Monday, June 29, 2009
Religion Slog's Flying Monkeys Piss Off Area "Asshole"
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:25 PM
After I linked to a shockingly moronic post on David Klinghoffer's blog at Beliefnet—gay marriage harms women because what straight guy can resist "smooth-skinned boys"—some Slog commenters made their way over to Kingdom of Priests, where they proceeded to comport themselves like true Slog commenters. Today Klinghoffer notes...
Oh, now I know where all the incredibly nasty and vulgar commenters came from who joined our discussion when I posted Joshua Berman's reflection on the threat gay marriage would pose to women. It was linked by editor Dan Savage at The Stranger, one of our two local alternative papers here in the Seattle, on his blog.The Stranger can be amusing but Savage himself is a shockingly vulgar writer, so much so that I won't link you back to his link from this blog which, after all, should be readable by your whole family.
Speaking of families, I've heard Savage on the radio talking about his "marriage" to another man with whom he has adopted a son. Who knows what Savage is like as a father. Maybe he's a model dad—as well as being a wonderful, faithful "husband." Let's stipulate that he is both. I do know, however, that I would never publish anything that I wasn't comfortable with my kids reading. The idea of any father engaging in such public displays of vulgarity—well, it could hardly be a worse advertisement for the societal stamp of approval on homosexual activity that Savage himself ardently seeks.
First, allow me to link you back to my post linking Klinghoffer's original post about how legal same-sex marriage would result in straight men giving up sex with women in favor of sex with boyish twinks: "Once You've Had Crack You Never Go Back." There's just a single profanity in my original post ("asshole"), you'll note, which is pretty tame by Slog standards (can't you say "asshole" on TV now?). And you can read the Slog-tainted comment thread at Kingdom of Priests here.
And second.... gee... it sure was nice of Klinghoffer—so very Christian of him—to refrain from putting the word "son" in scare quotes along with "marriage" and "husband" as he speculated about my family life. Klinghoffer is willing to concede that my son exists, unlike my marriage (legal in Canada and six other states) or my husband (who is not a figment of my imagination), and that's better than nothing, I suppose. But you have to wonder about a guy who believes that no adult should write or publish a word that isn't fit to be read by children. We all can't write children's books or Jeebus blogs. And David? I kind of doubt that whole families are gathering around computers at night to read your "insights." Just sayin' you could probably let the occasional profanity rip on the ol' blog without corrupting minds any tinier than your own.
And finally: I'd like to welcome David Klinghoffer's blog to Friends of Slog. Hopefully our commenters will be joining the discussion at Kingdom of Priests on a regular basis.
Share via
1
hey everyone!
look at me!
i'm dan savage!
i'm important! and gay! so let me post more about myself!
again,
i'm dan savage and i am gay!
look at me!
i'm dan savage!
i'm important! and gay! so let me post more about myself!
again,
i'm dan savage and i am gay!
3
Eh, I wouldn't take him too seriously. He's too busy dressing up in women's clothing and fucking 12-year-old girls to be worth your trouble.
9
So according to this guy it is better to expose children to untruths that belittle and devalue women as well as teaching those same children hate and intolerance towards others who don't think and act in the same ways that they do, than to expose the children (and the child-like flock) to grown up words and ideas.
I see...
I really hope that man doesn't have any children that he is directly involved in warping, er, raising. What a sad, shallow, insecure man he is that he has to attack Dan's family.
I see...
I really hope that man doesn't have any children that he is directly involved in warping, er, raising. What a sad, shallow, insecure man he is that he has to attack Dan's family.
10
I didn't read too far down, but from what I did read, the "trolling" over there is far more intellectual and less about crude insults... not that it should come as a big surprise to anyone.
11
Glad that Dan's enlisting the enlightened "adultness" of Slog commenters to help shed some real-world values and knowledge to those who dwell in the darkness.
Btw, I love flying monkeys!
Btw, I love flying monkeys!
12
It's interesting how he uses modern Hebrew text as some sort of validation or talisman of his "faith". If I were Jewish I'd be very offended that he uses Hebrew as a weapon against those he disapproves of (Gay citizens) and assumes God finds his use of Hebrew an indication of his "faith".
Klinghoffer and his ilk are religious thiefs and spiritual rapists, not role models of anything holy or sacred.
I wonder how often Klinghoffer reads Dan's writing. He seems to know a lot about his use of words.
Klinghoffer and his ilk are religious thiefs and spiritual rapists, not role models of anything holy or sacred.
I wonder how often Klinghoffer reads Dan's writing. He seems to know a lot about his use of words.
13
Well I'd rather see my kids swimming in a sea of slog-ish profanity any day of the week and twice on Sundays than discover they'd been exposed to truly nasty and poisonous bigotry on some fucking religious nutter blog.
14
Those are some nicely-thought-out comments over there. We should do so well as some of those folks. I fell on my head once, so I can't, but...
15
Am always amused by knee-jerk commentary by conservatives who believe that randomly accusing others of 'vulgarity' somehow effectively conceals their own inexplicable and highly vulgar preoccupations with anal sex. 'Cause basing an entire article on the false premise that 'male ass = substitute vagina= societal breakdown' is so PG rated.
16
I haven't read all the way to the bottom of the comments but so far all the Slogonites have been articulate, intelligent, well-reasoned, and logical. No wonder the Christians find them offensive.
17
In Dan's brain around 4:15 on Monday:
"Goddammit!!111!!!!! Nobody is talking about me or writing about me or saying things about me or thinking about me. FUCK!!!!1111!!!!!!!! Fucking assholes. I'm going to MAKE them talk about me. Now... what can I post... what can I post...."
"Goddammit!!111!!!!! Nobody is talking about me or writing about me or saying things about me or thinking about me. FUCK!!!!1111!!!!!!!! Fucking assholes. I'm going to MAKE them talk about me. Now... what can I post... what can I post...."
19
@18 - Ya know, you could maybe tone down the levels of 'vulgar buttfuckery' which you claim permeate this august website by refraining from using the aforementioned word 'buttfuckery' or one of its variants in every single one of your multitudinous comments.
22
19
doc,
elsewhere on this august website Dan is looking for a tool to suckoff a fellow in return for nothing.
have you applied?
doc,
elsewhere on this august website Dan is looking for a tool to suckoff a fellow in return for nothing.
have you applied?
23
Is this a post about buttfucking or buttfuckery? I was on Slog and just closed my eyes and picked one. I figured my chances were pretty good.
24
Buttfucking bUttfucking buTtfucking butTfucking buttFucking buttfUcking buttfuCking buttfucKing buttfuckIng buttfuckiNg buttfuckinG
27
Any "adult" who sets as their standard for literary acceptibility what is "comfortable" for the typical six year-old to read, clearly has no fucking clue what the typical six year-old reads.
29
What a fuckwad. Here's what I posted ...
Unpleasant Person
June 29, 2009 10:32 PM
Mr. Klinghoffer: I'm gay. And yet I was raised by straight parents. I have a straight sister and brother. I have two nieces (too early, I guess, to know if they are straight or gay, but most likely, they're straight). There are no gay people in my extended Texas family that I know of. All of this straightness around me as I grew up really made me hate myself. I tried so hard to achieve great things in school to prove that I had value. The hate for gay people that was so palpable around me as I grew up frightened me, made me hate myself and made me try extremely hard not to be gay. It also made me a person who was not honest. I dated women in college. I tried so hard to be what I wasn't. And now, here I am, 34, honest, accepting of who I am, in a good relationship with a wonderful man, and I do not want another gay child to grow up going through what I experienced. This hatred and bigotry against people who are attracted to adults of their same gender has got to stop. I don't discriminate against heteros. Please don't discriminate against me.
Unpleasant Person
June 29, 2009 10:40 PM
By the way, if evangelicals are so worried about gays indoctrinating the straights into becoming gay, how the heck, despite all of my wishes and efforts, did my STRAIGHT family not succeed in making my wish of being straight come true? It didn't work for me in Texas. With a Southern Baptist family. And that for me is very big proof that being gay is not a choice. It is not chosen. It is who I am. I do not hate myself any longer for being gay. But I do hate the society that forced me to feel so negatively about myself for a very long part of my life.
Unpleasant Person
June 29, 2009 10:32 PM
Mr. Klinghoffer: I'm gay. And yet I was raised by straight parents. I have a straight sister and brother. I have two nieces (too early, I guess, to know if they are straight or gay, but most likely, they're straight). There are no gay people in my extended Texas family that I know of. All of this straightness around me as I grew up really made me hate myself. I tried so hard to achieve great things in school to prove that I had value. The hate for gay people that was so palpable around me as I grew up frightened me, made me hate myself and made me try extremely hard not to be gay. It also made me a person who was not honest. I dated women in college. I tried so hard to be what I wasn't. And now, here I am, 34, honest, accepting of who I am, in a good relationship with a wonderful man, and I do not want another gay child to grow up going through what I experienced. This hatred and bigotry against people who are attracted to adults of their same gender has got to stop. I don't discriminate against heteros. Please don't discriminate against me.
Unpleasant Person
June 29, 2009 10:40 PM
By the way, if evangelicals are so worried about gays indoctrinating the straights into becoming gay, how the heck, despite all of my wishes and efforts, did my STRAIGHT family not succeed in making my wish of being straight come true? It didn't work for me in Texas. With a Southern Baptist family. And that for me is very big proof that being gay is not a choice. It is not chosen. It is who I am. I do not hate myself any longer for being gay. But I do hate the society that forced me to feel so negatively about myself for a very long part of my life.
30
And speaking of holes (assholes and the like), check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F21qDqVBu…
31
So strange that one of the underlying principles of anti-gay nitwits is the idea that homosexuality is a delicious temptation few can resist.
Then again, unlike all the anti-gay nitwits, I'm not gay.
Then again, unlike all the anti-gay nitwits, I'm not gay.
32
@31 FTW - It's as though were it not for their "faith and morals" they would be fixtures at the bath house giving as much head and having as much butt sex as they could, like it has been an option all along that they have been righteously forgoing for God's sake.
35
@34 - I came up in a Missionary Baptist church so I know how these folks row. I appreciated your earlier comments too.
38
OK, the guy's not so bad. He responded to my comments. We're not on the same page, but I don't think he's evil. Dialog is good.
David Klinghoffer
June 29, 2009 11:44 PM
Person, I'm sure you're not unpleasant at all. Thank you for the civilized tone, which is refreshing in this thread. I think you misread me. First, I'm not an evangelical or a Christian at all. More to the point of the discussion, I hear and accept what you are saying that you didn't choose to be gay and I'm truly sorry for the suffering you've experienced. However, from sexual orientation's being beyond choice it doesn't follow that sexual behavior is too. It's not only gays who are given tough moral challenges, though I can see that their challenge could hardly be any tougher than it is.
Unpleasant Person
June 29, 2009 11:54 PM
David: Very much appreciate your response. And thanks for acknowledging that I'm keeping the conversation civil. However, your point about sexual orientation being beyond choice, but then saying sexual behavior isn't is a bit disconcerting. Why are they not one in the same?
David Klinghoffer
June 29, 2009 11:44 PM
Person, I'm sure you're not unpleasant at all. Thank you for the civilized tone, which is refreshing in this thread. I think you misread me. First, I'm not an evangelical or a Christian at all. More to the point of the discussion, I hear and accept what you are saying that you didn't choose to be gay and I'm truly sorry for the suffering you've experienced. However, from sexual orientation's being beyond choice it doesn't follow that sexual behavior is too. It's not only gays who are given tough moral challenges, though I can see that their challenge could hardly be any tougher than it is.
Unpleasant Person
June 29, 2009 11:54 PM
David: Very much appreciate your response. And thanks for acknowledging that I'm keeping the conversation civil. However, your point about sexual orientation being beyond choice, but then saying sexual behavior isn't is a bit disconcerting. Why are they not one in the same?
39
Berman sets up the idea that teen-aged Johnny will be persuaded to go gay because "In the movies, on billboards, Johnny sees depictions of men in love with men and of men in love with women."
Um, wouldn't Johnny also be seeing depictions of women in love with women? If he's straight, that should be enough to keep him on the straight (if not narrow) path.
Um, wouldn't Johnny also be seeing depictions of women in love with women? If he's straight, that should be enough to keep him on the straight (if not narrow) path.
40
Um. did I not make a good case for us here? I'm on the fence. I'm feeling iffy about it.
Jerry Becker
June 30, 2009 12:09 AM
Also, I've just corrected my display name to "Jerry Becker." I adopted the moniker "Unpleasant Person" per David's earlier comments about unsavory folks making comments. I'm a junior, by the way, so my straight dad must be so proud of his gay junior namesake.
David Klinghoffer
June 30, 2009 12:14 AM
Hello again, Person -- or rather, Jerry. Thank you for your comment. You see I find it very characteristic of our time, place, and culture -- very illuminating -- that an intelligent guy like you doesn't immediately see the difference between what a person wants to do (his orientation) and what he actually goes ahead and does (action). We have free choice. We are spiritual beings.
Everyone has an orientation to something or other, or many somethings, where he can choose to follow the tug or not. There's a range of tugs and they range in strength. It doesn't seem that God set challenges for everyone in equal measure. Why not? I don't know.
I can fully hear the argument that the gay "tug" is among the strongest and that defying it leaves a gay person in a heck of a position. Somewhat different, in that respect, from a heterosexual married man drawn to an adulterous affair with another woman. If he succeeds in resisting his tug, he's still married, still in a relationship he can work on. That's an *easier* burden, though not *easy* either.
There are several reasons that I don't judge gays personally, and this is one: I don't walk in your shoes. If I were in your shoes, what would I do, in fact not in theory? I can't claim to know. In my own challenges, I let myself down all the time, believe me. But that's a different question from trying to clarify principles, and that's what I try my best to do in this blog, however inadequately.
Jerry Becker
June 30, 2009 12:41 AM
Clinton. Sanford. Ensign. Vitter. Craig. They followed the tug, eh? I do not think they are all bad men. But they were ALL in committed relationships when it happened. Their wives deserved better. But if men who are in complete agreement with your view and completely buy into it, why am I worse? My "tug" is for other men, and I'm not in committed relationships with women. Also, I'm not cheating. Now that I'm beyond college and no longer lie about my inclinations, aren't I more honest and open and respectful than Clinton, Sanford, Ensign, Vitter, Craig and the rest? I don't pretend anymore to be straight. To mislead women who are with me. Nor, do I cheat on anyone with whom I'm in a relationship with.
I appreciate your comments that you don't walk in gays' shoes. I can only imagine how a straight guy tries to love his gay brothers. Thanks for the dialog, and I hope that some day you and everyone in my family who is like you, will think it's silly to have issues over sexual orientation.
More...
Jerry Becker
June 30, 2009 12:09 AM
Also, I've just corrected my display name to "Jerry Becker." I adopted the moniker "Unpleasant Person" per David's earlier comments about unsavory folks making comments. I'm a junior, by the way, so my straight dad must be so proud of his gay junior namesake.
David Klinghoffer
June 30, 2009 12:14 AM
Hello again, Person -- or rather, Jerry. Thank you for your comment. You see I find it very characteristic of our time, place, and culture -- very illuminating -- that an intelligent guy like you doesn't immediately see the difference between what a person wants to do (his orientation) and what he actually goes ahead and does (action). We have free choice. We are spiritual beings.
Everyone has an orientation to something or other, or many somethings, where he can choose to follow the tug or not. There's a range of tugs and they range in strength. It doesn't seem that God set challenges for everyone in equal measure. Why not? I don't know.
I can fully hear the argument that the gay "tug" is among the strongest and that defying it leaves a gay person in a heck of a position. Somewhat different, in that respect, from a heterosexual married man drawn to an adulterous affair with another woman. If he succeeds in resisting his tug, he's still married, still in a relationship he can work on. That's an *easier* burden, though not *easy* either.
There are several reasons that I don't judge gays personally, and this is one: I don't walk in your shoes. If I were in your shoes, what would I do, in fact not in theory? I can't claim to know. In my own challenges, I let myself down all the time, believe me. But that's a different question from trying to clarify principles, and that's what I try my best to do in this blog, however inadequately.
Jerry Becker
June 30, 2009 12:41 AM
Clinton. Sanford. Ensign. Vitter. Craig. They followed the tug, eh? I do not think they are all bad men. But they were ALL in committed relationships when it happened. Their wives deserved better. But if men who are in complete agreement with your view and completely buy into it, why am I worse? My "tug" is for other men, and I'm not in committed relationships with women. Also, I'm not cheating. Now that I'm beyond college and no longer lie about my inclinations, aren't I more honest and open and respectful than Clinton, Sanford, Ensign, Vitter, Craig and the rest? I don't pretend anymore to be straight. To mislead women who are with me. Nor, do I cheat on anyone with whom I'm in a relationship with.
I appreciate your comments that you don't walk in gays' shoes. I can only imagine how a straight guy tries to love his gay brothers. Thanks for the dialog, and I hope that some day you and everyone in my family who is like you, will think it's silly to have issues over sexual orientation.
41
@ 40 David's trotting out the same old, religious, anti-gay platitudes about "love the sinner, hate the sins." It's not gay people people like him hate, it's just gay sex. Gay people can identify as gay all they like, they just can't ever ACT on it. Because according to people like Klinghoffer, in order to ever be ethical, gays must doom themselves to a loveless, celibate, lonely life. According to him, it comes down to a choice between living with love and living with morals. And this doesn't mean he hates gays, oh no - he just wants them to be desperate and alone all their lives.
If he understands that he can't ever walk in a gay person's shoes, then he should understand that he doesn't have the right to make ethical pronouncements on their lives.
@ 12 As a Jew, I'm not offended by his use of Hebrew. Klinghoffer himself is an Orthodox Jew, so I think it's well within his rights to use his knowledge of Hebrew and traditional texts to make his (unfortunately deeply flawed) points. I think Klinghoffer is a stark reminder that there are those among traditionalist Jews who try to justify homophobia and bigotry through Torah and Talmud. And those of us who are more liberal Jews - that is to say, the vast majority of American Jews - have to fight back against that kind of mindset.
If he understands that he can't ever walk in a gay person's shoes, then he should understand that he doesn't have the right to make ethical pronouncements on their lives.
@ 12 As a Jew, I'm not offended by his use of Hebrew. Klinghoffer himself is an Orthodox Jew, so I think it's well within his rights to use his knowledge of Hebrew and traditional texts to make his (unfortunately deeply flawed) points. I think Klinghoffer is a stark reminder that there are those among traditionalist Jews who try to justify homophobia and bigotry through Torah and Talmud. And those of us who are more liberal Jews - that is to say, the vast majority of American Jews - have to fight back against that kind of mindset.
42
@41 I agree. In my post at @38 I said "However, your point about sexual orientation being beyond choice, but then saying sexual behavior isn't is a bit disconcerting. Why are they not one in the same?"
He's dissembling, and I'm attempting to call him on it.
He's dissembling, and I'm attempting to call him on it.
45
I'm sorry, but, "the gay 'tug' is among the strongest and . . . defying it leaves a gay person in a heck of a position"?!?! Fuckin' gays: superior sense of style AND possessors of the strongest tug.
Seriously, though, dialogue is good. Nice job, Jerry.
Seriously, though, dialogue is good. Nice job, Jerry.
46
Dialogue is always worthwhile. Dan Savage may occasionally disagree with me, though, bless her heart.
48
Partly Cloudy, feel free to go read my own exchange with Mr. Klinghoffer in the comments to his "Postscript" - he brings you up in conversation!
50
@48 and @49 Yikes! Thanks for letting me know. I think we're on the same page in our chats with him. I haven't come across the "postscript," so it feels weird to be mentioned in a spot that I haven't read. I sent him a personal note about possibly starting a direct personal dialog. He seems like a very reasonable, non-hateful person to me so far.
51
AGORAPHOBIC SAD HOMO
Y U HURT SO BAHD?
I WULD FEELS BAD 4 U, IN FAX, I DO!
SAD 4 U THAT PAALIE CONSTANT HAZ UNCOMFORTING ASSCRACK
SAD 4 U THAT U HAVE INFERIORITIES IN UR BRAIN
HAUKI 4 U???:::
CHILI DOGS NOT WIENERS
FEED TO LIL' SAVAGE KIDDO PLZ
I YAM NOT AZ MEEN AS BUTTFUCK TYPING TEST?
Y U HURT SO BAHD?
I WULD FEELS BAD 4 U, IN FAX, I DO!
SAD 4 U THAT PAALIE CONSTANT HAZ UNCOMFORTING ASSCRACK
SAD 4 U THAT U HAVE INFERIORITIES IN UR BRAIN
HAUKI 4 U???:::
CHILI DOGS NOT WIENERS
FEED TO LIL' SAVAGE KIDDO PLZ
I YAM NOT AZ MEEN AS BUTTFUCK TYPING TEST?
52
Mika! just saw your posts on the other site. :) Thanks for keeping the conversation going. And I think you're a bit more eloquent than me on several points.
53
But...but...he's just so wrong. You are pretty likely to get an FCC fine if you say "asshole" on television, assuming someone goes running to mommy FCC after hearing it. You can say "ass", but will pretty much be guaranteed to get into trouble for "asshole" unless you're on pay cable.
Oh, yeah. And that dork is wrong about pretty much everything else he's shooting his mouth off about, too. But I love that he used profanity himself and gave himself a free pass based on erroneous information. Because to guys like him, facts are things that prove his points and make him feel comfy, and anything else is just wrong wrong wrong and la la la, I can't hear you. Maybe someday he'll graduate from that third grade mentality, but I'm not holdin' my breath.
Oh, yeah. And that dork is wrong about pretty much everything else he's shooting his mouth off about, too. But I love that he used profanity himself and gave himself a free pass based on erroneous information. Because to guys like him, facts are things that prove his points and make him feel comfy, and anything else is just wrong wrong wrong and la la la, I can't hear you. Maybe someday he'll graduate from that third grade mentality, but I'm not holdin' my breath.
55
That's genius! I can't wait to go back and tell my most religious-wacko male relatives (I have a few) that they're totally right to oppose gay marriage because It might turn THEM gay! I'm gonna get tons of mileage out of that one. Thanks, Klinghoffer!
56
And now David Klinghoffer is posting as follows: "What made it all worthwhile was a wonderfully telling comment from one earnest gay man, a Stranger reader who, bright guy though he seems to be, couldn't see the distinction between what a person feels tugged to do and what he actually does -- as if tugs and temptations, which we all have, of different kinds and to various degrees, were there not to be transcended but to be accommodated and worked into one's "lifestyle." For him, as for many people today, homosexuality means both the tug and therefore automatically, because a person really has no choice in the matter of whether he follows his inclination or not, the activity as well. My assumption to the contrary he found "a bit disconcerting."
How incredibly revealing of the sick times we live in, when belief in free will is largely rejected as a myth from the Iron Age. To one extent or another, we are all, myself included, infected by the sickness that causes us to doubt that we can tell ourselves: no. Among sins, homosexual activity is far from unique but it does stand out as a leading indicator of the Zeitgeist."
At least Klinghoffer is admitting that he thinks homosexual activity is a sin.
How incredibly revealing of the sick times we live in, when belief in free will is largely rejected as a myth from the Iron Age. To one extent or another, we are all, myself included, infected by the sickness that causes us to doubt that we can tell ourselves: no. Among sins, homosexual activity is far from unique but it does stand out as a leading indicator of the Zeitgeist."
At least Klinghoffer is admitting that he thinks homosexual activity is a sin.
57
Hey Theo,
He gets points for honesty. He appears to want to sentence those who are homosexual to either a celibate and lonely life, or an uncelibate reality with a member of the opposite sex. I wonder if the table was turned, and his heterosexuality was viewed as the "sin", how he'd feel?
He gets points for honesty. He appears to want to sentence those who are homosexual to either a celibate and lonely life, or an uncelibate reality with a member of the opposite sex. I wonder if the table was turned, and his heterosexuality was viewed as the "sin", how he'd feel?
58
Hi Kim:
Yes - he is honest in that post. But arguing against gay marriage on the basis that it harms straight women seems disengenuous at the very least. He did not mention that homosexual activity is a sin in his first post (I don't know enough about him to ascertain whether he always says so, though.) And I very much doubt that he'd give up sex if my goddess demanded it of him. But, since he is so obsessed with cock, he is giving up gay sex in my opinion. :)
Yes - he is honest in that post. But arguing against gay marriage on the basis that it harms straight women seems disengenuous at the very least. He did not mention that homosexual activity is a sin in his first post (I don't know enough about him to ascertain whether he always says so, though.) And I very much doubt that he'd give up sex if my goddess demanded it of him. But, since he is so obsessed with cock, he is giving up gay sex in my opinion. :)
59
And I find Klinghoffer dishonest in one respect: he never answers a good point made by his critics.
60
Hi Theo,
I just read your question to him. I posted my own, and I asked him about the turned table. We shall see if he responds.
I just read your question to him. I posted my own, and I asked him about the turned table. We shall see if he responds.
61
Kim:
He hasn't responded to any questions that challenged him on the two posts I have read. I hope you are keeping well and healing nicely. Cheers!.
He hasn't responded to any questions that challenged him on the two posts I have read. I hope you are keeping well and healing nicely. Cheers!.
62
Kim:
As you know your Bible and translations thereof really , really well, I am going to copy and save your post (on Klinghoffer's blog) as fodder for any future arguments I have with devout Christians re homosexuality. Thanks for the ammunition!
As you know your Bible and translations thereof really , really well, I am going to copy and save your post (on Klinghoffer's blog) as fodder for any future arguments I have with devout Christians re homosexuality. Thanks for the ammunition!
63
Hey Theo:
I tend to study from books, but here is an web site that I find helpful (I learned about it form Uriel-238), and that I often quote from: www.religioustolerance.org You'll fine that they offer better information than I ever could.
64
Well, internet lynch mobs tend not to receive a warm reception. You shouldn't be too surprised, Dan.
65
@53 / kathy - yes, asshole (and bitch, and cockmaster, and suck dick, and anything other than SHIT and FUCK) is said on cable (pay cable? I assume all cable is pay, otherwise comcast wouldn't have the money to air comcastic commercials on cable channels for its own damn service), even the basic channels and even before midnight *gasp*.
Has been the case for, oh, ten years at least? See: Eric Cartman.
See also: schitty pork. schitty wok.
Regardless... profanity, including G. Carlin's seven naughty words (and all those invented since), is merely part of american language at this point. The internet grants the same rights as brick and mortar america: i.e. teh internet is a free speech zone.
Profanity isn't really profane any more, and it was never one of the ten commandments - they is just "Words, words, words", so chill, Polonius.
Has been the case for, oh, ten years at least? See: Eric Cartman.
See also: schitty pork. schitty wok.
Regardless... profanity, including G. Carlin's seven naughty words (and all those invented since), is merely part of american language at this point. The internet grants the same rights as brick and mortar america: i.e. teh internet is a free speech zone.
Profanity isn't really profane any more, and it was never one of the ten commandments - they is just "Words, words, words", so chill, Polonius.
66
...wasn't it Heinlein who said once, that it's absurd to insist grown men subsist on skim milk because babies can't digest steak?
This dipshit needs to learn that different people read different things, and that's fine.
If Dan's kid wants to read his column, there's nothing stopping him. He's literate at this point. But, of course, he's unlikely to be interested yet, and more likely to be grossed out. Hell, in general, even when he starts being interested in that whole sex/girls/relationships thing, he'll still probably think "ew, stuff my dad thinks about sex. Do not want." And, of course, if he does start to read, and finds something he dislikes, he can put it down.
Assholes like the columnist here never seem to realize that no outside party needs to dictate what a person can and cannot read -- because we're fully capable of deciding that ourselves and don't need to be protected.
This dipshit needs to learn that different people read different things, and that's fine.
If Dan's kid wants to read his column, there's nothing stopping him. He's literate at this point. But, of course, he's unlikely to be interested yet, and more likely to be grossed out. Hell, in general, even when he starts being interested in that whole sex/girls/relationships thing, he'll still probably think "ew, stuff my dad thinks about sex. Do not want." And, of course, if he does start to read, and finds something he dislikes, he can put it down.
Assholes like the columnist here never seem to realize that no outside party needs to dictate what a person can and cannot read -- because we're fully capable of deciding that ourselves and don't need to be protected.
67
I read David's blog story and all of the resulting comments left by bloggers and was surprised to see, not a single comment was left that favored David's position on this story.
If Dan did anything, it was to increase David's readership, because apparently, nobody reads David's blogs. Until now, that is.
David should send Dan a nice "Thank You" gift for giving him some much needed readership.
If Dan did anything, it was to increase David's readership, because apparently, nobody reads David's blogs. Until now, that is.
David should send Dan a nice "Thank You" gift for giving him some much needed readership.
68
This guy does not argue like a Jew. Even the most traditional, conservative Jews do not dismiss science, and they certainly don't dismiss the Talmud. I think Klinghoffer has been in bed with the fundie Evangelicals at his anti-Darwin institute for too long. A self-hating gay, maybe, but a self-hating Jew for sure.
69
lymerae,
I read your wonderful, and well thought out post. It doesn't seem he is going to answer either of us.
I read your wonderful, and well thought out post. It doesn't seem he is going to answer either of us.
70
@ 68 lymerae: you haven't heard of Ben Shapiro, then. And be glad: he's like a Jewish Ann Coulter, sans testicles.
71
Interesting thing about this post and the one about Rev. Hutch is that neither one of them come from positions of power and control any more. Millions of lesbian and gay citizens live our lives out in the open. Thousands of us are legally marrried. We adopt children. We have huge parades and laws that protect our rights. We have a President who invites openly homosexual people to the White House to mark the anniversary of the birth of our movement while anti gay religious leaders are on the defensive. Meanwhile polls show an ever increasing public acceptance of us and our rights.
Indeed this is the beginning of the post Christian era in America.
Indeed this is the beginning of the post Christian era in America.
72
@66 : Great quote. And it is, indeed, Heinlein, who was (obviously) talking about censorshit/ship in general. ""The whole principle is wrong; it's like demanding that grown men
live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak." Although Carlin does the best job of deconstructing censorship-lovers' bullshit imho.
live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak." Although Carlin does the best job of deconstructing censorship-lovers' bullshit imho.
73
For a second when I saw this on Most Commented ... I thought it was about Eyman's initiative to turn WA into the same basket case CA is.
But then I read it and realized it wasn't.
Darn.
But then I read it and realized it wasn't.
Darn.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Your Daily Douchebag by Dominic Holden
-
The Procession for Officer Brenton by Dominic Holden
-
What She Said by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: She Needs Oral by Dan Savage
-
Rules for Waitstaff by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Titties and Beer by Dan Savage
-
That's It: R-71 Wins! by Dominic Holden
-
What He Said by Dan Savage
-
This "Pledge of Allegiance" Drives Me Crazy, Teabaggers! by Paul Constant
-
Two Announcements: Dominic Holden to Become News Editor, Eli Sanders to Become Associate Editor by Christopher Frizzelle
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (73) RSS