Matt Hill Comer is a ‘Homosexuality promoter & general sexual deviance advocate’?

Well… that is what at least one person thinks of me.

Conservative columnist David Yeagley, a self-described conservative “American Indian Patriot,” posted a writing on the Collin Finnerty and Duke Lacrosse situation on his website yesterday.

In it he states:

Homosexualty (sic) promoter and general sexual deviance advocate Matt Hill Comer nevertheless posted a “hate crime” accusation (or two) against Finnerty, accusing Finnerty of that which clearly wasn’t considered part of the actual legal case–namely the “gay” issue. His evidence? A news article by a local foreigner, who apparentlly had a little help from a “Washington” correspondent Barbara Barrett and news researcher Brooke Cain. Sound a little feminist as well?)

I’m glad he thinks I am a promoter and advocate of sexual deviance… God knows that isn’t true. Heck… even ask some of my friends. They’d be the first to tell you I am not one for advocating for sexual deviance. I even go as far as to stand against publicly discussing sexual behaviors better left for discussion in couples’ private bedrooms. For example… When some people were talking about adding the letters T, B, B, S and M (for “top,” “bottom,” “bear,” and “sado-masochistic”) to UNCG PRIDE!’s LGBTQA “alphabet soup” I stood firmly against it.

I’d also like to just point out that I never use the term “hate crime” anywhere in my posts on Collin Finnerty. I just think the various connections of different forms of prejudice are interesting and very clearly observable in this case… so I pointed them out. If I did use the term “hate crime” somewhere… someone please feel free to correct me on this.

But yeah… David Yeagley thinks I’m a pervert and a promoter of deviance. You think that is funny? Don’t laugh yet… go read his whole writing first.

4 Responses to “Matt Hill Comer is a ‘Homosexuality promoter & general sexual deviance advocate’?”
  1. Sue says:

    Matt, you don’t have to defend yourself against idiots. We know better.

  2. Brandon G says:

    Yea Matt, I agree with Sue… and I did a bit of defending for you myself. I think people like Mr. Yeagley hide behind the veil of “traditional family values” and when you get down to the nitty gritty you find that they are nothing more than promoters and advocates of hatred and division.

    Check out my blog here:

    We luv ya bunches Matt.. keep doing what you do best!!

  3. Eric Bishop says:

    There is nothing wrong with promoting sexually deviant behavior. In the interest of standing up for the English language, I must say that deviant simply means ‘differing from a norm’. It’s a very broad word, to be sure. Since the very earliest sexual encounters existed solely for procreation, I can admit that my sexual behavior has been 99.9% deviant and .1% were half deviant. I don’t necessarily promote this behavior because, if others were to do it, there would be less for me. The truth is that, since virtually all sexual encounters occur in a state of personal privacy with consenting partners, the term, deviant, simply does not apply because there are no norms. Remember, don’t have sex, deviant or not, unless you are having it with me.

  4. Matt says:

    I beg to differ Eric… and I believe that the word “deviant” is being used here to note immoral, harmful forms of sexuality.
    Deviant sexual behavior does indeed exist: Pedophilia, ephebophilia, bestiality, incest, rape, etc.

    There is no argument with this… or at least (dear God) I hope there wouldn’t be.

Leave A Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.