There will be a lot of them. :( Hopefully Amy will catch as many as she can. It is a zoo at work today.
Any of the golden children catch Chris Hitchens at Town Hall last night? I was looking forward to the morning after breakdown, although Fnarf's nutsack was a lovely accompaniment to my fist cup of coffee.
Mmmm, fist coffee . . .
@3: Your "fist cup of coffee"? Freudian slip?
In general: This is lovely, but let's pick up the pace.
Pick up the pace? We're way ahead of yesterday.
Yeah, the Chris Hitchens talk was probably interesting. I saw him speak in the 80s, nad he made this strange comparison of the Kennedy lineage - back to the 20s - to a Shakespeare tragedy. Lots of moms and children in those stories.
Way ahead? Hardly. Yesterday morning was also slow. And, some celebrity gossip is in order. Who's playing Schmader?
Take it easy. There was some gay banter @ 7:40 on GMA that would be a great post. Chris Cuomo was drooling through the screen at Sam Champion. In the interest of full and fair disclosure, I guess I was actually drinking my fist cup of coffee then.
saw that clip with the son saying his father was a church pastor on king 5 or something. they investigated that claim and found his father was not currently a church pastor and never has been. that lie was soo unnecessary
Aislinn, if I worked for the Stranger rather than the UW (btw, thanks for your tax dollars) I would post every fifteen minutes too.
Elswinger - I'm disappointed that you're carrying on Dan Savages's BS "Every Child Needs..." campaign.
I understand the emotion behind this campaign. But pointing out that heteros mutilate and kill their children does NOTHING to help gays achieve marriage. Nothing. It just exploits the sad and unecessary deaths of these children.
I don't think that homophobes who believe that every child needs a father and mother do so because they think homos kill and mutilate their children more than heteros. Do you?
So why post all these news articles about heteros killing their kids?
Because it's easy. And dramatic. It's a fucking cop out.
It's hard to argue with the homophobes position on gay marriage because their arguments are not rational. They're purely emotional -- they come from fear.
So instead, Dan plays with the same currency of fear and morbid fascination that homophobes play with when they talk about AIDS and fags and hell.
I think that Dan's heart is in the right place, but he's misguided.
And so are you.
It wouldn't be Slog without one of these "feel bad" stories every day.
@13: Misguided my ass. As the argument goes, gay singles and gay couples are not fit to parent. These posts aren't about fear or morbid fascination--they are about hypocrisy and calling bullshit on such non-sense. Before anyone starts hypothesizing about what gay folks might do to children if they are given the right to foster or adopt them, perhaps some time and energy should be spent rectifying the horrible/horrific wrongs committed against children by some of the same jackasses who are leading the campaign against us.
You might not like to see the details of the crime, but such posts are illustrative, at least.
Yes. Illustrative that heteros kill their kids.
How does that help gays get married?
So you are actually agreeing with this logic:
Heteros kill their kids
Gays should be able to marry
What if I found an example of a gay person killing a child? Would that prove that gays should not be able to marry? Or would your counter-argument be - "well, heteros kill MORE children".
Maybe that's because there are more heteros with more kids. Who knows?
@16: The deaths of children are exploited constantly. From Amber Alert laws to Cindy Sheehan to Jonbenet's dad and Natalee's mom hooking up to that fucking "Tears in Heaven" song, people benefit from the deaths of children all the time. That's not an argument for killing children, it's just the facts.
Also, either you're being intentionally obtuse, or you're precisely the type of person that should never be allowed to debate, ever, to spare the sanity of people who understand logic. An argument anti-gay marriage/adoption activists put forth is that children are safer with heterosexual parents. The point of these posts isn't that gays should marry because straights are violent assbags, it's that those safety-oriented arguments are not based on fact.
A father writes a song about his son's accidental death and that's exploitive?
@18: He made a ton of money off that song, which means he made a ton of money off of the death of his son. What should we call it, opportunistic?
Why would accidental vs. intentional have any bearing on whether something is exploitative or not?
MSN I NIIPET
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).