Dan Savage SAVAGES the Pope!


You guys should have a debate.

I suggest neutral territory, like the inside of a volcano where the Thetans live, with Tom Cruise as moderator.
I think you're AWESOME!
@2 Hell, make the debate the under card for this weekend's Mayweather fight. It's a Cinco de Mayo match against Miguel Cotto in Vegas, so it should have plenty of Catholics and heathens tuning in.
"Catholic League spitting out deranged press releases"

How does this guy make a living? Do born-again Cat'lics really give them money, or does it all come from paid appearances?

@1: Thetans live in all of us, Xenu is trapped in the volcano, if I recall my Hubbardology correctly.
Don't ever stop mocking the Pope, Dan. Watching this video of a room full of people LOLing at the Pope's absurd proclamations was the most heartening thing I've seen all day.
Clearly you just need to found your own religion.
I couldn't quite hear that joke. Dan said that the only thing between his penis and Ratzinger's mouth was a piece of ....? Piece of what?
They can't wait to bring back the rack.
I'm really starting to wonder, why the fuck are evangelicals suddenly so down with the Pope? Seriously. Literal wars have been fought over this. Within my lifetime Catholicism was considered a detriment to advancement in public life in some places. Americans for the Separation of Church and State used to be Protestant Americans for the Separation of Church and State with a mission of making sure none of that damn Catholic idolatry polluted the precious bodily fluids of their WASP children. This is going well past creepy.
@7: Yuck! I said the only thing standing between my dick and Brad Pitt's mouth is a piece of paper—according to the pope. For the record: I believe that Brad Pitt is a natural-born heterosexual with no interest in dick, mine or anyone else's.
If only King Henry the VIII was still around... He'd give that pope what for! Right? Ya!
Great talk. Also sweet SnoCon tshirt!
"The Pope is being a ridiculous old queen"

I love it. It sums him up nicely, although it makes him sound more loveable than he really is. He gives me the creeps. None of them are exactly oil painting, but this one is even creepier than Paul VI.

As for the Catholic League: My late father, who was quite a devout Catholic, has despised William Donahue for decades. He always maintained that he is just a guy with a fax machine. And now an internet connection.
Deranged perverted deviant stuck in perennial adolescence who thinks his self selecting minority has the right to set terms for everyone else attacks a decent man.

Sorry, where's the news in this again? Kind of how Little Danny Boy the Savage makes his living, isn't it? I mean, the moron has no original thoughts, no talent or skill or gift to offer, no value in any way shape or form. So he kind of has to say outrageous hateful things just to get noticed.
Was this video supposed to convince people Dan is bad or Dan is awesome? Because a) it made me cheer, and b) it made me want to spend the rest of the afternoon watching Dan Savage videos on YouTube.
And yet you still come by and post messages to him.

It's kind of sweet in that "tease the cute boy who I secretly crush on but who would not know I exist otherwise" way.
The Catholic League is a demented group, though, and its chief believes that anything that the church does is by nature, ok. Not to defend the church, as I'm a Jew and all, but keep its reprehensible acts separate from the even more reprehensible Catholic League, which is really just Bill Donohue spouting hate speech.
That's weird, usually I don't have to see the inane blather from unregistered users...
"Deranged perverted deviant stuck in perennial adolescence who thinks his self selecting minority has the right to set terms for everyone else "

Yeah, that's a pretty spot-on description of the Pope.
Oh wait, maybe you were just being ironic @14 ? "...outrageous hateful things just to get noticed."? That about sums up your comment.

Ah yes. The old 'gays aren't so bad, but I'm going to insult you by calling you gay' routine.

Never get's old for folks like you does it, despite how utterly nonsensical it is?

Dan Savage is a symptom of a serious illness in our culture. He is of course seriously mentallly ill himself, apart from the disorder of homosexuality, but that's beside the point. That a disgusting thing like that could be paid to do anything at all, rather than being insitutuionalized for his own good shows how far this nation has devolved.

FYI- Savage can be a disgusting pervert for all I care. He can engage in promiscuity and call it 'monogamous' or try to convince kids that morality and integrity and decency aren't values to be desired. He can live with his boyfriend or not, and I could care less.

When he wants to attack my culture because of his own mental illness and the resulting inability to engage that culture, then I care.

That worries me, but that's only because I'm not a barbarian like you and Little Danny Boy the Savage.
Also, did you know that on top of 'savaging' the pope, Dan is making us gay people choose between religion and homosexuality? *abomination!*
@9 I think the Evangelicals wish they had a pope. A fascist infallible authority figure for all 'real' christians.
The pope is NOT a ridiculous old queen. He is a dangerous closeted hate mongering bigot. I have read a lot of his essays and papers from his college days to now, and the seeds of MY death are found in HIS heart.
It does make one wonder what would be said to Tim Minchin? Or maybe they're charmed by his strine. I was.
Well, I see why the Pope Brigade is so furious. You had that crowd howling with laughter at the Pope's ridiculousness.

Nothing will destroy a self-important institution faster than everyone laughing at it.

Mock away!

PS.. Is there a better audio track out there of this? Or a transcript? My ears and speakers are missing about 30% of this, and I want it all. Thanks.
@23 Maybe, but they have some fundamental theological differences. And not small stuff (as that stuff is measured). Until extremely recently, this was serious to the majority of Evangelicals. Now, suddenly, it's not. I'm curious why.
@ 16,

7. Self selecting minority is threatening our culture.
Dan, it appears you're reaching some sort of tipping point, surpassing 'well-known advice columnist' and reaching household name status. Maybe it's having a tv show. When my mom brings you up in conversation I'll let you know.


"I mean, the moron has no original thoughts, no talent or skill or gift to offer, no value in any way shape or form. So he kind of has to say outrageous hateful things just to get noticed."

A more accurate description of your own sweet self could not be written oh m'darlin m''dear.
@ 21,

"I'm not a barbarian like you and Little Danny Boy the Savage."

Darn you sure act like one, Seattle(I must call everyone names)blues. You sound like a mentally unhinged and sanctimonious one to be exact. Christ-likeness just oozes from your fingers.

See, we can all be keyboard psychiatrists and have opinions! You're not special.
GAH! @ 14! 14 I say!
All things aside, I don't think that a childless, unmarried man who is the leader of an army of celibate men and women can really make any claims on a perceived "threat" to the continuation of the human species. Glass houses and all.
Wait. You mean there is still a Pope!?!
@21 At least Dan doesn't run a child raping cabal like your demented pope and his perverted priests.
@26, I think Dan linked directly to video on AFTAH's YouTube channel that was taken by Porno Pete or one of his sex-slaves from their seat in the audience. If this was a scheduled Savage Love Live event, maybe better video/audio will be coming down the pike.

[Aside] "Ridiculous" old queens are a vanishing species in gaydom, as they were mainly a product of extreme repression. I will feel nostalgic about them when they're gone. Many were very sweet and supportive of baby-gays, and their courage to inhabit their personas paved the way for the rest of us. Even the lispy popes and cardinals and bishops in their lace and bright colors and jewels and pumps, while overtly hostile, set a benchmark for fabulousness.
Dan, he is not an old queen, he is an old zombie. Haven't you seen any pictures of him?

I mean, he may be super gay and all, but his zombie identity has to take priority over his sexual identity. Just like a gay penguin is a a penguin first and a proud gay daddy second.
@14 you really have good internet connection from your new villa in Italy! Isn't there a gay-friendly weekly paper you could harrass there? Or do you just miss all your friends?
Fuck the fucking fucker.
Ooohh nobody better tell those fools what Margaret Cho said about the pope...
"The Pope talks so much shit. The Pope was castigating the media for making gays look normal. YEAH, you’re a real GOOD judge of normal, with your gold dress and your matching gold hat, living it up in the Vatican with 500 men surrounded by the finest antiques in the world! Queen, please! You live like Versace did!"

...in 2005
"Ah yes. The old 'gays aren't so bad, but I'm going to insult you by calling you gay' routine."

I was not calling you "gay".
I was calling your actions immature.
You have an attraction that you don't know how to deal with so you're acting out towards that person in the hopes that he will notice you.
Realize that you have resorted to grade school theatrics and work on being able to positively express your attraction.
Even if it is not reciprocated you will have handled the situation as a responsible adult would.
Thanks for the laugh Dan. I needed that today.
If gay marriage represents a threat to the continued existence of anything, it's the Catholic clergy. What with gays gaining acceptance and settling down and leading white-picket-fence ordinary lives with the person they love, there will be a critical shortage of conflicted closet cases who sign on with the priesthood in a misguided attempt to pray away who they really are.
Haven't people been satirizing whichever pope was poping since the first pope poped? It's a bit rich for the Cat'lick League to claim there's any harm done. They're milking Dan for publicity, and I think the least he can do is return the favor.

Oh. Well that's easy. Catholics espouse notions I simply can't accept, nor do I see the theological need to do so. The whole cult of Mary and the notion that the blood and body of Christ are actually present at communion seem to miss a couple kind of important points to me.

But basically the Catholic church is defending Christianity, morality, integrity and marriage in a world increasingly hostile to these ideas. It isn't surprising, really. If I tell my kids that we're only ever having ice cream and soda pop for meals, they certainly won't argue with me. The kind of howling chaos things like the Savage want the world to become is attractive to a particularly childish or dim kind of mind. I mean, no rules, no expectations of responsibility to others in your behavior, no boundaries at all is nice right up until you get it.

Then you do. And you wonder why, when schools are forbidden from teaching that there are absolute rights and wrongs, kids come to school with guns and kill 12 of their classmates. You wonder why, when you tell everyone that marriage is honey and flowers always, and once it hits the rocks you just dump the fool, the divorce rate is through the roof. You wonder why kids can't get jobs, when they show up with more tackle in their noses and eyebrows than I have in my fishing tackle box and then slouch their days through the job.

See, order and discipline and morality do serve valuable purposes. Marriage actually matters to more than the married couple, as an institution. Integrity, fidelity and ethics have a role in guiding an adult through the shoals and difficulties of life.

And these are the things trash like Savage make war on. Co-incidentally, they're what the Catholic church defends. So you know what, it breaks down to 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.'
"If I tell my kids that we're only ever having ice cream and soda pop for meals, they certainly won't argue with me."

So you are saying that gay sex is like ice cream and soda pop?
Oh poor Seattleblahs. Here we go again with talk of the children. It's like a slog verion of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe", except that he's not nearly as witty as Martha. He's more like a really, really pompous George.
@21: "Never get's old for folks like you does it, despite how utterly nonsensical it is?"

Hasn't stopped you yet.

Are you the fool who kept equating the tax bracket Mitt Romney is in with whether a soldier is tragically killed in the line of duty? The toddler-esque and weird non sequitor tone sounds familiar.

I'm saying what I wrote. If your reading comprehension or your limited intelligence make you unable to understand it, that's hardly my problem.
@47, I'm now picturing him/her with Sandy Dennis' face. Thank you!
@45 Most of third and all of your fourth paragraph read to me like excellent arguments FOR allowing same-sex marriage. Separating a significant segment of society from such a stabilizing institution because you disagree with the sex they may or may not be having seems petty, mean, and short-sighted. Telling gay 12 year-old kids they have an opportunity to have a family in the future will prevent more of them using guns on themselves or their classmates than any moralizing by the anti-gay brigade.
"Are you the fool who kept equating the tax bracket Mitt Romney is in with whether a soldier is tragically killed in the line of duty?"

That may be what you heard, but that is not what I said.
You had claimed that Romney SHOULD not pay a penny more in taxes for national defense than any other person because Romney did not receive any more protection than any other person.

I pointed out that there are people who pay a LOT more than Romney pays.
They pay with their life. They are the troops willing to die while serving our country.

So the question was, how many troops have to give their lives to justify (in your mind) a one penny increase in Romney's taxes?

But the current question is "are you going to deal with your crush in the way a mature adult does or are you going to deal with it in the manner that an immature child does".

Second question, do you really equate gay sex with ice cream?
Arguing with adults is only that.

Facilitating change takes time, and begins with the children.

Sunday school won this battle a long time ago.

Educate your children the best way you think you know how. That's all you can really do.

Hmmm...I no longer wonder why contraception is against the rules.
Ah yes. The old 'gays aren't so bad, but I'm going to insult you by calling you gay' routine.

Never get's old for folks like you does it, despite how utterly nonsensical it is?

It's not particularly nonsensical. My wife likes (or at least doesn't dislike) the so-called music made by the Eagles; I consider same to be a crime against music. If she makes a joke about me listening to the Eagles with the intent to insult me, she's not violating her belief that the Eagles aren't so bad; she's simply accusing me of something that, in my view (not hers), would make me a lesser man (finding artistic value in bland, misogynistic am '70s country-rock).
I have faith in you, Dan! Also, SnoCon! You win :)
Seattleblues, mightn't someone reasonably conclude that the posit of an anthropomorphic deity functioning according to Biblical principles "seem[s] to miss a couple of point[s]" in the same way that insisting on the literal presence of the blood of Christ at the liturgy does?

Continuing down your litany of confus[ed/ing] posits . . . Who is hostile to morality, integrity, and marriage? Among the supporters of allowing gays to marry are actual married people and practitioners of any of a number of religions. A failure to hew to your definitions (or to biblical definitions) of "right" or "wrong" does not amount to an abandonment of moral boundaries or responsibility.

You wonder why, when you tell everyone that marriage is honey and flowers always, and once it hits the rocks you just dump the fool, the divorce rate is through the roof.
Who has suggested that marriage is flowers and honey? My own marriage has been work--glorious, rewarding, profound work--for almost 16 years now. Personally, I don't much believe in divorce, though I'm sympathetic to those who've had to go through it (and believe that, legally, it should amount to pretty much a rubber stamp).
You wonder why kids can't get jobs, when they show up with more tackle in their noses and eyebrows than I have in my fishing tackle box . . .
What do piercings have to do with whether or not a person is capable of doing a job? I realize that there are some occupations in which such considerations are paramount, but that hardly strikes me as a universal.
See, order and discipline and morality do serve valuable purposes.
Who is suggesting otherwise?
Marriage actually matters to more than the married couple, as an institution.
Indeed--it matters deeply to the families of the joined and the community in which they live.
Integrity, fidelity and ethics have a role in guiding an adult through the shoals and difficulties of life.
Again, who's suggesting otherwise?

46 years old.

And acting like this in front of people 1/3rd his age.


SB, you should change your online name to "Sir Robin," due to your habit of running away from arguments you're losing.
Mind if I start calling you that?
#33 FTW !!

If only they had included a bouncing ball.
@33, we don't know that the Pope is childless (some women have no taste) and unfortunately, it's been demonstrated that he certainly isn't leading a celibate army.
Seattleblues is a wuss.
Not surprising that SeattleBlues is so eager to defend a pedophile ring.
45/Seattleblues: Marriage actually matters to more than the married couple, as an institution

Well, if that's the case, that's actually an argument in favor of same-sex marriage. If marriage is good for society, then we should be encouraging same-sex couples to get married, not preventing them from doing so.

@45 "...no rules, no expectations of responsibility to others in your behavior, no boundaries at all is nice right up until you get it."

Seattleblues... Jesus, man, do you ever actually read the things you comment on, or do you just collect opinions that sound as if they might be counter to your own and then disagree? Trying to find and describe moral rules to for sexual behavior is one of the principle occupations of Savage's column.

And would you lay off the name calling? The constant "Danny Boy" shit makes you sound like a jackass, a creepy jackass.
@54 Ah, you married someone with good taste! :D

For this I can only quote from the Big Lebowski;

The Dude: Jesus, man, can you change the station?
Cab Driver: Fuck you man! You don't like my fucking music, get your own fucking cab!
The Dude: I've had a...
Cab Driver: I pull over and kick your ass out, man!
The Dude: - had a rough night, AND I HATE THE FUCKING EAGLES, MAN!

@65: Oh no Park! That just means Seattleblues likes Dan. He has explained that he only uses nicknames for people he is fond of, which is why he calls Goldy "Goldstein" instead of Goldy. Not because he's an anti-Semite or anything like that, but because he isn't friends with him.

Ya see?
Pope Rat is the biggest queen of all! Who knows what goes on behind closed doors with the Pope & his frilly priests & male attendants?

In fact, this would make for a good reality TV show ...The Pope & His Erection Collection® ...i mean, who wouldn't watch this?
I'm shocked that anyone, such as seattleblues, spends so much time and effort trying to educate the rest of us deviants. If it's not for the laughs, not only is it without real objective, but also without any real joy.

Christianity, a religion imported from camel-fucking semites, is a debased and foreign religion which has plagued and impeded the development of the west in manners in which cannot readily be conceived. A new golden age, the new rise and conception of the glories of the classical age, will depend upon the utter and complete destruction of the of these foreign cults and the conversion of palestine and the arabic peninsula to a lake of glass. A reminder that this can never be allowed to happen again.

These religions are grand delusions, grand delusions allowed to occur over far too many millennia. Religious conviction is a mental disease.

I'm not even sure if I'm trolling. But I do hope I imagined to offend as many as possible.

@9 The dumb assed Catholics stupid enough to believe they can ally with these evangelical Protestants are being used as tools. These ultra-conservative Catholics think this temporary union will gain them some of what they want as far as reproductive rights (removing them I mean) and anything anti-LGBT. But once all the dust settles, believe me, evangelicals absolutely never have, and never will, believe that Catholics are either Christian, or much to be tolerated. Now how the Catholic Church thinks this will ultimately help them with membership, or people "returning home", as they call it, I have no damn idea. And I think the only reason the Protestant evangelicals are sort of going along with the Church now is that, hey! Some press! Some extremist hate speech not coming from us, but in agreement with our position! Goody, but just for now. We'll get back to you on the Pope as anti-Christ in a bit. Maybe after elections, maybe after they think they've won what they can, hell maybe after they feel safe in the thought that at least they'll outnumber those scary Muslim people, if they force enough breeding. Who knows.

@39 With you in spirit, but let's not have anyone fucking him, not even Maggie or Tony. Better for humanity that way, eh?

And that old queen? Cheery thought, but NO. Much too bad a man to have any association with anything gay. Seriously.
I am saddened by this video because I can't understand a chunk of what Dan said due to the cheering/laughing. I, like 26, crave a transcript or better audio.
@36 Rob, I'm with you on those "old queens." I think people also forget that some of those old queens with money were very very generous in the terrible old days of AIDS. I know in Pittsburgh they were guys (and a supporting cast of women who scored invitations to some amazing parties) who gave what was at the time (early '80s) one of the largest private donations in the entire US . I only know the expression of the spending as far as some of the money that landed at UPMC. It was exceptionally helpful especially in the area of education for both the professional (medical) and public community.
@43 for the analytical slam-dunk!
Kait @73, a good point, and a pattern repeated elsewhere. You should consider documenting that story for outhistory.org. Here's a quick search to see what they have already on "Pittsburgh":


Not much from the early AIDS years.
Why decent, humane Catholics stick with a Church run from the top down by an atavistically hateful (and ridiculous) old queen is beyond me.
@71 Just in case you didn't get the reference made @39, it's a sing-along!


Decent and humane catholics are encouraged by their religion to be submissive (turn the other cheek, etc.). Also, they are encouraged to see any attack against the Pope himself as an attack against their own beliefs.

Dan is quite right about the "faith" defense of Church hierarchy. It has gone on for centuries... they use it to evade personal responsability of their acts, like all religious leaders everywhere.
Loved what i could hear,unfortunately not good audio,add me to the ones who want transcript ;-)

Wait... what ? So it was the Catholic Church and its believers who were responsible for the extermination and the other predicaments of the indigenous people called native Americans in North America ? Who practiced slavery on the Africans kidnapped from their lands ? Who enforced segregation against the black population in the US until the 1960s, and in South Africa until the 1990s ? Who famished Ireland for centuries ? Who took over and tried to destroy the indigenous cultures of India, New Zealand and Australia ?

Well, I didn't expect the Catholic Inquisition to be at work in all those places...
Was just rereading Daniel Goldhagen's Ordinary Germans: Hitler's Willing Executioners. One of his theses is that ordinary germans, people just like you an me, went on to ignore and to perpetrate heinous crimes against another people because they were conditioned to consider those other people (the Jews) not just subhuman, but inhuman, not just bad in themselves, but evil and a threat to the entire world's existence. This is precisely what those on the religious right of the American political spectrum are doing to the gay people. Dehumanization and demonization are stepping stones not just to the return of the anti-sodomy laws of the America past, but also to the sort of laws they were able to inspire in Uganda and wish they could institute here. What they really want is to be able to stone gay people in the streets.

The freedom of speech is the greatest barrier to them getting their way. Dan, keep up the good job of laughing at the idiotic "logic" of these bigots, and don't let them hide behind their faith. If Santorum can say incredibly offensive things about gays, he should be able to defend those pronouncements afterward. If he, and people like him, can dish it out, they should also be able to take it, and not be pantsy-asses cowards.
You're of course right about the neat trick Christians have perfected of hiding behind faith. It scares the shit out of me that they believe their hateful words and antics are justified because they speak for God. We can only work for (& hope & pray for) separation of church and state. Otherwise heaven help us all!
People will make up reasons to be outraged. Brian Brownshirt seems to only be happy if he's outraged about something. I have said these words in much stronger terms for years, but I'm not on TV. I wish the Catholic League would go after me. Dan's career seems pretty strong--it seems that this is just another gift..
@78: Yes, exactly. This idea of "You must respect what I say specifically because it is a deeply and sincerely held tenet of my religious faith" permeates the culture -- not just those making insane, illogical, bigoted pronouncements, but those on the receiving end who wish to avoid the appearance of intolerance, and therefore give a free pass to the most heinous sort of idiocy. But, as is being pointed out here, the religious see no reciprocal duty to respect _your_ ideas, because after all, those are merely "ideas," not "faith," and everyone knows that anything touched by faith is inherently better quality thinking, while anything secular is just ordinary, if not the work of the Devil himself.

Then they get a case of the vapors when you don't agree to that deal. That is, to borrow a phrase, "pansy-assed bullshit."

Ideas should stand or fall on their own merit. If your thinking has any merit, it will withstand serious scrutiny, and even some name-calling, just fine. Hell, if the ideas were logical and supportable with evidence, they wouldn't invite ridicule in the first place.

By contrast, no amount of believing in something with all your heart will, in itself, make it true. That your religion tells you that God will heal your child if you just believe hard enough does not exonerate you of murder by prayer when you should have gotten him antibiotics.
@58 Oooh, I like that. I'm up for ANY excuse for a Python reference, and this is a good one!

Fuck, I wish there was a requirement for a unique avatar for each registration. It would be nice not to read even a line of SeattleBlows before realizing it is time to skip to the next comment.
@82 In the realm of religious freedom, or lack thereof, it's not just Christians v. Atheists. There are other religions which will be seriously butt-hurt without separation of church and state. Even within Chrisitianity, there is less community than you are assuming. The schism-ridden pantheon of Christian denominations contains denominations which cannot abide each other or each other's theology. If we all "speak for God," then it's pretty clear that no one speaks for God.

Stand your ground.

I feel more empowered to stand my own ground in a debate with "religious" homophobes since I joined a Quaker meeting that holds sacred the idea that we're all equal in God's eyes and love. I'm proud to be part of a religion whose members were hung by the Puritans. (See the Boston Martyrs.)
Everyone wants to rip up Seattleblues because he is clearly a pro traditional gender roles anti-civil rights conservative who still refers to women as "the fairer sex" and thinks homosexuality, for all the evidence to the contrary, is a sick abomination that will ruin society.

But he has a point.

Things are pretty fucked up. Kids shoot each other, people give up on their marriages, and this generation of workers is pretty goddamn entitled and lazy. However, Seattleblues places the blame in the wrong hands, for it is entirely possible for a human being to be moral and have intact values without being religious or straight. I easily see the values of discipline and order and morality, but I don't believe they're being corroded by people wanting to have equal freedom.

I also think it's easy for people like Seattleblues to see things as terrible in this day and age when life in the 50's and 60's is seen in retrospect as blissful Americana. Women who got pregnant by any circumstance were sent to unwed mother's homes and their babies were often taken from them. Alcoholism and drug abuse, common suburban problems, were ignored. Brutality against wives and children was swept under the rug. Women were hard-pressed to find work in well-paying jobs to support themselves if they needed to, and housewives were prescribed Valium at unprecedented rates due to their unhappiness with what was supposed to be Leave it to Beaver. Racial minorities faced even worse discrimination; basically, if you weren't a White male, life was probably not a walk in the park. This is all washed out by nostalgic Coke ads, red white and blue picnics, and strong, smiling family portraits. Things weren't so much better then, but with every year, we believe this one is the worst and we are often unable to see things for what they really were.

The divorce rate sucks: divorce is hard on children, and I too want more people to stick it out. Young people don't know a lot about hard work and expect life to come easily to them, they complain about bullshit problems, and squander their beautiful lives. School shootings are new, and I don't know exactly what to attribute them to (but I really don't think it's gay people). Order, morality, and discipline *are* fading, but only in how he defines it. I am not religious and my boyfriend and I are not necessarily traditional: he might define our living situation as wrong or too progressive, but we are hardworking honest people, and so are most homosexuals.

Culture changes, Seattleblues, and you can fight it, but it's a very powerful force. I know that things are scary and bad in some ways, but don't take it out on people who truly just want the same freedoms you and your ilk have enjoyed for centuries. Blame it on people who are just plain too irresponsible or negligent to understand the harm they are doing (and those people come in all religions and orientations).
@9: it's because church attendance is down, so people wishing to gain power through Christianity need to accept *all* Christians, not just their particular brand, which 20 years ago would have been firebombing each other.
SeattleBlues has oft maintained that homosexuals are a self-selecting minority, and he uses this as an excuse to argue that we deny them protection under anti-discrimination laws. Yet, in @21 he contradicts his own belief system and states that homosexuality is a "disorder". He claims that gays and lesbians (and Dan in particular) suffer from mental illness.

But, SB apparently doesn't see that one cannot have a "self-selecting" "mental disorder". We all know that his internal logic is screwed up, but I wonder how he can continue to rationalize his contradictory beliefs.

Finally, has anyone yet determined whether SB is the Danny Boy troll? Or, is he simply picking up on the Danny Boy thing?
Your argument was very well articulated in 'Fathers and Sons.' And it's a good one.

For what it's worth, women ARE the fairer sex. And I'm not antithetical to civil rights, just to privilege for one self selecting group. And what will ruin society isn't homosexuality. How could it for goodness sake? What will ruin society is abandonment or outright destruction of mores and values and social structures like marriage and the family.

Yes society evolves, as it should. Yes, we've made progress, and need to continue making it, with respect to gender equality and minority rights. And that's a good thing. Yes, some of what people want to 'return' to never existed in the first place, or would be a step backward for us if we could so return.

But improvement isn't what Savage and those like him are after, anymore than the anarchist in Turgenev's excellent novel. Unable to conform to admittedly restrictive social and sexual mores, they want to burn down the society that advocates for those values. Unable to build, they want to destroy. For them it's their way or all out war on their own culture. Somewhere between puritanical negation of life and the chaos desired by Savage and his lot is a middle ground. We can make progress without destroying everything that came before, whatever a thing like Savage thinks.

For what it's worth, I'm not interested in denying anyone's rights. If a man wants to sleep with men or a woman with women, it isn't my business. I don't want such behavior criminalized nor could I see any rational justification for doing so. While a clear rebellion against the natural order of things and thus a mental disorder, it affects only the practitioner. So I also wouldn't advocate for or support involuntary psychiatric treatment for those who suffer this illness.

The sole thing I ask is what I'd ask of any adult choosing a behavior. Grow up. Accept the consequences of your choices, good and bad. If the good outweighs the bad, keep making that choice. If not, don't. But don't assume that you get what appear to you good effects and get to shove what seem to you the bad ones off on others. Can't get married to your same sex boyfriend or girlfriend? Well, that's the breaks. If marriage is that important to you, you'd better make other sexual choices. If not, keep making the ones you have. But you shouldn't get to redefine marriage for everyone else simply because how it is now is inconvenient to you.

The two don't conflict, necessarily.

My aunt has a mental disorder for which she takes medication. If she chooses not to take the medication she functions poorly. If she takes it she functions well.

Unfortunately treating homosexuality to help the patient realize a more healthy sexuality can lose someone his license. So in some senses you're right. There really isn't enough work being done to help those who suffer from this disorder.
"There really isn't enough work being done to help those who suffer from this disorder."

You might want to do some reading on Evelyn Hooker's work.

@90- Somehow gay people wanting to live the 50s married couple lifestyle is destroying that lifestyle because if the gays have it then it is ruined. This is you argument and you stick to it endlessly. You can't articulate a single thing that gay people marrying would damage, except that somehow it would sully "the institution." Like letting Jews into the Country Club or Blacks into the swimming pool.
@75 Rob, I only got a chance to give your links a really quick glance, but thanks for posting them--thoughtful, and a good idea. Most of my material, digital and hard copy was lost in the 2004 hurricane season, but maybe memory and research can serve?

@77 I HAD forgotten my favorite earworm, and today was a great day to find it again, thanks!
Let's assume that Seattleblues thinks child abuse is a serious issue, and a bad thing.

That is, let's assume that in white-washing the Catholic Church he's not expressing his real opinion, but is making a tactical or diplomatic move.

If that's true, I don't really get his strategy here.

If you want to tell an audience of liberals that gays are bad, then you have one hurdle to get over.

But if you then say "and the Catholic Church are great!", then you've just added another hurdle - now they think you're in favour of a bunch of people who they see as unrepentant about child abuse.

I would have thought that someone who wanted to get liberals on side would say "Well I completely agree with you abou the Catholic Church, but..."

I can think of three possibilities:

i) Seattleblues isn't being strategic: he genuinally thinks that the Catholic response to child abuse isn't a major problem.

ii) Seattleblue isn't being strategic, but doesn't believe his praise of the Catholic church. He's simply saying whatever gets the most response, for whatever reason.

iii) Seattleblues is being strategic, but is astonishingly bad at it. He somehow thinks that praising the Catholic church will win him allies in this context (this seems to me the least likely option).

iv) Seattleblues is playing to a conservative Catholic audience somewhere else. He doesn't care what we think about what he says, but is doing it so he can go on another site and point to his statements here.
Except there is no medication or treatment that turns someone from gay to straight.

Giving your aunt medications that help her function normally when she does badly without it and prefers to function normally, is not the same as forcing treatment on someone that won't work, doesn't improve their lives, and is against their will in the first place.

Similar treatment of your aunt would be against her will, harmful to her, and based purely on other people's views of how she should behave.

The parallel to anti-gay reparative therapy wouldn't be giving your aunt her meds, it would be whacking her on the head so she "sits quietly and doesn't bother anyone."
I recently read an article by Jeremy Bentham (one of the first utilitarians) arguing for legal reform regarding the (capital) punishment of "paederasty" in late 18th-Century England. It's an interesting read in general, but one of the things he addresses is the argument that because gay sex is nonreproductive, it threatens the survival of the species. He points out that some of the chief advocates of this argument are priests, who also don't have reproductive sex and also therefore threaten the survival of the species.
Oooooh lissa... The comment equivalent of the rapping granny.
I realize that you won't respond, Seattleblues (which I will continue to take as an indication that you actually don't have any argument against my posits, since you continue to grace those far ruder to you than I with your time; only fear generally sows such silence), but I have to wonder aloud, if only for the edification of those unfortunate enough to fall upon one of your screeds, whether you also deplore the medical community's failure to explore therapeutic treatments for left-handedness or preferences for unusual flavors.

See, the notion that "poor function" justifies treatment, but holding that reproduction = proper function strikes me as presumptive. A good many couples uninterested in or even incapable of reproduction currently enjoy full marital rights; unless you're actually telling me that they're enjoying a free ride on the taxpayers' dime or that they are somehow failing to contribute to society because they forgot to offer it yet another litter of wriggling organisms to our teeming ranks, it seems that you accept, more or less, that some people aren't interested in breeding, and some that are but can't continue to be "functional" members of the community--often through institutions that you would continue to deny to other couples engaged in the same acts of household-building due to the gender makeup of the household.

And a quick addendum: Frankly, I don't think one should lose one's license for researching or engaging in "conversion therapy." If someone wants to go through that, he or she is welcome; that is, if someone wants help to follow a path with which I disagree, someone should be able to profit by offering aid along that path. An ex-gay is no more a heterosexual than I would be right-handed if I started writing with my right hand, but given the "soft" nature of psychology, as sciences go, I'm not inclined to suggest that one mightn't use it to pursue whatever absurdity one sees fit (including settling down and eeking out womb rats with a partner to whom one has no hope of experiencing genuine attraction and with whom one cannot hope to share romantic affinity).

First, I have been away all weekend or I would've responded earlier. For the record, I don't find it particularly offensive or wrong to refer to women as the fairer sex, but it just strikes me as a pretty old fashioned way of describing an entire group of people who are all very different (some are not so fair at all).

Anyway. You're of the "homosexuality is a mental illness" belief, which lays a foundation for a lot of other notions. You believe that every time a man or woman makes the choice to sleep with or love or commit his/her life to someone of the same sex, he knows what rights and social acceptance he's giving up and he should simply accept that or seek "help."

This is a point of view you've stuck to even though you have been undoubtedly told of the scientific documentation of homosexuality in other animals (this may not be convincing if you reject that we are related to other species), the location in the brain that is wired to be attracted to particular sex, and the hereditary components of it. I'm sure you've also heard stories of men who have been married, made the right choices in order to live the most normal lives they could, only to have it fall apart because they were hiding the fact that they desperately longed for a loving relationship with a same sex partner. If you believe in any kind of natural order, you understand that humans will pursue satisfying sex and relationships as social beings, even if it flies in the face of what we were raised to believe.

So, to use similar language, I think *you* choose to believe homosexuality is a choice even when you have other options, and therefore are allow yourself to feel fearsome and disgusted by Dan Savage. He encourages people to be honest and unashamed of their sexuality, and open with their partners about sex. He promotes realistic expectations for intimate relationships rather than the secret infidelity present in so many marriages. He wants gay youths not to feel like suicide is an appealing option in a world with so many people who treat them worse than dirt--even when they haven't even made the choice to pursue a same sex relationship. Sometimes its because someone "seems" gay. I suppose they should just choose to act more masculine/feminine.

What exactly are the behaviors you believe will lead to the destruction of society? And how does Dan encourage them? Maybe I'm dense to your arguments, but as a responsible person, I believe I can lead a moral, productive and sexually delicious life without inciting chaos or decay of true virtues (honesty, civility, reliability, hard work, all that good stuff). So how, then?