…no matter who does it. This time, it’s a group supporting Democratic challenger, Bruce Lunsford, in Kentucky. I will admit that I don’t know much about politicians outside of presidential and local politics. I never knew, for example, that Mitch McConnell’s sexual orientation was something people questioned.
Be that as it may, it disgusts me that this is being used as a campaign issue. I don’t know much about Mitch McConnell. He may be an ass, for all I know. I have no reason to believe that Bruce Lunsford had anything to do with these ads. He may not have.
But he needs to denounce them. If he doesn’t, I hope he loses. Because, if he doesn’t, it means he’s one of those people who will do whatever it takes to win – no matter what. I hate those people.
boonagain
McConnell
is
an ass.
There are many rumors about him being gay.
His record is intensely homophobic.
That being said, the flier is beyond the pale,but I have no trouble outing a politician who crusades as something he is not.
Gay Veteran
Has McConnell voted to support discrimination against Gays and Lesbians?
Michael D.
@boonagain: I do, when it’s by a Democratic front group saying being gay is something bad – which is clearly what this flier is saying.
I’ll take your word about McConnell. Chances are you know more about him than I do.
But that a Democratic group is doing this disgusts me.
And, by the way, I am not against “outing.” I’m against it only when the “outing” is used to scare people about someone.
boonagain
@Gay Veteran: IS he the Republican Majority Leader?
You do the math.
UncommonSense
I can’t stand Mitch McConnell, but I hate this.
If you have an argument with the man, present the argument.
This sort of thing has no place in a political campaign.
John Cole
McConnell is an ass and this ad is wrong. This type of ad is always wrong. Period.
Michael D.
There is a BIG difference between “outing” someone who votes against gay issues and “outing” someone to scare constituents about someone being gay.
I agree with the first one and not with the second. That a Democratic group supporting Obama and Lunsford is doing this disgusts me – and if Lunsford doesn’t denounce it, he should lose. And I don’t care if it means McConnell wins.
boonagain
I agree and said in my first post that flyer was beyond the pale. I also don’t think it should be used by Democrats as an attack since no Democrat should think being gay was attack-worthy.
That being said, the only reason the flyer could be effective is because of the Repubs demonizing teh gays.
Chickens, roost
Jay Severin Has A Small Pen1s
My pro-gay marriage ads have garnered over 50,000 views in the last two weeks. Been featured on over forty GLBT blogs. Margaret Cho called them ‘Hilarious and Cute’ in her blog.
Please show your support. The Mormons have invaded the comment section and I can’t keep up deleting them. Come post a comment in support of gay marriage.
Here are the links.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QdRkLowbqg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gDze9YBVxU
Michael D.
@Jay Severin Has A Small Pen1s: Jay, don’t delete them. Let people see them for who they are!!
Update: I just watched those ads. Heh!! Good work!!
dbrown
Outing a gay politician that attacks gays is a good thing; outing a politician that is gay who is fair towards gays is wrong even if they are repub-a-thugs. I am sure we will see which it is. That said, if democrats are attacking homosexuals at all, that is wrong regardless of the person they are targeting. Such an attack must be countered by the democrats as vile and unacceptable.
Chuck Butcher
The whole damn argument is sad and stupid. That such a flier has any meaning at all is sad and stupid. What it also means is that there a whole lot of sad and stupid people.
Melinda
It seems quite clear to me that the issue with the ads is not about whether or not to out McConnell, but that the ads are homophobic. Period. By using some voters’ animus towards gay people to garner votes, the person who put the ad together is validating that animus. That’s fauxgressive, not progressive.
dewberry
This seems to be one heck of a weird race…did you all read about recorder-gate?
http://www.politickerky.com/treypollard/1972/squabbling-over-debate-recorder-continues
I just read this great article in The American Prospect (the new issue) about trans folks living openly in small towns in red states and how in many places they’re getting less resistance than they would have in the past.
I hope we’re getting to the point where this stuff has no effect and becomes pointless.
Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist
@John Cole: McConnell is an ass and this ad is wrong. This type of ad is always wrong. Period.
Damn right. That’s moral clarity you can believe in.
Michael D.
@dbrown: Yes! You get where I am coming from. It’s ok to out Larry Craig because he is vile. It’s WRONG to scare people from voting Republican because the Republican might be gay. He might be idiotic, but it’s not because he is gay.
And Democrats are supposed to be better than this. MUCH better. I trust Lunsford will denounce this tactic.
If he doesn’t, he deserves to lose. Even if he had nothing to do with it.
“My name is Bruce Lunsford. I am running as the democratic candidate against Mitch McConnell. Recently, a group put out an ad questioning Mitch McConnell’s sexual orientation. They’re trying to scare you into not voting for him – not because he’s wrong on the issues – but because he is gay. That is wrong. We’re better than that. To vote against someone based on rumors about his sexual orientations is wrong. It’s a tactic used by out opponents, and it’s just as wrong when our side does it. We know Mitch McConnell is wrong on A, B, C issues. THAT’S why you should vote against Mitch McConnell, and it’s the only reason you should vote against him. I’m Bruce Lunsford, and I approved this message.
Michael D.
@Chuck Butcher: Chuck. Your argument is simply put. And it is exactly right.
cleek
what’s really strange is that this came from AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employee).
what’s a union of govt workers doing messing around with something like this?
despicable. i’d love to see the people responsible for it get smacked around by the union rank and file.
Michael D.
And the thing is, Lunsford could WIN Republican AND Democratic votes with the ad I just wrote.
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
Good question, this is whacked!
jakester
I have ZERO problem outing elected officials, if you have the facts to back it up. But this here is just rumors, innuendo, and smears. Very, very ugly & inappropriate. Lunsford should denounce.
On the other hand, it would seems to be at least somewhat of a fair question to explore why the guy was kicked out of the military – specifically, if there was a court-martial involved.
Michael D.
I just wrote to the Lunsford campaign. I am going to call them later.
The Grand Panjandrum
What makes this REALLY awful is that the ad was paid for by AFCSME. A union is paying for these disgraceful ads? They should be ashamed of themselves.
Unfortunately, the Democratic challenger is now painted into a corner. If he publicly denounces these ads and fliers he gives them more attention, and if he doesn’t then it could be construed as him approving of these tactics.
Wow, AFCSME really is scraping the bottom of the barrel with this trash. McConnell should be tossed from the Senate because he supports the Bush agenda, and not because he might be gay.
jakester
@Michael D.: Ha ha, Michael, your ad would be hilarious, but all it would do would be to call attention to this and ultimately serve to *increase* gay-baiting by the Dem side. The only appropriate response is to release a short statement to the media condemning gay-baiting, and restoring focus to the real issues.
But if you wanted to do an ad, I think this would be better:
"A lot of people are calling Mitch McConnell gay. I mean, a LOT. They say he’s the gayest gay who’s ever gayed, and in fact, was thrown out of the military for gaying it up with another gay. Mitch McConnell? GAY? But instead of asking yourself, is he the top or the bottom in his gay sexual liaisons, you should instead be asking yourself, is he really out for my best interests? Not because he’s a gaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!11!!OMGZ!!!! but because he’s a lousy senator. Please leave the gay stuff out of your calculation. Because gay-baiting is wrong. I’m Straight Lunsford – ha ha, I mean BRUCE Lunsford, and I approve this message. And I like chicks."
Michael D.
@jakester: That would be the stupid response. Yes.
kommrade jakevich
This is 100% pure Rovian bullshit and if they were instead hinting Mitch did the nasty with a dusky hued lady there wouldn’t be any hmming and haaing over whether this was OK.
All they have is the fact that he was discharged from the military. Correct me if I’m wrong but there are a number of ways to get discharged and several don’t involve [flashing lights & sirens]HOMOSEXUAL ACTS*[/flashing lights & sirens].
But for some reason even saying McConnell was dishonorably discharged (something that should be easy to check) and isn’t saying why wasn’t enough for these goons. Nope. And they couldn’t hint that it was for drug use or something else. Nuh-uh. They have to hint it was for [flashing lights & sirens]HOMOSEXUAL ACTS[/flashing lights & sirens] and he needs to release the records that show he was discharged for committing [flashing lights & sirens]HOMOSEXUAL ACTS[/flashing lights & sirens] with another soldier and I guess if he can’t produce the records showing that he was kicked out for committing [flashing lights & sirens]HOMOSEXUAL ACTS [/flashing lights & sirens] then he’s found a way to hide the evidence of the [flashing lights & sirens]HOMOSEXUAL ACTS[/flashing lights & sirens] that got him kicked out of the military.
And hey, if he does release the records and they do reveal he committed [flashing lights & sirens]HOMOSEXUAL ACTS[/flashing lights & sirens] and in the process outs the man or men he committed [flashing lights & sirens]HOMOSEXUAL ACTS[/flashing lights & sirens] with while in the army that’ll produce more targets for the homophobes!
*TIP: Anyone who uses the term [flashing lights & sirens]HOMOSEXUAL ACTS [/flashing lights & sirens] is a big fucking bigot.**
**Unless they’re trying out a super sarcastic, really bad pick up line. Maybe.
Michael D.
I love all you people.
tammanycall
AFCSME, the group that ran this ad, is a union that usually supports the Democratic candidate, because Democrats are more sympathetic to union interests than Republicans. The ad is despicable, but it was not run by the Democratic party or Bruce Lunsford, McConnell’s Democratic opponent.
AFCSME agrees with the party on trade, but perhaps they don’t agree with the party on social issues yet, particularly in a conservative state like Kentucky. I expect we’ll get a "it’s not the time for divisive language, it’s the time to come together as Americans" statement from Lunsford, and AFCSME will quietly pull the ad.
Hyperion
your lame comment puts me in mind of an expression i haven’t used since i was 15. that was so funny, i forgot to laugh.
justcorbly
Well, you say homophobia is wrong, and so do I. But, I’ve had a number of discussions with conservatives, online and offline, in which i assert that racism is a moral failure, that an individual’s act of racism is morally equivalent to theft or sexual assault, et al.
What I argue is, simply, that racism would decline if more people saw succumbing to it as a personal moral failure.
Some people agree, and others don’t, typically arguing that that’s the way they are and nothing is going to change them.
The latter group almost always claims refuge in a fundamentalist church and in the GOP. Both are institutions that often offer tacit approval for racists to continue being racists.
Homophobia is a direct parallel.
JL
@Michael D.: Then you are calling into issue the fact that Mitch may or may not be gay. There are some who might hear Lunsford ad but not the other ads. Lunsford could simply disavow ads that are attacking the character of Mitch.
cleek
one thing… if you don’t know that McConnell is rumored to be gay, you would never, ever, pick that up from this ad. the "straight" is only suspect if you know about the rumors that he is gay, and that his discharge was related to him being gay. the ad itself doesn’t give you any of that info. so this is some seriously high-pitched dog-whistle.
still, i’m sure the people who made the ad knew about it.
jakester
If it wasn’t clear, my point in my comment to Michael was that when you use phrases like "Mitch McConnell’s sexual orientation" and "because he is gay" in an effort to denounce gay-baiting, all you’re really doing is ratcheting up people’s attention to the issue. And not-so-subtly still playing to homophobia.
By cutting an ad in the final days on this issue, you’re giving more attention to a matter that deserves little. Assuming this wasn’t Lunsford’s campaign’s idea, they should denounce and move on. Dwelling on it does no favors to the candidate, the senator, or Kentucky gays.
AFAICT, the unsubstantiated rumors, or "open secret" or what have you has been going around in Kentucky for a couple of decades. But McConnell has still been able to win 4 senatorial elections. I mean, look at Patrick McHenry – I think the truth of it is that even conservatives don’t mind voting for sissy boys and butch ladies, as long as we NEVER EVER SPEAK OF IT (except in gossip, just like with movie stars).
JL
Mitch should release his military records though. I’m surprised that he hasn’t done so already.
Dennis - SGMM
Christ in the foothills on a tricycle. What’s next, Democrats in some districts using racist dogwhistles against their Republican opponents? Doing whatever it takes to win is the realm of the Republicans, damn it. This is the purest imaginable shit. Beat them on the issues, beat them with ideas, but don’t play along with them in stigmatizing the gays. I don’t care if you have sworn affidavits from fifty of Senator McConnell’s male dates, a person’s sexual orientation is dead fucking out as an issue. The argument that you’re exposing the hypocrisy of someone notoriously anti-gay is just a means of justifying playing to prejudice. We’re better than that.
Common Sense
Jesus Christ Palin is getting punked by Quebecois Morning Zoo Crews. Awe inspiringly clueless:
Somebody call Sasha Baron Cohen. I guarantee he could produce the best youtube clip of all time if he gets near Palin.
Just Some Fuckhead
Remember folks, it’s the Republicanism that makes it a sin, not the one man enjoying himself on another man’s erect penis part.
And in Addison Mitchell’s defense, if I was married to Elaine Chao, I’d be gay too. Real fucking gay. I mean gayer than a purse with unicorns on it. So gay I could be a bottom for Carson Kressley. Yes, that gay.
Just Some Fuckhead
Remember folks, it’s the Republicanism that makes it a sin, not the one man enjoying himself on another man’s penis part.
And in Addison Mitchell’s defense, if I was married to Elaine Chao, I’d be gay too. Real fucking gay. I mean gayer than a purse with unicorns on it. So gay I could be a bottom for Carson Kressley. Yes, that gay.
Just Some Fuckhead
I wonder if Larry Craig caught Addison Mitchell in the Senate washroom and made him gay? Normally I’d never speculate about somethng like that but since Republicans believe you can catch teh gay..
Comrade Jake
The audio of the prank phonecall by the Candadians is over at TPM. Yes, it’s really Governor Palin on the other end.
You have to listen to the call. She is, to put it mildly, dumb as rocks. There’s no other plausible explanation at this stage.
JL
Huffington Post has the Palin prank call and it would be hilarious but she could win on Tuesday.
The Thinking Man's Mel Torme
OT, but I’m waiting in line for early voting in FL and thought I’d see how this mobile doomhickey works. I am surrounded by seriously stupid people. No wonder McRage is going to win here.
Comrade Jake
@The Thinking Man’s Mel Torme:
Uhm, not quite. Not if the early voting statistics out of FL are any indication. I’m pretty sure the Democratic numbers vastly outnumber the Republican ones.
Just Some Fuckhead
@The Thinking Man’s Mel Torme: I’m right there with ya buddy. Based on my part of Virginia, I can’t imagine how Virginia can go for Obama. Hopefully, Colorado will take the pressure off of us.
TheHatOnMyCat
Wikipedia. Hm.
Some definitions exclude the "irrational" part. Wow, talk about your understatements.
I don’t hold that a fear of homosexuality is irrational. I think it is quite rational. I hold that any visceral reaction to any sexual act, positive or negative, is rational.
What’s irrational is a decision to base discrimination on the basis of sexual preference and then leverage that discrimination into a political scheme grounded in fear, division, and hatred. That is the wrong part.
Saying all this wouldn’t be necessary, but for the thread title, which is itself "wrong." It suggests a moral component to sexual preferences and behavior that does not actually exist. Any sex which is safe (doesn’t harm the participants) and respectful of its participants (and of non participants, for that matter) is morally acceptable to me.
Unfortunately, the liberal desire to be progressive about sexual preference doesn’t seem to include much in the way of critical thinking or careful reasoning, it appears to be all emotion-based. One employs emotional persuasion at a price, the price being, emotional resistance.
I don’t agree with the thread title, at all. Homophobia is just a reaction in the mind, it’s not a moral scheme and it’s not a political scheme. Bash it at your own risk, because it is no less rational to bash the advocacy of homosexuality than it is to bash its opposite.
Bottom line? Sex is personal. For everybody.
And yes, the Dems using homophobia for political purposes are shitheads, just any Reps would be in similar circumstances.
Saying this is an appeal to rationality. An appeal to rationality has to be pretty respectful of the rationality of other peoples’ reactions to something as profoundly internal as sexual practice …. doesn’t it?
Laura W
@Comrade Jake: OMIFUCKINGGOD. Just finally listened to that, wanting to click away every 20 seconds from sheer horror and embarrassment for her. (I’m an empath. Stone me.) Anyone with 1/8 of a brain would’ve caught on in the first two minutes that the prank was on. I think this is even more expositive, and dispositive, than The Kouric Interviews.
I just had to pause Maher from last night because the entire discussion there had turned to Joe The Plumber. I don’t recall ever feeling so sick about the state of this nation as I have tonight. JOE THE PLUMBER as topic of discussion on MAHER???
Moore rocked on Maher. (
Tuesday don’t be late.
kommrade jakevich
A sexual practice? No, some of us have gotten quite good at it.
I jest. But I do wonder why otherwise rational people find it so easy to reduce being gay to sex. People don’t think of their parents in terms of their sex lives (I hope). And here’s a strange thing: I’ve even been to a few weddings and throughout the exchange of vows NOT ONCE does anyone mention fucking. This is going to sound crazy, but I think its because there’s something more to the relationship than screwing.
So if homophobia is a reaction to sex, it is because the homophobe is reducing a relationship to sex and sex alone.
Rational? Or just fucking stupid?
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
TZ, I hate to disagree with you on a couple of things here, but, here goes…
Some people enjoy sex that could be deemed harmful (some people like pain) – who are you to judge that? As long as it’s between consenting adults, it should be morally acceptable.
Not all emotion is wrong, but if you are talking about an emotion of hatred, I agree. Sex quite often IS emotion based, the problem is when people who aren’t participants decide what other’s sexual preferences should be. That is hatred. If someone is subjected to indecent exposure in public, that’s one thing, but what goes on in the bedroom (be it harmful or not) between consenting adults is nobody’s business but the participants.
raft
mcconnell is the senate Republican minority leader and the guy who’s most responsible for fucking up our agenda in Congress for the past two years. he is public enemy #1.
i support his removal by any and all means necessary.
Laura W
MSNBC is about to play the entire Palin Prank Call Debacle, plus Nate Silver is to be on.
TheHatOnMyCat
That’s your construct, not mine. I am not blurring sex and relationships, you are. I am talking just about sex.
Where the line is between sex and relatoinship, and how that works in any given situation …. another story.
But the two are separate. Because I can assure you of this, assuming you are male, no matter how much I may love you, we are never having sex, because I won’t have sex with you. That’s a line that won’t blur, and if think it will, then we are not communicating, at all.
r€nato
Off topic but I just want to punch Fred Barnes in the face.
Have you seen this?
Shorter Fred Barnes: "Early voting is a bad, bad, terrible thing because it does an end run around GOP shenanigans that disenfranchise poor people and black people on Election Day! And I couldn’t find a parking place thanks to these people! Also!"
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
That’s kind of confusing.
I have had sex with women, but never fallen in love with one. I have fallen in love with a man. It’s a barrier I have, personally. I can enjoy the sexual experience with others of my gender, but I can’t go into emotional attachment with them. Does that make me homophobic? When I am also bisexual?
As for the gay lovelife, I think many people don’t realize that there IS love involved. This is a shortcoming of humankind that needs to be overcome before we make any real strides in this area.
TheHatOnMyCat
I am not talking about pain, I am talking about injury. I do not hold that injury is a part of rational behavior, or that it can be part of a generally acceptable sexual practice.
Others can do whatever they like, but in my world, any suggestion that injury is to be considered acceptable is going to be rejected.
Well, hatred is more of an opinion to me than an emotion. But that gets us a little too deep into semantics. "Homophobia" is the subject, and the relevant emotion is fear, since phobias are, obviously, fears. I am asserting that in my frame of reference, there is nothing irrational and nothing "wrong" with fear. I will not assign a moral component to an ordinary human emotion. It is behavior, not preference or feelings, that are the purview of moral frameworks that are humane.
I may find a sexual model abhorrent, or highly desirable. But only my behavior should be judged. I might fear homosexual acts (and I do), but I won’t act on that fear. I won’t judge on the basis of that fear, or abuse the fear in others by calling upon them to reject somebody who practices sex I don’t like.
kommrade jakevich
@TheHatOnMyCatisCrushingMyBrain: Whoa.
I’m going to assume you’ve been using spray paint in a poorly ventilated area because if you were just stoned you’d be raiding the fridge.
burnspbesq
Just got my first robocall of the campaign. Bill Clinton asking me to vote No on 8.
Relax, Clenis, it’s a done deal.
Just Some Fuckhead
I’m hearing TZ say he’d marry me but won’t suck my cock. Which is pretty much the relationship I’m in right now with Mrs. Fuckhead.
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
Okay, I can live with that.
Well, those who are fighting against Homosexuality are NOT in fear of it, they are hateful towards it because they believe it is biblically (morally) incorrect. While you state you are in fear of homosexual relations, you (and many others like you) are not out there marching, screaming, protesting and voting to make sure that everyone has to be in heterosexual relationships.
I would argue then that if we’re to isolate the real problem, we would need to distinguish between the phobia and the hatred.
jakester
@r€nato: The new greatest line in this history of stupid:
"When I voted early – I mean, I’m going to be in New York, I have an excuse!"
EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO LIVED THROUGH 2000 AND 2004 HAS AN EXCUSE FOR VOTING EARLY, fred!
Let me put it this way. There was a small but not zero percent chance that I was going to get hit by a bus between the time I voted and Nov. 4. And I’ll be damned if the national popular vote was going to be one vote closer for McCain than it had to be.
TheHatOnMyCat
That’s funny. And by that I mean, LOL funny.
But like most of what you say around me, it has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
TheHatOnMyCat
Well, even though I disagree with (what I think) you are saying in the first sentence there, I agree with the conclusion.
I don’t agree that those fighting against LGBT are not in fear of it, I would argue that many if not most of them are. What I am stating is that the fear is what it is and should be treated with respect. What I don’t treat with respect is the abusive twisting of others’ emotions into irrational hatred and/or political manipulation based on that irrationality.
The latter is "wrong." That’s why I oppose it. Fear of any sex is not "wrong," any more than a desire for a kind of sex should be taken to be "wrong." Once we start assigning moral weight to ordinary emotions, then we are …. Republicans. If you get my drift.
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
As someone with personal knowledge on this matter:
TZ won’t marry anyone.
TZ likes sex with women only.
Got it?
r€nato
@Jakester:
after this election, the GOP will discover that early voting leads to vote fraud and start trying to have it greatly restricted or abolished.
Bet on it.
kommrade jakevich
That’s my point. And not even love. Shit, affection, mutual attraction? Nope. In the wonderful world of the TalEvan it’s all just soulless automated fucking and then back out parading past school yards in chaps.
No one makes that assumption, even though people of all conditions can and do just fuck, but no one makes that assumption about heterosexuals.
Palinated.
And no, I’m not saying you’re homophobic. I’m saying that to assume a gay person only forms relationships that are strictly sexual is homophobic. Um, what’s a parallel example? If someone said "All African-American men are sex maniacs and they just want to rape our wimmin," I’d say they were racist.
TheHatOnMyCat
Well, let’s agree that you mean "there can be love involved."
Love is not a necessary component for the "gay lovelife" any more than it is for the "straight lovelife," is it?
I am very cautious about wandering into territory that I would describe as "none of my business." If two people are having sex — gay or straight — I make no assumptions about whether anyone loves anyone else. That’s between them, and I don’t really care to know about it one way or the other. I argue that sex is personal, so I am also arguing that love is personal. But that should not be taken to mean that sex is love, or that love is sex, or that sex requires love, or …. anything. All of that stuff is entirely personal.
It takes some effort to be clear on this subject, and you will observe that not many people are willing to make that effort. The thread title reveals this. Some of the responses you see here reveal it. People really don’t want to think this through, they just want to react and emote, and be snarky or clever, or whatever. Or, if they are Republican, they want to demagogue, which is just a baroque way of being smart-alecky about it. Isn’t it?
Joe Max
In the good news, I just got a robocall from the No on 8 campaign recorded by Bill Clinton.
The Big Dog stands up for the right thing to do. Kudos to him. I wish Obama would, but you can’t always get what you want…
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
I get what you’re saying. The only fear those that are trying to do away with homosexuality have is the fact that it’s strange to them. I’m sure for the most part they are not walking around in a phobic state concerned that others want to have sex with them (that is left for those who are truly fearful of the idea, like you). Those who are fighting it are doing so based on some moral/biblical sense of superiority.
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
Not necessary, but I’m sure for most it’s the preferred route. When homosexual couples are shown getting married in CA, they portray a sense of love for their partner. I’m not stating all who participate in homosexual acts are in love with their sex partner (as I stated above, I can’t do that myself) but, in many instances, these people are not just having sex with people of the same gender, they are coupling.
r€nato
well… isn’t that how they do it? Either they are not enjoying sex with their spouses or they are getting down-low shame-filled sex in bathroom stalls.
Of course they cannot imagine it any other way.
Josh Hueco
@r€nato:
For the GOP, all voting is vote fraud.
TheHatOnMyCat
I don’t see anyone saying that here. So I don’t see what your point is. Talking about sex as a distinct thing, separate from whatever relationship context or issues may exist, is not a suggestion that "a gay person only forms relationships that are strictly sexual."
I for one have never made, or will ever make, any such assertion, it’s frankly a rather dumb thing to suppose, whether we are talking gay, bisexual or straight persons.
Sex is what it is, and relationships are what they are, and there is a nexus there, but that’s got nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about assigning a moral component to a human emotion, and the abuse thereof.
Josh Hueco
@Joe Max:
Actually in ’96 Clinton ran ads in parts of the Bible Belt bragging about how he had signed the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
TheHatOnMyCat
In my view they are abusing human emotion.
Fear is normal and healthy, there is a reason why our brains have that capability.
Deciding that fear has a moral component and leveraging that into judgment or demagoguery, is abusive, in my view.
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
But TZ we are not talking about you. We are talking about those who want to rid the world of the homosexual lifestyle. Those people DO in fact think that there is no love or affection between partners. I have to agree with Jake on this.
Just Some Fuckhead
We got a robocall from Michelle Obama’s voice a little while ago reminding us to vote on Tuesday. Which (needless to say) excited us like crazy that they would pick Michelle Obama’s voice for our robocall instead of some generic campaign worker. *shiver*
TheHatOnMyCat
Yes, many are. Many are probably not. Gay or straight.
But I take that to be off topic WRT my assertion here, which is that there is no moral component to ordinary emotion.
Emotion is just what it is. When we start trying to hang morality on it, then we become ….. Republicans.
Whether we are gay, or straight. Again, if you get my drift.
Put another way, Republicanism is not about gayness or straightness. It’s about whether humanness can be turned into manipulation and division for political purposes.
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
That looks like a description of hatred to me.
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
I’m sorry, I was addressing what Jake was stating. It is a valid point that many think there is no emotion in homosexual relationships and think that the ability to participate in that sort of thing should be destroyed. It is a moral judgment and evangelicals do it all the time.
Rick Taylor
It seems this stupid tipping story John told us about is gaining head way among right wingers. Insapundit’s wife has written a post wondering whether to stop tipping during an Obama administration, or just reduce tips.
We’re loosing the war in Afghanistan, we’re experiencing a world-wide financial meltdown, we just paid devoted 700 billion dollars to bailing out the banks, and conservatives are making jokes about the merits of not tipping waiters to protest increasing taxes on the upper income brackets. No wonder they’re loosing.
TheHatOnMyCat
I don’t agree with that statement, but I don’t take it to be relevant to my assertion, either.
You are making a generality about anti-gay activism. I am not talking about the general topic of anti-gay activism. I am talking strictly about whether fear should be judged.
The hatemongers want it both ways. They want to have their fears, and then they want to hang a moral component on their fears to elevate themselves and have some kind of power over others.
Which is not altogether different from saying that the fears themselves are "wrong." They aren’t "wrong" or "right." They are just fears. It’s what we do with them, it’s the behavior that matters. Only the behavior.
If I am afraid of spiders, I am not superior to people who like spiders. Nor am I inferior to them. I am just fearful of spiders. That’s all there is to it, until I try to convince you that people who don’t fear spiders are evil and want spiders to take over the world.
But you see, understanding that doesn’t require you to say that "arachnophobia is wrong." Everyone can see that that’s a silly idea. Arachnophobia is just a human reaction. It has no moral component.
And no, before the fuckhead brigade starts it, I am not comparing homosexuality with spiders. I am using an obvious and graphic example to make a point, which is that fear is just fear. It’s not God talking to you and giving you moral advice.
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
Actually, I feel that sort of needs clarifying. Evangelicals are Republican only in so far as the party would support their RELIGIOUS efforts to harass those who think differently than they do. Evangelicals don’t really play by the rules of political Republicanism much at all. Evangelicals want politics to serve religion and
need toSHOULD be defined as the GOD party.Personally, I don’t see true Republicans as being for or against this one way or another. The social issues that define Republicans (perhaps with the exception of gun rights) are strictly IMHO religion influenced.
My parents were Repubs, but they were not evangelicals, and my mother knew a few gay men and enjoyed their company. I think she would never think of gays as reprehensible except AFTER the evangelicals got their dirty hands on the Republican party (a party which I had issues with before such rein handling occurred, but nowhere near as much as I do now).
r€nato
if enough people leave notes like this, I’m sure it will galvanize waitpeople to spit in the food or urinate in the coffee of every douchebag who does this, the next time they show their faces at the restaurant or diner. Oh, and they will never, ever vote GOP again so long as they live.
In other words, that sounds like an idea that is full of win. You go with that, Dr. Mrs. Ole Perfesser.
Comrade Stuck
Being from Kentucky, with exceptions, democrats are just as socially conservative and judgmental as repubs. And I suspect The ACSFME add is likely managed by in state members, so it doesn’t surprise me much they are using a gay smear to win. Politics are just naturally very ugly there, and I was glad to escape it. Although there are plenty of good people in the state, it is generally run by corrupt pols from both parties. But even so, it saddens and angers me that dems would stoop so low with such an add. I despise Mcconnell probably more than any other politician in Congress, but I despise the politics in my home state (former) even more.
TheHatOnMyCat
True, but I am not talking about the godcrazies. I am talking about Republicans and scolds in general. The GOP just uses the evangelicals to frame and empower their demagoguery. I don’t think most Republicans really give a crap about what people do in their bedrooms. Caring about what other people do in their bedrooms is a collossal waste of energy. Even stupid Republicans can figure that out.
Just Some Fuckhead
In a just world, Mrs. Instapundit would be stiffing herself.
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
Spiders is an apt analogy. I personally deal with arachnophobia (although I don’t sit here anticipating where the spiders are and wonder how to rid them from the world).
At the same time, I will re-assert that evanglicals think homosexuality is only dirty and morally bankrupt sex with no human emotion to it at all. Their bibles told them it is.
gbear
So is flying on the ground. Just ask Neil Young.
& best to out yourself so that no one can ever try to use that info to harm you.
r€nato
I’m just blown away by Mrs. Instapundit’s comments. Yes, let’s lash out at the working poor because McCain ran a shitty campaign and Bush ran the country into the ground and Americans are sick of getting fucked in the ass without any lube.
Lashing out at the working poor, that’s what Republicans do best. I really hope Dr. Mrs. Ole’ Perfesser follows through on this.
I read this kind of garbage and am once again reminded that I could never, ever be a goddamned Republican. I have felt that way since I was old enough to have a political conscience, and that was before the GOP became the rancid, repulsive POS that it is today. I will feel that way so long as I live. Even when I am old and retired and it’s probably in my financial interest to vote for the GOP. I am one of those people cursed with a conscience and a bleeding heart, I guess.
kommrade jakevich
So if we used a term like "Anti-Gay Bigotry," instead of a word that contains "phobos," there wouldn’t be a problem.
Jesus Christ on a brass handtruck. People think I’m a pedantic S.O.B.
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
I used to be a waitress in a rich city with a lot of millionaires. The tips were horrible.
They had better not go to favored establishments regularly and treat the service like this, or they’ll find they aren’t their server’s priority. Moreover, if the servers starve as a result, they had better get used to self service restaurants.
And this is just more hatred, disguised in the excuse that "if that black man gets into the Oval Office, I’m going to make all the little people pay for it".
gbear
GBLT = tasty sandwich held together with a cocktail parasol spike.
gbear +0 but really bored tonight.
TheHatOnMyCat
Um, no, but thank you yet again for trying to take my words and turn them into some dumb parody that you make up.
"Bigotry" is not the topic of my assertion. Fear is the topic of my assertion.
If you don’t understand the difference here, then I have to wonder what you are doing in this conversation?
Fear is not wrong. Turning it into bigotry, and advancing the bigotry, is wrong. "Homophobia" is not any more "bigotry" than "arachnophobia" is about bigotry.
Calling a fear "bigotry" is, in case you are really too dense to get this, a pretty bigoted thing to say. I don’t expect you to get that, Jake. But somebody else might.
kommrade jakevich
@TheHatOnMyCat: Give it a rest Mary.
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
The problem is that homophobia is defined as fear (and for some, like you TZ, it is) but for those who are trying to outlaw homosexuality, it is NOT fear that drives them so much as it is bigotry (hatred). It’s been completely defined wrong.
gbear
I’m afraid of all black people, but that doesn’t make me a bigot.
edit: that was snark.
TheHatOnMyCat
So again, you actually have nothing to say, right?
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
Well, TZ, I do have to admit, I hate spiders. I am afraid of them and as a result, I hate them and I don’t want them in my presence. I’m a spider bigot. (I feel the same way about snakes, btw).
But, I understand what you are saying, seriously. If you defined it as someone afraid of having sex with a member of the same sex, you are just afraid, you avoid it, but you don’t stop others from doing so if they wish to. That is not bigotry, although I know you will strongly react and fend off any man who tries to come on to you.
Perhaps the difference is humans fear actions, but hate people. Once someone is defined as a homosexual to another who doesn’t approve of anyone being homosexual, the person reacting towards the action becomes bigoted towards those who participate in it.
TheHatOnMyCat
The problem is that if we mix up things, if we treat fear as a moral instruction or moral construct, or mis-label bigotry as something else, we are just reinforcing the idea that all things are just soundbites and political slogans. We can only talk rationally about the thing when we seek a way to talk about it rationally and do the work necessary to make that possible. It’s not as easy as it looks. Not everybody is a Jake and talks like Jeffrey Lebowski.
There’s nothing bigoted about being afraid of something. That’s an honest human reaction. Bigotry requires stealing that power and turning it into something else, which is the thing that we hate about Republicans. It’s disconcerting to see the LGBTs doing the same thing in reverse. And of course, it defeats their purpose. If we want intellectual honesty, sometimes we have to figure out what that means. "Whatever, dude" is probably not going to get us there.
TheHatOnMyCat
Well then we cancel each other out. I am afraid of all white people.
gex
@kommrade jakevich: Win. All kinds of it.
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
I agree with all that. The problem is we’re not defining the narrative, we have to see these crazy religious loons marginalized before we can.
TheHatOnMyCat
My dinner with
AndreJake.CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
I understand the sentiment (white people have taken a disproportionate advantage of wealth, land, resources, happiness, rights) but, are you afraid even of me? Even of yourself?
r€nato
what the hell is up with that? I have known several rich people and with very, very few exceptions, they were all tight-fisted to the extreme.
There must be something about having money that brings out the worst in certain folks, the unrestrained id or something.
TheHatOnMyCat
My desire is to round up Republicans and put them on reservations. That’s marginalization we can believe in.
I confess, it’s only Jake I’m really afraid of.
TheHatOnMyCat
Yes, we call those people "Republicans."
JR
That not-tipping act shows you who the Cons are. They sit through an entire meal accepting a worker’s service, and then break the contract once it comes to meeting their financial obligations. Instead of feeling the normal shame of conscience, they find it hilarious.
We tax wealth heavily because we have as a society decided to have no more Kings. No more Princes or Duchesses or Lords–not in America. Money provides to much of a leverage factor to large fortunes. As a people we’ve learned better, or once had.
We counter this dynasty pattern by taxation, which has the beneficial effect of releasing pressure on the working class and ultimately fostering cohesion in our nation. It isn’t about wealth distribution, at least not most importantly.
The tax rate on huge incomes was said to be 90% during Eisenhower’s term, and I wouldn’t be impossible to convince me of its wisdom. The nature of humans being what it is and what horrendous behavior is done for money, the idea to move away from massive inequality to preserve us all seems to make sense. Sensible talk probably makes more sense after a bloody war or having the population made destitute by bankers. Changes happen once it is properly felt just how our world behaves.
Yet, in today’s money-worshiping era, the people do want this; their gaze is directed upwards toward celebrity. If royalty could only deliver something besides war and ruin, the populace would happily submit. Joyfully if it came with an iPod.
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
It’s called greed. I also grew up in a fairly well-to-do family… and the only reason they participated in charity was for the tax breaks.
Yes, they were Republicans.
They also played a vicious game called "pit all the children against one another regarding the inheritance" (the inheritance that never was, although we were all told over and over how much we were going to receive). My siblings and I have no love lost for each other. They are greedy and Republican (and very successful) and I’m not.
I told my mother "I don’t care, give it all to cancer research" – she was horrified that I’d do such a thing (and this was while my father had cancer).
Bob In Pacifica
I got a call from Clinton too!
I went over to DownWithTyranny! to see what my favorite former record exec thought about the McConnell smear, and he curses both houses, the bigot and the hypocritical bigot.
It’s sort of like when the Yankees play the Dodgers. The good news for me is that one of them loses.
jcricket
To channel Yoda…
Thinking is the path to the dark side. Thinking leads to anger. Anger leads to early voting. Early voting leads to Democrats winning.
I know it’s not perfect, but Democrats need to get the fuck on board with promoting vote-by-mail – either no-fault absentee laws, or what WA (soon) and OR has, with complete vote by mail. No more long lines, no more polling places with crappy machines, no more touch screen issues. No more worrying about what you’re wearing or fears the police will get you for unpaid parking tickets. etc. All vote by mail, with optical scan ballots, is the best available system right now. Couple that with statewide voter registration databases, centralized and secure vote counting facilities, etc. and you’ve got a darn good voting system.
While we’re at it throw in government encouraged voter registration (think motor-voter laws but much, much wider). Make mass registration challenges illegal within 90 days of an election and false challenges at any time punishable by big fines. Outlaw robocalls, make the penalties for mailers or calls that contain false information about voting 8 zillion dollars, and start enforcing every other voting rights law we already have.
The net result will be more eligible people registered, more registered people voting + less chance for any of the existing GOP shenanigans to work.
Bailey
Good God, I’m horrified to think that anyone associated with organized labor could have produced those ads. Yuck.
But….at the same time….the Village People imagery? Really? Can I at least laugh at that a little bit while I deplore the message and the intent of the flyer?
Darkrose
@Jay Severin Has A Small Pen1s: Jay, those ads are made of win–especially the second one.
Darkrose
Using homophobia as a smear tactic is wrong, full stop.
Having said that, I’m not going to spend another second feeling bad for Mitch McConnell, who is an asshole regardless of his orientation. He’s not important enough for me to really get upset about.
Angry n Calculating
Lunsford denouncing the attack will get the attack more media play.
Lunsford’s campaign could have encouraged the gay baiting and could further benefit by denouncing it.
Asking why McConnell was discharged is a fair question. Did Mitch McConnell speak up when the GOP scurrilously went after John Kerry’s military record?
If not, fuck him.
Do you think giving McConnell a pass will cause the GOP to observe niceties of decency at the expense of winning? What do I get for taking the high road?
The Republican Party trashed the norms of this country in all sorts of ways during the Bush years. Bad behavior has to have negative consequences.
Jeff
Even Grandmas agree, gay marriage is a civil rights issue.
Jeff
Nevermind
Chuck Butcher
Damn, what an around the corner way to go at this topic. As a heterosexual I will state that there is nothing about gay sex that remotely appeals to me – to me. Quite frankly at the level of basic sexuality I do not understand same sex appeal, it completely misses me. That does not short circuit my brain and cause me to deny my fellow human beings the ability to have satisfying lives in that respect.
To be sure one can argue about motivations, especially of other people and wonder about bigotry or phobia or whatever the fuck. I do not mind read, I’m bad at it, and I’ve never known anybody that was good at it. If there is a moral failing in this to be called out, it has not squat to do with bigotry or phobia or whatever the hell – it has everything in the world to do with imposing second class citizenship on our fellows.
If you want to psycho-analyze this mess, it pays to remember that anger and hate are secondary emotions, they aren’t primary drivers, they are activated by another emotion/s. I pretty much gave up on looking at other people and trying to figure it out, I let their actions speak to me and go from there. I do a fair job of figuring me out, and that is saying a lot.
Conservatively Liberal
Dude, that sucks. Oh, I guess it doesn’t. ;) You should have used the ‘try before you buy’ option when you met her. ;)
Caveat emptor, especially in regards to marriage!
I think some righties hate teh ghey because of their religion says it is wrong, yet it appeals to them because they are wired that way. To their friends they are all hetero, right wingy and religious, just like them (as far as they know anyway), yet deep inside they know they are gay and they hate themselves for it. They consider it a failing (because of upbringing or religious reasons), a ‘bad’ side of themselves that they can’t come to grips with because it would shatter the world they have built up around themselves.
In a right wing politician, this leads to denouncement of the very thing they are, yet in their denial they see no other option other than to demonize the very thing they view as their inner demon that torments them. They hate themselves and they are going to make others who are gay pay for it too. At least that is my interpretation of it.
mark
So what does the denunciation look like? Does his opponent denouncing the ads a third party make not give them more heft and credibility and make them more likely to be covered by the media, thus further stoking anti-gay bigotry?
Should he say that he knows McConnell well (but not like that, obviously) and McConnell is no homosexual? Or that McConnell’s sexual orientation isn’t relevant to the issues? How does any of that help McConnell? How does any of that advance the rights of gay people?
Anya
That is disgusting, especially the flyer – I cannot believe it is done by anyone representing the Democratic Party. What is says is that it is o.k. to discharge someone from the army because of his/her sexual orientation. I am disgusted!
It is even more outrageous for some to rationalize that just because he supports discriminatory policies he deserves this. This disgusting attack legitimizes discrimination against gays and lesbians – we do not stand for that as liberals.