Self-Hating Homosexuals

Scouts and Mormons

Never quite understood the Scout's desire to cover up for troop leaders diddling kids, but bar open homosexuals from joining.

Mirage wrote:

So you want to overlook the sins of the slave owner guy who first banned gays from the military? Makes one wonder what good he did to get a free pass on those two grievous acts.

Overlook? Free pass? That is what you got from "I dislike the bad the stuff they did"? How is that anything but an explicit acknowledgment that they are nothing more than fallible humans; that they had both great ideas for this country and really bad ones?

Or perhaps you're just in favor of excising the both of them from American history, a la the Texas BOE?

paul87920 wrote:

Mirage wrote:

Because it is not a Constitutional right. If states choose to legitimize this practice that is fine. But marriage regulation is a state's prerogative. You do realize that each state determines when you are old enough to marry, right? Not to mention it regulates who can marry you. For that matter they also determine which relatives you might choose to marry should you be so inclined. So why wouldn't it be up to a state?

Well what about interracial marriage? That went to the Supreme Court.

And the issue of slavery itself went to the Supreme Court. Remember the Dredd Scott decisions? Didn't the court initially deem slavery to be a state's right? Until there was a Constitutional Amendment recognizing that slavery was no longer legal it was still generally considered a state's right because the Constitution supercedes a state's rights so you have proven my point.

Heretic wrote:

Mirage wrote:

So you want to overlook the sins of the slave owner guy who first banned gays from the military? Makes one wonder what good he did to get a free pass on those two grievous acts.

Overlook? Free pass? That is what you got from "I dislike the bad the stuff they did"? How is that anything but an explicit acknowledgment that they are nothing more than fallible humans; that they had both great ideas for this country and really bad ones?

Or perhaps you're just in favor of excising the both of them from American history, a la the Texas BOE?

Have you read a high school history book lately? Have you heard of some of the changes the Texas school board have considered for new text books?

Seriously, what do you feel they did that was so fantastic anyway? They contributed in the effort to free us from British rule. OK so did Benedict Arnold until he sold us out. Perhaps we should overlook that 1 little poor choice as well and treat him as a hero of the Revolution. After all he felt he had issues. Was it wrong of George Washington to execute him? And what of the Fort Wilderness massacre? Good thing for him there were no TV reporters around.

After posting I had a hard time looking up that Ft. Wilderness battle. It seems the internet is flooded with references to kids camps and Disney attractions as well as a Civil War battle. But I finally found a reference in case your history book amended it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braddock_expedition

I still see a number of details missing from accounts I have read about but honestly it's been so long I can't recall the sources. As I recall some of the details were pretty gruesome.

Scorpian wrote:

In order to make such a "choice" there would need to be some desire to engage in homosexuality, otherwise it's not a "choice" at all, is it?

False assumption. You wouldn't need a desire to an alternative to call it a choice. By that logic people who have never chosen to smoke are all craving to suck on a fag! (sorry, just couldn't resist using the slang)

Mirage wrote:

Have you read a high school history book lately? Have you heard of some of the changes the Texas school board have considered for new text books?

Seriously, what do you feel they did that was so fantastic anyway? They contributed in the effort to free us from British rule. OK so did Benedict Arnold until he sold us out. Perhaps we should overlook that 1 little poor choice as well and treat him as a hero of the Revolution. After all he felt he had issues. Was it wrong of George Washington to execute him? And what of the Fort Wilderness massacre? Good thing for him there were no TV reporters around.

None of which actually answers my question.

As expected.

Heretic wrote:

Mirage wrote:

Have you read a high school history book lately? Have you heard of some of the changes the Texas school board have considered for new text books?

Seriously, what do you feel they did that was so fantastic anyway? They contributed in the effort to free us from British rule. OK so did Benedict Arnold until he sold us out. Perhaps we should overlook that 1 little poor choice as well and treat him as a hero of the Revolution. After all he felt he had issues. Was it wrong of George Washington to execute him? And what of the Fort Wilderness massacre? Good thing for him there were no TV reporters around.

None of which actually answers my question.

As expected.

Your question? What question do you feel is unaddressed??

Heretic wrote:

I wrote:

Overlook? Free pass? That is what you got from "I dislike the bad the stuff they did"? How is that anything but an explicit acknowledgment that they are nothing more than fallible humans; that they had both great ideas for this country and really bad ones?

Or perhaps you're just in favor of excising the both of them from American history, a la the Texas BOE?

You're the one basically saying slave owners were all evil.

I remember in the 1960s often someone would say some guy was a fine person except that he hates blacks with a passion. My conclusion as a child was then he's wicked. To me yes that overshadowed the good he may have had.

Today I say print the good with the bad and let history decide but as you admitted that's not what's happening in the textbooks.

Mirage wrote:

You're the one basically saying slave owners were all evil.

No, I wasn't. I only brought up slavery to counter your poorly constructed "the gays shouldn't complain 'cause they don't have it as bad as Uganda" argument. I understand that not all slave owners were evil, but I think that we can agree that treating people as property, even if acceptable in the given social era, is an "evil" institution.

And I also fail to understand how condemning a single action of an individual means I (or at least should) condemn all of their actions.

Mirage wrote:

Today I say print the good with the bad and let history decide but as you admitted that's not what's happening in the textbooks.

On that we agree.

Mirage wrote:

You wouldn't need a desire to an alternative to call it a choice.

So why are you heterosexual then, if not for desire? Or was a conscious decision for you?

Mirage wrote:

(sorry, just couldn't resist using the slang)

We're not surprised. At all.

Mirage wrote:

Scorpian wrote:

In order to make such a "choice" there would need to be some desire to engage in homosexuality, otherwise it's not a "choice" at all, is it?

False assumption. You wouldn't need a desire to an alternative to call it a choice. By that logic people who have never chosen to smoke are all craving to suck on a fag! (sorry, just couldn't resist using the slang)

Pretty lame attempt at changing the subject by totally ignoring context. The fact of the matter is that sexual acts require desire. Your "choice" argument is looking weaker every time that you post.

.

I think I know what Mirage's point is, and it applies to my own experience and can be compared to choosing.

For instance, I never wanted to smoke. I was influenced by a gang of my best friends to just, "try it". Same went for my now 3 nephews that came from non smoking families. I blame my addiction on being affluenced and not being taught back in those early days to just say no". I've tried everything in the book, from lifestle changes, (I.E., NO COFEE WITH NO SMOKING, DROP THE COFEE) to the patches, the pills, to swallowing Chantix. The first week with Chantix you can smoke, and being in the hospital quite a bit, I had no desire to smoke with the first week of Chantix. The following weeks caused wild dreams, craziness, etc., that if they had made the product as it was for the first week, I would have successfully quit. The dosage after the first week was much tooo strong for me. I'm small framed, weigh close to 100, and it made me so ill, I was so determined to stick it out, but the dosage was too much for my body. I became so sick I had to go to the hospital. I couldn't sleep, couldn't keep anything down.

The point there is, you can be influenced to be or do something against your will that you never thought possible.

The second thing is, and I wish not to identify the person other than he was born deaf and mute. He told me years ago he always hid the fact that he dressed in women's clothing, and that ever since then, at night, would go to the Patch, although he never came near looking like a lesbian, the lesbians took advantage of his disabilities and told him he was a lesbian. To this day he argues he is a lesbian. He doesn't have sex with men or women, just likes to cross-dress. I tried explaining to him the difference, and he still insists he's a lesbian. See how they can influence you? They just wanted to rob his bank account, and they did. They took advantage of his deafness and inability to speak and comprehend, but though the Patch is closed up,. I found money he lent to those Lesbians, convincing him he was a lesbian. How do you argue with someone that thinks he's different, can't communicate, and joins a gay parade, and can never pass as a lesbian. He doesn't understand the terms. It isn[t about sex...he was married twice before. So, that's another example.

I noticed a rise in the amount of youngsters claiming they are gay at such an early age. I used to believe it was genetic, reading many reports by experts on it. But now it seems to be a cult, according to what I've seen on tv (Meredith Baxter) after having a long marriage and children, fining comfort with another woman????

My daughter said the whole state of CA - you can hardly find anyone who is straight...though she is straight, her best friends some of them are gay.

I don't know. At this point, lookijng back how I had no desire to smoke, but to "fit in, try it", and now I can't beat the habit, I was influenced. I used to think all homosexuals were born with that "I'm in the wrong body!", but it is my opinion from hearing real life stories, some were convinced, pushed and were thrown in that society.

Nevertheless, it just seems weird if you were married, and now in your 50s or 60s, have a bunch of kids, that you're suddenly finding out you're gay. I think it's just the attraction of say, like Meridith Baxter, she found someone who she could communicate with, and knows what the desires are. I don't buy it anymore that all are born with the chromosomes mixed up. I buy the theory that almost half have chosen to go the alternative way. To me, they are weak individuals, the actors, the stars in Hollywood. They are known to be insecure to begin with, and can very well be influenced to "fit in".

I just take this by what my daughter has said over the years. You should never judge a person, but something is wrong when so many claim to "come out of the closet" even after being marriedd, having children, subjecting the spouse to HIV, etc. It just doesn't make sense.

Two neighbors (one is a reporter with the a major newspaper in Chicago and the other was a case worker for suicidal patients), never once gave me a clue they were gay...they both are gay. I suspected something different about them, but we never talked about it.

Some were born that way. Some chose that lifestyle and confuse it, like the guy that is the transgender or LESBIAN. I explained in order to be LESBIAN, you have to be a woman loving another woman. That they were screwing and taking advantage of him. (Money-wise). He gets furious and insists he's a LESBIAN. I said, are you having sex with men or women? He said, "NO sex, just dress up like woman". I said, you are a cross-dresser. He kept insisting he was a Lesbian because two lesbians told him so.

What the hell, I don't know what my point is anymore; they take money from him while he is disabled, he orders women's clothes, and he keeps on thinking he's a Lesbian. It might sound funny, but it's not when I try to explain the difference.

Gosh, this isn't going anywhere, except I'm trying to tell ya, he used to attend the Gay Pride Parade, but his feet are about to be cut off from diabetes and he's well past retirement age.

Right now, all the guys I met that say they are gay, I tell them, "If ya wanna act like a woman, clean the freaking house like a woman!" I never met a clean house from any guy that claims they were born in the wrong body. Cross-dresser or real-true friends that claim they are gay.

I say some are choice, some are chromosomes. I don't condone it...just leave that tooting your horn out...I can puke over it. I'll joke with ya, but you're not my friend if you have to discuss your sex life with me. In the case I spoke about, one has no sex life...the other, a real friend, who is funnier than hell makes no mention of it...owns his own home is a slob, pays me to clean, but I can count on him if I ever need him to be there.

He doesn't date, he likes to be alone, he's a super person. His family knows, all my family know...he just happens to live next to a relative and that's why I know him. He has such a great humor...but he truly was born that way, but fits right in with us, when we go boating, or get together and all the neighbors love him (not in Indiana, another state).

Hell, my parents even knew before I told them, and he is loved by them. There is a differance, if they can accept and take a joke, it's something they can't change and laugh with you.

The others that are influenced, you can tell. Just like my parent's knew I was influenced by the smoking among peers to fit in.

I don't want to edit...excuse my spelling and punctuation.

Scorpion wrote:

Mirage wrote:

Scorpian wrote:

In order to make such a "choice" there would need to be some desire to engage in homosexuality, otherwise it's not a "choice" at all, is it?

False assumption. You wouldn't need a desire to an alternative to call it a choice. By that logic people who have never chosen to smoke are all craving to suck on a fag! (sorry, just couldn't resist using the slang)

Pretty lame attempt at changing the subject by totally ignoring context. The fact of the matter is that sexual acts require desire. Your "choice" argument is looking weaker every time that you post.

.

So why are you heterosexual then, if not for desire? Or was a conscious decision for you?

Talk about lame arguments!

The desire to smoke is a learned desire. You cannot desire it until you have exposure to it. The desire to procreate is within us all no matter how you suppress it and claim it doesn't exist. The desire to engage in homosexual activity is like learning to smoke. Until you are exposed to it you cannot desire it.

No wonder more people than ever are experimenting with gay sex. You have people claiming it is a valid desire to justify their own conduct as equal. You have had people coming into our schools to demonstrate safe sex and condom usage to children at sometimes alarmingly young ages who cannot yet even process the concept of sex. So it's little wonder they are deceived into accepting the legitimacy argument and see that legitimacy mentality then also reflected in Hollywood. Young minds are impressionable. There are good reasons why you should not market cigarettes to kids and for the same should apply to the gay alternative lifestyle.

I look at gay sex like gambling. I don't care to participate but if you wanna go blow your wad have at it. Just don't expect me to support it or legitimize it.

Mirage wrote:

The desire to procreate is within us all no matter how you suppress it and claim it doesn't exist. The desire to engage in homosexual activity is like learning to smoke. Until you are exposed to it you cannot desire it.

And if that where true, it wouldn't be found outside the human species.

Try again.

Mirage made my point, in better wording.

It used to be they came out of the closet.

Let's take a look at Lindsey Loham. She's straight, then she's a lesbian, now she's straight.

Hollywood or not, that proves it right there, girls gone wild...you think it doesn't influence our youth when Britney Spears and Madonna were giving each other a long kiss at a concert? Both were married, so what kind of message did that send kids?

Then take that idiot Lambert who had a guy kneeling at his crotch, touching some woman, and he's a self-proclaimed gay, only after he won American Idol. How does that influence naive kids?

I say, HALF are really born that way, the other half chose it, out of influence and curiosity. How do you explain Lindsey Loham going straight, crooked then straight? Wow, what future leaders we have.

I don't care what you are...just don't expose or toot your horn in public. Especially in a restaurant.

Get a Room!

What purpose is it to dress up silly and in rainbow colors to have a parade to say you have pride in your sexual orientation at this day and age. I can spot a gay guy in a minute...

Let's reverse the situation and have heterosexuals that have been married for over whatever years, and let them have a "Proud to BE STRAIGHT" and "MARRIED" parade. Does that sound logical.

I don't want to know your sexual orientation unless you joke about it - otherwise, keep it to yourself. No one is discriminating against them today, like as in the past where fear to expose it was a burden.

Everyone accepts it, doesn't care, anymore than you care about my marriage in the past, what I'm doing sexually now (nothing!) did that make you wonder if I'm a lebian? No, I had my share of problems of picking out he wrong men, and that's non of your business...so I chose to stay single.

Isn't it awful how I just gave you privy to my life? Doesn't mean I'm a lesbian...I chose to stay single and happy.

I just don't go for these stupid "PRIDE" parades...they're outdated, not needed, because there is no longer any fear of coming out of their closets, nor even if they are straight, they act like idiots kissing on stages, grabbing crotches, having someone kneel before you while you sing, acting like they are giving oral sex...our society sucks.

thank GOD I have kids with morales and ethis. If they would be like Madonna and Britney on stage, I couldn't look them in the face, and say I raised you that way. Cuz, I didn't. You want the money over values, then forget the family.

It's sickening that HIV has gone up because of these superstars that are so unstable, they need psychiatric help - not same sex group sex. Shock values...like the wardrobe malfunction with Janet Jackson and Timberlake....

They should throw them all in the gutter. I pity them because their parents didn't teach them morals,

Ain't going back to correct typos. Excuse me.

Mirage wrote:

paul87920 wrote:

Mirage wrote:

Because it is not a Constitutional right. If states choose to legitimize this practice that is fine. But marriage regulation is a state's prerogative. You do realize that each state determines when you are old enough to marry, right? Not to mention it regulates who can marry you. For that matter they also determine which relatives you might choose to marry should you be so inclined. So why wouldn't it be up to a state?

Well what about interracial marriage? That went to the Supreme Court.

And the issue of slavery itself went to the Supreme Court. Remember the Dredd Scott decisions? Didn't the court initially deem slavery to be a state's right? Until there was a Constitutional Amendment recognizing that slavery was no longer legal it was still generally considered a state's right because the Constitution supercedes a state's rights so you have proven my point.

And you've proved my point that the federal government needs to step in and amend the constitution.

Mirage wrote:

The desire to procreate is within us all no matter how you suppress it and claim it doesn't exist.

So that's why you're a heterosexual? Because of the "desire to procreate?"

I'm betting that the majority of people just "desire to have sex."

To say that a teen develops an interest in the opposite sex because of the "desire to procreate" is laughable. I don't know about you, but I am absolutely certain that "procreation" wasn't what I had on my mind.

UrRight wrote:

Let's take a look at Lindsey Loham. She's straight, then she's a lesbian, now she's straight.

That would make her a bisexual.

Scorpion wrote:

I'm betting that the majority of people just "desire to have sex."

[sarcasm]No they don't! Birth control is just a myth put out by liberals/socialists/communists like MSNBC who don't believe in God.[/sarcasm]

Scorpion wrote:

To say that a teen develops an interest in the opposite sex because of the "desire to procreate" is laughable. I don't know about you, but I am absolutely certain that "procreation" wasn't what I had on my mind.

I'll second that.

paul87920 wrote:

UrRight wrote:

Let's take a look at Lindsey Loham. She's straight, then she's a lesbian, now she's straight.

That would make her a bisexual.

I'm going with Trysexual.

Artie60438 wrote:

paul87920 wrote:

UrRight wrote:

Let's take a look at Lindsey Loham. She's straight, then she's a lesbian, now she's straight.

That would make her a bisexual.

I'm going with Trysexual.

I didn't think about that but you are right. She could be a little bi-curious.

If anyone really believes the only reason to have sex is to procreate, I would tell them that they and/or their partner are doing something wrong!