An intelligent person can easily see that even with your extensive use of pretty words, your opinion about Dan Savage is obviously negative. Extending that negative opinion to the rest of the GLBT community, however, is what irritates us.
Nobody asked to you comment originally on this particular blog. You did that of your own accord, and you did so with a presumptuous air, or even better yet, with the arrogance of an entitled individual who apparently made the RIGHT choices in life and now live by the better graces of society. You then proceeded to insinuate that sexuality is a choice, and that we of the GLBT community have chosen to live in a lifestyle that degrades us to the second-class citizenship, and therefore deserve to live in that particular state. Let me clarify. Sexuality is not a choice, and those who believe that are (for the most part) either uneducated or Christian. This is why Dan Savage blatantly attacks both institutions, but because Christians are typically larger, more organized, and more directly involved in establishing anti-gay laws and ordinances, they are much easier to target. Now I will clarify further. Not only is sexuality not a choice, but a choice of religion is, and while I would really like to beat the crap out of the 7th Day Adventists with their own Book of Morman when they knock on my door, I cannot do that legally, so I attack them with something that is protected by the Constitution, which is freedom to speech. And yet these 7th Day Adventists have more protections for their personal choices than I have for my inborn characteristics. See the problem?
Firstly, if you do not like Dan Savage, do not read his work. Do not come here to criticize. If this is what makes you feel morally or intellectually superior, you clearly have some issues to work out. The people that do read his comments are people that enjoy what he has to say because we believe that in most of his opinions, he is right. Secondly, if you do not like gay people, and you have made it clear that you don't care for us, do not go out of your way to speak to us. Not only will we consider you to be an idiot, but we may also suggest that your presence here is an unconsious reflection of your inner desires, just so that we may get you to leave.
After all, Dan Savage has every right to engage in a moral crusade against people who have gone out of their way to state that a priority of theirs is to deny or take away GLBT rights and liberties. If you do not like that, then why are you reading up on it in the first place? That sounds more to me like the actions of a petulant child than anything he is doing. At least what he is doing has a purpose. You are just full of hot air.
@104, your comment is hidden, so I've pasted it below.
I would also add that there are a lot of straight people on SLOG that also enjoy Dan and his politics as well. I have a special fondness for people who rail against bigotry and are fearless about it, even if they have potty mouths (on occassion). In fact, I have a bit of a crush on Dan, it's just that my crush doesn't TORMENT me, like our friend here.
"Dear Seattleblues,
An intelligent person can easily see that even with your extensive use of pretty words, your opinion about Dan Savage is obviously negative. Extending that negative opinion to the rest of the GLBT community, however, is what irritates us.
Nobody asked to you comment originally on this particular blog. You did that of your own accord, and you did so with a presumptuous air, or even better yet, with the arrogance of an entitled individual who apparently made the RIGHT choices in life and now live by the better graces of society. You then proceeded to insinuate that sexuality is a choice, and that we of the GLBT community have chosen to live in a lifestyle that degrades us to the second-class citizenship, and therefore deserve to live in that particular state. Let me clarify. Sexuality is not a choice, and those who believe that are (for the most part) either uneducated or Christian. This is why Dan Savage blatantly attacks both institutions, but because Christians are typically larger, more organized, and more directly involved in establishing anti-gay laws and ordinances, they are much easier to target. Now I will clarify further. Not only is sexuality not a choice, but a choice of religion is, and while I would really like to beat the crap out of the 7th Day Adventists with their own Book of Morman when they knock on my door, I cannot do that legally, so I attack them with something that is protected by the Constitution, which is freedom to speech. And yet these 7th Day Adventists have more protections for their personal choices than I have for my inborn characteristics. See the problem?
Firstly, if you do not like Dan Savage, do not read his work. Do not come here to criticize. If this is what makes you feel morally or intellectually superior, you clearly have some issues to work out. The people that do read his comments are people that enjoy what he has to say because we believe that in most of his opinions, he is right. Secondly, if you do not like gay people, and you have made it clear that you don't care for us, do not go out of your way to speak to us. Not only will we consider you to be an idiot, but we may also suggest that your presence here is an unconsious reflection of your inner desires, just so that we may get you to leave.
After all, Dan Savage has every right to engage in a moral crusade against people who have gone out of their way to state that a priority of theirs is to deny or take away GLBT rights and liberties. If you do not like that, then why are you reading up on it in the first place? That sounds more to me like the actions of a petulant child than anything he is doing. At least what he is doing has a purpose. You are just full of hot air."
Now I kinda hope she ends up requiring a long term care provider, and the only one around for her specialized treatment is gay. It'll be a Driving Miss Daisy kind of situation, they'll make a movie later.
So, let's see if I get it straight, Seattleblues: you actually agree with what Dan wrote in this post (i.e., you're against anti-gay discrimination in hospitals), and yet you think Dan is bad because he wrote it?
This does make your personality more interesting, I admit. Would you care to explain why a guy complaining is bad when you happen to agree with the content of the complaint?
@101, Seattleblues is here only because he wants to play the bully, i.e. whenever he can pretend he's doing good Christian works by trying to hurt others he actually enjoys it. It's sort of fun to keep pointing out to him how his actions are in disagreement with his professed philosophy -- and then see him ignore this fact. As if he could fool his God about his real intentions here...
97, Seattleblues, Running for a national public office makes one a national public figure. Have you noticed he regularly appears on national television and radio? He's fair game for political skewering. Ricky, whines like a baby when Saturday Night Live lampoons him in a skit.
Rick Santorum's central plank in his campaign is that if he is elected president, using his power as an elected public official, he'll work to make Biblical law about gay people public law. Should Santorum be elected president, (unlikely, I know) he will be putting his and on the Bible, and swearing to uphold The Constitution, not the other way around.
Also, gay people can't help what sex they were born any more than a person can help being born black or Asian.
Dan Savage and the other writers here lie consistently. When they don't lie openly, they misrepresent what others write or say.
Seattleblues, you keep making this claim but every time you're challenged to come up with specific instances you back down. Making that claim in the same thread where you've admitted Dan Savage is right just makes you sound even more ridiculous.
You can't lie about others and then claim to be morally superior. Well, I guess you can, since that's exactly what you do, but it doesn't make it true. It's just like complaining others are acting like children when you're acting so immature yourself.
As for Dan being evil, again, examine yourself before you make that accusation. You spew all kinds of insults and hatred and then you complain that others are doing the same thing. Contradicting your stupidity isn't a violation of your rights, Seattleblues. Grow up.
So would it be okay for parents who don't want Black nurses/doctors to make a request that the hospital keep Black health care providers away from their children?
Ms. Harvey is a jerk.
When you go to the hospital for treatment/healthcare, the color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, and religion of the staff is irrelevant.
fun to keep pointing out to him how his actions are in disagreement with his professed philosophy -- and then see him ignore this fact
it does get tedious about the four-hundredth time (is anybody keeping stats here?) and it was a lovely respite to not have to see that name for a while in the comments section.
Mind you, I'm sure that kim in portland, scary tyler moore and others are correct in wondering why anybody would endure such a masochistic exercise - to actively seek to read a column by a man he loathes. Considering that comments can come in 24/7 - and that every moment on this forum IS a moment taken away from his oh-so-precious wife, son AND boat - we really have to wonder at the depth of his obsession with Dan.
::shakes head sadly:: Nope, not healthy at all. I think he needs to go away on a long vacation on that boat of his.
118, He wanted to stay away. He tried to stay away. He was white knuckling it, swearing he'd quit slog once and for all, but Seattleblues' Dan Savage obsession got the better of him.
@119 Maybe he'll stay away this time since it was pointed out to him that he was actually agreeing with Dan Savage. I don't think he realized that, especially with all his rambling about what a liar Dan is. If he takes the time for any introspection he might say to himself, "Savage is a liar, but I agree with him, which makes me..."
Well don't that just burst my buttons with the warm and fuzzies! Y'all missed me while I was out killing Bambis daddy this past week! For you vegetarians out there, nothing beats venison stew with a good salad and a bottle of stout on a winter evening. You just don't know what you're missing.
FYI, I don't just comment on Little Danny Boy the Savages half literate ramblings. I note the lunacies of that pre-eminent boob Charley Mudede when I can stomach them. I comment on Goldsteins odd obsession with McKenna, and failed leftist policy generally. (Of all these....gentlemen...at least this one has some faint glimmering of intelligence. Too bad he wastes it in the service of a childish and failed political and social belief system.) Frizzelle and the other boy toys on the Stranger staff rarely write anything even comprehensible but on the rare occasions they do I'll respond to their delusions. Granted I don't waste my time on the 'cultural' postings and my gag reflex can't handle the weirdos and deviants writing to Mr. Savage in his sex advice column. But the shallow and lying political columns I consider fair game, since the mindset displayed is perhaps the single greatest threat to this nation at the moment.
Not of course because Savage or Goldstein or Mudede or Constant have any substance. They don't, steeped as they are in their own moral relativism and general cynacism. This precise decay is however the threat as it spreads across this great country. As students are brainwashed into this same moral blank the media takes over and confirms for them that nothing is true or worthwhile or decent. Patriotism? Jingoist crap! Family? A holdout from when we needed such anachronisms! Integrity? The delusion of a former age! This is the message Savage and his disgusting ilk spread in every word they speak or write. As young people abused by this educational system and pop culture, for lack of a better word, mature into what passes for them as adults this nation becomes a lesser one with each subtraction of a thinking human being and replacement with a leftist automaton.
To paraphrase a bad poet, 'this is the way the US ends, this is the way the US ends, this is the way the US ends, not with a bang but with a whimper.'
@121 Until you grow up I think you should refrain from saying others are immature.
I'm still waiting for you to provide some specific examples of some of Dan's lies. So far you haven't been able to, but that's okay. I think you know who the real liar is. Still, you have admitted you agree with Dan on more than one occasion, so even according to you not everything he says is wrong.
It looks like you didn't spend any of your time out in the woods improving your spelling ability either. Maybe when you finally become an adult you'll learn to use a dictionary.
Seattleblues, you like to present yourself as a deep thinker, that much is obvious. So deep a thinker, it seems, that you don't know who is a public figure.
I don't 'present myself' as anything. I write how I write, though of course the tone in a note to my wife and in political discourse do change.
What I wrote, only you seem to have missed the point, is that Rick Santorum isn't a serious threat to Dan Savage or anyone else, no matter what he believes. What Savage is engaging in is bullying, pure and simple.
Were he to engage in a serious debate I'd take him seriously. Since he can't, since in rational debate he knows he'll lose every time, he engages in petty personal abuse and a vicious campaign against Mr. Santorum and his family. This would be contemptible even if Mr. Santorum were credibly a current or future elected or appointed official. Since he isn't, it merely shows Savage to be not only contemtible but a bully and hate monger.
@124 "Were Seattleblues to engage in a serious debate he might be taken seriously. Since he can't, since in rational debate he knows he'll lose every time, he engages in petty personal abuse and a vicious campaign against those he disagrees with, including Dan Savage and his family."
Ah. So if someone you find loathsome and repellant, not to mention wrong on nearly everything of importance, were to be right in a few tangential instances that conclusively demonstrates your adherence to their worldview.
Intriguing.
Now, with your permission a client lunch and a full afternoons work mean I won't be able to tilt at windmills any longer today.
@127 I find it intriguing that you know Dan is right but you can't bring yourself to outright admit it. Instead you have to make a lot of false accusations to try and distract people from the fact that you can't defend someone he's criticizing.
I hope you're more honest with your clients than you are here, but I wouldn't count on it. Maybe you're allowed to take those long vacations because whatever company you work for is better off when you're not around.
So, it's THAT easy . . . well, if any one of my three daughters is hospitalized, I think I will be expressly requesting gay nurses. As a father, I am terrified of all the things that might happen to them during their teenage years and this might be a way to cross one of them (pregnancy) off the list. I am sure that once those straight nurses got done with them, they'd be looking to hook up with every boy who might cross their path which - if some have their way - will be w/no birth control available, I now have a new strategy if they get hurt or injured (my prior strategy was to push them toward becoming nuns (tough starting point being Jewish and all)). Parenting is so hard and I feel so lucky that the Slog would promote Harvey's Helpful Hints.
@127: I think the bigger point is that you can't provide any examples of Dan telling an outright lie. And no, stating an opinion that you disagree with does not count as lying.
Indication that a gay person can do something good and nice for you is a Lying Fact, and children might not understand that Lying Facts are to be ignored.
(It's a Lying Fact because it contradicts the True Fact that gay people are totally depraved and can sow nothing but sin and discord...the True Fact does not need mere evidence to back it up, but might look dicey in the presence of an apparent disproof-by-example.)
"I hope you're more honest with your clients than you are here, but I wouldn't count on it. Maybe you're allowed to take those long vacations because whatever company you work for is better off when you're not around."
Kind of. I'm self employed.
Also, I never once mentioned Savages'family, extended or the euphamistic one at his home. Sure, I pity the poor young man growing up with no moral or ethical example, no example of a functioning heterosexual romantic relationship and all the other disadvantages under which he labors. But how that pity would be an attack is a bit beyond me.
@132
Savage and the others here repeatedly mis-state the findings of studies or other supposedly supporting cites, state what the findings in fact are in mis-leading headlines, claim that government officials with whose politics they disagree are doing things they simply aren't, and generally misleading anyone foolish enough to believe a word they write. Outright lies? Only on rare occasions, but lies by ommission are far more common than journalism for this bunch.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for vigorous debate about the issues of the day. I just don't see where leaving civility and truth out of your techniques are helpful to persuading anyone not already on your side. This is true of Fox News or the official mouthpieces for Democratic propaganda like NPR or MSNBC. If you respect your audience you tell them the whole truth about a thing and let them draw the conclusions they will. If you're a lying partisan hack with no understanding of the profession of journalism, you write for the Stranger or host a show on some joke network, as Maddow and Schultz and Limbaugh do.
@134: You say that Dan Savage et alii do X, Y, and Z, but you still don't give any examples. It's like you're entirely estranged from facts or reality.
"Also, I never once mentioned Savages'family, extended or the euphamistic one at his home. Sure, I pity the poor young man growing up with no moral or ethical example, no example of a functioning heterosexual romantic relationship and all the other disadvantages under which he labors."
The eagle-eyed reader may notice a slight contradiction in the above statement.
Seattleblues@134: "I just don't see where leaving civility and truth out of your techniques are helpful to persuading anyone not already on your side."
Truth.
Well, you said it, not us. Truth.
Practice what you preach....if you can.
Somehow, I just don't see it happening.
You have proven yourself to be a lying, prevaricating, and altogether heinous individual with an axe to grind which you attempt to conceal under a veneer of civility. An attempt at which you fail miserably.
Face it, Seattleblues, you aren't even good enough to be a bad example.
@134 "Also, I never once mentioned Savages'family, extended or the euphamistic one at his home. Sure, I pity the poor young man..."
Brilliant, Seattleblues. You claim you've never done something which you then turn around and do. You've referred to the person you call a "poor young man" as Dan's son in previous comments, just as you've admitted that Dan and Terry are legally married. Oh, wait, those are facts, so I guess you'll ignore them. You must know you're wrong, though. Your spelling and arguments always get worse when you know you're lying. And you really don't know anything about how Dan's son is growing up any more than I know your children are stupid and selfish, even though you've implied that they are.
To restate what MirrorMan has said, practice what you preach. Give three specific examples of the following:
1. Special rights that homosexuals are asking for.
2. An instance of Dan lying.
3. An instance of Dan attacking someone else's children.
I won't hold my breath waiting because I'm pretty sure you won't answer. You never do, because if you could you would have given examples long ago.
I have enough to worry about; I'm sure glad I don't have to lay awake at night worrying about new and twisted ways my kids can be influenced by the gay agenda. Linda must get a loads of meds to help counter the anxiety she must feel. "The gays, the gays, they will get you ANYWHERE!!"
I see. For you folks a lie means 'I disagree with your opinions.' You might consult a dictionary.
As for Savage and his little copies at the Stranger one needs look no further than the lying posts regarding the police attempting to enforce the law in Oakland today. Savage and Constant make no attempt to use credible sources (Mother Jones? Seriously?) or find why the police were forced to resort to light force on a crowd of unruly hooligans. No. They simply libel the good men and women of law enforcement in Oakland without a single attempt at actual journalism.
Granted this isn't a lie of commission, exactly. If all a person read were partisan propaganda sources he or she might be tempted to believe those sources, assuming also a very low level of intelligence. I know, I have to admit low intelligence appears to be a job requirement for Stranger staff, but since Goldstein, Constant, Savage and the rest actually do have access to reputable news sources they can't use this defense.
No, what they do is lie by ommission. They present a few facts out of all context, mis-state what their cites or studies actually say, make absurd claims based on those facts or cites, and call this practice journalism.
Again, these...gentlemen...aren't themselves worth the disputing. They are moral and ethical blanks by choice. They're incapable of making a stand in which principles and evidence come into play by this very choice. After all, if you've decided that no moral or ethical system is inherently superior, how can you take a stand on one? But what they represent in their puny little way is a broader existential threat to the future of this great country. Sure, they have the emotional and intellectual development of particarly poorly behaved children, but they aren't content with their own immaturity. Unless and until their depravity is mirrored in every community in this nation, until it is in fact celebrated as virtue, these barbarians won't be satisfied. And that really is the threat.
But, Seattleblues, if you're so convinced that Dan is bad and a liar, why the heck are you here, writing comments?
That's always been the funny thing about you to me. You see, the answer is more or less clear: you're a bully, and you like inflicting pain on others against their will. And that is sad -- especially for someone who thinks he is a Christian.
Please, explain that. If Mr Savage is such a deep pit of vice and wrongness, what are you doing here?
SB, the funny thing about you saying Dan is not making an effort to find reliable sources? It's as if you think Dan is an old-style news reporter who should in his blog exercise fact-checking to the highest level, etc. Instead of being an advice columnist giving his opinion on stuff he happened to have read.
It's funny -- in the very process of attacking and offending Mr Savage, you make the assumption that he is more than he is. That he should be held to higher standards that your average blogger should. It's almost as if you harbored a secret admiration for him. :-)
A lie is an untruth, Seattleblues. You can point out the lies of other's all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you lie. You lied when you proclaimed Mr. Savage went to sex clubs, and Mr. Savage refuted your claim himself. You lied on this thread when you claim that you have said nothing about Mr. Savages extended family and son before. You've made uncivil and mean spirited comments many times before, I've personally have addressed you on this matter. There is no pretty way to put it. You lie and that is your reputation here. No amount of pointing at others changes this fact. Pointing it out isn't having a difference of opinion, it is stating that we observe that you have a problem with personal integrity.
Here is an opinion. I think you are capable of better. I think you owe your self-made proclamation of being a devout Christian a better example on this blog. I think you should be providing an example that shows a commitment to honesty, compassion, humbleness, and an ability to turn your cheek. That is my $0.02.
@147, I do think that Dan *could* fact check a little better occasionally. Witness the trouble a couple of weeks ago. Being a blogger does not absolve one of responsibility.
@145, I see that you are once again changing the subject.
@145: A lie of omission requires that there be some crucial bit of information that changes the meaning of the rest of the story. Learn your terms:
"One lies by omission when omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. Also known as a continuing misrepresentation. An example is when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service."
@145 "For you folks a lie means 'I disagree with your opinions.' You might consult a dictionary."
Sorry Seattleblues, that's your definition of a lie, not mine, and, as far as I can tell, not that of most other people here. And you've previously said that Dan is lying when his mouth is moving. Now you're accusing him of committing lies of omission, even though it's been pointed out that you don't know what that term means. It's obvious who here needs to consult a dictionary.
You conveniently ignore questions you can't answer, but just for laughs I'm going to ask again that you provide specific examples of the following:
1. Special rights that homosexuals are asking for.
2. An instance of Dan lying.
3. An instance of Dan attacking someone else's children.
@154 Okay, while I can't stand most of what SB posts ... it's just sickly misinformed, there are some things that do appear as "asking for special privileges". Though they are double edged ... so I personally have not voiced against them until seeing the effects they had, which since they're positive thus far I see them as good for everyone (speaking on hate crime legislation). But, those are "special privileges" in a way.
Another such instance (one that could hurt the TGLB people most) is the same thing that turned disability into a liability for hiring. One that I fear because ... well, the trans community is the one that can't always hide their identity during the hiring process (especially if they do a background check). It's a hard call, on one hand there needs to be some special protection of the type, but on the other if that protection gets abused it will detriment the whole. This can be perceived as "asking for special privileges" as well. It's all a matter of perspective .. and opinion.
However, until people like SB learn to at least STFU about their stupidity, such things will continue to happen. I dream like MLK ... of a truly equal society, one where everyone is considered equal, no questions, no need for special protection, none of that, but I don't expect people to stop hating. The difference lies in the law and how it treats people. Freedom of speech and expression has a dark side, it means we must also tolerate legal and non-damaging expressions of hatred as much as others. It sucks, yes, but you can't say one opinion is wrong to voice and still say you support freedom of speech or expression.
@155: If sexual orientation and gender identity are made protected categories under hate crime laws, it will be just as illegal to discriminate against a cisgendered heterosexual as against a transsexual or a homosexual. Everyone is protected equally.
This is what I keep telling Seattleblues every time he says that Teh Ghey is asking for special treatment.
@155 "[...] you can't say one opinion is wrong to voice and still say you support freedom of speech or expression."
Oh? I totally can say that all sorts of opinion are wrong to voice. For instance, that one you just wrote down. That sort of stupidity should not be inflicted on other people. In fact, your whole post, and many others you have made should have remained unshared. Hell, I can even exhort others to state the same.
What I can't do is say it should be illegal or that the government should stop you. That is what Freedom of Speech is actually about. Seriously.
@156 That is a good point, however it's still segregating "classes" or "types" of people. I really don't like segregation in even the most innocent of ways. Been segregated too much in my life to not fear it, and my family as a whole has experienced the effects of a few generations back.
@157 Clarification accepted, my wording was a bit wrong, you are correct that I should have said it's wrong to make it illegal instead of the wording I chose. My bad.
@158: How is it segregating anything? All it does is acknowledge that there are certain characteristics which differ between some people. A law establishing sexual orientation as a protected category does not specifically mention gay or straight people, but rather sexual orientation itself.
For fuck sake, know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
@121: I can't believe you tried to paraphrase Eliot. To compare the Gunpowder Plot to the left-wing bringing down right-wing America on a forum under an article discussing how a certain bigot doesn't want parents to let gays treat their children in hospitals is completely baffling to me.
Let me give you a quote to let you know that the right will destroy itself (and maybe from a source you won't call "a bad poet"):
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, the love of soft living and the get rich quick theory of life."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
p.s. I rarely check back on forums once I've read 160 comments, had a good chuckle at all the wingnuts (I'm looking at you SeattleDouche), and thanked my lucky stars that I'm a spiritual, straight, married gal who lives in a place that allows gays to be married. So that all my gay friends can enjoy all the things I do - namely the right to love and be loved without being prosecuted.
Please wait...
and remember to be decent to everyone all of the time.
An intelligent person can easily see that even with your extensive use of pretty words, your opinion about Dan Savage is obviously negative. Extending that negative opinion to the rest of the GLBT community, however, is what irritates us.
Nobody asked to you comment originally on this particular blog. You did that of your own accord, and you did so with a presumptuous air, or even better yet, with the arrogance of an entitled individual who apparently made the RIGHT choices in life and now live by the better graces of society. You then proceeded to insinuate that sexuality is a choice, and that we of the GLBT community have chosen to live in a lifestyle that degrades us to the second-class citizenship, and therefore deserve to live in that particular state. Let me clarify. Sexuality is not a choice, and those who believe that are (for the most part) either uneducated or Christian. This is why Dan Savage blatantly attacks both institutions, but because Christians are typically larger, more organized, and more directly involved in establishing anti-gay laws and ordinances, they are much easier to target. Now I will clarify further. Not only is sexuality not a choice, but a choice of religion is, and while I would really like to beat the crap out of the 7th Day Adventists with their own Book of Morman when they knock on my door, I cannot do that legally, so I attack them with something that is protected by the Constitution, which is freedom to speech. And yet these 7th Day Adventists have more protections for their personal choices than I have for my inborn characteristics. See the problem?
Firstly, if you do not like Dan Savage, do not read his work. Do not come here to criticize. If this is what makes you feel morally or intellectually superior, you clearly have some issues to work out. The people that do read his comments are people that enjoy what he has to say because we believe that in most of his opinions, he is right. Secondly, if you do not like gay people, and you have made it clear that you don't care for us, do not go out of your way to speak to us. Not only will we consider you to be an idiot, but we may also suggest that your presence here is an unconsious reflection of your inner desires, just so that we may get you to leave.
After all, Dan Savage has every right to engage in a moral crusade against people who have gone out of their way to state that a priority of theirs is to deny or take away GLBT rights and liberties. If you do not like that, then why are you reading up on it in the first place? That sounds more to me like the actions of a petulant child than anything he is doing. At least what he is doing has a purpose. You are just full of hot air.
I would also add that there are a lot of straight people on SLOG that also enjoy Dan and his politics as well. I have a special fondness for people who rail against bigotry and are fearless about it, even if they have potty mouths (on occassion). In fact, I have a bit of a crush on Dan, it's just that my crush doesn't TORMENT me, like our friend here.
"Dear Seattleblues,
An intelligent person can easily see that even with your extensive use of pretty words, your opinion about Dan Savage is obviously negative. Extending that negative opinion to the rest of the GLBT community, however, is what irritates us.
Nobody asked to you comment originally on this particular blog. You did that of your own accord, and you did so with a presumptuous air, or even better yet, with the arrogance of an entitled individual who apparently made the RIGHT choices in life and now live by the better graces of society. You then proceeded to insinuate that sexuality is a choice, and that we of the GLBT community have chosen to live in a lifestyle that degrades us to the second-class citizenship, and therefore deserve to live in that particular state. Let me clarify. Sexuality is not a choice, and those who believe that are (for the most part) either uneducated or Christian. This is why Dan Savage blatantly attacks both institutions, but because Christians are typically larger, more organized, and more directly involved in establishing anti-gay laws and ordinances, they are much easier to target. Now I will clarify further. Not only is sexuality not a choice, but a choice of religion is, and while I would really like to beat the crap out of the 7th Day Adventists with their own Book of Morman when they knock on my door, I cannot do that legally, so I attack them with something that is protected by the Constitution, which is freedom to speech. And yet these 7th Day Adventists have more protections for their personal choices than I have for my inborn characteristics. See the problem?
Firstly, if you do not like Dan Savage, do not read his work. Do not come here to criticize. If this is what makes you feel morally or intellectually superior, you clearly have some issues to work out. The people that do read his comments are people that enjoy what he has to say because we believe that in most of his opinions, he is right. Secondly, if you do not like gay people, and you have made it clear that you don't care for us, do not go out of your way to speak to us. Not only will we consider you to be an idiot, but we may also suggest that your presence here is an unconsious reflection of your inner desires, just so that we may get you to leave.
After all, Dan Savage has every right to engage in a moral crusade against people who have gone out of their way to state that a priority of theirs is to deny or take away GLBT rights and liberties. If you do not like that, then why are you reading up on it in the first place? That sounds more to me like the actions of a petulant child than anything he is doing. At least what he is doing has a purpose. You are just full of hot air."
This does make your personality more interesting, I admit. Would you care to explain why a guy complaining is bad when you happen to agree with the content of the complaint?
idiots, all of them
Rick Santorum's central plank in his campaign is that if he is elected president, using his power as an elected public official, he'll work to make Biblical law about gay people public law. Should Santorum be elected president, (unlikely, I know) he will be putting his and on the Bible, and swearing to uphold The Constitution, not the other way around.
Also, gay people can't help what sex they were born any more than a person can help being born black or Asian.
Seattleblues, you keep making this claim but every time you're challenged to come up with specific instances you back down. Making that claim in the same thread where you've admitted Dan Savage is right just makes you sound even more ridiculous.
You can't lie about others and then claim to be morally superior. Well, I guess you can, since that's exactly what you do, but it doesn't make it true. It's just like complaining others are acting like children when you're acting so immature yourself.
As for Dan being evil, again, examine yourself before you make that accusation. You spew all kinds of insults and hatred and then you complain that others are doing the same thing. Contradicting your stupidity isn't a violation of your rights, Seattleblues. Grow up.
Ms. Harvey is a jerk.
When you go to the hospital for treatment/healthcare, the color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, and religion of the staff is irrelevant.
Though it may be it does get tedious about the four-hundredth time (is anybody keeping stats here?) and it was a lovely respite to not have to see that name for a while in the comments section.
Mind you, I'm sure that kim in portland, scary tyler moore and others are correct in wondering why anybody would endure such a masochistic exercise - to actively seek to read a column by a man he loathes. Considering that comments can come in 24/7 - and that every moment on this forum IS a moment taken away from his oh-so-precious wife, son AND boat - we really have to wonder at the depth of his obsession with Dan.
::shakes head sadly:: Nope, not healthy at all. I think he needs to go away on a long vacation on that boat of his.
I'm sorry he's back.
FYI, I don't just comment on Little Danny Boy the Savages half literate ramblings. I note the lunacies of that pre-eminent boob Charley Mudede when I can stomach them. I comment on Goldsteins odd obsession with McKenna, and failed leftist policy generally. (Of all these....gentlemen...at least this one has some faint glimmering of intelligence. Too bad he wastes it in the service of a childish and failed political and social belief system.) Frizzelle and the other boy toys on the Stranger staff rarely write anything even comprehensible but on the rare occasions they do I'll respond to their delusions. Granted I don't waste my time on the 'cultural' postings and my gag reflex can't handle the weirdos and deviants writing to Mr. Savage in his sex advice column. But the shallow and lying political columns I consider fair game, since the mindset displayed is perhaps the single greatest threat to this nation at the moment.
Not of course because Savage or Goldstein or Mudede or Constant have any substance. They don't, steeped as they are in their own moral relativism and general cynacism. This precise decay is however the threat as it spreads across this great country. As students are brainwashed into this same moral blank the media takes over and confirms for them that nothing is true or worthwhile or decent. Patriotism? Jingoist crap! Family? A holdout from when we needed such anachronisms! Integrity? The delusion of a former age! This is the message Savage and his disgusting ilk spread in every word they speak or write. As young people abused by this educational system and pop culture, for lack of a better word, mature into what passes for them as adults this nation becomes a lesser one with each subtraction of a thinking human being and replacement with a leftist automaton.
To paraphrase a bad poet, 'this is the way the US ends, this is the way the US ends, this is the way the US ends, not with a bang but with a whimper.'
I'm still waiting for you to provide some specific examples of some of Dan's lies. So far you haven't been able to, but that's okay. I think you know who the real liar is. Still, you have admitted you agree with Dan on more than one occasion, so even according to you not everything he says is wrong.
It looks like you didn't spend any of your time out in the woods improving your spelling ability either. Maybe when you finally become an adult you'll learn to use a dictionary.
Unless you want to clear that up?
I don't 'present myself' as anything. I write how I write, though of course the tone in a note to my wife and in political discourse do change.
What I wrote, only you seem to have missed the point, is that Rick Santorum isn't a serious threat to Dan Savage or anyone else, no matter what he believes. What Savage is engaging in is bullying, pure and simple.
Were he to engage in a serious debate I'd take him seriously. Since he can't, since in rational debate he knows he'll lose every time, he engages in petty personal abuse and a vicious campaign against Mr. Santorum and his family. This would be contemptible even if Mr. Santorum were credibly a current or future elected or appointed official. Since he isn't, it merely shows Savage to be not only contemtible but a bully and hate monger.
There, I fixed it for you.
Ah. So if someone you find loathsome and repellant, not to mention wrong on nearly everything of importance, were to be right in a few tangential instances that conclusively demonstrates your adherence to their worldview.
Intriguing.
Now, with your permission a client lunch and a full afternoons work mean I won't be able to tilt at windmills any longer today.
Have a pleasant day.
I hope you're more honest with your clients than you are here, but I wouldn't count on it. Maybe you're allowed to take those long vacations because whatever company you work for is better off when you're not around.
(It's a Lying Fact because it contradicts the True Fact that gay people are totally depraved and can sow nothing but sin and discord...the True Fact does not need mere evidence to back it up, but might look dicey in the presence of an apparent disproof-by-example.)
"I hope you're more honest with your clients than you are here, but I wouldn't count on it. Maybe you're allowed to take those long vacations because whatever company you work for is better off when you're not around."
Kind of. I'm self employed.
Also, I never once mentioned Savages'family, extended or the euphamistic one at his home. Sure, I pity the poor young man growing up with no moral or ethical example, no example of a functioning heterosexual romantic relationship and all the other disadvantages under which he labors. But how that pity would be an attack is a bit beyond me.
@132
Savage and the others here repeatedly mis-state the findings of studies or other supposedly supporting cites, state what the findings in fact are in mis-leading headlines, claim that government officials with whose politics they disagree are doing things they simply aren't, and generally misleading anyone foolish enough to believe a word they write. Outright lies? Only on rare occasions, but lies by ommission are far more common than journalism for this bunch.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for vigorous debate about the issues of the day. I just don't see where leaving civility and truth out of your techniques are helpful to persuading anyone not already on your side. This is true of Fox News or the official mouthpieces for Democratic propaganda like NPR or MSNBC. If you respect your audience you tell them the whole truth about a thing and let them draw the conclusions they will. If you're a lying partisan hack with no understanding of the profession of journalism, you write for the Stranger or host a show on some joke network, as Maddow and Schultz and Limbaugh do.
The eagle-eyed reader may notice a slight contradiction in the above statement.
Truth.
Well, you said it, not us. Truth.
Practice what you preach....if you can.
Somehow, I just don't see it happening.
You have proven yourself to be a lying, prevaricating, and altogether heinous individual with an axe to grind which you attempt to conceal under a veneer of civility. An attempt at which you fail miserably.
Face it, Seattleblues, you aren't even good enough to be a bad example.
Brilliant, Seattleblues. You claim you've never done something which you then turn around and do. You've referred to the person you call a "poor young man" as Dan's son in previous comments, just as you've admitted that Dan and Terry are legally married. Oh, wait, those are facts, so I guess you'll ignore them. You must know you're wrong, though. Your spelling and arguments always get worse when you know you're lying. And you really don't know anything about how Dan's son is growing up any more than I know your children are stupid and selfish, even though you've implied that they are.
To restate what MirrorMan has said, practice what you preach. Give three specific examples of the following:
1. Special rights that homosexuals are asking for.
2. An instance of Dan lying.
3. An instance of Dan attacking someone else's children.
I won't hold my breath waiting because I'm pretty sure you won't answer. You never do, because if you could you would have given examples long ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Citi…
As for Savage and his little copies at the Stranger one needs look no further than the lying posts regarding the police attempting to enforce the law in Oakland today. Savage and Constant make no attempt to use credible sources (Mother Jones? Seriously?) or find why the police were forced to resort to light force on a crowd of unruly hooligans. No. They simply libel the good men and women of law enforcement in Oakland without a single attempt at actual journalism.
Granted this isn't a lie of commission, exactly. If all a person read were partisan propaganda sources he or she might be tempted to believe those sources, assuming also a very low level of intelligence. I know, I have to admit low intelligence appears to be a job requirement for Stranger staff, but since Goldstein, Constant, Savage and the rest actually do have access to reputable news sources they can't use this defense.
No, what they do is lie by ommission. They present a few facts out of all context, mis-state what their cites or studies actually say, make absurd claims based on those facts or cites, and call this practice journalism.
Again, these...gentlemen...aren't themselves worth the disputing. They are moral and ethical blanks by choice. They're incapable of making a stand in which principles and evidence come into play by this very choice. After all, if you've decided that no moral or ethical system is inherently superior, how can you take a stand on one? But what they represent in their puny little way is a broader existential threat to the future of this great country. Sure, they have the emotional and intellectual development of particarly poorly behaved children, but they aren't content with their own immaturity. Unless and until their depravity is mirrored in every community in this nation, until it is in fact celebrated as virtue, these barbarians won't be satisfied. And that really is the threat.
That's always been the funny thing about you to me. You see, the answer is more or less clear: you're a bully, and you like inflicting pain on others against their will. And that is sad -- especially for someone who thinks he is a Christian.
Please, explain that. If Mr Savage is such a deep pit of vice and wrongness, what are you doing here?
It's funny -- in the very process of attacking and offending Mr Savage, you make the assumption that he is more than he is. That he should be held to higher standards that your average blogger should. It's almost as if you harbored a secret admiration for him. :-)
Here is an opinion. I think you are capable of better. I think you owe your self-made proclamation of being a devout Christian a better example on this blog. I think you should be providing an example that shows a commitment to honesty, compassion, humbleness, and an ability to turn your cheek. That is my $0.02.
@145, I see that you are once again changing the subject.
"One lies by omission when omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. Also known as a continuing misrepresentation. An example is when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service."
Seattleblues DOES have a problem with personal integrity. That problem is a simple one: He lacks it altogether.
Sorry Seattleblues, that's your definition of a lie, not mine, and, as far as I can tell, not that of most other people here. And you've previously said that Dan is lying when his mouth is moving. Now you're accusing him of committing lies of omission, even though it's been pointed out that you don't know what that term means. It's obvious who here needs to consult a dictionary.
You conveniently ignore questions you can't answer, but just for laughs I'm going to ask again that you provide specific examples of the following:
1. Special rights that homosexuals are asking for.
2. An instance of Dan lying.
3. An instance of Dan attacking someone else's children.
Another such instance (one that could hurt the TGLB people most) is the same thing that turned disability into a liability for hiring. One that I fear because ... well, the trans community is the one that can't always hide their identity during the hiring process (especially if they do a background check). It's a hard call, on one hand there needs to be some special protection of the type, but on the other if that protection gets abused it will detriment the whole. This can be perceived as "asking for special privileges" as well. It's all a matter of perspective .. and opinion.
However, until people like SB learn to at least STFU about their stupidity, such things will continue to happen. I dream like MLK ... of a truly equal society, one where everyone is considered equal, no questions, no need for special protection, none of that, but I don't expect people to stop hating. The difference lies in the law and how it treats people. Freedom of speech and expression has a dark side, it means we must also tolerate legal and non-damaging expressions of hatred as much as others. It sucks, yes, but you can't say one opinion is wrong to voice and still say you support freedom of speech or expression.
This is what I keep telling Seattleblues every time he says that Teh Ghey is asking for special treatment.
Oh? I totally can say that all sorts of opinion are wrong to voice. For instance, that one you just wrote down. That sort of stupidity should not be inflicted on other people. In fact, your whole post, and many others you have made should have remained unshared. Hell, I can even exhort others to state the same.
What I can't do is say it should be illegal or that the government should stop you. That is what Freedom of Speech is actually about. Seriously.
@157 Clarification accepted, my wording was a bit wrong, you are correct that I should have said it's wrong to make it illegal instead of the wording I chose. My bad.
For fuck sake, know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
Ah yes, "i as a white privileged idiot know racism, because my family was irish several generations back".
Let me give you a quote to let you know that the right will destroy itself (and maybe from a source you won't call "a bad poet"):
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, the love of soft living and the get rich quick theory of life."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
p.s. I rarely check back on forums once I've read 160 comments, had a good chuckle at all the wingnuts (I'm looking at you SeattleDouche), and thanked my lucky stars that I'm a spiritual, straight, married gal who lives in a place that allows gays to be married. So that all my gay friends can enjoy all the things I do - namely the right to love and be loved without being prosecuted.