Marquette Warrior: Marquette Gay Blog Labels Straights “Breeders”

Monday, January 21, 2008

Marquette Gay Blog Labels Straights “Breeders”

Yep, it’s a derisive term used by homosexuals to demean heterosexuals.

From the blog of the Gay/Straight Alliance, in a post complaining about a Rhode Island court decision:
I can hear the breeders groaning now. It kind of sounds like a mellow, grotesque Tom Waits song.
This reminds us of a situation in Provincetown, Massachusetts in which people who signed a petition against gay marriage were harassed and attacked.
PROVINCETOWN -- Town leaders here are holding a public meeting today to air concerns about slurs and bigoted behavior. And this time, they say, it’s gay people who are displaying intolerance.

Police say they logged numerous complaints of straight people being called “breeders” by gays over the July Fourth holiday weekend. Jamaican workers reported being the target of racial slurs. And a woman was verbally accosted after signing a petition that opposed same-sex marriage, they said.
And of course, on this same Marquette gay blog GSA President Jessica Cushion insisted that no speaker who opposes gay marriage should be allowed on the Marquette campus, since expressing such opposition amounts to “hate speech.”

It’s a chronic problem in the rarefied world of political correctness -- and that world has spread out of academia into the mainstream media. Members of designated victim groups are allowed to be offended at the barest slight, but feel perfectly free to express rank bigotry toward those who disagree with them, or even merely adopt a different lifestyle.


The President of the Gay/Straight Alliance has left a comment to this post apologizing for the term “breeders.” Kudos to him for that.

Labels: , , , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It’s a chronic problem in the rarefied world of political correctness -- and that world has spread out of academia into the mainstream media. Members of designated victim groups are allowed to be offended at the barest slight, but feel perfectly free to express rank bigotry toward those who disagree with them, or even merely adopt a different lifestyle."

So, let me get this straight:

Barring homosexuals from marrying = "barest slight"

Calling heterosexuals "breeders" = "rank bigotry"


12:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, how exactly is being called a "breeder" demeaning?

Speaking as a heterosexual, I think if you're offended by being called a breeder, you have bigger problems with which you should be dealing.

12:53 PM  
Blogger JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe said...

Heh, "Breeders." I get it. That's funny.

... you're not really offended by that, are you?

2:11 PM  
Blogger Amy said...

It's not just marriage, but even so much as perhaps daring to not agree that homosexuality is a normal, healthy lifestyle choice. Often, it isn't. If you think homosexuality is a sin, that's considered a grand offense - even if you've never done or said anything directly to someone who is gay.

The basic structure of society is dependent upon the traditional, nuclear family. Two parents - a man and a woman - living in a married state, raising their children together.

Shifting the definition of marriage to anything will lead to the breakdown of the institution entirely (at least civilly) and cause undue harm to society at large. Look at the troubles single-parent families have dealing with poverty, violence and abuse.

Traditional families are not always perfect but - research has shown they are statistically the most healthy, stable and safe living situations. And culturally, we've recognized that and have encouraged that for over two hundred years.

And the question I've always asked is why do homosexuals who, as those who call heterosexuals "breeders", despise the parameters of traditional marriage and reject traditional society seek to emulate it?

Were I gay, I wouldn't want to imitate heterosexuals and demand I be married, too.

3:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AMY - "Were I gay, I wouldn't want to imitate heterosexuals and demand I be married, too."

Ummmm, why not?

5:35 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

I just rejected a comment to this post that called another poster a "bigot" and told the poster to "STFU."

I think we can guess which side of the issue that comment came from: the side that thinks it's OK to attack those who disagree with them.

Which very nicely makes the point I made in my blog post.

Thanks you poster!

11:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I think we can guess which side of the issue that comment came from: the side that thinks it's OK to attack those who disagree with them."

Why does this or any argument have to be about sides and narrowed down to two arguments? Because I largely disagree with your post, I am reduced to a narrowly defined "side" that "thinks its OK to attack those who disagree with them"? That's not how it works. I wish "arguments" on this blog weren't so polarizing and stunting to any real political debate that focuses on engagement with the issues, not just picking sides and reiterating the same tired reasons why one is on that side. To me, that truly isn't "politics" (with a positive connotation) of any sort.

I also wish you didn't make such sweeping statements on this blog and thoughtless generalizations. The bigotry can honestly be felt and heard through your words here and its not just the words you say, but the way you say it-- without much thought it seems and without much mental room to even be swayed to think of things in another light. I have friends who feel the way you do about certain issues, but I respect them because they at least open their minds to the issues and don't act as if we're on a kindergarten school yard trying to prove that we are better than each other. These are issues that matter deeply and influence our basic humanity. Please, let's not revert back to our elementary selves.

12:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can you imagine, calling people with whom you disagree bigots? Really, who would stoop that low?


"Dawkins would ban religious instruction for children. How is that any more tolerant than requiring religious instruction for children — regardless of their parents’ wishes? It isn’t, and only a BIGOT like Dawkins would flirt with the idea."

"How Many Bigots Like This Are In University Admissions?"

"Yes, the hate-Bush left needs to “transcend” civility and use the vile language that comes from their hearts. We applaud that. We want it to be clear who the BIGOTS are, and who the haters are."

"Gay activists demean and vilify anybody who disagrees with them."
They are the true BIGOTS in this debate, and conservatives ought to loudly insist on saying so."

I know, I know, those guys you were talking about are REALLY bigots while Amy is just a person who gives absolutely ridiculous justifications for discriminating against an entire group of people.

I guess the only person allowed to make the case that someone is a bigot is you, eh?

Now go ahead, Mr. Free Speech, delete this one too.

1:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The poster said "STFU" and called Amy, I assume, a "bigot." Okay. The person clearly isn't very intelligent and it would have been more constructive to to break down and refute her points, but I hardly think this "deleted poster" is representative of an entire SIDE of this debate.

On MY side of this debate, for every "deleted poster" there is a well-reasoned and civil person like myself.

Breaking down complex debates like this in the way that you do (the just vs. the people who think it's okay to attack those who disagree with them) is not only lazy it's wrong. Where does the large contingent of people like me fit in?

8:23 AM  
Blogger JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe said...

But both sides do that. How are we to guess based on your clue? Also, many people disagree about what constitutes an "attack." Initialized swear words are less of an attack than bigoted ideas to many people. And calling a bigot a bigot isn't really an attack, is it? I mean, there's a definition of the word bigot. If you or Amy say something that objectively makes you fall under that definition, it's not really an attack to apply that definition, is it?

10:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, Anonymous, the post that was deleted was a point by point demolition of just about everything she said. So you are wrong about the commenter not being intelligent. (I'm sure that is why deleting the post was all the more satisfying for McAdams.)

I may be guilty, though, of not realizing that my using initialized swear words would give McAdams an excuse to delete my lengthy destruction of her nonsense. What got me into trouble is taking extreme offense at Amy saying what she would want if she were gay. My point was that she has absolutely no clue what she would think, feel or want if she grew up as a gay woman in this society, and so....

It would be like me saying "If I were black, I wouldn't ...." I think an African-American would be absolutely entitled to direct some initialized swear words at me. And I would be aghast to think that someone who takes himself to be a champion of free speech would delete that person's comment to me.

And JesusIsJust-- I think you are absolutely right. McAdams has no problem calling people bigots when he thinks he sees bigoted behavior.
But for some reason he thinks that only he has insight into what sort of behavior or speech is bigoted. There is a definition, as you point out, and it seems that others ought to be allowed to make the case that someone falls under that definition. And then other people who think the claim is mistaken should be allowed to respond.

12:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you think this would have been a good argument coming from a man during the women's suffrage movement? In what way is your argument not analogous?
Look, there are some things in the Bible that suggest that women should be subservient to men and that suggests they should let men vote for them. I don't understand why it is such an offense to women if I think their being allowed to vote is sinful? And why do they get so upset when I dare to not agree that women are rational agents. Often they aren't.

"The basic structure of society is dependent upon" men alone having the right to vote: one man, one ballot.

Changing the definition of voting to include women will "lead to the breakdown of the institution entirely (at least civilly) and cause undue harm to society at large." Look at the troubles children have with making rational decisions.

The way men vote is not always perfect, but it is really the most rational. "And culturally, we've recognized that and encouraged it for over two hundred years."

The question I've always asked is: why do women who despise "traditional" voting practices want to participate in it?

I know if I were a woman I wouldn't want to imitate men and demand that I vote too.

12:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joe - I take back the unintelligent comment. I misunderstood (or McAdams misrepresented) the full context of the comment that was deleted.

1:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No worries. You had no way to know.

1:59 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

You've quoted me SEVERAL times using the same comment I made, and not once posted the fact that you took my comments out of context, even though you did and even though I've corrected you countless time. Obviously you're doing this because in context, what I said makes sense. JESUITS, the very people who founded this University, would not allow anti-gay speakers because THEY would view this intolerance as hate speech. Nowhere did I say that people's opinions shouldn't be allowed, I said that Marquette wouldn't let it happen because of the nature of the talk.

Now stop quoting me out of context. It's ignorant.

PS - I haven't been GSA President since May 2007.

3:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As President of the GSA on MU's campus, I'd like to apologize for the recent posts to the blog. A former member and student has access to the account and has recently been posting numerous blogs that do not pertain to our organization. We do not condone or encourage the use of the word breeder, even though it isn't intended to be a malicious word in most situations.

The particular blogger in question will no longer be posting to the blog.

5:39 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...


Anybody can read the exchange I linked to and see that you did want anti-gay marriage speech shut up on campus.

Here is just one brief quote:

It’s not like abortion where people can choose whether or not to have one. Homosexuality chooses you, and by automatically deeming someone a second class citizen because of how they were born, and by saying that a university should allow an influential speaker to come to campus and say that homosexuals aren’t entitled to the rights that other Americans enjoy because they were born a certain way, is promoting discrimination.

I highly doubt Marquette would stand for such things, and for once I have something to applaud them for.

You say Marquette would shut up a speaker opposed to gay marriage, and you say you would "applaud" that.

You should have had the good sense to back down when I challenged you on that.

6:37 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...


It's interesting that, while some of the posters here are trying to justify the offensive language, you recognize it for what it is, and want to keep it off your blog.

Kudos to you for a responsible action.

It is possible to disagree on hot button issues like gay marriage and not stoop to name calling.

6:41 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...


It's nice you know how to use the search box on my blog, but anybody who actually reads those posts will know that I never called anybody a bigot merely because of a public policy disagreement.

I would never call somebody a bigot simply for favoring gay marriage, for example.

I never would call anybody a bigot for voting for John Kerry, to give another example.

I wouldn't even call somebody a bigot for opposing school prayer, although I think of outlawing school prayer in the same way you think of outlawing gay marriage.

In all the examples you posted, the person in question was expressing raw hatred of some group that the left doesn't like, often conservative Christians.

Bigotry is not a matter of policy disagreements. Bigotry is a matter of cultural hatred.

6:47 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home