An open letter to Judy Paris, sharp-minded antihomo

Judy, thank you for gracing the the Concord Monitor’s opinion page with your letter about the ills of gay civil unions and homosexing in general. Your stylish lack of enlightenment is just the sort of thing that makes me want to do a mad cannonball into a vat of nitric acid.


I’d like to point something out, though. When you note that “[m]ost scientists agree that it is unlikely that there is a single ‘gay gene’,” you equate this observation with an absence of a genetic contribution to homosexuality. I invite you to yank your head out of your ass. A trait as complex as sexual preference involves a varied blend of biological and psychosocial factors, and would not be expected to be controlled by the presence or absence of a single protein product. If you’re going to remark about a “scientific consensus,” I suggest you apprise yourself of exactly what that consensus is with regard to homosexuality.
Forgive me for observing that anyone who would adopt such a simple-minded view of sexual preference is just the sort of half-witted bumpkinoid who would turn around and invoke God and “sin” as a means of decrying homosexing. I am therefore not at all surprised that you hastened to invoke an aether-fairy as a means of justifying your overarching bigotry. The fact that you believe that an invisible, eternally silent presence stands in judgment of what people do with their peckers and such does not make you any less ignorant, and the fact that others’ behavior in this area does not affect you personally implies that your motivations are both irrelevant and malignant. It is also not a stretch to label your shielding yourself with a “holy” book an act of grand cowardice.
I must say, however, that your comparison of gays to disabled people renders you a genuine visionary. Your claim that “If two disabled, unrelated same-sex people living together want equal rights, they have to become a homosexual to get them” is, I admit, an angle I had never considered.
I need not deal with your whimsical treatment of statistics and the underlying reasons for the increase in out-of-state civil unions conducted in Vermont inrecent years. Suffice it to say that you are as lost at sea here as you are in the rest of your ham-handed salvo.
God bless you, and may you one day enjoy the pleasures of tending to the carnal needs of womanly loins. I assure you that such pleasures are worth the trouble and the stigma.
Sincerely,
Kevin M. Beck

Advertisements
  1. #1 by Bill from Dover on June 30, 2007 - 4:33 pm

    Now I know why there were attendants in the exact change only lanes in New Hampshire toll booths.

  2. #2 by Jeb, FCD on June 30, 2007 - 4:54 pm

    God bless you, and may you one day enjoy the pleasures of tending to the carnal needs of womanly loins. I assure you that such pleasures are worth the trouble and the stigma.
    Beautiful!

  3. #3 by kemibe's mom on June 30, 2007 - 5:09 pm

    I wish you WOULD write a letter to the newspaper refuting her claims. I have battled with her before (her stance on the Iraq war). I should know better than to even read her letters since they make my blood pressure increase. As you point out, she makes statements as fact without any proof. Civil Unions will ruin marriage as we know it, yadda yadda…….

  4. #4 by kemibe's mom on June 30, 2007 - 5:09 pm

    I wish you WOULD write a letter to the newspaper refuting her claims. I have battled with her before (her stance on the Iraq war). I should know better than to even read her letters since they make my blood pressure increase. As you point out, she makes statements as fact without any proof. Civil Unions will ruin marriage as we know it, yadda yadda…….

  5. #5 by kemibe's mom on June 30, 2007 - 5:09 pm

    I wish you WOULD write a letter to the newspaper refuting her claims. I have battled with her before (her stance on the Iraq war). I should know better than to even read her letters since they make my blood pressure increase. As you point out, she makes statements as fact without any proof. Civil Unions will ruin marriage as we know it, yadda yadda…….

  6. #6 by Kevin Beck on June 30, 2007 - 5:18 pm

    Godfriggit, I knew I’d seen that name before.
    Maybe I’ll send the Monitor something resembling the above, although issuing the post as a letter in its native form would not help its chances of being published.

  7. #7 by sailor on June 30, 2007 - 7:13 pm

    When Vermont brought in civil unions at the behest of their supreme court it was extremely divisive. But they passed. The interesting thing is a few years later they were not an issue at all; people had got used to them, the sky did not fall in, life went on – they destroyed and damaged exactly nothing, and gave some a lot of pleasure, not to mention their civil rights.

  8. #8 by Kevin Beck on June 30, 2007 - 9:45 pm

    “…people had got used to them, the sky did not fall in, life went on – they destroyed and damaged exactly nothing…”
    This is true of every place gay civil unions or marriages are legal. Yet the Judy Parises of the world aren’t interested in empirical data. To them, “it’s bad” is sufficient, and to hell with reality.
    I have to wonder what it is that drives some people to be exquisitely fixated on the personal doings of others when the impact of of said doings on the meddlers’ lives is nonexistent. For all of my frigged-up foibles, I’m glad I was never afflicted with whatever mental deficiency plagues these twatfaced busybodies.

  9. #9 by mollishka on June 30, 2007 - 10:53 pm

    Haha, you’re funny.
    Cannonball!

  10. #10 by JuliaL on July 1, 2007 - 2:12 am

    Your claim that “If two disabled, unrelated same-sex people living together want equal rights, they have to become a homosexual to get them” is, I admit, an angle I had never considered.

    Then I hope you will consider it. It’s very important. Of course, Paris is wrongly conflating “imply a willingness to have sex or to be thought to want to have sex” with “become a homosexual,” but there is a kernel of truth buried in her confused statement.
    I haven’t been able to get to the letter you link, but I expect that the quote above isn’t so much comparing homosexual people with disabled people, as it is repeating an argument she’s made before,

    Civil Unions gives preferential treatment to approx. 4% of NH’s population therefore discriminating against a much larger two-people living together, other than married couples, population.

    While Paris uses this comment to argue that the 4% (I have no idea whether the percentage is correct – I would have thought it would be higher) should also be deprived of the social, emotional, and financial stability provided by the benefits of marriage and civil unions, it’s more logical to argue that no one should be so deprived.
    In short, the big problem with traditional marriage plus gay marriage (or civil unions) is that they unfairly leave out a substantial portion of the population that could benefit from the much needed domestic stability provided by such legal arrangements.
    Regardless of whether the government (state or federal) continues to give special recognition to romantic relationships whose partners are thus recognized as having a legal right to sexual relations, I’d like to see the introduction of Federal Mutual Responsibility Contracts providing all the recognitions and benefits of marriage, except for the implied licensing of sexual relations. These contracts should be made available to any two competent adults who think that such a contract would enable them to join together to create a healthy, protective, supportive household.
    Such contracts could improve quality of life and reduce dependence on public welfare for, for example, an elderly and unmarried brother and sister, a pair of first cousins each divorced and each with one or more children to raise, two people who have become friends because they each lost a spouse in Iraq, a hetereosexual man who is willing to take on the care of a gay friend with AIDS and the friend’s young child, a heterosexual couple in love who want the legal protections but dislike the idea that it’s any business of the government that they have sex. And so on.
    While Judy Paris is absolutely wrong in wanting to deprive gay/lesbian people of the same legal protections that hetereosexual couples have, she is absolutely right in pointing out that there are also many, many non-romantically-connected couples who are also being deprived of those protections.

  11. #11 by judy paris on July 1, 2007 - 9:08 am

    Thank you for your letter and comments.
    Unfortunately, what the Concord Monitor left out was the following that no one has seen fit to answer as of yet, but I’ve asked it many times: Explain how two men (or woman for that matter) are sexually complimentary? A woman and a man are obviously sexually complimentary by design. Can two men naturally procreate? Can two women naturally procreate? No, only a man and a woman naturally can procreate.
    Also, obviously civil unions have had little impact on Vermont, the vast majority are out-of-staters who move back home after getting their civil union in Vermont. Plus, don’t assume just because it isn’t published that civil unions don’t have negative effects on families or anything else, it’s a true statement. Since cu’s haven’t been around that long, wait 20 years and then let’s see what perhaps some of the effects might be.
    Since homosexuals have a higher rate of depression, drug use, suicide and the homosexual population while small, has a higher percentage of abuses against children, of course, this affects everybody for many reasons just like when a hetero abuses a child.
    Also, I have done alot of research on the issue; biology, psychology, genetic, public opinion, etc., etc. Any of you can go on the internet (read books, etc.) and check out Simon Levay’s studies, and anyone elses and check out anything you’d like. But, you have to keep an open mind and not just “accept” whatever supports the gay agenda or published by someone gay who will obviously be biased. It’s important to know what people’s motives are…even a “half-witted bumpkinoid” person like me knows that, ha!
    Obviously, it benefits gays to “make” this a civil rights issue, to call people bigots and homophobes, to spout that there have been no detrimental effects since cu’s became law….but where’s your proof that there’s been no ill effects? Just bc things are not widely publicized, or the main stream media is mostly left wing, doesn’t mean a thing since both sides of issues are generally not reported. That’s why I blog, etc.
    I have freedom of my religious beliefs just like any of you. If you don’t like mine, I could care less. I made the God/sin comment because there’s so much published by gay activists that keep stating “God hates gays” which is why I included the comment to attempt to clear up the matter…apparently to no avail.
    And yes, if gays were so darn concerned with equality they would support it for everyone (like the disabled) and that’s why it is preferrential treatment of gays and does leave out a huge population.
    Ya’ll have a great day.
    Regards,
    Judy

  12. #12 by JimFiore on July 1, 2007 - 10:41 am

    Ouch, ouch, OUCH!! It hurts just to read that crap.
    For starters Judy, who CARES if people can procreate? That is not a requirement for marriage. But please, by all means, continue your journey down that little path of insanity and see where it leads.
    Now this jewel: “the homosexual population while small, has a higher percentage of abuses against children” Really? Would you like to give a cite on this factoid or is it just sufficiently “truthy” to you?
    And this: “And yes, if gays were so darn concerned with equality they would support it for everyone (like the disabled) and that’s why it is preferrential treatment of gays and does leave out a huge population.”
    Funny, but I don’t hear gay folks saying that other groups SHOULDN’T be treated with equality. The only person I hear saying that is YOU, with regard to homosexuals.

  13. #13 by JimFiore on July 1, 2007 - 10:41 am

    Ouch, ouch, OUCH!! It hurts just to read that crap.
    For starters Judy, who CARES if people can procreate? That is not a requirement for marriage. But please, by all means, continue your journey down that little path of insanity and see where it leads.
    Now this jewel: “the homosexual population while small, has a higher percentage of abuses against children” Really? Would you like to give a cite on this factoid or is it just sufficiently “truthy” to you?
    And this: “And yes, if gays were so darn concerned with equality they would support it for everyone (like the disabled) and that’s why it is preferrential treatment of gays and does leave out a huge population.”
    Funny, but I don’t hear gay folks saying that other groups SHOULDN’T be treated with equality. The only person I hear saying that is YOU, with regard to homosexuals.

  14. #14 by Susan Peterson on July 1, 2007 - 11:55 am

    There is right and wrong – truth and falsehood – Marriage, as defined for more years than any of us have been around (since the beginning of time), is between one man and one woman. As it is true, not all marriages have children; some cannot conceive or they choose not to have children. You can all argue back and forth forever, but the bottom line is – IF homosexuality was so normal – WHY do you have to spend so much time defending it? As a heterosexual, I do not have to defend that “life style”.
    So…go ahead, defend on….there IS ABSOLUTE TRUTH…whether you like it or not – and we will all face that truth at the end of our lives.

  15. #15 by Kevin Beck on July 1, 2007 - 12:30 pm

    Judy, there’s so much ignorance in your comment it’s hard to figure out where to start the fisking process.
    “Explain how two men (or woman for that matter) are sexually complimentary?”
    They have orgasms, don’t they? Ever heard of blowjobs or hand-jobs or carpet-munching? I doubt it.
    But this is a red herring. Who the hell are you to decide whether two other people cannot engage in a loving, monogamous relationship regradless of what equipment they have? Why is it your business?
    “Plus, don’t assume just because it isn’t published that civil unions don’t have negative effects on families or anything else.”
    Ah, there we go! Nothing bad has happened to the rest of us yet, but this is plainly a matter of not waiting long enough combined with a media cover-up! The classic conspiracy theorist’s “explanation.” By the way, I’m sure Jesus H. Christ will return any day now and sweep his followers up to Heaven while God gets medieval on everyone else. It was s’posed to happen 70 generations ago, but just…you…wait…
    “Also, I have done alot of research on the issue…”
    Like any proper bigot, you’ve sought out sources that support your preconceived notions. Your letter makes it clear you have no concept of what genetics entails, positing as you do that the apparent lack of a single gene or factor implies the lack of a biological basis for homosexuality. Read what the American Psychological Association has to say. Read the DSM-V. Look to nature and observe homosexuality in other species. Biologists have even proposed reasons for why a certain fraction of non-procreating members might actually benefit communities as a whole. Of course, if you’re just going to discount all of the research you don’t like because you think they’re all tools of the evil left, I can’t help you.
    “where’s your proof that there’s been no ill effects?”
    It’s not up to supporters of gay civil unions to show a lack of ill effects, genius, it’s up to others to show evidence of ill effects. My “proof” is the lack of noise made by heteros who would surely have something to say had they been given good reason. Absence of evidence and evidence of absence become interchangeable in matters like this after enough time and cases accumulate.
    “I made the God/sin comment because there’s so much published by gay activists that keep stating ‘God hates gays'”
    Really? Where? You claim to be keen on research and proof. The only people I’ve heard making the claim that God hates fags is are the Westboro Baptist/Fred Phelps family freaks. Besides, your comment was weak anyway because there’s no such thing as “sin” as pertains to divine judgment except in the minds of people who buy into that idiocy in the first place.
    “And yes, if gays were so darn concerned with equality they would support it for everyone (like the disabled) and that’s why it is preferrential treatment of gays and does leave out a huge population.”
    All disabled people deserve access to health services, to be sure. But if you’re saying that two non-romantically involved disabled people who happen to live together should be able to receive “partner”-oriented benefits, then you’re taking the couples concept to absurd extremes. Should anyone with a roommate be entitled to health benefits on that basis alone? We’re all “disabled” from time to time.
    Susan Peterson,
    It surely sucks to be you. Get it through your head that New Hampshire has approved same-sex civil unions, not gay marriages, not that it really matters.
    As for why gays and their allies are on the defensive — ever give thought to the fact that if it weren’t for people like you, they wouldn’t have to defend themselves? What do you expect people to do when they’re beset by noisy hilljacks whose only justification for denying them rights is a book of ancient religious fables and shimmering stupidity? Sit back and take it?
    You worry all you want about going to Hell. What a load of buuuuuuunk! Once again, it’s clear that religion effectively turns a good many people into shambling mongoloids, and I commend you for serving as Exhibit A.
    This whole discussion misses the point, though. Even if it could be shown there were no biological roots to queerdom, so what? Those who think that it is only wrong to discriminate if we are all created precisely equal need to learn to keep their ethics and their biology separate.

  16. #16 by Lint on July 1, 2007 - 1:44 pm

    Yeah, this sounds like a voice of reason, someone well worth listening to.
    “You naive and apathetic citizens of our state should be outraged that you’re continually lied to and mislead by half truths so our democrats can run amuke unabatted and unchallenged.”

  17. #17 by JimFiore on July 1, 2007 - 2:45 pm

    So…go ahead, defend on….there IS ABSOLUTE TRUTH…whether you like it or not – and we will all face that truth at the end of our lives.

    Some examples of ABSOLUTE TRUTH:
    1. Anything multiplied by one is itself.
    2. The range of cosine never exceeds unity.
    3. Humans share at least 95% of their DNA with chimps.
    4. Some people are bigots and will rely on bizarre and ancient fables for support of their behavior.
    I don’t have to wait until the end of my life to face these truths, I use some of them almost every day, and I like it A LOT.

  18. #18 by Kevin Beck on July 1, 2007 - 2:56 pm

    “there IS ABSOLUTE TRUTH…whether you like it or not – and we will all face that truth at the end of our lives.”
    It cracks me up that people regard the Bible as “absolute” anything. There are countless religious texts out there, each staking a claim to be the way it really is, no, seriously, we ain’t kidding, ignore us at your peril, blah blah blah. The Bible is as arbitrary as any other book; I could make the same case for the August 1975 issue of Playboy or a Kinky Friedman novel, except that the Bible is far more rife with immoral acts (which it glorifies) than those works.
    Keep dreaming, Susan. It’s easy to use the “just you waity, you’ll be sorry” argument when your evidence is conveniently placed beyond the realm of scrutiny. So go on hating homos for reasons you can’t even describe and being a blank-minded troglodyte suckin’ your thumb in the general direction of the LORD.
    Brainwashing is not nice.

  19. #19 by Kevin Beck on July 1, 2007 - 2:56 pm

    “there IS ABSOLUTE TRUTH…whether you like it or not – and we will all face that truth at the end of our lives.”
    It cracks me up that people regard the Bible as “absolute” anything. There are countless religious texts out there, each staking a claim to be the way it really is, no, seriously, we ain’t kidding, ignore us at your peril, blah blah blah. The Bible is as arbitrary as any other book; I could make the same case for the August 1975 issue of Playboy or a Kinky Friedman novel, except that the Bible is far more rife with immoral acts (which it glorifies) than those works.
    Keep dreaming, Susan. It’s easy to use the “just you waity, you’ll be sorry” argument when your evidence is conveniently placed beyond the realm of scrutiny. So go on hating homos for reasons you can’t even describe and being a blank-minded troglodyte suckin’ your thumb in the general direction of the LORD.
    Brainwashing is not nice.

  20. #20 by JuliaL on July 1, 2007 - 5:01 pm

    Kevin,

    All disabled people deserve access to health services, to be sure. But if you’re saying that two non-romantically involved disabled people who happen to live together should be able to receive “partner”-oriented benefits, then you’re taking the couples concept to absurd extremes. Should anyone with a roommate be entitled to health benefits on that basis alone?

    You’re missing the point, I hope. That is, I hope you haven’t come to a considered decision that only couples romantically involved deserve to be able to join forces legally to increase the stability of their domestic lives and reduce the risk of needing the rest of us to support them with welfare taxes.
    No one is saying that merely living in the same house should qualify two people for partner-oriented benefits, any more than a man and a woman simply sharing a house means the government should pronounce them married. And why the scare quotes around partner? There are many kinds of business relationships in which people are partners, and receive the benefits appropriate to that relationship, without their being romantically inclined. A romantic attachment and/or desire to have sex with each other simply isn’t the only basis for recognizing two people as partners.
    JimFiore,

    Funny, but I don’t hear gay folks saying that other groups SHOULDN’T be treated with equality. The only person I hear saying that is YOU, with regard to homosexuals.

    I’m very glad that you apparently don’t say that. However, sadly, I have had a few gay people say that to me. In each case, it was someone who had so far apparently bought into the notion that a basic and necessary element of government-recognized domestic unions must be a public stamp of approval for the romantic/sexual element involved (the “warm fuzzies” aspect, as one such person put it).
    I understand that those who are fighting hard for both the recognition and legal benefits of gay marriage and/or civil unions may have little time or energy left to notice the needs of those who are not romantically involved with anyone but who need the same long-term legal, financial, and practical support provided by contracting for the sharing of those responsibilities and by the public recognition and benefits (shared insurance, right to make decisions for each other’s children, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, etc.) that come with it.
    Fortunately, it doesn’t take much time or energy to say something like, “Oh yeah, and non-romantically involved people willing to undertake the serious committment required deserve to have available a nationally recognized Mutual Responsibility contract that comes with the obligations and benefits necessary for domestic stability for themselves and their children.” My hope is that I’ll begin to see a lot of that little tag-on sentence, or something very like it.

  21. #21 by solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short on July 1, 2007 - 6:50 pm

    JuliaL, not only would that not take much time & energy, but it’s catchy to boot!
    I’ll bet you’re in the pocket of the banner-making materials lobby. Or maybe Big Sharpie.

  22. #22 by Lint on July 2, 2007 - 12:21 am

    “non-romantically-connected couples”
    Someone needs to clarify what this means. Will and Grace? Chandler and Joey? Turner & Hooch?

  23. #23 by JuliaL on July 2, 2007 - 2:22 pm

    Lint,
    Presumably,
    you and your mother,
    you and any of your first cousins,
    you and any one of your friends with whom you don’t have sex and don’t want to have sex,
    you (if you were, say, not married or involved in a romantic relationship and not intending to be for the forseeable future but have two children and need financial and other practical help to provide them with a secure home) and any other trustworthy, hard-working, likeable person you happened to meet (who isn’t married or involved in a romantic relationship and not intending to be for the forseeable future and who has a child and needs financial and other practical help to provide that child with a secure home)
    and many, many, many other possibilities.
    In short, any two competent adults, not already in a marriage or civil union, who believe it would be to their emotional, physical, financial, etc. advantage to set up a home together. At the moment, even in areas with gay marriage or civil unions, we limit the protections of domestic partnerships to those who have romantic/sexual feelings for each other, or who are willing to pretend to those feelings. We also limit, by law, those who are entitled to legal recognition of those feelings.
    It should come as no surprise to anyone that a person who doesn’t happen to have such feelings at the moment may still need insurance, a household partner to help with raising children, a second person to contribute income, etc, etc. It’s not to the advantage of the government or any person to limit the protection of a secure domestic arrangement to those who are willing to be publicly labelled as having a certain feeling. I think that it simply is no business of the government which two competent adults are having sex or want to have sex. The government should not be using that behavior/desire/feeling as a test to decide which two adults are entitled to set up a safe, two-party domestic arrangment.

  24. #24 by Rev. BigDumbChimp on July 2, 2007 - 2:28 pm

    Since homosexuals have a higher rate of depression, drug use, suicide and the homosexual population while small, has a higher percentage of abuses against children, of course, this affects everybody for many reasons just like when a hetero abuses a child.

    Sources please.

  25. #25 by Rev. BigDumbChimp on July 2, 2007 - 2:28 pm

    Since homosexuals have a higher rate of depression, drug use, suicide and the homosexual population while small, has a higher percentage of abuses against children, of course, this affects everybody for many reasons just like when a hetero abuses a child.

    Sources please.

  26. #26 by Susan Peterson on July 3, 2007 - 5:31 am

    Well – Kevin – First of all – I have a nephew that is a homosexual..so do I hate them….NO….that is your assumption. So….here is to you and all the others that cannot have a discussion, either without hatred or foul language….see, you and the others that have used these tools for your position are idiots as described below.
    “Never argue with an idiot; they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ~ anonymous
    Have a nice life….

  27. #27 by Kevin Beck on July 3, 2007 - 10:21 am

    Susan wrote:
    “Well – Kevin – First of all – I have a nephew that is a homosexual..so do I hate them….NO”
    But you think the “absolute truth” of the matter is that he’s going to hell.
    The fact that you actually have someone close to you who is gay, yet continue to retain the ideas you do, only underscores both your own practiced short-sightedness and the extreme unwillingness the religiously programmed have to challenge their own bad ideas. You’d have little or no conflict about your nephew if it weren’t fot the ideas fomented about homosexing in the Bible, but thanks to that screwball belief system you cannot abandon, you’ll always think he’s condemned to eternal suffering. My sympathies go out to both of you.

  28. #28 by David on July 13, 2007 - 12:57 pm

    Judy uses Simon Levay’s studies as her “proof” that homosexuality is not a choice (implying only those born into a group are entitled to civil rights) – specifically noting his research on genes. As is the case with most bigots she engages in half truths and lies (pretty Christian thing to do, huh). You can find Simon Levay’s overviews here: http://members.aol.com/slevay/page22.html, Judy fails to include the general overall notes from Simon Levay “Although quite a few of the findings reported here are inconsistent between studies or await independent replication, my general conclusion is that biological processes, especially the prenatal, hormonally-controlled sexual differentiation of the brain, are likely to influence a person�s ultimate sexual orientation.” It’s amazing that someone can think that prenatal biological processes are a choice, but clearly the facts will be twisted and outright lied about to support Judy’s agenda. From someone who was born and raised in New Hampshire I’d say that we have a pretty diversified population and most of us aren’t willing to deny others the same rights we enjoy simply because they may be different from us. I hope the world doesn’t judge us by the bible thumpers who move into our State and spread their perverted religious views like Judy Paris.

  29. #29 by David on July 13, 2007 - 1:05 pm

    Correction to previous post meant to type “Judy uses Simon Levay’s studies as her “proof” that homosexuality is a choice and not biological.”

  30. #30 by David on July 13, 2007 - 1:05 pm

    Correction to previous post meant to type “Judy uses Simon Levay’s studies as her “proof” that homosexuality is a choice and not biological.”

  31. #31 by Kevin Beck on July 13, 2007 - 1:09 pm

    Judy and her ragtag band of co-squawkers at “Granite Grok” are mindless. This is never difficult to establish; simply ask them to provide a smidgeon of evidence that gay marriage hurts those not involved, and they can’t. They can only stammer about the Bible or change the subject altogether, in either case exposing themselves as the ignorant loudmouths they are.
    They certainly can’t sensibly refute the idea that even were homosexuality a choice, it would still be wrong to discriminate against gays. Being a right-wing Christian is far more of a choice than is sexual preference, and nutball Christianity is far more pernicious to society on the whole than gaiety is, yet you don’t see people pushing to erode the civil rights of blithering godders. Well, except for that jihad against Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving and April Fool’s Day.
    Screw ’em; as more and more younger people are willing to come out of the closet and more and more straights realize they have gay friends and that gays aren’t a corrupt influence, society is getting more and more accommodating and accepting, just as with civil-rights issues of yore. And as with today’s outspoken skinheads and other racists, the Judys of the world will soon find themselves shouting into an empty void, and being shouted down altogether.

  32. #32 by Stacey C. on July 16, 2007 - 2:55 pm

    I know I’m late to the party but, two things…
    1) I live in MA and so far the sky has not fallen and the seas have not boiled even though we’ve had gay *marriage* for somewhere around two years.
    2) As a person involved in an ‘alternative family’ I can say that there *are* ways for unrelated, non-romantically involved people to form legal bonds. Through power of attorney or through forming an LLC just as a start. I’m just starting in on the process with my family so I can’t offer an expert opinion but I’m sure there are a multitude of ways to establish legal rights and bonds through means other than civil marriage or unions. Just because they’re not widely known or taken advantage of, doesn’t mean they’re not out there if you look.

  33. #33 by Jake on August 10, 2007 - 8:38 am

    Looks like their propaganda machine is in full force now at the Crock full of crap – They are now filtering posts prior to posting and not posting any contradictory arguments. I’m going to try again posting a response to Judy’s idiotic claim that anyone who is for the withdrawel of our troops from Iraq is a traitor…. but as you can see they only have “way to go Judy” responses. http://granitegrok.com/blog/2007/08/end_the_war.html#more

  34. #34 by Kevin Beck on August 10, 2007 - 1:36 pm

    Jake,
    Filtering or deleting comments is de rigueur for winger blogs. The best response to these tactics in this age of Sitemeter (which even the mentally challenged can implement) is to write a post on your own blog, if you have one, linking to theirs and ripping it apart. Depending on your level of traffic, the censoring blog will immediately see numerous backlinks to your blog and invariably (I would say “ironically” but that word simply loses all application when it comes to groklike organisms) start posting comments on YOUR blog, plainly expecting them to stand — which they do.
    I’ll check it out.

  35. #35 by skip on August 14, 2007 - 9:19 pm

    No, we’re not deleting comments a priori if they just disagree with us. We had a crash which wiped out most of our comments. Also, if you want to leave a comment over at GraniteGrok, MAKE SURE YOU ENTER “GGcomm” at the bottom of the comment – I’m trying to keep the auto-spammers out (not you folks).
    Yes, I do filter comments as our overall policy is “grown up” themes but kid friendly language. I will edit language that crosses that “line”.
    Kevin, since I co-own Meet The New Press, consider this an invite (just remember that the FCC then makes the rules as to what can be said or not).
    -Skip

  36. #36 by Kevin Beck on August 14, 2007 - 10:31 pm

    Howdy, Skip —
    Thanks again for inviting me, but as there remain a plethora of unaddressed and unanswered questioned, I’ve elected to go this route for now.
    I haven’t tried leaving any comments myself, but you’ll have to forgive me for being skeptical that a “crash” selectively weeded out comments that challenged Judy’s latest rant about commies and hippies and whatnot, but spared those by you, Paul, etc.
    Also, I keep saying this, but I am well aware about the imperative to use clean language on the airwaves. My posts in recent days should serve as notice that I am not afflicted with Tourette’s syndrome and that I only use poopy doo doo words by choice.

  37. #37 by skip on August 14, 2007 - 11:53 pm

    -> I haven’t tried leaving any comments myself, but you’ll have to forgive me for being skeptical that a “crash” selectively weeded out comments that challenged Judy’s latest rant about commies and hippies and whatnot, but spared those by you, Paul, etc
    Any comment that didn’t get post – I will take that responsibility as I try to do the techie stuff on GG. New technology, and given everything else I do, I haven’t made it a HUGE priority to learn that particular part of MT. Guess I will have to.
    IF your readers here try to post a comment at GG and it does not post, email me me and I will look into it; at the worst, I’ll post it myself (as long as you folks don’t swamp me!).
    As far as unanswered questions? C’mon, come on the show! Remember, talking is a faster bandwith communication than typing! We may not agree, but things may get interesting…

  38. #38 by mg on August 15, 2007 - 8:40 am

    C’mon, come on the show! Remember, talking is a faster bandwith communication than typing! We may not agree, but things may get interesting…
    Give me a break. You and your cronies have had weeks to respond to Kevin’s criticisms and all you have done is ignore them. As for “fast bandwidth communication,” responding via the comments section here or on your own blog — if you hadn’t “accidentally” deleted the critical comments. — would be far more efficient and complete than some goofy podcast which would reach only a fraction of the audience, not to mention have time constraints and complete control over the conversation by you.
    If you are incapable of defending your B.S. with even the weakest of arguments then perhaps you had better rethink your position on some of these issues. From where I sit, Kevin doesn’t need to engage you on your show. He was the first to issue the challenge and has given the perfect opportunity for you to respond in a medium where you can provide evidence that is only a click away for the reader — can’t do that on the radio, eh?
    Go to work:
    http://scienceblogs.com/bushwells/2007/08/punchin_judy.php

  1. Granite Grok dude loses show, column thanks to anti-gay comments « Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge
%d bloggers like this: