Thursday, November 5, 2009
Homo What He Said
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 9:11 AM
As Jesse Ventura said last night, “You can’t put a civil rights issue on the ballot and let the people decide. You have to have elected officials to who have courage to make the right decision. If you left it up to the people, we’d have slavery, depending on how you worded it.”But when our lives aren’t run by mob rule, we do pretty well: We’ve pretty much conquered Hollywood.
We’ve conquered academia. The press is ours. Book publishing? Ours! The governments of Western and Northern Europe? Ours! And considering how people until 40 feel in this country, the future is ours, too!So, this is what I have to say to Frank Schubert, Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown, the Catholic Church, LDS, to the born-again nut jobs who haven’t a clue what the Golden Rule means and to the people who think that telling children that gay people exist is something like terrorism: Fuck you. Really: Fuck you. Fuck your lies. Your hypocrisy. Your cruelty. Fuck your pick-and-choose-only-the-most-bigoted-parts religion. Fuck your ignorance. Fuck your fear. Fuck you. Please: Eat shit and die. Fuck you. Very much.
Go read the whole thing.
Share via
2
Minorities have had their rights expanded at the ballot box many times in history. Isn't it obvious this argument is based on a selective reading of evidence? Its fine with me if someone wants to debate the pros and cons of different tactics, but this fussiness over getting your rights in just the right way is silly.
6
I was digging around the other day on instances when anti-miscegenation laws were put to popular vote. The most interesting example was that, even though Loving v Virginia made anti-miscegenation laws invalid in 1967, Alabama didn't vote to amend its constitution to remove anti-miscegenation language until 2000. Guess what percentage of people voted in favor of removing the language? 59% ! So, 41% of people in Alabama were against interracial marriage. In 2000.
elenchos - I think it's not so much that gay people want to get their rights in the right way, but that they want to get their rights. And, they believe that getting them through a popular vote will take much longer than through direct legislation or court cases (e.g., apparently Alabama wouldn't have allowed interracial marriage until the 80s or 90s). So, they say things like civil rights should be put up for a vote. And I think they are right...
elenchos - I think it's not so much that gay people want to get their rights in the right way, but that they want to get their rights. And, they believe that getting them through a popular vote will take much longer than through direct legislation or court cases (e.g., apparently Alabama wouldn't have allowed interracial marriage until the 80s or 90s). So, they say things like civil rights should be put up for a vote. And I think they are right...
7
"And considering how people until 40 feel in this country, the future is ours, too!"
Exactly. Every time I hear someone lament how young gays aren't politically involved, I want to go up to them and tell them that we aren't fighting because we don't need to fight. It's a non-issue in our generation, and I think we're pretty content to let the world catch up to us. The people who are stuck in their stupid fucking '60s hangover attitudes of "If we could just get everyone to MARCH, then everyone would suddenly CARE and be on our side!" don't see it because they're too busy preaching to the converted and provoking the opposition.
In a hundred years, we're going to look back on Prop 8, Prop 1, and R-71 with the same "How could they not know that the war was over?" amusement that's currently reserved for the Battle of New Orleans.
Exactly. Every time I hear someone lament how young gays aren't politically involved, I want to go up to them and tell them that we aren't fighting because we don't need to fight. It's a non-issue in our generation, and I think we're pretty content to let the world catch up to us. The people who are stuck in their stupid fucking '60s hangover attitudes of "If we could just get everyone to MARCH, then everyone would suddenly CARE and be on our side!" don't see it because they're too busy preaching to the converted and provoking the opposition.
In a hundred years, we're going to look back on Prop 8, Prop 1, and R-71 with the same "How could they not know that the war was over?" amusement that's currently reserved for the Battle of New Orleans.
8
@4 - Doesn't the Good Book (aka Grimm's Fairy Tales) also teach the ethic of reciprocity, more commonly known as the Golden Rule, an ethical code that states one has a right to just treatment, and a responsibility to ensure justice for others?
Reciprocity is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights, though it has its critics. A key element of the Golden Rule is that a person attempting to live by this rule treats all people, not just members of his or her in-group, with consideration. [1]
So does this fit in with your self-selected Christian dictates? Or not?
[1] Wikipedia verbiage
Reciprocity is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights, though it has its critics. A key element of the Golden Rule is that a person attempting to live by this rule treats all people, not just members of his or her in-group, with consideration. [1]
So does this fit in with your self-selected Christian dictates? Or not?
[1] Wikipedia verbiage
9
I know it's crass, but fucking God-bothers keep your religious requirements to yourself, they're for you, apply them to yourselves, you're the ones who need and want them. The rest of us don't need your religionism, we don't share your fears.
10
The majority of the country didn't think that a civil rights issue was up for popular vote. What they saw was that a well-established social and cultural institution was up for a redefinition. And they weren't into it. They didn't want a redefinition of the term... and then you called them bigots for it.
It's like there's two completely conversations going on at the same time and nobody's listening to anybody. What a mess.
It's like there's two completely conversations going on at the same time and nobody's listening to anybody. What a mess.
13
@ 10 - That's a matter of how the arguments are framed, not whether something truely is or isn't a civil rights issue. The Religious Right understands this, our side doesn't.
Once gay activists get this through their fabulously coiffed heads, maybe we'll start winning some of these fights.
Once gay activists get this through their fabulously coiffed heads, maybe we'll start winning some of these fights.
14
Dan Savage a fan of retarded Ventura who would've thunk it! Always amazes me how so many who have had diddly squat of an experience of being a true minority jump in the band wagon of labeling behavior as a civil right.
It's good to know that motormouth Jesse is relegated to being a has-been governor of plain ol' MN.
It's good to know that motormouth Jesse is relegated to being a has-been governor of plain ol' MN.
15
Thanks for the link! And I'm not ageist! :) At the end of the post is something from my 73-year-old dad, whose activism puts a lot of us whipper-snappers to shame.
16
#2 What minorities are you referring too? What was the vote about? I don't recall that part of history, of course I was sleeping....
18
"...Behavior as a civil right.", like religious worship or being Gay. Both very clearly behaviors, one is afforded civil rights the other is not. Can you guess which one is not granted those special civil rights? Jesse is a "man of faith". I'm sure he knows as much if not more than others that claim they have "experience" of being a "true minority" instead of all those "false" minorities out there.
19
@10- There aren't two conversations, there's one group which has it's fingers in it's ears and is shouting "We're not oppressing anyone, we don't hate anyone, we're really nice, now don't you dare act like a first class citizen!" and another group saying "What the hell is your god damn problem?"
20
Oh Lovechild, bless your little white cotton socks, you miss a lot don't you? I bet that breeze through your hair feels nice though.
22
@19
You make gay activists sound so sweet and polite in your version of the "two conversions." But if you've noticed, it's mostly the gay activists with *their* fingers in their ears shouting, "Fuck you, bigots!" ...and that's why they continue to lose.
@13
You're absolutely right. Really, when will you guys finally smarten up? Don't you want to win??
You make gay activists sound so sweet and polite in your version of the "two conversions." But if you've noticed, it's mostly the gay activists with *their* fingers in their ears shouting, "Fuck you, bigots!" ...and that's why they continue to lose.
@13
You're absolutely right. Really, when will you guys finally smarten up? Don't you want to win??
23
@22- I really don't see why calling a bigot a bigot is considered so offensive. The reason why the laws have to change is because they are unfair, people who support unfair treatment of one class of people are bigots. If people want to stop being bigots, it's really easy.
25
Confluence, you have a problem with redefining "marriage" so that it includes same-sex couples. Fair enough. Why, then, do you have no problem with redefining "bigotry" so that it doesn't include anyone who thinks homosexuals deserve fewer rights than heterosexuals?
26
@23
So then are the majority of Americans bigots? Just curious.
Oh, and calling them bigots while trying to get their votes and accept you miiiiight not work. Just a hunch. Good luck with that though!
So then are the majority of Americans bigots? Just curious.
Oh, and calling them bigots while trying to get their votes and accept you miiiiight not work. Just a hunch. Good luck with that though!
27
For a moment that was made awesomer by the fact that I missed the ending quotationmark and thought the whole thing was Ventura.
28
@25
Whoa, whoa. Wait a minute - I'm not on *their* side - I'm just trying to get you people to think so that you can win for a change. It's very evident from the way that most of you talk that you aren't thinking very clearly about this, so it makes sense that you keep losing. It's pretty upsetting to witness.
Whoa, whoa. Wait a minute - I'm not on *their* side - I'm just trying to get you people to think so that you can win for a change. It's very evident from the way that most of you talk that you aren't thinking very clearly about this, so it makes sense that you keep losing. It's pretty upsetting to witness.
29
Does this mean that our popular vote in favor of R71 shouldn't count?
For those who are capable of applying a view to civil rights broader than what happened yesterday and today, read this very fascinating (at least to me) wikipedia entry. Notice how rarely the courts advanced the cause vs popular vote and state legislatures. and of course how long it took and how tireless the women (and more than a few men) were at pursuing it. And those state legislature and popular votes were by men only.
For those who are capable of applying a view to civil rights broader than what happened yesterday and today, read this very fascinating (at least to me) wikipedia entry. Notice how rarely the courts advanced the cause vs popular vote and state legislatures. and of course how long it took and how tireless the women (and more than a few men) were at pursuing it. And those state legislature and popular votes were by men only.
31
21
The government doesn't really care who you love.
And isn't in the business of validating your "love".
The government doesn't really care who you love.
And isn't in the business of validating your "love".
32
@28:
Yes, most people in America are indeed bigots. Let's come out and say it. Of course we all have prejudices about SOMETHING in our lives, and apparently the majority of this country still has prejudices about this issue.
Yes, most people in America are indeed bigots. Let's come out and say it. Of course we all have prejudices about SOMETHING in our lives, and apparently the majority of this country still has prejudices about this issue.
33
@21
In no state will anyone ask you about love when you apply for a marriage license. If you explicitly tell the clerk you do not love the person you are marrying they won't care. Nor do you get your money back if you fall out of love. The government doesn't guarantee anyone that they can marry the person they love.
In no state will anyone ask you about love when you apply for a marriage license. If you explicitly tell the clerk you do not love the person you are marrying they won't care. Nor do you get your money back if you fall out of love. The government doesn't guarantee anyone that they can marry the person they love.
34
@28,
I think you've made some fair points; however, being nice to those opposed to marriage equality hasn't seemed to work either. Plenty of pro-gay marriage ads avoid hate and mudslinging and instead focus on compassion and treating everyone equally. But they don't appear to be working.
The other side may be "saying" it's that they don't want to change the definition of marriage, but is that the truth? Very few people are willing to come right out in public and say they hate another person. It's far easier to say they're doing it for a completely different reason, such as: "I don't hate gays, I just don't want the definition of marriage to change." Why? "I don't know... I just don't."
I think you've made some fair points; however, being nice to those opposed to marriage equality hasn't seemed to work either. Plenty of pro-gay marriage ads avoid hate and mudslinging and instead focus on compassion and treating everyone equally. But they don't appear to be working.
The other side may be "saying" it's that they don't want to change the definition of marriage, but is that the truth? Very few people are willing to come right out in public and say they hate another person. It's far easier to say they're doing it for a completely different reason, such as: "I don't hate gays, I just don't want the definition of marriage to change." Why? "I don't know... I just don't."
36
@34
I actually DO think most people who vote against gay marriage do it because they simply don't want to change the definition of marriage, *not* because of hate. I mean, seriously, everywhere in the world, for thousands of years marriage has been between a man and a woman and now you're suddenly telling them it's been a bigoted institution this whole time and they are bigots for not agreeing with you to change it ASAP??? Heck, over 90% of people on planet earth are not in support of gay marriage -- is the whole planet secretly hateful bigots??
So, um, I think gay rights activists truly *are* overestimating this secret *hate* and bigotry they think is resulting in these votes and I understand why. Because most of them have dealt with *a lot* of shit from people growing up about their homosexuality. I haven't experienced it personally because I'm not gay but I've watched friends and family members really suffer on account of it.
But open your eyes and please do pay attention to how society *is* changing *in support of* gays. People live open, out-of-the closet lives these days, pre-teens come out young, there are gay-parented families -- these things would have *never* been a reality just a few decades ago. Just because people are not ready to redefine an age-old institution doesn't mean they're secretly bigots. That's black-or-white thinking a la George W Bush. Yeah, that's right, I said it - you guys are engaged in simplistic thinking like that dumbass mutherfucker. Don't do that -be smart!
If you understand where the other side is coming from, you can better strategize to WIN.
I actually DO think most people who vote against gay marriage do it because they simply don't want to change the definition of marriage, *not* because of hate. I mean, seriously, everywhere in the world, for thousands of years marriage has been between a man and a woman and now you're suddenly telling them it's been a bigoted institution this whole time and they are bigots for not agreeing with you to change it ASAP??? Heck, over 90% of people on planet earth are not in support of gay marriage -- is the whole planet secretly hateful bigots??
So, um, I think gay rights activists truly *are* overestimating this secret *hate* and bigotry they think is resulting in these votes and I understand why. Because most of them have dealt with *a lot* of shit from people growing up about their homosexuality. I haven't experienced it personally because I'm not gay but I've watched friends and family members really suffer on account of it.
But open your eyes and please do pay attention to how society *is* changing *in support of* gays. People live open, out-of-the closet lives these days, pre-teens come out young, there are gay-parented families -- these things would have *never* been a reality just a few decades ago. Just because people are not ready to redefine an age-old institution doesn't mean they're secretly bigots. That's black-or-white thinking a la George W Bush. Yeah, that's right, I said it - you guys are engaged in simplistic thinking like that dumbass mutherfucker. Don't do that -be smart!
If you understand where the other side is coming from, you can better strategize to WIN.
37
"The government doesn't guarantee anyone that they can marry the person they love. "
True enough.
However, it does guarantee you that it can't deny you the same privileges granted to everyone else for bullshit arbitrary reasons. For example, they can't ban Mexicans from driving.
True enough.
However, it does guarantee you that it can't deny you the same privileges granted to everyone else for bullshit arbitrary reasons. For example, they can't ban Mexicans from driving.
38
Hey Hateful Bigot.
HOW. DO. YOU. KNOW. BEING. GAY. IS. A. BEHAVIOR...A. CHOICE?
Your logic:
a) We're all born hetero.
b) Gays and lesbians are special and got this 'choice'.
c) You're not special and didn't get this choice.
Explain, please.
Okay, it's a behavior you say:
Why can't the tortured teen who's 'chosen' this 'behavior' just switch it back the other way when debating whether to kill themselves in the face of school tauntings and worse?
Or when disowned by their parents, left to the streets...change that behavior to be accepted by their family again?
No one on 'that' side can ever answer this.
Because they can't.
Hateful RELIGIOUS Bigot(s).
HOW. DO. YOU. KNOW. BEING. GAY. IS. A. BEHAVIOR...A. CHOICE?
Your logic:
a) We're all born hetero.
b) Gays and lesbians are special and got this 'choice'.
c) You're not special and didn't get this choice.
Explain, please.
Okay, it's a behavior you say:
Why can't the tortured teen who's 'chosen' this 'behavior' just switch it back the other way when debating whether to kill themselves in the face of school tauntings and worse?
Or when disowned by their parents, left to the streets...change that behavior to be accepted by their family again?
No one on 'that' side can ever answer this.
Because they can't.
Hateful RELIGIOUS Bigot(s).
39
Confluence...I totally hear where you are coming from. And, sure, the passion I feel when I see this arrogance and ignorance sometimes gets the best of me.
Call this an assumption, but...from everything I read and hear, the other side (or, at least a strong majority of them) is of the belief that homosexuality is wrong based on their religious teachings.
And when given the opportunity to vote on 'being gay', they HAVE to vote us down. Their religion tells them to.
I honestly don't even think it's the marriage issue.
Look at the evil Reverend Hutch...now he wants to do away with Domestic Partnerships here...because it involves gay people.
There's no religious element to domestic partnership. No marriage.
But, gay people in his worldview = bad, perverted, abomination because the Bible tells him so.
So, he cannot allow gay couples to have state-sanctioned relationships of any type, because it's just plain wrong, no two ways about it.
So, if I'm even remotely on the right path, how do 'we' argue against something as entrenched as that?
And, the folks who don't have a strong religious background, but, say, live in a rural area where gay folks just don't reside. I guess we can move a couple of gays to a small town somewhere, but, in reality, that's not very feasible. From my experience, gay people I know who lived in a small town had to get the hell out to live their lives.
Ultimately, this is not an issue for the ballot box, plain and simple. And it might take years, or, maybe, just maybe, the lawsuit against Prop 8 will bring to light the reasons behind the 'fight' the anti-gays feel they need to wage.
And then, we will prevail in court.
They can cry activist judges all they want. But that will be that.
But we'll never win against religion. We just won't. And we'll never 'win' in the South of course.
Atlanta cannot overpower the rest of GA the way King County overpowers Eastern WA.
We're VERY lucky here. Most states are not that lucky. It has to be a federal win, and it will come eventually.
More...
Call this an assumption, but...from everything I read and hear, the other side (or, at least a strong majority of them) is of the belief that homosexuality is wrong based on their religious teachings.
And when given the opportunity to vote on 'being gay', they HAVE to vote us down. Their religion tells them to.
I honestly don't even think it's the marriage issue.
Look at the evil Reverend Hutch...now he wants to do away with Domestic Partnerships here...because it involves gay people.
There's no religious element to domestic partnership. No marriage.
But, gay people in his worldview = bad, perverted, abomination because the Bible tells him so.
So, he cannot allow gay couples to have state-sanctioned relationships of any type, because it's just plain wrong, no two ways about it.
So, if I'm even remotely on the right path, how do 'we' argue against something as entrenched as that?
And, the folks who don't have a strong religious background, but, say, live in a rural area where gay folks just don't reside. I guess we can move a couple of gays to a small town somewhere, but, in reality, that's not very feasible. From my experience, gay people I know who lived in a small town had to get the hell out to live their lives.
Ultimately, this is not an issue for the ballot box, plain and simple. And it might take years, or, maybe, just maybe, the lawsuit against Prop 8 will bring to light the reasons behind the 'fight' the anti-gays feel they need to wage.
And then, we will prevail in court.
They can cry activist judges all they want. But that will be that.
But we'll never win against religion. We just won't. And we'll never 'win' in the South of course.
Atlanta cannot overpower the rest of GA the way King County overpowers Eastern WA.
We're VERY lucky here. Most states are not that lucky. It has to be a federal win, and it will come eventually.
40
they simply don't want to change the definition of marriage, *not* because of hate.
What? You're being absurdly idealistic about this. Many people (about half these days) don't like gay people. They find gay people ew. They call men they don't like 'faggots' and 'fairies' because imputing homosexual motives is still a reliable insult. They kick people out of productive jobs in the military for the simple reason that they're gay (Or are they just opposed to changing the definition of 'soldier' which apparently was secretly heterosexual through all of human history?). They are enraged at the idea of homosexual teachers teaching their children. What sort of bizarre planet did you wake up on where everyone really thought gay people were holy and great and held nothing against them personally but they hated the idea of buying a new dictionary so they're going to go ahead and vote against gay marriage?
And per your theory, what animated the nearly half of Washington State residents to vote against 71? They're opposed to changing the definition of 'civil union' or 'state sponsored partner benefits' which have served us so well through all of human history?
41
Confluence, the definition of marriage has not been immutable throughout time (or across cultures). Arranged marriages, marriages for love, marriages for power/property consolidation, polygamy, child brides... all of these have been considered acceptable "definitions" of marriage in various places or times. Including same-sex marriage, which obviously exists in some countries today, and did exist in a handful of countries/cultures throughout history.
So, either the people who say "I don't want the definition of marriage to change" are ignorant of what marriage is and has been, or they are harboring bigotry against gays that they don't want to admit.
So, either the people who say "I don't want the definition of marriage to change" are ignorant of what marriage is and has been, or they are harboring bigotry against gays that they don't want to admit.
42
Julie's right. Most of human history has NOT been "one man, one woman." It's been "one man, several women" or even communal/tribal units of polyamory.
This whole culture of "family values" has been cooked up (and overbaked) by "upstanding, righteous" organizations through the last couple of centuries in an effort to create some ground to stand on to condemn others (whilst secretly indulging in such acts themselves).
This latest iteration--in the last half of the twentieth century--has been a reaction to Communism, to show how God-fearing and great we are compared to them. God's on our side, remember?
This whole culture of "family values" has been cooked up (and overbaked) by "upstanding, righteous" organizations through the last couple of centuries in an effort to create some ground to stand on to condemn others (whilst secretly indulging in such acts themselves).
This latest iteration--in the last half of the twentieth century--has been a reaction to Communism, to show how God-fearing and great we are compared to them. God's on our side, remember?
45
Ok, so what you all seem to be saying is, the entire planet *is* full of hateful bigots... everybody is crazy, evil and hateful... oh, but except for the few of us enlightened gays. Um, that's the kind of shit crazy people say. "I'M good, but see, everybody else is BAD" Very simplistic thinking.
Sure there's discrimination rampant out there - I'm not denying that (evolutionarily, it makes sense - peer pressure to keep men and women propagating the species), but it's lessening and, for most people, it's not like this black, seething *hate* you're imagining is deep inside their soul. It seems to be more of the "cooties" variety--gayness being just plain perplexing to people (since they've never had same sex feelings). Sure, there are people that *hate* gays - religious wingnuts, closted self-loating homos like Rick Santorum - lost causes, but your everyday people that go to the voting booths? I don't think so. Or else the KKK and similar hate groups would be on every block in America.
And this is not just about the actual, literal definition of a word changing - marriage between a man and woman is a entire societal organizing principle for people. Haven't you ever heard of inertia? People being comfortable with the way things are because that's how it's always been? I'm sure all of you, ya know, the few enlightened, angelic, non-bigots of planet earth, have things in your life that you are comfortable with keeping just because that's how it's always been. I think there's a lot more of that going on with people than you guys realize. And I don't think that's being stupidly idealistic. I personally know *lots* of these people.
People get polled & they say they support the gays, and they basically do -- their brother's boyfriend is over for holidays (even if they may find it strange), they are loving & accepting of who they are, don't practice any hate toward gays (maybe a few gay jokes here and there)... but then they go to the voting booth and they look at that ballot: Change the concept of marriage to include relationships that you don't personally understand and think are kinda odd in the first place, or keep it the way it's always been? Hm, how bout let's just keep it.
Is that really the same thing as HATE?? I don't think it is. And I think *a lot* of the voters are of this variety.
More...
Sure there's discrimination rampant out there - I'm not denying that (evolutionarily, it makes sense - peer pressure to keep men and women propagating the species), but it's lessening and, for most people, it's not like this black, seething *hate* you're imagining is deep inside their soul. It seems to be more of the "cooties" variety--gayness being just plain perplexing to people (since they've never had same sex feelings). Sure, there are people that *hate* gays - religious wingnuts, closted self-loating homos like Rick Santorum - lost causes, but your everyday people that go to the voting booths? I don't think so. Or else the KKK and similar hate groups would be on every block in America.
And this is not just about the actual, literal definition of a word changing - marriage between a man and woman is a entire societal organizing principle for people. Haven't you ever heard of inertia? People being comfortable with the way things are because that's how it's always been? I'm sure all of you, ya know, the few enlightened, angelic, non-bigots of planet earth, have things in your life that you are comfortable with keeping just because that's how it's always been. I think there's a lot more of that going on with people than you guys realize. And I don't think that's being stupidly idealistic. I personally know *lots* of these people.
People get polled & they say they support the gays, and they basically do -- their brother's boyfriend is over for holidays (even if they may find it strange), they are loving & accepting of who they are, don't practice any hate toward gays (maybe a few gay jokes here and there)... but then they go to the voting booth and they look at that ballot: Change the concept of marriage to include relationships that you don't personally understand and think are kinda odd in the first place, or keep it the way it's always been? Hm, how bout let's just keep it.
Is that really the same thing as HATE?? I don't think it is. And I think *a lot* of the voters are of this variety.
46
Confluence,
The organizers of the anti-gay marriage organizations, and the people who rant and rave against gays are hateful bigots.
But I agree with you somewhat... the average joe on the street who votes against gay marriage may not be hateful or outright bigoted, but they are either grossly misinformed, ignorant, or implicitly dislike gays even though they try to convince themselves they don't.
I definitely agree with you that telling people who don't support gay marriage that they're bigots is a step in the wrong direction. It's completely understandable WHY it happens, but you're right, calling people bigots isn't gonna win their hearts and minds (and votes!). Better methods should be used.
The organizers of the anti-gay marriage organizations, and the people who rant and rave against gays are hateful bigots.
But I agree with you somewhat... the average joe on the street who votes against gay marriage may not be hateful or outright bigoted, but they are either grossly misinformed, ignorant, or implicitly dislike gays even though they try to convince themselves they don't.
I definitely agree with you that telling people who don't support gay marriage that they're bigots is a step in the wrong direction. It's completely understandable WHY it happens, but you're right, calling people bigots isn't gonna win their hearts and minds (and votes!). Better methods should be used.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Slog Somehow Overlooked... by Dan Savage
-
VivaVulva Viagra! by Dan Savage -
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
"Let his days be few... Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." by Dan Savage
-
Feeling Sorry for Carrie Prejean by Dan Savage
-
Last Night's Colbert Report by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (48) RSS