85 responses

  1. David Blakeslee
    October 14, 2009

    @ Warren,

    My only involvement in the MC matter was helping write the white paper…not “work of the parent’s coalition.”

    Timothy makes the charge about me…you can’t “make nice” by giving him an out that it was about something else…

    His “correction” is only another distortion. As I said, a violation of his own Comments Policy.

  2. Penguinsaur
    October 14, 2009

    your repeated use of the term “anti-gay” seems to violate your comments policy

    Do you support full equal rights for homosexuals, like not being fired for being gay, removing DADT and giving them the marriages they deserve?

    If you don’t he is 100% justified in calling you ‘anti-gay’. and your constant attempts to smear someone for being gay aren’t helping.
    ^your argument

  3. David Blakeslee
    October 14, 2009


    I don’t think I said this:
    ^your argument”

    I think, Timothy, you need to apply your Comments policy as he is putting words in my mouth.

    I don’t mind…I think he is actually trying to make a point, which is a worthy one…he is just not actually quoting me…I think people can figure that out from the postings.

    I’ve made the same mistake…

  4. David Blakeslee
    October 14, 2009

    Being anti-gay…who gets to define this?

    Is being pro-gay about tolerance, endorsement and/or ridicule of religious and traditional beliefs?

    “Anti-gay” is an attempt to create and apply a slur…it is a categorization that truncates curiosity and seeks to intimidate people into a conformist position…by calling names.

    The wounded become the wounders.

  5. David Blakeslee
    October 14, 2009

    Kraemer apparently played some role in Oregon State University’s GLBT month in 2006


  6. Priya Lynn
    October 14, 2009

    David, stop with the special pleading. If you don’t support equal marriage and gays right to not be fired or evicted for being gay then you are anti-gay – case closed.

  7. Timothy Kincaid
    October 14, 2009

    Dr. Blakeslee:

    1. “Anti-gay” is a term used at Box Turtle Bulletin and, indeed, it is in common usage both in shared cultural vocabulary, gay media, religious media, and mainstream media. When you tried to run with this distraction at another site, I gave you half a dozen examples from that day alone.

    “Anti-gay” is an accurate and descriptive term. It is akin to “anti-Semetic”, “anti-religious”, and “anti-war”. To the extent that any of these descriptive terms are “a slur”, it is only in that those who are so accurately described wish to pretend that their actions, attitudes, or behaviors are other than what they really are.

    That you choose to declare it a slur has absolutely no relevance to whether we will continue to accurately apply this term whenever we see policies, attitudes, or individuals who are expressly acting in opposition to equality under law for gay people or in the interests of oppression or exclusion of gay people.

    Rather than decide that the rest of the world is “wounding” you, it may benefit you to ask yourself why you dislike the term “anti-gay”. Perhaps it is because you do not like terms that accurately describe your policies, attitudes, and behavior.

    2. Penguinsaur did not put words in your mouth. You chose to act abominably at another site and your attempts to equate your behavior with those who challenge your assertions here only shows that – regardless of your pretenses otherwise – you have no remorse or regret for your behavior but only seek to excuse and justify it.

  8. Timothy Kincaid
    October 14, 2009


    Why do you refer to Brewster as an allegorical tale?

    Because that is what it appears to be to me.

    Clearly it started as an actual event. But the telling of the Brewster story has nothing to do with sharing the details of a historical event; indeed, such details have evolved over time. Rather, it is a tale told to lead the listener to a point, a greater truth about which the story is only a representation.

    I am perplexed about the need on the part of many of those who criticize Jennings to see this as a literal report of factual events in microscopic detail like some police report or investigative news item. Much emphasis is given to “what he said” or “what he didn’t say” without even the slightest notice that the tale is decades old and that the point of the story is part of the telling.

    I will remind you that we see this quite often in church. I’ve hear many a tale that was used for illustrative purposes in the midst of a sermon which I knew did not have accurate detail. Nor was such detail relevant. No one expects such allegorical tales to be presented like history tomes; it distracts from the message. And if it weren’t for the message, they wouldn’t be told in the first place. Should we start holding preachers to the same standard to which you want to hold Jennings?

    Were you referring to the work of the parent’s coalition against the health curriculum or the white paper I did with Blakeslee?

    I was referring to yours and Dr. Blakeslee’s efforts to provide professional support to opposing the curriculum that you thought “does not represent a singular consensus of opinion in the social sciences and research community concerning sexual orientation” and because it expressed “that individuals have the right to accept, acknowledge, and live in accordance with their sexual orientation, be they heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian”.

    You argued that “Many people believe that sexual orientation is a concept well understood by science. However, this is not the case.” and that “there is currently no means of objectively determining one’s sexual orientation”. You were particularly concerned that the essentialist view of sexual orientation did not allow for the idea that “Change is Possible.

    I also refer to the support provided to PFOX’s at that time in their efforts to include ex-gay materials in the curriculum.

    RE: Hay – I disagree with your characterization of him as an anachronism. October 8 was Harry Hay day as a part of the GLBT History Month. He is considered an icon.

    With all due respect, Warren, I think that I am better qualified to know who is and who is not held in high regard in my own community. And as I was quite active in my community in Hay’s waning years, I am uniquely qualified to know whether he was considered an anachronism or an icon.

    I know that you rely on Hay’s inclusion among the 124 other individuals over the last four years by Equality Forum as an indication that he is iconic. That is, perhaps, a natural consequence of having little familiarity with the gay community.

    Harry Hay did, indeed, defend NAMBLA. But if you look, Warren, you’ll see that no gay group, no gay site, no gay leaders extol that action as a virtue. Rather, they praise the actions of Harry Hay in the very early 1950′s, and not what he did in the 80′s.

    In the 1980′s and 1990′s, Harry Hay was not in a position of leadership in our community. His worldview had been rejected. He was an outsider and he was the first the lament it saying that most gay people just want to assimilate.

    To tar Jennings – or any other gay group – with Hay’s 80′s-90′s positions is dishonest.

  9. David Blakeslee
    October 14, 2009

    @ Timothy,

    There are those here at this site who have disagreed bluntly with your characterization of Hay (not Warren or myself) and I presume they are just as qualified as you are:

    Mr. Kraemer posts seem to disagree with you…

    Mark Barnes seems to disagree with you.

    Are there credentials weaker or stronger than yours?

    You seem to want to have a conversation here about comments at another site…you have called it an “echo chamber.” It hardly was or is as it was frequented by lots of folks with all sorts of views.

  10. Ben in Oakland
    October 14, 2009

    Warren Throckmorton, as quoted by Timothy ““Many people believe that sexual orientation is a concept well understood by science. However, this is not the case.” and that “there is currently no means of objectively determining one’s sexual orientation”

    Oh, honey, denying reality is hardly objective or scientific.

    Ben’s gay, his orientation is gay, and always has been since, oh, three years old when he was pulling down a neighbor boys pants to check him out.

    Proof: see above. See Ben’s husband, legally married. See Ben be totally uninterested in the opposite sex. See Ben not give a male rat’s ass about what an alleged translation of a misrepresentation of a bad translation of a 2500 year old book may have to say about Ben’s life 2500 years later.

    I’ll tell what science has a difficult time determining objectively. Why some people are so obsessed with other people’s sex lives that they will twist and pervert evedrything they can in service to the idea that it is actually important to anyone other than the two people involved?

    Now here is a question you two clowns should answer, and one I’ve asked both of you before.

    What part of look-not-for-the-speck//judge not//without sin mantra of your lord and founder does NOT apply to ones such as yourselves?

    And why?

  11. Emily K
    October 14, 2009

    These people obviously believe gays are a monolithic community of “leftists.” Please. Harry Hay (whomever he is/was) has as much to do with the fact that I fall in love with women (and not men) as Abraham Lincoln does.

    …In other words, nothing. He’s completely irrelevant to my life.

    I don’t know who Kraemer and Barnes are and I don’t care to know who they are. Their opinions don’t matter to me and have no effect on my attraction to women.

  12. Emily K
    October 14, 2009

    “Timothy, do you realize that Harry Hay, if he were alive, would derogate you as an assimilationist?”

    Wow, who GIVES a damn?? I don’t need anyone to justify my life and beliefs for me, and neither does Timothy. Oh no, Harry Hay would call me an assimilationist! What next, “fascist??”

  13. David Blakeslee
    October 14, 2009

    @ Timothy,

    as I said:

    “I don’t mind…I think he is actually trying to make a point, which is a worthy one…he is just not actually quoting me…I think people can figure that out from the postings.

    I’ve made the same mistake…”

    I am sorry I wasn’t clearer in my post at the other site…I hope it is clear that the post was hypothetical, not factual.

    Perhaps a repair is possible.


  14. David Blakeslee
    October 14, 2009

    @ Emily K

    “anti-gay” is next.

  15. David Blakeslee
    October 15, 2009

    So Harry Hay is an Icon…not a kook.

    There are some in the gay community who still support his view about intergenerational sex…and some of them post here. And speak at state universities on GLBT issues and history.

    Jennings knew the whole story of Hay, but has only idealized the sanitized version and unlike Kincaid, never condemned his advocacy for intergenerational sex…as a form of mentoring.

    Jennings, GLSEN and nearly everyone else does not believe the story of Brewster or Fleming is Allegorical.

    Timothy, you’ve been wrong in so many of your assertions at this post…have you considered an update making the necessary corrections?

    You ask us to be critical thinkers, but your otherwise commendable skills in this area have completely broken down on this topic.

    We haven’t even gotten to the numerous wrong assumptions you have made about my motivations or the distortions you have deliberately made.

  16. David Blakeslee
    October 16, 2009

    An example of a negative outcome due to intergenerational consensual heterosexual sex:


  17. David Blakeslee
    December 5, 2009
  18. werdna
    December 5, 2009

    Just more right-wing BS, actually.

  19. Timothy Kincaid
    December 6, 2009

    No, David,

    That’s the same old boring nonsense repackaged again and again like a Christmas gift that no one wants.

  20. David Blakeslee
    December 14, 2009

    More Kevin Jennings,


    Apparently a teacher who attended is asserting that Jennings knew the content of the presentations and publications at the workshop.

  21. Priya Lynn
    December 14, 2009

    David no one cares about your tedious crusade against Jennings and no one believes your lurid fantasies about him.

  22. werdna
    December 14, 2009

    Huh, that’s weird, it’s more of the same goofy right-wing BS.

    Also, as a friendly note, David: it’s bad form to post the same comment in response to two posts. Especially when that comment just links to more of the same pathetic smears that you’ve been trying to sell all along. You’ve already made a fool of yourself, what more do you hope to achieve?

  23. Timothy Kincaid
    December 14, 2009

    David Blakeslee,

    You lose credibility when you link to “anonymous” vague claims that on the face of them appear to be false.

    At some point it ceases to appear that you have any credible concern and begins to appear that you are so motivated by your negative emotional position on the appointment of Kevin Jennings that you will believe and repeat anything negative said about him.

    For the sake of your own reputation, you may wish to cease linking your name to nutjob attacks on Jennings.

  24. David Blakeslee
    December 16, 2009

    Just tracking the facts as they develop. Wanted you to keep up…in case you thought your distortions about Jennings and Brewster; or Harry Hay were the last authoritative word.

    They cannot be.

  25. Timothy Kincaid
    December 16, 2009

    Please explain what you mean by “distortions about Jennings and Brewster; or Harry Hay”.

    That is a serious accusation. I know that you have become accustomed to slinging personal slurs against me at other sites, but that will not be allowed at BTB.

  26. David Blakeslee
    December 17, 2009

    I think I noted the distortion regarding Jennings, and therefore Brewster, above (see October 15 post)

    I think you’ll find the distortion of Hay as a kook and “not an icon,” there also.

    Your perceptions of both people and events is inaccurate…perhaps purposely distorted.

    To repeat…you have gotten so many things wrong in this post have you considered corrections?

  27. Timothy Kincaid
    December 17, 2009


    I’m heading out and will address your accusations of distortion later.

    Your perceptions of both people and events is inaccurate…perhaps purposely distorted.

    Insinuate that I’m a liar here at this site one more time and you will be blocked permanently.

  28. Emily K
    December 17, 2009

    gee, Tim, guess since one homo-obsessed right-wing guy says you’re wrong, that means you have to post an apology and a redaction! oh noes!

  29. David Blakeslee
    December 17, 2009

    “homo-obsessed right-wing guy” See comments policy. :).

  30. David Blakeslee
    December 17, 2009

    At Timothy,

    you are persisting in distorting Jennings story about Brewster…he has never said it was allegorical.

    You are attempting to portray Hay as a civil rights leader who deteriorated in his later years to a “kook.” Such a deterioration is not supported by the facts, he always had some unusual beliefs. Asserting a deterioration when there is a pattern of unusual beliefs throughout the lifespan is a distortion.

    You have distorted the work by Warren with the Montgomery County Public Schools.

    You assumed I knew of Jennings long before I knew of Hay, and impugned my motives based upon this wrong assumption.

    There is more above…

    Distortions may not be intentional lies; Sometimes we distort to protect a cherished belief or to allay anxiety…

  31. Timothy Kincaid
    December 18, 2009


    David Blakeslee and I have a long history. Experience suggests that if he is given much freedom he will use it to start fights, debate minutia, disrupt conversations, and engage in Culture War. I do not take his comments lightly, I know where they lead.

    I suspect his purpose here is to create an environment that is hostile and combatant and shut down conversation. I’ve seen that occur at another site and I am determined that it will not happen at BTB.

  32. Timothy Kincaid
    December 18, 2009


    Oh, I see the tactic. Claim “distortions” in order to re-engage in a debate about old dead topics. Sorry, I’m not going to play your game here.

    I’ve addressed your accusations above and will not reopen that nonsense. You will not be successful in hijacking the conversation.

    This site does not welcome your Culture War.

  33. David Blakeslee
    December 20, 2009

    @ Timothy,

    The echo chamber is here.

    The person trying to “shut down” conversations is the person that applies a comments policy uni directionally.

    The person engaging in the culture war is the one who wishes to use such simplistic phrases as “anti-gay.”

  34. David Blakeslee
    December 20, 2009

    To quote from others on this link,


    I resent you calling Harry a kook. No I was not a Radical Faerie. Yes I was a member of the Gay Liberation Front in Berkeley in 1970. You probably consider that a kook group also.

    Mark Barnes
    San Francisco”

    There is no “tactic” here, Timothy, only tracking facts which my have been distorted.

  35. Load More Comments…

Leave a Reply




Back to top
mobile desktop