February 14, 2014

"I'm very obviously gay, and there are always gonna be people in America and everywhere else who are definitely going to hate."

"But I think that in the last two years there have been a lot of things that have really changed that, and have really made it a positive thing," said "American Idol" contestant MK Nobilette, as she awaited the judge's announcement whether she'd made it on to the next round as one of the final 30.

The first judge to speak was Harry Connick Jr., who said "Thank goodness" — meaning thank goodness a lot of things have really changed in the last 2 years.

The next judge to speak was Jennifer Lopez. She began with "This is a tough day," which was the kind of stalling they were using repeatedly when they were ultimately saying yes. (That's how they try to wring emotion out of contestants and audience members who haven't yet caught on that this is the tell that the news is good.) Lopez proceeds through the narrative arc, as if she were making the "tough" decision on the spot: "The world is changing, I think." And then: "We think that you could be an American Idol."

"Thank you guys so much," said MK, crying, and as she's walking out of the room, we see the third judge, Keith Urban, quietly, emotionally, pronounce the ultimate judgment: "The world is changing."

And so "American Idol," the long-time, middle American family show — a show which has had beloved gay contestants before, but never one who was openly gay — has gone all in for gay acceptance. The 3 judges — each in succession — carefully, gently, sweetly, informed America that the world has changed (or is changing). This is where we all are now (or where the arc of history is bending).

Come on. Group hug, America. 

194 comments:

TMink said...

Pillsbury Doughboy? Gay.

Jolly Green Giant? Bi.

Geico Gecko? Tranny.

Now it is safe for animated spokes-characters to come out.

What a wonderful change! World peace! An end to hunger! The lion lies down with the lamb!

Trey

Kelly said...

If she was an outstanding singer I would haven't thought anything about her making it through. However, she was subpar in a season with many talented singers getting sent home. She checked a box is all. She must be so proud of her accomplishment.

Unknown said...

7% gay people, 70% gay themes in media. Doesn't seem fair somehow.

Deirdre Mundy said...

I don't watch the show.... Ann,Meade, can she sing?

Also 'Gay Performer" isn't really new or revolutionary, is it?

Titus said...

Kansas is going back to the dark ages with their new law running through their senate which the governor will naturally sign....and then it will be deemed illegal.

rehajm said...

I watched this one because of a previous Althouse nudge, and thought Nobilette was one of the least compelling talents amongst a very talented group. While she could be the next idol, I suspect she likely won't..

Supposedly she's not the only gay contestant this year. 'Jay' Zidor is too, though they didn't play up his sexuality.

Bob Ellison said...

I've found a few YouTube clips of her. She sounds a lot like Tracy Chapman. Pretty good with the guitar, and a distinctive sound.

I'd not say Idol material, though. They're looking for Carrie Underwood, not Tracy Chapman.

Simon said...

Someone in Kansas—which didn't get that memo—should write a book called "What's the Matter with the Rest of You?"

Simon said...

Bob Ellison said...
"I'd not say Idol material, though. They're looking for Carrie Underwood, not Tracy Chapman."

They're looking for ratings.

SGT Ted said...

The gay acceptance thing on camera.

It's a good way to avoid IRS audits I'm thinking.

rhhardin said...

Coleridge mocked new moral discoveries as a ridiculous genre.

TV brings them to you today though.

Shouting Thomas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shouting Thomas said...

Not too much longer before homosexuality becomes mandatory.

We seem to never leave junior high school.

SGT Ted said...

Oh someone seeking to be in the entertainment industry that's gay.

How ordinary.

Sorry, Freddie Mercury has the bar set very high as far as gay singers goes.

"Talent" take s aback stage to "feel sorry for me, I'm gay."

A lesbian? Even more boring.

SGT Ted said...

People care less about the gay, as they want to hear actual talent.

EDH said...

Did she have to so overtly play the gay card?

Did they have to pick a crummy singer in order to prove Idol is gay-friendly?

I wanted to cringe when J-Lo and HCJ were talking over her 'song styling'. If a singer is really giving you goosebumps, you tend shut the fuck up.

And where does J-Lo indicate she's getting goosebumps? Looks like in her crotch.

With no objection to breaking contestants into "girls" and "boys"? Or is that how Idol will usher change to the world next season?

CStanley said...

Interesting that she stated that it has now become a positive thing to be outwardly gay.

Because it's not as though people who are obviously gay haven't been accepted, particularly in show business, before. What is being demanded isn't acceptance, because that existed before in her chosen field.

It's not enough to accept and not care about someone's sexual preferences. It has to now be considered a positive thing.

Hagar said...

I think it is getting so that "straight" people are claiming to be "gay" just so that they can get a chance to be recognized in the crowd for whatever it is that they really do.
This is farcical!

CStanley said...

With no objection to breaking contestants into "girls" and "boys"? Or is that how Idol will usher change to the world next season?

Oh geez...they're going to have to make 52 categories now, aren't they?

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Yet despite all that, a voluntary "Don't ask, don't tell" policy remains the best (of a bad lot) societal way to handle homosexuality.

Other solutions can devolve into absurdity, as becomes clear when one sheds political correctness and reasons objectively, including 'equal protection under the law', about it.

Pogo is Dead said...

Don't be the first one to stop applauding the gays.

PIV is rape!

Henry said...

Pop culture has one flavor.

MnMark said...

I've told this anecdote before but I think it's informative as a preview of what's coming.

Married friends of mine took a salsa dancing class. There was a male homosexual couple in the class of ten couples. At a certain point in the class, the teacher said it was time to learn group-style dancing, where you change partners. She said that if anyone didn't feel comfortable doing that, they could sit out. The homosexual couple did not sit out, which meant that the other nine heterosexual men in the class had the choice of either missing out on the group dancing or else dancing a hot, sexy salsa with a gay man. The gays were effectively forcing their homosexuality on everyone else.

This is what we have coming. It's not enough not to criminalize homosexuality. It's not enough not to persecute them socially. It's not even enough to make homosexual "marriage" legally equal to real marriage. We are going to be punished by being personally subjected to homosexual behavior, as those heterosexual men in the dance class were, as a test to see if we flinch and give away our latent "homophobia".

Basically, gays are angry at life that they are abnormal, and they want to punish the rest of us for it. It's not going to be enough that they are left alone. They want to feel not abnormal, and since they ARE abnormal, there is nothing that can make that happen. But at least they can get satisfaction, with the help of the egalitarian progressives, in shoving the rest of our faces in it every chance they get and daring us to complain.

Ann Althouse said...

"Did she have to so overtly play the gay card?"

Like everyone else on the show, she has a personal look and style that either represents her natural inclination or is an artistic creation or some combination of the 2.

At the point when she made the statement above, she was facing a decision that the judges had already made, and they asked a preliminary question that invited her to say how she felt about where she was at this point. Her statement seemed to be about how she was prepared to hear a no, because it might not fit the competition, but that she also thought maybe it could. What she said -- whether artful or honest -- was that she couldn't hide that she was gay, so she knew that would be part of the judgment.

So when you say did she have to be so overt, another way to put that is: Why didn't she put her effort into hiding what she was?

Obviously, the change in American opinion in the last 2 years has been toward thinking that gay people shouldn't have that extra burden in life.

I might ask you: Do you have to so overtly show that you expect gay people to hide their sexual orientation?

The hackneyed answer to that last question is the assertion that heterosexual people don't make a display of their heterosexuality.

MadisonMan said...

I'm kinda curious to see what the stylists do with her if she progresses far into the live rounds.

Different looks are interesting. Crystal Bowersox never changed her look and I think it hurt her (but really, the less send of that forgettable season the better).

Her voice is ok. Who she sleeps with is pretty much irrelevant to a singing competition, so why'd she bring it up?

Ann Althouse said...

"Sorry, Freddie Mercury has the bar set very high as far as gay singers goes."

Freddie Mercury hid his sexual orientation. He did not openly own it.

So that's just not an example of what we are talking about.

Why did Mercury hide it? That was another era, and things have changed since then.

Ann Althouse said...

"Because it's not as though people who are obviously gay haven't been accepted, particularly in show business, before. What is being demanded isn't acceptance, because that existed before in her chosen field."

Is Keith Urban gay?

traditionalguy said...

Rejection hurts gays and never was equal treatment under the law, but the glorifying of it escapes me. I guess that "When in Rome do as the Romans do" is all that praising gays has going for it as a new sccial norm. And procreation is the enemy of today's Malthusian Roman Emperors and their pagan gods.

Michael said...

"I might ask you: Do you have to so overtly show that you expect gay people to hide their sexual orientation?"

Do heterosexuals hide their sexual orientation? We certainly dont expect gay people to have sex in public any more than we expect or condone it for heterosexuals. Should we all wear buttons? Should I put up my pink shirts?

Ann Althouse said...

"Who she sleeps with is pretty much irrelevant to a singing competition, so why'd she bring it up?"

No one is talking about who anyone "sleeps with."

You don't have to have a sexual partner to have a sexual orientation, and singing is very much about projecting sexuality. Popular singers who don't feel sexual to us are doomed. They are best off singing in church or something.

Which pop singers do you like? You don't get sexuality from them? I won't believe a "no" answer.

That's why adults don't like teen idol type singers, but they serve an important function in for young people. And I'm saying that as an adult who remembers what it was like to be an adolescent who loved Herman's Hermits and The Monkees and did not want to hear heavier, more adult singing (e.g., Percy Sledge, "When a Man Loves a Woman).

Shouting Thomas said...

If Freddie Mercury hid his gaydom, you were the only person in the entire world who didn't see it fully on display Althouse

Cut the crap.

Gays guys make you cream your panties.

You have a habit of making crusades out of what makes you cream your panties.

Egghead women do that. They have to have a real intellectual reason for why their panties get wet.

Woody Allen movies serve the same purpose. Endless talking about "relationships" preceding screwing. Egghead women can't just get down and fuck.

I haven't a clue why. Perhaps you have an explanation.

Tom said...

I never realized the show hid it's gayness. I guess you're right but I think a lot of us knew some of the contestants were gay and didn't really care. And I'm a white, proud Republican. I think the tipping point on this civil rights march has been reached and probably was some time ago.

CStanley said...

Is Keith Urban gay?

Don't know and don't care, that's the point.

As for hiding, regarding Freddie Mercury as one of many examples....

Hiding, really? How can something so obvious be called hidden? He was perfectly able to express his personality, including the expression of gender, without being rejected. What he couldn't do is talk about and ask people to celebrate the fact that he enjoyed sex with other men. Why should anyone, gay or straight, be so public with that?

Pogo is Dead said...

"I might ask you: Do you have to so overtly show that you expect gay people to hide their sexual orientation?"

Toleration is murder.

One must celebrate, or be a h8r. Applaud, dammit!

I expect my gas station clerks to tell me they're gay even if they're not because gay and shut up.

PIV is rape!

CStanley said...

You don't have to have a sexual partner to have a sexual orientation, and singing is very much about projecting sexuality. Popular singers who don't feel sexual to us are doomed. They are best off singing in church or something.

And yet in the past, as we've been discussing, gay singers like Freddie Mercury were very successful. How so?

chrisnavin.com said...

Freddie Mercury was gay?

Freder Frederson said...

Egghead women do that.

You are one hell of a misogynist. You don't like women, you despise gays. Who do you like?

What the hell is wrong with you?

Kelly said...

To bad Elton John never made it big, he had so much talent.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Freddie Mercury hid his orientation?!?!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

That's right up there with "Travyon Martin was calling Zimmerman a 'creepy ass-cracker,' using that zany new term for gay man" you test-drove last year.

Althouse-some of your cultural assertions are spot-on but your swing-and-a-misses are hilarious.

Bob Ellison said...

Everyone is gay.

Tank said...

AA:

Ann Althouse said...

"Because it's not as though people who are obviously gay haven't been accepted, particularly in show business, before. What is being demanded isn't acceptance, because that existed before in her chosen field."

Is Keith Urban gay?


You're the only one here who cares. Most of us moved passed this forty years ago. Don't confuse day to day treatment of gays with the question of whether they have a "right" to get "married."

Shouting Thomas said...

Althouse, I've been telling you for some time that you are the dumb rube about this gay shit.

The rest of us don't have a problem. You do.

You say the most stupid things when it comes to this shit. Remember the "you're afraid of gay sex" bit you love?

Shit, gay sex only caused an epidemic that has taken tens of millions of lives. Every gay friend I had from my years in San Francisco died of AIDS. Nothing to fear there, right?

After years of writing BS about gaydom, you still haven't written a single word about the filial obligation of children to produce offspring to continue their parents' lineage. Well, this is what you call "homophobia." Most dumb shit term in the English language, and you've fallen for it like a fool.

I can never figure out how a smart woman can be such a fucking dumb rube over this stuff.

Well, as I said, gay men make you cream your panties. Egghead women need intellectual BS by the ton, and great civil rights crusades, to get off.

Laslo Spatula said...

The problem with "Group Hug America" is there are always a few who take advantage of the group hug dynamic to let hands wander into places that are not usually part of what is considered a simple hug. If you are in the middle of this mass hug be prepared for straying hooked fingers.

MadisonMan said...

Which pop singers do you like? You don't get sexuality from them? I won't believe a "no" answer.

Then why ask the question? :)

But yes, my presumption was that a 20-something person (of whatever orientation) will be sexually active, hence my comment.

For their sake, I hope they aren't like I was.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

I said, above: Other solutions can devolve into absurdity, as becomes clear when one sheds political correctness and reasons objectively, including 'equal protection under the law', about it.

Here is an example. In High School we all must live under the rule:
"Only boys in the boy's locker room and showers, only girls in the
girl's locker room and shower". But that is just a euphemistic way of
putting the actual underlying principle, which is, "you may not go into the locker room
that contains other people who could become the unwilling object of your
sexual titillation. You don't have that right, and they do have the right to
not be the object of your titillation".

That's the actual principle. Same as the "peeping tom" laws, no hidden cameras
in dressing rooms, etc.

Ok, so now suppose a guy is gay, and tells everyone so. Which locker room should he use,
in keeping with the principle that everyone has to follow? Obviously can't go
into the boy's locker room. So how about the girl's? Well, there is a slight problem.
This puts a huge burden on the girls. How do they KNOW he is really gay, and that
therefore they are NOT the unwilling objects of his sexual titillation, and they should just relax? Many a
heterosexual teenage boy would love to be in the girl's locker room, and the girl's know it. So what to do? Just take the gay guy at his word and deal with it, ladies? Anyone in favor of that? Bueller?
I mean, should the guy have to PROVE he is gay? And how would he do that? Right in front of you? It's a farce.

So, should we then create a Gay Male Locker Room? Well, if more than one male gay
is in it, it violates the original principle (and only one gay guy could be in the girls room, as above, for the same reason). Best you could do, I guess, is give each gay male
his own locker room, which could then be shared, I guess, with a single gay female without violating
the original principle.

And thus the absurdity.

Best of this bad situation? If a guy is gay, then "don't tell". Then the heterosexual
men are not made uncomfortable, and the gay guy gets to be an invisible voyeur.

Same example works in reverse, if you are gay and female.

Very problematical.

So where am I going wrong in this reasoning?

Freder Frederson said...

You don't get sexuality from them?

So you find Bob Dylan sexually attractive. All I can say is TMI.

And come on. If that is your basis for what you like about popular music (only sexuality matters), then you are even shallower than I thought.

Shouting Thomas said...

@Freder

You would have made a great KBG informant.

I prefer a different kind of woman than you do, you dumb fuck, and for the moment that is still legal.

The hatred of gays thing is equally laughable.

You're an incredibly dumb shit.

Agreeing with your, and Althouse's, idiot politics has nothing to do with "liking" or "hating" anybody.

As I said, you'd have made a great KGB informant. I bet you can't wait until those kinds of denunciations have the real force of law.

Shouting Thomas said...

Let's boil your denunciations down to their real meaning, Freder.

I am an "enemy of the people."

Freder Frederson said...

So where am I going wrong in this reasoning?

Because people are going to assume some people are gay (and probably misidentify a significant number of straight--but not manly enough for you--boys or men as gay), even if everyone is closeted.

madAsHell said...

I'm waiting for the Biggest Loser blog post.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

I thought we went through the whole gay American Idol thing with Adam Lambert. Maybe Althouse didn't get the memo.

CStanley said...

Back to the topic at hand- as a few others have noted, it is interesting to speculate on what the stylists will do with this young woman.

She actually looks to have that mostly asexual, schlumpy tomboy look. Can they make that appealing, or will she sell out for some kind of edgy sexy lesbian look?

Freder Frederson said...

Shit, gay sex only caused an epidemic that has taken tens of millions of lives.

Actually no. The vast majority of AIDS deaths and infections are the result of heterosexual sex.

Shouting Thomas said...

@Freder

Have you ever heard of "lying?"

How did you get so fucking stupid?

I'm always amazed at how effective the idiot indoctrination can be.

There are always fools who fall for it.

Shouting Thomas said...

@Freder

You are also a deliberate liar.

I said "caused an epidemic."

Shouting Thomas said...

As I said, Freder, you must be chomping at the bit for the day when denunciations of enemies of the people are enforced by the state with some real hurt.

Henry said...

The homosexual couple did not sit out, which meant that the other nine heterosexual men in the class had the choice of either missing out on the group dancing or else dancing a hot, sexy salsa with a gay man. The gays were effectively forcing their homosexuality on everyone else.

When I took dance lessons with my wife we mostly had a male dance instructor. He could dance both parts and we both danced with him to learn steps. Whoop de damn do.

We are going to be punished by being personally subjected to homosexual behavior...

Man, that's worrisome. What if they show up at your bobsledding class next?

EMD said...

I'd rather have a group reach-around, you know in the spirit of things.

Lyssa said...

Althouse said: At the point when she made the statement above, she was facing a decision that the judges had already made, and they asked a preliminary question that invited her to say how she felt about where she was at this point. Her statement seemed to be about how she was prepared to hear a no, because it might not fit the competition, but that she also thought maybe it could. What she said -- whether artful or honest -- was that she couldn't hide that she was gay, so she knew that would be part of the judgment.

Do you really think that those were all her own, spontaneous statements? I suspect that she was fed it lock, stock, and barrel by the producers, who decided that this was the year to have the First Gay. Not that I really care that much; I just don't want to forget that this is reality TV, not reality.

Is Keith Urban gay?

God, I hope not. I think he's kind of hot.

Grimstarr said...

Freddy Mercury "hid" his sexuality? He put it in the NAME OF THE BAND for Christ's sake. Queen? And nobody saw that for 20 years? Puh-leeze!

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Freder Frederson said...

So where am I going wrong in this reasoning?

Because people are going to assume some people are gay (and probably misidentify a significant number of straight--but not manly enough for you--boys or men as gay), even if everyone is closeted.


Sorry. I can't tell from your response whether you agree that "don't ask, don't tell" is the best of a lot of bad solutions, or not.

And if you don't agree, or if you see a flaw in my reasoning, please spell it out clearly. Thanks.

Michael K said...

"The problem with "Group Hug America" is there are always a few who take advantage of the group hug dynamic to let hands wander into places that are not usually part of what is considered a simple hug"

The Olympic athletes who were identified by an idiot TV person as gay weren't too happy about it.

Anybody have an emesis basin ? I'm about the throw up.

Shouting Thomas said...

Congrats, Althouse!

I foresee 200 comments easy on this post.

But, you'll have to do without me.

This cranky, irrelevant and totally unhip old white man is currently playing in three bands, one of which is manned (and womanned) by people in their mid-30s.

I've got a lot of tunes to learn and rehearse. I have a series of recording sessions coming up.

Outraged commenters, proceed with the denunciations without me!

Freder Frederson said...

I am an "enemy of the people."

No, you are just an asshole. I bet this is your anthem

AReasonableMan said...

EMD said...
I'd rather have a group reach-around, you know in the spirit of things.


From the urban dictionary:
reach around
1. n: the performance of the act of masturbating a sexual partner, usually while the person performing this act is simultaneously performing doggy style, anal sex, or spooning on the same partner as the person on top.

You have to be very careful with your use of language these days.

EMD said...

You have to be very careful with your use of language these days.

I said what I meant and meant what I said.

Although a sarcasm tag might be helpful.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Celebrities using an entertainment show to push the left-liberal cause of the moment? The world really is changing!

Ann Althouse said...

"Don't know and don't care, that's the point."

Well, he has a wife, a wife who was previously married to Tom Cruise. If he (and Tom) are gay, then effort is going into disguising something that would otherwise show.

You seem to assume that there's no effort in just shutting up about the direction of your genitalia, but the public presentation of sexual orientation is a much bigger matter and people are putting effort into hiding it.

Yeah, it would be better if we could get through this transitional period and have the whole subject become too boring to pay attention to anymore, but if that's what you want, how about helping us get to the end of this transitional period instead of slowing it down?

Pogo is Dead said...

It went way past boring once it became compulsory about two years ago.

Everyone must applaud!

PeterK said...

outing oneself as "gay" or any of the other 50+ designations that Facebook has listed is a play for sympathy and tells me that you have no faith in your talent. Just look at the football player. Apparently he is talented enough that he will be drafted by a pro team, but by outing himself he has moved himself up the draft ladder, effectively blackmailing a team to draft him at a higher spot.If they don't he and his LGBTWHATEVER supporters will claim bias.

Tank said...

AA:

Yeah, it would be better if we could get through this transitional period and have the whole subject become too boring to pay attention to anymore, but if that's what you want, how about helping us get to the end of this transitional period instead of slowing it down?

Really, you've lost your mind on this. Most of us passed this decades ago. In fact, most of us under 65 never had any problems with gay people.

PeterK said...

" The homosexual couple did not sit out, which meant that the other nine heterosexual men in the class had the choice of either missing out on the group dancing or else dancing a hot, sexy salsa with a gay man. "

actually the heterosexuals could just change their female partners
and shame on the instructor for doing this

AReasonableMan said...

EMD said...
a sarcasm tag might be helpful


Or links to common usage to help out us old unhip white guys.

Ann Althouse said...

"So you find Bob Dylan sexually attractive. All I can say is TMI. And come on. If that is your basis for what you like about popular music (only sexuality matters), then you are even shallower than I thought."

1. I didn't say "only sexuality matters." You are an even worse reader than I'd thought. Sexuality comes through in pop singing. It's an element.

2. I didn't say that all pop singers must be "sexually attractive." I said pop singers project sexuality. Sexuality is almost invariably in the mix. Dylan may be an example of a very popular pop singer who's low on sex appeal, but he absolutely projects his sexuality in his songs, most of which are love songs. He's been telling us about his sex life for years and years. Or do you think of him as the "Times They Are A-Changin'" guy. As Keith Urban said: Times are changing. And Dylan always had his love songs, even when he had his protest songs getting the most attention.

My love she speaks like silence
Without ideals or violence
She doesn’t have to say she’s faithful
Yet she’s true, like ice, like fire
People carry roses
Make promises by the hours
My love she laughs like the flowers
Valentines can’t buy her

Bob Ellison said...

I can't hear or read the words "he has a wife" without thinking of this.

Freder Frederson said...


I said "caused an epidemic."

Well, then you are doubly wrong. The AIDS epidemic in the U.S. did not cause millions of deaths. The pandemic was raging unnoticed in Africa before it jumped to western countries in the seventies. The African pandemic would have continued without the epidemic in the U.S. and western Europe.

bbkingfish said...

Get serious.

This is America. No hugging allowed.

Shouting Thomas said...

@Tank

I'll interrupt changing guitar strings to say this:

That Suze Retolo hugging up against Dylan thing while he writes the next civil rights broadside means a lot to Althouse.

We have to have great civil rights crusades to keep her romantic fantasies going, and bigots are an essential element of the script.

Freder Frederson said...

I didn't say "only sexuality matters."

No you didn't. But you did say "Which pop singers do you like? You don't get sexuality from them? I won't believe a "no" answer."

So you apparently believe that sexuality is a fundamental aspect of being a successful pop singer.

CStanley said...

Yeah, it would be better if we could get through this transitional period and have the whole subject become too boring to pay attention to anymore, but if that's what you want, how about helping us get to the end of this transitional period instead of slowing it down?

Well with issues like this as well as the War on Women, you seem to think that indulging people will more quickly allow them to move past things. I don't agree, and I invite you to show any evidence in human nature that your thesis is correct.

Renee said...

If you ever read the application to be on a reality/competition show, they make clear that producers have final say. You could sing, cook, dance, or whatever but the people who make the show even in the preliminary episodes ALL must have stories that the producers want.

It is a running joke on the X Factor in UK about their sob stories.

We just put on PBS, now a days.

Bob Ellison said...

Ann Althouse said "Yeah, it would be better if we could get through this transitional period and have the whole subject become too boring to pay attention to anymore, but if that's what you want, how about helping us get to the end of this transitional period instead of slowing it down?"

When cultures change mores, most of the big revelations come early and are codified much later. For example, folks created the Republican Party in the 1850s or so in order to eradicate slavery. (Sorry, revisionists; that's the truth.) Blacks were elected to Congress and lauded as leaders. When the Bolsheviks took over Russia, the talk was of workers uniting. When Bob Dylan plugged in, the folk-music group went crazy.

The people who would try to slow down cultural change are forgotten. The people who try to speed it up, and especially those who exaggerate the movement, tend to turn into cultural tyrants.

CStanley said...

Well, he has a wife, a wife who was previously married to Tom Cruise. If he (and Tom) are gay, then effort is going into disguising something that would otherwise show

Still don't see why I should care.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Ann Althouse said...

You seem to assume that there's no effort in just shutting up about the direction of your genitalia, but the public presentation of sexual orientation is a much bigger matter and people are putting effort into hiding it.


So? The effort that has to be put in when NOT hiding it, is greater.

If you don't agree, then please refute my post, above.

If you can, you will be the first to have done so, and I will thank you for it, because I wish the situation I described wasn't so.

But it is. And you cannot just sweep it under the rug, hoping that if you ignore it, it's not really there.

Pogo is Dead said...

Boring cultural tyrants.

Teh gays are like the squares of the 50s.
Intolerant and hegemonic assholes.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

And you cannot just sweep it under the rug, hoping that if you ignore it, it's not really there.

And yes, I realize the irony of saying that, since that is precisely the 'best' solution to declaring one's homosexuality. It is 'best' to not do so, and for the rest of us to ignore it as if it is not there.

That that is a bad solution, only underscores how much worse all the others are.

Bob Ellison said...

Sorry; I should have cited the tyrannical examples in order of appearance in my post above: Jesse Jackson, Stalin, and maybe R.E.M.

Jason said...

Freddie Mercury hid his sexual orientation. He did not openly own it.

He. Named. His. Fucking. Band. "QUEEN."

Holy crap, Professor. I love you and your blog, but as soon as someone mentions teh gheys you lose 50 IQ points and become a simpering idiot.

Really.

AReasonableMan said...

Renee said...
We just put on PBS, now a days.


Damn socialists!

Freder Frederson said...

It is 'best' to not do so, and for the rest of us to ignore it as if it is not there.

So when you were in high school, you only called people faggots if they were openly gay. You would never assume someone was gay if they were bad at sports or just didn't fit in.

I call bullshit.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Freder Frederson said...

It is 'best' to not do so, and for the rest of us to ignore it as if it is not there.

So when you were in high school, you only called people faggots if they were openly gay. You would never assume someone was gay if they were bad at sports or just didn't fit in.

I call bullshit.


Your responses are nonsensical. What the fuck are you talking about? Did you even READ my posts? You certainly didn't understand them, based on your replies.

Bob Ellison said...

I remove R.E.M. as a cultural tyrant candidate. They did some good stuff. Partial to threes, I am. There's got to be a modern exemplar, though, of the acoustic-to-electric folk tyranny. Maybe not.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shouting Thomas said...

@Freder

Jesus, I'm trying to get some work done, but how can I when you keep braying like a jackass.

Everybody got called names and was bullied in high school, you fucking moron.

Adolescents are savages.

High school martyrdom is the dumbest of all dumbshit memes.

You win the jackass of the thread award. Congratulations!

Renee said...

Progressives are progressive in politics, but not their day to day routines. They act like social conservatives through out the day.

Shouting Thomas said...

Let me be the first to tell you this, Freder..

Your motivations are no damned good.

You don't hold these opinions because you are a good person.

Quite the opposite.

Bob Ellison said...

Renee, "progressive" is code for "I cheat on taxes."

Renee said...

F*gg*t was such a common derogatory slur used in school. I didn't realize it reference homosexuality until later.

Shouting Thomas said...

Now, Freder, can you please STFU?

Your brand of stupidity and vanity is so odious that I have difficulty letting it pass, and I've got work to do.

AReasonableMan said...

Renee said...
Progressives are progressive in politics, but not their day to day routines. They act like social conservatives through out the day.


And the scales of years of right wing propaganda begin to fall from her eyes.

Freder Frederson said...

It is 'best' to not do so, and for the rest of us to ignore it as if it is not there.

My point is that "the rest of us" do not ignore it simply because others do not publicly announce they are gay.

Take Althouse as an example, she is apparently rather concerned whether Keith Urban and Tom Cruise are gay.

SteveOrr said...

Jim Verraros on the first season of American Idol was openly gay:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SWUEAAAAMBAJ&lr=&q=teen%20idol%27s%20&f=false#v=onepage&q=teen%20idol%27s&f=false

That was 12 years ago.

John said...

AA said..."Yeah, it would be better if we could get through this transitional period and have the whole subject become too boring to pay attention to anymore, but if that's what you want, how about helping us get to the end of this transitional period instead of slowing it down?

How do you define "transitional period"? Discussions of human sexuality have been around since time began. It's like the climate - it changes over time, but it never 'ends'. Well, that is, until that meteor hits us.

Renee said...

Progressives are nonreligious, but personally benefit from the social morals from religion. (Stable families/education)

They really dislike God.

Michael K said...

"Holy crap, Professor. I love you and your blog, but as soon as someone mentions teh gheys you lose 50 IQ points and become a simpering idiot.

Really."

Concur.

Freder Frederson said...



F*gg*t was such a common derogatory slur used in school. I didn't realize it reference homosexuality until later.

I be you didn't realize the "n word" was a derogatory slur referring to Black people either.

jr565 said...

Althouse wrote:
Freddie Mercury hid his sexual orientation. He did not openly own it.

his band was called Queen. And did hyou see hi sporting his leather boy outfit? What person didn't assume he was gay?

Freder Frederson said...

Progressives are nonreligious

You are full of shit. There are a lot of religious Progressives.

Freder Frederson said...

What person didn't assume he was gay?

Althouse apparently. She was probably (the only one in the world) surprised when Brian Boitano came out a couple weeks ago.

AReasonableMan said...

Renee said...
Progressives are nonreligious, but personally benefit from the social morals from religion. (Stable families/education)

They really dislike God.


The concept that morality can only be discerned correctly in the context of religion is going to be real big disappointment for all those philosophers who have apparently wasted their time on these same issues for millennia.

jr565 said...

So, prior to her pointing out her gayness there were no gay singers?
I think what's changed is that everyone wants to congratulate themselves on being accepting of gayness and turning it into a conversation where they get to point out how enlightened they are.

Renee said...

But you have to be accountable for yourself, morality only makes sense with God in the picture other wise what's the point.


My kids watch a lot of Nova/ Nature, so when that Chevy Traverse commercial came on during the Olympics and asked "What makes a family?", one of my kids responded "Genes!"

Sorry media can't fool my kids, but they may end up in detection if they say it in a public school.

MadisonMan said...

You all mean Queen was not an homage to Elizabeth II?

Shouting Thomas said...

@Freder

Yeah, the overwhelming problem for blacks is that some people call them "niggers," not that half of all black men find their way to jail, or that 70% of black kids are illegitimate, or that black failure in school is endemic.

As I said, your motives are not damned good and you are a fucking idiot.

Nobody ever told you before?

You a complete fucking idiot, so let me explain this to you as simply as possible.

Any person who allows being called a name to derail them from their ambitions is a stupid weakling who was doomed to failure long before he was called a bad name.

Your actual motive is a desire to continue political policies that encourage dependency in blacks so that your political party wins.

You're a degenerate, vain asshole. You've got some very serious character flaws, not the least of which is being a conniving liar.

Renee said...

Regarding the N word, it was never said in school.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Yeah, it would be better if we could get through this transitional period and have the whole subject become too boring to pay attention to anymore, but if that's what you want, how about helping us get to the end of this transitional period instead of slowing it down?

This will never, ever ever happen because there are far too many people in this country addicted to the masturbatory ecstasy attached to identifying examples of The Great Tragic Oppression of Sexual Minorities and demonstrating what Incredibly Evolved and Superior Human Beings they are for Fighting for the Oppressed.

It's that smug, sanctimonious bullshit that has turned me (a nonpracticing bisexual, by the way) from an ally to the cause to wanting them to Shut the Everloving Fuck Up, Already.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Oh Renee, how precious; I assure you and your kids that my adopted son is a member of my family despite his lack of my DNA.

Shouting Thomas said...

@Pants,

You have described Freder perfectly.

Everything is about his fucking moral vanity.

What an evil bastard.

Naked Surfer said...

“I'm very obviously gay ....”

And very obviously on a Truman Show that’s very obviously commercial free and that’s very obviously promoting what’s very obviously true as a very obviously free public service announcement for the very obviously public good of the very obviously targeted viewing public – consuming – the very obviously-idolatry that coming out means coming out on Idol .

“... and there are always gonna be people in America and everywhere else who are definitely going to hate."

Perfect. That doubles the consumer audience. Idol is as idol does. And idle viewers cannot be. Because there are always going to be – consumers – in America who very obviously lower their IQ by dividing the world into – consuming – those who very obviously love you and those who very obviously hate. What a very obviously great public service.

Are Idol ratings going up very obviously? Are Idol and FaceBook poised to thrive by creating multiple personalities with multiple faces very obviously to feed their newly minted multiple consumers inside their very own Matrix ?

Is David Bowie now a persona non grata in the consumer world because of his public ambivalence about being ambi, because Bowie was very obviously not a-changing quite enough to sell -- anymore?

Thank goodness that Idol is doing its straight best queerly to protect commercial speech.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

ST--Not evil; just tiresome and banal.

broomhandle said...

You'd have to be incredibly naive to not realize that every televised minute of American Idol is massaged, managed and scripted.

Michael K said...

The big news this week was the striking down of the gay marriage ban in Virginia, sort of a pun on the state's name.

Anyway, the learned judge made a bit of news when she got the Constitution and Declaration of Independence confused.

I wonder how many people like me, when they see a stupid thing like this done by someone who is supposed (one would think) to know better, go to Wikipedia for the biography and photo.

I denounce myself. No surprise, though.

Wright Allen was nominated to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by President Barack Obama on December 1, 2010

Shouting Thomas said...

People succeed in this world despite the efforts of competitors to derail them, not because the world has been re-ordered to be "nice."

Grimstarr said...

And those guys that sang "Y.M.C.A." and "In the Navy"? Never saw THAT coming! The Village People? Gay? Whodathunkit?

Oh, also Clay Aiken from the second season of American Idol. Gay. Who knew?

Guess I've just been living in a cave for the past 50 years. (/sarc although I SHOULDN'T have to use that tag here)

Renee said...

@Pant

Adopted kids care about their birth family and at least know who they are.

They lost their family!

I don't care about the adopted parents feelings, who try to tell me that there's no difference.

There's a difference. Its unfortunate when birth parents can't raise their own kids, but I don't exploit the lost for the emotions of adults.

Adoption is about the needs of kids, not the wants of adults.

jr565 said...

AReasonableMan wrote:
"The concept that morality can only be discerned correctly in the context of religion is going to be real big disappointment for all those philosophers who have apparently wasted their time on these same issues for millennia."

you can discern morality all you want. Only, absent an ordered universe and a morality above you, any morality you could come up with is simply a value judgement on your part. And your value judgment is neither better or worse than any one else's.so then where are you coming up with morality for others to follow?

I.e. If they think gays are evil, and you think loving gays is moral, why are you more right than them?

And thus, the only evil that you could find in others is that they don't think like you. What was it that liberals always say about religious folks? "That they can't impose their morality on others"? That's all your morality is.

So then take a figure like a Ted Bundy. He made the argument that all morality is subjective value judgements (just like you are arguing) .and why should he be bound by other people's subjective value judgements when he was strong enough to take what he wanted.

maybe being strong enough to take what you want is in fact moral.it certainly is for the people who could care less. Or who have moved beyond good and evil.
It certainly is the natural state of things in nature.

Think about the things you think are morally evil. Are they morally evil because those things are morally evil, I.e. Raping women is objectively wrong, or because you just think they are morally evil.

jr565 said...

"Yeah, it would be better if we could get through this transitional period and have the whole subject become too boring to pay attention to anymore, but if that's what you want, how about helping us get to the end of this transitional period instead of slowing it down?"
I guess I'm more progressive then the average liberal since I'm already bored by it and wish you, similarly would stop paying attention to it.
Only, my guess is this is like the libs view on quotas for blacks. When is that day when we can finally judge people on the content of the character and not the color of their skin? someday!

CStanley said...

WTH Renee?

It is in the best interest of adopted kids to know that they are loved equally by their adopted parents as are their siblings who might be biologically related to the parents.

Why would you criticize parents for expressing that?

AReasonableMan said...

jr565 said...
Only, absent an ordered universe and a morality above you, any morality you could come up with is simply a value judgement on your part.


This argument would make some sense if we still lived in the middle ages ruled by a single Church. Now, however, which church? Which religion? Which God(s)? It is arguable that in a pluralistic society, such as ours, moral philosophy is the only unified context we now have to understand and discuss morality.

MadisonMan said...

You'd have to be incredibly naive to not realize that every televised minute of American Idol is massaged, managed and scripted.

Very true. I have to say, though, that the new Producers are doing a better job with the show IMO. First off, the chemistry between the judges is a lot better. Sure JLo is kinda just there, but she's beautiful (I wish she'd've said NO to a couple more people though, it always seemed like when she was the deciding vote for Hollywood that she caved and said Yes. It's okay to be bitchy on the show -- HCJ and KU were a LOT to singers deserving of it). And they're focusing more on the singers rather than the lame back stories or the joke auditions.

Renee said...

@CStanley

If I was too adopt I wouldn't treat my adopted children and my biological kids the same.

Adopted kids have needs and their lost needs to be recognized.

Nothing wrong to acknowledge the truth for an adopted child has lost their family.



JOB said...

What do Josiah Phillips, Daniel Shays and Christianity have in common?

They're all on the wrong side of who has a "Locke" on defining "Liberty" (=Power).

JOB

Naked Surfer said...

Only, absent an ordered universe and a morality above you, any morality you could come up with is simply a value judgement on your part.

Well, I guess we lost that well ordered universe when the Almighty cursed the monolith builders at the Tower of Babel and Mr. Well-Ordered plunged the world into the plurality and ambiguity of confusion, though of course, [Bruce] the Almighty-Trickster launched that cute little curse of Confusion “from above.”

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

I don't want to continue the derailment of this thread but you are very ignorant about adoption, Renee. Unless you think it actually is in my son's emotional best interest to tell him that

A. his birth mother was a drug-addicted, HIV-infected prostitute who expressed, repeatedly, her regrets for aborting him but was too high and too lazy to get to the clinic before it was statutorily too late and couldn't be bothered to take her anti-HIV meds and show up for a C-section to minimize the chances of the baby's infection

B. his birth father was a pathetic loser whose first action when informed of his son's birth was to demand a paternity test and second instinct was to ask, "where do I sign to give him away" and who never even laid eyes on the baby despite the court offering him every opportunity

C. the most redeeming thing either of those creatures ever did was give him up for adoption to a happy family that adores him

D. that he is less a member of our family than his sisters are

E. the only reason his dad and I adopted him was not because he was a gift from God sent directly to us just like his birth sisters were, but because of our "feelings".

Your heart is in the right place but I advise you to be very careful talking to adoptive parents in the real world the way you are talking here.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

an adopted child has lost his family

My last word on the subject:

No, MORON, an adopted child GAINED a family that he did not HAVE before.

jr565 said...

Areasonableman wrote:
"This argument would make some sense if we still lived in the middle ages ruled by a single Church. Now, however, which church? Which religion? Which God(s)? It is arguable that in a pluralistic society, such as ours, moral philosophy is the only unified context we now have to understand and discuss morality."
But then, I hope you realize that all discussions of morality are simply discussions of value judgments. And you simply believe something is right because you believe it, not because it is right.
And any restriction imposed on society would simply be imposing values through threat of force based on arbitrary values of the people who believe those values.
If that's what you beleive,mthen if society says marriage is between a man and a woman why would you have a problem with that. You certainly shouldn't resort to arguments suggesting that such restrictions are objectively wrong should you?
and for those that don't agree with you! what is their ultimate crime? Simply that they don't agree with your view of morality. But, why is your value judgement, or the liberal value judgement any more valid than a non liberals?

jr565 said...

Religious people say something is wrong or right, because it simply is. Morality is above them. Whatever religion we're tslking about.
But, if there is no objective morality, then there's only subjective morality.we can all come to our morality if there's subjective morality. We can all get beyond good and evil. Only, Nietzche then said those enlightened few who did so would go on to do virtuous deeds. Except, of course, there is no virtuous deed. Virtue is whatever you say it is.
If you think helping the poor is virtuous then that's virtuous. If you think killing the poor is virtuous then thats equally virtuous. If a third party sees you killing the poor, what objection is he going to use to say what he sees is wrong? other then he thinks its wrong? well! ok! the guy doing the killing doesn't think its wrong, so therefore what. Do you think a sociopath ever really questions subjective morality?
Billions of people each have their own subjective morality. Why is ones subjective morality more valid than others?

Renee said...

We need to stop calling children 'gifts'. They are not material possessions that are given to us.


All I know is that adopted adults search for their families. Good or bad the predicament of the parents, the birth parents are family. The family, yes that could not be there for this child. But they are the family. That is a lost.

God didn't gift you a child, you had a calling from God to help a child in need who lost his family from substance abuse and neglect.

No matter how horrible his parents are, he carries their genes. They are apart of him.

Renee said...

In case anyone wonder why I hold this view, I have an older family member who had to give up the baby decades ago. She's a mom. She lost her baby, and found him 40 years later.

Valentine Smith said...

Oh so so so many firsts to get through before the transition period ends! Oh so so so many victims of socially induced low "self-esteem" to yet step forward and declaim "I'm here, I'm queer, fuck you!" I do so enjoy the constant competition among entertainment outlets to inundate me with their hatred of me. Why it's almost actually entertaining!

Why can't I be the star of my own psychosocial tragicomedy? Must I stick my dick in an aardvark's ear to get some attention?

Where the fuck is my 15 minutes, man?

n.n said...

Now that they have rejected objective standards for normalization, they can no longer arbitrarily discriminate against previously tolerated behaviors, including other dysfunctional behaviors. This calls into question their choice to isolate homosexual behavior and why people tolerate this selective activism. I guess that pro-choice (i.e. selective interest) is the underlying principle of progress, which would explain its inconsistent, actually chaotic character.

Unknown said...

Freder Frederson says "The vast majority of AIDS deaths and infections are the result of heterosexual sex."

The CDC says 25% of infections are from heterosexual sex.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/2012/hiv-infections-2007-2010.pdf

CStanley said...

Renee,
I don't know why you consider it either-or, as in either an adoptive child is being raised apart from his family, or the adoptive parents make him feel 100% part of his adoptive family without acknowledging the loss.

Of course adoptive kids have special needs, and the loss should be acknowledged. So what? My bilogical kids have special needs too, and as a parent I have to address those needs.

What you suggest though, treating an adoptive child as a stray who is only being given shelter and sustenance as a charity, is offensive and destructive. Perhaps your sister and her child had a happy reunion but in most cases that is not possible.

CStanley said...

Sorry, I see that you wrote "older family member", not sister.

I also wanted to comment on your "gift" statement. I largely agree (though gift can have other meanings) but IMO this applies more to people who are so obsessed with DNA as a necessary component of parenting that they go through extraordinary measures to conceive instead of opening their home to a child in need of a family

jr565 said...

Two days ago it was all about the football player, today its the American idol contentstant. And every time we have to say how brave they Are and do the celebratory dance.


Illuninati said...

jr565 said...

"Billions of people each have their own subjective morality. Why is ones subjective morality more valid than others?"

One of the defining characteristics of lefties is their sense of moral superiority. Without an objective moral standard, lefties depend on the mimetic process to define right and wrong. Their morality is nothing but group think or mob psychology writ large.

Renee said...

I am not suggesting that an adoptive child be treated like a stray, I just get annoyed by the language adoptive parents use.


The birth mom was not a close relative, but an older cousin.

The stories from adopted kids, who are now 'anti-adoption' adults is pretty interesting.

Naked Surfer said...

... But, if there is no objective morality, then there's only subjective morality ..."

Objective refers to the agreement. Not to an Objective Source.

If consumers of Idol make the agreement to consume Idol by watching Idol , then their viewership and other agreements with the content are the objective agreement.

The problem with the morality of the Objective Source is that you’re not arguing for an agreement with the Objective Source, only for your subjective interpretation of It.

Wayworn Wanderer said...

And I care what any of those three judges has to say about social issues?

MadisonMan said...

The stories from adopted kids, who are now 'anti-adoption' adults is pretty interesting.

Well, adopted adults don't have a monopoly on the kind of unhappiness that might make an adult lobby against something they perceive to have harmed them.

If only I weren't insert adjective I would be happy!!.

CStanley said...

Renee, like a lot of things in life, this subject is messy, and hard. I just don't see why you would want to make it harder.

It's not the same for all kids, either. Do some situations not work out, and kids grow up unhappy and resentful? Of course. Sometimes that's the fault of well meaning adoptive parents who just couldn't see the right way to deal with the situation.

Other times it is due to wounds that go too deep, or biological realities like the damage done by drug abuse, or inherited brain abnormalities.

But again I stress that this is really no different than biological parenting, except that we know what specific wounds need healing in the case of adopted kids. With our biological kids, sometimes we recognize their needs and sometimes we miss those as well (or see but don't know how to handle them.)

Illuninati said...

Naked Surfer said...
"“ ... But, if there is no objective morality, then there's only subjective morality ..."

Objective refers to the agreement. Not to an Objective Source.

If consumers of Idol make the agreement to consume Idol by watching Idol , then their viewership and other agreements with the content are the objective agreement."

That is a good summary of the mimetic process as I understand it. In the book THE GREAT TERROR the author Robert Conquest reports that some of the people involved in the Terror were asked why they didn't object morally. The response was that the Communist Party defined morality for them, so by definition anything the Communist Party sanctioned was by definition moral.

Naked Surfer said...

“ ... THE GREAT TERROR ...”

Surely. That Communist terror little different from German soldiers writing home, The Last Letters From Stalingrad , expressing no remorse for their “Come and See” apocalyptic romp through rural Russia. Extreme agreements breeding extreme agreements.

So do Tea Party members think the Tea Party is about drinking tea post-taxation or doing something else – objective – about it? How many new colonies divided religiously will we need after the Party is over?

Tacit agreements are as tacit agreements do. In Russia following Stalin’s handsome moustache on Idol . Or in The American Republic: its Constitution, Tendencies, and Destiny , and the myth of the rational voter.

The Crack Emcee said...

Thinking American Idol is an influence on anything is tripping pretty hard.

It's like thinking, because the Grammies gave Maklemore's pro-gay drivel the award, Rap is going to change.

Group hug for robbing black people in favor of gays!

Nothing racist about it.

Love ya for it!

NOT!


David said...

Just watched a bio of Jerry Smith, a very good tight end for the (gasp) Redskins, whose playing career ended in 1977. Smith died of aids in 1986.

The documentary made it abundantly clear that Smith's teammates knew that he was homosexual. They made nothing of it, and because Smith wanted privacy the players never revealed it. Some members of the press knew and also respected his privacy.

When Smith became ill with aids (this was the pretreatment era), many of his teammates actively supported him. These included Sonny Jurgensen, Bobby Mitchell, Charley Taylor, Chris Hanburger, Brig Owens, Dave Kopay, Billy Kilmer, Calvin Hill, Bruce Allen, Mark Murphy. Old school NFL guys, black and white, who accepted him for who he was and as a outstanding teammate.

I have little doubt that there were may other examples of this support in the supposedly homophobic NFL over the years. There were probably examples of lack of acceptance too.

The one thing you did not see, then or now, was these old school players congratulating themselves about how wonderful and tolerant they were. They did not think of it in those terms at all. Jerry Smith was a guy they liked and respected. They hated that he was sick, and were sorrowful when he died.

I really am tired of people telling us how wonderful they are for doing what decent people have done for decades. Or longer.

Fen said...

Interesting double standard. If she had said "I'm very obviously Christian, and there are always gonna be people in America and everywhere else who are going to hate."... they would have told her to quit being such a whiner.

Instead its all "Coo coo awwww!"

Jupiter said...

One does not need to "hate" homosexuals to realize that homosexuals are broken. No one wants their children to be homosexual. If there were a pill that cured homosexuality ...

SGT Ted said...


I might ask you: Do you have to so overtly show that you expect gay people to hide their sexual orientation?

The hackneyed answer to that last question is the assertion that heterosexual people don't make a display of their heterosexuality.


That answer drives me crazy too.

Rusty said...

"Titus said...
Kansas is going back to the dark ages with their new law running through their senate which the governor will naturally sign....and then it will be deemed illegal."

It's illegal to sing in Kansas now?
Well. Shit. There goes my dinner theater career.

"Which pop singers do you like? You don't get sexuality from them? I won't believe a "no" answer."


You're going to have to because for many years all you could do was listen to the singer.
I never knew what Chuck Berry looked like until the 70s. Or is your point that "Long Tall Sally" exuded sexuality?
All this time I thought it was about the music.


Other than that. I've never seen the show and since I've dropped cable-best thing I've ever done-I probably never will.

"Gay"(coincidentally the name of a friend of my wife) is rapidly leaving 'boring' and is approaching 'annoying',at which point I will feel obligated to go full sarcastic.

Sorry gay folk. You brought it on yourself.



Chuck said...

I was kicked off a blog's discussion board this week as a result of the Michael Sam/NFL story.

It is a sports blog; and like so many, it has a "no politics" rule. Last week, someone started a kind of a "Yay, Michael Sam!" thread. It crashed into flames, puportedly because of a few anti-gay comments using bad language. I didn't comment in that thread.

Then another one was started, after many commenters posted on what a pity it was that a nice, civil (pro-gay) discussion could not be had, all because of a few bad apples. My comment in that regard, which began to get me in hot water with the moderators, was, "This is all politics." (And thereby violated the no-politics rule.)

In response to that second thread, which featured video of an old Dallas tv sportscaster going off on a pro-Michael Sam rant, I posted (without any other comment) a Newsbusters column by Matt Philbin that compared the MSM treatment of Tim Tebow and Michael Sam. It's a great column:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-philbin/2014/02/11/tebow-vs-sam-tale-two-draft-picks

Simply for posting that, without any of my own analysis or commentary, my thread was removed and when I questioned why, I was suspended.

The pro-gay industrial complex is trending into extremism; and they probably don't even realize it.

Titus said...

You know what's boring oldies.....you guys constantly bitching about gays in the new.

If you don't care why constantly comment about how much you don't care and how really boring the topics is.....you dried up old twats?

You fucking care bitches and you prove it when you hit over 100 comments on the gay posts.

SGT Ted said...

So you apparently believe that sexuality is a fundamental aspect of being a successful pop singer.

Sports stadiums packed with screaming, feinting girls tend to support the theory.

Not to mention a whole industry that makes billions of dollars bringing us the next "heart throb".

They do call them "heart throbs" for a reason.

Freder Frederson said...

The CDC says 25% of infections are from heterosexual sex.

That is infections in the U.S. I was referring to worldwide infections. Which is the only statistic that matters if, like Shouting Thomas claims, AIDS "has taken tens of millions of lives".

Freder Frederson said...

Sports stadiums packed with screaming, feinting girls tend to support the theory.

I am not arguing that some pop stars rely on their sexuality to sell records.

What I object to is Althouse's assertion that it is a necessary factor of any success in popular music.

AReasonableMan said...

Titus said...
You fucking care bitches and you prove it when you hit over 100 comments on the gay posts.


Yes. Gays and Womin's issues posts never fail to hit 100 comments. The less some people know about a topic the keener they are to express an opinion. If Althouse regularly posted on race she would hit the trifecta of KnowNothingness.

Blue@9 said...

I actually know MK--sweet kid, great voice. And yeah, she's obviously gay. Why is that even an issue? Isn't this American Idol? Pretty much every season has had gay singers.

Rusty said...


"If you don't care why constantly comment about how much you don't care and how really boring the topics is."

Because it's guaranteed to get you bitchin'.
And that's entertainment.

Renee said...

Most of the posts were not about gay, but producers, personal moral v public policy/ family/sports. All the issues that seem to be hijacked by a force in media and politics to become about being gay.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

I just get annoyed by the language adoptive parents use

Well Renee until you are either an adoptee or an adopter how about you shut your gob about it because how other parents discuss their children is none of your fucking business?

Renee said...

I actually volunteer with foster/adoptive services. I work with both birth parents, foster, and adoptive parents.

eric said...

This is too funny.

Since when has anyone cared about Lesbian homosexuality? Seriously. We had a running joke in High School that was one of those jokes that was funny because it was true. Say the word Lesbian in a room filled with men and everyone gets 10% happier.

But since when are Lesbians homosexual, really? I mean, women have a different sexuality than men do. They hug and kiss and touch each other and are hetrosexual. Lesbians become hetrosexual become lesbians again. It's a fluid situation for the most part. I've known several a Lesbian throughout my life and every one of them has had an attraction to at least one man, even while announcing that they are lesbian.

C'mon Althouse. If you want to push the gay agenda on us, it can't be with Lesbians. That just makes us guys happy. We like Lesbians. We want to have a threesome with lesbians. It appeals to our sexuality. It's titilating.

By the way, I'm at least 10% happier now after having written this and remembering and thinking about lesbians.

Please, can we talk about girl on girl sex more?

Inga said...

@Pant

"Adopted kids care about their birth family and at least know who they are.

They lost their family!

I don't care about the adopted parents feelings, who try to tell me that there's no difference.

There's a difference. Its unfortunate when birth parents can't raise their own kids, but I don't exploit the lost for the emotions of adults.

Adoption is about the needs of kids, not the wants of adults."

2/14/14, 10:41 AM

Whoa Renee, that is incredibly insensitive and uncaring and untrue for most people.

hombre said...

Unless she can bring it off like Adam Lambert, who should have won given his co-finalist, she is likely to be gone in short order.

If Althouse is right and "pop singers project sexuality," what and to whom is this confused little boy/girl projecting?

"People who Hate?" Oh please. Pity? Probably. Amusement? Possibly. But hate? What's to hate?

Chuck said...

Eric:

Q. How many lesbians does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A. That's not funny.

Renee said...

http://www.griefspeaks.com/id93.html

Not really Igna.




"The Special Needs of Adopted Children:

Need to be assured often that the child is welcome and worthy. 
Need to be validated for having a dual heritage, both biological and adoptive. 
The need to be taught that adoption is wonderful and also painful, and can present lifelong challenges for everyone involved.  The need to know their adoption story first and then the birth story and about the birth family next.  Children need to be prepared for some hurtful things that other children may say about adoption and about the child being an adoptee. 
Children need to be validated that adoption involves loss and grief. Children need to be assured that the birth parent's decision to let them go was not about the child but about the parents. Children need permission to express all of their feelings around the adoption.  Children need to deal with their feelings of rejection and to learn that absence doesn't mean abandonment.  
Adopted children need parents who are able to meet their own emotional needs so that the children can grow up with healthy role models. They also need parents who are able to face the special needs that adopted children and teens have. Children need to hear their parents openly discuss their own feelings around the adoption. 
It is crucial for adoptees to be able to grieve their losses so that they can learn to receive and give love to others which often begins with their adopted parents."

hombre said...

Actually, I do hate that the dark haired woman with glasses, who could really sing, was sent home to make room for the judges' statement of enlightenment.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

Eric, want to see some hot lesbians?

Here ya go, enjoy!

Inga said...

Reneeee,
I have two adult adopted cousins who had the chance to meet their birth mothers, both (from different aunts and uncles) declined. My aunts and uncles loved and cherished their adopted children every bit as much as their birth children and my cousins were so bonded to their Mother's that they did NOT want to meet their birth family.

Renee said...

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2161590/

10 Things Adoptees Want to Know

One if the items is language. Stay away from loaded phrases like 'chosen' or 'special'.

All I'm saying is offering a balanced approach, not a blind one.

Geesh

hombre said...

Freder: "Actually no. The vast majority of AIDS deaths and infections are the result of heterosexual sex."

In the US, the CDC reports consistently that a significant majority of newly reported HIV-AIDS infections occur among men who have sex with men (MSM).

Can you refute SThomas' statement that the epidemic was "caused" by homosexuals, regardless of where it started?

Assuming reprehensibility, is it any less reprehensible to perpetuate a deadly epidemic than to cause one?

John (the other John) said...

@Eric...
Lesbian

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Please see earlier post re: Facebook's gender possibilities and pick a new word.

Renee said...

Igna,

Your cousins could give the birth family an hour of their time over a cup a coffee, because they were too bonded with their adoptive mom?

I could see that situation if they were adopted as older children, and memories too painful. I have situations where siblings choose not to see one another because of the bad memories
Also if they are aware of current mental health issues that may make even unsafe.

Inga said...

Reneeeee, no they were adopted as babies and it was entirely their choice to not meet their birth mother's. They did NOT want to. My aunts and uncles left it up to them and respected their decisions, even of they would've chosen to meet their birth mothers. Both aunts have since passed away and no meeting with the birth families has happened over the years since their Mom's deaths.

B said...

Illuninati said...In the book THE GREAT TERROR the author Robert Conquest reports that some of the people involved in the Terror were asked why they didn't object morally. The response was that the Communist Party defined morality for them, so by definition anything the Communist Party sanctioned was by definition moral.

If you don't mind, I may use this when the inevitable abortion thread comes up. It defines the approach a lot of supposedly warred on women take when confronted with the amorality of abortion stripped of the woman's rights charade.

kentuckyliz said...

Adam Lambert.

A cute lipstick lesbian could be an American idol, but not a diesel dyke.

kentuckyliz said...

God we need Simon Cowell back. He would bluntly put it in terms of potential commercial value in the market.

Unknown said...

---Freddie Mercury hid his sexual orientation. He did not openly own it.

So that's just not an example of what we are talking about. ---

Better example is Little Richard.

Unknown said...

----Good or bad the predicament of the parents, the birth parents are family. The family, yes that could not be there for this child. But they are the family. That is a lost.----

Total, deranged Bull(*#*. I am an adopted person. Whoever my biological "family" is is absolutely meaningless to me. I literally have spent no more than 4 minutes thinking about that 'entitity' in my sixty years of life. There may be some who care but I am happy to claim my loving real family and have NO loss from lack of the other.

Unknown said...

----So do Tea Party members think the Tea Party is about drinking tea post-taxation or doing something else – objective – about it? How many new colonies divided religiously will we need after the Party is over?----

Hallucinations in evidence here.

Unknown said...

------The pro-gay industrial complex is trending into extremism; and they probably don't even realize it.-----

It would be well to remember that gay people constitute only 3 percent of the population.

TMink said...

Unknown, Little Richard would engage in a bisexual orgy at night then wake up the next morning, naked with a Bible, preaching about the evils of homosexuality.

I am not sure he is the right person to bring into your argument.

Trey

Bob Ellison said...

The Professor said I might ask you: Do you have to so overtly show that you expect gay people to hide their sexual orientation?

The hackneyed answer to that last question is the assertion that heterosexual people don't make a display of their heterosexuality.


The hackney is an appropriate metaphor. It's a high-stepping pony.

Heterosexual people don't make a display of their heterosexuality because that sexuality is a pretty good assumption in 95% or so of the population. I know homosexuals who don't make a big deal about their sexuality either.

The high-stepping ponies make a big deal because they want to force us to like them, love them, approve of their preferences. If they were half the men and women they think they are, they would say "I don't care what you think" and stop.