The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) began its spring season of announcing its annual GLAAD Media Awards for pro-gay journalism last week at the Marriott Marquis in New York (thanks in part to 100 donors, including "Platinum Underwriter" Time Warner). Other ceremonies will follow in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Miami, but the bulk of their awards were celebrated in New York. Among the big winners: Rosie O'Donnell for her "All Aboard!" HBO documentary touting her gay and lesbian family cruise. She was there to accept the award with filmmaker Shari Cookson, and gave a nod to tennis legend Billie Jean King, subject of another nominated documentary, saying "if it hadn't been for Billie Jean King, there wouldn't have been a gay movement."
Also honored in the awards, offered to journalists and entertainers GLAAD thought were "fair, accurate, inclusive, and impossibly glam," were the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, ABC's "Nightline," and especially The New York Times, which won three.
Fittingly, Frank Rich won in the Outstanding Columnist category. The Outstanding Newspaper Article award was given to Patricia Leigh Brown for "Supporting Boys or Girls When The Line Isn't Clear." The Outstanding Magazine Article award went to Kenjo Yoshino for an article in the Sunday paper's New York Times Magazine titled "The Pressure to Cover."
The Los Angeles Times won for Outstanding Newspaper Overall Coverage. ABC's "Nightline" segment "Forbidden Love" won for Outstanding TV Journalism. The Washington Post won (or they would say the somewhat separate Web team at washingtonpost.com was the winner) for Outstanding Digital Journalism - Multimedia for a Web video titled "Being A Gay Black Man" by Ben de la Cruz, Pierre Kattar, and Sholnn Z. Friedman.
In other awards of note, Details magazine edged out People in the Outstanding Magazine Overall Coverage award. Oprah Winfrey's show won Outstanding Talk Show Episode for "Wives Confess They Are Gay." The Scissor Sisters won Outstanding Music Artist for their CD "Ta-Dah" even if the more interesting nominee title was "Impeach My Bush" by Peaches (a drag queen, not the '80s soul singer who sang "Mercedes Boy.")
The GLAAD ceremonies will air on Viacom's gay and lesbian Logo cable channel on April 21.
Perhaps the weirdest presenter of the night was actress and singer Hilary Duff popping out of her dress, no doubt trying to graduate beyond her days as an idol to grade-school girls for Disney's "Lizzie McGuire" TV shows and movies. She presented the Outstanding Reality Program award to Bravo's fashion-designer reality show "Project Runway."
For a look at the pro-gay journalism honorees, including the other nominees, awards are listed below:
OUTSTANDING TV JOURNALISM – NEWSMAGAZINE
Winner: "Forbidden Love" Nightline (ABC)"Lesbians in the Ministry" To the Contrary (PBS)
"Transgender People" The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch (CNBC)
"Under the Rainbow" NOW (PBS)
"Will Gay Debate Tear Church Apart?" Larry King Live (CNN)OUTSTANDING NEWSPAPER COLUMNIST
Winner: Frank Rich (The New York Times)
Alfred Doblin (Herald News [Bergen, NJ])
Dana Milbank (The Washington Post)
Deb Price (The Detroit News)
Dan Savage (The New York Times)OUTSTANDING NEWSPAPER OVERALL COVERAGE
Winner: Los Angeles TimesThe Boston Globe
The Daily Press [Newport News, VA]
The Honolulu Advertiser
USA TodayOUTSTANDING DIGITAL JOURNALISM – MULTIMEDIA
Winner: "Being a Gay Black Man" by Ben de la Cruz, Pierre Kattar, and Sholnn Z. Freeman (WashingtonPost.com)"AIDS at 25: A Multimedia Perspective" (Newsweek.com)
"Mookey's Story" by Carolyn Goossen, Daffodil Altan, and Min Lee (NewAmericaMedia.org)OUTSTANDING MAGAZINE ARTICLE
Winner: "The Pressure to Cover" (PDF) by Kenji Yoshino (The New York Times Magazine)
"I am Woman" by D. Cookie Fields as told to Michelle Burford (Essence)
"The Out Crowd" by Jason Newman (Urb)
"Queer Inc." by Marc Gunther (Fortune)
"What if It's (Sort of) a Boy and (Sort of) a Girl?" by Elizabeth Weil (The New York Times Magazine)
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Comments Policy
Shameful
April 1, 2007 - 06:52 ET by allanfI will resist the urge for pejorative comments. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if these publications were as inclusive and understanding of Conservatives as they are of those who say gender doesn't matter in marriage?
"....Also honored in the
April 1, 2007 - 07:51 ET by winston smith"....Also honored in the awards, offered to journalists and entertainers GLAAD thought were "fair, accurate, inclusive, and impossibly glam,...."
And yet they still wonder why they're not respected or taken seriously ---- by normal straight people anyway.
You're right. They wonder why
April 1, 2007 - 09:00 ET by Gat New YorkYou're right. They wonder why they cannot be accepted by mainstream Americans and then do whatever they can to distance themselves from the mainstream.
do whatever they can to dis
April 1, 2007 - 09:51 ET by motherbeltThey wonder why they cannot be accepted by mainstream Americans and
then do whatever they can to distance themselves from the mainstream.--Gat New York
That's true, Gat. All you have to see is the antics of gays when they parade. Do they look like mainstream Americans? Hell, no! They portray themselves in all kinds of outrageous and disgusting ways. Then they want everyone to think of them as just "the guy next door." Yeah, right.
"Act the way you want people to think you are" (Can't remember where that came from, but it's good advice.)
Gay
April 1, 2007 - 13:01 ET by Emma GrumpYep, Motherbelt, you got it right. And if we ever get Sharia law in this country, Rosie and Elton et al will all become flaming HETEROsexuals. Either that, or back into the closet from whence they emerged.
Make a note of the winners
April 1, 2007 - 09:08 ET by nkviking75Make a note of the winners. These are journalists who cannot be trusted to be objective on gay issues.
Naturally, this one didn't
April 1, 2007 - 09:12 ET by sarcasmoNaturally, this one didn't get any award...But boy, did the government ever piss-off the wrong homosexual way-back-when, it's interesting history!
JMR
Pat Buchanan (I'm almost po
April 1, 2007 - 09:30 ET by motherbeltAnyone with half a brain could see this coming.
With smoking it was first a no-smoking section on airplanes and in restaurants, then entire planes and restaurants, then whole buildings, including a perimeter around them. Eventually to intrude into people's personal vehicles and in some cases even their homes. Eventually smoking has come to be completely unacceptable.
With the gay agenda, the tactics were the same, but with the opposite objective. First it was simply to not be hated or abused for being gay (tolerance). Then tolerance became a need for "acceptance", meaning it's an OK situation. Next came "equality", meaning gay relationships are the equivalent of heterosexual, including the "gay marriage movement". And now it's completely unacceptable to say anything at all critical of the homosexual lifestyle. And as for being equal, let's face it, it's actually pretty chic (better?) to be gay these days. And the "best" way to be now, is not neutral, but in fact actively pro-gay.
Pat Buchanan (I'm almost positive it was him) was right when he said
that homosexuality had gone from "the love that dare not speak its
name" to "the love that won't shut up!"
Well, from your own timelin
April 1, 2007 - 09:57 ET by sarcasmoWell, from your own timeline, it looks to me like the hatred & abuse gave their side the toehold that was needed for "the gay agenda." Perhaps there's a lesson for haters & abusers (or those who tolerate them) buried somewhere deep in all that?
JMR
"Gave them a toehold?" Not likely.
April 1, 2007 - 12:14 ET by RJ"gave them a toehold?"
That's hardly likely, sarky. Certainly there have been "abuses and hatred", but the amount was inflated as were other "facts". My early conversations with members of the activist gay community indicated that the gay agenda would have been pushed in the same way, regardless of the responses of the heterosexual community.
For just one example, the percentage of gays was massively and deliberately inflated, SPECIFICALLY in order to push the belief that there were so many gays that they HAD to be "mainstreamed." Until the lie was revealed and admitted, the % was constantly pushed, but now you seldom hear about it. That's because it's so low that it's a negative to their agenda and campaign.
I have no particular brief against gays, but I do have a SERIOUS problem with the dishonest ways in which they've pushed their agenda.
Yup. Hatred and abuse. I st
April 1, 2007 - 13:12 ET by sarcasmoYup. Hatred and abuse. I stand by all my words, as usual, and "hardly likely" apparently translates to "historically obvious." Violence and thuggery has happened, is wrong, and some -- not all -- on the right have encouraged it against homosexuals. Those are who I'm talkin' to, because they need it. And recall, I said nothing whatsoever about percentages of gays in the population, etc. My conversations with sensible gays say they want to be left-alone by thugs. I don't blame 'em.
JMR
Apparently, sarky, you didn't even bother to read my post
April 1, 2007 - 14:17 ET by RJApparently, sarky, you didn't even bother to read my post before launching your protective and defensive rant. Deliberately or not, you're misrepresenting my words. I did not say there is no hate and abuse....in fact, I agreed that there is. Nor did I suggest that violence and thuggery are ever appropriate.
In your original post, you, on the other hand, went from A) motherbelt's "timeline" as you called it, to B) your statement that it was the hatred and abuse that GAVE THE TOEHOLD THAT WAS NEEDED, to C) your suggestion that the hate and abuse was the direct causation of the entire timeline and agenda of the activist gay community.
And no, you didn't say anything about percentages. I CLEARLY identified it as an example of the deliberate information inflation practiced by the activist gay community. (for years, their claim was 10-12% of the population was gay, but they were forced to admit in court that the number had been drastically inflated, and that the true numbers were more like 2-4%) I did so in order to show that information inflation was a standard of the activists, and that the amount of "hate and abuse" was probably ALSO inflated.
Nope. Read your post, I sim
April 1, 2007 - 14:28 ET by sarcasmoNope. Read your post, I simply do not agree. And the violence was substantial, IMO, but any violence is wrong. And my point remains, violence and thuggery have been encouraged (and then pooh-poohed & diminished even when admitted, as above) and that may have led to today's problems. The fact that you appparently can't see a lesson in that doesn't mean other people can't.
JMR
"Nope. Read your post,
April 1, 2007 - 14:45 ET by RJ"Nope. Read your post, I simply do not agree." (sic)
I understand. The fact that you apparently can't accept or understand a logical argument causes you to feel free to misrepresent other's words...as you've done again in your last post. And, for you, that justifies the non sequiturs that allow you to make whatever point is currently in your craw.
Again, I have no brief against gays, but I do have a SERIOUS problem with the dishonest manner in which they've pushed their agenda.
He must have been beating fags senseless RJ
April 1, 2007 - 19:17 ET by SportPoliticsHe must have been beating fags senseless for years RJ,then finally got thrown in jail, and is now on a crusade for forgiveness.
That or his son is gay, which is just as likely. It's obviously personal with him.
Anyway, his link had the hero of coming out, and there was no violence done there. Not even way short of substantial.
The thing is, if gays were so fearful of violence they'ed still be in the closet. Obviously they aren't the least bit afraid of it, at all.
Most of your post is too over
April 1, 2007 - 19:23 ET by RJMost of your post is too over the top for me, Sport, but that last point is interesting......
"Over the top" is
April 2, 2007 - 01:19 ET by sarcasmo"Over the top" is apparently a new way to say "more lies from the Liar," but ok. And on that last point, isn't it interesting that the closeted homosexuals these days (coughKenMehlmancough) tend to be on the political right and not the political left, for some reason?? Gee, I wonder why? (And yes, it was morally wrong for Bill Maher to "out" anyone including Ken Mehlman, but that doesn't change the fact that Ken felt the need -- for some reason -- to be in the closet in the first place while he was doing an excellent job for your political party!)
JMR
*
April 2, 2007 - 11:29 ET by RJANOTHER fuming flame, sarky? Have trouble sleeping last night and thought venting your bile would help? Did it work? Maybe the other posters are right, and you have hidden reasons for your out-of-proportion anger. Some couch time might help, fella. ;^>
My point was that, after cl
April 1, 2007 - 16:29 ET by motherbeltSarcasmo, hatred and abuse are never justified. My point was that, after claiming that all they wanted was tolerance, the activists kept pushing further and further, one step at a time. Which leads one to believe that they had a long-term agenda planned from the start.
motherbelt, your points were clear
April 1, 2007 - 17:49 ET by RJmotherbelt, your points were clear (at least to most of us, I think) that the gay activists have been implementing an agenda. Sarky, with his own agenda, tried to take your thoughts sideways.
Over the years I've had a number of discussions with gay activists. They made it clear that not only did they have an agenda, but they they were willing to do and say whatever it took to achieve same. Their takeover of school curriculums, for example, didn't just evolve by itself. It was a planned assault.
The same is true of pushing the PC concept of "homophobia" for any dissent, no matter how reasonable. Of course, it was designed to shut off all dissent, and it's done exactly that. Now, it's become so imbedded in our society that I've even recently heard a conservative radio talker repeatedly make that charge against those who were against "don't ask-don't tell" or gay "marriage". (I was finally able to convince him that he was being hypocritical, and he no longer does it.)
Sideways, nothing. I stand
April 1, 2007 - 18:02 ET by sarcasmoSideways, nothing. I stand by all my words, there's a lesson to be learned here whether or not you like that fact, and continually trying to mischaracterise what I said will not change it. I don't care about any "gay agenda," I care about violence being advocated against people who want to be left-alone, since that started the problem, and since then (see Reason article) gays have been very politically-effective, albeit mostly on the left.
JMR
"bitch du jour"
April 1, 2007 - 18:33 ET by RJ"trying to mischaracterize what I said"
Hahaha! That's truly funny, sarky, when it was YOU that mischaracterized MY words....and I proved it by laying it out, point by point. You, on the other hand, have done nothing of the sort....excepting make a late, half-assed counter-claim, using zero backup.
Yes, sarky, you DID attempt to take motherbelt's post sideways in order to push your own "bitch du jour." Of course, you refuse to accept that she (and I) pointed out that you took her words incorrectly, because (hahaha) "I stand behind all my words."
Sarcasmo, from a previous p
April 1, 2007 - 20:29 ET by motherbeltSarcasmo, from a previous post of yours:
"My conversations with sensible gays say they want to be left-alone by thugs."
Isn't that what I said to begin with?
You started with something
April 2, 2007 - 01:14 ET by sarcasmoYou started with something like that, and I concluded, "looks to me like the hatred & abuse gave their side the toehold that was needed for 'the gay agenda.' Perhaps there's a lesson for haters & abusers (or those who tolerate them) buried somewhere deep in all that?" Then RJ spewed his usual irrelevant BS & the Liar lied (again...) about me. Par for the course around here. And I still stand by all my words.
JMR
My goodness, sarky
April 2, 2007 - 09:02 ET by RJMy goodness, sarky. "Irrelevant BS?" "Liar?" Your anal retentive personality is on full display this morning. All this because I disagreed with you? Ah, well, here we go again. Any time your narow-minded and single-track pronouncements are fisked, (which is far too easy to do) you automatically go into this blustering hyperdrive. It's obvious that your over-the-top primal defensive posturing comes from frustration over the fact that you're unable to stay within the confines of logical thought.
I suspect that many on the board join me in a small chuckle each time they see your frequent, plaintive cry of "I stand behind all my words!" ;^>
But mysteriously, none of '
April 2, 2007 - 09:06 ET by sarcasmoBut mysteriously, none of 'em seemed interested in making any reply whatsoever in your defense. (For the record, I suspect many people laugh at you, RJ, whenever you get into lithium-deficient mode as you have in this case.) And my policy of calling Liar "Liar" every time he lies about me seems to be creating the desired effect. :)
JMR
Oh, come on, sarky. That's pathetic.
April 2, 2007 - 09:19 ET by RJOh, come on, sarky, that's a pathetic flame. Obviously, grade-school level mimicry is your comfort zone.
"If I am, then so are you"???? And, basing your relevance on whether or not others "defend" you? Do you want your mommy, sarky? ;^>
RJ...You are not alone. Sarcs
April 2, 2007 - 09:24 ET by Clear thinkerRJ...
You are not alone. Sarcs faked indignation goes back as long as I have been a member (almost 2 years). He and I got into an argument long ago, and because of his antics, I refuse to converse with him. He called me a liar over and over whenever I responded to his assertions which you have learned is in his little bag of tricks. My suggestion is to ignore him.
Good luck!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
You lied about me using dru
April 2, 2007 - 09:28 ET by sarcasmoYou lied about me using drugs, and I called you a liar. Same as with Liar above, no difference. I do not back down one bit. Liar.
JMR
Once in awhile, clear
April 2, 2007 - 09:37 ET by RJYeah, clear, I've had the occasional set-to with sarky and they always come out the same...with his bewildered cry of "I stand behind all my words."
Usually I do ignore his pontific posts, but once in awhile.... :^>
RJ...I understand.... you got
April 2, 2007 - 09:41 ET by Clear thinkerRJ...
I understand.... you gotta have some fun where you find it. Even if it is at his expense.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Well, then this'll surely a
April 2, 2007 - 09:49 ET by sarcasmoWell, then this'll surely amuse you. Your nick, when juxtaposed with your statements, is a good part of why I chose mine, at your expense...I'm still not-impressed.
JMR
Super-duper
April 1, 2007 - 09:49 ET by acumenSuper-duper. Now someone please remind me again why Muslims call us the great satan.
Damn. "Boat Trip" g
April 1, 2007 - 10:02 ET by Roger the ShrubberDamn. "Boat Trip" got shut out again.
I worry for Tim when he lists
April 1, 2007 - 11:59 ET by jondelwicheI worry for Tim when he lists Hilary Duff as the "weirdest" presenter. I went to the link and can report that she easily exceeds even my rigid standards for qualifying as a presenter. He must mean weird in a non-Rosie sort of way.
Viacom's gay and lesbian Logo
April 1, 2007 - 14:23 ET by BAUHAUSViacom's gay and lesbian Logo cable channel
Why in the world do gays need their own TV channel?
What's next. Bloomberg for Gays? Their own driving lane? Sitting alone in the front section of a bus?
Because the free marketplace demands it.
April 1, 2007 - 14:31 ET by sarcasmoBecause the free marketplace demands it. I doubt your next three will ever happen since nobody's even proposing them, but people here need to deal with the free-market part, even if they don't like it.
JMR
Because the free marketplace demands it
April 1, 2007 - 14:35 ET by Free StinkerBecause the free marketplace demands it
Probably.
I've got channels on DirecTV that seem to have an even narrower niche than Gay/Lesbian. Example channels include: Sleuth, Chiller, MSNBC, and E!
You mean "E!" isn't gay/lesbian?
April 1, 2007 - 14:40 ET by sarcasmoYou mean "E!" isn't gay/lesbian? ;) Anyway, to be serious for a moment, I'm still amazed that there's a golf channel. To me, watching golf on TV -- even if it's Tiger, who is excellent at it & looks like a fun guy in those commercials -- is like watching grass grow. Of course, all the golf channel fans are probably amazed C-Span gets multiple channels these days.
JMR
Golf Channel? LOL!Hey, str
April 1, 2007 - 14:48 ET by Free StinkerGolf Channel? LOL!
Hey, stranger things have happened. After all, MSNBC is still on the air. ;-) I mean really, 3am test patterns on Amish UHF stations get higher ratings.
Because the free marketplace
April 1, 2007 - 14:46 ET by BAUHAUSBecause the free marketplace demands it.
Sure but, isn't normal TV enough? On the other hand, how big is that market actually? How many gays excists in the US? Thousands, Millions, Billions *?
* Just joking Democrats don't count this time. *g
1. No. (And you don't get t
April 1, 2007 - 14:51 ET by sarcasmo1. No. (And you don't get to define what's "normal" for anyone but you in real life.)
2. Big enough to make money or they'd fail. So.
3. Doesn't matter.
JMR
Assuming that the census is c
April 1, 2007 - 14:54 ET by James2306Assuming that the census is correct and assuming that the 2-4% is correct that would mean that there are approximately 6-12 million homosexuals in the US of both genders. A sizable demographic in the terms of advertising.
The hottest places in hell are oft reserved for those who in times of moral crisis remain neutral
Yes, and an especially swee
April 1, 2007 - 15:01 ET by sarcasmoYes, and an especially sweet target for certain ads, such as travel, because of the "DINKs" ("double income, no kids") factor being commonplace for obvious reasons in that community.
JMR
It's 2-4% of the U.S. population, BAUHAUS
April 1, 2007 - 14:57 ET by RJBAUHAUS, as I said farther up in the thread, after claiming for years that the number is 10-12% of the U.S. population, the activist gay community was FORCED to admit in open court that they had been DELIBERATELY inflating the figures, and that the true figure is somewhere around 2-4%.
In other words, they admitted that they knew the correct figures and had been lying all along. Used to be, they never stopped talking about the %....but now, you hardly ever hear about it....
2-4% gay population is true
April 1, 2007 - 15:15 ET by Pragmatic-ManYes, RJ is correct. 2-4%. Now the next begging question: born that way, or gay by choice? Can a logical thinker deduce that if the percentage does not vary with changes in culture, this is direct evidence that homosexuality is a genetic disposition? Are there studies of close species (chimps, apes) that offer similar percentages, so that we could separate culture from genetics? Curiosity.
I have never met a homosexual
April 1, 2007 - 15:23 ET by James2306I have never met a homosexual who was not that way by choice there can be no genetic reason for it evolution would not allow it. The ones I have met have gone back and forth between the two genders at will or have gone straight and do not want anyone mentioning "hey remember when ____ was gay"
The hottest places in hell are oft reserved for those who in times of moral crisis remain neutral
evolution allows the platypus...
April 1, 2007 - 15:41 ET by Pragmatic-ManJames, if evolution allows the platypus, then it could surely allow homosexuality. To claim an absolution on this contention is unfounded.
Sorry buddy. Your claim may be correct (I do not know, am not a geneticist) but could not be defended from your position. I would offer that if there is a genetic reason, it is not understood. And if there is no genetic artifact, then it would seem that sociological variances between cultures and times would tend to vary the percentages. Loose moral climate = higher percentages, while tightly controlled social climates would tend to espouse lower percentages. But I restate, I am no expert on the topic.
Evolution holds that traits a
April 1, 2007 - 16:05 ET by James2306Evolution holds that traits are passed down from parent to child since homosexuals do not produce children that trait could not be passed down as it would bea dead end.
I am also no expert but I have The Origin of Species by Darwin and have read it.
The hottest places in hell are oft reserved for those who in times of moral crisis remain neutral
Darwin is a good start, but not exhaustive.
April 1, 2007 - 16:12 ET by Pragmatic-ManI have but one thing to counter with. Recessive traits. Genetics 101 teaches that genes can be passed from parent to child as recessive. Twins (or the likelihood to birth them) often skips generations. There are many diseases that skip one or more generations. Eye color, hair color, height. They all can skip multiple generations.
Sorry, but recessive genes do
April 2, 2007 - 14:47 ET by SpoonSorry, but recessive genes don't work like that. A mutation starts with one individual, such as a slight change in color. If that color is pink, the moth gets eaten and doesn't breed. If it is a darker brown, allowing it to hide better against the bark of a tree, it has offspring and those that are darker live longer, breed, etc. The initial homosexual mutation would not have offspring, so it would not have a gene to pass down even recessively. Diseases can be passed on because they may not develop until well into maturity, but if a disease made you sterile or otherwise unable to procreate before puberty, that gene would die out in a generation, though it is doubtful it could come into existance in the first place except in a single case of mutation.
My friend...
April 1, 2007 - 15:46 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasMy friend...please avoid insulting the science of genetics by offering the idea that scientific conclusions or even deductions can be made in the field of genetics through the observation of behavior and a statistical variance. Genetics is an exacting science when it comes to discovering specific genes as causes for specific things. The only thing that can be concluded from what you offer is that the percentage does not vary. Taking such a statistic any further and magically deducing it must be genetic because statistics seem consistent, and concluding, without the research, study and genetic evidence to support is childish nonsense. No serious discussion about genetic causes for human behavior can take place without significant research and support. You might have the idea it could be caused by genetics but that is all you have and at that point you haven't gotten beyond the same belief that comedians have a funny gene or George Clooney fans have have a "Clooney gene" (if this term "Clooney gene" gets used outside of here...well now you know where it just got invented).
The sad truth for homosexuals or anyone that wants to believe genetics MUST be the cause for their choice is that truthfully the genetic research over the last 15 years through blind and double blind study after study after study...is that it is far more likely behaivor that is NOT genetically caused but via human choice.
Shut up and blog! If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
Whoa there Guy! Just askin'...
April 1, 2007 - 16:07 ET by Pragmatic-ManEasy, Guy, just asking, that's all! Okay, genetic research is inconclusive to prove the positive, and thus could be conceivably argued to prove the negative. Got it. But I did not intend to propose that genetics was in some way to be manipulated or contrivances gathered with the help of socio-demographic observances. They are wholly separated by execution and the basic structure of their respective sciences.
But riddle me this... why are testosterone level higher in some individuals than others? There are females of the species that have pronounced levels of testosterone which could play into the physiological operations of their sex drive. Are they choosing to have advanced testosterone levels, or is it a genetic artifact that has left them with this symptom? And could a possible outcome of this increased level be a redirected sexual orientation? I know, as a man, that my sex drive is driven by hormones, and different individuals are built with different abilities to secrete hormones. So to throw a blanket over the fire and claim genetics has disproven any link between homosexuality and DNA is not arguable within the confines of your statement.
So I shall retort, Guy, to please not insult the science of genetics by slewing those who practice it to be "of consensus" to your human choice disposition. Instead, argue your point and keep the haute stance a bit more slack. Genetics is an exacting science, but the conclusion to be drawn from the research are anything but. Knowing something is a duck, and even further knowing how a duck is built, does in no way constitute the whole body of duck knowledge. If you want to know the duck, do more than know how to build one. Strive to know why the duck is a duck.
Then...
April 1, 2007 - 16:18 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasThen I suggest you take your own advice and avoid making conclusive remarks or attempting to introduce unwarranted deductions.
As far as why testosterone levels are higher in one person than another, well that is something that must be determined case by case. There are a number of causes for increases or decreases in testosterone and if you are genuinely interested in learning of the MULTIPLE causes for such a condition, I am sure a simple GOOGLE can help.
I did not claim GENETICS has disprovoen ANY LINK...those are YOUR words used to MISREPRESENT my words. What I did says is:
"The sad truth for homosexuals or anyone that wants to believe genetics
MUST be the cause for their choice is that truthfully the genetic
research over the last 15 years through blind and double blind study
after study after study...is that it is far more likely behaivor that
is NOT genetically caused but via human choice."
My suggestion to you is that you begin to read more carefully and thoughtfully represent the statements of others instead of misrepresenting them to serve your side of a debate.
Shut up and blog! If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
"Then I suggest you ta
April 1, 2007 - 16:35 ET by Pragmatic-Man"Then I suggest you take your own advice and avoid making conclusive remarks or attempting to introduce unwarranted deductions." -- Guy's words
"The sad truth for homosexuals or anyone that wants to believe genetics MUST be the cause for their choice... is that it is far more likely behaivor that is NOT genetically caused but via human choice." -- Guy's words
"My suggestion to you is that you begin to read more carefully and thoughtfully represent the statements of others instead of misrepresenting them to serve your side of a debate." -- Guy's words
I posed questions to you, Guy, and did not make one conclusive remark to support my side of the debate. How do I know this? Because I have no side of the debate, nor do I have any conclusions! I only offer that there are no conclusions to the arguments proposed so far, mine or yours. Why be so defensive? What is your gripe? As quoted above, you are the one offering conclusions. Ease up, man!
Tell me...
April 1, 2007 - 16:49 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasQuote directly any CONCLUSION I have offered...you can't and won't because none was made in the context of this limited debate. I did say that the research so for fails significantly points to behaviorial causes but I have yet to set this in any absoulte context. However, you offered the idea that if the variance in cultures of homosexual population is minimal might one conclude it is genetic and I pointed out that even such a proposal is academically juvenile to begin with but for the sake of argument if accepted I pointed out that so far the research of the past 15 years in blind study and double blind study after study has come out quite wanting in support of a genetic cause and quite demonstratively supportive of a behavorial cause.
Shut up and blog! If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
your conclusion, sir...
April 1, 2007 - 17:05 ET by Pragmatic-ManYour conclusion, sir... in your own words:
"The sad truth for homosexuals or anyone that wants to believe genetics MUST be the cause for their choice is that truthfully the genetic research over the last 15 years through blind and double blind study after study after study...is that it is far more likely behavior that is NOT genetically caused but via human choice."
Guy, your keywords of "truth", "wants to believe", and "truthfully" can only lend one to think that you are drawing a conclusion. Allow me to reword this in a manner that would not be a conclusion (as you claim):
"There is reason to argue, based on 15 years of blind and double blind studies, that homosexual behavior is not genetically caused, but via human choice." -- now, isn't that a bit less conclusive? A bit more inviting and with a bit less rancor? But you stated it as "sad truth for homosexuals", which I would take offense to if I were gay. I am not, so I chose to let the "sad" jab comment go. Not a nice phrasing, tsk-tsk.
If my guilt lies in my phrasing...
April 1, 2007 - 17:53 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasIf my guilt lies in my phrasing...I welcome you to play judge and sentence me while I smile will glee.
Shut up and blog! If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
Is it genetic
April 1, 2007 - 19:40 ET by SportPoliticsI think there's a real problem here. If it is scientifically determined it is not genetic, the gay community will do all it can to discredit a genetic study that concludes there is not a genetic factor involved. This would lean toward personal choice and environment, both of which carry stigma. A good solid person could overcome the bad environmental factors, or make the right choice.
Second, if a study produces a genetic code responsible for it, the gay community will fight that as well, since then it would be considered "a defect". There is also the possibility that the genetic marker would merely indicate a propensity for it, thereby opening up the possiblity that choice and the wrong kind of environment play the final determining factor(s).
So either way, the gay community doesn't want an answer to this going public. They haven't much a chance of coming out in a good position. (lol)
I have a different theory, it
April 1, 2007 - 16:20 ET by BAUHAUSI have a different theory, it's not very scientfic but could be the answer.But again I'm not a Scientist. Whatever you will read now don't take it offensive.
The main part is based on episode of CSI. It was about a man who stole woman shoes because he was 'attracted' by them [the shoes].
They said he acted that way because a part of his brain was a little too much in the middle so it was sort of in line with his genitales.
Maybe it's something similar with homosexuality. To speak of genetics a mutation.
Hope my English was understandable. Difficult to describe when English is not your native language.
I'm just suggesting it could be a possible reason.
An episode of CSI eh?
April 1, 2007 - 16:25 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasI understand your idea but I wouldn't count on the television show CSI for the basis of forming any genetic or generally biological theories of human behavior...no matter how much CSI or the network wants you to believe they are seriously trying to portray real criminal forsensics...they are in the end actors and script writers...nuff said.
Shut up and blog! If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
Like I said, it could but I h
April 1, 2007 - 16:36 ET by BAUHAUSLike I said, it could but I have no real scientific prove.
straight response
April 2, 2007 - 00:08 ET by JudithFunnee. Could this also be the reason for the liberals faulty thinking? Their brains can't possibly be aligned with anything in their bodies, can they? Also, directed to Guy, if you ever had to quit your job because you objected to a gay's rule breaking, lying, cheating, deceiving management, and flouncing, you would not defend them so heartily..my interpretation of your nuanced responses. Management was so scared of "offending" him/her, that they let all of this go resulting in charges of homophobia where there originally were none.
GLAAD Awards
April 1, 2007 - 22:46 ET by pocomocoDidn’t they leave out a few awards:
Bestiality: Your pet needs love too.
Sell it to the children.
NAMBLA, our guiding light.
American Media: Tell it like it should be.
South Beach, for those in transition.
Take a cruise and cruise.
Mi bathhouse es Su bathhouse.
#1. I thought Billie Jean Kin
April 1, 2007 - 23:51 ET by tracheostomy#1. I thought Billie Jean King was primarily for the feminist movement?
#2. I thought if it hadn't have been for Stonewall there wouldn't have been a gay movement?
GLAAD needs to distance themselves from irrational talking heads.
Furthermore, they need to seriously restructure their platform if they want to further their agenda.
-PJ
GLAAD huh? Well, I think I
April 2, 2007 - 10:16 ET by MightyMouthGLAAD huh? Well, I think I am gonna start my own defamation league:
WMADAD!
White Middle Aged Dudes Against Defamation!
I am sick and tired of my minority not being represented in this country!
Anyone want to join?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...