Are Most Anti-Gay Leaders Closeted Homosexuals?

Oleg Bach · May 15, 2010

HEY what happened to "Oleg might be gay" - to para phrase -- I could have had a lot of fun with that...well? Lets see how giddily happy and gayful this Oleg is...okay - let the games begin and lets see who is more of a man - those searching out gayness or those who simply do not take the whole newly institutionalized homo thing seriously?

It is always an interesting subject -sexuality and how in manifests...some things manifest in a powerful manner and as the non-conditioned kids say about lame things --- "that's so gay" which means inferiour...not bashing gays but I will plainly state that if you can not generate children and find pleasure and satisfaction in the act then you are slightly less a person - not that we should persecute eunuchs - they have always existed - it's the straight sodmist lazy bastards who abuse non-breeding sexless males..there is always a top guy and the pillow bitter in submission - half of gays are not gays..just jerks that find a femalish man more easier to control than a real woman..so that is it in a nut shell _ I just don't like men that take on the gay life style ...because they are power mongers...some gays are asexual..that is the way God created them and they are not to be abused by sodomists..to cheap and lazy to breed.

WIP · May 15, 2010

The real scandal in this closeted homosexual's case is that he was a paid expert hired by the Florida state government to speak on behalf of the ban on gay adoption and gay marriage, and pocketed 120,000 dollars. How much credibility do the anti-gay and gay conversion movements have when guys like George Reckers turn out to be their experts?

'Rentboy' Minister Got $120K Taxpayer Dollars From Fla. GOP Gov Candidate -- for Anti-Gay Testimony

Pliny · May 15, 2010

The real scandal in this closeted homosexual's case is that he was a paid expert hired by the Florida state government to speak on behalf of the ban on gay adoption and gay marriage, and pocketed 120,000 dollars. How much credibility do the anti-gay and gay conversion movements have when guys like George Reckers turn out to be their experts?

'Rentboy' Minister Got $120K Taxpayer Dollars From Fla. GOP Gov Candidate -- for Anti-Gay Testimony

I don't expect gays in the closet to be anything but dishonest. of course the credibility of the antigay and gay conversion movement is hurt, but that is what you like about this story. Myself, I look at it as just another "hiding in the closet living a lie gay" deceitful, liar. A self professed gay is at least attempting to be honest.

WIP · May 15, 2010

I don't expect gays in the closet to be anything but dishonest. of course the credibility of the antigay and gay conversion movement is hurt, but that is what you like about this story. Myself, I look at it as just another "hiding in the closet living a lie gay" deceitful, liar. A self professed gay is at least attempting to be honest.

It is not necessarily based on deceit and dishonesty. A lot of them may be living in denial, and write off their occasional homosexual flings as stumbling and giving in for sin.

Many of these anti-gay gays have a fundamentalist upbringing, and are taught that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination. So, for all of those that leave their families and their religions behind to start a new life in the big city, there are others who stay closeted, get married and try to hide it. Some believe that sin is causing them to feel homosexual thoughts (since that is what they've been taught since early age) so they may be more inclined to become a minister than the average person.

Many of the gay priests claim that they entered the priesthood in an effort to cure their homosexuality....so you can see where this is going! If you want more self-professed gays, remove the penalties and taboos that prevent them from being fully part of society.

Pliny · May 17, 2010

It is not necessarily based on deceit and dishonesty. A lot of them may be living in denial, and write off their occasional homosexual flings as stumbling and giving in for sin.

Many of these anti-gay gays have a fundamentalist upbringing, and are taught that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination. So, for all of those that leave their families and their religions behind to start a new life in the big city, there are others who stay closeted, get married and try to hide it. Some believe that sin is causing them to feel homosexual thoughts (since that is what they've been taught since early age) so they may be more inclined to become a minister than the average person.

Many of the gay priests claim that they entered the priesthood in an effort to cure their homosexuality....so you can see where this is going! If you want more self-professed gays, remove the penalties and taboos that prevent them from being fully part of society.

I have no disagreement with what you have said other than you have some ideal that they can be fully a part of society. They need to carve a niche, not force a niche by law or politically correct favour. Marriage is defined as a union of a man and woman in matrimony. Homosexuals are, by not creating their own type of union, not creating a niche but imposing themselves upon what society has defined as a marriage. They are being quite aggressive or bullyish about their infringement instead of just ignoring it and developing their own traditions rites and rituals or whatever they wish to define themselves.

WIP · May 17, 2010

I have no disagreement with what you have said other than you have some ideal that they can be fully a part of society. They need to carve a niche, not force a niche by law or politically correct favour. Marriage is defined as a union of a man and woman in matrimony. Homosexuals are, by not creating their own type of union, not creating a niche but imposing themselves upon what society has defined as a marriage. They are being quite aggressive or bullyish about their infringement instead of just ignoring it and developing their own traditions rites and rituals or whatever they wish to define themselves.

"Marriage is defined as a union of a man and woman" until the definition of marriage is broadened to allow same-sex couples to get married. Changing the definition to include same-sex unions does not change marriage for the majority of heterosexual couples, and that's why conservative objections about infringement on their rights is totally bogus and not worth any consideration. This same argument used to be used in most U.S. states to support anti-miscegenation laws. Once the laws changed, the accepted wisdom changed to view inter-racial marriage as no business of outsiders whether they accepted inter-racial couples or not.

Same here! Those who don't like gay marriage are still free to carp and bitch about it, but unless they can provide some substantive evidence that gay marriage causes harm to others, then they should not have the right to impose their morality on the minority that want to marry someone of the same sex. And it should be up to them to decide whether they want their own unique rites and rituals, or they want to follow the trappings of conventional wedding....except for that cake with the two grooms or the two brides on top!

Pliny · May 17, 2010

"Marriage is defined as a union of a man and woman" until the definition of marriage is broadened to allow same-sex couples to get married. Changing the definition to include same-sex unions does not change marriage for the majority of heterosexual couples, and that's why conservative objections about infringement on their rights is totally bogus and not worth any consideration. This same argument used to be used in most U.S. states to support anti-miscegenation laws. Once the laws changed, the accepted wisdom changed to view inter-racial marriage as no business of outsiders whether they accepted inter-racial couples or not.

Interracial marriages did not change the definition of marriage. So it is an entirely different matter. It is simply a cultural consideration and can change. Is there some laws that were enacted that said people must accept inter-racial marriages or was it the church that resisted the social acceptance?

The lib-left are attempting to change or as you say "broaden" the definition. Now we all know words change and evolve, but changing them by law is a bullying state tactic and not about the evolvement of society.

Same here! Those who don't like gay marriage are still free to carp and bitch about it, but unless they can provide some substantive evidence that gay marriage causes harm to others, then they should not have the right to impose their morality on the minority that want to marry someone of the same sex. And it should be up to them to decide whether they want their own unique rites and rituals, or they want to follow the trappings of conventional wedding....except for that cake with the two grooms or the two brides on top!

Gays wish to broaden the term marriage to include them only because of State privilege granted to married couples. What should occur is that those privileges be revoked. They have mostly to do with inheritance laws, divorce settlements and the transfer of death benefits to a surviving spouse.

So I have left out any argument of morality or homophobic attitude.

I believe that is as it should be. Now, a lot of the argument from the gay side is also about the acceptance of homosexuality as one of normalcy and that is a moral argument. I don't believe that it is the job of government to determine morality so if the argument was entirely one of morality it should remain inthe realm of social evolution and not law. The thing is there are legal advantages in marriage and that is why marriage is such a big topic or the main reason gays have any interest in it at all. Most of them I don't think give a wit about the concept of marriage from the purely social aspect, some might, but they do care about being able to claim damages/losses in a conjugal split such as are available to heterosexual couples.

WIP · May 17, 2010

Interracial marriages did not change the definition of marriage. So it is an entirely different matter. It is simply a cultural consideration and can change. Is there some laws that were enacted that said people must accept inter-racial marriages or was it the church that resisted the social acceptance?

To put it bluntly, blacks were considered an inferior race, so anti-miscegenation had roots deeper than social consideration. Race-mixing was considered a violation of proper Christian marriage because blacks were the cursed offspring of Noah's third son Ham - who was cursed by being given black skin and banished from the family. Intermarriage was a violation of the ban on race mixing.

The lib-left are attempting to change or as you say "broaden" the definition. Now we all know words change and evolve, but changing them by law is a bullying state tactic and not about the evolvement of society.

No one is asking you to change your definition of marriage, just to refrain from trying to apply your definition to others. Unless you can come up with something that the trials and inquiries have not so far, that shows clear evidence that allowing gays to marry will harm society, then it's nobody else's business how they define their own marriages. If there is no evidence for harm, they should be allowed to receive the benefits that legal marriage provides to everyone who's heterosexual.

Gays wish to broaden the term marriage to include them only because of State privilege granted to married couples. What should occur is that those privileges be revoked. They have mostly to do with inheritance laws, divorce settlements and the transfer of death benefits to a surviving spouse.

You never know where problems will crop up. A former neighbour of mine about 20 years ago, who was an RN told me that her opinion on these matters changed as a result of an incident she observed in the hospital - where a gay man in his 60's was being visited daily by his gay partner of more than 20 years until the man was near death and all of a sudden the family started dropping in, demanded that the gay partner get lost because he was not a family member and banned him from attending the funeral. The lack of legal recognition removed the life partner from any decisions regarding funeral and management of the estate. Obviously the family who never visited and had nothing to do with the man until he was near death, were just there to collect the money....and that's why their relationship should have had legal recognition and protection. Rather than go through a laundry list of laws and create something separate for same-sex partners, why not just allow them to get married and leave it at that?

ToadBrother · May 17, 2010

I have no disagreement with what you have said other than you have some ideal that they can be fully a part of society. They need to carve a niche, not force a niche by law or politically correct favour. Marriage is defined as a union of a man and woman in matrimony. Homosexuals are, by not creating their own type of union, not creating a niche but imposing themselves upon what society has defined as a marriage. They are being quite aggressive or bullyish about their infringement instead of just ignoring it and developing their own traditions rites and rituals or whatever they wish to define themselves.

Marriage is defined as whatever the wider society defines it as. If the wider society decides polygamy or polyandry are legitimate forms of marriage, that's what they become. In our society, a growing number of people have decided that homosexual unions are a form of marriage, and if that trend continues, that's what they'll become.

You seem to argue that because a traditional definition of a word means one thing, that that word will always retain that meaning. It's called the etymological fallacy. Societies determine what such notions mean, or if such notions have any meaning at all. If you're definition no longer matches society's, well, that's just tough.

Oleg Bach · May 17, 2010

Marriage is defined as whatever the wider society defines it as. If the wider society decides polygamy or polyandry are legitimate forms of marriage, that's what they become. In our society, a growing number of people have decided that homosexual unions are a form of marriage, and if that trend continues, that's what they'll become.

You seem to argue that because a traditional definition of a word means one thing, that that word will always retain that meaning. It's called the etymological fallacy. Societies determine what such notions mean, or if such notions have any meaning at all. If you're definition no longer matches society's, well, that's just tough.

SOCIETY can define hate as love and love as hate. It can define death as life and life as death - It can also define poor as rich and rich as poor...Just because society defines something does not mean it is real or true or good for humanity.

The defined values of the Nazi society were proven through actions and out comes to have been horrible definitions of what society should be - History has proved that with out a doubt - If you think or believe other wise then you are nuts!

MARRIAGE is sex - sex is what binds the couple in matrimonial union - sex by definition - and it has been since time began is OPPOSITES - male+female engaged in intimate action IS SEX - you can toss around another set of values and it does not make it real - two men in intimate action is NOT sex - because they are not oppposites - same as with females.

"definition of a word means one thing" - damn right it does - if it does not have one meaning - then it really has no meaning at all.

ToadBrother · May 17, 2010

SOCIETY can define hate as love and love as hate. It can define death as life and life as death - It can also define poor as rich and rich as poor...Just because society defines something does not mean it is real or true or good for humanity.

I never said every concept was immutable, but marriage has had variable definitions in different times and places. It has not been an immutable concept.

The defined values of the Nazi society were proven through actions and out comes to have been horrible definitions of what society should be - History has proved that with out a doubt - If you think or believe other wise then you are nuts!

And suddenly out comes the Nazis!

MARRIAGE is sex - sex is what binds the couple in matrimonial union - sex by definition - and it has been since time began is OPPOSITES - male+female engaged in intimate action IS SEX - you can toss around another set of values and it does not make it real - two men in intimate action is NOT sex - because they are not oppposites - same as with females.

Marriage is certainly more than sex. This logic could be used to forbid elderly couples from marrying. Besides, we're not held captive by what you're essentially invoking as a Catholic model of marriage.

"definition of a word means one thing" - damn right it does - if it does not have one meaning - then it really has no meaning at all.

Words change meaning all the time. That's the nature of language.

Pliny · May 18, 2010

To put it bluntly, blacks were considered an inferior race, so anti-miscegenation had roots deeper than social consideration. Race-mixing was considered a violation of proper Christian marriage because blacks were the cursed offspring of Noah's third son Ham - who was cursed by being given black skin and banished from the family. Intermarriage was a violation of the ban on race mixing.

This is true,WIP. Undeniably. The same as women were once chattel and also couldn't own property.

The State made laws, Jim Crow laws, laws against women owning land. This was wrong. If those societal things had been allowed to evolve they would have changed a lot faster without those laws to enforce them. Those laws had to change befroe change would be possible.

The world in the 1800's was already starting to eliminate slavery. Unfortunately, making new laws instead of just eliminating old laws and allowing society to take it's course.

No one is asking you to change your definition of marriage, just to refrain from trying to apply your definition to others. Unless you can come up with something that the trials and inquiries have not so far, that shows clear evidence that allowing gays to marry will harm society, then it's nobody else's business how they define their own marriages. If there is no evidence for harm, they should be allowed to receive the benefits that legal marriage provides to everyone who's heterosexual.

I am simply suggesting that instead of using the term marriage and changing the definition legally, they would fair better inventing a term a different term.

You never know where problems will crop up. A former neighbour of mine about 20 years ago, who was an RN told me that her opinion on these matters changed as a result of an incident she observed in the hospital - where a gay man in his 60's was being visited daily by his gay partner of more than 20 years until the man was near death and all of a sudden the family started dropping in, demanded that the gay partner get lost because he was not a family member and banned him from attending the funeral. The lack of legal recognition removed the life partner from any decisions regarding funeral and management of the estate. Obviously the family who never visited and had nothing to do with the man until he was near death, were just there to collect the money....and that's why their relationship should have had legal recognition and protection. Rather than go through a laundry list of laws and create something separate for same-sex partners, why not just allow them to get married and leave it at that?

The person has rights. What was in the will? Not an argument for granting state privilege in law. It is an argument for rescinding privlege to married couples.

Pliny · May 18, 2010

Marriage is defined as whatever the wider society defines it as. If the wider society decides polygamy or polyandry are legitimate forms of marriage, that's what they become. In our society, a growing number of people have decided that homosexual unions are a form of marriage, and if that trend continues, that's what they'll become.

You seem to argue that because a traditional definition of a word means one thing, that that word will always retain that meaning. It's called the etymological fallacy. Societies determine what such notions mean, or if such notions have any meaning at all. If you're definition no longer matches society's, well, that's just tough.

A rather stale position and nothing but the continued confrontational position.

All I am saying is that the law is at fault for granting privilege to married couples and then excluding gays from the privilege.

The State has to recognize gay unions equally and any other type of "marriage" or union. The debate would end if privilege granted to married couples were eliminated.

Your argument is not seeking any accord or harmony with society, it simply, as I said, confrontational and bullyish. It is emotional and assertive. I see it mostly from, "I'm-your-friend-lib-left-politically correct heterosexauls" stirred to action in support of some oppressed minority and it doesn't matter what the minority is it is a question of "human rights" and we all need to lobby government to protect those human rights.

All well and good but it would be better to make rational laws in the first place that didn't favour and grant entitlements to special interests.

ToadBrother · May 18, 2010

All well and good but it would be better to make rational laws in the first place that didn't favour and grant entitlements to special interests.

I'm all for rational laws. Unfortunately a lot of people seem to view their prejudices as rational, or at least create a lot of rationalizations. To my mind, there's no reason not to have gay marriage.

Oleg Bach · May 18, 2010

I never said every concept was immutable, but marriage has had variable definitions in different times and places. It has not been an immutable concept.

And suddenly out comes the Nazis!

Marriage is certainly more than sex. This logic could be used to forbid elderly couples from marrying. Besides, we're not held captive by what you're essentially invoking as a Catholic model of marriage.

Words change meaning all the time. That's the nature of language.

OLD PEOPLE CAN HAVE SEX TILL THE DAY THEY DIE..secondly the constant redefinition of language opens the gates to scoundrels who will eventually say>>"I did not kill him, I just changed him"

Oh and Nazis do come out "all of a sudden"...The movement of national socialism never really died- it was passed on to the next generation- even young British Princes learn about it in the home and dawn the uniform.

Oleg Bach · May 18, 2010

Further more marriage was and always will be about breeding (sex) .....what is the point of a male and female coupling? I do know of a few couples who opted out of the sex for children game--- in fact I know of a bride that had her self sterilized prior to the wedding..and she would not allow the groom to kiss her during the cerimony..cos she was an under developed germaphobic self centred materialist jerk.

ToadBrother · May 18, 2010

OLD PEOPLE CAN HAVE SEX TILL THE DAY THEY DIE..

So can gay people.

secondly the constant redefinition of language opens the gates to scoundrels who will eventually say>>"I did not kill him, I just changed him"

Just like people do all the time. If I said "The cop killed the fleeing rapist", I doubt you're going to categorize that, ethically, in the same contextual framework as "The man killed his child." Killing, itself, can mean many things, and is often very culture-centric. Honor killings are approved of in some societies, and not considered murder in any meaningful way at all.

When it comes to concepts and words, there is very little that is immutable. Concrete concepts are pretty rare, and usually are limited to physical descriptions; as in "fire is hot" or "water boils".

Oh and Nazis do come out "all of a sudden"...The movement of national socialism never really died- it was passed on to the next generation- even young British Princes learn about it in the home and dawn the uniform.

Nazism has nothing to do with gay marriage. After all, homosexuals fell to the Nazi murdering machine along with Jews, gypsies and Communists.

ToadBrother · May 18, 2010

Further more marriage was and always will be about breeding (sex) .....what is the point of a male and female coupling? I do know of a few couples who opted out of the sex for children game--- in fact I know of a bride that had her self sterilized prior to the wedding..and she would not allow the groom to kiss her during the cerimony..cos she was an under developed germaphobic self centred materialist jerk.

You know a lot of crazy people.

Oleg Bach · May 18, 2010

You know a lot of crazy people.

DON'T know them- I have met them...so the writer previous to you stated that gays can have sex too..again it is a redefinition of the word..sex means opposites so gays do not have sex..they have pleasureful recreational kink- not usually based on love or breeding.. but on other things- that I don't want to regress into at this point.. by the way- killing means killing...it does not mean making life.

Oleg Bach · May 18, 2010

So can gay people.

Just like people do all the time. If I said "The cop killed the fleeing rapist", I doubt you're going to categorize that, ethically, in the same contextual framework as "The man killed his child." Killing, itself, can mean many things, and is often very culture-centric. Honor killings are approved of in some societies, and not considered murder in any meaningful way at all.

When it comes to concepts and words, there is very little that is immutable. Concrete concepts are pretty rare, and usually are limited to physical descriptions; as in "fire is hot" or "water boils".

Nazism has nothing to do with gay marriage. After all, homosexuals fell to the Nazi murdering machine along with Jews, gypsies and Communists.

Of course Nazism has evolved to include gay marriage..the Nazis got of to a rough start and did not refine their modes of social control untill recently--world domination takes time my friend.

FIRE IS COLD....George Orwell was a master bureacrat and he knew his stuff..to re-define sex- marriage or anything else is called lieing- perhaps in your world..to rule through deception is just fine- but I embrace reality- and those that say - "that is YOUR reality" are total losers because if the world can not agree on what is real and what is not then a hellish utlitarianism will result..seems that being a utility suits you- the battle between the talentless utilitarians and those that generate beauty is on going..some things are just plain ugly and don't tell me that feces smells as sweat as a lubricated woman.

ToadBrother · May 18, 2010

DON'T know them- I have met them...so the writer previous to you stated that gays can have sex too..again it is a redefinition of the word..sex means opposites so gays do not have sex..they have pleasureful recreational kink- not usually based on love or breeding.. but on other things- that I don't want to regress into at this point..

People have been having sex for pleasure since before there were people. We're almost the horniest mammal out there, save perhaps for the bonobo chimp. By your argument, we should ban birth control, seeing as it interferes with reproductive functions.

by the way- killing means killing...it does not mean making life.

Killing means lots of different things. Other than the concrete fact that it means terminating a life, it's context often depends on who is killing and who is killed. I doubt you think "The man killed his child" is the equivalent of "The police officer killed the fleeing child murderer." The context of the killing, as with just about everything else in human language, is as important as the noun being used. That is, after all, what makes human language unique compared to even advanced forms of animal communication.

Edited May 18, 2010 by ToadBrother

Oleg Bach · May 18, 2010

correction - as SWEET as a lubricated woman. I GUESS this argument we are having might settle into a debate about what is superiour and what is inferiour as far as human existance. Some want to play God and suppress breeding through abortion and the acceptance of homo-sexual behaviour as being on the same level as hetro. A man and woman in union bring a child into the world is superiour to two men with a cat who have anal intercourse...and sing show tunes while snorting some designer drug.

Not bashing gays...I take it from an old scriptural stand point- there are some dominating hedonists who want to like many of us possess what they consider is beautiful in form- youth- a beautiful male..or female..For instance there is an old story about the down of Sodom-- a group of beautiful angels decended into the city-- in male form...a good man took them in granting them personal protection..eventually a group of barbarians gathered around the house demanding that the host send out the angels---of great beauty because the sodomists 'wanted to KNOW them' In other words they wanted to sodomize them.

Making a long story shorter...in my view lesbians- the male types want to possess a beautiful young woman..gays want a beautiful young man- preferably straight is the usual agenda..

It is not about love but the objectification of a human- to possess beauty- to own it..That is not very noble in my book.

Oleg Bach · May 18, 2010

Marriage is not a privledge. It may have been at one time--now it is so controlled by the judicary and the state that it has become a curse and enslavement- You do not gain human rights through marriage- your rights now deminish- look at the divorce rate - and the fact that betrayal is acceptable..marriage used to be a personal empire comprised of king and queen- husband and wife- NOW it has become a way to nib mini-empires in the bud...so as the present status quo can maintain power and continue to debase the population in a very controlled and shifty way.

To be unfaithful is not always gaged in a sexual way- to lose faith in ones partner and betray them for another is very animalistic- It reminds me of a dog that will leave it's mate because the other dog carries a bigger piece of meat and is a more shrewd hunter and provider- we are more than animals--but animal husbandry is practiced by the state..and whan a divorce takes place - if a woman does not find a replacement..a lucritive one then the state becomes her husband..the woman betrays the husband looking for greener pastures and the state eventually betrays the woman..of course this works for both sexes...marrriage instead of a freedom grants power to forces who are not even part of the union- who needs that shit?