Conservative Bigot Eruption: Dinesh D’Souza
Tweet
D’Souza attacks the gays. They can’t help themselves.
62 Responses to “Conservative Bigot Eruption: Dinesh D’Souza”
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
D’Souza is the nutjob who said that the solution to terrorism is to appease radical Islam by converting our entire culture to their moral standards.
Yeah, the left only outs homosexuals and thinks its funny.
I can’t defend D’Souza (though I would like to) so I’ll change the subject.
There’s nothing to defend, but I find it rather ironic that an ideology that has for whatever reason, prided itself on outing gays over the past few years is going to get its panties in a wad over what D’Souza wrote.
What’s worse? Writing a lame joke for an AOL piece, or outing gay GOP staffers and driving them from their jobs?
outing gay GOP staffers and driving them from their jobs
Um… unless I’m missing something here, the only cases I can think of are: Mark Foley, who propositioned minors (or not, I seem to remember it was a kind of age of consent argument disparity thing); Ted Haggard, who went to prostitutes and used methamphetimines; Bob Allen, who offered to pay an undercover officer for oral sex because he was intimidated by his being black and all; Jeff Gannon/Guckert, who had no legitimate press credentials and yet had access to the president, and was a male prostitute. In all cases theres clearly more to the story than them being merely Gay, and alot of it (prostitution, drugs, pederasty in potentia). Its like saying Clinton’s impeachment was because the right were trying to out him as a heterosexual, its clearly about more than that (although for Clinton, arguably less-more than the drugs, prostitutes, etc.)
They’re also of note given how these people end up taking very anti-gay public personae at the same time that they live their closeted lifestyles, making them not incidentally hypocrates, but more to the point, kind of fucking stupid. You think if there were a Gay republican running for senate or something, or an existing Republican congressman that was gay (and not, it should need no repeating, involved with drugs, prostitutes, or pederasty, or trying to criminalize his own lifestyle) that Democrats would ride the guy about it? What do you base that on?
This was an attempt on my part at humor, but clearly it misfired.
well, that part’s teh funny right there.
the left only outs homosexuals and thinks its funny.
C’mon, Jay, that’s not true. The right outs homosexuals too (when they get arrested or indicted) and we think that’s funny also.
Rex, I am talking about the campaign by liberals (along with the help of Human Rights Campaign staffers ironically enough) to out gay Republican staffers. The two names in question that were in the forefront of this little witch hunt were two dirtbags named Mike Rogers and John Aravosis.
If a gay person works for a Republican member of Congress and is keeping themselves in the closet for whatever reason, that is their decision and they’re entitled to do so. But others feel that they deserve to be outed and why? Because they broke the golden rule of not holding liberal views on all matters pertaining to gays.
It’s amazing. Liberals do nothing but boast about how wonderful a virtue it is to differ with American political leaders (“Dissent is patriotic!!”). Oh, but a gay person whose views differ from those of liberals? Well, they deserved to be outed because such views are ‘hypocritical.’
And all of this is done without a peep from mainstream liberal leaders, bloggers, etc. Yet, I’m supposed to take seriously the bitch-fest over what Dinesh D’Souza wrote? Please.
What’s worse? Writing a lame joke for an AOL piece, or outing gay GOP staffers and driving them from their jobs?
Posted by: Jay
========================
Who drove the gay GOP staffers from their jobs?
an ideology that has for whatever reason, prided itself on outing gays
An “ideology” prided itself??
That doesn’t make any sense at all, Jay. I think all this waging war on nouns has distorted your ability to reason.
Ah, we’re talking about this then…
Well okay, fair enough, I don’t agree with the efforts of Rogers and Aravosis here, (not least of all because I think they’re ineffective) but I do see the position they’re in. Anti-Gay marriage laws are becoming a bigger threat by the day and they fear they’re becoming second-class citizens (and tragically they’re right to) and in that circumstance I think its a completely fair question to ask a person “How can you support something that runs completely counter to your own self-interests? How can you do this not just to yourself but to everyone else like you?”
However, while their concern is a reasonable one in the circumstances, their actions are not, and indeed they are underfire from not just from people they’ve outed, but also from democrats and liberals who support gay marriage/unions. Thats, I think, where my confusion was starting, because you were taking something that a small group of people was doing and extrapolating it into something that all liberals support. Many don’t. True, there’s not much of a vocal opposition to it, and maybe there should be, but that doesn’t make all liberals complicit in these tactless tactics, surely. It’s not a part of the liberal ideology that people’s private sexual preferences should be public fodder, and its kinda irresponsible to suggest otherwise.
Don’t get cute Quaker. You’re not stupid, so stop pretending to be. You know precisely what I am talking about Professor.
OxyCon raises a good point–when the gay GOP staffers were outed, what forced them to leave office? Could it, perhaps, be the Republican culture of homophobia that turns homosexuality into something so shameful that one must leave their jobs over it?
Go ahead and out the gay aides of liberal Democrats and see how far that gets you.
Interesting that Jay, who supports an ideology that for whatever reason, prides itself on persecution of gays, would see a problem with outing people that live their lives contrary to the Republican “family values” platform.
“There’s nothing to defend,”
Do you mean that D’Souza said nothing wrong in your eyes or that you don’t think that there is a defense for his words?
I think its a completely fair question to ask a person “How can you support something that runs completely counter to your own self-interests? How can you do this not just to yourself but to everyone else like you?”
How do you know it is in that person’s self interest? That’s part of my point. The assumption is that it is in that person’s self interest, but maybe it isn’t. And if isn’t, that is their business.
Thats, I think, where my confusion was starting, because you were taking something that a small group of people was doing and extrapolating it into something that all liberals support. Many don’t. True, there’s not much of a vocal opposition to it, and maybe there should be, but that doesn’t make all liberals complicit in these tactless tactics, surely.
You’re absolutely correct. I shouldn’t have painted with such a broad brush.
My problem is this when it comes to issues involving gay rights: The Democratic Party as a whole, has been a fraud with regard to gay rights. I’ve brought this up before. The Democrats record on gay rights is abysmal. They talk the best game in town when it comes to the issue. They say all the right things. They howl in protest when somebody says something that is deemed ‘offensive’ to the gay community. They make sure they label anybody with a religious objection to homosexuality as a bigot or somebody that “hates gays”, and will lecture people all day long about the importance of ‘tolerance’, but they get a free pass on their own indifference and hostility towards the gay community.
Outing somebody that is gay is either right or it is wrong. The liberals who support what guys like Avavosis and Rogers are doing cannot have it both ways.
You know precisely what I am talking about Professor.
You’re right, I do.
What you’re saying is that a small group of gay activists got into a running battle with some closet cases who work for anti-gay lawmakers. And because the activists happen to be left-leaning, you attribute their actions to their leftness instead of their gay activism so you can dishonestly tar “an ideology” and charge an entirely unrelated group of people with hypocricy.
Shall we keep going down this path or shall we go back to “being cute” now?
OxyCon raises a good point
Actually, he doesn’t raise a good point. The issue is the outing, not the end result of it. It doesn’t matter whether the person loses their job or not. It’s a deflection.
Interesting that Jay, who supports an ideology that for whatever reason, prides itself on persecution of gays
1. Gays are not ‘persecuted’ in this country. So give the hyperbole a rest.
2. I don’t render judgment on people. First off, I am no better than any other person and secondly, I need to tend to my own issues before I start pointing out others (Matt 7:3-5)
“1. Gays are not ‘persecuted’ in this country. So give the hyperbole a rest.”
Wow. Amazing. How can you have your head so deep in the sand?
1. In many states, you can be fired from your job just for being gay. Including the US military.
2. In many communities, two gay men holding hands or showing any outward signs of affection is rewarded with a beating or worse.
3. In most states, you can be excluded from your partner’s deathbed because you are not considered immediate family.
And because the activists happen to be left-leaning, you attribute their actions to their leftness instead of their gay activism so you can dishonestly tar “an ideology” and charge an entirely unrelated group of people with hypocricy.
First of all, their gay activism is tied to liberal viewpoints concerning gays. The two are not separate and distinct.
Secondly, dishonestly? Bullsheot. While I may have been incorrect in accusing all Democrats and liberals of supporting this effort, the notion that support for this campaign exists only in the halls of gay activists is absurd. It’s informal, but Kos readers expressed their support for outing gay Republicans.
Could it, perhaps, be the Republican culture of homophobia that turns homosexuality into something so shameful that one must leave their jobs over it?
Even though OxyCon didn’t raise a good point, let me ask you about this. Do you find it admirable for those on the left to play into the bigotry of anti-gay forces in order to advance their political agenda?
The issue is the outing, not the end result of it. It doesn’t matter whether the person loses their job or not. It’s a deflection.
Fine. Why did you bring it up in the first place, then?
They make sure they label anybody with a religious objection to homosexuality as a bigot or somebody that “hates gays”
This is a fine obfuscation. It’s not that they have a religious objection to homosexuality it’s that they have a religious objection to homosexuals.
A proper response to being opposed to homosexuality is to not engage in homosexual behavior. But no, that’s not good enough for the moral scolds on the right, they have to go after the homosexuals in person, to make sure that they don’t get any gay on them…or something.
Sorry about the tag…
Secondly, dishonestly? Bullsheot. While I may have been incorrect in accusing all Democrats and liberals of supporting this effort,
I see. “Incorrect.” Not dishonest. Thank you. Carry on.
Do you find it admirable for those on the left to play into the bigotry of anti-gay forces in order to advance their political agenda?
Wow, are we getting into ideas of “fighting fair” and “honorable politics” all of a sudden? After six long years of “terrorist sympathizer,” “Defeatocrat,” and “Raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences,” you want to get into whether or not it’s admirable for this group of liberals to adopt this strategy?
I won’t weep any tears over the poor flustered GOP that has to get rid of competent professionals because they decided to foster an environment of bigotry. Eventually they have to grow up and make a choice as to whether they’d rather have resourceful, intelligent operatives in the party or they’d rather have a party that’s 100% heterosexual.
On the same note, what’s your feeling on gay Arabic translators getting ousted by the military don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy? (And yes, yes, I know Clinton signed it. The fact is that it’s still there even despite Clinton’s stupid decision to do so, and the GOP isn’t going to do anything against it.)
It’s not that they have a religious objection to homosexuality it’s that they have a religious objection to homosexuals.
Now you’re the one painting with the broad brush.
A proper response to being opposed to homosexuality is to not engage in homosexual behavior.
Oh that’s nonsense. What, the only response to having a conviction that something is not right is to simply not engage in it?
There is a BIG difference between believing in right and wrong Spider, and passing judgment on others for what they do.
Okay, let’s try my last sentence again, because it’s a jumble as written:
“Don’t-ask-don’t-tell is still there, and the GOP won’t do anything to repeal the act.”
There is a BIG difference between believing in right and wrong Spider, and passing judgment on others for what they do.
Sure, but in this case, you have people passing judgment on homosexuals for engaging in acts that are declared immoral by their own belief system, not necessarily that of those they go after.
One believes being gay is wrong because their Bible says so. Fine. Believe that. But then don’t go around telling everybody who doesn’t believe in the Bible that they should believe what you believe.
Wow, are we getting into ideas of “fighting fair” and “honorable politics” all of a sudden? After six long years of “terrorist sympathizer,” “Defeatocrat,” and “Raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences,” you want to get into whether or not it’s admirable for this group of liberals to adopt this strategy?
Whoa, whoa. You’re stepping into a different realm here. We’re not talking generalities. Calling the Democratic party “Defeatocrats” is one thing. What these people were doing, affected the private life of individual gay people.
I won’t weep any tears over the poor flustered GOP that has to get rid of competent professionals because they decided to foster an environment of bigotry.
Well, I’m not asking you about them. I’m asking you about the gay staffers who’ve been outed by liberals as a means of getting at their bosses politically.
On the same note, what’s your feeling on gay Arabic translators getting ousted by the military don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy? (And yes, yes, I know Clinton signed it. The fact is that it’s still there even despite Clinton’s stupid decision to do so, and the GOP isn’t going to do anything against it.)
I don’t support don’t ask, don’t tell. My view is, if you’re willing to put your life on the line to defend our country, I don’t care if you’re gay or not.
The Democratic Party as a whole, has been a fraud with regard to gay rights.
Hate to agree but its largely true. Neither political party really seems to be behind the idea of the Homosexual as a human being, both sort of treat them as a kind of… well okay I’m exaggerating here but kind of like different breeds of dogs.
For Republicans its a snarling rottweiler in the neighbors yard that threatens to tear apart the garden of society and pee on the newspaper of justice, and as such needs to be chained to the ground, inside a chainlink fence, inside a concrete bunker, 50 feet under ground.
For Democrats, theyre a cute little puppy who does cute tricks, who relies on you for food, who looks at you everytime you speak, smiling, wagging its tail, why you’d almost think it were human, and you cant be mean to something that adorable.
Its sad that the gay-rights debates end up having more to do with the whims of homophobes than the rights of homosexuals, and in a way it keeps any Democrat from putting forward a truly progressive marriage/civil union proposal, buts thats the stupid way of it for now.
1. Gays are not ‘persecuted’ in this country.
I remember an American History course where we read articles that quoted (and were presumably not outright lying when they did so) black former-slaves about a year after the Civil War had ended, and the articles we’re putting forth the narrative that the blacks actually preferred life as a slave, in a sort of “oh thems were the dayses, sho nuff massa” sort of thing, talking about how kind their masters were and how satisfying it was to work on the farm for them personally, etc. Some in the class said the article was lying, or the blacks themselves were coerced into lying. Some said that the examples represented the exceptions, not the norm. Some even said the teacher was quasi-racist for even showing us the article.
What I remember thinking, and I think its germaine to your statement, is that a whole group of people could have it really really bad and I might never even know it unless I were one.
If your being a Christian somehow prevented you from marrying who you wanted and kept you from adopting children, or prevented you from serving in your country’s military just because of that, you would feel persecuted and you’d be right to. These issues are being fought for now with regards to the homosexual community, in as much as many in government are trying to prevent the right to the first and third and undo the right to the second. Maybe you dont want to call it Persecution per se, Jay, but you can’t deny there’s a whole lot of people out there who are out to get them, and to hurt them, and who will do whatever they can to do so. Be they Fred Phelps or Fred Thompson (yeah, its an unfair comparison but they both represent different degrees of the same sentiment) people have actively poised themselves in opposition to the civil rights agenda of the homosexual community. I call it persecution. Maybe you call it something else, but whatever it is doesn’t look much like justice to me.
So back to the top, Jay.
I find it rather ironic that an ideology that has for whatever reason, prided itself on outing gays over the past few years is going to get its panties in a wad over what D’Souza wrote.
You’ve already said you were “incorrect” to say that “an ideology” (that is, all liberals) support this.
Are the people who do support outing gay Congressional staffers the same people who object to D’Souzas little joke?
Or don’t you know?
“1. Gays are not ‘persecuted’ in this country. So give the hyperbole a rest.”
If this was true, then outing them wouldn’t be an issue.
Q.E.D.
I believe you have the right to privacy, unless you are attacking others, or help those who are. Then your hypocrisy becomes an issue and you lose that protection.
Wow, Jay. Way to be a total ass.
D’Souza has a long and vivid record of homophobia, from this student days right up to this most recent column, and you come in whole hog defending the guy by attempting to deflect condemnation of him and his positions.
And please let’s not pretend i’m putting words in your mouth. You are defending the guy. To dismiss D’Souza’s column as simply “a lame joke for an AOL piece” is to so utterly underplay the hateful stereotyping and malicious intent behind it that you can only be either brain damaged or willfully downplaying the seriousness of D’Souza’s contempt for gays.
D’Souza is a bigot full stop and in defending him you are practicing the same hypocrisy you claim to abhor. You underplay D’Souzas bigotry in order to attack Jon Aravosis.
But Jay, outing a gay staffer who is actively working to support a politician who opposes rights for gays is not the same thing as hating gays and actively seeking to exclude them from public life entirely. Arovosis and other gay activists have fought to create a society in which gays do not and should have to hide their sexuality in order to achieve their other goals, be they political, such as cutting taxes, or personal, like getting married. You suggest that gay staffers have chosen to remain closeted. But hiding ones sexual identity in order to keep ones job, or even get the job in the first place, is not a choice that anyone should have to make, which is ultimately Aravosis point.
D’Souza on the other hand is actively arguing for and seeking a world in which gays have no choice but hide their identities, betray themselves and preferably, disappear entirely from view.
And you are defending him in that mission by suggesting that, well, he’s not that bad …
you’re a fucking jackass …
“1. Gays are not ‘persecuted’ in this country. So give the hyperbole a rest.”
Hey asshole, they sure as fuck were in the early 80s when D’Souza first started his hateful outing campaigns and they sure as fuck are now or are you denying that hate crimes still occur with alarming frequency in this country?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/515170,CST-EDT-edits18.article
At the same time, you want to write off D’Souza’s column as a “lame joke” even as it intends to stir up irrational fear and hatred for gays with their predilication for children and their secret cabals of gay corruption. Just the kind of emotions that hate crimes are based on.
Yeah, harmless lame joke, my ass.
“I need to tend to my own issues before I start pointing out others (Matt 7:3-5)”
hilarious. and yet you just spent this whole thread pointing out the problems with Jon Aravosis and The Left. What a tool …
Jay, you asked if I thought the tactics were “admirable,” and I say that this country has in the past few years rendered irrelevant the question of what is and is not an admirable political tactic, and I blame, yes, blame the GOP for that environment. As to whether or not the over-the-top conservative rhetoric has hurt nobody’s private personal lives…well, you can choose to believe that. But there’s a reason that you still hear stories about women wearing hijabs being referred to as terrorists for no good reason, and it’s in part because of the rhetoric spewing from the conservative side.
You’re asking about the gay staffers as if they had no idea the lion’s den they chose to work in. The issue I’m raising is this–if a Democrat’s aide is accused of being an alcoholic and then the facts bear that accusation out, the GOP has a right to go after this staffer, and likely will. The conservative side has created an environment, however, where simply being gay holds the exact same stigma as being an alcoholic, or indeed any number of crimes and unpleasantries. It’s why you still get idiots who equate gays to necrophiles and zoophiles.
But I’m glad that, at least, you see the absurdity of DADT.
Has Jay answered my question yet, or is he just deflecting and projecting?
Check out Ted “I crapped my pants for weeks to avoid Vietnam” Nugent’s latest hate speech, which might even be a tad bigotted too.
Video at the link:
http://rawstory.com//printstory.php?story=7298
==========================
In obscenity-laced tirade, Ted Nugent jokes of killing Obama, calls Clinton a ‘bitch’
08/24/2007 @ 11:16 am
Filed by Nick Juliano
At a recent stop on his “Love Grenade 2007 Shrapnel Tour,” rocker Ted Nugent tossed some rhetorical bombs at a few top Democrats, and possible future gubernatorial candidate joked about executing the most prominent African American politician in a generation.
Advertisement
“Obama, he’s a piece of shit, and I told him to suck on my machine gun,” Nugent said in front of a screaming crowd as he brandishes what appear to be two large assault rifles. He was referring to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination and would become the first black man to occupy the Oval Office.
In a video from a recent performance posted on LiveLeak, Nugent, a prominent pro-gun advocate, paced the stage with a machine gun in each hand as the crowd eggs on his increasingly vulgar tirades.
The video appeared Friday, but the date and venue of the performance is unclear. Nugent performed Thursday in Jackson, California, while a comment left on a YouTube post said that it was taken from an Anaheim performance last Tuesday.
“Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset you worthless bitch,” Nugent said, brandishing his weapons.
He also went after Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), suggesting she, too, might like to “suck on my machine gun.” Nugent’s tirade against California’s other Democratic Senator, Diane Feinstein, is too garbled to transcribe, but one can hear Nugent call her a “whore.”
In a recent profile, Nugent tried to paint a different picture of himself than his videotaped comments would suggest.
“I am almost Ward Cleaver-ish, but with more guns and enthusiasm,” Nugent said in an e-mail interview with the El Paso Times. One imagines that tirades like the one posted Friday would make the whole Cleaver clan blush.
An avid hunter, Nugent has been politically active as an opponent of gun control laws and he is a board member of the National Rifle Association. He has considered trying to take his political activism all the way to the Governor’s Mansion in his native Michigan.
“That would be beautiful,” Nugent said when asked by Reuters if he would run for governor in 2010. “I have threatened to do so and I was sincere.”
Sorry Spider, I had to wade through a cesspool of stupidity left by some moron before I got to what you wrote.
Jay, you asked if I thought the tactics were “admirable,” and I say that this country has in the past few years rendered irrelevant the question of what is and is not an admirable political tactic, and I blame, yes, blame the GOP for that environment.
But this is different. This is a situation where those on the left are perfectly willing to play into the prejudices of others to advance their own partisan political agenda – at the expense of particular individuals. How does calling the Democratic party “Defeatocrats” affect an individual? You’re attempting to equate generalities with the effects some actions have on the lives of individual people. Sorry, but it is not a valid comparison.
You’re asking about the gay staffers as if they had no idea the lion’s den they chose to work in.
You’re coming dangerously close to saying, “They asked for it.” At least that’s the way it reads to me. Judging from what you have written thus far, I don’t think you’d have same mindset for those gay servicemen and women who are part of our armed forces.
The issue I’m raising is this–if a Democrat’s aide is accused of being an alcoholic and then the facts bear that accusation out, the GOP has a right to go after this staffer, and likely will. The conservative side has created an environment, however, where simply being gay holds the exact same stigma as being an alcoholic, or indeed any number of crimes and unpleasantries.
You’re off on this one. The outing is different because the issue is two fold.
1. You have those like Rogers and Aravosis who demonize those gay people with a political agenda at odds with their own.
2. They attempted to out them as way of:
A. Teaching them a lesson about daring to take a political stance at odds with theirs and
B. As a way to advance their political agenda against the people those were outed work for.
The only gay GOP staffers that were outed were those who worked for Repub bigots who discriminate against gays. They were a fraction of the gay staffers that are known to still work for Repubs that are closeted (afraid they’d lose their jobs)?
Jay still can’t answer the question he himself created with his own words.
Who drove the gay GOP staffers from their jobs?
Time to stop deflecting, projecting and going hysterical.
Answer the damned question and stop being a lightweight whiner.
The only gay GOP staffers that were outed were those who worked for Repub bigots who discriminate against gays.
Oh, so I guess that makes it ok then. Got it.
Oxycon, you’re asking a question that everybody knows the answer to. But it is irrelevant because it’s not the issue.
Congratulatons, Jay. You’ve changed the subject from Dinesh D’Souza to John Avarosis. That’s some prime thread-jacking, that is.
You know what Jay? If you look at American society today, at the number of high profile people who have come out, you’d see that being gay really doesn’t carry such a negative stigma as it used to, except in Republican circles, where it could cost you your job and even physical well being.
The last bastion of anti-gay culture in America is the Repub party, which is really surprising to me when each week it seems as though a different Repub is getting caught with male hookers, or engaging in homosexual sex with an unwilling, sleeping male, or propositioning off duty male cops in public restrooms.
D’Souza:
What happens when an all-male organization like the Catholic clergy allows homosexuality to become institutionally entrenched? The answer is organizational and moral chaos. The priests start hitting on the altar boys. So-called “lavender mafias” emerge in certain parishes and dioceses. There are occasional, and outrageous, instances of pedophilia. Young homosexuals find the institution of the clergy a marvelous “cover,” not to mention an excellent place to meet other homosexuals. And the higher-ups, at a loss for what to do, act to hush up what the Bible would have called these dens of iniquity.
Snippage
Now consider what would happen to that other predominantly-male organization, the U.S. military, if it got rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and allowed open homosexual relations between soldiers.
Just a joke? Puh-leeze.
“You’ve changed the subject from Dinesh D’Souza to John Avarosis.”
And this from a guy who humbly asserts that “I need to tend to my own issues before I start pointing out others” and than cites the fucking bible: (Matt 7:3-5)
Jay is a total moron …
Here’s what it boils down to.
If you are gay and you support conservative policies such as tax cuts, school vouchers or insane military inventerventions, you have tow choices in today’s conservative world if you want to get a job to actually impact those specific policies:
1) Hide you sexuality to get a job with conservative politician or think tank.
2) Come out and be largely marginalized by the conservative movement based solely on your sexuality.
jay supports this disgraceful system and D’Souza’s attempt to take it further by banishing gays from public life entirely. Way to go jay!
Congratulatons, Jay. You’ve changed the subject from Dinesh D’Souza to John Avarosis. That’s some prime thread-jacking, that is.
It’s a fair thing to do considering the Democrats poor record on gay rights and the majority of the lefts indifference to an outing campaign designed to play into the prejudices of anti-gay forces and to demonize individuals who don’t support their political agenda.
At least CS was honest and said they deserved it.
That’s some prime thread-jacking, that is.
It’s a fair thing to do
Right. So you take the guilty plea then?
majority of the lefts indifference to an outing campaign
Wait. I thought we had established that was “incorrect.”
I said ‘majority’ Quaker and if you can point me to the loads of websites, blogs, organizations, etc. that spoke out against what they did, I’d be happy to see it.
Can you point me to the Republican/conservative organizations condemning D’Souza’s remarks?
Better yet, what do you think about what he said? You wasted a lot of bile complaining about John Aravosis but couldn’t find an ill world about D’Souza.
“At least CS was honest and said they deserved it.”
Oh please, jay, like you give a shit about gay rights. You defend d’souza and support a conservative culture in which gays are forced to hide their sexuality if they want to work for republicans …
and how utterly dishonest to have to be to just that aravosis is actually “playing into the prejudices of anti-gay forces’? Jesus, maybe you should just go back to taking care of your own issues, jay …
Well you could start with the leadership of the Human Rights Campaign. Yes, the Washington Blade says Avarosis has friends inside the HRC–staffers–who helped him identify his targets. Nevertheless, the HRC–the organization closest to this issue–spoke out against what Avarosis and Rogers did.
I’d be happy to see it.
Glad I could improve your day.
D’Souza:
What happens when an all-male organization like the Catholic clergy allows homosexuality to become institutionally entrenched? The answer is organizational and moral chaos. The priests start hitting on the altar boys. So-called “lavender mafias” emerge in certain parishes and dioceses. There are occasional, and outrageous, instances of pedophilia. Young homosexuals find the institution of the clergy a marvelous “cover,” not to mention an excellent place to meet other homosexuals. And the higher-ups, at a loss for what to do, act to hush up what the Bible would have called these dens of iniquity.
Snippage
Now consider what would happen to that other predominantly-male organization, the U.S. military, if it got rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and allowed open homosexual relations between soldiers.
It’s a fair thing to do considering the Democrats poor record on gay rights
Fair enough. But I should point out that “poor record” is a relative judgment. “Poor” compared to what other party?
Fair enough. But I should point out that “poor record” is a relative judgment. “Poor” compared to what other party?
What do you mean by “what other party?” The GOP doesn’t claim to be a champion of gay rights like the Democrats do.
Yet with Democrats they have received “don’t ask, don’t tell” the Defense of Marriage Act. The only Democratic 2008 candidate to come out an endorse gay marriage is Dennis Kucinich who has about as much chance of being elected President as the Devil Rays have of winning the World Series this year.
The best the Democrats can do is say, “Well, we’re not as bad as the GOP!” It’s pathetic.
It is kind of dishonest of them to work against gay rights and not disclose the fact that they’re gay. They should take a cue from black conservatives (who usually can’t hide the fact they are black), come out of the closet, and begin asking questions like “what is gayness?” and “who owns gayness?”
“The GOP doesn’t claim to be a champion of gay rights like the Democrats do.”
Which is why it’s ok to write off D’Souza’s actively attempting to spread hate against gays as just a bad joke. Ha ha. You’re awesome jay, just awesome.
It is kind of dishonest of them to work against gay rights and not disclose the fact that they’re gay.
Since when is telling people you’re sexual preference a job requirement?
It’s not. Thank you, spoken like a Republican.
“Since when is telling people you’re sexual preference a job requirement?”
More awesomeness from Jay. If you’re openly gay, republicans who want to keep their conservative christian base happy won’t hire you, no matter how fervently you believe in school vouchers. The solution to this culture of bigotry and hatred is for gays to actively conceal their sexual identity from their employers so they can do the kind of work they want.
That’s just too fucking cool, Jay.
“Since when is telling people you’re sexual preference a job requirement?”
It becomes one the minute you try to discriminate against someone else because of their sexual orientation.
You really can’t be this stupid, can you?
“The best the Democrats can do is say, “Well, we’re not as bad as the GOP!” It’s pathetic.”
So true. But it still puts them in a better position than the GOP who can only say, “Well, we’re not as bad as…uh…”
But it still puts them in a better position than the GOP who can only say, ‘Well, we’re not as bad as…uh…’”
I don’t think this is entirely the case. The Dems could have a much stronger position in favvor of gay rights, to be sure, but the GOP and its base doesn’t stop at a lack of support. They actively demonize gays either in an attempt to create a social wedge issue or else because they really are wacko fucking idiots. D’Souza’s article is a classic example of a conservative attempting to demonize gays by suggesting that all gays are pedophiles or sex-crazed maniacs. To Jay, this is just a bad joke, ha ha. Jay is a fucking asshole.