-crackers bin at the grossery store. Someone will take him home and feed those jowls, g'ar-un-teed.
43
Hope you are satisfied that Ravi got away with a slap on the wrist. With advocates like you, we don't need enemies.
44
Hear how he closes? "Can you imagine kissing some man??" He's disgusted; he's afraid he'll get feminized by another man. Not like any man wants to kiss him but--any chance he's really afraid because he'll enjoy it?
48
What an abhorrent person! However, he did not advocate for starving people. He did say they should be given food. He just seems to think that all of the gays and lesbians will die off and then there will not be anymore of them. He does not understand biology, as there is probably a new gay person born every minute.
I don't know what is more infuriating, listening to him or hearing the amens from his church members.
I don't know what is more infuriating, listening to him or hearing the amens from his church members.
49
Reverend Barber of the NC NAACP sets a much, much better example here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywImcNViP…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywImcNViP…
50
@37
More appropriate here than there anyway.
So to your study in rats.
The correlative relationship between abnormalities in hormones or certain brain loccii and abnormal sexual inclination is something I don't recall contesting. So show me the causation, not more correlation.
If anything your study argues for a relatively easily developed medical treatment for homosexuality. If anything it shows a path to identifying it in young children and treating it before it causes problems. If a hormonal imbalance caused a problem, it follows that devising a way to repair the imbalance would treat that problem.
But that line of thinking treats homosexuality as neutral, doesn't it? It makes neither an assumption of utility or harm in the condition, and is therefore not allowed to be studied. Only academic exercises that treat the condition as bad or good to support conclusions the investigator already made will be done, so far as I can tell.
It's the same with the higher incidences of depression and suicide among homosexuals. This would seem something important enough to ditch preconceptions and find objectively demonstrable solutions. Still, the only assumptions permissable are that homosexuality is good and the negatives are the fault of society at large. Maybe that's true, but what if it isn't? Would you risk the lives of young people on that assumption in any other case? What harm would there be in the hypothesis that homosexual inclination is a symptom of underlying mental disorder, as are suicidal inclination and depression? If the hypothesis is wrong, the evidence will show it. But no. That would be insulting to gays and lesbians. Much better that they die in suicide of a possibly treatable condition, isn't it?
In any case, innate or not, having an inclination to a behavior is not itself a valid justification for or villification of that behavior. I'm inclined to eat ice cream before bed, but since I don't want to be fat bastard rather than just a bastard, I don't very often. I'm inclined to moderately risky physical activities like small boat sailing or snow skiing. That inclination doesn't mean I don't have to weigh the pros and cons of the behavior and make my decisions accordingly. Some men and women may be inclined to sex with other men and women. That doesn't make it desirable or healthy behavior.
More...
More appropriate here than there anyway.
So to your study in rats.
The correlative relationship between abnormalities in hormones or certain brain loccii and abnormal sexual inclination is something I don't recall contesting. So show me the causation, not more correlation.
If anything your study argues for a relatively easily developed medical treatment for homosexuality. If anything it shows a path to identifying it in young children and treating it before it causes problems. If a hormonal imbalance caused a problem, it follows that devising a way to repair the imbalance would treat that problem.
But that line of thinking treats homosexuality as neutral, doesn't it? It makes neither an assumption of utility or harm in the condition, and is therefore not allowed to be studied. Only academic exercises that treat the condition as bad or good to support conclusions the investigator already made will be done, so far as I can tell.
It's the same with the higher incidences of depression and suicide among homosexuals. This would seem something important enough to ditch preconceptions and find objectively demonstrable solutions. Still, the only assumptions permissable are that homosexuality is good and the negatives are the fault of society at large. Maybe that's true, but what if it isn't? Would you risk the lives of young people on that assumption in any other case? What harm would there be in the hypothesis that homosexual inclination is a symptom of underlying mental disorder, as are suicidal inclination and depression? If the hypothesis is wrong, the evidence will show it. But no. That would be insulting to gays and lesbians. Much better that they die in suicide of a possibly treatable condition, isn't it?
In any case, innate or not, having an inclination to a behavior is not itself a valid justification for or villification of that behavior. I'm inclined to eat ice cream before bed, but since I don't want to be fat bastard rather than just a bastard, I don't very often. I'm inclined to moderately risky physical activities like small boat sailing or snow skiing. That inclination doesn't mean I don't have to weigh the pros and cons of the behavior and make my decisions accordingly. Some men and women may be inclined to sex with other men and women. That doesn't make it desirable or healthy behavior.
52
BTW, @ 51, you still have NEVER, not once*, given any reason for treating gay sex like it's something inherently negative that ought not to be done**, even though you constantly state (via comparison, such as your ice-cream-before-bed silliness here). When are you going to do that?
*We're not speaking about a difference of opinion here, or an unwillingness to accept something you've stated in the past; we're talking about how you've never said "Gay sex is bad because of reasons a, b, and c." Or just reason a, whatever that is.
** And also specific to gay sex in a way that does not apply to straight sex, even though straight sex includes virtually every conceivable gay sex act can be performed.
*We're not speaking about a difference of opinion here, or an unwillingness to accept something you've stated in the past; we're talking about how you've never said "Gay sex is bad because of reasons a, b, and c." Or just reason a, whatever that is.
** And also specific to gay sex in a way that does not apply to straight sex, even though straight sex includes virtually every conceivable gay sex act can be performed.
55
This brought me down after getting the news that the church in my home town that a lot of my friends attend voted to officially become an open and affirming church (making official what has been unofficial for years). I really want to see more of a vocal push from churches like that to counter the hate. http://www.ucccoalition.org/programs/ona…
I may be a godless heathen but I could have a live and let live attitude towards religion if they were all like that.
I may be a godless heathen but I could have a live and let live attitude towards religion if they were all like that.
56
@16: Back in the 1960s a group of gays in SF were tossing around the idea of turning sparsely-populated Alpine County in NorCal into a gay haven.
57
@54
Hey Chase, did the Humane Society finally come and get that goat to safety?
Nobody ever bought that 'he's a pet' schtick, ya know. I think it was the sounds of goat distress every day when you came home from work that got the neighbors exercised. Next time some kind of soundproofing might be in order in that creepy basement "goat kennel" of yours. You get the design right out of that pawnshop basement in Pulp Fiction or is that just co-incidence? Either way, you really should hang an "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here" sign over the basement door, you freak.
Hey Chase, did the Humane Society finally come and get that goat to safety?
Nobody ever bought that 'he's a pet' schtick, ya know. I think it was the sounds of goat distress every day when you came home from work that got the neighbors exercised. Next time some kind of soundproofing might be in order in that creepy basement "goat kennel" of yours. You get the design right out of that pawnshop basement in Pulp Fiction or is that just co-incidence? Either way, you really should hang an "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here" sign over the basement door, you freak.
58
Who would have thought a religious person would fail basic biology? Lesbians and gays can have children together, even if it takes a lot more alcohol and imagination. I'm imagining lesbians trying to convince themselves: "it's just a dildo, it's just a dildo, it's just a--oh god get it out of me now!"
Someday somebody will have a touring 'sit in' at all these bigoted churches to counter the 'amens' with boos, hisses, and rotten vegetables.
Someday somebody will have a touring 'sit in' at all these bigoted churches to counter the 'amens' with boos, hisses, and rotten vegetables.
59
@34 and 51
I never saw the pastor mention a politician by name. Nor did I hear a 'vote for x or y' out of him. I did hear that he wouldn't vote for someone who clearly was your president, but still not by name and still not with an exhortation for others.
But maybe I missed it.
I never saw the pastor mention a politician by name. Nor did I hear a 'vote for x or y' out of him. I did hear that he wouldn't vote for someone who clearly was your president, but still not by name and still not with an exhortation for others.
But maybe I missed it.
60
@52
And I have never, not once, seen anyone demonstrate homosexual behavior as benign or good for a person physically.
Which is why I suggested @51 that researchers leave both the 'Gays are Awesome!!!!' and the more rational assumptions at home and just do their jobs.
If suicide is more prevalent in homosexual populations, passing the buck on others (ala Dharun Rhavi) isn't an answer. Everyone gets treated badly at school, sometime. Yet heterosexuals suicide much less often. They experience depression much less. If Dan Savage actually cared about such things 'It Gets Better' would be accompanied by a push to study why depression and suicide are more common in gay young people. But what he cares about is book sales and MTV deals and so on, so I don't anticipate that anytime soon. Anyway, such an approach requires honesty, a character trait entirely lacking in Savage.
And as I noted, if the problem is hormonal abnormality in the developing brain this doesn't inherently suggest that homosexuality is desirable. It could equally suggest that homosexual inclinations are treatable.
And I have never, not once, seen anyone demonstrate homosexual behavior as benign or good for a person physically.
Which is why I suggested @51 that researchers leave both the 'Gays are Awesome!!!!' and the more rational assumptions at home and just do their jobs.
If suicide is more prevalent in homosexual populations, passing the buck on others (ala Dharun Rhavi) isn't an answer. Everyone gets treated badly at school, sometime. Yet heterosexuals suicide much less often. They experience depression much less. If Dan Savage actually cared about such things 'It Gets Better' would be accompanied by a push to study why depression and suicide are more common in gay young people. But what he cares about is book sales and MTV deals and so on, so I don't anticipate that anytime soon. Anyway, such an approach requires honesty, a character trait entirely lacking in Savage.
And as I noted, if the problem is hormonal abnormality in the developing brain this doesn't inherently suggest that homosexuality is desirable. It could equally suggest that homosexual inclinations are treatable.
61
SB: " Some men and women may be inclined to sex with other men and women. That doesn't make it desirable or healthy behavior."
That doesn't make it undesirable or unhealthy behavior either. It's totally independent.
What makes it bad, exactly?
Who suffers? Where's the victim?
Note: don't confuse "promiscuity" with "sexual orientation." Apples and oranges.
All the best,
Asehpe.
That doesn't make it undesirable or unhealthy behavior either. It's totally independent.
What makes it bad, exactly?
Who suffers? Where's the victim?
Note: don't confuse "promiscuity" with "sexual orientation." Apples and oranges.
All the best,
Asehpe.
62
$$$$$
I would not be surprised if some of these pastors received additional donations from the country at large when the national media picks up on their ranting. Their quotes go viral, some of the them get to appear on cable news or radio, and if it's anywhere but on programs that agree with them they get to claim they are harassed and are victims. And then they can plead for more money.
This latest hateful crazy probably saw how lucrative it has been for some of the other pastors, and upped his rhetoric.
So the lesson here might be not to feed the trolls. If we ignore them and they don't get any attention except from their congregation, they won't get any more money. And if there's no additional money, well, then they've really lost their prime motivation, so they'll move on to some other topic that's lucrative.
I would not be surprised if some of these pastors received additional donations from the country at large when the national media picks up on their ranting. Their quotes go viral, some of the them get to appear on cable news or radio, and if it's anywhere but on programs that agree with them they get to claim they are harassed and are victims. And then they can plead for more money.
This latest hateful crazy probably saw how lucrative it has been for some of the other pastors, and upped his rhetoric.
So the lesson here might be not to feed the trolls. If we ignore them and they don't get any attention except from their congregation, they won't get any more money. And if there's no additional money, well, then they've really lost their prime motivation, so they'll move on to some other topic that's lucrative.
63
@61
Kind of the point I was making. Researchers should treat homosexual inclinations as neutral facts and proceed accordingly. Wherever peer reviewable objective facts lead, that's where this should go, whatever moral views I hold or sexual view others hold.
But that isn't the trend. The only people doing research here are those with axes to grind, pro gay or anti gay, if you go by the cites given here or on FRC or Focus on the Family type sites. I'm sure there are legitimate researchers out there, there must be, but their work would appear to be lost in the yelling from either side.
However, there are demonstrable harms to habitual anal sex, which granted is largely a gay rather than a lesbian issue. It's demonstrable that promiscuity is far more widespread in homosexuals than heterosexuals. As even Savage would admit. So using the health harms of promiscuity to demonstrate the health harms of gay sex isn't entirely unfair.
Kind of the point I was making. Researchers should treat homosexual inclinations as neutral facts and proceed accordingly. Wherever peer reviewable objective facts lead, that's where this should go, whatever moral views I hold or sexual view others hold.
But that isn't the trend. The only people doing research here are those with axes to grind, pro gay or anti gay, if you go by the cites given here or on FRC or Focus on the Family type sites. I'm sure there are legitimate researchers out there, there must be, but their work would appear to be lost in the yelling from either side.
However, there are demonstrable harms to habitual anal sex, which granted is largely a gay rather than a lesbian issue. It's demonstrable that promiscuity is far more widespread in homosexuals than heterosexuals. As even Savage would admit. So using the health harms of promiscuity to demonstrate the health harms of gay sex isn't entirely unfair.
64
Oh, we must be talking about gay sex if Seattleblues is on the comment threads.
I can't help but wonder if it's another sociology research project, like Loveschild, only better organized.
I can't help but wonder if it's another sociology research project, like Loveschild, only better organized.
65
Jesus, another example of sloppy, sloppy thinking by our resident Savage-obsessed closet case. First of all, seattlecyclops states "there are demonstrable harms to habitual anal sex (sic)", when what he actually means is that there is a demonstrable possibility of harm arising from habitual anal sex. Many people have anal sex, just as many people ski, climb mountains, etc., all their lives without suffering any harm.This is primarily because there's a proper way to have anal sex, and an improper way to do so. Plenty of porn stars and sex workers can back me up on this, but I'm sure those aren't the sort of people from whom seattleblues would willingly receive an education. He overlooks the fact (which is easy when you only have one good eye) that even people who enjoy anal sex rarely do it "habitually". He also seems unaware of the fact that thousands and thousands of straight folk enjoy anal sex - indeed, I've been lucky enough to enjoy it on many occasions, and can't think of one that lead to a health issue, either for me or my wonderful partners. He's apparently unaware of the fact that many, many gay men never have anal sex. Some don't enjoy it. Some have never tried it. Some think about men's assholes even less than Seattleblues himself. Nevertheless, he unfailingly equates "anal sex" with "gay sex". He also completely misunderstands the available data regarding "promiscuity" in gays and straights. (Again, regarding promiscuity - there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. Factor in responsbile use of condoms and the "health harms" (sic) of promiscuity magically dwindle.
In summation, fuck off, one-eye. Go jack off on Dan's picture again.
In summation, fuck off, one-eye. Go jack off on Dan's picture again.
68
@65
Somehow, were cats to actually play banjos, I'd imagine the sound would be the audio equivalent of your writing. NIce choice of moniker.
Otherwise, here's the thing. I don't have to use appliances and all sorts of lotions and all the other crap to have sex with my wife. Know why? Because we're not trying to rebel against the natural order, and we have sex- follow this closely- the way it's designed to work.
I don't have to worry about STD's and so on. Know why? Because I'm faithful to my wife, and she to me. We don't have to worry about protecting against promiscuity because- again follow this closely- we're not promiscuous.
Or the gay option would be to make of something so simple and natural that a teenage boy could figure it out without help something so complex it needs books and therapists and speciality shops of the kind no-one wants to be seen entering to make it work.
You can save the old, old, old insult of me being gay. Since it has no slightest basis in fact, it doesn't bother me. I have many character flaws, but homosexual inclinations aren't one of them. Though it does amuse me that people who claim to think gays are so doggone cool use gay as an insult.
Somehow, were cats to actually play banjos, I'd imagine the sound would be the audio equivalent of your writing. NIce choice of moniker.
Otherwise, here's the thing. I don't have to use appliances and all sorts of lotions and all the other crap to have sex with my wife. Know why? Because we're not trying to rebel against the natural order, and we have sex- follow this closely- the way it's designed to work.
I don't have to worry about STD's and so on. Know why? Because I'm faithful to my wife, and she to me. We don't have to worry about protecting against promiscuity because- again follow this closely- we're not promiscuous.
Or the gay option would be to make of something so simple and natural that a teenage boy could figure it out without help something so complex it needs books and therapists and speciality shops of the kind no-one wants to be seen entering to make it work.
You can save the old, old, old insult of me being gay. Since it has no slightest basis in fact, it doesn't bother me. I have many character flaws, but homosexual inclinations aren't one of them. Though it does amuse me that people who claim to think gays are so doggone cool use gay as an insult.
69
@64
Yeah. Because when I post on something about urbanization or economics Mile High Matt or VL or someone always asks about some gay special rights issue, it's my fault that the topic comes up?
And when I ignore such off topic nonsense, it's me ignoring the brilliant points of someone else?
Nice. Can't lose at that rigged game, can you folks?
Gays seeking the priviledge to redefine social systems and muzzle anyone who objects for their minority benefit is, for better or worse, the hot button topic of the moment. If a pastor delivers a sermon about it, or someone who enjoys politics discusses it, that doesn't make them gay. That makes them aware. You seemed confused, so I hope that helps.
Yeah. Because when I post on something about urbanization or economics Mile High Matt or VL or someone always asks about some gay special rights issue, it's my fault that the topic comes up?
And when I ignore such off topic nonsense, it's me ignoring the brilliant points of someone else?
Nice. Can't lose at that rigged game, can you folks?
Gays seeking the priviledge to redefine social systems and muzzle anyone who objects for their minority benefit is, for better or worse, the hot button topic of the moment. If a pastor delivers a sermon about it, or someone who enjoys politics discusses it, that doesn't make them gay. That makes them aware. You seemed confused, so I hope that helps.
70
SeattleBlues:
"Since the 1985 entrenchment of Section 15 of the Charter, gays and lesbians have achieved an astonishing range of judicially-made rights gains in most policy areas, including immigration, housing, employment, health benefits, adoption, pensions, finances, hate crimes and, most recently, marriage."
It hasn't started raining frogs and blood here in Canada yet. So why your obsession with social harm from "gay sex?"
"Since the 1985 entrenchment of Section 15 of the Charter, gays and lesbians have achieved an astonishing range of judicially-made rights gains in most policy areas, including immigration, housing, employment, health benefits, adoption, pensions, finances, hate crimes and, most recently, marriage."
It hasn't started raining frogs and blood here in Canada yet. So why your obsession with social harm from "gay sex?"
71
@50: I already gave you causation. Let me explain.
In statistics, you can reasonably infer causality given at least two of the following three things: correlation, control, mechanism. We have a correlation between atypical development at certain loci and homosexuality. We also have control, as researchers were able to induce bisexuality in rats by hormonally altering the development of those loci. Thus, we can tentatively infer that an intermodal condition in certain parts of the brain causes homosexuality and bisexuality. Is there any part of this that you don't understand?
The ostensibly neutral line of thinking you propose is anything but. You assume, ex nihilo, that the atypical state of homosexuality is necessarily detrimental. True neutrality with regard to this study would propose only further understanding of the phenomenon, recommending neither elimination nor induction of it in human subjects.
To wit, the pro-homosexual orthodoxy that you attribute to mainstream biology is a figment of your hateful imagination. No researchers are looking for ways to turn people gay, are they?
In statistics, you can reasonably infer causality given at least two of the following three things: correlation, control, mechanism. We have a correlation between atypical development at certain loci and homosexuality. We also have control, as researchers were able to induce bisexuality in rats by hormonally altering the development of those loci. Thus, we can tentatively infer that an intermodal condition in certain parts of the brain causes homosexuality and bisexuality. Is there any part of this that you don't understand?
The ostensibly neutral line of thinking you propose is anything but. You assume, ex nihilo, that the atypical state of homosexuality is necessarily detrimental. True neutrality with regard to this study would propose only further understanding of the phenomenon, recommending neither elimination nor induction of it in human subjects.
To wit, the pro-homosexual orthodoxy that you attribute to mainstream biology is a figment of your hateful imagination. No researchers are looking for ways to turn people gay, are they?
72
@60: If there is no evidence either way, the only sensible thing to do is to assume that there is no effect either way. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, Seattleblues.
(And we're unlikely to see any evidence any time soon. Too hard to get good case-control on this.)
I'll remind you again that NONE of the studies I've linked to have had a pro-gay stance. They're just trying to understand it, not promote it. But apparently if the evidence disagrees with your mighty wisdom, it must be slanted.
@63: Seattleblues, the sources I've cited were published in "Brain Research", "Endocrinology", "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences", "Brain", "The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism", and even "Science". "Science", one of the most prestigious and well-respected journals in existence, for fuck sake! NONE of those are remotely connected to either side in the war over gay rights.
When presented with facts, your only defense is to try and undermine their neutrality. That should be enough to you that you're backing a position that's not supported by the evidence. Sexual orientation is innate, and gays getting married is not going to hurt anyone; accept it and get over it.
(And we're unlikely to see any evidence any time soon. Too hard to get good case-control on this.)
I'll remind you again that NONE of the studies I've linked to have had a pro-gay stance. They're just trying to understand it, not promote it. But apparently if the evidence disagrees with your mighty wisdom, it must be slanted.
@63: Seattleblues, the sources I've cited were published in "Brain Research", "Endocrinology", "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences", "Brain", "The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism", and even "Science". "Science", one of the most prestigious and well-respected journals in existence, for fuck sake! NONE of those are remotely connected to either side in the war over gay rights.
When presented with facts, your only defense is to try and undermine their neutrality. That should be enough to you that you're backing a position that's not supported by the evidence. Sexual orientation is innate, and gays getting married is not going to hurt anyone; accept it and get over it.
73
@69,
Your opinion that LGBT people should be discriminated against is the MINORITY opinion. Poll after poll reveals that your minority is dwindling in size. All of us who believe in those cherished values of justice and equality whether we be straight, gay, religious, agnostic, or atheist out number you. We are the majority. We owe you no explanation. We are not required to convince you. You, Seattleblues, are the minority. We see you and we pity you. Your voice is fading. Decades from now you will be part of our collective shame, a sad soul who argued in favor of discrimination, injustice, and inequality.
Your opinion that LGBT people should be discriminated against is the MINORITY opinion. Poll after poll reveals that your minority is dwindling in size. All of us who believe in those cherished values of justice and equality whether we be straight, gay, religious, agnostic, or atheist out number you. We are the majority. We owe you no explanation. We are not required to convince you. You, Seattleblues, are the minority. We see you and we pity you. Your voice is fading. Decades from now you will be part of our collective shame, a sad soul who argued in favor of discrimination, injustice, and inequality.
75
@73: Exactly. Ever watch "Eyes on the Prize" the multi-part documentary about the Civil Rights Movement? Watching the segregationists defend their bigotry is EXACTLY what Seattleblahs will sound like to just about EVERYONE in 10 or 20 years. For many of us he sounds like that already.
If he's lucky some day he will be ashamed of himself, but most likely he will go on being the sad-sack that he is in his pretend world of Italian villas.
If he's lucky some day he will be ashamed of himself, but most likely he will go on being the sad-sack that he is in his pretend world of Italian villas.
76
SeattleBlues, you're behind the curve. Medical science is marching forward and leaving you in the dust. It has been decades since the AMA (et al.) labeled homosexuality a mental disorder. You might as well just knock it off. The moral zeitgeist is marching forward, too. A majority of Americans (90+ percent of whom, incidentally, are straight, SB, just as you purport to be) support same-sex marriage, which goes against your assertion that the gays are setting the terms for everyone else. Pretty soon your opinion will be meaningless. The very idea of having to take the time to debunk your claims again and again will be laughable.
77
@8, Great comment. I think many of us have already made the link.
The problem is that the conservatives are on the losing side on the equal rights issue. The momentum is moving towards greater acceptance of gays. That Pastor sounds like a relic -- bigoted and ancient. He must be seeking attention because even he must know that no one is going to round up gays and let them starve to death.
The problem is that the conservatives are on the losing side on the equal rights issue. The momentum is moving towards greater acceptance of gays. That Pastor sounds like a relic -- bigoted and ancient. He must be seeking attention because even he must know that no one is going to round up gays and let them starve to death.
78
#8 has it right.
So often the anti-gay-marriage crowd uses the slippery slope argument - you've heard it. If gays marry then you can marry your ice cream. But they neglect to notice that slopes can go both ways. If you don't let gays marry, soon inter-racial marriage will be banned and then no marriage will be allowed at all. It gets very Colbert-like doesn't it? And yet, a minister can say that without laughing while he parades on ground he calls sacred.
So often the anti-gay-marriage crowd uses the slippery slope argument - you've heard it. If gays marry then you can marry your ice cream. But they neglect to notice that slopes can go both ways. If you don't let gays marry, soon inter-racial marriage will be banned and then no marriage will be allowed at all. It gets very Colbert-like doesn't it? And yet, a minister can say that without laughing while he parades on ground he calls sacred.
79
Once again Seattleblues falls silent, only to return again on some other thread saying the same fucking thing, like he's stuck in Groundhog Day. Poor thing.
80
65, Seattleblues, you spend just about everyday of your life thinking about, and posting about gay sex and Dan Savage. Why do you feel threatened by homosexuals, and Dan Savage?
81
I wonder if countries with more tolerant attitudes toward homosexuality have a higher percentage of their population who identify as LGBTQ? Has the legalization of gay marriage in Canada resulted in an epidemic of lesbianism? Studies show that people in the Netherlands are generally very tolerant when it comes to alternative lifestyles. Based on the number brothels in Amsterdam it sure seems like Dutch guys still love pussy. Will issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples change the fact that 90%+ of the population has little or no interest in gay sex?
82
@79: I believe his present state of diminished arousal is called the refractory period. When he just keeps going, getting nastier and nastier, you can bet he's got the whiskey dick, and he's beating it bloody trying to get some flicker of sensation out of it. Gets worse with age, I hear.
83
The correlative relationship between abnormalities in hormones or certain brain loccii and abnormal sexual inclination is something I don't recall contesting. So show me the causation, not more correlation.No. It treats homosexuality as something for which an answer or explanation is required, despite the fact that it occurs at identical rates not only from culture to culture, but between all mammalian species. That is, it does assume a problem--something that requires correction.
If anything your study argues for a relatively easily developed medical treatment for homosexuality. If anything it shows a path to identifying it in young children and treating it before it causes problems. If a hormonal imbalance caused a problem, it follows that devising a way to repair the imbalance would treat that problem.
But that line of thinking treats homosexuality as neutral, doesn't it?
Not that I oppose such research being done, but we should call it what it is, and certainly question any public funds being used to research it.
It's the same with the higher incidences of depression and suicide among homosexuals. This would seem something important enough to ditch preconceptions and find objectively demonstrable solutions.Other traits that correlate with high rates of suicide or depression include high IQs and aptitude in the arts. Shall we also study whether these "maladies" require solutions?
In any case, innate or not, having an inclination to a behavior is not itself a valid justification for or villification of that behavior. I'm inclined to eat ice cream before bed, but since I don't want to be fat bastard rather than just a bastard, I don't very often. I'm inclined to moderately risky physical activities like small boat sailing or snow skiing. That inclination doesn't mean I don't have to weigh the pros and cons of the behavior and make my decisions accordingly.The risks/cons of those activities are essentially natural consequences of the acts themselves (or of foreseeable errors in executing same). The consequences you insist that gays and lesbians should endure are fabricated.
And as I noted, if the problem is hormonal abnormality in the developing brain this doesn't inherently suggest that homosexuality is desirable. It could equally suggest that homosexual inclinations are treatable.As left-handedness may be "treatable," in the sense that the left-handed individual may learn to use his/her right hand somewhat effectively. The question is, why would we treat left-handedness OR homosexuality as something that needed to be treated if we didn't presuppose that there was something inherently negative in either the proclivity or the actions to which it leads?
However, there are demonstrable harms to habitual anal sex, which granted is largely a gay rather than a lesbian issue.In fact, it's also a straight couple issue; it is neither exclusive nor endemic to gay men.
It's demonstrable that promiscuity is far more widespread in homosexuals than heterosexuals.Actually, it's demonstrable that it's more widespread in men than in women; one would expect, then, that it would be more widespread where there is no leavening feminine influence (and yes, ladies, I'm aware that it's a generalization; as such, I assert nothing but that it is generally observable).
I don't have to use appliances and all sorts of lotions and all the other crap to have sex with my wife. Know why? Because we're not trying to rebel against the natural order, and we have sex- follow this closely- the way it's designed to work.Here's a tip as to how it's "designed" to work--fewer than 25% of women can experience orgasm without direct stimulation of the clitoris--digital, oral, or assisted. So her pleasure already asks for a certain amount of attention outside the more traditional, "natural" modes of coitus.
I don't have to worry about STD's and so on. Know why? Because I'm faithful to my wife, and she to me. We don't have to worry about protecting against promiscuity because- again follow this closely- we're not promiscuous.Well and good. But you do realize you went from arguing that what you do works because it's "natural" to arguing that it works because it's unnatural (for surely there is nothing less natural than monogamy). Pick an angle and stick with it (or be more interesting and honest about being all the fuck over the place with your thinking).
84
@81 - Indications are that there would be no change, given that those percentages tend to remain nearly identical from culture to culture (and that even the dire consequences for homosexual activity in violent theocracies like Iran or Saudi Arabia do nothing to alter that consistency--that is, there is as much homosexual activity as a percentage of all sexual activity, and as many people whose sexual contact is primarily or exclusively homosexual, as in more liberal nations).
85
To the one who wrote about Christians and the holocaust. There were Christians like Dietrich Bonnhoeffer who lost their lives in concentration camps because they didn't go along with Hitler's solution. If North Carolina wants to attract businesses, and research, etc. the state had better dis-entangle itself from the ultra-conservative, hateful, and ultimately treasonous religious right. There is such a thing as progressive and authentic Christianity. One of N.C.'s native sons is the wonderful James Forbes Jr. pastor-emeritus of the Riverside Church in New York. This "pastor" makes Jeremiah Wright in Chicago sound like Ghandi.
To the Pastor of Providence Road church. Your hate-speech in the name of God is the worse form of blasphemy. You are absent the loving message of God and Holy Scripture and full of the devil incarnate. God will call you into account. Shame on you!! SHAME!!!! And you are as arrogant as you are
ignorant. God bless the United States of America. God bless President Barak Obama. And God bless and defend the gay and lesbian children of God who have been persecuted and driven away from true religion by the likes of you. Shame on you, on your name, on those deluded enough to spur you on.
And, by the way, your horrific hate-speech spills over into the political realm. Your church should not have any kind of tax exemption.
God will call you into account. And perhaps you'll receive the mercy in proportion to what you deal out.
You are a despicable human being, and no servant of God, whose greatest commandment was to love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind--- and to love your neighbor as yourself.
And, by the way, if your Hitler-inspired solution occurred, there would still be gays and lesbians as part of God's family, because God made them that way and they are born into the human families of which they are a part.
I've heard of a pig in a polk. I'd say you are a pig in a pulpit-- but that would be a dis-service to the pig. You're simply ignorant, hateful, and pathetic. I'll pray for you-- and pray that people are protected from you.
And I feel sorry for your community of Maiden-- you bring shame on the heads of more good people, like the ones you would inter and kill off.
More...
To the Pastor of Providence Road church. Your hate-speech in the name of God is the worse form of blasphemy. You are absent the loving message of God and Holy Scripture and full of the devil incarnate. God will call you into account. Shame on you!! SHAME!!!! And you are as arrogant as you are
ignorant. God bless the United States of America. God bless President Barak Obama. And God bless and defend the gay and lesbian children of God who have been persecuted and driven away from true religion by the likes of you. Shame on you, on your name, on those deluded enough to spur you on.
And, by the way, your horrific hate-speech spills over into the political realm. Your church should not have any kind of tax exemption.
God will call you into account. And perhaps you'll receive the mercy in proportion to what you deal out.
You are a despicable human being, and no servant of God, whose greatest commandment was to love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind--- and to love your neighbor as yourself.
And, by the way, if your Hitler-inspired solution occurred, there would still be gays and lesbians as part of God's family, because God made them that way and they are born into the human families of which they are a part.
I've heard of a pig in a polk. I'd say you are a pig in a pulpit-- but that would be a dis-service to the pig. You're simply ignorant, hateful, and pathetic. I'll pray for you-- and pray that people are protected from you.
And I feel sorry for your community of Maiden-- you bring shame on the heads of more good people, like the ones you would inter and kill off.
86
Dear Seattleblues re your "gay sex" pontifications,
What is this "gay sex" of which you speak? While I have read of the sex that gay people have, there don't seem be many variants of it that straight people like "us" don't also have. If a sex act can be done by straight people as well as gay people, isn't it just "sex"?
Oral sex? Straight people give and receive oral sex. It doesn't make the men lesbians or the women male gays.
Anal sex? Straight people give and receive anal sex. The women might need sex toys, but at least they don't need Viagra. Or, they can roll up their sleeves.
Mutual masturbation? Straight people do that.
Frottage? Straight people do that, too. Bondage? Kink? Tell me.
What is "gay sex"? Is it just sex when two people of the same gender do it, or is it otherwise somehow distinguishable? And, if it's not otherwise distinguishable, HOW IN FUCK'S NAME CAN YOU SIT THERE AT YOUR KEYBOARD DRIBBLING NONSENSE ABOUT ITS DETRIMENTAL QUALITIES???
Moron.
By the way, do you know what the most common way that AIDS spreads on this little blue world of ours? Believe it or not, it's by that good old-fashioned penis-in-vagina sex. Most AIDS victims on this planet are completely straight, and about half of them are mothers. It's a devastating disease in any population, especially when untreated in the third world, and it's co-spread by stupid ignorance, misinformation, and malicious nonsense.
What is this "gay sex" of which you speak? While I have read of the sex that gay people have, there don't seem be many variants of it that straight people like "us" don't also have. If a sex act can be done by straight people as well as gay people, isn't it just "sex"?
Oral sex? Straight people give and receive oral sex. It doesn't make the men lesbians or the women male gays.
Anal sex? Straight people give and receive anal sex. The women might need sex toys, but at least they don't need Viagra. Or, they can roll up their sleeves.
Mutual masturbation? Straight people do that.
Frottage? Straight people do that, too. Bondage? Kink? Tell me.
What is "gay sex"? Is it just sex when two people of the same gender do it, or is it otherwise somehow distinguishable? And, if it's not otherwise distinguishable, HOW IN FUCK'S NAME CAN YOU SIT THERE AT YOUR KEYBOARD DRIBBLING NONSENSE ABOUT ITS DETRIMENTAL QUALITIES???
Moron.
By the way, do you know what the most common way that AIDS spreads on this little blue world of ours? Believe it or not, it's by that good old-fashioned penis-in-vagina sex. Most AIDS victims on this planet are completely straight, and about half of them are mothers. It's a devastating disease in any population, especially when untreated in the third world, and it's co-spread by stupid ignorance, misinformation, and malicious nonsense.
87
I wish there were some technology where every time seattleblues and venomlash start their futile "debate" it would automatically split off onto a separate thread so they wouldn't constantly hijack the conversation.
Maybe there could be an electrified fence to segregate...Oh never mind.
Maybe there could be an electrified fence to segregate...Oh never mind.
88
@87: Would be nice. The SLOG people have established threads previously so people can have their arguments. I think WiS and Fnarf got one.
89
@87:
Um, I don't see this as their debate. Seattleblues is a representative obsessive lunatic who needs to be challenged.
And there's a suggestion of equivalency that annoys me, as in: "Those damn Nazis and Allies with their annoying war!"
... where every time seattleblues and venomlash start their futile "debate"
Um, I don't see this as their debate. Seattleblues is a representative obsessive lunatic who needs to be challenged.
And there's a suggestion of equivalency that annoys me, as in: "Those damn Nazis and Allies with their annoying war!"
90
@84 Public health experts tell us that men having sex men has not been a significant contributor to the AIDS epidemic in Africa. The reason being that most African societies are extremely intolerant of homosexual behavior, so relatively little gay sex happens. I think it's silly to argue that laws and social attitudes don't effect people's sexual behavior. That being said, I kind of doubt marriage equality would turn all men into cock sucking power bottoms.
91
There are always going to be those that hate you for the way you are. It's just funny how you go out of your way to find the most screwed up churches and try and put it on the whole Christian faith. Would you attack President Obama's faith leader Rev. Jeremiah Wright? I highly doubt so even though he has given sermon's in the past against homosexuality.
I am a Christian that fully supports gay marriage, but the vile that comes out of Dan Savages mouth does not help to bring anybody around to his side. There is an old saying that says "You attract more flies with honey than vinegar".
As for being an anti-bullying activist, Dan Savage, should learn to practice what he is supposed to be supporting.
I am a Christian that fully supports gay marriage, but the vile that comes out of Dan Savages mouth does not help to bring anybody around to his side. There is an old saying that says "You attract more flies with honey than vinegar".
As for being an anti-bullying activist, Dan Savage, should learn to practice what he is supposed to be supporting.
92
@89
Yeah! Because murdering 6 million people is EXACTLY like asking a self selecting minority to accept the consequences of their behavioral choices!
Asking faggots and dykes and all the other flavors of pervert to keep their private business private and not impose their dodgy understanding of human sexuality on everyone else is precisely like shoving them in gas chambers!
Asking adults who chose a condition that precludes marriage to accept that fact like adults is the same in every way as rounding them up and putting them in concentration camps at slave labor or to be exterminated!
Out of sincere curiosity both the Khmer Rouge and Stalin communists murdered far more people than Hitler. The numbers are a decade or more old that I remember, but I seem to recall Stalin murdering 12 million or so Soviets. Pol Pot murdered 1 out of every 3 Cambodians. Africa and Latin America are replete with despicable totalitarian leaders doing despicable things.
So why always the Nazis with you lefties? Given your embrace of socio-economic theories proven disastrously silly everywhere they've been tried (Greece, Italy or Portugal anyone?), I realize your grasp of history is questionable at best. Still, the Holocaust was kind of a biggie, as history goes. Did you sleep throught that week in high school history courses, all of you lefties?
I mean, loathesome as Dan Savage is, and there really aren't sufficient ways to express how far he's dehumanized himself and how much he wishes to dehumanize everyone else, I'm not nearly silly enough to compare him to Hitler. More a filthy and vulgar scumbag with no ethical or moral sense of any kind. Bad a president as Obama is, I wouldn't dream of calling him a Nazi. He isn't even as bad as LBJ or FDR, since both of those men were competent in their efforts to destroy this nation.
Maybe because I have a sense of perspective...
More...
Yeah! Because murdering 6 million people is EXACTLY like asking a self selecting minority to accept the consequences of their behavioral choices!
Asking faggots and dykes and all the other flavors of pervert to keep their private business private and not impose their dodgy understanding of human sexuality on everyone else is precisely like shoving them in gas chambers!
Asking adults who chose a condition that precludes marriage to accept that fact like adults is the same in every way as rounding them up and putting them in concentration camps at slave labor or to be exterminated!
Out of sincere curiosity both the Khmer Rouge and Stalin communists murdered far more people than Hitler. The numbers are a decade or more old that I remember, but I seem to recall Stalin murdering 12 million or so Soviets. Pol Pot murdered 1 out of every 3 Cambodians. Africa and Latin America are replete with despicable totalitarian leaders doing despicable things.
So why always the Nazis with you lefties? Given your embrace of socio-economic theories proven disastrously silly everywhere they've been tried (Greece, Italy or Portugal anyone?), I realize your grasp of history is questionable at best. Still, the Holocaust was kind of a biggie, as history goes. Did you sleep throught that week in high school history courses, all of you lefties?
I mean, loathesome as Dan Savage is, and there really aren't sufficient ways to express how far he's dehumanized himself and how much he wishes to dehumanize everyone else, I'm not nearly silly enough to compare him to Hitler. More a filthy and vulgar scumbag with no ethical or moral sense of any kind. Bad a president as Obama is, I wouldn't dream of calling him a Nazi. He isn't even as bad as LBJ or FDR, since both of those men were competent in their efforts to destroy this nation.
Maybe because I have a sense of perspective...
93
Public health experts tell us that men having sex men has not been a significant contributor to the AIDS epidemic in Africa. The reason being that most African societies are extremely intolerant of homosexual behavior, so relatively little gay sex happens.I can't speak to the matter of Africa; I can only say that the statistics I've seen indicate that intolerance does nothing to curb such in Islamic nations. I can't begin to guess what variables have been controlled for in one case vs. the other.
I think it's silly to argue that laws and social attitudes don't effect people's sexual behavior.Not really what I"m arguing. No matter how well-trained the left-hander is at functioning with his right hand, particularly in a society that discourages left-handedness, the person with the natural proclivity will, at least in private, tend to function according to natural dictates. I can't speak to the example of Africa, but I can speak to the examples of Saudi Arabia and Iran, examples that indicate (according to self-reporting, even) that the same is true of those whose attraction to their own sex exceeds any interest in the opposite sex.
That being said, I kind of doubt marriage equality would turn all men into cock sucking power bottoms.Indeed. I go further than you only in predicting that it wouldn't likely turn any statistically significatn number of men into such; at most, it would give an isolated handful of would-be closet cases enough reason to believe that they can satisfy their natural proclivities without being denied access to the essential architecture of the bourgeois dream. Even then, though, I'd make a gentleman's bet that the numbers who would be so affected would be too small for the pro-side to look upon as a victory or the anti-side to look at as a defeat.
94
@72
Lot of words to say the same thing.
If homosexuality is a problem in the brain or hormonal systems, a treatment should be relatively easy to create.
And it still doesn't matter. The sole thing which makes of a homosexually behaving person different is that behavior, that chosen behavior. Why they chose it isn't my problem, or anyone elses. I don't wish to deny them that choice. I don't wish to force treatment on the unwilling. I don't wish to deny them housing or accomadation in public spaces or jobs. I only ask that they grow the hell up and accept the consequences of their choices.
Lot of words to say the same thing.
If homosexuality is a problem in the brain or hormonal systems, a treatment should be relatively easy to create.
And it still doesn't matter. The sole thing which makes of a homosexually behaving person different is that behavior, that chosen behavior. Why they chose it isn't my problem, or anyone elses. I don't wish to deny them that choice. I don't wish to force treatment on the unwilling. I don't wish to deny them housing or accomadation in public spaces or jobs. I only ask that they grow the hell up and accept the consequences of their choices.
95
@73
I'm glad a majority of my fellow Americans think gays and lesbians shouldn't be discriminated against. So do I.
I generally trust polls about as much as the patter of a used car salesman, but if you think a majority of your fellow citizens think gays and lesbians should have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else, what do you make of North Carolina, and the fight to defend marriage in Minnesota?
See, it's all in how you ask the question. 'Should gay men or lesbians be treated as second class citizens?' will get radically different answers than 'Should gay and lesbian adults take responsibility for the choices they made?'
I'm glad a majority of my fellow Americans think gays and lesbians shouldn't be discriminated against. So do I.
I generally trust polls about as much as the patter of a used car salesman, but if you think a majority of your fellow citizens think gays and lesbians should have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else, what do you make of North Carolina, and the fight to defend marriage in Minnesota?
See, it's all in how you ask the question. 'Should gay men or lesbians be treated as second class citizens?' will get radically different answers than 'Should gay and lesbian adults take responsibility for the choices they made?'
96
Because murdering 6 million people is EXACTLY like asking a self selecting minority to accept the consequences of their behavioral choices!The fabricated consequences. Not that the comparison is any less hyperbolic for it, but as usual, you spout your untutored rhetoric as though I haven't already paddled your ass to blistering on this point a half-dozen times already.
Asking faggots and dykes and all the other flavors of pervert to keep their private business private and not impose their dodgy understanding of human sexuality on everyone else is precisely like shoving them in gas chambers!Do you think that the civil recognition of whatever passes for "marriage" in your home imposes your dodgy understandings of . . . well, just about everything on the rest of us?
Asking adults who chose a condition that precludes marriage to accept that fact like adults is the same in every way as rounding them up and putting them in concentration camps at slave labor or to be exterminated!The other conditions they could have chosen are celibacy or heterosexual relationships with individuals with whom no genuine erotic compatibility could be shared. Since the "condition" at hand doesn't preclude falling in love or building a household with one's beloved, recognition of that through the same civic contract that my wife and I enjoy for precisely the same thing is equitable on its face.
97
@94 Mutual sexual attraction is a necessary component of a successful marriage. That means that a successful heterosexual marriage is not an option for someone who experiences little or no heterosexual desire. You don't get to pick what turns you on, so fags and dykes aren't precluded from heterosexual marriage because of any choice they have made.
98
If homosexuality is a problem in the brain or hormonal systems, a treatment should be relatively easy to create.Presumes that a variation in the brain or hormonal systems amounts to a "problem."
I only ask that they grow the hell up and accept the consequences of their choices.Again--what consequences? Non-recognition of households according to our society's most readily available household contracts doesn't amount to a natural consequence of homosexual behavior.
See, it's all in how you ask the question. 'Should gay men or lesbians be treated as second class citizens?' will get radically different answers than 'Should gay and lesbian adults take responsibility for the choices they made?'It seems to me that "marrying" is precisely that--a taking of responsibility for one's relationship with one's beloved, and a removal of oneself from the sometimes dangerous open market of promiscuity. Not all see it that way (not even all who can marry currently), and even the squarest of couples probably navigate any of a number of mitigating influences, but there you are.
99
@92: Learn2read, moron. aureolaborealis's point was that comparing you to me is like comparing the Allies and Axis powers in terms of culpability for this debate and WWII respectively. Nothing to do with the Holocaust or gay rights.
@72: "If homosexuality is a problem in the brain or hormonal systems, a treatment should be relatively easy to create."
HAHAHA OH WOW. Seattleblues is hereby confirmed to know nothing about neurology.
Depression is a problem in the brain involving hormone levels. It's far more common, and far more clearly problematic* than gayness, and yet we still don't have effective treatments for it. The brain is more complex than you realize, though I'm starting to suspect that yours isn't.
What you have been steadfastly refusing to acknowledge, though, is that sexuality is pretty much fixed in early development. Even if there was a way to adjust those hormonal fluctuations, it would have to be applied in utero or in early childhood, long before sexual orientation becomes apparent. Do you believe that children should be dosed with hormones just in case they might otherwise be gay? And do you concede that sexual orientation is innate rather than chosen?
*Homosexuality is atypical, but not strictly speaking a problem.
@72: "If homosexuality is a problem in the brain or hormonal systems, a treatment should be relatively easy to create."
HAHAHA OH WOW. Seattleblues is hereby confirmed to know nothing about neurology.
Depression is a problem in the brain involving hormone levels. It's far more common, and far more clearly problematic* than gayness, and yet we still don't have effective treatments for it. The brain is more complex than you realize, though I'm starting to suspect that yours isn't.
What you have been steadfastly refusing to acknowledge, though, is that sexuality is pretty much fixed in early development. Even if there was a way to adjust those hormonal fluctuations, it would have to be applied in utero or in early childhood, long before sexual orientation becomes apparent. Do you believe that children should be dosed with hormones just in case they might otherwise be gay? And do you concede that sexual orientation is innate rather than chosen?
*Homosexuality is atypical, but not strictly speaking a problem.
100
I'm a good ol' fashioned Liberal Christian. I attend a Church that has been "Open and Affirming" for years. Thank you, Mr. Savage, for at least clarifiying that this nutcase is a "conservative Christian".
101
@89: Oh, I definitely wasn't implying any equivalency.
Venomlash is obviously a very witty and intelligent man who just happens to enjoy the odd hobby of banging his head against a bitter and illogical wall.
It's just the Sisyphean futility of the thing that makes me wish he'd do it elsewhere.
Venomlash is obviously a very witty and intelligent man who just happens to enjoy the odd hobby of banging his head against a bitter and illogical wall.
It's just the Sisyphean futility of the thing that makes me wish he'd do it elsewhere.
104
@103: Me too, namely when I'm trying to scroll past the 3,000 virtually identical epic troll posts. :-P
105
Man, I feel sorry for Mrs. Seattleblues. No oral or anal, because that would be too gay. No vibrators, or as he calls them, "appliances". No lube at any time, because that would be unnatural. When they both grow old and he can't have a firm erection for missionary sex, and she's all dry and can't use lube, what are they going to do?
106
Seattleblues, you spend just about everyday of your life thinking about, and posting about gay sex and Dan Savage. Why do you feel threatened by homosexuals, and Dan Savage?
108
@106 - Oh, Rob, haven't you heard? Seattleblues is only here because Dan Savage and "teh gays" (tm) are launching an assault on family, and decency, and religion, and . . . something else, right? Ice cream, I think. Anyway, they're forcing 97% of the culture to . . . uh . . . change nothing at all, actually, except what their state calls a contract tied fairly arbitrarily to an act of household building that already varies widely in its permutations and social implications or significance. But it's an affront, dammit; Seattleblues is just defending his poor, put-upon family from this assault on the sacred union that binds them. Or something like that.
109
@102: I thought it was more like: Godwin's Law, I win!
(Note that, despite SB's dramatic attempt to get a foul called, no one was actually likened to Nazis ... see @99. You fucking Godwin's Law Nazi. There.)
(Note that, despite SB's dramatic attempt to get a foul called, no one was actually likened to Nazis ... see @99. You fucking Godwin's Law Nazi. There.)
110
In its latest annual Internet security threat report, Symantec, the maker of Norton AntiVirus software, found that “religious and ideological sites” have far surpassed pornographic websites as targets for criminal hackers. According to the company you’re now three times as likely to encounter malware—insidious software that can steal your data, pelt you with spam, or enslave your machine in a botnet—on your local church blog as you are on a porn site.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
US Military Grants Itself the Power to Police American Streets and "Quell" "Civil Disturbances" by Brendan Kiley
-
SL Letter of the Day: Living Discomfortably by Dan Savage
-
Slog Super Poll: Who Should Be Mayor? by Dominic Holden
-
Black Market Elimination Fail: Draft Pot Rules Call for Ban on Hash and Hash Oil by Ben Livingston
-
Tim Burgess Quits the Mayor's Race by Dominic Holden
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (110) RSS