HELP! Homosexuals Want to Socialize with Nice White People!

Rob Tisinai

January 8th, 2014

[Trigger warning for racism, sexism, religious bigotry, and homophobia.]

Everything we do as gay people is aggression. You know that, obviously. It was in the pamphlet, right?

Recently I stumbled across an articulate, horrifying, “traditionalist” Catholic blog called The Thinking Housewife, the sort of place where people worry a lot about white gentile oppression; where readers debate whether black women are significantly less attractive than white women or only slightly so; where it’s “an absolute deal breaker” if a white woman, no matter how attractive, has a black ex-boyfriend; where Francis‘ scaling back of papal ostentation is a moral crime; where a fella can toss out references to “Jew-mongers” without the PC police getting all up in his business.

What makes this blog so horrifying isn’t just the content, or the fact that it’s widely-read, but that it’s actually pretty well-written. My warm, comforting stereotype is that these must be ignorant fools who resort to ALL CAPS and crazy, Punctuation!!! but that’s not the case here at all.

In a recent post, Laura (the Thinker Herself) asks readers for advice on Charles’ social dilemma. As he describes it:

My wife and I are members of an informal social group of about 15 couples in our late 50’s and early 60’s who meet monthly in a member’s home for purposes of enjoying good wine (65 million Frenchmen can’t be all wrong!) and discussing topics of mutual interest.  The membership consists of well educated and successful upper middle class white couples who could be characterized (with one exception) as basically apolitical suburbanites who always vote Republican, probably by default and without giving much thought to it.   Nice people, nice homes, nice manners, nice clothes, otherwise preoccupied and utterly clueless  –  you know the type.

The exceptional couple are trendy left-liberal childless professionals who occasionally get in your face about some silly left wing issue of one kind or another…

At the last gathering of our group, I happened to overhear the left-wing couple mention to another member that they intend to propose for membership an openly homosexual couple who were recently “married” and with whom they are friends.   I know this homosexual couple very casually and they are successful, educated and socially presentable people  –  we are not talking about grungy, emaciated, tattooed and pierced social freaks here.  Nevertheless, the thought of a homosexual couple joining our small and highly congenial group simply turns my stomach.

I strongly suspect that most of our members would prefer not to have to face this issue and, if they were to give much thought to it, would be mildly opposed.  I am also quite certain that almost every one of them will be unwilling to express any opposition toward or to vote against this membership proposal for fear of being thought to be mean spirited, prejudiced, small-minded, backward and/or homophobic.  Thus, if the membership proposal is made by the lefty couple, it will be a “done deal,” no matter what I do.

I know that Western Civilization is already well advanced along the road to Hell and I realize that, as a practical matter, there is probably not much that I can do change things.  Still, I could not live with myself if I were to allow this membership proposal to proceed without comment or opposition.  There are two problems with this from my standpoint.  First,  three or four other couples who are members of our group are close friends with whom my wife and I frequently socialize independently of the group.  I am very concerned that by opposing the admission of the homosexual couple, I will offend my friends and adversely affect my relationship with them.  Second, if this were to occur, I can also be certain that I will severely adversely affect my relationship with my wife  –  who will condemn my decision to speak against the membership proposal as a pointless, ineffectual, arrogant, selfish, and self-indulgent act that may needlessly injure or sacrifice one or more of our valued friendships.  This seems to me to be unfair, but at some level, it is possible that she may be correct in this assessment.

As you can see here, the lefty couple is likely to put me in a very difficult position…

And not just the lefty couple! Let’s not forget to blame the gays for wanting to socialize. As one commenter writes:

Homosexuals are fanatical and relentless.  Injecting a couple like that is clearly aimed to take the group deep into the abyss.  The leftist couple is an enemy force.


Lefties and homosexuals are always forcing the issue. Of course this isn’t fortuitous. The lefty couple and the homosexual couple have an ulterior motive here; this is an act of aggression.

To which Laura replies:

Of course. Nothing can remain untouched. Everything is a stage for activism. And, yes, it is an act of aggression.

Apparently not even Charles is blameless. He’s being quite the wuss with his wife:

I think the Bible is clear that he, as the head of his household, must take the lead in matters like these.

Let’s recall what sparked this Great Moral Crisis: A successful and educated gay couple wants to socialize casually with some moderate, apolitical suburbanites. I’ve been mocking Charles for his fear, but really I shouldn’t, because he’s right. This came to me when I read another Thinking Housewife post:

I met a very dark but wholly European-featured Hispanic young lady (whose elegance and heritage proved to me she was brought up in a middle-class or wealthy family and attended American Catholic schools, although she never said it, and I don’t pry).

Of course the author didn’t “pry.” Prying might reveal that a woman can be elegant and dark and not raised in a well-to-do Catholic environment. Ignorance is bigotry’s greatest ally, and truth is its most aggressive enemy. That’s the key message to send Laura and Charles and the rest: Spending time with gay people is pro-gay only if it reveals we’re the not moral criminals you’re painting us to be. Mixing gays with straights is an aggressive assault on your values only if those values are wrong!

And, yes, your values are wrong. Inviting the gay couple to join you will have precisely the effect you fear most: It will turn your friends against your beliefs. Accordingly, every good thing gay people do is aggression against you, because it’s gay people who are doing it.

I’ve seen this same phenomenon in more mainstream source, the Christian Post, which has highlighted yet another celebrity who is trying to “silence” and “squelch” the views of good Christian people by launching this vicious Facebook attack on people of faith:

At this moment I am at peace and filled with joy and gratitude.

I am grateful to God, my doctors and nurses for my restored good health.

I am grateful for my sister, Sally-Ann, for being my [blood marrow] donor and giving me the gift of life.

I am grateful for my entire family, my long time girlfriend, Amber, and friends as we prepare to celebrate a glorious new year together.

I am grateful for the many prayers and well wishes for my recovery. I return every one of them to you 100 fold.

And why is this really just a subversive, aggressive attack on Christian freedom of speech? Because its author, Good Morning America’s Robin Roberts, is a woman.

The Reverend Mark Creech makes his case:

Consider. Phil Robertson is from the South. Robin Roberts is from the South. Phil Robertson is a beloved television personality. Robin Roberts is a beloved television personality. Phil Robertson attended a university in Louisiana. Robin Roberts went to a university in Louisiana. Phil Robertson is a person of devout Christian faith. Robin Roberts is someone who professes to be a person of devout Christian faith.

Coincidence? Hardly! Contrived? More than likely. Especially since Robert’s “coming out” takes place in conjunction with Robertson’s reinstatement.

Unable to shut down the voice of one who opposes the homosexual lifestyle from a biblical perspective, gay activists and their media supporters must counter with the voice of someone they believe might eclipse it. Twice now, Roberts is at the heart of an effort to squelch the clear and loud sound of opposition.

The point here is not that Roberts doesn’t have the right. It’s just that the public should see this for what it is – a war against any mention of the biblical position against homosexuality.

The desperate search for parallels in that first paragraph is hilarious. I imagine Creech frantically working his Google machine: Are they both left-handed? Organ donors? Singers in the shower?

Even so, Creech almost gets it right. Roberts’ honest acknowledgement of her partner’s love and support is not a war against mentioning any perceived biblical position against homosexuality, but it is an aggressive and true refutation of that position. He has every right to feel threatened. If only he’d admit the true source of that threat.

It’s time for proponents of the anti-gay agenda simply to give up, admit defeat, be honest with themselves and change their own minds. They’re already admitting that direct contact with gay people is a threat to their beliefs. They’re already admitting that openness and truth are a danger to their cause. Once you’ve come that far, folks, it’s only the tiniest and most honest of steps to admitting you’re just plain wrong.

Ben in Oakland

January 8th, 2014

“They’re already admitting that direct contact with gay people is a threat to their beliefs. They’re already admitting that openness and truth are a danger to their cause. Once you’ve come that far, folks, it’s only the tiniest and most honest of steps to admitting you’re just plain wrong.”

But…but….but….just because I’m wrong doesn’t mean I’m WRONG.

What agreat article in every way. Every single qualifier that separates those nice hetero white Christian people from other people who are not white and not hetero and not Christian is there. Every possible aversion to facts, logic,and experience, which is a staple of the bigot diet is there. Every possible assumption of superiority for every possible reason is there.

Love it. Loveit. Love it.


January 8th, 2014

Segregation, Jim Crow and the Closet ALL had/have the same purpose. To keep people and their children from having interaction that might cause them to question the demonizing of the “other” that they had always been taught and, in the absence of personal experience, believed. Segregation wasn’t about protecting little white Alice from dangerous black people (males in particular) but was about keeping little white Alice from meeting little black Sally and little black Jimmy and discovering that they had much more in common than they had in difference and that black people weren’t the monsters that Alice’s parents told her they were. The closet served the very same purpose in an amazingly effective way. This is why the same mentality that feared integration fears people coming out of the closet.

Ben in Oakland

January 8th, 2014

Exactly that, Zeke. The only difference is that the closet is the mechanism that antigay bigots use to get us to oppress ourselves so that their clean, white, christian (usually) and heterosexual (or not so heterosexual, given all of the homo hating homos inthe world) hands don’t have to dirty themselves with obvious bigotry.

Will the gay couple ever find out about this controversy? Gawd, I hope so.

For some reason, what’s coming to my mind is from Porgy and Bess, where Sportin’ Life says to Serena (?) , “why can’t we be friends?” She replies,

Friends wit’ you, low life?
I fears I must decline.
I’d sooner cut my own throat
Than call you a Friend of mine.

Priya Lynn

January 8th, 2014

Great post Rob.

Lindoro Almaviva

January 8th, 2014

I read some of the articles, oir more realistically, attempted. Oh my sweet Jesus in Heaven. This is what they mean by ivory tower thinking!


January 8th, 2014

Thanks for sharing, big guy.

Ben in Oakland

January 8th, 2014

Lindoro, except for the thinking part, the ivory part, and the tower part.

I’m thinking concrete troglodyte gutter, but dresses up very nicely.


January 8th, 2014

Rob, honey, are you okay? Do we need to fly you out here and feed you? You don’t need to be reading this crap. I worry about you.


January 8th, 2014

This blogger is so far to the right that she puts scare quotes not only around same-sex “marriage” but even around “Pope” Francis. Wow. Just wow.

Ben in Oakland

January 8th, 2014

Rich, at least/ she didn’t put the quotes around sex.


January 8th, 2014

That was quite a rabbit hole you sent me down, Rob. Wow. The scariest part of that place was how polite and reasonable everyone seem even though they were saying the most vile things imaginable.


January 8th, 2014

After reading about that blog, I’m not sure I want to live on this planet anymore.


January 8th, 2014

The people that commented on that blog are just vile. I could barely read through the comments on the post about women having a black ex-boyfriend.


January 9th, 2014

This one sentence is the definition of prejudice: “Nevertheless, the thought of a homosexual couple joining our small and highly congenial group simply turns my stomach.”

It’s not that John and Tim or Susan and Rachel came to our gathering and said extreme things about their kids or their summer vacation plans or the closing of the town’s remaining independent bookstore. Just imagining queers sitting in my chairs, drinking coffee from my coffee cups, and breathing the same air as me, that’s what turns my stomach.

It’s a metaphor for the TeaParty/GOP.


January 9th, 2014

Great post!

BTW, I love reading The Thinking Housewife. Or, more precisely, I love hate-reading her site. But part of me is convinced it’s just an elaborate practical joke–there’s no way she can be real, is there?


January 9th, 2014

This all reminded me of the types of educated congenial conversations which must have been taking place in the years leading up to Hitler’s rise to power. Not fanatical or hysterical, just an obsessively earnest statement of bigotry and fear that interaction with members of another group would erode primary (or chosen) group cohesion – to disastrous effect – and that the only solution was to eliminate the possibility for that interaction.

This very simple desire not to socialize laid the groundwork for elimination of the threatening group entirely. Jews were not only extracted from Hitler’s Germany, but their contributions were erased, the possessions confiscated, and history was rewritten… all to simply remove the possibility for interaction. The ruse was predicated on some level of protecting the public from deliberately enflamed fears of dire consequences – but were actually about removing any opportunity to undermine groupthink. It is quite chilling, but not surprising.

Today, for these folks, gay people merely existing and being “normal” is an assault on the delicate sensibilities of those who fear such examples, allowed to walk freely among them, will erode historically shared reality. As though the mere, unremarkable existence of gays in their midst would alter the laws of physics. The sky will be pink. Water will no longer be wet.

People who fear gays, whether because of mental laziness or the way they were taught and raised, will fight tooth and nail to prevent having their worldview altered. They will watch only one TV channel, they will dismiss any factual information, they will avoid any interaction that makes their worldview seem incongruous or false. They will seek to live inside a bubble of unreality.

There is little that can be done about such people. In a free society such individuals are free to create any bubble they want to live in. The historically accepted status quo about gay people is changing – very, very rapidly. Those who simply don’t approve – for any reason – will not accept it and will do everything they can to keep other people from accepting it.

But the tide has turned. We have passed a tipping point. We are living through a crucible of time that is extraordinary. White “Dominionists” fear a loss of control, fear feeling like outcasts, fear not being in the majority, fear loss of influence. They have arrived at a point where our very existence is an act of aggression against them. This is a very dangerous place to be for everybody. The stage has been set for the rise of Fascism. You see it every day on the news. Everything is “us” versus “them.”

Our only choice is to live our lives openly, honestly, and with dignity. Eventually, the Truth will win out. All one needs to do is look at polling data for social attitudes among the young. We are at most three election cycles away from permanent progressive change in this country. No one on the losing end of that is going to go down without using everything they’ve got to forestall it – including living in a bubble of fantasy. You can’t blame them for fearing people bearing pins…


January 9th, 2014


I understood what you said. Really. But I think this is not prejudice. This is just pure homophobia. Prejudice is “I like gay people, but all gays are promiscuous.” Or “I have no problem with black people but blacks are criminals, you know…” Prejudice is forming an opinion before becoming aware of the real facts. But this is just pure big homophobia – “homosexual couple joining our small and highly congenial group simply turns my stomach” – this is feeling of hate or/and disgust/aversion…. (IMHO) But yes, prejudices and homophobia are very similar siblings.
P.S. sorry for my English, it’s not my first language

Richard Rush

January 9th, 2014

Victor, I appreciate you comment(s) on this post, and others. They resonate with me.

Ryan, you said, “The scariest part of that place [The Thinking Housewife] was how polite and reasonable everyone seem even though they were saying the most vile things imaginable.” You articulated what I noticed at some level, as well. Why did the name, Robert George, just pop into my head?


January 9th, 2014

I’ve stumbled on that blog before. Everything there is beyond insane.


January 9th, 2014

Something really struck me about “Charles’s” description of his “dilemma”. He says,

I am very concerned that by opposing the admission of the homosexual couple, I will offend my friends and adversely affect my relationship with them.

This is what I don’t understand about people who harbor such prejudices. He’s vehemently opposed to homosexuality, but his friendships with some people are so important to him that he’s not willing to share his beliefs. He seems to know that his friends disagree with him on this issue, but he holds his tongue. He may not lie if questioned, but he commits the sin of omission.

I’m not shy about expressing my support for equal rights for LGBT people. I’ve ended friendships–although in retrospect I didn’t believe people with such prejudices were truly “friends”–and even cut off ties with a few family members. It’s that important to me.

If this issue is so important to “Charles” why does he even associate with people who disagree with him? If this issue is so important to “Charles” why doesn’t he have the courage to stand up for his convictions?

Paul Douglas

January 9th, 2014

Because he wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Ben in Oakland

January 9th, 2014

Matti is– don’t worry about it. Living well and happily is the best revenge.

Frank– many years ago when I was fighting the Briggs initiative, there was a very nice catholic lady whose name escapes me at the moment, who often appeared for the other side. She had all the standard bigot arguments and “facts. On her printed materials. At the end of one of our debates, she asked me to write to her. So I did, POLITELY refuting every single thing she had to say with facts and logic and citations. The next time I saw her, I asked her if she had read my letter. Her response, so very sweet: “I don’t have time to read letters from homosexuals.”

Victor– brilliant!

Christopher: as I once wrote about George Bish “I’m sure he would have the courage of his convictions…if he had any convictions.”


January 9th, 2014

One of my favorite things about being a gay man is that I have had the opportunity to meet so many different kinds of people, often across racial, ethnic, and social class lines.

Nothing will erode a prejudice faster than getting to know someone who is different from yourself, to know them face-to-face and by name.

Charles is not afraid of homosexuals. Charles is afraid that, by meeting this gay couple, he might like them and he will discover he is wrong, that he might have to change his mind about gay people.

Open-minded people are more willing to be found wrong than are closed-minded people. The open-minded people in his social group would probably let him stay even if they disagree with his views. But Charles, being close-minded, can’t possibly imagine being in a social group with people who disagree with him.

Poor Charles. It must be horrible to live so frightened of other people.


January 9th, 2014

@Christopher: Something struck me in what you wrote about “Charles” and his fears…

“He’s vehemently opposed to homosexuality, but his friendships with some people are so important to him that he’s not willing to share his beliefs. He seems to know that his friends disagree with him on this issue, but he holds his tongue… If this issue is so important to “Charles” why doesn’t he have the courage to stand up for his convictions?”

When I read this the obvious suddenly occurred to me: As the world continues to change, homophobes are slowly being driven INTO the closet.

Having been born into a closet, most of us who are LGBT learned the hard way how to navigate it by instinct. I cannot imagine the difficulty people like “Charles” must be having as their long-held beliefs erode away and they are faced with a new political and cultural landscape.

It must be terrifying to feel their only choice is to retreat into a closeted mentality where suddenly they must weigh their words and look with suspicion on the neighbors and friends with whom they once felt completely comfortable.

The question is: how do you deal with them? Some are clearly beyond saving. But I have seen in my own life examples of people finding the courage to let go of their instinctive fear of LGBT people. It can – and does – happen. We must leave the door open to new allies. If we don’t, the only people homophobes will have to talk to are each other.

Ben In Oakland

January 9th, 2014

If we don’t, the only people homophobes will have to talk to are each other.

I think you meant, “IF WE DO”


January 9th, 2014

@Ben In Oakland:… Thanks, but I think the syntax is correct…

“We must leave the door open to new allies. If we don’t, the only people homophobes will have to talk to are each other.”

The Lauderdale

January 9th, 2014

That makes sense to me too.

Re: the underlying sentiment (people with prejudiced beliefs being driven into the closet), we have that example in the form of racism in this country and the public response. Racism ain’t dead, but overt displays of racist language generally meet with public opprobrium. Anti-gay people already express their fear of a future in which their homophobia nets the same response that racism does, and even their totally-not-prejudiced defense of “traditional marriage” gets as much respect as an opposition to intermarriage. They recognize the parallels as well.

Nic in Hawaii

January 9th, 2014

I agree that the thinking housewife may be a satire site, not quite as well done as the Onion or as obviously tongue in cheek as the Mormon equivalent Jesus General.

If this is for real (shudder), Charles should not be so quick as to assume the affluent, well educated, successful couple that happen to be gay are going to want to hang out with him. It is quite likely that said couple will at some point entertain at their home and Charles will be free to politely decline. Maybe some of his friends will stay home, too. They can form a new, smaller group.

My husband and I never try to brainwash straights at their parties; it’s rude and what does one do with all those wet washcloths–? We are far more effective with a home field advantage. The wives will ooh and ah over the objects d’art and the gents always remark that the quiet serenity is interrupted only by the occasional employ of a cocktail shaker.

We call it Unite and Conquer.

Ben In Oakland

January 9th, 2014

“Today, for these folks, gay people merely existing and being “normal” is an assault on the delicate sensibilities of those who fear such examples, allowed to walk freely among them, will erode historically shared reality. As though the mere, unremarkable existence of gays in their midst would alter the laws of physics. The sky will be pink. Water will no longer be wet.”

Victor– thank you for that wonderful analysis. almost as good as rob’s original piece, and that is saying something.

I used the basic premise to write a piece elsewhere. So thank you.


January 9th, 2014

Victor, thank you for an excellent point. I should have been clearer when I talked about “cutting off ties” that that’s only a last resort, and with people who not only won’t discuss the issue rationally but who insist on bringing up the argument again and again, as if browbeating me with the same statements is going to make me change.

For others, though, patience and a willingness to talk to them helps. Some people–the ones I think most likely to be “saved”–are homophobes out of ignorance. They’ve never thought about what it must be like to be LGBT, because they don’t (or think they don’t) know anyone who is. I don’t want to drive anyone into a “closet”, but for those homophobes who feel compelled to go into one I hope the experience will make them think about what it’s like in there. Although I also hope they consider that their homophobia is a choice, and that, unlike being LGBT, it does hurt others.

In talking to such people I try, hard as it may be, to not be judgmental. I try to see things from their perspective, simply because I’d like them to do the same and see things from another perspective.

Sorry for going on at such length. And Ben In Oakland: I’d really like to read your piece.


January 9th, 2014

@Ben In Oakland: My… Thank you. Rob is a terrific analyst and writer. I am humbled to be even mentioned in the same sentence.


January 9th, 2014

@Christopher: Thanks. I think all that is necessary for constructive dialogue is for said homophobe to be willing to accept that gay people have a right to exist in a free society. If they will concede that one point all the underlying prejudices – whether born of ignorance or the Bible – can be discussed. Full agreement may never be possible – but some level of shared humanity will come about and, if that door is left open, maybe even a change of heart.

Familiarity is a powerful tool, which is why the closet was so effective at keeping the reality of our existence from bleeding through into the mainstream for centuries. It can take some people a very long time to accept the world and the variety of people in it are not as they once thought. So long as an enemy will concede your right to exist – even if it is an affront to their long held beliefs – there is hope.

But when you face an opponent who sees your existence as an abject lie – an aberration – a rebuke to their god – that person is probably lost. We have seen and dealt with their kind for millenia – tomorrow will be no different for them.

Each day we walk in the sunshine – in spite of all the social, political, and religious forces arrayed against us – is a victory for all humanity – ours and theirs. I firmly believe LGBT people were put on this Earth precisely to force this conversation and to prepare humanity for what comes next. Thank God we are made of pretty tough stuff.

Ben In Oakland

January 9th, 2014

Sure. here it is. I borrowed a few of your nicer turns of phrase. Just remember, as St. Oscar said– that’s Levant, not Wilde– imitation is the sincerest form of plagiarism. Please forgive me for that, but I couldn’t think of anything better. I’ve been sick all week, and it ain’t pretty.

This was a piece about a donor who withdrew his donation to a group that was sponsoring an orphanage (!) in Haiti(!) because said group was LGBT, and he couldn’t support anything like that (!!!).

I’ll give you a different take on this.

This isn’t the worst kind of bigotry– that’s outright violence and demonizing political campaigns conducted in the name of some faux virtue like “family values.” It’s polite, ivory tower, and middle class, not fanatical or hysterical, just a statement of fear that interaction with members of the group you despise would erode your completely imaginary superiority, and the group cohesion of people who think just like you, but wouldn’t say bigotry if they had a heart-full of it.

Today, for these usually Christian people, usually of the “god loves you but hates your sin” variety, gay people merely existing and being “normal” is an assault on their very delicate sensibilities. They fear that such examples, allowed to exist freely among them, will erode an historically– and hysterically– shared reality based entirely on “Oooh. Gay! Icky! And so does Gawd.”

It is as if the mere unknown, unknowable, and unremarkable existence of gay people in their midst, doing charitable, human, kind things would alter the very laws of physics. No it won’t. but what it will alter are the laws of society, religion, and prejudice.

As it is doing right now.

People who “think” like this donor, because of intellectual, moral, compassionate, and religious laziness, will fight to prevent having their worldview altered. They will watch Faux news, will dismiss any and all facts, logic, and experience, with eyes as tightly clenched as their collective anuses. They will avoid any interaction that challenges their worldview, especially their wholly unwarranted and completely imaginary superiority as human beings, as moral beings, or as Christians.

And that, my friend, is what is so disgusting. A few dead or hungry orphans are just collateral damage.


January 9th, 2014

@Ben In Oakland: It’s great! And I am flattered… Feel better 😁 — Victor

Ben in Oakland

January 9th, 2014

Thank you victor. You caught something ive been trying to formalize, and did it very well

I may well expand it even further, if i have an opprtunity to so. I feel a rant coming on, just not at the moment.


January 9th, 2014


I’m with you. I think it’s a parody.


January 9th, 2014

Was it Hannah Arendt who wrote of the “banality of evil”? I think these people are a case in point.

For my own part, let me add smugness, self-absorption, moral and intellectual laziness, and arrogance.

I think that about does it.


January 9th, 2014


“But part of me is convinced it’s just an elaborate practical joke–there’s no way she can be real, is there?”

Sadly, I’ve known people like that. They may not be very real, but they do exist.

Sir Andrew

January 9th, 2014

Nic in Hawaii: I totally agree with you. And it’s not just because I’m Sir Andrew in Hawaii, though I’m sure that helped. I have a hard time imagining a smart gay couple spending time with a flagrant antigay douche by choice.

(So, where in Hawaii? Manoa here.)


January 9th, 2014

A couple of you have touched on something that I think is a key factor here: fear. I don’t think it goes to the level that TampaZeke mentioned early on — keeping us in the closet as a means of not exposing their demonization for what it is, because they haven’t really demonized us, not to the extent that those who make their living selling hate do (most people, after all, are not extremists), and certainly not in their own minds. We’re just not “their kind of people,” and I think what they’re afraid of is having their assumptions upset. That’s what led to my comment about smugness, etc., above: they’re nice and comfortable in their little artificial world, and they want to keep it that way.

“Charles'” fear of disapproval from the rest of his group, and from his wife, leads me to believe that the group is not as homogenous in its attitudes as he would have us believe (I get a sense that he is the real bigot in this assemblage). I think there’s the fear on his part that he’ll find himself an outcast among his own.

One thing: It’s easy to be “apolitical” if you all vote Republican without thinking about it much.

Ben In Oakland

January 9th, 2014

I think you’ve assessed the situation well, hunter.

From what Charles says, it sounds like they don’t think about anything very much, except those pesky lefty liberals. I find anybody who uses those terms in that context don’t.


January 9th, 2014

It’s subtle to the point I can’t identify it, but the blog has the feeling of a parody (though the comments are likely genuine). Partly it’s just too bad to be true, it gathers together everything the liberal left opposes; partly it’s the writing style, too lucid and highbrow when giving what should be a purely emotional response, and partly because it occasionally gives opinions that don’t make any sense for its supposed traditional-values ideology (remember that post praising the Hindu practice of a widow’s self-immolation?).


January 9th, 2014

I have known people just like those in the post. As for the writing style, it is reminiscent of Robert George. Conservative Catholics do not speak Evangelicalese, but do like to claim that they are logical and know the Truth, and favor pompous diction. Presumably they claim to have read some Aquinas.

Rob Tisinai

January 9th, 2014

Thanks for the correction, Ben. I’m a terrible proofreader of my own stuff.

Rob Tisinai

January 9th, 2014

If it’s a parody, it’s a widely-read parody (according to Alexa, more widely-read than Box Turtle Bulletin).

If this makes it any more plausible, most of its readers hail from South Africa. I hesitate to point that out as significant, as I know a number of white South Africans and they don’t fit any sort of Afrikaaner sterotype.

“Charles,” on the other hand, appears to be American, with his reference to the Republican Party.


January 9th, 2014

The writing style is reminiscent of Betty Bowers. I now see that Deven Green’s character is far less an exaggeration than I’d previously imagined, less satire and more a direct parody.


January 10th, 2014

Hunter, you mentioned, ““Charles’” fear of disapproval from the rest of his” which is something I’ve been thinking a lot about too.

He’s vague about the nature of this “group” he belongs to, but I get the impression that the gay couple has no reason to think they’d be unwelcome. And yet he says that by wanting to join they’re “forcing the issue”, and calls it “an act of aggression.”

It must be terrible to try and live in this world with so much fear of others who simply want to live in it too.

Priya Lynn

January 10th, 2014

I gather Charles thinks the gay couple should just know they’re unwelcome and have no right to socialize with “nice” people and that’s why he considers their wanting to join an act of aggression.

Rob Tisinai

January 10th, 2014

Pryia, another theory might be that Charles doesn’t believe these awful gays want to socialize at all, that they hatefully resent any happiness that straight people experience, that their only wish here is to ruin that happiness so that they can feel better about their own misery, which they know to be the consequence of their vicious rejection of God and His goodness, and which they persist in anyway because of the Satan-corrupted hearts.

Or maybe I’ve just spent too much time lurking on anti-gay websites.

Priya Lynn

January 10th, 2014

Sounds plausible to me Rob.

Ben In Oakland

January 10th, 2014

Rob, I think it more likely its a repetition of the meme that anything we do is to force acceptance of us so that we get social approval for our abnormality…

because we know we’re sick and all.

I don’t lurk on winger websites at all, but I see this repeated a great deal. We don’t want to get married for the sake of marriage, but because we can appear normal if we get married. The winger assumption is that appearances are all that is important to us, because it is all that’s important to them.

Priya Lynn

January 10th, 2014

I think all of these things are part of the story with some of it being the case for some and other parts of it being the case for others.

Timothy (TRiG)

January 10th, 2014

I’ve been reading a bit of that site, and now I really really do feel dirty. The one on interracial dating was particularly … urgh.


Ben in Oakland

January 11th, 2014

It’s all poe’s law or its corollary. Te more extreme someone gets, the harder it isto tell when it’s satire.


January 14th, 2014

Is everyone sure this is real? It’s so… perfect. The participants are articulate and verbose. Almost every sentence drips with unwitting irony. It even has narrative arc, with a delicately escalating paranoia. It’s like something from the notebooks of Pasolini…


January 24th, 2014

Ben says: “The winger assumption is that appearances are all that is important to us, because it is all that’s important to them.” Given that some “wingers” are gay people pretending to be straight (or “ex-gay”, in all its grey ambiguity), that would make sense. It is only important that one appears normal (because, as long as we don’t discuss it, I don’t know what’s going on in your head, and you mine). For some, that means appearing straight. So, it makes sense they see SSM as another way to respond to the same ‘problem’ of being gay in order to appear normal.


February 11th, 2014

Beautiful post. I have nothing more to say.

The Thinking Housewife’s blog turns my stomach, though. I sincerely hope it’s a parody.

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, never shared)

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


Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.