Adam Baldwin & Nick Searcy's Twitter Meltdown That Began With An Anti-Gay Tweet



Adam Baldwin (L) & Nick Searcy (R)
[This article has a full update - click through to read]

What began as an article on New Now Next has blossomed into a full-scale Twitter meltdown for former Firefly alum (as well as current anti-gay conservative and cast member of TNT's The Last Ship) Adam Baldwin. And in the process he dragged acquaintance Nick Searcy from FX's Justified into the fray as they both spent the better part of their Saturday afternoon and evening trolling my twitter account over an off-the-cuff commentary tweet on anti-gay remarks initially made by Baldwin.

It began when Baldwin made a tweet stating, "What's wrong, now, with a father marrying his son for love & to avoid tax penalties?" Dan Avery at New Now Next saw the tweet and wrote about it which lead to Baldwin's eventual meltdown. And the rest, well - here's a handy dandy Storify of this evening's events so everyone can see exactly what transpired (below).

As a side note, while I normally wouldn't contact someone's employer to report anti-LGBT behavior on Twitter, having a public, influential role such as actor or politician is different (in my opinion). If you're being paid enough to influence thousands - if not millions - of people with your opinion, and if you rely on your public image and clout to maintain that work, you can't cry foul when someone holds you accountable for your publicly spoken or written words.

Edit to add as of February 22, 2014:
Later in the evening, Nick Searcy's tweets took a decidedly negative turn toward an anti-weight, fat-shaming tone so I first attempted to step away from the debate and ask him to get help, and then completely disengaged. Neither worked, as you'll see in the tweets below. Fat-shaming is never okay. 

Edit to add #2 as of February 23, 2014 @ 11:30pm ET:
To address a question/criticism that seems to be rampant on social media boards at the moment: this article was written after the fact. Several  people have insinuated that I "set up" their conservative actor hero(es) for pageviews. 

To that all I have to say is this: I never intended to make this a big deal (otherwise my initial tweet wouldn't have been as snarky and hashtagged as such). Baldwin didn't have to respond - and when he did respond (and called in Searcy), they didn't have to be belligerent in their conversation and tone. I didn't set out to make these actors look like wingnuts; they did it fine all by themselves. I merely aggregated the tweets after the conversation was (mostly) over and posted them here since I think the world deserves to know what these two actors really believe.

Responding to their attacks doesn't make me disgusting, doesn't make me 'as culpable,' or any other combination of absurdity I've heard since this began. It makes me a random blogger in Boston who spoke out against a ridiculous marriage equality comparison. It makes me that same blogger who suddenly became the target of two ultra-conservative C-list celebrities and their poorly-phrased, playground-level insults that reflected more on their personalities than anything.


And just so we're clear, my take on the conversation (though it touched on being overly offensive at times) never truly veered too far off the "it's insanely ridiculous that this is happening" mindset. In fact, I said (in part) on Facebook of the incident as it was happening, "I think it's hilarious that they're both spending their Saturday night on Twitter trolling a random guy in Boston for saying something about Adam Baldwin on Twitter."

Update #3 as of February 25, 2014 at 11am ET:
We've been cited by a few notable national publications like HuffPoJezebel, and The Escapist. Thanks for that! One consistent question I've received that seems to keep cropping up (other than the questions addressed in the last update) is the fact that I used the hashtag #idiot in my initial tweet to Baldwin. 

Though I addressed this briefly above, I think it deserves more than a one sentence throwaway. I never expected Baldwin to respond. Honestly. Had I truly thought my comment would spark a (ahem) conversation, I probably would've been more diplomatic.  Alas, we don't always get to choose what goes viral, and in this instance, all I can do is choose how I react to the aftermath of the situation. 

Furthermore, I hashtagged it as such for a reason: mainly, making that sort of comparison - even if it was in a non-sexual sense - was idiotic. Using that same logic mothers and sons/fathers and daughters would currently be getting married if that was such a concern. But it's not; it's an irrelevant distraction and Baldwin is smart enough to realize that. 

While harsh language isn't always the most PC way of making a point, sometimes it's the most efficient. And in this case, it highlighted the egregious opinions of two celebrities that apparently enjoy bullying others online. (And on that note, as of today - Day 4 - both men (Searcy particularly) are still copying me on belligerent tweets.)

Update as of March 5, 2014 at 2:00pm ET:
It appears as if Adam Baldwin has been doing some house cleaning - that is, he's scrubbed many of the more heinous tweets from his Twitter account after he believed this all died down. I'm not the only one who's noticed either 
Chez Pazienza at The Daily Banter wrote a follow up article on a similar encounter he had with Baldwin that ended with similar results. He said in part:
"What followed that were a hell of a lot of iterations of the word “lie” from him directed at me (with one tweet wondering whether I was fired from CNN for lying). I’d put them up here, but as a follower of his told me as the Twitter feud broadened out, he has a habit of “cleaning” his feed every so often, which is certainly his right but it makes it difficult to actually track what he says. It’s easy for somebody to say you’re lying about him when there’s no way to prove what he actually said and you’re forced to just trust him or his followers on his intent."
Also, for the record, I'm not fat. I do believe fat-shaming is wrong regardless of body size, but apparently by Hollywood standards my 36" waist makes me Shamu. Thankfully, by Boston standards, it just means I need another cheeseburger.

[The title of this article has been modified to more accurately reflect the full culmination of events and conversation.]



131 comments:

  1. I am just disgusted that those two guys, kept throwing out fat comments, rich comments,do you know who I am comments....blah blah blah.Clearly they are idiots who were fortunate enough

    to work with other idiots who thought they were great actors in the first place.Then ,posting a picture of a caterpillar,which leads me to believe they are saying something derogatory with those that have special needs.Absolutely appalling!

    ReplyDelete
  2. There goes any respect I had for Adam Baldwin ...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've lost even more respect for Searcy in that whole 'argument.'

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hmmm. Can't say I disapprove of what they said. Legalizing same-sex marriage CAN -- for someone looking at that specific action without any other context -- be seen as a step toward legalizing other forms of marriage -- incest or bestiality being the next two better-known variants.

    It's a legitimate question, one you answered with no minimum of snark or immediate offense, inviting a flamewar through inciteful baiting. What I don't see anywhere in either of their posts is anything at all homophobic or anti-homosexual, yet you immediately threw that card and labelled the whole deck, simply because he responded more vigorously (and successfully IMO) than you had expected.

    Sorry, dude. You're in the wrong here, not Baldwin.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Firefly was the most overrated show since The Wire… and who the hell is Nick Searcy?


    Nevermind, I couldn't care less.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, truth be told, Baldwin basically played what he apparently is in real life (a huge asshole.) The rest of Firefly was actually really brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I love your slippery slope argument. That's such a radical shift from same-sex marriage to incest, that anyone in their right mind can see that its a fallacy to associate those two together. Tim's rebuttal was in the same fashion as Baldwin to which both used ad hominem arguments against him rather than using any constructive comments. If you can't see how associating incest to same-sex marriage then you're obviously myopic with a subpar education or just grew up in a uber conservative family.


    Sorry, dude. You're clearly have no common sense or logic, not Peacock.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You need to go back to school for reading comprehension. Baldwin started with the incest comment (father/son) and Peacock replied with why not father/daughter. Baldwin had a hissy fit and then brought in Searcy who, in my not so humble opinion, is in serious need of anger management. He has issues.


    I've lost all respect for both of them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Uh...yeah, Nick Searcy, and you can lob those looks-focused insults because you are the finest specimen of man to ever walk the earth. I'd think someone who is forced to be in the same camera frame with someone as fiiiiine as Timothy Olyphant would be quite a bit more careful!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yep, because legalizing black/white and Irish/white marriage led to the legalization of incest and bestiality - oh, wait.

    Same old crap is trotted out every few decades to defend the indefensible by the same type of idiots.The history books will look on those of your ilk just as they did those who opposed desegregation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Adam Baldwin is an asshole, and doesn't deserve this much attention.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Saying you disagree with gay marriage DOES NOT mean that you think it's wrong if two men or women want to spend their lives together. Some ppl disagree with gay marriage because they believe marriage is defined by a man and a woman, that's it. That DOES NOT make a person "homophobic". It just means they don't believe the state can redefine the word marriage. Once you say two men, or two women can be married you're opening the floodgates of ppl who want to marry their dog or their car or their daughter. It's not about homophobia, it's about the definition of the word marriage. The LEGAL definition of the word. That's it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. No, MozartFX - disagreeing with Gay marriage DOES mean you're a homophobe. Sorry, you don't get to decide what's homophobic or not...

    ReplyDelete
  14. Replace 'gay marriage' with 'interracial marriage' in your statement and ask yourself this: are you a racist or a good Christian for making those remarks? Same concept.


    Shorter argument: yes, being against SSM because of your religious or cultural ideology is by definition homophobic.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think you might like this, Tim (and all): a poem that remixes the words of Baldwin and Searcy to put them in conversation with one another: http://www.inknode.com/piece/2233-seth-abramson-adam-baldwin-in-conversation-with-nick-searcy

    ReplyDelete
  16. The state already defines marriage and can redefine it, too. Marriage is a contract. In the case of marriage equality, they're not redefining the term. They're removing an exclusion. And it does make you homophobic to oppose same sex couples being legally married because the underlying idea is gays and lesbians are inferior. Their unions are not worthy enough or as legitimate as straights'. At least be honest.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think "If gay people get married, than THIS..." is a literal example of homophobia.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If that's your line of reasoning then the legal definition of rape hasn't changed, where a wife cannot be considered a rape victim if her husband sexually assaults her, and the 15th Amendment would still allow literacy tests and high poll taxes toward African Americans. Laws change and are interpreted based on public policy. I'm pretty sure the public is not mixing up equal rights for the LGBT community with incest, pedophilia, and beastiality.

    ReplyDelete
  19. And I had just decided to get a jane Firefly quote tattoo. Can't do that in anymore, very sad to learn influential people like this publicly act in such a disgraceful way. For shame.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Seems to me that Baldwin had a point. You're the one equating marriage to sex. If you have no prohibitions against SSM why would you have any prohibitions at all? It seems to me that from a moral standpoint when you don't have any morals codified then anything should be permissible and any prohibitions you conjure are simply borne of your personal prejudices. Isn't that discriminatory and hateful? Aren't you against hate and discrimination?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I know an author, yes, he's gay but he's not defined by that. He is also sweet and funny and one of the nicest people I have ever had the pleasure to meet. They just insulted him...fuck Searcy and fuck Baldwin for their narrow minded bigoted attitudes. If that is what it takes to make it or be famous then I want NO part of it. I also used to be a fan of the show Justified, after tonight I doubt I will ever watch it again. Love you Kody Boye for standing up to those bullies, and the next time I see you you are getting a huge hug from me.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Oh... This makes me sad. I love Adam Baldwin in Firefly and I also like Nick Searcy's work but maybe they shouldn't be real people. It's fine to feel a certain way and defend it, and I don't begrudge you if you believe something differently than I do. But this is childish and hurtful. That's just plain disappointing. I take small comfort in that it seems like Nick Searcy is more of a nut than Adam Baldwin.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Apparently it decided to delete my comment due to my inflammatory language choices. So let's try this... When Searcy outright insulted a friend of mine, a lovely author, sweetheart and someone who *gasp* yes also happens to be gay, well I got horribly offended. If being famous means that you can also be a slack jawed drooling meatslapper (note no bad words there) then they are welcome to that lifestyle. However, hmmm let's please take a look at this more clearly. Regardless of whether or not the original content was offensive to them(searcy/Baldwin), they chose to respond in a blatantly public and horrifically bigoted way. Not only were they offensive to me, a straight 40+ year old mother who WAS until tonight a fan of the show that he was on. They were also offensive to every person who has any sort of weight gain, any friend that is gay, who has relatives who might be gay, or is a part of the LGBT community. I find bigoted behavior, no matter how they attempt to justify it, to be offensive. If you choose to be a jerk accept what is coming to you...I for one will be lodging a complaint with FX for your outrageous comments, your singular lack of tact, or even basic human decency. As far as Baldwin goes he always has been unhinged, but wow what bigots they made themselves to be tonight. I am not a fan of Tim Peacock, but good grief the attacks they leveled tonight were disgraceful.

    ReplyDelete
  24. dont agree with what baldwin said but name calling on first reply seems to be on tim using #idiot name calling right off the back not best way to get your point across just seemed like a way to try to rile things up searcy was extreamly outta line and fueled this i may not be a huge fan of their personal beleifs but im not any less a fan of the respective shows because one person does not make a show

    ReplyDelete
  25. Wow, talk about letting the full-on crazy out the bag. Never heard of this Searcy guy before but he has major issues. I feel sorry for his wife and kids. Can you imagine what they have to listen to at night? What is this bizarre centipede he speaks of? Weird!

    ReplyDelete
  26. I had made statements a year or so ago about how I would have problems watching him in Firefly and X Files reruns, because of his ultra-conservative views being so publicly thrown about. And when I did, I had some (former) friends tell me I needed to separate the actor from the person, so as to not "discriminate" against the other talent who puts together shows he happens to also star in, but this stuff takes it just a bit too far for me. At this point, I hope it DOES become a problem for other people he works with, so maybe he will stop being in stuff and lose all relevancy. I don't envy his money, but I do envy his ability to say ridiculous statements without feeling bad about marginalizing other people.

    ReplyDelete
  27. am I the only one that has no idea what was going on.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Everyone has a right to their opinion... I get so sick of people getting but hurt over everything..

    ReplyDelete
  29. Randall Brooks-AuthorFebruary 24, 2014 at 9:48 AM

    Wow! I'm at a loss for words.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Like I said, you have to look at it without any societal context. We had a societal norm that stated human man + unrelated human woman = marriage.


    With gay divorce, we've changed the formula to human + unrelated human = marriage.


    There's nothing wrong with that. This world is a hard, harsh place, and if you find love, you need to pursue it, because that's the only thing worth living for. But that said, once you've changed the formula, then it's no great shakes to imagine that the next push would be to change other variables in the equation.

    You could easily see how human + unrelated human shifts to human + human -- establishing incest. Past that, you move to entity + entity = marriage. And if you don't think that's coming some day (I've seen and believed enough Star Trek and Babylon 5 episodes to hope it will) then maybe you need to reflect on who's being myopic here.

    ReplyDelete
  31. You missed a step. but you make my case with your own argument:

    Multi-ethnic marriages eventually DID lead to multi-racial marriages, which HAS eventually led to gay marriage. We are still in the middle of this sociological timeline, though, so to dismiss the future steps we'll take along it, though, fails to acknowledge the very steps you already pointed out.


    Irish are white, btw. And people are people. All people. If I love my sister enough to want to spend the rest of my life with her, who are you to hate me and deny me an essential human right? Only a hypocritical bigot of the highest order, if you also support gay marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Do you have any evidence of Adam Baldwin being rude/cruel/inappropriate after Nick Searcy joined the conversation? Because from what's shown here, he made an incendiary statement grounded in his personal beliefs (which most of us don't share, but to which he is wholly entitled), was called out as an idiot, called you an idiot in return, and showed someone else the conversation. That second person (Searcy) went off his rocker, and Baldwin wisely decided that this was too rude and personal for him to be a part of, so stepped back and didn't tweet anything else. If this is incorrect, please demonstrate how? Currently, the article is rather misleading and frames the conversation in a way that rings rather false given the facts presented rather than implied.

    ReplyDelete
  33. This was the same argument used in the sixties when people wanted to "redefine marriage" because the current definition of marriage included racial discrimination. People swore that letting black people marry white people was just opening the floodgate for bestiality and incest and people marrying objects. Thing is, removing discrimination against race or gender isn't opening a floodgate for non-consensual relationships. It's respecting the constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Removing gender discrimination from a law does not pave the way for non-consensual relationships. Marriage is only legal for adults. Do you know why? Because, by law, you must consent to be married and minors cannot legally do this. Animals cannot legally give consent. Children cannot legally give consent. Removing the qualification of consent from marriage would actually be changing the definition of marriage not removing the gender discrimination.

    ReplyDelete
  35. There are several posts from Baldwin above. >_>

    ReplyDelete
  36. You're right. Everyone has the right to express their opinion... But that doesn't mean you are immune to criticisms for saying bigoted things.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Not surprising. Baldwin called me a pedophile the other night.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Mel Gibson's a happy man. At least now he can be like "I've said some crazy sh*t in my day, but it's nothing compared to these two clowns."

    ReplyDelete
  39. Every Picture Tells a Story, Don't It?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Now he's going off about how YOU are the intolerant one because you don't accept his hateful position. You know, like every single bigot does. Sigh...

    ReplyDelete
  41. No, there's nothing wrong with calling an idiot an idiot. Because what Adam said was idiotic and it makes him an idiot. He's right for stating evident fact.

    ReplyDelete
  42. 1) A slippery-slope argument is a logical fallacy. (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/slippery-slope/)

    2) People cannot & will not be able to marry their dog nor car since neither dogs nor cars are consenting adults that are able to enter into binding legal contracts.

    3) Allowing two men or two women to wed does not change existing laws regarding incest.

    ReplyDelete
  43. No one here (on either side of the discussion) is talking about under-age entities. My mother and I are both adults. Why can't we get married if we love each other?

    No one here is supporting nonconsentual marriage, nor marriage amongst creatures with no legal status.

    However, you are aware that there is an effort to give animals legal status, right?

    http://io9.com/5961226/when-does-an-animal-count-as-a-person

    When that happens, your argument will no longer hold water. Your hateful bias against bestiality will be rendered null by an equal-rights-supporting supreme court.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Another quick comment: WTF is Searcy talking about with the race issue? Where did that even come up? He is deranged. it's really frightening.

    ReplyDelete
  45. This might be useful to some of you:
    FX Networks


    C/O Justified

    10201 West Pico Boulevard


    Building 103, Fourth Floor


    Los Angeles, CA 90067

    TNT


    C/O The Last Ship

    1010 Techwood Drive


    Atlanta, GA 30318

    ReplyDelete
  46. The storify embedded in the article doesn't include all comments.

    ReplyDelete
  47. It's really interesting that marriage equality is where you draw the line at which point someone no longer has morals. That says more about you than about those who disagree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "Irish" people were not considered "white" for a very long time in our nation's history.


    No one is stopping you from spending the rest of your life with your sister. But the act of marriage creates a family where there was previously not a family.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Weird; I've seen every episode of Star Trek ever and I can't remember the one where a nonconsenting entity married someone.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Who's talking about nonconsentual? It's interesting how when this debate gets too close to home, you all look for ways to make it worse, more extreme than it is. Your xenophobia is ugly, sir.

    ReplyDelete
  51. No, it doesn't. It establishes a legal acknowledgement of family. I refuse to let you second-class-citizen my relationship with her just to protect the 'sanctity' of the institution just because it's a different relationship than yours.

    ReplyDelete
  52. That's just one of the lines, Drew.

    ReplyDelete
  53. He personally pulled me out of a crowd because I called him a crybaby and told me I was "fat and poor, and jealous of my fabulous house". and then was flaunting that he adopted a child from foster care so how can he be a bad person. Just because you do a good deed, to show off, doesn't make you a good person. his agent probably suggested he do that to make him look good.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Yeah, but we actually know who Mel Gibson is...

    ReplyDelete
  55. Gay relationships are consensual when incestuous relationships usually are not (they start when children are minors and are not able to consent). Also any human+entity relationship is implicitly non consensual because humans have superior intellect to other entities so obtaining consent is questionable. This is why it is so ANNOYING when people compare gay relationships to incest or bestiality because the latter are rape. It is unreasonable to bring up legalizing rape as a logical consequence of allowing marriage between two consenting adults.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Jayne is the creation and words of Joss Whedon.... Baldwin is just the mouthpiece. So if you get the tattoo, cite Joss as the speaker, not Jayne.

    ReplyDelete
  57. You have stupid lines then.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Nope. Just means our relationships are lesser than yours, and you desperately need to feel superior to others in the eyes of the law and all that shit. Disagree all you want. We're still winning this argument, and it's our right not to have YOUR religious views imposed onto us.

    ReplyDelete
  59. No it can't. You're in the wrong, as is Baldwin, and slipper slope arguments are old, tired, stupid, insulting, and inaccurate. The only slippery slope is that when you allow bigotry of one kind, so many other things follow:

    http://biblestudiesfromanasshole.blogspot.com/2013/02/there-slippery-slope-alright.html?m=1

    ReplyDelete
  60. Right. It establishes a legal acknowledgement of family. Which you already have with your sister. I'm not "protecting the 'sanctity' of the institution," I'm allowing it to do its job without people like you throwing red herrings up.


    If you want to go to court and make your case for marrying your sister, that's your prerogative, as it is the prerogative of every American. But it's not my job to defend your case just because you think there's some tenuous similarity between my relationship and yours. Opponents of marriage equality are not hypocritical for defining marriage as being between one man and one woman (although they are incorrect when they appeal to history to do so); I am not hypocritical for defining marriage as the union of two consenting adults who do not have previous family ties.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Well, no, it's not, because you're assuming that anyone who has "no prohibitions" against marriage equality has "no prohibitions" at all. That's your line. You could draw the line at interracial marriage, or at incestuous marriage, or at marriage to objects--but you don't.

    ReplyDelete
  62. He played Real Housewives of OC's Jeana Keough's husband, Matt Keough in money ball...show some god damn respect..

    ReplyDelete
  63. And therein lies the crux of the matter, Drew. Where do the prohibitions come from? What are they rooted in? If they are simply rooted in how ones feels about a particular situation the line is erased, as each person has different ideas of what is right for them. You think it's ok for two men to marry so be it. Someone else thinks it's ok to have sex with 8 year old boys. Who are you to judge? Who are you to tell children they cannot decide for themselves?

    See what I mean? When the lines are drawn by personal choice nothing must be prohibited else you're discriminating. You don't want to be discriminatory, do you Drew?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Insanely petty on all counts. Three tweets in, the point was made, and then it just got weird and angry.

    ReplyDelete
  65. HeckYesTheatreMajorFebruary 24, 2014 at 6:39 PM

    3rd party, unbiased opinion here (I know nothing about any of the 3 gentlemen involved in this "discussion", and I will refrain from entering the controversial discussion of gay marriage):

    It appears that Mr. Searcy was extremely out of line with his tone and insults, and seriously lacking in his debating skills. However, I think Mr. Peacock may have lured Mr. Baldwin into an Internet argument - I believe this is called "provoking."

    Mr. Peacock does bring up good points, but he continually goaded Mr. Baldwin into an argument that Mr. Baldwin wasn't very keen on being part of (see domination of Searcy/Peacock debate).


    It doesn't seem fair that we should label this as a Twitter "meltdown" by someone who was merely defending his beliefs against a journalist's provocation.

    Just two cents.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Never had respect for Adam Baldwin but it sort of ruined my enjoyment of Justified :(

    ReplyDelete
  67. Oh, right, my beliefs are rooted only in my feelings, whereas your beliefs are rooted in...I dunno. I'm sure you're avoiding explaining them for some reason.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Wow. I have no idea who either of them are, sine they don't play on my TV, and looks like they never will.

    ReplyDelete
  69. well, I liked his characters but thought he was a bit of a dope in interviews. Now I know that is the real truth. What a shame. What a loser. Adam Baldwin - you lost a fan

    ReplyDelete
  70. Homophobia is wrong and to a lesser extent, so it obesity. Man, I hate the term "fat shaming". Normally, people would use being called fat a motivation to lead a healthier lifestyle but now we get people crying about how being fat is okay and should embrace it???? Being a d1ck on twitter is wrong, needless to say, but we as a society shouldn't embrace obesity either.

    ReplyDelete
  71. PC police out in riot gear I see.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Wow.. Just wow. Regardless of whether I have heard of these two or not, this type of bigotry and outright bullying should not be tolerated from anyone. Utterly disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "...are rooted in..." Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! *ahem* The clouds! With the harps and the wonderousness and the 'mysterious ways' and all that - amirite?
    Eh. Nah. Actually, marriage was some boring mortal dudes idea. It was probably a shitty idea that revolved around materialism and entrenched sexism - but luckily, it's taken a new form. Well, to some it has...


    Newsflash, kender1: everything 'society' comes from personal choices that were either popular, or forced on the masses. Also! We all judge! We all think of our opinion as 'correct', otherwise it wouldn't be the stance we choose! Myself, for example: well, I truly think that a rational, humanistic approach to life is top o' the pile. I honestly consider ignoring history and scientific facts to be insensible. I firmly believe that 'othering' non-straight folks who're just trying to *be* - the same way we all are - is sick. And sad. And inherently destructive.
    I'm heterosexual and married. While I've got an expansive imagination, said imagination fails when trying to find reasons to protest marriage equality. In fact, it's none of my business!
    BUT - I made it my business. I did so after asking myself whether I could stand silent while so many ignoble squeaky wheels HURT. SO. MANY. PEOPLE. with their illogical, indoctrinated, prejudiced diatribes.


    Spoiler: I couldn't.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Because homophobia is a-okay, right? You know, it's people like them and you that makes it really damn hard to explain why I'm conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Cocaine does terrible things

    ReplyDelete
  76. Marriage existed before Christianity, it's in the bible.
    Joseph and Mary were married before Jesus was born; Christianity was created
    after Jesus was born. Christians don't get to define marriage. Marriage
    actually existed far before modern religions, by tens of thousands of years, if
    not more; before the written word.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I'mgood NotputtingithereFebruary 25, 2014 at 1:34 AM

    It's funny how people think gay marriage will ruin marriage all together, or that it will begin to make incest okay. Gay marriage has not been "accepted" for over 2000 years, and yet Cleopatra still married her brother and then later her own son....so, I can see how my right to marry who I love would have led her into her incestuous relationship.

    ReplyDelete
  78. So, although I completely agree with your politics as represented here, I think you baited them by started off with that #idiot tag. That was a low-grade attack right off the bat.

    Yes, they're behaving like giant douchebags in this exchange, but you weren't exactly polite. Nobody will ever change for the better while being attacked.

    ReplyDelete
  79. No we don't. We don't know any of these celebrities, movie-stars, politicians or business people. Stop acting like they personally betrayed you when one doesn't live up to what you've built them up to be in your head.

    ReplyDelete
  80. What a butt-hurt conversation this is.
    Hate comes from within & Trolling is the act of Sadists.
    Just treat them like the Terrorists they are already, and invoke the Patriot Act on them.... and/or move on.

    ReplyDelete
  81. So why did you feel the need to include the hashtag #idiot
    That just provokes it to a new level... you could have made your point and moved on but you were out to prove how superior you were... now you are blaming them for it getting in the mud...

    ReplyDelete
  82. Please read the article in its entirety - your answer is there.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Does one off the cuff remark prior to any replies justify four days of cyber-bullying?

    ReplyDelete
  84. That was the initial tweet - there was no "new level" to take it to at that point. No one expected a response. Then again, you probably know that because you read the whole article before commenting, right? #disingenuous

    ReplyDelete
  85. Welcome to English, where "we know who [celebrity] is" doesn't mean the same thing as "we know [celebrity]".

    ReplyDelete
  86. "Fat" can be a symptom of medical issues without being the cause. Its correlation to actual medical problems is incredibly more complex than the average layman makes it out to be. There's a reason every diet product and gym in the world has a disclaimer that you should visit a doctor before embarking on a weight-loss plan, and that's because being thinner doesn't always mean being healthier, even for people who look "fat."

    ReplyDelete
  87. There's a huge difference between 'embracing obesity' and fat-shaming. Do some research on it and enlighten yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Both of those shows are excellent. You have terrible taste.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Oh, I don't envy that at all, it's actually a sad state of affairs when someone gets to the point that they can say such things without a bad feeling, or need, or desire to apologize.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I just can't help but notice how they are able to take such things in stride, and still rake in millions of fans and dollars. It is disappointing, of course, but with the course of our government and celebrities alike saying such things, and still getting multi-million mansions and the like, there has to be something to it....

    ReplyDelete
  91. Katherine WintersnightFebruary 25, 2014 at 5:56 PM

    Emily, it wasn't so long ago that it was considered impossible for a woman to be raped by her husband. She didn't have the right to withhold consent from her husband, to not give him his "marital rights." I find it most interesting that the people who automatically equate gay marriage with incest and bestiality are automatically equating a marrage relationship with a loss or lack of the ability and/or right to give consent.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Katherine WintersnightFebruary 25, 2014 at 6:05 PM

    Only the degree of incest is in question, Dave, people marry cousins of various degrees limited only by the exact relationship by each state's, country's, or religion's differing laws. Consanguine marriage has a long and solid history in the USA.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Katherine WintersnightFebruary 25, 2014 at 6:08 PM

    They think that the state shouldn't be allowed to define marriage because they think that they alone should be allowed to define marriage for everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Well, to be fair, all signs point to his character dying this season, so it may not be an issue for long.

    ReplyDelete
  95. A few days ago, some leftist tool was claiming that the Tea Party and the Klu Klux Klan were "one and the same". This just a few weeks after MSNBC had Melissa Harris-Perry mocking Mitt Romney's adopted black grandson and their twitter feed claiming that the "right wing" would hate a Cheerios commercial with a mixed-race family.

    Searcy has an adopted black son. He takes such bigoted accusations of racism... poorly.
    http://photos.exposay.com/Nick_Searcy/photo/829058/

    ReplyDelete
  96. You have an absurdly low threshold for "terrorism".


    Sigh. There used to be a time when words meant something. Nowadays, people who disagree with marriage policy are "homophobic" and people using the political process are "terrorists".

    ReplyDelete
  97. I think it all started when Baldwin hit Peacock back.

    ReplyDelete
  98. I think you're discounting something very important.

    Adam Baldwin?

    Is someone who's inspired a lot of people, myself included, to try my hand at writing.

    If it hadn't been for his creative inspiration? I wouldn't have the career that I do, nor would I be a percentile as happy. And I know for a fact I'm not alone in that.

    I owe him a thank you, and keep hoping I'll get the chance to give it to him one day.

    What has your article inspired? #FoodForThought?

    ReplyDelete
  99. This dude is certified batshit insane. I hope people spread the word about this ignorant piece of trash - http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/18/justified-actor-nick-searcy-asked-us-not-to-call-him-a-teabagger-ultra-con-or-bigot-in-this-headline/

    ReplyDelete
  100. Marriage establishes familial and kinship rights. Rights your mother and you already have, actually(assuming your mother isn't still married to someone else). Marriage between you two would be redundant.

    But,ultimately the onus is on you to prove your case either to the legislature or to the Supreme Court. It took gay people around 30 years or so to get marriage equality, so you might want to get started, Mom's not getting any younger, is she?

    ReplyDelete
  101. No. The state, for the purposes of legal rights and responsibilities defines marriage, so yes, it can redefine what sorts of marriages it will or will not recognize for tax and legal purposes.

    Letting two consenting, non-related adults marry does not open any floodgates. Consent is a foundational part of our laws. The difference between theft and borrowing is consent. The difference between trespassing and visiting is consent. We are not going to do away with consent.

    Dogs have yet to show any interest in marriage whatsoever. They don't even show any comprehension of what it is. There is no danger of people marrying dogs because we have yet to see dogs organizing protests in favor of marrying humans. Until we start seeing movement from animals themselves, there's nothing to worry about. Bonus: wives used to be the property of their husbands. Pets are the property of their owners. So you are already "married" to your dog, if you want to look at it that way.
    We've arrived at a point in history, through trial and error, where we basically agree that incest has more drawbacks than it has advantages. If someone wanted to marry their daughter, they would have to prove their case in court. Nothing about allowing gay couples to wed defacto lets anyone else through the door with them.

    ReplyDelete
  102. I have lost respect for Searcy. I used to be a fan before reading his abhorrent twitter rant. I guess its a good thing its "Justified"'s last season, otherwise they would have to kill off his character lol This Adam Baldwin guy...small bit parts actor....who is a total moron! Piece of advise for those two who thinks they are 'big shots' but arent...get off twitter!!! Take it from a real 'big shot" actor like George Clooney who said Twitter is not for him because you say things you cant take back! lol OY VEY!!!

    ReplyDelete
  103. Justified has one more season after this one. I'm sure Searcy has become a huge headache for the producers (and many fans), but he's probably too integral to the show to dump.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Your are right :) They are only in Season 5 lol I have just been going with the motion with the show. I don't' like it as much as the first 2 seasons. IMO, it seems the writers are running out of ideas for the characters and the story line is getting old and boring. As for Searcy, he needs to go. I would love for Art to get Searcy's comeuppance lol

    ReplyDelete
  105. Never heard of Nick, have heard of Alan. GOD! Never watching them on tv again after this, they've lost all respect me and my uni friends once had for them. We were following this as it happened at uni over the 2 days, and eventually have over 150 people watching it at the end unfold on the projector. I think they're going down hard, especially as a lot of them have popular YT channels...

    ReplyDelete
  106. I had never heard of either of these actors before this but now think they are INCREDIBLY hateful and seemingly very insecure with a sh*t ton of issues that need resolving. I hadn't care about either of them or their careers before but I'll be sure to avoid anything they're in from now on.

    ReplyDelete
  107. I can see being pissed off at Searcy because that was completely uncalled for, but I actually kind of agree with Baldwin. Why is it wrong for a father to marry his son or daughter if they are consenting and of age? Because of your opinion?

    ReplyDelete
  108. I always find it curious when people use hyper-sexualized metaphors when proselytizing against LGBT people's struggle to secure basic, fundamental, Constitutionally-guaranteed rights like marriage. It speaks more to the antagonist than it does the struggle.

    ReplyDelete
  109. I think our foreign policy needs to be more aggressive and Obama shouldn't push his gun laws on the populace. Your point? That said, I'm a straight, cisgendered male. And sex is gross regardless of it's homo or hetero. It's natural but it ain't nothing special. And unless we're talkin' about the oppression of the rights of a marginalized minority, then yeah fuck PC. As far as I'm concerned, if an individual can't express their sexual orientation because there is people out there who have a small problem with it, then maybe we should take a look at ourselves instead of shifting the blame on said individual.

    ReplyDelete
  110. How about this then, civil contracts for ALL couples who seek legal standing for their 'union' before the government. Then let the churches decide who they will and will not hitch during a religious ceremony. Everyone gets their rights before the law, and no one forces religious folks to rubber stamp a life-style if they don't agree with it.

    ReplyDelete
  111. It's hilarious to read the comments of all these "Wonderfully, open-minded, non-judgemental people" who HATE anyone who disagrees with them.
    "What's that? You disagree with me? You should lose your job and be eternally ridiculed! How DARE anyone have a differing opinion!"

    Has it now become IMPOSSIBLE to hear someone's opinion, disagree with it, say why, and move on? No! You must wish death upon them and their family!

    If someone disagrees with gay marriage.....it DOES NOT mean they are homophobic. That's a fact.

    Personally, I don't have a problem with it. But, I CAN understand the argument that changing the definition of the word "marriage" could have detrimental effects. That's it. There is not hatred in my heart for anyone. I'm NOT homophobic. I want to understand what the legal implications are....that's it.

    ReplyDelete
  112. We value evidence-based discussion here, so I look forward to you providing solid, academic peer-reviewed studies to support the up to now unfounded assumption that "redefining" marriage to eliminate legal inequalities to accessing it as a fundamentally required Constitutional institution between consenting adults. After all, no one in the United States has been able to provide such evidence yet (choosing instead to cite a religious text that's detrimentally redefined marriage more times than the entire history of the American legal system combined).

    ReplyDelete
  113. Guy who can't comprehend thinks he's schooled someone else on interwebs - meanwhile ruining his own case. Brilliant. Read up on your history. Irish were subject to miscegenation laws regardless of who pale their skin color was; incest and bestiality are still illegal and gay marriage won't change that; if you want to do your sister and she's amenable for the love of Pete wear a condom so you don't have deformed little incest babies and if you want to do your dog, don't get caught. Claiming that since incest and bestiality haven't been legalized yet proves that they will is so pathetically inane. *sigh*

    ReplyDelete
  114. Took you two weeks to write that?

    ReplyDelete
  115. As a fan of Baldwin's acting work, reading this made me extremely sad. And will definitely impact - whether it should or not, I can't help it - my opinion of and enthusiasm for his future work. :(
    I don't know what to tell people who don't understand or accept that the comparison he made was insulting to others in and of itself.

    ReplyDelete
  116. I have better things to do that hang out 24/7 in momma's basement eating cheetoes, fapping and watching for replies to my comments :) Run along now, Davie boy, and troll somewhere else. I guarantee to disappoint you! :D

    ReplyDelete
  117. That Peacock troll got worked! Don't start nothing, won't be nothing!

    ReplyDelete
  118. Boy.. I am late to this unbelievable exchange.. I have and still have no idea who Searcy is an I did IMDB and google him.. he seems seriously mentally ill, if one reads the Ann Coulter rules of interaction with a liberal/democrat she says that name calling, name baiting is fine.. these two jokers just worship at the feet of Coulter (sick person she is).. did you notice these two idiots (Baldwin and Searcy) seem to be in some sort of cabal? like they are drinking some drug laced kool-aid? intelligent discourse (conversation that these two wouldn't even understand) is beyond their capability.. Searcy.. "if you could see my house" does this dip actually think he does anything worthwhile? anything purposeful except be a minor actor? does acting really make one a speaker for the tea bagging conservative cause? I doubt it.. in ending.. this is why I don't follow tweeting, it seems one has to come across losers like Searcy and Baldwin.. for no matter WHAT this country stands for, it doesn't stand for two egotistical, middle aged actors... what a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  119. what? of course we know who Mel Gibson is, we don't personally know him, but we've seen enough videos or read enough to know how he feels about Jews when he's drunk.. we know that Jodie Foster stands by him.. we know she's gay.. so we know of them, but we don't know them.. the firefly guy, I don't feel personally betrayed but now I wonder WTF Nathan Fillion is like? they seem good friends and brother I could never be friends with a turd like Baldwin.. now I don't like Firefly as I once did.. I would never watch anything with either of them in it now.. so while I may not personally know them, I know enough now to be disgusted.

    ReplyDelete
  120. yes it seems he is.. and an egotistical jerk also.

    ReplyDelete
  121. there was no racist comments and just because someone adopts a kid does not make them a saint, black, white, asian etc..

    ReplyDelete
  122. Irish aren't "white"?
    Wow,I've got a lot of calls to make to my family and let them all know we qualify for affirmative action.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Careful,or you'll get a nasty tweet,and a "fat shaming" label from Peacock for your generalizations about people who eat junk food and "fap".

    ReplyDelete
  124. You could refer him to Jerry Lee Lewis,he did it in the 50s.

    ReplyDelete
  125. "Marriage between you two would be redundant."
    Big picture.
    Same sex marriage proponents cite as a primary practical reason they support marriage is the expansion of benefits from one spouse to the other.
    I doubt that Clary's mother is currently eligible for his work provided health insurance,but would be as his spouse.
    That's quite a reason,and not redundent.

    ReplyDelete
  126. I missed his correlation between personal belief and religious ideology.
    Did you edit that out of his post,or just make it up based on your bigotry against Christians?

    ReplyDelete
  127. Jay, King of GayJune 30, 2014 at 9:30 AM

    As I said, the onus is on Clary to make his case. Since it's hypothetical, it's little more than stirring the pot.

    ReplyDelete
  128. These two are an utter embarrassment to Hollywood, as if the place had much dignity left. Searcy is a pathetic aspergers riddled man-child who calls every person he hates a "fatass" regardless of weight. The guy is either the world's best troll, or the world's most socially retarded actor. The guy spends the bulk of his time talking up his own success like some horrid parody of prima donna actors.

    And Baldwin argues like an seven year old who just discovered hashtags. Except replace fights over favorite pokemon, with gun laws. He practically argues by hurling pogs at you.

    Its a shame both hate gay marriage as they're practically common law at this point on Twitter.

    It's also a real shame, but they are both really talented actors. A shame they're both such unlikable assholes.

    ReplyDelete
  129. The guy plays pretend for a living and thinks he's king shit. Bill Murray said once that you have a good two years after you become famous where you're either a total asshole or not, and after 2 years you either get over yourself, or you stay an asshole for life.

    This was in reference to Chevy Chase (still an asshole). But it really applies to Searcy in spades.

    ReplyDelete