Pastor Urges Parents to "Man Up" and Punch Effeminate Children

[c.d.]

Two guys together? I wonder if they both fall asleep immediately afterward?

c.d.

[mariab]

I find it disgusting to watch two males go at it. Two females to go at it. Two heterosexuals go at it. Two people having sex is never aesthetically pleasing. "An industrial film covered in fur" I believe is the quote.

You've just decimated the porn industry, lol.
Which, by the by, (and for completely transparent reasons) would almost have us believe that all women are naturally bisexual. It's interesting (and pretty transparent) to note that most men would pleasantly watch two women going at it, but not two men.
Personally I'd rather watch 2 gay guys going at it that two lezs. Might learn something. (Technically speaking.)

[Limehouse]

Well, considering that in nature, we and all animals are born to procreate, if one is to argue that homosexuality is a born trait, then that person is clearly arguing that it is a birth defect. Any barrier to procreation must be. That's not theoretical, it's nature. That's a no brainer. And yes, it is a perversion. Perhaps none of you know what that word means. Again, I'm surprised by Robert and his exceptionally naive (though politically correct) stance on the issue. I don't think anyone does a person any good by denying who and what they are, so let's be honest here. Homosexuality, regardless of whether you love it or hate it, is a perversion. If you want to believe you're born that way, then you should accept it as a birth defect. And you can't simply argue that only THIS perversion, which is last year's cause celebre (this year's appear to be weak children, with the new buzz word being 'bully'), is a birth defect, without arguing that the same might be true for the currently less socially acceptable perversions, such as pedophilia. I wonder how many years away we are from pedophiles being coddled and told there's nothing wrong with them and it's not their fault? Maybe Todders & Tiaras will be expanded into an entire network for them? It's coming, and when it does, I've little doubt those on this thread will jump on that bandwagon too. Robert is like 60 and yet pretends he's ALWAYS thought gays were born that way and this is the first time anyone's pointed out it's a sexual perversion. Puhleeeze.

Look up on this post and read my quote from Limehouse again. Was not homosexuality at one time a seriously illegal offense? Do you think 100 years ago anyone could have imagined that ever changing to the extent it has today? Of course not. On this I'm certain we can all agree. Just remember THAT when you're arguing that homosexuality should be separated from other sexual inclinations that the majority today consider to be perversions. How long until we're looked upon as close-minded as we see our recent ancestors? Scary.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Very funny to me how the gays used to herald the 'Don't ask, don't tell' law as a breakthrough for their cause, yet now regard it as homophobic in the extreme.

Firstly, Tom, I personally do not believe it is true that we are born to procreate. Many people cannot procreate or choose not to, but most of them live worthy and valuable lives. I would therefore also take isue with the idea that homosexuality is a 'birth defect'. To me, it is a variation.

Secondly, when you equate homosexuality with paedophilia you are overlooking the fact that homosexuality is between consenting adults whereas paedophilia is not. Children cannot consent to sex, adults can.

It is true that homosexuality was once illegal in the UK and is still illegal in some countries. However, that does not make the act a perversion. The law can be in error. For example, in Victorian times, sex between two men was illegal but it was perfectly legal to have sex with a 12 year old girl.

Finally, you have a right to express your views, I would never deny that, but people have the right to challenge your views.

[Errata]

Just to be nitpicky (but it's an important nitpick), "phobia" actually means a irrational or disproportionate aversion to something--which may include, but is not limited to, fear.

Indeed. Point taken. From a treatment standpoint, a phobia triggers the atavistic survival reaction. Fight or flight. A homophobic would react poorly to being hit on, or even touched by a homosexual. It would trigger an atavistic reaction. Possibly even a violent one. But some douche who thinks beating up gay kids is hilarious is not phobic. No matter how profound their disgust. Nor are people who think lesbians are "hot" and gay men are "gross". That's just insecurity.

If you look at any other phobia, there is a recognition that it is irrational. Arachnophobes acknowledge that spiders can't help being spiders, nor are they to blame for the arachnophobe's fear. People who are afraid of flying do not despise those who do fly. Coulrophobics may not understand what could possibly make someone dress up as a clown, but have no problems with those who do as long as they aren't dressed as clowns. And dentophobics do not try to destroy the institution of dentistry.

So there is a difference between genuine homophobia and a culturally or ignorance induced loathing of a lifestyle that harms no one. Which is not to say that I am okay with any and all sex practices. I am not. Which is why I don't participate in them. And would rather not hear them described in detail, but I don't especially want to hear even the most mundane sexual practices described in detail. But if you want to participate in those sex practices and it only involves adults who have given informed consent, knock yourself out. There are real problems in the world, we don't need to focus on people's consenting lifestyles. I mean, not for nothing, but if you can't have a conversation with a guy without thinking about him having sex with another guy, maybe you need to explore that particular fascination. Because I talk to all kinds of people without picturing them in any kind of sexual situation. Ever.

[Magpie]

Yeah. See, I'm pretty sure I defined homophobia in my previous post. It is the irrational fear of homosexuals.

Just to be nitpicky (but it's an important nitpick), "phobia" actually means a irrational or disproportionate aversion to something--which may include, but is not limited to, fear.

[Errata]

And by the way, what on earth does homosexuality have to do with effeminate boys?

[Errata]

And Errata, finding it disgusting to watch two males go at it does not make someone homophobic. Friendships happen on their own terms. If you're going out of your way to make gay friends, then you're either gay yourself, or you've got something to prove to yourself and are using gay people to that end. I think straight women who surround themselves with gay men have the same issues as the women who get into relationships with prisoners who will never get out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Yeah. See, I'm pretty sure I defined homophobia in my previous post. It is the irrational fear of homosexuals. So of course, no. "Finding it disgusting to watch two males go at it" is not homophobia. I find it disgusting to watch two males go at it. Two females to go at it. Two heterosexuals go at it. Two people having sex is never aesthetically pleasing. "An industrial film covered in fur" I believe is the quote. However, there is a very simple solution to this problem of yours. Stop watching gay men have sex.

My best friend was terrified of getting hit on. He had an irrational fear of gay men. Lesbians he was fine with. So his problem was neither ideological nor religious. It was fear. A fear that was interfering with his work and social life.

As for my life, despite the fact that it is none of your business, I am an open book. I was gang raped at the age of 12. I have discussed this before on here. Not unpredictably, it screwed with my ideas of sex and attraction. Now it is entirely possible I was bisexual before the attack, but given that it was at the age when I just starting to develop attractions, we'll never know. I do know that my early relationships were with women. Slowly, as I started to heal and stop being afraid of men, I was able to admit to my attraction to males.

I do not regret the relationships I had with women. They were extraordinary, deeply caring, devoted to my healing, and they put up with a lot of crap from an angry and scared girl trapped in a woman's body. They saved my life. Literally on a few separate occasions. And I am still attracted to women, though obviously I will never again be in a relationship with one. Which goes for men as well. And I am engaged to a man. In truth, I do not consider myself bisexual. I consider myself heterosexual with a fine appreciation for the female form.

As for my friendships, I do not surround myself with gay men. I worked in theater for 15 years, and my friends are from that realm. Yes, many of them are homosexual. Male and female. In goes with the territory. My best friends on this planet consist of two women and three men. All heterosexual. The reason I said that people cannot hate gay people and be friends with me is because of my personality and my politics. People cannot be friends with me and be aggressively Christian. Nor can they be friends with me and think a woman's place is in the home. They can have those beliefs. They have a right to them. But I am always going to confound those beliefs. I will never agree with them, those kinds of views are such a huge part of someone's personality. In essence, it will always be oil and water, and while there are some subjects that people can agree to disagree on, there are some that people cannot. I will not change myself to suit their fundamental beliefs. I'm never going to not be butch. I'm never going to be a Christian. I'm never going to alter my views on civil rights and social equality, and I'm damn sure not going to become some meek and mild female to preserve a friendship. Love me, love my personality, my world view, my right to a dissenting opinion, and my passion. Because if you don't love those things about me, you don't love me. They ARE me.

By the way, homosexuality is at 8% worldwide, while blue eyes is at 2%. a birth defect is defined as
"a physical or biochemical defect (as cleft palate, phenylketonuria, or Down syndrome) that is present at birth and may be inherited or environmentally induced"
and a defect is defined as
"a lack of something necessary for completeness, adequacy, or perfection"
so clearly "birth defect" (which is a dated term by the way) does not apply to homosexuality. Heterosexuality is not required for adequacy or completeness, and hell... nobody's perfect.

[Ally]

More gay people than blue eyed people? You've lost your mind. And I think green eyes is the aberration, is it not? And red hair? So, you've decided that there is no such thing as 'birth defect', even though it's a defined term? Humans and the vast majority of animals are intended to be attracted to the opposite sex. You said so yourself when you wrote that to be otherwise is an aberration. Therefore, no, my attraction to the opposite sex is not a personal choice I made, but is as nature intended. Same with the fact that I'm not attracted to small children, or compelled to murder people to get my rocks off.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hate to break it to you, but blue eyes are totally on the decline. In another 20 years, there will be more people born gay in the United States than will be born with blue eyes. Gays number about 8 percent of the population and blue eyed people currently being born at about a 10 percent rate, and declining. So eventually yes, blue eyes will be outnumbered by gays. I should have made that more clear, but yes, currently, blue eyes are about as rare a genetic mutation as gays.

See I love how you keep saying "as nature intended" but when natural examples of animals and whatnot come up, you say "I DON'T CARE ABOUT ANIMAL gays". You cannot use "as nature intended" in your argument when you completely discount all the natural studies that PROVE YOU WRONG. Obviously, nature didn't intend everyone to be straight, otherwise there wouldn't be so many examples of ANIMALS in NATURE having gay pair bonds. Dur.

To be other than brown eyed and right handed is an aberration as well, just like gays, but you don't see nutballs like you stating that people ought to choose to use their right hands (any more) and surgically improve their eyes.

[Tom_Wescott]

More gay people than blue eyed people? You've lost your mind. And I think green eyes is the aberration, is it not? And red hair? So, you've decided that there is no such thing as 'birth defect', even though it's a defined term? Humans and the vast majority of animals are intended to be attracted to the opposite sex. You said so yourself when you wrote that to be otherwise is an aberration. Therefore, no, my attraction to the opposite sex is not a personal choice I made, but is as nature intended. Same with the fact that I'm not attracted to small children, or compelled to murder people to get my rocks off.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

All this twaddling gay worship has nothing to do with the things I said. And again with the gay animal nonsense? I couldn't care less. But if Ally is correct and animals and people are occassionally born gay, then are any of you willing to acknowledge it as a defect?

I would not say it is a defect. A defect means it is an imperfection, implying that there is a perfect state in human beings, which is one short step away from nazi-like "breeding" for the perfect specimen, which is balls. I agree it is an aberration. So is having blue eyes and left handedness. Both of these are aberrations and considering there are more gay people than blue eyed people in the states, to go by judging unusual as defective, that would mean having blue eyes is even more defective than being gay, and therefore, I am defective. I personally think I am as close to perfection as you can get.



And you still haven't answered my question. Is your sexuality a choice, or something you've felt since birth? Were you conditioned to be straight despite your feelings towards men?

[mariab]

If you're going out of your way to make gay friends, then you're either gay yourself, or you've got something to prove to yourself and are using gay people to that end. I think straight women who surround themselves with gay men have the same issues as the women who get into relationships with prisoners who will never get out.

Good that you didn't say "married men", lol.
It can also be environmental or situational, Tom. People in the "theatrical line" (like Schwartz, lol!) might encounter lots of gays. Plus gays tend to have good taste, lots of wit, cook well, and are sexually experienced, thus often it's more fun to hang around with a gay friend than with a female friend. (Esp. with a female friend who's boring or too girlie or depressed or repressed, lol.)
My gay friends happen to be 1) a childhood friend (about whom I realized he was gay when we reached our 20s), and 2) a bunch of guys, amazing cooks, who own a little Café/bar with a cute little terrasse full of plants, conveniently situated between the shops/the next bus stop and my apartment in Berlin. This bar is the only place in my neighborhood that features lots of green and some sun in the afternoon. People from the neighborhood gather there for coffee or a snack, and it's a lively place to chill a bit before going home and having to work on an article/book chapter. Get it? No hidden agenda.

PS.: Incidentally, that bar is called Hell. Not From Hell, though. Lol.

[Tom_Wescott]

All this twaddling gay worship has nothing to do with the things I said. And again with the gay animal nonsense? I couldn't care less. But if Ally is correct and animals and people are occassionally born gay, then are any of you willing to acknowledge it as a defect?

And Errata, finding it disgusting to watch two males go at it does not make someone homophobic. Friendships happen on their own terms. If you're going out of your way to make gay friends, then you're either gay yourself, or you've got something to prove to yourself and are using gay people to that end. I think straight women who surround themselves with gay men have the same issues as the women who get into relationships with prisoners who will never get out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Errata]

Listen to yourself. Homophobes are specifically the people who beat up gays for being gay, or look them in the eye and tell them they're going to hell. These people you know who do not participate in (and quite likely condemn) such behavior cannot be homophobes. You appear to be condemning THEM for the feelings that come natural to them. And you feel justified in this behavior? Does it not matter to you that THEY might feel their behavior is justified? And how is it unkind if they're not verbally or physically expressing their discomfort? Sounds to me like they're going out of their way to BE kind and considerate? But that's not good enough for you?

My point is simply that Errata is a bigot, as are most of you. No offense, and I don't hold it against you, but you're all bigots. But she's a a socially acceptable bigot, in the way the KKK was 100 years ago, or separatists were 50 years ago, etc. So no worries. Just keep calling everyone else racist, homophobe, misogynist, bigot, etc so you can keep patting yourselves on the back for being so 'open-minded'. LOL. Bunch of ****in brainwashed sheep, but I love ya.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Of course I'm a bigot. I just said I was didn't I? Can't stand children. Not only can they not help being children, I fully recognize that I myself was a child once. My best friend was harassed into accepting gay people for a very simple reason. First of all, he chose a hell of a profession to be in to be homophobic (actor) and secondly, he swore he wasn't homophobic, white knuckled through any encounters, and then complained in a high pitched voice about how "gross" they were. We merely made him see he couldn't have it both ways. It wasn't his intolerance we objected to, although we did object to it. But we didn't get to judge that. His hypocrisy and general unpleasantness was what warranted a forceful correction.

Any bigotry, any visible display of discomfort towards a person who has never done anything to you IS unkind and it IS rude. The way I treat kids is absolutely rude, though I tend to be in the clear because kids tend not to notice I'm being rude, and parents tend to understand my very real fear of hurting a kid in any way. But homophobia is literally the irrational fear of homosexuals. It's not that there aren't people out there who don't have rational fears. Someone who is the victim of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of a same sex offender will understandably be afraid of homosexuals. The way an adult rape victim will fear men who resemble the men who raped them. But if you fear gay people because you are afraid they will hit on you, or think it could be contagious or whatever other nonsense people come up with, that's not a fear worthy of any respect. I mean, people who are afraid of spiders are constantly being confronted by people with spiders, because their fear is stupid and therefore funny. I get that it is a powerful fear, but it isn't a legitimate one. If you want to think that all gay people are bad people, you aren't homophobic. You're a moron. If you have an irrational fear of interacting with gay people, then you aren't in the end being served by that fear, and aren't harmed in the elimination of that fear.

If you want to say you are fine with gay people, and act like you most assuredly are not, then yeah. You're gonna catch some flak for it. If you admit you aren't okay with it, and if you admit you have no desire to change that, no flak. Calm discussion, possible termination of friendship, but no flak. Quite frankly, I have found that people cannot be friends with me and hate gay people. Some of my most charming qualities in person are what people fear in the stereotypical homosexual. This was my best friend. He was fine with me, he was fine with MY sexual history. His problem wasn't homosexuality. It was a fear of the unknown. And the whining.

[mariab]

In spite of white America's mistrust and fear of the black man, we {...} elected one president first.

For the record, if we are to talk "minorities", I was very much wishing for America that a black candidate wins the presidential election. For the nation's social history, it was MUCH more important than a woman.

There are very few women in upper politics, and even fewer who actually belong there.

Hardly any men in upper politics belong there either, Tom.

To be honest, if Obama doesn't pick it up and become the 'man of change' he promised, I think America will deem it a failed experiment and we will not see a president who isn't a hetero white male in our lifetime.

Obama's doing fine under the huge resistance he's encountering. Remember, Hillary already tried a health care reform in 1992 or whenever it was. And encountered even worse resistance. Obama's gonna stay in history not as an experiment, but as a change of perception. And hopefully someday (a few decades from today) a truly reconciled racial identity will happen in the US. (And I know you're gonna start talking about welfare now.)

He's safe for another term, due to the Republican party's inability to produce a candidate who is even remotely worthy of the office.

Due to the Republican party's very clever choice to wait for another 4 years before issuing a serious candidate.

[Ally]

Of course it does. Always has, always will. I hope that was a rhetorical question.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Actually you are wrong. Taken literally or figuratively, the word gay (which used to have a different meaning altogether) or the act of being gay has not always been a negative. Once again, you are showing your bias and your ignorance.

I notice you completely skip over the logical debate in favor of your inflamatory stupidity, but I will address your "gay baby" thing.

Deaf people are culturally, socially and linguistically isolated from the general population. Because of their hearing loss, they are completely oblivious to general social and behavioral norms and cues that are generally instilled in regular children by osmosis. 90 percent of deaf children are born to hearing parents, so 90 percent of deaf kids have parents who cannot communicate with them, except at a most rudimentary level. Deaf kids therefore are pretty much guaranteed to grow up to be who they are, immune from social pressure, until they reach the teenage years where they are shipped off to deaf schools and find communities who can communicate with them, like them.

When I was a teacher for the deaf, there was a boy who was the biggest flamer I have ever seen. His mannerisms were feminine and neither his mother or father behaved like that, he had absolutely NO ONE in his immediate environ to model that behavior from, and yet he adopted it naturally --and when I first began teaching him, he was 7 years old. He did in fact grow up to be gay.

As for your other statements such as "did the scientists follow the gay animals around" yes in some cases they did. There are documented cases of animals choosing to make pair bonds with same sex partners. The end. Deal with it. There are plenty of studies out there proving it, if of course you could crack open your mind enough to allow knowledge to override your prejudice.

But I would ask you to answer straight out:

If you believe it is a choice, are you saying that you are equally attracted to male and females and therefore could choose either one to mate with and date?

And I agree wholeheartedly that I am a bigot. I think idiots who argue "belief" when the facts prove them otherwise ought to be rounded up and sterilized for the good of the population. Such irrationality weakens the species as a whole.