AMERICAblog: When anti-gays think everyone could choose to be gay, it makes me wonder just what's going on inside their head
cowboyneok
· 1 year ago
Slay him, John!
Two divorces. Ha! Typical Republican KKKristian Family Values.
SociologistTina
· 1 year ago
Uh-- maybe so, but Dennis Prager happens to be a very devout Jew.
MikeyBackwards
· 1 year ago
Right, but Judaism is predicated upon the idea of the sacredness of being male. Therefore anything that is seen as lessening the primacy of maleness is threatening. So if a man lies with a man as with a woman, that man who is being 'like a woman' threatens the special and sacred nature of maleness.
This is why being gay or bisexual is so threatening to those living in a patriarchal paradigm - much more so than gayness or bisexuality in women. While an especially 'masculine' gay or bisexual woman may attack the primacy of maleness; the idea that a man would willing give up the dominance of maleness is especially corrosive to patriarchal paradigms. It is one thing for a woman to say she doesn't need a man. But when a man says (in the filter of the patriarchal mindset) that he doesn't need to 'be a man' or that there is no opprobation in not acting like a man, it attacks the very foundations of patriarchal society; of which Judaic culture was one of the first.
To me this is much more indicative of why wingnuts, without regard any individual wingnut's repressed sexual orientation; are so obsessed with stamping out male homosexuality and bisexuality. It underminds the very concept that by being male that they are part of the dominant stratum.
rextrek1
· 1 year ago
You know what I'd like to see..which I've never seen mentioned...if some Hollywood type would make a Movie about a Gay World...where civilization was based on Gay relationships,and heterosexuals were the minority...and where the radical LGBT's were trying to change the heteros,via legislation,and religion.....I really wonder what that movie would look like...and would they (the heteros) see themselves?? I wonder? hmmmm
cowboyneok
· 1 year ago
Star Trek did an episode sort of like that. The straight people were being totally suppressed and forced to hide their orientation. It was a great episode, but I think your idea is GREAT!
Man, I'd LOVE to be involved in a project like that!
SociologistTina
· 1 year ago
Dennis Prager is hardly representative of the Right Wing. In any case, I believe that the Right ARE very worried that great openness in society will cause the "gay rate" to go up, not to mention the "promiscuous sex rate," among other things. Theirs is most assuredly a position based upon "fear of pleasure."
cowboyneok
· 1 year ago
Nah! Prager, and his ilk, are mostly concerned that if we gays can get married, it will reduce the pool of closeted gays they cruise in airport bathrooms. They are protecting their compartmentalized lifestyle! Gay marriage means it is harder for them to scare up an anonymous blowjob while cheating on the wife with another man.
SociologistTina
· 1 year ago
I appreciate your sense of humor, but I'd be hard-pressed that MOST wingnuts are motivated in the way you suggest.
SoLeftImRight
· 1 year ago
Uh---bitchy comment girl -- not MOST wingnuts, but a very disproportionate amount that happen to make GAY their focus, tend to find themselves in compromising positions with gay prostitutes, or meth labs, or airport bathrooms...so don't be so hard pressed, just be happy to call out hypocrites where you find them and get a real (read GAY) sense of humor.
cowboyneok
· 1 year ago
I didn't take it as "too bitchy" 'cause I AM partly being humorous. On the other hand, I'm writing a LOT of truth.
cowboyneok
· 1 year ago
Maybe Mr. Prager needs that man on man "cuddle therapy" they featured on Steven Colbert's show?
SociologistTina
· 1 year ago
LOL. Probably that the very least of what he needs. Sounds like he feels very conflicted about remaining monogamous. He not alone in feeling that way-- many men do.
Prager is such a twisted prick: ".when youth get involved in politics in large numbers, it is not a good thing...” http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/88534/ btw: huge rant by me on fisa, previous thread.
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 1 year ago
John, it would be hitting below the belt to mention his TWO divorces on Sunday. Whatever, you do, don't mention his TWO failed marriages. Yes, it's unfair that you haven't been able to have even one failed marriage, while he has had TWO failed marriages, but you must remember that he is preserving the sanctity of all failed marriages between one man and one woman. Or, in his case, one man and TWO divorcees.
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 1 year ago
Oh, just checked--the two divorcees created by Dennis's TWO failed marriages are named Janice and Francine. It would be just awful to mention their names on Sunday. I repeat, it would be hitting below the belt to wonder, on air, if Janice AND Francine have been privileged to experience marriage with Dennis Prager. That's Janice and Francine.
SoLeftImRight
· 1 year ago
Hasn't he had any CHILDREN? It's all about the CHILDREN, or so I thought. If you are divorced and feel the need to criticize gay marriage, you have way, WAY bigger issues.
TampaZeke
· 1 year ago
I'm absolutely 100% with KarenMrsLloydRichards on this one John. It would be completely WRONG for you to mentions Prager's TWO divorces; you know, the ONE from JANICE and the OTHER ONE from FRANCINE.
I hope you'll take our advice and not throw Prager into the BRIER PATCH talking about those TWO divorces.
That (JANICE, JANICE) would be (FRANCINE, FRANCINE) really WRONG!
fostert
· 1 year ago
John, you raise a good point that is probably lost on most people outside of Thailand. I personally don't care much about the marriage issue, but I do support anyone's marriage rights and vote that way. I was born heterosexual and no amount of social pressure would ever change that. But I have no problem having drinks with the katoey in Bangkok- but just drinks, thank you. While I'd agree that sexuality is a continuous spectrum, I'm pretty far to one side. And I'm comfortable with that. And that's precisely why I enjoy the company of anyone who's anywhere on the spectrum. It just doesn't matter to me because I'm comfortable with myself. It's when people are acting in way that is inconsistent with their placement on the spectrum that problems arise. And based on the number of gay Republicans espousing anti-gay rhetoric, it's pretty clear that the failure to accept one's placement on the spectrum creates serious emotional conflicts. In the end, The Closet is the most emotionally destructive force in sexuality. We need to create a society where nobody feels the need to be in The Closet. And that needs to include the transvestites, transgendered, and transexuals as well. Thailand does it pretty well. So can we.
Jim Olson
· 1 year ago
Excellently said, fostert. I think this is why I don't feel the need to be confined to going to gay clubs or to pride events for my social life. I'm comfortably married to my husband, and would much rather go hang out at the irish/sports bar around the corner from my house where I can have relatively interesting and intelligent discussions with the people there, than to trek downtown to an expensive, loud, grubby gay bar.
red_dwarf
· 1 year ago
fostert - well said.
KingCranky
· 1 year ago
Please take that pompous rat-bastard Prager out for a rhetorical whuppin', and perhaps referring to him as a "shock jock" might irritate him enough to produce the same sort of comic gold when Zell Miller wished he could challenge Chris Matthews to a duel.
bunnyjump
· 1 year ago
hAHA...most of these idiots are so confused and/or trying to hide their sexuality from the donors that fund their church (and lifestyle). What i absolutely hate are the so called men of god that are exploiting children - priests or cultists that take (multiple) child brides.
And, what i cannot stand is the intrusion of religion(especially the currently insane type) into the public space. BRING BACK SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ManeleRomania
· 1 year ago
To a certain extent we need to respect the other side. People hold their beliefs and faith very sincerely. It is for this same reason that I think Barack Obama can unify the country. He has said that the institution of marriage can only be between a man and a women, and yet he accepts gays too. He is a strong defender of civil rights, yet also supports the FISA compromise in order to protect our cities. It is only this type of compromise and bargaining with those we disagree with (the GOP) that can lead to progress. This is also why I support his possible choice of Sam Nunn as VP. We need to trust Barack on these issues.
red_dwarf
· 1 year ago
Sam Nunn, who has a history of bashing gays, is not a good choice for VP (IMO). Voting for immunity for past crimes along with unbound wire tapping (FISA allows the executive to "decide" who gets wiretapped - does not need probable cause - can wire tap anyone, anytime, for any reason - (remember "executive privilege" is the fascist shield to truth). Unbound surveillance is an evisceration of the 4th Amendment. By gutting the 4th Amendment terrorists win. Its that simple.
I agree that we have to "trust" Obama - what other choice do we have? I would agree with you ManeleRomania but I have one question, if you could answer it I might sway towards your argument. How do 11 men with box cutters result in 8+ million Americans being placed on a terrorist watch list? Always (it is our duty) question authority.
Dumbo
· 1 year ago
"Much of humanity -- especially females -- can enjoy homosexual sex."
More confirmation of a theory that I have long held, that every woman who ever turned me down must have secretly been lesbian. And it's not their fault. In college sororities, all that pent-up polymorphous sexuality explodes into a frenzy of pussy licking and finger banging and foreign objects being inserted in nasty places.
If only society could have got there, first! Got there, and channeled all that nasty humping and licking and rockin' and rollin' into an exclusively heterosexual direction, preferably focused on my big cock. Oh yes, I know, you say it's their loss, but no, it's everybody's loss. That which diminishes my cock diminishes the world.
Andrew A. Gill
· 1 year ago
This theory actually has some recent scholarly backing:
The author, J. Michael Bailey, looks to be an interesting character, and another one of his studies claims that bisexuality doesn't exist in men, which I assume is not well-received in the scientific community. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the study in women is wrong.
I'm no expert in sexuality studies, so if this has been debunked, please let me know.
Please.
OlderAndWiser
· 1 year ago
I've never needed "erotica" or porn to be sexually aroused by either sex. Mere contact with another person was enough. And I have had sex with a couple of men who claimed to be gay. But then, I suppose I could have been called "hyper-sexual" when younger. And I also believe that men can be considered "bi-sexual" as much as women.
ComradeRutherford
· 1 year ago
I am a bisexual man, so I debunk his crap by my very existence.
Andrew A. Gill
· 1 year ago
Well, yes. I assumed that the mere existence of bisexual men would debunk that theory, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the female theory is wrong.
therepguy
· 1 year ago
Not much is going on that that ones head... for sure!
chowderSF
· 1 year ago
John, what you said! It is posts like this that I love coming back to Ablog.. I am right there with you as you stand up to these small minds. I have Reliable Sources Tivo'ed and I can't wait to see how you do. You have been only been getting better with your on-air appearances, so break a leg. What bugs me is that they even have someone like this guy on the air with you. Seriously, what is up with that? The cable news stations are so right wing,,,,,,really. Again, thanks, and when are you making it out to the left coast again?
OlderAndWiser
· 1 year ago
I'm convinced sexuality is a continuum. I've had a couple of brief periods in my life, when younger (20s and 30s), that I engaged in sexual activity with women, but most of my sexual experiences have been with men, part of the socialization of being married, having kids, etc., but not entirely that. However, being sexual with women, while seemingly more exciting, wasn't as satisfying and comfortable for some reason I could never nail down. And most women, do NOT like anal sex, including me. Most heterosexual men do, but they're tops, of course, because for them, the penis is king. And yes, lots of straight men like to watch 2 women and even approve, but would never make it with a man.
I've also had sex with a couple of men who claimed to be gay, up front. I just think that all humans are quite capable of having sex with anyone, no matter. Sometimes it's instinct and sexual urge, sometimes it's just more calculated than that. As far as emotions are concerned, has anyone noticed that even after being sexual with someone, the friendship can still remain? My experience is, not so much, but that could be changing if sex is just a component of the friendship, not the key ingredient (that "lust at first sight" syndrome). I kept more friendships in the 60s and early 70s with both men and women in the "counter culture" than I ever could in "straight" society.
There seems to be a trend among younger people today to "experiment" more with sex, opposite and same sex, which has nothing to do with actually being gay or straight.
ClayPotts
· 1 year ago
Dennis Prager wants a return to the McCarthy Era of the 50s. Prager yearns for white male dominance in the workplace with heteroporn calendars in every men's washroom. In his head, America is much freer when conformity and fear are the rule. Prager's blindness to 50 years of American progress makes him a menace to 21st century society.
red_dwarf
· 1 year ago
Remember the study we cited here last year (wish I had the link) which found that 80% of homophobes are gay themselves - people like Mitch McConnell of KY, etc. Sexually of course, one can waiver across the sexual spectrum but for the most part we're hard wired in that department - something psychoanalysts figured out in the 19th Century. The percentage (around 10%) who are homosexual is a constant across all cultures and therefore de facto genetic.
Let's face it. Making homosexuality an issue is political, nothing more then a wedge to divide the electorate. You can look at cultures across history to see how various societies dealt with homosexuality. I like the example of the Sioux Indians. When 2 warriors paired and slept in the same TP etc. they figured that he "great father" must of had a hand in it - so they accepted it and did not chastise them (how smart they were).
We all know what the truth is here. Divide and conquer - dumb down the population, control, corporate fascism, etc. Homosexuality in reality is not an issue - the only issue is propping up of homophobes through propaganda and inciting hatred and fear - its the GOP way.
ska
· 1 year ago
I play on your team, but we should get our facts "straight." That 10% figure is pretty outdated. Current thinking is that the number is significantly lower. Furthermore, your assertion that sexual orientation is "de facto genetic" probably oversimplifies. Identical twins, even those raised apart, have the same sexual orientation about half of the time. If sexual orientation was de facto genetic, there would be 100% agreement for identical twins.
Current thinking suggests that sexual orientation is determined at an early age, perhaps in the womb, by some combination of genetics, biology (e.g., prenatal hormone levels), and environmental factors.
red_dwarf
· 1 year ago
Good point ska - I was unaware that "identical twins" split on sexuality - good argument. Several factors play in - I can buy that. What would be interesting is to throw into the research studies form identical twins reared apart. However, genetics, biology, hormones, etc are all controlled genetically - however, some outside influence (stress, nutrition, etc) I am sure too plays a part.
Brings up the question as to what does make the difference between identical twins? 50% split suggest something substantive here. I haven't seen any articles demonstrating that 50% of identical twins spit on sexual orientation - I'll have to pass on that until I do. For me its genetic, with a touch of environment.
Would like to see a link that occurrence is 1-3% instead of 10% - 10% was the last figure I saw - but whatever it is the study I read said it was relatively constant across all cultures - so this latter result, constancy across cultures, is de facto proof of genetic involvement. We need someone to do some research and lay out a few reports and journal articles that summarizes this data. Time to get updated.
I'm not easily swayed one way or the other - perhaps you are right regarding identical twins but until I see evidence thereof I'm not convinced - but you could be correct. Right now I believe that homosexuality is predominately genetic, with some environmental influence. I'd love to see a scientific study (survey) that statistically demonstrates that 50% of identical twins have different sexual orientations (in which case the environment becomes a big big factor) - because, in my mind, that would strip genetics virtually from the argument. And that I am not ready to do.
ska
· 1 year ago
There's definitely a genetic component. Various studies have slightly different percentages, but the trend is for identical twins to be about twice as likely to have the same sexual orientation as fraternal twins. That point is made in this article:
The Williams Institute at UCLA does good statistical work on debunking myths about LGBT people.
Of course, as many people are discussing, do we really want to know exactly what "causes" sexual orientation? Might that provide an opportunity for parents to engineer out those causes?
TampaZeke
· 1 year ago
ska,
Identical twins don't always share the same handedness either but I don't think there is a person in America today who doesn't believe that handedness is innate and set before birth.
I believe that sexual orientation is very similar to handedness orientation and that they probably have very similar origins.
As for the 10% number, you can't really call the 10% number any less reliable than the 2% number or any percentage in between. As long as these numbers come from self-testimony of the test subjects, and as long as homosexuality is culturally, socially and religiously controversial and thought of so negatively, none of these studies can be considered truly reliable. Until a study is done that bypasses the test subjects' consciousness and measures his/her sexual response, or measures the authenticity and accuracy of the test subjects' testimony (through brain scans or the like), it is reasonable to assume that the results of any of these tests would be skewed low.
The latest nationwide and extensive study in England came up with a percentage between 6 and 7% of the population in the country. Again, who knows how accurate that is.
My point is the 10% number isn't necessarily any less worthy of consideration than any other.
I can say without a moments hesitation that the 2% number is complete bullsh*t. That's the one the anti-gay fundamentalists have latched on to. I don't buy that one for a minute.
ska
· 1 year ago
"Set before birth" is not the same as "genetic" or "innate." Some theories posit that hormone levels in the womb and other prenatal factors can play a role. With regard to laterality (handedness, eyedness and footedness), some theories suggest that prenatal trauma, brain trauma, and even the use of forceps could play a role.
But, this is a bit beside the point. We agree that, by whatever mechanism, sexual orientation appears to be fixed at a very early age and essentially immutable to change thereafter.
With regard to population percentages, agreed that more research is needed.
red_dwarf
· 1 year ago
Good points. I thought of that myself, the unreliability factor. The twins studies would be very interesting to read - especially if any have been done with identical twins reared apart.
Physiological differences in brain tissue, etc have been reported. One problem with the "twice as likely" identical twin argument is that if only 7% or so of the default population is gay then you would expect much less then 50% of identical twins to be both gay.
Cells (much less the entire organism) are chocked full of thousands of cross-talk assemblies, etc - so can get very complex pretty fast.
I think we can all agree there is a substantative genetic role, with other factors weighing in - again, a serious study on identical twins may shed some light on this.
The next generation will have the answer - biochemistry is kicking some serious ass now (bring in the Chinese, Russians, etc) and so it won't be long before it is clear what role genetics plays in sexual orientation.
Of course another dilemma that we'll be facing is what to do with genetically twisted fascist rePIGlicans. Should we show them mercy and alter their genes so they grow up to be intelligent and progressive? I say let 'em suffer.
red_dwarf
· 1 year ago
ska - thanks for the links - will def. read them. I'm all for new information - appreciate your effort. Hopefully others can take a few minutes as well and catch up with some of the latest stats, etc.
OlderAndWiser
· 1 year ago
It's not "up to society" to program anyone into heterosexuality, BTW. It's up to the individual's own genetics and/or socialization to decide how his or her sexuality will play out. Individual human emotions play a big role in this.
But I agree--the closet is no place for a healthy life. People should be able to live as they wish, as long as they harm neither themselves or anyone else by their actions. And I see a lot of people being harmed by today mores and socialization, though.
Indigo
· 1 year ago
It's flattering when you think about it to realize that we gays are so attractive that we're automatically thought of as home-wreckers. Well, what's to say? Gorgeous is as gorgeous does.
OlderAndWiser
· 1 year ago
Come on, Indigo, you don't want to be cast into the same category as Cindy McBush, do you? : )
Indigo
· 1 year ago
Ouch! I was thinking more along the lines of Hanoi Jane. ;-)
But I don't think it has been scientifically debunked. Even if flawed, it does suggest we overestimate the number of real bisexual men in the population, something that most of us already suspect based on the fact that so many "bisexual" men eventually give up the pretext and say they are gay.
By the way, there's a very simple test for sexual orientation in men, which, unfortunately, can't be used scientifically because it depends on the subject's honesty. Basically, men who've never had a wet dream about a woman are gay. Ask a bisexual guy who is in his dreams of arousal. Dreams don't lie and they don't care much about social expectations.
lindiana
· 1 year ago
OK, as a straight middle age woman, I don't get it. Why does it matter to society who you go to bed with, who makes your life complete? Other than abusive relations, I just don't care. Be straight, be gay, go both ways, be a product of prenatal hormones or infant feeding or crushes in 5th grade, be nature or nurture, I just don't care. It does not seem the most important part of our humanity or our relations to each other.
--just be kind honest and high integrity.
MikeyBackwards
· 1 year ago
As an individual who self-describes as 'non-gender specific'; I think there is a much more powerful factor at work here as to why so many '"bisexual" men eventually give up the pretext and say they are gay'. It is called social pressure. Straight people declare that the bisexual male is just gay and doesn't want to admit it. Gay people declare that the bisexual male is just gay and trying to pass. Both positions are reinforcing the paradigm that sexuality exists as a immutable duality - gay or straight. Therefore there is a very strong and coercive social dynamic at work to 'choose' to be gay or straight. Also, for the bisexual individual who develops a permanent or semi-permanent relationship, one 'becomes' gay or straight because the monogamous relationship is either with one's own gender or with the opposite gender. But just as being gay is more than who one has sex with, so being bisexual is more than who one has sex with. The 'becoming' gay or straight is an external appearance and may or may not have anything to do with a change in sexual identity.
However this is not to say changes do not or can not occur in sexuality. I believe that sexuality is plastic, but that to choose to be gay or bisexual is as valid a choice as choosing to be straight. Of course, the process of sexual identity development is not so simple as a single choice. It is my thought that one's sexual identity develops incrementally through many choices one makes; mostly without thinking about, or understanding how those choices affect later choices that ultimately lead to what amounts (for most people) to a static immutable sexual identity. When I say sexuality is plastic, I am referring (primarily) to the development of sexuality, not it's end state.
Recently there have been articles published regarding simularities in brain structure between 'gay' men and 'straight' women as compared to the brain structure of 'straight' men. The reason for the quote marks is because these articles should actually (and I presume the academic works upon which the articles are based do) read 'self-dentified gay men and straight women'. Because sexuality is a subjective experience one cannot make an objective observation of another's sexual orientation. Also, rather than proving a causal relationship that form defines function, such observations could just as readily be interpreted that in developing an attraction to men as the objects of sexual orientation, brain function changes. Of course, how many of these articles are written by 'straight' men who want to reinforce the concept that to be gay is to be effeminate?
In short, at this time, I believe the only valid objective determination that can be made of human sexuality is that humans are sexual animals that express sexuality in many ways. Or as I tell friends when my own sexuality is discussed: I am attracted to the person, not what particular set of genitals s/he possesses. How I express that attraction sexually is just a matter of mechanics.
ComradeRutherford
· 1 year ago
I'm a bisexual man, about 80%-20%. I am definitely *not* gay.
OlderAndWiser
· 1 year ago
Wow, what would the researchers say if I told them that while visiting a gay bar some years ago, I (a woman) was sexually aroused by 2 men engaging in a deep kiss at the next table? When visiting gay bars with other women (most lesbians), I was always more excited by watching gay men dance, too.
Cheeez. You just cannot categorize human behavior and sexual response, IMHO.
ComradeRutherford
· 1 year ago
My wife loves watching me make love with other guys.
Rab
· 1 year ago
Prager is such a load, I hope the country has had enough of repugs for a long time.
RevDrBillyBob
· 1 year ago
"The only people who think that most of humanity could go gay or straight are people who themselves could go gay or straight - and they just assume that everyone else is just like them." . . . you make a good point here . . . I mean, considerin' that yer a godless heathen librul 'n' all.
slappymagoo
· 1 year ago
Ha! I basically agree with you, John, with one caveat, which might make sound like a big ol' hypocrite, but to quote the great philosopher, I Yam What I Yam. I've always believed that nature & nurture can both play a part in developing a person's sexuality. Even someone who is genetically predisposed to homosexuality can experience a chain of events that lead them to find someone of the opposite sex that makes them feel complete emotionally & sexually. In THAT respect, I guess I'm a little Prager. UNLIKE Prager, I don't think it's society's responsibility to take people predisposed to homosexuality and "make" them go straight. And I'm certainly not about to post articles about it. It's those guys, who go that extra creepy step, that make me think they're going "please, god, don't let me go gay, keep me on the straight and extremely...EXTREMELY narrow path to happiness? Please?"
Cpeterka
· 1 year ago
I AM STRAIGHT ! I've been married for 30+ years to the wonderful woman. (Oh, that guy is good looking.) I AM STRAIGHT ! I have two great kids. (Wow, that other guy is really good looking.) I AM STRAIGHT and Won't Change. (Wow, Check out that guys pants!) I AM STRAIGHT .. I'm going STRAIGHT over and Ask That Guy for ... for... NO! NO! Don't Allow Me To Have A CHOICE... I may forget that I'M STRAIGHT... Oh, .. OH, O OH BABY,BABY... I Think I Love You..
(But I'm still Straight !!! mostly..) Just Kidding... But I guess that's what could happen in a Bizarro World.
Moderation
· 1 year ago
What is it with the stereotypical hypocritical heterosexual male, and their oft complete acceptance of mutable female sexuality, yet their extreme disgust at mutable male sexuality? I understand the psychological reasons, the cognitive dissonance, the cognitive bias, and the projection. Nevertheless, what the hell? Why is it ok, and even hot to see two women get it on? Why is it NOT hot for two men to get it on? Why is it ok that men (and women) like to see two women get it on? Why is it unacceptable, and moreover, the fact completely ignored in most such discussions, that many women (and men) equally like to see two men get it on? Why is it ok for 1400+ species on earth to display natural homosexual relationships, some of which are even advantageous to their species, but not ok for our species, the only species we know of with true conscious thought? It is damned baffling. The mental disconnect is just astounding, well and truly astounding.
Butch1
· 1 year ago
Unfortunately, heterosexual men who like to see two women "get it on" are not threatened with that type of sex since no penis is involved. They are very afraid of the penis and what the penis "could do to them" so they over react. Male sex threatens them because in their mindset, there is always the potential of them being "raped" and it scares them.
Finally, they are in a position to see how females feel going through life with this potential threat hanging over their heads every time they step out of the house.
AdmNaismith
· 1 year ago
Prager is essentially right. Sexuality is extremely fluid (as it were). People can choose to do all sorts of things (all their life, even) even if it ultimately brings them no satisfaction. But ultimately there are things that do bring them true satisfaction (ranging from the sex of the partner to what particular fetish 'rocks their boat'). Certainly as the biggest homophobes are the biggest homos, I like your postulation that the biggest proponents of 'choice' are themselves trying to choose not to want hot c*ck.
Butch1
· 1 year ago
I hope you have a chance to bring up the two divorces this fellow has had and that he should not consider himself an authority on marriages or sexuality. The fact that he chooses to call the actual educated researchers "sexual know-nothings" says much about his own education or lack of in this area. All he is spouting is his prejudiced opinion and nothing more unfortunately in a program that goes over the airwaves. I wish there were some way of charging these foolish charlatans with practicing medicine without a license since those in the medical profession have said many times that homosexuality is not a disease or something of which to be "fixed," and this fool is getting paid to dispense this disinformation over the air.
ComradeRutherford
· 1 year ago
Here is a letter to a local newspaper in Vermont from 2002? I don't fully know, but I saw it clipped out and pasted to a door at Dartmouth College. I took a photo of it and then transcribed it. One of the best replies to bigoted anti-gays I have EVER read!
Ignorant Cruelty Robbed Me of the Joys of Motherhood by (NAME REDACTED) For the Valley News
White River Junction: Many letters have been sent to the Forum concerning the 'homosexual menace' in our state. I am the mother of a gay son, and I've taken enough from you good people.
I'm tired if your foolish reactions about the "homosexual agenda" and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and you are ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny. My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay. He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have the gestures like other boys. He was called a 'fag' incessantly starting when he was 6.
In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn't bear living any longer, that he didn't want to be gay and that he couldn't face a life with no dignity.
You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don't know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn't put him, and millions like him, on this earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it's about time you started doing that.
At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you wont get to choose. Whether it is genetic or whether something occurs during fetal development, I don't know, I can only tell you with an absolute certainty that it is inborn.
If you want to tout your own morality, you'd best come up with something more substantial than your own heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it. For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, a bad habit or something that can be changed by a 10-step program, I'm puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will? If that's not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can?
A popular theme in your letters is that our state has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family have lived in Vermont for generations. I am a heart and soul Vermonter, so I'll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for 'true Vermonters'. You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn't give their lives so that the 'homosexual agenda' could tear down the principles they died defending. My 83-year-old father fought in World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart. He shakes his head in sadness at what his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn't just the measure of the man.
You religious folk just can't bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance. How dare he ... these outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage.
You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged minority, and God knows my son has committed no sin.
The deep-thinking author of a letter to the Forum on April 12 who lectures about homosexual sin and tells us about "those of us who have been blessed with the benefits of a religious upbringing" asks, "Whatever happened to the idea of striving ... to be better human beings than we are?"
Indeed, sir, whatever happened to that?
(NAME REDACTED) lives in White River Junction.
devis1
· 1 year ago
Thanks for posting that.
ComradeRutherford
· 1 year ago
Proud Bisexual Man here, no matter what lies right-wing 'scientists' make up to claim I don't exist.
Just because sexual orientation is observed on a continuum doesn't mean any individual can move on the continuum. IQ can be plotted on a continuum but that doesn't mean an individual can raise his IQ although, in Prager's case, I think one can pose as someone with a higher IQ than he has.
LanceThruster
· 1 year ago
I've had a hell of a time trying to find the exact quotes, but both Alan Keyes and Rick Santorum have talked about the "temptation" of homosexuality being the most pernicious aspect of same sex relations. It does indeed sound like a remarkable amount of projection.
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
It's pretty simple really.
Either the same sex makes you hot or the opposite sex makes you hot.
If these guys think there's some kind of societal regulator involved, it just shows they need the societal regulator to fight their own desires.
bobbyjoe
· 1 year ago
I hope you WILL ask him exactly this on air, John. It's been my contention that if gay rights advocates always asked the question "so explain to the audience the exact moment you decided to be straight" every single time they were on some television or radio show with one of these anti-gay cretins, we'd be far more advanced in the cause of gay rights than we already are.
nikto
· 1 year ago
Dennis Prager is just another ignorant shit from an endless supply of ignorant shits on the rightwing. The Truth is that Evolutionary Biology has established well-past the slam-dunk level that same-sex coupling/"gayness" is AN ADAPTIVE FUNCTION that occurs in EVERY SINGLE SPECIES that reproduces sexually with an occurrence rate from about 4% to 12% (higher in a few species). That means, beyond any doubt, that it is normal, healthy, A GOOD THING, and helps species survive. No wonder the trailer-trash xtianists have to deny Evolution at every turn. It is an absolute. For anyone who believes in a God or Creator, "gayness" is a creation of God. And even if you don't, it's obviously a positive creation of Nature. The xtianists obviously cannot handle this Absolute Truth. I'm just a "breeder" myself, but I have been interested in this question for years, have read volumes on the subject, talked to many people (both gay & straight), and gave found the answer to be extremely clear and overwhelmingly substantiated. It ain't that difficult to see, if your eyes are really open. Lately, I have come to wish that our society had a LARGER % of gay people, what with overpopulation and with so many babies being born into horrible conditions who desperately could use a nice, stable married gay couple to be adopted by. Also, I wish the "gay vote" was bigger--Much bigger, in order to "push-back" harder politically. If it were up to me, I would think if Gays comprised about 50% of the population, this would be of great practical benefit to society. I would love to live in such a society. Rightwing bullshit would get stomped-down much faster in such a world, which I believe would also be much more hostile to bigotry of ALL kinds. Maybe that "gay bomb" could save us, huh? The only negative I can see with being gay is that if a gay person, for whatever reason, can't face it, and tries to deny it, then starts living a long-term Lie. This is how some of the most virulent (and secretly, self-hating) right-wingers are born, like certain GOP Congressmen & Senators, and some of those rabid hate-preaching Pastors who make the news. But, alas, I suppose I am not without prejudice myself--For example, I despise Dennis Prager. Because, as far as I'm concerned, If Dennis Prager's integrity, honesty and intelligence were to be increased 50-fold, he would then be able to rise to the level of ignorant scum. But no such luck.
JamesR
· 1 year ago
What a well worded post, and really great comments - I will try not to repeat or re-say what has been said so well by so many, but I want to add some points so sorely lacking in most every 'soundbite' (that's usually all the time it's given,) regarding these issues.
First: The term "marriage" is religious. Anything the government recognizes is the 'civil union' by definition. My religion says I may marry a partner of the same gender. The religion of Thomas Jefferson, the Unitarians, have been marrying gays (together) for almost 30 years. To favor one religious interpretation over another is clearly an establishment of religion and freedom of religion and equal protection Constitutional obviousness. For any judge who truly respects the Constitution.
Dennis Prager should know the mechanics of marriage, as he's done it and dissolved it twice it appears. If he'd been paying attention he'd have remembered that there is the religious part he undoubtedly made big ceremony of, but also the CIVIL part you have to arrange beforehand, the marriage license. That's a civil document, secular, literally only recognizing / declaring the CIVIL UNION. Marriage, as seen by the government is only a civil contract between two people. It can be nothing else, as seen from a governmental perspective. The government cannot endorse one brand of religion and penalize citizens for exercising their rights to their own religions, or their right to have no religion.
If they whine, as they are wont to do, that that would mean 'getting God out of marriage' what it means is it is getting one version of God out of government where it never should have been in the first place.
Second: Whether being gay or not is a "choice," absurd as that idea is, is a red herring. So what? If it is, so what? RELIGION is a choice, and all the major intolerance comes from others' religions. One of the best and most fundamental things about being American is a tolerance for other religions. If their religion says it's not OK for them to act out on their own gay feelings, well, I don't have to "approve," privately, but I am civilized enough to not ever DREAM of trying to impose a societal restriction on their freedom to repress themselves. I do not care what they do in their closets.
To paraphrase 'your rights end where my nose begins,' their rights end where my penis begins, and where my equal civil rights begin.
fostert
· 1 year ago
Not sure anyone is reading this thread anymore, but the readers here might like this:
All Comments
Two divorces. Ha! Typical Republican KKKristian Family Values.
This is why being gay or bisexual is so threatening to those living in a patriarchal paradigm - much more so than gayness or bisexuality in women. While an especially 'masculine' gay or bisexual woman may attack the primacy of maleness; the idea that a man would willing give up the dominance of maleness is especially corrosive to patriarchal paradigms. It is one thing for a woman to say she doesn't need a man. But when a man says (in the filter of the patriarchal mindset) that he doesn't need to 'be a man' or that there is no opprobation in not acting like a man, it attacks the very foundations of patriarchal society; of which Judaic culture was one of the first.
To me this is much more indicative of why wingnuts, without regard any individual wingnut's repressed sexual orientation; are so obsessed with stamping out male homosexuality and bisexuality. It underminds the very concept that by being male that they are part of the dominant stratum.
Man, I'd LOVE to be involved in a project like that!
http://www.lukeford.net/Dennis/Default.htm
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/88534/
btw: huge rant by me on fisa, previous thread.
I hope you'll take our advice and not throw Prager into the BRIER PATCH talking about those TWO divorces.
That (JANICE, JANICE) would be (FRANCINE, FRANCINE) really WRONG!
And, what i cannot stand is the intrusion of religion(especially the currently insane type) into the public space.
BRING BACK SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree that we have to "trust" Obama - what other choice do we have? I would agree with you ManeleRomania but I have one question, if you could answer it I might sway towards your argument. How do 11 men with box cutters result in 8+ million Americans being placed on a terrorist watch list? Always (it is our duty) question authority.
More confirmation of a theory that I have long held, that every woman who ever turned me down must have secretly been lesbian. And it's not their fault. In college sororities, all that pent-up polymorphous sexuality explodes into a frenzy of pussy licking and finger banging and foreign objects being inserted in nasty places.
If only society could have got there, first! Got there, and channeled all that nasty humping and licking and rockin' and rollin' into an exclusively heterosexual direction, preferably focused on my big cock. Oh yes, I know, you say it's their loss, but no, it's everybody's loss. That which diminishes my cock diminishes the world.
In contrast to men, both heterosexual and lesbian women tend to become sexually aroused by both male and female erotica, and, thus, have a bisexual arousal pattern.
The author, J. Michael Bailey, looks to be an interesting character, and another one of his studies claims that bisexuality doesn't exist in men, which I assume is not well-received in the scientific community. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the study in women is wrong.
I'm no expert in sexuality studies, so if this has been debunked, please let me know.
Please.
I've also had sex with a couple of men who claimed to be gay, up front. I just think that all humans are quite capable of having sex with anyone, no matter. Sometimes it's instinct and sexual urge, sometimes it's just more calculated than that. As far as emotions are concerned, has anyone noticed that even after being sexual with someone, the friendship can still remain? My experience is, not so much, but that could be changing if sex is just a component of the friendship, not the key ingredient (that "lust at first sight" syndrome). I kept more friendships in the 60s and early 70s with both men and women in the "counter culture" than I ever could in "straight" society.
There seems to be a trend among younger people today to "experiment" more with sex, opposite and same sex, which has nothing to do with actually being gay or straight.
Let's face it. Making homosexuality an issue is political, nothing more then a wedge to divide the electorate. You can look at cultures across history to see how various societies dealt with homosexuality. I like the example of the Sioux Indians. When 2 warriors paired and slept in the same TP etc. they figured that he "great father" must of had a hand in it - so they accepted it and did not chastise them (how smart they were).
We all know what the truth is here. Divide and conquer - dumb down the population, control, corporate fascism, etc. Homosexuality in reality is not an issue - the only issue is propping up of homophobes through propaganda and inciting hatred and fear - its the GOP way.
Current thinking suggests that sexual orientation is determined at an early age, perhaps in the womb, by some combination of genetics, biology (e.g., prenatal hormone levels), and environmental factors.
Brings up the question as to what does make the difference between identical twins? 50% split suggest something substantive here. I haven't seen any articles demonstrating that 50% of identical twins spit on sexual orientation - I'll have to pass on that until I do. For me its genetic, with a touch of environment.
Would like to see a link that occurrence is 1-3% instead of 10% - 10% was the last figure I saw - but whatever it is the study I read said it was relatively constant across all cultures - so this latter result, constancy across cultures, is de facto proof of genetic involvement. We need someone to do some research and lay out a few reports and journal articles that summarizes this data. Time to get updated.
I'm not easily swayed one way or the other - perhaps you are right regarding identical twins but until I see evidence thereof I'm not convinced - but you could be correct. Right now I believe that homosexuality is predominately genetic, with some environmental influence. I'd love to see a scientific study (survey) that statistically demonstrates that 50% of identical twins have different sexual orientations (in which case the environment becomes a big big factor) - because, in my mind, that would strip genetics virtually from the argument. And that I am not ready to do.
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=155
Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" provides good information on genetics vs. biology and the environment.
Estimating the size of the "homosexual" population is notoriously difficult, as this citation points out:
http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/demographi...
The Williams Institute at UCLA does good statistical work on debunking myths about LGBT people.
Of course, as many people are discussing, do we really want to know exactly what "causes" sexual orientation? Might that provide an opportunity for parents to engineer out those causes?
Identical twins don't always share the same handedness either but I don't think there is a person in America today who doesn't believe that handedness is innate and set before birth.
I believe that sexual orientation is very similar to handedness orientation and that they probably have very similar origins.
As for the 10% number, you can't really call the 10% number any less reliable than the 2% number or any percentage in between. As long as these numbers come from self-testimony of the test subjects, and as long as homosexuality is culturally, socially and religiously controversial and thought of so negatively, none of these studies can be considered truly reliable. Until a study is done that bypasses the test subjects' consciousness and measures his/her sexual response, or measures the authenticity and accuracy of the test subjects' testimony (through brain scans or the like), it is reasonable to assume that the results of any of these tests would be skewed low.
The latest nationwide and extensive study in England came up with a percentage between 6 and 7% of the population in the country. Again, who knows how accurate that is.
My point is the 10% number isn't necessarily any less worthy of consideration than any other.
I can say without a moments hesitation that the 2% number is complete bullsh*t. That's the one the anti-gay fundamentalists have latched on to. I don't buy that one for a minute.
But, this is a bit beside the point. We agree that, by whatever mechanism, sexual orientation appears to be fixed at a very early age and essentially immutable to change thereafter.
With regard to population percentages, agreed that more research is needed.
Physiological differences in brain tissue, etc have been reported. One problem with the "twice as likely" identical twin argument is that if only 7% or so of the default population is gay then you would expect much less then 50% of identical twins to be both gay.
Cells (much less the entire organism) are chocked full of thousands of cross-talk assemblies, etc - so can get very complex pretty fast.
I think we can all agree there is a substantative genetic role, with other factors weighing in - again, a serious study on identical twins may shed some light on this.
The next generation will have the answer - biochemistry is kicking some serious ass now (bring in the Chinese, Russians, etc) and so it won't be long before it is clear what role genetics plays in sexual orientation.
Of course another dilemma that we'll be facing is what to do with genetically twisted fascist rePIGlicans. Should we show them mercy and alter their genes so they grow up to be intelligent and progressive? I say let 'em suffer.
But I agree--the closet is no place for a healthy life. People should be able to live as they wish, as long as they harm neither themselves or anyone else by their actions. And I see a lot of people being harmed by today mores and socialization, though.
But I don't think it has been scientifically debunked. Even if flawed, it does suggest we overestimate the number of real bisexual men in the population, something that most of us already suspect based on the fact that so many "bisexual" men eventually give up the pretext and say they are gay.
By the way, there's a very simple test for sexual orientation in men, which, unfortunately, can't be used scientifically because it depends on the subject's honesty. Basically, men who've never had a wet dream about a woman are gay. Ask a bisexual guy who is in his dreams of arousal. Dreams don't lie and they don't care much about social expectations.
--just be kind honest and high integrity.
However this is not to say changes do not or can not occur in sexuality. I believe that sexuality is plastic, but that to choose to be gay or bisexual is as valid a choice as choosing to be straight. Of course, the process of sexual identity development is not so simple as a single choice. It is my thought that one's sexual identity develops incrementally through many choices one makes; mostly without thinking about, or understanding how those choices affect later choices that ultimately lead to what amounts (for most people) to a static immutable sexual identity. When I say sexuality is plastic, I am referring (primarily) to the development of sexuality, not it's end state.
Recently there have been articles published regarding simularities in brain structure between 'gay' men and 'straight' women as compared to the brain structure of 'straight' men. The reason for the quote marks is because these articles should actually (and I presume the academic works upon which the articles are based do) read 'self-dentified gay men and straight women'. Because sexuality is a subjective experience one cannot make an objective observation of another's sexual orientation. Also, rather than proving a causal relationship that form defines function, such observations could just as readily be interpreted that in developing an attraction to men as the objects of sexual orientation, brain function changes. Of course, how many of these articles are written by 'straight' men who want to reinforce the concept that to be gay is to be effeminate?
In short, at this time, I believe the only valid objective determination that can be made of human sexuality is that humans are sexual animals that express sexuality in many ways. Or as I tell friends when my own sexuality is discussed: I am attracted to the person, not what particular set of genitals s/he possesses. How I express that attraction sexually is just a matter of mechanics.
Cheeez. You just cannot categorize human behavior and sexual response, IMHO.
I've always believed that nature & nurture can both play a part in developing a person's sexuality. Even someone who is genetically predisposed to homosexuality can experience a chain of events that lead them to find someone of the opposite sex that makes them feel complete emotionally & sexually. In THAT respect, I guess I'm a little Prager.
UNLIKE Prager, I don't think it's society's responsibility to take people predisposed to homosexuality and "make" them go straight. And I'm certainly not about to post articles about it. It's those guys, who go that extra creepy step, that make me think they're going "please, god, don't let me go gay, keep me on the straight and extremely...EXTREMELY narrow path to happiness? Please?"
I've been married for 30+ years to the wonderful woman.
(Oh, that guy is good looking.)
I AM STRAIGHT !
I have two great kids.
(Wow, that other guy is really good looking.)
I AM STRAIGHT and Won't Change.
(Wow, Check out that guys pants!)
I AM STRAIGHT
..
I'm going STRAIGHT over and Ask That Guy for ... for...
NO! NO! Don't Allow Me To Have A CHOICE... I may forget that
I'M STRAIGHT... Oh, .. OH, O
OH BABY,BABY... I Think I Love You..
(But I'm still Straight !!! mostly..)
Just Kidding... But I guess that's what could happen in a Bizarro World.
Finally, they are in a position to see how females feel going through life with this potential threat hanging over their heads every time they step out of the house.
Certainly as the biggest homophobes are the biggest homos, I like your postulation that the biggest proponents of 'choice' are themselves trying to choose not to want hot c*ck.
Ignorant Cruelty Robbed Me of the Joys of Motherhood
by (NAME REDACTED)
For the Valley News
White River Junction:
Many letters have been sent to the Forum concerning the 'homosexual menace' in our state. I am the mother of a gay son, and I've taken enough from you good people.
I'm tired if your foolish reactions about the "homosexual agenda" and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and you are ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny. My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay. He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have the gestures like other boys. He was called a 'fag' incessantly starting when he was 6.
In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn't bear living any longer, that he didn't want to be gay and that he couldn't face a life with no dignity.
You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don't know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn't put him, and millions like him, on this earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it's about time you started doing that.
At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you wont get to choose. Whether it is genetic or whether something occurs during fetal development, I don't know, I can only tell you with an absolute certainty that it is inborn.
If you want to tout your own morality, you'd best come up with something more substantial than your own heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it. For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, a bad habit or something that can be changed by a 10-step program, I'm puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will? If that's not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can?
A popular theme in your letters is that our state has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family have lived in Vermont for generations. I am a heart and soul Vermonter, so I'll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for 'true Vermonters'. You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn't give their lives so that the 'homosexual agenda' could tear down the principles they died defending. My 83-year-old father fought in World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart. He shakes his head in sadness at what his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn't just the measure of the man.
You religious folk just can't bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance. How dare he ... these outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage.
You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged minority, and God knows my son has committed no sin.
The deep-thinking author of a letter to the Forum on April 12 who lectures about homosexual sin and tells us about "those of us who have been blessed with the benefits of a religious upbringing" asks, "Whatever happened to the idea of striving ... to be better human beings than we are?"
Indeed, sir, whatever happened to that?
(NAME REDACTED) lives in White River Junction.
Bi Pride!
http://www.radardan.com/Swaggart.html
Either the same sex makes you hot or the opposite sex makes you hot.
If these guys think there's some kind of societal regulator involved, it just shows they need the societal regulator to fight their own desires.
The Truth is that Evolutionary Biology has established well-past the slam-dunk level that same-sex coupling/"gayness" is AN ADAPTIVE FUNCTION that occurs in EVERY SINGLE SPECIES that reproduces sexually with an occurrence rate from about 4% to 12% (higher in a few species).
That means, beyond any doubt, that it is normal, healthy, A GOOD THING, and helps species survive.
No wonder the trailer-trash xtianists have to deny Evolution at every turn.
It is an absolute. For anyone who believes in a God or Creator, "gayness" is a creation of God.
And even if you don't, it's obviously a positive creation of Nature.
The xtianists obviously cannot handle this Absolute Truth.
I'm just a "breeder" myself, but I have been interested in this question for years, have read volumes on the subject, talked to many people (both gay & straight), and gave found the answer to be extremely clear and overwhelmingly substantiated.
It ain't that difficult to see, if your eyes are really open.
Lately, I have come to wish that our society had a LARGER % of gay people, what with overpopulation and with so many babies being born into horrible conditions who desperately could use a nice, stable married gay couple to be adopted by.
Also, I wish the "gay vote" was bigger--Much bigger, in order to "push-back" harder politically.
If it were up to me, I would think if Gays comprised about 50% of the population, this would be of great practical benefit to society. I would love to live in such a society.
Rightwing bullshit would get stomped-down much faster in such a world, which I believe would also be much more hostile to bigotry of ALL kinds.
Maybe that "gay bomb" could save us, huh?
The only negative I can see with being gay is that if a gay person, for whatever reason, can't face it, and tries to deny it, then starts living a long-term Lie. This is how some of the most virulent (and secretly, self-hating) right-wingers are born, like certain GOP Congressmen & Senators, and some of those rabid hate-preaching Pastors who make the news.
But, alas, I suppose I am not without prejudice myself--For example, I despise Dennis Prager.
Because, as far as I'm concerned, If Dennis Prager's integrity, honesty and intelligence were to be increased 50-fold, he would then be able to rise to the level of ignorant scum.
But no such luck.
First: The term "marriage" is religious. Anything the government recognizes is the 'civil union' by definition. My religion says I may marry a partner of the same gender. The religion of Thomas Jefferson, the Unitarians, have been marrying gays (together) for almost 30 years. To favor one religious interpretation over another is clearly an establishment of religion and freedom of religion and equal protection Constitutional obviousness. For any judge who truly respects the Constitution.
Dennis Prager should know the mechanics of marriage, as he's done it and dissolved it twice it appears. If he'd been paying attention he'd have remembered that there is the religious part he undoubtedly made big ceremony of, but also the CIVIL part you have to arrange beforehand, the marriage license. That's a civil document, secular, literally only recognizing / declaring the CIVIL UNION. Marriage, as seen by the government is only a civil contract between two people. It can be nothing else, as seen from a governmental perspective. The government cannot endorse one brand of religion and penalize citizens for exercising their rights to their own religions, or their right to have no religion.
If they whine, as they are wont to do, that that would mean 'getting God out of marriage' what it means is it is getting one version of God out of government where it never should have been in the first place.
Second: Whether being gay or not is a "choice," absurd as that idea is, is a red herring. So what? If it is, so what? RELIGION is a choice, and all the major intolerance comes from others' religions. One of the best and most fundamental things about being American is a tolerance for other religions. If their religion says it's not OK for them to act out on their own gay feelings, well, I don't have to "approve," privately, but I am civilized enough to not ever DREAM of trying to impose a societal restriction on their freedom to repress themselves. I do not care what they do in their closets.
To paraphrase 'your rights end where my nose begins,' their rights end where my penis begins, and where my equal civil rights begin.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/JF2...
It's story about the most recent winner of the Miss Tiffany Pageant in Thailand (most beautiful 'ladyboy'). Only in Thailand. But that will change.