That "conservative" would be me, and of course, the allegation - while provocative - is not true. As I said at the post, " I can't recall the word ever being used by conservatives, or anything close to it."
Of course, since leftists can't actually defend themselves in an actual debate, they simply lie and scurry for cover. Note, for example, Ms. Spaulding's snarky query:
Someone please show conservative Donald Douglas how to use "the Google"?Funny that she throws that out like that. I found Spaulding's piece while googling information on today's Washington Post piece, "Gay Bloggers' Voices Rise in Chorus of Growing Political Influence:"
Only the blogosphere, perhaps, has room for Pam Spaulding - a black lesbian who lives in North Carolina, the only state in the South that has not banned same-sex marriage ....Now, note something else. Ms. Spaulding did not initially link to American Power. A bit cowardly, no (which is perhaps why she's linking now)? She did, naturally, decide to throw a link to Repsac3's post, "Donald Douglas & Conservative Bestiality," from where I've been getting traffic all day.
Pam's House Blend is an influential voice in the gay political blogosphere, must-reads that include the Bilerico Project, Towleroad and AMERICAblog, each attracting a few hundred to a few thousand hits a day. Just as the liberal Net-roots and the conservative "rightroots" movements have affected traditional party structures, the still relatively small gay political presence online is rebooting the gay rights movement in a decentralized, spontaneous, bottom-up way.
So let's be clear about all of this. I'm not being "schooled" on anything here. This is a cheap smear, with added allegations of "conservative bestiality" (I mean really, is it now the conservatives who are allegedly "bestial"?).
As I noted above, I've been blogging on these issues for months, and I've yet to see conservative attacks on gay activists in such terms. Repsac3, provides no examples of such attacks in the CURRENT DEBATE post-Proposition 8, none. There is, though, the obligatory link to some obscure Jerry Falwell, Jr., audiotape that no one's ever seen, and I'm sure he'll be back trolling the comments (as usual) after doing another exhaustive round of googling.
I've hammered Pam Spaulding repeatedly on the left's neo-Stalinist "No on H8" demonizations, and we've seen not one word in response until today. Wow, now that's some "influential voice"! Smear, slur, but never defend yourself.
Frankly, folks like this can't win the debate on the merits. Rather, we see attacks on "the fundievangelical movement" as an "evil, Bible-beating, anti-gay organization." Or these idiots resort to the same ugly slurs on conservatives that they themselves purportedly decry:
Repsac, it's not that wingnuts don't enjoy rogering the occasional sheep, mule, etc.; it's just that the illicit quality of the relationship leads to a heightened state of arousal. If you make bestiality legal, then the thrill is gone. Surely you've heard that in wingnut circles, the men are men and the sheep are nervous.Isn't all of this interesting. Not only are leftists completely bankrupt in argumentation, they've got double standards as well! Who knew?
Honestly, I don't not think Pam Spaulding enjoys "rogering the occasional sheep, mule, etc...," and I have never said so much about any homosexual gay-marriage backer. I have identified them in terms of postmodern nihilism, which is used as ideological nomenclature, not personal attacks. No doubt the truth hurts, in any case.
As always, I'm open to debating all of this on the issues. But as we've seen so many times already, leftists will not only lie but they'll berate, besmirch, and bully their way to the redefinition of marriage if it's the last thing they do.
*********
UPDATE: Check this out Repsac3's comment at Pandagon:
American Power is an addictive, guilty pleasure. It’s just too easy...Too easy to make a hypocritical idiot of himself, one can only assume.
14 comments:
Prof,
Its good to see that you are still making friends!
Ms. Spaulding brings the debate on gay marriage down into the gutter. Seems that she is no taller than the curb.
This is reaching into the bottom of the barrel.
You've got to love high level discourse. Name calling is always the last recourse of those who don't have anything to say that elevates the argument.
I don't know Mr. Douglas. You said:
Bestiality? I've been blogging about this issue for months, and I can't recall the word ever being used by conservatives, or anything close to it.
And it was quickly pointed out to you that, in fact, many conservatives have used the argument that gay marriage is a slippery slope to marrying your dog (and to having sex with your underage daughter, though that's another matter).
Now that it has been pointed out to you that many conservatives have used the word "bestiality" (or something close to it), wouldn't the appropriate thing be to issue an update to your original blog-post that corrected the initial--and mistaken--comment on your part?
(I mean, feel free to call leftists cowards and to say that they can't win an argument, but maybe you should provide a model of how an adult acts in an argument--which means admitting when you're wrong or ill-informed, as you were here on this particular point.)
p.s. in this current post, you note that the people posting links showing that many conservatives have linked gay marriage with bestiality provide "no examples of such attacks in the CURRENT DEBATE post-Proposition 8."
However, just to be clear, your original post did not make the post-Prop 8 disclaimer--so adding it now is moving the goal post.
So, I'd like to emend my previous comment: instead of admitting that you were wrong or ill-informed, you could model adult argumentation by admitting that you did not say what you really meant, and use the critique offered by others to improve the articulation of your position.
Of course, since leftists can't actually defend themselves in an actual debate, they simply lie and scurry for cover.
I'm sorry Donald... But the fact of the matter is, no one's actually hiding from you.
I initially posted my response right here on your blog, for gosh sakes. Had you not pretty quickly deleted it without comment, I probably wouldn't've posted it on my blog instead, or at all...
If it's your contention that you only meant no conservative has used the word "bestiality" since the Prop 8 debates began--which isn't at all evident from your post, if you ask me--you certainly could've responded to my comment by making that point, and showing me & everyone else how I stupidly misunderstood your very obvious meaning. You didn't choose to do that, and instead just made the comment go away, like cigarette smoke on a windy day.
While you're certainly allowed to do that any time you like--it is your blog, after all--it'd be dishonest of you to say, delete all contradictory commentary, and then claim none of your readers disagree with you, for instance. Deleting commentary-especially for contradictory or ideological content--does have consequences for the way people view your blog. When you say you "welcome commentary and debate", and then choose to delete certain comments from your posts, you ought to be able to offer a good reason why, should someone notice or inquire...
I won't ascribe motives to your actions, but I find your charge about liberals being sneaky, cowardly, or unwilling to discuss things head on somewhat... ...well, let's just say curious, and ironic.
I'm always willing to discuss issues or smears with you Donald. I'm frequently here, and you know how & where to contact me when you object to something I've said elsewhere. I'm not hiding.
As for Pam Spaulding, assuming she even knows you've been "hammering" her in the first place, I have the feeling she doesn't think you're even worth the time it'd take her to google up your blog. While you have a loyal little following here (including me, like it or not), you really ain't all that... Maybe one day you will be, but I wouldn't start holding my breath just yet, if I were you...
"I'm sorry Donald... But the fact of the matter is, no one's actually hiding from you."
Not true. Pam Spaulding didn't link until this afternoon, at a request of a commenter. That is hiding.
You, of course, are diseased with obsession ...
"I won't ascribe motives to your actions ..."
You're getting to be a troll, Repsac3 (see comment above). Go attack me on your own blog. This is my house, and frankly, I've been extremely tolerant of your disrespect. And you call me a "fucking coward"?
Stay classy there, bud ...
Repsac,
YOu just can't win around here can yah! If you hide on your own blog, you're a "coward", and if you ensure that you aren't a "coward", by commenting straight up, you are somehow "diseased with obsession".
Can we take turns patting each other on the back? That might be more productive.
Without reading all the 'current' links and delving into the accusations, I still have a few comments.
Not linking is not equivalent to hiding. To accuse one of such is childish. I often mention blogs that I will not link to (some on the right, some on the left, and some just plain disgusting) but I'm not hiding from them.
Whether you ever mentioned bestiality or not is irrelevant - I've read blogs that do consider that while using the slippery slope argument and it's just as silly as the one saying it will lead to polygamy or whatevergamy. Really, how about a little rational thought here?
I honestly do not understand why politics has to get so mired in personal attributes such as sexuality. There is, of course a BUT. And where marriage is concerned it's one of property and custody. (Which comes a bit too close to considering children as property for me.)
Politics and morals don't mix.
Conservatives should ideologically more concerned with getting government OUT of one's personal life.
Liberals should ideologically be more concerned with equal property rights than being "morally acceptable" to some imaginary "right wing nut".
Neither side should be concerned with getting into any adult's bedroom. Both sides should be able to agree on protecting the innocence of children.
Both sides need to gently dismount from their high horses before they are thrown off.
Donald, you’re a professor at an American university blogging against marriage equality and you haven’t heard the tired, intellectually bankrupt slippery slope argument of gay marriage leading to marrying a dog?
Either you haven’t paid attention, or you’re dishonest. Either way, I hope you get replaced with someone who can actually help our college students think and learn, not just attack and insult (or delete the comments of) those who disagree with you.
“North Carolina, the only state in the South that has not banned same-sex marriage ....”
Just because a majority of people voted to restrict the rights of gay and lesbian citizens doesn’t make it right. Many states enacted anti-miscegeny laws preventing interracial marriage. Tyranny by the majority was eventually thrown out by the US Supreme Court in that oppressive case as well. Eventually same sex couples will have marriage equality, because this is America and the Constitution guarantees equal rights. It took generations to end slavery, then a hundred years more to get black suffrage and the Civil Rights Act. Women’s suffrage was also a multigenerational struggle. Gay and lesbian marriage equality is just another step along the path of our great nation’s ideal of equal citizenship under the law.
Gay citizens will never stop demanding equality, nor should they. They go to work, they pay their taxes, they raise their families just like other Americans.
In the end, people like you will be a footnote in history, dragging your feet in the name of religion or whatever other excuses you use to prevent all American families from enjoying equal rights.
I hope someday you think about the millions of kids in those families with same sex parents who don’t have rights comparable to America’s kids with heterosexual married parents. Those kids are what marriage equality is about, and the most you can do is deny them their constitutionally protected rights for another few years. The ideals of our country’s Constitution will eventually win over your small minded spitefulness and cruelty.
"There is, though, the obligatory link to some obscure Jerry Falwell, Jr., audiotape that no one's ever seen, and I'm sure he'll be back trolling the comments (as usual) after doing another exhaustive round of googling."
So your argument is that this comment, on audio for all to hear, lacks merit because it hasn't gone wide? That's silly. The fact is that he made the comment and certain bloggers caught it.
Another recent one was Kansas state Sen. Dennis Pyle: http://cjonline.com/stories/021209/bre_discrimination.shtml
Donna B:
The issue of gay and lesbian marriage has nothing to do with equality before the law. Civil unions are equal before the law. What is at issue is the definition of a word: marriage.
Post a Comment