I'm not sure why I bother -- it's like taking a sand-blaster to a soup cracker. Over here, Blogging Tory "Halls of Macadamia" can't address the actual issues, so he stoops to lies in order to defame me:
The person who bills himself as Canadian Cynic is so shy he has to post here anonymously, before putting up a frothing personal attack at his own version of myblahg.
Hetero-bias my arse. You can't go two minutes without thinking about "the cock."
Sadly for "Halls," that's not my comment. (Regular readers of mine will know that I rarely leave comments on other blogs and, when I do, I make sure to sign them properly.)
So ... how about it, Halls? A correction and apology would be nice. Sometime this year would be even nicer.
Yeah, and while we're at it, I'd like a pony.
BONUS TRACK: In the comments section at that same article, the aptly-named "Neo Conservative" asks the $64,000 question:
... if science offered a way to ensure that your child would not be born gay... would you avail yourself of the technology, or just roll the dice and live with the result?
Why, yes, let's consider this very question, shall we? Personally, I'm willing to bet that most people would prefer to have a heterosexual child. But why do you think that is?
Could it be that, historically, gays have been discriminated against in almost every conceivable way? Could that be it? Yes, it's certainly amusing to hear Christians, who have historically denounced gays as deviant and abominations, to the point where gays have been beaten if not outright killed for their sexual orientation, now ask those same gays whether they would "prefer" to be straight. How droll. I'm guessing they would, if only to escape the misery of their lives due to Christian moralists treating them like crap day in and day out.
It's kind of like treating blacks like second-class citizens for centuries, enslaving them and lynching them, then asking them in all seriousness whether they would "prefer" to be white, thereby "proving" the innate superiority of being white.
I'm guessing that "Neo Conservative" doesn't even see the irony in having Canada's wingers denounce gays as not having the same civil rights as straights, then in the same breath asking whether they'd be happier being straight. Gosh, NC, you think there might be a logical connection there?
No, really, take your time. I'm sure the answer will come to you eventually.
AND THE EYE-ROLLING DISHONESTY CONTINUES. And back at the ranch, Halls of Macadamia's proprietor "Neo Conservative" continues his long, slow descent into upper crapitude with this snippet from a recent comment:
I've been enjoying all the comments labeling me a dour "bible thumper"... so much so that I haven't, until now, felt the need to correct the misperception.
whereupon his bluff is called by "Anonymous" who not only corrects his original lie about yours truly, but points out how he is simply making shit up by this point:
Don't put "dour little bible thumper" in quotes if no one actually said that. You're not quoting anyone.
Not-CC Anonymous...Devoted to dragging the Right into the Age of Literacy.
I think we can safely consign that blog, and its worthless hack of an owner, to the dustbin of history. Doing anything else would be to give him more credit than he's worth.
18 comments:
It used to be that psychs would ask prospective transsexuals a similar question: "If I could give you a pill to make the feelings go away, would you take it?"
The answer is, for most transsexuals, no. That would involve killing off a part of themselves.
The real response to Macadamia's question about "taking away Teh Gay" before a child is born, is "what else would you be taking away in the process?"
{He's also making some horrendously bad assumptions about the causal roots of sexuality - which are so not well understood at all}
if science offered a way to ensure that your child would not be born with a life threatenning or life altering genetic defect... would you avail yourself of the technology, or just roll the dice and live with the result?
Gee I wonder how many parents would take science over nature?
Come on, we all know that real parents welcome blindness, MS and all those other "God Given" genetic defects because the build character and test the human nature,... but being "Gay", now that is down right evil.
... if science offered a way to ensure that your child would not be born gay... would you avail yourself of the technology, or just roll the dice and live with the result?
How about if science offered a way to ensure that your child wouldn't turn out to be rightist or a religious fundamentalist?
These (faux) conservatives are so incoherent. They claim to prize individualism and freedom of expression and conscience, but their social goals all to seem to be aiming for total conformity.
Personally I think that "Neo doth protest too much" if you get my drift. Since he says he isn't in it for religious reasons, perhaps he is not as secure in his manhood as he lets on. Maybe he wants that treatment for himself, just in case he finds himself in San Fran one late June weekend and gets tempted....
I can't imagine why else he is so up tight about this.
I don't know about these people anymore. Everyone I know is simply not that caught up with other people's sex lives, whereas these people seem to constantly have their noses jammed into other people's panty drawers and crotches.
I don't think they're closet cases, necessarily...I just think they're obsessed with sex and are fascinated by the sexual taboos they can't face without an enormous amount of guilt over what they see as prurience.
*bleh* They give me the creeps.
Hey... maybe instead of just listening to you spewing bile, people should come over and
join the discussion.
So you can get a better look at my crotch? Nothing's happening there that should be of interest to you, I swear.
Let me point out one subtle point that Neo didn't get to. Most people have children to leave a legacy for themselves, it's human nature. Pass on the genes, the roots, the culture, etc.
If my kid (which I have none of) turned out to be gay, I would be disappointed, simply because I would know that my family line ends with him/her. Sure they could adopt, but it's not the same thing.
And as for Ti-Guy, you claim that conservatives goals are aiming for total conformity? Well, I think that pairing up males with males and females with females is much more conformist than getting dudes to dig chicks and vice versa, don't you? Or are you refering to the CBC definition of conformity which is basically synonymous with anti-socialism?
Infantile little children.
Yuck. Bad writing.
...I would know that my family line ends with him/her.
*sigh* Time for "Sex-Ed for Righties"...Lesson 78: Gays and Lesbians Aren't Usually Sterile.
And as for Ti-Guy, you claim that conservatives goals are aiming for total conformity? Well, I think that pairing up males with males and females with females is much more conformist than getting dudes to dig chicks and vice versa, don't you? Or are you refering to the CBC definition of conformity which is basically synonymous with anti-socialism?
I honestly can't answer that. Why don't you try again and write something that makes sense and I'll give it another shot.
Well, I think that pairing up males with males and females with females is much more conformist than getting dudes to dig chicks and vice versa, don't you?
You're gay or you're not. So conforming to nature? Yes, that would be correct.
Could "someone" make you "dig" someone of a sex other than the one your are naturally attracted to? I mean, if you started seeing a religious sexual healer, and they "cured" you - you could probably be coaxed into sucking a cock.
You might even say that you liked it.
But do you think it would be real? Be honest now!
Or are you refering to the CBC definition of conformity which is basically synonymous with anti-socialism?
Yup, that's a noodle-scratcher all right!
neo conservative writes:
"Hey... maybe instead of just listening to you spewing bile, people should come over and
join the discussion."
Still waiting for that correction and apology, dude.
natedawg writes:
"If my kid (which I have none of) turned out to be gay, I would be disappointed, simply because I would know that my family line ends with him/her. Sure they could adopt, but it's not the same thing."
Um ... are you really this stupid, or are you just pretending for the comic relief?
cc writes... "Still waiting for that correction and apology, dude."
***
Hope you're not in a hurry, uh... your coolness
"But this philosopher-wordsmith doesn't leave off there. He ever so subtly works in a reference to "lynching blacks" when referring to the question in my original post."
"Man... poetry and wisdom, this guy's got it all."
Natedawg also seems to be presuming he only has one theoretical child, but that also involves him being a non-conformist and being flung at some fertile fetus incubator whut doesn't run away fast enough.
Of course, if life partnering someone is all about the family line and adoptions don't count, then NDawg better make sure his incubator is locked up so he can be certain of the genetics of the offsprogs popped out.
Man, I wish they'd make up their minds. Either being attracted to your matching gender is a lifestyle choice foisted upon vulnerable children by corrupted deviants, or it happens as a variant of human sexuality options. Which apparently, is now to be solved by science, that great and trustworthy field of endeavours scourged at every turn by the same concern trolls for not agreeing with the holy books and encouraging an atheist 'lifestyle'.
We're talking science other than reparative ex-gay therapy of course. That's /real/ science proving yes, Virginia, there is a Hell for gay people and pills would help those in it...a lot. And likely do, along with meth and other mind stunning alteratives.
Well, one can certainly scry the answer of the lifer Cons here.
If there was a pill or procedure that precluded all deviance, they'd take it. Awww, sucks that most times it's a crap shoot. Fund those genetic testing and collecting labs now!
Betcha a bunch of them won't pass the criminal Toews's new drug driving tests... hey folks, Nyquil is a drug, eh? nevermind those anti-depressants and nudge-nudge-wink-winker pills too :)
Oh Lord,
make this pill
make them take it
make that cruelest cut
JAYSUS SAVE US
from them evermore!
Amen
In response to my request for a correction and apology, Neo Conservative writes:
"Hope you're not in a hurry, uh... your coolness."
Excellent. So after accusing me of leaving a particular comment at his site, then being corrected in public in his own comments section by the actual author, NC makes it clear he has no intention of correcting the record. Your "morals and values" crowd there. How utterly unsurprising.
At this point, I think we're safe in telling NC he's not welcome here anymore. I have standards, you know.
CC, actually I'm way more stupider.
Maybe thats why I fail to see your point?
I have to agree with Cynic. And I'll point out that there were plenty of times in my life I didn't want to be gay. For the negative reasons: fear of discrimination, fear of being beaten up. It can be a hassle: every time you meet someone, you wonder, "How will he or she react." You worry about losing your friends. I worry at work. I worry about clients or partners finding out.
But damn it, I'd not change it for the world. And I'd be damn right outraged if I found out that my mom had taken some pill to switch me from homo to hetero.
Why do conservatives care so much about we homos? The fascination is uncanny. I suspect some of these nutjobs think about gay men more than I do. Which is saying something.
Post a Comment