I never thought I would say this, but the ACLU is dead right on this one…
Yeah, it’s pretty bad when I have to start agreeing with the ACLU but I can take solace in the fact that I’m siding with them for them actually taking a stand and fighting for someone’s right to free speech for a change instead of them taking their usual stand against it. If that were the only thing that caught me off guard today it wouldn’t be so bad, but even worse is that I’m finding myself agreeing with a video from Rachel Maddow (via Daily Kos Tv… forgive me) wherein Mike Shwartz (chief of staff for Senator Tom Coburn, R-OK) says that not only is homosexuality forced upon people, but is spread and caused by… wait for it… pornography. In fact, he said that “all pornography is homosexual pornography” regardless of whether it’s girl on guy, guy on guy, girl on girl, or girl on girl on girl on girl on really, really lucky guy.
Well if watching straight porn makes you gay, then I guess I must be one pink-thong-wearing, leather-chaps-sporting, handlebar-mustache-waxing, colon-spelunking, Barbara Streisand-ticket-holding friend of Dorothy because I’ve seen a lot of it. In fact, you can throw Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell right out the window because there are probably four guys in the entire US military that haven’t seen straight porn… and those guys probably are gay.
Now that I’ve woken up to a day where I’m agreeing with a) the ACLU, b) Rachel Maddow, and c) Daily Kos I’m going to either a) go back to bed, b) eat my FNP-40, or c) start drinking heavily. Wake me up, sober me up, or start CPR when the world is back the way I’m used to it.
H/T to VT Woody for the ACLU link and Leah for the Maddow clip
Tags: ACLU, Anti-Islam shirt, chief of staff, Florida, free speech, Gainesville, gay?, Idiots, Mike Shwartz, Mike Shwarz, porn, porn makes you gay, Rachel Maddow, Tom Coburn
Sniper,
Freedom of religion and speach set aside for just one second…
Islam IS of the Devil… But so are all the false religionsman subscribes to.
Freedom of religion and speach back on.
That said, I too am a veteran and was/is willing to die in service to my country in protection of those fundemental rights.
On a sidebar, I’m MUCH happier doing it for religions NOT based on intolerance and killing those of my religion, but…
I’m OK with those goofs who worship Elvis or Yoda, etc.
Just for the record: this guy Swartz never said that pornography turns anyone gay. It might be a slippery slope to side with known liars.
True, his exact words were “all pornography is homosexual pornography because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards”. If you say that someone is watching pornography and being arroused by pornography and that all pornography is homosexual pornography, then the unspoken implication is that person is homosexual. So did he say that pornography turns you gay? Nope. He implied you already were. His speech is saying that a) gay is bad, b) Playboy is gay, ergo c) Playboy is bad and “if you tell an 11 year old boy that, do you think he’s going to want to go out and get a copy of Playboy?” Yeah, let’s tell 11 year olds that if they think about naked women, then they’re gay. It’s ludicrous. And if he’s not trying to imply that, just what the hell is he trying to say?
As for a slippery slope siding with known liars, even a broken clock is right twice a day and even a liar telling you he’s a liar is telling the truth.
See, you use the “unspoken implication” clause, but they outright attribute these words to him.
He is trying to say that for an 11 year old boy there can be no other sexuality but his own simply because he has never been with a woman yet. It it so wrong as to be ludicrous? If you explain it to kids, that whacking over a nude picture before making the real true-to-life score he is just wacking his inner self simply because he has never tasted anything else, he might want to skip his Playboy – is it ludicrous?
If a person states that Beef Stroganoff is cooked out of fish that means he is a poor cook.
If someone claims that eating fish will turn you into a fish he is outright crazy.
The guy knows a precious little about porno – it. oh. so. figures.
But is he crazy? They put some crazy shit into his mouth outright claiming he said that. You side with them, claiming he implied something of the kind. It made a good posting all right, but was all this lying really worth it?
He didn’t say “for an 11 year old boy, pornography is homosexual pornography”, he said “all pornography is homosexual pornography”. You’re implying that he did and you’re interpreting his words just as much Rachel Maddow was. And is that explanation that you gave as an interpretation ludicrous? Damn right because boys are going to beat that thing like a red headed step child Playboy or not. And if they don’t have a Playboy then they definitely ARE completely turned into themselves. Your analogy is not anywhere near analagous as it’s comparing apples to oranges. Soemthing like this would be more accurate:
Saying that all salads are vegan salads makes one a poor cook (as many salads contain meat products, eggs, etc). Telling kinds that eating a salad would make them vegans is ludicrous.
By the way, don’t get me wrong: I think that Rachel Maddow has the brains of a used douche bag, but I just think this guy was way off the mark.
The thing is he was talking just about 11y.olds and nobody else.
Once again, he did not say that porno will turn a boy (and he was not talking of anyone else) gay. He said that namely:
1. for young boys “gay”=”bad”,
2. one of his friends has had an insight that all porno is gay.
3. tell that to boys and he might skip a Playboy, becaause he wants nothing of the kind.
What specifically makes him so much off the mark?
Please, disregard the previous one.
I’m just really trying to air my frustration about how easy lies can turn normal people into bickering verbalist trying to cover wording nuances, while lying Maddows of this world are far away already.
Watch their dust.