Anti-bullying hero bullies conference of school children

posted at 11:46 am on April 28, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Barack Obama and Joe Biden may be having second thoughts about assigning Dan Savage as their de facto “Anti-Bullying Czar” this year. According to Fox News, the sex advice columnist – Savage Love – and gay rights activist who founded It Gets Better seems to either have a hard time understanding the definition of bullying or has some serious issues with irony.

Really? So you picked a raunchy sex advice columnist who publishes a column called “Savage Love” as your ambassador to help out at risk children. What could possibly go wrong? Well, here’s what can possibly go wrong.

As many as 100 high school students walked out of a national journalism conference after an anti-bullying speaker began cursing, attacked the Bible and reportedly called those who refused to listen to his rant “pansy asses.” …

Savage was supposed to be delivering a speech about anti-bullying at the National High School Journalism Conference sponsored by the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association. But it turned into an episode of Christian-bashing.

Rick Tuttle, the journalism advisor for Sutter Union High School in California, was among several thousand people in the audience. He said they thought the speech was one thing – but it turned into something else.

“I thought this would be about anti-bullying,” Tuttle told Fox news. “It turned into a pointed attack on Christian beliefs.”

Tuttle said a number of his students were offended by Savage’s remarks – and some decided to leave the auditorium.

“It became hostile,” he said. “It felt hostile as we were sitting in the audience – especially towards Christians who espouse beliefs that he was literally taking on.”

The speaker, in a supposed attempt to encourage young people to behave in a civil fashion toward each other, immediately launches into a diatribe against Christian values. When some of the students – particularly a few of the young ladies – become offended, he berates them and engages in hostile name calling. This is the keystone of the anti-bullying campaign?

For anyone to be shocked by this outcome, you’d either have to be completely ignorant about the author’s history or … well… have a job at the White House, I suppose. For just one brief sample of the aforementioned “Savage Love” wisdom, click here. But before you do, I have to warn you… the language in this column is absolutely not safe for work and not appropriate for children to read. Also, if you are easily offended, don’t read it either. (Or at least don’t say I didn’t warn you.) I will not be reprinting any of the quotables here today.

UPDATE: (Jazz) I won’t embed it here because of the NSFW language, but if you want to watch Savage’s speech (along with all of the Christian students walking out) you can do so here. Link provided via Twitter by Ningrim.

But wait! We have located what is likely the primary source material Dan Savage used in developing this program. Watch the video and be amazed.


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 5 6 7

Also? The girl in the video walking out at 1:37, crying and wiping her eyes, breaks my heart. She’s wearing a cross necklace over her conference lanyard. :-(

Fire this creep Savage, stat.

Grace_is_sufficient on April 28, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Schoolin the tool. Nice work.

CW on April 28, 2012 at 2:42 PM

I try. Too often though they retract their heads into their shells and refuse to respond when schooled. And so living in denial they continue to make the same bad arguments everyday.

NotCoach on April 28, 2012 at 2:50 PM

So…because someone is in a majority, they can’t be bullied?

No. And this is where right wingers usually start getting their panties all in a bunch. What matter is not numbers in and of itself. What matters is power and (at times explicitly, but also implicitly) the ability to back up claims to power with violence. So white minorities in South Africa, for example, or in a variety of colonial structures have ruled over other people despite not being in the numerical majority.

I should have spoken more to Christians historically overwhelming influence in American life and culture from around the period of the Second Great Enlightenment until now. The first inklings of a challenge to Christian hegemony were raised by LGBT groups. Before that, even the most aggrieved groups deployed Christianity in the service of anti-oppressive struggles. They did this, in part, because Christianity was what they were raised in, and also because embracing Christianity was the only way to gain entry into the public/political sphere as a legitimate actor. Imagine, for example, if the black civil rights struggle had tried to argue for the end of Jim Crow without using the rhetoric and language of Christianity. The majority of Americans who viewed King with disdain would have been even larger. So, yes, Christianity, regardless of its numerical strength wields *enormous* power in American life and culture, which is why its defenders *freak out* when that disproportionate power might be threatened. As for your tirade about hypocrisy, we agree, its annoying.

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 2:51 PM

I suspect he still lives with his overbearing mother.

CW on April 28, 2012 at 2:02 PM

At the Bates’ Motel?

Solaratov on April 28, 2012 at 2:53 PM

When I read what Jazz wrote, I suspect that Jazz was right. But I clicked on the link to what Savage said, and I found out that Savage is the one being reasonable. No set of beliefs is beyond criticism, and that includes the Bible. I went to a Bar Mitzvah this morning and the celebrant criticized his Torah portion rather than taking the verses as the truth. His sermon was on the Leviticus 13 which tells about how the priest should judge people who have skin rashes. After the service was over, I went up to the Rabbi and asked for skin care tips–as a joke. Anyone who thinks it would be a great idea for the rabbi to be my dermatologist isn’t playing with a full deck.

thuja on April 28, 2012 at 2:54 PM

and I can safely filter your comments out.

lester on April 28, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Yet, you don’t. Funny, that.

Solaratov on April 28, 2012 at 2:55 PM

While at the same time Christians the world over were fighting to end slavery. Secular humanists have never brought us any kind of liberty in this country. If slave states were using Christianity to promote slavery they were committing a sin. What you and the Savage’s of the world fail to do is use any kind of honest analysis to assess the totality of a circumstance. Thus we get these childish and ignorant rants against Christianity while failing to recognize Christianity’s role in promoting liberty.

NotCoach on April 28, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Remember this thread. Remember these words, sear them into your brain and really internalize them. If you are able to understand that full implications of what you’ve written well then I look forward to the moment on a future thread where I point out the work of American socialists and progressives (many of whom were Christian) and you refrain from saying “but Mao was a bad guy therefore anything good ever done by a socialist/progressive is invalidated.” Its going to be a bright and shiny day.

However, I have a sinking feeling that your attempt to get us to see the way Christianity has been used for both good and evil is as far as you go in terms of understanding a set of beliefs or an ideology in a nuanced fashion. In fact, I suspect your philosophy could be summed up as “nuance for me, not for thee.”

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 2:56 PM

jaydee_007 on April 28, 2012 at 2:34 PM

You’re welcome.

No, I don’t take offense at what you said. :o)

I didn’t like the bullying I endured, but in some ways, I did learn things from the experience.

I’m sorry if I’ve overlooked other people’s posts to me, but I find it hard following conversations in these type of blog formats, because by the time I make a new post and submit it, I scroll up to see a million posts were made in the meantime.

TigerPaw on April 28, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Christians are being purposefully obtuse on this thread.

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 2:33 PM

No, you are being purposefully arrogant and condescending, as your statement self-identifies. Maybe if you, like Savage, didn’t lump all Christians as being of one mind, one belief, one set of values, and all in total agreement, you’d sound less like a bigot. You’re the type that defends Muslims when someone claims “they’re all violent”. Why is it, once again, that you demonstrate hypocrisy by not applying that same tolerance to Christianity?

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM

No. And this is where right wingers usually start getting their panties all in a bunch.

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Tell me why I should read past this bullying statement.

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2012 at 2:58 PM

The first inklings of a challenge to Christian hegemony were raised by LGBT groups.

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 2:51 PM

I got my answer. Holy s**t. I’ve heard of people living in a historical bubble, but that one takes the cake.

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Liberalism is a mental disorder…

Seven Percent Solution on April 28, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Shorter libfreeordie

there must always be grievence classes or im up s%%& creek because i lack any marketable skill outside of agitation.

tom daschle concerned on April 28, 2012 at 3:00 PM

When I read what Jazz wrote, I suspect that Jazz was right. But I clicked on the link to what Savage said, and I found out that Savage is the one being reasonable. No set of beliefs is beyond criticism, and that includes the Bible. I went to a Bar Mitzvah this morning and the celebrant criticized his Torah portion rather than taking the verses as the truth. His sermon was on the Leviticus 13 which tells about how the priest should judge people who have skin rashes. After the service was over, I went up to the Rabbi and asked for skin care tips–as a joke. Anyone who thinks it would be a great idea for the rabbi to be my dermatologist isn’t playing with a full deck.

thuja on April 28, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Savage was being reasonable? The intent of the speech was to stop bullying, but he was bullying himself when he used profanity and calling those that left pansy asses. So how is he reasonable, he couldn’t even talk about what he was supposed to. I am sorry but Gays haven’t got exclusive claims to bullying.

Sven on April 28, 2012 at 3:02 PM

However, I have a sinking feeling that your attempt to get us to see the way Christianity has been used for both good and evil is as far as you go in terms of understanding a set of beliefs or an ideology in a nuanced fashion. In fact, I suspect your philosophy could be summed up as “nuance for me, not for thee.”

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 2:56 PM

I think part of the underlying problem is that the belief systems you refer to don’t have anything forcing or directing their members to behave.

Christians, or nominal Christians (fake Christians), may sometimes misuse the Scriptures or their faith, but they are to blame, not the Scriptures or Christianity or Jesus Himself.

What is inherent in socialism or communism that keeps a leader (who is a Non Christian) of such a nation from behaving terribly towards other people?

What would keep a socialist (Non Christian) guy from abusing his power?

If there are other Non Christian socialists who disagree with the abusive Non Christian socialist leader, to what would they appeal to say, “It’s wrong that you are sending people off to death camps.”

At least Christians have a baseline, and a standard to refer to (God and God’s written word, the Bible) that tells them some behaviors are not moral, compassionate, acceptable.

That some self professing Christians misunderstand or get their interpretation wrong doesn’t mean such a standard is wrong or doesn’t exist.

TigerPaw on April 28, 2012 at 3:02 PM

However, I have a sinking feeling that your attempt to get us to see the way Christianity has been used for both good and evil is as far as you go in terms of understanding a set of beliefs or an ideology in a nuanced fashion. In fact, I suspect your philosophy could be summed up as “nuance for me, not for thee.”

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Guaranteed jobs, healthcare, welfare and free condoms are not liberty. Anything that forcibly requires others to give of themselves to provide for others can never be defined as liberty. And that compulsion often reaches beyond just stealing our money and into attacking our belief systems because these belief systems interfere with the proper implementation of these “freedoms”.

Thank you for playing, come again.

NotCoach on April 28, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Why is it, once again, that you demonstrate hypocrisy by not applying that same tolerance to Christianity?

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM

First of all, if you actually read the 2:33pm post I didn’t condemn all of Christianity. In fact the point of that post was to hone in on the way Christianity has been *used* in American history to justify the worst crimes against humanity. And, I’ll point out, has *always* been used to justify horrific crimes against humanity both here, in Europe and in colonial territories. This does not mean that the entire Christian faith and religion has nothing positive to offer the world. It does. It also doesn’t mean that every practicing Christian is responsible for the centuries upon centuries of Christian wars, plunders, occupations and enslavement. What it *does* mean is that, like it or not, these things are part of Christianity’s legacy. And they must be taken account when people use Christianity as a justification for anti-gay sentiment and then claim “its religious freedom.” Under that logic couldn’t slave owners who claimed that they were righteous argue that it was a protection of their constitutional right to “religious freedom” to own slaves. Indeed, slave owners consistently made reference to the constitution to jutsify enslavement (and why shouldn’t they when the 3/5th clause writ an endorsement of chattel slavery into the founding documents).

In short, because of the ease and effectiveness with which Christianity has been used for evil ends we need to be very wary when people claim “religious freedom” to justify their dislike towards one group or another.

Now, I tend to focus more on Christian hegemony than Muslim because of the disproportionate amount of power Christians have in this country.

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 3:04 PM

I don’t see how this is bullying.

He made a point. Counter-argue. Don’t cry and walk out like you are above the thought process.

I agree with him, although, not on every single point and not on his delivery, but give me a break if I’m supposed to “feel sorry” for Christians. Too many churches preach hate. Look at where the Obama’s went to church for years.
Why, again, do you think Obama would regret this guy?? Puhleaz

bridgetown on April 28, 2012 at 3:05 PM

bridgetown on April 28, 2012 at 3:05 PM
Maybe they didn’t want to hear profanity.

Rusty Allen on April 28, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Guaranteed jobs, healthcare, welfare and free condoms are not liberty

Says you.

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Now, I tend to focus more on Christian hegemony than Muslim because of the disproportionate amount of power Christians have in this country.

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Yes, And people with two feet also have a disprportionate amount of power in this Country. I am waiting for the one-footers to become outraged.

Sven on April 28, 2012 at 3:07 PM

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 3:04 PM
I thought the Jews had all of the power, or is it the Mormons?

Rusty Allen on April 28, 2012 at 3:07 PM

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 3:04 PM
I thought the Jews had all of the power, or is it the Mormons?

Rusty Allen on April 28, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Perhaps you’re confusing me for someone else? I’ve never said one anti-Jewish or anti-Mormon thing on this board.

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Hey Libfreeordie,
Socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money just ask Russia.

Sven on April 28, 2012 at 3:08 PM

These are high schoolers, not too young, and although Savage wasn’t exactly gracious about it, his point was correct. If Christians cannot stand having their beliefs challenged and listen to another’s point of view, they lose credibility, not the other person.

lilacs on April 28, 2012 at 3:12 PM

What it *does* mean is that, like it or not, these things are part of Christianity’s legacy. And they must be taken account when people use Christianity as a justification for anti-gay sentiment and then claim “its religious freedom.”

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Here’s the crux of yours and Savage’s argument: why is a position of opposing homosexuality in need of justification? To whom do they owe an explanation? Are all beliefs accountable in the same fashion? Take a look at this report from CBS in the 1960s on homosexuality. Views on homosexuality have been consistently like this over time, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion. None of them have a majority that looks kindly on homosexuality.

And before you call me an apologist, anyone here would probably categorize me as “pro-gay”. While I am not advocating their outlook, I am demonstrating to you that your attitude, and to a large extent mine, are abnormal. They are not conclusions that humans naturally arrive at. Therefore, why should those who hold this apparently natural view provide justification for it? Shouldn’t you and I be providing justification for our out-of-the-ordinary views?

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2012 at 3:13 PM

I don’t see how this is bullying.

He made a point. Counter-argue. Don’t cry and walk out like you are above the thought process.

I agree with him, although, not on every single point and not on his delivery, but give me a break if I’m supposed to “feel sorry” for Christians. Too many churches preach hate. Look at where the Obama’s went to church for years.
Why, again, do you think Obama would regret this guy?? Puhleaz

bridgetown on April 28, 2012 at 3:05 PM

That’s because you’re a liberal. And one thing liberals do is Re-Define words to fit their worldview.
Disagree = Hate
Not want to pay for = War
etc. etc.

Now you redefine bullying to be anything that makes a gay or lesbian or transgender etc. etc. uncomfortable.

So, of course, under your new defination of Bullying you wouldn’t see this as bullying.

jaydee_007 on April 28, 2012 at 3:13 PM

In fact the point of that post was to hone in on the way Christianity has been *used* in American history to justify the worst crimes against humanity.

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 3:04 PM

You have no understanding of historical context whatsoever. Anyone who can condemn America’s past as “the worst crimes against humanity” must believe that they can’t be seen by others when they close their eyes. Please point to a single nation that has done more in the history of mankind to promote liberty, prosperity and charity.

Says you.

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Damn straight says me. It is unbelievable just how dense you are. Is Kim Jon Un a great crusader for liberty because he forces everyone else to his will in order to provide him with a comfortable life?

Liberty can never be defined as taking from Peter to give to Paul. Such a definition allows anything. Sorry you fail to understand that.

NotCoach on April 28, 2012 at 3:13 PM

He made a point. Counter-argue. Don’t cry and walk out like you are above the thought process.

bridgetown on April 28, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Did he offer up time for students to do that up on the podium? If not, this was simply a rant, plain and simple and yes, that is what bullys do in areas in the “adult world”- they use their power to attack when they know (or believe, and sometimes find out to their horror they are wrong when sued in some workplaces) their power is absolute or those who don’t have the same resources to respond in the same manner.

Betenoire on April 28, 2012 at 3:14 PM

This is from the guy who said he wished all Republicans were “f*****g dead,” and wanted to engage in “violent hate sex” (read: homosexual rape) with Rick Santorum. Class act. Video here as well.

http://www.examiner.com/article/gay-sex-columnist-curses-bashes-bible-christians-gop-high-school-speech

jdawg on April 28, 2012 at 3:15 PM

bridgetown on April 28, 2012 at 3:05 PM

I agree. We should put this video in a campaign ad for Obama.

NotCoach on April 28, 2012 at 3:15 PM

He made a point. Counter-argue. Don’t cry and walk out like you are above the thought process.

bridgetown on April 28, 2012 at 3:05 PM

I might also add that your flippant argument is Non-Sequetur in as much as this was not an interactive forum but an address from a podium where such recourse was not possible.

And so much of what you advocate as Hate Speech could be countered by those exact words, yet you will still advocate for Laws denying people the right to their opinions.

Hypocracy Much!

jaydee_007 on April 28, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Savage was being reasonable? The intent of the speech was to stop bullying, but he was bullying himself when he used profanity and calling those that left pansy asses. So how is he reasonable, he couldn’t even talk about what he was supposed to. I am sorry but Gays haven’t got exclusive claims to bullying.

Sven on April 28, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Bullying isn’t strident disagreement and a few small insults. I have zero patience for the delicate flowers, the pansy asses, who overact to small things–as is so common on both the left and the right. Yesterday on Facebook, I attacked my politically correct friends for arguing that some Nebraska state coach should be fired for arguing the anti-gay side at some political event.
People will sometimes stridently disagree with us. They may even insult us. We just need to learn to ignore it, Sven, you f***ing moron.

thuja on April 28, 2012 at 3:18 PM

He made a point. Counter-argue. Don’t cry and walk out like you are above the thought process.

I agree with him, although, not on every single point and not on his delivery, but give me a break if I’m supposed to “feel sorry” for Christians. Too many churches preach hate. Look at where the Obama’s went to church for years.
Why, again, do you think Obama would regret this guy?? Puhleaz

bridgetown on April 28, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Kinda thick, aren’t you? This was a school assembly, not a debate. This was a person placed up at the podium by those in authority in the school, implicitly deriving authority from that action and lecturing the students. That lecture may have been in the form of a speech, but it was a lecture, with all the trappings of scholastic authority. What that person then did was use that authority to harangue students in that audience, to swear at their beliefs, and to ridicule and mock those students who held Christian beliefs. From a position of authority. With no opportunity for those being harangued to respond. Doesn’t get any more bullying than that.

They walked out because this was not a debate forum, it was a forum in which the only microphone was in the hands of the bully.

AZfederalist on April 28, 2012 at 3:18 PM

This is from the guy who said he wished all Republicans were “f*****g dead,” and wanted to engage in “violent hate sex” (read: homosexual rape) with Rick Santorum.

jdawg on April 28, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Yeah, but see, Christians are the real oppressors and instigators. DEFLECT! DEFLECT!

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2012 at 3:19 PM

welcome back bleeds blue

tom daschle concerned on April 28, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Bullying isn’t…a few small insults.

thuja on April 28, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Congratulations. You have just proven you are, yourself, a bully. You’re also not self-aware.

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2012 at 3:20 PM

thuja on April 28, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Just dont call them the gay mafia!

tom daschle concerned on April 28, 2012 at 3:21 PM

If Christians cannot stand having their beliefs challenged and listen to another’s point of view, they lose credibility, not the other person.
lilacs on April 28, 2012 at 3:12 PM

I would expect that the Christians students expected to be challenged.
He did NOT challenge them.
He abused them.

pambi on April 28, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Alternative Headline: GOP mad that the Left is using their Breitbart tactics.

inthemiddle on April 28, 2012 at 3:22 PM

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 3:08 PM
I wasn’t insuinuating that you had, simply pointing out the myriad of opinions of who holds the power. But the argument that Christians are the salve owners while technically true, is largely emblematic of society, not exclusive. For instance the Mormons are challenged on the black Preisthood ban, yet the allowed women and blacks to vote in church long before out nation did. They also opposed slavery. The country had a slavery problem, not just Christians. And now Christianity is. Hallemged on the bases of old testimant law. I have yet to see a 21st century beheading of a homosexual by a Christian. Where is this mans contempt of the Koran which currently is used as the basis of beatings, and killings? Generally mistreatment of homosexuals is perpetuated through lack of education, not because of Christianity. And furthermore, this was a singular event in which many cheered and some walked out. How many would have walked out if the message was that anyone who favors gay civil unions or marriage is a pansy-ass? I’m sure just as many. And would they be wrong to do so? You have a right not to listen to insulting speech. It’s not so much rather he’s right, but the fact that he is an asshole. What he did to santorum was sick. You don’t gain support by being vile. And this thus the contradiction of many liberal causes, “everyone must be excepted, unless they disagree”. True liberalism allows thought without ridicule.

Rusty Allen on April 28, 2012 at 3:23 PM

If Christians cannot stand having their beliefs challenged and listen to another’s point of view, they lose credibility, not the other person.
lilacs on April 28, 2012 at 3:12 PM

If someone’s challenge to your beliefs includes calling you a “pansy ass”, there is no reason to listen to that person’s point of view.

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2012 at 3:24 PM

As for your tirade about hypocrisy, we agree, its annoying.

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 2:51 PM

You got a mouse in your pocket, bro?

btw: “its

Solaratov on April 28, 2012 at 3:25 PM

This is a free country. Savage can say what he likes…the offended can walk away. This are not problems – these are luxuries. Meanwhile, in Africa…

inthemiddle on April 28, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Alternative Headline: GOP mad that the Left is using their Breitbart tactics.

inthemiddle on April 28, 2012 at 3:22 PM

First off, it is clear your handle is a lie.
The only thing you are in the middle of is Leftism.

Next, you clearly don’t have a clue regarding Breitbart tactics.

Breitbart may ask questions, and my allow leftists to extend all the rope they need to hang themselves – but he was Never abousive.

Why not go back to HuffPo where you can actually BE in the middle?

jaydee_007 on April 28, 2012 at 3:26 PM

thuja on April 28, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Learn something. This is a school assembly where the students have to listen to a speaker attack them, not a debate or informal conversation among friends. Context is key.

So the point about irony stands. Keep that in mind.

22044 on April 28, 2012 at 3:27 PM

inthemiddle on April 28, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Trolls are out in force today, aren’t they. What, Little League hasn’t started yet?

AZfederalist on April 28, 2012 at 3:27 PM

blockquote>Bullying isn’t strident disagreement and a few small insults. I have zero patience for the delicate flowers, the pansy asses, who overact to small things–as is so common on both the left and the right. Yesterday on Facebook, I attacked my politically correct friends for arguing that some Nebraska state coach should be fired for arguing the anti-gay side at some political event.
People will sometimes stridently disagree with us. They may even insult us. We just need to learn to ignore it, Sven, you f***ing moron.

thuja on April 28, 2012 at 3:18 PM</blockquote

As the verb to bully is defined as simply “forcing one’s way aggressively or by intimidation,” the term may generally apply to any life experience where one is motivated primarily by intimidation instead of by more positive goals such as mutually shared interests and benefits. As such, any figure of authority or power which may use intimidation as a primary means of motivating others, such as a neighborhood “protection racket don”, a national dictator, a childhood ring-leader, a terrorist, a terrorist organization, or even a ruthless business CEO, could rightfully be referred to as a bully.

Savage

Sven on April 28, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Trolls are out in force today, aren’t they. What, Little League hasn’t started yet?

AZfederalist on April 28, 2012 at 3:27 PM

^this^

22044 on April 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM

The bigots are scrambling because they know they are fighting a losing war.

inthemiddle on April 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM

I think the Progs know this could be very harmful to the ONE…these are his people.

d1carter on April 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM

This is a free country. Savage can say what he likes…the offended can walk away.

inthemiddle on April 28, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Really. How do those rules apply to, say, Rush Limbaugh talking about Sandra Fluke?

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Here’s the crux of yours and Savage’s argument: why is a position of opposing homosexuality in need of justification?

It isn’t. What is in need of justification is a position which opposes the recognition of same-sex unions by the state, which opposes protections against employment discrimination towards sexual minorities, which opposes the mentioning of homosexuality *in any form* in secondary education, etc. etc. etc. I have no problem if you are an anti-gay bigot in your religious practice and your personal life. I have a problem when that anti-gay bigotry manifests in demands made on the state and which try and mandate how the state relates to other citizens. And I don’t believe I have to explain to a conservative why, in a democracy, those who seek to dictate how the state operates towards a category of citizens have to offer up rationales for those dictates.

Take a look at this report from CBS in the 1960s on homosexuality. Views on homosexuality have been consistently like this over time, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion. None of them have a majority that looks kindly on homosexuality.

Take a look at this gallup trend-line on gay marriage:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

And this one on whether consensual same-sex activity should be a crime:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27694/tolerance-gay-rights-highwater-mark.aspx

So just on the pure fact of the idea that opinions on homosexuality are consistent over time, you’re incorrect. Indeed, the general freak out from social cons on this issue in the last few years is that they realize they have lose the battle. And so thats why you have things like TN “no gay” law, as if not mentioning the existence of homosexuality in public school is going to shield children from learning about it. Its an attempt to slow the inexorable tide toward acceptance. So these temper tantrums about mean ol Dan Savage make themselves feel better, and they are hoping this will cause the nation to “wake up” about gay rights and same-sex marriage, but it won’t.

And before you call me an apologist, anyone here would probably categorize me as “pro-gay”.

And really, is there a more reliable poll group for “pro-gay” than the average HotGas poster?

While I am not advocating their outlook, I am demonstrating to you that your attitude, and to a large extent mine, are abnormal. They are not conclusions that humans naturally arrive at.

No doubt there are many areas of American history where you have expertise, this ain’t one of them. For one thing “homosexuality” only became understood as distinct sexual orientation around the 1910s and 1920s. Sexual categories where significantly more fluid between many Americans in earlier time periods. If you have a weekend I would suggest checking out the book Gay New York by George Chauncey. It is a painstakingly researched analysis of sexual categorization prior to World War II in the U.S. One of his most powerful arguments is that, amongst the white, ethnic and black working class many men engaged in sexual relations with men who cross-dressed or who had feminine traits. Culturally, our sense of “sexuality” and desire weren’t as strictly related to biology for the working class. For the respectable middle class, these things were much more rigid and they understood same-sex desire as a form of gender inversion. Its funny. While conservatives associate the massive beauracritization of American life as “liberal” there was also a massive beauracritization of sexuality and sexual categories that was ushered in by conservatives from the 1930s to the 1950s, which we can call the apex of normativity.

In the meantime, remember that by 1960 most Americans had been consuming a steady stream of anti-homosexual messaging from the government (remember McCarthy and the purges of homosexuals from the federal government as “security risks), a wide spread panic around pedophilia (I suggest you also look a book by David Johnson called “The Lavender Scare” really spectacular analysis of the natonal anti-homosexual freakout the nation went through in the 1940s and 1950s). So all of which is to say that anti-gay sentiments are not “natural” they are, like most cultural anxieties, inculcated by the state in the interests of a political project. Namely, to promote the nuclear family as the ideal model. But its not a “natural” conclusion.

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM

inthemiddle on April 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Losing war, eh? What’s your view on the Second Amendment, and gun rights?

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Wow, there are actually liberals defending this? Unbelievable. Just goes to prove that bullying certain groups of people is acceptable to them. There is no end to the hypocrisy, is there?

JannyMae on April 28, 2012 at 3:32 PM

As usual, the Left is completely hypocritical on the issue. And as usual it’s not hard to illustrate the hypocrisy. If you assembled a group of young people who were gay and the heterosexual speaker addressing them began making obnoxious, anti-gay comments similar to the ones made by Savage about Christians, there would be people getting upset, getting tearful, and walking out. And the media wouldn’t hesitate to go ballistic about it.

The issue of whether or not insults are equivalent to bullying is completely beside the point. Because in our politically correct world they definitely would be treated as such, if the victims were on the privileged list of protected minorities.

The bottom line is that from the perspective of the mainstream media, which is to say the Left, it’s okay to bully young people as long as they are not protected by political correctness. That means heterosexual Christians. That’s why Savage feels completely confident in doing what he did, even though he would be outraged if it were gay kids being needlessly insulted.

cicerone on April 28, 2012 at 3:33 PM

As many as 100 high school students walked out of a national journalism conference after an anti-bullying speaker began cursing, attacked the Bible and reportedly called those who refused to listen to his rant “pansy asses.” …

Good for those students to walk out! The whole point of anti-bullying efforts is tolerance for those who look different, act different or have different views. But that is a two-way street and some homosexual activist does not have the right to bash Christians and those offended do not have to stand for it!

Those students’ action is as anti-bully as you can get. I hope Savage and the White House get raked over the coals for this. Not that it makes much different. We already know Obama is nothing but a bully no better than a street thug.

Happy Nomad on April 28, 2012 at 3:33 PM

The bigots are scrambling because they know they are fighting a losing war.

inthemiddle on April 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM

So let’s put this video of Savage of a campaign ad for Obama if it such a winner.

NotCoach on April 28, 2012 at 3:35 PM

cicerone on April 28, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Well said and 100% correct.

Happy Nomad on April 28, 2012 at 3:35 PM

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2012 at 3:32 PM

I fully support the Second Amendment…and gay marriage. So yes, the bigots are indeed losing the war.

inthemiddle on April 28, 2012 at 3:35 PM

JannyMae and tolerance? That’s rich.

Rusty Allen on April 28, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Wow, there are actually liberals defending this? Unbelievable. Just goes to prove that bullying certain groups of people is acceptable to them. There is no end to the hypocrisy, is there?

JannyMae on April 28, 2012 at 3:32 PM

They are as thick as bricks.

NotCoach on April 28, 2012 at 3:37 PM

We will never stop bullying. The solution to bullying is teaching kid’s hip ow to deal with bullying, when it happens to them. These anti-bullying “crusades” only make bullies more subtle and more discreet in their behavior.

JannyMae on April 28, 2012 at 3:37 PM

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012

Did you post all of that evidence proving the freaking out about the picture of the two men kissing?

No. I didn’t think so.

CW on April 28, 2012 at 3:38 PM

This is a free country. Savage can say what he likes…the offended can walk away.

inthemiddle on April 28, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Really nobody said that he couldn’t . Nice strawman.

CW on April 28, 2012 at 3:39 PM

JannyMae and tolerance? That’s rich.

Rusty Allen on April 28, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Careful, your hard-on for me is showing again. Why don’t you go defend your obtuse, little girlfriend on the Palin thread?

Have a nice day, sweetie!

JannyMae on April 28, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Wow, there are actually liberals defending this? Unbelievable. Just goes to prove that bullying certain groups of people is acceptable to them. There is no end to the hypocrisy, is there?

JannyMae on April 28, 2012 at 3:32 PM

No, there really isn’t. Which is why it’s mildly amusing to see libfreeordie work so hard to justify what Savage did. If the audience was different she might not be so quick to condone it. But in her world there are folks who are fair game and those who aren’t. It’s why Dim-o-crat calls for “civility” are so ridiculous. They couldn’t care less about civility. They just don’t like having to deal with the consequences of their actions and don’t think they should have to. Savage is not a anti-bullying activist. He’s simply a pro-gay activist. He needs to be honest about his intentions. But honesty is such a lonely word on the Left. It’s hardly ever heard.

cicerone on April 28, 2012 at 3:40 PM

@Sven on April 28, 2012 at 3:29 PM

If what Savage said were bullying, than any time the type of Christian who buys into Christianity being anti-gay gets in front of a group of people and tells his anti-gay theories, they are also guilty of bullying. We can only bullying in this insane way if we want to eliminate freedom of speech.

thuja on April 28, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Yesterday on Facebook, I attacked my politically correct friends for arguing that some Nebraska state coach should be fired for arguing the anti-gay side at some political event.
People will sometimes stridently disagree with us. They may even insult us. We just need to learn to ignore it, Sven, you f***ing moron.

thuja on April 28, 2012 at 3:18 PM

I love the language you use. You don’t have a discussion with those holding a certain view. You ATTACK them. And that is what Savage was doing. There wasn’t give-and-take with the opportunity for those with different views to express them. It was strictly a homosexual activist spewing hatred. Nobody should have to stand for that and even people who ATTACK their friends should seek more tolerance and civility. I really can’t believe you are defending the gay bully!

Happy Nomad on April 28, 2012 at 3:41 PM

inthemiddle, I think there are a lot of similarities when it comes to the fear campaigns created by the anti-gay and anti-gun groups. It is a good sign that Americans are heading in the right direction on these matters.

libfreeordie, forgive me if I have asked this before, but are you family or are you a supporter? Just curious.

McDuck on April 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Uhhh…nobody here cares. You try to defend Savage’s behavior by needlessly deflecting. We’re not biting.

22044 on April 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM

JannyMae on April 28, 2012 at 3:39 PM
My point is that you’re a walking hypocrisy. You openly redicule Joseph Smith and the book of Mormon, then are insulted when someone attacks bible believers. You are the person that you claim the liberals to be. The untimate contradiction. “all views are acceptable unless they contradict my own”.

Rusty Allen on April 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Wow, historical revisionism at its finest.

For one thing “homosexuality” only became understood as distinct sexual orientation around the 1910s and 1920s.

Yeah, that’s why it is spoken of in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, and the Koran. Why, it was virtually unheard of in Roman and Greek times.

… and yes, in those ancient times it was recognized as an “orientation” as if that gives it some credibility.

AZfederalist on April 28, 2012 at 3:44 PM

I fully support the Second Amendment…and gay marriage. So yes, the bigots are indeed losing the war.

inthemiddle on April 28, 2012 at 3:35 PM

I support all of the Constitution and I really don’t understand how gun rights has anything to do with sodomy.

Happy Nomad on April 28, 2012 at 3:45 PM

But its not a “natural” conclusion.

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Your arguement smells like prison sex…

Seven Percent Solution on April 28, 2012 at 3:45 PM

libfreeordie, forgive me if I have asked this before, but are you family or are you a supporter? Just curious.

McDuck on April 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM

That sounds like you’re two seconds from asking for my facebook page and a first date :)

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 3:45 PM

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Communists embraced homosexuality as a tool to undermine the American government. The Soviet Union is a perfect example of this. First they were all for it (before they deposed the Czar). Then they criminalized it once they were in power. Communists will embrace anything they think might undermine traditional values because undermining the traditional values of a nation undermines the nation itself. Once again you fail to appreciate the totality of a circumstance.

NotCoach on April 28, 2012 at 3:45 PM

thuja on April 28, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Strawman alert

22044 on April 28, 2012 at 3:46 PM

For one thing “homosexuality” only became understood as distinct sexual orientation around the 1910s and 1920s.

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Okay, so I’m guessing that you’ve never heard of the Sacred Army of Thebes.

That’s just a wild stab on my part.

jaydee_007 on April 28, 2012 at 3:47 PM

I really hope the video goes viral.

This whole charade wasn’t about bullying, this was about an indoctrination agenda coming straight from the White House. Bash Christians and bash the evil GOP.
Wake up America. We are under siege!

redridinghood on April 28, 2012 at 3:48 PM

That sounds like you’re two seconds from asking for my facebook page and a first date :)

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Sounds like you are hitting on a commenter?

upinak on April 28, 2012 at 3:49 PM

If what Savage said were bullying, than any time the type of Christian who buys into Christianity being anti-gay gets in front of a group of people and tells his anti-gay theories, they are also guilty of bullying. We can only bullying in this insane way if we want to eliminate freedom of speech.

thuja on April 28, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Naturally you’re attempting to distort the issue. The whole point of opposing “bullying” is because “bullying” is harmful to the sense of well-being of the victims of the “bullying.” So a big part of “bullying” is to make statements that are insensitive, hurtful and designed to make the victim feel bad about his or herself. That’s exactly what Savage did here. Does he have a Constitutional right to make these insults? Yes. Nobody is arguing that he doesn’t it. But the hypocrisy of someone claiming to be against bullying young people but who deliberately insults a significant segment of his audience is troubling, to say the least.

So the question is this: Is it okay to be as belligerant as possibe? Or do we want more sensitivity? But it can’t be a double standard, which is what Savage and his defenders are promoting.

cicerone on April 28, 2012 at 3:49 PM

If what Savage said were bullying, than any time the type of Christian who buys into Christianity being anti-gay gets in front of a group of people and tells his anti-gay theories, they are also guilty of bullying. We can only bullying in this insane way if we want to eliminate freedom of speech.

thuja on April 28, 2012 at 3:40 PM

If a Christian had stood up in front of a school assembly and done what you just described, you can bet your life that the left would have been up in arms about this being bullying behavior. Said lefites would not only have demanded that person be fired from whatever position the person giving the speech held, the school, the school board, and anybody else they could think of would be sued and demands for recall and firing would be issued and most likely heeded.

AZfederalist on April 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM

That’s why Savage feels completely confident in doing what he did, even though he would be outraged if it were gay kids being needlessly insulted.

cicerone on April 28, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Wrap it up boys and girls…

… cicerone just nailed it!

Seven Percent Solution on April 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM

It isn’t. What is in need of justification is a position which opposes the recognition of same-sex unions by the state, which opposes protections against employment discrimination towards sexual minorities…

And for how many years have other countries’ governments recognized same-sex unions as a right, and as a category that can experience discrimination? You’re talking as if this concept is well-established in modern civilization. It isn’t. The onus is on those who propose it be accepted…which would be you and I. I don’t know about you, but I’ve argued my position many, many, MANY times without attacking Christianity.

Take a look at this gallup trend-line on gay marriage:

Seen it. If it’s true, hold referendums, because they’ll be passed. If it’s not true, they won’t. When you cite a poll, you put your money where your mouth is.

So just on the pure fact of the idea that opinions on homosexuality are consistent over time, you’re incorrect.

That’s called card-stacking. Human civilization is thousands of years old. Your sample starts after DADT was passed. If you’re going to analyze a graph, go back more than 15 years, or you don’t seem to take sociology or anthropology even remotely seriously.

And really, is there a more reliable poll group for “pro-gay” than the average HotGas poster?

Once again, I’m being civil, and you’re attacking a community. Where is your tolerance? I am pro-gay. I don’t see a problem with it at all, even though, unlike some people, I recognize that it is not “normal”. I’m in favor of same-sex civil unions. Anti-gay rhetoric based on religious views are repellant to me, but again…I recognize that I’m abnormal that way…and I’m comfortable with it. You seem to demand that everyone believe exactly the way you do, given that you’re ready to smear entire communities for daring to disagree with you, despite your admission that the entire community does not hold the views with which you take umbrage. I’m glad I don’t have that compulsion.

So all of which is to say that anti-gay sentiments are not “natural” they are, like most cultural anxieties, inculcated by the state in the interests of a political project.

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Congratulations. Once again, you just excerpted a specific data set that supports your hypothesis, and dismissed analysis of anything beyond its borders. Why did you not address attitudes in American towards homosexual activity before 1910? Why do you not address attitudes in the rest of the world at any time period? My comment about anti-gay sentiments being natural are as a result of looking at the attitudes of societies and cultures throughout the rest of the world, and for the last few thousand years. You find the vast majority of religions, overall, decrying homosexuality in all but rare exceptions. You find numerous societies, ruled by religious beliefs of all shades, that consistently treat homosexuality either as a crime, or as an activity restricted solely to higher classes. Hence, I reiterate my argument that pro-homosexuality beliefs, as with so many other beliefs in both the United States and the Western World as a whole, as being “abnormal”. We’re reaching new levels of civilization that either haven’t been visited in human history, or else nearly all records of those cultures have been lost. If you’re going to be a pioneer, recognize it.

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2012 at 3:52 PM

We can only bullying in this insane way if we want to eliminate freedom of speech.

thuja on April 28, 2012 at 3:40 PM

WHAT free speech? I can’t even say CRAP without people glaring at me!

We have let the country go to hell because of PC, PC Bullies who think they KNOW it all and the dumba$$es we elected who have their OWN agenda’s rather than what the people who elected them.

In my most un-PC way… Get a flipping clue and STFU.

upinak on April 28, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Yeah, that’s why it is spoken of in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, and the Koran. Why, it was virtually unheard of in Roman and Greek times.

… and yes, in those ancient times it was recognized as an “orientation” as if that gives it some credibility.

AZfederalist on April 28, 2012 at 3:44 PM

It almost sounds as if you’re saying that same-sex desire has manifested in every human society across the globe, regardless of time period. One might conclude that it is a natural component of human biology.

But I digress. I’ll chalk up your flawed argument to a lack of vocabulary rather than willful ignorance. The Bible and Koran criticize particular sex acts, namely the act of men lying with men. Tellingly neither book has much to say about lesbianism. And yes, you are also correct that same-sex desire and activities existed within various Ancient societies (in African and indigenous societies they were often referred to as “twin” or “dual” spirited people since they contained both male and female spirits within them, pretty cool huh?). But it wasn’t understood as an “orientation” because that’s a term with a specific, modern origin. Most homosexuals, except for the rarest cases, were still forced to marry, reproduce when they reached “adulthood.” In most societies same-sex desire was understood as a childhood or adolescent daliance, or was acceptable for men as a means of blowing off sexual steam before women were made available. There are endless permutations and cultural traditions from dozens and dozens of societies. But the idea of a “gay” or “lesbian” person, as a discrete and impenetrable subjectivity, identity and community is brand spanking new. And so is the hand wringing over “homosexuality” if we are thinking in the long historical way.

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 3:53 PM

I fully support the Second Amendment…

inthemiddle on April 28, 2012 at 3:35 PM

So you’ve got no problem with my having two loaded, safety-off handguns on my person when I go out, as well as a shotgun and semi-automatic rifle in my trunk, and fully automatic weapons in my home?

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2012 at 3:54 PM

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Yet you seem to find it just fine that socialism was used to “justify” the killing of over 100million people during Mao’s ‘Cultural Rev(0)lution’ and ‘Great Leap Forward’.

You are, indeed, a hypocrite and a liar. But then, you’re a leftist. It’s genetic with you people.

Solaratov on April 28, 2012 at 3:56 PM

In my opinion, the people who are disagreeing with me here just want to get claim the mantle of the victim. Ok, you all are such victims. Someone said something that belittled one of your beliefs. I feel your pain or whatever(*), but you (and the children Savage addressed) aren’t a victim of bullying. A child who is bullied is being subject to chronic physical or social threats.

(*)Best thing Bob Dole said in 1996.

thuja on April 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Savage is trying to defend himself on Twitter. Fail.

Blue Collar Todd on April 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM

So you’ve got no problem with my having two loaded, safety-off handguns on my person when I go out, as well as a shotgun and semi-automatic rifle in my trunk, and fully automatic weapons in my home?

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2012 at 3:54 PM

I have a problem with that.

Either use a Revolver with the hammer on an empty cylinder, or decock your automatic if you are going to have the safety off. (or one of those leather straps across the hammer firing pin gap in your holster.)

As for the fully automatic weapons in your home.

Class III License?

jaydee_007 on April 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM

It almost sounds as if you’re saying that same-sex desire has manifested in every human society across the globe, regardless of time period. One might conclude that it is a natural component of human biology.

… additional historical revisionism clipped …

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Actually even your first paragraph is revisionism as well. Has that desire manifested itself? Yes Was it embraced by those societies in which it was manifested? Not in those societies that endured.

AZfederalist on April 28, 2012 at 3:59 PM

The Bible and Koran criticize particular sex acts, namely the act of men lying with men. Tellingly neither book has much to say about lesbianism.
libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 3:53 P

Throughout history “man” and “men” have been used to discuss woMEN and men. You’re just silly.

CW on April 28, 2012 at 4:00 PM

If what Savage said were bullying, than any time the type of Christian who buys into Christianity being anti-gay gets in front of a group of people and tells his anti-gay theories, they are also guilty of bullying. We can only bullying in this insane way if we want to eliminate freedom of speech.

thuja

Depends on what is said. If a christian says being gay is immoral. Thats no more bullying than someone who is gay saying the first person’s beliefs are immoral. If however someone said Dan Savages views were “bulls**t” or called him a pansy ass. You’d better belief Savage would be calling that person a bully. Fact of the matter is is that Savage is a bigot. Pure and simple.

Zaggs on April 28, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Either use a Revolver with the hammer on an empty cylinder, or decock your automatic if you are going to have the safety off. (or one of those leather straps across the hammer firing pin gap in your holster.)

I like to have at least 13 rounds. You never know how many attackers you’re going to face. And my Bersa has a decocker that I always use, although my preferred holster actually prevents the hammer from either moving back or slamming forward.

As for the fully automatic weapons in your home.

Class III License?

jaydee_007 on April 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Why should that be required? Why should a $200 stamp be required? Why should the ATF get to register me for that weapon, when national gun registries are illegal? Why should I have to pay five figures for a weapon that would cost little more than four figures if it were semi-automatic?

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2012 at 4:02 PM

You’d better belief Savage would be calling that person a bully. Fact of the matter is is that Savage is a bigot. Pure and simple.

Zaggs on April 28, 2012 at 4:02 PM

You’re right and Thuja and its ilk will never admit it.

CW on April 28, 2012 at 4:03 PM

In my opinion, the people who are disagreeing with me here just want to get claim the mantle of the victim. Ok, you all are such victims. Someone said something that belittled one of your beliefs. I feel your pain or whatever(*), but you (and the children Savage addressed) aren’t a victim of bullying. A child who is bullied is being subject to chronic physical or social threats.

(*)Best thing Bob Dole said in 1996.

thuja on April 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM

LMAO! Seriously? You’re now complaining about some group claiming victimhood? But you’re not a hypocrite, right? Do you have any intellectual honesty at all? Are you in the habit of defending hate speech?

“It’s not bullying! It’s not bullying!” #clueless

cicerone on April 28, 2012 at 4:03 PM

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Actually, I was trying to be tongue in cheek, but without tonal inflections I’m guessing that didn’t get through in the printed text.

jaydee_007 on April 28, 2012 at 4:04 PM

It almost sounds as if you’re saying that same-sex desire has manifested in every human society across the globe, regardless of time period. One might conclude that it is a natural component of human biology.

libfreeordie on April 28, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Mutations are natural. I know, you probably just bristled at the use of the word “mutation”, but if it is genetic, it is a mutation. A disinclination to reproduce, for a living organism, is a mutation.

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7