Another Shining Example of Tolerance

[Big Don]

Manhunt.net's gay Republican victim



Jonathan Crutchley discovers how intolerant the gay community can be.
By James Kirchick
August 26, 2008
The Los Angeles Times
Excerpt:

Two weeks ago, news emerged that the co-founder of the website Manhunt.net had contributed $2,300 to the presidential campaign of John McCain. Uproar ensued.

Haven't heard of Manhunt?



Unless you're a gay man, that's to be expected. It's one of the most popular gay websites in the world, with 1 million registered members in the U.S. alone and 400,000 unique visitors a month. As its name implies, it's a site where many gay men go to find casual sexual encounters. Manhunt and sites like it have revolutionized one formative aspect of gay culture, taking what was once a public activity to the privacy of one's home.

Except that the Internet, as Jonathan Crutchley recently discovered, isn't really private. A successful real estate developer, he founded Manhunt with his life partner, Larry Basile, in 2001. He ran into trouble when Out, a gay magazine, published an article about the website in its current issue. The article, in passing, referred to Crutchley -- who until last week was chairman of the board at Manhunt -- as a "liberal Republican." That tidbit apparently shocked gay blogger Andy Towle, who within seconds found Crutchley's donation to McCain on a contributor database and posted the news on his website.
(((END EXCERPT)))
We are told, ad naseum, we are supposed to be tolerant of others. Those who tell us we must be tolerant are somewhat lacking in tolerance...

 

[shesulsa]

Huh?

Unless you're comparing party affiliation with criminal activity, like some people liken homosexuality to drug abuse and sex in hallways, I frankly don't see your point.

I suppose you're trying to compare Towle's blogging about the party affiliation of and campaign support from Crutchley to outing someone's sexual preference?

Selling taffy? I'll take a pound.

 

[Big Don]

Huh?

Unless you're comparing party affiliation with criminal activity, like some people liken homosexuality to drug abuse and sex in hallways, I frankly don't see your point.

I suppose you're trying to compare Towle's blogging about the party affiliation of and campaign support from Crutchley to outing someone's sexual preference?

Selling taffy? I'll take a pound.

Not at all. I am merely pointing out that tolerance of ideas and ideals, isn't too widespread by those who demand tolerance of their ideas and actions.

 

[elder999]

Not at all. I am merely pointing out that tolerance of ideas and ideals, isn't too widespread by those who demand tolerance of their ideas and actions.

Some things don't have to be tolerated, Don.

If a the CEO of a company that made a product you used-but could get elsewhere-made a very public and large donation to the presidential campaign of Al Sharpton, would you continue to buy that product, or boycott it? Would you share that information with your friends, maybe even start an email campaign? This is no different.....

 

[Big Don]

Some things don't have to be tolerated, Don.

If a the CEO of a company that made a product you used-but could get elsewhere-made a very public and large donation to the presidential campaign of Al Sharpton, would you continue to buy that product, or boycott it? Would you share that information with your friends, maybe even start an email campaign? This is no different.....

How enlightened of you. So, when the vast majority likes something the SELF PROCLAIMED intelligentsia doesn't or dislikes something they do, it is wrong of the majority and the "Tyranny of the masses" but, when those self proclaimed intelligentsia like or dislike something trying to actively silence or censure anyone who dares speak against their views, that is OK, because

Some things don't have to be tolerated

 

[elder999]

How enlightened of you. So, when the vast majority likes something the SELF PROCLAIMED intelligentsia doesn't or dislikes something they do, it is wrong of the majority and the "Tyranny of the masses" but, when those self proclaimed intelligentsia like or dislike something trying to actively silence or censure anyone who dares speak against their views, that is OK, because

You're kind of missing the point, aren't ya? You don't have to tolerate anything, personally. Withdraw your funding-say as much to your friends.It's not "intolerant"; it's politics. More importantly, it's a business relationship-they don't want their money used against them. It's a valid tactic, and not an example of inrolerance, or tolerance-merely an expression.

It's like I said-imagine the spam emails we'd be getting about M&M Mars if they were funding Al Sharpton or the American Communist Party-that stuff is, after all, public knowledge. Snicker sales, M&M sales, Milky Way and Three Musketeer sales would all be targets of those who didn't want to support such a thing.You wouldn't have to tolerate it. They've done the same thing-they didn't patronize a business because they don't like what the CEO was doing with "their" money. No one "outed" him as a Republican-he outed himself when he ponied up $3200 for McCain, and it became public record. They didn't TP his house, slash his tires or throw pies at him: they took their dollar$ elsewhere.

Once again I find myself having to ask: did you read the article?

 

[Nolerama]

First, I'd like to thank you for posting that article. The situation asks consumers to rethink what's more important in a business: political stance, or product quality? If we have ANY kind of freedom in this country, we do have the freedom to consume, and choice (theoretically) in consumer products.

An important point is also brought up about being a Massachusetts Republican; similar to an Alabama Democrat... As well as the (gasp!) concept of a "Liberal Republican." They do exist.

Regardless, I thought it was sad that McCain's people returned the money to Crutchley, who then gave that money to Obama's campaign. Wouldn't that tell voters that McCain is tolerant of the gay community, thereby increasing their potential voter base? On the flip side, does taking that money from a gay business owner alienate some of McCain's existing benefactors?

McCain's campaign simply made a choice. A few grand is a paltry tithing in the grand scheme of running a Republican Presidential campaign.

As far as those "intolerant" patrons of the MANHUNT site taking their business elsewhere, that's their choice. Bun in light of this article, I feel that they withdrew their membership well before getting all of the facts. Maybe it was Crutchley's responsibility to post something about that, especially when such a subject might touch a nerve with his own customers.

It's not tolerance/intolerance. It's conscientious consumerism gone awry.

 

[celtic_crippler]

My friends, hypocrisy is not limited to race, religion, gender, age, sexual preference, etc.

Also, where is it written that homosexuals have to be democrats? I must've missed that memo.

 

[elder999]

My friends, hypocrisy is not limited to race, religion, gender, age, sexual preference, etc.

Also, where is it written that homosexuals have to be democrats? I must've missed that memo.

Why, it's in the book of Kauzized Tso-same place it says blacks have to be democrats, and rich white guys have to be republicans...:lol:

 

[Andrew Green]

I wouldn't really expect anything different if a major gun websites owner was found giving money to a party that wanted to ban guns...

This is a gay website, and the Republican party is largely against gay marriage, which is a pretty big issue in the gay community. What would happen to Bill O'Rielly's viewership if it was discovered he had made donations to Dennis Kucinich? or someone else that was even more left leaning?

 

[elder999]

I wouldn't really expect anything different if a major gun websites owner was found giving money to a party that wanted to ban guns...

This is a gay website, and the Republican party is largely against gay marriage, which is a pretty big issue in the gay community. What would happen to Bill O'Rielly's viewership if it was discovered he had made donations to Dennis Kucinich? or someone else that was even more left leaning?

That's basically what I've been saying-he just ain't hearing it......:lol:

 

[MBuzzy]

I can't say that I see the point here either. To me, it isn't politics...it is business. If you run, own, or are the public face of a company, you better be pretty sure that your personal life and beliefs are in line with the target audience of your product. The website owner has every right to hold whatever belief he wants and his consumers have every right to take their business elsewhere if they don't agree. Yay capitalism!

 

[celtic_crippler]

I can't say that I see the point here either. To me, it isn't politics...it is business. If you run, own, or are the public face of a company, you better be pretty sure that your personal life and beliefs are in line with the target audience of your product. The website owner has every right to hold whatever belief he wants and his consumers have every right to take their business elsewhere if they don't agree. Yay capitalism!

Business and politics are practically one and the same.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I think the central distinction here is between tolerating and accepting. Just as one need not accept homosexuality in order to be tolerant of it, one need not accept or agree with the contribution in order to be tolerant of the guy's choice to do so. The community members weren't blaspheming the guy for contributing to McCain's campaign, simply using their money to express discontent with the decision. It's the same as refusing to continue shopping at a store if they begin practices you don't agree with.