# Are homophobic ads OK if they're run by Democrats? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 10, 2002, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719 "2002-10-10T19:26:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2002, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/81 "2002-10-11T21:04:26Z")
Resolved: It shall be rebuttably presumed that defendant is not guilty of anti-X bias in his portrayal of complainant if defendant’s alleged bias consisted solely in portraying or reproducing literally the actual words, appearance, conduct , and writings of complainant (without additional and misleading characterization, distortion, ellipsis, or commentary on said words, appearance, behavior, and writings). What say? Showing a film that a guy \ falls clearly within this safe harbor. “It is what it is.” Now, the disco music – that might fall a bit afoul of the “commentary” provision of my resolution. But I think it has some promise. Show a photo of Patrick Ewing in one of his more funny-looking moments and you’re not a racist; you’re just showing a black guy who is also ugly. Show Bill Clinton leering down at a coed, you’re not a partisan; just a documentarian. And show film of a provincial goober acting like what could equally be deemed an unfair Camaro-driving stereotype of a “Jersey guido” (jewelry and all) , you’re no more guilty than the makers of That '70s Show (who may well be guilty of manifold crimes, but of the aesthetic rather than bias variety). December, you may also note that my proposed anti-thin-skin rule would help conservatives at least as often as it helps liberals, and arguably more, because conservatives are probably at more risk of being accused of (real or imagined) slights by a protected class – protected classes being, more likely than not, Dem.-leaning. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2002, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/82 "2002-10-11T21:07:25Z")
**CLedet** : > [@](#): > > Some idiot poster **samclem** > [@](#): > > How about “two-trick horses ass?” [Moderator Hat ON] Don’t call fellow posters idiots, CLedet. And I am Sparticus, you should have posted your remark in the Pit. Samclem, do not call people “horses ass” in this forum. Shape up, guys. [Moderator Hat OFF] ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2002, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/83 "2002-10-11T21:16:39Z")
Can someone explain this to me like I am a four-year-old. Say, the ad did imply the candidate was a homosexual, why is that grounds for dropping out of the race? Isn’t it easier to cry and leave because you know you don’t have to rigorously prove or defend your claims? Even better, he could have used the so-called “smear” as his weapon. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2002, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/84 "2002-10-11T22:18:02Z")
Let me step back in just for a moment to point out that **two** people called the OP out for mischaracterizing their posts (to the point where one of the two called it flat out lying), one was _moi_ a card-carrying bleeding heart [color=green] liberal[/color, and the other a staunch (they don’t have a color for that) conservative **Scylla**. just noticing, ya know. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2002, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/85 "2002-10-11T22:19:55Z")
here - ] toss that up there where it’s most useful, would ya? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2002, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/86 "2002-10-11T22:36:01Z")
They don’t have brown? ---
**Author:** ![IndependentVoter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e9a140/32.png) [@IndependentVoter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IndependentVoter)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2002, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/87 "2002-10-11T22:57:55Z")
> [@](#): > > Let me step back in just for a moment to point out that two people called the OP out for mischaracterizing their posts Well, he didn’t charachterize my post at all, but I called him on misconstruing everybody else’s posts. So maybe you could make it 2 1/2. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2002, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/88 "2002-10-11T23:12:25Z")
**Gaudere** You rightly called me out for calling **december** a name. That was wrong. I won’t do that again. **december** Have you had a general physical exam lately. Did they do a CAT scan? Have you had unexplained headaches lately? Do your close friends, assuming you have any, suggest that you see a doctor? Has a loved one taken you for tests? These comments are not posted in jest but in loving concern. Your profession and obvious intelligence in making arguments on this board which appear to you to be logical cause me to worry. ---
**Author:** ![RobbieFal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c5a1d2/32.png) [@RobbieFal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RobbieFal)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2002, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/89 "2002-10-12T03:41:30Z")
Ya know, I hope Stan Jones does very well, just to send a messege to Baucus for voting for war. Anybody but Baucus, even the Blue Guy ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2002, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/90 "2002-10-13T18:58:40Z")
I’ll be the first gay poster to chime in with the “Sullivan is hardly representative of gay pundits”. Andrew Sullivan is the HIV+ man who condemned barebacking for years in his column, and then was found to be an avid barebacker. He’s one of the worst examples of hypocrisy in action among the “famous gay” crowd. Sullivan isn’t terribly credible to the majority of the gay community. I’m not surprised, however, that Sullivan would be the first gay pundit I’ve ever seen **december** quote. Not only is he not a liberal gay pundit, he’s not even a centrist gay pundit. The man is conservative through and through. He was an editor for _The New Repubic_ for Og’s sake! They don’t give that kind of job to Michelangelo Signorile. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2002, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/91 "2002-10-13T22:22:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jayjay \* > \*\* Not only is [Andrew Sullivan] not a liberal gay pundit, he’s not even a centrist gay pundit. The man is conservative through and through. \*\*Actually, he’s pretty libertarian. > [@](#): > > \*\*]… was an editor for _The New Repubic_ for Og’s sake! They don’t give that kind of job to Michelangelo Signorile. \*\* Perhaps you’re confusing TNR with some other magazine. TNR has always been a liberal magazine, albeit relatively centrist. This thread has proved the OP. The only poster who has even hypothetically condemned what may have been homophobia is **gobear.** Already observed in this thread are nine clues: [ol][li]It more-or-less outed a candidate who was in the closet. [_]It was unrelated to his role in government. [_]It was only peripherally related to this accused wrong-doing in operating a beauty school. [_]He was shown as a hairdresser. [_]He was flamboyantly dressed. [_]He was fondeling another man with his fingertips. [_]And with a yellow powder puff [_]To music that sounded like it came from a porn movie. [_]The final sentence: **Mike Taylor – not the way we do business here in Montana**.[/ol]Of course, it is pretty likely that many Montana viewers saw this as a slam at his sexual orientation. Also, many of them must have registered it as Taylor not being like them, whether or not they realized what the nature of the difference was.[/li] However, you folks focused on my deficiencies and Taylor’s deficiencies. Anything not to criticize the Democratic party! ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2002, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/92 "2002-10-13T22:47:53Z")
—Andrew Sullivan is the HIV+ man who condemned barebacking for years in his column, and then was found to be an avid barebacker. He’s one of the worst examples of hypocrisy in action among the “famous gay” crowd. Sullivan isn’t terribly credible to the majority of the gay community.— This account may or may not be true. The “gay community” isn’t very nice to people that aren’t liberals, and Sullivan is a through-and-through conservative (also a libertarian). It’s not clear what barebacking, even hypocritical barebacking, has to do with the credibility of one’s opinion about an ad, however. I don’t much like Sullivan (did Gore open his mouth OH MY GOD I CAN READ HIS MIND AND HES SO CRAZY!), but I don’t have much love for the way the “gay community” (i.e., the liberal gay community) treats him in return either. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2002, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/93 "2002-10-13T23:00:00Z")
1. Outed? So he actually is gay? 2. So? 3. Of course. The point was more to show him looking stupid 4. Well, he was a hairdresser. Would it be wrong to show Tom DeLay as a bug killer? Now, I wouldn’t approve of an ad showing Tom DeLay as a _gay_ bug killer. I’d laugh my ass off, sure, but I wouldn’t approve. 5. Lost him points with the Amish voting bloc. Other than that… 6. Fondlling? I didn’t see any “fondling”. He’s touching, yeah. But fondling? Isn’t “fondling” more, uh, specific as to what is being fondled? Fondly. 7. Well, thats pretty damning. Are you sure it was yellow? Did he have in his left rear pocket? 'Cause a yellow powder puff in the left rear pocket is a signal that says “I’m a gay political candidate who dresses like a polyester straight guy” I read that in _People_ 8. Don’t know, what does porno movie music sounds like, **Dec** I mean, I’ll take you word for it, if you can show any, uh, expertise. I sure as hell don’t know. Nosiree. 9. Referring to business. Its about business practices. If it was about his sexual habits it would be something like **Mike Taylor - Queer as a Blue Horse, Which is OK for South Dakota, Maybe…** Are you sure about this “outing” thing. You are aware, are you not, that “outing” only occurs when the subject is, in fact, homosexual and is hiding that fact. You can’t “out” Barney Frank. Besides, when it comes to slander like this, word of mouth is at least as effective, probably more so, doesn’t cost any money and you can’t get sued. Old Lyndon Johnson story: running for state legislature first time, called an aide in and said he wanted him to start spreading the rumor that LBJ’s opponent was in to bestiality. His aide was aghast. “Lyndon, you can’t go around saying your opponent has sex with his cattle!” “Of course not,” says Lyndon “But if I work it just right, I can make him deny it.” ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2002, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/94 "2002-10-14T00:04:32Z")
**elucidator** , you seem to be arguing that the ad is not offensive. The Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay and lesbian political organization, thinks that it is offensive. [http://www.hrc.org/newsreleases/2002/021011mont.asp](http://www.hrc.org/newsreleases/2002/021011mont.asp) > [@](#): > > HRC deplores any attempt to make a political issue of a candidate’s real or perceived sexual orientation," said HRC Political Director Winnie Stachelberg. “This type of ad has no place in politics, it is an affront to gay people and we hope we have seen the last of this campaign tactic.” ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2002, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/95 "2002-10-14T00:08:02Z")
> [@](#): > > This thread has proved the OP. This thread has demolished the OP. There are only three people who can be found that actually believe that homosexuality had any part of it: two cranks and you. (Taylor obviously does not believe it (unless, as you implied with your “outing” statement, he _is_ gay) and is only using the claim to hide an otherwise foregone conclusion that he would be defeated on normal political points. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2002, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/96 "2002-10-14T00:10:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*This thread has demolished the OP. > There are only three people who can be found that actually believe that homosexuality had any part of it: two cranks and you. \*\* **tomndebb** , I assume you posted this before seeing my post right above. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2002, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/97 "2002-10-14T00:15:56Z")
And the HRC is simply making sure that _if_ someone besides you and Taylor try to run with this, they have alrady established their position in opposition. They are going to condemn _any_ action that _any_ person claims is gay bashing–a perspective you would normally disdain heartily if you were not interested in scoring a different set of points in this case. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2002, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/98 "2002-10-14T00:22:40Z")
OK. So they’re gay. And they’re wrong. Big deal. Now, admittedly, the profession of hairdresser is commonly associated with gay men, but he _was_ a hairdresser! Is there the slightest possibility he wasn’t aware of this, that he was going to have to confront that stereotype? Of course not! I’m not that surprised by HRC’s reaction, but I think they’re seeing spooks. Besides, it isn’t necessarily destructive for a politician to be publicly gay, Barney Frank’s constituents seem to be pretty content. Hell, I’d almost move to Massachuessets just so I could vote for him, I flat out love that guy, he’s got **stones**! Well, I mean, you know, I really like his political stance and his courage, is what I mean. Not like, well, you know. I’m drinking a beer, watching the game and scratching my nuts right now. Just so you know. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2002, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/99 "2002-10-14T02:01:45Z")
How can some of you folks say there’s no gay connotation? Right there on the Smoking Gun still you see two guys and the phrase “facial demonstration”!!! Or have I watched too much porn… ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2002, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/100 "2002-10-14T02:05:54Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m not that surprised by HRC’s reaction, but I think they’re seeing spooks. Geez! Ain’t it enuf we got the HRC doing a tapdance here. Now you’re gonna bring in the NAACP. Stop it, already! 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719.md?page=6)