Are Most Anti-Gay Leaders Closeted Homosexuals?

[bloodyminded]

You are only trying to make your point. Homosexuality is ok. I think that's your point.

Certainly.

But I really think that you wish to prove how tolerant and liberal you are.

Because I think there's nothing wrong with homosexuality' date=' I must be trying to prove...my "tolerance" (which is arguable...depends on what I"m asked to tolerate) and that I'm "liberal"?

That I am somewhat to the left of most liberals would be obvious, I think, and so clearly needs no further evidence.

I'm not trying to prove anything. Hell, being okay with homosexuality puts me into agreement with 70% of Canadians, according to a MacLean's poll. I'm no more proud of it than I"m proud of not despising people based on race.

Rising to the basic levels of elementary decency is nothing especially to be proud of; we should expect it of ourselves.

Other wise you would be down with homosexuality yourself. Just doing it. Nothing wrong with that. Just try it. You might like it.What's wrong with making someone happy today?

So...either I'm eager to "prove" my tolerance to you...or, if I were sincere in what I was saying, I'd be willing to experiment with homosexuality?

Since you are evidently unaware of what you're saying, I'll try to decode it for you:

First of all, it is fast becoming self-evident that you consider homosexuality so bizarre, you can't imagine nayone standing up for gay people on principle; they're either trying to prove their own liberal views, or they're homosexual themselves.

Second, I don't want to have sex with a man, because I find them sexually unattractive, whereas sexualized thoughts of women fill an absurd amount of my waking imagination. This isn't asserted defensively--there's nothing here that needs defending--but is only reportage of fact. Why would I have sex with people that I don't want to?

Third, I am thoroughly monogamous. So since I won't have sex with other women, even though their bodies make me drool, I'm certainly not going to have sex with someone for whom I feel no attraction. And even if I did feel some attraction, my faithfulness to my wonderful lady wouldn't allow me to experiment.

Like you, I wouldn't trust any of those right wing homosexuals. The ones that pretend they aren't, and hide in what is supposed to be goodness and light. As a matter of fact other wolves have been known to hide in those same sheep's clothing and lord it over on people.

The hypocrisy is galling, I agree, but such an unfortunate failing doesn't, in my view, demand wholesale distrust of the person in every aspect. I consider their sexual/romantic desire to be perfectly ok; and their hypocrisy, while plainly a failing and a weakness, can be understood, though not condoned. They aren't in the closet because they're bad people; they're in the closet out of fear of judgement from people important to them.

I didn't really have a hard time believing that. I thought that was your total experience with it. Then you came out with further information. To me it was like oneupmanship. "I had to walk to school uphill both ways, so there." Kind of thing.

I can understand this; but beyond my telling you this was not my intent, there's not much I can do. You choose not to believe me. Your choice, though I hope you'd understand why I consider the choice to be galling.

And to be frank, I think you meant to provoke. For...some reason.

Quote

What I think is that men as sexual individuals are predatory.

To some degree this is true. But it is not the whole story of male sexuality, which is complex. (For odd reasons, we like to pretend that it isn't complex.)

Homosexual men are not different but many of the people they prey on are unsuspecting. A woman knows a man wants her. A guy never suspects it and can be quite surprised and shocked when some other guy makes advances on him.

True, it's surprising, and can be mildly unsettling...though it need not be. It's hardly the apocalypse. A simple "not interested," or "no," or "I'm straight" will totally end the situation.

Incidentally, I note that, while I'm talking about gay people generally, you're talking only about homosexual men.

Trust is earned. I don't just blindly trust everyone. Everyone has to earn my trust. A homosexual could earn my trust, perhaps more easily than some heterosexuals, but overall it is very difficult to do so. I have to know the core person.

Fine, but again, there is zero difference in trust issues between a homosexual and a heterosexual. Why would there be?

[Pliny]

Fine, but again, there is zero difference in trust issues between a homosexual and a heterosexual. Why would there be?

there can't be zero difference because they aren't as they appear.

You may say they are less likely to be honest because they fear persecution and you would be correct.

But the fact remains that a good percentage of them don't like to admit to their own sexuality because they themselves don't understand their proclivities. Just as anyone with a fetish doesn't understand their own proclivities. As a species we still have things to learn about ourselves. Science hasn't settled this yet.

Many young people, and people in general, judging from the amount of people "discovering" their true sexual identity later in life, are looking for their own sexual identity and can often be taken advantage of because, well no one can tell them what they should feel and it gets confusing when there are psychological nuances entered in like latent homosexuality, and no real yardstick to guide anyone.

In the end homosexuals are only looking for some kind of normalcy but they are looking to be granted it from others because they are aware that they won't get it from themselves.

My real problem with this thread is that a person is deceitfully representing an anti-gay position and it is then a problem of Republicans or Christians being hypocrites. It isn't. It is a problem of gays hiding themselves.

Some of that may be through fear of persecution but I think a greater percentage is through a denial of their own sexuality and a personal quest for normalcy. Similar to the accusations made toward the self hating Jew.

In the end, a guarantee of the sanctity of person and property, should be all that's necessary to guarantee the safety of anyone gay or straight. That of course is no guarantee of access to freedom of association. We should have the right to associate with or not associate with whomever we wish. Undeniably, that would be restrictive of fringe elements from participation in certain aspects of society and may be interpreted as persecution but as long as there is no active force initiated against another I don't see a problem.

[bloodyminded]

there can't be zero difference because they aren't as they appear.

You may say they are less likely to be honest because they fear persecution and you would be correct.

But the fact remains that a good percentage of them don't like to admit to their own sexuality because they themselves don't understand their proclivities. Just as anyone with a fetish doesn't understand their own proclivities. As a species we still have things to learn about ourselves. Science hasn't settled this yet.

Many young people, and people in general, judging from the amount of people "discovering" their true sexual identity later in life, are looking for their own sexual identity and can often be taken advantage of because, well no one can tell them what they should feel and it gets confusing when there are psychological nuances entered in like latent homosexuality, and no real yardstick to guide anyone.

In the end homosexuals are only looking for some kind of normalcy but they are looking to be granted it from others because they are aware that they won't get it from themselves.

My real problem with this thread is that a person is deceitfully representing an anti-gay position and it is then a problem of Republicans or Christians being hypocrites. It isn't. It is a problem of gays hiding themselves.

Some of that may be through fear of persecution but I think a greater percentage is through a denial of their own sexuality and a personal quest for normalcy. Similar to the accusations made toward the self hating Jew.

In the end, a guarantee of the sanctity of person and property, should be all that's necessary to guarantee the safety of anyone gay or straight. That of course is no guarantee of access to freedom of association. We should have the right to associate with or not associate with whomever we wish. Undeniably, that would be restrictive of fringe elements from participation in certain aspects of society and may be interpreted as persecution but as long as there is no active force initiated against another I don't see a problem.

That a homosexual hides his proclivites because of fear of persecution (or the inability to come to terms with that which he has been taught to abhor) doersn't mean he can't be trusted. His deceit, such as it is, is particularized on one issue, for reasons that have to do with fear of judgement.

You mentioned fetish as an analogy; not a perfect analogy, but it serves my point too: how many people do you suppose have fetishes; and how many people do you suppsoe you might personally know, and trust, who have secret, potentially embarassing (but usually harmles) fetishes?

Further, if "the problem is of gays hiding themselves," then of course the clear remedy is for social/cultural normalcy to be granted to homosexuality. By your own standards, your trust issue disappears when gays come out of the closet: well, that is occurring continually, and will continue apace: and the less bigotry they face, the more of them will accept their sexuality rather than hide it.

Edited May 8, 2010 by bloodyminded

[kimmy]

Oleg is speaking from his personal experience not any type of "conditioning". He is a personality...

Oleg is definitely a personality. There's no questioning that...

your views are not from experience just an expression of what's going around. You yourself admit it wasn't once ever discussed so what kind of experience do you have? You knew a guy once who was gay? You see them around and think they are ok?

I am not suggesting Oleg is gay. Because of his participation in the arts, which is an attraction to homosexuality, he has thus had ample opportunity to rub shoulders with them. His experiences have been negative. So although anecdotal, I doubt you will find any truth in the politically correct perspective - it is after all politically correct, and a socially conditioned perspective.

Oleg having been around the arts community doesn't make him an authority on the causes of homosexuality any more than my years waitressing make me an expert on substance abuse.

If Oleg wishes us to regale us with tales of his experiences with the fruity arts community, or his stories about how his butchy ex-wives have ruined his life and left him a pauper, he's welcome to. But if he's going to make claims like "AS a math professor or musicans brain changes and becomes formed by conditioning from repeated actions... so does the sexuality of the population through constant conditioning" or "engineered mutationism" then people will call it what it is.

As a post script. This thread is just an example of how deceitful homosexuals are, not how deceitful right wing anti gay leaders are. Although, vehemence may be an indication of a closet homosexual.

Homosexuals hide the true nature of their personal lives from people? Wow! Gee, I wonder why that might be?

-k

[Pliny]

Oleg is definitely a personality. There's no questioning that...

Oleg having been around the arts community doesn't make him an authority on the causes of homosexuality any more than my years waitressing make me an expert on substance abuse.

If Oleg wishes us to regale us with tales of his experiences with the fruity arts community, or his stories about how his butchy ex-wives have ruined his life and left him a pauper, he's welcome to. But if he's going to make claims like "AS a math professor or musicans brain changes and becomes formed by conditioning from repeated actions... so does the sexuality of the population through constant conditioning" or "engineered mutationism" then people will call it what it is.

Homosexuals hide the true nature of their personal lives from people? Wow! Gee, I wonder why that might be?

-k

Hi kimmy. Good post

There are two answers to the last question. actually three. I have already mentioned the first two - fear of persecution and a search for normalcy. The third is that science hasn't answered the question of how we determine our own sexaul identity and without direction some of us are confused.

As for Oleg. Well, quite a character. It is his very earthy and exterior dynamic in living life that gives him some credibility. Others don't seem tohave gone the distance in living life and simply make a statment from the spectator view of life.

[bloodyminded]

Homosexuals hide the true nature of their personal lives from people? Wow! Gee, I wonder why that might be?

-k

Astonishingly, he keeps implying that it has something to do with the innately-deceitful nature of the queer speciman.

Which is a very short step away from Oleg's brilliantly "scientific" threatises on homosexuality.

[Pliny]

Astonishingly, he keeps implying that it has something to do with the innately-deceitful nature of the queer speciman.

It is innately deceptive. By pure observation of anatomy what should one conclude?

[WIP]

It is innately deceptive. By pure observation of anatomy what should one conclude?

Since I am going to assume you are trying to make some sort of natural law argument that homosexual behaviour is abnormal, an explanation is needed for why homosexual pairing is so common in many bird species and has been observed in every species of mammals that have been studied in depth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

As for being deceptive, if people were not persecuted because of their sexual preferences, there would be no need for deception.

[Pliny]

Since I am going to assume you are trying to make some sort of natural law argument that homosexual behaviour is abnormal, an explanation is needed for why homosexual pairing is so common in many bird species and has been observed in every species of mammals that have been studied in depth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

We are not birds, we are human. There are even differences between humans and lower species of animals. We have several faculites that are advanced or even absent in lower animal forms. And although homosexual behavior may be observable in animals they do not form exclusively homosexual relationships.

As for being deceptive, if people were not persecuted because of their sexual preferences, there would be no need for deception.

You mean if they had their sex change operations there would be no deception.

I don't think homosexuals should be persecuted, especially by heterosexuals. They have no greater understanding of homosexaulity than a homosexual does. And that is the crux of the matter. Homosexuals will always wonder about their proclivities. Some will try and deny them, some ignore them, and those individuals trying to curb their own tendencies will be the worst and heaviest persecutors of homosexuality. This is why they turn up as right wing Christian evangelists and republicans, groups who traditionally hold homosexuality as aberrant.

So as far as this thread goes it condemns the hypocracy of those groups but there really is no hypocracy except from homosexauls themselves pretending or truly wishing to be members in hopes of ending their not understood feelings. They may honestly be trying to uphold the principles but their homosexaulity cannot entirely be subdued.

I am like bloodyminded in that I don't beleive homosexuals should be persecuted. No one should be persecuted that isn't infringing upon the sanctity of the person and property of another. However, in my view, homosexuality does not fall in the curve of what I would call normal. There is not anything wrong with falling outside the curve of normalcy. We are not and cannot all be the same.

The law in China has been one child/family. This is in order to curb population growth. The law in the future may be to alleviate sexual desire by not engaging in heterosexual sex that could result in reproduction which will be heavily regulated.

That is one course of action for the future but I don't think that will be necessary. There are proponents of this type of legislation, I'm sure who don't think we can voluntarily curb our reproductive urges.

[Guest TrueMetis]

We are not birds, we are human. There are even differences between humans and lower species of animals. We have several faculites that are advanced or even absent in lower animal forms. And although homosexual behavior may be observable in animals they do not form exclusively homosexual relationships.

We are mammals though and as WIP said all mammals that have been studied in depth has shown homosexual behavior. I would also like you source on humans being the only one to form exclusively homosexual relationships.

Aslo other species aren't "lower forms", every species is evolved to suit it's niche, it's an archaic and out of date term.

Edited May 9, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Borg]

from the Daily Beast:

Who hasn’t accidentally hired a male hooker as a luggage boy? Anti-gay leader and co-founder of the Family Research Council George Alan Rekers claims he was just looking for someone to help him carry his luggage when he hired a male prostitute whose online profile (probably NSFW) advertises his taste for “spanking” and “shaving,” among other sexual acts. Contacted by the blog Joe.My.God. via Facebook, Rekers said that “due to surgery I require assistance in lifting luggage when traveling,” and goes on to claim that he was helping the prostitute/luggage boy known as “Luicen” by teaching him that “[1] It is possible to cease homosexual practices to avoid the unacceptable health risks associated with that behavior, and [2] the most important decision one can make is to establish a relationship with God for all eternity by trusting in Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for the forgiveness of your sins, including homosexual sins. If you talk with my travel assistant that the story called ‘Lucien,’ you will find I spent a great deal of time sharing scientific information on the desirability of abandoning homosexual intercourse, and I shared the Gospel of Jesus Christ with him in great detail.”

Hmmmm, I wonder if the Religious Right will buy it, or will they have to throw him under the bus like Ted Haggard.

Ho hum ........

Borg

[Pliny]

We are mammals though and as WIP said all mammals that have been studied in depth has shown homosexual behavior. I would also like you source on humans being the only one to form exclusively homosexual relationships.

Aslo other species aren't "lower forms", every species is evolved to suit it's niche, it's an archaic and out of date term.

The source on humans being the only ones to form exclusively homosexual relationships has been discussed on other threads in this forum.

I don't think I denied that other mammals have exhibited homosexual behavior.

Sorry about the archaic out of date term "lower forms" I guess we are all one and we all fit in somewhere. Our "niche" seems a little higher to me. We have certain powers in our niche that are not as apparent or abundant in other niches.

[Guest TrueMetis]

The source on humans being the only ones to form exclusively homosexual relationships has been discussed on other threads in this forum.

I don't feel like seaching through dozens of thread humour me.

I don't think I denied that other mammals have exhibited homosexual behavior.

"We are not birds, we are human." Sounds like you were ignoring it.

Sorry about the archaic out of date term "lower forms" I guess we are all one and we all fit in somewhere. Our "niche" seems a little higher to me. We have certain powers in our niche that are not as apparent or abundant in other niches.

I'm not sure you know what a niche is.

[WIP]

We are not birds, we are human. There are even differences between humans and lower species of animals. We have several faculites that are advanced or even absent in lower animal forms. And although homosexual behavior may be observable in animals they do not form exclusively homosexual relationships.

It's worth noting that humans are the only mammals who form heterosexual pair bonds; monogamy is not very common among any mammal species. Our ancestors likely developed pair bonds because of the increasing investment of time and resources needed for child development, and if you take a look at statistics showing half of all marriages end in divorce, it appears that our old instincts are still in us.

You mean if they had their sex change operations there would be no deception.

It's not a serious comment, but regardless I want to make the point that without persecution there doesn't need to be deception. My brother's wife did not know she was Jewish until she was an adult because the family changed their name during WWII and joined the Catholic Church. You could call that deception too, and it wouldn't have been necessary if Hitler and concentration camps hadn't become along.

I don't think homosexuals should be persecuted, especially by heterosexuals. They have no greater understanding of homosexaulity than a homosexual does. And that is the crux of the matter. Homosexuals will always wonder about their proclivities. Some will try and deny them, some ignore them, and those individuals trying to curb their own tendencies will be the worst and heaviest persecutors of homosexuality. This is why they turn up as right wing Christian evangelists and republicans, groups who traditionally hold homosexuality as aberrant.

So as far as this thread goes it condemns the hypocracy of those groups but there really is no hypocracy except from homosexauls themselves pretending or truly wishing to be members in hopes of ending their not understood feelings. They may honestly be trying to uphold the principles but their homosexaulity cannot entirely be subdued.

That was the point! George Alan Reckers becomes a pivotal spokesman for a movement that claims gays can be turned straight, and pops up as an expert spokesman during a gay adoption controversy in Florida, while apparently spending his whole life living in denial.

[Pliny]

I don't feel like seaching through dozens of thread humour me.

Try this thread "Gay i snot norrmal" post #213.

"We are not birds, we are human." Sounds like you were ignoring it.

Not at all. I later said as much.

I'm not sure you know what a niche is.

I didn't convince you?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Try this thread "Gay i snot norrmal" post #213.

g_bambino talked about a podcast in which a researcher talks about a study which concludes that homosexual behaviour occurs amongst animals, but not that any animals are exclusively homosexual for their entire lives. Which I assume includes humans.

[Pliny]

It's worth noting that humans are the only mammals who form heterosexual pair bonds; monogamy is not very common among any mammal species. Our ancestors likely developed pair bonds because of the increasing investment of time and resources needed for child development, and if you take a look at statistics showing half of all marriages end in divorce, it appears that our old instincts are still in us.

Are you claiming we are different than other mammals? Actually, loons form lifetime heterosexual pair bonds.

I claimed in one thread that we were the only ones that adapted the environment to our needs. Someone else said beavers do.

Beavers build their dams and such but that's all they do. Just like birds build their nests. That doesn't mean if there is no water around beavers will make a well.

It's not a serious comment, but regardless I want to make the point that without persecution there doesn't need to be deception. My brother's wife did not know she was Jewish until she was an adult because the family changed their name during WWII and joined the Catholic Church. You could call that deception too, and it wouldn't have been necessary if Hitler and concentration camps hadn't become along.

It's serious from a purely anatomical perspective.

I don't agree with that point. Many, like Reckers, will try to deny their proclivities even if there is no persecution. Religion is not a comparable comparison, the Jews were persecuted and hid their affiliation but ti is their choice unless you believe that gays are gay thorugh their own choice.

That was the point! George Alan Reckers becomes a pivotal spokesman for a movement that claims gays can be turned straight, and pops up as an expert spokesman during a gay adoption controversy in Florida, while apparently spending his whole life living in denial.

It was the fact no one knew he was gay that was deceptive plus his claim that he knew something that he didn't. Of course Chrisitians wanted to believe this. We obvioulsy need to learn more about sexuality but we should realize deceptive people like Reckers are not valid representatives of the groups they choose to hide in and the group cannopt be labelled hypocritical because of these types of wolves in sheeps clothing. Gays could just join the Republican party en masse and then you could really have a field day about hypocracy.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

g_bambino talked about a podcast in which a researcher talks about a study which concludes that homosexual behaviour occurs amongst animals, but not that any animals are exclusively homosexual for their entire lives. Which I assume includes humans.

So gay marriage is really a non-issue.

[bloodyminded]

So gay marriage is really a non-issue.

In Canada, for one, yes; the only people making it an issue are those opposed to it.

[ToadBrother]

As for Oleg. Well, quite a character. It is his very earthy and exterior dynamic in living life that gives him some credibility. Others don't seem tohave gone the distance in living life and simply make a statment from the spectator view of life.

Oleg has credibility? The guy is a nut. Half his posts are rambling internal dialogues.

[Oleg Bach]

Why not? Maybe he is.

Borg

sorry to disappoint you Borg my dear but I am not..just to wise and intelligent to be gay..real practical about surival and manhood..besides the form - taste - smell and personality of a woman is the most attractive thing on earth other than butter garlic and lobster.

[Oleg Bach]

They should have a program in the schools to teach young adult females on what the rold of female is - then you might have fewer stupid old male anti-gay guys going off on a holiday with some pretty male prostitue..point being - the avenue to sex has been restricted..and males and females are not connecting as easily as they should. Feminism has not serve woman well in the long run..I see tons of middle age, highly educated females who are products of left wing feminism stemming back to the 70s...most have not faired well and live along with a dog...I want to be that dog.

[bloodyminded]

They should have a program in the schools to teach young adult females on what the rold of female is - then you might have fewer stupid old male anti-gay guys going off on a holiday with some pretty male prostitue..point being - the avenue to sex has been restricted..and males and females are not connecting as easily as they should. Feminism has not serve woman well in the long run..I see tons of middle age, highly educated females who are products of left wing feminism stemming back to the 70s...most have not faired well and live along with a dog...I want to be that dog.

Are you saying there is less heterosexual sex going on presently than there used to be?

[ToadBrother]

They should have a program in the schools to teach young adult females on what the rold of female is - then you might have fewer stupid old male anti-gay guys going off on a holiday with some pretty male prostitue..point being - the avenue to sex has been restricted..and males and females are not connecting as easily as they should. Feminism has not serve woman well in the long run..I see tons of middle age, highly educated females who are products of left wing feminism stemming back to the 70s...most have not faired well and live along with a dog...I want to be that dog.

Things were so much better when women were chattel...

[Oleg Bach]

Things were so much better when women were chattel...

This is a myth. No good husband since time began treated their wives as chattel. Woman were loved and adored and took the on the natural role of female..There are situations that take place in this day were MEN are chattel and strickly there as finacial support..Take the typical suburban wife - the shop till you drop type - whose religion is consumerism...IF the male goes broke he is sometimes disposed of in the divorce court and the female goes off looking for replacement "chattel" .

Also as for the chattle factor, as governments world wide gain more power over the populace - males AND females are now considered property of the state - as are the children - CHATTEL.. Having mentioned that I will say..

It was better when woman were woman and not men in female form.