Using Matt Sanchez's Past to Dismiss Conservative Ideas
March 7, 2007 by GayPatriotWest
Every now and again, I chance upon (if chance is the right word) an article (or post) on the web which seems to get at some essential aspect of being human. Sometimes, it'll be an article a reader e-mails me. This time, it was a story that two of our readers, one straight (Democracy Project's Bruce Kesler), the other gay (Peter Hughes), e-mailed me. It was one of those stories that at first amused me, later intrigued me and finally made me realize that there was more to it than the sensational aspect highlighted by most in the media (and I use the media in the broadest sense of the term so it now includes the blogosphere) who have covered this story.
And as I write about Marine Corporal Matt Sanchez, I realize I had already addressed the issue before when I blogged on Tom Malin, a Democratic candidate last year for the Texas legislature who had once served as an "escort." In two posts last February, I held (as I wrote in the first post) that since Malin had "acknowledged his past mistakes and changed his behavior . . . ., we cannot hold [his past] against him." I expanded on this notion in a subsequent post.
Unlike Tom Malin, Matt Sanchez is a conservative, having published an Op-ed in the New York Post on Columbia University's double-talk on diversity. Recently, he was honored at CPAC, receiving the Jean Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award and garnering a "standing ovation . . . at [its] Ronald Reagan Banquet."
But, before this man served in the Marines and went on to write conservative Op-Eds, he apparently had "a lengthy career in gay porn," even serving as an "escort" for a time. While Michelle Malkin thinks CPAC should "be embarrassed if the rumors about his alleged porn star past are true," I don't think they have anything to be ashamed about.
First, I probably have a different opinion of porn than Michelle Malkin and others on the right. While I don't think acting, er, performing in such videos is a noble profession nor is it something to be proud of, it's not an evil thing. As I wrote about Tom Malin's escorting, "As long as he's not coercing anyone and not having sex with minors, it's his body. What Malin used to do may not be good for his soul."
That said, the second issue is the more important one. He has changed and is no longer doing gay porn. If a man has changed his past behavior, then we should consider the man as he is, not as he once was. Again, as I wrote about Malin, "Jewish law teaches us that if someone does Teshuvah or repentance (the word itself literally means 'return'), by forsaking his sin and not doing it again, it cannot be held against him." We have all done things in our past that upon reflection, we wish we hadn't done — or were appropriate at one time in our lives, but not in our present circumstances.
Over at Right Wing News, John Hawkins pretty much agrees:
There are plenty of Republicans, gay and straight, who have done dumb things in their past. That doesn't mean they're forever branded with some sort of scarlet "A," or in Sanchez's case, a Scarlet "GP," for gay porn. . . . The mistakes Sanchez made years ago aren't that important compared to the fact that he's doing the right thing today and standing up to, "anti-war thugs on campus" at Columbia University.
As Matt Sanchez's past comes out, we see a man who, like many of us, has led a checkered life. To be sure, to paraphrase Tennyson's description of Odysseus, he is a part of all that he has met. Sanchez's past is a part of him.
But, what matters today is what kind of a man he has become. Michelle posts a letter from a Columbia University freshman describing how the marine helped him adjust to campus life and the officer training program in which the younger man is enrolled. He notes that Matt, like "most all of our respected public figures" has made mistakes.
And this is where the essential aspect of being human comes in. The path to individuation, to wholeness, involves many twists and turns. We do things at one stage of our lives may seem out of character to us when we grow and mature. What matters is that we change.
While many on the left (particularly the gay left) delight in Corporal Sanchez's apparent hypocrisy — or in the irony of conservatives honoring a man who was paid to be filmed having sex with other men, they would be better served to evaluate him for the man he is today. If they disagree with his public statements — of which he has made many — they should criticize those remarks. But, they should not be so eager to dwell upon his past. For it only shows an eagerness to engage in sensationalism rather than an attempt to take issue with his ideas.
That said, Matt Sanchez is a part of all that he has met. His past figures into the man he has become. But, people do have a right to their own private lives, to deal with their past mistakes — or merely just past experiences which no longer represent their present actions — in their own way. Once again, it seems that all too many are all too interested in the apparent hypocrisy of conservatives, more interested in defining us so that they may more readily dismiss our ideas. Without even considering what we have to say.
– B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)
WRITER'S NOTE I keep changing the title on this one, having started with Matt Sanchez & Our Ability to Change
UPDATE: In a post on his own blog, Matt Sanchez writes:
We have all done things no one wants to be advertised, but the truth is most of us aren't important enough to rate more than a bit of gossip from a snubbed co-worker or some derision from an embittered rival.
He acknowledges his past in gay porn, writing something which bears consideration:
I don't like porn, it reduces the mind, flattens the soul. That's not hypocrisy talking, that's experience. If I started off with liberal leanings, being on a gay porn set should have been heaven. In porn, everything taboo is trivialized and everything trivial is projected.
Now that I've whet your appetite, just read the whole thing!
Filed Under: Civil Discourse, Gay Politics, Individuation, Literature & Ideas
Calarato says
March 7, 2007 at 6:16 pm - March 7, 2007
Sanchez' critics charge "Hypocrisy"? I don't get it. Has Sanchez taken some big public stand against gays, or porn? (Links, please.) If not:
"Good conservatism", which in my book is conservative libertarianism or libertarian conservatism, is all about human freedom.
A voluntary porn actor is someone who has exercised his freedom (whether incorrectly or correctly).
An American soldier is someone who has very admirably decided that freedom isn't free, and it's time for him to protect it.
Where's the contradiction? If Sanchez, after using his freedom, said "Hey, I would really like to serve and PROTECT freedom", more power to him. I admire his patriotism.
torrentprime says
Large sections of the Republican party and the Christian right have made anti-gay planks the center of their platforms and/or agendas. Gays (including LBT) and gay sex are routinely described as immoral, perverted, family-destroying and a looming threat to all of Western Civilization. The acts of those gays are viewed as equally tainted, and those who are gay must not be allowed to parent, teach, marry, adopt, serve in the military or be a city manager, for God's sake. The homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy, immoral, dangerous, and a choice. Blah, blah, blah. We've all heard the same from the right for a very long time.
But it's funny how all this death and destruction doesn't seem to matter when you're on the payroll for a conservative news organization or writing conservative op-eds or, even serving in the military and then doing the conservative thing.
So this gay man in the military was NOT a threat to the US? He didn't single-handedly destroy morale and bring down the country by being gay (for pay?) in uniform or afterwards? The actions of Staff Sgt. Eric Alva aren't the acts of a homo who never should been allowed in the military? Then why do the Republicans keep acting like being gay IS a problem? Why do they continue to gain support and seek the votes of those who do believe all these idiotic and simple-minded things about gay people? The answer is course is that the GOP elite couldn't care less about being gay–they just use attitudes about gay people for votes.
THAT, my friend, is an angle worth investigating. Getting back to your final statement: It has nothing to do with anyone judging Sanchez' videography–it has a direct impact on "considering what [conservatives] have to say" because it goes to the heart of conservative credibility. If the GOP line on gay issues ("The Family!" "The Country!" "Marriage! "The Children!") is untrue or a front, then what does that say about the GOP? And GPW: that is honestly intended to be a question, not a rhetorical "gotcha." I'd be very interested in your thoughts on this.
The filters aren't allowing the first half of my post. Hopefully GPW can check in the cue and restore it. Apologies…
As to your question in comment #2, first of all it wasn't the GOP, but a conservative group which honored Sanchez. That said, I doubt they would have honored him had they known his past. But, the real issue is, as I have said above, whether or not this guy changed.
After all, Mary Magdalene, a one-time prostitute, is one of the key figures in the Christian story. So, if she can change, so too can Mr. Sanchez. At least, that's how some social conservatives may see the issue.
Synova says
I don't think that the GOP requires the doctrinal purity that other people claim for it.
The GOP really isn't that anti-gay. Some people are. Most aren't. Even those who have a problem with homosexuality would prefer the option of ignoring it altogether.
I suppose it could be considered a straw man. And it's not just that the "elites" don't care, most people don't care, yet the impression is that the party line is anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-racial minority, anti-compassion. The Dems manage to claim that they are pro-gay, pro-woman, pro-minority, pro-compassion yet they don't deliver on that.
What is the value of it, if everything is flash and nothing is substance? Is being seen a certain way actually sufficient when what is done is ineffective or even counter-productive?
As for the other question of past deeds. Some new social mechanism is going to have to be developed, some new habit, because in this age our whole lives are archived. It's not just this fellow with his checkered past it's my-space pages and you-tube and some kid with a lightsaber. It's not just that we forgive someone else their past but that we hope that we're forgiven our mistakes or rashly expressed opinions.
It's not just that we pretend not to see but that we hope that other people pretend not to look.
GPW: I agree that a man/woman re-examining their past and making changes is AN angle on the story. I think another angle on the story, and one that I hope both the left and the right take some time with, is the question I posed above, namely:
it has a direct impact on "considering what [conservatives] have to say" because it goes to the heart of conservative credibility. If the GOP line on gay issues ("The Family!" "The Country!" "Marriage! "The Children!") is untrue or a front, then what does that say about the GOP?
And feel free to clean-up any unintended eliding on my part of "the GOP" with "conservatives," if therein lies a more easily accessible answer.
And yes, the idea that anyone can change and that evidence of change must be accepted is a central conservative christian tenet.
Oh sure, Dhimmicrats aren't as plagued with credibility problems as the GOP when it comes to toeing the line of "The Family! The Country! Marriage! The Children!" as expressed by torrentpine. No!
Of course not! They aren't total hypocrites, are they?
Never mind that the Dhimmicrats:
1. Played the gay card in the Mark Foley incident.
2. Played the gay card in decrying Ralph Nader.
3. Give Shrillary a pass when she formed the "Children's Defense Fund" with Marian Wright Edelman, one of the most anti-American women to be found anywhere.
4. Ran intereference with the MSM to avoid Shrillary having to justify to her African-American voters why she appeared before the HRC.
5. Didn't bat an eyelash when John Kerry announced in 2004 that his views of marriage were "the same as" Bush's – one man/one woman.
6. Refused to acknowledge the fact that Slick Willie allowed DOMA to become law under his watch – even though Congress did NOT have the votes to override what would have been a "slam-dunk" veto.
7. Tried to make Dick Cheney's daughter Mary a wedge issue for the GOP in 2004. (Gee, where are all the hate-mongers against Mary and her partner? Oh, yeah – in the DNC.)
I could go on, but frankly I've embarrassed torrentpine enough with his cut-and-paste HRC talking points.
And hey Dan – Bruce Kesler is straight?? Could've fooled me. I've never seen a straight guy look like such a clone. He should be in the Folsom Street Parade.
I don't buy it.
First of all, GOP voters are much, much more than Christian conservatives. (Like I said, I personally approve of them / vote for them when, and only when, they go libertarian-conservative.)
Second, Christianity includes forgiveness of those whom said Christians perceive to be sinners. (They happily include themselves in the category of "sinners needing forgiveness", btw.)
Third – What, again, has any of that got to do with Matt Sanchez? Has Matt Sanchez declared himself a Christian conservative? Or taken some big public stand against gays, and/or porn?
Nope – Still no hypocrisy to see here, folks.
Has anyone actually acused Sanchez of hypocrisy, though?
HardHobbit says
torrentprime,
Sorry for nosing in here, but here are a few thoughts:
You seem to be using the terms 'conservative' and 'Republican' interchangeably. They are not the same.
There is a difference between a homosexual and a porn star. While Sanchez was both (emphasis on was), I think that to attribute any supposed reaction by either conservatives or Republicans to either aspect or what either might have to say about conservatism or Republicanism should be qualified according to their differences.
There is a saying amongst Christians: "Love the sinner, but not the sin." I don't think that VP Cheney's daughter is unloved and I'm not even sure what the Cheneys think of the 'sin' of homosexuality, but Sanchez is part of someone's family. I don't see how his presence in the GOP can be construed as anti-family by either a conservative or more liberal member of the party. I agree with Synova — I suspect most simply don't care what he does in private with other men. In addition, just as there have always been gay men in the military, it's likely there have always been homosexuals, moderates, liberals, conservatives, etc. in the GOP. I think you are imposing an idealogy on the GOP that it has never exclusively represented and so the credibility you (or if not you, liberals) seem to want to discredit is a mirage.
His past as a porn star is more troubling because it has to do with his judgment. (That he was a gay porn star makes no difference.) While we are all capable of mistakes (and we are all capable of forgiveness), some mistakes have consequences that may limit our ability to operate in certain future capacities. His porn past has no bearing on his presence in the GOP or on his ability to hold various 'conservative' beliefs, but he likely will not be elected Chairman of the RNC anytime soon. Likewise, someone with a shady financial past should not be considered for such a responsible position.
I know what you're getting at. As a gay Republican man, I'm likely to be a bit more forgiving of Sanchez; the attitudes and credibility to which you refer speak more directly to a more traditional individual, which I am not. I am the first to admit that the GOP has not done a terribly good job at reaching out to all in the Big Tent or those peeking in at the doorway. Perhaps individuals like Sanchez provide a good test case for those of us who wish the GOP would move in a more inclusive direction — not as a matter of actual membership (which was never a question), but as a matter of perception.
Michigan-Matt says
Calarato, HH, Dan
This sounds bad, but I get a kick out of the Sanchez story –a media whore in training, as it were. If I'd known about him before attending CPAC, I think I'd have braved the rubber chicken dinner… but having known Kirkpatrick, I can assure you she would not have been amused at the 1st awardee in her honor having Sanchez's credentials… 11 or 9 as it were. That whole evening was about the military –he'd be a great recruiting agent for the USMC if they'd let him at it and we repealed DADT. Of course, if the American Conservative Union had known of his past, he'd have never made it in the door.
I don't think the issue is his apparent hypocrisy or finding some. I think the GayLeft is doing the embarassment-gotcha thing again and there's no end to that playful spite on their part. Kind of more like BillBennet and the gambling thing than JeffGannon and the escort/porn thing parading as a journalist, eh?
I give the guy credit –he sure took great care of his body… proving once again, if you're a REAL gay man, your body is far more important than your mind, heart, pocketbook, arm baggage or character. Whether he's repented of any sins or not, $200-250/hr was a bargain in any book. Woof. Damn.
Dan suggests so, in the post we're talking about. And I did a quick Google of "Matt Sanchez hypocrite" and found some examples. (Along with others defending him.)
A picture of Sanchez with Ann Coulter has some people really steamed. That gets us into her controversy of the last few days. Let me say a little about that.
First off – She was wrong to call John Edwards a "faggot", period. And CPAC was wrong to sink to the point where inviting a cheap attention slut like her is one of CPAC's top offerings.
Having emphasized that… It's still possible that her use of the word "faggot" doesn't reflect or reveal some dark anti-gay animus on her part. Andrew Sullivan said it well, back in 2001, before his BDS and different meds did his brain in:
…Eminem said he had nothing against gay people, just faggots. Just as not all gay men were faggots, not all black guys are niggers… I'm inclined to think that, in the younger generation, the use of such terms need not be prima facie case of prejudice. It's quite common, for example, for high school kids to use the word 'gay' to describe anything they don't particularly like. It has no tangible reference to homosexuals…the use of the term now [2001] is far less ominous than it would have been ten years ago [1991]…
Now stick with me for a minute.
– Suppose Coulter is just a cheap bomb-throwing attention slut, who really didn't intend some dark anti-gay animus.
– Suppose Sanchez, as a Marine (and ex-porn star), admires people with big mouths.
– Then Sanchez would have no problem taking a picture with her. He might even think it's a bit funny. There would be no hypocrisy in it.
BUT – to a certain mindset, if he has a photo taken with her then he must be a self-hating faggot-hating "hypocrite", blah blah blah blah. I guess. Whatever.
Vince P says
Ann Coulter didn't call Edwards a faggot.
She conflated two points in one comment.
The points:
– Political Correctness in this country has gotton so bad that people go into "rehab" for using impolite labels
– John Edwards is a sissy wussy trial lawyer
So to reflexively say she was wrong for pronouncing the word faggot without any consideration for what she was trying to express only proves her point about rehab.
It's obvious Edwards isn't gay…. Coulter said she knows he isn't. She has said she wasnt using the homosexual slur connation.. only a by-design school yard name-calling him as a sissy.
And I agree with her. He is a sissy. He is a faggot.
Thank you for showing that the best way to answer a question is to attack the other side. Much appreciated. Good thing I'm not a Democrat or your rant might have, like, totally burned me! (eyeroll)
(is torrentpine supposed to be clever? or mean? I'm missing it)
Calarato: I admire your insistence in trying to make this about Sanchez' alleged hypocrisy, but I expressly said that my question was about the GOP/conservatives (which I also said I mistakenly combined) and it/their attitudes towards gays. So #10 is a straw-man defense; I never called Sanchez a hypocrite. I also note that all of 14 is a rehash: an answer to Dan's suggestion of hypocrisy-labeling by others and your web searches of the same. Any thoughts on the question I pose here and not the one you've already answered (twice)?
HH: I never stated that Sanchez was a sinner, or indeed applied any moral yardstick (!) of any kind to him; it's not my place to judge him nor is it my place to decide if he has reformed, can be reformed, etc. I am actually ignoring his porn star history completely in my questions. I appreciate your comments ("His porn past has no bearing on his presence in the GOP or on his ability to hold various 'conservative' belief"). Membership is a given, as you say; the GOP can hardly stop a gay man from checking his reg. card (R), and no one can stop a gay man from holding conservative opinions. I again raise the question, though: How does the GOP treat a gay man, and/or how do conservatives treat a gay man? Is he out? Can he be? Only at the federal level? We've seen Condi treat a gay man with immense respect, and we've seen the backlash it created on the right.
Michigan-Matt: He IS pretty hot, and I thought Gannon's old ads showed him off pretty well too. Maybe Republican rent-boys are just a better investment. 🙂
Synova,
I bow to no one in my distrust and mild contempt for the Democratic party; I distrust their victimization politics, spending (good thing that didn't matter this last election), abortion position(s) and pandering to this and that various special interests. But this:
The Dems manage to claim that they are pro-gay, pro-woman, pro-minority, pro-compassion yet they don't deliver on that. What is the value of it, if everything is flash and nothing is substance? Is being seen a certain way actually sufficient when what is done is ineffective or even counter-productive?
There are obviously about a billion hours of discussion there, as to which party has helped this or that group more, but to keep it closer to home: which party do you believe has helped the gay community more? Who has authored and voted for more legislation positively affecting gays? That would be, I believe, more than flash and substance. How do you view the Republicans' record on gay rights? Have they "delivered on that?"
March 7, 2007 at 10:24 pm - March 7, 2007
As a gay man, I see the Republicans as delivering for me.
They support my independence from the state by lowering my taxes.
They advocate our military kill the forces in the world that would behead me.
They tend to view the Consitutition as it was written, not as it is wished to be.
They tend not view foreign law as revealing of our own law.
They beleive in Freedom of Speech and they believe in the power of the individual.
If I want to be a faceless drone in a group, I'll become a Muslim or a Balkin-ite.
So the GOP holds several positions in the abstract that serve you as a citizen. Excellent reasons, and ones that if they were always delivered on would be great reasons to work for change from within.
None of this has anything to do with GPW's post: he asked if people would use the Sanchez story to discredit conservative ideas without listening to the ideas. I ask again: Does the conservative movement's historical use of gay wedge issues at the base level, contrasted with its relative acceptance of individual gay people (some closeted, some not) at the contributor level indicate any weakness in the movement, intellectual or otherwise? I think the question is more easily answered in re: the GOP, but to be fair to GPW's OP, I'll keep it at conservatives, many of whom are GOP, some of whom are not.
I probably did veer off-topic.. i was bored..and whoever this sanchez guy is… i have no interest in it.. what porn was he in?
Lehosh says
You paint with a pretty large brush, Torrent. Just because there are elements in conservativism that decry homosexual behavior/marriage/whatever doesn't mean that there is a doctrinaire "platform" against it. Let me give you an example among the Left that I think is appropos.
Take Catholics as an example on the Left. Catholics tend to vote blue because of the "Social Justice" angle in the Democratic platform, yet no one is going to make a serious argument that the DNC "big tent" is honestly open to Christian thinkers… Certainly not after "Christians are the real terrorists" or "Radial Christianity > Radical Islam" or "Christofascist Godbags and White Hot Sticky Holy Spirit".
Yet Catholics are reliable DNC voters despite the barely veiled loathing of Christianity that easily characterizes the Left. Not to mention a 99% opposition to abortion among Catholics.
My point is that there are elements in conservativism that are obviously against supporting homosexual issues, just like there are elements in liberalism obviously against supporting Catholic issues. But no one calls Catholics hypocrites for voting Democrat: they've simply made a stand on their priorities, and Social Justice tends to trump abortion or religious tolerance of Christianity. And for a portion of homosexuals, National Security, Low Taxes, and Small Government may trump "Gay Marriage".
For me, those three things pretty much trump everything on the "social agenda", but that's just me.
#17 I think "conservative movement" may be an oxymoron. 😉
Synova: please keep informing us as the thoughts keep coming. Thanks.
March 8, 2007 at 12:34 am - March 8, 2007
I ask again: Does the conservative movement's historical use of gay wedge issues at the base level, contrasted with its relative acceptance of individual gay people (some closeted, some not) at the contributor level indicate any weakness in the movement, intellectual or otherwise?
That depends.
Does the fact that Democrats attempt to appeal to homophobia in the same fashion while a) telling gays they don't and b) appealing to gays for more money indicate weakness in their movement?
I always find it entertaining that gays whine and cry about how Republicans allegedly use gays as a "wedge issue", but then say nothing when the Dems screw gays over in a desperate attempt to try to drive a "wedge" between Republicans and what Dems believe are Republicans' "base".
It is entirely possible to not support gay marriage while accepting gays. But it is impossible to claim you support gays while appealing to homophobia, as does Howard Dean and his Democrat Party.
And the reason gay Democrats and liberals are so quick to mount smear campaigns against people like Sanchez is because it diverts attention away from their own contradictory support of homophobes such as Dean as being "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive".
Oh, and one more thing: if Sanchez is a hypocrite, so is any person who promotes safe sex and is HIV-positive.
With all that is going on in the world, I struggle to find the logic in applying "gay issues" as a major factor in voting for Federal office holders. The actual day-to-day impact the Federal govt has on any of our lives pales to that of the state and local levels while conversely, the non-gay issues that the Federal govt must tackle are of profound importance. Republicans are woefully inadequete to thier ideals while Democrats simply show no cause dearer to them than power for its own sake.
vaara says
Vince: There's much, much more about the lovely and talented Cpl. Sanchez at http://joemygod.blogspot.com .
He coyly sidesteps the issue of whether he's even gay at all, so it's unlikely he'll be ever willing to serve as a spokesmodel for the repeal of DADT.
My interest is purely purient.
April Ginsberg says
The GOP would be fine – if they did not bow done to the Right Wing Fringe such as those who post on Free Republic who hate most gays and Dr. Dobson and his cronies on The Religious Right who most definately hate gays. And are not happy with that inch, they want the full scale mile.
As a fifth generation Republican I am ashamed of my party for allowing Ann Coulter to speak for them, for allowing Brent Bozell to speak for them, for allowing Bill Donahue to speak for them, for allowing David Horowitz and Michelle Malkin to speak for them.
IMHO the tent is no where near large enough to share it with the likes of those mentioned. The GOP needs to stop pandering and start healing. And the individuals I mentioned do not belong in the GOP but in the Constitution Party, where radical social conservativism is paramount.
As my 82 yer old Republican Grandmother says, "if I was a gay man or woman, I would be a Democrat, period."
If you are Republican and believe that Ann Coulter is a national treasure because she "puts Dems in their place" or you believe it is necessary to fight back, you belong in The Constitution Party.
You should not vote Republican at all, you are misguided.
March 8, 2007 at 1:11 am - March 8, 2007
And the reason gay Democrats and liberals are so quick to mount smear campaigns against people like Sanchez is because it diverts attention away from their own contradictory support of homophobes such as Dean…
Let's go farther. It diverts what OUGHT to be their rage. (George Orwell… 1984… the Two Minutes' Hate.)
I completely disagree with you. Most voting Republicans in this country find most homosexuals reprehensible.
This just does not happen on The Left. You can believe it as a gay man/woman but you are misguided. In my party I am sorry to say that gays are good for votes and that's about it.
You can rail up against me and disagree but you are just wrong. Most fly over Republicans lump you guys under the umbrella of weirdo, pedophile and NAMBLA member. You can tell yourself different and good luck with that, but you are wrong. Jeff Gannon is wrong, regrettably.
Acting "as if" in this situation will not make it happen. I struggle with it daily, I do not agree with it nor do I support it.
Michelle Malkin has already said on her blog and on Hotair that Matt probably should not have been given that award and CPAC should have done some due diligence into his background. A Democrat would never say that.
You paint with a pretty large brush, Torrent. Just because there are elements in conservativism that decry homosexual behavior/marriage/whatever doesn't mean that there is a doctrinaire "platform" against it
But the people are the living humans who push and exercise the platform. If you could just deal with the inordinate doctrinaire or platform that would be great. But behind that platform supporting that platform and exercising that platform are real live Freepers, Fringe Right Wingers, Far Right Christian Conservatives and just plain bigots who detest you guys and everything you stand for.
I am sorry to be so raw, but that is what belongs to my party. I do not see this on The Left.
I see people on The Left ready and willing to pinpoint and identify and double standard which I struggle with everyday as a member of the Grand Old Party. And I am hardly alone, there are many of us who struggle with it.
My wish would be for them to leave the GOP and join the Constitution party where they would be welcomed with open arms.
April: thank you for telling me what to think. I was waiting for my orders.
A smear campaign is calling someone names like faggot, queer, queen etc, and belittling them or denying them rights that most others have by virtue of being living breathing Americans.
Bringing one's double standard to the forefront of the arguement is hardly smearing them. That is honest debate which I believe we need more of.
She was calling Edwards a wimp, not a homosexual. What's wrong with that? He is.
anya says
Hmm…I find it fascinating how all out of touch you are. If all of the posters here are gay, do you really believe that the majority of conservatives are going to accept you and welcome you with open arms? Hell, NO!! What rock have you been living under? Any progress regarding gay civil rights over the years has been initiated by liberals – not conservatives! The majority of conservatives want to see gay people dead (Reagan & Bush Sr. with their abysmal response to the AIDS crisis, calling it "God's revenge on gays", etc,) The most vocal and ardent gay bashers have been conservatives: Jerry Falwell and The Moral Majority, Anita Bryant, Jesse Helms, Anne Coulter etc.). Coulter denounces fags and yet she is an unmarried woman who likes to wear slutty mini-skirts and low-plunging necklines. How's that for fine Republican family values!! And it's very difficult to claim to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative when the two are so intertwined. You see, you need to spend $$ to educate people on things. Wonder why Repubs and big biz say global warming is a bunch of crap? 'Cause they don't want to have to spend the money to clean up the pollutants their companies dump into the air! Yet, if you still believe you can be both, why not join the Democratic party and be like Howard Dean, who claims to be both socially liberal and fiscally conservative? If you think you all can make inroads in the Republican party, have at it. But, you won't get very far. So, why not join the majority of gays who are in the Democratic party and have unity of one voice. The way I see it, every gay republican is a vote lost for equal rights for gay people.
Mark Noonan says
People can change – I know that I have. While I've never done gay porn, or any other type of porn, I used to be an avid consumer of the nauseating stuff…until one day, God said to me "stop". I was treating my brothers and sisters and objects for my personal gratification, and that was actually more disgusting than what they were doing.
A man's past should be just that, his past…his present is what he is. Had the man done gay porn last week, that would have a bearing on his credentials…but any Christian will tell you that you can become an entirely different person, a new creation and all that you did in the is gone as if it never existed, save as wisdom and warning.
If you are gay you are gay, being Christian doesn't matter. Again, you are giving the typical Right Wing answer to something that should not matter to the GOP.
Since when has Christianity become a prerequisite to being a member of the GOP?
This need to blend politics with religion is disturbing.
April: Please tell us, which parts of our minds can be used for politics in a way acceptable to you ?
I think imposed atheism, secularism on all is way more chilling than religious informed motivations of some.
fnln says
Sanchez, according to Sanchez is pretty bad at being gay (which is not saying that he is not gay). He states as much with his interview with JoeMyGod.
"SANCHEZ: Boyfriends: 0 Fiance: 2 Wife: 1. I'd say I'm pretty bad at being gay."
It sounds like he's either straight or running into the closet as fast as he can.
http://mattsanchez.blogspot.com/
You know, April… According to Cpl Sanchez he has received nothing but support from the Right so far. If there are any GOP purity test purges going on, the impetus seems to be from outside the tent where doctrinaire people like you are shouting, "the Right hates you!"
Perhaps some people – gays, women, blacks, atheists included – perfer to be in the tent where they make their own decisions, instead of the tent where their own group's opinion comes to the prepackaged, lest they be called "race/gender/gay traitor!" for thinking for themselves.
Calarato… my question was about the GOP/conservatives… and it/their attitudes towards gays. So #10 is a straw-man defense; I never called Sanchez a hypocrite. I also note that all of 14 is a rehash: an answer to Dan's suggestion of hypocrisy-labeling by others… Any thoughts on the question I pose here and not the one you've already answered (twice)?
Well torrentprime – don't you have an ego? LOL 🙂
#14 was in answer specifically to Shannon at #11, whom I even quoted. So it wasn't about you. I hope you're OK with that.
And why would I want to "answer your question" to begin with, by the way? Dan's topic in this thread, is Matt Sanchez. Further, your "question" anyway is not a very smart one; as you point out, my one indirect answer (at #10) was well more than enough. Sorry. Bye now!
I believe conservatives will relish his blog.
#15 – Vince – off topic, but I wanted to give you a quick follow-up.
I think we're not too far apart here. Ann C did have, or could have had, 3 (not 2) valid points: about political correctness, people going into rehab over anything these days, and Edwards as The Breck Girl.
Having said that – What she said was not witty – let's call it a "botched joke" – and moreover, certain words just shouldn't be used by certain people. That's where she went wrong.
I don't care how PC you may think I'm being, but no person who isn't black should call someone the N-word… no person who isn't Jewish should call someone the K-word… no person who isn't lesbian should call someone "dyke"… no person who isn't a gay man should call someone "faggot". Sad and arbitrary, maybe – but also real and true.
I know I'm making a lousy defense of the principle here. In fact, I haven't even identified it. Maybe it would have to do with the hateful past histories of the words?
But if Ann wanted to make a point that Edwards was a pathetic sissy / wussy trial lawyer, she should have used those words.
"That said, the second issue is the more important one. He has changed and is no longer doing gay porn. If a man has changed his past behavior, then we should consider the man as he is, not as he once was."
I'm not sure I understand why it's important that Sanchez has "changed." If the right wing is so supportive of personal freedom, what should it matter that Sanchez has made a bunch of porn movies and worked as an escort?
Of course, to take a real stance that supports his right do do that would bring you into immediate conflict with the "base" because, despite the wishful thinking, the base reviles homosexuality.
So, in order to avoid provoking a clear picture of the base's homophobia, you change the terms of the argument and focus on what he has become in your imagining of him.
(i.e., "wussy trial lawyer")
If the right wing is so supportive of personal freedom, what should it matter that Sanchez has made a bunch of porn movies and worked as an escort?
And indeed it doesn't.
Read some of the other comments. Sanchez is getting a great deal of support from libertarian conservatives – and even some Christian ones.
That's your "wishful thinking"… or shall we better say, your stereotype.
True in too many cases – but still, almost certainly fewer than you think.
– Max
You seem intent on playing up the "gay" as opposed to the "porn" angle. That's seems like your beef, and I have yet to see anyone on the Right take issue with that. By playing up "he's changed", no one is changing the "terms" here; you're just demanding the conversation be on terms that the larger portion of the Right doesn't care about. Seems to me as if the Left is more obsessed with the cant of the Right than the Right is. How nice it is to hear liberals telling conservatives what they ought to be doing if they're "real conservatives". Please, keep you purity tests to yourself.
Besides, your obsession with "gay conservatives" angle notwithstanding, seems to me like the offense here (if one exists) was the porno acting. And if you think that being a past porno actor doesn't have any weight in political cirlces, ask yourself when was the last time the DNC had Jenna Jameson accepting awards at their John F. Kennedy luncheons.
Per Dan's update – Sanchez says, on his site:
"I am embarrassed to say, I thought my fellow conservative friends would distance themselves when this news came out, and I'm touched that the opposite has happened. I've been asked to give my point of view, invited to speak at various functions, invited to back on TV and most people have gone out of their way to give me their vote of confidence and avoid a rush to judgment…. [but] I'm just not sure what in the world anyone wants to hear… when it's just another blip on the blogosphere."
Also relevant: (posting because I know some readers are click-challenged)
"…it's tough to figure out when you stopped believing in the party-line, but I can tell you that by the time I finished my summer tour of the [porn] studios, I was pretty disgusted…"
"…Why did I become a conservative? Just look at what I left, and look at who is attacking me to today. Let's face it people, you're all cynical enough to know that if I had espoused liberal causes, spoken out against the military, got a liberal award for courage and then outed with a porn-past, you'd be clamoring for my memoir, and nominating me for a diversity ticket with Barack Obama. Instead those who complain about wire-tapping reserve the right to eavesdrop on my private life for political brownie points…"
"Sure, I took a picture with Ann Coulter, I don't endorse what she said, but anyone in the military would defend her right to say it."
Burnectus says
Matt Sanchez isn't necessarily *gay*, he just, ah, had sex with men for money. Like, he had his own website for it in 2002. Before that, he did the gay porn, and before *that*, he dated… well, at least one man. It seems that he hasn't gotten around to coming clean on all of this himself, but if you guys are ok with it, and he's ok with you, then that's cool. I'd suggest that you not call him a "faggot" to his face, though… he's built!
Etain Peregrine says
If and when the left wing hate machine comes after me, I hope I handle it with half the calm eloquence Cpl Sanchez has displayed. Its an honor to have a man like him on our side. The sad state of the left leaves him little options though, as the leftist posters on this very thread pretty much confirm.
Calarato above says, "
Suppose Sanchez, as a Marine (and ex-porn star), admires people with big mouths
From some of his porn pictures found on the internet, it's totally appropriate that Sanchez would admire someone w/ a big mouth like mAnn Coulter, not to mention her very long neck and presumed deep throat.
15 – Vince – off topic, but I wanted to give you a quick follow-up.
We're probably not very apart at all.
I certaintly wouldn't have made the "joke" she did. I would find myself unable to even say the word.. only because of the conditioning on my behavior by PC societal norms. So be it. I'm not complaining that not enough people say the word.
I know I'm in the minority in having long past cared about giving offerings to the gods of PC.. words are words are words. Frankly it's tiring having to worry about which word might set off person A or person B and so, F*ck and C*nt are about the only words remaining on my should-never-say-to-people-who-haven't-seen-me-naked list.
Faggot isn't a polite word.. it's not a civil word. It's not a death sentence either.
rightwingprof says
I fail to see what these liberals feel they're gaining here — particularly since they gladly hold hands at protests with those who support hanging them for being homosexuals.
And little April Ginsburg needs to actually start meeting conservatives, since her ideas are nothing more than liberal fantasy.
There are no "gay issues" or "wimmin's issues" or "latino issues." There are only American issues. Sanchez believes in American issues. I fail to see why the obnoxious left is crowing.
Then, I didn't get the screaming about Jeff Gannon, either.
Keep telling yourself that and keep believeing that The Left has demonized him and everyone else. If someone is gay they should be running out of the closet, not into it. They should not be checking into camps to become straight and to be healed becuase Christian Coonservatives believe this is the way. The Far Right Christians of our paerty are peddling this crap.
If one is gay they should be speaking out against this. And once you are gay you usually are gay, it's not something that one flips flops on, and you guys know it. How can a gay person be bad at being gay? You are either gay or you are not.
The idea that these Conservatives believe a gay person can be cured is ridiculous.
From Michelle Malkin's column today –
I said the other day I thought CPAC organizers would be justified in being embarrassed if the rumors about Sanchez's porn star past 15 years ago turned out to be true. Well, the rumors are true. But it is neither CPAC nor Cpl. Sanchez who should feel embarrassed.
It's the nasty, gloating liberals who claim to stand for tolerance, privacy, human rights, and compassion. I predicted the other day that left-wing bigotry would rear its ugly head. I was right. The e-mail I've received is more disgusting than anything Ann Coulter stupidly said at CPAC. And I can imagine the vitriol Cpl. Sanchez is enduring.
What do Liberals have to do with this? Yet again it is this Conservative attitude of shoot the messenger – shoot the whistleblower that has presented the god's honest truth of the matter at our feet. We do not like the truth therefore we will smear all who have been involved in reaching it. It's absurd.
She should rwad the emails I got when I had my blog and from Conservatives in my own party. Anyone with a blog can produce comments and some emails that will make you sick.
April, you don't happen to be Ruth Bader Ginsberg's illegitimate daughter, are you? Because your talking points sound as if they came straight from your mama.
Here's $1.00. Now go buy a clue.
Is that the best you got? Spoken at me like a true wingnut…LOL
Always personalities above principles….got to love you guys, not. LOL
Refrain from the petty childishness of who you think my mother is and give me something good, something reasoned and rational.
I especially love what they think of libertarian conservatives – they refer to them as the Marxist of the Right. LOL
My new favorite leftologism is reichwing. I'm shocked they didn't think of it until now.
You know Vince I am a long term-in-the-blood Republican, but not at all what you would call a social Conservative. It seems that the Socially Conservative Movement and The GOP has become too entertwined and it hasn't benefitted either.
Again the wingnuts belong here and here.
#63 Peter, did you mean Darth Vader Ginsberg?
#17 torrentprime, quite honestly, I think Sanchez will be treated differently based upon various motivations in the GOP. As I implied above, some will be able to honestly prove their openness to non-traditional lifestyles. Some will cynically parade him as an example of their libertarian public persona, but won't answer his phone calls. Some won't touch him with an 11-inch pole. Some will put him on the pedestal of personal reform. Some will publicly denounce him and use him to rile the ignorant and bigoted. Some will shrug and pay no attention. Some will accept him with open arms (and perhaps other attributes). While I think your federal vs. local observation is a perceptive one (a federally-appointed official such as Condi can afford to be respectful, but perhaps a representative who has to answer to a rural electorate or one with stereotypically rural views cannot), I posit that the GOP is gradually becoming more socially libertarian. If this is true (and I hope it is), then the GOP's social credibility will rest with cases such as this. Sanchez has handled himself (guffaw!) quite well thus far and I can find nothing to disagree with in his public statements (or in his pictures, for that matter).
I think perhaps the Democrats are jealous that Sanchez publicly and thoughtfully rejects them and worry that he might encourage others not to regard their penises as voting levers.
#38 sez: "The way I see it, every gay republican is a vote lost for equal rights for gay people.
Um, anya-of-the-lower-case-clan, please enlighten me as to how Democrat-controlled government in the USA advanced gay rights when the Democrats controlled the US House for 40 years before 1994… and when the last Democrat President signed or implemented the only two national anti-gay rights mandates: DOMA and DADT.
Ooops, I forgot… rabid liberals ignore facts and prefer stereotypical rhetoric.
hey guys, i'm in a debate over on towleroad and I need a link to the news story that showed the percent of gays that voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 does anyone know where i can get that?
There is no difference between Social Conservatives and Leftist… each want to codify my life based on thier morality. That being said.. at least the Social Conservatives aren't based on socialist utopianism.
Too much Far Right and Far Left is ridiculous. What a nightmare this country would be with too many Sheehans and too many Coulters…
I guess my larger problem is the social conservatives, they scream for less government but they insist upon regulating the minor social issues like porno on cable. Or they go wild-wingnut-berserk like Goode from VA over the swearing in on the Koran fiasco. When he found out it was Jefferson's Koran he stopped spewing his craziness.
I'd rather have too many Coulters than Sheehans. You can't reason with terrorists or their sympathizers.
And April, it's obvious you are not Judge Ginsburg's illegitimate daughter. That would confer too much credibility to your statements.
And if you think that's the best I can do – think again.
April: Do you know the circumstances which led to Jefferson coming into possession of a koran?
Such wingnut madness.
Yes, the US was planning on going to war with radical Wingnut Conservative Muslims and he needed to learn as much about the religion as he possibliy could.
Conservative wingnut isn't good in any flavor….
I'd rather have too many Coulters than Sheehans. You can't reason with terrorists or their sympathizers
See I disagree, Coulter is Tim McVeigh in a dress and pumps.
Oh, but admit it, Ginsburg, you love it! Otherwise you wouldn't be trolling here like a good little Kossack.
Besides, besting the run-of-the-mill-lower-case-libtrolls gets too mundane. We all love fresh meat from time to time.
"'m not sure I understand why it's important that Sanchez has "changed." If the right wing is so supportive of personal freedom, what should it matter that Sanchez has made a bunch of porn movies and worked as an escort?"
Because porn is unhealthy, its workers are no more than prostitutes — not to mention criminals. Because being a "sex worker" is nothing to be proud of.
Sanchez left the degrading world of porn to serve his country. He deserves an award.
"Coulter is Tim McVeigh in a dress and pumps."
Does that mean that Cindy Sheehan is Dennis Kucinich in drag?
I got a chuckle when April claimed " I am a long term-in-the-blood Republican"
Email Don Surber posted on this I found amusing:
OK, Republicans are routinely demonized as a bunch of old rich sexless white homophobic chickenhawks, and now it is discovered that an Hispanic Marine hero Republican was once so (pardon the pun) hard up for cash that he did gay porno flicks, in which his, er, enviable masculinity made him a renowned star.
Exactly what is the negative here for the GOP? We've got the mayor in drag, the descendant of polyamists, and now the Marine stud, and somehow we're supposed to be "anti-sex"? Did I miss something?
If any of y'all know Cpl. Sanchez, please tell him to stand tough and send along a big "Semper Fi" from me.
You better try again darling, Jeff Goldstein and Michelle Malkin both know me. I am hardly a Koser or whatever…LOL
In fact Jeff and I have had a few email excahnges about the Regious Right usurping the party, so sell it someplace else sister, you're barking up the wrong tree by trying to read my beads.
Tone down the barbs, gang.
Especially you, April… as a newcomer you should know we try to keep a civil tone here.
Just lay off the personal stuff.
Listen, Ann Coulter is unreasonable, unlike Michelle.
Michelle is the perfect example of a Conservatyive women, she's happily married, she has children and a family she loves and she is fair in the debate and she is very intelligent. She would never attack someone the way Ann does. And if Michelle is wrong or the GOP does something wrong she is the first to call them on it.
I may disagree with allot of what she says, but i have tremendous repect for her. She is also very informative about the whole immigraton issue.
What can Ann really teach us? How to read someone?
Ok Bruce but I do not appreciate being coined a Koser. That's a step below DU in my book.
April: Then dont act like one. We only have limited amount of info to try to dicern people's motivations here.
Carl says
If Matt Sanchez said he was gay, instead of saying he's straight, would conservatives be so supportive of him? And can some of the gay conservatives here tell me what we should think of comments he makes like this?
""There's something about the beleaguered gay psyche that wants to prove to the world that everyone is just as messed up as they are. So, they start off with the term hypocrite and work their way backwards looking for signs of deviant behavior in hopes of discovering some type of bastard kinship."
Doesn't that seem really disgusting to you, that he goes around labeling homosexuality as "deviant"?
Why exactly are we supposed to salute this man for his bravery or whatever else when he trashes gays after making money off gay men for years?
GymGeekAus says
This is not a political discussion.
This is pornography. Of a level much more disturbing than images of sexual activity.
Funny that people are so blinded by their "sides" that they cannot recognize what is going on here.
Does a single person on this page actually believe Matt Sanchez would have received that award from CPAC if the truth had been known before hand? Of course not. Therein lies the root of the issue. Hypocrisy. Not the hypocrisy of Matt Sanchez, which we would need more information to evaluate. But the hypocrisy of those who identify themselves as "conservatives" and "moralists."
If you really want to be better than that, then start at the root of the issue and move outward. Projecting isn't a sign of healthy argument. It's a sign of a mental illness.
April, I am NOT your sister.
And I echo VinceP's request – if you aren't a Kossack or DownUnder, quit acting like one.
And frankly, I don't care if you are Michelle Malkin's personal toilet cleaner. I admire both her and Ann because of their diversity in the GOP. Much like I admire people as diverse as Horace Cooper and Dean Barnett, Mary Katherine Ham and Michael Barone.
In fact, I went to college with some of these people, but I am not as snobbish as to name-drop for my own egotism. So get over yourself.
Does a single person on this page actually believe Matt Sanchez would have received that award from CPAC if the truth had been known before hand? Of course not.
Bzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer. I sure do.
They awarded Sanchez for what he did to stand up for our veterans against leftist, military-hating bigots. And, after "the news" has broken, they have continued to reassure, reach out to and even defend him.
As has been explained in many comments in this thread. (Meaning we're entering the "drearily repetitive" phase of the thread life cycle.)
You've sure confused the "hypocrisy" issue. Which would be hypocritical, now? If CPAC did go ahead and give Sanchez the award, even knowing "the news"? Or if they hadn't? Impossible to tell, from your comments. It sounds like you'd be out here accusing CPAC of hypocrisy, no matter what they did.
Carl : I really don't care what anyone thinks about me., be it deviate or saint. So no, it doesn't bother me. Last I checked we're all free to believe what we wish.
I think your not allowing him the dignity of his own thoughts is the true offense.
#93 – Well put, Cal. The obvious self-loathers are the leftists who insist on defining Cpl Sanchez by his sexuality, rather than his merits.
And I for one am tired of this whole debate.
#90 I read that as his porn work being the deviant behavior discovered. Implying, I think, that the people he's describing are the ones who view it that way in his opinion.
If he does think the word deviant fits (and in a sense it is entirely accurate as "deviate from the norm") I don't read anything of his so far as expressing any sort of judgement on homosexuality at all. He obviously cared so little about being associated with it that he was willing to do it on film. He's said that he's not gay… or at least that he'd never had a boyfriend, but it was in response to the straightforward question. He's not saying "I'm not gay" every other sentance to be sure we know. I don't think we have any indication that he cares at all if people think that he *is* gay.
This is exactly my point as well.
Had David Horowitz had full disclosure of his background – none of it would have happened, the stint on O'Reilly, or on H&C.
When one believes that a gay lifestyle is impure and sinful as they believe it is and they believe it is referenced in the Bible as such, that is it. That is their belief, period. They believe that you cannot be a Christian and live such a lifestyle, therefore the camps to deprogram such as Exodus.
And frankly, I don't care if you are Michelle Malkin's personal toilet cleaner
The same to you Peter. You sound very mean spirited yourself. I obviously do not clean Michelle's toilets, that is a bit of a atretch. It is hardly funny and what would me being her maid really add to the debate anyway? I mean if I was employed as her domestic help wouldn't that be personal?
You sound like the koser.
Koser? I'm not koser. I'm not even Jewish.
SNAP! You are dismissed.
Again, it's all very personal to you, isn't it?
What does the fact that I am a Jew have to do with it?
-#93 – Well put, Cal. The obvious self-loathers are the leftists who insist on defining Cpl Sanchez by his sexuality, –
Didn't Sanchez define himself by his sexuality for many years? This isn't exactly his private life being invaded. He made money off of gay men because of his body and porn. Now he is an ardent follower of a party that believes homosexuality and pornography are both wrong. He thinks gays are "deviant" now that he isn't making money off of them.
It's self-serving and why this man is a martyr to some here makes no sene to me.
His "past"? LOL!! His Manhunt profile is still going strong. As of 13 days ago, he was still apparently looking to top bottoms under 30yo.
And, hey, how about that Newt Gingrich's affair during the Clinton persecution?
No, there is no theme here! Not at all!!
jimmy, from the lower case clan seats writes: "hey, how about that Newt Gingrich's affair during the Clinton persecution?"
jimmy, you forgot to wave your hands wildly in the air while trying to divert attention to you… please see Ian's "Debate Tips for Lower Case Clanners", page 47.
#95 – Peter – A propos of that… I think this from the good Cpl. Sanchez may be the wisest thing anyone has said in this whole discussion:
Sanchez, for his part, told Joe.My.God. that "There's something about the beleaguered gay psyche that wants to prove to the world that everyone is just as messed up as they are.
"So they start off with the term 'hypocrite' and work their way backwards looking for signs of deviant behavior in hopes of discovering some type of bastard kinship. That's why I've had the term 'self-loathing' thrown at me so often. The gay community eats its own in a frenzied hope of self-serving fulfillment."
#99-100: Someone obviously has both a reading comprehension and humor problem.
I was making a joke about your spelling skills, or lack thereof.
And frankly, I don't care if you are Druid. YOU are the one taking everything personally. And it is not just me who is saying this. Look around, dear.
For all our "faults" of being conservatives, at least we're tolerant enough to let you stay on here. If we were part of the GayLeftBorg and you were conservative, you would have been deleted eons ago.
Get a clue.
This isn't exactly his private life being invaded. He made money off of gay men because of his body and porn. Now he is an ardent follower of a party that believes homosexuality and pornography are both wrong.
Sort of like how many gay meth users have become antidrug, or gay alcoholics anti-alcohol abuse, or gay smokers anti-smoking, or — my personal favorite — gay orgy practitioners becoming anti-HIV after they get infected.
Are they all self-serving hypocrites too, Carl? Should anyone who's HIV-positive never speak out against the damaging effects of bareback sex?
March 10, 2007 at 3:11 am - March 10, 2007
NDT, did these anti-HIV campaigners you mention only become anti-HIV AFTER they were outed as having HIV? Otherwise, the example doesn't fit.
-Bzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer. I sure do.-
How many openly gay people have been given any award or acknowledgement by CPAC?
And it's funny how many here who go on about the evils of gay liberals have not mentioned NGLTF's statement supporting Sanchez.
When I see anti-smoking ads from dying or dead smokers, my first reaction is wonder why didn't they listen to the ads from dying smokers from 20 years ago. Now that HIV has been around long enough, I wonder the same about those recently infected due to high risk behavior. I don't think these people are hypocrites, but I wonder what they think makes their argument more compelling now, but wasn't compelling at the time of the decision of high risk behavior.
gayprof says
March 10, 2007 at 10:40 am - March 10, 2007
Sanchez is being investigated by Marine corps:
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/03/mcsanchez070309/
"…"We're looking into it and we're going to verify facts and determine if any further action is warranted," Darbonne said…"
March 10, 2007 at 8:45 pm - March 10, 2007
Carl, if you were "anti-HIV" before you got it, you would have been using protection so you never got it in the first place. The way you get HIV is by having bareback sex, which makes your being "anti-HIV" hypocritical in the first place.
Go ahead, Carl, say that men who had bareback sex, caught HIV, and then spoke out against bareback sex after they got HIV are hypocrites.
-Carl, if you were "anti-HIV" before you got it,-
Actually, what I asked was if they were anti-HIV campaigners before anyone found out that they had HIV. Sanchez didn't care about the horrors of porn until after he was outed as a porn star.
Just because someone doesn't go on a crusade against something doesn't mean they "don't care" about it. You can't be passionate about everything that you think is true.
They have a word for people who are passionate about everything: maniac.
-Just because someone doesn't go on a crusade against something doesn't mean they "don't care" about it.-
Sanchez never said a word about porn until people found out he was a porn star. Only then did he suddenly hate porn.
Very convenient.
"They support my independence from the state by lowering my taxes." – Yet in doing so, they have run up the nation's largest debt in history doing so, all the while making people believe it is the poor, immigrants, unwed mothers and pretty much anyone else who has the least political power to take the blame.
"They advocate our military kill the forces in the world that would behead me." – Yet they contine to advocate for laws in this country that dont give you the same rights/status as other Americans and advocate flawed death penalty laws which allow for the possibility of the innocent to die at the hands of the state.
"They tend to view the Consitutition as it was written, not as it is wished to be." – Meanwhile, they have re-defined laws as they wish to fit their whims.
"They tend not view foreign law as revealing of our own law." – This is clearly evident in their propensity to ignore/redefine international law and international treaties. For example, they've redefined "prisoner of war" to "enemy combatants" so they can skirt the Geneva Conventions (of which the US is a signaotry)
"They beleive in Freedom of Speech and they believe in the power of the individual." – As long as that individual is of a certain financial and social status. They don't want to hear from individuals who don't agree with their point of view.
Kevin is obviously using talking points and a pretty bad job of it at that. Funny enough, most of his arguments – redefining the Constitution, ignoring gays and denying freedom of speech – can be directly laid at the feet of liberal Democrats.
Checkmate.