Dan, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and answer your question. Could it be that he says crap like "this" because it's politically expedient within his constituency of ancient, angry, homophobic white people? He clearly doesn't believe it, because as you said, child abuse is as awful as it gets and if you thought someone was abusing their children, you would not hire them. So he does what he believes is best for his organization - hires the people he thinks are best for the job - and says what he thinks will get him elected by the nut jobs bigots in Florida.

So by this, does he mean anal sex specifically? Because if so, shouldn't many het couples not be allowed to raise children either? And would it then be okay for gays and lesbians who are not into anal to adopt?

Also, does this mean realize that to children (even adult children), the thought of their parents having sex is gross, period - no matter what kind of sex they're having?

This is what ADOPTION looks like.

http://www.all4kids.org/index.php?FileNa…

But homophobes and haters like McCollum and Loveschild will never ever get it.

I for one would like to see many more of these BEAUTIFUL FAMILIES.

How could any rational person who believes in fairness help this asshole in any way?

So a politician is a piece of shit hypocrite? Who would have guessed?

And he's from Florida to boot. Shit icing on the shit cake.

agree #5

How can individuals like Finkelstein and Kislak work with and support the political ambitions of McCollum (or any person with similar aims)?

I don't understand why Finkelstein & Kislak would want to work for someone like Bill McCollum. It seems like they are helping to enable his bigotry. Not that it justifies his asshatery, I just can't understand the amount to self-loathing it would take for two successful people to willingly choose to work for someone who believes these things. Is it the "we can do more from the inside" theory?

FAMILIES WE'VE HELPED TO CREATE

I love that @4, thanks for posting it.

You show me a politician who believes in something and I will show you the throngs of easy suckers who believe it.

Some day, when the Press grows balls (and/or pigs fly), reporters will be willing to stand up and pursue a naive line of questioning with illogical, demogoguing asshole politicians. For example, which act(s) bother him that a straight couple can't duplicate in their own sex life?

I'm only aware of one sex act that differentiates gay and straight couples, and it's the straight couple that can do it.

Politicians and the consultants who enable them... Can we make them live on one of those islands we used for nuclear testing?

@ 2 - I think that's Dan's point. He's calling McCollum a disingenuous hypocrite. Which pretty much sums it up.

Who cares about the gayz, I don't think the poo eaters/piss drinkers should be allowed to adopt. Why the fuck doesn't McCollom have a problem with a straight poo eater being some kid's daddy? He knows what they *do* ... doo doo. Ick.

The fact that McCollom is a douchebag is a given.

More troubling is the permission Dan grants with the statment, "I wouldn't work with someone that I felt was abusing his children."

Dan is condoning moral outrage as an acceptable basis for making a hiring/employment decision. I'm sure that hiring managers who are morally outraged by a gay who has icky, icky gay sex feel the same way when engaging in discriminatory hiring practices.

Granted, Dan is describing a criminal act. Obvs he would have a moral and civic duty to report his suspicions to the proper channels to investigate and prosecute.

But I'm wary of the permission that Dan grants for making hiring decisions based "issues that call for a zero-tolerance stance." Whose zero-tolerance stance? If it's criminal, then it belongs in the criminal system and not in the HR decision. If it's not criminal, then someone's "moral outrage" is my "fun on a friday night."

(Besides, did you see the "required viewing" Colbert clip that Dan posted re Newt Gingrich/popular survey of relative ranking of acts as moral/immoral? In a survey, Americans rank the death penalty as more moral than gambling as more moral than cloning as more moral than polygamy ...? )

Sorry, Dan. Until you post a pic of how straight _your_ "moral compass" is, I'm not gonna give you a pass on advocating moral outrage as a legitimate hiring criteria.

Even if McCollum is a douche.

#15

I believe the outrage is over people choosing to work FOR the asshat, not hiring asshats...

#16 I agree. Why are these people working on a campaign to elect this irrational homophobe? I want them driven out of the club. GIVE BACK YOUR PINK TRIANGELS!

@5: Oh, that's easy. By torpedoing his campaign, that's how.

What I wouldn't give to be the finance chairman for this asshat. I wonder what it would take to get him arrested for some kind of campaign funding misdeeds or fraud or corruption. He's a politician, so more than likely it would only require not saying "no" when he asks you to do something bad, then in court you can simply claim that you had no idea it was illegal, and just did what he ordered you to do.

Alternatively, you can simply do your job badly, thus turning his campaign into a gong show. Then get a job as a plumber or something. It would be totally worth it.

@15: Bill McCollum is proposing that the law be changed to make it illegal for gays to adopt, and as such *make* it a part of the criminal system. He also has the power to make it happen, since he's a politician, as opposed to some hack working for a lefty rag. Dan Savage has an opinion. Bill McCollum has political power. One of these is tremendously more dangerous than the other.