Idiot gay commenter shows the gay hand

| | Comments (32) | TrackBacks (0)

The gay community undoubtedly appreciates you, moron. Thanks for providing the first absolutely perverse and hostile comment at the NVTH Blog in just about one year of existence.

I take it you are in Columbus, OH, and you are what the right-wingers warn about when they talk about a "gay agenda."

Don't worry about your pearls of wisdom being lost, because I have saved them, along with

And you know what, "Rusty?"

I think you might have just spilled a bit more than you intended to.

Congrats. You conveyed a very important aspect of the gay, lesbian, blah blah blah whatever the hell it is bunch of people's - ok I won't say "agenda" I'll just say modus operandi.

The hostility.

Funny how that little element has managed to slip under the radar in the debate, eh?

There is more to come on this topic, believe me. We've been lucky here so far to have the David's and Jonathan's of the world as our ambassadors from the GLBT community (pardon me if I mixed up the letters) because D and J are such gentlemen. But that happenstance misses a bigger reality:

The Gay-Lesbian-etc-etc community has a bit of an edge to it.

And, no, this statement isn't just based on the unfortunate singular comment of an individual here. That individual's comment fit a pattern, a very recognizable pattern. It reminded me, for instance, of things I've heard since the 1980s. Not from my gay friends, mind you, of which I have had many, but from the gay ACTIVISTS - a separate group and an obnoxious group whose, uh, agenda, seems to be to impose on the rest of society a sexual more designed to provoke outrage.

It isn't just me and Jacob talking with David and Jonathan about bedroom politics. It's gay folks who want to demonstrate gay behavior around straight people's children. The ones who walk up to our kids at a public event embracing and kissing solely for show and the outrageousness of it all. Homosexuals and bisexuals don't want merely to be accepted: They want to ram their sexual practices down our throats and our families' throats.

Here's a free piece of advice to the gay- etc-etc community: We heterosexuals think of you as regular people who engage in different sexual practices. Beyond those practices, we're the same.

But when your PR takes the form of indoctrination about your own sexual practices, we tend to say "STOP."

And then we tend to spell out all the reasons we do not want homosexuality advocated in the public sphere.

Let's not any of us forget that the reason the latter argument has had to be made is because the gay community has thrown the grenades. They're the ones who want to blow our minds, expand our horizons, expand our KIDS' horizons, and generally make everyone very uncomfortable with the hope the discomfort can be attributed to heterosexuals' "uptightness."

Nope. Sorry, boys, but we see through it. You are hostile.

You have a massive arena for self expression in society and freedom to carry on whatever private sexual activities you want. But you want more than that. You want everyone who is less enlightened than you about the superiority of alternative sexual practices to have to hear about your sexual practices all the time. You want our kids to hear about it. You want to rock our world.

Memo to the gay activists: You are breaking no new ground. All of us in the heterosexual camp are familiar with the concepts of sexual experimentation and the fluidity of sexual identity. "Homosexuality" is, I submit, a commonplace idea. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy does not leave us freaked out with eyeballs spinning. We know what it is.

The key question is, how RUDE are you going to be in trying to press your agenda. Because there is an agenda - don't try to hide that. Maybe David and Jonathan are the lone civic purists seeking no more than equal standing for gays in Virginia. But some of their compatriots certainly seek what many gays and lesbians seem to seek, which is the overthrow of the social norm of heterosexuality.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Idiot gay commenter shows the gay hand.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


zimzo said:

Joe, I have no idea what comment you are referring to so it's a little hard to understand the basis for your reaction. There are a lot of stupid people in the world, both gay and straight, and yet I don't think you would write a whole post about the "agenda" or "modus operandi" of the "straight community" or attribute the idiocies of one straight person to all straight people or a significant number of them, which is what you seem to be doing here.

In fact, what shocks me about this particular post is the great deal of hostility you seem to be spewing, even as you accuse "Rusty" of same, and how it is not just directed at one commenter but to an entire group of people he happens to belong to. You could just as easily have written a post about the rudeness of people from Ohio vs. people from Virginia. But you didn't.

Even your invocation of the old some-of-my-best-friends-are-gay line and your characterization of David and Jonathan (how biblical!) as "gentlemen" does not mask the hostility you seem to have toward the gay community. You seem to be implying that they are exceptions. Correct me if I have misunderstood you.

There are some pretty rude and hateful anti-gay people out there like Fred Phelps whose "church" protests at the funerals of American servicemen who died in Iraq because he believes that their deaths are God's punishment on America for allowing homosexuality. Is he representative of the Christian or straight "agenda"? Of course not.

I was particularly trouble by your rhetoric that seemed reminiscent of perhaps the biggest lie gay people have to endure from those who hate them, the idea that they somehow represent a danger to children. I'm not sure what "grenades" you are referring to that the gay community has supposedly thrown, but I note the all-caps outrage you express in accusing them of trying to "expand our KIDS' horizons." I must say I have no idea what you're talking about. The phenomenon you refer to of gays who supposedly "want to demonstrate gay behavior around straight people's children. The ones who walk up to our kids at a public event embracing and kissing solely for show and the outrageousness of it all" I have to say is one I have never witnessed in my entire life. Is it possible you misinterpreted their actions. Would you characterize any gay people who engage in public displays of affection as partaking in some kind of strategy to target children and would this somehow be different from straight people engaging in public displays of affection? I'm trying to understand where you're coming from here because I'm genuinely baffled. It really seems to skirt the edge of anti-gay rhetoric that claims that gay people are trying to "recruit" are children and that they are all pedophiles (when in fact 90% of pedophiles are men who molest girls).

You claim (once again invoking children) "You want everyone who is less enlightened than you about the superiority of alternative sexual practices to have to hear about your sexual practices all the time. You want our kids to hear about it." Who exactly makes the claim that homosexuality is superior to heterosexuality? I have never heard anyone say this. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that if anyone believes this, it's a tiny minority of extremists who no more represent that vast majority of hard-working, good-hearted gay people than Fred Phelps represents Christians. In that case, why bring it up at all?

We have both been on the Internet long enough to know there are a lot of rude and stupid people who own computers. Why did you go out of your way to make the claim that he represents anything larger in the gay community than his own individual stupidity?

Kathy said:

I used to live in the apartment below a couple of committed gay activists, and these two did indeed "show off" in front of neighborhood kids. They told me that they made it a point to do so. One of them seemed far more eager to flaunt and protest than the other, temperamentally speaking; the other stoically carried his briefcase with the bumpersticker, "Homophobia is a social disease" looking neither to the right nor to the left. He was just as committed, but a little more personally reserved than his partner.

Another thing these two activists did to "push the envelope" in public was to bathe naked in the apartment's hot tub! OF COURSE they were chastised! Any straight would have been, too! I don't care WHO YOU ARE or WHAT YOU STAND FOR, I don't want to see your family jewels!

Kathy said:

Do you know, I'm looking back at these guys and laughing with a bit of affection, especially for B., the more flagrant of the two. Probably he was the youngest child in his family! If he didn't have the gay rights soapbox to stand on, I bet he'd streak just to get attention!

Don't Be Fooled said:

David and Jonathan seem like nice people. One can have a conversation with them. They don't tend to take their clothes off in public (at least not to my knowledge). But they are committed gay activists and ideologically consistent with their more "in your face" peers.

Read their posts carefully. They want judges to impose gay marriage on Virginia so that every employer will have to offer benefits to same-sex "married" couples, regardless of religious belief. They want gay adoption to be normalized. They want schools to teach children that so called "alternate" GLBT lifestyles are normal and they express more concern about religious "bigots" (read: those who believe in traditional and biblical sexual morality) than pedophiles.

We must keep the discussion to issues, not personalities. I disagree with many people whom I like personally and there are a few folks with whom I share core beliefs who I don't much like. Principles outlast personalities and the message is much more important than the messenger.


Get out in the real world once in a while, and then come back and report.

I did not invent the scenario out of whole cloth based on a single commenter here. The commenter simply reminded me of something very real, something those on the "extreme right" evoke first when asked about their reasons for opposing gay marriage or gay anything.

And quit feigning shock about events and behavior that are familiar to anyone who does not live in a missile silo in Nebraska. Or was it Kansas.

zimzo said:

Forgive me, but I am shocked when I see otherwise intelligent and decent people casually trafficking in the worst kinds of hurtful stereotypes about gay people. I wonder what this "something" you refer to that seems to be triggered by "gay anything" could possibly be. It sounds like some sort of emotional response, a fear, perhaps, one might even say a phobia.

Oh boo hoo hoo, Zimzo. Let me find a band aid to help heal your hurt emotions. Gay people sure are lucky to have you out there keening on the street corner in the rain.

Yeah, I have a phobia about idiots, I must admit. In fact I hate'em because they can be dangerous and destructive. Just like you don't want a drunk operating heavy machinery, you don't want idiots running loose masquerading as normal folks.

And you be careful with that "phobia" stuff, y'hear? Because in my experience most people who make that accusation are themselves pretty dim-witted.

Don't forget our rule around here: Leveling the accusation of "homophobe" or "bigot" automatically identifies one either as a moron, or as the losing side in the argument.

Jack said:

Let us not forget that the "Gay Rights" advocates have sued to deprive the Boy Scouts of the right to freedom of association.

This is why I oppose W's "Faith-Based Initiative." When religious institutions start using government money for their mission, the government will eventually force them to compromise their principles, or lose money on which their clientele has come to depend.

A much better alternative is to make cheritable contributions a 50% tax credit. The poor even now give a larger share of their income to charities (mainly religious) than do the rich. Many of those poor people get no tax deductions for those donations, because they do not have enough other deductions, such as mortgage interest, to itemize. With a 50% credit, the poor might even get some of that money back, even if they owe no income tax.

zimzo said:

Your rule, Joe, not mine. You're perfectly free to ban me from your site, though I think I have been civil, but I'm going to call it as I see it. If you're going to write a post about one moron and claim he "shows the gay hand" (whatever that means) and mention children in an ominous tone umpteen times and hint darkly at a gay "agenda," then you should be prepared to get called on it. Considering how hostile your initial post and all your responses have been, it's kind of funny that it was the supposed "hostility" of the mystery comment that motivated your rant against gay people in the first place.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

joe, can you provide a link to this article so I know what the hell you're on about. in the mean time i'm just going to have to assume that your posting of an anonymous blogger's ip address was lame and uncalled for.

Zimzo, no one banned you from anything. You're still here, you realize. Regarding "ranting," I haven't even gotten started yet.

Stay Puft, I'm not going to reprint the comment I deleted last night. A matter of taste. But posting the idiot's IP address was not uncalled for or "lame." I want the person and all the world to know we're keeping the information.

Gnossis said:

Joe insisted: "I'm not going to reprint the comment I deleted last night. A matter of taste. But posting the idiot's IP address was not uncalled for or "lame." I want the person and all the world to know we're keeping the information."

Keeping it for what purpose? If you're not going to share even the gist of the post that spawned your diatribe, why should anyone take you seriously? You're undermining yourself by denouncing an unseen bogeyman.

Given the pages of (relatively) civil conversation on this topic on this blog, what was it about the redacted post that touched a nerve with you?

If the post (in your eyes) was indicative of the "real" M.O. of gay rights activists, couldn't one just as easily accept the parallel assertion that the only racists are gung-ho anti-illegal-immigration?

For the record, I don't think either extreme in either debate is truly indicative of a given side's "real" M.O.. And though I rarely agree with you as far as topics on this blog are concerned, your response to the mystery post seems to be quite a departure from a typical Joe B. post.

Just my $.02

charles said:

I'm at a loss as well. I don't know what this person said that made you mad, although he obviously did. He also was apparently posting anonymously.

As I said a couple of days ago over at NLS, unless someone directly threatens violence, or spreads a deliberate lie about other posters, revealing IP address information is a breach of an implied contract a blog sets up when they allow "anonymous" posting.

If you are going to reserve the right to "out" your anonymous posters whenever they say something that offends you, you should put that in the home page of the blog, so anonymous posters understand they aren't really given anonymity.

Since the post is gone, I have no idea if this poster violated the boundaries I think are reasonable for revealing ip addresses.

Jack said:


You have the email addresses of all of us. Rather than posting it on your site, how about you just email it, if you still have it. If you dont' just go over the highlights (lowlights?) for us.

Ok, key individuals have now seen the offending comment. They may or may not come to the conclusion I am behving rationally, and I don't care either way.

This is a blog, after all, and in the course of a day pitchforks are going to be raised and people are going to get shot.

Gnossis said:


That was a disgusting post, to say the least, and I completely agree with your decision to delete it. I (personally) wouldn't have posted the IP address; I would've blocked it if I had that capability, but I don't see the point in providing that information to everyone on the Internets.

As you anticipated in your email, I'm not clear on why this post caused you to make the jump back to gay rights/gay marriage or how it contributes anything serious to that discussion.

I'll wait for you to post something with more substance on the topic of gay rights before pulling out my arsenal of pitchforks.

I posted it because - if you follow the logic, assuming there is any: This person committed what I consider an act of vandalism on our site, because for that window of time we ended up hosting his words, which were accessible through all the vast network of tubes in all the Internets everywhere.

I found the message because I happened to log on and see it .... but as everyone here knows, I could have just as easily not seen it for days if something went down at work or in my personal life to keep me away from the Web. So what went through my mind was "that a-hole could have had this nasty note about Steve Irwin sitting on our blog for who knows how long."

Believe me, he's as banned as Movable Type allows. But to me it was like finding a nail stuck under the tire of your parked car, so beyond banning I think this malevolent personality needs to be outed.

John Grigsby said:

Sorry for the length of this posting. However, it's useful background in trying to understand two of the probably 5 activists on the other side here in Loudoun.

Jonathan Weintraub and David/Danaan (sometimes this person has used one name, sometimes the other; I am not sure why) Weintraub leave the "in your face" activism to others, but they still do things that wierd people out. As to whether intentionally, or unintentionally, I'll let others judge.

For instance, a young socially conservative activist woman well known to these two received a letter, at her widowed mother's home address, "confirming" her support of some local initiative to solidify support of the gay/transwhatever program among clergy in Loudoun. This was sent by Equality Loudoun or some other related group. The details aren't immediately at hand.

She replied, politely, by email, to the effect that as they knew she would be the last person on their "religious" supporters list. I don't recall the details of her note beyond that.

She then received a response from Jonathan or David/Danaan, to the effect that someone else must have added her, and it was such a large list (yeah, right - I can just imagine the presses rolling all night) that it was understandable they didn't notice her name.

Give me a break.

It's creepy enough that "someone" had to go to the trouble of finding her mother's home address, which is not listed in the book, and adding it to an obviously small list of "religious" liberal leaders who were to receive letters confirming their support of a gay transwhatever group's agenda. That, however, was the tip of the iceberg.

In one of these persons' responses (Jonathan or David/Danaan, I can't keep them straight), the person made the comment that this young lady, who was still young enough where she was still baby sitting for us on occasion, should have received the letter at her new digs, "in Ashburn". At the time, this young lady lived in Purcellville, but her younger sister, who is very private and not political, lived in ... Ashburn.

That is just creepy. Was that the intent, or just a series of accidents or misunderstandings? We'll never know.

My next posting will be of yet another bit of creepiness from one of these two.

John Grigsby said:

Here's a further bit of creepiness, this time directed to me, from Jonathan Weintraub. Jonathan I believe was an officer with the local Loudoun County Democrat Committee (LCDC) at the time. Maybe he still is. I don't spend my time focusing on these "interesting" people.

David/Danaan (this person uses one or the other name at times - someone please explain why) is head of Equality Loudoun.

I was driving to work one day, on the Dulles Greenway, shortly after a candidate that these two supported had won an election. As I was driving, Jonathan drove up and "parked" himself in the passing lane next to my car, where he honked and waved at me in a rather agitated way for a bit. I smiled and waved back. My life isn't centered around who wins or loses in political contests, and my views used to be very different, so I have to be a bit philosophical.

Jonathan Weintraub then moved ahead of me and into my lane, where he slowed down, presumably so I could see up close his political bumper stickers, so as to be reminded that he supported the guy who won. After a minute or two he sped up and moved out of sight.

That evening, I received an email, presumably from him, though from an account that I'd presume belonged to David/Danaan. The email invited myself and my wife over to their place for a "romantic evening". I didn't dignify the email or the previous behavior with a response.

I'm glad that Joe has found posts -officially- from one or both of these people to be polite. My impression of them was likewise for a while as well, until I heard and experienced otherwise.

I hope that Joe and others who post here won't be targets for this creepy sort of behavior.

charles said:

Joe, where do I get myself one of those shooting pitchforks?

Jack said:

I have a rifle with a bayonet you can borrow.

Oh Jiminy Christmas have I stirred up a hornet's nest of latent perfectionists. You can have pitchforks raised, and also have people getting shot, but it doesn't have to mean they are getting shot BY the pitchforks.

There's yelling, there's murmuring, torches flare, pitchforks thrust menacingly into the air, and SHOTS RING OUT. A woman screams. That means some in the throng also have guns.

If I have to spell everything out we're going to be at this for a long time.

suburbanite said:

Mr. Grigsby--the key may be the connection with the Loudoun Democratic Committee. Until some core elements of that group get over their inexplicable love affair with "snarky" behavior/attitude, I think you and others are supposed to find the behavior humorous.

At least, that is an excuse I've been offered before (not by anyone mentioned here).

zimzo said:

Not being one of the "key" people who get to see the offending comment, I have no idea what made you so angry, but judging from what I know I have to ask who is the "sheltered" one here? Disgusting, rude comments are one of the hazards that go with operating a site that allows for comments. I've had a little experience with this myself. I can't imagine these comments were any worse than you might get if you get linked to by, say, a white supremacist site. The proper response I always thought was to delete them like spam and forget about it. I also have to agree with the others here that posting someone's IP address goes over the line, not that you care what I think.

Whatever this person said he apparently succeeded in his goal of making you lose your cool and brought out a side of you that was not particularly pretty. Though you seem to be more in a mood for ranting than reflection, maybe someday yu will be able to look back and see what it was he revealed. Maybe you'll ask yourself why the comments of one gay person made you lash out at gay people in general and ascribe his actions to people who have nothing to with him at all.

It is also interesting, though sad, how your post then gave permission to others to reveal their own discomfort with specific gay people or gay people in general. John Grigsby goes on at length about how he thinks David and Jonathan are "weird" then proceeds to give examples of behavior that don't seem that weird at all and seem to say more about himself than the people he attacks. Don't Be Fooled warns ominously that while they "seem like nice people" they can't really be trusted, apparently because, like all gay people, they have a secret agenda. Kathy, who seems like a very nice person, the kind of person anyone would want for a neighbor, insists that the secret gay agenda was once revealed to her, perhaps in a moment of weakness. Of course, we have no idea if the person she said told her this is representative of the gay community as a whole or even if he was serious, joking or just trying to shock her. We just have to take her word for it I guess.

She describes one of these lovely gay people she knew as "flaunting." "Flaunt" is an interesting word you often see associated with gay people who make other people a little uncomfortable. It means "To exhibit ostentatiously or shamelessly." I wonder if it's the lack of "shame" that makes you and some of your commenters uncomfortable about certain gay people. Gay people should at least act like they are ashamed of who they are. The fact that so many gay people don't feel ashamed and don't feel the need to hide who they are is what is really scary to some people. One of the good things and bad things about blogs is that people tend to react without thinking and end up revealing a lot about themselves. So, thanks, Joe, this has all been really educational.

Don't toy with me Church Lady, er, I mean Zimzo. If you confirm your e-mail is real I'll send you the background. Maybe the writing so far has not made the case well enough but there are two months to go so there will be more opportunities.

I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I stand by the post. My response to Gnossis here

tells a little more about why I did not just delete it and move on. I run numerous Web sites also and am well acquainted with nutjobs and how to handle them. I've handled many. The fact I dealt with this one differently is, to me, significant, because the comment came from someone who I believe was hostile to this site on the basis of what has been written here about gay marriage, so I consider them on the "pro-gay" side of the fence (not a deal killer to me), but also was quite "edgy" and reminded me of a side of the pro-gay movement which once was a deal-killer for me in my earlier years as a right wing extremist. My right wing extremism has softened, I'll admit, and it never was able to work up a head of steam over homosexuality. My issue back in the day was abortion (and legalization of marijuana, but that's a story for another day).

But, I'll say again, this comment evoked a memory, and that evoked my rant. A butterfly flaps its wings in Africa and a semi runs off a bridge in Missouri. An archduke gets assassinated and the world is plunged into war. You know the drill.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

ok, no one messes with the Croc Hunter's legacy.

But my first assumption whould be that some punk searched "irwin" on technotari, found this little blog, and posted some $#!+. I don't think it's prudent to hold up someone in ohio making lude comments about Steve Irwin's kids on random blogs as representative of the gay community and it's "agenda"

Has this particular blogger posted here before? Has he had anything to say in the past about the gay marriage issue?


No and no. We have no vetting on the source. All we have is this Budzinski ("B")character ready to light up the sky over a perceived takedown of the Irwin family. We recommend B be neutralized and Marshmallow Man assume control of the blog. Repeat: Marshmallow man to assume control. Out.

Kathy said:


I have no doubt that my former upstairs neighbors were unrepresentative of most gays. B. told me that they were activists, and their specialty was flying in the face of staid, white-bread suburbia. He was the stay-at-home partner, and D. worked a day job as a computer programmer; but after work they plotted and schemed to pull stunts that they hoped would shock and disconcert the straight community.

Kathy said:

Correction: I should say that I think their actions and stridency are unrepresentative of most gays. Don't be Fooled made a very good point about not confusing personalities with political agendas.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

alright, everyone out of the poor. playtime's over.

Dang I was so enjoying the poor...

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

you wanna try running a blog? be my guest

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here