Paul Barnes has resigned from the 2,100-member Grace Chapel, a church he founded in suburban Denver, Reuters reports. He is the second Colorado evangelical leader in little over a month has resigned from the pulpit over a scandal involving gay sex:
Barnes' resignation follows last month's admission by high-profile preacher Ted Haggard that he was guilty of unspecified "sexual immorality"' after a male prostitute went public with their liaisons. ... Barnes told his congregation in a videotaped message on Sunday he had "`struggled with homosexuality since he was five years old."
Barnes was confronted by an associate pastor of the church who received an anonymous phone call from a person who heard someone was threatening to go public with the names of Barnes and other evangelical leaders who engaged in homosexual behavior....
The New York Times takes a look at Gay and Evangelical, Seeking Paths of Acceptance. So maybe the new generation of evangelicals who happen to be gay won't feel that they have live lives of duplicity, hypocrisy and quiet desperation.
97 Comments for “The Evangelical Closet.”
posted by James on
I think the gay evangelical site run by Justin Lee is terrific. My sense is that many in the gay community would attack him for what he is trying to do, which express his homosexual orientation in the context of his Christian faith. He, like me, is waiting until he is in a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship in order to have sex. When I have discussed this with gays, I am greeted with derision and mocking–as if there is only one model for being gay, which is “Grab your condoms and let’s go!” I think that the gay community needs to be as welcoming to men like Justin Lee as they are to Lance Bass, George Michael, and Elton John. In fact, if men like Lee and the other men on his board became the public face of the gay community, I bet we would have marriage and adoption rights much sooner.
posted by ETJB on
James
Their is not only one model for being gay, but in my view the standards should be the same for gays and straights.
It is that way in my religion. Part of the criticism comes from the fact that many of these preachers are treating their homosexuality like an addiction or an illness.
posted by dr on
“My sense is that many in the gay community would attack him for what he is trying to do, which express his homosexual orientation in the context of his Christian faith.”
Has anyone actually attacked Justin Lee from the gay community yet, or is this mere speculation?
posted by cesquaq on
he’s getting criticism and death threats from the hetero evangelical side you soooo long to be accepted by james.
posted by Novaseeker on
What is the big deal about Elton John anyway? He is a partner to a UK domestic partnership.
posted by dr on
“What is the big deal about Elton John anyway? He is a partner to a UK domestic partnership.”
His flamboyance embarasses a few of the posters here, and many people have a blame the victim mentality in regards to gay culture and homophobia, despite all the evidence that they are simply wrong.
posted by Novaseeker on
Ah, I see. But isn’t that insane?
I don’t see why his flamboyance should be an issue for anyone, really, unless they already had an issue with gay people to begin with. I mean, James, what is the big deal if he is flamboyant and somewhat camp, since he has been in a committed relationship for many years now? If anything, he seems like he’s got it together in his life at this point. I can’t see how it helps gay people to restrict people from being flamboyant simply to address straight male conceptions about masculine behavior and expression.
posted by alex on
In fact, if men like Lee and the other men on his board became the public face of the gay community, I bet we would have marriage and adoption rights much sooner.
I think you’re overly optimistic, at best.
The Anti-Gay brigades have no respect for those long term relationships that exist today. They aren’t looking for reasons to welcome us but rather they cling to reasons to hate us.
I know more than a few Christian Gay men who have to hide in their churches to varying degrees. Whether it’s full blown marrying a Beard or just “don’t ask don’t tell” there is no room for them to celebrate any kind of committment they choose to make.
Alex
What did I miss that Lance Bass & Elton John deserve our scorn, other than being Pop Culture figures? (Mr. Micheal, I understand…)
posted by Craig2 on
“Christian” and “family” used to be such nice words before the godbots got hold of them. Anyway… it seems to be the case that some evangelicals are starting to diverge from fundiedom, and will no longer act as euphemistic covers for
rampant polyestery
posted by James on
Here’s what the big deal is about Lance Bass and Elton John (and I don’t see why this isn’t simply self-evident): If the gay community allows men like Lance and Elton to be the public face of homosexuality, then we are less likely to gain rights such as adoption and marriage. If, on the other hand, we start talking about men like Justin Lee and the other men on his site, we will be more likely to get rights such as adoption and marriage.
Maybe it makes you angry that society tends to give support to those with traditional faith and values who live a non-flamboyant life. Maybe you want to keep with the strategy of in-your-face, 24/7, exotic, amoral behavior being the default image of the gay community. How’s that workin’ for ya?
The gaychristians website shows that there is a growing population of gay men who struggle with lack of acceptance from both the gay community and mainstream society. The gay community should simply admit that it makes it very difficult for men who believe in lifelong monogamy, and that the pressure is always there to be “queer” and “outcast” and “amoral.” If Dan Savage is the best the gay community has to offer for an example of commitment and family, then it’s really no wonder no one trusts us with marriage and family. Which does a tremendous disservice to those of us who, like Justin Lee, have the same basic values as most other Americans.
Visit his site. Browse around. Look at the guys on the message boards. Look at their values and concerns. I think you’ll find it refreshing. Then read about the Lance Bass break-up and see what kind of man you admire more.
posted by Antijames on
“If Dan Savage is the best the gay community has to offer for an example of commitment and family, then it’s really no wonder no one trusts us with marriage and family.”
Could you me more openly malevolent? God save us from such Quistian Luv!
posted by Novaseeker on
But, James, there are plenty, plenty, plenty of straight people who are much more outrageous than either Lance Bass or Elton John! Don’t you see? It’s a double standard. People notice what they don’t like about certain gay people and then use that to condemn gay people as a whole. Does anyone look at Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and, as a result, write off the morality of straight people? No, they don’t, because it would be insane to do that. It’s also insane to do that vis-a-vis gay people and the reason that people do it is because of the underlying prejudice against gay people.
Personally I am a big supporter of monogamy, and I’m not attracted to the more outrageous members of the gay community. But to use them as examples to justify straight reluctance to grant us marital rights is really off the mark, it seems to me. They don’t use that outrageous behavior to justify not allowing straight people to marry, do they? Of course not, which indicates clearly that this is not the issue … the issue lies elsewhere, and is to be found in the general underlying prrejudice that people have against gay people, particularly gay men.
posted by dr on
I read Justin Lee’s website. To be honest, it was pretty much the same as every other forum. The people there seemed fairly chill and non-judgemental. Suprsingly, there seemed to be strong support for both judicial and legistlative approaches to equality.
Overall, not my thing, but I’m not a Christian, and so I don’t need to reconcile with my faith. Oh, and I checked for you. No marauding club queens screaming about how they’ve betrayed queer culture. Maybe their posts were deleted.
So James, you still haven’t answered me. Has the gay community attacked that website, or is your persecution complex just gotten that out of hand?
“If Dan Savage is the best the gay community has to offer for an example of commitment and family, then it’s really no wonder no one trusts us with marriage and family.”
Why? Because he encourages people to enjoy sex? Not everyone shares your values. In fact, most Americans don’t. Most Americans enjoy more than a few sexual relationships before they find the person they marry.
He’s loyal to his partner. He encourages people to do things that hurt no one, and are a source of joy to those who do them. Why are you begrudging him this?
“Maybe you want to keep with the strategy of in-your-face, 24/7, exotic, amoral behavior being the default image of the gay community. How’s that workin’ for ya?”
Judging by the progress that’s been made in moving homosexual marraige from unthinkable to acceptance, not too poorly. Things could have gone better. Certainly, for Canadians, they did. But Vermont and Mass. are honoring same sex unions. I can proudly say NJ will be joing them soon, as will, in all likelyhood, NY. The rest of the country will be joining those happy few soon enough. Sadly it will take time, and we can thank your fellow evangelicals, though not the pleasant gay ones, for that.
“The gay community should simply admit that it makes it very difficult for men who believe in lifelong monogamy, and that the pressure is always there to be “queer” and “outcast” and amoral.”
Having been a member of the gay community of London, NYC, and Philadelphia, I’m calling you out. BULLSHIT.
The sexual dynamics were similar to those I’ve experianced in straight circles, just a bit more open, because there are only a single gender involved. When I was in a relationship, no one made things difficult for me. No one pressured me into sex before I was ready. There was no pressure to do the cruising/bathhouse thing. In fact, the subject never came up.
What’s with you James? First you complain you don’t have a support group. Then you found them, and they seem like nice enough guys. But now you’re back with some strawmen about gay culture, blaming the victims of discrimination for their discrimination. James, our behavior does not matter. If it really did, wouldn’t NYC, the epicenter of everything you get freaked out over also be the least tolerent place on the planet?
Why do you think evangelicals are so intent on refering to preference rather than orientation? Why are there ex-gay movements? THE FACT THAT YOU ARE ATTRACTED TO OTHER MEN IS WHAT THEY OBJECT TO. It wouldn’t matter if you were with only one person in your entire existance. It wouldn’t matter if you had a different person each night. They think there is something intrinsically wrong with us and hate us for it. Deal with it.
posted by James on
Here’s a thought-experiment–think of a random group of ten gay men you know–How many are in sexually exclusive, lifelong relationships? How many have a drug or alcohol problem? How many go to church? Now, think of a random group of straight men and ask the same questions. If you are honest, you will find the percentages to be strikingly different.
Justin Lee and the men like him fully embrace being gay–but they are also mature enough to realize that not every expression of homosexuality is healthy or moral. They have those things which are so alien to the gay subculture–prudence and self-control.
An analogy might be the world of Islam. I have met many terrific Muslims, but I have to admit that the Muslims who form the public face of the community do the rest of the community a great disservice. I would love the world to know about all the great moderate Muslims, but they have to fight against an image created by the extremist elements. Simply trying to deny that image exists is not helpful. Nor it helpful for the gay community to simply deny the image it has allowed the extremist elements within it to create. We need to create a new image by turning down the flamboyance and emphasize the genuine love and monogamy of so many gay men.
posted by Mark on
“Here’s a thought-experiment–think of a random group of ten gay men you know–How many are in sexually exclusive, lifelong relationships? How many have a drug or alcohol problem? How many go to church? Now, think of a random group of straight men and ask the same questions. If you are honest, you will find the percentages to be strikingly different.”
Holy smokes, do you know anything about statistics? Such a small sample size (10) would be worthless to draw any conclusions from. Do you have any actual real statistics to back up your perceptions of gays?
posted by Lesbian Manhattan Attorney on
Here’s a thought-experiment–think of a random group of ten gay men you know–How many are in sexually exclusive, lifelong relationships? How many have a drug or alcohol problem? How many go to church? Now, think of a random group of straight men and ask the same questions. If you are honest, you will find the percentages to be strikingly different.
Yes, you are right. The ten random gay guys I know are (mostly) relatively conservative, are lawyers/engineers/doctors, looking for a steady boyfriend/in a relationship, no drug problems, don’t flaunt their sexuality, and although most of them don’t go to church, one of them regularly goes to synagogue. The ten random straight guys… don’t even get me started. One just got back from Thailand sex vacation, another is a “swinger,” one is a total pothead… etc.
I know what answer you were looking for, but I’m answering honestly. Maybe my friends are outliers, but really, I find that the straight people in New York are quite brazen about their sexuality.
posted by James on
So, you’re saying that the image of a gay man as a flamboyant/exotic/amoralperson who abuses alcohol and drugs is simply made up out of thin air? You’re saying this image can be attributed to only one single gay person ever that someone saw walking down the streets of Key West who somehow, through repetition became the cultural stereotype? That the real gay community is made up of doctors, teachers, and volunteer firemen, all of whom simply want to settle down with one other man for the rest of their lives?
We need to find that one guy, that guy in the Gwen Stefani wig, who is responsible for our distorted image and stop him! Because the gay community is in no way, never ever, nuh uh, responsible for the way it presents itself. Any negative response is entirely due to homophobia and none is due to the public behavior of gays.
Oh, and of course, any gay man who finds the gay community a toxic and distorted place to be is a self-loathing queer with severe internalized homophobia. Because the gay community treats everybody well and never does anything hurtful or harmful and never, ever, ever criticizes any gay man for what he believes.
Thanks for the reparative therapy session!
My point in all of my posts is this–maybe if the gay community could handle a little self-criticism, it might find alternative ways to express homosexuality which are healthy, happy, prudent, and mature. But I don’t think the gay community could ever criticize itself.
posted by tim on
James, there isn’t one gay community just as there isn’t one straight community.
Most gay people live quiet, normal lives. The work, they take care of their family, etc.
The youth obsessed party culture that you’re describing is a sub-culture of the gay culture.
Have you ever been to Mardi Gras ? Would you judge all straight people by what goes on there.
I think your problem James, is that you want to fit in with the muscle boi, party crowd and you’re not accepted by that group.
posted by alex on
So, you’re saying that the image of a gay man as a flamboyant/exotic/amoralperson who abuses alcohol and drugs is simply made up out of thin air? You’re saying this image can be attributed to only one single gay person ever that someone saw walking down the streets of Key West who somehow, through repetition became the cultural stereotype? That the real gay community is made up of doctors, teachers, and volunteer firemen, all of whom simply want to settle down with one other man for the rest of their lives?
Something like that…yes.
When gay people are portrayed in the media (news / entertainment) the choices are the boring “conventional folks” or the flamboyant queers. Which makes for interesting TV? Which gets more eyeballs?
“Oh my god! Look at that disgusting display…” They gotta see it to hate it.
posted by Novaseeker on
“My point in all of my posts is this–maybe if the gay community could handle a little self-criticism, it might find alternative ways to express homosexuality which are healthy, happy, prudent, and mature. But I don’t think the gay community could ever criticize itself.”
The criticism is that your own stereotyping of the gay community ring false to many of us.
Are there people like that who are gay? Sure! But it isn’t the whole group, and, to be honest, it isn’t the vast majority of the group either, but in some ways it is more visible than other parts of the gay community because it’s what people choose to focus on. The gay community, if anything, is wildly diverse, and the more quiet aspects of it are simply less well known.
The real issue I sense in your posts, James, is this idea that if you simply act like a nice straight guy, the nice straight guys will accept you. As I said to you in another post, you will only see how accepting they are of you when you walk up to them hand in hand with your boyfriend and give him a kiss in the way that straight people are “permitted” to do in public. Then you’ll see how accepting they are of you as a nice straight-acting guy … and you’ll see that this acceptance that you’ve gained is only as good as you continue to be straight-acting (which of course by definition does not include holding your BF’s hand or kissing him). Once you cross that rubicon, it doesn’t matter how straight acting you are otherwise, you’re just not going to be accepted in the same way. So I sense in your posts this tension between wanting to be accepted as just like one of the straight guys when at the same time there’s this one like BIG difference between you and them, and one which *they* will have a hard time accepting, even if you otherwise “act straight”. While I have nothing against gay folks who are “straight acting” (I think people should act in a way that is comfortable and comes naturally to them, to be honest), prescribing this as a model of behavior for *all* gay people is simply extending “don’t ask, don’t tell” to a global level, really. It accomplishes nothing but the semblance of acceptance based on hiding the underlying facts.
posted by dr on
Well said Novaseeker. Though I think I’m having too much fun with the stereotypes to let them go, so I’m going to start judging all straight people by those who are on Jerry Springer and Britney Spears and all religious people by Fred Phelps and Eric Rudolph. After all, they haven’t done enough to disavow them.
posted by pete on
Doesn’t matter how you behave. Once you’re known to be gay, insults will be found for you. For example, once Dave Kopay came out, sports commentators found plenty of derogatory things to say that they never had before.
posted by Tim on
Next, James will blame racism on the behavior of Black People and Sexism on the behavior of Women.
posted by James on
I don’t want to be accepted as a nice-acting straight guy–I AM a nice-acting straight gay, except for the gay part. I, like many other gay men, am simply a guy with no particularly exotic or flamboyant ambitions. And I agree that most gay men are not flambooyant either. But we have allowed the community to be represented by the flamboyant types, and I’m not sure why that is. And I’m not sure why the gay community isn’t doing any sort of self-critiquing which would result in rebranding.
And I think you are stereotyping straight men when you assume that the minute they discover you are gay, they will hate you. Most, nay all, of my current friends are straight. While they know I’m gay, they don’t care, and it’s not the focus of who we are or what we do together. We, like, you know, watch TV or hang out. When I had gay friends, it was, girlfriend, try this, take this, waah the world hates us, 24/7.
My guy friends would be thrilled if I got married to a guy and settled down–as I’ve said in other posts, my pastor will be happy to bless the union. It has taken me a long time, though, to get out of the gay ghetto and rebuild my life as a normal person, and frankly, the gay people were not very supportive or helpful.
I do think that straight men are afraid of effeminate behavior–that’s what they really mean by “gay.” But if you’re a normal guy, they don’t care about your private life. If we could rebrand ourselves, and show people that gay men are more like the guys on The Best Damn Sports Show Ever instead of the gals on The View, we’d be a lot better off.
posted by Tim on
Wow, so only fem gay men deserve to be hated.
posted by dr on
“I do think that straight men are afraid of effeminate behavior–that’s what they really mean by gay.”
Any “man” who freaks out over “effeminate” behavior needs to grow the up. I’m sorry, but that’s bullshit most people left behind in highschool, and they should not be coddled because they managed to reach their 30’s with a 16 year old’s mindset. If it threatens someone a person might dress in drag or be a bit campy, then they’re not a man, they’re a joke.
posted by Novaseeker on
Well, James, you’re entitled to your own views. I do hope you find the acceptance that you seek, or at least feel less burdened by the rest of the gay community in achieving that.
The thing I don’t like is the idea that more fem gays are “abnormal” or whatever, or that the gay community should discourage them or try to get them to “act more straight”. Personally I think people should be free to behave as they wish, and yes some gay people are more gender different than others … which is fine with me. Some of them are quite cute, heh … but in any case, it’s sad that you feel so disconnected from the gay community in general. Oh well, we all make our choices in life based on our own criteria.
As for rebranding? To what? I mean, in my view, the gay community is just really, really broad with a lot of different behaviors. It’s no surprise at all that the most flamboyant ones or the ones that are the most gender variant get the most notice because of course they are the people who stand out the most in a crowd … but trying to “rebrand” the image of gays as mostly straight-acting church-goers is not accurate either, and seems doomed to failure. The reality is that gay men are a pretty diverse bunch. The straight world should accept *all* of us, not just the straight acting ones. The fact that straight men are uncomfortable with the way some gay men express themselves is a very big problem, and not something, in my opinion, gay people should be condoning at all, but to each his own I suppose.
posted by PCT on
James when I first read your posts I was kind of sympathetic to your views. I’m a Christian too, and I’ve been sneered at by my fellow gay guys for my beliefs. But I wonder, can you really blame some gay people for rejecting Christianity? Who do you think is driving every effort to deny we exist, and to mess with our lives? It’s sure not the Wiccans…
It seems to me that the only way to make changes in how we are treated is to live our lives openly and honestly with the people we know. You obviously are doing that – and it’s paying off for you. Each of us has to do that in our own way. Some of us are conservative and live in white bread suburbs or rural areas. Some of us live in the ghettos. And frankly, I see in the gay press a ton of criticism for the party boys who are just out to get laid as often as possible.
But no matter what, there are a certain number of people who are going to choose to hate us and work to make our lives miserable. They will not care if we are conservative or flamboyant. And unfortunately, those people, at least in the United States, are predominantly Christians.
It just seems to me that your contention is naive – that if we would just all act like the straight guy next door that James Dobson will suddenly like us. I wish you were right, but I don’t think you are.
posted by James on
You say that everybody should be able to behave the way they want to and gays shouldn’t have to change their public behavior in any way. Another thought experiment–you’re in a plane and a group of Muslims in robes face east and begin to pray.
Do you welcome their diversity? Or do you want to get off the plane as soon as possible? You know, I know, that most Muslims are truly wonderful people–but we have an image in our heads based on what we have seen in the media.
Don’t you think it might be a good idea if Muslims tried to change their public image? Don’t you think they might be happier if people saw them as American citizens with jobs and families who contribute to society? Don’t you think it might help if their leaders got on television dressed in normal clothes and talked about the same traditional values everyone has? Yes, that might require a bit of assimilation, but would it hurt that much to tone it down in order to gain a bit more understanding? Don’t you think people would be less likely to beat up Muslims out of fear if they saw Muslims as part of the same community? Don’t you think that the Muslim community suffers because a small minority of radical Muslims are trying to push a radical Muslim agenda down society’s throat?
If you are honest, and not just out to prove me wrong, you’ll admit you agree with what I just said.
Now, replace the word “Muslim” with “gay” in the above paragraph and maybe you’ll see what I’m talking about.
posted by raj on
James | December 14, 2006, 11:48am |
When I had gay friends…
Ah, the truth is out. You have no gay friends. Maybe you should look at yourself–you whine here more than anyone else I’ve seen anywhere else on the internet. Maybe if you didn’t whine so much, you might have some gay friends, and maybe even some who fit the stereotype that you would prefer.
Let’s understand a few things. In no particular order:
One, there is no gay community–certainly not a monolithic one that you seem to envision. So your complaints about “why can’t the gay community do this…” and “why can’t the gay community do that…” and “why does the gay community allow (whomever) to represent it…,” etc., etc., etc., are really rather silly.
Two, you’ve incessantly whined about the fact that gay people you have seen–mostly in the media, I guess–don’t act in a way that you want them to. Well, sorry, but I guess you’ll just have to get over it. The fact–which you apparently would like to ignore–is that other people are not going to act the way that you want them to, merely because it would make you feel comfortable. Are you really so arrogant as to believe that other people are going to act the way that you want them to? You don’t like effeminate men because they make you feel uncomfortable? Fine exclude them from your circle of friends–but don’t believe for a minute that they will change the way they act just because you want them to.
Three, you continually whine about the (non-existent) gay community allowing people like this, that and the other (now it’s Lance Bass, George Michael, and Elton John) representing it. Even aside from the fact that there is no gay community, Lance Bass, George Michael and Elton John represent themselves. Moreover, Lance Bass was outed–apparently not by a gay person, and not necessarily voluntarily–Michael has been out for more than a few years after he was involuntarily outed, and Elton John is an entertainer, most of whose act turns on his flamboyant personality on stage. (As far as I’m concerned, Elton John is only a passable singer, and a decent piano player, and his flamboyance on stage is probably what makes him a successful entertainer.)
Four, here or maybe on another comment thread, you whined that, if the gay community won’t accept you, and evangelical christians won’t accept you, then where are you to go? (Frankly, given your bitching&moaning here and IGF, I doubt that I would accept you either.) Well, I guess that it escaped your notice lo these last several years that there been at least website for gay evangelical christians–Justin Lee’s site featured in tne NYTimes article linked to above. I found it after 15 seconds of googling. I was wondering how the NYTimes writer might have found the site, so I did some googling using search terms “gay christian evangelical” and lo-and-behold! it showed up on the first page returned by google. It seems to me that, if you were really interested in finding gay evangelical christians, you would have done some googling instead of just typing here feeling sorry for yourself.
Five, you suggest that Justin Lee should be admired–I don’t know by whom and for what, but I’ll let that ride. I will admit that I find it admirable that he had the intestinal fortitude to see that there was something missing in his life, and that he set about to try to correct that by setting up his web site. (That’s a lot more than I can say for you, who only seem to want to whine.) On the other hand, I don’t find it admirable that he was unable to throw off his yoke of his christian upbringing, which would have freed him from that there was something missing in his life that he believed needed correcting. More than a few of us have.
Six, you really suggesting that we are supposed to determine whether Justin Lee or Lance Bass is more admirable because of the latter’s break-up? Oh, please, give me a break–that’s nonsensical. I, for one, had never heard of Justin Lee before the NYTimes article or Lance Bass before his having been outed. And I doubt that you would have heard of Justin Lee and his website had it not been for the NYTimes article; and I further doubt that many people would have heard that Lance Bass had broken up had he not been outed.
Seven, regarding Here’s a thought-experiment–think of a random group of ten gay men you know–How many are in sexually exclusive, lifelong relationships? How many have a drug or alcohol problem? How many go to church?, aside from the fact that you obviously really don’t understand what a Gedankenexperiment (“thought-experiment”) is, some of us don’t have the same obsession that you seem to have regarding “sexually exclusive, lifelong relationships” or going to church that you do. (I’ll leave out drug or alcohol problems, which obviously can damage the individual(s) involved.) So what? You obviously believe that those are the touchstones for your life, but others may not agree with you. So, to re-iterate what I said above, are you really so arrogant as to believe that other people are supposed to live the way that you want them to?
Stop whining.
posted by Novaseeker on
“Another thought experiment–you’re in a plane and a group of Muslims in robes face east and begin to pray.
Do you welcome their diversity? Or do you want to get off the plane as soon as possible? You know, I know, that most Muslims are truly wonderful people–but we have an image in our heads based on what we have seen in the media.”
Actually, James, as long as it is not unsafe for the airplane, I have no issues about people praying on planes, including Muslims. I don’t feel repulsed by them, there are many Muslims where I live, including the neighbour across the hallway from my apartment and another one down the hallway. Pfft.
Fem gays should be left alone and not bashed for their behavior BY THEIR FELLOW GAYS. There’s enough straight men to do that, sheesh!
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
So, to re-iterate what I said above, are you really so arrogant as to believe that other people are supposed to live the way that you want them to?
Well, if he answers “yes,” we know he’s a Democrat (or a Republican). 😉
posted by James on
Just out of curiosity, is there any level of self-critique from which the gay community might benefit? Have we ever done anything, any tiny little thing, that might have been a mistake? I recognize that this is a hugely diverse community which spans the gap from Gwen Stefani fans to Kelly Clarkson fans, but could a community that wide and deep ever have done anything which might have, in the oh-so-slightest way, contributed to its own problems?
Or is every negative opinion about the gay community motivated purely and simply by homophobia? Can we say that anyone guided by pure reason would never find any reason to fault the gay community for anything?
Since I am obviously wrong in all my assessments, I’d like to know if there is anything, any one tiny thing, that might be an area where the gay community has room for improvement. Or is the gay community simply incapable of self-critique?
posted by Tim on
James,
There is plenty of self-criticism. Look at the efforts to eliminate Meth use and un-safe sex practices.
posted by Novaseeker on
“Just out of curiosity, is there any level of self-critique from which the gay community might benefit?”
Sure, like everyone else.
“could a community that wide and deep ever have done anything which might have, in the oh-so-slightest way, contributed to its own problems?”
Sure, noone is perfect.
“I’d like to know if there is anything, any one tiny thing, that might be an area where the gay community has room for improvement.”
Cooperating better, and not dividing amongst ourselves would be a great improvement, for starters. 🙂
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Look at the efforts to eliminate Meth use and un-safe sex practices.
All of which blame the “religious right” and “homophobia” for causing gay men to use meth and have unsafe sex.
This is why, despite the millions of dollars and hours pumped into these, the rate of new diagnoses continues to rise and the use of meth stays well ahead of other population groups; after all, it’s not YOUR fault you’re using or screwing unprotected, it’s the fact that “everyone else” is homophobic and the “religious right” is making you do it.
What I think is obvious is that gay leftists never studied the history of Western boomtowns; in a situation in which sex is paramount and easily-obtained and restraint is nonexistent or mocked, STDs and drug use become endemic. The irony of the situation is that gay leftists will mock sexual restraint one minute as being “Stepford wife” behavior, but then wonder why the gay community has a massive problem with AIDS and drug use. They criticize people like James who they claim want gays to act “more normal”, but ignore the fact that those “more normal” people have far lower rates of HIV infection and drug use.
Cooperating better, and not dividing amongst ourselves would be a great improvement, for starters.
Mhm.
I’ve noticed something, novaseeker; you seem to be very good at picking on the nonconformist (James), but ignore statements like this in reference to Justin Lee:
On the other hand, I don’t find it admirable that he was unable to throw off his yoke of his christian upbringing, which would have freed him from that there was something missing in his life that he believed needed correcting. More than a few of us have.
Or, in other words, gays who are Christian are stupid and incomplete, said in the most condescending manner possible.
Not a word from you. Not a word from any of your cohorts. Yet you can find every reason to parse James’s statements to death because, since he’s criticizing the gay community, he must be wrong.
If Raj would be honest and admit that he was an antireligious bigot, that wouldn’t be a problem to me. However, Raj and the majority of other gays, especially here, excuse their antireligious bigotry on the grounds of their being gay, which is bullshit, and insinuate that gays who aren’t antireligious bigots are inferior.
And that, I think, is the root of James’s issue with the gay community; gay leftists have made it obvious that being gay is incompatible with being in any way “normal” or adhering to any other of society’s mores.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But I wonder, can you really blame some gay people for rejecting Christianity? Who do you think is driving every effort to deny we exist, and to mess with our lives? It’s sure not the Wiccans…
I would buy that theory if it were socially-acceptable for me to blame all Mexicans, mock all Mexicans as inferior, and ridicule gay Mexicans who didn’t deny their ethnicity as “self-loathing” — all because one of my very good friends was nearly beaten to death by a group of them.
But, since it’s not, I see no reason to allow other gays to do the equivalent with Christians — except for the fact that, as I outlined above, antireligious bigotry is considered part of being truly gay, and you, PCT, are considered inferior for “failing to throw off your yoke of Christianity”.
It just seems to me that your contention is naive – that if we would just all act like the straight guy next door that James Dobson will suddenly like us. I wish you were right, but I don’t think you are.
So the logic here is that, since James Dobson will never like us, there’s no reason to moderate gay behavior in the least.
The reason James and I don’t buy that, PCT, is because we have realized a terrible, terrible truth, one that the gay leftists who set ideology for our community have tried to bury for years; not all Christians are like James Dobson.
Why? Because “gay unity” represents control, power, and money to gay leftists, and the best way to get it is by creating a common enemy. Gay leftists have gotten very good at playing on the need to rebel against your parents’ beliefs, the antireligious bigotry that is part and parcel of higher education, the need to “belong”, and the idea that the sexual mores of the religious are “uncool” and “repressed” to paint Christianity’s relationship to gays as akin to Nazism to Jews.
And quite simply, it’s not good enough to sit back and let them do it anymore.
A vast, vast majority of Americans are religious; how do you think they’re going to react to an ideology that considers them supersitious and ignorant? An enormous number of Americans think monogamy and fidelity in marriage are a great idea and teenage sex is not; how do you think they’re going to react to an ideology that considers that “Stepford wife” and “repressed”, and insinuates that there’s something wrong with being like your neighbors and not screwing everything you can? Half of them are Republican or Republican-leaning; how exactly do you intend to persuade them to support an ideology that brands them as no better than Adolf Hitler and insists that they’re refurbishing internment camps in the Pacific Northwest for gays?
The reason, again, that the gay left is like this is because they’re addicted to the power and prestige that “gay unity” brings them. They like having free rein to control the lives of other gays, they like being able to be exclusionary and abusive to those who step out of line, and they really like the vast sums of money and token “acceptance” they are paid by leftist groups and politicos to deliver the “gay bloc”.
But, in the process, they have associated gays with a vast majority of things that Americans oppose — and, to cover up the fact, have blamed all the gay community’s problems on “Christians” and invented a new and rich vocabulary for gays like James, myself, and (apparently) you, all of which equate to “self-loathing traitor”.
So, in short, yes I can blame them — because I’ve seen what they do with it. I can understand their rejection of Christianity personally, but for them to generalize what happened to them to all Christians and all gays is silly, and their attempts to force gays like you, me, and James into their mindsets is no different than what was previously done to them, and it does nothing good for public perception of gays.
posted by Novaseeker on
I always find it humorous when you associate me with the so-called “gay leftists”. What a large axe *you* seem to have to grind, eh?
I don’t agree with Raj’s statements about religion, because I think people should be free to define themselves as they wish, including as Christian and gay. What I was objecting to in James’ posts was the notion, among other things, that people like Elton John (scroll up, that’s where this conversation started) are problematic for the image of the gay community, which I disagree with because, again, I think we should celebrate the diversity of our community while remaining united for the causes that unite us and impact us all, whether we are like Elton John or like Justin Lee. I do *not* like it at all when someone comes along from either side and says “this is the best way to be gay” because to me that is utter bullshit, and it’s exactly what YOU are doing here as well. If people want to be flamboyant, let them. If people want to be conservative Christian and gay, let them. If people want to be neither, then let them. But lets not have the conservative Christian gays whining about Elton John and vice-versa. It achieves nothing, and divides us against ourselves even more than we already are, which is extremely counterproductive.
posted by raj on
James | December 14, 2006, 9:34pm |
Just out of curiosity, is there any level of self-critique from which the gay community might benefit?… Or is the gay community simply incapable of self-critique?
Aside from the fact that there is no gay community, and picking up on Tim’s comment after yours, if you really wanted to find out whether media directed to gays criticize gays, you might make use of google.com. Apparently, as I noted above in connection with my having found Justin Lee’s gay evangelical christian website after less than a minute of googling, you are adverse to using google.com to find resources that may be useful to you, and to actually find out whether your preconceived notions have anything to do with reality. If you do a google.com search using the keywords “advocate crystal meth methamphetamine gay” (in case you don’t know it, The Advocate is a periodical to gay people) you’ll find a number of publications that deal with problems involved with crystal meth use among gay people. I did. I suppose that if I knew the scientific and/or street names of other “party” drugs, I might have found more. You might try it sometime.
On the other hand, maybe you are either too lazy to use the resources that are available to you over the internet using google or other search engines, or you want to wallow in your preconceived notions. Or maybe both.
posted by raj on
Novaseeker | December 15, 2006, 2:33pm |
I don’t agree with Raj’s statements about religion, because I think people should be free to define themselves as they wish, including as Christian and gay.
Justin Lee can define himself however he wants–as can you or anyone else, for that matter. But I don’t feel it necessary to find how Lee defines himself admirable.
posted by Novaseeker on
Oh and another thing/
“not all Christians are like James Dobson.”
That’s true, but the problem with Dobson is that he is both extremely anti-gay and extremely powerful politically (I mean, he gets to pre-approve the White House’s Supreme Court selections, which is an absolute outrage … can you imagine the outcry if Karl Rove called Bill Gates to pre-approve Supreme Court appointments?!?). Therefore he is a menace to gays and lesbians everywhere, even conservative Christian ones. More Christians should be standing up to Dobson, but alas, where are those voices? Or is it a case of not wanting to criticize any Christians at all? Alas, I think that the pot may have met the kettle….
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What I was objecting to in James’ posts was the notion, among other things, that people like Elton John (scroll up, that’s where this conversation started) are problematic for the image of the gay community, which I disagree with because, again, I think we should celebrate the diversity of our community while remaining united for the causes that unite us and impact us all, whether we are like Elton John or like Justin Lee.
What exactly should I be celebrating in this statement from Sir Elton, Novaseeker?
?From my point of view, I would ban religion completely. Organized religion doesn?t seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it?s not really compassionate.?
And why is that a problem?
?I think religion has always tried to turn hatred toward gay people,? John said in the Observer newspaper?s Music Monthly Magazine. ?Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays.?
Do you understand the problem here?
If Sir Elton could be an antireligious bigot on his own time, it wouldn’t be a problem. However, he sits up there and goes on about how religion is always evil, how it always oppresses gays, how all religious people are “hateful lemmings”, and if gays like him were in charge, it would be banned completely.
What James and I are both doing is pointing out that that sort of thing is completely counterproductive, and that Sir Elton would do well to express his antireligious bigotry as separate from his sexual orientation.
However, as long as Sir Elton, Raj, and other gay leftists wish to conflate the two, I see no reason to “be united” with them.
And as far as your plea to avoid division, what you seem to fail to realize is that the reason Gene Robinson and Mel White utterly lack credibility among Christians is because, when confronted with a choice like this, they make it obvious that they side with “gay” first and “Christian” only when it’s convenient. They know very well that if they were to criticize Sir Elton’s statements, they would lose their status as favored puppets and tokens and would be subject to the same vicious attacks against other religious gays that they themselves overlook.
In short, if you want to portray gays as a diverse group, you have to learn how to tolerate dissent. And if you want unity on issues, focus on the issues themselves, rather than allowing the issues to be used as a smokescreen for carrying out other unrelated vendettas.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That’s true, but
You can stop right there, novaseeker.
I’m sure you can come up with a myriad more reasons why I should share in your irrational hatred of Dobson and resulting anti-Christian bigotry, but the simple fact of the matter is that there is a rational mind at work here, and you’re wasting your effort.
For instance, your “outrage” over Dobson supposedly “pre-approving the White House’s Supreme Court selections”.
Two words: Harriet Miers.
Dobson allegedly “pre-approved” her, but yet, despite what you claim to be his almost-godlike political power, she’s not on the Supreme Court.
Now, I can only theorize as to why this is such a threat to you; it’s probably on the order of, “IF Dobson approved Miers and IF she was confirmed and IF Roe v. Wade were brought up again, she MIGHT vote to overturn it, and enough of her fellow justices MIGHT concur that it would happen.”
In the meantime, gays like Elton John ARE equating gayness with being antireligious, other gays ARE claiming that things like sexual responsibility and “normal” behavior are “Stepford wife” and repulsive, and HIV new infection and drug use rates among gay men ARE holding at levels that do the Third World proud.
Sometimes I wonder if the gay community’s fixation with Dobson is less a reaction to a threat and more of an avoidance of reality. If we didn’t have Dobson to blame for all our problems, we would have to evaluate ourselves — and for a community that, according to it, is not at fault for any of its difficulties, that would be catastrophic.
posted by NorthDallasRetard on
ND30 is telling people to focus on the issues! LOL! If there was ever a more myopic and assinine person on the internet I have yet to come across them…really, keep up the good work ND30, you are hilariously retarded!
posted by James on
FWIW, I loathe James Dobson. I think he distorts Christianity as much as Lance Bass distorts homosexuality. I am an Episcopalian, not a fundamentalist. With the rest of my church, I believe in the Creeds and the inspiration of Scripture.
My Christian heroes are people like Bono, Jimmy Carter, Jim Wallis, Bruce Cockburn, Archbishop Tutu, Brian McLaren, Marcus Borg, etc. They are all progressive Christians who support embracing the outcast, and therefore, to different degrees, support gays in their journey. However, they also would all suggest that Christian gays seek lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships based on the traditional marriage vows. So, they are witnesses to Christ’s embrace and love of gays, and His call to a healthier and more satisfying way of expressing homosexuality than is found in the gay community.
I agree with what North Dallas Thirty is saying (obviously). I came to IGF expecting there to be more people like him, since this is considered the conservative gay blog. The idea that there are gays more conservative than IGF shows how far out of touch I seem to be.
posted by funny on
FWIW, I loathe James Dobson. I think he distorts Christianity as much as Lance Bass distorts homosexuality.
that’s giving lance bass too much credit. he’s just one dumb dude who used to be in a boy band. anyone who thinks lance bass has as much cultural clout as james dobson isn’t playing with a full deck.
posted by Novaseeker on
And now I’m an “anti-Christian bigot” because I think more Christians should call Dobson and his ilk to account for their nonsense? One thing I will say about you, North Dallas, is that you absolutely adore labels. Two facts about me: (1) I am not a leftist and (2) I am not an anti-Christian bigot. I fully support gay people who choose to be Christian.
As for Elton John, I don’t think that James’ reference to him related to the statements you quoted, because he mentioned in him in the same sentence as he did Lance Bass, who, as far as I am aware, has not made any public statements similar to the ones you quoted. The issue with Elton John was his flamboyance and appearance, not his statements (in fact, I would be surprised if many straight people were even familiar with those statements). Yet again, another attempt to steer the conversation away from where it was, but as transparent and fruitless as your attempts generally are.
As for Harriet Miers, the point is this: regardless of the outcome, WHY THE HELL SHOULD THE WHITE HOUSE BE CALLING DOBSON ABOUT THIS TO BEGIN WITH? Would it be okay for a Catholic President to call the Pope to discuss Supreme Court choices? It’s an abuse, plain and simple, regardless of the fact that Bush had to back down from his choice of Miers because *others* did not approve of her. Dobson should have had no input at all, it’s outrageous that he was involved at all.
And yes, I consider myself “gay” before I consider myself anything else, because it is intrinsic to my being. I can choose a politics, vaciliate bewteen different politics and change my mind time and again about that over the course of a lifetime. I can similarly choose to be a believer or not, and back and forth again over the course of a lifetime. But I cannot choose to be gay or not, and so, yes, it’s more intrinsic to me than my politics or my spiritual life because it isn’t mutable.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And now I’m an “anti-Christian bigot” because I think more Christians should call Dobson and his ilk to account for their nonsense?
Ah, if that were only what you were doing.
Exhibit A:
The issue with Elton John was his flamboyance and appearance, not his statements (in fact, I would be surprised if many straight people were even familiar with those statements). Yet again, another attempt to steer the conversation away from where it was, but as transparent and fruitless as your attempts generally are.
Avoidance statements:
1. That’s not what we were talking about.
2. Nobody knew about it.
3. You’re a stinky poopyhead.
In order:
1. James did not bring up Elton John’s “flamboyance”. That was brought up by dr, who is hostile to James, as a “reason”.
2. Google “Elton John hateful lemming”. Just looking at the first page, I think more than a few straight people read CNN.com, MSNBC.com, the Chicago Tribune, BBC.co.uk…………
3. Please. I get called “Jewish Nazi”, “kapo”, “Uncle Tom”, “self-loathing”, and numerous other pet names, and have my sexuality, my looks, my partner, my education, my religion, etc. criticized on a regular basis. You can do better than THAT.
So, instead of speaking out against the antireligious gay bigot, you went after the gay Christian who pointed out the fact.
Exhibit B:
As for Harriet Miers, the point is this: regardless of the outcome, WHY THE HELL SHOULD THE WHITE HOUSE BE CALLING DOBSON ABOUT THIS TO BEGIN WITH? Would it be okay for a Catholic President to call the Pope to discuss Supreme Court choices? It’s an abuse, plain and simple, regardless of the fact that Bush had to back down from his choice of Miers because *others* did not approve of her. Dobson should have had no input at all, it’s outrageous that he was involved at all.
What is interesting in that statement is your belief that the US President should be forbidden to talk to certain people and that Bush’s doing so was an “abuse” — mainly because it’s shared with so many right-wing fundamentalists.
Of course, I’m sure that you find their attitudes that the President should never talk to gays to be repugnant — just as they find your attitude that the President should never talk to religious leaders to be disgusting. It’s amazing how similar bigotry looks, regardless of against whom it’s directed.
Personally, I don’t particularly care. If the US President wants to ask for advice or discuss choices with people, I hardly think that’s something we need to be limiting.
So, to summarize, the fact that you think more Christians should speak out about Dobson is not what makes you an antireligious bigot; how you got to that decision does.
But I cannot choose to be gay or not, and so, yes, it’s more intrinsic to me than my politics or my spiritual life because it isn’t mutable.
Unfortunately, though, you grant this immutable characteristic the power to determine your politics and your spiritual life. Leftists would have a laughing fit if it were said that blue eyes required you to vote Democrat and be antireligious, but the same is said every day, even here, for sexual orientation.
posted by Alex on
Unfortunately, though, you grant this immutable characteristic the power to determine your politics and your spiritual life. Leftists would have a laughing fit if it were said that blue eyes required you to vote Democrat and be antireligious, but the same is said every day, even here, for sexual orientation.
What’s the rate of assault or murder of blue-eyed people for being blue-eyed? Simple self-interest means I align myself with those who will support my interests…oh not many of those around. Well, maybe I should support those who, at the very least, don’t feel I should be a criminal or fired or denied housing or “saved” just for being blue-eyed…er…gay?
posted by NorthDallasRetard on
Does anyone have any idea what ND30 is rambling on about? He demands others to stick to the issue at hand but than brings up a limitless supply of Straw Men and completely Asinine and Myopic talking points. WAAA! Gays demean my character and my (retarded) reasoning skills…WAAA! Go cry to mama you fricking idiot…
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Well, maybe I should support those who, at the very least, don’t feel I should be a criminal or fired or denied housing or “saved” just for being blue-eyed…er…gay?
I would buy that theory, Alex, if gay people like Elton John and Novaseeker weren’t demanding that Christians be made criminals or barred from speaking to the President because of their religious beliefs, or if in another thread people hadn’t demanded that Christians who requested reasonable accomodation at work be publicly identified so that gays could urinate and vomit on them.
posted by James on
Let’s assume that one thing gay men have in common is an attraction to other men.
Beyond that, why do we have to agree on anything? We don’t even agree on which men are attractive. My current celebrity crush is Dominic Purcell. Some guys find that type attractive, other people like Matt Damon, who doesn’t interest me at all. Being gay doesn’t mean that we have to agree on anything.
Having established that, let’s go on to another point: Being gay is not in any way synonymous with being effeminate, flamboyant, or exotic. There are, in fact, many straight men who like to dress in drag. Being outrageous is not intrinsic to being gay. You are not expressing your homosexuality by being flamboyant–you may be expressing yourself, but the desire to be flamboyant does not come from being homosexual.
It is possible to be gay and to be an average and typical guy. The gay gene does not determine your values. You can be attracted to men and have traditional values and orthodox faith.
The gay community, however, is made up of people who use homosexuality as an excuse to promote a larger, mostly leftist, agenda which has nothing to do with homosexuality. It has more to do with amorality. The reason a lot of straight people support the gay community is not because they are sensitive to our issues, but because they want to promote amorality as well. If they can “normalize” exotic gay behavior, then they can normalize their own sexual obsessions. I have never trusted the straight people who encourage me to be gay–they are simply trying to recruit me into the overall agenda of sexual anarchy. I prefer the friendship of straight people who hold me accountable and want me to get married.
I don’t want flamboyant, amoral, promiscuous behavior–straight or gay–to be treated as if it were OK. That’s why I support gay marriage. Gays and straights both need access to stable, lifelong relationships to pull them out of their various unhealthy, amoral subcultures. Both gays and straights need strong marriages and families so that our society can be a safe and healthy place for our children and everyone else.
Exactly why is that a bad thing?
posted by Xeno on
“Exactly why is that a bad thing?”
I think I understand what James wants exactly, and I somewhat sympathize about it. He wants to be a part of a ‘neo-social-conservative’ movement that is gay affirming, and supports an inclusive framework of family values. However he perceives most of ‘gay community’ as against such values, which probably isn’t true because only a vulgar minority are publicized in the MSM. Still James, I hope you realize that a lot of LGBT folks are turned off by anything remotely social conservative, because of how socons treat them with contempt, regardless of the extravagance shown on television.
James, if you do want to start a ‘neosocon’ movement, then you’re gonna have to take down the socons harder than ‘rainbow world’, otherwise most LGBT folks are gonna perceive you as a perversion of the socon movement just like so-called ‘ex-gays’. We are after all talking about a movement that supported slavery, segregation, and the disgraceful culture of appearance of the 1950s, where all troubles are shoved under the rug instead of confronted. Speaking of cultures of appearance, is it any wonder why Utah has the highest consumption rate of antidepressants in the US?
Also James, you’ll have to accept that effeminate gays are born effeminate, and that there’s nothing wrong about it. I’ve known some effeminate gays that are not stereotypically annoying, and are wonderful people.
posted by James on
You have met some effeminate men who happen to be gay–there are lots of straight, effeminate men as well. Being effeminate has nothing to do with being gay.
As far as supporting slavery–I don’t see gays running out to any other rallies than their own. Were they there when the immigrants marched? The only thing that brings gays and Republicans together is sitting in lawn chairs on the border, watching for undocumented immigrants so they can take potshots at them. Do gays get together to celebrate Black History Month? In all those years of segregation and bigotry, many of the most racist were gay men–look at Ezra Pound or Evelyn Waugh. Did gay men help women get the vote? I admit I don’t know, but I don’t think Oscar Wilde was a suffragette.
As far as I can tell, gay men think of themselves as the only people who have been persecuted, ever. Forget Wounded Knee, forget the Trail of Tears, forget slavery–oppression begins and ends at Stonewall. Maybe our selfishness is why we don’t have many allies. Oops, was that critical again?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I wouldn’t go that far, James.
Gays, actually, are fairly good at turning out on command for ostensibly-minority-related causes.
But the reason they do it is because, as Xeno inadvertently pointed out above, it gives them an opportunity to strike out against and publicly assert their belief that Republicans and social conservatives “support slavery, segregation, and the disgraceful culture of appearance of the 1950s, where all troubles are shoved under the rug instead of confronted”.
And that, actually, is why Republicans and social conservatives simply don’t bother; why should they reach out or take into consideration the opinions of people who wholeheartedly believe, for example, that Republicans and social conservatives want to enslave black Americans?
posted by PCT on
James you seem to have grown up in a fairly affirming supportive environment. Where I live – in the Bible Belt – most of my gay friends were not so fortunate. They – and I – were publicly rebuked from the pulpits of churches, condemned by our pastors and parents, and refused all the social benefits that are some of the main reasons for belonging to churches. Again, I think you’re correct, we’d all be better off if all gays were conservative in their lifestyle. But I still don’t blame some gay guys for doing all they can to publicly rebel against the people who have hurt them so badly.
When the whole gay marriage thing started to be an issue several years ago, I thought that a good argument would be something like this: “We’re here, we’re gay, we’re not going anywhere, so whether or not you think that being gay is a “choice”, it would be good public policy to encourage gay people to settle down in long term stable relationships. So a society has nothing to lose and much to gain by supporting some sort of legal recongnition of gay relationships.” Sounds very much like your 10:56 pm comments, right? Well, obviously, you can see how well that went over. In Virginia, even our private contracts to support each other are illegal. So, I’m a little cynical about trying to push the idea that if we were just all more conservative in our lifestyles, that somehow everyone would accept us.
As to you, ND30, you’re an activist, and not in a good way. I won’t even try to engage you – you’ll simply repeat a portion of my comments, and then give a 12 point dissertation of why I’m incorrect. And I’m pretty sure you’re better at that than I am. Good luck to you.
posted by James on
I absolutely agree with what you are saying about gay marriage, and it seems so self-evident, I don’t see why both sides don’t support it. The reason I admire men like Justin Lee is that he is living out a model life which should make perfect sense to most Americans. He is in many ways going where no gay has gone before–at least, in term of public behavior. If more gays did what he was doing, you’d think that even the staunchest evangelical would say, “We should make it easier, not harder, for this guy to find the monogamous, lifelong relationship he wants. He would make a great father, and our society would be the better for supporting his marriage and family.” And the gay community should say, “Wow–so that’s what it’s like without meth and STDS to worry about. Sign me up!”
But it does seem both the evangelicals and gays are stuck in their patterns and don’t want to change their destructive behavior.
ND30, I like what you say, but you might want to check what gays think about undocumented immigrants. Bring up the subject with your gay friends. I will bet that rather than say, “Yes, we need to unite with our fellow sufferers of oppression!” you will find that when it comes to this issue, gays will side with social conservatives and say, “We need to get rid of these people for the good of America.” Watch how quickly they switch channels from Project Runway to Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
When the whole gay marriage thing started to be an issue several years ago, I thought that a good argument would be something like this: “We’re here, we’re gay, we’re not going anywhere, so whether or not you think that being gay is a “choice”, it would be good public policy to encourage gay people to settle down in long term stable relationships. So a society has nothing to lose and much to gain by supporting some sort of legal recongnition of gay relationships.”
What throws people off, though, PCT, is that gays are also some of the most vocal opponents of programs, governmental and otherwise, that encourage straight people to marry for the good of society; they insist that these are unnecessary, unimportant, and denigrating to “different types of families”. Couple that with gays’ criticisms that people leading normal, monogamous, coupled lives are “Stepford wives”, or their mocking of gays like Justin Lee who DO still hold traditional values as “oppressed”, and it becomes much more obvious why people just don’t buy the theory that gays really believe in or even need marriage, no matter how much it is proclaimed that we do. This is furthered by the support of leftist gay leaders for things like the “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” manifesto, which drops all pretense of marriage being anything special to gays and simply demands benefits to anyone who wants them, with no hint of responsibility or respect for what marriage constitutes.
And James, I think this observation links most to your frustrations; simply put, we cannot convince most Americans of the necessity or importance of marriage to gays until gays themselves model that they consider marriage worthwhile and are willing to accept the responsibility that comes with it.
posted by James on
Yes, ND30, that’s exactly it. Up until you said that, I thought I was the only one to ever say it. I’ve said it on other boards, to the same mocking and derision which one finds here at the “ultraconservative” IGF.
When you mention that maybe, just maybe, that the gay community’s public behavior in rallies and parades, and their negative attitudes toward monogamy and traditional values, and their STDs and meth problems, might, just might, just ever-so-slightly might, be contributing to our difficulties in getting marriage laws passed, gays will say, “BUT WE’RE NOT LIKE THAT!” Um, yes, girlfriend, you are (snap!). Monogamy and lifelong relationships aren’t the norm for the gay lifestyle. And, yes, they are the norm for straight men, at least over 25. Yes, straight guys have lots o’ sex when they are young, but most of them settle down into marriage and family. Gay guys don’t. Until gays develop a sense of maturity and values, they will never get the rewards–that is, the right to marry and adopt–that civilized society offers. If you want to be Queer and challenge traditions, and live a life of meth, STDS, and Jake Shears, go ahead–but don’t be surprised when you find it hard to share health benefits with your partner of the moment.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
James: “Yes, straight guys have lots o’ sex when they are young, but most of them settle down into marriage and family. Gay guys don’t. Until gays develop a sense of maturity and values, they will never get the rewards — that is, the right to marry and adopt — that civilized society offers.”
Gay guys don’t? That is just not true. The accurate statement is “Many gay guys don’t.”
You might not know it, James, and you certainly won’t see it if you doggedly focus on the urban the gay ghettos and don’t open your eyes to the rest of the world and look around a bit, but gay guys do.
Just in this rural community, I know Steven and Tom, who have been together for over 25 years and raised three boys to adulthood, John and Sam, who have been together more than 35 years and raised their son Chris, Rafaelo and Ed, who celebrated 40 years together last fall.
I know quite a number of other younger couples without the length of years, but many of them show the right signs, and will be together when they are my age.
Studies support what I’m saying. Although the quiet couples are not as visible as the “gay culture” of pride parades, the studies I’ve seen suggest that there isn’t a lot of difference between the lives of gays and lesbians in committed relationships and the lives of straight couples in committed relationships (inside and outside of marriage). The average length of relationship is similar (about seven years in each case), the level of cheating is similar, and so on.
The problem with your analysis — and I’ll grant you that your analysis is the standard analysis of gay life, at least by many straights — is that you are comparing apples and oranges. The urban bar-hopping gay scene needs to be compared to the urban bar-hopping straight scene, and the lives of stable, mature, committed gay couples needs to be compared to the lives of stable, mature, committed straight couples. Mixing and matching gives a skewed and distorted picture, in both cases.
Now, having said that, I acknowlege that there is a grain of truth in your analysis, just as there is in any broad generalization about cultures.
I think that it is fair to say, and I think that studies support, the assertion that fewer gay men settle down into long-term committed relationships than do straight men, and that the average age of settling down is higher for gay men than it is for straight men. The studies I’ve seen suggest that the average age of settling down is about 25 for straight men, and about 35 for gay men, for example. Gay culture, to the extent that it is fair to make any generalizations about it at all, is oriented to young men, and has a Peter Pan flavor to it.
I think that is something that gay folks should acknowlege and work on, because I also know a lot of lonely old gay men who blew through the bar scene and are now discards.
I think that we should also acknowlege and work on the obvious fact that some areas of gay life are dangerous. I know many — too many — kids who blow into the urban ghettos from rural areas and destroy themselves through drugs, booze and promiscuity.
“Gay culture” presents real problems, and we need to address those problems.
It seems to me, though, that acknowledging the wreckage that comes from a particular way of living does not, and should not, lead us to buy into the stereotype that a life of drink, drugs and sex is the reality of gay life. It is certainly not the whole reality. Too many of us live otherwise for that to be the case.
James: “Monogamy and lifelong relationships aren’t the norm for the gay lifestyle.”
If, but only if, you ignore and/or disown the significant number of us who live in monogamy and lifelong relationships.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
North Dallas 30 whines about how gays portray all christians in the same negative light and then he and James do the same thing to gays but even more so. You two totally overlook that much of the gay community is closeted and doesn’t hang around in gay bars and parties. You two aren’t the ultimate authorities on characterizing the gay community, all you want to do is demonize us because few of us are impressed by your lap dogging to religion. Large parts of the gay community are nothing like your biased hatred:
a) 40-60% of gay men, and 45-80% of lesbians are in a steady relationship
J Harry-1983 in Contemporary Families and Alternative Lifestyles, ed by Macklin, Sage Publ.
L Peplau-1981, in Journal of Homosexuality 6(3):1-19
J Spada-1979, The Spada Report, New American Library Publ
b) Studies of older homosexual people show that gay relationships lasting over 20 years are not uncommon
D McWhirter-1984, The Male Couple, Prentice-Hall
S Raphael-1980, Alternative Lifestyles 3:207-230, “The Older Lesbian”
C Silverstein-1981, Man to Man: Gay Couples in America, William Morrow Publ.
c) In a large sample of couples followed for 18 months the following “break up” statistics were observed: lesbians=22%, gay=16%, cohabiting heterosexuals=17%
Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) American Couples: Money, Work, Sex; Morrow Publ.
In a study of sexual behavior in homosexuals and heterosexuals, the researchers found that of gay and bisexual men, 24% had one male partner in their lifetime, 45% had 2-4 male partners, 13% had 5-9 male partners, and 18% had 10 or more sexual partners, which produces a mean of less than 6 partners. (The statistics I did by myself using the data presented, which is presented as a percentage of total males interviewed, both gay and straight (p. 345)–they can be verified yourself by looking at the numbers given in the paper)(Fay; n=97 gay males of 1450 males total). In a parallel study, a random sample of primarily straight men (n=3111 males who had had vaginal intercourse; of the total sample of n=3224 males, only 2.3% had indicated having had sex with both men and women), the mean number of sexual partners was 7.3, with 28.2% having 1-3 partners, and 23.3% having greater than 19 partners (Billy). This data indicates that gay men may have fewer number of sexual partners than heterosexuals.
J Billy-1993: Family Planning Perspectives 25:52-60
R Fay-1989, Science 243:338-348
In another set of studies, the first (n=2664) showed that gay men had an average of 6.5 sexual partners in the past 5 years. In fact, the authors of this paper report that “homosexual and bisexual men are much more likely than heterosexual men to be celibate” given the data in the table below, which compares their data to a second, parallel study of only heterosexual men (n=1235, age=18-49 yrs)
posted by James on
I fully acknowledge that there are many gay men in stable, mature relationships. My point is that it’s not the norm. I also say that the larger gay community does not give support to gay men with traditional values and orthodox faith. I am not questioning your studies–I am wondering why the gay community chooses to emphasize and make visible the least likable aspects of itself. Why not make gay men like Justin Lee the face of the gay community? Here’s why–most of the gay community relishes its queerness. They love to be avant-garde rebels. While I don’t think there is a gay agenda per se, there is an agenda which includes a lot of gays (and a lot of straights, too) to bring down traditional values and faith. I would like people to associate being gay with being loyalty, monogamy, maturity, stability, and family. There was a time when male/male relationships were noted for their undying devotion–remember Achilles and Patroclus, or Damon and Pythias? We need to return to the days when male love was a love which everyone knew was deeper and more profound than the love of men and women.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
James said “I fully acknowledge that there are many gay men in stable, mature relationships. My point is that it’s not the norm.”.
What do you mean its not the norm?!?!! How do you know that?! The studies I posted show it is the norm, you don’t have anything to back up your negative statements other than your opinion. Why would you say that and then claim you’re not questioning the studies!?!!
The gay community doesn’t get to choose who the face of the community is, the heterosexual media makes that choice. What stands out from the norm is always more interesting and likely to be portrayed than the norm itself. The Hell’s Angels get a lot more press than boring everyday heterosexuals. No one would claim they are typical of heterosexuals and you have no more reason to claim promiscuous drug users are typical of gays. Men like Justin Lee will be the face of the gay community when most ordinary boring gays are out of the closet and visible to people in their everyday lives. I find it pretty damn ironic that you bitch about the image of gay men and then come here and repeatedly push negative stereotypes yourself. Here’s a hint, if you don’t want gays to look bad then stop endlessly badmouthing them yourself! Especially when you have no evidence to support your negative stereotypes. As one of the earlier posters said, if you want to honestly compare gays with straights then you’ve got to look at the straight bar-going party crowd when that’s the group of gays you’re looking at. I’m sure you’ll find that group of straights is loaded with bad behavior too. I’m transgendered, my boyfriend and I never go to bars, have never been to a gay pride parade and I have no doubt we are commonplace amongst LGBTs. I resent your lumping us in with the more visible partying minority. Stable mature relationships are the norm as is shown by the studies I quoted.
posted by Steve Burton on
Mr. Schimnosky:
(a) according to the authorities you cite, what counts as a “steady relationship?” Without more information, this statistic means nothing.
(b) “not uncommon?” Same point.
(c) does “cohabiting heterosexuals” include married couples? Or just unmarried folks shacking up? If the latter, than so what?
The results of the R. Fay study you cite seem frankly incredible. Is this paper available online?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Its Ms. Schimnosky if you don’t mind.
Cohabitating heterosexuals does not include married couples. As gays cannot marry in most jurisdictions one cannot compare married gays to married heterosexuals, the only relevant comparison is cohabitating gays with cohabitating heterosexuals. When gays can marry then one can compare apples to apples. A steady relationship seems clear enough to me – an exclusive relationship that has been going on for at least several months to a year or more, however you’d have to check with the studies themselves to find out more specifically what the researchers meant by this. I do not know if the studies are available online, you’re welcome to google and find out yourself. Excluding the first paragraph my post at December 17, 2006, 12:55pm was copied from another website, I did not write that.
posted by James on
When a gay says, “I have a steady relationship,” it means “I have a friend from high school I still keep in touch with.” It has nothing to do with a sexually exclusive, lifelong relationship. Most gay couples are open relationships–most straight marriages aren’t. That doesn’t mean there aren’t exceptions to either one, but to truly compare gay marriage and straight marriage, we need to look at sexual exclusivity and permanence.
Frederick Douglass learned to read when it was still illegal for African-Americans to go to school. The fact that marriage is illegal doesn’t mean gays are unable to form lifelong, monogamous relationships. They choose not to. But, like Frederick Douglass, there are those who want to break down doors–gay men who are building the lifelong, monogamous relationships they want to see made legal someday. But they don’t get support from the gay community–they are the “self-loathing Stepford Wives” who are just no fun on Rosie’s cruises.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
James you have nothing to back up your bigotry. The studies I listed show gays are no more promiscuous than straights. You make up B.S. about gays and then you wonder why gays can’t stand you. If you think repeatedly lying about gays enhances your image you’re a fool. Plenty of gays form lifelong monogamous relationships. Just because no one wants to get involved with you don’t take it out on those of us that have wonderful relationships.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
James: “I fully acknowledge that there are many gay men in stable, mature relationships. My point is that it’s not the norm.”
I don’t know about that, James. I think that it is fair to say that stable, committed, long-term relationships among gays and lesbians are not the perceived norm among urban gays and lesbians and among straights.
But I’m not so sure about the actual numbers, if by “norm” you mean a “statistical norm”.
It is, I think, well known that the number of gays and lesbians living in couples is greatly under reported in most standard statistical reports, such as the census reports. I haven’t any hard evidence, but I’ll bet that the number of gays and lesbians living as couples or living as sexually sane singles far exceeds the number of gays and lesbians doing the bar, club and bath scenes in the urban areas.
If by “norm” you mean “cultural norm”, I think that we need to distinguish between perceived norm and actual norm (the perceived norm seems to be more a product of media hype than reality). It might well be that the vast majority of urban gays are sex-crazed, drug-gulping barflies — that’s the perceived norm, to be sure — but that isn’t the urban gay and lesbian community I know, and frankly, I suspect that the club boys are a distinct minority.
I think that you also, when thinking about cultural norms, have to make a distinction between urban and rural areas. Many of the gays and lesbians around here like to visit the urban gay scene once in a while, but, to be blunt, a lot of us think that you are all out of your minds to live in the urban areas — the noise, congestion, crime and all of that … And that spills over into our perceptions of gay and lesbian life in the urban areas, too — it is fun to visit, but few of us would want to live there. Whatever the gay cultural norm might be in the urban mega-glops, in rural areas the cultural norm is to live quietly, work on a farm or in a business in town, get along with our straight neighbors, and live sane and sensible lives.
James: “I also say that the larger gay community does not give support to gay men with traditional values and orthodox faith.”
It depends, I think, on what you mean by “gay men with traditional values and orthodox faith”. I also think that it depends on where you live.
Around here, where a significant number of gays and lesbians are coupled, I think that the couples get a lot of support from other gays and lesbians — mainly, we are treated as couples. My partner and I certainly have been treated well as a couple, and I think that’s true of almost all others. Friends in Chicago and Milwaukee who are coupled seem to have lots of gay and lesbian friends, so my guess is that they are getting support from their communities, too.
Politically, it is more of a mixed bag, and that’s where I don’t know what you mean, exactly. Most of the gays and lesbians in our area tend to support Democrats on most issues, for a lot of reasons. But gay and lesbian Republicans, who are mostly closeted to the straight world but know within the gay community, aren’t turned into pariahs, by any means.
Nonetheless, I don’t know anyone who supports “traditional values”, if by that you mean what the social conservatives mean by “traditional values”, such as “Jesus said: Marriage = One Man, One Woman”, the local slogan used by the conservative churches in our county this fall.
I can’t answer about “orthodox faith”, because I don’t have a clue as to what it means. Does it mean liberal Catholic, conservative Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, mainstream Protestant, Evangelical Protestant, or one of the forms of Judaism?
Religion doesn’t come up much in conversation, to be blunt, any more than it does in straight companhy. My partner is religious — he’s a former priest — but I’m not. Nobody seems to think anything about it, in either case.
And that seems to be true of the gays and lesbians I know who go to local churches of various denominations, mostly mainstream. I don’t know any gay or lesbian evangelicals, so I can’t speak to how they might be recieved.
James: “I am not questioning your studies–I am wondering why the gay community chooses to emphasize and make visible the least likable aspects of itself.”
I don’t think that the gay community chooses what face is shown to the straights.
I think that the newspapers and television stations do that, for the most part.
In the larger cities (around here, the Twin Cities [4 hours away], Madison [2 hours], Milwaukee [3 hours] and Chicago [5 hours]) the media tend to show the more flamboyant face of the gay community.
In the local papers, however, it is quite a different story. I don’t recall ever seeing a story about the pride parades in our local papers, although the Madison TV stations do report on the Pride parade in that city, and we get that as local coverage.
In our rural area this year, we had a great deal of newspaper coverage of local gays and lesbians, mostly couples, surrounding the marriage amendment debate in our state — letters to the editor, nes reports of panel discussions, opinion columns, and so on.
We also had a series in one of the papers on the problems faced by rural gay and lesbian middle and high school kids, and the steps the schools are taking to deal with the problems.
We had a number of articles about a local man who abused a teenager, and coverage about a priest who was accused of abuse and removed from a local parish.
In general, I think that our local newspapers did a pretty balanced job this year, more or less reflecting the reality of gay and lesbian life in our area.
Gays and lesbians don’t control what is said about us in the media. We simply live our lives — the flamboyant ones and the quiets ones, both — and the media picks up on what it will. The major media outlets gravitate toward the flamboyant in the gay and lesbian community, but that’s true for other things, too.
posted by raj on
Steve Burton | December 17, 2006, 7:15pm |
If you are really interested in the answers to the questions that you asked, you might consult the references sited in Randi’s post, or you might email Jeramy Townsley, the author of the web page that she copied from, or both.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Randi, you are the classic example of a lying leftist who makes gays look like fools in front of straight people.
In order:
) 40-60% of gay men, and 45-80% of lesbians are in a steady relationship.
Defined as what? One day, one week, one month, one year, one decade? What? Anyone who’s ever raised a teenager knows how often they’re “going steady” — and how long it does or doesn’t last.
Studies of older homosexual people show that gay relationships lasting over 20 years are not uncommon.
“Not uncommon” does not mean “common”, nor does it even mean “regular”. Relationships over 20 years in heterosexuals are QUITE common.
In a large sample of couples followed for 18 months the following “break up” statistics were observed: lesbians=22%, gay=16%, cohabiting heterosexuals=17%
And of course, what leftist Randi left off was the rate for married heterosexuals — 4%.
Why?
Cohabitating heterosexuals does not include married couples. As gays cannot marry in most jurisdictions one cannot compare married gays to married heterosexuals, the only relevant comparison is cohabitating gays with cohabitating heterosexuals.
But leftist Randi claims that gays are MORE responsible and LESS promiscuous than straights, even without marriage. That’s why she hides the statistics that prove otherwise — and why she and her fellow leftists tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives”.
Another example is her attempt to claim that “gays are more likely to be celibate”. What she leaves out is that, even assuming the leftist site from which she pulled her statistics is correct, while 24% of gay men allegedly choose to be celibate while only 8% of straight men do, only 41% of gay men had ONE partner in the year (versus 80% of straight men) and 35% — over one third of gay men — had two or more partners, versus only 12% for heterosexuals, with the average gay man allegedly having 6.5 sexual partners in the last five years.
Personally, I’m still getting past the whole “celibacy” claim, especially since the leftists here so mock gays who choose that path and claim that it’s impossible.
And finally, what is amusing is how gay leftists end up hanging themselves with these statistics. For starters, they point out that studies show that only 2 – 5% of the population is gay — but then argue that gays are not more likely to molest children because, for example, “in a review of 200 sexual assaults on boys, only 32 of the perpetrators were homosexuals”.
Of course, if you do the math, that means that 2 – 5% of the population is committing 16% of the molestations — meaning gays are MORE likely to molest children than heterosexuals.
So what this boils down to is to stop lying to people, and tell them the truth.
Since the gay community puts its highest emphasis on sex and openly ridicules restrictions on such, it is no surprise that gays tend to be more promiscuous, more likely to have STDs, and more likely to molest children.
Conversely, there are gays, like James and like Justin Lee, who choose to buck the community’s chosen path for religious reasons. They are ridiculed by leftist gays, who insist that their belief in monogamy and fidelity is a sign that they are still “oppressed”; furthermore, their call for other gays to do likewise and mirror normal heterosexual relationships is also mocked by leftist gays as “Stepford wives”.
The simple fact of the matter, Randi, is that, if you actually have a stable and monogamous relationship, you have more in common with James than you think. But you are so steeped in leftist dogma and denialism that you cannot do anything but proclaim James wrong and support the gay leftists who mock your relationship and support the promiscuity you affect to despise.
posted by Tim on
“They are ridiculed by leftist gays, who insist that their belief in monogamy and fidelity is a sign that they are still “oppressed”; furthermore, their call for other gays to do likewise and mirror normal heterosexual relationships is also mocked by leftist gays as “Stepford wives”.”
This is total bullshit. I’m a “Lefttest” gay who wants a life-long committed relationship. I’m 47 years old and I’ve decided that this is never going to happen. If people want open relationships or want to be promiscuous, that’s their decision and I’m not going to be judgmental about it.
Are gay men more promiscuous than straight people ? That’s probably true, but that’s a function of being men and having testosterone than because they’re gay. Is the gay culture steeped in sex ? Yes. Is the straight culture steeped is sex ? Yes.
Politically conservative gays puzzle me. They forget our history, who ourfriends are and who our enemies are. My impression is that they care about money above all else.
posted by NorthDallasRetard on
Dear ND30, Please take a statistics course and pay attention to the first few courses. After you have completed this task, then try to take down a scientific study using your newfound basic understanding of how statistics work. After you have done this, you might want to take off you tin-foil hat and move out of your mom’s basement. That is all.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
This is total bullshit.
No, it’s just reporting the obvious. Read the thread through, and you’ll see what is meant.
They forget our history, who ourfriends are and who our enemies are.
Mhm…..and if the United States kept that attitude, Germany and Japan would still be our mortal enemies, and we would have stayed allied with the Soviet Union against them.
Things change, you know.
Indeed, the refusal of gay leftists like yourself to recognize that and your fixation on fighting eons-ago battles leaves us defenseless and easily exploited. Yours is the attitude that had gays coughing up tens of millions of dollars in support of politicians who supported DOMA and state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage because they were Democrats, and Democrats have always been our “friends”.
And then what I find infinitely amusing is your rationalization of wasting money on homophobic politicians by pointing fingers and claiming that conservative gays only care about money.
posted by Tim on
If you’re gay and Republican then myonly conclusion is that you care more about money than anything else.
After all, homophobia is instiutionalized in the Republican party.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
North Dallas 30, I told the truth and you cannot document otherwise. You on the other hand are a bigoted liar. No where did I “tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives”” and nor did anyone else on this board. Contrary to your lies no gays on this thread mocked those who choose celibacy or monogamy, nor did anyone claim its impossible with the possible exception of you and James the bigots. I’ve noticed you lie like that regularly so you can falsely claim persecution that never happened. You’re the one mocking gays and claiming victim status when no one has made any of the “stepford wives” statements you falsely try to pin on them.
The Fay report showed that gays have a mean of fewer than 6 partners compared to 7.3 for straight men. The data from Binson and Dolcini certainly don’t support the baseless claims of promiscuity that you and James wildly make. And contrary to your lying insinuations the data DID show that gay men are more likely to be celibate than straight men. The data showing comparable breakup rates between cohabiting gays and cohabitating heterosexuals also indicates similar sexual fidelity given similar situations. Only in your twisted world do gays have to outperform straights in the same situation to be thought of as well. If you want to look at the breakup rates in heterosexual marriages its common sense that you compare that to the breakup rates in gay marriages – which you cannot do because gays have not been allowed to marry.
You accuse me of hiding statistics, but when it comes to child molestation you conveniently fail to mention Jenny C–1994, Pediatrics. 94(1):41-4
which shows that only .7% of molestations were by an identified gay or lesbian adult. That shows gays are far less likely to molest than heterosexuals. My excluding the married heterosexual rate of breakups makes perfect sense in terms of not comparing apples to oranges, but you have no excuse.
You keep whining about gays mocking monogamous relationships and calling them stepford wives here and it hasn’t happened a single time. You lied about that three times in your last post alone. Contrary to your lies the gays on this board have confirmed their fidelity and the fidelity of those they know. No gays have ever mocked my relationship or supported promiscuity. What I don’t have in common with James is that I have a loving partner and I’m not blindly lashing out at all gays because I don’t. You’re bitter and hateful because no gays will have you and you want to take it out on the entire community of LGBTs.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Unfortunately, Tim, you have to prove both what you would consider “homophobic” and “institutionalized” first.
posted by Tim on
From the Texas Replubican Platform:
Family and Defense of Marriage – We support the traditional definition of marriage as a God?ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and a natural woman, which is the foundational unit of a healthy society, and we oppose the assault on marriage by judicial activists. We call on the President and Congress to take immediate action to defend the sanctity of traditional marriage. We urge Congress to exercise authority under the United States Constitution, and pass legislation withholding jurisdiction from the Federal Courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the traditional definition of marriage. We further call on Congress to pass and the state legislatures to ratify a marriage amendment declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist of and be recognized only as the union of a natural man and a natural woman. Neither the United States nor any state shall recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or status of a spouse. We oppose the recognition of and granting of benefits to people who represent themselves as domestic partners without being legally married. Texas families will be stronger because of the passage by Governor Perry and the 78th Texas Legislature of the ?Defense of Marriage Act?, which denies recognition by Texas of homosexual ?unions? legitimized by other states or nations.
posted by Tim on
Texas Republican Platform contintued:
Homosexuality – We believe that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country?s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable ?alternative? lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should ?family? be redefined to include homosexual ?couples.? We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.
posted by Tim on
If that isn’t institutionalized homophobia, what is ?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
North Dallas 30, I told the truth and you cannot document otherwise.
Actually, I can; that’s why I pointed it out in my first post. But what your post makes obvious is that, on an existential basis, I cannot — because you only observe and support what confirms your preconceived notions.
For example:
You accuse me of hiding statistics, but when it comes to child molestation you conveniently fail to mention Jenny C–1994, Pediatrics. 94(1):41-4
which shows that only .7% of molestations were by an identified gay or lesbian adult. That shows gays are far less likely to molest than heterosexuals.
Unfortunately for you, I cited another study that shows quite different results.
Now, if you weren’t prejudiced, you would notice something about the Jenny study; namely that, in nearly 12% of the cases (11.6%, actually, the sexual orientation of the individual was not even known). Not exactly the absolute proof you try to make of it.
And, relative to the Fay study, let me show you the leadoff from the summary:
In a study of sexual behavior in homosexuals and heterosexuals, the researchers found that of gay and bisexual men
Gee, you think THAT might skew the data downward a wee bit, based on the thought that bisexual men might have fewer MALE partners, since they also have female ones?
Furthermore, did you also notice that the trick in making the het-to-homo experiment was to use parallel studies that were four years apart, rather than the same researchers using the same methodology and questions to analyze?
Now, that being said, I suggest you read through in particular the original thread on this topic. I also suggest that you consider my last point:
The simple fact of the matter, Randi, is that, if you actually have a stable and monogamous relationship, you have more in common with James than you think. But you are so steeped in leftist dogma and denialism that you cannot do anything but proclaim James wrong and support the gay leftists who mock your relationship and support the promiscuity you affect to despise.
Meanwhile, you happen to be incorrect about my lack of a loving and stable relationship; however, I have also learned from long and hard experience that your saying that is merely rationalization for why you think I’m not just going along with what you are saying.
posted by Tim on
No thoughts on the Texas Republican platform ?
posted by Tim on
The National Democratic Platform:
We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal
responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at
the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate
President Bush’s divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a “Federal Marriage
Amendment.” Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If that isn’t institutionalized homophobia, what is ?
Because this isn’t, Tim.
?The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s what it says.”
Howard Dean, Democratic Party Chair
We’ve always argued the states will be capable of taking care of this by themselves,” (John)Kerry said. “… We didn’t need a [federal] constitutional amendment in order to do what’s right.”
As in, stripping gays of rights.
And finally, an oldie but goodie.
After boasting about Clinton signing the anti-gay DOMA, the ad concludes with the line: “President Clinton has fought for our values and America is better for it.”
Now, remember, these are the politicians on a national level that pocketed tens of millions of gay dollars and received unqualified endorsements as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
So you countered with a state-level platform written by fanatics that has no binding power whatsoever on Texas candidates; indeed, the convention defeated an attempt by the same lunatics who wrote it to make financing of candidates contingent on complete support.
But again, it requires you taking a deeper look than “Repubs bad, Dems good”, and frankly, it’s not something either the DNC leadership, who considers gays one of their most reliable and useful ATMs, and the gay leaders who make their money off quashing questions and delivering the gay vote regardless of the candidate’s homophobia encourage.
posted by NorthDallasRetard on
Dear ND30,
Please define what an “existential basis” is in regards to your statement (?) that, “Actually, I can; that’s why I pointed it out in my first post. But what your post makes obvious is that, on an existential basis, I cannot…” I have tried to make sense of this idea but so far I’m completely lost as to what you were trying to put across. In other words, try not to appear smart…it is not working.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
North Dallas 30, nowhere in your post did you document me lying because I didn’t. Your unsupported assertion that I lied is not a documentation of a lie.
However, you clearly did lie. At December 18, 2006, 12:30pm | #
you said “she and her fellow leftists tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives”. I have never made such a statement and obviously you can’t document that I have. I’ve frequently seen you claim the statements of one person were made by others that never said them. Lying comes so naturally to you you don’t even seem to realize when you do it, and you certainly won’t admit to it even when the proof is right in front of your nose.
Your assertion that the British study showing 32 of 200 assaults on boys means 2 – 5% of the population is committing 16% of the molestations is clumsy, inaccurate, and completely misleading. If I remember correctly there are aproximately 5 times as many girls sexually assualted as boys and virtually all sexual assaults are by males. One might expect that all sexual assaults on boys would be by gay men and all sexual assaults on girls by heterosexual men. According to the British study this is not the case, most sexual assaults on boys are by heterosexual males. I personally have never heard of a gay male sexually assaulting a female. However, as is noted in the link RAJ gave many heterosexual men are attracted to the femininity of boys and assalt them while being disgusted by adult homosexuality. This all means that if 32 of 200 assaults on boys were by gays, there were likely 1000 assaults on girls by heterosexual males and that gay men are not responsible for 16% of all assaults, as you claimed, but responsible for 32 out of 1200 asaults, or 2.9%. I would also add that a recent study of men in New York showed that around 10% of them identified as something other than heterosexual and a similar percentage had sex with men. A recent CDC survey showed something similar. Just because only 2-5% of the population admits being gay doesn’t mean the rest are heterosexual. It turns out that Kinsey may have been right after all in saying that as many as 10% of the population is gay.
As to the 11.6% of assaults by strangers in the Jenny study where the sexual orientation was unknown, there is no reason to believe that the ratio of gay to straight assaults by strangers is any different than those instances where the sexual orientation of the perpetrators was known. One may reaonably assume that just like the known instances, in the 11.6% of assaults by a stranger the rate of gay assaults was likely .7% as well.
I’m not about to go digging through an entire other thread to see if there’s any truth to what you say, I’ve seen more than enough of your documented lies and specious distortions in this one to satisfy me that you can’t be trusted. If you want to prove someone said something, quote it and give the time stamp, otherwise forget it. And even if one person did make a “stepford wives” statement you’re still lying by claiming I and all the LGBTs here have done so.
I read and considered your absurd last statement in your post at December 18, 2006, 12:30pm. Once again you cavalierly lied, no gay has mocked my relationship and obviously you cannot documen that either.
posted by raj on
Randi Schimnosky | December 18, 2006, 4:03pm |
One might expect that all sexual assaults on boys would be by gay men and all sexual assaults on girls by heterosexual men. According to the British study this is not the case, most sexual assaults on boys are by heterosexual males.
This is clearly not the case. See Dr. Gregory Herek’s page Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation .
The assumption that sexual assaults by adult males on underage males are all done by homosexuals is a well-worn lie perpetrated by right-wing anti-gay wingnuts, most vociferously recently (as far as I can can tell) by WorldNutDaily and their very own “Dr.” Judith A. Reisman. Do a little checking–she’s a real loser.
BTW, it’s a waste of time dealing with NDXXX. He’s a known dissembler and, to boot, innumerate. I skip over his comments.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Randi, let me point out the problem here.
Your first statement:
No where did I “tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives”” and nor did anyone else on this board.
Now here:
And even if one person did make a “stepford wives” statement you’re still lying by claiming I and all the LGBTs here have done so.
In short, “That never happened, and even if it did happen, you’re still lying.”
Unfortunately, you’re not unique; this attachment to a preconceived notion, regardless of what facts show, is the epitome of intellectual prowess in the gay community — and is directly related to our Third-World-level HIV infection rates, rampant drug use, promiscuity, and the myriad other issues that beset us.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Raj, a problem.
The assumption that sexual assaults by adult males on underage males are all done by homosexuals is a well-worn lie perpetrated by right-wing anti-gay wingnuts,
As I myself have pointed out in the past, , duh.
But the problem here is that there is a significant difference between “most” and “all”.
It is a fallacy to say all molestation of boys is the fault of gays, just as it is to say that none of it is. However, there is strong — troublingly-strong — evidence that gays do contribute more than our population share of such abuses. We can either confront that directly, or we can sidestep, which does not make us look good.
My take? Yes, we do. Why? Because we as a community overemphasize sexuality and youth — and because we have had a history of including sexual libertines who oppose any restrictions on sex whatsoever, including age of consent. What we could stand to do about it? Make it clear that having sex with children is not acceptable.
End of story.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “However, there is strong — troublingly-strong — evidence that gays do contribute more than our population share of such abuses.”
Please site a source other then your own delusional blog to back up this statement about “troublingly-strong” evidence. When you track down this “evidence” please also track down a specialist in psycho-social disorders and compulsive lying…you need help!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Thank you for illustrating the issue, ColoradoPatriot.
When I see an issue that could negatively affect gays, I speak up about it, confront it directly, and offer proactive solutions.
You deny that it exists in the first place and try to blame others.
This is why HIV infections in the gay community are still at Third World levels; no one speaks up, no one confronts it, and everyone else is blamed, despite the fact that I have yet to hear a religious rightist tell me to say “Yes” to sex or not put on a condom when I do say it.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
North Dallas 30, you are a documented liar. At December 18, 2006, 12:30pm you said “she and her fellow leftists tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives”. I have never made that statement, you lied. For gods sake be enough of a man to admit the obvious.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “Thank you for illustrating the issue, ColoradoPatriot”
I illustrated nothing. I asked you for proof of the statements you posted here. Instead you offer no proof, just hate and lies. So the only proof you offer is that you are a liar and a phony. You blame me for HIV/AIDS and say that I deny negative aspects of gay identity? I ask you again for proof of any of this. It is time to put-up or shut up, pal. You are a nothing more than a disgrace.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Raj, I am aware that its a lie to say all sexual assaults by adult males on underage males are all done by gays. I said one might expect that merely to illustrate a point.
North Dallas 30, your baseless assertion that gays contribute more than their populations share to sexual abuse is a lie, its contradicted by the information I posted. You have no credibility given how easily and frequently you lie.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
North Dallas 30, your baseless assertion that gays contribute more than their populations share to sexual abuse is a lie, its contradicted by the information I posted.
Really? Which portion?
Your assertion that the British study showing 32 of 200 assaults on boys means 2 – 5% of the population is committing 16% of the molestations is clumsy, inaccurate, and completely misleading. If I remember correctly there are aproximately 5 times as many girls sexually assualted as boys and virtually all sexual assaults are by males. One might expect that all sexual assaults on boys would be by gay men and all sexual assaults on girls by heterosexual men. According to the British study this is not the case, most sexual assaults on boys are by heterosexual males. I personally have never heard of a gay male sexually assaulting a female. However, as is noted in the link RAJ gave many heterosexual men are attracted to the femininity of boys and assalt them while being disgusted by adult homosexuality. This all means that if 32 of 200 assaults on boys were by gays, there were likely 1000 assaults on girls by heterosexual males and that gay men are not responsible for 16% of all assaults, as you claimed, but responsible for 32 out of 1200 asaults, or 2.9%.
Now, see, what you’re doing here is “approximating”, “virtually”, and “likely” — or, in other words, plucking numbers out of thin air because you didn’t like the conclusion and conflating data to minimize the obvious.
I simply pointed out that, in a study of 200 boys who had been sexually molested, 32 of the times were by gays — a rate of 16%, far greater than even the generous “10% of the population” that you assume for gays.
But, instead of ducking it, I acknowledged the problem, put out potential reasons why it exists, and offered a strong solution. And you berate me for that?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
North Dallas 30, you duck the problem that the overwhelming majority of sexual molestation is against girls and perpretrated by heterosexual men. The figures I gave are pretty common knowledge. I don’t think you’re disputing that, are you?! Well, no doubt you would given your pathologically lying nature. You duck the fact that you blatantly lied, accusing me of saying things I never said and you haven’t got the balls or honour to admit it and apologize.
Fact is when we look at the molestation of all children, not just boys, only .7% of the time are gays responsible.
Jenny C–1994, Pediatrics. 94(1):41-4
I don’t see you acknowledging the far bigger problem of heterosexual males molesting children, nor offering solutions, because the fact of the matter is you don’t give a damn about molested children, except to the extent that you can use it as an excuse to gay bash.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I don’t see you acknowledging the far bigger problem of heterosexual males molesting children, nor offering solutions, because the fact of the matter is you don’t give a damn about molested children, except to the extent that you can use it as an excuse to gay bash.
That’s because you weren’t looking at the link I previously gave, or the follow-up post.
I don’t take guff when it comes to religious fundamentalists, nor do I when it comes to gay fundamentalists like you.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
You’re obviously nothing but guff.