Are Most Anti-Gay Leaders Closeted Homosexuals?

[ToadBrother]

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?

Other than being rather rambling, nonsensical and silly, none of it has much to do with gays being able to marry.

[Oleg Bach]

What Beatles show tunes? I can think of maybe two or three songs in their entire catalog that even remotely fit that description.

George Martin was shrewed- He re-worked the flavour of old British music hall tunes..and presented them as new---most of the early Beatle catalogue are based on silly turn of the last century show tunes...what? Have a good listen to your glorious Beatles.... take a new objective re-evaluation of their mystic non-sense...ALL THE TUNES ARE GIBBERISH...that is a fact! The Beatles destroyed western pop culture along with the careers of artists with something relevant to say- Sir George Martin..was a great con artist who used these dopes to experment on pop culture- "With a little help from my friends is a show tune..sorry...Harper is a light weight when it comes to music - and guilty of pop idolitry..where as Bob Rae attempts to at least write.

[Oleg Bach]

George Martin was shrewed- He re-worked the flavour of old British music hall tunes..and presented them as new---most of the early Beatle catalogue are based on silly turn of the last century show tunes...what? Have a good listen to your glorious Beatles.... take a new objective re-evaluation of their mystic non-sense...ALL THE TUNES ARE GIBBERISH...that is a fact! The Beatles destroyed western pop culture along with the careers of artists with something relevant to say- Sir George Martin..was a great con artist who used these dopes to experment on pop culture- "With a little help from my friends is a show tune..sorry...Harper is a light weight when it comes to music - and guilty of pop idolitry..where as Bob Rae attempts to at least write.

Is that you Steven? If so - I was just kidding---love the way you hit those high notes..with a little help from YO YO MAma.

[Oleg Bach]

Wonder if Stevie can play a little twelve bar blues on piano..sure would like to do a hot solo on top...but then that would be a crushing blow...nothing sadder than a humiliated player..but who knows - Steve might be a good musican once he stops playing bad covers and stops limitiing himself by idolizing pop stars - you NEVER - Idolize anyone but your self .

[Pliny]

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.

I think the vast majority of gays don't really care about it except from a legal standpoint.

I think your attention is on the problem of human rights and social justice which is an emotional diversion from the real issue. Rationally looking at it why would gays want to be "married". One of the purposes of Marriage is to curb promiscuity. You are probably aware that heterosexual men have enough of a problem with holding this vow. Even having children is not enough to curb some from wandering. Why would homosexual men wish marriage upon themselves? Granted a few may be enthralled with the concept and even honour their vow of commitment to each other but they would be very few. Most are simply concerned with unequal and unjust splits or "divorces" and wish for there to be an avenue for them to ensure they separate with something and aren't left sitting on the porch.

So, in reality, the argument is really about "divorces", not marriage, and their protection from abuse or being thrown out of the house with nothing. But most don't establish long-lasting realtionships anyway.

The whole AIDS thing may have encouraged them to be less promiscuous and make promises to each other not to fool around and that may be the reason this has been brought to a head. More monogamous relations have been established for health reasons and too many end with unsatisfactory "divorces". Solution legal "marriages". Why they emotionally inflame the heterosexaul community by wishing to usurp the word "marriage" to include themselves is just a sidebar and is, I think, indicative of their generally turbulent nature.

[WIP]

You are probably aware that heterosexual men have enough of a problem with holding this vow. Even having children is not enough to curb some from wandering.

Like many other aspects of evolution, such as diet, locomotion etc., we are not perfectly adapted for monogamy...at least not in the sense that pigeons are! Our higher thinking executive brain rationalizes that adultery carries too much risk, but our limbic brain that makes decisions on impulse and desires says "go for it." Some people reason their way out of trouble, some don't...and the fact that 50% of marriages end in divorce (many because of infidelity) demonstrate that we're not that good at maintaining monogamous relationships.

As a side note, this latest political scandal involving another Republican lawmaker having an affair (but it's a woman this time) add to the theme of the opening post: people who try to be something they're not, and only cause anguish for themselves and others. A comedian who's name I can't recall, replied when questioned about David Vitter's prostitution scandal that Republicans can survive sex scandals as long as it's not with a live boy or a dead girl...and since it involves a live girl, he might skate through and keep his job. Republican lawmaker Mark Souder, who pushed aggressively on the abstinence education agenda...that has resulted in higher teen pregnancy and STD rates, is seen in this video extolling the virtues of abstinence...unfortunately so is his mistress, Tracy Jackson....how ironic!

So, in reality, the argument is really about "divorces", not marriage, and their protection from abuse or being thrown out of the house with nothing. But most don't establish long-lasting realtionships anyway.

There's no point to complaining that gay men are promiscuous or form transient relationships (lesbians have lower STD rates than heterosexual women) if a legal opportunity isn't available for them to have their interests protected in any long term relationship.

[Oleg Bach]

Marriage is state control,of you and your genitals. For instance,if an aging daughter resides in partnership with her old mother- the daughter is not entitled to spousal benefits or access to the pension that is for all intent exactly that of a spouse-- but if the state is told that there is genital contact..then suddenly we have a lesbian partnership and a form of common law marriage.

ALSO if a young woman applys for social assistance and she resides with a male she is not entitled to payments from the state if they suspect that there is genital contact..it's really quite unsavory that the state has it's eyes in your pants and bed room.

[Oleg Bach]

The rule of the proverbial biblical beast is the rule of the mindless human collective..mob rule! The manipulation of sexuality is much like forcing compliance through hunger or harrassment. Those that attempt to alter the natural state of humanity through the most base ways are not out to improve things- this is the de-sexing of the population..It will not create a more beautiful and heavenly world- it is utlitarianism at it's most ugly and stinks of sinisterism of the most vile kind..it is a hate for humanity and a contempt.

[Rue]

There are 1.5 billion Muslims out there. Clearly most Muslims are not terrorists.

At any rate, I think the thread is a bit of a joke, sort of like you, except our joke is tongue-in-cheek.

So are you suggesting Muslims are not gay?

I also think Steven Harper is gay. He plays the piano.

Dead give away.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Rue

[Pliny]

Like many other aspects of evolution, such as diet, locomotion etc., we are not perfectly adapted for monogamy...at least not in the sense that pigeons are! Our higher thinking executive brain rationalizes that adultery carries too much risk, but our limbic brain that makes decisions on impulse and desires says "go for it." Some people reason their way out of trouble, some don't...and the fact that 50% of marriages end in divorce (many because of infidelity) demonstrate that we're not that good at maintaining monogamous relationships.

I'm with Oleg on this - the problem is the State. It's play of granting entitlements to favourites that improve it's own position is unjust. It granted married couples entitlements that they should not have had. Now they have to deal with the problem of other special interests wanting the same privileges. they can either grant them or take the more unpopular and route and rescind the entitlements it has granted to the initial "special interests".

Incidently, they don't grant entitlements unless they see a benefit themselves, through votes, political support or increased revenues.

We may not be good at maintaining monogamous relationships but we were better at it at one time. As Oleg says, the State is de-sexing the population and monogamous relationships are definitely harder to maintain today. I don't think I would get married in this day and age. One thing that would bother me is that women think they are equal to men. Equal meaning "the same as". They are not the same as men. Another de-sexing concept imposed by the State who have treated women unfairly for centuries treating them as chattel in their "laws". Now the State has decided, because it is in the interests of global concern about population growth and depletion of non-renewable consumed resources, that women are the same as men.

Really, women, as half of the human race need to be treated equally with, not made equal to men. The butch lesbian might like to be considered a man but not too many other women.

As a side note, this latest political scandal involving another Republican lawmaker having an affair (but it's a woman this time) add to the theme of the opening post: people who try to be something they're not, and only cause anguish for themselves and others. A comedian who's name I can't recall, replied when questioned about David Vitter's prostitution scandal that Republicans can survive sex scandals as long as it's not with a live boy or a dead girl...and since it involves a live girl, he might skate through and keep his job. Republican lawmaker Mark Souder, who pushed aggressively on the abstinence education agenda...that has resulted in higher teen pregnancy and STD rates, is seen in this video extolling the virtues of abstinence...unfortunately so is his mistress, Tracy Jackson....how ironic!

Yes. Republicans fail in their commitments. And they generally acknowledge those shortcomings. Democrats, like Bill Clinton, get a free pass even though they will openly deny any wrongdoing and not suffer any consequences of their lying. They refuse to take responsibility for themselves and their actions. If forced on the issue they will totally justify their actions so it seems there is nothing wrong with them.

At least those on the right realize the necessity to confess a wrongdoing and face the consequences. Even if Democrats don't see anything wrong with it.

Better they be weasels than hypocrites? Democrats prefer weasels.

There's no point to complaining that gay men are promiscuous or form transient relationships (lesbians have lower STD rates than heterosexual women) if a legal opportunity isn't available for them to have their interests protected in any long term relationship.

Their legal opportunity should be no better or worse than anyone else's?

Accepting it is true, Why do you think lesbians have lower STD rates then heterosexual women? Some sort of monogamous commitment to each other? I do think women are more inclined to stable relationships as they are more focused on the creation of a home.

Men aren't really that focused unless they are married and have kids - but that's not a guarantee.

[bloodyminded]

Why they emotionally inflame the heterosexaul community by wishing to usurp the word "marriage" to include themselves is just a sidebar and is, I think, indicative of their generally turbulent nature.

According to a recent MacLean's poll, about 70% of Canadians now support same sex marriage.

So much for "inflam[ing] the heterosexual community."

Perhaps it's the 30% of naysayers who are trying to emotionally inflame everybody else.

[Pliny]

According to a recent MacLean's poll, about 70% of Canadians now support same sex marriage.

So much for "inflam[ing] the heterosexual community."

Perhaps it's the 30% of naysayers who are trying to emotionally inflame everybody else.

Supporting same sex marriage is not the same as supporting gay sex parades. I don't think that 70% of Canadians support that.

But you're just being argumentative, aren't you!

[bloodyminded]

Supporting same sex marriage is not the same as supporting gay sex parades. I don't think that 70% of Canadians support that.

But you're just being argumentative, aren't you!

I don';t know how many people support--nor care about--parades. Neither do you.

My point was a direct rebuttal to your comment: that homosexuals, due to "their generally turbulent nature," are "usurp[ing] the word 'marriage' and "emotionally inflam[ing] the heterosexual community."

I reponded with poll results...not perfect, but certainly better than your speculation, which was buttressed by zero information.

And if my disagreeing with you means I'm just being argumentative, how should the same not apply to yourself?

[Pliny]

I don';t know how many people support--nor care about--parades. Neither do you.

Golly gosh what's all the ado about them?

My point was a direct rebuttal to your comment: that homosexuals, due to "their generally turbulent nature," are "usurp[ing] the word 'marriage' and "emotionally inflam[ing] the heterosexual community."

Are they usurping the word "marriage"? They do wish it to apply to themselves so technically "usurp" is perhaps the wrong word. Is the heterosexaul community inflamed about it? This thread and the and the legal debate in the US is an indication of that fact.

Having gained a favourable position in society, according to polls, comparative to any recent time in history, they will soon spoil those gains.

I reponded with poll results...not perfect, but certainly better than your speculation, which was buttressed by zero information.

It may be 30% of the naysayers inflaming everyone else, it is still "inflaming".

I haven't read the peer reviewed literature yet so it is my opinion. You don't have to agree.

And if my disagreeing with you means I'm just being argumentative, how should the same not apply to yourself?

It isn't you just disagreeing with me. Your argument is rather specious in that whether or not 70% of whatever poll you were citing accept gay marriage they have not yet won the legal right to marry in a lot of jurisdictions, consequently there is still a lot of inflaming going on and although that type of bullying may be helpful in their legal battle it isn't endearing to the general public. Women are supposedly equal to men by law. That's really stupid. They aren't equal but they should be treated equal in society. Gays will never equal heterosexuals but they should have the right to the sanctity of person and property as anyone else does.

And another thing that indicates to me that you are just being argumentative is that I haven't disagreed with the right of gays to have recognized civil unions. I just think they should leave the word "marriage" alone and leave it a right or ritual of the church. Unfortunately, and I realize it, the motion is toward changing the definition.

[bloodyminded]

Golly gosh what's all the ado about them?

A small handful of people have gotten their misconceived notions of propr gender roles in a bunch. Most folks aren't too upset, clealry.

Are they usurping the word "marriage"? They do wish it to apply to themselves so technically "usurp" is perhaps the wrong word. Is the heterosexaul community inflamed about it? This thread and the and the legal debate in the US is an indication of that fact.

Legal debate in the US--which the naysayers are losing, I believe--but not in Canada.

Having gained a favourable position in society, according to polls, comparative to any recent time in history, they will soon spoil those gains.

They may spoil the gains somewhat by relegating marriage to the same status as heterosexuals do, thus finding themselves with a 50% divorce rate.

It may be 30% of the naysayers inflaming everyone else, it is still "inflaming".

Yes, but you said the homosexuals were inflaming the heterosexual community; now you're saying (more accurately) that it's really a relatively small percentage of the heterosexual community who is inflaming the heterosexual community.

I

t isn't you just disagreeing with me. Your argument is rather specious in that whether or not 70% of whatever poll you were citing accept gay marriage they have not yet won the legal right to marry in a lot of jurisdictions, consequently there is still a lot of inflaming going on and although that type of bullying may be helpful in their legal battle it isn't endearing to the general public.

Like I said, the general public is ok with the notion. Are you insisting that the "general public" is constituted by 30% of the populaiton...but not by 70% of the population?

On what major social and political issues is there even a 70-30 split? Abortion? the death penalty? The war in Afghanistan?

Support for gay marriage is such a clear democratic majority that I actually find it surprising.

The issue of legal rights is an American issue; I"m talking about Canada.

Women are supposedly equal to men by law. That's really stupid. They aren't equal but they should be treated equal in society. Gays will never equal heterosexuals but they should have the right to the sanctity of person and property as anyone else does.

And another thing that indicates to me that you are just being argumentative is that I haven't disagreed with the right of gays to have recognized civil unions. I just think they should leave the word "marriage" alone and leave it a right or ritual of the church. Unfortunately, and I realize it, the motion is toward changing the definition.

I still can't see how I'm being argumentative, whereas you are not. It's an odd formulation.

And churches do not "own" the word "marriage." It's a word.

[Pliny]

[quote name='bloodyminded' date='31 May 2010 - 08:08 AM' timestamp='1275316821' post='544346

I still can't see how I'm being argumentative, whereas you are not. It's an odd formulation.

??

And churches do not "own" the word "marriage." It's a word.

He said argumentatively......

Would you say that gays "own" the word then and it should mean whatever they deem it means? It does mean the union of a man and woman in matrimony, after all.

I suppose in the attempt to achieve normalcy they will include themselves in that definition - there now I am being argumentative.

[bloodyminded]

He said argumentatively......

Would you say that gays "own" the word then and it should mean whatever they deem it means? It does mean the union of a man and woman in matrimony, after all.

No, nobody "owns" words. And since gay people can now get married in many places, the word decidedly cannot, logically, mean exclusively the union of a man and a woman. Denotations change.

Hell, you yourself use the word "gay" without quotation marks, so we can plainly see how words' meanings can alter over time.

I suppose in the attempt to achieve normalcy they will include themselves in that definition - there now I am being argumentative.

Yes, they have included themselves in the definition of marriage. Everything's working out fine.

[g_bambino]

Those who rail against homosexuality are, to me, no different to those who froth about every other supposed sin in life - they're human and, as such, are likely to succumb to the very sins they say everyone else shouldn't but everyone does, given that those "sins" are all born of the inherent human desire for pleasure, anyway. All men and women, whether married or not, whether identifying as straight or not, have homosexual desires, to a certain extent, and often act on them in some way. We're mostly even hypocrites ourselves, thinking or doing such things but keeping it secret because that's the social norm. The difference lies in the fact that the preachers make a spectacle of (and a living off of) their self-assumed moral superiority; they're more in the public spotlight than most of us, and so, when they fall "victim" to the same lapses of control as most everyone else does at one point or another, their duplicity is all the more glaring and all the more out there for everyone to see.

[Oleg Bach]

MORE gay crap - have we not had enough of this foolish social indulgence - that is vicarious in it's core nature? No one is rallying about persecuting homosexuals - people are just tired of having this social engineering shoved down our throats - forget the pun.

We are led to believe that a great percentage of human beings are a bit queer in their make up - I suggest that it is a tiny amount..and they are not relevant to the big picture other than being slightly amuzing at time..but for the most part gays are plain irritating - some friends toss big parties and a huge gay batch arrive - the diesel dykes arrive by freight train and the wanna be hair stylists and interior designers arrive by magic carpet - usually jacked up on E or coke...

For the most part they can not be fully trusted around your sons if they are good looking...funny - we assume that gays go for gays - from what I am told it is a great victory to seduce straight guys - usually the rats will get them drunk and or drug them..I have met almost not one single gay person that is an honest person - they are all sinister and hedonistic.

[g_bambino]

We are led to believe that a great percentage of human beings are a bit queer in their make up - I suggest that it is a tiny amount..

Research (by Kinsey & others) and my own experience tells me otherwise (though, I should make clear that I'm counting all the way down to the most innocuous and often subconscious titillation (beware the pun) from commonly seen images - say, two beautiful women kissing or two near-naked men grappling). You've even on these boards admitted to a little bit of it yourself, Oleg.

[+]

Edited June 7, 2010 by g_bambino

[sharkman]

Just what exactly is an "anti-gay leader"?

[Oleg Bach]

Research (by Kinsey & others) and my own experience tells me otherwise (though, I should make clear that I'm counting all the way down to the most innocuous and often subconscious titillation (beware the pun) from commonly seen images - say, two beautiful women kissing or two near-naked men grappling). You've even on these boards admitted to a little bit of it yourself, Oleg.

[+]

Stimulation can come from rubbing against a tree - or from looking at a red nice red head - Irish Setter with cute paws. It depends on the levels of perversion....as far as my admission - it must be wishful thinking on your part...I really do not need to watch two men or two woman _ I am a very private and sexually selfish individual _ I want one woman and no funny stuff..As for porn - I am from the age of playboy and Sears bra adds...as for electronic porno - I don't go near it - well maybe a couple of times when desperate - single female materbating is a turn on - and I feel like I would like to get right IN there..that's where I am at --- as for now - the X wife just left - she's mean spirited and a liar - and ugly the older she gets _ all I want is a lady - a sweet female that behaves as such..old school me just wants an angel.

[g_bambino]

It depends on the levels of perversion....as far as my admission - it must be wishful thinking on your part...I really do not need to watch two men or two woman...

I dunno, Oleg; I'm sure you said something about being able to appreciate a beautiful man. How you choose to act on your attractions is up to you, depending on whether or not you even admit to having them. What's perverted is also subjective. But, I never said you had to watch anyone having sex in order to have homosexual feelings. UFC fans seem to think themselves the most heterosexual guys around, but have you ever watched a UFC match? There's an awful lot of naked, sweaty man-flesh pressed together and rolling around... I'm baffled as to how they can watch that stuff and still maintain a willed ignorance of the blatant, inherent homoeroticism! Or, at lest, maintain the pretence of ignorance of the blatant, inherent homoeroticism.

[Oleg Bach]

I dunno, Oleg; I'm sure you said something about being able to appreciate a beautiful man. How you choose to act on your attractions is up to you, depending on whether or not you even admit to having them. What's perverted is also subjective. But, I never said you had to watch anyone having sex in order to have homosexual feelings. UFC fans seem to think themselves the most heterosexual guys around, but have you ever watched a UFC match? There's an awful lot of naked, sweaty man-flesh pressed together and rolling around... I'm baffled as to how they can watch that stuff and still maintain a willed ignorance of the blatant, inherent homoeroticism! Or, at lest, maintain the pretence of ignorance of the blatant, inherent homoeroticism.

Yah I said that - I appreciate a beautiful man - a beautiful woman - a beautiful child - and a beautiful view of the country side - but the beauty does not stimulate an irrection....."Homosexual feelings" - that is not the same as being attracted and appreciating beauty. When I view beautiful people I do not get this urge to have sex...that is the line called sexual confusion - I know where my penis belongs and when it is the time to use it...wait a second - look over there! A knot hole in a tree - it's a beautiful tree...I want to f*ck that tree...homo erotic behavior is for lazy creepy people...I know of this very hot young woman - an artist - strikingly beautiful - her whole mentality is very liberal - it is all about "bliss" - if it feels good do it.

She suggested to my son that he get a couple of other guys and they all have sex with her at once - this is a nut..as if a good man who loves woman wants a dick hanging in his face when he is doing something personal and private with a woman that he adores..but his is the new generation of biss seeking hedonism - usually they are raised by rich hippy parents...who teach no bounds.

[g_bambino]

When I view beautiful people I do not get this urge to have sex...

Sure you don't...

[H]is is the new generation of biss seeking hedonism...

Hardly new at all, Oleg. There was a world with humans before the Victorian era (the prudishness of which was only a cover for the decadent behaviour that still went on).