BTL follow-up: Whitney story sparks national debate
by Matt | June 22nd, 2007 |Michigan’s Between the Lines has published a follow-up story on their original one reporting the coming out process of 18 year old Tyler Whitney, the webmaster for Republican Tom Tancredo’s campaign for the Presidency.
You can read the article here.
Some highlights:
When BTL published the story on Tyler Whitney’s coming out last week, it was to inform readers. It was also picked up by Sirius radio host and gay journalist Michangelo Signorile. From there, the Internet caught fire with a renewed vigor on the debate about outing.
Ranging from concerns about Whitney’s age, to the ethics of outing, to calling the anonymous posters online for violent comments directed at Whitney, the debate as been full and vigorous one.
“I thought it would get the amount of attention it has,” said Signorile by phone last week. “I did. I really did. I know how passionate people are about homophobia. When they see homophobia and in this case it was just so outrageous and the YAF and the connection to it. I have seen things with the show and because it is a national show, people picked it up.”
The first major debate cycling through the blog-o-sphere is whether or not Whitney was outed, and if he was, whether it was BTL or the Conservative Dossier that did it.
Signorile said he thinks Whitney was outed.
[…]
Comer’s website/blog Interstate Q has lead a counter insurgency against what Comer calls “abhorrent” behavior by blog commentaries from Seattle to New York.
“We always hear about how we should support youth emotionally, physically spiritually. We have not done that for this youth,” Comer observed. “Instead there have been calls for his being shot, raped and other horrible things. At this point we are being hypocritical.”
Montgomery, Smiertka and Signorile all concur that some of the responses calling for violence are over the top and unacceptable. However, Signorile has not removed such posts from his own blog, The Gist. Dan Savage from Seattle has also not removed the threat posts from his blog.
Comer said as leaders in the community, Savage and Signorile, as well as other bloggers, have an obligation to remove such posts. “Those leaders who themselves run websites where those comments are appearing should take responsibility and should take out some of the threatening materials. Those do nothing to add to a debate or discussion.”
Comer has come under fire as well for his comments. He said he has been called a traitor and an “Uncle Tom.” Comer was 14 when he came out and has been involved in youth activism and politics ever since.
[…]
Comer said that while Whitney is 18, and that is the age of majority in most states, the fact remains that most 18-year-olds are still significantly reliant on friends and family for support. As such, an outing of this type puts them in jeopardy.
In the end, Comer hopes the dialogue will turn into a more constructive one and away from the conversation on outing or violence. “I think it is time for us to have that dialogue. We are going to have lessons learned from this situation. What values do we have? Either we are going to come out of this as a community that is vindictive, dog-eat-dog, or we are going to be the community that says we don’t necessarily agree with each other, but we agree to disagree with each other.”
You can read the article here.
Previous Posts:
- DailyKos: InterstateQ.com is a ‘right-leaning blog’ June 21, 2007
- Friend of Tyler Whitney: Gays are “poor creatures [doing] Satan’s work” June 18, 2007
- The “outing” of Tyler WhitneyJune 14, 2007
38 Responses to “BTL follow-up: Whitney story sparks national debate”
Just my opinion: the article can be summed up by: Local Greensboro boy Matt Comer kicks butt over bitter old Signorile and Savage.
By Joe T. on Jun 22, 2007
I disagree with both Matt and BTL. The key mistake being made is that Tyler Whitney is “anti-gay”. That assumption is absurd and illogical. Gays conservatives are being held to a higher standard than any other minority group.
If a young Black entreprenour was vigorously working for David Duke, he would not per-say viewd as racist. If a Jewish freshman in college was out campaigning for Louis Farrakhan and calling Jews “hymie-boys”, the totality of his politics would not be ridiculed as anti-semetic.
Tom Tancredo is not anti-gay at all and to accuse his supporters of such is nothing more than juvenile slander. Several gay men work tirelessly on Marilyn Musgrave’s staff. They work to promote all of her agendas because they are paid employees and that is just part of the deal. If they succeed in getting the Marriage Amendment, that should not reflect on them as being ‘anti-gay’. If you talk to many gay Republicans, they simply don’t believe that as an alternative lifestyle community, we have any business demanding special rights.
By Ronnie on Jun 22, 2007
I agree with ‘North Dallas 30′ and ‘The Malcontent’ that it is the liberal elites of the homosexual community who are the truly homophobic ones. The Republican Party has always been the big tent party and even today is the one protecting sexual privacy not demonizing it. Tancredo’s campaign said they welcome Tyler Whitney regardless of his lifestyle. Why are liberals so vicious? Here are two perfect examples:
http://minx.cc/?post=230298
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1854596/posts?page=1
By Brian on Jun 22, 2007
Ronnie and Brian… I’m not the one attacking Tyler Whitney or gay conservatives in this case. I’m on your side in that the attacks on gay conservatives need to stop. Did you read the article or are you just going around and posting the same comments over and over, because, strangely, I’ve seen these exact comments (or similar ones) every where.
Also notice that I didn’t say anything about anyone being “anti-gay.”
By Matt on Jun 22, 2007
Let’s face it, the bitter old queens of the gay movement are angry that new blood is taking over. Gay conservatives have made some of the biggest advances of the movement in the last decade - Rich Tafel, Charles Francis, Mary Cheney, and Tammy Bruce. We are beyond the era of the politics of victimhood.
Just as affirmative action went down the drain, it is time for the gay rights movement to subside. The strongest evidence in this case is that Bay Buchanan specifically said that Tyler Whitney’s lifestyle choice is nobody’s business but his own. Isn’t that what we were fighting for? As long as we don’t shove our lifestyle in people’s faces and try to indoctrinate their kids, we have already achieved equality. Tyler Whitney has already done more for civil rights than a tired old queen like Larry Kramer or Dan ‘call me faggot’ Savage.
By KC on Jun 23, 2007
KC: I agree. (And I LOVE Tammy Bruce). But “old” doesn’t necessarily refer to physical age as far as I’m concerned. There are enormously sharp and cool 80 and 90 year olds. But Signorile and Savage and Kramer are “old” in the sense that they bitterly keep their minds closed, and attack anybody who veers from their dictatorial rules of “gay” political behavior. People with more flexible minds (whether literally young or otherwise) will be the change in the future, and they won’t be intimidated by being called “self-hating uncle toms.” (I’ve been called “self-hating” too for not automatically following their rules. Not to brag, but they wouldn’t call me that if they’d seen me sweep up the floor with those attempted queer-bashers on the NYC subway one night).
By Joe T. on Jun 23, 2007
P.S. Needless to say, though, not everything Liberal is bad and everything Conservative is good. Matt Comer is a Liberal, whose done a great job of challenging certain conservative institutions in just the right way.
By Joe T. on Jun 23, 2007
Tyler Whitney said it best: “Smash Left-Wing Scum!”
By YAF on Jun 23, 2007
YAF: Your language reeks of violence and ignorance. There are better ways to engage in intelligent political debate than to proclaim your desire to “smash” enemies you describe as “scum.” You are no better than those who have wished death, AIDS or rape upon Tyler Whitney.
By Matt on Jun 23, 2007
“Your language reeks of violence and ignorance. There are better ways to engage in intelligent political debate than to proclaim your desire to ’smash’ enemies you describe as “scum.’”
What right do you have to judge Tyler Whitney? He has very strong political beliefs. Just because you follow the decrees of the liberal fascists doesn’t mean he has to. He despises liberal Demorats. That’s why he said “Smash Left-Wing Scum” and he has that freedom.
By Rog on Jun 23, 2007
Okay people… Learn how to read… I’m the one who has been defending Tyler Whitney, therefore, I’m certainly not the one “judging him,” however, I still reserve the right to state my opinion - just as he reserves the same right - on the language used in political debate and discussion. I have exercised that freedom to state my opinion in defending Whitney against real judgments against his personhood. Whitney is free to state his opinion at anytime, just as I am, and as are other citizens, but just because a person has the freedom to say what ever he or she may say does not mean that another person cannot state his or her opinion about the opinion that was first stated (wow, I hope that makes sense).
By Matt on Jun 23, 2007
Ah, here we go.
Ronnie, Brian, etc.: The problem isn’t that Whitney is a Republican. Whatever, more power to him. But he’s participated in rallies with people carrying signs like “End Faggotry” and “Straight Power”. BTL reports that Whitney himself was carrying a sign that read “Go Back in the Closet”. If that’s true, then it’s beyond the pale of basic political disagreement and enters the territory of hate speech. You can claim the Republican party is the “big tent” party all you want, but it certainly wasn’t the Democrats trying to ride homophobic fear of gay marriage to election victories the past few years.
At least the Log Cabins had the decency not to support the Republican presidential candidate in 2004: http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/press_090804.html
“Certain moments in history require that a belief in fairness and equality not be sacrificed in the name of partisan politics; this is one of those moments.”
Well-said, and this from people whose politics I generally disagree with.
By pico on Jun 24, 2007
“I still reserve the right to state my opinion - just as he reserves the same right - on the language used in political debate and discussion.”
This is where I disagree with you Matt. If it is all just about having different opinions, then Tyler Whitney shouldn’t even be mentioned in the article. I don’t think his name should be associated with all this stuff. Whatever he does in the bedroom is his own private business. I doubt anyone else on Tancredo’s campaign has had their sexual orientation publicized (even Tancredo himself is very private and doesn’t discuss whether he is gay or straight).
The bottom line is that there are a significant amount of gays like Tyler who believe in patriotism and defending our great country. They don’t buy into the sexual obsession of the liberal Democrats and strongly oppose their anti-family agenda. Just think if you had young children yourself. Would you want them exposed to the homosexual lifestyle? I doubt it.
So all I am saying is that argueing about politics is ok. Whether this great nation should take a path towards nobility and character like the Republicans want, or gay victimhood and special rights like the Demorats want. But within the framework of that debate, no single person like Tyler Whitney, Tom Tancredo, or Marilyn Musgrave should be singled out. All these people have personal family lives and that should be respected.
By Rog on Jun 24, 2007
Rog said: “The bottom line is that there are a significant amount of gays like Tyler who believe in patriotism and defending our great country. They don’t buy into the sexual obsession of the liberal Democrats and strongly oppose their anti-family agenda.”
First, I think we should frame the discussion, because many people like to claim “patriot” as their own and if other people don’t agree with them then they can’t be “patriots.” A Patriot is any person who proudly works to see that our country can be the best that it can be, people who protect it and its freedoms and people who take their responsibilities as a citizen of our Republic seriously, therefore engaging in public debate, community service, Military service, elected office, voting (EVERY TIME there is an election), or a combination of each of them.
With that said… I am a Patriot, a proud America and I would NEVER change my citizenship in this great nation for any other. If push came to shove, I’d defend my nation and my God-given freedoms with my life. As Patrick Henry once said, “Give me Liberty, or give me death!”
And you know, the cool thing about being American and being a Patriot is that you can disagree with other people who are American Patriots. We have that freedom. Even the Founding Fathers did not always agree on everything.
Rog also said: “Just think if you had young children yourself. Would you want them exposed to the homosexual lifestyle?”
Number one, I’d disagree that there is just one “homosexual lifestyle.” Just as heterosexuals live MANY different lifestyles, LGBT people do as well. Would I want my young children “exposed” to church-going gay folks. Absolutely. Would I want my children “exposed” to LGBT people who spend all their free time doing volunteer work in the community or who are serving our country through elected office? Absolutely. Would I want my children “exposed” to LGBT people in the Armed Forces who proudly serve and protect our nation and freedoms - often risking their own lives in the process? Absolutely.
Would I want my children exposed to LGBT people who are drug addicts, alcoholics, in the club-scene or who do other illicit activities? Absolutely NOT.
I’m sure my answers are the same ones that straight parents might give, just replace “LGBT people” with “straight people” and the answers will be the same.
By Matt on Jun 24, 2007
Pico - the mistake you are making is to assume that gay people like Tyler Whitney are anti-gay just because they oppose special rights. Not all gay people believe that our lifestyle is ammenable for raising young innocent children. Tyler, as well as Tom Tancredo and Marilyn Musgrave have nothing against gay people. As a matter of fact, they are very supportive of the gay men who work for them. What they *do* oppose are the leftist liberals like Signorile and Dan Savage trying to mainstream the lifestyle and normalize activities like ‘Pride Parades’ and bathouses. Even Terry Dolan stated that he was not against gay sex, just that gay people should not demand that others accept the unhealthy aspects of the lifestyle. Whether we are gay, straight, Republican, or Dem - we have got to support people like Tyler Whitney who respect people of faith and their goal of a family-friendly world.
By Jeffrey on Jun 24, 2007
Jeffrey… I’m going to restate to you what I stated to Rog:
I am liberal, perhaps more moderate, but certainly not “Leftist.” There is more than just one point being disagreed upon in this discussion, and the “lifestyle” point is just one disagreement among many.
By Matt on Jun 24, 2007
“I am liberal, perhaps more moderate, but certainly not ‘Leftist.’”
But that is the precise point. Do you afford respect to those who oppose your gay agenda, whether they be Tyler Whitney, Micheal Savage, or Rush Limbaugh? It is time for gay ‘liberals’ to stop the campaign of attacks against gay conservatives for their beliefs.
The Republican Party is the party of family-values and it is our right to oppose the normalization of alternative lifestyles. That is not anti-gay at all. Don’t you have friends who disagree with your lifestyle choice? As gay Republicans, we don’t hold our sexual preference as a litmus test for President. Tom Tancredo as well as James Dobson have every right to seek exclusion of homosexuals from adopting children or obtaining special rights. Tyler Whitney deserves respect for both supporting those ideals and being such an outspoken activist at his young age.
By Jeffrey on Jun 25, 2007
Jeffrey… As I have stated before… Please learn how to read… I have been the one defending Tyler Whitney the entire time this controversy has been happening. Also, almost all of my closest friends are Republican and very conservative.
Also note that my “disagreement” is not the same as attacking conservatives. I have great respect for all people - although I am certainly human and don’t always measure up to what is best. I can disagree and be respectful at the same time, and I think I have been doing that in this situation.
By Matt on Jun 25, 2007
“You can claim the Republican party is the “big tent” party all you want, but it certainly wasn’t the Democrats trying to ride homophobic fear of gay marriage to election victories the past few years.”
Um…..yeah.
http://www.washblade.com/2004/8-13/news/national/emily.cfm
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001999067_kerrygay07.html
http://instapundit.com/archives/018271.php
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/060510a.aspx
http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2007/02/lets-see-if-we-can-follow-bouncing.html
Part of the reason Republicans simply don’t bother with gays is that it’s very difficult to appeal to an electorate that screams bloody murder at you for doing something, but then turns around and dumps millions of dollars and endorsements as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” to a person from the opposite party that a) does the same thing and b) proudly states that their position is the same as yours.
And I will also flatly state that much of the vehemence thrown against gay conservatives and Republicans by gay Democrats and liberals is due primarily to a strong desire to get rid of people who make those contradictions among gay liberals and Democrats obvious.
By North Dallas Thirty on Jun 25, 2007
Let the record state that I did not say “You can claim the Republican party is the “big tent” party all you want, but it certainly wasn’t the Democrats trying to ride homophobic fear of gay marriage to election victories the past few years.”
I am not a Republican precisely for the same reasons that many people are Republicans. Some folks sincerely believe in what the Republican Party stands for and its platform. I happen to not stand for that or agree with a majority of what I see the Republican Party standing for.
I like to think I am a Democrat because I believe that those who need help should get help and those who need the support of a system or the support of their community and society should receive it. I think I learned this from my grandfather, who has been a Democrat his entire life (so totally not surprising seeing as though he was born in Virginia in 1928 and lived in North Carolina his entire life).
A lot of people say that their political beliefs are derived from their faith and I’d say the same about me. I sincerely believe that Christ teaches us to take care of other people, to nurture our orphans, clothe the naked, feed the hungry and welcome outsiders (yes, that includes “aliens”). I believe that the Democratic Party best represents these ideals.
But all of that does not rule out the fact that there are many, many good people of every political and religious persuasion who live and work every day to see that their communities, states and nation is what they think it should be. I have great respect for all people who are are involved civicly (sp?) and in their communities, making a difference in someone’s life, no matter how small or great.
By Matt on Jun 25, 2007
“I have been the one defending Tyler Whitney the entire time this controversy has been happening. Also, almost all of my closest friends are Republican and very conservative.”
I already know that. I just wanted you to openly admit that you are a shill. Thanks. BTW, if so-called “liberal elite gays” are so hateful and evil, why don’t you check out FreeRepublic some time. Or check out any one of hundreds of Republic sites where gays are demonized and frequently threatened with death. Then generalize all that documented homophobia onto Republicans in general.
The bottom line is that you have no idea who writes comments on a damn blog. It could just as well have been a GOP homophobe as an evil liberal fascist. Blog comments are like graffiti. Ever hear of the lesbian who spray-painted her house with a swaztika to claim victimhood?
Talk to any people who have devoted their lives to civil rights, especially African-Americans like John Lewis. They will tell you that coddling hateful homophobes like Fred Phelps or Lou Sheldon only empowers them to fight harder. MLK never once offered an olive branch to the KKK or any organization that supported stripping Blacks of basic civil rights. I think you should think about that before you continue to equate Tyler Whitney’s success as a gay role model with true heroes of justice and equality like Dan Savage, Signorile, and Larry Kramer (the ones who label dirty commie fags). No other minority community is this disrespectful to those who have sacrificed and accomplished all the advances.
By Jeffrey on Jun 25, 2007
“A lot of people say that their political beliefs are derived from their faith and I’d say the same about me. I sincerely believe that Christ teaches us to take care of other people, to nurture our orphans, clothe the naked, feed the hungry and welcome outsiders (yes, that includes “aliens”). I believe that the Democratic Party best represents these ideals.”
And I put the emphasis on that in Christ teaches US to feed, clothe, etc.
Not the government.
Indeed, I see the insistence of Democrats on the government taking over such matters as being an abdication of their individual responsibility. It amuses me to no end to see multimillionaires like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and John Edwards whine about people not having health insurance; why not dip into their pockets and buy it FOR them?
Because that costs THEM money; raising taxes on everyone else does not. Furthermore, the more people they can make dependent on the government, the more power they have over them in terms of getting re-elected.
That attitude manifests itself rather strongly among liberals ( http://www.reason.com/news/show/117303.html ), especially among gays and lesbians ( http://www.washblade.com/2005/7-15/view/editorial/putup.cfm ), ( http://ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=1663 ).
By North Dallas Thirty on Jun 25, 2007
LOL!
Bullshit that this isn’t a gay neo-con blog!
By GayLeftBorg on Jun 26, 2007
GayLeftBorg… DUH!!! Oh I wish people would take the time to become regular readers, or at least check out my biography on the About page.
By Matt on Jun 26, 2007
I’m sorry to say, Matt - I don’t believe you one bit.
You might fool some queers, but you don’t fool me.
By GayLeftBorg on Jun 26, 2007
SO… because I just happen to not “tow the line” on this one issue, I’m no longer able to be considered progressive or a Democrat?
Wow… How un-American.
Also… as for who is posting comments: All people are allowed to post comments here: conservative or liberal. Their presence doesn’t make this a conservative or liberal blog… MY writing and MY opinions are what make this blog what it is and I’m not going to argue any further with people who have not taken the time to even know who I am or what I stand for.
By Matt on Jun 26, 2007
Sorry Matt, I personally have a hard time believing anyone who stands up for vicious homophobes. Just because somebody is 18, doesn’t mean they’re innocent and not aware of what they’re doing. I too done some stupid BS when I was 18 - but you certainly never caught me holding any “Go back in the closet!” signs.
The time for “making nice” with the gay wingnuts is over. If you want to be their rug to walk over, more power to you. Your compassion is admirable, but it’s best to focus it elsewhere.
Even though they claim they’re “working from the inside of the republican party to help the gays”, I’d love to finally see their progress. From what I’ve seen, they’re working from the inside to boost their own careers, and fuck the GLBT community - because “they’re not like THOSE gays”.
There’s no “line” to tow with me - the dems lost me long ago, although I do support Bill Richardson LOL (lesser of all the evils, you know).
By GayLeftBorg on Jun 26, 2007
“MLK never once offered an olive branch to the KKK or any organization that supported stripping Blacks of basic civil rights.”
I think you need to reread your MLK, particularly this example ( http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/speeches/The_birth_of_a_new_nation.html ).
“If there had not been a Gandhi in India with all of his noble followers, India would have never been free. If there had not been an Nkrumah and his followers in Ghana, Ghana would still be a British colony. If there had not been abolitionists in America, both Negro and white, we might still stand today in the dungeons of slavery. And then because there have been, in every period, there are always those people in every period of human history who don’t mind getting their necks cut off, who don’t mind being persecuted and discriminated and kicked about, because they know that freedom is never given out, but it comes through the persistent and the continual agitation and revolt on the part of those who are caught in the system. Ghana teaches us that.
It says to us another thing. It reminds us of the fact that a nation or a people can break aloose from oppression without violence. Nkrumah says in the first two pages of his autobiography, which was published on the sixth of March—a great book which you ought to read—he said that he had studied the social systems of social philosophers and he started studying the life of Gandhi and his techniques. And he said that in the beginning he could not see how they could ever get aloose from colonialism without armed revolt, without armies and ammunition, rising up. Then he says after he continued to study Gandhi and continued to study this technique, he came to see that the only way was through nonviolent positive action. And he called his program “positive action.” And it’s a beautiful thing, isn’t it? That here is a nation that is now free, and it is free without rising up with arms and with ammunition. It is free through nonviolent means. Because of that the British Empire will not have the bitterness for Ghana that she has for China, so to speak. Because of that, when the British Empire leaves Ghana, she leaves with a different attitude than she would have left with if she had been driven out by armies. We’ve got to revolt in such a way that after revolt is over we can live with people as their brothers and their sisters. Our aim must never be to defeat them or humiliate them.
On the night of the State Ball, standing up talking with some people, Mordecai Johnson called my attention to the fact that Prime Minister Kwame Nkrumah was there dancing with the Duchess of Kent. And I said, “Isn’t this something? Here is the once-serf, the once-slave, now dancing with the lord on an equal plane.” And that is done because there is no bitterness. These two nations will be able to live together and work together because the breaking aloose was through nonviolence and not through violence.
The aftermath of nonviolence is the creation of the beloved community. The aftermath of nonviolence is redemption. The aftermath of nonviolence is reconciliation. The aftermath of violence however, are emptiness and bitterness. This is the thing I’m concerned about. Let us fight passionately and unrelentingly for the goals of justice and peace, but let’s be sure that our hands are clean in this struggle. Let us never fight with falsehood and violence and hate and malice, but always fight with love, so that, when the day comes that the walls of segregation have completely crumbled in Montgomery. that we will be able to live with people as their brothers and sisters.
Oh, my friends, our aim must be not to defeat Mr. Engelhardt, not to defeat Mr. Sellers and Mr. Gayle and Mr. Parks. Our aim must be to defeat the evil that’s in them. But our aim must be to win the friendship of Mr. Gayle and Mr. Sellers and Mr. Engelhardt. We must come to the point of seeing that our ultimate aim is to live with all men as brothers and sisters under God and not be their enemies or anything that goes with that type of relationship. And this is one thing that Ghana teaches us: that you can break aloose from evil through nonviolence, through a lack of bitterness. Nkrumah says in his book: “When I came out of prison, I was not bitter toward Britain. I came out merely with the determination to free my people from the colonialism and imperialism that had been inflicted upon them by the British. But I came out with no bitterness.” And, because of that, this world will be a better place in which to live.”
And Matt, what you’re finding out is what MLK found out relative to the Black Panthers; there are those who will gladly pervert legitimate struggles as an excuse for their illegitimate wants and desires. Signorile, Savage, and their ilk are the Robert Mugabes of the gay world; they have taken a legitimate injustice and have transformed it into an excuse for violent, repressive, autocratic, and hateful behavior.
The Black Panthers murdered turncoats. Mugabe imprisons and murders his opponents and anyone who questions him. What you’re seeing is Signorile and Savage’s version of that — and unfortunately, you’re going to bear the brunt of it yourself with this stance.
By North Dallas Thirty on Jun 26, 2007
NorthDallas40: “that you can break aloose from evil through nonviolence, through a lack of bitterness.”
Thanks for reinforcing my point. The gay Republicans have continuously focused on demonizing and ridiculing those they deem “leftist fag slime”. I have read some of the most horrible, vicious, murderistic statements from gay Republicans over at FreeRepublic.
It’s time that GOP gays finally realize that we are all part of the human race. Sure they may get short-term advantages of White House staff positions or capital gains tax breaks. But in the long term, it doesn’t pay for them to keep hating on other gays. If you truly believe like Tyler that gays are unfit to adopt kids, unfit to marry, and unqualified to serve in the military - then in the long-term you are going to do more damage to our whole community than the personal cash rewards you might see.
The whole political scene is filled with so much vitriol from the Rush Limbaughs, Michael Savages, and Jeff Gannons. Isn’t it time for gay Republicans to stop verbally bashing other gays?
By Jeffrey on Jun 26, 2007
“I have read some of the most horrible, vicious, murderistic statements from gay Republicans over at FreeRepublic.”
That’s very interesting, Jeffrey.
Especially since you were saying this previously.
“The bottom line is that you have no idea who writes comments on a damn blog. It could just as well have been a GOP homophobe as an evil liberal fascist.”
Perhaps you can explain to us how you know with certainty that the comments you mention on the blog FreeRepublic, which you don’t cite specifically, are from “gay Republicans” — especially when you insist that the identity, political affiliation, and sexual orientation of the commentors making the comments Matt and I have cited speifically, WITH references, CANNOT be known with certainty.
Next:
“The whole political scene is filled with so much vitriol from the Rush Limbaughs, Michael Savages, and Jeff Gannons. Isn’t it time for gay Republicans to stop verbally bashing other gays?”
On what basis are you making that appeal?
The fact that he is gay and a part of the human race has not stopped you, Mike Signorile, Pam Spaulding, John Aravosis, Dan Savage, and their numerous commentors from bashing, harassing, or throwing vitriol at Tyler Whitney in the least.
Why, exactly, should people treat you any differently than you have them — especially given that you yourself use your treatment at the hands of others as justification for your own hateful behavior?
As long as gays like yourself are wedded to the use of hate against others, you should not be in the least surprised that it’s used back against you.
By North Dallas Thirty on Jun 26, 2007
North Dallas 40, you are making my head spin with all your flip-flopping. First you say:
“And I will also flatly state that much of the vehemence thrown against gay conservatives and Republicans by gay Democrats and liberals is due primarily to a strong desire to get rid of people who make those contradictions among gay liberals and Democrats obvious.”
Next thing you know, you are claiming that the very comments towards Tyler Whitney that you cried about are suddenly from anonymous sources. Perhaps you can explain to us how you know with certainty that the comments you mention on the Dan Savage’s blog and Signorile’s blog, which you don’t cite specifically, are from “evil gay Democrats”.
Your multiple positions don’t add up. One minute you are saying Clinton was a brutal homophobe and we should vote for Bush to defend our country from 9/11 pilots like Sadaam. Next you are cowering about the “brown menace” that is climbing the walls around your estate. Make up your mind already.
By Jeffrey on Jun 26, 2007
I repeat myself (this time, with emphasis):
“I have read some of the most horrible, vicious, murderistic statements from gay Republicans over at FreeRepublic.”
That’s very interesting, Jeffrey.
Especially since you were saying this previously.
“The bottom line is that you have no idea who writes comments on a damn blog. It could just as well have been a GOP homophobe as an evil liberal fascist.”
Perhaps YOU can explain to us how YOU know with certainty that the comments YOU mention on the blog FreeRepublic, which YOU don’t cite specifically, are from “gay Republicans” — especially when YOU insist that the identity, political affiliation, and sexual orientation of the commentors making the comments Matt and I have cited specifically, WITH references, CANNOT be known with certainty.
And, as a hint, your diversionary accusations about what I have said would carry significantly more weight if you would indicate that you have read my posts enough to at least spell my name correctly.
By North Dallas Thirty on Jun 26, 2007
Matt, just so you know, i wouldn’t touch this conversation with a 10-foot pole.
But i am enjoying being a spectator.
By Sarah on Jun 26, 2007
Sarah… I’m starting to withdraw myself too. I like the “being a spectator” idea. Things are getting hot and heavy between Jeffrey and North Dallas.
And as for the thing with GayLeftBorg, I was so serious when I said, “I’m not going to argue any further with people who have not taken the time to even know who I am or what I stand for.”
By Matt on Jun 26, 2007
Just an interesting tidbit. If you check out Tyler Whitney’s Facebook friends list, guess who is right up there near the top? Yep, Kyle Bristow. He’s the guy who called for gays to be imprisoned and executed. Guess he makes an exception for his little buddy.
By Cliff on Jun 26, 2007