Herman Cain, Choicer

Comments

1
Straight folks won't get angry because they are not hysterical insecure drama queens.

They don't have to constantly convince themselves
(and everyone unfortunate to be in earshot range)
that they REALLY ARE HETEROSEXUAL.
REALLY....
INNATELY SO.
NO TWO WAYS ABOUT IT.
REALLY STRAIGHT.
as an arrow........
2
I like to think that if I chose to be gay I would get laid a-lot more.
3
Danny IF you are innately homosexual how did you manage to have sex with those gals in Chicago?
Perhaps "innate" doesn't mean what you think it does.
(perhaps "homosexual" doesn't mean what you think it does....)
4
Herman Cain wants so badly to suck dick, and the only thing holding him back from his innate hunger for cock is his belief that it's a sin.
5
Danny, are you familiar with the phenomenon of
"Gay for pay"?
It proves Herman's point.....
6
the letter isn't any less assinine than it was last time Danny pulled it out of his ass
7
Right on, Dano!

I was going to mention how much I admire your spunk, but everyone would definitely take it the wrong way. Stop it you perverts!

Happy Spirit Day, Dano and Sloggers! I'm wearing my It Gets Better T-shirt.

8
Would it really be enough for him to suck your dick? You've stated before than men who get pegged aren't necessarily gay unless they like taking it up the ass from a man. I'd argue that any man who sucks a dick isn't really gay unless he enjoys sucking dick. So the proof of Herman choosing to be gay would be his boner and spooge while he sucks you.
9
While I think HC is full of shit, I don't think it matters one way or another if homosexuality is innate or chosen. Even if chosen, homosexuals deserve full rights under the law including equal marriage rights.
10
"Underwater house"? Like Sealab 2020?
11
5, So you're saying that you are attracted to, and lust for your own sex, but will only act on it if pay is involved?
12
I wish Dan would stop dong this. Only because of the unavoidable mental trauma induced by my own offensively non-obedient imagination.
13
@ 9, the problem with that argument is that that's the basis of the whole "special rights" counter-argument. Civil rights protections are for the purpose of protecting people who are denied employment, denied voting, denied access to equal education, harassed, beaten, and even murdered for the crime of being something that they were born. If you can say that someone is choosing to be gay, the way they might choose to be into S&M, then you have a legitimate counter-argument to LGBT equality.

Sexual orientation, of course, is not chosen. Even most homophobes realize that; our own Seattleblues, for example, usually focuses instead on the choice to act on the impulses dictated by sexual orientation, and is in fact how most vocal opponents explain away homosexuality. It's a losing argument, which is why marriage equality continues to gain popularity across the country, but the reason it's a losing argument is because most people know they didn't ever choose to find one or both genders sexually attractive.
14
Has anyone ever told Danny how many straight men have homosexual sex in prison?
15
Dan dearest, shame on you! You know that whenever the talk turns to penises - and particularly your penis - the troll gets all worked up. It's cruel to tease him like that.

I can just imagine the poor troll, standing there as God made him, in front of his stained mirror, a la Mark Driscoll, whispering "Herman.....Danny...." over and over until that moment of blessed release before his mother knocks on the door and asks him to drive her to her bridge club.
16
MSNBC’s Morning Joe crew slammed Herman Cain. “I think there might be a lot of gay and lesbian people that would take offense at the suggestion that it was a choice,” Scarborough said “And non-gay and lesbian people, I might point out,” Willy Geist added.
17
14, So you're saying that the only way you would act on your same sex attraction is if you were in prison?

(Most prisoners don't have gay sex, and when it does happen, it's almost always rape, and a violet assertion of domination, not an expression of sexual attraction.)
18
I just roll my eyes when I hear comments like Herman Cain's. They're just silly.

Someone should ask Cain if he chose to be Black.
19
@15, I <3 you.
20
HC is a man that wants to lethally electrify the border fence, whose 999 tax plan is viciously regressive, that thinks that Muslims don't have the same rights as Christians under our constitution, and that believes homosexuality is a choice.

I think it is a wonderful sign of progress that in this day and age even a black man can be a bigoted, xenophobic, classist ass.

He also doesn't hava a chance in hell of winning the presidency.
21
DO straight people choose to be straight? I find it odd that we never get a clear answer on this question. Or maybe it's just that no one has asked it formally because the answer seems to be self-evident. I think a poll or study on the question "do straight people choose to be straight?" would be very helpful clarification on this matter.

For instance, if the majority of people responded with "yes, I choose to be straight", it would be helpful to the rest of us to realize we're dealing with crazy people.

I agree with @9 though, I could care less about whether it's natural or a choice (for the record, I don't think it is a choice who you are attracted to). I think the only important argument here is: Do consenting adults have the right to love each other and act in ways that please each other to make each other happy, both sexually and otherwise? The answer to which is obviously, and irrefutably yes. I have yet to see a remotely coherent argument on how this hurts anybody else or those involved.
22
You'll be pleased to know that, as a straight person, I AM offended when I hear a straight person make this argument. Not so much because I worry about whether or not being straight is a choice; I know it isn't. My penis is happiest inside a vagina and there's no denying it.

No, I'm offended because they think I'm so goddamned mentally deficient that I'll fall - or care - about a statement that stupid! Just because you've got a 12yr old's grasp of the human condition, buddy, don't assume I do as well.
23
@18 Well, he hasn't bleached his skin, so by republican logic he has chosen to be black
24
Herman Cain is a clear demonstration of far down in the barrel the Right has to scrape to come up with someone who'll mouth their ignorant hatred while keeping a -pardon the expression -straight face.

People who bother to go after people like Herman Cain actually help Herman Cain. Responding to every ignorant thing those people say encourages the ignorant to keep mouthing off. Notice an upsurge in ignorance in the media the past few years?

Do us a favor. Don't do what the cynical, wholly-pwned mainstream press does. Let Herman shriek in the obscurity he deserves. No one is taking him seriously except the five percent he appeals to.
25
@13--you wrote: "the problem with that argument is that that's the basis of the whole "special rights" counter-argument. Civil rights protections are for the purpose of protecting people who are denied employment, denied voting, denied access to equal education, harassed, beaten, and even murdered for the crime of being something that they were born."

Not quite. Civil rights protections extend to religion and political affiliation, to name just two examples. Nobody is born Catholic, for example. One may be born into a family of practiciing Catholics, but some time in adulthood, each individual decides--actively or passively--either to (1) continue practicing, or (2) stop practicing, or (3) convert to another religion, or (4) stop believing in religion altogether. There is no "Catholic"gene.

Similarly, nobody carries a Republican gene or a Democratic gene or a Libertarian gene. Party affiliation is choice.

All of these choices are protected either by the constitution or by subsequent civil rights legislation.

So I think that the question of whether sexual orientation is genetic, a choice, or a cosmic joke is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the right to marry and build a life with the partner of one's choice is currently only extended to heterosexual couples. The conservative right wing has yet to provide convincing reasons why that status quo should be maintained.

And Herman Cain is an idiot.
26
I think the 'pray the gay away' types who think being gay is a choice, by definition must be gay themselves. As a straight male, I know that I have no desire for cock. These guys must be wired to want cock, but choose to be straight instead (in public at least). Thus, all men must innately love cock, but choose not to partake. It's the only frame of reference they know.
27
Cain is full of santorum.
28
@15, love it, hit the nail on the head (taking mom to her bridge club.....genius)!

@26 Best post on the thread. Totally agree.
29
Did you ever notice that the ONLY people that keep making this inane argument are straight religious people? I'd really like to ask them how they can be so sure, since they are (supposedly) straight. How can you make a factual statement without any facts to back up your claim? ...and, no, the Bible is NOT a scientific journal on human sexuality, so stop using it as one. As a white man, I'd look like an idiot if I said I knew what it was like to live as a black person. How is this any different?

So, yes, Herman Cain (and his ilk) are idiots. Every time he opens his mouth, he proves my point.

30
@25 (Clayton), I agree entirely that it's not relevant for the moral status of homosexuality whether or not it is genetic, or 'natural' in any sense of the word (there are at least two senses that people keep confusing). And this should be obvious even to religious fundamentalists, since nowhere in the bible is it said that a sin is a sin only if it is (or isn't) 'determined by nature' (i.e. genetically). A sin is a sin is a sin, they should say, although, of course, they don't.

But there is, however, an important aspect of the question that does depend on how strongly entrenched homosexuality is in a gay person: the question of whether or not gayness can be 'cured'. Since religion is, as you point out, not genetically determined, it is possible, for instance, to 'de-program' cult members in a way that is apparently not possible with things like sexual orientation -- at least, I don't know of any good method to turn a straight man gay, or vice-versa.

To those who propagate the "pray the gay away" creed, it's important to say that homosexuality is a choice because then their methods for turning gays back to heterosexuality looks more plausible. If homosexuality is not a choice, the credibility of such programs suffers.

Of course, even being genetic doesn't necessarily imply that a person's sexual orientation cannot be changed (transgender people, after all, were born with the genes for one sex but still managed to change into the other sex). But it does make it a lot harder than it would be if it were "just a choice", which does still affect the credibility of "cures."
31
@ 25, excellent points. But I would answer that those examples are deeply historical, and come from a time when many people believed that how you were born was a divine statement of what kind of person you were. Heck, even the signers of the Declaration of Independence mostly believed that, "All men are created equal" notwithstanding. But the extension of rights in this country, which were once the exclusive domain of white men who owned property, has been based on the idea, encapsulated in the line "All men are created equal," that no one should be denied rights based on things that are beyond their control.

(Possibly the only exception to that was the right for workers to organize and collectively bargain - choice is being exercised there.)
32
@13 (Matt from Denver), who wrote:
If you can say that someone is choosing to be gay, the way they might choose to be into S&M, then you have a legitimate counter-argument to LGBT equality.


See, this is an argument I never fully understood. After all, non-discrimination in America also applies to religion, which is a choice. So, if religious discrimination is bad and illegal, why shouldn't discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation not be, even if sexual orientaiton were as much a choice as being a Catholic or a Presbyterian? I mean, isn't freedom basically the freedom to choose?
33
But, but... DAN!!

What if he takes you up on it?

Eeeeewwwwwwwww!

(You'd let him reciprocate, right? If he had a mind to, I mean...)
;-)
34
I have always said that I am the exception that proves the rule.

I DID chose to be gay. I am more than likely bisexual in my attractions, but I refrain from letting anything more than a passing glance go towards men. Overwhelmingly I find that men do not have the emotional maturity I am looking for in a mate. I find it easier to find women who do. Voila. I identify as lesbian.

Does that mean that because I COULD marry a man, I shouldnt be able to marry a woman? Isnt the very act of getting married and who you marry your choice?
35
@35 (Matt from Denver), in answer Clayton's post above you also answered mine (I only realized I was basically asking the same question / making the same claim when I re-read it). I'll only add that even if religious orientation might be protected because of older beliefs about your birth determining what kind of person you are, this certainly wouldn't apply to one's choice of political party or political beliefs. All agree there shouldn't be discrimination against Anarchists or Libertarians, right?

Besides, since the discussion is being had now, when our mentalities (incluiding the mentality of the right-wing) has evolved beyond what it was in the late 1700s, it makes sense to ask them why they would never support, say, restricting marriage rights to certain religious groups (say, only to Protestants) while claiming that everybody is still free (since a Catholic couple could still marry if they convert to protestantism), but still would support restricting marriage rights to certain sexual groups (i.e., heterosexuals only).

My gut feeling is that their opposition here is really motivated by the traditional viewpoint that religion is something positive, uplifting, that brings you closer to god (even if you don't agree with a certain religion, you understand that its supporters do think that their religion is right and brings them closer to god), while homosexuality is really a perversion, an evil, something that goes against nature (and needed the intervention of Satan), and that it is negative and brings people down, closer to Satan.
36
@34, from what I hear you're not an exception: women do seem, in average, to have a more fluid sexuality that allows for changes or ambiguities in orientation much more often than men's sexuality does.

As for maturity, I don't know. Maybe it's the place where you live, but where I come from there's plenty of emotionally quite immature women, I'd say (from personal experience) perhaps even more than men. But again, the plural of anecdote is not data.
37
Pulease. I wish being gay were a choice. Many a time, my fellow female co-workers and I have sat around and discussed this. We all agree it would be easier if we were gay since we all get along and the men in our lives drive us nuts. Usually, when such a discussion takes place, at some point, silence falls as we all REALLY consider, could we choose ourselves gay? Alas, no, because we love teh MEN WITH COCKS (mmm, isn't cock a lovely word?). Idiots or assholes the men may be, but it is what we crave sexually, and no amount of loving our female friends can make us want them sexually. It just isn't there.
38
Somebody's been reading your posts:
http://boingboing.net/2011/10/12/tom-the…
39
Frankly, I doubt God himself could make me straight, I'm that gay.
40
Not only do gay people choose to be gay because they love being bullied, harassed, and harried by all sorts of individuals in addition to state and ecclesiastical bodies; but I hear they also love the challenge of limiting their dating pool to a subset far smaller than that of heterosexuals, who, I might add, are pussies that choose the easy way out.
41
@2 - No, you wouldn't. That's the ironic myth of the whole "gay" thing.
42
To be fair I have fooled around with guys despite no ingrained inclination to do it, Dan, so I'd totally take you up on your offer.

I can choose to suck a dick, but I didn't choose to be straight.

I identify as Straight and easily bored.
43
I'd say it's both, choice and nature. To some it's all one, to others it's all the other, but it's both over all.
44
I think he needs to suck 9 different, 9-inch dicks for 9 minutes each.
45
I think he should suck 9 different, 9-inch dicks, 9 times each.
46
@43 I'd say some people may choose to dabble, but no one chooses their sexuality, much less chooses to go against their ingrained sexuality, outside of religious brainwashing.
47
@36, recent studies affirm your thinking, apparently

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/10/…
48
@9 FTW.
49
Cain's defense that homsexuality is a choice is "show me the science". To that I say of his beloved Bible, "show me the science".

50
I've been saying that for years when I explain homosexuality is not a choice.
51
45 . YOU GOT IT RIGHT !!! THANKS
52
@32: Religion—a choice—is different in that it's called out specifically in the Constitution. I don't think it's substantively different, but it is legally different. It gets its own explicit protection.
53
Actually, the line of reasoning often stated, as in the article, "If homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality" is not logical. What the other side is usually trying to argue (poorly) is that we are all inherently oriented straight. That is normal human functioning. To have same-sex desire is abnormality from the norm, and something one can choose. Of course, throw religion into it, and as we often hear, acting on any abnormal homosexula impulses is "not the best God wants for us" or whatever they say.

I don't agree with any of this, but in arguing "homosexuality is a choice," it does not logically follow that heterosexuality must be a choice as well.
54
I know what is a choice Mr. Cain, who i choose to vote for is a choice. My sexuality is no more a choice than yours is. Do you crave a man Mr. Cain, but choose instead to be with your wife?

We also have a choice in how we choose to treat other people. In fairness Obama only signed the repeal of D.A.D.T. AFTER the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional. I haven't seen an outcome of D.O.M.A. yet. I won't hold my breath that he will base his re-election on supporting gay rights. So he didn't win any brownie points with me and he may even offend my sensibilities yet. Have a wonderful day, Mr. Cain
55
Actually, the line of reasoning often stated, as in the article, "If homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality" is not logical certainity. What the other side is usually trying to argue (poorly) is that we are all inherently oriented straight. That is normal human functioning, and not something we can choose. To have same-sex desire is an abnormality, and something one can choose to give in to. Of course, throw religion into it, and as we often hear, acting on any abnormal homosexual impulses is "not the best God wants for us" or whatever other nonsense they spout.

I don't agree with any of this, but in arguing "homosexuality is a choice," it does not logically follow that heterosexuality must be a choice as well.
56
Damn, if that's all it takes to hook up with Dan than, "America, gay is a choice and I am straight!!!!"
57
I'm not sure i like being told to be angry. Being gay or straight may not be a choice, but i think maybe getting angry is.
58
I wish I could be bi! I think in my mind that women are so beautiful, but truth be told I have never once in my life been with a girl and thought to myself "I want to make out with her" which really disappoints me. So yeah, anyone who thinks you can choose attraction...shouldn't be president!
59
He's an idiot as well as the rest of the republican party and all their candidates. They're backwards thinking, homophobic, bible-thumping superstitious bigots who do nothing but promote hate, and bring war and unrest to the world.
60
Do you remember who promoted hate, and brought war and unrest to the world and then dropped an atomic weapon on Hiroshima (Monday, August 6, 1945) and then Nagasaki (Thursday, August 9, 1945)? I bet it was those backwards homophobes thumping their bibles. or sum stuff like that? :-)
61
Oh Cain has sucked some white dick before. How do you think he climbed the corporate ladder? Those guys don't let a black dude with an embarrassing accent into their club for free.
62
We don't get mad because we know it is nonsense. It would be like someone saying I could just wash the white off myself and show my true blackness. They stopped making sense so I stopped listening.

This kind of talk is safe for politicians or religious folk because their primary audience is made up of people who are either repressed gay or bi's who nod along or straight people who either don't care because they know it doesn't apply to them or who for some reason think it is true because they haven't thought about the implications for themselves. People who know better are not part of the audience they are addressing.

It is just like when Republicans talk to each other about climate change denialism. It doesn't matter that they are spouting nonsense because they are only talking to each other.
63
Why can't people just do what they want to do without other people trying to read into it so hard. There are much deeper, more satisfying, and enlightening things to invest thought into before you die than who's inter-coursing with who and why. People like to hump. Everyone likes to hump different kinds of people. Roll with it.
64
Why can't people just do what they want to do without other people trying to read into it so hard. There are much deeper, more satisfying, and enlightening things to invest thought into before you die than who's inter-coursing with who and why. People like to hump, and everyone likes to hump different kinds of people. Roll with it.
65
I question seriously the change that Herman Cain represents:

Will Herman Cain reverse America's non-stop movement toward Collectivism when he has historically proven himself a collectivist? Remember that he supported the TARP bailouts, a.k.a. the trillion dollar fleecing of America.

Will he drastically reduce the size of the bloated tyrannical Federal monstrosity by eliminating entire unConstitutional Agencies? He has not expressed any intent to do so.

Will Cain get rid of the unConstitutional unPatriotic "Patriot Act" that blatantly violates America's founding principles. Cain says that this tyrannical piece of legislation is "90% right on". No way, pal.

Will he drive out his former employers, the private banking Federal Reserve globalists that built the United Nations and are driving America toward one world government tyranny? He has expressed that we don't even need to audit, let alone drive these bloodsucking vampires from our shores. Puh-leeze!

Cain has been actively involved in the North American Competitiveness Council, a think tank for promoting the agenda of the Security and Prosperity Agreement that George Bush signed with Canada and Mexico which gives up America's sovereignty and erases the borders with those countries by establishing the North American Union (NAU) and has also reportedly attended the secretive Bilderberg group meetings.

In an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Cain stated that he was pro-2nd Amendment, but that it should be up to the states. What does that mean?

In the final analysis, Herman Cain is clearly a collectivist and a globalist, just like Obama, Bush and the Clintons and these collectivist-globalist politicians are ruining America. I cannot consider him a serious candidate for any office, let alone President of the United States of America.

http://smashabanana.blogspot.com/
66
I question seriously the change that Herman Cain represents:

Will Herman Cain reverse America's non-stop movement toward Collectivism when he has historically proven himself a collectivist? Remember that he supported the TARP bailouts, a.k.a. the trillion dollar fleecing of America.

Will he drastically reduce the size of the bloated tyrannical Federal monstrosity by eliminating entire unConstitutional Agencies? He has not expressed any intent to do so.

Will Cain get rid of the unConstitutional unPatriotic "Patriot Act" that blatantly violates America's founding principles. Cain says that this tyrannical piece of legislation is "90% right on". No way, pal.

Will he drive out his former employers, the private banking Federal Reserve globalists that built the United Nations and are driving America toward one world government tyranny? He has expressed that we don't even need to audit, let alone drive these bloodsucking vampires from our shores. Puh-leeze!

Cain has been actively involved in the North American Competitiveness Council, a think tank for promoting the agenda of the Security and Prosperity Agreement that George Bush signed with Canada and Mexico which gives up America's sovereignty and erases the borders with those countries by establishing the North American Union (NAU) and has also reportedly attended the secretive Bilderberg group meetings.

In an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Cain stated that he was pro-2nd Amendment, but that it should be up to the states. What does that mean?

In the final analysis, Herman Cain is clearly a collectivist and a globalist, just like Obama, Bush and the Clintons and these collectivist-globalist politicians are ruining America. I cannot consider him a serious candidate for any office, let alone President of the United States of America.

http://smashabanana.blogspot.com/
67
No one chooses to be an evolutionary dead end any more than you can choose to be born with red hair & freckles.

As natural selection progresses, and assuming leftist de-evolution doesnt last for too many generations, homosexuals will become a more rare version of the human animal.

Darwinism got natural selection right, and evolutionary dead-ends have gone by the wayside befpre, homosexuality is no different.

But lets not pretend that indoctrination & recruitment does not exist.
68
No one chooses to be an evolutionary dead end any more than you can choose to be born with red hair & freckles.

As natural selection progresses, and assuming leftist de-evolution doesnt last for too many generations, homosexuals will become a more rare version of the human animal.

Darwinism got natural selection right, and evolutionary dead-ends have gone by the wayside before, homosexuality is no different.

But lets not pretend that indoctrination & recruitment does not exist.
69
@23. Perfect!
70
Dear #67/68 -- you are talking out your ass. Homosexuality is clearly not an "evolutionary dead end", because the VAST majority of gays & lesbians are the offspring of two STRAIGHT people. Moreover, all studies indicate that the ratio of gay people to straight people (roughly one in ten) has held steady for a long, LONG time.
As for "indoctrination & recruitment", let's not pretend they exist.
71
I can't help but to look at things very logically... If a person has a choice of sexual attraction, they would be bisexual, not homosexual. They don't use bisexual because it doesn't bring up the evil image that homosexual does, but they need to use the bisexual definition to be able to condemn people.

Evangelicals are not quality humans, the only thing separating them from primates tossing their own feces at each other is language.

The powers that controls the evangelicals, demonize gays to distract their pius followers from the rights real agenda. Greed.
72
Don't be silly, you can't walk away from an underwater house. You'd swim.
73
Herman Cain is on one well orchestrated giant book-tour (not unlike the one Sarah Palin just ended). Americans are suckers!
74
There are plenty of evidence that (at least) many people does not choose to be gay/straight (not everybody being Kinsey 0 or 6 makes it more blurry. You can sometimes choose to round yourself up to something, straight, bi, gay, whatever)
- Bullied kids. How many would instantaneously change if they could. Most of them would, I guess. Nobody would kills themselves instead of just becoming straight.
- Women-hating men (I guess it can work the other way around, but we hear less about them) The MRA-type men (who spit on the brainless, gutless, kids stealing,... western women) would logically stop caring about women and fuck each other if they could decide to be gay.

Also, what if? What if you had chosen to be gay? That still doesn't make your relationships or marriage a threat to society.
75
Why not choose to be bi-sexual? It would open a lot more options.
76
idk, i've never loved this argument, that sexuality isn't a choice. what if it is? i still want my civil rights. do i have to somehow prove an aversion to men before i'm allowed to marry a woman? be free from discrimination?
77
I appreciate the argument, but it strikes me as being not quite right. Herman Cain can still choose not to be gay (or do anything gay), and that doesn't destroy his argument. In fact, it supports it -- he's made a choice! (He chooses to honor his natural straightness!)

What I object to is his calling me a liar. I'm telling him that I didn't choose it. I'm the expert. If he wants to claim that I chose to be gay, he needs to prove it.

Why do we assume homophobes are right and that the impetus is on us to prove that we didn't choose it? That's backwards, and I won't play that game anymore. The assumption should be that all gay people are not liars, and that anyone who claims otherwise needs to prove it.
78
@67, 68: Someone doesn't know his evolutionary biology!
Even assuming that homosexuality is directly controlled by genetics, you're still wrong. Why do you think that the alleles for cystic fibrosis and sickle-cell anemia haven't gone to extinction in humans?
79
Well Dan, not sure if it's been mentioned already, but you just made the front of Huffingtonpost. Not the top story, but front page, all the same.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/21…

Kudos to you.
80
I sure wish it were a choice, I'd be getting laid by hotties all the time! I'm always getting hit on by super hot girls and just find myself wishing they had a dick, hairy chests and that manly B.O.
81
I sure wish it were a choice, I'd be getting laid by hot ladies left and right! They hit on me all the time and even though kissing and boobies are nice, I just find myself wishing they had a dick, chest hair and that nice boy-smell...
82
I, of course, agree with Savage. But in order to fight back against morons such as Herman Cain, we need to have a discussion with people like Cain about more than Dan 'suck my dick' Savage has written in his blog. Being gay is more than just a sex act. A person can be celibate and still be gay. And in these ridiculous, nonsensical arguements in which Herman Cain engages, we have to stress gays of all stripes--those who suck dick--and those who have a solitary, celibate life deserve to be treated just as equally as sexually active--and celibate heterosexuals.
83
@67, You don't understand evolution, but considering America only beats out Turkey in that respect, I'm not surprised. The fact that there are homosexuals today tells us there must have been a benefit in the past or the homosexuality trait is inert; the small percentage of homosexual women still got pregnant by the large percent of heterosexual men. Maybe the homo men spent more time creating better weapons for the tribe. Nobody knows, but your "No one chooses to be an evolutionary dead end..." statement is quite ignorant, or might we say unevolved?
84
The problem with the whole "suck my cock" thing is that they believe that choosing to be gay is a sinful choice, and they, being "Christian," try to avoid sinning. That will be their argument as to why they will never take you up on your offer. You are asking them to sin to prove their point, and isn't that typical, coming from a heathen such as yourself. (Never mind the incalculable damage they do with their hate speech, their separatist behaviors, their fear mongering, la la la la la....)
85
Dan, I have to say: you're one of my heroes. Keep it up!
86
I just noticed on TV that Cain is left-handed. Someone needs to ask him if he chooses to be left-handed, something that used to be punishable by death during the middle ages when the Catholic hierarchy pronounced left-handed people to be "of the devil."
87
Maybe we (the gays) should claim that homosexuality is actually a tennent of 'our' religion, and based solely on our religious 'beliefs,' not on human sexuality, science, or any other such 'unprovable nonsense.' We could call our religion the Church of Ladder(sic) Gay Saints. Then our 'choices' would be constitutionally protected, and arguing against those rights would be arguing against their own self-interest.
88
Dan: this is not the fantastic argument you seem to think it is. I know you're proud of it, and it's kind of funny, but it doesn't actually make much sense. It's about as persuasive an argument as "HOW'S MY DRIVING? CALL 1-800-EAT-SHIT" bumper stickers. It's kind of embarrassing to keep hauling it out as if it's a real zinger.
89
The only problem with this Dan is he has to "Suck you off." Do you really think you would be able to finish. I mean he is straight so probably not a good sucker. He dosen't seem like your type. Could you even stay hard.
90
Thanks, Dan, for reducing gay identity to sucking dick. For some reason, I thought it was supposed to get better, but thoughtless comments like yours just keep making it worse.
91
Dan Savage. Such an ambassador of tolerance, anti-bullying, and coexistence - except if your political or personal views don't comport with his own.
92
Dan,
Thank you for saying what a lot of us are thinking. By saying homosexuality is a choice, Cain isn't "innocently" agreeing to disagree. He is validating the bullies you've been battling with "It Gets Better" and endangering homosexuals everywhere.
And seriously, does he think people in countries like Iran would "choose" to be gay, knowing they face the death penalty?
93
Don't hate on Cain, the man was only trying to sell a few books. The republicans are just so desperate for a candidate that they elevated him higher in the polls than he was ever intending or willing to go. Just sit back and relax knowing that if he's leading the GOP race we're good for another 4 years.
94
@68: I chose to be an evolutionary dead end, by getting sterilized. In fact, people have evolved to desire making that choice. (We evolved to value, among other things, sex, freedom, possessions, and time, all of which sterilization can help promote.)

However, being gay or lesbian does not make you an evolutionary dead end because it actually conveys a genetic advantage for your relatives. There is some evidence that siblings of someone gay/lesbian end up with an evolutionary fitness advantage.

@41: Why wouldn't he get laid more?

@35, 52: When arguing that sexual orientation should be a protected class, it helps your case to point out that it's not a chosen characteristic. It's true that sometimes chosen characteristics are also protected, but a characteristic being immutable is one of the factors that courts consider. And especially when trying to legalize same-sex marriage, it helps to argue that an opposite-sex marriage is not a fair substitute.
95
I dont know what Herman said, and I am bisexual, and I have always thought that sexuality is a choice. I chose to be gay. Sexuality is our freedom, its our choice, isnt it? Thats why its our right, because sexuality is choice, and that choice is a form of our freedom.

Can someone enlighten me with this. I would really appreciate. Thank you.
96
83

"The fact that there are homosexuals today tells us there must have been a benefit in the past"

No.

There are lots of genetic defects that affect a small percentage of the population and are not passed on by those afflicted with them but still pop up in the gene pool

Were there in fact a genetic trait of 'homosexuality' it would be the deadest of genetic dead ends; Darwin values nothing so much as reproduction and 'homosexuality' would be by definition a sterile non-reproducing defect.

Were homosexuali
97
87

Thats a really good point.

And we don't want you teaching your filthy perverted religion in our public schools.

And you can have homosexual marriage just as soon as the polygamists, who have been in line ahead of you for a hundred years, get their religion's version of marriage....
98
rock...the hell...on.
99
@96: You, sir, are a candy-ass roody-poo, and you do not know science in general, let alone evolutionary biology.
100
Did everyone see that this made Time Magazine's Quote of the Day:

http://www.time.com/time/quotes/0,26174,…