Conservapedia talk:John Schlafly

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Lucky for Andy, concealing the facts about people isn't deceit when done by a conservative. Jrssr5 13:27, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

Is he self-closeted? Perhaps he wishes to remain closeted, and his brother is protecting him. Then the discussion becomes, is it OK to out someone? In this case, given the EFs views, I'd say a strong maybe. I wonder if he passed reparative therapy.--PalMD-yada yada 13:30, 4 June 2007 (CDT)
It's not been clear to me how closeted he was before QW started working on their 1992 story, but he confirmed soon after that he was gay, in an interview with the SF Examiner. The impression I get is that before that, he hadn't tried to hide it but also hadn't talked about it publicly or with his family (Phyllis has explicitly said that she knew before the story, but that they didn't talk about it until afterwards). I'm not finding the QW story now, but my memory is that it says he was well known as an attendee of gay film festivals; that doesn't sound like he was trying very hard to hide it. --jtltalk 14:14, 4 June 2007 (CDT)
I don't think it's right to out someone, but in a situation like this where someone is gay and is actively trying to or supporting a movement to quash gay rights, they lose the protection of the closet. And I wonder what Thanksgiving dinner is like at the Schlafly household. "Uncle John and Aunt Bubba, will you say grace?" Jrssr5 13:06, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Who took out the bit about him being a 'confirmed bachelor'? That was well funny.-- 07:24, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I put it back in but I think it is a bit tagged on. It would be good if someone else could make it scan better.

A troll dedicated new editor brought up a point...[edit]

Do we really need this article? Is JS really all that relevant to what we do? Is it his fault his brother has a conflict between his discourses about homosexuals and his family relationships? JS has never said anything in a public forum that I'm aware of that makes this article really relevant to what we want to do - is it fair of us to use this man and his sexual orientation against his family? PFoster 14:31, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the troll label. Fifth Horseman 14:32, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
Sorry - for a first edit, I found the RS entry a little trollsome. Withdrawn.PFoster 14:33, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
Lazy answer to your question, PF. ;) --Robledo 15:13, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
It is most useful in referencing his mother's comments about him
"I don't know and he doesn't know," [Phyllis] Schlafly said. "He thinks he's always

been. But about this thing of being born gay, he doesn't know that. I don't know if anybody knows that."

She knows of nothing she might have done to start her son down the road to gayness. The presence of a strong mother and weak father, long used to explain homosexuality, especially doesn't fit: "He had a very strong father," Schlafly says. The late Fred Schlafly, 15 years her senior, was a well-to-do lawyer who

took an active role in anti-Communist issues.
With Conservapedia's profoundly anti-homosexual message and Andy not doing anything to correct it (in combination with the degree of censorship of other messages) gives an approval of the message.
The truth is, family values people... are not out to bash gay people.
As best I can tell, that is said by John. It is not a matter of using his sexual orientation against his family but rather showing the inherent conflict between Conservapedia's message, Andy's approval of it, Phyllis's comments about the causes, and John's comments about the "family values people." Somewhere, there is some change of message. Frankly, I'm curious what John would say if he read Ken's articles and confronted Andy on "true and verifiable." --Shagie 15:17, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
Where do those quotes come from? They would be good in the article if they're not already in one. weaseLOIdbite me 06:26, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Deleted and restored[edit]

...because of personal information (phone number) included in last edit. PFoster 01:32, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Ouch. I assume the number was JA's? Sad that we have to resort to whitewashing. Who was the asshole who posted it? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:32, 7 December 2008 (EST)
Claimed to be JS's phone number, not like I checked. It was a bunchanumbers--you can check my history for an edit I made to the BON's page if you need to see which BON it was....PFoster 10:29, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Broken refs[edit]

I'm afraid the National Review article from '92 has been 404'd. The third citation that leads to also doesn't work, it leads to an empty lawyer page from 1899. --Sir Onion Kneel before my vegetable might! 21:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


To->CP-space? ТyTalk. 03:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


How is a page about a man who does not edit at CP in CP space? This guy is a private citizen with an extremely limited public role. Get rid of it, and show how less CP-obsessed we can be. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 20:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  • The information is factual, taken from public accounts.
  • He isn't in the closet himself, but he is the skeleton in Andy's closet.
  • See here.

larronsicut fur in nocte 21:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"He is the skeleton in Andy's closet." So we're writing an article on the guy just because he happens to be a fag and some other guy has a problem with fags? And there's factual, public-records information on lots of people, doesn't mean we need it on our wiki. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 21:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete. This article only exists to embarrass Andy and/or Phyllis the Elder. On RW it allows people to make snide links. That's it. Again, delete. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete. ТyNo 22:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
According to the article, he's in Eagle forum, and his brother and the site is phobic. Civic Cat    Talk to Civic Cat   22:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
His brother is irrelevant. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 22:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Gays who are part of homophobic organisations are irrelevant? Civic Cat    Talk to Civic Cat   22:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
His sexuality is his business and a private affair. If he were, say, a Congressman who voted against gay marriage or a judge who ruled against gay rights, you might have a case. Eagle Forum is private. John Schlafly is a private person. It's not up to us to question how private people reconcile their politics and their sexuality. That should be between him and his shrink. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 22:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So hypocrites should be safe from people making articles about them as long as they refrain from passing homophobic legislation or making homophobic rulings? Civic Cat    Talk to Civic Cat   22:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup. In America, you have the constitutional right to it. This guy is such an unremarkable, irrelevant figure, there is no reason for us to be hosting a discussion about what he likes to do when the lights are out. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 22:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
If that was the only issue. Doncha have a "1st amendment?" Civic Cat    Talk to Civic Cat   22:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)