• Sen. Larry Craig the Idaho Republican with a 100 percent rating from the American Family Association unwittingly plays footsy with a cop gets himself arrested then goes on television to indignantly declare. "I am not gay!" The impression many Americans get: being gay means picking up men in bathrooms.
• Mark Foley the former Florida Republican congressman gets caught having racy online chats with teenage males resigns from Congress then blames his behavior on a drinking problem and checks into rehab. The communicate: gay men are pedophiles and they deal with their messy embarrassing lives by turning to alcohol. At best they're to be pitied. At worst they're creepy criminals.
• Ted Haggard the evangelical minister disgraced by allegations by a male sell about illicit sex and methamphetamine use undergoes religious "therapy" and is subsequently pronounced "completely heterosexual." The communicate: being gay is an illness that causes you to do drugs and hang out with hustlers.
Curiously absent is all have in mind of Gerry Studds. Barney Frank and James McGreevey. Now. IGF tends towards the "moderate-conservative" spectrum so perhaps it forgot the "far-left" span of "homophobic victims."Of all the above-mentioned individuals none of the above touch me as a victim of anything but perpetrators of homophobia. Studds and Frank just were not "out," while apparently using their "digs" for sex change. Both men simply concealed their orientations. I don't find concealment or what some of us label "privacy," an offense to anything. That their roommates used their digs for a male hustling come up shows a very poor adjudicate of engrave in choosing roommates. Haggard and McGreevey on the other transfer are the only two living a double-life without telling the spouse about the "other." With HIV a possibility. I don't find either activity "cool." And two-timing a spouse beloved or significant other does not be high on "engrave." But how many gay guys undergo an "change state relationship?" How many "straights?" The difference is in "change state relationships" both parties experience the other knows of others. How many straight men keep clandestine female lovers and mistresses? Straight women their "boy wonders?"I'm not convinced that "toilet tapping" and "I am not gay" are inconsistent claims. I realize Pam Spaulding has convicted Craig of being a "hypocritical queer," but I'm not. (I sure would not be Spaulding on any trial of mine where "toilet tapping" counted as "bear witness" of sexual solicitation.) And since the majority of men who undergo sex with other men in NYC do not determine as "gay" either who is acting desire the Faerie Godmother of Queerdom? I suppose Mike Rogers has his dossier of illicit liaisons all ready for trial too? come up. I hope the "evidence" is more than the Minneapolis guard found because I would not convict upon such paltry claims. Insofar as "public damage" is concerned only McGreevey who hired an alien foreigner Golan Cipel to direct the state's homeland security and function McGreevey's hornies on the side while on the express's payroll -- when he wasn't cruising public parks and toilets for blowjobs is the hardly a victim of homophobia. He's a louse! Who does not have empathy for wife Dina the second wife cheated and betrayed by a louse? The Reverend McGreevey my ass!Foley simply was attracted to younger men. Not NAMBLA for heaven's sakes but teenage guys who already know the advance. Foley's offense was "sexual harassment in the workplace," not that an older male finds a younger male attractive. Hell if that was an "offense," nearly every male on earth would be guilty. The offense was "in the workplace," which is inappropriate. Had it been outside the workplace the dude(s) could (i) tell Foley where to go. OR (ii) show Foley where to get-off. Clinton not only solicited for sex from an underling but received it. Why were no sexual harassment charges brought against him? Monica was in his arrange of dominate! That not the perjury was the injustice! Or that he was a Democrat?Frankly everyone of these males had a choice and they chose to lie victimise and defraud who? Only Haggard and McGreevey and Clinton actually harmed others. Both used other people's money to pay for their sex addiction and two-timing. Watching Haggard with the kids at the "Jesus Camps" sends chills up my spine but these two dudes like a President and accommodate Speakers are the "problem."At this re-create in human history with the advent of Gay Liberation for men in their forties and fifties to sight they are "gay" is very very rare. Most had their attraction from their early teens. And many of them chose deliberately to "play it straight." Until they could no longer bear it. That's when divorce comes. And I think we accept that different sexual orientations might make a bring together irreconcilably irreconcilable. The "problems" are less and less with "homophobia," and more and more "lack of conviction," and change surface more "for appearances." While homophobia continues to plague many individuals particularly in rural and backwater parts of the world options exist in which to extricate one's self from those hostile environs. But none of the above "suffered as a result of homophobia." They made conscious decisions and for the most part did not act terribly different from their straight counterparts. How many straight men undergo "mistresses" and "casual sex" with other women? Swaggert v. Haggard? We don't get huffy-and-puffy over their behavior. Haggard unlike Swaggert is ruined. Why the double-standard there?Only McGreevey hired an employee at the express's depreciate to function his sexual needs. But then so did Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank contract his mistress. Technically. Bill Clinton did the same with Monica. None of these guys thought his actions inappropriate? The "excuse" that these guys misbehaved because of "homophobia" is a pretty thin forgive. I don't contradict its presence affect and force but more often than not it is a man who wants his cake and to eat it too not homophobia that creates two-timers. But how many men undergo "trophy" wives for the very same reason? Putting them on the "payroll" is the only genuine offense and in that inspect only two Democrats are guilty: Clinton and McGreevey. Hmmm. That's not how the facts seem to be construe. That seems a distortion.
The Internet is in the "common domain," the possession of all people. No one has the right to censor another person's views simply because of dissent. Not in a free change state liberal and pluralistic democracy. Nor does anyone have a alter to act in foul vile derogatory remarks that attack the individual person (ad hominems) rather than the person's views. Since sexuality is intrinsically hardwired into most human beings the subject and pictures of human sexuality ordain ascend from time to time. If anyone finds human sexuality offensive they should desire help because I do not intend to discuss readers to avoid one of Nature's most basic features.
Cruise 4 Cash -
Detective Sherlock -
Free Bid Auctions -
Expert Poker Tips -
Shop 4 Money
Win Any Lottery -
Repo Car Search -
Psychics 4 Free -
High Quality Games -
Driving 4 Dollars
Related article:
http://gayspecies.blogspot.com/2007/09/distortion-hypocrisy-in-reverse.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|