Slog
News & ArtsThursday, October 20, 2011
2012 / LGBTQITSLFA Herman Cain, Choicer
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:53 AM
I'll just post my letter to Herman again...
Dear Herman,
If being gay is a choice, show us the proof. Choose it. Choose to be gay yourself. Show America how that's done, Herman, show us how a man can choose to be gay. Suck my dick, Herman. Name the time and the place and I'll bring my dick and a camera crew and you can suck me off and win the argument.
Very sincerely yours,
Dan Savage
And then I'll say this: when someone argues that being gay is a choice, he's not just insulting gay people. (And ignoring the science of sexual orientation.) He's insulting straight people. If homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality. Last night on CNN Herman Cain said that being straight is something that a straight person can take or leave. Herman Cain believes that heterosexuality is something a heterosexual can decide to walk away from, like a underwater house or a lousy meal. Straight people should get angry when they hear a straight person making this argument.
1
Straight folks won't get angry because they are not hysterical insecure drama queens.
They don't have to constantly convince themselves
(and everyone unfortunate to be in earshot range)
that they REALLY ARE HETEROSEXUAL.
REALLY....
INNATELY SO.
NO TWO WAYS ABOUT IT.
REALLY STRAIGHT.
as an arrow........
They don't have to constantly convince themselves
(and everyone unfortunate to be in earshot range)
that they REALLY ARE HETEROSEXUAL.
REALLY....
INNATELY SO.
NO TWO WAYS ABOUT IT.
REALLY STRAIGHT.
as an arrow........
3
Danny IF you are innately homosexual how did you manage to have sex with those gals in Chicago?
Perhaps "innate" doesn't mean what you think it does.
(perhaps "homosexual" doesn't mean what you think it does....)
Perhaps "innate" doesn't mean what you think it does.
(perhaps "homosexual" doesn't mean what you think it does....)
4
Herman Cain wants so badly to suck dick, and the only thing holding him back from his innate hunger for cock is his belief that it's a sin.
7
Right on, Dano!
I was going to mention how much I admire your spunk, but everyone would definitely take it the wrong way. Stop it you perverts!
Happy Spirit Day, Dano and Sloggers! I'm wearing my It Gets Better T-shirt.
I was going to mention how much I admire your spunk, but everyone would definitely take it the wrong way. Stop it you perverts!
Happy Spirit Day, Dano and Sloggers! I'm wearing my It Gets Better T-shirt.
8
Would it really be enough for him to suck your dick? You've stated before than men who get pegged aren't necessarily gay unless they like taking it up the ass from a man. I'd argue that any man who sucks a dick isn't really gay unless he enjoys sucking dick. So the proof of Herman choosing to be gay would be his boner and spooge while he sucks you.
9
While I think HC is full of shit, I don't think it matters one way or another if homosexuality is innate or chosen. Even if chosen, homosexuals deserve full rights under the law including equal marriage rights.
11
5, So you're saying that you are attracted to, and lust for your own sex, but will only act on it if pay is involved?
12
I wish Dan would stop dong this. Only because of the unavoidable mental trauma induced by my own offensively non-obedient imagination.
13
@ 9, the problem with that argument is that that's the basis of the whole "special rights" counter-argument. Civil rights protections are for the purpose of protecting people who are denied employment, denied voting, denied access to equal education, harassed, beaten, and even murdered for the crime of being something that they were born. If you can say that someone is choosing to be gay, the way they might choose to be into S&M, then you have a legitimate counter-argument to LGBT equality.
Sexual orientation, of course, is not chosen. Even most homophobes realize that; our own Seattleblues, for example, usually focuses instead on the choice to act on the impulses dictated by sexual orientation, and is in fact how most vocal opponents explain away homosexuality. It's a losing argument, which is why marriage equality continues to gain popularity across the country, but the reason it's a losing argument is because most people know they didn't ever choose to find one or both genders sexually attractive.
Sexual orientation, of course, is not chosen. Even most homophobes realize that; our own Seattleblues, for example, usually focuses instead on the choice to act on the impulses dictated by sexual orientation, and is in fact how most vocal opponents explain away homosexuality. It's a losing argument, which is why marriage equality continues to gain popularity across the country, but the reason it's a losing argument is because most people know they didn't ever choose to find one or both genders sexually attractive.
15
Dan dearest, shame on you! You know that whenever the talk turns to penises - and particularly your penis - the troll gets all worked up. It's cruel to tease him like that.
I can just imagine the poor troll, standing there as God made him, in front of his stained mirror, a la Mark Driscoll, whispering "Herman.....Danny...." over and over until that moment of blessed release before his mother knocks on the door and asks him to drive her to her bridge club.
I can just imagine the poor troll, standing there as God made him, in front of his stained mirror, a la Mark Driscoll, whispering "Herman.....Danny...." over and over until that moment of blessed release before his mother knocks on the door and asks him to drive her to her bridge club.
16
MSNBC’s Morning Joe crew slammed Herman Cain. “I think there might be a lot of gay and lesbian people that would take offense at the suggestion that it was a choice,” Scarborough said “And non-gay and lesbian people, I might point out,” Willy Geist added.
17
14, So you're saying that the only way you would act on your same sex attraction is if you were in prison?
(Most prisoners don't have gay sex, and when it does happen, it's almost always rape, and a violet assertion of domination, not an expression of sexual attraction.)
(Most prisoners don't have gay sex, and when it does happen, it's almost always rape, and a violet assertion of domination, not an expression of sexual attraction.)
18
I just roll my eyes when I hear comments like Herman Cain's. They're just silly.
Someone should ask Cain if he chose to be Black.
Someone should ask Cain if he chose to be Black.
20
HC is a man that wants to lethally electrify the border fence, whose 999 tax plan is viciously regressive, that thinks that Muslims don't have the same rights as Christians under our constitution, and that believes homosexuality is a choice.
I think it is a wonderful sign of progress that in this day and age even a black man can be a bigoted, xenophobic, classist ass.
He also doesn't hava a chance in hell of winning the presidency.
I think it is a wonderful sign of progress that in this day and age even a black man can be a bigoted, xenophobic, classist ass.
He also doesn't hava a chance in hell of winning the presidency.
21
DO straight people choose to be straight? I find it odd that we never get a clear answer on this question. Or maybe it's just that no one has asked it formally because the answer seems to be self-evident. I think a poll or study on the question "do straight people choose to be straight?" would be very helpful clarification on this matter.
For instance, if the majority of people responded with "yes, I choose to be straight", it would be helpful to the rest of us to realize we're dealing with crazy people.
I agree with @9 though, I could care less about whether it's natural or a choice (for the record, I don't think it is a choice who you are attracted to). I think the only important argument here is: Do consenting adults have the right to love each other and act in ways that please each other to make each other happy, both sexually and otherwise? The answer to which is obviously, and irrefutably yes. I have yet to see a remotely coherent argument on how this hurts anybody else or those involved.
For instance, if the majority of people responded with "yes, I choose to be straight", it would be helpful to the rest of us to realize we're dealing with crazy people.
I agree with @9 though, I could care less about whether it's natural or a choice (for the record, I don't think it is a choice who you are attracted to). I think the only important argument here is: Do consenting adults have the right to love each other and act in ways that please each other to make each other happy, both sexually and otherwise? The answer to which is obviously, and irrefutably yes. I have yet to see a remotely coherent argument on how this hurts anybody else or those involved.
22
You'll be pleased to know that, as a straight person, I AM offended when I hear a straight person make this argument. Not so much because I worry about whether or not being straight is a choice; I know it isn't. My penis is happiest inside a vagina and there's no denying it.
No, I'm offended because they think I'm so goddamned mentally deficient that I'll fall - or care - about a statement that stupid! Just because you've got a 12yr old's grasp of the human condition, buddy, don't assume I do as well.
No, I'm offended because they think I'm so goddamned mentally deficient that I'll fall - or care - about a statement that stupid! Just because you've got a 12yr old's grasp of the human condition, buddy, don't assume I do as well.
24
Herman Cain is a clear demonstration of far down in the barrel the Right has to scrape to come up with someone who'll mouth their ignorant hatred while keeping a -pardon the expression -straight face.
People who bother to go after people like Herman Cain actually help Herman Cain. Responding to every ignorant thing those people say encourages the ignorant to keep mouthing off. Notice an upsurge in ignorance in the media the past few years?
Do us a favor. Don't do what the cynical, wholly-pwned mainstream press does. Let Herman shriek in the obscurity he deserves. No one is taking him seriously except the five percent he appeals to.
People who bother to go after people like Herman Cain actually help Herman Cain. Responding to every ignorant thing those people say encourages the ignorant to keep mouthing off. Notice an upsurge in ignorance in the media the past few years?
Do us a favor. Don't do what the cynical, wholly-pwned mainstream press does. Let Herman shriek in the obscurity he deserves. No one is taking him seriously except the five percent he appeals to.
25
@13--you wrote: "the problem with that argument is that that's the basis of the whole "special rights" counter-argument. Civil rights protections are for the purpose of protecting people who are denied employment, denied voting, denied access to equal education, harassed, beaten, and even murdered for the crime of being something that they were born."
Not quite. Civil rights protections extend to religion and political affiliation, to name just two examples. Nobody is born Catholic, for example. One may be born into a family of practiciing Catholics, but some time in adulthood, each individual decides--actively or passively--either to (1) continue practicing, or (2) stop practicing, or (3) convert to another religion, or (4) stop believing in religion altogether. There is no "Catholic"gene.
Similarly, nobody carries a Republican gene or a Democratic gene or a Libertarian gene. Party affiliation is choice.
All of these choices are protected either by the constitution or by subsequent civil rights legislation.
So I think that the question of whether sexual orientation is genetic, a choice, or a cosmic joke is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the right to marry and build a life with the partner of one's choice is currently only extended to heterosexual couples. The conservative right wing has yet to provide convincing reasons why that status quo should be maintained.
And Herman Cain is an idiot.
Not quite. Civil rights protections extend to religion and political affiliation, to name just two examples. Nobody is born Catholic, for example. One may be born into a family of practiciing Catholics, but some time in adulthood, each individual decides--actively or passively--either to (1) continue practicing, or (2) stop practicing, or (3) convert to another religion, or (4) stop believing in religion altogether. There is no "Catholic"gene.
Similarly, nobody carries a Republican gene or a Democratic gene or a Libertarian gene. Party affiliation is choice.
All of these choices are protected either by the constitution or by subsequent civil rights legislation.
So I think that the question of whether sexual orientation is genetic, a choice, or a cosmic joke is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the right to marry and build a life with the partner of one's choice is currently only extended to heterosexual couples. The conservative right wing has yet to provide convincing reasons why that status quo should be maintained.
And Herman Cain is an idiot.
26
I think the 'pray the gay away' types who think being gay is a choice, by definition must be gay themselves. As a straight male, I know that I have no desire for cock. These guys must be wired to want cock, but choose to be straight instead (in public at least). Thus, all men must innately love cock, but choose not to partake. It's the only frame of reference they know.
28
@15, love it, hit the nail on the head (taking mom to her bridge club.....genius)!
@26 Best post on the thread. Totally agree.
@26 Best post on the thread. Totally agree.
29
Did you ever notice that the ONLY people that keep making this inane argument are straight religious people? I'd really like to ask them how they can be so sure, since they are (supposedly) straight. How can you make a factual statement without any facts to back up your claim? ...and, no, the Bible is NOT a scientific journal on human sexuality, so stop using it as one. As a white man, I'd look like an idiot if I said I knew what it was like to live as a black person. How is this any different?
So, yes, Herman Cain (and his ilk) are idiots. Every time he opens his mouth, he proves my point.
So, yes, Herman Cain (and his ilk) are idiots. Every time he opens his mouth, he proves my point.
30
@25 (Clayton), I agree entirely that it's not relevant for the moral status of homosexuality whether or not it is genetic, or 'natural' in any sense of the word (there are at least two senses that people keep confusing). And this should be obvious even to religious fundamentalists, since nowhere in the bible is it said that a sin is a sin only if it is (or isn't) 'determined by nature' (i.e. genetically). A sin is a sin is a sin, they should say, although, of course, they don't.
But there is, however, an important aspect of the question that does depend on how strongly entrenched homosexuality is in a gay person: the question of whether or not gayness can be 'cured'. Since religion is, as you point out, not genetically determined, it is possible, for instance, to 'de-program' cult members in a way that is apparently not possible with things like sexual orientation -- at least, I don't know of any good method to turn a straight man gay, or vice-versa.
To those who propagate the "pray the gay away" creed, it's important to say that homosexuality is a choice because then their methods for turning gays back to heterosexuality looks more plausible. If homosexuality is not a choice, the credibility of such programs suffers.
Of course, even being genetic doesn't necessarily imply that a person's sexual orientation cannot be changed (transgender people, after all, were born with the genes for one sex but still managed to change into the other sex). But it does make it a lot harder than it would be if it were "just a choice", which does still affect the credibility of "cures."
But there is, however, an important aspect of the question that does depend on how strongly entrenched homosexuality is in a gay person: the question of whether or not gayness can be 'cured'. Since religion is, as you point out, not genetically determined, it is possible, for instance, to 'de-program' cult members in a way that is apparently not possible with things like sexual orientation -- at least, I don't know of any good method to turn a straight man gay, or vice-versa.
To those who propagate the "pray the gay away" creed, it's important to say that homosexuality is a choice because then their methods for turning gays back to heterosexuality looks more plausible. If homosexuality is not a choice, the credibility of such programs suffers.
Of course, even being genetic doesn't necessarily imply that a person's sexual orientation cannot be changed (transgender people, after all, were born with the genes for one sex but still managed to change into the other sex). But it does make it a lot harder than it would be if it were "just a choice", which does still affect the credibility of "cures."
31
@ 25, excellent points. But I would answer that those examples are deeply historical, and come from a time when many people believed that how you were born was a divine statement of what kind of person you were. Heck, even the signers of the Declaration of Independence mostly believed that, "All men are created equal" notwithstanding. But the extension of rights in this country, which were once the exclusive domain of white men who owned property, has been based on the idea, encapsulated in the line "All men are created equal," that no one should be denied rights based on things that are beyond their control.
(Possibly the only exception to that was the right for workers to organize and collectively bargain - choice is being exercised there.)
(Possibly the only exception to that was the right for workers to organize and collectively bargain - choice is being exercised there.)
32
@13 (Matt from Denver), who wrote:
See, this is an argument I never fully understood. After all, non-discrimination in America also applies to religion, which is a choice. So, if religious discrimination is bad and illegal, why shouldn't discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation not be, even if sexual orientaiton were as much a choice as being a Catholic or a Presbyterian? I mean, isn't freedom basically the freedom to choose?
If you can say that someone is choosing to be gay, the way they might choose to be into S&M, then you have a legitimate counter-argument to LGBT equality.
See, this is an argument I never fully understood. After all, non-discrimination in America also applies to religion, which is a choice. So, if religious discrimination is bad and illegal, why shouldn't discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation not be, even if sexual orientaiton were as much a choice as being a Catholic or a Presbyterian? I mean, isn't freedom basically the freedom to choose?
33
But, but... DAN!!
What if he takes you up on it?
Eeeeewwwwwwwww!
(You'd let him reciprocate, right? If he had a mind to, I mean...)
;-)
What if he takes you up on it?
Eeeeewwwwwwwww!
(You'd let him reciprocate, right? If he had a mind to, I mean...)
;-)
34
I have always said that I am the exception that proves the rule.
I DID chose to be gay. I am more than likely bisexual in my attractions, but I refrain from letting anything more than a passing glance go towards men. Overwhelmingly I find that men do not have the emotional maturity I am looking for in a mate. I find it easier to find women who do. Voila. I identify as lesbian.
Does that mean that because I COULD marry a man, I shouldnt be able to marry a woman? Isnt the very act of getting married and who you marry your choice?
I DID chose to be gay. I am more than likely bisexual in my attractions, but I refrain from letting anything more than a passing glance go towards men. Overwhelmingly I find that men do not have the emotional maturity I am looking for in a mate. I find it easier to find women who do. Voila. I identify as lesbian.
Does that mean that because I COULD marry a man, I shouldnt be able to marry a woman? Isnt the very act of getting married and who you marry your choice?
35
@35 (Matt from Denver), in answer Clayton's post above you also answered mine (I only realized I was basically asking the same question / making the same claim when I re-read it). I'll only add that even if religious orientation might be protected because of older beliefs about your birth determining what kind of person you are, this certainly wouldn't apply to one's choice of political party or political beliefs. All agree there shouldn't be discrimination against Anarchists or Libertarians, right?
Besides, since the discussion is being had now, when our mentalities (incluiding the mentality of the right-wing) has evolved beyond what it was in the late 1700s, it makes sense to ask them why they would never support, say, restricting marriage rights to certain religious groups (say, only to Protestants) while claiming that everybody is still free (since a Catholic couple could still marry if they convert to protestantism), but still would support restricting marriage rights to certain sexual groups (i.e., heterosexuals only).
My gut feeling is that their opposition here is really motivated by the traditional viewpoint that religion is something positive, uplifting, that brings you closer to god (even if you don't agree with a certain religion, you understand that its supporters do think that their religion is right and brings them closer to god), while homosexuality is really a perversion, an evil, something that goes against nature (and needed the intervention of Satan), and that it is negative and brings people down, closer to Satan.
Besides, since the discussion is being had now, when our mentalities (incluiding the mentality of the right-wing) has evolved beyond what it was in the late 1700s, it makes sense to ask them why they would never support, say, restricting marriage rights to certain religious groups (say, only to Protestants) while claiming that everybody is still free (since a Catholic couple could still marry if they convert to protestantism), but still would support restricting marriage rights to certain sexual groups (i.e., heterosexuals only).
My gut feeling is that their opposition here is really motivated by the traditional viewpoint that religion is something positive, uplifting, that brings you closer to god (even if you don't agree with a certain religion, you understand that its supporters do think that their religion is right and brings them closer to god), while homosexuality is really a perversion, an evil, something that goes against nature (and needed the intervention of Satan), and that it is negative and brings people down, closer to Satan.
36
@34, from what I hear you're not an exception: women do seem, in average, to have a more fluid sexuality that allows for changes or ambiguities in orientation much more often than men's sexuality does.
As for maturity, I don't know. Maybe it's the place where you live, but where I come from there's plenty of emotionally quite immature women, I'd say (from personal experience) perhaps even more than men. But again, the plural of anecdote is not data.
As for maturity, I don't know. Maybe it's the place where you live, but where I come from there's plenty of emotionally quite immature women, I'd say (from personal experience) perhaps even more than men. But again, the plural of anecdote is not data.
37
Pulease. I wish being gay were a choice. Many a time, my fellow female co-workers and I have sat around and discussed this. We all agree it would be easier if we were gay since we all get along and the men in our lives drive us nuts. Usually, when such a discussion takes place, at some point, silence falls as we all REALLY consider, could we choose ourselves gay? Alas, no, because we love teh MEN WITH COCKS (mmm, isn't cock a lovely word?). Idiots or assholes the men may be, but it is what we crave sexually, and no amount of loving our female friends can make us want them sexually. It just isn't there.
40
Not only do gay people choose to be gay because they love being bullied, harassed, and harried by all sorts of individuals in addition to state and ecclesiastical bodies; but I hear they also love the challenge of limiting their dating pool to a subset far smaller than that of heterosexuals, who, I might add, are pussies that choose the easy way out.
42
To be fair I have fooled around with guys despite no ingrained inclination to do it, Dan, so I'd totally take you up on your offer.
I can choose to suck a dick, but I didn't choose to be straight.
I identify as Straight and easily bored.
I can choose to suck a dick, but I didn't choose to be straight.
I identify as Straight and easily bored.
43
I'd say it's both, choice and nature. To some it's all one, to others it's all the other, but it's both over all.
46
@43 I'd say some people may choose to dabble, but no one chooses their sexuality, much less chooses to go against their ingrained sexuality, outside of religious brainwashing.
49
Cain's defense that homsexuality is a choice is "show me the science". To that I say of his beloved Bible, "show me the science".
52
@32: Religion—a choice—is different in that it's called out specifically in the Constitution. I don't think it's substantively different, but it is legally different. It gets its own explicit protection.
53
Actually, the line of reasoning often stated, as in the article, "If homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality" is not logical. What the other side is usually trying to argue (poorly) is that we are all inherently oriented straight. That is normal human functioning. To have same-sex desire is abnormality from the norm, and something one can choose. Of course, throw religion into it, and as we often hear, acting on any abnormal homosexula impulses is "not the best God wants for us" or whatever they say.
I don't agree with any of this, but in arguing "homosexuality is a choice," it does not logically follow that heterosexuality must be a choice as well.
I don't agree with any of this, but in arguing "homosexuality is a choice," it does not logically follow that heterosexuality must be a choice as well.
54
I know what is a choice Mr. Cain, who i choose to vote for is a choice. My sexuality is no more a choice than yours is. Do you crave a man Mr. Cain, but choose instead to be with your wife?
We also have a choice in how we choose to treat other people. In fairness Obama only signed the repeal of D.A.D.T. AFTER the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional. I haven't seen an outcome of D.O.M.A. yet. I won't hold my breath that he will base his re-election on supporting gay rights. So he didn't win any brownie points with me and he may even offend my sensibilities yet. Have a wonderful day, Mr. Cain
We also have a choice in how we choose to treat other people. In fairness Obama only signed the repeal of D.A.D.T. AFTER the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional. I haven't seen an outcome of D.O.M.A. yet. I won't hold my breath that he will base his re-election on supporting gay rights. So he didn't win any brownie points with me and he may even offend my sensibilities yet. Have a wonderful day, Mr. Cain
55
Actually, the line of reasoning often stated, as in the article, "If homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality" is not logical certainity. What the other side is usually trying to argue (poorly) is that we are all inherently oriented straight. That is normal human functioning, and not something we can choose. To have same-sex desire is an abnormality, and something one can choose to give in to. Of course, throw religion into it, and as we often hear, acting on any abnormal homosexual impulses is "not the best God wants for us" or whatever other nonsense they spout.
I don't agree with any of this, but in arguing "homosexuality is a choice," it does not logically follow that heterosexuality must be a choice as well.
I don't agree with any of this, but in arguing "homosexuality is a choice," it does not logically follow that heterosexuality must be a choice as well.
56
Damn, if that's all it takes to hook up with Dan than, "America, gay is a choice and I am straight!!!!"
57
I'm not sure i like being told to be angry. Being gay or straight may not be a choice, but i think maybe getting angry is.
58
I wish I could be bi! I think in my mind that women are so beautiful, but truth be told I have never once in my life been with a girl and thought to myself "I want to make out with her" which really disappoints me. So yeah, anyone who thinks you can choose attraction...shouldn't be president!
59
He's an idiot as well as the rest of the republican party and all their candidates. They're backwards thinking, homophobic, bible-thumping superstitious bigots who do nothing but promote hate, and bring war and unrest to the world.
60
Do you remember who promoted hate, and brought war and unrest to the world and then dropped an atomic weapon on Hiroshima (Monday, August 6, 1945) and then Nagasaki (Thursday, August 9, 1945)? I bet it was those backwards homophobes thumping their bibles. or sum stuff like that? :-)
61
Oh Cain has sucked some white dick before. How do you think he climbed the corporate ladder? Those guys don't let a black dude with an embarrassing accent into their club for free.
62
We don't get mad because we know it is nonsense. It would be like someone saying I could just wash the white off myself and show my true blackness. They stopped making sense so I stopped listening.
This kind of talk is safe for politicians or religious folk because their primary audience is made up of people who are either repressed gay or bi's who nod along or straight people who either don't care because they know it doesn't apply to them or who for some reason think it is true because they haven't thought about the implications for themselves. People who know better are not part of the audience they are addressing.
It is just like when Republicans talk to each other about climate change denialism. It doesn't matter that they are spouting nonsense because they are only talking to each other.
This kind of talk is safe for politicians or religious folk because their primary audience is made up of people who are either repressed gay or bi's who nod along or straight people who either don't care because they know it doesn't apply to them or who for some reason think it is true because they haven't thought about the implications for themselves. People who know better are not part of the audience they are addressing.
It is just like when Republicans talk to each other about climate change denialism. It doesn't matter that they are spouting nonsense because they are only talking to each other.
63
Why can't people just do what they want to do without other people trying to read into it so hard. There are much deeper, more satisfying, and enlightening things to invest thought into before you die than who's inter-coursing with who and why. People like to hump. Everyone likes to hump different kinds of people. Roll with it.
64
Why can't people just do what they want to do without other people trying to read into it so hard. There are much deeper, more satisfying, and enlightening things to invest thought into before you die than who's inter-coursing with who and why. People like to hump, and everyone likes to hump different kinds of people. Roll with it.
65
I question seriously the change that Herman Cain represents:
Will Herman Cain reverse America's non-stop movement toward Collectivism when he has historically proven himself a collectivist? Remember that he supported the TARP bailouts, a.k.a. the trillion dollar fleecing of America.
Will he drastically reduce the size of the bloated tyrannical Federal monstrosity by eliminating entire unConstitutional Agencies? He has not expressed any intent to do so.
Will Cain get rid of the unConstitutional unPatriotic "Patriot Act" that blatantly violates America's founding principles. Cain says that this tyrannical piece of legislation is "90% right on". No way, pal.
Will he drive out his former employers, the private banking Federal Reserve globalists that built the United Nations and are driving America toward one world government tyranny? He has expressed that we don't even need to audit, let alone drive these bloodsucking vampires from our shores. Puh-leeze!
Cain has been actively involved in the North American Competitiveness Council, a think tank for promoting the agenda of the Security and Prosperity Agreement that George Bush signed with Canada and Mexico which gives up America's sovereignty and erases the borders with those countries by establishing the North American Union (NAU) and has also reportedly attended the secretive Bilderberg group meetings.
In an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Cain stated that he was pro-2nd Amendment, but that it should be up to the states. What does that mean?
In the final analysis, Herman Cain is clearly a collectivist and a globalist, just like Obama, Bush and the Clintons and these collectivist-globalist politicians are ruining America. I cannot consider him a serious candidate for any office, let alone President of the United States of America.
http://smashabanana.blogspot.com/
More...
Will Herman Cain reverse America's non-stop movement toward Collectivism when he has historically proven himself a collectivist? Remember that he supported the TARP bailouts, a.k.a. the trillion dollar fleecing of America.
Will he drastically reduce the size of the bloated tyrannical Federal monstrosity by eliminating entire unConstitutional Agencies? He has not expressed any intent to do so.
Will Cain get rid of the unConstitutional unPatriotic "Patriot Act" that blatantly violates America's founding principles. Cain says that this tyrannical piece of legislation is "90% right on". No way, pal.
Will he drive out his former employers, the private banking Federal Reserve globalists that built the United Nations and are driving America toward one world government tyranny? He has expressed that we don't even need to audit, let alone drive these bloodsucking vampires from our shores. Puh-leeze!
Cain has been actively involved in the North American Competitiveness Council, a think tank for promoting the agenda of the Security and Prosperity Agreement that George Bush signed with Canada and Mexico which gives up America's sovereignty and erases the borders with those countries by establishing the North American Union (NAU) and has also reportedly attended the secretive Bilderberg group meetings.
In an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Cain stated that he was pro-2nd Amendment, but that it should be up to the states. What does that mean?
In the final analysis, Herman Cain is clearly a collectivist and a globalist, just like Obama, Bush and the Clintons and these collectivist-globalist politicians are ruining America. I cannot consider him a serious candidate for any office, let alone President of the United States of America.
http://smashabanana.blogspot.com/
66
I question seriously the change that Herman Cain represents:
Will Herman Cain reverse America's non-stop movement toward Collectivism when he has historically proven himself a collectivist? Remember that he supported the TARP bailouts, a.k.a. the trillion dollar fleecing of America.
Will he drastically reduce the size of the bloated tyrannical Federal monstrosity by eliminating entire unConstitutional Agencies? He has not expressed any intent to do so.
Will Cain get rid of the unConstitutional unPatriotic "Patriot Act" that blatantly violates America's founding principles. Cain says that this tyrannical piece of legislation is "90% right on". No way, pal.
Will he drive out his former employers, the private banking Federal Reserve globalists that built the United Nations and are driving America toward one world government tyranny? He has expressed that we don't even need to audit, let alone drive these bloodsucking vampires from our shores. Puh-leeze!
Cain has been actively involved in the North American Competitiveness Council, a think tank for promoting the agenda of the Security and Prosperity Agreement that George Bush signed with Canada and Mexico which gives up America's sovereignty and erases the borders with those countries by establishing the North American Union (NAU) and has also reportedly attended the secretive Bilderberg group meetings.
In an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Cain stated that he was pro-2nd Amendment, but that it should be up to the states. What does that mean?
In the final analysis, Herman Cain is clearly a collectivist and a globalist, just like Obama, Bush and the Clintons and these collectivist-globalist politicians are ruining America. I cannot consider him a serious candidate for any office, let alone President of the United States of America.
http://smashabanana.blogspot.com/
More...
Will Herman Cain reverse America's non-stop movement toward Collectivism when he has historically proven himself a collectivist? Remember that he supported the TARP bailouts, a.k.a. the trillion dollar fleecing of America.
Will he drastically reduce the size of the bloated tyrannical Federal monstrosity by eliminating entire unConstitutional Agencies? He has not expressed any intent to do so.
Will Cain get rid of the unConstitutional unPatriotic "Patriot Act" that blatantly violates America's founding principles. Cain says that this tyrannical piece of legislation is "90% right on". No way, pal.
Will he drive out his former employers, the private banking Federal Reserve globalists that built the United Nations and are driving America toward one world government tyranny? He has expressed that we don't even need to audit, let alone drive these bloodsucking vampires from our shores. Puh-leeze!
Cain has been actively involved in the North American Competitiveness Council, a think tank for promoting the agenda of the Security and Prosperity Agreement that George Bush signed with Canada and Mexico which gives up America's sovereignty and erases the borders with those countries by establishing the North American Union (NAU) and has also reportedly attended the secretive Bilderberg group meetings.
In an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Cain stated that he was pro-2nd Amendment, but that it should be up to the states. What does that mean?
In the final analysis, Herman Cain is clearly a collectivist and a globalist, just like Obama, Bush and the Clintons and these collectivist-globalist politicians are ruining America. I cannot consider him a serious candidate for any office, let alone President of the United States of America.
http://smashabanana.blogspot.com/
67
No one chooses to be an evolutionary dead end any more than you can choose to be born with red hair & freckles.
As natural selection progresses, and assuming leftist de-evolution doesnt last for too many generations, homosexuals will become a more rare version of the human animal.
Darwinism got natural selection right, and evolutionary dead-ends have gone by the wayside befpre, homosexuality is no different.
But lets not pretend that indoctrination & recruitment does not exist.
As natural selection progresses, and assuming leftist de-evolution doesnt last for too many generations, homosexuals will become a more rare version of the human animal.
Darwinism got natural selection right, and evolutionary dead-ends have gone by the wayside befpre, homosexuality is no different.
But lets not pretend that indoctrination & recruitment does not exist.
68
No one chooses to be an evolutionary dead end any more than you can choose to be born with red hair & freckles.
As natural selection progresses, and assuming leftist de-evolution doesnt last for too many generations, homosexuals will become a more rare version of the human animal.
Darwinism got natural selection right, and evolutionary dead-ends have gone by the wayside before, homosexuality is no different.
But lets not pretend that indoctrination & recruitment does not exist.
As natural selection progresses, and assuming leftist de-evolution doesnt last for too many generations, homosexuals will become a more rare version of the human animal.
Darwinism got natural selection right, and evolutionary dead-ends have gone by the wayside before, homosexuality is no different.
But lets not pretend that indoctrination & recruitment does not exist.
70
Dear #67/68 -- you are talking out your ass. Homosexuality is clearly not an "evolutionary dead end", because the VAST majority of gays & lesbians are the offspring of two STRAIGHT people. Moreover, all studies indicate that the ratio of gay people to straight people (roughly one in ten) has held steady for a long, LONG time.
As for "indoctrination & recruitment", let's not pretend they exist.
As for "indoctrination & recruitment", let's not pretend they exist.
71
I can't help but to look at things very logically... If a person has a choice of sexual attraction, they would be bisexual, not homosexual. They don't use bisexual because it doesn't bring up the evil image that homosexual does, but they need to use the bisexual definition to be able to condemn people.
Evangelicals are not quality humans, the only thing separating them from primates tossing their own feces at each other is language.
The powers that controls the evangelicals, demonize gays to distract their pius followers from the rights real agenda. Greed.
Evangelicals are not quality humans, the only thing separating them from primates tossing their own feces at each other is language.
The powers that controls the evangelicals, demonize gays to distract their pius followers from the rights real agenda. Greed.
73
Herman Cain is on one well orchestrated giant book-tour (not unlike the one Sarah Palin just ended). Americans are suckers!
74
There are plenty of evidence that (at least) many people does not choose to be gay/straight (not everybody being Kinsey 0 or 6 makes it more blurry. You can sometimes choose to round yourself up to something, straight, bi, gay, whatever)
- Bullied kids. How many would instantaneously change if they could. Most of them would, I guess. Nobody would kills themselves instead of just becoming straight.
- Women-hating men (I guess it can work the other way around, but we hear less about them) The MRA-type men (who spit on the brainless, gutless, kids stealing,... western women) would logically stop caring about women and fuck each other if they could decide to be gay.
Also, what if? What if you had chosen to be gay? That still doesn't make your relationships or marriage a threat to society.
- Bullied kids. How many would instantaneously change if they could. Most of them would, I guess. Nobody would kills themselves instead of just becoming straight.
- Women-hating men (I guess it can work the other way around, but we hear less about them) The MRA-type men (who spit on the brainless, gutless, kids stealing,... western women) would logically stop caring about women and fuck each other if they could decide to be gay.
Also, what if? What if you had chosen to be gay? That still doesn't make your relationships or marriage a threat to society.
76
idk, i've never loved this argument, that sexuality isn't a choice. what if it is? i still want my civil rights. do i have to somehow prove an aversion to men before i'm allowed to marry a woman? be free from discrimination?
77
I appreciate the argument, but it strikes me as being not quite right. Herman Cain can still choose not to be gay (or do anything gay), and that doesn't destroy his argument. In fact, it supports it -- he's made a choice! (He chooses to honor his natural straightness!)
What I object to is his calling me a liar. I'm telling him that I didn't choose it. I'm the expert. If he wants to claim that I chose to be gay, he needs to prove it.
Why do we assume homophobes are right and that the impetus is on us to prove that we didn't choose it? That's backwards, and I won't play that game anymore. The assumption should be that all gay people are not liars, and that anyone who claims otherwise needs to prove it.
What I object to is his calling me a liar. I'm telling him that I didn't choose it. I'm the expert. If he wants to claim that I chose to be gay, he needs to prove it.
Why do we assume homophobes are right and that the impetus is on us to prove that we didn't choose it? That's backwards, and I won't play that game anymore. The assumption should be that all gay people are not liars, and that anyone who claims otherwise needs to prove it.
78
@67, 68: Someone doesn't know his evolutionary biology!
Even assuming that homosexuality is directly controlled by genetics, you're still wrong. Why do you think that the alleles for cystic fibrosis and sickle-cell anemia haven't gone to extinction in humans?
Even assuming that homosexuality is directly controlled by genetics, you're still wrong. Why do you think that the alleles for cystic fibrosis and sickle-cell anemia haven't gone to extinction in humans?
79
Well Dan, not sure if it's been mentioned already, but you just made the front of Huffingtonpost. Not the top story, but front page, all the same.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/21…
Kudos to you.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/21…
Kudos to you.
80
I sure wish it were a choice, I'd be getting laid by hotties all the time! I'm always getting hit on by super hot girls and just find myself wishing they had a dick, hairy chests and that manly B.O.
81
I sure wish it were a choice, I'd be getting laid by hot ladies left and right! They hit on me all the time and even though kissing and boobies are nice, I just find myself wishing they had a dick, chest hair and that nice boy-smell...
82
I, of course, agree with Savage. But in order to fight back against morons such as Herman Cain, we need to have a discussion with people like Cain about more than Dan 'suck my dick' Savage has written in his blog. Being gay is more than just a sex act. A person can be celibate and still be gay. And in these ridiculous, nonsensical arguements in which Herman Cain engages, we have to stress gays of all stripes--those who suck dick--and those who have a solitary, celibate life deserve to be treated just as equally as sexually active--and celibate heterosexuals.
83
@67, You don't understand evolution, but considering America only beats out Turkey in that respect, I'm not surprised. The fact that there are homosexuals today tells us there must have been a benefit in the past or the homosexuality trait is inert; the small percentage of homosexual women still got pregnant by the large percent of heterosexual men. Maybe the homo men spent more time creating better weapons for the tribe. Nobody knows, but your "No one chooses to be an evolutionary dead end..." statement is quite ignorant, or might we say unevolved?
84
The problem with the whole "suck my cock" thing is that they believe that choosing to be gay is a sinful choice, and they, being "Christian," try to avoid sinning. That will be their argument as to why they will never take you up on your offer. You are asking them to sin to prove their point, and isn't that typical, coming from a heathen such as yourself. (Never mind the incalculable damage they do with their hate speech, their separatist behaviors, their fear mongering, la la la la la....)
86
I just noticed on TV that Cain is left-handed. Someone needs to ask him if he chooses to be left-handed, something that used to be punishable by death during the middle ages when the Catholic hierarchy pronounced left-handed people to be "of the devil."
87
Maybe we (the gays) should claim that homosexuality is actually a tennent of 'our' religion, and based solely on our religious 'beliefs,' not on human sexuality, science, or any other such 'unprovable nonsense.' We could call our religion the Church of Ladder(sic) Gay Saints. Then our 'choices' would be constitutionally protected, and arguing against those rights would be arguing against their own self-interest.
88
Dan: this is not the fantastic argument you seem to think it is. I know you're proud of it, and it's kind of funny, but it doesn't actually make much sense. It's about as persuasive an argument as "HOW'S MY DRIVING? CALL 1-800-EAT-SHIT" bumper stickers. It's kind of embarrassing to keep hauling it out as if it's a real zinger.
89
The only problem with this Dan is he has to "Suck you off." Do you really think you would be able to finish. I mean he is straight so probably not a good sucker. He dosen't seem like your type. Could you even stay hard.
90
Thanks, Dan, for reducing gay identity to sucking dick. For some reason, I thought it was supposed to get better, but thoughtless comments like yours just keep making it worse.
91
Dan Savage. Such an ambassador of tolerance, anti-bullying, and coexistence - except if your political or personal views don't comport with his own.
92
Dan,
Thank you for saying what a lot of us are thinking. By saying homosexuality is a choice, Cain isn't "innocently" agreeing to disagree. He is validating the bullies you've been battling with "It Gets Better" and endangering homosexuals everywhere.
And seriously, does he think people in countries like Iran would "choose" to be gay, knowing they face the death penalty?
Thank you for saying what a lot of us are thinking. By saying homosexuality is a choice, Cain isn't "innocently" agreeing to disagree. He is validating the bullies you've been battling with "It Gets Better" and endangering homosexuals everywhere.
And seriously, does he think people in countries like Iran would "choose" to be gay, knowing they face the death penalty?
93
Don't hate on Cain, the man was only trying to sell a few books. The republicans are just so desperate for a candidate that they elevated him higher in the polls than he was ever intending or willing to go. Just sit back and relax knowing that if he's leading the GOP race we're good for another 4 years.
94
@68: I chose to be an evolutionary dead end, by getting sterilized. In fact, people have evolved to desire making that choice. (We evolved to value, among other things, sex, freedom, possessions, and time, all of which sterilization can help promote.)
However, being gay or lesbian does not make you an evolutionary dead end because it actually conveys a genetic advantage for your relatives. There is some evidence that siblings of someone gay/lesbian end up with an evolutionary fitness advantage.
@41: Why wouldn't he get laid more?
@35, 52: When arguing that sexual orientation should be a protected class, it helps your case to point out that it's not a chosen characteristic. It's true that sometimes chosen characteristics are also protected, but a characteristic being immutable is one of the factors that courts consider. And especially when trying to legalize same-sex marriage, it helps to argue that an opposite-sex marriage is not a fair substitute.
However, being gay or lesbian does not make you an evolutionary dead end because it actually conveys a genetic advantage for your relatives. There is some evidence that siblings of someone gay/lesbian end up with an evolutionary fitness advantage.
@41: Why wouldn't he get laid more?
@35, 52: When arguing that sexual orientation should be a protected class, it helps your case to point out that it's not a chosen characteristic. It's true that sometimes chosen characteristics are also protected, but a characteristic being immutable is one of the factors that courts consider. And especially when trying to legalize same-sex marriage, it helps to argue that an opposite-sex marriage is not a fair substitute.
95
I dont know what Herman said, and I am bisexual, and I have always thought that sexuality is a choice. I chose to be gay. Sexuality is our freedom, its our choice, isnt it? Thats why its our right, because sexuality is choice, and that choice is a form of our freedom.
Can someone enlighten me with this. I would really appreciate. Thank you.
Can someone enlighten me with this. I would really appreciate. Thank you.
96
83
"The fact that there are homosexuals today tells us there must have been a benefit in the past"
No.
There are lots of genetic defects that affect a small percentage of the population and are not passed on by those afflicted with them but still pop up in the gene pool
Were there in fact a genetic trait of 'homosexuality' it would be the deadest of genetic dead ends; Darwin values nothing so much as reproduction and 'homosexuality' would be by definition a sterile non-reproducing defect.
Were homosexuali
"The fact that there are homosexuals today tells us there must have been a benefit in the past"
No.
There are lots of genetic defects that affect a small percentage of the population and are not passed on by those afflicted with them but still pop up in the gene pool
Were there in fact a genetic trait of 'homosexuality' it would be the deadest of genetic dead ends; Darwin values nothing so much as reproduction and 'homosexuality' would be by definition a sterile non-reproducing defect.
Were homosexuali
97
87
Thats a really good point.
And we don't want you teaching your filthy perverted religion in our public schools.
And you can have homosexual marriage just as soon as the polygamists, who have been in line ahead of you for a hundred years, get their religion's version of marriage....
Thats a really good point.
And we don't want you teaching your filthy perverted religion in our public schools.
And you can have homosexual marriage just as soon as the polygamists, who have been in line ahead of you for a hundred years, get their religion's version of marriage....
100
Did everyone see that this made Time Magazine's Quote of the Day:
http://www.time.com/time/quotes/0,26174,…
http://www.time.com/time/quotes/0,26174,…
101
@96
Quoting half my sentence and leaving out this "...or the homosexuality trait is inert" suggest you haven't got a clue. Natural selection, is all about "genetic defects", and the most beneficial "defects" being passed on; again, showing your complete ignorance of evolution.
There are genetics involved with homosexual occurrence in the population, twin studies have proven it. Arrogant and ignorant, not a complimentary combination.
@87
In Massachusetts, Polygamist have the exact same rights as everyone else, to be married to one person. There is no state in America where polygamy is legal for one group and not another. Polygamy also has the big societal issue of having to run young men out of the community to eliminate competition for the older more powerful and wealthy men who want all the women; polygamy doesn't work in society, gay marriage does. I'm sure your capacity to reason is down at the same level as @96; you have none.
Quoting half my sentence and leaving out this "...or the homosexuality trait is inert" suggest you haven't got a clue. Natural selection, is all about "genetic defects", and the most beneficial "defects" being passed on; again, showing your complete ignorance of evolution.
There are genetics involved with homosexual occurrence in the population, twin studies have proven it. Arrogant and ignorant, not a complimentary combination.
@87
In Massachusetts, Polygamist have the exact same rights as everyone else, to be married to one person. There is no state in America where polygamy is legal for one group and not another. Polygamy also has the big societal issue of having to run young men out of the community to eliminate competition for the older more powerful and wealthy men who want all the women; polygamy doesn't work in society, gay marriage does. I'm sure your capacity to reason is down at the same level as @96; you have none.
102
@97,101: Polygamy is not a sexual orientation, but rather a lifestyle choice to the fullest extent of the term. There are no people, as far as we know, who are sexually and romantically attracted only to groups of others and not to individuals. There are people sexually and romantically attracted to individuals of their own gender but not to those of the opposite gender.
False equivalency is false.
False equivalency is false.
103
101
So is homosexuality inert or beneficial?
If it is beneficial why don't homosexuals increase their percentage within the population?
Because it is a genetic defect that afflicts a small percentage of the population.
Homosexuals have the same right as anyone to marry someone of the other gender. There is no state in America where same sex marriage is legal for one group and not another.
Polygamy has existed as long as mankind.
Evidently you prefer a system where men father children by multiple women to whom they are not married and to whom they give no support?
Woman could marry multiple husbands as easily as the other way around.
Sexist and ignorant, a very complimentary combination.
So is homosexuality inert or beneficial?
If it is beneficial why don't homosexuals increase their percentage within the population?
Because it is a genetic defect that afflicts a small percentage of the population.
Homosexuals have the same right as anyone to marry someone of the other gender. There is no state in America where same sex marriage is legal for one group and not another.
Polygamy has existed as long as mankind.
Evidently you prefer a system where men father children by multiple women to whom they are not married and to whom they give no support?
Woman could marry multiple husbands as easily as the other way around.
Sexist and ignorant, a very complimentary combination.
105
102
Danny disagrees.
According to him many people have to do poly and it is unrealistic and cruel to expect them to do otherwise.
Keeping polygamy illegal gives those people no option but to be cheating pieces of shit.
Why do you deny poly folk the right to marry whom they love, you bigoted asshole?
Danny disagrees.
According to him many people have to do poly and it is unrealistic and cruel to expect them to do otherwise.
Keeping polygamy illegal gives those people no option but to be cheating pieces of shit.
Why do you deny poly folk the right to marry whom they love, you bigoted asshole?
106
Clearly, some have missed the sarcasm of the 'gay as religion' metaphor. Marriage is a civil matter. Churches and religions don't issue marriage licenses, county governments do. Churches don't collect my taxes, state, local and the federal governments do. The 14th amendment of the Constitution guarantees EQUAL protection under the law for all citizens in the jurisdiction, of which, I am one. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is also the instrument which makes individual states have to follow the edicts of the Bill of Rights, and not just go off the rails and claim that state's rights can trump the federal laws, when it comes to the individual protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
I would never claim that a church HAD to perform a ceremony for a gay couple if that went against the tennents of that particular religion. The issue I have is people using their religious beliefs as the basis for denying others THEIR constitutionally protected rights. I wouldn't (theoretically) have a problem with my state or my country denying me a right, if that right wasn't being extended to other citizens. The thing that seriously pisses me off is that gay and lesbian CITIZENS of this great country, that is ostensibly a bastion of freedom and equality, are being denied equal rights and equal protections, based largely, and somewhat ironically, on religious arguments and dogma, that wouldn't be possible if it weren't for that little document called the Constitution of the United States of America!
So, the gay-as-religion idea was to draw attention to the hypocrisy that is the religious argument against gay marriage. The two things aren't even in the same realm and the issue is being critically obscured (by both sides), with the indulgence of the 'gay is a choice' 'gay is a sin' 'gay is genetic' 'gay is natural', perpetually unprovable and legally irrelevant arguments.
The only 'choice' in this equation, is marriage itself. And I would REALLY like someone to explain to me how I am any less capable (or deserving), of making that choice for myself, as anyone else. Or maybe more aptly put, why ANYONE else is more deserving.
More...
I would never claim that a church HAD to perform a ceremony for a gay couple if that went against the tennents of that particular religion. The issue I have is people using their religious beliefs as the basis for denying others THEIR constitutionally protected rights. I wouldn't (theoretically) have a problem with my state or my country denying me a right, if that right wasn't being extended to other citizens. The thing that seriously pisses me off is that gay and lesbian CITIZENS of this great country, that is ostensibly a bastion of freedom and equality, are being denied equal rights and equal protections, based largely, and somewhat ironically, on religious arguments and dogma, that wouldn't be possible if it weren't for that little document called the Constitution of the United States of America!
So, the gay-as-religion idea was to draw attention to the hypocrisy that is the religious argument against gay marriage. The two things aren't even in the same realm and the issue is being critically obscured (by both sides), with the indulgence of the 'gay is a choice' 'gay is a sin' 'gay is genetic' 'gay is natural', perpetually unprovable and legally irrelevant arguments.
The only 'choice' in this equation, is marriage itself. And I would REALLY like someone to explain to me how I am any less capable (or deserving), of making that choice for myself, as anyone else. Or maybe more aptly put, why ANYONE else is more deserving.
107
@101
You are promoting gay men to marry a women? Is he suppose to lie about his sexual orientation or are there women who want to marry a man that isn't sexually attracted women? I guess you think left handedness is a choice, because they can write with their left hand if they really try. And they all should do it because some gullible dim wit was brainwashed by a slick televangelist?
Besides apparently lacking any reading comprehension, you have your head so far up your rear end, you're looking out your own mouth. Homosexuality has been part of most animals spices, including man since life developed two sexes, if you spent less time reading the Koran or what ever nonsense you mindlessly parrot, you would know that. Troll someone else.
You are promoting gay men to marry a women? Is he suppose to lie about his sexual orientation or are there women who want to marry a man that isn't sexually attracted women? I guess you think left handedness is a choice, because they can write with their left hand if they really try. And they all should do it because some gullible dim wit was brainwashed by a slick televangelist?
Besides apparently lacking any reading comprehension, you have your head so far up your rear end, you're looking out your own mouth. Homosexuality has been part of most animals spices, including man since life developed two sexes, if you spent less time reading the Koran or what ever nonsense you mindlessly parrot, you would know that. Troll someone else.
109
Oh, and the choice to call the hypothetical religion the Church of Ladder Gay Saints, was a sarcastic jab at LDS for a couple of very specific reasons, which seems to have escaped a few of those who have responded/commented.
As one of the largest, financial backers of Prop 8, the proposition that stripped California same sex couples of the constitutional right to marry, using a version of the Mormon Church's name as a gay religion, seemed, well, appropriate.
Further and ironically, the Mormon Church seems like a strange, anti-marriage bedfellow, considering their '100 years of waiting in line' for their own version of marriage.
It is incredibly disingenuous for a group that directly benefits from the constitutional protections, afforded to said group by the 14th Amendment, to pour millions of dollars into a crusade to deny another group, the same protections. But, I can't say I'm terribly surprised. Bigots rarely understand that codifying their bigotry in legal matters has the potential to undermine their own rights. They're just too myopic to extrapolate those kinds of possibilities.
97 - are you keeping up here?
As one of the largest, financial backers of Prop 8, the proposition that stripped California same sex couples of the constitutional right to marry, using a version of the Mormon Church's name as a gay religion, seemed, well, appropriate.
Further and ironically, the Mormon Church seems like a strange, anti-marriage bedfellow, considering their '100 years of waiting in line' for their own version of marriage.
It is incredibly disingenuous for a group that directly benefits from the constitutional protections, afforded to said group by the 14th Amendment, to pour millions of dollars into a crusade to deny another group, the same protections. But, I can't say I'm terribly surprised. Bigots rarely understand that codifying their bigotry in legal matters has the potential to undermine their own rights. They're just too myopic to extrapolate those kinds of possibilities.
97 - are you keeping up here?
110
@101, 102: In the interests of clear communication, let's use more accurate terms like group marriage, rather than the loaded and biased term polygamy. With egalitarian group marriage women are not under anyone's ownership or control and can date or be married to more than one person, or be part of a group with more than one man.
It's not clear to me that "Polyamorous people can get married to one other person also" is any better than "Well gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex also." It may well be true that there are people who are wired more for having lifelong multiple relationships rather than one.
It's not clear to me that "Polyamorous people can get married to one other person also" is any better than "Well gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex also." It may well be true that there are people who are wired more for having lifelong multiple relationships rather than one.
111
109
It is incredibly disingenuous for Danny to claim to advocate for marriage equality and yet stridently deny polygamists the right to marry those whom they love.
Disingenuous and bad karma.....
It is incredibly disingenuous for Danny to claim to advocate for marriage equality and yet stridently deny polygamists the right to marry those whom they love.
Disingenuous and bad karma.....
112
107.
Homosexuality. and cannibalism. and rape. and incest. and polygamy.
since way back when.
You seem to pick and choose among natural behaviors to legitimize.
someone who doesn't want to marry a woman shouldn't.
there is nothing that compels anyone to lie or marry a woman.
Homosexuality. and cannibalism. and rape. and incest. and polygamy.
since way back when.
You seem to pick and choose among natural behaviors to legitimize.
someone who doesn't want to marry a woman shouldn't.
there is nothing that compels anyone to lie or marry a woman.
113
109
perhaps you are so impressed with your own clever sarcasm you can't see others'...
but you stumble onto a profound truth; homosexuals' claim to same sex sexual attraction is just as nebulous a claim as religionists' claim to have seen or heard or known or felt 'god'.
neither's claim can be independently verified.
the behavior of both calls the legitimacy of what they claim into question. (most 'religious' people behave in very unreligious ways, most homosexuals have a lot of heterosexual behavior on their resume that makes claims of 'innateness' seem laughable...)
and just like we don't want Pat Robertson in public schools peddling his brand of religion we don't want homosexuals preaching their gospel to our children either. or changing our laws to reflect their "beliefs".
perhaps you are so impressed with your own clever sarcasm you can't see others'...
but you stumble onto a profound truth; homosexuals' claim to same sex sexual attraction is just as nebulous a claim as religionists' claim to have seen or heard or known or felt 'god'.
neither's claim can be independently verified.
the behavior of both calls the legitimacy of what they claim into question. (most 'religious' people behave in very unreligious ways, most homosexuals have a lot of heterosexual behavior on their resume that makes claims of 'innateness' seem laughable...)
and just like we don't want Pat Robertson in public schools peddling his brand of religion we don't want homosexuals preaching their gospel to our children either. or changing our laws to reflect their "beliefs".
114
@104: Yeah, the "false equivalency" comment was addressed to Alleged. Sorry about that.
@105: Speaking of false equivalencies, how about this?
Dan's talked a lot about people for whom strict monogamy doesn't work, people who want to maintain a steady relationship with someone else but need some variety in their sex life. The people who write in to Dan express no desire to marry three or four people at once; rather, they want to be able to have flings without sabotaging longer relationships. Having sex with multiple people is polyamory, not polygamy. And polyamory alone doesn't make you a CPOS; doing so without your partners knowing is.
@111: Do the polyamorists love only a group of people, or do they instead love several individuals?
In short, Alleged, you can shut your ignorant pie hole while adults are in the room.
@113: There's no way to independently verify sexual attraction? I beg to differ, Captain Assballs! Ever heard of a penile plethysmograph or a vaginal photoplethysmograph? They measure changes in blood flow to the genitals, a nice indicator of sexual attraction and arousal.
@105: Speaking of false equivalencies, how about this?
Dan's talked a lot about people for whom strict monogamy doesn't work, people who want to maintain a steady relationship with someone else but need some variety in their sex life. The people who write in to Dan express no desire to marry three or four people at once; rather, they want to be able to have flings without sabotaging longer relationships. Having sex with multiple people is polyamory, not polygamy. And polyamory alone doesn't make you a CPOS; doing so without your partners knowing is.
@111: Do the polyamorists love only a group of people, or do they instead love several individuals?
In short, Alleged, you can shut your ignorant pie hole while adults are in the room.
@113: There's no way to independently verify sexual attraction? I beg to differ, Captain Assballs! Ever heard of a penile plethysmograph or a vaginal photoplethysmograph? They measure changes in blood flow to the genitals, a nice indicator of sexual attraction and arousal.
115
also, herman will have to choose to enjoy it, to enjoy the hell out of it, to LOVE sucking your dick.
116
Dan, I think you should ad another half sentence to the "Suck my dick, XYZ"-sentence in this lil' open letters of yours. It goes as follows: "...and like it" (with the 'like it' in italic or bold letters).
I'm no expert, but I think you could make many straight men suck dick, if you would have some leverage on them. They don't have to (and most likely won't) like it, but they'll give it, e.g. if you put a gun to their head.
I'm no expert, but I think you could make many straight men suck dick, if you would have some leverage on them. They don't have to (and most likely won't) like it, but they'll give it, e.g. if you put a gun to their head.
118
"but you stumble onto a profound truth; homosexuals' claim to same sex sexual attraction is just as nebulous a claim as religionists' claim to have seen or heard or known or felt 'god'.
neither's claim can be independently verified."
And none of that has anything to do with the application of equal treatment under the law. The glaring difference here, is that one group of people are allowed access to the law, while another group is not. I don't have to believe what religious people believe, or even think their beliefs are rational, to stand strong in, and support the position that they have the right to hold any belief they want. People have the right to think whatever they want. These same people do not, however, have the right to enact laws that deny me the same constitutional guarantees that they enjoy. Allowing gay marriage doesn't take away anyone's right to disagree with it. No one's rights are impinged. People who don't agree are still free to do that.
There's also another little thing called 'rational basis.' Bigots are losing their arguments in court because their hateful, fear mongering doesn't hold up under the rational basis standard.
" (most 'religious' people behave in very unreligious ways, most homosexuals have a lot of heterosexual behavior on their resume that makes claims of 'innateness' seem laughable...)"
Again, you miss the point. The laws of our land uphold that a religious person (or non-religious person) has the right to choose religions, change religions, denounce religions or abstain from religion. So, would you advocate that a person who goes from one faith to another, doesn't deserve those protections? What about someone who is married in a religious ceremony, then gets divorced? Are they to be stripped of their rights? I'm wondering how, in your view, the protections of the constitution should be applied? My guess is, only to people who look, think, and act like you.
"and just like we don't want Pat Robertson in public schools peddling his brand of religion we don't want homosexuals preaching their gospel to our children either. or changing our laws to reflect their "beliefs"."
Your final statement (and your screen name), pretty much sums up two things; 1) You have bought hook, line and sinker into the hateful, bigoted rhetoric you've been fed, probably your whole life, without so much as an independent thought or attempt at being rational or fair. 2) You grossly misunderstand the definition of the word "our." "You" don't get to lay claim to the laws of this land, to the exclusion of others. That's your Achilles heel and the weakness in "your" position. And in case you missed the memo, this discussion isn't about public schools...oh, wait...that's right. You can't hold your argument together on its face, so you resort to fear tactics and interject a completely non related topic, as if that will punctuate the voracity of your position. News flash, it doesn't.
I do agree with you on one point, however. People should keep their religion confined to matters that directly affect their ability to excercise it. If they don't, I'll still defend their rights and exercise my own by ignoring them.
More...
neither's claim can be independently verified."
And none of that has anything to do with the application of equal treatment under the law. The glaring difference here, is that one group of people are allowed access to the law, while another group is not. I don't have to believe what religious people believe, or even think their beliefs are rational, to stand strong in, and support the position that they have the right to hold any belief they want. People have the right to think whatever they want. These same people do not, however, have the right to enact laws that deny me the same constitutional guarantees that they enjoy. Allowing gay marriage doesn't take away anyone's right to disagree with it. No one's rights are impinged. People who don't agree are still free to do that.
There's also another little thing called 'rational basis.' Bigots are losing their arguments in court because their hateful, fear mongering doesn't hold up under the rational basis standard.
" (most 'religious' people behave in very unreligious ways, most homosexuals have a lot of heterosexual behavior on their resume that makes claims of 'innateness' seem laughable...)"
Again, you miss the point. The laws of our land uphold that a religious person (or non-religious person) has the right to choose religions, change religions, denounce religions or abstain from religion. So, would you advocate that a person who goes from one faith to another, doesn't deserve those protections? What about someone who is married in a religious ceremony, then gets divorced? Are they to be stripped of their rights? I'm wondering how, in your view, the protections of the constitution should be applied? My guess is, only to people who look, think, and act like you.
"and just like we don't want Pat Robertson in public schools peddling his brand of religion we don't want homosexuals preaching their gospel to our children either. or changing our laws to reflect their "beliefs"."
Your final statement (and your screen name), pretty much sums up two things; 1) You have bought hook, line and sinker into the hateful, bigoted rhetoric you've been fed, probably your whole life, without so much as an independent thought or attempt at being rational or fair. 2) You grossly misunderstand the definition of the word "our." "You" don't get to lay claim to the laws of this land, to the exclusion of others. That's your Achilles heel and the weakness in "your" position. And in case you missed the memo, this discussion isn't about public schools...oh, wait...that's right. You can't hold your argument together on its face, so you resort to fear tactics and interject a completely non related topic, as if that will punctuate the voracity of your position. News flash, it doesn't.
I do agree with you on one point, however. People should keep their religion confined to matters that directly affect their ability to excercise it. If they don't, I'll still defend their rights and exercise my own by ignoring them.
119
I don't ever remember stright or gay,,,,what do I want to be,,,I simply wanted to be me...If being gay is a choice ,than wouldn't stright be a choice too,,,i would like to know ,when did herman cain decide to be stright?
122
I don't think so buddy, but i shall avoid choosing to be straight and leave Mr Savage's cock to Mr Cain, Mr. Bachmann, and John McCain. Hmmm.....what if we actively all started writing one good letter to multiple homophobes? The whole choose to be gay challenge? I wrote one to Michelle Bachmann saying she could have her way with me. What if we write one to Sarah Palin? George Bush? Can we ask John McCain to CHOOSE to be a woman? Maybe I should write that one. But not until I move from AZ permanently.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
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
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Well-Regulated Beaverton Militia Accidentally Fires Shot into Neighbor's Bedroom by Goldy
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
Dutch Artist Turns Dead Cat into Remote-Controlled Helicopter by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Puggle: Love It or Shove It by Grant Brissey
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (122) RSS