Monday, June 28, 2010

"Out and PROUD" (of WHAT?)

IS THIS EQUALITY? The title is "GAY STARS WHO ARE OUT AND PROUD!" But, the gay stars are not at one function in this Yahoo headline photo piece, supporting some worthwhile cause or something.........they're just pictures taken of gay stars at different functions and so this warrants a Yahoo article and picture sequence???

"As gay pride parades take place worldwide, here's a look at gay stars celebrating who they are" Don't look now, but I think those stars were just attending various celeb nights and didn't have GAY written on their foreheads.....why's Yahoo feel the need?
I keep thinking that real equality is when everyone just lives their lives and gets on with it...WHY DO WE NEED TO TELL anything about ourselves? Is it really so important to highlight them as if they're very special stars?, or some creepy enigma like Yahoo paints them this way? I wonder.

What do you think? And, do you think parades with people attired like those in the image HELP the gay cause?
z

79 comments:

Always On Watch said...

do you think parades with people attired like those in the image HELP the gay cause?

Nope.

Those parades are disgusting.

JINGOIST said...

Look, I have nothing against gays or lesbians. One of my favorite people in the whole world is a lesbian who I grew up with and still keep in touch with. My cuz.
My ex-wife and I shared the rent for a year in a huge house in VA with a gay couple--two guys that I still count as friends.

There is one thing about the vast majority of homosexuals that I've met that I will NEVER understand. Why is it that their sexuality is the single most important thing in their entire life? Why the incredible self-absoption? Why the overwhelming narcissism?

No matter what the original subject of conversation happened to be, it always devolved into a "gay topic." I still don't understand that.

Chuck said...

The article goes to the same notion that it has gotten to the point in which it is primarily the left that is racist now. The right doesn't talk about gays much anymore just like they don't talk much about race. It is the left and their media that keep the pot stirred.

I think this is mostly self-serving. They have a void of ideas so the only rationale they have for their existence is protecting the world from the imagined boogeymen on the right.

As far as the gay-right's parades, I have always suspected that most gays are embarrassed and appalled by these spectacles.

Z said...

ALWAYS and CHUCK: most of the gays I know cringe at the gay parades...they think it puts them back ten years every time they're publicized.

Jingo,ya.. and it seems like I was most comfortable around my gay friends who didn't devolve into their sexuality discussions, like you say. But, those gay friends were in their seventies when I was in my thirties; dignified, wonderful men who talked about everything BUT their sexuality. I think it's only in the last 20 years or so that people need so badly to talk about their sexuality .. they've ruined it for themselves as far as public acceptance by doing so.

I don't watch sitcoms anymore but my friends tell me that nearly every sitcom has a gay neighbor or at least one gay family member...when, in real life, that's just not the case...or HGTV has so many gay couples looking to buy houses, etc. That's fine...nobody doesn't want them to have a house, but the percentage of gay couples is high compared to the percentage of gays in this country and it's another indication that those who write and produce these things have an agenda and are pursuing it. Which would be fine except it's working the other way; some friends who are definitely not anti-gay say "You see how many gay couples they have on that show..?" Makes people wonder what's up. doesn't fit demographics.

Sam Huntington said...

I think most gay people simply want to live thier lifestyle without much notice from anyone. In contrast, Hollywood personalities are drama queens. They want to be noticed, and they're most happy if they can shock the sensitivities of mainstream America. So I mostly think the people who participate in gay pride events are phoneys who deserve no respect at all.

Anonymous said...

Anytime somebody tries to shove something down your throat they risk getting their fingers bitten. It's ridiculous parodies like these that tend to irritate & disgust people. As a professor I had in Pol. Sci. at USC said, 'Your freedom ends where my nose begins.'

I grew up in La-La Land (the Leftest of Coasts), knew many gay people, had quite a few as friends, & never thought about their lifestyle. I invited them to my home, & they returned the invitations. They didn't bother me & I extended the same courtesy to them.

Silvrlady

FrogBurger said...

I'm starting to think that the gay pride is now a business, like a festival. That's how it seems to me. It's good for tourism and local shops. Maybe they should have one on the beaches of the gulf coast.

Ducky's here said...

Well, z, you seem to have a lot of readers with gay friends. Gays are fine so long as the y behave the way the straight world demands, right? Just like immigrants or Muslims or blacks ... you get the drift.

Heck, you even get some who are obsessed yet they wonder why gays are self absorbed. Then you have fundamentalists complaining about people trying to shove something down your throat. The right is extremely irony impaired.

I don't know why the parades bother you. Do they have the "Dykes on Bikes" rally out in L.A. That one is a little disconcerting, a lot of the participants must dress out at about 300 pounds. They might be better off doing one of those reality fat shows that are becoming all the rage in this cultural waste land.

Just part of the hurly-burly of life. Something the right wing is ill equipped and much too frightened to deal with. Everyone should be in little far right wing approved enclaves.

soapster said...

"There is one thing about the vast majority of homosexuals that I've met that I will NEVER understand. Why is it that their sexuality is the single most important thing in their entire life? Why the incredible self-absoption? Why the overwhelming narcissism?

No matter what the original subject of conversation happened to be, it always devolved into a "gay topic." I still don't understand that."


I echo this sentiment. I will say though, it is not altogether different than a great many pro-lifers however. Individuals that take a single issue/subject and make it such a fundamental statement of who they are that they can unfortunately grasp little else.

As an aside, I was actually at the Pride festival in Loring Park in Minneapolis yesterday. I hung out at the Minneapolis City Republicans booth which was right next to the Log Cabin Republicans booth and spoke with a number of great people were quite surprised by my responses to a number of their inquiries given my run for state house. I dispelled a number of myths and opened them up to some ideas that we found common ground on without me having to sacrifice anything to principle.

Craig and Heather said...

Why is it that their sexuality is the single most important thing in their entire life? Why the incredible self-absoption? Why the overwhelming narcissism?

No matter what the original subject of conversation happened to be, it always devolved into a "gay topic." I still don't understand that."


Romans 1:28-30

It doesn't just apply to proud "gay" people, but the entire gamut of godless behavior in which people willingly engage.



I don't hate gay people or demand that they make themselves feel "straight". If people wouldn't advertise publicly what they're doing in private, I probably wouldn't know the difference much of the time.

The hang-up for me is in the very vocal demand (by some) that everyone approve of an inversion of God's standard. Those whose consciences will not allow them to go along are called hateful and bigoted.

Heather

Craig and Heather said...

Ducky:
Just part of the hurly-burly of life. Something the right wing is ill equipped and much too frightened to deal with.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't fear gays. I fear God.

H

Anonymous said...

" Why is it that their sexuality is the single most important thing in their entire life? Why the incredible self-absoption? Why the overwhelming narcissism?


You said it.
Because their depravity knows no moral, ethical, religious boundaries. Because they're like little children who have to wave their genitalia not only in their partners faces....but in polite society too.

I always wondered what was so "Gay" about one man pounding another mans prostate as if it were a Happy Meal.

Now...they have a "right" to be in the same military environments with our troops?

I think I can say with certainty...that ain't going to go over well.

Major

Ducky's here said...

Heather, Exhibit A, Major.

Please note that the louder the bark, the bigger the fear till you get to fearing virtually everything.

That said, I believe the stricture in the gospels concerns adultery, not being gay. Now we really don't know all that much about human sexuality and trying to control it is a bit of a battle but simply being gay is not an issue.

And people like major are ample demonstration that just being gay really bothers his surprisingly active sexual imagination.

Z said...

SAM and Silvrlady..that's the whole point; just live your life......

I think FrogBurger's partly right in that it's a business now...$$$
Imagine if anybody had a STraight Parade and how long it would take everyone to be arrested for being exclusionary?

Ducky, if 'straight world demands' are living your life as respectable gay people with dignity and integrity, then ya, I guess that's true.
You mention the double entendre (if it were meant) "shoving down the throat" yet you have NO problem using the term BAGGERS here....double STANDARD, Ducky?
You can look at the pix of gay parades, recommend Dykes on Bikes, and suggest conservative people (this has nothing to do with THE RIGHT, by the way) have problems?
As for the Right, tho, you ever heard of the Log Cabin group?

Soapster, I see no correlation between gay men wearing fishnet stockings and feather boas and pro lifers, but whatever.
Sorry you didn't mention here some of your subjects behind meeting on common ground.

Heather, right...and nobody here has a problem with gays..it's the 'vocal demand' we find hurts them more than leaves them in the peace they deserve.

Major, um...yes, the military isn't happy about that but their military leaders seem so out of touch that they have no problem not listening to them...all to please the Left.

Z said...

Ducky "stricture in the gospels" typo?
Who's FEARING anything, Ducky?

soapster said...

"Soapster, I see no correlation between gay men wearing fishnet stockings and feather boas and pro lifers, but whatever."

That's too bad because it's quite simply really. It is but a single issue that consumes them wholly and completely.

Z said...

soapster, Obviously, I get your SINGLE ISSUE point...you didn't get my feather boa point. There is dignity in pro life, whether you agree with it or not.

soapster said...

The common ground was to be found on the matter of taxation and civil liberties as well as government's contractual obligations with regards to the subject of marriage. The issue is not "gay rights" but instead affirming individual rights. Marriage is a contract between consenting adults of sound mind. Goverrnment's obligation is to uphold contract not set the terms of it. But, I'm quite certain that someone who has a beef with the Obama administration's want to set the terms of contracts regarding CEO pay and benefits will have have no qualms with adopting the same premise in regards to marriage between same sex couples.

Elmers Brother said...

duhkkky, the NT most definitely prohibits it. The chapter that Heather mentions in Romans is but one example.

One would wonder why God would prohibit adultery, fornication, incest etc and not homosexuality.

Now you can play all the hermeneutic games you want, like suggesting it was a prohibition against pederasty, but again I would ask why would God forbid all other sexual deviancies and not homosexuality.

Craig and Heather said...

Ducky,


As I said, I speak only for myself.

You said: I believe the stricture in the gospels concerns adultery, not being gay. Now we really don't know all that much about human sexuality and trying to control it is a bit of a battle but simply being gay is not an issue.

You need the full picture. I can help you with that if you'll listen to me.

You know how to get hold of me if your interested.




At any rate, Homosexual behavior does require that one use his body in a manner in which nature itself does not readily accommodate.

Mind if I ask you something?


If someone shoved into your face a hot, steaming bowl of cow manure, insisting he'd been eating it and actually liked it, would you grab a spoon and dig in or would you find it to be offensive?

If you politely declined to join the person in his enthusiasm, and tried to explain that cow manure is not a natural--even potentially harmful--food option for humans(in spite of his appetite for it)--and he called you a hateful bigot who feared him, would that be a reasonable response on his part?


Heather

Elmers Brother said...

Marriage is a contract between consenting adults of sound mind.

Marriage is a religious institution that the government decided it needed to regulate in order to tax.

Elmers Brother said...

and license

Anonymous said...

The gay parades are nothing more than a large, organized display of exhibitionism, which to my mind is immature and can be pretty disgusting at times.

There are some participants who engage in overt sexual behavior during those parades which would be rated X, if on film.

I don't know about Ducky, but I wouldn't want my small children exposed to this sort of behavior on a public street regardless of sexual orientation.

My main objection to the homosexual community, are the activist groups who have clearly gained power in our public schools as special interest groups.

They began, asking for tolerance, and have descended into "helping" in creating a school curricula which is obsessed with sex, and all it's proclivities. Is that what we send our children to school for?

What is this great need to rob our young children of their innocence?

Today, their goal has taken this to younger and younger children, which I find to be confusing and provocative for children who are not old enough to grasp sexual innuendo or sexual activity.

Yet, if a six year old boy innocently kisses a little girl on the cheek, he's suspended from school for a few days. Confusing? Ya think? Teaching youngsters about sex does confuse them and is provocative.

Don't blame the six year old, blame the school and the idiots who are responsible for them for six hours every day, five days a week, and blame parents for not raising hell about this.

Yes Ducky, there is something society expects, and that is civilized, polite public behavior. It's not a law, it's called manners and respect for a decent amount of social grace, and demeanor.

Btw, since we are told one is born homosexual, why should an accident of birth give rise to pride on the person's part? He did nothing to be prideful about. That's like my saying I'm proud to be white, female, and heterosexual, when I had nothing to do with it.

Pris

Craig and Heather said...

Marriage is a religious institution that the government decided it needed to regulate in order to tax and license.

It's the God ordained physical reflection of Christ and the Bride He gave Himself to redeem.

Each gender inherently possesses unique qualities. Two men or two women in "union" create a completely distorted picture and obscures what God desires for us to see.

H

Elmers Brother said...

I don't know about Ducky, but I wouldn't want my small children exposed to this sort of behavior on a public street regardless of sexual orientation.

Considering just the signs they carry I should say not

soapster said...

What God desires for us to see or what God intends to show us??

Karen Howes said...

I'm a proud heterosexual! I'm going to close down major cities and expose people-- including children-- to lewd and disgusting scenes in order to prove how proud I am to be sexually attracted to men.

Homosexuals are so persecuted, but they can do this. Fail.

Just for the record, a friend of my family who's gay finds these parades embarrassing and disgusting as well.

Craig and Heather said...

What God desires for us to see or what God intends to show us??



Obviously, there are those who refuse to (or cannot) see the picture. If you think we evolved from pond slime and don't acknowledge God as Creator and supreme authority, it won't make any difference what the picture represents.



What's your point?

Mustang said...

Isn’t it somewhat telling that an Arkansas “Gay rights” parade appointed ten-year old Will Phillips as their grand marshal? What responsible heterosexual celebration would expose a mere child to openly sexual issues? What responsible parent would allow this exposure?

At least I am glad to see that Ducky ignores the point of the post to pursue his own anti-Christian, un-American agenda. I don’t think the question is whether queers have the right to hold a parade; I think the question is, “Should they?” For the most part, society is happy to allow these people to pursue their own brand of happiness. For whatever reason, too many of these people are not content with that; they must shove the entire issue in front of our faces so that even our children can be exposed to abhorrent behavior when they watch the local news. Z asked the question, “Why?” Ducky responded as a simpleton —which means that some traditions continue unabated.

Ducky's here said...

Heather, let me remind you that it isn't mentioned in the Gospels.

Paul had a pretty serious hatred of his own body so draw whatever conclusions you want.

And it is often a good time to remind you and Tickle Me Elmo and mustang that this is a secular society and it has pretty much had enough of the American Taliban.

The parade got a permit. It was held. You don't like it you don't go. Same issue we ave with worrying about kids listening to Glenn Beck. You can't shield yourself from the world.

I would also point out that elmo and mustang like to bring up the children issue to mask their own fears. It's a cheap con.

Z said...

Mustang...your reference to the child is astonishing.
This 10 yr old refused to say our Pledge of Allegiance in favor of gays and so they honor him.

Odd, some people think this whole gay rights thing is specifically aimed at children, as Pris suggested they certainly do....
and that (not that Pris suggests this) their aim is to make more available child/adult gay sex. Every time I hear that, I cringe and don't believe that's true, especially not from the gays I have known, but you hear more and more of this and you wonder is "Billy has Two Mommies", an elementary school book, about tolerance or something far worse?

Z said...

By the way, I have to leave soon, but I'm hoping they get a transcript of Dick Durbin's opening remarks at the Kagan hearings up by when I'm back this afternoon because I'm eager to publish them.....
it's the most astonishingly biased, nasty bit of words I've heard in a long time. Withering, accusatory and so revealing about himself and his ilk.

soapster said...

"What's your point?"

The point is that man has vision for the purposes of conceptualizing and processing his surroundings for a reason. In essence, man has freewill; the ability to choose one direction verses another. The road that you so choose to travel is not the road necessarily traveled by another. As divine as one beleives God's vision and intent to be, there is no virtue in force, compulsion, or coercion for the purpose of imposing this vision on another.

WomanHonorThyself said...

it's the lib in your face agenda hun...Happy Monday :)

Craig and Heather said...

Ducky,

I get it. Homosexuality is not in the Gospels.

But God didn't change His opinion about it. Jesus was addressing primarily Jews in the Gospels and they already knew what the Law said. He didn't need to backtrack for them. You might be shocked to discover how much of Jesus' teaching was taken directly from the OT.

Paul had a pretty serious hatred of his own body so draw whatever conclusions you want.

What gives you this impression?

And it is often a good time to remind you and Tickle Me Elmo and mustang that this is a secular society and it has pretty much had enough of the American Taliban.

I'm assuming "American Taliban" is in reference to those who consider adherence to traditional Christian morals to be a good thing?

Not sure where EB or mustang are coming from, but I generally avoid calling America a "Christian Nation" just because we've always been a mixed people.

That doesn't mean our history is devoid of strong Christian influence. And I'm not talking about those who call themselves "Christian" in order to excuse some form of hateful prejudice.

If someone wants to hold a parade, it's fine with me. But the public display and push for recognition and acceptance of homosexuality as "good" is part and parcel of an overall movement in our society that does not honor God.

It is inconsistent to say "I worship God" while blatantly disregarding whole sections of His Word as either opinion or mythology.

H

Ducky's here said...

z, don't start conflating homosexuality and pedophilia.

That's one level you haven't stooped to in the past and you really should leave it alone.

Although you did tip your hand a bit with the title of the post. proud of what? They're proud of who the are,and are bowing to majority domination.

It's that bad kind of freedom. The kind that mustang wouldn't fight for.

Craig and Heather said...

Soapster
The road that you so choose to travel is not the road necessarily traveled by another. As divine as one beleives God's vision and intent to be, there is no virtue in force, compulsion, or coercion for the purpose of imposing this vision on another.

I never denied that man has the ability to make choices.

Of course, we will all be held responsible for them, and it doesn't hurt to point that out to others.

Of course there is no virtue in force, compulsion or coercion of imposing one's vision on another.

How about someone let the radical gay activists in on this little secret?




H

Elmers Brother said...

Heather, let me remind you that it isn't mentioned in the Gospels.

let me remind you that the Gospels aren't the whole New Testament.

Elmers Brother said...

I would also point out that elmo and mustang like to bring up the children issue to mask their own fears. It's a cheap con.

Fear..no...Godly living yes.

Elmers Brother said...

duhkkky, NAMBLA conflates homosexuality and pedophilia.

Hellooooooo!

Mustang said...

“Z, don't start conflating homosexuality and pedophilia,” is easy to say, Ducky. Typically, you don’t get it. Z isn’t assaulting young people while wearing priestly robes, typically men assaulting little boys (not little girls). You can form your own conclusions about this, but I have no doubt that they’ll be as idiotic as all your other assertions. I do not assert that most homosexuals are also pedophiles; I seem to recall that this is one of your recurrent themes. That said, it would be an error in judgment to assume there is no concerted effort among some homosexuals to liaise with children. Beyond this, a man who has never fought for anything in his entire life should refrain from speaking about what Mustang fought for.

Elmers Brother said...

what is it about protecting children from being molested that you don't like duhkkky?

Homosexuals themselves make it clear duhkkky.

A homosexual activist, writing under the pen name of Michael Swift, looked to the day when homosexuals would control our culture. He challenged heterosexual
society with these words:
We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow
dreams and vulgar lies. … Your sons shall become our minions to do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will
come to crave and adore us.
All churches who condemn us will be
closed. Our holy gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar
and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives
according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us, too much is not enough.

Anonymous said...

"I would also point out that elmo and mustang like to bring up the children issue to mask their own fears. It's a cheap con."

I know Mustang and Elbro can speak for themselves, so I'll speak for myself.

Ducky, you're so predictable. You just said, above,
what liberals always say, and that is implying there's some hidden latent fear of homosexuality. How laughable!

Right away you dismiss real concerns and legitimate opinions. Right? Case closed? Why? What are you afraid of?

As always, attack when you have no legitimate argument against what are perfectly legitimate concerns.

Most of us do care about children. I see you didn't want to get into the school issue I rose. But then you don't really care do you? If it doesn't affect you it doesn't matter. We know that too.

Children can be shielded if a society cares enough to do so, and if certain groups gave a damn about anyone but themselves.

All it requires is the ability to have some restraint, and think outside of the box they live in.

Of course we know that the left want's to tear down the American family.

We know, that public schools need to undermine parental values and autonomy so as to indoctrinate unencumbered.

We know, that some gay parades have welcomed NAMBLA to march with them. If that's not conflating those two groups I'd like to know what it is.

It's been in the news the last few days that a school in Cape Cod is handing out condoms to elementary school children, and also have the gall to rule that Parents may NOT, opt out their children.

Isn't that your neck of the woods Ducky? You've come a long way from banning books haven't you?

If I was a parent of a child in that school I'd organize a boycott of the school. The kids aren't learning much that's of use anyway, the teacher unions are too busy sexualizing and politicizing their schools.

Pris

Elmers Brother said...

Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement. In 1972, the
National Coalition of Gay Organizations adopted a
“Gay Rights Platform” that included the following
demand: “Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual
consent.” David Thorstad, a spokesman for the homosexual rights movement and NAMBLA, clearly
states the objectives: “The ultimate goal of the gay liberation movement is the achievement of sexual freedom
for all – not just equal rights for ‘lesbians and gay
men,’ but also freedom of sexual expression for young
people and children.” This goal has not changed since
it was articulated in 1972.

Elmers Brother said...

In fact, one homosexual
magazine hailed pedophiles as prophets of sexual freedom.
An editorial in the July 1995 issue of Guide magazine declared:
Kids are still being taught destructive lies about sex. They are told that until they are
16 (or 14 or some other arbitrary age that varies from state to state) … any sexual expression on their part means a crime is
being committed. We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out
loud that children are naturally sexual, that they deserve the right to sexual expression
with whoever they choose. … We cannot, however, always be proud of the way we as a community have treated our prophets. … [W]e must listen to our prophets. Instead
of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good,
including children’s sexuality.


looks like I nor Z nor anyone else has to 'conflate' the two...

Ducky's here said...

See the thing is when we start talking about children, pris we get into two false arguments:

1. The real knuckle draggers start in with the "they have to recruit" business. Inane.

2. You get the conflation of homosexuality with pedophilia. A more effective tactical maneuver that masks the intent to keep homosexuals closeted. And that isn't going to happen.


I can't remember a case of a child being molested by a gay teacher locally. I suspect it has happened but it's very rare.
Cases of heterosexual statutory rape are quite common between student and teacher so I don't know what you're going to do about that.

So I guess these parental values you speak of are make sure the kids do learn to get along with homos. Well pris, fact is that kids are pretty comfortable with homosexual classmates and the only homosexuals who are going to stay in the closet are Idaho Republicans who like it cruise airport mens rooms.

Yeah, P-town decided to hand out condoms and that policy is being reversed. What's your point? That will stop the little darlings from having sex? Not likely, the culture as a whole is to highly sexualized and you can't blame the homos for that. I wish there were a few states that could secede so we could have you and elmo migrate and set up your own sharia law. Probably the only solution.

Elmers Brother said...

Although homosexuals account for less than two percent of the population, they constitute about a third of child molesters.

Further, as noted by the Encino,
Calif.-based National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), “since homosexual pedophiles victimize far more children than do heteros
exual pedophiles, it is estimated that approximately 80 percent of pedophilic victims are boys who have been molested by adult males.”

A nationwide investigation of child molestation in the Boy Scouts from 1971 to 1991 revealed that more than 2,000 boys
reported molestations by adult Scout leaders. (Note: The Scouts, who have 150,000 Scoutmasters and assistant Scoutmasters, ban hundreds of men each year from scouting out of concern that they might abuse boys.)

A study of Canadian pedophiles has shown that 30 percent of those studied admitted to having engaged in homosexual acts as adults, and 91 percent of the molesters of
non-familial boys admitted to no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual.

Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., and Charles B. Johnson, Ph.D., conducted a content study of the personal ads in the Advocate, the
“national gay and lesbian Newsmagazine,” and discovered that “chickens,” a common
term for underage boys sought for sex, were widely solicited. Many of the advertisements in the magazine solicited boys and teens from within a larger pool of prostitution ads, which constituted 63 percent
of all personal ads.

In a 1985 study of the rates of molestation among homosexual pederasts compared to heterosexual
pedophiles, Dr. Paul Cameron found the following:

153 pederasts had sexually molested
22,981 boys over an average period
of 22 years.

224 pedophiles had molested 4,435
girls over an average period of 18
years.

The average pederast molested an
average of 150 boys, and each heterosexual pedophile molested an
average of 20 girls, a ratio of 7.5to one.

Craig and Heather said...

Elmers Brother said:
Homosexuals themselves make it clear duhkkky.

A homosexual activist, writing under the pen name of Michael Swift, looked to the day when homosexuals would control our culture. He challenged heterosexual
society with these words.....


Hope it's okay to insert a thought on that point.

I was involved in a similar discussion a while back and an anonymous homosexual Christian man joined the conversation to share his perspective.

After a brief exchange, he e-mailed me privately and we have been in contact for several months.

This man is not "gay and proud", does not support Gay Activism and he struggles tremendously with what he knows is a sinful inclination. One thing he said to me is that although he understands the intent behind the blanket "homosexuality is bad" statement, he also feels isolated because most Christians seem to believe that gay people choose to feel gay. And they don't.

His is a completely different and absolutely heartbreaking story. In no way does he identify with the radical, in your face homosexual element and he's been hurt often by believers who, not knowing his tendency, speak out against homosexuality and inadvertently lump him into the pot with those who revel in their sin.

It is important for Christians to make a distinction between the homosexual who despises his burden and the one who embraces it.

H

Elmers Brother said...

1. The real knuckle draggers start in with the "they have to recruit" business. Inane.

watch what you call those gay activists duhkkky they're likely to sick the ACLU on you

I can't remember a case of a child being molested by a gay teacher locally. I suspect it has happened but it's very rare.

well that just means it doesn't happen then doesn't it

Z said...

Ducky, you just don't get it, stop judging me, okay?
Read what I wrote about homosexuality and pedophilia and tell me where I said I agree that, okay? thanks.

Also, please tell us what you believe about Paul and his body?

Z said...

Heather is right when she says "It is important for Christians to make a distinction between the homosexual who despises his burden and the one who embraces it."

I'll also say that it's important we make the distinction of hating the sin and hating the sinner. What really is hateful is when secularists think all Christians hate gays.. ...

I, too, have known men like Heather describes and it's heartbreaking. I've also known MANY gay men who were molested and say that was instrumental in their being gay; that's something I don't understand but I heard it too many times to deny it and, who would I be to deny their truth, anyway?

The older gay men I knew (both couples have passed on, they were much older than I and I've spoken of them here before) were very happy men... both couples were together a very long time and quite content. The gay men I know who weren't in stable relationships, who lived lives of promiscuity, are pitiful and rather self-hating...they would see someone like them and refer to them as queens (frequently). I should say 'were' because the ones I was closest to died of AIDS...they were 20 years younger than my older couple friends I mentioned.

Elmers Brother said...

It is important for Christians to make a distinction between the homosexual who despises his burden and the one who embraces it.

this is where I would interject:

Love the sinner and not the sin

Z, duhkkky is going to pull some verse out of his butt about Paul's thorn in his flesh and it being some kind of weird interpretation that he struggled with homosexuality like some medievel commentators thought.

most scholars believe he had an eye issue, but it's probably purposefully left ambiguous

Craig and Heather said...

most scholars believe he had an eye issue, but it's probably purposefully left ambiguous

It is very likely the surrounding context of his life gives a clue.

When Paul was incapacitated, God told Ananias

Act 9:15 But the Lord said to him, Go! For this one is a chosen vessel to Me, to bear My name before nations and kings and the sons of Israel.
Act 9:16 For I will show him what great things he must suffer for My name's sake.



Right before he referenced his "thorn", Paul wrote of being caught up into Paradise and seeing things that are too wonderful for words.

Then,

2Co 12:7 and by the surpassing revelations, lest I be made haughty, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be made haughty.


Immediately after speaking of his "thorn", Paul said:


2Co 12:10 Therefore I am pleased in weaknesses, in insults, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am powerful.

The man was repeatedly beaten, jailed, shipwrecked, run out of town...all because of his testimony for Christ.

Wouldn't you consider that a bit of a thorn in the flesh?


It's worth considering.

Z said...

Elbro, I know about Paul and the infirmities he talks about....
I believe the thorn in his flesh is a metaphor for all things which we need power over; our sinful habits, or chronic illnesses (many think that not only did he have serious eye problems but that he had awful skin issues, too)

oh. before publishing this I saw Heather's comment...thanks, Heather.
how that Scripture indicates homosexuality in Paul is WAY beyond ME, too! :-)

Leticia said...

I believe their vile parades hurt their cause, but enlightens people about their vile lifestyle.

Z said...

Leticia, I think it does much more harm than good, too.

DUCKY, I WAS WONDERING, FROM AN EARLIER COMMENT......

DO YOU BELIEVE WE SHOULD BE PROUD TO BE STRAIGHT??

Elmers Brother said...

Elbro, I know about Paul and the infirmities he talks about....
I believe the thorn in his flesh is a metaphor for all things which we need power over; our sinful habits, or chronic illnesses (many think that not only did he have serious eye problems but that he had awful skin issues, too)


there are some commmentators who believe Paul was suffering with unruly homosexual lust

and I agree with you and Heather it could have been issues ranging from a physical ailment to being afraid of public speaking (as some have suggested)

I was only making the point ahead of duhkkky

Faith said...

I have never understood this refrain about "fear" that the lefties -- or just antiChristians -- recite whenever the Bible is referred to against homosexuality. Fear? I wonder if it's their own fear they're projecting, since after all they SHOULD feel fear when they argue against God.

Craig and Heather said...

there are some commentators who believe Paul was suffering with unruly homosexual lust

I was only making the point ahead of duhkkky


Not sure where Ducky would have taken it, but there's a lot less room for wild speculation when one is in the habit of reading the whole Bible ;)

Craig and Heather said...

I have never understood this refrain about "fear" that the lefties -- or just antiChristians -- recite whenever the Bible is referred to against homosexuality.

It's the adult equivalent to the second grade taunt of "you're chiiicccckkkken!" when the pressure is being applied to do something like steal from the local convenience store.

The interpretation is: I DARE you to say it's wrong! If you won't go along, YOU are the slime-ball coward.

Anonymous said...

"his surprisingly active sexual imagination."


Really? It's not imagined freak... It's their reality. And you mean you didn't know how they prefer to "engage" each other? Now that you know...you aren't disgusted at all? Having one use your exit as an entrance is what "gaynees" is all about. That an STD's.

Too bad that everyone chooses to ignore the realities of...open "gayness".

Major

MathewK said...

There's nothing to be proud of, it's just lame, selfish, childish stupidity.

It's only liberal morons who want to be homosexual when they eventually grow up.

Elmers Brother said...

Not sure where Ducky would have taken it, but there's a lot less room for wild speculation when one is in the habit of reading the whole Bible ;)

well I can imagine with near certainty and if not he'll reply and suggest to us what he is thinking

Mustang said...

Well, that clinches it then. Ducky is a leftist moron.

JINGOIST said...

Z wrote:
"DUCKY, I WAS WONDERING, FROM AN EARLIER COMMENT......

DO YOU BELIEVE WE SHOULD BE PROUD TO BE STRAIGHT??"

My answer is OF COURSE NOT! It's not like it's an accomplishment. It's like being proud of being black, or white or female, or...
It's all an absurd charade because these are things we have no control over. We should only be proud proud of the things we actually accomplish. Or our kids.

Craig and Heather said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig and Heather said...

EB
well I can imagine with near certainty and if not he'll reply and suggest to us what he is thinking

I'd be interested to know.


Mustang:
Well, that clinches it then. Ducky is a leftist moron.

I'm lost.

How does "Confusedly thinks it's being generous and tolerant to downplay sin" translate to "wants to be gay"?

Heather

Anonymous said...

"Yeah, P-town decided to hand out condoms and that policy is being reversed. What's your point? That will stop the little darlings from having sex?"

First, the policy may be changed to give condoms to 5th and 6th graders. The policy is not being eliminated. Nice try Ducky.

We're talking about children from the ages of 10-12. If little darlings who are 10-12 years old are engaging in sexual experimentation, why do you suppose that is? Could it be sex education from the age of five years old? Six years old?

My point is, now please pay attention, that if you teach sex to very young children, it is provocative, and doesn't take into account that young children can't understand ramifications or consequences of their actions. This is an adult behavior they shouldn't be burdened with.

It simply stimulates their curiosity. They can easily interpret this as permission to enage in this activity without knowing what their doing. Passing out condoms is condoning sexual activity. It is permission.

Chidren are being robbed of the innocence they're entitled to, and furthermore, any teaching of intimate behavior belongs in the home, not the classroom. The state is not the final arbiter the parents are.

Our children are not property, or guinea pigs. They are their parents children, who by the way are responsible for them, not the state.

Ducky, if 10-12 year olds are having sex, something is very wrong, and when sex is being taught to them in school, the fault lies on that doorstep.

I couldn't care less whether or not homosexuals are in the closet. That's their business.

If we teach our children to get along with others, period, we don't have to single anyone out. It's called focusing at an early age on character issues, and respectful behavior. But, for some, that's too easy. Let's complicate their young lives and make it as difficult as possible.

Ye Gods man, is there no one, even a child, who is precious enough to protect in this madness you call diversity?


Pris

FrogBurger said...

Nice, Pris.

The leftist elite's self loathing psyche wants to destroy the underpinnings of human survival, which I call the 3Fs: Faith, Freedom and Family.

And replace all of them with the State, as you pointed out.

They always claim to have the monopoly of humanity, yet with the constant attacks on the 3 Fs, they are responsible for the dehumanization of this world.

Gramma 2 Many said...

It is all a show designed to garner attention. They are not happy unless the spotlight is on them and the pot is constantly stirred. Ignore them and they just yell louder.
And Ducky, Scripture is clear on homosexuality.
Genesis 19 is the first and most notable account of God reining his wrath down on a people for their sexuality. Where do you think the word Sodomy comes from?
As a committed Christian, it is my duty to love the person and hate the sin. Even though I find the act disgusting and abhorrent, I cannot condemn them because God sees all sin in the same light and I am a sinner also. The New Testament also has reference to the act as being an abomination in the sight of the Lord.

Elmers Brother said...

well I can imagine with near certainty and if not he'll reply and suggest to us what he is thinking

I'd be interested to know.


I'm suggesting that what duhkkky may be saying is that homosexuality can be justified because others have suggested that Paul's thorn in the flesh was homosexual lust.

Craig and Heather said...

I'm suggesting that what duhkkky may be saying is that homosexuality can be justified because others have suggested that Paul's thorn in the flesh was homosexual lust..

Ah. I wondered if it was something like that.

Even if that could be somehow proven, I have never seen anywhere that Paul excused giving in to such temptation.

Guess that brings things back to the fact that we all have specific weaknesses that need to be addressed via the Spirit rather than catered to through fleshly indulgence. Some are ashamed of the wrong things they do and others can't wait to go another round.

All right then. You all have a good evening.

H

Elmers Brother said...

Even if that could be somehow proven, I have never seen anywhere that Paul excused giving in to such temptation.

I agree.

Guess that brings things back to the fact that we all have specific weaknesses that need to be addressed via the Spirit rather than catered to through fleshly indulgence. Some are ashamed of the wrong things they do and others can't wait to go another round.

Yes we all have fallen and struggle with this mortal coil. All the more reason we need redeemed.

Anonymous said...

Thanks FB, I like your 3 F's. So true and well said. When children are fair game, they have reached their lowest point. It's all so sad.

Pris

Z said...

thanks, everybody...EXCELLENT discussion here.

I really appreciate all the input..

Maggie Thornton said...

It seems everything has been said here. This attention is exactly what my gay and lesbian friends do not want. The question: why is their sexuality the most important thing in their lives.

I just don't know. It's a crusade, no matter what we do, with the gays and lesbians that shout about, it is never enough and if you give them a full minute, they will accuse you of not wanting to be gay.

Quite frankly, it annoying. Good article and good questions, Z.

beamish said...

I disagree with the idea that Paul was a fag.

One of the most vulgar words in the Bible is used by Paul in the epistle of 1st Corinthians to point out homosexuals specifically/

The word "arsenokoitai" - literally "ass f*cker" - is the Greek word Paul used in 1 Corinthians 6:9. He could have spelled out "men who lie with men," but he narrowed it down to the vulgar street Greek along with "malakos" - effiminate, to make clear what his "Do not be decieved..." was addressing - effeminate ass-f*ckers. In modern colloquialisms, Paul could said "flaming faggots" and get the same point across.

Homosexuality remained the abomination to the sight of God for readers of the Greek Septuagint as it is for readers of the Hebrew originals.

If fags don't like what the Bible has to say, they don't have to waste their time and God's trying to sneer at it on the way to Hell.

cube said...

Pride should come from achievement and not from an accident of birth.

There are folks who believe that homosexuality comes from deliberate choice and they might argue for pride at going against the norm and choosing to be gay.

At this point, I don't know where the science falls, but it seems to me that they don't help their cause with these indecent parades.

beakerkin said...

Ducky

I live in NYC and homosexuality is no big deal. You on the other hand live a vulgar and amoral lifestyle as a Utopian Collectivist. Your bizarre and unnatural lifestyle has killed 100,000,000.

Would you do us a favor and kindly step back into the red closet.