If you want to see two articles that perfectly illustrate the nature of the average, everyday anti-gay bigot, take a look at a couple of posts over at Pam’s House Blend. The first post is about a story in a Texas newspaper that took a look at an actual gay couple in Texas and their commitment ceremony. More specifically, it’s about a follow up column that the newspaper editor did on the furious and appalling responses he got from many of the paper’s readers, who buried him in vitriolic responses for daring to tell the story of what a gay couple goes through (because if you even mention the existence of gays, you’re obviously part of the ubiquitous Gay Agendatm). The response will not surprise anyone who has written on this subject:
For me, this has been an eye-opening week. Not all our callers were unreasonable. Many were thoughtful and asked good questions. However, a surprising number were blindly, nastily and profanely hateful.
In the case of a few, I saw bigotry and unreasoning hatred that would make the Ku Klux Klan blush. Then they often told me I’d offended all good Christians.
More than a few questioned my sexual orientation. Typical of these, one woman left a sneering, anonymous message on voice mail: “You must really be a queer yourself. You act like it, and you sound like it, and you’ve proved it by putting this in the paper.”
Looks awfully familiar to me. I am especially amused by the “you must be gay if you’re defending gay rights” line, which of course I hear quite often. They intend it purely as an insult without giving any thought to the fact that, to someone like me, being called gay is not an insult. Nor do they recognize, for that matter, that to someone with my beliefs on this subject the notion that I would be pretending or covering up is rather silly; if I was gay, I’d be more than happy to be so openly and proudly because I do not see anything wrong with it. But the root of all of this is that, to the anti-gay bigot, it’s simply inconceivable that any straight person could possibly support gays as people or gay rights as a principle.
The second post is about an article that said Daniel Craig, the new James Bond, suggested that Bond have a gay love scene in the new movie. More specifically, it’s about the response from the bottom feeders at Free Republic to that article, which contains quotes that reveal just how looney some of those people are. Here are a couple of the more appalling ones:
He’ll be on my list on Dec. 1st, AIDS Awareness Day, when I will be wishing AIDS upon my enemies.
Apparently, there was a problem finding an actual man to play James Bond. They settled for a girly-male. I have seen every Bond movie, I am skipping this one.
Any “straight” actor who lobbies for fag scenes isn’t even remotely straight. Memo to the closet dweller Craig: A large part of the appeal of James Bond is that he’s the ultimate ladies man. A homo (or “bi”) Bond destroys the character utterly. It’s nothing short of incredible that anyone should doubt this.
Personally, I liked the Bond days where, when a woman got out of line he’d just smack her in her face. Not a beating. Just a hard one across the chops. I mainly like it because you can’t do that in today’s PC world and I loathe political correctness.
Gotta love that last one. Yep, the only reason you can’t slap a woman around is that infernal “political correctness.” The professional anti-gay crowd, like Dobson or Bauer, are more careful about their words; they hide their bigotry behind carefully chosen words like “family values”. But a sizable portion of the crowd they’re whipping into a frenzy are folks just like this.