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.

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


There's a difference. Pfft.

Talking like will get you a date in some circles.

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

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

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, which may be less exciting than a Princess Bride quote:

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.

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.

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

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.