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

[Tom_Wescott]

As for gay people having been born gay, I've observed it and heard about it by acquaintancies.

Wow, did you take pictures? Is the delivery of a gay baby different from that of a straight baby? What color of cigar do you hand out?

Hi Robert,

Great post. Like you, I rarely think about this kind of stuff. But it appears a lot of other people do and for some reason are given quite a loud mouthpiece these days to force their views upon the rest of us. I think it's reprehensible to punish someone for being gay, or even to hate them. I also find the bigotry evinced on this thread to be reprehensible and thought someone should speak up against it. There are many, quite unlike myself, who wish to avoid being publicly labeled a homophobe or misogynist and therefore choose to keep their opinions to themselves (which is of course WHY these labels are used in the way you see on this thread). I personally feel these words have no power whatsoever, so bring 'em on. I ain't scared of no feminazis!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Wow, did you take pictures? Is the delivery of a gay baby different from that of a straight baby? What color of cigar do you hand out?

Smartie. Maybe gayiness comes cuz the mother was playing Cher when she was pregnant.
But I truly believe that in many, many cases the "gay gene" exists, as does the "alcoholic gene". Though it tends to fluctuate between different cases of different people.

I personally feel these words have no power whatsoever, so bring 'em on. I ain't scared of no feminazis!

Tom, what about the label "gay", does it have negative power? And how about being scared of gays? Or being scared about being perceived as gay? (By a certain wiki author, ROFL.)

For the record, I'm neither gay, nor bi, nor an alcoholic. Just happen to think that sometimes they're fun people to hang out with. Unlike Robert, I wouldn't say that the idea of homosexuality repels me. It just doesn't move my furniture. But I say, live and let live.

[Tom_Wescott]

Yeah, alcoholics and drug addicts are another group who no longer have to be held accountable. In America, drunk driving kills more people than cancer, yet the media continues to perpetrate the myth about second-hand smoke (which has never claimed a life) while for the FIRST TIME IN 50 YEARS the major networks are allowing hard liquor products to be advertised. A kid wouldn't have a clue who Joe Kamel is, but he could sure tell you all about the Budweiser Frogs!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, what about the label "gay", does it have negative power?

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

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

yet the media continues to perpetrate the myth about second-hand smoke

So sayeth the smoker. As for secondary smoke exposure, just try sitting for 20'min. at a bistrot in Paris. You'll get an entire secondary pack of Gitanes, lol. From all sides of the table.

Yeah, alcoholics and drug addicts are another group who no longer have to be held accountable. In America, drunk driving kills more people than cancer

Not just in America.
But there are non active alcoholics and struggling alcoholics, Tom, those who can't even drink one glass without restarting. As a matter of fact, one of my bosses (not the American one) happens to be a functional alcoholic. (No wonder he hired me, lol.) Has revolutionized the field and has never had a DUI. In spite of. And sometimes I can smell brandy on his breath at 11.00 a.m.. On days he knows not to drive.

Originally Posted by mariab
Tom, what about the label "gay", does it have negative power?

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

Hmm. More than "racist" and "nazi"? And the REAL, historical implications of these epithets?

[Tom_Wescott]

None of those words mean anything to me on their own. It would depend on the person slinging the arrow at me as to whether I'd get angry, hurt, or find it amusing.

Incidentally, I believe a gay man will be elected president in the U.S. before a woman ever is.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

It would depend on the person slinging the arrow at me as to whether I'd get angry, hurt, or find it amusing.

Know what you mean.

Incidentally, I believe a gay man will be elected president in the U.S. before a woman ever is.

Unlikely. Has almost happened in France and Germany, with several influential ministers/the mayors of Paris and Berlin having been openly gay, showing their partner publicly etc.. FYI, Germany's current foreign minister is openly gay (and he's a total douchebag, unrelated to his gayness).

As a by the by: Historical presidential election in France today, with François Hollande taking over Sarkozy. Expected to be followed by the SPD and the Green Party winning the German election in the fall. Wouldn't hurt if the EU axis shows a bit more governmental control against the bank lobby.

[Tom_Wescott]

I don't know. In spite of white America's mistrust and fear of the black man, we gave him the right to vote before women and elected one president first. There are very few women in upper politics, and even fewer who actually belong there. According to polls, women aren't particularly keen to vote one of their own president, and I could see them putting a gay in office first, because women just LOVE them some gays. As for men, we'd vote just about anything in to office to keep a woman out. 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. 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. But after that, it's back to Wonder bread.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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