Good As You

As almost every one of us has said at some point. "Gay people don't think this much about gay sex," at least the out ones don't.

And especially about the sexual behavior that supposedly doesn't appeal to them, RainbowPhoenix. No offense to any heteros here, but I don't even want to wrap my mind around heterosexual sex, much less heterosexual three-ways.

I hate the fact that they the say that they're for "family values" and at the same time they can take a s*it on families that aren't like their.

Indeed, and being a gay male, I don't want to imagine lesbian sex either. No offense girls, but that image shrinks it faster than almost anything.

"I don't even want to wrap my mind around heterosexual sex, much less heterosexual three-ways"

Not to start any trouble but don't you think that is an immature thing to say? It’s almost the same as heterosexuals who say that about homosexual sex - aren't we trying to live in a society that says it's okay with any kind of sexual expression (within reason) that is between consenting adults regardless if it's gay or straight?

Just Sayin'

Alonzo: You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying I don't want to think about heterosexual sexual BEHAVIOR, because I am a gay man and such sex does not appeal to me. I don't want to dedicate mental energy to the subject. I would imagine a majority of heterosexual men, lesbians, and (to a lesser degree) heterosexual women feel the same way about two dudes' sexual behavior. That's why I (and RainbowPhoenix) think it's weird that Peter wants to have professional discussions about Dan's sex life!

So no, I don't think it's "immature."

In context to your response to this story you're correct and I apologize for my misunderstanding.

That being said Peter does and says lots of weird things however Dan is a sex columnist – who’s written a book about his sex life and others so he is kinda fair game.

"however Dan is a sex columnist – who’s written a book about his sex life and others so he is kinda fair game."

Alonzo: Dan would agree with you. He's not trying to hide anything. He has said what he has said publicly.

"He has said what he has said publicly"

I'm so glad you pointed that out because Peter of course makes it seem as Dan isn't open about his sex life and its part of the secret "Homosexual Agenda"

Closet queen!

We all know that all heterosexual marriages are monogamous. Isn't that right, Bill Clinton and Elliot Spitzer?

I have had straight people say to me that they just can't stand to think about gay sex. I always ask them why they would want to. And I also wonder if the dudes are closet cases.

Dan Savage rocks.. He writes a column in our local Seattle rag, The Stranger, and I love it. Whenever I pick one up, I head for Dan's column. (Tried thinking of a way to make that not sound so dirty but gave up!)

Just point that guy to the nearest truckstop and find him a big hairy guy on a Harley, it might change his mind. ;-)

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much!"

You know, I'd like to domesticate some gay men one of these days. Just get a herd together, practice a little homosexual husbandry, undermine monogamy, and generally ruin the straight families in my neighborhood. Does anyone know a good breeder or two I could work out a deal with?

But seriously. I object to this asshole's vocabulary. I wouldn't be slinging words like 'insidious' at Dan Savage when this dude is clearly working to plant hate worms in my brain with every word he chooses.

HA! On the feed (at least when read in GoogleReader), the audio clip is gone, making it look like the Concerned Women said "Eek. We just find the focus and lengthy musings about the Savage bedroom to be creepy. That's it, really -- just weird and creepy. Somehow we think the vast majority, from either side of the gay rights discussion, is on our same page."

I was very confused.

Peter should really try to put a little more brain power into his thinking, speaking... just about everything. If I could suggest, start off with reading the whole article and not just the first few paragraphs that allow you to feel vindicated in your disgust and then go off and make some absurd connections between three-way sex and the fact that he is and supports same sex parenting (as if the two go hand in hand).

I think Pete just opened a Pandora's box with this one. He should talk to Rick "man-on-dog" Santorum before he goes picking on Dan Savage. I have a feeling LaBarbera is going to have a new meaning in the UrbanDictionary soon. LOL!

What exactly is wrong about polygamy or polyamory? Not counting the nasty Mormon kind that's either women being the slaves of the household or worse, pedophilia...

I doubt Pete could come up with a logical list and defend it.

Wait, wait, hold up...

Did LaBarbara just refer to Savage as "looking conservative"?

WHAT?!

This is a new twist on LaBarbara's old game: he's always been about painting all gay people with the colours he finds in the most extreme, kinky corners of the community. But what he's doing here is point to a sex-positive, kink-friendly sexual adventure advocate, and pretend that he's a conservative gay, implying that all those other conservative gays are just like Dan Savage, AS IF DAN SAVAGE WOULD EVER REFER TO HIMSELF AS CONSERVATIVE!!

LOLWHUT!

The lying liars on the LaBarbera side of the fence might have more credibility if they behaved evenhandedly with those who side with them politically. Has Pete (or any of the other liars) ever condemned and/or discounted anything from Newt "GinGrinch" Gingrich for carrying on an adulterous affair (supposedly behind his wife's back) at the same time that he was demonizing Clinton's romp in the Oval Office.

And, what about the Haggards, Swaggarts, Bakkers, and all of the rest who carried on extra marital affairs for years in secret while they headed some of the most totalitarian-leaning conservative religious organizations on record. And, the lying liars (in many cases) would never have gone public with their duplicity had it not been forced upon them.

And there are many of them especially when you include the lying swindlers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_evangelist_scandals

And, don't get me wrong, I see absolutely nothing wrong with what Dan Savage did. He didn't hurt anyone, and didn't deceive anyone to do it. LaBarbera only brought it up so that he could make his snide, devious, underhanded insinuation the their son might have been present.

I wonder how many of LaBarbera's children (or neighborhood kids for that matter) have been within earshot while he copulated (or otherwise) with his wife (or otherwise)? Who knows, it could be a case of those who protest the most loudly do so to deflect attention away from themselves. I wouldn't be surprised.