28 Gays Later

Picture of the Day

I'm really enjoying the uncharacteristic brush-off the usual dingbats on the religious right are getting in the wake of yesterday's Supreme Court decisions on DOMA and Prop 8. For years, political leaders and polite society in general have felt like those who've stood in the way of progress in the name of adhering to the tenets of a 2,000-year-old book of fairy tales require a certain amount of respect and deference, but I get the impression that this is finally changing. That's not to say that our politicians will, at any time in the near future, completely abandon the faithful and their little delusions. But it goes to show that people like Michele Bachmann, Mike Huckabee, Bryan Fischer, Rick Perry and so on have so co-opted and codified what it means to believe in something spiritual that they've essentially created a product out of it -- and one whose image they've now ruined.

That's what makes it so easy to dismiss out of hand Mike Huckabee's laughably self-pitying quote from the Bible -- which of course assumes that he knows what the hell the supposed creator of the universe thinks -- and so much fun to watch Nancy Pelosi literally roll her eyes and not even bother to throw shade at Michele Bachmann because she just isn't worth the effort.

If you haven't seen this Pelosi response yet, it's sincerely one for the ages.

Queer as Fake

For years now, Salon's stable of really silly female writers has been to me what Tom Friedman is to Matt Taibbi or what The Family Circus was to Timothy Olyphant's drug-dealer character in Go: an unhealthy obsession that I can't help but be transfixed by no matter how much it sucks. Yeah, I love my friend Mary Beth Williams and I typically enjoy Joan Walsh's stuff quite a bit, but dear God, the rest of it. You already know about Irin, and Katie, and Falguni -- and emeriti like Heather and Stephanie -- but only one name at Salon dares to take on a beat that I suppose I should enjoy -- and yet strangely never do -- almost exclusively, and that's Tracy Clark-Flory.

If you're unfamiliar with Clark-Flory's work, she writes about sex. And, yeah, that's pretty much it. She's got the sexually empowered New York City chick cliché down pat and she cranks out more click-bait than just about anybody else at Salon, whether it involves watching porn at work or just mining her own sexual exploits and experimentation for opportunities to tediously navel-gaze, if you're looking for a hipster-lit boner, Tracy's your girl.

Yesterday, Clark-Flory posted a short column over at Salon that takes issue with what she sees as the recent rash of jokes about gay love by "bro-medians." In other words, straight guys who, she figures, suddenly see it as okay to play homoeroticism for laughs because they do it without any ill-will or offense intended. What led her to write the piece? Two things that happened back-to-back: a sketch on Late Night from a couple of nights ago in which Jimmy Fallon and John Krasinski lip-synced songs to each other while getting a little too close for a couple of men who claim not to be gay, and then, the next day, the release of the new single and video from the Lonely Island.

The song, Spring Break Anthem, intercuts lyrics about -- and in the video, images of -- your standard debaucherous spring break douchebaggery with lines about meeting Mr. Right, then planning a wedding between two guys and eventually tying the knot. While the Fallon gag, like most of his stuff, really is pretty pedestrian -- it's harmless and good-hearted but the sight of two straight men gaying it up is in fact the joke -- Clark-Flory is completely missing the point of what the Lonely Island is up to.



Spring Break Anthem is a fucking brilliant piece of subversion. While you know from the minute you hear it that the intention of Andy Samberg, Akiva Schaffer, and Jorma Taccone is to mercilessly send up "bro" culture -- the hyper-masculine, ultra-sexist, and almost doubtlessly homophobic frat boy behavior that turns Lake Havasu into the world's biggest toilet every spring break -- you also know that the song would still be a huge hit with precisely the people it's making fun of. That's the meta joke we've all become used to: When parody is done well it's almost indistinguishable from whatever it's parodying; in this case, the very people the Lonely Island are mocking when they shout over an LMFAO-style beat "Who wanna do a shot?! WE DO! I'm gonna get fucked up! ME TOO!" would without question be singing right the fuck along when the track got cranked to 11 at the Hard Rock Vegas pool during the real spring break this year -- were it not for the fact that as the song goes on there are more and more lines like "Sex with a man! We'll be so happy, true love forever, two kids walking hand in hand! Promise to cherish, trust and respect him... marry a man!"

Obviously, by the time the song turns up at an actual, honest-to-God spring break event, everyone will know the joke and so you'll lose out on the glorious opportunity of watching the faces of the frat douches change from pumped, to confused, to probably horrified, but you've got to imagine that the average party school dickhead will have no idea what the hell to do with the lines about gay sex and marriage. And here's the thing: If by some chance that dickhead and all his dickhead friends actually do find it in their hearts to enjoy the entire song, who knows, maybe the cognitive dissonance will help teach them a little tolerance. It's a stretch, I know, but stranger things have happened.

The fact is, regardless, that the Lonely Island isn't just rolling out homosexuality as a punchline; the joke isn't as simple as a couple of straight guys singing about getting married. Tracy Clark-Flory's wrong to assume it is. She's also wrong when she ends her piece with this predictable and thoroughly condescending scold: "To all bro-medians: Please, put a hold on the gay sex jokes until you come up with a really good one."

I've got a better idea. To Tracy Clark-Flory, and really quite a few other self-proclaimed feminist writers over at Salon and elsewhere: How about putting a hold on lecturing legitimately funny people on how to be funny. Trust me, you're not qualified to do it.

Hack Attack

Right on cue, the big and big-in-their-own-minds names within the Conservative Entertainment Complex are coming out of the woodwork to priggishly dismiss the importance of Jason Collins's decision to make history by being the first major pro-sports athlete to publicly admit he's gay. In the latter category -- the ones who aren't really important but who merely think they are -- is 'tweeny Breitbart.com pretend-agitator Ben Shapiro. He's spent most of the morning on Twitter trying to downplay Collins's stats and other attributes as a pro basketball player in the hope of diverting attention away from what's really a pretty historic moment in sports -- all because he's an obnoxious little twat.

Anyway, among his rants is one proclaiming that anyone who considers Collins a "hero" for having the balls to come out of the closet in an environment that can be infamously homophobic has simply lost sight of what a real hero is.

And that's where Mediaite and Gawker proceed to shred him. If Shapiro had the ability to actually be embarrassed, he'd be embarrassed about this.

Mediaite: Surprise! Some Brietbart.com Guy Reacts Like a Buffoon To NBA Player Coming Out as Gay/4.29.13

Good Sports

If you're a conservative Christian, this is the day you've been dreading, the one you can mark on your calendar that begins you and your family's inexorable move into the doomsday shelter you built in your backyard. Yes, Armageddon has begun.

In one day, an NBA player has come out of the closet and the Jets have cut Tim Tebow (after just one season).

In other words, what most of us already knew has finally been made abundantly clear to everyone: A) There are people in professional sports who are gay, and B) Tebow is a shitty quarterback.

Have a nice day, everyone.

Forever Hold Your Peace

Because it was late last night when I posted it and frankly I was too tired to link to it here, let's go ahead and do it now. Last night/today's column for the Daily Banter is all about gay marriage.

Here's the opening shot:

"I’ll make this quick and to the point.

I don’t know what decisions the Supreme Court will return regarding California’s Prop 8 and the national Defense of Marriage Act, but in the end it will hardly matter. Oh, sure, it will certainly matter in the short term because it will immediately affect the lives of millions of gay Americans, men and women looking for nothing more from our nation’s legal system than the same rights it affords their straight counterparts: the right to marry the ones they love. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Prop 8 and DOMA, legalized gay marriage across the United States — afforded the full faith and credit of the United States — may wind up being deferred to another date, very likely in the not-so-distant future. But make no mistake: gay marriage, as a legally accepted practice from coast to coast, is going to happen. It’s an inevitability, no matter how desperately those who want to cling to the past try to stop it."

Read the Rest Here

Nothin' But a G-A-Y Thang

You know how I feel about internet sensations. You know how I despise virally created superstars or even laughingstocks. And yet I just have to circulate this, even at the risk of being part of the crowd that will surely make this girl the most (only somewhat unfairly) loathed idiot in America by this time two days from now.

Sure, there'll be the inevitable backlash from hardcore Christians who'll call her a martyr and will hold her up as some kind of modern day Joan of Ark, come to save us from ourselves and ruthlessly struck down for it upon the altar of our culture's depravity. But fuck it, the whole thing will have been worth it just for the opportunity it afforded most of us to mercilessly mock someone who truly, deeply deserved it.

I give you, Rated T for Tolerance, a Christian, anti-gay "rap" from some teenage girl standing in the woods.

Good luck making it all the way through.

(via Christian Nightmares)

Chicken Tender

Today's Daily Banter column asks whether the battle between Chick-fil-A and the gay community has finally ended. At least two people seem to be trying to move in that direction -- but is their truce to be trusted?

Here's the opening shot:

"According to the stats that the Daily Banter numbers crunchers keep track of, one of the most popular columns I’ve written for this site had to do with my decision not to eat at Chick-fil-A anymore. I’m sure you’ve only recently been discharged from Walter Reed and are still nursing serious physical and psychological wounds from the Great Chick-fil-A War of 2012. I myself haven’t been able to sleep since returning from the front, haunted by memories of old people and drag queens beating each other to death in the street while chicken sandwich mortar fire rained down like death from above all around them. And pickles — so many pickles.

For the few who were lucky enough to be living under a rock or in a neutral, sane country at the time, in July of last year Chick-fil-A President and COO Dan Cathy made a lot of enemies within the progressive and gay community by stating in no uncertain terms that he and his company were against same-sex marriage and would continue to support Christian, anti-gay initiatives. The resulting dust-up turned into exactly what every politically charged, pop culture-fed controversy does these days: a media circus, with a freaking chicken sandwich suddenly becoming a cudgel in the never-ending left-right culture war.

Well, six months later the dust has finally settled and, in an admittedly surprising move toward peace that the Jews and Palestinians could learn a thing or two from, one of the marriage equality activists who initially decried the unabashedly anti-gay stance of Chick-fil-A is now 'coming out' and admitting that in the resulting months since the whole controversy blew sky-high, he’s struck up a friendship with Dan Cathy."

Read the Rest Here

Chicken Out

As promised, my column at the Daily Banter today elaborates on the current dust-up over Chick-Fil-A's stand on gay marriage and gay people in general.

Here's the opening shot:

"I’ve never been one of those people to let a little corporate malfeasance stand in the way of getting what I want. Call me an asshole, but the fact is that I’m cynical and realistic enough to understand that every company is probably engaged in some kind of behavior I’d find reprehensible were I to look closely enough. So, no, I don’t avoid shopping at Target and Best Buy because they occasionally funnel money to the Republican party and I haven’t hacked my Mobil card up with a kitchen knife, even though Exxon Mobil was behind one of the worst oil spills in history and has a lengthy record of inequity when it comes to how the it treats its employees. I’m not saying that I won’t try to avoid giving money to companies that engage in particularly egregious activity, but in a pinch convenience and selfishness will generally trump ideals. It’s just how it is.

That said, I kind of have no choice but to not eat at Chick-Fil-A from here on out..."

Read the Rest Here

Picture of the Day

It's interesting that a business that's so unrepentantly in-your-face about its belief in superstitious nonsense and its distaste for gay people wouldn't be willing to just come right out and admit the real reason it was forced to remove any trace of Jim Henson's characters from its meals.

Then again, I guess the "safety issue" is that enjoying the Muppets will get you sent to hell for all eternity.

More on this tomorrow at the Daily Banter.

Coop Comes Out

As promised, my brand new piece for the Daily Banter deals with Anderson Cooper's decision to finally come out of the closet.

Here's the opening shot:

"A little background on the subject at hand: Back during the 2004 presidential race, at the Democratic National Convention, Anderson Cooper was doing an interview with hip-hop mogul and political dilettante Diddy at a time when I happened to be in the CNN control room in Atlanta. The live one-on-one was wrapping up, when Diddy offered Anderson one of the ridiculous 'Vote or Die' t-shirts he had been pimping as part of his high-profile but incomprehensibly messaged get-out-the-vote campaign. 'Here, take one for yourself,' Diddy said, throwing a t-shirt in Anderson’s direction. 'No, I really can’t accept it,' Anderson returned, understanding that it wasn’t jounalistically responsible to collect political swag, certainly not while on the job. Diddy’s response: 'No, man, then give it to your girlfriend...'"

Read the Rest Here

Quote of the Day

"The fact is, I'm gay. Always have been, always will be, and I couldn’t be any more happy, comfortable with myself, and proud."

-- Anderson Cooper, officially confirming the worst kept secret in television news

He made this statement in an e-mail to Andrew Sullivan, one he allowed Sullivan to reprint publicly. Bottom line: Good for Coop. I always respected his decision to keep his private life private and I respect his decision to come out even more.

More on this a little later in the Daily Banter.

Big Damn Heroes, Sir

You wouldn't think of J.C. Penney as being on the cutting edge of anything, but damn is the store proving itself to be the new standard-bearer of civil rights, forward-thinking politics and the best way to deal with the self-righteous assholes who stand opposed to both.

You might remember that recently, one of those "traditional" family organizations composed entirely of bitter, white Christian tight-asses -- this one in particular, "One Million Moms" -- went after Penney's for its use of Ellen Degeneres as a spokesperson and its decision to feature a lesbian couple in a Mother's Day ad. The group bitched and moaned, prattled on about how the company was promoting the homosexual agenda -- you know, the usual crap. So how did Penney's respond? Not by backing down and submitting to the will of these ignorant harpies, but instead by sticking with Degeneres and not pulling the ad from anywhere.

Well now J.C. Penney has upped the ante and what's more has done so simply by acknowledging that the dynamic of the American family is in fact changing -- and that there's not a thing wrong with that. The company's new Father's Day ad features, you guessed it, a real-life gay couple and their kids. It's sad to think that simply showing a happy, well-adjusted family with a couple of gay men as the father figures is a big subversive fuck-you to anyone, but on the other hand it's fun to think it's a big subversive fuck-you to One Million Moms and the rest of its ilk.

Behold the statement put out by OMM in response to the new Penney's ad:

"It’s obvious that JCP would rather take sides than remain neutral in the culture war. JCP will hear from the other side, so they need to hear from us as well. Our persistence will pay off! One day we will answer for our actions or lack of them. We must remain diligent and stand up for Biblical values and truth. Scripture says multiple times that homosexuality is wrong, and God will not tolerate this sinful nature."

Uh-huh. Suck it, ladies.

As for me, I'm gonna start wearing the Stafford khakis my own mom buys me every damn Christmas with pride. Thanks Penney's -- and thanks mom.

The Straight Dope

As promised, my latest piece for the Daily Banter deals with the conspiratorial freak-out from the right that you could've seen coming from a mile -- or at least a week -- away.

Here's the opening shot:

"Well, that didn’t take long.

Following a week that saw President Obama publicly throw his weight behind same-sex marriage — leading Newsweek to publish a for-shock-value-only cover declaring him 'The First Gay President' — his mortal enemies within the right-wing nutjob contingent are reacting exactly the way you’d expect."

Read the Rest Here

Quote of the Day

"Actually, while I’m not sure about the claims by the various people who have reported that Obama has at least participated at times with them in homosexual acts, this certainly lends some credence."

-- Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute on why President Obama might have publicly expressed support for gay marriage

I'll have more on it tomorrow in the Daily Banter, but I just had to get this little gem out there. Oh, and this is actually kind of the least insane thing he said on the subject of homosexuality.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go drink myself into a coma.

Quote of the Month

"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."

-- President Barack Obama

Whether you believe this decision to be politically motivated doesn't really matter -- the bottom line is that it's historic, it carries significant risk for any sitting president up for reelection, and it affirms in no uncertain terms Obama's ongoing commitment to gay rights in this country.

Yesterday's blow struck against both basic civil rights and the march of progress by the scared-shitless yokels of North Carolina means almost nothing in the long run. As I've said many times here -- freedom expands. And no matter how many asinine laws are passed out of ignorance and prejudice, the genie is already out of the bottle and gay marriage will become a reality throughout the nation eventually.

It's only a matter of time -- and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it.

Adding: Andrew Sullivan's take on this is, not surprisingly given the subject matter, especially lovely and powerful.

Adding Further: This. The president needs to draw the line between himself and his opponents in the Republican party as distinctly as possible right now. And by taking the stand he did, he couldn't have made the choice any clearer.

Bible Belt

Cesca's running the same item over at his site right now -- and so are a lot of other people -- but I'm gonna put this up because I think it deserves to be seen far and wide. Ladies and gentlemen, in case you haven't seen or read it yet, I give you an excerpt from a recent sermon by Pastor Sean Harris of the Berean Baptist Church (of course) in Fayetteville, North Carolina (of course).

"So your little son starts to act a little girlish when he is four years old and instead of squashing that like a cockroach and saying, 'Man up, son, get that dress off you and get outside and dig a ditch, because that is what boys do,' you get out the camera and you start taking pictures of Johnny acting like a female and then you upload it to YouTube and everybody laughs about it and the next thing you know, this dude, this kid is acting out childhood fantasies that should have been squashed.

Can I make it any clearer? Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch. Ok? You are not going to act like that. You were made by God to be a male and you are going to be a male. And when your daughter starts acting too Butch you reign her in. And you say, 'Oh, no, sweetheart. You can play sports. Play them to the glory of God. But sometimes you are going to act like a girl and walk like a girl and talk like a girl and smell like a girl and that means you are going to be beautiful. You are going to be attractive. You are going to dress yourself up.'

You say, 'Can I take charge like that as a parent?'

Yeah, you can. You are authorized. I just gave you a special dispensation this morning to do that."

So, yeah, beat your gay or gay-acting kid. It's not child abuse -- it's God's will.

You know something? Let me make something clear. If you happen to live in Fayetteville, North Carolina and you pass Pastor Sean Harris on the street, just walk on over and punch him in the fucking mouth. You say, "Can I take charge like that as a decent human being and somebody who believes in defending the rights of the innocent against intolerant, Bible-thumping cunts?" Yeah, you can. I just gave you a special dispensation.

Incidentally, Pastor Sean is now "retracting" his comments, saying they were a joke. Uh-huh. Fuck you, pal.

Quote of the Day

"The reason my husband wrote Amendment 1 was because the Caucasian race is diminishing and we need to, uh, reproduce."

-- Jodie Brunstetter, wife of North Carolina State Senator Peter Brunstetter, on why her husband backed an amendment that would outlaw same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships in their state

I'd say something obvious about how repugnantly racist and bigoted this kind of comment is, but to be honest I just can't stop staring quizzically at the photo of Jodie and Peter to the left there.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they in a same-sex marriage?

The Gulp of Mexico

My favorite detail of this completely unsurprising story: There's a dating website called "gay.com."

Why oh why didn't I buy up that domain name about 20 years ago?

Talking Points Memo: Anti-Immigration Arizona Sheriff Rocked by Allegations of Immigrant Ex-Boyfriend/2.18.12

Morgan Words

Since I posted a link to the interview in HuffPo with Jeff Ross in which he discusses "going too far" in comedy, I wanted to pull something out of the DXM vault. Back during the whole ridiculous Tracy Morgan controversy in June of last year, I wrote a piece that ran at a couple of different outlets defending both Morgan and a comic's right to make jokes that many might find offensive. What that led to was an interesting back-and-forth via Facebook message between me and, as I called him at the time, an Unhappy Reader. I originally posted a transcript of the discussion as a blind item, but Unhappy Reader became even more unhappy with me and asked that I take it down -- which I did.

I still think it's a pretty informative little exchange, though, and I'd imagine that enough time has gone by that I can safely put it back up on the main page without fear of anyone connecting any dots to determine an identity or Unhappy Reader -- if he's still out there -- bombarding me with angry e-mails.

I'd recommend reading the original piece linked above before poring over this.


Originally Published 6.14.11


Unhappy Reader: The kids are missing from your piece. The kids who are beaten and murdered and shunned by their families everyday in this country.

There are consequenc­es to speech. Advocating­, justifying or excusing the murder of people (kids) because they are gay as Morgan did and as you did in your Huff Po piece, will draw a very sharp response. Yes, Morgan's behavior in public and the content of his act reflect on his employers - who do you think watches 30 ROCK? The point is that kids are beaten and murdered for being gay in this country every day. It's very telling that you don't even mention the kids who are at the heart of this issue. Mr. Pazienza, you don't seem at all to care about the well being of those kids, or whether or not their fathers beat them to death, Nia Vardalos does -- that's free speech.

Morgan has the right to say what he wants. Decent people who care about those kids have the right to protest and boycott as well.

I'd also suggest you examine Mr. Morgan's contract with Broadway/NBC Universal which I'd bet includes a clause allowing the company to release Morgan for bringing bad publicity to the show in whatever form. See Sheen, Charlie. So, yes it is very much NBC's business, along with the shareholders of GE and Comcast since Morgan's behavior is devaluing an important asset of the corporation.

Yours Truly: While I appreciate your passion, one has nothing at all to do with the other. Nothing. Tracy Morgan didn't advocate, or justify or even excuse the murder of gay kids; that's melodramatic nonsense and its drawing a connection that just isn't there. He made a joke -- an admittedly crude and maybe even cruel joke, because he's a loutish loose cannon as a comic, but that's all it was in the end: part of a comedy routine. You weren't there and didn't actually see it within the context of the show and neither did I, which means that all we have to go on is one offended person's description of events and I assume you understand that comedy is a little like song lyrics -- they don't translate well and can be thoroughly misconstrued without the musical backing with which they were intended. As for NBC getting involved? Let's be practical for a moment: Do you really think the network doesn't know everything there is to know about one of its major assets? You think they're not aware of the kind of insane crap Morgan regularly says? What's more, do you really think that fourth-rated NBC will willingly fire a marquee star from one of its few popular shows? That's a pretty tall order. Oh, and I would resent being told that I don't care about the well being of gay kids -- the ones who are being "beaten and murdered every day" -- but not only is it not true, once again, it has nothing at all to do with a really stupid crack made by one guy at a comedy show.

UR: You resent it? You are excusing and justifying an atmosphere where that happens without once addressing the welfare of those children by ignoring this. You didn't mention the fact once that this actually happens everyday and those kids deserve to be protected. Or perhaps you don't believe that. You didn't bother to say it, so your readers don't know.

YT: Do you hear what you're saying? You're saying that it was necessary for me to add some sort of disclaimer saying, "By the way, violence against children is a terrible thing and I'm totally against that." I'm sorry but that's a little ridiculous given that that's not what the piece was about and, as I said, the dumb comments of one comic made on one night aren't in any way related to the beatings or deaths of anyone. I don't have to go around wearing a t-shirt proclaiming that hurting kids -- gay or straight -- is wrong to prevent people from making the asinine assumption that I might think otherwise.

UH: Many people feel that what Morgan said is justified. I still don't know from your writing if you think bashing gay people is ok or not. Like Wanda Sykes said -- he went into a theatre and yelled "Fire" -- those people in TN weren't just laughing some of them were egging him on -- because they feel he was right to beat the gay out of his child -- or someone else's. Chilling effect on speech? Yes, inciting violence against a specific group of people should be chilled.
It is necessary for you to say that. No one knows what you think on this. You may agree, like many people in TN and other parts of the South particularly, that beating the gay out of a kid is acceptable parenting.

Just read your piece on Huff Po where you chide the media for covering the bullying of gay kids and Tyler Clementi. "He didn't die because he was gay" -- his personal life wouldn't have been an issue if he weren't gay -- your lack of understanding and cruelty toward Clementi and his situation at the time made me sick. It makes sense now that you would ignore or downplay threats of violence directed at those kids.

YT: He wasn't inciting violence. He didn't say, "Every one of you needs to go out when you leave here and kill a gay kid for the good of the country because they're evil; now rise up my comedy club-going minions." He made a dumb, over-the-top joke; it may very well have given some insight into a certain amount of homophobia on his part (and while I think that term is often overused, much like calling someone a racist, it's applicable here), but again for the cheap seats, at the very most you let him know that what he said could really be interpreted as offensive and hurtful and be done with it. You don't take his livelihood away; no, you don't chill his right to free speech that simply was not inciting by any rational definition. And no, it is absolutely not necessary for me to explain to you that I'm a decent human being who doesn't want to see children hurt, simply to make you comfortable in the knowledge that that's not how I'm approaching this subject, particularly since I said right at the beginning of the piece that every facet of this was serious and I made it unbelievably obvious that Morgan's comments may have earned him a rebuke.

As for the Clementi piece, sorry if it made you sick. That's a pretty silly and melodramatic overreaction. Once again, I thought I made it pretty clear that bullying gay kids -- or any kids -- is wrong, but of course you've already proven that you don't want a measured reaction, one that includes the statement that hurting kids is wrong. You just want someone to rant angrily in favor of the singular point you believe needs to be made at the exclusion of all others. You're reading what you want to read and assuming that, again, because I take a slightly different tack -- one that includes, by the way, the fact that bullying gay kids is wrong -- it means I'm some kind of bully enabler. That's such crap. Clementi was gay and he had every right to be and not have to fear being bullied, hurt, or tormented; but the reason the students who did torment him felt like they could -- that it was no big deal -- is because they've grown up in a society that preaches voyeurism and a completely lack of privacy.

UR: You don't understand how that plays in some people's minds. Plus, your piece about Clementi completely lacked the understanding of his situation -- his personal life wouldn't have been an issue if he hadn't been outed to the entire Rutgers community by his roommate. You literally rebuked the media for covering violence toward gay kids then.

"Silly and melodramatic"? But then all "fags" are silly and melodramatic in your world, right?

YT: No, I didn't -- I rebuked the media for hyping a story that didn't deserve to be hyped, because when you hype it you turn it into just another media feeding frenzy. A trend and nothing more. I've worked in television news for 20 years; I know how the press operates and when it gloms onto a story and sucks it dry rather than being measured about how it's covered, it goes away quickly and that's not fair to a story as serious as the deaths of kids. And thank you -- you just lost the argument. I can't take you the least bit seriously anymore after making an unbelievably stupid statement like that last one. Right, because anyone who dares to try to be rational when it comes to this subject has a problem with "fags." Jesus.

UR: My suggestion to you is too be a little clearer with the words in your columns because many people reading them would know that you thought violence against these kids was a serious subject. (I noticed you edited that to make it a bit stronger after our first exchange. That's good.) And for Christ's sake, yes, silly and melodramatic is a lot like telling your black friends to stop eating that fried chicken and watermelon. "Made me sick" were the least offensive words I could find -- the words that came to mind were personal insults but I didn't want to use those here -- less silly?

After seeing the CNN firing thing -- I get why Tracy can say whatever he wants is your cause. But anyone knows you can't provide content for another news outlet when you are working for one. Like Tracy, it's in your contract.

YT: Edited what? The piece? I hope that's not what you're referring to because I didn't touch it. I don't edit myself because one person happens to voice a disagreement with me; I'd never get anything done. And if you consider "melodramatic" the same kind of characterization as saying that a black person eats watermelon, I'm sorry but that's really much more on you than me, since that wasn't my intention (and once again, I don't need to spell things out for you just to make sure you don't misinterpret me). As for my being fired by CNN and my choice of championing someone's right to speak his or her mind, as with the connection between Morgan and the murder of gay kids, one has nothing to do with the other. You're also assuming quite a bit about Morgan's contract, but then, you've assumed all kinds of things since we began this little back-and-forth.

UR: You might want to read this piece. This man tries to help the kids that are victims of this violence. The Huffington Post: Family Rejection of LGBT Youth Is No Joke/6.13.11

YT: I already read this. I applaud his efforts and think they're an inarguable good. His take on the reality of gay kids being bullied and rejected brings up a fine point about how there's a potential teaching moment in all this, but it still doesn't justify demanding that Tracy Morgan be fired from his job because he made an ugly comment without thinking. Which, once again, was the point I thought I made pretty clearly in my own piece. If you're trying to make me understand where you're coming from, incidentally -- to ostensibly drill it into my head what a tragic thing it is that gay youth often face torment and rejection -- it's unnecessary because as a thinking, feeling human being I knew that to begin with. It just wasn't incumbent upon me to spell out in language that would satisfy you personally -- or your agenda -- that this is the place I'm coming from. It's interesting, because I also didn't specifically state that Morgan's liberal use of the word "nigger" could be considered dehumanizing, and yet you make no assumptions or arguments about that, which shows a certain amount of selective outrage on your part. Finally, just because I'm curious, why did you immediately assume that I'm not gay? I didn't assume that you were simply because you feel strongly about gay issues.

UR: My agenda is to make sure kids aren't stabbed to death for being gay.

Of course Morgan shouldn't be fired, but you seem to think it's just fine to suggest there is humor in someone saying that kids ought to be killed because they are gay. A black man saying nigger -- I don't like it but that's his lookout -- he didn't suggest murder of people who are black because they are black.

Finally, of course you aren't openly gay, if you were you would get this on a visceral level. If you were you would have expressed some empathy.

It's funny because your pieces make you seem like more a prick than you are on this thread. Perhaps that's calculated. It must be so hard to be remain relevant.

YT: No, you're just reading what you want to read. We're having a civilized conversation because, as I said at the very beginning, I respect your passion on this issue. It doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean that I agree with you across the board or agree with the way you argue. You make ridiculous assumptions (there are too many to list throughout this conversation but I'll start with the idea that every single person who's gay HAS to feel and behave exactly the way you do and can't debate from a position of rationality rather than raw emotion, which, by the way, is one of those stereotypes you seem to dislike so much); you completely shut down to any opinion other than the one you start with and proceed to beat into the ground; and, yes, you're slightly melodramatic. Doesn't mean you're a bad person or that your cause isn't righteous -- but you came into this just wanting to thrash the guy who dared to say that Tracy Morgan deserves a very small break despite the painfully stupid thing he said. There's nothing I could say that would even slightly deter you from the mission you've undertaken with laser-like focus or, for that matter, might possibly add a different perspective for you to consider. Oh, and you make somewhat nasty but mostly passive-aggressive little comments like that last one in an effort to, I don't know, piss me off, I guess. For the record, I don't worry about being relevant; I worry about being right.