“There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual.”
October 11, 2010 6:46 AM   Subscribe

Carl Paladino, Republican candidate for New York Governor addressed a group of Orthodox Jewish leaders in Brooklyn yesterday. Reading from a prepared statement:
“I didn’t march in the gay parade this year — the gay pride parade this year. My opponent did, and that’s not the example we should be showing our children. And certainly not in our schools. Don’t misquote me as wanting to hurt homosexual people in any way. That would be a dastardly lie. My approach is live and let live. I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t.”
The remarks were caught on video.

Another comment reportedly in Paladino's prepared statement but left out of his speech:
“There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual.”
That remark, which Paladino said was suggested by his "hosts at the synagogue," made its way into media reports about the event after a draft of the speech was circulated by the congregation, without first clearing it with the campaign. Appearing on CBS' "The Early Show" Monday, Paladino said local media owes him an apology for reporting the statement as being part of his speech, even though he cross it out prior to the event.

The Paladino campaign has so far defended his remarks:
“Carl Paladino is simply expressing the views that he holds in his heart as a Catholic,” [campaign manager, Michael R. Caputo] said in a telephone interview. “Carl Paladino is not homophobic, and neither is the Catholic Church.”

“The majority of New Yorkers agree with him,” Mr. Caputo added. He said the campaign had done its own polling.
These comments come on the heels of a disturbing series of hate crimes perpetrated against gay men by members of a street gang in the Bronx; and the suicide of Tyler Clementi, previously discussed on the blue.
posted by 2bucksplus (193 comments total) 7 users marked this as a favorite
 
I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family

And forget about all the gays who want to do just that! We're never going to let them!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:49 AM on October 11, 2010 [33 favorites]


Every single gay person I know is a better role model than Paladino. Every single one.
posted by Philosopher Dirtbike at 6:51 AM on October 11, 2010 [85 favorites]


"There's nothing wrong with homosexuals...except their lives aren't valid or successful and they want to brainwash children."
posted by ghharr at 6:55 AM on October 11, 2010 [21 favorites]


Five bucks says he's in the closet. To goddamn bad I don't live in NY and could vote against this mofo.

Carl Paladino is not homophobic, and neither is the Catholic Church. “The majority of New Yorkers agree with him,” Mr. Caputo added. Bullshit on all three statements.

God, it's so easy to hate, isn't it?
posted by Old'n'Busted at 6:58 AM on October 11, 2010 [4 favorites]


I don't see what's so difficult.

Homo = THOSE people
+
Phobic = afraid [of brainwashing]

Forget his views; my poop has a better grasp on logic than this guy.
posted by Madamina at 7:00 AM on October 11, 2010 [4 favorites]


Paladino just gave an equally nutso interview to NPR the other day. Part of me wants him to get elected just so I can watch the inevitable trainwreck, but Jesus I'll lose all faith in humanity if an unhinged jackass like him can get a plurality of the votes.
posted by electroboy at 7:01 AM on October 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


"My approach is live and let live"...so long as 'they' live surrounded by shame and discrimination, apparently.

Somebody tell me this schmuck's opponent is worth giving $5 to, out of spite if nothing else.
posted by jedicus at 7:01 AM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t.”

If it isn't it is because of people like Carl.
posted by three blind mice at 7:02 AM on October 11, 2010


"I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t."

Cite please.
posted by bwg at 7:03 AM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


I just don't understand how these guys on the one hand preach and promote intolerance, and on the other hand claim that they are really friends with homosexuals and have nothing against them. For fuck's sake, if you're going to hate somebody or a group of somebodies, at least have the balls to say out loud what everyone is thinking.
posted by Think_Long at 7:03 AM on October 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


What about the productive, kind, family-raising homosexuals? They've certainly got plenty to be proud of, right?

On the other hand, being a bigot is pretty much synonymous with "dysfunctional."
posted by explosion at 7:03 AM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


Aah, Carl. Always thinking about the children. Both the ones he had with his wife, and the secret ones he asked his kids not to tell their mother about.

Paladino: your anti-homosexual, pro-bestiality porn candidate.
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:04 AM on October 11, 2010 [19 favorites]


"I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t."

This statement is actually uncontroversially true - but it's true precisely because of the regrettable opinions of people like Mr. Paladino. There's an infrequently appreciated pragmatic difference between describing reality and creating the reality that you're purporting to describe. Instead of making a self-fulfilling prophecy, he could choose to work toward creating a better world in which things weren't the way he takes them currently to be. Shouldn't we all?
posted by mister-o at 7:07 AM on October 11, 2010 [5 favorites]


First I've heard of this guy. God, he's a really lousy public speaker, isn't he? Is he always this bad?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:08 AM on October 11, 2010


Don’t misquote me as wanting to hurt homosexual people in any way. That would be a dastardly lie. My approach is live and let live.

Until they commit suicide in shame...

"Compassionate Conservativism" is newspeak for douchebaggery.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 7:08 AM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual.
There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional Jew.
There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional Republican.
There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional New Yorker.
There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional gubernatorial candidate.
etc.
posted by mazola at 7:10 AM on October 11, 2010 [7 favorites]


Yeah, apparently Carl is OK with having sex with non-human animals as long as it's not gay trans-species sex. That would be dysfunctional.

And sure it's fun to get all worked up about this guy because he's so outlandish, but I urge people of conscience to get equally worked up about the less outlandish candidates out there who will be able to accomplish far more because they can be elected to high office.

I don't get why a little more plain talk isn't going on right now. If I was President, I'd get up and say, "Listen, working-class down-home America. Listen up. You have a choice between two countries: One where you have at least a fighting chance at some personal economic growth, but you have to put up with gay people being treated like people; and one where you can contribute materially to the oppression of gay people, who have done you no harm, but your economic interests will not be represented, and your options will continually be reduced. You pick."
posted by Mister_A at 7:11 AM on October 11, 2010 [20 favorites]


What a low life.
posted by caddis at 7:11 AM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


(But shouldn't an anti-gay person prefer dysfunctional homosexuals? As opposed to fully-functional ones? You wouldn't like any homosexuals, obviously, but you would have less of a problem with the ones who don't work, right? Enh.)
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:12 AM on October 11, 2010


Capt. R, none of us are working, gay or straight, in these troubled economic times.
posted by Mister_A at 7:14 AM on October 11, 2010


He's wrong. Don't vote for him.
posted by ob at 7:14 AM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


Forget his views; my poop has a better grasp on logic than this guy.

Formal logic can be hard to digest.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 7:14 AM on October 11, 2010 [9 favorites]


Wow, this guy is a real piece of shit.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:15 AM on October 11, 2010 [4 favorites]


How can this fucking asshole take the moral high ground with such impunity? His family values include cheating on his wife, having children with his paramour(s?), and sending outrageously racist and disgusting emails, for which he apologized to "the ladies" as if no one else might find them offensive.

I wish I still lived in New York so that I could campaign against this sleaze.
posted by mareli at 7:15 AM on October 11, 2010 [2 favorites]


"Now, I'm not homophobic/racist, because homophobes/racists are bad people and I'm not a bad person!

Why is this so hard for you people to understand?"
posted by mccarty.tim at 7:15 AM on October 11, 2010 [5 favorites]


I really am rather interested in how much advantage this line of defense gives him. Probably not a bit. I guess it will help fellow Tea Parties with their narrative that you can't trust the media - except FOX, of course. Always trust FOX.

How did FOX cover this, BTW?
posted by Artw at 7:15 AM on October 11, 2010


My favorite part of the NPR interview was his defense of his either racist or disturbingly graphic sex emails...
SIEGEL: Well, I haven't heard you answer the question about Photoshopped images of the Obamas dressed up as a pimp and a streetwalker.

Mr. PALADINO: I apologize to anybody, okay, who may have been offended by my resending of emails. I didn't create them. I resent them.

posted by electroboy at 7:16 AM on October 11, 2010 [2 favorites]


*prays for Dan Savage to execute delicious semantic change*
posted by Beardman at 7:17 AM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


FOX: Possibly Less Anti-Semitic Than CNN*†

*On air anyway.
†Provided you conveniently forget that Arabs are semitic people.
posted by Mister_A at 7:18 AM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


“Carl Paladino is not homophobic, and neither is the Catholic Church.”

Every single piece of evidence at our disposal indicates otherwise.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:18 AM on October 11, 2010 [20 favorites]


Oh, so THAT's what homophobes are afraid of, I always wondered. They're afraid of their susceptible straight children getting "brainwashed" into homosexuality and thus ending their genetic line with a lack for grandchildren. Well, that's ridiculous, but at least it makes some sort of sense. Thanks for explaining, Mr. Paladino.
posted by yeolcoatl at 7:20 AM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


Interestingly enough, last month a number of less-extremist Jews than the Satmar Hasidim Paladino met with yesterday, were denouncing him for comparing a Jewish politician to Hitler. An article in the Jewish Week last Wednesday said that 75% of New York Jews favor Cuomo while only 16% favor Paladino. This after Cuomo had a well-publicized meeting with two Hasidic leaders last weekend.
posted by zarq at 7:21 AM on October 11, 2010


Paladino has about as much chance of becoming governor as Jabba The Hut. Homophobia aside, the guy comes across as a belligerent psycho.

And, no, the majority of New Yorkers do NOT agree with him. I'm not saying that we're all sitting a circle singing Kumbaya, but most people (religious nuts aside) have managed to reach the 'who cares,' stage.
posted by jonmc at 7:22 AM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


Somebody tell me this schmuck's opponent is worth giving $5 to, out of spite if nothing else.

His main opponent, Andrew Cuomo, has spent the entire campaign saying absolutely nothing about anything. Which is kind of irritating, but he obviously knows he gonna win, both because of his last name, and because Paladino won't stop saying stupid shit.

Your $5, while appreciated, would best be spent in some other race where the lunatic racist homophobic Republican asshole actually has a chance, or is winning - say Nevada, or Florida, or a ton of other places.
posted by fungible at 7:23 AM on October 11, 2010 [15 favorites]


I'm always kind of amazed at Republican candidates who bash gays but then turn around and say "Oh no! I'm not anti-gay! I have plenty of gay friends!". Sarah Palin, I think, once mentioned having some gay friends although I don't know if any of them have come forward yet.

I'm kind of suspicous of anyone who says "Yeah, you know, I have a lot of __________ friends. I love them dearly. Dysfunctional creeps, all of them. Shouldn't be allowed near children. Actually, they're destroying our country. God hates them, too. But they're my friends, you know? Wouldn't allow them in the house, of course. But we're friends. Best friends."

I think it's safe to say that whatever "____________" happens to be, they probably aren't your friends in the conventional sense of that word.

Also, an update to this post: Ann Coulter made a much hyped (and very expensive) appearance in front of all her "gay friends" and basically told them to shut the fuck up about civil rights.

To me, this kinda affirms my notion that Log Cabin Republicans are actually a thinly veiled BDSM group for successful, policy-minded subs. They paid Ann Coulter a (likely) six-figure sum to come and humiliate them all for an hour. We haven't seen shit like this since the Marquis de Sade, people!
posted by Avenger at 7:23 AM on October 11, 2010 [20 favorites]


I'm getting really sick of people who make these sort of offensive statements being described as homophobic. I understand, especially with the brainwashing comments, that these are fear-based comments, but using a term like "homophobia" makes it sound like we should feel sorry for those who have these hateful views. I may be afraid of ventriloquist dummies, but I recognize their right to co-exist, and I wouldn't rally my party against Jeff Dunham, no matter how tempting.

I'm sure there are some people who are homophobic, but it manifests itself in much different ways than the hate speech of, say, Fred Phelps and company. You might even call it a lifestyle choice, if you were in an ironic mood.
posted by cottoncandybeard at 7:23 AM on October 11, 2010 [2 favorites]


As a Jew, I was doubly offended that this homophobic and intolerant piece of shit had a audience of (and was presumably invited by) orthodox Jews. What happened to "never forget"? Only the yellow stars suffered and not the pink triangles? Seriously, could the hypocricy run any thicker?
posted by scblackman at 7:25 AM on October 11, 2010 [15 favorites]


There's one problem with you theory Avenger—Ann Coulter is actually...

A WOMAN! Dunh-dunh-DUNH!



This joke is premised on the idea that they are way more male log cabin rebubs than female. Also on the idea that Coulter is, in fact, a woman; not a man, nor one of them things from the original V series.
posted by Mister_A at 7:26 AM on October 11, 2010


I'm really sick of anti-gay politicians acting like they're fighting the good fight and want what's best for both gays, straights and "the children." Like they know better than consenting adults who want to be married. And that everyone would just be happier if they made their one man, several one woman, and a mandatory dowry constitutional amendment.

The fact is that if they really think gays don't deserve marriage, they should come right out and say why gay people deserve to be treated as less than their straight peers. I mean, at least people against interracial marriage were open about thinking that other races were inferior, aside from junk science saying that race mixing was a bad idea.

I'm not advocating racism or homophobia, but if they're going to push the same policy as a blatant homophobe for no valid reason, they might as well come out of the closet and admit they just aren't fond of gay people. No, not the "gay lifestyle." Gay people. The "gay lifestyle" is just a weasel word they use to make it sound like a choice, when all the evidence and common sense says it isn't. Working as a park ranger is a lifestyle. Being black is never called a lifestyle. Nor should being gay.

I get the whole "hate the sin, not the sinner" mindset, but in this case, you're hating an intrinsic characteristic. It'd be like hating people with red hair, saying they should just pray and go to therapy until they become brunettes.
posted by mccarty.tim at 7:26 AM on October 11, 2010 [4 favorites]


but using a term like "homophobia" makes it sound like we should feel sorry for those who have these hateful views.

When it comes to a politician using fear and hatred for his own gain, then I feel no sympathy, but some ordianry citizen who's unthinkingly drunk the kool-aid, my anger is leaven with a few cc's of feeling sorry for them.
posted by jonmc at 7:28 AM on October 11, 2010


REPUBLICAN POLITICIAN IN ANTI-GAY STATEMENT SHOCKER
posted by Legomancer at 7:28 AM on October 11, 2010 [6 favorites]


Philosopher Dirtbike: Every single gay person I know is a better role model than Paladino. Every single one.

The married ones too.
posted by chavenet at 7:30 AM on October 11, 2010 [8 favorites]


This wasn't an off the cuff remark, which would be bad enough. This was a prepared speech that he was reading.

The people applauding him shouldn't get off the hook either.

The NY State Republican Party needs to dump this jerk.
posted by R. Mutt at 7:30 AM on October 11, 2010


An article in the Jewish Week last Wednesday said that 75% of New York Jews favor Cuomo while only 16% favor Paladino.

In an effort to temper Cuomo's overwhelming support from the Jewish community, Paladino is preparing to release documents that paint Cuomo as anti-semetic.

My apologies for linking to the post.
posted by orville sash at 7:32 AM on October 11, 2010


Charles Barkley is a better role model than Paladino. Once he developed his jump shot, I mean.

Seriously though, Barkley is at least candid:

POLICE OFFICER: Do you realize how fast you were going? Hey you smell like beer too. You look an awful lot like Charles Barkley. Your turn!

SIR CHARLES: I am Charles Barkley, I am a little drunk, and I am on my way to receive oral sex from a woman who is not my wife; hence the speeding.
posted by Mister_A at 7:33 AM on October 11, 2010 [2 favorites]


I agree that homophobia isn't always the best word, based on its roots. It sounds less like an irrational hatred and more like a psychological condition that should be treated. It's as weak and pathetic a phrase as "global warming."

I dunno Greek or Latin that well, but what we need is a good word that describes a strong antipathy towards homosexuals. While it's hardly an elegant word that flies off the tongue, I might start using the phrase anti-gay where I'd usually use homophobic, except in the case of people who, instead of just pushing "MARRIAGE FOR ONLY WHITE CHRISTIAN STRAIGHT PEOPLE!" policy, are also irrationally afraid of homosexuals or their "influence."

As in, "I'm afraid those gays are going to brainwash my kids with their parades!"
posted by mccarty.tim at 7:33 AM on October 11, 2010


Well what is the best way to treat phobias?
posted by Mister_A at 7:35 AM on October 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


I noted that guy on tv, surrounded by orthodox Jews. Clearly fundamentalists of all religions dislike women in leadership roles and gays...Paladino is not a very clever politician if he makes dumb anti-gay remarks on the heels of what took place at Rutgers and just two days ago in New York City.
posted by Postroad at 7:38 AM on October 11, 2010


Mister_A, exposure, which leads to desensitization. As in, have gays come out, openly enter the workplace (both the private, public and military sectors), get married, adopt kids and so on.

What's funny is that there are conservatives fighting them at each one of those steps, partly out of straight privilege, partly out of disgust and partly out of religious dogma. All the other reasons tend to be rationalizations stemming from one of the above reasons (IE: I don't think they should be around my kids! (disgust), or Marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman! (straight privilege)). But it's also common for a person in exposure therapy to fight against getting the treatment because they're facing their fear, which can be very uncomfortable at first.

The problem is that this isn't just a person afraid to touch a spider. These are people using their fear to dehumanize and marginalize other human beings. This goes well beyond being about the homophobe's feelings (which homophobia implies). They are hurting other people because of their fears. That strikes me as morally wrong, instead of just psychologically wrong.
posted by mccarty.tim at 7:42 AM on October 11, 2010


I don't see how this is harming the Paladino campaign in the slightest. Recall that he's already considered a loony Teabagger by just about everyone, and that he got the Republican nomination against the will of the party machine. The people that voted for him don't think gays should marry, and they don't mind his horse-porn-forwarding ways. I seem to recall reading on here a few weeks ago that Andrew Cuomo would have to eat a baby live on stage to have a chance of losing the race.

On the other hand, the more that he does wacky shit like this, the more free TV time he gets, and as long as he's under that big, legitimizing, "R" on the ticket...
posted by Xoder at 7:44 AM on October 11, 2010


Didya ever notice that Paladino looks kind of like Peter Boyle as The Monster?

Somebody tell me this schmuck's opponent is worth giving $5 to, out of spite if nothing else.

Right about now, Cuomo is up in the polls by about 20-25 points. He won't need your $5 unless and until he stops in the middle of a speech to tear apart and eat a live baby.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:45 AM on October 11, 2010 [4 favorites]


HURF DURF BABY EATER
posted by mccarty.tim at 7:47 AM on October 11, 2010 [2 favorites]


Hey, serendipity.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:47 AM on October 11, 2010


"There's this group of people who are deviant and refuse to assimilate into our society. They're looking to steal our children!"

You'd think after a few centuries of having that same accusation thrown at them, any group of Jews would immediately call security when someone starts spouting that shit.
posted by yeloson at 7:50 AM on October 11, 2010 [13 favorites]


partly out of straight privilege, partly out of disgust and partly out of religious dogma

The disgust is coming from the dogma, aka, brainwashing. And I've had the misfortune to run into very less-than-privileged people hate gays for no other reason then they've been told to.
posted by Old'n'Busted at 7:52 AM on October 11, 2010


Leave Carl alone. I'm sure some of his best friends are gay.
posted by Fezboy! at 7:55 AM on October 11, 2010


The Catholic Church itself is a disgusting organization. Only truly sick people can protect pedophiles from prosecution to save face. Only truly sick people can continue to use their influence to help spread HIV and overpopulation because they haven't come around to the fact that physically blocking the path of sperm is not against the will of God.

I know most Catholics are good people, but at some point you have to put pressure on your Church to do the right thing. The first in this case would be to get the Church to denounce Paladino's comments as hateful and unChristian on their face.
posted by notion at 7:57 AM on October 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


How did FOX cover this, BTW?

I have no idea, since watching FOX makes my stomach hurt, but Paladino got into a fight with a reporter from the (Murdoch-owned) New York Post recently (really, Paladino, The Post?) and accused him of working for Cumo and then threatened, on video tape, to have him killed, so The Post is not a fan.

I won't link to The Post -- they don't need the traffic -- but they are nothing short of gleeful this morning about this latest fuck-up and I'm sure FOX is treating it similarly.
posted by The Bellman at 7:58 AM on October 11, 2010


I'm going to really enjoy voting against this schmuck.
posted by Skorgu at 7:58 AM on October 11, 2010 [2 favorites]


Some people believe that sexuality is a spectrum, and your preference is determined by your biology... some people believe it is a choice.

He obviously believes the latter.. in spades.
posted by MikeWarot at 8:01 AM on October 11, 2010


God, everything about this is baffling. This man has no consistency, even within a single statement.

When, oh when are Christian people/organizations realize that they are just alienating people with this garbage?

I'm an agnostic. Having said that, I'm open to the possibility of church. (Like I said, agnostic. I haven't made up my mind about a lot of things yet.) I just can't see one that treats homosexuality the way that they also treat wearing a cotton poly blend. Or, more the point, not even homosexuality, but men patronizing male pagan temple prostitutes.

If you are going to treat the Old Testament/Torah as a set of rules to be obeyed, the end, doesn't that make you Jewish?

I'm not okay with homophobia for any reason, but at least the very orthodox Jewry are being somewhat more consistent, you know? At least when they say it's a religious belief, I'm not inclined to scoff, just more inclined to parse the precise meaning of the much bandied verses.

The faux Christians who hide behind an incredibly inconsistent and lazy reading of Leviticus just make me want to kick something.
posted by Leta at 8:03 AM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


What happened to "never forget"?

Back when that Florida jerk was threatening to burn Korans, Mother Beese, who lives in that state, mentioned that the rabbi at the temple where she socializes had given a sermon in which he stated the importance of the Jewish community standing in solidarity with the Muslims who are the yellow-star-bearers today. She thought it was a dangerous thing to be advocating - given how strongly anti-Muslim sentiment is running. I pointed out that, even putting moral considerations aside, it was a natural alliance for us to make, since once ethnic hatred becomes socially acceptable, antisemitism is bound to follow. She didn't disagree with my reasoning. But she clung to her conviction that it would be just too risky.

I make allowances for the fact that she came of age in the "Gentleman's Agreement" era in which Jews had far less clout than they do today. But ultimately, it's about fear. The same thing that usually stops people from confronting a bully.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:04 AM on October 11, 2010 [2 favorites]


If he tore apart and ate the screaming baby that was on my flight last night, he would actually gain my vote. And pretty much everybody else on the flight, with the possible exception of the parents.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:04 AM on October 11, 2010 [2 favorites]


I agree that this guy is a knob head but may I posit you this:

To disect out his line "Your children would be [...] more successful [...] raising a family. (A)nd I don't want them [...] thinking that homesexulaity is an equally valid [...] option.

So: I know nothing about him or anything about his opponenet, in fact living in the South uk, this is the first I've heard of the whole thing, but apparent-douchebaggery aside, this chap doesn't think that raising a family and homosexuality are equally valid.
Do you?
posted by Cogentesque at 8:04 AM on October 11, 2010


As in, "I'm afraid those gays are going to brainwash my kids with their parades!"

That happened on Thanksgiving years ago. My cousin is still convinced he's Underdog.
posted by jonmc at 8:05 AM on October 11, 2010 [7 favorites]


When, oh when are Christian people/organizations realize that they are just alienating people with this garbage?

They never will. They honestly don't think the targets are actually people and are therefor not worthy of anything other than hate and violence. They treat horses better.

Oh, and in case you missed it - this time around it's Jews, not the bible beaters. See? Equal opportunity assholesishness!
posted by Old'n'Busted at 8:06 AM on October 11, 2010


So: I know nothing about him or anything about his opponenet, in fact living in the South uk, this is the first I've heard of the whole thing, but apparent-douchebaggery aside, this chap doesn't think that raising a family and homosexuality are equally valid.
Do you?


Yes. Why?
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 8:06 AM on October 11, 2010


Paladino and O'Donnell aren't really running for office any more; they know it's just not going to happen. They are running for publicity, to land a coveted spot on the politico talk show circuit, to make a cushy living spewing moronic garbage for the rest of their days.
posted by Mister_A at 8:09 AM on October 11, 2010 [11 favorites]


Is there a waiting list for getting off- planet?
posted by The Whelk at 8:10 AM on October 11, 2010 [4 favorites]


Avg. wait time (US) is about 76 years, Whelk.
posted by Mister_A at 8:10 AM on October 11, 2010 [15 favorites]


When, oh when are Christian people/organizations realize that they are just alienating people with this garbage?

Bit of a broad brush you have there. There are plenty of Christian people/organizations that really do live by the sign outside that says All Welcome.
posted by IndigoJones at 8:11 AM on October 11, 2010


I've been watching the evil unfurl in Mr. Paladino since he got nominated. I'd like to cackle and rub my hands with glee at how completely wacko and inept he is, but in the light of the recent suicides of gay teens, it's hard to cackle.

Glad that Cuomo knows how to hit back, and hit hard. It's quite satisfying to hear him knee the crazy in the 'nads.
posted by angrycat at 8:11 AM on October 11, 2010


I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family[...]
So, if his children happen to feel attraction to the wrong gender, he advocates they just shut up about it, get into a loveless marriage and inflict this unhappy situation on their children?
posted by PontifexPrimus at 8:11 AM on October 11, 2010


As a Jew, I was doubly offended that this homophobic and intolerant piece of shit had a audience of (and was presumably invited by) orthodox Jews. What happened to "never forget"? Only the yellow stars suffered and not the pink triangles? Seriously, could the hypocricy run any thicker?

The Satmars (and other Hasidic groups) have a history of homophobia, and there's a Satmar organization known as the "Torah Jews for Decency," who are pro-life, anti-gay marriage lobbyists of politicians in New York and New Jersey. They're led by a rabbi named Noson Shmuel Leiter.

The rest of the Orthodox community doesn't have a great track record on gay civil rights and their positions on abortion are somewhat mixed. (They're more likely to be pro-life than pro-choice.) But in general, we Jews don't usually use our religious beliefs as a bludgeon against non-Jews with regard to moral / value issues. Especially when the Jewish community is not directly affected.

Obviously, Israel doesn't fall into that category.
posted by zarq at 8:11 AM on October 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


To me, it speaks very, very worrisome volumes about the current national zeitgeist that a troll like Paladino feels utterly no shame in making such statements in the course of running for high public office. I mean, the guy is running for Governor of New York! It's not like he's some obscure nutjob running for county appraiser or something. He's the candidate for Governor! And he apparently feels that such speech is in-line with his constituency.

Further volumes are spoken by the fact that the audience did not seem to be outraged by any of it.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:14 AM on October 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


He said "I'm afraid our children won't be shamed and bullied enough and they might be comfortable pursuing happiness." He doesn't have my vote.
posted by fuq at 8:14 AM on October 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


this chap doesn't think that raising a family and homosexuality are equally valid.
Do you?


That's odd.

Are raising a family and heterosexuality equally valid?

Are raising a family and being black/Irish/Chinese/Latino equally valid?

I've got the flu so my brain isn't really working, but isn't this, like, some weird non-logic comparison?
posted by angrycat at 8:14 AM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


Also, even to those who are pro-life, the mainstream Orthodox Jewish position on abortion is pretty complex. It's not a simple issue to many rabbis.
posted by zarq at 8:15 AM on October 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


So: I know nothing about him or anything about his opponenet, in fact living in the South uk, this is the first I've heard of the whole thing, but apparent-douchebaggery aside, this chap doesn't think that raising a family and homosexuality are equally valid.
Do you?


The answer, for any thinking person, is of course yes. The decision to raise children is exactly as valid as the decision not to. But more importantly your selective quoting has removed the actual point of Paldino's quote which is to create a bizarre false choice. Let's look at the actual quote without your edits:


I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t.

"Getting married and raising children" and "homosexuality" are not two different options. Ask any of the thousands of married, gay couples with kids in the U.S. It's a false choice. Of course you can be gay and have kids and, in any right-thinking state, you can be gay and get married. Paladino's statement is a simple (and simple-minded) attempt to craft an Other where none exists and you either fell for it or you decided to climb into the boat. Either way, we should expect better from our politicians if not our voters.
posted by The Bellman at 8:15 AM on October 11, 2010


this chap doesn't think that raising a family and homosexuality are equally valid. Do you?

If by "valid" you mean "having legal efficacy or force", obviously not.

But if, as I suspect, you mean "appropriate to the end in view", the question is not answerable unless you specify what end that is. If, as I also suspect, that end is "population resupply for a heteronormative society", that end can sod off.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:16 AM on October 11, 2010 [2 favorites]


sage
posted by sveskemus at 8:16 AM on October 11, 2010


this chap doesn't think that raising a family and homosexuality are equally valid.
Do you?


If this is meant to be a loaded question, it's probably about to blow up in your own face.
posted by hermitosis at 8:16 AM on October 11, 2010


I am sad that we will no longer have the rickety old voting machines in NYC this year, because I would very much have liked to pretend that when I pull the lever to vote for Cuomo, it would simultaneously launch a dog poop at Paladino. What a vile, ghastly, hate-filled little schmuck.
posted by elizardbits at 8:19 AM on October 11, 2010 [6 favorites]


I'm so sick of the bigots claiming they're not bigoted, despite every piece of evidence (usually trotting out of their own mouths in public) claiming that they are.

You know what I'd like to see? An honest bigot in public. "Yeah, I totally hate gay people. Jesus Himself told me I could. See, here's my License to Hate right here in my wallet! And I'm not going to pretend to be nice about it. I do a happy dance every time we smack gay people's rights down and I look forward to the day when they burn in hell and I gloat while lying in the arms of Jesus." Yeah, it'd be creepy and awful, but at least there wouldn't be the smacking hypocrisy about it.

Seriously, does Paladino think for a SECOND that ANYONE who doesn't hate gay people will buy this?
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:29 AM on October 11, 2010


I'll just point out that if it weren't for dysfunctional homosexuals there would be no lesbian porn.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:33 AM on October 11, 2010


So he was just on the Today Show and continued defending his remarks, the NYT says:

Mr. Paladino elaborated on those remarks during his interview on “Good Morning America,” saying that he and his wife had “stumbled on” a gay pride parade once during a trip to Toronto.

“It wasn’t pretty,” Mr. Paladino said. “It was a bunch of very extreme-type people in bikini-type outfits grinding at each other and doing these gyrations, and I certainly wouldn’t let my young children see that.”


On behalf of Toronto, sir, pleased to be of service.
posted by Beardman at 8:35 AM on October 11, 2010 [18 favorites]


I mean, he was just on Good Morning America. Doh.
posted by Beardman at 8:35 AM on October 11, 2010


The crap that comes out of the mouth of ol' Carl would be a lot funnier if I didn't live in New York. I would like to take comfort in the poll numbers but keep in mind this guy soundly beat out the GOP's original candidate and he's doing well in my part of the state.
posted by tommasz at 8:36 AM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


Less important than the whole 'asshole bigot' side of the guy, but still something I want to point out; he used the word "dastardly" in a non-ironic, non-silly way.

Even if you ignore the horse-porn-resending gay-hating idiocy of this dude, he's still needs a swift kicking for employing such ridiculous language.

Although, looking at the definition;
dastardly [adj] : mean and cowardly
It does strike me that it's a particularly apt description for him.

posted by quin at 8:37 AM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


Some people believe that sexuality is a spectrum, and your preference is determined by your biology... some people believe it is a choice.

Actually, having thought about this for a while, I think it's a bit of both.

Now, bear with me here....

If the Kinsey scale (a bell curve where "1" is extremely straight and "6" is extremely gay, with the majority of the bell plot falling around between, say, 2.5 and 4.5) is actually correct (and I think it probably is)...

Then the majority of people overall fall in the middle of the bell-curve plot, meaning they're more or less in the middle of the bisexuality spectrum. Half of those will lean slightly more toward heterosexual interest, half of those will lean slightly more toward homosexual interest, but in general, they all find that they go "schwing" with members of both male and female presentation in kind of equal and possibly confusing numbers.

In a society like that which we've had up until quite recently, it would only be the real outliers toward the homosexual end of the spectrum who would find that the dominant culture transgresses against their own inborn orientation that they have to work to reject that culture and substitute their own. I.e., only those who really have overwhelming preference for homosexuality would find it worth their time and effort to come out of the closet as a homosexual and claim that identity for their own. The personal and social risks for someone who can simply "make it work" for themselves, i.e. those who have enough of an interest in heterosexual bonding to settle into a life of opposite-sex pairing, they won't invest the time and energy in undergoing that unsettling and often personally caustic process we know as "coming out". Hence, the overwhelming middle of the bell curve will generally choose the less traumatic option for their sexual expression and pair bonding -- heterosexuality.

As we are more accepting of homosexuality in general... as we stop stigmatizing it and incorporate it into our daily worldview, we will likely find that a lot more of the people in the middle of the bell curve will probably be willing to take some chance on exploring the non-traditional attraction they naturally feel.

That is, once it is no longer anathema for same-sex contact and bonding to take place within our general culture, we may find a lot more of the bisexuals amongst us 1) acting on their same-sex attractions in the bedroom and 2) acting on them in a more pair-bonding sense.

I think we already see this amongst women, where homosexuality doesn't cause quite the same panic to the dominant patriarchal social structure. It's much more common to see "Girls Gone Wild" etc. videos with women willing to make out for the camera and whatever, and that can't simply be a result of fame-seeking or cameraman goading. It's increased as the idea of women being together has become less repulsive to the culture at large. Already we're seeing some "Guys Gone Wild" type videos being released with frat boys getting it on together... And they're not being marketed as "gay videos", even if the sexual contact in them is, without at doubt, quite homosexual in nature.

So, when the social conservatives complain that there is a "gay agenda" and that people do make a choice... I have to lend some minor credence to their complaints. But I do so realizing that, in the end, our culture is going to be more well-rounded overall. Men and women from all along the sexual orientation spectrum will be able to make more self-realizing choices about who they want to pair off with and who they want to share their bodies with. I think we'll be a less pent-up, more honest society as a result. Because I do realize that if the bell curve is indeed true for the Kinsey Scale... for most of those in the middle, it IS actually a choice, but yes, they were indeed Born That Way.
posted by hippybear at 8:37 AM on October 11, 2010 [8 favorites]


Five bucks says he's in the closet.

There are so many good reasons to castigate people with anti-gay views -- could we please put this not-good reason to rest?
posted by John Cohen at 8:42 AM on October 11, 2010 [2 favorites]


I think there is, perhaps, a bell-shaped distribution to human sexuality, but I don't think it is centered on 50/50 bisexual, to be honest. Still, I understand your larger point here, and it is interesting to consider.
posted by Mister_A at 8:46 AM on October 11, 2010


"I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t."

This statement is actually uncontroversially true - but it's true precisely because of the regrettable opinions of people like Mr. Paladino.


I understand what you mean and I can see you have good intentions. But I don't know that it's true that gay people are less successful.

They're discriminated against. Life might be a little harder for them. Maybe a lot harder. But that's not the same thing as whether they're "equally successful."

By the same token, would you say that being Jewish or Asian in America is not an "equally successful" path as being a gentile white in America? They have been discriminated against ... but they've enjoyed more material success than gentile whites overall.
posted by John Cohen at 8:46 AM on October 11, 2010


I just don't understand how these guys on the one hand preach and promote intolerance, and on the other hand claim that they are really friends with homosexuals and have nothing against them. For fuck's sake, if you're going to hate somebody or a group of somebodies, at least have the balls to say out loud what everyone is thinking.

Every single day, I'm amazed by how many people who come up to me claiming they have gay friends who "don't want to get married." It's like, really? I bet they just don't want to talk about it with you, you goddamn homophobe. And I bet they're not gay friends, they're gay neighbors or gay coworkers or gay friends of friends; I bet they wouldn't help you move.
posted by klangklangston at 8:53 AM on October 11, 2010 [8 favorites]


“Carl Paladino is simply expressing the views that he holds in his heart as a Catholic,” [campaign manager, Michael R. Caputo] said in a telephone interview. “Carl Paladino is not homophobic, and neither is the Catholic Church.”

In other news, bears have denied ever having gone to the woods to shit. "That would be dysfunctional behaviour", said a grizzly representative, "and I demand an apology for that dastardly lie."

In a related story, the Pope has denied ever having been a Catholic. The German formerly known as His Holiness was overheard to remark: "I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that the priesthood is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t.”
posted by marmaduke_yaverland at 8:59 AM on October 11, 2010


As disorganized as the Tea Party is, they do have a few commonalities. And "I'm not a bigot, but..." is chief among them.

I have a rule. Whenever someone talks about returning to the "good old days" or the like, first, they answer as to whether they were of the age of majority. Were they self-supporting (incl. no money from mommy/daddy)? Because you're only allowed to go back to times when you were not insulated from the realities of the world.
posted by Eideteker at 9:01 AM on October 11, 2010 [2 favorites]


Stephanopoulos: "Do you believe homosexuality's a choice?"

Paladino: "I’ve had difficulty with that. My [out] nephew tells me he didn’t have that choice. And I believe it’s a very, very difficult life for a young person. I believe that young people should not necessarily be exposed to that without some really, really mature background first before, so they can learn to deal with it. It is a very difficult thing. And I sensitize with it totally." *
posted by ericb at 9:02 AM on October 11, 2010


Throw another Hail Mary, Carl. Though one wonders if he's throwing himself under the bus nailing himself to the cross in order to get out the vote to tip a few tossup upstate races to the GOP.
posted by hangashore at 9:04 AM on October 11, 2010


Personally, I think it's a bit of a mix of environment, genes, and personality, like most behavioral traits, but the fact is that there's nothing morally wrong about being gay, therefore it's not a big deal, and it can't be easily reversed without causing a ton of collateral damage and shame to the person, so why try like the fundies want to? So, it's not "a choice," but it's not simple as simple as saying they were born that way, either.

This whole choice/not a choice debate is only relevant to deciding whether it should be legal and remotely ethical to discriminate against gays. The choice camp know that they can't swindle the right to discriminate against gays if they were born with that condition, as the civil rights movement lead to people learning that it's wrong to claim that people are inferior or worthy of disdain based on how they were born or because of circumstances beyond their control. This is why they want to push phony therapy to "cure" or "treat" homosexuality, because they believe that if they show that people can leave the "condition" or "lifestyle" behind, then they can discriminate against gays, in the same way that a healthcare plan or workplace can discriminate against smokers.
posted by mccarty.tim at 9:06 AM on October 11, 2010


“It wasn’t pretty,” Mr. Paladino said. “It was a bunch of very extreme-type people in bikini-type outfits grinding at each other and doing these gyrations, and I certainly wouldn’t let my young children see that.”

"Not ANY of my children," Paladino continued. "Certainly not the three children I sired upon my wife. And not my illegitimate daughter, conceived in adultery with my old employee in disobedience to the laws of God and man, neither. And not even the other kids you schmucks don't even know about! Oh shit."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:06 AM on October 11, 2010 [7 favorites]


I'm always kind of amazed at Republican candidates who bash gays but then turn around and say "Oh no! I'm not anti-gay! I have plenty of gay friends!".
"'My feelings on homosexuality are unequivocal. I have absolutely no problem with it whatsoever. My only reservation is marriage. ... I have a lot of homosexuals working in my organization,' referring to his real estate business." *
posted by ericb at 9:07 AM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


What happened to "never forget"? Only the yellow stars suffered and not the pink triangles? Seriously, could the hypocricy run any thicker?

Different people get different meanings out of things; unfortunately, sometimes the meaning is "I'm looking out for #1, screw you".
posted by acb at 9:13 AM on October 11, 2010


this chap doesn't think that raising a family and homosexuality are equally valid.
Do you?

That's odd.

Are raising a family and heterosexuality equally valid?

Are raising a family and being black/Irish/Chinese/Latino equally valid?

I've got the flu so my brain isn't really working, but isn't this, like, some weird non-logic comparison?


-You are completely right, it has absolutely no logic in it. The choice he gives in a (roundabout) way, is that "raising a family" and "being homosexual" are not valid. My point - they are not. They are very far apart indeed, one is neither more, nor less 'valid' than the next. In his mind there are two choices: Homosexuality or birthing and raising a biological family. Now if this was the debate in question, what I believe is to be aspired to is the state of an all rounded human that does what humans do e.g. love, hate, communicate, cry, wish, want, give, and give birth to a family that they cherish, and eventually spread their DNA and die old. If any one of these non-comprehensive list of assets is not or cannot be completed - it is a shame. It is a shame when a woman cannot give birth, someone is mute and cannot speak, someone cannot love, someone is plagued by depression, someone cannot aspire to greater heights, someone cannot give, someone cannot play part to the creation of life. These are all - in my eyes - a bit of a shame.

Please read this as friendly and questioning rather than bashing and hateful.

But again let me re-iterate my initial preface and agree with the blue that this guy is a dick and while I respect his entitlement to his views, I would hate to have him leading my county.
posted by Cogentesque at 9:15 AM on October 11, 2010



this chap doesn't think that raising a family and homosexuality are equally valid. Do you?

If by "valid" you mean "having legal efficacy or force", obviously not.

But if, as I suspect, you mean "appropriate to the end in view", the question is not answerable unless you specify what end that is. If, as I also suspect, that end is "population resupply for a heteronormative society", that end can sod off.


While I disgree with you Joe, you supplied a very well put answer. *fav
posted by Cogentesque at 9:18 AM on October 11, 2010


You know what I'd like to see? An honest bigot in public. "Yeah, I totally hate gay people. Jesus Himself told me I could. See, here's my License to Hate right here in my wallet! And I'm not going to pretend to be nice about it. I do a happy dance every time we smack gay people's rights down and I look forward to the day when they burn in hell and I gloat while lying in the arms of Jesus." Yeah, it'd be creepy and awful, but at least there wouldn't be the smacking hypocrisy about it.

This is actually easier than you'd think, and can be accomplished by this 3- Step Process.

1. Go to a soldier's funeral.
2. Walk up to one or more of the protestors.
3. Introduce yourself.
posted by cottoncandybeard at 9:19 AM on October 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


Before, I said that some people feel disgust. I think it's rarer than religious dogma, straight privileged or social stigma (those are pretty well intertwined, though), but there definitely are anti-gay people who think that gay sex is gross, therefore gays are gross, therefore gayness is bad. Like this lady. Or this dude.

Of course, that's bunk. There are plenty of straight sex acts that are not amoral or wrong, but that people would find gross. For example, while there's nothing wrong with adult nursing, Cosby Sweaters, coprophagia or water sports (urban dictionary, bro), not everyone would enjoy hearing them described. Does that mean they should be forbidden?

And while we're at it, anyone has the right to find the missionary position, quite possibly the most accepted sex act in society, disgusting. I'm sure, given enough people, I could find people who think it's gross. And it doesn't even have to be about sex acts. I personally find excessive amounts of cilantro disgusting because I have a mutation that makes it taste like soap to me. It's not an uncommon trait. However, even if 60%, 80%, or 99.9% of the population thought cilantro tasted bad, that would not make eating cilantro immoral.

But the real issue is that a significant portion of the population think that it's okay to use a book that's thousands of years old, written by relatively primitive people, to dictate modern morality rather than basing it on recent philosophy and research. And worse, people are able to project their own prejudices on their interpretations of that book so that they can use it to justify whatever policy they want, regardless of if it's actually a good idea in light of modern ethics.
posted by mccarty.tim at 9:24 AM on October 11, 2010 [5 favorites]


As a Jew, I was doubly offended that this homophobic and intolerant piece of shit had a audience of (and was presumably invited by) orthodox Jews. What happened to "never forget"? Only the yellow stars suffered and not the pink triangles? Seriously, could the hypocricy run any thicker?

This is a very myopic statement. There is a strong tradition of tolerance and even celebration of homosexuality in Judaism in both the Reform and Conservative movements, with Rabbis regularly performing gay marriage ceremonies. Even the Orthodox movement declared a "Statement of Principles on the Place of Jews with a Homosexual Orientation in Our Community," which among other things stated that "Embarrassing, harassing or demeaning someone with a homosexual orientation or same-sex attraction is a violation of Torah prohibitions that embody the deepest values of Judaism."

Just because one small, outlying group has particular views, it is hardly the position of modern Judaism in general. There are always going to be fearful, oblivious people among any group.
posted by thegreatfleecircus at 9:28 AM on October 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


"sensitize?"

mccarty.tim: The landmark Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 included religion. So the "choice" argument is something of a red herring there.

And it's something I find to be mostly irrelevant as there are anti-gay frames that argue:
1) We choose a perverted lifestyle because of our degenerate and liberal times.
2) We're born with unfortunate predispositions that must be redirected to more sacred forms of sexuality.
3) We're mentally ill victims of same-sex abuse or the decay of the nuclear family who need to be deconverted.

Restoration-therapy ministries appear to be very comfortable with the reality that they can't really change underlying sexual desire, I suspect because it keeps their members on the hook for longer by treating that desire as something sinful to be denied and redirected.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:30 AM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


We do indeed live in degenerate times when filth such as Paladino are given an audience and a platform.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:33 AM on October 11, 2010 [2 favorites]


These are all - in my eyes - a bit of a shame.

Gay couples can't reproduce in the traditional manner. This certainly doesn't mean gay people can't.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 9:37 AM on October 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


Paladino: "I’ve had difficulty with that. My [out] nephew tells me he didn’t have that choice. And I believe it’s a very, very difficult life for a young person. I believe that young people should not necessarily be exposed to that without some really, really mature background first before, so they can learn to deal with it. It is a very difficult thing. And I sensitize with it totally."

Yeah. It really sucks to be a teenager, have your uncle disown you, and then have him turn it into a campaign issue on the national stage.

In a different context, that would have been a totally reasonable comment. In the context of his campaign, it's outright damning.
posted by schmod at 9:48 AM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


By the same token, would you say that being Jewish or Asian in America is not an "equally successful" path as being a gentile white in America? They have been discriminated against ... but they've enjoyed more material success than gentile whites overall.

The American Jewish poverty level mirrors that of the general population. Studies show that approximately 15% of American Jews in poverty. American rates in the overall population fluctuate (IIRC) between 12 and 17%.

Asian Americans:
Asian Americans represent both extremes of socioeconomic and health indices: while more than a million Asian Americans live at or below the federal poverty level, Asian-American women have the highest life expectancy of any other group. Asian Americans suffer disproportionately from certain types of cancer, tuberculosis, and Hepatitis B. Factors contributing to poor health outcomes for Asian Americans include language and cultural barriers, stigma associated with certain conditions, and lack of health insurance.
Very generally speaking, Jewish culture and some Asian cultures strongly encourage personal success and education as a possible path away from the pitfalls of minority status here in America.
posted by zarq at 9:53 AM on October 11, 2010


Gay couples can't reproduce in the traditional manner. This certainly doesn't mean gay people can't.

?
posted by zarq at 9:54 AM on October 11, 2010


I think FAMOUS MONSTER means cloning, same-sex in-vitro fertilization, etc. Mostly science fiction at this point, but there's definitely a market and the technology is developing.
posted by mccarty.tim at 9:59 AM on October 11, 2010


I like how basically every interview with Carl follows the same format:

Reporter: So, Carl, you said some crazy things yesterday. Would you like some more rope to better hang yourself? (Please say something inflammatory on my show!)
posted by 2bucksplus at 10:01 AM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


Ah. Thanks. I was confuzzled. Carry on.
posted by zarq at 10:02 AM on October 11, 2010


In case it isn't clear, THIS GUY FORWARDS HORSE-WOMAN PORN.

So, woman and horse are okay, even though I imagine the horse couldn't give any sort of legally-recognized consent. But heaven forbid two men or two women have sex.

Are we living in a satirical novel? I am laughing and crying. I should be used to it by now, what with the book Scooter Libby wrote. But no, I keep on thinking that reality is consistant and works within reasonable expectations, at least on the large scale. Maybe Deepak Chopra is right and quantum physics means anything can happen for any reason at all.
posted by mccarty.tim at 10:05 AM on October 11, 2010


Some people who identify as gay or lesbian sometimes have heterosexual sex.

Some people who identify as gay or lesbian come out of the closet from a heterosexual relationship with children.

Some people who identify as gay or lesbian make arrangements for biological offspring via extended families, artificial insemination, or just plain getting knocked up.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:05 AM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


I love Carl Paladino.

It used to be that when people thought of Buffalo they would think of wings, snow, and crushing poverty. Now they will think of racist homophobes.

Thanks Carl!
posted by munchingzombie at 10:09 AM on October 11, 2010


Actually, after further reflection (and an anonymous message), I now realize that FAMOUS MONSTER was probably referring to surrogates and donors for couples to reproduce. Not so much science fiction after all!
posted by mccarty.tim at 10:17 AM on October 11, 2010


It's great that the Metafilter outrage is out in full force on this scumbag, but what worries me more than Paladino is whoever it is that's drilled the message into the heads of the nine guys in the Bronx who thought it was okay to kidnap and tie up three men and burn their genitals with cigarettes and pound them senseless with pipes and baseball bats all through one night and into the next morning on end because they thought they were gay. What worries me more is the culture that's gotten into the head of the woman who harassed for years a lesbian couple in east Tennessee, then recently scrawled "GET OUT QUEER" on their house and then burned it down, just because she wanted them to get out of town, and just because she could -- with impunity.

When I lived in LA in the 80s, the LA Weekly had a series of articles on a gang of thugs who went around West Hollywood and other parts of the city looking for men they thought were gay so they could pulverize them with baseball bats. Reading those articles chilled me and knowing those thugs were out there probably helped set back my own coming out process. I imagine that hearing about such attacks has a similar effect on people who are wondering about the safety coming out in the here and now.

In the end, Paladino doesn't matter a whole lot and will soon be forgotten. The culture that infects these guys in Morris Heights, and the woman in east Tennessee, and all other men and women who think it's okay to attack gay people, does matter.

Today's Coming Out Day, BTW.
posted by blucevalo at 10:18 AM on October 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


Let's be fair, munchingzombie - many of us still think of Super Bowl XXV when we think of Buffalo.
posted by Mister_A at 10:22 AM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


Right-winger Is Homophobic Shocker!
posted by Decani at 10:23 AM on October 11, 2010


Today's Coming Out Day, BTW.

Dan Savage is supposed to be on the Washington Post site for a live Q&A to discuss bullying, gay suicide and his YouTube It Gets Better project right now, but nothing seems to be happening.
posted by zarq at 10:23 AM on October 11, 2010


I'd like to take the opportunity on National Coming Out Day to admit that Paladino and I do have one thing in common:

We both like our homosexuals fully functional.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 10:23 AM on October 11, 2010 [4 favorites]


I'm fully articulated with a Kung- Fu grip.
posted by The Whelk at 10:31 AM on October 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


I hope you don't give that jerk-weed crusher handshake is all...
posted by Mister_A at 10:33 AM on October 11, 2010


Actually, after further reflection (and an anonymous message), I now realize that FAMOUS MONSTER was probably referring to surrogates and donors for couples to reproduce. Not so much science fiction after all!

I was, yeah. The fellow said it was a bit of a shame that gay folks can't realize the (his) dream of settling down and having kids. Which they can.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 10:37 AM on October 11, 2010


It is a shame when a woman cannot give birth, someone is mute and cannot speak, someone cannot love, someone is plagued by depression, someone cannot aspire to greater heights, someone cannot give, someone cannot play part to the creation of life. These are all - in my eyes - a bit of a shame.

Well, WRT to a woman who "cannot" give birth, if she wants to and can't, then yes, this is sad. If she doesn't want to, there's no shame about it. Andthe last time I checked, you are not required to give up your ovaries when you come out, so lesbians are still physically capable of getting pregnant. And lots do.

But please, for those of us who choose not to reproduce biologically, for whatever reason - none of them your business - keep your pity to yourself. It only comes across as rude and presumptuous.
posted by rtha at 10:37 AM on October 11, 2010 [22 favorites]


It's lovely how rtha can say the things I want to say but without using the "F" word. Kudos, rtha.
posted by Mister_A at 10:39 AM on October 11, 2010


It used to be that when people thought of Buffalo they would think of wings, snow, and crushing poverty. Now they will think of racist homophobes.

Don't forget the horse-fucking!
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:51 AM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


Know what makes me happy about this, though? The number of people reacting to this with disgust, derision and mockery. I wish that number were greater, but it's definitely greater than it was when I was a kid. There was a time when this wouldn't even have been a story. I've never suffered anti-gay discrimination or hate 'cause I'm straight, but Dan Savage is right. It gets better. The world's getting a little better for us non-haters, too.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:53 AM on October 11, 2010 [2 favorites]


You'd think after a few centuries of having that same accusation thrown at them, any group of Jews would immediately call security when someone starts spouting that shit.

There seems to be a "when it's used against me, it's obviously wrong, but when I use it against someone else, it's obviously right" mentality at work. Until the early twentieth century, Catholics and Protestants heatedly accused each other of destroying "the family"; joined up to jointly accuse Jews of destroying "the family"; and joined with the Jews in accusing the Mormons of destroying "the family." It would appear that everyone has conveniently forgotten about the history of this polemical strategy (which, in the case of Catholic/Protestant disputes, goes back centuries). I mean, shouldn't the family be destroyed by now?
posted by thomas j wise at 10:55 AM on October 11, 2010 [2 favorites]


blucevalo: In the end, Paladino doesn't matter a whole lot and will soon be forgotten. The culture that infects these guys in Morris Heights, and the woman in east Tennessee, and all other men and women who think it's okay to attack gay people, does matter.

Well, politicians, religious leaders, and other talking heads who do their damnedest to dehumanize gay people share a culpability in those crimes. While on-the-ground education and outreach is important in curbing violence and homophobia, I'm glad that the media will occasionally call out these idiots and help prevent this sort of top-down spread of hate. Paladino's comments were especially timely, in light of news of the monsters in the Bronx, and the recent attacks at the Stonewall Inn and in Chelsea, and I'm glad that some media outlets are mentioning his speech and recent hate crimes in the same article.
posted by twoporedomain at 10:56 AM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


I hope you don't give that jerk-weed crusher handshake is all...

The Kung-Fu grip has ... other uses.
posted by me & my monkey at 10:57 AM on October 11, 2010


I've got to say, this guy's real values come shining through in his decision to forward bestiality porn to his pals. I can't see how anyone but an unrepentant and unapologetic misogynist can share that sort of thing.
posted by Mister_A at 10:57 AM on October 11, 2010


Looks like the Dan Savage chat got canceled or postponed.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:00 AM on October 11, 2010


I wonder if he's going to go away, or if he'll stay around as a talking head, writing little editorials and books on "the American values."

I mean, when McCain lost the election and everyone was joking about Palin, I got the feeling she was done for, but then she stayed around and is now one of the most influential people in the GOP/Tea Party.

But then again, Joe the Plumber only got 15 or so minutes of fame, and then griped about how he felt used and became irrelevant.
posted by mccarty.tim at 11:01 AM on October 11, 2010


with the Jews

Huh. I thought we were on the LDS-bashing wagon back in the nineteenth century, but I've just double-checked, and we appear to have kept our mouths shut.
posted by thomas j wise at 11:16 AM on October 11, 2010


Sometimes I think it really really loudly, Mister_A. Sometimes I mutter it, and my co-workers are all "Everything okay in there?" and I'm all "NO! Someone is WRONG on the internet!"

I mean, shouldn't the family be destroyed by now?

We're working on it! But there's other stuff on the agenda ahead of that, and I don't even know if that subcommittee has its report ready yet. It's just been so busy lately here in Gay Conspiracy Central!
posted by rtha at 11:17 AM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


twoporedomain: I completely agree with you. All scumbag politicians and pulpit-pounders who engage in this bullshit should be called out, derided, and hounded mercilessly out of the domain of acceptable discourse, preferably impaled atop the peacock-feather-laden rainbow-flag-bearing pole of the most glittery gay pride parade float available.
posted by blucevalo at 11:17 AM on October 11, 2010


I wonder if he's going to go away, or if he'll stay around as a talking head, writing little editorials and books on "the American values."

I blanch a bit writing this as if I've unwittingly entered Bizarro World, but Palin is far more articulate than Paladino. So I don't think so.
posted by me & my monkey at 11:42 AM on October 11, 2010


I have nothing but contempt for this horrible little man; still, what he said amused me because the thought occurred to me that a dysfunctional homosexual (where dysfunctional == not functioning as we expect it to) would be a heterosexual.

On the other hand, ignorant, pointless hate is never funny.
posted by moonbiter at 11:48 AM on October 11, 2010


It's a shame, this whole thing, as palatino is such a lovely typeface.
posted by Mister_A at 11:48 AM on October 11, 2010 [5 favorites]


"I mean, shouldn't the family be destroyed by now?"

You know who really wanted to destroy the family? Socrates, with his Republican gold, silver and bronze classes!
posted by klangklangston at 11:57 AM on October 11, 2010


What makes this even uglier is that this speech came after NYC police break the news of eight men arrested and one a fugitive for torturing and raping three men they suspected of being gay (potential triggers.) I'll do a time warp and let Harvey point out the connection between attitudes like Paladino and anti-gay violence.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:46 PM on October 11, 2010


Reporter: So, Carl, you said some crazy things yesterday. Would you like some more rope to better hang yourself? (Please say something inflammatory on my show!)

That would be an awesome question to just flat-out ask. Hi, Carl, welcome to the show. We've seen your speech. Would you like to say anything else inflammatory and/or moronic before we get started on the questions?
posted by ctmf at 1:03 PM on October 11, 2010


I think we can all agree that if Carl was covered with blazing dog poop, we'd throw water on him to rescue the perfectly good dog poop.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:23 PM on October 11, 2010


Yet another example of why in spite of everything you have to vote democrat this fall. You want change win in the primaries.
posted by humanfont at 2:05 PM on October 11, 2010


How did FOX cover this, BTW?

Not upset enough, yet?
posted by Lukenlogs at 2:12 PM on October 11, 2010


With a parent like this, who needs enemies?

Isaac Katz, son of Jonathan Katz, the Washington University professor whose essay, "In Defense of Homophobia" got him booted from the government's oil spill team, has come out of the closet:
/snip/

"In the past month, a 13-year-old Minnesota boy named Seth Walsh, who had been taunted for being gay, died in the hospital days after hanging himself from a tree; a 13-year-old Houston boy named Asher Brown shot himself after repeated homophobic bullying; 18-year-old Rutgers freshman Tyler Clementi jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge after his roommate secretly filmed him having sex with another man (though it is not clear that the roommate was specifically homophobic or would have done the same if Clementi were with a woman); and a 15-year-old Indiana boy named Billy Lucas hanged himself in his barn after being tormented by classmates.

After Lucas' death, advice columnist Dan Savage launched an online campaign entitled 'It gets better.' Countless gay men and women have now posted videos on YouTube, telling — and demonstrating — that life does get better for gay teens.

More than a decade has passed since my brother used that notorious homophobic slur [faggot]. I am now 22, and, as it happens, I am gay. Further, I, personally, was depressed throughout much of my adolescence. Although anti-gay bullying was never a problem for me as a student at Clayton High School, being in the closet hardly helped my mental well-being. I was hospitalized for depression the summer after my sophomore year in college and tried to overdose on pills later that fall.

My father is a physics professor at Washington University. Years ago, he wrote an article on his personal website in which he justified homophobia as a 'moral judgment' about a person's actions. Even if one does not accept Judeo-Christian morality, he wrote, gays should be shunned because they are physically and morally responsible for the AIDS epidemic. Any person 'cursed with unnatural sexual desires' should suppress those desires. Further, even if gays are thoroughly safe and monogamous, they are still morally culpable for the promiscuity that spread AIDS in the past, just as people who join the Ku Klux Klan without physically engaging in violence still share the responsibility for past Klan actions. Though one should 'not engage in violence against homosexuals,' my father argued, one should 'stay away from them.' The last line of the essay is as follows: 'I am a homophobe, and proud.'

It is harder to stay away from homosexuals, I would imagine, when your son is one. When I told my dad I was gay, his immediate response was, 'No, you're not.' (My mom, by the way, was and is more supportive.) When my insistence finally overrode his denials, he echoed his online essay that I should deny who I am rather than to engage in an act so abhorrent as to love another man."

/snip/
posted by ericb at 2:14 PM on October 11, 2010 [8 favorites]


American Family Association's Bryan Fischer:
"Everything - every single thing - that Paladino said about the homosexual lifestyle yesterday was dead on the money. What he said is so true and so evident and so obvious that the real controversy here is that there is any controversy at all.

The fact that homosexual activists will now bare their fangs, veritably dripping saliva as they go for Paladino’s carotid artery, and will do so with the full-throated blessing of the out-of-the-mainstream media, only illustrates the enormously dangerous clout these purveyors of perversity have been given in our culture.

... There frankly is no other kind of homosexual than the dysfunctional kind. Homosexuals are dysfunctional by the very nature of the aberrant sexual conduct in which they engage. As the Roman Catholic Church correctly says, homosexual behavior is 'intrinsically disordered.'"
posted by ericb at 2:17 PM on October 11, 2010 [2 favorites]


MetaFilter: a bunch of very extreme-type people in bikini-type outfits grinding at each other and doing these gyrations.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:35 PM on October 11, 2010


Cmon' guys he wants the full-throated blessing of our enormous clout.
posted by Avenger at 2:38 PM on October 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


It would appear that everyone has conveniently forgotten about the history of this polemical strategy (which, in the case of Catholic/Protestant disputes, goes back centuries). I mean, shouldn't the family be destroyed by now?

According to Orthodox Jews, it has. They point to high divorce and infidelity rates as being a problem with "secular" marriages.
posted by zarq at 2:45 PM on October 11, 2010



All these Republican nut jobs make one thing perfectly clear.

How they view their base.
posted by notreally at 2:54 PM on October 11, 2010


I would love to see him campaigning in Chelsea.

Come on, Carl, show some balls! Those dysfunctional gays are no threat to you! Stand outside the Better Burger on 8th Ave. and shake hands with people! They are sure to come around to your point of view!
posted by Danf at 3:01 PM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


the enormously dangerous clout these purveyors of perversity have been given in our culture.

That's why we have a long history of gay on straight violence and straight kids are running around committing suicide and straight couples can't sit by each others' bedsides as they lay dying in the hospital.

"the real controversy here is that there is any controversy at all. " - Indeed.
posted by yeloson at 3:12 PM on October 11, 2010 [2 favorites]


Isaac Katz, son of Jonathan Katz, the Washington University professor whose essay, "In Defense of Homophobia" got him booted from the government's oil spill team, has come out of the closet:

I did a "who what now?" when I read that because the only Jonathan Katz I'd heard of prior to this guy is a noted queer studies and art history academic and activist. Different guy.
posted by rtha at 3:15 PM on October 11, 2010


But please, for those of us who choose not to reproduce biologically, for whatever reason - none of them your business - keep your pity to yourself. It only comes across as rude and presumptuous.

Apologies for speaking my mind.
posted by Cogentesque at 3:18 PM on October 11, 2010


Um, dude, you spoke your mind, she spoke hers backatcha. Vive la free speech. And her telling you to shut up isn't exactly silencing you since it's within your power to disregard her. Of course the reverse is true too.
posted by jonmc at 4:15 PM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


I wonder if it's even possible for conservatives to talk about gays without sounding vaguely homoerotic. "We're just trying to defend ourselves and our familes from their enormous, sweaty agenda which they seek to gleefully ram down our supple, quivering throats in and out in and out until they finally flood our nostrils with the foul stench of their hot bubbling depravity and oh god OH GOD I WANT IT SO BAD"
posted by Avenger at 4:20 PM on October 11, 2010 [7 favorites]


You know what the real shame is?

People who have kids because they think they should, not because they want them. Because they want to avoid the social and family stigma of not reproducing. That's a shame.
posted by rtha at 5:12 PM on October 11, 2010 [6 favorites]


Cogentesque:

I know this wasn't aimed at me directly, but I'll bite.

Being homosexual, or, more precisely, in a homosexual relationship, does not preclude one from having a family. Within my little circle, I know a gay male couple raising a son, adopted, and a lesbian couple raising a daughter and a son, both of whom are the biological children of the butch partner (their words).

So if it's a choice between "a gay lifestyle" and getting married and having a family, I call bullshit.

And yes, I am fine with it if any/all of my children are gay. I cannot imagine worrying about it. There is so much worry in parenthood- health, education, safety, smothering/neglecting... and other selfish worries, like, what if my kids love football? Or fake fingernails? What if they hate being outdoors? What if they ALL want to be childfree? (I would like some grandchildren, eventually.) I mean, why worry about who they choose as a partner? I just hope if they want a partner, they find a good one.

So, yes, I think they are equally valid options, with equal degrees of possible success.
posted by Leta at 5:26 PM on October 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


and other selfish worries, like, what if my kids love football?

well, then you're just going to have to tackle them.

(my mom developed a grudging taste for some havy metal and rap simply by being my mom. parenthood is weird, I guess)
posted by jonmc at 5:29 PM on October 11, 2010


I'm trying to think of any LGBT person I know who I'd describe as "disordered." Maybe it's because I only know the boring ones, but they're just so goddamned normal… To the point that there are a couple of gay couples that I know where I find myself running out of things to talk about because they're all about, like, cars and ABC sitcoms and shit.

Also, guys, saying that you just believe what the Catholic church believes is, like, the worst defense possible for charges of homophobia. Just FYI.
posted by klangklangston at 5:40 PM on October 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


Apologies for speaking my mind.

Oh nice. You have uttered the only "apology" more disingenuous than I apologize if anyone was offended. Here is your tiny violin, sir!

(E)=#

posted by AkzidenzGrotesk at 7:38 PM on October 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


Even the Orthodox movement declared a "Statement of Principles on the Place of Jews with a Homosexual Orientation in Our Community," which among other things stated that "Embarrassing, harassing or demeaning someone with a homosexual orientation or same-sex attraction is a violation of Torah prohibitions that embody the deepest values of Judaism."

Whoa whoa whoa. If we're thinking of the same thing, the Statement of Principles is a nasty bit of work, not at all something to cite as evidence of tolerance. Sure, they say that embarrassing, harassing, and demeaning are wrong, but hell, William F. Buckley said that, decades ago, and (correctly) no one thinks he's a paragon of tolerance for it.

That tiny bone notwithstanding, the Statement of Principles -- Like the Catholic Church and Carl Paladino -- maintains that "heterosexual marriage is the sole legitimate outlet for human sexual expression." They say there's nothing wrong with being homosexual, but there is something wrong with acting on those desires. And while they acknowledge the dubious efficacy of and right to refuse "change therapy," they don't reject the, frankly, abusive practice itself. And the document leaves banning "practicing" homosexuals from synagogue to the discretion of local leadership.

The signatories of the Statement don't represent anything close to all practicing Jews--they don't even represent all of the self-described Orthodox--and it may even represent progress for those who are represented. Even if it does, it isn't enough progress to put them in the "not outrageously homophobic" category.

For what it's worth, I'm not Jewish, but I recognize the role that religion and culture play in many people's lives, and so do not mean to say that anyone who is Orthodox is themselves a homophobe simply by virtue of being Orthodox. Lord knows there are plenty of Catholics who disagree with the Pope.
posted by Marty Marx at 8:32 PM on October 11, 2010


IT'S THE MARCH OF THE GAY PARADE...YES!
posted by unknowncommand at 8:59 PM on October 11, 2010


The fact that homosexual activists will now bare their fangs, veritably dripping saliva as they go for Paladino’s carotid artery

Dude has an obvious Taylor Lautner crush going on. Damn.
posted by blucevalo at 10:55 PM on October 11, 2010


Every single gay person I know is a better role model than Paladino. Every single one.

You need to meet more people.

Also, how is this something new. Everyone already knows that many republican politicians are kinda like that in semi-private scenarios. Privately...it may be entirely different, though.
posted by hal_c_on at 12:56 AM on October 12, 2010



And yes, I am fine with it if any/all of my children are gay. I cannot imagine worrying about it. There is so much worry in parenthood- health, education, safety, smothering/neglecting... and other selfish worries, like, what if my kids love football? Or fake fingernails? What if they hate being outdoors? What if they ALL want to be childfree? (I would like some grandchildren, eventually.) I mean, why worry about who they choose as a partner? I just hope if they want a partner, they find a good one.

So, yes, I think they are equally valid options, with equal degrees of possible success.


Thanks for putting it in such a decent way Leta. How can one argue with the fact that we should worry less as parents and appreciate what we have - I completely agree with you.


Apologies for speaking my mind.

Oh nice. You have uttered the only "apology" more disingenuous than I apologize if anyone was offended. Here is your tiny violin, sir!

(E)=#

AkzidenzGrotesk: She told me to keep my thoughts to myself i.e. I shouldn't have said what I said as she took it in a negative, pitying light. I am not an evil person, I merely encourage debate and wanted to add something to this weblog. Correct me if I am wrong but metafilter exists to foster discussion between members ( /about ) To this end, one can only fully understand a concept if all possible sides have been given fair judegement, and I was trying to add something more than "omgz this Guy is a homophobic dick WTF". And while I even did throw in my two cents to this effect, I thought it fair to give my interpretation, whcih I won't go back into now. The previous poster was by no means enamored by this and let me know that she felt as though I was presumptious and rude, neither of those do I believe I am nor want to be. Hence I apologised. And for you to be so sarcastic is rather unfair. If you think I am wrong and would like to see my mind changed, (as is very possible mind), try and contribute something positive and inspiring as Leta did and try to move away from childishness and ASCII art.
posted by Cogentesque at 1:11 AM on October 12, 2010


Cogentesque, your argument - and by extension Paladino's, if you are now claiming that you are merely trying to explain his thought processes - fails to understand that not everyone in the world has or should have the same aspirations. As a result of that, you are allowing yourself to make big, stupid conceptual leaps.

Now if this was the debate in question, what I believe is to be aspired to is the state of an all rounded human that does what humans do e.g. love, hate, communicate, cry, wish, want, give, and give birth to a family that they cherish, and eventually spread their DNA and die old.

This is, it must be said, an absolute honker. You've provided a laundry list of things you think people need not just to be able to do but actually to do in order to have had a successful life. Most of these are pretty much done by age three - love, hate, communicate, cry, wish, want, give - but then you add and give birth to a family that they cherish.

So, in your conception, a person's life is not successful unless they have children. Also, the only way a person can have children is to give birth to them. This is pretty weird, but I think we can assume that you mean that they only way one can successfully be a parent is by having heterosexual sex leading to a pregnancy on the part of one participant and subsequent birth.

However, this is only the launchpad for the big stupid conceptual leap, which is that if one has not had children as a result of intercourse within a heterosexual relationship, that must be because of a design flaw of some kind.

It is a shame when a woman cannot give birth

The only reason not to give birth, if you are a woman, is because you are unable to do so. All women, obviously, want to give birth, and all people want to raise a family, without which their life has not been successful. The only reason a woman would not give birth is because they are suffering from a disability, whether that is infertility or the failure as a result of homosexuality - their own or that of all the men they know - to be able to have heterosexual sex. So, being gay is a shame. Lowering the ratio of acts of baby-making heterosexual intercourse to human beings is, in your formulation, sad and to be avoided or prevented.

If you genuinely think Carl Paladino is a douchebag, you should probably be aware that you and he are basically saying the same thing here. If you are just trying to explain why Carl Paladino thinks what he does - well, yes. We know. It's dream logic, unconnected from the way actual human beings function in the world, and along with being deeply odd is also likely to result in patronising a lot of people who neither want nor need sympathy. Also, as we see here and elsewhere, pitying somebody because their sexuality makes their life less successful than yours tends to go hand in hand with seeking to discriminate against and persecute them.
posted by DNye at 4:04 AM on October 12, 2010 [2 favorites]


My point was that your "Apologies..." was not actually an apology, and you're kind of living in a glass house where accusations of sarcasm are concerned. If you have an opinion that is supported by argumentation, by all means, state it and own your words. I was objecting to the tone of "see, I say what I mean and this is what I get!" rather than to the substance of your participation in this discussion.
posted by AkzidenzGrotesk at 8:29 AM on October 12, 2010 [1 favorite]








If any one of these non-comprehensive list of assets is not or cannot be completed - it is a shame.

I almost never say never, but I am unlikely ever to have children in my remaining years on this earth, for reasons which I don't feel the need to go into detail about but which include the conviction that I do not want to be a cause of bringing a child into this rapidly deteriorating world, one in which gutter trash like Paladino thinks it's a mark of pride to be able essentially to wish, in public, that children as yet unborn never become gay.

I do not believe that my life is either a shame or incomplete. Even if I did, it would not be because I'm not having children.
posted by blucevalo at 9:16 AM on October 12, 2010 [1 favorite]


And she shushed me, saying that they'd figured out what teabagging actually was and saying that they'd officially named themselves the Tea Party.

Yeah, as anyone who's been to high school can tell you, you don't get a mulligan when you inadvertently make a dick joke about yourself.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 9:42 AM on October 12, 2010 [2 favorites]


The opposite actually. The dick-joke genie is out of the bottle. They're going to have to live with it.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 1:24 PM on October 12, 2010 [1 favorite]


"Correct me if I am wrong but metafilter exists to foster discussion between members ( /about )"

Actually, it's a place to share links, and sometimes talk about them. Happy to correct you :)
posted by klangklangston at 1:49 PM on October 12, 2010 [1 favorite]


I stopped then asked haltingly if she thought I could maybe call them the teabaggers in private.

No, you can also call them 'tea-baggers' in public. After all, the term originates with them.

A People's History of 'Teabag'.
The Week and Tommy Christopher do the hard and amusing work of figuring out how and when the term 'teabag' first surfaced in our political parlance and how and when it became an insult. (One activist I talked to yesterday compared it to the 'n-word.')

The answer to the first question really is indisputable -- the word was first used by the tea party movement itself. In some cases it was by people who did not know that 'teabag' is also a sexual term. In other cases, protesters knew that the term was sexual and hurled it at the Democrats. Here, for example, is a photo I took ['TEA BAG the LIBERAL DEMS BEFORE THEY TEABAG YOU!!'] in February 2009.

It was clear to me at the time that the protester was making a sexual pun. How else does this make sense? The Week helpfully remembers the next link in the chain, the March 2009 campaign by Americans for Prosperity to send tea bags to members of Congress. That, by every indication, was guileless, as was the decision by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) to dangle tea bags on Fox News.

The turning point, as The Week points out, came when MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and CNN's Anderson Cooper started making 'teabag' jokes. And that was the start of tea partyers viewing the term as a snooty slur by coastal elitists."
Previous AskMe: Origins of the term "teabag party" and/or "teabaggers"?
posted by ericb at 1:50 PM on October 12, 2010 [2 favorites]




Uncle slam! Gay nephew blasts Carl.
posted by ericb at 10:31 AM on October 13, 2010


"Carl Paladino branded gay pride parades 'disgusting' on Monday." *

Mr. Paladino, check out this photo of the Buddies II float in the Buffalo Gay Pride 2006 parade. Yep ... that's one of the bars from which you received rent. (There's gotta be a rentboy joke in this somewhere.)
posted by ericb at 10:42 AM on October 13, 2010


The Republican candidate said he would reach out to gay leaders "to educate me on how to better represent my support for the rights of all citizens."

Dear Carl,

It's not that hard. Even someone as media un-savvy as you should be able to do it.

Don't be a jerk. Help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing...on the
issues, topics, and facts at hand—not at other members of the site demonizing your fellow citizens for the sake of political expediency. Be kind. Think before you open your mouth.

But you know, I don't think you're ever going to get how this works. I'm okay with that. I hope you go down in flames on election day.

Wishing you the worst of luck (not that you need any help with that),

rtha
posted by rtha at 11:23 AM on October 13, 2010




'I was in the middle of eating a kosher pastrami sandwich,' Rabbi Levin said. 'While I was eating it, they come running and they say, ‘Paladino became gay!’ I said, ‘What?’ And then they showed me the statement. I almost choked on the kosher salami.'"

It's good he repeated the word "kosher" twice. After all, considering his outspoken stances against the Talmudic principles of tolerance, kindness and compassion, coupled with his support of bigotry and the dehumanization of others, we all would have no idea he claimed to be an observant rabbi.

Ignorant, homophobic fuckwit.
posted by zarq at 5:19 PM on October 14, 2010


Oh, it just keeps getting better ...

Anti-Abortion Teabagger Carl Paladino Is The Landlord For Planned Parenthood.
posted by ericb at 5:27 PM on October 14, 2010 [1 favorite]


But I don't know that it's true that gay people are less successful.

There is a study about this I've seen linked to on MeFi a few times that might be of interest here - it could have been this one but I'm not entirely sure. The points about poverty in gay/lesbian families, for children of gays/lesbians, and for lesbian couples specifically seem noteworthy.
posted by naoko at 5:44 PM on October 16, 2010


Heh. "I almost choked on the kosher salami."
posted by electroboy at 7:56 AM on October 17, 2010




In related news:

Midland School Board (Midland, Ark.) member Clint McCance has created a firestorm with comments (now deleted/disabled) he posted on his Facebook page:
"Seriously they want me to wear purple because five queers killed themselves. The only way im wearin it for them is if they all commit suicide. I cant believe the people of this world have gotten this stupid. We are honoring the fact that they sinned and killed thereselves because of their sin. REALLY PEOPLE."
After being challenged by a commenter, this was Mr. McCance’s reply:
"No because being a fag doesn't give you the right to ruin the rest of our lives. If you get easily offended by being called a fag then dont tell anyone you are a fag. Keep that shit to yourself. I dont care how people decide to live their lives. They dont bother me if they keep it to thereselves. It pisses me off though that we make a special purple fag day for them. I like that fags cant procreate. I also enjoy the fact that they often give each other aids and die. If you arent against it, you might as well be for it."

"I would disown my kids they were gay. They will not be welcome at my home or in my vicinity. I will absolutely run them off. Of course my kids will know better. My kids will have solid christian beliefs. See it infects everyone."
Facebook page: Fire Clint McCance.
posted by ericb at 12:42 PM on October 27, 2010


« Older "He has fun when people say horrible things about...   |   Campfire Stories (Spoiler: Her head falls off) Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments