Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Brickfaced:
I think the nail has generally been hit on the head in regards to the answer to the topic's title. It just shows how much society can warp views. Even in the face of absurdity, if you're told to think in a certain way enough times, you might just think it. I'd like to think I could never become so ignorant, but as ATPG says, its hard to say since we weren't brought up in the same way.
However, to oppose homosexuality is one thing, but to make it your mission to eradicate it when you are gay yourself, is the epitome of cowardice. This is coming from someone who prefers guys. Only in the last year have I truly admitted to myself that I'm gay, but I can never recall of persecuting other homosexual people for being that way (other than perhaps making dumb comments like 'I have no problems with gays, but It doesn't make it right' around the age of 13
), but rather admired others who are so open about it. However the fact that I used to have thoughts like that shows that with enough brainwashing, I probably could have turned into one of these anti-homosexual bible-bashers as well. It's scary to think...
...All because of a crooked religious outlook, and probably by no small part money too. Everywhere you look you'll find people just dying to take the stuff of your hands. One last parting thing I can say with conviction...I'm sure glad I don't live in America.
You obviously haven't thought very hard about this, at all. You are Gay and apparently you live in an area of the UK which is OK with that. Bully for you, but that means you've never had to think hard about what being Gay is, or isn't, you just accept what society tells you about who you are.I think the nail has generally been hit on the head in regards to the answer to the topic's title. It just shows how much society can warp views. Even in the face of absurdity, if you're told to think in a certain way enough times, you might just think it. I'd like to think I could never become so ignorant, but as ATPG says, its hard to say since we weren't brought up in the same way.
However, to oppose homosexuality is one thing, but to make it your mission to eradicate it when you are gay yourself, is the epitome of cowardice. This is coming from someone who prefers guys. Only in the last year have I truly admitted to myself that I'm gay, but I can never recall of persecuting other homosexual people for being that way (other than perhaps making dumb comments like 'I have no problems with gays, but It doesn't make it right' around the age of 13
), but rather admired others who are so open about it. However the fact that I used to have thoughts like that shows that with enough brainwashing, I probably could have turned into one of these anti-homosexual bible-bashers as well. It's scary to think......All because of a crooked religious outlook, and probably by no small part money too. Everywhere you look you'll find people just dying to take the stuff of your hands. One last parting thing I can say with conviction...I'm sure glad I don't live in America.
So do Evangelical Americans, or Britons.
The current paradigm states that being "Gay" is innate, but until the late eighties/early nineties the orthodoxy among Gay-rights campaigners was that it was a lifestyle choice. From a moralistic point of view both claims have problems if you believe homosexuality is "wrong", but the key point is that just because you incline towards something doesn't make it right or wrong. You have an external moral framework to tell you what's right or wrong independent of what you want.
All this is to say that you shouldn't judge people who don't like being Gay, or who are Gay and think it's a Sin, as "Cowards" because from their point of view they are fighting against an inclination that they see as wrong, just like a sadist or a misanthrope, or someone with a violent temper.
What you can judge them for is hypocrisy, because it's one thing to fight against your natural inclinations and view them as unhealthy - it's quite another to make money out of telling other people to do it and spend that on homosexual prostitutes.
Originally Posted by Brickfaced:
As for my 'I'm sure glad I don't live in America' remark, again, I'm sure that was quite an ignorant comment to make since each state is different and each person is brought up differently, but it does seem to be that the intolerant Christian foothold seems to stem from America as this thread demonstrates, I'm sure I'd still rather live in America than most of the world, but I'd hate to think how I could have turned out if I'd been raised by Strict Christian Parents in some homophobic Texan School, for example. So for the sake of my own human rights, I'm very glad I don't live in such areas of America...
Context: Strike was raised by (fairly) strict Christian parents. Several of my openly Gay friends in the UK were raised just as you describe, they didn't become homophobes either.As for my 'I'm sure glad I don't live in America' remark, again, I'm sure that was quite an ignorant comment to make since each state is different and each person is brought up differently, but it does seem to be that the intolerant Christian foothold seems to stem from America as this thread demonstrates, I'm sure I'd still rather live in America than most of the world, but I'd hate to think how I could have turned out if I'd been raised by Strict Christian Parents in some homophobic Texan School, for example. So for the sake of my own human rights, I'm very glad I don't live in such areas of America...
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
The UK and America aren't much different. They really aren't.
This is quite true, except that in the US the religious groups are much more effective at lobbying government.The UK and America aren't much different. They really aren't.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
This is quite true, except that in the US the religious groups are much more effective at lobbying government.
In Britain the religious fundie nuts are either ignored or ridiculed by the majority, in America they are the majority.This is quite true, except that in the US the religious groups are much more effective at lobbying government.
Originally Posted by :
You have an external moral framework to tell you what's right or wrong independent of what you want.
All this is to say that you shouldn't judge people who don't like being Gay, or who are Gay and think it's a Sin, as "Cowards" because from their point of view they are fighting against an inclination that they see as wrong, just like a sadist or a misanthrope, or someone with a violent temper.
In the past, you called this "preference".You have an external moral framework to tell you what's right or wrong independent of what you want.
All this is to say that you shouldn't judge people who don't like being Gay, or who are Gay and think it's a Sin, as "Cowards" because from their point of view they are fighting against an inclination that they see as wrong, just like a sadist or a misanthrope, or someone with a violent temper.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
In Britain the religious fundie nuts are either ignored or ridiculed by the majority, in America they are the majority.
No they are notIn Britain the religious fundie nuts are either ignored or ridiculed by the majority, in America they are the majority.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
In the past, you called this "preference".
People kept interpreting that as "choice" though, so I changed the word I use.In the past, you called this "preference".
That doesn't detract from the fact that a preference or inclination does not, of itself, dictate a choice.
I prefer meat, but I could become a vegetarian if I considered it necessary from a moral point of view - that wouldn't make me happy, though.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
No they are not
The social paradigm is different in the US - religious tribalism within the nominally Christian majority is still very important and Church attendance is generally high. The social collapse in the 70's-80's coincided with a religious and moral collapse in the UK, possibly as a result of postwar hostility to any strong belief, but I think we are starting to see a none too healthy upsurge in "spiritualism" and "religion", especially among the younger generation.No they are not
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
The social paradigm is different in the US - religious tribalism within the nominally Christian majority is still very important and Church attendance is generally high. The social collapse in the 70's-80's coincided with a religious and moral collapse in the UK, possibly as a result of postwar hostility to any strong belief, but I think we are starting to see a none too healthy upsurge in "spiritualism" and "religion", especially among the younger generation.
I was just going to say something along these lines. Brits can be just as regressive socially, it just manifests itself differently. The social paradigm is different in the US - religious tribalism within the nominally Christian majority is still very important and Church attendance is generally high. The social collapse in the 70's-80's coincided with a religious and moral collapse in the UK, possibly as a result of postwar hostility to any strong belief, but I think we are starting to see a none too healthy upsurge in "spiritualism" and "religion", especially among the younger generation.
We have the same institutions and a very similar history, so if the UK is some sort of bastion of tolerance, the US is not far behind
Originally Posted by :
I prefer meat, but I could become a vegetarian if I considered it necessary from a moral point of view - that wouldn't make me happy, though.
Well the same goes for homosexuals. I know where this conversation ends, lets see how many people have the patience to entertain you for 5+ pagesI prefer meat, but I could become a vegetarian if I considered it necessary from a moral point of view - that wouldn't make me happy, though.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
Well the same goes for homosexuals. I know where this conversation ends, lets see how many people have the patience to entertain you for 5+ pages
If it's all the same to you, I think we should just assume Whacker has called me a homophobe, HoreTore has purposely misread everything I write, we'll pretend Rhy is still here to defend my moral integrity and then we'll skip to this:Well the same goes for homosexuals. I know where this conversation ends, lets see how many people have the patience to entertain you for 5+ pages
Whether or not we view homosexuality as "good" or "bad" is not an accurate measure of how developed we are as a society, nor how inherently moral. Considerably less moral societies have been much more tolerant of homosexuality (and appear to have had more homosexuals or bisexuals) than societies that came later and were in many other ways more advanced and offered a better life and more tolerance in general.
From this I have concluded that the "rightness" of homosexuality as a lifestyle is not a closed question, but that does not make homosexuals evil or abominations, and if loving someone of the same sex, or having sex with them, is a Sin in the yes of God I'd think there are about a thousand things he would be more concerned with you not doing.
Like, say, casting the first stone.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
If it's all the same to you, I think we should just assume Whacker has called me a homophobe, HoreTore has purposely misread everything I write, we'll pretend Rhy is still here to defend my moral integrity and then we'll skip to this:
Whether or not we view homosexuality as "good" or "bad" is not an accurate measure of how developed we are as a society, nor how inherently moral. Considerably less moral societies have been much more tolerant of homosexuality (and appear to have had more homosexuals or bisexuals) than societies that came later and were in many other ways more advanced and offered a better life and more tolerance in general.
From this I have concluded that the "rightness" of homosexuality as a lifestyle is not a closed question, but that does not make homosexuals evil or abominations, and if loving someone of the same sex, or having sex with them, is a Sin in the yes of God I'd think there are about a thousand things he would be more concerned with you not doing.
Like, say, casting the first stone.
Like Idaho earlier, I disagree with with some of the details but agree on the conclusion. If it's all the same to you, I think we should just assume Whacker has called me a homophobe, HoreTore has purposely misread everything I write, we'll pretend Rhy is still here to defend my moral integrity and then we'll skip to this:
Whether or not we view homosexuality as "good" or "bad" is not an accurate measure of how developed we are as a society, nor how inherently moral. Considerably less moral societies have been much more tolerant of homosexuality (and appear to have had more homosexuals or bisexuals) than societies that came later and were in many other ways more advanced and offered a better life and more tolerance in general.
From this I have concluded that the "rightness" of homosexuality as a lifestyle is not a closed question, but that does not make homosexuals evil or abominations, and if loving someone of the same sex, or having sex with them, is a Sin in the yes of God I'd think there are about a thousand things he would be more concerned with you not doing.
Like, say, casting the first stone.
Whether or not it is genetic is irrelevant. I have a per-chant for redheads, now that could be because It is hardwired in my DNA or because the first movie I remember seeing was Who Killed Roger Rabbit. I still should be able to pursue and marry one.
Originally Posted by Brickfaced:
See this is why I've never frequented the backroom, I always manage to say something offense or ignorant. I'll be quiet now.
Don’t let the boys harry you; nothing you said was ignorant. America is one of, if not the worst nation in the developed world in which to be a homosexual. In no other Western nation are gay people so marginalized, so openly derided. My country is unique among such nations in its regressive tilt against homosexuality after some small progress in the 90’s and early 00’s. Surely there is plenty of anti-gay sentiment in Europe and other modern nations, but one would have to travel to the third world to find the kind of social acceptance of virulent anti-gay hatred that exists in the United States. And if election results are an accurate measure of public sentiment, that's the way a majority of Americans like it. See this is why I've never frequented the backroom, I always manage to say something offense or ignorant. I'll be quiet now.
You are also correct in identifying Christianity as the single driving force behind anti-gay feelings in this country.
Originally Posted by PVC:
You obviously haven't thought very hard about this, at all. You are Gay and apparently you live in an area of the UK which is OK with that. Bully for you, but that means you've never had to think hard about what being Gay is, or isn't, you just accept what society tells you about who you are.
How you got all of that from what he wrote is beyond me. You obviously haven't thought very hard about this, at all. You are Gay and apparently you live in an area of the UK which is OK with that. Bully for you, but that means you've never had to think hard about what being Gay is, or isn't, you just accept what society tells you about who you are.
Originally Posted by :
The current paradigm states that being "Gay" is innate, but until the late eighties/early nineties the orthodoxy among Gay-rights campaigners was that it was a lifestyle choice.
Source?The current paradigm states that being "Gay" is innate, but until the late eighties/early nineties the orthodoxy among Gay-rights campaigners was that it was a lifestyle choice.
Originally Posted by :
All this is to say that you shouldn't judge people who don't like being Gay, or who are Gay and think it's a Sin, as "Cowards" because from their point of view they are fighting against an inclination that they see as wrong, just like a sadist or a misanthrope, or someone with a violent temper.
What you can judge them for is hypocrisy, because it's one thing to fight against your natural inclinations and view them as unhealthy - it's quite another to make money out of telling other people to do it and spend that on homosexual prostitutes.
Considering that he never implied anything close to what you wrote in the first paragraph, your lecture in the second seems exceedingly unnecessary.All this is to say that you shouldn't judge people who don't like being Gay, or who are Gay and think it's a Sin, as "Cowards" because from their point of view they are fighting against an inclination that they see as wrong, just like a sadist or a misanthrope, or someone with a violent temper.
What you can judge them for is hypocrisy, because it's one thing to fight against your natural inclinations and view them as unhealthy - it's quite another to make money out of telling other people to do it and spend that on homosexual prostitutes.
I have a meme that I am teaching my seven year old son.
I ask him "What is the bravest thing you can be?"
His answer "Yourself."
Thats just my opinion. But I think everyone should be themselves, don't cast the stone, don't hold onto the hot coal of anger. Just be all you can be. Being a hypocrite is about as far from bein yourself as you can be. It only ends in tears.
I ask him "What is the bravest thing you can be?"
His answer "Yourself."
Thats just my opinion. But I think everyone should be themselves, don't cast the stone, don't hold onto the hot coal of anger. Just be all you can be. Being a hypocrite is about as far from bein yourself as you can be. It only ends in tears.
I'll just dig myself a deeper hole and be courteous enough to reply. 
I'm probably agreeing with you more than opposing what you're saying...
Perhaps cowardice was an incorrect term, but in the case of the activists who have campaigned against homosexuality whilst practicing it, cowardice does at least belong to them since even by their perceived moral framework, they have caved into their instinctive inclinations which they know full well are wrong in the viewpoint of their perceived moral framework. Their Internal courage is therefore compromised against opposition, definition of a coward, more or less.
Anyway I can barely even comprehend what I've just written, I'm just going to go and hope no one reads whatever it is I just said...
@PanzerJaeger
Thanks for the morale boost.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
You obviously haven't thought very hard about this, at all. You are Gay and apparently you live in an area of the UK which is OK with that. Bully for you, but that means you've never had to think hard about what being Gay is, or isn't, you just accept what society tells you about who you are.
So do Evangelical Americans, or Britons.
The current paradigm states that being "Gay" is innate, but until the late eighties/early nineties the orthodoxy among Gay-rights campaigners was that it was a lifestyle choice. From a moralistic point of view both claims have problems if you believe homosexuality is "wrong", but the key point is that just because you incline towards something doesn't make it right or wrong. You have an external moral framework to tell you what's right or wrong independent of what you want.
All this is to say that you shouldn't judge people who don't like being Gay, or who are Gay and think it's a Sin, as "Cowards" because from their point of view they are fighting against an inclination that they see as wrong, just like a sadist or a misanthrope, or someone with a violent temper.
What you can judge them for is hypocrisy, because it's one thing to fight against your natural inclinations and view them as unhealthy - it's quite another to make money out of telling other people to do it and spend that on homosexual prostitutes.
The external moral framework you speak of is something I'd never really even thought about (so thanks). I'd probably now put some more emphasis on free-will. Whilst society warps your views, I don't necessarily accept everything a society tells me to be, much of my society tells me that homosexuals dress up as women, wear fake tan and Idolize Lady Gaga. I do none of these things. When other societies would fit my inclination better, such as what is perceived as being straight for example, I would adopt that part of society's views instead. Although that was quite a trivial comparison, it should at least show that someone gay who is homophobic will have seen more than 1 society's viewpoint in their lifetimes, and should not automatically hate gay people because one society tells them to.You obviously haven't thought very hard about this, at all. You are Gay and apparently you live in an area of the UK which is OK with that. Bully for you, but that means you've never had to think hard about what being Gay is, or isn't, you just accept what society tells you about who you are.
So do Evangelical Americans, or Britons.
The current paradigm states that being "Gay" is innate, but until the late eighties/early nineties the orthodoxy among Gay-rights campaigners was that it was a lifestyle choice. From a moralistic point of view both claims have problems if you believe homosexuality is "wrong", but the key point is that just because you incline towards something doesn't make it right or wrong. You have an external moral framework to tell you what's right or wrong independent of what you want.
All this is to say that you shouldn't judge people who don't like being Gay, or who are Gay and think it's a Sin, as "Cowards" because from their point of view they are fighting against an inclination that they see as wrong, just like a sadist or a misanthrope, or someone with a violent temper.
What you can judge them for is hypocrisy, because it's one thing to fight against your natural inclinations and view them as unhealthy - it's quite another to make money out of telling other people to do it and spend that on homosexual prostitutes.
I'm probably agreeing with you more than opposing what you're saying...
Perhaps cowardice was an incorrect term, but in the case of the activists who have campaigned against homosexuality whilst practicing it, cowardice does at least belong to them since even by their perceived moral framework, they have caved into their instinctive inclinations which they know full well are wrong in the viewpoint of their perceived moral framework. Their Internal courage is therefore compromised against opposition, definition of a coward, more or less.
Anyway I can barely even comprehend what I've just written, I'm just going to go and hope no one reads whatever it is I just said...
@PanzerJaeger
Thanks for the morale boost.
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
I have a meme that I am teaching my seven year old son.
I ask him "What is the bravest thing you can be?"
His answer "Yourself."
Thats just my opinion. But I think everyone should be themselves, don't cast the stone, don't hold onto the hot coal of anger. Just be all you can be. Being a hypocrite is about as far from bein yourself as you can be. It only ends in tears.
It's as good as far as it goes. But this oh so individualistic outlook idealises the individual over everyone and everything else: Playing music at 3am? I'm being who I am, ergo it's OK. Grooming underage girls? Hey - I'm just being myself, where's the crime??I have a meme that I am teaching my seven year old son.
I ask him "What is the bravest thing you can be?"
His answer "Yourself."
Thats just my opinion. But I think everyone should be themselves, don't cast the stone, don't hold onto the hot coal of anger. Just be all you can be. Being a hypocrite is about as far from bein yourself as you can be. It only ends in tears.
I don't think that Singapore / North Korea has the balance right either, but placing one's own wants as right by virtue of being wants has its own dangers.
Originally Posted by Brickfaced:
'I'm sure I'd still rather live in America than most of the world'
^, I'm just glad I live where I do in regards to this issue, that is all.
See this is why I've never frequented the backroom, I always manage to say something offense or ignorant. I'll be quiet now.
No, keep talking. You have a cool avitar. 'I'm sure I'd still rather live in America than most of the world'
^, I'm just glad I live where I do in regards to this issue, that is all.
See this is why I've never frequented the backroom, I always manage to say something offense or ignorant. I'll be quiet now.
Visit Austin.
Originally Posted by Brickfaced:
I'll just dig myself a deeper hole and be courteous enough to reply.
The external moral framework you speak of is something I'd never really even thought about (so thanks). I'd probably now put some more emphasis on free-will. Whilst society warps your views, I don't necessarily accept everything a society tells me to be, much of my society tells me that homosexuals dress up as women, wear fake tan and Idolize Lady Gaga. I do none of these things. When other societies would fit my inclination better, such as what is perceived as being straight for example, I would adopt that part of society's views instead. Although that was quite a trivial comparison, it should at least show that someone gay who is homophobic will have seen more than 1 society's viewpoint in their lifetimes, and should not automatically hate gay people because one society tells them to.
I'm probably agreeing with you more than opposing what you're saying...
Perhaps cowardice was an incorrect term, but in the case of the activists who have campaigned against homosexuality whilst practicing it, cowardice does at least belong to them since even by their perceived moral framework, they have caved into their instinctive inclinations which they know full well are wrong in the viewpoint of their perceived moral framework. Their Internal courage is therefore compromised against opposition, definition of a coward, more or less.
Anyway I can barely even comprehend what I've just written, I'm just going to go and hope no one reads whatever it is I just said...
Firstly, I think what you wrote makes perfect sense. Secondly, I'm sorry I was a bit short last night but I was posting after 2am, which I shouldn't do.I'll just dig myself a deeper hole and be courteous enough to reply.
The external moral framework you speak of is something I'd never really even thought about (so thanks). I'd probably now put some more emphasis on free-will. Whilst society warps your views, I don't necessarily accept everything a society tells me to be, much of my society tells me that homosexuals dress up as women, wear fake tan and Idolize Lady Gaga. I do none of these things. When other societies would fit my inclination better, such as what is perceived as being straight for example, I would adopt that part of society's views instead. Although that was quite a trivial comparison, it should at least show that someone gay who is homophobic will have seen more than 1 society's viewpoint in their lifetimes, and should not automatically hate gay people because one society tells them to.
I'm probably agreeing with you more than opposing what you're saying...
Perhaps cowardice was an incorrect term, but in the case of the activists who have campaigned against homosexuality whilst practicing it, cowardice does at least belong to them since even by their perceived moral framework, they have caved into their instinctive inclinations which they know full well are wrong in the viewpoint of their perceived moral framework. Their Internal courage is therefore compromised against opposition, definition of a coward, more or less.
Anyway I can barely even comprehend what I've just written, I'm just going to go and hope no one reads whatever it is I just said...
Something I touched on briefly, and have written about before here, is that we aren't really all that tolerant of homosexuality outside people who conform to the "Gay" stereotype, even the word "Gay" is prescriptive because it defines a sexual orientation as an inclination towards a particular life style.
It's worth pointing out that this is changing, but we still have a situation where people prefer their homosexual men limp wristed and pastel wearing, and their homosexual women as aggressive feminists. Rugby playing homosexual men make heterosexual men uncomfortable, and likewise pretty homosexual women cause all sorts of gender insecurity, not just in women but in men also.
All this is by the by, I think it has to do with the situation we have where we Marry for love (or enter a Civil Partnership for love) and then are monogamous, where previously you married regardless of preference. It also has to do with homosexuals being a small minority in general, and also, I believe, to do with the "straight or Gay" narrative we have about sex where most people are actually somewhere in the middle.
I mean, you think homosexuals have it bad? Try being Bi, if you're a woman you "can't get a man" and if you're a man you're "Gay and in denial". How's that for condescension?
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
I mean, you think homosexuals have it bad? Try being Bi, if you're a woman you "can't get a man" and if you're a man you're "Gay and in denial". How's that for condescension?
We should express our solidarity with bisexuals by renaming the Mars rover "Curiosity" into "Bi-Curiosity".I mean, you think homosexuals have it bad? Try being Bi, if you're a woman you "can't get a man" and if you're a man you're "Gay and in denial". How's that for condescension?
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
And I am glad I wasn't born in Ethiopia? What the hell does that have to do with anything?
DUDE R U serious? Being born in Ethiopia would be awesome because I would be like taller and have bigger muscles than anyone there, and probably have the nicest car too LOLZAnd I am glad I wasn't born in Ethiopia? What the hell does that have to do with anything?
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
It's as good as far as it goes. But this oh so individualistic outlook idealises the individual over everyone and everything else: Playing music at 3am? I'm being who I am, ergo it's OK. Grooming underage girls? Hey - I'm just being myself, where's the crime??
I don't think that Singapore / North Korea has the balance right either, but placing one's own wants as right by virtue of being wants has its own dangers.
Yes, the life lessons for my child start and end in a single sentence.It's as good as far as it goes. But this oh so individualistic outlook idealises the individual over everyone and everything else: Playing music at 3am? I'm being who I am, ergo it's OK. Grooming underage girls? Hey - I'm just being myself, where's the crime??
I don't think that Singapore / North Korea has the balance right either, but placing one's own wants as right by virtue of being wants has its own dangers.
The context of my conversation with him was to do with bullying and his own creative spirit. Raising a child to be an independent free willed thinker who helps others typically starts with getting them to help himself and then the household.
So he has learned to say thankyou from a young age, does his chores before and after school, helps his mom, grandma and teacher.
Next step is to increase his self worth and belief so that he can stand up for himself.
The future hopefully will take him through a journey from dependent to independent to intradependent.
But until then I'm going to make sure he has enough self esteem and discipline to tidy his bed, play music , go ride his bike and read books. Most of all I'll do my best to keep him happy, healthy, smart and strong.
I'll just set down a marker for later.
Aaron Schock, Republican Congressman, Responds To Gay Rumors, Anti-Gay Voting Record
GOP Congressman Aaron Schock of Illinois, the subject of persistent gay rumors since he took office in 2009, said on Thursday that questions about his sexual orientation and how it might relate to his antigay voting record and positions are “inappropriate and ridiculous” and not “worthy of further response.” He also stated, “I’ve said that before,” when asked if he is confirming that he is not gay, and added, “You can look it up.” [...]
On why he voted against DADT repeal, Schock said: “I took the advice of military experts that came before Congress. I think that’s why you have John McCain and others who have a military background. Adam Kinzinger is a close personal friend of mine who’s an active duty member of Congress [in the district] next door to me and so I think that’s why you saw the consistency.”
In an interview with Buzzfeed’s Chris Geidner at “Newt University” in Tampa during the RNC, Schock, who has said he is opposed to gay marriage, also stood by his strong criticism of President Obama and the Department of Justice for not defending the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court. But he hedged on support for a federal marriage amendment that would ban states from allowing gays and lesbians to marry, saying, “I haven’t really thought too much about it.”
Aaron Schock, Republican Congressman, Responds To Gay Rumors, Anti-Gay Voting Record
GOP Congressman Aaron Schock of Illinois, the subject of persistent gay rumors since he took office in 2009, said on Thursday that questions about his sexual orientation and how it might relate to his antigay voting record and positions are “inappropriate and ridiculous” and not “worthy of further response.” He also stated, “I’ve said that before,” when asked if he is confirming that he is not gay, and added, “You can look it up.” [...]
On why he voted against DADT repeal, Schock said: “I took the advice of military experts that came before Congress. I think that’s why you have John McCain and others who have a military background. Adam Kinzinger is a close personal friend of mine who’s an active duty member of Congress [in the district] next door to me and so I think that’s why you saw the consistency.”
In an interview with Buzzfeed’s Chris Geidner at “Newt University” in Tampa during the RNC, Schock, who has said he is opposed to gay marriage, also stood by his strong criticism of President Obama and the Department of Justice for not defending the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court. But he hedged on support for a federal marriage amendment that would ban states from allowing gays and lesbians to marry, saying, “I haven’t really thought too much about it.”
LOL but he knows a guy in the military who opposes it, and seeing as that is probably all he knows, he can legitimately say "most of the people I know in the military oppose it."
OMG Congress is like The Org
OMG Congress is like The Org
Anti-Gay Activist Lisa Biron Found Guilty Of Child Pornography After Video Taping Daughter
A New Hampshire lawyer who works with a virulently anti-gay Christian-right organization has been found guilty of child pornography charges after videotaping her own daughter having sex with two men on multiple occasions.
Lisa Biron, 43, of Manchester faces a minimum sentence of 25 years in prison after a jury convicted her yesterday. The jury deliberated for less than an hour.
Biron, arrested by the FBI last November, was accused of eight felony counts involving the videotaping of men having sex with a 14-year-old girl who was identified by the Associated Press as her daughter. She also allegedly made a cellphone video of herself having sex with her daughter.
Biron, who claimed on her Facebook page (which was taken down, according to the Concord Monitor) that the Bible was her favorite book, had worked with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), formerly the Alliance Defense Fund, in defending a Pentecostal church in Concord in a tax fight against the city.
The Arizona-based ADF calls itself a “servant ministry” that seeks to transform the legal system and advocate “for religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family.” [They also] claim that “the homosexual agenda” will destroy religious liberty and free speech. In one chapter, they claim that homosexuality on college campuses leads to pedophilia, and that homosexuality and pedophilia “are intrinsically linked.
A New Hampshire lawyer who works with a virulently anti-gay Christian-right organization has been found guilty of child pornography charges after videotaping her own daughter having sex with two men on multiple occasions.
Lisa Biron, 43, of Manchester faces a minimum sentence of 25 years in prison after a jury convicted her yesterday. The jury deliberated for less than an hour.
Biron, arrested by the FBI last November, was accused of eight felony counts involving the videotaping of men having sex with a 14-year-old girl who was identified by the Associated Press as her daughter. She also allegedly made a cellphone video of herself having sex with her daughter.
Biron, who claimed on her Facebook page (which was taken down, according to the Concord Monitor) that the Bible was her favorite book, had worked with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), formerly the Alliance Defense Fund, in defending a Pentecostal church in Concord in a tax fight against the city.
The Arizona-based ADF calls itself a “servant ministry” that seeks to transform the legal system and advocate “for religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family.” [They also] claim that “the homosexual agenda” will destroy religious liberty and free speech. In one chapter, they claim that homosexuality on college campuses leads to pedophilia, and that homosexuality and pedophilia “are intrinsically linked.
Is it a wonder she was anti-gay? She loved straight sex so much, she had to get her underage daughter into it and videotape it for posterity.
Originally Posted by CBR:
Is it a wonder she was anti-gay? She loved straight sex so much, she had to get her underage daughter into it and videotape it for posterity.
Yeah, this lady is considerably worse than a closet case. The relevant sentence that allows me to shoe-horn the story into this thread: "She also allegedly made a cellphone video of herself having sex with her daughter."Is it a wonder she was anti-gay? She loved straight sex so much, she had to get her underage daughter into it and videotape it for posterity.
How was she caught? (I mean, I can think of a few ways, but I would like to know how they pegged her down for it.)
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO