Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register

Gay Dilution Delusions?


Remember our report on Aussie Pol, Mark Latham, in which we reported his new book (the brilliantly entitled A Conga Line of Suckholes) contains less than sparkling comments on gays?

Well, we didn’t either. At least, not until we got a less than sparkling email from his publisher insisting his book contains nothing of the sort and that he was going to get all legal on our asses.

So, sorry Mr. Latham. If you need a shoulder to cry on – well, we’re assuming ours won’t be your first choice, nor will the shoulders of our erroneous sources: The Daily Record and Pink News UK. (Yeah, we’re total rats.)

On:           Oct 3, 2006
Tagged: , ,
    • Genetics & Ethics

      That was perhaps the worst retraction I’ve ever read — anywhere. Not only is it sarcastic and juvenile, but the whole “ours won’t be your first choice” line continues to perpetuate the same noitions of homophobia in Mr. Latham for which you are supposedly apoligizing. I know it’s tough to admit, guys, but you fucked up with the original post and fucked up again with this half-assed retraction. At least Pink News U.K. printed an honorable retraction. That’s what REAL journalists do.

      Oct 3, 2006 at 4:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MD

      Mark Latham makes a habit of making offensive comments about everyone. Indeed, not one person that worked with him in his political life remains unscathed. He has proven to be a man of no dignity or decency. See http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/look-out-tossbags-lathams-back/2006/09/24/1159036415566.html

      oh, and the above comment looks like it was written by his publisher.

      Oct 4, 2006 at 9:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Genetics & Ethics

      I’ll take the publisher bit as flattery and leave it at that — even though your guess couldn’t be farther from the mark.

      And “not one person that worked with him in his political life remains unscathed,” eh? (My emphasis there.) You couldn’t be more wrong about that one, too (check the comments):


      My point is that the topic at hand is Latham’s supposed homophobia. Call him what you like, I’ve yet to see anything in print or online (stateside) thus far that proves he’s guilty of that and the link you posted does nothing to support what you say. Likewise, Queerty’s supposed “retraction” did little to support their attempt at an apology.

      Oct 7, 2006 at 5:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

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

  • Copyright 2016 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.