The Gay Thread

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Have you heard about this Andrew Shirvell psycho?
Anderson Cooper 360 interviews the nutjob (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwObjKZg9Jw)
More of AC360 discussing obvious closet-case Shirvell with CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bajmSePNQX4)
Jason Jones on The Daily Show interviewing him (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-1-2010/look-who-s-stalking)

[Ghoulish Delight]

As much as I do think he's a nutjob with SOME sort of personal issue, the "he's a closet case" stuff irks me. Call him an asshole and a bigot, because that's what his actions make him out to be. But playing the "closet case" card just smacks of using sexuality as a means to shame someone. "Oh yeah? Well you're fag!"

I'm sure people feel it's a "taste of your own medicine" kinda thing, but I still don't like it.

[innerSpaceman]

I think it's a case where, quite seriously, I've seen dozens upon dozens of gay mens' gaydar go off when he speaks. Maybe he's not, and I'm sure the theories that his motivation is scorned-loverhood are way off base. Closet case may just be vengeful thinking, but there IS such a thing as gaydar - and it often works.

In any event, the Daily Show had the best run-in with Shirvell. He did not seem to get that he was the brunt of their joke, and he's an idiot as well as a closet case.

It's a very funny piece, and the place that seems to come up first on a google search to view it is here (http://www.freep.com/article/20101102/BLOG36/101102013/1001/news).

Enjoy.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I am not saying "ñah ñah ñah you're a homo too." It may be a cliché but it's often true that the guy who screams "fag" the loudest turns out to be one. Ted Haggard, Eddie Long, George Rekers, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy Jr., and countless Catholic priests come to mind. This is such a classic case of that* it's almost laughable. I honestly think Shirvell is attracted to Armstrong and doesn't know what to do with himself. Look at Shirvell's actions. He's singled out this one gay kid, is stalking him, and is totally obsessing over him.


*I'm blanking on the psychological term... displacement? sublimation? projection?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Oh, I understand all that. I just still don't like it as a response. I mean, isn't the whole point that one's sexuality is one's own business? That no one should be ridiculed because of their sexuality? Criticizing this guy for publicly demeaning someone because of that person's sexuality...by publicly demeaning him about his sexuality? Doesn't jive. And make no mistake, making armchair clinical diagnoses of psychological flaws like projection is demeaning.

[Alex]

Plus, I think it is a certain amount of confirmation bias. Yes, there have been many cases of anti-gay mouthpieces who turn out to be gay themselves. And each time that happens they immediately become a "prominent" anti-gay mouthpiece regardless of how prominent they were before (some were very, some not so much). Considering there are hundreds, if not thousands, of anti-gay activists I'm not sure it even counts as a real trend.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I don't see it that way. If I was picketing, stalking, and created a blog devoted to pointing out how fat one guy is, wouldn't you say something like, "Uh dude, you're fat too." That's not mocking me because I'm fat, that's pointing out the ridiculousness of my behavior.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

...and the Awesome Mom of the Week award goes to this lady (http://nerdyapplebottom.com/2010/11/02/my-son-is-gay/)!

[Alex]

I don't see it that way. If I was picketing, stalking, and created a blog devoted to pointing out how fat one guy is, wouldn't you say something like, "Uh dude, you're fat too." That's not mocking me because I'm fat, that's pointing out the ridiculousness of my behavior.

No, because I have no idea if you're fat (I have no idea what you look like, for a long time I thought that basketball player avatar you had was you). So for me, it'd be me saying "well, since you're so mean to fat people you must be fat yourself."

Besides, personally, the self-loathing gaybasher is not a person that increases my opposition to them, but rather tends to increase my empathy for them (while not lessening my disagreement). Which I think is the opposite intended result when someone says "and I bet he's queer too!"

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I don't see it that way. If I was picketing, stalking, and created a blog devoted to pointing out how fat one guy is, wouldn't you say something like, "Uh dude, you're fat too." That's not mocking me because I'm fat, that's pointing out the ridiculousness of my behavior.Being fat is a visible public fact, as much as one is a brunette or tall. Being gay is a personal fact. Part of what is troubling about being called gay is that someone is treading on your personal ground.

Maybe he is gay. Maybe he's bisexual. Maybe he has had lovers, maybe he's a virgin. Maybe he was abused as a child. Maybe he's battling his own internal war. You don't know him, and he's probably a lot more complicated than one three-letter word. Calling him gay dismisses him as much as it dismisses anyone else. If you don't want this for yourself, don't propagate it. Call him a crazy asshole instead.

[Betty]

...and the Awesome Mom of the Week award goes to this lady (http://nerdyapplebottom.com/2010/11/02/my-son-is-gay/)!

I concur!

[blueerica]

...and the Awesome Mom of the Week award goes to this lady (http://nerdyapplebottom.com/2010/11/02/my-son-is-gay/)!

She sho' is!

[alphabassettgrrl]

...and the Awesome Mom of the Week award goes to this lady (http://nerdyapplebottom.com/2010/11/02/my-son-is-gay/)!

Oh, yeah! Can we clone her? :)

[innerSpaceman]

To go back to Shirvell for a moment (though I agree Scooby Doo mom is rad) - -

Nope. Have to agree with SM here. Alex's point is apples to oranges. No one in the gay blogosphere said he was gay until he was interviewed on TV and came off as GAY and set off the world's collective gaydar not simply from the circumstances (which set the Gaydar to "scan mode"), but from his speech patterns and body language (which set the Gaydar to "High Alert").


If he's a straight man, then perhaps the source of his cyber bullying propensities is that he was constantly beat up in school for being such a total fag. But more than likely, he's gay, it's completely relevant and in fact important to the subject matter at hand, and the world's collective gaydar readings are pretty accurate.

[Alex]

I'd call bull**** on that but I doubt it would do any good.

Somehow I doubt that Rand Paul saying 'we can tell by looking at him he's a faggot' would be taken so well with a shrug and a "well of course you can tell just by looking."

I'm not saying you're wrong. You might be, but without any actual evidence it is just ad hominem that contributes nothing to the topic.

[JWBear]

Maybe he's one of those metrosexuals.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Somehow I doubt that Rand Paul saying 'we can tell by looking at him he's a faggot' would be taken so well with a shrug and a "well of course you can tell just by looking."

I'm not saying you're wrong. You might be, but without any actual evidence it is just ad hominem that contributes nothing to the topic.What he said.

There's a word for this - stereotyping.

Isn't this type of behavior what we're supposed to be avoiding?

[innerSpaceman]

No. To put a fine but pertinent point on it, it's the type of behavior you're supposed to be avoiding. ("you're" as in "you straight folk").


Not all gays see it this way, but I do. Black people can use the "N" word all the damn day long, and I can say "fag" and "that's so gay" with abandon. And I can call Andrew Shirvell a mincing fairy faggot because he behaves so stereotypically like one. But perhaps it's less pc if straight people do the same.


Gays have a certain licence. Oh, I admit it reeks of hypocrisy and double-standards and is certainly far from politically correct. But I for one am not one to adhere to pc uber alis.


Perhaps it takes one to know one - but when gays say Shirvell is a fag, I just take that as authoritative rather than bigoted. Straights' Mileage May Vary. :p

[Chernabog]

What he said.

There's a word for this - stereotyping.

Isn't this type of behavior what we're supposed to be avoiding?

Not in my book, and I really think it depends on the stereotype. Stereotypes come from somewhere. A guy can love Cher, liberally use the phrase "girl!", work as a hairdresser AND be straight. But you can safely assume he's gay unless proven otherwise, instead of the other way around.

That's pretty much how gaydar works, and why Europeans throw off my gaydar bigtime -- I'm not up and up on how gay europeans stereotypically act that is different from straight ones.

On the other hand, we shouldn't safely assume that an Arab is a terrorist unless proven otherwise. Again, it just depends on the stereotype.

[Chernabog]

Perhaps it takes one to know one - but when gays say Shirvell is a fag, I just take that as authoritative rather than bigoted. Straights' Mileage May Vary. :p

And yes, for the record, I think that Shirvell is a closeted homo. BIG TIME. And I got that from watching the Daily Show segment, not just because he had a bizarre blog. When you are gay, you are really, really attuned to this stuff. It isn't meant as a slight that he's gay, it is meant simply to show that he's a hypocrite.

[Alex]

Again, it just depends on the stereotype.

I assume the mechanism on which it depends is "whether I engage in it or not"?

[innerSpaceman]

That's putting the cart before the horse, Alex. Obviously if one considers a stereotype to be accurate and harmless, one is apt to use it* - while if one considers a different stereotype to be faulty and harmful, one is apt to avoid it.








* or at least not studiously avoid using it.

[Chernabog]

I assume the mechanism on which it depends is "whether I engage in it or not"?

No, I am not that egotistical.

I did however do a quick google search and found this to be interesting:

While reading Nancy Adler's excellent International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior I came across this reflexion on stereotypes which made me rethink my first judgement, ie. stereotypes are bad™.

Stereotypes, like other forms of categories, can be helpful or harmful depending on how we use them. Effective stereotyping allows people to understand and act appropriately in new situations. A stereotype becomes helpful when it is:
*Consciously held. People should be aware they are describing a group norm rather than the characteristics of a specific individual.
*Descriptive rather than evaluative. The stereotype should describe what people from this group will probably be like and not evaluate the people as good or bad.
*Accurate. The stereotype should accurately describe the norm for the group to which the person belongs
*The first best guess about a group prior to acquiring information about the specific person or persons involved
*Modified, based on further observation and experience with the actual people and situations.

The interesting part about stereotypes in the end is that they can be used as a tool which provides us with the necessary caution or distance we might need to avoid culture shock. Knowing that the Germans are always on time might save the day when you show up at a business meeting, although of course, there are Germans who are constantly late. But trust me, not all French wear a béret, although many do like baguette.

Just interesting food for thought.

[Alex]

Ok, let's use that. The situation we're talking about here violated almost every one of those bullet points for making a stereotype useful. A) Because it isn't being applied pre-emptively to a group but post hoc to an individual, and B) I'm not sure how there's much value in a "swishy men are gay" stereotype (and thought that one was considered bad).

And if this were an isolated case I probably wouldn't care much. But I'd say at least 90% of the time that some man (gay bashing women don't ever seem to get pre-emptively labeled as self-loathing lesbians) comes to prominence for anti-gay remarks or actions, someone is out there adding "and he's obviously a closeted self-loathing homo."

[innerSpaceman]

And if this were an isolated case I probably wouldn't care much. But I'd say at least 90% of the time that some man (gay bashing women don't ever seem to get pre-emptively labeled as self-loathing lesbians) comes to prominence for anti-gay remarks or actions, someone is out there adding "and he's obviously a closeted self-loathing homo."

Only now it seems you're the one applying your observations about a group to a single individual. People aren't stereotyping Shirvell as gay simply because so many extreme gay-bashers turn out to be self-loathers, but primarily on observation of him as an individual who acts and speaks in a stereotypically gay manner. So whether it's applied to gay-bashers "90% of the time" is irrelevant to how it's being applied in this particular case.

[Ghoulish Delight]

It still using his sexual identity as an attack. It's not a friendly, "What up my fag homie!" It's pointedly, "You're a fvcking pathetic closet case." And all that says is, "Yup, sexuality is fair game when trying to publicly shame someone" which I find pretty distasteful, no matter the orientation of the person it's coming from.

[JWBear]

It still using his sexual identity as an attack. It's not a friendly, "What up my fag homie!" It's pointedly, "You're a fvcking pathetic closet case." And all that says is, "Yup, sexuality is fair game when trying to publicly shame someone" which I find pretty distasteful, no matter the orientation of the person it's coming from.

Just my two cents... To me, it's not attacking his sexuality, but his hypocrisy.

[innerSpaceman]

Exactly. If he were on a crusade about anti-gang violence, I would not approve of anyone calling him a queer.

When someone is practicing hypocrisy, one has no choice but to point out the state of the individual that gives rise to it. In this case, the observation that Shirvell is gay himself is absolutely necessary to the case against him.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Just my two cents... To me, it's not attacking his sexuality, but his hypocrisy.Except to get to the point of hypocrisy you first have to make an armchair call about his sexuality.

Plus, the hypocrisy is irrelevant. What he's done is no more or less offensive if he's straight or gay. He's a bigoted asshole and a bully either way.

[Alex]

I guess the disconnect here is in "I think he's gay therefore it is ok to judge him for being gay and anti-gay."

To me (and presumably to others) whether you think he's gay has little to do with he actually is gay and conforming to a stereotype is not evidence.

But whatever, it is enlightening to learn that it is ok to just take as fact that a swishy man (whatever that may mean to the individual observer) is gay and then treat him accordingly.

[Gemini Cricket]

No, because I have no idea if you're fat (I have no idea what you look like, for a long time I thought that basketball player avatar you had was you).
For the record, Alex, I'm not a corgi.*
:D




*Then again, we've met so the joke only half works. If at all.

[Betty]

For the record, Alex, I'm not a corgi.*
:D




*Then again, we've met so the joke only half works. If at all.

You're not as cute and fluffy as I'm imagined then.

[Scrooge McSam]

You're not as cute and fluffy as I'm imagined then.

Twice as cute, half as fluffy

[JWBear]

Except to get to the point of hypocrisy you first have to make an armchair call about his sexuality.

Plus, the hypocrisy is irrelevant. What he's done is no more or less offensive if he's straight or gay. He's a bigoted asshole and a bully either way.

Ok... What if there was a man who was preaching discrimination and hatred against black people. Several African-Americans state they suspect that he is, in fact, a light skined African-American himself who is "passing" and call him out on his hypocrisy. Are they then being racist?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yes.

ETA: I'll amend that. Would I specifically apply the term "racist"? No. Nor would I (and I have not) apply the term "anti gay" or "homophobic" or "gay bashing" to calling Shirvell a closet case. But I still call it counterproductive and borderline offensive.

[innerSpaceman]

Alright, well agree to disagree then.


Perhaps it might be helpful to consider that all the gay people posting in this thread see it as perfectly appropriate to call Shirvell out as a self-loathing homo, while all the straight people do not.


I just know that if Welshmen felt a certain way about doings in Wales, and I, being from Los Angeles, saw it differently - - I might give some credence to the notion that the Welshman groks something I don't.

[Alex]

The big disconnect is that you seem to be saying that since you think he is gay, that he is gay. And therefore can be treated appropriately.

Which, from my point of view is nonsensical.

I'd have no problem with calling him out (though I wouldn't think it necessarily relevant) if we knew him to be gay. Just because you say he is does not, to me, mean he is. And therefore saying he should be branded a hypocrite does not strike me as fine regardless of how ok all the gay people are with it.

[Gemini Cricket]

So if Shirvell comes out of the closet, can we hit him with our purses then?
:D

[innerSpaceman]

What is this "treated appropriately" stuff, Alex? How are you going to treat him differently if he is gay? To me, that's been the most disturbing statement in this thread - and now that you've made it (at least) twice, I'm going to ask what you mean by that.


If he's gay, then he's a hypocrite as well as a bigoted bully. That may change how we regard him, but is that all you mean by "treated appropriately?" Or do you intend that he receive stiffer punishment if he's also a hypocrite? Or a certain kind of stiffer punishment if he's gay? :p

[Alex]

Yes, though then I'll debate on whether being a gay gay-basher is necessarily hypocrisy (it isn't and it is always good to throw about a Samuel Johnson quote).

[Alex]

If he's gay, then he's a hypocrite as well as a bigoted bully. That may change how we regard him, but is that all you mean by "treated appropriately?"

Yes, Steve. Be scared. Whenever I find out someone is gay I go beat them with rocks while rolling them in melted Tootsie rolls and making buttsex jokes.

You gave an example of what I mean in what I've just quoted. First sentence. All I mean is that because you think he's gay, it is apparently ok to treat him as gay, whatever that means. Maybe it is just that you'll call him different names on message boads. Maybe it is that you'll view his positions as unworthy of consideration because he's just a self loathing fag whereas you'd respond differently if he were simply a self-rightous douche. Maybe it means I'll campaign for him to be the grand marshall of next year's WeHo Halloween parade.

My issue is not with what it means if he's gay. My issue is with it being apparently ok to determine he's gay by vote.

[innerSpaceman]

Ah, not by vote, sir, by the scientifically accurate "ping" of world-consensus gaydar.


There's a difference. Pfft.

[JWBear]

Whenever I find out someone is gay I go beat them with rocks while rolling them in melted Tootsie rolls and making buttsex jokes.

Talking like will get you a date in some circles.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

then I'll debate on whether being a gay gay-basher is necessarily hypocrisyYou and I have very different definitions of the word hypocrisy.

[innerSpaceman]

Or, as Inigo Montoya was fond of saying, "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

[Alex]

You and I have very different definitions of the word hypocrisy.

I use the dictionary version.

Hypocrisy is to claim values that you don't actually hold. An alcoholic can advocate sobriety without being a hypocrite. A gay man can view homosexuality as wrong without being a hypocrite. A serial adulterer can believe adultery should be punished without being a hypocrite. A Catholic priest can commit sin without being a hypocrite.

Failing to live up to your own values is not hypocrisy. Plus, even if this guy is gay in that he is sexually and emotionally attracted to men, there's no evidence I've yet seen offered beyond he's a bit fey, that he is even violating his own values if he isn't acting on the emotions he feels.

So, I am perfectly well aware of what the word hypocrisy means. Just as I am perfectly well aware of how often it is misused.

Now, to break out the Samuel Johnson quote (http://books.google.com/books?id=KyIJAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA91&dq=nothing+is+more+unjust+inauthor:samuel+inauthor :johnson&hl=en&ei=UIzTTK-7F4SCsQPtodzVBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=nothing%20is%20more%20unjust%20inauthor%3Asamuel %20inauthor%3Ajohnson&f=false), which may be less exciting than a Princess Bride quote:

Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice, since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I think it's very illuminating that gay people here think of it one way and the straights think of it another way.

I'd suggest that Teh Gays (c) remember that the important audience in public BS like this is Straight People Who Are Still Unsure About Whether Gays Are OK Or Not. I think that straights are going to see it the way we're seeing it and it's not helpful to your side. You are sounding like being gay is something people can be labeled as seemingly randomly (most people's gaydar is no good and they aren't going to believe a bunch of gays when they point at people and yell "He's gay!"). That plus everything else that's been said here.

Also, the point of whether he's gay or not is completely moot. No one should care whether he's gay or not - that's the point of equality. What matters is what he's saying.

Debate facts, not personalities. As Alex said, Ad Hominem Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem).

Besides, if one believes that being gay is an illness or curse that needs curing, then this asshole is a HERO for facing his issues head on, right?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I think it's very illuminating that gay people here think of it one way and the straights think of it another way.

I'd suggest that Teh Gays (c) remember that the important audience in public BS like this is Straight People Who Are Still Unsure About Whether Gays Are OK Or Not. I think that straights are going to see it the way we're seeing it and it's not helpful to your side. You are sounding like being gay is something people can be labeled as seemingly randomly (most people's gaydar is no good and they aren't going to believe a bunch of gays when they point at people and yell "He's gay!"). That plus everything else that's been said here.

Also, the point of whether he's gay or not is completely moot. No one should care whether he's gay or not - that's the point of equality. What matters is what he's saying.

Debate facts, not personalities. As Alex said, Ad Hominem Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem).

Besides, if one believes that being gay is an illness or curse that needs curing, then this asshole is a HERO for facing his issues head on, right?

ETA - Alex beat me to it.

[lashbear]

PS: the kid who went as Daphne was CUTE :D

[innerSpaceman]

CP, I think you also must consider venue. I get the strong impression from the places on the internet where I've seen every gay's gaydar go off for Mr. Shirvell that the freedom to express that cheeky opinion was given free reign because they are gay-centric sites where we can have a little fun.

Similarly, here on the LoT, I don't think there would be much actual debate about Shirvell's disgustingness. We found some disagreement as to whether the "he's gay" pronouncement is appropriate, and so we ran with that.

I'm pretty sure not many homos would be so loose with that allegation on a news site or a media interview, or even on uber-public sites like facebook or twitter. I can't speak for every queer in America, but I realize the limitations such an allegations would put on my argument if I were seriously debating the merits of Shirvell's behavior in an impartial forum.


We're just having a little more fun with it here on the LoT, as we've had at other gay-friendly places. Whether he's gay cannot be ascertained by a single theory of motive, or by his mannerisms or speech patterns. Yes, yes, all true. But c'mon. Depending on where we are when our collective gaydar goes off the charts, we're going to be comfortable saying that - and thus further calling Shirvell out as a self-loathing hypocrite. The LoT being one of those places.


Oh, and despite Alex's handy dictionary definition of hypocrisy, I contend any self-loathing gay is guilty of it. As for Shirvell in particular, it doesn't matter if he's a homo-hater not having gay sex - - he IS acting on his homosexuality via his obsession with Armstrong. Just not in a very healthy way. D'uh. Self-loathing gays don't act out in healthy ways in many areas of their lives. If you want to find the technical term for that psychosis, I'll be happy to consider ceding hypocrisy.

[Chernabog]

Wow I came back to this thread to post a really good must-see Rachel Maddow clip on the right-wing media (http://www.towleroad.com/2010/11/watch-rachel-maddow-dispels-rumor-that-shes-a-lesbian-vampire.html) and now I gotta play catch up :) After I have some coffee. :D

PS Gn2Dlnd, your boyfriend John Hodgman is in that clip.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Except for the Daily Show I haven't seen a single opinion piece that HASN'T gone the route of calling him a closet case.

[innerSpaceman]

Really? Um, the most extensive coverage was done by Anderson Cooper over at CNN and on his own show. He never intimated any such thing, much less called him out for that.


(Though of course, many have accused Anderson of it ;) )

[Alex]

Oh, and despite Alex's handy dictionary definition of hypocrisy, I contend any self-loathing gay is guilty of it.

Well, I'm going to contend he's guilty of clipper ship since apparently what words mean isn't relevant and so we can just pick the ones we like.

As for Shirvell in particular, it doesn't matter if he's a homo-hater not having gay sex - - he IS acting on his homosexuality via his obsession with Armstrong.

And you know this how? If he isn't gay he's doing the exact same thing but apparently being gay is not his motivation for it. Whatever that motivation is would, I presume, be a motivation a gay man can have as well.

If you want to find the technical term for that psychosis, I'll be happy to consider ceding hypocrisy.A policy of using whatever word happens to be at hand when you don't know the right word for what you're talking about is going to cause pointless debate. I know it is a weird foible, but a lot of people start on the assumption that when someone uses a word they mean the word they say.

[innerSpaceman]

Clipper Ship it is then!

[JWBear]

I use the dictionary version.

Hypocrisy is to claim values that you don't actually hold. An alcoholic can advocate sobriety without being a hypocrite. A gay man can view homosexuality as wrong without being a hypocrite. A serial adulterer can believe adultery should be punished without being a hypocrite. A Catholic priest can commit sin without being a hypocrite.

Failing to live up to your own values is not hypocrisy. Plus, even if this guy is gay in that he is sexually and emotionally attracted to men, there's no evidence I've yet seen offered beyond he's a bit fey, that he is even violating his own values if he isn't acting on the emotions he feels.

So, I am perfectly well aware of what the word hypocrisy means. Just as I am perfectly well aware of how often it is misused.

Now, to break out the Samuel Johnson quote (http://books.google.com/books?id=KyIJAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA91&dq=nothing+is+more+unjust+inauthor:samuel+inauthor :johnson&hl=en&ei=UIzTTK-7F4SCsQPtodzVBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=nothing%20is%20more%20unjust%20inauthor%3Asamuel %20inauthor%3Ajohnson&f=false), which may be less exciting than a Princess Bride quote:

My Webster's New World Dictionary disagrees with you:

Pretending to be what one is not, or to feel what one does not feel; esp., a pretense of virtue, piety, etc.

[innerSpaceman]

Um, wait, what is happening?

Has Alex just been pwned on a dictionary-off?

[Alex]

Well, if we want to dictionary-off:

Random House:
- a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

The American Heritage Dictionary
- the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

Collins English Dictionary
- the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc., contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour, esp the pretence of virtue and piety

Oxford English Dictionary
- assuming a false appearance of virtue or goodness, with dissimulation of real character or inclination, especially in respect of religious life or belief.

But that's moot, because I believe the definition given by JWBear agrees with me more than him.

If simply pretending to be what you're not is hypocrisy then the word has no distinct meaning, it is simply a synonym for lying or misrepresentation. I have no doubt that Shirvell is a hypocrite on many fronts.

Now, denying or hiding homosexuality to avoid the repercussions of your own claimed beliefs would be hypocritical. But if it is your view that being gay is a sin and should in every way be suppressed then in every way suppressing your own homosexuality would not be hypocritical. Being unaware or unable to recognize your own homosexuality is not hypocritical.

To use the definition of hypocrite (as opposed to hypocrisy) from JWBear's preferred dictionary:

1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Being gay, not telling people, and engaging in gay bashing does not inherently meet either of those definitions. That is not to say that many people in that situation aren't hypocrites but it is not enough to simply show that a person espousing anti-gay positions is himself gay. Failing to live up to your own ideals is not hypocrisy, except insofar as we define the word so broadly that it no longer has any useful meaning.

And if simply lying about some aspect of yourself is hypocrisy (to stop the definition JW provided after 7 words) then that is again to broaden the word beyond value as it is simply an synonym for lying.

[innerSpaceman]

No, no, no, Alex, you are, I believe, missing a big point. Shirvell is not gay bashing. His blog and actions are not against homosexuals in general. He is stalking and blogging about one particular gay man. This reeks of obsession in the same way his persona reeks of gay.

Under the assumption he is gay, then his completely gay action of stalking and obsessing over a particular gay man while pretending not to be gay and not to be obsessed with him for that reason is hypocritical.

Granted, we have no real idea whether Shirvell is gay. He may just be, to paraphrase Sulu, a douchebag. But we gays know a gay when we see and hear one so freaking obviously, and Shirvell is not banned from setting foot on campus* because he's a general gay-basher. He's a stalker.



* the ban has been modified to allow him on campus, but he is to have no contact with Mr. Armstrong, his sole and exclusive victim.




As for the meaning of the word hypocrisy, I suggest it has simply morphed over time to encompass subsidiary but highly related concepts. The English language is constantly morphing in this fashion, and that's generally (though not always) a good thing.


Gay used to mean Happy.

[JWBear]

But that's moot, because I believe the definition given by JWBear agrees with me more than him.

Conversly, I think the definitions you posted agree with my point as well. It's all semantics and splitting hairs, and has very little to do with the point at hand IMO.

Now, denying or hiding homosexuality to avoid the repercussions of your own claimed beliefs would be hypocritical.

I certainly think that is true in his case.

[Alex]

No, no, no, Alex, you are, I believe, missing a big point. Shirvell is not gay bashing. His blog and actions are not against homosexuals in general. He is stalking and blogging about one particular gay man. This reeks of obsession in the same way his persona reeks of gay.

Ok (I don't really buy that first part since while he's targeting a single gay man he is doing it in terms critical of homosexuals), but the whole part about what "hypocrisy" means was started by someone questioning my contention that a gay gay basher is not inherently hypocritical.

So divorce Shirvell from my responses and the poitns remain the same and valid in the original context.

And even further, even if Shirvell is gay he may not be doing what you say because he himself may be unaware (through confusion or simple pyschological inacapacity) of his homosexuality.

Under the assumption he is gay, then his completely gay action of stalking and obsessing over a particular gay man while pretending not to be gay and not to be obsessed with him for that reason is hypocritical.

Still not hypocrisy. Just lying. Let's use a milder sitcom plot as a surrogate. Maybe one from a movie you recently enjoyed.

The male characters, let's call him Kick-Ass, has a crush on a girl who he feels barely knows he's alive. He pretends to be gay so that she'll have no reason to thinks he's sexually obsessed with her and under this ruse manages to be with her wherever she is, doing what she's doing and completely taking advantage of her to even the extent of getting to see her naked.

Is he a hypocrite? Or just a liar? As with Shirvell (under your assumption) he's denying his sexuality in order to mask the intention of his actions.


I'm generally quite the descriptivist when it comes to usage, but I have issues with just saying "well, hypocrisy has been redefined in common useage to include entirely new things." Those being:

1. Those entirely new things already had perfectly good words for them (liar, dissembler, self deluding, etc.)
2. This leaves no good word for actual hypocrisy.
3. And because I think frequently the misuse of the word is intentionally designed to confuse so as to dismiss out of hand as hypocrisy something that would otherwise have to be addressed more substantively.

[Alex]

I certainly think that is true in his case.

Again, on what evidence other than that you think he fits some stereotype of a swishy fag? I know, gays just know. But if I accepted that I'd be down at Mistress Fantasia's having my palm read so that I'd make a killing on the stock market.

It's all semantics and splitting hairs, and has very little to do with the point at hand IMO.

The key fact being that I'm right and you're wrong. As long as we can agree on that it'll all be good. Don't make me go to Aquinas, putting out the Samuel Johnson quote was onerous enough.

But when the answer to "why is it relevant whether he's gay?" is "because if he is then he's a hypocrite (with the implication that this somehow makes his behavior worse)" then I think the misuse of the word is pretty well on point.

[Gemini Cricket]

I'd like to weigh in on this with sincerity and not much joking. (Although levity is often vital to me.)

The focus should be on the fact that what he did was wrong; especially when you consider what his position (Assistant AG) is. I say is because he was reinstated today (http://www.detnews.com/article/20101105/METRO/11050400/1409/metro/Assistant-AG-Shirvell-returns-to-work--has-disciplinary-hearing).

When it comes down to it, I don't care if he's a gay or not. It comes down to what kind of jerk this guy is on the inside to let this sort of bullying, harassment occur and whether this kind of thinking will affect his job and other people he may have to deal with in the future.

Yes, there is a huge amount of anti-gay loudmouths who are out there that are gay. But I see Alex and GD's point, I don't know if he's gay for sure (although my gaydar tells me he is) and I don't really care, it's only relevant to him and his therapist (if he has one). Deep down (and here comes the softie Brad) I think this guy needs help. If he is gay, he's in a lot of pain. If not, then he needs to sort out the way he deals with people.

I'd rather focus on getting this guy removed from his Asst AG position.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I do think it makes it worse to gay-bash when oneself is gay. Just like I think it's heinous to crusade about virtue when one is visiting prostitutes.

Can't say whether Shirvell is gay or not, but there's something odd about the whole thing. And yes, it's quite common to project or displace or whatever- that what offends us most about others is the flaw that we ourselves possess. Sometimes we know we have the flaw, sometimes not. I'm not sure which makes it better.

[Chernabog]

Again, on what evidence other than that you think he fits some stereotype of a swishy fag? I know, gays just know. But if I accepted that I'd be down at Mistress Fantasia's having my palm read so that I'd make a killing on the stock market.

When you grow up gay and so much energy is spent on whether someone else is a compatible sexual partner, you get to be pretty finely attuned to the gaydar. It becomes second nature. Yes, there are stereotypes, but those stereotypes do serve a purpose. Of course there are people outside of those stereotypes. Of course gaydar doesn't always work. But there's a lot more to it than just blind luck.

Sorry, but a swishy guy who is obsessed with another guy to that degree? That doesn't seem the least bit gay? Come on. It may not be definitive, but it seems relatively clear to everyone but him. There's just a really, really good chance.

But when the answer to "why is it relevant whether he's gay?" is "because if he is then he's a hypocrite (with the implication that this somehow makes his behavior worse)" then I think the misuse of the word is pretty well on point.

So the distinction is just whether he's out to himself or not? I can kind of see that, i.e. he's not a hypocrite because he's criticizing other people for being gay, and he doesn't think he's gay. But then what's the correct word for someone like Larry Craig, who insists he's not gay as he taps his foot in the restroom?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Here's my perspective:

I can't find details, but I'm pretty sure at least one of the recent gay bullying related suicides was by a kid who was not gay, but was subjected to "your gay!" bullsh*t because he fit some gay stereotype or another.

Around these parts I may be butch-by-comparison. But (prepare for the shock of a lfetime), in average American circles I am not the paradigm of hetero-male-machismo. And, for my entire life, because I have the audacity to not spend 100% of my time thinking and talking about tits and pro wrestling, I've had the "gay" label attached to me. Hell, my college roommate who walked in on me and CP while "indisposed" and caught me snooping through his considerable collection of hetero porn, STILL was apparently speculating to everyone else in the dorm that I was gay. Because...I don't know. My voice isn't deep enough? I don't know what to do with my hands while talking? I'm not threatened to spend time with other males who aren't macho enough? Who know, and who gives a sh*t?

So yeah, I'm a little touchy when it comes to the subject of "gaydar" and swishiness.

I'll let y'all fight over whether it fits the dictionary definition of hypocrisy to be passing around "It Gets Better" videos while out of the other side of your mouth you're merrily reinforcing that it's okay to label people based on gay stereotypes. Whatever you want to call it, I don't like it and I'm going to call you on it every time.

[JWBear]

The key fact being that I'm right and you're wrong. As long as we can agree on that it'll all be good.

Please tell me that that was an attempt at humor.

Here's my perspective:

I can't find details, but I'm pretty sure at least one of the recent gay bullying related suicides was by a kid who was not gay, but was subjected to "your gay!" bullsh*t because he fit some gay stereotype or another.

Around these parts I may be butch-by-comparison. But (prepare for the shock of a lfetime), in average American circles I am not the paradigm of hetero-male-machismo. And, for my entire life, because I have the audacity to not spend 100% of my time thinking and talking about tits and pro wrestling, I've had the "gay" label attached to me. Hell, my college roommate who walked in on me and CP while "indisposed" and caught me snooping through his considerable collection of hetero porn, STILL was apparently speculating to everyone else in the dorm that I was gay. Because...I don't know. My voice isn't deep enough? I don't know what to do with my hands while talking? I'm not threatened to spend time with other males who aren't macho enough? Who know, and who gives a sh*t?

So yeah, I'm a little touchy when it comes to the subject of "gaydar" and swishiness.

I'll let y'all fight over whether it fits the dictionary definition of hypocrisy to be passing around "It Gets Better" videos while out of the other side of your mouth you're merrily reinforcing that it's okay to label people based on gay stereotypes. Whatever you want to call it, I don't like it and I'm going to call you on it every time.

I see where you are coming from, but I still have to disagree with you. It's much more than labeling someone based on stereotypes. And unless you have lived the life of a gay person, it's really not something you can truly grasp. While you have been mistaken for gay, you are a heterosexual male. You simply do not have the life experiences we do, and you can't see the world through the lens of ours. This is true of any minority; there are points of view you just can't comprehend unless you belong to that group.

[Alex]

But then what's the correct word for someone like Larry Craig, who insists he's not gay as he taps his foot in the restroom?

Liar?

If I said to you right now that I'm not straight then went home and had an orgy with the Golden State Warriors dance squad, that wouldn't make me a hypocrite. Just a liar.

If Larry Craig was saying that gay activities are shameful and shouldn't be acted on no matter what while he himself shamelessly pursued that same activities. Then he's a hypocrite.

If he held that position and despite personal struggle to resist the urge, still had gay sex then he's not a hypocrite, he's merely failed to live up to his own ideals. Now, it would be great if when he told people homosexuality is a behavior that should be resisted he shared the story of his own struggles and personal failures, but not doing so still doesn't make it hypocrisy.

Sorry, but a swishy guy who is obsessed with another guy to that degree?

Maybe based on the second part, but not because of the first part. You may think the collective gay gaydar is near infallible but I've not seen great evidence of that based on the number of gay men I watched hit on my step father over the years (and if anyone responds the way I suspect someone might we'll just be back to saying that whether someone is gay is determined by vote regardless of how that person actually lives and thinks).

But regardless, there is a huge difference between "these factors increase the likelihood he is gay" (and I don't deny that such a calculation could be done) and "that man is gay because of those factors." Especially when once his homosexuality becomes assumed it is used to make other arguments about his character, motivations, and the meaning of his actions.

It just feels to me like a more local version of the old news analysis trick of saying "I don't like to speculate but maybe X is true" and then after five minutes of discussion they just begin to proceed with it no longer being speculation but fact. Even when the initial speculation ends up being correct, to me it is inimical to honest discussion.

[Alex]

Please tell me that that was an attempt at humor.

Yes, but with the side benefit of being wrapped around truth. I'm right, you're wrong. If that weren't the case I'd be arguing your side.

there are points of view you just can't comprehend unless you belong to that group.

I can accept that (though I didn't realize that gays had a single monolithic life experience that taught them all the exact same things). I don't accept that it extends to the idea that you can tell with precision worthy of treating as fact--through a TV screen, no less--who is gay.

[Gemini Cricket]

I can't find details, but I'm pretty sure at least one of the recent gay bullying related suicides was by a kid who was not gay..
Billy Lucas

[innerSpaceman]

But (prepare for the shock of a lfetime), in average American circles I am not the paradigm of hetero-male-machismo.
Well, you even had a reputation around here for being the gayest straight man. And I think a lot of gay guys I knew thought you were gay through wishful thinking. ;)


I don't mind you calling us on it. It strict terms, you are absolutely correct. It's more likely US who are being hypocritical when we 'ping' that Shirvell is gay because of how he comes off. And likely we all know that, but we also like to be silly and just a little bit bitchy. ;)

More seriously, most gays are also a bit sensitized to those railing against homosexuality the loudest being despicable closet cases, and we enjoy seeing that revealed by whatever means. Not only for the sheer joy of it - but because the more that tendency comes to light, the more the loud-mouthiest gay haters who aren't gay might shut up for fear of seeming absolutely gay.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I see where you are coming from, but I still have to disagree with you. It's much more than labeling someone based on stereotypes. And unless you have lived the life of a gay person, it's really not something you can truly grasp. While you have been mistaken for gay, you are a heterosexual male. You simply do not have the life experiences we do, and you can't see the world through the lens of ours. This is true of any minority; there are points of view you just can't comprehend unless you belong to that group.
You're right...no more than YOU can possibly comprehend what it's like to continually through adolescence have your sexuality wrongly assailed.

I'm Jewish, trust me, I'm well versed in what it's like to be the target of bigotry.

Go ahead and tell Billy Lucas's parents (thanks GC) that, really, Billy shouldn't have been whining, he had no idea what REAL persecution is.

[JWBear]

Go ahead and tell Billy Lucas's parents (thanks GC) that, really, Billy shouldn't have been whining, he had no idea what REAL persecution is.

Where did that come from?! That has nothing to do with what I said.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I can totally accept that there are commonalities to growing up gay. I don't think it's a monolithic experience, that teaches everybody the same things, but there are similar bits. And I don't know that a person can understand the emotional experience of being someone else. Maybe it's just me but I can only do it in an intellectual way.

[JWBear]

Yes, but with the side benefit of being wrapped around truth. I'm right, you're wrong. If that weren't the case I'd be arguing your side.

Well... Whatever makes you happy.

[innerSpaceman]

I used to get bullied for being abnormally tall. It was so freaking crazy. I was so Not Tall, but thug kids kept thinking I was - maybe because I was such a big character. Whatever, I used to get my ass handed to me constantly for having my head in the clouds.

Sigh - I don't think anyone can ever understand the heartache of being thought tall when I was so diligently short. It was a nightmare. Only those of us who went through it can possibly understand.





ok, just havin' a little fun. That's not a parody aimed with malice at anyone particular

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

Try growing up Jehovah's Witness - Hellish.

But think of the positives - Gay = fashion, Jewish = Chosen, Jehovah's Witness = Ringing doorbells well.

[Chernabog]

You're right...no more than YOU can possibly comprehend what it's like to continually through adolescence have your sexuality wrongly assailed.

I'm Jewish, trust me, I'm well versed in what it's like to be the target of bigotry.

Go ahead and tell Billy Lucas's parents (thanks GC) that, really, Billy shouldn't have been whining, he had no idea what REAL persecution is.

Are you confusing being BULLIED for being gay versus just "being gay"? I mean, it's always slightly awkward when clients ask me if I'm married (granted, they're usually the elderly ones with no gaydar), but I just say no and shrug it off. I'm pretty confident in my sexuality so who gives a flying poobah. Plus, they aren't bullying me about it.

I know swishy men who are straight but they're confident in their sexuality so it doesn't bug them what other people think.

Unfortunately, teens aren't confident about much of anything (hence the "it gets better" campaign). Did Billy Lucas kill himself because he was perceived as gay, or because he was a) bullied because of that perception and/or b) self-loathing because of all the religious hatred? If there's no problem with being gay, who cares how you are perceived? Is it the difference between being a little annoyed and being "assailed" due to perceived sexuality?

[Alex]

Well... Whatever makes you happy.

Exactly, next time if you just remember that if you disagree with me then you are wrong, it will save you a lot of time and effort.

[JWBear]

Exactly, next time if you just remember that if you disagree with me then you are wrong, it will save you a lot of time and effort.

You know, there is another word for that.

[Gemini Cricket]

You know, there is another word for that.
Wait. What was the first word?

[Alex]

You know, there is another word for that.

Yes, there is. But not the one you're thinking (it doesn't mean what you think it means).

[JWBear]

Wait. What was the first word?

Use your imagination...

[Kevy Baby]

Use your imagination...No, that's three words

[Ghoulish Delight]

Are you confusing being BULLIED for being gay versus just "being gay"? I mean, it's always slightly awkward when clients ask me if I'm married (granted, they're usually the elderly ones with no gaydar), but I just say no and shrug it off. I'm pretty confident in my sexuality so who gives a flying poobah. Plus, they aren't bullying me about it. I was a nerd, geek, and slightly effeminate. Trust me, it was bullying. I was fortunate that I never had to deal with anyone who was a seriously sociopathic bully, but yes, my entire school existence was underscored by regular low-grade bullying, continually being derided for appearing "faggy" being among the many ugly things thrown my way.


I know swishy men who are straight but they're confident in their sexuality so it doesn't bug them what other people think.
I was a well adjusted kid with and relatively secure. I actually still remember clearly the day it struck me, "Wait a minute, how is it that you calling me gay is supposed to be an insult? If it's true, then you're just calling me what I am, so whatever. If it's not true, then I know it's not true, so who gives a crap?"

But you know what? Day in, day out knowing that, no matter what, there are people who are simply going to refuse to believe what you know to be true about your own identity sucks. It wears you down. And if JW is going to play the "you're not in my shoes card" then this is where I'm playing it. I don't care how secure in your sexuality (or any aspect of your personality) you are, years of being challenged on it is something I would wish on no one.

I'm not equating being misidentified as gay with actual homophobic hatred aimed at homosexuals. But arguing about that just brings to mind the people who dismiss the movement for gay rights with, "Get over it, you're not treated as badly as the slaves were." Again, tell Billy Lucas's parents that it's just "a little annoying".

Obviously the people who are angry at Shervill for what he said and are decrying him as a "closet case" are not doing so in the same spirit as kids who call slightly mincing boys "fags". But while the precise spirit is different, there is still an undercurrent of judgment and derision. "Closet case" is hardly a term of endearment. No, you're not saying he's bad or more worthy of ridicule for being gay. But you ARE saying he's bad or more worthy of ridicule for hiding the "fact" that he's gay. And it strikes me as hypocritical to simultaneously see all of the anti gay-bullying fervor combined with what I see as a mirror image use of sexuality and personal identity to shame someone.

Which is all far more in depth than this all deserves, and more thought I cared to apply to the a*hole, but the questions were posed.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Abundant Visible Alex Mojo. I love when you fight for proper word usage. :snap:

[Chernabog]

And it strikes me as hypocritical to simultaneously see all of the anti gay-bullying fervor combined with what I see as a mirror image use of sexuality and personal identity to shame someone.

I don't see it that way. They aren't being shamed BECAUSE they are gay, but because their actions are..... ironic. (Don'tcha think?) When George Rekers, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, etc. are rallying against homos with every fiber of their being while having their "luggage lifted" by teenage twinks on their off-time, they SHOULD be shamed for being closet cases.

It is what they DO that is hypocritical, lying, ironic, whatever. Not what they ARE.

[Alex]

Yes (not speaking for GD here, he may not agree), but the key difference is that we knew for sure they were engaging, gleefully apparently, in the behavior they publicly condemned.

Not quite the same as pre-emptively deciding that another person must also be doing that, based on no other evidence than stereotypes, and then using it as an additional cudgel against them.

[Chernabog]

Not quite the same as pre-emptively deciding that another person must also be doing that, based on no other evidence than stereotypes, and then using it as an additional cudgel against them.

Now we're going 'round in circles. We're talking about a man who has a serious obsession with another man. There are plenty of examples of people who rally against gay people -- loudly -- when they are gay themselves due to self loathing or religious BS (whether or not they are acting on their sexual desires).

Every gay person has had to deal with being closeted and/or being in denial about their sexuality. It is not difficult in many situations to pick up on those behaviors in other people.

And I still don't think that ALL stereotypes are bad. I have lots (and lots) of things about me that are stereotypically gay. So what?

Would I think that Shirvell is gay from his mannerisms if I ran into him on the street? I don't know. But knowing that he has a blog dedicated to the daily activities of a cute gay college student, plus the way he carries himself... you can't help but think, gee, this guy is in serious denial.

Could he just be a totally batsh!t crazy straight dude? Sure. But I think that's the less likely explanation. Nobody has to catch him downloading Sean Cody videos to think that the scale tips in the other direction.

[innerSpaceman]

And I think that's what it comes down to. Some people (cough*straights*cough) think it's hypocritical stereotyping, and other people (um, all the gays in the world) are pretty sure he's a closet case in the same way we can assume who's male and who's female on the street - - though of all people, we should know that some of those are not what gender they seem.


The assumption is still valid, and Shrivell is not worthy of a more thorough examination. He's gay as the day is long, we can tell. And to the extent we might be wrong, so fvcking what? It's not like I call him on his home number to fag taunt him. He will never have an inkling of my thoughts and feelings and ironic/hypocritical/clipper ship assumptions.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I still don't understand why anyone cares whether he's gay or not.

[innerSpaceman]

All I really care about is that he's now jobless, and that he eventually gets disbarred.

Shirvell has been fired (http://www.freep.com/article/20101108/NEWS06/101108039/Andrew-Shirvell-fired-for-attacks-on-gay-U-M-student).


It was a little Harry Potteresque that his hearing was moved from "later" to "now" without much notice, but I applaud the decision to get rid of him.

[Gemini Cricket]

All I really care about is that he's now jobless, and that he eventually gets disbarred.

Shirvell has been fired (http://www.freep.com/article/20101108/NEWS06/101108039/Andrew-Shirvell-fired-for-attacks-on-gay-U-M-student).

Excellent.

[JWBear]

Great! On the other hand, he will now have more free time to stalk Mr Armstrong.

[innerSpaceman]

I just hope twinkies aren't a staple of his diet.

[Gemini Cricket]

I just hope twinkies aren't a staple of his diet.
Ouch.
lol!

ETA: But apparently a Twinkie Diet is a good way to lose weight, according to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html?hpt=T2).

[Chernabog]

ETA: But apparently a Twinkie Diet is a good way to lose weight, according to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html?hpt=T2).

Seriously! The South Beach twinkie diet is the best. With all those dicks in your mouth, who has time to eat?

Har, har, har. :D

[innerSpaceman]

Well, dropping a few pounds would do him a bit of good, I suppose - but as as an assistant attorney general, he might be familiar with Dan White's infamous Twinkie Defense - so if Shrivell takes up a habit of eating the creamy spongecake snack icon, I'd say Armstrong should get himself a bodyguard.

[Gemini Cricket]

May Shirvell shrivel up and go away.

[JWBear]

For the lake of a better place...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_awACeqK1Eg0/TNrAxocC9FI/AAAAAAAAVCk/FLwWI5CPxp4/s1600/summer+is+over.jpg

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm warm!

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I considered posting this in the WTF Thread.
Gay Coffins (http://web.orange.co.uk/article/quirkies/Gay_coffins_lift_lid_on_new_market)

[Betty]

I considered posting this in the WTF Thread.
Gay Coffins (http://web.orange.co.uk/article/quirkies/Gay_coffins_lift_lid_on_new_market)

" bidding for the pink pound " made me giggle. Never heard it put that way before.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Lover by Tom Goss (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN56zvQTeWk)"Lover" tells a story very rarely told: of the loss endured by partners of gay servicemembers who are killed in battle.

The video features Goss as the bereaved partner of an army soldier (DC actor Ben Horen) killed while on duty in Afghanistan. Among those playing medics who come to the aid of the wounded soldier are several former servicemembers who were discharged under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy: Mike Almy, David Hall, and Danny Hernandez, all of whom are active members of SLDN. Keith Bryant stars as a fellow soldier.

[innerSpaceman]

Well that was seventeen kinds of beautiful.



:snap: :snap: :(

[innerSpaceman]

http://www.advocate.com/uploadedImages/ADVOCATE/PRINT_ISSUE/2010/1044/KWANTENX390.jpg

Gay heartthrob Ryan Kwanten of True Blood fame (make that heartthrob of gays and others) is interviewed in The Advocate (http://www.advocate.com/Arts_and_Entertainment/Television/Kwanten_Leap/) on a bunch of gay-related topics. He has a gay brother, Lloyd, who's a doctor down under. Ryan himself nicely sidesteps the issue of whether he himself is gay.

Perhaps my favorite exchange:

Your True Blood costar Stephen Moyer recently auctioned off his “modesty sock” for charity. Would you auction off your penis pouch for a gay charity like The Trevor Project?
Well, I’ve gone through more than one, so there might be a couple out there. I’ll have to speak to Audrey, our wardrobe designer, and see if she can track one down. There’s quite a collection, actually—one for every mood.

:eek:




Oh, and re-quoting the Maniac, because everyone should watch the beautiful video he linked to a few posts up.
Lover by Tom Goss (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN56zvQTeWk)

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Pixar has made an "It Gets Better" video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a4MR8oI_B8)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Holy crap they've gotten good at animating people.

[Gn2Dlnd]

5:22 wrecked me.

Actually, the whole thing wrecked me, but 5:22 had me sobbing.

[innerSpaceman]

Eh, it did nothing for me. Google pulled the same deal months ago. I would have expected a bit of animation to liven things up.



This from the man who's own It Gets Better video will likely never see the light of day. I would have had animation in mine, but I don't work with Pixar's budget.

[Chernabog]

This from the man who's own It Gets Better video will likely never see the light of day. I would have had animation in mine, but I don't work with Pixar's budget.

Sheesh! There are a couple of people here that can draw, perhaps we can animate yours with Grumpy. (See how be brightens up once he has the attention of a fag-hag?) ;)

[Alex]

They probably didn't work with Pixar's budget either. I'd imagine this is was a project of one of their internal diversity groups, which generally get corporate support in the sense of some kind of refreshments budget for meetings, and a acceptance of them using employees company time to a certain degree.

[Chernabog]

A few events coming up. (Below is a reprint of an email I received from the LGLA) Steve you work around there so it may be interesting to go to, if you can get a morning off :)

LIVE ORAL ARGUMENT VIEWING AND MCLE PRESENTATION

MONDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2010
Ninth Circuit Oral Argument: 10:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.
Post-Argument Discussion: 12:30 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.

Irell & Manella LLP
1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
Los Angeles, California 90067-4276

Irell & Manella LLP is pleased to announce a special 2010 program around the Ninth Circuit oral argument in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, in our Century City offices on Monday, December 6, 2010:

* From 10:00 a.m. to about 12:30 p.m., the cable broadcast of the Ninth Circuit oral argument in Perry v. Schwarzenegger can be viewed live; and


* From about 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., immediately following the oral argument, there will be a lunch featuring a discussion of the case among Tara Borelli (Staff Attorney at Lambda Legal), David Codell (outside legal counsel to Equality California), and I&M lawyers who have been involved with amicus briefing in support of same-sex marriage in other recent litigation.*



Outside attendees should come to the firm's 9th Floor reception desk to be directed to the program room. On-site parking with the I&M building valet (enter off the East side of Avenue of the Stars, just south of Santa Monica Blvd.) will also be validated at the firm's 9th Floor reception desk. Buffet-style lunch will be provided at no cost at about 12:00 noon. (Sorry, no special meal requests.)

There is no charge to attend, but space is limited. If you would like to attend, please RSVP to Carolyn Moore (Tel: 310-284-7429 / or email: cmoore@irell.com) as soon as possible but in any event before 3:00p.m. on Friday, December 3rd. When making a reservation, please: 1) state the attendee's name(s), spelling the first and last name if it's a voicemail; 2) provide a contact phone number or email in case we need more information and/or the event space is full. If you do not RSVP, or if all places are filled by the time you do, we may be unable to admit you on the day of the program.

If you would like to see the amicus briefs filed by both Lambda Legal and Equality California along with any of the other briefing, including the briefing submitted by the principal parties, please go to http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000472.


NOTES:

* THE LUNCH DISCUSSION PORTION OF THIS ACTIVITY HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR MINIMUM CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT BY THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE HOUR, OF WHICH 0 HOURS WILL APPLY TO LEGAL ETHICS; 0 HOURS WILL APPLY TO THE ELIMINATION OF BIAS; 0 HOURS WILL APPLY TO THE PREVENTION, DETECTION AND TREATMENT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE.

IRELL AND MANELLA LLP CERTIFIES THAT THIS ACTIVITY CONFORMS TO THE STANDARDS FOR APPROVED EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES PRESCRIBED BY THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNING MINIMUM CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION.



ccmailg.irell.com made the following annotations

You Are Invited To A Discussion About The Oral Arguments Before The 9th Circuit In The Perry Case With Special Guest USC Law Professor David B. Cruz



Next Monday, oral arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the challenge to the constitutionality of Prop 8, will be heard by a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The judges on the panel will be Justice Stephen R. Reinhardt, Justice Michael Daly Hawkins, and Justice N. Randy Smith. Oral argument will be divided into two hour-long sessions. In the first hour, the parties shall address each appellant's standing. In the second hour, the parties shall address the constitutionality of Proposition 8.



What: Please join Love Honor Cherish and Co-Sponsors, the Latino Equality Alliance and LGLA at LHC's next meeting, which will feature USC Constitutional Law Professor David B. Cruz, who will offer his expert insights into the oral argument in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Come discuss what the argument may suggest about a likely ruling by the Ninth Circuit and the prospects for a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.



When: Tuesday, December 7th, at 7:30 pm,


Where: The National Council of Jewish Women, Room 103, 543 North Fairfax Avenue, Los Angeles CA 90036. Parking is first come, first serve in the NCJW parking lot (enter off of Clinton & press button on box), or park on Fairfax (meters until 8 pm).

[lashbear]

Hehehehe - you said "Oral"

[innerSpaceman]

Hmmm, I'm gonna think about going to that. My bosses would FREAK though, if I took Monday morning off.


In other gay news, Brendan has edited the It Gets Better video he directed about 6 weeks ago - and though I am not a fan (the lead actor gives me the willies), it's been talked about a bit in this thread - so it's only fair to present it here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aL9gqTy8QM) - for better or worse.

[Chernabog]

In other gay news, Brendan has edited the It Gets Better video he directed about 6 weeks ago - and though I am not a fan (the lead actor gives me the willies), it's been talked about a bit in this thread - so it's only fair to present it here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aL9gqTy8QM) - for better or worse.

Wow he IS creepy. ;) LOL j/k that rocks that you made one of these videos. I think it turned out great! I certainly don't have the balls to make one, so go you!

[Scrooge McSam]

I like it!! I like that you present options to consider.

For me, the turning point was when I quit being afraid and started standing up and giving back as good as I got. Yeah, I got beat down a couple of times... but I'm still here.

:snap:

[Gemini Cricket]

"Don't leave us now and leave us them."
I like that.
Nicely done, Stevie!
:)

[BarTopDancer]

Wonderful video Steve!

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Well done, Steve.

[Not Afraid]

Come see the future, you'll like it!

Love it!

[SzczerbiakManiac]

iSm, that was frelling awesome! <big hug>

[innerSpaceman]

Watched a cute movie called "City Island" last night, and this Steven got such a gay crush on one of the characters ... Ironically played by an actor named Steven Strait.


http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/3369/strait.jpg

[JWBear]

Oh my.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

¡Señor Strait es muy guapo y delicioso!

[JWBear]

http://media.theiapolis.com/d4/h1KW/iOI8/t4/wP0/steven-strait-as-tony-nardella-6.jpg

[JWBear]

He was in 10,000BC also:
http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/080306/prehistoric-hotties/10000-bc_l.jpg

[Chernabog]

Post #875 is nummies. :D

[JWBear]

I don't watch Glee, so I have no idea who these guys (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-_5RBPrK2o&feature=player_embedded) are. It's a cute video though.

[innerSpaceman]

I didn't like that rendition of Cold Outside. Kurt is too castrato and the new kid's part disappears in the mix, though he's got way more moxie as a singer.

Meanwhile, I'm gonna put 10K BC in my queue just for some more Strait action. Thanks, JayDub, for finding that much yummier pic of him from City Island. Le.Big.Sigh.

[katiesue]

Loved it - Maddie did too!

[innerSpaceman]

Video (http://www.towleroad.com/2010/12/watch-yesterdays-full-prop-8-appeal-hearing-at-the-9th-circuit.html#more) of December 6th's Hearing before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal of the Prop 8 case, in two handy segments (the first on whether anyone even has standing to pursue an appeal, and the 2nd on the actual merits of the appeal).

The case will likely go to an "en banc" panel of the Ninth Circuit (meaning a much larger panel than the 3 judges here), and then onto the Supreme Court.

As I read the law (and it seems pretty obvious to me), no one has standing to appeal. But I believe this court will ignore that, and take up this hot button political issue so that it can eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.


I had wanted that to happen, but I'd rather the law be followed. And in truth, I'm afraid to let the current composition of the Supreme Court get their filthy tyrannical paws on this issue. If the appeal does not go forward because of the standing issue, California will have equal marriage rights. That's really a hollow victory without federal and IRS recognition - but I think that's the best outcome possible at this time.

[Ghoulish Delight]

DADT repeal's last chance (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40715888/ns/politics-capitol_hill/) - and it's shaping up to be a good chance.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

not holding my breath :-|

[Alex]

Kind of looks like you are.

[innerSpaceman]

It's tough if you've been following it through the last couple of years. Such back and forth, hopes - then dashed. I don't even give much of a damn about this particular gay rights issue, but the rollercoaster has been nerve-wracking nonetheless. And I'm sure many, like me, are just "wake me when it's over" tired of getting our hopes up.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I can't not hope.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Yay! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40715888/ns/politics-capitol_hill/)

[Ghoulish Delight]

All that's left is the President's signature! And then all the stupidity of implementation.

[innerSpaceman]

The "certification" process will likely take another year.

But this is a happy day nonetheless. And once again, I place the credit for justice squarely with the courts of law. If a federal judge had not ruled DADT unconstitutional with an outright ban breathing down the stiff necks of congress, I don't think this vote for repeal authorization would ever have happened.

But whichever way it came about, and however pesky long it takes to implement, the good is done. And discharges formally stop immediately. It's possible that open enlistment may be instituted early in the year. So for all intents and purposes, really, DADT is history.



Sigh, now for ENDA, DOMA and Marriage Equality. The tougher stuff. The battle to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, which had vast majority support in the nation, does not give me hope the fight for the more important items will be anything less than brutal.

:cheers: Here's hoping for a bit of domino effect.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

still not holding my breath
it's not over till it's over

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Wendy Walsh reads her son Seth’s suicide note (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y5CbtXoO74). (NSFW due to language) He was 13 and openly gay. Seth killed himself September 19 because he could no longer take being bullied at school.

Why she made the video (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/12/stop-anti-gay-bullying-mother-of-tehachapi-boy-who-committed-suicide-pleads-on-video.html).

[Gn2Dlnd]

Wendy Walsh reads her son Seth’s suicide note (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y5CbtXoO74). (NSFW due to language) He was 13 and openly gay. Seth killed himself September 19 because he could no longer take being bullied at school.

Why she made the video (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/12/stop-anti-gay-bullying-mother-of-tehachapi-boy-who-committed-suicide-pleads-on-video.html).

I want to click on these links, but, just reading your post has ripped me to shreds. September 19th is my birthday - 13 years old - Jesus Christ.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

It's not an easy video to watch.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Something more light-hearted:
http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldfituo7v51qbxe5yo1_400.jpg (http://beargrease.tumblr.com/post/2318277883)

[innerSpaceman]

Every man is just a six pack away ...

[Gn2Dlnd]

Three of the guys are in their Mr. Rogers' Casual Collection best, and then there's the guy wearing a tuxedo? With high-water pants? And it looks like he's drinking his beer with a straw? Get her!

[Kevy Baby]

Probably elsewhere in this thread, but just saw this:

1575

[Gn2Dlnd]

Yes...I "saw" that as well...

You stay here, I'll go get help.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Oops. Your attachment wasn't working right so I tried to fix it. Instead I broke it more.

[Gn2Dlnd]

And ruined my clever response.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Oh, wait. No you didn't.

[Kevy Baby]

I was trying to be fancy. Let me post it again without getting fancy.

[Chernabog]

The Bizarre World of the Bisexual! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-4w6NqfLAc&feature=player_embedded) :) hehehe I love these educational videos.

[innerSpaceman]

Ok, I haven't seen most of them - but this music video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTQNwMxqM3E&feature=player_embedded) gets my vote for best It Gets Better.

[Morrigoon]

Wow, awesome. Not too many views yet, what say we give it a little help towards going viral?

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Sit down.
Fasten your seat belt.
Prepare to have your mind BLOWN.

Below is the most shocking coming out ever in the history of the multiverse.Figure skater Johnny Weir is gay (http://boyculture.typepad.com/boy_culture/2011/01/go-figure.html)!

[JWBear]

Amazing, huh? Also, apparently the Pope is Catholic! Who knew?

[SzczerbiakManiac]

...and the Awesome Mom of the Week award goes to this lady (http://nerdyapplebottom.com/2010/11/02/my-son-is-gay/)!Warner Bros. sent them an awesome care package (http://nerdyapplebottom.com/2011/01/06/warner-bros-is-amazing/).

[cirquelover]

What a sweet story, thanks for sharing it.

[lashbear]

Warner Bros. sent them an awesome care package (http://nerdyapplebottom.com/2011/01/06/warner-bros-is-amazing/).
I just got a little teary reading that ! :blush:

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Born This Way (http://borngaybornthisway.blogspot.com/)
"A photo/essay project for gay viewers (male and female) to submit pictures from their childhood (roughly ages 4 to 14), with snapshots that capture them, innocently, showing the beginnings of their innate gay selves."

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Zeb Atlas (yes, that one) sings Love Hangover (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZf-Ql3wayA) 95% work safe

[Chernabog]

Not sure where to put this so I will put it here. This was a funny (to me) comment on Yahoo to that Alabama Governor making comments that only Christians are his brothers and sisters:

"Christianity. The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood, while telepathically telling him you accept him as your master, so that he can remove an evil force from your soul which is present in all humanity because a woman made out of one rib bone and a mound of dirt was tricked into eating fruit from a magical tree by a talking snake. Yeah, it makes perfect sense."

LOL! It's all plausible, right? Hail Xenu!

[BarTopDancer]

So putting that on FB!

[Chernabog]

Haha BTD started a facebook crazy! :D

[Cadaverous Pallor]

So putting that on FB!What are you, nuts?? :p

[BarTopDancer]

Haha BTD started a facebook crazy! :D

What are you, nuts?? :p

Who, me?

If there were zombie Jesus in Sunday school I would have paid more attention.

[Kevy Baby]

From the episode of Glee with Gwenyth Paltrow:

I would say that two drunk people who've only know each other for an hour getting married by an Elvis impersonator is more of an affront to marriage than two men getting hitched.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

It looks like our good buddy Andrew Shirvell had been previously warned (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/23/AR2011012303191.html) about using state resources to harass The Gays prior to being fired.

[innerSpaceman]

What's with Dorritos and the ads they are proposing for the Superbowl?

Gay Sauna Reach for Dorritos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B1yk85znbpY)

Gardener checks out the Neighbor's Poolboys' Dorritos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcfViklWRsU&feature=player_embedded)


Am I missing something about the Superbowl's target audience??

[SzczerbiakManiac]

But that's only the first part of the ads. The second part must be where they wreak physical harm on each other up for acting in such a faggoty manner. Just ask Snickers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjuXbYW6KmE).

[Not Afraid]

Then there's the pug Dorritos ad. Everyone knows pugs are gay!

[innerSpaceman]

(Um, later I found out those were submissions to Dorritos by private production contestants ... I don't think either were selected to air during the Superbowl. I think that sauna one would be very surreal during a football game.)

[Gn2Dlnd]

Ad contest called "Crash the Superbowl (http://www.crashthesuperbowl.com/official_rules.html)"

CREATIVE ASSIGNMENT:
The creative assignment for the Contest ("Creative Assignment") is as follows:

* Choose a brand category: DORITOS® brand or PEPSI MAX® (each a "Category").
* Review the assets for that brand Category provided in the Toolkit on www.crashthesuperbowl.com.
* Get together your idea for a DORITOS® brand or PEPSI MAX® Super Bowl XLV commercial. Go for action-packed. Or go for funny. It's up to you.
* Create and submit a 30-second spot featuring DORITOS® brand tortilla chips or a 30-second spot featuring PEPSI MAX®.
* Your commercial may feature both brands (DORITOS® brand and PEPSI MAX®), however, your Submission will only be judged in the first Category for which it was entered.
* Your submission should be in commercial form consistent with these Official Rules.



Hard to work up a decent harrumph on this one, considering it took me all of 10 minutes from viewing the ads from the original post, looking at a 1/2 dozen other ads of wildly different quality and style, finding the rules for the contest, and then finishing the thread only to have to confirm what iSm said.

What he said.

[innerSpaceman]

So, who wants to make a REALLY GAY Dorritos ad with me?!? :D

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Do I get to "audition" the models? If so, yes, I would love to assist.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Thank goodness Harps was able to protect young eyes (http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/01/grocery-store-finds-gay-parenting.html) from the HORRORS of this magazine cover!
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_t6rV3U9ZEHM/TT-ujrFgG2I/AAAAAAAA_7I/hBudx1b5QUw/s1600/HarpsUSWeekly1.jpg

I feel I should hide the monstrously despicable original cover lest small children happen by:http://blogs.babycenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/011811_elton_cover-225x300.jpg

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Thank goodness Harps was able to protect young eyes (http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/01/grocery-store-finds-gay-parenting.html) from the HORRORS of this magazine cover!
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_t6rV3U9ZEHM/TT-ujrFgG2I/AAAAAAAA_7I/hBudx1b5QUw/s1600/HarpsUSWeekly1.jpg

I feel I should hide the monstrously despicable original cover lest small children happen by:http://blogs.babycenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/011811_elton_cover-225x300.jpgThe gap in his teeth isn't THAT bad.

[BarTopDancer]

He does kinda have a wild serial killer look in his eyes.

[innerSpaceman]

That does kinda looked poorly photoshopped, what with the text not at all aligned with the edges of the plastic it's supposedly printed on.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

That does kinda looked poorly photoshopped, what with the text not at all aligned with the edges of the plastic it's supposedly printed on.Now that you mention it, it does have a shopped quality, but Harps has responded (http://glaadblog.org/2011/01/26/arkansas-supermarket-censors-then-possibly-uncensors-elton-john-cover/) so I'm inclined to think it may be real.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Just so y'all know, we have about three months before the US military completely disintegrates (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/26/AR2011012605711.html).

[innerSpaceman]

Thanks for checking into that, SM. Guess Harps uses really cheap labor to print their magazine shields.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Anderson Cooper discusses new Andrew Shirvell evidence (http://cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2011/01/25/ac.fired.official.new.evidence.cnn)

[Kevy Baby]

Now that you mention it, it does have a shopped quality, but Harps has responded (http://glaadblog.org/2011/01/26/arkansas-supermarket-censors-then-possibly-uncensors-elton-john-cover/) so I'm inclined to think it may be real.Apparently the shields are now down (SM's link has been updated).

[innerSpaceman]

It's a Trap!

[SzczerbiakManiac]

The official response:We have received a number of complaints regarding an incident in our Mountain Home store involving the current issue of US Weekly Magazine depicting Elton John, David Furnish and their newborn son. I would like to explain how this happened. For many years we have provided each of our stores with shields which can be used at the manager’s discretion to cover the front of magazines when they receive complaints from our customers regarding either the photo on the cover of the magazine or the titles of articles contained within the magazine. Sometimes those photos might be sexually provocative or too revealing. The magazine article titles might also be too suggestive for some customers.

In this case our store manager received some complaints and, as has been our custom, placed the shield over the cover of the magazine. When we began receiving complaints at our corporate office, we reviewed the magazine in question, removed the shield and are selling the magazine in all our locations today without any shield.

Our true intention is not to offend anyone in our stores and this incident happened at just one of our 65 locations, which when brought to our attention, we reversed.

Kim B. Eskew
President & COO
Harps Food Stores, Inc.

[BarTopDancer]

If it's truly at the managers discretion he needs to be reprimanded. Then again, it speaks volumes of the demographic that visits that store. How a happy, stable couple that has been together for over a decade showing off their baby can be offensive is pathetic.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Well come on BTD, it's obvious Elton and David are working tirelessly to destroy the American way of life, so it's only reasonable that Righteous Christians be offended by such treachery and do their duty to stop these homasexshuls.

Praise the Lord and pass the ammo!

[JWBear]

I remember reading, years ago, a version of the Sermon On the Mount that was rewritten to fit modern American Christianity. There was something like "Blessed are the faithful, for they shall be easily offended and quick to anger."

[BarTopDancer]

Well come on BTD, it's obvious Elton and David are working tirelessly to destroy the American way of life, so it's only reasonable that Righteous Christians be offended by such treachery and do their duty to stop these homasexshuls.

Praise the Lord and pass the ammo!

Those damn Brits. Trying to get back at us any way they can for our Revolution.

[Chernabog]

I remember reading, years ago, a version of the Sermon On the Mount that was rewritten to fit modern American Christianity. There was something like "Blessed are the faithful, for they shall be easily offended and quick to anger."

Well that's the gist. They're also really good at crying "victim" when someone they've hurt calls them on the stupidity or danger of their beliefs.

See i.e. the US Televangelists who went to Africa. Stir up anti-gay sentiment in Africa where there wasn't any. When gay people start getting murdered, they all say the same thing: "You're attacking me and my beliefs! You are so closed-minded and disrespectful to your fellow man! I just went there preachin' the Lord and now I'm the one that's being stabbed!"

*barf*

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Zach Wahls, a 19-year-old University of Iowa student spoke about the strength of his family during a public forum on House Joint Resolution 6 in the Iowa House of Representatives (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q). Wahls has two mothers, and came to oppose House Joint Resolution 6 which would end civil unions in Iowa.

Color me impressed with his eloquence!

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Coming Out In The 1950s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGOnoPnmeH4)

[innerSpaceman]

Zach Wahls, a 19-year-old University of Iowa student spoke about the strength of his family during a public forum on House Joint Resolution 6 in the Iowa House of Representatives (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q). Wahls has two mothers, and came to oppose House Joint Resolution 6 which would end civil unions in Iowa.

Color me impressed with his eloquence!

You saved me the trouble. This guy is fantastic! This is the future the bigots won't be able to stop from coming.



Oh, except your blurb is incorrect. The Iowa House passed a resolution to do a Prop 8 in that state. That is, take away the equal marriage rights already being enjoyed by loving gays and lesbians in Iowa, its Supreme Court having recognized that it's constitution enshrines that right and has done so all along.

They ousted the Supreme Court judges that came up for re-election last November.

The Democrats control the Iowa Senate, so this bill is not likely to proceed further. In any event, Iowa is a little smarter than California in that a Constitutional Amendment requires the vote of the people - in two consecutive years. Bravo Iowa. (According to Zach, the Iowa Constitution is the least amended constitution in the U.S.)

[Kevy Baby]

.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I went and looked up the passage.

God is one weird sonofabitch.

God did not punish the Sodomites because they were homosexuals. God got pissed that they were ignoring him, so he stopped preventing them from becoming homosexuals so he could THEN punish them. " God gave them over to shameful lusts" "God gave them over to a depraved mind".

That's a pretty desperate cry for attention.

[innerSpaceman]

Throughout the Old Testament, Yahweh is portrayed as a spoiled brat violent crybaby hypocrite monster. Yeah, I wonder if man was made in God's image or if it was the other way around, huh? :rolleyes:

[Alex]

Not that I have a problem with first cousins getting married, but
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/nyt.jpg

[innerSpaceman]

You can't marry your first cousin in Mississippi or Texas? :eek:



The world is not what I thought it was.

[Morrigoon]

But you can marry your ex-stepmother's brother

Try explaining to your kids that their aunt and uncle are also their cousins, or that their dad is also their step-uncle, or that Auntie is also ex-step-grandma...

Not that I'd know any Texas relatives that had done that :rolleyes:

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Just found out that my great-grandmother married her own uncle. I guess when you live in Germany in 1908, you're 27 years old, and your father is about to die, you'd do anything to get married.

[BarTopDancer]

Was he uncle by marriage?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Nope.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

from The Advocate (http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/02/02/Utah_Strict_Bill_to_Exclude_Gay_Families/)

Frankly, this seems more appropriate to post in the WTF thread. How fücking paranoid can you get...?A Utah legislator introduced a bill Wednesday that would require all publicly funded programs, laws, and regulations, to ensure they exclude families headed by gay and lesbian couples.

Rep. LaVar Christensen writes in the bill's language (http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0270.htm) that "marriage and family predate all governments and are supported by and consistent with the Laws of Nature and God, the Creator and Supreme Judge of the World, affirmed in the nation’s founding Declaration of Independence." It also says, "families anchored by both a father and a mother, fidelity within marriage, and enduring devotion to the covenants and responsibilities of marriage are the desired norm."

Brandie Balken, executive director of Equality Utah, told the Salt Lake City Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogslgbt/51176950-61/bill-policy-christensen-balken.html.csp) that the bill could be used to "create a filter for public agencies and a way to target laws, services and funding that currently help single Utahns or Utanhs with families that differ from Representative Christensen's."

[SzczerbiakManiac]

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! It's two male homosexuals kissing... in the FRENCH way (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4ykGpmchZI)!
AAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!

[Kevy Baby]

Here's a question I have been meaning to ask. It has probably been covered ad naseum on the interwebs, but I am too lazy to look.

Why do the terms 'homosexual' and 'gay' predominantly refer to males since (unless I am mistaken) they are applicable to either gender? Conversely, female homosexuals are referred to as lesbians (the litany of slang terms aside), which is gender specific. Is there a non-slang term for male homosexuals - an equivalent to 'lesbian'?

I am being serious about this. And I hope I am not offending anyone by asking this question!

[Cynthia]

I am still on hot young men kissing . . .

[innerSpaceman]

Kevy, I've always wondered that myself. I think it's a bit retarded, since both girls and boys who are attracted to members of their own sex are gay. So I loathe the acronym LGBT, as I think it's redundant. (And don't get me started on LGBTQII - lordy!)


Perhaps "lesbian" is accepted because there is no male counterpart. Well, maybe "faggot," but you can see why that won't fly. But to paraphrase Rodney King, "can't we all just be gay?"

[JWBear]

"Homosexual" and "gay" do usually refer to both genders ("homosexual" especially). As to why there is no male equivalent to "lesbian", I truely do not know.

[Kevy Baby]

"Homosexual" and "gay" do usually refer to both genders ("homosexual" especially).See, a lot of my experience has been that both of these monikers usually refer to men, though not always. YMMV

Looking on Wikipedia (that definitive fount of accurate knowledge :rolleyes:) under Homosexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual), echos the sentiment that "Gay' is often used for men:The most common adjectives in use are lesbian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian) for women and gay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay) for men, though gay can refer to either men or women.So, it looks like I have stumbled across an interesting topic. I am tempted to start a new thread on this, but shall refrain. However, I am interested in further discussion on the topic.

I would be afraid of starting a movement to 'create' a new, male specific moniker for it would surely create a horrible 'safe' word that would be repulsive and nobody would use it.




ETA: another one that should be gender neutral but tends to be applied to men is 'queer'. Is that considered a potentially derogatory term - sort of like it is okay for one homosexual to use when talking to another, but not for breeders to use to describe dem gays? Kind of like a rainbow version of the "N" word?

[Morrigoon]

Queer seems to often be applied also to trans folks, so no, I'm not sure that's entirely a gay male thing

[innerSpaceman]

Actually, queer is quickly picking up steam amongst not-strictly-straight youngsters of all genders and persuasions. I like it.



Not more than Gay. I really like Gay. Absolutely, wiki is right - it's mostly referring to men. But it technically applies to anyone who is homosexual. Too bad I never hear gay girls refer to themselves that way.

And, ycch, Lesbian. What an ugly word.
(Quoting from something, but I forget what.)

[Ghoulish Delight]

I think it's really just the fact that no one was really paying much mind to female homosexuality. While the idea of same sex female marriage and relationships shares similar status as between males, it's well established that same sex female sexual encounters do not share the same stigma (and are supported by the same bible that fuels the stigma against same sex male relations). So for most of the history of the words, "gay" and "homosexual" referred to male homosexuality by default, with a cursory nod towards, "Oh, well, yeah, there can be female homos too I guess". "Lesbians" arose because there was a need to specifically distinguish that you weren't JUST talking about males.

[innerSpaceman]

Do you suppose girl on girl was nearly universally hot, even in antiquity?

[JWBear]

Actually, queer is quickly picking up steam amongst not-strictly-straight youngsters of all genders and persuasions. I like it.



Not more than Gay. I really like Gay. Absolutely, wiki is right - it's mostly referring to men. But it technically applies to anyone who is homosexual. Too bad I never hear gay girls refer to themselves that way.

And, ycch, Lesbian. What an ugly word.
(Quoting from something, but I forget what.)

All the lesbians I know call themselves gay.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Read the bible. Girl on girl in harems was de rigueur.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I've used "queer" to describe myself. It's nice in that it has fewer connotations than some other terms.

[lashbear]

The Sydney Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, Seeking & Othered Mardi Gras started it's life simply as: The Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras. I've been in it several times, but I've never been to Lesbos. (yet)

I wonder if Lesbos has an award for "Lesbian Of The Year" ?

Oh, and a lot of queer folk here now refer to themselves as "Queer" as an inclusive term rather than GLBT. I like it because it strips the power of it being a derogatory slur.

[innerSpaceman]

When I was a kid, queer was a derogatory insult on the same par as faggot. I think it's cool that kids today are adopting it at a quick pace - - but then again, I'm a guy who thinks we should use "fag" as an affectionate term, to disarm it in the same way blacks have done with (note that as a white guy I must still refer to it as) the "N"WORD.



JW - Long Beach Lesbians are a breed apart. Of course they call themselves Gay. :D

[Kevy Baby]

Oh, and a lot of queer folk here now refer to themselves as "Queer" as an inclusive term rather than GLBT. I like it because it strips the power of it being a derogatory slur.See, I like that approach.

[innerSpaceman]

See, but I hate the word queer. (Just as I hate the word "straight") Both imply something wrong with gay people. And I guess I just don't like the sound of it.

I prefer "fag" - yeah, I know its etymology and that's really disturbing. But the word itself does not mean odd or bent or unnatural. It means wood. And, frankly, that's the part of a fag I kinda like the best. ;)

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Until reading the posts in this thread today, I had never heard "homosexual" used to specifically connote males.
To me, "gay" is like "mankind" in that it really does refer to both genders, but some people insist it's just talking about dudes. Whatever, I have more important battles to fight.
Lesbian has always been strictly female.
"Queer" is the umbrella term. It can refer to anything on the Kinsey scale above 0.1 as well as transgender, questioning, and even heterosexuals who feel they have a 'queer sensibility".

[Ghoulish Delight]

"Homosexual" tends to be unisex, but "homo" tends to be male.

[JWBear]

When I was a kid, queer was a derogatory insult on the same par as faggot. I think it's cool that kids today are adopting it at a quick pace - - but then again, I'm a guy who thinks we should use "fag" as an affectionate term, to disarm it in the same way blacks have done with (note that as a white guy I must still refer to it as) the "N"WORD.



JW - Long Beach Lesbians are a breed apart. Of course they call themselves Gay. :D

They're not all from Long Beach. Orange County has lesbians too.

[Moonliner]

Ha ha NOM (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/National_Organization_for_Marriage). You got served (http://gizmodo.com/5751795/cartoonist-trolls-bigots-with-hotlinks-trickery).


When cartoonist Zach Weiner discovered that NOM (an anti-gay marriage lobbying group) had appropriated one of his comics as a hotlink on its website, he fired back in the simplest, cleverest way he could. He changed the image

[Kevy Baby]

Yeah for small victories!

[Kevy Baby]

"Homosexual" tends to be unisex, but "homo" tends to be male.Maybe I need to start paying better attention. My perception has been that "homosexual" was biased towards male specific usage. Maybe I'm biased against The Gays™ :D

[Ghoulish Delight]

Overall, it probably is biased that way - again mostly because for quite a while, only male homosexuals were considered "really" homosexual, with female homosexuality having a long history of flying under the radar. But the phrase "homosexual male" is one I hear pretty commonly, to distinguish from the general "homosexual". And really, the broad use of "homosexual" (as opposed to gay, fag, homo, queer) is generally by people with some level of respect, which means they ARE being inclusive.

[Kevy Baby]

What about "rope smoker" - where does that fit in?

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I'll show you where it fits...! :evil:

[SzczerbiakManiac]

...and the Awesome Mom of the Week award goes to this lady (http://nerdyapplebottom.com/2010/11/02/my-son-is-gay/)!But the awesome cleric of the year most definitely does not go to her pastor! An epilogue to "Boo's" story (http://nerdyapplebottom.com/2011/02/03/epilogue/).

[JWBear]

I prefer "fudgepacker" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsJKpGlu0-k), myself.

[Gemini Cricket]

Here's a list:
(Is it bad that I find a lot of these to be funny?) :D

Anal assassin (U.K) or anal astronaut
Ass Bandit or arse bandit
Back door bandit
Backgammon player (late 18th century Britain)
Batty boy (alternatively botty boy)
Bender
Bent, bentshot or bender
Bone smuggler or sausage smuggler
Brownie king or brown piper
Bufter, bufty (mainly Scottish) or booty buffer
Bugger (from Buggery)
Bum bandit or bun bandit
Bum boy or bum chum, also bum robber
Bumhole engineer
Bunny
Butt pirate, butt rider, or butt rustler
Charlie (rhyming slang for Charlie Ronce which rhymes with ponce)
Chi chi man (Jamaica and the Caribbean)
Chocolate Speedway Merchant
Chutney ferret
Cockjockey
Cockknocker, cockknocker and cocknocker
Cockpipe cosmonaut
Corn Packer
Crack jockey
Cum Smoker- refers to a man smoking his own or others cum with his mouth
Donut puncher (or Doughnut puncher)
Faggot (variation: fag) (U.S., recorded from 1914)
Fairy (common and acceptable for part of the 20th century)
Flit
Fruit (also fruit loop, fruit packer, butt fruit)
Fudge packer
Harry hoofter, rhyming slang of poofter
Homo (abbreviation for homosexual)
Iron (hoof) or iron hoofter (rhyming slang for poof)
Jobby jabber (mainly Scottish with jobby referring to excrement)
Knob jockey
Light in the loafers
Limp wristed
Marmite miner
Mary
Miss Molly (late 18th century)
Moffie (South Africa)
Punjabi Licker (Sri Lanka)
Nancy or nancy boy, girlyboy or nellie
Oklahomo
Pansy
Pillow biter or mattress muncher, referring to anal sex when one partner is face-down often into a pillow
Poof (variations include: poofter, pouf, poove, pooftah, pooff, puff) (U.K, Australia, New Zealand, California)
Pole Fancy
Queen, princess and variations
Bean queen (also taco queen or Salsa queen), gay man attracted to Hispanic gay men
Brownie queen, obsolete slang for gay man interested in anal sex (used by men who disliked anal sex)
Chicken queen, older gay man interested in younger or younger appearing men
Curry queen, gay man attracted to Asian-Indian gay men[41]
Dinge queen, gay man attracted to black gay men (offensive use of "dinge" meaning black)
Drag queen, gay man into cross-dressing for performance
Drama queen, gay man given to melodramatics
Gym queen, gay man given to athletic development
Pissy queen, gay man perceived as fussy
Rice queen, gay man into East-Asian gay men
Rim queen, gay man into anal-oral sex
Scat queen, gay man into coprophilia
Size queen, gay man obsessed with large penis size
Snow queen, African-American gay man into Caucasian males onlyRing raider
Sausage jockey
Shirt lifter
Sh!t stabber
Sod (from Sodomy)
Toby
Turd burglar
Twink
Uphill gardener, referring to the logistics of anal intercourse
Upstairs gardner, referring to the logistics of anal intercourse
Woolly, woofter and woolie woofter, a character from an Evening Standard cartoon and rhyming slang for poofter

I've also heard: rumpus ranger, friend of Dorothy, etc.

"Chutney Ferret" could be the gay man's Spearmint Rhino!

[Kevy Baby]

(Is it bad that I find a lot of these to be funny?) :D
I find all of them to be funny (well, some aren't that funny): if one isn't offended by them, then they lose their sting of offensiveness and makes the one attempting to belittle look foolish.

[Betty]

from The Advocate (http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/02/02/Utah_Strict_Bill_to_Exclude_Gay_Families/)

Frankly, this seems more appropriate to post in the WTF thread. How fücking paranoid can you get...?

By that logic they should also be excluding all single parent families and any family with a parent that has ever cheated.

Clearly they don't want to benefit anyone so much as punish people who they don't like.

[Betty]

from The Advocate (http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/02/02/Utah_Strict_Bill_to_Exclude_Gay_Families/)

Frankly, this seems more appropriate to post in the WTF thread. How fücking paranoid can you get...?

By that logic they should also be excluding all single parent families and any family with a parent that has ever cheated.

Clearly they don't want to benefit anyone so much as punish people who they don't like.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Clearly they don't want to benefit anyone so much as punish people who they don't like.

Surprising how often this philosophy seems to show up. Kind of sad, really.

[Morrigoon]

Mona Lisa might've been Da Vinci's boyfriend (http://www.nerve.com/love-sex/this-week-in-sex/this-week-in-sex-inappropriate-edition)

This article is SFW but the site as a whole, probably NSFW so click from home.

[Alex]

It's an idea that bounces around, here (http://www.ovimagazine.com/art/1046) is a 2006 version from someone who buys into a lot of hidden meanings in the paining and considers important the fact that Mona Lisa is an anagram of Mon Salai (which kind of ignores that the painting didn't get the Mona Lisa name until 30 years after da Vinci died).

Also, the Louvre says that Vincenti (the expert that claims the hidden letters in her eyes in this story) has never actually had anything more than a tourist's access to the painting.

So this just seems like more Dan Brown-esque flimflammery to me.

[Betty]

Remember that sweet boy (http://nerdyapplebottom.com/2010/11/02/my-son-is-gay/)who dressed up as Daphne for Halloween? There's more to the story (http://nerdyapplebottom.com/2011/02/03/epilogue/). She's been accused of bearing false witness, promoting gayness and was basically given an ultimatum to apologize or not come back to church.

[Chernabog]

So stuck are these "Christians" on this one thing that they can vilify that they are blind to actually doing anything useful. Spirituality is so important (to me, anyway... though my spirituality doesn't come through religion). However, I feel bad for those who would receive a sense of spirituality and belonging through religion, but are shunned by the "Church." Gays and the Church don't need to be enemies. I place all the blame for this problem on the Church.

For some reason it brings to mind a story from Christoper Hitchen's "God is not Great," which essentially argues that religion is irrelevant to morality. He was asked the following question:

"I was to imagine myself in a strange city as the evening was coming on. Toward me I was to imagine that I saw a large group of men approaching. Now -- would I feel safer, or less safe, if I was to learn that they were just coming from a prayer meeting?"

Hitchens replied that the answer was "less safe" and as a gay man I would agree. This was not the answer that the questioner was looking for...
The person who posed the question wrote a response to this here, (http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/commentary/you_re_in_a_bad_neighborhood_and_10_men_approach_y ou/) claiming that Hitchens had misrepresented the question and "prayer meeting" was actually "Bible Study," so Hitchens was responding incorrectly to an incorrect question.

What's funny for me is that if I knew they were coming out of "Bible Study" I would DEFINITELY feel less safe.

Sorry but if you have tunnel vision thinking that the only "good" way is the Church's way, and the Church is an infallible force of "good" in this world, and that prayer always leads to "better" people, then you deserve to be a brain-dead sheep.

[innerSpaceman]

But in this case, the pastor was wanting Boo's mom to apologize - not to the Church, but specifically to the four bitch mom parishioners who she'd scolded for bullying her child. So it seems more like typical Small Town of Small Minds potatoes, more than particularly churchy.

[Chernabog]

But in this case, the pastor was wanting Boo's mom to apologize - not to the Church, but specifically to the four bitch mom parishioners who she'd scolded for bullying her child. So it seems more like typical Small Town of Small Minds potatoes, more than particularly churchy.

Well he was bullying her to apologize because she had, in the eyes of the pastor/church/God/Jeebus broken one of the ten commandments. I see that as really churchy.

[Betty]

Better that she find out what kind of people they really are I say. Put on a pretty face to (most of) the world, but when it comes down to it, they are ugly.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Remember that sweet boy (http://nerdyapplebottom.com/2010/11/02/my-son-is-gay/)who dressed up as Daphne for Halloween? There's more to the story (http://nerdyapplebottom.com/2011/02/03/epilogue/). She's been accused of bearing false witness, promoting gayness and was basically given an ultimatum to apologize or not come back to church.That story seems familiar somehow.... ;)But the awesome cleric of the year most definitely does not go to her pastor! An epilogue to "Boo's" story (http://nerdyapplebottom.com/2011/02/03/epilogue/).

[Betty]

That story seems familiar somehow.... ;)

It's like deja vu! ;)

[Kevy Baby]

It's like deja vu! ;)All over again!

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Modern Family's Jesse Tyler Ferguson & Eric Stonestreet sing "Write it Gay" at the 2011 WGA Awards (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uuJXrEnS1g)

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Do these shoes make me kook gay?
http://ll-media.tmz.com/2011/02/21/0221-richard-simmons-splash-zoom-launch.jpg (http://www.tmz.com/2011/02/21/richard-simmons-goes-lady-gaga/)