Stacy McCain is a smug, self-righteous, homophobe. Uptight doesn't begin to identify the man. Absolutely can't stand him. Screw him and anything he writes.

This is a classic case of bullies blaming their victims. I would expect young Muslim thugs who rape women to say they asked for it, (and claim that they are the victims), but I hate to see that attitude being enabled -- whether on the right or on the left.

People who wear Ipods are likely to have them stolen, just as people who drive ostentatious new cars could become victims of auto theft. Should their lavish tastes be condemned too? Should they be scolded for their "conspicuous consumption"?

geez Frank, tell us what you really feel.

what.ever.

Darleen:
I was in a mood and shouldn't post then. But reading McCain's muck will unhinge me every time. His swipe at British decadence is one thing, but then he can't wait to say:

And given that a quite similar decadence is evident in American culture...what’s happening now in the U.K. foreshadows what the future holds for us?

Stacy McCain follows in a long line of self-righteous moralists from Cotton Mather to Jerry Falwell who blame any problem in society on what they deem as loose sex. These types get off in condemning the personal lives of us lesser mortals. I believe it is their personal form of fetish.

In a footnote to his smarmy article (does he write any other?) he admits to an invitation to visit the UK, but cries poor mouth since this is "make my wife happy" week.
(Stacy, honey, the ONLY thing that would make your wife happy would be to buy her that vibrator she must need, and send her a video of your pat down by that burly TSA bruiser on your way out to Merry Ol' England!)

Anon (Frank?) I don't find the question "self-righteous moralists" and, IMHO, that is the type of over-the-top reaction these days that is leveled at anyone that dare breathe outloud the words "morals, ethics, principles".

Would you classify atheist Ayn Rand as a "self-righteous moralist" concerned with "loose sex"? Cuz if you've read Atlas Shrugged she throws out the line of "show me the woman a man sleeps with and I'll tell you his philosophy of life."

"Loose" or promiscuous sex - as in sex with near strangers in order to prove how hip and with it one is (for example) - is a symptom of a larger problem. It's rarely "good" for the individual and has repurcussions in society at large when it is wide spread.

Kings and queens have long had affairs and mistresses. Houses of prostitution flourished in supposedly uptight Victorian times. Today's Royal Family is being excoriated by McCain not for having "sex with near strangers in order to prove how hip and with it one is" but simply because once unremarkable behavior is now shouted about in the tabloids. Is it their fault that there is no privacy?

Whose fault is it that men who behave the way Victorian gentlemen once behaved (by hiring prostitutes) are today denounced as moral degenerates?

Darleen, I think what you call "over-the-top reaction" is not so much leveled at anyone who dares breathe the words "morals, ethics, principles," (words I breathe here quite promiscuously) but at self-appointed scolds who rail against homosexuality, "sluttiness" and pornography, and who generally deem the sexual behavior of other people to be their business.

McCain is witty, but as a writer he often strikes me as a bit of a hedonist-basher (which is of course his right -- and if you don't like it, don't read him.) Correct me if I am wrong, but I think what set Frank off is that he seemed to be blaming crime victims for being hedonists, even as he recognizes that their hedonism was the reason they were attacked. I think that makes about as much sense as blaming Jack the Ripper's victims for being prostitutes.

Eric, that is exactly what set me off. McCain is not unique in his beliefs, but in line with a lot of conservatives.

Darleen, I agree with you about having standards. But I see people like McCain who focus on sexual morality as having almost a prurient interest in the subject. You mentioned Ayn Rand. Do you remember the scene where Dagny Taggart was forced into a public confession of her affair with Hank Rearden? That is the kind of thing moralists live for - it's a way of bringing down those around them who may have all the integrity and honesty in the world, who may have achieved great things in business, science, or the arts, but who fall short in these people's eyes because they don't live up to their contrived standard of sexual morality. And why are so many of them such hypocrites? Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Bishop Eddie Long, to name just a few.

McCain is not unique in his beliefs, but in line with a lot of conservatives.

That may be, but I don't agree that he is a homophobe. The term implies bigotry. He has gay friends. Many gays are conservative. Etc.

That McCain has gay friends doesn't mean that he is necessarily gay friendly. I have listened enough to Rush Limbaugh to know that he will take passing pot shots at gays, some quite vicious, while graciously inviting Elton John into his home to perform at his wedding. (Elton John as minstrel.)
I've known a number of people of that generation and older who wish to think of themselves as sophisticated, and will list the many gay friendships they have nurtured to prove their lack of prejudice. At the same time, they support DOMA, DADT, oppose gay marriage AND civil partnerships, but relish living in their make believe world of acceptance and erudition.
I've read enough of Stacy McCain's, witty yes, but tainted articles. I'm not falling for his dog and pony show. When he forcefully comes out to end discrimination against gays in the military, I'll take another look. Until then he's on my list.

Eric, you may have missed these article by Stacy McCain, especially the last one:

How Gay is Elana Kagan? April 19, 2010
"Gayer than the annual convention of the K.D. Lang Fan Club."

If Meghan McCain Has Lost the Gays... September 9, 2010
In which the indomitable Stacy calls her a "fag hag"

Gay Rights, Gay Rage The American Spectator November 17, 2008
He quotes Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore approvingly "that homosexuality behavior had been proscibed for centuries as a crime against nature, and that Alabama courts had consistently condemned homosexual acts as illegal under the laws of this state and immoral in the eyes of most of its citizens." - in a case where a lesbian was denied custody rights simply because she was "immoral" per se.

And finally,
Gays. And Marriage. And Rights. March 10, 2009

"...personally, I'm sick and damned tired of the transparent nonsense being peddled as "rights." Judge Roy Moore got it right: An enormous and venerable corpus of Anglo-American jurisprudence classified homosexual activity as "a crime against nature," having no legal sanction and certainly not constituting a "right."

"The gay-rights movement would like you to believe that sexual behavior can be divided into two categories: Gay and straight. But according to the Creator, this is a false distinction. God divides sexual behavior into two categories: Righteousness and sin."

"Everything else -- everything else -- is sin. And this was once recognized by Anglo-American jurisprudence, which in one way or another imposed sanctions against every type of sexual behavior except between man and wife"

Yes indeed, gay friendly.

And sophisticated!

Hey, Frank, fuck who or what you want. Just don't expect me to provide funds to silence those who disagree with you (no "hate speech" laws, no prosecutions of those who don't want to associate with you (buy your own apartment buildings and rent them to whomever you please), hire you, etc.), or treat the unique costs of your life choices.

It is a hallmark of the leftist that they require endorsement and label anything less as "hate".

SDN,
Stacy McCain has every right to his opinions, and I would be the first to defend his right to state them publicly. And I have a right to mine.
No one brought up speech codes, discrimination in hiring, or public accommodation.
And the problem of government spending on AIDS would be solved if we got government completely out of health care - research, testing, and public insurance. But then would you be happy? You might actually have to assume full responsibility for that indigent grandma or parent. You know, the one who gets COPD because she smoked 2 packs of unfiltered Pall Mall's a day for 40 years and now thinks the government should provide oxygen, in home nursing, free drugs, and therapy.

Responsibility for lifestyle isn't just a gay male thing, bucko.

SDN, Stacy McCain, and others:
I understand the Christian view of homosexuality as sin very well. Only those of us who were put into Christian schools at an early age, and had the concepts of sin drilled into us on almost a daily basis for years, can appreciate the extent to which Christian theology has ruled our society.

You may rant and rave all you want about our sinful character, but we are not going away. We have been part of society for thousands of years, and by now, in a civilized world, one would think that you might get a clue that just maybe it is something inherent in nature, and not something chosen out of indulgence or weakness. If that is the case, as all evidence seems to point, then given your own religious beliefs you must acknowledge that your God created us, just like he created you, in His own image. Did He create us then out of spite? Or was it like the Greek gods on Olympus just a special creation for His amusement? Or did He create us strictly for your amusement and ridicule? Or not believing in an unjust and flippant God, and holding to your view of homosexuality as sin, then He is not perfect, and created an aberration. So then God goofed?

Whatever your convoluted accounting, we are here, and we are no longer going to accept the scorn and disgrace heaped on us. We are not going to accept second class citizenship or the marginalizing and ostracism of a society that should look into its own soul, before dissecting ours. We are not sinful deviants any more than you are perfect saints. We are just human, with all the warts, and glory. You who wish to cast the first stone are the ones who are committing a "crime against nature" - the nature of man.

Frank, McCain clearly believes homosexuality is a religious sin. Obviously, that sentiment is not "gay friendly," but he does have gay friends, and he admits to being a sinner himself, and he also has friends who are adulterers.

It is one thing to argue that homosexuality is a sin, but what strikes me as odd is the disproportionate attention paid to it. Why is a sin that didn't make it into the Ten Commandments considered worse than the violations of the Ten Commandments? They liken it to adultery, but adultery was defined as a man having sex with a married woman who was not his wife. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality but condemned divorce, yet some Christians insist on seeing homosexuality as the biggest sin of all. I think they are being selective.

You present a strong argument against religious bigotry, but I think there is a distinction between the religious and the personal. The problem is that religious arguments simply cannot be won.

Eric, I acknowledge your point about the difference between personal acceptance vs. religious belief. But I've come to the time in my life when I'm not willing anymore to overlook the overt sleights and nastiness, no matter what is in the heart.

Stacy McCain is probably a charming man who doesn't see himself as a bigot or racist. And those who he charms like Cynthia Yokey only encourage his homophobic digs. If he didn't have a strong religious belief underlying it all, I too could overlook it as just affectation like Ann Coulter.

But when a man who has deep religious beliefs that homosexuality is sin and a "crime against nature" then goes on to call people faggots, and fag hags, and has not one ounce of support in him of equality for gays and lesbians, then just what would you call him? I'll start with homophobe, queer basher, and clever bigot.

We'll just have to disagree on this.

I don't think I am defending the man so much as I am arguing for civility in public debates. Probably a lost cause. However, at least he admits he is a sinner, so if he thinks I am a sinner, it's the pot calling the kettle black. But is my argument with God? I don't know, but if God is as bigoted as McCain and a whole host of people insist he is, then God sucks and I want nothing to do with what they say is his kingdom. I say this as someone who believes in God, but not the bigot God of 9/11.

I'd rather be in hell than with a cruel and tyrannical deity.

However, I do try to be polite.

(Again, religious arguments cannot be won.)

Good luck with civility on the net. To be heard over the din so many of us have become trolls. I try to repress the instinct, but as with the 1st comment here, will sometimes lose the battle.

It was a mistake. The gut reaction was because I've known the type, grew up with them, been friends, and been rejected. Better to blame the religion than take it out on the acolyte. (But R.S.McCain does have some serious baggage.)