1. kp05 says

    “Whether someone punches you in the nose because they really hate you, or they punch you in the nose because they want to impress people who hate you, you still have a broken goddamn nose.”

    Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! This is a good one to send to my parents who call themselves “understanding,” but still plan on voting for Mitt Romney because “well, you know, he doesn’t *really* dislike gay people.”

  2. dave02657 says

    We have a winner, indeed. Concise, deadly accurate, and elegant.

    We now turn you over to the usual cast of crusty and bitter old queens here who will present in order to denigrate Dan in ….

    … three, two, one.

  3. Caliban says

    Absolutely! There was a recent article (posted here?) about how politicians, George W Bush was one of the examples used, campaign by promising anti-gay policies but at the same time we’re told they don’t personally hate gay people, have gay friends, etc. as if that’s supposed to temper the gay community’s reaction to them. Based on things I’ve read Bush actually DOES have gay friends and treated gay friends of his daughters quite well. At least according to her, Laura Bush begged him not to use opposition to gay marriage as a campaign issue, but it was just too good an opportunity for Bush and Rove to pass up so they used it.

    Well sorry, but if you’re out there campaigning against gay rights then it doesn’t MATTER if you personally have no animus toward gay people, you’re still a homophobe. It means f*ck-all that you “have gay friends” or whatever- with friends like you who needs enemies?

    And I believe Mitt Romney IS personally homophobic, hasn’t changed from the being the guy who had friends tackle and hold down a gay student while Romney chopped off his hair. Partly his homophobia is a Mormon thing but also that he is incapable of empathy for anyone but himself and those exactly like him.

    And by campaigning on these issues politicians have CREATED the idea in the public consciousness that they get a say in the rights of others, which is completely in opposition to the Constitution. There should NEVER be a popular vote about the rights of any group; that’s why the Constitution is set up as it is- to prevent mob rule over minorities. You want to start putting rights to a popular vote? Fine. Let’s start with putting the practice of Mormonism to a vote in all 50 states and see how it fares.

  4. Rick says

    As usual, potty-mouthed Dan cannot speak for even a single minute without resorting to profanity or other forms of crudity, just reinforcing the image of gay people being trashy, out-of-the-mainstream types incapable of behaving with propriety.

    And his point is ridiculous. Was Obama a homophobe because he opposed same-sex marriage when it was not considered politically expedient for him to do so and only changed his position when it appeared that it was politically expedient to do so?

  5. kp05 says

    Nice prediction, Dave.

    I always love gay Republicans. They hate Dan Savage more than they hate people like Brian Brown. They take out more press releases to distance themselves from the hard-working community members fighting for ALL of us than they do ones to talk Republican policy.

    If that’s not Stockholm Syndrome, I don’t know what is.

  6. Caliban says

    Not only that, KP05, they promote and endorse anti-gay candidates then take advantage of new rights that Democratic and liberal gay activists had to fight AGAINST them to pass.

    It’s unfortunate that when gay Republicans go to get a marriage license in the few states where it’s legal that no one says, “Oh, I’m sorry. According to our records you publicly supported politicians who are against gay marriage so you can’t have a marriage license.”

    THAT would hit them where they live!

  7. Rick says

    “How does a “sexpert’ morph into a political pundit?”

    Excellent question. And he is not even a “sexpert” so much as an opinionator with no serious credentials, as is evident from the gutter language that has always characterized his column.

    So what is the answer to your question? It is only a hunch, but I suspect that, just as America only seems to be comfortable with gay characters on network television who are stereotypically effeminate…..presumably because gay men who behave in a normally masculine manner would be too threatening to the audience…….

    ……that likewise they are only comfortable with a “gay spokesman” who reinforces the other stereotype about gay men being sexually-obsessed, trashy, and living at the social margins……which role Savage plays to perfection…..again, the point being that a gay man can only be “dealt with” if he is safely beyond the social mainstream in some way and can be placed in a nice, neat box called “gay” that can be cordoned off from the rest of society.

  8. Tim says

    I lived in Seattle during the 90’s and Dan was tool then as he’s a tool now. I remember when he was against gay marriage as we shouldn’t try to be like straight people. A good description of him is “attention whore”.

  9. Tim says

    I lived in Seattle during the 90’s and Dan was tool then as he’s a tool now. I remember when he was against gay marriage as we shouldn’t try to be like straight people. A good description of him is “attention whore”.

  10. kp05 says

    Political? Gay equality is political, Rick? That’s your problem. You’re so involved with right-wing think, their talking points have permeated into your subconscious and become truth. Equality is not political.

    And who needs an “expert” on equality, Rick? For the rest of us here, it’s common sense. That’s why people like Zach Wahls are seen as excellent spokespeople for us, as is Dan Savage. They are people whose daily lives are harmed by your party’s policies. You don’t need an “expert” to elaborate on why we should advance LGBT equality, you need a pulse. If the fact that Dan has the guts to stand up and do something about it offends you, I’m sorry.

    Maybe, just maybe, the only reason society has grown comfortable with the gay man you describe, is because those men are more likely to be on the front lines of equality, Rick. You don’t get to stand in the back of the crowd and expect to be noticed. You want your ‘type’ of a gay man to become mainstream? Let us know who you are.

  11. says

    I’m always puzzled by the faceless anonymous commenters who seem to hate Dan Savage more than they care about LGBT Equality.

    Anyway, he’s right.

    If you cowards who cant’ put a face to your comments attempted transparency you might get somewhere in life one day.

    Um, and I highly suggest you all read Savage’s book “The Commitment” – it’s incredibly touching, and a great read. The funny thing about Savage is you can see from people’s responses to him where their own insecurities lie. If you’re gonna hate him, hate him for the right reasons. But when you make up reasons to hate him you look like idiots.

    And once again, because it happens every day, we have the closeted troll Rick screaming like a ninny about “fems” while being completely unable to put a face to his comments to show us this apparent Pinnacle Of Masculinity that he pretends to be. You’d think a manly masculine boastful man like him would be more than ready to put a face to his words and live his example of manliness. But he won’t. Because he’s not Out, and not terribly masculine. Those with nothing to hide hide nothing. Those who live a lie choose to live vicariously through an anonymous internet handle.

    Rock On, SAVAGE. Until your naysayers grow a pair and raise their voices and visibility to match yours, you can keep it up. It seems folks want “another spokesperson” but don’t have the orbs to be that spokesperson themselves. So until they grow a pair (which they won’t) feel free to keep it up 😉

  12. Tim says

    @ LITTLEKIWI why do you feel that people who don’t like Dan care less about the LGBT community? I think Dan’s an idiot and a fool, but it doesn’t effect my feelings about the LGBT community.

  13. Luke says

    @RON, I agree, his claim to fame is a sex advice column, so I’m not entirely sure how he became a “spokesman” for the gay community… I usually could care less what Dan Savage has to say, but in this regard he is absolutely correct. A broken nose is a broken nose!

  14. Caliban says

    You know what? I don’t doubt for a second that Dan Savage can be a “tool,” can be difficult and obnoxious. I also don’t really care. (I do care that he sometimes shoots his mouth off ill-advisedly but when weighed against his good work it’s mostly minor.)

    It takes a certain personality type to be as public as he has been, as fierce in defending himself and the gay community. You have to be extroverted and somewhat egotistical for that sort of public life. That personality type can also be abrasive and sometimes needlessly combative, but they are the type of people who GET SH*T DONE! We NEED people like Dan Savage who are willing to step up to the plate, just as we need quieter, more reserved people working behind the scenes.

  15. says

    simple, Tim – if you’re going to dislike a person, dislike them for the right reasons. the sad reality with the “i hate dan savage” crew is that their dislike of him overrides…well… the fact that the majority of the time the dude is spot-on. when he’s not? criticize it. when he is? acknowledge it.

    and yeah, read his book The Commitment. Those that clearly haven’t make it obvious when they say “i hate dan because __________” ; and it’s things that are clearly not actually things about Dan, but about some idea of him.

    we have all these people screaming angrily saying they want a new spokesperson, or something, or a new face and voice for who and what we are….and yet those complainers utterly refuse to BE that voice or face.

    it’s stupid.

  16. says

    and Dan has said, SO MANY TIMES, that he’s only a “spokesperson” by default.

    he’s no SELF-styled spokesperson. he’s merely someone who, unlike the majority of commenters, refuses to make his statements from a place of hiding. people refuse to stand up, so since he’s already standing he becomes the “spokesperson”.

    want another one? then become it.

  17. i could go on, but I won't says

    Just gotta love Dan, look at the people he riles up! You know as much about a person by the enemies he makes as the friends he keeps.

    And what’s an occasional g*ddamn among friends? *I’d spell it c*rrectly but I d*n’t want to give *ffense.

  18. Luke says

    @Little kiwi, we can dislike Dan Savage without becoming a spokesperson ourselves. I, for one, am not a good public speaker and am very shy, so it is highly doubtful that I would ever become a spokesperson for anything, but that doesn’t mean I can’t have my opinions about Savage.

  19. Rrhain says

    Well, RICK, to answer your question about Obama:

    Yes. Yes, he was a homophobe to step away from his previous commitment to marriage equality. As Savage pointed out, punching someone in the face because you need to impress people who hate gay people still results in a “god damned” broken nose. “But he really likes gay people” is not sufficient. We need action, not words.

    We can now return you to your hypervigilance regarding your superficial appearance.

    I’m really sorry about your penis, though.

  20. Andy says

    I’ve admired Dan Savage since way back, when his column was called “Hey Faggot!”

    He’s become a spokesman because, as this clip illustrates, he’s goddamn good at it.

  21. Grant H. says

    Dan Savage does good. He speaks the truth and goes to the heart of the matter. He helps people with his column and educates through his television appearances. I suspect Rick is actually one of the Concerned Women of America.

Leave A Reply