Oh, GREAT. First the war on Christmas, now an attack from "the 2-5% who are homosexuals"

[Miles Archer]

Rush Limbaugh's Confused, Rambling Reaction To Michael Sam's Coming Out

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/11/rush-limbaugh-michael-sam_n_4768486.html



Rush Limbaugh had a variety of strange reactions to the news that Michael Sam could be the NFL's first gay player.

Many people were happy when Sam came out. Limbaugh, though, wanted to make a series of other rambling points.

"Why is there anything political about homosexuality?" he wondered, hopefully rhetorically. Then he commented that straight people are "under assault by the 2-5 percent who are homosexuals," though he did not expand on this view. Then he mentioned that football isn't healthy.

Then he got into an argument that he didn't really resolve about why the media is so interested in celebrating the decision by Sam to come out. It was all very weird, as if Limbaugh was scrabbling around for a way to oppose Sam's declaration, but couldn't really figure it out.

[shenmue]

1. I'm straight, I don't feel like I'm under assault

This must be true only in the fantasyland in his own head.

[gollygee]

2. How is a football player being gay

an attack upon straight people?

Stupid stupid stupid. All that matters is whether he can play football well. I am not an authority on football but from what I've read he can.

[1000words]

3. Where's he getting 2-5 percent?

Is that right?

[Igel]

4. By some surveys, the lower number is more like it.

Depends on how you define "homosexual." The high numbers usually rely on a very small number of acts, often years before the survey was done. Does one act at 18 define you when you're 35?

The argument against the low # is that it's again based on self-reporting. Are you more likely to deny being gay or to tell the truth? In some subcultures, even if you regularly engage in gay sex you still tend (at least until recently, I don't know if reports say this has changed) to say you're not gay--either because it's not how you define yourself or because you don't want others to know.

So 2-5 seems not entirely unreasonable. Most attempts at objectivity are at the lower end, not necessarily the lowest figures cited. I've seen numbers as low as 1%, but those are probably rounded down. Advocacy groups like the high end # because it gives them more clout.



(Note that the same kind of stats happen with counts of Muslims in the US. In the years after 911 the number skyrocketed. Mosques reported their membership rolls, but if you moved you were counted two or three times. Other reports listed immigrants from Muslim countries and assumed they were all Muslim, even if there was above-average Xian emigration. It was the same kind of war by stats. You had your bias--do you want the # low or high--and found ways to confirm it.)

[1000words]

6. I thought it was closer to 10%

Not sure why I assumed it. Regardless, the LGBT community is organized!

[okaawhatever]

12. It was a Republican survey and they didn't count the politicians in the bathrooms. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. Rush is still confused by "Negro" quarterbacks

Dude needs a time machine to catch up with the issues.

[el_bryanto]

7. Yes - the whole rant is bizarre

He gets into a tear about being objective.

Liberals believe that it is an act of bigotry to be an objective reporter. Why? Why is being objective bigoted? The simple answer is: If you are objective, it means you are not championing the victims that you see left and right as you go about your job. If you're objective, it means you're not standing up for, calling attention to, making the case for, members of minorities.

It's very bizarre - also because it's one of those rants where someone clearly wants to say something but they aren't going to say it because it might get them in trouble.

Bryant

[Bigmack]

8. The junkie gasbag...

... has to remember that the 2-5% have families, friends, co-workers, teammates, etc who support and love them.

You sure you want to take on that group, Pigboy?

To give you an idea... we had two gay teachers at the HS where I taught. 80 staff/teachers all knew.

We protected them and took on the Mormons who were sniffing around.

You sure you want to take on that group, Pigboy?

[radicalliberal]

9. Wanna see a scary picture?

[img][/img]


This is scarier than any movie monster. Look at those captivating eyes! You can't turn away from them! They remind me of a snake hypnotizing a bird!






(Yes, I know snakes can't hypnotize their prey; but the word picture is amusing and is quite appropriate here. )

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Some posters on DU claim that to criticize an American bigot like Rush is equal to 'hating

the American people as a whole'. They claim that criticism of a law or of a politician is the same as hating an entire culture, so you have to support Rush or you hate Americans as a whole. This is the standard some apply to the Russian anti gay laws, if we criticize the laws we 'hate Russians'.
So careful, critics of Rush, we'd not want to be Americaphobes!

[tanyev]

11. If they would just stop attacking, then Rush wouldn't have to think about homosexuality so often.

[Rex]

13. Pity the stupid Republican Robot, he is stuck in hate mode!

The reason the RRobot is rambling; his racist and homophobic wires are getting crossed so he doesn't know which one to let dominate.

[okaawhatever]

14. Why is there anything political about homosexuality? Because politicians keep making laws against it

See how that works.