Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, June 7, 2011
Hetero Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:55 AM
An argument over a parking space in downtown Palm Springs spiraled last weekend into what police call a brutal attack that should be prosecuted as a hate crime.... About 4:20 p.m. on May 21, [the] unidentified owners of one of the businesses asked a man and a woman to move their car from a spot reserved for [their] business. That led to an argument, officials said. When the unidentified victims began taking photos of the couple, the man and woman “became enraged and began yelling derogatory slurs,” Sgt. Troy Castillo said. Russell Bates, 24, and Abigail Sheehy, 19, began “to punch the gay couple multiple times with closed fists, causing one of the victims to lose some teeth,” Castillo said. The assailants, who police say had a 4-year-old son who witnessed the attack, fled before officers arrived.
3
People get mad about their cars.
I was told to park in the wrong spot number once in a building I lived in and some dude in an Audi left a note on my car threatening to do "at least $1000 of damage to my car" if I ever parked there again.
I forwarded it to the leasing office and laughed.
I was told to park in the wrong spot number once in a building I lived in and some dude in an Audi left a note on my car threatening to do "at least $1000 of damage to my car" if I ever parked there again.
I forwarded it to the leasing office and laughed.
6
According to the law, it becomes a hate crime when slurs are used. Which is ridiculous in this instance. I think these people would have behaved the same way if the business owners had been hetero-WASP's.
@4, the parenting implications are the example they set for their child (remember the 4 year old in the car who saw everything?).
@4, the parenting implications are the example they set for their child (remember the 4 year old in the car who saw everything?).
7
I was only in Palm Springs once, a few years ago, for four days (Wed. to Sat.). There was only one interesting bar in town, where I went every night, and there was a fight there every night. Every. Night. Including the Wed. and Thurs. nights. Not a little fight, but a brawl where the cops eventually had to come and haul people away.
The entire rest of the town was boring as shit.
The entire rest of the town was boring as shit.
8
I guess noone else noticed the prior for statutory rape?
Or maybe you can marry a girl at 14 in Florida. I dunno.
Or maybe you can marry a girl at 14 in Florida. I dunno.
13
@8, Palm Springs is in California, not Florida. You can tell because neither of the assailants have goiters or face tattoos.
14
I don't get the point. Are we to be subjected to every story about hetero douches who have kids? I think we all know that there are plenty of hetero douches (and probably a fair number of homo douches) who have kids. We concede the point, Dan.
15
@14 I believe Dan will continue to make the point until all 50 states concede that what every child deserves is two loving parents, regardless of their sexual orientation.
16
I believe Savage will continue to belabor his nonsensical BS until hell freezes over.
What every child 'deserves' is to live, but that doesn't stop abortion proponents from advocating for mass infanticide.
Every child 'deserves' parents who can afford to raise a kid, but that doesn't stop idiotic welfare programs incentivizing child bearing by those who can't.
And every hetero child (97 or more percent of them) 'deserves' hetero parents who can demonstrate for him or her a valid paradigm for adulthood, but that doesn't stop little Danny boy from beating his tired 'all hetero parents are bad' drum.
Truth is Savage is a petulant child who chose a lifestyle at odds with his culture. Being developmentally delayed, he couldn't accept the consequences of that choice, but wishes everyone else to put up with his temper tantrums and constant wails of 'it's not FAIR!' (Hint, Savage, this was annoying from my 4 year old. From a nominal adult it's nauseating.)
What things like Savage want is the destruction of the culture around them. Being incapable of contributing to it, things like it choose destruction, along the principle of 'if I can't have it, no-one will.'
God sees what's good in Savage. This is wonderful, as a rational human being couldn't spot it with a microscope.
What every child 'deserves' is to live, but that doesn't stop abortion proponents from advocating for mass infanticide.
Every child 'deserves' parents who can afford to raise a kid, but that doesn't stop idiotic welfare programs incentivizing child bearing by those who can't.
And every hetero child (97 or more percent of them) 'deserves' hetero parents who can demonstrate for him or her a valid paradigm for adulthood, but that doesn't stop little Danny boy from beating his tired 'all hetero parents are bad' drum.
Truth is Savage is a petulant child who chose a lifestyle at odds with his culture. Being developmentally delayed, he couldn't accept the consequences of that choice, but wishes everyone else to put up with his temper tantrums and constant wails of 'it's not FAIR!' (Hint, Savage, this was annoying from my 4 year old. From a nominal adult it's nauseating.)
What things like Savage want is the destruction of the culture around them. Being incapable of contributing to it, things like it choose destruction, along the principle of 'if I can't have it, no-one will.'
God sees what's good in Savage. This is wonderful, as a rational human being couldn't spot it with a microscope.
18
This couple, like the overwhelming majority of the featured folks on "Every Child..."; are not married.
"Every Child..." is a long running commercial for the terrible social costs of having children out of wedlock.
"Every Child..." is a long running commercial for the terrible social costs of having children out of wedlock.
19
BTW-
In a country with free expression there is no such beast as a hate crime. Creating such a class of crime violates that free expression. The test of my right to speech isn't when I'm saying what all agree with. The notion is encapsulated in the famous 'I may disagree with everything you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it.'
Danny Boy Savage for instance has the right to spew his disgusting vomit if he wishes to embarrass himself that badly. Bernie Sanders has the right to show himself a complete idiot with his openly socialist nonsense. Fred Phelps or Glen Beck have the right to make every sane person hate them with their vile abuse. We don't get to shut down speech because it offends us.
If I attack a person of color while using epithets associated with their race, the crime is the attack. Otherwise we create a circumstance where an assualt against a gay man or a black woman or a Jewish rabbi is held to a higher value than one on a white man or woman. Clearly this violates the precept of 'all created equal.'
In a country with free expression there is no such beast as a hate crime. Creating such a class of crime violates that free expression. The test of my right to speech isn't when I'm saying what all agree with. The notion is encapsulated in the famous 'I may disagree with everything you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it.'
Danny Boy Savage for instance has the right to spew his disgusting vomit if he wishes to embarrass himself that badly. Bernie Sanders has the right to show himself a complete idiot with his openly socialist nonsense. Fred Phelps or Glen Beck have the right to make every sane person hate them with their vile abuse. We don't get to shut down speech because it offends us.
If I attack a person of color while using epithets associated with their race, the crime is the attack. Otherwise we create a circumstance where an assualt against a gay man or a black woman or a Jewish rabbi is held to a higher value than one on a white man or woman. Clearly this violates the precept of 'all created equal.'
21
Hhhmmmm...
Maybe I'm being dense here, but it seems to me that the point of these posts is to shine a big ol' spotlight on the idiocy that claims that the ONLY decent parents for a young human to have are the "opposite" kind: one male, one female.
Since so many states are currently denying homosexuals who want to adopt children on these very same bogus grounds, I had always assumed that THAT was Dan's point with these posts?
Maybe I'm being dense here, but it seems to me that the point of these posts is to shine a big ol' spotlight on the idiocy that claims that the ONLY decent parents for a young human to have are the "opposite" kind: one male, one female.
Since so many states are currently denying homosexuals who want to adopt children on these very same bogus grounds, I had always assumed that THAT was Dan's point with these posts?
23
@19,
So if Matthew Shepard were just a regular straight guy, he still would have been killed? Because his attackers just hated people "in general" rather than hating a specific thing about him?
If Martin Luther King, Jr. were just a plain old white guy he would also have been killed? Because his killer just hated people in general too, not a specific hatred because MLK was black?
All the people who died in the Holocaust would have been killed anyway? Because the Nazi's hated everyone, they didn't hate a specific group of people?
Is that what you're saying? That there's no hate crime because there's no such thing as crime targeted towards any specific groups? That it's all spread out evenly, so we should treat it all evenly?
Seriously?
So if Matthew Shepard were just a regular straight guy, he still would have been killed? Because his attackers just hated people "in general" rather than hating a specific thing about him?
If Martin Luther King, Jr. were just a plain old white guy he would also have been killed? Because his killer just hated people in general too, not a specific hatred because MLK was black?
All the people who died in the Holocaust would have been killed anyway? Because the Nazi's hated everyone, they didn't hate a specific group of people?
Is that what you're saying? That there's no hate crime because there's no such thing as crime targeted towards any specific groups? That it's all spread out evenly, so we should treat it all evenly?
Seriously?
24
@19 What part of punching and beating people up is "freedom of expression"? There's no one being arrested for hate speech -- it's hate crimes... @6 has a point as to whether they would have gone off regardless of the owners' orientation.
Although Dan's own point stands regardless of the victims' orientation.
@18 I think you actually can get married pretty young in FL but I don't think this couple is married, so yeah.
Although Dan's own point stands regardless of the victims' orientation.
@18 I think you actually can get married pretty young in FL but I don't think this couple is married, so yeah.
25
Actually the important point here is that they can be prosecuted for hate crimes regardless of whether their victims were, in fact gay (or black or whatever).
26
@16: "idiotic welfare programs incentivizing child bearing"
You do know that the amount of welfare money you can get is nowhere near the cost of raising a child, right?
I must say, I'm quite curious as to why you consider the good Mr. Savage "developmentally delayed". Is it because he is complaining about something? The squeaky wheel gets the grease, you know. I suppose the civil rights movement and the fight for women's suffrage were also just immature childish whining, right? OH WAIT. That's more or less what people like you said at the time. Glad to see you remain steadfast in your determination to be on the wrong side of history.
You make an awful lot of noise about how Dan Savage is Destroying Our Precious Culture, but it seems a lot of smoke and mirrors to me. Is Our Precious Culture really going to collapse Jenga-style if we pull out the brick of xenophobia? Can Western civilization not stand up without having someone to hate on?
@19: Whoa whoa whoa, you can say anything you want to anyone you want without fear of legal consequences? Great, I'm going to go call the White House now and announce my intention to break in and put clingfilm over all the toilets!
I guess you've never heard of fire-shouting or moviehouse-crowding.
Now, you are correct in that the attack is the crime, not the slur-shouting; the latter only exacerbates the severity of the former. However, the rest of your last paragraph is absolute bollocks. Hate crime laws create categories (such as sex, race, orientation, ethnicity, and religion), but they don't specify any particular identifications within those categories. Let's take sexual orientation as an example.
If a gay man is beaten up by a bunch of straight guys for being such a disgusting queer faggot, and the actions of the straight guys make it clear that the gay man's sexual orientation was a major motivating factor, the straight guys can be charged under hate crime laws rather than for simple assault and battery.
If a straight guy is beaten up by a bunch of gay guys for embodying that American culture that gays are so determined to destroy, and the actions of the gay guys make it clear that the straight man's sexual orientation was a major motivating factor, the gay guys can be charged under hate crime laws rather than for simple assault and battery.
See, it works both ways! Hate crime statutes protect both minorities AND the majority equally! The only ones trying to protect some groups any more than others would be YOUR side.
In 1992, Colorado adopted an amendment to their state constitution that SPECIFICALLY BANNED homosexuals and bisexuals (but not heterosexuals) from any protections based on their orientation, causing hate crime legislation with regard to sexual orientation to apply only to straights! (This was later overturned by the Supreme Court.) And you say that gays are looking for special rights! Hell, they're only looking for the same rights as everyone else!
More...
You do know that the amount of welfare money you can get is nowhere near the cost of raising a child, right?
I must say, I'm quite curious as to why you consider the good Mr. Savage "developmentally delayed". Is it because he is complaining about something? The squeaky wheel gets the grease, you know. I suppose the civil rights movement and the fight for women's suffrage were also just immature childish whining, right? OH WAIT. That's more or less what people like you said at the time. Glad to see you remain steadfast in your determination to be on the wrong side of history.
You make an awful lot of noise about how Dan Savage is Destroying Our Precious Culture, but it seems a lot of smoke and mirrors to me. Is Our Precious Culture really going to collapse Jenga-style if we pull out the brick of xenophobia? Can Western civilization not stand up without having someone to hate on?
@19: Whoa whoa whoa, you can say anything you want to anyone you want without fear of legal consequences? Great, I'm going to go call the White House now and announce my intention to break in and put clingfilm over all the toilets!
I guess you've never heard of fire-shouting or moviehouse-crowding.
Now, you are correct in that the attack is the crime, not the slur-shouting; the latter only exacerbates the severity of the former. However, the rest of your last paragraph is absolute bollocks. Hate crime laws create categories (such as sex, race, orientation, ethnicity, and religion), but they don't specify any particular identifications within those categories. Let's take sexual orientation as an example.
If a gay man is beaten up by a bunch of straight guys for being such a disgusting queer faggot, and the actions of the straight guys make it clear that the gay man's sexual orientation was a major motivating factor, the straight guys can be charged under hate crime laws rather than for simple assault and battery.
If a straight guy is beaten up by a bunch of gay guys for embodying that American culture that gays are so determined to destroy, and the actions of the gay guys make it clear that the straight man's sexual orientation was a major motivating factor, the gay guys can be charged under hate crime laws rather than for simple assault and battery.
See, it works both ways! Hate crime statutes protect both minorities AND the majority equally! The only ones trying to protect some groups any more than others would be YOUR side.
In 1992, Colorado adopted an amendment to their state constitution that SPECIFICALLY BANNED homosexuals and bisexuals (but not heterosexuals) from any protections based on their orientation, causing hate crime legislation with regard to sexual orientation to apply only to straights! (This was later overturned by the Supreme Court.) And you say that gays are looking for special rights! Hell, they're only looking for the same rights as everyone else!
27
You know...I'm all for ECFaMaaF series...but this didn't sound like child abuse. Really, this is just douchy young trailer trash doing douchy young trailer trash things. Now, if they also beat the four-year-old or used the child as a weapon or shield, maybe you'd have some ground. But, this just sounds like shitty people.
28
23
great points.
it's a little known fact that Bobby and JFK were killed by colourblind assasins who thought they were negroes....
great points.
it's a little known fact that Bobby and JFK were killed by colourblind assasins who thought they were negroes....
29
@23, 24
The salient point was that Matthew Sheppard, or MLK were murdered. The motivation may play a part in prosecution to obtain a conviction for murder, but isn't relevant in the actual crime.
We listen to sentencing testimony about how good the victim was, or how much of a philanthropist or pacifist. This shouldn't matter. We prosecute murder not because MLK was the victim but because that kind of violence is a crime against society at large. Which is why the perpetrator being racist, anti-social, merely violent or just a bad person doesn't matter. The crime itself does.
Genocide and random crime are two entirely different things. I don't know that the US has a federal statute for genecide or that it hasn't. Every time I can recall gencocide being prosecuted it was internationally, not within a national statuatory authority though.
I'm not anywhere saying a gay man or Islamic person should be victimized for being gay or Islamic. I am saying that by making of crimes against such people a higher value we denigrate the equality clause in the Constitution.
The salient point was that Matthew Sheppard, or MLK were murdered. The motivation may play a part in prosecution to obtain a conviction for murder, but isn't relevant in the actual crime.
We listen to sentencing testimony about how good the victim was, or how much of a philanthropist or pacifist. This shouldn't matter. We prosecute murder not because MLK was the victim but because that kind of violence is a crime against society at large. Which is why the perpetrator being racist, anti-social, merely violent or just a bad person doesn't matter. The crime itself does.
Genocide and random crime are two entirely different things. I don't know that the US has a federal statute for genecide or that it hasn't. Every time I can recall gencocide being prosecuted it was internationally, not within a national statuatory authority though.
I'm not anywhere saying a gay man or Islamic person should be victimized for being gay or Islamic. I am saying that by making of crimes against such people a higher value we denigrate the equality clause in the Constitution.
30
@10, it is not confirmed if both are the parents. I doubt people like this stay with their baby momma/daddy.
31
@29, in the case of Shephard and MLK, yes, prejudice does play a part in the motivation of the crime.
If you had not used such a shitty example, you might have a case for this not being a hate crime, which I agree with.
These people were not motivated by hate for gays to get into a confrontation with the business owners. While their prejudice/dislike for gays may have influenced the language used when the confrontation was verbal, what these people did was motivated (and I use the word loosely, I doubt they have much motivation) by being dumbasses who should not be procreating. This was a lack of impulse control and a sense of self righteousness. He beat the shit out of that man because he didn't like not getting his way, not because he hated gays.
If you had not used such a shitty example, you might have a case for this not being a hate crime, which I agree with.
These people were not motivated by hate for gays to get into a confrontation with the business owners. While their prejudice/dislike for gays may have influenced the language used when the confrontation was verbal, what these people did was motivated (and I use the word loosely, I doubt they have much motivation) by being dumbasses who should not be procreating. This was a lack of impulse control and a sense of self righteousness. He beat the shit out of that man because he didn't like not getting his way, not because he hated gays.
32
@26
More comparisons of the non-selecting ethnic or gender based civil rights movements to the self selecting 'gay rights' one? Yeah, still doesn't wash.
A gay man or lesbian chose what differentiates them from their fellows. In that choice they resign the right to complain about the consequences. We may as a society choose to extend legal protections to that choice because it's a socially neutral one. But we don't owe that protection under the Constitution, ethically or morally.
Yes there are choice categories we expressly protect. Religious affiliation or lack thereof, political affiliation, press affiliation or simple personal speech are all protected as being fundamental to individual liberty.
A black woman didn't choose either her gender or her skin color. Because it's a manifest injustice to hold either as a mark in their favor or against them, we collectively choose to recognize both as protected classes from discrimination.
This really isn't that hard.
More comparisons of the non-selecting ethnic or gender based civil rights movements to the self selecting 'gay rights' one? Yeah, still doesn't wash.
A gay man or lesbian chose what differentiates them from their fellows. In that choice they resign the right to complain about the consequences. We may as a society choose to extend legal protections to that choice because it's a socially neutral one. But we don't owe that protection under the Constitution, ethically or morally.
Yes there are choice categories we expressly protect. Religious affiliation or lack thereof, political affiliation, press affiliation or simple personal speech are all protected as being fundamental to individual liberty.
A black woman didn't choose either her gender or her skin color. Because it's a manifest injustice to hold either as a mark in their favor or against them, we collectively choose to recognize both as protected classes from discrimination.
This really isn't that hard.
33
@32: "A gay man or lesbian chose what differentiates them from their fellows." [citation needed]
Nice way to ENTIRELY IGNORE my argument and instead fixate on a fleeting reference to women's suffrage and the civil rights movement.
I don't always respond extensively to your posts. But when I do, I read the whole damn thing and attack your argument rather than brief references that are only tangentially connected to the main thrust of your reasoning.
Stay thirsty, my friends.
Nice way to ENTIRELY IGNORE my argument and instead fixate on a fleeting reference to women's suffrage and the civil rights movement.
I don't always respond extensively to your posts. But when I do, I read the whole damn thing and attack your argument rather than brief references that are only tangentially connected to the main thrust of your reasoning.
Stay thirsty, my friends.
34
You know what's a hate crime, Seattleblues? When your mom cries while sucking santorum off my dick.
35
@26
In answer to your question-
If my 9 year old acts like a 4 year old for a day or a week, that's a phase. She'll grow out of it. She'll become a teen-ager and eventually an adult. If as a 22 year old she acts like a 4 year old and refuses to grow up, I call that developmental delay.
For her, I want the joys and pains of being an adult and living with her choices, good or bad. I want her to feel the exhuberance of love, even though I know that this means she'll feel the devastation of loss. I want her to feel the triumph of a successful career even though she must experience the depressing failures to do so.
It is this acceptance of the negative with the positive Savage doesn't want, and that's his choice. If he wishes to be a perpetual toddler the only ones affected are those who care for him, among whom I absolutely do not number.
When he evangelizes his infantile behavior and wants to remake society as a nation of perpetual toddlers, then I care.
In answer to your question-
If my 9 year old acts like a 4 year old for a day or a week, that's a phase. She'll grow out of it. She'll become a teen-ager and eventually an adult. If as a 22 year old she acts like a 4 year old and refuses to grow up, I call that developmental delay.
For her, I want the joys and pains of being an adult and living with her choices, good or bad. I want her to feel the exhuberance of love, even though I know that this means she'll feel the devastation of loss. I want her to feel the triumph of a successful career even though she must experience the depressing failures to do so.
It is this acceptance of the negative with the positive Savage doesn't want, and that's his choice. If he wishes to be a perpetual toddler the only ones affected are those who care for him, among whom I absolutely do not number.
When he evangelizes his infantile behavior and wants to remake society as a nation of perpetual toddlers, then I care.
37
@26 and 33
The difference between calling a threat into a Congresspersons' office or the White house, yelling fire in a crowd and so on is that you place others in danger in doing so.
Bigotry or repugnant language are hurtful, if the target allows them to be so. They may be difficult to explain to kids who happen to hear them. But they don't endanger others.
The Supreme Court has often used a 'compelling state interest' justification for inhibiting Constitutional liberties. With speech, endangering others meets this criteria, hateful or offensive speech does not.
@34
And you have a pleasant day as well.
The difference between calling a threat into a Congresspersons' office or the White house, yelling fire in a crowd and so on is that you place others in danger in doing so.
Bigotry or repugnant language are hurtful, if the target allows them to be so. They may be difficult to explain to kids who happen to hear them. But they don't endanger others.
The Supreme Court has often used a 'compelling state interest' justification for inhibiting Constitutional liberties. With speech, endangering others meets this criteria, hateful or offensive speech does not.
@34
And you have a pleasant day as well.
38
There are some clear rationals for hate crime laws. 1) A classic example would be the difference between a southern lynching and straight up murder for robbery or personal hate. The intent of a lynching is not just to hurt the victim but also to warn others in that vicitms identity group to stay in their place. It is a kind of terroism. When a group of guys jump out of a car and beat up a man walking down the street while they scream "fagoot", the intent is the same - to send a threat to the whole group through this individual. It doesn't matter if the victim is gay because the terroristic purpose is served either way. A robbery murder has no other end but itself. 2) Attackers in the past were often treated leniently if they could show they were motivated by a shared prejudice against the victims identity group. And people will still feel less inhibited attacking people they think others will be less protective of, just like bullies pick out odd loner kids to go after, because they feel no one will defend them. When the victim is identified in the assailants mind as in a subclass of society they will be less inhibited.
etc.etc.
etc.etc.
39
P.S. @38 So, regarding the speech. Statements in the past that would have been used to indicate motivations shared by others in society and result in more lenient treatment are under hate crimes laws used as evidence to show state of mind and (terroristic) intent. Anyone who says that someone beating the crap out of a person while screaming "faggot! faggot!" isn't sending a threat to gays and a message of support to bigots is ... well... not in the reality based world...
41
ouch sorry. more P.S. How silly of me. Of course there are still places RIGHT NOW where attackers are treated more leniently if they can show they are "motivated by a shared prejudice against the victims identity group."
42
@37: Coming to Vermillion tomorrow night SeattleBlues? Don't be scared! Maybe Fnarf won't be there.
43
@16 I don't believe Dan has ever said 'all hetero parents are bad.' In fact, I'm sure Dan would admit that there are several people, perhaps in this very thread, whose heterosexual parents did a wonderful job.
Yours aren't among them.
Your nine-year-old hates you.
Yours aren't among them.
Your nine-year-old hates you.
44
So, now lynching is equivalent to a half-wit shouting faggot at someone while throwing a few punches?
Lynching occured hundreds, if not thousands, of times.
Matthew Sheppard is the only example of alleged gay hatred motivating murder of which I'm aware. This exempts of course the kinds of murder which happen among gays or normal people having as their basis some form of relationship with the victim. The number of gays even physically assualted because of their sexual choices is insignificant as an expression of crime nationwide.
Gays in the United States may feel socially isolated. They may feel put upon, or invent terms like 'marriage equality' to pretend that they're discriminated against. What they are not is physically endangered for their choices. If they choose to feel that way, that is their choice, not a reflection of reality.
Again, comparisons to the very real civil rights movements by blacks or women aren't just hyperbolic. They are insulting to either group.
Lynching occured hundreds, if not thousands, of times.
Matthew Sheppard is the only example of alleged gay hatred motivating murder of which I'm aware. This exempts of course the kinds of murder which happen among gays or normal people having as their basis some form of relationship with the victim. The number of gays even physically assualted because of their sexual choices is insignificant as an expression of crime nationwide.
Gays in the United States may feel socially isolated. They may feel put upon, or invent terms like 'marriage equality' to pretend that they're discriminated against. What they are not is physically endangered for their choices. If they choose to feel that way, that is their choice, not a reflection of reality.
Again, comparisons to the very real civil rights movements by blacks or women aren't just hyperbolic. They are insulting to either group.
45
@43
Not yet. But she almost certainly will off and on in a few years. Thanks for your well wishes anyway!
Descending to insulting another persons parents gives some indication of your upbringing though....
@37
Nah. If I want to face time with the delusional I'll volunteer in the Alzheimers wing of a nursing home. Thanks for the invite anyway.
Not yet. But she almost certainly will off and on in a few years. Thanks for your well wishes anyway!
Descending to insulting another persons parents gives some indication of your upbringing though....
@37
Nah. If I want to face time with the delusional I'll volunteer in the Alzheimers wing of a nursing home. Thanks for the invite anyway.
46
I don't know if you guys noticed it, but SeattleBlues (@16) just stated that homosexuality is not a choice: "And every hetero child (97 or more percent of them) 'deserves' hetero parents who can demonstrate for him or her a valid paradigm for adulthood..." We can infer from his statement that 3 percent of children are homosexual and should have gay parents as role models, and that he believes the other 97 percent should have heterosexual parents as role models.
47
@43: Oh McGee, it doesn't matter to Seattleblues what Dan actually does or does not say, half the time he doesn't even read the post! Dan is his Butt Sex Boogie Man, and Seattleblues hates him so much he once argued himself into defending the Catholic Church covering pedophilia for 40 years rather than admit that Dan was right to be outraged by it. There's not a lot of what one could call rational going on in that pointy little head of our poor friend Seattleblues, when it comes to Dan Savage.
@44: Ok, there's this thing called "Google"? And it's "search engine"? And if you type in "key words"? You can get "information"? And if you type in "Gay Bashing"? You know what you get? 1,250,000 results. "Insignificant"? I don't think you know what that word means.
Maybe you should Google it. Tell you what, I'll show you how tomorrow at Vermillion.
@44: Ok, there's this thing called "Google"? And it's "search engine"? And if you type in "key words"? You can get "information"? And if you type in "Gay Bashing"? You know what you get? 1,250,000 results. "Insignificant"? I don't think you know what that word means.
Maybe you should Google it. Tell you what, I'll show you how tomorrow at Vermillion.
48
@45: I see. So we can safely add cowardice to your long list of moral failings. Figures.
Oh, and:
Descending to insulting another persons parents gives some indication of your upbringing though....
This. From you, especially coupled with your little "delusional" crack? Is absolutely delicious.
Oh, and:
Descending to insulting another persons parents gives some indication of your upbringing though....
This. From you, especially coupled with your little "delusional" crack? Is absolutely delicious.
49
@44: Okay, because fewer gays than blacks get attacked as a result of their identity, it's suddenly not a problem? Even if there were NO hate crimes committed at all, would that justify taking hate crime laws off the books?
Look up "gay bashing" or "gay panic defense".
If a diner refused to serve blacks, as many diners did back in the good old days, would blacks be physically endangered by this policy? No. Is it still wrong? Yes. Is such a thing now illegal? Yes, and for good reason.
You have quite a habit of making statements that, while technically true, have no bearing on the matter at hand. Homosexuals are not physically endangered by denial of the right to marriage; that doesn't make it right.
Look up "gay bashing" or "gay panic defense".
If a diner refused to serve blacks, as many diners did back in the good old days, would blacks be physically endangered by this policy? No. Is it still wrong? Yes. Is such a thing now illegal? Yes, and for good reason.
You have quite a habit of making statements that, while technically true, have no bearing on the matter at hand. Homosexuals are not physically endangered by denial of the right to marriage; that doesn't make it right.
50
Every study of family structure as it affects children so far has shown that children on average have the fewest developmental issues when they have at least two adults available including one who provides unconditional acceptance ("The Mom"), and one who provides conditional acceptance ("Not the Mom"). Gender doesn't matter, but being violent in front of the child is problematic any time.
52
"If they choose to feel that way, that is their choice"
If you choose to feel attacked by everyone in this thread who disagrees with you (which is anyone with half a brain, btw), that's your choice.
If you choose to feel attacked by everyone in this thread who disagrees with you (which is anyone with half a brain, btw), that's your choice.
53
@44 You are a seriously fucked up dude Seattleblues. You want lynch mobs or attempted lynch mobs to be seen as individual crimes, not political terrorism. There either are hate crimes or their aren't. You want your antigay terrorist proxies to be protected against responsibility for terrorzing the public while carrying out your political dirty work on the streets. Sick bastard.
54
@53
I didn't even know I personally HAD anti-gay terrorists proxies. Can I trade them for your anti-Christian and anti-morality terrorist proxies? I'll even give you 2 proxies and a stick of bubble gum for one of yours. Come on, please?
Or maybe such things are the inventions of your imagination and don't actually exist.
I'm going for the latter, as it happens.
What I actually want is for crimes to be treated equally whoever the victim. Otherwise justice is meaningless, a measure of the victims popularity and not the even handed imposition of consequences for illegal behavior.
There are places in the world it's physically dangerous to be gay. The United States is not one of them. Never has been. Even if I accepted your postulated necessity for hate crime classifications to dispel the threat of violence approved of by society against a group, gays don't need that protection here.
I didn't even know I personally HAD anti-gay terrorists proxies. Can I trade them for your anti-Christian and anti-morality terrorist proxies? I'll even give you 2 proxies and a stick of bubble gum for one of yours. Come on, please?
Or maybe such things are the inventions of your imagination and don't actually exist.
I'm going for the latter, as it happens.
What I actually want is for crimes to be treated equally whoever the victim. Otherwise justice is meaningless, a measure of the victims popularity and not the even handed imposition of consequences for illegal behavior.
There are places in the world it's physically dangerous to be gay. The United States is not one of them. Never has been. Even if I accepted your postulated necessity for hate crime classifications to dispel the threat of violence approved of by society against a group, gays don't need that protection here.
55
Yes, if I politically wanted to take rights from Christians and there are people beating up Christians in the street for being Christians and I say their terrorizing speech should be ignored and their crimes treated no more than assaults in a bar, then yes they would be my proxies. Of course, since I don't believe that Christians should have less rights than other people, it isn't that kind of question for me as it is for you with gays. (Christian's extra rights irk me sometimes...)
That is the point. You defend these freaks' speech while they beat the shit out of people, adding muscle to your words. You refuse to accept that hate crime is a wider threat crime because you agree with their hate and wider objectives. Someone attacks someone with their apparent gayness as part of their motive and you respond by saying gays don't need protection? What you mean is that you don't want them protected. Luckily, society has advanced to the point where we accept more that a violent terrorizing acts against one minority group is a real threat to society as a whole.
Seattleblues says the U.S. has never been a place where it has ever been dangerous to be gay. Sheesh, why did I respond to this trolling?
That is the point. You defend these freaks' speech while they beat the shit out of people, adding muscle to your words. You refuse to accept that hate crime is a wider threat crime because you agree with their hate and wider objectives. Someone attacks someone with their apparent gayness as part of their motive and you respond by saying gays don't need protection? What you mean is that you don't want them protected. Luckily, society has advanced to the point where we accept more that a violent terrorizing acts against one minority group is a real threat to society as a whole.
Seattleblues says the U.S. has never been a place where it has ever been dangerous to be gay. Sheesh, why did I respond to this trolling?
56
@54: In theory, crimes are treated equally no matter the victim. Like I explained before, beating up a gay man for his sexual orientation will merit the same punishment as beating up a straight man for his sexual orientation. The motivation behind a crime certainly affects what punishment is deserved, right? Or should we lump all degrees of murder together?
You seem insistent on believing that somehow hate crime laws ONLY protect certain groups, rather that protecting everyone. I'm sure there are words for people who refuse to acknowledge facts, but I'll not share them here.
You seem insistent on believing that somehow hate crime laws ONLY protect certain groups, rather that protecting everyone. I'm sure there are words for people who refuse to acknowledge facts, but I'll not share them here.
57
@55
I defend the right of minor left wing extremists like Goldstein or Savage, or even sitting legislators like Alan Grayson to lie or smear others in public as vociferously as the right of skinheads or Westboro Baptist troublemakers to spout hateful garbage in public. Doesn't mean I won't equally publicly express my view of their opinions, though.
I agree with neither. But my right to express a rational centrist view of the world is contingent on others' right to extremist, even hateful, nonsense.
I have no idea to what specific groups you're referring, so can't comment on whether I agree with their 'wider objectives.' I can say that I hate no class of people, gay or otherwise.
If by 'wider objectives' that you mean that gays and straights, minorities and caucasians, men and women and those who espouse a faith or lack thereof should all be treated equally under the law, I guess I do. Sorry for that outrageous and hateful view.
I defend the right of minor left wing extremists like Goldstein or Savage, or even sitting legislators like Alan Grayson to lie or smear others in public as vociferously as the right of skinheads or Westboro Baptist troublemakers to spout hateful garbage in public. Doesn't mean I won't equally publicly express my view of their opinions, though.
I agree with neither. But my right to express a rational centrist view of the world is contingent on others' right to extremist, even hateful, nonsense.
I have no idea to what specific groups you're referring, so can't comment on whether I agree with their 'wider objectives.' I can say that I hate no class of people, gay or otherwise.
If by 'wider objectives' that you mean that gays and straights, minorities and caucasians, men and women and those who espouse a faith or lack thereof should all be treated equally under the law, I guess I do. Sorry for that outrageous and hateful view.
58
@56
Ah. I appreciate your agreement in principle that we already have 'marriage equality.' I mean, any man can marry any woman, or any woman any man, be they gay or straight. No rights taken from gays, right?
It is on that principle that you claim I can avail myself of something I would never be in a position to use, hate crime legislation.
Ah. I appreciate your agreement in principle that we already have 'marriage equality.' I mean, any man can marry any woman, or any woman any man, be they gay or straight. No rights taken from gays, right?
It is on that principle that you claim I can avail myself of something I would never be in a position to use, hate crime legislation.
59
This is why hate crime laws are ridiculous. This is a case where the victims happened to be gay rather than targeted for being gay.
People (and by people, of course, I mainly mean men), get into these kinds of fights with each other all the time. The violence is always about social dominance and never about the ostensible "reason" for the crime. The parking space is a fill in for any old thing. The conflict was about who got to be in charge.
These victims happened to be gay. The same thing would have happened if they were straight. We had a guy in my state get shot just last week in a similar dispute where he was badgering someone for a thank you for holding a door for him at a gas station. The victim was straight, and I assume the at large assailant was as well.
The fact that normal crimes can be elevated to hate crimes based on the identity of the victims shows the hollowness and absurdity of the whole hate crime idea. This is a case where the cops were looking for a way to stick heavier charges on the assailants and found hate crime legislation as a convenient choice. It is no different than treating crack different from powder cocaine.
It is not enough to say that the motivations for crime should not be as important as the crime itself. This is a case where hate is not even the motivation, but hate crime laws are available as a further legal club for the police and prosecutors. This is the kind of case that opponents of hate crime legislation worry about. We worry that it spreads beyond its intended purpose (or at least the purpose that is claimed when proponents try to rationally advance it) and becomes instead a tool for prosecutors and police to go for extra penalties. The fact that people are willing to go to the mat on this case proves we are right.
More...
People (and by people, of course, I mainly mean men), get into these kinds of fights with each other all the time. The violence is always about social dominance and never about the ostensible "reason" for the crime. The parking space is a fill in for any old thing. The conflict was about who got to be in charge.
These victims happened to be gay. The same thing would have happened if they were straight. We had a guy in my state get shot just last week in a similar dispute where he was badgering someone for a thank you for holding a door for him at a gas station. The victim was straight, and I assume the at large assailant was as well.
The fact that normal crimes can be elevated to hate crimes based on the identity of the victims shows the hollowness and absurdity of the whole hate crime idea. This is a case where the cops were looking for a way to stick heavier charges on the assailants and found hate crime legislation as a convenient choice. It is no different than treating crack different from powder cocaine.
It is not enough to say that the motivations for crime should not be as important as the crime itself. This is a case where hate is not even the motivation, but hate crime laws are available as a further legal club for the police and prosecutors. This is the kind of case that opponents of hate crime legislation worry about. We worry that it spreads beyond its intended purpose (or at least the purpose that is claimed when proponents try to rationally advance it) and becomes instead a tool for prosecutors and police to go for extra penalties. The fact that people are willing to go to the mat on this case proves we are right.
60
hey Learned Hand @59 The belief that one's victim is in a subclass makes the assailant less inhibited because they believe their acts will be approve of by others.
I like the way you twisted the story and the kind of one-sided crimes that get categorized as hate crimes by changing a one sided assault into "people get into these kinds of fights with each other all the time." Here it is YOU equating speech with acts, but physical assault and verbal argument are different.
Name one case of a "mutual combat" being charged as a hate crime. I expect there are some because you are right about prosecutors (sometimes over-zealously) using all tools at their disposal, but perhaps there aren't...
I like the way you twisted the story and the kind of one-sided crimes that get categorized as hate crimes by changing a one sided assault into "people get into these kinds of fights with each other all the time." Here it is YOU equating speech with acts, but physical assault and verbal argument are different.
Name one case of a "mutual combat" being charged as a hate crime. I expect there are some because you are right about prosecutors (sometimes over-zealously) using all tools at their disposal, but perhaps there aren't...
61
Seattleblues, give it up. Every regular reader here knows your shtick. You're a provocateur who claims to have a life, but it must be a pretty sad and pathetic life if you have to come here and bait people with sarcasm and condescension to get a sense of validation.
I suppose it's nice for you that some people choose to fight back. You always end up running away, but at least you've gotten that little boost from briefly being able to feel superior.
I suppose it's nice for you that some people choose to fight back. You always end up running away, but at least you've gotten that little boost from briefly being able to feel superior.
62
To paraphrase (and probably badly) a crime becomes a hate crime when a prejudice against a perceived membership in a class or group becomes the motivation for the crime.
If you rob the next person at the ATM, that's robbery. If you wait until a person of color comes along and rob them because of this, then it's a hate crime. If you're spewing epithets during the commission of said crime, you're not helping your case.
If you rob the next person at the ATM, that's robbery. If you wait until a person of color comes along and rob them because of this, then it's a hate crime. If you're spewing epithets during the commission of said crime, you're not helping your case.
63
@57: You say:
If by 'wider objectives' that you mean that gays and straights, minorities and caucasians, men and women and those who espouse a faith or lack thereof should all be treated equally under the law, I guess I do. Sorry for that outrageous and hateful view.
Thank you for finally agreeing that every one should be treated equally under the law! Of course that isn't an outrageous or hateful view at all, and I'm so glad that at long last you have pried your pointy little head out of your ass, and realized that gays and lesbians should have the same right to marry the person they love as you do.
Welcome aboard Seattleblues! Maybe you and Period Troll (oh, excuse me, I mean "us") can go halfsies on that anniversary card for Dan and Terry!
If by 'wider objectives' that you mean that gays and straights, minorities and caucasians, men and women and those who espouse a faith or lack thereof should all be treated equally under the law, I guess I do. Sorry for that outrageous and hateful view.
Thank you for finally agreeing that every one should be treated equally under the law! Of course that isn't an outrageous or hateful view at all, and I'm so glad that at long last you have pried your pointy little head out of your ass, and realized that gays and lesbians should have the same right to marry the person they love as you do.
Welcome aboard Seattleblues! Maybe you and Period Troll (oh, excuse me, I mean "us") can go halfsies on that anniversary card for Dan and Terry!
64
@SeattleBlues, if you think Matthew Shepherd is the only example of a gay hate crime, try Googling Angie Zapata, the Latin King Goonies, Charles Howard, Ryan Lester, etc etc. Or hell, just Google "gay hate crime" and see what comes up amongst the 5 million+ hits. I dare you.
65
@58: Sure, we already have marriage equality. I appreciate your agreement in principle that if same-sex marriage is legalized, we will STILL have marriage equality, and no special rights will have been given to homosexuals thereby. Why so opposed to same-sex marriage, then?
And just because hate crime legislation isn't something YOU personally need doesn't mean jack. Excuse me, but mature rational adults don't judge the merit of a law solely by its value to them alone.
And just because hate crime legislation isn't something YOU personally need doesn't mean jack. Excuse me, but mature rational adults don't judge the merit of a law solely by its value to them alone.
66
"Excuse me, but mature rational adults don't judge the merit of a law solely by its value to them alone."
And there you have your explanation, sir. If Seattleblues were mature he would recognize that those who disagree with him are human beings as well. Funny, he keeps talking about his admiration for Mark Twain, but from his attitudes it seems pretty clear he hasn't read much Twain. Or, if he really has read anything by Twain, his lack of reading comprehension isn't limited to SLOG.
And there you have your explanation, sir. If Seattleblues were mature he would recognize that those who disagree with him are human beings as well. Funny, he keeps talking about his admiration for Mark Twain, but from his attitudes it seems pretty clear he hasn't read much Twain. Or, if he really has read anything by Twain, his lack of reading comprehension isn't limited to SLOG.
67
Sorry, I really don't see the point of the 'Every Child..." series. The argument is something like this:
Christian right: All homo parents are bad!
Dan: But some hetero parents are bad!
Doesn't anyone else see how the second statement isn't a meaningful response to the first?
I'm a huge fan of Dan and a huge supporter of marriage equality, but this just doesn't do it for me. Plus, it smells of exactly the same kind of appeal to stereotyping used by bigots everywhere. Rest assured, if stories like this about homo couples with kids made the news (and inevitably one will someday), the fundies will all point to it and go "See? SEE? We were right all along." As if the behavior of individuals says something about the characteristics of whatever group they've been arbitrarily pigeonholed into.
Christian right: All homo parents are bad!
Dan: But some hetero parents are bad!
Doesn't anyone else see how the second statement isn't a meaningful response to the first?
I'm a huge fan of Dan and a huge supporter of marriage equality, but this just doesn't do it for me. Plus, it smells of exactly the same kind of appeal to stereotyping used by bigots everywhere. Rest assured, if stories like this about homo couples with kids made the news (and inevitably one will someday), the fundies will all point to it and go "See? SEE? We were right all along." As if the behavior of individuals says something about the characteristics of whatever group they've been arbitrarily pigeonholed into.
68
Hey, SeattleBlues, I want to combine two previous responses I posted to you in another thread. It seemed like you got involved in your life, got bored with the thread, whatever, but I thought I had pretty relevant questions that you never got around to answering (from 5/31/2011):
Seattle Blues, as far as I have seen, you've yet to answer questions posed to you, such as:
1) If homosexuality is a choice, when did you choose to be straight?
1B) If it's okay for people to have homosexual urges, but never to act on them, doesn't that seem a little cruel?
2) What is the harm done to society and/or your marriage in particular if two gay people get married?
3) Many of the harms that you (and others) have imputed to homosexuality are actually due to promiscuity, combined with unsafe sexual practices. Therefore, why would you want to deny gay folks access to an institution that tends to reduce promiscuity?
4) What, exactly, is this "special citizen status" that you speak of? Being able to marry the person you love? And not have to go through all the rigmarole of getting a will, and a living will, and a durable power of attorney, and all sorts of other expensive paperwork, when a marriage certificate would do all this and more?
Of course, if you have questions of me, I would be happy to try to answer them to the best of my ability. No reason this has to be a one-sided deal.
*******
@112, I'm not sure I follow your logic. You aren't "subject to a specific behavior", but that "doesn't make it less a choice"? What aren't you subject to? Sexual attraction to another man? If you're not subject to such feelings, then I don't see how choice is involved.
As others have said, you and your wife chose to join in an interracial marriage. Not so long ago, many states did not allow such things. Miscegenation was against the law, as it was seen as a threat to the power structure. If you and your wife had lived fifty years ago, you might have been told, "You have the choice to marry within your race, but not to the person you love." Can you imagine how that might have felt?
Also, plenty of gay couples have and raise kids. Plenty of straight couples do not. Fertility has never (in the US) been a requirement for marriage. My great-uncle remarried in his 70's because he wanted companionship (and possibly sex; I wouldn't know). His marriage was not invalid. My brother and his wife don't intend to have kids. Their marriage is not invalid. These marriages don't harm society. Why does mine?
I don't think you've answered any of my questions, except 1A and the part where you confirm that your own marriage isn't threatened by gay marriage.
More...
Seattle Blues, as far as I have seen, you've yet to answer questions posed to you, such as:
1) If homosexuality is a choice, when did you choose to be straight?
1B) If it's okay for people to have homosexual urges, but never to act on them, doesn't that seem a little cruel?
2) What is the harm done to society and/or your marriage in particular if two gay people get married?
3) Many of the harms that you (and others) have imputed to homosexuality are actually due to promiscuity, combined with unsafe sexual practices. Therefore, why would you want to deny gay folks access to an institution that tends to reduce promiscuity?
4) What, exactly, is this "special citizen status" that you speak of? Being able to marry the person you love? And not have to go through all the rigmarole of getting a will, and a living will, and a durable power of attorney, and all sorts of other expensive paperwork, when a marriage certificate would do all this and more?
Of course, if you have questions of me, I would be happy to try to answer them to the best of my ability. No reason this has to be a one-sided deal.
*******
@112, I'm not sure I follow your logic. You aren't "subject to a specific behavior", but that "doesn't make it less a choice"? What aren't you subject to? Sexual attraction to another man? If you're not subject to such feelings, then I don't see how choice is involved.
As others have said, you and your wife chose to join in an interracial marriage. Not so long ago, many states did not allow such things. Miscegenation was against the law, as it was seen as a threat to the power structure. If you and your wife had lived fifty years ago, you might have been told, "You have the choice to marry within your race, but not to the person you love." Can you imagine how that might have felt?
Also, plenty of gay couples have and raise kids. Plenty of straight couples do not. Fertility has never (in the US) been a requirement for marriage. My great-uncle remarried in his 70's because he wanted companionship (and possibly sex; I wouldn't know). His marriage was not invalid. My brother and his wife don't intend to have kids. Their marriage is not invalid. These marriages don't harm society. Why does mine?
I don't think you've answered any of my questions, except 1A and the part where you confirm that your own marriage isn't threatened by gay marriage.
69
@16, I really think that what you need to understand is that so many hetero people can have children, when they are obviously not well equipped to do so. I have neighbors who are pregnant with their third child, can barely care for the two they have, and are sickly emotionally abusive, telling their 4-year old son to "buckle your fucking seat-belt, you retard!" and yell at them constantly. If hetero adults can have children and continue the spiral into abusive children growing into abusive adults, why is it that loving, gay parents who would love to raise a child without a home as an open-honest-loving HUMAN can't have kids? It is insane to think that a 19 year old girl who demonstrates hate in front of her 4 year old is fit to care for that child.
71
@ Seattleblues-
I implore you to think of a time when you complained about an injustice done to you. Think of work, of school, of being discriminated against. Or maybe you never have been discriminated against for your race, your gender, or your religion. But the fat is, as a gay person, you don't "choose" it, and you have a right to complain about the injustices done to you by a xenophobic, hyper-religious society. I could tell you any number of my gay friends who tell me how much easier it would have been to be straight. stop being a bigot, and understand the injustice.
Or maybe if the native Americans hadn't fought back we could have wiped out their entire culture, or if black people hadn't strove for freedom they would still be enslaved to our capitalist, white regime.
or maybe you are just an inhuman asshat.
I implore you to think of a time when you complained about an injustice done to you. Think of work, of school, of being discriminated against. Or maybe you never have been discriminated against for your race, your gender, or your religion. But the fat is, as a gay person, you don't "choose" it, and you have a right to complain about the injustices done to you by a xenophobic, hyper-religious society. I could tell you any number of my gay friends who tell me how much easier it would have been to be straight. stop being a bigot, and understand the injustice.
Or maybe if the native Americans hadn't fought back we could have wiped out their entire culture, or if black people hadn't strove for freedom they would still be enslaved to our capitalist, white regime.
or maybe you are just an inhuman asshat.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) Says Members of His Party Have Rocks for Brains by Charles Mudede
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (71) RSS