Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Of this vile and bigoted comment by Lisa Schiffren that implies that gay men just can't help themselves but to have sex with dogs if the opportunity presents itself:
Public sex in Amsterdam's city parks will now be legal. But only for gays. And henceforth dogs will no longer be allowed off their leashes. Read about it here. But I am wondering why the government won't let the poor dogs run free while the gays are "having uncomplicated relations." What are they afraid of?
No dehumanization to be seen here. Move along. No bigotry to be seen here. One really has to wonder if such an obsession with beastiality constitutes projection on some level.
Comments
"What are they afraid of?" Why, they're obviously afraid that Lisa Schiffren might be loose in the park, and that the dogs, recognizing her for the bitch that she is, would try to hump her. Simple, really.
Posted by: Dave | March 19, 2008 9:54 AM
Ha ha ha ha! That's funny!! Sorry Lisa, I'm not laughing at you. I'm laughing with... What's that? This isn't parody? Oh, then I guess I am laughing at you.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 19, 2008 10:29 AM
A few years ago, the Head of the Massachusetts State Police announced that, henceforth, the State Police would no longer bother people having sex at reststops so long as the parties involved had made a reasonable effort to be discreet. At the time, I remember thinking how progressive, enlightened and "reasonable" this seemed - and I still do feel that way. I don't recall any great uproar in the papers afterwards. The Troopers, after all, have better things to do with their time. There's something about the way your linked story is written that makes it all sound 'dirty', though - and I have to admit that when you include 'children and families and picnics and ballons and frisbees' it comes off (sorry,no pun) as sounding pretty distasteful and icky - as if those awful homos just have to ruin everything for everybody. ...... ps to Ed: Will you come to Massachusetts and marry me?
Posted by: fingerfood | March 19, 2008 10:43 AM
Oh, it's Lisa Schiffren again. Isn't she the one who just three weeks ago wrote that every half-black man she'd ever met was the product of a Jewish-Communist conspiracy? Yes, that would be her. She must be The Corner's token "average reader person."
That said, what the F@#! are the Dutch thinking? It just seems like a looney plan. Yeah, that kind of behavior is hard to regulate, but in Seattle that behavior's mostly died down because, well, because it's 2007 guys. Get a room! I'm not sure what the council was thinking other than that it's hard to police that much territory, but as both a queer man and a father, I come down more seriously about keeping that sort of private activity private. "Uncomplicated relations" indeed.
Posted by: Elf M. Sternberg | March 19, 2008 10:47 AM
Dave. LOL best comment of the week so far!
Actually, when I was in Amsterdam 20 years ago, I recall that there were areas of Vondelpark that I was cautioned to avoid during the evening hours (yep, there were already unofficial "sex" areas). So this is nothing new. Actually trying to keep these antics to a specific area given the circumstances seems reasonable enough for those of us (myself included) who are just not interested in seeing it and knowing how and when to avoid it is a good thing. As for the dog issue, that is completely unrelated and talk about contentious.....
Posted by: JoH | March 19, 2008 11:58 AM
Imagine my shock to find Schiffren was the wingnut who wrote Dan Quayle's speech condemning the TV character Murphy Brown's pregnancy-out-of-wedlock.
And she didn't even have to worry about a Jew/black communist cross in that one.
Posted by: Foggg | March 19, 2008 1:02 PM
I had a look at the original article and the argument seemed to be 'gays are gaining rights while others are loosing them'. An ugly view and a pretty absurd conclusion to base on two excerpts from the management policy of a single park but not a direct link between the two claims, that seems to Ms Schiffren's own invention.
Posted by: Matt | March 19, 2008 1:12 PM
What most surprised me is that she would feel the need to go for the bestiality angle when an obvious flaw with the new law already exists, that it gives special rights to gays. We see that charge all the time when it's false. But now, when it's actually true, she goes for the doggie sex tactic? I think someone needs to stop fantasizing and join us in the real world.
What could be Amsterdam's logic in withholding the privilege from some people based solely on their sexual orientation? I don't get it.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 19, 2008 1:29 PM
I thought I recognized the name! Thanks, Elf.
Posted by: Skemono | March 19, 2008 3:07 PM
Not only that, but there's nothing in the quoted statements that suggests uit applies only to gay sex, let alone gay men. Hetero couples can take advantage too.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 19, 2008 5:33 PM
Even the Bible, which calls for the death of sexually active gay men (Levitticus 20:13), doesn't compare homosexuality to beastility (or, for that matter, pedophilia, another common comparison anti-gay folks make when it comes to homosexuality).
Posted by: daniel rotter | March 19, 2008 8:53 PM
Is the leash law an attempt to facilitate the interspecies mating? Or is the assumption that teh Gay is so attractive that even animals are drawn into the hot man-on-man action?
And why nothing about all the straight men surrounding the area where the lesbians make out? Will they require leashes as well?
Posted by: kehrsam | March 19, 2008 9:41 PM
One really has to wonder if such an obsession with beastiality constitutes projection on some level.
Of course there is. Many fundies are more than happy to tell us that they'd see nothing wrong with murder and rape were there no absolute divine forbiddence against it. Surely that includes giving Spot the ol' in/out.
Posted by: Science Avenger | March 19, 2008 10:41 PM
Well far be it from me to not jump on the "let's make fun of Lisa Schiffren" bandwagon, but if you actually read the Telegraph article, in addition to legalizing public sex, there is also a fine for letting dogs off of a leash.
But far be it from me to ruin your fun. Carry on.
Posted by: Religious Non-Right | March 19, 2008 11:28 PM
Ya, I really don't know what to think about this. My first instinct is that I'm in the wrong country as far as acceptance of gays goes, but my second is that I really don't think sex should be a public thing anyway. Of course they also take that into consideration by saying it's only in the evening and nighttime, and never around playgrounds. Pretty much just seems like it happens all the time anyway, and it doesn't hurt anyone, so they're decriminalizing it. So whatever, I'll just salute the Dutch for being fine liberal people, and leave it at that.
As for the hateful bitch, it's just another example of people not knowing what the hell homosexuality is. I suppose they just can't wrap their minds around the fact that we're not simply overly sexed psychopaths who will just ejaculate into anything (well, at least MOST of us aren't).
Posted by: paul | March 20, 2008 5:32 AM
The reason for the "dogs on a lead" rule is simple - they don't want complaints from gays about the dog turds.
Posted by: paulh | March 20, 2008 6:54 AM
Look I know it's totally off topic but - everytime I catch the headline, the word "Scrotum" seems to form. Is Rick Santorum really "pink and wrinkly and hangs out your underpants"? - curious DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 20, 2008 9:30 AM
Look I know it's totally off topic but - everytime I catch the headline, the word "Scrotum" seems to form. Is Rick Santorum really "pink and wrinkly and hangs out your underpants"? - curious DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 20, 2008 9:31 AM
oops sorry about that chief. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 20, 2008 9:56 AM