PDA

View Full Version : How a major national 'gay rights' leader became straight


lakeway11
Oct 19th, 2007, 06:34 AM
Incredible first-person account about a young man's personal journey to heal himself from homosexuality

Don't let the homosexual movement -- especially those in the public schools -- lie to you any longer. READ BELOW this incredible first-person account about a young man's healing from the grip of homosexuality.


Michael Glatze was one of the major -- and most outspoken -- homosexual activists in the country. He was the prototype of the hardcore activist who goes into the public schools to work with children, charms the media, lobbies the Legislature for homosexual issues, campaigns for "gay rights", and demonizes religious believers. (And, yes, our Massachusetts Legislature believes it all!)

He founded "Young Gay America" magazine and received numerous awards and recognition, including the National Role Model Award from the major homosexual-rights organization Equality Forum. Media gravitated toward him, leading to appearances on PBS television and MSNBC and quotes in a cover story in Time magazine called "The Battle Over Gay Teens." In 2005, Glatze was featured in a panel with Judy Shepard, mother of slain homosexual Matthew Shepard, at the prestigious JFK Jr. Forum at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government


Then he decided to leave the addictive, destructive homosexual lifestyle. "This is the answer to so many people's fears and suffering," he's said about the journey of healing from homosexuality. "They need to know they're not alone...For me, homosexuality was spiritual and psychological death."


How a 'gay rights' leader became straight
WorldNetDaily: July 3, 2007

By Michael Glatze

Homosexuality came easy to me, because I was already weak.

My mom died when I was 19. My father had died when I was 13. At an early age, I was already confused about who I was and how I felt about others.

My confusion about "desire" and the fact that I noticed I was "attracted" to guys made me put myself into the "gay" category at age 14. At age 20, I came out as gay to everybody else around me.

At age 22, I became an editor of the first magazine aimed at a young, gay male audience. It bordered on pornography in its photographic content, but I figured I could use it as a platform to bigger and better things.

Sure enough, Young Gay America came around. It was meant to fill the void that the other magazine I'd worked for had created – namely, anything not-so-pornographic, aimed at the population of young, gay Americans. Young Gay America took off.

Gay people responded happily to Young Gay America. It received awards, recognition, respectability and great honors, including the National Role Model Award from major gay organization Equality Forum – which was given to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien a year later – and a whole host of appearances in the media, from PBS to the Seattle Times, from MSNBC to the cover story in Time magazine.

I produced, with the help of PBS-affiliates and Equality Forum, the first major documentary film to tackle gay teen suicide, "Jim In Bold," which toured the world and received numerous "best in festival" awards.

Young Gay America created a photo exhibit, full of photographs and stories of gay youth all across the North American continent, which toured Europe, Canada and parts of the United States.

Young Gay America launched YGA Magazine in 2004, to pretend to provide a "virtuous counterpart" to the other newsstand media aimed at gay youth. I say "pretend" because the truth was, YGA was as damaging as anything else out there, just not overtly pornographic, so it was more "respected."

It took me almost 16 years to discover that homosexuality itself is not exactly "virtuous." It was difficult for me to clarify my feelings on the issue, given that my life was so caught up in it.

Homosexuality, delivered to young minds, is by its very nature pornographic. It destroys impressionable minds and confuses their developing sexuality; I did not realize this, however, until I was 30 years old.

YGA Magazine sold out of its first issue in several North American cities. There was extreme support, by all sides, for YGA Magazine; schools, parent groups, libraries, governmental associations, everyone seemed to want it. It tapped right into the zeitgeist of "accepting and promoting" homosexuality, and I was considered a leader. I was asked to speak on the prestigious JFK Jr. Forum at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government in 2005.

It was, after viewing my words on a videotape of that "performance," that I began to seriously doubt what I was doing with my life and influence.

Knowing no one who I could approach with my questions and my doubts, I turned to God; I'd developed a growing relationship with God, thanks to a debilitating bout with intestinal cramps caused by the upset stomach-inducing behaviors I'd been engaged in.

Soon, I began to understand things I'd never known could possibly be real, such as the fact that I was leading a movement of sin and corruption – which is not to sound as though my discovery was based on dogma, because decidedly it was not.

I came to the conclusions on my own.

It became clear to me, as I really thought about it – and really prayed about it – that homosexuality prevents us from finding our true self within. We cannot see the truth when we're blinded by homosexuality.

We believe, under the influence of homosexuality, that lust is not just acceptable, but a virtue. But there is no homosexual "desire" that is apart from lust.

In denial of this fact, I'd fought to erase such truth at all costs, and participated in the various popular ways of taking responsibility out of human hands for challenging the temptations of lust and other behaviors. I was sure – thanks to culture and world leaders – that I was doing the right thing.

Driven to look for truth, because nothing felt right, I looked within. Jesus Christ repeatedly advises us not to trust anybody other than Him. I did what He said, knowing that the Kingdom of God does reside in the heart and mind of every man.

"In my experience, "coming out" from under the influence of the homosexual mindset was the most liberating, beautiful and astonishing thing I've ever experienced in my entire life."

What I discovered – what I learned – about homosexuality was amazing. How I'd first "discovered" homosexual desires back in high school was by noticing that I looked at other guys. How I healed, when it became decidedly clear that I should – or risk hurting more people – is that I paid attention to myself.

Every time I was tempted to lust, I noticed it, caught it, dealt with it. I called it what it was, and then just let it disappear on its own. A huge and vital difference exists between superficial admiration – of yourself, or others – and integral admiration. In loving ourselves fully, we no longer need anything from the "outside" world of lustful desire, recognition from others, or physical satisfaction. Our drives become intrinsic to our very essence, unbridled by neurotic distractions.

Homosexuality allows us to avoid digging deeper, through superficiality and lust-inspired attractions – at least, as long as it remains "accepted" by law. As a result, countless miss out on their truest self, their God-given Christ-self.

Homosexuality, for me, began at age 13 and ended – once I "cut myself off" from outside influences and intensely focused on inner truth – when I discovered the depths of my God-given self at age 30.

God is regarded as an enemy by many in the grip of homosexuality or other lustful behavior, because He reminds them of who and what they truly are meant to be. People caught in the act would rather stay "blissfully ignorant" by silencing truth and those who speak it, through antagonism, condemnation and calling them words like "racist," "insensitive," "evil" and "discriminatory."

Healing from the wounds caused by homosexuality is not easy – there's little obvious support. What support remains is shamed, ridiculed, silenced by rhetoric or made illegal by twisting of laws. I had to sift through my own embarrassment and the disapproving "voices" of all I'd ever known to find it. Part of the homosexual agenda is getting people to stop considering that conversion is even a viable question to be asked, let alone whether or not it works.

In my experience, "coming out" from under the influence of the homosexual mindset was the most liberating, beautiful and astonishing thing I've ever experienced in my entire life.

Lust takes us out of our bodies, "attaching" our psyche onto someone else's physical form. That's why homosexual sex – and all other lust-based sex – is never satisfactory: It's a neurotic process rather than a natural, normal one. Normal is normal – and has been called normal for a reason.

Abnormal means "that which hurts us, hurts normal." Homosexuality takes us out of our normal state, of being perfectly united in all things, and divides us, causing us to forever pine for an outside physical object that we can never possess. Homosexual people – like all people – yearn for the mythical true love, which does actually exist. The problem with homosexuality is that true love only comes when we have nothing preventing us from letting it shine forth from within. We cannot fully be ourselves when our minds are trapped in a cycle and group-mentality of sanctioned, protected and celebrated lust.

God came to me when I was confused and lost, alone, afraid and upset. He told me – through prayer – that I had nothing at all to be afraid of, and that I was home; I just needed to do a little house cleaning in my mind.

I believe that all people, intrinsically, know the truth. I believe that is why Christianity scares people so much. It reminds them of their conscience, which we all possess.

Conscience tells us right from wrong and is a guide by which we can grow and become stronger and freer human beings. Healing from sin and ignorance is always possible, but the first thing anyone must do is get out of the mentalities that divide and conquer humanity.

Sexual truth can be found, provided we're all willing and driven to accept that our culture sanctions behaviors that harm life. Guilt should be no reason to avoid the difficult questions.

"Homosexuality took almost 16 years of my life and compromised them with one lie or another, perpetuated through national media targeted at children."

Homosexuality took almost 16 years of my life and compromised them with one lie or another, perpetuated through national media targeted at children. In European countries, homosexuality is considered so normal that grade-school children are being provided "gay" children's books as required reading in public schools.

Poland, a country all-too familiar with the destruction of its people by outside influences, is bravely attempting to stop the European Union from indoctrinating its children with homosexual propaganda. In response, the European Union has called the prime minister of Poland "repulsive."

I was repulsive for quite some time; I am still dealing with all of my guilt.

As a leader in the "gay rights" movement, I was given the opportunity to address the public many times. If I could take back some of the things I said, I would. Now I know that homosexuality is lust and pornography wrapped into one. I'll never let anybody try to convince me otherwise, no matter how slick their tongues or how sad their story. I have seen it. I know the truth.

God gave us truth for a reason. It exists so we could be ourselves. It exists so we could share that perfect self with the world, to make the perfect world. These are not fanciful schemes or strange ideals – these are the Truth.

Healing from the sins of the world will not happen in an instant; but, it will happen – if we don't pridefully block it. God wins in the end, in case you didn't know.


http://www.massresistance.org/docs/events07/Michael_Glatze/index.html

tennisbear7
Oct 19th, 2007, 07:02 AM
This has been posted before, but the reaction is still the same:

:spit::haha:

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 19th, 2007, 07:31 AM
He hasn't become "straight", he's still a homosexual who gave up dating and having sex with men. That's his choice, he's entitled to do whatever he wants with his life.

However you can't use him as an example to say that gay can change their orientation. The only thing they can do is suppress their orientation and live a straight life. Believe me, when he'll have sex with women, his mind will be somewhere else, with Belami boys.

tenn_ace
Oct 19th, 2007, 07:39 AM
yeah and in about 5 years or so we will read another bathroom story or the story of an "innocent" friendship with the male prostitute


been there, done that.


next.

lakeway11
Oct 19th, 2007, 07:40 AM
maybe straight like implies living traight...in the same way someone promiscious goes straight (marriage???)

Halardfan
Oct 19th, 2007, 08:01 AM
Its a mixture of horrfying garbage, and laugh out loud bizarreness.

Is it a parody? It has to be!

That stuff about turning to God after having stomach cramps because of worrying about his homosexual behaviour...the whole way its phrased is ridiculous... “...Upset stomach inducing behaviours Id been engaged in...” Who speaks like that?!

The whole thing reminded me of poor brainwashed Winston Smith after he'd been in Room 101, in '1984', crossed with Monty Python.

kittyking
Oct 19th, 2007, 08:11 AM
No ones 100% Gay, but no ones 100% straight either - he surely isnt

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 19th, 2007, 08:19 AM
I'm guessing he was a lot into the so-called "gay scene" (being an activist and all) and as he grew older, he realized the shallowness and emptiness of it. What do people who feel empty and lost turn to? The illusional confort of religion and God.

kittyking
Oct 19th, 2007, 09:54 AM
What do people who feel empty and lost turn to? The illusional confort of religion and God.

Thats so last century

Now they start worshipping the trees the birds and the bees Al Gore

BUBI
Oct 19th, 2007, 11:23 AM
No ones 100% Gay, but no ones 100% straight either - he surely isnt

That's just gay propaganda. There are 100% straight people. I know for sure because I'm one.


But once gay means always gay... this guy is 0% straight.

*JR*
Oct 19th, 2007, 12:56 PM
And young Mr. Glatze will someday be a Republican Senator from Idaho with a wife and family, busted in an airport restroom. :tape:

kabuki
Oct 19th, 2007, 01:33 PM
:rolls: What a pile of twisted, pseudo-religious psycho-babble. :rolls:

¤CharlDa¤
Oct 19th, 2007, 03:17 PM
Lovely to read really :lol:

griffin
Oct 19th, 2007, 03:28 PM
Funny how this is the first I"ve ever heard of the guy :shrug:

Whatever.

victory1
Oct 19th, 2007, 03:35 PM
That's just gay propaganda. There are 100% straight people. I know for sure because I'm one.


But once gay means always gay... this guy is 0% straight.


Me to, 100% straight.:kiss:

Pureracket
Oct 19th, 2007, 03:44 PM
Me to, 100% straight.:kiss:Over 1,000 posts on Wtaworld, and you live in Atlanta? Yeah....right.

alfonsojose
Oct 19th, 2007, 04:02 PM
100% gay. Women are :cool: but pussy and tits :unsure: :bolt:

sfselesfan
Oct 19th, 2007, 04:02 PM
I see a bright future of rest stop bathroom sex for this guy. The lowest circle of hell is reserved for hypocrites like this tool.

SF

victory1
Oct 19th, 2007, 04:12 PM
Over 1,000 posts on Wtaworld, and you live in Atlanta? Yeah....right.

:lol: I know! My husband would freak out if he knew he was married to a closet lesbian!:p Seriously, this is one woman that can say she truly love the male body!;)

fufuqifuqishahah
Oct 19th, 2007, 04:37 PM
I honestly feel kind of bad for him, especially if he has only experienced homosexuality as purely lust-based. I dont believe in normalcy, but I guess, according to his terms, he is one who will always be abnormal who cares primarily about being normal. a lot of us dont need other people telling us how to behave, unlike him.

LoveFifteen
Oct 19th, 2007, 04:47 PM
This article is so condescending and self-righteous. It's his own fault if he never experienced anything but "lust" while he was "practicing the homosexual lifestyle". I feel sorry for this guy. He'll be having secret, anonymous gay sex eventually, and he'll be hating himself for it. :sad:

~{X}~
Oct 19th, 2007, 04:54 PM
Sad, sad individual. I'm 100% Gay, and like someone else in this thread said, women are cool and I love them for friends and to hate on em...but there is just no way my "peepee" :lol:ever gets hard for them. Not once in my life. He should just stop hiding and confront his true self again, and stop lying to himself because he will live a miserable, sad life while he bottles everything in. :o

Expat
Oct 19th, 2007, 05:08 PM
there are 100 % straight people and 100 % gays
and then there are those who fall in between
so one can be gay and turn straight
and one can be straight and turn gay

i was reading some old surveys on homosexuality where more than 30% men claimed having homosexual behavior
since the classification of homosexuality as a orienation and not a mental disease and the subsequent recognition of gays being something separate and exclusive
it has dropped down to 2-5% in surveys
because you can no longer claim to have feelings for men and be straight it seems

Pureracket
Oct 19th, 2007, 05:51 PM
:lol: I know! My husband would freak out if he knew he was married to a closet lesbian!:p Seriously, this is one woman that can say she truly love the male body!;)
LOL! True....true.

Kart
Oct 19th, 2007, 06:31 PM
Knowing no one who I could approach with my questions and my doubts, I turned to God; I'd developed a growing relationship with God, thanks to a debilitating bout with intestinal cramps caused by the upset stomach-inducing behaviors I'd been engaged in.


I really didn't need to read much other than this paragraph.

Had someone alerted him to the existence of dental dams or even cling film, I doubt he'd ever have written this drivel.

Pureracket
Oct 19th, 2007, 06:41 PM
I really didn't need to read much other than this paragraph.

Had someone alerted him to the existence of dental dams or even cling film, I doubt he'd ever have written this drivel.
LOL!!!!!

Haute
Oct 19th, 2007, 07:01 PM
The thing that irritates me with it is that he thinks he can make wide-sweeping generalizations based on his own experiences. If he could never love another man, only lust for them, that's his own fucking fault. That's just as ridiculous as the claim in the early 20th-century that all gays were pedophiles.

And this bullshit about lust is equally ridiculous. Straight guys don't lust? Bitch, please. :rolleyes:

I don't understand why people can never just simply say that they changed their minds. We're all human, we're not perfect, we're allowed to change our minds. If 10 years from now I decide that I'm going to "become straight" I'm not going to try to justify it with some lame ass excuse about "God opening my eyes and saving me from ravenous lust!"

sfselesfan
Oct 19th, 2007, 07:10 PM
I had a (very cute) straight friend in college that I used to have occasional "liasons" with. He's still straight, so I realize it's possible. My problem is that someone who has experimented one way or the other would then go around preaching conversion...as if every person can choose.

Personally, I think anyone who would do something like that is a self-hating, raving homosexual who needs serious counseling.

SF

miffedmax
Oct 19th, 2007, 07:35 PM
Well, that's just it. One can "experiment" with a host of behaviors without changing one's true self. An analogous discussion might be about drinking--in college most of my friends and I engaged in behavior that, were it engaged in over a lifetime, would have qualified us a severe alcoholics--binge drinking, early a.m. drinking, drinking to deal with stress, etc. etc.

Luckily, we emerged from that phase of our lives healthy and relatively intact--none of us were alcoholics.

Same thing, I think, with LUGs and sfseles' straight friend--they may want to experiment and all that, but when push comes to shove they are who they are--straight people who are passing through a phase of life where lots of things sound fun and interesting and worth trying out.

Also, I am not comparing homosexuality to alcoholism or trying to make light of substance abuse issues--I am just trying to point out that indulging in certain types of behavior for a short time does not make you something you are not.

To another point, I categorically deny that straight guys ever just lust . . . wait--are those pix of Lena D. over there :drool: :drool: :drool:

BUBI
Oct 19th, 2007, 08:03 PM
Well, that's just it. One can "experiment" with a host of behaviors without changing one's true self. An analogous discussion might be about drinking--in college most of my friends and I engaged in behavior that, were it engaged in over a lifetime, would have qualified us a severe alcoholics--binge drinking, early a.m. drinking, drinking to deal with stress, etc. etc.

Luckily, we emerged from that phase of our lives healthy and relatively intact--none of us were alcoholics.

Same thing, I think, with LUGs and sfseles' straight friend--they may want to experiment and all that, but when push comes to shove they are who they are--straight people who are passing through a phase of life where lots of things sound fun and interesting and worth trying out.

Also, I am not comparing homosexuality to alcoholism or trying to make light of substance abuse issues--I am just trying to point out that indulging in certain types of behavior for a short time does not make you something you are not.

To another point, I categorically deny that straight guys ever just lust . . . wait--are those pix of Lena D. over there :drool: :drool: :drool:

Your post makes no sense to me.

Alcoholism is nobody's true self. It's more like a disease. Some (gay-)republicans think homosexuality is similar disease :lol:

Straight men don't "experiment" like that. Why should anyone experiment with something that doesn't make them aroused and makes them sick? I think people you are talking about are bi-sexuals. I don't think it's a phase, they are born that way. Their true self is not heterosexual.

Expat
Oct 19th, 2007, 08:26 PM
Your post makes no sense to me.

Alcoholism is nobody's true self. It's more like a disease. Some (gay-)republicans think homosexuality is similar disease :lol:

Straight men don't "experiment" like that. Why should anyone experiment with something that doesn't make them aroused and makes them sick? I think people you are talking about are bi-sexuals. I don't think it's a phase, they are born that way. Their true self is not heterosexual.

straight men do experiment though i guess the correct term would be bicurious
havent gay people ever wondered how it would be to do with a girl
it may not excite them but they would experiment nonetheless

many gays at least in their initial phases of awareness do experiment with girls to see if they can get "cured" of homosexuality
straight people can also do the same if they wonder what sex with a man will be like

that doesnt change their orientation
plus if you get a blowjob/sex easily (assuming the straight guy plays the role of top ) it wouldnt hurt to experiment especially if you dont have a gf or are lonely

BUBI
Oct 19th, 2007, 08:31 PM
straight men do experiment though i guess the correct term would be bicurious
havent gay people ever wondered how it would be to do with a girl
it may not excite them but they would experiment nonetheless

many gays at least in their initial phases of awareness do experiment with girls to see if they can get "cured" of homosexuality
straight people can also do the same if they wonder what sex with a man will be like

that doesnt change their orientation
plus if you get a blowjob/sex easily (assuming the straight guy plays the role of top ) it wouldnt hurt to experiment especially if you dont have a gf or are lonely

I just don't understand why. And how would you get a hard on? Just a thought of it is disgusting.

Expat
Oct 19th, 2007, 08:40 PM
I just don't understand why. And how would you get a hard on? Just a thought of it is disgusting.
u are definitely 100% straight dont worry
i had a friend who had been straight all his life
fell in love with a guy who was in the closet
broke up with him and went back to girls
dont know what to classify him
he never denied his homosexual phase or the fact that he had feelings for this guy
but after that he said he didnt feel anything for any other guy
kinda like Craig in Hollyoaks

griffin
Oct 19th, 2007, 08:42 PM
Straight men don't "experiment" like that. Why should anyone experiment with something that doesn't make them aroused and makes them sick?

Being heterosexual automatically means homosex makes you sick? Usually its the people who claim it does that make me doubt their asserted straightness. (as in "methinks the lady doth protest too much")

To go by the statistics, straight men very much DO experiment, or what ever you want to call it. Curiosity? Opportunity? Boredom?

I do think our sexuality is far more fluid than we like to think, but I also think a lot of people lean so far in one direction or anther its a moot point.

As for the thread subject, I don't think he's fluid, or changed - I think he's just buried in self-hate. And I think like a lot of his fellow "ex-gays" he's going to be an ex-ex-gay before too long.

BUBI
Oct 19th, 2007, 08:46 PM
u are definitely 100% straight dont worry
i had a friend who had been straight all his life
fell in love with a guy who was in the closet
broke up with him and went back to girls
dont know what to classify him
he never denied his homosexual phase or the fact that he had feelings for this guy
but after that he said he didnt feel anything for any other guy
kinda like Craig in Hollyoaks

You can never know about other person's sexuality.You can only talk about yourself and assume that other people who put themselves in the same category are like you. And then you may find out they're not. I wouldn't call people mentioned above "straight".

égalité
Oct 19th, 2007, 08:52 PM
Did you write that introduction, lakeway? :tape:


But there is no homosexual "desire" that is apart from lust.
Well reason, dude. If you replace "homosexual" with "heterosexual," it's still true.

If you go back in the closet, you're stil gay. :wavey: I bet he wrote this while wanking it to gay porn. What better way to hate yourself? :hearts:

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 19th, 2007, 09:02 PM
Homosexuality is nothing more than an attraction to the same sex. But it's being sold to the new generation as a lifestyle. Ever seen a gay mag? It promotes an hedonist lifestyle, with parties, booze, saunas, hairless muscular men all over the place. Is it a surprise when some gay men turn 30, they start feeling empty? It's a bit simplistic to label them as "self-hating", I think the problem is more that some people associate so much "gay" with a lifestyle, that they can't dissociate the 2 and come to see homosexuality as destructive.

UDACHi
Oct 19th, 2007, 09:10 PM
i only got to 'heal his homosexuality' and was already amused bye and turned off from the whole article. didn't need to read any further. :p

miffedmax
Oct 19th, 2007, 09:19 PM
Your post makes no sense to me.

Alcoholism is nobody's true self. It's more like a disease. Some (gay-)republicans think homosexuality is similar disease :lol:

Straight men don't "experiment" like that. Why should anyone experiment with something that doesn't make them aroused and makes them sick? I think people you are talking about are bi-sexuals. I don't think it's a phase, they are born that way. Their true self is not heterosexual.

A better phrase would have been "true alcoholics." My point was that engaging in a certain type of behavior for a short period of time does not make you something you are not.

History and the modern world are replete with examples of men (and women) who have engaged in sex with their own gender for expediency--prison, long sea voyages, military campaigns, all-boys schools, all-girl's schools, being locked up in a harem with hundreds of other women and only allowed to screw one guy, etc.

Hell, there are people out there who screw sheep they're so desperate. I'm pretty damned straight (true fact--one of my gay friends says I am the straightest guy in the world) but yeah, I think if I were really hard up I'd at least stick to my own species.

Are there straight guys and gals who would never, ever under any circumstances engage in homosexual sex? Probably.

But there are and have always been a lot of people who would. And no, they would not really be classified as bisexual.

The flip side is also true. Many gays have tried heterosexual sex, even--gasp--gotten married--and are homosexuals. Your statements about straights, gays and bis seem to be based only on yourself as a frame of reference.

mckyle.
Oct 19th, 2007, 09:22 PM
It seems as if this guy has never been loved and will continue to flip-flip until he finds love.

miffedmax
Oct 19th, 2007, 09:22 PM
Homosexuality is nothing more than an attraction to the same sex. But it's being sold to the new generation as a lifestyle. Ever seen a gay mag? It promotes an hedonist lifestyle, with parties, booze, saunas, hairless muscular men all over the place. Is it a surprise when some gay men turn 30, they start feeling empty? It's a bit simplistic to label them as "self-hating", I think the problem is more that some people associate so much "gay" with a lifestyle, that they can't dissociate the 2 and come to see homosexuality as destructive.

I take it you've never seen a copy of Playboy? And where many of the women featured in that mag don' have hair?

Kart
Oct 19th, 2007, 09:31 PM
LOL!!!!!

If you hadn't quoted it, I would have deleted it as I thought the implication was probably a bit too explicit for some of the younger minded posters here.

Still, I'm glad you were amused ;).

sfselesfan
Oct 19th, 2007, 09:35 PM
Homosexuality is nothing more than an attraction to the same sex. But it's being sold to the new generation as a lifestyle. Ever seen a gay mag? It promotes an hedonist lifestyle, with parties, booze, saunas, hairless muscular men all over the place. Is it a surprise when some gay men turn 30, they start feeling empty? It's a bit simplistic to label them as "self-hating", I think the problem is more that some people associate so much "gay" with a lifestyle, that they can't dissociate the 2 and come to see homosexuality as destructive.


Now, I'm not a straight porn collector...but I've seen enough to know that straight porn promotes a much more hedonistic lifestyle than homosexual porn does...utter distrespect to women, sex with animals, unsafe sex (and a lot of other sick shit). If that's what people are judging an entire "lifestyle" by, then they need to take a look in the mirror.

All that...and at least mainstream gay pornography has the sense to utilize condoms. :rolleyes:

SF

BUBI
Oct 19th, 2007, 10:23 PM
A better phrase would have been "true alcoholics." My point was that engaging in a certain type of behavior for a short period of time does not make you something you are not.

History and the modern world are replete with examples of men (and women) who have engaged in sex with their own gender for expediency--prison, long sea voyages, military campaigns, all-boys schools, all-girl's schools, being locked up in a harem with hundreds of other women and only allowed to screw one guy, etc.

Hell, there are people out there who screw sheep they're so desperate. I'm pretty damned straight (true fact--one of my gay friends says I am the straightest guy in the world) but yeah, I think if I were really hard up I'd at least stick to my own species.

Are there straight guys and gals who would never, ever under any circumstances engage in homosexual sex? Probably.

But there are and have always been a lot of people who would. And no, they would not really be classified as bisexual.

The flip side is also true. Many gays have tried heterosexual sex, even--gasp--gotten married--and are homosexuals. Your statements about straights, gays and bis seem to be based only on yourself as a frame of reference.

Some people have bigger sexual drive than others but I don't think anyone would ever do something that is totally against their sexual nature. That's why I would call these people mentioned here bi-sexuals.

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 19th, 2007, 10:34 PM
I take it you've never seen a copy of Playboy? And where many of the women featured in that mag don' have hair?

I'm not talking about a gay porn magazine, I'm talking about a standard free gay magazine found in big cities. Anyway my point does not stand on the content of some magazines, but on the way a certain kind of empty and shallow homosexual lifestyle is being promoted and sold. Some people stupidly can't dissociate it from homosexuality itself and end up rejecting everything.

I hate it when people simply label ex-gays as self-hating, when in fact there can be many other reasons why a person can come to reject homosexuality.

venus_rulez
Oct 19th, 2007, 11:03 PM
Hmmm gay sex is abnormal sex and that's why it's unfulfilling? I guess all those disatisfied men and all those women who just can't have an orgasm with their partner are all liars too...

miffedmax
Oct 19th, 2007, 11:27 PM
I'm not talking about a gay porn magazine, I'm talking about a standard free gay magazine found in big cities. Anyway my point does not stand on the content of some magazines, but on the way a certain kind of empty and shallow homosexual lifestyle is being promoted and sold. Some people stupidly can't dissociate it from homosexuality itself and end up rejecting everything.

I hate it when people simply label ex-gays as self-hating, when in fact there can be many other reasons why a person can come to reject homosexuality.

IMHO, Playboy doesn't make the cut for what I consider pornography, but we all know what it is when we see it.

If Playboy is too smutty, the look at Maxim, FHM or scads of other mags picked at young straight guys. For straight girls, consider Allure, Cosmo, Vogue--there are any number of mags pitched at any demographic promoting mindless consumerism as the road to happiness regardless of your orientation.

There are a lot of empty, shallow straight people outthere leading joyless lives too. The difference is, IMHO, that huge chunks of society don't reject you simply because of your orientation, and there's a certain comfort that comes with a being part of a majority that is considered "normal." I also think that even today many families turn their backs on gay children, brothers, sisters, cousins, etc. eliminating a vital source of grounding for many people.

I think you have a valid point, but I don't think it's a sole explanation for things, nor do I think it's something that automatically affects only gays.

venus_rulez
Oct 19th, 2007, 11:49 PM
IMHO, Playboy doesn't make the cut for what I consider pornography, but we all know what it is when we see it.

If Playboy is too smutty, the look at Maxim, FHM or scads of other mags picked at young straight guys. For straight girls, consider Allure, Cosmo, Vogue--there are any number of mags pitched at any demographic promoting mindless consumerism as the road to happiness regardless of your orientation.

There are a lot of empty, shallow straight people outthere leading joyless lives too. The difference is, IMHO, that huge chunks of society don't reject you simply because of your orientation, and there's a certain comfort that comes with a being part of a majority that is considered "normal." I also think that even today many families turn their backs on gay children, brothers, sisters, cousins, etc. eliminating a vital source of grounding for many people.

I think you have a valid point, but I don't think it's a sole explanation for things, nor do I think it's something that automatically affects only gays.


You're right. Lots of straight people lead less than appealing lives, but for society to reject them based on orientation would...well...would call their own lives into question. And if history has taught us anything it's that it's SO much easier to condemn something you have no knowledge or experience with than it is to look at your ownself.

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 19th, 2007, 11:55 PM
I don't think at all it's the sole explanation of things, but I think it can be one.

The difference I see, is that there is no such thing as a "heterosexual lifestyle", so straight won't make an association between heterosexuality and the way they live. When they realize their lifestyle isn't satisfying, they're not going to question their sexual orientation as the problem.

As for gays, well... There is a whole "gay scene", and some gays base their lifestyle on that. Gay bars, gay sauna, gay circuit, gay parties, etc. In that case, the distinction between their orientation and the way they live is more blurry. So it's easier for gays to be confused and end up thinking homosexuality is the problem. Of course, the fact that homosexuality is not fully accepted in our society throw even more confusion.

Maybe it's not the reason for the guy in the article, but I don't buy the self-hate explanation. It doesn't fit with his profile, being a gay activist.

venus_rulez
Oct 20th, 2007, 12:00 AM
Yeah I'm not disagreeing with you, but I do think it's society's non-acceptance of homosexuality that is the root of it all. The fact that people have to come out at all is HUGE. Homosexuality is something you have to own, you have to declare it or people just assume you're straight. Straight people never have to ponder the "origins" of their orientation and therefore never have to say, "Yeah, that's me." Most just go along with the flow and because society never says, "Hey, what are you doing man? WHy are you lusting after that girl? Why do you want to have sex with that girl?" there's never a reason to take on heterosexuality as anything other than what it is.

If homosexuality were accepted, this guy wouldn't ever thing about "renouncing" it because it would never have been something he had to claim to begin with, it would have simply been what it is.

venus_rulez
Oct 20th, 2007, 12:14 AM
hmm my post isn't showing up in the Non Tennis thread area....

*JR*
Oct 20th, 2007, 12:53 AM
Did you write that introduction, lakeway? :tape:

Quote:
But there is no homosexual "desire" that is apart from lust.

Well reason, dude. If you replace "homosexual" with "heterosexual," it's still true.

If you go back in the closet, you're stil gay. :wavey: I bet he wrote this while wanking it to gay porn. What better way to hate yourself? :hearts:
Don't feel put upon, Lakeway (a Catholic) considers the last 2 (quite conservative) Popes heretics because they won't call Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christians heretics. :help:

Regarding the lust question, I'm sure there are many gay couples who love eachother, even if (as with probably most straight couples) it began more as lust, @ least on one side. Having said that, I think the gay community (while I last payed attention a couple of decades ago) was remiss in not putting more stories of same sex emotional love in movies, etc.

égalité
Oct 20th, 2007, 01:12 AM
Don't feel put upon, Lakeway (a Catholic) considers the last 2 (quite conservative) Popes heretics because they won't call Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christians heretics. :help:

Regarding the lust question, I'm sure there are many gay couples who love eachother, even if (as with probably most straight couples) it began more as lust, @ least on one side. Having said that, I think the gay community (while I last payed attention a couple of decades ago) was remiss in not putting more stories of same sex emotional love in movies, etc.

I know what you mean, but when Brokeback Mountain (which focuses on emotional love) came out, people still thought it was wrong :lol:

And I don't take anything Lakeway says seriously. :help: :help: I love how he calls homosexuality "addictive and destructive." Of course it's destructive when there are people like him making gay people constantly feel like shit. You'd think so many people wouldn't choose to be gay in such an unwelcoming environment, eh?

And addictive? I guess heterosexuality is addictive too. I mean, once you've caught the straight, you've got it for life!

*JR*
Oct 20th, 2007, 01:58 AM
I know what you mean, but when Brokeback Mountain (which focuses on emotional love) came out, people still thought it was wrong :lol:
Forget what those who hate you anyway (or use that "hate the sin, but love the sinner" line) think, never let your enemies define you. And your "friends" don't always do you such favors either. When political groups (mostly the Democrats in the US, I guess the left parties in Europe) appoint "LGBT Outreach Co-ordinators" (or the same for ethnic minorities) they're tagging the group as "other". If I were gay, black, whatever, I'd find that quite condescending.

Haute
Oct 20th, 2007, 02:11 AM
Maybe it's not the reason for the guy in the article, but I don't buy the self-hate explanation. It doesn't fit with his profile, being a gay activist.

I don't buy the self-hate explanation either, but his about-face is baffling. I'm trying to think of a situation where someone who go from one extreme to another to try to understand this, but this has me stumped. You can't really say that he was confused about his sexual orientation because he was an activist...maybe the Church captured him and gave him a lobotomy? :lol:

tterb
Oct 20th, 2007, 02:14 AM
I just don't understand why. And how would you get a hard on? Just a thought of it is disgusting.
If someone's open-minded and wants to experiment, it's not that hard (pun intended). The physical sensations are the same from a guy as from a girl, after all.

Also, believe it or not, not everyone is like you ( :eek: ) and finds sexual thoughts of the same sex so repulsive. :shrug: Not being attracted to guys is one thing, but being disgusted is entirely irrational.

Haute
Oct 20th, 2007, 02:15 AM
If someone's open-minded and wants to experiment, it's not that hard (pun intended). The physical sensations are the same from a guy as from a girl, after all.

Also, believe it or not, not everyone is like you ( :eek: ) and finds sexual thoughts of the same sex so repulsive. :shrug: Not being attracted to guys is one thing, but being disgusted is entirely irrational.

I know that personally I'm terrified of being swallowed by a cavernous, gapping maw. :lol:

lakeway11
Oct 20th, 2007, 02:36 AM
I don't buy the self-hate explanation either, but his about-face is baffling. I'm trying to think of a situation where someone who go from one extreme to another to try to understand this, but this has me stumped. You can't really say that he was confused about his sexual orientation because he was an activist...maybe the Church captured him and gave him a lobotomy? :lol:

there was quite a famous WNBA player who was married and was not interested in women...but later in life changed and became a lesbian. So that is a big about-face also, which shows identities can change.

tterb
Oct 20th, 2007, 02:37 AM
I don't think at all it's the sole explanation of things, but I think it can be one.

The difference I see, is that there is no such thing as a "heterosexual lifestyle", so straight won't make an association between heterosexuality and the way they live. When they realize their lifestyle isn't satisfying, they're not going to question their sexual orientation as the problem.

As for gays, well... There is a whole "gay scene", and some gays base their lifestyle on that. Gay bars, gay sauna, gay circuit, gay parties, etc. In that case, the distinction between their orientation and the way they live is more blurry. So it's easier for gays to be confused and end up thinking homosexuality is the problem. Of course, the fact that homosexuality is not fully accepted in our society throw even more confusion.

Maybe it's not the reason for the guy in the article, but I don't buy the self-hate explanation. It doesn't fit with his profile, being a gay activist.
I'd have to agree that this abrupt change doesn't fit the usual self-hatred mold. Those people usually struggle from the moment they first realize they're attracted to the same sex, denying it and trying to change. This guy was at least outwardly okay with his sexuality for years.

My only guess is that he needed a scapegoat for why his relationships all revolved around lust, why his life seemed so empty... and being a gay activist, homosexuality was a dominant piece of his life, so he probably started listening to some influential, charismatic fundamentalist who "showed him the light." It wouldn't surprise me if he were clinically depressed either. Even rational people lose all logic when depressed.

mckyle.
Oct 20th, 2007, 02:38 AM
there was quite a famous WNBA player who was married and was not interested in women...but later in life changed and became a lesbian. So that is a big about-face also, which shows identities can change.

Is it that hard to comprehend? She always loved women, but married because it was what was expected of her.

Some people's logic and reasoning are just :smash: :o

tterb
Oct 20th, 2007, 02:40 AM
there was quite a famous WNBA player who was married and was not interested in women...but later in life changed and became a lesbian. So that is a big about-face also, which shows identities can change.

You're right. It's not at all likely that she got married because she either didn't want to admit to herself or to others that she was a lesbian. Because no gay people have ever hidden their true sexuality out of fear or inability to deal with society's reaction.

But why am I bothering? :confused:

venus_rulez
Oct 20th, 2007, 02:42 AM
there was quite a famous WNBA player who was married and was not interested in women...but later in life changed and became a lesbian. So that is a big about-face also, which shows identities can change.


Yes, identities can change for SOME people. But most people are either born straight or gay, and some people choose which one makes them happy. And since when did 1 or a few examples constitute the ability to make sweeping generalizations?

GoDominique
Oct 20th, 2007, 02:52 AM
Personally I believe sexuality is a lot less "fluid" than some people think.

Straight males like pussy, gay males like dick. Isn't it so?

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 20th, 2007, 02:52 AM
How can identity change? Of course everything is possible, but I'm guessing if it happens, it's exceptionally rare.

I've read a little bit of testimonies of "ex-gays", and it seems to me they simply repress their orientation, there is no indication they are sexually attracted to women.

Concerning the guy in the article, it's entirely possible some Christian fundamentalist group offered him a large sum of money to pretend he's no longer gay. It might seem far-fetched, but when I see every tactic they use and every lies they tell to promote creationism, everything is possible.

GoDominique
Oct 20th, 2007, 02:58 AM
Also, I think what soup is trying to say that he is not in the least bit interested in gay sex, i.e. dick and/or ass. He finds the thought of it unpleasant.

Many gay males are afraid of vagina which is probably a similar phenomenon.

tterb
Oct 20th, 2007, 03:16 AM
Also, I think what soup is trying to say that he is not in the least bit interested in gay sex, i.e. dick and/or ass. He finds the thought of it unpleasant.

Many gay males are afraid of vagina which is probably a similar phenomenon.
While that may be true, "disgusting" does not = "not the least bit interested in."

I find being afraid of vagina equally ludicrous, of course. :) (looking at you, Randy :lol: )

tterb
Oct 20th, 2007, 03:22 AM
How can identity change? Of course everything is possible, but I'm guessing if it happens, it's exceptionally rare.

I've read a little bit of testimonies of "ex-gays", and it seems to me they simply repress their orientation, there is no indication they are sexually attracted to women.

Concerning the guy in the article, it's entirely possible some Christian fundamentalist group offered him a large sum of money to pretend he's no longer gay. It might seem far-fetched, but when I see every tactic they use and every lies they tell to promote creationism, everything is possible.
Good question. One might choose whether to deny or embrace your natural sexual attractions, but how does one's physical attraction to one sex or the other change?

I mean, if I got drunk, turned out the lights, and imagined REALLY hard, I could have sex with a woman. I might physically react to a woman touching me the right way as well. But I wouldn't have had any natural physical attraction to her. That kind of stuff is hard-wired, like any other physical reaction. :shrug: I can't completely rule out identity ever changing, but like Whitehead's Boy, I'd imagine it's extremely rare.

Haute
Oct 20th, 2007, 08:34 AM
While that may be true, "disgusting" does not = "not the least bit interested in."

I find being afraid of vagina equally ludicrous, of course. :) (looking at you, Randy :lol: )

It's not that irrational...in my Sex, Drugs, and Politics class one of our textbooks is on pornography, and it talks about this comic called Penis Envy II. "After destroying several women, though, penis-man gets his comeuppance: he meets a women who becomes a huge vagina dentata, completely consuming." That's terrifying! :eek: :lol:

My only guess is that he needed a scapegoat for why his relationships all revolved around lust, why his life seemed so empty... and being a gay activist, homosexuality was a dominant piece of his life, so he probably started listening to some influential, charismatic fundamentalist who "showed him the light." It wouldn't surprise me if he were clinically depressed either. Even rational people lose all logic when depressed.

That's a very interesting point to make, and kind of fits with the retrospection he gives about being unhappy during his gay life.

BUBI
Oct 20th, 2007, 09:49 AM
Not being attracted to guys is one thing, but being disgusted is entirely irrational.

Irrational? I would say it's part of heterosexuality. Some gay people will say that it's learned behaviour but it's not. Homosexuality is natural, you are born that way. But being disgusted by it is natural too and more common. For example if two men kiss in a movie, you can immediately see some disgusted men walk out of theater :lol: Personally I can watch a scene like that, but if that's all movie is about, why torture myself? And by the way, two women kissing it's not at all disgusting :hearts:

miffedmax
Oct 20th, 2007, 02:33 PM
I know my brother had sex with women, and he's at least as gay as I am straight.

As far as the WNBA thing, I've read that women's orientation often locks in somewhat later than men's in some cases (not all, I'm sure).

I think that for women, there's also the issue of having children. Not that lesbian couples don't have options, but I know for some of my friends that's an issue. Adoption and artificial insemination, while fine, don't have quite the same feel as having a child with someone you love.

Now, that's based on my conversations with two formerly married lesbian friends of mine, so I realize my sample is not representative.

Kirt12255
Oct 20th, 2007, 04:22 PM
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:
OMG!!!!!!!!! Too funny!!

Where is my "straight cure?" LMAO Only in America:lol: :lol:

It's a bit hard to lock oneself in the cupboard when you have broken the lock.;)

GoDominique
Oct 20th, 2007, 05:07 PM
But being disgusted by it is natural too and more common. For example if two men kiss in a movie, you can immediately see some disgusted men walk out of theater :lol:
Well, I don't think heterosexual men are born with a "walk out of theater if two men kiss on screen" reflex.
Kissing is different from having sex. While most gay men could probably do without seeing vaginal penetration in all its details, they usually don't mind seeing a man and a woman kiss in a movie, or two women. And heterosexual women can endure seeing two women kiss too, I believe.
So that kind of childish behaviour is pretty much exclusive to heterosexual men, which indicates that it is probably learned. :)

LoveFifteen
Oct 20th, 2007, 05:26 PM
When I was in college, I had lunch with the leader of an ex-gay ministry. This was back when I was extremely religious and trying to become an ex-gay myself (yes, I know ... :help: ). I remember sitting across from him at the restaurant while he recounted how God dramatically rescued him from a life of sin, releasing him from his homosexual lusts and helping him to find a loving wife. He told me that they loved each other very much and that their sex life was wonderful.

Up to that point, I had really believed that God could "heal" me, but as I looked across the table at this exceedingly gay man with a strong lisp and limp wrists, I realized what a sham this whole ex-gay movement was. The man was so flaming you could've roasted marshmallows over him. You could see the pained look of suppression all over his face. Sister was one Cher concert away from exploding into a gay supernova. It was sad.

Let's be clear about one thing. People do not choose their sexual orientation. As Margaret Cho says, you can look at some gay people and see that they obviously had NOOOO choice in the matter. :tape:

miffedmax
Oct 20th, 2007, 05:57 PM
And let's face it, we are, in this discussion talking about guys getting over an aversion to gay sex. And we know, gay or straight, if we here the phrase "suck your" in a sentence our trousers will be down around our ankles so fast it would make your head spin. Throw in a few beers, and we could be talking about a great white shark and we'd stick it in, close our eyes and think of God, country and Uma Thurman (or Rupert Evert) if that's what it takes.

I'm exaggerating some, but there is a legit point here. Like with Bill Clinton, your definition of "sex", let alone "gay sex" may vary.

BUBI
Oct 20th, 2007, 06:37 PM
Well, I don't think heterosexual men are born with a "walk out of theater if two men kiss on screen" reflex.
Kissing is different from having sex. While most gay men could probably do without seeing vaginal penetration in all its details, they usually don't mind seeing a man and a woman kiss in a movie, or two women. And heterosexual women can endure seeing two women kiss too, I believe.
So that kind of childish behaviour is pretty much exclusive to heterosexual men, which indicates that it is probably learned. :)
That would be assuming that straight, gay, men and women are all similar categories, only difference being the gender or sexual preference.
People can get used to almost anything and don't react instinctively anymore. Is that a good thing?

Haute
Oct 20th, 2007, 07:14 PM
Let's be clear about one thing. People do not choose their sexual orientation. As Margaret Cho says, you can look at some gay people and see that they obviously had NOOOO choice in the matter. :tape:

Like the Pope, wearing his gold dress and matching hat. Living up in the Vatican surrounded by the finest antiques in the word, and 500 other mens... :lol: I saw her live last week. :worship:

So that kind of childish behaviour is pretty much exclusive to heterosexual men, which indicates that it is probably learned.

I think it's more a reflection of tolerance; there are some pretty devout Christian women out there who would walk out as well or write a strongly written letter to no one who gives a shit about their being offended by seeing two men or two women kiss in a movie. 'Learned' probably isn't the right word, but that it comes from what they experience growing up.

Number19
Oct 20th, 2007, 08:58 PM
This guy is now gay for Jesus. "Oh, Jesus, you touched me..."

mckyle.
Oct 20th, 2007, 09:06 PM
I don't like how gay rights is in quotations in the title. As if the thread starter is saying gays don't deserve any rights :lol:

BUBI
Oct 20th, 2007, 10:13 PM
I don't like how gay rights is in quotations in the title. As if the thread starter is saying gays don't deserve any rights :lol:
Knowing the thread starter, I don't think that's the case. I think he sees 'gay rights' people as a lobbyist group that wants special rights for the people they represent.

ASV_FAN
Oct 21st, 2007, 11:31 AM
LMFAO!!! So lust driven sex *isn't* satisfactory?? Well I seem to have an awful lot of veeery satisfactory "unsatisfactory" sex lol.

And how can you say one particular lifestyle is inherently destructive? I know gay people who don't drink, never touch drugs and are generally very clean living people. Granted that bucks the stereotype but you can't really argue that one lifestyle is anymore destructive than another.

I'm going to stop now because you'd be here all day if you addressed every sorry point!!

willrock
Oct 21st, 2007, 03:28 PM
Okay most of American people are really driven by their "religious bullshit"...
This is frightening

Number19
Oct 21st, 2007, 06:35 PM
LMFAO!!! So lust driven sex *isn't* satisfactory?? Well I seem to have an awful lot of veeery satisfactory "unsatisfactory" sex lol.

In all honesty it can. I'm 30 and its all I've known. Its begun to wear on me. I want something more. I've turned down sex quite a bit lately, including last night. And sure I feel like shit today, and wondering what the hell I was thinking. But the times I still went through with getting laid, unsatisfactory is what it was. I didn't care about the girl, and I don't really care about putting in a good performance either.

égalité
Oct 21st, 2007, 09:03 PM
OK, a general question to all those who think being gay is a choice:

Do you think everyone is born straight? If so, why the HELL would a straight person have sex with people they're not attracted to?! It doesn't make any sense. :banghead:
If not, when did you choose to be straight?

Reuchlin
Oct 21st, 2007, 09:57 PM
I don't think at all it's the sole explanation of things, but I think it can be one.

The difference I see, is that there is no such thing as a "heterosexual lifestyle", so straight won't make an association between heterosexuality and the way they live. When they realize their lifestyle isn't satisfying, they're not going to question their sexual orientation as the problem.

As for gays, well... There is a whole "gay scene", and some gays base their lifestyle on that. Gay bars, gay sauna, gay circuit, gay parties, etc. In that case, the distinction between their orientation and the way they live is more blurry. So it's easier for gays to be confused and end up thinking homosexuality is the problem. Of course, the fact that homosexuality is not fully accepted in our society throw even more confusion.

Maybe it's not the reason for the guy in the article, but I don't buy the self-hate explanation. It doesn't fit with his profile, being a gay activist.

good post. Very thoughtful. I think the fact that he was a gay activist maybe have made the distinction between his life, and his orientation a blurry one. This was, after all, a man who made homosexuality central to his definition of "self." When there were problems with his "self," he thought that they stemmed from the thing that he found most important to that definition, his homosexuality.

Scotso
Oct 22nd, 2007, 12:27 AM
Funny how this is the first I"ve ever heard of the guy :shrug:

Whatever.

Seriously, if he was a *major* national gay rights leader, I would have heard about him.

miffedmax
Oct 22nd, 2007, 02:38 AM
OK, a general question to all those who think being gay is a choice:

Do you think everyone is born straight? If so, why the HELL would a straight person have sex with people they're not attracted to?! It doesn't make any sense. :banghead:
If not, when did you choose to be straight?

Clearly, you're talking about premarital sex, right? ;)

Apoleb
Oct 22nd, 2007, 03:11 AM
Well, I don't think heterosexual men are born with a "walk out of theater if two men kiss on screen" reflex.
Kissing is different from having sex. While most gay men could probably do without seeing vaginal penetration in all its details, they usually don't mind seeing a man and a woman kiss in a movie, or two women. And heterosexual women can endure seeing two women kiss too, I believe.
So that kind of childish behaviour is pretty much exclusive to heterosexual men, which indicates that it is probably learned. :)

100% in agreement. This whole "I can't see men kissing" is a lingering product of society's attitude towards homosexuality and the fact that homosexuals and homosexuality were for the most part hidden taboos (with heterosexuality being so ingrained in people's minds), so when people spot this behavior, you get the "I can't look" reaction. I think though things are changing, with homosexuals being much more visible. You don't have to like it, but there's nothing abnormally disgusting about a man kissing another man to get an extreme reaction, at least when their lips just touch. :shrug:

Anyway, about the fluidity thing, if we are going to go by any objective measure, statistics DO show that a lot of men and women have sexual experiences with people from the same gender. It doesn't mean that most people swing depending on the weather, but I do think it's fluid enough to avoid labeling. It really depends on each person.

Apoleb
Oct 22nd, 2007, 03:31 AM
Lust takes us out of our bodies, "attaching" our psyche onto someone else's physical form. That's why homosexual sex – and all other lust-based sex – is never satisfactory: It's a neurotic process rather than a natural, normal one. Normal is normal – and has been called normal for a reason.


:haha:

The guy is a total confused idiot, and I wouldn't be surprised if he ends in a depression clinic a couple years from now. Just because he was a gay rights activitist doesn't mean he wasn't a self-hating idiot at the same time, which he obviously is. Heterosexual men have "lust-based" sex all the time and all heterosexual people have lustful desires. It's true that sex with the person you love is always better, but that goes for heterosexual and homosexual people. It seems that this guy thinks homosexuality is just sex, and that homosexuals are incapable of love.

égalité
Oct 22nd, 2007, 03:45 AM
Lust takes us out of our bodies, "attaching" our psyche onto someone else's physical form. That's why homosexual sex – and all other lust-based sex – is never satisfactory: It's a neurotic process rather than a natural, normal one. Normal is normal – and has been called normal for a reason.

:spit::spit::spit:

Of course it's not satisfactory if you're a self-loathing, guilt-ridden fundamentalist Christian nutjob :haha:

Donny
Oct 22nd, 2007, 04:19 AM
Being heterosexual automatically means homosex makes you sick? Usually its the people who claim it does that make me doubt their asserted straightness. (as in "methinks the lady doth protest too much")

To go by the statistics, straight men very much DO experiment, or what ever you want to call it. Curiosity? Opportunity? Boredom?

I do think our sexuality is far more fluid than we like to think, but I also think a lot of people lean so far in one direction or anther its a moot point.

As for the thread subject, I don't think he's fluid, or changed - I think he's just buried in self-hate. And I think like a lot of his fellow "ex-gays" he's going to be an ex-ex-gay before too long.

Perfect logic. That must means Klan members who claim to hate blacks actually love blacks! Or maybe they're black themselves! That MUST be it...

bionic71
Oct 22nd, 2007, 06:44 AM
I really didn't need to read much other than this paragraph.

Had someone alerted him to the existence of dental dams or even cling film, I doubt he'd ever have written this drivel.

Yeah....I should have stopped there too doll, but continued on with a kind of morbid car crash fascination.....alas all I discovered was more of the same mumbo jumbo and twisted logic. Poor bastard.

venus_rulez
Oct 22nd, 2007, 10:15 AM
Perfect logic. That must means Klan members who claim to hate blacks actually love blacks! Or maybe they're black themselves! That MUST be it...

Why do people think that just because you can make a comparison between things that it automatically means it must work in ALL comparisons?

When is the last time someone thought you could choose to be Black?

When's the last time someone renounced their Blackness and decided to become White?

And how many people can successfully hide being Black?

Yeah exactly your comparison makes no sense (i know that was the point) hence why the poster you tried to make fun of didn't make it.

Donny
Oct 22nd, 2007, 01:00 PM
Why do people think that just because you can make a comparison between things that it automatically means it must work in ALL comparisons?

When is the last time someone thought you could choose to be Black?

When's the last time someone renounced their Blackness and decided to become White?

You must have any relatives from the South. My great Aunt was light enough and fair featured enough to pass as White. And for most of her life, she sold out her family and did choose to "be" white.

And how many people can successfully hide being Black?

See above. And see this:

http://www.post-gazette.com/lifestyle/20031026stain1026fnp2.asp

But Douglass, who lives in Wilkinsburg, is a 53-year-old black woman. She could pass for white but she has never tried, she said.

"Growing up, I knew of people who did, and I was even instructed not to say, at that time, that they were colored. In order to get their jobs, they had to say they were white."

The new film "The Human Stain," based on a novel of the same name by Philip Roth, provides a glimpse into the world of blacks so fair they can live undetected among whites.

Thelma Marshall knows that routine.

During the 1950s and early '60s, she did what her mother before her had done. What her grandmother and aunts had done.

She passed for white.

Yeah exactly your comparison makes no sense (i know that was the point) hence why the poster you tried to make fun of didn't make it.

Have you ever heard of the Senator Strom Thurmond? He was Senator of South Carolina. He conducted the longest filibuster EVER in the US Senate in opposition to the Civil Rights Act- a hardcore segregationist and White Supremacist. Yet, it recently was discovered that he had had a mulatto child with a black woman when he was 22. He supported the child with money, occasionally visited her, even claimed to love the child- in secret- while all the time proclaiming to despise blacks and the idea of civil rights in his political life.

So you see, there are documented cases of blacks passing for white; there are cases of whites who claim to love and slept with black individuals while publicly stating that they despise blacks and the idea of mongrelization. There are probably even some cases of blacks who passed for white, and put up the facade of being racist to fit in.

Of course, I've spent enough time listening to my parents, and spending time in the south to know that the vast majority of proclaimed racists are just that- racists who think white superior to blacks. Just like the vast majority of people who dislike gays, really do just dislike gays.

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 22nd, 2007, 02:15 PM
Just like the vast majority of people who dislike gays, really do just dislike gays.

I have to agree I mean... It's just a cliche perpetuated in movies like American Beauty that the biggest homophobes are gays.

Homophobia is complex and there are a lot of explanations... It goes way beyond the lame "people are homophobe, because they are unconfortable or afraid of their own sexuality".

miffedmax
Oct 22nd, 2007, 03:26 PM
Uh, let's face, lust is part of romantic love no matter what your orientation. It's sort of a chicken-and-egg question, as in do I find this person beautiful because I love her (in my case, him in others) or is part of the reason I love her that I lust for her? Lust, like love, can exist on a seperate level, but it's when the two collide that we get romantic love.

But this weird idea that somehow lust is wrong or seperate from romantic love is frankly, crazy. I mean, I love my cats, but I don't want to fuck them.

Reuchlin
Oct 22nd, 2007, 06:02 PM
I have to agree I mean... It's just a cliche perpetuated in movies like American Beauty that the biggest homophobes are gays.

Homophobia is complex and there are a lot of explanations... It goes way beyond the lame "people are homophobe, because they are unconfortable or afraid of their own sexuality".

There were also a couple of studies done in the United States that showed that people who show the most homophobia had a significant level of arousal when looking at homoerotic materials. When asked to evaluate their own response to the material, I remember that most said that there was no arousal when the "evidence" was right there in front of them :tape: :tape: :tape:

Donny
Oct 22nd, 2007, 08:35 PM
There were also a couple of studies done in the United States that showed that people who show the most homophobia had a significant level of arousal when looking at homoerotic materials. When asked to evaluate their own response to the material, I remember that most said that there was no arousal when the "evidence" was right there in front of them :tape: :tape: :tape:

I've seen that report, and I've often wondered if the people who did the study actually knew any men. Men can be "aroused" by cold water, brushing against an object, or even stressful situations. None of that implies sexual desire.

Both men and women are capable of orgasming during rape- does that mean that they subconsciously desire it?

swissmr
Oct 22nd, 2007, 08:56 PM
Ask any straight guy who claims to dislike gays because it's unnatural or whatever, if they feel the same way about lesbians. That tends to shut them up...

Reuchlin
Oct 22nd, 2007, 08:59 PM
I've seen that report, and I've often wondered if the people who did the study actually knew any men. Men can be "aroused" by cold water, brushing against an object, or even stressful situations. None of that implies sexual desire.

Both men and women are capable of orgasming during rape- does that mean that they subconsciously desire it?

The compared the group to men who had little or no homophobic feeling. These men experienced significantly LESS arousal (some even none) when compared to the homophobic group. The study is not perfect, but interesting.

plantman
Oct 22nd, 2007, 09:11 PM
Ask any straight guy who claims to dislike gays because it's unnatural or whatever, if they feel the same way about lesbians. That tends to shut them up...

:yeah:

Haute
Oct 22nd, 2007, 11:35 PM
Uh, let's face, lust is part of romantic love no matter what your orientation. It's sort of a chicken-and-egg question, as in do I find this person beautiful because I love her (in my case, him in others) or is part of the reason I love her that I lust for her? Lust, like love, can exist on a seperate level, but it's when the two collide that we get romantic love.

But this weird idea that somehow lust is wrong or seperate from romantic love is frankly, crazy. I mean, I love my cats, but I don't want to fuck them.

The one arguement that people use that truly disgusts me is when they say, "If we allow gay marriage, what's next? Marrying your dog?" :rolleyes: It's so closed-minded and insulting on so many levels.

Donny
Oct 22nd, 2007, 11:47 PM
The one arguement that people use that truly disgusts me is when they say, "If we allow gay marriage, what's next? Marrying your dog?" :rolleyes: It's so closed-minded and insulting on so many levels.

So I take it that you don't want people to be able to marry animals if they so choose?

miffedmax
Oct 22nd, 2007, 11:50 PM
The one arguement that people use that truly disgusts me is when they say, "If we allow gay marriage, what's next? Marrying your dog?" :rolleyes: It's so closed-minded and insulting on so many levels.

I think that most likely says something about the people who make that argument.

Volcana
Oct 22nd, 2007, 11:50 PM
come out of the closet lakeway!

Haute
Oct 22nd, 2007, 11:57 PM
So I take it that you don't want people to be able to marry animals if they so choose?

Someone could marry a plant, it's their business. But it's when people make that argument in regards to gay marriage, it's dehumanizing. That person is basically saying that gays have about as much of a right to get married as an animal does.

Donny
Oct 23rd, 2007, 12:07 AM
Someone could marry a plant, it's their business. But it's when people make that argument in regards to gay marriage, it's dehumanizing. That person is basically saying that gays have about as much of a right to get married as an animal does.

Gays already have the right to marry- to someone of the opposite sex. In 49 states though, two people of the same sex technically have no legal right to get married, the same as a person seeking to marry an animal.

The whole argument is based on a fallacy though. Marriage of any sort isn't a right. It's a privilege bestowed by the federal and state government.

Expat
Oct 23rd, 2007, 12:24 AM
i personally wouldnt care if its civil unions or domestic partnerships or marriage
just if there was an option regardless of name

its ultimately boils to recognition whatever u want to call it
but yes it would be highly if "gay marriage" and not something else in name is accorded the same privilege as straight people unions

Haute
Oct 23rd, 2007, 01:06 AM
Gays already have the right to marry- to someone of the opposite sex. In 49 states though, two people of the same sex technically have no legal right to get married, the same as a person seeking to marry an animal.

The whole argument is based on a fallacy though. Marriage of any sort isn't a right. It's a privilege bestowed by the federal and state government.

But it's a right to be able to marry whoever you choose and have it legally recognized. It's the choice that is a right, and that is being denied to same-sex couples. There are privileges that the government offers, yes, but it shouldn't be up to the government to deny those privileges to people simply because two men or two women love each other.

Number19
Oct 23rd, 2007, 01:35 AM
Ask any straight guy who claims to dislike gays because it's unnatural or whatever, if they feel the same way about lesbians. That tends to shut them up...

I don't like lesbians - I like bisexual girls though.;)

Seriously, though, there are straight guys who don't like lesbians. Of course, its usually the women who aren't hot and look like and act like pornstars. However, these straight guys still accept it more. As to quote a male straight resident of the small rural town I live in when two women got married "...if it'd been guys getting married, there'd been people outside with baseball bats." Still, many verbal assaults on lesbians but no violence. Even though I think I heard some straight women advocate violence on the lesbians.

Donny
Oct 23rd, 2007, 01:39 AM
But it's a right to be able to marry whoever you choose and have it legally recognized. It's the choice that is a right, and that is being denied to same-sex couples. There are privileges that the government offers, yes, but it shouldn't be up to the government to deny those privileges to people simply because two men or two women love each other.

I agree that same sex couples should be allowed to marry.

But at the same time, some misconceptions need to be dealt with.

Marriage is a privilige created by the federal and state governments. It is defined by the federal governments as a union between a consenting of age female, and a consenting of age male.

The state also has laws on marriage. In Mass. for example, same sex couples can be married and enjoy all the state benefits that come with it. But they don't receive federal benefits, because there are no federal laws about same sex marriages.

There's no right being infringed upon here, because none existed to begin with. The states, and the federal govt. could legally abolish marriage for ALL people if they wanted to. Due process doesn't even apply in this case. To give gays the right to marry, you'd literally have to make up a new law.

plantman
Oct 23rd, 2007, 02:59 AM
M. Robin D'Antan said this a couple years back.....

It's hard enough to be taken seriously in the struggle for gay rights without having a bunch of straight girls running around kissing each other to get the attention of boys and videocameras.


How right it is!!!:lol: :lol:

venus_rulez
Oct 23rd, 2007, 10:00 AM
I agree that same sex couples should be allowed to marry.

But at the same time, some misconceptions need to be dealt with.

Marriage is a privilige created by the federal and state governments. It is defined by the federal governments as a union between a consenting of age female, and a consenting of age male.

The state also has laws on marriage. In Mass. for example, same sex couples can be married and enjoy all the state benefits that come with it. But they don't receive federal benefits, because there are no federal laws about same sex marriages.

There's no right being infringed upon here, because none existed to begin with. The states, and the federal govt. could legally abolish marriage for ALL people if they wanted to. Due process doesn't even apply in this case. To give gays the right to marry, you'd literally have to make up a new law.


But that wasn't always the case. DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) was passed in 1996 I think to clarify federal standards that marriage was between a man and a woman. Also, many states have just recently voted to consider marriage the union between a man and a woman, so please don't act like it's been this way for centuries, that change has been very recent.

And say what you want, but no one in my experience has ever been able to come up with a good LEGAL defense for why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. Laws are supposed to be for the greater good and must have some purpose. That purpose doesn't include religious convictions nor does it include any individual's idea of morality.

But then again, if people were held to that we wouldn't need the 15th amendment now would we? Yes, THAT 15th amendment that guarantees equal protection under the law for all citizens. This isn't Guantanamo Bay and people picked up off the streets of Afghanistan, these are American tax paying citizens that deserve their rights.

Don't worry, it's gonna happen, in the next 10 years or so, the Supreme Court will allow gay marriage. As I've stated before, there has never been a solid legal reason to deny it.

The sad thing is that in 50 years, everyone will love gay people and no one will want to talk about this period when people openly wanted them to restrict rights, much like how most people want to forget how Black people were treated about 50 years ago.

BUBI
Oct 23rd, 2007, 11:39 AM
And say what you want, but no one in my experience has ever been able to come up with a good LEGAL defense for why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. Laws are supposed to be for the greater good and must have some purpose. That purpose doesn't include religious convictions nor does it include any individual's idea of morality.


Personally I couldn't care less about gay marriage, but wouldn't you say that it's in state's interest to give special status for man&woman relationship because it's the only kind of relationship that can produce new tax payers?

Donny
Oct 23rd, 2007, 01:13 PM
But that wasn't always the case. DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) was passed in 1996 I think to clarify federal standards that marriage was between a man and a woman. Also, many states have just recently voted to consider marriage the union between a man and a woman, so please don't act like it's been this way for centuries, that change has been very recent.

And it has happened- and it's perfectly legal.

And say what you want, but no one in my experience has ever been able to come up with a good LEGAL defense for why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. Laws are supposed to be for the greater good and must have some purpose. That purpose doesn't include religious convictions nor does it include any individual's idea of morality.

Gays aren't denied the right to marry- to someone of the opposite sex. Therefore, the gender aspect of equal protection isn't being violated. Straight people can't get married to the same sex either. And sexual orentiaition alone is not a basis for a subject class. in other words- discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not illegal. Discrimination based on religion is barred by the 1st Amendment. SCOTUS has applied subject class status to racial minorities and women. EVERY every group in the country is fair game.


But then again, if people were held to that we wouldn't need the 15th amendment now would we? Yes, THAT 15th amendment that guarantees equal protection under the law for all citizens. This isn't Guantanamo Bay and people picked up off the streets of Afghanistan, these are American tax paying citizens that deserve their rights.

Gays have equal protection.


Don't worry, it's gonna happen, in the next 10 years or so, the Supreme Court will allow gay marriage. As I've stated before, there has never been a solid legal reason to deny it.

Two things about that: The current Supreme Court is the most conservative we've had in fifty years. And most of the justices services are relatively young. The oldest ones on there are actually the liberals and the moderates. If A Republican candidate wins next year. We could be looking at 6 or 7 conservative justices on the Supreme Court. Gay marriage isn't going to be legalized in this generation- not by the SCOTUS, at least.


Which brings me to my other point- the Supreme Court can't "allow" anything- they just declare a law unconsitutional. And even if this were to happen, it'd hurt the gay rights cause. Whenever you forcibly tell someone to do something, they're just going to get pissed off. Most states were on the way to legalizing abortion before Roe v Wade. After Roe, states took the case as an infringement upon their states rights, and reversed the trend; doing anything in their power to make it harder to receive abortions. polls show that most young people are against abortions at the women's discretion; we now have a conservative majority on the SCOTUS. Roe could very well be overturned within the next five years. Is that what you want to happen to gay rights?

The sad thing is that in 50 years, everyone will love gay people and no one will want to talk about this period when people openly wanted them to restrict rights, much like how most people want to forget how Black people were treated about 50 years ago.

People already "love" gay people.They certainly like them more than they do blacks, judging by the past fifty years of US history. And comparing their cause to blacks' quest for Civil Rights, frankly just makes me tune out.

samn
Oct 23rd, 2007, 01:14 PM
Personally I couldn't care less about gay marriage, but wouldn't you say that it's in state's interest to give special status for man&woman relationship because it's the only kind of relationship that can produce new tax payers?

Ok, but where does it say that a man and a woman have to be married in order to produce "new tax payers"?

venus_rulez
Oct 23rd, 2007, 01:37 PM
And it has happened- and it's perfectly legal.



Gays aren't denied the right to marry- to someone of the opposite sex. Therefore, the gender aspect of equal protection isn't being violated. Straight people can't get married to the same sex either. And sexual orentiaition alone is not a basis for a subject class. in other words- discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not illegal. Discrimination based on religion is barred by the 1st Amendment. SCOTUS has applied subject class status to racial minorities and women. EVERY every group in the country is fair game.




Gays have equal protection.



Two things about that: The current Supreme Court is the most conservative we've had in fifty years. And most of the justices services are relatively young. The oldest ones on there are actually the liberals and the moderates. If A Republican candidate wins next year. We could be looking at 6 or 7 conservative justices on the Supreme Court. Gay marriage isn't going to be legalized in this generation- not by the SCOTUS, at least.


Which brings me to my other point- the Supreme Court can't "allow" anything- they just declare a law unconsitutional. And even if this were to happen, it'd hurt the gay rights cause. Whenever you forcibly tell someone to do something, they're just going to get pissed off. Most states were on the way to legalizing abortion before Roe v Wade. After Roe, states took the case as an infringement upon their states rights, and reversed the trend; doing anything in their power to make it harder to receive abortions. polls show that most young people are against abortions at the women's discretion; we now have a conservative majority on the SCOTUS. Roe could very well be overturned within the next five years. Is that what you want to happen to gay rights?



People already "love" gay people.They certainly like them more than they do blacks, judging by the past fifty years of US history. And comparing their cause to blacks' quest for Civil Rights, frankly just makes me tune out.


Um gays are not equally protected under the law. Part of being gay is LIKING THE SAME SEX. If marriage is only for the union of one man and one woman, as a gay person, I am not equally protected under that law. The definition of marriage has excluded me from a privilege that most people enjoy. Saying that gay people can marry...just not to the same sex is a moot point. It doesn't at all address the issue at hand.

Fine, let's be technical, the Supreme Court can't "allow" gay marriage, but ruling that a gay person who was refused a marriage license because they wanted to marry someone of the same is unconstitutional pretty much guarantees gay marriage. Again there's no legal reason not to allow two consenting adults whether they be male or female to marry.

As far as the Supreme Court being "conservative" In my opinion, if a 1954 Supreme Court can rule that separate but equal is unconstitutional, anything can happen. Maybe I'm an idealist, but I think history shows that it may take people a while and they'll yell and scream and scheme and backstab, but eventually at some point, they'll get it right. We're very near that point now.

venus_rulez
Oct 23rd, 2007, 01:41 PM
Personally I couldn't care less about gay marriage, but wouldn't you say that it's in state's interest to give special status for man&woman relationship because it's the only kind of relationship that can produce new tax payers?


That's a very interesting point of view, that I hadn't thought of and I don't disagree that it'd be in their interest, however, I'd still say that's not a legal reason to exclude gays from marrying, which was the point I was trying to make. Sure there are plenty of reasons why people don't want/think gays should get married. That doesn't mean any of those should be valid enough to actually keep gays from marrying.

Donny
Oct 23rd, 2007, 02:15 PM
Um gays are not equally protected under the law. Part of being gay is LIKING THE SAME SEX. If marriage is only for the union of one man and one woman, as a gay person, I am not equally protected under that law. The definition of marriage has excluded me from a privilege that most people enjoy. Saying that gay people can marry...just not to the same sex is a moot point. It doesn't at all address the issue at hand.

This is a point many people fail to understand. Equal protection doesn't apply to gays. It doesn't apply to minors. It doesn't apply to the mentally retarded. It doesn't even apply to the physically disabled. It doesn't even reply to religion in the strictest sense of the law.

It applies to TWO groups- women, and racial minorities. That's it. Two minority groups in the hundred plus years since the Equal Protection clause has existed. These two groups are defined as suspect classes. Surely you've heard of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990? This law essentially gave disabled people the same rights as women and racial minorities, because it isn't unconstitutional to discriminate against the disabled. The Supreme Court couldn't strike any laws discriminating against them down. They aren't a suspect class.



Fine, let's be technical, the Supreme Court can't "allow" gay marriage, but ruling that a gay person who was refused a marriage license because they wanted to marry someone of the same is unconstitutional pretty much guarantees gay marriage. Again there's no legal reason not to allow two consenting adults whether they be male or female to marry.
As far as the Supreme Court being "conservative" In my opinion, if a 1954 Supreme Court can rule that separate but equal is unconstitutional, anything can happen. Maybe I'm an idealist, but I think history shows that it may take people a while and they'll yell and scream and scheme and backstab, but eventually at some point, they'll get it right. We're very near that point now.

The 1954 court was very socially liberal. And in addition to that, the presidents who were appointing these justices had absolutely no idea that Civil Rights would be the defining issue of the 1950's and 60's. Bush is not so unaware. He specifically picked people who he was sure are against gay marriage. Until Scalia or Thomas retire, I highly doubt any judicial review is going to take place. And you're forgetting an important aspect: Most of the country supported racial integration. Not so with gay marriage. Let's look at all the racial policies that the nation didn't support- Affirmative Action, School Busing, etc. Notice how those policies on on their way to being dismantled.?

If the SCOTUS ever does what you're saying, then the states that don't want gay marriage (most of the country) will simply make laws so as to make same sex marriage a cheap imitation of the real thing, just as they did with abortion. It will also help elect a GOP majority in Congress.

griffin
Oct 23rd, 2007, 03:02 PM
Gays aren't denied the right to marry- to someone of the opposite sex.

This is like saying anti-miscegenation laws didn't deny blacks or whites the right to marry...someone of their own race. It's a specious argument, imo.

You're right about SCOTUS not being able to "allow" same-sex marriage. Of course what they would really do is rule that the goverment can't NOT allow it.

In theory, anyway. In reality, we have as much chance of this SCOTUS declaring the exclusion of same-sex couples for civil marriage unconstitutional as I have of being elected Pope. And no sane activist is going to try to get them to make a same-sex Loving vs. Virginia ruling anytime soon, either.*

But it WILL happen. It's just a matter of when.

*that said, I wouldn't be surprised if someone in Massachusetts challenged the Feds refusal to recognize their marriages in the next few years.

griffin
Oct 23rd, 2007, 03:11 PM
but wouldn't you say that it's in state's interest to give special status for man&woman relationship because it's the only kind of relationship that can produce new tax payers?

You're kidding, right?

What planet are you on that you don't know about gay people having kids?

(forget the obvious fact that not all het couples can or want to produce children, and that the majority of laws/rights/legal responsibilities attached to civil marriage have nothing to do with offspring?)

LoveFifteen
Oct 23rd, 2007, 03:36 PM
So I take it that you don't want people to be able to marry animals if they so choose?

The last time I checked, marriage was a legal contract. This requires both parties to sign a legal document. Only mentally-competent people of legal age are allowed to enter into contracts. Hence, a man cannot marry a baby because the baby cannot sign the legal document (much less understand it), nor is the baby of a legal age to enter into a contract.

In the same fashion, an animal cannot read or sign a marriage contract, nor does it have standing before the court to enter into contracts. In the same way, mentally "incompetent" people are not allowed to marry (i.e. you cannot marry a vegetable or someone in a comatose state who doesn't know what's going on).

If two mentally-competent, human males of legal age desire to enter into a partnership, how hypocritical is it to deny them the right to enter into a contract? People talk about the slippery slope, but the reality is that Massachusetts (the only state with legalized gay marriage) also has the lowest rate of divorce?

Sam L
Oct 23rd, 2007, 03:53 PM
You're kidding, right?

What planet are you on that you don't know about gay people having kids?

(forget the obvious fact that not all het couples can or want to produce children, and that the majority of laws/rights/legal responsibilities attached to civil marriage have nothing to do with offspring?)

WARNING: griff, you do realize you're talking a Ron Paul supporter? ;)

Apoleb
Oct 23rd, 2007, 03:56 PM
People already "love" gay people.They certainly like them more than they do blacks, judging by the past fifty years of US history. And comparing their cause to blacks' quest for Civil Rights, frankly just makes me tune out.

Yay, it's about time this thread turned into the oppression olympics. Not surpised though from who it came.

The argument that there are no infringment on gay rights, since gays can marry people from the opposite sex if they want is really circular and pointless, and it's something constantly repeated by right wing wackos. What people consider as "rights" are stuff that go beyond the law. They aren't created by the law, but the law is there to enforce them and protect them.

griffin
Oct 23rd, 2007, 04:09 PM
This is a point many people fail to understand. Equal protection doesn't apply to gays. It doesn't apply to minors. It doesn't apply to the mentally retarded. It doesn't even apply to the physically disabled. It doesn't even reply to religion in the strictest sense of the law.

It applies to TWO groups- women, and racial minorities.

Btw, this is completely wrong. The "Equal Protection" clause of the 14th amendment applies to EVERYONE. Only women and minorities are considered "suspect classes" but this means that courts invoke "special scrutiny" where their rights are involved, not that ONLY they are covered by "equal protection"

The equal protection clause was the basis for SCOTUS overturning Colorado's Amendment 2 (which would have prevented the passage of gay rights laws), and was also applied (in a rather twisted manner, imo) in Bush v. Gore, just to name a few.

Expat
Oct 23rd, 2007, 04:23 PM
I am not sure but with the current setup in the US Supreme Court
It would be difficult to even have brown vs board of education ruling
America as a whole is becoming more and more conservative day by day

Philbo
Oct 23rd, 2007, 04:46 PM
He says that Christianity scares people because it tells us right from wrong...

Right from wrong? I seem to recall the church has sanctioned racism, inequality towards women, the crusades, the religious tryanny.. the list goes on.. right and wrong depends totally on your perspetive, point in time etc - there are no black and white right/wrong judgements..

He also says homosexuality is about lust and lust only... Well I dont think lust comes into it at all when a gay man nurses his partner to death from HIV/AIDS, wiping his ass for him, keeping up with the cocktail of medications, cleaning his sheets etc etc - Ive seen countless gay rships that are about love, not lust...

I pity the guy.. He is obviously struggling with an internal battle....

Philbo
Oct 23rd, 2007, 04:52 PM
WARNING: griff, you do realize you're talking a Ron Paul supporter? ;)

Ron Paul must get your blood boiling Sam - he is the only politician with his head screwed on right when it comes to american middle eastern foreign policy..

You'd be quaking in your boots if he won because it would mean an end to america's cheerleader role in support of Israel..

BUBI
Oct 23rd, 2007, 05:52 PM
You're kidding, right?

What planet are you on that you don't know about gay people having kids?

(forget the obvious fact that not all het couples can or want to produce children, and that the majority of laws/rights/legal responsibilities attached to civil marriage have nothing to do with offspring?)

I'm not kidding, it's just you missing the point.

I know there are ways for gays to get pregnant or adopt. That's not the point.

Man & woman sex is the only natural way to produce new life.

The point is that it's in state's best interest to encourage young couples to get married and have children. Birthrates are low in western countries.

"Special status" for straight couples is not away from anyone else.

égalité
Oct 23rd, 2007, 06:03 PM
I'm not kidding, it's just you missing the point.

I know there are ways for gays to get pregnant or adopt. That's not the point.

Man & woman sex is the only natural way to produce new life.

The point is that it's in state's best interest to encourage young couples to get married and have children. Birthrates are low in western countries.

"Special status" for straight couples is not away from anyone else.

Yes, and birthrates are high in third-world, impoverished countries. What kind of birthrate is really in a state's best interest?

Expat
Oct 23rd, 2007, 06:16 PM
Yes, and birthrates are high in third-world, impoverished countries. What kind of birthrate is really in a state's best interest?
replacement rate birth rate 2.1 births per woman
america is there at 2.09 so its fairly balanced currently
it wouldnt hurt to give gays their rights as so far currently

but more than america its european gays that should be worried
they have more freedoms compared to americans right now and have the most to lose
dramatic falling birth dates for native populations and rising arab populations means that homophobia is on the rise in europe
my feeling hope i am wrong is that gay rights have peaked in europe and it will only be downhill from here

Donny
Oct 23rd, 2007, 07:51 PM
The last time I checked, marriage was a legal contract. This requires both parties to sign a legal document. Only mentally-competent people of legal age are allowed to enter into contracts. Hence, a man cannot marry a baby because the baby cannot sign the legal document (much less understand it), nor is the baby of a legal age to enter into a contract.

In the same fashion, an animal cannot read or sign a marriage contract, nor does it have standing before the court to enter into contracts. In the same way, mentally "incompetent" people are not allowed to marry (i.e. you cannot marry a vegetable or someone in a comatose state who doesn't know what's going on).

If two mentally-competent, human males of legal age desire to enter into a partnership, how hypocritical is it to deny them the right to enter into a contract? People talk about the slippery slope, but the reality is that Massachusetts (the only state with legalized gay marriage) also has the lowest rate of divorce?

I agree that anyone who wants to marry should be able to. However, the law, and the people who interpret the law, and the people who make the law, and the people who elect the people who make the law, are against you and I on the matter.

But I also feel that other types of marriage should be legalized to, including polygamy, marriage to animals, etc. As long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of another human being, I see no problem with it.

Expat
Oct 23rd, 2007, 07:53 PM
I agree that anyone who wants to marry should be able to. However, the law, and the people who interpret the law, and the people who make the law, and the people who elect the people who make the law, are against you and I on the matter.

But I also feel that other types of marriage should be legalized to, including polygamy, marriage to animals, etc. As long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of another human being, I see no problem with it.

i have no ill will against polyandry and polygamy as long as they are consenting adults
as long as child marriage is out of the equation

marriage to animals anuone thought of the animal's rights being infringed uopn

Donny
Oct 23rd, 2007, 07:54 PM
Yay, it's about time this thread turned into the oppression olympics. Not surpised though from who it came.

The argument that there are no infringment on gay rights, since gays can marry people from the opposite sex if they want is really circular and pointless, and it's something constantly repeated by right wing wackos. What people consider as "rights" are stuff that go beyond the law. They aren't created by the law, but the law is there to enforce them and protect them.

Someone in the thread who posted before me compared the the quest for gay rights to the quest for Civil Rights in the middle of the 20th century.

My parents went to segregated schools in the south. My dad was arrested, and beaten, during protests during that time. My grandfathers life was threatened when he suggested to his white employee that he wanted to move north. I took offense to someone on a message board using my parents oppression for use in a cheap analogy.

Sorry if that upset you.

Donny
Oct 23rd, 2007, 07:56 PM
i have no ill will against polyandry and polygamy as long as they are consenting adults
as long as child marriage is out of the equation

marriage to animals anuone thought of the animal's rights being infringed uopn

I may be in the minority here, but I don't think animals should have any legal rights. None. As in, they're equal to a chair or a book.

Donny
Oct 23rd, 2007, 07:57 PM
Btw, this is completely wrong. The "Equal Protection" clause of the 14th amendment applies to EVERYONE. Only women and minorities are considered "suspect classes" but this means that courts invoke "special scrutiny" where their rights are involved, not that ONLY they are covered by "equal protection"

The equal protection clause was the basis for SCOTUS overturning Colorado's Amendment 2 (which would have prevented the passage of gay rights laws), and was also applied (in a rather twisted manner, imo) in Bush v. Gore, just to name a few.

You're right. I just reread my old textbooks (which I should have done before I typed) and realized that I misunderstood the text.

griffin
Oct 23rd, 2007, 08:09 PM
I may be in the minority here, but I don't think animals should have any legal rights. None. As in, they're equal to a chair or a book.

so you think people should be able to marry chairs, too?

(I don't see animals as having the same rights as humans, but they're not furniture, either - but see LoveFifteen's post on why people marrying animals is another specious issue)

(and, easy mistake on equal protection, since 90% of the time it does deal with gender or race. heck, I went back and checked :wavey: )

Donny
Oct 23rd, 2007, 08:20 PM
so you think people should be able to marry chairs, too?

(I don't see animals as having the same rights as humans, but they're not furniture, either - but see LoveFifteen's post on why people marrying animals is another specious issue)

(and, easy mistake on equal protection, since 90% of the time it does deal with gender or race. heck, I went back and checked :wavey: )
If you think of marriage strictly as a set of rights a person shares with another, then I don't really see why they can't get married to inanimate object.

A person should be able to do whatever they want to their money, their SS, their pension, their life insurance, etc. after they die. If they want to leave it to a chair, so be it.

Privileges that revolve around the spouse being a sentient being- such as being able to make legal and medical decisions for you should you be incapacitated, or the spousal privilege of not having to testify in court- of course wouldn't apply. But the financial aspects- the real reason why people just don't skip the legal marriage altogether- could just as well take place between a man and a dog.

LoveFifteen
Oct 23rd, 2007, 08:21 PM
I agree that anyone who wants to marry should be able to. However, the law, and the people who interpret the law, and the people who make the law, and the people who elect the people who make the law, are against you and I on the matter.

But I also feel that other types of marriage should be legalized to, including polygamy, marriage to animals, etc. As long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of another human being, I see no problem with it.

How could someone marry an animal? Can a fish sign a marriage contract? Can a rabbit apply for residency in a state? Can a blue jay understand questions and tell us that it consents to marriage along with the requisite responsibilities and obligations? Can a dog sign hospital release forms for her husband? I'd tell you to stop being stupid, but I think most of us have realized that's genetically impossible for you. :shrug:

Donny
Oct 23rd, 2007, 08:24 PM
How could someone marry an animal? Can a fish sign a marriage contract? Can a rabbit apply for residency in a state? Can a blue jay understand questions and tell us that it consents to marriage along with the requisite responsibilities and obligations? Can a dog sign hospital release forms for her husband? I'd tell you to stop being stupid, but I think most of us have realized that's genetically impossible for you. :shrug:

Why would consent be necessary? Consent isn't necessary when buying and owning an animal.

griffin
Oct 23rd, 2007, 08:25 PM
A person should be able to do whatever they want to their money, their SS, their pension, their life insurance, etc. after they die. If they want to leave it to a chair, so be it.


You can, it's called a "will"

Marriage isn't about a one-way transaction, there is a reciprocity - and yes, consent - involved that you simply can't have with an inanimate object or the family goat.

And I know you're just taking the piss at this point. I wouldn't bother answering if I didn't know some people do take that kind of argument ("what's next? marrying livestock?") seriously.

Donny
Oct 23rd, 2007, 08:28 PM
You can, it's called a "will"

Marriage isn't about a one-way transaction, there is a reciprocity - and yes, consent - involved that you simply can't have with an inanimate object or the family goat.

And I know you're just taking the piss at this point. I wouldn't bother answering if I didn't know some people do take that kind of argument ("what's next? marrying livestock?") seriously.

The slipper slope people crack me up. These are some of most educated people in America arguing a blatant logical fallacy. Sometimes, I wonder if they believe what they're saying.

Apoleb
Oct 23rd, 2007, 09:20 PM
How could someone marry an animal? Can a fish sign a marriage contract? Can a rabbit apply for residency in a state? Can a blue jay understand questions and tell us that it consents to marriage along with the requisite responsibilities and obligations? Can a dog sign hospital release forms for her husband? I'd tell you to stop being stupid, but I think most of us have realized that's genetically impossible for you. :shrug:

:haha:

LoveFifteen
Oct 23rd, 2007, 09:37 PM
Why would consent be necessary? Consent isn't necessary when buying and owning an animal.

Consent isn't necessary to buy something. Consent is necessary in the two-way street known as marriage. I realize you are just being facetious, but it's pathetic how your strategy to prohibit gay marriage is to mock and devalue marriage completely. :rolleyes:

Maybe a chicken can't enter into marriage, but I'm sure it could recognize that you're a fucktard. :kiss:

Donny
Oct 23rd, 2007, 09:55 PM
Consent isn't necessary to buy something. Consent is necessary in the two-way street known as marriage. I realize you are just being facetious, but it's pathetic how your strategy to prohibit gay marriage is to mock and devalue marriage completely. :rolleyes:

Maybe a chicken can't enter into marriage, but I'm sure it could recognize that you're a fucktard. :kiss:

I've stated numerous times in this thread that I think gays should be allowed to marry. I wasn't being facetious or anything of the sort. Sorry if you take my posts as some devious "scorched earth" policy regarding the institution of marriage.


Edit: I'm sure that in your regular life you've come across people who actually ARE against the idea of gays marrying. Do you call them "fucktards" to their face? Because I know that I for one wouldn't let someone disrespect me in that manner.

Expat
Oct 23rd, 2007, 10:04 PM
I've stated numerous times in this thread that I think gays should be allowed to marry. I wasn't being facetious or anything of the sort. Sorry if you take my posts as some devious "scorched earth" policy regarding the institution of marriage.


Edit: I'm sure that in your regular life you've come across people who actually ARE against the idea of gays marrying. Do you call them "fucktards" to their face? Because I know that I for one wouldn't let someone disrespect me in that manner.
yes but then you it equate with marrying with animals as if gays and animals are the same thing
maybe u r an ultra liberal but it seems a little disconcerting to be labeled as animals
me personally being hindu dont find it offensive as according to us all animals have souls and are equal to humans as gods creations
but someone coming from a abrahamic background nonetheless atheist or church hating now may find it difficult to accept
having said it marriage between 2 consenting adults and between 1 human and 1 animal are 2 different things
u support both of them nice to know that


yes i acknowledge gays currently may not have the suffered the same discrimination as blacks historically but as of now they are more discriminated against and they are fighting to make the world seem that they are also "normal" and not some freak accident

Apoleb
Oct 23rd, 2007, 10:40 PM
yes i acknowledge gays currently may not have the suffered the same discrimination as blacks historically

You do realize that historically, and not long ago, homosexuality carried a prison sentence and even executions in much of the world? And that includes dozens of states in the US, which only four years ago, had legislations which would put homosexuals in prison for up to 10 years. It's true that these laws weren't enforced in recent years, but they did try to enforce them in Texas in 2003. Ofcourse not to mention the social discrimination that homosexuals are consistently under, and the countless social taboos and "rules" they have to endure during their lives, from gender roles to whatever. I mean we're talking about a group that was so extremely shunned and looked down upon in pretty much all of the world for thousands of years.

Ofcourse the point being is NOT that homosexuals face or faced more discrimination than black people. Both groups suffered tons of discrimination and there's still a way to go for both of them when it comes to respect and acceptence. Sexuality and race anyway are two very different things, and it's totally useless to make comparisons on who has it harder.

And that's why donnytheidiot's statement on getting offended at comparing the gay rights movement with the civil rights movement struck me. But maybe I shouldn't be surprised. After all he doesn't know what marriage is, and thinks a human being should be able to marry a tomato.

miffedmax
Oct 23rd, 2007, 10:51 PM
I would just interject here that Lena D is a hot tomato.

I'm sorry, but I've already posted my serious thoughts on this issue and I can't resist bad wordplay.

Donny
Oct 23rd, 2007, 10:57 PM
You do realize that historically, and not long ago, homosexuality carried a prison sentence and even executions in much of the world? And that includes dozens of states in the US, which only four years ago, had legislations which would put homosexuals in prison for up to 10 years. It's true that these laws weren't enforced in recent years, but they did try to enforce them in Texas in 2003. Ofcourse not to mention the social discrimination that homosexuals are consistently under, and the countless social taboos and "rules" they have to endure during their lives, from gender roles to whatever. I mean we're talking about a group that was so extremely shunned and looked down upon in pretty much all of the world for thousands of years.

Ofcourse the point being is NOT that homosexuals face or faced more discrimination than black people. Both groups suffered tons of discrimination and there's still a way to go for both of them when it comes to respect and acceptence. Sexuality and race anyway are two very different things, and it's totally useless to make comparisons on who has it harder.

And that's why donnytheidiot's statement on getting offended at comparing the gay rights movement with the civil rights movement struck me. But maybe I shouldn't be surprised. After all he doesn't know what marriage is, and thinks a human being should be able to marry a tomato.

This is what I don't get. Someone is allowed to compare the two situations, basically stating the two as equal, but no one is allowed to disagree with that statement? That's ridiculous. Yes, both situations are bad, and no, both aren't equal. Why draw comparisons at all? Like you said, "Sexuality and race anyway are two very different things."

And that's why donnytheidiot's

Apoleb the internet gangsta strikes again. Must be fun hurling barbs from behind the anonymity of a computer screen.

IceSkaTennisFan
Oct 23rd, 2007, 10:59 PM
Consent isn't necessary to buy something. Consent is necessary in the two-way street known as marriage. I realize you are just being facetious, but it's pathetic how your strategy to prohibit gay marriage is to mock and devalue marriage completely. :rolleyes:

Maybe a chicken can't enter into marriage, but I'm sure it could recognize that you're a fucktard. :kiss:
Right. One thing that gay marriage opponents customarily do is throw out all sorts of slippery slope scenarios in order to prove that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed, but they dodge the issue. They dance around the subject by making points about all the different types of marriages that shouldn't be allowed without actually addressing the legitimacy of the claim to marriage that gays have. In making the comparisons to animals and incest, they further ridicule homosexuality for being unnatural and ungodly. However, if homosexuality is the problem, then they're fighting the wrong battle. The states no longer criminalize homosexual sex.

Apoleb
Oct 23rd, 2007, 11:06 PM
This is what I don't get. Someone is allowed to compare the two situations, basically stating the two as equal, but no one is allowed to disagree with that statement? That's ridiculous. Yes, both situations are bad, and no, both aren't equal. Why draw comparisons at all? Like you said, "Sexuality and race anyway are two very different things."


*sigh* You're totally hopeless. I didn't say they are equal. The point is that homosexuals had it and still have it extremely hard, and there's no point in comparing who was oppressed more, because both suffered/suffer a lot but in different ways. Go marry a potato or something.

Must be fun hurling barbs from behind the anonymity of a computer screen

At least you got one thing right.

Donny
Oct 23rd, 2007, 11:17 PM
*sigh* You're totally hopeless. I didn't say they are equal. The point is that homosexuals had it and still have it extremely hard, and there's no point in comparing who was oppressed more, because both suffered/suffer a lot but in different ways.



At least you got one thing right.

Fine. Maybe I was getting a bit defensive for no reason. I'm willing to squash this argument.

miffedmax
Oct 23rd, 2007, 11:18 PM
I would just interject here that Lena D is a hot tomato.

I'm sorry, but I've already posted my serious thoughts on this issue and I can't resist bad wordplay.

Expat
Oct 24th, 2007, 12:10 AM
You do realize that historically, and not long ago, homosexuality carried a prison sentence and even executions in much of the world? And that includes dozens of states in the US, which only four years ago, had legislations which would put homosexuals in prison for up to 10 years. It's true that these laws weren't enforced in recent years, but they did try to enforce them in Texas in 2003. Ofcourse not to mention the social discrimination that homosexuals are consistently under, and the countless social taboos and "rules" they have to endure during their lives, from gender roles to whatever. I mean we're talking about a group that was so extremely shunned and looked down upon in pretty much all of the world for thousands of years.

Ofcourse the point being is NOT that homosexuals face or faced more discrimination than black people. Both groups suffered tons of discrimination and there's still a way to go for both of them when it comes to respect and acceptence. Sexuality and race anyway are two very different things, and it's totally useless to make comparisons on who has it harder.

And that's why donnytheidiot's statement on getting offended at comparing the gay rights movement with the civil rights movement struck me. But maybe I shouldn't be surprised. After all he doesn't know what marriage is, and thinks a human being should be able to marry a tomato.

the catch word is the situation for gays currently
however i have not been discriminated against nor have suffered from any racism
so its difficult for me to comprehend what discrimination is

i have had a silver spoon in the mouth so to say
but then again i have been accused of being racist just for defending dr watson and his ideas
i really dont know which side of the fence i am
because to be honest i havent faced a situation like this
at the most i have been stereotyped/called names and that doesnt make much of a difference to me

Fingon
Oct 24th, 2007, 02:08 AM
Personally I believe sexuality is a lot less "fluid" than some people think.

Straight males like pussy, gay males like dick. Isn't it so?

it's not that simple.

straight women like dick(s), gay women like pussy(ies).

And all 4 categories like ass.

Fingon
Oct 24th, 2007, 02:23 AM
Being heterosexual automatically means homosex makes you sick? Usually its the people who claim it does that make me doubt their asserted straightness. (as in "methinks the lady doth protest too much")


I am 100% straight, homosexuals don't make me sick, but it's idea of having sex (or even a kiss) with another man what I find disgusting. I don't mind other people doing it, I just don't want to be one of them. I don't know if it's what the other poster meant.

To go by the statistics, straight men very much DO experiment, or what ever you want to call it. Curiosity? Opportunity? Boredom?

possibly, I don't know how statistics can be accurate, as they are based on responses, no actual facts, I am sure many straight men that had homosexual experiences won't tell, and there can be a few gays that would pretend to be straight in a poll.
Personally, I never experimented, never was interested, never was curious, never even had a slight desire to touch another man, but that's me, not necessarily a rule. (although it should be because I am God).

shap_half
Oct 24th, 2007, 02:34 AM
Being heterosexual automatically means homosex makes you sick? Usually its the people who claim it does that make me doubt their asserted straightness. (as in "methinks the lady doth protest too much")



That's what I say about every "straight" man who upon intial conversation turns me down. :)

Williamsser
Oct 24th, 2007, 02:55 AM
it's not that simple.

straight women like dick(s), gay women like pussy(ies).

And all 4 categories like ass.

What about bisexuals?

shap_half
Oct 24th, 2007, 03:03 AM
Someone in the thread who posted before me compared the the quest for gay rights to the quest for Civil Rights in the middle of the 20th century.


Is that wrong?

I really don't know how one can actually make an argument that one is somehow worse than the other and win.

Donny
Oct 24th, 2007, 03:24 AM
Is that wrong?

I really don't know how one can actually make an argument that one is somehow worse than the other and win.

Yea, besides the denial of voting rights, high powered water hoses, the dog maulings, the beatings by cops, and the mass lynchings for which no one was punished, and the overall system of segregation which resulted in endemic and crippling poverty, the two situations are eerily similar.

Fingon
Oct 24th, 2007, 03:28 AM
What about bisexuals?


they like all three?

shap_half
Oct 24th, 2007, 04:24 AM
Yea, besides the denial of voting rights, high powered water hoses, the dog maulings, the beatings by cops, and the mass lynchings for which no one was punished, and the overall system of segregation which resulted in endemic and crippling poverty, the two situations are eerily similar.

O M G

Apoleb
Oct 24th, 2007, 04:32 AM
I am 100% straight, homosexuals don't make me sick, but it's idea of having sex (or even a kiss) with another man what I find disgusting. I don't mind other people doing it, I just don't want to be one of them. I don't know if it's what the other poster meant.



No. He meant he can't watch two men kissing, even in a movie.

Haute
Oct 24th, 2007, 04:33 AM
What about bisexuals?

They're just kidding themselves. ;)

And that's why donnytheidiot's statement on getting offended at comparing the gay rights movement with the civil rights movement struck me.

A lot of people involved with the civil rights movement are offended as well to the comparison, because they tend to be believers of sexual preference rather than sexual orientation. Personally I don't see how it could ever be a choice, I know for me at the only choice I've ever made was to stop trying to pretend being straight. Sexuality is still an inherent quality the way skin color and ethnicity are; given the history of discrimination and backlash against the gay community, who would choose this?

There may not be as extensive of a background of brutality, but it's still there. One of the pivotal events in gay rights history was an incident at the Stonewall Inn in the 1960s where police attacked and arrested gays, drag queens, and transsexuals during a raid. Let's not forget Matthew Shepherd being beaten and left to die on a fence. It's 2007, gays can still be fired if their employer doesn't agree with their sexual identity, no choice in marriage, there are still adoption agencies that won't allow gay couples to adopt; hell, we're still being denied the common decency that this is how we were born. You can't debate race, and sexual orientation shouldn't be debated either.

IceSkaTennisFan
Oct 24th, 2007, 04:35 AM
I think people tend to overthink the comparisons between gays and other minorities. Maybe gay rights advocates don't clarify it well enough, so let me do that for them. When they compare gays to women, blacks, etc., they're just saying that gays are minorities, too. Every minority experience is different. It's debatable whether women or blacks (and members of other races) have had it worse than one another, but that shouldn't be the focus. It reminds me of how some men like to compare scars to show who is more of a man. We've all dealt with our fair share of injustices, some much much more than others, but minorities all share the common thread of being cast aside from the majority. They share that experience and the struggle to rise from that position to be recognized as equal citizens. So when someone makes a comparison about themselves to other minorities, hopefully you'll be able to understand where they are coming from and that they are not meaning for it to undermine the suffering of others, but rather they are being sensitive to the collective minority condition.

égalité
Oct 24th, 2007, 04:45 AM
Yea, besides the denial of voting rights, high powered water hoses, the dog maulings, the beatings by cops, and the mass lynchings for which no one was punished, and the overall system of segregation which resulted in endemic and crippling poverty, the two situations are eerily similar.

Are you telling me that gays are never victims of violence and injustice? There was just a case in my town where a group of three gay men and women were attacked by a larger group of straight people, and when the cops got there, THEY ARRESTED THE HOMOS.

And they still can't get married.

Donny
Oct 24th, 2007, 04:52 AM
Are you telling me that gays are never victims of violence and injustice? There was just a case in my town where a group of three gay men and women were attacked by a larger group of straight people, and when the cops got there, THEY ARRESTED THE HOMOS.

And they still can't get married.

No, I'm not.

Apoleb
Oct 24th, 2007, 04:53 AM
Yea, besides the denial of voting rights, high powered water hoses, the dog maulings, the beatings by cops, and the mass lynchings for which no one was punished, and the overall system of segregation which resulted in endemic and crippling poverty, the two situations are eerily similar.

Right, because facing the risk of incarceration if people discovered who you are, getting beat up on the streets, being ostracized by the closest people to you (and all the financial and economical troubles that this could lead to), dealing with identity issues because of social stereotypes about gender roles, society looking at you as a pervert and a freak of nature is sooo much easier. Ofcourse to name just a few things. Ofcourse though, you think "America loves gays" which means you have absolutely no clue about homosexuality and the troubles homosexuals still face every day in their live. So you're probably forgiven.

Your potato is calling. It's desperate for a shag.

Donny
Oct 24th, 2007, 05:07 AM
Right, because facing the risk of incarceration if people discovered who you are, getting beat up on the streets, being ostracized by the closest people to you (and all the financial and economical troubles that this could lead to), dealing with identity issues because of social stereotypes about gender roles, society looking at you as a pervert and a freak of nature is sooo much easier. Ofcourse to name just a few things. Ofcourse though, you think "America loves gays" which means you have absolutely no clue about homosexuality and the troubles homosexuals still face every day in their live. So you're probably forgiven.

Your potato is calling. It's desperate for a shag.

When did I say America loves gays? I think you misquoted me. Of course, you think "America loves Blacks", so you're probably forgiven.

Let me put this succinctly:

Women have had it bad.

Catholics have had it worse.

Jews have had it worse.

Gays have had/still have it worse.

The Japanese/Chinese have had it worse.

Blacks have had/still have it even worse.

Native Americans had it worst/aren't even alive anymore.


I hate to reduce assorted crimes against humanity and centuries of oppression to items on a flow chart, but there you go.


And I have absolutely no idea what that last line meant.

Apoleb
Oct 24th, 2007, 05:12 AM
When did I say America loves gays? I think you misquoted me. Of course, you think "America loves Blacks", so you're probably forgiven.

Let me put this succinctly:

Women have had it bad.

Catholics have had it worse.

Jews have had it worse.

Gays have had/still have it worse.

The Japanese/Chinese have had it worse.

Blacks have had/still have it even worse.

Native Americans had it worst/aren't even alive anymore.


I hate to reduce assorted crimes against humanity and centuries of oppression to items on a flow chart, but there you go.


And I have absolutely no idea what that last line meant.

Jesus. You remind me again why I shouldn't even bother. You should've kept that retarded "flow chart" to yourself. :vomit:

Haute
Oct 24th, 2007, 05:13 AM
People already "love" gay people.They certainly like them more than they do blacks, judging by the past fifty years of US history. And comparing their cause to blacks' quest for Civil Rights, frankly just makes me tune out.

Unless you were being sarcastic with "love", there's really no way to misquote that.

I saw this earlier but didn't remember to comment on it. The US in no way loves the gay community. There was a poll done after sodomy was legalized in 2003 following Texas v. Johnson that actually showed public support for homosexuality declining from 54% in 2003 pre-Texas, to 51% in 2005.

Apoleb
Oct 24th, 2007, 05:19 AM
Just for anyone who's interested: http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm . This is a pretty cool link about sodomy laws and their history in the US and in the world.

This is one example:

1898 In a new criminal code, New Jersey permits any person to kill someone who was “attempting to commit sodomy,” whether or not the person doing the killing was the potential victim. Such killer would be “guiltless, and shall be totally acquitted and discharged.”

:eek: And this is in a traditionally liberal state.

IceSkaTennisFan
Oct 24th, 2007, 05:26 AM
I saw this earlier but didn't remember to comment on it. The US in no way loves the gay community. There was a poll done after sodomy was legalized in 2003 following Texas v. Johnson that actually showed public support for homosexuality declining from 54% in 2003 pre-Texas, to 51% in 2005.
Lawrence v. Texas ;) Homosexuality remains the "problem" for those against gay marriage. People still have a problem with same sex couples being treated equally. The challenge has somehow gone from the bedroom to the wedding chapel without ever successfully leaving the bedroom. The same arguments you used to hear in favor of sodomy laws (it's unnatural, ungodly, sex is for procreation, only a man and a woman should be able to do it, etc.) are the same ones that you hear from people that oppose gay marriage. Isn't that ironic.

@Sweet Cleopatra
Oct 24th, 2007, 05:44 AM
great story thanks a lot ,,,
it's always good to see wrong people return to God ,,,

Haute
Oct 24th, 2007, 05:54 AM
Lawrence v. Texas ;) Homosexuality remains the "problem" for those against gay marriage. People still have a problem with same sex couples being treated equally. The challenge has somehow gone from the bedroom to the wedding chapel without ever successfully leaving the bedroom. The same arguments you used to hear in favor of sodomy laws (it's unnatural, ungodly, sex is for procreation, only a man and a woman should be able to do it, etc.) are the same ones that you hear from people that oppose gay marriage. Isn't that ironic.

Too many Texas cases floating around in my head... :lol: Thanks. :p

BUBI
Oct 24th, 2007, 11:10 AM
I am 100% straight, homosexuals don't make me sick, but it's idea of having sex (or even a kiss) with another man what I find disgusting. I don't mind other people doing it, I just don't want to be one of them. I don't know if it's what the other poster meant.No. He meant he can't watch two men kissing, even in a movie.

I meant exactly what Fingon said. I guess when watching a movie I want to be able to relate to the characters, that's why it's so off putting. I don't like extreme violence either.

DutchieGirl
Oct 24th, 2007, 12:17 PM
That's just gay propaganda. There are 100% straight people. I know for sure because I'm one.


But once gay means always gay... this guy is 0% straight.

Sorry, but that's absolute BULLSHIT. You can't have it both ways. You say that there are 100% straight people - and sure, there probably are, but how can you say for sure that this guy is 100% gay? You don't know him for sure. Or are you trying to say there is only such a thing as 100% straight and 100% gay? Hate to think where the fuck that leaves me then!

DutchieGirl
Oct 24th, 2007, 12:20 PM
there are 100 % straight people and 100 % gays
and then there are those who fall in between
so one can be gay and turn straight
and one can be straight and turn gay

i was reading some old surveys on homosexuality where more than 30% men claimed having homosexual behavior
since the classification of homosexuality as a orienation and not a mental disease and the subsequent recognition of gays being something separate and exclusive
it has dropped down to 2-5% in surveys
because you can no longer claim to have feelings for men and be straight it seems

But then you aren't really "turning gay" or "turning straight" - it just means that you are bi-sexual, in whatever degree of the word.

BUBI
Oct 24th, 2007, 12:28 PM
Sorry, but that's absolute BULLSHIT. You can't have it both ways. You say that there are 100% straight people - and sure, there probably are, but how can you say for sure that this guy is 100% gay? You don't know him for sure. Or are you trying to say there is only such a thing as 100% straight and 100% gay? Hate to think where the fuck that leaves me then!

He is gay or bisexual. He is not heterosexual. Or are you saying that sexuality can change with the help of Jesus? :tape:

DutchieGirl
Oct 24th, 2007, 12:38 PM
He is gay or bisexual. He is not heterosexual. Or are you saying that sexuality can change with the help of Jesus? :tape:

Yes, he is gay or bisexual, but for you to label him 100% gay is not correct either. You shouldn't label other people as to their gayness or straightness anyway - it's not up to you to say how gay or straight someone is.

And uhh no - where did I say anything like what you are suggesting I said? Of course sexuality can't change. You can suppress it, but that doesn't mean you've changed.

BUBI
Oct 24th, 2007, 12:41 PM
Yes, he is gay or bisexual, but for you to label him 100% gay is not correct either. You shouldn't label other people as to their gayness or straightness anyway - it's not up to you to say how gay or straight someone is.


Heterosexuals don't lust for the same sex. That's why I can say he is 0% heterosexual.

DutchieGirl
Oct 24th, 2007, 12:46 PM
Heterosexuals don't lust for the same sex. That's why I can say he is 0% heterosexual.

Right - so you DO believe that there is only 100% gay and 100% straight?

Ever considered the possiblity that some people lust for BOTH sexes? (Which is why you should not label anyone else as a % gay or straight - if they want to label themselves, then fine, but why should you do it for them)?

BUBI
Oct 24th, 2007, 12:54 PM
Right - so you DO believe that there is only 100% gay and 100% straight?

Ever considered the possiblity that some people lust for BOTH sexes?

Of course there are people who are bisexuals. They are not 50% straight and 50% gay, they are completely different category, right?

DutchieGirl
Oct 24th, 2007, 01:10 PM
Of course there are people who are bisexuals. They are not 50% straight and 50% gay, they are completely different category, right?

How are they a different "category"? If 100% into opposite sex = straight, and 100% into same sex = homosexual, then evenryone else between are grades of homoe/hetero sexual - which would mean most people are at least in some way bisexual. See, this is where I have a problem with giving 3 "categories" for sexuality. It just doesn't work very well. Some people may see themselves as bicurious...which I guess is kinda a sub category to bisexuality, but other people might feel 70% straight and 30% homosexual - under the "categories" then they would have to be bisexual...but that's not really a good indicator of their actual sexuality. Which is again, why I have a problem with labels, and especially with other people saying how gay or straight someone is. If someone is in a straight relationship, everyone will assum they are straight - maybe they aren't. Maybe that's the part of their life they are in now, and will go on to have a gay relationship if they break up with their current partner. I hate thie idea that everything is nicely boxed up into 3 little packages when it comes to sexuality and that if you are in a "straight" relationship then you must be straight, and it's suddenly a big shock to others if you then have a gay relationship (and vice-versa). Sexuality is generally not 100% cut and dried for every single person on the earth. People change, their tastes change (and no, I don't mean they suddenly become interested in one sex or the other - that would have been there from birth - but they may prefer to be with one sex at one stage of their life, and with the other sex at another stage).

Ugh...I don't think you're gonna understand what I mean anyway, so I'll stop now. ;)

IceSkaTennisFan
Oct 24th, 2007, 02:24 PM
Heterosexuals don't lust for the same sex. That's why I can say he is 0% heterosexual.
Since you live in his shorts :wavey:

Donny
Oct 24th, 2007, 11:03 PM
Jesus. You remind me again why I shouldn't even bother. You should've kept that retarded "flow chart" to yourself. :vomit:

Question: What Group of people, in your opinion, have had it worst in America in Columbian times?

WhatTheDeuce
Oct 25th, 2007, 02:34 AM
That article made me a little sick inside.

Haute
Oct 25th, 2007, 04:40 AM
Did it make you throw up in your mouth just a bit?

I hope you get the ANTM reference there...lol

mckyle.
Oct 25th, 2007, 07:51 AM
great story thanks a lot ,,,
it's always good to see wrong people return to God ,,,

god,,,, don't makeded no wetawds like youe111! :hugssss:

Morning Morgan
Jun 19th, 2011, 12:48 PM
A recent NYtimes feature on Michael Glatze. Written in a very personal way, poignant read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/magazine/my-ex-gay-friend.html?scp=1&sq=ex-gay%20friend&st=cse

homogenius
Jun 19th, 2011, 01:18 PM
Irrational? I would say it's part of heterosexuality. Some gay people will say that it's learned behaviour but it's not. Homosexuality is natural, you are born that way. But being disgusted by it is natural too and more common. For example if two men kiss in a movie, you can immediately see some disgusted men walk out of theater :lol: Personally I can watch a scene like that, but if that's all movie is about, why torture myself? And by the way, two women kissing it's not at all disgusting :hearts:

So ignorant :facepalm:

great story thanks a lot ,,,
it's always good to see wrong people return to God ,,,

Fuck you



As for the article, I stopped reading after like the 2nd sentence ("healing....homosexuality").