The liberal hack writer Ezra Klein is “mystified” at the response from the left over his hiring of a gay writer who , shocker of all shocks, doesn’t always agree with the gay community and their war against anyone who doesn’t agree with them:
The backlash to Abrosino’s hire, from liberal sites like Media Matters and America Blog, began almost immediately after he was hired. Those sites and others fault Ambrosino, a gay Christian, for believing that someone who is anti-same sex marriage is not automatically homophobic, that being gay is a choice, that people shouldn’t have immediately dismissed “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson for his anti-gay remarks and for expressing warm feelings toward Liberty University founder Jerry Falwell, despite his vehement disapproval of gays.
Omg, the horror. Abrosino expected to be ostracized at Liberty University, a Christian college founded by Jerry Falwell, but found the opposite. Most didn’t care that he was gay. He actually had the gall to say that just because you don’t believe in same-sex marriage that doesn’t automatically make you a homophobe.
Ace:
But then he truly crossed the line when he dared to venture the idea that not all on the left are perfect moral paragons with impeccable levels of psychological and emotional centeredness, but sometimes — get this — demonstrate their own form of ugly hostility to those perceived as The Other:
The world and the people in it are really wonderful with just a smidge of ugliness about them. I think the really vocal anti-gay Christians display this smidge, but I also think the really vocal anti-Christian gays display it as well.
But you know how intolerant the liberals are, and boy did that intolerance shine on this hiring. Ezra asked liberals to practice what they preach….yeeeeaaaah. That’s gonna happen.
Toe the line Klein, toe the line.
See author page
Liberals are SOOOOO tolerant….NOT!
I was floored by the gay ObamaCare ad.
Remember it?
A plethora of gay stereotypes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azoWedQH8zQ
And if gays don’t tote the liberal company line, they are ”self-hating gays.”
This is the company line:
Gay activist/Democrat Party official Allen Brauer wishes death on the children of a Ted Cruz staffer.
Gay activist Dan Savage calls for the death of all Republicans.
If you’re not the stereotypical gay you can expect the same sort of treatment Abrosino is getting.
The Collective always seeks to destroy those who deviate from their authorized talking point directives.
…..”that being gay is a choice”…. did I read this correctly..
…After all the debating and going back and forth up and down and all around….and…being gay – it’s in the genes and “they were born that way – gay” and “they cannot ‘help being gay”…and my favorite justification “monkey’s do it”
…. did I read and interpret this correctly? ?
Or is this going to be taken as “just” “one (gay) mans “opinion”? Or did a cat just get let out of the bag?
There’s an old proverb about how we keep sharp mentally.
It reads, ”By iron, iron itself is sharpened. So, one man sharpens the face of another.”
Liberals are proving by their intolerance of this writer that they have no interest in becoming better thinkers.
(Or even thinkers.)
College group cancels diversity ‘happy hour’ after excluding white staffers
The Lemmings are restless.
Liberals will always be mystified by reality – its such a foreign place.
@Ditto: I remember when I was in college that they were discussing hiring a person to help improve racial relations at the school, that it was important for everyone to be treated the same, regardless of race. And that person had to be black. How’s that for ‘treating everyone the same’?
@Faith7 #3:
Before you get TOO delirious over having found a gay person who believes that homosexuality is a “choice,” I suggest that you read up on the medical condition known as being “intersexed”.
The “intersexed” condition occurs in between 0.5% and 1.7% of the population (depending on whose statistics you are looking at) and is distinguished by BIRTH of individuals possessing both male and female “parts.” Sometimes a “girl” (having no male “apparatus”) is not discovered to be “intersexed” until “she” fails to menstruate, whereupon she is discovered to be genetically X-Y. Every other imaginable combination of mixed up sexual features is found among this group, and not surprisingly, a large percentage of them turn out to be homosexual. They didn’t choose to be intersexed, they were born that way. When they become of sexual age, they don’t flip a coin and DECIDE what orientation they will follow, their hormones point them in the correct direction.
This process is no different in people who are not sexually ambiguous. The vast majority of people have no difficulty understanding their sexual orientation. For most, it is simply a matter of crossing paths with someone they are attracted to, and they FEEL the attraction (because it is already there), they don’t THINK it or DECIDE it or CHOOSE it. If you DO have to think about it a lot, you’re probably a bisexual, and you just haven’t figured THAT out.
I really find it amazing that there are so many people who BELIEVE that at some point in their lives, they actually sat down and made a conscious DECISION to be what they are. I clearly remember every time in my development that I ACHED for someone, and I was never in conscious, rational or emotional control of the events. For me, there WAS no choice, and this agrees with the experiences reported by a vast majority of my friends. The only “choice” that ever presents is the choice to act or not to act on the impulses of your orientation.
Interesting how quickly a single dose of truth can cure the common fantasy…
@George Wells:
Only an indecisive nut-case would decide what their sexual orientation will be by flipping a coin.
(Regarding those born hermaphrodite.) A hermaphrodite is born with a genetic disorder. Technically,and by physical construction, they are of both sexes. During the normal development process of all fetus, for a certain period of time they are potentially of both sexes, until their genetic code triggers the selection of sex. When that doesn’t happen, the result is a hermaphrodite. Sometimes the parents might arrange for surgery or hormonal treatment and select a sex for their child. Usually this decision is done to “save” the child from being targeted for abuse by society. That doesn’t change the fact that they remain genetically as both sexes. For a true intersex being, since they are actuality of both sexes there is no “opposite sex” from a physical point of view.
What does this have to do with homosexuality? Nothing. Homosexuality, is a free will mental decision not a physical one. Just as with any other sexual fetish the person makes a free will decision to pursue a particular sexual proclivity. Nor has there been any proof that homosexuals are all genetically intersexed.
Unless you were specifically conditioned (brainwashed) to become a homosexual, it was a free will decision. Otherwise, claiming that you were “forced” to become homosexual sounds to me to be simply an excuse to justify your sexual orientation. Claiming to be a victim of ‘forces beyond your control’ ‘is poppycock. You prefer sex with men, and that’s that. Unless you are ashamed of being gay, and need to have such an excuse to justify your sexual choices to yourself or others, by painting yourself as a ‘victim.’ If that’s the case, you seem to have self doubts about your homosexuality, and perhaps should consider seeking psychiatric help for your internal conflict. There has never been established conclusive scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic. Speculative theories notwithstanding, studies of twins all admit that post birth influences could have influenced sexual orientation, and none have conclusively identified a specific “gay gene” or genetic sequence.
@George Wells:
George, don’t you imply it is true for all homosexuals? Don’t you think that some persons do make a conscious, rational and emotional decision and that it didn’t just happen by chance? Do you think that persons that don’t like homosexuals do that because they ‘want to’ or do you think they may have been ‘born that way’? Why isn’t it just as likely that someone is born ‘anti-gay’ as it is that they are born ‘gay’? If they are, why are they more wrong to follow their proclivities than homosexuals are?
@Ditto:
Ditto, don’t take this wrong, but I’m not sure that’s right. Since I have been about 8 or 9, I have been fascinated by females, I always look at their bodies and sexuality. Always have. I never set down one day and thought to myself, ‘hmmm, let me see now. I have a choice to make. Do I like, physically and sexually, girls or boys. I never had to do that. I knew from day one that girls were a lot more interesting and fascinating to me. I’m gonna say, I was ‘born that way’. I will also say that I’ve known some boys growing up that were always ‘fascinated by boys’ and even a few girls that were ‘fascinated by girls’. Having said that, while I believe in many cases that persons are ‘born that way’, I also am convinced that many are the way they are because they ‘choose to be’. Now that may also be a case of having ‘been born that way’, but whatever, they still have a choice and they make it to stay with the same sex, at times. I also believe that some people don’t give a damn about sex one way or the other and make a decision based on other things, such as financial gain.
@Ditto #11:
“You prefer sex with men, and that’s that.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. I wonder at your audacity, making such a statement as if it was a fact without knowing about me at all. IN FACT, the best sex I ever had was with a woman. As a physical, genetic male, I am constructed to have sex with a female, and doing so is certainly PHYSICALLY more satisfying than anything I could ever do with other men. For me, that seems to be perfectly understandable, although I know of many gay men who would retch at the thought. I cannot speak to what psychological causes may elicit such a response in them, but I know that for these individuals, sexual performance with a female would not be possible.
Regarding the confusion you seem to be suffering over hermaphroditism, intersexualism and the causes of homosexuality, there is WAY too much to teach one who is obviously intent on not learning. But to give you something to research:
Genetic hermaphroditism is virtually non-existent, like less than 1-in-a-million, as it requires an approximately equal number of X-X and X-Y cells to be present in the same individual, and that just doesn’t happen. The very wrong part of your discussion centering on hermaphroditism then morphed into an explanation of intersexualism, which DOES occur in around 0.7-to-1.5% of the population and DOES result in the development of sexual characteristics of both genders in one individual. Intersexed children – not hermaphrodites – are the ones that are often surgically “corrected” shortly after birth. The problem is that the surgery alters them physically, but not mentally, and the same thing that caused the physical confusion also causes a similar mental confusion. No matter which gender the doctor or the parent chooses, it usually won’t be right, because there usually ISN’T a right answer.
Why this informs the issue of homosexuality is that a large percentage of these intersexed individuals end up as homosexuals, and the fact that they were born intersexed must be a large, if not the only contributing factor. Once you understand that intersexualism (something that one is BORN with) can cause homosexuality, then you cannot maintain that every homosexual chooses to be that way.
But you will never reach that understanding. You are obstinately devoted to your own belief and will not be swayed by fact, evidence or logic. I suggest that you research the meaning of the word “bigot.”
@Redteam #12:
I have never said or implied that every gay person was born that way. I would have no way to justify making such a statement. I know how it was in may case, and I know what the research results suggest, and this is the only basis I have for concluding that there are multiple causes. If there is so much as ONE case where an individual is “Born That Way,” then the argument that homosexuality is against God’s will would seem to be wrong. And if you were to be presented with ten homosexuals, how ever would you distinguish those who were made that way by God from those who made “the choice” themselves?
Concerning why some straights are so angrily anti-gay? I really don’t know. Genetic? (Shrug)
I have read many speculations, but I can at least tell you that I have no corresponding dislike of heterosexuals. Gays certainly DON’T want you all to switch teams! There are already enough of us to fill our resorts and make our neighborhoods expensive to live in. And it makes us feel good to see so many of you dressing so poorly. Viva La Differance!
@George Wells:
Well, my, my, my. After months, and months, of telling us all how you knew you were gay at a young age, and how you didn’t have any choice in the matter, now we learn that you are really a switch hitter. And don’t come back with some crap about how you were abused by some manipulating woman who took advantage of you. You already stated ” IN FACT, the best sex I ever had was with a woman” so you were obviously a willing participant.
You’re not gay, George, you’re bisexual. And now, months later, you reveal that because you want to run your mouth.
So no, George, you were not born being attracted to only the same sex. You willfully made that choice.
When you have nothing left, you throw out the dog eared “bigot” card, just as those who are racist against whites throw out that “racist” canard toward anyone who doesn’t knell at the alter of
cultural Marxismpolitical correctness. But you will be the first to whine and complain if you think you are being insulted. What a major hypocrite you are, George.@retire05:
I figured that you would see no difference between the ability to perform sexually and the feelings – the attraction – that accompany the act. The woman who I had sex with was quite accomplished in the various permutations of coupling (she was a friend, not a hooker) and I was quite accomplished in imagining being with male Olympic divers while the deed was done. Don’t confuse the advantage provided by biological compatibility with the orientation of the heart. There was ZERO attraction to that woman or any other. I must conclude that you are indeed a female (as I suspected) or you would understand that males generally have no difficulty “performing” with females they have no interest in.
But Mario Lopez? Be still my heart!
And it WAS 40 years ago. There were a few other instances, like the time the officers in my Fleet Electronic Warfare Support Group hooked me up with a pro to test their suspicions. It was her time of the month, and suspecting that a report would get back to my superiors, I performed cunnilingus. It was DISGUSTING, but I became famous. A guy’s gotta do what a guy’s gotta do.
You might also reread my comments regarding my use of the term “Bigot.” I am sure that you are particularly sensitive to that word, as it has likely been used on you repeatedly, but I did not call Ditto a bigot. I suggested some research. Unlike Redteam, I keep a Webster’s dictionary handy, consult it frequently and use words correctly. If the shoe fits, wear it.
@George Wells:
Let’s be quite clear, George: the feelings (attractions) precedes the ability to perform. That is why it is actually quite difficult for a woman to rape a man. Those “feelings” trigger a certain physical reactions that allows for a man to participate in sexual activity. And you did not make the claim of being raped since you stated, clearly, it was enjoyable.
Male, or female, I have no trouble understanding human biology. And anyone, male or female, that is having unwanted sex forced on them is not going to react as you have claimed you did.
The rest of your exploits, which I’m sure you gain pleasure in describing, are of no interest to me. At least not the braggadocio on your part that seems to accompany the retelling of them. It was only for your own pleasure that you mentioned anything about a woman’s menses, not that it added anything to the retelling of the event.
Just as you bastardized the history of the Bible written in English (including Middle English), and the statements of Justice Scalia, you seem to lack the ability to research the etymology of words. You were unaware of the etymology of the term “homosexual”, so I have no doubt that you are just as uninformed on the use of the term “gay”, particularly as it is applied to men, and its modern application. But I can tell you that the definition of “gay” to include “homosexual” in a dictionary is a fairly recent addition. As a matter of fact, one of my own personal dictionaries, Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, copy write 1969, includes no such definition.
The word “gay” was co-opted first by the homosexual community as an alternative to the explicit term “homosexual.” It is you, not Redteam, that needs more study time.
On a related theme….related to the topic of this thread, namely that a liberal was mystified by his fellow liberals’ response over his hiring of a FREE-THINKING gay writer…… there is a parallel issue over at a new blog.
is a wonderful new blog.
It has statistical studies as the one thing tying all its articles together.
Therefore it covers sports, politics, science, economics and even lifestyles but with a statistical slant.
One of its newest freelance contributors is a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado Boulder, Roger Pielke Jr.
He wrote about disasters and their costs.
Statistically he showed that our wealth, needing replacement after disaster strikes, is what has bumped up the costs of natural disasters, not ”global warming.”
80% of the comments about his article were negative.
Much of that was simple name-calling.
But there was also some deeper criticism of Prof. Pielke Jr., for his work in climate and environment.
The site’s founder, Nate Silver has been dismayed, and is mostly only interested in publishing a rebuttal to the Professor’s article if it is as stringently fact-based as his original.
So far only one taker, and he’s away right now, but will do it eventually.
All the rest content themselves with link-for-link, paper-for-paper and study-for-study ”rebuttals, simple slander and ad hominum attacks.
Here is the original article:
Here are some of the follow-up articles:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/following-up-on-disasters-and-climate-change/
and
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/fivethirtyeight-to-commission-response-to-disputed-climate-article/
Finally the response from Kerry Emanuel of MIT:
@retire05:
” As a matter of fact, one of my own personal dictionaries, Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, copy write 1969, includes no such definition.
The word “gay” was co-opted first by the homosexual community as an alternative to the explicit term “homosexual.” It is you, not Redteam, that needs more study time.”
What, now you are proud to be using an out-dated dictionary? (At least you use one – I don’t think Redteam has one.)
“GAY” –
Back in the 13th century the word meant “light-hearted” or “joyous” and a century later it meant “bright and showy”.
But in the 1630s it acquired connotations of immorality with the term “Gay woman” meaning prostitute or “gay house” a brothel. It was first used to refer to homosexuality in the 1930s.
“HOSPITAL” –
A hospital was once a place for the reception and entertainment of travelers and pilgrims. From the Latin hospitalis, “hospitality.”
I am more that adequately familiar with the etymology of words. What I am good at and you and Redteam are not is the currently correct usage of words.
I “bastardized the history of the Bible written in English (including Middle English), and the statements of Justice Scalia”? I think not.
I have quoted both, directly from the public record. Published record. In the Hardwick dissent, Scalia argued for 21 pages why the SCOTUS should not overturn anti-sodomy laws. I read them, I understand his argument, and I did not misrepresent what he said. He was caught in a constitutional “catch-22” and he saw the inevitable consequence of having the Texas statute thrown out. He wasn’t stupid, and some of his predictions are now coming true. (Anyone wishing to read Scalia’s complete dissent may find it in PDF form by Googling “Scalia Hardwich Dissent.”) Make no mistake, Scalia did NOT want the SCOTUS to decriminalize sodomy.
Bastardize the Bible? Literalists use the conflicting passages of the Bible as they see fit to support their agendas, and a whole lot of mischief has been the result. I’m not a literalist (obviously) but that doesn’t prevent me from pointing out the conflicting passages that are often used against me. That’s all I did. Read it again.
On your blindness to the obvious: I’m queer as a three dollar bill. You’re just baiting me, hoping that I’ll give you more juicy details of my dreams. (Ahhh, Mario Lopez’s dimples… the dimples over Chris Hemsworth’s buttocks… WOLF-WOLF!) LOL!
@Redteam: You like girls. You were born that way. Do you think at some later date you’d decide you like boys and went that direction? I THINK NOT.
99%+ people go with the way they were born. Too powerful to overcome and willfully change. Again– Could you? Ditto,05 ANYONE??
@George Wells:
George, you’re missing a lot. Maybe you should read what you’re responding to PRIOR to responding. I think if you re-read my comments I’ve constantly said I think some Homos are born that way.
You can’t say that homosexuality is or is not God’s will, remember God gave man the ability to make their own choices in some things. They are allowed to make the choice to go to Hell or to accept him and remain in paradise with him.
@rich wheeler:
Rich, I think you’ve missed a lot in what I’ve written. I’m one of the few here that admits that they think people are actually born, in some cases, as homosexuals. I also believe that many choose to be that way. I think the % of homos is about 1-3%, likely half born that way and half choose it. I’m not trying to change the world or their sexual proclivities. I just wish the homos would leave the world alone and leave their assless chaps at home for playtime.
@George Wells:
I actually learned how to use Dictionary.com some years ago, so I don’t keep Websters close by. Since I know what most words mean, I don’t need to consult it very often but I do always use all the words I use, correctly. As you’ve made similar comments several times, and as I’ve asked you repeatedly for examples, which you’ve never provided, I assume you are making it up as you go along. Or attempting to.
@George Wells:
Your opinion is not what is at question here; your actions are.
Where did I say that? Oh, that’s right; I didn’t. But never to be one that is not willing to twist the comments of others, you continue to do so.
Your arrogance is showing again, George, assuming that I own only ONE dictionary. What an ass you are.
Actually, the term “gay” as applied to men was first used in the late 1800’s to refer to the male prostitutes of English brothels, who serviced only men.
You really are not very good at history, George. Maybe you should stop trying to argue it.
@George Wells:
Why would anyone read 21 pages about sodomy. Couldn’t you find out, in 30 minutes with your boy friend, all anyone needs to know about sodomy?
Would you read that sentence (an exact quote) and point out if there are any errors in it. (especially spelling and punctuation) Now, I ordinarily wouldn’t make a point of that, because I know that sometimes a computer can make errors, but since you are so proudly pointing out how you always, compared to Retire and I, use words ‘correctly’, well, I just couldn’t resist. Hint, there are more than 3 errors.
@retire05:
That is his real problem Retire, he doesn’t know much about history and he is only trying to one-up you in order to try to prove his (actually a lack of) knowledge. His grammar is not nearly as good as he thinks either.
@retire02 #18:
“Bastardize the Bible?
Where did I say that? Oh, that’s right; I didn’t.”
Your words (post #18) were (copied):
“Just as you bastardized the history of the Bible written in English (including Middle English), and the statements of Justice Scalia, you seem to lack the ability to research the etymology of words. You were unaware of the etymology of the term “homosexual”, so I have no doubt that you are just as uninformed on the use of the term “gay”, particularly as it is applied to men, and its modern application.”
Did you forget?
@retire08 #18:
“What, now you are proud to be using an out-dated dictionary? (At least you use one – I don’t think Redteam has one.)
Your arrogance is showing again, George, assuming that I own only ONE dictionary.”
The logic construction of “At least you own one” includes the possibility that you own more than one, which is not the same as owning ONLY one. I did not make the asinine assumption that you own ONLY one dictionary.
If you clean up your logic, you won’t waste so much of your time pissing into the wind.
@Redteam #26:
“Why would anyone read 21 pages about sodomy?”
Funny how the uninformed presume to speak authoritatively on a subject.
Retire05 had suggested that I “bastardized” Antonin Scalia’s Hardwick dissent. Don’t you think that someone would have to read that dissent BEFORE attacking what is being said ABOUT IT?
“His grammar is not nearly as good as he thinks either.”
When did I say I had good grammer? What would make you THINK that I believed that?
I was a scientist, not an English teacher.
And I have the decency not to attack your writing style or language proficiency, as neither are relevant to the arguments being made.
@George Wells:
If you didn’t spend so much time trying to spin what you, and others, actually said, you would not have to resort to slamming someone else’s logic.
Sorry, decency and George Wells are not compatible. If you had any decency, you would not have been so descriptive, as you have been more than once in the past, while describing your sexual exploits. “Decent” people don’t get their jollies off by posting such trash, as you do, on a website. Me thinks you suffer from Napoleon Syndrome.
@Redteam: My disagreement with you is over the % of homosexuals that are “born that way.” You profess it’s around 50% which, as you suggest, is much higher than many at F.A. proclaim.I say it’s 99%+. Could you choose to be gay? Even you are not that strong willed.
Saw that Little Band From Texas, ZZ Top, at a small venue last night.Same 3 guys playing high energy Rock for 45 years. OUTSTANDING
@George Wells:
Now that’s funny, I don’t care who you are, that’s funny.
17
20
Unlike you, I provide examples.
@rich wheeler:
Could I choose to be gay? not after having been born normal. Had I been born so that I didn’t have a sexual preference, then I suppose I could choose to swing either direction. I’ll repeat this again. I think people are born 100% female at one end of the spectrum and 100% male at the other end and I think that there are some all along the spectrum. I would put most on the ends. I think some people are born to not give a damn about sex in either direction, those choose their direction, if they have one. I think only about 3% or less are homosexual, no matter which way they got there. I had thought that George might have been born that way, but lately he’s been talking about having sex with women and how much he enjoyed it, so I’m beginning to think he may have made a choice, even though he ‘might’ have been inclined. Apparently at some point he was in the process of ‘deciding’. Just as some people are born with loose screws in their brains and are pedophiles or serial killers, I think that some just don’t care about sex at all and some are overly possessed with it.
Never seen ZZ Top (live) but music is good.
@Redteam: I believe George said he had sex with one woman and did not enjoy it. I doubt if many are “born to not give a damn about sex.”
” The people who are overly possessed with sex are those who are getting more than you’re getting,” unk.
@rich wheeler:
Check GW’s post #14 where he said
He did NOT say that although he had sex with more than one woman, he did NOT enjoy it. He said it was the best sex he ever had. Now that leaves us with two options: a) he had sex with a woman that was the best sex he ever had and DID enjoy it (being able to rate the quality of the sex) or b) he doesn’t enjoy sex (which I seriously doubt he meant)
Most people would read what George wrote and get the impression that he thinks the best sex he ever had was with a woman. Kind of a strange statement from a guy who claims to have known he was gay from a very, VERY young age. Why would a gay guy have sex with a woman in the first place? Or was it just the “any port in a storm” philosophy which is really demeaning to the women he had sex with that they were nothing more than an outlet for his sexual urges.
@retire05: O5 re #14 I stand corrected.
My mistake for ever wasting time on this. Saw some very proud Texans last night–ZZ Top.
@Redteam #34:
“I had thought that George might have been born that way, but lately he’s been talking about having sex with women and how much he enjoyed it, so I’m beginning to think he may have made a choice.”
I think that you got what I TRIED to say backwards. I accept full responsibility for not making myself clear, as you have adequately pointed out my shortcomings in the writing skills department. I’ll try again:
My homosexual orientation was evident AT LEAST 14 years before I ever had sex (as in: with another person). My first encounters were ALL with other males. I CHOSE to perform sexually with two women. The choice was out of necessity. The first heterosexual encounter was a “set-up” orchestrated by officers of my naval unit for the purpose of determining my sexual orientation. (Remember that homosexuals were expelled from the services upon discovery.) The other heterosexual encounter was with a woman who had marital designs on me, and I was reluctant to entirely disappoint her, as I expected that she would broadcast my failure, “outing” me.
It was a long time ago, I was young, I was not out, and it was a very conflicted period of my life. I am not proud that I did not have the courage back then to stand up for who I really was. I am now.
Sex with those women was physically satisfying. Masturbation is physically satisfying, but masturbating doesn’t make you a homosexual OR a heterosexual OR an asexual. What you ARE depends upon where your mind is at when you are “performing.” If you masturbate thinking about Mario Lopez, you’re gay. If you copulate with a woman while thinking of Mario Lopez, you’re gay.
Frankly, I would think that you, as a man, would not need to have this explained.
When you “did it” with your wife, were YOU thinking of Mario Lopez?
Ultimately, the whole question of gay marriage will be resolved not if, but when the Supreme Court throws out the remaining state laws and state constitutional amendments forbidding it. None of these issues turn upon your belief that someone is or isn’t gay, and the question of whether YOU accept gay marriages or not is moot. If you choose to cry out against gay marriage in public, I will cry out in public against you, not because I don’t respect your right to voice your opinion, but because I have the same right, and I wouldn’t want anyone to think that your opinion was the only one.
i.e. "The Navy made me do it." Lame
i.e. “She wanted to marry me so I felt the necessity to perform for her like a trained dog because if I didn’t, she would tell everyone what a loser I am in bed and that would make others think I was gay, which I am and besides that, the poor girl was so needy that I didn’t want to disappoint her so it really was an act of mercy.” LAMER
@George Wells:
You’re really obsessed with this crap, aren’t you, George? “Decent” gentlemen don’t discuss with others the sex that they have with their wives. You seem to be fixated on talking about the act of sex.
@rich wheeler: 35
I see Retire has already straightened you out on that.
As I said. I also doubt that many are born homosexual, probably about the same number, and about that many serial killers and pedophiles, though I do not equate any of those.
@George Wells:
This sounds like the opposite situation of those that are straight that decides to ‘try it’. Sometimes it ‘takes’, sometimes it doesn’t. If it does, you have a homosexual by choice, not by birth.
@Redteam:
Ummm, Redteam; doesn’t that sound a bit like something a hooker would say?
@George Wells:
Maybe you can join the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, although I hear they require you to buy your own costume and we already know you don’t like to spend your own money for things you need.
@retire05re#43 : RT a male prostitute you say?
Well he does have a very high opinion of himself.
RT ‘Those that are straight and decide to try it.” Kinda like I’m a beer drinker but I think I’ll try a glass of wine? Are you serious?
@rich wheeler:
Confused again, RW? Well, don’t worry about it. Nothing new for you.
@retire05: This is too much fun. You take all this much too seriously.
Lets bring in Bees to straighten this out.
@rich wheeler: you’re confused again Rich, Retire was quoting where George said he ‘chose to perform’, it wasn’t me.
I know very well that you have likely drank beer, wine and hard stuff. And I’d say that if you did, it was because you made a decision to do so. I do not think most straight people decide to try homosexuality, but I do believe that some do. Especially if their actual sexuality is not clear.
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2014/04/01/scoutmaster-banned-for-being-openly-gay/?subscriber=1
Well, at least for the present, they still have some standards.