Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsSunday, December 21, 2008
Religion / Homo Can't We All Just Get Along?
Posted by Dan Savage on Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Uh, Juan? Rick Warren wasn't interested in "disagreeing without being disagreeable" until he got his way on marriage equality—that is, until same-sex couples in California were stripped of their right to wed and the marriages of more than 18,000 same-sex couples were nullified. Warren couldn't "agree to disagree" on same-sex marriage when it was legal; he couldn't refuse to perform same-sex marriages himself while tolerating the rights of other Californians to avail themselves of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Only now that same-sex marriage has been banned—only now that Warren got his way—does he suddenly want everyone to make nice.
See how that works?
Rick Warren importuning people to "disagree without being disagreeable" now is like a bully saying "violence is never the answer!" right after he's bloodied some other kid's nose. Listening to people give the bully credit for having his heart in the right place isn't much comfort for the kid with the blood running down his face. And I predict that Rick Warren—and the Mormon Church and the Catholic Chuch—will go right back to being very disagreeable after Prop 8 is repealed and same-sex couples are once again marrying in the state of California. You can bet on it.
1
It was a democratic referendum and you lost fair and square, twice. Whining about a bully blooding your nose is beyond gay. Anti-8 even spent $2 million more. Grow up.
3
Democracy has NEVER meant letting a tyranical majority beat the minority into submission. I assume you think abolishing slavery should have been put up to a vote, state by state? And the ERA too? No, our government has TWO jobs, to serve the public and to protect it. Prop 8 only manages to serve the prejudicial majority. The original Supreme Court ruling not only served California (the stability offered by marriage betters society as a whole) but it also managed to protect a woefully underprotected portion of the population. The fact that 52% of the population wants to mistreat a minority doesn't make the mistreatment democratic.
5
Count down until gays are told to stop whining and just shut up about their civil liberties being trampled on...five, four, three .......
8
Gays would have more allies if they focused on Civil Marriage as Slavery rather than throwing their lot in with the slave owners.
This is in general why the Gay Movements are never revolutionary. Gays want the power, the money, the prestige. They aren't focused really on the rights or respect of people...it's a self-interest thing and hence not relevant to other oppressed people.
Gays would have more allies if they focused on Civil Marriage as Slavery rather than throwing their lot in with the slave owners.
This is in general why the Gay Movements are never revolutionary. Gays want the power, the money, the prestige. They aren't focused really on the rights or respect of people...it's a self-interest thing and hence not relevant to other oppressed people.
9
@1
Seriously?! grow up?! This is clearly an issue that is a little beyond a tantruming toddler who's didn't get a coveted cookie. This is a matter of our love and security in an encreasingly insecure world. To suggest that we gays simply need to grow up and turn the other cheek is nothing short of fool hardy. Besides, turning the other cheek was never one 'our' rules, that belongs to the christians and they can keep it. In fact I do believe they are also bound to it and have fallen short most blatently.
Seriously?! grow up?! This is clearly an issue that is a little beyond a tantruming toddler who's didn't get a coveted cookie. This is a matter of our love and security in an encreasingly insecure world. To suggest that we gays simply need to grow up and turn the other cheek is nothing short of fool hardy. Besides, turning the other cheek was never one 'our' rules, that belongs to the christians and they can keep it. In fact I do believe they are also bound to it and have fallen short most blatently.
10
Let's vote on whether @1 is a mean idiot.
You see how that works, @1? By your logic, if we all vote for it, then you're a mean idiot.
Of course I jest. You're not a mean idiot because we would vote for it. You're a mean idiot, becuse you're a mean idiot.
You have no reasoned basis to support your antigay homphobic meanness. Why you want to take millions of people and deny them love and family as they want to have it? Why you want to tell their kids their parents aren't married anymore? Why you want to rip these families apart? Why you want to stick your nose into their bedrooms, hmmm? Why are you threatened in any way, assuming you are straight, you think the gay cooties are going to come and make you gay you big scaredy cat?
IS that it, you're just scared?
Calm down then.
Until you do, you are anti family, antimarriage, and unAmerican.
In fact boasting that denial of rights is sanctified by a majority vote means you don't understand the first thing about the founding principles of this nation. That's why I call you mean, AND an idiot.
I vote you off the island!
You see how that works, @1? By your logic, if we all vote for it, then you're a mean idiot.
Of course I jest. You're not a mean idiot because we would vote for it. You're a mean idiot, becuse you're a mean idiot.
You have no reasoned basis to support your antigay homphobic meanness. Why you want to take millions of people and deny them love and family as they want to have it? Why you want to tell their kids their parents aren't married anymore? Why you want to rip these families apart? Why you want to stick your nose into their bedrooms, hmmm? Why are you threatened in any way, assuming you are straight, you think the gay cooties are going to come and make you gay you big scaredy cat?
IS that it, you're just scared?
Calm down then.
Until you do, you are anti family, antimarriage, and unAmerican.
In fact boasting that denial of rights is sanctified by a majority vote means you don't understand the first thing about the founding principles of this nation. That's why I call you mean, AND an idiot.
I vote you off the island!
11
#3 CD
Slavery was decided state by state - pre civil war and pre amending the constitution
The ideal that civil rights have never been subjected to the majority is not American history at the state level.
Sorry - it will take federal laws and federal courts to create a standard about marriage equality that queers can live with - and- that is a generation away.
Slavery was decided state by state - pre civil war and pre amending the constitution
The ideal that civil rights have never been subjected to the majority is not American history at the state level.
Sorry - it will take federal laws and federal courts to create a standard about marriage equality that queers can live with - and- that is a generation away.
12
tell me this, dan: why did david geffen, the top A-gay in the country, only contribute a piddly $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign? $100,000? which is lunch money to a man like him? anyone wanna venture a guess? could it be that people like him (filty rich gay men) just DO NOT CARE? and do not give a fuck whether 18,000 people have their marriages nullified and their rights denied? could that be it? do deeply closeted gay male celebrities not come out of the closet because if they did, the 'movement' would expect them to become activists, even if they don't give two shits about equality? hmm?
13
There was so much in Juan Cole's post that was infuriating and wrong, I started to leave a comment but then just gave up-- I didn't even know where to begin. He really needs to stick to his area of expertise, which is the mid East and Muslim affairs. What especially pisses me off is that I keep reading Cole and others uncritically repeating the lazy claim that Warren has done a lot for AIDS. As a gay man who's been impacted by and active in fighting the AIDS crisis from day one, to hear people praising Warren makes me very, very angry.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/…
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/…
15
There's an extra on Bill Maher's DVD entitled "I'm the Decider" that's devoted to Maher's skewering of Warren's "Purpose-Driven Life". It's pretty funny. Maybe one of you tech-savvy folks can post it. I don't know how.....
16
As always, Dan Savage proves he is is far more intelligent and educated than Mr. Warren, by using clear logic and common sense. (The sad thing is, although a lot of other people also have more brains than Warren, the majority of people in our country, are probably just as stupid as Mr. RW, if not more.) "He Who Must Not Be Named" as I'm starting to call him, is really just a sugar-coated version of Pat Robertson. (Similar to how Ann Coulter is a sugar-coated version of Adolf Hitler.)
18
@17: Ah, yes. When presented with logical refutations of your statements, simply accuse the other side of being crybaby whiners as loudly as possible, and then pretend you won the argument. Works every time.
19
@16
Benny, you've been such a good little boy this year, I have a special treat for you and all the other slogotomized zoombie-brained SavaveFanBoys:
chap stick flavored like Dan's butt!!
Now you can have your favorite labial sensory experience anytime you want!!
No more waiting for Dan to post to show your adoration.
your welcome
Benny, you've been such a good little boy this year, I have a special treat for you and all the other slogotomized zoombie-brained SavaveFanBoys:
chap stick flavored like Dan's butt!!
Now you can have your favorite labial sensory experience anytime you want!!
No more waiting for Dan to post to show your adoration.
your welcome
20
18
OK Darcy,
let me explain it to you, again.
Post #1 noted that Prop 8 was a democratic referendum. Make your case, let the folks decide. It's been done 30 times in America in the last 10 years (Prop 8 was the 2nd go for California)(tho often with much stricter restrictions- many states outlaw civil union as well) Each and every time gay marriage lost, sometimes by 80%.
As a result do gays say, 'wow, we need to work harder to make the case?'
No, that would be waaaay too mature.
They target the Mormons with 1930s Nazi/Jew rhetoric.
They whine about bullies and bloodied noses.
They plot to have judges (again) throw out the results of a democratic vote.
You whine on the assumption that the issues at stake in Prop 8 are innately yours. But when Prop 8 was challenges even your left wing thug judge buddies disagreed.
It's called democracy.
Grow up.
Wipe your BLODY NOSE off.
Grow a pair.
Don't be so nauseatingly gay.
OK Darcy,
let me explain it to you, again.
Post #1 noted that Prop 8 was a democratic referendum. Make your case, let the folks decide. It's been done 30 times in America in the last 10 years (Prop 8 was the 2nd go for California)(tho often with much stricter restrictions- many states outlaw civil union as well) Each and every time gay marriage lost, sometimes by 80%.
As a result do gays say, 'wow, we need to work harder to make the case?'
No, that would be waaaay too mature.
They target the Mormons with 1930s Nazi/Jew rhetoric.
They whine about bullies and bloodied noses.
They plot to have judges (again) throw out the results of a democratic vote.
You whine on the assumption that the issues at stake in Prop 8 are innately yours. But when Prop 8 was challenges even your left wing thug judge buddies disagreed.
It's called democracy.
Grow up.
Wipe your BLODY NOSE off.
Grow a pair.
Don't be so nauseatingly gay.
21
@20: I'm sorry that you're apparently so mind-bogglingly ignorant that you don't see a problem with allowing the majority to vote on the civil rights of a minority group, and that you're so lacking in basic empathy that you can look at members of that group who are complaining about what happened and accuse them of "whining" about having said rights stripped away. Grow up, yourself.
23
Well I think the next thing we need to put up to a vote is a woman's right to an abortion on any kind of birth control, since the only principle that matters in this country is what the majority wants and votes for.
Then next we can put up blacks' rights to vote - don't know how that will go, but blacks' rights to vote could be repealed - there are a lot of closet racists . . . I mean, there are lot of people who love black people but who think they shouldn't be allowed to vote or marry their daughters.
Let's see, have we missed anyone else? Oh yeah, we should also put up to a vote to allow employers to fire anyone they want to for any reason at all or even no reason - that one should win hands down!
Then next we can put up blacks' rights to vote - don't know how that will go, but blacks' rights to vote could be repealed - there are a lot of closet racists . . . I mean, there are lot of people who love black people but who think they shouldn't be allowed to vote or marry their daughters.
Let's see, have we missed anyone else? Oh yeah, we should also put up to a vote to allow employers to fire anyone they want to for any reason at all or even no reason - that one should win hands down!
24
And while we're at it, we should put up to a vote a woman's right to talk back to her husband, or any male for any reason. I mean, that would really help the economy if there were all these women who could be put to work for less pay and who didn't talk back or say anything uppity or anything. I bet there are a lot of people who would vote for that without a second thought.
25
I think the violence metaphor is a good one to help explain why the choice of Rick Warren for the inaugural invocation and Obama's statement that “what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable” is so painful to so many people.
It "reminds me of the millions of abused spouses and children who try to do this, with the hope that if they are just nicer to their abusive family member, maybe the abuse will stop."
http://apocalyptickiwi.wordpress.com/200…
"We know it won’t stop the abuse. We know that it will only empower and enable the abusers."
It "reminds me of the millions of abused spouses and children who try to do this, with the hope that if they are just nicer to their abusive family member, maybe the abuse will stop."
http://apocalyptickiwi.wordpress.com/200…
"We know it won’t stop the abuse. We know that it will only empower and enable the abusers."
29
12 26
Homosexuality is at its core a self-centered lifestyle favoring short term gratification and indulgence.
Hence AIDS, easily preventable with responsible behavior but kept alive by a bath house mindset.
Hence the inability or unwillingness to work together to advance a political agenda, 'ActUp' antics are way more fun.
A lifestyle that uses up the young and beautiful and throws them away when they are no longer so. Not much 'grow old with me holding hands on the porch' here.
Every man for herself.
Homosexuality is at its core a self-centered lifestyle favoring short term gratification and indulgence.
Hence AIDS, easily preventable with responsible behavior but kept alive by a bath house mindset.
Hence the inability or unwillingness to work together to advance a political agenda, 'ActUp' antics are way more fun.
A lifestyle that uses up the young and beautiful and throws them away when they are no longer so. Not much 'grow old with me holding hands on the porch' here.
Every man for herself.
32
19. Until you learn the difference between "your" and "you're," your posts will just seem ridiculous.
Scary Tyler Moore, I doubt Dan will answer your questions; this blog isn't for "conversation" with him. But your questions are good ones. I mean, Brad Pitt is straight and he gave as much as Geffen. Pitt's wife is bisexual, and supposedly "couldn't decide" between McCain and Obama and, as far as I know, didn't donate a dime to defeat Prop 8.
But this question is the most important:
do deeply closeted gay male celebrities not come out of the closet because if they did, the 'movement' would expect them to become activists, even if they don't give two shits about equality?
Remember when Ellen came out? At first, everyone complained that her show was "too focused on her being lesbian," and that got boring. Even gays and lesbians complained about that! Then, when she began her talk show, everyone complained that she doesn't do enough. That's the way it is for most celebrities who come out. But those who just live quiet, private lives (i.e., that dude from Frasier)? They get a pass.
Celebrities know that 90% of their audience is straight. Most of them behave accordingly. Look at Etheridge. "I'm not paying taxes! . . . Never mind."
Scary Tyler Moore, I doubt Dan will answer your questions; this blog isn't for "conversation" with him. But your questions are good ones. I mean, Brad Pitt is straight and he gave as much as Geffen. Pitt's wife is bisexual, and supposedly "couldn't decide" between McCain and Obama and, as far as I know, didn't donate a dime to defeat Prop 8.
But this question is the most important:
do deeply closeted gay male celebrities not come out of the closet because if they did, the 'movement' would expect them to become activists, even if they don't give two shits about equality?
Remember when Ellen came out? At first, everyone complained that her show was "too focused on her being lesbian," and that got boring. Even gays and lesbians complained about that! Then, when she began her talk show, everyone complained that she doesn't do enough. That's the way it is for most celebrities who come out. But those who just live quiet, private lives (i.e., that dude from Frasier)? They get a pass.
Celebrities know that 90% of their audience is straight. Most of them behave accordingly. Look at Etheridge. "I'm not paying taxes! . . . Never mind."
34
brad pitt gave many times more than david geffen. somewhere in the area of $500-750K. and so did steven spielberg and a few other hetero hollywooders.
35
33. haha. Excellent point.
34. Wow. I had no idea. Damn. And, what was it? 27% of gays voted for McCain, and 50% of gays in San Fran didn't even vote?
Not to mention, election after election we turn our back on candidates who do want to give us complete civil rights (Nader, Kucinich, the Green Party in general). What the fuck is going on in this country?
34. Wow. I had no idea. Damn. And, what was it? 27% of gays voted for McCain, and 50% of gays in San Fran didn't even vote?
Not to mention, election after election we turn our back on candidates who do want to give us complete civil rights (Nader, Kucinich, the Green Party in general). What the fuck is going on in this country?
36
Momma, I throw my shoes at you. It's the porpoise-driven life. Rick Warren cries for "tolerance" from those who find his presence at the Obama inauguration disquieting, while using his megachurch sheep flock to preach intolerance towards the GLBT community, because excoriating the other 'others' is no longer profitable or tolerated. This is standard everyday typical two-faced hypocrisy at its best, being sold as "Christianity", filling collection plates everywhere. Those who defend this hypocrisy as being the work of a mere few 'bad apples' are the same as those who'd say "you betcha I'm a Nazi but I didn't gas anybody lately".
37
By all means, please, more posts on this. As many as we can--let's use all our energy and time monitoring the various reponses to the Warren invocation, and responses to those responses, and so on. After all, we have nothing else left to do. ENDA has been passed, Dont Ask/Dont Tell is history and queers are openly serving in the military, civil unions are now federally recognized after Prop 8 was overturned, and all of Obama's judicial and cabinet appointments have sailed to easy confirmation and... and...
38
Jesus FIRMLY condemned while not saying anything at all about homosexuality. Begs the question why Warren allows "adulterers" (Jesus' words for divorcees) into his church? Isn't that redefining marriage?
I think gay people should focus on outlawing divorce. With the help of mormons and catholics, we could get something going. If a big national movement was headed for outlawing divorce you want to see how fast marriage would be legal for everyone? A couple days I bet.
It's like some comic once said: If men could have abortions, they'd be giving them away at vending machines.
I think gay people should focus on outlawing divorce. With the help of mormons and catholics, we could get something going. If a big national movement was headed for outlawing divorce you want to see how fast marriage would be legal for everyone? A couple days I bet.
It's like some comic once said: If men could have abortions, they'd be giving them away at vending machines.
41
36
You and your buddies throw your shoes at me; and at Warren; and at Donny Osmond and Pat Boone, for cryin out loud; now you walk barefoot in the snow.
Meanwhile Warren sits on the podium with Obama.
Warren is a creep.
I have not defended him.
However gays are gouging their own eyes out to spite their face.
There just might be a better response.
You and your buddies throw your shoes at me; and at Warren; and at Donny Osmond and Pat Boone, for cryin out loud; now you walk barefoot in the snow.
Meanwhile Warren sits on the podium with Obama.
Warren is a creep.
I have not defended him.
However gays are gouging their own eyes out to spite their face.
There just might be a better response.
42
@32: Amazing as this may seem... I posted this to Slog and then left the house. I went to watch the kid sled, then I went to buy the BF a Christmas present. Unreal, I know, but sometimes I actually step away from the computer. I didn't see STM's question until just now. I will answer it presently.
43
Well, Scary, in answer to your question... I have no idea why David Geffen gave "just" 100K. But I do know that lots of prominent African Americans sat out the Civil Rights Movement back in the day. Which proves nothing about the validity of the movement. And I don't think giving 100K counts as doing exactly nothing.
I, ahem, only gave $100, a tenth of what I gave to Obama. (I did, however, prompt others to give shitloads more by offering to answers questions from anyone who donated at least $25 to No on 8—I thought it was a better way for me to contribute, and it raised lots more than I could've given on my own.)
No on 8 raised, I believe, the same amount of money that Yes on 8 raised—despite the fact that homos are only 3-5% of the population. So... we did pretty well, on the fundraising front.
I, ahem, only gave $100, a tenth of what I gave to Obama. (I did, however, prompt others to give shitloads more by offering to answers questions from anyone who donated at least $25 to No on 8—I thought it was a better way for me to contribute, and it raised lots more than I could've given on my own.)
No on 8 raised, I believe, the same amount of money that Yes on 8 raised—despite the fact that homos are only 3-5% of the population. So... we did pretty well, on the fundraising front.
44
Momma and Jo...I only feel sad for you. What empty lives you must lead feeling you are so above everyone. Remember, God is supposedly doing the judging...what makes you think you have that right?
45
Dan, I honestly meant no insult to you at all. I was alluding to exactly what you said yourself: you have a life; you have other responsibilities; we shouldn't expect you to address each and every post that's addressed to you.
Personally, I think what you did for No on 8 was inspiring and honorable.
Personally, I think what you did for No on 8 was inspiring and honorable.
47
Yay! Thank you.
Brief off topic: I don't know why you don't get more recognition or credit for what you did for No on 8. I rarely see it mentioned anywhere. But after Prop 8 passed, I read all over the Internet about your remarks about the African American vote. Hell, Andy Humm and Ann Northrop practically called you out week after week on Gay USA regarding that and then your Utah boycott.
I mean, if they disagree with you fine, say so. But never once did they (or anyone else) acknowledge the hundreds of personal hours and effort you surely devoted to No on 8 by answering people's questions.
I don't get it. Surely they realize that you've done as much--if not more--for gay rights as they do.
Brief off topic: I don't know why you don't get more recognition or credit for what you did for No on 8. I rarely see it mentioned anywhere. But after Prop 8 passed, I read all over the Internet about your remarks about the African American vote. Hell, Andy Humm and Ann Northrop practically called you out week after week on Gay USA regarding that and then your Utah boycott.
I mean, if they disagree with you fine, say so. But never once did they (or anyone else) acknowledge the hundreds of personal hours and effort you surely devoted to No on 8 by answering people's questions.
I don't get it. Surely they realize that you've done as much--if not more--for gay rights as they do.
48
thenk yew. merry christmas to you and terry and dj and stinker. now, for the second part of my question: care to take a crack at it?
50
"do deeply closeted gay male celebrities not come out of the closet because if they did, the 'movement' would expect them to become activists, even if they don't give two shits about equality? hmm?" and i don't mean ricky martin or sean hayes, but george clooney, leonardo di caprio and keanu reeves.
51
"do deeply closeted gay male celebrities not come out of the closet because if they did, the 'movement' would expect them to become activists, even if they don't give two shits about equality? hmm?"
and i don't mean sean hayes or ricky martin, but george clooney, leonardo di caprio and keanu reeves.
and i don't mean sean hayes or ricky martin, but george clooney, leonardo di caprio and keanu reeves.
52
I can't say with any absolute certainty what motivates deeply closeted gay male celebs to remain in the closet -- as I'm not one myself, and don't know any. But I don't think it's an expectation that they will have to become super activists if they come out. While not on Clooney or Reeves level, gays haven't heaped expectations on Neil Patrick Harris since he came out.
But I expect the reason most hugely famous closeted stars --- most of whom became hugely famous in a flash, with one big hit movie -- keep their sexuality hidden for financial reasons primarily. You're not going to pull in $20 million per movie if no one will cast you in leading roles in action movies and romantic movies. A Cruise or a Leonardo di Caprio aren't just actors; they're stars, which means they have to be "the kind of men women want to have and other men want to be." Straight audiences won't accept an openly gay guy in that kind of a role -- women don't "want" gay men ('cept as friends), and straight men don't want to be gay men.
It's money, I think, not the expectations of the "movement." And I don't think more big stars would come out if the "movement" didn't demand so much of them. Most rank-and-file gays and lesbians ignore the "movement," and the stars could too.
But I expect the reason most hugely famous closeted stars --- most of whom became hugely famous in a flash, with one big hit movie -- keep their sexuality hidden for financial reasons primarily. You're not going to pull in $20 million per movie if no one will cast you in leading roles in action movies and romantic movies. A Cruise or a Leonardo di Caprio aren't just actors; they're stars, which means they have to be "the kind of men women want to have and other men want to be." Straight audiences won't accept an openly gay guy in that kind of a role -- women don't "want" gay men ('cept as friends), and straight men don't want to be gay men.
It's money, I think, not the expectations of the "movement." And I don't think more big stars would come out if the "movement" didn't demand so much of them. Most rank-and-file gays and lesbians ignore the "movement," and the stars could too.
53
WAIT JUST A MINUTE!!
Wait, wait, wait . . .
Clooney, Reeves, and Di Caprio are gay? I'm serious with this question. I've never, ever heard this...
Wait, wait, wait . . .
Clooney, Reeves, and Di Caprio are gay? I'm serious with this question. I've never, ever heard this...
54
kate winslet calls dicaprio 'my best friend'. 'nuff said. clooney owns a villa on lake como which is something no straight american dude does. and keanu? do ya have to ASK? i forgot matthew mcconaughey. impossibly beautiful girlfriend? gay gay GAY!
thank you, dan, you are astute and articulate as always.
thank you, dan, you are astute and articulate as always.
55
I don't think I could subvert who I am and the fight for justice to money. No amount of money is worth that. But I do remember people subverting who they were and what they believed while the Nazis murdered their way across Europe.
56
Dan,
Straight women do "want" gay men. It's just he whole . . you know . . he's going to laugh at me thing.
Straight women do "want" gay men. It's just he whole . . you know . . he's going to laugh at me thing.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
-
Survey Says: Cyclists Would Rather Give Up Sex Than Their Bikes by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
-
Jeremy Lin Saves the NBA by Charles Mudede
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (56) RSS