Rick Perry

Q for Rick Perry: If Homosexuality is Like Alcoholism, Does That Explain All the Anonymous Sex?

|

Rick Perry, who had pretty successfully repaired his image as a back-country doofus by donning a pair of smart-guy glasses, has stepped in it again. This time, while speaking in San Francisco of all places, he explained that being gay is like being a drunk:

"Whether or not you feel compelled to follow a particular lifestyle or not, ," Perry said. "I may have the genetic coding that I'm inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way."

I can't wait until Perry speaks at Hazelden.

There's a lot to think about here. For starters, why the hell is a politician even talking about this issue? Is it really the proper role of the state to care what consenting adults get up to?

As it happens, the Texas Republican Party apparently believes that's exactly the sort of thing the state should be intimately involved with. Recently, the group did remove "decades-old language in the state party platform that states, 'homosexuality tears at the fabric of society.'" At the same time, though, the party added a plank about "the legitimacy and efficacy of counseling, which offers reparative therapy and treatment for those patients seeking healing and wholeness from their homosexual lifestyle."

Explained a conservative delegate:

"The platform reflects what the people in the Republican Party have asked for, and that should be no surprise: family values, protection of marriage between one man and one woman and everything that goes along with that," said Jonathan Saenz, president of the conservative group Texas Values and a convention delegate.

Let me go bold here and suggest that if you believe in limited government, as most Texas Republicans claim to, the only fucking you should be worried about is what the state is doing to taxpayers.

Back to Perry, though: If being gay is like being an alcoholic, why not suggest moderation management rather than abstinence? Count your drinks and your sexual episodes!

I get what Perry seems to be saying: Being predisposed to certain behavior or even being "born that way" is no excuse for any particular behavior; it doesn't mean you don't have responsibility for your actions. But then the analogy loses all meaning. You know why? Having a substance abuse problem is bad for the user and for the people around him (drunk driving and all that). Being gay, not so much. Sure, Mom and Dad may be disappointed and all you old girlfriends discomfited, but the externalities of being gay just aren't at all comparable to the worst externalities of being an alcoholic. Drunk drivers are rightly fined and jailed. Gay drivers don't run stop signs or plow into schoolkids (if they do, it's not because of being gay).

Remember back in 2012? The Republican Party got sidetracked when a couple of its candidates felt it was really important to talk about rape and fertility. Not a good idea from a pure-politics angle or from a conservative angle either. I don't think that equating homosexuality with alcoholism is much better. Especially in a country that no longer frets over gays and lesbians like a rerun of In Living Color. For god's sake, even the Texas Republican Party no longer believes that "homosexuality tears at the fabric of society."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

215 responses to “Q for Rick Perry: If Homosexuality is Like Alcoholism, Does That Explain All the Anonymous Sex?

  1. I have this fantasy in my head of him being sexaully assaulted by a very drunk Ann Richards wearing a strapon back in the days before she quit drinking that led him to give up both drunkeness and buttsex. I mean, the dude was an Aggie Yell Leader. Have you seen those guys? There’s no way he didn’t “choose” to smoke a few poles in college.

    1. “fantasy in my head”

      Your words

      1. I’m using the word to mean fantastical, unreal scenario without it necessarily being attractive to me. But I see how that could be misread. But no, I am not NutraSweet.

        1. Hmmm… Has anyone actually seen Brett in the same room as candy?

        2. I’m using the word to mean fantastical, unreal scenario without it necessarily being attractive to me

          Sure, dude, whatevs, nothing wrong with that.

        3. You forgot the “no homo” part.

  2. So, to Rick Perry, you can literally be drunk on cock? Interesting.

    1. drunk on cock? Interesting.

      Little known Queen B side. Heard it at Trader Joe’s.

  3. The Republicans with gays are like the Dems with guns. They’ve already lost this “battle” (I don’t really like that word in this case, but whatever). But they just. Won’t. Fucking. Shut up. About it. They insist on dying on the same hill again and again, just like the Dems and gun control. In both cases, it is endlessly tiresome. Just go fucking obsess about something else, for fuck’s sake. Get into GoT. Watch Silicon Valley. Play the new Borderlands game that’s coming out. Just get a fucking life and stop obsessing about other people.

    1. It wins them short term votes and that’s all that matters to them. Sure, the national tide is against gun control measures and for gay rights, but in deep blue states pro-gun control rhetoric is a winner and in deep red states criticizing ‘teh gayz’ won’t lose you votes.

      Perry has a nomination to win, and that’s all he’s thinking about right now.

      1. What nomination is he running for? As far as I had heard he wasn’t running for governor again but I wouldn’t be surprised if he decided to go for something else instead.

        1. Many think Perry will run for the GOP nomination in 16.

          1. Ah. I hadn’t considered that based on the shellacking he got in 12.

            Really, every potential republican nominee should run with the slogan “Hey, It can’t get any worse.”

            1. I hate Perry with a vengeance, that said REASON IS WRONG ON THIS ISSUE. Aren’t libertarians for freedom?

              This plank in the platform is just opposing what California/New Jersey have done where they made it ILLEGAL for certain people to get “curative” therapy for being a homosexual. Basically if you are struggling with homosexuality (perhaps you’re bi or whatever) you can’t get counseling.

              Whatever happened to freedom? Or are libertarians just masking a hatred for religious people under the banner of “freedom for me, not for you”.

              I would NOTE that the most libertarian of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson considered them an abomination and advocated for castrating all homosexuals.

              The founders would basically have stoned/executed homosexuals (many explicitly wrote of being in favor of such), so libertarians should stop pretending they are Constitutionalists or saying that they like the founders.

              1. Our forefathers weren’t perfect. But I think that wanting to castrate or execute somebody based on who they are attracted to or engage in consensual sexual relations with is opposite of the NAP and if somebody advocated for both positions, they would be contradicting themselves.

                With that out of the way, part of it was probably ignorance. People then believed that it was a sickness, even doctors at the time. The other part is probably that the country was largely christian, and that even now, mistranslations of the bible, both intentional and not have twisted certain biblical passages to support bigotry against gay people.

                There is so much that there isn’t an excuse now a days to support force against somebody based on sexual orientation.

              2. I would say that if somebody wants those kinds of therapies, that they should be free to do so. But I also wonder how many chose them out of coercion.

                Reparative therapy has largely been unsuccessful. Some can hide their orientation, but they haven’t been turned straight. Actually, since many people are actually bisexual, then at most they are repressing one side of their sexuality, but they have some fall back so it feels like they’ve been converted to heterosexuality. Many aren’t lucky to be able to repress it and many actually commit suicide. If we’re talking about adults, then they take responsibility, but who is responsible if it is a child? A parent of course. And if I was a psychologist, I wouldn’t put a child in that position, let them grow up and then decide if it’s such a sin that they need to be “converted”.

    2. Well, it’s not like there are any other issues plaguing our nation right now or any areas where the Democrats are vulnerable. Nope, everything is just chugging along smoothly. Might as well reach into the ol’ culture war bin for good campaign ideas.

      *sticks head back in sand*

      1. This.

        “The Democrats are hugely vulnerable on ACA and gun control. Let’s base the Republican campaign on traditional marriage and right to life.”

    3. Did he just blurt this out, or was it a question by a leftist reporter, looking for grist for the mill?
      If it was a reporter, a la Richard Mourdock or Todd Akin, then who is it that is obsessed with these subjects?
      Much of what critics call Republican obsession with social issues is nothing more that them REACTING to the other side trying to legislate some kind of change to the status quo.

      1. Did he just blurt this out, or was it a question by a leftist reporter, looking for grist for the mill?

        It doesn’t matter. Letting the opposition run your campaign is losing.

  4. So, according to Nick, people arent free to state meaningless analogies?

    If I get Nick, he could have written a shorter version:

    Perry is 100% correct on gays and who the fuck cares?

    1. “may have the genetic coding that I’m inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way.”

      Yeah. I don’t have a problem with this analogy, especially coming from a politician’s suckhole. And he does have somewhat of a point here: Just because someone is predisposed to certain malignant traits, it doesn’t mean a person is guaranteed to develop that trait. I don’t condone he implication that being gay is a genetically or morally undesirable trait, but he has to pay some ill service to his conservative base somehow, and this seems far from going “full retard”

      1. Lip service, even.

      2. “What’s the big deal? He just needs the votes from the homo-murder bloc.”

        1. Not condoning what he said or his real views. Just noting that it’s a descent strategy here in TX.

          1. It’s certainly a “descent” strategy for getting your ass kicked in the general, or even primary.

            1. “t’s certainly a “descent” strategy for getting your ass kicked in the general, or even primary.”

              I doubt that. He went into the valley of prog-derp and had the balls to make a politically charged statement that will resonate pretty well with a shitload of voters that hate teh gayz.

  5. What an unfortunate photo that I can never unsee.

    1. Ricky and the corn dog; not the tattoo.

      1. Well, that tattoo is pretty horrific too.

        1. I’d rate it as a “Megan Fox” on the “why did you get that fucking tattoo?” scale.

      2. It would have been hilarious if he’d had one hand on the back of his head.

      3. Girl needs to get control of that muffin-top. But is she praying for the serenity to accept her muffin-top because she cannot change it, or for the courage to change her muffin-top?

        1. The courage to quit drinking all the foo-foo drinks that gave her the muffin-top.

          1. Hey, those drinks got her the courage she needed to get that tattoo!

            1. I doubt it. That’s an AA thing.

              1. It was an ironic tattoo, because that’s the style nowadays.

                1. We can’t bust heads like we used to. But we have our ways. One trick is to tell stories that don’t go anywhere. Like the time I caught the ferry to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for m’shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on ’em. “Gimme five bees for a quarter,” you’d say. Now where were we… oh yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. I didn’t have any white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones…

  6. Having a substance abuse problem is bad for the user and for the people around him

    [citation needed]

    And the drunk driving he mentions after doesnt count. That is a separate action that may or may not have anything to do with the substance abuse problem.

    There are plenty of alcoholics who function without damaging themselves or their families. Most do…sure, but it isnt absolute.

    1. If I had to share the road with someone who’s had a few drinks, I’d rather it be an experienced drunk than someone who only drinks a few times a year.

    2. The key word in that sentence is ABUSE.

    3. Frequent consumption of alcohol does pretty severe damage to the liver, and an alcoholic, almost by definition, is frequently consuming alcohol.

      Alcoholics are looking at much higher rates of liver failure, polyneuropathy, increased risk of seizures, dementia and other cognitive deficits.

      As far as I’m concerned, that fits pretty will under the umbrella of ‘bad for you,” and if you have family members (especially ones who are likely to be paying out of pocket for you treatment), your behavior is pretty hard on them.

      I know calling people out makes you feel big and smart, but you may want to do a little bit of your own research before assuming that others haven’t done theirs.

      (All my stuff came out of my EMT textbook from when I got my cert, but most of it is up on wiki as well, with references)

  7. Drunk drivers are rightly fined and jailed. Gay drivers don’t run stop signs or plow into schoolkids (if they do, it’s not because of being gay).

    Depends. Are they more or less predisposed to engage in either end of road head? What are the statistics telling us?

    1. Go on…

      1. Come at me with figures. Toss some numbers right in my face. I can take it. (Just warn me first; it’s common courtesy.)

        1. Should we get a room? I have a motel room on standby at all times.

          1. Warning to Fist: the room always smells strongly of stale piss.

            1. I have it cleaned once a month!

            2. That, and its actually an 20 ft ISO stashed in an out of the way section of the docks.

              1. I’ve learned many things from Dexter.

            3. Warning to Fist: the room always smells strongly of stale piss and fresh blood.

              FTFY

  8. “the legitimacy and efficacy of counseling, which offers reparative therapy and treatment for those patients seeking healing and wholeness from their homosexual lifestyle.” in spite of every shred of evidence showing this is not true.

    They just can’t imagine this not being true. It would destroy their entire world to think that people can’t be stopped from being gay. It is a sickness unto itself.

    1. To be fair to the Texas SoCons I’d bet that language was put in in response to California banning that kind of therapy.

      1. If you believe that being gay is a bad thing and that therapy can change that, you should be able to access it.
        Isn’t that the libertarian way, rather than banning it?

  9. “but the externalities of being gay just aren’t at all comparable to the worst externalities of being an alcoholic.”

    Yikes. Assume your conclusion much, Nick?

    “I don’t think that equating homosexuality with alcoholism is much better.”

    I see you like your strawmen too.

    Look, Perry is a retard, but we can do better than this.

    1. Wait a minute, how is Nick assuming his conclusion there? And how is that a strawman given Perry’s comments?

      1. Logic is how. You’re right though: it’s really just one big strawman.

        Analogies are not the same as equating. This is obvious.

        1. But analogies work by identifying some principle or characteristic the two things have in common. I think explicitly Perry is saying ‘the drive to do homosexual things, and the ability to resist it, can be equated to the same for alcoholism.’ And then implicitly there is a ‘and both to these things are bad and should be resisted’ going on too.

          1. I disagree. I think Perry is using alcoholism — an issue where people’s stances are well-developed — to express and clarify his stance on another issue, homosexuality, where there is a lot of conflation on both sides.

            No, you may be right; the subtext is that both things are bad (though I would note that religious wackos don’t “hate” alcoholics). Even if that’s the case, Gillespie’s remark doesn’t follow. In fact, it’s totally absurd. Read what I quoted. That’s intellectually lazy, which is what we’re supposedly criticizing Perry for.

            1. If, as you agree, the subtext in the analogy is that both are bad things, then pointing out that the negative externalities of one are not comparable to the other, or not negative at all, doesn’t strike me as absurd.

              1. I disagree that Perry was using the subtext that way. I just conceded that I can see your point of view.

                Two points:
                1. What you describe is not what Gillespie does: he says the externalities of homosexuality aren’t comparable to the WORST externalities of alcoholism. Way to stack the deck in your favor. This is ridiculous.
                2. Even if the analogy fails on that dimension (which it probably does), it doesn’t mean it fails along the dimension that Perry is using it: to articulate his position on homosexuality that separates orientation from actions. That’s just basic logic.

                1. I think he says worst there because he doesn’t want to condemn alcoholism per se.

                  As to your second point, there are lots of analogies with less subtext he could have used that would not have implied the moral disapproval.

                  1. I don’t give a shit why he did it. The point is that its 100% a strawman and also probably irrelevant and intellectually lazy regardless.

                    Seriously, why the fuck do I care why he libeled a retard?

                    1. Talk about assuming your conclusion…

                    2. That’s really your best response?

                    3. Er, that was your initial argument!

                    4. “Yikes. Assume your conclusion much, Nick?”

    2. Yeah, I’m not seeing the straw man or the assumption. Nick is stating fact, and his statement is based on Perry’s actual statement.

      1. You don’t have to see them. I quoted them for you.

  10. Perry is an idiot for saying that.

    Perry, however, does successfully bridge the divide between the “being gay is an in-born status, not a choice” and the traditional religious line that “being gay isn’t a sin, but having gay sex is a sin”.

    1. Yep. This is how you cater to as large a swathe of your voting base as possible without royally pissing off half of the state. He knows what he’s doing.

  11. There’s a lot to think about here

    I have the desire not to do that.

  12. t”the homosexual issue”

    Stupid party keeps stupiding.

    1. At least it’s a ethos..

    2. He’s doing better than Scott Esk:

      “I think we would be totally in the right to do it,” Esk wrote in comments uncovered by Oklahoma journalist Rob Morris. “That goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss.”

      When pressed, Esk added: “I never said I would author legislation to put homosexuals to death, but I didn’t have a problem with it.”

      Emphasis mine. No Scott, executing people for consensual behavior goes against the very fundamentals of libertarianism. Try again.

      1. Arbiter!

      2. I never said I would author legislation to put homosexuals to death, but I didn’t have a problem with it.

        That’s one weird-ass sentence. If you approve of such a law, why would you have a problem with drafting it?

        1. I guess there could be a difference between not having a problem with something and approving of it, but that is one crazed quote.

        2. You have bigger priorities?

          You arent on the death to homos subcommittee*?

          *Oddly, its a subcommittee of the Budget Committee.

          1. Ways and Mens?

        3. It’s always nicer to be just following the law when you throw rocks at death-worshipping* sodomites than actually responsible for the law?

          *There’s an extremely rare strain of people who put homosexuals in the “culture of death” category and use this as justification for death penalty, which I find hilariously strange.

      3. The hell it does. Hey jesse, wanna come over and let me stone you to de…uh, get stoned tonight?

        1. Don’t do it, jesse! He mixes in ether with his weed! Trust me, I know! Or I woke up knowing, however you want to put it!

          1. Shut up shut up shut up. You’ll spook him.

            Come over, jesse. Lots of delicious marihuana just waiting for us to inject it. No fist-sized rocks at all.

            1. Well, as long as there are no fist-sized rocks…

              1. Well played. Like some alt-version of the stoning scene in ‘Life Of Brian.’

      4. Is he really a “tea party” candidate or is HuffPo just labelling him as such? Does “tea party” even mean anything anymore?

  13. Homosexuality isn’t has damaging as drunk driving, but with the increasing socialist nature of healthcare we are all paying for the dramatically increased costs associated with that lifestyle. I just wish I could live in a world where I don’t bother people about their sexuality and they don’t ask me to pay for their risky health decisions.

    1. Wouldn’t, for example, not stigmatizing or criminalizing the behavior and allowing for marriages likely cut the risks you’re talking about?

      1. Yep.

      2. You saying they can’t be monogamous unless the government recognizes their relationship?

        1. It’s the anti-SSM side that argues that the government should and does foster and encourage monogamous marriages by recognizing them and putting benefits on them.

          1. It’s the anti-traditional marriage side that argues that current divorce rates have made marriage so meaningless that anyone should be allowed to marry anyone because it doesn’t mean anything.

            1. I’ve only seen that argument as a retort to the other side saying ‘allowing SSM will harm traditional marriages,’ not as a reason to have gays marry.

      3. There isn’t much stigma in California, but somehow the majority of those with AIDs still happen to be homosexual males. Marriage has yet to stop straight people from sleeping around and I doubt it will suddenly change bath house culture in San Francisco.

        1. I think you’re really underestimating how decades of criminalization and stigmatization can create an underground culture with risky behaviors and how long it might take to turn that around, but it strikes me that decriminalization and stigmatization and recognition of things like marriage would start to do that. Not automatically of course.

          1. Or maybe that culture was criminalized and stigmatized because of the risky behaviors.

            1. Use that logic on the WOD sarcasmic.

              1. That’s exactly why drugs were criminalized and stigmatized. I’ve never said drugs are wonderful and good, only that prohibition is worse.

                1. I doubt that’s the direction in this case especially given lesbianism, which is some of the least risky sex humans can have outside of masturbation.

                  1. I’ve had some gay friends over the years who engaged in some extremely risky behavior. I highly doubt that their behavior was a result of being criminalized or stigmatized. They were risky before, during, and after the criminalization and stigmatization. Taking it in the ass is much more risky than sticking it in a pussy as far as exposing one’s self to diseases goes. That’s a fact that no honest person can argue with.

                    1. They were risky before, during, and after the criminalization and stigmatization.

                      Your friends have been engaging in risky sexual behavior since before English colonial law? I didn’t realize you ran with such ancient friends.

                    2. Your friends have been engaging in risky sexual behavior since before English colonial law? I didn’t realize you ran with such ancient friends.

                      I’m quite sure that homosexuals were sticking it in each others’ asses long before English colonial law.

                    3. I’m quite sure that homosexuals were sticking it in each others’ asses long before English colonial law.

                      Hmm, pronoun/antecedent error on my part. “They were risky before, during, and after the criminalization and stigmatization.” I read they as the people engaging in the behaviors, not the behaviors themselves.

                      Although prior to the AIDS crisis there wasn’t a sense that gay sex was “risky”. So this still doesn’t stand up. (although my snark does fall flat there).

                    4. When you criminalize and stigmatize things then they get force into subcultures that are often riskier than they would otherwise be. Think about drug use. Criminalized many are forced to buy from questionable sources, use suspect delivery mechanisms, and do so in not-too-smart places. The same logic applies to other criminalization scenarios like gay life.

                    5. The same logic applies to other criminalization scenarios like gay life.

                      No. Actually it doesn’t.

                    6. Ipse dixit.

                    7. Gay men are more infected with HIV than straight not not because they engage in anal sex but because the same individuals engage in both insertive and receptive intercourse. The risk of being infected with HIV is an order (2 orders?) of magnitude higher for receptive intercourse. The HIV transmission rate is much lower for heterosexuals because it’s HIV can be transmitted one way only: from men to women. It’s a two-was street for gay men.

                    8. …than straight men not because…

                    9. Gay men are more infected with HIV than straight not not because they engage in anal sex but because the same individuals engage in both insertive and receptive intercourse.

                      Not because they engage in anal sex, but because they engage in anal sex.

                    10. I knew it would be too difficult for you to grasp the difference.

                    11. You’re missing his distinction sarcasmic, he’s saying it’s not so much the anal sex as having both partners give and receive. In other words, to borrow your line, not because they engage in anal sex, but because they engage in anal sex two fold of heterosexual couples.

                    12. And of course you haven’t acknowledged my point about lesbianism, which was similarly criminalized and stigmatized and yet has relatively less risk.

                  2. “some of the least risky sex humans can have outside of masturbation.”

                    David Carradine disagrees with this statement.

            2. risky behaviors

              Please, continue. Homosexual behavior was criminalized and stigmatized prior to any understand of HPV and before anyone had any idea what HIV was. What risky behavior was being stigmatized, sarcasmic?

              1. What risky behavior was being stigmatized, sarcasmic?

                Ask Bo. He brought it up in his 3:17PM comment.

                1. No, I was responding to Mand13 @ 2:55

                2. Or maybe that culture was criminalized and stigmatized because of the risky behaviors.

                  Well thank god you only made a slippery insinuation about it instead of stating something concrete. We would hate to think you were a mendacious asshole whenever this topic came up.

            3. Or maybe that culture was criminalized and stigmatized because of the risky behaviors.

              Nonsense. Homosexuality was stigmatized because it appeared to be unnatural. Most people are happy to condemn something that’s foreign to them. Before the AIDS epidemic the homosexual underground culture was not perceived to be related to health problems. Still it was criminalized and stigmatized.

              1. Before the AIDS epidemic the homosexual underground culture was not perceived to be related to health problems.

                That’s not true. Not to the degree that it was because of AIDS, but it most definitely was perceived to be unhealthy.

                1. most definitely was perceived to be unhealthy

                  Stigmatization was in moral, socially transgressive or religious terms. Those were medicalized under the DSM eventually. If you look at the ’40s and ’50s it’s not about physical health it’s in terms of a moral rot that hides in the good fibers of society.

                  From a 1950 congressional hearing on homosexuality in the State Department:

                  Some of them are more to be pitied than condemned, because in many it is a pathological condition, very much like the kleptomaniac who must go out and steal, he has that urge; or like the pyromaniac, who goes to bed and wakes up in the middle of the night with an urge to go out and set a fire. He does that. Some of these homosexuals are in that class.

                  1. “Stigmatization was in moral, socially transgressive or religious terms.”

                    And many such taboos are against behaviors which are Darwin Award worthy, of which anal sex is one.

                2. Of course, there is a tendency for people to ascribe ‘unhealthy’ to what they see as ‘unnatural.’

                  What evidence can you point us to of societies, pre-criminalization of homosexuality, that thought of homosexual acts as unhealthy in a medical sense?

                  1. What evidence can you point us to of societies, pre-criminalization of homosexuality, that thought of homosexual acts as unhealthy in a medical sense?

                    Umm…the theories of Traditional Chinese Medicine/Taoist Alchemy?

            4. Wow, sarc, and I was really starting to believe that you were against gay marriage for logical reasons.

          2. I think he’s underestimating how an incurable virus transmitted sexually might just confine itself to a small homosexual community for awhile if it manages to find its way in. Straight people weren’t all having protected sex at the time either, and if they were it was to prevent babies–something homosexuals don’t have to worry about.

            1. There are more, by necessity, evolutionary safeguards in vaginal intercourse than in the methods of sexual pleasure available to homosexuals.

              1. Which means we ought to morally blame AIDS victims?

        2. So, what about lesbians, Mand13? Very low incidence of AIDS there (and do note the spelling).

          1. AIDS there (and do note the spelling).

            That’s not how you spell GRIDS!

          2. Lesbians have a slightly higher incidence of drinking related issues and tend to seek preventive care less. They are not drastically more expensive than heterosexual females but most studies show them to use slightly more healthcare dollars than their counterparts.

          3. Forgot to comment about the ‘note the spelling’ portion. You’re right Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome should all be capitalized when abbreviating but somehow you still understood the meaning of my typo. Just like everyone understood the meaning of your sentence fragment to be that lesbians have a low incidence of AIDS(do note the verb making a complete sentence).

        3. Jesus, it’s not the 70s anymore. “Bath house culture” is more or less gone.

          1. The culture as the only place to have sex with men is gone, but the culture of a place to meet and have sex with random strangers is still around. If your point is that it is wrong to associate bath house culture you’re correct that there is a decreasing percentage of gay men that participate.

            1. the culture of a place to meet and have sex with random strangers

              …may still “be around” but its prevalence in gay culture is likely much smaller in real life than it is in your head.

      4. Wouldn’t, for example, not stigmatizing or criminalizing the behavior

        Pretty sure its not criminal anywhere.

        and allowing for marriages likely cut the risks you’re talking about?

        I’m totally unclear on how a state-issued license to do something you are free to do anyway cuts any kind of health risks. Do I detect a faint whiff of magical thinking here?

        1. “Pretty sure its not criminal anywhere.”

          As of what, 8 years?

          As for your other point, you are not clear about how the government recognizing something and attaching privileges and benefits to it might make the thing more socially acceptable and incentivize it?

          1. As for your other point, you are not clear about how the government recognizing something and attaching privileges and benefits to it might make the thing more socially acceptable and incentivize it?

            Um, is marriage worthless because of current divorce rates or does it encourage stable relationships?

            You can’t have it both ways.

            1. I answered this above sarcasmic.

              Proponents of gay marriage, and opponents, say that government recognized and subsidized marriage encourages and fosters marital unions. Opponents of gay marriage often say, as a reason to reject gay marriage, that allowing gay marriages will have the effect of undermining heterosexual marriages. Proponents of gay marriage sometimes respond by saying that gay marriages could not damage heterosexual marriages any more than our current divorce situation.

              1. So you insist upon having it both ways. And you wonder why everyone considers you to be tedious and tiresome.

                1. What’s tiresome is you can’t see that that is not having it both ways.

                  I’ll try only one last, third time: when some proponents of SSM respond to the argument that allowing gay marriage will discourage traditional marriage they do not say ‘well, divorce has mad traditional marriage worthless,’ they say instead ‘gay marriage could never approach doing anything near the damage to traditional marriage that the current divorce situation has.’ See the difference?

                  1. Tedious and tiresome.

                    1. Wow, you are impervious to distinctions, aren’t you?

                    2. Bo wants you to make a choice Sarc, Tedious OR Tiresome.

                      Hurry up and pick so this shit will stop.

      5. I’m late to this, but anal sex isn’t riskier than “regular” penetration because of stigmatization. It’s because of the physical effects. Also, I’m not making a moral judgment. It’s just a fact. On the flip side, I think lesbians are less likely to transmit STDs than either gay or straight partners. It’s not prejudice to be cognizant of that.

    2. I just wish I could live in a world where I don’t bother people about their sexuality and they don’t ask me to pay for their risky health decisions.

      There’s therapy that can cure you of that desire.

  14. “I may have the genetic coding that I’m inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way.”

    Has he considered the inverse of that reasoning? If Rick Perry has the genetic coding that inclines him toward heterosexual tendencies, then does he believe that he is capable of suppressing those feelings and not think about women when he masturbates? The ignorance of his logic astounds me.

    1. Oh.. and what’s with the picture of the muffin top? NTTAWWT

    2. Yep, the sin of Onan is just as much of a sin as homosexuality.

      1. the sin of Onan

        Not fucking your sister-in-law in accordance with local cultural norms?

        1. My dead brother’s goats are mine, you fuck. You hear me?? MINE!

        2. I never understood why “spilling your seed on the ground cause you don’t want to knock up your dead brother’s wife” == whacking off.

  15. Completely pointless commentary on Perry’s part. Why can’t the camera-hungry learn to shut the hell up on issues that have no bearing on the reason they’re standing in front of the camera in the first place?

    1. Pointless? Perry has a nomination to win, he knows what he’s doing.

      1. Perry’s out of the governorship, and if you’re talking Presidential nominations well just tell me how well that worked out for Santorum.

        1. “how well that worked out for Santorum”

          You mean surprisingly well? Santorum started out way back in the pack and finished second in large part because he found his voice with social conservatives that are a big part of the GOP base.

          1. Distant second. As in, not even close.

  16. “why the hell is a politician even talking about this issue?”

    I can answer that by reading the linked article.

    He was talking about how the federal government should remove itself from many issues, including social issues, leaving policymaking in those areas to the states.

    Then he got *two* questions about gays. First, a guy in the audience asked about the “reparative therapy” plank in the Texas GOP platform. Perry said he *didn’t know* if reparative therapy worked.

    Then a guy from the organization sponsoring the speech asked if homosexuality was a disorder, and he answered.

    So *two* people ask him questions about Teh Gayz, and *he’s* the obsessed one?

    1. So *two* people ask him questions about Teh Gayz, and *he’s* the obsessed one?

      Obviously! If he wasn’t obsessed then he wouldn’t have been asked the questions! Duh!

      1. Once again, sarcasmic has the progderp logic correct…the a DISTURBING level.

        *eyes sarc warily*

      2. So in short:

        1) Rick Perrry gives a speech promoting the 10th Amendment

        2) He gets a couple gay questions and tries to answer honestly

        3) Reason focuses exclusively on one of the answers, ignoring the 10th Amendment speech

        4) “Why is Rick Perry talking about gays?”

        1. Not the most honest reporting by The Jacket.

          1. AND…I thought Rand Paul had a social-issues position similar to Perry’s – handle on the state level.

            1. Was Nick criticizing Perry for suggesting gay issues be handle at the state level or for saying gayness is a genetic disorder to be resisted like alcoholism? Has Paul said the latter?

              1. I hear Rand Paul buried 800 dead babies in a septic tank.

                1. He’s not recommending we institute state supported homes for women who commit the sin of sex outside of marriage either.

                2. I hear Rand Paul buried 800 dead babies in a septic tank.

                  Why was I not informed of this?

              2. “Was Nick criticizing Perry for…saying gayness is a genetic disorder to be resisted like alcoholism?”

                Why should Gillespie criticize Perry for that except for sanctimoniously holding up the social progressive dogma the homosexuality must never be discussed in a negative light?

        2. 2) He gets a couple gay questions and tries to answer honestly

          The correct answer to any and all gay related questions is: America is drowning in debt, the federal government is more powerful than it has ever been, and the rights of the American people are being trampled on as never before and you ask me about who sticks what where in the privacy of their own home? I ought to slap the shit out of you! Next question.

          1. That would be a fine answer, but of course the media response would be that “Rick Perry evades serious questions about his attitude toward gays – what does he have to hide?”

            1. Which is why if you know they are going to give you shit, no matter what you say, you might as well give them shit right back.

              1. AC wins the internets. It’s been the best critique of this…well, bullshit, so far. He really should have made them ashamed of making it an issue, and asked if there were anymore questions relevant to his speech.

    2. Someone who’s paying attention. Good on ya, Notorious!

      1. Paying attention? I don’t see Nick talking about Perry being obsessed, I see him talking about Perry’s analogy being stupid. Then there is talk about governments, including state governments like Texas, should stay out of these issues.

    3. I loathe culture warriorism and loathe it all the more when in seeps into libertarian discussions, where it serves the same role of substituting any kind of thought with identification politics.

  17. So it appears the NSA has a picture of EVERY politician deep throating a hot dog.

    good to know

  18. Republicans prove over and over again that they just:

    1. Can’t focus on what’s actually important.
    2. Really enjoy blowing their own brains out.

    I really don’t feel like electing a ruler who spends extended amounts of time thinking about what makes gay people gay, much less spends extended amounts of time talking about it.

  19. why the hell is a politician even talking about this issue?

    Because elections don’t just lose themselves Nick.

    All hail the Stupid Party.

  20. Reason needs to move beyond the “eww! eww! get them off me! get them off me!” attitude toward social conservatives.

    *Some* (not all) social conservatives want to limit the federal government, a key issue today, and Perry advocated precisely that in his speech.

    In short, potential allies.

    Ask the social liberals if they want to leave divisive social issues to the states rather than impose a federal solution on the whole country. Get ready for the slavery and Jim Crow analogies.

    1. Apart from ‘ew, ew, we,’ libertarians might, mind you, think state governments can and are pretty oppressive too you know.

      1. True, though easier to change. And the more local the control gets, the closer it is to individualism.

        State control of “vice” is SO much better than Federal control.

        1. I think the jury has to be out on that issue. In many areas gains in liberty recently have come from the federal government stepping in to reverse state and local policy (think of gun control for one).

          1. Fair point, though had the Fed not gotten involved in the issue AT ALL, we’d still be better of in the aggregate.

            Note though, the only way you’re making this argument is through Federal control of the courts. The Federal legislature has done precious little throughout history to increase Liberty.

            So, let’s say that making a law at the Federal level is a terrible idea. Removing a law at a Federal level is a good idea. And the Court rescinding a law can be either.

    2. Give me Purity or give me Obscurity!

  21. Why can’t he just say “I believe ‘A’ is wrong, but ‘A’ doesn’t harm any unwilling party so ‘A’ shouldn’t be illegal”?

    Or is that too close to NAP for him? BTW, that’s precisely what I believe too.

    Funny how both SoCons and Liberals trip up over my angle on adultery; the SoCons think adultery is wrong but shouldn’t be illegal, and the Liberals accept my belief that adultery is wrong but can’t stand that I think homosexual acts are wrong.

    1. the SoCons think adultery is wrong but shouldn’t be illegal, and the Liberals accept my belief that adultery is wrong but can’t stand that I think homosexual acts are wrong.

      FYI: There are many, many SoCons who believe adultery should be illegal.

      1. I’ve yet to meet more than VERY FEW, and I used to scrounge the WND comment section making this exact point. If I remember right, only one person even argued that (and then lost the debate due to that being so very stupid).

        Let’s get a poll going so we can support a conclusion. My unscientific study says the number is VERY low. (Remember, Gingrich and Limbaugh are not on their first wife, and Christ told us that was adultery in most circumstances.)

      2. Maybe but it’s pretty clear that they care about 1,000 times more about the gays. Adultery is presumably a far more pervasive problem, yet I never hear them talking about it.

        1. Wait, Tony just made a good point and made sense.

          Am I hallucinating? Am I dead?

          I’m going to go lie down for a while…

    2. Many people believe that adultery is wrong because it involves betrayal, cheating, lying. What are your reasons to think that homosexual acts are wrong? You find them icky? God told you so? These are much less compelling reasons.

      1. “You find them icky?”

        Well, yes, but I also find slugs icky. I don’t think that slugs are wrong.

        “God told you so?”

        Mostly, yes. That and male homosexual acts are linked (correlated) to shorter life spans.

        Think about it this way, if God created us, and he told us “don’t do that”, maybe we should listen? I mean, if someone designs a new rocket engine and then tells me not to operate it underground, I would listen. And I would fail to listen at my own peril.

        Let’s put it this way, if there is no God, then you don’t have to care what I believe because I won’t violate NAP. If there is a God, then we should listen to what he says. This argument just becomes the “is there a God?” argument again; do you want to have that argument?

        1. Where do I go to get these instructions from the Supreme Being.

          The only “don’t do that” of which I am aware is from a holy book,

          “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. “

          1. Ah, so ignore all parts that you understand and take one part out of context. Classic.

            The time: When women weren’t educated (at all).

            What does it say? I (Paul) do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

            But apparently that wasn’t an Iron rule for him, because Priscilla and Aquila (husband and wife) taught Apollos (Acts 18:26).

            1. A divinely-inspired apostle has given us the context: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing ? if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”

              But anyway, perhaps sin clouds my mind and the Supreme Being has difficulty finding my email address. Where oh where do I get these amazing instructions revealed so beneficently from the supernatural? What is its http? Why is the Supreme Being so powerless to convince us to listen to its wise don’t-do-thats?

              1. I believe I have inadvertently baited an atheist into this conversation. How sad this will be for him…

                I fail to see how you’ve made a counter-point. Perhaps I’ve missed it.

                Perhaps you should read 1 Timothy 3 for what a man should do (and a little more for a woman).

                So you think God should communicate to you on YOUR terms? The irony is that the first sin was Pride…

                What you fail to know in your “reason” is that if there is a God, and he were so much smarter, bigger, and better at long-term thinking than we are, that he would likely communicate in a different way than we would expect. An ant would try to understand a man and expect him to communicate in smells (and a bee would expect a dance).

                You simply don’t like the way God communicates. What you don’t get is that you CAN get his Word, what he wants you to know, through http at http://biblehub.com/niv/1_timothy/3.htm But you will probably ignore it… again.

        2. Lots of people believing invisible men speak to them and tell them to hate whole groups of people is not a passive thing.

          1. I’m sorry, where did God tell anyone to hate anyone? Please, pray tell.

            1. Inside people’s delusional childlike brains, where He lives.

              1. So no, you’ve got nothing…

                Allah on the other hand…

  22. Perhaps I’m overly attracted to the Governor, but isn’t the take-home point here that Perry is saying that he may in fact be inclined to homosexuality but doesn’t want to act out his desires?

    1. That’s OK, big guy. Although Perry is not my type, I certainly appreciate the way he’s engaging that corn-dog. Hard not to like.

  23. Rick Perry knows exactly what he’s talking about. He’s fallen off the wagon a few times (and into a male hooker), but you take one day at a time.

  24. Perhaps I’m being way too charitable but it doesn’t look that bed.

    “I may have the genetic coding that I’m inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way.”

    He could just mean that one may be born homosexual (or with said inclinations) but still have the capacity to control oneself. Some would probably object with “but why should I control my sexuality” to which I cannot say. I can’t say why someone should limit their alcohol intake either though.

  25. I think Rick Perry wouldn’t completely suck as POTUS. He is libertarian enough on some issues to add value. But he is enough of a crony capitalist to grease the wheels.

    And he was a governor which makes him much more qualified than any senator. Ever.

    But wtf.

  26. And this is why you Liber’s have not or will ever gain much in politics. You fundamentally do not understand the basis to law and governing. You are all about “states rights” and now its not OK cause your liberal leaning agenda is faced with reality.

    Your hate shows in the imagery of Perry.

    Perry stated a “personal opinion”. That’s not acceptable now? Where is that in your Libertarian Bible?

    Liber’s are like Jekyll & Hyde with a dose of Marxism. I will tell all you like I tell the radical Left, if you don’t like our laws, our system, go somewhere else!

    1. I think everyone agrees it’s acceptable for people to have opinions.

      Some opinions are rightly destined for eternal ridicule. Stop crying and deal with it.

  27. I’m predisposed to breathing. Haven’t been able to kick the habit, yet.

  28. “But then the analogy loses all meaning. You know why? Having a substance abuse problem is bad for the user and for the people around him (drunk driving and all that). Being gay, not so much.”

    Oh, yay, Gillespie has his knickers in a bunch because Perry thinks that having homosexual tendencies may be a suboptimal condition. As if that is an unusual or outlandish point of view. I guess he’s intolerant of any opinion of such matters which don’t jibe with his own.

    “The Republican Party got sidetracked when a couple of its candidates felt it was really important to talk about rape and fertility.”

    If memory serves, at least one of those candidates was explaining his thinking behind a vote that had to do with those subjects. In other words, he said what he said as part of his job, but the remarks were distorted by media looking for a “gotcha” quote. Sort of like the Romney nonsensical “binders full of women” brouhaha. Basically Gillespie would have the GOP cede whole swathes of issues to the Dems for fear of how they might be portrayed.

    1. If anything, being gay is a superior condition, provided there isn’t society-wide oppression. Family planning isn’t an option, it’s required. And we are better at everything except the stuff that gives people concussions.

      But seriously it is patently bigoted to say being gay is suboptimal. The only acceptable opinion is what all scientific authorities say, which is that homosexuality and heterosexuality are normal variations on human sexuality.

      1. A condition that subverts a basic biological function is not suboptimal? Or that you just think it uncouth to point that out? Being an evolutionary dead-end is, by definition, not a superior condition.

        1. If you’re going to insist on making such judgments, placing entire groups of people into a subspecies, then you should probably know what the fuck you’re talking about.

          That gays tend not to have procreative sex makes them no different from straights except for those instances in which straights have procreative sex, whose value, frankly, is dubious in an overpopulated world.

          Still, it is probably the case that the reason homosexuality persists in stable proportions is that it confers a reproductive advantage to kin (assuming a gay relative = a certain number of more surviving offspring, the math is easy to do to justify its existence evolutionarily). Describing it as a dead end is nonsense, since most gays are born of straight people.

  29. I am conditioned to eat hamburgers in a spindle.

  30. You and I agree on policy, and far be it from me to defend Rick “Never Executed an Innocent” Perry. But your analysis of his point is faulty. Insinuating that alcoholics “plow into schoolkids” is as bad as insinuating that gay people molest them. You would, rightly, be quick point out this fault in someone else’s argument, and I know that you are capable of better.

    Perry’s analogy is apt insofar as it describes homosexuals who do not believe that gay sex is a morally acceptable action for themselves. Many do believe this, regardless of whether you or I would feel the same way. Most of us accept the principle that one’s own desire to do something immoral is not itself a moral justification for actually doing it, and so many gays find themselves burdened with a desire that they cannot fulfill with a clear conscience. Whether the desire springs from genetic factors or not, no one chooses such a burden willfully. In this, homosexuality is quite a bit like alcoholism, and many other behavioral patterns.

    The issue came up because the Texas GOP recently added a plank defending the right of Texans to voluntarily choose “conversion therapy”. The legal issue is not whether any behavior should be legal, but whether a particular therapy should be limited by state law. While we may dislike quite a bit of the Texas GOP’s platform, as good Libertarians we should certainly agree that the state should not be in the business of telling people what sort of counseling they may receive.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.