They Hate Gays: Dan Riehl
Tweet
Conservative blogger Dan Riehl comes out and admits that he hates gays. More of you should do this instead of faking it, confession’s good for the soul.
52 Responses to “They Hate Gays: Dan Riehl”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Are these the “grown-ups” and “adults” I keep hearing about? Talk about bringing civility to the political discourse.
“Holy Shit, this guy sucks cock!” …therefore I no longer have to listen to anything he has to say.
I think the whole right wing should have detention and stay after school to think about what they’ve said.
Ann, Rush, Dan, I hope your happy because now the entire group will pay the price.
Just posted this over there, but he don’t allow tags. =(
I think we have established that about 12 or so commenters at Free Republic, and possibly, Dan Riehl, hate gays.
That leaves a few million conservatives, at least, unaccounted for.
Apparently you missed the 2004 election and the Republicans promising the plague of married gays infecting America.
Well, yeah, 12 who will say it out loud.
A few million who keep it to themselves. Which I prefer, actually.
Oliver: You’re right — I don’t remember anything about a plague. I also don’t recall that opposition to gay marriage is synonymous with gay hatred.
Duros: If they keep it to themselves, how do you know? For all I know, you’re keeping your hatred of gays to yourself.
“Hatred” is a strong term, but duh – opposition to gay marriage is hardly a position someone with no prejudice against homosexuality would have, despite the increasingly torturous logic they employ to try and prove otherwise.
“I have no problems whatsoever with gay people, but I dont think that they should be allowed to get married! Why… oh… um… because then we would have to allow bigamy and bestiality! Oh, did I just compare homosexuals with people who fuck dogs? Crap… well, we shouldn’t allow gay marriage because it would undermine the American family! How, you ask? Oh… well shit… um… we shouldn’t allow gay marriage because it undermines the institution of marriage!!! Yeah, that sounds smart. Oh yeah… the 60% divorce rate in the country. No, I did NOT just insult homosexuals! How dare you accuse me of declaring them second-class citizens by suggesting that them having the ability to get married reduces the whole idea of marriage!…”
Yeah, that sort of thing.
I am not opposed to gay marriage, and I have nothing whatever against gays.
I’m a conservative who doesn’t believe that other conservatives must support gay marriage in order to “prove” they don’t hate gays.
For more on gay conservatives, see here.
If someone does want to prove that they don’t hate gays, not opposing gay marriage is a pretty important part of it. In fact, doing the opposite would essentially prove otherwise, as I mentioned earlier.
I have never understood Log Cabin Republicans and I never will.
August summed them up with his caricature of a man pointing at a Republican manifesto and saying “I’m sure the part about hating me personally is just affectation” or words to that effect. It’s like The Believer, only not as extreme obviously.
Frank, I’m genuinely happy and surprised at your personal stance on the issue of gay marriage. Kudos.
However, you cannot honestly deny that the conservative political movement in this country has an inherent bigotry against homosexuals. At the very least, you can admit that the conservative movement is more likely to attract this sort of bigot than liberalism does (despite your link re: gay conservatives).
“I’m a conservative who doesn’t believe that other conservatives must support gay marriage in order to “prove” they don’t hate gays.”
Frank, your comment is inherently illogical. If you oppose gay marriage, then you are a bigot. There is not a single reason to oppose gay marriage unless you are intolerant of gays. Why should their sexual orientation preclude them from an institution that all heterosexuals are privy to?
(and please don’t break out the tired nugget saying that gays have just as much a right to marry as straight people, just so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. that’s a ridiculous position to take).
mambochicken: I will not argue with you — why should I bother? There are people who think gay marriage is wrong — sinful, actually — but not because they are intolerant of gays.
If you’re surprised at my stance on gay marriage, it’s because of your prejudice — your belief that a conservative that supports gay marriage is a rara avis.
Conservatives are divided on this issue (not between those who “hate” gays, and those who don’t) between those who really don’t care what conservatives do with their lives, and those who don’t want the government to sanction sinful behavior.
You’ve simply made an equation between disagreeing with the goals of some (not all) gays, and hating them.
Frank: You’re trying to say people who think that homosexuality (and gay marriage) is sinful are NOT bigoted against gays? Do I even have to address the utter idiocy and illogicality of that statement?
“If you’re surprised at my stance on gay marriage, it’s because of your prejudice — your belief that a conservative that supports gay marriage is a rara avis.”
No, dickless, I was referring to YOU, personally. I have no problem understanding that there are conservatives who support gay marriage. I don’t tend to think of ALL conservatives as gay-bashing Bible-thumpers, but I recognize that any given conservative is MORE likely to be that knuckle-dragger than any given liberal. I was expressing my surprise that I could possibly share a position with you, Frank. Nice reading comprehension though.
It’s not illegal to have premarital sex, eat shellfish, or work on Sundays, despite the sinfulness of it all… why single out homosexuality and marriage rights? Could it be that anti-gay marriage people are bigots? Nah, couldn’t be…
I’d also like to point out that whether a behavior is “sinful” should have no bearing in the light of the law of the U.S. That whole separation of church and state thing… damn, what a pain in the ass THAT is…
OK, then, mambochicken, explain your stupid comment of 4:36 PM
I’ll chalk the “dickless” comment up to liberal compassion and tolerance.
The “hatred” question is rather beside the point in some ways– people blithely used “No Colored” water fountains without seething racist hatred in their minds. White supremacy was simply an unchallenged belief deeply entrenched in institutions– “hate” as a feeling wasn’t the point. So Frank’s point is valid, but it is still entirely compatible with deep prejudice against homosexuals in our society. Indeed, that prejudice lies behind the pinpointing of homosexuality as sinful (rather than, say, the much more biblically supported sanction against obscene wealth in the face of poverty). Everyone picks and chooses from the Bible– homophobia is a principle of fundamentalist selection, just as racism was for the “curse of Ham”. Read George Marsden’s body of work if you have any doubt about that.
Frank, what’s wrong with you? Where in that comment do I paint all conservatives with a broad brush as gay-bashers? I was merely parodying the “torturous logic” that opponents of gay marriage have used to defend their position (that Nimrod had alluded to). Not ALL conservatives are this type of person, as I have said all along. Have you utterly lost the ability to understand the written English language?
Apologies for the “dickless” comment. I’ll admit that it’s fairly likely that you do, indeed, have a dick.
I don’t need or want your useless apology — I already knew I have a dick.
Just like I knew I was not a “knuckle dragger”.
Just like I know that NAMBLA is fairly salivating in the wings, waiting to push their agenda, when gay marriage is the law of the land.
Just like I know that the concept of gay marriage will indeed undermine the idea of the nuclear family as man, woman and a child or two.
Just like I know that the “60 per cent divorce” [probably a total fiction, given that most people say 50%] is a distorted interpretation of statistics.
Just as I know that children are not second – class citizens, and they can’t marry; and brothers and sisters aren’t second – class citizens, and they can’t marry.
The only thing worse than painting conservatives with a broad brush, is pretending you didn’t paint conservatives with a broad brush.
You probably have a dick, alright. It’s in the testicle area that you appear to be challenged.
Jesus, Frank, you are a hopeless, hostile fool.
Re: NAMBLA: You cannot possibly defend the idea that two consenting homosexual adults are in any way analogous to men who like to fuck underage boys.
Re: Gay marriage undermining the nuclear family: First of all, how does it undermine anyone else’s marriage or family? Are you seriously suggesting that because two men may be allowed to marry each other, that this has any profound effect on heterosexual relationships? Yes, I’m sure that many people will choose not to get married, or have children, because all of a sudden “fags can do it too. Fuck that, let’s not get married.” Besides, I would argue that anyone who thinks that is less worthy of consideration than two homosexuals that just want to be married, like two loving adults in a relationship.
Re: 60% divorce rate. I read that sometime ago, but regardless of the actual percentage, it’s still much too high to claim that marriage is a “sacred institution” that cannot be sullied by teh gays.
Re: children and siblings getting married: Are you serious? young children can’t do a lot of things, including voting, drinking, entering the military, etc. There is a fundamental difference between children and adults, so it’s not unreasonable to disallow marriage below a certain age. As for brothers and sisters getting married… first off, that’s just weird. Secondly, I don’t think that ANYONE is clamoring for the rights of siblings to be married. Thirdly, if they are both adults, then maybe they should be allowed to be married. But again, I don’t think that anyone outside Mississippi is particularly interested in marrying their sister.
Frank, it’s SO DAMN EASY to refute your arguments! Please stop disagreeing for the sake of being disagreeable. You just end up looking like an idiot. Deep down, I know you must realize that.
Please reference me back to my comment where I painted conservatives with a broad brush. I’d love to have my words thrown back in my face and proven a liar… seriously, do it. Good luck.
Finally, I apologized for my insult, and you turn around and insult me right back. I don’t want to hear you act like the civility police ever again, because I am going to call you on it as being a hypocrite. My testicles are just fine, thanks.
Nice to have you back, Frank.
http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html
Apparently the actual estimated percentage of first marriages ending in divorce is somewhere between 43% and 50%. My apologies for the error, but that’s still a LOT of people.
Wrong again (and stop apologizing)
Slightly more than 2 out of five is scarcely evidence that marriage is a failing institution.
I’ll admit that it’s fairly likely [emphasis mine - fd] that you do, indeed, have a dick.
I matched my response to your “apology”.
You are not “refuting my arguments” because I am not contending that these things weigh against gay marriage.
The right to gay marriage can not be proven like a scientific theorem. Whether the right to gay marriage exists is not the issue. It’s whether the objections exist, and are worthy of being discussed. And they are, whether you “agree” with them (whatever that means) or not.
Since you seem to be the anal type, I’ll address your points one by one:
Re: NAMBLA: I never said they were. But people have a legitimate reason to be apprehensive about allowing gay marriage, if it opens the door for the legitimization of NAMBLA.
Re: Gay marriage undermining the nuclear family: If we perceive the nuclear family as a man and a woman and a child or two, then what do we think of a marriage between two men, or two women, with no hope of having children? Is it not obvious that “marriage” must be redefined? If not, then what was your original definition? “Two humans in a house for a long time”? It is not difficult to see, if you choose to, that such a radical redefinition of marriage undermines the original institution.
Re: 60% divorce rate: The fact that people get divorced has nothing whatever to do with the perspective of those who stay married. The fact that people don’t just split up, and go their separate ways, could be seen (again, if you choose to) as a sign of respect for the institution. In fact, that idea that gay couples want to formalize their relationship is a sign of their respect for the institution.
Re: children and siblings getting married: My point was far simpler, and less dramatic, then you make it out to be. It is simply that the state has the right to regulate who can be married. It is either a civil institution or a sacred institution. It cannot be neither. People may have a fundamental human right to have sex, and live together, or both. But there is no fundamental human right to be married.
There are times when even liberals must realize that people are entitled to their opinions.
Frank, I am not prejudiced against you. I just think your existence is sinful; therefore, I will pick and choose which rights you can and cannot have. Now Frank, imagine if I had tens of millions of people who shared my belief. Your life would suck, wouldn’t it?
Rounds, you’re talking to the wrong guy. I have nothing whatever against gays. My point was strictly academic. I don’t know what it feels like to be gay, or act gay. And I don’t know what it feels like to have any power over them, because I don’t.
Now, imagine that you think acting gay is sinful, but being gay is not. How would you feel about the government’s sanctioning that relationship (i.e., it’s not just OK to be gay, now it’s OK to act gay)?
Would you necessarily hate gays if you didn’t want such a sanction to occur?
you’re an imbecile frank. yes, people are entitled to their opinions, even bigots. however, this bigotry should not be reflected in the law. and sinfulness is not a reason for behavior to be prohibited… see: shellfish, working on Sundays, premarital sex, separation of church and state.
what gives the state the right to discriminate on lines of sexual orientation? businesses aren’t allowed to do it, what makes the fed gov’t able to do it?
the divorce rate argument is a bad one, I can rescind that one. I would support gay marriage even if the divorce rate was 0%.
If there’s no legit analogy between NAMBLA and gay marriage, then how can you say that one will validate the other?
You’re an ignorant dick, Frank. I don’t know how you managed to live your 216 years on Earth without pissing the wrong guy off.
A pre-emptive reply to your next pointless post: “You’re a tremendous jackass and I look forward to your death.”
Points to anyone who knows where that’s from without googling it.
mambochicken: Your latest post is about as intelligent as all your others.
BTW, mamboing chicken, I support gay marriage. I’ve pissed a lot of people off in my 60 years on earth, because I can think. You’re just a left wing parrot, whose tolerance only extends to your own beliefs. What a wimp!
Before I get banned again, for responding to your nonsense, I will no longer post to this thread. So you can insult me and call me names, if you need to.
I’ll be around, I just won’t respond. You don’t deserve it.
“Now, imagine that you think acting gay is sinful, but being gay is not.” fd
I’m confused. I guess you can argue that being heterosexual is okay, but acting like a hetero is sinful. Makes no sense.
Thank you, Frank. I will enjoy my latest victory over you in the same way the Yankees would enjoy a victory over the Devil Rays…
What in the name of holy FUCK?
Rounds: I’m not surprised you’re confused. I am referring to an issue of right and wrong, an issue that confuses all liberals.
Let me attempt to clarify: Being gay (i.e., thinking of oneself as gay,believing that one has no choice, but is instead, born gay) is no sin. Being what you are is not a sin. However, in the view of many Christians (not just fundamentalists), Jews and Muslims, committing homosexual acts is sinful.
Were the government to arbitrarily permit gay marriage, they would then, in effect, be sanctioning homosexual acts.
Most Christians, many Jews, and all Muslims would be upset if that happened.
Still confused?
Re: NAMBLA: I never said they were. But people have a legitimate reason to be apprehensive about allowing gay marriage, if it opens the door for the legitimization of NAMBLA.
But it doesn’t. One has nothing to do with the other.
But I guess being a pedophile and acting on it are also 2 different things too, yes?
Duros: Stop being clever by half. A man boy relationship is a relationship between two males, yes?
Gay marriage, where men are involved, is a relationship between two men, yes?
So if gay marriage can be legitimized, despite the objections of millions of Christians, Jews and Muslims, the relationship between a man and a boy can be legitimized also, yes?
Interestingly, being a pedophile, and not acting on it, is no crime, yes?
Don’t get snippy with me, Frank.
A man boy relationship is a relationship between two males, yes?
Yes, it is. Is it a relationship between 2 consenting adults? Yes or no? Because if one of those males is not of legal age, then it’s a criminal act.
So again, NAMBLA+Gay Marriage =/= equivalent.
the relationship between a man and a boy can be legitimized also, yes?
No.
Not the same. Trying to equate the two weakens your case.
Interestingly, being a pedophile, and not acting on it, is no crime, yes?
Is it sinful?
Separation of church and state? Frank says no.
Two homosexual men equivalent (or at least analogous) to men fucking young boys? Frank says yes.
Frank has no leg to stand on. he’s being unreasonable, and when you call him on it and use the force of reason, he insults your intelligence and ignores the arguments.
What a dick.
I find it remarkable, and a bit queasy-making, to have people still propping up the dessicated and crumbling corpse of NAMBLA to demonstrate the dreadfulness of treating gay men as if they were human beings.
Folks, face it – NAMBLA, as a organization, is as dead as the Whig Party. If you want to argue that ‘well, if we let adult gay men marry each other, they’ll be NO GOOD REASON why we can’t let adult gay men marry eight year old boys! And sheep!’ you’ll have to learn to do it without waving the NAMBLA banner.
And you Jedi mind tricks don’t work on me, by the way.
I was only describing what I believed to be the feelings of others.
Mambochicken has decided, before I insulted anyone, that I am a dick.
Question, mamboing chicken: Is being a dick a step up from being dickless, the name you called me the previous time you insulted me before I insulted you?
You don’t consider your pusillanimous mewling the “force of reason”, do you? That makes me want to, as ‘Monk’ would say, “LOL out loud.”
Robert, you may be right about NAMBLA, but ridiculing people’s fears doesn’t make them go away.
The problem with liberals is that they can’t distinguish an opinion from a fact. They just can’t believe someone thinks differently from them, without assuming there is something “wrong” with them.
Frank, since you seem incapable of coming up with any new arguments, and ignore the ones on the table already… read this next part very slowly, so it can creep into your unbelievably thick skull.
NAMBLA, even if they are still in operation, is not a reason to prevent gay marriage. Is it legitimate for men to fuck/marry underage girls? No. So why is it different if the two parties are the same sex. Answer: It doesn’t. People who want to equate NAMBLA with all gays are bigoted, idiotic assholes whose opinion shouldn’t matter anyway.
This part is REALLY important, Frank, so look sharp. I readily admit that EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion. People can be opposed to gay marriage, and I’m ok with that. People can be racists, sexists, or any other kind of bigot you care to mention. However, bigotry should NOT be written into the law. Discrimination based on sexual preference is overt 100% bigotry. If they think that homosexual behavior is sinful, and because of this belief they oppose gay marriage… then they’re bigots! It’s not that hard, even for you Frank.
I honestly did apologize for the previous insult, because it was probably not true (e.g., you probably have a dick, but I can’t be certain of that, can I?). However, there’s NO question that you’re a dick. Therefore, it’s not really an insult, just a statement of fact. Just like if I were to say that you’re a crabby old man who’s just pissed off that the world has passed you by, so you get your amusement from displaying your dick-ness to the world on political blogs. That’s a fact.
mambochicken: you are pathetic. You are a miserable excuse for a person (if you are a person — but I can’t be sure of that, can I?)
You know less about me than you do about most things. You are very good at pretending you are intelligent, but you’re not fooling me.
Most of us know that the insults and name calling are because you really have nothing to say.
How sad for you.
I _may_ be right about NAMBLA?
You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Either they are defunct, or they’re not.
Evidence indicates that they are defunct – if you have evidence that they’re not, please present it.
Given that actual evidence hasn’t changed your mind, I can’t see how ridicule could hurt. If rational Europeans had made fun of people for believing the blood libel a few hundred years ago, it could only have helped. Believing that gay men typically, routinely and customarily bugger little boys is no more rational a belief than that.
As for your ‘opinion’ line – if your ‘opinion’ is that the only reason why I became a foster/adoptive parent is to molest my children, then yes, you have something wrong with you.
Frank, I just call ‘em like I see ‘em. And if you’ll note, I’ve said plenty of substantive things to counteract your idiotic positions, and tend to resort to insults after you fail to address the issues appropriately. You dumb bastard.
Meanwhile, you appear to be defending the views of people who equate homosexuals with pedophiles. While I might be crude with some of my language, YOU are demonstrably a terrible human being. If there was a Hell, I’m sure they’d welcome you.
Eat shit.
OK, Robert, to the best of my knowledge, they are inactive.
As I said before, I was only attempting to state the opinions of others.
Perhaps I could have avoided all the insults and name calling, if I had simply said, “I do not oppose gay marriage,” and let it go at that.
I have no idea why the idea that gay people can marry should produce such vitriol. I can only guess, as I said before, that the liberal idea of tolerance is that you accept their beliefs without question.
mambochicken: Your latest comment surpasses all the rest in immaturity.
Once again,I risk being banned if I continue to respond to your juvenile, disgusting comments.
It’s not
“the idea that gay people can marry should produce such vitriol.” it’s the placid assumption (on your part) that allowing gay men and lesbians to marry the people they (variously) love, live with, share their lives with, and are raising children with is, on the face of it, unthinkable. _That_ rankles.
I’ve been with my husband for thirteen years, and we’ve adopted two sons. We own our home together, we are legal co-parents to our children, we’re the sole beneficiaries of each other’s life insurance (and if there’s a purer expression of trust than falling asleep next to your sole beneficiary, I don’t know what it is*), and yet, in the eyes of the state, we’re legal strangers.
I’m not asking the state to force a church to marry us. Which is ironic, seeing as we’ve already _been_ married by a Baptist minister. I’m asking the state to grant legal acknowledgement that we are who we are – a married couple.
*This is a joke. Given Frank’s utter humorlessness, as demonstrated here, I thought it apropos to point that out.
Perhaps I could have avoided all the insults and name calling, if I had simply said, “I do not oppose gay marriage,” and let it go at that.
fd10801 | Mar 13, 2007 2:59:04 PM
“Once again,I risk being banned if I continue to respond to your juvenile, disgusting comments.”
Gonna pull out the ‘ol ‘arrogant wannabe Nazi prick’ insult, Frank? C’mon, you’re dying to type the words!
And if you’ll note, I’ve said plenty of substantive things to counteract your idiotic positions, and tend to resort to insults after you fail to address the issues appropriately
I want to be sure I have this straight: You feel you are justified in insulting me, because you answered (in your own opinion) the arguments of others that I re – stated simply to explain why others (not myself) oppose gay marriage, and I failed to respond to you appropriately (in your opinion).
Is that about it?
I’d hate to call you a condescending oaf for nothing, so I want to be sure I have it right..
I hate gay people! i fucking hate the bastards! I HOPE THEY ALL DIE IN HELL! AND BURN! KILL THE GAYS! KILL THE GAYS! KILL THE FUCKING FUCKING GAYS!
Aiden you are a voice of sanity amongst these fags.
KILL THE GAYS
GAYS RAPE CHILDREN:
Protect our kids. http://www.godhatesfags.com