Today on Blogcritics
Home » Now THIS is homophobia

Now THIS is homophobia

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

MSNBC fired Michael Savage for some hateful anti-gay comments on his television show.

“Oh, you’re one of the sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How’s that? Why don’t you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage. You have got nothing to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it.”

Returning to an earlier theme, some liberals interpret any criticism of homosexuals or gay lobby groups as homophobia. Our beloved Brian Flemming, for example, accuses even me of “rampant homophobia.” Our Mark Saleski expects “whining” about political correctness from the right in response to Savage being fired.

Mr. Saleski is mistaken. There will be no such outpouring of sympathy. See, Savage really IS what Brian seems to think everybody to the right of Howard Dean is. Conservatives and libertarians will look at this and say “off with his head.” Screw this hateful jackass.

There’s all the difference in the world between not being comfortable sending your young son out camping with a gay scoutmaster versus spitefulness and hatred. Even being an evangelical Christian who considers homosexuality a grave sin does not mean wishing suffering and death on sinners. Indeed, I would expect good conservative Christians to make a special point of condemning Savage’s wickedness.

I was not sympathetic to gay groups trying to pre-emptively stop MSNBC from giving Savage a show. Even if he’s pretty much of an ass, let him have his say. But the guy did this to himself. It didn’t take a lobbying campaign from anybody to get him fired.

Indeed, this strikes me more as an act of self-sabotage than of homophobia. He couldn’t have thought anything other than that he would be fired for this. Too bad, so sad.

Something’s obviously wrong in the guy’s head. Maybe he just needs a (very) understanding boyfriend to tell his troubles to.

Powered by

About Gadfly

  • http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/ Brian Flemming

    Al wrote:

    It didn’t take a lobbying campaign from anybody to get him fired.

    Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

    This is the sound that erupted from me when I read this.

    Take GLAAD out of the picture, and Savage’s statement would merely be considered a bit over-the-top.

    It is groups like GLAAD that have pushed society to the point that we (in general) realize how offensive anti-gay remarks are. It didn’t used to be this way.

    Take GLAAD and like groups out of the picture, and Al Barger would be complaining about those who would suggest Savage should be fired, not going out of his way to show everyone how open-minded he is in recognizing hate speech when he hears it.

  • Eric Olsen

    Brian, now this just isn’t fair – do you tink Al gives a bent pickle about what GLAAD has to say? He wrote what he wrote because HE was offended by what the butthole said because it was hateful, spiteful, anti-Christian, anti-human and egregiously offensive.

  • mike

    I think MSNBC’s hiring of Savage in the first place shows just how desperate the network is. Even Fox would never hire such a knucklehead. Hopefully, it’s only a matter of time before NBC pulls the plug on this sorry excuse for a cable network.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    I won’t say I was “offended.” I don’t relish feelings of indignance, and Savage’s dumb mouth doesn’t rate the emotional turmoil. I’ll just say that he didn’t impress me with either his wit or wisdom.

    Brian, you seem always to assume the absolute worst of anybody who doesn’t see eye-to-eye with you. I think what I think because it makes the most sense to me. Neither society in general, nor GLAAD nor Fred Phelps in particular are significantly influential on my opinion. What reason have I given you to think that I would be so extremely hateful towards gay folk?

    On the other hand, GLAAD does to some extent perform a valuable service in public debate. It may be appropriate sometimes to pitch a bitch about something really bad. The Savage thing was so ridiculously over the top that it didn’t require any kind of interest group to point it out.

    Pointing stuff out is fine though, and needed in somewhat less obvious cases. That’s good.

    On the other hand, if you pitch a bitch like a bunch of drama queens anytime you don’t absolutely get everything you want, you will erode public sympathy, and eventually their willingness to listen even when you have a legitimate complaint. For example, gay spokespeople in the 80s didn’t make much impression on me by blaming Reagan for AIDS – as if it was Reagan who was passing around used drug needles and having unprotected gay sex.

    To take it away from homosexual issues, consider the ads for black media in the 2000 presidential campaign. By these ads, Dubya was just nearly as bad as if he had personally help chain poor James Byrd to the bumper of that truck because he didn’t support special new hate crime laws. The hateful demagoguery of those ads made me about half want to vote for Dubya for a second.

    It’s a tendency of all ideologues to get a mindset where they think they know everyone’s role in the drama, and that they are the righteously chosen defenders of Truth and Justice, and that anyone who opposes them is stupid or evil. I have to stop myself that way once in a while.

    On the other hand, sometimes those who oppose ARE in fact stupid AND evil. :)

  • http://www.theragingcritic.com The Raging Critic

    As a gay man, I can even agree with the basic notion in Al’s comments.

    We are all situated on a continuum for every aspect of our lives, including our views.

    Yes, there is a fine line between the kids who murdered Matthew Sheppard and the ever-so-hateful Justice Antonin Scalia.

    However, regardless of where either party is situated on the continuum, the fact remains that both are homophobic (albeit at different degrees). The problem is that, although someone like Scalia might not be out in a cornfield bludgeoning a gay kid to death with an axe, his actions and his words help to perpetuate hate – the same hate that ravaged the two kids that killed Matthew Sheppard. Scalia has gone so far as to compare homosexuality to rape, child molestation, bestiality and even murder. It’s no wonder our society is scared to death of gay people.

    Although I respect the parents’ decision in keeping their kids out from a scout meeting led by a gay man, I cannot help but laugh at the motivation behind it. The lines can be clearly drawn between a parent restraining his own child from associating with any individual versus the parents that unite to legislate against gay people from membership in an organization aided by public schools and partially funded by government dollars. By doing so would send a message to the world that all gay people are child molestors – which is an unfortunate misconception.

    Regardless, both actions are similar in that they are fueled by fear. These fears feed off of each other. Therefore, although Al may be right in drawing the distinctions between Mr. Savage and the “concerned” parent, it does not make one right and one wrong – it merely makes one wrong and one worse.

  • http://www.theragingcritic.com The Raging Critic

    Somehow, I experienced technical difficulties. I submitted my post several times. However, the one with the Catholic analogy is missing.

    I noticed that there was two of my identical posts and now there is only one. If someone is monitoring, please replace my previous entry with the entry containing the Catholic analogy (then feel free to remove this post as well).

  • Eric Olsen

    RC, There was something wrong with the Amazon link, which was causing none of the comments to show, which led to multiple commenting and various other small hells. I removed your multiples but I apparently also removed your Catholic analogy, and once they are gone, they are gone. Very sorry. Feel free to put it back in as all is working well with Amazon link removed – not that I understand the connection, just trial and error.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Now RC, this just goes to illustrate my basic point. The people who murdered Matthew Shepherd are NOT on a continuum with Anton Scalia. His judicial opinion has been that there is no constitutional justification for the SCOTUS to overturn state sodomy laws. [He has also said he’d vote against those same laws as a legislator.]

    You may reasonably disagree with him on this issue. There may be merit on both sides.

    This has no similarity to ignorant thugs torturing and murdering someone, however. It’s not the same thing. It’s not only quantitatively different, but qualitatively different.

    If I came along saying that liberal American congressmen were pretty much the same as the Chinese Communist Party because they’re both leftists- only maybe not as bad, you’d probably scream blue bloody murder. You’d have some good reason to do so.

    See, when you get all unreasonable like that, you’re going to start losing credibility. Oh, the gay groups all hate some-and-such Republican and say he’s an evil bastard who secretly wished he’d been there to help torture Matthew Shepherd? Yeah, well they say that about pretty much every Republican or conservative, don’t they?

  • http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/ Brian Flemming

    Al,

    Your hostility to interest groups like GLAAD is well established.

    Most recently (emphasis mine):

    …someone who doesn’t wish to send their young son the Boy Scout off camping with some stupid militant Act Up fag seems to me to be prudent and reasonable. A parent who did NOT have some such qualms would be a fool, and a danger to their child’s well being.

    I’m not equating what you said with what Savage said, of course. In my earlier comment I was simply pointing out how even in a post about Savage’s outrageous comment, you had to take a dig at groups such as ACT UP and GLAAD.

    When you say this…

    I was not sympathetic to gay groups trying to pre-emptively stop MSNBC from giving Savage a show. Even if he’s pretty much of an ass, let him have his say. But the guy did this to himself. It didn’t take a lobbying campaign from anybody to get him fired.

    …I see you downplaying the importance of these groups.

    I see radical groups like ACT UP and PETA as pushing us to become more civilized. Anti-slavery groups were once marginalized as kooks, too. Not to mention the early civil-rights movement in the U.S.

    It bugged me that you had to take a shot at “lobbying campaigns” while demonstrating exactly the kind of (anti-homophobic) attitude that these lobbying campaigns have willed into widespread existence.

    It would be like pooh-poohing PETA while at the same time praising the McDonald’s corporation’s choice to demand that their suppliers treat chickens more humanely. Without PETA, “animal rights” wouldn’t even be in the national conversation.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Yet, Brian, I find myself on the defensive for my supposed place on the continuum of homophobia because I have concerns about sending a sick queer from ACT UP out camping with young boys. Frankly, I think you’re just plugging in some cheap ideology here, and not really thinking seriously about the real world.

    I don’t think that gay lobbying has changed the climate, or it has been of mixed usefulness at best. I’m not an expert in the make-up and activities of all these groups, but some of them have been better than others. The Log Cabin Republicans have probably been pretty effective in their mostly reasonable approach to changing minds and influencing policy. GLAAD maybe has been more mixed, at least in how I take them.

    ACT UP, on the other hand, probably held your movement back for a dozen years. I’m not hearing much about them anymore, and gays have gained much greater acceptance. Those two items may not be entirely unrelated. Homosexuals have gained much greater acceptance since, oh, about the time I started hearing more about the Log Cabin Republicans than about ACT UP.

    Again it bugs me that you would say that I naturally gravitate to being hateful toward homosexuals, but for the intervention of ACT UP. Actually, it works exactly the opposite. I’m naturally predisposed to being understanding and accepting, but the acting out of these immature ACT UP children pulls me the other way.

    I want to make nice, but if you insist on convincing me that you – specifically and personally- are disreputable, then it will reflect badly on whatever organization or cause you represent. At that point, calling me names or accusing me of x-ophobia ain’t going to change my mind.

    And don’t even get me started on the misanthropes of PETA, or I will go into RANT mode. Don’t make me come over there.

  • http://www.theragingcritic.com The Raging Critic

    Al,

    You obviously do not understand how a continuum works.

    The issue for the continuum in which I was referring could be called “attitudes about homosexuality.”

    In my example, if we were to have a scale from 0-10 (hypothetically of course), with 0 being 100% accepting and 10 being 100% homophobic. Someone like Matthew Sheppard’s killers would be about as close to 10 as one could get. Michael Savage might fall around, let’s say a 5, and a parent who is concerned about “militant ACT UP fag(s)” might be a 4.

    we are all on the continuum. Even I would fall on the continuum, probably a 0. Please note that some gay people have not reached full acceptance themselves due to warped parenting, etc. which could make them even be a 1 or 2. Likewise, many straight people are 0’s too despite not engaging in “homosexual conduct.”

    As for Scalia, you have this man ALL WRONG. If you read any of his opinions carefully, he has compared homosexuality to murder, rape, bestiality and child molestation. THAT, in and of itself is inexcusable. One is 100% consensual and causes no harm to a person, whereas the others victimize an inocent person (or dare I say, animal). Don’t be fooled by his proverbial catchall “I have nothing against homosexuals” statements which always conclude his hateful opinions. When he equates gay people with the aforementioned crimes, he is instilling fear into the minds of ignorant people who actually buy his story.

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    I wish I had gotten to this thread before Brian polluted it, but I’ll respond directly to Al and say, Bravo! I never heard, saw or read anything by Savage, but he sounds like a ridiculous human being. America is better off for having given even him a chance to speak his piece, and now I honestly think that America will be better off still by asking him to go sit in a corner and think about what makes him so hateful.

    Very rarely do I see the labels of hateful or homophobe applied to people who actually are either, but in this case the shoes seem to fit, and I think they’re frilly pumps to boot. :)

  • andy

    “The Bible says men aught not lay together….but I reckon the Good Lord wouldn’t send a good man like yourself to Haitis mmhmm”

  • Dawn

    Michael Savage got fired because of two reasons, he is genetically stupid as is clear by his remarkably ignorant AND stupid response – I mean couldn’t a person who is being paid to be a media personality think of something a little more witty and thoughtful that the quoted response. Even Rush wouldn’t have been that stupid – and of course the second reason is because he is a pathetic homophobe.

    ANYONE would have been fired for a public post for crap like that. GLADD or no GLADD. That’s offensive to all normal humans.

  • http://flyovercountry.blog-city.com Chris

    Raging Critic —

    Just want to point out that you are mispresenting what Scalia wrote and meant with the “I have nothing against homosexuals” quote.

    If you edit the quote where you edit it, then yes it sounds like the my best friends are black type statement. But, this is what he actually wrote:

    “Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through
    normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of
    such matters is the best.”

    Kinda changes the meaning when viewed in full context.

  • mike

    He should NOT have been fired. Savage is a–well, savage–and as a lefty, I yield to no one in my hostility to homophobia. But people should have the opportunity to say whatever they want when they’re given a public forum. That’s the point of having public forums. The answer is to reform the media so more voices can get on the air.

    If the Klan has the right to march on the 4th of July–and it does–homophobes have the “right” to shoot their mouths off.

  • Dawn
      Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of
      such matters is the best.

    And Scalia is allowed to be a supreme court justice. I think that is the most mealy mouthed statement I have ever heard. So NAMBLA should be give the right to make their morality my morality? No, I don’t think so. Neither should the KKK or the NRA for that matter.

    Morality shouldn’t be a moving target, but as far as I am concerned homosexuality is biology – and science is an ever evolving thing.

    Consensual sexual behavior between consenting adults isn’t about morality and to make it so is more about being an imperious nitwit than anything else.

  • Doctor Slack

    “Again it bugs me that you would say that I naturally gravitate to being hateful toward homosexuals,”

    Oh, boo-fricking-hoo. If you routinely use phrases like this:

    “…I have concerns about sending a sick queer from ACT UP out camping with young boys.”

    … then expect that people will see you as a homophobe, no matter what protestations you make about being loving and accepting. If someone said to me, “It bugs me that you think I’m some kind of racist just because I don’t trust those goddamned coons from the Black Panthers,” why should anyone take seriously anything else that comes out of their mouths on the subject? Why should you be any different?

  • mike

    The KKK Took My Baby Away

    The Ramones

    She went away for the holidays
    Said she’s going to L.A.
    but she never got there
    She never got there
    She never got there, they say

    She went away for the holidays
    Said she’s going to L.A.
    but she never got there
    She never got there
    She never got there, they say

    The KKK took my baby away
    they took her away
    away from me
    The KKK took my baby away
    they took her away
    away from me

    HEY, HO, HEY, HO,

    I don’t know
    Where my baby can be
    they took her from me
    they took her from me

    I don’t know
    where my baby can be
    they took her from me
    they took her from me

    ring me, ring me, ring me
    up the President
    and find out
    Where my baby went
    ring me, ring me, ring me
    up the FBI
    and find out if
    my baby’s alive

    yeah, yeah, yeah
    o-o-o-o-o-o
    yeah, yeah, yeah
    o-o-o-o-o-o

    She went away for the holidays
    Said she’s going to L.A.
    but she never got there
    She never got there
    She never got there, they say

    She went away for the holidays
    Said she’s going to L.A.
    but she never got there
    She never got there
    She never got there, they say

    The KKK took my baby away
    they took her away
    away from me

    The KKK took my baby away
    they took her away
    away from me

    The KKK took my baby away
    they took her away
    away from me

    The KKK took my baby away
    They took my girl
    They took my baby away

  • BRICKLAYER

    Finally, someone with something intelligent to say!

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Mr. Larkin- Savage absolutely deserved to be fired. MSNBC doesn’t want anyone representing them on the air talking like that. This is absolutely reasonable and within their rights.

    It’s not the same thing as the KKK issues. Nobody would hire them for their tv station, nor should they. Their issues are with government. Do they have a right to march down the street like anyone else and say their piece? Yes. So does Savage. If it were the FCC coming down on Savage, I’d be on your side.

    However, neither Savage nor the Klan have a right to demand access to someone else’s studio or airtime. Savage being fired was an editorial decision by the ownership of the network, not censorship by the government.

    On the other hand, if Savage and the Klan went in together and came up with money to buy a newspaper or tv station, then I’d say they could talk whatever kind of trash they want to on their own dime.

  • mike

    Yes, MSNBC was within its rights to fire Savage, which is why I put “rights” in quotes in my second comment above; this is not an example of government censorship or an abridgment of the First Amendment. My point is that if you’re going to offer a character like Savage a public forum, you should have the guts to live with the consequences; his AIDs comment was no different that what he’s said a million times in his radio show, and MSNBC knew what it was getting into.

    If a network hires a Communist to do a TV show, and then fires him when he tells a wealthy caller to give away his property and “die,” that would also be cowardice.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Doc Slack- You’re expecting exactly the kind of cheap self-censorship that I have no patience for. I’m supposed to ignore the obvious disreputable behavior and carefully avoid even thinking the obvious, or face the consequences.

    You seem to demand that I accept and pretend that it’s all good when it absolutely is NOT. I’m not gonna do it. Now you can decide that merits your cheap little designation of me as “homophobic,” but that doesn’t make it true.

    I don’t support sodomy laws. I don’t think homosexuality is inherently immoral or sinful. I am personally perfectly comfortable with gay folk.

    From that, if you work up a definition of “homophobe” into which I fit, then you have simply robbed the word of any real negative meaning. If Al Barger is “homophobic,” then gay folk should be so lucky as to have a world full of homophobes.

    But that does not mean that I will not form negative opinions of individuals who choose to be jackasses. By their behavior, members of ACT UP marked themselves as unreasonable and hysterical, irresponsible fools.

    How does recognizing that make ME a “homophobe”?

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Dawn, you’re SO wrong about Scalia. He spoke absolutely correctly. He is not saying that “NAMBLA should be give the right to make their morality my morality”. He’s saying that they have the right as citizens to try to convince you of their position. Surely you wouldn’t disagree with that.

    “Homosexuality is biology” strikes me as being more a real convenient way of taking issues off the table rather than anything based on science or reason. Hey, if homosexual proclivities are absolutely in your genes, then you can’t help it, and no one can even try to say that you’re immoral or sinful or otherwise responsible.

    But if your sexual proclivities are genetic, then why wouldn’t you say that humping underage kids is genetic? Perhaps there’s a NAMBLA gene that leaves you limp for anything over 13. Perhaps a thousand generations of goatherding among my ancestors has impressed a taste for humping goats into my genes.

    I don’t claim to know what turns people gay or straight or into being foot fetishists or whatever. There seem to be just lots of different things in biology and personal experience. It’s probably a mistake to attribute something so complex to one or two factors.

  • http://www.theragingcritic.com The Raging Critic

    Chris –

    No, that is the exact quote in which I was referring. However, I did not feel like looking for it in its entirety.

    I did not mean to equate the comment in the manner in which you interpreted it. Regardless, if you read the full quote directly as you have provided, Scalia is attempting to downplay his animosity towards homosexuals by suggesting they have equal rights by taking other avenues.

    Mike –

    Whether Savage should or should not have been fired should be up to his network. The networks are here to serve the public and if someone crosses a major line, then the network usually yanks them to save ratings. It is the American way (lol).

    Although I support Savage’s right to say as he wishes, the network has a right to decide whether they will endorse his comments by keeping him on the payroll.

    I just like to keep this sweet moment in journalistic history right next to Dr. Laura getting the axe.

    The moral of the story?? You mess with the pink and you are history.

  • http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/ Brian Flemming

    Al,

    You wrote:

    “Again it bugs me that you would say that I naturally gravitate to being hateful toward homosexuals,”

    I didn’t intend to make your alleged homophobia an issue in this thread. I don’t make that allegation, and I have not called you any names here (have I?). I think you play fast and loose with words like “homo” because you are comfortable with homos, and I respect that. I don’t want to zero in on your use of “fag” and make an issue out of that. There are more important issues than that.

    Like this: You back up your reckless implied allegation that a member of ACT UP would likely molest a child with absolutely nothing. (Are you perhaps thinking of NAMBLA, a tiny fringe group as marginalized in the gay community as the Manson Family was in the Christian community?) You seem comfortable with this libel because the ACT UP guy is a member of an activist group, not one of the good quiet homosexuals who don’t bother anybody.

    Your ignorance of these groups and their role in pushing us all toward tolerance is comic. I don’t claim to know what your attitude would be toward gays without the efforts of LGBT activists (and I admit to overstatement in my first comment above), but there is no question that GLAAD, PETA and similar advocacy groups play a vital role in influencing society at large.

    Without abolitionists, we’d still have slavery.

    Without the women’s suffrage movement, women would not have the right to vote.

    Without the civil rights movement, we’d still have Jim Crow.

    All of these movements were pushed at first by activists who were marginalized and ridiculed by people like you.

  • Dawn

    Al,

    Scalia deserves as much defense as you have already given the Klan and NAMBLA, or in otherwords, NONE.

    I guess I don’t agree that A.) the Klan has an issue with the Government. I am positive the KLAN has an “issue” with minorities, Jews, queers and other non-Waspy folk taking over “their” country.

    and B.)NAMBLA has the right to persuade me that child molestation is EVER okay -and they may very well begenetically disposed to being REAL PERVERTS. TOO BAD FOR THEM. MINORS ARE OFF LIMITS. END OF DISCUSSION.

    Consensual sex between adults IS NO ONE’S BUSINESS – I mean give me a freakin’ break here.

    Some views are so reprehensible and vile (like that of the KLAN and NAMBLA) as to offend even your average bigot or sexual deviant. There are plenty of people who have extreme viewpoints or engage in out of the norm activities with other adults who wouldn’t ever entertain the idea that the KLAN or NAMBLA have a right to ANY FORUM other than their backwoods cross burnings and internet loopholes.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    RC- Comparing Savage to Dr. Laura is unfair. Did she ever wish disease and death on people? Oh, I know, it’s the continuum. She’s not as bad a monster as Savage but basically the same, right?

  • Doctor Slack

    “You’re expecting exactly the kind of cheap self-censorship that I have no patience for.”

    Too bad, man, because I’m trying to help you out. The fact remains that if you insist on trash-talking, you shouldn’t be surprised if people form negative impressions of you. You can’t throw around epithets and then whine when you don’t get your due as an apostle of sweet reason; life doesn’t work that way, and other people are not obligated to give you the benefit of the doubt. I hate to break it to you, but there it is.

    Your issues with ACT UP may be valid — I really don’t know enough about the organization to comment. You may well, just as you claim, be totally 100% mondo cool with the gay community. I don’t know, and quite honestly I don’t care. My point is simply that if you want your reasoned, subtle and well-founded arguments recognized as such, don’t bury them in obnoxious posturing. It will make it a lot easier to take you seriously.

  • Doctor Slack

    Quoth Al:

    “Comparing Savage to Dr. Laura is unfair. Did she ever wish disease and death on people? Oh, I know, it’s the continuum. She’s not as bad a monster as Savage but basically the same, right?”

    A few Dr. Laura quotes from the folks at OCRT:

    “A huge portion of the male homosexual populace is predatory on young boys.”

    “If you’re gay or lesbian it’s a biological error.”

    “I call homosexual practices deviant.”

    “When we have the word ‘homosexual,’ we are clarifying the dysfunction, the deviancy, the reality.”

    “….[reparative] therapies which have been successful in helping a reasonable number of people become heterosexual.”

    “…I believe that homosexual behavior is deviant; that when homosexuals adopt children, these children are intentionally robbed of a necessary mom and dad…”

    So Al is right, she didn’t wish disease and death on gay people — she just publicly called them “deviant” and spread dangerous libels about their “predatory” nature and their “intentional” undermining of the family.

    So now, Al, which of those positions are you prepared to say are not really homophobic? What serious objection can you raise to RC’s perfectly reasonable postulate that any form of intolerance exists on a continuum? Let’s have it.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Brian- You are distinctly more careful and reasonable here than you have sometimes been. These considered comments make me think we might be actually be having a reasonable discussion rather than completely talking past each other.

    Part of the reason for using words like “fag” is just exactly because they are verbotten. I try to be careful about the usage of loaded words. But I refuse to put any word off limits. The reins of PC chaffe me badly.

    The phrase “sick queers” comes specifically from the South Park episode “The Death Camp of Tolerance.” Those were the specific words that got Chef sent off for re-education. A good part of my point in all this can be summed up in his explanation to the children about the “sick queer” in question. Paraphrasing from memory, he said something like “Now children, you know there’s a big difference between being gay and being Mr. Garrison.”

    I don’t know that a rank and file member of ACT UP would be of high probability for pedophilia. I strongly suspect that it is a considerably higher order than for, say, a deacon in the local Baptist church, however.

    An ACT UP queer (their term) might not necessarily absolutely molest young boys, but there are more issues than that. Without making that kind of accusation, I would likely consider them a bad influence that I’d just as soon not have a child in my care hanging around.

    On the other hand, I’m sure there are plenty of more respectable men of homosexual orientation that I would be perfectly happy to have children hanging around with. I’d just have to know them personally. Without presuming to accuse any particular person with things that may or may not be true, I’d rather be safe than sorry.

    You’re allowing yourself to be blinded by ideology if you just refuse to recognize that there are legitimate issues here. Homosexuals to some extent by necessity are sexual outlaws. They are sexual deviants to begin with, and in the real world seem more inclined to cast aside other societal sexual mores. Should I not notice that nearly all the Catholic priest pedophilia is homosexual, for example?

    Moreover, if the Scouts start signing up avowed homosexuals, do you think that their faith and good will’ll get them any slack whatsoever when they get sued after one of them inevitably turns out to be just what was worst feared? Fulfilling your idea of a civil rights agenda may reasonably be construed as less important than their responsibilities to the boys in their care.

    From the point of view of the Boys Scouts, however, there are some different issues even than my own. They are basically a conservative, broadly moralistic and religious based organization. It has been their perhaps mistaken, but reasonable and understandable belief that homosexual behavior is immoral and sinful.

    Likewise, I doubt that the Scouts would really be pleased with having ME as a scoutmaster, despite the fact that I am an Eagle Scout. I am also, however, an atheist (among other social deviancies:). That goes against their belief system. They have been pretty careful historically to be pluralistic and easily pleased with even only minimal declared allegiance to a broad range of religious backgrounds.

    Not believing in God at all, however, will be taken as against their basic tenets. I might disagree with that, but I’m comfortable with understanding that perhaps BSA and I are maybe just not necessarily a good fit. They are good, dedicated people with whom I might have some disagreements.

    All of these movements were pushed at first by activists who were marginalized and ridiculed by people like you.

    What kind of people am I, Brian? Again, this is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about when I say that you’re making pretty strong negative presumptions about me that are simply not fair.

    I specifically reject your comparison of these issues to slavery and women’s suffrage. Why, if I have any objection to forcing the BSA to accept ACT UP scoutmasters, then I’m like those people who wouldn’t let black people vote. That’s nonsense. Apples and oranges. Not even that close though, more like apples and rocks.

  • http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/ Brian Flemming

    Sometimes when I look back at comments where I or someone else takes Al Barger seriously, I just shake my head in disbelief.

    What’s wrong with us? Why do we even engage this guy?

    One day we ARE going to find out that he’s someone else, maybe even someone who posts here under a different name, playing a character like this one.

    We’re going to find out that this guy was giggling to himself every time he tapped out one of these over-the-top screeds, and he did it just for the pure pleasure of watching us take him seriously. “‘ACT UP fag‘?” he’s saying to himself right now. “How far do I have to go?”

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Brian, I’ll take your lack of response to any of my above arguments as a concession that you have no answer- other than to insist that surely even I don’t believe what I’m saying.

    Just when I was starting to think that you were being serious, you fall back to a cheap personal attack.

    I assure you I am quite serious. I do sometimes purposely say things in a provocative manner, but that is not to say I don’t believe it. ACT UP and such use those terms themselves (“We’re here, we’re queer”), and I’m feeding them back- re-invested with the derision that they invite and deserve. Screw ‘em.

  • Doctor Slack

    “What’s wrong with us? Why do we even engage this guy?”

    One of the best ways to get purveyors of various forms of bigotry to reveal themselves for what they are is to get them talking. They will start out with protestations about how they’re really cool with “those” people and how you’d have to be just crazy and blinded by ideology to say any different — but it usually won’t take them long to produce a classic like Al’s paragraph about sexual outlaws and Catholic priests, above.

    Cue histrionics about “commie liberals” from Al…

  • http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/ Brian Flemming

    Al,

    Didn’t see comment 31 when I wrote comment 32. Look at the times.

    “I don’t know that a rank and file member of ACT UP would be of high probability for pedophilia. I strongly suspect that it is a considerably higher order than for, say, a deacon in the local Baptist church, however.”

    On what basis?

    An ACT UP queer (their term) might not necessarily absolutely molest young boys, but there are more issues than that. Without making that kind of accusation, I would likely consider them a bad influence that I’d just as soon not have a child in my care hanging around.

    “A bad influence.” On what basis?

    Moreover, if the Scouts start signing up avowed homosexuals, do you think that their faith and good will’ll get them any slack whatsoever when they get sued after one of them inevitably turns out to be just what was worst feared?

    Because child abuse in Scouting organizations is an exclusively gay thing? Hmm…

    Likewise, I doubt that the Scouts would really be pleased with having ME as a scoutmaster, despite the fact that I am an Eagle Scout.

    Yeah, but without gay Scout leaders how could you have gotten that merit badge in cocksucking?

    What kind of people am I, Brian?

    You are someone who mocks activists BECAUSE they are activists. Yet you hold certain tolerant attitudes that came about in our society because of activism. And you don’t see the irony. You don’t see that holding the view that gay men are more likely to molest children than straight men in 2003 is virtually the same as holding the view that black men are all on the prowl to rape white women in 1950.

  • mike

    Comment 25: I agree, and said, that the network had every right to fire Savage. But if they put their money where their mouth is, they’d keep him on, since his bad behavoir is why they hired him in the first place.

    Plus, if Savage was getting sky high ratings, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FIRED. He would have been reprimanded, would have been briefly suspended, and then would have returned to even higher ratings. THAT’s the American way.

  • http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/ Brian Flemming

    Slack–

    Good point. I knew there was a reason.

  • mike

    As for the Power of the Pink, O One Who Rages Against the Machine, it cuts both ways. Homophobes have, and will, find ways to boycott, pressure, and fire gays. It’s all a question of tactics, and these are tactics that bite back hard, especially since anti-gays have vastly greater resources; it’s a struggle that will leave the airwaves littered with plain vanilla fare, no offense intended, no minorities liberated, and, most importantly, no shareholders displeased.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Oh my, Brian, for being Mr. Gay Acceptance you had a rather harsh turn of phrase there,

    without gay Scout leaders how could you have gotten that merit badge in cocksucking?

    I mean, you say that as if gay fellatio were somehow a bad thing.

  • http://www.shortstrangetrip.org Joe

    Well, hard to follow up that comment. Anyway, I don’t think I’d have a problem with a gay scoutmaster as much as I would a hetero ACT UP, or NORML or PETA scoutmaster. While I do feel that activists have been invaluable agents of change in society, I don’t necessarily share Brian’s viewpoint that they invented sliced bread or put Neil Armstrong on the moon. I don’t go out of my way to riducule or marginalize such groups, they manage to do that quite well on their own.

  • Doctor Slack

    “While I do feel that activists have been invaluable agents of change in society, I don’t necessarily share Brian’s viewpoint that they invented sliced bread or put Neil Armstrong on the moon. I don’t go out of my way to riducule or marginalize such groups, they manage to do that quite well on their own.”

    In other words, you basically concede Brian’s point — which is that activists have been an invaluable force for many of the major changes in society — but can’t quite bring yourself to admit this straight out.

  • http://www.shortstrangetrip.org Joe

    I think I did admit that straight out. I wasn’t conceding I was agreeing.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    No Doc Slack, “commie liberals” would not be the operative phrase or issue. “Homosexual bigots” or “homosexual chauvinists” would be the more proper ones.

    To some folks, homosexuals are officially recognized as a benighted victim group, and thus above criticism as a group, subgroup or as individuals. This is a chauvinistic or bigoted assumption not subject to dissension or subdivision based on the behavior of individual members of the official victim group.

    All you need to do is find evidence of “bigotry” which will include pretty much any kind of criticism or use of any unapproved word. Having been convicted of “bigotry” then the person is discredited, and their views invalidated.

    Even if some of the benighted group act up or act out in the most purposely offensive manner, begging for the obvious derogatory terms, I am just a “bigot” if I oblige them. Thank God, because now you don’t need to consider anything I say. After all, there are some homosexuals who elicit my contempt.

    Dr Laura has a conservative religious orientation, and tends to think of homosexuality as dysfunctional or sinful. Therefore, she is a “bigot” and need not have any of her views considered. After all, she’s critical of homosexuals, therefore she should be automatically considered to be discredited. She too is a bad person fit only for ridicule.

  • Doctor Slack

    “To some folks, homosexuals are officially recognized as a benighted victim group, and thus above criticism as a group, subgroup or as individuals. This is a chauvinistic or bigoted assumption not subject to dissension or subdivision based on the behavior of individual members of the official victim group.”

    Some folks think they have a God-given right to push arguments and attitudes that look an awful lot like traditional bigotry without getting any flack in return, and thus dismiss any criticism of their bile as “political correctness” which can be safely discounted. They assume their bigotry to be a salt-of-the-earth common sense look at the “real world” and will brook no rational objection to it — no matter how overwhelming the evidence against their assertions may be — going through elaborate contortions to rationalize their prejudice and convince themselves that their opponents are just being obstinate.

    “All you need to do is find evidence of “bigotry” which will include pretty much any kind of criticism or use of any unapproved word. Having been convicted of “bigotry” then the person is discredited, and their views invalidated.”

    All you need to do is claim that you’re totally down with “those people,” which claim functions as a rhetorical shield while you go ahead and libel broad swathes of the people in question in any way you see fit. Having been convicted in advance of “political correctness,” your opponents can offer no admissible criticism of this behaviour, and your chosen flavour of bigotry (whether more or less extreme) is automatically validated.

    “Even if some of the benighted group act up or act out in the most purposely offensive manner, begging for the obvious derogatory terms, I am just a “bigot” if I oblige them. Thank God, because now you don’t need to consider anything I say. After all, there are some homosexuals who elicit my contempt.”

    Any behaviour by any member of the target group that personally offends you is deemed to be “begging” for typically bigoted attacks, which of course cannot be called “bigoted” because that would be “politically correct” or even itself chauvinistic and bigoted. Thank God, because now you don’t need to listen to anything they say or learn anything about them. After all, they’ve elicited your contempt and deserve whatever they get, since you cannot possibly be wrong and your assertions are not open for debate.

    “‘Dr Laura has a conservative religious orientation, and tends to think of homosexuality as dysfunctional or sinful. Therefore, she is a “bigot”‘

    Because Dr. Laura’s opinions can be cloaked in terms of “religious orientation,” they can’t possibly be bigotry, since identifying them as such — even if they were — would be “politically correct” and thus automatically incorrect. Therefore, she is an edgy commentator raising thoughtful points, and anyone who interprets her remarks as “raving bigotry” must just be bigoted against her. The important thing to understand is that she (and Al Barger) are the real victims in all this.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Doc, you can call me a bigot or an evil hetero male oppressor, but don’t call me a “victim.” I reject that term categorically.

    Rational objections are fine and may be warranted, but you’ve done nothing here but sling the word “bigot” around. You have certainly done nothing to discredit Dr. Laura. You’ve simply listed a few negative comments, and then called her a name. I’ll take your lack of any specific rebuttal to her quotes you list up in comment #30 as an admission of their validity.

  • http://www.shortstrangetrip.org Joe

    Doc-
    It might help everyone a bit if instead of reading between the lines and making assertions you just ask if there’s a point you don’t quite understand.

  • Doctor Slack

    “Doc, you can call me a bigot or an evil hetero male oppressor,”

    I’m more inclined to “silly prat,” actually, but that could change. I’ll let you know.

    It’s amusing that you refer me to a comment in which I posed a specific question to you that you’ve since dodged. I’ll reiterate it: which of Dr. Laura’s statements would you say are not homophobic? Which do you agree with? Judging from this statement –

    “You have certainly done nothing to discredit Dr. Laura.”

    I would say all of them. But maybe I’m wrong.

    As to refuting Dr. Laura’s comments, that’s basically the equivalent of asking for specific refutation of an argument that the Earth is flat and carried on the back of a turtle, or that the United States is secretly controlled by a Zionist Occupation Government bent on annihilating the White Race. Since you’ve appointed yourself a commentator on the evils of the “sick queers” of ACT UP I could simply demand you do your own homework, but I’ll humour you:

    1 – first with a general overview of the Dr. Laura phenomenon. (Scroll down to the sections on “insinuation” for a specifically relevant take on Schlessinger’s use of terms like “deviancy.”)

    2 – Doug Haldeman’s objections to the “dysfunction” theory are summarized in the latter part of this article, while the APA position — and the reasons for it — on reparative therapy are outlined in brief here and here.

    3 – The OCRT folks have a good essay online about the myth of homosexual pederasty, which is about as credible as the blood libel.

  • Doctor Slack

    “Doc-
    It might help everyone a bit if instead of reading between the lines and making assertions you just ask if there’s a point you don’t quite understand.”

    Joe, if you’re smarting about comment 41, it was a response to your attributing a strawman position to Brian — and tacking on a backhanded snark about activists — when you were basically not disputing what he has actually said. If I’ve written something since that offends you, please be specific about it.

  • http://www.shortstrangetrip.org Joe

    Doc-
    My point about self-marginalization… C’mon man, you’re providing a dissertation about Dr. Freaking Laura for crying out loud.

  • http://www.shortstrangetrip.org Joe

    Doc-
    Not at all, my point was that I agree with Brian on the point of the value of activism (surprise!) but pointing out the shortcomings in its contemporary application.

  • Doctor Slack

    Joe – fair enough. I’m not following you in comment 49, though…

  • http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/ Brian Flemming

    Al,

    For your convenience the quotes from Dr. Laura that you failed to address are as follows:

    “A huge portion of the male homosexual populace is predatory on young boys.”

    “If you’re gay or lesbian it’s a biological error.”

    “I call homosexual practices deviant.”

    “When we have the word ‘homosexual,’ we are clarifying the dysfunction, the deviancy, the reality.”

    “….[reparative] therapies which have been successful in helping a reasonable number of people become heterosexual.”

    “…I believe that homosexual behavior is deviant; that when homosexuals adopt children, these children are intentionally robbed of a necessary mom and dad…”

    Since you have so much trouble responding to specific questions (see Comment 35), I will make things a little simpler for you…

    —————————————
    CHOOSE THE ANSWER THAT MOST CLOSELY REFLECTS YOUR POSITION

    a) I agree with all of those statements by Dr. Laura
    b) I agree with some of those statements but not others
    c) I agree with none of those statements

    if you chose b), please specify

    ————————————–

    Thank you for taking the I’m Not Afraid To Tell You Where I Stand test.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Sorry Doc, kind of got distracted from answering anything specific about Dr. Laura.

    I don’t know that I’d a priori consider any of these comments “homophobic.” Again, that just seems like an excuse to not consider whether the person or statement has any truth value.

    “A huge portion of the male homosexual populace is predatory on young boys.”
    That does seem considerably over the top, and with a very serious charge. There may be some significant incidence of seeking out underage males among homosexuals, I don’t know. A “huge portion” of homosexuals does not seem like a reasonable statement based on any I’ve read or personally seen, though. That specific statement does seem pretty shitty. She should definitely be more careful with generalizations of such a harsh nature.

    “If you’re gay or lesbian it’s a biological error.”
    Seems like she’s saying something pretty close to the gay party line. It seems to be the preferred line now to consider homosexuality to be biological. Perhaps you could argue with the word “error.”

    “….[reparative] therapies which have been successful in helping a reasonable number of people become heterosexual.”
    From my limited knowledge, this appears to be true. Depends on the person and what they really want. There might be a reasonable argument that pushing reluctant gays into such a program is damaging, even cruel. On the other hand, some people in fact want to change their ways, and find different kinds of counseling programs useful to that end. In any case, this statement certainly does not constitute a homophobic hate crime.

    Most of the rest of these statements seem to hinge on her use of the word “deviant.” Let’s consider then the dictionary.com definition of “deviant”: “Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.”

    This seems like a reasonable term. I can understand how this term might not be appreciated, but that does not make it inaccurate. Nor is it harshly derogatory, unlike my occasional perhaps unnecessary impatient comments.

    Leaving aside for the moment “accepted standards of society,” homosexuality is not the “norm.” It is not the norm statistically, nor in terms of biological and reproductive functionality.

    “when homosexuals adopt children, these children are intentionally robbed of a necessary mom and dad”
    This seems somewhat unfair. Yes, a stable, loving Mommy and Daddy home would generally be preferred- but obviously not always possible.

    “Intentionally robbed” of a proper two-parent home would be a charge better leveled against irresponsible fathers who don’t stick around.

    Plus, by rights you should look at these things on a case by case basis. I’d definitely say that a child would be obviously better off in a house with a nice, stable gay couple than with some uncaring, abusive foster parents. Gay, schmay, being took care of beats being beat or neglected.

    In general, those few distilled quotes do sound somewhat harsh. However, she tends to be harsh on everybody, straight or gay. Personally, I can hardly stand to listen to her. Which is not to say that most of the callers don’t need to hear it. It’s just that I don’t.

  • http://www.shortstrangetrip.org Joe

    Doc-
    Re: 51 which is re: 49. As a master of useless information and trivia myself, the fact that you would know so much about Dr. Laura (who, along with Savage, is, and I’m being generous, a d-list celebrity) is very troubling. There are people who can help.

  • Doctor Slack

    Thanks for the clear response, Al.

    ‘I don’t know that I’d a priori consider any of these comments “homophobic.” Again, that just seems like an excuse to not consider whether the person or statement has any truth value.’

    All other things being equal, I’d prefer not to consider any comment to be “a priori” anything until its content and context has been evaluated. If, after that process — which plenty have been through with Schlessinger, the first link I posted being an example — the comments do seem to function as deliberately fomenting hatred/fear of gays, I have no problem calling them homophobic.

    Of course, people don’t always have the luxury of going through that careful process, and their gut response to comments that sound like Schlessinger’s will be to simply assume they’re homophobic based on the accumulated lore about Stuff that Sounds Like That. Though I defended this kind of response to an extent earlier, I won’t pretend that’s ideal or particularly desirable. [In fact, where one gets into grey areas of legitimate criticisms that are held by significant numbers of both tolerant and intolerant people (cf. say, opinions of affirmative action, or Louis Farrakhan, or Israel and the Likud) it can lead to horrible mistakes.] But when one is in the territory of particularly extreme statements or well-known myths with long pedigrees, that kind of gut-level phobia detection can turn out to be accurate more often than not. When someone accuses Jews of using infant sacrifices in their religious rituals, for example, I don’t feel any need to give them the benefit of the doubt and check if they have in fact unearthed some startling new evidence that this is true — even though that startling new evidence is at least theoretically possible.

    Anyway, enough of that. Onward:

    ‘Perhaps you could argue with the word “error.”‘

    Exactly. That homosexuality is largely biological is not the “gay party line,” it’s current scientific consensus. (This came up on the “Homos, Brian Flemming and Me” thread, if you recall.) It’s not current scientific consensus that this is necessarily a defect requiring correction. Schlessinger’s use of the terms “error” and “dysfunction” tie in specifically with her argument for “reparative therapy” — another measure which current scientific consensus rejects (as you’ll see in the links I posted on the topic).

    Re: deviancy – ‘This seems like a reasonable term. I can understand how this term might not be appreciated, but that does not make it inaccurate. Nor is it harshly derogatory, unlike my occasional perhaps unnecessary impatient comments.’

    In a social context, I’ve never heard the word “deviant” used except as a pejorative. In fact, I’ve always thought of it as a much harsher pejorative than anything you’ve used in this thread; that’s why I think of Schlessinger’s use of it as an insinuation of something sinister. I would have no problem with use of a term that indicates simply “differing from the accepted social norm,” since this is plainly true. I’m just not convinced that “deviant” is such a term.

    Aside from those issues, it appears we mostly agree. You say: “There may be some significant incidence of seeking out underage males among homosexuals, I don’t know” — the OCRT link (the last link in my post) speaks to that and is quite useful.

  • http://www.theragingcritic.com The Raging Critic

    It seems to me that Al is not really a bad guy – which is what I think the underlying theme of his original blog was in the first place.

    I think it was more of a “hey guys, I am not a total homophobe – see here’s someone worse.”

    These are signs that one is on their way to rational thinking.

    After reading his assessment on the Dr. Laura quotes, it is completely obvious that Al has not had a substantial amount of socialization within the gay community. And Al, that is not a bad thing. It simply means you lack the experience to develop a complete opinion.

    ……and as to the term “gay felatio” being tossed around on this board, the good news is that it is finally safe to call it “sodomy” without feeling like a criminal!

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Now this may just be because I run with a bunch of pervs, but “deviant” doesn’t seem like that harsh a term to me. Then again, we use the term “goathumper” and more explicit variations as a term of endearment.

    None of my people would be likely to use that term as any grave insult. Indeed, we would be more likely to use it as a term of affection, perhaps invoking Bat Guano’s theory that Group Captain Mandrake was organizing a mutiny of “deviated preverts.”

    Even taking it in the at least somewhat negative way that Dr. Laura no doubt means it, I don’t see that as fomenting hate among the rabble. It’s not likely to give the deviated preverts warm fuzzy feelings, granted.

    However, from my admittedly limited exposure to Dr. Laura, I get the impression that she at least THINKS that she’s trying to help. Savage is just a hateful shit, but Dr. Laura seems to have a different message. She seems to be saying to homosexuals something like, “You’re screwing up, but you can change.” It’s tough love, confronting the person with their ill behavior (as she understands it) to provoke positive change.

    This may be the best thing for some people whose sexual identity is more ambiguous. On the other hand, I’m sure it is totally counterproductive for many others, producing nothing but shame over something that’s a deep part of their personality and not able to be changed.

  • http://www.well.com/~srhodes Steve Rhodes

    Actually a lot of people in ACT UP would make great role models for boy and girl scouts. Their activism saved many lives (and not just for people with AIDS – the fast track drug procedures they pushed through provided drugs for many illnesses).

    I went to ACT UP meetings and demos when I lived in NYC in the late 80s and they were probably the group which best used participatory democracy (there were often several hundred people at a meeting) and creative direct action.

    Scout’s Honor is a good documentary on the whole Boy Scouts controversy.

  • http://www.shortstrangetrip.org Joe

    Steve-
    I don’t doubt that they would, however, I’d have serious reservations about placing my kids under the leadership of somebody with an activist agenda. I’m not saying no outright, just that I’d have concerns and would address them.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Um, RC, do you think that “hey guys, I am not a total homophobe – see here’s someone worse.” sums up my position? Come on. I categorically reject any -phobia label regarding anyone’s race or ethnicity.

    I do confess to suffering a SEVERE case of dumbassophobia, which is manifest with strong symptoms of not suffering fools gladly.

  • http://gratefuldread.net/fando/ Natalie

    Al writes:

    “…Dr. Laura seems to have a different message. She seems to be saying to homosexuals something like, “You’re screwing up, but you can change.” It’s tough love, confronting the person with their ill behavior (as she understands it) to provoke positive change.

    This may be the best thing for some people whose sexual identity is more ambiguous. On the other hand, I’m sure it is totally counterproductive for many others, producing nothing but shame over something that’s a deep part of their personality and not able to be changed.”

    Emphasis mine.

    Nothing but shame? How about death? Self-loathing? Outright rejection of God? Self-destructive behavior?

    It’s a damn sight more than shame for many people who are on the receiving end of comments and attitudes such as faux Doctor Laura’s.

    Ever hear of “reparative therapy”?

    Ever heard of “ex-gay ministries”?

    THAT is what supposedly well-meaning like the Schlessinger kid’s mom are touting.

    And they are at best unproductive, at worst, DANGEROUS.

    Here is an investigative report I did four years ago on the subject. Please read both parts and then tell me Laura S. and her ilk are okey-dokey. They may not be as mean and spiteful as the savage Mr. Weiner, and they may be a wee bit closer to humanity than he on the continuum, but they’re no better.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Natalie! Welcome to the party. I’ve missed you. I’m loading up your report right now, and I’ll have a look momentarily.

  • http://gratefuldread.net/fando/ Natalie

    Cool. I’ve been reading all along. Interesting topic. I was not inclined to say too much, until the idea of a “not so bad” Laura Schlessinger was raised.