A reader just messaged me his view on why gay men are so neurotic. Â While I don’t think this holds true for all gay men, I do think it applies to some, particularly those who live not far from me in the center of West Hollywood.
WIth his permission, I quote his message verbatim and invite you to offer your own thoughts in the comment section:Â
Well, the community idolizes youth and sees older than 30 as “throwaway”, yet worships material goods and lifestyles that rarely ever become affordable until at LEAST one’s late 30s, sometimes later. It’s an unspoken neurosis!
UPDATE: When a reader messaged me his thought, I decided to post on it as I thought it was certain to stir up controversy and conversation — as it has. Which is good because with my trip back home, my return to LA and now my Theater Managing duties at Outfest (it’s not too late to get tickets–if last night is any indication, the program includes a lot of powerful films), I don’t really have much energy to write today, but may yet do a short post on media bias.
Anyway, while thinking about my friend’s comment, I recalled a script I had mapped out which fits the pattern of gay neurosis he described. The story begins with a twentysomething guy trying to buy something expensive in a trendy Palm Springs shop. When he learns he has maxed out his credit card, the clerk lets him buy the item because his partner’s credit is always good here.
This young’un has shacked up with a rich older man to have all the privileges of wealth while still a “hottie.” His older lover tolerates his occasional “extra-marital” flings so long as he’s there when he needs him (sexually and for “display” purposes).
Well, the young man’s life changes when his partner’s next door neighbor, a successful Hollywood agent, lets one of his charity clients, a writer who barely scrapes by, stay at his desert home for a few weeks. Attracted by this man not all that much older than he, the young man reevaluates his life, wondering if he could give up his lifestyle with the rich old man to share a different life with a (relatively) impoverished artist whom he loves.
Those who know me can figure out how it ends (in my imagination). And that ending shows how, I believe, gay men can best address that “neurosis.”
Totally true.
I think it goes deeper than that.
What the gay community tends to put its self-worth in are externals. Your value is determined by how you look, the car you drive, the clothes you wear, and the places in which you’re seen — not how you behave.
This whole mentality explains the gay community obsession with getting respect through pieces of paper, i.e. laws and marriage licenses, versus earning it through actual behavior.
The above catalogs one or two neuroses, but don’t get me started. Even the gay guys with “good values” can be irritatingly skittish and conflicted (i.e., neurotic).
Case in point: a mini-first-date I had with someone last night. It did come up suddenly or rather unexpectedly. Kept it down to 90 minutes over a beer. Good conversation. Smart guy. Lots of mutual interests uncovered. Mutually acceptable politics and philosophies. Ended with *him* offering to hang out more; even giving info I hadn’t requested about his living situation. This morning I sent a short follow-up e-mail (OK, let’s figure out our next get together). The new day’s attitude? “I really enjoyed meeting you too. However, let’s leave it at that.” (ILC’s forehead thunks keyboard)
Materialism, sexual conquests, and slips of paper from the government will never fill the aching void of a self-centered, meaningless existence.
Well, the community idolizes youth and sees older than 30 as “throwawayâ€, yet worships material goods and lifestyles that rarely ever become affordable until at LEAST one’s late 30s, sometimes later. It’s an unspoken neurosis!
This is different from straight society how?
Henry…you read my mind and stole my line..LOL..I was thinking exactly that!
My str8 friends say the same thing and complain about the same thing. I believe it applies to both Gay and Str8…nature of the beast so to speak.
Disagree. There is a “community” of straights who are like that, but many more of them just get married and get on with their lives. Oh, I forgot, gay people are supposed to pretend they don’t exist.
This is different from straight society how?
It is profoundly different from straight society outside the media and the blue coastal enclaves.
In the straight community I belong to, people are valued based on the moral standards they uphold and their contributions to the community.
7 Disagree. There is a “community†of straights who are like that“
Aren’t there a community of gays who are not like that? Are there no ‘value based’ gay people?
In the straight community I belong to, people are valued based on the moral standards they uphold and their contributions to the community.
Funny, the gay community I belong to, in my blue costal enclave, is like that. All over 30. All in relationships longer than 7 years. 1/2 have kids (including me and my partner). Some are on school boards. Some volunteer.
Or is there only 1 gay community?
I wonder if people will ever grow up to the point where they realize “straights do it, too” is no excuse for bad gay behavior?
Henry, I love the efforts to obfuscate, like the goalpost-moving. Keep it up! 😉
(At #5, Henry endorses the ideas that the gay community is materialistic, empty and youth-worshipping, excusing it on the grounds that “straight society” is the same. But, with the latter bit easily shot down, by #9 Henry has shifted to different arguments/assertions: suddenly there is more than one “gay community”, suddenly the average gay does have values and Henry’s here to tell us, yadda yadda.)
Henry endorses the ideas that the gay community is materialistic…by #9 Henry has shifted to different arguments
Actually, what happened is that people responded to my comment, and I responded to those responses. In fact, You brought up that only a community of straights are materialistic, empty and youth-worshipping. The rest, you said, just want to get on with thier lives.
That prompted me to respond asking if there weren’t communities within the gay community, since you suggested that as a defense to that impression of the straight community.
Then VtK said that straights were different away from the ‘blue costal enclaves’. WHich lead me to offer a disagreement, that you can find ‘values’ even in blue coastal San Francisco.
The fact is that, while not exactly the same, the gay community and straight community are not all that different. American society as a whole is overly focused on a material existence and youth culture.
And, sadly perhaps, that’s true of ‘middle’ America as well as the blue coastal enclaves. However, like any broad sweeping statement about millions of people there are plenty of exceptions to the general rule.
It’s not moving a goal post, it’s bringing the focus in or out, in response to where you said you were looking.
Getting back to Dan’s point, politically correctness requires society to cater to the emotion’s of society’s most dysfunctional and neurotic components. I’m thinking in particular of that hypersensitive, dim-witted Dallas county councilman whose panties got into a wad because someone referred to a dysfunctional bureaucracy as a “black hole.” And it seems no one, except for a few on the “right wing” have the nads to tell that idiot to get over himself.
Society, in general, as it has become more narcissistic and materialistic has gotten to the point where neurotic dysfunction is accepted as the norm and catered to, especially in the mainstream of the gay community. Things like the Folsom Street Fair could not exist without broad acceptance in the community. In Britain, gays are protesting the removal of shrubberies because it will make it harder to engage in public sex. I could go on. But the main point is, looking for meaning in the wrong places leads to bitterness. Which is why bitterness is driving the politics and culture of the left right now.
More goalpost-moving from Henry. I had actually pointed out that:
At #5 – Henry’s *initial* comment in this thread, he did that. Followed by his shifting to different arguments / goalposts, when people easily blew that apart. But Henry strategically mis-quotes me as having claimed:
Eliminating the part about #5 / his first comment, so that he can pose and posture as someone who was only responding to responses where “people responded to [his] comment”. As if we all can’t read the thread, LOL! 🙂
Well, moving on:
No actually, they are fairly different. I already acknowledged, at #7, that you would want to deny that.
I don’t think we need to spend too much time on Henry. He only comes here ‘cos no one reads his blog. The point is, the gay community, being very media-centric, has internalized the worst Hollywood values: youth-worship, materialism, attention-whoring, self-gratification uber alles these aren’t straight values, they aren’t American values… they *are* Hollywood values. And the only people in Hollywood who don’t seem neurotic are the people who reject them.
I know V – it’s just fun to take the “pomp” out of someone who’s pompous. But I’ll stop. Yes to the Hollywood values, except I would call them Hollywood-academia-hippie values. I can’t put stock in any hard numbers, but my guess or sense of it is that gays are about 70-30 that way, while straights are more like 30-70.
(Which still leaves more straights being that way, in absolute numbers… I’m thinking in terms of approx. percentages / averages.)
More goalpost-moving from Henry. I had actually pointed out that…
Okay, I’ll try to go slow.
You may wish to note that these”…” are ellipsis, indicating that part of the statement were omitted. Indeed, not only am I aware that people “can†read the threads, I assumed that they had. Using ellipsis is a generally accepted way of quoting someone without quoting the whole block.
If we’re going to get nit picky, perhaps I would point out that at no time did I “[endorse] the ideas that the gay community is materialistic, empty and youth-worshipping,†I merely asked “How is that different than straight people?â€.
But you read that and modified it. You didn’t even directly quote me, you posed a interpretation of what I wrote, then responded to your own interpretation, then chided me for going beyond what you stated as an interpretation of my comment.
My subsequent comments are not inconsistent with my first comment. And you have yet to respond to any substantive comments I made, rather delighting in criticizing and suggesting bad intent to me editing of your prior comments which, as you point out, are easily readable.
So, answer my question. Is there only 1 gay community, to which all ills attributable to them are vicariously attributable to all gays?
Henry, I could say something snarky about your not only believing that others can’t read the thread, but your apparently not being very good at reading it yourself. Instead, though, I’ll just note that it’s cute when you stamp your little foot.
If gays and straights are exactly the same. please remind me why we need hate crimes and Enda?
Can we at least acknowledge that ‘Gay’ is different – this is not an organic culture that flows from one generation to the next. Gays are born to hetero parents, if they are lucky – upon coming out, they are accepted by their family and community. Often they aren’t. So They forge out into the ‘gay community’ and are bombarded with the superficial worship of youth, beauty and acquiring possessions.
In the last 20 years, with more openness from the general population, many gays are forming marriages and family (even before the government gave them that piece of paper). Which actually throws these people back into the hetero world. Since most of their children are hetero.
As ILC’s story in 3. highlights, dating isn’t normal. I have no idea what the rules are, but clearly neither did ILC, since what he assumed was the case at night changed radically by morning. Yeah, that will lead to a lot of neurosis.
Henry, since you seemed to have chosen the second choice, of partnership and children, what are you doing to educate the new generation of young gays about the choices they should make with their lives? Are you willing to say to them the self control, committing to one person and having children is the way to have a happy, healthy life. That the superficial life offered by the gay culture we see all over the media is a recipe for unhappiness and neurosis?
my guess or sense of it is that gays are about 70-30 that way, while straights are more like 30-70
I think you’re in the ball-park, there.
The “culture” we are discussing is simply what we get when we have a large population of people over thirty and single. After 30, “How old is he?” becomes a question asked more and more for a variety of reasons. It’s as common as any cliche: “Why is youth wasted on the young?” Straight men over 30 are usually married and unconcerned about the 50 pounds they’ve gained since college. Gay men over 30 are more often single, or will be a year from now. The realization that youth is slipping away coupled with fears of lonliness create concerns that can develop into a nonproductive “focus.” Gay marriage will not “cure” this, but it will provide an option for gay men who long for a more secure family and the values that that “lifestyle” encourages.
Funny, the gay community I belong to, in my blue costal enclave, is like that.
Yes, let’s show an example of the “values” of gays in blue coastal areas.
Some of the most unlikely attendees of Sunday’s kinky leather fetish festival were under four feet tall.
Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men.
The twin girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store.
Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show the twins off……..
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.
Lovely, isn’t it? Dress your children up as sexual slaves, take them to a sex fair where adults strut around naked, have sex, and masturbate in front of them, then write it off as an “educational experience” and claim that anyone who disagrees with you doing it is “close-minded”.
Next:
The “culture†we are discussing is simply what we get when we have a large population of people over thirty and single.
Which is what you get in a community that is locked in a state of perpetual adolescent irresponsibility.
Gay marriage will not “cure†this, but it will provide an option for gay men who long for a more secure family and the values that that “lifestyle†encourages.
Unfortunately, as we’ve already seen, gay marriage does nothing to stop adolescent and irresponsible behavior.
Blaming the absence of marriage is simply making excuses for gay mens’ unwillingness to commit or take sexual responsibility.
Give it time, NDT. Culture is a many-sided equilibrium and it rarely changes overnight, or even in the space of a few years. Usually, it takes about 2 generations.
Comic relief: Iowahawk has a new one…
I’ll just note that it’s cute when you stamp your little foot.
So, still avoiding answering the question. I’ll ask again. Are you suggesting that there is only 1 gay community, and that the acts of that community are applicable to all people gay?
Or, does the Gay Community get the same benefit you give the straight community?
Hey, I am cute when I stamp my little feet.
I don’t know Henry…but those that think that there is not much difference between Gays and str8s on just about every level)one comment was that the GLBT community likes gossip, Hollywood..etc…) I mean hello….have you checked out entertainment shows, gossip shows and MTV….they appeal to and cater to str8s….by and large and not Gays…..The hetero activities of Hollywood are always talked about….rarely do Gays even make it to such stories……those that think that str8 men are happily married…better get a clue and buy a vowel…I have been hit on more str8 men then I ever dreamed of who have active sex lives on the down low….and I just tell them to go home to their wives and leave me be…..and I bet every Gay man can recount stories of str8 guys who come on to them…..and that applies to red states/blue states, middle America and the coasts…
we live in an instant society….and instant gratification…and if you think every Gay man is a fit gym bunny..wrong again..we come in all shapes and sizes…..from bears to cubs to twinks to muscle guys to every day regular guys and quite frankly there are more str8 men who look so metrosexual that you can’t tell a Gay guy from a str8 one at all……they screw up the Gaydar something awful.
I mean people……relax a little….I can’t tell you how many of my str8 friends recount the same story that was first posted here about thinking they had a connection in a date and then blown off the next day……it happens in all communities….not just the Gay one…
Henry, since you seemed to have chosen the second choice… what are you doing to educate the new generation of young gays …That the superficial life offered by the gay culture we see all over the media is a recipe for unhappiness and neurosis?
(Disclaimer for ILC: I edited Leah’s comments and I’m answering them out of the order she posted them in. Feel free to read her original post if it is confusing)
Probably the best things I do are two-fold. I am very out everywhere (as is my partner) and we are very visible. I used to be more active in the gay community, but am less so now as I try to spend what free time I have with my family. We belong to several gay family groups, some of which also have gay youth focus, but I would be lying if I suggested that the community you’re asking about was impacted much by them.
If gays and straights are exactly the same. please remind me why we need hate crimes and Enda?
Why do we have protections on gender? Why do we have protections based on religion? What do we have protections on race. I never claimed that gay and straights were exactly the same, obviously there are some differences.
So They forge out into the ‘gay community’ and are bombarded with the superficial worship of youth, beauty and acquiring possessions.
I think the gay ghettos, where lots of gay people collect for safety and acceptance has within it some problems (drugs, alcohol, risky behaviors). That said, the specific issue of youth, beauty, and possessions are in now way unique to the gay youth. Nor is the sometimes unhealthy obsession the older generation has with youth. Look at McCain, Limbaugh, Gingrich – arguably “value†straights, and none of them from blue coastal enclaves – yet all left their wives for much younger (and arguably more attractive) women. (Note: For those about to leap, I freely acknowledge that this problem also exists on the Dem side – but dems are from Liberal, Coastal Enclaves and are not ‘value’ people – or so the argument here would go.)
That the superficial life offered by the gay culture we see all over the media is a recipe for unhappiness and neurosis?
If you think drug use, risky sex, and a fascination with youth and beauty are issues facing only gay youth, you haven’t been on a college campus in a while. 🙂
15. He only comes here ‘cos no one reads his blog.
Actually, VtK, I come for the witty banter.
So, the gay community isn’t a monolith, but any gay person who isn’t a left-wing Democrat is a self-loathing traitor?
Henry: we get it.
Every time someone says something about gays.. we will all make a mental note that henry says straights do it too.
Got it.
Every time someone says something about gays.. we will all make a mental note that henry says straights do it too.
That would make it easier.
Isn’t that what a six-year-old kid does when he gets reprimanded? Points out that some other kid does the same thing and gets away with it?
Some people grow up. Some people don’t.
34. Isn’t that what a six-year-old kid does when he gets reprimanded?
See? Witty.
“So, still avoiding answering the question. I’ll ask again. Are you suggesting that there is only 1 gay community, and that the acts of that community are applicable to all people gay?”
As far as I can see the question still hasn’t been answered.
The idea that there is ONE gay community is a weapon of those against us that they use to condemn all of us for the actions of some. V the K – being a self-loathing traitor has nothing to do with party or right/left politics and all to do with accepting the lies that are told about us mostly but not exclusively by the right. The idea that all or even most gay men fit the description that started this thread is not only ridiculous but it is harmful. There are many communities under the “umbrella” of the gay community and many lifestyles, values and beliefs. Sure, we work together as one community, or should anyway, but in reality there is little that we share in common. It strikes me as pretty bizarre that the truth of that seems to escape some on here while at the same time they are part of a group which is in many ways outside of the “mainstream” and in their own words “just happen to be gay”. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised though.
Saying “straights do it too” is not an attempt to justify “bad” gay behavior. Unless of course you believe that ONLY gays act that way or MOST gays act that way then of course you will want to minimize the fact that there is NOTHING that “bad” gay people practice that does not have a heterosexual equivalent. Somehow it’s worse when the homos do it? It’s very disturbing to see words straight (no pun intended) from the “why fags are disgusting and heterosexuals are perfect” handbook written in these comments. Peter LaBarbera would feel right at home. I wonder – if some of you are so repulsed by what you think “gay” is then why not go the ex-gay route – for some it’s a very positive experience. If you can’t see or even try to see what is positive in the “gay community” then why bother looking at it or talking about it at all? Or is it that, just like liberal bashing, it makes you feel manly and powerful without ever having to present useful information or ideas of how to make a difference in whatever the topic is at the moment.
At least GPW gets it right: “While I don’t think this holds true for all gay men, I do think it applies to some, particularly those who live not far from me in the center of West Hollywood.”
Well, Dave, I think you summed it up best….thanks:)
Well, Dave, I think you summed it up best….thanks:)
Ditto.
I think Mike makes excellent points here. I was as closeted as it’s possible to be until I was nearing 40. When I finally came to terms with being gay, I really feared that I’d spend the rest of my life alone… my exposure to the gay “community” (in Oklahoma!) was pretty much what Dan described: men of all ages obsessed with young and pretty (I’m neither); older men in red convertibles acting like they were 25. It all seemed so sad to me. I think we fear loneliness as much as death.
NDT is right, too: marriage won’t cure this problem. Society’s expectations that (used to) go with marriage will be the cure. Married people are expected to grow up.
A lot of single men never grow up (there was a good article in City Journal a while back about this problem).
LOL….and notice how Dave, while blabbing about the “diversity” in the gay community, makes it clear that people who disagree with him or who dare to criticize other gay people are not really gay, are self-loathing traitors, and should go to ex-gay therapy.
This is why the “one gay community” idea is perfectly valid — because, as we’ve seen here, gays like Dave and Henry do their best to insure that any REAL diversity of thought or ideology is quashed under a hail of insults and namecalling. Their response to dissent is to expel the person from their “community” and insist they should become “ex-gay”.
One wonders why Dave and Henry are so threatened by gays with different opinions. Could it be because their opinions are based, not on intelligent and defensible considerations, but with conformity to what is “expected” ?
Or is it that, just like liberal bashing, it makes you feel manly and powerful without ever having to present useful information or ideas of how to make a difference in whatever the topic is at the moment.
LOL….which is why, when presented with examples of bad gay behavior, all gay and lesbian people like Henry can do is whine that “heterosexuals do it too”, and all that gay and lesbian people like Dave can do is scream “traitor, doing that is homophobic and is just like Peter LaBarbera”.
That’s not a solution, nor is it making a difference. It’s rationalizing the continued practice of the behavior, and it’s attacking the person pointing out the problem.
There are solutions offered at this site regularly. It’s just that, since they involve calling out destructive gay behaviors, criticizing irresponsible gay people, and condemning idiotic gay activity, instead of trying to blame heterosexuals or the “right wing”, they are anathema to you. Any solution that requires gay people to acknowledge they are wrong or change their behavior is not valid in your eyes.
I just have to comment on this: if I had to pick the one Big Problem in the world today, this would be it: people who are just plain dumb and proud of it.
Good point NDT. You never see people like Dave or the other Borg call on their fellow gays to clean up their act.
Their response to dissent is to expel the person from their “community†and insist they should become “ex-gayâ€.
When did this occur, exactly?
This is why the “one gay community†idea is perfectly valid — because, as we’ve seen here, gays like Dave and Henry do their best to insure that any REAL diversity of thought or ideology is quashed under a hail of insults and namecalling
Umm, what insults/name calling did I do? And, need to remind you, I am the one questioning whether there are communities within the gay community, as opposed to one homogenized group whose every bad act is imputed to the whole. Which seems to be what you are suggesting.
Also, I have criticized the gay community. There are problems the gay community needs to address. My issue is when things that apply to society as a whole are put on the heads of gay, simply because they are gay.
And NDT, you’re one to talk about insults and quashing. You take one article, and use it to accuse the entire gay community as being stuck in adolescence. Then when someone dares suggest that, maybe, that one example is not imputable to the entire gay community, you accuse them of ‘whining’ that straights do it too.
So, the heterosexual equivalent of Folsom Street Fair… wherein people engage in public sex and bondage on a city street in the presence of children with financial assistance from the city and widespread support among the community … is what?
I don’t know, how about Swingfest (Link NSFW). Or how about the Domintrix Convention? (Also NSFW).
Those appear to be held in private venues, not city streets. I also don’t see where children are invited, nor any indication of the support of the mainstream heterosexual community in either event. So, they really don’t quite reflect on heteronormative behavior much, do they?
As I said, Henry: It’s cute when you stamp your tiny little foot.
I’ll give you a bigger hint this time. I already answered the question earlier in the thread. (The parts that you apparently either can’t read, or at the very least, aren’t intelligent enough to understand and draw implications from.)
SO, Folsom Street (which is not an exclusively gay event) is indicative of homo-normative behavior?
How About Madi Gras in New Orleans? Spring break in any of the major locations?
I’ll give you a bigger hint this time.
Are you incapable of stating an answer when asked directly? Or even stating which number comment you made is supposedly an answer to this question?
Heterosexuals get arrested if they have sex in public. For gays, it’s considered a civil right. People are routinely arrested at Mardi Gras for indecent exposure.
It’s also the case that if a middle-aged men leaves his family for a younger woman, he’s a cad and a sleaze. But if he leaves his family for another man… hurray! he’s finally being “true” to himself.
Moral Equivalence: FAIL!
It would be more accurate to say this: The idea that there is ONE gay community is a weapon of Gay Left activists / groups that they use to force all of us gays into their Folsom-street, and occasionally even America-hating, agenda.
Of course it isn’t, sweetums. And Clinton did not have sex with that woman. And Islam is a Religion of Peace. And “BUSH LIED!!!(tm)” And Obama will lower middle-class taxes. And he can no more disown Jeremiah Wright than he can disown his (really-not-)racist white grandmother.
#49 – As I said, Henry: It is SOOO cute to watch you keep stamping and stamping your little foot! Just like you imagine the grownups would do! 😉
And I don’t mind giving you this attention. I guess you need it.
Explain that to Henry… He apparently believes that heterosexual people having sex behind closed doors justifies gays having sex in a public street.
I suggest using very short simple words when you explain it to him.
I guess you need it.
I do have to admire your ability to argue in circles. I asked how the materialistic / youth obsession was different than in the straight community.
You (#7) mentioned that the materialistic / youth obsession was only a community of straights like that.
I asked if there wasn’t a similar “community†aspect in gay community (#9), and you accused me of ‘obfuscation’ and goal-post moving (#11). Then you accused me of misquoting you because I used ellipisis, and said that straight and gay communities are “fairly†different (#14).
Then, after I re-asked, you essentially just kept saying how cute I am( 19 and 47) (and, for the record, I appreciate the compliments, but am in a Long Term Relationship, so sorry).
And none of those posts answered my question. You did make a somewhat more concrete (if snarky and incorrect) statement in your last post (#51).
Awwwwwwwwwww! 🙂
He apparently believes that heterosexual people having sex behind closed doors
Yea, and your only response to Madri Gras and Spring Break was a half-hearted “straights get arrested”, which is tacit acknowledgement that, indeed, there are large gathering of straight people who have sex in public.
Which doesn’t make it appropriate in either situation. It just means it occurs in both.
Anyhow, as much as I love circular arguments and being called ‘sweetie’, I must call it a night.
I’ll try not to do any gay apologizing until tomorrow.
I know I don’t have to explain this to anybody except Henry, but, for the record: I’m not, and never would be, romantically attracted to six-year-olds. Or to people, like Henry, who choose to display the behavior and mentality of same.
P.S. For the record: I briefly tried to find where anybody has called Henry “sweetie”, and was unable to find it. Let me know if you know.
(I did call Dave “sweetums”. I do hope Henry *isn’t* trying to confess, in a backhanded way, to consider himself and Dave to be one and the same person, like sockpuppets.)
(Oh wait, I’ve broken the code. Cute little foot-stamping six year olds always think comments are about them.)
When did this occur, exactly?
Quote:
I wonder – if some of you are so repulsed by what you think “gay†is then why not go the ex-gay route
Both you and Dave seem to have a problem realizing that gay persons would be repulsed by gay parents taking children dressed as sex slaves to a sex fair, which these gay parents claim is perfectly normal and constitutes an “educational experience”. Indeed, you obviously agree with those gay parents that anyone who opposes such behavior is “close-minded”, given how you’ve repeatedly spun and tried to justify their behavior.
Yea, and your only response to Madri Gras and Spring Break was a half-hearted “straights get arrestedâ€, which is tacit acknowledgement that, indeed, there are large gathering of straight people who have sex in public.
Notice the difference.
When straights have public sex, they are arrested. Indeed, there are large contingents of heterosexuals who are repulsed by the behavior that goes on at Mardi Gras and at spring break, and in several cases have demanded that these events be shut down (and won).
But when gays have sex in public, the response from the gay community, as exemplified by Dave and Henry, is to argue that “straights do it, so we can too” and that anyone who points it out is “homophobic” or a “self-loathing traitor”.
Clearly, Mardi Gras and spring break are not heteronormative — but Folsom, Pride, and other events where gays have public sex in front of children dressed as sexual slaves are, given Henry and Dave’s utter refusal to condemn or criticize said behavior and to insist that those who are repulsed by it should get out of the gay community.
I don’t know if Henry is being deliberately obtuse, or if he honestly doesn’t see the difference. He’s either being dishonest or dumb, which is it? It’s like trying to argue with someone who insists an apple really is an orange .
And the worst he can say about what goes on at Folsom Street is not “appropriate.” No. Wearing biking shorts to a wedding is inappropriate. What goes on at Folsom Street is depraved and disgusting. And the point is not just that it goes on, but that it goes on in public, in the presence of children, and is celebrated as an intrinsic part of “gay culture.”
And Folsom Street Fair is not the only example of depravity that is accepted and encouraged by the gay community. In the UK, gays protest landscaping that would interfere with public sex.
I apologize to Dan that this discussion has gotten so far off-track, but maybe that’s a tribute to how spot-on his observation about narcissism, materialism, and neurosis really was.
Most of America, Thank God, is a long way from Folsom Street.
I know. Henry argues like a six-year-old. I’m responding accordingly. I’m sorry the thread has gotten so off-topic, but evidently the poor thing needs the attention.
I stay clear of these sex/moral/marriage threads
Everyone has said what could possibly be said. It’s the same fight over and over and over.
ROFL. And at no time did I endorse the idea that Nixon beats his wife. I merely asked “Has he stopped beating his wife yet?”
I’ll try to spell this out in words of two syllables max, Henry, so that even you might get it. (I know it’ll be hard for you. Stay with me.) When you make a point B, that rests on point A or would only make sense if you also believed A, you endorse point A. It holds, even if you pretend you are “asking” point B as a “question”.
In this case, your making a point to the effect of ‘straight people are the same’ or ‘straight people do it too’ presumes that gay people do (or are) ‘it’ to begin with. I know you want to deny having presumed that. I know you want us to pretend along with you that you haven’t. Sorry I’m bad at your games of Pretend.
See? Words no more than 2 syllables (except ‘syllable’ itself).
Okay, I figured out where you stand. If there is something offensive and explicitly sexual that is gay related, then all gays are guilty and it is homo-normative.
If there is something offensive and explicitly sexual that is straight related, well then that is only a ‘community’ within the straight community, and thus not hetero-normative.
Got it.
Nope. But I won’t ask you to try again. (I don’t believe in over-stimulating six year olds; they get cranky.)
When you make a point B, that rests on point A or would only make sense if you also believed A, you endorse point A. It holds, even if you pretend you are “asking†point B as a “questionâ€.
You really have no shame, do you? If you go back to the post that was made in, you will see that I was responding to your allegation that I had “misquoted” you because I used ellipisis to cut down parts of the quote that I was responding to. Here’s the ‘full’ quote which you edited, and I might add, without the benefit of ellipsis:
If we’re going to get nit picky, perhaps I would point out that at no time did I “[endorse] the ideas that the gay community is materialistic, empty and youth-worshipping,†I merely asked “How is that different than straight people?â€.
You were berating me, because I didn’t fully quote you, and then turned around and used an interpretation of a statement I made.
And spare me the logic lesson. The primary quote which was in the main post was a sweeping generalization of the gay community, and I posed a response on that level. Then you interjected communities within a larger community as a rebuttal to my sweeping statement.
Conversations not being static, that changed the focus of the conversation. I suppose in my first post, I should have said this:
“Well, really, all large collections of people are hardly homogeneous in their beliefs and attitudes. As such, that observation is not attributable to any community as a whole, but rather it is applicable to merely a subset of that community. Likewise, there is a subcommunity of straight culture that has the same beliefs.â€
Instead, I said “this is different from straight people how?†as a short and (somewhat sarcastic) way of saying that the behavior wasn’t different than how things are in the straight community. You have read that as ‘Henry agrees that all gays are materialistic, and youth obsessed’ (and one would assume you must think I also believe that is true of all straights as well), when anyone not being purposefully obtuse would recognize that this was a whole hearted endrosement that all gays or all straights act in strict conformity with one another.
Awwwwwwwwwww! How cute, with the foot-stamping again!
Which would be, post #5. THAT is where you endorsed the idea that the gay community is materialistic, empty and youth-worshipping, by asking, “How is that different than straight people?â€
And was #5 written in response to anything I said? Let those who can read, read.
Awwww. I suspected I might be over-taxing or over-stimulating the 6 year old. Sorry.
No. Post 5 was where I responded to the main post by GWP.
Post 7 you posted: Disagree. There is a “community†of straights who are like that, but many more of them just get married and get on with their lives. Oh, I forgot, gay people are supposed to pretend they don’t exist.
Post 9 I responded to you, and asked if there weren’t ‘communities’ within the gay community.
Post 11, you stated
At Post 12, I responded by quoting the above as “Henry endorses the ideas that the gay community is materialistic…by #9 Henry has shifted to different argumentsâ€
Which, at post 14 you stated was more goal posting I was “strategically mis-quote[ing]†you, because I cut off the “At #5†at the beginning.
That’s the thing about 6 year olds. We remember everything. Even when stomping our feet.
Awwwwwwwwwwwww! 🙂 I know you don’t want to address what I actually said in #67 and #71, Henry – which comments go to your #5, that’s f-i-v-e, one, two, three, four, f…i…v…e… – But here is some more attention for you, anyway. Keep coming back!
Vince P, I think it stopped being about mores a while back, and since then it’s been about kicking around a dim-but-pompous troll.
yeah, V.
Now for grins, let’s recap. Beneath all the smoke and blather, Henry has claimed:
Except that he did. At #5, where he endorsed the idea implicitly by asking
Even if he now wants to pretend otherwise.
P.S. To be clear: Changing your mind is allowed by the rules of logic and fair argument. Or saying “I misspoke, and my true view is… “, which Henry starts to get into that at #70.
But those two claims are different than Henry’s “At no time did I say…” claim, which is visibly false, yet which he has defended with clouds of obfuscation and side attacks.
And you continue to mischaracterize that.
You wrote a post accusing me of mis-quoting you, because I left off the post number at the start of a quote. Essentially, because I edited “At #5†from the beginning of your comment, you accused me of trying to be deceptive.
I replied that was foolish, and as an example of how I could be that foolish too, I said “If we’re going to get nit picky, perhaps I would point out that at no time did I “[endorse] the ideas that the gay community is materialistic, empty and youth-worshipping,†I merely asked “How is that different than straight people?â€
See. An example of how I could be foolish, like you?
And I did respond to your posts in 67 and 71.
See, you’re not actually interested in whether or not what I have to say has any merit at all, so you’re bending over backward to mischaracterize, and then dismiss it. Only someone with no ability to reason would honestly think that “and this is different from straight people how†was intended to be a nuanced position statement of how I feel about the entire gay community. Yet, you continue to insist that by making that statement, then discussing ‘communities’ within the gay population, that I am somehow changing the ‘goalposts’.
From that thinking, the reader who GWP initially posted must, himself, think that he is self-obsessed and material, because he said that the entire gay community is so, and he is gay. Ergo, by your limited ability to reason, he must have been making a statement about all the gays in the world. Period.
Furthermore, what has blown a hole in Henry’s argument is that his claim that Mardi Gras and spring break are heteronormative is belied by the fact that straight people roundly criticize, demand bans on, and have succeeded in having people arrested and criminally prosecuted for what goes on at these events.
In contrast, as the example from the UK shows, gay and lesbian liberals like Henry, rather than supporting bans and prosecution of public sex, scream that enforcing laws against public sex is “homophobic”. Furthermore, Dave and Henry both insist that anyone who criticizes or condemns irresponsible gay behavior is not really gay and should become “ex-gay” — thus making it clear that the gay community has only ONE viewpoint and ONE belief, and that anyone who deviates from that is not really gay.
Really, what this entails is a distorted funhouse view of heterosexuals that is based on Henry’s desperate need to rationalize gay behavior. Since he cannot condemn or criticize his fellow gays for taking children dressed as sexual slaves to Folsom, he insists that all heterosexuals do it and that makes it normal. Since he cannot condemn gay promiscuity, he insists that all heterosexuals are promiscuous.
Aww, the 6 year old is stamping his foot again!
I mean, it’s worked well so far… well, not in getting him respect, but in getting the poor thing attention…
And yes Henry, your tactics throughout this thread, in dealing with everyone here (not just me), have been obfuscating / deceptive. But I know you can’t understand nor agree.
I mean, it’s worked well so far… well, not in getting him respect, but in getting the poor thing attention…
See. Not a response, but a personal attack.
Henry both insist that anyone who criticizes or condemns irresponsible gay behavior is not really gay and should become “ex-gayâ€
And again, when did I say that?
“LOL….and notice how Dave, while blabbing about the “diversity†in the gay community, makes it clear that people who disagree with him or who dare to criticize other gay people are not really gay, are self-loathing traitors, and should go to ex-gay therapy”
LOL, and notice how Dave never said any such thing. You aren’t disagreeing with me or criticizing other gay people you are judging all of us based on the actions and attitudes of some. If you are a gay person and you do that you are indeed self-loathing and need some kind of therapy.
“LOL….which is why, when presented with examples of bad gay behavior, all gay and lesbian people like Henry can do is whine that “heterosexuals do it tooâ€, and all that gay and lesbian people like Dave can do is scream “traitor, doing that is homophobic and is just like Peter LaBarberaâ€.”
LOL…Which is why when ND30 has no clue what was really said he makes something up.
“since they involve calling out destructive gay behaviors, criticizing irresponsible gay people, and condemning idiotic gay activity”
But, that’s not what you do. You have over and over implied that Folsom Street and like activities are the NORM for the gay communities. That is condemning ALL of us. That is offering nothing more than the stench of hate that pours from some on the right. I have NEVER read a word from you indicating that you saw anything good in the gay communities so you cannot possibly offer any solutions only bullshit piled on bullshit and as such you are a major part of the problem.
V the K, you have no clue if I have ever called on “fellow gays to clean up their act”. There are certainly attitudes and behaviors that are unhealthy and anti-social and need to be addressed but when one or two on here instantly drag the discussion to a level of snickering and misrepresenting not only what other people say but the gay community as a whole WTF would be the point of trying and intelligent discussion.
I said LaBarbera would feel at home here, actually I was wrong, he is a step above some on here, he doesn’t condemn his own.
Not quite. I wrote a post pointing out how your ellipsis had *changed the meaning* of what I said. What I said was directed at your comment #5. You pretended otherwise (i.e., that my intention and meaning were something else).
Ellipsis is fine when it doesn’t change meaning. Ellipsis is bad, when it changes meaning.
I can’t believe I have to explain that to you. I don’t have to explain it to anyone else here. But, most of them have matured beyond the six year old stage of obstinate deception and distraction tactics.
With more of your obfuscation and side attacks. Whoopee. Score!
Aww, poor baby!
Henry, I’ll give you some free advice. If you think, talk and argue like a grownup, then people might be interested in what you have to say and respond to you as a grownup. Try it sometime.
Fortunately, that is not what I thought nor said. 🙂 Rather, I pointed out how your words – whether you intended them or not; whether you have any more than a six year old’s control of what comes out of your mouth, or not – did actually endorse the idea that the gay community is materialistic, empty and youth-worshipping.
Again: WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS THE MEANING you had intended. Take a little responsibility for the words coming out of your mouth, Henry. If you can’t express yourself intelligently or speak words consistent with your own beliefs, well, that is your problem.
Indeed you are. LOL. As I said at #76:
Which you touched on briefly at #70, but all the rest has been a six-year-old’s notion of obfuscation and deception: assuming that others won’t notice the crudeness of your tactics, that they can’t read the thread, etc.
Nope. A statement of fact. And I do really hope you love all this attention, Henry. You do really seem to need it.
You know Dave, you would be more credible if you weren’t part of the loony, left, child-slave approving, youth obsessed gays from the liberal enclaves.
Or something like that. 🙂
Those who know me can figure out how it ends (in my imagination).
When I read that line, I thought, “the old dude and the young dude battle it out with missiles and helicopters in a loud confrontation set to a heavy-metal soundtrack that destroys half of LA.
Then, I thought, no, that’s Michael Bay.
Then, I thought, the young writer dude gets bitten by a zombie and develops a lust for human flesh. The young gay dude heads off into the desert with him, leaving the older gay man to die in a clumsy, ham-handed critique of capitalism. Later, a much better director makes a much better version of the same story.
Then, I thought, no, that’s George Romero.
Then I thought, oh, I know… in an amply telegraphed twist, the other young man will turn out to be a psychotic manifestation of the older man… his younger self.
Then I thought, No… that’s M. Night Shamalamadingdong.
So, no… I don’t know you well enough to know how it ends.
How does the addition of this “In #5†change the meaning of your post?
Let’s see.
What you said:
What I quoted
Right. Hugely different. Himmm, what about the post where you claim I endorsed the idea:
Clearly, referring back to that would have materially changed your quote. I am a master manipulator.
And still, you can’t explain how my ellipsis changed the meaning of what you said.
Ahhh. So, I have to accept your interpretation of my words, regardless of whether or not that was my intent. Got it. That’s very mature.
So, you’re saying I am six years old as a matter of fact? Gotcha.
Sorry, slight correction to #84. I had advised Henry:
I should have said:
Talking like a grownup, while remaining a six year old in tactics and thought process, is what I think has led to people’s disinterest in Henry’s alleged content.
Talking like a grownup, while remaining a six year old in tactics and thought process, is what I think has led to people’s disinterest in Henry’s alleged content.
Which is not a response.
Another Henry obfuscation / misrepresentation through ellipsis. Here is what I said in the actual exchange:
Henry, how obtuse and immature can you be? ROFLMAO
#88 – Aww, more foot-stamping obfuscation! Cute! 🙂
Discussed way up at #14.
No, you just have to say what you mean. Or, if you don’t, then you have to say “I want to change my mind” or “I’m sorry I misspoke”.
Like an obstinate six year old, you intentionally miss the point. LOL
(Well, I don’t absolutely know your intentions… I suppose it could just be stupidity, then.)
93. Discussed way up at #14.
No. You made an accusation in 14. You never stated how it made any material change in the underlying meaning.
94. No, you just have to say what you mean. Or, if you don’t, then you have to say “I want to change my mind†or “I’m sorry I misspokeâ€.
Are you really that obtuse?
Well, I don’t absolutely know your intentions… I suppose it could just be stupidity, then
I wouldn’t say you’re stupid.
It was a CORRECTION TO #84. (Can you read?)
You know what’s comical to the observer. Henry and Dave claim Folsom Street Fair and the gays who shriek “homophobia” when there is a crackdown on public sex don’t really represent the gay community. And yet, they spend all their time attacking ILC and NDT who take the position that the gay community should completely disavow and put a stop to such behavior. (Like when they disinvited NAMBLA from gay pride parades when it became a PR issue.)
You aren’t disagreeing with me or criticizing other gay people you are judging all of us based on the actions and attitudes of some.
That would be because of your statement here, Dave.
I said LaBarbera would feel at home here, actually I was wrong, he is a step above some on here, he doesn’t condemn his own.
Actually, he does. LaBarbera regularly condemns and criticizes the behavior of promiscuous heterosexuals as well.
But what you make clear, Dave, is that a key component of your value system is NOT criticizing or condemning other gay peoples’ behavior, REGARDLESS of how sick or perverted it is. Worse, you’ve twisted that already-ludicrous belief to the point that you consider criticizing someone who takes children dressed as sex slaves to a sex fair to be a sign of “self-loathing” that requires “therapy”, and writing it off as “right wing hate”.
In short, you make it obvious that, if you are gay and you criticize and condemn gay parents who take children dressed as sexual slaves to sex fairs where naked and seminaked people masturbate and have sex in front of them for an “educational experience”, you are abnormal and should become “ex-gay”.
Thus, normal in the gay community IS gay parents who take children dressed as sexual slaves to sex fairs where naked and seminaked people masturbate and have sex in front of them for an “educational experience”.
Oh, and the reason ILC and NDT want the gay community to disavow Folsom Street Fair and public sex is because they feel it misrepresents the community. Dave and Henry are willing to tolerate it, even though they say it misrepresents the community.
It was a CORRECTION TO #84. (Can you read?)
Made in response to my reply to 84. Thus, not a resonse, but another personal attack.
Nope. Made independently, with reference to #84 alone… as I even stated.
Brazen. Once more assuming that people can’t just scroll up and read Henry’s earlier comments for themselves.
Oh, and the reason ILC and NDT want the gay community to disavow Folsom Street Fair and public sex is because they feel it misrepresents the community. Dave and Henry are willing to tolerate it, even though they say it misrepresents the community.
Spot on, V the K.
Notice the difference. ILC and I want the gay community to disavow public sex and bringing children to sex fairs not only because it’s bad for the image of gays, but because we believe it’s wrong.
Henry and David balk at that; they acknowledge that it’s bad for the image of gays, but they refuse to agree that it’s wrong.
And because ILC and I refuse to agree with them that it’s OK to have public sex and bring children dressed as sexual slaves to street fairs, they consider us “self-loathing” and insist that we need to go to “ex-gay therapy”, making it clear that they see such disagreement as abnormal.
And now for a (fictionalized) visit to Henry’s background chatterstream.
I endorse that comment.
Once more assuming that people can’t just scroll up and read Henry’s earlier comments for themselves.
No, I encourage them to: Please, read all comments made above
OK, then: Brazen. Once more assuming that people can’t just understand Henry’s earlier comments if and when they read them.
Henry and David balk at that; they acknowledge that it’s bad for the image of gays, but they refuse to agree that it’s wrong.
No, we refuse to accept that the wrong acts of some people (here one gay couple) should be imputed to all gays.
For the record, and specially for NDT: I do not approve of bringing children to any sexually explicit venue, gay or straight. Nor do I think dressing children up in S&M leather is cute or appropriate.
OK, then: Brazen. Once more assuming that people can’t just understand Henry’s earlier comments if and when they read them.
No, I assume that most people are able to read it and understand it. You’re attempts to mischaracterize my comments not withstanding.
Which brings me to my point: Your earlier comments repeatedly implied people are stupid. Gotcha.
OK, it’s been fun whacking the troll but I have to sign off.
Henry – Keep up the crude obfuscation and deception tactics if you want, but as I said, if you would think and argue like a grownup, instead of just pretending to talk like one, people might be interested in what you have to say. Ciao.
Your earlier comments repeatedly implied people are stupid. Gotcha.
Riiiiiight.
No, we refuse to accept that the wrong acts of some people (here one gay couple) should be imputed to all gays.
Given that gays like you specifically refuse to condemn the people who do them and insist that those who do are self-loathing and need therapy, you certainly can be.
Given that you rationalize those “wrong acts” as being perfectly acceptable because, in your twisted world, “straights do it too”, you certainly should be.
And given your refusal to condemn the gay people who do so, giving some whiny “I do not approve”, it should be obvious that you’re only saying that for PR purposes and — given that you obviously have done nothing about it other than make excuses for it — don’t REALLY disapprove of it.
113 Given that…
I see. So, saying it is wrong is nor forceful enough.
insist that those who do are self-loathing and need therapy, you certainly can be
Again, when did I do this?
that for PR purposes and
PR Purposes? Ok. I was unaware that I needed any PR.
Henry’s protests would be more believable if he hadn’t spent most of the thread attacking NDT and ILC for wanting the gay community to clean up its act.
IMHO, ILD and NDT are right. Y’all need to fix your own community instead of worrying about what straight folk are doing.
Exactly, V the K.
If Henry truly thought that what these people were doing was wrong, he’d be attacking them — instead of the people who pointed it out and condemned it.
Henry’s protests would be more believable if he hadn’t spent most of the thread attacking NDT and ILC for wanting the gay community to clean up its act.
Again. That’s not what I was doing. I was objecting to the imputing of bad acts from a few people to the entire gay community.
The reason it is imputed, Henry, is because gays like you make it continuously obvious that you support it — by attacking the people who point it out rather than the people who actually do it.
Given how gays like you protect, support, and endorse those who practice it, while attacking, namecalling, and insulting as “abnormal” those who criticize it, it is obvious to everyone that “real gays” like you support it.
Furthermore, the reason Henry obsesses about “what straight people are doing” is nothing more than projection; since he lacks the capability to criticize his own community, he projects the behaviors he knows are rampant in the gay community onto heterosexuals, creating the mythic belief he has that heterosexual parents take their children, dressed as sex slaves to sex fairs held on public streets in which people masturbate and have public sex in front of them that have the full endorsement and support of Democrat Party politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Gavin Newsom.
by attacking the people who point it out rather than the people who actually do it
And people like you link to one act of bad behavior and use it as a weapon against the entire community, while refusing to do that for the straight community.
I’m all for holding gays responsible for thier actions, as long as it is done fairly. Don’t use Folsom Fair to suggest that all gays are leather wearing, public sex approving, apologists.
And people like you link to one act of bad behavior and use it as a weapon against the entire community, while refusing to do that for the straight community.
There are examples of straight people — in fact, a majority of straight people — specifically criticizing and condemning such behavior. Straight events like the ones you cited aren’t held on public streets, nor do they have the unlimited blessing of the city in which they’re held and of Democrat politicians and the Democrat Party. Indeed, as V the K pointed out, straight parents and straight people are regularly ARRESTED for such behavior.
Oddly enough, straight people who do that aren’t condemned as “self-loathing” or told they need “therapy”.
And when straight people are arrested for public acts of indecency, you don’t see a bunch of activists shrieking that their rights have been violated.
NDT is a great example of what I am speaking of. Here are some undeniable facts:
I have never been to the Folsom fair. Not even to gawk.
I don’t pay money to support Folsom Fair.
I don’t encourage the Folsom Fair.
I have never had sex while attending Folsom Fair.
I have never been naked in public.
Yet, NDT would have everyone here believe that I somehow am encouraging it by my lack of vocal opposition. Not going or supporting it is not enough. I have to be an apologist.
But why? Folsom Fair has nothing to do with me. Is there a committee of straight folks who make public apologies whenever some groups of straights do something immoral?
Of course not.
But, for the most part, I don’t care about Folsom Street Fair. People know what it is. If it interests you, go. If not, stay away. The city grants them the right to havir their fair. If you disagree, fine.
Me, I stay away.
“Oddly enough, straight people who do that aren’t condemned as “self-loathing†or told they need “therapyâ€.”
Because they have the ability to understand that the behavior they are criticizing and the people who participate in it do NOT represent all heterosexuals. You have over and over and over again shown that you do not have that ability when it comes to gay men. That hypocrisy is ALL that I was ever commenting on. There is no need, especially on here, to prove that there is excessive and destructive behavior in the gay communities. The fact that you can ONLY focus on that is what I find sickening. The need you and your cheerleaders have to totally distort the words of those challenging you and to cry about being “attacked” is pitiful yet really quite comical. Hard to see how you expect to have much of a positive impact on communities that you so clearly despise but like the screeching fundies your motives have nothing to do with actually helping anyway. It’s all about feeding your own feelings of superiority.
Is it fair that Catholics have to denounce paedophilia? Is it fair for Mormons to have to denounce polygamy? Is it fair that Muslims have to denounce terrorism? Maybe not, but they do anyway, because if they don’t… it’s imputed that they don’t have a problem with it.
Other cultures bear up to their responsibilities to uphold cultural norms of behavior. What makes you so damn special?
Don’t you know? Putting a cock in your mouth makes you better than everyone.
Catholics have to denounce paedophilia
The Cathlolic church had to, because they knew it was occuring and actively covered it up. And they only apologized after they were caught.
I don’t think Catholics, in general, have had to apologize for the acts of their church.
That said, I can then hold every individual catholic responsible for pedophiles?
I can hold every Mormon responsible for those who commit polygamy?
I can hold every Muslim responsible for every act of terrorism done by Muslims?
Of course not.
Comment by Vince P
Nice. Now do I have to apologize for your vulgarity?
So, Henry, are you saying that if I were to go and read your blog (making me the only person ever to do so), I wouldn’t find any place where you made generalizations about any people of religious faith? Somehow, I doubt that.
Now, say Muslims decided to have an Abu Folsom Martyr Fest, glorifying suicide bombers and the events of 9-11-2001. And the worse any other Muslims said about it was, “I don’t agree with it, but they can do what they want. You don’t have to go to it if you don’t want to.” Would it be fair to assume that the larger Muslim community was untroubled by the things the Abu Folsom brigade was celebrating?
making me the only person ever to do so
Not True. My mom reads it, though she disagrees with most of what I write.
As for the rest, I’m sure I’ve made generalizations. Mostly about the GOP. And I’m willing to bet you’re not willing to apologize on behalf of them.
I’m not a member of the Republican party. When they are wrong, as they frequently are, I’m among the first to criticize them. And when others make valid criticisms of GOP policies, I agree with them.
For example, I agreed that Mark Foley had to go because his actions were repugnant and showed bad judgment. Ditto Larry Craig. (Note, almost all Republicans agreed.) I pointed out that democrat Gerry Studds got away with much, much worse… not to excuse what Craig and Foley did… but to point out that Republicans hold elected officials to a much higher standard than Democrats do. I did not agree with those who called Foley a ‘child molester’ because (unlike Gerry Studds), there was no evidence he ever acted out sexually on a minor. Therefore, that epithet was invalid.
A little off topic, but:
Foley resigned, he was not forced out (nor was Craig, who is currently sponsoring the most recent FMA version brought forth by the GOP). Foley also had a history of complaints.
Studds was also not forced out, but was censured. Also Studds page was 17 and the relationship was not illegal under existing law.
Not sure this is a good example of the GOP being hard on their own.
I guess Henry wants us to execute them for being gay.
Foley obviously should have been under 24/7 surveillence because the GOP should have known taht all gay men are pedophiles.
And I have no idea how the mechanisms work in the Senate to kick someone out.
In any case, no one backs Craig. What more can one do? He certainly isn’t going to be reelected.
We’re not like Lefties , perpetually angry , bitching and moaning all the time. The Craig thing is what it is, and will resolve itself at the election.
Studds page was 17 and the relationship was not illegal under existing law.
Yeah, that makes it totally moral and okay.
/sarc
When you say Gay Community, you realize that there is no such thing, really.
As far as being youth obsessed, look at all men in general–gay and straight. Even John McCain dumped the old wife for the younger model. You always see older men chasing after the young girls and boys no matter where you go. Ever see rich old guys hitting on older ladies in bars? Look at all the Barely Legal pornography depicting girls as school girls. Even Britney Spears tapped into that vein. Consider the grisly Pepsi Commercial where Britney dances around and Bob Dole is sitting there, the spokesman for Viagra, saying “Down, boy.” A dirty double entendre to be sure.
As far as worshiping goods and the rich lifestyle, that is all of America, isn’t it? Look how many Americans went in for the Mc Mansions they had no way of paying for. The average America lives deeply in debt, pursing a lifestyle beyond his means. Look at the average credit score of the American People. Look at the average American Woman in shopping malls carrying Louis Vuitton bags. I think it is an American Neurosis in general; buy, spend and consume.
You both apparently missed this:
Not sure this is a good example of the GOP being hard on their own.
Now, maybe, I was suggesting that Foley and Craig didn’t show that the GOP was harder on thier folks than the Dems were on Stubbs, as VtK suggested.
As far as worshiping goods and the rich lifestyle, that is all of America, isn’t it?
Nope, that fallacy, like the rest of your warmed over talking points, was refuted dozens of posts ago.
Yet, NDT would have everyone here believe that I somehow am encouraging it by my lack of vocal opposition. Not going or supporting it is not enough. I have to be an apologist.
You’re right, it’s not enough, Henry, for a very simple reason: gay and lesbian parents are dressing up children as sex slaves and taking them to this sex fair to “show off” and for an “educational experience” in front of naked and semi-naked adults who are having public sex and masturbating in front of these children.
Furthermore, they are saying the following:
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.
Now, what these people are doing is using their sexual orientation to argue that there is nothing wrong with what they are doing and that anyone who opposes it is “close-minded”.
And you can’t say anything against it or them. Indeed, all you’ve done is spin and rationalize for these fools.
What you make clear, Henry, is that you refuse to do anything to stop gay people from sexually abusing children and using their sexual orientation as support for it.
Your hypocrisy is hilarious. Catholics banned pedophiles from their priesthood. Mormons threw out people who practiced polygamy. But gays and lesbians like yourself spin that it’s perfectly OK for other gays and lesbians to be sexual perverts in front of children and claim it’s because of their sexual orientation.
It’s all about feeding your own feelings of superiority.
LOL…right, because if I were a normal gay like you and not in need of therapy, I would realize that taking children to sex fairs is totally moral and acceptable and that anyone who says otherwise is merely trying to feed their own feelings of superiority.
And if I weren’t “self-loathing” and were well-adjusted like you, I would realize that there was nothing wrong with having promiscuous disease-spreading sex and that criticizing it was just an attempt to prove “superiority” to other people.
Perhaps you don’t realize something, Dave. It IS superior to oppose taking children to sex fairs. It IS superior to oppose promiscuous disease-spreading sex. Simple reason: one hurts children, and the other makes people sick. The only thing they do better than the latter is selfishly gratify the person who makes the decision to take the child to the sex fair and to have promiscuous disease-spreading sex.
But perhaps that’s the point you’re getting at; any gay person who opposes selfish gratification and favors other social mores and values is “sick” and in need of “therapy”.
VK–How so? Explain.
Henry – I have to admire you for sticking with this debate. This can be a tough crowd.
Let me try to sum up my “narrow-minded” viewpoint: civilization requires certain absolutes to survive (many of which can be found in the Ten Commandments… and, no, I’m not religious – odd how this declaration seems to be needed these days).
When everyone makes up their own set of rules (which can include no rules at all), we cease to have civilization. In this country, men are (in CA, anyway) free to take their kids to a street festival for perverts… but I’m free to believe that they’re wrong; that they’re immoral. And since I believe in certain absolutes, I know I am right.
I believe that cheating on my partner is wrong. That’s an absolute. No rationale is needed.
Recently, in the UK, the Bristol town council decided to remove some brush to improve a park.
So here we have some gays telling society that they have a RIGHT to engage in public sex acts.
Gay men who actually believe in a right to dogging may be a miniscule number indeed but these are the guys who make the news. And we’re surprised when there’s blowback?
One has to wonder, given the UK’s multi-culti mania, how they’re going to reconcile the right to dogging with the Muslims’ right to impose sharia.
I’m surprised no one mentioned Netherlands legalizing gay public sex in parks.
I looked through a few hits in google and decide to use this article from someone who disagrees:
Dutch to Legalize Gay Sex in Public Park but Fine Dog Owners with Unleashed Pets … What are they thinking in The Netherlands?
Just when you thought you heard everything out of Amsterdam and the Netherlands … public gay sex YES … dog’s not on leashes … NO!!! There are so many instances where one cannot even comment on a story … it just reads itself and the only thing one can say is WTF!
So pet owners cannot have their dogs run freely in the part yet officials find it completely normal for gay people to roam the public park freely having sex like “dog’s in heatâ€. The hell with the families, visitors, skaters, joggers and children who frequent the park. What’s more important? The masses of people enjoying a park or the need for some to have gay sex in a public place when they should just get a room. BTW … any sex in a public place should not be allowed.
People find this disturbing … REALLY!!! It has even startled many Amsterdammers, despite their famously liberal attitudes, with plans to allow public sex. Maybe they might want to require the gay people having sex be on a leash. Oh wait, that’s the new S&M park rule that the Dutch town officials are working on.
http://scaredmonkeys.com/2008/03/14/dutch-to-legalize-gay-sex-in-public-park-but-fine-dog-owners-with-unleashed-pets-%E2%80%A6-what-are-they-thinking-in-the-netherlands/
The Muslims must really detest the Dutch..
=====================
Police powerless on outdoor orgies
Dutch police and park rangers have admitted they are powerless to stop a growing trend of outdoor sex orgies.
In the latest incident, a large group of people were found romping naked on a beach in the Bussloo area of the country.
They including 10 couples who were being “particularly boisterous” with each other while the others watched.
But police called to the scene admitted they were powerless to act despite numerous complaints from other beach users, and could only give the naked orgy lovers a verbal warning.
The head of one of Holland’s biggest national parks says the problem is getting worse and has called for the government to make clear guidelines on outdoor sex orgies to allow police to act.
Eric Droogh, who is director at the Veluwe National Park, said: “A national debate on wild sex parties in the countryside is essential.
“Police and park wardens currently have too little scope to intervene. The only possibility is to catch the transgressors red-handed.
“Outdoor sex is now commonly occurring in national parks and other public places. In some cases they just stopped beside the road in the picnic area or a meadow for the orgies.”
He called for clearer guidelines and sanctions to deal with the outdoor sex phenomenon.
“I would realize that taking children to sex fairs is totally moral and acceptable”
The error of your whole nonsense statements against me is that I NEVER SAID IT WAS ACCEPTABLE!!!! You make assumptions based on no evidence.
Yes, I’ve never said I’m opposed to it on here but you’ve never said anything positive about the gay communities. So if you’re going to assume that I support sick displays like Folsom Street then I have to assume that you basically hate gay people. Perhaps you need to stop reading into what I say and take the words at face value. Over and over you say “it’s clear”, no it’s not, it’s your own hallucinations of what I have written.
I detest activities like Folsom Street, bathhouses, public sex. I believe that S&M is harmful and events glorifying it are detrimental to our “cause”. I think that the substance abuse and promiscuity that is accepted, even celebrated, in some segments of the gay community is suicidal. And I agree that many are trapped in an adolescent mentality. There, does that make you happy? Do I speak out against it, yes when I have the opportunity. But currently I have NO contact with the gay community, such as it is, where I live now. And if I did it would be with the group advocating marriage and family support and/or with the gay health collective.
But the difference between you and I is that I can see much good in our varied communities and while I acknowledge the “bad” I believe that simply sitting and condemning is counterproductive and what needs to be done is to address the root causes of the behaviour. Why would someone have such a callous disregard for their own survival? That’s the question that needs answering. I have sat in rooms filled with men who know they are addicted to harmful behavior and will do anything to change that. I’ve heard horrible stories of what they had done, and in some cases were still doing, but they have hope. Hope is exactly what you deny by saying that all gay men are like that. You, like our opponents, assume that everyone is accepting of harmful behavior and thing that promiscuity is just wonderful. You, and others on here, criticize same-sex marriage and say outright that it’s not going to change anything and that our relationships are inferior to those of heterosexuals. So in other words, we’re all sex-crazed animals. WTF reason would anyone hearing you folks come up with to improve their lives. You make it seem like we’re doomed, that this is what we are. If that is the case why would anyone bother. Constantly you imply that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality. That they are more civilized et. You are part of the problem NOT the solution.
NDT
Yes. I not only support, but encourage the abuse of children. That’s is a very grown-up and rational statement of my position. I SUPPORT THE ABUSE OF CHILDREN. PLEASE, PLEASE, FOR MY SAKE – ABUSE YOUR CHILDREN!
Catholics banned pedophiles from their priesthood.
No they didn’t. Fully aware, they transferred priests from place to place, even recently, knowing the priest had allegations of abuse. Then, when it came to light, they resfisted to assist police, transferred people like Cardinal Law to Rome, so they would be out of the jurisdiction.
The apologized after they started losing millions of dollars in civil suits.
Mormons threw out people who practiced polygamy.
There are no Mormons who practice polygamy? Really? I supposed every Mormon is responsible, because some still practice polygamy.
But gays and lesbians like yourself spin that it’s perfectly OK for other gays and lesbians to be sexual perverts in front of children and claim it’s because of their sexual orientation.
I did that when? I never said it was ok. In fact, I said just the opposite. My point was and is, that act by one couple is not an act by the gay community. Congratulations, you found a egregious act by a gay couple with a child. There are a thousand such acts in the straight community, and yet there is no committee which apologizes every time a child is molested/beaten/or murdered by a straight couple. Why? Because most people are smart enough to realize that those individual acts are not imputable to the whole.
Whenever you get a population of any size, Gays, Straights, Priests, Mormons, Republicans, or Democrats, there are going to be people who act badly, criminally, or negligently.
See .. I was right when I said:
141. Let me try to sum up my “narrow-minded†viewpoint:
(Note for ILC, I only quoted part of Robert’s quote. I left out the bit where he says you guys are a tough crowd, and then most of his other comment. You may want to go read it, so as not to be mislead).
Robert,
Believing that my comments here are intended to silence people’s criticisms is drinking the Kool-Aid NDT and the others have happily mixed for you. My argument is not about criticism, it is about imputing to the whole gay community the acts of a few.
And, for the record, I somewhat agree with you. I believe that it is wrong to cheat on your spouse.
Yes, some dingbats in the UK are suing for the right to have sex in a public park and shout discrimination. Does that mean all gays in the UK are endorsing public sex acts and that trying to prevent public sex is discriminatory?
Of course not. Most will roll their eyes and go back to their lives. But BDT would have you believe that by not informing everyone they know who wrong that act is, they are not only endorsing such behavior, but that belief is imputed to them.
That’s what I disagree with.
Our (yours and mine) primary difference will come the absolutes. Absolutes are nice on paper, messy in application.
Note: The BDT in 147 should be NDT. Sorry for sloppy fingers.
Still committed to your dishonest, six-year-old obfuscation games, eh Henry? 😉 But I can tell you need the attention. Here is some more!!
So, where are the gay organizations that are purposed to cleaning up Folsom Street Fair? Where are the gay organizations fighting in favor of enforcement of public decency laws?
According to Google, there aren’t any. Surely, if the majority of the gay community found these things disgusting and depraved, there would be pressure to put a stop to them.
For example, there is a Muslims Against Terror organization. And there are Muslims supporting Mark Steyn in his trial at one of Canada’s Stalinist Human Rights Commissions. People who are really concerned about the attitudes and behaviors of their cultures make an effort to change them. NDT and ILC seem to really care. They aren’t making excuses, or playing the blame game.
Sometimes, it’s the dog that doesn’t bark that provides the biggest clue.
149. Still committed to your dishonest, six-year-old obfuscation games, eh Henry?
And here I went out of my way to make sure you weren’t confused.
Damned if I do…
So, where are the gay organizations that are purposed to cleaning up Folsom Street Fair?
I don’t know. Why haven’t you started one?
I haven’t started one because I’m not a part of that community. It would be interesting to see what would happen if NDT and ILC, who live in SFO started one. They are both internet-savvy, but since they have real jobs, the time commitment would be an issue. But if they did start a group calling itself “Gays Against Public Indecency,” spoke out against public sex and demanded that the city clean up the Folsom Street Fair, it would be fascinating to see how established gay groups would respond.
In any case, the lack of any organized opposition to the depravity of the Folsom Street Fair or to public sex within the gay community is a mortal wound to the argument that it’s not fair for the gay community to be tainted by those events.
Point of Clarification, because I think I am perhaps even more liberal Dave.
At the risk of being saddled with being responsible for all the ills in the world, I think there’s a few things I should clarify.
I don’t believe that Folsom Street Fair should be closed down or ended. I do support and encourage the enforcement of any applicable laws. And I don’t think bringing children to any event like this is appropriate.
That said, I don’t believe for a second that just because I personally don’t want to dress up in leather and wander around being lead by a leash others shouldn’t be allowed to do it.
There are lots of things that occur in public that I personally find offensive – Believe me, you don’t want my personal morals to determine what groups and gatherings should be allowed to occur.
Folsom street fair should be subjected to the same laws and regulations as any other group. As long as they meet all those requirements, more power to them.
And no, I still don’t think they should be seen as spokespeople for the gay community as a whole any more than I believe The Topeka Kansas church is a spokesperson for all Baptists churches.
Let the “you’re responsible for all the evils in the world†responses now commence.
I detest activities like Folsom Street, bathhouses, public sex. I believe that S&M is harmful and events glorifying it are detrimental to our “causeâ€. I think that the substance abuse and promiscuity that is accepted, even celebrated, in some segments of the gay community is suicidal. And I agree that many are trapped in an adolescent mentality. There, does that make you happy?
Empty words.
Here’s why:
Yes, some dingbats in the UK are suing for the right to have sex in a public park and shout discrimination.
In short, gay and lesbian liberals file lawsuits if they consider something to be “harmful”. For example, gay Obama supporters are filing lawsuits against publishers of Bibles because the words are “harmful” and have filed lawsuits against drug companies claiming, for example, that Viagra advertisements force gay men to have promiscuous sex.
So where’s your lawsuit against the Folsom Street Fair or any number of bathhouses?
That last leads nicely into this.
I believe that simply sitting and condemning is counterproductive and what needs to be done is to address the root causes of the behaviour.
Or, in other words, figuring out who to blame other than yourself and your choices.
Funny, I’ve seen Viagra ads all the time, and they’ve never forced me to have unprotected sex, just like my sexual orientation has never forced me to go seeking sex in the bushes, dress up children as sexual slaves and take them to a sex fair, or abuse dangerous drugs.
But then again, as you’ve made clear, Dave, I’m a damaged and abnormal gay who needs “therapy”. Gee, I wish I were normal like you, could do whatever I want, and then blame it on other people instead of my own choices.
/sarc
And finally, for amusement value:
Your statement:
You, like our opponents, assume that everyone is accepting of harmful behavior and thing that promiscuity is just wonderful.
Followed by Henry’s:
That said, I don’t believe for a second that just because I personally don’t want to dress up in leather and wander around being lead by a leash others shouldn’t be allowed to do it.
No assumption is necessary. It’s right there in black and white that “real gays” fully accept such behavior.
And no, I still don’t think they should be seen as spokespeople for the gay community as a whole any more than I believe The Topeka Kansas church is a spokesperson for all Baptists churches.
That would be a logical statement to make if gays like you, Henry, were doing as much in opposition to the Folsom Street Fair as other Baptist churches have done in opposition to Fred Phelps.
But as we’ve seen, you don’t oppose what goes on at Folsom. Indeed, you argue that people should be allowed to bring children dressed as sexual slaves to sex fairs where they are paraded to “show off” in front of adults having sex and masturbating because, “just because I personally don’t want to do it doesn’t mean others shouldn’t be allowed to do it.”
There are lots of things that occur in public that I personally find offensive – Believe me, you don’t want my personal morals to determine what groups and gatherings should be allowed to occur.
Then demand that the ban on NAMBLA be lifted, since you insist that personal morals should never be allowed to determine what groups and gatherings should be allowed to occur.
Fred Phelps’s church has been cut off from the Southern Baptist Church, which wants no part of his disgusting activities.
Would that the gay community was willing to uphold such standards.
Then demand that the ban on NAMBLA be lifted, since you insist that personal morals should never be allowed to determine what groups and gatherings should be allowed to occur.
Is it Vince or Pete that usually says “Checkmate” at this point.
I’ll concede that it’s a start.
Personally, I don’t feel the need to found groups or launch lawsuits or spend my life in controversy with dingbats or animals (or trolls who choose to argue like six year olds 😉 ). I simply make clear my views on these matters, if anyone asks, or if it’s in front of me in such a way that my silence would otherwise imply approval. And that’s all I would ask of anyone else. Founding groups, etc. is beyond the call of duty.
But this statement, Henry, is much less encouraging:
The problem is not that they’re “dingbats”. The problem is that they’re (a) criminals, who (b) don’t care about themselves, and (c) don’t care about the rest of their community either. OK? If you honestly consider them no worse than “dingbats”, maybe you don’t yet get it.
Also, let me note the distance between your encouraging first blockquote here and the lame ‘straights do it too’ type of defense of the worst elements of the gay community that you had tried to offer at #5.
V – Pete.
zing! LOL
ILC @ 161: Ow, that’s gonna leave a mark.
Anyone else want to guess that if
Henry and Dave had to identify the “root causes” of gay public depravity, it would be Global Warming?
[Comment deleted due to violation of community terms of conduct.]
NDT’s zinger 🙂
Re: your question… I’d guess “homophobia” and/or “heterosexism”, in this instance. Maybe religion and/or capitalism, the silent killers of all.
My #166 was to V.
#165 – And the coming answer to Dave’s question: Dave, of course. Or maybe Dave-n-Henry, since their arguments have taken such a (justified) beating together.
Dave, your mere assertion that something is untrue does not, fortunately, suffice to make it untrue. Let’s review. You said:
Let’s unpack that bit by bit.
Fine. What’s the root cause of behavior? THE PERSON’S CHOICE of that behavior. The person’s **choice** to buy into, and then act upon, the little (animal) voice in their head that says, “Do it!”.
Indeed. And the answer is staring you in the face – I just gave it – but, apparently, you don’t want to see it.
“Anything” except, apparently, NOT DOING the behavior.
Dave, I have a very very very very good idea which 12-related rooms you’re talking about and trust me, those men won’t “do anything” to change their behavior. They’re engaged in lying to themselves and others. (And now you’re out here, lying for them.) If it were true that they would “do anything” to change their destructive or poorly-chosen behaviors, then, they would try just NOT EVER DOING those behaviors. Any given behavior takes energy. A given behavior is always chosen. Lying on the ground as long as it takes and NOT going out to do the behavior, whatever it is, is always a an alternative… in fact, a much easier alternative than the energy it takes to get up and do any behavior (positive or destructive). All it takes to stop a behavior is to just not do it… and then not do it again… and then not do it again… and then not do it again… etc. Forever.
Conclusion. (1) Actually, they aren’t willing to do anything to stop their behaviors. And (2) you’re out here pretending the “root causes” of their behaviors could somehow lie somewhere else – somewhere outside of their own choice. Based on that, NDT characterized your impassioned plea for root cause analysis as:
You’ve asserted that NDT’s characterization is untrue but you have offered no evidence or logic that would refute it. You go on to say:
On the contrary, Dave. It is YOU who imply we’re all sex-crazed animals… by implying these men have no control over their own behavior. It is I, and I would presume NDT, who hold to the viewpoint that gay men – like all men – are capable of being better than that… and ought to be better than that.
General advice for anyone in interested in stopping their addiction to a destructive / unwanted behavior – be it alcohol-drinking, drug-taking, smoking, sexual acting out, overeating, or whatever – stay away from 12 Step programs, which teach you the kind of muddy thinking Dave espouses. Find real information on stopping at this Web site (which I have no connection with): http://rational.org
I dont play games from persia, like chess
Typo fix, adding a word to the middle of my largest paragraph: “Lying on the ground as long as it takes and NOT going out to do the behavior, whatever it is, is always an **easier** alternative…”
Dave I just wanted to reuse my witty cock in mouth phrase.
Have you ever read about Randy Kraft, the gay serial killer from the 1970’s? When the police arrested him, he had the freshly murdered body of a victim in the front seat of his car. The rear seat contained an envelope, in which were snapshots of all his other victims, and the camera he took the pictures with.
Up until the night they executed him (which let him live way longer than he deserved to) Randy Kraft maintained his innocence.
Never underestimate the power of denial.
To reiterate: All it takes to stop a given behavior is to just lie there, *not* doing it. Eventually, some other need rises to the fore – like the need to pee, eat, go to work, make your windsurfing class or your mom’s hospital appointment, whatever – and you get up and go do that. Keep making the same choice. This strategy is called “quitting forever”, or “quitting for good”, and any human being with an IQ over 65 can train themselves to do it – with any behavior.
I have long said that if my current behaviors as a gay man – dating single guys, safe sex, etc. – were objectively immoral/destructive, then I would give them up. They just aren’t. The arguments against them made by the Religious Right fall apart on inspection. But there are other behaviors that I’ve been addicted to, that were objectively immoral/destructive – and I’ve quit.
It did really help me, in quitting, that I had the information described at the web site (http://rational.org). But that’s only because I had let my head be filled with so much of our 12-Step and other cultural nonsense and black-is-white, night-is-day garbage. What they teach at that web site is only lore that previous generations knew as “common sense”. When you want to quit something, the best way is to cut the B.S. and really quit it, from then on disregarding every “voice” or piece of temptation that would otherwise draw you back to it.
Apology / correction on my #159 – I wasn’t clear enough (even in my own mind) if I was addressing Dave or Henry. The first blockquote that I gave, and that I partly praised, was Dave’s. Only the second (that I slammed) was Henry’s.
Wow.
I know, I know a lot to respond to. I’ll get to it, or I wont.
NDT, I’m sure you recognize the above quote. Two thoughts:
1. Something horrible must have happened in your life to go from a Folsom Street Fair go-er (and apparent enjoyer) to someone who attacks anyone who thinks it doesn’t reflect on the large gay community. I may need to start reading some of your older Blog Posts.
2. Yes, you can change your mind about things. Because you enjoyed Folsom Street Fair once two years ago, kilt and all, doesn’t mean that you have to like or enjoy it today. It does make me question why you have so much anger against someone who has never gone, never enjoyed it, and just doesn’t think ti should reflect on them as gay people.
You know, if you ignore the whole Folsom Leather thing, NDT and I may have actually been able to sip coffee together in a previous life. Some random comments from NDTs blog.
NDT 1/4/05
Finally, for Christian, I promise you this….no one likes DeLay, not even myself. But “guilt by association” isn’t the way this country plays
NDT 5/16/05
suppose the ultimate lesson, as Coby’s story shows us, is this….ultimately, the responsibility for creating our own identity lies with us and us alone. If you aren’t a flaming queen, don’t feel like you need to be one to “fit in”…..and if you are, don’t feel like you need to suppress yourself for the same reason. This world is a big, beautiful, colorful place….and quite frankly, mindless conformity is an insult to humanity, to the universe, and to God. It sounds like a bad after-school special resolution, but……be yourself.
NDT 7/11/05 (Note, this isn’t relevant, I just found it amusing.)
Absolutely! I prefer the term “faggot freedoms facilitator”, though (grin)
NDT 11/7/05.
Hey, it’s OK….I understand. But you gotta believe me when I tell you….what you see of gays on the TV isn’t reality. Sure, the loudest of us out there never saw a Democrat they didn’t like, never saw a Republican they didn’t hate, and never saw a moonbat cause they wouldn’t support. But most of us aren’t like that.
Alas, back to the present:
158. Then demand that the ban on NAMBLA
Wow. Right out of the conservative-right-wing playbook. Well played. Clearly, I encourage folks to molest children. Clearly.
Or, and I’m just spitballing here: One may be behavior I don’t condone but which is otherwise legal, and the other involves forced sex on someone unable to consent or refuse.
But, you’re right. Morally – same thing.
159. The problem is not that they’re “dingbatsâ€. The problem is that they’re (a) criminals, who (b) don’t care about themselves, and (c) don’t care about the rest of their community either. OK? If you honestly consider them no worse than “dingbatsâ€, maybe you don’t yet get it.
Right, suing for discrimination for doing something illegal (or in this case, because you’re worried an act will prevent you from doing something illegal) makes you a dingbat. As for the difference between that and my post as # 5, I find myself again ending to remind you that 154 posts have passed since then. My comment at number 5 was not about gay men in the UK suing for the right to sex in a park, it was about a whole other statement.
Henry, whatever you tried to address to me at #177 makes little sense. Perhaps you didn’t even correctly understand my point. But, whatever. If my suspicion is right, it would only be the same kind of obtuseness I’ve seen from you in the rest of this thread, as you continue to play for attention rather than substance.
You missed a portion of the post you cited, Henry.
Yet the reason I will be there is precisely because of what happens when sexual beings run rampant without thought or care.
And what happened is very simply this; I lost my idealism once I realized that Folsom was that kind of event where people run rampant without thought or care — and that people like you use the idealism I had to cover up for hideous and idiotic public behavior.
Like this.
One may be behavior I don’t condone but which is otherwise legal, and the other involves forced sex on someone unable to consent or refuse.
Like dressing up two-year-olds as sexual slaves and taking them to “show off” for an “educational experience” at an event full of naked and semi-naked adults masturbating and having public sex in front of them.
I guess in liberal gay land, two-year-olds are over the age of consent and able to refuse.
When someone has turned away from and made amends for past bad behavior, it is uniquely slimy to hold that behavior against them.
I out the link there, NDT to anyone could read the whole thing, less ILC accuse me of misquoting you. I also left out :
I admire your ability to keep on suggesting I encourage molesting kids, though. Very James Dobson of you.
NDT 06
Right-wing zealots [NDT of today? -H] will no doubt see and act on this as a golden opportunity to once again, as they have before, link homosexuality and pedophilia, especially given that foolish and shortsighted “gay activists” are trying to claim that Foley’s actions are because he is a closeted gay.
Ahhh, to have the old NDT back.
I lost my idealism once I realized that Folsom was that kind of event where people run rampant without thought or care
Really? Hmm, your posts right afterwards don’t seem to indicate any actual distate to what had occurred.
And when you said you were going to Folsom to be where you can be you, and where the true, overwhelming pleasure of being a sexual being can finally come forth. you had no idea what Folsom street was about?
VtK: When someone has turned away from and made amends for past bad behavior, it is uniquely slimy to hold that behavior against them.
It is. I’ll keep that in mind. See, my view is there. When someone corrects what they perceive as bad behavior, there is generally two outcomes:
1) They leave the experience wiser and, while they will share that experience with folks in hopes of helping them avoid the same mistakes, they keep in their heart a realization that if they could fall to the lure of that behavior, then so can others.
2) They making screeching attacks against anyone who even tangentially appears to accept the behavior, because now they have decided that it was bad, everyone else should too.
Wonder which NDT is?
And again, I noted change is possible. This isn’t really about NDT going to Folsom dressed in a kilt, as much as it is his screeching attacks (calling me a child molester) when I have never even been, but just don’t think that Folsom needs to be shut down or that it is a reflection of the larger gay community.
Henry, you obviously want more attention, so here it is. Happy to help 🙂
The world awaits breathlessly.
??????? (Way old-timers: Reminds me of hank’s “yuh sutation” post)
Henry, the only time you ever need to worry about me accusing you of misquoting people, is if/when you actually misquote people (employing ellipsis as a technique for mischaracterizing their point).
Now, what I came to say. I was noodling a bit more on Dave’s description of:
In other words: Men seeking pity and compassion, even help and love, over the fact that THEY choose neither to exercise nor acquire self-control. Yuck. There was a time when I bought it 100% and would have presented it to people as Dave has done, but thankfully (for me), no more. Not coincidentally, that time was also the time when I was politically a staunch liberal.
The world awaits breathlessly.
Well, not the world. You seem to, though. You’re not obligated to ‘play’ if you don’t want to. I do appreciate the attention though, as I am ever needy and you make me feel so good.
??????? (Way old-timers: Reminds me of hank’s “yuh sutation†post)
I have a ‘Yuh sutation’ post? Yes, for the record I am a poor typist and, depending on the amount of coffee I have or have not had, not had, I mistype things.
Henry, the only time you ever need to worry about me accusing you of misquoting people
Well, when someone seems to think that not including “At #5†in a quote is intentionally misquoting, it’s hard to know where the line is. I’ll keep it in mind. (Cut off the post number bad. Bad.)
Indeed you are. Here’s more attention!
It depends. Would you be the commentor ‘hank’ from 2 years ago? (I don’t believe you are. But you may be confused, yourself. I mean, 100 or so posts ago, you got confused and thought you were Dave.)
It depends. Would you be the commentor ‘hank’ from 2 years ago?
I never go by Hank. The only person I let me Hank is my Mother, and she’s entitled to.
And for the record, I never confused myself with Dave. He’s a better speller.
Again, it depends. If your purpose in leaving them off is to obfuscate and misrepresent a discussion thread – then yes. Otherwise, no.
Again, part of me can’t believe I would have to explain that to anyone. But then I remember: It’s you.
Excellent. Then you have no reason to think it’s about you.
See the second half of #51, where I answer a blockquote of Dave’s, followed by #58 where you say something that could only make sense if you thought it was about you.
Oh, and sorry – that would make it 120-130 posts ago, not 100.
If your purpose in leaving them off is to obfuscate and misrepresent a discussion thread
Ahhh, right. This:
is clear, even though the post at # 5 contained the words “And this is different from straight people how?”
This, on the other hand, is obfuscation and misrepresentation:
when the quote was “At #5, Henry endorses the ideas that the gay community is materialistic, empty and youth-worshipping”
Got it.
Really, GP should put up a FAQ or something.
See the second half of #51
Oh, right. The Sweeite, Sweetums thing. I’ll add it to the Faq.
#168 Actually ILC I don’t espouse the thinking of 12 step groups. I think much as you that they don’t focus enough on NOT doing whatever the particular addiction is and they enable some people to avoid change. I disliked them from the first moment I set foot in one. BUT for some people they are life savers I think it’s foolish not to acknowledge that. The “just say no” philosophy alone is only a partial solution. When I say look for the root cause I’m not talking about blaming mom or mean uncle Fred, I mean looking inside, something each person has to do. Yes it’s a choice, but being able to make the choice for survival is not always easy for whatever reason.
And I’m not the one who has continuously said that the Folsom street attitude is the norm for gay men. I believe that most of us are not like that and many who are can change.
Henry, my better spelling is the result of installing IE7Pro, it spell checks message boards etc.
#189 – Already discussed at #14, six year old.
#190 – Wow, I can’t believe it. You actually conceded one thing that you’ve been caught out on. 99,999 to go. But let’s be grateful for the small things 😉
You actually conceded one thing that you’ve been caught out on.
Well, I was going to point out that in reading 30 or so posts, confusing who an insult is directed at is not quite the same thing as confusing yourself with that person. But, I thought the FAQ line was funnier.
But hey, I’m in a generous mood. You can count that in your ‘Win’ column. Maybe print it out, stick it on the fridge. I seem to be out of silver stars…
OK. Thanks for clarifying that.
All users ‘use’ for personal pleasure. Everybody has something. Genetics may determine the “something”. With one person it’s alcohol. With another person it’s coke. With another person it’s anonymous sex, or jelly donuts. Etc. But everybody has something that their inner animal would love to indulge endlessly. Everyone on Earth has that basic problem. Some haven’t discovered their own Achilles’ heel yet. Many others have, and just manage to control themselves / give it up.
For the ones who choose to indulge even when it’s clearly harming their lives: I used to think it was indeed some deep issue that would be wonderful to solve: issues of past harm, social oppression, self-esteem, blah blah blah blah blah. I was wrong. It’s about the person simply refusing to give up their special pleasure. Very simple. And about them trying to string along themselves and others as long as possible with hand-wringing and stories about their alleged ‘powerlessness’. Everybody has the power to stop, it’s just a question of (1) whether they really want it, and (2) whether they know it – i.e., what kind of crap their head has or hasn’t been filled with.
I can’t absolutely defend NDT in that fight. But he’s more than capable 🙂 I don’t say the worst aspects of FSF are the norm. I do say that the attitudes and culture which permit them to go on, are nucking futs.
OK, the workday begins… Have fun.
One last thing:
Um, actually Henry, you confused WHO SAID the blockquote I was responding to.
I clearly showed what quote I was responding to, by, you know, placing a little blockquote thingy right above it. It was Dave’s quote. You apparently thought it was your quote. That was funny.
See, now I have to take your star back.
In #51, you quoted Dave. In 54, VtK used the same quote,verbatim, then added “Explain that to Henry… He apparently believes that heterosexual people having sex behind closed doors justifies gays having sex in a public street.â€
In 57, I responded to VtK.
In 58, I essentially said “as much as I like circular arguments and being called sweetie, I have to call it a night.â€
In 59, you accused me of confusing myself with Dave because I used the ‘sweetie’ line, and you called Dave Sweetums.
Don’t you think people can read the posts?
And with that we come full circle to the topic. Drugs, sex, politics, shopping, kink, and exhibitionism will never fill the aching spiritual void of an empty and meaningless life. Thus, a life centered on self-gratification inevitably leads to neuroses.
The exhibitionist fetishsists of FSF, the public sex defenders, and others who demand that society accommodate their depravity are pathetic wastes of life. And those who are too weak and amoral to call them out are their enablers.
From free needles for drug addicts to bail-outs for those who borrowed money irresponsibly, isolating bad behavior from consequences only encourages additional bad behavior.
#197 – And this is why it’s such fun to argue with mental six year olds like you, Henry. You say apples are oranges. You give an acceptable explanation of how **YOU** screwed up, or what **YOUR** mistake was, when you mistook my response to Dave’s quote as a response to you… BUT… you spin it as if it somehow reflects on me. As if people can just read the comments for themselves! LOL 🙂 I’m the one who has to take back the gold star I gave you.
V, I just came back to see if you were around, but now I really have a meeting – Have a great day.
(typo… “As if people can’t just read…”)
1) They leave the experience wiser and, while they will share that experience with folks in hopes of helping them avoid the same mistakes, they keep in their heart a realization that if they could fall to the lure of that behavior, then so can others.
2) They making screeching attacks against anyone who even tangentially appears to accept the behavior, because now they have decided that it was bad, everyone else should too.
Like dressing up two-year-olds as sexual slaves and taking them to “show off†for an “educational experience†at an event full of naked and semi-naked adults masturbating and having public sex in front of them.
Henry’s response? #1 — or “spin and enable, while whining that those who publicly condemn this behavior are making ‘screeching attacks’.”
And when you said you were going to Folsom to be where you can be you, and where the true, overwhelming pleasure of being a sexual being can finally come forth. you had no idea what Folsom street was about?
I don’t consider being a sexual being to involve promiscuous unprotected disease-spreading sex or having sex in front of children.
Obviously, Henry, those both fall well within your definition of it.
Ahhh, to have the old NDT back.
Nope. I’m not going back to the days of turning a blind eye to liberal enablers. It’s time you and Dave and your ilk were publicly humiliated and shamed by having exposed the behavior that you protect and spin for — while, ironically, attacking those who criticize it.
What I figured out the hard way, henry, is that gays like you would rather gay people get sick and die than take a PR hit. Literally millions of dollars have been pumped into subsidizing a disease that is fully preventable, as evinced by the fact that the communities in which it is rampant are the ones in which promiscuity is not only socially acceptable, but encouraged — and in which other people are blamed for all problems.
when you mistook my response to Dave’s quote as a response to you
That’s not what I did. See above.
NDT, you really are amazing. I know you want to be seen as this firebreather of morality, but it’s all smoke and mirrors, and you sit behind them, like the Great Oz, twisting dials and belching smoke in the hopes that nobody sees through the,\m.
Whooosh: “You’re a molester because you didn’t say you hated the very existence of Folsom Street Fair.â€
Flash of Lightning: “You’re refusing to speak out against it is what causes people to get AIDs and dieâ€.
But, really, like Oz, it’s an attempt to delude yourself.
I liked what I read of the 2005 – 2006 NDT. Not because I agreed with it all (indeed, there was a lot I did not agree with), but because THAT NDT had room for dissent. He held himself responsible for his own acts, and refused to let the acts of others be imputed to him. “Be yourself†“Not all gays are like thatâ€. Proud, yet a little defiant.
Today, you’re a caricature. Making illogical and extreme assumptions and implications to make yourself seem oh so much moraler than the sad liberals who go about their lives without feeling the need to apologize for the acts of a few.
The issue isn’t the “acts of the few,” it’s the acceptance by the many that is the issue, and has been from the beginning.
Also, there is a difference between tolerating what’s done in private and condoning what’s done in public.
Alas, no attempt to explain this seems to penetrate the thick layer of smug that surrounds the liberal brain.
Seem like the subject of neurosis is popular.
When I first read this post, my reaction was similar to Henry’s (I think). When Dan explained why there was gay neurosis, my thought was that this is something that is not unique to the gay community, but something I’ve seen in all communities. As suggested by many here, pointing out that others do it doesn’t excuse bad behavior, and bad behavior should be criticized whether others do it or not.
To be honest, I’ve never thought about whether gay people are more neurotic than others, and perhaps Dan was implying that, even though he made it clear that it applies to some gay men, not all. If gay people are more neurotic, then I’d be curious as to why that’s the case. If the answer is the “gay community” promotes things that lead to neuroses, then my question is why is that the case?
ILC (and others), I agree with you that if someone is engaging in self-destructive behavior such as promiscuity, drug/alcohol addiction, etc., the best way for that person to stop that behavior is to simply stop that behavior. But it would help to find out what lead to the behavior to begin with so that future persons are less likely to have these destructive behaviors. Is there something that leads more gay people to have these destructive behaviors? Or, everything else being equal, are gay people more intrisically bad than straight people? Again, these questions aren’t going to help those who are currently engaged in the destructive behavior, but will hopefully help to decrease these behaviors in the future.
From the previous GP post:
adding that while “most married gay couples he knows are ‘for the most part monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way.’â€
My first thought:
Jeez, it’s the 70’s all over again!!!
I think a huge chunk of the neurosis is simply youthful stupidity. And youthful stupidity doesn’t care whether you’re gay or straight. Because of the lack of expectations in the gay community of getting married and settling down, which anchors the straight community, gays get to stay young and foolish longer, transforming that part of our personal growth most of us have experienced, into a gay stereotype. I could be wrong, but I would like to think that the advent of gay marriage will, over the years, become a great influence tempering the image that both straight and gay people have of gays.
Or I could have just written: Some in the gay community want it to be stuck in the 70’s for the no-holds-barred party-time philosophy, while others simply want it to grow up. I prefer the latter, TUVM.
I like that better than my last post.
Not because I agreed with it all (indeed, there was a lot I did not agree with), but because THAT NDT had room for dissent.
Until I figured out that gay people were using that “room” to justify dressing up two-year-olds as sexual slaves and taking them to “show off†for an “educational experience†at an event full of naked and semi-naked adults masturbating and having public sex in front of them.
Until I figured out that gay people were using that “room” to justify having promiscuous and unprotected disease-spreading sex at staggering rates — and worse, were passing it on to a whole new generation.
Room for dissent comes when people demonstrate that they can use it intelligently. These examples demonstrate rather convincingly that the gay community cannot be trusted to exercise good judgment on its own.
Furthermore, your posts demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the gay community cannot be trusted to police itself in regards to its members. When it comes to gay people taking two-year-old children dressed as sexual slaves to sex fairs, claiming that it’s an “educational experience” and that those who oppose it are “close-minded”, all you can do is argue for individual “choice” and “tolerance”.
There are certain things society shouldn’t tolerate, and child sexualization is one of them. The fact that you and Dave attack me, ILC, and V the K for daring to point that out and condemn gay people for doing it shows just how pathetically warped your moral values are. Dave said that it was lower than Peter LaBarbera to condemn gay people, which would include those gays who take children to sex fairs. You literally would rather kids be harmed sexually than for you to have to speak up or enforce the laws against gay parents.
But it would help to find out what lead to the behavior to begin with so that future persons are less likely to have these destructive behaviors.
Well, how is it that white and Asian heterosexuals in the United States manage to avoid the spread of HIV so much better than gay men?
1) Societal disapproval of promiscuity (“slut’ and “whore” are not terms of endearment)
2) Societal disapproval of polyamorous relationships (aka affairs, cheating)
Now, what do we notice in the gay community?
1) Societal endorsement of promiscuity (as in, the more you “score”, the better you are)
2) Societal endorsement of polyamorous relationships (see Erbelding)
Because of the lack of expectations in the gay community of getting married and settling down, which anchors the straight community, gays get to stay young and foolish longer, transforming that part of our personal growth most of us have experienced, into a gay stereotype
“Lack of expectations” blames society for gay promiscuity and removes all responsibility for the choice to be promiscuous from gay people.
Horse hockey. Promiscuity is a matter of peoples’ choice to be promiscuous.
Late lunch break. Pat, great to see you!
See #194, quoted in #198 (V the K). We already know what leads to it.
I hope not. Anti-gay types would say “yes”. While I say “no”. But gay people do seem more willing, generally or on average, to rationalize warped / destructive behavior. In the name of “toleration”, “liberation” or what have you.
BTW – NDT – Please keep up the anti-HIV-behaviors crusade. I am learning the gory details of HIV in my Immunology class. Man is it a nasty critter! Yet preventable. And the drugs needed to fight it are difficult to produce, and nearly as nasty as the disease. HIV basically turns a person into a lifelong ward of society. (Show me an HIV patient who doesn’t siphon off the pocketbooks / lives of other people to pay for his drugs and services – and I’ll show you someone who is either very rich, or dead.)
I have a hunch that what some of your detractors really think is, “It’s just sex. What’s wrong with people pleasuring each other? Stupid puritanical morals.”
But if they said that outright, it would prove the stereotype. So, they equivocate. “I don’t approve, but who am I to tell others what to do?”
Like I said, it’s just a hunch.
the gay community cannot be trusted to exercise good judgment on its own.
The mind boggles. Truly.
If only there was someone who could exercise good judgment on behalf of us.
When it comes to gay people taking two-year-old children dressed as sexual slaves to sex fairs, claiming that it’s an “educational experience†and that those who oppose it are “close-mindedâ€, all you can do is argue for individual “choice†and “toleranceâ€.
Actually, I was talking about you when I spoke about educational experiences. So, unless you brought a two-year old to Folsom and masturbated in front of him/her, then that’s not what my post said at all. Still, very Dobsonesque. Facts don’t matter. What is said doesn’t matter. Start from your conclusion, no matter how flawed or illogical, and work backwards.
No rational person could read my post and suggest that I think that molesting children or subjecting them to Folsom Fair is excusable as an educational experience. More deflections and outright lies.
**Pay no attention to that man behind the screen. The great and powerful Oz says you are a CHILD MOLESTER! UNCLEAN**
The fact that you and Dave attack me, ILC, and V the K for daring to point that out and condemn gay people for doing it shows just how pathetically warped your moral values are.
I guess when your head is filled with righteous indignation it doesn’t leave much room for reading comprehension and logical thought. I never attacked you for speaking out against Folsom. Please, speak out all you want. Form a counter-protest. Write letters to the editors. Please.
Again, my issue is and has been that the acts of people in Folsom are not attributable to the gay community as a whole. Nor is the acts of a few people who attend Folsom.
These two things are different.
Start from your conclusion, no matter how flawed or illogical, and work backwards.
Ah, but as you’ve tried to point out, Henry, I didn’t start from that conclusion; indeed, the posts you cited showed that at one point, I was giving gay liberals like yourself the benefit of the doubt.
Once I realized that the benefit of the doubt was being used to justify promiscuous disease-spreading sex and taking children to sex fairs, I decided to stop granting it.
No rational person could read my post and suggest that I think that molesting children or subjecting them to Folsom Fair is excusable as an educational experience.
I think V the K put it best:
The issue isn’t the “acts of the few,†it’s the acceptance by the many that is the issue, and has been from the beginning.
As exemplified here:
There are lots of things that occur in public that I personally find offensive – Believe me, you don’t want my personal morals to determine what groups and gatherings should be allowed to occur.
So you allegedly oppose gay parents taking children to sex fairs, but you believe that condemning it or banning it should be avoided because it would be imposing your “personal morals” on others — or, put differently, if other peoples’ “personal morals” allow them to do it as an “educational experience”, you have no problem with that and will not do anything to interfere.
“Dave attack me, ILC, and V the K for daring to point that out and condemn gay people for doing”
That’s a lie ND30.
“Dave said that it was lower than Peter LaBarbera to condemn gay people”
That’s a lie ND30.
“gay people taking two-year-old children dressed as sexual slaves to sex fairs”
So all gay people do this?
“It’s time you and Dave and your ilk were publicly humiliated and shamed by having exposed the behavior that you protect and spin for — while, ironically, attacking those who criticize it.”
When I actually do that you can take a swing at me. As it stands you’re the only one who is humiliated and shamed because you are blatantly lying about what others have said. Why don’t you take the time you spend shoveling bullshit on here and try to do something about it. A word of advice though, the second you start lying in the real world like you do here you’ve lost any influence you might have had. It’s the truth that brings change.
I wrote:
Because of the lack of expectations in the gay community of getting married and settling down, which anchors the straight community, gays get to stay young and foolish longer, transforming that part of our personal growth most of us have experienced, into a gay stereotype
NDT responded:
“Lack of expectations†blames society for gay promiscuity and removes all responsibility for the choice to be promiscuous from gay people.
That is not what I’m saying at all. Promiscuity is a personal choice. I absolutely agree with you. But you can’t ignore the social pressure that reinforces the behavior. Thomas Jefferson, as did many of the founders, deplored slavery. It was an affront to the concept that “All Men Are Created Equal”. He knew that as well as anyone (and yes, he was perhaps the biggest hypocrite of the bunch). Yet he, nor any of the non-slave owning founding father, John Adams for example, could not have gotten rid of the horrendous practice of slavery because it was, at the time, the norm for society. They also could never have convinced society that women should be give the right to vote. Again, due to social pressure that enforces the norm. I agree that promiscuity is a personal choice. But can you really argue that gay society does not reinforce the gay norm of being a “male pig” and a slut, long after those in the straight community have married and settled down, partly because it is what gay society pushes and expects? I mean, really, how many of us typing this and that on this very forum have date women when we were in the throws of our tormented youth. Did that happen because we thought they were totally hot, and then all of a sudden decided to be gay (proving the exodus crowd right) or did we do it because it was what the world expected.
That is exactly what you did. See above.
Further, Henry, you have once again misrepresented comments… in this case, you twisted comment #60 into an “accusation”. (You also mis-labeled #60 as #59, but that is a minor error… it’s your crude misrepresentations of people’s comments that deserve pointing out.)
“Dave said that it was lower than Peter LaBarbera to condemn gay peopleâ€
That’s a lie ND30.
Try again, Dave.
I said LaBarbera would feel at home here, actually I was wrong, he is a step above some on here, he doesn’t condemn his own.
As for your insistence that you have not been attacking myself, ILC, or V the K, where would you prefer to start; the place where you called us “self-loathing”, the place where you called us “traitors”, or the place where you insisted we needed “therapy”?
Next up:
It’s the truth that brings change.
Which is why, one supposes, you and Henry are so concerned with diverting peoples’ attention away from it.
You see, if you were to actually acknowledge that gay people are taking children to sex fairs dressed as sexual slaves and calling it an “educational experience”, you might actually have to do something about it — and that would involve you actually having to condemn gay peoples’ actions,
Which, since you would be condemning your own, by your own statements, would make you a step lower than Peter LaBarbera.
And therein lies the catch-22 that you’ve created for yourself; either make yourself worse than Peter LaBarbera or start rationalizing child sexualization, drug abuse, promiscuity, and all the other things for which the gay community is famous.
It should be no surprise that you and Henry choose the latter — or that you project your own self-loathing at having to make excuses for child-molesting gay people onto those who point out that you’re doing it.
But can you really argue that gay society does not reinforce the gay norm of being a “male pig†and a slut, long after those in the straight community have married and settled down, partly because it is what gay society pushes and expects?
No; in fact, I agree with that statement.
What I read your initial statement as meaning was that society as a whole is responsible. I totally agree with you that the promiscuity pushed and expected in the gay community can be part of the problem, inasmuch as it provides an excuse, although I still believe that the responsibility for choosing to follow it lies first and foremost with the individual.
NDT – good, cause I though we did see pretty much eye to eye. Part of the problem is that so many get intoxicated by the whole party atmosphere of the thing, and never step outside long enough to think with any clear perspective about the course they’re on. Like I said before, the gay community seems trapped in the past – idolizing the lives of the Stonewall crowd (and I also give them their due) and living as if its 1976, with no shame, no consequences. I came out, painfully slowly, in the mid 80’s through the 90’s, at the height of the AIDS epidemic in the community. Though I was not close to any one who succumbed, I was a washed with the fear of the consequences of “free love”. I watch as acquaintances lose their lives, which is why I was not very promiscuous by gay standards.
The Sonic-Mate demands I stop now, as it’s time to go to bed.
Finally Henry, a last word about your #5 – #14 nonsense.
I will try to make this so clear, and so much in your style, that even you can understand it. (But I know I’ll fail, because you are after all playing “obstinate six year old” as a bid for attention – which I’m happy to give if that’s what you need, LOL.)
At #5, you responded to ***no one’s*** comment except GPW (the main thread).
At #7, I responded to #6 (Robert… repeat, Robert).
At #9, you shifted ground from your earlier ‘straights do it too’ type of defense of narcissistic gays to a ‘the gays I know are Mother Theresas’ type of defense, apparently expecting no one to notice the shift.
At #11, I notice the shift – specifically mentioning #5 as what was being shifted from.
At #12, you ***lie to the GP blog***, excising context from my #11 in such a way as to make it appear I was wildly stuffing words in your mouth, when in fact I was only – and correctly – pointing out your crude and artless ground-shifting. (To be detailed: You excised content from my #11 in such a way as to make it appear that I had claimed you believe “the gay community is materialistic” in a general way… when, in fact, I hadn’t claimed that about your beliefs; rather, I had noted correctly that **comment #5** endorses the idea implicitly while comment #9 abandons it.)
And you’ve been mischaracterizing the exchange ever since. And offering the thread some other examples of intellectual dishonesty. A sorry record.
Last response was lost (or still in moderation), so I’ll try again.
1) Societal endorsement of promiscuity (as in, the more you “scoreâ€, the better you are)
2) Societal endorsement of polyamorous relationships (see Erbelding)
That’s fine, NDT. So now my question is, why is there such an endorsement in the gay community?
Pat, great to see you!
ILC, thanks. Great to see you, too!
See #194, quoted in #198 (V the K). We already know what leads to it.
While I agree with yours and V the K’s point, it still doesn’t go deeper into what the problem is.
I hope not. Anti-gay types would say “yesâ€. While I say “noâ€. But gay people do seem more willing, generally or on average, to rationalize warped / destructive behavior. In the name of “tolerationâ€, “liberation†or what have you.
I hope not as well. So the question is why are gay people more willing, generally, to rationalize the destructive behavior? If everything else were equal, would gay people still rationalize the destructive behavior? If so, then perhaps that would suggest there is something intrisically bad about homosexuality.
I think gay people are more reluctant to express disapproval of depraved and self-destructive lifestyles because of a mindset that there is no greater moral failing than “intolerance.” Many people, not just gay but also straight, lack the moral strength to declare that there are some activities one should be intolerant of.
I guess I’m saying there is a point where you have the answer and to keep looking is to actually obscure the truth.
Users use, whatever they’re using, for one basic reason: the pleasure. They may deny it… they may tell stories of systemic oppression / hard luck, depression, wanting to quit, etc…. but the particular thing they’re using gives their inner animal a deep, unspeakable pleasure. They want to chase the dragon (whatever is going to be their ultimate high). As a secondary condition, they use because their family or support group or personal conscience allows them to. A surprising number of people quit their addiction (for good) when faced with a credible threat of losing family membership.
Interesting question and, if gay civil unions / marriage continue their forward march, we’ll know in another generation or two.
So now my question is, why is there such an endorsement in the gay community?
Two reasons.
One, the gay community grew out of the “free love” and rejection of family and sexual responsibility movement of the 1960s.
Interestingly enough, if you read histories and accounts of communes and mass families established during that era, the degree of similarity between the jealousy, infighting, and sexual tensions that ultimately led to many of those groups disbanding and the modern-day gay community is striking. These communities resolved their differences by leaving; the gay community, on the other hand, took the opposite tack, forbidding and suppressing dissent.
Two, unlike the heterosexual community, gay promiscuity did not initially have obvious consequences. Heterosexual promiscuity carries the immediate consequences of children or abortions, both of which result in immense social, physical, and psychological issues for both the individuals involved and society; as a result, the need for responsibility in action is blatantly obvious.
In contrast, homosexual promiscuity is destructive primarily to the individuals involved and, prior to HIV, was relatively treatable. However, that left the gay community singularly ill-prepared for when HIV arrived, since it had never before had to deal with any consequences or responsibility for its sexual behavior. Unfortunately, rather than taking responsibility and modifying its own behavior, the gay community began the process of continuing it while blaming others and demanding that others subsidize the consequences.
That is why, Pat, you see things like this.
The study found that homosexual men were the only risk group in which the number of new infections rose annually from 2001 through 2006. (Epidemiologists prefer the term “men who have sex with men,” or MSM, because many of them do not identify themselves as homosexual or gay.) In contrast, injecting-drug users, homosexual men who injected drugs, and heterosexuals each showed declines in new infections over that period.
This is also why I disagree with the assertion that gay marriage would make people less promiscuous. The gay community does not give up promiscuity and self-destructive behavior even when it invariably results in disabling and lethal diseases that leave one dependent on expensive medications for the rest of their shortened life.
In short, gay people would rather cripple, impoverish, and ultimately kill themselves rather than give up promiscuous sex. If you cannot restrain yourself even with that degree of damage to your own body, it is ludicrous to assert that any sense of marriage or commitment is going to stop you.
ILC you are forever amusing. One side of your mouth is full of accusations of lies and misrepresentations, and the other side is full of lies and misrepresentations.
An amazing feat, to say the least.
Let’s count off the lies:
Lie 1
In your post at 221 you claim:
Since we’re going back to the beginning, lets be clear as opposed to stating you interpretation and feeble memory of what was said.
We have well established that my quote at number 5 contained 7 words total “This is different from straight society how?â€
Comments 1-4 were not disagreeing with the comment, nor did any of them mention straight society.
Rocket, no Robert posted this at 6:
Then your comment, at 7, was this:
No quote, no reference to who you were responding to or to which post. Since only Rocket and I had said anything about straight community at that point, and since you didn’t bother to note that you were replying only to Rocket, I think I was free to respond. That’s assuming that you’re right, and there is a rule here on GWP that says you can only reply to comments which refer to yours. If so, let me know, I’ll add it to the FAQ.
Lie 2
From 221:
As I have stated before. You shifted the grounds. In your post at 7 (quoted above in full lest you accuse me of lies or misrepresenting you comment) you mentioned a “community†within the straight community who act like those complained about in the main post by GWP.
In response you your #7, as well as VtK post at 8, I posted this:
So, you introduced to the conversation that we should not view straight community as a whole, but rather as communities. Then, when I asked if the ‘community’ concept applies to gays, you accused me of moving the goalpost, when you set it.
Lie 3
Again, the lie you accuse me of was removing “At #5†from your quote. And yet, your statement attributed to me in 11 wasn’t the result of a quote of what I said, but rather it was your interpretation of what I said. Now, before you get all worked up, I understand that in conversations a limited amount of intuitive logic can be employed. However, since the “At #5â€part you have your panties in a bunch would only bring the reader to the above “How is this different†quote, it’s hardly a misrepresentation.
Not to mention, the purpose of quoting generally is to let the reader know what post is being referred to. The use of ellipsis in my quote purposefully tells the reader that I had not fully quoted the entry, rather only parts of it. IF I had edited you quote to “Henry endorses the idea that …the average gay does have values….â€, then you might have a valid complaint.
But instead, you’re just being foolish.
I guess I’m saying there is a point where you have the answer and to keep looking is to actually obscure the truth.
Maybe so, ILC, but you have alluded to something I have been surmising below.
Interesting question and, if gay civil unions / marriage continue their forward march, we’ll know in another generation or two.
My guess it will bridge the gap somewhat, but not fully. Some have said that they KNOW that it won’t make a difference because we have marriage in Massachusetts and civil unions in a couple of other states and there is no significant change. But almost all of us have not grown up with a tradition of same sex marriage and encouraged by parents as our straight siblings have. In other words, it’s not just about a piece of paper.
But this has to also go hand in hand with other societal changes. Having marriage available to gay persons may not significantly help gay children who grow up in households where the parents excoriate them for being gay, and these children will have many of the same issues as adults before any same sex marriage. It still is a help, because the teen will hopefully see the light at the end of their childhood.
By the way, it should go without saying that my above comments apply in general. Of course, there are examples of those who buck the odds and succeed in spite of their parents,* while there are examples of those who, even though they had a model childhood grow up as adults who engage in destructive behavior.
*What seems to happen more often is that most tend to buck the odds, but go through a period of making poor choices/irresponsible behavior before turning things in the right direction. Also, Robbie at the Malcontent in the marathon thread on California marriage a couple of months ago eloquently expressed the relationship between society’s attitudes on homosexuality and destructive behavior. I should also say that Robbie (as well as I) believe that lack of personal responsibility is a good part of the problem. It’s a good read, but unfortunately, the site is temporarily down.
Anyway, these were some of the things that I was referring to, to get to the point where we can say “everything else being equal.” But wondering if there is something more to it. And V the K probably hit on something else.
I think gay people are more reluctant to express disapproval of depraved and self-destructive lifestyles because of a mindset that there is no greater moral failing than “intolerance.†Many people, not just gay but also straight, lack the moral strength to declare that there are some activities one should be intolerant of.
V the K, you bring up an excellent point. I’m not sure, though, that I agree with the mindset that intolerance is a moral failing.
I think a good deal of it comes from the fact that too many people today still find acting on homosexual attraction (even if done in a way that we agree to be acceptable) is something that society should be intolerant of. And then the slippery slope takes over, “well I think homosexuality is okay, despite the fact that many find it distasteful, so it would be hypocritical for me to ‘judge’ others for activities that I may not care for and find distasteful.”
So the question here is where and how do we draw the line? For me, sexual activity that spills over to children is well over that line. So, for example, I condemn parents that bring their children to the Folsom St. Fair.
Sad, Sad NDT. I have already stated I liked the old NDT, as well as noted the present NDT is very different. Since I have no abaility to speak to the OLD NDT, my comment was clearly aimed at NDT today. Sorry if that’s confusing.
Is your position so fragile, that you can’t defend it without resorting to lies? You know that I do not believe that. It’s just a nice way for you to make my position seem wildly insane and unjust. Yet, as you are well aware, my comment about personal morals was aimed at the Folsom Fair in general, not the one couple that saw fit to bring their kids to it.
Again, you take two comments I made, pull them from the context they were made in, combine them, and then apply it something I never intended.
I already dealt with the ‘personal morals’ quote you took out of context. As you well know, my ‘educational experience’ were not even made in reference to Folsom, but rather in reference to you.
Nice try, though.
One, the gay community grew out of the “free love†and rejection of family and sexual responsibility movement of the 1960s.
What’s interesting here is that homosexuality (even if acted on what we agree to be responsible) was considered a rejection of family and sexual responsibility.
the gay community, on the other hand, took the opposite tack, forbidding and suppressing dissent.
Yep, that’s a bad thing. Now I have to wonder why all these other communities left, but the gay community stuck with the status quo.
So now when we have gay teens, who are rejected or barely tolerated by their parents, become adults, too many, especially in the beginning, have to choose staying where they are not accepted and a gay community that promotes sexual irresponsibility. I wonder if their rationale is, “well, my family doesn’t accept my sexuality no matter how responsible I am, so I might as well ‘enjoy’ myself and have as much sex as I can.” No, it doesn’t excuse the behavior, but this is not a “dilemma” that most straight persons did not have to deal with when they were 18 or 21, and could be a partial explanation why there is more irresponsiblity in the gay community.
This is also why I disagree with the assertion that gay marriage would make people less promiscuous. The gay community does not give up promiscuity and self-destructive behavior even when it invariably results in disabling and lethal diseases that leave one dependent on expensive medications for the rest of their shortened life.
I somewhat agree. Marriage itself, i.e., just the piece of paper, is not going to change things. Societal and familial acceptance needs to continue. If these don’t accompany marriage, then there could well be little or no change.
In short, gay people would rather cripple, impoverish, and ultimately kill themselves rather than give up promiscuous sex. If you cannot restrain yourself even with that degree of damage to your own body, it is ludicrous to assert that any sense of marriage or commitment is going to stop you.
Yep, all unfortunate. I suppose that many of those who already have HIV feel that since they already suffered the consequences of their bad behavior and may die soon anyway, will continue the behavior. It’s seems to be on the same scale of, say smokers, who after diagnosed with emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease, will still continue smoking.
Also, we have those who are promiscuous, and have either been using protection all the time, or didn’t, but extremely lucky. So they may have developed a sense that it won’t happen to them, or that it can, but not ready to give it up. It’s like a smoker or tobacco chewer who knows the destruction that it causes down the road (some much sooner than others), but yet developed a sense it won’t happen to them, or not ready to give it up and “will” do so before it’s too late.
My point is not to excuse gay people who engage in irresponsible behavior by saying others do it, but to show that it’s not unique to gay people. That the seeming contradiction you present happens too often to persons of all communities. You can argue that the rates of irresponsibility in the gay community is too high, which I agree. So my questions were how to stop or reduce this irresponsible behavior before it begins.
This is all interesting.
…the gay community grew out of the “free love†and rejection of family and sexual responsibility movement of the 1960s
Well, to be a bit nitpicky, the term grew here is a bit of a misnomer. There have been gay rights groups in the US from the early 20s which was a period of liberal attitude in the US. At that point there were gay bars in most large cities.
Word War II was responsible for the creation of the first real gay community in (surprise) San Francisco. San Francisco was a major coming and going point during the war and many of those who were dishonorably discharged for homosexuality choose to stay there instead of returning home. Similarly, as the gay community in SF grew, other servicemen who were not discharged, but were gay, decided to stay as well.
Certainly the counter culture movement (which itself is distinct from the ‘Free Love’ movement which had existed well before the 60s) aided in the visibility of the gay community, as certain taboos were seen as less taboo and were discussed more openly.
I agree with NDT, however that until the AIDs epidemic was fully upon us, the gay community had little need for protective behaviors because pregnancy wasn’t really an issue. There is more to the story, however.
While enjoying greater visibility, the legitimacy of gay relationships did not enjoy any broad acceptance until at least the mid eighties (and I would argue probably closer to the lat eighties).
Prior to that, “settling down†was not something that was done by anyone. Most gay relationships were fleeting, and were intended to fulfill an ‘urge’, which then allowed the closeted gays to go back to their wives and families. Anonymous sex, bathhouses, ect were not created out of a kink, but out of a necessity (a word which I am sure will annoy folks here to no end).
And, while NDT links to a correct article showing that there is a rise in HIV, he ignores the details of the article which suggests that there is more at play here than just lack of person responsibility (though, there is an alarming trend in younger gays, who saw the biggest increase, to view HIV as a treatable rather than fatal disease).
One of the issues is that because HIV is more prevalent in the Gay community than the straight community (for reasons stated above_, even if gay and straight communities are equally responsible, the gay population will see more infections because, percentage wise, they are more likely to encounter someone with HIV.
In fact, the article listed notes that young black gays saw the highest increase (15%), though studies have shown they are not more prone to use drugs, have unsafe sex, and in fact tend to have fewer partners than their white counterparts.
Finally, the idea of gay marriage ‘solving’ problems is, itself, somewhat of a misnomer. Instead, the push for gay marriage shows a maturing of the gay community, a move away from promiscuity, towards more stable relationships.
Henry, putting your lies in bold doesn’t make them any less your lies, or any less a waste of time.
But, as we’ve long since established, your dishonest obfuscations are foot-stamping for attention. Here’s some more. 😉
The gay community does not give up promiscuity and self-destructive behavior even when it invariably results in disabling and lethal diseases that leave one dependent on expensive medications for the rest of their shortened life.
Both straight and gay communities responded in the same ways during the initial crisis – less sex or at least use protection. But neither side gave up on promiscuity by any means. And for a while, the gay community did a better job of modifying behaviors…. for a while. Once it was perceived that AIDs wasn’t spreading into the heterosexual populace as was once predicted / feared, and with the advent of drugs that could control the virus, it was pretty much back to business as usual in both communities.
Yep. I’m dishonest. Oh, and I noticed that wasn’t a response.
Thanks for the attention.
Ooops. 233 was a response to ILC 231. Otherwise, he couldn’t respond to it without me accusing him of lying.
And I wouldn’t want to do that.
That is a rather, shall we say, “delicate” way of putting it. What actually happened was that gay activists fought in the streets to keep gay bath houses open. (Remember, this was before anyone knew about condoms or the details of HIV transmission.) Straight activists didn’t fight to keep the (very very few) straight bath houses open.
Is your position so fragile, that you can’t defend it without resorting to lies? You know that I do not believe that.
No, I don’t. You’ve never said anything of the sort. What you’ve stated is that you will not condemn, criticize, or stop other people from performing these behaviors because that would be imposing your “personal morals” on them.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, these gays’ “personal morals” and what they consider to be part of Folsom involve dressing up two-year-olds as sexual slaves and taking them to “show off†for an “educational experience†at an event full of naked and semi-naked adults masturbating and having public sex in front of them.
V the K nailed your attitude exactly. You’re so terrified of being called “intolerant” that you would rather let children be treated this way instead. You know full well that if you criticize or condemn another gay person’s behavior, you will be told you need to go to “therapy’ and that you are lower than Peter LaBarbera.
It’s just a nice way for you to make my position seem wildly insane and unjust.
That’s because it is. You seemingly have no problem condemning heterosexuals, but when given the opportunity to condemn gay behavior that you allegedly oppose, you spin and waffle. You refuse to criticize your fellow liberal gay parents — likely because you know these two, and if you were to publicly criticize them, your “community” would turn on you, as I detailed above.
You guys are tiring, what with your willingness to forget things and inability to look for them.
You must have missed this from 107:
And just because you delight in taking my ‘education’ statement and applying to situations I never intended. And you do it over and over again, because you have no real argument, rather you resort to making up lies by purposefully taking comments out of context.
So, again, for your benefit, this is what I said, about you:
So, for this to have applied to Folsom folk, they would need to have corrected what they perceived as a bad behavior, right?
Nice try, though.
Surely those households are becoming fewer.
Exactly. It’s almost impossible to shut the world out forever.
I’m sure that is their rationale. And they have bad role models egging them on. We would then have to point fingers at those bad role models, and at culture (i.e., the bad ideas / advice floating in it). As some of us have been doing. 😉 I think there is a special place in Purgatory (let’s say) for gay men in their 40s, 50s and older who try to spread their ‘ideals’ of promiscuity and destructive behavior among the young. In my own small way, I try to spread betterideas, for example, the news that people can quit their destructive behavior if they want.
Let’s qualify it by saying “some” gay people. And I think there is hope for the younger generations. And hey, I turned around a few years ago and gave up promiscuity 😉
Culture matters. We need to stop glorifying promiscuity; the Eric Erbeldings of the world should not have New York Times features. We need to stop glorifying HIV (all the ‘there is life after HIV’ type of ads designed to make the HIV+ feel better about themselves). We need to start (or continue) to glorify gay monogamy. Public policy / economic incentives matter; we need a world where it is clear to people from a very early age that they will pay the price of their bad choices, i.e., *not socialism*.
As I said at #16, my sense / wild guess is that gay people are probably about 70-30 promiscuous / irresponsible, while straights are probably more like 30-70 that way. (Which still leaves more promiscuous straights, in absolute numbers.)
More obligatory attention for our little foot-stamping Henry. Hey, 3 more of his obfuscating lies and I’ll buy him an ice cream!
Already discussed / explained at #65. Explained for the grownups, that is. Not for you. I admit I’ve left you without little basis to understand why the attention I’m giving you is cursory! Why I’m not down there in the trenches, spending SO much time with you! Such things are difficult to explain to people who argue like (and have the honesty of) six year olds.
(i.e., the lack of honesty of six year olds)
For the record, and specially for NDT: I do not approve of bringing children to any sexually explicit venue, gay or straight. Nor do I think dressing children up in S&M leather is cute or appropriate.
Those are your PERSONAL morals, Henry.
Now remember what you said previously?
There are lots of things that occur in public that I personally find offensive – Believe me, you don’t want my personal morals to determine what groups and gatherings should be allowed to occur.
In other words, you don’t approve of it, but you’re not going to stop anyone from doing it, because that would be imposing your “personal morals”.
And, as I said before, then demand that the ban on NAMBLA be lifted, since you insist that “personal morals” should never be allowed to determine what groups and gatherings should be allowed to occur.
Furthermore, let’s demonstrate your logic; according to the standard you apply to gay people, if a Catholic priest knew that other Catholic priests were sexually mistreating children, he didn’t have to do anything about it and held no responsibility for it as long as he personally opposed it and thought it was wrong.
Why guess, when there have been studies?
Yea, I get your flawed logic, NDT.
As I have already explained, there is a difference between my legislating my morality on things I don’t like (IE, Folsom Fair) and in supporting laws which protect those who can not consent or refuse acts (the sexual molestation of children).
It’s sad that in your mind, you can not keep these two things separate.
This is what you said in 65.
Which is an attack, rather than a response.
Ergo, not a response. Oh wait, I forgot, this is what passes for an argument from you. Insults and no substance.
Thanks. And I like Coffee ice cream. Strawberry gives my hives.
A very flawed study! But, you obviously believe in it (why am I not surprised?) so I won’t try to explain its errors to you. Have fun. Have more attention.
A very flawed study!
As opposed to your scientific “I’ll pick 70/30” method, you mean?
Already discussed / explained at #65. Explained for the grownups, that is. Not for you. I admit I’ve left you without little basis to understand why the attention I’m giving you is cursory! Why I’m not down there in the trenches, spending SO much time with you! Such things are difficult to explain to people who argue like six year olds.
Opposing the sexual molestation of young children is an easy call (though I suspect that the separation of NAMBLA from gay pride has more to do with PR than moral outrage), but what about the harder calls? Public indecency? Public sex? Promiscuity in general? Who has the moral guts to take a stand?
And forget about laws and legislation, how about disdain and disapproval? Do you have the guts to stand up for decency? Or, are you afraid of appearing ‘judgmental?’
No. Rather, so flawed that it is virtually as bad as my “wild guess” (that was how I characterized / presented it, Mr. 6 Year Old) 70-30 method.
Again, look at the quote. It explained nothing. It called me a child and apoligzed to the group for going off topic.
Not a response.
Already discussed / explained at #65. ***Explained for the grownups, that is. Not for you. I admit I’ve left you without little basis to understand*** why the attention I’m giving you is cursory! Why I’m not down there in the trenches, spending SO much time with you! Such things are difficult to explain to people who argue like six year olds.
Apparently not, as NDT seems convinced that I am supportive of it, my statements to the contrary not withstanding.
This is easy. I think all are a bad idea. I also think all are practiced by both gay and straight people.
248: ILC
Not a response.
Already discussed / explained at #65. **Explained for the grownups, that is. Not for you. I admit I’ve left you without little basis to understand** why the attention I’m giving you is cursory! Why I’m not down there in the trenches, spending SO much time with you! Such things are difficult to explain to people who argue like six year olds.
Very nice. Dismissed without explanation, yet your “Wild Guess†is fine proof.
Here’s another, older than the first one I posted. From the NE Journal of Medicine.
And as usual, instead of taking personal responsibility, Henry stamps his tiny little foot and points that other people do it.
Never mind that straight people don’t have their community advocating for their ‘civil right’ to engage in public indecency, or sponsoring street festivals devoted to glorifying depravity.
But, if Henry is too dense to have gotten that not-very-subtle distinction by now… he is hopelessly obtuse.
Already discussed / explained at #65. **Explained for the grownups, that is. Not for you. I admit I’ve left you without little basis to understand** why the attention I’m giving you is cursory! Why I’m not down there in the trenches, spending SO much time with you! Such things are difficult to explain to people who argue like six year olds.
You’re right, V. We’ve come full circle to the “straights do it too” type of lame rationalizations that Henry began with at #5.
Fine, ILC tell me how many studies published in medical journals you need before you’re willing to drop your belief that it is 30/70 for straights and 70/30 for gays?
Two, clearly, is not enough.
You have to admire such an unwillingness to change your opinion even when
Confronted with independent evidence to the contrary.
VtK: I’m in a 10 year monogamous relationship. I think that’s personal responsibility, isn’t it?
Oh, and ILC, 258: Not a response.
Already discussed / explained at #65. *Explained for the grownups, that is. Not for you. I admit I’ve left you without little basis to understand* why the attention I’m giving you is cursory! Why I’m not down there in the trenches, spending SO much time with you! Such things are difficult to explain to people who argue like six year olds.
261: Already discussed / explained at #65.
ILC: No it wasn’t. Oh, and repeating the same thing doesn’t make it any less a lie. Clearly, you unable to come up with a response. Which is fine, and not that surprising.
As I have already explained, there is a difference between my legislating my morality on things I don’t like (IE, Folsom Fair) and in supporting laws which protect those who can not consent or refuse acts (the sexual molestation of children).
It’s sad that in your mind, you can not keep these two things separate.
That’s because people are dressing up two-year-olds as sexual slaves and taking them to “show off†for an “educational experience†at an event full of naked and semi-naked adults masturbating and having public sex in front of them — which happens to be the Folsom Street Fair.
But for you to interfere with that would be “legislating your morality”, so you won’t and don’t.
That’s because people are dressing up two-year-olds as sexual slaves and taking them to “show off†for an “educational experience†at an event full of naked and semi-naked adults
So, everyone at Folsom brings children and masterbates in front of them. I didn’t know, as I’ve never been. I’ll have to defer to your personal knowledge.
If that’s true, then I am all for shutting it down.
That is a rather, shall we say, “delicate†way of putting it. What actually happened was that gay activists fought in the streets to keep gay bath houses open. (Remember, this was before anyone knew about condoms or the details of HIV transmission.) Straight activists didn’t fight to keep the (very very few) straight bath houses open.
Straight bath houses – Bah! That’s what truck stops are for!!!! 🙂
Already discussed / explained at #65. **Explained for the grownups, that is. Not for you. I admit I’ve left you without little basis to understand** why the attention I’m giving you is cursory! Why I’m not down there in the trenches, spending SO much time with you! Such things are difficult to explain to people who argue like six year olds.
But Henry, it’s your favorite technique! (As seen in this thread.) LOL 🙂
266 + 267 : Not a response.
You should write that story. Then you should submit it to the Emerson Institute. Check us out. I think you’d like us.