Slog
News & ArtsFriday, August 12, 2011
Political Suicide Anti-Gay Indiana State Rep...
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:08 AM
...gets caught doing—well, you can pretty much guess, right?
1
One can believe homosexual marriage is not in the best interest of society and not be "ANTI-GAY!"
Danny, do you support allowing brothers and sisters to marry?
Are you Anti-Sibling?
Danny, do you support allowing brothers and sisters to marry?
Are you Anti-Sibling?
2
If we make gay relations legal, there won't be any thrill in getting your nut from an 18 year old! Ban gay relations!
4
Beautiful. I love the detail that laying out the facts about the guy became a family project for the kid and his sister together.
6
You see only the guy's head and shoulders in that picture, but he looks like he must weigh more than 170 lbs.
Interesting how the wife (or someone claiming to be her?) begged them not to publicize this.
Interesting how the wife (or someone claiming to be her?) begged them not to publicize this.
8
Brothers and sisters are not allowed to get married because of genetic concerns. Please Google: Charles II of Spain
10
Is there a website that keeps track of all of these Anti-guy Republican representatives that get caught trolling for gay sex? I feel like most people hear about a few of these incidents sporadically, but don't realize how often it actually happens. I swear there's a story like this every few months on slog.
11
@Rob, yes! I love reading about this kind of stuff...I was obsessed with the Hapsburgs for a while! Poor Charles, he never had a chance! Freaky stuff there! Thanks for the great link!
12
@7
Perhaps, but don't forget that breakfast and a snack were also part of the deal.
Mmmmmm, pancakes!
Perhaps, but don't forget that breakfast and a snack were also part of the deal.
Mmmmmm, pancakes!
13
@12
Don't be silly. A rentboy would never eat pancakes. Carbs destroy the six-pack abs.
A rentboy would eat a meat breakfast. Sausage, perhaps.
Don't be silly. A rentboy would never eat pancakes. Carbs destroy the six-pack abs.
A rentboy would eat a meat breakfast. Sausage, perhaps.
15
I'm sure he'd feel the same way if it were a Democrat sexting consenting adult women /sarcasm
O/T Dan, you should post the Daily Show clip from last night where Jon mentions Santorum giving people his own "peach jelly" and the audience spontaneously goes "EWWW!"
Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) weighed in on the allegations on Friday, telling reporters that he is "sad about it." "It's not for me to say [whether Hinkle should resign]," Daniels said. "It's for him and his constituents. It's just a personal family tragedy."
I'm sure he'd feel the same way if it were a Democrat sexting consenting adult women /sarcasm
O/T Dan, you should post the Daily Show clip from last night where Jon mentions Santorum giving people his own "peach jelly" and the audience spontaneously goes "EWWW!"
17
Sister's email address? Can you imagine how many halfway not retarded ant-gay republicans are doing gay stuff and smart enough not to hit up craiglist with their sister's email?
18
Gotta love the "late update":
Who wants to bet $10 that, if he was asked, he thought Rep. Weiner should resign?
Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) weighed in on the allegations on Friday, telling reporters that he is "sad about it."
"It's not for me to say [whether Hinkle should resign]," Daniels said. "It's for him and his constituents. It's just a personal family tragedy."
Who wants to bet $10 that, if he was asked, he thought Rep. Weiner should resign?
19
"Beautiful. I love the detail that laying out the facts about the guy became a family project for the kid and his sister together."
It kinda read like extortion. Hard to see that as beautiful in any context.
It kinda read like extortion. Hard to see that as beautiful in any context.
20
@19
It didn't sound like extortion to me. It sounded like Hinkle and his putative wife were approaching the rentboy and his sister and actively offering money in exchange for silence. How can one extort money from someone offering to give it away?
It didn't sound like extortion to me. It sounded like Hinkle and his putative wife were approaching the rentboy and his sister and actively offering money in exchange for silence. How can one extort money from someone offering to give it away?
21
whether or not Marcus Bachmann turns out to be a secret homo or just a creep, seeing him publicly ridiculed from so many corners gave me real satisfaction that the larger culture has finally caught on to this pattern of behavior and is treating it with the scorn it deserves.
22
It most certainly did not read like extortion.
Kid goes. Tries to leave when he finds out the self-hating gay is a state law-maker. Self-hating gay law-maker say he can't leave and gives him stuff. Sister gets call from self-hating gay lawmaker's wife, tells wife her husband is gay. Wife claims she has the wrong guy. Sister of kid reads back email address. Wife then begs sister to not call police and offers 10k hush money.
Nowhere in that exchange did it say they brother and sister tried to extort anything.
Kid goes. Tries to leave when he finds out the self-hating gay is a state law-maker. Self-hating gay law-maker say he can't leave and gives him stuff. Sister gets call from self-hating gay lawmaker's wife, tells wife her husband is gay. Wife claims she has the wrong guy. Sister of kid reads back email address. Wife then begs sister to not call police and offers 10k hush money.
Nowhere in that exchange did it say they brother and sister tried to extort anything.
24
@ #1 said "One can believe homosexual marriage is not in the best interest of society and not be "ANTI-GAY!"
Sure you can, just like you can believe that non-whites are less intelligent than whites while claiming that you are not being a racist bigot. You can believe whatever you want about yourself. Just don't expect us to join in your fantasy.
Sure you can, just like you can believe that non-whites are less intelligent than whites while claiming that you are not being a racist bigot. You can believe whatever you want about yourself. Just don't expect us to join in your fantasy.
25
Hilarious! I love how the sister had her brother put her on speakerphone so she could cuss Hinkle out, right there in the hotel room, with him sitting there in his towel. Then she shows up and continues cussing him out in person. Yay for big sisters!
26
It is not just a personal family tragedy when the guy allegedly assaulted an 18 year old barely legal boy.
A divorce is a personal, family tragedy. When you assault others it becomes society's business. And this isn't primarily about his family, but about the fact that he seems to think he is entitled to do whatever he wants - be a hypocrite, assault people, etc.
A divorce is a personal, family tragedy. When you assault others it becomes society's business. And this isn't primarily about his family, but about the fact that he seems to think he is entitled to do whatever he wants - be a hypocrite, assault people, etc.
27
And this is why you shouldn't sleep with people you meet on Craigslist -- they might be a Republican.
28
@1:
"Danny, do you support allowing brothers and sisters to marry?"
Funny you should mention that. See, the incest thing is verboten on the grounds that science shows it produces babies that are fucked up. Which coincidentally, is also why many jurisdictions have dropped the "no first cousins" rule for granting marriage licenses - that bit of genetics has been disproven, and as such the law was unnecessary.
And you must have known about that, or you would have used "allowing first cousins to marry" instead of direct siblings. It's a pretty common taboo still held in the general population, after all.
But gay sex doesn't produce babies. As such, there is no real rational reason for banning gay marriage, especially on the same grounds as banning marriage between siblings.
You could have used Santorum's man-on-dog analogy too, but I don't think that would have been a good idea.
"Danny, do you support allowing brothers and sisters to marry?"
Funny you should mention that. See, the incest thing is verboten on the grounds that science shows it produces babies that are fucked up. Which coincidentally, is also why many jurisdictions have dropped the "no first cousins" rule for granting marriage licenses - that bit of genetics has been disproven, and as such the law was unnecessary.
And you must have known about that, or you would have used "allowing first cousins to marry" instead of direct siblings. It's a pretty common taboo still held in the general population, after all.
But gay sex doesn't produce babies. As such, there is no real rational reason for banning gay marriage, especially on the same grounds as banning marriage between siblings.
You could have used Santorum's man-on-dog analogy too, but I don't think that would have been a good idea.
29
You’d think that by now all these Republican gay secks scandals would be just as exhausting for them as they are for us.
30
Greatest random commenter’s suggestion for the GOP’s new motto:
“In Boys We Thrust”
The entire internet has been won 4evah.
“In Boys We Thrust”
The entire internet has been won 4evah.
32
@17 -- it was the hustler (does anybody even say "hustler" anymore?) using his sister's address to advertise himself, not the closet case using his sister's address to respond.
34
This guy's picture pings my gaydar. Anecdotal evidence, I concede, and an example of confirmation bias, but it dovetails with Dan's recent podcasts on the eerie accuracy of people to be generally able to identify a 'gay' face.
35
28
As the slog frequently notes, many hetero marriages do not produce babies and producing babies is not a prerequisite to marriage.
There are a hundred ways a brother sister couple could not have babies.
And they would be grateful if bigots like you stayed out of their bedroom, thank you.
The public health toll from sibling-marriage-retard-babies would be miniscule compared to the actual public health toll from homosexual men giving 20% of each other (plus scads of wives and girlfriends on the side) AIDS.
You surely oppose allowing homosexual men to marry when their pairings are such a public health nightmare, right?
And sibling marriage is not an exclusively heterosexual proposition.
Does Danny favor allowing homosexual siblings to marry?
Why can't THEY marry whom they love, if their love interest is a sibling they can never impregnate?
As the slog frequently notes, many hetero marriages do not produce babies and producing babies is not a prerequisite to marriage.
There are a hundred ways a brother sister couple could not have babies.
And they would be grateful if bigots like you stayed out of their bedroom, thank you.
The public health toll from sibling-marriage-retard-babies would be miniscule compared to the actual public health toll from homosexual men giving 20% of each other (plus scads of wives and girlfriends on the side) AIDS.
You surely oppose allowing homosexual men to marry when their pairings are such a public health nightmare, right?
And sibling marriage is not an exclusively heterosexual proposition.
Does Danny favor allowing homosexual siblings to marry?
Why can't THEY marry whom they love, if their love interest is a sibling they can never impregnate?
36
I hope he fucking kills himself.
I'm so sick of these self-hating pieces of shit trying to ruin my life.
If you don't like yourself, either do something about it, shut the fuck up or die. Any one of the three is fine with me.
But when you start trying to legislate my rights away, you forfeit your right to draw your next breath.
I'm so sick of these self-hating pieces of shit trying to ruin my life.
If you don't like yourself, either do something about it, shut the fuck up or die. Any one of the three is fine with me.
But when you start trying to legislate my rights away, you forfeit your right to draw your next breath.
38
@20, 22: If they'd taken the money, it would still be extortion, regardless of who approached whom.
39
Since he has that blessed R after his title, he will be allowed/expected to keep doing what his constituents elected him to do (legislate hate/discrimination/intolerance), had he been a D, outcry for his resignation would be audible in the Amazon.
40
@35: Just because NOT ALL incestuous couples would produce children doesn't mean that they should be allowed. Any children that WERE produced--ANY, ANY AT ALL--would be at huge risk for congenital disorders. It's been estimated that each one of us carries five lethal mutations, meaning that over 75% of progeny from a sibling or parent-child cross would die during embryogenesis. Imagine how many human beings would wind up with horrific conditions condemning them to short, excruciatingly painful lives if incestuous marriages were not prevented.
You have yet to prove that gay marriage could possibly inflict such harm on children.
You have yet to prove that gay marriage could possibly inflict such harm on children.
41
@40: "over 75% of progeny from a sibling or parent-child cross would die during embryogenesis"
That is not supported by science at all.
Generally, it is assumed that inbreeding only increases birth defects if it has been done for generations. If it only happens in one generation, it usually has no perceptible influence on the health of the children.
That is not supported by science at all.
Generally, it is assumed that inbreeding only increases birth defects if it has been done for generations. If it only happens in one generation, it usually has no perceptible influence on the health of the children.
42
@40: Yes, and let's also prevent people with a family history of mental illness, or Huntington's disease, or any other heritable condition, from reproducing, or even getting married...
44
@38
I realize you were clarifying a legal point, and I appreciate that (you taught me something today), but still, nothing in the story suggests to me that these people are involved inextortion.
I realize you were clarifying a legal point, and I appreciate that (you taught me something today), but still, nothing in the story suggests to me that these people are involved inextortion.
46
Why let right wing extremists control the debate???
No one would bother thinking about incest or beastiality in the context of gay marriage if those disgusting pinheads hadn't forced the meme upon us. Don't further their argument by discussing it's legality or ramifications!
Peace.
No one would bother thinking about incest or beastiality in the context of gay marriage if those disgusting pinheads hadn't forced the meme upon us. Don't further their argument by discussing it's legality or ramifications!
Peace.
47
@46: Well, I would, because the issue I care most about is the government staying out of people's bedrooms, not just gay rights specifically.
48
@41: If we each carry (are heterozygous for) five lethal mutations, and we share on average half our genome with our parents and siblings...
Let's assume a sibling cross. For each lethal mutation possessed by the male, there's a 1/2 chance that his sister would also carry it. If this is the case, there's a 1/2*1/2 chance that both would contribute the mutant allele to any particular progeny, meaning that there is a 1/8 chance for each lethal mutation that the progeny would be homozygous for the mutant, and thus nonviable. Working with the average of five heterozygous lethal mutations per individual, there is thus a (7/8)^5 = 51.3% chance that none would kill the embryo, leaving a 48.7% chance that at least one would.
Okay, I messed up my math the first time. But I'm right. So are you, in a sense; a LETHAL mutation will by definition cause the progeny to die during embryogenesis, leaving no fetus to suffer from birth defects. You're thinking of sublethal mutations, which do take longer to accumulate.
@42: There are services that screen people for such things and offer advice. All strictly elective, of course.
Let's assume a sibling cross. For each lethal mutation possessed by the male, there's a 1/2 chance that his sister would also carry it. If this is the case, there's a 1/2*1/2 chance that both would contribute the mutant allele to any particular progeny, meaning that there is a 1/8 chance for each lethal mutation that the progeny would be homozygous for the mutant, and thus nonviable. Working with the average of five heterozygous lethal mutations per individual, there is thus a (7/8)^5 = 51.3% chance that none would kill the embryo, leaving a 48.7% chance that at least one would.
Okay, I messed up my math the first time. But I'm right. So are you, in a sense; a LETHAL mutation will by definition cause the progeny to die during embryogenesis, leaving no fetus to suffer from birth defects. You're thinking of sublethal mutations, which do take longer to accumulate.
@42: There are services that screen people for such things and offer advice. All strictly elective, of course.
49
@48: I'm fine with voluntary services: it's when people start talking about who should be allowed to marry/have kids that I start to object.
50
@24: Naw, that doesn't follow. I might think that it's fine for people to fuck whomever they like, but I might also think that the whole point of (legal) marriage is to encourage procreation within the context of a partnered relationship. I might therefore think that marriage makes no sense for any couple who can not or opts not to produce children. I'd be wrong, and this also isn't really the tack most anti-gay-marriage persons take, but it's perfectly consistent. Wrong is not the same thing as bigoted, though bigots are often wrong.
@venomlash: "If we each carry (are heterozygous for) five lethal mutations..." Where did you get that from?
While I know Incest Troll is just trolling, I actually agree with hir point. While most people consider incest to be extremely creepy (thanks perhaps to the Westermarck effect or possibly purely social constructions - or the interplay of both, as some things that are considered 'sexual' or 'incestuous' in one culture might be perfectly normal or not viewed as sexual in another), I see no reason that, in a context of a society with myriad and accessible forms of birth control and legal abortion (or not, unless you're going to posit that we have a moral imperative to not produce offspring with genetic 'defects', which gets us into a whole other debate on eugenics where you have to determine where to draw the line with respect to 'defects' - predisposition to cystic fibrosis? MS? schizophrenia? alcoholism? obesity? darker-than-the-median-skin-tone skin? Semitic ancestry?) and a lack of force or coercion (pretty much never the case in parent-child incest or other family relationships involving generational disparities; this point is absolutely imperative), we should make it ILLEGAL for related persons to engage in potentially-reproductive sexual activities, make it illegal for related persons to ever engage in not-potentially-reproductive sexual activities (oral, manual, anal, with same- or different-sex siblings), or make it illegal for related persons to form long-term partnered relationships with the benefits of all nuclear families, possibly raising adopted children.
I don't know where you got your numbers (the 5 fatal defects each of us is a carrier for or the calculations*); I don't think the possibility of genetic 'defect' is enough to legally-proscribe two people's procreation (institutionalized eugenics); even if it were, I don't think opposing procreation is enough to ban all sex; and even if it were, I don't think opposing sex is enough to ban marriage and adoptive parenting. Legally-banning incest or sibling marriage is just as fucked-up as banning other kinds of sex or marriage that squick some/most people out but don't actually harm anyone. I don't really think it's a good idea (in the same way that I don't think it's a good idea when Republicans procreate), and given the incest taboo and Westermarck effect, there may be some sort of problematic dynamics in any given incestuous relationship, but laws exist to protect individuals or a society collectively, and I don't see a few people here and there fucking in ways that are creepy to most people as a threat to individuals or society as a whole. I would urge all related couples who wish to have children to adopt instead of procreating and to consider the impact of an incest taboo that's even stronger than the anti-gay sentiment on your children before deciding to have children, but I don't think any of this should be legally codified.
*I just did the probability table: if one parent is the carrier of a recessive fatal gene (recessiveness can be assumed because the parent survived to procreative age), then the chance that the child of two siblings born to that parent will get two copies of the gene is 1/16 and one copy is 12/32. Four possible gene distributions for each sibling gives 16 potential genotype parings between the siblings; four possible outcomes for offspring for each paring yields 64 total possible outcomes, four of which have 2 copies of the gene and 24 of which have 1 copy. This means that, for five fatal 'defects' - again, I'm not sure where you're getting 5 from - the odds of the the offspring getting at least one is 1-(15/16)^5, or 27.58%, not 48.7%; if we calculate for each of the siblings' parents having 5 distinct fatal mutations each for 10 total, it's 1-(15/16)^10, or 47.55%.
More...
@venomlash: "If we each carry (are heterozygous for) five lethal mutations..." Where did you get that from?
While I know Incest Troll is just trolling, I actually agree with hir point. While most people consider incest to be extremely creepy (thanks perhaps to the Westermarck effect or possibly purely social constructions - or the interplay of both, as some things that are considered 'sexual' or 'incestuous' in one culture might be perfectly normal or not viewed as sexual in another), I see no reason that, in a context of a society with myriad and accessible forms of birth control and legal abortion (or not, unless you're going to posit that we have a moral imperative to not produce offspring with genetic 'defects', which gets us into a whole other debate on eugenics where you have to determine where to draw the line with respect to 'defects' - predisposition to cystic fibrosis? MS? schizophrenia? alcoholism? obesity? darker-than-the-median-skin-tone skin? Semitic ancestry?) and a lack of force or coercion (pretty much never the case in parent-child incest or other family relationships involving generational disparities; this point is absolutely imperative), we should make it ILLEGAL for related persons to engage in potentially-reproductive sexual activities, make it illegal for related persons to ever engage in not-potentially-reproductive sexual activities (oral, manual, anal, with same- or different-sex siblings), or make it illegal for related persons to form long-term partnered relationships with the benefits of all nuclear families, possibly raising adopted children.
I don't know where you got your numbers (the 5 fatal defects each of us is a carrier for or the calculations*); I don't think the possibility of genetic 'defect' is enough to legally-proscribe two people's procreation (institutionalized eugenics); even if it were, I don't think opposing procreation is enough to ban all sex; and even if it were, I don't think opposing sex is enough to ban marriage and adoptive parenting. Legally-banning incest or sibling marriage is just as fucked-up as banning other kinds of sex or marriage that squick some/most people out but don't actually harm anyone. I don't really think it's a good idea (in the same way that I don't think it's a good idea when Republicans procreate), and given the incest taboo and Westermarck effect, there may be some sort of problematic dynamics in any given incestuous relationship, but laws exist to protect individuals or a society collectively, and I don't see a few people here and there fucking in ways that are creepy to most people as a threat to individuals or society as a whole. I would urge all related couples who wish to have children to adopt instead of procreating and to consider the impact of an incest taboo that's even stronger than the anti-gay sentiment on your children before deciding to have children, but I don't think any of this should be legally codified.
*I just did the probability table: if one parent is the carrier of a recessive fatal gene (recessiveness can be assumed because the parent survived to procreative age), then the chance that the child of two siblings born to that parent will get two copies of the gene is 1/16 and one copy is 12/32. Four possible gene distributions for each sibling gives 16 potential genotype parings between the siblings; four possible outcomes for offspring for each paring yields 64 total possible outcomes, four of which have 2 copies of the gene and 24 of which have 1 copy. This means that, for five fatal 'defects' - again, I'm not sure where you're getting 5 from - the odds of the the offspring getting at least one is 1-(15/16)^5, or 27.58%, not 48.7%; if we calculate for each of the siblings' parents having 5 distinct fatal mutations each for 10 total, it's 1-(15/16)^10, or 47.55%.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (50) RSS