Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Utah GOP selects Log Cabin leader as candidate

Timothy Kincaid

September 2nd, 2010

To run for State Senate in Utah, you need to file certain disclosures by a deadline. If you do not, you are disqualified and the state party can pick a new candidate. (Pride in Utah)

The time limit expired last night on Ben McAdams’ Republican opponent Nancy Davis to file her disclosures and she was forced out of the race. In these unlikely circumstances, the Republican Party is allowed to nominate their own candidate to automatically run without going through the delegate system. You won’t believe who they picked.

Of all people… Melvin Nimer, the President of the Utah Log Cabin Republicans and board member of the Utah Pride Center.

Ben McAdams, the Mormon Democrat currently holding the office, is supportive of the community and a reliable ally. His predecessor in the 2nd District was gay.

It’s difficult to know just what prompted the Republican Party to pick a gay candidate. Perhaps they figure that a gay man has a better chance in the district, and they like winning more than they oppose gay rights. Or perhaps it was pure tokenism, tossing an impossible seat to the gay guy; yet this is a token that Utah Republicans have not traditionally considered.

Regardless of the reason, this is very unexpected and very welcome.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Lucrece
September 2nd, 2010 | LINK

What are his policy positions?

He could as well be a Dona Milo.

Stephen
September 2nd, 2010 | LINK

Or maybe they didn’t know.

Aaron
September 2nd, 2010 | LINK

Wow!!!!!!! :O

I’m well and truly shocked. When I read that he was log cabin I laughed so hard.

Richard Rush
September 2nd, 2010 | LINK

Isn’t Utah somewhere close to being a de-facto Mormon theocracy? I would guess that nothing happens in Utah politics (especially Republican politics) without the blessing of the Mormon Church.

So, maybe the choice of Nimer is a PR stunt intended to help repair the Mormon image in the wake of Prop8. Then, during their next anti-marriage campaign, the Mormons can point to Nimer and say, “see, we are not hateful bigots, we just want marriage to be limited to the superior people.”

Paul J Stwin
September 2nd, 2010 | LINK

Some of the Mormons are progressive. They don’t mention it in temple too often, but the hardline gay hating oldguard is dying off. Many of the missionaries I was in contact with in the early to mid 80′s were liberal in private.

cowboy
September 3rd, 2010 | LINK

It was pretty much a jaw-dropper when a representative of the Mormon church took to the podium at a Salt Lake City council meeting and spoke in favor of some gay equality…(probably why there are 6 other cities in Utah that have passed anti-discrimination ordinances.)

Sometimes, we have to distinguish between the Mormon church and its members. There seems to be some sort of disconnect. It probably is the “hardline gay hating oldguard” people as Paul J. Stwin mentioned. And I have been surprised at some good discussions on a blog for Mormons for gay marriage.

There seems to be a disconnect with the admonition from the LDS Leaders and how some “Saints” (the members) act. Don’t get me wrong. I’m still very angry about the letter that was written by the LDS Prophet during the time Proposition 8 was being campaigned in 2008. Plus, I’m thoroughly disgusted by some of the pronouncements of two fairly high mucky-mucks in the Mormon Council of Apostles.

I know I shouldn’t pay too much heed to public comments on the local websites that brought this news about LCR and the Republicans and the Utah Governor. There was a lot of: “I would never vote for a pervert” comments that seemed to prevail.

I did like the comment: “I would rather vote for a heterosexual Democrat than a homosexual Republican.”

There is a difference in what the Mormon Church says and what individual Mormons do. I’m sure you would find that dichotomy in other religions.

But, (and this may be off-topic), just how much of a connection is there with the FORMAL Mormon Church and NOM? Was there direct contributions by the LDS Church or was it mostly individual donations? How much power does the Mormon Church wield in NOM? I get the feeling NOM is more directed by the Evangelical forces out there.

And, Richard Rush, just when is there something in a political campaign that is NOT a PR stunt? It’s all a big circus with all sorts of stunts to get the votes.

Richard Rush
September 3rd, 2010 | LINK

If there really is a significant dichotomy between the LDS leaders and the members, where did the truckloads of money for Prop8 come from? Maybe the members are more progressive when they can express opinions anonymously, but will obey their leaders when they are on-the-record. I would imagine that the leaders know exactly who did and did not donate money for Prop8.

cowboy
September 3rd, 2010 | LINK

Well, Richard Rush, in this situation there was a letter written by the Prophet of the LDS Church and it pretty much said the Saints must do everything they can to pass Proposition 8. You don’t question the Prophet. You don’t debate him on this. No thinking required.

Which is what troubled a lot of Mormons. (The wife of Steve Young for example.) There was debate. There was discourse within the ranks of the membership. I was, frankly, shocked at the wording of this letter in 2008. There is usually a rumor or a strong influential tone to lessons and speeches from the pulpits about the evil of gay marriage but nothing as strident as to pay money (not tithe mind, you) and work for the passage of Proposition 8.

I know there were back-room meetings with some of the more wealthy Mormons to contribute individually to the passage of Proposition 8. That’s why Bruce Bastian felt it was necessary for him to donate one million smackeroos to our side.

But, I have never seen something that brought more discontent with many of my family who are LDS. The letter was too political. In spite of the LDS Church saying they don’t get involved in politics…they did this time. And we all knew the power of that letter. (I call it the kool-aid-syndrome letter.) You get some very exacting, determined results when you put in motion a group of never-questioning members; because the Prophet of God had spoken.

But with Proposition 8 you have some Mormons who DID question it. The politics of it. The legalese of it. A BYU law school professor typed a very good rebuttal to some of the claims made in the campaign for Prop 8. (shock shock).

I’m still smiling at how many Mormons thought the donations to Proposition 8 would be tax deductible. Some went into deep debt for this campaign. Don’t underestimate the power of a well connected (phone trees, et al), rabid religious zealotry in formulating public opinion. I think this has even surprised the Mormon Elders.

Timothy Kincaid
September 3rd, 2010 | LINK

Cowboy,

But, (and this may be off-topic), just how much of a connection is there with the FORMAL Mormon Church and NOM? Was there direct contributions by the LDS Church or was it mostly individual donations? How much power does the Mormon Church wield in NOM? I get the feeling NOM is more directed by the Evangelical forces out there.

We simply don’t know. The current meme is that NOM is a tool of the LDS, but I doubt that. I suspect (guess, really), rather, that it is bought, paid for, and fully owned by a small collection of very wealthy Catholics.

cowboy
September 3rd, 2010 | LINK

I was hoping Fred Karger would have helped us find out more about NOM and its donors.

I do know there are a couple of influential Mormons on the board of directors for NOM (namely: Orson Scott Card) but they hardly constitute an official oracle for the LDS Church.

The LDS Church would be thoroughly embarrassed with any link to NOM’s bus tour just recently. And no high-paid PR company the LDS Church uses would ever do a dumb thing like that. No way.

I saw a video of some dude who took NOM to task for its criticism of Judge Walker and his reasons to stop Prop 8. It was a very well done rebuttal but his assigning the lame attack on Judge Walker to the Mormon-Church-backed NOM was a bit unfair. It was NOM but we better not assign all the blame on the Mormons.

Dan Farrell
September 3rd, 2010 | LINK

I wonder how the proctologists will be voting. Proctologists advertise heavily in homosexual publications, because homosexual sex injures its participants. In one series of 260 homosexual men seen by proctologists, 134 (51.5 percent) had anal warts. Proctologists and other medical professionals who will comment off the record on the remarkable ravages of gay sex but will not criticize it on the record lest their professional careers suffer as a result.

Priya Lynn
September 4th, 2010 | LINK

Dan said “In one series of 260 homosexual men seen by proctologists, 134 (51.5 percent) had anal warts.”.

Oh please Dan, spare us the anti-gay distortions. We’ve seen this type of “statistic” before and its always a case of that series of 260 men not being randomly sampled from the general population of gays but being sampled from clients of an STD clinic or a group of people with AIDS. In other words its complete BS to state that such a “statistic” is representative of the general population of gays.

Cowboy
September 4th, 2010 | LINK

Thanks Priya. And it is always some sort of a conspiracy that can’t be proven. And why the obsession with anal sex?

Is Dan the very definition of nincompoop?

Jason D
September 4th, 2010 | LINK

Cowboy, Priya,
Doesn’t Dan make you laugh?

It’s the case of a foreigner who’s only read gossip about a strange land trying to tell the locals how they live.

Dude, we live here, we know what’s going on, that’s how we know you’re lying.

You’re not talking to impressionable youth who might be swayed by horror stories. I’ve been Out ten years this year, and I only know one person who has anal warts or any kind of anus issue. And believe me, my friends tell me more than I ever want to know about their sex lives, so if one of them had ever had so much as rugburn, I’d know about it.

Oh, and newsflash, Dan, a proctologist is a specialist, not a regular doctor people see on a regular basis. You’ll also find that the majority of patients seeing an optometrist have…eyesight issues! Most people seeing an allergist….have allergies!
Women go to a gynecologist on a regular basis regardless of whether they’re having an issue or not. It’s an area that generally needs regular attention, if for no other reason than for birth control issues. Not so with men (even gay men) and proctologists. So it follows that most people going to a proctologist have…proctology issues!

So even if you were correct about a large group of gay men seeing a proctologist have issue X, you’d only be telling us about gay proctology patients, not about gay men as a whole. It would not be indicative of all gay men.

Next you tell us that oncologists have noticed a large percentage of their patients have cancer. Gasp!

Jason D
September 4th, 2010 | LINK

oh and I’m not a woman and have no sisters, so ladies please feel free to correct me…there are probably other reasons to go to a gynecologist on a regular basis, that’s just the one that popped into my head.

Dan Farrell
September 4th, 2010 | LINK

I have to concede a point to Jason, since after 10 years, his sample is probably equal to the Fifth Marine Division.

Franck
September 4th, 2010 | LINK

Sweet, Dan. Since Jason utterly demolished your argument, you resort to barely veiled personal insults? Very adult of you.

Richard Rush
September 4th, 2010 | LINK

Based upon anecdotal evidence that continues to pile up like a landfill, I’d guess that Dan Farrell has repressed homosexual desires. Now that the civilized world has become more enlightened and educated about homosexuality, the remaining people with deep animus seem to be concentrated among those with deep-seated sexual issues of their own.

Secure and healthy heterosexuals don’t seek out gay oriented websites to make comments for the sole purpose of demonstrating their animus. You might want to ask yourself, Dan, why you find that activity so satisfying. Is your self-esteem so fragile that it can only be bolstered by denigrating others? Most true heterosexuals have better and more interesting things to do with their time.

But I suppose another motive could be the belief that you are obeying a personal directive from a deity, or more likely from one or more of his clever power-seeking spokesmen.

Dan Farrell
September 4th, 2010 | LINK

This isn’t the first time I’ve been accused of being a homosexual because I’ve expressed a viewpoint that homosexuality is harmful. The charge doesn’t happen to be accurate, but on the other hand, what if it were? So what? All that matters is whether what I’m saying is objective true and real. Same goes for the other odd motives. The standard for life-giving and life-enhancing sexual activity is within the framework of male-female marriage. Heterosexuals have been doing more in recent decades to weaken this standard, but the promotion of homosexuality has also played a role.

Jason D
September 4th, 2010 | LINK

“This isn’t the first time I’ve been accused of being a homosexual because I’ve expressed a viewpoint that homosexuality is harmful. The charge doesn’t happen to be accurate, but on the other hand, what if it were? So what? All that matters is whether what I’m saying is objective true and real.”

Good because what you’re saying is biased, false, and fabricated.

You’re not the first anti-gay person to show up on this website spouting manure. Sooner or later you’ll be asked to actually present documentation of your claims. Currently you appear to be working the usual “it’s obvious” claims that hold very little water. Chances are, when you do finally cite a source, it’s already been thoroughly debunked here or elsewhere.

I swear we should have Bigot Bingo Cards, with spaces for various claims and catchphrases, it would add to the entertainment value that folks like Dan bring to the board.

Emily K
September 4th, 2010 | LINK

I can’t understand why these people come to gay-centric blogs to comment. I mean, do they really think they’ll be “converting” anybody? That we’ll open our eyes and “see the truth” and repent of our gayness somehow?

One hypothesis I have is that they come here for an ego boost, to feel like martyrs. If they feel like the lone “True” voice being ganged up on by “angry homosexuals,” they can further the self-delusion that they are right, have the truth, and if only they enlightened us angry homosexuals, we’d join up with them and we’d all spread this strange gospel together, slamming the closet door shut and locked. Not happening.

Jason D
September 5th, 2010 | LINK

Dan, I’d much rather you concede that your point:

In one series of 260 homosexual men seen by proctologists, 134 (51.5 percent) had anal warts.

only tells us about gays who see proctologists, not gays in general.

In fact, it only tells us about the gays who see proctologists who were rounded up for this study. Was the study national, international, local? When was it done? Who did it? How did they gather the participants?
Where’s the comparison to 260 straights? and or 260 gays who don’t see proctologists?

No wonder you want us to go off of “ambient observation”, scientific inquiry just isn’t your friend.

Dan Farrell
September 5th, 2010 | LINK

Jason has hilarious friends. Did you read his stuff? He’d expect them to walk in and say, “How are you? As for me, I’ve got anal warts!”

Franck
September 5th, 2010 | LINK

Yes I read his stuff. Apparently he is expecting one Dan Farrell to finally get a grasp of logic, but all he gets in return is personal attacks.

All of his points were valid. All of your points are “Shut up I’m right and I’m insulting you because I’m right.”

But of course, maybe you live in a world where everyone goes to a proctologist without reason, so any survey done at a proctologist’s is actually representative of the general population. What a weird word it ould be.

Dan Farrell
September 5th, 2010 | LINK

You obviously have no one around here willing to warn anyone about things like anal warts, and so maybe someone should do it. All you get around here is the idea that any such talk must be based on personal feelings of animus. As someone has pointed out, the gay rights movement is “self-delusion as a group effort.”

Emily K
September 5th, 2010 | LINK

Dan, do you have any warnings for lesbians like me, who have virtually zero chance of contracting HIV from another woman who exclusively sleeps with women, and stereotypically enters into relationships that are more monogamous than their heterosexual counterparts?

after all, we’re not known for buttsex, so anal warts is probably not one of our afflictions.

Jason D
September 5th, 2010 | LINK

“You obviously have no one around here willing to warn anyone about things like anal warts,”

HA!

Dan if you knew anything about anal warts you’d know that they’re more than just a minor inconvenience. The one friend I have who does have them, well it has put an end to festivities in that area.

Now, if half of all gay men had anal warts(something you wish were true and present a study out of context to imply it is true) then surely someone such as myself who has friends who regularly share too much information, would’ve heard about it at some point. An illness that impairs ones sex life in the way anal warts has for my friend is not something that’s going to go unnoticed and unspoken. For those who actually have anal sex, it drastically alters if not ENDS the activity for good.

My point was stated before, Dan Farrell is the ignorant foreigner who’s only read gossip, coming here to tell the locals how we live.

We know about anal warts, you know about anal warts.

The difference is, we know the truth about them, you do not.

So no, we don’t have anyone around here who’d enjoy trying to scare us with de-contextualized truths.

And by the way, the personal attacks on me only further prove you’re here out of animus, not out of any sort of geninue concern. You’re here to play the martyr to the unfair, unappreciative, mean, rude, sinners.

Only thing is, I’m not taking the bait, and that’s what frustrates you. We continue to reason with you and ask for proof, and you continue to provide us with anything but. It’s amusing, but it’s getting boring.

Franck
September 5th, 2010 | LINK

Dan, did the extensive list of serious STDs associated to straight sex turn you off heterosexuality? No? So don’t use anal warts to justify “rejecting” homosexuality.

I’m pretty sure I could walk to a gynecologist and ask them how many of their patients have problems that can be traced to straight sex. My bet is on a quite appreciable percentage. I could use that as an argument against heterosexuality the way you use anal warts against homosexuality.

Dan Farrell
September 5th, 2010 | LINK

Quick! Where did the moderators go? We were expecting rhetoric and we’re getting REALITY!

We don’t talk about health risks here. All that gets moderated out. And that guy who brought up the subject:

o Must be a bigot!
o Must be gay himself!
o He’s obsessed with anal sex!
o It’s all about hatred!

The moderators?! WHERE ARE THEY??

Franck
September 5th, 2010 | LINK

Dan, I thought we just told you that we knew about the health issues and were perfectly willing to teach YOU about them, since all you’ve heard were rumors and hearsays?

Stop playing the victim here, I almost feel like we’re dealing with a four-year-old who’ll hold his hands to his ears and shout “NANANAH CAN’T HEAR YOU” anytime someone proves him wrong.

The analogy I read earlier is right, too: you sound like the foreigner trying to teach the locals how to live after hearing only rumors about them.

Again: we know the health risks in detail. Why wouldn’t we? We’re the one concerned. We did research on this because it personally affects us. All you’ve heard where hearsays, but you won’t admit that we know about the issue at hand more than you do. You’re asking us to ignore our years of experience and careful research, on account of “something you’ve read somewhere.”

Emily K
September 5th, 2010 | LINK

Dan, there are no health risks associated with being a lesbian. Even you have yet to name any.

Erin
September 5th, 2010 | LINK

Thank you Emily. What about lesbians? Of all the possible pairings of people having sex, lesbians are the lowest risk for std’s and injuries such as tearing. Besides, every single thing gay men and lesbians do in their bedrooms is also practiced by straight people, and most people’s bodies can handle all of it. Straight couples have anal sex too, and no one cares. The government decided quite a while ago that what consenting adults do in their bedrooms is their own business, and they shouldn’t be punished for it. Apparently Dan is too immature to live and let live. That’s not our problem. It’s his.

Ben in Oakland
September 6th, 2010 | LINK

Some CDC statistics for Dan:

Incidence Rates And Costs Of HPV Infections There are an estimated 5.5 million new cases of HPV genital infections each year in the USA. Approximately 20 million people in the U.S. are currently infected with genital HPV. Over 5 million new infections of genital HPV are recorded every year in the U.S. There are over one hundred known strains of HPV There are over thirty known strains of genital wart causing HPV, which are sexually transmitted. Genital HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States. 50%-75% of sexually active people will be infected with genital HPV infection at some point in their life. By the age of fifty, 80% of women will have contracted the genital infection of HPV. Women have a far greater risk of contracting the disease because they are more conducive to infection. In the United States, the total costs associated with HPV was 3.8 billion in 1994. HPV Statistics, Women, And Cervical Cancer Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women.

Looks like either all heterosexuals are total sluts, or all women are, or that heterosexual sex is very dangerous.

I’m not sure which.

Richard Rush
September 6th, 2010 | LINK

Thanks for that HPV data, Ben. Clearly, society should not be promoting heterosexual activity. It’s sickening how this sort of behavior is promoted to children in our schools starting in kindergarten. And I’ve even witnessed weddings with children in attendance being exposed to the blatant celebration of the heterosexual lifestyle as though it were a healthy choice.

Emily K
September 6th, 2010 | LINK

May I suggest to women that they instead only sleep with women? Maybe for some it would force them to ignore their natural tendencies to sleep with men, but obviously it would be for their own good. They are much less likely to contract a deadly disease. They would also avoid being a part of the “heterosexual menace” that is so well documented on this site.

Jason D
September 6th, 2010 | LINK

Poor Dan, can’t scare us with misused research, can’t appeal to emotion so we ignore fact-based evidence, called out on his whole reason for being here, can’t get anyone to yell obscenities at him for making personal attacks, and now he can’t even get the moderators to do him a favor and ban him so he can run home and tell everyone how he put himself on the line fighting the “good” fight.

What’s a would-be martyr to do?

So anyway, back to the topic of the thread. Yes, Tim this is unexpected and very welcome. Seems another bit of evidence that the Republican party (at least unofficially) is turning over a new leaf.

Timothy Kincaid
September 6th, 2010 | LINK

Proctologists advertise heavily in homosexual publications, because homosexual sex injures its participants.

I can say that I have never ever seen an ad from a proctologist in my life. And I’ve read a lot of gay publications.

It never ceases to amaze me when anti-gays base their arguments on complete fiction and try to sell it to gay folk. Don’t they realize that we actually know whether or not there are proctologist ads in our papers?

Timothy Kincaid
September 6th, 2010 | LINK

Jason,

I believe you are mistaken about anal warts. The CDC says “Complications occur rarely if treatments for warts are employed properly” and your friend is either an exception to the rule or has other reasons for changing his sex life.

Timothy Kincaid
September 6th, 2010 | LINK

Dan Farrel’s “source” was the James Holsinger paper which was quoting a sentence from a 1984 article in a book by Thomas Quinn.

I’ve not been able to find out much else but considering Holsinger is the source, I think we can be pretty sure that he misrepresented the facts.

TampaZeke
September 6th, 2010 | LINK

Timothy, Dan has now trolled at least TWO comment threads spewing unfounded, unsupported lie after lie after lie. We keep asking him to back up his wild accusations with peer reviewed studies but he refuses and becomes more hostile, more offensive and more extreme in his completely made up claims.

Isn’t it about time to find him in violation of the comments policy? He is trolling, nothing more. He is not participating in debate. He is simply spewing outrageous Cameronesque homophobic lies.

At what point does a troll get warned for trolling and then blocked from further trolling?

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.