Did GOProud “out” a conservative gay politico?

posted at 6:45 pm on December 10, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

Well, here’s one story for the weekend which has certainly turned into a sizable tempest in an already full teapot. The Daily Caller reports that prominent conservative activist Andrew Breitbart has resigned from his advisory role at GOProud over their alleged outing of a Rick Perrry campaign adviser – one Tony Fabrizio – as a gay man after his work on recent a Perry campaign ad commenting on gays in the military.

It is with sincere regret that I announce I must step down as a GOProud advisory member. On numerous occasions I have spoken with [GOProud leaders] Jimmy LaSalvia and Chris Barron of the significant impact the practice of “outing” had in my evolution from the political left to the right. I was under the absolute impression that both agreed. I have a zero tolerance attitude toward the intentional infliction of vocational and family harm by divulging the details of an individual’s sexual orientation as a weapon of political destruction. As an “Advisory Board member” I was not consulted on this extreme and punitive act. Clearly, there are more productive means to debate controversial ideas and settle conflicts. Therefore, I cannot in good conscience stand with GOProud. I still stand by gay conservatives who boldly and in the face of much criticism from many fronts fight for limited government, lower taxes, a strong national defense as well as the other core conservative principles.

As Matt Lewis notes, GOProud leaders Chris Barron and Jimmy LaSalvia responded to this earlier. They also followed up by saying they were rather surprised at the outrage (pardon the pun) over this.

There has been quite a bit of press coverage in the last 24 hours regarding our comments about Tony Fabrizio and his role in the Perry campaign, I just wanted to briefly bring you all up to speed on the background. First here is our statement on this yesterday: http://www.goproud.org/goproud-statement-on-tony-fabrizio-–-pollster-and-strategist-for-governor-rick-perry’s-presidential-campaign/

Second, both Jimmy and I have known Tony for years and have known that he was gay for years. Multiple media outlets contacted us after the Perry “Strong” ad debuted asking our opinion of Fabrizio’s role in the campaign given the anti-gay nature of the ad. Every news outlet that called asked our opinion of a gay man being a part of this campaign’s leadership.

I’d like to start off by saying that I’m not generally in favor of “outing” private citizens about anything, whether it’s their sexual orientation, their religion, or what flavor ice cream they like. That’s their business. But when you’re in the deep end of the political pool, things happen. But was this an “outing?”

Without giving too much away, I’ve been on the phone for a while with several people about this one. The general sentiment seems to be that, at most, Tony’s sexual orientation was one of those “secrets everyone knows about” if it was a secret at all. (And that, I should note, is only IF the allegation is accurate, which only Mr. Fabrizio is in a position to say.) But it’s also worth noting that there seems to be a fairly uniform consensus that this was “something that was known.”

Tony was apparently actively involved in Outgiving, a strong supporter of LGBT causes, and also did a lot of work for the Log Cabin Republicans. Now, neither of these things, by themselves, speak to the gentleman’s personal orientation, but it certainly sounds like it might come as a surprise to some of his associates that he was “in the closet.” (Again, with the aforementioned “if” invoked.)

But, going back to the point about “the only person in a position to know” here, the missing piece is a response from Tony Fabrizio himself. If he was, in fact, “outed” or – even worse – if an allegation was made about him which was totally untrue, you’d expect to hear some protests coming from him. Aside from a “no comment” that he gave to one reporter, I’m not seeing anything else along those lines. It’s not that it’s anyone’s business, but the allegations here are no longer focusing on Tony, but on GOProud.

I tend to take the GOProud reps at their word on this one. When you have reporters calling you and asking what you think of “a gay man being involved in the creation of the advertisement” then it’s probably excusable for them to think the reporters were asking from a position of already knowing. Also, GOProud doesn’t have any history of forcibly outing other gay individuals in politics, so it would certainly be out of character for them to start now.

UPDATE(S): It has been noted that Gay Patriot put out the following statement:

On behalf of the GOProud Board and its members and supporters, we want to make it very clear that “outing” a gay or lesbian individual is wrong and should never be used as a political weapon.

Private lives should remain just that — private. The right to disclose one’s sexual orientation belongs solely to each individual. We will continue to oppose “outing” as it has never advanced a political cause but only hurts individuals and their families.

We strongly regret the events of this week.

Also: While I have not located the original tweet from Jimmy LaSalvia, the issue has been raised that he used “The F Word” in it. (No… not that F word. The other one.) Just for your consideration.

UPDATE: (again) The original tweet. Caution: language may be offensive to some.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

If it’s a choice, then why don’t you feel the biological impulse to be gay?

Possibly because ALL humans are predisposed to being heterosexual(ya know so the species can reproduce)…. Then enviroment during childhood and adolescence screws with the default position.

melle1228 on December 10, 2011 at 8:23 PM

the issue has been raised that he used “The F Word” in it. (No… not that F word. The other one.)

Yeah, that’s where it breaks down for me.

If you want to call someone out for hypocrisy couldn’t you manage that without using common anti-gay slurs?

GOProud is defending some odd things here:

Executive director of the gay GOP group GOProud, Jimmy LaSalvia:

JimmyLaSalvia
I’ve just about had it with f****ts who line their pockets with checks from anti-gay homophobes while throwing the rest of us under the bus

** not censored in the original tweet **

Chris Barron, GOProud co-founder:

Chris Barron
@Way2Blue4You Rick Perry’s pollster & strategist is a gay guy. Totally disgusting.

This is the organization defending Gay Rights? But they’re also good with anti-gay slurs I guess. They usually attack people for using anti-gay slurs like this.

There’s a word for that behavior… hypocritical.

But just because I think they’re being hypocrites doesn’t mean I’m going to trot out some homophobic slurs of my own to use against them… even a jerk like me has some standards.

gekkobear on December 10, 2011 at 8:24 PM

First of all, in response to Rick Perry’s claim that children are not allowed to pray in school, that is completely false. Students can pray whenever they want to. There were even several Christian-oriented clubs at my high school that would meet on a daily basis and pray together. There was a day every school year where people were invited to go to the school early in the morning and pray in front of the flag.

What is not allowed, and what should not be allowed, is teacher-led prayer. Students are allowed to pray as much as they’d like without consequence. But teachers and school administrators are not allowed to lead their students in prayer.

By the way, whether or not you think repealing DADT was the right thing to do, it is not a good idea politically for GOP candidates to state that they would put DADT back in place. In literally every single poll I have seen that asked people whether they think that DADT should be repealed, the majority always ended up siding with repealing DADT. There were over 100 generals in the armed forces that stated their support for repealing DADT.

The more that candidates focus on social issues and not the economy, the better chances there are that Obama will get a second term. The GOP needs to start focusing on getting the youth vote and convincing young people to vote republican instead of democrat. But as long as this “Repeal DADT, ban gay marriage, ban gay adoption, gay people are evil” attitude continues, there will be hardly anyone under the age of 30 who will support the GOP.

theoddmanout on December 10, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Outing is only a problem in a society where people are discriminated against for being gay, lesbian, bisexual or trans. It is interesting that conservatives would criticize an “outing” while opposing ENDA which would include sexual orientation into existing federal protections against employment discrimination. I had always assumed that conservatives believed that just as the nation was “post-racial” and that racial discrimination was a thing of the pas that they also believed discriminated based on sexuality is a thing of the past. But the uproar over “outing” indicates they realize that systemic, institutional discrimination against sexual minorities exists. So what is the argument for not supporting ENDA again?

libfreeordie on December 10, 2011 at 8:28 PM

Perry’s ad was nothing but dog whistle.

As I said previously, DADT will no more be reinstated than racially segregated military units will be. And if a closeted gay or lesbian takes positions that fuel anti-gay prejudice (such as Perry’s) then that person should be aware of the possibility of being outed.

chumpThreads on December 10, 2011 at 8:29 PM

But the uproar over “outing” indicates they realize that systemic, institutional discrimination against sexual minorities exists.

Or that they realize people are entitled to their privacy.

clearbluesky on December 10, 2011 at 8:31 PM

systemic, institutional discrimination against sexual minorities exists.
libfreeordie on December 10, 2011 at 8:28 PM

Yeah! Right On!! Free Jerry Sand-sky!!!

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 8:32 PM

shame to see conservatives engaging in such tactics.

clearbluesky on December 10, 2011 at 8:22 PM

It sure is.

I honestly fear for this country.

Hey, guess what – gay people can serve openly in the military! COME GET ME. Sheesh.

capitalist piglet on December 10, 2011 at 8:33 PM

. In literally every single poll I have seen that asked people whether they think that DADT should be repealed, the majority always ended up siding with repealing DADT.

Yes, but you haven’t actually asked the military. (Please don’t quote the bogus survey where the press release was already written before it was taken)….

There were over 100 generals in the armed forces that stated their support for repealing DADT.

And there were even more JUST from the Chaplain core who didn’t.

melle1228 on December 10, 2011 at 8:34 PM

The only person who should “come out” should be the person involved. It’s a personal decision and its their decision to make it public or not. And I speak as a closeted university conservative.

Nethicus on December 10, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Pew Poll from December of last year:

The Pew poll finds that Republicans overall are closely divided on DADT repeal, 40-44. But the breakdown of Republicans is striking. It finds that “moderate” and “liberal” Republicans strongly favor repeal, 62-26. The only reason Republicans are closely divided at all is because conservative Republicans oppose it, 28-52.

Perry’s ad is clearly intended to try to bring in conservatives.

Y-not on December 10, 2011 at 8:35 PM

It is interesting that conservatives would criticize an “outing” while opposing ENDA which would include sexual orientation into existing federal protections against employment discrimination.

Why? Conservatives believe that bedroom behavior should stay there… There is no contradiction.

melle1228 on December 10, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Or that they realize people are entitled to their privacy.

clearbluesky on December 10, 2011 at 8:31 PM

How is sexual identity private? The only people i know who are “private” about their sexual identity are closeted gay people. I don’t know a single heterosexual who is “private” about their sexual identity.

libfreeordie on December 10, 2011 at 8:37 PM

The more that candidates focus on social issues and not the economy, the better chances there are that Obama will get a second term. The GOP needs to start focusing on getting the youth vote and convincing young people to vote republican instead of democrat. But as long as this “Repeal DADT, ban gay marriage, ban gay adoption, gay people are evil” attitude continues, there will be hardly anyone under the age of 30 who will support the GOP.

theoddmanout on December 10, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Yeah, nothing spells electoral success like advocating on behalf of gay marriage. Uh huh. Seriously, even Obama hasn’t been dumb enough to run on being pro-gay marriage. He IS pro-gay marriage, but even he isn’t stupid enough to take that position.

And the fact is, this ad wasn’t directed to the general public, but to the social conservatives in the Iowa primary. Perry doesn’t have to win Iowa, but he does have to at least have a strong showing in Iowa, or else his campaign will be toast. As it is, the conventional wisdom is that Perry’s campaign is dead already. The only way he can reestablish himself as a top tier candidate is to do well in Iowa.

And Perry’s best shot at doing well in Iowa is appealing to the social conservative vote – something which the two frontrunners (Romney and Gingrich) have a problem securing.

So yes, it IS a smart strategy for Perry to run this ad. It is all about context.

IcedTea on December 10, 2011 at 8:37 PM

Perry’s ad was nothing but dog whistle.

As I said previously, DADT will no more be reinstated than racially segregated military units will be. And if a closeted gay or lesbian takes positions that fuel anti-gay prejudice (such as Perry’s) then that person should be aware of the possibility of being outed.

chumpThreads on December 10, 2011 at 8:29 PM

This is the kind of twisted thinking I’m talking about.

You are reading bigotry into a statement of fact, and smearing someone that does not deserve it. And you appear to be perfectly comfortable with it. In fact, you go on to advocate the leftist tactic of deliberately, personally embarrassing someone simply because they might disagree with you on a political issue.

How very “liberal” of you.

If this gay man whose sexuality everyone knew about worked for Perry, how does that translate to “Perry hates gay people” in your mind?

Maybe he just thinks it’s bad policy – as many do. And he didn’t even say THAT much in the ad.

You need more evidence than just your imagination.

capitalist piglet on December 10, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Outing is only a problem in a society where people are discriminated against for being gay, lesbian, bisexual or trans.

I think if someone is concerned about how their parents or grandparents or whoever in their lives might react to their sexual orientation, that’s for them to decide.

Or do you think homosexuals are less entitled to privacy that heteros?

Y-not on December 10, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Fourth, whether homosexuality is “natural” or not, it is at best dysfunctional and something that shouldn’t be encouraged. It doesn’t matter if you believe in creation, evolution, or something else. The fact is, you don’t have to be an expert on anatomy to understand that man is made for woman, and woman is made for man. To pretend otherwise is to deny reality.

IcedTea on December 10, 2011 at 8:20 PM

First point. It’s an innate attraction. Still, yes, it is a choice to act upon it. I would have gone through my entire life, hating and torturing myself. I know people who have done this.

Aunt by marriage: 30 years marriage, 3 kids, husband. Had an affair because she though she wasn’t “trying” hard enough to be attracted to men. Got caught, divorced, destroyed her family’s life. Came out afterwards.

Boss’ boss at an internship: I’d guess 40 years college, 2 kids. Marriage went to hello, because he simply couldn’t live with himself anymore. Came out, divorced and was subsequently outed because he joined a support group.

It’s a hard choice. On one hand you can lie to yourself and live a miserable, sick and self-loathing life. Or, actually embrace it maybe face discrimination from people who declare it “dysfunctional,” yet have a chance at happiness.

Second & third point. You are correct. It’s not a simple genetic trait. It’s derived from genetics, physical (chemical) factors, environment and social factors. There’s strong correlations between birth order, siblings, handedness and even your hair swirl. That doesn’t mean I can change being gay, or someone has willing chosen to be gay.

Fourth. “At best dysfunctional.” Uh-huh. Well, you certainly are not invited to my Christmas party.

ZachV on December 10, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Why? Conservatives believe that bedroom behavior should stay there… There is no contradiction.

melle1228 on December 10, 2011 at 8:35 PM

When my coworker wears a wedding ring, and therefore telling me he is married, that does not mean he is telling me the precise ways he makes love to his wife. If someone telling you they are gay causes you to imagine a series of sexual acts that is your active imagination and not an “intrusion” on the part of the gay person. Again, like I said, no one is “private” about their sexual identity.

libfreeordie on December 10, 2011 at 8:39 PM

I don’t know a single heterosexual who is “private” about their sexual identity.

Really everyone into S&M tells you that? How about foot fetishes? Just wondering, because “heterosexual” identity is as complicated as homosexuals… If someone wants to keep it private, then it should be respected.

melle1228 on December 10, 2011 at 8:39 PM

Sounds like GOProud didn’t really do anything wrong. Yeah, outing someone is bad and I definitely don’t support it, especially as an attack on someone, but the guy doesn’t sound like he was in the closet. Just because a guy doesn’t go around waving a rainbow flag or dance around in a pride parade doesn’t mean he’s hiding his sexuality. Lot of overreaction on this one.

Cyhort on December 10, 2011 at 8:39 PM

Perry’s ad is a vapid display of gutter-sniping, albeit expected. What a fantastic failure the Texas governor has proved to be; it’s almost remarkable to consider that the number one issue on voters’ minds (the economy), and the state with the largest progress in that area (Texas) and yet here he is disparaging young men who volunteer to defend their country, and happen to be attracted to men. Disgusting. Desperate.

Now, while I totally oppose the ‘outing’ of anybody, GOPround is right to call attention to the chief strategist of the campaign. Regardless of his sexual orientation, his record is clear—and the fact that he remains in his role is troubling to me.

youknowit on December 10, 2011 at 8:39 PM

How is sexual identity private? The only people i know who are “private” about their sexual identity are closeted gay people. I don’t know a single heterosexual who is “private” about their sexual identity.

Really? You don’t have any Catholic friends who were sexually active outside of wedlock and hid it from their parents?

I think you’re the one living in a closet.

Y-not on December 10, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Lot of overreaction on this one.

Cyhort on December 10, 2011 at 8:39 PM

So you think it’s fine for them to call him a f@ggot because they disagree with a choice he made in his professional life?

Y-not on December 10, 2011 at 8:41 PM

If someone telling you they are gay causes you to imagine a series of sexual acts that is your active imagination and not an “intrusion” on the part of the gay person/blockquote>

I answered this, but apparently it was filter. Sexual identity is more complex then just heterosexual and homosexual, Capice? Homosexuality is an alternate sexuality much the way “those that shall not be named” is, so if someone wants it to remain private-it should.

melle1228 on December 10, 2011 at 8:42 PM

So yes, it IS a smart strategy for Perry to run this ad. It is all about context.

IcedTea on December 10, 2011 at 8:37 PM

When I first saw the ad, I nearly cried. Finally, I thought – someone just telling the truth about where we are. Finally.

capitalist piglet on December 10, 2011 at 8:42 PM

Boss’ boss at an internship: I’d guess 40 years college, 2 kids.
ZachV on December 10, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Two virgin births? Amazing.

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 8:43 PM

Just because a guy doesn’t go around waving a rainbow flag or dance around in a pride parade doesn’t mean he’s hiding his sexuality. Lot of overreaction on this one.

Cyhort on December 10, 2011 at 8:39 PM

You don’t know enough about him to draw that conclusion. It’s no one’s place to talk about it but his own, at a time and in a place of his own choosing.

You’d think they’d have been sensitive to that, but they’re thugs, just like any kind of “activists”, apparently.

capitalist piglet on December 10, 2011 at 8:44 PM

How is sexual identity private?

Because some people choose it to be, nobody i know has told me they’re celibate, but odds are i probably know someone who is and they’ve made a decision to keep their sexual habits to themselves.

clearbluesky on December 10, 2011 at 8:45 PM

Fourth. “At best dysfunctional.” Uh-huh. Well, you certainly are not invited to my Christmas party.

ZachV on December 10, 2011 at 8:38 PM

It is what it is. If everyone was purely homosexual, the human race would cease to exist. Even nature and “blind evolution” “condemns” homosexual behavior – it doesn’t reproduce. You are the result of the biological union of one man and one woman. If reality offends you, too bad.

IcedTea on December 10, 2011 at 8:46 PM

If someone telling you they are gay causes you to imagine a series of sexual acts
libfreeordie on December 10, 2011 at 8:39 PM

“Gay” is, by definition, the commission of a sexual act – specifically same-sex sodomy. Take that out of the equation and you got nuthin. Well, except perhaps a Liza Minnelli fan club. Other than that, noooo.

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 8:49 PM

It is what it is. If everyone was purely homosexual, the human race would cease to exist. Even nature and “blind evolution” “condemns” homosexual behavior – it doesn’t reproduce. You are the result of the biological union of one man and one woman. If reality offends you, too bad.

IcedTea on December 10, 2011 at 8:46 PM
So because everyone isn’t gay, it’s unnatural?

youknowit on December 10, 2011 at 8:49 PM

this is very bad…Breitbart is correct. “outing” has been done by the left for years as a punitive measure against those they disagree. That’s what this was…the f-word shows the hatred.

I think what’s lost in this is what Perry said. Simply that one favored group has been picked as winners and the unfavored group are the losers.

r keller on December 10, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Only one reason for these stories this year…just one.
Cain, Perry, Newt, whomever, only one reason….
So the people don’t look at the real problem, the economy, energy, employment, Fast and Furious, kick-backs, whatever the administration is doing…this other garbage keeps them off the pages.
It’s the economy stupid!!…
It’s the administration stupid!!

right2bright on December 10, 2011 at 8:52 PM

So you think it’s fine for them to call him a f@ggot because they disagree with a choice he made in his professional life?

No, but then I wasn’t commenting on that. If you want me to I’d say that it’s pretty stupid, like black people calling each other the N-word, and counter productive if your goal is anti-discrimination. But really it does more damage to the person saying it than the person it’s said to. It’s much more damaging to out someone who’s in the closet and from what I’ve read about this it doesn’t seem like that’s what happened here. So, yeah, overreaction.

Cyhort on December 10, 2011 at 8:54 PM

It is what it is. If everyone was purely homosexual, the human race would cease to exist. Even nature and “blind evolution” “condemns” homosexual behavior – it doesn’t reproduce. You are the result of the biological union of one man and one woman. If reality offends you, too bad.

IcedTea on December 10, 2011 at 8:46 PM

… and I have no disagreement.

Except, when that ‘reality’ is twisted to insult or demean, strip me of my liberties and privileges as a free man or simply seek to marginalize and discriminate against another human being in the good sense of “discouraging” something “dysfunctional” they cannot change.

ZachV on December 10, 2011 at 8:55 PM

- Perry’s ad was offensive.

Why? He didn’t even offer an opinion about DADT in the ad – he merely stated that it was policy.

That’s just…well, TRUE.

In other words, the ad wasn’t about you as much as it was about how Christians are being silenced while others are enjoying more and more acceptance.

That’s just…well, TRUE.

I saw one gay individual go so far as to say Perry was disparaging the service of gay people who are serving, which was such a quantum leap I had to read it twice to be sure that was the point he was trying to make.

Don’t view it so emotionally. The guy has a high-level staffer who is gay, apparently. If he was such a an anti-gay bigot, why would he?

The ad is about the turn our society has taken toward silencing Christians. Maybe you don’t mind that part so much or something.

capitalist piglet on December 10, 2011 at 8:55 PM

Outing is only a problem in a society where people are discriminated against for being gay, lesbian, bisexual or trans. It is interesting that conservatives would criticize an “outing” while opposing ENDA which would include sexual orientation into existing federal protections against employment discrimination. I had always assumed that conservatives believed that just as the nation was “post-racial” and that racial discrimination was a thing of the pas that they also believed discriminated based on sexuality is a thing of the past. But the uproar over “outing” indicates they realize that systemic, institutional discrimination against sexual minorities exists. So what is the argument for not supporting ENDA again?

libfreeordie on December 10, 2011 at 8:28 PM

Easy. Conservatives aren’t the ones discriminating, the Obama Party and its leadership are.

And since you’re not shrieking about that and demanding that these people be publicly punished and pilloried, what’s pretty obvious is that you are fully supportive of and endorse discrimination when it suits you politically.

What do you have to say to that, Obama puppet?

northdallasthirty on December 10, 2011 at 8:55 PM

I think what’s lost in this is what Perry said. Simply that one favored group has been picked as winners and the unfavored group are the losers.

r keller on December 10, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Very simple ad, and that’s the essence of it. Amazing all the things that some people have read into it. Would be an interesting study for a psych major.

capitalist piglet on December 10, 2011 at 8:56 PM

simply seek to marginalize and discriminate against another human being in the good sense of “discouraging” something “dysfunctional” they cannot change.
ZachV on December 10, 2011 at 8:55 PM

Which therapy(ies) have you tried?

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 8:59 PM

“Gay” is, by definition, the commission of a sexual act – specifically same-sex sodomy. Take that out of the equation and you got nuthin. Well, except perhaps a Liza Minnelli fan club. Other than that, noooo.

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 8:49 PM

Gay, my good sir, does not refer to sex but a human being like myslef with God-given liberties and freedoms. Something we as conservatives, I would hope, believe to be created equal and not to be marginalized and discriminated against.

ZachV on December 10, 2011 at 8:59 PM

The only thing in that ad is truth. And it apparently hurts.

Not sure why it should, but I suppose the campaign should have known people would flip out if you tell the dirty little secret that our society is becoming more and more unfriendly to Christians.

capitalist piglet on December 10, 2011 at 9:00 PM

when that ‘reality’ is twisted to insult or demean, strip me of my liberties and privileges

Zac, what liberty and privileges? That ad(which didn’t state a position)was talking about DADT, and there is no right to serve in the military. Many groups are discriminated in the military if the military feels that they are detrimental to the mission.

melle1228 on December 10, 2011 at 9:01 PM

I’ll ask again: Did any of our candidates support the repeal of DADT?

capitalist piglet on December 10, 2011 at 9:03 PM

Which therapy(ies) have you tried?

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 8:59 PM

You really want to pick a fight, don’t you?

If you really want to know, I did spend several years of my early life trying to pray away the gay and having “girlfriends”. Then another couple of years hoping that I’d turn out heterosexual, then another telling myself that I’d become celebrate.

Not surprisingly, I was not able to change my sexuality because that’s the way God created me. Probably just like you couldn’t change yours even if you had a man hold a gun to your head.

ZachV on December 10, 2011 at 9:04 PM

Which therapy(ies) have you tried?

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 8:59 PM

Not a one. And I have no intention of doing so.

Now, sir, please explain to me why that matters. I am not asking you for special privileges. I am not demanding gay marriage. I am not even particularly concerned about serving in the military.

So what else concerns you?

northdallasthirty on December 10, 2011 at 9:05 PM

“Gay” is, by definition, the commission of a sexual act – specifically same-sex sodomy. Take that out of the equation and you got nuthin. Well, except perhaps a Liza Minnelli fan club. Other than that, noooo.
whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 8:49 PM

Gay, my good sir, does not refer to sex
ZachV on December 10, 2011 at 8:59 PM

You are partially correct; “gay” did not used to mean same-sex sodomy, but it does now. That there is natural shame attached to the chosen act is evident in the very act of clinging to a euphemism. Same as with those who try to convince themselves they will feel less shame and guilt if they call themselves “boy lovers” or “girl lovers”. I can only surmise the euphemism “Really, really happy” was taken.

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 9:07 PM

This is the kind of twisted thinking I’m talking about.

You are reading bigotry into a statement of fact, and smearing someone that does not deserve it. And you appear to be perfectly comfortable with it.

I don’t have to read bigotry into his statement. The very nature of his opposition to allowing gays to serve openly in the military reeks of bigotry. The same kind of bigotry that kept the American military racially segregated for so long. I’m perfectly comfortable with calling out Perry and others who would discriminate against people solely for their sexual orientation.

In fact, you go on to advocate the leftist tactic of deliberately, personally embarrassing someone simply because they might disagree with you on a political issue.

Complete nonsense. Re-read what I wrote and rethink your accusation.

*snip*

If this gay man whose sexuality everyone knew about worked for Perry, how does that translate to “Perry hates gay people” in your mind?

I have no idea what Perry did or did not know about this guy. Neither do you.

Maybe he just thinks it’s bad policy – as many do. And he didn’t even say THAT much in the ad.

capitalist piglet on December 10, 2011 at 8:38 PM

He obviously thinks repeal was a bad idea. And he didn’t bother to say why. He just threw it out there to rile the base.

Ok, the debate’s on.
Later.

chumpThreads on December 10, 2011 at 9:08 PM

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 8:59 PM

Which therapy(ies) have you tried?

Did you really go there? I mean I am completely against the gay agenda, but if an individual accepts and is happy with who they are-why should they get therapy?

melle1228 on December 10, 2011 at 9:10 PM

Which therapy(ies) have you tried?
whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 8:59 PM

You really want to pick a fight, don’t you?

You made a blanket statement for which I was seeking your basis.

If you really want to know, I did spend several years of my early life trying to pray away the gay

I asked about therapy: which type did you undergo? Or did you refuse to seek therapy?

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 9:10 PM

Y-not on December 10, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Adultery is not a sexual identity so why would a person divulge an adulterous act to a grandparent. Why would a person divulge the choice of engaging in BDSM to an employer, those are sexual acts not sexual identities. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are sexual identities. It isn’t as hard as you imagine it. As I said the only people who are private about their sexual identity are closeted gay people.

libfreeordie on December 10, 2011 at 9:11 PM

Which therapy(ies) have you tried?

I realize that I am not apart of this conversation, but, I have to say something right now.

You cannot change someone’s sexual orientation. Trying to do so is not only completely illogical, it can be extremely dangerous for the person involved. Every single major psychological, psychiatric, and medical organization in the world says that trying to change someone’s sexual orientation through “therapy” can psychologically, mentally, and emotionally damage the patient.

Gay-to-straight conversion therapy is dangerous and foolish. It is one thing to hold an opinion about a group of people. It is another to think that it is ok to subvert gay people to therapy which every psychological organization says is dangerous.

theoddmanout on December 10, 2011 at 9:13 PM

The very nature of his opposition to allowing gays to serve openly in the military reeks of bigotry. The same kind of bigotry that kept the American military racially segregated for so long.

Racial segregation and sexuality are two different “animals” when it comes to the military. UGH! Heterosexual relationships have been detrimental to the military. Women/men relationships have caused ALL kinds of issues. The one plus was there was no chance of this on line units-now there is. Please enough of this- one is genetic/another involves an ACTUAL behavior!

melle1228 on December 10, 2011 at 9:13 PM

Zac, what liberty and privileges? That ad(which didn’t state a position)was talking about DADT, and there is no right to serve in the military. Many groups are discriminated in the military if the military feels that they are detrimental to the mission.

melle1228 on December 10, 2011 at 9:01 PM

I wasn’t referring to the ad as I was responding to IcedTea’s statement that I (or homosexuality) is dysfunctional. ;) Broader context.

ZachV on December 10, 2011 at 9:13 PM

if an individual accepts and is happy with who they are-why should they get therapy?
melle1228 on December 10, 2011 at 9:10 PM

I don’t care. But a statement was made (“I can’t change”) without any basis. If an alcoholic wants to drink his/her life away, I don’t care. But when they claims s/he cannot change (nor can any other alcoholic) that’s another thing.

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 9:15 PM

Why would a person divulge the choice of engaging in BDSM to an employer, those are sexual acts not sexual identities.

Take a course in human sexuality. People who are involved in that “lifestyle” believe it is just a part of their identity as heterosexuality and homosexuality. In fact, there is a huge movement to “normalize” BDSM and make it everyday life. I had to do a thesis on alternate sexuality, and I won’t make it graphic- but needless to say it is as integral identity as someone who is homosexual or heterosexual.

melle1228 on December 10, 2011 at 9:18 PM

“Which therapy(ies) have you tried?”

Did you really go there? I mean I am completely against the gay agenda, but if an individual accepts and is happy with who they are-why should they get therapy?

melle1228 on December 10, 2011 at 9:13 PM

It’s a good example.

Simply because I am gay, whatcat sought to treat me different and probably passively insult me. Maybe it was unintentional on whatcat’s part, who knows?

I’ve heard worse, but that’s the kind of thing you have to deal with when you are gay. Some people right off the bat will try to make you miserable. Maybe it’s not a privilege not to be insulted, but … it’s in that general direction.

ZachV on December 10, 2011 at 9:19 PM

You cannot change someone’s sexual orientation.
theoddmanout on December 10, 2011 at 9:13 PM

I assume you’ve never heard of Dr.Robert Spitzer who, in 1973, lead the fight to have homosexuality removed from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of psychiatric disorders?

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 9:20 PM

I’ve heard worse, but that’s the kind of thing you have to deal with when you are gay.

I am sorry for that Zach. Like I said, I may not agree with the gay agenda-but that doesn’t preclude decent human courtesy. Nor does that mean that I take the politics personally or make it personal.

melle1228 on December 10, 2011 at 9:21 PM

… not that I am insulted or offended, mind you.

ZachV on December 10, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Maybe it was unintentional on whatcat’s part, who knows?
ZachV on December 10, 2011 at 9:19 PM

Nope, I quite intentionally asked what therapy(ies) you had undergone to make such a claim. The question seems to have instilled abject terror within you. Which is fine, if that fear weans you away from making totally baseless claims in the future.

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 9:26 PM

I am sorry for that Zach. Like I said, I may not agree with the gay agenda-but that doesn’t preclude decent human courtesy. Nor does that mean that I take the politics personally or make it personal.

melle1228 on December 10, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Thanks.

ZachV on December 10, 2011 at 9:27 PM

I assume you’ve never heard of Dr.Robert Spitzer who, in 1973, lead the fight to have homosexuality removed from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of psychiatric disorders?

Linking me to an article written by NARTH about how gay people can be made straight? Surely NARTH isn’t biased at all!

theoddmanout on December 10, 2011 at 9:28 PM

I don’t know a single heterosexual who is “private” about their sexual identity.

libfreeordie on December 10, 2011 at 8:37 PM

I am. I don’t march in the street on heterosexual day. No one has asked about my sexual orientation and I don’t tell.

Just another whiny group who want attention.

Vince on December 10, 2011 at 9:30 PM

andy85719
Ann Coulter says being a homosexual is biological? She must have learned that while she was working on her doctorate in microbiology at Oxford. Well, that settles that issue for me.

Hey, next time you see Ann, ask her about Bigfoot. I’m still not decided on that issue. If anyone would know, it would be Dr. Coulter.

Horace on December 10, 2011 at 9:38 PM

But it’s also worth noting that there seems to be a fairly uniform consensus that this was “something that was known.”

I think the same could have been said about Ricky Martin and Neil Patrick Harris, but they chose to announce it. On their terms, when they were ready.

The GOProud either did it deliberately to humiliate a man not ready to formally announce, or they fell for one of the oldest media tricks in the book. Either way, it doesn’t say much for them (although I’d have more sympathy for them if they were merely stupid instead of malicious)

DrAllecon on December 10, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Linking me to an article written by NARTH about how gay people can be made straight?
theoddmanout on December 10, 2011 at 9:28 PM

Ah, the desperate “shoot the messenger” dodge. I understand the facts are indeed extremely inconvenient to your position, but complaining about who delivers the bad news really just doesn’t help your position – or change the facts. You’re welcome to download Dr. Spitzer’s study here as published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5.

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Just curious…. When has angrily calling anyone “faggot” in any kind of media ever yielded a positive result?

Some stuff is just too basic to have to explain or excuse.

Part of the quote that was omitted:

[I]f Tony Fabrizio wanted it to be a secret that he was gay he probably should have done a better job of letting other people know it was supposed to be a secret.

Infantile issue-shifting; an attempt to move the targets off their own backs and onto Fabrizio’s. The issue isn’t about Fabrizio’s preferences at all. The issue is whether GOProud acted appropriately in commenting on Fabrizio’s sexuality.

Jazz on December 10, 2011 at 9:44 PM

i have to admit, i wonder what kind of self-respecting gay person would involve themselves in the conservative movement.

in the past, when you had goldwaterite secular conservatives and no real alternative, it made sense. now, however,…not so much.

eh on December 10, 2011 at 9:51 PM

No worries, ZachV. We social conservatives would never abort you. The other side? If they abort for the wrong sex, they’ll abort for the wrong sexuality. Let’s focus on your right to life…and not so much on marriage, serving in military etc.

monalisa on December 10, 2011 at 9:51 PM

if everybody knows something and nobody knows that thing is supposed to be a secret, then it was not a secret to begin with.

i’ve got to wonder when this became an “outing”, and my guess is that perry’s pollster’s sexuality became a “secret” when some of perry’s dominionist constituents read the article and phoned their outrage into HQ, asking, “is you awares you gots a fox in the henhouse, or has you been a queer-huggin’ lib all along?”

eh on December 10, 2011 at 10:04 PM

John the Libertarian on December 10, 2011 at 7:40 PM

It’s called DELUSION.
Been there, free from it.
:-)

pambi on December 10, 2011 at 10:08 PM

Sorry for such a late post.. troubles posting.

pambi on December 10, 2011 at 10:09 PM

eh on December 10, 2011 at 10:04 PM

Stop. My eyes are going to roll out of my head.

capitalist piglet on December 10, 2011 at 10:09 PM

Ah, the desperate “shoot the messenger” dodge. I understand the facts are indeed extremely inconvenient to your position, but complaining about who delivers the bad news really just doesn’t help your position – or change the facts. You’re welcome to download Dr. Spitzer’s study here as published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5.

Change the facts? If you believe that the “facts” are that you can turn gay people straight, then I guess all of these organizations are lying then:

American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, National Education Association, American Psychiatric Association

theoddmanout on December 10, 2011 at 10:10 PM

monalisa offers us some clarity on the social conservative model for biblically-oriented politics: “we defend your right to be born into a society in which we consign you to the margins”.

sounds like an awesome deal, no?

eh on December 10, 2011 at 10:12 PM

thChange the facts? If you believe that the “facts” are that you can turn gay people straight, then I guess all of these organizations are lying then:

eoddmanout on December 10, 2011 at 10:10 PM

Not necessarily LYING, they just don’t have ‘eyes to see’.

pambi on December 10, 2011 at 10:16 PM

Did you really go there? I mean I am completely against the gay agenda, but if an individual accepts and is happy with who they are-why should they get therapy?

melle1228 on December 10, 2011 at 9:10 PM

It’s cool when you come across a surprising opinion.

thuja on December 10, 2011 at 10:17 PM

capitalist piglet on December 10, 2011 at 10:09 PM

how do you explain it? the nature of a secret is linear; something can’t be common knowledge one day and become a secret the next. clearly this transformation of a thing which is commonly known into a “secret” is a rhetorical transformation only. what is the reason for the transformation?

eh on December 10, 2011 at 10:19 PM

“a gay man being involved in the creation of the advertisement”

Because all gay people have to think one way,jazz? Because all black people should think one way? That should have been their answer to the reporters.That it wasn’t gives credence to my suspician that “conservative gay groups” are not truly conservative but are intended to subvert the conservative movement.

Sometimes I think you squishy’s are more dangerous to this country than the left. At least the left is “out”.

peacenprosperity on December 10, 2011 at 10:19 PM

Ah, the desperate “shoot the messenger” dodge. I understand the facts are indeed extremely inconvenient to your position, but complaining about who delivers the bad news really just doesn’t help your position – or change the facts. You’re welcome to download Dr. Spitzer’s study here as published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5.

Change the facts?
theoddmanout on December 10, 2011 at 10:10 PM

You’re more than welcome to make your own presentation to the APA, as Dr. Robert Spitzer did. Or you can just keep on with the shoot-the-messenger complaints. You’ve been given links to both a summary and the APA presentation itself. Your choice.

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 10:21 PM

monalisa offers us some clarity on the social conservative model for biblically-oriented politics: “we defend your right to be born into a society in which we consign you to the margins”.

sounds like an awesome deal, no?

eh on December 10, 2011 at 10:12 PM

You’re hilarious.

Because libbies like yourself are the ones discriminating against gays and marginalizing and harassing gays.

As is typical, liberals project onto others their own problems — and then you think you can abuse gay and lesbian people because you attack Christians.

That’s also why pathetic liberals like yourself have to demean gays and lesbians who think for themselves and have walked off your plantation.

northdallasthirty on December 10, 2011 at 10:22 PM

Not necessarily LYING, they just don’t have ‘eyes to see’.
pambi on December 10, 2011 at 10:16 PM

Think “Global Warming”. Politically correct, but scientifically incorrect.

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 10:23 PM

i have to admit, i wonder what kind of self-respecting gay person would involve themselves in the conservative movement.

eh on December 10, 2011 at 9:51 PM

Hmm, perhaps maybe because I’m a ardent advocate of limited government, property rights, freedom of contract and a strong national defense?

Unlike progressivism, which through the creation of a soft tyranny destroys wealth and innovation and infringes upon our liberties. But, you know, I’m gay! I’d be silly not support that.

ZachV on December 10, 2011 at 10:25 PM

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 10:23 PM

BINGO !!

pambi on December 10, 2011 at 10:26 PM

That’s also why pathetic liberals like yourself have to demean gays and lesbians who think for themselves and have walked off your plantation.

northdallasthirty on December 10, 2011 at 10:22 PM

And while I disagree with eh on everything from the “limited government, property rights, freedom of contract and a strong national defense” list plus probably a whole lot more, tolerance has never been a value that was exactly embraced by the United States.

ZachV on December 10, 2011 at 10:29 PM

You’re more than welcome to make your own presentation to the APA, as Dr. Robert Spitzer did. Or you can just keep on with the shoot-the-messenger complaints. You’ve been given links to both a summary and the APA presentation itself. Your choice.

I’m not “shooting the messenger”. Dr. Robert Spitzer is one psychologist. And NARTH is one organization. You are effectively stating that one man and one organization’s opinion on gay-to-straight therapy trumps the opinions of dozens of international organizations and hundreds of psychologists, psychiatrists, and doctors who all agree that you cannot change sexual orientation and that trying to do so is dangerous.

Even after Dr. Spitzer’s presentation, the presentation that you claim is enough to disprove the claims of dozens of organizations, the APA still says that you cannot change sexual orientation. Obviously Dr. Spitzer’s study was not enough to change their minds, nor the minds of any of the other organizations I listed.

theoddmanout on December 10, 2011 at 10:30 PM

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 10:23 PM

BINGO !!
pambi on December 10, 2011 at 10:26 PM

I’m still waiting for an answer to my question to ZachV. I asked him, since he claimed he didn’t want to be involved in homosexuality, but couldn’t stop himself and so just tried to “pray the gay away” (his own mocking term), if he had sought therapy or if he had refused to seek therapy. The deafening silence is quite telling.

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 10:33 PM

And while I disagree with eh on everything from the “limited government, property rights, freedom of contract and a strong national defense” list plus probably a whole lot more, tolerance has never been a value that was exactly embraced by the United States.

ZachV on December 10, 2011 at 10:29 PM

I wonder if pointing out the irony of you publishing that statement, on a computer you purchased, in a home where you live, with the funds from a job that you presumably have, ever strikes you.

Try living as openly gay in Iran, Afghanistan, or other places of the sort before you presume to lecture the United States on tolerance.

northdallasthirty on December 10, 2011 at 10:34 PM

I’m still waiting for an answer to my question to ZachV. I asked him, since he claimed he didn’t want to be involved in homosexuality, but couldn’t stop himself and so just tried to “pray the gay away” (his own mocking term), if he had sought therapy or if he had refused to seek therapy. The deafening silence is quite telling.

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 10:33 PM

Or perhaps he simply saw where you said this.

I don’t care.

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 9:15 PM

northdallasthirty on December 10, 2011 at 10:35 PM

I wonder if pointing out the irony of you publishing that statement, on a computer you purchased, in a home where you live, with the funds from a job that you presumably have, ever strikes you.

Try living as openly gay in Iran, Afghanistan, or other places of the sort before you presume to lecture the United States on tolerance.

One act of intolerance is not somehow “less” evil just because even worse acts of intolerance exist in the world. Saying “Well, it’s ok to stop gay people from serving in the military, because some countries execute gay people!” is ridiculous. That would be like me running up and punching you in the face, and then saying “Why are you mad? All I did was punch you in the face! Some people wouldn’t have just punched you, they would have stabbed you too! You should be grateful that I did not stab you, and only punched you instead!”

theoddmanout on December 10, 2011 at 10:39 PM

1Cr 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
6:11 And that is what some of you WERE. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.,

Ahhh, yes … MAN has HIS answers, with oh-so many alpahbets behind their names, yet….. TRUTH, as always, WINS !

pambi on December 10, 2011 at 10:42 PM

You are effectively stating that one man
theoddmanout on December 10, 2011 at 10:30 PM

The one man who led the successful fight to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA’s DSM and who is a proponent of homosexual civil rights. I agree with you that the facts are quite politically incorrect. As one newspaper noted, Dr. Spitzer went from the miltant homosexuals hailed Moses to the top of their “Most Hated List” in no time flat. Pretty much how the left also demonized the “Climategate” leakers. Shoot the messenger ad infinitum. So it goes.

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 10:42 PM

i have to admit, i wonder what kind of self-respecting gay person would involve themselves in the conservative movement.

eh on December 10, 2011 at 9:51 PM

It would be amazing, God-like in fact, if either the Left or the Right had a monopoly on truth. Just because I think the Democrat Party has better ideas about some environmental issues, gay issues, and abortion doesn’t mean that I don’t strongly disagree with the Democrats on about every other issue. I’m proud to be a “right-wing lunatic”! And I don’t care what nasty, hateful things that the “social con” bullies have to say to deny that I am a conservative.

thuja on December 10, 2011 at 10:42 PM

One act of intolerance is not somehow “less” evil just because even worse acts of intolerance exist in the world. Saying “Well, it’s ok to stop gay people from serving in the military, because some countries execute gay people!” is ridiculous. That would be like me running up and punching you in the face, and then saying “Why are you mad? All I did was punch you in the face! Some people wouldn’t have just punched you, they would have stabbed you too! You should be grateful that I did not stab you, and only punched you instead!”

theoddmanout on December 10, 2011 at 10:39 PM

And the OWS idiots are shrieking that their conditions are “intolerable”, and the people who are demanding racial quotas scream that life is “intolerable” without them, and the women who want the Federal government to fund their every abortion are insisting that anyone who opposes that is “intolerant”.

The. Word. Is. Meaningless.

Furthermore, let me put it to you this way; I do not care if you stop me from serving in the military. It doesn’t matter. We have an all-volunteer force and frankly we have enough people that we can have the luxury of deciding who is best suited to serve and who is not. In the way that we have structured our military, that is people who are attracted to the opposite sex. If we were Israel and we literally needed every person that could be conscripted, we would need to adjust. Here, we don’t.

northdallasthirty on December 10, 2011 at 10:44 PM

I don’t care.

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 9:15 PM

northdallasthirty on December 10, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Could be he missed the part after that where I said ‘ceptin fer when someone makes an unbased global claim.

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 10:44 PM

The one man who led the successful fight to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA’s DSM and who is a proponent of homosexual civil rights. I agree with you that the facts are quite politically incorrect. As one newspaper noted, Dr. Spitzer went from the miltant homosexuals hailed Moses to the top of their “Most Hated List” in no time flat. Pretty much how the left also demonized the “Climategate” leakers. Shoot the messenger ad infinitum. So it goes.

“Militant homosexuals”? Really? You are just being silly at this point.

theoddmanout on December 10, 2011 at 10:45 PM

And while I disagree with eh on everything from the “limited government, property rights, freedom of contract and a strong national defense” list plus probably a whole lot more, tolerance has never been a value that was exactly embraced by the United States.

ZachV on December 10, 2011 at 10:29 PM

I wonder if pointing out the irony of you publishing that statement, on a computer you purchased, in a home where you live, with the funds from a job that you presumably have, ever strikes you.

Try living as openly gay in Iran, Afghanistan, or other places of the sort before you presume to lecture the United States on tolerance.

From a country that institutionalized slavery, massacred Native Americans, marginalized women and religious minorities for how many years?! Dear Lord, we put Japanese civilians into camps in what is still considered modern history!!

Pointing at the Islamist and saying “Well we’re better, because we don’t kill the gays, hur de dur,” doesn’t excuse 200 hundred + years of intolerance! Even the conservative who is proud of his country and would defend it to the death, like me, needs to recognize our shortcoming and wrongdoings.

ZachV on December 10, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Ahhh, yes … MAN has HIS answers, with oh-so many alpahbets behind their names, yet….. TRUTH, as always, WINS !

pambi on December 10, 2011 at 10:42 PM

And here’s the better question, Pambi; why do you care?

That verse doesn’t say eradicate the gays. It only says that, in theory, they will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

You presumably think you will. So why are you bothering? If you’re right, you’ll get what you want, which is gays condemned to perdition, and it will happen without you having to raise a finger.

So why do you care?

northdallasthirty on December 10, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Could be he missed the part after that where I said ‘ceptin fer when someone makes an unbased global claim.

whatcat on December 10, 2011 at 10:44 PM

No, it’s because I don’t particularly want to engage in a flame fest with you.

ZachV on December 10, 2011 at 10:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4