Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register

New Year’s Resolutions for Gay Celebs

Happy 2009! Rather than making our own New Year’s resolutions, we’ve decided to make up the resolutions of gay and lesbian celebrities and personalities on their behalf. It’s a Queerty public service! Of course, we forgot to include everyone, and that’s where you come in.

Andrew Sullivan, blogger extraordinaire and onetime conservative should resolve to let Sarah Palin’s medical records go. He’s still talking about them despite the fact that nobody alive actually cares. And why should they? Now that Tripp’s on the scene, who cares who the mommy of Trig is? Also, “know hope”? Nope.

Joe Solomese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, should make 2009 the year the HRC gets up off its knees and use its mouth for something other than pleasuring the DNC. We’re tired of hearing how HRC fails to work with other gay organizations and we’re tired of the group’s “we know best” attitude. Eat a little humble pie and reengage with the wider gay community.

Clay Aiken should to spend 2009 away from the limelight with his baby. It’s not just that we have Claymate fatigue, but after finally coming out a semi-normal life for Aiken is within his grasp, if only he can fight off his famewhoring impulses.And insatiable Claymates.

Bravo, Lifetime and the the Weinstein brothers need to resolve to make Project Runway about sewing, not suing, again. By squabbling over bruised egos, you’re forcing Runway‘s devoted fan base to say auf widersehen to what is basically the best reality show ever. Bring it back!

Anderson Cooper should make 2009 the year he briefly discloses his sexuality and moves on. The whole “I’m a journalist! I’m not the story!” thing is ridiculously disingenuous considering the fact that his denials, coupled with coy walks in the park with handsome young Latin boys, only draw attention to himself. You’re hot Andy, but are you really going to put us through another year of your gay geisha routine?

Candis Cayne ought to resolving to get herself back on television as soon as possible. Her performance as Carmelita in Dirty Sexy Money wasn’t just groundbreaking, it was excellent! With the show canceled, we’d like to see Cayne as a series regular somewhere in primetime, be it on Wisteria Lane or a mysterious island.

Regent Media President Paul Colichman has done The Advocate no favors since purchasing the beleaguered publication. With the global media apocalypse laying waste to publications left and right, The Advocate‘s long-term success isn’t being helped by a guy who once said he had no desire to be in the publishing business. Unless Colichman wants to see The Advocate turned into a museum piece, he should use 2009 to refocus the magazine on original reporting, beef up its news division (Kerry Elved is top-notch, but she’s only one woman) and leave the celebrity, fashion and entertainment to sister publication Out.

Neil Patrick Harris should resolve to stay awesome.

We really wish Barney Frank would make a New Year’s resolution to buy just one new suit. Yes, Frank is from Massachusetts, a state whose fashion sense is stuck permanently on “sweatsuit”, but for the love of all that is good and right in the world, we’d like to see Frank clean-up just once.

Mario Lopez, we pretty sure you’re not gay, despite being charming, a great dancer, smoking hot, but we think you should resolve to keep up your quest to take your clothes off on every show you’re cast in. You love showing us the goods and we love watching em’. It’s a win-win.

Barack Obama should resolve in 2009 to end the useless and discriminatory Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell, help push through a trans-inclusive ENDA, and repeal the moronic Defense of Marriage Act. There’s other issues that need to be worked on, but this would make for a good start for our new President.

By:           Japhy Grant
On:           Jan 1, 2009
Tagged: , , , , , ,
  • 56 Comments
    • Tim in SF
      Tim in SF

      Jaffy Grant should resolve in 2009 to have someone proofread his posts before they go live. I found six errors in this one alone. :-(

      Jan 1, 2009 at 1:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ohyou
      Ohyou

      @Tim in SF:

      ikr

      Jan 1, 2009 at 1:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JL
      JL

      Jaffy Grant could also remember that women exist (even out women) and be a little more inclusive in his posts…

      Jan 1, 2009 at 1:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MW
      MW

      Why are people so mean? Happy New Year, Japhy.

      Jan 1, 2009 at 1:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Matt
      Matt

      To call Clay Aiken a famewhore is hilarious. This is the guy that avoids the paparazzi, doesn’t go to the famewhore restaurants, doesn’t go to bars, nightclubs or parties and doesn’t parade his partners or his baby at every opportunity. We saw the baby exactly once, and you know the paps would stalk him till they got a first picture. Someone else outed his boyfriend to Star.

      The guy just works and minds his own business. You should try it. Carry on Clay. You’re a class act.

      Jan 1, 2009 at 2:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hank
      Hank

      Clay doesn’t ask for enough promo, IMO. It’s sites like Star and
      TMZ that keep his name out there. Obviously his name in magazines still sells and his name on the internet means hits.

      Jan 1, 2009 at 3:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Japhy:

      And a Happy 2009 to you as well.

      Jan 1, 2009 at 3:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ed
      Ed

      Wealthy gay celebs should stop acting like they are the mouthpiece for entire LGBT community…

      But a Happy New Year for everyone though!

      Jan 1, 2009 at 3:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JD
      JD

      I understand why you don’t like the Defense of Marriage Act, but to call it moronic is going quite a bit far. Or would you like it if I called your desire for it to end moronic? I didn’t think so. Marriage, after all, has from the beginning, been for one male and one female, and to change the definition to allow it to be between two males or two females is not equal rights, but SPECIAL rights. Fight for it if you must, but to label it and those of us who don’t agree with you “moronic” sounds like your own bias towards those who don’t agree with you. And don’t expect everyone who doesnt’ agree with you to fall in line behind you just because you think we should.

      Jan 1, 2009 at 3:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill in PDX
      Bill in PDX

      @JD: read the bible there more carefully— all kinds of marriage in there between more than one wife and husband; there is marriage to very young girls, etc. In feudal Japan and in Polynesian and other indigenous cultures marriage between men was not only accepted; it was honored. Your ignorance is sadly moronic as you are spouting right wing talking points that are easily shot down with a search engine and a ninth grade reading level. There are also all kinds of things in the bible that we do not follow now like not cutting your hair, wearing mixed fiber clothing and stoning smart mouths kids and non virgins to death. They do that kind of stuff in parts of the Middle East and Africa but I like the secular democracy our founding fathers had in mind. The old testament should not be the arbiter of our secular, civil society. That was truly never intended by the enactment of the establishment clause. We are asking for civil parity not your religious sanction. Your opinion is sadly misguided and backward.

      Jan 1, 2009 at 4:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dave
      Dave

      @JD: Well I think the parameters of left field have been established. Meanwhile back at the ranch….

      Living in Texas I have a few locals and wannabe locals to mention.

      Rick Perry – should resolve to leave politics however on the way out he should proceed to duke it out with Senator Kay Bailly Hutchinson in the primaries for governor, it’d be nice to see a competitive race in Texas for once that actually had a bit of an impact.

      George Bush – should upon leaving office not return to Texas, he was born in Connecticut and spent over 3/4 of his life in the NE. We (good far right fearing Texans) propose that he remain in the NE, we have more then enough of them to deal with already.

      Me- I resolve to expect neither of the aforementioned situations to arise except possible the 2nd clause for Perry and on a personal note to try and keep my nose clean this year. Oh and Happy New Years to all – hopefully a year from now we’ll be wondering what could top it.

      Jan 1, 2009 at 4:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bob
      Bob

      George Bush needs to stay out of NE. Everything has been much better since he left.

      Jan 1, 2009 at 5:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Why
      Why

      Coming out is no one’s business but Cooper’s alone. Lay off it. Because he is so exposed and (probably) gay does not somehow require him to do anything about it. You have no say in matters involving his sexuality.

      Jan 1, 2009 at 5:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dave
      Dave

      @Bob: Perhaps a mutually agreeable alternative can be reached say the far NW – Alaska? Or do we risk some sort of personality based gravitational phenomenon merging Palin and Bush?

      Jan 1, 2009 at 5:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian Miller
      Brian Miller

      JD — marriage is in collapse. A majority of households in America are unmarried.

      It will be your bigotry — not gays or anybody else — that destroys “marriage.” Your insistence on excluding people you hate from that institution will only ensure it becomes less and less relevant to EVERYONE and eventually fades away.

      When fewer than 1/3 of Americans are “legally married,” it’s likely that the majority will vote to remove the legal status and “marriage” as a government institution will vanish altogether, as the majority will regard it as a “special right.” And you’ll have nobody to blame but yourself.

      Jan 1, 2009 at 5:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • paulied
      paulied

      @JD: Even if what you say about marriage always being between one man and one woman – which it is not – get over it. The English language is constantly growing. We change definitions all the time. At one time the definition of asshole was simply an anus; we have broadened the definition to include people like you. Now kindly broaden your definition of marriage to include people like me.

      Jan 1, 2009 at 5:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • seitan-on-a-stick
      seitan-on-a-stick

      Crappy Lou Grant should quit as he does not have the talent to edit. It’s not about cruelty but the accuracy and truth. I kinda liked the Asian Borats – anything OTHER than skinny white gay children in 2009, please. Say “hi” to Crappy at the Starbucks on 8th Avenue (the only Gay-ish one since Starbucks pushed out Gay-owned Big Cup) Oh Crappy, you did it in your pants again?

      Jan 1, 2009 at 5:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • seitan-on-a-stick
      seitan-on-a-stick

      You can take out “the”

      See, that’s editing!

      BTW – 2009 (Year of the Ox) will suck as much as 2008. Am holding out for 2010 as you can’t beat two balls and a penis.

      Jan 1, 2009 at 5:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Evah21
      Evah21

      @JD: JD, I would really like to understand this whole “special rights” thing because frankly, I think that argument is incredibly weak and founded on twisted logic.

      I don’t understand how allowing gay people to marry is a special right…it seems to me that having marriage reserved for one man and one woman is a special right designated for heterosexuals only, excluding the rest of us (i.e. homosexuals). Just explain to me, in plain words, how letting me marry my girlfriend is something special when compared to my brother marrying his girlfriend. There is no difference, aside from genital pairing. Marriage for homosexuals isn’t a special right, it’s the same thing that heterosexuals have that we DO NOT have. Therefore, marriage is currently a special right reserved for heterosexuals and so you really cannot argue that you’re giving homosexuals a special right when you allow us to marry.

      You may argue that gay marriage opens the flood gates for polygamy or beastiality, but such ideas are completely moot because they have NOTHING to do with homosexuality or marriage. Homosexuality does not equate to any of the perversions that conservative opponents would have you believe — it isn’t polygamy, beastiality, or pedophilia. To say that those things are somehow related and that gay marriage is the gateway to increased polygamy, beastiality, or pedophilia is wholly ignorant. Indeed, I’m sure there are more heterosexuals who engage in the above three areas of “alternative sexual behaviors” than homosexuals.

      To return to the issue at hand, homosexuals who wish to marry want to have the same things that heterosexual married couples have — stability, security, a family, etc. Gay marriage isn’t a matter of perversing a “sacred institution,” it’s a matter of letting everyone take part in the joys of marriage, monogamy, and a bit of societal normalcy.

      To clarify my immediate gay community’s POV on the matter, the gay marriage issue isn’t about religious recognition, but rather, it is about the secular benefits that heterosexual married couples receive that monogamous, long-term homosexual couples do not receive. You might say, “yes, but you have civil unions.” Of course, that is a valid argument. However, those civil unions are hardly in every state nor do those civil unions offer us all the benefits married couples get. Moreover, homosexuals do not receive federal benefits that all married, heterosexual couples get. In fact, were I to marry in one state and go, to say, Arizona, I would lose the benefits I once enjoyed.

      In sum…the “giving gays special rights through marriage” argument is completely absurd in my opinion. It’s an illogical, unfounded, and simply ignorant argument.

      Jan 1, 2009 at 5:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • seitan-on-a-stick
      seitan-on-a-stick

      Looking toward 2012:

      Buy Green “Rainbow” Flags and show your support for the only gay-inclusive party, the Green Party (Just keep Nader off the Ticket!) and tell the Democrats why you will not donate one dollar to Barack Obama’s re-election:

      EQUALITY FOR ALL AMERICANS!

      http://www.jointheimpact.com

      Jan 1, 2009 at 6:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • seitan-on-a-stick
      seitan-on-a-stick

      Question: Is Affirmative Action a Special Right?

      Jan 1, 2009 at 6:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JD
      JD

      Bill, you said, “We are asking for civil parity not your religious sanction. Your opinion is sadly misguided and backward.” I do not expect you or anyone else to necessarily agree with my views, especially at a gay website. And commenting back and forth in a few short paragraphs most definitely is not enough time to properly speak my views. However, for you to call me sadly misguided and backward is a matter of your opinion vs mine. I, too, believe those who want to change marriage are sadly misguided and backward. So who is right? You or me? You will continue to fight for your beliefs as I will for mine…..Brian Miller, you said, “Your insistence on excluding people you hate from that institution will only ensure it becomes less and less relevant to EVERYONE and eventually fades away.” I knew someone would accuse me of hate because I disagree with them on this issue. I hate no one. I do not hate gays. I am not homophobic, though you may disagree. But I do not believe that marriage, created by God form the beginning, was created for those of the same sex. Disagree with me, that is fine. But please don’t accuse me of hatred when you don’t even know me or what is in my heart. I agree with you that divorce is rampant, which is shameful. I agree that more people are simply living together. I think both are sadly wrong. But I also believe gay marriage is wrong. And I can hold to these beliefs w/o hating one single person. Do you hate me for believing this? I hope not.

      Jan 1, 2009 at 6:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dave
      Dave

      @JD: Say what you want you still meet every dictionary known to man’s definition for bigotry as evidenced by your discomfort with and actions. You may not think your acting with hate, I can’t speak to that, but your definitely conducting yourself with arrogance which is in many ways worse.

      I recommend we stop feeding the lurker.

      On matters of more import, in my view, I wanted to thank Japhy for his coverage on political issues – I think his editorials have been insightful and well articulated on subjects which have a number of angles and I read them for that perspective. I’ve enjoyed your posts on social issues as well. Now to paraphrase St. Nick, from one of his incarnations, “and to all a good night”.

      Jan 1, 2009 at 7:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • RS
      RS

      @JD: You said, But I do not believe that marriage, created by God form the beginning, was created for those of the same sex.

      Setting aside the fact that there are many, many religions in the US that would disagree with you, including some Judeo-Christian faiths, it’s an irrelevent point. Marriage in the US is a secular, civil institution. No one is advocating that any church or faith be forced to perform or recognize any marriage. Mormans were allowed to refuse to perform inter-racial marriages long after the courts forced governments to allow them. Many faiths will refuse to perform a marriage unless a partner not of the same faith converts (or in some cases, agrees to raise their children in that faith even if they themselves don’t convert). Catholics require those wishing to marry to undergo pre-marriage counseling first (not a bad idea). In the US, relgigious institutions are allowed to impose additional restrictions on marriages they wish to perform — but they are not, or should not, impose those same restrictions on people not of their own faith.

      In other words, if the Morman Church, for example, wants to impose restrictions on people wishing to get married in a Morman Temple, by all means, let them. But why should they then be able to impose the same restrictions on someone marrying in an Episcopalian Church, or in a civil ceremony with no church at all?

      Jan 1, 2009 at 7:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul Raposo
      Paul Raposo

      As Elaine Benes toasted on Seinfeld:

      “Here’s to those who wish us well, and those who don’t can go to Hell.”

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xi4O1yi6b0

      To my friends and frenemies, as we say at home–UM FELIZ ANO NOVO A TODOS!

      Jan 1, 2009 at 7:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hrist
      Hrist

      I agree with JL. I was under the apparently mistaken impression that Queerty would be a lot more all-queer-inclusive, but I’ve been noticing that Queerty is a lot more inclined to the Y chromosome, leaving the lesbians (and bi women who prefer women) out in the cold.

      Could we see a little more goods for the female crowd, please? Just enough for some equal representation.

      Jan 1, 2009 at 8:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tim in SF
      Tim in SF

      People, JD is a troll. Don’t feed the troll with your comments. Let him starve and he’ll go away and then we can talk again without bigots around. Please, don’t engage.

      Jan 1, 2009 at 10:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • me
      me

      I live in MA and don’t own a single sweatsuit…nor does anyone I know.

      Jan 1, 2009 at 11:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @JD:

      “I agree with you that divorce is rampant, which is shameful. I agree that more people are simply living together. I think both are sadly wrong. But I also believe gay marriage is wrong. And I can hold to these beliefs w/o hating one single person. Do you hate me for believing this? I hope not.”

      Why would anyone who just got a divorce care what you think about that?

      Why would anyone care what you think about two people living together?

      Why should any of us care that you think gay marriage is wrong?

      And why do you feel it necessary to come into a gay chat room espousing your controversial thoughts, homophobic attitudes and beliefs and expect everyone in here to give you a warm welcome? There should be no shortage of chat rooms filled with people who share the same attitudes and feeling you do and would be happy to have you join their conversations. Do you enjoy being insulted and verbally abused or something?

      You’re damaged goods. We have no interest in what you have to say. What imbues you with such feelings of importance that you think that anyone in here would hate you? The truth is…we don’t think about you at all. And if we never hear from you again, we won’t lose any sleep over it.

      As you said we don’t even know you and since that is the case, we really don’t give two figs what you believe, because that’s all it is, your belief system based on an old, dusty tome of fairy-tales and senseless rantings.

      In order for it to have any meaning and significance to us, we would have to believe in your bible and, fortunately, the great majority of us have already figured out what a crock of shit it and organized religions in general is. So, your god does not scare us or bring us to our knees before him.

      What’s in this for you anyway? Do you really believe that you are going to “save” any of us or convert us to your twisted and warped way of thinking?

      Or do you just get your jollies by poking sticks into a hornets nest and stirring it around? Shouldn’t you be surfing the Internet for a gratuitous beaver shot, chasing pussy, munching some carpet or something?

      You must be a real troll and have a terrible sex life if you have to come into a gay chat room and fuck with the fairies. You need to get a life, dude…

      or a piece of ass! ;-0

      Jan 1, 2009 at 11:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Tim in SF:

      We know that JD is a troll, Tim in SF. It’s just that it’s so much fun to beat-up on trolls and really hard to resist. ;-0

      Jan 1, 2009 at 11:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Evah21
      Evah21

      @RS: Bravo, RS, Bravo.

      Jan 2, 2009 at 1:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • andy_d
      andy_d

      @seitan-on-a-stick: Too late. When I received donation requests from the DNC, I returned them with the following question written on the slip:

      Why should I support a party that doesn’t support ALL my civil rights?

      Jan 2, 2009 at 9:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • andy_d
      andy_d

      @Paul Raposo: My anus is happy enough, than you.

      Jan 2, 2009 at 9:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • andy_d
      andy_d

      @Paul Raposo: oops. s/b “thank” and I forgot to add:

      ;-)

      Jan 2, 2009 at 9:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tim in SF
      Tim in SF

      @Charles J. Mueller: It’s just that it’s so much fun to beat-up on trolls and really hard to resist. ;-0

      I agree, it’s a fun past time. But I get a little frustrated when an intelligent discussion about an interesting issue among gay peers gets dragged down into the bigot mud by a troll. It’s fun every so often to engage them, jumping down to their level to show them up, intellectually (BTW, nice job above @#29). Since their arguments are never based on logic, it’s never a difficult task.

      But the casualty of the conversational detour is, time after time, another good QUEERTY discussion. I’m not coming here to engage with retarded bigots like JD. I’m coming here to talk to people like YOU.

      Jan 2, 2009 at 9:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • scott
      scott

      regarding Clay. *sigh*. I think Japhy, that’s your and other people’s obsession. I really don’t hear anything about him. There was a people or star or whatever article about him coming out and I think his album may have come out this year. That’s it.

      But, you and other people, who bring his name up about his over-exposure and not coming out, blah, blah. That’s who keeps his name out there. And I still don’t understand the Clay-hate. Whether he came out or not. That’s his business. Don’t like him. Don’t listen to him. It’s not like he campaigned for Prop 8 or something. There are people out there who are deserving of passionate hate. I would say Clay shouldn’t be one of them.

      Oh and to the bible-thumper above. I know you’ll never understand or believe this but before Christianity existed, there were MANY religions and beliefs. And marriage terminology was used and it wasn’t just between a man and a woman. If you must be ignorant, please stay in your Christian circle and don’t try to force your beliefs on others. If you want to join the world outside your circle, open up and LEARN about other people, their cultures and their beliefs. Live with them. Experience them. Then maybe, you can start discussions about marriage and what the history of marriage is about.

      Jan 2, 2009 at 9:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • porsha
      porsha

      Who is Clay Aiken, and why should I give a crap?

      Jan 2, 2009 at 10:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bob
      Bob [Different person #1 using similar name]

      Ahhh, another Japhy attack on The Advocate. Jealous much that they wouldn’t hire you? Still bitter over being fired from Frontiers?

      Jan 2, 2009 at 12:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alexa
      Alexa

      Not that I disagree with you on HRC, Japhy, but it’s Joe Solmonese, not Joe Solomese. How is he supposed to google himself if you spell his name wrong?

      @Hrist:

      Amen to that. Queerty was always slanted towards the men, but was still pretty lesbian friendly, but that seems to have changed since Andrew left. Not that it’s lesbian UNfriendly now, just decidedly more male oriented than it was (but posting the pic of Cynthia Nixon and her family was nice).

      Regarding Clay and whether or not he’s a famewhore, am I the only one who finds it absolutely hysterical that Japhy suggests that Clay should become less visible this year (because obviously what we as a community need is less visible openly gay celebrities) while at the same time suggesting mega-famewhore Mario Lopez become even more omnipresent? Seriously, the man’s only real talent is looking good on camera, yet he is everywhere. If you look up famewhore in the encyclopedia, his picture is right there next to Paris Hilton’s. But he’s traditionally hot and Clay’s not, and that’s all that matters.

      Jan 2, 2009 at 12:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sparkle obama
      sparkle obama

      >> handsome young Latin boys<<

      i don’t know the editor’s ethnicity/color and i don’t care.
      i want to ask any & all would-be “gay” “journalistic” standard-bearers
      to quit subconsciously trying to exoticize non-“white” gays in this dated, class-conscious manner.
      so you read “dancer from the dance” in 10th grade and now you think you can label & reduce like a jaded plantation mistress.
      y’all need to quit.
      gay comes in every color and every culture & ethnicity.
      please quit casually stereotyping within Our community.
      i know you are on the interweb, searching for “gay” all day long.
      seach for “diversity”
      plus women, you know – “dykes”!
      also T stands for TRANS.
      what’s wrong with You People?
      you barely f*ckin cover TRANS until somebody dies.

      i’m only saying; don’t take it personal

      Jan 2, 2009 at 3:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • seitan-on-a-stick
      seitan-on-a-stick

      Damn, I missed 40 Again! I’ll get you and your little dog Toto, too.

      BTW – Boring WishList. Y’all should upgrade and surf other sites more in 2009!

      Oh, nice poem Sparky! Sorry, that was a lie!

      Jan 2, 2009 at 9:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tim in SF
      Tim in SF

      @Bob: Ahhh, another Japhy attack on The Advocate. Jealous much that they wouldn’t hire you? Still bitter over being fired from Frontiers?

      “Jealous much?”

      1995 called. They want their colloquialism back.

      Jan 2, 2009 at 9:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lakas
      Lakas

      The photo caption on this article is racist… Japhy–why oh why does your website perpetuate the desexualized asian male stereotype????

      The photo caption implies these:

      Asian men are

      1) desexualized
      2) unattractive
      3) the lowest common denominator; thus, sending them to your house is like sending a trash bag full of crap you didn’t want to begin with.

      Japhy & Queerty = racist and perpetuating racist ideologies. Will we see more of these racist images in 2009???? Maybe I should link this to Pam’s Houseblend and see what they say about this photo.

      Jan 3, 2009 at 11:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tim in SF
      Tim in SF

      @Lakas: My Chinese husband thought it was hilarious.

      Lakas, are you white or Asian?

      Jan 3, 2009 at 11:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lakas
      Lakas

      @Tim in SF: LOL. I didn’t know your Chinese husband spoke for the the gay Asian American community. Excuse me for turning a critical eye to these (mis)representations of Asian American men, cuz if the leadership (i.e. your chinese husband who finds it hilarious) won’t, then who will???

      Am I white or Asian? Do you have to be either to criticize gay Asian representations in the media? If I told you I was black, will you excoriate me for even bringing up the issue or would the original point still stands, which, by the way, you did not address.

      Since your husband find it hilarious, did you find it hilarious before he did or after???

      Jan 3, 2009 at 2:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sparkle obama
      sparkle obama

      the gays have a long way to go.

      Jan 3, 2009 at 2:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tim in SF
      Tim in SF

      @Lakas: LOL. I didn’t know your Chinese husband spoke for the the gay Asian American community.

      He does in our house.

      Excuse me for turning a critical eye to these (mis)representations of Asian American men, cuz if the leadership (i.e. your chinese husband who finds it hilarious) won’t, then who will???

      First, I don’t think it’s a representation of Asian American men. I think it’s two clowns who happen to be Asian. And they’re funny. Asians can be clowns and clowns can be Asians, but that does not mean all Asians are clowns nor does it mean all clowns are Asians. I learned that in Introduction to Logic my first year in college. Have you been to college? I’d recommend it. Lots of hot guys.

      Second, unless you are a member of the supposedly offended group, in this case, Asians, then why are you taking up the sword to defend their honor? Are you assuming they are not capable of defending themselves? (now who is the racist?) Don’t you have better uses for your time and energy?

      Do you have to be either [black or Asian] to criticize gay Asian representations in the media?

      No, but it certainly helps me take your complaint more seriously if it originates from someone within the ostensibly offended group, as opposed to, for example, some overly-sensitive white liberal. Like me.

      If I told you I was black, will you excoriate me for even bringing up the issue or would the original point still stands

      That depends. Are you black or are you saying that simply to prove a point? We can play what-if games all day, but it’s a pointless intellectual spiral down the toilet of logic, not to mention a colossal waste of time.

      which, by the way, you did not address.

      Yeah, but you didn’t establish your point, either. Prove that this is racism. Everyone I’ve asked who speaks from a position of authority (Asians, in this case) says you’re full of crap.

      Since your husband find it hilarious, did you find it hilarious before he did or after???

      Not that I understand your point, but I’m the QUEERTY reader in the family so I found it first. I thought it was funny and emailed it to him and I heard him laughing from the next room. So there. Does that answer your question?

      Jan 3, 2009 at 3:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rick
      rick

      in regards to andrew sullivan and palin’s babygate, it seems the obvious has been missed. todd palin is not trigg’s father. sarah lied about how many months she was along. according to her she gave birth to a full term premature baby who was able to go to work with her 3 days later. the kid isn’t todd’s. darling sarah got knocked up while todd was on the north slope.

      Jan 3, 2009 at 6:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • scott
      scott

      Ok. Asian Dude here.

      1. I didn’t find offense at the picture. And I am sensitive to stuff. I just thought it was those unfunny, weird Japanese dudes. And if we didn’t have a Happy New Year, we’d be stuck with those losers. The picture could have been Celine Dion, Clay Aiken (who I might have found offense at, see my earlier post), Jake Glyennhaal, some nerdy white dudes, some freaky looking black dudes, whatever. As long as the picture was overtly weird, as in looking clownish, I don’t think I’d find offense.

      2. I think Lakas has a point about what does being Asian have to do with it. It’s the same with gay marriage. If a hetero speaks out for gay marriage, should we not value his/her opinion because they are not gay? I’m happy when I hear heteros speaking out and defending homos. They can take up the cause because I feel it makes it MORE legitimate. And when taking up said cause, the oppressors might just rethink things, such as… If these heteros are defending those homos maybe the homos aren’t as scary/creepy/whatever we think they are.

      3. If someone finds something offensive, shouldn’t we at least consider that it may be offensive, even if we or our buddies don’t think it is?

      Jan 3, 2009 at 9:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dave
      Dave

      If I remember correctly that’s from either a MadTv sketch or SNL and the guy on the left is French Stewart ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0829390/ ) granted its possible I’m mistaken but I don’t think I am.

      Jan 4, 2009 at 2:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark
      Mark

      Your right, Neil Patrick Harris IS awesome! Everytime I see or hear that guy, I love him more

      Jan 4, 2009 at 5:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Tim in SF:

      Thank you for your kind words, Tim. I too always enjoy your thoughtful and well articulated commentaries and find myself looking forward to them.

      I could not agree with you more. Trolls like JD disrupt the train of thought, derail intelligent discussion and get everyone all pissed off, which of course, is the exact effect they are looking to bring about. Your warning did not fall on deaf ears.

      To paraphrase commentator Evah21, “Gay marriage isn’t a matter of perversing a “sacred institution,” it’s a matter of letting everyone take part in the joys of marriage, monogamy, and a bit of societal normalcy.”

      And that is precisely what trolls like JD do NOT want to see come about. If gay marriage (civil-rights) becomes the “norm”, then the JD’s of the world can no longer accuse us of the horrible things that they take pleasure in doing. They would be subject to libel.

      As long as we remain outside the parameters established by these small thinking people, then they have their justifications for stoning us. Civil-rights would put an end to that and put people like JD out of business because if he starts slamming married gay people, they in turn, will have good cause to sue their ignorant asses into oblivion.

      I have maintained a premium membership with Gay.com for several years now. Until a few months ago, I was a regular visitor and commentator on that site, until it got to the point that every thread was filled with the rantings and ravings of homophobic trolls like JD.

      Interestingly, many of the trolls were gay, but of the pessimistic, LCR, boot-licking, self-hating closeted type whose only joy in life, was bursting the balloon of those who are working hard at bringing about full equality for all American citizens.

      Despite repeated letters of protest from me and other annoyed posters to the editors of Gay.com to either block or bar such posters, our letters fell on deaf ears. This, in my estimation, does not serve Gay.com’s readership who are gay, not straight. If the editor’s and publishers of gay blog sites cannot see where their bread is buttered, then I fear that they are headed toward oblivion.

      I cannot imagine, for the life of me, members of the LGBT community haunting str8 sites qnd lurking in them for the sole purpose of making anti-heterosexual commentaries. And were we to engage in that sort of deranged behavior, I wonder how long it would be tolerated before we are banned from their sites?

      I am certain that I speak for pretty much the total gay populace when I say that none of us have a problem with anyone being heterosexual. The only problem we gays have with heterosexuals, is when they attack our being homosexual, for whatever reasons. Then they’ve crossed the line.

      It is interesting to note that many of the heteros who attack gays, are often unsure of their own sexuality, like Senator Craig, Reverend Haggard and his ilk who feel the need to beat the drums against queers in a vain and desperate need to “cover” their own asses from discovery. I fear closet gays far more than I fear homophobic heterosexuals.

      As you so well stated, we are not coming here to engage with retarded bigots like JD. we are coming here to talk to intelligent people. I think it is the responsibility of the owners and publishers of gay blog sites to protect the very people who support them and view the advertising that keeps them in business.

      That’s just good, sensible business practice. No special favor here. We deserve better from those who serve the LGBT community and it’s high time that we started telling them so.

      Jan 4, 2009 at 1:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike
      Mike

      Cooper may well have something in his contract saying he cannot speak publicly/separately about his personal life or sexuality. I agree we should lay off him and leave him to our fantasies

      Jan 7, 2009 at 4:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • clay
      clay

      This is about the end of discrimination and the loss of my rights as an American citizen. It will come to be, until then I just hope the Naziesqe religion robots watch their step.

      Jan 13, 2009 at 7:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Emmaline
      Emmaline

      hi! The babes are here! This is my favorite site to visit. I make sure I am alone in case I get too hot. Post your favorite link here.

      Mar 31, 2009 at 9:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michiko
      Michiko

      Halo! Hot picture alert! If Paris Hilton is your fave, then I have a website for you to see. Who wants it?

      Apr 1, 2009 at 8:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.