Queerty ReBUTTal

Yowzers! We thought last week went fast – this week came and went like a meth-hungry maniac. It’s been crazy up in here with Donnie Davies and Isaiah Washington and all that shit. We appreciate all the comments from both those scandalous stories. We considered having a special bigot edition of Queerty ReBUTTal, but there have been too many comment-worthy comments. We’ll let you guys battle it out yourself.

In the meantime, take a look at what we had to say about some of this week’s comments that caught our eye. (And, yes, there is one on Washington.)

Obviously you kids had a lot to say about the seemingly unendless Isaiah Washington faggot mess, a topic that came up more than a few times this week. With regard to our posting on his meeting with the gays at GLSEN [“Washington Schedules More Gay Meetings“], a reader named David Keysor suggests a little linguistic history lesson:

Isn’t it time to educate our communities on the real meaning of the word “faggot”. According to The Comprehensive Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, this term simply means “a bundle of sticks”. It’s a 15th century term, the perjorative use comes from the days when men accused of being gay were bound and gagged and thrown on the faggots stacked around the feet of women accused of being witches. then the fire was lit and the suppossed witches and gays were burned to death. Why can’t we reclaim this word and make it our own with a positive meaning.

Pretty gross history, right? As for reclaiming the word: we did that ages ago. We’re total faggots. Not only that, we’re total cocksucking, buttfucking faggots and we wouldn’t have it any other way. Except, maybe, if we were rich faggots…that might be better.

While we’re on the subject of cocksucking, who could forget the first installment of our two part examination of Brian L. Rzepczynski’s carnal counseling, “Love Coach” Leads Sexless Masses Toward First Base, to which a particularly two-faced reader calling himself “Vinman” commented:

No mention of the need to lower your standards???? We have a single friend that is holding out for a prince. The only problem is he won’t even talk to the frogs. And believe me our friend belongs on the lily pad as well.

Damn. That’s some cold shit right there. Rather than talking internet-based smack about your friend, we suggest you have a sit down and set him straight. Start by saying, “Listen, you’re really not that cute.” Then you can deliver the crushing blow, “In fact, you’re heinous.” Honesty is, after all, the best policy.

As for honesty, “floodlite” apparently objects to our use of “anally-inclined” in our post “Hollywood’s Cream of The Gay Crop Revealed!“. He writes:

anally-inclined? there are better ways, and more accurate ways to describe us…grrr

What? No ass play? Okay, we understand – how about “cock consuming”? No? Well, you tell us how to describe you and we’ll take it into consideration. The rule is, however, that you must use a body part/region. Deal?

In other sort of activist news, on Wednesday we asked “Does Google Discriminate Against Gay Bloggers?“, in which we recalled Scott-O-Rama’s drama with Google. It seems the discontinued his AdSense account over some racy content. A reader named Ian deserves an award for his sleuthing:

video.google.com seems to be a treasure trove of sorts for the ex-gay movement. A search for ‘gay’ returns such beauts as a gay bashing in Belgrade, “Evangelism 101: How to Witness to Someone Who is Gay” and “Gay No More”

We’ll done. We’re sorry you had to witness such atrocities. Just know that it’s for the good of Gayville.

Speaking of the good of Gayville, reader Paul wonders if Massachusett’s decision to register HIV-patients may be part of a larger plot [MA Agrees With CDC, Will Register HIV Patients]:

No government ever does anything “just because”. There is something going on here, with a specific and desired outcome that they don’t want people to know about. Someone better keep an eye on this.

We appreciate and agree with your skepticism – don’t worry, we’ll be keeping our pretty little peepers peeled.

Now, a special Queerty ReBUTTal: we’re a little upset none of you kids commented on yesterday’s post: “More Wal-Mart “Gay” Drama“. It seems to us that there’s a lot to discuss there, so we’d really like you to go back and give it another read. We worked hard on it and do value your opinions. Well, most of your opinions.

Have a good weekend, readers. You deserve it. Come to think of it, so do we…