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.
MSNBC fired Michael Savage for some hateful anti-gay comments on his television show.…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
26 - Brian Flemming
Al,
You wrote:
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.
27 - 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.
28 - 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?
29 - 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.
30 - 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.
31 - 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.
32 - 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?"
33 - 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.
34 - 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...
35 - Brian Flemming
Al,
Didn't see comment 31 when I wrote comment 32. Look at the times.
On what basis?
"A bad influence." On what basis?
Because child abuse in Scouting organizations is an exclusively gay thing? Hmm...
Yeah, but without gay Scout leaders how could you have gotten that merit badge in cocksucking?
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.
36 - 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.
37 - Brian Flemming
Slack--
Good point. I knew there was a reason.
38 - 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.
39 - 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.
40 - 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.
41 - 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.
42 - Joe
I think I did admit that straight out. I wasn't conceding I was agreeing.
43 - 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.
44 - 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.
45 - 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.
46 - 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.
47 - 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.
48 - 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.
49 - Joe
Doc-
My point about self-marginalization... C'mon man, you're providing a dissertation about Dr. Freaking Laura for crying out loud.
50 - 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.
51 - Doctor Slack
Joe - fair enough. I'm not following you in comment 49, though...
52 - 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.
53 - 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.
54 - 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.
55 - 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.
56 - 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!
57 - 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.
58 - 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.
59 - 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.
60 - 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.
61 - 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.
62 - 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.
63 - 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.